Who were the Jews?

[patrick457]

For the early Christians, “Israelite” and “Hebrew” were honorable terms (which they appropriated for themselves - after the idea that the Church is the new Israel). “Jew” on the other hand became a negative term.

Let me just qualify what I said here.

As time went on, the term “Jew” came to have a negative connotation in early Christianity, of course in the context of Jewish-Christian disputes. You can see this in the gospel of Matthew for instance: prior to Jesus’ crucifixion the Jews are mainly called “Israelites,” the honorific title of God’s chosen people (cf. 8:10; 9:33; 10:6; 10:23; 15:24, 31; 19:28), but after it, they are called hoi Ioudaioi “the Jews” (28:15), Matthew’s cue that through their rejection of the Christ the “kingdom of Heaven” has been taken away from them and given instead to the new Israel, the Church, which is open to both Jew and gentile alike.

When early Christians used Ioudaioi, it isn’t usually in a positive sense, but usually in a negative/polemical sense - it is used to refer to those Jews who did not accept Jesus. For example, the Church Father Origen used Hebraioi (‘Hebrews’) to refer to contemporary Jews whom he consulted on philological and exegetical issues, but at the same time he used Ioudaioi in contexts of conflict and polemic. (He also at times uses ‘Hebrews’ to refer to Christians, followers of Jesus.) Some gentile Christians appropriated the more neutral/positive terms “Hebrews” and (especially) “Israel” for themselves, but the usage wasn’t universal. So in a sense (this is just a broad generalization, note), these Christians distinguished between three classes of people: the ‘Hebrews’/‘Israelites’, the ‘Jews’, and the ‘gentiles’. The Chosen People of the OT, Jesus and the apostles, sometimes even Christians and ‘good’ Jews are labelled ‘Hebrews’ or ‘Israelites’, while those who did not accept Jesus as the Messiah are ‘Jews’.

 

[manualman]

after the idea that the Church is the new Israel.

I think you’ll find that notions of a “new Israel” are not ancient, but rather fairly modern. From what I can tell, the apostles considered themselves and the church to be merely “Israel” via the fulfillment of the messianic promises in Christ not any sort of “new” Israel. The number 12 is rather important in conveying that message. Today’s Judaism is not remotely like that of Jesus’ day. What survives today are various offshoots of the Pharisee movement of that day. Christians in general and catholics in particular are as much or more “Israel” as the descendents of the Pharisees. After all, we have altars and routinely engage in presenting the perfect sacrifice of the Passover Lamb who was the firstborn son freely offered. You won’t find THAT particular continuation of the covenant with Abraham and Moses anywhere else, no?

 

[DelsonJacobs]

I think you’ll find that notions of a “new Israel” are not ancient, but rather fairly modern. From what I can tell, the apostles considered themselves and the church to be merely “Israel” via the fulfillment of the messianic promises in Christ not any sort of “new” Israel. The number 12 is rather important in conveying that message. Today’s Judaism is not remotely like that of Jesus’ day. What survives today are various offshoots of the Pharisee movement of that day. Christians in general and catholics in particular are as much or more “Israel” as the descendents of the Pharisees. After all, we have altars and routinely engage in presenting the perfect sacrifice of the Passover Lamb who was the firstborn son freely offered. You won’t find THAT particular continuation of the covenant with Abraham and Moses anywhere else, no?

Much of this is reflected in the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s document, “The Jewish People and the Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible.” It was composed under the supervision of Pope Benedict XVI.

In it the reminder is made that Gentile Christians have often forgotten or have no idea that they are being saved because they are “wild olive branches” that have been connected to a living natural olive tree, and that without this connection they would be lost.

But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place and have come to share in the rich root of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. If you do boast, consider that you do not support the root; the root supports you. Indeed you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is so. They were broken off because of unbelief, but you are there because of faith. So do not become haughty, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you either.–Romans 11:17-21.

