The Jewish Basis of Early Christian Liturgy

The evolution of Christian liturgy and its relationship with Jewish liturgy is a complex

issue. stood.1 Such elements include the names of temple functionaries, such as readers,

lectors, levites, and singers indicate appropriation from the temple liturgy not the

synagogue, which. at the time was in a stage of development and consisted of scripture

readings, with the Shema and Amidah. The fact that these names do not occur in New

Testament texts, suggests they were taken from the Hebrew Bible later date. The elements

from the Temple services retained in Christian liturgy include ceremonial actions such as

processions and prostrations, and the antiphonal nature of prayers.

The Talmud (Y. Sanh. 29c) records that when the temple was destroyed, there were

twenty-four kinds of Judaism.2 It was in this climate that Christianity started out as another

expression of Judaism. In addition, there was a wide overlapping between church and

synagogue on the level of popular piety as well as in the official stance, at least until the

end of the fourth century. 3

Popular practice did not always reflect the official stance, as the frequent repetition of

prohibitions concerning judaising practices in church canons and laws in the Theodosian

Code indicates. There was a wide range of differences in the eastern churches, which

tended to hold to more Judaic practices, more than it the western churches, as Church

Council documents make clear.

Christianity was a kind of Judaism, initially, which like that of the DSS sectarians,

and the Samaritans, that did not accept the oral Torah, which became enshrined in the

Mishnah, Talmuds, and Midrash from 200CE 4

Marianne Dacy 22 June 2013 Full Version p107

 Like every new religion, Christianity developed stage by stage. In its first years
its development was extremely fast. Christianity had already [in the first
century] spread not only among Palestinian Jews, but also among Jews in the
Diaspora.5

The written torah which Christians generally call the Old Testament (Tanakh) was

retained. The New Testament, was added to the Scriptures that were accepted by the

Christian Church.

The Jewish scholar David Flusser held that John’s Gospel and the Epistle to the

Hebrews, as well as some other New Testament Epistles, represent a second stratum of

Christianity, as against the first one, that of Jesus and his disciples. He demonstrated that

the first stratum of Christianity had special affinities with rabbinic Judaism, whereas he

saw the second stratum, to which Paul belonged, as being influenced by the Essenes and

their world view. Not all would agree. Through channels that are unknown to us, this

Essene group appears also to have influenced Hellenistic Jewry in Asia Minor and other

countries. According to Flusser’s view, these Hellenistic circles were an important factor in

the later disengagement of Christianity from Judaism.6

Marianne Dacy 22 June 2013 Full Version p108

 It could be assumed that Jewish converts, would have retained some Jewish practices

practises elements of the Judaism they had known before becoming Christian. At the same

time, in becoming Christian, they were subscribing to many Christian practices that were

derived from Judaism. Again, converts of non-Jewish origin also would have imported

their world views into Christianity. This would have contributed to a variety of forms in the

Christian stance. In addition, what Flusser identifies as the Essene world view may rather

have been the ground milieu that influenced Essene thought and the thought patterns of

other groups, including Christianity. Other elements were added to Christian liturgy that

reflected the increasingly gentile background of its converts who soon outnumbered those

of Jewish origin, and also suffered from the fall of the Jerusalem Temple, a catastrophic

event for Judaism and the emerging Jewish Christians . Added to this phenomena was the

fact that the Christian expulsion from the synagogue apparently was not effected at least

until after Gamaliel II’s activities at Yabneh, thus allowing almost two-thirds of a century

of Christian liturgical development within a Jewish milieu.7 Again, how much is literal

history and how much is an idealised version of what was happening during this time of

great upheaval is unknown.

The elements that were absorbed into Christian worship evidently sprang from this

period of disturbance and change as well as from a common biblical heritage.8 Early

Christian rituals and liturgical practices described in the New Testament or in the Church

Fathers, are similar to practices in both the early and later Jewish mainstream and sectarian

rites.9

Marianne Dacy 22 June 2013 Full Version p109

It is clear in hindsight that during the Second Commonwealth period (first century CE)

there was a decline in sacrificial ritual (only carried out in the Jerusalem Temple) and it

was being replaced by synagogue prayer and liturgy as well as by rituals within the

home. It was the Sadducees, whose lives and destinies were closely bound up with the

Temple, who fell from positions of power with the destruction of the temple, losing

their income from the sacrificial offerings and their status as priests serving in the

Temple or ministers. The Pharisees, by transplanting the rituals of the temple to the

home, had helped to free the later sages from the necessity of offering sacrifices, and

prepared the way for the reforms that rabbinic Judaism needed to adapt to life without

the Jerusalem Temple. At the same time, rabbinic Judaism continued to cherish the

memory of the temple and details of sacrificial ritual were remembered and preserved in

rabbinic literature. In addition, the writers of the scrolls found at Qumran already had

developed liturgies and a world view to compensate for the lack of a temple, since these

sectarians regarded the Jerusalem priesthood as corrupt (descendants of the

Hasmoneans) and the Jerusalem Temple consequently as being polluted.10 They ceased

to be connected to t he Jerusalem Temple a couple of centuries before tis destruction.

We have indications of this in the Damascus Document and other sectarian litrerure of

theirs.

Marianne Dacy 22 June 2013 Full Version p110

 A sizeable number of liturgical fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal an organised

prayer ritual. This material from Qumran indicates that although the forms of Jewish

prayer are thought to have been fluid at this time, it is clear that the building blocks of

much of the future structure of Jewish prayer were already in place. Forms of blessings of

the Amidah and the blessings of the Shema, as well as Sabbath liturgies, were already in

evidence.11 These texts were not necessarly authoered by the Qumran convdnanterrs,b u

wer plart of their liblrary. Talmon commented in 1960:

Embedded in the scrolls and fragments...there appear to be scattered portions of

a ‘Manual of Benedictions’, viz, a collection of blessings arranged according to
the calendar, containing daily prayers side by side with festival prayers, after
the manner of the mahazorta still used in the Syrian Church.12

His remarks have been vindicated in recent years with the publication of scrolls

showing the practice of prayer at fixed times, public prayers, and prayers of fixed

content.13

Prayers in the Temple

Marianne Dacy 22 June 2013 Full Version p111

 Joseph Heinemann postulated that originally the temple cult proper was not

accompanied by any oral form of prayer, but rather by a ‘sacramental silence’. He

conceded that certain forms of songs and prayers that developed during the Second Temple

belonged to the sphere of the popular cult, and were incidental to the sacrificial cult itself.14

It is likely that among the elements that appear to have transferred from the Second Temple

to the synagogue, in addition to the Shema and a form of the Amidah, was the use of

certain biblical psalms including the Hallel psalms (113–118), the recitation of the

Decalogue as part of the Shema liturgy, versions of the poetic selihoth and hosha’noth, and

certain rituals of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement.15 Other likely elements include

the grace after meals and the priestly blessing.16

Heinemann also concluded that it is more probable that the synagogue service, with its

characteristic combination of readings from the scriptures and prayers, evolved

independently of the temple. These prayers were in the form of a series of berakhot.

