Before Jerusalem Fell

by Kenneth L. Gentry by Kenneth L. Gentry

12.07.2013 Views

A Catena of Scholars Th Role ofJewtih Christiani~ 229 Many scholars recognize the significance of A.D. 70 in the separation of Judaism and Christianity. Perhaps a catena of their authoritative statements will prove helpful in throwing light upon the matter. Schaff writes: A few years afterwards followed the destruction of Jerusalem, which must have made an overpowering impression and broken the last ties which bound Jewish Christianity to the old theocracy. . . . The awfiul catastrophe of the destruction of the Jewish theocracy must have produced the profoundest sensation among the Christians. . . . It was the greatest calamity ofJudaism and a great benefit to Christianity; a refutation of the one, a vindication . . . of the other. It separated them forever. . . . Henceforth the heathen could no longer look upon Christianity as a mere sect of Judaism, but must regard and treat it as a new, peculiar religion. The destruction of Jerusalem, therefore, marks that momentous crisis at which the Christian church as a whole burst forth forever from the chrysalis of Judaism, awoke to a sense of maturity, and in government and worship at once took its independent stand before the world. 3 i Harnack agrees with this view when he notes that “it was the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple which seems to have provoked the final crisis, and led to a complete breach between the two parties [i.e., Jew and Christian] .“3 2 Ewald observes in this regard: “As by one great irrevocable stroke the Christian congregation was separated from the Jewish, to which it had clung as a new, vigorous offshoot to the root of the old tree and as the daughter to the mother.”3 3 Henderson concurs: “The destruction of the Temple incidentally liberated Christianity from the gravest peril which still threatened the diffusion of the new religion, releasing it in its youthful years from shackles by which its straiter Jewish adherents, defiant of the memory of the Apostle of the Gentiles, sought to fetter and impede its growth. “3 4 31. Scha~ History, 1:196,403-4. 32. Adolf Harnack, The Mimion and Expam”on of Christianip in ths Ftrst Three Centuries, 2 VOIS. (New York: Putnam, 1908) 1:63. 33. G. H. A. Ewald, Geschichti des Volkes Israel, 2nd cd., vol. 7, p. 171. Cited in Schaff, Histoy, 1 :4Q4n. 34. B. W. Henderson, Five Romun Emperors (Cambridge University Press, 1927), p. 9.

230 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL In an introductory synopsis of his epilogue, Brandon writes of the matter: “Christianity twice-born. The Jewish overthrow of A.D. 70 emancipated the infant ftith from its Jewish cradle, thus making possible its career as a world-religion. . . . The destruction ofJerusalem gave other cities decisive parts in the life of the Church, especially Rome. The Jewish catastrophe of A.D. 70 is probably the next most crucial event for Christianity after the Resurrection experiences.”35 Bo Reicke writes that Despite the Zealot movement, the church thought it theologically and politically important to maintain a positive relationship with Jerusalem and Judaism, until the martyrdom of James in 62, the growth of terrorism, and the first Jewish War finally forced a break with organized Judaism. This long association elucidated the connection between the Old and the New Covenant. It also facilitated the conversion ofJews and the growth of the Christian community in the Roman Empire, where, from the time of Caesar to that of Nero, the prohibition of associations did not apply to the Jews and therefore also not to the Christians.36 Davies argues that the fall of Jerusalem made “absolute the divorce between Church and Synagogue,” and further that “traces of Jewish Christianity are to be found in the following centuries, but the fall ofJerusalem reduced them to a position of complete insignificance for the future history of the Church. “3 7 Dix writes that “the transition was made, and quickly, in the ‘life of the Church.’ The events of A.D. 66-70 hastened the concluding stages.”3 8 Frend states that “there can be little question of the members of the ‘new Israel’ desiring to break all links with the old in the period from 75 to 100.”3 9 Other scholars can be consulted on this matter.w 35. Brandon, Fall ofJem.mlem, p. xix. 36. Bo Reicke, Tb New T~tameat Era: The World of the Bible From 500 B. C. to A.D. 100, trans. David E. Green (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968), p. 211. See also comments on pages 227,245,251. 37. J. G. Davies, The Ear~ Chrirtian Church (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1965), p. 46. 38. Dix, Jew and Greek, p. 111. 39. Frend, Tle Rzse of Chtitianip, pp. 122-123. 40. For example: J. C. I. Gieseler, Textbook of E2cle.sia.siical Hi-story, trans. Francis Cunningham, vol. 1 (Philadelphia Carey, Lea, and Blanchard, 1836), pp. 55, 62.

230 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL<br />

In an introductory synopsis of his epilogue, Brandon writes of the<br />

matter: “Christianity twice-born. The Jewish overthrow of A.D. 70<br />

emancipated the infant ftith from its Jewish cradle, thus making<br />

possible its career as a world-religion. . . . The destruction of<strong>Jerusalem</strong><br />

gave other cities decisive parts in the life of the Church, especially<br />

Rome. The Jewish catastrophe of A.D. 70 is probably the next most<br />

crucial event for Christianity after the Resurrection experiences.”35<br />

Bo Reicke writes that<br />

Despite the Zealot movement, the church thought it theologically and<br />

politically important to maintain a positive relationship with <strong>Jerusalem</strong><br />

and Judaism, until the martyrdom of James in 62, the growth of<br />

terrorism, and the first Jewish War finally forced a break with organized<br />

Judaism. This long association elucidated the connection between<br />

the Old and the New Covenant. It also facilitated the conversion<br />

ofJews and the growth of the Christian community in the Roman<br />

Empire, where, from the time of Caesar to that of Nero, the prohibition<br />

of associations did not apply to the Jews and therefore also not<br />

to the Christians.36<br />

Davies argues that the fall of <strong>Jerusalem</strong> made “absolute the<br />

divorce between Church and Synagogue,” and further that “traces<br />

of Jewish Christianity are to be found in the following centuries, but<br />

the fall of<strong>Jerusalem</strong> reduced them to a position of complete insignificance<br />

for the future history of the Church. “3 7<br />

Dix writes that “the transition was made, and quickly, in the ‘life<br />

of the Church.’ The events of A.D. 66-70 hastened the concluding<br />

stages.”3 8<br />

Frend states that “there can be little question of the members of<br />

the ‘new Israel’ desiring to break all links with the old in the period<br />

from 75 to 100.”3 9<br />

Other scholars can be consulted on this matter.w<br />

35. Brandon, Fall ofJem.mlem, p. xix.<br />

36. Bo Reicke, Tb New T~tameat Era: The World of the Bible From 500 B. C. to A.D. 100,<br />

trans. David E. Green (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968), p. 211. See also comments on pages<br />

227,245,251.<br />

37. J. G. Davies, The Ear~ Chrirtian Church (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1965),<br />

p. 46.<br />

38. Dix, Jew and Greek, p. 111.<br />

39. Frend, Tle Rzse of Chtitianip, pp. 122-123.<br />

40. For example: J. C. I. Gieseler, Textbook of E2cle.sia.siical Hi-story, trans. Francis<br />

Cunningham, vol. 1 (Philadelphia Carey, Lea, and Blanchard, 1836), pp. 55, 62.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!