(15 votes, average: 4.87 out of 5)
Loading...I return now, for a couple of posts, to my thoughts on the rise of anti-Judaism in the early Christian tradition, and my thesis that it was largely driven by a different way of reading the Bible, that the Christians insisted the Jewish scriptures were looking forward to Jesus as a suffering messiah who would die for sins, and in doing so fulfilled all sorts of prophecies, and most Jews thought this entire view was nonsense, if not blasphemous.
Here is where my thoughts move on from what I said in the last post on the matter. Should you need to refresh your memory, it is here: https://ehrmanblog.org/why-christians-needed-an-old-testament-pagan-attacks-on-the-faith/
An important point to stress is that Christians recognized that if their own interpretations of the Jewish Bible were correct, the Jews’ own interpretations were necessarily invalid. As I argued in Triumph of Christianity, the distinctive feature of early Christianity vis-à-vis all the other religions of the Roman world – including Judaism – was that Christians argued their views provided the way of salvation and the only way of salvation. Christians introduced into the world or religion the sense of exclusivism: if we are right, you are wrong. The implications for the battle over the Jewish Scriptures were that Jews could not claim any right to them, since they predicted the Christian message and the Christian religion, not the Jewish one. It was these implications that led to the rhetorical violence that we see in the Christian opposition to Jews in the first four centuries, opposition driven almost entirely by an appeal to the Bible as Christian rather than Jewish.
We can see this polemic already in the earliest stages of the early Christian tradition within the pages of the New Testament itself. And it is easy to trace its increasing severity and animosity with the passing of time. In my book I will spend considerable space discussing the key texts, most of them completely unknown to the reading public at large. As examples (the first being the exception):
To see these examples, which start getting quite, well, robust, you will need to belong to the blog. Joining is quick, easy, and inexpensive — especially considering what you get for your membership fee. And the entire fee goes to charity. So why not join?
really ?
>> As I argued in Triumph of Christianity,
>> the distinctive feature of early Christianity vis-à-vis
>> all the other religions of the Roman world – including Judaism –
>> was that Christians argued their views provided the way of
>> salvation and the only way of salvation.
I don’t see that from reading the New Testament
are you making a distinction between NT and ‘early christianity’
[Though I grant that I haven’t read Triumph of Christianity, ]
if so, do you (i.e will you clarify ) that these polemics are antithetical at least to Jesus teachings and probably the NT as a whole
your example from the canonical Gospel of John can be easily countered by the most famous verse 3:16
For God so LOVED THE WORLD that he . . .
emphasis on ‘God loving the world’ does not sound exclusivist to me, many other examples throughout NT abound
and if you want to compare non-canonical early christian writers like Barnabas and Justin, how about Origen who as far as I can tell believed and wrote of universal reconciliation, ie hardly exclusive salvation for christians
I’m not saying that every single verse of the NT teaches this. But exclusivism is definitely a major theme of the New Testament. I could cite verse after verse; just within the chapter you mention, for example, check out 3:36. And read the writings of Paul. And the speeches of Acts. And the book of Revelation.
As an Orthodox Jew who just signed up to Bart Ehrman’s blog, I’m looking to learn more about the early Nazarenes and how Xtians broke away from their Jewish roots.
To stick to the subject at hand, Judaism has always provided the world with two options.
1/ Remain a Gentile (not a derogatory term just means a general nation ) and keep the 7 laws (mitzvot) of Noah which make the world a righteous harmonious place OR
2/ Join the exclusive family known as Israel and convert by attaching yourself to the root of Avraham.
What Christians and Muslims did was sabotage our position, our calling and our heritage as Jews, as Israelites and invent replacement theology. This then led them to form an exclusive position of attempting to make everyone in the globe like them. If one isn’t a muslim they are not able to live the superior life or be saved and likewise if one isn’t a Christian they will be damned.
This is why Judaism is the authentic monotheism that can bring Jew and non Jew to a point of harmony whilst allowing the other to exist and also co exist.
Thanks for your thoughts. Very helpful. Please do try to avoid any kind of religious polemics on the blog. There are sincere and committed Christians and Muslims here, and not all Christians and Muslims have the same views. (Most Christians on the blog would disagree on your assessment of damnation, e.g.)
Hi Bart,
I am mindful of that. I am also candid on matters of religion and truth.
