You are here:   Christianity > Jews, Christians and Judaeo-Christians
 

The switch in the perception of Jesus from charismatic prophet to superhuman being coincided with a geographical and religious change, when the Christian preaching of the Gospel moved from the Galilean-Judaean Jewish culture to the pagan surroundings of the Graeco-Roman world. At the same time, under the influence of Paul's organising genius, the church acquired a hierarchical structure governed by bishops with the assistance of presbyters and deacons. The disappearance of the Jewish input opened the way to a galloping "gentilisation" and consequent de-judaisation and anti-judaisation of nascent Christianity, as may be detected from a glance at the Epistle of Barnabas.

This letter — falsely attributed to Barnabas, the companion of Paul — is the work of a Gentile-Christian author, probably from Alexandria. It was most likely written in the 120s CE and almost made its way into the sacred books. It is included in the oldest New Testament codex, the fourth-century Sinaiticus, but was finally declared non-canonical by the church. A reference to the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem definitely dates it after 70 CE, but the absence of any allusion to the second Jewish war against Rome suggests that the epistle was written before 135 CE. It is a hybrid work, in which moral instructions (Barn. 18-21) based on a Jewish tractate on the way of light and the way of darkness, attested to also in the Didache 1-5, and ultimately in the first-century BCE Community Rule among the Dead Sea Scrolls, is preceded by a lengthy anti-Jewish diatribe (Barn. 1-17). The author depicts two quarrelling parties designated simply as "we" and "they", the first representing the Christians and the second the Jews, and the dispute is founded on the Greek Old Testament, which both factions consider their own property.

The aim of Barnabas is to instruct his readers in "perfect knowledge" (gnosis) by revealing to them the true meaning of the essential biblical notions of Covenant, Temple, sacrifice, circumcision, Sabbath, and food laws. He insists that the Jews are mistaken in taking the institutions and precepts of the Old Testament in the literal sense; they are to be interpreted allegorically in conformity with the exegesis in vogue in Alexandria. In fact, the laws of Moses have been spiritualised in the new law revealed by Jesus (Barn. 2.5). Sacrifice should not amount to cultic slaughter, but demand a broken heart, nor is forgiveness of sin obtained through the killing of animals, but through the mystical sprinkling of the blood of Christ (Barn. 5. 1-6). The ideas of Paul, ignored by the author of the Didache, are in the forefront of Barnabas's thought. According to him, those endowed with gnosis know that the grace of the true circumcision of the heart is dispensed, not by the mutilation of the flesh, but by means of the cross of Jesus (Barn. 9. 3-7).

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Steve
December 13th, 2011
6:12 PM
Moshe Idel's book "Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism" is a fascinating (if lengthy) discussion of the concept of 'son' in Jewish mysticism, with the New Testament serving as one of point of reference.

Aaron Beach
December 13th, 2011
6:12 PM
John 4 clearly demonstrates Jesus sharing "the gospel" with Samaritans and many believing. The universality of Jesus message is made clear in John 12:32 reflecting prophesies made in Isaiah (every knee shall bow, tongue confess...). Maybe I'm not being inventive enough - but the idea that Paul invented universal salvation or deified Jesus seems interesting but unbiblical.

Charles
December 13th, 2011
4:12 PM
Excuse me, any relatively well-educated person, not only a specialist, knows that Jesus' first followers were Jews and that Gentile Christianity came later.

Jack
December 13th, 2011
3:12 PM
Great article. I just wish that people would accept the truth for a change. Reading this article would be a good start. The idea of the Messiah, for example, implies no divinity. Messiah is just a man based on the Jewish notion. One has to take the Jewish notion since the very idea came from them. Virgin birth: when are we going to accept that this has to do with ignorance about human physiology since "virgin" in the prophecy really means a young girl! What is the number one commandment according to Jesus? It is the Shema! That means only One God and not the Trinity! Not 3 in 1. Only 1. Jesus would be appalled by such nonsense. The faster we accept these simple truths the better and the less idolatry we commit.

