Jews And Gentiles In The Early Jesus Movement An

Unintended Journey Abel Mordechai Bibliowicz

Auth download

https://ebookbell.com/product/jews-and-gentiles-in-the-early-
jesus-movement-an-unintended-journey-abel-mordechai-bibliowicz-
auth-5375160

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Jews And Gentiles In The Early Jesus Movement An Unintended Journey

Abel Mordechai Bibliowicz

https://ebookbell.com/product/jews-and-gentiles-in-the-early-jesus-
movement-an-unintended-journey-abel-mordechai-bibliowicz-4649878

Jews And Gentiles In The Holy Land In The Days Of The Second Temple
The Mishnah And The Talmud Menahem Mor

https://ebookbell.com/product/jews-and-gentiles-in-the-holy-land-in-
the-days-of-the-second-temple-the-mishnah-and-the-talmud-menahem-
mor-2258604

Called From The Jews And From The Gentiles Pauline Ecclesiology In
Romans 911 Illustrated Pablo T Gadenz

https://ebookbell.com/product/called-from-the-jews-and-from-the-
gentiles-pauline-ecclesiology-in-romans-911-illustrated-pablo-t-
gadenz-50448258

Jew And Gentile In The Ancient World Attitudes And Interactions From
Alexander To Justinian Course Book Louis H Feldman

https://ebookbell.com/product/jew-and-gentile-in-the-ancient-world-
attitudes-and-interactions-from-alexander-to-justinian-course-book-
louis-h-feldman-51959042
Paul And Matthew Among Jews And Gentiles Ronald Charles

https://ebookbell.com/product/paul-and-matthew-among-jews-and-
gentiles-ronald-charles-50226404

Jews Gentiles And The Opponents Of Paul 1st Edition B J Oropeza

https://ebookbell.com/product/jews-gentiles-and-the-opponents-of-
paul-1st-edition-b-j-oropeza-65382756

Paul And The Resurrection Of Israel Jews Former Gentiles Israelites

Jason A Staples

https://ebookbell.com/product/paul-and-the-resurrection-of-israel-
jews-former-gentiles-israelites-jason-a-staples-54268648

Jews Gentiles And Other Animals The Talmud After The Humanities Mira
Beth Wasserman

https://ebookbell.com/product/jews-gentiles-and-other-animals-the-
talmud-after-the-humanities-mira-beth-wasserman-51966610

Jews Gentiles And Other Animals The Talmud After The Humanities Mira
Beth Wasserman

https://ebookbell.com/product/jews-gentiles-and-other-animals-the-
talmud-after-the-humanities-mira-beth-wasserman-42080236
 Praise for Jews and Gentiles in the Early Jesus Movement

“An important work . . . Sensitive and deeply researched . . . In the deepest sense, a
profound theological work.”
—Professor Clark M. Williamson, Christian Theological Seminary,
Indiana; author of Way of Blessing, Way of Life:
A Christian Theology
“An original and plausible claim that goes beyond most of modern scholarship . . . a
solid contribution to the study of anti-Judaism in early Christianity.”
—Professor Joseph B. Tyson, Religious Studies, Southern
Methodist University; author of Marcion and
Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle
“In methodical and precise fashion Bibliowicz takes the reader through the relevant
ancient Christian texts bearing on the question at hand. In so doing, he proposes
an intriguing, compelling thesis. The book should prove to be a major voice in the
ongoing debate.”
—Brooks Schramm, Professor of Biblical Studies,
Lutheran Theological Seminary
“Impressive work . . . With this impassioned study available to us, it will no longer
be possible for us to ignore the unintended ways the unthinkable came to be and
still say ‘we did not know.’”
—Professor Didier Pollefeyt, Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies,
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Belgium; coauthor of Anti-
Judaism and the Fourth Gospel and Paul and Judaism
“May this book find a wide readership among people devoted to the cause of the
healing of memories between Jews and Christians.”
—Professor Peter C. Phan, Chair of Catholic Social Thought, Georgetown
University; President of the Catholic Theological Society of America
“A significant contribution to our understanding of the Christian-Jewish relation-
ship in the first centuries of the Common Era.”
—Professor John T. Pawlikowski, Director, Catholic-Jewish Studies
Program, Catholic Theological Union, Chicago; author of
The Challenge of the Holocaust for Christian Theology
“Well-researched and thorough. Intelligent and thoughtful . . . accessible, the argu-
mentation compelling.”
—Professor M. Murray, Bishop’s University, Canada; author of
Playing a Jewish Game: Gentile Christian Judaizing in the
First and Second Centuries C.E.
“Mr. Bibliowicz’s book will challenge all readers to reexamine their foundational
religious narratives as to how they regard ‘the other.’ And this exercise may be as
painful as it is necessary.”
—Rev. Michael McGarry, C. S. P. President, The Paulist Fathers;
author of Christology after Auschwitz
“An intrepid excursion into the Christian discourse . . . The quest of an intellec-
tual, a humanist . . . Interesting and, in fact overwhelming . . . A timely and honest
engagement of the Christian texts, authors, and scholars by a Jewish intellectual.”
—Burton L. Mack, – Professor of Early Christianity, Claremont School
of Theology, California; author of A Myth of Innocence:
Mark and Christian Origins
“A detailed and insightful exploration of the writings of the early Jesus move-
ment . . . argues convincingly that the origins of Christian anti-Judaism are to be
found among early non-Jewish followers of Jesus who were in conflict with Jesus’s
disciples and first followers . . . a must read.”
—Tim Hegedus, Professor of New Testament, Waterloo Lutheran
Seminary, Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada
“The most important and comprehensive reconstruction of the origins of Christian
anti-Judaism . . . Standing on a brilliant and insightful reconstruction of Paul, and
on a quite shocking (but perhaps compelling) reading of Mark—the author offers
a number of original and, in some cases, quite compelling theoretical reconstruc-
tions of the context and purposes of early Christian texts . . . a work of sublime
moral passion . . . must be considered by every thoughtful Christian, not just by
specialists and scholars.”
—David P. Gushee, Distinguished University Professor of Christian
Ethics and Director, Center for Theology and Public Life,
Mercer University; author of Kingdom Ethics:
Following Jesus in Contemporary Context
“Bibliowicz uses solid scholarship to engage large and difficult topics while man-
aging to be balanced and clear . . . invites Christians to walk a deep journey toward
truth . . . and suggests a compelling nuance that the conflicts in the early texts were
between Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus, not between Jews and Christians.”
—David L. Coppola, Executive Director, Center for
Christian-Jewish Understanding,
Sacred Heart University
“A meticulous study . . . a mammoth endeavor . . . goes beyond others in his inter-
pretation of the evidence, tracing and documenting distinctions and tensions in
the early Jesus movement.”
—N. A. Beck, Professor of Theology and Classical Languages,
Texas Lutheran University; author of Mature Christianity
in the 21st Century: The Recognition and Repudiation of
the Anti-Jewish Polemic of the New Testament
“The topics Bibliowicz engages are complex. Although some of his interpretations
are controversial . . . Gentile Christians should set aside apologetical agendas and
honestly ponder the challenges put forward by the author.”
—Dale C. Allison, Jr. Professor of New Testament and Early
Christianity, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary; author of
Constructing Jesus: History, Memory, and Imagination
Jews and Gentiles in the Early
Jesus Movement

An Unintended Journey

ABEL MORDECHAI BIBLIOWICZ

JEWS AND GENTILES IN THE EARLY JESUS MOVEMENT
Copyright © Abel Mordechai Bibliowicz, 2013.
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2013 978-1-137-28109-8

All rights reserved.

First published in 2013 by
PALGRAVE MACMILLAN®
in the United States—a division of St. Martin’s Press LLC,
175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010.
Where this book is distributed in the UK, Europe and the rest of the world,
this is by Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited,
registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills,
Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS.
Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies
and has companies and representatives throughout the world.
Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States,
the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries.
ISBN 978-1-349-44803-6 ISBN 978-1-137-28110-4 (eBook)
DOI 10.1057/9781137281104
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Bibliowicz, Abel Mordechai.
Jews and Gentiles in the early Jesus movement : an unintended
journey / by Abel Mordechai Bibliowicz.
pages cm

1. Bible. N.T.—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Judaism (Christian

theology)—Biblical teaching. 3. Church history—Primitive and early
church, ca. 30-600. 4. Christianity and other religions—Judaism.
5. Judaism—Relations—Christianity. 6. Judaism—History—
Post-exilic period, 586 B.C.-210 A.D. I. Title.
BS2545.J44B53 2013
261.2⬘609015—dc23 2012040885
A catalogue record of the book is available from the British Library.
Design by Newgen Imaging Systems (P) Ltd., Chennai, India.
First edition: April 2013
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
 To Ronnie

Gideon, Yonatan, and Michal

Pablo, Samia, and Shiri

This page intentionally left blank
 Contents

List of Tables ix
Foreword
Norman A. Beck xi
Foreword
Clark M. Williamson xiii
Personal Introduction xv
Preview xix
The Protagonists xxiii
Timeline xxv
Acknowledgments xxvii

1 The Anti-Jewish Strand in the New Testament 1

2 The Anti-Jewish Strand—The First Years 11
3 The Anti-Judaic Strand in Paul 21
4 The Anti-Judaic Strand in Mark: The Need to Explain 39
5 The Anti-Judaic Strand in Matthew: The Saga of
the Jewish Followers of Jesus 49
6 The Anti-Judaic Strand in Luke/Acts: Yearning
for Respectability 59
7 The Anti-Judaic Strand in John: Estrangement 67
8 The Anti-Judaic Strand in Revelation: Judaism within 87
9 The Anti-Jewish Strand—The Embryonic Stage Summary 93
10 Supersession 103
viii Contents

11 The Anti-Jewish Strand in Hebrews 115

12 The Anti-Jewish Strand in Barnabas 139
13 The Second-Century Protagonists 151
14 The Anti-Jewish Strand in Ignatius 167
15 The Anti-Jewish Strand in Justin: The Dialogue
with Trypho the Jew 173
16 The Anti-Jewish Strand in Melito 179
17 The Anti-Jewish Strand in Chrysostom 185
18 Recapitulation 193

Appendix I: Paul in Modern Scholarship 225

Notes 231
Bibliography 265
Thematic Index 283
 Tables

1.1 Anti-Jewish Bias in Mark 4

1.2 Anti-Jewish Bias in Matthew’s Use of Q Material 5
1.3 Matthew’s Increased Anti-Jewish Bias in Material
Originating in Mark 5
1.4 Anti-Jewish Bias in Matthew and in His Use of
Unidentified Sources 6
1.5 Luke’s Increased Anti-Jewish Bias in Material
Originating in Mark 6
1.6 Anti-Jewish Bias in Luke’s Use of Q Material 7
1.7 Anti-Jewish Bias in Luke’s Own Material and in
His Use of Unidentified Sources 7
1.8 Anti-Jewish Bias in Acts 8
1.9 Anti-Jewish Bias in John and the Johannine Epistles 9
1.10 Anti-Jewish Bias in Paul 9
1.11 Anti-Jewish Bias in Revelation 10
1.12 Anti-Jewish Bias in Hebrews 10
1.13 Anti-Jewish Bias in 1 Peter 10
3.1 Views on the Revised Paul 33
13.1 The Emergence of a Compromise Creed 155
This page intentionally left blank
 Foreword

Research by Jewish and Christian scholars during the past few decades indi-
cates clearly that during the first centuries of the Common Era there were
“Judaisms” and there were “Christianities.” Neither group was monolithic
at that time, just as neither group is monolithic today and never has been.
The development of religion and of religious systems and the lifestyles of
people within them is complex. Most of this development and the relevant
information about these religious lifestyles are not recorded for people cen-
turies later to peruse.
Bibliowicz has studied meticulously the literature that is accessible to us
from among the writings of followers of Jesus of Nazareth during the early
centuries of the development and practices of these “Christianities.” He goes
beyond other scholars in his interpretation of the evidence, tracing and doc-
umenting distinctions and tensions between the Jewish background descen-
dants of disciples of Jesus and non-Jewish background converts to belief in
Jesus that can be seen already within the canonical Newer Testament texts.
His analysis of the evidence is that this conflict between groups of those
who expressed their belief in Jesus was still embryonic within the Newer
Testament texts, but developed rapidly during the early decades of the sec-
ond century and continued well into the fifth.
Bibliowicz considers that the rejection of Judaism by most Gentile believ-
ers in Jesus and the rejection by the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first
followers of the many forms of Gentile belief in Jesus that surfaced follow-
ing the missions to the Gentiles are the triggers of a protracted and bitter
struggle about identity, legitimacy, and authority that burst into the open
during the early decades of the second century, and continued well into
the fifth. Misunderstood by later believers and misrepresented by the later
guardians of orthodoxy, the tensions and the trauma produced by this crisis
are the fountainhead of the anti-Jewish strand that permeates the canonical
and the authoritative lore.
Bibliowicz concludes that the denigration of Torah observance and of
“the Jews” within the Four Gospels and in the writings of followers of Jesus
during the first centuries of the common era reflect the efforts to degrade
not the people who were Jews and remained Jews, but followers of Jesus
who were of Jewish background.
xii Foreword

Norman A. Beck- is Poehlmann Professor of Theology and Classical

Languages at Texas Lutheran University. He is the author of Mature
Christianity in the 21st Century: The Recognition and Repudiation of the
Anti-Jewish Polemic of the New Testament (also published in Germany as
Muendiges Christentum im 21. Jahrhundert by the Institut Kirche und
Judentum), The New Testament: A New Translation and Redaction, Lectionary
Scripture Notes Cycle A, Lectionary Scripture Notes Cycle B, Lectionary
Scripture Notes Cycle C, Anti-Roman Cryptograms in the New Testament:
Hidden Transcripts of Hope and Liberation, Blessed to be a Blessing to Each
Other: Jews and Muslims as Children of Abraham in the Middle East, and a
movie script “Jesus, the Man.” He is a Minnie Stevens Piper Foundation
Professor, active in Jewish-Christian-Islamic dialogue, the Jesus of history
and early church development research, and the current political and reli-
gious situation in the Middle East.
Norman A. Beck
 Foreword