Moreover the new abodah of prayers was undoubtedly a novel conception, a

new style of worship; had it been created in the Temple itself, it would of
necessity have affected, and to some degree transformed, the entire abodah of
the Temple itself.17

He held that even in the temple, these prayers possessed certain specific characteristics,

such as the use of the Tetragrammaton. Other characteristics are the antiphonal or

responsorial nature of most of these prayers, and the numerous and lengthy responses on

the part of the people. Again the prayers were accompanied by certain ceremonial

practices, such as processions, prostrations, and the sounding of the trumpet and shofar.

Even in connection with these prayers, which were peripheral to the sacrificial cult, special

tasks were assigned to the priests.18

Marianne Dacy 22 June 2013 Full Version p112

 Daily Prayer

It is evident that in the Second Temple period and the period following it, prayer in the

synagogues was regarded as abodah (worship) in a manner analogous to the sacrificial

cult. Thus, synagogue prayer was seen as complementing the temple sacrifices, the daily

synagogue prayers, according to talmudic tradition, being instituted to correspond to the

daily sacrifices (b. Ber. 26b).

Synagogue worship traditionally dates from after the Babylonian exile in the time of

Ezra and Nehemiah. Thus, worshippers were able to offer up sacrifices of their own in

addition to those that were offered up in the temple through the medium of the daily

communal prayer, which could be offered anywhere and was not confined to the particular

geographical location of the Jerusalem Temple.19 Evidence from Qumran shows that prayer

and exactitude in the fulfilment of the commandments as a means of pleasing God was

seen as fulfilling the role of sacrifices for the atonement for sin.20

Sources from the days of the Second Temple indicate that worshippers were scrupulous

about reciting their prayers at exactly those hours when the daily services were being

offered in the temple, and the incense was being burned.21 Statutory prayer appears to have

been communal from its inception, and in the synagogue worship, a minyan (group of ten

men) was sufficient to represent the entire people, unlike the situation in the temple where

special functionaries, priests, and levites offered the sacrifices on behalf of the

community.22 Although the evidence available can be variously interpreted, it would

appear that the Judaism that was reconstructed after the fall of the temple by the rabbis,

built on the elements already present in synagogue worship, incorporating several elements

from temple practice, and modified them to fit the changed conditions.

Marianne Dacy 22 June 2013 Full Version p113

 Though elements from temple worship and synagogue liturgy were retained, it would

appear that the practice of common worship of the first Christians with Jews was

weakened with the fall of the temple and the cessation of sacrifices, and the political

upheaval and displacement of population, many possibly to Galilee. Eric Meyers considers

that archaeological evidence supports the view that Jews and Christians relocated to

Galilee, and declares that it also indicates that the Jewish and Christian communities

continued to live in harmony until the seventh century CE, in various locations such as

Capernaum.23

Some scholars associate the ejection of Christians from the synagogue with the period

of Yabneh and the twelfth benediction, the so-called Benediction of the Minim. This latter

point is also a controversial issue. Passages in John (9:22, 12:42, and 16:2), have been

interpreted as pointing to the expulsion of Christians from the synagogue. If this is so, were

these expulsions isolated cases, or on a more universal level?24 It would be difficult to

pinpoint when Christian participation in synagogue worship ceased. Any decision made by

the rabbis would have been limited to their own communities, and to the few in their

immediate sphere of influence. The process of separation of Christians from the synagogue

was protracted and varied with the locality.25

New Testament View of Jesus

The evidence indicates that in terms of liturgy, it was Christianity’s doctrinal position on

Jesus that eventually made worship together of Christians and Jews untenable. This was a

primary area of separation. Again, the Christian stance on Jesus was to determine the

character and development of Christian worship.26 Larry Hurtado demonstrates that the

binarian devotional practices of generations of Christians who reverenced the exalted

Marianne Dacy 22 June 2013 Full Version p114

Christ along with God, amounted to a mutation in monotheism. Hurtado identifies as the

six features of the religious devotion of early Christianity, hymnic practices, prayer and

related practices, use of the name of Christ, the Lord’s Supper, confession of faith in Jesus,

and prophetic pronouncement of the risen Christ. 27 These indicate a significant mutation in

the Jewish monotheistic tradition: his research demonstrates that the complexities of the

development of Christian monotheism defy simplistic explanations. Certainly, the growth

of the non-Jewish membership of Christianity led to the ‘mutation’ becoming unacceptable

to so-called normative Judaism by the end of the first century. The Christological rhetoric

of the New Testament and of the later Christological controversies and creeds reflects the

attempt to explain and defend intellectually a development that began in human terms in

profound religious experiences and in corporate worship.28

Marianne Dacy 22 June 2013 Full Version p115

 The Christian belief in Jesus’ messiahship is shown by the earliest New Testament texts

as a cause of tension, as well as Christological titles such as ‘Son of God’, ‘Lord’, and

‘Saviour’.29 If one accepts that the writing of the books later included in the New

Testament is dated from 30 to 100 CE, the use of ‘God’ for Jesus clearly belongs to the

second half of the period, becoming frequent only towards the end of the period. The first

kerygmatic formulae ![AU: Please add symbol..]appeared in written form in Paul’s letters

and in the synoptics.30

After listing a number of texts that give only unequivocal support to the claim that Jesus

was called ‘God’,31 Raymond Brown listed three texts he considereds to be clear

statements of Jesus’ divinity. Two of these occur in the Gospel of John. 32 Unlike the

synoptics, which do not appear to have clear declarations of Jesus’ divinity, John’s gospel

provides instances that speak of the pre-existent Word (1:1), and the confessional

declaration of Thomas to the resurrected Jesus (20:28).33 Yet, there is a certain reticence

here, and it is not surprising that a first-century Jew would have exercised restraint in

identifying a contemporary historical figure with God, and, in the words of Vermes, in

‘bridging of the gulf between son of God and God’.34 The third text in Brown’s list is

Hebrews 1:8–9, the authorship, place, and exact date of whose composition is not known.

