When Christians Were Jews: The First Generation

by Paula Fredriksen

A compelling account of Christianity’s Jewish beginnings, from one of the world’s leading scholars of ancient religion

How did a group of charismatic, apocalyptic Jewish missionaries, working to prepare their world for the impending realization of God’s promises to Israel, end up inaugurating a movement that would grow into the gentile church? Committed to Jesus’s prophecy — “The Kingdom of God is at hand!”—they were, in their own eyes, history’s last generation. But in history’s eyes, they became the first Christians.

In this electrifying social and intellectual history, Paula Fredriksen answers this question by reconstructing the life of the earliest Jerusalem community. As her account arcs from this group’s hopeful celebration of Passover with Jesus, through their bitter controversies that fragmented the movement’s midcentury missions, to the city’s fiery end in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, she brings this vibrant apostolic community to life. Fredriksen offers a vivid portrait both of this temple‑centered messianic movement and of the bedrock convictions that animated and sustained it.

Genres: History, Religion, Christianity, Nonfiction, Judaism, Theology, Church History

272 pages, Hardcover

First published October 23, 2018

About the author

Paula Fredriksen, the Aurelio Professor of Scripture emerita at Boston University, since 2009 has been Distinguished Visiting Professor of Comparative Religion at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. A fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, she also holds two honorary doctorates in theology and religious studies. She has published widely on the social and intellectual history of ancient Christianity, and on pagan-Jewish-Christian relations in the Roman Empire. Author of Augustine on Romans (1982) and From Jesus to Christ (1988; 2000), her Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, won a 1999 National Jewish Book Award. More recently, she has explored the development of Christian anti-Judaism, and Augustine’s singular response to it, in Augustine and the Jews: A Christian Defense of Jews and Judaism (2010); and has investigated the shifting conceptions of God and of humanity in Sin: The Early History of an Idea (2012). Her latest study, Paul: The Pagans’ Apostle (2017), places Paul’s Jewish messianic message to gentiles within the wider world of ancient Mediterranean culture.

Reviews

[Sanjuro · Rating 2 out of 5]

I enjoyed reading this book. It was well written, and organized, and clear in its purpose. And yet, it reads as a rehash, too reliant on work that precedes it, and even then only reliant on previous work from a very niche corner of the academic world of Christian origins. If you've ever read previous work on "Historical Jesus" studies or "New Perspective" studies from writers such as EP Sanders, Helen Bond, Marcus Borg, or John Dominic Crossan, than you have everything you'll find here in this volume. So, it's not just that Fredriksen makes use of previous studies - we all do - it's that, like the dogmatists, she tracks pretty exclusively to a very specific tradition from within these perspectives. In her case, she takes a predictably "minimalist" approach to nearly every question. For example, while it's true that Paul's letters are separated into two categories - the seven uncontested letters and the six contested letters - very few scholars would cleanly accept that precise delineation. Virtually all Pauline scholars accept at least some of the contested letters, in different combinations. Fredriksen sticks to seven as though there is no debate on the matter. What's more, when it comes to the events depicted in the Gospels, even the most skeptical scholars I know will admit the likelihood that some details that are difficult for the modern mind are still likely true. Not Fredriksen, who takes the extreme minimalist approach, and assumes that anything that simply "doesn't sound right" must then not be historical. This is not very good historiography.

There are also multiple points where the scholarship is a bit lazy. For example, in regards to Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Fredriksen takes the traditional, extremely outdated approach to Scrolls scholarship, as though she hadn't read any research since Vermes' Penguin edition and assumed the status quo. But almost everything that she says in this book about the Qumran scenario, from the makeup of the Scrolls, to the identity of the Qumran community, to ideology and sectarian nature of the Scrolls, has been challenged in the past 15 years, and most of these traditional views simply no longer hold up.

Her approach to other issues is also flawed. For example, in trying to prove that Jesus, Paul, and the first Christians were entirely "pro-Temple," she completely ignores passages in the Gospels and Paul that would put some of her conclusions in doubt. Jesus envisions a time when the Temple would no longer serve a purpose (John 4), the veil is said to rip into two at the crucifixion, and the disciples in Acts attended the Temple to preach Jesus, not to offer sacrifices. There are clearly attitudes in these texts that show a change in their approach to the Temple. Fredriksen's approach has her go so far so as to argue that Jesus' Temple judgment scene wasn't actually about the function of the Temple at the time, but only to judge that current iteration of the temple. This entire argument reeked of reaching for confirmation of her overall approach, and failed to convince even a little. These features are present in the same texts she uses to prove the "pro-Temple" attitudes, so her hermeneutic of "the authors reading their present into the past" would not work. The reality is that Fredriksen makes the same mistake Luther made, but in the opposite direction. Luther read the NT as though it was almost anti-Jewish and entirely innovative. Fredriksen reads the NT as though there were almost no innovations at all, and Judaism for Jesus-people just continued almost as normal. As with most things, pendulum swings almost never find truth.

And these are just examples of problems with the way Fredriksen reads the texts. If I went through each issue, this review would be unwieldy. I did not disagree with everything. For example, I found her thoughts on the first century Jesus-followers' belief in the imminence of the kingdom to be insightful. I actually really enjoyed the book, but having read so widely on both HJ and NPP, nearly every page featured a judgment, written as a fact based in her reconstruction, that simply did not work for me.

[Sabin · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was not what I expected, but I wasn't disappointed. I expected that there would be so much more information about that time, about Palestine in the first century after Jesus's death, but it seems that there are only a few first hand accounts from that time, Paul's letters and two chronicles by a Roman general named Josephus. The gospels are more or less second hand accounts from which real historical fact is very hard to extract. Not that Paul's letters are much better, they still contain a lot more doctrine than facts, but at least they give us a glimpse into some of the initial pillars of the doctrine.

What the book does, is try to extract as much historical fact as it can about Jesus's life and death, about how the cult practices and their doctrine coagulated around the first followers of Jesus, who were both jews and pagans of other faiths.

For me, someone who is more or less clueless about Christianity, although baptized as an Eastern Orthodox Christian before I could even speak, a lot of the information was new and very interesting. I got lost a bit when the author was repeating over and over some stuff in the gospels like the turning of the tables, and which Joseph was doing what, and which Herod was in power, but that's entirely my fault.

I particularly enjoyed the last part and the comparison to contemporary apocalyptic cults and how their members behave when their prophecies turn out to be wrong. Cognitive dissonance and the sunk cost fallacy actually increases the followers’ fervor, instead of weakening their belief.

In conclusion, for me at least, this book, about how a jewish apocalyptic cult turned into the massive phenomenon which is still the most important part of so many people's lives, was very informative.

[Paul Ispas · Rating 3 out of 5]

O scriere destul de drăguță despre începuturile creștinătății, acoperind cam primii 50 de ani de la moartea lui Isus. Informativă, cu o traducere ciudată, Paula Fredriksen folosește ca surse primare Evangheliile, epistolele, manuscrisele de la Marea Moartă și pe Iosefus și cam atât. Mă așteptam la ceva mai mult, poate de asta rezum ratingul la 3 stele, dar nu pot spune că interpretarea datelor existente este greșită.

[Peter Bradley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-re...

I was amazed at the scholarly depth and insight of author Paula Fredriksen's "Augustine and the Jews." I gave her more recent "Paul: The Pagan's Apostle" top marks in my Amazon review. However, this book left me unimpressed in terms of its insights and scholarship.

As an initial observation, I purchased the book thinking that it would describe the shadowy period when Jews who adhered to the Christian movement - the "Assembly" in Fredriksen's terminology - were still part of Jewish synagogues, specifically, the period from approximately the crucifixion to around the early years of the second century. I thought we might get some insights from Fredriksen about how Jews and Christians cohabited and eventually went in their different directions.

What this book turned out to be was mostly a reimagining of Christian history during the time encompassed by the Gospels and Acts with some references to what Fredriksen believes must have happened after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, which turns out mostly to involve a retrojection of that historical event back into the life of Jesus. We really don't get much in the way of the cohabitation of the Assembly and Jews or of the events that drove the two kinds of Jews apart. So, insofar as this book did not actually address that period of time - when Christians were Jews - this book was a kind of lost opportunity.

I also had problems with Fredriksen's approach to history. Her primary texts are the Gospels, Acts, some letters of Paul and the writings of Josephus. However, she gives herself permission to simply excise passages from New Testament texts where they are inconvenient to her thesis. For example, Fredriksen argues that trials before Pilate and the Sanhedrin make no sense to her narrative and, so, she simply rules them out of existence. Fredriksen could be correct in this, of course, but shouldn't a historian be more protective of historical material?

Likewise, Fredriksen offers the reader the notion that Jesus's post-resurrection appearances lasted for "years" until finally coming to an end for no particular reason. The standard model is that Jesus's post resurrection appearances lasted from the Resurrection until the Ascension with a final one sometime later to Paul. If Paul's experience was "years" later, then it might be technically correct to say that the appearances occurred over a period of "years," but Fredriksen is implying something different; she is implying that the appearances went on for years, rather than in an intense initial period of around a month. she writes:

"The period of the resurrection appearances, in other words, was exactly that: an extended period of time, years in fact, though we cannot from our disparate sources say exactly how long."