Bibliowicz has written a sensitive and deeply researched description of the

long history of Christian anti-Judaism. This is a story that needs to be told
and retold because Christians, who most need to hear and learn it, are by
and large totally unaware of it. This is not a “learned ignorance,” that is, the
kind of ignorance that is good because we know that we do not know, and
can therefore be appropriately humble in our claims. Instead, it is an igno-
rance of which Christians are ignorant. What that means is that the ancient
and long-standing teaching and practice of contempt for Jews and Judaism
can continue to fly under the radar, undetected, poisoning the intentions
and consequences of Christian action without our even knowing that it is
doing so. It is the ideologies we hold but of which we are unaware that have
effective control of us.
Bibliowicz’s work will bring this ideology into the full light of day and
enable Christians to begin to liberate themselves from it. In the deepest
sense, this is a profound theological work, one that seeks to liberate us from
our inherited ideology of displacing Jews in God’s covenant and being supe-
rior to them in all things religious. His subtitle, “An Unintended Journey,” a
recurring motif in his work, has the benefit of enabling Christians to come
to see that although several New Testament writings have been appealed to
in the history of Christian anti-Judaism for support, no such thing was ever
intended by those writers. Instead, what happened was that earlier con-
flicts between different kinds of Jesus followers, representing a wide variety
of both Jewish and Gentile followers, were later taken up by an entirely
Gentile set of Jesus followers as conflict with Jews and Judaism, with tragic
consequences. And, to make matters worse, this resulting and growing ide-
ology of anti-Judaism was elaborated and put into practice in shaping the
social, political, and economic fabric of Christendom and the lives of Jews
within Christendom.
This is an important book. For all the work done by all kinds of
Christian scholars and theologians, the grassroots reality is that typical,
decent, warm-hearted Christian pastors can still give voice to unintended
anti-Judaism and it still goes unnoticed by laypeople who have, after all,
heard it all their lives.
xiv Foreword

Clark M. Williamson is Indiana Professor of Christian Thought, Emeritus,

at Christian Theological Seminary. A systematic theologian, he concen-
trates on rethinking Christian theology after the Holocaust. His books
include: Preaching the Old Testament without Supersessionism: A Lectionary
Commentary, with Ronald J. Allen (forthcoming), Preaching the Letters
without Denigrating the Law: A Lectionary Commentary, with Ronald
J. Allen, Preaching the Gospels without Blaming the Jews: A Lectionary
Commentary, with Ronald J. Allen, Way of Blessing, Way of Life: A Christian
Theology, Adventures of the Spirit: A Guide to Worship from the Perspective
of Process Theology, with Ronald J. Allen, A Guest in the House of Israel:
Post-Holocaust Church Theology, The Church and the Jewish People (editor),
A Mutual Witness: Toward Critical Solidarity Between Jews and Christians
(editor), Interpreting Difficult Texts: Anti-Judaism and Christian Preaching,
with Ronald J. Allen, When Jews and Christians Meet: A Guide for Christian
Preaching and Teaching, and Has God Rejected His People? Anti-Judaism in the
Christian Church. Williamson is a member of the Christian Scholars Group
on Judaism, the American Academy of Religion, the Association of Disciples
for Theological Discussion, and the American Theological Society. He is a
member of the committee on the Church and the Holocaust of the United
States Holocaust Memorial Museum and of the Christian Scholars Group
on Judaism. In 1990 he was noted by the Disciples Theological Digest as a
“distinguished Disciples Scholar.”
Clark M. Williamson
 Personal Introduction

Circa 80–100 ce: So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather
that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the
crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.” And
all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!” (Matt.
27:24–25).1

For Jews of my generation, the Holocaust is the acknowledged, or repressed,

watershed event of our lives, an ever-present shadow. Most of my immedi-
ate family was spared. My great uncle Mordechai and all his family, my
eldest cousin Ciwia, and my aunt Bronia were among the victims. My aunt
Helena was a Holocaust survivor.
The need to understand Christian attitudes toward Judaism has been
with me for many years. After searching in various directions, I stopped at
the gates of Christian scripture. Without any foreknowledge or expecta-
tions, I started reading the New Testament. The anti-Jewish bias of the texts
surprised me. I did not return to the New Testament for many years.
Some 20 years ago, I started rereading the New Testament. I also began
studying, on my own, The New Testament, Christian history, and Christian
theology. Throughout these years I have been deeply touched and influ-
enced by the encounter with Christian scholars and theologians. I have ben-
efited from their guidance and counsel, which was given with open hearts
and open minds. During these years of study I have learned that the New
Testament is a complex corpus that includes unique theological statements,
extraordinary spiritual insights, edifying stories and parables, and different
and differing perspectives on the ministry of Jesus. In the New Testament
I also encountered confusing and conflicting messages about the attitudes
of early Gentile believers in Jesus toward Judaism and toward the Jewish
people. I have also learned that pro-Jewish and anti-Jewish strands have
cohabited in the traditions of believers in Jesus from the earliest years and
have wrestled since for their minds, hearts, and souls.
For individual believers, Christianity is a religion of faith, love, grace,
salvation, and redemption. The vast majority of today’s believers in Jesus
have no anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic inclinations. Most are unaware of the
deep and pervasive presence of the anti-Jewish strand in their theology,
xvi Personal Introduction

culture, and lore. “Most Christians are unaware of the role that Christians
have played in the oppression of the Jewish people.”2 Furthermore, many
of today’s believers consider Jews to be God’s chosen people and have but
the warmest attitudes toward them. For most, whose life in Christ is one of
loving kindness and mercy, awakening to the anti-Jewish bent that perme-
ates the canonical and authoritative lore is a troubling and disconcerting
experience.3 The presence of an anti-Jewish bias in the religious tradition
that gave the world the inspiring and sublime writings of Perpetua of
Carthage, Francis of Assisi, Hildegard of Bingen, Bonaventure, Meister
Eckhardt, Catherine de Siena, Thomas a’ Kempis, John of the Cross, Teresa
de Avila, and Teilhard de Chardin is disconcerting. The abyss between the
wholesomeness and the authenticity of individual belief and sixteen hun-
dred years of anti-Jewish teachings is hard to reconcile.
For Jews, studying the canonical and the authoritative Christian litera-
ture is a gut-wrenching and unsettling encounter with a strange universe
in which we, and our religious traditions, are denigrated, vilified, and ridi-
culed in a myriad of ways.
When revisiting the New Testament and the authoritative texts, we need
to be aware of the cultural, religious, and emotional filters through which
we approach the text.4 To transpose oneself to the time and place of the
New Testament writers, and to capture the circumstances and the issues
that the scribes, the editors, and the compilers of the texts were trying to
address, one needs to divest sixteen hundred years of traditional interpreta-
tions and dogmas. In order to read the canonical texts as a first-century
inhabitant of the Roman Empire would, we also need to divest deeply
held beliefs, values, and sensibilities. These preconditions are necessary to
capture the events as they unfolded, without the formidable impact of
centuries of retroactive editing and dogmatic indoctrination. Moreover,
the destruction of the textual traditions of differing believers in Jesus, the
complexities of the texts, the intricacy of the circumstances, the fog of his-
tory, active obstruction by the guardians of orthodoxy and the emotional
and cultural shields that protect religious dogma conspire to make this
quest difficult.
The enormous corpus of New Testament scholarship is not fully sur-
veyed here. Theological, Christological, and creedal elements are only
marginally addressed. Many derivative topics are addressed and discussed
only as they impact the subject at hand. Furthermore, my presentation
of these complex topics is not exhaustive; they are explored only to the
extent needed to develop the main themes of the monograph. Readers not
acquainted with the vastness of New Testament scholarship should be aware
that most issues touched upon here have been interpreted and understood
in different and differing ways by qualified scholars and theologians, which
I am not. Furthermore, this work is not a religious statement, nor is it a
 Personal Introduction xvii

statement about religion. The sensitive and emotionally charged nature of

the subject at hand may cause some readers to shut-off to the presentation
and to precategorize this book, or portions of it, in unintended ways. Some
may find the journey emotionally difficult. The reader should continuously
keep in his or her mind that this is not a critique of the faith and beliefs of
believers in Jesus, nor is it about their vast, rich, and empowering religious
heritage. The focus of this work is limited to the emergence and the evolu-
tion of anti-Jewish attitudes among early Gentile believers in Jesus.
I invite Christian readers to attempt to read this book from a Jewish per-
spective, to explore the New Testament and the authoritative texts anew.
I present my work with great trepidation, with an apprehension born out
of the tension between my affinity with religious belief and my quest to
decipher the anti-Jewish strand. This affinity permeates and informs my
life-long interest in the religions experience and its mystical manifesta-
tions. The task of rereading the New Testament in a new light requires
substantial effort. The evidence and the clues that sustain my conclusions
emerge gradually and slowly throughout the monograph. I hope that read-
ers will find this rendition of my journey edifying. Despite many unan-
swered questions the ongoing quest has been rewarding, the conclusions
surprising.
I was summoned to this task by dark and painful memories deeply
etched in the Jewish consciousness, and by ever-present storms that cloud
the Jewish horizon. In this quest I have been nurtured by the deep and
powerful wells of the Jewish collective past. Throughout this journey I
found myself surprised again and again by intense emotions, triggered by
this experience, and reflected in an emotional under-pitch that I do not
identify in my rational self. Twenty years after the beginning of this jour-
ney, the texts can still overwhelm me. The images of their unintended
consequences still haunt me. Paradoxically, as I read and reread the canoni-
cal and authoritative texts, I detected a gradual change in their impact
on me: to my surprise, the more I immersed myself in the material, the
more I became desensitized to the anti-Jewish content. It seems that with
time, one becomes accustomed to heavy dosages of rhetoric; it becomes an
almost nonexistent background noise. It would appear that overexposure
to verbal violence leads to numbness to it.
Any attempt at channeling the chaos, the diversity, and the uncertainty
of the first centuries of belief in Jesus into a structured narrative will fail to
fully encompass the underlying complexity. Furthermore, the enigmas, the
dissonances, and the inconsistencies that we encounter in the texts before
us require a harmonizing narrative that must go beyond the evidence.
Therefore, it was necessary to sketch on this canvass a picture that cannot
be fully substantiated. However, and significantly, none of the traditional or
modern models does exhaust the textual evidence either. Nonetheless, many
xviii Personal Introduction

discrepancies and difficulties, many mystifying puzzles and previously dis-

connected phenomena, yield new meanings and interpretations when ana-
lyzed in light of the suggested socio-theological trajectory. Whether the
proposed alternative, which is an expansion of the work of many scholars
and theologians, is deemed to better fit the evidence and better reflect the
evolution of belief in Jesus is a judgment that readers will cast.
 Preview

Paul introduced monotheism, scriptural religion, and teleology1 to the

Roman world. He also pioneered the rich and fruitful universe of personal
belief. He was the first theologian to acquaint Western minds with the emo-
tional and intellectual universe that moderns call individual consciousness
and belief. Paul’s emphasis on belief was revolutionary. The notion that
what each and every individual believed was the arena where the drama of
salvation unfolded must have been exhilarating in a society where individ-
ual freedom, regardless of class, was very limited. The idea that individual
belief not only mattered but was “the” essence of human existence, and the
only measure for salvation, must have been an empowering insight. We can
only imagine the excitement that this encounter must have caused among
spiritual seekers in the Roman world. However, tensions arose as Gentile
converts to Paul’s form of belief in Jesus encountered the descendants of
Jesus’s disciples and first followers in the public arena. Most of the descen-
dents fo the founding fathers seem to have conditioned fellowship on Torah
observance and may have considered Gentile forms of belief in Jesus insuf-
ficient and lacking.
The canonical tradition seems to shadow the embryonic stages of a
Gentile challenge to the authority and to the legitimacy of the descendants
of Jesus’s disciples and first followers as the exclusive guardians and inter-
preters of Jesus’s legacy.
During the last decades of the first century we encounter Gentile believ-
ers whose contention vis-à-vis the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first
followers seems to have been as follows:

They claim to be the rightful guardians of Jesus legacy, but they are not.
Their ancestors misunderstood Jesus’ ministry. They misunderstood him,
denied him, abandoned, and betrayed him in his hour of need. They exalt
Jesus but misunderstand the true meaning of his ministry. To them, he is a
human. To us he is the divine savior. They claim that our belief is inadequate
and lacking, and that we must keep all their traditions, but we are the ones
that seek martyrdom for his sake. Jesus came to bring salvation to all, not
only to the Jews. Their Torah and their customs have no value anymore.
Their scriptures tell us that the Jews forfeited the covenant and God’s favor.
They are no longer God’s chosen. We believe in Jesus as the fulfillment of
xx Preview

God’s promises to all. Don’t let anyone cast any doubt on your legitimacy as
followers of Jesus. Their ancestors did not understand their sacred lore and
they did not understand the true meaning of Jesus’ legacy either. We are the
true and rightful inheritors of Jesus’ legacy. We are the new people of God,
God’s chosen, the New Israel.

The response of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers

and their Gentile sympathizers seems to have been:

In order to be rightful followers of Jesus you need to embrace his ministry

and his faith. To be a true follower of Jesus you must live like him and wor-
ship like him. Jesus and his closest associates were Jews. You follow Paul who
was not a disciple and did not know Jesus. The Jerusalem leaders did not
embrace Paul’s views. We don’t accept Paul’s claims that Jesus revealed to him
what he did not reveal to his disciples.