It may have been compiled by a Christian of Jewish origin. 35

Marianne Dacy 22 June 2013 Full Version p116

 The question of developing Christian attitudes to Jesus was a basic cause of division.

Cullmann has stated that when ‘God’ is used in some of the Epistles of the New Testament,

this use never goes beyond the idea of the exalted Lord and revelation incarnate. What

attestation exists of the custom of calling Jesus ‘God’ in the developing Christian centres of

the New Testament world in Greece, Rome, Macedonia, Crete, Alexandria, Palestine,

Ephesus in Asia Minor, Antioch, and Bithynia, in the late first century?36 Whatever the

actual situation, in the early second century Pliny claims that Christians from Bithynia in

Asia Minor sang hymns to Christ as to a God.37 At the beginning of the second century,

Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, speaks of Jesus as God.38

The break would have been sealed when Christian assertions about the divinity of Jesus

made it impossible for Jews and Christians to worship together. This may have been

happening about the time of the composition of the Gospel of John, but an exact date

cannot be pinpointed. When the particularity of Christian ritual was so defined as to make

worship together with Jews untenable, a break had occurred and another step towards

separation taken. One fact is evident. The more significance that was attached to the person

of Jesus, the further apart the separation became between Jews and Christians. 39

Development of Christology—Divisions Over the Nature of Christ

The church’s continuing elaboration of the Christological doctrine was part of the

process of separation from Judaism, for the status of Christ posed a problem for

monotheism. Controversies were twofold, revolving around the definitions of the divinity

of Christ on the one hand, and of his humanity on the other. The solutions provided further

differentiated Christian theology from Judaism.

The fundamental principle that God is one could not be compromised. The problem

Marianne Dacy 22 June 2013 Full Version p117

faced by the developing Christian theology was the harmonising of this fundamental

principle of monotheism with the independent existence and the divine activity of Jesus as

related in the gospels. From the second century onwards, the various Christological

controversies were attempts to come to terms with monotheism, culminating in credal

formulations and statements by ecumenical church councils on Christology.

Marianne Dacy 22 June 2013 Full Version p118

 Within the church itself, the definition of Christology led to tensions and eventual

separations of different strands of Christianity in the east and west. This needs to be

viewed against the background of the question of the establishment of authority within the

church itself. Again, its developing self-definition and its growing alliance with imperial

power occurred in the wake of Diocletian’s short-lived persecution and the accession of

Constantine. The latter made Christianity a protected religion, giving it a legitimacy from

which to expand its powerbase.40

Flusser argues that Jesus’ whole metaphysical drama is composed of Jewish elements,

and he sees original Christology as developing from Jesus’ exalted sense of self-awareness.

Jesus’ personal experience of divine sonship came to be linked with the Jewish concept of

the pre-existence of the Messiah.41 This led in turn to the idea that Christ was at the same

time God’s hypostasis, and that God created the world through him.42 Jesus’ crucifixion

was seen in terms of the death of a martyr expiating sin, and the concepts of Jesus’

resurrection and ascension are also Jewish.43 Again, the idea of Son of Man, expressed in

Daniel and Enoch, represents the highest concept of Messiah in Judaism. Flusser claims

that ‘the church’s Christology was a sublime expression of the tendency of Second

Commonwealth Judaism to remythologise itself; Christianity showed the extreme

possibilities of this remythologisation’.44 Christology continued to be elaborated, with the

doctrine of the Trinity being developed as part of the definition of Christological doctrine.

As increasing numbers of non-Jews joined the Christian movement, and quickly began

to outnumber Christians of Jewish origin, its Christology became less inhibited by the

constraints of Jewish monotheism.45 Judaism, with its stress on monotheism, could not

accept the divinity of Christ.46

Marianne Dacy 22 June 2013 Full Version p119

 Shaye Cohen argues that belief in Jesus’ resurrection and status as Messiah was the

focal point for the differentiation between ‘Christian’ and ‘non-Christian’ Jews. He points

out that in ancient Judaism, sectarianism generally expressed itself in polemics against the

central institutions of Jewish society, especially the temple and its authority figures such as

the priests, and its religious practices, in particular purity, Sabbath, and marriage law. He

declares that the ‘cutting edge’ of sectarianism was not theology but practice. Thus, early

Christianity ceased to be a Jewish sect when it no longer observed Jewish practices.47

Yet, despite Christian borrowing of elements belonging to Jewish liturgical practice,

certain elements that belong to the essential framework of Jewish liturgy as it was

developing before the fall of the temple were not retained in Christian liturgy, or were

retained only for a short time, or were radically changed.48 These elements include the

prayer section of the daily service, which consists of the Shema liturgy and its blessings as

well as the Amidah, and accompanying blessings. The other essential element of the daily

service was retained, namely the Torah readings. Research indicates that Torah reading and

study were the chief religious activities in the synagogue during the Second Temple period.

However, from material found at Qumran it would appear that the prayer forms were well

developed, prayer being a substitute for temple sacrifice.49

The Question of the Shema for the Early Christians

Marianne Dacy 22 June 2013 Full Version p120

 If one accepts that it was the Christian stance on Jesus that was one of the key elements

leading to separate Christian worship from Jewish worship, one would conclude that this

would have been the chief reason for the non-retention in Christian worship of the

recitation of the Shema, and the retention of a form of the Amidah for a limited period. 50

The question of the Shema is fundamental, as it concerns the question of monotheism, a

basic tenet of Judaism. In the case of the Shema, the point could be made that a movement

that declares Jesus to be divine, would not be inclined to recite the text of the first two

paragraphs of the Shema, but would substitute cult prayers centred around Jesus’ death and

resurrection. Again, why retain the use of tefillin or prayer shawl, or mezzuzah if ‘Jesus’

symbolism is to distinguish the new movement, whose members came in increasing

numbers from the ranks of non-Jews? Thus, the non-retention of the Shema in Christian

worship represented a fundamental break and further step apart, a corollary of the Christian

view of monotheism and the place of Jesus. The other liturgical issues should be

considered as secondary, their retention or non-retention not being the primary cause of

separation.

