Early Christian Attitudes Toward Jews and Judaism

The works of authors such as Justin, and Origen, offer a unique look into the ways by which early Christian writers viewed Jews and Judaism as a whole during the second and third century. By and large the general vibe spewing forth from them is fairly negative as they attempt to undermine, and replace Judaism. Some writers do attempt to legitimize certain accepts of judaism, though the primary purpose for doing such was to elevate themselves.

The consensus among early Christian writers is that they (the Christians) were conveyers of the truth, whereas the Jews, had strayed off the right path and had the wrong interpretation of even their own scriptures. Jews are also heavily charged with deicide during this time, based on the execution of Jesus. Justin argues against Trypho by declaring that Christians are the true version of Judaism, and that the current Jews had it all wrong and had thus fallen from God’s favor. A key point that Justin makes in his rant at Trypho, is that because the Jews had rejected Christ, so to had God rejected them. If Justin were Donald Trump, he might describe the Jews as ‘losers who were totally wrong and didn’t know what they were doing.’ Similarly, Melito accuses the Jews of having wrongly interpreted their texts and of not recognizing the fulfillment of their prophecies via Christ.

Establishing Christianity as the truest form of Judaism was a very important thing for early Christian writers to stress as the Romans did not view Christianity as a genuine faith like they did Judaism. Regarding that, the early writers routinely argue that they are the new “chosen” people of God and that they have the correct form of Judaism that has alluded the rejecters of Christ. Melito went on further to accuse the Jews of deicide (killing god). In this sense it is easy to understand why while on one hand, Christians wanted to embrace certain

aspects of Judaism for various political reasons, but also wanted to separate themselves. They did not want to be viewed as the ones who killed god. Though the same basic themes persist through the writings of early Christians, the arguments against the Jews do evolve over time from Justin to Origen and are formatted in different ways as new thoughts and nuances are developed.

One of the key themes is definitely the notion of the “true Israel.” As Rajak notes, “the engagement with Judaism is fundamental to Christian self-definition.” (Rajak, 71) The general theme of this polemic is that the Jews are no longer God’s chosen people, and that the literal following of the law is useless now since Christ came. As Melito argued, the death of Christ marked the evisceration of any value the law of Moses might have had. Of course, the Jews did not accept or even recognize this fact. They were blind to their own prophecies and in fact only fulfilled what their prophecies had predicted. Jews were those who were predicted to reject this notion and because of that they were, in the minds of Christians severely punished for this. The destruction of the temple in the year seventy, the alleged scattering of the Jews, which of course predated this and had little to do with rejecting Christ historically, was all a part of God’s divine judgement that was being cast down on the Christ killers. Thus the Jews are no longer the true heirs of God and no longer represent the true Israel. They missed the boat on recognizing this and so God laid down the hammer and they went down the tubes.

Conversely, and conveniently, the Christians now are the “real” Jews, and the true Israel. This was primarily for Christians to establish themselves as a legitimate religion in the eyes of the Romans and not just some new obnoxious movement. Christians effectively were replacing Jews, and so for Melito, as Cohen articulates, Easter replaced the passover, “for typology not only allowed for the reenactment of a past event, but it could also entail the reassignment of roles as that historical drama occurred.” (Cohen, 64) Following the failure of the Kokhba revolt, Jews remained in the area of Israel and in

large numbers. Even despite various conflicts and an uncertain status within the Roman Empire, the Jews still managed to compose some of Judaism’s most important text during this time, namely; the Mishna, and the Talmud. Though Jews were able to accomplish many things during this time, they still faced some persecution from early Christians who wrote diatribes against them and their customs. The murder of Jesus was pinned almost fully on the Jewish people, and the apologetics against them really hammered home the message that they were no longer in favor with God. Early Christians attempted to completely discredit and demonize Jews, as well as others that they deemed heretics within the Empire.