Pauline communities experiencing anxiety and doubt caused by this

crisis, needed reassurance and guidance. They needed a legitimating foun-
dational discourse, a dissonance-reducing narrative. In the New Testament
we can identify attempts by Pauline leaders to reassure the rank and file
that they were rightful followers of Jesus despite their rejection of the
beliefs and religious traditions espoused by Jesus and by those chosen by
him to be the custodians of his legacy. Facing an uphill struggle against
the founding faction, and standing on a still-evolving theology, Pauline
leaders and intellectuals seem to have gravitated toward a strategy built on
the belittling of the disciples and on the denigration of their beliefs and
traditions. They also opted for the subversion and the appropriation of
elements, themes, and motifs quarried from their adversaries’ traditions
and texts. In the anti-Jewish-establishment traditions of the Jewish follow-
ers of Jesus and other Judean sectarians, they found a “ready to deploy”
arsenal that could be used to demote the establishment of the Jesus
movement. The lore of the founding faction turned out to be a trove of
anti-Jewish-establishment stones that Gentile believers could use to deni-
grate the Jewish faction. By decontextualizing the Hebrew Scriptures and
the Jewish traditions of prophetic exhortation and self-criticism, and by
appropriating the founders’ identity and anti-Jewish-establishment lore,
Pauline leaders and intellectuals eventually crafted a strategy that was ulti-
mately successful in de-Judaizing belief in Jesus.
Until the twentieth century, the anti-Jewish bent of the lore of early
Gentile believers in Jesus was understood, by the vast majority of scholars
and believers, to be the consequence of the Jewish rejection of Jesus, the
Jewish responsibility for Jesus’s death, and the Jewish loss of God’s favor.
By and large, Judaism was seen as a legalistic and morally inferior tradition
that had forfeited its place as YHWH’s chosen. During the second half of
the twentieth century, aided by the fortuitous findings at Qumran and Nag
 Preview xxi

Hammadi, new paradigms emerged as New Testament scholarship yielded

new insights and perspectives.
At the dawn of the twenty-first century, mainstream scholarship and
the majority of believers have turned away from the traditional views on
Jews and Judaism. The view that a proselytizing struggle between turn of
the era Judaism and early Christianity may have been the main genera-
tor of anti-Jewish attitudes among early Gentile believers in Jesus seems to
be espoused by many. Scholars that embrace this model often describe
anti-Judaism as the consequence of excessive militancy by the more aggres-
sive and vigorous proselytizer; the result of hyper-competitiveness gone
awry. A variant of this “competitive model” sees the attraction of some
turn-of-the-era Gentiles to Judaism as a generator of anti-Jewish sentiment
among early Gentile believers. Under this construct, attraction to Judaism
infuriated Gentile leaders and intellectuals and fueled the anti-Jewish fervor
that is embryonic in the canonical lore and permeates the authoritative texts
thereafter.
This study suggests that the anti-Jewish strand embedded in the lore
is the consequence of a debate about Judaism within the Jesus movement
that, through a complex trajectory of loss of context, misinterpretation, and
misrepresentation, came to be perceived by later believers as reflective of a
conflict between Judaism and Christianity. It is suggested that by the last
decades of the first century, followers of Jesus with varying degrees of Jewish,
Pagan, and Gnostic affinities, affiliations, and inclinations were drawn into
a theological whirlwind and became the protagonists in a protracted multi-
lateral religious conflict within the Jesus movement. Judaism, Gnosticism,
and Paganism were not participants in this struggle; they were the subjects
of contention. Thus, contrary to traditional and modern interpretations,
the New Testament texts do not reflect a struggle between “Christians” and
“Jews.” Nor do they reflect a conflict between “Judaism” and “Christianity.”
Rather, they reflect a conflict about what belief in Jesus should be—among
followers of Jesus with varying degrees of Jewish, Pagan, and Gnostic affini-
ties, affiliations, and inclinations.
This page intentionally left blank
 The Protagonists

The terms commonly used to identify the protagonists in the early evolu-
tion of belief in Jesus reflect the lingering influence of orthodoxy over the
discourse. Scholars have wrestled over a precise, and neutral, terminology
to describe the participants. The terms suggested here are my best effort to
meet that goal.
I have chosen to name the two factions that claimed Paul’s heritage
Pauline-Marcionite and Pauline-Lukan. This choice reflects the fact, often
neglected, that both strands were legitimate inheritors of Paul’s legacy.
The assertion that Pauline-Lukan believers were “Pauline” or “Christians”
whereas Pauline-Marcionites were “Marcionite” or “heretic” has no inher-
ent validity and perpetuates an anachronistic bias that maintains the dis-
course in bondage to a posterior hegemony.
For the most part, when the canonical and authoritative texts condemn
Judaism, Paganism, or Gnosticism they do not reflect an active confronta-
tion with these religious communities. Rather, they reflect internal debates
within the Jesus movement. Whether believers in Jesus should adopt
Jewish, Pagan, or Gnostic beliefs and customs was the subject of these
disputes. Therefore, and for the most part, the anti-Jewish, anti-Pagan,
and anti-Gnostic biases of the canonical and authoritative texts should be
understood to reflect debates within the Jesus movement—not struggles
with other religious communities.
Throughout this journey we will encounter various strands that will
evolve into proto-factions and then into factions:
The Jewish followers of Jesus—Jesus’s disciples and first followers were
Jesus’s chosen successors; the original guardians and interpreters of his leg-
acy. Their beliefs, customs, and traditions were grounded in first-century
Judaism. These messianic Jews seem to have venerated Jesus as an exalted
human. Most rejected the many Gentile forms of belief in Jesus that emerged
following the success of the Pauline and Gnostic missions to the Gentiles.1
Alternative identifiers: Jewish faction, founding fathers, descendants of the
Jewish founders, founding faction, Jerusalem faction.
Pauline-Marcionite believers in Jesus—called for the rejection of the beliefs
and traditions of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers.
xxiv The Protagonists

Marcion’s Jesus was a new and unprecedented figure that revealed a previ-
ously unknown deity of love and mercy.2 He viewed the God of the “Old
Testament” as an inferior deity, lacking in wisdom and justice. Marcionites
considered themselves to be the true interpreters of Paul’s legacy. Marcion
made the earliest and most radical attempt to sever the link between Gentile
believers in Jesus and the founding faction. Contrary to the orthodox com-
plex and ambivalent reject-but-appropriate approach to the beliefs and tra-
ditions of the founding fathers, Marcion advocated a complete and radical
rejection of any affiliation with their legacy3 and strived for a thorough
de-Judaizing of belief in Jesus.
The Pauline-Lukan faction—claimed to supersede the descendants of Jesus’s
disciples and first followers as the “God’s chosen” and as the guardians of
Jesus’s legacy. They struggled to define and articulate a theological compro-
mise. Often identified by scholars as Christian, Paulines, or proto-orthodox,
they came to dominate belief in Jesus.4 Pauline-Lukan believers saw them-
selves as the true interpreters of Paul’s legacy.5 Ignatius may be considered the
third pillar of this faction. Ignatius adds emphasis on unity and hierarchy to
Paul’s and Luke’s foundations. Paul and Ignatius emphasized belief in Jesus’s
death and resurrection (not his life and ministry)6 and strove for a complex
midway positioning of appropriation and supersession7—a cluster of themes
associated with the faction I identify throughout as Pauline-Lukan. The full
lineage of the strand would include Mark, Luke/Acts, Hebrews, Ignatius,
Justin, Polycarp, Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Eusebius (despite significant theo-
logical variance within the group). I use the terms “Lukan,” “Pauline-Lukan,”
and “proto-orthodox” for this faction.
Gnostic believers in Jesus8—Gnosticism, a controversial term, is a later designa-
tion for a variety of syncretic spiritual trends that flourished during the first cen-
turies of the Common Era (Hermetica, Valentians, Mandaeans, Manichaeans).
The usefulness and the relevance of the term have been criticized. However, an
alternative term has not emerged.9 In many Gnostic systems, the world is the
creation of a lesser and evil God (the Jewish God). Despair and pessimism are
pronounced and permanent. The world is evil and there is no hope for change.
Salvation from this world is through secret knowledge taught by a divine savior
(Jesus) and understood only by few, the elect. Various Gnostic schools evolved
from the “Gnostic Fathers” Ptolomey, Cerinthus, and Valentius.
Gentile sympathizers with the Jewish faction—Gentiles attracted to the
descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers. Some converted to Judaism.
Most seem to have embraced some of the beliefs and traditions of the found-
ing fathers of the movement. Commitment, affinity, and affiliation with the
Jewish faction varied greatly. These “Gentile Judaizers” drew some of the most
vitriolic fire from Gentile leaders and literati who were incensed by their attrac-
tion to the beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers.
 Timeline

BCE 1900–1700 The Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob)

BCE 1200–1000 The Judges
BCE 1000–922 Davidic monarchy (“J” writer of Pentateuch)
BCE 850–720 Elijah, Jezebel, and Ahab, Amos, Hosea
BCE 850–720 Assyrian conquest of Northern Kingdom (Israel)
BCE 718–688 Hezekiah
BCE 700 First Isaiah
BCE 640–609 Josiah (Deuteronomic reform)
BCE 625–595 Jeremiah
BCE 597 First deportation (Babylon)
BCE 587 Nebuchadnezzar conquers Jerusalem
BCE 587–538 Ezekiel and Second Isaiah
BCE 465–424 Ezra and Nehemiah
BCE 63 Romans conquer Palestine
BCE 40–4 King Herod
BCE 4? Jesus’s birth
CE 26–36 Pilate in Judea
CE 30? Jesus’s crucifixion
CE 42? Paul’s mission begins
CE 37–41 Emperor Caligula
CE 54–68 Emperor Nero
CE 50–60 Paul’s Epistles (New Testament)
CE 65–70 Gospel of Mark (New Testament)
CE 70 Destruction of the Jerusalem Temple
CE 69–79 Emperor Vespasian
CE 80–90? Matthew, Luke/Acts (New Testament)
CE 81–96 Emperor Domitian
CE 95–105? John, The Book of Revelation (New Testament)
CE 80–135 The Epistle of Barnabas
CE 95? 1 Clement of Rome (Church Fathers)
CE 70–100 The Didache (Church Fathers)
CE 80–117 Ignatius of Antioch (Church Fathers)
CE 98–117 Emperor Trajan
CE 100–160 Justin the Martyr
CE 100–170 Marcion
xxvi Timeline

CE 110–130? Gospels of Peter and Thomas (Gnostic gospel)

CE 110–140? The Shepherd of Hermes (Church Fathers)
CE 120–140? Papias (Church Fathers)
CE 120–156 Polycarp of Smyrna
CE 130–200 Irenaeus (The first “New Testament” canon)
CE 132–135 Second Jewish revolt (Bar Kochba)—Jerusalem destroyed
CE 160–251 Tertullian and Origen of Alexandria
CE 190? Melito of Sardis
CE 260–340 Eusebius
CE 300–375 Athanasius
CE 303–312 The “Great Persecution”
CE 306–337 Emperor Constantine
CE 325 Council of Nicea
CE 379–395 Theodosius Emperor (the Empire is Christianized)
CE 347–407 Chrysostom

Note: The chart is arranged according to the approximate period of the individual’s
ministry or preeminence, or according to the approximate date of text authorship.
Most of these dates are the subject of ongoing, and inconclusive, debates.
 Acknowledgments

Scholars and lifelong students of the Jewish-Christian saga that read, com-
mented, and criticized drafts of this monograph: Reverend Dr. Phillip W.
Tolliday, and Professors D. Fiensy and W. B. Tatum who supported and
encouraged, despite a rather crude first draft. Professor N. Beck whose wise
guidance helped me navigate difficult waters and whose encouragement and
empathy made this journey a unique experience. Professor C. Williamson
whose support and kind words are deeply appreciated. Professors A. R.
Culpepper, D. P. Efroymson, Burton L. Mack, and M. Murray who reviewed
drafts of the monograph and contributed insightful commentary and prepub-
lication reviews. Professors D. Allison, P. Cunningham, J. Pawlikowski, J. T.
Townsend, and J. Tyson who made helpful suggestions and observations.
Special acknowledgment and gratitude is due to the 14 scholars that
submitted prepublication endorsements.
Zali Gurevitch, whose warm and early encouragement played an impor-
tant role in my persevering. Friends that read the early drafts and contrib-
uted comments and much appreciated encouragement: Hanna Bibliowicz,
Jeremy Evnine, Robert Hoffman, Emanuel Jolish, Henry Kadoch, and Henya
Shanun-Klein, the guardian angel of this monograph. Finally, Ronnie, our
children (Gideon, Yonatan, and Michal), and their spouses (Shiri, Samia,
and Pablo) who were supportive throughout, read, and made valuable
observations.

The views presented in this book are the sole responsibility of the author.
The readers’ support was a gracious gift, not an endorsement of the writer’s
views or conclusions.

Cover images: Fifth century mosaic in the interior of the basilica of Santa
Sabina (Rome) on the Aventine over the entrance to the nave. One figure
(smiling and welcoming) represents the Ecclesia ex Gentibus (Church of
the Gentiles—The Gentile followers of Jesus), the other figure (stern and
unwelcoming) represents the Ecclesia ex circumcisione (Church of the
Circumcised—The Jewish followers of Jesus). Courtesy of Holly Hayes, Art
History Images (www.art-history-images.com).
 Chapter 1

The Anti-Jewish Strand in

the New Testament

The anti-Jewish strand that we encounter in the New Testament has two
manifestations:

1. Segments that contain language that disparages Jews, Judaism, or

Jewish beliefs and traditions. The segments in this chapter include
some of the best-known instances of anti-Jewish bias in the New
Testament. The charts that follow are my summary of 233 segments
identified by N. Beck as reflective of anti-Jewish textual bias1; 44
segments are redundancies that originate in the Synoptic phenom-
enon. They do, however, contribute independently to the anti-Jewish
impact of the texts.
2. Themes, motifs, and theological constructs that disparage Jews,
Judaism, or Jewish beliefs and traditions. These will be introduced in
the chapters ahead.

The anti-Jewish strand is a complex and multi-layered phenomenon that

has six main sources:2

1. Polemic by the Jewish followers of Jesus against the Judean

establishment.
2. Polemic by Gentile believers against the Jewish establishment of the
Jesus movement, its beliefs, and traditions.
3. Appropriation Theology—The claim that Pauline-Lukan believers
in Jesus replaced the Jewish followers of Jesus as the New Israel, as
God’s chosen.
2 Jews and Gentiles in Early Jesus Movement

4. Supersession Theology—The view that the Pauline-Lukan interpre-

tation of Jesus’s legacy replaced and annulled the beliefs and tradi-
tions of Jesus’s disciples and first followers.
5. Decontextualization and subversion of the Judean tradition of
self-criticism and prophetic anti-establishment censure.
6. Loss of context, fusion, confusion, and misinterpretation of these
rhetorical layers resulting in their projection onto Judaism.

Throughout the texts we will survey, these sources will surface, and
resurface, in a variety of configurations. Intertwined, layered, appropriated,
projected, retrojected, subverted, or de-contextualized they will challenge
our ability to understand and discuss the emergence and the evolution of
the anti-Jewish strand. This layered trajectory created the puzzling col-
lage of anti-Jewish polemic that we encounter in the New Testament texts.
Disputes among Jews about Jesus (was Jesus the messiah or not), disputes
among differing followers of Jesus (was Jesus human, divine, or both),
and disputes about what theological worldview should be adopted (Jewish,
Pauline, or Gnostic) lay fused and intertwined in the authoritative texts.