There is an allusion to the Shema in the beginning of the Didache, which speaks of

loving God and neighbour, cited as being the first two commandments in the synoptics

(Matt 22:34–40; Luke 10: 25–28; Mark 12: 28–34).

The Way of Life is this: First, you shall love the God who made you, secondly,
your neighbour as yourself; and whatsoever you would not have done to
yourself, do not do to another. (Didache 1:2)51

Marianne Dacy 22 June 2013 Full Version p121

 Some have argued that the Amidah or Shemoneh Esreh, called HaTefillah, The Prayer

par excellence, was a creation of the rabbis of Yabneh, as was the building of the recitation

of the Shema into a regular daily liturgy.52 This, however, would not do justice to the

evidence from Qumran, nor of the obvious Jewish practice of the Shema pictured in the

New Testament 53 and Philo,54 as well as Ben Sira, who gives a list of benedictions of

which several bear striking resemblances to the benedictions of the Amidah and other parts

of the liturgy.55

According to the Talmud, the recitation of the Decalogue was dropped by Judaism, in

reaction to the sectarians who retained only the Decalogue, then part of the liturgy of the

Shema.56 This information is corroborated by evidence from the first part of the Didache,

itself believed to be a composite document. It seems evident that the first part, known as

The Two Ways, was part of an original pre-Christian Jewish document from the first

century or earlier, where the author shows how a minor breach leads to serious sin.57 While

the so-called Golden Rule of Hillel and some of the prescriptions of the Decalogue are

mentioned, the Sabbath is omitted.

The Way of Life is this: ‘First, you shall love the God who made you, secondly,
your neighbour as yourself; and whatsoever you would not have done to
yourself, do not do to another’. (Didache 1:2)
But the second commandment of the teaching is this; 2. You shall not murder;
you shall not commit adultery, you shall not covet your neighbour’s goods.
(Didache 2:1, 2)58

The Didascalia, a third-century document from Asia Minor declares that only the

Decalogue need be observed by Christians. It claims to have been compiled by the apostles

at Jerusalem immediately following the Council described in Acts 15.59

The law therefore is indissoluble; but the second legislation is temporary, and
is dissoluble. Now the law consists of the ten words and the judgements
(decalogus et iudicia). (Didascalia 26:9–10).60

Marianne Dacy 22 June 2013 Full Version p122

 In addition, the Apostolical Constitutions declare that the Decalogue is valid, but that

Christ has released Christians from the bonds of the law.61 Opinions are divided about the

date of the work, but now it is believed to have been written in the fourth century by an

editor who used earlier material. The dating is supported by internal evidence, which

reveals that it is based on earlier sources such as the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, and

the lost Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus on which Book 7 of the Apostolical

Constitutions appears to be based.62 It is possible the text in the Babylonian Talmud

(written up about the same tim e as Constantine was actiave (5th Century CE)omitting the

Decalogue is a reaction to the Christian attitude to the law. As the Didascalia, Apostolical

Constitutions, and the Babylonian Talmud are more or less contemporary, it is suggested

that the Decalogue may have been omitted in Jewish liturgy in the third, fourth, or even

fifth century. In addition, since the doctrine of the unity of God expressed in the Shema is

the foundation stone of Judaism, it stands to reason, then, that the first Christians, being of

Jewish origin, were strongly affected by its influence and by their religion of origin. The

New Testament reveals that Jesus reveres the Shema.63 Thus, it is likely that Jewish

converts continued the daily recitation of the Shema and a form of the Amidah in the early

days of the church. Some contemporary evidence to support this premise is a fragmentary

text of benedictions from Qumran from Cave 4.64 Schiffman postulates that the

benedictions preserved in this text, which focus on the cosmic order and the heavenly

luminaries, may have been the prototype of the first benediction before the morning and

evening Shema.

Marianne Dacy 22 June 2013 Full Version p123

 [T]he light of day for our knowledge…in the six gates of ligh[t...and we] the
sons of Your covenant, will prais[e Your name]with all the troops of [light…
al]l the tongues [endowed with knowledge], bless...the light of peace [upon you
O Israel...On the seventh of t[he month in the evening, they shall bless, recite
and sa]y: Praised be the God of Is[rael who...righteousness...al]l [the]se things
we knew...] Blessed be t[he G]od [of Israel]. (Daily Prayers 7–9 IV 1–8)65

Again, as the Mishnah dates the recitation of the Shema to Second Temple times, and

Philo of Alexandria writes on the Shema, Schiffman suggests that a version of the first

benediction before the Shema was already in use in temple times. 66 Thus, the first

Christians of Jewish origin would also have recited the benedictions surrounding the

Shema.67

Josephus also alludes to the morning prayers of the Essenes,68 which would have

included the Shema and its blessings as well as a form of the Amidah and its surrounding

blessings.

And as for their piety towards God, it is very extraordinary; for before the
sunrise, they speak not a word about profane matters, but put up certain prayers
which they have received from their forefathers, as if they made a supplication
for its rising. (Wars 2.8.5)69

Marianne Dacy 22 June 2013 Full Version p124

 It follows that the first Christians who were Jews continued to recite the Shema and

Amidah. Again, the Jewishness of the first Christians would explain the reticence of

declaring the divinity of Jesus in the synoptic gospels. The Epistle to the Hebrews contains

what may be one definite declaration of Jesus’ divinity, but uses symbolism to show that

Jesus has a claim to the high-priesthood of Melchizadech (being of heavenly origin), which

is considered to be superior to that of the Aaronic priesthood. 70 John’s Gospel, which

appears to have at least two direct declarations of Jesus’ divinity, evidently is later, when

the Christians of gentile origin were becoming more numerous, and would have been less

constrained by considerations of Jewish monotheism. However, it should be noted that

John 17, for example, brings together the themes of love and unity in God, which are

central to the Shema, but in an altered context.

