HIST 328

Adversus IudaeosLiterature and theNature of Jewish-Christian Relations

in EarlyChristianity(70-200 C.E.)

Taylor Warren12/20/2012

Warren 1

I. Introduction

The growth of Christianity from a sect of Judaism into a

completely separate religion in its own right did not happen

overnight. In the years after the death of Jesus, from c. 33 AD

onwards, the emerging Christian movement continued to preach in

synagogues (most famously recorded in the Book of Acts) and generally

considered other Jews to be their brethren, a sentiment that was

reciprocated by Jews, despite not agreeing that Jesus was the Jewish

messiah. For approximately the first one and a half centuries of

Christianity’s existence, many Christians, both proto-orthodox and

otherwise, adopted a defensive tone in their apologetics, stressing

their compatibility with the establishment and the legitimacy of

their own beliefs. It was only in the second century onwards that

written sources, largely from theologians and religious authorities,

began to denounce both the Jewish faith and (arguably) the Jewish

people. This genre of literature is referred to by church historians

and theologians as “Adversus Iudaeos” (Against the Jews).

Warren 2

In spite of their condemnation of Jewish practice, these

polemical writings maintained a respect towards the Old Testament,

while often taking views on the Mosaic Law which varied from merely

arguing, in the same vein as Paul of Tarsus, that the Mosaic Law was

fulfilled and thus irrelevant, to arguing that the Jews had never

followed the Law properly to begin with. With such ferocious

condemnations against Jewish practice, many scholars have concluded

that Jewish practices must have been common enough among both Jewish

and gentile Christians for such condemnations to be formulated in the

first place, and that interactions between Jews and Christians were

common enough and cordial enough to generate constructive dialogue

that may have been adapted by writers of this genre. In light of

scholarly insight on the matter, what can the Adversus Iudaeos

literature of the second century tell us about how Jews and

Christians viewed one another socially and spiritually, and does the

existence of the genre challenge preconceived notions about a rift

between the two faiths that had started that century?

The acerbic tone of these writings, on top of a number of

milestone events in Jewish history, have caused many writers to have

historically marked the second century as the beginning of a long

Warren 3

trend of Christian anti-Semitism. It has been assumed by some

scholars that it was the declaration of figures such as Simon Bar

Kokhba in the Rebellion in 135 or the reluctance of Jewish Christians

to participate in the rebellion of AD 70 that marked the a definite

splitting of ways between Jews and Christians1. The Adversus Iudaeos

literature was thus a logical extension of the proto-orthodox

Christian desire to self-identify themselves as wholly different from

the Jews in spite of their similarities. However, others have argued

that rather than acting solely as polemic works, Adversus Iudaeos

literature represented an attempt to engage the Jewish community,

with ancient uses of rhetoric that seem harsh to modern western

readers, but were common in a Hellenic context during late antiquity.

II. Background and Limitations of Text

One problem with research in this field is the current dearth of

available apologetics on the part of what I will refer to as proto-

rabbinical Jews during this time period. Debate continues among

scholars about whether any of the figures referred to as “Jesus” in

the Babylonian Talmud are Jesus of Nazareth. The first explicitly

anti-Christian writing, the Toledoth Yeshu, is dated no earlier than

1 Cohen, Jeremy. Essential Papers on Judaism and Christianity in Conflict: From Late Antiquity to the Reformation. New York: New York University Press, 1991. 28.

Warren 4

the sixth century, with its compilation dating past the tannaitic

period.2 In light of its questionable dating and recognition, it

cannot be relied upon as a possible anti-Christian polemic in the

same way the Adversus Iudaeos literature was. While there are some

passages from the Sanhedrin that will be drawn on in this paper, the

use of the Babylonian Talmud as a basis for anti-Christian polemics

will be absent.

The texts explored will be limited to the works of the second

and late first century, largely due to this time period being set

aside traditionally by many scholars as the relative time period in

which Christianity supposedly set itself apart from Judaism. The

exception to this will be the Pseudo-Clementine letters, some of

which date into the third and fourth centuries onward, for the sake

of providing a counterbalance for (possibly) Jewish-Christian voices.

These selections of Adversus Iudaeos literature that will be used

will include Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (written c. 150

CE), The Epistle of Barnabas (c. 100 CE), and Tertullian’s “Against

the Jews” (written c. 195). Before the relevant texts can be

discussed, a background of Jewish-Christian relations during the

second and late first century ought to be provided. During the latter

2 Ibid, 29.

Warren 5

half of the first century CE, most Christians were seen as fellow

Jews. Church historian Norbert Brox notes how that in the beginning

“…Judaism already consisted of different religious parties, so that a

new trend (within Judaism) was not in itself either a sensation or a

scandal.”3 Christians continued to preach in synagogues, observe

Jewish dietary and moral law, and read from the same scriptures. The

only consequential difference between Christians and their Jewish

counterpoints at this time as far (as the rest of the Jewish

community was concerned) was their belief that Jesus Christ was the

messiah as prophesized in Scripture, and that he would return shortly

to complete his messianic work.

