IN the New Testament righteous (innocent) suffering is of two types, (i) General suffering is to be expected by all Christians, since it is the lot of the righteous to be persecuted by the wicked. This form of suffering is not necessarily brought upon Christians by their faith. Christian slaves, for example, may suffer illtreatment from their masters, not because their masters hate Christians but simply because their masters are harsh and badtempered (i Peter 2: 18–21). This kind of suffering is shared equally by Jewish and Gentile Christians and is inflicted by both Jewish and Gentile enemies. (2) The suffering of Jewish messengers to Israel belongs to a separate class, because it derives from a special form of wickedness which is peculiar to Israel. Thus, the Maccabean martyrs provide prototypes for the suffering of the first category but not for that of the second. Confusion at this point vitiates the otherwise excellent study of H. A. Fischel. While we may agree with Fischel, p. 382, that ‘in the Tannaitic period, a far-reaching identification of the prophet with the martyr had taken place, i.e., every prophet had to suffer or die, and every martyr was in possession of prophetic powers, both being almost angelic figures’, we must insist that identification of the two types in terms of the way the martyrdoms are narrated must not be confused with identification of the meaning of the suffering of the prophet with that of the non-prophetic martyr. The ordinary Jewish martyr suffers at the hands of foreigners, the prophet at the hands of his own people.

In order to evaluate adequately the role played by the persecution theme in Matthew, it will be necessary to make a survey of the data of Jewish persecution of Christians in other sources, both Christian and non-Christian. That outbursts of violent opposition to the new religion did at times occur in Jewry seems certain. What is not at all certain is the nature and extent of this hostile reaction. It has been suggested that Christian authors have greatly exaggerated the amount of persecution suffered by Christians at the hands of the Jews. This is a possibility to be reckoned with. It is not at all uncommon for religious minorities who challenge a majority religion to regard any restrictions placed upon them by the community as a whole as ‘persecution’. We must therefore be cautious in assessing the witness of Christian authors to Jewish persecution.

Apart from Christian writings, however, our sources on the subject are extremely scanty. While the New Testament writings themselves fail to give us anything approaching an adequate historical report, the rabbinic sources are even less helpful. On a priori grounds, however, it is to be expected that the plaintiffs will be more explicit than the defendants. The historical accuracy of the charges made by the former can to some extent be checked by reference to the literature of the defendants, in which the problem of nonconformity is occasionally discussed. The underlying thesis of this chapter is that references in rabbinic and other Jewish literature to religious non-conformists, while they do not all allude to Jewish Christians, provide us with reliable evidence concerning the treatment of Christians by the Jewish community.

IN order to understand how apocalyptic materials are interpreted by a Synoptic author, it is necessary to determine, if possible, the point at which the author locates himself in the sequence of events predicted, that is, to discover which predictions are regarded by the author as already fulfilled in past events and which are for him still unfulfilled.

Because of the vagueness of the allusions in Matthew 24 this task is exceedingly difficult. Since the consensus is that the gospel was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, scholars are predisposed to find a reference to the desecration of the Temple in the ‘abomination of desolation’ of v. 15. Although this appears to have been Mark's understanding of the ‘abomination of desolation’, there is no positive evidence that Matthew understood it in this way. Thus it is possible for Marxsen, pp. 138 f., to maintain that the whole discourse, including even vv. 4–8, is a Parusierede concerned with the period after the destruction of Jersusalem.

Hummel, p. 160 n. 85, opposes Marxsen, maintaining that vv. 21 f. reflect the post-war period during which Christians were being persecuted. This is most improbable. The persecution as it is portrayed elsewhere by Matthew concerns missionaries only, and is not such as to be described as the greatest tribulation in the history of the world (v. 21); nor was it of short duration, as is the tribulation of vv. 21 f.

In our examination of the relevant Matthean passages we discovered that for Matthew Jewish persecution is directed primarily against missionaries of the Gospel. This indicates the occasion of persecution but not the cause. In chapter 1 a sociological explanation was offered: persecution occurred when Christians challenged the symbols of ethnic solidarity so sharply that they placed themselves beyond the tolerance-limits of the Jewish community. Almost every point of friction mentioned in that chapter can be documented from the Gospel according to St Matthew. Our concern here is not to identify the historical causes of the conflict as they are reflected in this gospel but rather to discover which elements are perceived by Matthew as the primary causes of persecution.

ἕνεκεν δικαιοσύνης (5: 10)

The significance of δικαιοσúνη (‘righteousness’) in Matthew has been greatly debated. The fact that Deutero-Isaiah has elsewhere influenced Matthew has inclined some scholars to regard Δικαιoσúvζ as a reference to God's saving righteousness. Thus Lohmeyer argues that in 5: 10 δικαιοσúνη refers not to a human condition of righteousness but to the reality (Wirklichkeit) of God in which the disciples live. Lohmeyer's view has not been widely accepted. Schlatter, noticing the absence of the definite article, insists that ἕνεκεν δικαιοσύνης must be taken as a reference to human conduct (Verhalten). The present writer is convinced that in every instance Matthew intends Δικαιoσúvζ to denote the God-demanded behaviour which is characteristic of those who are to enter the Kingdom of heaven.