May they all be one,

just as, Father, you are in me
and I am in you...
With me in them and you in me,
may they be so perfected in unity
that the world will recognise
that it was you who sent me
and that you have loved them
as you have loved me. (John 17:21, 23)71

In a text from the end of the first century or early in the second in the writings of

Ignatius of Antioch, the themes of love and unity in God also occur together but in the

context of perfect faith in Jesus.72

None of these things are unknown to you if you possess perfect faith towards
Jesus Christ, and love, which are the beginning and end of life; for the
beginning is faith and the end is love, and when the two are joined together in
unity it is God. (Epistle to the Ephesians, 14:1)73

Marianne Dacy 22 June 2013 Full Version p125

 Origen, an Alexandrian, declared that prayer must be made in the name of Jesus, but not

addressed to him directly;74 Augustine of Hippo appears to follow this same tradition of

primitive Christianity.75

The Amidah in Early Christianity

The rule of the three hours of prayer present in daily worship in the synagogue was

observed by the early Christians, and references to the third, the sixth, and the ninth hour

are found in the Book of Acts.76 According to the Didache, the Lord’s Prayer also was said

three times daily.77

Our Father, who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy Name, thy Kingdom come, thy
will be done, as in Heaven so also upon earth; give us to-day daily bread, and
forgive us our debt as we forgive our debtors, and lead us not into trial, but
deliver us from the Evil One, for thine is the power and the glory forever.
(Didache 8.2)78

Tertullian asserted that praying three times a day was based on apostolic practice.79 This

practice clearly stems from the threefold recitation each day of the Amidah. Again, the so-

called Community Rule material found at Qumran shows that it was the practice to pray

thrice daily.

In accord with the times which he has decreed: at the beginning of the
dominion of light, at its turning point when it withdraws itself to its assigned
dwelling, at the beginning of the watches of darkness. (IQS 10:1–2)80

It was K. G. Kuhn who discovered end rhymes in the Aramaic version of the Lord’s

Prayer, which correspond to ancient Jewish prayers, especially the Amidah.81 Many

authors, especially those subscribing to the eschatological orientation of the Lord’s Prayer,

point out the striking resemblance of ‘Father, hallowed be your name, Your kingdom

come’ (Luke 11:2/Matt 6:9) with the Kaddish.82

Marianne Dacy 22 June 2013 Full Version p126

 Magnified and sanctified be his great name in the world that he has created
according to his will. May he establish his kingdom in your lifetime and in
your days and in the lifetime of all the house of Israel, even speedily and at a
near time.83

Again, the petition, ‘and lead us not into temptation’,84 in Luke 1:4 and Matt 6:13 has a

parallel in b Ber 60b that reads: ‘And lead us not into sin or into iniquity or into testing or

into contempt’.85

The first three benedictions of praise of the Amidah are evidently of ancient origin,

going back to Second Temple times. In the first benediction of praise, the expression ‘God

of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’ is attested in the Palestinian benediction of the Abot.86

You are praised, O Lord our God and God of our fathers, God of Abraham,
God of Isaac, God of Jacob, the great, mighty, awe-inspiring God, God
supreme, Creator of heaven and earth, our shield and the shield of our fathers,
our trust in every generation. Blessed are you, O Lord, shield of Abraham.
(First Benediction of the Amidah)87

As similar expressions occur in the words of Jesus in the synoptics, Jeremias believed

this indicated a familiarity with this benediction.88

A specific Christian practice was the weekly Sunday, which commemorated the

resurrection of Jesus. While it is not clear from the New Testament texts whether Sunday

was celebrated weekly,89 it appears to have been an established practice by the time of

Ignatius in the early second century.90

Marianne Dacy 22 June 2013 Full Version p127

 The primitive Christian festival calendar seems originally only to have celebrated

Passover, with the Epiphany, Ascension, and Pentecost being added at the earliest by the

fourth century, judging from the report of Egeria’s writings.91 By the time of Justin, in the

mid second century, rites of initiation into the church were being practised, so that it could

be surmised that Christianity had begun to forge a separate identity from Judaism.92 This

coincides approximately with the codification of the Jewish oral law, the Mishnah and

Tosephta.

Although the earliest historical evidence of the rite of entrance into the catechumenate is

from the writings of Hippolytus of Rome,93 who speaks of a three-year period of

preparation in the third century, specific historical data is sparse. Early church canons from

about the fourth century reveal an established rule that Jews and non-Jews were allowed to

be present at church services until the missa catechumenorum. 94 At this point the

catechumens also left. However, all was not peaceful. The Jerusalem Church complained

of ‘Jewish serpents and Samaritan imbeciles listening to sermons in church like wolves

surrounding the flock of Christ’.95 Christians were not permitted to attend Jewish

services.96 Thus, by the fourth century, Jewish services were considered inappropriate for

Christians, liturgical separation being legislated. The fact that Jews were permitted to

remain for the missa catechumenorum shows the proselytising nature of the church. 97

However, Jewish catechumens were treated more strictly than non-Jewish initiates, to

discourage them from returning to Judaism.98

Marianne Dacy 22 June 2013 Full Version p128

 In the developing Christain liturgy, there was a growing Christological focus and the

omission of the Shema. The increasing gentile membership doubtless explains this

omission.99 In the first century, Christians could continue to pray in synagogues, though

tensions were developing about the position of Jesus. On the other hand, it is doubtful that

Jews would have felt at ease with the early Eucharists, so that worship together was most

likely not reciprocal. In addition, the growing number of gentile believers who were not

obliged to keep Jewish law was a major block to both common worship and social

relations.

From the second century, specifically Christian liturgies began to be developed in a less

Jewish style. As time progressed, east and west took differing paths, while schisms

wracked the church in the wake of doctrinal conflicts not resolved by the numerous church

councils. Though Jewish elements continued to exert an influence on the shape of Christian

prayers, the themes gradually became more Christ-centred,100 and the process of growing

apart continued.

