Dissident Dispatches

by Andrew Fraser

  Reception

  The Jewish War, in particular, received “its most significant positive reception” in “a Christian setting”. The “father of church history,” Eusebius of Caesarea, “quoted large sections of the siege of Jerusalem as part of the his claim that the destruction of the city and its Temple were divine punishment”.679 Indeed, the very fact that the entire corpus of “Josephus’ thirty volumes have reached us intact” bespeaks the unusual care and attention that his works have received throughout the history of Christendom.680 Given that we have only traces of the major sources used by Josephus, and that “the works of the greatest Roman imperial historian, Cornelius Tacitus, contain gaping lacunae and whole lost books,” Paul Maier suggests that the survival of “the massive Josephan texts…borders on the miraculous”.681 Providentially or not, at some point, Josephus “became the exclusive authority for Judean history and geography from King Herod to the end of the Judean-Roman war in 73 CE”.682

  Josephus was a Jewish historian whose Jewish Antiquities provides a twenty volume “primer in Judean law, history, and culture brought over into Greek from the sacred records, for interested outsiders in Rome”.683 Curiously, however, there is “little or no evidence of Jewish interest in the writings of this famous priest”. Perhaps that “can be explained by his surrender to the Romans under conditions that smacked of betrayal and cowardice; his writing in Greek and in isolation from the growing rabbinic literature based in postwar Judea, Galilee, and Mesopotamia”. Certainly, the enthusiasm with which Christian apologists cited Josephus’ work, “albeit without his approval, against the Jews” must have damaged his reputation among co-ethnics.684 It remains the case, however, that Josephus performed an essentially apologetic role on behalf of his people in the writing of Jewish history. Against Apion, in particular, “constitutes, in fact, the only known example of ethnic ‘apology’ from antiquity, and the first Judean text explicitly formulated in this originally legal genre”.685

  Similarly, many modern scholars, lacking a professional stake in either Jewish or Christian apologetics, have tended to “neglect…Josephus’ compositional interests, in favour of a preoccupation with his sources”.686 Fortunately, others recognize that “[t]he writings of Josephus…provide a vital political, topographical, economic, social, intellectual, and religious supplement to our biblical information — a crucial context for comparing, interpreting, and, above all, extending our knowledge of the times”.687

  Significance

  Michael F Bird has provided a succinct summary of the significance of Josephus to our understanding of the historical, cultural, and religious context of the New Testament. First, Josephus provides information about the most important Jewish sects in the time of Christ: the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes. Josephus does not adopt a neutral stance in his discussion of those groups. On the contrary, his “account is somewhat jaundiced”. Bird suggests that Josephus was “favourably disposed to the Pharisees (and even claims to be one), probably because they were the Jewish sect that emerged as leaders of the Palestinian Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem”.688 In this and other ways, Josephus provides an indispensable resource for anyone seeking to understand the Jewish background to Christianity.

  For Christians, Josephus has a special significance in that he provides independent testimony concerning the lives of Jesus Christ, John the Baptist, and James the Just.689 In Jewish Antiquities, Josephus recounts the story of Herod’s decision to seize and execute John the Baptist. He added that contemporary Jews interpreted the subsequent “destruction visited upon Herod’s army” as “a vindication of John, since God saw fit to inflict such a blow on Herod”.690 Jesus is described in Jewish Antiquities as “a wise man” and “a doer of startling deeds” whose followers “receive the truth with pleasure”. He adds that “those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so” when Pilate “condemned him to the cross” when he was attacked by Jewish leaders. Finally, “Josephus narrates how, during an interregnum between Roman governors in Judea, the high priest Ananus had a man ‘named James the brother of Jesus called the Messiah’ and his companions summarily executed about AD 62”.691

  Conclusion

  Clearly, the works of Josephus are important as a mirror of Jewish history, law and culture in the first century. Equally, they shaped and made history by reinforcing the providential understanding held by the early church of the last days of Old Covenant Israel — an understanding that postmodern Christians would be well-advised to recover.

  The enigma: Was Josephus himself an instrument of divine providence?

