spin

An interesting thing about the Birkat haMinim, which contains the cursing of the notzrim, is what Epiphanius says about it:

Not only do Jewish people bear hatred against them; they even stand up at dawn, at midday, and toward evening, three times a day when they recite their prayers in the synagogues, and curse and anathematize them—saying three times a day, “God curse the Nazoraeans.”

This last part sounds rather strongly like a references to the Birkat haMinim.

For Epiphanius these Nazoreans are not christians, but a sect of Jews, unacceptable to the Jews. This makes sense if the Jewish curse against the notzrim is against this group of heretical Jews. This reference, notzrim, may not originally have been to christians at all, but to people who considered themselves Jews, while accepting Jesus as the messiah.

There is also a reference to cursing Nazarenes in Jerome, but I haven't tracked it down yet, though Jerome does know of this group of Nazarenes who he places along with Epiphanius in Beroea, though Epiphanius, while mentining Beroea first, also places them elsewhere as well.

(The connection between these Nazoreans and the notzrim of the curse may be the argument of Reuben Kimmelman, whose paper on the notzrim I haven't been able to find.)

stephan huller

My impression of the בִּרְכַּת הַמִּינִים was that it was a way of establishing that no Christians were present at the synagogue. It was Samuel who was said to have composed it:

Our Rabbis taught: Simeon ha-Pakuli arranged the eighteen benedictions in order before Rabban Gamaliel in Yavneh. Said Rabban Gamaliel to the Sages: "Can any one among you frame a benediction relating to the Minim [sectarians]?" Samuel the Lesser arose and composed it. (b.Berakot 29a).

But strangely he 'forgets' the words a year later. There is a strong anti-Roman government theme to the prayer mixed in with the anti-Christian rhetoric (a strange mix for late first century CE!). I have always taken this to have something to do with Samuel being afraid of the government:

Our Rabbis taught: Simeon ha-Pakuli arranged the eighteen benedictions in order before Rabban Gamaliel in Jabneh. Said Rabban Gamaliel to the Sages: Can any one among you frame a benediction relating to the Minim? Samuel the Lesser arose and composed it. The next year he forgot it and he tried for two or three hours to recall it, and they did not remove him. Why did they not remove him seeing that Rab Judah has said in the name of Rab: If a reader made a mistake in any of the other benedictions, they do not remove him, but if in the benediction of the Minim, he is removed, because we suspect him of being a Min? — Samuel the Lesser is different, because he composed it. But is there not a fear that he may have recanted? — Abaye said: We have a tradition that a good man does not become bad. But does he not? It is not written, But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness and committeth iniquity? — Such a man was originally wicked, but one who was originally righteous does not do so. But is that so? Have we not learnt: Believe not in thyself until the day of thy death? For lo, Johanan the High Priest officiated as High Priest for eighty years and in the end he became a Min? Abaye said: Johanan4 is the same as Jannai. Raba said: Johanan and Jannai are different; Jannai was originally wicked and Johanan was originally righteous. On Abaye's view there is no difficulty, but on Raba's view there is a difficulty? — Raba can reply: For one who was originally righteous it is also possible to become a renegade. If that is the case, why did they not remove him? — Samuel the Lesser is different, because he had already commenced to say it [the benediction]. For Rab Judah said in the name of Rab — or as some say. R. Joshua b. Levi: This applies only if he has not commenced to say it, but if he has commenced, he is allowed to finish. [Ber. 28b - 29a]

The only way Samuel's perplexing role in the development of the benediction is that he vacilated under government pressure. The 'forgeting' of the benediction parallels many other bizarre 'loss of memory' incidents - what to do when Passover falls on a Sabbath being by far the most incredible (this must have happened many times before - how is it possible that at the beginning of the common era the Jews didn't know what to do!).

According to Yerushal. Ber. v. 3 he merely omitted some part of the prayer; and, as he was not under suspicion of heresy, the omission was overlooked.

spin

And you don't find it remarkable that this only refers to the Minim? There is no reason here to think that he was asked to say anything about christians. It certainly wasn't part of the stated brief.

semiopen

Thanks for bringing up this interesting topic.

Issues in the Separation of Judaism and Christianity after 70 C.E.: A Reconsideration Author: Steven T. Katz Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 103, No. 1 (Mar., 1984), pp. 43-76

Discusses this and brings up much of the same details mentioned here.

Regarding the term "Nazaraei" -

Katz is apparently not convinced about the role of Rabbi Samuel -

There is also what seems like an important discussion of Birkat ha-Minim.

The conversation here is above my level but Katz's article seems worth reading.

spin

Katz is one of those voices flitting around my head on the subject. There's also a reasonable discussion in the Cambridge History of Judaism, V.4, 280-295. Another view on the interpretation of the cursing, Louis Jacobs, "Praying for the Downfall of the Wicked", Modern Judaism, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Oct., 1982), 297-310.