While in a sense a “new” Israel has been created that includes Gentiles, it can also be said it is not a new Israel because it is the same natural olive tree that was being saved from the beginning.

 

[patrick457]

I might as well talk about anti-Judaism in early Christianity, shouldn’t I?

First off, let’s distinguish terms. ‘Anti-Jewish’ here is not equivalent to ‘anti-Semitic’. Anti-Semitism denotes opposition to Judaism or/and Jews based upon racial or ethnic prejudice, while anti-Judaism is one based on religious beliefs and practices. Christianity isn’t ‘anti-Semitic’, yes, but we do have a long history of anti-Judaism, starting from the very first generations of Christians themselves.

Let’s just say that there was this pervasive anti-Jewish sentiment in early Christianity. The main point of divergence by the early Christian community from its Jewish roots was of course the belief that Jesus was the Messiah. As early as 1 Thessalonians (2:13-16) - thought nowadays to be the earliest Christian document, written around AD 51-52 - we already see St. Paul making a connection between hoi Ioudaioi “the Judaeans” (traditionally “the Jews”) and the death of Jesus.

The early Christians, originally acting from within a Jewish context, took a page from the prophets’ calling Israel out for its sins (e.g. Nehemiah 9:26-31; 2 Chronicles 36:14-16). Early on, as part of their message towards (fellow) Jews, they emphasized the Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus, coupled with a plea for Israel to repent and accept Jesus as the Messiah (cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16; Acts 2:22-38; 3:12-26; 4:8-22; 5:29-32). They cast the Jewish rejection of Jesus in the same light as Israel’s rejection of the prophets in former times. They were drawing from an established Jewish motif: castigating the nation for their rejection of people perceived to be chosen by God and holding them responsible for whatever ills that happened afterward. This castigation is supposed to lead into a call for reform: it’s not too late, you still have a chance, change your minds and turn away from your sins. In the same vein, the early Christians basically saw themselves as the faithful remnant, while indicting their Jewish brothers for their unbelief towards Jesus and at the same time, calling them to repentance. When the followers of Israel’s Messiah find themselves persecuted and ostracized by the official leadership of Israel, it is no wonder than an element of ‘anti-Jewishness’ can be detected.

Given the original Jewish context of this rhetoric, it’s not surprising that the two most Jewish gospels of the four, Matthew and John, are at the same time, quite ironically, the most ‘anti-Jewish’. While Matthew tries hard to portray Jesus as the Jewish Messiah who fulfilled the Jewish Scriptures, the antagonists in his gospel are “the scribes and the Pharisees.” In fact, his gospel is the one which has that infamous line in 27:25. John, while he records Jesus saying, “Salvation is from the Jews,” often (but not always, note) casts “the Jews” in antagonistic roles toward Jesus.

One thing we could notice about Christianity of the first two centuries is the gradual intensification of anti-Judaism. As the rift between Christianity and Judaism grew wider apart, so did the conflict between them become more and more pronounced. Still, there was some regional variation in anti-Judaism: it was found mainly in areas where Christianity was strong, especially in cities with mixed pagan and Jewish populations, places where religious rivalries were more likely to be expressed openly. (In other words, places like Rome, Syria and Asia Minor.) In some regions like Judaea and Greece, it was less pronounced, perhaps because the population constituency and blend of rivalries were different.

Within Christianity there was a range of attitudes over Judaism: on the one hand it included criticism - often harsh - of Judaism and non-Christian Jews by both fellow Jews (such as Matthew and John, and perhaps the unknown authors of Hebrews and the Epistle of Barnabas) and non-Jews (Ignatius of Antioch, Marcion, Melito of Sardis, the author of the Epistle to Diognetus); on the other hand, it involved benign neglect (gnostics like Valentinus) and accommodation to Judaism by absorbing and adapting elements and aspects of it (cf. the Didache and the prayers embedded within the Apostolic Constitutions).

