Boyarin on the definition of "Gentile Christianity"

We have been discussing the definition of Jewish Christianity and perhaps looking at it from the opposite direction may offer a further clarification of the term Jewish Christian. To this end, we appeal to D. Boyarin’s definition in his recent book Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (see side bar for the book).[1]

While we will have occasion later to discuss the important arguments of this book in greater detail, I focus here on his definition of “Gentile Christianity” in the introduction. In orienting the reader to his argument, Boyarin presents one of the basic assertions of the book: the early rabbinic writings developed in response to burgeoning Gentile Christianity represented by figures like Justin Martyr. He believes that the rabbis sought to “set the bounds” of who is in and who is out of Judaism as they understood it in reaction to the claims of Gentile Christianity. Thus, within this discussion Boyarin defines the object of rabbis’ attention, Gentile Christianity, by stating:

[Gentile Christianity] refer[s] to Christian converts from among non-Jews (and their descendants) who have neither a sense of genealogical attachment to the historical, physical people of Israel (Israel according to the flesh), nor an attachment (and frequently the exact opposite one) to the fleshly practices of that historical community”[2]

What is noticeable in Boyarin’s definition are the converse elements of description to what Skarsuane has defined as Jewish Christian.

Jewish Christian Gentile Christian
Attachment to historical, physical people of Israel No attachment
Attachment to physical practices of Jewish community No attachment to Jewish practices

Two points are noteworthy. First, similar to Skarsaune, Boyarin seems to implicitly stress the Jewish community’s role in determining Jewish identity. One could perhaps amplify his last point: “nor an attachment to the concrete practices recognized and preformed by a historical Jewish community”. The formulation suggests that it is the historic community that determines Jewish identity as Skarsaune has argued. Second, ethnicity and practice are key factors in defining not only who is or isn’t a Jewish Christian, but conversely who is a Gentile Christian.

[1] Boyarin 2004.
[2] Boyarin 2004:29, emphasis added.

Works Cited
Boyarin, Daniel. 2004. Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity. Divinations. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Definition of “Jewish Christianity”, “Jewish Christian” and “Jewish Believer in Jesus”, Part One (1.1. Introduction)

James Carleton Paget, in his essay titled “The Definition of the Terms Jewish Christian and Jewish Christianity in the History of Research” presents the major difficulty when approaching a study of the subject: “In antiquity no one, as far as we know, called himself a Jewish Christian or spoke of belonging to an entity called ‘Jewish Christianity’”.[1] While for some this is enough cause to abandon the terms altogether, others, and it is clear that the editors of Jewish Believers in Jesus (if not Carleton Paget[2]) are of this mind, have taken a more chastened perspective by employing the terms, but defining them clearly at the start of their work. It is true that they opt for the term “Jewish believers” in hopes of avoiding some of the baggage of the past.

One of the issues that rises to the top of any discussion of the definition is whether the terms “Jewish Christianity” (Juden-christentum) or “Jewish Christian” (Judenchrist, Judéo-chrétien) refer to the extraordinary influence of Judaism, theology and practice, on early Christianity or to an actual segment of believers in Jesus who were in someway “Jewish” and thereby distinct—the distinction most often understood in nationalistic and Torah-oriented ways—from other believers in Jesus. The terms, then, can be used on the one hand to characterize what the two religions have in common and, on the other, point to what divides them.[3] In the history of research, the terms have been used variously to refer to either one of these concepts and therefore are ambiguous and susceptible to very different usages.

Of equal importance to the definition of such terms when speaking of a segment of early Christianity is the question of whether one could speak of a unified group with a definable profile of traits and ideology/theology or whether in fact Jewish Christianity was a variegated phenomenon, in which case a plurality of Jewish Christianities would be a more accurate understanding. One final point of contention with respect to the definition of terms is whether one should use a praxis-, ethnic- , or ideology/theologic-based criteria for determining whether a particular writer, text or group is Jewish Christian.

