Jews, Hebrews and Christians: Some Needed Distinctions

Jews, Hebrews and Christians: Some Needed DistinctionsAuthor(s): Robert MurraySource: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 24, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 1982), pp. 194-208Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560824 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 19:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:25:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560824?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Novum Testamentum XXIV, 3 (1982)

JEWS, HEBREWS AND CHRISTIANS: SOME NEEDED DISTINCTIONS

by

ROBERT MURRAY, S.J. Heythrop College (University of London)

Probably everyone who tries to identify groups, tendencies or movements in the religious world in which Christianity was born has felt frustrated by the imprecision, or even confusion, affecting the principal terms which have to be used. The difficulty of definition centres on 'Jewish Christianity', but the reasons for it are already there in Judaism and its related sects or movements, while the problem of the varieties of early Christianity is soon compound- ed with that of Gnosticism. Attempts to define 'Jewish Christianity' (or alternative expressions) more precisely have been countered by those, such as the late Cardinal J. Danidlou and the Jerusalem Franciscan 'school', who have chosen to give 'Juddo-Chris- tianisme' a wide connotation, with reference to a range of tendencies.' The recent attempts to unravel the resulting tangle and to propose a more satisfactory system of definition and terminology are already so numerous as to suggest strongly that we are still look- ing for the right approach.2 One who has already contributed more than once to this unhealthy overgrowth hesitates to make yet

J. Danidlou, Thiologie duJudio-Christianisme (Paris, 1958), ET The Theology of Jewish Christianity (London, 1964). For the works of B. Bagatti, E. Testa and F. Manns, see the latter's Bibliographie du Judio-Christianisme (Jerusalem, 1979), esp. nos. 375, 380 and 462. (This compilation is strangely ordered and contains too many errors, but is still very useful).

2 See Manns, Bibliographie, nos. 464-485; esp. M. Simon, "Problbmes du Juddo-Christianisme", in Aspects du Judio-Christianisme (Paris, 1965); R. N. Longenecker, The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity (London, 1971), pp. 1-24; R. A. Kraft, "In Search of 'Jewish Christianity' and its 'Theology' ", in the Festschrift for J. Danidlou, Judlo-Christianisme, RSR 60 (1972) and as separate volume (Paris, 1972), pp. 81-92; A. F. J. Klijn, "The Study ofJewish Christiani- ty", NTS 20 (1974), 419-431; M. Simon, "R~flexions sur le Juddo- Christianisme", in J. Neusner (ed.), Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults (Leiden, 1975), Vol. 2, pp. 53-76; B. J. Malina, "Jewish Christianity or Christian Judaism", JSJ 7 (1976), 46-57; S. K. Riegel, "Jewish Christianity: Definitions and Terminology", NTS 24 (1978), 410-415.



JEWS, HEBREWS AND CHRISTIANS 195

another attempt; but the need for it is still there, and will not go away. Few, if any, of the recommendations in the following pages are novel; but it is hoped that this synthesis may be judged to bring more clarity. The essential suggestions are (1) that in the period under discussion it is misleading to use 'Jewish' and 'Judaism' for all heirs of ancient Israel; these terms are really appropriate for those who looked to Jerusalem as their focus of identity, while a distinct term is needed for those who were hostile to the Jerusalem of the Second Temple; (2) the analysis of movements in early Chris- tianity should be based on this prior differentiation, rather than on categories such as 'Apocalyptic', or distinctions such as that between Hellenistic and Palestinian Judaism. It is a pleasure to dedicate these reflexions to Professor Derrett, from whom I have received so much stimulation.

To review the works which are judged to have made the greatest contributions to the analysis of our problem since F. J. A. Hort's Judaistic Christianity3 is to see that the essential terms of the programme just proposed have all been focal points of obscurity and confusion. Probably the three most influential names are those of W. Bauer, H.-J. Schoeps andJ. Danidlou. Bauer4 saw the diversity in the early Church but failed to analyse its roots, misled by the ill-chosen categories of orthodoxy and heresy. His valuable insights have been fruitfully developed by G. Strecker5 and H. Koester,6 but without getting at the heart of the problem. Schoeps7 saw the importance of sectarian 'Judaism' but put too much emphasis on 'apocalyptic', a term too ill-defined to serve for clarification. Danidlou, unfortunately, took apocalyptic as his guiding star.8 As a result, his three-volume analysis of early Christian theology in terms of Jewish-Christian, Hellenistic and Latin characteristics,9

3 Cambridge, 1894 (Manns, no. 354, with outline of contents); London, 18982. 4 Rechtgldiubigkeit und Ketzerei im dltesten Christentum (Tiibingen, 1934, 19642), ET

Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, Philadelphia-London, 1971. 5 Nachtrage to Bauer, ed. 2 (1964), pp. 243-314; Appendix I in ET (1971), pp.

