1
 THE  GREATEST  LIE  EVER  TOLD  

THE  ORIGINS  OF  ANTISEMITISM:  FROM  JESUS  TO  CONSTANTINE  

LUANA  GORISS  

THESIS  SUBMITTED  IN  CONSIDERATION  OF  THE  GUIDELINES    

FOR  AN  MA  (RESEARCH),  DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  STUDIES  IN  RELIGION    

THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  SYDNEY,  2011.  

Copyright © 2011 by Luana Goriss

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the copyright owner of this book.

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My sincerest thanks go to my supervisor, Dr. Christopher Hartney, lecturer at the University

of Sydney, department of Studies in Religion; who guided me; made himself available for
very lengthy telephone discussions and who enabled me to think outside of the various shapes
I was in.

My thanks and appreciation to my husband Kim Goriss, my sister in law, Toni Goriss and my
sister, Marianne McCormack, who listened, discussed, debated and read my work again and
again at its various stages of development, without complaining.

A special thanks to Rabbi Nir and Rebetzin Dina Gurevitch and Samuel and Aliza Ancri, who
have taught me and continue to teach me so much about Judaism in word and in deed and
who have aided me in my progress. Any inadequacies or faults in this thesis are my own.

Finally I would like to thank those who opposed me, and consequently, on many occasions,
gave me the impetus to continue.

3
 SYNOPSIS

This thesis will examine the origins of antisemitism, specifically Christian antisemitism.

In examining the first four centuries of Christianity, from its beginnings as a break-away
movement from Judaism to the State religion of the Roman Empire, it will be determined how
the seeds were sown of an anti-Jewish attitude that would dominate Christian thinking to the
present day.

Through the writings of the early Christian fathers, a theological lie was perpetrated against
the Jews that claimed that the Jews, having failed God by rejecting and killing Jesus the ‘Son
of God’, had forfeited their role as ‘chosen people’ and that this status now belonged to the
Christians. Furthermore, the Christian fathers taught that God had started a new religion –
Christianity - and Judaism has become superseded and obsolete.

This thesis will show that if this is in fact true, then the validity of Christianity renders
Judaism invalid. If, on the other hand, the Jews and Judaism are indeed valid and not
superseded, where does this leave Christianity, as the very premise for its existence is the
replacement of Judaism.

The main points that will be addressed are as follows:

The Jewishness of Jesus, his mission and interaction with the Jewish sects of the Second
Temple era;

The Jewish followers of Jesus, known as Nazarenes and Ebionites, their ‘Hebrew Matthew’
Gospel and their relationship to nascent Christianity;

The Apostle Paul and his impact on nascent Christianity;

Ignatius of Antioch and the beginnings of Christianity as a movement separate from Judaism;

The anti-Jewish writings of the early Christian fathers and their deliberate efforts to discredit
the Jews and Judaism;

Constantine the Great and the establishment of Christianity as the state religion of the Roman
Empire in the fourth century;

The Council Of Nicea and the controversies addressed at the council;

4
The making of the New Testament and the anti-Jewish sentiments and agenda of those
involved in its compilation, translation and canonization;

The de-Judaization and deification of Jesus and religious syncretism in the Greco-Roman
world;

The dogmas of the Virgin Birth, the Trinity and their connection to antisemitism.

This thesis will aim to establish that antisemitism is a direct or indirect response and reaction
to the above points. Furthermore, that the first four centuries of Christian anti-Jewish
theology laid the foundations for the three stages of antisemitism as defined by Holocaust
scholar, Raul Hilberg - You have no right to live among us as Jews; You have no right to live
among us; You have no right to live - resulting in the isolation, expulsion, murder, and all
manner of persecution against the Jews for almost 2000 years.

5
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE..................................................................................................................... 9  
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 10  
CHAPTER 1 - JESUS THE JEW ............................................................................ 12  
JEWISH SECTS OF THE SECOND TEMPLE ERA (350 B.C.E. - 70 C.E.) .. 15  
The Pharisees ........................................................................... 16  
The Sadducees ......................................................................... 24  
The Essenes ............................................................................. 26  
The Nazarenes and Ebionites ...................................................... 29  
CONFLICTS BETWEEN SECOND TEMPLE ERA SECTS ......................... 31  
JESUS’ MISSION .......................................................................... 33  
FIRST CENTURY SOURCES CONCERNING JESUS .............................. 34  
CHAPTER 2 - THE APOSTLE PAUL.................................................................... 37  
THE ERRORS OF PAUL .................................................................. 39  
CHAPTER 3 - WHEN CHRISTIANITY BEGAN ................................................. 44  
IT ALL BEGAN AT ANTIOCH ........................................................... 44  
IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH - C. 50–117 C.E. ........................................ 47  
THE BEGINNINGS OF A SPLIT ........................................................ 49  
CHAPTER 4 - FROM ANTIOCH TO ROME ....................................................... 52  
CONSTANTINE THE GREAT ............................................................ 53  
THE COUNCIL OF NICEA ............................................................... 55  
The Arian Controversy ............................................................... 56  
The Easter Controversy.............................................................. 56  
The Separation From Judaism ..................................................... 58  
The Nicean Creed ...................................................................... 58  
CHAPTER 5 - THE MAKING OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ............................ 60  
IS THE NEW TESTAMENT KOSHER? ................................................ 61  
THE GOSPELS ............................................................................. 62  
THE TRANSLATORS AND COMPILERS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ......... 64  
Justin Martyr - c. 100-163 C.E. ................................................... 65  
Irenaeus - c. 130-202 C.E. ......................................................... 67  

6
 Tertullian - c. 160–220 C.E. ........................................................ 68  
Origen - c. 185–235 C.E. ........................................................... 68  
Eusebius of Caesarea - c. 260–341 C.E. ....................................... 69  
Jerome c. 345 - 420 C.E. ........................................................... 70  
Augustine of Hippo - c. 354-430 C.E. ........................................... 71  
THE AGENDA .............................................................................. 72  
CHAPTER 6 - THE DE-JUDAIZATION AND DEIFICATION OF JESUS ...... 74  
THE RELIGIONS OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE ......................................... 74  
The Merging of the Mysteries and Christianity ............................... 76  
THE DOGMA OF THE VIRGIN BIRTH ................................................ 81  
Jesus and ‘Old Testament’ Prophecy ............................................ 83  
The Isaiah Chapter 7 Prophecy ................................................... 83  
THE VIRGIN BIRTH IN THE CANONIZED GOSPELS ............................ 89  
PROBLEMS WITH THE CANONICAL LUKE AND MATTHEW ACCOUNTS .. 90  
The Virgin Birth in the New Testament Epistles ............................. 94  
Other Gospels .......................................................................... 96  
The Ebionites and the Virgin Birth ............................................... 98  
The Virgin Birth in the Writings of the Church Fathers .................... 99  
Origen and Celsus - c. 185–235 C.E. ......................................... 102  
TRIBAL LINEAGE AND ANCESTRY .............................................. 105  

What About Adoption? ............................................................. 107  

What If The Father Is Unknown? ............................................... 108  
THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY .................................................. 109  
CHAPTER 7 - LOST IN TRANSLATION ........................................................... 112  
MESSIAH AND LORD .................................................................. 112  
SON OF MAN ............................................................................. 117  

SON OF GOD ............................................................................. 119  

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 121  
THE DEFINITION AND NATURE OF ANTISEMITISM.......................... 122  
JESUS THE JEW ......................................................................... 123  
PAUL AND THE GENTILES ........................................................... 125  
THE EARLY CHRISTIAN FATHERS AND THE JEWS ........................... 126  

7
 CONSTANTINE – THE ROMAN EMPIRE EMBRACES CHRISTIANITY ..... 127  
THE CHRISTIAN JESUS ............................................................... 127  
THE CHRISTIAN JESUS AND THE JEWS ......................................... 128  
FROM LITTLE SEEDS BIG TREES GROW… AND BEAR FRUIT ............. 129  
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? .................................................. 134  
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................... 137  
BOOKS ..................................................................................... 137  
ARTICLES ................................................................................. 143  
WEBSITES ................................................................................ 144  
CD ROM ................................................................................... 144  

8
 PREFACE

From 1994 to 1998, as part of a Bachelor Degree majoring in the Study of Religions, I was
required to research the topic of 'Antisemitism'. Although my research was not extensive,
what I read concerning this 2000-year phenomenon had a profound impact on my life. At the
time, I was a Christian.

After completing my degree, I continued my research on antisemitism, and although I did not
realize it at first, my studies became part of my journey into Judaism. Now, thirteen years
later, I have completed this thesis, as a Jew.

Regardless of my personal choice of Judaism over Christianity, in researching and writing

this thesis I have endeavoured to maintain a scholarly stance devoid of bias.

Luana Goriss

Queensland, Australia, August 2011

9
 INTRODUCTION

All Jews are hypocrites. All Jews consider themselves morally and intellectually
superior to their neighbours. All Jews are international conspirators. All Jews are
misers. All Jews are different from everybody else. All Jews are financial
1
manipulators. All Jews control the media. All Jews are Christ killers.

This image of the Jewish people did not materialize overnight, neither in a decade, nor in a
century. This image is the product of two thousand years of stereotyping – two thousand years
of religious, racial and political propaganda. Never in history has another group of people
been slandered so much and for so long.

We need to ask the question: why the Jews? Why is their existence such a threat, and who is it
that is threatened by them?

In order to resolve this long-standing question, we must examine the writings of the
institution that has slandered the Jews the most and the longest - the Christian Church.

Until the period known as ‘The Enlightenment’ of the 18th century, Western history had been
written, on the most part, from the Church's perspective. Furthermore, in one way or another,
a significant part of the Church's history involved ‘the Jews’ and the ‘Jewish Problem’.

Why, though, did Christianity consider the Jews to be a ‘problem’ in the first place? The
answer to this question is deeply rooted beneath the foundations of the Christian religion.

At its foundations, the Catholic Church upholds the following belief:

When it is asked, what is this kingdom of which Christ spoke, there can be but one
answer: it is His Church, the society of those who accept His Divine legation, and
admit His right to the obedience of faith which He claimed… He organizes it and
appoints rulers over it, establishes rites and ceremonies in it, transfers to it the name
which had hitherto designated the Jewish Church, and solemnly warns the Jews that
the kingdom was no longer theirs, but had been taken from them and given to another
2
people…

1
Adapted from The Longest Hatred: From the Cross to the Swastika, spoken by Sander L. Gilman,
Compass Programme, narration by Rex Bloomstein and Robert Wistrich, Thames Television, 1991.
2
Joyce, G. (1908), The Church, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, from New Advent,
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm, retrieved 17/05/2009. Although the above declaration is
specifically Roman Catholic in origin, other than the belief that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of
Peter, Protestant denominations do not refute this doctrine.

10
This belief sums up the Church’s raison d’être: the kingdom of God no longer belongs to the
Jews - Judaism has been superseded by Christianity. Because 'superseded' implies that the
former is inferior to the latter and therefore obsolete, the Church needed to promulgate a
number of doctrines to theologically invalidate the Jews’ and Judaism's continuing existence.
These doctrines make up an all-encompassing lie that remains a foundational part of Christian
theology.

Together with this 'theology of replacement', the lie portrays the historical Jesus as the
rejected Messiah, killed by his own people, the Jews. Christian writings claim that Jesus was
opposed to Judaism and the initiator of a new, more perfect religion - Christianity. Christian
doctrine teaches that Jesus was God incarnate and the Jews would be forever responsible for
his death.

The lie developed throughout the centuries, taking on more sinister and precarious faces. The
Jew was portrayed as demonic, not at all human, a pariah; the Jew was the cause for all the
ills of society and therefore should be expelled and, more recently in the 'final solution', to be
exterminated as one exterminates a rodent.

If it is acknowledged that Jesus and his original followers did not abandon Judaism and had
nothing to do whatsoever with the founding of Christianity and that God never replaced the
Jews and Judaism with another people and another religion, then it would be essential for the
Church to admit that it is built on a lie; a lie, which for centuries, has called for the
persecution and isolation of the Jews. In fact, the greatest lie ever told.

11
 CHAPTER 1 - JESUS THE JEW

In his book, The World of My Past, Holocaust survivor, Abraham Biderman recounts the
story of Berish Staszewski, a talented young Jewish painter, who was commissioned by a
German Colonel to paint a portrait of Jesus. The story goes as follows:

Upon completing the painting, he presented it to his colonel, who almost became
apoplectic.

“What is this? What have you painted?” he demanded. “Is this supposed to be Jesus
Christ?”

Berish, standing to attention, answered, “Yes, sir, this is my Jesus Christ.”

“But you have painted a Jew, a typical Jew!” the Colonel replied angrily. “Are you
making fun of me?”

Berish replied, “Sir, this is my Jesus Christ. This is how I imagine he looked…”

At the end of his tether, the colonel burst out, “But he looks like a rotten Jew!”

“Yes, sir,” said Berish rigidly, “as far as I know he was a Jew. That’s why I painted
3
him to look like one.”

A central belief to Christianity is that Jesus of Nazareth was its founder. Although born a Jew,
Jesus supposedly turned his back on the Jews and Judaism because they rejected him as their
Messiah. He now belonged to the Christians, and with him was transferred Israel’s status as
the ‘People of God’.

In order to claim him for themselves, the Christians needed to distort the identity of the
historical Jesus by de-Judaizing him and then deifying him. For centuries to follow, the
deification of Jesus led to the justification of the persecution of Jews for their unspeakable
crime of ‘killing God’. In reality, however, Jesus of Nazareth turns out to have had nothing to
do with Christianity. On the contrary, the more Christianity developed into an anti-Jewish
4
religion, despite claiming Jesus as its own, it in fact betrayed ‫ ישוע‬Yeshua the Jew.

From the little we know about Jesus, there was nothing different or un-Jewish in what he
taught: the observance of the Mosaic Law, compassion for the poor, mercy and tolerance. He

3
Abraham H. Biderman, The World of My Past, 1995, AHB Publications, Melbourne, p. 86-87.
4
Joseph Klausner, Jesus: His Life, Times and Teaching, 1989, Bloch Publishing Company, New York,
p. 229.

12
wore tzitzit (prayer fringes) on his garment, kept the Sabbath and festivals, often quoted from
5
the Oral Law and was Orthodox in his practices.

In recent decades, there has been a growing awareness among both Jewish and non-Jewish
scholars concerning the identity of the ‘historical Jesus’ and the realization that he may not in
fact have been the cause of the Jewish-Christian crisis.

In his book, Antisemitism – The Longest Hatred, Robert Wistrich writes:

Jesus was born, lived and died as a Jew in first-century Roman Palestine. He never
conceived nor dreamed of a Christian Church. His father, mother, brothers and first
6
disciples were all Jews…

R. Horsley, in Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism, tells us the following about the historical
Jesus:

Jesus’ teaching must be understood in the context of his apparent overall purpose or
perspective - the renewal of the people of Israel… Christian interpreters have had
particular difficulty with Jesus and the Law. Earlier it seemed that Jesus was breaking
or abandoning the Law, as in stories about healing on the Sabbath or in teaching
about divorce or in sayings apparently about purity of food. Then, particularly once
the Dead Sea scrolls were available for comparison, it seemed rather that Jesus was
‘sharpening’ or intensifying the Torah, as in the antithesis of the Sermon on the
7
Mount...

The Jewish author, Max Dimont, in Jews, God and History, notes:

There was nothing different or un-Jewish in his teachings. He was a liberal; he was
against all injustice, in the tradition of the prophets. He taught the observance of the
Mosaic Law, compassion for the poor, mercy and tolerance... His messages went
straight to the hearts of his listeners... Nothing he preached, taught or said was in
8
contradiction to what other Jewish prophets, rabbis or sects said or taught.

5
See Footnotes 10-12.
6
Robert Wistrich, Antisemitism – the Longest Hatred, 1991, Pantheon Books, New York, p. 13.
7
Horsley, R., Jesus and Judaism: Christian Perspectives, in Attridge, Harold W, and Hata, Gohei,
Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism, 1992, Wayne State University Press, Michigan, p. 66.
8
Max Dimont, Jews, God and History, 1962, Penguin Books, Victoria, p. 135.

13
In the New Testament, in one of the letters of Paul, we read that “Jesus was born of a woman
9
under the law”, meaning that he was born into a Jewish household that observed the Mosaic
Law. The New Testament also tells us that Jesus was circumcised and named on the eighth
day from his birth: “And when eight days were fulfilled to circumcise the child, his name was
called Jesus…” This rite of passage is in accordance with Jewish law which states: “And he
who is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male child in your
10
generations...”

The Gospel of Luke tells us that the family of Jesus kept the festival of Passover:

And his people went every year to Jerusalem during the feast of the Passover. And
11
when he was twelve years old, they went up to the Feast, as they were accustomed.

As an adult, Jesus kept the Passover Seder and offered the sacrificial requirement:

Then the day of Unleavened Bread came, on which it was the custom to kill the
Passover lamb. So Jesus sent Peter and John and said to them, Go and prepare the
12
Passover for us to eat.

In the Gospel of Matthew it is recorded that Jesus wore tzitzit: “Then suddenly a woman who
had been suffering from haemorrhages for twelve years came up behind him and touched the
13
fringe of his cloak.”

This also is in accordance with Jewish law, which states:

And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Speak to the people of Israel, and bid them that
they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their
14
generations…

Jesus observed the Sabbath and attended synagogue where he was called up to read from the
Scriptures, as is done in synagogues to this day:

9
George. M. Lamsa, ed., The Peshitta: The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts, The New
Testament, Galatians 4:4, 1940, A.J. Holden Company, Philadelphia.
10
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Luke 2:21. Soncino Classics Collection, The Tanach, Genesis
17:11, Judaic Classics Library, 2007, Davka Corporation, Il, USA.
11
ibid. Peshitta, New Testament, Luke 2:41,42.
12
ibid. 22:7-8.
13
The Holy Bible, The New Revised Standard Version, Matthew 9:20, 1989, World Bible Publishers,
Iowa.
14
Tanach, op. cit. Numbers 15:37-38.

14
 He taught in their synagogues and was praised by every man. And he came to
Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and he entered the synagogue on the
15
Sabbath day as was the custom, and stood up to read.

In the Gospel of John we read that Jesus kept the traditional festival of Chanukah, the Feast of
Dedication:

Then came the Feast of Dedication at Jerusalem and it was winter. And Jesus was
16
walking in the temple in Solomon’s Porch.

Jesus lived and taught in the complex Jewish world of a time when history was about to
dramatically change for the Jewish people. In order to fully understand the teaching and the
person of Jesus we need to place him in the framework of the Second Temple era and the
various Jewish sects of his day, consider his interaction with them, the similarities between
them and conflicts they may have had.

17
JEWISH SECTS OF THE SECOND TEMPLE ERA (350 B.C.E. - 70 C.E.)

Around 130-100 B.C.E., Judaism became divided into three main sects - the Pharisees, the
18
Sadducees and the Essenes. Most of the information we have concerning these sects comes
19
from the Talmud, the New Testament, the Writings of Flavius Josephus and more recently,
20
the Qumran (Dead Sea) Scrolls. Anyone active in religious life was in some way or another
influenced by one of these groups.
21
Although all of these sects considered the Torah supreme Law, each had its own
interpretation of the Law. B. Pixner writes in Hillel and Jesus:

15
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Luke: 4:15-16.
16
ibid. John 10:22.
17
Berel Wein, Echoes of Glory: The Story of the Jews in the Classical Era 350 B.C.E. – 750 C.E.,
1995, Shaar Press, Mesorah Publication, New York, p. 8. This date is according to rabbinic
chronology. Conventional chronology places the beginning of the Second Temple Era at c. 515 B.C.E.
For example, see James Parkes, A History of the Jewish People, 1964, Penguin Books, Victoria, p. 13.
18
George Foot Moore, Judaism: In the First Centuries of the Christian Era - The Age of the Tannaim,
Volume 1, 1960, Hendrickson Publishers Inc. Massachusetts, p. 56-59. Fred Rosner, Medicine in the
Bible and the Talmud: Selections from Classical Sources, 1977, Ktav Publishing House, NJ, p. 11-12.
19
The Talmud comprises the Mishna – the codification of the Oral Law, and the Gemara –
commentary on the Mishna.
20
Flavius Josephus, The Jewish Antiquities, Book XIII:171, 1957, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, p. 311. Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War, Book II:160-161, 1957, Harvard
University Press, London, p. 385.
21
The Torah, literally meaning ‘instruction’, is the five books of Moses – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers and Deuteronomy.

15
 The heart of their differences lay in the halacha: how the law should be observed in
practical life. At the time of the Second Temple all three movements were recognized
22
forms of Jewish life.

The Pharisees

The name Pharisees - Prushim - means ‘those who separate themselves’. No one knows the
exact origin of the name, but it is commonly surmised that they were successors of those who
in earlier generations called themselves Chasidim, meaning ‘pious’, or ‘set apart’.

The Pharisees were the Sages who expounded the Oral Law and interpreted halacha - the
23
‘normative’ law or code of Jewish religious life applied to daily requirements. The
Pharisees were the most numerous of the sects; Josephus records that at that time there were
24
above six thousand strict Pharisees.

The Pharisees represented primarily the middle and lower classes and were known for their
25
strictness on laws of ritual purity and cleanliness. In the Aruk, a 12th century lexicon to the
Talmud by Nathan Ben Jehiel, the name is defined: A Pharisee is one who separates himself
26
from all uncleanliness and from eating anything unclean.

The Pharisees were firm believers in the afterlife and the concept of reward and punishment,
and that human will plays a part in these things. In Antiquities of the Jews we read:

Though they postulate that everything is brought about by fate... they believe that
souls have power to survive death and that there are rewards and punishments under
the earth for those who have led lives of virtue or vice: eternal imprisonment is the lot
27
of evil souls, while the good souls receive an easy passage to a new life.

22
Pixner, B. Jesus and His Community: Between Essenes and Pharisees, in Charlesworth, J.H. and
Johns, L., Hillel and Jesus: Comparative Studies of Two Major Religious Leaders, p. 194,
Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1997.
23
Bruce Chilton and Jacob Neusner, Judaism in the New Testament: Practice and Beliefs, 1995,
Routledge, London, p. 24-25. Yechiel Eckstein, What You Should Know About Jews and Judaism,
1951, World Books, Texas, p. 50.
24
Josephus, op. cit. Antiquities, Book XVII: 42, p. 393.
25
Rachael and Wagner Jospe, Great Schisms in Jewish History, 1984, Ktav Publishing House, Inc.,
New York, p. 14.
26
G.F. Moore, Judaism: In the First Centuries of the Christian Era - The Age of the Tannaim, Volume
1, op. cit. p. 60.
27
Josephus, op. cit. Antiquities, Book XVIII: 14-15, p. 13.

16
 Jesus and the Pharisees

Throughout history, Christian literature has portrayed the Pharisees as the mortal enemies of
Jesus, and, in every respect Jesus is characterized as the antithesis of Pharisaism.

Nothing can be further from the truth. Although Jesus had disputes with some Pharisees,
Jesus himself was essentially Pharisaic in his teaching. Andre Lacocque, in A Dictionary of
the Jewish-Christian Dialogue, writes:

Christian antisemitism found one of its fiercest expressions in the polemics against
the Pharisees… antisemitism is only too happy to use New Testament texts to nurture
its heinous slandering of the Jews. To avoid this, it is necessary to replace the New
Testament polemics within their actual context of internecine strife between Jewish
28
sects.

During the period of Jesus’ childhood there arose two great rival teachers in Pharisaic
Judaism - Shammai and Hillel. The Pharisees at this time polarized into two schools of
29
thought: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel. These schools held differing views on many
halachic issues and argued throughout the first century. Eventually the school of Hillel
prevailed in these arguments and serves as the foundation of modern rabbinic Judaism.

The Talmud explains that there are two main reasons why the law follows the ruling of the
school of Hillel: the first being that the disciples of Hillel were gentle and modest and studied
both their own opinions and the opinions of the other school, and humbly mentioned the
30
words of the other school before their own; the second being that a heavenly voice declared,
“The words of both schools are the words of the living God, but the law follows the rulings of
31
the school of Hillel.”

According to the Talmud, Shammai was known to be more harsh and stringent in matters of
the Law, whereas Hillel was known to be humble and compassionate. The Talmud
demonstrates the difference between them with the following story:

A certain heathen came to Shammai and said to him: I will convert provided that you
teach me the entire Torah while I stand on one foot. Shammai drove him away with

28
Lacocque, A., Pharisees - The Christian View, in Klenicki, L. and Wigoder, G., A Dictionary of the
Jewish-Christian Dialogue, 1995, Paulist Press, New Jersey, p. 153.
29
Dimont, op. cit. p. 165.
30
Soncino Classics Collection, The Talmud, op. cit. Eruvin 13b.
31
ibid.

17
 the builder’s cubit which was in his hand. The heathen then went to Hillel with the
same proposition. Hillel said to him: What is hateful to you, do not do to your
32
neighbour. That is the entire Torah; the rest is commentary; go and learn.

Although it is likely that Jesus accepted Pharisaic teaching as his own, he, on the other hand,
33
showed tension with it, particularly in matters of ritual purity. In the Gospels there are
various incidents where Jesus was involved in such arguments. For example, we read in the
Gospel of Matthew:

Then the Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem came up to Jesus, saying, Why do
your disciples disregard the tradition of the elders, and they do not wash their hands
34
when they eat?

Interestingly, Jesus was asked why his disciples ate without washing hands. The question was
not asked of himself.

Even between Shammai and Hillel there were arguments over matters of ritual purity. We
read in the Mishna:

These are the points (of difference) between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel in
relation to a meal… Beth Shammai say that washing the hands precedes the filling of
the cup, while Beth Hillel say that the filling of the cup precedes the washing of the
hands. Beth Shammai say that after wiping his hands with a napkin the diner places it
on the table, while Beth Hillel say that he places it on the cushion. Beth Shammai say
35
that (after the meal) the floor is swept before the washing of the hands.

32
ibid. Shabbat 31a.
33
Lawrence H. Schiffman, Texts and Traditions: A Source Reader for the Study of Second Temple
Judaism, 1998, Ktav Publishing House Inc., New Jersey, p. 370.
34
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Matthew 15:2.
35
Talmud, op. cit. Berachot 51:b.

18
Likewise Jesus may have had these arguments with the students of Shammai, rather than with
those of Hillel. Paul Johnson writes in A History of the Jews:

One school, led by Shammai the Elder took a rigorist view especially on matters of
cleanliness and uncleanliness… On the other hand, Hillel the Elder, Shammai’s
contemporary… the essence of the Torah was its spirit: if you got the spirit right, the
36
detail could take care of itself…. Jesus was a member of Hillel’s school.

Arguments between teachers and students of the various schools did not mean they were
enemies. Berel Wein, in Echoes of Glory, describes such arguments as representing a
generally accepted and normative approach to discussions on the Law:

Hillel and Shammai disputed only a number of Torah legal issues. Their disciples in
later generations, forming the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai, disputed
hundreds of matters due to the changing circumstances and increased difficulties of
37
the time.

Neither should it be assumed that the Pharisees were the enemies of Jesus simply because
they disagreed on certain issues, even if the disagreements became heated at times. On the
contrary, he had many supporters among the Pharisees, and was often invited by leading
38
Pharisees as a guest in their homes.

If there was any uncertainty among the Pharisees about Jesus’ ideology, the matter was
clarified when a Pharisee approached him publicly to test him:

And one of the scribes came near and heard them debating, and he saw that he gave
them a good answer. So he asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? Jesus
said to him, The first of all commandments is, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one
Lord; And you must love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul
and with all your mind and with all your might; this is the first commandment. And
the second is like to it, You must love your neighbour as yourself. There is no other
commandment greater than these. The scribe said to him, Well, teacher, you have
said the truth, that he is One, and there is no other besides him; And that a man
should love him with all the heart and with all the mind and with all the soul and with

36
Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews, 1988, Harper and Row Publishers Inc., New York, p. 127-128.
37
Wein, Echoes of Glory: The Story of the Jews in the Classical Era 350 B.C.E. – 750 C.E., op. cit. p.
134.
38
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Luke 7:36.

19
 all the might, and love his neighbour as himself; this is far more important than all
39
burnt offerings and sacrifices.

The Pharisaic Style of Jesus’ Teaching

When we examine the style of Jesus’ own teaching in the context of Second Temple Judaism
it is clear that he identified with Pharisaic Judaism, his parables and renditions of the Law
being very similar to Pharisaic oral and written traditions. The following quotes are examples
of similarities between rabbinic parables and those spoken by Jesus:

In a parable concerning putting knowledge into practice, Jesus taught:

Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like
a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose,
and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its
foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put
them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came
down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell
40
with a great crash.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, a teacher of the Mishna who lived in the years following the
destruction of the Second Temple, taught a similar parable:

He whose wisdom is greater than his works, what is he like? A tree whose branches
are many but whose roots are few and the wind comes and uproots it and overturns it.
But he whose works are greater than his wisdom, what is he like? A tree whose
branches are few but whose roots are many. Even if all the winds were to come
41
against it, they could not move it.

In his parable on the harvest, Jesus said:

And he said to them, The harvest is great, and the labourers are few; ask therefore the
42
owner of the harvest, to bring out labourers to his harvest.

39
ibid. Mark 12:28-33.
40
ibid. Matthew 7:4.
41
Talmud, op. cit. Pirkei Avot, 3:22.
42
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Luke 10:2.

20
In the Mishna, it is written that Rabbi Tarfon taught:

The day is short and the task is great, and the labourers are lazy; but the wages are
43
high and the master of the house is urgent.

One of the most comparable to rabbinic teaching is Jesus’ instruction on how to pray. Jesus
taught his disciples:

Therefore, pray in this manner: ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be thy name Thy
kingdom come. Thy will be done as in heaven, so on earth. Give bread for our needs
from day to day. And forgive us our offences, as we have forgiven our offenders.
44
And do not let us enter into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

These words are remarkably similar to those of the earliest form of the Kaddish, one of
Judaism’s most vigorous declarations of faith.

The Kaddish is an ancient Aramaic prose-poem, believed to be formulated in the middle of

the first century C.E. The Kaddish was recited primarily after a Talmud study period or
discourse on a Torah theme, and then became part of the worship service. It is recited at the
45
cemetery after burial, at services during the year of mourning, and at every Yahrzeit. The
words of the earliest version of the Kaddish are as follows:

Exalted and hallowed be his great name in the world which he created according to
his will. May he rule his kingdom in your lifetime and in your days and in the lifetime
46
of the whole house of Israel, speedily and very soon. And to this, say: Amen.

These are but a few examples of Jesus’ Pharisaic style of teaching. It remains a question,
however, whether the parables found in the Talmud and other writings of the ancient sages
were borrowed from Jesus or whether he borrowed from them, simply expounding on already
existing rabbinic thought. There is, nevertheless, an obvious correlation between them.

The answer to this question may be found in the manner in which Jesus began to address his
audience. On most occasions, when Jesus was about to teach, he used terms such as, “You
have heard it said,” and “It is written.” This is what would have been expected from a teacher
in a pre-literate society.
43
Talmud, op. cit. Pirkei Avot, 2:15.
44
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Matthew 6:9-13.
45
Maurice Lamm, The Jewish Way in Death and Mourning, 1969, Jonathan David Publishers, New
York, p. 151.
46
Viviano, B.T., Hillel and Jesus On Prayer, in Charlesworth and Johns, op. cit. p. 449.

21
The phrase, “It is written” is a reference to the basic written law, for example:

And he answered, saying, It is written, that it is not by bread alone that man can live,
47
but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. And: Jesus said to him,
48
Again, it is written that you shall not tempt the Lord your God.

There are numerous passages in the Talmud where the phrase, “it is written” is used, in order
to strengthen an argument. For example:

All seas are deemed valid as a mikvah, for it is written: and the mikvah of the waters
49
called the seas. This is the opinion of R. Meir.

The phrase, “You have heard it said,” or “Some say it,” indicates a dispute, or introduction of
50
an alternative of an oral tradition. For example:

You have heard that it is said, Be kind to your friend and hate your enemy. But I say
51
to you… And: It has been said that whoever divorces his wife, must give her
52
divorce papers. But I say to you…

Jesus, therefore, did not necessarily introduce new concepts, but simply expounded and
reinforced laws and traditions that already existed, as, according to Judaism, both the oral law
and the written law were in existence from the time of Moses. Pixner comments:

Jesus gathered together what he considered to be the best in the different Torah
schools of his time, added to it his own teaching, and so formed the Gospel
53
message…

47
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Matthew 4:4.
48
ibid. Matthew 4:7.
49
Talmud, op. cit. Mikva’ot 5:4.
50
Scot A. Berman, Learning Talmud: A Guide to Talmud Terminology and Rashi Commentary, 1997,
Jason Aronson Inc. Jerusalem, p. 15-16.
51
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Matthew 5:43, 44.
52
ibid. 5:31, 32.
53
Pixner, op. cit. p. 224.