This is not an incidental matter; Fredriksen's theory is that the failure of Christ to appear put Christ's disciples into a state of cognitive dissonance which resulted in them inventing their mission to bring the gospel to the world. Fredriksen writes:

"This combination of the decreasing frequency and, finally, the cessation of Jesus’ posthumous appearances, together with the persistent nonarrival of the Kingdom, might have ended the movement then and there."

Again, maybe it could have happened this way, but where is the evidence for "decreasing frequency"? The gospels describe a short period of intense appearances, a definite end, and one appearance to Paul as a sui generis event. Certainly, one can speculate about a years-long process with fewer and fewer appearances as the fad wears off, but this approach remains speculative. Once we toss out the documentary evidence, there is about as much evidence for Fredriksen's narrative as there is for a narrative that argues that the whole story was made up after the fact.

Fredriksen's basic thesis is that Jesus was a fairly conventional apocalyptic prophet. Jesus preached the coming of God's kingdom for an unspecified number of years. He was well-known to the authorities in Jerusalem. Jesus's preaching of the coming of the Kingdom put the urban mobs in a state of high expectation during Jesus's last visit to Jerusalem. In order to "calm down' the mobs, Pilate had his guard arrest Jesus. Pilate then had Jesus crucified to send a message to the crowds that Jesus was most definitely not their expected king. Thereafter, in their state of high expectation, and suffering cognitive dissonance that Jesus would not be re-establishing the Kingdom, Jesus's follower's experienced appearances of Jesus which gradually declined. During this time, they reinterpreted Jesus's message to include the destruction of the Temple and gave Jesus a Davidic ancestry. Paul "divinizes" Jesus as a lesser divine being, but does not radically divinize Jesus as one with the Father. The disciples wait around Jerusalem and while they were waiting, the disciples decided that it was better to do something while waiting, so they began their outreach to the gentiles. There was no Jewish persecution of Christians - which is to say Jews of the Assembly. There was at most voluntarily accepted Jewish correction of divergent members of the community who attracted attention.

And the rest is history.

Concerning the issue of Jesus's divinity, Fredriksen writes:

"Paul, importantly, never claims that Jesus is a god. The closest he comes is to say that Jesus was “in the form of [a] god” before he appeared “in the likeness of men.” Capitalizing “God” throughout this passage in Paul’s letter, the Revised Standard Version mistranslates it. Paul’s world contained both God, the chief biblical deity, and gods, such as those represented by the nonhuman “knees” in this same passage in Philippians 2: they will bend to the victorious returning Christ and to God the Father. Jesus is not “God.” He is, however, a divine mediator; a human being (anthrōpos), though “from heaven.” (What James, Jesus’ brother, would have made of such claims I have no idea.) Jesus becomes radically divinized— as much god as God the Father— only during the imperially sponsored episcopal councils of the fourth and fifth centuries, a period when the (now Christian) emperor was also (still) considered divine. Back in the mid-first century, when Christians were Jews, Jesus was high on the cosmic gradient, but he was nonetheless human. Our current categories of “humanity” and “divinity” do not stretch in these ways. Theirs did."

Fredriksen crafts her narrative in some surprising ways. For example, she favors John's gospel on a variety of issues. Thus, Fredriksen accepts the Gospel of John's testimony to the number of years that Jesus was active and the number of trips he made to Jerusalem. She also accepts at least John's version of the timing of the statements that Jesus made concerning the moneychangers in the temple.

The reason she favors John is that it is important to her that Pilate and the temple priests knew that Jesus was not really a rebel and was not a threat to the established order. Thus, the temple priests had no real reason to seek Jesus's death, and they were too involved in Passover activities to be able to spend any time in all the back and forth of trials and crucifixion. This puts the blame on Pilate, who knew that Jesus was a peaceful teacher and not an agitator. Moreover, because Jesus's teachings were known from his prior trips to Jerusalem, Pilate and the High Priests did not have to try Jesus and there was no opportunity for the crowd scenes that are attested to in the gospels.

It could have happened this way, of course, but the problem is that I didn't find the excising of so much of the gospel text to be particularly convincing. Then, again, I have to reflect on Fredricksen's personal biases. She is a Catholic who has converted to Judaism and has made many comments critical of what she finds to be anti-Jewish attitudes in, or read into, the New Testament. The burden of her decisions about what to accept from the New Testament seems to favor a reading that distances Jews - high priests or the average man - from the Crucifixion.

Some of Fredriksen's speculation was interesting. Her idea that the disciples congregated in Jerusalem in the expectation of Christ's imminent return and they wanted to be where the action was going to happen makes a lot of sense. Other proposals that she makes are worth considering.

However, on the whole, I was disappointed by how unsophisticated and shallow Fredricksen's analysis was. Fredriksen starts from the proposition that Jesus was obviously merely an apocalyptic preacher whose crucifixion started a movement that changed history. From that assumption, her task is simply a matter of telling a "just so" story about disappointment, cognitive dissonance and retrojecting future events into the historical Jesus. Fredriksen's approach may be accurate but I didn't find it convincing or interesting.

Many times, Fredriksen missed the opportunity to provide something of interest to those who don't start from her assumptions. For example, Fredriksen writes "If these pagans were baptized into the Jesus movement, however, they could no longer worship their native gods, the gods of their families and of their cities."

This is true so far as it goes, but not that pagans were not merely baptized into the Jesus movement; they were baptized into the Jesus movement in the "name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." This baptismal formula goes all the way back to the beginning of the movement. If Fredriksen is write about Paul not divinizing Jesus as God, then who was the Son and why is the Son given an equal status with that of the Father by first century Jews?

We don't hear a word about this, unfortunately, but it seems that it would shed light on the time "when Christians were Jews."

I was torn between giving this two or three stars. I think there might be something of interest for other people here, but this book does not live up to Ms. Fredriksen's prior works.

[Joel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fredriksen’s main aim in this book is to show the early church within its Jewish roots, and her reason for doing so is best explained in her own words:
.
“If we use “Christian” of this first generation, we pull them out of their own context, domesticating them for ours. We thereby lose an appreciation for the vitality of this community’s eschatological commitments, their conviction that God, through Christ, was going to act soon.
It was that conviction that pushed Jesus’ followers to concentrate back in Jerusalem so soon after his crucifixion. It was that conviction that prompted them to proclaim the good news in Jerusalem, and then to take the message out to Israel of the Diaspora. It was that conviction that enabled them to welcome in those “eschatological gentiles” who had left their old gods behind. They worked to prepare their world for the imminent realization of God’s promises to Israel; and with the turning of the nations from their gods to Israel’s god, these followers of Jesus were confirmed in their beliefs.
In their own eyes, they were history’s last generation. It is only in history’s eyes that they would become the first generation of the church.” (Loc 2814)I
.
Fredriksen provides an excellent and concise overview of second temple history, and some valuable insight into the first century CE. This includes her comparison of the Gospel material, wherein she favours the itinerary of John’s Gospel over the Synoptics. She reasons that it is more believable to have Jesus - a committed Jewish man - shown going to Jerusalem multiple times throughout the calendar to observe the religious festivals and traditions (as he does in John).
This can also harmonise well with how commentators view Mark’s (and subsequently Luke and Matthew) use of the journey to Jerusalem as a literary device to shape the dramatic elements within his biography of Jesus.
.
The main takeaway from this first section of the book is that Jesus (as well as other key figures John the Baptist, and Paul) had a positive view of temple, and the religion and rituals attached to it. Fredriksen claims that this also makes the most sense for viewing Paul, who seems to have taken a “both/and” approach to Judaism, rather than a “replacement” view.
Fredriksen uses this line of thought to ask some great questions, such as if Jesus had such a positive view of temple then why did he protest by driving out the money changers? In navigating this she notes the differences between the Johannine and the Synoptic tradition, where again it appears to be placed within the overall structure of the latter as a plot device to shape the perception of the Pharisees, and also provide reason for Jesus’ murder. Along with this, Fredriksen highlights the complete absence of this temple episode from the works of Paul.
She concludes that the temple scene is best understood through the apocalyptic expectation that Jesus would have expected God to destroy the temple made of human hands and rebuild it with his own hands (Cf. Tob 14.5); thus his protest was not anti-Temple, but pro-YHWH and his eschatological program.
.
Moving forward Fredriksen then considers the reason why Jesus had to die according to the historical accounts from both the New Testament and external histories. At this point the Christian reader may feel uncomfortable, but would do well to appreciate that Fredriksen is looking to uncover the historical Jesus - a Jewish teacher-gone-insurrectionist - as opposed to the way Jesus is presented within faith traditions.
She suggests that the NT writers had as their purpose not to preserve “memories” (or create objective history), rather that they wanted to persuade their hearers about the messianic identity of their protagonist, “The gospels first of all are proclamations, not histories.” (117)
She is generous in this endeavour as she does not attempt to dissuade those with faith from their beliefs, rather she keeps her focus on navigating the historical and sociological factors.
.
Overall the purpose of this book is to synthesise ancient Jewish lenses to view Jesus, Paul, and the early Church through.
This is a very insightful read for anyone studying the history of the New Testament and/or the historical Jesus or Paul.