Here are some of the better known examples of the anti-Jewish strand in
the New Testament:

You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear
fruit that befits repentance, and do not presume to say to yourselves, “We
have Abraham as our father”; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to
raise up children to Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees;
every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into
the fire. (Matt. 3:7–10)
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed
tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s
bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to people,
but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe to you, scribes and
Pharisees, hypocrites! for you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn
the monuments of the righteous, saying, “If we had lived in the days of our
fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of
the prophets.” Thus you witness against yourselves, that you are sons of those
who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You
serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?
(Matt. 23:27–33)
Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you
will kill and crucify, and some of whom you will scourge in your synagogues
and persecute from town to town, that upon you may come all the righteous
blood shed on earth, from the blood of the innocent Abel to the blood of
Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary
 The Anti-Jewish Strand in the New Testament 3

and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all this will come upon this generation.
(Matt. 23:34–36)
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent
to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen
gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house
is forsaken and desolate. (Matt. 23:37–38)
Jesus said to them [i.e., the “Jews”], “If God were your Father, you would
love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own
accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is due to
the fact you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil,
and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the begin-
ning, and has nothing to do with the truth, due to the fact there is no truth
in him . . . He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do
not hear them is that you are not of God.” (John 8:42–47)
You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist
the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did
not your fathers persecute? And they killed those who announced before-
hand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and
murdered, you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep
it. (Acts 7:51–53)
And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word
of God should be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it from you, and judge
yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles” . . . and
when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad. (Acts 13:46–48)
And when [the Jews] opposed and reviled [Paul], he shook out his garments
and said to them, “Your blood be upon your heads! I am innocent. From now
on I will go to the Gentiles.” (Acts 18:6)
So, as [the Jews] disagreed among themselves, they departed, after Paul had
made one statement: “The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers
through Isaiah the prophet: ‘Go to this people, and say, You shall indeed hear
but never understand . . . ’ Let it be known to you then that this salvation of
God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen.” (Acts 28:25–29)
For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus
which are in Judea; for you suffered the same things from your own coun-
trymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the
prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all men by hinder-
ing us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved—so as always
to fill up the measure of their sins. But God’s wrath has come upon them at
last! (1 Thess. 2:14–16)
I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich) and the slander
of those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.
(Rev. 2:9)
Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are
Jews and are not, but lie—behold, I will make them come and bow down
before your feet, and learn that I have loved you. (Rev. 3:9)3
4 Jews and Gentiles in Early Jesus Movement

Table 1.1 Anti-Jewish Bias in Mark

Mark 2:1–12
Mark 2:13–17
Mark 2:18–20
Mark 2:23.28
Mark 3:1–6
Mark 3:20–30
Mark 5:21–43
Mark 6:1–6a
Mark 7:1–23
Mark 8:11–12
Mark 8:15
Mark 9:14c
Mark 10:1–12
Mark 10:17–31
Mark 8:31
Mark 9:31
Mark 10:33–34
Mark 11:12–25
Mark 11:27–33
Mark 12:1–12
Mark 12:13–17
Mark 12:18–27
Mark 12:28–34
Mark 12:35–37a
Mark 12:37b–40
Mark 14:2
Mark 14:10–11
Mark 14:43
Mark 14:53–55
Mark 14:64
Mark 15:43
Mark 15:3, 10, 11
Mark 15:8, 11, 15
Mark 15:38
Mark 15:39
Mark 15:29
Mark 15:31, 38, 39

The Q document or Q (German Quelle, “source”) is believed to be, by

most scholars, the oldest “text” of the tradition and is usually dated about
50 ce.4 Q is mostly a collection of Jesus’s sayings. Q’s existence has been
inferred. No actual Q document, in full or in part, has survived. It seems
to have been used by the authors of Matthew and Luke.
 Table 1.2 Anti-Jewish Bias in Matthew’s Use of Q Material
Matthew 3:7b–10 Luke 3:7b–9
Matthew 5:11–12 Luke 6:22–23
Matthew 8:10 Luke 7:9; 13:28–29
Matthew 11:16–19 Luke 7:31–35
Matthew 11:20–24 Luke 10:12–15
Matthew 12:27–28, 30 Luke 11:19–20, 23
Matthew 12:41 Luke 11:32
Matthew 12:42 Luke 11:31
Matthew 23:37–39 Luke 13:34–35
Matthew 11:12–13 Luke 16:16–17
Matthew 5:18, 11:12–13 Luke 16:16–17
Matthew 15:14b Luke 6:39
Matthew 11:20–24 Luke 10:12–15
Matthew 12:42 Luke 11:31
Matthew 23:37–39 Luke 13:34–35
Matthew 19:28d Luke 22:30b

Table 1.3 Matthew’s Increased Anti-Jewish Bias in Material Originating in Mark

Matthew 7:29b Mark 1:22c
Matthew 8:16–17 Mark 1:32–34
Matthew 9:4 Mark 2:8
Matthew 12:1–8 Mark 2:23–28
Matthew 12:9–14 Mark 3:1–6
Matthew 10:1–16 Mark 6:7; 3:13–19a;
6:8–11
Matthew 16:53–58 Mark 6:1–6a
Matthew 15:1–11, 15–20 Mark 7:1–23
Matthew 16:5–12 Mark 8:14–21
Matthew 21:33–46 Mark 12:1–12
Matthew 22:15–22 Mark 12:13–17
Matthew 22:34–40 Mark 12:28–34
Matthew 22:41–46 Mark 12:35–37a
Matthew 23:1–12(14) Mark 12:37b-40
Matthew 24:1–51; 10:17–22a; Mark 13:1–37
25:13–15
Matthew 26:1–5 Mark 14:1–2
Matthew 27:1–2 Mark 15:1
Matthew 27:11–23, 26 Mark 15:2–15
Matthew 27:33–42, 44–56 Mark 15:22–41

5
 Table 1.4 Anti-Jewish Bias in Matthew and in His Use of
Unidentified Sources
Matthew 1:1–17
Matthew 1:18–25
Matthew 3:1–6, 11–12
Matthew 3:13–17
Matthew 5:20–22, 27–28, 31–32a, 33–39, 43–44a
Matthew 6:1–8, 16–18
Matthew 10:23
Matthew 12:17–21
Matthew 12:34a
Matthew 12:45c
Matthew 15:12–14a
Matthew 16:17–19; 18:18
Matthew 21:31b–32
Matthew 22:1–10
Matthew 23:12, 15–33
Matthew 23:34–36
Matthew 27:24–25
Matthew 27:43
Matthew 27:62–66; 28:4, 11–15

Table 1.5 Luke’s Increased Anti-Jewish Bias in Material Originating in Mark

Luke 4:14–30 Mark 1:14–15; 6:1–6a

Luke 5:17–26 Mark 2:1–12
Luke 5:27–32 Mark 2:13–17
Luke 5:33–35 Mark 2:18–20
Luke 6:6–11 Mark 3:1–6
Luke 11:14–23 Mark 3:22–30
Luke 8:40–56 Mark 5:21–43
Luke 11:37–41 Mark 7:1–23
Luke 12:1 Mark 8:15
Luke 16:18 Mark 10:1–12
Luke 9:22; 9:44; 18:31b–33 Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33–34
Luke 13:6–9; 19:45–48; Mark 11:12–25
21:37–38
Luke 20:1–8 Mark 11:27
Luke 20:9–19 Mark 12:1–12
Luke 20:20–26 Mark 12:13
Luke 20:27–40 Mark 12:18–27
Luke 10:25–28 Mark 12:28–34
Luke 21:5–36; 12:11–12; 12:40; Mark 13:1–37
17:23; 19:12–13

continued

6
Table 1.5 Continued

Luke 22:1–2 Mark 14:1–2

Luke 7:36–50 Mark 14:3–9
Luke 22:3–6 Mark 14:10–11
Luke 22:47–53 Mark 14:43
Luke 22:54a, 63–65 Mark 14:53, 55–65
Luke 23:2–5, 13–25 Mark 15:2–15
Luke 23:33–49 Mark 15:22

Table 1.6 Anti-Jewish Bias in Luke’s Use of Q Material

Luke 3:7b–9 Matthew 3:b–10
Luke 6:22–23 Matthew 5:11–12
Luke 6:26
Luke 7:9 Matthew 8:10
Luke 7:31–35 Matthew 11:16–19
Luke 10:12–15 Matthew 11:20–24
Luke 12:54–56 Matthew 16:2–3
Luke 13:34–35 Matthew 23:37–39
Luke 16:16–17 Matthew 11:12–13; 5:18

Table 1.7 Anti-Jewish Bias in Luke’s Own Material

and in His Use of Unidentified Sources
Luke 1:5–23
Luke 1:26–38
Luke 1:39–45, 56
Luke 1:68–79
Luke 2:8–15
Luke 2:34–35
Luke 2:38
Luke 2:46–47
Luke 7:29–30
Luke 10:29–37
Luke 10:38–40
Luke 11:27–28
Luke 11:42–48, 52
Luke 11:49–51
Luke 11:53–54
Luke 13:10–17
Luke 13:31–33
Luke 14:1–6
Luke 14:7–24
Luke 14:1–32

continued

7
Table 1.7 Continued
Luke 16:14–15
Luke 16:19–31
Luke 17:11–19
Luke 17:20–21
Luke 17:25
Luke 18:9–14
Luke 19:3–40
Luke 19:41–44
Luke 23:6–12
Luke 23:27–31
Luke 23:50b–51a
Luke 24:6–8
Luke 24:20

Table 1.8 Anti-Jewish Bias in Acts

Acts 2:1–47
Acts 3:1–26
Acts 4:1–31
Acts 5:17–42
Acts 6:8–8:3
Acts 9:1–31
Acts 10:1–11 12:1–24
Acts 13:6–12
Acts 13:14–52
Acts 14:1–7
Acts 14:19–20
Acts 15:1–35
Acts 17:1–9
Acts 17:10–14
Acts 17:16–17
Acts 18:4–6
Acts 18:12–17
Acts 18:19–21
Acts 18:28
Acts 19:8–10
Acts 19:11–20
Acts 19:33–34
Acts 20:1–3
Acts 20:17–38
Acts 21:11
Acts 21:27–36
Acts 22:30–23:10
Acts 23:12–35
Acts 24:1–27
continued

8
Table 1.8 Continued
Acts 25:1–12
Acts 25:13–22
Acts 25:23–26:32
Acts 28:17–28

Table 1.9 Anti-Jewish Bias in John and the Johannine

Epistles
John 1:1–18
John 1:19–34
John 1:35–51
John 2:1–11
John 2:13–22
John 3:1–21
John 3:25
John 4:1–3
John 4:4–42
John 5:1–47
John 6:1–71
John 7:1–52
John 7:53–8:11
John 8:12–59
John 9:1–41
John 10:1–21
John 10:22–39
John 11:1–54
John 12:9–11, 17–19
John 12:42–43
John 13:33
John 15:18–25
John 15:18–25
John 16:2
John 18:1–12
John 18:13–23
John 15:28–19:16

Table 1.10 Anti-Jewish Bias in Paul

Romans 3:20
Romans 9:31
Romans 11:28
2 Corinthians 3:14f
Galatians 3:10
Galatians 3:11
Galatians 6:15

9
Table 1.11 Anti-Jewish Bias in Revelation

Revelation 2:9
Revelation 3:9

Table 1.12 Anti-Jewish Bias in Hebrews

Hebrews 7:5–12
Hebrews 7:18, 28
Hebrews 8:1–13
Hebrews 10:1

Table 1.13 Anti-Jewish Bias in 1 Peter

1 Peter 2:4–5, 7–8
1 Peter 2:9–10

10
 Chapter 2

The Anti-Jewish Strand—

The First Years

Introduction
The legacies of paradigmatic founders anchor the great religious traditions
of the world. Most of the great religious leaders (Moses, Buddha, Confucius,
Mohammad, and Paul) enjoyed long ministries. A lifetime of leadership and
teaching enabled them to develop and articulate a comprehensive world-
view and to inculcate in their followers a solid understanding of their legacy.
Long ministries also helped them develop, clarify, and cement their legacy
among their followers. Upon their death, their followers had a path to fol-
low and they could rally around an authoritative doctrinal legacy.
According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’s ministry lasted somewhere
between 18 and 36 months.1 This extraordinarily short ministry may
account for the fact that his followers seem to have been unprepared for
his death. Jesus’s death plunged his disciples and followers into a crisis that
may have contributed to the theological and doctrinal chaos that followed.
Instead of embracing a clear legacy, Jesus’s followers had to figure out what
his legacy should be. The absence of a substantial formative period and a
large influx of converts from Paganism seem to have contributed to the
emergence of a variety of incompatible Gentile forms of belief in Jesus.2
In Judaism, with the probable exception of Qumran, messianic move-
ments have unraveled upon the leader’s death. Thus, continuation of the
Jesus movement required the articulation of a vision of Jesus’s life and
ministry that would support continuity. Lacking an authoritative pattern
to follow, some may have left the movement. Others searched the Jewish
sacred scriptures for an explanation. Paul’s Epistles seem to have been
authored a decade or two later and are the earliest integral texts in the New
12 Jews and Gentiles in Early Jesus Movement

Testament. Other attempts to understand the meaning of Jesus’s life and

death produced Q, James, proto-Matthew, and proto-John. This would
be the earliest, and Jewish, layer of the New Testament. Later texts, the
canonical Gospels, the Epistle to the Hebrews, Revelation, Barnabas, the
Gnostic Gospels of Mary, Thomas, and Phillip, the Gospel of the Truth,
the Apocryphon of John, and the Dialogue of the Savior, showcase the
diversity of the early Gentile strands.
Attempting to decipher the pre-Synoptic period is an excursion fraught
by low visibility and unstable ground. Any attempt to gaze at the two–
three decades following Jesus’s death must be highly qualified. Of special
interest to our quest is whether the anti-Judaic3 bent of the canonical
texts has pre-Synoptic precursors. Whether these attitudes were held by
the descendents of Jesus’s disciples and first followers or flourished mostly
among non-Jews is crucial to our attempts to understand the emergence of
anti-Judaic attitudes among early Gentile believers. The pre-Synoptic phase
of the Passion narratives is also the arena where we may find important clues
for the emergence of the “Jewish responsibility” libel.4 If the Passion narra-
tives originate in one of the proto-Gospel traditions, the anti-Jewish strand
can be assigned to a unique and conjectural situation (one community,
one faction, one set of circumstances). On the other hand, if the canonical
Passion narratives emanate from a wide spectrum of pre-Gospel traditions
or from a single but widespread tradition, the anti-Jewish strand would have
emerged out of a wider foundation. If the former is upheld, we have one
tradition that has overtaken others. If the latter is upheld, it may indicate
that there was a tradition of anti-Jewish resentment regarding Jesus’s death
that was widely espoused.
There is substantial evidence that turn-of-the-era religious quarrels were
intense and vitriolic. Debate was vicious. “Bashing the competition” was
the norm. Misrepresenting the opposition was commonplace. Thus, as we
travel backward in time we need to tune our sensibilities to fit the con-
frontational tone that characterized religious clashes during the first cen-
turies of the era. Furthermore, we need emphasize that, for the most part,
religious texts were deployed to indoctrinate—not to inform. They were
authored to shape the beliefs and attitudes of the believers, rather than to
provide an accurate historical account. Moreover, as we try to understand
the spirit of the age, we must separate our analysis of the author’s original
intent from its subordination-appropriation to service later agendas.