22
Joseph Klausner, in Jesus of Nazareth - His Life, Times and Teaching, also remarks on Jesus’
Pharisaic standpoint, stating:

Jesus of Nazareth was the product of Palestine alone, a product of Judaism unaffected
by any foreign mixture… Without any exception he is wholly explainable by the
54
scriptural and Pharisaic Judaism of his time.

Hillel and Jesus

Hillel was a leading figure among the Jewish sages. It is believed he was born around 60
55
B.C.E. in Babylonia and died around 10 C.E. He came to Jerusalem around 40 B.C.E.,
56
where he taught in the Pharisaic schools , making it possible that he was engaged in
discussion with Jesus in the Temple area when Jesus was twelve years old, the age of Bar
57
Mitzvah. The Gospels tell us:

And when he was twelve years old, they went up to the feast (Passover) as they were
accustomed. And when the feast days were over, they returned; but the boy Jesus
remained in Jerusalem… After three days, they found him in the Temple, sitting in
58
the midst of the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions.

There are many important connections between the School of Hillel and Jesus. When
comparing the teaching of Jesus with that of Hillel, it is clear that he learned from Hillel and
made use of his sayings when speaking about his own task. One of the most well known
sayings is the famous ‘Golden Rule’, taught initially by Hillel:

“Do not to others what you would not have them do to you: that is the whole Torah,
59
while the rest is the commentary thereof; go and learn it.”

This reads very closely with Jesus’ statement: “Whatever you wish men to do for you, do
60
likewise also for them; for this is the Law and the prophets.” The only difference between
these two sayings is the emphasis: Hillel taught this principle as a ‘negative’ rule – “do not
do”, whereas Jesus taught is as a ‘positive’ rule – “do”.

54
Klausner, op. cit. p. 363.
55
Flusser, D., Hillel and Jesus: Two Ways of Self Awareness, in Charlesworth and Johns, op. cit. p. 94.
56
Nahum N. Glatzer, ed., The Judaic Tradition, 1969, New Jersey, Behrman House, Inc., p. 191.
57
Flusser, op. cit. p. 94.
58
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Luke 2:42.
59
Talmud, op. cit. Shabbat 31a.
60
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Matthew 7:12.

23
There is no reason to dismiss the possibility that some Pharisees would have opposed Jesus
and that some may have been hypocrites; but the negative image of the Pharisees and their
relationship with Jesus is so intensified in the New Testament that the reader concludes that
all Pharisees opposed Jesus and that the word ‘Pharisee’ is synonymous with ‘hypocrite’.

Marc Angel writes in A Dictionary of the Jewish-Christian Dialogue:

The reputation of the Pharisees has been tarnished by pejorative comments in the
New Testament. Describing Pharisees as “hypocrites” does a disservice to the entire
group, most of who were devoted and pious people, trying to live their lives in
61
righteousness.

The Sadducees

It is believed that the origin of the name ‘Sadducee’ comes from the leaders of the sect who
62
were priests of the family of Zadok, who, during the occupation of Israel in the days of
63
Antiochus Epiphanes (175-163 B.C.E.), had succumbed to the influence of Hellenism.

No materials survive from the Sadducees themselves. The only information available is in the
writings of Josephus, the Talmud and the New Testament. From these sources we learn that
the Sadducees were the most politically powerful of the three major sects. The Sadducees
64
controlled the Temple and sacrifices and dominated the judicial body of the Sanhedrin.
They drew their support mainly from the aristocratic classes, and as such represented the
65
nobility and wealth of the country. Their interests centred chiefly in the political, not the
religious life of the people, as Josephus wrote:

The Sadducees persuade only the well to do and have no popular following, but the
66
Pharisees have the multitude on their side.

Although the Sadducees believed in a strict, narrow and unchanging interpretation of the
written Law, they did not believe in the divine origin of the oral Law; nor did they
acknowledge the sages who interpreted the oral Law, rather, believing that every individual

61
Angel, M., Pharisees - The Jewish View, in Klenicki and Wigoder, op. cit. p. 152.
62
Solomon Grayzel, A History of the Jews, 1963, The Jewish Society of America, Philadelphia, p. 77.
James Parkes, A History of the Jewish People, 1964, Penguin Books, Victoria, p. 25.
63
Wein, Echoes of Glory, The Story of the Jews in the Classical Era 350 B.C.E. – 750 C.E, op. cit. p.
42.
64
Dimont, op. cit. p. 99.
65
ibid. p. 88.
66
Josephus, Antiquities, op. cit. Book XIII: 298, p. 377.

24
could interpret the Torah personally. This was a major point of division between Sadducees
and Pharisees. Josephus wrote:

For the present I wish merely to explain that the Pharisees had passed on to the
people certain regulations handed down by former generations and not recorded in
the Laws of Moses, for which reason they are rejected by the Sadducaen group, who
hold that only those regulations should be considered valid which were written down
(in Scripture), and that those which had been handed down by former generations
need not be observed. And concerning these matters the two parties came to have
67
controversies and serious differences…

The Sadducees did not believe in angels or spirits, the resurrection of the dead, the
immortality of the soul, or the afterlife. Believing that rewards for righteousness were in this
life, they interpreted wealth and influence as evidence of divine blessing. The writings of
Josephus tell us:

But the Sadducees are those that compose the second order, and take away fate
entirely, and suppose that God is not concerned in our doing or not doing what is evil;
and they say, that to act what is good, or what is evil, is at men's own choice, and that
the one or the other belongs so to everyone, that they may act as they please. They
also take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments
68
and rewards in Hades.

Although Jesus had issues with members of both sects, it seems there was significant support
for him and his followers from among the Pharisees. One of the most supportive statements
found in the New Testament comes from the leader of the Pharisees at that time, Rabban
Gamaliel, the grandson of Hillel. He is quoted as being prepared to give the followers of Jesus
the benefit of the doubt:

Then one of the Pharisees whose name was Gamaliel, a teacher of the law and
honoured by all the people, rose up and ordered them to take the apostles outside for
a while; Then he said to them, Men of Israel, take heed to yourselves, and find out
what is best for you to do about these men… Keep away from these men and let them
alone; for if this thought and this work is of men, it will fail and pass away. But if it

67
ibid.
68
Flavius Josephus, The Works of Flavius Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book II, chapter 8:14, 1895,
translated by William Whiston, A.M. Auburn and Buffalo. John E. Beardsley, Tufts University,
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=J.+BJ+2.8.14&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.
0148, retrieved 18/08/2009.

25
 be of God, you cannot suppress it, lest per chance you find yourself in opposition to
69
God.

Only if we perceive the Jesus movement as a body that reinforced Judaism and remained
within the framework of Judaism can we regarded it as successful. In presuming, however,
that the movement’s success was in the establishment of Christianity, an institution that was
the antithesis of all that Jesus and his immediate disciples taught, we could conclude it most
certainly failed.

The Essenes

The Essenes, a splinter group that had broken away from the Pharisees, were a religious
70
community first mentioned in history in the writings of Josephus. The name of the sect is
71
derived from the Aramaic ‘assia’, a term denoting ‘physicians’. Living near the Dead Sea,
in the Qumran area, the Essenes were able to make use of the healing elements of the Dead
72
Sea and became well known for their ability to treat illnesses.

The Essenes lived in communities of their own. They ate together, partaking only of the
simplest foods, since they were vegetarians. They earned their livelihood through manual
73
labour and then pooled their earnings, for no one could have private possessions.

Jesus, John the Immerser and the Essenes

It is difficult to know how involved Jesus and John were with the Essene community, but
there were certainly many parallels between them.

According to what was written by Josephus concerning the Essenes, there may have been
more than one group – a communal group consisting of men and women, and a monastic
group. In Antiquities, Josephus wrote concerning the Essenes:

69
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Acts 5:34-39.
70
Josephus, Antiquities, op. cit., Book XIII: 171, Book XVIII: 18-21.
71
Rosner, op. cit. p. 13.
72
Grayzel, op. cit. p. 130.
73
ibid. Grayzel, p.130. Lawrence Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls – Their True Meaning
for Judaism and Christianity, 1994, Doubleday, New York, p. 106. Josephus, Antiquities, op. cit. Book
XVIII: 18, p. 19.

26
 There are about four thousand men that live in this way, and neither marry wives, nor
are desirous to keep servants; as thinking the latter tempts men to be unjust, and the
74
former gives the handle to domestic quarrels.

In The Jewish War Josephus refers to an Essene community who did marry:

Moreover, there is another order of Essenes, who agree with the rest as to their way
of living, and customs, and laws, but differ from them in the point of marriage, as
thinking that by not marrying they cut off the principal part of human life, which is
75
the prospect of succession…

Jesus may have referred to the monastic group of Essenes when he said that some men stayed
76
single for the sake of the Kingdom.

Josephus described the Essenes as having similar afterlife beliefs as the Pharisees, believing
in the concept of reward and punishment. In Jewish Antiquities he wrote:

The doctrine of the Essenes is wont to leave everything in the hands of God. They
regard the soul as immortal and believe that they ought to strive especially to draw
77
near to righteousness.

The Essene sect seemed to have been stricter than Jesus and the Pharisees on various laws,
particularly the laws of the Sabbath. One such case is the following rule:

No one shall deliver an animal on the Sabbath day. And if it fall into a cistern or a pit,
78
one may not lift it out on the Sabbath.

The view of Jesus, which he implied was also the view of the Pharisees, was as follows:

He said to them: Who is the man among you who has only one sheep, and if it should
79
fall into a pit on the Sabbath, would he not take hold of it and lift it up?

The governing structure of the Essene community was very similar to Jesus’ own. According
to the Manual of Discipline, a council of twelve headed by three priests governed the

74
ibid. Josephus, p. 19.
75
Josephus, The Jewish War, op. cit. Book II: 160-161, p. 385.
76
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Matthew 19:10-12.
77
Josephus, Antiquities, op. cit. Book XVIII: 18, p. 15.
78
Zadokite Fragments 11:13-14, cited in Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, op. cit. p. 278.
79
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Matthew 12:11.

27
 80
community at Qumran. Jesus also chose twelve specific disciples, and three among the
81
twelve were considered closer to him; these were Peter, James and John.

The Essenes, like John, had strong messianic beliefs, believing that “there shall arise the one
82
who teaches righteousness in the End of Days.” This passage does not necessarily refer to
the teacher of the sect himself, but may refer to an eschatological Teacher of Righteousness
who was yet to arise. John may have believed that Jesus was that Teacher of Righteousness,
declaring, “…He who is coming after me is greater than I, the one whose shoes I am not
83
worthy to remove.”

The Essenes believed that living in the desert was part of their role as “the voice of one crying
in the wilderness” as prophesied by the prophet Isaiah, speaking of the future messianic
84
redemption. The text of the Rule of the Community reads:

According to these rules they shall be separated from the midst of the settlement of
the people of iniquity to go to the desert to clear there the road of the Lord, as it is
written, In the desert clear the road of the Lord, straighten in the wilderness a
highway for our God. This in the interpretation of the Torah (which) He commanded
through Moses to observe, according to everything that is revealed from time to time,
85
and as the prophets have revealed by His holy Spirit.

This is comparable with what the New Testament says about John:

In those days came John the Baptist; and he was preaching in the wilderness of Judea,
saying, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near. For it was he of whom it was said
by the prophet Isaiah, The voice which cries in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the
86
Lord…

Although there is no clear evidence that Jesus and John had been actual members of the
Essene sect, they clearly shared certain ideas and a common religious milieu. The description
of Nazarene community life in the New Testament bears distinctive Essene characteristics;

80
The Manual of Discipline, 1QS 8:1, 1QS 8:1, cited in Glatzer, op. cit. p. 77.
81
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Matthew 10:2; Matthew 17:1; Mark 5:37; Mark 9:2.
82
Zadokite Fragments 6:10-11, cited in Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, op. cit. p. 278.
83
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Matthew 3:11.
84
The Stone Edition Tanach, Isaiah 40:3, Footnote 40:1, 1996, Mesorah Publications, Ltd. New York.
85
Rule Of The Community 8:12-16, cited in Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, op. cit. p.94.
86
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Matthew 3:1-3.

28
this suggests that there may have been a significant number of Essenes who associated with
the Nazarenes. We read in Acts of the Apostles:

And all believers were together and had all things in common; and those who had
possessions sold them and divided to each man according to his need. And they went
to the temple everyday with one accord; and at home they broke bread and received
87
food with joy and with a pure heart...

Like the Sadducees, the Essenes disappeared from history after the destruction of Jerusalem
88
in 70 C.E., their communities destroyed by the Romans.

The Nazarenes and Ebionites

In the third decade of the first century C.E., there arose another sect, followers of a Jew by the
name of Yeshua of Nazareth. This sect came to be known as the Nazarenes, also called
Ebionites (Evionim, meaning ‘poor’ or ‘meek’). They were culturally and ethnically the same
as, and worshipped alongside, mainstream Judaism. The Torah was of great importance to
them; they kept its laws, keeping the Sabbath and performing circumcision.

The Jewish author, Isidor Epstein, in his book Judaism, writes concerning the Nazarenes:

The earliest adherents of this sect were Jews in all respects but one – they regarded
Jesus as the Messiah. They made no other changes. They continued to go to the
Temple and presumably to the Synagogue, as they had been accustomed to do, and to
all appearances conformed in every respect to the usual Jewish observances. Their
belief that the messiah had come was not a ground of division between them and
89
other Jews.

George F. Moore describes the Nazarenes as being peculiar only in their belief that Jesus was
the foretold Messiah. He writes:

Their peculiarity was the belief that the Messiah foretold in the Scriptures had
appeared in the reign of Tiberius in the person of Jesus of Nazareth... On the
fundamental articles of Judaism, the unity of God, his relation to Israel, the revelation

87
ibid. Acts 2:44-46.
88
Parkes, A History of the Jewish People, op. cit. p. 40-41.
89
Isidore Epstein, Judaism: A Historical Presentation, 1990, Penguin Books, London, p. 107.

29
 of his character, will and purpose in Scripture, the Nazarenes were as sound as any
90
Jews could be.

There is only one instance in the New Testament where the term ‘Nazarenes’ is used. In Acts
of the Apostles there is a connection made between the apostle Paul and the Nazarenes, where
he is described as the ringleader of the Nazarenes:

We have found this man to be a pestilent fellow and a worker of sedition among the
Jews throughout the world, for he is the ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes -
91
Nazoraion Ναζωραίων.

Other than this instance, the term ‘Nazarenes’ only begins to be used around the second
century by the early Church fathers, when describing the Jewish followers of Jesus who still
adhered to the Mosaic Law. The term ‘Ebionite’ is not used at all in the New Testament, other
than one possible instance where Jesus may have used it to describe his followers:

And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said, Blessed are you poor (Evionim),
92
for the kingdom of God is yours.

After the fifth century C.E., there is little information about the Nazarenes and Ebionites.
However, there is evidence that a Jewish group who believed in Jesus, called Pasagini or
Circumcisi (possibly meaning ‘those of the way’ or a reference to circumcision as a ‘rite of
passage’), existed until at least the 12th century C.E.

Concerning the Pasagini, James C. Robertson, in History of the Christian Church, wrote:

Among the minor sects of the time, the Pasagini, of northern Italy… denied the unity
and the equality of the Divine Persons, and condemned the Roman Church… they
maintained the abiding obligation of the Mosaic law - of circumcision, the Sabbath,
93
and the distinction of clean and unclean meats.

In the manuscript, Summa Contra Haereticos, ascribed to Praepositinus of Cremona, the

doctrines of the Pasagini are addressed. The author notes the following:

90
G.F. Moore, Judaism: In the First Centuries of the Christian Era - The Age of the Tannaim, Volume
1, op. cit. p. 90.
91
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Acts 24:5. Biblos, Bible Study Tools, http://biblos.com/acts/24-
5.htm, retrieved 13/09/2009.
92
ibid. Luke 6:20.
93
Heinrich Fichtenau, Denise A. Kaiser, Heretics and Scholars in the High Middle Ages, 1000-1200,
2000, Penn State Press, PA, p. 66. James Craigie Robertson, History of the Christian Church: From the
Apostolic Age to the Reformation, Book V, Pasagini, 1866, John Murray, London, p. 197-198.

30
 The Pasagini deny the divinity of Jesus and claim that he is only a created being, that
the Old Law is to be observed literally in the manner of feasts, circumcision, choice
94
of foods and everything except sacrifices.

The Pasagini also maintained that the literal Sabbath was to be observed. Furthermore, they
95
condemned and rejected the whole Roman Church and its institutions.

Each of the sects of the Second Temple era developed along its own religious lines, creating a
divergence from one another, yet all agreed on one thing – the sovereignty of the Torah.

CONFLICTS BETWEEN SECOND TEMPLE ERA SECTS

In the time preceding the destruction of the Second Temple there was a great amount of
conflict between the various Jewish sects. The Talmud tells us that the Temple was destroyed
due to the baseless hatred among Jews:

"But why was the second Sanctuary destroyed, seeing that in its time they were
occupying themselves with Torah, observance of precepts, and the practice of
96
charity? Because therein prevailed hatred without cause."

Among the Jewish sects, the group that was prone to use violence against the Roman
occupation was a movement who called themselves 'Zealots'. Josephus distinguishes between
the Zealots, who preached and practiced violence, and the other principal sects - Pharisees,
97
Sadducees and Essences, who did not. The Zealots, who had the leading role in the Jewish
Revolt against the Romans in 66 C.E., in their frenzy killed any Jewish leaders who were
98
suspected of collaborating with Rome.

Zealotry was originally a political movement within the various sects. Simon, one of the
99
disciples of Jesus was a 'zealot.' It is not until his account of the war period that Josephus
refers to one of the wartime revolutionary groups formally as "the Zealots."

94
Summa Contra Haereticos, Ascribed to Praepositinus Of Cremona, edited by Philip S. Moore,
C.S.C., Joseph N. Garvin and James A. Corbett, New York, Vail-Ballou Press, Inc., 1958, p. 75, 180.
95
ibid. p. 130, 158.
96
Talmud, op. cit. Yoma 9b.
97
Johnson, op. cit. p122
98
Josephus Wars, Book 2, op. cit. Chapter 22:1; Book 4, Chapter 3:9; Book 4, Chapter 1:1.
99
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13.

31
During this time and after, there was also animosity toward the followers of Jesus, mostly
from the Sadducees in regard to the belief in the 'resurrection of the dead', rather than whether
or not Jesus was the Messiah:

And while they (Peter and John) were speaking these words to the people, the priests
and the Sadducees and the leaders of the temple rose up against them, being
infuriated that they taught the people and preached through Jesus the resurrection of
100
the dead.

The New Testament gives only one account of a Jew who was put to death by other Jews, and
this was the case of the stoning of Stephen. After being questioned by the High Priest (a
101
Sadducee) a group of Jews was incited to stone Stephen to death.

Several centuries later, the Church gave the title of 'Martyr' to about sixteen first and second
century followers of Jesus. All of these were killed by the Romans, not by the hand of the
Jews. The Jewish authorities could not impose capital punishment after the Romans expelled
the Sanhedrin from the Chamber of Hewn Stones, forty years before the destruction of the
102
Temple in 70 C.E.

After the destruction of the Temple, only two groups survived - the Pharisees and the
Nazarenes. In Yavneh, the Pharisees gathered under the leadership of Yochanan Ben-Zakkai
103
where they re-organized the Sanhedrin and remained the authority on Jewish life. In
Jerusalem and later in Pella, the Nazarenes gathered under the leadership of Simeon, who
104
replaced James the Just, the brother of Jesus.

In the following two hundred years the Pharisees codified the Oral Law in the Mishna, giving
rise to Rabbinic Judaism, as we know it today.

100
ibid Acts 4:1-2.
101
ibid 7:1-60.
102
Talmud, Shabbat 15a.
103
Pixner, op. cit. p. 211.
104
Gunter Stemberger, Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, 1995,
Fortress Press, Minneapolis, p. 140.

32
 JESUS’ MISSION

Jesus’ teaching must be understood in the context of his apparent overall purpose and
perspective - the renewal of the nation of Israel. His mission was not to the Gentiles, but
rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He said to his disciples:

Do not enter a Samaritan city; but above all, go to the sheep which are lost from the
105
house of Israel. And as you go, preach and say that the kingdom of heaven is near.

In light of the political situation of the day, Jesus may have perceived that the destruction of
the Temple by the Romans and the likely dispersion of the Jewish people were imminent. He
warned his followers of the coming calamities, saying: “Do you see these great buildings?
106
Not a stone shall be left here upon another stone, which shall not be torn down.”

107
The Talmud tells us there was much discord among the Jewish people at that time, thus
dispersion in a weak, spiritual condition could mean the demise of Judaism. In the footsteps
of Hillel, this then became Jesus’ mission: to do the law, not just teach it; to strengthen the
law, sharpen and intensify it, not weaken it. For Jesus, the Law would be as permanent as the
heavens and the earth. He said to his followers:

Do not suppose that I have come to weaken the law or the prophets; I have not come
to weaken, but to fulfil. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not a
yud h (the smallest of the Hebrew letters) or a dash shall pass away from the law
108
until all of it is fulfilled.

Although Judaism believes that the kingdom pertains to the Olam Haba – the ‘World to
Come’, the focus of the kingdom is primarily concerned with the here and now; thus Jesus
109
taught: “The kingdom is among you” and “the kingdom is within you.”

According to the rabbinic sages, the ‘kingdom of heaven’ is that man should act “for the sake
of heaven”, that is, to take upon himself the yoke of the commandments. The Talmud says
110
that the kingdom of heaven is “the technical term for reciting the Shema,” the daily
declaration of the Oneness of God and the daily observance of the Law. Almost every

105
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Matthew 10:5-7.
106
ibid. Mark 13:2.
107
Talmud, op. cit. Yoma 9b.
108
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Matthew 5:17, 18.
109
ibid. 17:21
110
Talmud, op. cit. Shabbat 31a; Berachot 10b, Footnote 29.

33
reference in the Talmud to the kingdom of heaven is in connection to the Shema and strict
observance of Jewish law on a daily basis. Thus, one who preaches the kingdom of heaven is
one who views every daily act he performs as the fulfilment of God’s kingdom on earth. Of
111
Hillel the Elder it is said that all his works were for the sake of heaven. Similarly Jesus
112
taught his disciples to pray that God's "will be done on earth as it is in Heaven".

In Judaism, the kingdom of heaven is also associated with the coming of the Messiah who
will rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, gather the Jewish exiles and inaugurate the final
redemption and Messianic Era. Israel and the Jewish people will no longer be subjugated by
113
the nations and there will be peace.

Although Jesus did not announce himself as the awaited Messiah, due to the political situation
many would have hoped that he was the one who would deliver them from Roman
oppression. Jesus, however, did not understand his mission in political terms; rather he
proclaimed the Kingdom of God in human hearts and lives. When directly approached
regarding his views on the subject of paying taxes to Rome, he simply answered: “Give to
114
Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”

FIRST CENTURY SOURCES CONCERNING JESUS

Outside of the New Testament, very little information can be found about Jesus. In fact, the
only first century written information, of which we have original documents, is in Flavius
115
Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities, written around 93 C.E. Josephus wrote:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man.
For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as
accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the
Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing
among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come
to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to

111
ibid. Beitzah 16a.
112
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Matthew 6:9-13.
113
Aryeh Kaplan, Handbook of Jewish Thought, Volume 2, 1992, Moznaim Publishing Corporation,
New York, p. 374-375.
114
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Matthew 22:17-21.
115
Flavius Josephus, Josephus, Complete Works, Translated by William Whiston, 1982, Kregal
Publications, Michigan, Forward p. 1X.

34
 them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless
116
other marvellous things about him.

Some scholars believe that this passage was partially tampered with and interpolations made.
In 1971, Professor Shlomo Pines of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, published a
translation of a different version of this passage, quoted in an Arabic manuscript of the tenth
century.

Pines’ translation simply describes Jesus as “a wise man” whose “conduct was good” and
who “was known to be virtuous.” As far as the resurrection is concerned, the tenth century
manuscript recounts it only as a claim:

His disciples ... reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion
and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the
117
prophets have recounted wonders.

The first to cite this passage from Josephus’ Antiquities was Eusebius of Caesarea, writing in
about 324 C.E. Eusebius quotes the passage in essentially the same form. Most scholars
consider this strong evidence that this passage existed in manuscripts of the Jewish
Antiquities at that time, though skeptics have suggested that Eusebius himself might be the
author of the passage. It is significant, however, that Origen, writing in about 240 C.E., fails
to mention it, even though he does mention the less significant reference to Jesus, as brother
118
of James, which occurs later in Antiquities. This has given rise to the suggestion that the
Testimonium Flavianum did not exist in the earliest copies, or did not exist in the present
119
form.

If we remain suspicious of this passage, then what remains indicates that Jesus was a religious
and virtuous Jew, but not necessarily anything more.

116
Josephus, Antiquities, op. cit. Book XVIII: 63, p. 50-51.
117
James Tabor, Josephus' Testimony to Jesus (Testimonium Flavianum): Josephus, Antiquities 18. 63-
64, The Jewish Roman World of Jesus, 1998, http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-
jesus.html, retrieved 19/05/2009.
118
Flavius Josephus, Josephus, Complete Works, op. cit. Book XX, chapter IX, p. 423.
119
Tabor, op. cit. http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html, retrieved
19/05/2009.

35
Joseph Klausner describes Jesus as follows:

Jesus was not a Christian; he was a Jew. He did not preach a new faith, but taught
men to do the will of God; and, in his opinion, as also in that of the Jews, the will of
120
God was to be found in the Law of Moses and in the other books of Scripture.

Jesus’ sole pursuit was to illustrate the ‘kingdom of heaven’, gathering what he considered
the best in the different Torah schools of his time and centering his own teaching on it. If
Jesus had indeed wished to establish a new religion, he would have set the example himself.
Yet at no time does his life reflect anything other than Judaism in its most orthodox
expression. The historical Jesus belonged to Judaism.

William Nicholls, in Christian Antisemitism, A History of Hate, distinguishes between the

Jesus of Christianity and the Jesus of history. He notes:

The Jesus Christ of historic Christianity is not the Jesus of history. He is a product of
the mythmaking mind, basing itself upon historical mistakes and misunderstandings
121
and even upon some falsifications of history… Whatever may be the basis for
traditional Christian faith and Christian theology, it cannot be found in the historical
122
Jesus.

If then, the historical Jesus was an observant Jew and his early followers were all observant
Jews, why does Christianity not present him as such and how and when did Christianity, as
we know it today, begin?

120
Klausner, op. cit. p. 363.
121
Nicholls, op. cit. p. 83.
122
ibid. p. 84.

36
 CHAPTER 2 - THE APOSTLE PAUL

Saul of Tarsus, better known by his Roman name, Paul, was born somewhere between 6
123
B.C.E. and 5 C.E. He was a Jew by birth, raised in Jerusalem, and was also a Greek-
124
speaking Roman citizen. The New Testament initially introduces Paul as a zealot intent on
destroying the Nazarene sect. But around 33 C.E., whilst in Damascus, Paul had a spiritual
awakening which dramatically changed his view of the Jesus movement.

Although Paul became involved with the Nazarenes, he did not change from being a Pharisaic
Jew and made no apology in making his status known. He wrote:

I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I
was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as
any of you are today. The Jews all know the way I have lived ever since I was a
125
child... that according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee.

In his letter to the Philippians he wrote:

(I was) circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of
126
Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews, in regard to the law, a Pharisee.

Paul was not the only Pharisee who became a follower of Jesus whilst remaining a Pharisee.
On the occasion of the so-called Council of Jerusalem, it is reported that “..some who
127
believed (in Jesus) belonged to the sect of the Pharisees…”

Although there is some opinion that Paul was a Hellenistic Jew, this is doubtful as he strongly
emphasized his Pharisaic status. The Pharisees were opposed to Hellenism and the study of
Greek philosophy, as is written in the Talmud: “Cursed be the man who has taught his son
128
Greek philosophy.” And again, “Go and search at which hour it is neither day nor night

123
The New International Version (NIV) Study Bible, New Testament, Timeline of Paul’s Life, 1995,
Zondervan Publishing House, Michigan, p. 1666.
124
ibid. Acts 22:26-29.
125
ibid. Acts 22:3; Acts 26:5. (Gamaliel was the grandson of Hillel and the leader of the Pharisees at
the time of Paul).
126
ibid. Philippians 3:5.
127
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Acts 15:5.
128
Talmud, op. cit. Bava Kama 82b.

37
 129
and devote it to the study of Greek philosophy.” Paul also strongly supported the belief in
the afterlife and resurrection of the dead, a concept the Hellenistic Jews rejected.

In Acts of the Apostles, we read that Paul gained the support of the Pharisees against the
Sadducees on the matter of the resurrection:

Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees,
called out in the Sanhedrin, 'My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I
stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead. When he said this, a
dispute broke out between the Pharisees and Sadducees and the assembly was
divided… The Sadducees say there is no resurrection, and that there are neither
130
angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.'

Unlike other Nazarenes, Paul did not see himself as an emissary to the Jews but rather to the
Gentiles. As a student of the academy of Gamaliel, Paul would have been fluent in Hebrew,
Aramaic and Greek. Although the sages discouraged the study of Greek philosophy,
131
permitting the usage of Greek only for a scroll of the Torah, according to the Talmud the
household of Rabban Gamaliel was permitted to study Greek wisdom for political, not
132
religious reasons.

Paul’s broad knowledge of languages and cultures made it possible for him to relate to all
people. In his letters he claimed to be “all things to all men.” Thus, unlike Jesus who
remained within his Jewish context, Paul represented something far more international.

In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul wrote:

So with the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win the Jews; and with those who
are under the law, I became as one who is under the law, that I might win those who
are under the law. To those who are without law, I became like one who is without
law, though I am not lawless before God because I am under the law of Christ, that I
might win them who are without law. With the weak I became as weak, that I might
win the weak. I became everything to every man, that I might by all means save
133
everyone.

129
ibid. Menachot 99b.
130
NIV, New Testament, op. cit. Acts 23:6-10.
131
Talmud, op. cit. Megila 9a.
132
ibid. Sota 49b.
133
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. 1 Corinthians 9:19-23.

38
Although this principle may have its advantages, all too often being “all thing to all men” can
mean compromising one’s own convictions. This may well have become the case with Paul.

THE ERRORS OF PAUL

During the time of Paul’s missionary attempts, believers in Jesus were found in three types of
Jewish communities: the first were the Aramaic-speaking Jews of Israel, the second were the
Hellenistic Jews in Israel and of the Diaspora who spoke Greek and used the Septuagint in
their synagogues, and the third were the Gentiles who joined the movement, primarily in the
Diaspora. The cultural, religious and psychological makeup of the three groups was
significantly different – the first being strictly Orthodox and the other two groups being
134
Hellenistic – leading to a variety of conceptions about Jesus and God.

When Paul delivered his sermons about Jesus, Greeks attended the synagogues together with
Jews. Under these circumstances the Greek Hellenists would have misinterpreted much of
what he said and did. Such a situation is described in Acts of the Apostles:

And Paul and Barnabas entered into the Jewish synagogue and addressed the people
135
in such manner that many of the Jews and of the Greeks believed. And when the
people saw what Paul had done, they lifted their voices, saying in the language of the
country: The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men. So they called
Barnabas the chief of the gods; and Paul they called Hermes, because he was the
136
chief speaker.

Given the mindset of the majority of those in attendance, Paul’s message and the "wonders"
he performed were immediately interpreted in a Hellenistic manner – Paul and Barnabas were
hailed as ‘gods’. Yet, although Paul and Barnabas objected to this inference and responded by
rending their garments, the crowds were not convinced and offered sacrifices to them as
137
though they were gods.

Paul’s missionary methods, particularly when addressing the subject of the sovereignty of the
Mosaic Law, created dissension between himself and the leaders of the Nazarene/Ebionite
sect. At times it seems that Paul suggests that the Law is no longer necessary, whilst on other

134
Frederick B. Davis, The Jew and Deicide: The Origin of an Archetype, 2003, University Press of
America, Inc. Lanham, p. 101-102.
135
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Acts 14:1-3.
136
ibid. Verses 11-12.
137
ibid. Acts 14 – 18.

39
occasions he stresses the importance of keeping the Law to the letter. If we read Paul’s words
in context, however, there may not be a contradiction.

When writing to the Gentiles, Paul insisted that a convert to Judaism must keep the entire
law: “I solemnly warn every man who gets himself circumcised that he is under obligation to
138
fulfil the whole law.” This statement upholds Jewish law, which states: “If a proselyte
takes upon himself to obey all the words of the law except one single commandment, he is not
139
to be received.”

Also regarding the law, in his letter to the Romans, Paul wrote: “For it is not the hearers of
140
the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” Then, in
what seems to be a contradictory statement, also to the Romans, Paul wrote: “…for you are
141
not under the law but under grace.”

A possible explanation of the point Paul is trying to make can be found in his letter to the
Romans, where he wrote: “For the law of the Spirit of which is in Jesus Christ has made you
142
free from the law of sin and of death.”