  4: Document Analysis: 1 Maccabees

  Literary Features

  First Maccabees sets out a historical narrative of the armed revolt led by members of the Hasmonean family against Seleucid rule in Judea during the second century BC. The purpose of the book was to justify that revolt and to celebrate its success. Some see 1 Maccabees as a form of “dynastic propaganda” serving to legitimate resistance to foreign political authority by a charismatic family of militant local heroes.692

  As such, the book no doubt encouraged Jews living under Roman rule in the first century AD to expect that Israel’s long-awaited Messiah would appear as a mighty warrior to “deliver the Jews from foreign oppression and inaugurate an unending kingdom that would break apart all empires”.693 Given such an apocalyptic context, those who hoped for the worldly triumph of Israel according to the flesh were bound to be disappointed by the very different sort of kingdom promised by Jesus Christ.

  The story in 1 Maccabees covers the period from 175 BC when the Seleucid monarch Antiochus IV came to the throne to 134 BC when Simon, the last son of the family patriarch Mattathias, was murdered. The family came to be known as the Maccabees from the nickname “hammer” (Hebr. makebet) given to Judas Maccabeus, the most famous son and first military leader of the Jewish revolt.694 Originally written in Hebrew, the book itself comes down to us only as preserved in the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint.695

  The book was written by an unknown admirer of the Hasmonean family sometime after the narrative comes to a close at the inauguration of the high priesthood (134–104 BC) of John Hyrcanus, the son of Simon. Following a brief introduction that covers the century and a half between Alexander the Great and Antiochus IV, the first two chapters relate the events leading up to the Maccabean revolt. In the rest of the book, the author recounts the exploits of Mattathias and his sons over the next few decades.696 Chapters 3:1–9:22 are devoted to the achievements of Judas. The following chapters deal with the military, political, and religious activities of Jonathan, Simon, and Simon’s son John.

  Theological Features

  The occasion for the Maccabean revolt was a religious persecution launched by Antiochus IV with the support of “certain renegades” among the Jewish population of Judea. Those who favoured the king’s Hellenization programme “built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, according to Gentile custom, and removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant” (1 Macc 1:11, 14–15). Even worse, was the “unprovoked aggression” by the Syrian king.697 He repeatedly pillaged and plundered the city, stationing his troops in a citadel in support of a campaign directing the Jews “to follow customs strange to the land, to forbid burnt offerings and sacrifices…to profane sabbaths and festivals, to defile the sanctuary and the priests…and to leave their sons uncircumcised”. All this was done in the hope that the Jews “would forget the law and change all the ordinances” (1 Macc 1:44–49). Such measures were bound to provoke resistance. Many Jews “were still fiercely devoted to their ancestral faith, which forbade the worship of other gods and observed strict ritual purity laws, restricting interaction with gentiles”.698

  The result was a theological conundrum. On the one hand, as traditionalist Catholics such as E Michael Jones contend, the “books of Daniel and Maccabees show that a Jew must accept death rather than transgress the law of God”.699 Certainly, 1 Maccabees confirms that “the revolt t
hat broke out was inspired by fidelity to the covenant and the resolve to die rather than be defiled by impure food”. On the other hand, according to Old Testament scholar, John J Collins, the Maccabees were clearly “prepared to qualify their adherence to the Law”. He points to the story in 1 Maccabees “of a group of pious Jews who withdrew to the wilderness to avoid the persecution” and who were slaughtered when they refused to defend themselves from deadly attack on the Sabbath day. By contrast, Mattathias, his friends, and family “resolved that they would defend themselves on the Sabbath, lest the whole Jewish people be wiped from the earth”. In other words, “they resolved to break the Law for the greater good of the people”.700

  Similarly, Uriel Rappaport observes that the “attitude of the Hasmoneans to Gentiles was based on two considerations: religious-national sentiment and Realpolitik. The first one dictated purifying the land of all traces of pagan cults and taking vengeance on those Gentile enemies who injured the Jews”. At the same time, however, “political considerations demanded friendly relations with states and regimes at a distance from Judea (Rome, Sparta, the Ptolemies)”.701 In a word, 1 Maccabees is an obvious example of Jewish ethno-theology.

