'NON-SEPARATION': CLOSENESS AND CO-OPERATION

BETWEEN JEWS AND CHRISTIANS IN THE

FOURTH CENTURY*

BY

WOLFRAM KINZIG

I.

In recent years there has been a lively debate about the question of
the self-definition of Synagogue and Church in the first centuries of the
Common Era. Old certainties have been shaken without a new con-
sensus emerging. In particular, the middle ground between Rabbinic
Judaism and Pauline Christianity, Jewish-Christianity, is at present
receiving greater attention by Jewish scholars. Thus in a recent con-
tribution Burton L. Visotzky noted with some regret: 'They just don't
1
fit; they never did.'
It is the aim of my paper to show that the Jewish-Christians and the
Judaizing Christians indeed did not fit the definitions of Church and
Synagogue which the historically prevailing strands in both Rabbinic
Judaism and Pauline Christianity handed down to us and which
scholars in Rabbinic and patristic studies have for a long time taken for
granted.2 Yet at the same time there is no need for premature despair,
but rather for a renewed and conscientious search for descriptions and
definitions which help us better to understand this middle ground. In
what follows I should like to show in which directions one should search
when looking for these new definitions.
In doing this it seems useful first to ask: was there such a thing as a
separation between Church and Synagogue at all? And if yes, what is
meant by 'separation'? I think it is helpful to distinguish four levels on
which separation could and did take place, viz. the doctrinal, the
theological, the institutional levels and the level of popular piety. The
doctrinal and the theological levels belong to the area of theoretical
reflection, whereas one could group the institutional level and the level
of the popular piety under the heading of religious practice.
Turning first to the area of theoretical reflection, we may define the
28

doctrinal level as the level of confessions of faith, official or quasi-

official doctrines, doctrinal statements of theologians etc. These doc-
trinal statements on the whole aim at a definition of the way Chris-
tianity understands itself. Hence it is hardly surprising that most doc-
trinal statements in this sense are connected with Christology. In this
respect one may point to the first kerygmatic formulae like xupcos 'InJo3q
(Xpta,r6q; cf. 1 Cor 12,3; Rom 10,9; Phil 2,11; cf. Mark 8,29 par. etc.),
and to early hymns like the one in Paul's Epistle to the Philippians,
chapter 2 etc.' Generally, one might say that the more importance was
attached to the person of Jesus the clearer the separation from Judaism
was. The evidence of the New Testament suggests that at this level a
separation between Church and Synagogue took place at a very early
stage, certainly soon after, but perhaps even before Jesus' execution (cf.
Mark 8,29 par.)' In this context it is very often overlooked that the
canon adopted by the Church was not only an anti-Marcionite canon,s
but also an anti-Jewish canon. This can be seen from its designation
'Old Testament'/`New Testament' which when used in theological
discourse was always an anti-Jewish term.'
However, there were large theological areas, where a Christian self-
definition vis-A-vis Judaism was not only not necessary, but where
Christianity was dependent on Jewish theologumena because it did not
possess a theological tradition of its own. Just as the Protestant Refor-
mation took over a doctrine of God from its Catholic rivals without
major changes,' the Chrisitans to a great extent took their doctrine of
God and their cosmology from Judaism. Hence it is no wonder that
there are many writings which are difficult to define as either Jewish or
Christian or both.* 8
This process of both continuity and discontinuity can be discerned
especially clearly in Christian anti-pagan apologetics. The criticism of
pagan cults, the doctrine of God and the cosmology were to a large
extent taken from Christianity's Jewish predecessors.9 The Christian
character of the writings is given over almost entirely to the description
of Christian practice and, less prominently, to manifestly Christological
passages.
However, in what follows I shall not deal with this area of theoretical
reflection, but with religious practice. Here again we may distinguish
two levels: on the one hand there is the institutional level and on the
other hand the level of popular piety. On the institutional level one can
speak of separation when one group officially excludes another from its
 29

community in a statement issued by or an action carried out by its

authorities which results in the coming into existence of two separate,
independent institutions or authorities. On the level of popular piety
one can speak of separation when the two groups have separated to such
an extent that they have developed separate customs and traditions
which are being observed exclusively by one group or the other.
On the institutional level, contrary to the picture which emerges from
the writings of the Church fathers, the picture was manifold and varied
a great deal. The so-called 'Orthodox', 'Catholic' or 'Greater Church'
(Gro,8kirche) which for reasons which cannot be discussed here
prevailed historically, is only one of the various streams within a large
spectrum.' ° In what follows I shall argue that on the institutional level
a separation took place at a very early stage. Yet in the beginning it was
not a separation between Church and Synagogue, but between strands
of Judaism which did not attach any importance to the person of Jesus
and those which did. And it was probably only much later that out of
this second group an organisation emerged which can be called the
Church. This does not mean, however, that besides the Church other
Jewish-Christian or Judeo-Christian groups ceased to exist. Moreover,
even then on the level of popular piety there was a wide overlap between
Church and Synagogue at least until the end of the fourth century, but
probably far beyond.
I should like to demonstrate this hypothesis by means of two
examples, viz. a Jewish-Christian group called the Nazoraeans
mpaioi) who appear to have formed an organisation quite independent
of the Church which lasted at least until the time of Epiphanius of
Salamis who described this group in his Panarion in 377; 11and the situa-
tion at Antioch ten years later when John Chrysostom preached his
I
eight sermons Against the Jews.' I have chosen these examples because
they are chronologically very close to each other and, moreover,
because they are fairly well documented.

II.

Since the publication of a Palestinian recension of the Birkat ha-

Minim from the Cairo Genizah at the end of last century, I the
Nazoraeans have received wide-spread attention from scholars. This
recension includes a malediction not only of minim (i.e. heretics), but
also of a group called notzrim which was identified with the
30

Christians. Reuben Kimelman, however, recently disputed this equation

and instead identified the notzrim precisely with the Nazoraeans.14 In
this paper I am not primarily interested in whether this identification is
right; rather I am interested in the question as to who this group was,
in particular with regard to its being Jewish and/or Christian.
Epiphanius is the first to mention this group and he devotes a whole
chapter in his voluminous work Against the heresies to them.
Epiphanius distinguishes the Nazoraeans on the one hand
from the Naziraeans (Na§ipaioi; Pan. 29,5,7), the body of Israelites
specially consecrated to the service of God (Hebrew D,7,ii; and
on the other hand from a Jewish sect called the Nasaraeans
Pan. 29,6,1). The latter, according to Epiphanius' description in Pan.
18 distinguished the Mosaic Law from the Pentateuch, refused sacrifices
and lived as vegetarians.'6 Jerome calls the group either Nazareni or
Nazaraei. " 7
The New Testament already shows a varying use of the term:
'Whereas Mark offers exclusively the form Na§apnv6q [...], Matthew,
John and Acts limit themselves with equal consistence to using the form
[...] Luke, however, uses both terms promiscue; when
following his sources he uses NaCocpTiv6q[...], whereas his redactional
linguistic usage like the one in Acts can be seen from the choice of the
form Particularly important is the verse Matt 2,23 where
it is said of Joseph that 'he went and dwelled in a city called Nazareth,
that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, "He shall be
called a Nazoraean" ' (cf. Is 11,1). Of equal importance is another
passage not mentioned yet. When accusing the apostle Paul before the
Roman governor Felix a certain Tertullus said, according to Acts 24,5:
'For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, an agitator among all
the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the
Nazoraeans.' It becomes clear from this that Matthew connected
Nazoraean with Nazareth and understood the term as designating Jesus'
birthplace.' Moreover, it appears that the first Christians were called
Nazoraeans. In view of Old Testament prophecies like Is 11,1which, as
Matt 2,23 shows, were understood Christologically, it is hardly surpris-
ing if the early Christians as a whole or at least a part thereof should
have called themselves 'Nazoraeans'. What is, though, the relation
between this old designation and the group Epiphanius talks about in
his Panarion? The fact that apparently all the Christians were in the
beginning called Nazoraeans caused Epiphanius some problems. His
explanation is rather puzzling:
 31

'All Christians were called Nazoreans once. For a short time they were
given also the name lessaeans, before the disciples in Antioch began to be
called Christians. [...] When they were once called lessaeans during a short
period, some again withdrew at that time after the ascension of the Lord
when Mark preached in the land of Egypt. They were so-called followers
of the apostles, but I suppose that they were Nazoraeans who are described
by me here."'

