The Birth of Christianity from the Matrix of Judaism

            Let us remember that at this time there were three major Jewish-related systems of teaching operating in Palestine: Palestinian Judaism, the Palestinian Jesus-movement and Pauline gentile Christianity which, imported from other parts of the Mediterranean world, by now had established itself in the country.

            The confusion among the population must have been considerable. Who should be believed? Who has the true religion? Was Jesus the messiah or was he not? Clarification was needed. Some aspects of the teachings of all three groups coincided with each other. Some teachings were strangely different from one another. Many of the first generation followers of Jesus had by now died and could therefore no longer be consulted. There was a strong need for definition to help people draw clear lines between the different religious claims.

            The situation between the Christians and the Jews had also become more polemical. It must be attributed to no small extent to the precarious situation of the Christians that virulent anti-Jewish texts begin appearing in the gospels. In this connection several statements need to be made here:

1) We already alluded to early Christian efforts to disassociate themselves from Judaism, especially after the abortive First Jewish War against Rome. It is this church endeavor that explains the designation of certain Christian beliefs as new over and against the old inherited Jewish ones. So for instance a “new covenant” (or testament) comes into being whose character is often contrasted against the old Jewish one.⁷

2) Now was the time to effect a Christian disassociation from its Jewish matrix. This needed to be made very subtly and carefully so as to show, paradoxically, that while Christianity’s roots lay within Judaism the ancient protected “philosophy”, Christianity represented a new but valid interpretation and cogent historical sequel thereof. Why insist on these roots at all? In order to make the new religion attractive to the Jews from whom the new movement hoped to draw converts. The church had to demonstrate that its teaching and practice had been prophesied long ago and that these prophecies had “in these last days” been fulfilled. In this connection the church, as the “Israel of God,” (or “the new Israel”), based its case heavily on the prophet Jeremiah who had predicted that God would establish a “new covenant” with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. In this new convenantal relationship God would write his law upon the people’s hearts.⁸ Seeing their religion perfected and consummated in connection with this ancient prophecy may have given some Jews incentive enough to adopt the new, albeit Christ-centered convenantal teaching.

            The Pauline interpretation of the “ancient philosophy” of the Jews attracted many gentiles to the faith. Given Paul’s modification of Judaism, it made gentile entrance into the faith much easier. Now that circumcision, the purity laws and the holy days and seasons were eliminated, the new pseudo-Judaism became ever more palatable to the faith-hungry population that had not found spiritual fulfillment in the brands of religion Rome offered. In this sense one detects a two-pronged and rather successful outward thrust by the church.

3) It was prudent to demonstrate to the Roman government a strong continuity between the old “Jewish philosophy” and Christianity. The Romans needed to be convinced that while new, Christianity was really a god(s)-ordained and legitimate extension of Judaism, the very ancient religion Rome had been protecting. The great Julius Caesar had accorded this religion the status of religio licita. Now that Christianity superseded⁹ Judaism, the new movement merited equal protection from Rome.