In his defence, on this point, I suggest that Paul may have been speaking about two types of
law. Jewish teaching divides the six hundred and thirteen commandments of the Torah into
negative and positive precepts, thus in effect there being two laws: the law of life (the positive
commandments) and the law that defines sin (the negative commandments), which brings
death. It is possible, therefore, that when Paul made statements such as, “You are no longer
under the law”, he was referring to the negative precepts - "You shall not," and when he
wrote, “…the doers of the law shall be justified”, he was referring to the positive
commandments - "You shall." In his letter to the Galatians (5:18-26), Paul re-iterates this
concept: "But if you are under the spirit, you are not under the law." He then lists some of the
negative precepts of the law: impurity, idolatry, murder, witchcraft and so on. In other words,
if we live by the spirit of the law - the positive commandments, the negative ones will not
dominate us.

138
ibid. Galatians 5:2.
139
Talmud, op. cit. Berachot 30b.
140
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Romans 2:13.
141
ibid. 6:15.
142
ibid. 8:2.

40
In one of his letters, the Apostle Peter explained that Paul’s writings were sometimes difficult
to understand by those who were ignorant of the law. He wrote:

And consider that the long suffering of the Lord is salvation; even as our beloved
brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you; As also
in all his epistles, he spoke concerning these matters, in which there are certain things
so hard to be understood that those who are ignorant and unstable pervert their
143
meaning, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

The Hebrew concepts Paul tried to convey to the Gentiles, were not carried over well into the
Greek language, especially when trying to convey the Jewish concept of ‘law’. The Greek
144
language uses one word for law – nomon – νόµον. The Hebrew language uses three words
to define the Law of Moses: mishpatim ohypan - logical commandments such as “you shall
not murder” and “you shall not steal”; eidim ohsg – commemorative laws such as keeping the
Sabbath and festivals; and chukim oheuj - decrees or statutes, such as circumcision and not
mixing linen and wool in a garment etc.

This is just one example of how much of the Hebrew meaning of Paul’s words and letters
may have been misinterpreted and mistranslated, not just in the literal sense but also
conceptually.

Another difficult term used by Paul, often interpreted as an abandonment of the Torah for
another law, is found in his first letter to the Corinthians. Paul wrote, “I am not free from
145
God's law but am under Christ's law.”

The phrase “law of Christ” does not necessarily imply that Jesus had taught another law
which differed from the Torah; rather, the ‘law of Christ’ is that same law as the ‘law of
Moses’, which Jesus taught.

In Hillel and Jesus, J. P. Arnold says:

The teachers had brought to the Gentiles their Jesus traditions, including his teachings
as the “law of Christ.” The “law of Christ” complemented previous revelations and

143
ibid. 2 Peter, chapter 3: 15-17.
144
Biblos, op. cit. http://biblos.com/romans/8-2.htm, retrieved 17/09/2009.
145
The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English, New International Version (NIV), 1
Corinthians 9:21, 1986, The Zondervan Corporation, Michigan.

41
 covenants. Their Jesus was a circumcised, Torah observant teacher who ratified the
146
covenant. For the teachers, the “law of Christ” affirmed obedience to the Torah…

Assuming the Epistles of Paul are accurate and intact, they need to be seen as purely
occasional and contextual writings, directed only to specific situations. Paul adapted
traditional Pharisaic law to current problems and issues, creating a new mode by which
Gentiles could live. This was an entirely new and unusual situation, which, unless carefully
monitored, could easily get out of hand.

As the missionizing efforts of Paul spread into the Diaspora, attracting many Hellenistic Jews
and Gentiles, the situation did indeed get out of hand. The Hellenists within the Nazarene
sect, with their anti-nomistic tendencies, declared for the abolition of the Mosaic Law and the
dissolution of any observance of Judaism. In a letter written early in the second century C.E.
by Mathetes to Diognetus, we read, “I expect what you want to hear about the most is our
147
Christian unwillingness to accept the faith of the Jews.” The early Christian writer, Ignatius
of Antioch, declared that it was an absurdity to profess Jesus Christ while continuing in
Jewish customs, and that living in the practice of Judaism was an admission of having failed
148
to receive the grace of God.

Moreover, an environment was created where Gentile converts, with little knowledge of the
law, out-numbered Jews. The problem intensified when in attempting to accommodate
Gentiles it was decided that conversion to Judaism was no longer a pre-requisite for joining
the Nazarene sect, thus enabling large numbers of Hellenistic Gentiles, with no instruction in
149
Judaism at all, to become an active part of the community. By the early second century,
C.E., non-Jews were running the Nazarene movement. This is noted by Eusebius in The
History of the Church. He wrote:
150
Up to Hadrian’s siege of the Jews there had been a series of fifteen bishops (in
Jerusalem). All are said to have been Hebrews in origin… For at that time, their
church consisted of Hebrew believers who had continued from apostolic times down
to the later siege in which the Jews, after revolting a second time from the Romans,

146
Arnold, J.P. The Relationship of Paul to Jesus, in Charlesworth, J.H. and Johns, L., op. cit. p. 283.
147
The Epistle to Diognetus, cited in Maxwell Stanforth, Early Christian Writings, 1987, Penguin
Books, Victoria, p. 143.
148
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, cited in Stanforth, op. cit. p. 72-73.
149
Zondervan Parallel New Testament, NIV, op. cit. Acts 15:1-31.
150
Dimont, op. cit. p. 108.

42
 were overwhelmed in a full-scale war. That meant the end of the bishops of the
151
Circumcision…

One of Paul’s greatest and most serious errors was his diatribe against the Jews. Although he
at times wrote at length concerning Israel’s election as God’s chosen people whom He never
rejected, on other occasions he condemned the Jews for killing the Messiah.

In his letters to the Romans, Paul wrote: "I ask then: did God reject his people? By no means!
152
God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew…" Then, in his letter to the
Thessalonians, he wrote that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus and that the
wrath of God was upon them:

You suffered from your own countrymen, the same things those churches suffered
from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and also drove us out.
They displease God and are hostile to all men… the wrath of God has come upon
153
them at last.

Paul’s statement that the wrath of God was upon the Jews for their supposed crime of ‘killing
Christ’ became the Church’s greatest ammunition against the Jews for centuries to come.

Despite any good intentions Paul may have had, it would seem his error was a combination of
not discerning his audience and of challenging orthodox tradition, which opened the doors to
heresy and facilitated the beginnings of Gentile Christianity.

In time, Jewish followers of Jesus condemned Paul as a heretic. The Church father, Irenaeus,
wrote that the Ebionites considered Paul an apostate and renegade from the Law of Moses:
“They (the Ebionites) use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle
154
Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law.”

151
Eusebius, The History of the Church, From Christ to Constantine, translated by G.A. Williamson,
1989, Penguin Books, Victoria, p. 107.
152
Zondervan Parallel New Testament, NIV, op. cit. Romans 11:1-2.
153
ibid. 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16.
154
Irenaeus: Against Heresies, Book 1: 26, translated by Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut,
from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1., eds., Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe,
Buffalo, NY, Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885. Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin
Knight, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103126.htm, retrieved
08/06/ 2009.

43
 CHAPTER 3 - WHEN CHRISTIANITY BEGAN

IT ALL BEGAN AT ANTIOCH

Antioch, (today located in Turkey), was the ancient capital of the Greek kingdom of Syria and
the greatest city of the Roman Empire next to Rome and Alexandria. It was dominated by
Greek (Hellenistic) culture, philosophy and language.

The city of Antioch was founded around 300 B.C.E., by Seleucus I, king of Syria, and named
after his father Antiochus I, a Macedonian General. Antiochus I was the ancestor of
Antiochus Epiphanes (meaning ‘god manifests’), who, after inheriting the throne in 176
155
B.C.E., dispatched his army to Jerusalem, starting one of the most oppressive periods in
Jewish history.

When Antiochus Epiphanes began his rule, he sought to forbid the practice of Judaism in
favour of Hellenism, a philosophy that taught that the supremacy of ‘reason’ was the highest
156
level of civilization, and that the human being is the centre of all things. The majority of
Jews rejected this philosophy, believing that the Jew is transformed not by intellectual forces,
but by one God and one Law.

At first Antiochus was tolerant of Jewish practices, but as opposition toward Hellenism grew
he took deliberate steps to Hellenise the Jews of Israel by attempting to destroy Judaism.

The first thing Antiochus did was to make the seat of Jewish power his own. He removed the
High Priest from his position and replaced him with a ‘puppet’ Jew. After he installed his
own High Priest, Antiochus tried to dissolve the Jewish calendar. Antiochus banned
circumcision and forbade the observance of the Sabbath, observance of the New Moon and
the observance of the Jewish festivals. He forbade the keeping of kosher laws and the study of
157
Torah. In 167 B.C.E., on 25th Kislev, an altar to Zeus was set up in the Temple; swine were
sacrificed on the altar and Torah scrolls were publicly burned. Jews who refused to eat pork
158
or sacrifice swine were tortured to death. In 166 B.C.E., Judah Maccabee, son of
Mattathias the priest, together with his five brothers, led a rebellion against the Hellenists.
Although heavily outnumbered, Judah’s army won every battle against the Greeks and turned

155
Berel Wein, Echoes of Glory: The Story of the Jews in the Classical Era 350 B.C.E. – 750 C.E., op.
cit. p. 62 – 67. Dimont, op. cit. p. 83.
156
Grayzel, op. cit. p. 40.
157
Epstein, op. cit. p. 91. Dimont, op. cit. p. 83.
158
Grayzel, op. cit. p. 56. Glatzer, op. cit. p. 9-10.

44
many Jews back to the Torah. In 165 B.C.E., on 25th Kislev, the Temple was rededicated and
159
purified - exactly three years to the day since it was desecrated.

Interestingly, it was in Antioch, about 300 years later, where the same struggle between
Greek and Jewish civilization gave rise to the 'Christian' movement. As Christianity evolved
into an organized religion the Church fathers, like Antiochus Epiphanes, tolerated Jewish
observance only for a short time. They then took deliberate steps to Christianize the Jews by
attempting to destroy Judaism. It became a capital offence to convert to Judaism, rabbinical
jurisdiction was abolished or greatly restricted and Jews were excluded from holding high
office. The Sanhedrin in Tiberias was prohibited from notifying Diaspora Jews about the
dates of forthcoming religious festivals, thus, in order to secure Jewish continuity, Hillel II
160
made public the mathematical rules for calculating the Jewish calendar, in 359 C.E.

When Jewish missionaries began spreading their message about Jesus, initially it was only
spread among Jews. In Acts of the Apostles we read: “Now those who had been scattered by
the persecution in connection with Stephen travelled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch,
161
telling the message only to Jews.” Later, in Antioch, the message was extended to Gentiles:
“Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak
162
to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the lord Jesus.”

According to Josephus, Antioch had a large Jewish community that converted many Greeks
163
to Judaism. It was not unusual, then, when the Nazarene movement spread to Antioch, that
its leaders in Jerusalem expected Gentiles who wished to join the movement to first convert to
Judaism. We read in Acts of the Apostles that this was, in fact, the case: “They chose Nicolas
164
from Antioch, a convert to Judaism.

With the influx of Hellenistic Gentiles, the Nazarene community of Antioch began to develop
views of its own on the character and conditions of the movement and strongly contested the
view that Gentiles were obligated to convert to Judaism before they could join the Nazarene
sect. The apostle Paul and his missionary colleague, Barnabas, brought the matter to the

159
Wein, op. cit. p. 65. David J. Goldberg and John D. Rayner, The Jewish People: Their History and
Their Religion, 1989, Penguin Books, Victoria, p. 65-66.
160
David J. Goldberg and John D. Rayner, op. cit. p. 86. Wistrich, op. cit. p. 19.
161
NIV, New Testament, op. cit. Acts of the Apostles 11:19.
162
ibid. Acts 11:20.
163
Flavius Josephus op. cit. Wars, Book 7:3:3,
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148%3Abook%3D7%3
Awhiston+chapter%3D3%3Awhiston+section%3D3, retrieved 18/08/2009.
164
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Acts 6:5.

45
leaders in Jerusalem. The conservative faction of the Nazarenes in Jerusalem, made up in part
of Pharisees and headed by James the brother of Jesus, maintained that Gentiles must be
165
circumcised and bind themselves to observe the whole Law, written and oral. After much
debate between Paul and the Jerusalem council, it was finally decided that Gentiles wishing to
join the Nazarene sect need not convert to Judaism, but should only keep a few basic laws:
abstinence from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled
166
animals and from blood. This decision concerned the Gentiles alone, since the only
question before the council in Jerusalem was whether circumcision and the observance of the
Mosaic Law were to be imposed on Gentiles. There was no question with regard to the
observance of the Law by Jewish Nazarenes.

With the growing number of non-Jews joining the Nazarene community in Antioch,
inevitably the sect become more and more Hellenistic and in time broke away from Judaism
altogether, forming a totally new movement. In Antioch, the adherents of the movement were
given the name Χριστιανούς Christianous – Christians. In Acts we read: “So for a whole year
Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples
167
were called Christians first at Antioch.”

The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us:

There they (Paul and Barnabas) laboured for a whole year with such success that the
followers of Christ were acknowledged as forming a distinct community, so that at
Antioch the disciples were first named Christians… At a very early date the Christian
community of Antioch became the central point of all the Christian interests in the
East. After the fall of Jerusalem (A.D.70) it was the real metropolis of Christianity in
those countries… The number of Christians grew to such an extent, that in the first
168
part of the fourth century, Antioch was looked upon as practically a Christian city.

This development gave ‘Christian’ leaders a new context within which to promulgate their
message.

165
G.F. Moore, History of Religions, Volume 2: Judaism Christianity Mohammedanism, 1965, T. and
T. Clark, Edinburgh, UK, p. 121.
166
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Acts 15:1-21.
167
NIV, New Testament, op. cit. Acts 11:26.
168
Schaefer, F. (1907), The Church at Antioch, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01567a.htm, retrieved 08/06/2009.

46
 169
IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH - C. 50–117 C.E.

Early in the second century C.E., there arose in Antioch a convert to Judaism by the name of
Ignatius. We know nothing of his early life other than he was a convert and possibly a
disciple of the apostle John. Around 75 C.E. Ignatius became Bishop of Antioch, and,
according to Eusebius’ History of the Church, the second to be appointed in succession to
170
Peter the Apostle.

Ignatius of Antioch is a key player, if not the key player, in the development of relations
between Gentile ‘Christians’ and Jews. Ignatius represented the Nazarene movement in
transition from its Jewish origins to its evolving into ‘Christianity’ and assimilation into the
Greco-Roman world. He laid the foundation for dogmas that in succeeding generations would
be formulated into the Church’s fundamental system of beliefs. (It is important to keep in
mind that at this point in history there was no official Christian Church, nor was there a
document called the ‘New Testament’).

The first recorded use of the word ‘Christianity’ was made by Ignatius, when he used it as a
means of separating Christians from Jews. He wrote: “Let us learn to live according to
Christianity… for if we continue to live according to Judaism, we confess that we have not
171
received grace.”

Furthermore, the combination “the Catholic Church” (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the
first time in the letter of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans. The words run: “Wheresoever the bishop
shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal
172
(katholike) Church.”

Ignatius was also the first writer to stress the idea of a ‘virgin birth’ - a concept already
associated with the gods of the pagan world. In his letter to Hero, a deacon at Antioch who
173
succeeded Ignatius as Bishop, Ignatius wrote: “And, indeed, the altogether peculiar birth of

169
O'Connor, J.B. (1910), St. Ignatius of Antioch, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm, retrieved 13/09/2009.
170
Eusebius, The History of the Church, From Christ to Constantine, op. cit. p. 97. Bruce, M.
Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development and Significance, 1997, Oxford
University Press Inc., New York, p. 43.
171
G.F. Moore, History of Religions, op. cit. p.154.
172
Ignatius: The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, chapter 8, translated by Alexander Roberts and
James Donaldson, from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm, retrieved 18/08/2009.
173
Eusebius, The History of the Church, op. cit. p. 100.

47
the Lord was of a virgin alone.” Also to the Philippians he wrote: “And God the Word was
174
born as man, with a body, of the Virgin, without any intercourse of man.”

Ignatius saw no room whatsoever within Christianity for Jewish practices. In his letter to the
Magnesians he denigrates Judaism as an absurd and superseded religion. He wrote:

If we are still living in the practice of Judaism, it is an admission that we have failed
to receive the gift of grace… To profess Jesus Christ while continuing to follow
Jewish customs is an absurdity. The Christian faith does not look to Judaism, but
175
Judaism looks to Christianity…”

As the ‘Christian’ movement theologically distanced itself from Judaism, the Jewish
community, in the face of the increasing anti-Jewish rhetoric, also began to distance itself
from what they perceived as the beginnings of another heretical movement. Around 80 – 100
C.E., the Jewish Sanhedrin in Yavneh added an additional blessing - Birkat ha-Minim -
176
'Against Heretics' - to the existing eighteen blessings of the Jewish Shemoneh Esrei prayer,
which is recited three times a day. The blessing was innovated by Samuel ha-Katan at the
177
suggestion of Rabban Gamaliel II, leader of the Sanhedrin.

The blessing reads as follows:

And for slanderers (minim) let there be no hope; and may all the heretics perish in an
instant; and may all the enemies of Your people be cut down speedily. May you
speedily uproot, smash and cast down the wanton sinners – destroy them, lower them,
178
humble them, speedily in our days…

Anti-Jewish sentiment continued to be expressed at length by Christian writers of the early

second century. In a letter written by Mathetes, a second century apologist, to Diognetus, a

174
Spurious Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch: Epistle to Hero, a Deacon of Antioch, chapter 4; The
Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians, chapter 3, translated by Alexander Roberts and James
Donaldson, from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1., op. cit. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0114.htm,
retrieved 08/06/2009.
175
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, cited in Stanforth, op. cit. p. 72-73.
176
Schiffman, Texts and Traditions, op. cit. p. 370.
177
Talmud, op. cit. Berachot 28b. Abraham Avrohom Chaim Feuer, Shemoneh Esrei, 1999, Mesorah
Publications, New York, p. 174.
178
Rabbi Nosson Sherman, The Complete Artscroll Siddur, Sefard, New York, Mesorah Publications,
Ltd., 1999. The Hebrew word for heretics, ohbhn minim is not found in Askenazi liturgies; the term
ohbhaknk lamalshinim (informers or slanderers) is used. The term ohbhn minim is preserved, however, in
Sefardi rites (where censorship did not interfere).

48
 179
well-disposed pagan, Mathetes extols the virtues of Christianity over the follies of Judaism.
He wrote:

But as to their scrupulosity concerning meats, and their superstition as respects the
Sabbaths, and their boasting about circumcision, and their fancies about fasting and
the new moons, which are utterly ridiculous and unworthy of notice, I do not think
that you require to learn anything from me… And to glory in the circumcision of the
flesh as a proof of election, and as if, on account of it, they were specially beloved by
God—how is it not a subject of ridicule? And as to their observing months and days,
as if waiting upon the stars and the moon, and their distributing, according to their
own tendencies, the appointments of God, and the vicissitudes of the seasons, some
for festivities, and others for mourning—who would deem this a part of divine
180
worship, and not much rather a manifestation of folly?

In one of the letters of Barnabas (the same who had travelled with Paul to Antioch), we begin
to see a dichotomizing of us and them: us being the Christians and them being the Jews, us
being in, them being out. Concerning the Mosaic Covenant, he wrote: “Indeed it is ours; for
181
Moses had hardly received it when they (the Jews) forfeited it forever.”

Barnabas, however, was not a Gentile convert to Judaism; he was originally called Yosef,
182
born of Jewish parents of the tribe of Levi, from the Island of Cyprus.

In time, as Nazarenes Gentiles far outnumbered Nazarene Jews, the perception of Jesus and
his message became increasingly Hellenistic. By the next generation, the soil was fertile for
the makings of a new religion.

THE BEGINNINGS OF A SPLIT

According to Eusebius, by 135 C.E., during the final siege of Jerusalem, the Nazarene
183
community in Jerusalem was entirely composed of Gentiles. In the following decades,
Christian writings began to reveal areas of contention among the followers of Jesus, mainly

179
Peter Kirby, Early Christian Writings, 2006, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/diognetus.htm,
retrieved 16/10/2009.
180
The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, chapter 4, from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0101.htm, retrieved 04/08/2009.
181
The Epistle of Barnabas, cited in Stanforth, op. cit. p. 162.
182
Fenlon, J. F. (1907), St. Barnabas, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02300a.htm, retrieved 02/09/2009.
183
Eusebius, The History of the Church, From Christ to Constantine, op. cit. p.107-108.

49
on the issues of the ‘virgin birth’ and the credibility of Paul. Those who rejected the virgin
184
birth story and who considered Paul an apostate, were designated the name ‘Ebionites’.

The name Ebionite first occurred in the writings of Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, in his
185
document Against Heresies (c. 185 C.E.). Irenaeus described the Ebionites as those who
clung to the observance of the Jewish Law and denied the divinity and the virginal birth of
Jesus. Furthermore, they used only a Hebrew Gospel according to Matthew and they regarded
Paul an apostate from the Law. Irenaeus wrote:

Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God… They use
the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining
that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour
to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision,
persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are
so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house
186
of God.

In the early third century, the Church father, Origen, also noted the distinction between the
two groups. In his work, Contra Celsus, Origen named them the “twofold sect of the
Ebionites.” He wrote:

Let it be admitted, moreover, that there are some who accept Jesus, and who boast on
that account of being Christians, and yet would regulate their lives, like the Jewish
multitude, in accordance with the Jewish law—and these are the twofold sect of
Ebionites, who either acknowledge with us that Jesus was born of a virgin, or deny
187
this, and maintain that He was begotten like other human beings…

184
Ebionites, Arendzen, J. (1909), in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05242c.htm, retrieved 07/09/2009.
185
Howard Vos, Introduction to Church History, 1994, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Tennessee, p. 24.
186
Against Heresies, Book I, chapter 26: Doctrines of Cerinthus, the Ebionites, and Nicolaitanes, from
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, op. cit. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103126.htm, retrieved
13/10/2009.
187
Origen, Contra Celsus, Book 5, chapter 61, translated by Frederick Crombie, from Ante-Nicene
Fathers, Vol. 4, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04165.htm,
retrieved 19/08/2009.

50
 Eusebius similarly wrote concerning the Ebionites:

They (the Ebionites) regarded Him as plain and ordinary, a man esteemed as
righteous through growth of character and nothing more, the child of the normal
union between a man and Mary; and they held that they must observe every detail of
the Law... A second group went by the same name, but escaped the outrageous
absurdity of the first. They did not deny that the Lord was born of a virgin and the
Holy Spirit, but nevertheless shared their refusal to acknowledge His pre-existence as
God and the Word and Wisdom. Thus the impious doctrine of the others was their
undoing also, especially as they placed equal emphasis on the outward observance of
the Law. They held that the epistles of the apostle (Paul) ought to be rejected
altogether, calling him a renegade from the Law, using only the ‘Gospel of the
Hebrews’, they treated the rest with cant respect. Like the others, they observed the
188
Sabbath and the whole Jewish system…

In Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism, Attridge and Hata make the following observation:

(Origen) says that there are two kinds of Jewish Christians: one group of those who
merely keep the law, the other who require that everyone keep it. The less tolerant
group appears to be what the Church fathers call Ebionites. The more tolerant
group… may be a group called the Nazarenes or Nazoreans. The Nazoreans… were
closer to Christian orthodoxy in that they commemorated Jesus’ resurrection on
189
Sunday.

Despite all of the original followers of Jesus being Jews, either by birth or by conversion,
within a hundred years of the report that “thousands of Jews have believed and all of them are
190
zealous for the Law”, only a small pocket remained. It seems that the ‘Nazarene’ element
within the sect drifted away from Orthodox Judaism, becoming more Hellenistic in their
views and eventually merging with nascent ‘Christianity’.

188
Eusebius, The History of the Church, op. cit. p. 90-91.
189
Segal, A. F. Jewish Christianity, in Attridge and Hata, op. cit. p. 341-342.
190
NIV New Testament, op. cit. Acts 21:20.

51
 CHAPTER 4 - FROM ANTIOCH TO ROME

Christianity’s progression from a breakaway group originating in Antioch, to becoming the

state religion of the Roman Empire, took about 300 years of gradual development.

During this transition period Christians continued to adhere to certain Jewish religious
traditions: at weekly gatherings they maintained the Jewish custom of reading from the Bible,
191
using the Septuagint, which they inherited from the Diaspora synagogue; the Passover
supper was also kept, but this, like other traditions, in time became identified with pagan
rituals - the Passover becoming transformed into a central cultic rite, a sacred meal in which
192
bread and wine recalled the ‘sacrifice of Jesus’ on the cross.

By the second century, Christian groups had begun to organize their own structure of worship
and governance outside of the synagogue. The basic form of governance followed the Jewish
Diaspora synagogues, with a council of elders who provided corporate authority in individual
congregations. Eventually, one of the elders, also called ‘bishops’, became the ruling
193
bishop. When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, the bishop of
194
Rome was given the title of Papa -‘Pope’.

At first, the Christians were heavily persecuted by Rome. The Romans no longer looked upon
195
them as Jews but as members of a distinct and separate religion of no specific nationality.
The Jews, on the other hand were, in 212 C.E., granted the privilege of becoming Roman
196
citizens with clearly defined rights under the law. With the triumph of the Church in the
reign of Constantine however, Jews found themselves in a Christian world for the first time –
197
a world that accused them of killing the ‘Son of God’. It was not long before their position
in Rome began to deteriorate and, despite being Roman citizens, the Jews would soon be
denied their rights, simply because they were Jews.

191
Davis, op. cit. p. 101.
192
Bobertz, Charles A., The Development of Episcopal Order, in Attridge and Hata, op. cit. p. 184-
185.
193
Bishop: Historical Origin, translated by S. Thelwall, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm, retrieved 18/08/2009.
194
The Pope, Primacy of Honour: Titles and Insignia, (Joyce, G. 1912),
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm, retrieved 18/10/2009.
195
Dimont, op. cit. p. 29.
196
Nicholls, op. cit. p. 189. Louis Golding, The Jewish Problem, 1938, Hazell, Watson & Vinet, Ltd.,
London, p. 30.
197
Bobertz, op. cit. p. 184-185.

52
 CONSTANTINE THE GREAT

In his book, Faith After the Holocaust, Eliezer Berkowitz defines the origins of Christianity,
stating:

The Christian era did not start with the birth of Jesus. It dates from the first half of the
fourth century, commencing when Constantine the Great established Christianity as
198
the state religion of the Roman Empire.

Constantine became the Emperor of Rome in 306 C.E. and was the first Roman Emperor to
199
publicly embrace Christianity. Like other Emperors before him, Constantine was Pontifex
Maximus, and High Priest of the Mithraic Cult, one of the pagan cults of the Greco-Roman
200
world.

Although Christianity was growing in numbers, it was not sweeping across the globe, that is,
until Constantine had a divine revelation on his way to battle.

Christian tradition tells us that in 312 C.E., as Constantine prepared to battle Maxentius for
control of the western portion of the Roman Empire, he saw a radiant cross appear in the
heavens with the inscription: By this you shall conquer. The account is first mentioned by
Eusebius, in De Vita Constantini, written after Constantine’s death:

He said that about noon, when the day was already beginning to decline, he saw with
his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing
the inscription, Conquer by this. At this sight he himself was struck with amazement,
and his whole army also, which followed him on this expedition, and witnessed the
201
miracle.

Constantine did indeed conquer against Maxentius and the once split Empire was united
again. Because of his victory, Constantine embraced the God of the Christians and allied
himself with the Church, making it the cornerstone of imperial policy.

198
Eliezer Berkowitz, Faith After the Holocaust, 1973, Ktav Publishing House, New York, p. 38.
199
Arthur, G. Patzia, The Making of the New Testament: Origin, Collection and Canon, 1995, Apollos
(an imprint of Inter-Varsity Press), England, p. 159. Nicholls, op. cit. p. 189.
200
Paul L. Maier, Eusebius - The Church History: A New Translation With Commentary, 1999, Kregal
Publications Inc, Grand Rapids MI, p. 373.
201
Vita Constantini, Book 1, chapter 28, translated by Ernest Cushing Richardson, from Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 1, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Buffalo, NY:
Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890, op. cit. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/25021.htm,
retrieved 08/06/2009.

53
In De Vita Constantini, Eusebius gives an account of Constantine’s acceptance of
Christianity:

…Being struck with amazement at the extraordinary vision, and resolving to worship
no other God save Him who had appeared to him, he sent for those who were
acquainted with the mysteries of His doctrines, and enquired who that God was, and
what was intended by the sign of the vision he had seen. They affirmed that He was
God, the only begotten Son of the one and only God: that the sign which had
appeared was the symbol of immortality, and the trophy of that victory over death
which He had gained in time past when sojourning on earth. They taught him also the
causes of His advent, and explained to him the true account of His incarnation. Thus
he was instructed in these matters, and was impressed with wonder at the divine
manifestation which had been presented to his sight. Comparing, therefore, the
heavenly vision with the interpretation given, he found his judgment confirmed; and,
in the persuasion that the knowledge of these things had been imparted to him by
Divine teaching, he determined thenceforth to devote himself to the reading of the
202
Inspired Writings.

Other than having his own son, Crispus, put to death only one year after convening the
Council of Nicea, then later suffocating Fausta, his wife, in an overheated bath and having his
203
sister’s son flogged to death and her husband strangled, Constantine was in all respects a
Christian. He retained, however, the pagan Roman title of Pontifex Maximus – ‘Supreme
High Priest’ or ‘Supreme Bridge Builder’ between man and the gods - a title held by all Popes
204
to this present day.

202
ibid. Chapter 32.
203
Herbermann, C., and Grupp, G. (1908), Constantine the Great: Historical Appreciation, in The
Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm, retrieved 01/10/2009.
204
Walker, op. cit. p. 101.

54
 THE COUNCIL OF NICEA

Up until the fourth century, Christianity was not a legal religion under the Roman Empire.
Then, in the event of his conversion, Emperor Constantine the Great, who ruled the western
parts of the empire, and Licinius Augusti, who ruled the East, issued the Edict of Mediolanurn
205
(Milan) in 313 C.E. The Edict recognized the right of everyone to practice the religion of
their choice in the Roman Empire, placing Christianity on a full legal equality with any
religion of the Roman world. The Edict, which is a letter to the Governor of Bithynia, states
in part:

Therefore, your Highness should know that it has pleased us to remove all conditions
whatsoever, which were in the rescripts formerly given to you officially, concerning
the Christians and now any one of these who wishes to observe Christian religion
may do so freely and openly, without molestation. We thought it fit to commend
these things most fully to your care that you may know that we have given to those
Christians free and unrestricted opportunity of religious worship. When you see that
this has been granted to them by us, your Highness will know that we have also
conceded to other religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for
the sake of the peace of our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to
worship as he pleases; this regulation is made that we may not seem to detract from
206
any dignity or any religion.

It was not until 325 C.E., however, when Constantine convened the Council of Nicea in
207
modern day Turkey, that Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.

The Council of Nicea was historically significant as the first effort to attain an ecumenical
consensus in the Church through an assembly representing all of Christendom. The Council
was presided over by Constantine and, according to Eusebius, attended by more than two
208
hundred and fifty Bishops. In the words of Eusebius: “In effect, the most distinguished of

205
Constantine the Great: Life, op. cit. The Catholic Encyclopedia,
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm, retrieved 01/10/2009. A translation of the Edict of
Milan can be cited at Medieval Sourcebook: Galerius and Constantine: Edicts of Toleration 311/313,
Edict of Milan, Paul Halsall, 1996, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/edict-milan.html, retrieved
15/02/2010.
206
Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, 1963, T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, p. 101-102.
Robert Turcan, The Gods of Ancient Rome: Religion in Everyday Life from Archaic to Imperial Times,
2000, Routledge, New York, p. 155.
207
Patzia, op. cit. p. 126.
208
Eusebius, Vita Constatini, Book 3:8, in Attridge and Hata, op. cit. p. 32.

55
God's ministers from all the churches which abounded in Europe, Lybia and Asia were
209
assembled.”

The Council, which did not include any Jews, was antisemitic and took a harsh approach
toward Jews in general. The main purpose of the first Nicean Council was to consolidate
Constantine’s power and influence by making Greco-Roman Christianity the religion of the
Roman Empire, and to eliminate the following major controversies in order to establish the
divinity of Jesus and clarify the differences between Christianity and Judaism.

The Arian Controversy

Another serious danger to the unity of the Church was the great Arian controversy, which
focused on the relationship between Jesus and God.

Around 318 C.E., Arius, leader of a major Alexandrian Church, disputed the Trinitarian
dogma that was developing among Christians that stated that in the unity of the ‘Godhead’
there were three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit who subsisted in one nature
210
yet distinct one from another. Arianism, among the first of the doctrinal disputes which
troubled Christians after Constantine had recognized the Church in 313 C.E., denied the
eternal deity of Jesus and his equality with the Father, holding that Jesus was a created being
211
and not of the same essence, nature or substance with God.