While many scholars are quick to point out that despite possibly

closer relationships than scholars of the past have typically

reckoned, there still remained a noticeable difference between the

two faiths that many on both sides as well as well as among the

pagans were aware of. Skarsaune points out that “Celsus in the 170s

seems not to have any problem in distinguishing Jews from Christians,

in spite of the fact that he knew that many Christians were ethnic

Jews.”4

3 Brox, Norbert. A Concise History of the Early Church. 4. 4 Skarsaune, Oskar, and Reidar Hvalvik. Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries. 9.

Warren 6

Some have pointed out that Rabbinical Judaism was no more of a

logical extension of Second Temple Judaism than Christianity was. In

his essay “Semantic Differences or Judaism/Christianity”, Jewish

Historian Daniel Boyarin goes as far as to say that “Judaism...is not

the parent religion to Christianity; indeed, in some respects the

opposite may be true.”5. Reasons given for this idea include, in

brief, the glorification of celibacy among many Jewish groups, and

the lack of any Hebrew word for someone who was specifically “Jewish”

(as opposed to “Judean”, which many Christians identified as), until

the advent of rabbinic literature. Jewishness was seen as an ethnic

marker, rather than a religious one. Paul’s dual comparison of “Jews”

and “Greeks” was out of an intention of comparing opposites in the

same way “slave” and “free” and “man” and “woman” were opposites.6

One traditional and oft-repeated counter-argument against early

cooperation between Jews and Christians is the supposedly common

Jewish persecution of Christians that occurred at this time period.

This idea, passed down through hagiography and more dated forms of

scholarship, presents itself as far more ambiguous in reality as

previously imagined. While some persecution of Christians on the part

5 Becker, Adam H, and Annette Yoshiko Reed. The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. 65.6 Ibid.

Warren 7

of Jewish authorities did exist, largely during incidents such as the

Bar Kokhba Rebellion in 130 AD and largely out of the refusal of

Jewish Christians to recognize Bar Kokhba as the messiah, such cases

were far more uncommon than previously thought. Overall, as historian

Stephen G. Wilson writes

“There is sufficient evidence, from different periods and

different places, to suggest that Jews did oppose Christians in a

number of different ways and that this led to death and corporal

punishment (rarely), expulsion, rumor mongering, and the

like...Jewish opposition was confined largely to the implementation

of synagogue discipline.”7

Another point to make is the difference between “Judaizer” and

Jewish Christian. The former term was used primarily by proto-

orthodox Christians to specify Christians that supposedly were trying

to introduce Jewish concepts into “orthodox” Christian practice. The

latter is commonly refers to Jewish converts who continued to

practice the Mosaic Law after converting. Both terms are highly

problematic, as historian Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert points out. In

her essay on Early Christian Anti-Judaism, she states that:

“Not all born Jews or Jewish converts to Christianity necessarily

7 Wilson, Stephen G. Related Strangers: Jews and Christians. 175.

Warren 8

continue their observance of Jewish ritual or Law after baptism. Nor

is there any reason why some Gentile Christians should not have

remained unconvinced by Pauls’ rejection of the Law. In other words,

ethnic identity does not and cannot predict or determine theology or

ideology.”8

Often, the traits that marked Jewish Christians in the eyes of

rabbinical and patristic authorities were dependent on circumstance

or climate, and done primarily to reinforce authority on the part of

those doing the condemning.

Scholars note that the prevalence of Adversus Iudaeos literature

beyond the second century indicates that Judaic practices within

gentile Christianity and perhaps Jewish Christianity itself continued

to thrive well after the Jewish Rebellions of the first and second

centuries. Even in the fourth century, Christian leaders such as St.

John Chrysostom, the Archbishop of Constantinople, were decrying

Christians who continued to adhere to Jewish diets, attend

synagogues, and celebrate Jewish holidays9. Christianity’s Jewish

roots stubbornly held on to the Church even as gentiles began to

outnumber Jews. In response to this, the clergy must have felt it

8 Fonrobert, Charlotte Elisheva. "Jewish Christians, Judaizers, and Christian Anti-Judaism." In A Late Ancient Christianity. 252.9 Ibid, 239.

Warren 9

necessary to formerly distinguish themselves from Jews and condemn

their practices as incompatible. Many Christian writers, most of them

gentiles, alongside condemning pagans and heretics, began to condemn

Jews.

III. Texts and Scholarly Perspectives

Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho was written in Greek in around

ca. 155 CE, and survives primary within in a fourteenth century

French manuscript named Paris 450. Currently scholarly consensus

maintains that Justin is the genuine author of this dialogue. In

light of its authenticity, its completeness, and its influence on

later Christian writers, plus the fact that it happens to be the

earliest piece of Adversus Iudaeos literature that has managed to

survive, the Dialogue presents itself as a useful source for Christian

perspectives on Judaism during the second century onwards on the part

of gentile proto-orthodox Christians, many of whom had a much more

complex and even positive relationship with proto-Rabbinical Jews

than most scholars have historically assumed.