CONFLICT between Christians and non- Christians in the Jewish community was inevitable, in view of the disrespect shown by Christians for the cherished symbols of ethnic solidarity. Hostility toward the nonconforming minority found varied expression. In many situations the persecution suffered by Christians was simply a matter of verbal abuse and social ostracism. Indeed, there is reason to believe that this was the method most commonly employed for containing the ‘Christian problem’. When hostility exceeded the bounds of moderation, Christians were liable to physical violence at the hands of a mob. In some few instances death may have resulted, as in the case of Stephen, but apart from the chaotic period of the two wars with Rome it is unlikely that many Christians suffered martyrdom at Jewish hands. Of two other early martyrs known to us by name, James son of Zebedee and James brother of Jesus, one was killed by Herod Agrippa, presumably on a political charge, and the other was executed by a Sadducaic court, apparently on a trumped-up charge. There is no evidence that Christianity was defined as a capital crime by Jewish courts and prosecuted as such.

When outspoken missionaries such as Paul strained the tolerance of the Jewish community, mob action was frequently rendered unnecessary by legal recourse to the synagogue council or, in Palestine, to the local Jewish court. Discipline was exercised by means of temporary detention (in Palestine), flogging, and exclusion, apparently on the charge of breach of the peace. On the basis of available evidence it seems unlikely that either the profession or propagation of Christianity was defined as a crime punishable by flogging.

In his Evangelium Lucae, Wellhausen translates the Matthean τoú ρó úμv and the Lucan oι ατρ as ‘your ancestors’ and ‘their ancestors’ respectively, but offers no justification for these renderings. E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Matthäus, second edition edited by W. Schmauch (1958), p. 96, accepts Wellhausen's conjecture (Lohmeyer's transliteration is inaccurate). Black, p. 275, likewise follows Wellhausen, but omits the prefixed Γ. Although the Γ would be required in the Vorlage of Matthew's version (cf. Dan. 7 : 7; Black's omission of the Γ here is inexplicable), Wellhausen's is impossible as the subject of the clause in Luke's Vorlage; G. Dalman, Grammatik desjüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch, second edition (Leipzig: J. C. Heinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1905), p. 117, cites examples in which Γ is used determinatively, but gives no instance in which Γ with a substantive functions as the subject of a clause without any antecedent. Black, omitting the Γ, apparently takes as the adjective with 3 m. pi. suffix; cf. M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York/Berlin, Verlag Choreb, and London: Shapiro, Vallentine and Company, 1926), p. 1317. This could be translated ‘their ancestors’, or, in Greek, oι ατρσ αúτv. Although it is very unusual for the subject to follow the object in Semitic syntax, it is not impossible for the Lucan Vorlage proposed by Black to be taken in this way.

IT is to be expected that the conflict situation which we have examined would have provoked a response from the Church. The hostility experienced by Jesus messengers in the mission to Israel was bound to affect both the Church's theological understanding of the place of Israel in God's plan and the Church's missionary strategy. It was bound also to affect the way Christians interpreted the destruction of Jerusalem. It stimulated reflection concerning the attitude to be shown toward Jewish opponents: should it be eschatological hatred or patient love? Were the sufferings of the missionaries to be treated as a sign that the End was at hand, or were they simply a part of the Church's on-going life in the world? We shall examine Matthew's answers to these questions.

PESSIMISM CONCERNING THE POSSIBILITY OF THE CONVERSION OF ISRAEL

It must be assumed that the post-Resurrection mission to Israel was initiated in the expectation that many of the descendants of Abraham would respond favourably and receive a place in the Kingdom. Despite early resistance to the Gospel, missionaries persisted in their work in the belief that they were destined as the instruments of salvation for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. When the mission to Palestine proved unfruitful, the missionaries turned to the Diaspora, expecting to rescue lost sheep there. This persistent optimism concerning the mission to Israel seems to be reflected in Paul's account of his conference with the apostles in Jerusalem.

As the years passed, and resistance to the Gospel became increasingly prevalent in the Diaspora as well as in Palestine, the initial optimism inevitably gave way to a growing pessimism.

In studying the early conflict between Jews and Christians one must constantly guard against a tendency to oversimplify the issues in dispute and the causes of hostility. The conflict was as many-sided as the two opposing groups.

To suppose, for example, that the Pharisees were the sole protagonists on the Jewish side is to ignore the earlier conflict with pro-Roman Sadducees and the continuing conflict with anti-Roman Zealots. It further assumes that the primary opposition to Christianity was of an official nature, led by the acknowledged leaders of Jewry, and ignores the complexity of the Christian movement itself, which included a significant number of loyal Pharisees (Acts 15: 5; cf. 21: 20).