This dispute over the nature of Jesus became serious and led to a division between the East
and West. After a series of heavy debates, Arius’ theology was denounced and the Council
affirmed the divinity of Jesus and established an official definition of the Trinity, as stated in
212
the Nicean Creed - the Son is “of one essence with the Father.”

The Easter Controversy

The setting of a date for Easter was another point of discussion at the Council of Nicea. The
question debated was primarily whether Easter should be kept on a Sunday (also called the

209
ibid. Book 3, chapter 7.
210
John L McKenzie, Dictionary of the Bible: Trinity, 1968, Geoffrey Chapman Pty Ltd, Melbourne,
Australia, p. 899.
211
Arius, Barry, W. (1907), in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01718a.htm, retrieved 01/10/2009.
212
Attridge and Hata, op. cit. p. 31. Vos, op. cit. p. 70 – 71. G.F. Moore, History of Religions, op. cit.
p.178-180.

56
Lord’s Day), or whether Christians should observe the holy day of the Jews (Passover), the
213
fourteenth of Nissan, which might occur on any day of the week.

It was decided that Easter should not be celebrated during the celebration of the Jews, but that
the Easter festival should be celebrated throughout the Western Christian world on the first
Sunday after the full moon following the vernal equinox; and that if the full moon should
occur on a Sunday and thereby coincide with the Passover festival, Easter should be
commemorated on the Sunday following. Coincidence of the feast of Easter and Passover was
thus avoided. We read in the writings of Eusebius quoting Constantine on the keeping of
Easter:

At this meeting the question concerning the most holy day of Easter was discussed,
and it was resolved by the united judgment of all present, that this feast ought to be
kept by all and in every place on one and the same day… And, first of all, it appeared
an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the
practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and
are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul. For we have it in our
power, if we abandon their custom, to prolong the due observance of this ordinance to
future ages, by a truer order, which we have preserved from the very day of the
passion until the present time. Let us then have nothing in common with the
detestable Jewish crowd, for we have received from our Saviour a different way…
Beloved brethren, let us, with one consent, adopt this course and withdraw ourselves
214
from all participation in their baseness.

213
Eusebius, History of the Church, op. cit. p. 365. Ignatius of Antioch spoke of Christians as "no
longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also Our Life
rose again". In the Epistle of Barnabas (xv) we read: "Wherefore, also, we keep the eight day (i.e. the
first of the week) with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead". Justin Martyr
was the first Christian writer to call the day Sunday (I Apol., lxvii) in the celebrated passage in which
he describes the worship offered by the early Christians on that day to God. Slater, T. (1912), Sunday,
in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14335a.htm, retrieved
29/09/2009.
214
Thurston, H. (1909), The Easter Controversy, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htm, retrieved 02/09/2009.

57
 The Separation From Judaism

The Council decided that the practice of the whole Church was to be standardized on a non-
215
Jewish model. The Church’s purpose was not only to draw the masses to Christianity, but
also to disassociate Christianity from Judaism. Constantine formalized the relationship
between Christians and Jews by declaring:

You should consider not only that the number of churches in these provinces make a
majority, but also that it is right to demand what our reason approves, and that we
216
should have nothing in common with the Jews.

Thus, Church policy toward the Jews and their religion became official: there is nothing in
common between Christianity and Judaism. The divorce became complete.

The Nicean Creed

The Council of Nicea produced the official Creed of the Church, which defined the
fundamental beliefs and guiding principles of Christianity.

The Creed, officially known as ‘The Nicean Creed’, was approved in amplified form at the
217
Council of Constantinople in 381 C.E. The Nicean Creed is the profession of the Christian
faith common to the Catholic Church, to all the Eastern churches separated from Rome, and
to most of the Protestant denominations. The Creed reads as follows:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all
things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of
God, and born of the Father before all ages. God of God, light of light, true God of
true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were
made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was
incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified
also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again
according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the
Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose
Kingdom there shall be no end. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the
Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And one holy, catholic,
215
Petersen, William L., Eusebius and the Paschal Controversy, in Attridge and Hata, op. cit. p. 319.
216
ibid.
217
Walker, op. cit. p. 118.

58
 and apostolic Church. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look
218
for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

If there was any small link between Judaism and pre-Nicean Christianity, in affirming the
virgin birth and deity of Jesus the Creed clearly separated the two religions and casts
significant doubt on Christianity’s claim to monotheism.

218
Wilhelm, J. (1911), The Nicene Creed, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm, retrieved 16/06/2009.

59
 CHAPTER 5 - THE MAKING OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament, existing from apostolic
times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament was the result of a very
gradual process, between 150 C.E. and 393 C.E., of collecting, sifting and rejecting various
219
writings by the Church fathers. After decades of controversy, in 397 C.E. the Council of
Carthage, where Augustine was Bishop, finally canonized the books that now comprise the
220
New Testament. Yet, it was not until around 500 C.E. that the present New Testament, as a
221
whole, was said to enjoy general recognition throughout the scattered church groups.

The main contributors to the development of the New Testament, over a period of two
centuries, were the Church fathers Justin Martyr, Tatian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of
222
Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, and later, Jerome, to whom is attributed the Latin Vulgate
223
Bible, which contains both the ‘Old Testament’ and ‘New Testament’. The Latin Vulgate
224
became known as the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. Jerome also claimed to
have translated Hebrew Matthew (an early Gospel read by the Nazarenes) into Greek and
225
Latin, and the Jewish Scriptures from Hebrew into Latin.

The level of linguistic proficiency of the translators, particularly when translating from
Hebrew texts, is dubious, thus subjecting the texts to mistranslation and misinterpretation. For
example, referring to Jerome’s translation of Hebrew Matthew, Ray Prizt, in Nazarene Jewish
Christianity, writes:

As a beginning student of Hebrew, he (Jerome) could have copied it (Hebrew

Matthew) in whole or part, as an exercise without actually knowing what he was
226
writing.

219
Reid, G. (1908), Canon of the New Testament, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm, retrieved 06/10/2009.
220
Patzia, op. cit. p. 66. Metzger, op. cit. p. 75.
221
Gerald Tranter, The Mystery Teachings and Christianity, 1969, The Theosophical Publishing
House, Illinois, p. 102.
222
Patzia, op. cit. p. 62-66.
223
ibid. p. 21.
224
ibid. p. 131.
225
Pritz, op. cit. p. 51-52.
226
ibid.

60
 IS THE NEW TESTAMENT KOSHER?

227
The only link that the now fully Gentile Church had to Judaism was its claim that the
books of the New Testament were of Jewish origin. However, as there are no ‘original’
documents available, there is no evidence to show that any of Jesus’ disciples wrote the
Gospels or Epistles.

Despite there being certain concepts in the New Testament that are Jewish, a great deal of its
content, particularly in the Gospels, is not compatible with Judaism at all (some of these
incompatibilities will be examined later in this thesis). Furthermore, as there were no Jews,
‘Nazarene’ or otherwise, involved in the formulation of the New Testament, and those who
undertook the task were extremely anti-Jewish and had an agenda, we cannot dismiss the
probability of interpolations and manipulation of the text in order to give a negative
impression of the Jews and Judaism and a misconstrued view of Jesus.

Church writings tell us that the existence of all the books that today form the New Testament
228
was everywhere known from the third century. Yet, it was not until around 322 C.E., that
Emperor Constantine, wishing to promote and organize Christian worship in the growing
number of churches in Constantinople, directed Eusebius to have fifty copies of the Christian
Scriptures made by practiced scribes and written legibly on prepared parchment. Eusebius
documents this in Vita Constantini:

Victor Constantinus, Maximus Augustus, to Eusebius:

‘It happens, through the favoring providence of God our Saviour, that great numbers
have united themselves to the most holy church in the city which is called by my
name. It seems, therefore, highly requisite, since that city is rapidly advancing in
prosperity in all other respects, that the number of churches should also be increased.
Do you, therefore, receive with all readiness my determination on this behalf. I have
thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence to order fifty copies of the sacred
Scriptures, the provision and use of which you know to be most needful for the
instruction of the Church, to be written on prepared parchment in a legible manner,
and in a convenient, portable form, by professional transcribers thoroughly practiced
in their art. The catholicus of the diocese has also received instructions by letter from
our Clemency to be careful to furnish all things necessary for the preparation of such

227
Eusebius, History of the Church, op. cit. p. 108.
228
Durand, A. (1912), The New Testament, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm, retrieved 07/10/2009.

61
 copies; and it will be for you to take special care that they be completed with as little
delay as possible…’ Such were the emperor's commands, which were followed by the
immediate execution of the work itself, which we sent him in magnificent and
229
elaborately bound volumes of a threefold and fourfold form.

Prior to this publication, the Church relied mostly on various writings that were circulated,
and on an oral form of teaching.

It is worth noting that none of the original followers of Jesus, including the supposed authors
of the New Testament books, or any Ebionite Jews in the near three hundred years from Jesus
to Constantine, undertook the task of compiling a document called the ‘New Testament’ and
attaching it to the back of Torah scrolls. Yet, in order to sustain his political agenda,
Constantine did consider it necessary to produce a ‘New Testament’, a document that was
entirely the product of the Christian Roman Empire, translated and compiled over two
centuries after Jesus and without a single Jew involved in its formation.

Although for Christianity the New Testament is sacred Scripture, for the Jews it has been an
instrument used for anti-Jewish propaganda. In addition, from a Jewish perspective the New
Testament is unacceptable as true testimony because those who compiled it displayed
wickedness toward Jews and Judaism. According to the Torah, it is forbidden for a Jew to
230
accept the testimony of a wicked person, even if it is true.

THE GOSPELS

According to Robert Miller, author of The Complete Gospels, no manuscripts from the hands
of the original authors of the Gospels survive. All of the Gospels come to us at several
removes from their supposed authors. Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John are preserved in about
231
3,500 manuscripts.

Gerald Tranter, in The Mystery Religions and Christianity, disputes the authenticity of
‘original Jewish’ New Testament documents. He wrote:

None of the manuscripts accepted (by the Church fathers) was an original record, but
all were translations into Greek by unknown persons. It is known that none of the

229
Vita Constantini, Book IV: 36-37, translated by Ernest Cushing Richardson, from Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 1, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/25024.htm, retrieved 13/10/2009.
230
Tanach, op. cit. Exodus 23:1. Chafetz Chaim, The Concise Book of the Mitzvoth, Mitzvah 75, 1990,
Jerusalem, Feldheim Publishers, p. 163.
231
Miller, op. cit. p. 2.

62
 Gospels were written until at least fifty years after the death of Jesus and, if any
records were made then, nothing is known of their history until translations appeared
232
one hundred and fifty years, or so, afterward.

The four Gospels canonized by the Church in the 4th century C.E. are as follows:

233
Mark: believed to be written c. 66-70 C.E. ;
234
Matthew and Luke: believed to be written c. 80 - 90 C.E. ;
235
John: believed to be written c. 85- 100 C.E.

The decision to canonize these four was made by the Church father, Tatian, around 150 C.E.
236
Irenaeus and Tertullian, about thirty years later, also agreed on these four.

These four Gospels supposedly give us an account of the life, sayings and teachings of Jesus
of Nazareth. Yet, as mentioned above, no manuscripts from the hands of the presumed
original authors survived.

Assuming, however, that there were such documents in circulation at some time, and that the
authors were in fact Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, we need to question what influences
were at work in the early Church that determined the selection of materials included in the
New Testament canon. We also need to consider the possible perversion of the texts to suit the
religious agenda of the Roman Empire. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “No book of
ancient times has come down to us exactly as it left the hands of its author - all have been in
237
some way altered.”

The canonical Gospels are all dated as being written after the Roman siege of Jerusalem.
During the siege, the Jewish people were sealed off from the rest of the world, reduced to
helplessness by starvation. Thousands were crucified. The Jewish population fought back for

232
Tranter, op. cit. p. 102.
233
ibid. p. 10.
234
ibid. p. 6.
235
ibid. p. 198.
236
ibid. p. 64-67.
237
The New Testament, op. cit. The Catholic Encyclopedia,
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm, retrieved 16/06/2009.

63
almost four years, until they could do so no longer. Altogether, an estimated 600,000 Jewish
238
civilians were slain in the aftermath of the siege. The Second Temple was then destroyed.

Josephus describes this calamity in The Jewish Wars:

While the holy house was on fire, everything was plundered that came to hand, and
ten thousand of those that were caught were slain; nor was there a commiseration of
any age...but children and old men...and priests, were all slain in the same manner...
The flame was also carried a long way, and made an echo, together with the groans of
those who were slain... one would have thought the whole city would have been on
239
fire. Nor can one imagine anything greater and more terrible than this noise.

If during this climate the disciples of Jesus did document aspects of his life and teaching, it is
not surprising that no original manuscripts survived.

THE TRANSLATORS AND COMPILERS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

In the early second century, the Church fathers began to promulgate literature that ridiculed
and showed contempt for Jews and Judaism. This Adversos Judaeous literature addressed
three major themes:

The first theme was the matter of ‘election’. If the Hebrew Scriptures stated that God had
elected the Jews as His ‘chosen people’, where then, did this leave the Christians? Very
quickly the Church fathers found a solution to this dilemma, concluding that Israel’s election
was passed on to 'Jesus the Messiah', and all who believed in him were incorporated into the
‘new Israel’ of God. Rejection of Jesus meant exclusion, and inclusion was only through
baptism. Thus, the ‘old Israel’ was replaced by the ‘new Israel’ – the Church.

The second theme was the subordination of the Mosaic Law. The ‘new law’, they announced,
supposedly taught by Jesus, was now the superior law; the other ‘old law’ was temporary and
redundant.

The third theme was the theory that the suffering and calamity wrought upon the Jewish
people was their due punishment for rejecting and killing the Messiah. Church leaders taught
that Jews should collectively suffer and continue to suffer and exist in this world, without a
home and without rights, as proof that God had rejected them.
238
Dimont, op. cit. p. 105-106.
239
Flavius Josephus, The Works of Flavius Josephus, Wars of the Jews, op. cit. Book VI, chapter 5:1,
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148%3Abook%3D6%3
Awhiston+chapter%3D5%3Awhiston+section%3D1, retrieved 18/08/2009.

64
The Church fathers instrumental in the development of the New Testament, strongly
emphasized these themes in their writings.

240
Justin Martyr - c. 100-163 C.E.

Justin Martyr was a Christian Apologist and particularly known for his lengthy debates with
Trypho the Jew.

Justin argued with Trypho that the Christians were now the true Israel and that the ‘old’ law
had been replaced with a ‘new’ law. He also contended that because the Jews were
supposedly a blind and stubborn people, physical circumcision was required of them for a
sign, in order that they may be separated from other nations. Their separation, however, was
not because they were chosen for blessing, but rather, chosen for calamity. In his conversation
with Trypho, Justin debated the following:

For the circumcision according to the flesh, which is from Abraham, was given for a
sign; that you may be separated from other nations, and from us; and that you alone
may suffer that which you now justly suffer; and that your land may be desolate, and
your cities burned with fire; and that strangers may eat your fruit in your presence,
241
and not one of you may go up to Jerusalem.

Justin Martyr also argued that the agonies that befell the Jews were justifiable punishment for
rejecting Jesus. He wrote: “Accordingly, these things have happened to you in fairness and
242
justice, for you have slain the Just One.” The Christians, on the other hand, said Justin,
were the ones chosen by God, not because they adhered to the old law, but because of their
faith in Jesus:

But the Gentiles, who have believed on him, and have repented of the sins which they
have committed, they shall receive the inheritance along with the patriarchs and the
prophets, and the just men who are descended from Jacob, even although they neither
243
keep the Sabbath, nor are circumcised, nor observe the feasts.

In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin Martyr argued the theory of ‘replacement’:

240
Patzia, op. cit. p. 63.
241
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 16, translated by Marcus Dods and George Reith,
from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, op. cit. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01282.htm, retrieved
29/09/2009.
242
ibid. Retrieved 29/09/2009.
243
ibid. Chapter 26: 65, retrieved 12/05/2009.

65
 For the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac and Abraham, are
we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ… Those who have
persecuted and do persecute Christ, if they do not repent, shall not inherit anything on
the holy mountain. But the Gentiles, who have believed on Him, and have repented of
the sins which they have committed, they shall receive the inheritance along with the
patriarchs and the prophets, and the just men who are descended from Jacob, even
although they neither keep the Sabbath, nor are circumcised, nor observe the feasts.
244
Assuredly they shall receive the holy inheritance of God.

This theology of ‘replacement’ was (and still is) necessary in order for Christianity to justify
its existence.

The Jewish author, Dennis Prager, in Why the Jews, clearly explains the Christian dilemma of
‘election’, saying:

The founders of Christianity were confronted with the terrible fact that the Jews,
merely by continuing to be Jews, threatened the very legitimacy of the Church. If
Judaism remained valid, then Christianity was invalid. Therein lie the origins of
245
Christian hatred of the Jews, the most enduring Jew-hatred in history.

Michael E. Lodahl writes in Shekhina: Divine Presence in Jewish and Christian Religion:

The ‘New Israel’, a phrase which has been prominent in the history of Christian self-
understanding… has no scriptural or historical warrant. Sadly, this bald sort of
displacement theology has contributed much to the history of Christian self-
aggrandizement, self-defensiveness, and self-deception… and contributed
significantly to a history of Christian anti-Judaism which, in tandem with other
historical, sociological and technological factors, came to an ugly fruition in the
246
Nazi’s attempt to make that spiritual pronouncement a physical reality.

Justin Martyr’s condemnation of the Jews and Judaism entered the mainstream of Christian
thought and became a malevolent influence that contributed significantly toward the
development of Christian antisemitism.

244
Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho, Chapters 11 and 26, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01282.htm, retrieved 07/10/2009.
245
Dennis Prager, Why the Jews, 1985, Simon & Schuster, Inc., New York, p. 91.
246
Michael E. Lodahl, Shekhina: Divine Presence in Jewish and Christian Religion, 1992, Paulist
Press, New Jersey, p. 29.

66
 247
Irenaeus - c. 130-202 C.E.

The Church considers Irenaeus the greatest theologian of the second century. He expanded
248
the doctrine of the Trinity (before it was made official at the Council of Nicea) and was
one of the first to teach that God's election of the Jews had ended. He wrote: “…the
249
administration of them (the Jews) was temporary.”

Irenaeus also proposed that the salvation of the Christian was dependant of the Jews’ killing
of Jesus. In Against Heresies, he wrote:

Unless, then, the Jews had become the slayers of the Lord (which did, indeed, take eternal
life away from them), and, by killing the apostles and persecuting the Church, had fallen
250
into an abyss of wrath, we could not have been saved.

In effect, this is saying that the Jews were predestined to “kill Jesus” in order for the Gentiles
to receive God’s salvation. Hence, when Jews suffer, Christians profit.

Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, in What You Should Know About Jews And Judaism, describes this
mental process as a “theology of expectation:”

Indeed, it was Jewish suffering that shaped the theological framework within which
many Christians viewed the mystery of the continued existence of the Jewish people.
After all, they reasoned, if Jews were to remain alive in this world while maintaining
their ongoing testimony of their rejection of Christ, it was to be in a state of
degradation so that all people would recognize the supremacy of Christianity and the
251
triumph of the Church.

This train of thought is particularly dangerous when Jewish suffering, particularly in the event
of the Holocaust, is perceived as a fundamental precursor for the establishment of the State of
Israel and as having eschatological import for the Christian.

247
Patzia, op. cit. p. 64.
248
Joyce, G. (1912), The Blessed Trinity, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm, retrieved 05/10/2009.
249
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 4: 4, op. cit. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103404.htm,
retrieved 12/05/2009.
250
ibid. Chapter 28:3.
251
Eckstein, op. cit. p. 192.

67
 252
Tertullian - c. 160–220 C.E.

Tertullian is regarded as the founder of Latin, Roman Catholic theology and is known for his
passionate opposition to Judaism. One of his most important theological works is Against
Praxeas, an early statement of Trinitarian doctrine.

Tertullian stressed that the Mosaic Law had been abolished and replaced by a new ‘spiritual’
law. Hence, circumcision of the heart replaced circumcision of the flesh and the Sabbath and
festivals were no longer relevant in a literal sense, but took on a spiritual meaning.

We need only to look at Tertullian’s writings briefly to detect his anti-Judaism bias. In his
Answer to the Jews, he wrote:

Therefore, since it is manifest that a sabbath temporal was shown, and a sabbath
eternal foretold; a circumcision carnal foretold, and a circumcision spiritual pre-
indicated; a law temporal and a law eternal formally declared; sacrifices carnal and
sacrifices spiritual foreshown; it follows that, after all these precepts had been given
carnally, in time preceding, to the people Israel, there was to supervene a time
whereat the precepts of the ancient Law and of the old ceremonies would cease, and
the promise of the new law, and the recognition of spiritual sacrifices, and the
253
promise of the New Testament, supervene…

254
Origen - c. 185–235 C.E.

The Church father, Origen, was also instrumental in the early development of ‘replacement
theology’. He wrote extensively on Israel’s abandonment by God and claimed that the
destruction of the Temple and exile of the Jews was the due punishment for their crimes
against Jesus. He wrote:

On account of their unbelief, and the other insults which they heaped upon Jesus, the
Jews will not only suffer more than others in that judgment which is believed to
impend over the world, but have even already endured such sufferings. For what
nation is an exile from their own metropolis, and from the place sacred to the worship
of their fathers, save the Jews alone? And these calamities they have suffered,

252
Patzia, op. cit. p. 66.
253
Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews, chapter 6: Of the Abolition and the Abolisher of the Old Law,
translated by S. Thelwall, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0308.htm, retrieved 09/06/2009.
254
Patzia, op. cit. p. 66.

68
 because they were a most wicked nation, which, although guilty of many other sins,
yet has been punished so severely for none, as for those that were committed against
255
our Jesus.

In Contra Celcus, Origen argued with the Jew, Celcus, that the Jews would never be restored
to their former condition, for “they committed a crime of the most unhallowed kind, in
conspiring against the Saviour of the human race… and abandoned on account of the
256
greatness of their sins.”

257
Eusebius of Caesarea - c. 260–341 C.E.

Eusebius of Caesarea was a Greek Christian writer who came to be known as the ‘Father of
258
Ecclesiastical History’. In Caesarea he was baptised a Christian and studied Christian
doctrine. It was also at Caesarea that he first met the future emperor Constantine, “at whose
259
right hand he stood.”

Eusebius was Bishop of Rome (the Pope) for only a few months, between 309 C.E. and 310
260
C.E. His major work, Ecclesiastical History, was the first attempt by a Christian author to
compose a general account of the Christian movement. His works mainly address the origins
of Christianity, the expansion of Christianity and heresy.

Eusebius was the key player in defining Christianity, historically and doctrinally. He was the
main orator at the Council of Nicea, enlightening over two hundred and fifty participants on
261
the origins and development of the Church.

The problem with Eusebius, however, is that he wrote Church history from his own deduction
of what took place and not always based on facts.

In his History of the Church, when describing the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans
and the appalling horrors that befell the Jews, Eusebius added at the end of the account:

255
Origen, Contra Celsus, Book 2, chapter 8, op. cit. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04164.htm,
retrieved 16/05/2009.
256
ibid. Book 4, Chapters 22 and 27.
257
Vos, op. cit. p. 376.
258
Williamson, op. cit. Introduction.
259
Eusebius, The Life Of Constantine, Book 1:19, op. cit. in Attridge and Hata, p. 28.
260
Kirsch, J.P. (1909), Pope St. Eusebius, in The Catholic Encyclopedia,
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05615b.htm, retrieved 18/08 2009.
261
See Footnote 208.

69
 262
“Such was the penalty laid upon the Jews by divine justice for their crimes against Christ.”
Eusebius added this appendage to almost every description of the destruction of Jerusalem
263
when writing his ‘history’, thus imposing his distorted, malevolent opinions on the history
of the Jewish people.

Although Eusebius’ views were no different from those of earlier Church fathers, Eusebius
wrote them down as actual ‘Church history’, thus creating a highly distorted view of history.
Eusebius’ ‘history’ is far removed from the actual events that took place in the Jewish world
of Jesus, and afterwards in the Jewish world of his original followers. The Jesus movement,
according to Eusebius, became a ‘history’ of the development of the Christian Church and the
New Testament, whereas, in fact, the Jesus movement became a history of Jewish proselytism
and renewal through the dissemination of the Torah and the continuity of orthodox Jewish life
– a world of which Eusebius was quite unaware.

As a key player at the Council of Nicea, the views of Eusebius immortalised Jesus as the
founder of the Christian Church. It is from his writings that Christianity, in the centuries to
come, received its historical information on almost every aspect of supposed Church history
from Jesus to Constantine.

264
Jerome c. 345 - 420 C.E.

As mentioned earlier, Jerome is best known for his translation of Hebrew Matthew and the
translation of the Bible from Greek and Hebrew into Latin. Jerome's edition, the Vulgate, is
still the official biblical text of the Roman Catholic Church.

In his letter to Augustine, Jerome warned Christians against observing Jewish traditions. He
wrote:

I may boldly declare that the Jewish ceremonies are to Christians both hurtful and
fatal; and that whoever observes them, whether he be Jew or Gentile originally, is
265
cast into the pit of perdition.

To this day a Christian who converts to Judaism is considered a heretic to Christianity.

262
Eusebius, The History of the Church, op. cit. p. 43.
263
ibid. See pp. 41, 42, 61, 68.
264
Vos, op. cit. p. 32.
265
From Jerome to Augustine, Letter 112, chapter 4:14, translated by J.G. Cunningham, from Nicene
and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 1, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102075.htm, retrieved 01/10/2009.

70
 266
Augustine of Hippo - c. 354-430 C.E.

Augustine was a post-Nicean Church father and one of the most important figures in the
development of Western Christianity.

As a child, his mother raised and educated him a Christian, but from the age of sixteen he
struggled with great intellectual and moral crises, which for some time stifled any Christian
sentiments. At the age of nineteen, Augustine became involved with the Manichaeans, a
Persian religion that believed in the dualism of good and evil. Then in 386 C.E., after a long
267
struggle with faith, morals and illness, Augustine converted to Christianity.

In one of his most celebrated works, The City of God, Augustine wrote that the dispersion of
the Jewish people from their land was a fulfilment of Bible prophecy, thus proof that Jesus
was the Messiah:

The Jews who slew Him, and would not believe in Him, because it behoved Him to
die and rise again, were yet more miserably wasted by the Romans, and utterly rooted
out from their kingdom, where aliens had already ruled over them, and were
dispersed through the lands (so that indeed there is no place where they are not), and
are thus by their own Scriptures a testimony to us that we have not forged the
268
prophecies about Christ.

Augustine likened the Jewish people to Cain, the first criminal recorded in Biblical history.
After murdering his brother and meriting death, Cain was instead condemned to wander the
269
earth, marked by God, as a witness to what he had done. Augustine argued that the Jews
also were marked for killing Jesus and were destined to wander homeless, rejected and
accursed, as a witness to the truth of Christianity. Their humiliation was proof of the triumph
of the Church over the Synagogue.

266
Patzia, op. cit., p. 108.
267
Portalié, E. (1907), Life of St. Augustine of Hippo, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm, retrieved 16/06/2009.
268
Augustine, The City of God, Book 18, chapter 46, translated by Marcus Dods, in The Catholic
Encyclopedia, op. cit. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120118.htm, retrieved 16/06/ 2009.
269
The Stone Edition Tanach, op. cit. Genesis 4:8-16. Wistrich, op. cit. p. 18-19.

71
Augustine wrote:

Not without reason is there that Cain, on whom, when he had slain his brother, God
set a mark in order that no one should slay him. This is the mark which the Jews
270
have… they have not been slain, they are necessary to believing nations.

So here we have the key players in translating and compiling the New Testament and in the
development of early Church doctrine. We need to ask the question: Did these men have an
agenda, and what influences were at work in the Church that determined the content of the
New Testament?

Howard Vos, in his book Introduction to Church History, writes: “The New Testament was
the product of centuries of development and its official ratification came in response to the
271
practical needs of the churches.”

The key phrase here is, “in response to the practical needs of the churches.” The ‘churches’
referred to were not Jewish synagogues but Gentile places of worship, by now far removed
from anything Jewish, and their needs were certainly not compatible with Judaism; on the
contrary, they were in opposition to Judaism and had to be defined as such.

THE AGENDA

In the fourth century, when Constantine, Emperor of Rome embraced ‘Christianity’ (now a
totally Gentile movement), he passed beyond the religious toleration for all, which he so far
upheld, making Christianity the official religion of the Empire.

The primary goal of the Christian Roman Empire was to offer the pagan world a religion
compatible with the existing religions – the Mystery Religions of the Greco-Roman world.
After dismantling the practice of the traditional cults of the gods, the next step was to promote
a new ‘saviour’ who would be readily and widely accepted. Because the Church had decided
272
to keep the Tanakh (Old Testament ) as part of the Canon (because they thought it now
belonged to them), this ‘saviour’ had to have some Jewish origin and shown to be the
fulfilment of what was written by the Jewish prophets.

270
Augustine: Expositions on the Psalms, Psalm 59, E. J. Tweed, from Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801059.htm, retrieved 16/09/2009.
271
Vos, op. cit. p. 62.
272
Tanakh, the name for the Hebrew Scriptures, is an acronym for Torah (five books of Moses),
Nevi’im (prophets) and Ketuvim (Writings). The ‘Old Testament’, the Christian term for the Hebrew
Scriptures, was not introduced until the end of the second century C.E. (Patzia p. 23).

72
As shown earlier, the Church fathers who were instrumental in compiling the New Testament
were Jew haters with an agenda to discredit Judaism. With the authority of the Empire behind
them, they began to promulgate a number of doctrines to theologically invalidate the Jew's
religious and social authenticity.

It is important to remember that at this point in history the Church’s goal was to produce a
Christian sacred text of supposed divine authority that would give credence and set in stone
the already established dogmas and doctrines of the Church. The New Testament was
compiled well after the foundational beliefs of the Church were decided upon. The Christian
religion was not founded on doctrine already formulated in a book; rather, it developed its
own doctrine as it grew, in response to the practical needs of the Church.

Editing and interpolating manuscripts, was not considered unethical, by any means. The head
of the Church was considered Vicarius Filii Dei, ‘Delegate of the Son of God’. He was not
answerable to anyone. His goal was to establish a universal religion over which he would
preside as the head. Safeguarding the Jewishness of Jesus and any original documents was
certainly not a priority; on the contrary, the less ‘Jewish’ the better.

According to Martin Larson, author of The Essene Christian Faith, it is probable that the
Church added into the texts in order to support its own views and agenda. An example, as will
be discussed later, is the account of the virgin birth of Jesus. Larson wrote:

“The first two chapters of Matthew and the first three chapters of Luke were added in
the second century by Hellenizers who would accept only a divinely born ‘saviour-
273
god’ like those of the pagan mystery-cults.”

Considering what we have deliberated so far, there is no reason why the fathers of the Church
would not insert their dogmas into the New Testament. If the only material available to them
was thousands of fragments from dubious sources, without interpolation the production of
what they considered to be a credible, eloquent, sacred text suitable for Christianity may not
have been possible.

273
Martin A. Larson, The Religion of the Occident: The Origin and Development of the Essene-
Christian Faith, 1961, Littlefield, Adams & Co., Paterson, New Jersey, p. 175.

73
CHAPTER 6 - THE DE-JUDAIZATION AND DEIFICATION OF JESUS

It can validly be concluded that the historical Jesus was an observant Jew who at no time
departed from Judaism to start another religion. He never declared himself ‘God’, nor did he
overtly announce himself as the Messiah.

Contrariwise, the ‘Jesus’ portrayed by the Church was, and is, a saviour-god who once had
remote connections with Judaism, but then turned his back on the Jews because they rejected
him as the Messiah. According to Christianity, Jesus is now the head of his bride, the Church;
he is the “Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, who was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of
274
the Virgin Mary and was made man.” This image of Jesus is exceedingly far removed from
the person we discussed at the beginning of this thesis.

As the Gentile ‘Christians’ moved completely away from Judaism and sought recognition in
the Roman Empire, they were, above all, anxious to show that there was nothing Jewish about
Jesus. The task that lay ahead was to alter his identity so that he would become accepted in
the Greco-Roman world. In order to achieve this, it was of utmost importance to de-Judaize
and then, deify him. Paul Johnson emphasizes in A History of the Jews:

If Jesus was not proven to be God, then Christianity was nothing. If Jesus was God,
275
then Judaism was false. There could be absolutely no compromise on this point.

The deification of Jesus became one of the building blocks of antisemitism, as Frederick
Davis wrote in The Jew and Deicide, “The truly formed Antisemite is possible only with
276
Jesus as God.”

THE RELIGIONS OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE

The Roman world in which Christianity arose, was steeped in mystical religion. These
Mystery cults, primarily Egyptian and Babylonian cults, originated around 1500 B.C.E., in
277
the ancient Mediterranean.