I have no qualms in being challenged or corrected, however I will take note of sensitivities on here. Thank you
>> the distinctive feature of early Christianity vis-à-vis
>> other religions – including Judaism –
>> was that Christians argued their views provided the way of
>> salvation and the only way of salvation.
question
was Judaism NOT exclusive ?
whatever ‘salvation’ meant to them in the first century, did they believe it was available to gentiles?
that would be helpful for me to know
thanks
No, Jews typically did not teach that non-Jews were going to hell. And yes, many were open to conversion by non-Jews, but it was not for “salvation” in the way Christians said. You may want to read the book on “Mission” by Martin Goodman for a good overview.
There is very little in the literature of the period of what Jews thought would happen to non-Jews after death, and most of what there is focuses on those non-Jews who had persecuted Jews (thus, Wisdom and 1 Enoch). – I call it “postmortem revenge.” B. Sanh. 105a is one of the few Talmudic references I am aware of that allows a place in heaven for righteous Gentiles (the ones who obey the covenant of Noah).
Yes, I’ll be dealing with this in my book on the History of Heaven and Hell.
I would like to ask you a question Dr Ehrmann – I recently had occasion to recite the Nicene creed, in the form in which is occurs in the Book of Common Prayer. Why is Pontius Pilate mentioned by name?
I can’t imagine that this efficient and terse statement of faith , much debated over, has anything in it by chance. What core element of the faith requires a name check for Pilate?
Originally it was in order to situate Christ in a historical moment, becaues of the Christian view that God had acted specifically in history to change the course of all history.
that makes sense – thanks.
Just this morning saw an article saying that in a poll about 20% of Americans think a small business should be able to deny service to Jews due to religious convictions, and of course the numbers were even higher for LGBTQ and Muslims. Even a surprising number for African Americans. Pretty sad that religion is so often used as an excuse to justify our own prejudices. If your religion prevents you from treating people fairly and as equals, you need a new religion.
Did pagan writers in Antiquity commonly showed deference to Judaism owing to its perceived ancient lineage? Wasn’t it equally common to find that they mocked the weird beliefs (worship of only one god surely was as absurd as having only one friend) and inconvenient practices (no pork, circumcision, they were lazy as they worked only 6 days) of the Jews? Surely the Roman overlords stationed in Palestine sometimes provoked the Jews (e.g. erecting statue of Caligula in the Temple)?
You explained earlier that Christians defended themselves against pagan charges by claiming they really did have ancient roots, and their religion fulfilled the ancient scriptural promises. Are you implying that many of the verses in the NT referring to Jesus as the fulfilment of the scriptures, and the disciples searching through the scriptures originated among Gentile Christian communities? I had thought these passages and fulfilment hermeneutics originated very early on. Author of GMatthew writing to a Jewish audience cited scriptures to prove Jesus fulfilled the prophecies.
Many did, yes. And yes, many mocked weird beliefs of Jews, just as they mocked weird beliefs of lots of other people who weren’t Greek or Roman. And yes, there was occasional political opposition as well. But my argument is that the hatred and opposition to jews for practicing their Jewish religion (i.e. for being “wrong”) is principally a Christian in vention.
Dr. Ehrman,
Is there a particular time in history when fundamentalist Christians began to be “pro-Jewish”, or maybe “pro-Isreal” would be more accurate? It seems that on the one hand, anti-semitism resides more on the far right, yet many far right Christians are pro-Israel to a fault (while simultaneously believing individual Jews will go to hell without accepting Jesus), because they believe Israel becoming a nation in 1949 is prophetically significant (maybe I just answered my own question). Or has there always been a faction of Christianity that viewed the Jews as “the chosen people “?
Yes, pro-Israel is more accurate. Largely it had to do with developments in 19th century Christian thinking about the end times and the need for Israel to exist before Jesus could come back. I think I posted on this a few months ago. If 2 Thess. 2:2 indicates that the anti-Christ will arise in the temple in Jerualem, then it needs to be there, which means Israel needs to rebuild it, which menas that Israel has to be in control of the the promised land, and especially Jerusalem, which means it also must have the temple mount. And so Christians began to support the Zionist movement, and many very conservative Christians still do — not becuase of love of Jews (they will all rot in hell) but because of the need for Israel to control the temple for Jesus to return. Maybe I’ll repost on this.
If I may, for those interested in these topics I’m going to take this opportunity to plug Craig Koester’s excellent course for the Teaching Company on “The Apocalypse”.