Marianne Dacy 22 June 2013 Full Version p129

1 Margaret Barker, Temple Themes in Christian Worship (London: T.& T. Clark, 2007) has

confirmed this statement and looked exhaustively at elements that have temple roots, seeing

the church as the conscious continuation of temple worship. See especially chapter 2, 19–44.
2 Y. Sanh. 29c.
3 Wolfram Kinzig, ‘“Non-Separation”’: Closeness and Co-Operation between Jews and

Christians in the Fourth Century’, VC 45 (1991): 29.

4 Josephus Ant. 18:11; m. Yad. 4:7; Acts 23:6–8. See also R. North, ‘The Qumran Sadducees’,

Catholic Biblical Quarterly 17 (1955): 44–68.

5 David Flusser, Jewish Sources in Early Christianity (New York: Adam Books, 1987), 68.
6 He appears to be identifying the writers of Qumran documents with Essenes, a much-debated

point.However, this is not the consensus view, today.

7 b. Ber. 28b–29a and parallels.
8 Alan Crown, ‘Jewish Roots of Christian Liturgy’, Australian Journal of Jewish Studies 7, no.

2 (1993): 65.
9 Crown, ‘Jewish Roots’, 66.
10 Lawrence H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the

Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish

Publication Society, 1994), 289–290.

11 For a useful survey see James H. Charlesworth, ‘Jewish Hymns, Odes and Prayers (ca 167

B.C.E.–135 C.E.)’, in Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters, ed. R. A. Kraft and G. W.

E. Nickelsburg (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1986), 411–436. See also David Flusser,

‘Psalms, Hymns and Prayers’, in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha,

Pseudepigrapha, Qumran, Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. M. E. Stone

(Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1984), 551–557.

12 Talmon, ‘The Manual of Benedictions of the Sect of the Qumran Desert’, REQ 2, no. 8

(1960): 476.

Marianne Dacy 22 June 2013 Full Version p130

13 See, for example, 1Q 34bis 2+16 (Prayer for the Day of Atonement), 4Q504 1–2 vii 4

(Hymns on the Sabbath day) or 4Q509 (First Fruits Festivals) as well as daily blessings

(4Q503). See Bilhah Nitzan, Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry, trans. Jonathan Chipman

(Leiden: Brill, 1994), 49ff. See also Steven Fine, ed., Jews, Christians, and Polytheists in the

Ancient Synagogue: Cultural Interaction during the Greco-Roman Period (London:

Routledge, 1999).
14 Joseph Heinemann, Hatefilah be-tekufat ha-tana’im ve ha’amoraim: Tiba ve-defusiah, 2nd

ed. (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1966), vi

15 Heinemann, Hatefilah, vi–vii. See also b. Yoma, 6:2 and 7:1.
16 Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer, 85 cites the recent discovery of a seventh-century BCE

silver amulet with a form of the priestly benediction.

17 Heinemann, Hatefilah, vi.
18 Ibid., vii.
19 Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud, 15. See also m. Meg. 4:3.
20 1QS (9:4–5) ‘They shall atone for guilty rebellion and for sins of unfaithfulness that they

may obtain loving-kindness for the Land without the flesh of holocausts and the fat of

sacrifice. And prayer rightly offered shall be as an acceptable fragrance of righteousness, and

perfection of way as a delectable free-will offering’. Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in

English, 4th ed. (London: Penguin Books, 1995), 82.

21 Judith 9:1; Luke 1:10; Josephus Ap. 2, 23.
22 m. Meg. 4:3
23 Eric Meyers, ‘Early Judaism and Christianity in the Light of Archaeology’, BA 51, no. 2

(1988): 69–76. His view contradicts the opinion (derived from Eusebius Hist. eccl. 3.5.3.)

and noted by Ephiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 29:7.7–8; 30.2.7 and Treatise on Weights

and Measures 15, that most of the Jerusalem Christians relocated to Pella.

Marianne Dacy 22 June 2013 Full Version p131

24 See also Luke 6:22; 2 Cor 11:24, 13:45–50, 14:2–6, 14:19, 17:5, 17:13, 18:12–17; Acts 18:7,

19:9, 21:27, 23:30; and P. M. Casey, From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God: The Origins and

Development of New Testament Christology, The Edward Cadbury Lecture at the University

of Birmingham, 1985. (Cambridge: James Clarke, 1991), ch. 7. Casey presents a three-stage

model of Christological development in the first century, culminating with the expulsion of

members of the Johannine community from the synagogue.

25 Anthony J. Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community (Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 1994), 18ff.

26 Kinzig, ‘“Non-Separation”’, 28.
27 Larry W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish

Monotheism (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1988), 100ff.

28 Hurtado, One God, 128.
29 Raymond Brown, Jesus, God, and Man: Modern Biblical Reflection (London: Geoffrey

Chapman, 1968). He points out the complexity of the question, and the extent of the material

needing to be discussed. This has been the subject of many full-scale works by Christian

theologians such as Oscar Cullmann, V. Taylor, and F. Hahn. Brown, Jesus, 2–3ff. The term

‘son of man’ occurs several times in the synoptics, including Mark 2:28; Matt 12:32; Luke

12:8–9; Matt 10:32–33; Luke 9:48; Matt 8:20.

30 1 Cor 12:3 and ‘Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a

thing to be grasped’. (Phil 2:6–11). See also Rom 10:9. ‘And he asked them, “But who do

you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Christ”’. (Mark 8:29). Brown, Jesus,

31ff. Brown’s analysis is generally accepted by scholars. See also O. Cullmann, The

Christology of the New Testament, trans. Shirley C. Guthrie and Charles A. M. Hall (London:

SCM Press, 1959), 314.

Marianne Dacy 22 June 2013 Full Version p132

31 Brown’s list of texts implying that the title ‘God’ was not used for Jesus, but rather for God

the Father include: Mark 10:18, 15:34, 27:46; Eph 1:17; John 17:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:4–6; 1

Tim 2:5; John 14:28; Mark 13:32; Phil 2:5–10; 1 Cor 15:24. He also lists other texts where

the use of ‘God’ for Jesus is dubious (1) passages with textual variants: Gal 2:20; Acts 20:28;

John 1:18; Col 2:2; and (2) passages with obscurity arising from the context: 2 Thess 1:12;

Tit 2:13; I Jn 5:20; Rom 9:5 and 2 Pet 1:1. He considers that the latter five instances have a

certain probability, the use of theos that is attested in the early second century being a

continuation of a usage (also liturgical) that had begun in New Testament times. Brown,

Jesus, 6–23, 28–29.