Within the Dialogue, Justin Martyr engages in a dialogue with a

Jewish rabbi named Trypho.10 There is currently no evidence that such

10 Horner, Timothy J. Listening to Trypho. 15.

Warren 10

a figure actually existed, and it is probable that Justin fabricated

the figure for use in his dialogue, although some have theorized that

Trypho may have been intended to represent Tarfon, an early

rabbinical scholar, who according to legend had been accused of

burning Christian books and ordering the deaths of Christians11.

Topics debated include the veracity of Jesus as the messiah, the

practice of the Mosaic Law in light of this, typology in the Old

Testament that Justin feels points to Jesus, and the status of Jews

in light of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection.

The Dialogues begin with Justin giving a brief summary of his

spiritual journey to Christianity, noting his intellectual forays

amongst the Stoics, Pythagoreans, Aristotelians, and Platonists. With

each of them, he is eventually driven away by their failure to

adequately convince him of the nature of truth, with the Platonists

being the only ones who come close. The Pythagorist drives him away

purely by demanding money of him for his services. The main turning

point in which Justin was convinced of Christianity being the true

faith happens when he recounts an incidence in which he encountered a

man who showed him the beauty of divine revelation. After lecturing

the man on the usefulness of reason in knowing the divine, the old

11 "Tarfon." Jewish Encyclopedia (1906).

Warren 11

man responds “Does philosophy, then mean happiness?” (Justin 524),

and adds to the old man that it “is the knowledge of that which

really exists.” (Justin 524). The man then points out that both God

and philosophy are one in the same.

By Chapter Seven, the old man convinces Justin that the only

thinkers who can truly know God are prophets. The old man concludes

saying “There existed, long before this time, certain men more

ancient than all those esteemed philosophers...who spoke by the

Divine Spirit,” and that they drew their authority by “these things

cannot be perceive or understood by all, but only by the man to whom

God and His Christ have imparted wisdom.” (Justin 531). When Trypho's

companions snicker at Justin telling Trypho about his belief in Jesus

as the Messiah, Trypho says to Justin “I rose up and was about to

leave, but he, taking hold of my garment, said I should not

accomplish that until I had performed what I promised.”12.The fact

that Justin Martyr cites divine revelation as the focal issue that

allowed for him to convert to Christianity is a strikingly “Jewish”

one. While the various pagan schools he had been involved with

earlier had stressed philosophy as a way to learn about the divine,

Justin finds them intellectually inept and that all ultimately fall

12 Roberts, Alexander, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. 533.

Warren 12

short of the power of divine inspiration so often found in the Hebrew

Bible.

His decision to appeal to the prophets, namely Isaiah, to

condemn the Hebrew people as fallen away further reflects both the

reverence given to the Hebrew Bible by even gentile Christians of the

time, while at the same time making clear what he feels to be

differences between himself and Trypho. In Chapter Twelve he mirrors

the condemnations of the Major Prophets by comparing Trypho to the

Jews of Israel and Judah who had forgotten the law and as a result

were punished as a nation. He proclaims “This same law you have

despised, and His new holy covenant you have slighted; and now you

neither receive it, nor repent of your evil deeds.” (Justin 537).

His appeals to the condemnations of both Isaiah and the other major

prophets highlights his willingness to use the scriptures of the Jews

to argue against them, as was so often done when Jews argued against

one another.

In spite of Justin’s use of Jewish texts, he nevertheless takes

a negative view towards the Mosaic Law, mirroring Paul in his

declaration in Chapter Sixteen and Seventeen that the Law of Moses

was given to the Hebrews purely out due to their iniquity as a

Warren 13

people. He claims “...the circumcision according to the flesh, which

is from Abraham, was given for a sign; that you may be separated from

other nations, and from us; and that you alone may suffer that which

you now justly suffer.” (Justin 543). Justin cites figures such as

Abel and Enoch as proof that following God’s will did not inherently

require following the Mosaic Law. God’s decision to implement kosher

laws came out of a similar mindset, with Justin remarking that the

Jews were notorious in becoming so fat and content with food that

they would regularly go and sin thereafter. He claims that “you were

commanded to abstain from certain kinds of good, in order that you

might keep God before your eyes while you ate and drank, seeing that

you were prone and very ready to depart from His knowledge,” (Justin

547). In spite of Justin's use of the Hebrew Bible, a distinct anti-

Mosaic streak can be ascertained from the writings. The reasoning

behind this may actually be a result of other Jewish-Christian

dialogues that were taking place that very century.

