As early as the Jerusalem church, there was linguistic diversity, as likely reflected in the Acts depiction of ‘Hebrews’ and ‘Hellenists,’ terms which probably designate respectively those Jews in the Jerusalem church whose first language was Aramaic and those whose first/primary language was Greek. Also, Paul’s deployment of the little ‘Marana tha’ formula in 1 Corinthians 16:22 is commonly taken as reflecting his acquaintance with Aramaic-speaking circles of Jewish believers, as distinguished from the Greek-speaking (gentile) congregations to whom he wrote.
Moreover, remarkably early there was also a trans-local diversity. In Acts we have reports of the young Christian movement quickly spreading from Jerusalem other sites in Jewish Palestine, to Damascus, Antioch and Samaria, and through the activities of Paul and others (often anonymous) spreading through various locations in Asia Minor, Greece, Rome and elsewhere. Though the historicity of some features of Acts has been challenged, it is commonly accepted that there was an early and rapid trans-local spread of the young Christian movement to locations such as these. It is to be expected that this remarkably rapid spread of the Christian movement would have been accompanied by diversity, Christian circles taking on something of the character of the various locales, and also the varying ethnic groups and social classes from which converts came.
–Larry Hurtado
from pre-publication typescript of his article Interactive Diversity (PDF), pp 7-8
As published in Journal of Theological Studies.
“Interactive Diversity: A Proposed Model of Christian Origins.”
The Journal of Theological Studies 2013; doi: 10.1093/jts/flt063
I tend to think of the early Messianic (Christian) movement as having started out as a single, unified entity and then at some point, splitting into divergent trajectories. I just found out, thanks to reading the above-referenced Hurtado essay, that there is a “‘trajectories’ model of early Christian developments introduced by James Robinson and Helmut Koester.” I think it’s what many Christians think about when they consider the origin and development of our faith from the first century CE forward.
In the Abstract of his essay (pg 1), Hurtado states:
The earliest model of Christian origins appears in certain ancient church fathers, who posited an initial and unified form of Christianity from which a subsequent diversity then flowed, including alleged heretical divergences from the putatively original form.
That sounds terrifically familiar.
But it isn’t necessarily so.
As the quote from Hurtado at the top of the page states, we can expect a certain diversity between Aramaic/Hebrew and Greek speaking Jews was established from the very beginning (see Acts 6:1). Hurtado also brings out how there very well could have been “trans-local” variations in the Christian populations in the diaspora based on ethnicity and social class as well as language and nationality. However I’m interested in exploring one slice of the pie, so to speak:
On the other hand, there are also indications of far more adversarial interactions as well, and at a very early date. Paul’s letter to the Galatians will serve to illustrate this. Exegetes are agreed that this epistle reflects Paul’s exasperation over unidentified other Christians (probably Jewish) who have visited the Galatian churches calling into question the adequacy of Paul’s gospel and urging his gentile converts to compete their conversion by circumcision and a commitment to Torah-observance. Paul represents these people as proclaiming ‘a different gospel . . . confusing you and seeking to pervert the gospel of Christ’ (Gal 1:6-7), and he thunders an anathema on anyone who proclaims a gospel contrary to that which he preached (1:9).
-Hurtado, pp 10-11
This is actually a key point that my Pastor and I regularly discuss. His opinion is that Paul had been teaching both the Jewish and Gentile disciples in the Galatian area against circumcision and Torah observance, while my position is that Paul did not require circumcision and Torah observance for the Gentile believers, but they were a “given” for the Jewish disciples.
We can see a few things from Hurtado. One is that he (and other “exegetes” or textual interpreters of the Galatians scriptures) believes that certain people, which Paul identifies as “false brothers” (probably Jewish) were invading the churches in Galatia and questioning the validity of Paul’s teaching. The second point is that said-false brothers were encouraging the Gentile disciples that they had to be circumcised and take on board full observance of the Torah, and Paul refers to that teaching as a “different gospel,” one this is “contrary to the gospel of Christ.”
The specific focus upon the Gentiles by the false brothers and Paul’s response tells us that in not being circumcised (i.e. having converted to Judaism), the Gentile believers were not obligated to the full weight of Torah obligation. It also tells us by contrast, that the Jewish disciples (born Jews and those Gentiles who previously converted to Judaism) were obligated to observe the mitzvot. Paul defines this “diversity” between the Jewish and Gentile believers he’s addressing in his letter as the “gospel of Christ” and any attempt to change that relationship, Paul says is a perversion of Christ’s gospel.
