Jewish Christian Research Articles

Prophets and Prophecy in Jewish and Early Christian Literature – Edited by Joseph Verheyden, Korinna Zamfir, and Tobias Nicklas

Prophets and Prophecy in Jewish and Early Christian Literature – Edited by Joseph Verheyden, Korinna Zamfir, and Tobias Nicklas

Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A Socio‐Rhetorical Commentary on Hebrews, James and Jude – By Ben Witherington III

Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A Socio‐Rhetorical Commentary on Hebrews, James and Jude – By Ben Witherington III

Ignatius of Antioch and the Parting of the Ways: Early Jewish–Christian Relations. By Thomas A. Robinson. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2009. xiv + 285 pp. $27.95 paper.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

The Lack of Evidence for a Jewish Christian Countermission in Galatia

Most commentators on Paul’s letter to the Galatians have argued that his opponents were competing Jewish Christian missionaries. Fired by zeal to convert the Gentiles similar to Paul’s, these outsiders supposedly meddled in his church by preaching about the necessity of circumcision for salvation. I challenge this portrait and propose an alternative explanation for their demand that Gentile believers be circumcised. Instead of seeing them as interlopers with what some scholars call characteristically Jewish “extremist” (i.e., restrictive) views of Gentile salvation, I demonstrate that they—like nearly all other late Second Temple period Jews—were unconcerned with Gentile soteriology. Rather, they were responding to an entirely different development, the influx of unconverted Gentiles into their originally all-Jewish religious movement as a result of Paul’s preaching. They responded as other Jews would respond, by insisting that those who sought to be members of such a community undergo circumcision and observe the Torah. I argue that we can say almost nothing about their views of a mission to the Gentiles and should not presume that their concerns were at all similar to Paul’s, whose zeal to convert Gentiles was unique. My reconstruction draws on recent research on this period demonstrating Jewish opposition to attempts to convert Gentiles, along with a Jewish commitment to maintaining traditional religious boundaries between Jews and non-Jews.

ACHSAH GUIBBORY. Christian Identity, Jews, and Israel in Seventeenth-Century England.

ACHSAH GUIBBORY. Christian Identity, Jews, and Israel in Seventeenth-Century England.

The Genre of 2 Peter: A Comparison with Jewish and Early Christian Testaments

Abstract Commentators frequently default to the thesis that 2 Peter belongs to the testament genre and would have been readily received as a pseudepigraphical writing by the early church. It is also argued that later framers of the NT canon would not have recognized the Jewish nature of the convention and thus, after much debate, received it as genuine. This essay compares the so-called testamentary features of 2 Peter with Jewish and early Christian testaments and demonstrates that it is unlikely that either of these positions is sustainable.