Many scholars have speculated on his use of Jewish Christian

sources and even uniquely post-Temple Jewish teachings against

Trypho. Much like other Christian intellectuals of his time and era,

Justin makes heavy use of typology and also allegoric exegesis to

Warren 14

point out how the various theophanies in the Old Testament were

actually epiphanies of the Son. Oskar Skarsaune makes note here that

Justin's choice of passages to use as examples (Genesis 19:24, Psalm

110:1 and Psalm 45:6-7) mirrors almost precisely another debate

between Jewish Christians and proto-rabbinical Jews roughly during

the same period as Justin's career.13

According to Isidore Epstein's translation of the Babylonian

Talmud: Seder Nezikin and Sanhedrin, there was a debate between a

“Jewish heretic” and Rabbi Ishmael ben Jose (c. 180 CE) on whether

God is made up of more than one person, according to Genesis 19:24.

Based on the quotation, Skarsoune concludes that “there is no

question of scriptural idiom here; the whole context shows that one

of the Angels visiting Abraham was called Lord, and that he was

different from the Father in heaven.”14 This strengthens the theory of

a Jewish-Christian dialogue in Pella soon after the failure of the

Jewish rebellions, which Justin would have drawn off of. Therefore,

despite Justin's condemnation of Jewish unbelief in Jesus, the

possible Jewish influence within his writings gives demonstrates the

possibility of a close connection between Jews and Christian writers

13 Skarsaune, Oskar, and Reidar Hvalvik. Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries. 512.14 Skarsaune, Oskar, and Reidar Hvalvik. Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries. 401.

Warren 15

who were perceived as Jewish by their non-Christian Jewish

counterparts.

Archbishop Demetrios Traketellis has speculated on Justin's

interaction with Trypho as being a sign of a cordial relationship,

rather than an antagonistic screed. In his paper “Justin Martyr’s

Trypho” he remarks that, right of the bat, “Trypho...is an authentic

Jew. With an undeniable eagerness for learning...”15, and that he “he

energetically seizes the opportunity, when she sees it, for a

fruitful discussion.”16 Trypho remains intellectually honest and

willing to hear his faith challenged. Even when in the heat of the

debate, in Chapter Forty-Five, Trypho remarks at one point, “Even

though I seem to interrupt these subjects, which you say must be

examined, yet as the question which I desire to propose is pressing,

suffer me first to bring it forward (Justin 10). Such politeness

during the debate leads Archbishop Demetrius to conclude that

“Whether he accuses Justin or whether he agrees with him…Trypho is

portrayed by Justin as a gentleman and as an indefatigable explorer

of the truth, enjoying deeply the ongoing theological interaction

with his Christian interlocutor.”17 In brief, Demetrius concludes that

15 Trakatellis, Demetrios . "Justin Martyr's Trypho." 290.16 Ibid.17 Trakatellis, Demetrios . "Justin Martyr's Trypho." 294.

Warren 16

not only was Justin making use of Jewish argumentative techniques,

but that his tone was not intentionally antagonistic, and his

condemnations of the Jewish people should not be taken at face value.

Some contest that Justin’s writings are in fact not an accurate

representation of the beliefs of the average gentile proto-orthodox

Christian believer, with scholars such as Adam H. Becker arguing for

the existence of a continuing dialogue of understanding that lasted

well into the early middle ages. In the introduction to the book The

Ways that Never Parted, he remarks that “Contrary to the parting

model, our sources suggest that developments in both traditions

continued to be shaped by contacts between Jews and Christians, as

well as by their shared cultural contexts.”18 While religious

historian Daniel Boyarin argues that there was no definitive line

between Jew and Christian until the second century, and that Justin

Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho essentially “invented” Rabbinical Judaism.

Boyarin justifies this by pointing out that in the second

century, ongoing debate still raged among proto-rabbinical Jews about

the Logos being a “part” of God in the same way that Christians felt

Jesus to be. Boyarin goes on to explain that the purposes of self-

18 Becker, Adam H, and Annette Yoshiko Reed. The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. 2.

Warren 17

identity rotate the entire conversation. He points out that Justin

Martyr mentions how he “has been accused of ditheism from within the

Christian world because of his logos theology.”19 In order to

compensate for this, Justin must lump together Trypho and the other

Jews who do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah in with those that

Justin perceives to be heretics. By framing the debate over whether

or not Jesus is the Logos, Justin is able to create “a double

construction of Jews and heretics—or rather, of Judaism and

heresy--..serves to produce a secure religious identity, a self-

definition for Christians.”20. The construction of Trypho thus serves

the purpose of legitimizing and isolating Justin's belief about

Jesus, although the Dialogue is still written with the purpose of

refuting heresy in mind more than it is attacking Judaism.

The Epistle of Barnabas, dated slightly earlier than Justin

Martyr’s Dialogue, demonstrates an apparent split between Jews and

Christians through its wholesale reinterpretation of the Mosaic Law.