When Alexander the Great conquered most of the known world in the mid fourth century
B.C.E., abolishing the frontiers between east and west, peoples merged and blended with each

274
Maas, A. (1912), Christology, in The Catholic Encyclopedia,
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14597a.htm, retrieved 16/06/2009.
275
Johnson, op. cit. p. 145.
276
Davis, op. cit. p. 103.
277
James S. Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World Of The New Testament Era: Exploring The Background
Of Early Christianity, 1999, InterVarsity Press, Madison, WI., p. 96.

74
other in a fusion of cultural, religious and social patterns that became known as 'Hellenistic'
civilization. These developments transformed and blended the traditional state gods by light of
the rise of ‘Mystery Religions’, exposing the traditional religions of the conquered Empires to
Hellenistic philosophies and concepts, such as divine Emperors and saviour gods who were
both human and divine.

Samuel Angus, in The Mystery Religions and Christianity, wrote:

Theocrasis, or religious syncretism, on a stupendous scale was an immediate outcome

of Alexander’s (the Great) intermingling of races, and for the next seven centuries
278
proved a potent factor in the religious history of the Greco-Roman world…

Unlike the official state religions of Greece and Rome, the Mystery cults offered initiates a
personal communion with the saviour-gods, salvation from the sufferings of this world and
279
rewards in the afterlife.

The Mystery religions were remarkably syncretic, as elements from one cult were adopted by
various other cults, making them increasingly similar over time. At the heart of the Mysteries
were myths concerning a saviour god, born of a virgin who, after suffering a tragic death, was
280
resurrected and deified. In Egypt he was Osiris, in Greece Dionysus, in Rome Bacchus, in
Persia Mithras and in Babylon Tammuz. Fundamentally, all these saviour-gods were the same
mythical being with different names.

N.V. Rumyantsev notes in The Analysis of Ancient and Medieval Records:

A series of suffering, dying and resurrecting gods of the ancient worlds have passed
before us; we saw their myths, grew familiar with the holidays, rituals and so forth,
devoted to them. In spite of the difference in their names, myths, birthplaces or
historical arena, it can still be felt, even against one’s own will, that they all have
something in common… Osiris, Tammuz, Attis, Dionysus and others, formed some
unique, common, and conjoint image, thus creating a certain syncretic divinity almost

278
S. Angus, The Mystery religions and Christianity: A Study in the Religious Background of Early
Christianity, 1925, John Murray, Albemarle Street, W. London, p. 19.
279
ibid. p. 137. Antonia Tripolitis, Religions of the Hellenistic-Roman Age, 2001, William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, Michigan, p. 16–21. Steven Fanning, Mystics of the Christian
Tradition, 2001, Routledge, New York, p. 6.
280
Angus, op. cit. p. 95-97. Fanning, op. cit. p. 7.

75
 undividedly reigning over the whole vast territory of the Roman state… The
281
divinities in fact, turned into one Saviour with many names.

When we look at the similarities between Christianity and the Mystery religions, it is easy to
see how the former flourished so quickly. Robert Turcan, in The Cults of the Roman Empire,
writes that the Mysteries were “salvation religions which would have responded in the
consciousness and sensibilities of the Greco-Roman world to the same appeals, the same deep
282
needs, as Christianity…”

The Merging of the Mysteries and Christianity

The two Mystery cults that were direct early competitors of Christianity were the cults of
Mithras and Dionysus.

By the time of Constantine’s conversion, many of the myths surrounding the pagan gods had
already become identified with Jesus. It was important, therefore, that Constantine launch a
practical, political manoeuvre to incorporate Christians into the Empire and engender a
complete merging of religions and politics. To Constantine’s political mind, the Roman
Empire should not only have one Emperor and one law, but also one religion. As both
283
Emperor of the Roman Empire and High Priest of the Mithraic cult, Constantine began a
process to mitigate some differences between Christianity and its rival pagan religions, in
order to blend them to form a more acceptable Christianity.

With the increase in number of pagan converts to Christianity, including Constantine’s own
mother, Helena, Christianity stood in direct competition for adherents with the mystery cults.

Dennis Prager points out in Why the Jews:

Christianity was in many ways considerably more accessible to the pagan.

Christianity offered the pagan not only the universal God of the Jews, but also a son

281
Rumyantsev, N.V., in Fomenco, A.T., Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its
Applications to Historical Dating, Volume 2: The Analysis of Ancient and Medieval Records, 1994,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, p. 194-195. Joyce Higginbotham and River Higginbotham,
ChristoPaganism: An Inclusive Path, 2009, Llewellyn Publishing, MN, USA, p. 60-71.
282
Robert Turcan, The Cults of the Roman Empire, 1997, Blackwell Publishers, UK, p. 3.
283
Robert Turcan, The Gods of Ancient Rome: Religion in Everyday Life from Archaic to Imperial
Times, op. cit. p. 156.

76
 of God, a god in human form who died and was resurrected as many pagan gods had
284
been.

The Cult of Mithras

Mithras was originally worshipped as one of the deities in the Persian, Zoroastrian pantheon
of gods. According to Persian mythology, Mithras was born of the immaculate virgin Mother
285
Goddess, Anahita, around 272 B.C.E.

In the first century C.E., Mithras was introduced to the Roman Empire’s pantheon of gods.
286
Mithraism then spread and developed into a cult of its own. In the first decade of the fourth
century C.E., the Roman Emperor, Diocletian, proclaimed Mithras Sol Invictus - the
287
Invincible Sun and patron-god of the Roman Empire. The devotees of the Mithraic cult
held Sundays (the day of the Sun – Sol) sacred, and the great festival of the Mithraic calendar,
the Sol Natalis Invicti – the Birth of the Unconquered Sun - was held on the 25th December in
288
celebration of the birth of Mithras. The popularity of Mithraism in the Roman Empire was
289
so great, that the cult became early Christianity's most serious rival. Of course, this created
a political dilemma for Constantine, but the solution was simple - religious syncretism.

In 321 C.E., Constantine ordered that Sunday, the Venerable Day of the Sun, become the
official Christian day of worship. The text of Constantine's Sunday Law Decree states: “Let
all judges and townspeople and occupations of all trades rest on the Venerable Day of the Sun
290
(Sunday).” Then, in 354 C.E., Pope Julius I set the date of December 25th as the official
291
birth date of Jesus.

284
Prager, op. cit. p. 90.
285
Payam Nabarz, The Mysteries of Mithras: The Pagan Belief That Shaped The Christian World,
2005, Inner Traditions, Vermont, p19.
286
David Ulansey, The Origins Of The Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology And Salvation In The Ancient
World, 1989, Oxford University Press Inc., New York, p. 3-4. Walker, op. cit. p. 10. Nabarz, op. cit. p.
11.
287
Walker, op. cit. p. 10. Angus, op. cit. p. 168.
288
Angus, op. cit. p. 122. Herbermann, C., and Grupp, G. (1908), Constantine the Great: Historical
Appreciation, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm,
retrieved, 13/09/2009.
289
Nabarz, op. cit. p. 11. Jeffers, op. cit. p. 98.
290
S. P. Scott, The Enactments Of Justinian: The Civil Law, Book 3:12, 1932, Cincinnati,
http://webu2.upmf-grenoble.fr/Haiti/Cours/Ak/Anglica/CJ3_Scott.htm#12, retrieved 29/09/2009.
291
Martindale, C.C. (1908), Christmas, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm, retrieved 18/08/2009.

77
In the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Church disagrees that there is a connection between
Mithras and Jesus, although admitting that some similarities exist. For example, we read:

The special honour which the faithful paid to the Sunday (dies solis), coupled perhaps
with the celebration of Christmas on the day designated the natalis invicti (solis), may
have helped, later on, to produce the impression that the Christians had much in
292
common with the worshippers of Mithras.

In the second century C.E., a concerned Justin Martyr admitted to the many similarities
between Jesus and the gods of the pagan world, the only difference being the superiority of
Jesus. In his First Apology he wrote:

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced
without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died,
and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what
you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter… And if we assert that
the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary
generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that
Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in
this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as
we have now enumerated. For their sufferings at death are recorded to have been not
all alike, but diverse; so that not even by the peculiarity of His sufferings does He
seem to be inferior to them; but, on the contrary, as we promised in the preceding part
293
of this discourse, we will now prove Him superior…

The Church argues, however, that despite these similarities, it is quite probable that
294
Mithraism was the borrower from Christianity. This seems unlikely, as Mithraism predated
Christianity.

Payam Nabarz writes in The Mysteries of Mithras:

The Roman Mithraic practice was one of the greatest rivals to early Christianity for
many reasons. As well as being a popular pagan religion practiced by the Roman
army, it had many similarities to Christianity. These similarities frightened the
292
Thurston, H. (1908), Christian Calendar, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03158a.htm, retrieved 13/09/2009.
293
Justin Martyr, First Apology, chapter 21 and 22: Analogies to the History of Christ, translated by
Marcus Dods and George Reith, op. cit. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm, retrieved
13/09/2009.
294
Constantine the Great, op. cit. Catholic Encyclopedia, retrieved 13/09/2009.

78
 Christian forefathers, as it meant that years before the arrival of Christ, all the
295
Christian mysteries were already known.

The Church also argues that unlike itself, Mithraism was tolerant of every other cult. We read
in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Mithraism was all comprehensive and tolerant of every other cult, the Pater Patrum
(Father of fathers) himself was an adept in a number of other religions; Christianity
was essentially exclusive, condemning every other religion in the world, alone and
296
unique in its majesty.

The Cult of Dionysus

Dionysiac worship was one of the Mystery cults that flourished in ancient Greece alongside
the state religion. Dionysus was introduced to the Roman world around 186 B.C.E., where he
297
was known as Bacchus.

298
Dionysus was believed to be the son of Zeus and the virgin Semele. The myth of Dionysus
describes him as having suffered a violent death, and then brought to life again. His suffering,
299
death and resurrection were re-enacted in sacred rites.

Dionysus was the god of fertility, the vine, and spiritual intoxication and frenzy. During his
festivals he was invited to appear as a bull, where the frenzied worshippers would tear a live
300
bull to pieces with their hands and teeth, eating its flesh and drinking its blood. By re-
301
enacting the myth of Dionysus and practising ‘omophagia’ (eating the flesh of the god), it
was believed the initiates absorbed the essence and life of the god through communion with
302
the god.

295
Nabarz, op. cit. p. 12.
296
ibid.
297
Turcan, The Cults of the Roman Empire, op. cit. p. 291-293.
298
Euripides, Bacchae, translated by Henry Hart Milman, Dover Edition, 1997, Dover Publications,
Ontario, p. 1. Mike Dixon-Kennedy, Encyclopedia of Greco-Roman Mythology, 1998, ABC-CLIO
Inc., Claifornia, p. 113-116.
299
James George Frazer, The Golden Bough, 1998, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 397.
300
ibid. Frazer, p. 399-400. Angus, op. cit. p. 114.
301
Turcan, The Cults of the Roman Empire, op. cit. p. 291.
302
Angus, op. cit. p. 129.

79
In The Mystery Religions and Christianity, Samuel Angus notes:

That there was a firm belief, in the early stages of religion, of such participation in the
god by eating him in a sacramental meal cannot be questioned. In the Thracian-
Dionysiac Mysteries, the celebrants by such a meal obtain a share in the divine life of
303
the god, and are so called by his name.

We read in the New Testament, that at the ‘last supper’ Jesus took bread and wine and alluded
to his disciples that these were his ‘body and blood’. In the Gospel of John, Jesus is quoted as
saying:

I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood,
you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks of my blood has eternal
304
life… He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

Although Jesus may have meant some symbolic meaning to these words, if in fact he said
them at all, by Justin Martyr’s time (c. 100-163) the ritual of the ‘Lord’s Supper’ had been
separated from the Passover common meal. Irenaeus (c.130-202) continued and developed
the thought that the ritual imparts ‘life’, inferring that without the participation in the literal
body and blood of Jesus, immortality was not obtainable. He taught:

For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of
God, is no longer common bread but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly
and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer
305
corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.

The merging of the Mithraic and Dionysian rites with Jesus worship had enormous
implications for the Jewish people in the centuries to come, in particular the ritual of
'omophagia'. The Catholic Church teaches that in partaking of the communion host and the
306
wine, the congregants are in fact participating in the literal body and blood of Jesus. This
phenomenon, know as ‘transubstantiation’, was first officially recognized as a Church
doctrine at the Fourth Lateran Council, in 1215. The declaration asserts:

303
ibid.
304
NIV, New Testament, op. cit. John 6:53-54, 56.
305
Irenaeus, Heresies, 4:18:5, cited in Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, op. cit. p.
90.
306
G.F. Moore, History of Religions, op. cit. p. 150.

80
 In the Eucharist, the Body and Blood of the God-man are truly, really, and
substantially present for the nourishment of our souls, by reason of the
307
transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ…

This doctrine was the catalyst for the torture and death of thousands of Jews during the
Middle Ages. Jews, apparently not content with crucifying Jesus once, were accused of
308
stealing communion hosts and stabbing them until they would bleed, thus continuing to
renew the agonies of his suffering. The doctrine of Transubstantiation left the Jews legally
vulnerable to charges of host desecration for centuries.

As Christianity increased, the Mysteries decreased. In the fourth and fifth centuries C.E.,
309
temples of Mithras were destroyed and in some places churches were built on the sites.
Today, the Vatican stands where the last sacrament of the Phrygian taurobolium, the Mithraic
310
sacrifice of the bull and baptism in its blood, was celebrated. In the place of the pagan
ritual is celebrated the ‘Sacrifice of the Mass’.

THE DOGMA OF THE VIRGIN BIRTH

The dogma of the ‘virgin birth’ has more far reaching implications than merely associating
Jesus with the other saviour-gods. The virgin birth of Jesus implies that he was fully human
and fully God. Thus, when it is taught that the Jews persecuted him, rejected him and
conspired to kill him, it was not a mere mortal who hung on the cross, it was God Himself.
Only if Jesus was divine could the Church accuse the Jews of deicide.

The Roman Catholic Church defines the ‘virgin birth’ as follows:

The virginity of our Blessed Lady was defined under anathema in the third canon of
the Lateran Council held in the time of Pope Martin I, A.D. 649. The Nicene
Constantinopolitan Creed, as recited in the Catholic Mass, expresses belief in ‘Christ
incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary’; the Apostles’ Creed professes that
Jesus Christ ‘was conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary… These
professions show that the body of Jesus Christ was not sent down from Heaven, nor
taken from earth as was that of Adam, but that its matter was supplied by Mary; that
Mary co-operated in the formation of Christ’s body as every other mother co-operates
307
Pohle, J. (1909), Eucharist, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05572c.htm, retrieved 18/08/2009.
308
Dimont, op. cit. p. 235.
309
Nabarz, op. cit. p. 13.
310
Angus, op. cit. p. 235.

81
 in the formation of the body of her child, since otherwise Christ could not be said to
be born of Mary just as Eve cannot be said to be born of Adam; that the germ in
whose development and growth into the Infant Jesus, Mary co-operated, was
fecundated not by any human action, but by the Divine power attributed to the Holy
Ghost; that the supernatural influence of the Holy Ghost extended to the birth of Jesus
Christ, not merely preserving Mary's integrity, but also causing Christ's birth or
311
external generation to reflect his eternal birth from the Father...

Despite Christianity perceiving itself as being the fulfilment and extension of Judaism,
ironically, its theology concerning the person of Jesus is not Jewish at all. The Church
introduced certain aspects of the Messiah that are foreign to Jewish scripture and tradition, the
most incompatible being the belief that Jesus was miraculously begotten by God and born of
the virgin Mary, without the agency of a human father. Partheno-genesis, from the Greek
παρθενος partho - virgin and γενεσις genesis – birth, meaning the growth and development of
an embryo or seed without fertilization by a male, was a familiar concept in Hellenistic
312
mythology and Persian religious systems, but foreign to Judaism.

In the dogma of the virgin birth, Jesus is presented in Hellenistic, not Jewish terminology. He
is the “divine son” of the perpetual virgin, Mary. The Church teaches:

The virgin birth is… the dogma that teaches that the Blessed Mother of Jesus Christ
313
was a virgin before, during, and after the conception and birth of her Divine Son.

Although the concept of a virgin birth was accepted from the late first century onwards, it was
not defined as an Article of Faith until the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 C.E. The
Article states:

If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, the one from all
eternity of the Father, without time and without body; the other in these last days,

311
Maas, A. (1912), The Virgin Birth of Christ, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm, retrieved 18/08/2009.
312
This phenomenon has been found to occur naturally in some lower plants (called agamospermy),
invertebrates (e.g. water fleas, aphids) and some vertebrates (e.g. lizards, salamanders, some fish, and
even turkeys). Parthenogenesis is seen as a possible way to clone primates, with the emphasis on
human cloning. In April 2004, scientists at Tokyo University of Agriculture used parthenogenesis to
successfully create fatherless mice. Biomedicine, Parthenogenesis, http://www.bio-
medicine.org/biology-definition/Parthenogenesis/ retrieved 18/08/2009.
313
The Virgin Birth of Christ, op. cit. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm, retrieved
18/08/2009.

82
 coming down from heaven and being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary,
314
Mother of God and always a virgin, and born of her: let him be anathema.

Jesus and ‘Old Testament’ Prophecy

In an attempt to replace Israel with Jesus, the Church taught that Jesus was the fulfilment of
all messianic prophecy in the Tanakh. It was therefore important to link what was written
about him in the Gospels to passages in the Tanakh.

The trend to drag in, however irrelevantly, any Tanakh text that could be looked upon as
prophetic is noticeable throughout the New Testament. The Church fathers, in their arguments
with those who did not believe in their new interpretations of Scripture, did not provide
evidence to support their ‘facts’, but used quotations from the prophets in retrospect to sustain
their line of reasoning. Such was the case, when using a passage in the book of Isaiah to
support the dogma of the Virgin Birth. Since the Greek translation of the passage had
inaccurately used the word parthena – virgin, and because the New Testament translators had
already decided that this passage was a reference to the birth of the Messiah and that Jesus
was that Messiah, they then asserted that he must have been born of a virgin. That is their
argument.

The Isaiah Chapter 7 Prophecy

It should be said at the outset that there is nothing in the Jewish Scriptures that implies the
Messiah would be born of a virgin, nor does the Hebrew word for ‘virgin’ – betulah vku,c,
appear in the seventh chapter of Isaiah, in the Hebrew text. The word used in the Hebrew text
is ha'almah vnkgv, meaning ‘the young woman’, but not necessarily a virgin. A young
woman can be either married or unmarried. The Hebrew word for ‘virgin’ is betulah vku,c, a
common word in the Jewish Scriptures that can only mean ‘virgin’.

The confusion lies in the Greek translation of the Tanakh, where the word parthenos
παρθένος, meaning ‘virgin’, is used in Isaiah chapter 7:14.

314
Second Council of Constantinople: the Capitula of the Council, translated by Henry Percival, from
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 14, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3812.htm, 08/07/2009.

83
The Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14 reads as follows:

διὰ τοῦτο δώσει κύριος αὐτὸς ὑµῖν σηµεῖον ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος (parthenos) ἐν γαστρὶ
315
ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνοµα αὐτοῦ εµµανουηλ

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and
316
bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

The Tanakh was translated into Greek over a period of about three hundred and fifty years.
Initially, only the Torah was translated, which became known as the Septuagint, meaning ‘the
seventy’. This took place during the reign of King Ptolemy Philadelphus of Egypt (285-246
317
B.C.E.), when seventy-two Jewish sages performed the task at the King’s request.

The earliest source for the story of the Septuagint is the Letter of Aristeas, a lengthy
document that recalls how Ptolemy, desiring to augment his library in Alexandria, Egypt,
318
commissioned a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek.

The event is further documented in the Talmud:

R. Judah said: When our teachers permitted Greek, they permitted it only for a scroll
of the Torah. This was on account of the incident related in connection with King
Ptolemy, as it has been taught: It is related of King Ptolemy that he brought together
seventy-two elders and placed them in seventy-two [separate] rooms, without telling
them why he had brought them together, and he went in to each one of them and said
319
to him: Translate for me the Torah of Moses your master.

The rest of the Tanakh (the Prophets and the Writings) was translated into Greek by the
second century B.C.E., although it is not known by whom. The grandson of Ben Sira (132
B.C.E.), in the prologue to his translation of his grandfather's work, Ecclesiasticus (one of the

315
Biblos, op. cit. Septuagint, Isaiah 7:14, http://multilingualbible.com/isaiah/7-14.htm, retrieved
15/10/2009. Parenthesis mine.
316
The Holy Bible, Douay Version, Isaias 7:14, translated from the Latin Vulgate, 1899, John Murphy
Company, New York.
317
Wien, op. cit. p. 25. Ptolemy II Philadelphus, in the Encyclopædia Britannica, 2009, Encyclopædia
Britannica Online, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/482146/Ptolemy-II-Philadelphus,
Encyclopædia Britannica Online, retrieved 10/10/2009.
318
The Letter of Aristeas, cited in Schiffman, Texts and Traditions, op. cit. p 211-218.
319
Talmud, op. cit. Megillah 9a.

84
Apocryphal books), speaks of the “Law, Prophets, and the rest of the books” as being already
320
current in his day.

The Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible is such a poor translation that Judaism did not
condone its use. The Jewish authorities at the time condemned the work and declared a period
of mourning because of the defects in the version and because it opened the door to
Hellenism.

Berel Wein recounts in Echoes of Glory:

The day of the completion of the Septuagint was marked on the Jewish calendar as a
‘day of darkness’; for the Septuagint not only taught the non-Jewish world Torah, it
also taught the Jews Greek… This legitimisation of the Greek language allowed
Greek culture and values to enter the Jewish world… and thus entered the
321
tremendous intellect and social force of Hellenism.

Furthermore, the fact that additional books known as the Apocrypha, which are uniquely
sacred to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, are found in the Greek translation
322
should raise a red flag to those inquiring into its ‘Jewishness’. The Catholic Church,
however, upholds the Greek translation as the most inspired version of the Jewish Scriptures.
The reason given is that it “helped to spread among the Gentiles the idea and the expectation
of the Messiah, and to introduce into Greek the theological terminology that made it a most
323
suitable instrument for the propagation of the Gospel of Christ.”

This is indeed true, for when Jerome produced his version of Matthew’s Gospel in the Greek
language, he quoted from the Greek translation of Isaiah which uses the word parthena -
‘virgin’, thus giving an entire misinterpretation of the passage - an interpretation which suited
the theology of the Church.

320
The Holy Bible, Douay Version, op. cit. Ecclesiasticus: The Prologue, p. 713. The Jewish
Encyclopedia, The Septuagint,
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1035&letter=B#3077, retrieved15/10/2009.
Patzia, op. cit. p. 24.
321
Wein, op. cit. p. 25-26.
322
Goldberg and Rayner, op. cit. p. 74.
323
Vander Heeren, A. (1912), Septuagint Version: Historical importance of the Septuagint, in The
Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm, retrieved 06/10/2009.

85
Jerome’s version of Matthew reads as follows:

ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἔξει καὶ τέξεται υἱὸν, καὶ καλέσουσιν τὸ ὅνοµα αὐτοῦ
324
Ἐµµανουηλ, ὅ ἐστιν µεθερµηνευόµενον µεθ’ ἡµῶν ὁ θεός.

The virgin (παρθένος – parthenos), will be with child and will give birth to a son and
325
they will call him Immanuel, which means, God with us.

When Jerome later translated ‘Old and New Testaments’ into Latin (the Latin Vulgate Bible),
he used the word virgo in Isaiah chapter 7, which tells us it was translated from the Greek, not
the Hebrew, or at least understood in the Greek context of the term parthenos. We read in the
Latin:

Propter hoc dabit Dominus ipse vobis signum ecce virgo concipiet et pariet filium et
326
vocabitis nomen eius Emmanuhel…

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive and
327
bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

Similarly, he referred to the Greek rendering of Isaiah in his Latin translation of Matthew’s
Gospel, again using virgo:

328
Ecce virgo in utero habebit et pariet filium et vocabunt nomen eius Emmanuhel…

Behold a virgin shall be with child and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name
329
Emmanuel…

In Isaiah chapter 7, it is clear that the prophet is predicting an unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem
by the two armies of the kingdoms of Israel and Syria, not a ‘virgin birth’ more than seven
hundred years later. Isaiah prophesied:

And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of
Judah, that Rezin the king of Aram, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel,

324
Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English, NIV, op. cit. Matthew 1:23, 1986.
325
ibid. Parenthesis mine.
326
Biblos, Biblia Sacra Vulgata, op. cit. Isaias 7:14, http://vul.scripturetext.com/matthew/1.htm,
retrieved 20/10/2009http://vul.scripturetext.com/isaiah/7.htm
327
The Holy Bible, Douay Version, op. cit. Isaiah 7:14.
328
Biblos, Biblia Sacra Vulgata, op. cit. Matthaeus 1:23, http://vul.scripturetext.com/matthew/1.htm,
retrieved 20/10/2009.
329
The Holy Bible, Douay Version, op. cit. Matthew 1:23.

86
 went up toward Jerusalem to fight against it, but could not prevail against it. And it
was told the house of David, saying, Aram is confederate with Ephraim. And his
heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the forest are moved with
the wind. Then said the Lord to Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, you, and Shear-
Yashuv your son, at the end of the aqueduct of the upper pool in the highway of the
washers’ field; And say to him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be faint
hearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin
with Aram, and of the son of Remaliah. Because Aram, Ephraim, and the son of
Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against you, saying, Let us go up against Judah,
and harass it, and let us make a breach in it for us, and set a king in its midst, the son
of Tabeal; Thus said the Lord God, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.
For the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within
sixty five years shall Ephraim be broken, and it will not be a people. And the head of
Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah’s son. If you will not
believe, surely you shall not be established. Moreover the Lord spoke again to Ahaz,
saying, Ask a sign of the Lord your God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height
above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord. And he said, Hear
now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary
my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, the young
woman is with child, and she will bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu-El.
Butter and honey shall he eat, when he shall know how to refuse the evil, and choose
the good. For before the child shall know how to refuse the evil, and choose the good,
330
the land whose two kings you dread shall be deserted.

The birth of this child is a sign to show the divine protection (Imanu-El – God is with us) that
Ahaz and his people would enjoy from their approaching destruction at the hands of these two
enemies, the northern Kingdom of Israel and Syria. If we interpret this chapter as referring to
Jesus’ birth, what possible comfort and assurance could Ahaz (735 B.C.E), who was
surrounded by two overwhelming military enemies, find in the birth of a child seven centuries
later? Both he and his people would long be dead and buried. Such a sign would make no
sense.

Verses 15-16 state that by the time the child knows the difference between good and bad (a
young age), the two warring kings, Pekah and Rezin, will have been removed. In II Kings we
read the fulfilment of this prophecy, when these two kings are suddenly assassinated:

330
Tanach, op. cit. Isaiah 7:14-16.

87
 In those days the Lord began to send against Judah Rezin the king of Aram, and
331
Pekah the son of Remaliah. Then Rezin king of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah
king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to war; and they besieged Ahaz, but could not
332
overcome him… And the king of Assyria listened to him; for the king of Assyria
went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried its people captive to Kir, and
333
killed Rezin.

334
The war of invasion lasted two years (734 - 732 B.C.E.). As the ‘young woman’ was
already pregnant when the prophet gave Ahaz the sign, the child’s birth would have been
soon after the invasion began - 734 B.C.E., and not around 4 B.C.E., the estimated date of
Jesus’ birth. By the time the child understood right from wrong (about two years of age), the
invasion was over.

The Hebrew version of Isaiah 7:14-16 reads as follows:

kt ubng una ,treu ic ,skhu vrv vnkgv vbv335

Hinneh ha'almah harah yoledet ben ve·karat shemov Immanuel.

Behold, the young woman is with child, and she will bear a son, and shall call his name
336
Immanuel.

The passage states the young woman (ha-almah) will bear a son, not a young woman, which
implies that it is a specific young woman known to Ahaz. In addition, the young woman is
already pregnant, because the word following ‘ha-almah’ vnkgv is ‘harah’ vrv which means
is pregnant: “…the young woman is with child.”

This passage is not speaking of a future event as suggested in canonical Matthew. In Isaiah’s
account, the ‘young woman’ (almah), not virgin (betulah), is already with child.

331
ibid. II Kings 15:37.
332
ibid. II Kings 16:5.
333
ibid. II Kings 16:9.
334
Frederic McCurdy J., Kaufmann K., Ahaz, The Jewish Encyclopedia,
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=971&letter=A, retrieved 29/07/2009.
335
Tanach, op. cit. Isaiah 7:14-16.
336
ibid.

88
 337
The Hebrew word ‘almah’ appears three times in the Jewish Scriptures; in each case it
means ‘young woman’. When the Scriptures refer to a virgin, and they do thirty eight
338
times, the Hebrew word used is always betulah vku,c.

THE VIRGIN BIRTH IN THE CANONIZED GOSPELS

Christianity bases its information on the life of Jesus of Nazareth on the four Gospels
canonized by the Church. These are the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The
account of the virgin birth is found only in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which warrant
close examination.

The Gospel of Mark

Mark wrote his account of Jesus’ life around 66-70 C.E., making it the earliest Gospel to be
written. Chronologically, it is the next writing after the letters of Paul. Mark makes no
mention of the virgin birth, but begins his account with Jesus’ immersion in the river
339
Jordan.

340
One of the early Christian translators, Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis (70-160 C.E.), wrote
concerning Mark’s Gospel:

Mark has not erred in anything, by writing some things as he has recorded them; for
he was carefully attentive to one thing, not to pass by anything that he heard, or to
341
state anything falsely in these accounts.

Being the earliest of the Gospels and having no account of a virgin birth is not a matter that
can be overlooked. Mark either “passed by” what he heard, perhaps thinking it irrelevant or
not noteworthy, or he did not hear of such a thing.

The Gospels of Luke and Matthew

Both Luke’s and Matthew’s Gospels were written between 80 and 90 C.E., and are believed
342
to be based on Mark’s Gospel. Luke and Matthew give the only two accounts of a virgin

337
Robert Young, L.L. D., Analytical Concordance to the Bible, 1970, William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, Michigan, p. 1026.
338
ibid.
339
This immersion bears no connection to ‘baptism’ or conversion. It is Jewish practice to immerse
oneself at Rosh Hashanah, before Yom Kippur. Jews keep this custom to this day.
340
Patzia, op. cit. p. 62.
341
ibid. p. 63.

89
birth in the entire New Testament. They obviously did not copy Mark’s account very well, or
maybe the Church fathers who translated and canonized the Gospels two centuries later, did
not copy Mark’s account very well. Or, the passage was interpolated.

An account of Jesus’ genealogy is also found in Luke’s and Matthew’s Gospels, as an attempt
to connect Jesus to the Davidic dynasty. Luke’s version, however, is contradictory to
Matthew’s (or vice versa), in that some of the names are completely different in regards to the
lineage of Zerubbabel, an ancestor of King David and the first Davidic King of Judea after the
Babylonian captivity. Matthew makes Zerubbabel a descendant of Solomon, David's son,
343
whereas Luke makes him a descendant of Nathan, also a son of David. Since Solomon and
Nathan were brothers (I Chronicles 3:5) they cannot both be paternal ancestors of Zerubbabel.
Moreover, since both Matthew and Luke then go on to claim that Mary conceived by the
Holy Spirit, not by Joseph, both genealogies (which are Joseph’s) become pointless, making
the entire genealogy accounts irrelevant.

The Gospel of John

Although by 95 C.E. the virgin birth stories had already begun circulating (which was the
time John apparently wrote his Gospel), John, like Mark, makes no mention of it. As the
344
master’s ‘beloved disciple’ and closest to him, one would expect John to have had
knowledge of the virgin birth of Jesus. However, in his Gospel, twice John specifically
345
referred to Jesus as “the son of Joseph,” stating, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose
346
father and mother we know?”

PROBLEMS WITH THE CANONICAL LUKE AND MATTHEW ACCOUNTS

When we examine the account of the virgin birth in Luke’s and Matthew’s Gospels, we find
several problems other than those already discussed.

The canonical Luke account reads as follows:

In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a
virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The

342
Miller, op. cit. p. 115-116.
343
NIV, New Testament, op. cit. Matthew 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38.
344
ibid. John 13:23.
345
ibid. John 1:45.
346
ibid. John 6:42.

90
 virgin’s name was Mary. The angel went to her and said, ‘Greetings, you who are
highly favoured! The Lord is with you.’ Mary was greatly troubled at his words and
wondered what kind of greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, ‘Do not be
afraid, Mary, you have found favour with God. You will be with child and give birth
to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called
the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,
and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.’ ‘How
will this be,’ Mary asked the angel, ‘since I am a virgin?’ The angel answered, ‘The
Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow
347
you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.’

The main point in question is the following passage:

The angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favour with God.
You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name
348
Jesus…‘How will this be,’ Mary asked the angel, ‘since I am a virgin?’

In the first part, the angel tells Mary that she will be (future tense) with child:

349
καὶ ἰδοὺ συλλήµψῃ ἐν γαστρὶ καὶ τέξῃ υἱόν

And behold you will conceive - kai idou sullēmpsē - (future tense) in your womb and
bear a son.