Blessing God and Cursing People: James 3:9-10

(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.) The Birkat ha-minim, the twelfth in the Shemoneh Esreh or Eighteen Benedictions, has played an important role in some reconstructions of early Christian history.1 In 1964, for example, W. D. Davies urged that, sometime around 85 c.e., the twelfth benediction was reformulated so as to include a curse against Christians: Let the notserim and minim perish in a moment. Davies thought this circumstance relevant for understanding the Gospel of Matthew, and especially the Sermon on the Mount, which he interpreted in the light of a growing hostility between the synagogue and followers of Jesus.2 A few years later, J. Louis Martyn offered a similar thesis regarding John.3 Paying special attention to John 9:22; 12:42; and 16:2, all of which use the term ..., Martyn related portions of the Fourth Gospel to the Birkat haminim, which, he argued, functioned to separate Christians from the synagogue. Since Davies and Martyn wrote in the 1960s, the Birkat ha-minim has been the subject of much critical debate, some of it skeptical of the proposition that Jews formally cursed Christians in the first or second centuries.4 This is not the place for a critical review of that complex discussion.5 Here instead, by way of preface to my argument, I can only express my conviction that recent work has made three propositions more probable than not. First, it is likely that a benediction against the minim goes back to at least the first century.6 Second, even if notserim (= Nazarenes or Nazoraeans, that is, Christians or Jewish Christians) was not added until 100 c.e. or later,7 minim by itself would almost inevitably have brought Jewish Christians to mind in places where they were perceived to be a problem.8 Third, Justin Martyr remains strong testimony to the circumstance that at least some Christians were cursed in some second-century synagogues, whatever the precise prayer(s) or formula( s) may have been. With all this as backdrop, I should like to call attention to a passage in the Epistle of James. The following appears in the middle of the discourse on the tongue in 3:1-12: (8) But no human is able to subdue the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly venom. (9) With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings made in the likeness of God. (10) From one and the same mouth come forth blessings and curses. This need not be, my brothers. (11) Does a spring pour forth from the same opening fresh water and brackish water? (12) Is a fig tree, my brothers, able to make olives, or a grapevine figs? No more than a salt spring can make fresh water. These lines contrast blessing ... with .... This is a natural antithesis, one at home in both Jewish and Christian rhetoric. Illustrations include Gen 12:3 (I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse); 27:29 (Cursed be everyone who curses you, and blessed be everyone who blesses you!); Num 23:25 (Balak said to Balaam, 'Do not curse them at all, and do not bless them at all'); 1QS 2:10 (All those who enter the covenant will say, after those who pronounce blessings and those who pronounce curses: 'Amen, amen'); Rom 12:14 (Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them); and 2 En. A 52:1-4 (Blessed is he who opens his heart for praise and praises the Lord. . . . is he who opens his lips, both and praising the Lord. Cursed is he who opens his lips for cursing and blasphemy, before the face of the Lord).9 Not one of these texts, however, has to do with what we find in James, which is a group of people both God and-perhaps simultaneously10-cursing other people.11 Yet this is precisely what we find also in the twelfth of the Birkat ha-minim, for this immediately follows its curse of human beings-of the minim and notserim-with Blessed are you, O Lord, who subdue the arrogant. …

Review of John R. Levison's, Filled with the Spirit Part III, Early Christian Literature Chapter 3, 'Filled with the Spirit and the Book of Acts'

Abstract Filled with the Spirit by John R. Levison is a highly original study of this theme in Israelite, Jewish, and early Christian literature. The following response to Levison's book focuses on Part III, Early Christian Literature, section 3, 'Filled with the Spirit and the Book of Acts' (pp 317365). Levison organizes his discussion under the topics, 'The Salience of a Slave-Girl', 'The Allure of Ecstasy at Pentecost', 'Speaking in Tongues', and 'Spirit and the Inspired Interpretation of Scripture'. Levison's methodology is a combination of a history of religions approach, intertextuality, and contextual exposition. According to the reviewer's assessment, Levison's approach to the subject paganizes those experiences which Luke portrays to be uniquely Judeo-Christian, profanes what Luke portrays to be an awe-inspiring sacred marvel, and humanizes what Luke portrays to be the mysterious or luminous tangible experiences of the Spirit.

Introduction: Health and Disability

The articles in this special issue of Health and History derive from a multi-disciplinary symposium on disability studies held at the University of Otago in August 2010. From about the mid-1980s increasing numbers of scholars in history, literature, sociology, anthropology, and other fi elds have been articulating the view that disability, despite its (frequently) physically apparent manifestations, is socially constructed. This scholarship argues that physical difference, impairment, or functional limitation is not disability. Instead disability results from the constraints that the dominant culture consciously or unconsciously places upon people who physically, intellectually, or psychologically differ from some arbitrarily defi ned ‘normal’. In short, biology is not destiny for people with disabilities any more than it is for women, racial and ethnic minorities, or any other group subordinated or marginalised in western cultures. As one of the Otago symposium’s keynote speakers, Catherine J. Kudlick, noted in a 2003 article, disability studies scholarship thus asks questions basic to the humanities and social sciences: ‘[W]hat does it mean to be human? How can we respond ethically to difference? What is the value of a human life? Who decides these questions, and what do the answers reveal?’ These are central questions for the study of health and history, as well.1 To begin to answer these questions, one has to understand the history of disability and responses to it. In broad strokes, ancient civilisations—Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, and Rome—understood disability as evidence of the gods’ whims, or of their active favour or disfavour toward individuals. Disabilities, especially congenital malformations, were beyond the realm of human beings. Hence, in Greece and Rome, the practice of exposing newborn infants deemed malformed—they were being returned to the gods. The ancient Egyptians left behind extensive evidence of their interest in disability, including the fi rst recorded references to deafness. Egyptian treatment ideas tended toward the magical, but early physicians in Greece and Rome, Hippocrates and Galen among them, developed some treatments for disabilities that continued to be used into the twentieth century. The replacement of the many gods of the ancient world with one God in Jewish and early Christian civilisations changed little regarding the status of people with disabilities. Disability remained