The epistle was almost certainly not written by the apostle Barnabas

himself. More likely, it was written by an anonymous Greek Christian

no earlier than 70 CE (likely well into the first century), and was

19 Ibid, 38.20 Ibid, 39.

Warren 18

preserved in the Codex Sinaiticus, which was compiled in the fourth

century CE. The epistle has a number of gnostic elements, namely the

statement that the epistle is bestowing divine knowledge (gnosis) to

its readers. Nevertheless, most scholars agree that it is not a

“gnostic” text per se, and likely reflects the attitudes of many

proto-orthodox Christians who were opposing what they saw as

Judaizing trends within the Church, spite of the likelihood that the

author was a Jewish Christian himself.21 Although non-canonical, it

nevertheless demonstrates a viewpoint within the second century that

all Jewish practices as currently practiced by the Jews were to be

driven out from the church, while maintaining the importance of the

Old Testament and Law, which Pseudo-Barnabas strikingly claims were

never followed properly by Jews to begin with.22

Examples of explicit anti-Jewish polemics in Barnabas’s writings

begin in the third chapter. The second chapter has the same Pauline

feel to it that Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho has, with the author

exhorting his readers to abandon the Jewish law which had been

thoroughly fulfilled by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The epistle then takes a sharp and more acerbic tone in the next

21 Schaff, Phillip . "Barnabas." In Epistle of Barnabas. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1885. 364-403. 366.22 Ibid.

Warren 19

chapter, in which the author, in the same manner as Justin, quotes

directly from the Book of the Prophet Isaiah in order to demonstrate

to his readers the utter failure of the Jewish people in keeping

their laws or being pleasing in the eyes of God. He quotes Isaiah

when he asks “Why do ye fast to Me as on this day, saith the Lord,

that your voice should be heard with a cry? I have not chosen this

fast, saith the Lord, that a man should humble his soul. Nor, though

ye bend your neck like a ring, and put upon you sackcloth and ashes,

will ye call it an acceptable fast.” (Isaiah 58:4-5). This wholesale

condemnation of the Jewish people as never truly being “chosen”

begins to be the focal point of the writings.

In chapter ten, the author goes as far as to say that the kosher

laws did not advocate abstinence from literal foods, but rather

certain actions that were poetically described by using animals.

“Moses,”, according to the author, “spoke with a spiritual

reference.” (Barnabas 10). By asking men to refrain from swine, Moses

was actually telling believers to not act as pigs do. Likewise,

abstaining from hawks or eagles was out of a desire to earn food by

the sweat of one’s brow and not by acting in the selfish manner of a

carrion bird. The true meaning of the kosher dietary laws were only

Warren 20

truly revealed under Jesus, who circumcised the hearts and ears of

men in order that they might finally understand. (Barnabas 10).

Through this chapter, Pseudo-Barnabas proclaims more than a mere

fulfillment of the law, going as far to declare that the “law” was

never practiced properly to begin with.

A revisionist view of the Sabbath also plays a major role in the

epistle. The author claims that God’s practice in Genesis of resting

on the seventh day does not in turn imply that the seventh day of the

week should be set aside for rest, but rather that the seventh day

represents an age after six thousand years in which Jesus would come

to redeem the world. Pseudo-Barnabas once again uses Isaiah as a

proof text in order to solidify his anti-Jewish message, claiming

“This implies that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand

years, for a day is with Him a thousand years.” (Barnabas 15). Like

before, a spiritualization of the text is necessary for the Mosaic

Law to be properly critiqued.

Perhaps most strikingly, Barnabas attacks the very concept of

the temple system. The Jews only hope in vain in building an edifice

that can even begin to be pleasing unto God, while the destruction of

the various temples throughout the history of the Jewish people

Warren 21

stands as a testament to God’s displeasure with the entire temple

system. This appears to directly contradict the command in Scripture

for King Solomon to build such a temple in the first place, and for

the Prophet Ezra to rebuild it centuries later. As before however,

Pseudo-Barnabas adapts a more allegorical exegesis of what the

building and adoration of a temple is supposed to actually mean,

which the Jews had always failed to understand.

The author’s anti-Judaic interpretations of the Hebrew Bible

give way to an exhortation of the author for his readers to “receive”

the wisdom of God. Some scholars have gone so far as to note that

Pseudo-Barnabas makes use of “gnostic” elements in order to oppose

Jewish practices. In the second chapter, Barnabas claims that while

fear and patience are helper of the faith, “Wisdom, Understanding,

Science, and Knowledge rejoice along with them.” (Barnabas 2), with

works being completely useless. In doing this, the author of Barnabas

curiously implies a condemnation of Judaism that not even the likes

of Marcion, who concedes the divinity of the Demiurge and his laws,

went so far as to hold.