Anti-Jewish-establishment Rhetoric
In most religious traditions, pro-establishment theologies are generally
associated with the fortunate, the successful, the socially connected, and
 The Anti-Jewish Strand—The First Years 13

the powerful. These theologies tend to promote the belief that one’s for-
tune is a reflection of God’s favor and of the truthfulness of one’s belief.
Establishment theologies tend to adhere to tradition and to “things as they
are.” These are theologies of the content and tend to tilt toward serene, sub-
lime, and harmonious themes and imagery. Anti-establishment theologies,
on the other hand, tend to surface among sectarians and among the mar-
ginalized, the poor, the vanquished, and the suffering. Belief in the com-
ing end of times, dualism, retribution, vindication, and God’s eventual just
judgment, are commonly attested features of anti-establishment theologies.
These are theologies of the discontent and tend to tilt toward intense emo-
tions and extreme imagery. Throughout the New Testament we seem to
encounter the footprints of both pro-establishment and anti-establishment
theological inclinations, with a preponderance of the later.
We will encounter in the New Testament texts traces of three types of
anti-establishment rhetoric-polemic:

1. Judean self-criticism and Prophetic anti-Jewish-establishment

censure, as found among the Jewish prophets and in the Hebrew
Scriptures.
2. Rhetoric by the Jewish followers of Jesus against the Judean
establishment.
3. Rhetoric by Gentile believers in Jesus against the Jewish establish-
ment of the Jesus movement.

According to the texts available to us, sometime during the second half
of the first century some Gentile believers in Jesus started to think, perceive,
and express themselves in apparent emulation of Jewish sectarians. How this
migration of lore and self-perception did take place is one of the great enig-
mas that accompany the emergence of Gentile forms of belief in Jesus. This
question will take center stage in our inquiry and will be bountiful in insights
on the emergence of anti-Jewish attitudes among early Gentile believers in
Jesus.

The New Testament and Qumran

The Qumranites5, similar to other Judean sectarians, saw themselves as the
only rightful holders of the covenant with YHWH.6 The members of the
community understood themselves to be “the true Israel,” living apart from
the rest of Israel, which is seen as wicked and sinful.7 The Qumran sect
scourges those outside the sect as “the congregation of traitors” (CD 1.12).
The antagonists in the Thanksgiving Hymns are: “an assembly of deceit,
and a horde of Satan” (2.2.2). In the War Rule: they are “the company
14 Jews and Gentiles in Early Jesus Movement

of the sons of darkness, the army of Satan” (CD 1.1). The Pharisees (the
arch-villains of Matthew) may be among Qumran’s adversaries too: “Those
who seek smooth things” and the “deceivers” are identified by some schol-
ars as Pharisees. Segment 4QMMT appears to confirm that Pharisees were
among the Qumran’s opponents. These Jewish sectarians also believed in a
coming judgment. Qumran is a community of repentance and of renewed
commitment to Torah observance. Qumran sees the world in stark contrasts
of “good and evil,” “light and darkness”; it is strict and militant. One’s status
as a true Israelite, as one of the righteous, and the receipt of God’s blessings
require the observance of the divine law. The “separate assembly and house”
(1QS 8:4–10) and attacks on those who reject them (e.g., 1QS 2:4–10)
could be seen as anticipating the polemic in the Gospel of Matthew.8
The Qumran community is the clearest example of a “sect” (in the mod-
ern sense of the word) within first-century Judaism. Its distinctiveness has
become more apparent as the more sectarian of the Dead Sea Scrolls (from
Cave 4) have been published, showcasing strong predestinarian, dualistic,
and mystical themes and motifs. The community evidently regarded itself
as an alternative to the Jerusalem Temple (hence its withdrawal to the wil-
derness), determined membership by reference to its own understanding
and interpretation of Scripture, and applied strict rules for novitiate and
continuing membership (1QS 5–9). Most like the earliest Jesus movement
in its sense of divine grace (1QS 11; 1QH) and eschatological fulfillment
and anticipation (IQpHab, IQSa, 1QM), it was distinct from the former
in a strict application of purity rules and discipline.9 Qumran, I Enoch and
Jubilees provide us additional windows into the worldview of Jewish sectar-
ian communities. I Enoch scourges fellow Jews and presents the world in
sharp binary contrasts: “sinners/irreverent” on one side, “righteous/pious”
on the other (1.1, 7–9; 5.6–7). I Enoch seems to have contributed to the
substantial apocalyptic literature that we encounter in the late Second
Temple period and had a definitive impact on messianic imagery among
Jews (the son of man, a primordial being, who would preside over a final
Judgment and would usher in the resurrection of the faithful) and later on
among early believers in Jesus.
Dualism is another possible link between the early Jesus movement and
the Judean sectarian milieu. “Two Ways” is the designation given by schol-
ars to a worldview that surfaced during the two centuries prior to the turn
of the era and that, for the first time in Jewish history, saw this world as the
battleground between the forces of good and evil. The Two Ways theology
resonates with the Gnostic understanding of this world as dominated by
evil and suffering; the creation of an evil God. The resentful, righteous,
and militant posturing of Judean sectarians is oftentimes intertwined with
the Two Ways material. The juxtaposition of “good—evil,” “us—them,”
“sons of light—sons of darkness,” which we encounter among some Gentile
 The Anti-Jewish Strand—The First Years 15

believers in Jesus, may have originated in the sectarian-separatist posture

of the descendants of the Jewish founders and in the Two Ways mindset
developed by Judean sectarians, most notably at Qumran.10
Dead Sea Scrolls research has yielded insights that we may harness to
our quest to identify the cultural and religious traditions and templates
that the New Testament authors may have used to fashion their accounts of
Jesus’s ministry. Knohl11 argues the intriguing possibility that Jesus knew
himself to be the Messiah, and expected to be rejected, killed, and resur-
rected—based on the antecedent of the messiah from Qumran. Moreover,
in the Self-Glorification Hymn we see a combination of divine or angelic
status and of suffering not previously known outside the Jesus story. The
author describes himself in the image of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53,
an imagery that was emulated-incorporated-appropriated by early Gentile
believers in Jesus.
Overall, I see strong similarities, parallels, and resonances between the
texts found in Qumran and the earliest strata of the New Testament, point-
ing to a significant connection whose observable elements will surface
throughout our inquiry. This understanding of the affinities between some
New Testament texts and the Judean sectarian milieu diverges somewhat
from the consensus among scholars. The current consensus seems to be
moving away from dependence and tends to tone down the importance of
continuity. A minority of New Testament scholars see significant affinity
between Paul’s theology and the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls, and little affin-
ity between Jesus and his disciples, and Qumran.12 According to D. Flusser
(a minority view) there existed a stratum of thought that was influenced
by sectarian ideas, and John the Evangelist, Paul, and the authors of some
NT Epistles based themselves on the theological achievements of this
stratum.13
The similarities, parallels, and resonances between the texts found in
Qumran and the earliest strata of the New Testament:

1. The Pesher exegetical method (Typology)14 was unique to Qumran

and was emulated-appropriated by Pauline-Lukan believers. The
main Pesher texts in Qumran are of the prophetic books Habakkuk,
Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, Nahum, and the book of Psalms, which are
also popular typological texts in the New Testament.15
2. In the Qumran library, the most attested and most important biblical
books are Deuteronomy, Isaiah, and Psalms. These are also central in
the New Testament.
3. Both Qumran and some early believers in Jesus followed a charis-
matic leader and considered themselves communities of the “cho-
sen,” guided by divine revelation, existing between the powers of
good and evil.
16 Jews and Gentiles in Early Jesus Movement

4. Both communities lived in anticipation of an eminent end of times

and a final judgment. The pitch is militant and resentful, as we would
expect from separatist and self-righteous groups.
5. The arguments, attitudes, language, and imagery deployed by the
Pauline-Lukan faction against the establishment of the Jesus move-
ment seem to emulate the arguments, attitudes, language, and imag-
ery that Jewish sectarians, most notably Qumran, deployed against
the Jewish establishment.
6. With the exception of the Qumran community, there was no anteced-
ent for the survival of a messianic sect after the death of its leader.16
Following Jesus’s death, the Qumran community (having survived
the death of The Teacher of Righteousness) may have offered a tem-
plate to follow.
7. The Qumran Messiah was believed to have resurrected after three
days and his second comingwas anticipated. Jesus’s suffering, death,
and resurrection after three days suggest that his followers may have
used the pre-existing template of this messianic predecessor, the suf-
fering servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls.17
8. Qumran, contrary to mainstream Judaism, believed in continued
revelation beyond the biblical prophets, a theological stance present
in the New Testament.
9. Both communities had a sense of divine grace (1QS 11; 1QH) and
eschatological fulfillment and anticipation (IQpHab, IQSa, 1QM).
An end-of-times and earth-shattering battle is described in the War
Scroll, in the Rule of the Congregation IQSa, and in Revelation.18
10. The “new covenant,” of great significance to Qumran (CD 6:19; 8:21;
20:12; IQpHab 2:3f.), is also a central theme in the New Testament
(cf. Rom. 7:1–6; Gal. 3:23–25; Heb. 8:1–15, 8:6–13, 10). However,
Qumran reads Jeremiah 31:31–34 as emphasizing renewal, the NT
as emphasizing replacement.19
11. The covenant, as a result of the intervention of an extraordinary indi-
vidual,20 is the possession of the community and not those outside it,
who have forfeited their right to it through their sins.
12. Dualism and the Two Ways imagery21 are present in Qumran’s
Community Rule (I QS 3.13–4.16) and in the New Testament
(mostly Paul and John).22 Qumran’s world is divided into good and
evil. “Sons of light” imagery occurs in The War Scroll in Qumran,
and in John 12:38 and 1 Thessalonians 5:5.
13. In Qumran’s Self-Glorification Hymn the author describes himself in
the image of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53, an imagery that was later
emulated-incorporated-appropriated by early Gentile believers in Jesus.
14. Both Qumran and early believers in Jesus distanced themselves from
the official Jewish sacrificial system and considered the priesthood
unqualified and sacrilegious.
 The Anti-Jewish Strand—The First Years 17

15. Celibacy, disapproved of in Judaism, was practiced by some Essenes

and was idealized by early Paulines. Polygamy and divorce, approved
by first-century Judaism, were forbidden by both communities.
16. Similar to some early communities of believers in Jesus, Qumran
led a communal lifestyle with communal meals and no personal
possessions.
17. Ritual immersion for the removal of ritual impurity was normative
for first-century Jews, but Qumran and the New Testament present
something new: immersion as an initiation rite (baptism).
18. The most probable influence on Hebrews’ priesthood of Melchizedek
seems to be IQMelchizedek discovered at Qumran Cave 11,23
although Attridge instructs us of other instances of Melchizedek spec-
ulation (Philo, the fragmentary Nag Hammadi tractate Melchizedek
[NHC 9, 1], 2 Enoch, and 3 Enoch).24
19. John the Baptist and Jesus ministered within walking distance from
Qumran,25 at a time when the community seems to have been active,
pointing to a plausible connection.

However, despite substantial evidence for a link between Qumran and

the early Jesus movement, we should be cautious about its interpretation.
The availability of large numbers of Qumran texts, compared to other sec-
tarian communities, may cause us to overemphasize this connection. Rather,
we should contemplate the possibility that this nexus may be indicative of
a connection between the early, and pre-Gentile, Jesus movement with the
general Judean sectarian milieu (Qumran being a specific example of this
broader phenomenon). It seems to be the case that the Qumran sect and
the pre-Gentile Jesus movement were contemporaneous sectarian Jewish
streams, accounting for the similarities we have encountered.
It is important to emphasize that the chances that early Pauline believ-
ers in Jesus, mostly recent converts from Paganism, developed ex-nihilo a
typological (Pesher) exegesis of a religious tradition alien to them—are close
to nil. Consequently, the use of typology is one of the strongest indications
that some Gentile believers emulated-appropriated a number of Qumran
peculiarities. The emulation of this exegetical idiosyncrasy by early Gentile
believers in Jesus is one of many hints that Judean sectarian lore, views, and
traditions migrated to a Gentile setting (most probably) through the agency
of Jesus’s disciples and first followers or their descendants.
In summary, the parallels between the Judean sectarian milieu and the
New Testament are too numerous and too substantial to be set aside, and
point to a significant and important connection. Although none of the
similarities and parallels would be (by itself ) conclusive proof of a nexus,
their cumulative impact should tilt the balance toward the view that Pauline
believers in Jesus inherited-appropriated many Qumran-like idiosyncrasies.
Since we do not have any indication of direct contact between Gentile
18 Jews and Gentiles in Early Jesus Movement

believers in Jesus and Qumran, we must assume that Jesus’s disciples and
first followers (who were Jewish sectarians with, plausibly, significant affini-
ties and similarities with Qumran) are the most likely agents of this migra-
tion of lore and self-perception to non-Jews.

What Is at Stake
Many scholars active in the twenty-first century have embraced the diver-
sity of the early Jesus movement. The argument as to whether the Jesus
movement was significantly uniform, or substantially diverse, still rages—
but the balance is tilting toward the latter. The common ground was Jesus’s
ministry, but beyond that anchor, the view that the emerging factions
were diverse to the point of incompatibility is gaining support. For the
pre-Synoptic period, the three–four decades prior to Mark, scholars have
identified communities with differing theological anchors: Torah obser-
vance (the descendants of the founding faction), Jesus’s death and resurrec-
tion (Pauline believers in Jesus),26 Jesus’s sayings and teachings (the Jewish
followers of Jesus, Q, and some Gnostic communities27), and esoteric and
sacred knowledge (Gnostic believers in Jesus).
Theories about pre-Gospel passion narrative traditions28 are crucial for
our search for they can illuminate the origins of the anti-Jewish strand we
encounter in the canonical passion narratives. For our purposes, the rel-
evant questions at the pre-Synoptic level can be phrased in several ways:
Were anti-Jewish feelings central to all pre-Synoptic communities? Are the
anti-Judaic arguments, themes, and imagery that permeate the canoni-
cal passion narratives factional or are they widely attested throughout the
pre-Synoptic lore and texts? Was the “Jewish responsibility” motif present in
all the pre-Synoptic groups? If widely held, did it have the same meaning,
centrality, and intensity for all believers? Was the focus on Jesus’s death a
characteristically Pauline-Lukan theme or was it widely accepted and author-
itative? Is there a connection between focus on Jesus’s death and anti-Judaic
attitudes?
Some scholars have classified early Gentile believers in Jesus according
to their affiliation to either of two broad and somewhat mutually exclusive
Jesus traditions:

● The “life tradition” is an academic identifier given to traditions about

Jesus’s life and ministry. This tradition included Jesus’s teachings and
sayings and had a strong anti-establishment bent that would alienate
the Roman elites. The life tradition is reflected in the gospel according
to Thomas, Q, the opponents of Paul in 1 Corinthian 1–4, in Gnostic
texts, and in some of the opponents of the Johannines. It also surfaces
in the Gospel of Matthew.
 The Anti-Jewish Strand—The First Years 19

● The “Cross tradition” is an academic identifier given to the tradition

focused on Jesus’s death and resurrection. This tradition, embraced by
the Pauline factions, deemphasized the subversive and anti-establish-
ment message of Jesus’s ministry and emphasized Jesus’s death and an
otherworldly creed. The Cross tradition deemphasized “Jesus the social
critic”29 and emphasized “Jesus the divine being” and thus opened the
door for the successful introduction of the new faith to the Roman elites.
This tradition dominates most of the New Testament texts.