[Dominic Muresan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very liberal history of the early apostolic movement, in the tradition of Ehrman down to the Tubingen school. Yet, it presents a couple of interesting points. The author examines the apostolic Jesus movement as constantly adapting to failed prophecies. This, in her view, drives the switch of Jesus himself from prophet figure to a messianic and finally divine one, in a scared and very intentional move. On this last point I still have questions; how accurate is it that the apostles intentionally read more and more into the events (or into the lack of them)? What if their understanding had been wrong from the start and they just slowly caught up with it?

[Ady ZYN · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tradiția iudaică stă la baza creștinismului, iar cei care vor începe să alcătuiască scripturile creștine vedeau viața prin prisma acestei tradiții. Paula Fredriksen face o disecție a iudaismului perioadei din preajma începutului primului mileniu pentru a evidenția direcția care a influențat gândirea fondatorilor noii religii.

Fondul bibliografic pe care se bazează autoare sunt cele trei evanghelii sinoptice, Evanghelia lui Ioan, Faptele apostolilor, scrisorile lui Pavel, manuscrisele de la Marea Moartă și scrierile istorice ale lui Iosefus Flavius. Fridriksen prezintă straturile scripturale care ascund gândirea generațiilor de credincioși ce se perindă de la mijlocul primului secol până la finalul lui. Scrisorile lui Pavel sunt cele mai vechi măturii ale gândirii primilor evrei care l-au urmat pe Iisus. Autoarea le analizează și revelează o imagine a comunității din prima generație de „creștini” și raportează învățătura lor la învățătura scripturală care se dezvoltă după două sau trei generații prin evangheliile lui Marcu, Matei, Luca (atât ca autor al evangheliei cât și al Faptelor Apostolilor) și Ioan.

Prin frecventele paralele între generația primă și generațiile ulterioare întrevedem gândirea apostolilor și a primelor comunități iudaice din care va izvorâ creștinismul. Scrierile lui Pavel ascund esențele creștinismului primar; diferențele dintre gândirea lui Pavel și cele ale evangheliștilor evocă adaptarea într-un nou context istoric a învățăturii primare. Dacă la mijlocul secolului, adică imediat în generația lui Iisus, a apostolilor și a lui Pavel, mesajul cu care Iisus a atras prozeliți este unul apocaliptic, și comunitatea este asemănătoare cu cea eseniană: sfârșitul lumii e iminent după cum e profețit în scripturi și Ierusalismul este orașul privilegiat — motiv care stă la baza formării în Ierusalim a nucleului comunității —, la sfârșitul primului veac, când Luca preia mesajul hristic, el elimină tenta apocaliptică și-o orientează mai mult spre construirea comunității eterogene.

„Adepții mișcării de la Qumran, asemenea comunității timpurii de ucenici ai lui Cristos care se aflau la Ierusalim, nu practicau doar comunitatea bunurilor, ci trăiau și o foarte încrâncenată așteptare a iminentului sfârșit al zilelor (și făceau asta deja de două secole). Luca, dimpotrivă, suprimă orice reminișcență a fervorii apocaliptice din tradițiile care apar reflectate (și astfel prezervate) în Faptele apostolilor. Scriind la generații bune după evenimentele pe care își propune să le relateze, interpretarea pe care o dă Luca profețiilor lui Isus s-a modificat, pentru a face loc dezvoltării finale a Bisericii alcătuite de neevrei. Dar acest detaliu despre organizarea socială și economică a celei mai timpurii comunități din Ierusalim de după răstignire poate păstra o tradiție istorică autentică ce ar atesta aceeași dedicare și acceși sensibilitate comunitară ca la esenieni”.

Pare un demers paleogenetic al autoarei, de a revela formele originare ale vieții primelor comunități, din reminiscențele perpetuate de-a lungul generațiilor de credincioși ce-au așezat peste ele noi straturi interpretative. Pasiunea și convingerea cu care au interpretat vechile scripturi ebraice și le-au adaptat la prezentul lor au creat o serie de scrieri care au devenit temelie pentru dezvoltarea ulterioară a Bisericii, după ce aceasta a oferit noi cadre de interpretare.

Cartea ne oferă o nouă perspectivă asupra primilor ani după răstignirea lui Iisus și modul în care generațiile imediat următoare de credincioși de după el au făcut față neîmplinirii profețiilor în care fiecare generație credeau cu tărie.

[Rhegan · Rating 3 out of 5]

While the book was somewhat interesting and well written-It seemed like its purpose was to discredit Christianity, Jesus as messiah, and the New Testament. So that's not what I was expecting when I chose this book.

[Jon · Rating 4 out of 5]

I started off with much excitement and anticipation of reading this book, which I'd been wanting to get to for quite some time. Fredriksen promised to approach the subject of early Christianity, it seemed, from a Jewish perspective, which makes sense, given that the early Christians were Jews. Alas, in some ways, I was a bit disappointed, but in yet others this proved a profitable read.

I'll start with what was not as I had hoped. First, while Fredriksen writes very accessibly, I had a hard time following a through argument. A lot of interesting subjects--and some not so interesting--are explored, but I didn't really feel like there was much of a unifying thesis. Second, Fredriksen's approach is very much one informed by in-vogue secular ideas about the Jesus cult: namely that Jesus was not worshipped in the first generation. That veneration grew with time and mythology. It's an easy assumption to make, because that after all is how most myths are born. But to make such an argument, Fredriksen has to assume that all of the New Testament other than Paul's writings was written significantly later, in the last first century or early second. And even problematic passages in Paul's letters are seen as being mistranslations: Jesus isn't "God" as we read Paul's writing in English but "a god." Fredriksen's stance with regard to her biblical sources is further testified to by the way that she often claims there are contradictions. Some of these I can easily see any reasonable person making such a claim about; but others seem preposterous. For example, she claims that Paul's not writing about persecuting Stephen by name means there's a contradiction and that it likely did not happen as it is written about in the much-later-written Acts. The mere fact that someone does not mention an event in specificity but only in general does not make for a contradiction nor excuse for dismissing its reality. If I were to write that many acts of Islamic terrorism happened in the early 2000s but never mentioned 9/11 specifically, that would not mean that 9/11 did not happen.

What I liked about Fredriksen's work, however, came late in the book, when she focused on the interaction of pagans with Jewish Christians. Here she left me with much to think about. That's not to say there aren't interesting points earlier: they are nestled in among the larger text. What is perhaps most refreshing was exactly what I came to the text to read about: that Fredriksen does not read into the early Christian movement an anti-Judaism. She sees Paul as very much Jewish, which is not something many other scholars seem to recognize. Unlike those scholars, Fredriksen sees Paul as part of the movement that Peter and the apostles forged rather than as one who stole into the movement and introduced a Christianity devoid of its roots.

[Ayman Ashour · Rating 4 out of 5]

When Christians were Jews مراجعة كتاب

ظهرت في الفترة الاخيرة وبالتحديد بعد بداية القرن الواحد وعشرين ظاهرة او طريقة جديدة في تناول تاريخ المسيحية ولا اعرف تسمية رسمية لهذه الطريقة غير "فهم التاريخ عن طريق النظر الى المستقبل" او "future looking history” بمعني محاولة العودة الى وقت الاحداث والتدرج من الماضي بأعين الماضي وافكاره ودراسة الاحداث المتعاقبة بعكس دراسة او البحث في التاريخ بأعين وافكار وتعبيرات الحاضر. وانتهيت في اخر شهرين من قراة كتابين يمثلا هذه الطريقة احدهما هو After Jesus Before Christianity او "ما بعد يسوع وقبل المسيحية" وهو عمل شارك فيه حول سبعون مؤرخ من امريكا واستغرق حوالي عشرة سنوات، لم يعجبني كثيرا ولكن اثار عدة نقاط هامة وكتبت عنه مراجعة بالانجليزية. بعده قرات كتاب When Christians Were Jews كتبته مؤرخة امريكية اسمها Paula Fredriksen وساقدم هنا مراجعة لهذا الكتاب.

الفكرة الاساسية في الكتاب ان يسوع واتباعه بولس ويوحنا وبطرس ويعقوب كانوا كلهم يهود متدينين وعلى قناعة ان ما يعرف بنهاية الزمن او الحقبة وشيكة. فكرة نهاية الزمن وقيام مملكة الرب كانت فكرة مسيطرة على الوجدان اليهودي وبالذات منذ القرن الثاني قبل الميلاد ويظهر هذا في مخطوطات البحر الميت وفي كتابات اليهود بدء من كتاب او سفر دانيل وكتب مكابي وكتب اخرى بعضها ضمن كتب العهد القديم. نهاية الزمن ومملكة الرب لم تعني لهم نهاية العالم ولكن نهاية حقبة سمح فيها الرب لاخرين بالحكم ولكن مع مملكة الرب ستحل العدالة الكاملة الشاملة. هذا ماتوقعته طوائف مختلفة من اليهود ومنهم اتباع يوحنا المعمدان وبعده اتباع يسوع. توقعوا حلول مملكة الرب قبل صلب يسوع وبعد قيامته مباشرة وبعدها توقعوها بعد عودته الثانية وانتظروها وكانوا متاكدين انها وشيكة بعد خراب اورشليم ومع طول الانتظار تغيرت النظريات الدينية الى فكرة يوم العدالة الالهية بعد الموت.