Despite that, the Jewish people still persisted to exist in the land, much to the surprise of Christians. During the first few centuries, ann domini, after the destruction of the Temple, Jews began to different form of practice. Rabbinic Judaism, which had been developing for some time, became the new form of Judaism that replaced the Temple Judaism. In an effort to combat the Christian screeds against them, Jewish writers, Rabbis, began creating their own counter narratives, or responses to the early Christian writings. Effectively Jay-Z’d their Christian critics and brushed their shoulders off in these writings. Though it is hard to say for certain, there are some that argue the Rabbinic writings of this type do in fact reference the Christian Jesus and make efforts to discredit him by pushing alternative infancy narratives. Others contest that it cannot be established that they were writing about Jesus. In either case, they made valid objections, or didn’t care. So clearly it was not, in that sense, much of a problem for the Jews at that point. Overall, the Jews were generally welcomes in the Roman Empire during the diaspora, however, as Christianity began to establish itself, conflicts arose.

–M

A Historical Professor Snape?: Harry Potter in the Real World

Today I spent a good amount of time browsing for sources to use for my upcoming project on the Church of England during World War I for my history class. By Monday I need to turn in at least 20 sources to my professor. Currently  my list is far from done as I will continue add to it and revise it. I am still looking for a few more broad sources concerning Catholicism during WWI, Britain during WWI and history of the Church of England for contextual purposes. I also will continue to isolate some good primary sources. A couple of the books I’m using make good use of primary sources and cite them in their bibliographies. I’ll check those out and hopefully can find something good to use.

Perhaps my favorite of the sources I have gathered so far, are two articles by Dr. Michael Snape. Snape is currently teaches in the department of theology and religion at Durham University. That therefore makes his teaching title, “Professor Snape.” As a huge fan of the Harry Potter series, this will be perhaps my favorite citation of all time. Then again, maybe I’ll still slip “Dr. Eroll von Straussenburgerbecken, one of the leading leaders” in the rough draft somewhere and see if my prof notices. (School of Rock reference)

–M

History Research Project: Church of England & WWI

For my upcoming research project in my Historical method class, I will be studying the Church of England during the first World War.

Some areas i’ll be focusing on specifically is how the Church may have justified either support or opposition to the war, and thus how the war may have affected Church theology. Other possible areas of focus include; the role of clergy and chaplains during the role, the Church as an institution during the war, and religious life during the war.

A couple sources I’ll be looking at include (but certainly not limited to):

The Last Crusade: The Church of England in the First World War by Albert Marrin

The Church of England and the Home Front (1914-1918) by Robert Beaken

The Church of England and the First World War by Alan Wilkinson

Quote of the Day

Quote of the day comes from the non-canonical gospel of Thomas

“If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you.” ––Gospel of Thomas, saying no. 70

This quote is definitely something I reflect on a lot when thinking about my studies and my aspirations of graduate school. Even though this is from a gospel that was not included in the Christian canon, it still resonates with me on a motivational level. Basically, work hard (and play hard after).

Essenes at Qumran?

The following is a short paper I wrote for my Dead Sea Scrolls class, assessing the sectarian Essene hypothesis.

One of the most crucial elements required to fully understand the Dead Sea Scrolls is identifying the group that was originally repressible for producing the texts. Throughout scholarship multiple theories have been posited in an attempt to identify the group at Qumran (yahad). To date, the most widely accepted theory among scholars is the Essene hypothesis, that the community at Qumran associated with the scrolls can be best identified as the Essenes. Evidence for this notion primarily stems from accounts by Josephus, Philo of Alexandria, and Pliny the Elder. Though many scholars have suggested alternative identifications for the yahad, the Essene hypothesis remains the dominant theory in the field.

Of the evidence in support for this theory, perhaps the most blunt piece of evidence is the geographical description of the Essenes provided by Pliny who in Natural History, wrote, “On the west side of the Dead Sea, but out of range of the noxious exhalations of the coast, is the solitary tribe of the Essenes.” Based on Pliny’s geography it would seem reasonable to conclude that the yahad were in fact Essenes since that is roughly right where the scrolls were initially discovered. Though some scholars have raised skepticism around the phrase, infra hos (below the Essenes), in the same passage, offering that Pliny was actually referring to a lower altitude community, supporters of the hypothesis maintain that it in fact meant ‘south of’ or ‘downstream from.’ Furthermore, Synesius of Cyrene, in his biography of Chrysostomos refers to his admiration of the Essenes, “Also somewhere he praises the Essenes, from who form an entire and prosperous city near the Dead Sea.” What we can gain from this is that Synesius places the Essene community near the Dead Sea, presumably independently as there is no indication that he was using Pliny as a source. 