O. Skarsaune in the first chapter of Jewish Believers in Jesus seeks to address these difficult issues of definition. The first step he takes is to avoid to some degree the baggage of the history of research by using the less loaded phrase “Jewish believer in Jesus”. This is not without historical precedent as well. While there is no fixed terminology in patristic sources, the phrase “Jewish believer in Jesus”, according to Skarsaune, “can be said to encapsulate the terms most often used”.[4] He provides a broad series of examples from New Testament and early Christian sources of the use of terminology similar to “Jewish believer (in Jesus)”. For example:

John 8:31 - “Jews who believed in him . . .”
Origen, Cels. 2.1 - “. . . those of the Jewish people who have believed in Jesus”
Origen Comm. Matt., in Eusebuis, Hist. eccl. 6.25.4 - “[Matthew published his gospel first] for those who from Judaism came to believe[5]

Furthermore, Skarsaune defines “Jewish believers in Jesus” as “Jews by birth or conversion who in one way or another believed that Jesus was their savior”.[6] With this definition the issues noted above are addressed at least to some degree.

First, Skarsaune opts for an ethnically based definition rather than praxis or theologically based one. While the editors of the volume are not the first to base their definition primarily on ethnicity this approach to the question is less than typical in secondary literature. Thus, under the rubric of Jewish believers in Jesus they include not only Jews who after conversion maintained a law-observant lifestyle, but also Jewish converts who abandoned their Jewish identity and assimilated into Gentile Christianity. This definition, however, excludes Judaizers, by which he means Gentiles who after conversion to belief in Jesus underwent a secondary conversion to Judaism by circumcision and the taking on of Torah observance. Skarsaune, then, uses the moniker “Jewish believer in Jesus” to represent all ethnically Jewish believers regardless of their continuing relationship (or lack there of) to Torah, while reserving the traditional label “Jewish Christian” for “those Jews who believed in Jesus, and at the same time continued a wholly Jewish way of life”.[7] The definition of "Jewish Christian" offered would also include Gentiles who prior to their faith in Jesus converted to Judaism and subsequently to belief in Jesus.

I will finish these points with my analysis in forthcoming posts.

[1] Carleton Paget 2006:48; see also his earlier essay Carleton-Paget 1999. One of the most interesting points in this well-researched chapter is that the real birth place of the study of Jewish Christianity is England in the works of Toland and Morgan in the 18th century rather than Germany in the work of Baur in the 19th as is most often thought. It is not surprising that Carleton Paget, the quintessential Englishman, would have made this discovery.
[2] I am unclear what exactly Carleton Paget thinks. In reading between the lines of his conclusion, I gather that he is more of a mind to abandon the terms altogether for something else. This seems to be the point of his discussion of Michael Williams’ work on Gnosticism—see Carleton Paget 2006:51-52.
[3] See the summary of M. Simon’s position by Carleton Paget (2006:43).
[4] Skarsaune 2006a:5.
[5] Examples come from Skarsaune 2006a:5-6.
[6] Skarsaune 2006a:3.
[7] Skarsaune 2006a:4, emphasis his.

Works Cited

Carleton-Paget, James. 1999. Jewish Christianity. In The Cambridge History of Judaism: The Early Roman Period, ed. William Horbury, W. D. Davies and John Sturdy, 3:731-75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

_________. 2006. The Definition of the Terms Jewish Christian and Jewish Christianity in the History of Research. In A History of Jewish Believers in Jesus: The First Five Centuries, ed. Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik:22-52. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Skarsaune, Oskar. 2006a. Jewish Believers in Jesus in Antiquity—Problem of Definition, Method, and Sources. In A History of Jewish Believers in Jesus: The First Five Centuries, ed. Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik:3-21. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

________ and Reidar Hvalvik, eds. 2006. A History of Jewish Believers in Jesus: The First Five Centuries. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Jewish Christianity in the Late First and Second Centuries: An Introduction to a Series of Posts

I wish to begin a series of posts on the topic of Jewish Christianity in the late first and second centuries. An informed reader will quickly recognize that this subject is reminiscent of the title of a recent book edited by Skarsaune and Hvalvik, Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries.[1] This much anticipated book, at least by me, took nearly three years to finally bring to publication this year. I will be reading and interacting with it as I present an outline of Jewish Christianity.