  Scholarly Relevance

  Larry R Helyer, of course, is not inclined to emphasize the ethno-theological dimension of 1 Maccabees. He prefers to identify the most enduring consequence of the Maccabean revolt as the preservation of a generic “monotheism in the face of Hellenistic pressure to assimilate”. True, all five Hasmonean brothers died in defence of their “ancestral faith” but, in so doing, they “left a lasting legacy to the three great monotheistic faiths”.702 Stephen Anthony Cummins, on the other hand, sees 1 Maccabees as a “story of Israel and her conquering heroes”. The Maccabees are clearly the saviours of a particular people. They “are characterized throughout by their zeal”. Their patriotic zeal is directed against both Gentile enemies and Jewish apostates.703

  Their zeal, in other words, contributed greatly to the Messianic hopes deeply-rooted in Second-Temple Judaism. The Jewish messianic tradition was the historically necessary seed-bed for the ministry of Jesus Christ. Only in that context could he carry out his mission to the lost sheep of Old Covenant Israel. The Maccabees were “inspired by Israel’s heroes of the past (1 Macc. 4.9, 30) in whose tradition they stand (1 Macc. 2.49–60). They are guided by Torah (1 Macc 3.48, 56), and enabled by the ‘strength [that] comes from heaven’” (1 Macc 3:19). As a consequence, their “advance towards national independence is taken as the outworking of God’s covenant purposes for the nation Israel through the exemplary endeavours of her representatives, the Maccabees”.704

  Despite the fundamental differences between the ways in which first-century Jews and Christians understood God’s purposes for Israel, 1 Maccabees acquired canonical significance for both religious communities. Jews and Christians could both admire the willingness of the Maccabean martyrs to die in order to preserve the faith of their fathers. And both groups believed that 1 Maccabees presupposed and confirmed the covenantal nature of the created order of things as well as the eschatological hopes of God’s covenant people.

  5: A Radical Jew? NT Wright on Paul and the Faithfulness of God

  Introduction

  Neo-pagan ethno-nationalists associated with the New Right routinely call upon white European peoples to reject Christianity because it is an essentially Jewish religion.705 This was also a prominent theme on the Old Right as represented by the National Socialist movement in Germany.706 Even many Christian Germans were determined to root out Jewish influences on their faith; indeed, some sought to excise the entire Old Testament from the Bible.707 But the concept of “Jewish Christianity” has been much more than a political football tossed about on the often grim and always worldly terrain of ethnic conflict. In fact, ever since the mid-nineteenth century, Jewish Christianity has been an especially hot topic in the spiritually rarefied realm of New Testament scholarship; once again, particularly in Germany.

  Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792–1860) started the scholarly ball rolling by portraying “the development of early Christianity in terms of a conflict between two factions”. “Jewish Christianity” was “associated with Peter, James, and Jerusalem, and upheld commitment to Jesus together with observance of the practices prescribed by Torah.” The other faction was made up of Gentile Christians organized and led by Paul who “required commitment to Jesus but not observance of Torah”.708 For Baur, the difference between the two groups represented a conflict between the closed, particularistic spirit of Judaism and the open, universalistic ethos of Hellenistic culture. He identified “a liberal, hellenized circle” within the early church “that began to give more forceful expression to the universalism of Jesus’ message — and, in the process, to make more explicit the antagonism to Judaism that that message (according to Baur) had originally implied”.709

  Ironically, in Baur’s narrative it was the Pharisee, Saul of Tarsus — an “erstwhile persecutor of Hellenist Christians” — who, as the newly-converted apostle Paul, became the “chief advocate and most penetrating expositor” of the universalistic spirit manifested in Gentile Christianity.710 Baur took it as axiomatic that the church needed to escape from “early Jewish” Christianity. According to NT Wright, it was Paul who led “the break-out and [became] responsible for the important transformation and innovation”.711 On the whole, modern New Testament scholars take a very different view; most reject the sharp distinction Baur made between Judaism and Hellenism. Others call into question the supposed bright-line boundary between “Judaism” and early “Christianity”.