تناولت المؤرخة الاحداث المؤدية الى الحكم الروماني على يسوع بالصلب وترجح ان انجيل يوحنا في سرده للاحداث المتعلقة بهذه النقطة بالذات اكثر دقة من مرقص ومن نقل منه (متى ولوقا)، يذكر انجيل يوحنا ان يسوع زار اورشليم عدة مرات في فترة استمرت ثلاث سنوات وانه كان يلقي دروس او مواعظ داخل المعبد بينما الاناجيل الثلاثة المتشابهة (مرقص، متى، لوقا) تقول ان اخر زيارة لاورشليم كانت زيارة يسوع الوحيدة لها وان رسالة يسوع استغرقت سنة واحدة وليس ثلاث. ترجح المؤرخة انجيل يوحنا لانه يحتوي فكرة انتشار فكر يسوع في اورشليم واقليم يهودا الذي كان تحت الحكم الروماني المباشر بينما كان اقليم الجليل تحت حكم هيرود انتيباس ابن الملك هيرودس الكبير الذي قام باعادة بناء المعبد اليهودي وتعظيمه. تري المؤرخة ان الحكم بصلب يسوع فقط دون عن اتباعه كان نتيجة توافق بين الحاكم الروماني بيلاطس وكهنة المعبد على ان يسوع نفسه لا يشكل خطر على الامن ولكن تنبؤه بان مملكة الرب وشيكة ادت إلى هيجان جمهور حجاج اليهود وان هذا الهيجان قد يسبب مشاكل او اضطرابات هم في غنى عنها ولهذا السبب كما ذكر يوحنا قامت فصيلة من الجيش الروماني ومن حرس المعبد اليهود بالقبض عليه وترفض تماما فكرة الاستجواب وبالذات استجواب بيلاطس العلني وترجح ان ما ذكر في الاناجيل الثلاثة المتشابهة عن محاكمة يهودية دينية غير تاريخي ومستحيل نتيجة مسؤوليات الكهنة العديدة اثناء عيد الفصح.

فكرة ان يسوع قلب طاولات الصرافين وبائعي الحمام ومنع حمل اي شي داخل المعبد في تقدير المؤرخة غير تاريخية لان هذه الاشياء كانت جزء من وظيفة المعبد وتقديم القرابين جزء طبيعي وتغيير العملة امر معتاد لشراء القرابين. مساحة المعبد كانت ضخمة جدا وجزء منه كان مخصص لهذه الاغراض بالتحديد. ويذكر المؤرخ اليهودي المعاصر يوسيفيوس ان عدد القرابين في احد اعياد الفصح فاق ال ٢٥٠ الف. ترى المؤرخة ان الاناجيل المتشابهة الثلاثة ادخلت هذه القصة لتخلق سبب لتدخل الحاكم الروماني واصداره الحكم على يسوع القادم من الجليل بالاعدام. ترى المؤرخة ان يوحنا قدم سرد منطقي لوجود اتباع ليسوع في اورشليم واستمرار اورشليم المركز الرئيسي المحوري لاتباع يسوع الى احداث الحرب الرومانية اليهودية وخراب اورشليم عام ٧٠ ميلادي.

فكرة التنبؤ بخراب اورشليم ودمار المعبد كانت بعيدة عن تفكير يسوع وهي متاثرة بما شاهده مرقص ومن تلاه من كتاب الاناجيل الاربعة وقت كتاباتهم بعد خراب اورشليم يعني بعد ٤٠ - ٧٥ سنة من فترة يسوع وبعد رسائل بولس ب ٢٠-٥٥ سنة. وتستدل المؤرخة على هذا بغياب الفكرة تماما من رسائل بولس المؤكدة تاريخيا ومن تنبؤات العهد القديم واقوال مختلفة على لسان يسوع بالذات في انجيلا مرقص ومتى. وترى ان يسوع واتباعه كانوا يقدسون المعبد واورشليم ولهذا ظلوا بها بعد صلب يسوع وتوقعاتهم ان مملكة الرب ستبدأ من جبل صهيون في اورشليم.

تنتقل المؤلفة بعد ذلك الى قصة قيام يسوع وتقارن بين السرد المتباين بين الاناجيل الاربعة وبينهم وبين سرد بولس في رسائله. بطبيعةً الحال كمؤرخه لا تتعرض لفكرة القيامة كمعجزة او حدوثها من عدمه ولكنها تتعرض للتباين بين السرديات المختلفة وعن الفترة التى حدثت فيها هذه الرؤيا اسبوع، خمسون يوم او اكثر او عدة سنوات حيث ان رؤية بولس حدثت بعد سنوات من الرؤيا الاخرى. والاهم هنا هل الرؤيا كان لقيامة روحية كما يذكر بولس ام جسدية كما يصر يوحنا ولوقا. نقطة اساسية يقدمها الكتاب كدليل على فكرة ان مملكة الرب كان وشيكة هي تواجد اعداد كبيرة ( اكثر من ٥٠٠ طبقا لبولس واعداد متفاوتة اقل طبقا للاناجيل الاربعة) من اتباع يسوع في اورشليم شاهدوا قيامة يسوع فيها واستمرت حياتهم فيها رغم بعدها عن الجليل وفقرهم النسبي وخوفهم من بطش الرومان كل هذا لانهم كانوا على قناعة ان مملكة الرب وشيكة. تناولت المؤرخة ايضا فكرة التحول التدريجي لقيامة يسوع الاولى من كونها دليل على ان مملكة الرب فعلًا وشيكة الى انها دليل على ان يسوع هو المسيح طبقًا لقرائه اتباع يسوع للكتاب المقدس اليهودي. اعتقد ان المؤرخة خلطت بين ماقاله بولس عن القيامة الروحية للبشر ككل واصرت على ان بولس كان يعني انا قيامة يسوع كانت روحية أيضا ولا اجد اشارة واضحة في كتابات بولس بذاك.

من الاشياء الجديدة علي هو ان المؤرخة ترجح ان انجيل لوقا احدث من انجيل يوحنا وهذا ايضا ما رجحه الكتاب الاخر (ما بعد يسوع قبل المسيحية)الذي ادعي ان اعمال الرسل كتب في منتصف القرن الثاني دون تقديم اي دليل منطقي وهذا يختلف عن الاغلبية العظمى من المؤرخين الاخرين الذي قرات لهم والذين يرجحون ان انجيلا متى ولوقا واعمال الرسل كتبوا في ثمانينات القرن الاول وان انجيل يوحنا كتب في التسعينات. ترى المؤرخة ان لوقا في كتابيه (انجيل لوقا واعمال الرسل) كان يحاول دائما ان يقلل من اهمية فكرة ان مملكة الرب وشيكة ونرى في كتاباته يسوع ينهى عن توقع حدوث مملكة الرب ويكتب ان مملكة الرب موجودة. على عكس نجد فكر التبشير بان المملكة وشيكة في انجيل مرقص ومتى ورسائل بولس وتأكيد منهم انها ستحدث اثناء حياتهم ولكن بطبيعة الحال مع مرور السنين احتاج لوقا لنظرية جديدة.

الفكرة الاساسية في الكتاب هي اعتبار اتباع يسوع انفسهم يهود واهمية حفاظهم على يهوديتهم. عقاب بولس بالجلد وبالتحديد (اربعون جلدة الا واحدة) ٣٩ جلدة كانت العقاب الذي تقبله بولس بارادته من المعابد اليهودية وكان هو ذاته العقاب الذي كان يشارك في القيام به قبل ايمانه بدعوة يسوع. من الافكار التي وجدت نفسي غير قادر على تقبلها هو عرض المؤرخة لفكرة ان معارضة اليهود لاتباع يسوع كانت ناتجة من خوف اليهود من غضب الوثنيين مع رفض "خائفي الرب" من اتباع يسوع عبادة الاله الاخري. (خائفي الرب هم الوثنيون الذين كانوا يعبدون رب اليهود بالاضافة الى الهة اخري وكانوا من اوائل الوثنيون الذين اعتنقوا "المسيحية" او اتبعوا يسوع). وجدت هذا مختلف عن فكر بولس الذي كان رفض فكرة ان مسيح اليهود قد يظهر بضعف يسوع وان موته على خشبة (من نصوص العهد القديم) تجعله ملعون وليس مسيح. اجد كتابات مؤرخين اخرين اكثر اقناعا في ان بولس توصل الى فكره عن يسوع بعد ثلاث سنوات من الدراسة بعد حادث دمشق وقبل زيارته لاورشليم للقاء الحواريين.