241-285. 6 FNOMAI AIAPDOPOI, HTR 58 (1965), 279-318, reprinted inJ. M. Robinson

and H. Koester, Trajectories through Early Christianity (Philadelphia, 1971). 7 Theologie und Geschichte desJudenchristentums (Tiibingen, 1949); Ausfriihchristlicher

Zeit (Tiibingen, 1950); DasJudenchristentum (Munich, 1964; ETJewish Christianity, Philadelphia, 1969).

8 Theology of Jewish Christianity, p. 4. 9 Danidlou's conception was completed by Message ivangilique et culture hellinistique

(Paris, 1961), ET Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture (London, 1973) and Les origines du christianisme latin (Paris, 1975), ET The Origins of Latin Christianity (London, 1977).



196 ROBERT MURRAY, S.J.

though it will remain valuable for his breadth of learning and frequent insight, is radically misguided. Features as 'Jewish' as anything in the first volume are placed in Vol. 2 (e.g. testimonia) and Vol. 3 (e.g. exempla); his conception of 'Judio-Christianisme' com- bines, and aggravates, all the confusions which it is hoped to clarify in the present article.

There are, of course, several useful surveys of the remaining evidence for the diversification ofJudaism at the time when Chris- tianity arose.'0 Yet the 'map' remains far from satisfactory. Not only are too many areas still quite obscure, but the categories which are generally used in attempts to fill in the map are themselves pro- blematic and fraught with variables. There are five headings under which I would try to analyse this dissatisfaction:

(1) Too many and too diverse groups are included under the terms 'Jewish' and 'Judaism'; clearer differentiation is needed both between mutually hostile movements and between later rabbinic Judaism and the earlier diversity.

(2) The category of 'Apocalyptic' is too frequently used as if it were clearly defined and locatable, which is far from being the case. The obscurity surrounding this term is at its worst when writers seem to regard it as virtually interchangeable with 'eschatology', itself another term enjoying poor definition."

(3) The nature and significance of Hellenistic Judaism is another focus of confusion, which flows over into discussion of Hellenistic Christianity and particular problems such as the identity of the 'Hellenists' in Acts 6 and how Stephen's speech and its tendency relate to them. Can 'Hellenistic' connote more than Greek language and education, so as to designate a distinct type of Judaism?12

10 Besides E. Schiirer's The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (Revised edition, Edinburgh, 1973-), see e.g. G. R. Driver, The Judaean Scrolls (Oxford, 1965), ch. II; M. Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins (London- Edinburgh, 1961), Part I; on the range of relevant literature, R. A. Kraft, "The Multiform Jewish Heritage of Early Christianity", in J. Neusner (n. 2 above), Vol. 3, pp. 174-199.

" Cf. (e.g.) W. G. Rollins, "The New Testament and Apocalyptic", NTS 17 (1970-71), 454-476; J. Barr, "Jewish Apocalyptic in Recent Study", BJRL 58 (1975), 9-35; M. Barker, "Slippery Words: III, Apocalyptic", ET 89 (1977-78), 324-329; T. F. Glasson, "What is Apocalyptic?", NTS 27 (1981), 98-105; C. C. Rowland, Review of L. Monloubou (ed.), Apocalypses et Thdologie de l'espirance, JTS, N.S. 32 (1981), 200-204; J. Carmignac, "Les dangers de l'eschatologie", NTS 17 (1970-71), 365-390; - Le Mirage de l'Eschatologie (Paris, 1979).