Scholars have long questioned the motive of Barnabas, and what

his epistle was actually intended to entail. James Rhodes has noted

Warren 22

considerable discrepancies between the Latin and Greek versions of

the text, particularly the phrase “I ask you…to be on guard now, and

not to be like certain people…claiming that your covenant is

irrevocably yours.”23 (Rhodes 370). Rhodes claims that the audience

of the passage is not entirely clear due to this statement, and that

some scholars have taken the liberty in filling in the blanks with

language that indicates that Pseudo-Barnabas is both speaking with

gentile Christians and speaking against Jews. When Barnabas then says

that “It is, in fact, ours; those people, by contrast, lost it

completely…” (Barnabas 2), he may be, in fact, addressing a gentile

audience that was overconfident in their sense of righteousness due

to possessing a “new” covenant. Rhoes notes that “Barnabas does not

want his audience to have a false sense of security because, in his

view, the fate of Israel demonstrates…that the convent can be lost if

one does not live up to it.”24 (Rhodes 386). Rhodes also theorizes

that, should Barnabas be an ethnically Jewish author, he may be

addressing a Jewish audience, but not in a polemical way. Rather, he

is openly questioning the Mosaic Law’s validity out of a sense of

despair in the wake of the Second Temple’s destruction. With the

23 Rhodes, James N. . "Barnabas 4.6B: The Exegetical Implications of a Textual Problem." 386.24 Ibid, 387.

Warren 23

notion that there may be something fundamentally flawed with the

common translations of the epistle, Rhodes questions whether the

letter can properly be called anti-Judaic.

Many other scholars have speculated that the purpose of the

epistle was to drive a wedge between the Jewish and Christian

communities. In his introduction to his own translation, Bart D.

Ehrman notes that the work may, based on the language, be a response

to competition from an unnamed Jewish messianic movement in conflict

with Christianity. He also notes the fear the author may have had in

a new temple being built that would lead to a Jewish resurgence,

based on the anti-temple writings in the epistle. He also speculates

that Barnabas may have feared doubt within the Christian community

after the destruction of the temple, and the failure of Jesus to come

back as was expected.25 The creation of a letter denouncing the Jewish

people as utterly unredeemable as a religion would thus be necessary

to prevent any apostasy.

Tertullian’s own Adversus Iudaeos literature was written near the

end of the second century in the city of Carthage. As with other

cities of the time, the relationships between Jews and Christians has

25 Ehrman, Bart D. The Apostolic Fathers Volume II. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003.

Warren 24

long been contested among historians. Of note is the cemetery in this

city, dated during the first century, in which it is theorized that

Jews and Christians may have been buried side-by-side26. While little

more than archaeological evidence remains to inform us about the

contact between Jews and Christians, scholars such as have opted for

two major possibilities. While some have theorized that Tertullian’s

Adversus Iudaeos was written primarily as a means of fighting against

Jewish competition for converts, others have posited that the letter

was necessary in order for him to properly define his community from

that of the Jews. In the words of Geoffrey Dunn, “For Tertullian, the

Jews he discovered in the pages of the Scriptures were the same Jews

(in his mind) he encountered in Carthage; for him their thinking had

not changed at all.”27 (Dunn 51). Much as with the rest of

Tertullian's literature, his Adversus Iudaeos served for the purposes

of categorization.

Tertullian’s own Adversus Iudaeos literature touches on the same

reverence for the Hebrew Bible as both Pseudo-Barnabas and Justin

share, though at the same time, condemning the law as commonly

understood by Jews, although his reinterpretation of many of the

26 Dunn, Geoffrey D. "Against the Jews." In Tertullian. 47.27 Ibid, 49.

Warren 25

Mosaic Laws aren't quite as colorful as Pseudo-Barnabas, instead

wishing to emphasize the idea of that the Jews were no more “chosen”

than any other nation. His writings parallel much of the Epistle of

Pseudo-Barnabas in criticizing the Jewish Law as illegitimate even

prior to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, remarking in the first line

of the first chapter:

For why should God, the founder of the universe, the Governor of

the whole world, the Fashioner of humanity, the Sower of universal

nations be believed to have given a law through Moses to one people,

and not be said to have assigned it to all nations? For unless He had

given it to all by no means would He have habitually permitted even

proselytes out of the nations to have access to it. But— as is

congruous with the goodness of God, and with His equity, as the

Fashioner of mankind— He gave to all nations the selfsame law, which

at definite and stated times He enjoined should be observed, when He

willed, and through whom He willed, and as He willed. (Tertullian 1).

The Jews, Dunn claims, were seen by Tertullian as more

equivalent to heretics than those who had lost the faith completely.

Warren 26

He notes the striking similarity between the language and structure

used in Against Marcion and that of Against the Jews, as well as the

abundance of anti-Jewish condemnation present in the former work that

rivals that of the latter, despite the title of the book implying

otherwise. At this point, notes Dunn, the Jews were ultimately

transformed into “something symbolic that helped mainstream

Christians strengthen their identity.”28 Dunn justifies this response

by pointing out that much of the content in Against the Jews was

copied over into Against Marcion29. Marcion’s heavy actions in the

As Tertullian identified as a supercessionist, the Jews, or at least

their Old Testament types, were a necessary base from which to define

the legitimacy of the Christian faith.

Others take the writings of the letter at face value, believing

the purpose of the book was to confront what Tertullian saw as

competition from Jewish elements, possibly Ebionite elements. John G.