اثارت المؤرخة ايضا في فكر بولس عن الناموس واصرت على ان بولس كان يرى استمرار العمل بالناموس لليهود وتحدت هنا الفكر السائد عن بولس في ال justification by faith او الاعتدال عن طريق الايمان كبديل لاعمال الناموس. استدلت المؤرخة بعدة نصوص من العهد القديم ومن اقوال يسوع على فكرة استمرار اليهود على اتباع اليهودية مع دعوة الوثنين الى عبادة رب اليهود وحده بلا شربك واتباع الوصايا وان حلول مملكة الرب سيكون بعد اتباع اجناس الوثنيون السبعون ليهوا ومن هنا عمل بولس وبطرس وباقي الرسل على نشر رسالة يسوع. لم اجد هذا الفكر مقنع لي بالنسبة لبولس بالتحديد لان كتاباته في هذا الموضوع بالذات واضحة ويعتقد بعض المؤرخون ان هذه النقطة بالتحديد محورية في فكر وعقيدة بولس، ربما قد اكون اسئت فهم ما تعنيه المؤلفة ولكن وجدت نفسي مختلف معها.

الكتاب بشكل عام قيم ويستحق القراءة للمهتمين بتاريخ العقائد. وربما اهم شي فيه هو بعد النقاط عن اعادة النظر في ترجمة بعض الالفاظ اليونانية والنقاط المتعلقة بعلاقة يسوع باورشليم.

[Eric Stone · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another remarkable book from Paula Fredriksen, who I clearly can’t get enough of recently. This work, paired with her previous book on the apostle Paul, come together to create one of the most vivid and convincing images of the earliest days of the Jesus movement I’ve ever encountered.

Fredriksen makes it clear throughout her work that this was a period that we simply know very little about, with our earliest documents from the period being Paul’s surviving epistles, and even these were being written in a period when Jesus’ followers were attempting to rationalize the apparent tardiness of his coming kingdom. With this in mind, she makes use of our understandings of the contexts and conflicts of first century Judaism, of the nature Roman imperial rule in Judea, and the writings of the evangelists (especially Acts), Paul, and Josephus in order to produce a reconstruction of how this movement *might* have looked. Fredriksen also makes the conscious effort throughout this book to avoid using the words “Christian” and “Church” to describe this movement, arguing that these are anachronistic to the period and group they’re meant to represent, and so obscure the true character of the movement. Fredriksen’s first generation of Christ followers are fundamentally Jewish, Apocalyptic, and Charismatic in nature.

She argues that this original apocalyptic movement, initially centered around the figure of Jesus Christ during his life and ministry, was faced with a series of serious eschatological disappointments over the course of the four decades separating the death of their leader in ~30 and the Roman destruction of the temple in 70.

The first disappointment was, obviously, the death of Jesus of Nazareth, a moment that for most similar messianic sects during this period would have spelled the end. But the Jesus movement was saved by something unexpected, the Christophanies. Jesus, as seen by many of followers, been risen from the dead. Over the next few years, an extended period of such appearances (culminating most significantly with Paul’s own experience) breathed new life into the movement, as the faithful reassembled in Jerusalem. For them, this resurrection was a sign, a sign of Jesus’ imminent return and the accompanying raising of the dead. It’s firing this period that Jesus of Nazareth becomes wrapped up in Davidic notions of messianic kingship, returning in power to usher in the end of days, defeat the lesser divinities of the cosmos, and ushering in God’s kingdom. It would come any day now.

As years went on and the Christophanies grew less frequent, the community once again had to adapt to this disappointing delay. Fredriksen argues that these leaders began to believe that the kingdom had not come because they had not yet truly paved the way for it. They must reach and spread the gospel message of the coming kingdom to ALL of Israel, not just those living in Palestine, but to the diaspora as well. It is in this context that the early apostles began spread out, traveling to the various synagogue communities scattered across the Mediterranean world. It was in these communities that two important events took place. a) The unexpected success of the gospel message within the gentile communities associated with these diaspora synagogues, and two, the emergence of Paul within the apostolic movement, who, along with the leaders of the community in Jerusalem, would interpret this success as a further validation of Jesus’ prophecized apocalypse. I already wrote much on this topic in my review of Fredriksen’s work on Paul, but here she more definitively argues against the scholarly orthodoxy, which she believes tends to read undo malice and conflict into the relationship between Paul and the leaders in Jerusalem (namely Peter and James). Fredriksen instead argues that no such fundamental divide ever existed, and argues that Paul consistently speaks of agreement with the so called “Pillars” throughout his letters, including on issues of gentile circumcision and conversion.

A third disappointment comes in the period from 39-40 CE, when a conflict between the temple in Jerusalem and the imperial authority in Rome over the lack of Jewish participation in the imperial cult, almost boiled over into direct conflict. The emperor Caligula sought to force Jewish compliance with the imperial cult by placing a statue of himself at the alter of the Holy of Holies in the Jerusalem Temple. Christ followers in the city turned toward scripture for answers in the face of this crisis, particularly the apocalyptic prophecies of the book of Daniel, where it is argued that the end of days will be marked by a “defiling” of the temple. To the Jesus movement, this was yet another validating sign of the closing of the age. However, when Caligula was assassinated, tensions between Rome and Jerusalem began to cool, and the apocalyptic fervor of the movement cooled with it, for the time.

In the coming decades, the movement would face growing internal tensions and conflict as time inexplicably continued moving forward. It is in this period of crisis that Paul wrote his epistles, assuring the faithful of the imminence of Christ’s return and hurling abuse at those who cast doubt or seek to advance the cause of gentile circumcision. Over time, however, Jesus’ followers, the leaders of the movement, would die. James, Peter, and Paul would all pass away before the coming of the final apocalyptic disappointment, the destruction of the Temple. By the time of Temple’s destruction in 70, assemblies of Christ followers had established themselves all over the Mediterranean, the community still had the central pillar of the Jerusalem community to guide them, and even though the first generation was dying out, faith remained strong in the fast approach of the end times, even 40 years after the death of the movement’s founder. These apocalyptic feelings are most clearly seen in the Gospel of Mark, the earliest of the evangelistic writings. For Mark, the destruction of the temple was the sign, the desolation of the temple predicted in Daniel, with its destruction, the end would soon follow… and then it didn’t.

After this fourth and final apocalyptic disappointment, the movement needed to adapt once again. By this point, gentile followers far outnumbered Jewish ones, Jesus assemblies were being removed from the synagogues to which they had always previously attached themselves, and the core leadership of the Jerusalem community no longer existed, what remained were Paul’s letters, specifically those written to gentile communities, in which he argued against their conversion and adoption of the mosaic law. With these scriptures in hand, the remaining gentile followers began to build something new, the church, a law free, gentile led, and explicitly non-Jewish (and eventually even anti-Jewish) organization which would carry the gospel forward, divorced from its message of an imminent apocalypse and subsequently rooted enough in time to build lasting organizational structures, into the 2nd century and beyond.

Wow. What a read. Still, a little textbookish.

4.5/5

[Naomi · Rating 5 out of 5]

If only everyone who had to preach during Holy Week and Easter would read, understand, and incorporate the learning Fredriksen offers in this book, we would accomplish two things: counter the traditions of interpretation that foster hate and anti-Semitism and leap forward our adult faith communities' approach to studying the Bible (contextually, understanding the history of these texts) significantly. But since that's unlikely in the next week, I hope congregations will take up this book for older youth and adult study, that religious leaders will take it on as study material in their peer communities as well as the communities they serve, and that individuals whose congregations don't take up the book will read it. Presenting analysis that challenges centuries of traditions of interpretation is a tough thing to do. Fredriksen does so very well, although folks for whom this kind of Biblical analysis is new will benefit from reading in small sections and pondering these sections in relationship to other studious Biblical studies texts.

[Dave · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very good, very accessible look at the history of the Jesus movement in the 1st and early 2nd century C.E.

Chapter two is the best exploration of the events of "Easter Week" that I have found. The author reveals all the mistranslations, anachronisms, misrepresentations, downright errors and the conflicts between the various authors writing about this story: Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Paul and Josephus; along with others. e.g. Scholars have a report from Josephus that 255,600 sheep were sacrificed during ONE Passover in the temple. The Pharisees, Sadducees, priests and scribes were all extremely busy with holiday work in the temple. There would have been no time for the Sanhedrin to meet.

From the reign of Herod the Great 37-4 B.C.E. to the final Jewish Revolt 132-135 C.E. was a very turbulent and BLOODY time in the Jewish Homeland.

Overall Fredriksen stresses what I have read in numerous other books: Jesus was a Jew preaching his concept of Judaism to other Jews.

[Shelley Neese]

I am really looking forward to Paula Fredriksen's new book. This is a topic very close to my heart. A flurry of books have come out over the last ten years on the Jewishness of Jesus, but not much in regard to the Jewishness of the first Christians.
I read her Fredriksen's book many years back, Augustine and the Jews, and it was critical in my understanding of Augustine's contribution the Jewish-Christian relations. The nearly universal Christian acceptance of Augustinian ideas by subsequent generations is why Augustine can be revered as a Saint for both Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox Church while still being claimed by Protestants leaders as a progenitor of the Reformation. Augustine’s more complicated legacy, however, relates to the Jews. And as Fredriksen showed, it was quite complicated.
Looking forward to this new book. She had me at the title.