Epiphanius apparently distinguishes three phases: first, in a derogatory

manner, all the Christians were called Nazoraeans. Epiphanius actually
dedicates much of the sixth paragraph of this chapter to this problem
(Pan. 29,6,2-8). On the basis of Acts 24,5 he explains that the Christians
were first called Nazoraeans by their opponents and that this term was
taken up by Paul,
'because everybody called Christians with that name at that time, because
of the city of Nazareth and because at that time there was no other name
in use. Therefore persons were called Nazoraeans who came to believe in
I
Christ, of whom it is written that he will be called Nazoraean.'2'

At a second stage, viz. 'at that time after the ascension of the Lord
when Mark preached in the land of Egypt', 22 the Christians' name was
Iessaeans" and finally, in Antioch, Christians (cf. Acts 11,26). During
the second phase a group split from the Iessaeans retaining the old name
Nazoraeans (cf. also 29,7,1). Epiphanius says that this group was the
same as the one described by him in this chapter. This explanation, how-
ever, can hardly be relied upon, since it is probably not based on any
evidence, but rather a theory by Epiphanius himself in order to combine
the apparently contradictory information about the original names of
the Christians. For at the beginning of the chapter he confesses not to
know whether they lived at the same time, before, or after the Cerin-
thians whom he had dealt with in the preceding chapter (Pan. 29,1,1).
Moreover, he mentions in 29,7,7 another theory according to which the
Nazoraeans did not come into existence until after the exodus of the
Jerusalem community to Pella. 'This means that the different traditions
about Jewish-Christians gave rise to conflicting conclusions with regard
to the origins of the Nazoraeans. On the one hand he assumes that they
lived in Jerusalem before 70 A.D. and on the other hand he supposes
that they originated among Christians who left the city before its fall."'
Hence it becomes clear from this that Epiphanius had no personal
knowledge of the Nazoraeans and has to be treated with great care.
Apart from him, our main source is Jerome who pretends to have per-
32

sonal knowledge.zs It is not necessary to go into the details of source

criticism here, since this has already been admirably dealt with by
Alfred Schmidtke at the beginning of this century. 26 As Schmidtke
showed, both Epiphanius and Jerome draw their knowledge from the
same source which was probably the now lost Commentary on Isaiah
by Apollinaris of Laodicaea.27 In turn, all other patristic and medieval
writers appear to have got their information from these two sources."
What then do we know for certain about the Nazoraeans? They were
a group of Jewish-Christians29 who lived in Beroea in Coelesyria3° next
to the Christian community and also a strong Jewish community3' and
they observed the Law, i.e. they were circumcised, celebrated sabbath
and perhaps abstained from pork.32 Moreover, Jerome claims that they
performed sacrifices.33
As Holy Scriptures the Nazoraeans used the Hebrew Bible and the
New Testament.'4 More importantly they appear to have read the
Gospel of Matthew in an archaic Aramaic version.35 Jerome even claims
that the library of Caesarea possessed a copy (which appears to be true,
provided 'that this Gospel is really the same as the Gospel of the
Nazoraeans' 36) and, moreover, that he had copied it from the
Nazoraeans3 and translated it into Greek and Latin" (which is proba-
bly untrue39). He quotes this version frequently in his writings."°
Jerome, moreover, says that he read an apocryphal Hebrew book of
Jeremiah which was given to him by 'a Hebrew person of the Nazoraean
sect' (Nazarenae sectae mihi Hebraeus obtulit).41 Finally, the
Nazoraeans must have had an active interest in biblical exegesis, for
Jerome quotes a number of extracts from one of their commentaries on
Isaiah.42
We know very little about the doctrine of the Nazoraeans. Epiphanius
tells us that they believed in God's being the creator of the universe, the
resurrection of the dead (a belief they shared with the Pharisees") and
Christ's being the servant of God (mxlç 'toG 9wG; Pan. 29,7,3; the latter
term clearly refers to Deuterojesaiah [42,1-4] as quoted in Matt 12,18-
21. 44) As to their Christology, however, Epiphanius confesses not to
know any details (29,7,6).45 Jerome claims
'that they believe in Christ, the Son of God born of Mary the virgin, and
they say about him that he suffered and rose again under Pontius Pilate."6

Yet this may be an extrapolation from a remark made by Epiphanius

in quite another context. 17
 33

We have more information about their attitude towards the Law, and
this requires some comment. In his Commentary on Isaiah Jerome
quotes some fragments from the exegesis of the Nazoraeans which he
did not, however, take directly from one of their writings but probably
from Apollinaris' commentary on the same prophet.48 From this it
becomes clear that, like the Sadducees,49 the Nazoraeans were very
critical towards what they regarded as a tightening up of the Law by the
Pharisees:
'When Christ came and his preaching shone out, the land of Zebulon and
the land of Naphtali first of all were freed from the errors of the Scribes
and the Pharisees and he shook off their shoulders the very heavy yoke of
the Jewish traditions (grauissimum traditionum Iudaicarum iugum). Later,
however, the preaching became more dominant, that means the preaching
was multiplied, through the Gospel of the apostle Paul who was the last
of all the apostles. And the Gospel of Christ shone to the most distant
tribes and the way of the whole sea. Finally the whole world which earlier
walked or sat in darkness and was imprisoned in the bonds of idolatry and
death, has seen the clear light of the gospel."'
This testimony is not only important, because it shows that the
Nazoreans resented the oral traditiones valued by the Pharisees,11 but
also because it shows that the Nazoraeans had a very clear concept of
the history of salvation. It is divided into three stages (preaching of
Christ in Galilee; preaching of Paul in the Mediterranean countries;
spread of the gospel across the whole world).52 Schmidtke concludes
from this: 'These statements make it clear that the Nazoraeans did not
regard the Gentile Christians as inferior faithful and that they, there-
fore, cannot have required from them the fulfilment of the Mosaic
statutes as a condition of becoming Christian.'S3 Hence the Nazoraeans
were Jewish-Christians in the classical definition of the term:54 they
were born Jews who observed the Law out of tradition, but believed in
Christ. Moreover, they did not require the Gentiles to follow their
example. Consequently, they did not regard the Law as necessary for
salvation:
'0 Sons of Israel who deny the Son of God with a most vicious opinion,
turn to him and his apostles. For if you will do this, you will reject all idols
which to you were a cause of sin in the past and the devil will fall before
you, not because of your powers, but because of the compassion of God.
And his young men who a certain time earlier fought for him, will be the
tributaries of the Church and any of its power and stone will pass. '55
This is obviously a thinly disguised attack on the Pharisees. (The
sentence regarding the 'young men' certainly alludes, beyond Is 31,8, to
34

the conversion of Paul.) It is not the observance of the Law, but rather
God's compassion which saves man. 56
Hence the Nazoraeans were truly a mixture of different groups: with
the Pharisees they shared the belief in the resurrection, with the Sad-
ducees they were critical towards the oral interpretation of the Law and
with the Christians they shared the belief in Christ, a belief which did
not render the observance of the Law unnecessary, but relativised it con-
siderably. Hence Epiphanius' assessment of the character of the
Nazoraeans is quite correct:

'Only in this respect they differ from the Jews and Christians: with the
Jews they do not agree because of their belief in Christ, with the Christians
because they are trained in the Law, in circumcision, the sabbath and the
other things.' 57

The question remains as to whether the Nazoraeans-who were proba-

bly still in existence at the time of Epiphanius (he speaks of them in
29,7,2ff in the present tense)-were an old group or, as Munck claims,58
whether they appeared in the fourth century. After what I have said so
far, there can hardly be any doubt that the Nazoraeans had a long
history. Not only did they possess an apparently old Gospel version
close to Matthew; their theological position resembles very much the
group around the apostle James as described in Acts 15. As I mentioned
above, when Epiphanius traces the origins of this group back to Pella,
he probably has no evidence for doing so. Nevertheless there is no
reason why his assumption should not be correct.59 They could very well
have been a group which, on the basis of Matt 2,23, retained the old
name which originally designated all Christians and which Tertullian
attests as common among the Jews even in his time (around 210).6° If
their theological views were also reflected in their everyday life, rela-
tions with the 'Greater Church', which consisted mainly of Gentiles,
must have been relaxed, as long as the different positions towards the
observance of the Law were tolerated. The relations with Rabbinic
Judaism were clearly less relaxed. Their strong polemics against the
Pharisees must have caused some form of reaction on the part of the
attacked. It is certainly conceivable that we should understand the con-
demnation of the notzrim in the tephillah in this context. 61 Moreover,
this is perhaps the kind of milieu in which we have to place the dialogue
between the Jewish-Christian Jason and the Alexandrine Jew Papiskos
by Ariston of Pella.62 Yet this is all pure speculation.
 35

Finally, it should be emphasized that the Nazoraeans were by no

means the only group of this kind. Rather there was a variety of groups
which held the middle ground between Rabbinic Judaism on the one
hand and Pauline Law-free Christianity on the other. In this respect one
could mention in particular the Ebionites and the Elkesaites (Samp-
seans, Osseans).63 These groups distinguished themselves from Judaism
and Christianity in two ways: from Christianity by the observance of the
Law which was frequently seen as a kind of imitatio Jesu. Matt 10,24f
(`A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It
is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher') seems to have been used
as proof-text in this context.64 (The Nazoraeans' and Ebionites' high
regard for the actual gospel of Matthew or a version close to it must be
seen in this context, given the high status of the Jewish Law in this
gospel. 65)
The importance attached to the person of Jesus, on the other hand,
varied very much from group to group and ranged from regarding him
as 'mere man' among the Ebionites to an apparently full Christological
confession among the Nazoraeans.11 It is, therefore, very important to
distinguish these groups carefully from each other."
Moreover, these groups appear neither to have formed part of the
mainstream Church nor to have been regarded as Jewish, but rather to
have had their own organisations.68
Finally, it should be emphasized that, whereas in the first centuries
of the Common Era the Jewish-Christians may even have outnumbered
the gentile Christians,69 in the fourth century these groups do not appear
to have played a significant role any longer.69a We do not know the
name of one single theologian who could have been connected with
these groups ?° Moreover, apart from the relatively scarce remarks pre-
served by Epiphanius and Jerome the Nazoraeans are rarely mentioned
and cannot, therefore, have constituted a real threat to the mainstream
Church.

III.