32 Common consensus dates John later than the synoptics. The Gospel of John, in which the

prologue is significant to Christology, has been called a non-proleptic gospel written in

retrospect. See Phillip Sigal, The Emergence of Contemporary Judaism (Pittsburgh, PA:

Pickwick Papers, 1980), 1:403.

33 However, in the synoptics various actions of Jesus are portrayed as actions considered as

belonging to God, such as the forgiving of sin (Matt 9:2–8; Mark 2:5–7; Luke 5:20–24), and

he is accused of blasphemy.
34 Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew: An Historian’s Reading of the Gospels (London: Fontana/

Collins, 1976), 212.

35 Brown, Jesus, God and Man, 25, 28. The author of Hebrews may have been a Christian of

Jewish origin because of his detailed knowledge of m. Yoma, which is clearly attested in the

author’s descriptions of the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement, and in other allusions to

Christ the High Priest where he claims Christ superseded the rites of Judaism. This theology

of supersessionism was to continue to characterise Christian writings.

36 Brown, Jesus, 32.
37 Ibid.
38 See Ignatius’ commentary on Ephesians 18:2. ‘For our God, Jesus the Christ’, or Ephesians

1:1, or Smyrnians 1:1. According to Eusebius Hist. eccl. 3.36., Ignatius was the third bishop

of Antioch.

Marianne Dacy 22 June 2013 Full Version p133

39 Geza Vermes said: ‘One thing, however, is sure. When Christianity later set out to define the

meaning of son of God in its Creed, the paraphrase it produced—“God of God, Light of

Light, true God of true God, consubstantial with the Father”—–drew its inspiration, not from

the pure language and teaching of the Galilean Jesus, nor even from Paul the Diaspora Jew,

but from a gentile-Christian interpretation of the Gospel adapted to the mind of the totally

alien world of pagan Hellenism’. Vermes, Jesus, 213.

40 Averil Cameron, The Later Roman Empire. AD. 284–430 (Hammersmith: Fontana Press,

1993), 10 ff. Diocletian’s persecution was from 303–311 CE.

41 David Flusser, ‘The Jewish-Christian Schism’, Immanuel 16 (1983): 35.
42 John 1:1–17.
43 ‘For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly’. (Rom 5:6).
44 Flusser, ‘The Jewish-Christian Schism’, 35.
45 See chapter 7 of Casey, From Jewish Prophet.
46 Flusser, ‘The Jewish-Christian Schism’, 34–35.
47 Shaye J. D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster

Press, 1987), 168.

48 Evidence is taken from such texts as the Didache and the Apostolical Constitutions.
49 Esther Glicker Chazan, Dead Sea Discoveries, Volume 1, part 3. (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 265–

280. Over two hundred prayers, hymns, and psalms were discovered in the Qumran caves
50 Apostolical Constitutions 8:34–38.
51 The Apostolic Fathers, trans. Kirsopp Lake (London: W.Heinemann, 1912-1913. Loeb

Classical Library

52 Zahavy, Studies in Jewish Prayer, 16ff. Stefan Reif argues that there is no convincing

evidence that even the earliest known text of the Amidah predates the destruction of the

temple, and suggests that m. Tam. 5:1, which speaks of the daily recitation in the temple of

an introductory benediction, the Decalogue, the Shema, and the priestly blessing may be

another example of a later text projecting back a contemporary custom onto earlier times.

Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer, 57–60.

Marianne Dacy 22 June 2013 Full Version p134

53 For the Shema see Matt 22:36–39; Mark 12:28–30; Luke 10:25–28. Jeremias holds that

Mark 12.26ff, when Jesus speaks of God as the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and

the God of Jacob, as well as Matt 11:25, where Jesus calls God ‘Lord of heaven and earth’,

recalling Ex 3:6, 15 and Gen 14:19, 22 are instances where reference is made to the first

blessing of the Amidah. He holds that these expressions were not in use in Palestinian

Judaism outside the Amidah. Joachim Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus (London: SCM, 1967),

75.
54 Philo Spec. Leg. IV, 137–138 contains a paraphrase of the Shema. Naomi G. Cohen, Philo

Judaeus: His Universe of Discourse (Frankfurt: Lang,[ 1995), 129–177.

55 Sir 36:1–17 and chapters 50–51. See also A. Z. Idelsohn, Jewish Liturgy and Its

Development (New York: Schocken, 1967), 20–22.

56 b. Ber 12a. See also m. Tam. 5:1, where both the Decalogue and Numbers 15:37–41 are

listed.
57 The ‘Two Ways’ is the only doctrinal treatise that has been found among ancient Hebrew

writings. See commentary ‘The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles’, in The

Apostolic Fathers, 1:307. See also David Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity

(Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988), 200, 497–499 (The Two Ways). Evidence from Qumran

shows a version of this doctrine has been preserved in the so-called Community Rule. 1 QS

iii:17–20; ix:17–18. There is also a version in the Epistle of Barnabas (Barnabas 18–20).
58 The Apostolic Fathers, 1:309–311.
59 See Hugh Connolly ed., Didascalia Apostolorum: The Syriac Version translated and

accompanied by the Verona Latin Fragments (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969), xxvi ff. The

third-century document, originally in Greek, survived in Syriac translation. Considerable

portions of the Greek lie embedded in the fourth century Apostolical Constitutions.
60 Connolly, Didascalia, 218.
61 Apostolical Constitutions 6:23; The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Fathers down to

AD 325, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, 2nd rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans, 1956–1962), 7:460.

Marianne Dacy 22 June 2013 Full Version p135

62 Introductory note to ‘The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles’, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, 7:372–

376.
63 Mark 12:28–37.
64 Lawrence H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the

Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish

Publication Society, 1994), 294ff.

65 Schiffman, Reclaiming, 294; Maurice Baillet, ed., Discoveries in the Judean Desert VII.

Qumran Grotte 4 III (4Q482–4Q520) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), 108, 503. Prières

Quotidiennes: Colonne IV, 7–9.