(As an aside, I recently read a criticism stating that Gentile conversion to Judaism is not supported Biblically and is an extra-Biblical anomaly introduced by the later Rabbis. However, a quick reading of Acts 13:43 shows how Paul and Barnabas encountered such converts in the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch [they probably found converts to Judaism in any synagogue they visited, but this is the first example I could find]. To the degree that Luke doesn’t record any displeasure or complaint by Paul at meeting with the converts in this verse, and I don’t believe we see Paul objecting to the authenticity of “righteous converts” to Judaism elsewhere in the New Testament [the exception is in Galatians, when Paul objects to Gentiles converting to Judaism specifically in order to be justified], we cannot automatically infer that either he or “the Bible” object to or invalidate such a practice.)
The diversity of Jewish and Gentile believers relative to Torah observance and related issues are points I’ve been attempting to assert, both in my personal interactions with my Pastor and here on my blog. I bring Hurtado’s work into the mix as a way of illustrating that this discussion exceeds the bounds of what we call “Messianic Judaism” or any interest in a Hebraic interpretation of the New Testament, and is of scholarly interest in the far wider arena of general Christian studies.
(I should say at this point that this isn’t the first time I’ve mentioned Hurtado and Galatians on my blog.)
I’ve never been convinced that the Jewish and Gentile disciples ever “cemented” into a single, unified body of worship, at least not on a large scale. I believe that the “Jesus movement” was too young and was forming in too turbulent a world to allow for a widespread integration of populations. In just a tiny march of years after Paul wrote his Galatian letter, he would be arrested, testify at multiple legal hearings, eventually be transported to Rome, and ultimately be executed. Jerusalem would fall and the Temple would be razed. The Jewish people, including disciples of Jesus, would be scattered. The troubled and frail unity between the Jewish and Gentile disciples of the Master would crumble like ash in such an inflammatory environment.
The diversity of the early Jesus movement was based on a significant number of differences between varying bodies of disciples. Not all believing Jews supported Gentile entry into the way without conversion (see Acts 15:1-2 for example). Even after the halachah issued by James and the Council of Apostles (Acts 15), divisiveness continued. Many Jews said Paul could not be trusted and that he did not support and affirm the Torah of Moses for the diaspora Jews (Acts 21:21). There were even accusations that he was taking Gentiles past the Court of the Goyim into the Temple (Acts 21:28-29).
While Paul fought strenuously to keep the fragmented and unstable populations within the body of Messiah together, it was a losing battle. He even admitted that Israel would be calloused because of the Gentiles for a significant period of time (Romans 11:25), and Hurtado points to Romans 14:1-15:6 as Paul’s attempt to address the social and ethnic differences between varying groups of Jesus believers, trying to draw them alongside each other.
I know I’m painting a rather dismal picture of Jewish/Christian relations, both past and present. In his letter to Rome, Paul was writing of a temporary separation between Jewish and Gentile believers. Temporary means that one day, we will draw closer to each other again (or for the first time). I see some evidence of that today, but it’s only the beginning. I don’t doubt that Messiah will come and it will be he who finishes the work that was started so many centuries before.
But my message for today is that a certain amount of diversity between Jewish and Gentile believers is by design. The gospel taught by Paul supported Jewish continuance in Torah observance but did not require Gentiles to convert, which would have made them obligated to the Law (the implication is that Gentile disciples in the Way were not so obligated). Any teaching imposing circumcision and Torah observance on Gentile disciples was vehemently criticized and opposed by Paul.
Hurtado doesn’t attempt to predict the mechanism of how the diversity will be resolved and for the moment, neither will I. I simply write this to offer further evidence that such diversity between the Jewish and Gentile believers did exist and that it is substantiated not only within Messianic Jewish studies but within mainstream Christian scholarship as well.
Addendum: I wrote this meditation before last night’s (Wednesday, June 26th) conversation with my Pastor. I’ll blog about our discussion including how it may impact what I said above in a subsequent missive.