12 Cf. (e.g.) M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus (Tiibingen, 1968, 19732), ET




(4) Not surprisingly, the highly contagious malaise which, despite all efforts, still surrounds Gnosticism, its nature, forms and origin, cannot be kept away from our problem area. Whether, and in what sense, the roots of Gnosticism include relationships to Judaism-and if so, of what kind-remains a labyrinth, though one which does not deter adventurers.'3

(5) A number of other areas constantly cause trouble, but rather than add them to the foregoing list, it seems better to group them as factors working at a different level, affected by special interests (cf. Malina, n. 2 above, pp. 47-48) or by psychological or confessional tendencies. A number of presuppositions can often be observed, which call for analysis at a more subjective level. Some authors (for example, J. D. G. Dunn)'4 still regard 'Early Catholicism' as a useful category for analysis of the early Christian scene; I have become convinced that it is a German Protestant construct, of more use in ecumenical anatomy than in New Testament study. The same Lutheran heritage accounts for undercurrents of hostility to various areas of literature, especially outside the Protestant canon. Not the least troublesome feature of 'Apocalyptic' as a category is that it releases unstable emotional forces, as K. Koch has tried to analyse.'" Other examples of attitudes which seem to reflect subjective concerns are E. Yamauchi's anxiety to prove that there was no pre-Christian Gnosticism (cf. n. 13 above) and the distaste for Hellenistic Judaism analysed by S. Sandmel in his wise posthumous article (n. 12 above). I hope no remark in this fifth sec- tion will give offence. The critical references to denominational presuppositions have as their background many warm friendships and hours spent in illuminating discussion. In a field such as the

Judaism and Hellenism (London, 1974); I. H. Marshall, "Palestinian and Hellenistic Christianity: Some Critical Comments", NTS 19 (1972-73), 271-287; L. H. Feldman, "Hengel's Judaism and Hellenism in Retrospect", JBL 96 (1977), 371-382; S. Sandmel, "Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism and Christianity: The Question of the Comfortable Theory", HUCA 50 (1979), 137-148.

13 Cf. (e.g.) G. Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition (New York, 1960); R. McL. Wilson, "Jewish Christianity and Gnosticism" in Judio-Christianisme (n. 2 above), pp. 261-272; E. Yamauchi, Pre- Christian Gnosticism (London, 1973), ch. 9; A. F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden, 1977).

14 Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (London, 1977). Though I appreciate the "Unity" part of this work, the present article shows radical disagreement with the analysis of the "Diversity" part.

15 Ratlos vor der Apokalyptik (Giitersloh, 1970), ET The Rediscovery of Apocalyptic (London, 1972).




subject of the present article, I believe that factors in this fifth group have to be recognized and analysed if there is to be any further pro- gress.

Proposals for Definitions and Analysis

(1) Judaism' and Dissenting Groups. The terms 'Jews', 'Jewish' and 'Judaism' are commonly used to refer to all heirs of ancient Israelite Yahwism, often even including the Samaritans, though their attitude to the Judaeans obviously introduces tension and complication into the sense of 'Jew' (etc.).'6 The discovery of the Qumran sect (whether it is to be identified with the Essenes or not) revealed another disaffected group, but most scholars have been content to speak of 'sectarian Judaism' or some such term. While a comprehensive term will continue to be useful in some contexts, in others it now seems urgent to adopt a different set of terms than 'Jew' (etc.) to apply to those groups in the Israelite tradition which defined themselves over against the Jews. Such a distinction should bring more clarity to the discussion both of religious movements at the turn of the eras and, still more, of groups in the early Church. Personally I am more convinced of the need for clearer terminology than satisfied with any suggestion yet made. What follows is a basis for discussion rather than a thesis to be defended. As a starting- point I suggest two passages in Josephus. The first is where, a propos of the rebuilding of Jerusalem after the exile, he says that the name loudaioi dates from the time of the return from Babylon, is derived from the tribe ofJudah, and has come to be applied both to the people itself and to their country (A.J. XI, 5, 7, ? 173). The second is the story of how the Samaritans approached Alexander in hope of benefits (A.J. XI, 8, 6 ?? 340-44). Josephus says that Shechem was "inhabited by apostates from the Jewish people". The Samaritan envoys decided to call themselves Jews, as Josephus disapprovingly says they were ready to do in hope of profit (cf. A.J. XI,14, 3 ? 291); when challenged by Alexander, however, they replied that they were "Hebraioi" (and were called "the Sidonians of Shechem"), but not Jews, a disavowal which cost them the privileges they had hoped for (XI, 8, 6 ? 344). Though this passage does not entitle us to deduce without further evidence that any