With regard to the question above there are a couple of good lectures on the details of the various species of modern apocalypsists, and how they use the Bible to support their respective views.
[[And as a small, but specific, example, I’d like to pick a tiny nit with the reference to “the anti-Christ” above (although I’m sure Dr Ehrman knows this and is only using a kind of shorthand here. 😉 )
That is, the passage in 2Thes does not refer to the “anti-Christ” but to “the man of lawlessness”. More to the point, the *only* place where “anti-Christ” is mentioned in the NT is in 1John [note: NOT in Revelation] where it is used to describe a specific class of heretics.
This is a very good example of the way in which most modern apocalypsists (perhaps best typified by the Dispensationalists or the “Left Befind” folks) tend to pick fragments of seemingly random verses, and mix them into a hodgepodge, from which they compose with their particular narrative.]]
Yes, that’s exactly right.
I think that another reason evangelical Christians can sometimes be a bit besotted with Israel, and I am remembering my youth and some of those I grew up amongst, is not only to do with the Second Coming. It is also because in some vivid way it seems to prove that the Bible is true. So much of the Bible, such as the times of Jesus, the Romans, the Old Testament, are all so far in the past and nothing can be seen of them today. But Israel is mentioned all over the Bible – and here is Israel again! Back to life! So it is one of the few things about the Bible that is undeniably, unignorably a reality – here is this place talked about so much and it is back among as again. So some feel. I certainly felt a bit of that, back in the day.
Jesus did not consider Jews enemies.The disciples of Jesus did not consider the Jews as enemies. They were commanded by Jesus to spread the word to Jews, the children of Israel ( their own brethren ). Jesus did caution the disciples to take heed of the Pharisees who were hypocrites ( Jesus words – never called them enemies ) , yet still commanded the disciples to preach to them for guidance.
Around the turn of the 1st century, most Christians were followers of Paul ( a pharisee convert to his Christianity ) His followers were predominantly ex- pagan with no real attachment to Abrahamic, Mossiac creed nor knowledge of Jewish traditions ( OT ). Given the political atmosphere at that point in time, labeling the Jews in a negative way was acceptable ( specially when the Jews were called God killers).
As far as circumcision. Circumcision was a command to Abraham by God. Abraham handed down this ordained command through his sons Ishmael and Isaac. That is why both the Muslims and Jews observe circumcision in high regard. ( not a reason to identify them for prosecution as Justin says ).
It would have been very interesting had the Book of Barnabas made it into the NT. Even though Barnabas was a direct student of Jesus, I wonder why it didn’t.
The letter of Barnabas was written sometime in the 130s CE, so not by someone who knew Jesus. If it *had* made it into the NT, probalby Christainity would have become yet more anti-Jewish, earlier on, than it even was.
Jesus was critical of anyone who openly disagreed with him, not only the Temple authorities.
>> “Christians introduced into the world or religion the sense of exclusivism: if we are right, you are wrong.”
I’m confused by this statement.
I can understand why we can consider most pagans not be “exclusivist”, but I don’t understand why we wouldn’t consider the religion of most mainstream Jews to be so (at least once Judaism had become a strictly monotheistic religion).
Several people have asked about this. I better post on it!
I think of all the gospels John’s puts the least responsibility for Jesus’s execution on “the Jews”.
In the synoptics its the crowd that call for Barabbas’s release and Jesus’s execution.
In John its the chief priests that call for it.
19:6 “As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, Crucify! Crucify!”
19:15 “Shall I crucify your king? Pilate asked. We have no king but Caesar, the chief priests answered.”
One problem is that in John’s Gospel (alone) the enemies of Jesus are frequently simply called “the Jews” — as if ALL of them were his enemies. It’s a strange phenomenon, long discussed. (Like saying “the Americans” hated Obama)
But it is no different than when he uses “the Romans”; 11:48 “the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation”. Its not as if he’s claiming all Romans would be responsible for it.
He also uses “the Jews” where its clearly not meant to be *all* Jews – 11:36 “Jesus wept. The Jews said see how he loved him”.
John’s is the only gospel who has Jesus specifically describe himself as a Jew – 4:22 “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews”.
No different? Hmmm… I don’t think anyone would argue the Gospel of John could be used as grounds for persecuting Italians….