Not only do the Qumranites and the Essenes appear to share a rough geographical location, other connecting features between the two lie within their theological views and community practices. Specifically concerning free will, Josephus tells us in Antiquities that, “the sect of the Essenes however, declares that fate is the mistress of all things, and that nothing befalls men unless it be in accordance with her decree.” (Antiquities 12.171-3) This description from Josephus closely matches the theology of determinism laced within the DSS. For example, the Damascus Document (CD) states, “Before they were created, He knew what they would do. […] He knows the times of appearance and the number and exact times of everything that has ever existed and ever will exist before it happens.” (CD 2.7-10) Similar beliefs are expressed in CD 11.7-9, 1QS 3.14-16, 4Q180 frag 1.2-3, and in 1QHa, 9.7-9, 9.19-20, and 9.23-25.

Similarly, Essene theology concerning the afterlife also parallels sentiments expressed throughout the DSS, although as VanderKam has made note of, this point is a bit more unclear than the deterministic parallels in some regards. (VanderKam pp. 106) Josephus reports in The Jewish War, that the Essenes believed in an immortal soul, but a perishable physical body. (JW 2.54-57). Likewise, Hippolytus of Rome in his Refutation of All Heresies, portrays a similar description of the Essene view. VanderKam has noted that Josephus and Hippolytus likely drew their information from a common source. This same conception of afterlife is evident in 4Q521 which states, “the Lord shall do glorious things which have not been done, just as He said. For He shall heal the critically wounded, He shall revive the dead, He shall send good news to the afflicted.” (frag. 2+4 11-12) VanderKam seems to think that the phrase “revive the dead” implies something more than a spiritual existence, noting that the parallel words, wounded, and afflicted refer to a physical element. (VanderKam, pp.245-6) Also, Jubilees frag. 21 appears to convey a description that would perfectly match Josephus’s account of the Essene view; “[Their bones will rest in the earth] and their spirits [will rejoice exceedingly]. (Jub. 21.30-1) This all seems to draw the conclusion that the view of the Essenes regarding afterlife, that the body perishes while the soul lives on, is the same view contained within the scrolls of the yahad. 

Regarding practices of the community, there are numerous similarities between what was done by the yahad as described in the DSS, and what was practiced by the Essenes. For example, the Essenes believed that “oils” defiled anyone who came in contact with it, according to Josephus. Though it is evident the Essenes did not apply oil to themselves, it is not clear why. In that regard, the DSS offer a more detailed explanation. 4QMMT states that, “even flowing liquids cannot separate unclear from clean because the moisture of flowing liquids and their containers is the same moisture.” (4QMMT 59-60) This indicates that the Qumranites believed that liquids, while not necessarily themselves impure, transmitted ritual impurity and thus should not be used. 

Concerning private property, Pliny the Elder indicates that the Essenes had “no money,”, and Josephus says in JW that they despised riches. Of their attitude toward property and wealth, the Jewish historian notes; “they have a law that new members on admissions to the sect shall confiscate their property to the order […] their possessions are mingled, there exists for them all.” (JW 2.122) We get a similar account from Philo who writes that, “no one’s house is his own” asserting that no other source can be found depicting a community that practices “the sharing of roof, life and board.” This suggests a very communal lifestyle in which everything was shared by the community members. This is also precisely what we see in the Community Rule and column six emphasizes common ownership of property. Specifically, 1QS has a requirement concerning wealth that is strikingly similar to what Josephus describes, “to enter the company of the Community, his property and earnings shall be handed over to the Bursar of the Congregation.” (1QS 6.18-20) Josephus also writes of Essenes on their own accord giving to those in need, and providing their own food to the hungry. VanderKam notes that this tacitly confesses that though they largely lived communally sharing property, they still did have some private property with which they could engage in these kinds of charity. This again is reflected in the D-Rule in laws concerning stolen or lost property (CD 9.10-13). CD requires that if one finds an object without an owner, it will go to the priests, but, should someone not know of that regulation and no owner can be found, the person who found the lost item shall keep it. This again implies that there was a provision that allowed private property. This law in CD does however seem to describe a community different than the one described in 1QS. That, along with provisions about admissions and marriage (among a few others) have prompted some scholars to reject the idea that the community associated with the scrolls were Essenes.