16 For a detailed analysis of the problems surrounding the name see M. Lowe, "Who were the 'IOY'AAIOI?", NT 18 (1976), 101-130.




other group would use the same distinction between "Hebrews" and "Jews", we may suppose that this use of terms was available and might well have been commoner, whenever anyone of Israelite tradition wished to identify himself as such but in distinction from the Judaeans and those who looked to Jerusalem as their focus of identity and devotion. Accordingly I suggest that when the context concerns diversity of groups, we should use "Jewish" and "Judaism" to refer to those who (however much they might disagree among themselves), wished to identify themselves by relationship to Jerusalem, its temple and scribal establishment, whether they lived in Palestine or the diaspora, and whatever their vernacular and degree of hellenistic culture. In contrast, those who were hostile to Jerusalem and the temple might appropriately be called "Hebrews", though a qualifier such as "dissenting" is probably needed."7 A disadvantage is that Hebraios was in use with reference to language, while many of the groups in question will also have been penetrated by hellenistic culture and will have established themselves in the diaspora. Whatever term can win agreement, one thing seems clear: it causes confusion to call "Jews" people who did not wish to answer to the name, and who, even after becoming Christian, show a character distinct from that of the Christianity which can rightly be called "Jewish". For the rest of this article, at any rate, I shall try out "Hebrew" (with or without "dissenting") in the sense proposed.

It is to be hoped that more light will be shed on the origins of the dissenting groups which are distinguishable from the second century B.C.E. on. The Samaritans are the best and longest known, of course, though recent studies, especially by R. Coggins,18 show the extreme difficulty of establishing facts before the second century B.C.E. The Qumran sect, the identification of which is still discussed,1" is generally traced to the Maccabean Hasidim, but the literature produced, or at least treasured, at Qumran has features shared with some Samaritan traditions.20 In this investigation into

17 This suggestion is anticipated to some extent by M. Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins, pp. 78-9, and F. F. Bruce, "'To the Hebrews' or 'To the Essenes'?", NTS 9 (1962-63), 217-232, esp. 231-232.

18 Samaritans and Jews (Oxford, 1975); for a survey of literature see R. Pummer, "The Present State of Samaritan Studies",JSS 21 (1976), 39-61; 22 (1977), 27-47.

19 Cf. G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls. Qumran in Perspective (London, 1977), ch. 5.

20 Cf. J. Bowman, The Samaritan Problem (ET Pittsburgh, 1975), pp. 91-118.




"dissenting Hebrew" groups, 1 Enoch is attracting more and more attention. Recent work suggests that the circles it represents go back to the third century and opposition to the Jerusalem temple earlier than that which led the Qumran sect into the desert. The work of Nickelsburg, Suter and Stone21 offers hope that increasing light will be thrown on the conflicts in the pre-Hasmonean period. The remoter roots of the Enochian "alternative" have been pursued in a most suggestive article by Margaret Barker,22 but the research demanded is dauntingly vast. The period between the return from exile and Antiochus Epiphanes remains bafflingly obscure, and imaginative reconstructions such as that of Morton Smith23 are perhaps more dangerous than helpful. Echoes of conflict seem to sound clearly in some of the last eleven chapters of Isaiah, and obscurely in the second part of Zechariah, but despite another work of imaginative scholarship, Paul D. Hanson's The Dawn ofApocalyp- tic, 24 the problems of how the "''canonical"'' texts were produced and made acceptable to the scribal establishment remain acute. The whole question of the antecedents of the later oppositions remains a challenge to scholars.

(2) Apocalyptic and Eschatology. It is urgently necessary that these terms should be better defined than has yet been achieved, and that their degree of overlap should not be exaggerated. Meanwhile the discipline recommended by Carmignac and Glasson (n. 11 above), of trying to use other and clearer terms if possible, has much to be said for it. If "Apocalyptic" is to remain and serve a more useful purpose than heretofore, it should be used with reference to the analysis by J. Barr,25 who draws attention to four levels of data which need to be kept distinct: the levels of language, structure, symbolism referring to events, and doctrine (p. 16). But a fifth level needs to be borne in mind, that of politics. On this level the distinction between "Jews" in the restricted sense and "dissenting

21 For a survey cf. D. J. Harrington, "Research on the Jewish Pseudepigrapha during the 1970s", CBQ 42 (1980), 147-159, on pp. 151-152; also D. Suter, "Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest: The Problem of Family Purity in 1 Enoch 6-16", HUCA 50 (1979), 115-135.