Morning Meditations 
Hi James – An excellent post! The idea of a monolithic Judaism or early Messianic community has no basis in the writings of the era, so it’s time we jettison the idea.
Perhaps one reason we like to think of the early Messianic faith (or at least the Jewish branch of it) as uniform is because it’s comfortable to think of a primal uniformity to which we can return. IWe’re less comfortable dealing with the ambiguity of diverse practices.
Thanks for the complement, Carl. Much appreciated.
I have to admit I used to be one of those people who felt comfortable with the idea that there was a “pure” Christianity or Messianic faith that once existed and that we should shoot for in the future. However, I think the idea that there was always diversity in practice (and probably always will be) offers us more “permission” to be different and divergent without being labeled “wrong” in some manner.
This is particularly relevant to the relationship and differences between believing Jews and Gentiles.
I think this is a major point. If the main focus of Paul’s opponents all over the New Testament was bringing Gentiles into the fold without the requirements of Torah it supports the very idea that everywhere Jewish believers continued in Torah. The weight is not on MJ but on everyone else to give MJ just one passage of significance where Paul is under persecution for how Jewish believers are living in the context of his communities. If his opponents were this outraged, wouldn’t his opponents be far more outraged at Jews forsaking Torah than Gentiles not embracing it? It seems to me the Gentile issue would be on the back burner if that was the case. – GlennEun
“Not all believing Jews supported Gentile entry into the way without conversion.” “There are also indications of far more adversarial interactions as well, and at a very early date.” This was noted in Alister McGrath’s Heresy book which I don’t have but where I believe he linked this to what he saw as a struggle between the members of James own group versus Paul. One wonders if the original apostles were not originally unified on this, thus setting the stage and environment of major struggles behind the scenes with the consequences being played out in the text. – Glenn
“His opinion is that Paul had been teaching both the Jewish and Gentile disciples in the Galatian area against circumcision and Torah observance.”
Nice post James.
Still hard to understand how it’s possible to take a groundbreaking ruling from Jews that Gentiles do not (and according to Paul, *should not*) convert to Judaism, and twist it to mean that Jews should not be Jewish anymore, or at least obey their specific calling as given by God Himself, if one is to believe the Bible is His Word, which evangelicals do.
Paul’s instructions for Gentiles and Jews to “stay” as they were “when called” directly opposes this view, as does his argument that forcing “uniformity” (Gentiles must “become Jews” to be acceptable to God) misses the point that God is not ONLY the God of Jews, but of Gentiles too. Christianity’s demand for uniformity in the reverse, (all Jews must become Gentiles to be acceptable to God) wipes that argument out, and makes literally no sense at all.
If this were true, we’d have heard it from the horses mouth, so to speak, yet we do not. The only place I’ve found this view is via Jew-hating/strongly-disliking Church Fathers and carried on by Christianity.
Greetings Glenn and Ruth,
I agree that it doesn’t seem incredibly apparent to me from scripture that the Jewish believers just blithely gave up on a Torah lifestyle and moved on. We do see in Acts 21 forward how Paul was accused of teaching against Torah to Jewish audiences, but he always denied the charges during multiple court proceedings. Paul isn’t one to lie to get out of trouble, so I don’t doubt that he was truthful when he said he was innocent of the charges brought against him.
I had another meeting with my Pastor last night and we continued to debate our different perspectives. I’ll be blogging on it, probably this Sunday morning. I’m actually learning a great deal and consider our conversations to be a true crucible of what I believe and why. If “iron sharpens iron,” then I can feel the top of my head getting more “pointy” all the time. 😉 jk
“then I can feel the top of my head getting more “pointy” all the time”
Picturing how you’ll look at the conference next year… 🙂
I’ll wear a hat. You’ll never know. 😉
While it’s true you’ve cited Hurtado in other posts, this is the first time I’ve noted that he expresses the misconception that “Hebrews” didn’t speak Hebrew, but rather Aramaic. I’ve responded on this point before to note that the DSS contain validation of the common use of Hebrew as the primary language in Israel, though Judeo-Greek was common in Hellenistic circles and in general commerce, Aramaic also was in use in certain scholarly circles and some colloquial sayings, and even Latin was used in some cases to deal with Roman authorities.