In terms of marriage, the narrative that the community at Qumran was a celibate, monastic like community, is overturned by the conflicting views expressed in both CD and 1QS. Of the Essenes, Pliny says that they have “no women” and have “renounced all sexual desire.” This appears to match somewhat with 1QS which makes no mention of women or marriage at all (which leads to some to assume the yahad  was celibate). Josephus provides another perspective of the Essenes and marriage, writing in JW that the Essenes, “shun pleasure as a vice and regard temperance and control of the passions as a special virtue. Marriage they disdain…” However, he also writes, “There is yet another order of Essenes, which while at one with the rest in its mode of life, customs, and relations, differs from them in its views on marriage.” In other words, there were at least two sects of Essenes, one that prohibited marriage, and one that allowed it. This is reflected in the DSS as there appear to be two different views being expressed, 1) 1QS which does not include provisions for marriage, and 2) CD, which as VanderKam says “legislates explicitly for families.” (VanderKam, pp. 118) 

Admissions is another point of discrepancy in the scrolls as both CD and 1QS offer different processes by which one gains entrance to the community. While the Damascus Document only contains provisions for a simple pledge or oath to be taken for admission (CD 15.5-16.1), the Community Rule contains a far more elaborate process (1QS 6.13-26). The procedure by which one could join the community laid out in 1QS is again strikingly similar to what is found in the Josephan description of Essene admission policies. Josephus describes the process of joining the Essenes as a three step process including 1) a year living outside the group, yet abiding by the rules of the group, 2) two more years of testing, and 3) admissions. VanderKam lists the process found in the Community Rule in another street step process consisting of 1) a period of examination by the Guardian and the Congregation, 2) one year in the council of the community but with limited rights to the meal, and 3) one more year of testing followed by membership and full rights to the meal. Of this, VanderKam concludes that, “the procedure seems to move through the same stages, with one or the other source supplying different details.” (VanderKam, pp. 116) 

Though the process of admissions for both the Essenes and 1QS seem to follow the same pattern, that still leaves the discrepancy in the process listed in CD. Collins explains these discrepancies within the scrolls by suggesting that the scrolls represent more than one community, rather than the traditional narrative that it was just one group at Qumran. Collins asserts that both Philo and Josephus admit that the Essenes had multiple settlements, and never indicate that one took precedence over another. Likewise, Collins notes that the D-Rule, “envisions multiple settlements, called ‘camps’, of people who married and had children.” He also notes how the Community Rule allows for “multiple communities, with a quorum of ten.” He then relates that back to the Essenes being described as being “dispersed in many places.” (Collins, pp. 151) This once again demonstrates that there appeared to be different sects even within the community, which thereby eliminates the apparent discrepancies between CD and 1QS.

The notion that there were multiple sects of communities of Essenes also fits nicely with Hempel’s conclusion that it is becoming, “increasingly clear that the scrolls reflect more than one community.” Since the Essene hypothesis emerged, scholars have largely tried to make the evidence fit the narrative rather than let the evidence define the narrative. As such many misconceptions flourished regarding the community at Qumran. Rather than there simply being one, celibate, monastic community associated with the scrolls, Collins and others have suggested that there were in fact multiple sects associated with the scrolls and thus the Josephan passage referring to two different orders of Essenes makes perfect sense. 

With the acceptance of the sectarian hypothesis to describe the nature of the community at Qumrna, it would follow that the Essene hypothesis does in fact fit the evidence found in the DSS. Thus one can reasonably conclude that the community at Qumran can be best identified as the Essenes.  

Sources––

[1] James C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2010).
[2] James C. VanderKam and Peter Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity. (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2002).
[3] John J. Collins, “Sectarian Communities in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. John J. Collins and T. Lim; Oxford, 2010), 151-72.
[4] Florentino Garcia Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1996).
[5] Charlotte C. Hempel, “Community Structures in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Admission, Organization, and Disciplinary Procedures,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years 2.67-97

Forgery in the Ancient World pt. 1

I am currently in the middle of reading Forged: Writing in the Name of God by Bart Ehrman. As a huge fan of Ehrman’s other works I was very much looking forward to reading this given its great reviews. So far it has not disappointed. Ehrman’s writing style is easily accessible and he does an excellent job at translating what is frequently jargon-laced scholarship, often hard to penetrate, into a plain language laypeople can pick up and understand. 