[Rachel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nonfiction works can appeal to readers for very different reasons. Take, for example, potential audiences for Paula Fredricksen’s “When Christians Were Jews: The First Generation” (Yale University Press). It gives Christian readers an opportunity to learn more about the roots of their religion. For Jews, the book’s focus on the first century C.E. offers a lesson rarely taught in synagogue religious schools: that there were many different Jewish groups, each with its own ideas about the appropriate way to practice Judaism. My interest in this time period is the way Judaism began its transformation from a Temple-based religion to a home- and synagogue-based one. While this is not Fredricksen’s main interest, readers can glean insights into the religious practices of Jews during this period.
Read the rest of my review at www.thereportergroup.org/Article.aspx...

[Kevin Carney · Rating 2 out of 5]

Paula Frederiksen’s “When Christians Were Jews” is her attempt to deconstruct the Christian understanding of the first generation of Jesus-followers in order to place the Jewish people and religion in a more favorable light and to portray many of the major events and mainstay beliefs of the New Testament as simply literary constructs that recycle the language and ideas from the Old Testament to put forth a dramatic story to win followers to the burgeoning Jesus-movement in the decades after his death. Her main thesis is that early “Christianity” is actually a continuation of Judaism with a few minor squabbles. She cannot imagine that Jesus may be trying to upset the Jewish apple cart. She cannot conceive of the “outrageous” notion that his authoritative teaching could be divine. He is simply a charismatic, self-proclaimed-prophet, like so many others, whose differences with the scribes can be ironed out within the big tent of Judaism. Any perceived criticism of the learned Pharisees or any pejorative language toward Jewish customs and beliefs are simply retrojected from a later time period of antisemitism -and are not emanating from Jesus or his disciples, whom she portrays as good Jews proud of their Jewish heritage.

Fredriksen wants to redirect the Bible readers’ attention from the larger truths of the New Testament to her area of expertise, historicity. She believes, perhaps, that if she can discredit the accuracy of the evangelists’ basic facts that she can cast doubt on the larger truths they are proclaiming, such as, Jesus’ incarnation, his divinity, the resurrection, eternal life and so on. In order to discredit the evangelists’ stories she plays fast and loose with their texts. She must distort, convolute, bend the words, events and ideas of the Gospels to make them fit into her thesis. Her most fallacious method of argument is using conjecture to reach conclusions with insufficient evidence. For example, she concludes that Jesus could never have overturned the tables of the merchants at the Temple based on her facts concerning inner courts, outer courts, Roman guards, oxen (45-48). She also contends that Jesus had no reason to be angry at these merchants who were simply doing their jobs. Her “evidence” is circumstantial at best and simply self-serving at worst. This important event appears in all 4 Gospels, and reinforces one of Jesus’ messages: “I will tear down this temple, and rebuild it in three days.” (John 2: 19). The eventual church views itself as the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12: 12-27). If she does not negate this table-overturning event, her thesis is weakened.

Fredriksen gets lost in the weeds of her historicity and loses sight of a bigger truth: Jesus was not happy with the Jewish status quo of 1st century Judaism. He was a radical whose new ideas could not be contained within the existing strictures of 1st century Judaism. He thought of himself as an excellent Jew and wanted to purge his beloved religion of certain human beliefs and practices that were inconsistent with God’s will. This kind of knowledge and authority from an uneducated nobody from Galilee was inconceivable and threatening to the established authorities of the day. They reacted with hostility according to their Law:
“The false prophets or visionaries…must be put to death, for they encourage rebellions…” (Deut 13:5). Jesus had plenty of motivation to overturn the tables, but maybe there were no oxen or if the oxen were there, maybe the tables were in an alley behind the Temple and not in the great courtyard. In fact, this action may have happened more than once.

Another example of her fast and loose interpretation of the New Testament is her depiction of the Last Supper as a traditional Seder meal to celebrate the Passover. She is retrojecting her 21st century sensibilities of wishful thinking and ecumenism into a 1st century meal of Jesus and his followers, who were not celebrating or eating a sumptuous meal. They are eating a simple meal of bread, dip and wine. The only sacrificial lamb is the body and blood of Jesus. It is a mournful and emotional enactment of Jesus’ imminent death. It might even be a subversion of the traditional Seder.

Fredriksen presents a Jewish-centric view of life and the world, which limits her objectivity. She uses her erudition to obfuscate rather than to fully elucidate 1st century life. Even the title of her book is intended to obscure some real and significant differences between Judaism and the emerging Jesus movement. She wants the reader to look at her 21st century research and to ignore the inspired writings of these uneducated Galileans who wrote the Gospels. They are simply relying on oral traditions passed down by witnesses, presumably. Their “fuzzy,” inconsistent recall is contrasted with her strict adherence to historicity. They were guided by the nebulous Holy Spirit. She is guided by the solid Josephus (and others?). Her interpretation is understandable considering how often the Gospels have been misused against the Jews throughout history. But in trying to compensate for this abuse, she misses some key elements of the history and the religious movements of first century Israel. For one, she misunderstands the Jesus-movement, which is more legitimate and necessary than she is able to conceive in her limited point of view. Despite the large overlap of Judaism and Christianity, hence her title, and despite shared scriptures, shared prophets and shared goals- there are differences, significant from the get-go, hence Jesus’ radical movement, but manageable.

[Dr. Jason Frazier · Rating 2 out of 5]

A scholarly attempt to discredit much of the Gospel accounts of Jesus and the details surrounding Him. Instead of providing facts, the author repeats the premise: (this specific detail like Jesus’s trial before the Sanhedrin during a busy Passover) is improbable thus it didn’t happen. Yet the author presents no facts, no historical records to actually prove that, just her own opinions. This book was a disappointment.

[Nikki · Rating 4 out of 5]

As with many scholarly books of this type, the best part is the epilogue.

Fredriksen shares a lot of really interesting theories regarding the first generation of Christians. However, she gets bogged down in many of the chapters and often I didn't understand where she was going or what her main point was. Despite the lack of clarity, I appreciated the many tidbits that I did glean.

[Patrick · Rating 5 out of 5]

I heard about this book from a review written by Larry Hurtado and this author from her previous book on Paul the pagans’ apostle. This book is very interesting because it asks a lot of great questions. I like it very much.

[Ted Morgan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a provocative (to me) but highly plausible study of early formation of what became Christianity. I don't see any stumbling blocks though this is an unusual account of the Jewish roots and foundations of Christianity. It is a book I will revisit.

[Nick Spencer · Rating 3 out of 5]

good on context
too many arguments from incredulity/ silence

[Nichole]

“How you see is what you get.”

[Derek Baker · Rating 3 out of 5]

Solid intro to questions about the historical Jesus

[Rama Rao · Rating 4 out of 5]

The beginnings of Christian communities

Paula Fredericksen, a Biblical scholar presents the history of early Christianism when it was still at its infancy. Then, Jesus and apostles were themselves practicing Jews, and considered themselves as part of a Jewish apocalyptic movement of First century. She reconstructs a historical, religious, and cultural history of the first three hundred years when Jesus movement emerged within Jewish society before becoming a distinct religion. Over this period, Christianity was transitioned into a separate religion due to theological, social, and political developments. In the first century, the earliest followers of Jesus practiced Jewish customs, laws, attended synagogues, and observed the Torah. Peter and Paul were central in spreading Jesus' teachings. Paul’s missions to the Gentiles (non-Jews) began to open up the movement to a broader audience. The destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE and the Bar Kokhba revolt (132-136 CE) diminished Jewish influence. The Christian writings, such as the Gospels and the letters of Paul, began to form a distinct theological identity centered on Jesus as the Christ (Messiah). The Constantine and the Edict of Milan (313 CE) granted religious tolerance to Christians which greatly elevated the status of Christianity in the Roman Empire. The Council of Nicaea (325 CE) was pivotal in defining orthodox Christian beliefs and combating heresies further distinguishing Christianity from other religious traditions. Emperor Theodosius I (380 CE) declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire with the Edict of Thessalonica. This official status marked a clear separation from Judaism and other religions. The Codex Sinaiticus is the first Bible written in the mid-fourth century (330–360 C.E) in Greek, the common language of the Eastern Roman Empire.

It should be noted that the Jewish beliefs in strict monotheism in an indivisible God (Yahweh) changed for Christians who believed in the holy Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), which is not monotheistic. Jewish scriptures were the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) that consisted of the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, but Christians adopted the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and added the New Testament, consisting of Gospels, Epistles, and other writings. Jews observed Mosaic Law (Torah), including dietary laws, Sabbath observance, circumcision, and various purity laws that included fasting and feastings on key Jewish observances. Their worship was centered around the Temple (until its destruction in 70 CE) and later synagogues. Worship involved animal sacrifices and readings from the Torah. But Christians: Gathered in house churches, focusing on communal worship, prayer, healing services, and the Eucharist. Jews anticipated a future messianic age with the restoration of Israel, but Christians believed in the imminent return of Jesus, the final judgment, and the establishment of God's kingdom. These differences evolved over time, especially as Christianity spread beyond its Jewish roots and developed its own distinct identity and theological framework.