22 "Reflections upon the Enoch Myth", JSOT 15 (1980), 7-29. 23 Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (New York, 1971),

esp. chapters VI and VII. My remark about this book should in no way detract from Morton Smith's manifold and valuable contribution to the problems discussed in the present article.

24 Philadelphia, 1975. 25 "Jewish Apocalyptic in Recent Study" (n. 11 above).




Hebrews" proves a key which turns in the lock as no other has done. Those who have regarded Daniel as the paradigm apocalyptic work and have used an undifferentiated concept ofJudaism have not been in a position to see Enoch in focus, as an expression of a different kind of "Apocalyptic", coming from a different milieu. Daniel is an edifying work for consumption within the Judaism of Jerusalem, and perhaps the only work showing "apocalyptic" features which was harmless enough to win a place in the canon.26 The second part of Daniel gives rise to the idea that "Apocalyptic" is essentially about the future and "eschatology". In contrast, Enoch is founded on something not found in Daniel, the myth of the origin of evil in the world through the conspiracy of the rebel angels and their teaching mankind things it would have been better not to know; this ancient myth leaves traces in Psalm 82 and Isaiah 24, and a fragment in Genesis 6, but one which no longer explains how the action of the "sons of the gods" actually caused evil. In Enoch this myth provides the key for interpreting all that the author deplores, such as the changing of the calendar by "sinners". His "eschatology" is determined by his myth of evil. The older parts of 1 Enoch are not messianic, though they look forward to an in- tervention by God. It remains debated whether the Parables, with the "Son of Man" figure, are really not pre-Christian or are from a strand of Enoch tradition which already existed but was not known (or favoured) by the Qumran sect. But even without the Parables, it is the Enochian picture of the state of the world, born in northern "dissenting Hebrew" circles, which offers the context for the earliest interpretation of Jesus' actions and reveals the kind of "Apocalyptic" which really illuminates the New Testament. In this perspective, clearly, the basis on which many features have been lumped together under the heading of "Apocalyptic" needs thorough re-examination.

(3) Hellenistic and PalestinianJudaism. With the above two sections the main proposals of this article have been made, and all else follows from applying them. It has already appeared in passing that I do not regard the distinction between Hellenistic and Palestinian Judaism as basic for identifying groups in the Israelite family. The fundamental divisions had a different origin, especially in disputes

26 This remark and those following show that I am persuaded by the argument of Mrs Barker (n. 22 above).




about lines of priesthood, and they worked at a different level, where the practical issues of life would depend on who was willing or not to eat with whom. The whole spectrum of "Jewish" and "dissenting Hebrew" groups was constituted by factors other than the impact of hellenistic culture. Palestine had perforce come under the influence of Greek armies and colonists since even before Alex- ander, and was increasingly affected by the all-pervasive cultural influence of Greek language and education."27 Not only the more open society of Galilee, Samaria and the Shephelah but also the more isolated enclave of Jerusalem and its surrounding country could not but absorb the influence. Further, the diaspora grew steadily and we can reasonably picture every group in the spectrum being represented there and retaining its character, as long as its sense of identity remained firm, whatever degree of hellenistic education its members might absorb. In this sense Philo, while reflecting no doubt some peculiarities of Egyptian Judaism, remains essentially a Jew who looks to Jerusalem as his focus, whereas the writer to the Hebrews, with his comparable degree of hellenistic polish, has not lost the features which suggest that both he and his addressees are by origin indeed "Hebrews" as understood in this essay. Hellenistic influence could also cross linguistic frontiers; thus D. Daube traces the rabbinic middoth to principles of hellenistic rhetoric,28 and the present writer has pursued similar lines of inquiry in early Syriac writers who knew no Greek.29

(4) Jewish and "Hebrew" Christianity. It must suffice here to in- dicate summarily the clarifications which are made possible by systematically using the proposed distinction. S. K. Riegel (n. 2 above) has come closest to this analysis, but his terminology (with "Judaistic" corresponding roughly to my "Hebrew") better fits the sub-apostolic period. The gospels show Jesus to some extent speaking the language,"3 and meeting the expectations, of northern

27 Cf. Morton Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics (n. 23 above), ch. III. 28 "Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation and Hellenistic Rhetoric", HUCA 22

(1949), 239-264. 29 R. Murray, "Some Rhetorical Patterns in Early Syriac Literature", in R. H.