I suggest that Mark Nanos has a much better grasp than Larry Hurtado of the identity and motivations of folks like the “false brethren” of Galatians, who are not necessarily the same folks who were connected with Yakov in Jerusalem, whose presence moved Kefa/Peter to worry about their potential opinion of his interactions with non-Jews in Antioch.
You’ve noted before this that Rav Shaul was either a hypocrite in Acts 21, or he really never did teach that Jews should “forsake the customs of Moses”. Certainly he didn’t protest when it was suggested that he sponsor a Temple sacrifice and procedure intended to demonstrate his dedication to Torah as applicable to Jews. However, I wonder what evidence Rabbi Kinbar might cite for diversity among the tens of thousands of Jewish believers in the Jerusalem area who were zealous for Torah — aside perhaps from the Acts 15 dispute about circumcision for non-Jews to be “saved”. Of course, Jews have always argued about how Torah is to be applied (among other things), but that’s not quite a justification to claim communal diversity in doctrine or praxis.
Just to be clear, while I’ve suggested that others believe Paul was a hypocrite in performing Temple sacrifices, I don’t believe he was for a split second.
It would be interesting to get Nanos and Hurtado in the same room and see how they’d react to each other.
I can only hope Rabbi Kinbar will return to address your questions and comments, PL.
“I wonder what evidence Rabbi Kinbar might cite for diversity among the tens of thousands of Jewish believers in the Jerusalem area who were zealous for Torah.”
Good question. As far as I know, there is no direct evidence for diversity, just as there is no direct evidence for uniformity. Acts 21:20-21 tells us that in Jerusalem, the Jews who believed in Yeshua were “all zealous for Torah” – it doesn’t say “diverse” or “uniform” practice. But there is some indirect evidence.
Second Temple writings attest to diversity, with some Jews belonging to sects but most not belonging. There is no reason to believe that those who did not belong to a sect were therefore “un-zealous.” The were simply non-sectarian. If all Yeshua believers originally belonged to the same sect, there would have been uniformity. Otherwise, was a diversity of practice among Jewish believers.
That is, unless the Jerusalem leadership objected to the common Judaism of their time. If they did object, they may have engaged in the project of bringing about uniformity. Again, there’s no direct evidence one way or the other. However, there’s some indirect support that they did not teach or enforce uniformity — there is no record that they directed Paul (or anyone, for that matter) to teach or enforce uniformity of practice. There is also nothing in the apostolic letters to indicate that the Jerusalem leadership or other apostles mandated uniformity. If they practiced uniformly in Jerusalem, why would they be indifferent to the lack of uniformity elsewhere?
The Jewish people (in the Land of Israel in particular – I’m not as familiar with the rest) actually did quite well during the time of common Judaism (from late Second Temple times to at least 400 CE). If you wish, I’ll put one together a list of books on the subject.
To avoid misunderstanding, let me put it this way: common Judaism had a core of practices that all communities of any size considered mandatory while also having a diversity of practice in other matters. Diversity does not mean that some Jews ate pork and did not daven.
“Any teaching imposing circumcision and Torah observance on Gentile disciples was vehemently criticized and opposed by Paul.”
Paul is also opposed to Jews keeping the Law and accuses them of trying to Judaize Gentiles simply for doing so. Paul is the reason for lack of unity — as is the case between Arminians and Calvinists too.
Greetings, descriptivegrace,
What you are saying seems to be a common understanding in a lot of churches, but I’m going to have to disagree with you. In Acts 21, Paul was accused of teaching against the Torah of Moses, against the Temple, and against Jewish customs. These are all charges he denied at the various court hearing he was compelled to testify at. He went to Rome still denying the charges and, as I read Paul, he wasn’t hypocritical or disingenuous.
I have weekly conversations with my Pastor and he believes pretty much as you do, so I’m quite familiar with the argument. I can’t say that Paul was the reason for a lack of unity between Jewish and Gentile believers. It seems to have more to do with the struggle for many Jewish communities to be able to accept non-Jewish believers without the requirement that they convert to Judaism.
As far as Arminians and Calvinists, that’s an entirely separate topic.
Well if you combine Acts and the Epistles you have a mess of contradictions. In fact you have this problem when dealing with more than one epistle. In Galatians Paul clearly condemns all Jews who keep the Law at all. In Romans, maybe not. In Acts, Paul can surprise us with anything. The real problem is that people think they can know what Paul really thought by reading these texts — they can’t.