Whether the anti-Judaic bent of the canonical passion narratives is mostly

an intensification or decontextualization of the anti-Jewish-establishment
sentiment of the Jewish followers of Jesus or mostly the creation of
non-Jewish believers, is significant to our journey. More significant, how-
ever, is the growing recognition that anti-Jewish themes were central for
some, but were not universally authoritative for all early Gentile believers in
Jesus. The work of Crossan, Flusser, Koester, and others on the pre-Gospel
stages of the passion narratives (although still a minority view) points to
a sectarian origin. The work of these scholars supports the view that the
canonical passion narratives emerged as part of a legacy that was not an
intrinsic and constitutive theme for all believers in Jesus.
The question is, in a nutshell, whether the Passion narratives we encoun-
ter in the canonical Gospels originate in one of multiple and differing
pre-Synoptic strands (Flusser, Crossan, Koester) or in a wider pre-existing
tradition (Brown). Whether the canonical Passion Narratives represent
independent attestations or not has shadowed the battle over variants of the
“Jewish responsibility for Jesus’ death.” If Mark and John are independent,
and stand on a widely embraced pre-Synoptic tradition, it supports those
hanging on to some variant of the claim. If Mark and John are dependent,
and stand on one of multiple pre-Synoptic traditions, it points to a factional
origin.

Summary
Turn-of-the-era Jewish theological battles were occasionally vitriolic but
they were also mostly harmless. Although the pitch could be intense, there
were few instances of violence between Jewish sectarians and the Jewish
mainstream. In line with other Jewish sectarians, the Jewish followers of
Jesus may have considered themselves to be the “New Israel,” a community
living against apostate and sinful Israel. Characteristically, those outside
the community were seen as bound for damnation and outside God’s favor.
The anti-Jewish-establishment rhetoric that the Jewish followers of Jesus
may have deployed against fellow Jews, a characteristic motif among Jewish
sectarians, is not extant outside the Christian authoritative texts.
20 Jews and Gentiles in Early Jesus Movement

The Qumran community and the communities that produced other

Judean sectarian texts may have been precursors or templates for the Jewish
followers of Jesus and may provide “the missing link” and help us re-place the
early Jesus movement in continuation to turn-of-the-era sectarian Judaism.
Acknowledgment of the similarities between Gentile anti-Jewish language
and the anti-Jewish-establishment rhetoric of turn-of-the-era Jewish sectar-
ian movements is an important shift in our understanding of the attitudes
of Gentile believers in Jesus toward Judaism. Probable parallels between the
lore of the early Jesus movement and the lore of Jewish sectarians provide us
a new perspective on the early anti-Judaic polemic we encounter in the New
Testament. Many themes, motifs, traits, and imagery traditionally seen as
radically new and opposing Judaism may have originated in the Jewish sec-
tarian milieu.
As we start our journey, we will overhear the descendants of Jesus’s dis-
ciples and first followers denigrating fellow Jews. As our train stops at the
midway stations scattered along our route, we will eavesdrop on debates,
mostly among Gentile believers. We will hear them vilify “the Jews” (their
Jewish opponents within the Jesus movement) with ever-increasing vicious-
ness. At the later stations of our voyage we will hear non-Jews denigrating all
Jews. The question before us will be: How and why did Gentile believers in
Jesus come to address Jews and Judaism emulating the vocabulary, imagery,
and intensity that Jewish sectarians used against the Jewish establishment?
 Chapter 3

The Anti-Judaic Strand in Paul

Introduction
Paul is one of the most studied and researched individuals in the Western
tradition. Paul is the foremost theologian of the New Testament and he
is, without doubt, the New Testament’s anchor. Paul is also a charismatic,
enigmatic, and frustrated religious visionary that was unable to reach, in
his lifetime, the recognition and the legitimacy he yearned for. The Pauline
letters that are accepted as authentic by most scholars (Romans, 1 and
2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon) are
the earliest integral New Testament documents available to us. Great efforts
have been made by theologians and by academics to interpret and to harmo-
nize Paul’s theological statements. These efforts have produced a bewildering
maze of arguments and counter-arguments. Incursions into this minefield
are demanding and rewarding. The superstore of Paul interpretation offers a
wide array of brands. Each creedal, theological, and denominational predis-
position has its team of favorite scholars.1
I will not attempt to present a comprehensive study of Paul’s theology,
personality, thought, or deeds. My interest centers on the controversial,
polemical, and rhetorical Paul—the apparent originator of the anti-Jewish
strand, according to traditional scholarship. Whether this role is in substan-
tial harmony or dissonance with Paul’s intent is one of the puzzles that will
confront us.

Paul and Judaism

A couple generations after Paul’s death, his followers appear to have split
into two main strands: Marcionite and Lukan. Paul’s legacy, as it regards
22 Jews and Gentiles in Early Jesus Movement

Jews and Judaism, was interpreted by both groups to signal ambivalence

and antagonism.2 Throughout the ages Judaism has viewed Paul as a ren-
egade that betrayed his people and caused great suffering. Paul’s relation-
ship with, and attitudes toward, Judaism are complex matters that are the
subject of intense debate and study. Paul’s statements about Jews and about
Judaism are, to many readers and scholars, erratic, contradictory, confusing,
and inconsistent. According to Gager3 any reader of Paul has to address two
separate sets of statements that are in full contradiction:

1. The anti-Israel and anti-Law set: Gal. 3:10, 11; 6:15; Rom. 3:20;
9:31; 2 Cor. 3:14f.
i. For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse.
(Gal. 3:10)
ii. [N]o man is justified before God by the law. (Gal. 3:11)
iii. For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumci-
sion, but a new creation. (Gal. 6:15)
iv. For no human being will be justified in his [God’s] sight by
works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
(Rom. 3:20)
v. Israel who pursued the righteousness which is based on law did
not succeed in fulfilling that law. (Rom. 9:31)
vi. But their minds were hardened; for to this day, when they read
the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only
through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day whenever Moses is
read a veil lies over their minds. (2 Cor. 3:14–15)
2. The pro-Israel and pro-Law set: Rom. 3:1, 31; 7:7, 12; 9:4; 11:1, 26;
Gal. 3:21.
i. Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circum-
cision? Much in every way. (Rom. 3:1–2)
ii. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the
contrary, we uphold the law. (Rom. 3:31)
i. What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means!
(Rom. 7:7)
iii. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and
good. (Rom. 7:12)
iv. They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the
covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises;
to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the
flesh, is the Christ. (Rom. 9:4–5)
v. I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! (Rom. 11:1)
vi. [A]nd so all Israel will be saved. (Rom. 11:26)
vii. Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not.
(Gal. 3:21)
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
India, expressed his belief that ants in Bombay also assisted in
spreading the scourge, for he found that when he inoculated mice
with the excreta of ants, such insects having previously fed on
plague-stricken rats, the mice succumbed to plague in a few hours.
Fleas have also been conclusively proved to be carriers of plague
germs.

There is no doubt that the revelations of hygienic science have

aroused the vigilance and zeal of public authorities in various new
directions to try and cope with the spread of zymotic disease.

In no direction, perhaps, is the fruit of this energy so apparent as in

the increasing supervision which it has incited over two of the
greatest menaces to public health which hang over society—i.e. our
water and dairy supplies. Now that it has been proven beyond doubt
that the germs of consumption, typhoid fever, and cholera can be
and are distributed through the consumption of contaminated milk
or water, not to mention other diseases such as diphtheria and
scarlet fever, an ever-increasing demand is being made that these
all-important articles of diet shall be protected from pollution, and
that public authorities shall be made responsible for their distribution
in a pure and wholesome condition.

It is, however, undoubtedly in the matter of water that the greatest

service has been rendered by bacteriology to sanitary science, and
for the important advance in this department we are indebted to the
beautifully simple and ingenious methods devised by Robert Koch.

Not yet twenty years have passed since the new bacterial
examination of water was introduced and systematically employed,
and the use which has been made of the opportunities thus opened
up of investigating water problems on an entirely new basis is shown
by the voluminous dimensions which the literature on this one
branch of bacteriology alone has reached. Considerably upwards of
two hundred different water bacteria have been isolated, studied,
and their distinctive characters chronicled. The behaviour of typhoid,
cholera, and other disease-producing microbes in waters of various
kinds has been made the subject of exhaustive experiments; the
purification power of time-honoured processes in operation at
waterworks and elsewhere has been for the first time accurately
estimated. Water engineers have through these bacteriological
researches been provided with a code of conduct drawn up by the
light of erudite scientific inquiries, which has now rendered possible
the removal of the process of water purification from the rule of
empiricism guided by tradition, and to raise it to the level of an
intelligent and scientific undertaking.

The above short sketch may serve to convey some idea of the rise
and phenomenal development of bacteriology during the past sixty
years. To record, even in outline, the individual triumphs of the
various branches of this science would require volumes, whilst the
astounding mass of work already accumulated by its devotees is but
the earnest, the guarantee of yet greater achievements in the
future.

The progress which has been made in this brief period of time must
not necessarily be expected to continue at this rapid rate; it may be
that generations to come have yet the hardest and the longest tasks
to accomplish; for in science, as in other walks of life, it is, as a rule,
the easiest problems, which are first disposed of, and the farther we
advance the more complicated, the more intricate become the
questions to be attacked, the difficulties to be overcome.

The late Queen's reign has bestowed a splendid legacy of

bacteriological discoveries upon those who, in the future as in the
present, must inevitably follow in the footsteps of those great and
brilliant leaders of bacteriological science belonging to this
auspicious era, Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch.
 WHAT WE BREATHE

Few people realise that, with the advent of autumn, the great
majority of the swarms of bacteria which have been circulating in
the air during the hot summer months take their leave of us and
disappear.

Practically, however, we are all conscious of this fact, for we know

what greater difficulties attend the keeping of food sweet and
wholesome in the summer than are met with in the winter; bacteria,
not unlike some other armies of occupation, securing a footing
rather by their numbers at this season of the year, than by virtue of
the superior strategy or, in other words, special attributes of their
units. Bacterial operations are, however, distinctly favoured by the
accident of temperature, the warmth of the summer encouraging
their vitality and multiplication.

When Pasteur first announced his conviction that the familiar

phenomena of putrefaction and decay were due to minute living
particles present in our surroundings, his sceptical critics sought to
ridicule his conclusions by declaring that, were this the case, the air
must of necessity be so heavily laden with living forms that we
should be surrounded by a thick fog—"dense comme du fer." We do
not now, forty years later, require to recite the exquisitely simple
experiments which, whilst sufficiently establishing his theories,
served to effectually suppress those of his opponents.

Since Pasteur's pioneering work was carried out, a vast number of

investigations have been made in all parts of the world by scientists
of almost every nationality on the subject of the distribution of
bacteria in air, and not only on their distribution, but on their
functions or the place they occupy in the economy of nature. With
our increased knowledge concerning their distribution has come our
ability to differentiate between individuals, and to adequately assess
the value and importance of their work from various points of view.

In the bacterial treatment of sewage we have not only one of the

latest, but perhaps also one of the most successful examples of that
system of division of labour, or specialisation of energy, which forms
such a characteristic feature of work of all kinds at the present time.
Other familiar instances of the applications of individual and special
bacterial labourers to the solution of industrial problems are to be
found in the conduct of commercial undertakings of such national
magnitude and importance as brewing and agriculture. But it is not
with these beneficent or great industrial classes of bacteria that we
are now more immediately concerned, but rather with the
malevolent varieties, or the so-called "submerged tenth," for which
no labour colony has at present been created to direct their energies
into useful and profitable channels.

We know that as regards mere numbers the bacteria in air may vary
from 0 to millions in a couple of gallons, these extremes being
dependent upon the surrounding conditions or relative purity of the
atmosphere.

Out at sea, beyond the reach of land breezes, it is no uncommon

thing to find none whatever; on mountains and even hills of humble
elevation the paucity of bacteria is very marked if there are no
abnormal or untoward circumstances contributing to their
distribution. In illustration of this the recent investigations of the air
on the summit of Mont Blanc by M. Jean Binot are of especial
interest, inasmuch as the altitude at which they were carried out is
the highest at which the search after bacteria has so far been
pursued. This intrepid investigator spent no less than five days in the
observatory, which is situated on the top of the mountain. As was to
be anticipated, frequently no bacteria at all were found, and it was
only when such comparatively large volumes of air as one thousand
litres (about 200 gallons) were explored that microbes in numbers
varying from four to eleven were discovered. The air of the country
is far freer from microbial life than that of cities; whilst open spaces,
such as those afforded by the London parks, are paradises of purity
compared with the streets with their attendant bacterial slums.

That it is no exaggeration to describe streets from the bacterial point

of view as slums is to be gathered from the fact that much less than
a thimbleful of that dust which is associated with the blustering days
of March and the scorching pavements of summer may contain from
nine hundred to one hundred and sixty millions of bacteria. But
investigators have not been content to merely quantitatively
examine street dust; in addition to estimating the numerical strength
of these bacterial dust-battalions, the individual characteristics of
their units have been exhaustively studied, and the capacity for
work, beneficent or otherwise, possessed by them has been carefully
recorded. The qualitative discrimination of the bacteria present in
dust has resulted in the discovery of, amongst other disease germs,
the consumption bacillus, the lock-jaw or tetanus bacillus, bacteria
associated with diphtheria, typhoid fever, pulmonary affections, and
various septic processes. Such is the appetising menu which dust
furnishes for our delectation.

There can be no doubt, therefore, that dust forms a very important

distributing agent for micro-organisms, dust particles, aided by the
wind, being to bacteria what the modern motor-car, with its benzine
or electric current, is to the ambitious itinerant of the present day.
Attached to dust, bacteria get transmitted with the greatest facility
from place to place, and hence the significance of their presence in
dust.

Mention has been made of the fact that the germs of typhoid fever
have been discovered in dust, and the belief in the possibility of this
disease being spread by dust is gaining ground.

An interesting case in point is afforded by an outbreak of typhoid

fever which occurred in Athens a few years ago, and in which the
starting-point or nucleus was discovered to be a group of labourers
who were engaged upon excavating the soil in a street through
which a sewer had once been taken. The epidemic subsequently
spread to those districts of the city swept by the prevailing wind,
which passed over the place where the soil had been turned up and
exposed. M. Bambas, who brought his observations before the
International Congress of Hygiene at Buda-Pesth, was convinced
from the inquiries he made that this outbreak of typhoid was due to
the disturbance of the soil and the dissemination by means of the
wind of typhoid-dust-particles to certain parts of the city.

That this hypothesis is by no means without experimental

justification is shown by the properties possessed by the typhoid
bacillus in regard to its vitality in soil which have been discovered.
Thus numerous investigators have studied the important question of
the behaviour of this micro-organism in soil, and have found that it
can exist over periods extending from three to twelve or more
months in the ground. This property of the typhoid bacillus may
possibly explain the appearance over and over again of typhoid fever
in particular localities, suggesting that the bacteria had become
indigenous in the soil.