The situation was markedly different as regards the second group I

wish to consider in this paper. We must now travel from Beroea around
fifty miles westward to Antioch. The date is the years 386/387. In this
city there had been a large Jewish community since at least the middle
of the second century B.C.E." At the same time Antioch had become
one of the first major centres of a new religion, which the Antiochenes
36

themselves first called Christianity?2 By the time that Chrysostom was

ordained a presbyter there in 386, there were at least two synagogues in
Antioch, one in the city itself and the other one in a suburb called
Daphne." The Jewish community was relatively small (it perhaps com-
prised no more than 22,000 in a city of at least 150,000 inhabitants),"'
but very prosperous, and it played a significant part in the city's life."
It was probably governed by an &pX?auv&Ya.?YoS and a council of elders
as
with a YEpou6iapXoS their leader. 16
It need not be emphasized that Antioch had since the time of the
apostle Paul always been one of the centres of Christianity. There were
at least three church buildings, 'the "great church", built under Con-
stantine, and the "old church", dating from an earlier period."' More-
over there was another church, called St. Babylas, outside the city ?8 By
far the majority of Antioch's population were Christian." Chrysostom
says in around 390 that there were, at least nominally, 100,000 Chris-
tians in the city. 80 It should be noted, however, that the Christian com-
munity was marked by deep splits. In 386 there were two 'Nicene' par-
ties one led by Paulinus and the other by Chrysostom's bishop Flavian.
Moreover, there was a Neo-Arian group which had recently been
revitalized by a favourable rescript of Valentinian II (Cod. Theod.
16,1,4).8' In the late summer of 386, therefore, Chrysostom, who was
one of the city's principal Christian preachers, began to preach a series
of five homilies On the Incomprehensibility of God (PG 48,701-812)
against this Arian faction. Hence 'the division within the Church was
profound, aggravated by decades of infighting, and visible to those
within as well as without the Church.'82 A strong Jewish community
was, therefore, opposed by a divided Christian community.
In the autumn of 386 John Chrysostom all of a sudden interrupted
this series of sermons and started to preach against the Judaizing of
some of the Christians in his community. He states the reasons for this
very clearly:
'The festivals of the pitiful and miserable Jews are soon to march upon us
one after the other and in quick succession: the feast of Trumpets [i.e. rosh
ha-shanah], the feast of Tabernacles [sukkotj, the fasts. There are many
in our ranks who say they think as we do. Yet some of these are going to
watch the festivals and others will join the Jews in keeping their feasts and
observing their fasts. I wish to drive this perverse custom from the Church
right now' (Adv. Iud. 1,1,5 [PG 48,844]).
Eight of these homilies, which were preached in autumn and winter 386
and in autumn 387, have been preserved.e3 They are by far the richest
 37

source concerning the phenomenon of Judaizing which has come down

to us from late antiquity. I should like to group the evidence which we
can glean from these sermons under three headings:8?
1. In what did the Judaizing of the Christians, opposed by Chrysostom,
consist?
2. Is it possible to define these groups more exactly?
3. What were the reasons for their Judaizing?
1. The Synagogue seemed to have been attractive to the Christians in
many ways: Christians took part in the services in the synagogue," they
observed the Jewish fasting and the sabbath,86 they celebrated Jewish
feasts like rosh ha-shanah and sukkot,87 in short they observed the
Law.88 Moreover, there was a group in his congregation which
'Judaized' in its celebration of Easter in that it chose as a date the l4th
of Nisan as did the Jews and the Quartodecimans.11 At the same time
this group differed from the Jews in that they celebrated Easter like the
Jews, but not with the Jews, for in his third homily which deals with
the Easter problem Chrysostom only opposes the date, but not the way
in which his opponents celebrated Easter.9°
Moreover, Judaism was attractive for medical reasons: many people
went to the synagogue in Daphne hopint to get cured by means of
incubation.9' In general, Jewish doctors were sought after." The cures
apparently involved incantations, amulets and different charms.?3 John
Chrysostom cannot deny that they were very successful94 and therefore
has problems in dealing with this fact. Thus he dedicates much of the
eighth homily to it.
Perhaps the most significant step towards Judaism was to actually get
circumcised. This must have been a considerable problem, too, because
in the second homily Chrysostom takes great pain to oppose this prac-
tice.9s He faces people who ask: 'Is there so much harm in circumcision
that it makes Christ's whole plan of redemption useless?"' As Meeks
and Wilken have quite rightly pointed out, 'what is most interesting here
is that it is not simply a case of conversion to Judaism, for the man
regards himself as still a Christian.'9' And one should add that he is also
regarded as a Christian by the Church. Hence there was quite a large
number of people for whom Paul's (and Chrysostom's) distinction
between the Law and Christ's grace9s did not constitute a problem. Cir-
cumcision was 'just a single command', whereas Chrysostom points out
that 'it is that very command which imposes on you the entire yoke of
the Law.'99
38

2. Unfortunately, we do not know exactly who these Judaizers were. It

is clear that Chrysostom does not talk about Jews but about Christians
living in communion with the Church in Antioch.'°° The behaviour of
the Jews who never observe Christian customs is expressedly opposed
to the behaviour of these Christians.'°' But who were they in
sociological terms? In two places Chrysostom says that they are mainly
women and uneducated people.'°2 Meeks and Wilken questioned the
reliability of this information, because 'such assertions are common
coin in ancient attacks on religious deviance, so they should not be
taken too literally."°3 Unfortunately, they do not give any references
for their claim, and I do not see why Chrysostom's view should not be
correct, especially since Jerome says very similar things regarding
Palestine.' °' From other passages it seems to be clear that these Chris-
tians did not really think about the significance of the Law on a doc-
trinal level, but obeyed it because of popular piety, a possibility which
serves to their low level of education.'"'' It is this kind of syncretistic
milieu from which the Pseudo-Clementines sprang. We know from the
Apostolic Constitutions which use them, but at the same time oppose
them'°6 that they were read in Antioch towards the end of the fourth
107
century.
Finally, the number of these Judaizers must have been considerable,
since Chrysostom urges his community not to spread any rumours
about the real size of the problem.' °8
3. One of the main reasons for the rise of Judaizing within the Church
must be seen in the decree Cunctos populos issued by the emperor
Theodosius I on February 27, 380 (cod. Theod. 16,1,2) which made
orthodox Christianity the official religion. Subsequently there was a
strong influx of people into the Church who were not really committed
Christians, people who had previously lived on the fringes of Chris-
tianity, Judaism and pagan religions, who did not really want to commit
themselves, and who were not not willing to give up their old prac-
tices.'°9 Chrysostom himself calls them 'half-Christians'
For many of them the differences between the two religions
must have been trivial."' I have already mentioned that some were sur-
prised by the Christian claim that circumcision and the redemption in
Christ was not really compatible. After all, was Christ himself not cir-
cumcised and had he not observed the Law? Had he not celebrated
Passover with the Jews?'" Moreover, were there not Christians in
Antioch who, just like the Jews, rejected the idea that Christ was 'equal
to God'?"' 3
 39

Moreover, compared to the disunited Church and their doctrinal

114the ancient
struggles, religion of the Jews with its uncompromising
monotheism dating back to the oldest times and its venerable way of life
seemed to be far more convincing. 1 ISThe Jews kept 'the Law and the
books of the prophets' in their synagogues: hence in the eyes of many
the synagogue was regarded as a 'holy place."' As Adolf Martin Ritter
has quite rightly emphasized one should not underestimate the visual
impact of the Jewish ceremonies in this context."' Compared with the
rather plain and often drab Christian services,"8 they were a colourful
spectacle and involved not only incense and all sorts of music, played
on kettledrums, lyres, harps and trumpets, 119but also ecstatic dancing
with bare feet in the marketplace.' 120Hence Jews not only had a rather
high political and economic profile in the city, but their rites and
customs could also be seen by everybody. 121
The holiness of the Synagogue was acknowledged far beyond the
boundaries of Judaism. Chrysostom himself recounts an incident which
is highly illuminating for the esteem in which the synagogue was held
by large parts of the population: '22

'Three days ago-believe me, I am not lying-I saw a free woman of good
bearing, modest, and a believer. A brutal, unfeeling man, reputed to be a
Christian (for I would not call a person who would dare to do such a thing
a sincere Christian) was forcing her to enter the shrine of the Hebrews [i.e.
the synagogue] and to swear there an oath about some matters under
dispute with him. She came up to me and asked for help; she begged me
to prevent this lawless violence-for it was forbidden to her, who had
shared in the divine mysteries, to enter that place. I was fired with indigna-
tion, I became angry, I rose up, I refused to let her be dragged into that
transgression, I snatched her from the hands of her abductor. I asked him
if he were a Christian, and he said he was. Then I set upon him vigorously,
charging him with lack of feeling and the worst stupidity; I told him he was
no better off than a mule if he, who professed to worship Christ, would
drag someone off to the dens of the Jews who had crucified him. I talked
to him a long time, drawing my lessons from the Holy Gospels; I told him
first that it was altogether forbidden to swear and that it was wrong to
impose the necessity of swearing on anyone. I then told him that he must
not subject a baptized believer to this necessity. In fact, he must not force
even an unbaptized person to swear an oath. After I had talked with him
at great length and had driven the folly out of his error from his soul, I
asked him why he rejected the Church and dragged the woman to the place
where the Hebrews assembled. He answered that many peop? ?had told him
that oaths sworn there were more to be feared. His word made me groan,
then I grew angry, and finally I began to smile. When I saw the devil's
40

wickedness, I groaned because he had the power to seduce men; I grew

angry when I considered how careless were those who were deceived; when
I saw the extent and depth of the folly of those who were deceived, I
smiled' (1,3,4f [847f]).