The gospels contain passages that blames Jewish leaders and, by extension, the Jewish people for Jesus' death. For example, in Matthew 27:25, the crowd is depicted as saying, "His blood be on us and on our children," which has historically been interpreted as the Jewish people accepting collective responsibility for Jesus' crucifixion. Christian writers like Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and John Chrysostom articulated views that reinforced the idea of Jewish responsibility for Jesus' death. This is the beginning of the antisemitic feelings among Christians.

The book makes a fascinating reading but lacks some details regarding Paul’s views on Jewish purity laws. I recommend this book to anyone interested in early Christian history and the challenges and opportunities to form a new religion when the founders of the faith did not have any clue that they were creating a new faith system independent from Judaism.

[Tony Lawrence]

Borrowed from Gladstone's Library in Hawarden, across the border from me in Flintshire.

This book is a ‘first’ for me in a couple of respects; the first book I have borrowed from Gladstone’s Library (trying to understand the catalogue and library processes!), and; a proper theological investigation. Apologies to the author if this should be correctly called something different. I had heard a few things about Jesus’ life, the founding of Christianity, the role of Jews and Jerusalem, and this all seemed to come together in one book. It was challenging, but well written and enjoyable, even for this ‘lay’ reader! I had to learn a few new words (e.g. apostle vs. disciple, gospel, eschatology, proselytise, synoptic etc.) and familiarise myself with the politics and geography in the C1st Common Era, but I assume usual readers would not need a glossary or guide. Apologies in advance for any errors in understanding and my language. Fredriksen deliberately avoids referring to ‘church’ and ‘Christianity’ for reasons that become clear.

The author takes her source material from the New Testament 4 gospels and Acts, Saul/Paul’s ‘letters’, and ‘Antiquities of the Jews’ written by historian (Flavius) Josephus who was born in Jerusalem the son of a Jewish Priest but eventually become a Roman and advisor to Titus at the time of the Jewish revolt and sacking of Jerusalem and the 2nd temple c.66-70 CE. Most of this material was not first-hand testimony, and none of the 4 gospels (Jesus’ words and deeds, effectively his biography), was written by anyone present at the time. In fact, they were written 50 to 100 years later and were clearly informed by the growing Christian movement, adapting the messages and events of the time for their own religion-political ends. Christianity could have been ‘still-born’ in these early years c.35 CE when Jesus was unexpectedly killed and his imminent permanent resurrection fizzled out. So Fredriksen has to interpret this material and try to intuit and understand what was happening in Jerusalem and the wider region at the time. Also, the likely attitudes of the key players, possible timelines and events, which are muddled, unreliable, or plainly made up in post hoc narratives. There is too much to cover in a review, but some of main themes and questions that she tackles include:

- Why was Jesus crucified (normally a punishment for rebels & revolutionaries), but his followers (a ‘mob’?) were left unharmed? And who were the main drivers in the arrest, the Romans, the Temple Priests, or both?

- What was the relationship between Jesus and his followers (all observant Jews) and the priesthood in Jerusalem? Why was this charismatic prophet allowed to preach unhindered in the Temple grounds, even including upturning the tables of the moneychangers?

- Why did the first generation of Christians post-crucifixion stay in Jerusalem?

- When was the decision taken to extend the Galilean/post-Jesus mission beyond Jerusalem and to include non-Jews, variously called ‘non-pagan pagans’ (God-fearers), Gentiles, Nations, i.e. those not descended from the 12 tribes of Israel?

The last 2 seem to relate to a shift from an ‘EndTimes’ cult - they were originally meant to be both the first and last generation before the final battle, redemption and God’s Kingdom on earth - to a more established independent challenger to Judaism. The apocalyptic language and growing non-appearance morphs into an open-ended wait for a second-coming with Jesus as a Davidic warrior-messiah.

I don’t know how much of Fredriksen’s analysis and conclusions is contentious to theologists, Christians and Jews, but I found it fascinating.

[Sorin · Rating 2 out of 5]

H • R223
În lucrarea „Pe când creștinii erau evrei” (în engleză „When Christians Were Jews”), Paula Fredriksen, un renumit istoric și expert în studiul primelor secole ale creștinismului, explorează perioada timpurie a creștinismului și modul în care primele comunități creștine erau profund legate de tradițiile evreiești. Cartea analizează momentul în care creștinismul s-a separat treptat de iudaism și a devenit o religie distinctă, dar subliniază și continuitatea inițială între cele două.

Principalele idei din lucrarea lui Fredriksen includ:
1. Creștinismul ca un fenomen evreiesc timpurii – Fredriksen argumentează că primii creștini nu se considerau „creștini” în sensul modern, ci mai degrabă erau evrei care credeau că Isus era Mesia promis. Acești primii adepți ai lui Isus trăiau în cadrul unei tradiții evreiești și își practicau religia ca parte a comunității evreiești. Creștinismul timpuriu nu se distinge clar de iudaism, iar majoritatea membrilor acestei mișcări continuau să respecte Legea evreiască (Torah), să participe la tradițiile și sărbătorile evreiești.
2. Diversitatea în cadrul comunității timpurii – Fredriksen subliniază că în perioada timpurie, comunitățile creștine erau extrem de diverse, iar unele grupuri considerau că urmarea completă a legii evreiești era esențială pentru a fi parte din mișcarea lui Isus, în timp ce altele (de exemplu, învățăturile apostolului Pavel) susțineau că nu era nevoie de respectarea legii evreiești pentru a deveni creștin.
3. Pavel și ruptura de iudaism – Un punct central al lucrării lui Fredriksen este modul în care apostolul Pavel joacă un rol important în procesul de separare a creștinismului de iudaism. Fredriksen explorează cum învățăturile lui Pavel, care susțineau că mântuirea nu depinde de respectarea legii evreiești (în special a circumciziei și a altor porunci evreiești), au dus la o divizare treptată între evrei și non-evrei în rândul comunităților creștine.
4. Contextul istoric și sociologic al mișcării creștine – Fredriksen pune în evidență și contextul social și politic al perioadei, arătând cum noile mișcări religioase (precum creștinismul) se formau în cadrul unei societăți romane și evreiești care erau foarte diferite. În acest context, ideea că Isus era Mesia a avut un impact major asupra modului în care evreii și, mai târziu, non-evreii au înțeles religia.
5. Impactul evreismului asupra doctrinei creștine – Fredriksen susține că, deși creștinismul s-a dezvoltat treptat într-o religie distinctă, multe dintre învățăturile fundamentale ale creștinismului timpurii sunt profund legate de tradițiile și învățăturile evreiești. Aceasta include ideea mântuirii, conceptul de Împărăție a lui Dumnezeu și așteptările mesianice.

În concluzie, „Pe când creștinii erau evrei” de Paula Fredriksen examinează evoluția timpurie a creștinismului, punând accent pe continuarea legăturii sale cu iudaismul până la o separare treptată, determinată de diferitele interpretări ale învățăturii lui Isus, mai ales în urma activității apostolilor, în special a lui Pavel. Lucrarea subliniază complexitatea acestei tranziții și arată că la început, creștinismul era în mod clar o mișcare evreiască, iar conceptele fundamentale ale religiei aveau rădăcini profunde în tradițiile iudaice.

[Patrick W. · Rating 5 out of 5]

When, over a period of many years, one reads a lot of books by biblical scholars with a focus on the New Testament, the reader may need to use a microscope to find much that’s new. Academic writing usually consists of an author cautiously laying out all the concepts on a particular topic that have been put forward previously by seemingly countless other academic authors, and meticulously footnoting the sources to justify each assertion of fact or theory along the way.

So I found Paula Fredriksen’s bookrefreshing. She highlights a number of observations that were always plain to see but just seldom given much attention in the past. I got something new.

For instance, the gospels tell the story of Jesus’ arrest in the Garden of Gesthemane, the night before his crucifixion. According to the stories, Pontius Pilate and temple leaders considered Jesus a serious threat who must be eliminated for the sake of the nation.

“So why were Jesus’ immediate followers not arrested and executed as well?” Fredriksen asks. “Instead, what we have from the gospels is a tale of Jesus’ followers, in Gesthemane—armed with ‘swords,’ no less—fleeing successfully once their leader is arrested. Were the temple police and the Roman soldiers really so incompetent?”

Later, after his execution and resurrection, some of the stories (but not all) have him instructing his followers to return to Galilee to await him there. But history shows that the leaders of the Jesus movement remained centered in and around Jerusalem, not Galilee.

Why the differences?

For one thing, when the Jesus movement was still very much a Jewish phenomenon, the definition of messiah had not yet been blown out of proportion. A messiah was an “anointed one,” and there had been many anointed ones in Jewish history. Only much later did the term grow to mean an eternal divine being who was one-third of a triune God. “Back in the mid-first century, when Christians were Jews, Jesus was high on the cosmic gradient, but he was nonetheless human,” Fredriksen writes.

She points out that Mark, the earliest gospel, projects an urgently apocalyptic message. The end of time was due to arrive any minute, certainly before the passing of the generation living at the time of its writing. But Fredriksen departs from many other scholars when she dates the authorship of Luke at least as late as 110 CE, some 40 years after Rome’s destruction of the temple in Jerusalem and at least 35 years after the authorship of Mark. Because Jesus’ second coming and the end of time had failed to arrive as soon as Mark’s generation expected, Luke would have substantially lowered the temperature of his message from that of the earlier evangelist.