Dr. Mewius, of Heligoland, describes an epidemic of typhoid fever in

the island, concerning which he made a most searching and
elaborate inquiry. It appears that a case of typhoid occurred and was
concealed from the medical authorities, so that no steps for
disinfection could be taken in the first instance; and, following the
primitive custom which prevails on the island, the dejecta was
thrown over and upon the cliffs, this being the usual method of
disposing of sewage. Ample opportunity was thus given for its
desiccation and subsequent distribution as dust. That this typhoidal
matter did subsequently become pulverised and spread the infection
Dr. Mewius has no doubt, the germs having been conveyed to the
open rain-water cisterns which constitute the water-supply of the
majority of the inhabitants. His theory is again supported by the
coincidence between the prevailing direction of the wind and the
quarter where the outbreak occurred.

That diphtheria germs can remain for a long time in a living and,
what is more, virulent condition in dust has been clearly
demonstrated by Germano, amongst other investigators, this
organism being specially endowed with the capacity for resisting the,
to other microbes, lethal effect of getting dried up.

Bacteria, however, survive this desiccation process much better

when they are herded together in large numbers than when they
have to face such untoward conditions as isolated individuals. This
has been well illustrated in the case of diphtheria bacilli, and the
difference in their powers of endurance under these respective
conditions is very striking. Thus when a few only were exposed to a
very dry atmosphere on silken threads they disappeared after eight
days; but when somewhat larger numbers were taken they contrived
to exist for eighteen days, whilst when great multitudes of them
were herded together even one hundred and forty days' starvation in
these desert-like surroundings could not entirely stamp out their
vitality.

This dangerous property possessed by the germs of diphtheria

should, if possible, increase the vigilance with which the outbreaks
of this disease are watched and dealt with. Abel cites an instance in
which a wooden toy in the sickroom of a child suffering from
diphtheria was found six months later to have virulent diphtheria
bacilli upon it.

This reminds me of a case in which tetanus or lock-jaw ensued from

the use of some old cobwebs in stopping the bleeding of a cut. The
wound was a perfectly clean one, and nothing need have resulted
from this obedience to a superstitious prejudice had not the
cobwebs unfortunately arrested some tetanus germs, and these
getting access to the wound set up the typical symptoms of lock-jaw.
That this implication of the cobweb was no idle accusation was
subsequently proved by portions of the same web, on being
inoculated into animals, inducing in the latter well-defined symptoms
of tetanus.

That cobwebs readily catch dust is familiar to everyone who has the
mortification of seeing them adorn ceilings and corners; that they
also arrest bacteria follows as a natural consequence of the presence
of dust, and hence these delicate filaments may become veritable
bacterial storehouses, more especially as it is usually in the dark and
remote corners that they best succeed in eluding the vigilance of the
domestic eye, and are thus also out of reach of the lethal action of
sunbeams; and hence their unwelcome lodgers may manage to
maintain a very comfortable existence over long periods of time.

That the bacillus of consumption should have been very frequently

found in dust by different investigators is hardly surprising when it is
realised that the sputum of phthisical persons may contain the
tubercle germ in large numbers, and that until recently no efforts
have been made in this country to suppress that highly objectionable
and most reprehensible practice of indiscriminate expectoration.
Considering that the certified deaths from phthisis in 1901, in
England and Wales only, reached the enormous total of 42,408, and
bearing in mind the hardy character of the bacillus tuberculosis when
present in sputum, it having been found alive in the latter even
when kept in a dry condition after ten months, it is not too much to
demand that vigorous measures should be taken by the legislature
to cope with what is now regarded as one of the most fruitful means
of spreading consumption. We know that in some of the states of
America public opinion has permitted the enactment of laws
penalising this practice. Local rules to the same effect exist in our
Australian colonies. On the Continent the trend of public opinion is
evident by the prohibition found in the railway carriages and the
notices to that effect conspicuously posted in public places. In this
country public opinion moves so slowly that we are not yet ripe for
any such strong step, and so far one of the few attempts at official
activity in this respect is to be found in a circular issued by the Local
Government Board of Ireland to the various local authorities stating
that "tuberculous sputum is the main agent for the conveyance of
the virus of tuberculosis from man to man, and that indiscriminate
spitting should therefore be suppressed." The public exhibition of
notices calling attention to the danger accruing from expectoration in
public resorts is, as already pointed out, one means of educating the
people, and it has been stated that such a notice is posted in every
beerhouse in Manchester. The question has also been raised of the
inspection of beerhouses and the suggestion made that licences
should be withdrawn in the case of those holders who did not wash
the floors of their public rooms and keep them in a sanitary state. At
the present time, in this country, it is perhaps more to the private
conscience of the individual and the pressure of public opinion than
to penal enactments that we must look for effective reform in this
direction, for the objection of the English to official sanitary control is
deeply rooted. It is to be hoped, however, that with the spread and
popularisation of the knowledge acquired through the arduous
labours of so many scientific authorities, it may come to be regarded
as a matter for both public and private morality that every step
should be taken which lies in the power of each member of society
to minimise the opportunities for the spread of a disease which by
its very familiarity we have until the last few years accepted as
incurable and the ravages of which as inevitable.[1]

Now that we are considering the status of street dust in bacterial

circles, it will not perhaps be out of place to inquire into the
character of another waste product of streets, i.e. the discarded
ends of cigars and cigarettes. That what is carelessly tossed away on
the one hand may be as carefully collected on the other is well
known, as is also the fact that such material may subsequently be
raised once more to the dignity of a marketable commodity. Under
these circumstances, it is of hygienic interest and importance to
ascertain whether disease germs, should they have obtained access
to this tobacco refuse, are in a virulent or quiescent condition.

Some experiments to decide this question in connection with the

tubercle bacillus have been recently carried out in Padua by Dr.
Peserico, who, whilst extending our knowledge on the subject of
bacteria and tobacco, has also confirmed the earlier results obtained
by Kerez.

Portions of cigar-stumps smoked by phthisical persons in whose

saliva the tubercle bacillus was known to be abundantly present
were inoculated into guinea-pigs, with the result that fifty per cent.
of the animals thus treated succumbed to tuberculosis. Thus neither
the fumes nor juice of the tobacco had destroyed the consumption
bacillus. In these experiments the cigar ends were used directly they
were discarded, in another series of investigations they were
collected and kept in a dry place for from fifteen to twenty days
before being tested; but even storage for this length of time did not
prevent the animals inoculated with them from contracting
tuberculosis. In another series of experiments Dr. Peserico kept the
infected cigar-ends in damp surroundings, and it was satisfactory to
find that under these conditions the tubercle bacillus at the end of
ten days was entirely deprived of its virulence. Encouraged by these
results, inoculations were made with cigar-ends which had been left
in the open and exposed to normal atmospheric conditions, which
included falls of rain and snow, and in this case also no symptoms of
tuberculosis followed their introduction into the guinea-pigs. These
experiments show that the tubercle bacillus is prejudicially affected
by contact with tobacco when the latter is kept in a moist condition,
but that in a dry condition the properties in tobacco inimical to its
vitality are not liberated and the bacillus can retain its virulent
properties for a period of over twenty days.

In view of the importance of this discovery on the destruction of the

toxic character of the tubercle bacillus by contact with moist
tobacco, further experiments were made in which emulsions of
tobacco were infected with tuberculous sputum. It was found that
the bacilli steadily declined in virulence as the length of time they
were kept in the emulsion was prolonged. Thus whereas after a few
hours they were still armed with all their virulent properties, after
three days, out of the four animals inoculated with the emulsion
three succumbed to tuberculosis, after five days two out of four
succumbed, whilst after eight days only one animal out of the four
was infected, and after a period of ten days' immersion in the
tobacco emulsion the tubercle bacillus failed to kill a single animal.

Cigar- and cigarette-ends were collected from the streets and cafés
of Padua by Peserico, but in spite of consumption being stated to be
very prevalent in this city, in no single case could the presence of the
tubercle bacillus be discovered, although, as in the other
investigations, the surest method for its detection, i.e. animal
inoculations, was employed.

Brief reference may be made also to the experiments conducted to

ascertain if cigars and cigarettes, as sold, contain the tubercle
bacillus. The more interest attaches to this investigation because it is
well known that the operators employed in tobacco factories are, as
a rule, an unhealthy class, diseases of the respiratory organs, and
especially tuberculosis, being very prevalent amongst them. A
German official report on this subject states that the average
duration of life of such factory hands only reaches thirty-eight years.
Doubtless the lightness of the occupation encourages many to seek
employment in these factories whose state of health would debar
them from obtaining work under more trying circumstances. Some of
the conditions under which cigars and cigarettes are made, such as
the workers using their saliva to facilitate the rolling of them and
fixing of the leaves, and the testing of the "drawing" properties of a
cigar by placing it in the mouth, with the facilities offered for the
dissemination of dried tuberculous sputum as dust, contribute to
make it highly probable that tobacco as it leaves the factory may
contain the germs of consumption.

Before leaving the subject of tobacco and disease germs it may be

of interest to inquire what justification in fact there is for the practice
adopted by anxious mothers, when travelling in times of epidemics
of zymotic disease, of thrusting themselves and their children into
the sanctum of the other sex—the smoking compartment of a
railway carriage. I have frequently seen this done, despite the
voluble protests of its legitimate occupants. Tassinari has made
some very interesting experiments on the effect of tobacco smoke
on the vitality of various descriptions of disease germs. He
constructed an apparatus in which he suspended pieces of linen
soaked in broth infected with the particular micro-organism to be
tested. Tobacco smoke was then admitted, and the microbes were
retained in this stifling atmosphere for half an hour. In these
surroundings cholera and typhoid germs were destroyed, and other
bacteria, such as the anthrax bacillus and the pneumonia bacillus,
were so prejudicially affected, that when subsequently transferred to
their normal surroundings it was only with extreme difficulty that
they could be revived. When, however, the tobacco smoke was made
to pass through water before reaching the bacteria, its pernicious
influence was entirely removed, and the latter suffered no detriment.
Hence the practice, so often seen in the East, of passing tobacco
smoke through rose or other perfumed water before inhaling it,
whilst doubtless rendering it less noxious to the smoker, deprives the
exhaled tobacco fumes of all their bactericidal or disinfecting
properties.

To return, however, after this somewhat lengthy digression, to the

question of dust and its bacterial properties, we have learnt enough
to enable us to realise that the movement for the migration of the
working-classes from crowded streets to rural districts, in which Mr.
George Cadbury has played so practical and important a part in the
creation of his model village, with its gardens and open spaces,
some five miles from the city of Birmingham, is, if only bacterially
considered, a very real barrier against the dissemination of disease,
for the denser the population, the greater will be the crowd of
bacteria, and the greater the chance of pathogenic varieties being
present amongst them. Again, we know that sunshine is one of the
most potent germicides with which nature has provided us;[2] and it
requires no effort of the imagination to realise how, in the gloomy
back courts and crowded tenements of our great smoke-laden cities,
bacteria succeed in obtaining a firm hold on their surroundings, and,
in the shape of spores, attaining an undesirable and hoary old age,
in which they are in some cases almost indestructible. Fräulein Dr. E.
Concornotti has shown that this is no figment of fancy only, for she
has recently made a special and very elaborate study of the
distribution of pathogenic or disease bacteria in air, searching for
them in the most varied surroundings, such as prisons, schools,
casual wards, etc., with the result that, out of forty-six experiments
in which the character of the bacteria found was tested by
inoculation into animals, thirty-two yielded organisms which were
pathogenic. Dr. Concornotti concludes her valuable memoir by
stating that her investigations proved conclusively that the dirtier or
more slumlike the surroundings, the greater was the frequency with
which she found bacteria associated with disease in the air.

Messrs. Valenti and Terrari-Lelli have quite recently been able fully to
endorse these statements in the results they have obtained in their
systematic study of the bacterial contents of the air in the city of
Modena. In their report they state that the narrower and more
crowded the streets, the greater was the number of bacteria present
in the air, and the more frequently did they meet with varieties
associated with septic disease.

Numerous detailed investigations have also been made of the

bacterial contents of the dust in hospitals. That cases of infection
arising within hospital precincts are of no uncommon occurrence
may be gathered from the observations made by Lutand and Hogg,
who report no fewer than 2,294 such cases having arisen in the
space of six years in certain Paris hospitals, whilst Solowjew records
1,880 cases as occurring in the space of four and a half months in
the St. Petersburg city hospital. Solowjew made a special study of
the bacterial contents of dust collected in hospitals, and states that
41·8 per cent. of the samples examined contained disease germs.
The degree of infection possessed by dust in such surroundings
must, of course, depend upon the degree of cleanliness which
characterises the management of any particular institution; and such
investigations as the above can only help to emphasise the immense
importance of common cleanliness and the reasonableness of taking
every precaution possible in the disinfection of utensils, etc.

Some years ago Messrs. Carnelley, Haldane, and Anderson carried

out an elaborate series of investigations on the air of dwelling-
houses in some of the poorest parts of Dundee. The samples were
taken during the night, between 12.30 a.m. and 4.30 a.m., and in
their report the authors state that the one-roomed tenements were
mostly those of the very poor; "sometimes as many as six or even
eight persons occupied the one bed," whilst in other cases there was
no bed at all. As regards the number of bacteria present in the air in
these one-roomed houses, an average of several examinations
amounted to sixty per quart; in two-roomed houses it was reduced
to forty-six, and in houses of four rooms and upwards only nine
micro-organisms in the same volume of air were discovered.

On comparing the mortality statistics with the composition of the air

of dwelling-houses of different dimensions, the authors arrive at the
following conclusions: "That, as we pass from four-roomed to three-,
two-, and one-roomed houses, not only does the air become more
and more impure, as indicated by the increase in the carbonic acid
and organic matter, and more especially of the micro-organisms, but
there is a corresponding and similar increase in the death-rate,
together with a marked lowering of the mean age at death."[3]
Mention may also here be made of the investigations made by these
gentlemen on the air of Board schools, which showed that in those
buildings where mechanical ventilation was used the carbonic acid
gas was three-fifths, the organic matter one-seventh, and the micro-
organisms less than one-ninth of what was found in schools
ventilated by the ordinary methods. In commenting upon this series
of investigations, the authors write: "When we come to consider that
the children who attend average Board schools for six hours a day
are during that time subjected to an atmosphere containing on an
average nearly nineteen volumes of carbonic acid per 10,000, and a
very large proportion of organic matter, and no less than 155 micro-
organisms at least per quart, we need not be surprised at the
unhealthy appearance of very many of the children. It must also be
borne in mind that many of them are exposed for nine hours more
to an atmosphere which is about five times as impure as that of an
ordinary bedroom in a middle-class house. They are thus breathing
for at least fifteen hours out of the twenty-four a highly impure
atmosphere. The effects of this are often intensified, as is well
known, by insufficient food and clothing, both of which must render
them less capable of resisting the impure air. The fact that these
schools become, after a time, habitually infected by bacteria renders
it probable that they also become permanent foci of infection for
various diseases, and particularly, perhaps, for tubercular disease in
its various forms."

