• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

The Fiscus Judaicus

I don't have time to respond fully because I have a full week of work ahead of me. I do agree that taxes and money greatly influenced the church. Anyone skeptical of that concept only has to look at how money influences the church today. I do find more of an interest in the thoughts about the early church being changed through the influences of the pagan religious ceremonies that were dragged in by new converts.

However, I do understand the the point of the paper to some degree was about the separation of God's people away from his instructions because of the tax, and not about the pagan influences. I do not have time right now to check all of the author's references, but the article does not seem to be untrue to me after only reading it one time.
 
Here is another paper written by the same author and it is intended to be a follow-up to "The Fiscus Judaicus". I hope you'll enjoy it!

"Paul and the Early Church Fathers: Examining the early Synagogue/Church Schism"

You'll have to download this one from my iDisk (linked below in my signature). You'll find, "Paul & Fathers.pdf" by following this path:

brycehenderson's Public Folder > HIStory

Please, post any comments or questions you might have about the early church's relationship to the Jews.
 
These are interesting papers. How do you think that the two groups, the jews and the gentiles, believers worshipping together, were supposed to handle the circumcision and other rituals that were practiced? Were the gentiles supposed to be exactly like the jews? it seems like the waters would not be clear on a lot of these issues.
 
Yeah, I certainly believe that circumcision is for non-Jews too. Careful examination of Paul's arguments against the Rabbinic doctrines concerning proselytes reveals that he was not arguing against the commandment of Hashem to circumcise. He argued against the insistence of those who followed the Rabbinic teachings that a non-Jew must become a Jew through a man-made ritual. The Rabbis taught (and still teach) that a non-Jew can become a Jew through the rituals of a proselyte:
  • 1. Circumcision
    2. Instruction in basic commandments of Torah
    3. An offering at the Temple (or, donation if there is no Temple)
    4. Immersion in a mikveh
The Rabbis taught that after a non-Jew went through this ritual they were then a Jew. To emphasise their point they used an extreme example. They said that before a non-Jew went down under the waters of the mikveh it would be a sin for them to marry their sister, but once they came up out of the waters of the mikveh they were a Jew and no longer in the same family as her, so they could then marry her.

All of this is wrong, but it was insisted on by those who thought it was right because they believed that only those who become Jews can be saved. The Torah contains no provisions for a non-Jew to become a Jew. Instead, the Torah is clear that a non-Jew is also obligated to live according to His commandments.

Paul did not oppose the commandment of circumcision, rather, he opposed the ritual of making proselytes.
 
Very interesting work on proselytizing. Very useful information.

107 AD eh, yeah, that sounds about right. A solid generation after the fall of the temple ect...

That is a very nice piece of work, thanks for posting it.
 
Thanks for the positive feedback. :D

I was digging through my iTunes podcasts last night and I came across a teaching on the Pharisees that you might like. I just uploaded it to my iDisk (linked in signature below) and I put it in the "Bereans Online" folder. It's called, "Pharisees - Good Guys.mp3".
 
brYce said:
Yeah, I certainly believe that circumcision is for non-Jews too. Careful examination of Paul's arguments against the Rabbinic doctrines concerning proselytes reveals that he was not arguing against the commandment of Hashem to circumcise. He argued against the insistence of those who followed the Rabbinic teachings that a non-Jew must become a Jew through a man-made ritual. The Rabbis taught (and still teach) that a non-Jew can become
.
.
.
All of this is wrong, but it was insisted on by those who thought it was right because they believed that only those who become Jews can be saved. The Torah contains no provisions for a non-Jew to become a Jew. Instead, the Torah is clear that a non-Jew is also obligated to live according to His commandments.

Paul did not oppose the commandment of circumcision, rather, he opposed the ritual of making proselytes.
Click to expand...

Hi Bryce,

This is an old message, but I'm curious where you see this in Scripture.

I read in Acts 15:

"But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, that it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter." (Acts 15:5-6)

The apostles and elders were considering the matter of whether it was "needful" for Gentiles to be circumcised and that the Gentiles keep the Law of Moses. The answer was:

"Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well." (Acts 15:24-29)

So, the end result was that circumcision and keeping the Law were not needful/necessary.

However, I have heard it said that they were talking about the Oral Law, not the Mosaic Law that was written. I'd like to know your side of the story, but I have a serious problem with this.

First of all, whether its the Oral Law or not, it plainly says that they did NOT have to be circumcised. There's not really any reasonable way to get around that, if one believes the actual words of this passage and does not add to it.

Second, it says plainly, "Law of Moses". That's the same phrase used for the written Law in the Old Testament and the New in many places. How can we then differentiate between the Oral and Written if the same phrase is used? In fact, how can we invoke the Oral Law at all, when there is no evidence of it at all? It seems to me that one has to insert the idea into the passage in order to come up with that idea. It seems to me that this comes from one's assumptions rather than from the text itself.

I'm looking forward to your explanation. Thanks.


John for Christ
 
brYce said:
http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Fiscus%20Judaicus.pdf

This paper is an examination of how a Roman tax imposed on those who were Jewish, or who observed Jewish customs, led to big changes in the emerging Church.

Please, post your comments after you've read it.
Click to expand...

Hi Bryce,

After having read the paper, my only comment would be that this is a serious historical revisionism. The idea that it was taxes that influenced Christians not to follow Jewish traditions is absurd, in my opinion. That there was a third group other than Jews and Christians, as Messianic believers is, to my knowledge, unsupported by history.

The idea that the New Testament relies heavily on the Old Testament is certainly true, but the treatment of the subject is false. The early Christians recognized, in the arguments of the writers of the New Testament, that the Law had passed away, and that the Torah did not dictate how any believers, Jew or Gentile, were to live. The New Testament itself preserves this idea quite clearly, in phrases such as "not under the Law" and passages such as Acts 15 that make it abundantly clear that the Old Testament supplied the source of our belief, but had been superseded by a superior truth in Christ.

Historical revisionism can be very clever, like this paper is. It sounds reasonable on the surface, but the actual facts are lacking. It's a combination of half-truths and speculation presented as fact that makes it appear to be reasonable. However, when one has really studied Scripture and the history of that era, they cannot be taken in by these type of things.

If I ever get the time, I'll try to address the entire paper piece by piece.


John for Christ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top