The Trouble with the Inclusive Jesus

AbstractIn the long-standing debate between universalist and particularist interpretations of Jesus, recent years have witnessed the relentless rise of the idea that his was a socially radical and subversive gospel ahead of its time, fully in keeping with contemporary cultural agendas of “inclusion” or “inclusiveness”. The present study attempts to contextualize this “inclusive Jesus” within New Testament studies by means of three angles of approach: (1) recent work on the “inclusive”ethics of Jesus, (2) Jacob Neusner’s critique of New Testament scholarship on Jewish particularism and Christian universalism, and (3) the reception in current debate of Joachim Jeremias’ interpretation of Jesus’ view of Gentiles. In view of the overwhelming evidence that Jesus was “inclusive” as well as “exclusive” in both theology and praxis, Concluding Observations stress the location of this problem within a wider understanding of the biblical view of Election, and identify the Israelite particularity of Jesus as essential to his mission on behalf of Israel as well as the nations.

Fede e opere in Luca. Il caso della circoncisione

Circumcision does not constitute the main theological interest of Luke, but neither can it be ignored, given that among the audience of Luke’s works were Jewish believers in Christ. The references to circumcision in Luke-Acts are present in all three of the stages of salvific history, identified by H. Conzelmann as: the time of Israel (Acts 7:8), the time of Jesus (Lk 1:59; 2:21), and the time of the Church (Acts 15:1,5; 16:3; 21:21). Luke does not hold any hostility regarding the Israelite practice of circumcision in which he shows a good acquaintance. According to the Will of God, this sign of the covenant with Abraham (Acts 7:8: “the covenant of circumcision”) should be executed on the eighth day of the birth of a male Hebrew (Lk 1:59; 2:21). With the coming of the Messiah, the salvific plan of God is accomplished, that foretold the birth of a people formed from “those of the circumcision” (the Jews) and the “uncircumcised” (the Gentiles). To become part of this people, faith in Christ is now required; this is the only condition to be saved (Acts 15:11). Opposing the false accusations against Paul (Acts 21:21), Luke reassures on the other hand the Jewish Christians that their commitment to their ancestral practices inspired by the Mosaic Law is worthy of respect. Not only this, but according to the Lucan view which can be deduced from the circumcision narrative of Timothy (Acts 16:3), it is possible to live in harmony the believers of various origins, united in the common faith in Christ but free to express their ethnic and cultural identity within the People of God. Therefore it is perhaps not an exaggeration to say that the auctor ad Theophilum in some ways has indicated the way for the formation of a multi-ethnic and pluralistic Church; a Church capable of building a bridge between diverse peoples, in order to achieve the unity of faith in Christ with full respect of each ethnic and cultural identity.

Jewish–Muslim dialogue in light of Jewish–Christian relations

Interfaith dialogue, as we understand it today, has been taking place between Christians and Jews for nearly a century, but Jewish–Muslim dialogue is a more recent phenomenon. Jews and Muslims have much in common, but relations are overshadowed by the failure to address the impact of the Middle East conflict. For most Jews, the creation of the State of Israel is an ancient promise fulfilled – the ingathering of exiles and a guarantee of physical and spiritual security. Yet many Muslims term the same events ‘The Disaster’, a time when an Islamic society was uprooted and became a minority. In Jewish–Muslim dialogue it is essential to be prepared for conflicting views.

Were the Early Christians Sectarians?