An unfortunate side effect of this rhetoric is that less focus is made on the Roman culpability for the crucifixion. While increasing blame was placed on the Jews (oftentimes using hostile rhetoric that would sound offensive in this post-Holocaust world), the Romans, curiously, were increasingly whitewashed. While the earliest tradition (recorded in Paul’s letters and the gospels) included Roman and Jewish cooperation in the death of Jesus, in subsequent tradition history Christians would emphasize the role of each party to varying degrees: if 100% of the guilt must be assigned, some accounts tended to divide it evenly while others appeared to be much closer to total guilt/innocence. In the latter scenario it was nearly always in the direction of Jewish guilt/Roman innocence.

In its most extreme form, the Romans are totally excused of all blame - the crucifixion is made to be an act perpetrated solely by “the Jews.” Sometimes, it is no longer even Pilate that sentences Jesus to death, but Herod (the closest they could get to a Jewish equivalent to Pilate - a political ruler). For the most extreme specimens of anti-Jewish rhetoric in late 2nd century Christianity, you have the Gospel of Peter and St. Melito of Sardis’ Sermon on the Passover.

 

[patrick457]

(Continued)

What is unfortunate is that Christian anti-Judaism did not wane - on the contrary it took some turns for the worse. In a post-Constantinian world, where Jews have become a minority and Christians have dominated Europe, the original Jewish context of the dispute became more and more obscured as time went on to the point that long-standing anti-Jewish sentiments had oftentimes segued into full-blown anti-Semitism.

This has gotten to the point where when some people would hear about how the crowd shouts “His blood is on us and on our children” in Matthew’s gospel or the repeated negative references to “the Jews” in John, they would use it as an excuse to marginalize, mistreat or even exterminate Jews. (Incidentally, the Passion narratives from Matthew and John are the ones read on Palm Sunday and Good Friday before we in the Roman Rite came to use the three-year cycle of readings.) Unfortunately, that line of thinking is apparently only a small step away from spreading nasty and vile rumors about Jews murdering and eating babies or using human blood on matzo or thinking that they’re sneaky, dirty money-grubbers or something along those lines, as history would show us.

Many medieval passion plays often showcased extreme caricatures of Jews (which are often now anti-Semitic on top of being anti-Jewish). In fact, such stereotypes, and their perpetuation of accusations of deicide, actually encouraged mob violence directed upon Jews. In 1338, for example, the city council of Freiburg in Germany actually forbade the inclusion of anti-Jewish scenes from the local Passion play because of their potential to incite havoc, and in 1539 passion plays were banned in Rome because of the violent assaults inflicted against Roman Jews in previous years. These passion plays portrayed the Jews as being a bloodthirsty people bent on killing Jesus (who were eventually cursed by God for their heinous act), and showed Judaism as an outmoded, legalistic, harsh religion. I know it’s clicheish to bring up the Nazis here, but one such passion play did receive praise from Adolf Hitler.

So yeah, to sum whenever we read the gospels, it’s always good to keep in mind their context. I think the lesson is do not take the rhetoric literally and out of context and do not abuse the gospels to mean that Jews are vile vermin. This is a very touchy issue for both camps (especially more so for Jews, who were often on the receiving end), but we can’t cover up the fact that such things happened - in fact, IMHO if we want to solve the problem, we shouldn’t deny that the problem existed, and to a degree still exists today.

True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.

Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel’s spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.

