Magnus Zetterholm uses theoretical insights from the social sciences to deal with the complex issues raised by the parting of Judaism and Christianity, and the accompanying rise of Christian anti-Semitism in ancient Antioch.
Unlike previous attempts to solve this problem have focused mainly on ideology, Zetterholm's excellent study emphasizes the interplay between sociological and ideological elements.
For students of religious studies, classical studies, history and social science, this will give leverage and knowledge in the pursuit of their course studies.
Frequently asked questions
Simply head over to the account section in settings and click on “Cancel Subscription” - it’s as simple as that. After you cancel, your membership will stay active for the remainder of the time you’ve paid for. Learn more here.
At the moment all of our mobile-responsive ePub books are available to download via the app. Most of our PDFs are also available to download and we're working on making the final remaining ones downloadable now. Learn more here.
Both plans give you full access to the library and all of Perlego’s features. The only differences are the price and subscription period: With the annual plan you’ll save around 30% compared to 12 months on the monthly plan.
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, we’ve got you covered! Learn more here.
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Yes, you can access The Formation of Christianity in Antioch by Magnus Zetterholm in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in History & Ancient History. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.
σαν. (“If I have somewhere to stand, I will move the whole earth with my charistion.”)
Archimedes
The aim of the study
The basic problem—from Jesus to Ignatius
Undoubtedly, most Jews and Christians of today consider that they belong to different religions. For modern people this division between Judaism and Christianity seems normal because, in Christian tradition, Judaism has often been pictured as the ultimate contradiction of Christianity. As J. D. G. Dunn has put it, “[i]t would hardly be surprising if someone brought up in Protestant Christianity thought of Judaism as the antithesis of Christianity.”1 G. Boccaccini, however, has suggested that we should understand Judaism as denoting “the whole family of monotheistic systems that sprang forth from the same Middle Eastern roots.”2 Seen in this way Judaism includes Rabbinism, Karaism, Samaritanism—and Christianity. In Boccaccini’s model Judaism denotes the genus, while the branches, such as Christianity, denote the species.
To picture the relation between different religious expressions in this way has its obvious advantage, especially over previous confessionally oriented models, and it certainly emphasizes the aspect of continuity. Boccaccini is undeniably right in drawing attention to biases that have led to a confessional terminology. His choice of an all-inclusive extreme, however, can lead to other problems. One must, for instance, reflect upon the meaningfulness of a terminology that for many Jews and Christians might even be considered offensive. Boccaccini admits that his statement “may be shocking.”3 I would, however, go further—it is simply incorrect.4
For the majority of Christian conceptions, Christian identity is not consistent with a Jewish life. In most Christian ideologies, Christ is considered to have invalidated the torah. This process is operative from the other side of the divide as well. According to secular Israeli legislation, a Jew who has converted to Christianity (or any other religion) loses the right to immigrate to Israel according to the Law of Return, which applies to Jews only. Thus, according to this definition, a Jew who converts to Christianity ceases to be Jewish. G. G. Stroumsa has summarized the fact of the matter in the following way:
From the second to the fourth centuries, we can follow the birth out of the traditional faith of Israel, of not one, but at least two religions. Rabbinic Judaism, which emerged at Yavneh before the end of the first century, grew into a full-fledged religion with the development of the Talmudic culture, during the same centuries in which Christianity developed into a new religion with a structure and an identity that were quite different from those of its genitor.5
Christianity certainly was a variety of Judaism but definitely ceased to be so. Already at the beginning of the second century we find the first signs of the Adversus Iudaeos literature, which can be taken as early evidence of a development that resulted in Judaism being considered as heretical. Henceforth, Judaism and Christianity are best understood as two different religions.6 One early and rather clear indication of the emergence of Christianity as a new religion is to be found in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch.
Probably during the end of Emperor Trajan’s rule (98–117 CE), Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, was sent to Rome to be executed.7 During the journey he wrote several letters to various churches in Asia Minor, addressing local problems he knew either from personal visits or from delegations sent to him from local churches. In two letters, to the Magnesians and to the Philadelphians, the local situation led Ignatius to comment on Judaism. It is clear from these comments that Ignatius understood Judaism to be something profoundly different from Christianity. In Magn. 8:1, for instance, he warns against Jewish influences:
Be not led astray by strange doctrines or by old fables which are profitless. For if we are living until now according to Judaism [εἰ γὰρ μέχρι ν
ν κατὰ ᾽Iουδαϊσμòν ζ
μεν], we confess that we have not received grace.
In this text it is evident that Ignatius sees a clear contradiction between Christianity and Judaism. To some extent he probably draws from popular prejudice of Judaism: dependency on fables or myths were common accusations against Judaism.8 While the text seems to echo Paul in Galatians 5:4, the context of the situation is completely different. As J. Lieu has noted, Ignatius opposes not law and grace but Judaism and grace.9 While Paul addressed the question of how Gentile adherents to the Jesus movement should relate to Judaism from a position within Judaism, Ignatius argues from a position outside Judaism in order to nullify the whole Jewish religious system. As he states in Magn. 10:3:
It is monstrous to talk of Jesus Christ and to practise Judaism [ἰουδαΐζειν]. For Christianity did not base its faith on Judaism, but Judaism on Christianity [ὁ γὰρ Xριστιανισμóς οὐκεἰς ᾽Iονδαϊσμóν ἐпίστεν, ἀλλ᾽ ᾽Iουδαϊσμòς εἰς Xριστιανισμóν], and every tongue believing on God was brought together in it.