Further practical evidence of the manner in which the general death-

rate for certain diseases is influenced by the conditions under which
the poor are housed is afforded by statistics which have been
collected at Glasgow. In the case of zymotic diseases, whereas the
death-rate in tenements consisting of one or two rooms was 4·78
per 1,000, it fell to 2·46 in those of three or four rooms, and to 1·14
per 1,000 in those of five rooms and upwards. Again, in the case of
acute diseases of the lungs, the death-rate was as high as 9·85 in
the smallest tenements, and but 3·28 in the largest.
Of great interest are the certified mortality statistics of phthisis in the
British Army in the period 1830-46 and 1859-66 respectively; in the
former it was 7·86 per 1,000, whilst in the latter period it had fallen
to 3·1, this important difference being coincident with an increased
cubic space per head in the barracks.

Such facts as these, if only fully realised, should surely serve to

stimulate municipal and other local authorities to provide decent and
wholesome accommodation for the poor. It has been recently
estimated that in London the total number of persons living in
tenements of one to four rooms is 2,333,152, and of these nearly
half a million live the life of the one-room tenement of three to a
room and upwards. In the stirring words of Mr. John Burns, M.P.: "At
least a million of people who live thus on wages that barely sustain
decent life, are but prisoners of poverty, whose lot in life is but a
funeral procession from the cradle to the grave … for these, as soon
as practicable, better homes should be provided at once in the
interest of physique, of morals, of industrial efficiency, and municipal
health."

Yet, despite all these facts and the overwhelming evidence which
has been collected on the dire results which follow in the wake of
overcrowding and insanitary dwellings, we find a prominent
magistrate in one of our great industrial cities publicly expressing
himself as follows at a municipal banquet: "The Town Council
sometimes attempted too much. For instance, they had been far too
anxious to get quit of the slums. Now slums, in his opinion, were
one of the necessities of all large towns, and it was impossible in the
present state of civilisation to dispense with slums unless they could
take the people living in them, who were not fit to live anywhere
else, and drown them wholesale, as would have been done in the
time of the French Revolution."

We have seen how bacteria may be distributed by dust, how they

may linger in crowded tenements and badly ventilated buildings,
that insanitary surroundings provide, in fact, for the scientist a well-
stocked bacterial covert, where he may with ease bag his thousands
of germs of various descriptions. The fact already referred to, that
the bacteria of consumption may be released in the sputum of
phthisical persons, has perhaps already suggested the possibility of
other bacteria being likewise discharged into the surrounding air, but
it is no doubt difficult to realise that the utterance of even a few
words may liberate a variety of bacteria, the mischievous or
harmless character of which depends upon the condition of the
speaker's health. But even the health of a speaker if satisfactory is
not necessarily a safeguard against his dissemination of disease
germs, for it is well known that the mouth secretions of healthy
people may frequently contain the staphylococcus pyogenes aureus,
and also, though less frequently, the diplococcus lanceolatus, both
virulent microbes; whilst that diphtheria bacilli may be present in the
mouths of people who are not suffering from the disease has been
demonstrated repeatedly. What a capacity, then, for spreading evil
does the public orator possess! It makes one tremble to think of the
aërial condition of the House of Commons when a big debate is on,
for it has been found that the sharper the enunciation of the
consonants, and the louder the voice, the larger is the number of
organisms discharged and the farther they reach!

If this danger attends the speaking of healthy people, what must be

the risk accompanying the listening to speeches from persons
suffering from consumption, influenza, or any other disease which
specially affects the air passages! What applies to speaking applies
to a still greater degree to the act of coughing or sneezing.

To Schäffer we owe the discovery that leprosy bacilli may be

disseminated in immense numbers by the coughing of leprosy
patients, whilst it has been estimated that a tuberculous invalid may
discharge a billion tubercle bacilli in the space of twenty-four hours,
whilst the dried sputum of consumptive persons has actually
engendered tuberculous symptoms in the lungs of animals which
were made to inhale it. Plague bacilli have been found in masses in
the mouths of plague patients, and were found, moreover, before
any symptoms of the disease had declared themselves; and the
sputum of infected persons is regarded by some authorities as one
of the most important vehicles by which plague is spread. The
culpability of air in the dissemination of tuberculosis amongst
animals has been made the subject of some very exhaustive and
valuable investigations by Kasselmann. In as many as 71 per cent of
bovine tuberculosis cases the respiratory organs, Kasselmann found,
were the seat of the disease. The undoubted contamination of the
air which takes place in the surroundings of tuberculous animals is
not, however, due to the bacilli being exhaled by such cattle in the
mere process of respiration, for it has been repeatedly found by
various investigators that the air expired by infected animals is free
from the dreaded tubercle bacteria. As in man, so in animals—it is
by the act of coughing that tuberculous secretions are discharged
through the mouth and nasal passages, some of which in the form
of spray may enable the bacilli to remain suspended in the air for
periods of five hours or more, whilst other portions of such
secretions fall on the ground or in the feeding troughs, and later on,
as dust, may again relentlessly claim their toll of victims.

In other cases of tuberculosis the excrementitious matter becomes,

of course, a fertile source of infection to the surroundings. The dire
results which may follow the introduction of a single tuberculous
animal into a healthy stall of cows may be realised from the fact that
in one instance a whole herd of twenty-eight animals became in the
course of one year infected in consequence of the admission of one
diseased cow, the cow-house having previously had a perfectly clean
bill of health in this respect.

On the Continent the risk of wholesale infection by such means is

greater than in this country; for abroad the animals are to a much
greater extent stall-fed, and kept shut up both winter and summer. A
case is mentioned by the well-known veterinary authority, M.
Nocard, of a whole stall of animals becoming infected through the
cow-man who tended them being consumptive. He slept in a loft
over the cows, and his tuberculous sputum in the form of dust was
conveyed to the stalls beneath and so spread the infection.

It has been stated on high authority that domestic pets such as

parrots may contract consumption from their masters, and that no
less than thirty-six per cent. of these birds brought to the veterinary
college in Berlin are found to be suffering from tuberculosis.

In that much-dreaded South African cattle disease, rinderpest, the

infection, contrary to what is found in the case of tuberculous
animals, is principally spread by the materies morbi being liberated
in the air expired by afflicted cattle, the contagious area surrounding
an infected animal extending to as much as a hundred yards and
more. Again, as regards pleuro-pneumonia in cattle, the contagion is
given off in the air expired, and owing to the length of time which
elapses before the lung becomes completely healed and healthy,
even after a period of from six to nine months, the expired air may
still prove a source of infection.

In an official report on the open-air treatment of consumption in

Germany a case is mentioned in which the patient, a farmer by
occupation, had contracted the disease from some tuberculous cattle
which he had on his farm. The writer goes on to say, "This case is
worthy of special attention, inasmuch as it indicates that in addition
to the danger of contracting the disease from the use of milk or
meat derived from tuberculous animals, the tending of such animals
may serve to convey the infection to man possibly much more
frequently than has hitherto been supposed."

In addition to the above instances of the responsible part played by

air in the dissemination of consumption many others might be cited,
but perhaps the most striking is that in which a scientific assistant of
Tappeiner contracted the disease, and succumbed to it, in the course
of some experiments which were being made to ascertain whether
consumption could be communicated to animals by spraying them
with an emulsion of the sputum of consumptive patients.

It is of historical interest to note that these experiments were being

conducted by Tappeiner three years before Robert Koch made the
now classical announcement to the scientific world that he had
succeeded in identifying, isolating, and in cultivating outside the
human body the specific cause of consumption in the shape of the
now familiar bacillus tuberculosis. The opinion expressed by Koch at
the Congress on Tuberculosis recently held in London, that human
and bovine tuberculosis are distinct diseases, is still the subject of
contention and experimental investigation. Even if the opinion of this
great authority is correct, and in this connection it is interesting to
note that already in 1896 this opinion was brought forward by Smith
in the Medical Record at a time when Koch was maintaining the
identity of human and bovine tuberculosis—granted that Koch is
correct, it should not, as so many fear, cause any relaxation in the
efforts which have been at last made to safeguard our dairy produce
by reasonable hygienic precautions; for even if tuberculosis is not
transmissible from the cow to man, we know that in the hygienic
supervision of our dairy industry we place a great barrier between us
and the bacillus tuberculosis and those numerous other disease
germs which can and do gain access to milk from the personnel of a
dairy and so spread infection. With the alarming prevalence of
consumption is it not justifiable to regard as certain that a definite
proportion of the people engaged in milking, for example, are
consumptive? And knowing, as we now do, how such persons can
give off the germs of the disease in the simple act of speaking, the
contamination of our milk with human tubercle bacilli must be
regarded almost as a certainty. Would it not be reasonable that a
code of simple precautions to be taken, coupled with a few of the
more cogent facts concerning consumption and its distribution,
should be drawn up and circulated amongst all engaged in the dairy
industry? The National Health Society has done much for the
prevention of disease by disseminating, through leaflets and
lectures, simple facts concerning health and its preservation; might it
not make itself the vehicle for the transmission of some such code
which, whilst instructing, should impress upon its readers the
responsibility which rests upon each and every individual member of
society, by his or her own personal efforts, to assist in the great task
of combating disease?

A fact which urgently needs the widest recognition is the possible

dissemination of disease germs by individuals not themselves
suffering from the disease in question, but who have resided in the
immediate surroundings of infected persons.

Dr. Koch was the first to call attention to this danger when he
discovered, during the Hamburg cholera epidemic, that perfectly
healthy persons were infected with cholera vibrios, and were the
unconscious means of spreading the disease. Still more recently it
has been found that true typhoid germs may similarly be present in
persons not suffering from typhoid fever but sharing the same living-
rooms.

Huxley has said "science is nothing but trained and organised

common sense," and it is in this spirit that we must endeavour to
make use of the discoveries which have been made in the
prevention of disease, in which the science of bacteriology has
played so great and important a part.
 SUNSHINE AND LIFE

It was nearly a century ago that a German physician incidentally

wrote, "Our houses, hospitals, and infirmaries will, without doubt,
some day be like hot-houses, so arranged that the light, even that of
the moon and stars, is permitted to penetrate without let or
hindrance." This was spoken long before the world of micro-
organisms had been discovered, but curiously has found an echo in
the writings of a distinguished bacteriological chemist in recent
years. "Laissons donc entrer largement partout l'air et le soleil,"
writes M. Duclaux; "c'est là une maxime bien ancienne, mais si les
mots sont vieux l'idée qu'ils revêtent est nouvelle." The
interpretation of this ancient maxim is indeed very modern, and we
must turn to the investigations made within the past few years to
learn with what justification M. Duclaux thus expresses himself, for it
is only comparatively recently that we have learnt the novel fact that
sunshine, whilst essential to green plant life, is by no means
indispensable to the most primitive forms of vegetable existence
with which we are acquainted, i.e. bacteria. In fact, we have found
out that if we wish to keep our microbial nursery in a healthy,
flourishing condition, we must carefully banish all sources of light
from our cultivations, and that a dark cupboard is one of the
essential requisites of a bacteriological laboratory.

That light had a deleterious effect upon micro-organisms was first

discovered in this country by Messrs. Downes and Blunt, and their
investigations led Professor Tyndall to carry out some experiments
on the Alps, in which he showed that flasks containing nutritive
solutions and infected with bacteria when exposed in the sunshine
for twenty-four hours remained unaltered, whilst similar vessels kept
in the shade became turbid, showing that in these the growth of
bacteria had not been arrested. In these experiments mixtures of
micro-organisms were employed, and the interest of the French
investigations which followed lies in the use of particular microbes—
notably the anthrax bacillus and its spores,[4] Roux demonstrating
very conclusively that the bacillar form was far more sensitive to
light than the spore form, while Momont, in a classical series of
experiments, not only fully confirmed these observations, but
showed also that the intensity of the action of light depends to a
very large extent on the environment of the organism. Thus, if broth
containing anthrax bacilli is placed in the sunshine, the latter are
destroyed in from two to two and a half hours, whilst if blood
containing these organisms is similarly exposed, their destruction is
only effected after from twelve to fourteen hours of sunshine. This
difference in resistance to insolation was also observed in the case of
dried blood and broth respectively—eight hours' exposure killing the
bacilli in the former, whilst five hours sufficed in the latter.

This is an instance of the apparent idiosyncrasies possessed by

micro-organisms, which render their study at once so fascinating and
so difficult, and it is through being thus constantly confronted with
what, in our ignorance, we mentally designate as "whims," that we
can hardly resist the impression of these tiny forms of life being
endowed with individual powers of discernment and discrimination.
Indeed, these powers of selection and judgment are in certain cases
so delicately adjusted that in some of the modern chemical
laboratories micro-organisms have become indispensable adjuncts,
and by their means new substances have been prepared and fresh
contributions made to the science of chemistry.

Momont is not able to give any satisfactory explanation of this

different behaviour of the anthrax bacilli in these two media, but
goes on to show that yet another factor plays an important part
during insolation.

In the above experiments air was allowed to gain access to the

vessels containing the broth, but if the precaution be taken of first
removing the air and then exposing them to the sunshine, a very
different result was obtained, for instead of the anthrax bacilli dying
in from two to two and a half hours, they were found to be still alive
after fifty hours' insolation. There appears, therefore, to be no doubt
that sunshine in some way or other endows atmospheric oxygen
with destructive power over the living protoplasm of the bacterial
cells; indeed, there is considerable reason to believe that the
bactericidal effect is due to the generation of peroxide of hydrogen,
which is well known to possess powerfully antiseptic properties.

Numerous investigations have been also made to determine whether

all the rays of the spectrum are equally responsible for the
bactericidal action of light.

Geisler's work in St. Petersburg is especially instructive in this

respect, for by decomposing with a prism the sun's light, as well as
that emitted by a 1,000-candle-power electric lamp into their
constituent rays, he was able to compare the different effects
produced by the separate individual rays of both these sources of
light.

The organism selected was the typhoid bacillus, and it was found
that its growth was retarded in all parts of the two spectra excepting
in the red, and that the intensity of the retardation was increased in
passing from the red towards the ultraviolet end of the spectrum,
where it was most pronounced of all.

But whereas from two to three hours of sunshine were sufficient to

produce a most markedly deleterious effect upon the typhoid
bacillus, a similar result was only obtained by six hours' exposure to
the electric light.

Dr. Kirstein, of the University of Giessen, in the course of some

experiments he made to ascertain how long different varieties of
bacteria can exist when they obtain access to the air in the form of
fine spray, and subsequently, as happens under ordinary
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com