I became especially interested in the topic of Jewish Christianity in my doctoral work on Matthew’s Gospel and aspects of his theology that seemed to me to be much more relevant to Jewish believers in Jesus than to Gentiles. For example, it seems quite obvious that Gentiles would not be concerned or interested in the continuing relevance of the Land promise contained in the Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic covenants. Furthermore, it strikes me as reasonable to assume on the contrary that to Jewish believers in Jesus the promises of the Land would still have relevance for them. I wonder than if within the theological outlook of Jewish Christianity in the first few centuries after the New Testament period a lingering expectation of territorial restoration is discernable. I have made the argument that this type of expectation is present in the clearly Jewish Gospel of Matthew[2] (see my recent book Matthew’s Messianic Shepherd-King: In Search of the “Lost Sheep of the House of Israel”[3]), albeit not in an overt manner. In other words, it is not the central concern of the First gospel. What would solidify my thesis even more would be the discovery in later Jewish Christian texts of a similar expectation. I have reason to be optimistic in my search given Skarsaune’s brief summary of Jewish believers’ eschatology:

In eschatological material we have studied there is one common trait—a very concrete understanding of the eschatological blessings portrayed in the biblical prophecies . . . For Jewish believers with whom this eschatology originated . . . this was the supreme expression of the biblical heritage and the hope of the Jewish people. Therefore, it is also no surprise that in their eschatological scenarios, the salvation of the Jewish nation had a secure place.[4]

So I begin a series of posts which focus the general topic of Jewish Christianity in close conversation with the recent publication of Jewish Believers in Jesus. Here is an outline of future posts:

1. Introduction
2. Brief Histocial Sketch of Jewish Christianity in Palestine and the Diaspora
3. Jewish Christian Sects
4. Jewish Christian Texts
5. Jewish Christian Non-Canonical Gospels
6. Jewish Christianity in Jewish Sources
7. Summary of Jewish Christian Beliefs

The first question that must be asked when beginning to address the topic of Jewish Christianity is the “who” of this designation. Who is represented by such a term? While our ancient sources do not use the term Jewish Christian nor envisage such an entity in some abstract form, they do make reference to believers in Jesus who are ethnically distinct: Jews who believe in Jesus and Gentiles who believe in Jesus.[5] I'll pick this discussion up one the next post.


[1] Skarsaune and Hvalvik 2006.
[2] See Craig Evan’s (2006) essay in Jewish Believers in Jesus where he affirms this scholarly consensus. Furthermore he observes the significant influence Matthew’s Gospel had on the early Jewish church. He states, “Not only did a form of this Gospel circulate in Hebrew, but it seems to have served as the foundational text out of which emerged the Aramaic Jewish Gospel (usually identified as the Gospel of the Nazoraeans) and the Greek Gospel (usually identified as the Gospel of the Ebionites. Thus, two of the three best known and most often mentioned Jewish Gospels are heavily dependent upon Matthew” (2006:245).
[3] Willitts 2007.
[4] Skarsaune 2006b, emphasis added.
[5] Skarsaune 2006a.

Works Cited
Evans, Craig A. 2006. The Jewish Christian Gospel Tradition. In A History of Jewish Believers in Jesus: The First Five Centuries, ed. Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik:241-77. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Skarsaune, Oskar. 2006a. Jewish Believers in Jesus in Antiquity—Problem of Definition, Method, and Sources. In A History of Jewish Believers in Jesus: The First Five Centuries, ed. Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik:3-21. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

________. 2006b. Jewish Christian Sources Used by Justin Martyr and Some Other Greek and Latin Fathers. In A History of Jewish Believers in Jesus: The First Five Centuries, ed. Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik:379-416. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Skarsaune, Oskar and Reidar Hvalvik, eds. 2006. A History of Jewish Believers in Jesus: The First Five Centuries. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Willitts, Joel. 2007. Matthew's Messianic Shepherd-King: In Search of the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel. BNZW. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Jewish-Christian Christology and Jewish-Christian Gospels

Every weekend I try to take home one to two journal articles to read. This weekend it has been:

Peter Balla, "Does Acts 2:36 Represent an Adoptionist Christology?" EJTh 2 (1996): 137-42.

Andrew Gregory, "Jewish-Christian Gospels," ExpTim 118 (2007): 521-29.