Two leading figures in the social-scientific study of the NT declared in the 1980s that the view that early Christianity was a sect within Judaism had become “a commonplace.”1 Since then, a growing number of scholars have adopted this view. Consequently, different groups and communities reflected (whether directly or implicitly) in the NT Gospels and epistles are usually regarded as having departed from Jewish society (but not necessarily from the Jewish religion, that is, the later “parting of the ways”) already in the initial phases of early Christianity . In the present article, I will question this claim by showing that the sociological concept “sect” is narrower than many NT scholars realize. I will survey the studies expressing the consensus and discuss the models of sectarianism they employ and the ways they apply them to the NT, in whole or in part. Later on, I will demonstrate the absence of three essential sectarian criteria from many NT texts: social separation, social requirements and sanctions, and a fixed organization or institutionalization. By examining whether the community reflected in a given Gospel or epistle was a sect—or at the very least, displays a sectarian worldview—I aim to question whether the author perceived his group or close associates as a distinct social body apart from the larger Jewish society. The following discussion will not be limited to the Jewish Christians and their relationship with fellow Jews; given the blurred distinctions between the so-called “Jewish” and “Gentile” Christian communities, and since many communities were mixed,2 many of the NT writings will be examined for the insights they offer.

Les Sages ont-ils retouché certains titres des Psaumes?

Did the Rabbis modify the titles of the Psalms? Did the opposition between the Wise and the young Christian movement affect the biblical text itself? Olivier Munnich and Gilles Dorival do not agree about the answer to these questions. In this contribution, Gilles Dorival presents his arguments for a positive answer which is based on some qualitative differences. The discussion does not concern the titles of Ps 44 (45), 59 (60), 68 (69) et 79 (80), but is about five differences to be found in the titles of Ps 5; 6 [= 11 (12)]; 9; 21 (22). In addition, also the fifty-nine Psalms which give the indication eis to telos are taken into account. The argumentation rests on the evidence of Aquila, the Targum of the Psalms and Midrash Tehillim. It is argued that it was the aim of the Rabbis to prevent the Christian Jews from using some titles for their thesis.

예루살렘 초대 교회의 히브리파, 헬라파와 초기 기독교의 기원 : 종교 사학파와 마르틴 헹엘의 초기 분파 이론 재고

On the basis of the early schism theory the religionsgeschichtliche Schule has suggested that Gentile Christianity started from Antioch apart from Jewish Christianity. They considered that Antioch was a very significant region related to the beginning of the earliest Christianity because Jesus tradition was translated at Antioch where was bilingual. However, Martin Hengel has held that the translation of Jesus tradition did not start from Antioch but from the Earliest Christian church in Jerusalem. In relation to this, he thinks that ?βρα?οι refer to Aramaic-speaking Palestinian Jewish Christians whereas ?λληνιστα? and ?πτ?, were Hellenistic Jewish Christians who spoke only Greek. He makes a monolingual, geographical, and ethnic distinction between ?βρα?οι and ?λληνιστα?.<BR> However, the Graeco-Roman Near East including Judaeo-Palestine was bilingual. This is approved by inscriptions, papyrus, and population geographical evidence. This means that translation of the Jesus tradition started from Galilee during Jesus’ ministry, not from Antioch or Jerusalem church. Furthermore, the two terms, ?βρα?οι and ?λληνιστα?, are not monolingual but bilingual designations. That is, ?βρα?οι spoke Aramaic as their matrix language and other language as their embedded language and ?λληνιστα?, spoke Greek as their matrix language and other language as their embedded language. Also, it seems that ?πτ?, were bilinguals. If Jerusalem Christian community was bilingual, the church members tried to choose bilinguals as their community leaders. As a result, Luke describes ?πτ?, as leaders of the whole Jerusalem community. He parallels ?πτ?, with δ?δ?κα. Luke also insinuates that Jesus" promise given to δ?δ?κα is fulfilled by the ?πτ?, and commandment given to δ?δ?κα was performed by the ?πτ?. This indicates that Luke stresses the line-up of Jesus - δ?δ?κα - ?πτ?. Hence, there was not early schism between ?βρα?οι and ?λληνιστα?, and between δ?δ?κα and ?πτ?.<BR> Accordingly, the bilingualism of Graeco-Roman Near East supports that Jesus tradition was translated during Jesus’ ministry but undermines the early schism theory. Furthermore, it is hard to find a sharp distinction between Jesus and Paul, Petrine Christianity and Pauline Christianity, Aramaic-speaking Palestinian Christianity and Greek-speaking Hellenistic Christianity, and Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity from the perspective of monolingualism because bilingual Jesus tradition was delivered to Paul through the Twelve and the Seven.