We may conclude that, less than a century after the execution of Jesus, we find in many respects one part of the Jesus movement that had turned into something profoundly different. For instance, it seems clear that Jesus directed his mission predominantly, if not completely, to the people of Israel and that, while it cannot be ruled out that in some ways he may have represented a novel interpretation of Jewish traditions, he was deeply rooted within the Judaism of the period. The same, I venture to say, is true for Paul, who most certainly lived and died as a torah-obedient Jew, convinced that the god of Israel intended to fulfill his covenantal promise to the people of Israel, at the same time extending his grace to include also the Gentiles.
We have thus identified the main problem of this study: namely, if the Jesus movement started out as a Jewish messianic faction, how can it be explained that a representative of the same movement, about eighty years later, finds the basic religious outlook of Judaism to be incompatible with the movement he represents? What mechanisms lie behind a development that makes Christianity an anti-Jewish religion, entirely separated from Judaism?
J. D. G. Dunn and the partings of the ways
These questions have certainly been dealt with before.10 One modern work of vital importance is Dunn’s The Partings of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianity (1991). Dunn claims that, during the end of the first century, two new religions emerged: rabbinic Judaism and Christianity. He states that the fact that they emerged from the same matrix makes relevant the question of why they split and became distinct.11 Despite the obvious merits of Dunn’s work, there are reasons for taking a fresh look at the separation between Judaism and Christianity.
Firstly, Dunn’s theoretical outlook and analytical tools are almost exclusively focused on ideological aspects. He identifies what he considers to be the four pillars of second temple Judaism, namely, monotheism, election, the covenant focused in the torah, and land focused in the temple. His basic hypothesis is that the partings of the ways was a result of the new movement’s questioning and the redefinition “of these four axioms in greater or less degree—at any rate, to a degree unacceptable to mainstream Judaism.”12 While ideological aspects certainly played a vital part in the process, it seems more correct to assume that what Dunn understands to be the cause of the separation process actually represents the result of the separation defined in ideological terms. The reason for this assumption is that concrete cultural resources (e.g., church architecture, symbolic practices, liturgical forms) are more likely to be the object of contention, while abstract resources (e.g., ideas, ideologies, values) are easier to manipulate and often function as strategically mobilized resources in conflicts over other kind of resources.13 A full historical analysis of the separation between Judaism and Christianity has to take into consideration the role of social mechanisms as well as the function of ideological aspects in a social conflict perspective. In this study I intend consequently to focus on the sociological aspects of the separation process: while naturally I will not disregard the ideological aspects, these will be treated within a sociological framework.
Secondly, while Dunn takes into account the extensive reappraisal of the character of Judaism and even refutes what he views as too simplistic a dichotomy between gospel and torah,14he reiterates the old dichotomy in a new way. Paul does not attack the torah or the covenant, Dunn, states, but “a covenantal nomism which insisted on treating the law as a boundary round Israel, marking off Jew from Gentile, with only those inside as heirs of God’s promise to Abraham.”15
However, when it comes to the relation between the torah and the covenant, it becomes evident that Dunn believes that Paul replaced the torah with faith in Christ for both Jews and Gentiles. Since entry into the covenant is by faith, Dunn argues, circumcision is no longer necessary, and membership in the covenant should not be tied to specific rules but rest solely on faith.
Faith in Christ is the climax of Jewish faith, but it is no longer to be perceived as a specifically Jewish faith; faith should not be made to depend in any degree on the believer living as a Jew (judaizing).16
In the wake of K. Stendahl’s important collection of essays Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (1976), there has been an increasing awareness of Paul’s Jewish context that in important areas moves beyond Dunn’s understanding of Paul’s relation to the torah and Judaism. This new way of looking at Paul and his relation to the torah, the Jewish people, and the Gentiles represents something of a paradigm shift. It is now possible to speak of an independent tradition made up of several well-established and highly respected scholars who offer an alternative solution to the problem of Paul, the torah, and Jewish and Gentile adherents to the Jesus movement.
J. G. Gager has made a very useful summary of the problems associated with the traditional view of Paul and the advantage of a reconstruction of Paul that allows him to be firmly rooted within the diversified Judaism of the first century. The present study agrees with the basic elements of the new view as presented by Gager.17 Thus, it is assumed that the audience addressed in Paul’s letters are Gentiles. Consequently, discourses where the contradiction between the torah and belief in Christ are salient are not applicable to the situation of the Jewish believers at all but are part of a rhetorical discourse aimed at preventing Gentiles from becoming Jews.18 Thus, it can no longer be assumed that Paul considered the torah to have ceased to have relevance for Jesus-believing Jews. As P. Lapide puts it: “[f]or Jews and for Jewish proselytes the Mosaic Law, as Paul sees it, retains its full and unaltered validity.”19 It is the point of departure of this study that Paul meant Jesus-believing Jews to remain Jews and Jesus-believing Gentiles to remain Gentiles and that the torah had continued validity for Jews.
It must be emphasized that it is not my intention to make any contribution of my own to the problem of Paul’s relation to the torah. In these matters I will base my reconstruction exclusively on the works of others, who in my opinion have showed the reasonability of a new view of Paul to a sufficient degree. While there are certainly several more problems to deal with in this field, the focus of this study is a different one. This means that I, as anyone who engages in issues where the relation between the torah and Paul is relevant, side with a specific scholarly tradition whose results are used as a point of departure. This new understanding of Paul is sufficient by itself to motivate a new study of the separation process.
Thirdly, Dunn’s view of Paul and the torah implies that the original Jewish and Gentile identities of the adherents to the Jesus movement are transformed into a common new Christian identity. Without dealing with the specific theological implications of this, from a social-psychological point of view such a development is highly ...