But I need some inroad into the dating of Yeshu haNotzri.

No Robots

On the invitation of Gamaliel II., Samuel ha-Ḳaṭan composed a prayer against the minim which was inserted in the "Eighteen Benedictions"; it is called "Birkat ha-Minim" and forms the twelfth benediction; but instead of the original "Noẓerim" (= "Nazarenes"; see Krauss in "J. Q. R." v. 55; comp. Bloch, "Die Institutionen des Judenthums," i. 193) the present text has "wela-malshinim" (="and to the informers"). The cause of this change in the text was, probably, the accusation brought by the Church Fathers against the Jews of cursing all the Christians under the name of the Nazarenes.--"Min", The Jewish Encyclopedia.

stephan huller

One quick thing - perhaps the difficulty is thinking in terms of Jesus as the 'transformed' one. The heretics thought Jesus was God and didn't care much for the idea of his humanity (the Evionim I believe were so called BECAUSE they stressed his humanity - i.e. so-called by those who knew better). This is the explanation of the name provided by both Clement and Origen (i.e. poor in understanding, wisdom, knowledge etc.)

The attempts of the gospels to pin Jesus's hometown as Nazareth is clearly related to the notzrim title. I don't know how people want to look at it. The motivation is certainly up for debate. But in my mind the fact that Marcionites did not have any reference to this place or any association of this place with Jesus and the Catholic texts strive at every chance to (a) make Nazareth as 'part of Jesus's title' (b) make Jesus have a family and (c) make local's 'know of' Jesus are all reactions to the original Marcionite understanding of Jesus the stranger.

The point then - after all this - is that maybe the notzrim were not associated with Jesus DIRECTLY but only through the one he transformed through his 'Passion' - i.e. the believing disciple whom Irenaeus says was 'impassible' while Jesus was crucified (cf AH 3.11.7). The Mandaean Aramaic etymology of Nasoraean and nasirutha might be helpful too.

No Robots

Birkat haMinim: Jews and Christians in conflict in the ancient world / Yaakov Y. Teppler, Susan Weingarten. Review.

stephan huller

I also think that it isn't the reference to the Notsrim that's the problem. The whole history of the period is unknown and anything obviously unexplainable like the benediction becomes the 'red herring' to the assumption that everything basically stayed the same between 70 - 140 CE. We know that by the time of Antoninus circumcision seems to have been tolerated again but everything before that is a mystery with a few tantilizing 'clues' preserved in various sources. Still the whole picture is up for grabs.

I personally don't believe in the Yavneh story. It seems to me to be more mythical than the Jesus narrative. But it's all we have so people hold on to it.

For me at least the idea that Samuel invented the benediction and later recanted or 'forgot' it is a powerful historical witness. Why would the Jews make up such a stupid story? It must have a grain of truth to it especially when coupled with (a) Shabbat 116a and its report of an alliance between the government of Palestine and the min (b) the influence of another prominent min - Elisha ben Abuya

Akher does not seem like a 'heretic' in the reports of the period. He seems to be very confident and the rabbinic forefathers on the run. Again my guess is that the Roman government was encouraging a 'heretical' form of Judaism or if you will - that the Hellenized form of Judaism (i.e. Philo of Alexandria) which was formerly influential became heretical in the period after the second revolt.

The stories about Judah ha Nasi and Antoninus COULD BE allusions to the second century period.

I also take seriously the reports that the Alexandrian temple continued to function as a place of sacrifice up until the Trajanic period. I never trust anything written in Josephus. In other words, it is possible that something else - not entirely Jewish/not entirely Christian (even Samaritanism) as we know those terms - was influential over the monotheistic traditions of the period.

Already Simon Magus embodies at least part of that ecumenicism when we hear it reported that he had “appeared among the Jews as the Son, in Samaria as the Father and among other nations as the Holy Spirit."

Of course this is all speculative but it is foolish to pretend we know anything substantial about the period. We don't.

spin

You seem to be assuming a chronology regarding notzrim that has been shown to be up for questioning. A lot of the Jewish scholarly analysis of the Birkat haMinim over the last 30 years suggests that notzrim was not original to the benediction as written by Samuel haQatan, but inserted centuries later. Marvin R. Wilson from his sources works on a 4th c. insertion date, Daniel Boyarin from the 5th c.

I've not seen any effort here from you on the subject of dating, just your already formed view as to its significance and an implied, though unsupported, early dating.

Again, this is not in tune with more recent analysis. If "minim" was a generic term for what christians referred to as heretics, then the inclusion of notzrim would be superfluous as stated in the benediction, as they would be a subset of the minim, and the story as to how the benediction was commissioned points to the standard "heretic" understanding. It's is only with a change in meaning of minim that the addition or substitution of other terms would have been necessary.

Who is saying that the story is made up? The issue is about the form of the benediction which was not "written in stone".