(John 4:22 does not include a statement by Jesus saying “I am a Jew.” BTW, notice when he talks to his enemies among “the Jews” he talks about “your” law….)
But if the Italians had never become christians it might have been used against them (not only did the romans kill christ they also destroyed gods holy city) – through no fault of the writer of the gospel of John.
Also doesnt Josephus refer to the law and Jews in similar terms? – “for the Jews, by demolishing the tower of Antonia, had made their temple four-square, while at the same time they had it written in *their* sacred oracles … ”
and “The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination”.
Yes, Christians attacked those who did not become Christian. But they did not focus on any other ethnic or national group per se, other than the Jews. If you can think of an exception, I’d love to know it! (Where are the pogroms against the Brits? or the Galatians? or the Italians?)
And yes, Jews did see themselves as a people “set apart.” They did NOT, however, think that anyone else needed to convert to their views or they were damned by God. (That is, however, precisely what the Christians thought)
Yes but just dont think john should get the blame for it – the main charge against him is his use of the phrase “the jews” – but josephus does the same
When does Josephus say that “the Jews” are the enemy? I’m not saying “the Jews” is a phrase that never occurs in ancient literature outsdie of John. I’m saying that John portrays “the Jews” as the enemies of Jesus and (read chapter 8), “children of the Devil.” You won’t find that in Josephus!
I think if “the jews” in Ch8 was replaced with “the Romans” it would be much clearer that he’s only talking about those present who are challenging his claims.
“Then the Romans said to him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”
Its only after centuries of European antisemitism that Ch8 sounds racist.
Yeah maybe. But if you said “Americans are the spawn of Satan,” (= The Jews are children of the Devil,” John 8), I think many people would say that that sure sounds anti-American.
But if the story was about an american messiah with 12 american disciples and he told “the americans” challenging him in Time square “you are the spawn of satan” – the author probably wouldnt mean “all” americans.
I’ve never heard of a situation like that, someone who was saying to other Americans that “the Americans” are spawn of Satan.
What about the passage in Matthew where “the Jews” say “his blood be on us and on our children” (something no one would ever say, but that’s not the point). Seems to me Matthew is either blaming all the Jews or saying that all the Jews brought blame on themselves.
Yes, Matthew is clearly anti-jewish at this point too. But he doesn’t say “the Jews” here. He says “all the people.”
The one question I have about Christians seeing the Old Testament as being their Bible is that the Old Testament scriptures, quoted in Matthew, used to foretell the crucified Messiah, just do not seem that convincing. They do not, for example, contain the word “Messiah” so it is hard to see exactly what these Old Testament scriptures are predicting and about whom or what (maybe Israel) they are predicting. So, my question:
Were early Christians really convinced by this Old Testament evidence of a suffering Messiah when this evidence really does not seem that convincing, at least to me? Wouldn’t they, and we, really need more convincing evidence? For example, having the word “Messiah” clearly stated in these Old Testament scriptures would seem important. Surely, conclusions so important would require more convincing evidence. Don’t extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? Thanks!
Yes, as today, in early Christianity some believers were convinced by OT passages that do not seem to be at all what they were really saying….
I think “exclusivity” can be translated very nicely into “intolerance”. Intolerance cohabits easily with bigotry and hate. Bigotry and hate are often associated with persecution and genocide. And so it goes– the enduring legacy of Christ our Lord… who is said to have said that he came not to bring peace, but to divide families, and peoples, with a sword. Well, if that’s the case, he was a great success! But at least that’s only what he was SAID to have said, long after the fact, by other people who never knew him, who might well have been merciless and hateful bigots. I think we can safely say, that whatever Christ actually said and whatever his mission actually was, the words and the mission have been twisted and perverted beyond all recognition.
Follow up question:
It seems to me that Christians from the beginning (probably from Jesus) believed that ‘salvation’ (again whatever salvation means) was available to ALL people.
was that not somewhat unique to other religions of the Roman World.
I do not get that was a idea readily spread/expounded by Judaism. not to the degree it was expounded by christianity. but let me know if I am wrong.
Or in pagan world was that idea common, weren’t only ‘special’ people saved?
Do you think that the christian idea that salvation is available to ALL will have any bearing in your book, if you proceed ?
Yes, it was *available* to all. But those who didn’t accept it were condemned forever. That’s something you don’t get in other religions at the time.
