Source: “Border lines : The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity” By Daniel Boyarin, University of Pennsylvania Press. 2004
Justin's Dialogue with the Jews.wav
This podcast explores how early Christianity and rabbinic Judaism, emerging from a shared "Judaeo-Christian" environment, developed distinct identities by creating the concepts of orthodoxy and heresy. The author uses Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho and early rabbinic texts like the Mishna to argue that both groups engaged in discursive work to define themselves against "the other," particularly through their understanding of "heresy" (or minut in Hebrew). Instead of a simple "parting of the ways," the text proposes a more complex process of mutual construction and boundary-making, suggesting that the need to distinguish themselves, especially in the face of challenges to their identities, led both traditions to create categories of insiders and outsiders based on belief and practice.
Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho and the Construction of Christian Identity: The sources highlight Justin Martyr, a convert from a "pagan" background, as a key figure writing in the second century, specifically in his work Dialogue with Trypho. This Dialogue is presented as a record of a conversation between Justin and a Jew named Trypho. A central purpose of the Dialogue is portrayed as Justin's effort in fighting on two fronts: against heresy within Christianity and against Judaism. Importantly, the sources argue that these two battles are deeply intertwined for Justin. His writing is seen as a work of self-definition for Christianity, carried out by contrasting it with something he calls Ioudaismos. This project includes addressing an "identity crisis" articulated through Trypho's challenge that Christians do not distinguish themselves from Gentiles, providing justification for the Dialogue as a Gentile Christian's attempt to distinguish himself. The sources suggest that Justin's work aims to establish a secure religious identity for believers in Christ by marking them off as religiously different from Jews.
Logos Theology as a Primary Boundary Marker: A major argument presented in the sources is that belief in the Logos of God as a second divine person is treated by Justin as a virtual touchstone of the theological difference between Christianity and Judaism. The sources propose that Justin's significant discursive energy is motivated not just by a desire to convince Jews to accept the Logos, but rather to deny the Logos to Jews. This denial is intended to make the Logos the major theological center of Christianity, thereby establishing a distinct religious identity for Christians. The sources contrast this with the traditional consensus that most non-Christian Jews prior to and even into the rabbinic period did see the Logos (or Sophia, its female counterpart) as central to their doctrines about God. This point underscores the strategic nature of Justin's theological emphasis as a means of separation rather than simply representing pre-existing differences.
The Intertwined Discourses of Heresy and Judaism in Justin's Work: The sources emphasize that in Justin's writing, the discourse about Judaism and the discourse about heresy are inextricably intertwined. By establishing a binary opposition between Christians and Jews over the question of the Logos, the Dialogue achieves two purposes: articulating Christian identity as theological (Christians believe in the Logos) and defining those who do not believe in the Logos as not Christians, but heretics. This "double construction" of Jews and heretics, or Judaism and heresy, serves to produce a secure Christian religious identity. The sources suggest that the hybridity of early Christianity is managed by identifying some Christians as heretics and claiming their views are "really" Judaism. Justin is seen as explicitly manifesting the deeply connected roles of heresy and Judaism in constructing orthodox Christian identity.
The Emergence and Nature of Heresiology in Rabbinic Judaism: The sources argue that the notion of heresy (using the term hairesis in a pejorative sense) was significant in defining religious borders not only in Christianity but also in Judaism, particularly in the rabbinic period. They posit that a major transition occurred within Judaism from a sectarian structure to one of orthodoxy and heresy, taking place between the time of the book of Acts and Justin. The Hebrew term minut (heresy) and min (heretic) are attested only in rabbinic literature, beginning with the Mishna (late second century). The sources propose that the creation of this abstract noun for a religious tendency was unusual in tannaitic texts and suggests potential Hellenic influence. Unlike earlier Jewish sectarianism where groups like Pharisees and Sadducees were seen as differing schools within a broader Israel, rabbinic discourse is described as promulgating the category of minim, implying a definition of religious outsiders based on doctrine.