Fischer (ed.), A Tribute to Arthur V66bus (Chicago, 1977), pp. 109-131; "Hellenistic-Jewish Rhetoric in Aphrahat", in Symposium Syriacum 1980 (forth- coming in OrChrAn, Rome).

30 This is as far as I go towards Schweitzer's "apocalyptic" picture. Despite endlessly repeated statements to the contrary, I believe that Schweitzer has been adequately answered (most recently by Carmignac, Le Mirage de l'Eschatologie - n.




"Hebrews",31 and the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" (and some of the "sinners" he accepted) may refer to groups "beyond the pale" of Pharisaic Judaism. Jesus appears to have deliberately broken down barriers in accepting disciples, and since he preached both in the north (including Samaria according to the Fourth Gospel) and in Judea, this implies accepting both Jews and "dissenting Hebrews", or at least people open to such influences. He provocatively cast a Samaritan as the hero of a story addressed to a Jewish scribe. We may suppose that he deliberately made for Jerusalem, not only because "a prophet must suffer there", but because he wanted his movement to take root there; and despite his death, engineered by the Sadducean establishment, it did indeed take root, however idealized the picture in Acts is. The new movement soon challenged Jerusalem Judaism with a new openness, first towards the impure dissenters, then towards Gentiles-a stepJesus himself appears not to have taken, though such openness was, perhaps, already expressed by the author of Enoch's view of the "sons of earth". This new openness is the standpoint of the Synop- tics, written as they are in Greek for anyone to read; but Matthew also represents the Church which took root in Jerusalem, and argues with the Jews, bitterly but yet "from within", though by the time his gospel was published, his Church was doubtless cut off for good from surviving Judaism. In contrast with the Synoptics, the Fourth Gospel seems to have developed within an increasingly isolated group, whose antecedents are likely to have been distinc- tively "dissenting Hebrew" if not actually Samaritan.32 Of the other New Testament books, some can be related to a "Jewish" background, others to a "dissenting Hebrew" one; others are chiefly interested in fostering harmony between them, and between native Israelite and Gentile Christians. This seems to be one of the clear concerns of Luke in Acts; yet it is he who gives us, in

11 above); for some shrewd remarks on this phenomenon, see T. F. Glasson,Jesus and the End of the World (Edinburgh, 1980), p. 3.

31 Cf. M. Black (n. 17 above, ch. IV; P. Parker, "Mark, Acts and Galilean Christianity", NTS 16 (1969-70), 295-304; M. Goulder, "The Two Roots of the Christian Myth", in J. Hick (ed.), The Myth of God Incarnate (London, 1977), pp. 64-86.

32 See J. D. Purvis, "The Fourth Gospel and the Samaritans", NT 17 (1975), 161-198, with the previous recent literature listed there, p. 161, n. 1 and Wayne A. Meeks, "'Am I a Jew?' Johannine Christianity and Judaism", in J. Neusner (ed.), Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults (Leiden, 1975), Vol. 1, pp. 163-186.




Stephen's speech, perhaps the most unmistakable expression of "dissenting Hebrew" criticism of Judaism, whether or not we agree with A. Spiro in identifying Stephen's background as Samaritan.33 Incidentally, Acts 6 illustrates well the reigning confusion regarding groups in Judaism. I suggest that the "Hellenists" and "Hebrews" here are merely linguistic groups and that the dispute was not ideological. The committee of seven would have been chosen to represent both sides, and the fact of all the names being Greek is accidental and not surprising in contemporary Palestine.34 Stephen's ideology is not defined till he makes it clear by his speech, and "Hellenist" is not the name for it.

James is the most wholly "Jewish" work in the New Testament, as we would expect. The quality of its Greek does not tell against either its coming from the Jerusalem Church or an early date. I suggest that it is indeed early, written in good Greek on behalf of James, and addressed as it says, to diaspora Jews, its Christian content being somewhat concealed; those who were attracted would be "followed up" locally. 1 Peter, which has significant passages verbally very close to James," also reflects the early Jerusalem Church's preaching, though the "spirits in prison" (3:19) belong to the Enochian world, as do Jude and 2 Peter; these are predominantly "Hebrew" in character but speak for the new unity against extremist excesses.