  What is “Jewish Christianity”?

  Both themes figure prominently in NT Wright’s recent and mammoth two-volume book on Pauline theology. In this view, “the Jewish world of the first century was itself hellenistic through and through, so that to…go looking for a pre-hellenistic, and indeed non-hellenistic, strand of primitive ‘Jewish Christianity’ was to search blindly in a dark room for a black cat that wasn’t there in the first place”.712 Wright also roundly rejects the notion that Paul left Judaism behind when he allegedly “converted” to “Christianity,” understood as a new and different “religion”. Instead, he aims to demonstrate that Paul, even though he was the apostle to the Gentiles, “remained a deeply Jewish theologian who had rethought and reworked every aspect of his native Jewish theology in light of the Messiah and the spirit”. In Wright’s account, the basic categories of the Christian theology “invented” by Paul were: “monotheism, election and eschatology: one God, one people of God, one future for God’s world”. Each of these themes derived from an agenda set by his “native Jewish world”.713

  Wright denies that Paul’s universalism represented a clean break with Judaism. Instead, he contends that Paul “thought through and transformed his existing Jewish worldview and theology in the light of the cataclysmic revelation that the crucified Jesus had been raised from the dead”. Within the framework of this thesis, the concept of “Jewish Christianity” amounts to little more than a tautology. “Paul did not have to stop being a Jew, and thinking and speaking Jewishly, in order to have a message for the world”. Nor did he “have to turn his back on engagement in the wider world in order to affirm his fundamental Jewishness”.714 Such strong emphasis on the Jewish character of Paul’s theology, combined with Wright’s high standing in the academic world clearly reflect the deep-seated philo-semitic mood of post-war New Testament scholarship. Indeed, in the unlikely event that neo-pagan intellectuals tackle Paul and the Faithfulness of God, they will be tempted to tender Wright’s book as proof positive that Christianity began as — and remains — an essentially Jewish religion.

  Such a rush to judgement would be ill-advised — if only because Wright’s exhaustive (and exhausting) exegesis of the gospel according to Paul thesis runs directly counter to traditional Christian attitudes toward Judaism.715 In the most literal sense, his work can be described as a form of Judaizing (from the G
reek Ιουδαïσμός).716 That is to say, his book reveals not so much that Christianity was “Jewish” in the first century AD but that the postmodern, Anglo-Protestant intellectual establishment of the twenty-first century professes a newly-minted, hybrid faith known as Judeo-Christianity. In other words, the concept of “Jewish Christianity” may or may not be useful in investigating the history of the early church but it will almost certainly help to unravel the competing and often hidden ethno-religious and ethno-political agendas at work in contemporary theological discourse.

  The idea of “Jewish Christianity” has been in continuous use by scholars since the mid-nineteenth century on the assumption “that there was in antiquity an identifiable phenomenon that should be considered a distinctly Jewish subclass of Christianity, and that some early Christian groups and texts are best understood as examples of it”. The problem is that “there has been no agreement as to what the particular phenomenon in question actually is, nor, consequently, the specific body of data that manifests it”.717 Taken at face value, the term implies that two religions, Judaism and Christianity are combined in Jewish-Christianity. But “[t]he Jewish-Christians of the first century would not have considered themselves to be combining two religions, for they never accepted that Christianity was anything but the proper flowering of Judaism”. Joan E Taylor reminds us that Paul “understood the Church as the new Israel in which all were Abraham’s seed”. At the same time, he regarded Judaic law as obsolete. “Paul was therefore not a Jewish-Christian even though a Christian Jew”.718 Similarly, another scholar highlights the “painful irony…that ‘Jewish Christianity’ is used to distinguish forms of devotion to Jesus that differ from the form attributed to the follower of Jesus — namely, Paul — who most loudly proclaims his Judaism and speaks most highly of Judaism”. He concludes that in view of “the deeply contradictory uses to which ‘Jewish Christianity’ is put, it is an utterly protean category”.719 Even the editor of a book entitled Jewish Christianity Reconsidered concedes that the terms denotes “nothing more and nothing less than what any scholar says it is for the purposes of his or her study”.720