Excuse me, but in Galatians Rav Shaul was addressing non-Jews and not Jews, as he discouraged his adult readers from becoming circumcised (i.e., a code term for what is nowadays called converting to Judaism). However, in Gal.5:3 he notes in passing that all who are circumcised, which includes Jews and proselytes, are obligated to full Torah observance. He certainly never instructed Jews to forsake the Torah-specified “custom of Moses” for Jews to circumcise their sons on the eighth day of life, which means that adult Jews reading those lines already know they are directed to non-Jews. If you see a “mess of contradictions” between Acts and the Epistles, you are obviously trying to read them through a faulty lens, probably due to ignorance of the background and false prior assumptions. Getting a pretty good picture of Rav Shaul, the Pharisee of Pharisees, writing as a rabbi with compassion for G-d-fearing non-Jews pursuing an affiliation with the teachings of Rav Yeshua, is not so terribly difficult for an orthodox modern Jew.
Lest there be any confusion, my last remark was a reply addressed to “descriptivegrace”, even though it does not appear so in the sequence. My prior remark was a response to Rabbi Kinbar’s discussion of the range of diversity.
Carl said: Diversity does not mean that some Jews ate pork and did not daven.
I was thinking more along the lines of how the various streams of modern Judaism differ from one another.
James wrote, “I was thinking more along the lines of how the various streams of modern Judaism differ from one another.”
Not really. They were committed to basic practices of Torah. The sects each practiced their own version and the majority of the people, not being affiliated with sects, did not practice sectarian halakhah but something less formal are more variable. Perhaps the only totally uniform practices were in the Temple sphere (priestly halakhah).
The situation today is very different. There is no “common Judaism” or commitment to Torah that is shared by the streams of Judaism and, especially, by individual Jews. Second Temple Judaism varied from one form of Torah observance to another. Today’s diversity is from ultra-orthodoxy to atheism.
Actually, if we limit our scope to those who could be deemed “zealous for Torah”, a suitable modern example of diversity would be the range between modern orthodox (maybe even American Conservadox) and the Neturei Karta. Now, there is certainly a wide range of political views relative to secular government represented within this demographic, but a very solid core of day-by-day practice. Distinctives would include special events in commemoration of the founders of each subgroup, opinions about the timing or inclusion of some piyutim, and minor variations in dress code, but unless one is immersed in the details of rivalries between sects, one would be hard-pressed to note the differences. If any one of them were short a tenth man for a minyan, they would be able to draw in any Jew who happened along, whether the nusach was sepharad or ashkenaz (I know; I’ve done it [:)]). The differences are largely matters of style rather than substance.
That doesn’t mean I can’t try. Thanks.
Very good, “thought provoking” post, James. And not an incidental one – one that is so important to the health and vitality of the Body of Messiah. One great idea that stuck with me while running the HaYesod program through my local church fellowship had to do with what you’re speaking of. It’s the idea that “oneness” does not necessarily mean or demand “sameness.”
This reminds me of another moment of clarity in my life. I was meeting regularly with a committee of great folks on the planning of a full-day Holocaust seminar for diocesan Catholic school teachers one day. Two Holocaust survivors, the director of the local Holocaust organization, and an African-American Roman Catholic priest were involved. The African-American priest, Fr. Mike, told a story of racist treatment on-line at the seminary he’d attended, where the abbot asked him why he’d passed up the watermelon offered on the cafeteria line. Imagine. Father Mike looked right at me and said, you know, it’s up to non-Jews to keep the memory and the lessons of the Holocaust alive because antisemitism is for Jews as racism is for me, being black: when I raise issues of racism, it’s “sour grapes;” when you raise issues of racism, it’s a justice issue. That statement struck me hard and as often being true. Which is yet another good reason to combat the lethal disease of antisemitism via educational awareness of the Holocaust, as it speaks, if indirectly, to the issue of racism almost simultaneously.