The Latin Vulgate also reads in the future tense:

350
…ecce concipies in utero et paries filium et vocabis nomen eius Iesum.

Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt
call his name Jesus.

This is not a problem because Mary, who was already betrothed to Joseph, would expect to
eventually be with child. Mary, however, replied to the angel in the present tense:

351
εἶπεν δὲ Μαριὰµ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω

347
NIV, New Testament, op. cit. Luke 1:26-35.
348
ibid, verse 30-31, 34-35.
349
Biblos, op. cit. Luke 1:31, http://biblos.com/luke/1-31.htm retrieved 29/09/2009.
350
Biblos, Biblia Sacra Vulgata, op. cit. Lucas 1:31, http://vul.scripturetext.com/luke/1.htm, retrieved
29/09/2009.

91
 Then said Mary unto the angel: How shall this be seeing I know not a man.

The Latin Vulgate reads also in the present tense:

352
…dixit autem Maria ad angelum quomodo fiet istud quoniam virum non cognosco.

And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?

Up to this point the angel had not said anything about a virgin birth. If the angel had said,
“You are pregnant”, then her reply would have made sense. But he said, “You will be
pregnant”, thus making her response irrelevant. Either Mary intended to remain a virgin after
her marriage to Joseph (as the Roman Catholic Church teaches), or she was not listening to
what the angel said.

We now read in canonical Matthew:

This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be
married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child
through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not
want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. But after
he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said,
‘Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what
is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to
give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.’ All this
took place to fulfil what the Lord had said through the prophet: ‘The virgin will be
with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel’ - which
means, “God with us.” When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had
commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until
353
she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

In this account, there is no record of any discussion between the angel Gabriel and Mary. We
are only told of the angel’s communication with Joseph in a dream.

From a Jewish perspective, there are two main points in question:

351
Biblos, op. cit. Luke 1:34, http://biblos.com/luke/1-34.htm retrieved 29/09/2009.
352
Vulgate.org, op. cit. Luke 1:34, http://vul.scripturetext.com/luke/1.htm, retrieved 29/09/2009.
353
NIV, New Testament, op. cit. Matthew 1:18-25.

92
The first point is the statement, “Before they (Joseph and Mary) came together, she was found
to be with child through the Holy Spirit.”

In the Tanakh, several women who were barren conceived miraculously. The conception,
however, albeit having miraculous qualities, did not omit the participation of the husband.
The main problem with this statement is that it states that Joseph was not involved. Unlike the
gods of pagan myths, the Jewish God never impregnated women.

The second point in question is: “Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did
not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.”

If Joseph truly did not want to expose Mary to public disgrace, he would have finalized the
betrothal immediately, not divorced her. Divorce would have implied adultery on Mary’s
part, subjecting her to the death penalty. Divorcing her “quietly” would not have protected her
from this.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as a ‘quiet divorce’, not now and certainly not then in
much smaller Jewish communities. Therefore, this entire passage makes no Jewish sense. In
Jewish law, a divorce can only be obtained from the Beth Din (Jewish Court of Law). The
Beth Din (in those days, the Sanhedrin), would have judged the case according to the Law of
Moses:

If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds

something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her
354
and sends her from his house…

Joseph would have had to specify to the Court why he had sent Mary from his house. The
Court would then have to question Mary as to whose child it was, and it is doubtful that the
‘Holy Spirit’ story would have been convincing. If neither Joseph nor Mary could name the
355
father, then according to the law, this is a case of doubtful legitimacy.

This scenario would have placed Mary in a serious predicament, punishable by death, as she
was officially betrothed to Joseph, an agreement as legally binding as marriage. No one was
with Mary when the angel supposedly visited her, thus she had no witnesses to the angel’s
announcement, nor were the correct authorities informed, her own parents included.

354
Tanach, op. cit. Deuteronomy 24:1
355
Talmud, op. cit. Yevamoth 37a.

93
This entire scenario is completely contrary to Jewish law, where a matter can only be
established on the testimony of at least two witnesses: “By the mouth of two witnesses, or by
356
the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.”

The Virgin Birth in the New Testament Epistles

357
The Epistles of James and Jude: c. 50-65 C.E.

According to the New Testament, both James and Jude (Judah) are called the “brother of
Jesus.” In Matthew’s Gospel we read:

Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James
358
and Joses, Simon and Judah?

In Mark’s Gospel it states:

Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James
359
and Joses, Simon and Judah? And behold, are not his sisters here with us?

Josephus, in Antiquities, Book 20, chapter 9, also referred to “the brother of Jesus, whose
name was James…” As his brothers, one would think that James and Jude had knowledge of
any supernatural conditions connected with Jesus’ birth, or that Joseph was not his real father.
Surely, in their entire life, they would have heard something, even if it were behind closed
doors. Yet neither the Epistles of James nor Jude mention anything that implies Jesus was
360
born in a miraculous way or that Joseph was not his real father.

361
The Epistles of Paul: 51-69 C.E.

Paul does not mention the virgin birth anywhere in his letters, which were written before the
Gospels. It would seem reasonable to assume that if Paul had known of the special condition
of Jesus’ birth that he would have made mention of it. In fact, the opposite appears to be true.

356
Tanach, op. cit. Deuteronomy 19:15.
357
NIV, New Testament, op. cit. Introductions to James and Jude, pp. 1878, 1918.
358
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Matthew 13:55.
359
ibid. Mark 6:3.
360
ibid, The General Epistle of James; The General Epistle of Jude.
361
NIV, New Testament, op. cit. pp. 1705, 1734, 1762, 1780, 1790, 1803, 1813, 1821, 1829, 1833,
1834, 1844, 1856.

94
In the first recorded known reference to the birth of Jesus, Paul wrote: “But when the time
362
had fully come, God sent his son, born of a woman, born under the law,” meaning, that he
was born a Jew and that the circumstances of his birth complied with Jewish law. Paul does
not mention who the woman was, and he spoke of no miracle in the conception, nor does he
use the word ‘virgin’; there was nothing about the birth of Jesus that was doubtful or
halachically disputable, on the contrary, his birth was natural and conventional.

In his letter to the Romans, Paul wrote that Jesus was “of the seed of David according to the
363
flesh.” These words are a reference to the book of Chronicles concerning a descendant of
King David:

And it shall come to pass, when your days are fulfilled, when you must go to be with
your fathers, that I will raise up your seed after you, who shall be of your sons; and I
will establish his kingdom. He shall build me a house, and I will establish his throne
364
forever.

This is parental lineage and important for Kingship.

Although Paul believed that Jesus was the Messiah, he did not imply a virgin birth; rather, he
stressed the physical, paternal lineage of Jesus: “…of the seed of David according to the
flesh.” He emphasised this point in his letter to the Romans:

Theirs (the Jewish people) is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the
covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are
365
the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah…

366
Epistles of John c. 85–95 C.E.

John wrote his Epistle around the time as Ignatius of Antioch began circulating the story of
Jesus’ virgin birth. It may have been that John was aware of the story and wrote a warning
against the belief. He stressed:

The Spirit of God is known by this: Every prophecy which declares that Jesus Christ
has come in the flesh is from God. And every prophecy which does not declare that

362 Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Galatians 4:4.

363
ibid. Romans 1:3.
364
Tanach, op. cit. 1 Chronicles 17: 11-12.
365
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Romans 9, 4-5.
366
NIV, New Testament, op. cit. pp 1905, 1913.

95
 Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not from God, but it is the prophecy of the false
christ, of whose coming you have heard and who is even now already in the world.
For many deceivers have appeared in the world who do not acknowledge that Jesus
367
Christ has come in the flesh. Such a person is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Other Gospels

There were many Gospels in circulation in the first and second centuries C.E. These are
called the ‘Apocryphal Gospels’, those that the Catholic Church did not include in the New
Testament.

These ancient writings include the Lost Letter of Paul, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the
Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Barnabas, Pseudo Matthew and the
368
Gospels of the Hebrews, Ebionites and Nazarenes.

The Gospels of the Ebionites and Nazarenes are those that show conflict with the virgin birth
story and divinity of Jesus. For mainly this reason, the Church fathers considered the
Ebionites heretics. The Catholic Encyclopedia describes the Ebionites as “one or more early
369
Christian sects infected with Judaistic errors.”

The Gospels of the Ebionites and Nazarenes

The Early Church fathers tell us that there was an early version of Matthew’s Gospel, called
the ‘Gospel of the Ebionites’ or the ‘Gospel According to the Hebrews’, which was used by
the Ebionites. They also mention another Gospel, also written in Hebrew or Aramaic, called
370
the ‘Gospel of the Nazoreans’.

The Catholic Encyclopedia lists this Gospel under the category of ‘Judaistic and Heretical
371
Gospels’. We read:

Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius and St. Epiphanius speak of a “Gospel

according to the Hebrews” which was the sole one in use among the Palestinian
Judeo-Christians, otherwise known as the Nazarenes. We are warranted in saying that
367
ibid. 1 John 4:2, 3; 2 John 1:7.
368
Miller, op. cit. p. 301, 369, 399, 425-441.
369
Ebionites, Arendzen, J. (1909), in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05242c.htm, retrieved 05/10/2009.
370
Miller, op. cit. p. 435, 443.
371
Reid, G. (1907), Apocrypha: Judaistic and Heretical Gospels, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op.
cit. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm, retrieved 05/10/2009.

96
 while this extra-canonical material probably has as its starting-point primitive
372
tradition, it has been disfigured in the interests of a Judaizing Church.

373
Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis (c. 70-160 C.E.), also attested that Matthew’s Gospel was
written in Hebrew. Papias was quoted by Eusebius as saying: “Matthew compiled the Sayings
374 375
in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could.”

376
Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 310-403 C.E.) was the only father of the Church who quoted the
fragments of the ‘Gospel of the Ebionites’, of which only seven fragments survive. The
Gospel fragments make no mention of Jesus’ birth; rather they begin with the appearance of
John at the river Jordan. Epiphanius commented on the Ebionite Gospel, stating: “At any rate,
in the Gospel that they call ‘According to Matthew’, which is not complete but adulterated
377
and mutilated – they call it the Hebrew Gospel…”

Jerome claimed to have seen a Gospel used by the Nazarenes and the Ebionites in the library
at Caesarea and apparently received the opportunity to copy it into Greek and Latin. In the
writings of Jerome several references are made to this Gospel, which he attributed to
Matthew. In Jerome’s De Viris Illustribus, he wrote: “The Gospel also which is called the
Gospel according to the Hebrews, and which I have recently translated into Greek and
378
Latin…” He then goes on to say that a version of Matthew’s Gospel, which he simply calls
the “Gospel of Christ”, was translated into Greek by an unknown author. This leaves us with
uncertainty on the true identity of the translator, or possibly Matthew composed two accounts
of the life of Jesus, one translated into Greek by Jerome, the other by an unknown translator.

Jerome wrote:

Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of
Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision

372
ibid.
373
Patzia, op. cit. p. 62.
374
Some translations say “in the Hebrew language”, see Eusebius, Church History, Book 3, 39:16,
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm, retrieved 23/09/2009.
375
Eusebius, The History of the Church, op. cit. p. 104.
376
Saltet, L. (1912), Epiphanius of Salamis, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13393b.htm, retrieved, 12/10/2009.
377
The Gospel of the Ebionites, quoted by Epiphanius, Heresies 30, in Miller, op. cit. p. 437.
378
De Viris Illustribus, chapter 2, translated by Ernest Cushing Richardson, from Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 3, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2708.htm, retrieved 25/06/2009.

97
 who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek, though by what author is
379
uncertain.

Jerome noted that the Gospel used by the Nazarenes and Ebionites did not use quotations
from the Greek version of the Tanakh, but from the Hebrew Scriptures. He wrote:

In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in
the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does
380
not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew.

Jerome also remarked that this particular Gospel was considered the authentic Gospel of
Matthew. In his Commentary on Matthew, he wrote:

In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use, which we recently
translated out of the Hebrew tongue into the Greek and which is called by most
381
people the authentic (Gospel) of Matthew…

If, then, the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, which Jerome calls ‘authentic’, had no mention of
the virgin birth, the authenticity of canonical Matthew can be called into question.

The Ebionites and the Virgin Birth

Irenaeus was probably the earliest commentator on the Ebionites. He reported that the
Ebionites used only Matthew’s Gospel and that they regarded Jesus as the Messiah, but
382
insisted he was neither divine nor born of a virgin. He wrote:

383
The Ebionites assert that he was begotten by Joseph. Jesus is a mere man, and
384
nothing more than a descendant of David, and not also the Son of God.

In the text Fragments From The Lost Writings Of Irenaeus, we read:

379
ibid. Chapter 3.
380
ibid.
381
Jerome: Commentary on Matthew, Book 2, 12:13, in Thomas P. Scheck, The Fathers of the
Church, USA, The Catholic University of America Press, 2008, p. 141.
382
Miller, op. cit. p. 436.
383
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3: 21, op cit. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103321.htm,
retrieved 21/07/2009.
384
Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 14, translated by Peter Holmes, from Ante-Nicene
Fathers, Vol. 3, op. cit. in The Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0315.htm,
retrieved 21/07/2009.

98
 The Gospel according to Matthew was written to the Jews. For they laid particular
stress upon the fact that Christ should be of the seed of David. Matthew also, who had
a still greater desire to establish this point, took particular pains to afford them
convincing proof that Christ is of the seed of David; and therefore he commences
385
with an account of his genealogy.

Eusebius wrote concerning the Ebionites:

The adherents of what is known as the Ebionite heresy assert that Christ was the son
386
of Joseph and Mary, and regard Him as no more than a man. They regarded Him
as plain and ordinary, a man esteemed as righteous through growth of character and
nothing more, the child of a normal union between a man and Mary; and they held
387
that they must observe every detail of the Law.

Based on this information, it appears that the Ebionites did not consider that Jesus was born
of a virgin, nor was this event recorded in their Gospel of Matthew.

The Virgin Birth in the Writings of the Church Fathers

388
Although the Virgin birth was not defined as an Article of Faith until the sixth century, the
Church fathers began to identify Jesus with a virgin birth story as early as the first century.

There seems to be three main arguments between Christian and Jewish polemical writers on
the subject of the virgin birth. The first is the issue of the incorrect translation of the word
almah in Isaiah chapter seven; the second is the comparison between the virgin birth of Jesus
and that of pagan gods, and the third, that Mary’s virginity was a propitiation for the sin of
Eve (apparently her loss of virginity).

389
Ignatius of Antioch - c. 50-117 C.E.

In his letters to the Philippians and Antiochans, Ignatius of Antioch presents the ‘unusual
circumstances’ of Jesus’ birth, referring to the passage from Isaiah as supposed proof. We
read:

385
Fragments From The Lost Writings Of Irenaeus, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0134.htm, retrieved 21/07/2009.
386
Eusebius, The History of the Church, op. cit. p.194.
387
ibid. p. 90.
388
See Footnote 314.
389
St. Ignatius of Antioch, op. cit. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm, retrieved 18/08/09.

99
 And, indeed, the altogether peculiar birth of the Lord was of a virgin alone… God the
Word was born as man, with a body, of the Virgin, without any intercourse of man.
390
For (it is written), "A virgin shall conceive in her womb, and bring forth a son.

Ignatius also claimed to have written to the apostle John and to Mary, the mother of Jesus,
inquiring about “secret matters” of which he needed confirmation.

In his letter to Mary, Ignatius wrote:

For I have heard things wonderful to tell respecting your [son] Jesus, and I am
astonished by such a report. But I desire with my whole heart to obtain information
concerning the things that I have heard from you, who was always intimate and allied
with Him, and who was acquainted with [all] His secrets. I have also written to you at
391
another time, and have asked you concerning the same things.

In his first letter to John, Ignatius wrote:

We are deeply grieved at your delay in strengthening us by your addresses and

consolations. If your absence be prolonged, it will disappoint many of us. Hasten then
to come, for we believe that it is expedient. There are also many of our women here,
who are desirous to see Mary (the mother) of Jesus… She is the lady of our new
392
religion and repentance, and the handmaid among the faithful of all works of piety.

It seems both Mary and John delayed in their response to Ignatius; their supposed eventual
393
replies saying nothing about secret information concerning Jesus. Furthermore, Roman
394
Catholic tradition tells us that Mary died around 48 C.E., two years before Ignatius was
born.

When Ignatius was confronted with the fact that the virgin birth story was unknown to the
first generation of Nazarene and Ebionite Jews, he gave a clever argument. To the Ephesians
he wrote: “And from the prince of this world were hidden Mary's virginity and her child-

390
Spurious Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch: Epistle to the Philippians, chapter 3; Epistle to the
Antiochans, chapter 3, op. cit. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0114.htm, retrieved 18/08/09.
391
ibid. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Virgin Mary, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0114.htm, retrieved 18/08/09.
392
Spurious Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch: The Epistle of Ignatius to the Virgin Mary; Reply of the
Blessed Virgin to this Letter, op. cit. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0114.htm, retrieved 18/08/09.
393
ibid. See: First Epistle to John; Second Epistle to John; The Epistle of Ignatius to the Virgin Mary:
Reply of the Blessed Virgin to this Letter.
394
Maas, A. (1912), The Blessed Virgin Mary, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm, retrieved 18/10/2009.

100
 395
bearing…” In other words, the reason no one was familiar with this concept was because it
had been kept hidden until an appointed time, which presumably was the time Ignatius
revealed it.

Justin Martyr and Trypho - c. 100-163 C.E.

In an argument between Trypho the Jew and Justin Martyr, Justin used the Isaiah chapter 7
passage in an attempt to convince Trypho that Jesus was born of a virgin. Trypho, however,
disputed the translation and interpretation of the passage and compared the supposed virgin
birth of Jesus to foolish myths:

The Scripture has not, ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,’ but,
‘Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son,’ and so on, as you quoted.
But the whole prophecy refers to Hezekiah, and it is proved that it was fulfilled in
him, according to the terms of this prophecy. Moreover, in the fables of those who are
called Greeks, it is written that Perseus was begotten of Danae, who was a virgin; he
who was called among them Zeus having descended on her in the form of a golden
shower. And you ought to feel ashamed when you make assertions similar to theirs,
and rather (should) say that this Jesus was born man of men. And if you prove from
the Scriptures that He is the Christ, and that on account of having led a life
conformed to the law, and perfect, He deserved the honour of being elected to be
Christ, [it is well]; but do not venture to tell monstrous phenomena, lest you be
396
convicted of talking foolishly like the Greeks.

In response to Trypho, Justin acknowledged that there is no precedent in the Tanakh for a
virgin birth, yet he said his mind was set on the belief. He replied:

Now it is evident to all, that in the race of Abraham according to the flesh no one has
been born of a virgin, or is said to have been born [of a virgin], save this our Christ.
…I wish to persuade you, and all men in short, of this, that even though you talk
397
worse things in ridicule and in jest, you will not move me from my fixed design.

Justin Martyr also implied that the sin of Eve was her loss of virginity and that Mary
redeemed the sin of Eve by remaining a virgin, thus becoming the ‘New Eve’.

395
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, chapter 19, cited in Stanforth, op. cit. p. 66.
396
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 67, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01285.htm, retrieved 20/08/2009.
397
ibid.

101
 …and that He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which
proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which
it derived its origin. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent
and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when
the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would
come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which
398
reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God.

Origen and Celsus - c. 185–235 C.E.

In a discussion with a Jew by the name of Celsus, Origen argued that the prophets predicted
the virgin birth of Jesus. He said:

But it was, as the prophets also predicted, from a virgin that there was to be born,
according to the promised sign, one who was to give His name to the fact, showing
that at His birth God was to be with man.

When Celsus confronted Origen with the error of the Greek translation of ‘virgin’, Origin
399
began his reply with, “Now, if a Jew should split words…”

Irenaeus - c. 130-202 C.E.

Although the writings of Ignatius are the first to suggest that Jesus was born of a virgin, it was
400
Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, who was called the first theologian of the Virgin Mother. Like
Justin Martyr, Irenaeus drew out the parallel between Eve and Mary:

As the former was led astray by an angel's discourse to fly from God after
transgressing His word, so the latter by an angel's discourse had the Gospel preached
unto her that she might bear God, obeying His word. And if the former had disobeyed
God, yet the other was persuaded to obey God: that the Virgin Mary might become an
advocate for the virgin Eve. And as mankind was bound unto death through a virgin,

398
ibid. Chapter 100.
399
Origen, Contra Celsus, Book 1, op. cit. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04161.htm, retrieved
07/10/2009.
400
Thurston, H. (1912), Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15459a.htm, retrieved 07/10/2009.

102
 it is saved a through virgin; by the obedience of a virgin the disobedience of a virgin
401
is compensated.

Tertullian - c. 160-220 C.E.

The Church father, Tertullian, also made a comparison between Eve and Mary when
addressing the subject of the virgin birth. He wrote:

It was while Eve was still a virgin that the word of the devil crept in to erect an
edifice of death. Likewise through a virgin the Word of God was introduced to set up
a structure of life. Thus what had been laid waste in ruin by this sex was by the same
sex re-established in salvation. Eve had believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel.
402
That which the one destroyed by believing, the other, by believing, set straight.

Jerome – c. 345-420 C.E.

Most of the Church fathers were of the opinion that virginity was more holy than the married
state. In fact, many negatively associated sex, even in marriage, with sinful humanity. Jerome,
who spoke of marital sex as “fornication”, devoted his entire treatise Contra Helvidius to the
perpetual virginity of Mary. In Contra Helvidius, Jerome argued that virginity is better than
the married state:

But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe
that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she
brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this to
condemn marriage, for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage; but because when we
are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly…You say that Mary did not
continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a
virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he
does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he
had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to

401
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5: 19, op. cit. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103519.htm,
retrieved 10/06/2009. Walker, op. cit. p. 63.
402
Tertullian, On The Flesh of Christ, chapter 17, op. cit. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0315.htm,
retrieved 25/06/2009.

103
 wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be
403
called father of the Lord, remained a virgin.

The veneration of the virgin was a common practice in ancient Rome. The Vestal Virgins of
the pagan temples were so venerated that they were regarded almost as divinities, so much so
that, whenever the Roman emperor, even by accident, met one of them in the streets, he not
only made her take precedence of him, but even retired several paces not daring to pass near
404
her. Raphael Melia writes in The Woman Blessed By All Generations:

What must we say then of the Blessed Virgin Mary? Is she not entitled on account of
her virginity, to be venerated by all Christians, much more than the Vestals were by
405
the pagans?

Unlike the pagan and early Christian concepts of virginity, Judaism has always considered the
sexual act as something pure and holy when performed in the spirit of holiness. In fact, the
406
first of Judaism’s 613 Mitzvot is “Be fruitful and multiply.”

Jerome also seemed to be of the opinion that a person, who was considered ‘pious’, would
most certainly be a virgin. He wrote:

Christ Himself is a virgin; and His mother is also a virgin; Yea, though she is His
mother, she is a virgin still... The apostles have either been virgins or, though
married, have lived celibate lives. Those persons who are chosen to be bishops,
priests, and deacons are either virgins or widowers; or at least when once they have
407
received the priesthood, are vowed to perpetual chastity.

In the above passages we begin to see the development of the doctrine of ‘Mary Mother of
God’ and the stressing not only of her virginity, but that perpetual virginity means perpetual
purity and incorruptibility.

403
Jerome: The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary: Against Helvidius, verse 21, translated by W.H.
Fremantle, G. Lewis and W.G. Martley, from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 6,
in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm, retrieved
10/06/2009.
404
Raphael Melia, The Woman Blessed By All Generations, 1868, Longmans, Green and Co., London,
p. 42.
405
ibid.

406
Recanti, Menachem ben Benjamin, Procreation, in Abraham Chill, The Mitzvot: The
Commandments and Their Rationale, 1974, Keter Books, Jerusalem, p. 4.
407
Jerome, Letter to Pammachius, Letter 48:21, translated by Fremantle, Lewis and Martley, in The
Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001048.htm, retrieved 22/07/2009.

104
Now, if the precedent for Mary’s virginity was Eve’s virginity, then there is no precedent at
all, because Eve was already not a virgin when the serpent tempted her. According to the
book of Genesis, the account of Eve’s eating of the ‘forbidden fruit’ is found in chapter 3, but
in chapter two we read:

And the man (Adam) said, ‘This time it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh…
therefore a man shall leave his mother and father and cling to his wife and they shall
be one flesh. They were both naked, the man and his wife, and they were not
408
ashamed.

Eve’s virginity was gone well before her encounter with the serpent.

TRIBAL LINEAGE AND ANCESTRY

According to the Tanakh and Jewish tradition, a child is a Jew if the mother is a Jew. This is
how one receives a Jewish soul (or through conversion to Judaism). Tribal lineage, however,
is determined only through the father. Even today, if a person has, for example, a mother of
Sefardi descent and a father of Ashkenazi descent, the child is generally raised to follow
Ashkenazi customs and rituals.

The Tanakh states, in a passage attributed to the Messiah, that for a man to qualify as the
Jewish Messiah he is to be a physical descendent of the line of Judah: “The staff shall not
depart from Judah, nor the sceptre from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and to him shall
409
the obedience of the people be.”

The Messiah must also be of the House of David. We read in the book of Chronicles:

And it shall be, when your (David) days are fulfilled, when you must go to be with
your fathers, that I will set up your seed after you, who will be of your sons; and I
will establish his kingdom. He shall build Me a house, and I will establish his throne
forever. I will be his Father, and he shall be My son; and I will not take My mercy
away from him, as I took it from him who was before you. And I will establish him in
410
My house and in My kingdom forever; and his throne shall be established forever.

408
Tanach, op. cit. Genesis 2:24,25.
409
ibid. Genesis 49:10.
410
ibid. 1 Chronicles 17:11-14.

105
 The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will raise up to David a righteous
Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In his
411
day Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety.

The above passages affirm that the Jewish Messiah will be of the line of King David; that he
will come from the seed of David's sons, emphasizing paternal lineage, and that he will build
his Father’s house – the Temple.

In reference to the passage in Chronicles, the apostle Peter wrote:

… permit me to speak to you openly concerning the Patriarch David… For he was a
prophet, and he knew that God had sworn by an oath to him that of the fruit of his
412
loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up one to sit on his throne.

Again we see the all-important words: Of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, and of
the seed… Clearly, the Jewish Messiah must be a physical descendant of the sons of David.

The principle that children receive tribal inheritance from the father and not the mother is
clear in the Tanakh. For example, in Exodus chapter 6, the High Priest, Aaron, from the tribe
of Levi, married Elisheva, from the tribe of Judah. Based on this principle, Aaron’s children
were raised Levites, not Judahites.

Thus, it is not enough for the Messiah to be a Jew - he must be of the line of Judah and from
the House of David by parental lineage. He cannot be a Levite, a Cohen, or a convert to
Judaism. Nor can he be a product of parthenogenesis through cloning (miraculous or
otherwise), as his tribal lineage would still be unknown.

In the first chapter and opening verse of Matthew’s Gospel, we are presented with the
supposed genealogy of Jesus. We read:

The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David; the Son of Abraham;
Abraham begot Isaac; Isaac begot Jacob; Jacob begot Judah and his brothers… Eliud
begot Eleazar; Eleazar begot Matthan; Matthan begot Jacob; Jacob begot Joseph, the
413
husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

If this genealogy was in existence before the virgin birth story was thought of, then, assuming
the latter is true, the genealogy is worthless. If Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, why are

411
ibid. Jeremiah 23:5, 6.
412
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Acts 2:30
413
ibid. Matthew 1:1-16.

106
the genealogy accounts in Matthew and Luke those of Joseph? This is an irrelevancy if
Joseph had not impregnated his wife. Unless Joseph was the father of Jesus, there could be no
object in tracing the pedigree of Joseph; and if Joseph was the father of Jesus, the virgin birth
story is not true.

Possibly the original idea was to trace Jesus’ lineage through Joseph to David in an attempt to
fulfil messianic prophecy. Then, when the idea of deifying Jesus through a virgin birth arose,
the account was interpolated into the text, spoiling the object of the genealogy.

What About Adoption?

Some have argued that if Joseph had legally adopted Jesus, he would have inherited Joseph’s
lineage. Is this view compatible with Jewish law?

Although a legal institution in Roman law, adoption is not known as a legal institution in
Jewish law. According to halacha, the personal status of parent and child is based on the
natural family relationship only, and there is no recognized way of creating this status
414
artificially by a legal act or fiction.

In an article by Michael J. Broyde, Adoption and Establishing Parental Status: Jewish Law,
we read:

Although the institution of adoption, through its widespread use in Roman law, was
well known in Talmudic times, the codifiers of Jewish law denied that Jewish law
recognized an institution of ‘adoption’. Rather, they created the institution which they
called 'A Person Who Raises Another's Child'. Unlike either Roman law or current
adoption law, this institution does not change the legal parents of the person whose
custody has changed. One who raises another's child is an agent of the natural parent;
and like any agency rule in Jewish law, if the agent fails to accomplish the task
delegated, the obligation reverts to the principal. Thus, the biblical obligations, duties
and prohibitions of parenthood still apply between the natural parents and the child
whose custody they no longer have… Paternity is irrevocably established by being
415
the biological and genetic father.

414
Tigay, J. H., Schereschewsky. B., and Gilat, Y., Adoption, in The Encyclopaedia Judaica, Ed.
Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Vol. 1. 2nd ed., Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007, p.
415-420.
415
F.P. Walton, Historical Introduction to the Roman Law, 72, 1920, cited in Michael J. Broyde, The
Establishment of Maternity & Paternity in Jewish and American Law, Jewish Law Articles: Examining
Halacha, Jewish Issues and Law, p. 4-5. http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/maternity4.html, retrieved
22/07/2009. Footnote 222: Although it is true that there are four instances in the Bible in which

107
The emphasis on bloodlines has serious consequences for adoption in Jewish law. For
example, the status of the birth mother as ‘Jew’ or ‘Gentile’ at the moment of birth establishes
the identity of the child as Jewish or Gentile, but the father's tribal status decides the child's
tribe in one of three categories: Cohen, Levite and Israel. If the child were adopted, the
child’s tribal status would still be determined according to his or her biological father.

What If The Father Is Unknown?

In Jewish law, where the birth father is a Gentile or unknown, as in the case of rape, the
adopted child falls in the category of ‘Israel’ – part of the community of Israel, but of no
specific lineage. The lineage of the adoptive father does not affect the adopted child.

Thus, if Jesus was not a product of Joseph’s seed, Joseph could be a caretaker father, but
could not pass on to Jesus the Judahite tribal lineage. If then, Joseph was not the father, Jesus
had unknown tribal lineage.

As there is no precedent for ‘virgin births’ in Jewish law, another scenario with which this
situation can be compared, in this day and age, is artificial insemination.

The case of a woman becoming pregnant and not being able to provide the name of the
biological father could be compared with a ‘donor sperm’ scenario. Rabbinic sources
generally agree that paternity is determined by the one who provides the sperm, hence, a baby
conceived from donor sperm would not, according to Jewish law, be considered the child of
416
the infertile husband. In the virgin birth scenario, God Himself is the father; however, God
is not a man that He should have sperm, nor is He of any specific tribe, again leaving the
child without tribal lineage, which would exclude him from being the Messiah. Because the
Tanakh explicitly states the tribal lineage of the Messiah, the Jewish Messiah cannot be of an
unknown tribal lineage. Furthermore, a married woman's recourse to artificial insemination
417
by an unknown donor renders any offspring so produced illegitimate.

Subsequent to the first two chapters in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which give us the
account of the virgin birth, there is no other reference to it. In fact, both Gospels refer to
Joseph as the father of Jesus in a very ‘matter of fact’ way: “Is he not the carpenter's son? Is

adopted parents are called actual parents, see I Chronicles 4:18, Ruth 4:14, Psalms 77:16, II Samuel
21:8, these are assumed to be in a non-legal context. See Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 9b.
416
Miryam Z. Wahrman, Assisted Reproduction and Judaism, in The Jewish Virtual Library,
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/ivf.html, retrieved 14/06/2009.
417
I. Jakobovits, Artificial Insemination, in The Encyclopaedia Judaica, op. cit.
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/start.do?p=GVRL&u=jcaa, retrieved 03/09/2009.

108
 418
not his mother called Mary and his brothers James and Joses and Simon and Judah?” This
contradiction leads to the possibility that the account was interpolated at a much later date.

It has been important to examine the virgin birth story from various angles to show, firstly,
that this concept is not compatible with Judaism at all, and secondly, that it is unlikely that the
disciples of Jesus believed such a thing.

The idea of a virgin birth, however, is very compatible with the myths associated with pagan
deities. Like pagan Emperors and Mystery gods before him, the virgin birth story elevated
Jesus to a position of deity. The assumption of full Godhead would come with the adoption of
419
the doctrine of the Trinity.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

The passages in the New Testament that may attribute to Jesus the title 'God' are
comparatively few and very ambiguous. It was not until 180 C.E., that Theophilus of Antioch
420
introduced the pagan concept of a ‘trinity’ of gods to Christianity. It was then clarified and
established as a dogma of the Church at the Council of Nicea in 325 C.E., against the Arian
421
heresy.

