Following the disaster of CE 70, with the remnant of the priesthood of little or no account and the Sadducees scattered, early rabbinic Judaism rejected Judeo-Christianity as heretical. This occurred at the ca. CE 85 so-called council at Jamnia with the proclamation of the birkat ha-m�n�m.^F1 This was a benediction pronouncing a curse on Nazarenes, the qehal�el, in effect excluding any Jew from the emerging Pharistic synagogues if they became a Nazarene (a Levantine Judeo-Christian). It is highly improbable that any Judeo-Christians were in attendance in the first place. By that time the Judeo-Christian and Pharistic communities were far apart in their basic teachings. Judeo-Christianity, however, had become a serious threat to embryonic Pharistic Judaism. The birkat ha-m�n�m was a prophylactic measure to insulate and protect emerging Pharistic Judaism.

Ray Pritz, in his insightful study of the Nazarenes,^F2 recounted the Pharistic attempt to reestablish itself and to exert itself as the authority in Judaism. He wrote:

With the destruction of Jerusalem the Pharisees went west and the Nazarenes went east. The separation was more than just one of geography. With Yavne began the consolidation of Judaism. In the post-70 crisis, there was no place for diversity which had so characterized the later Second Temple period. The Sadducees, of course, were out. But so, soon, was the school of Shammai after the well-known voice from heaven (bat q�l) declared all rulings to be according to Bet Hillel. Now a centrally recognized authority was paramount, and a refusal by any group or locality to accept that authority could only result in its isolation. (Pritz 1992:101.)

In essence these two competitive movements recruited from the same Levantine population pool of Jews. The Talmud records that it was Samuel the Lessor who composed the birkat ha-m�n�m (Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 29^a). Some believe that Pharistic Jews added the birkat ha-m�n�m to the Eighteen Benedictions of the Am�dah to curse and anathematize Judeo-Christians to drive these minim (heretics) from the synagogue in an effort to save Judaism (Manns 1988:26). It appears more likely, in light of the established Pharistic practice of legislating to guard against even minor transgressions of the Torah, that the birkat ha-m�n�m was to serve as a barrier, or fence, of sorts to keep observant Pharistic Jews within the fold rather than to keep minim out.

If any Jew became a Judeo-Christian he or she then became minim and subject to the daily curse by rabbinical Jews. The underlying policy was to produce a chilling effect on conversions to Judeo-Christianity by anathematizing converts in the eyes of other Jews and by creating conflict and division with the convert�s immediate family. Writing ca. CE 374�377, Epiphanius confirmed that in his day the Pharistic Jews daily cursed the qehal�el, whom they referred to as the Nazarenes, in their prayers (Epiphanius Panarion 29:9.2; Williams 1987:119).

Sixty-two years later (132 CE) Judeo-Christians, who presumably were pacifists^F3 in the tradition of Jesus of Nazareth, opposed the messianic claims of Bar-Kokhba and the Second Jewish Rebellion. Pritz argues that: it was the "endorsement of a false messiah (and for Jewish Christians a rival messiah)" by rabbi Akiva "which was the last straw which broke the ties of the myr[wn with rabbinic Judaism" (Pritz 1992:59).

____________

^F1The character of this council is open to scholarly debate. Sketchy evidence supports the claim of the birkat ha-m�n�m.

^F2Ray A. Pritz provided a basic introduction to the heirs of the earliest Jerusalem church, their history and doctrines, and their relations with both Jews and other Christians (Pritz 1991, 1992).

^F3The sanctity of human life was a historic component in Jewish teaching. The ancient church went further by rejecting any resort to violence against human beings. This required the rejection of the use of war and violence by its members. Throughout the Apostolic Age Judeo-Christians were pacifists and took no part in war (see Bagatti 1971a:7; Gonz�les 1984:53). This led to difficulty in the CE 66-70 and CE 132-135 Jewish attempts to free themselves from Roman rule for Judeo-Christians appeared as traitorous to traditional Jews. It worked to their benefit with respect to the Romans for they apparently allowed them continuing access to Jerusalem following the Bar Kochba revolt while Jews were forbidden to enter the city under the pain of death. "This is explained by the fact that with the war a distinction was made between the Jews and the Judaeo-Christians," argues Bagatti, "and that the decree of expulsion, promulgated by Hadrian, concerned only the Jews (Bagatti 1971a:10).

Page last edited: 01/26/06 07:12 PM

Thank you for visiting BIBARCH�
Please Visit Our Site Often