What of Paul? He is, as he says in Gal 1:13-14, "Jewish" in origin ('EppEorSo i 'Epp(c.ov in Philip. 3:5 probably refers to language), and his first zeal may well have been against "dissenting Hebrews", and then against the new Christian movement as an even worse form of dissent. If this were so, his conversion to Jesus, represented by "Hebrew" disciples in Damascus, also meant mak- ing peace with dissenters. This could help to explain his subsequent intense concern with reconciliation. Tension between Jews and

33 Appendix V, "Stephen's Samaritan Background", in J. Munck, The Acts of The Apostles (Anchor Bible, Garden City, New York, 1967), pp. 285-300; C. H. H. Scobie, "The Origins and Development of Samaritan Christianity", NTS 19 (1972-73), 390-414, esp. 391-400; see relevant entries in the survey by E. Grisser, "Acta-Forschung seit 1960", Theologische Rundschau 41 (1976), 141-94, 259-90 and 42 (1977), 279-359.

34 SoJ. Munck in Anchor Bible (n. 33 above), pp. 56-57. 35 See M.-E. Boismard, "Une liturgie baptismale dans la Prima Petri, II: Son

influence sur l'Epitre deJacques", RB 64 (1957), pp. 161-183; the point to which I refer does not depend on the baptismal liturgy theory (which I do not follow).




"dissenting Hebrews" may have continued to plague Paul, and application of this distinction may perhaps throw more light on the troubles in Galatia, Corinth, Colossae, Jerusalem and finally in Rome.

Hebrews, as already hinted, seems to be addressed to Christians from a "dissenting Hebrew" background, for whom the Jerusalem temple is not an experienced reality; their eyes are rather focused on the idea of the desert tabernacle, to be spoken of in the timeless present. A method of asking the text which are the significant points that the author has to argue and which he can introduce without ef- fort, suggests that the addressees have become followers ofJesus as Messiah, interpreting this in terms of angel, new Moses and new Joshua (antitype of both the son of Nun and the later high priest). The author, probably of the same background, has come close to Paul and, in the light of Pauline Christology, sees the Hebrews' naive and undeveloped view of Jesus as too incoherent to sustain their faith in persecution (by Jews?); they have got dangerously isolated and if they stay where they are they will find they are no longer with Christ. They must go on pilgrimage, above all spiritual- ly, in the direction of the developing Christology and fuller life of the Pauline churches. Both the author and presumably his readers are well educated in hellenistic rhetoric; they could belong to a dissenting synagogue in Rome.

To conclude this rapid sketch, or series of hints for future investigation, Revelation also suggests a "dissenting Hebrew" standpoint, drawing on a wide range of Old Testament sources, but all in all far closer to Enoch than to Daniel. This may throw light on the "false Jews" and other adversaries in the seven churches, and on the enigma of chapter 11, which may betray ancient hostile attitudes to Jerusalem.

(5) The Sub-Apostolic Church. Increasingly we have to consider not merely "Jews" and "Hebrews" who have become Christians, but also converts from outside the Israelite world. Some will have been proselytes to Judaism or correspondingly introduced to dissenting groups; among new converts, some might well be attracted by Christians of one or the other tendency, and acquire some corresponding characteristics, though within an essential unity of faith and sense of discipleship of Jesus. For characteristics relating to "Judaism" in the sense proposed here, I suggest "Judaistic"; for features with "Hebrew" affinities, a new term would be desirable.