The dogmas of the Virgin Birth and the Trinity are closely associated. Both elevate Jesus to
the position of deity, no mere mortal, but a part of the Godhead, the middle figure of a tri-
unity of gods. Jesus could now be worshipped as a god-man, a practice that, although
considered idolatrous in Judaism, was prevalent in all of the polytheistic religions.

The Catholic Encyclopedia gives the following commentary on the Dogma of the Trinity:

The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian
religion - the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from
another. …The Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and
omnipotent. …In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine

418
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Matthew 13:55.
419
Davis, op. cit. p. 101.
420
The Blessed Trinity, op. cit. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm, retrieved 30/09/2009.
421
Turcan, The Cults of the Roman Empire, op. cit. p. 339.

109
 Persons are denoted together. The word trias is first found in Theophilus of Antioch
422
about A.D. 180.

In contrast to the Christian view of God, Judaism holds at its foundation the Oneness of God
423
as declared in the Shema: Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.

Klausner states that this is the belief to which Jesus himself aspired. He writes:

Like every Pharisaic Jew he believed in the absolute unity of God… Nor did he
regard himself as Son of God in the later Trinitarian sense; for a Jew to believe such a
thing during the period of the Second Temple is quite inconceivable: it is wholly
424
contradictory to the belief of absolute unity.

Although Jesus often referred to God as Abba - father, or Avinu - our father, this does not
imply uniqueness in Jesus’ relationship to God. The invocations Abba and Avinu are common
as a form of address to God in the Hebrew Scriptures, Jewish prayers and prayer books, and
425
have been so since the foundation of Judaism.

There is but one New Testament passage that specifically mentions the concept of ‘trinity’. In
the first Epistle of John, chapter 5, verse 8, it states: “And there are three which bear witness
in heaven, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and these three are one.” This verse only
appears in Christian Bibles translated from the Latin Vulgate, namely the Catholic Douay
426
Bible - the New Testament published in 1582 and the Old Testament published in 1609, and
427
the Authorized King James Version, first published in 1611.

This begs the question: was the verse added to original manuscripts, or removed from later
translations of the New Testament? According to the footnotes on this passage in the New
International Version Bible, this verse does not appear in any other translations of the New
428
Testament or in any Greek manuscript prior to the 16th century.

422
The Blessed Trinity, op. cit. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm, retrieved 29/07/2009.
423
Tanach, op. cit. Deuteronomy 6:4.
424
Klausner, op. cit. p. 377.
425
For example see: Isaiah 63: 16; The Avinu Malkeinu prayer, Our Father our King, which speaks to
God as a parent and sovereign; Talmud: Berachot 30b, Bava Batra 10a, Sukkah 45b.
426
The Holy Bible, Douay Version, op. cit. Publisher’s information.
427
Patzia, op. cit. p. 134.
428
NIV, New Testament, op. cit. Footnote on 1 John 5:7 (8).

110
The dogmas of the Virgin Birth and the Trinity are intrinsic to the identity of the Christian
Jesus. Without these fundamental aspects of his identity, he cannot be the Messiah
Christianity claims him to be. However, these supposed characteristics separate him
completely from any connection to Judaism and disqualify him, among other reasons, as the
Jewish Messiah.

111
 CHAPTER 7 - LOST IN TRANSLATION

It is almost impossible to determine how much of the original meaning of the words of Jesus,
and others writings in the New Testament, have been lost in translation. Not only are the
Hebrew and Greek languages and thought processes poles apart, which would contribute to
the way in which words and concepts were translated, but also the supposed ‘original Jewish’
manuscripts were interpreted and translated by non-Jews from Hebrew and Aramaic into
Greek and then Latin, and the many languages of the world.

The misinterpretation of Hebrew concepts that have caused the most conflict between
Christians and Jews are the passages in the New Testament that use terminologies such as
“Messiah”, “Son of Man” and “Son of God.” In examining these concepts from a Jewish
perspective, we find significant misinterpretations in the Christian understanding of these
terms.

MESSIAH AND LORD

The Hebrew names and titles applied to Jesus by his disciples had very different meanings
and associations in the Greek vernacular. Thus, the way in which Jesus perceived himself and
how his followers perceived him became clouded and distorted in the Greek translation of the
New Testament. This is particularly true when interpreting the Hebrew word Mashiach into
the Greek Christos.

The Hebrew word for 'messiah' is jhan mashiach, meaning ‘anointed’. In the New Testament,
mashiach was translated into the Greek χριστέ Christe, also meaning ‘anointed’. However,
the term ‘anointed’ does not always have the same implication in Greek as it does in Hebrew.

Dating from the time of Alexander the Great, a self proclaimed deity who considered himself
429
appointed by God as a universal ruler, Emperors of the Greco-Roman world perceived
themselves as 'God incarnate', elevated from the ranks of humanity. There was no religious
association or ritual involved with this appointment.

429
Angus, op. cit. p. 107.

112
In The Mystery Religions and Christianity, S. Angus writes:

In 48 B.C.E., Julius Caesar hailed himself as ‘God manifest and universal Saviour of
human life’. Similarly, Augustus was recorded as ‘Ancestral God and Saviour of the
430
whole human race’.

In the Tanakh, many were given the title mashiach, including kings, prophets and priests. For
example, Moses was a mashiach and was referred to as elohim (god or ruler): “And the Lord
431
said to Moses: See, I have made you a god ohvkt (elohim) to Pharaoh…”

King David was also called mashiach:

And these are the last words of David. David the son of Jesse said, and the man who
was raised up on high, the anointed jhan of the God of Jacob, and the sweet singer of
432
Israel, said, The spirit of the Lord spoke by me, and his word was in my tongue.

In ancient Israel, priests and kings were anointed for the service of God, as were specific
objects consecrated for Temple use. We read in the book of Exodus:

And you shall take the anointing oil, and anoint the tabernacle, and all that is in it,
and shall consecrate it, and all its utensils; and it shall be holy. And you shall anoint
the altar of the burnt offering, and all its utensils, and sanctify the altar; and it shall be
an altar most holy… And you shall bring Aaron and his sons to the door of the Tent
of Meeting, and wash them with water. And you shall put upon Aaron the holy
garments and anoint him, and sanctify him; that he may minister to me in the priest’s
office. And you shall bring his sons, and dress them with coats; And you shall anoint
them, as you did anoint their father, that they may minister to me in the priest’s
office; for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their
433
generations.

The Hebrew words in this passage for “the anointing” and “to anoint” are vjanv
hammishchah and ,janu umashachta. Both are connected to the word mashiach.

Contrary to the Greco-Roman concept of ‘anointed one’, the Hebrew concept of mashiach
does not imply divinity or deity in any way. The priests, prophets and kings were anointed, or

430
ibid. p. 109.
431
Tanach, op. cit. Exodus 7:1.
432
ibid. 2 Samuel 23:1.
433
ibid. Exodus 40:9-15.

113
set apart, for a specific duty and remained ordinary mortals. Furthermore, anointed objects
had no miraculous powers.

Judaism teaches that in every generation there is a person with the potential to be the
Messiah. During difficult times in Jewish history, a tzaddik (righteous one) would arise and
bring hope and spiritual revival to the Jewish people. On some occasions, the tzaddik was
looked upon as a messiah.

It is likely that the followers of Jesus considered him a messiah. Of course, some would have
hoped he was the Messiah, who would deliver them from Roman oppression. Yet, his
434
disciples simply called him “our teacher” or “master” - ἐπιστάτα epistata, or in Aramaic,
rabboni – our teacher. For example, we read in the Gospel of Luke: “Simon answered, master
(ἐπιστάτα - epistata), we’ve worked hard all night and have not caught anything. But because
435
you say so, I will let down the nets.”

In the Hebrew language, the word ‘master’ can also be translated as hbst adoni, meaning “my
lord.” In the book of Genesis we read: “And he said, blessed be the Lord (vUvh) God of my
436
master (hbst adoni) Abraham.”

In the Hebrew translation of this passage, two distinct words with very different meanings are
translated as ‘lord' – one is the Name of God vUvh, the other hbst, simply meaning ‘my
master’. However, in the Septuagint translation of this passage (the translation Jerome used),
the word kyrios /kuriou is used in both instances.

και ειπεν ευλογητος κυριος ο θεος του κυριου µου αβρααµ

437
kai eipen eulogētos kyrios o theos tou kuriou mou Abraam.

Throughout the Septuagint, the Greek kyrios is used wherever the name of God vUvh appears.
Thus, when in the New Testament the Hebrew adon (master), is translated into Greek as κύριε
– kyrie, the Hellenistic Christians, acquainted with the deification of mortals, readily associate
Jesus with God.

434
Zondervan Parallel New Testament, NIV, op. cit. Luke 5:5.
435
ibid.
436
Tanach, op. cit. Genesis 24:27.
437
Biblos, Septuagint, op. cit. http://multilingualbible.com/genesis/24-27.htm, retrieved 29/09/2009.

114
George F. Moore, in History of Religions, explains the problem in the following passage:

If Christos (anointed) had no religious associations in Greek, Kyrios (Lord) had

many. It was a standing epithet in the worship of numerous deities in Egypt, Syria
and Asia Minor. The Roman Emperors assumed the title Kyrios as the most
unequivocal assertion of divine supremacy. Gentiles who heard that men could only
be saved through the Lord Jesus Christ would without question understand Kyrios as
438
a divine title.

In addition, most New Testament translations use a capital 'L' in the word 'Lord' when
referring to both God and Jesus, which further alludes to Jesus' divinity. The New Testament
makes a distinction in the use of this word when referring to God, Jesus, or other persons.

For example, when referring to God, we read: "Jesus said to him, The first of all
439
commandments is, Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God is one Lord."

When referring to Jesus, 'Lord' is also used: "And the apostles said to the Lord, increase our
faith."

When referring to an ordinary mortal, we read: "The disciple is not above his master, nor the
440
servant above his lord."

In the Tanakh, 'Lord' with a capital 'L' is used only in connection with the Name of God. In
other instances, the lower-case 'l' is used. For example, in addressing king David we read,
"And Ornan said to David, Take it, and let my lord the king do that which is good in his
441
eyes."

A further example that alludes to Jesus' divinity is the New Testament rendition of Psalm
110:1. In the Hebrew the passage reads: ‫" נאם יהוה לאדני‬The Lord (Name of God) says to my
442
master, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool."

438
G.F. Moore, History of Religions, op. cit. p. 120–121.
439
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Mark 12:29.
440
The Holy Bible, Authorized King James Version, New Testament, Matthew 10:24, 1961, Zondervan
Publishing House, Michigan.
441
Tanach, op. cit. 1 Chronicles 21:23.
442
ibid. Psalms 110:1.

115
The New Testament translates this passage as: "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right
443
hand, until I put your enemies under your feet" translated from the Greek:

εἶπεν κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ

eipen kurios tō kuriō

444
Said Lord - Lord

Again we see no distinction between 'Lord' (the Name of God) and 'master'. In both instances
the Greek translators have used kurios, denoting 'divinity'.

Possibly the most infamous New Testament passage that makes a declaration of Jesus'
divinity, whilst also blaming all Jews for his death, are the words spoken by Paul:

Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you
445
crucified, both Lord and Christ.

The Greek uses the term κύριον kurion for 'Lord' and χριστὸν christon for 'Christ'.

In Jesus the Jew: A Historians Reading of the Gospels, Geza Vermes writes:

It is because he (Jesus) is called 'lord' that Old Testament passages are applied to him
mentioning the Lord = God, and that subsequently a 'Christian' reading of the Bible
recognizes Jesus = God in all the Jesus = lord texts. In other words, although
originally the titled conveyed no identification of Jesus as God, it moved - even
independently of the peculiar atmosphere of the Hellenistic world with its many lords
446
and deities - unavoidably in that direction.

The phrase “lost in translation” is particularly true when translating Hebrew to Greek, or
translating Jewish thought into Hellenistic thought. In the mistranslation and misinterpretation
of just one word, in time Jesus’ identity was changed from ‘teacher’ to ‘deity’.

443
NIV, New Testament, op. cit. Matthew 22:44
444
Biblos, Septuagint, op. cit. Matthew 24:44, http://interlinearbible.org/matthew/22-44.htm, retrieved
30/08/2011.
445
NIV, New Testament, op. cit. Acts 2:36.
446
Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels, 1981, Fortress Press, Texas, p.
105.

116
 SON OF MAN

In the Gospels, some eighty times Jesus refers to himself as "son of man" – ost ic ben adam
in Hebrew – literally, human being. The Greek text uses the term υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου - uios
447
tou anthropou – also, son of a human.

In The Complete Gospels, Robert Miller writes:

The phrase “son of Adam” (man) is employed in three different senses in the
Gospels: to refer to the heavenly figure who is to come; to refer to one who is to
suffer, die and rise; to refer to human beings… The confusion is how this phrase is to
be understood owes to the fact that the Christian community tended to understand the
phrase messianically or apocalyptically. The original senses derived from the Hebrew
448
Bible were lost or suppressed.

When asked directly if he was the Messiah, the "Son of God", Jesus chose to call himself “son
of man.” We read in Matthew’s Gospel of the occasion of Jesus’ trial before the Sadducean
449
High Priest and Sanhedrin:

Then the high priest answered, saying to him, I adjure you by the living God, to tell
us if you are the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus said to him, You say that. But I say to
you that from henceforth you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of
450
power and coming upon the clouds of the sky.

In the Tanakh, the term “son of man” is used over one hundred times and always translated as
ben adam - ‘human being’, even when it has messianic implications. The prophet Daniel used
the term to describe his vision of the end of the Age:

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like a son of man ost ic came with the
clouds of heaven, and came to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before
him. And there he was given dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people,

447
Robert Young, Analytical Concordance to the Bible, 1976, William B. Eerdman’s Publishing
Company, Michigan.
448
Miller, op. cit. p. 457.
449
Epstein, op. cit. p. 106.
450
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Matthew 26:63-64.

117
 nations, and languages, should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
451
which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

Although the term “son of man” is used to describe a messianic figure, the same term is used
of Daniel himself: “...but he said to me, understand, O son of man ost ic, that the vision is
452
for the time of the end.”

The prophet Ezekiel is also addressed as “son of man”, but again, only in the context of
‘human being’: “And he said to me, son of man ost ic stand upon your feet, and I will speak
453
to you. When Ezekiel is referred to as ben adam, the term denotes a task: to embody the
454
suffering of his generation and to succeed where Israel failed. It is possible that Jesus
perceived himself as having a similar mission, thus using the term ben adam to denote a task,
rather than a title or identity.

There are passages in the New Testament when Jesus referred to an apocalyptic 'Son of Man’;
however it is only assumed that he was speaking of himself and his meaning is very
ambiguous.

Although Jesus may have used the term “son of man” to imply nothing more than a task,
Christian theology concludes that Jesus’ identity is defined by the formula: son of man =
messiah = son of God = God. Thus, in the Christian mind, Jesus was a human being who was
also God. The idea that God could be a man is in direct contradiction with Judaism and is
spelled out in the Tanakh: “God is not a man, that he should lie; nor the son of man (ben
455
adam), that he should repent.”

As previously mentioned, the main problem with understating many New Testament passages
is that those who interpreted and translated the manuscripts did so from a purely Greek,
Hellenistic mindset, believing that a ‘saviour’ must be divine. Jewish thought played little or
no part in translating the words of Jesus, as there were no Jews involved in the making of the
New Testament.

451
Tanach, op. cit. Daniel 7:13.
452
ibid. Daniel 8:17.
453
ibid. Ezekiel 2:1.
454
Rabbi Nosson Scherman and Rabbi Meir Zlotowitz, eds., Yechezkhel – Ezekiel: A New Translation
With A Commentary Anthologized From Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbic Sources, 1994, Mesorah
Publications, Ltd., New York, p. xxx, xxiv.
455
Tanach, op. cit. Numbers 23:18.

118
 SON OF GOD

In the Tanakh there is only one instance where the term 'son of God’ is used. In the book of
Genesis, the term b’nei ha-elohim – ohvktv hbc, literally meaning the “sons of the gods”, can
be found. The Artscroll Tanakh, which adheres to the commentator Rashi, translates b’nei ha-
elohim as “sons of the rulers”:

And it came to pass, when man began to increase upon the ground and daughters
were born to them, the sons of the rulers (b’nei ha-elohim – ohvktv hbc) saw that the
daughters of man were good and they took themselves wives from whomever they
chose…The Nefilim were on the earth in those days - and also afterward, when the
sons of the rulers would consort with the daughters of man, who would bear to
456
them.

The title ‘elohim’, although it can mean ‘gods’, also means mighty ones, judges or rulers. As
457
we read earlier, Moses was called elohim. Hence, according to Jewish commentary, the
only instance where “sons of God” is used in the Tanakh is in reference to a class of rulers or
judges in those days. There is no parallel to the Christian interpretation of a divine ‘son of
God’.

Geza Vermes writes:

It is a fact that Jesus is often called son of God in the New Testament. It is equally a
fact that even non-Christian readers of the Gospels influenced willy-nilly by church
dogma are liable to identify as a matter of course the title son of God with the notion
of divinity... The tendency, conscious or otherwise, is to inject into the first Christian
writings, and beyond them into a tradition sprung from Jewish soil, the most un-
Jewish doctrine of the Council of Nicea: "Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of
458
God... God of God... being of one substance with the Father."

In Judaism, all of Israel are God’s sons. We find this concept in the words of the prophet
459
Hosea: “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.” In this

456
Artscroll Tanach Series: Bereshit/Genesis - A New Translation with Commentary, Volume 1,
Genesis 6:1-3, Translation and commentary by Rabbi Meir Zlotowitz, 1977, Mesorah Publications,
Ltd., New York, p. 180-185.
457
ibid.
458
Vermes, op. cit. p. 192.
459
Tanach, op. cit. Hosea 11:1.

119
sense, ‘son of God’ simply describes the relationship between God and his people, Israel.
Israel are His sons; He is Avinu – our Father.

120
 CONCLUSION

This is the account of how a lie, perpetrated against the Jews some two thousand years ago,
became the catalyst for history’s longest and most irrational hatred – antisemitism. Although
the nature of the lie is apparent, it is widely accepted as truth and continues to be taught as
such by many learned scholars and theologians.

In essence, the lie claims that Jesus rejected his own people, the Jews, and started a new
religion - Christianity. This new religion supposedly replaced the 'old' and 'superseded'
Judaism and the Christians became the 'new people of God'. On this foundational belief of the
Christian church, set in stone some seventeen centuries ago, many more lies against the Jews
were perpetrated from century to century. The outcome was and is an irrational and
pathological hatred of Jews, which almost led to the annihilation of an entire people.

As I mentioned in the Preface of this thesis, when I first began my research into the origins of
antisemitism I was a practicing Christian. I was raised a Roman Catholic and as an adult I
became involved in an Evangelical denomination where I was ordained a Minister of
Religion.

It was during my studies for a Bachelor Degree, majoring in the Studies of Religions, that I
began to fully realize the implications of the Christian-Jewish schism. My studies in the
history of the Jewish people, particularly in their relation to the Church, raised many questions
that could not be rationally explained in Christian theology. Although I had never been
exposed to extreme antisemitism I began to see how anti-Jewish subtleties, imbedded deep
within Christian theology, had paved the way to the atrocities committed against the Jews. As
my interest in the history and survival of the Jewish people grew, I become involved with
members of the Jewish community, particularly Holocaust survivors. Inevitably I arrived at
the question: “Why the Jews?”

The short answer to this question, usually put forward in Christian theology, is that Jews
suffered and continue to suffer as a consequence for rejecting and killing Jesus. I found it
increasingly difficult to concur with this theology and over the next few years I eventually
concluded that there was no rational explanation for Christian antisemitism; rather, it was
purely an irrational response to the Jews, initiated by the early Church fathers in an attempt to
discredit Judaism. Thus began my journey out of Christianity.

These incidents and realizations are the reason for my interest in this subject; nevertheless, in
writing this thesis I have been conscious of a need to be as rational as possible without being
swayed by my own emotive conclusions. In order to come up with a rational examination of

121
how antisemitism began, it was necessary to undertake an archaeological journey of texts – to
use a metaphor - to the source of antisemitism and observe its development throughout
history. It was important that I thoroughly investigated the writings of the early Church
fathers and New Testament texts, scrutinizing terminologies, language and translations. The
most difficult aspect of this task was to produce a thesis, which, to the best of my ability,
emerged from a value neutral perspective, without Christian or Jewish scholastic biases. I
hope I have achieved this.

THE DEFINITION AND NATURE OF ANTISEMITISM

The term 'antisemitism' describes different but related forms of specifically 'anti-Jewish'
sentiment: religious, political, economic, social, racial and so on. In this thesis, the word
'antisemitism' is spelled as one word, in contrast to the hyphenated word 'Anti-Semitism',
which may suggest a negative view or approach toward all Semitic peoples - the descendants
of the Biblical Shem - including Arabs.

The German Journalist, Wilhelm Marr, first coined the term ‘antisemitism' in 1879 when he
founded the Antisemites' League - the first organization devoted exclusively to promoting
460
political antisemitism. The term was initially used as a way of distinguishing between the
'old' religious Jew-hatred and the 'modern' political and social opposition toward Jews.
Eventually it became a way of describing all forms of hostility toward Jews, past and present.

Antisemitism remains, to this day, a response to the Jewish people based on passion and
irrational thinking, not on fact. Because there is no rational answer to “Why the Jews?” the
question is soon forgotten. Nothing in history has been more forgotten than the evil brought
against the Jews, the memory being kept alive mostly by the Jews themselves.

Unlike ordinary hate and anger, ‘antisemitism’ (the specific targeting of Jews because they
are Jews), is unprovoked. Antisemitism is not the dislike of a particular Jew because of his
negative behaviour in society; antisemitism is the dislike of all Jews for no rational reason, as
Jean-Paul Sartre noted, “The Antisemite takes his stand from the start on the ground of
461
irrationalism.”

460
Moshe Zimmerman, Wilhelm Marr - the Patriarch of Antisemistism, 1986, Oxford University
Press, New York, p. 11, 112; Johnson, op. cit. p. 395. Robert Michael, Holy Hatred: Christianity,
Antisemistism and the Holocaust, 2006, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, p.140-141; Wistrich, op. cit.
p. 252-253.
461
Jean-Paul Sartre, Anti-Semite and Jew, 1948, Schocken Books, Inc., New York, p. 25.

122
Antisemitism is an infectious, psychological disease – an essentially Christian disease from
which Jews die. It is fundamentally Christian, because it began with the development of the
Church (and theologically continues to be perpetrated by Christendom) and then spread well
beyond Christianity.

JESUS THE JEW

462
Tradition tells us that Jesus was born around 4 B.C.E. in the Galilean village of Nazareth.
Nearly all we know about him comes from the New Testament Gospels. Other than what is
written there, very little information is available that proves he existed at all.

Based on the Gospel accounts it can be deduced that Jesus was a religious Jew of the
Pharisaic persuasion. There was nothing un-Jewish about his teaching – to bring the lost
sheep of Israel back to the Torah.

In the footsteps of the great Pharisaic sage, Hillel, Jesus undertook the task of preaching the
‘Kingdom of God’ - the observance of the Mosaic Law on a daily basis. His goal was not to
change or even weaken the Law, but to be an example to his people, the Jews: to be an
incarnation of the Torah, for the Torah to be in man, in his soul and in his deeds. For Jesus,
this was the message of the ‘Kingdom’ and the role of the Jew in this world. Although he
acknowledged that what was Caesar’s should be rendered to Caesar, his message of the
‘Kingdom’ was independent of Rome. What was important to Jesus was that the Jewish
people should render to God what belonged to God.

If in fact Jesus intended to begin a new religion, as Christianity claims, he would have set the
example himself by living a life devoid of Jewish practice. On the contrary: as I have
validated, Jesus went to the synagogue every Sabbath and kept the Jewish feasts and fasts. He
wore tzitzit on his garments and tefillin when he formally prayed. His teaching was based on
the Law and the Prophets and he lived as a Jew according to the laws and customs of the
Jewish people. Never did he initiate a new religion, nor did he assume the title of 'Messiah'.
These claims were made after his death, mostly by those who had never met him.

William Nicholls writes in Christian Antisemitism - A History of Hate:

The Jesus rediscovered by historians has turned out not to be the Christ portrayed in the
Christian myth. There is no sign of a new religion, or even of any interest in anything outside

462
Klausner, op. cit. p. 229.

123
the Jewish people and its destiny. Jesus was a faithful and observant Jew, according to the
463
halacha accepted in his day...

As mentioned earlier, Jesus’ teaching must be understood in the context of his apparent
overall purpose or perspective - the renewal of the people of Israel. For Jesus, this renewal
could only be achieved through a return to God and His Torah. His task, then, was to sharpen
and intensify the Law particularly for those ‘lost sheep’ who had drifted away from it.

Like many charismatic Jewish leaders, Jesus attracted a following that soon developed into a
minor sect of its own, known as Nazarenes or Ebionites. The term ‘Ebionite’, meaning ‘poor’
or ‘meek’ (from the Hebrew Evyonim), was taken from the words of Jesus in his Sermon on
464
the Mount: Blessed are the humble (or, according to the Aramaic, ‘poor in pride’) for yours
is the Kingdom of God. To these Evyonim Jesus gave instructions to go to the lost sheep of
465
the house of Israel, to heal the sick and everywhere preach that the Kingdom was at hand.

Even after his death his followers remained zealous for the Torah and observed all the
regulations of Jewish life. They did nothing to make themselves objectionable; the only
difference between the followers of Jesus and their mainstream counterparts was the belief
that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah.

Although on the whole Christians believe that Jesus was the founder of Christianity and that
his followers authored the New Testament, the former cannot be further from the truth and the
latter is questionable, simply for the reason that a great deal of the New Testament has nothing
in common with Judaism and Jewish thought. There is, however, some ‘Jewish’ content in the
Gospels that enables us to determine something about the person of Jesus.

If then the historical Jesus was not the god-man Christianity claims him to be, and if he
indeed was an observant Jew who never started a new religion called ‘Christianity’, there may
never have existed a Jew who fits the Christian description of ‘Jesus’ as we understand him
today.

463
William Nicholls, Christian Antisemitism: A History of Hate, 1995, Jason Aronson Inc., New
Jersey, p. 5, 11, 14, 38.
464
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Matthew 5:3, see Footnote: Aramaic, poor in pride, unassuming.
465
ibid. Matthew 10:5-7.

124
 PAUL AND THE GENTILES

The Ebionites and Nazarenes were mostly Jews by birth, initially, with few Gentile converts.
They remained within the framework of Judaism until Saul of Tarsus (a.k.a. Paul) joined the
466
movement and became known as the “ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.”

Paul’s focus was turned almost exclusively to the conversion of Gentiles. He offered them a
Judaism devoid of Jewish ceremony and ritual and eventually argued that Gentiles need not
convert to Judaism at all in order to join the Nazarene sect.

Paul’s new modus operandi met with disapproval from the Jewish followers of Jesus in
Jerusalem. James (Jesus’ brother), Peter and John summoned Paul to Jerusalem in order that
he should explain his position.

At the ensuing conference, agreement was reached that the Gentile members of the sect need
not observe the Torah in its entirety. This was not a revolutionary decision, since Judaism had
never insisted on full conversion to Judaism for Gentiles. Paul, however, made no distinction
between Jews and non-Jews in their role within the community, giving Gentiles equal status
within the movement without requiring full conversion to Judaism.

In the course of a few years the Gentile, Hellenistic adherents of the sect far outnumbered the
467
Jews not only in membership, but also in leadership. This strong Gentile presence
inevitably created a situation where the teachings of Paul were interpreted from a Hellenistic
mindset and thus, misinterpreted. Furthermore, Paul’s negative views toward the
‘unbelieving’ Jews were exploited and eventually used as the basis for anti-Jewish
propaganda.

Paul’s mission to the Gentiles and his almost unrestricted efforts in accommodating them
within the Jewish community, innovated a split between the original Jewish disciples of Jesus
and the non-Jewish members of the sect. Due to Paul’s compromises for the sake of the
Gentiles, the Ebionites denounced him as an apostate from the Law and on him was placed
the blame for the movement’s divergence from Judaism.

As the ‘Jesus movement’ became more and more infiltrated with Hellenistic concepts, the
Nazarenes and Ebionites became regarded as two groups divided on two main issues: the
Ebionites rejected the authority of Paul, the doctrine of the Virgin Birth and the divinity of

466
ibid. Acts 24:5.
467
James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of
Antisemitism, 1969, Atheneum, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, p. 96.

125
Jesus; the Nazarenes, on the other hand, cautiously accepted Paul and believed in some aspect
of the divinity of Jesus.

THE EARLY CHRISTIAN FATHERS AND THE JEWS

It was at Antioch, in the late first century, that the breakaway non-Jewish movement, now
referred to as ‘Christianity’ by Ignatius of Antioch, sought to illegitimize and discredit
Judaism theologically by declaring it an apostate and superseded religion.

In order to justify its own illegitimacy, the early Church declared that the blessings promised
to Israel in the Hebrew Scriptures were now the exclusive property of the Christians. The
Church fathers concluded that the Jews had been a long lasting disappointment to God and in
all of Israel’s history there was not a single virtuous action. Moreover, the Church accused the
Jews of committing the most heinous of all crimes - killing the Messiah, the Son of God. In
doing so, the Jews forfeited their role as the ‘chosen people’, and as a consequence, God
started a new religion, Christianity, and Judaism had become obsolete. This theology remains
a foundational doctrine of Christianity to this day.

Despite its theology of ‘replacement’, the nascent Church was confronted with the terrible
fact that the Jews, merely by continuing to be Jews, threatened its very legitimacy. If indeed
the Jews and Judaism had been replaced, then the Jews had lost their right to exist; and if
Christianity was indeed the replacement of Judaism, then how could there be a ‘Judaism’ at
all? If Judaism remained valid, it would render Christianity invalid, as Ignatius had declared
468
two centuries earlier: “For where there is Christianity there cannot be Judaism.”

The Jews, however, did exist and so the Church needed to provide a reason to explain their
existence. The Church fathers dealt with this challenge in a most logical manner: the Church
concluded that the reason the Jews continued to survive was to prove the truth of Christianity.
If the Jews continued to exist as an exiled, homeless people, it was proof that God had
abandoned them. They were to be around always, to be persecuted and wanderers on the earth
without a home as proof of God’s wrath upon them for their crime of killing the ‘Son of
God’. The Jews, therefore, were forever, everywhere, responsible for his death collectively,
because they were a wicked nation. Furthermore, the calamities that befell Jewry - the
destruction of the Temple and the dispersion - were seen as just desserts for killing Jesus.

For the next two hundred years the Christian movement continued to grow and develop its
own doctrine concerning Jesus, furthering itself away from any resemblance to Judaism. The

468
The Epistle Of Ignatius To The Magnesians, cited in Stanforth, op. cit. p. 73.

126
once Jewish movement had become a Gentile religion called ‘Christianity’. Its adherents did
not know Jewish tradition or realize how completely Jewish Jesus’ teaching was. They forgot
that all his early followers were Jews and associated “the Jews” only with the responsibility
for the crime of supposedly killing the Messiah. The guilt of Jesus’ death was to be carried by
all Jews everywhere, forever.

CONSTANTINE – THE ROMAN EMPIRE EMBRACES CHRISTIANITY

No century was more fateful for the Jews than the fourth. The events that took place were to
shape humanity for the following sixteen hundred years.

In the Edict of Milan issued in 313 C.E., signed in the Roman Emperor Constantine’s name,
Christianity was recognized as a legal religion in the Roman Empire. Then, when Constantine
personally embraced the saviour of the Christians, Christianity became the official religion of
the Empire and the Church emerged as an international political power.

In 325 C.E., Constantine convened a council at Nicea with Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, at
his side. It was at this council that the official divorce between Christianity and Judaism took
place.

According to Eusebius, some two hundred and fifty bishops gathered at this Council to
discuss and establish the matter of the divinity of Jesus and the date of the celebration of
Easter and its essential separation from the Jewish Passover. The Council also formulated the
Nicene Creed, which contains the fundamental statements essential to the Christian faith: the
fundamental nature of God, being three distinct persons and yet one, the true divinity of Jesus
and the nature and role of the Church. At the council, Eusebius expressed negative attitudes
toward the Jews, which were shared by many of his Christian contemporaries. Thus, it was
decided at the Council of Nicea that Christianity ought not to have anything in common with
the Jews.

THE CHRISTIAN JESUS

Religious diversity and tolerance was normal in the Greco-Roman world. At the time of
Constantine, the Mithraic religion of the Deus Sol Invictus, which was very syncretistic, was
the imperial cult of the Roman Empire and incorporated elements of most of the various
religions of the Empire of the time.

Although Christians had previously been persecuted by Rome, Constantine decreed that they
were now free to observe their religion freely and openly, without molestation. But because

127
Constantine wanted Christianity to dominate the Empire, whilst at the same time maintaining
peace amongst the different religions, it was imperative that a merger of all religions be
established. The general public, however, would never accept a new saviour who was an
ordinary mortal, much less a Jew. Thus, in order to become a universal creed, Christianity had
to rid itself of Jewish peculiarities, including the Jewish identity of Jesus.