This anecdote is particularly instructive for several reasons: first, it gives

a good idea of the highly polemical tone of the homilies. Moreover, the
mistakes allegedly made by the man are typical of the climate in the city.
In Chrysostom's eyes the matter was very clear: the man's first mistake
had been to ask the woman to swear an oath at all, since in
Chrysostom's eyes oaths were strictly forbidden to Christians (cf. Matt
5,33-37; James 5,12). His second mistake was to take the woman to a
synagogue rather than a church. Yet when we try to see the matter from
the man's perspective, things look quite different: oaths were a common
feature of daily life in late antiquity. 121 Probably the business in ques-
tion was a private settlement (transactio).' 124In order to emphasize the
importance of the matter the man asked the woman for a promissory
oath. Since, however, in the view of priests like Chrysostom oaths were
forbidden for Christians to go to the synagogue-which was anyway in
many respects very close to the Church-was the second-best solution.
The man might have thought that in view of the many similarities
between Church and Synagogue"' it was better to go to the synagogue
than to do without an oath altogether.
Hence the synagogue offered many advantages in everyday life, even
though it involved secrecy. For people were very well aware that it was
not acceptable for a 'proper' Christian to attend Synagogue:
'The way you act when you get to the synagogue makes it clear that you
consider it a very serious sin to go to that wicked place. You are anxious
that no one notice your arrival there; you urge your household, friends,
and neighbors not to report you to the priests. If someone does report you,
you fly into a rage. Would it not be the height of folly to try to hide from
men your bold and shameless sin when god, who is present everywhere,
sees it?"zb

If people did, however, go to the synagogue over and over again, this
was not least because of the success of the Jewish doctors. At that time
medicine and magic could not really be distinguished. In popular piety,
however, magic played a major role.127Jewish magic had the reputation
of being particularly effective. Amulets containing small papyri with,
for example, a Psalm verse written on them were widespread. It is this
practical aspect which was perhaps most dangerous for the Church:
 41

'John's sermons make it clear that the friction between himself and the
Judaizers in Antioch was not primarily the result of ideological dif-
ference, though it was surely part of the dispute, but chiefly between
competing religious loyalties. John's polemic was directed at what the
Judaizers did-participate in the rites of a rival religion. Their actions
made other Christians wonder: Whose religion is more powerful?
Whose rites are the most effective? Consequently, John's primary goal
in the sermons was to win back the Judaizers to the Christian rites-to
the Eucharist, to the "sign of the cross" [...] which can ward off
demons, and to the "martyrs and holy ones, God's friends," whose
bones can combat the power of Jewish magicians.'128

IV.

Finally, I should like to ask whether or not these two phenomena, the
Jewish-Christians and the Judaizing Christians, are somehow related.
Unfortunately, however, we know far too little about both these groups
to transcend the realm of speculation. Johannes Munck has warned us
not to confuse the two phenomena: 'A Jewish Christian is the same as
a Jew who has become a Christian. Primitive Jewish Christianity is in
the beginning the only Christianity known. [...] Jewish Christianity is
not the same as the Judaizing movement, which regards circumcision
and obedience to the Law of Moses as essential for salvation. Jewish
Christianity is a religion, in which Jesus is the basis of salvation. The
Law of Moses may be kept as a national custom, or followed because
of missionary work among the Jews, but it has no significance for salva-
tion.' 129 Yet this seems to put the matter too simply: many Judaizing
Christians probably did not really realize the significance of Jewish
customs, but observed them out of a pre-conscious feeling of religious
awe and venerability which Judaism possessed. On the other hand, there
is significant evidence that there were Jewish-Christians who did regard
the observance of the Law as necessary for salvation (e.g. the people in
Galatia opposed by Paul in Gal, esp. 2,4 and 5,1, and the Ebionites). ' 11
Burton L. Visotzky, however, recently even questioned the criteria
which distinguish a Jew from a Christian.' 3' I think, however, that he
is somewhat over-sceptical. Unfortunately, there is no room here to
discuss this problem in detail. It seems to me, however, that there are
two possible ways of defining a Jew: according to the view from within,
i.e. how the Jews defined their own Jewishness, as, for example, on the
42

Jewish self-definition in Tannaitic Sources;' 32 or according to the view

from outside, i.e. how the non-Jews defined a Jew, like the definitions
given by Greco-Roman sources. When we look at both these definitions,
we can see that they converge in one aspect, viz. circumcision. In so far
as it regarded men,' 33the shibboleth of being a Jew was circumcision. 134
If we take this distinction for granted, we may tentatively draw up a
morphology of the 'grey area' between Judaism and Christianity. There
were
1. Jews who attributed to Jesus a special significance, but regarded the
Law as necessary for salvation (Jewish-Christians in Galatia;
Ebionites);
2. Jews who regarded Christ as saviour and kept the Law only out of
custom (the Nazoraeans). Both these groups also distinguished them-
selves by having their own organisation.111 On the other hand there
were
3. Gentile Christians who regarded the Law as necessary for salvation;
4. Gentile Christians who did not regard the Law as necessary for salva-
tion, but were fascinated by Judaism for other reasons. Both these
last groups seem to have been represented in Antioch at the time of
John Chrysostom and to have belonged to the 'Greater Church' .' 36
Hence it is still useful to distinguish between Jewish-Christians and
Judaizing Christians, so long as these labels are not used
indiscriminately, but further qualified. On the institutional level the
Jewish-Christians and the Judaizing Christians were clearly distinct. As
far as their religious practices are concerned, however, there was a wide
overlap. The Nazoraeans, for example, who supported the Law-free
mission to the Gentiles must have felt themselves quite close to the
'Greater Church', whereas the third group must certainly have felt
affinities with the Ebionites. I do not have space to analyse this com-
plicated web of interrelations any further. I should like, however, to
venture one final hypothesis. It is clear that the Pauline concept of a
universal Church in which the idea of a justification of the sinner
through God's grace replaced the Mosaic Law and the baptism circum-
cision, was easier to accept by the Gentiles who constituted by far the
majority of believers anyway. Moreover, it offered a better way of
safeguarding the identity of the new religion vis-A-vis Judaism than the
attempt by groups like the Nazoraeans to reach a compromise. Yet on
the other hand the more Jewish-Christian groups favouring a Matthean
version of Christianity were marginalised the stronger the Judaizing
 43

groups within the 'Greater Church' became. It could be said, therefore,

cum grano salis that the groups which John Chrysostom opposes in
Antioch are to a certain extent a consequence of the decline of Jewish-
Christian groups.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bagatti, Bellarmino,Alle Origini della Chiesa, I: Le Comunità Giudeo-Cristiane,Rome

1981(Storia e Attualità 5)
Baumbach, Günther, art. 'γραµµατευζ,in: ExegetischesWörterbuch zum Neuen Testa-
ment II, 1981, cols. 624-627
--, art. `Σαδδoυxαioζ', in: Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament III, 1983,
cols. 530f
--, art. 'Φαρlσα฀oζ', in: ExegetischesWörterbuchzum Neuen Testament III, 1983,cols.
992-997
Beintker, Horst, art. 'Gott VII. Reformationszeit', in: TRE XIII, 1984, pp. 662-668
Betz, Otto, art. 'BeschneidungII. Altes Testament, Frühjudentum und NeuesTestament',
in: TRE V, 1980, S. 716-722
Cavallera, Ferdinand, Le Schismed'Antioche (IVe-VeSiècle), Paris 1905
Cohn, Leopold/Reiter, Siegfried,Philonis Alexandrini Opera Quae Supersunt VI, Berlin
1915
Daniélou, Jean, The Theologyof Jewish Christianity, London 1964(The Developmentof
Christian Doctrine Before the Council of Nicaea I)
Devreesse,Robert, Le Patriarcat d'Antioche depuis la Paix de I'EgliseJusqu'à la Con-
quête Arabe, Paris 1945
Diez Macho, Alejandro, et al. (eds.), Apocrifos del Antiguo Testamento, 5 vols., Madrid
1983-1987
Downey, Glanville, AHistory of Antioch in Syriafrom Seleucusto the Arab Conquest,
Princeton, New Jersey 1961
Foerster, Werner, art. "Iησoυζ',in: Th WNT III, 1938, pp. 284-294
Guignebert, Ch., 'Les Demi-Chrétienset leur Place dans l'Eglise Antique', RHR 88
(1923), pp. 65-102
Grant, R. M., 'Jewish Christianity in Antioch in the Second Century', RSR 60 (1972),
pp. 97-108
Grillmeier, Alois, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche, I: Von der Apostolischen
Zeit bis zum Konzil von Chalcedon (451), Freiburg etc. 1979
Hanson, Richard P. C., The Searchfor the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Con-
troversy 318-381,Edinburgh 1988
Harnack, Adolf, Die Überlieferungder griechischenApologetendes zweitenJahrhunderts
in der Alten Kirche und im Mittelalter, Leipzig 1882(TU 1,1)
Holl, Karl (ed.), Epiphanius (Ancoratus und Panarion), I: Ancoratus und Panarion Haer.
1-33, Leipzig 1915
Horbury, William, 'The Benediction of the Minim and Early Jewish-Christian Con-
troversy', JThS 33 (1982), pp. 19-61
Huber, Wolfgang, Passa und Ostern: Untersuchungenzur Osterfeier der alten Kirche,
Berlin 1969(BZNW 35)
44