If we all become the same, we lose an enormous refraction of the potential light to be emanated, so to speak. I imagine 1st century Jews attending synagogue together and having robust discussions about whether or not Yeshua was the Messiah. This is good, this is healthy, when it involves sincere individuals striving in earnest, all going in the direction of Truth as an objective. In the 1st century [and thereafter], Gentiles would have been wise to sit back and learn, take the lower seat, as Messiah taught, and absorb what it meant to become part of the Jewish community in light of their non-Jewishness. Hopefully, while being taught by the Jewish talmidim of Yeshua that their light was of its own luminosity, different from theirs, yet significant in its own way. This is good, this is healthy. Like Father Mike said to me, as Messianic Gentiles, non-Jews have a powerful testimony of why it is they follow Jesus in a more Jewish manner than most, as I told my good friend, Richard, the local cantor of the Reform Temple Beth El, one day during Channukah, upon being asked why I acknowledge Jewish custom in my home: “Because,Richard” I said, “After two thousand years of declaring to be followers of Jesus, the long-awaited Jewish Messiah, some of us have actually begun to do some of the things that He did.” A big smile came across Richard’s face and, wagging his finger in my face for affect, said: “Now THAT makes sense!”
It’s a great, provocative, even “positively peculiar” testimony to be a Gentile and follow the Jewish Messiah on HIS terms,which are inherently Jewish terms, as a primary vehicle of discipleship. to be celebrated and even to be considered, perhaps, as a form of “Gentile chutzpah!” … so to speak 🙂
Rabbi Kinbar said: The situation today is very different. There is no “common Judaism” or commitment to Torah that is shared by the streams of Judaism and, especially, by individual Jews. Second Temple Judaism varied from one form of Torah observance to another. Today’s diversity is from ultra-orthodoxy to atheism.
More’s the pity. I can only believe that when Messiah returns, he will united his people, the Jewish nation together.
Dan said: It’s a great, provocative, even “positively peculiar” testimony to be a Gentile and follow the Jewish Messiah on HIS terms,which are inherently Jewish terms, as a primary vehicle of discipleship. to be celebrated and even to be considered, perhaps, as a form of “Gentile chutzpah!” … so to speak
Thanks for your comment, Dan. Yes, there’s a lot that goes on when a Gentile believer consents to truly meeting the Jewish Messiah on his own terms, rather than ours. It’s a continual struggle, especially when attending a church, to maintain the balance between the community of Gentiles and the lived reality of Moshiach, but it is a joyous one.
Later today (Friday), I’m posting an “extra meditation” relating my comments on the introduction of the FFOZ/Vine of David book: The Everlasting Jew: Selected Writings of Rabbi Isaac Lichtenstein. I’m following that up with another commentary early next week, addressing Daniel Lancaster’s brief biography of the esteemed Rabbi. I believe that both Jewish and Christian readers can learn a great deal by following the journey of this 19th century Hungarian Rabbi as he discovers and then pursues the Moshiach.
I look forward to it… I’ve been incredibly blessed by the publication of Paul Phillip Levertoff’s work, “Love and the Messianic Age,” through FFOZ’s Messianic Luminaries Series… and especially the Study Guide and Commentary that goes with it, which I cannot recommend highly enough!
Wait no longer, Dan: The Talmudic Messianic Jew.
Ha! Navigating the cyber-tesseract with a click of the button as we speak!
Ha! Navigating the cyber-tesseract with a click of the button as we speak! 😉
Dan Hennessey, I enjoyed a lot of your 8:44 AM post and recommend people reading it. Here is a part particular to our usual themes here (while there are related thoughts in the post that go in other directions or to a somewhat different topic I appreciate): I said, “After two thousand years of declaring to be followers of Jesus, the long-awaited Jewish Messiah, some of us have actually begun to do some of the things that He did.” A big smile came across Richard’s face and, wagging his finger in my face for affect, said: “Now THAT makes sense!”
PL, I appreciate that you pointed out there are divergent political views as to secular governance among Jews within the range of Orthodox praxis. And I am glad I have now read through the comments section for this thread that I didn’t read the full comments section for previously. Thank you, Carl and PL.
I don’t think anyone mentioned this, and it’s “par for the course” that Christians do it, but Hurtado used of the designation “Palestine” for the time period in which Paul wrote. That doesn’t really fit the time; it does show he is ensconced in Churchianity.
On the other hand, Israel wasn’t a freely-running Israel.
True, Marleen, Hurtado’s use of “Palestine” in place of “Israel” was anachronistic, because the Romans would not initiate that practice until later, even though they were already occupying Israel as a vassal state.