The Shift from Sectarianism to Orthodoxy and Heresy in Judaism: The sources argue that Second Temple Judaism was characterized by sectarianism, where different groups (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes) debated and had differing practices and beliefs, but were generally considered part of Israel, often with some level of social cohesion among the elite. Qumran is presented as a more radical, "introversionist" sect that may have viewed others as outside Israel. However, the sources propose that in the rabbinic period, particularly from the second century onwards, this shifted to an orthodoxy/heresy model. This involved the definition of explicit "winners and losers" in the religious landscape, where a dominant group claimed to represent "Israel" and defined other Jews with different doctrines or practices as heretics (minim) who were outside "Israel."
Interpreting Rabbinic Texts as Historical Artifacts and Ideological Constructs: A crucial methodological point raised is the assumption that rabbinic writings are primarily evidence for the time and place in which they were produced, rather than necessarily reliable historical accounts of earlier periods. This challenges older historiography that sought to find a "historical kernel" of truth within rabbinic narratives about earlier events. The sources argue that even when rabbinic narratives claim to recount historical events (like those concerning Yavneh), their primary value for the historian lies in understanding the motives and ideology of the redactors and tradents who shaped and transmitted them. Rabbinic narratives are seen as intentional constructs designed to locate the genealogy of rabbinic institutions and practices in a narrative of origins (e.g., at Yavneh), effectively inventing orthodoxies by projecting their claims back into the past.
The Development of a "Rule of Faith" in Rabbinic Judaism: The sources identify the emergence of doctrinal criteria for defining orthodoxy and excluding heretics in rabbinic texts. A significant example is the Mishnaic passage listing those who have no place in the next world, including those who deny the resurrection of the dead, deny the Oral Torah is from heaven, and Jewish Epicureans (understood as those denying divine providence, potentially due to adopting doctrines seen as foreign). This passage is interpreted as promulgating a "rule of faith" that excludes Jews holding traditional or conservative views (like the Sadducees who denied resurrection and relied only on the written Torah) by framing rabbinic innovations (resurrection, Oral Torah) as the ancient and true tradition, thereby naming deviations as heresy.
Challenging Traditional Dating of Yavneh and the Birkat hamminim: The sources critically examine the traditional scholarly view that rabbinic Judaism was founded as an exclusivistic orthodoxy at Yavneh following the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, often citing the Birkat hamminim (curse of the heretics) as evidence for the expulsion of Jewish Christians. Drawing on recent scholarship, the sources argue that narratives attributing the Birkat hamminim or the establishment of orthodoxy to Yavneh under Rabban Gamaliel II are late rabbinic legends (dating to the fourth or fifth century Babylonian Talmud) and lack reliable historical support from the second century. The earliest attestation of the Birkat hamminim is placed in the mid-third century Tosefta, and even this text is seen as ambiguous and possibly referring initially to separatists or sects before being applied to heretics (minim).
Parallel and Mutually Implicated Developments in Christian and Rabbinic Heresiology: The sources argue against simple "influence" models, suggesting instead that Christian and Rabbinic heresiology developed in parallel and were mutually co-implicated processes in the second century. Both traditions, facing challenges to their identity and boundaries, simultaneously began to define themselves by producing categories of "others" who were outside their respective orthodoxies – Christians defining heretics and Jews, and Rabbis defining minim. The development of heresiological discourse and categories in both traditions is seen as a response to similar structural problems of figuring out who belonged to the group, leading to the policing of borders that were previously less problematic.
The Role of Gentile Christianity's "Verus Israel" Claim: The sources propose that the rise and increasing importance of Gentile Christianity in the second century, particularly its claim to be the "true Israel" (first attested in Justin), was a significant catalyst for the invention of Jewish orthodoxy by the Rabbis. This Gentile Christian claim to be "Israel," despite not being genealogically Jewish or observing the commandments, blurred the traditional boundary between Greek/Gentile and Jew, which had been based on national or ethnic identity. This pressure is suggested to have spurred a need for non-Christian Jews to reconfigure their own boundaries and define what it meant to be a Jew, leading to a semantic shift from a genealogical to a religious definition of Jewishness, and consequently, the emergence of orthodoxy/heresy as a boundary marker within Judaism itself.