John Chrysostom, Orations Against the Jews, in: PG 48, cols. 843-942
Saint John Chrysostom, DiscoursesAgainst Judaizing Christians, translated by Paul W.
Harkins, Washington, D.C. 1979(The Fathers of the Church 68)
Karpp, Heinrich, art. 'Christennamen', in: RAC II, 1954, cols. 1114-1138
Kaser, Max, Das römische Privatrecht, II, 2ndedition, München 1975(HAW III/3/2)
Kelly, J. N. D., Early Christian Creeds, 3rdedition, Harlow, Essex 1972
--, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th edition, London 1977
Kimelman, Reuven, 'Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an Anti-Christian
JewishPrayer in Late Antiquity', in: Sanders, E. P./Baumgarten, A. I./Mendelson,
Alan (edd.), Jewish and Christian Self-Definition II: Aspects of Judaism in the
Graeco-Roman Period, London 1981, pp. 226-244
Kinzig, Wolfram, 'Der "Sitz im Leben" der Apologie in der Alten Kirche', ZKG 100
(1990), S. 291-317
--, Erbin Kirche: Die Auslegung von Psalm 5,1 in den Psalmenhomiliendes Asterius
und in der Alten Kirche, Heidelberg 1990(AHAW.PH 1990/)
Klijn, A. F. J., 'Jerome's Quotations from a Nazoraean Interpretation of Isaiah', RSR
60 (1972), pp. 241-255
--, /Reinink, G. J., Patristic Evidencefor Jewish-ChristianSects, Leiden 1973(NT. S
36)
Kopecek, Thomas, A History of Neo-Arianism, 2 vols., Philadelphia 1979 (Patristic
Monograph Series 8)
--, 'Neo-Arian Religion: The Evidence of the Apostolic Constitutions, in: Gregg,
Robert C. (ed.), Arianism: Historical and TheologicalReassessments,Philadelphia
1985(Patristic Monograph Series 11), pp. 153-179
Kraeling, Carl H., The Jewish Community at Antioch, JBL 51 (1932),pp. 130-160
Krauss, S., 'The Jews in the Works of the Church Fathers, VI. Jerome', JQR 6 (1894),
pp. 225-261
Kuhli, Horst, art. in: ExegetischesWörterbuchzum Neuen Testa-
ment I, 1981, cols. 1117-1121 1
Landau, Peter, art. 'Eid, V. Historisch', in: TRE IX, 1982, pp. 382-391
Maier, Johann, Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Überlieferung,Darmstadt 1978
(EdF 82)
Malingrey, Anne-Marie, 'La Controverse Antijudaique dans l'Oeuvre de Jean
Chrysostomed'après les Discours Adversus-Judaeos', in: Nikiprowetzky,Valentin
(ed.), De l'Antijudaïsme Antique à l'AntisémitismeContemporain, Lille 1979, pp.
87-104
Mayer, G., art. nzr', in: ThWAT V, 1986, cols. 329-334
McLachlan Wilson, Robert, art. 'Apokryphen II. Apokryphen des Neuen Testaments',
in: TRE III, 1978, pp. 316-362
Meeks, Wayne A./Wilken, Robert A., Jews and Christians in Antioch in the First Four
Centuries of the Common Era, Missoula, Montana 1978(SBibSt 13)
Metzger, Marcel (ed.), Les Constitutions Apostoliques, introduction, texte critique,
traduction et notes, 3 vols., Paris 1985-1987(SC 320, 329, 336)
Michel, A./Le Moyne, J., art. 'Pharisiens', in: DBS VII, 1966, cols. 1022-1115
Michel, Otto, art. 'Evangelium', in: RAC VI, 1966,cols. 1107-1160
Munck, Johannes, 'Primitive Jewish Christianity and Later Jewish Christianity: Con-
tinuation or Rupture?', in: Aspects du Judéo-Christianisme,Paris 1965(Bibliothè-
 45

que des Centres d'Etudes Supérieures Spécialisés/Travaux du Centre d'Etudes

SupérieuresSpécialiséd'Histoire des Religionsde Strasbourg), pp. 77-93
O'Ceallaigh, G. C.,' "Marcianus" Aristides, On the Worshipof God', HThR 51 (1958),
S. 227-254
Paverd, Frans van de, Zur Geschichteder Meβliturgiein Antiocheia und Konstantinopel
gegen Ende des vierten Jahrhunderts: Analyse der Quellen bei Johannes
Chrysostomus, Rome 1970(OrChrA 187)
Pritz, Ray A., Nazarene Jewish Christianity:From the End of the New TestamentPeriod
Until Its Disappearancein the Fourth Century, Jerusalem/Leiden 1988(Studia Post-
Biblica 37)
Ritter, Adolf Martin, 'Erwägungen zum Antisemitismusin der Alten Kirche: Joannes
Chrysostomos, "Acht Reden wider die Juden" ', in: Moeller, Bernd/Ruhbach,
Gerhard (eds.), Bleibendes im Wandel der Kirchengeschichte:Kirchenhistorische
Studien, Tübingen 1973, pp. 71-91
Sauvaget, J., Alep: Essai sur le Devéloppementd'Une Grande VilleSyrienne,des Origines
au Milieu du XIXe Siècle, 2 vols., Paris 1941 (Bibliothèque Archéologique et
Historique 36)
Schechter, Salomon, 'Genizah Specimens', JQR 10 (1898), pp. 197-206,654-659
Schiffman, Lawrence H., 'At the Crossroads: Tannatic Perpectives on the Jewish-
Christian Schism', in: Sanders, E. P./Baumgarten, A. I./Mendelson, Alan (edd.),
Jewish and Christian Self-DefinitionII: Aspects of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman
Period, London 1981, pp. 115-156
--, Who Was a Jew? Rabbinic and Halakhic Perspectives on the Jewish Christian
Schism, Hoboken, New Jersey 1985
Schmidtke, Alfred, Neue Fragmente und Untersuchungen zu den judenchristlichen
Evangelien: Ein Beitrag zur Literatur und Geschichte der Judenchristen, Leipzig
1911 (TU 37/1)
Schneemelcher,Wilhelm, art. 'Bibel III', in: TRE VI, 1980, pp. 22-48
Schoeps, Hans Joachim, Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums, Tübingen
1949
Schreckenberg,Heinz, Die christlichenAdversus Iudaeos-Texteund ihr literarischesund
historisches Umfeld (1.-11. Jh.), 2ndedition, Frankfurt am Main/Berne 1990
(Europäische Hochschulschriften23/172)
Simon, Marcel, 'La PolémiqeAnti-Juive de S. Jean Chrysostomeet le MouvementJudai-
sant d'Antioche', AIPh 4 (1936), pp. 403-421(also in: id., Recherchesd'Histoire
Judéo-Chrétienne, Paris/La Haye 1962 [EtJ 6], pp. 140-153)
--, Les Sectes Juives au Temps de Jésus, Paris 1960(Mythes et Religions)
--, VerusIsrael: A Study of the Relations BetweenChristians and Jews in the Roman
Empire (135-425),Oxford 1986( = 3rdedition, Paris 1983;The Littman Library of
Jewish Civilization)
Stanley Jones, F., 'The Pseudo-Clementines:A History of Research', The Second Cen-
tury 2 (1982), S. 1-33, 63-96
Stemberger, Günter, Juden und Christen im Heiligen Land: Palästina unter Konstantin
und Theodosius, München 1987
Strecker, Georg, Das Judenchristentum in den Pseudoklementinen, 2nd edition, Berlin
1980(TU 702)
--, art. 'Judenchristentum', in: TRE XVII, 1988, pp. 310-325
46

Strobel, August, Ursprung und Geschichte des frühchristlichen Osterkalenders, Berlin

1977(TU 121)
Stummer, Friedrich, art. `Beschneidung',in: RAC II, 1954,cols. 159-169
Vielhauer, Philipp/Strecker, Georg, 'Judenchristliche Evangelien', in: Hennecke,
Edgar/Schneemelcher, Wilhelm, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher
Übersetzung,I: Evangelien, 5th edition, Tübingen 1987, pp. 114-138
Visotzky, Burton L., 'Prolegomenon to the Study of Jewish-Christianitiesin Rabbinic
Literature', AJS Review 14 (1989), pp. 47-70
Wilken, Robert L., John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late 4th
Century, Berkeleyetc. 1983(The Transformation of the Classical Heritage 4)
Williams,Rowan, 'Does It Make Senseto Speak of Pre-NiceneOrthodoxy', in: id. (ed.),
The Making of Orthodoxy:Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick, Cambridge etc.
1989, pp. 1-23
Wilson, Marvin R., Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith, Grand
Rapids, Michigan/Dayton, Ohio 1989
Young, Frances M., From Nicaea to Chalcedon: A Guide to the Literature and Its
Background, London 1983
Verheyden,Jozef, De vlucht van de christenennaar Pella: Onderzoek van het getuigenis
van Eusebius en Epiphanius, Brussels 1988(VVAW.L 50/127).