A similar inclination to oversimplification is seen in those statements which reduce the conflict to matters of orthopraxis as over against orthodoxy. It is not true to say that obedience to the requirements of Torah exempted one from conflict, regardless of one's beliefs. Whereas considerable tolerance prevailed in both areas (behaviour and belief) as far as most Jewish groups were concerned, there is reason for believing that Christians met with intolerance on account of their religious beliefs as well as for failure to observe all the requirements of Torah. The conflict is too narrowly conceived when viewed as a series of legal disputes.

The approach of historians, both Jewish and Christian, has generally been too theological. Jewish writers tend to find the basis of the conflict in the Church's rejection of Torah. Christians, on the other hand, are inclined to view the strife as due to Jewish rejection of the Messiah.

ON the basis of Justin's use of the phrase αρσιv ov in Dial. 17 (rendered ‘godless heresy’ by Reith; see above, p. 66), Frend maintains that the Jews accused Christians of atheism. In similar fashion, Huidekoper suggests as the English equivalent ‘an atheistic sect’. This rendering is not impossible, but ov can just as well be taken as meaning simply ‘godless’, that is, ‘wicked’. Huidekoper acknowledges that, were it not for the evidence of this passage in Justin, he would be inclined to regard oι as a designation of Gentile monotheists generally. To the present writer it seems unlikely that Jews, who were just as committed to the neglect of the State gods as the Christians, would use oι in its narrower sense to attack Gentile monotheists, whether Christian or not. It is therefore better to understand the adjective in its broader connotation as simply a term of strong disapproval. Such a use is clearly indicated in Justin's First Apology, ch. 27, where the adjective modifies μíι ‘intercourse’. Philo, De Fuga et Inventione xxi (114), employs o as the equivalent of oλúoσ; that is, polytheism is really atheism. If this is how hellenistic Jews employed o in its narrower sense, it is not likely that they applied the term to Christians, who, despite their adoration of the Risen Christ, were hesitant to refer to him as a Δúτρo ó.

K. Lake, in the Loeb edition of Eusebius, translates this phrase (cited by Eusebius from Justin) as ‘a seditious sect’. This is an ingenious rendering, based on the notion that the oι who neglected the State gods were guilty of disloyalty to the State.

THE present writer is firmly convinced that Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans to a church that was predominantly Gentile, despite its ‘Jewishness’. This is plain not only in the introduction (1 : 1–15) and conclusion (15: 7–33), but also in the discussion concerning table fellowship (14: 1 – 15:7). The men who are so weak in faith that they eat only vegetables are probably not Jews but Gentiles who were formerly synagogueadherents. Paul's concern in 14: 15, 20 is for men whose faith is so weak that they may actually apostasize from Christ over the matter of food. This can hardly be a concern for Jewish believers. While many Jewish Christians of conservative persuasion were scandalized by neglect of the food laws on the part of Gentile Christians, they were more likely to withdraw into a separate fellowship than to apostasize; cf. Gal. 2: 12 ff. It must be remembered that Jews were accustomed to regarding Gentiles as unclean and would therefore not be deeply shocked at Gentile carelessness in matters of food. Doubtless there were many synagogue-adherents who accepted Jewish monotheism but did not observe the food laws; the behaviour of these ‘Godfearers’ is not likely to have threatened the faith of Jewish members of the synagogue!

The translations of Rom. 11:13 found in the R.S.V. and the N.E.B. reflect the conviction that Paul had previously been addressing either Jews alone or Jews and Gentiles together. The Greek text does not imply a change of address.

EXEGESIS OF THE RELEVANT PASSAGES

Having now examined the non-Matthean data pertaining to persecution, we will turn to the relevant passages in the First Gospel. By comparing the Matthean with the non-Matthean data we will attempt to assess the accuracy with which Matthew reflects the conflict.

Matthew 23: 29–39

In Matthew 23: 34 it is predicted that messengers of Jesus will suffer violent persecution at the hands of the scribes and Pharisees. This passage will serve as a point of departure because of its unambiguous reference to Jewish persecutors and because of its occurrence in a chapter in which Matthew's hand is particularly evident.

Matthew's great discourse against the scribes and Pharisees is set within the Marcan framework, occasioned by the brief denunciation of the scribes which Mark includes at the conclusion of the disputes conducted in the Temple (Mark 12: 38-40). While Luke has here followed Mark closely, Matthew has greatly expanded the denunciation, combining material from the double tradition (Q) found in other contexts in Luke with material from his special source or sources.

In the Lucan version of the woes against the Pharisees, separate woes are enunciated against the lawyers, voiiiKoi (Luke i i : 37–52). It is instructive to note that two of the three woes in the second group are appropriate for religious leaders (Luke 11: 46, 52), while the three woes directed against the Pharisees (Luke 11: 42–4) are pertinent to rank-and-file members. This careful distinction between ordinary members of the Pharisaic party and their rabbinic leaders disappears in Matthew's version of the woes.