The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Didascalia Apostolorum: A Common Jewish Christian Milieu?

Recent discussion of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs has been mired in a debate about whether the work is Jewish or Christian. But the nineteenth-century consensus was nearer the mark: the work is both Jewish and Christian, i.e. it comes from a Jewish Christian milieu. This study first adduces general considerations in favour of this hypothesis, then mounts a specific argument based on the similarities between the Testaments and the Didascalia Apostolorum. The two documents come from a similar time and place (Syria in the late second to early third century), but are on opposite sides: the Didascalia is arguing against the sort of Torah-observant Jewish Christianity that the Testaments advocate.

Agreements between neighbours. The ‘ugody’ as a source on Jewish-Christian relations in early modern Poland

The following essay studies the importance of formal agreements (ugody or kontrakty) between representatives of Jewish communities and Christian burghers in early modern Poland. As a specific genre of legal document, these agreements, or contracts, are a unique source for understanding Jewish-Christian relations and the integration of Jews into local social fabrics. These contracts also reflect the importation and continuity of legal traditions that originated in German territories and arrived in Eastern Central Europe, and they corroborate suggestions that there was significant improvement in the legal status of the Jews in Eastern Europe as opposed to that under which they previously had lived in the West. The ugody document, finally, the emergence of what I have called elsewhere the contractual character of Polish-Jewish relations in the early modern period. (See Francois Guesnet, “Politik der Vormoderne—Shtadlanut am Vorabend der polnischen Teilungen,” Jahrbuch des Simon-Dubnow-Instituts 1 (2002), pp. 235–255, and more recently idem, “Political Culture of Polish Jewry: A Tour d’Horizon,” Report of the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies 2007–2008, pp. 61–76, 67–68.)

Preaching in Judaism and Christianity: Encounters and Developments from Biblical Times to Modernity (review)

Reviewed by: Preaching in Judaism and Christianity: Encounters and Developments from Biblical Times to Modernity Gerard Rouwhorst, Faculty of Catholic Theology Preaching in Judaism and Christianity: Encounters and Developments from Biblical Times to Modernity, by Alexander Deeg, Walter Homolka, and Heinz-Günther Schöttler. Studia Judaica XLI. Berlin and New York, Walter de Gruyter, 2008. 247 pp. $110.00. In the last few decades, a remarkable change has taken place in the research on the relations between Jewish and Christian liturgical traditions. Up till recently, most scholars used a model that is now often called the "mother-daughter" paradigm. It was characterized by two major assumptions: a) that Christian liturgical traditions had their roots in Jewish ones and b) that, from a certain [End Page 165] moment onwards, Jews and Christian liturgies went their own ways, completely independently from each other. At this moment, this model is more and more called into question (incidentally, this does not only hold for liturgy, but for other aspects of Jewish and Christian religious life as well), and instead a twin model is increasingly advocated which is inspired by the story of Jacob of Esau. This new model implies a questioning of the first assumption, the whole idea of the "Jewish roots" of Christian liturgy. The second assumption, namely that of a radical, once and for all "parting of the ways" from a certain moment onwards, is no less problematic than the first. Actually, there is increasing historical evidence that, over the centuries, at least Jewish forms of worship did not develop in complete isolation from the dominant majority religion. This volume, which contains the papers presented at an international conference on "Preaching in Judaism and Christianity," organized by the Universities of Bamberg and Erlangen with the Abraham Geiger College at the University of Potsdam, is an important contribution to the debate about the relationship between Jewish and Christian liturgies. It is so for two reasons. First, compared with other liturgical elements, such as prayer, the reading of Scripture, hymns and so on, the issue of homiletics has received rather little attention up till now, and already for that reason this book fills a gap. Its value is still further enhanced by the wide perspective from which the issue of preaching is studied: it encompasses all of the historical periods up to the twentieth century, and includes not only historical studies, but also reconstructions supplemented by contributions dealing with hermeneutical issues. Three papers deal with the period of Antiquity. Günter Stemberger critically discusses the evidence available for the existence of the rabbinic sermon. Contrary to Leopold Zunz, the author of the classical work entitled Die Vorträge der Juden (1832), Stemberger declares himself to be sceptical about the possibility of deriving direct knowledge from rabbinic, especially midrashic, sources concerning rabbinic preaching practice. Stemberger does not claim that there was no regular preaching in the synagogues of the rabbinic period. Neither does he deny that midrashic texts have been a source of inspiration for homilies. Still, according to him, at this moment, hardly anything can be said with certainty about the practice of Jewish preaching in rabbinic times. While the role played by the homily in Rabbinic Judaism proves to be surrounded by a lot of uncertainty, its existence in Hellenistic Judaism is beyond any doubt. Folker Siegert presents it in his paper as a Hellenistic Jewish innovation which according to him originated in Greek-speaking Diaspora synagogues and was taken over by the Christians. Both papers comport remarkably well with the contribution of Annette von Stockhausen, which deals with the "Christian Perception of Jewish Preaching in Early Christianity." The [End Page 166] outcome of her investigation is, apparently somewhat to her own surprise, that convincing evidence for a Christian perception of Jewish preaching in the first centuries is lacking. This leads the author to raise the question whether the reason for this fact might not simply have been that "there was no such preaching in the synagogues in the late antique Roman Empire at all or that it at least was not as significant as it was for Jewish Christian worship as it was for the Christian" (p. 70). A good question...