NOTES
* Paper givento the Seminarin Hebrew and Jewish Studies at CambridgeUniversityon
March 7 th,1990. For helpful criticism and suggestionsI should like to thank the con-
tributors to the subsequent discussion.
' Visotzky 1989, p. 47.
2 It should be noted, however, that among Christian scholars of this century there has
been a great interest in these groups and a certain awarenessof the insufficienciesof our
categorizations.(Cf., e.g., the studiesby Marcel Simonand Jean Danielouand the mainly
German debate about the origin of the Grundschriftof the Pseudo-Clementineswhichwas
summed up by Stanley Jones 1982;as to discussionsof categorizationscf. the references
given by Pritz 1988, p. 9 n. 2; Visotzky 1989, p. 48 n. 1). Yet only too often Jewish-
Christianitywas treated as a kind of non-orthodox, non-Catholic or devious Christianity
or even as 'sects'. It is not necessary,I think, to give referencesfor this kind of approach.
3 Cf. Kelly 1972, pp. 13-23;Grillmeier 1979, pp. 14-132,esp. 57-62, 85-96.
4 Cf. Klijn/Reinink 1973,p. 42; Kelly 1972,p. 139. As to the fact that there persisted
certain groups (like the Ebionites) who took a different view and saw Jesus as no more
than a just man cf. below. The polemic by the heresiologuesnotwithstanding, these
groups also attached a certain importance to Jesus.
5 Schneemelcher1980, pp. 27f.
6 Cf. my study Erbin Kirche, 1990, esp. pp. 78-96.
7 Cf. Beintker 1984, p. 663.
8 This is true, e.g., for the Testamentsof the TwelvePatriarchs (cf. Diez Macho 1983-87,
V, pp. 14-18)or the SibyllineOracles(cf. ibid., III, pp. 249-252).Cf. also Grillmeier1979,
pp. 140-144.
9 As a particularly instructive exampleone might quote in the context the Apology by
Aristides. O'Ceallaigh (1958) even suggested that this was originally a Jewish writing
 47

which was later interpolated by a Christian. Cf. my discussionin Kinzig, 'Sitz im Leben',
1990,pp. 303f.
'° Cf. Williams' stimulating article reviewing the discussion on the problem of
orthodoxy and heresy in the early Church (Williams 1989).
" For Epiphanius and his works in general cf. Young 1983, pp. 133-142,383f.
' 2 The sermons were deliveredin 386/387; for the date cf. Wilken 1983, pp. 67 n. 3.
" Cf. Schechter 1898.
" Cf. Kimelman 1981.
'S Cf. Mayer 1986, cols. 329-334.
'6 Cf. Simon 1960, pp. 89-92; Pritz 1988, pp. 45-47.
"? Jerome's usage is rather puzzling. In Ep. 112, Vir inl., Comm. in Hiez., in Hier. he
calls them Nazaraei, but in his Commentarieson Matthew and Amos and in Adv. Pel.
he calls them Nazareni. Even more puzzling is the usage in his Commentary on Jesaiah
where he speaks consistentlyof Nazareni when talking of the Christians being cursed by
the Jews under this name (In Es. 5,18-19; 49,7; 52,4-6), yet says in all other places
Nazaraei where he refers to the sect. As to the exact references cf. the index in
Klijn/Reinink 1973, pp. 295f (In De situ 143 he speaks of Nazaraei as inhabitants of
Nazareth.) In the Vulgate the form Nazareni for the Christians in general appears
throughout (cf., however, the vv. 11. nazarei [AC] and nazorei [G] in Acts 26,9) except
in Matt 2,23, where the text rends Nazareus (cf. also Klijn/Reinink 1973, p. 44 n. 2).
Perhaps this reflectsthe usagein the VetusLatina, for Tertullian saysin Adv. Marc. 4,8,1:
'Nazaraeus uocari habebat secundumprophetiam Christus creatoris. Vndeet ipso nomine
nos Iudaei Nazarenosappellant per eum' (CChr.SL 1,556,24-26).The first sentencerefers
to Matt 2,23, whereas the second probably to Acts 24,5. Eus., Onom. s.v. N«(«p18is
perhaps based on Tertullian or on a common source: ö6?\I6 XptaT6?N«(mp«ioq xoi
N<x?o(p7)votTonocXat6v fipiiqol vovXpcamavoi (Lagarde 284,37-285,1).Cf. also Pritz 1988,p.
46.
'8 Cf. Kuhli 1981, col. 1118with references.
'9 As to the problem whether or not originally was a toponyme and how it
N«(mp«ioq
came to be associated with Is 11,1, cf. Kuhli 1981, cols. 1120f; Pritz 1988, pp. 11-14.
20 Pan. 29,1,3; 5,4; translation taken from Klijn/Reinink 1973, p. 169.
21 Pan. 29,6,5; translation taken from Klijn/Reinink 1973,p. 171;cf. also Hier., De situ
112.
22 Epiphanius obviouslyassumes the preaching of Mark in Egypt (cf. Eus., h.e. 2,16)
to have taken place after Acts 24,5.
23 As to Epiphanius' explanationcf. 29,2-5,3. He assumesthe name to be derived from
either Jesse the father of David (29,1,4; cf. Is 11,1.10;Rom 5,12))or from Jesus
himself.He explainsthat 'Jesus' in Hebrew meant 81p«xw<fiq fi<oiiazpo5xai oMTTjp
(29,4,9).
Hence Epiphanius quite rightly connects Jesus' name (Hebr. xvi with Y!lh('to
save'; cf. Foerster 1938,p. 290). Epiphanius also mentionsa writing by Philo entitled 1t?pl
'Isaaaiwvwhich in fact is nothing else than De contemplatione(29,5,1). As Philo himself
explains, this tract is the second half of a work which was precededby a (now lost) book
on the Essenes(cf. Vit. cont. 1) The Latin version is entitled De statu Essaeorum. Hence
'IcaaoCtotis a misspellingof 'EcrcrIXLm.
(Cf. Cohn/Reiter 1915,p. IX, pace Schoeps 1949,p.
10; Pritz 1988,pp. 39-42;the same mistake occurs in Nilus, mon. exerc. 3 [PG 79,721A-
B]). If it is true that Epiphanius knew Philo only via Eusebius (H.e. 2, 17; cf. Holl's
apparatus ad 29,5,1 and Karpp 1954, col. 1128) then Epiphanius must have had a
manuscript of the EcclesiasticalHistory whichgave the misspelttitle of De cont. The pre-
served manuscripts as recorded by Schwartz in his GCS-editiongive the correct titles in
H.e. 2,17,3 and 2,18,7.
Za Klijn/Reinink 1973,p. 45. Cf. also the ingeniousreconstructionby Schmidtke(1911,
pp. 100-104)as to how Epiphanius came to associate the Nazoraeans with Pella.
25
" Cf. the references collected in Klijn/Reinink 1973, pp. 198-229.
26 Unfortunately Schmidtke's study has not received enough attention in subsequent
scholarship. If it had, many confusions and false judgments as to the reliability of the
sources could have been avoided. Pritz appears to be the first to elaborate and partly
reviseSchmidtke's conclusions(1988).I think, however,that some of his revisionscannot
be upheld. Cf. the followingnotes. As to the general standard of his study cf. the critical
review by A. F. J. Klijn in VigChr43 (1989), pp. 409f.
27 Cf. Schmidtke 1911,esp. pp. 64f, 120-123.Moreover, Jerome also used Epiphanius
(cf. ibid. pp. 250ff) On p. 123f Schmidtke sums up his conclusions like this: 'Für die
Beurteilungder nazardischen Gemeinde steht auf3erden NE-Varianten [i.e. the variant
readings in the gospel of the Nazoraeans] kein weiteres Material zu Gebote als die
haltbaren Angaben bei Epiphanius und die exegetischenProben bei Hieronymus, was
beidesdurch Apollinarisbekannt gegebenwar. Denn Hieronymusbietet, wo er sonst Jber
Epiphaniusbzw. dessenQuellehinausgeht, nachweislichnur nichtigeFabeleien.' As to the
last point cf. in extenso ibid., pp. 246-286.Pritz argues that at least the extracts from the
Nazoraean commentary on Isaiah (cf. below) are first-hand (1988, pp. 60-62). I do not
think, however, the evidence put forward by him to be conclusive.
28 Cf. Schmidtke 1911, p. 124, 281-286; Klijn/Reinink 1973, p. 52 (cf. the list of
referencesibid. pp. 295f);Pritz 1988,pp. 71-82.An exceptionmay be Augustine(De bapt.
7,1,1; C. Faust. 19,4; 19,17;C. Cresc. 1,31,36; Ep.116,16,1;in Haer. 9 he clearlydepends
on Epiphanius); yet he gives only very little information beyond what we can already
gather from Epiphanius and Jerome. Cf. also Pritz 1988, 76-79.
29 Their being Jewish is emphasizedby Epiphanius: Pan. 29,5,4: 6v<iqplvxiX'tœ Toyivoç
'lou8etot;cf. also 29,7,1; 29,9,1.
30 Cf. Epiphan., Pan. 29,7,7; Hier., Vir. inl. 3.
z Apart from many Christian churches and sanctuaries there were there at least two
synagogues;cf. Sauvaget 1941, 1, pp. 58-61.
32 Cf. Epiphan., Pan. 29,5,4; 29,7,2; 29,7,5; Hier., In Es. 8,11-15 In ; Hiez. 16,16;Aug.,
De bapt. 7,1,1; C. Faust. 19,4; 19,7; C. Cresc. 1,31,36; Ep. 116,16,1. It should be
emphasizedthat we do not know whether they observed Sunday (pace Daniélou 1964,p.
342). Cf., however, Humbert of Silva Candida, Adverus Graecorum Calumnias 6 (PL
143,936):"Unde quia cum Iudaeis sabbatum, et nobiscum celebratis diem dominicum,
videmini in tali observatione imitari sectam Nazarenorum, qui sic recipiunt Chris-
tianismumut non dimittant Iudaismum." It is quite unlikely, however,that Humbert had
independent knowledgeof the Nazoraeans.
33 Cf. In Hier. 3,14-16.Moreover, according to Augustine, they also practised baptism
(cf. C. Cres. 1,31,36).
34 Cf. Epiphan., Pan. 29,7,2,4.
3S Cf. Epiphan., Pan. 29,9,4. Jerome wronglyidentifies it with the Gospel accordingto
the Hebrews and says that it was 'written in the Chaldaic and Syriac language but with
Hebrew letters' (Adv. Pelag. 3,2 [PL 23,597B-598A]).I cannot deal with this problem
here in detail; cf. Vielhauer/Strecker1987,pp. 128-138who on pp. 133-138offer a collec-
 49

tion of fragments of this gospel in German translation; Klijn/Reinink 1973,p. 49 and n.