A few things come up for mention:

1. Adoptionism.

Does Acts 2.36 and Rom. 1.3-4 teach that Jesus only became the Son at his resurrection? Balla clearly thinks not since he finds enough evidence that Luke already believed that Jesus was the Messiah and Son prior to the resurrection. For Luke the term "made" (epoieesen) means "made known" rather than "made into existence". But was the same view held by the early church? Well, that depends on what one thinks of the speeches in Luke-Acts (see Martin Dibelius, F.F. Bruce, Marion Soabards, and Colin Hemer on that one). I tend to think that Luke has represented fairly accurately the kerygma of the early church, he certainly doesn't Paulinze the other Apostles, despite the fact that Paul is his hero. Early Christian exegesis of Psalms 2 and 110 was not necessarily taken in an adoptionist direction, but focused on (a) public nature of God's work in vindicating and enthroning Jesus, and (b) the kingly nature of Jesus' reign from the Father's side. On Romans 1.3-4, where Jesus is "designated (horizo) the Son of God in power by resurrection from the dead" is not the refering the conferal of sonship not otherwise possessed, but the translation of his sonship to a new eschatological function that he did not previous discharge (see commentaries by Dunn and Moo).

I find it interesting that certain scholars (I think perhaps of Dunn in Unity and Diversity in the NT as one example but I'll have to check), argues that later Jewish Christology was adoptionistic (e.g. the Ebionites) and their christology was censured as heretical, and yet (so it goes), it was the same christology of the early church. If Balla's analysis is right, that assumption needs to be questioned. Mention should also be given to Richard Longenecker's book The Christology of early Jewish Christianity which is worth consulting.

2. Jewish Christian Gospels.

Andrew Gregory is a rising star at Oxford (he has red hair too which obviously counts in his favour). I'm awaiting his work on Jewish Christian Gospels which will be a good read no doubt. Anyone willing to amass together all the quotations of the Jewish Christian Gospels from the Church Fathers and try to make sense of them deserve a medal. I tried making a list once and got confused, dizzy, and bored, so I gave up. His Expository Times article is a good preview of what is to come.

One good thing that Gregory does is that he contests the view that there were three Jewish Christian Gospels: (a) The Gospel according to the Hebrews; (b) the Gospel of the Nazoraeans; and (c) The Gospel of the Ebionites. There are several issues here. First, the Gospel of the Ebionites is known only from Epiphanius and what he has to say on the topic does not always leave us with great confidence that he knows what he's talking about. Second, one or more of these Jewish Christian Gospels may be no more than a Hebrew version of Matthew with textual omissions (i.e. the virgin birth) and textual additions that were noted by the Church Fathers. This latter view may explain the Gospel of Nazoraeans. The number of Jewish Christian Gospels would be a wonderful Ph.D topic for some brave soul.

New books on Jewish Christianity

A couple of books about Jewish Christianity have come out, including:

Jewish Believers in Jesus
Skarsaune, Oskar and Reidar Hvalvik, editors
$49.95
Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007
pp. xxx + 930

Description: Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries examines the formative first five centuries of Christian history as experienced by individuals who were ethnically Jewish, but who professed faith in Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Offering the work of an impressive international team of scholars, this unique study examines the first five centuries of texts thought to have been authored or edited by Jewish Christians, including the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, the New Testament Apocrypha, and some patristic works. Also considered are statements within patristic literature about Jewish believers and uses of oral traditions from Jewish Christians. Furthermore, the evidence in Jewish, mainly rabbinic, literature is examined, and room is made for a judicious sifting of the archaeological evidence. The final two chapters are devoted to an enlightening synthesis of the material with subsequent conclusions regarding Jewish believers in antiquity.

Jews or Christians?: The Followers of Jesus in Search of their Own Identity
Jossa, Giorgio
€69.00
Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2006
pp. viii + 175

Description: When was Christianity born? When was it that Christianity, born as a particular current within Judaism, constituted itself as a religion different and separate from the Jewish religion? The question has been asked, and the problem has therefore been considered, since the historical-critical investigation of Christian origins began. However the problem has become acute only in the last few decades, because of the occurrence of a whole series of circumstances and of reflections that have deeply changed the historiographic understanding regarding Judaism in the first century, and thus the origins of Christianity as well. Traditional opinion considered the founders of Christianity to be Jesus of Nazareth and Paul of Tarsus. Recent studies however affirm that a Christian religion as distinct from the Jewish religion can be spoken of only much later, and that for the entire first century, and for at least a part of the second century, Christianity was nothing more than a sect within Judaism. Dealing with the problem from an historical point of view, and thus considering not only Christianity of Jewish origin but also that of gentile origin, Giorgio Jossa demonstrates that the birth of a Christian identity as distinct from Jewish identity must actually be dated back to the first period of life of the community of Jesus.

These should be good to read, esp. the one edited by Hvalvik since I have appreciated and enjoyed much of his work on Christian origins and Jewish-Christian relations.