This book covers a lot of ground that has been explored in numerous earlier volumes by other authors. But it also introduces a number of insights that can force a reader to pause and reconsider many old, unquestioned assumptions. Despite what many claim, we do not know the full story yet.

[Bob Buice · Rating 5 out of 5]

The story of the historic Jesus has been told a number of different ways. Sources of information on the original followers of Jesus include the seven undisputed letters of St. Paul (written late 50s to early 60s CE), the synoptic gospels [those of Sts. Mark (written c. 72 CE), Matthew (written c. 85 CE) and Luke (written c. 95 CE or later)], the Acts of the Apostles (written in the early second century by the author of Luke), and historians of the era (e.g. Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius).

Alexander the Great invaded the Middle East and conquered Persia (332 BCE), bringing Greek culture to the area. Upon his death his Eastern Mediterranean empire was split by the families of his generals. For a period of time the military and political power of two of these families, the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Seleucids of Syria, switched back and forth. A subsequent merging of Greek with the various local cultures has been termed “Hellenization”. Some Jews welcomed these changes; others resisted them. What followed was a violent clash of cultures - Syrian Greeks vs. Jerusalem - culminating in the Maccabean Revolt (166 – 160 BCE). After a century of regional in-fighting, the Roman general Pompey conquered Jerusalem in 63 BCE.

First century BCE Rome was plagued by civil wars, first between Pompey and Julius Caesar (48 CE) and then, with Caesar’s assassination (44 BCE), between Mark Antony and Octavian. Octavian’s victory (31 BCE) resulted in Rome’s transition from republic to empire. Octavian became Augustus, the first emperor of the Roman Empire (r. 27 BCE – 14 CE).

Herod the Great ruled over the Roman territories of Judea, Transjordan, Samaria, the Galilee, and the Golan (r. 37 – 4 BCE). As a master builder, Herod was focused on public works. It was Herod who built the Jerusalem of Jesus' era.

For the whole of Jesus’ mission, the Galilee was something of an independent Jewish territory ruled by Herod Antipas (r. 4 BCE – 39 CE), one of the sons of Herod the Great. Another son, Archelaus ruled Judea (r. 4 BCE – 6 CE) at the time of Jesus’ birth. The reign of both sons began with their father’s death (4 BCE). Because Archelaus proved inept, Augustus removed him in 6 CE. Later, under the reign of Emperor Tiberius (r. 14 – 37 CE) Pontius Pilate was named prefect (governor) of Judea (r. c. 26 – c. 36 CE).

The synoptic gospels describe a Jesus of the early first century. He went to Jerusalem for Passover only once, at the end of his mission. Other pilgrims celebrated his entry, hailing him as the messenger of the coming Kingdom. Jesus was a charismatic healer, holy person, teacher, and preacher. His preaching centered on the good news of the coming Kingdom of God. He developed His call to repentance in terms of the Ten Commandments. When asked about the greatest of the commandments, the Jesus of the synoptic tradition quoted Deuteronomy 6.4 (love of God) and Leviticus 19.18 (love of neighbor).

The Jesus of the Gospel According to St. John was better suited for a late first-century, natively Greek, and possibly gentile environment than to an early first-century Palestinian, Aramaic, Jewish tradition. This gospel gives an account of Jesus in Jerusalem on four different occasions, two during a Passover (John 2.13, 12.12), one during an unnamed festival (John 5.1) and one at Hannukah (John 10.22).

Numerous differences between the gospels are described; far too many to review.

In “When Christians were Jews” Paula Fredericksen presents an excellent history of the entire period from the century prior to Jesus mission through portions of the apostolic period. There is quite a bit of detail; the above summary only skims the surface. An enthusiast of the history of this period will have trouble putting the book down. Moreover, such an individual might wear him/herself out taking notes. To say that the book is well researched would be an understatement. Also, the book is well written and a pleasure to read.

I highly recommend his book to all theology enthusiasts.

[David Goldman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Professor Fredriksen examines the early Christian movement from the perspective of the people as they were at the time - religious Jews very much part of the milue of their times. Stripping away the imposition of events and believes that were prevalent centuries later. Her writing is clear and authoritative, Fredriksen mines christian, jewish, and roman histories. When Christians Were Jews provides a fascinating insight that both Christians and Jews will profit from. (I’m Jewish, btw).

The temple was a gathering Jews and gentiles, particularly the massive court. Many gentiles were Jewish sympathizers, but not jews themselves. Jesus was one of many prophets and teachers surrounding the temple at this time.

The Gospils were written after the destruction of the temple, while Paul was written before. Thus, Paul assumes the Temple’s existence. All were involved with the Temple cult and none rejected it. They saw themselves very much in the tradition of the prophets - criticizing certain aspects of the cult but no the insitution. Compare to the Jewish subgroup - the Essenes - who outright rejected the cult.

Jesus had frequented Jerusalem many times during his like, more like Luke. He teachings had gone without notice by authorities, roman and Jewish. It was only when Jesus came during Passover, which a large following and attracting crowds did authorities act. (The better translation is the word insurrection than criminal). They were not afraid of Jesus, but did want to keep the peace

Jesus followers expected the end of days to happen during Jesus life, then immediately after his death, and then soon after. In some ways, christianity has been a religion defined by always waiting. Yet the lack of parousia, lead early followers to dig deep. Because they were jews, they dug deep into the Bible. Matching up Jesus’s prophecy with jewish profits and his life with David

Preaching beyond Jews. Because they thought the end of days was near, and non-jews needed to become “god-fearers” the Paul and then others focus on non-Jews. The Jews were already covered. Paul’s rhetoric that seems anti-jewsish and anti-jewish law was really only meant for non-jews. This group didn’t need to be converted to Judiasm. Paul’s vindictive comments are reserved for those apostles who believed non-jews needed to be converted. Paul, himself, remained loyal to jewish custom. His comments appear anti jewish in retrospect of centuries of animosity .

Fredriksen sees early christians as Jews. Jews of that time had a wide array of practices and beliefs (as they do now). Sadducee, Pharisees, Essenes, hellenized jews, non-jews who were judiased. In this enviorment, those who would become Christians easily fit within parameters of jews. The breach happened, but it was later.

[V · Rating 3 out of 5]

Argumentarea teologică și istorică de slabă calitate, bazată mai mult pe propria opinie fără trimiteri elocvente, nu se așteaptă la o asemenea carte scrisă în stil „popular” de la un cercetător.

Citate:
Însă viziunea lui Pavel despre Isus cel înviat contrazice relatările evanghelice (oare? Unde?). După cum repetă mereu Pavel cu însuflețire, trupul lui Isus cel înviat nu este carne și sânge. Trupul lui Isus cel înviat nu este carne și sânge. Trupul „cel pieritor“ este „semănat", însă ceea ce rezultă de aici este un „trup duhovnicesc". „Ce spun eu, fraților, este ca nu pot carnea și sângele să moștenească împărăția lui Dumnezeu, și că putrezirea nu poate moșteni neputrezirea”.” (p.95) - Este oare aceste un argument? Rupând citatul din contextul epistolei lui Pavel?

Ele aveau rolul de a le veni în ajutor închinătorilor, precum Maria și Iosif, părinții lui Isus, atunci când au venit la Templu după naște­rea lui și au adus porumbei ca ofrandă. Dacă am interpre­ta-o ca pe un protest împotriva sacrificiilor, atunci scena pendulează între incoerent și imposibil.
Conștienți de această problemă istorică, unii cercetători au afirmat că acele cuvinte prin care Isus înfierează Tem­plul ar reflecta de fapt o atitudine negativă a evangheliștilor, nu a lui Isus însuși. Scriind după anul 70, imediat după sfârșitul războiului cu Roma, evangheliștii înșiși ar con­damna activitatea unei instituții care nu mai există, susțin acești savanți. Însă cuvintele evangheliei, insistă ei, nu corespund sensului acțiunilor lui Isus cel istoric.
Mulți cercetători moderni ignoră aceste episoade cu afirmații negative făcute de Isus spunând că sunt adăugiri ulterioare: Ioan 2:16 și Marcu 11:17. (p.59)

Evangheliile sinoptice, Marcu, Matei și Luca, au însă în comun același tip de legătură literară. Savanții încă dezbat, care evanghelist l-a citit pe celălalt prima dată. (Eu cred că Marcu este cel mai timpuriu, iar Matei și Luca l-au citit pe Marcu independent.) însă consensul cercetătorilor este ca toți trei, într-un fel, s-au influențat reciproc. Astfel, ei nu reprezintă trei surse independente." (p.32) - foarte convingătoare afirmație, care cercetători, NU sunt trimiteri, ea afirmă „părerea mea”.

În cele din urmă, momentul esențial din viața lui Pavel, când devine din persecutor apostol, este înfățișat diferit în cele două surse diferite ale noastre. Faptele aduc în prim- plan Un Pavel orbit și care a avut o experiență auditivă. Pavel arată însă, foarte precis, că el vedea: (p.35) în Galateni 1:17 ... Pavel vorbește despre o „reve­nire la Damasc", pe când în Fapte merge acolo pentru prima oară.