3; Pritz 1988, 51-53, 83-94. Papias (in Eus., H.e. 3,39,16; cf. also 3,24,6) and Irenaeus
(Adv. haer. 3,1,1) are the first who mention this Gospel; cf., moreover, Schmidtke 1911,
pp. 41-63. it is defined by Schmidtke as 'eine targumartige Ubersetzung des Matthaus-
Evangeliumsin aramaischer(syrischer)Spracheund in hebraischenSchriftzugen'. It prob-
ably came into existencebefore 150(1911, p. 41). Cf. also Michel 1966,cols. 1131-1134;
McLachlan Wilson 1978, pp. 327-330.
'6 Cf. Klijn/Reinink 1973, p. 49.
37 Cf. Hier., Vir. inl. 3.
38 Cf. Hier., In Micha 7,5-7; Vir. inl. 2; 16; In Matt. 12,13.
39 Cf. Schmidtke 1911,p. 254f; Klijn/Reinink 1973,p. 48 and n. 2; pace Pritz 1988,pp.
51-53.
4° Cf. the referencescollected by Schmidtke 1911, pp. 36-39; Klijn/Reinink 1973, pp.
198-229.
" Hier., In Matt. 27,9f. Schmidtkethinks that this story is entirely fictitious (1911, p.
253f). Cf., moreover, Pritz 1988, pp. 56f.
42 Cf. Schmidtke 1911, pp. 108-110;Klijn/Reinink 1973, pp. 220-225.
43 Cf. Baumbach 1983, col. 995; the Sadduceesopposed the belief in the resurrection,
cf. Simon 1985, col. 1549f.
44 From Hieron., Comm. in Es. 31,6-9 it appears that the Nazoraeans spoke of Christ
as Dei filius. Filius may, however, be a translation of 1tIXLÇ and not u[óç.
" In 69,23,1 he accusesthem of believingthat Christ was a pure man àívSpw1toç).
Yet this is only polemics.
4 Ep. 112,13(Labourt VI,32); translation taken from Klijn/Reinink 1973, p. 201.
" Here I follow Schmidtke 1911,pp. 252f pace Pritz 1988, p. 55.
48 Cf. Schmidtke 1911,pp. 64f, 108-123,252f; Klijn 1972,passim; Pritz 1988,pp. 57-70.
Klijn/Reinink 1973,p. 47 mistakenlyassume that the Nazareni mentioned by Jerome in
his exegesisof Matt 13,54are the Nazoraeans(cf. also Kimelman1981,p. 238 and n. 75).
They are, however, the inhabitants of Nazareth; cf. also Pritz 1988, pp. 54f.
49 As to the critical attitude towards oral tradition by the Sadduceescf. Baumbach 1983,
col. 530; Simon 1985, col. 1549.A similar tendency is also found in the gospel of Mat-
thew ; cf. esp. the Sermon on the Mountain (Matt 5) and Matt 23; cf., moreover,
Michel/Le Moyne 1966, cols. 1095-1100;Klijn 1972,pp. 253-255.
30 In Es. 9,1 (CChr.SL 73,123f);translation taken from Klijn/Reinink 1973,p. 223. Cf.,
moreover, In Es. 8,11-15 (116); 8,19-22 (121) and 29,17-21(379f).
51 Cf. Michel/Le Moyne 1966, cols. 1060ff. As to the criticism of the Pharisees cf.
Schoeps 1949, pp. 214-218.As to the combination of Pharisees and scribes in the New
Testament cf. Michel/Le Moyne 1966, cols. 1070f;Baumbach 1981, cols. 624f.
32 Cf. Schmidtke 1911, p. 110.
53 Ibid.; cf. also Pritz 1988, pp. 64f.
" Cf. e.g. Simon 1986,p. 237; Munck 1965,p. 87; Wilken 1983, p. 70 who, however,
criticizes the distinction between Jewish Christians and judaizing Christians; Strecker
1988,p. 311. For further referenceson the problems of definition cf. Visotzky 1989,p.
48 n. 1.
55 In Es. 31,6-9(CChr.SL 73,404);translation taken from Klijn/Reinink 1973,pp. 223f.
56 Augustine writes that the 'Symmachians or Nazoraeans' 'forced the Gentiles to
judaize' (C. Faust. 19,7). If there is any truth in this remark, it can only apply to the Sym-
machians, but not to the Nazoraeans.
50

57 Pan. 29,7,5; translation taken from Klijn/Reinink 1973, p. 173.

58 Munck 1965, p. 91.
59 Cf. also Danielou 1964, p. 356; Klijn 1972,p. 255; pace Schmidtke 1911, pp. 124f:
'Demnach sind die Nazoraer nicht anders zu bestimmen denn als der spaterhin
abgesondertejudenchristlicheTeil der ursprünglichgleich der Gemeindevon Antiochien
(Gal. 2) aus geborenen Juden und Heiden gemischten Gemeinde von Ber6a. Diese
Christen judischen Volkes waren durch die Verhaltnissedazu gedrangt worden, sich zu
einem eigenen Verein zusammenzutun, in dem sie ungest6rter die alte nationale Sitte
pflegen konnten.' Even though it is certainly a matter for dispute whether or not the
Nazoraeanscame from Pella or had alwaysbeen in Beroea,there is no evidenceto assume
that the community in Beroea was ever 'mixed', if this means that they had a common
organisation. Gal 2 is no counter-proof, but rather supports my argument: The fact that
'before certain men came from James, he (i.e. Peter) ate with the Gentiles;but when they
came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcisionparty' shows precisely
that right from the start there were two groups in the early Christian community,viz. con-
verted Jews who continued to observe the Law and converted Gentileswho did not. The
Nazoraeans as described by Epiphanius and Jerome are simply the descendants of the
former group. As to the problemof the Pella tradition in generalcf. the recent publication
by Verheyden(1988)who showed conclusivelythat 'the "flight to Pella" is a product of
Eusebius' imagination' (Robert N. Grant in his reviewin JThS 41 [1990],pp. 664f, 665).
Unfortunately, Verheyden's study was not accessibleto me.
61 Adv. Marc. 4,8,1; it appears however, to have vanished by the time of Eusebius(cf.
Onom., s.v. N?Ç?pi9[Lagarde 284,37-285,1]).As to the Talmudic passages cf. Maier
1978, pp. 270f.
The best discussionof the relevant patristic testimonies,primarily by Epiphanius and
Jerome, is found in Horbury 1982,pp. 25-27and Pritz 1988,pp. 102-107.A short intro-
duction into the problem touching upon the main points is given by Wilson 1989,pp. 64-
73. I wonder, however, whether the birkat ha-minim in the recension discovered by
Schechterdo not perhaps refer to the Nasaraeans, as describedby Epiphanius in Pan. 18 8
(cf. above).
62 Cf. Schreckenberg 1990, p. 180; an extensive discussion of the source problem is
found in Harnack 1882, pp. 115-130.
6' Cf. Klijn/Reinink 1973, pp. 19-43, 54-67; Strecker 1988, p. 312.
64 Cf. Klijn/Reinink 1973, p. 73 and note 2.
65 For the Ebionites cf. Iren., Adv. haer. 1,26,2; 3,11,7; Epiphan., Pan. 30,3,7; 30,13;
Hier., Comm. in Matth. 12,13; cf. Vielhauer/Strecker 1987, pp. 114-128, 138-142
(fragments); Klijn/Reinink 1973, pp. 30f.
66 Cf. Klijn/Reinink 1973,p. 73; Kelly 1977,p. 139(who, however, refers Justin, Dial.
47 and Eus., H.e. 4,22,2f to the Nazoraeanswithout their name being mentioned in both
references);Grillmeier 1979, pp. 184-186.
67 Cf. Visotzky 1989,pp. 53f who, however, goes too far in his condemnation of con-
temporary scholarshipin general; cf. e.g. Danielou 1964,p. 56; Klijn 1972,p. 242; Kelly
1977,p. 139 and Strecker 1988, p. 312 who all advocate views which differentiate these
groups. The tendency to lump all these groups together indiscriminatelycan, however, be
found in Simon 1986, pp. 245f; Schoeps 1949, p. 10 and Bagatti 1981, pp. 36-40.
68
8 As to the Ebionites cf. Epiphan., Pan. 30,18,2: 'For they have elders and
archisynagogues (1tpE.cr?\)'tipo\)C;
[...]xod and they call their church a
 51