I’ve just finished reading Elaine Pagels “Why Religion.” While it focuses on tragedies in her personal life she claims a return to Christianity which was brought about by her studies of the Nag Hamaddi Library which she wrote a book on.
She never explains what kind of Christianity she now embraces. I know that you and she have written on some of the same subjects, so I was just wondering if you might have picked up on what she believes as a practicing Christian.
Thanks in advance if you choose to respond to my query.
I do know (well, a bit), but I’m not sure I should share it publicly.
FYI
Judaism and Christianity Both Rely on the Hebrew Bible. Why Do They Interpret It So Differently? (June 14, 2019)
https://time.com/5606942/jewish-christian-bible/?fbclid=IwAR1L-6rbuBXBtYwvT_XaU8uf0iif-FcPs_TsRJWcXWW6angFGd1dGkenSqI
Bart
“Christians introduced into the world or religion the sense of exclusivism: if we are right, you are wrong.” Hadn’t Jews already introduced this concept? Going back to the time of King Josiah and before, Jews had destroyed “pagan” altars and killed “idolatrous” priests. How is this not exclusivism? Wasn’t Jewish exclusivism also a major issue in the time of the Hasmonean revolt, when the stricter faction of Jews refused to accommodate Hellenistic universalism? Wasn’t it also an issue in the Jewish revolt in 70 c.e., when Jews attempted to throw off the Roman yoke, while Christians explained that even though their messiah was a king in a spiritual sense, they were not trying to upset the social order?
Others have asked this. I better post on it!
It appears contradictory to say that Jews were the exception to the Roman requirement that locals observe the Roman gods, but then assert that Christians introduced exclusivity into the religious landscape. Although there may be debate over what people believed about themselves and others, there’s one thing the objective evidence supports: Jews were identified and exempted from standard practice. That also creates a powerful incentive for people to join Christianity — a way to escape Roman religious oppression without enduring the unpleasant practices of Judaism like listening to rabbis and circumcision, not necessarily in that order (in all fairness).
Others have asked about this; I better post on it!
Imagine an American prophet named Anointed Savior and He has a group of followers that believe He lived and died to save us from our sins. This group of followers have reinterpreted the New Testament to show that everything written there actually refers to Anointed Savior. They claim all those Christians have just closed their minds to seeing the truth. I imagine there would be a bit of push back from Christians yet this is what they essentially did to Jews and the OT.
Nothing better than taking a religions sacred scriptures and telling that religion they don’t know or understand their own books!
Dr Ehrman, On the issue of Jewish non-exclusivity, where would you say Ezra ch 9 subtitled DENUNCIATION OF MIXED MARRIAGES in the NRSV and ch 10 v 10 onwards subtitled FOREIGN WIVES AND THEIR CHILDREN REJECTED and the similar sentiments expressed in Nehemiah ch 13 v 23 onwards fit in?
Yes, many Jews did want to live in communities of Jews without non-Jews among them. I was referring to views of *salvation*. The idea that you had to agree with Christians or you would be forever condemned as one who rejected God — that is not found in Judaism. We don’t have records of Jews ever saying, about their religious views/practices, We’re right, therefore You’re wrong, and You are going to be punished for it.
How do you see Paul in this perspective? He does write with some invective against Jews in 1 Thess. 2:14-16, but in Romans he is much more positive toward the Jews. Granted, Paul was not always consistent.
As regards Thessalonians, Dickieson, Hagner, and others think it was an example of what I would call “polemical overkill” such as was common in those days, and Paul says equally bad things about some of his fellow Christians. Would you agree with that term?
I think you can draw a distinction between pre-70 and post-70 Jesus Movement thinking about the Jews. Prior to 70, Paul and the others (who were still mostly Jews) thought Jewish indifference to Jesus was a passing thing and they would come around. After 70, when the Jews refused to accept the destruction as a sign that God had turned against them, and also because the balance of Jesus followers had begun to shift from mostly Jews to mostly Gentiles, that, I would argue, is where you begin to see much more vituperative polemic.
I think this is one of the few places in the New Testament where the term almost certainly refers to “the Judeans” (people living in Judea) rather than “the Jews” (anyone who follows Jewish practices/customs). The context seems to me to require that understanding.
Christians would say that “the Jews” refers to the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem. What do think of this view Bart?