66 Schiffman, Reclaiming, 294ff.
67 Matthew (22:37) and Luke (10:27) omit the first verse of the Shema (Deut 6: ‘Hear, O Israel:

The Lord is our God, the Lord alone’ but it is quoted in Mark (12:29), which general

scholarly consensus designates as the earliest of the synoptics. A suggestion has been made

that already the Christian communities of Matthew and Luke had ceased to pray the Shema

regularly. See Michael Hilton and Gordian Marshall, The Gospels and Rabbinic Judaism: A

Study Guide (London: SCM, 1988), 23–24. Discoveries in Qumran have revealed sets of

prayers for the morning and evening of each day of the month (4Q503); prayers for every

week day (4Q504–506); prayers for festivals (4Q507–509), hymns (4Q510–511);

purification blessings (4Q512); and texts of Sabbath songs from Cave 4 and 11. See Eileen

M. Schuller, ‘Prayer, Hymnic, and Liturgical Texts’, in The Community of the Renewed

Covenant, ed. Eugene Unrick and James Vanderkam (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre

Dame Press, 1994), 157.

68 Despite much discussion of this point over the last sixty years, there is no consensus as to

who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, but it is evident there were several groups involved.
69 Josephus, Complete Works, trans. William Whiston (London: Pickering & Inglis, 1960), 476.
70 Heb 5:6–7. The form of exegesis used by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews resembles

that of material found at Qumran, and depends on a play on words (Hebrew) with a base in

Psalm 110.

Marianne Dacy 22 June 2013 Full Version p136

71 The first Christians were exhorted to love for one another: ‘Beloved, let us love one another,

because love is from God’ (1 John 4:7). The love they had for one another was questioned, as

were the reasons this new race or practice had not emerged earlier. Epistle to Diognetus 1

(ca. 150 CE).

72 See commentary to The Epistles of Ignatius, in The Apostolic Fathers, 1:166–167.
73 The Apostolic Fathers, 1:189.
74 Origen De Orat. 15.
75 See also Augustine Confessions, xi, 2, 4.
76 Acts 2:15 (third hour); Acts 10:9 (the sixth hour); Acts 3:1 (the ninth hour).
77 Didache 7.3. This is one of three related Syrian documents: the Didache, Didascalia, and the

Apostolic Constitutions, which in turn show increasingly anti-Jewish sentiments.

78 The Apostolic Fathers, 1:321.
79 De Ieiunio 10.
80 Rule of the Community. See James H. Charlesworth, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic,

and Greek Texts with English Translation (Tübingen: Möhr-Paul Siebeck, 1994), 1:43.
81 Anton Vögtle, ‘The Lord’s Prayer: A Prayer for Jews and Christians’, in The Lord’s Prayer

and Jewish Liturgy, ed. Jakob J. Petuchowski and Michael Brocke (London: Burns & Oates,

1978), 94, n. 7 and n. 8, in referring to the work of K. G. Kuhn. See also the eleventh petition

of the Palestinian recension of the Amidah: ‘Restore our judges as at first and our counsellors

as in the beginning and you yourself reign over us. Blessed are you Lord, who loves justice.’
82 Joachim Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus London SCM, 1976), 76– 98.
83 Norman Perrin, Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom: Symbol and Metaphor in New

Testament Interpretation (London: SCM, 1976), 28–29. Perrin’s claim that the Kaddish was

regularly in use in synagogues immediately before the time of Jesus is problematic, and is

still a disputed issue. Ezra Fleischer (‘On the Beginnings of Obligatory Jewish Prayer’,

[Hebrew], Tarbiz 59, no. 3–4 [1990], 397–440) argues against it, as does Joseph Heinemann,

Prayer in the Talmud, 256.

84 Or ‘O Lord, preserve us from falling away, from apostasy’. Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus,

106.
85 Ibid., 105.

Marianne Dacy 22 June 2013 Full Version p137

86 See translation of the Amidah in: Petuchowski and Brocke, The Lord’s Prayer, 27ff.
87 Petuchowski and Brocke, The Lord’s Prayer, 27.
88 Matt 8:11; Luke 13:28. Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus, 75.
89 This question is treated in detail in chapter 6.
90 Magnesians 9.
91 Egeria: Diary of a Pilgrimage, trans. and annotated by George Gingras (New York: Newman

Press, 1968), 24–49.

92 b. Yeb. 46b. Both circumcision and a ritual bath became mandatory for Jewish initiation.
93 Apostolic Tradition 18, 19, 20. This material is dated ca. 215 CE.
94 Council of Carthage, 4, Canon 89. Karle Joseph von Hefele, History of the Councils of the

Church from the Original Documents, trans. William R. Clark, reprint. (New York: AMS

Press, 1972), 2:301–302.

95 James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of

Antisemitism (London: Soncino Press, 1934), 173. He cites Letter of the Synod of Jerusalem,

PL 22:769.
96 Joannes Dominicus Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova, et Amplissima Collectio

(Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck–U. Verlagsanstalt, 1960–1961), 3:958. Council of

Carthage, Canon 84. This is purportedly from the so-called Fourth Council of Carthage in

398 CE but actually later.

97 Canon 34. Mansi, 8:330. See also Hefele, 4:82. The council was held in the year 506 CE.
98 See also George W. E. Nickelsburg, Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins: Diversity,

Continuity, and Transformation (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), especially chapter

7: ‘Judaism and Early Christianity: Where They Differed and Where They Parted’, 193–197.
99 Benjamin D. Sommer, in The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (New York:

Cambridge University Press, 2009), 135–136, comments that ‘The only significant

theological difference between Judaism and Christianity lies not in the trinity or in the

incarnation but in Christianity’s revival of a dying and rising God, a category ancient Israel

clearly rejects.

Marianne Dacy 22 June 2013 Full Version p138

100 For more background, see John P. Meier A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus.

vol. 1: The Roots of the Problem and the Person, 1999; vol. 2: Mentor, Message, and

Miracles, 1994; vol. 3: Companions and Competitors, 2001; and vol. 4: Law and Love, 2009.

Marianne Dacy 22 June 2013 Full Version p139