Gager points out that “While Tertullian gives no indication of

Judaizing among the Christians of North Africa, there are signs of

competition between Christianity and Judaism for pagan adherents.”30

He also points out that the letter was written as a result of a real 28 Dunn, Geoffrey D. "Against the Jews." In Tertullian. London: Routledge, 2004. 63-104. 49.29 Ibid.30 Gager, John G. The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes in Pagan and Christian Antiquity. 164.

Warren 27

life dialogue between a Christian and a gentile representing

Judaism.31 With these factors in mind, it’s entirely possible that

Tertullian had Judaism firmly in mind while writing the letter, and

was not merely using Judaism as a means of attacking Christian

heretics.

Some scholars have made note of the similarity in the views of

Tertullian and the views of Marcion on the Mosaic Law. Some have even

gone as far to say that some of Marcion’s actual views on the Old

Testament god may have in fact been closer to “orthodoxy” than his

opponents suggest. While he viewed the god of the Old Testament as

petty and lesser, Marcion nevertheless attributed traits of

righteousness to him, and acknowledged his divinity as deserving

respect. At the root of difference between this demiurge and the god

of righteousness was a divide between law and gospel. Marcion

defended his view by appealing mainly to Paul’s epistles, arguing in

favor of the inferiority of the law in the same way otherwise

“orthodox” Christians did.

Also noticeable in Marcion’s writings is his literalist mindset

(a characteristic also given to Tertullian). Stephen Wilson points to

Marcion’s travels to Sinope as the reason for this, as the Jewish

31 Gager, John G. The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes in Pagan and Christian Antiquity. 164.

Warren 28

community in that city at the time of his travels were immersed in a

literalist reading of Scripture (as can be seen by writers such as

Aquila)32. Much like what is theorized about the other writers of

Adversus Iudaeos literature, Marcion also may have taken a “cool,

somewhat distant view of Judaism, while at the same time being

influenced by certain kinds of Jewish exegetical tradition.” (Wilson

217). The proto-orthodox adapt the old scriptures and declare their

previous adherents to be cast out of God’s favor, Marcion sees the

newer scriptures as the only true scriptures, with the previous

scripture being an inferior. Even then, many proto-orthodox

Christians fell dangerously close to adopting Marcion’s views. Wilson

points out how “in place of Marcion’s notion of an inferior god they

put the notion of an inferior and disobedient people,”33 Tertullian

may have also wished to emphasize what he saw as clear evidence of

Jesus’s coming in his Adversus Iudaeos letter partially out of

Marcion’s accusation that the coming of Jesus as well as his

messianic attributes were not self-evident. Such a connection between

the two writers may give credence to the idea that Tertullian was

attacking Marcion more than the Jews in his Adversus Iudaeos letter.

32 Wilson, Stephen G.. Related strangers: Jews and Christians, 70-170 C.E. 214.33 Ibid.

Warren 29

An interesting contrast to Adversus Iudaeos literature is the

pseudopigraphical writings of St. Clement I, alleged to be the first

pope of Rome after St. Peter the Apostle. Scholars often note the

Jewish-Christian or Ebionite strata that are contained therein, and

thus may provide an insight to Jewish Christian views on claims by

gentile Christians during the time the earliest Adversus Iudaeos

literature was being written. Annette Yoshiko Reed notes how “most

scholars have imposed external criteria upon H and R either from

heresiological comments about the Ebionites...or scholarly

reconstruction of the history of Jewish Christianity.”34 Two

collections, one named the Homilies and one named the Recollections

present two varying and at times contradicting narratives on a series

of dialogues between Clement of Rome and St. James the Greater, the

first Bishop of Jerusalem. In the earliest of these writings, dating

from the beginning of the third century, a number of passages

proclaim close Jewish roots of its writers with Christianity. In R

1.27-71, a writer identifying himself as Peter the Apostle writes on

how, to quote Reed, “stresses his own Jewish identity...exalts Hebrew

as the original tongue of humankind and the language pleasing to

34 Becker, Adam H, and Annette Yoshiko Reed. The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. 198.

Warren 30

God...[and] depicts the Christian community as one of a number of

competing Jewish sects.”35

The declaration of Pseudo-Peter as being part of the Jewish

community is complemented by a statement that the divide between Jews

before the temple was the work of “the Slanderer”, who sewed “sects

and divisions” amongst Second Temple Judaism, with Jesus being the

means of healing those differences and abolishing division in

Judaism. In the Syriac translation of Peter's writings, Peter claims

that “the gospel will be made known to the nation as a witness for

the healing of the schism that have arisen so that also your

separation [from them] will occur.” (R 1.64.2). Reed contrasts this

translation with the Latin version, which roughly translates as “so

that your unbelief may be judged on the basis of their belief.”36

Perhaps most peculiar in the Pseudo-Clementine writings is the

distinct anti-Pauline streak that distinguished them from gentile

Christians. In R.127-71, James the Greater is seen as the true

founder of the Christian community in Jerusalem, and his martyrdom

replaces that of Stephen in the seventh chapter of Acts. In the same

passage, Paul of Tarsus is held directly responsible for his

35 Ibid, 205.36 Becker, Adam H, and Annette Yoshiko Reed. The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. 205.

Warren 31

execution, and is also blamed for souring relations between

Christians and Jews. Reed notes one example, in which James initially

persuades a number of Jews, including the high priest of the

community, to be baptized. Paul puts a stop to this by barging into

the temple, accusing James of sorcery, and slaughtering everyone

present, including James. Paul then vows, according to Pseudo-Peter,

to go to Damascus so that “when he got there the non-believers might

help him and might destroy those who believe (R 1.71.3).