My view is that Christians don’t have one interpretation of the matter. There are lots of interpretations of most passages of the Bible, and I’m not sure I know of any that is held by all Christians! But unless a passage specifies or at least hints that it is referring to leaders, then the normal way of interpreting it is that it is not. (
My apologies Bart if you were a little disappointed with the question.
Not at all! I appreciaet all your questions. Keep asking them!
I understand how important it is to provide education about Jewish persecution, but one thing I feel gets neglected is how women suffer in Orthodox Judaism much like women in fundamentalist Christianity and Islam. I’m not an uber feminist either by any stretch of the imagination (I’m good with traditional roles too—whatever one wishes to do, then great!), but it really angers me when I read that Jewish women are required to PRESENT THEMSELVES to a rabbi. It’s so disgusting!
Here’s an article that discusses what I’m talking about—
https://www.richarddawkins.net/2016/11/i-had-to-take-my-dirty-panties-to-a-rabbi-and-so-has-every-orthodox-jewish-woman/
Bart: “An important point to stress is that Christians recognized that if their own interpretations of the Jewish Bible were correct, the Jews’ own interpretations were necessarily invalid. … Christians introduced into the world or religion the sense of exclusivism: if we are right, you are wrong. The implications for the battle over the Jewish Scriptures were that Jews could not claim any right to them, since they predicted the Christian message and the Christian religion, not the Jewish one. It was these implications that led to the rhetorical violence that we see in the Christian opposition to Jews in the first four centuries, opposition driven almost entirely by an appeal to the Bible as Christian rather than Jewish.”
Martin Goodman has an interesting epilogue to his Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations, entitled, “The Origins of Antisemitism.” In it he emphasizes, among many other factors, the Roman “demonization of the defeated nation” of the Jews, the “effects [of] which lasted for centuries” (p 551). He goes so far as to speak of “the emergence of Christian antisemitism” as “a by-product of the hostility of Rome to the Jews” and “it was not by accident that some Christians began in the second century to distance themselves from Jews with language of increasing vitriol at the same time that similar terminology was being used in the centre of imperial power at Rome. … if Christians were to defend their own good name and seek converts in a Roman world in which, after 70, the name of the Jews excited opprobrium, it was easier to join in the attack and agree with the pagans that the defeat of the Jews and the destruction of the Temple were to be celebrated as the will of God.” … “Of course the antagonism to Judaism found in many Christian writings of the second century was given a theological gloss.”
There were, of course, many factors that led to the catastrophic development of Christian antisemitism. Interesting that what you consider to be ‘almost entirely’ theologically driven by Christian exclusivism, Goodman sees as initially little more than opportunistic adoption of Roman imperial political propaganda later given a Christian theoligical gloss. Personally, I think the historical realities typically resist sweeping generalizations.
It’s very hard to write a 1000 word blog post on a complicated topic without making it sound too simple. But that’s why God invented books!
Bart: “… But that’s why God invented books!”
And comments on blogs. So it sounds like you would accept a more complicated combination of your view and that of Goodman’s, even though they are almost polar opposites on this point. I actually think that’s how history needs to be written sometimes, a weird combination of oftentimes diametrically opposed and reversed causes and effects and conflicting motivations of all the various actors in a drama written by a million authors.
>> ” But that’s why God invented books!”
Yeah, like when he wrote out the KJV.
😉
[But seriously, this is one of the features that I most appreciate about this ‘blog. I.e. the number of books, papers and other sources that it has pointed me to (and, in particular, that I would never have otherwise know about.)
Once again, thank you. Keep it up.]
The fact that the Qur’an manuscripts are more identical compared to the New Testament manuscripts would not be related to the language to which the Qur’an was written and to have remained in the same region of the same language, not to have been adopted as an official religion outside the dominions Arabs?
Unlike the New Testament, which began with the Jews, passed through the Greek and later Latin, besides having been declared the official religion of the kingdom of Rome? A kingdom with different writings and different interpretations?
Which may have contributed a great deal to the changes in the New Testament?
Good question. But no, I think the issue is unrelated. The Greek manuscripts were copied by people whose ancestors had spoken Greek for centuries as well. The Christian scribes just didn’t take as much care in copying their manuscripts.
Can you say a bit about the dating of Barnabas? I think you’re right in dating it to the 130’s but how do you respond to those who date it closer to the destruction of the Temple?
It’s usually thought that the idea of it being soon to be rebuilt puts it in the time of Hadrian. I have a fuller discussoin in my introduction to the Loeb translation.