• Nostra Aetate

 

[meltzerboy]

(Continued)

We know the titles of two other parties in first-century Palestine: the Essenes and the Sadducees. The Essenes are described by both Josephus and Philo; [15. *War 2.120-61; Antiq. 18.18-22; Philo, Every Good Man is Free 75-91; Hypothetica 11.1-18.]

most scholars identify them as the group responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls. If this identification is correct, and I think it is, we know a great deal about the Essenes. The Essenes formed a small party, divided into at least two branches and numbering about 4,000 altogether. [16. Philo, *Every Good Man is Free 75; Josephus, Antiq. 18.20.] The party consisted of both lay people and priests, but the priests were dominant. When the Hasmoneans came to power in 142 BCE, they deposed the previous high-priestly family, the Zadokites. Some of the displaced aristocratic priests joined what became the Essene party, and they seem to have been largely responsible for governing it. Nevertheless, the laymen who were members also studied the Bible and the special rules of the party, and they could become as expert as the priests. The Essenes, as far as we know, played no direct role in Jesus’ life and work, and so I shall not offer a description. Those who are interested will find that the Essene literature is now relatively easy to study, thanks to good translations and a reliable body of introductory material. [17, Geza Vermes, *The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective, 1977; The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, tr. Geza Vermes, 3rd ed., 1987; Michael Knibb, The Qumran Community, 1987; Philip R. Davies, Behind the Essenes: History and Ideology in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1987. My own most recent account of the Essenes is P&B, chs. 16 and 17.]
I do wish, however, to employ the Essenes to make a point about the Pharisees. The Essene literature reveals intense study of the Hebrew Bible and a wealth of community rules in addition to those in the Mosaic law. The Essenes were far stricter than the Pharisees in almost every conceivable way. If the Pharisees were thought the ‘strictest’ observers of the law (as Josephus says), the word ‘strict’ bears the connotation of ‘most accurate’ rather than ‘most extreme’. [18. Josephus, *War 2.162; Life 191 and elsewhere.]

The Sadducees were the third party for which we have a name. We know little about them, except that most Sadducees were aristocratic, did not believe in any form of life after death, and did not accept the Pharisees’ special traditions. Most scholars suppose that a lot of the high priests during the Roman period were Sadducees, but we have direct information from Josephus about only one: Ananus, who was high priest in 62 CE (when he illegally had James the brother of Jesus executed) and who was one of the leaders in the revolt against Rome, was a Sadducee. [19: *Antiq. 20.199.] The reader of the New Testament meets the Sadducees only a few times; it confirms their close association with the aristocratic priesthood and the fact that they did not believe in the resurrection. [20: They are mentioned with no description in Matt. 3.7 and 16.1-12. The passage about the resurrection is Matt. 22.23-33 // Mark 12.18-27 // Luke 20.27-40. For the same point, also see Acts 23.6-8. Acts 5.17 closely connects the high priest and the Sadducees, and their public responsibility for good order is implied in Acts 4.1.]

All Jews basically shared what Sanders calls ‘common Judaism’: a belief in one God, a belief in divine election (the status of the Jewish nation as the chosen people) and the Law, and a belief in punishment, repentance and forgiveness. Now groups like the Pharisees or the Sadducees do not in themselves constitute Judaism, in Sanders’ model - most Jews (including priests) did not belong to any party. Instead they should be seen as serving as examples to the fact that Judaism was not entirely in the hands of the leading priests in Jerusalem; lay people could come to their own views. All Jews, like the Pharisees, believed that they should understand the Law and obey it.

I would add that the Torah Jews (Orthodox) of the modern age believe that the Oral Law, also given by G-d to Moses at Mount Sinai but transmitted by oral tradition before it was codified in the Talmud, was necessary since the Written Law (Torah) alone was sketchy regarding the application of the Law to everyday life, despite the fact there seems to be an abundance of detail within the commandments. IOW there are certain elliptical verses in the Law that had to be interpreted more fully and filled in, and the Pharisees were the main movement that did this. Thus modern Judaism, apart from the Karaites, follows suit in the pharasaic tradition. At the same time, this set the stage for the endless interpretations, rebuttals, and counter-rebuttals that form the rabbinical commentaries in the Talmud.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I can’t place the general Jewish people as trying to kill him, so I’ve always considered it is referring to the ruling Jewish Authorities, be it Sadducee or Pharisee.