Within a few decades from the Church’s inception, the image of Jesus was successfully
transformed from ‘religious Jew’ to ‘divine saviour’, bigger and better than the existing
deities of the Greco-Roman world. Jesus the Jew was elevated to the position of literal ‘Son
of God’ through his apparent ‘virgin birth’, having no earthly father, but conceived by divine
intervention. Like the Egyptian Horus, Babylonian Tammuz and other deities of the Greco-
Roman world, Jesus was God incarnate - the revelation of the divine in human form.

With the official deification of Jesus, the establishment of Easter, of Sunday as ‘the Lord’s
Day’ and the Saturnalian 25th December as the birth date of Jesus, it was without much ado
that Jesus merged with Deus Sol Invictus. This religious syncretism formed the basis of the
Church in the Roman Empire.

The Jews, however, were not interested in any religious merger. According to the Torah, the
Jewish nation was God’s chosen people who were to remain set apart. This, of course, was a
dilemma for the Church, which imagined itself as the new ‘People of God’.

THE CHRISTIAN JESUS AND THE JEWS

As Christianity emerged as an independent movement from Judaism, the issue of the divinity
of Jesus became the main point of contention between Jewish Ebionites and Gentile
Christians. The Ebionites had no knowledge of such a thing as the virgin birth of Jesus, nor
did their Hebrew Gospel of Matthew include such an account.

Despite their persistence, Christian efforts to convince the Jews of the deity of Jesus were
unsuccessful, as the Jews did not accept the Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Whilst the Jews used the Hebrew texts to show the error of Christian doctrine, the Christian
teachers, who did not know Hebrew, used the Septuagint version, itself a poor translation,
469
which they interpreted very freely. They also relied, in support of their dogma, upon
passages interpolated in the Septuagint by falsifiers for the good of the Christian cause, so
that the Septuagint, a bad translation as it was, was used to support Christian theology.

469
Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue, op. cit. p. 108-109.

128
The deification of Jesus became the scourge of the Jews for centuries to come. Christianity’s
belief that Jesus was born of a virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit, thus becoming the
incarnation of God, is the basis for the Christian accusation that the Jews killed God.

Although writers, such as Paul, claimed that the Jews killed Jesus, the charge of 'deicide' was
first introduced early in the second century C.E., by the fathers of the Church. It was Melito,
Bishop of Sardis and apologist of the Church, who was the first Christian writer to directly
accuse the Jews of deicide. In his text Peri Pascha, he wrote:

The one who suspended the earth is suspended; The one who fixed the heavens is
fixed firm; The one who fastened the universe is fastened to the tree; The master is
470
insulted; God is murdered; The King of Israel is killed by an Israelite right hand.

Throughout the centuries, the collective and everlasting guilt of the Jews as murderers of God
was read in the Gospels and reaffirmed from the pulpit. Many Christian authors underlined
this accusation in medieval Passion plays, which often emphasized the stigma in the most
drastic and inflammatory manner. Christian preachers roused communities to a pitch of
fanaticism each Easter, on the anniversary of the ‘great crime’, resulting in the death of
hundreds of thousands of Jews.

FROM LITTLE SEEDS BIG TREES GROW… AND BEAR FRUIT

During the first four centuries of the Common Era, the foundations of antisemitism were laid.
With the de-Judaization and glorification of Jesus of Nazareth, the tragedy of the Jewish
people was to be intensified for centuries to come, ironically, in his name. Despite the fact
that Jesus never professed to be God, the Jews were declared superseded and forever to be
punished for the crime of killing God. Despite there being no evidence in the Gospels that
Jesus ever presented himself officially and formally as Israel’s Messiah, the Jews were
rejected and despised by Christendom for the crime of rejecting the Messiah; and although
Jesus was executed by the Romans, all Jews for all time have been blamed for his death. In
effect, the Jewish people suffered for almost two millennia for committing an imaginary
crime against Jesus, the alleged founder of ‘Christianity’, a religion that did not come into
existence until long after his death.

Although in antiquity Jews were not always popular, pre-Christian antisemitism was not
religiously motivated. As Walter Laquer writes in The Changing Face of Antisemitism:

470
Melito of Sardis, Homily of the Pascha: Gentiles Are Witnesses of Israel's Crime, 94-98, in Kerux,
The Journal of Northwest Theological Seminary,
http://www.kerux.com/documents/KeruxV4N1A1.asp, retrieved 03/09/2009.

129
 471
“Pagan antisemitism was essentially cultural rather than theological.” With the advent of
Christianity, however, the Church, in order to validate itself as the new, true Israel of God,
introduced to the world a concept that had never before been present in humanity: theological
slander against another religious group. The purpose of this slander, which was given the
greatest possible significance and divine authentication, was firstly to invalidate Judaism as a
religion and then to attempt to drive Jews either into Christianity or into a place of non-
identity, living as outcasts until they realized the immensity of their crime and embraced the
true faith, Christianity.

The Jew, as he is encountered in the pages of fourth century Christian writers, was not a
human being at all, nor was he sub-human but rather a creature of super-human cunning
capable of committing the super-human crime of killing God. It was therefore a mitzvah – a
divine obligation – to hate the Jews for they were the enemies of God and not to be tolerated.

The fathers of the Church issued warnings against the observance of Jewish practices and the
evil nature of the Jews. In his letter to Augustine, Jerome wrote:

Whoever observes the ceremonies of the Jews, whether he was originally Jew or
Gentile, is on his way to the pit of perdition, not only if he is sincerely observing
472
them, but also if he is observing them with dissimulation.

Christians were also warned to stay away from synagogues, under threat of suspension from
the community. The Church decreed: “If any one, either of the clergy or laity, enters into a
473
synagogue of the Jews or heretics to pray, let him be deprived and suspended.”

This vitriolic language used by the Church against the Jews set in stone a negative, hate-filled
image of the Jews and Judaism. The Church knew the basic premise that if a lie were repeated
often enough, even those who knew it was a lie would regard it as truth. It became
‘brainwashing’ at its best, as many people who are suspicious of Jews have never even met a
Jew.

471
Walter Lacquer, The Changing Face of Antisemitism, 2006, Oxford University Press Inc., New
York, p. 2-3. Wistrich, op. cit. p. 13.
472
From Jerome to Augustine (A.D. 404), Letter 112, Chapter 4:14, translated by J.G. Cunningham,
from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 1, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102075.htm, retrieved 17/09/2009.
473
Apostolic Constitutions (Book VIII): All the Apostles Urge the Observance of the Order of the
Church - The Ecclesiastical Canons of the Same Holy Apostles, translated by James Donaldson, from
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 7, The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07158.htm, retrieved 17/09/2009.

130
Friedrich Nietzche addresses the matter of truth in On Truth and Lie In An Extra-Moral
Sense. He wrote:

What is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms - in

short, a sum of human relations which have been enhanced, transposed and
embellished poetically and rhetorically and which after long use seem firm, canonical
and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this
is what they are …We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as
yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist: to be
truthful means using the customary metaphors – in moral terms: the obligation to lie
474
according to a fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all.

Over a period of centuries, the Church created a Jewish stereotype that evolved and shifted
depending on what type of scapegoat Christian society needed the Jew to be. It was this
stereotyping of the Jew that would determine Christian-Jewish relations. The Jew, therefore,
was always guilty of what he was accused. To quote Sartre, “We must ask the Christian not,
475
“What is a Jew,” but “What have you made of the Jews?”

There was always a ‘good reason’ (now no longer exclusive to Christianity) why the Jews
could not be tolerated. The Jews were hated because they possessed too much wealth and
power. The Jews were hated because they arrogantly claimed that they were God’s chosen
people. The Jews were different from everyone else and therefore could not be trusted. The
Jews were an inferior race and should be exterminated. The Jews considered themselves a
superior race and should be exterminated. The Jew was never accepted as a ‘person’, but
always and everywhere as the Jew, and the Jew was unassimilable. The Jew became a
necessity on which to blame all the misfortunes of society, thus all the evils in the world
became localized in the Jew. As Sartre states: “If the Jew did not exist, the anti-Semite would
476
invent him.”

This negative portrayal of the Jewish people caused many Christians to become silent
bystanders whilst their coreligionists persecuted Jews, refusing to interfere with God’s
punishment of them. Christian animosity toward the Jews was justified as congregations were
reminded of the infamous words supposedly declared by the Jews prior to the crucifixion of

474
Nietzsche, Friedrich, On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense, in The Portable Nietzsche,
translated and edited by Walter Kaufmann, 1954, The Viking Press, New York, p. 46-7.
475
Sartre, op. cit. p. 69.
476
ibid. p. 13.

131
 477
Jesus: “Let his blood be upon us and our children” - a line that appeared with expeditious
regularity in Christian Passion Plays. The idea that Jews should suffer for their supposed
crime of ‘killing God’ laid the very foundations for the hatred and indifference that caused the
death of Jewish millions during the Holocaust. Thousands of ordinary ‘good Christians’
became willing executioners; tens of thousands more became silent witnesses, including the
one great voice of power and conscience, the Church.

Although in truth Christianity has not accomplished its goal of replacing Judaism and the
Jewish people (for indeed they have continued to exist and flourish as a people, a religion and
a nation), in perpetuating its absurd lies about the Jews, the Church has, in reality,
successfully indoctrinated millions of Christians throughout history, resulting in
unprecedented crimes against humanity. Antisemitism has become the scourge of the human
race.

In the words of the Holocaust scholar, Raul Hilberg, “there is a straight line from ‘You have
no right to live among us as Jews’ to ‘You have no right to live among us’ to ‘You have no
478
right to live.’ This “straight line” began with the anti-Jewish seeds sown in early Christian
theology and culminated in the yielding of its most bitter fruit in the distant event of the
Holocaust.

Beginning with the Christianization of the Roman Empire in east and west throughout the
fourth and fifth centuries, anti-Jewish legislation reduced Judaism to a position of permanent,
legal inferiority. The Church addressed its ‘Jewish Problem’ by developing a system of
humiliating and degrading the Jews in both human and legal terms. Jews were forbidden to
hold office or receive honours; it was forbidden to erect a synagogue and conversion to
Judaism was punishable by death. Although Jews were permitted to live among Christians,
they had no right to live among them as Jews.

As Europe entered the Middle Ages the imagination of gullible Christians was seized by a
succession of slanders against the Jews. The Jewish community was charged with ritual
murder of Christian children, the desecration of communion hosts, and when Europe faced
the terrifying crisis of the Black Death the Jews were accused of deliberately poisoning the
wells, thus causing the plague. Jews were forced to live in ghettos, further isolating them from
the non-Jewish community. When Jews refused to convert en masse to Christianity,
Christians found it intolerable to live side by side with the Jews, resulting in their expulsion

477
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Matthew 27:25.
478
Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, Volume 1, 1985, Holmes & Meier, New
York, p. 8 –9.

132
from most counties in Christian Europe. Despite this leading to a tension between popular
anti-Jewish sentiment and the financial and professional operation of the state, Christianity
declared to the Jews, “You have no right to live among us.”

As the centuries passed, hatred for the Jews did not diminish; rather it intensified to
unimaginable proportions. The image of the Jew progressively evolved from that of ‘apostate’
to the total representation of evil - the very incarnation of the devil himself. For almost two
thousand years, with no significant break, the Jewish people became the pariahs and
scapegoats of society - isolated, humiliated, expelled, tortured and murdered.

By the twentieth century the disease called ‘antisemitism’, transmitted from generation to
generation, became an inexplicable phenomenon. Europe was so entrenched in hatred and
suspicion of the Jews that when Adolf Hitler whipped the masses into an anti-Jewish frenzy,
only a small minority were outraged. The silence and indifference of the world enabled the
Nazi oppressors to implement their final solution to the ‘Jewish Problem’ - “You have no
right to live.”

Despite millennia of Jewish suffering at the hands of the Church, Catholic and Protestant,
Christians hold fast to their belief that the suffering of the Jews is the consequence of their
rejection of Jesus. To this day Christians consider the Jews a spiritually unfulfilled people
observing useless rituals until they come to the realization of their great error.

Abraham Biderman, Holocaust survivor and author of the profoundly disturbing book, The
World of My Past, was the first to confront me with the words, “Antisemitism is a Christian
disease from which Jews die.” Although initially taken back by this extremely challenging
statement, I knew his words were true. As a Christian at that time, suspicion toward Jewish
people was not unfamiliar to me. From an early age I had heard the words, “the Jews killed
Jesus” and “his blood is upon them.” I was familiar with the cruel Jewish jokes and believed
without question that the Jews were curiously ‘different’ from everyone else. Never for a
moment did I think that my distorted perception of the Jews played a part in perpetrating the
lie against them.

“A Christian disease from which Jews die…” Such was the power of these words that I could
not ignore the antisemitism that infected my own soul. For the next few years I made it my
personal mission to research the ‘Jewish/Christian problem', eventually and inevitably coming
to the realization of the enormity of the lie that caused the unparalleled oppression and almost
annihilation of a specific group of people – the Jews. I then knew it was time for me to move
on.

133
As I sat before the Orthodox Beth Din, the usual question was asked of me, as is asked of all
who wish to convert to Judaism: why do you want to become Jewish? After briefly explaining
my journey, I concluded by saying, “Rabbi, where else is there for me to go?”

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

It is not important whether my research on antisemitism will cause a huge paradigm shift in
all of Christendom’s opinion of the Jews. What is important, however, is that it will enable
some individuals to do so.

The Talmud makes the following statement:

Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And

479
whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world.

For this reason, addressing the issue of antisemitism cannot be exhausted, as we cannot
underestimate the power of just one individual and who that individual may be or may
become. Thus “saving a life” can indeed “save an entire world.”

Because of the importance of this subject, I consider its continual academic consideration and
review a vital necessity. Many Christians are partially or totally ignorant of what happened to
Jews in history and of the culpable involvement of the Church. They are ignorant because the
antisemitic record does not appear in Christian history books. Given the number of Christians
who have written on the history of Christianity, the absence of text addressing antisemitism is
as illogical as antisemitism itself. In the countless commentaries written on the New
Testament, theological matters and concerns are discussed without addressing anti-Judaism. It
is as though if ignored, it will go away. On the contrary, because it is ignored it does not go
away.

Yet, acknowledging and addressing ‘antisemitism’ is not, on its own, the solution to the
problem. What needs be addressed on an academic level is the matter of incorrectly
interpreted New Testament passages that have been used to vilify the Jews, such as the
480
infamous statement: “Let his blood be upon us and our children.” The popular New
Testament commentary by the 17th century Bible commentator, Matthew Henry, explains the
passage, saying:

479
Talmud, op. cit. Sanhedrin 37a.
480
Peshitta, New Testament, op. cit. Matthew 27:25.

134
 How righteous God was, in his retribution according to this imprecation; they said,
His blood be on us, and on our children; and God said Amen to it, so shall thy doom
be; as they loved cursing, so it came upon them. The wretched remains of that
abandoned people feel it to this day; from the time they imprecated this blood upon
them, they were followed with one judgment after another, till they were quite laid
481
waste, and made an astonishment, a hissing, and a byword…

Such virulent, anti-Judaic interpretations of New Testament passages have not been
sufficiently addressed and this is why the problem persists. Matthew Henry's commentaries
continue to be published in the 21st century.

An example of recent anti-Jewish New Testament exegesis is found in the following

commentary on 'the Sabbath' in Pastor Kevin J. Connors’s book, The Feasts of Israel. He
writes:

A study of the Gospels shows the hypocritical inconsistency of Christ’s times as to

the keeping of the Sabbath… The Jews in Christ’s time became so wrapped up in the
day of rest with its distortions that they crucified the One who would give them rest.
They crucified him while at the same time professing to keep the Feast and the
482
Sabbath days.

Connor comments also on the festival of Passover, stating:

Hence, no Jewish Passover today is acceptable to God, for Christ is God’s Passover
483
Lamb and the only hope for the Jew is in the reality which is in Christ.

These are but a few examples of Christian anti-Jewish indoctrination to which many millions
of Christians have become accustomed over the past two millennia, and continue to do so.
The amount of anti-Jewish writings that have emerged from the Christian pen is so vast, that
there is no reason to believe that Christians would think otherwise about the Jewish people.
The rumour against the Jews is no longer just a rumour.

Although many Christians are quick to claim they are not antisemitic, the principal source of
Christian antisemitism is Christian theological anti-Judaism. For as long as Christian theology

481
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible, Complete and Unabridged, Volume 5, Matthew
27:25, 1991, Hendrickson Publishers Inc., Massachusetts.
482
Kevin J. Connor, The Feasts of Israel, 1980, Bible Temple – Connor Publications, Portland,
Oregon, p103-104.
483
ibid, p. 98.

135
and exegesis is anti-Judaic, Christian antisemitism will persist. One would think that as the
Church became more ‘tolerant’ and ‘enlightened’ in the modern era, the negative image of the
Jew would be rectified. On the contrary, the Church has been more tolerant of paedophiles
than of Jews.

To my knowledge, there are currently no commentaries on the New Testament which take
into consideration falsifications and interpolations made by the early Church fathers. Almost
everything ever written is based on the assumption that Eusebius’ account of Church history
is correct and that the New Testament has not been manipulated in any way. Even the more
recent commentaries that attempt to bring out the ‘Jewishness’ of the New Testament fail to
consider that there may be mistranslations and interpolations in the text, particularly in
passages that imply the divinity of Jesus. Neither do they address the many verses in the New
Testament that are anti-Jewish, especially those that accuse the Jews of being collectively
responsible for the death of Jesus.

The root of antisemitism is falsification; the solution, therefore, is validation. Although

antisemitism is essentially a matter of conscience and of the heart, antisemitism cannot be
properly challenged without a change of thinking and correct thinking comes with
knowledge.

Concerning the Jews, other than what we have received from the Jews themselves, we have,
on the most part, heard only of the obligation imposed by the fundamental beliefs of
Christendom. To be truthful, and knowledgeable, means to discard the customary metaphors
and the obligation to lie according to a fixed convention. Hence, it is essential that knowledge
be transmitted, particularly at an academic level, for, as history has clearly demonstrated, lack
484
of knowledge causes people to perish.

484
Paraphrased from the Tanakh, the prophet Hosea, Chapter 4:6.

136
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

Angus, S: The Mystery Religions and Christianity: A Study in the Religious Background of
Early Christianity, Albemarle Street, W. London, John Murray, 1925.

Attridge, Harold W. and Hata, Gohei: Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism, Michigan, Wayne
State University Press, 1992.

Berkowitz, Eliezer: Faith After the Holocaust, New York, Ktav Publishing House, 1973.

Berman, Scot A: Learning Talmud: A Guide to Talmud Terminology and Rashi Commentary,
Jerusalem, Jason Aronson Inc., 1997.

Biderman, Abraham H: The World of My Past, Melbourne, AHB Publications, 1995.

Bivin, David and Blizzard, Roy: Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, PA, USA,
Destiny Image Publishers, 1994.

Chafetz Chaim: The Concise Book of the Mitzvoth, Jerusalem, Feldheim Publishers, 1990.

Chill, Abraham: The Mitzvot: The Commandments and Their Rationale, Jerusalem, Keter
Books, 1974.

Chilton, Bruce and Neusner, Jacob: Judaism in the New Testament: Practice and Beliefs,
New York, Routledge, 1995.

Cohn-Sherbok, Dan: The Crucified Jew, London, Harper Collins Publishers, 1992.

Connor, Kevin J., The Feasts of Israel, Portland, Oregon, Bible Temple – Connor
Publications, 1980.

Craigie Robertson: James, History of the Christian Church: From the Apostolic Age to the
Reformation, London, John Murray, 1866.

Crossan, John Dominic: The Historical Jesus: The Life Of A Mediterranean Jewish Peasant,
New York, HarperSanFransisco, A Division of HarperCollins Publishers, 1991.

Davis, Frederick B: The Jew and Deicide: The Origin of an Archetype, Maryland, University
Press of America, Inc., 2003.

137
Dimont, Max: Jews, God and History, Victoria, Penguin Books, 1962.

Dixon-Kennedy, Mike: Encyclopedia of Greco-Roman Mythology, California, ABC-CLIO

Inc., 1998.

Eckstein, Yechiel: What You Should Know About Jews and Judaism, Texas, World Books,
1951.

Epstein, Isidore: Judaism: A Historical Presentation, London, Penguin Books, 1990.

Euripides: Bacchae, Ontario, Canada, Dover Publications, 1997.

Eusebius: The History of the Church, From Christ to Constantine, Victoria, Penguin Books,
1989.

Fanning, Steven: Mystics of the Christian Tradition, New York, Routledge, 2001.

Feuer, Abraham Avrohom Chaim: Shemoneh Esrei, New York, Mesorah Publications, 1999.

Fichtenau, Heinrich, and Kaiser, Denise A: Heretics and Scholars in the High Middle Ages:
1000-1200, USA, Penn State Press, 2000.

Flannery, Edward H: The Anguish of the Jews, Twenty-Three Centuries of Antisemitism, New
York, Paulist Press, 1985.

Flavius Josephus: The Jewish War, London, Harvard University Press, 1957.

Frazer, James George: The Golden Bough, New York, Oxford University Press, 1998.

Gidal, Nachum T: Jews in Germany: From Roman Times to the Weimar Republic, Koln,
Konemann Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, 1988.

Glatzer, Nahum N: The Judaic Tradition, New Jersey, Behrman House, Inc., 1969.

Goldberg, David J. and Rayner, John D: The Jewish People: Their History and Their
Religion, Victoria, Penguin Books, 1989.

Goldhagen, Daniel, Jonah: Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary German’s and the
Holocaust, London, Little, Brown and Company, 1996.

Golding, Louis: The Jewish Problem, London, Hazell, Watson & Vinet, Ltd., 1938.

Goodman, Paul: A History of the Jews, Bedford Street, London, 1911.

138
Graves, Robert: The Greek Myths, London, Penguin, 1955.

Grayzel, Solomon: A History of the Jews, Philadelphia, The Jewish Society of America, 1963.

Henry, Matthew, Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible, Complete and
Unabridged, Volume 5, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1991.

Higginbotham Joyce and Higginbotham River: ChristoPaganism: An Inclusive Path, MN,

USA, Llewellyn Publishing, 2009.

Hilberg, Raul: The Destruction of the European Jews, Volume 1, New York, Holmes and
Meier, 1985.

Hinnells, R: A Handbook of Living Religions, Victoria, Penguin Books, 1991.

Hislop, Alexander: The Two Babylons, New Jersey, Loizeaux Brothers, 1959.

Jeffers, James S: The Greco-Roman World Of The New Testament Era: Exploring The
Background Of Early Christianity, Madison, InterVarsity Press, 1999.

Johnson, Paul: A History of the Jews, New York, Harper and Row Publishers Inc., 1988.

Josephus, Flavius: Josephus, Complete Works, Michigan, Kregal Publications, 1982.

Josephus, Flavius: The Jewish Antiquities, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press,

Cambridge, 1957.

Jospe, Rachael and Wagner: Great Schisms in Jewish History, New York, Ktav Publishing
House, Inc., 1984.

Kaplan, Aryeh: Handbook of Jewish Thought, Volume 2, New York, Moznaim Publishing
Corporation, 1992.

Klausner, Joseph: Jesus: His Life, Times and Teaching, New York, Bloch Publishing
Company, 1989.

Klenicki, L. and Wigoder, G: A Dictionary of the Jewish-Christian Dialogue, New Jersey,

Paulist Press, 1995.

Lacquer, W: The Changing Face of Antisemitism, 2006, New York, Oxford University Press
Inc., 2006.

139
Lamm, Maurice: The Jewish Way in Death and Mourning, New York, Jonathan David
Publishers, 1969.

Lamsa, George, M: Idioms in the Bible Explained and A Key to the Original Gospels, New
York, NY, HarperCollins Publishers, 1985.

Lodahl, Michael E: Shekhina: Divine Presence in Jewish and Christian Religion, New Jersey,
Paulist Press, 1992.

Maier, Paul L: Eusebius - The Church History: A New Translation With Commentary, Grand
Rapids MI, Kregal Publications Inc, 1999.

Martin A. Larson: The Religion of the Occident: The Origin and Development of the Essene-
Christian Faith, New Jersey, Littlefield, Adams & Co., 1961.

McKenzie, John, L: Dictionary of the Bible, Melbourne, Geoffrey Chapman, 1968.

Melia, R: The Woman Blessed By All Generations, London, Longmans, Green and Co., 1868.

Meyer, Marvin: The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook of Sacred Texts, Pennsylvania,

University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999.

Michael, Robert: Holy Hatred - Christianity, Antisemitism and the Holocaust, New York,
Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.

Miller, Robert J: The Complete Gospels, California, Polebridge Press, 1994.

Moore, G. F: History of Religions, Volume 2: Judaism Christianity Mohammedanism,

Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark, 1965.

Moore, G. F: Judaism: In the First Centuries of the Christian Era - The Age of the Tannaim,
Volume 1, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers Inc. 1960.

Moore, Philip S., Garvin Joseph N. and Corbett, James A: Summa Contra Haereticos,
Ascribed to Praepositinus Of Cremona, New York, Vail-Ballou Press, Inc., 1958.

Murdock, D.M: Christ in Egypt: the Jesus-Horus Connection, Seattle, Stellar House
Publishing, 2009.

Nabarz, Payam: The Mysteries of Mithras: The Pagan Belief That Shaped The Christian
World, Vermont, Inner Traditions, 2005.

140
Nicholls, William: Christian Antisemitism: A History of Hate, New Jersey, Jason Aronson
Inc., 1995.

Parkes, James: A History of the Jewish People, Victoria, Penguin Books, 1964.

Parkes, James: The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of
Antisemitism, New York, Atheneum, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1969.

Patzia, Arthur, G: The Making of the New Testament: Origin, Collection and Canon,
Leicester, Apollos (an imprint of Inter-Varsity Press), 1995.

Poliakov, Leon: The History of Anti-Semitism, New York, Shocken Books, 1974.

Prager, Dennis: Why the Jews, New York, Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1985.

Rosenberg, Stuart, E: To Understand Jews, New York, Pyramid Books, 1970.

Rosner, Fred: Medicine in the Bible and the Talmud: Selections from Classical Sources, New
Jersey, Ktav Publishing House, 1977.

Sachar, A.L: A History of the Jews, USA, Alfred. A Knopf, 1964.

Sartre, Jean-Paul: Anti-Semite and Jew, New York, Grove Press, Inc., 1962.

Schiffman, Lawrence H: Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls – Their True Meaning for Judaism
and Christianity, New York, Doubleday, 1994.

Schiffman, Lawrence H: Texts and Traditions: A Source Reader for the Study of Second
Temple Judaism, New Jersey, Ktav Publishing House Inc., 1998.

Stanforth, Maxwell: Early Christian Writings, Victoria, Penguin Books, 1987.

Stemberger, Gunter: Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes,

Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1995.

Taylor, Charles, V: Bibles With Holes, Queensland, Assembly Kingswood Press, 1988.

The Complete Artscroll Siddur, Sefard, New York, Mesorah Publications, Ltd., 1999.

The Holy Bible, Douay Version, Translated from the Latin Vulgate, New York, John Murphy
Company, 1899.

The Holy Bible, The New Revised Standard Version, Iowa, World Bible Publishers, 1989.

141
The New International Version Study Bible, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House, 1995.

The Peshitta: The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts, Philadelphia, A.J. Holden
Company, 1957.

The Tanach, Stone Edition, New York, Mesorah Publications, Ltd. 1996.

Trachtenberg, Joshua: The Devil and the Jews: The Medieval Conception of the Jew and Its
Relation to modern Anti-Semitism, Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society, 1983.

Tranter, Gerald: The Mystery Teachings and Christianity, Illinois, The Theosophical
Publishing House, 1969.

Tripolitis, Antonia: Religions of the Hellenistic-Roman Age, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans

Publishing Company, 2001.

Turcan, Robert: The Cults of the Roman Empire, UK, Blackwell Publishers, 1997.

Turcan, Robert: The Gods of Ancient Rome, New York, Routledge, 2000.

Ulansey, David: The Origins Of The Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology And Salvation In The
Ancient World, New York, Oxford University Press Inc., 1989.

Vermes, Geza: Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels, Texas, Fortress Press,
1961.

Vos, Howard: Introduction to Church History, Tennessee, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1994.

Walker, Williston: A History of the Christian Church, Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1963.

Wein, Berel: Echoes of Glory: The Story of the Jews in the Classical Era 350 B.C.E. – 750
C.E., New York, Shaar Press, Mesorah Publication, 1995.

Wistrich, Robert: Antisemitism – the Longest Hatred, New York, Pantheon Books, (Random
House), 1991.

Yechezkhel – Ezekiel: A New Translation With A Commentary Anthologized From Talmudic,

Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources, New York, Mesorah Publications, Ltd., 1994.

Young, Robert: Analytical Concordance to the Bible, Michigan, William B. Eerdman’s

Publishing Company, 1976.

142
Zlotowitz, Meir: Artscroll Tanach Series: Bereshit/Genesis - A New Translation with
Commentary, Volume 1, New York, Mesorah Publications, Ltd., 1977.

Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English, New International Version,
Michigan, The Zondervan Corporation, 1986.

ARTICLES

Angel, Marc: ‘Pharisees - The Jewish View’, in A Dictionary of the Jewish-Christian

Dialogue (L. Klenicki and G. Wigoder eds.), New Jersey, Paulist Press, 1995, pp. 151-152.

Arnold, J.P: ‘The Relationship of Paul to Jesus’, in Hillel and Jesus: Comparative Studies of
Two Major Religious Leaders, (J.H. Charlesworth and L. Johns eds.) Minneapolis. Fortress
Press, 1997, pp 256-288.

Bobertz, Charles A: ‘The Development of Episcopal Order, in Eusebius, Christianity and

Judaism’ (Harold W. Attridge and Gohei Hata eds.), Michigan, Wayne State University Press,
1992, pp 183-211.

Flusser, D: ‘Hillel and Jesus: Two Ways of Self Awareness’, in Hillel and Jesus:
Comparative Studies of Two Major Religious Leaders, (J.H. Charlesworth and L. Johns eds.)
Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1997, pp 71-107.

Horsley, R: ‘Jesus and Judaism: Christian Perspectives’, in Eusebius, Christianity and

Judaism (Harold W. Attridge and Gohei Hata eds.), Michigan, Wayne State University Press,
1992, pp 53-109.

Lacocque, Andre: ‘Pharisees - The Christian View’, in A Dictionary of the Jewish-Christian

Dialogue (L. Klenicki and G. Wigoder eds.), New Jersey, Paulist Press, 1995, pp. 153-155.

Petersen, William L: ‘Eusebius and the Paschal Controversy’, in Eusebius, Christianity and
Judaism (Harold W. Attridge and Gohei Hata eds.), Michigan, Wayne State University Press,
1992, pp 311-325.

Pixner, B: ‘Jesus and His Community: Between Essenes and Pharisees’, in Hillel and Jesus:
Comparative Studies of Two Major Religious Leaders, (J.H. Charlesworth and L. Johns eds.)
Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1997, pp 193-224.

Segal, A.F: ‘Jewish Christianity, in Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism’ (Harold W. Attridge
and Gohei Hata eds.), Michigan, Wayne State University Press, 1992, pp 326-351.

143
Viviano, B.T: ‘Hillel and Jesus On Prayer’, in Hillel and Jesus: Comparative Studies of Two
Major Religious Leaders, (J.H. Charlesworth and L. Johns eds.) Minneapolis, Fortress Press,
1997, pp 427-457.

WEBSITES

Biblos Bible Study Tools, Online Parallel Bible Project, 2004-2009, http://biblos.com/
Viewed 20/10/2009.

Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent, Kevin Knight, 2009, http://www.newadvent.org/

Viewed 13/10/2009.

Encyclopædia Britannica Online, 1994-2008, http://www.britannica.com/ Viewed

10/10/2009.

Gale Virtual Reference Library, http://auth.go.galegroup.com/ Viewed 03/09/2009.

The Jewish Encyclopedia, 2002, http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ Viewed 15/10/2009.

Perseus Digital Library, Tufts University, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/ Viewed

18/08/2009.

Early Christian Writings, 2001-2006 Peter Kirby, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Viewed 16/10/2009.

Kerux, The Journal of Northwest Theological Seminary, http://www.kerux.com/ Viewed

03/09/2009.

The Jewish Roman World of Jesus, James D. Tabor, 2004,

http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/JDTABOR/indexb.html Viewed 19/05/2009.

Jewish Law Articles: Examining Halacha, Jewish Issues and Secular Law, Ira Kasdan, 1997-
2000, http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/ Viewed 22/07/2009.

The Jewish Virtual Library, AICE, 2009http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ Viewed

14/06/2009.

CD ROM

Soncino Classics Collection, The Soncino Talmud, The Soncino Midrash Rabbah, The
Soncino Zohar, The Bible, Judaic Classics Library, 2007, Davka Corporation, Il, USA.

144