Krzysztof Ciuba
December 13th, 2011
1:12 PM
A good article. Like in any science it shine the light on the epistemology of creation of an axiomatic system of knowledge, here, Christianity ( a system's beliefs). True, the historical Jesus considered himself only as a the Son of Man (read even, Benedict xvi, Jesus from Nazareth, ch. on Jesus's titles). Nicene's Creed is the language of...mataphor; that Fathers did not know the subtelity of St.Thomas 'definition" of God (as not an Greek or other religions intuition as the "best of best of....") or syntactical@semantical meanings of such terms like: being, relation, God, Father, Son, and of course the historical person of Jesus from Nazareth, who after conversion (Mk 1:4,9+Stories of BAptism)) started his mission. The title "Son of God" has a meaning but not of a mythical one of Greek Olimp; but The Son of God is not ...God! (S.Th1,2,3+ 20th cent logic+the hermeneutics of NT: Gr. theos in NT writiongs refer mostly to Father

John Quill
December 13th, 2011
11:12 AM
The author's knowledge of the gospels is very superficial. Jesus indeed made strong statements about being sent to the nation of Israel, but several passages make it very clear that the gospel would go to the Gentiles. Three prominent miracles were for non-Jews (healing the centurions servant, healing the Syro-Phoenician woman with an issue of blood, and exorcising a legion of demons into a herd of swine in the Decapolis). The "woman at the well" was a Samaritan, and she evangelized her city. Some of the parables are clearly indicative of Gentile inclusion (tenants, wedding feast) as are prophecies (Abraham, dreams in Daniel, Isaiah 9). We also have clear indications at his birth (blessing of Simeon in Luke 2, visit by the wise men) that Jesus was Lord of all. However, if you don't believe me, then believe Jesus' last instruction to his disciples in Acts 1:8: "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." In short, the church had to start someplace, and the chosen nation of Israel was it. However, the gospel went to the Gentiles rapidly because God has chosen his own from every nation - it was certainly no accident.

Almagor
December 6th, 2011
8:12 AM
It is a sin and a shame that there came to be hostility between the the Christian Jews or the Jewish Christians and the gentile Christians. Jesus never said one negative thing about the religion that God gave to Moses and never said anyone should leave that religion. Christians, later had a lot of hostility against the people who practiced the religion that God gave to Moses because of ignorance of the Bible and ignorance of the meaning of the word Jew. In Jesus day a Jew was a resident of Judea instead of Samaria or the Galilee region. When there are negative things about the Jews said in the Gospels the word can not mean those who practiced the religion that God gave Moses because Jesus was a devout practitioner of that religion and in fact, was a Rabbi. But Gentiles later didn't know that a Jew was a resident of Judea and blamed them for killing Jesus which is ridiculous. God sent Jesus to Earth to teach us about The Father and to be crucified. Since Jesus was crucified to pay for our sins, all of us are responsible for Jesus Crucifixion.

Paddy
December 3rd, 2011
8:12 PM
A most interesting article regarding the early church. Thank you. It is interesting how definitions can change. In modern times (by my unstudied observation), the term Judeo-Christian is popularly used as a propaganda term for those who wish to emphasise the "sameness" between the Jews and the Christians in reference to the Muslims. The reality is that there is much in common between all three religions.

Anonymous
December 1st, 2011
3:12 PM
Jesus most certainly is called the Son of God. Matthew 3:17.

elixelx
December 1st, 2011
7:12 AM
Judge not lest ye be judged; Let he who is without sin cast the first stone: The Gospels. Be deliberate in Judgement! Pirke Aboth. Would the author care to tell us how those two BASIC, FUNDAMENTAL tenets are to be resolved? If you want to enter the kingdom of Heaven give your wealth to the`poor and come follow me... In (Genesis 28:22), Abraham's grandson Jacob also made a commitment to give God back a tenth of his increase if God would fulfill certain conditions like God would be with him and will watch over him on this journey Jacob was taking and would give him food to eat and clothes to wear, so that I return safely to my father’s household (Genesis 28:20-22). Would the author care to explain and resolve the Mitzva of tithing and how having money and increase of riches DISQUALIFIED one from the Kingdom of Heaven? I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. And what does the LORD require of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God?" (NKJV) Would the author care to explain why one group has dirct communication with the Almighty while the other requires an intermediary? Finally, why did the early Christans reject the Oral Law and its practitioners, the Pharisees and come to see these as hypocrites and finally enemies? How did it happen that Jew-haters came to dominate the power of the Church?

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.