The Comparative Study of “Scholasticism” in Late Antique Mesopotamia: Rabbis and East Syrians

Now is an appropriate time to reconsider the historiographical benefit that a comparative study of the East Syrian (“Nestorian”) schools and the Babylonian rabbinic academies may offer. This is attributable both to the recent, rapid increase in scholarship on Jewish–Christian relations in the Roman Empire and late antiquity more broadly, and to the return by some scholars of rabbinic Judaism to the issues of a scholarly exchange of the late 1970s and early 1980s about the nature of rabbinic academic institutionalization. Furthermore, over the past twenty years, scholars of classics, Greek and Roman history, and late antiquity have significantly added to the bibliography on the transmission of knowledge—in lay person's terms, education—in the Greco-Roman and early Christian worlds. Schools continue to be an intense topic of conversation, and my own recent work on the School of Nisibis and the East Syrian schools in general suggests that the transformations and innovations of late antiquity also occurred in the Sasanian Empire, at a great distance from the centers of classical learning, such as Athens, Alexandria, and Antioch. The recently reexamined East Syrian sources may help push the conversation about rabbinic academic institutionalization forward. However, the significance of this issue is not simply attributable to its bearing on the social and institutional history of rabbinic institutions. Such inquiry may also reflect on how we understand the Babylonian Talmud and on the difficult redaction history of its constituent parts. Furthermore, I hope that the discussion offered herein will contribute to the ongoing analysis of the late antique creation and formalization of cultures of learning, which were transmitted, in turn, into the Eastern (i.e., Islamic and “Oriental” Christian and Jewish) and Western Middle Ages within their corresponding communities.

Aliens in an alien world: paradoxes of Jewish–Christian identity in contemporary Russia

For many centuries the attitude towards baptised Jews within Jewish society was extremely negative, as baptism was perceived as apostasy. This attitude persists to this day, even though many Jews have abandoned Judaism and a secular Jewish identity has emerged. After seven decades of Soviet rule, during which a new Soviet, wholly secular Jewish identity, was constructed, Jewish identity in the former Soviet Union (FSU) is based mainly on the ethnic principle. As a result of an almost total detachment from Judaism, some Soviet and former‐Soviet Jews have converted to Russian Orthodoxy. Moreover, we can see the formation of a paradoxical Russian Orthodox Jewish self‐identification in post‐Soviet Russia. This processes, its trends and peculiar features are poorly studied, a matter this paper intends to remedy.