synagogueand not a Church and honour Christ in name only' (translation taken from
Klijn/Reinink 1973, p. 187).
69 Cf. Strecker 1988, p. 311.
Around 231 Origen says that Jewish-Christianswere 'rare' (a7tIXVLOÇ) and that their
number was in any case less than 144,000(i.e. the number given in Rev 14,3; cf. Comm.
loh. 1,7).
70 Basil's attack on Apollinaris for urging 'the renewalof the temple and the observance
of worship according to the Law' (Ep. 265,2; cf. 263,4) is nothing but common slander.
Moreover, Apollinaris was a member of the 'orthodox' Church and bishop of Laodicea;
hence his inclinationstowards Judaism, if they were true, have to be seen in connection
with the group described in the next chapter. Cf. Wilken 1983, p. 72 and, moreover,
Schmidtke 1911, pp. 71ff.
" As regards the history of the Jews in Antioch cf. Meeks/Wilken 1978, pp. 2-13;
Wilken 1983, pp. 34-65.
'z Cf. Acts 11,26; as to the history of Christianity in Antioch in general cf.
Meeks/Wilken 1978, pp. 13-18;Wilken 1983, pp. 10-16.
" Cf. Chrys., Adv. Iud. 1,6,2 (PG 48,852);5,12,12 (902); Meeks/Wilken 1978,pp. 8f;
Harkins 1979, pp. XLII-XLIII; Wilken 1983, pp. 36-38.
" Cf. Meeks/Wilken 1978, p. 8; Harkins 1979, pp. XXV-XXVI.
75 Details are given by Wilken 1983, pp. 55-65.
76 Cf. Downey 1961, pp. 447f; Meeks/Wilken 1978, p. 7.
" Wilken 1983, p. 12; cf. in extenso van de Paverd 1970, pp. 3-9.
'e Cf. Wilken 1983, p. 12.
79 Cf. Ritter 1971with further references.
80 Chrys., Hom. in Matt. 85,4 (PG 58,762f); cf. Harkins, pp. XXV-XXVI.
8' Cf. Cavallera 1905, pp. 245-262;Kopecek 1979, pp. 529f; Wilken 1983, pp. 14f.
Wilken 1983,p. 16.
8z
83 As to the date cf. Wilken 1983, p. 67 n. 3.
84 Referencesto Chrysostom's homilies are given according to the system adopted by
Harkins. The columns of the corresponding Greek text in PG 48 are given in brackets.
All translations are taken from Harkins.
a5 Cf. 1,8,1 (855).
Cf. 1,1,5 (844); 1,8,1 (855); 8,4,5-9 (933); Hom. in Gal. 1,7 (PG 61,623).
86
87 Cf. 1,1,5 (844); 1,8,1 (855); 7,1,2 (915); moreover 1,7,lf (853).
88 Cf. 1,2,3 (845f).
89 At that time in Antioch Easter was normally computed after Alexandrinemanner (cf.
Huber 1969,p. 77). As to the relationship between Jewish Passover and Quartodeciman
Easter cf. Huber 1969,pp. 3-11. As for the complicatedquestion of the computation of
Easter cf. Strobel 1977.Strobel calls the Antiochene opponents of Chrysostom in hom.
3 'Lunarquartodecimans'; cf. ibid., pp. 357-368.
9° Moreover,whereasthe JudaizingChristians kept the lenten fast, Chrysostomnowhere
mentions that the Jews observed a fast as well (cf. Harkins 1979,p. 47, n. 1 ;pace Ritter
1971,p. 78). It is not clear whether the group is identical with the Judaizers or whether
it has to be distinguishedfrom them. In the latter case this homily does not belong to the
series; cf. Harkins 1979,pp. LIV-LVI. The same group seems to be envisagedin Const.
Apost. 5,17,3; as to the Antiochene origin of the final version of this work cf. Metzger
1985-1987,I, pp. 54-57; the date is 380; cf. ibid., pp. 57-62.
52

9' Cf. 1,6,2f (852); cf. 1,8,1 (855).

92 Cf. 1,7,5-11(854f);cf. Simon 1962,p. 142;Ritter 1971,p. 77; Meeks/Wilken 1978,
p. 32.
93 Cf. 8,5,6 (935); 8,6,4-6 (936); 8,7,1 (938).
94 Cf. e.g. 8,7,2 (938).
9S Cf. Meeks/Wilken 1978, p. 32; Wilken 1983, p. 75. Cf. moreover 8,5,5 (935).
96 2,1,6 (858).
" Meeks/Wilken 1978, p. 32.
98 Cf. e.g. Gal. 5,2 quoted by Chrysostom in 2,2,1 (858).
99 2,2,4 (859);2,3,5 (861). Cf., however3,6,11 (871). Apparently during the lenten fast
the Judaizers did not attend the Church.
'°° Cf. 4,3,4 (875).
'°' Cf. 4,3,8f (875f).
'°z Cf. 2,3,4 (860f); 4,7,3 (881).
'°3 Meeks/Wilken 1978, p. 35.
'°4 Cf. Krauss 1894,pp. 237f; cf. also Simon 1962,p. 141and note 5; Malingrey 1979,
pp. 92f.
'°5 Cf. Chrysostom's answer in 1,4 (PG 48,849); 4,4 (876).
106 Cf. Metzger 1985-1987,1, pp. 25-27; cf., moreover, p. 51 and II, p. 17.
'°7 As to the Jewish-Christianityin the Pseudo-Clementinescf. Strecker 1980.
'°e Cf. 8,4,5-10 (933f) and Simon 1962, p. 141; Wilken 1983, p. 74.
'°9 Cf. Guignebert 1923, esp. pp. 87f; Ritter 1971, p. 77; Harkins 1979, p. XXX,
XXXI V-XXXV.
"00 1,4,7 (849).
III' Cf. esp. 4,3,6 (875).
112 Cf. 3,3,9 (866) and Wilken 1983, p. 93.
113
3 Cf. Simon 1962,pp. 145f;Malingrey 1979,pp. 93f. As to affinities betweenJewish-
Christianity and Neo-Arianism cf. also the Eunomian interpolations in the Pseudo-
Clementine Recognitions; cf. Strecker 1980, p. 70. As to the problems of affinities
between Arianism and Judaism in general cf. Stemberger 1987, p. 68 and note 154.
114 Cf. Ritter 1971, p. 77.
"'5 Cf. 1,3,1 (847) und Ritter 1971, p. 77; Meeks/Wilken 1978, p. 32.
"6 1,5,2 (850); cf. also Wilken 1983, pp. 79-83.
117
7 Cf. Ritter 1971, p. 77.
"e8 Cf. Harkins 1979, p. XLI.
119 Cf. 1,7,2.4 (853).
120 Cf. 1,2,7 (846);2,3,5 (861);4,7,4 (881).As to the ecstatic effect of these danceswhich
Chrysostom calls 'drunkenness', cf. esp. 1,2,5-7 (846f); 8,1,1-4 (927f).
121 I do not think, however, that competition as regards the veneration of Jewish-
Christian martyrs, especiallythe Maccabees, whose tomb was situated in Antioch (cf.
Simon 1962, pp. 147-149;Wilken 1983, p. 88) constituted a major problem as regards
Judaizing, for it does not figure prominently in the homilies. The Maccabeesare men-
tioned only once in passing (in 5,7,5 [894]).Moreover,in hom. 6 Chrysostomexpressedly
renounces speaking about the 'feast of the martyrs' which happened to be celebrated on
that day (6,1,5 [904]);pace Simon 1962, pp. 146-153;Harkins 1979, p. XLVI-XLVII;
Wilken 1983,pp. 88-90).I do not see why 8,6,8 (937)must refer to the cult of the Mac-
cabees, as Simon 1962and Harkins 1979ad loc. claim. After all there were many other
saints in Antioch (as e.g. St. Babylas to whom one of the churches was dedicated).
 53

Z Cf. Ritter 1971, p. 77; Meeks/Wilken 1978, p. 32; Wilken 1983, pp. 79f.
'23 As to the importance of oaths under Christian influence in all legal areas in post-
classical Roman law cf. Kaser 1975, p. 12; Landau 1982, p. 382.
124 Cf. Kaser 1975,p. 445 and note 46. In general the promissoryoath in order to secure
existing liabilities is mentioned in legal sources (cf. Kaser 1975,p. 384). In postclassical
Roman law the woman had complete legal competency(cf. Kaser 1975, pp. 119f, 227f).
I2S Malingreyemphasizedthe similaritiesbetween Synagogueand Church; cf. 1979, p.
90.
'Z6 8,8,8 (940f); cf. 3,6,11 (871).
127 Cf. Simon 1962, pp. 143f; Wilken 1983, pp. 83-88.
'28 Wilken 1983, pp. 87f; cf. 8,8,7 (940); 8,6,8 (937).
129 Munck 1965, p. 87.
"° Cf. esp. Iren., Adv. haer. 1,26,2.
"' Visotzky 1989, pp. 59f.
132 Cf. Schiffman 1981and 1985.
I cannot deal here with the more complex problem of the Jewishnessof women.
134 Cf. Stummer 1954,cols. 162f;Betz 1980,S. 717-719;Schiffman 1981,pp. 125-127;
id. 1985, pp. 23-25.
135 Cf. above note 68.
136 Origen draws a very similar distinction in C. Cels. 2,3: ... TLVES
?Livv?,wv[sc. of the
Christians] xot-rocXFXot7cocat
ia 18q7cpOCpd(aEL xai
8y??aec?v &ÀÀTjYOPLWV, wve5 8Exai 8y?oup.evo?,
6q È1tOtyy£ÀÀEaeE, O68iV
1tVWIlOt'tLXWÇ fi«ov Ta1tá:'tpLOt wvES8i 068iliqyo6pwoifiolhiJ8i
x«1<8v'IT]OOUV x«p«8i[«a8m 1tpotpTj'tEu9£v'tOtxai Tov xaTaTO(
TTIP71aoct
VÓIlOV
M(;tv l€5E?ixovuqTov1tá:v'tOt Tou1tVEÚ¡J.Ot'tOÇ
vo5v(Borret 286,16-22).

Peterhouse, Cambridge CB2 1RD