For clarification, Ehrman identifies four different kinds of writings from the ancient world where authorship is concerned. 1) Orthonymous writings, a writing that was really written by the person who it is claimed to be written by. 2) Homonymous writings, a writing that is written by someone who has the same first name as another person. (Ancient people did not have last names) 3) Anonymous writings, writings that contain no name attributed to them. For example, the canonical gospels were all originally written without a name. and 4) Pseudonymous writings, texts that are presented under the name of someone besides the person who actually wrote it. Of this Ehrman makes an important distinction. Sometimes authors would sign a name that was not theirs, but it would be a pen name. Case and point, the Greek historian Xenophon, wrote one of his more famous works under the name, Thermistogenes. In these instances Ehrman does not see a deliberate attempt to deceive audiences. This would be paralleled in the modern world by Samuel Clemens who wrote Huckleberry Finn under the name, Mark Twain. 

One of the big points he tries to make is that forgery, which he defines as “a writing that claims to be written by someone (a known figure) who did not in fact write it” (pp. 24) despite popular belief among many scholars, was not condoned in the ancient world––to the contrary, forgery was widely condemned by ancient writers. Scholars frequently make the argument that ancient forgeries such as the Gospel of Peter, or many of the Pauline letters, which were not written by Peter or Paul, were not meant to be deceitful. They will claim that it was a ‘common practice’ and that ‘no one thought of it as being deceitful.’ Ehrman demonstrates this to be completely untrue. 

Ehrman notes that, “in virtually every instance in which an ancient author mentions forgery, he condemns it.” (pp. 36) He points to early Christians who voiced strong opposition to writings considered to be written by someone other than who the text claimed to be written by. Examples of this can found in the writings of Origen, Jerome, and Augustine. 

One literary genre from the ancient world that produces forgeries, are apocalypses. These are texts that claim to disclose hidden knowledge received from heaven. Often they deal with the last days, or end times. These texts are almost always pseudonymous texts and are typically attributed to important religious figures of the past such as Enoch, Abraham, Peter, and Paul. Scholars try to dismiss these as “forgeries” claiming that the nature of the genre requires a pseudonymous authorship. Ehrman believes this answer to be too simplistic. He writes, “the reality is that the ancient people really did believe tat they were written by the people who claimed to be writing them, as seen repeatedly in the ancient testimonies.” (pp. 30) In my Dead Sea Scrolls class, my professor had us read an article on books and authorship in antiquity, and the author certainly parroted the common claim; that texts like Enoch, which was not written by Enoch, was an ‘honorific’ name. Ehrman appears to show otherwise.

The authors of such writings were aware they were writing under a false name and they chose to do so precisely because they gain more influence that way. Ehrman cites this motivation for forgery, “to get a hearing for their views,” the biggest motivation for forgery in the ancient world. 

Again, forgery was widely condemned in the ancient world, so much so that even books that were forged condemned the practice! 2 Thessalonians, itself a forgery,  instructs readers not to be fooled by letters claiming to be by him that actually is not.

we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to be quickly unsettled or alarmed either by a [so-called prophetic revelation of a] spirit or a message or a letter [alleged to be] from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has [already] come. ––2 Thessalonians 2.1-2

Again, this is exceptionally ironic because 2 Thess. is a forgery.

Another text called, the Apostolic Constitutions, contains a warning toward the end, to not read books that claim to be written by the apostles but are not. This is ironic seeing as the AC claims to be composed by Clement, the fourth Bishop of Rome. The problem there is that Clement died three centuries prior. Throughout the text, statements such as “I, Peter” and “I, John” appear. Yet they too would have been long dead by the composition and either way, it claims to be written entirely by Clement (who was already dead).

The overall point with these examples is that forgery was so widely condemned throughout the ancient world that it was even condemned in books that were forged. Authors of forgeries knew it was a condemned practice and included warnings against forgeries to throw off the reader. 

–M