Another passage included is a commentary on the practice of

temple worship and sacrifice, which the writer of R admits was a

pragmatic concession in order to stop Jews from practicing idolatry.

Reed notes how most of Jewish history consisted of God's gradual

attempts to “wean the Jews off of sacrifice”, in the form of exile

and exposure to the practices of foreign nations. Keeping with the

beliefs of many proto-orthodox Christians, the sacrifice of Jesus put

an end to this old system of sacrifice. While the author's promotion

of this idea can be seen as an endorsement of supercessionism at

first glance, he goes on to say that Jesus was still “the image of

Moses that had previously been announced by Moses.” (R.136.2 and

1.40.4.-41.1). In brief, the attachment to the old temple system and

Warren 32

the ultimately ungodly practice of sacrifice was the primary factor

in preventing unity between Christian and non-Christian Jews.

The question still remains, however, if this passage came from a

Jewish-Christian source, or merely an Ebionite one. Some critics

argue that the Pseudo-Clementines were written at a later date than

the scholarly consensus currently suggests. Johannes Munck makes note

that the Jewish Christian writings “do not contain Jewish-Christian

features linking them with primitive Christianity,”, as opposed to

the writings of the New Testament, which he argues contains the only

certain writings of Jewish Christians. He justifies this by pointing

to the sheer speculation that must be used in determining whether the

passage originated in an earlier source, with most samples coming

from later sources.

Graham Staton believes that it must be conceded that “at least

some of these writings draw on earlier sources.”37 However, he warns

against repeating the misconceptions of the Tubingen School, which

had looked upon the narratives regarding Simon Magus and formulated a

long-standing binary opposition between “Petrine” and “Pauline”

versions of Christianity from the first century onwards.”38 Staton

37 Skarsaune, Oskar, and Reidar Hvalvik. Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries. 305.38 Ibid, 306.

Warren 33

points out the vast number of different traditions that the Pseudo-

Clementine letters originated from, and argues that the letters

should not be simply grouped in either camp. He further points out

that many of the anti-Paul passages in both the Homilies and

Reflections do not, in fact, mention Paul at all. The only

definitively anti-Pauline writings are in the introductory writings

of the Homilies, which likely come from traditions that aren’t

necessarily either Ebionite or Jewish Christian. Staton nonetheless

accepts at least a handful of the writings as genuinely Jewish

Christian, giving us some insight into how the Jewish Christians saw

themselves in relation to the gentile Church.

IV. Closing Observations and Conclusion

Examining the breadth of Adversus Iudaeos literature from the

Second Century, it can be confirmed that there existed a tight bond

between Jewish Christians and proto-rabbinical Jews that was tight

enough that Christian writers of the era found it necessary to write

extended works denouncing Jewish practices, often inadvertently using

language that oftentimes made them sound similar to their presumed

gnostic rivals. From the evidence given, it can certainly be asserted

that Adversus Iudaeos literature was necessary for Christians to define

Warren 34

themselves as superior to (if not at least separate from) Jews that

did not accept Jesus as their messiah.

Question still remain over the authorship of some of the texts

mentioned. Were the Pseudo-Clementine letters written by Jewish

Christians, or by Ebionites? Were the Ebionites themselves a

continuation of Jewish Christianity? On that note, what is Jewish

Christianity? No consensus currently exists with scholars, making an

answer difficult. What can be safely concluded, however, was that

civil dialogue did exist at the time between Jews and Christians

(Jewish and gentile), and that questions over what separated the two

were frequently asked, at least on the side of the followers of

Jesus. The Pseudo-Clementine letters demonstrate this, with even the

later additions demonstrating reasonable speculation regarding

interactions between Jewish and gentile Christians during the century

that were common, if not always cordial.

Regardless of the feelings that Christians and Jews had towards

each other, it can be concluded that, even in cases when Christians

and Jews felt wholly separated from one another, both drew off one

another in terms of rhetoric and theological issues. The tone and

possible influence of Justin’s writings demonstrates this, as well as

Warren 35

the hidden meanings of the Epistle of Barnabas and Tertullian’s

writings, which were primarily written against heretics, even if non-

Christian Jews may have occasionally been the target. For this

reason, while it is misleading to say there was no conflict between

the Jewish and Christian communities during the second century, it

would be premature to call the era the time period in which there was

a definite parting of the ways, with the Adversus Iudaeos letters

demonstrating this.