If my proposals so far win support (which is hardly to be hoped for), "Hebraistic" would be logical, but it is neither transparent nor at- tractive. This is, of course, the area on which Danidlou concen- trated in his picture of "Judio-christianisme", with his main focus on "Apocalyptic"; the distinctions proposed in this article can clarify his confused analysis and enable us to appreciate better his contributions of lasting value. So far, our analysis has worked forward from the pre-Christian divisions in the Israelite family. Now we have sources to work back from as well: the statements of Chris- tian writers such as Eusebius and Epiphanius about Jewish and Christian sects, the Pseudo-Clementines, the documents of con- troversy with Jews, and the special features of early Syriac Chris- tianity which point back to Palestine but more to groups which were developing celibacy than to Jerusalem Judaism.36 Early Christiani- ty comprised a complex spectrum, just as the Israelite family had done before. At some time between the late first and late second centuries, all the Christian churches came to a breaking-point in relation to the forms of the parent faith to which they had been especially related. No date can be given for this breach; it was hap- pening at various times in different places, though presumably the most decisive single events were the two disastrous Jewish revolts against Rome. Those who had pinned their hopes on those ventures could never forgive those who had not stood with them. The rem- nants of the intellectual leadership of Judaism carried through a re-organization which laid the foundations for a unified Judaism on Pharisaic lines, defined absolutely over against any form of realized messianism. Liberal hellenistic Judaism in the diaspora doubtless flowed almost entirely into Christianity; of the "Hebrew" movements, Samaritanism had long since established an identity which would survive, but other groups probably flowed into that Syriac-speaking Christianity which at first seems to have continued to reflect the diversity of its sources; yet even after it established a fairly unified character, it remained somehow redolent of "dissenting Hebrew" origins, though the features commonly con- sidered typical of "Apocalyptic" are rare in early Syriac literature.

36 Space forbids an adequate expansion of this summary sentence or an appropriate bibliography, which would, of course, be enormous. On the last point see M. Black (n. 17 above), pp. 27-32, 83-88; - "The Tradition of Hasidean-Essene Asceticism: Its Origins and Influence", in Aspects du Judio-Christianisme (Paris, 1965), pp. 19-32; A. Guillaumont, "A propos du cdlibat des Essiniens", in Hom- mages & Andrd Dupont-Sommer (Paris, 1971), pp. 395-404.




The whole "map" of early Christianity, in all its forms and con- nexions, calls for more sociological analysis, and that of the greatest possible perceptiveness and command of relevant detail.37 Precious data such as Justin's analysis of the conditions for compatibility of Christianity with Jewish practice (Dial. 47) or the Christ-prophet theology of Peter's speech in Clem. Recog. I (esp. 40-51) must be brought into relationship with relevant details from many sources -historical, religious, epigraphic and so on. One of the most illuminating areas for examination is the rise of celibate asceticism in early Christianity, and more broadly, negative attitudes to sex- uality.38 The task is far more complicated than merely unravelling the "Jewish" and "Hebrew" legacies. There is the whole Gnostic phenomenon to be located on our "map". While many elements in Gnosticism clearly come from the melting-pot of syncretistic religion and magic, others point back to antecedents in the heritage of Israel. Here again the distinction between "Jewish" and "dissenting Hebrew" will help in the impasse which has arisen over the question of Jewish influences on Gnosticism, or whether the Merkabah movement can be described as a Jewish form of Gnosis.39 At least the tracks which have led to Qumran and the Enoch literature suggest that it is among the "Hebrew" groups, rather than in early Pharisaic Judaism, that we shall find most light on the problem of Gnostic origins.

In the second century the Christian churches had to define themselves not only over against their Jewish and "Hebrew" cradles, but also against movements of over-reaction, in the form of Marcion's violently anti-Jewish dualism and Gnostic denial of the goodness of this world. Some of the animus of these movements may well be traceable to "Hebrew" hostility and not merely to new developments. But the possibility of understanding the old distinctions was increasingly lost by those who had personally had nothing to do with them. The affirmations which Christians saw they had to make in order to remain faithful to Jesus committed the Church un- compromisingly to the Old Testament, and therefore made Chris-

37 For a survey see D. J. Harrington, "Sociological Concepts and the Early Church", TS 41 (1980), 181-190.

38 Cf. R. Murray, "The Exhortation to Candidates for Ascetical Vows at Bap- tism in the Early Syriac Church", NTS 21 (1974-75), 59-80, with much recent literature listed there. The markedly non-encratite passages in the Pseudo- Clementines (art. cit., p. 71) still call for more study.

39 Cf. n. 13 above.




tians suppose that the love-hate relationship to which they were bound was with contemporary, reorganized, Judaism; yet probably many features of this tension went back to older tensions. Is it possible that the charge against the Jews that they crucified Jesus (very explicit in Melito and early Syriac writers) was formulated by angry Galileans before ever it was by non-Israelite Gentiles? Such and many other questions can be raised by the proposed analysis. The preceding sketch is simply a suggestion for discussion and, at best, a programme for new lines of investigation. I hope it will gain a hearing and will be judged useful.



Documents

Jews, Hebrews and Christians: Some Needed Distinctions