Why Paul Went West

049

In the Hellenistic period, Jews were living all over the then-known world. Jerusalem and the Land of Israel, however, provided a central unifying force binding this extensive Jewish world together. After the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., this was no longer so. The centerpiece was gone. The diaspora of Jews in the east developed very differently from the diaspora in the west. The eastern diaspora extended from Trans-Jordan to Babylonia; the western diaspora included Asia Minor, Greece, Italy, the south of France, the Mediterranean islands, Egypt and some other sites in north Africa such as Cyrene. In reality, there were two different diasporas, a western diaspora and an eastern diaspora. This division has been little appreciated by scholars until recently.¹ The division cannot be doubted, however, as we shall see.

What may seem especially surprising is that the distinction between these Jewish diasporas helps explain the successful spread of earliest Christianity to the west, rather than the east.

The Jewish world had already been divided by language in the early Hellenistic period (third century B.C.E.). In the 050west, Jews wrote and spoke only Greek and Latin, while in the east, Hebrew and Aramaic prevailed. The Land of Israel served as the border between the two diasporas. Here there were communities like Sepphoris that wrote and spoke Greek. Other communities, like the nearby village of Nazareth, used Aramaic and knew Hebrew. Jesus spoke Aramaic and probably knew Hebrew, as well as a little Greek.^a In the centuries after the destruction of the Temple, the language gap between the eastern and western diasporas led to a much deeper cultural gap.

The Bible of course was the common literature of the entire Jewish community. The Hebrew original and its Aramaic translations (targumim and early versions of the Peshitta) were read in the east. The Jews of the west, however, did not know Hebrew, so the Septuagint, a Greek translation, was made for them.

This language divide is reflected in other ways as well. The vast majority of inscriptions on Jewish gravestones in the western diaspora are in Greek or Latin. Although these gravestones often include some Hebrew writing, the Hebrew consists mostly of isolated words that are found repetitively, such as shalom (“peace”), or phrases such as shalom al Yisrael (“peace on Israel”) or shalom al menuhato (“rest in peace”). These words and phrases were apparently copied in a mechanical fashion. They are cultural symbols, not evidence of the use of Hebrew as a vernacular. These Hebrew inscriptions indicate that even though Hebrew was not the language of these Jews, they viewed it as an important symbol of their identity. These inscriptions, mostly from Italy, also indicate that the Jews in the western diaspora wished to preserve their Jewish identity separate from the local populations. In examining the inscriptions, however, it becomes clear that their knowledge of Hebrew as a living language was weak at best.

The well-known inscribed synagogue column from the late second (or, more likely, third) century C.E. excavated in Stobi (today the Republic of Macedonia) shows that even in synagogues the language was Greek. In the Stobi inscription the donor commemorates one Claudius Tiberius Polycharmos, who is proud of “having lived my whole life according to Judaism,” yet this inscription that once graced a synagogue is in Greek (and lauds a Jew with a very Greek name).

Inscriptions from the Balkans, Greece, the Greek islands, Crete, Asia Minor and Cyprus, among other regions, clearly evidence a Jewish presence in the first centuries C.E., but their vernacular was Greek. Hebrew is rarely found in these inscriptions. Jewish symbols such as the menorah (candelabrum), the shofar (ram’s horn), and the lulav (palm branch) are common, but they do not reflect knowledge of Hebrew. Instead they provided a unifying symbolism that bridged the language difference between east and west. They represent an agreed-upon and accessible common denominator between the Jewish communities of the two diasporas.

The disparity between the eastern and western 051diasporas was not only linguistic; it was cultural as well. Until recently, scholars simply assumed that the rabbis in the center—in the Land of Israel—maintained contact with the entire Jewish diaspora and affected practice related to religious and cultural life in both east and west. A new look at the evidence provides clear and unequivocal demonstration of a very different scenario. The rabbis’ connection existed almost exclusively with the eastern diaspora. With regard to the western diaspora, there is a deafening silence in Jewish sources of a rabbinic presence.

After the Roman destruction of the Temple, there emerged in the eastern diaspora a hierarchical rabbinic system of communication that included leadership, institutions, a bureaucracy and a clear message. This rabbinical system did not incorporate itself into the western diaspora.

In the Land of Israel, a new Jewish literature began to develop even in the centuries before the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., a literature that ultimately developed into the Oral Law of the rabbinic codes—the Mishnah, midrash and, later, the Talmuds (both the Jerusalem Talmud and the more authoritative Babylonian Talmud). Although this literature began in the Land of Israel, it spread eastward, and the Babylonian community soon became full partners in its development. It could not, however, reach the west because the Jews of the western diaspora were unable to decode it or even to understand its Aramaic and Hebrew.

Simultaneously, the western diaspora adopted a very different collection of literature—the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha—which was rejected by the sages of the east. This western Jewish literature, part of which we find today in Greek and Latin translations of the Bible, was originally written in Greek (such as 2 and 4 Maccabees), while some was written in Hebrew and subsequently translated into Greek (such as 1 Maccabees), and distributed in Greek-speaking Jewish communities.

Most importantly, the rabbinic corpus in the Land of Israel and the east remained oral for a considerable period of time—hence the designation, even today, of this corpus as the Oral Law despite the fact that it is written down. The Mishnah, the earliest rabbinic corpus, was not redacted and published until about 200 C.E. but written down only much later, the authoritative Babylonian Talmud 052only about 400 years later, in about 600 C.E.

In short, one gets the sense of two very different Jewish communities, serviced by two diverse bodies of texts, distinct in terms of the mode of transmission (oral or written), content, genre, language, worldview and normative practice.

It is often supposed that the rabbinic sages from the Land of Israel traveled throughout the diaspora to teach the Oral Law, the halakhah. A thorough examination of the sources, however, indicates that a majority of the places to which they traveled were east of the Jordan River or on the Mediterranean coast north of Israel only up to Tyre and Sidon. It is true that the rabbis had some contact with Syria and Egypt, but because of the language barrier these Jews never adopted the rabbinic corpus of Oral Law. The rabbis’ contacts farther to the west were strictly limited, surprising as this may seem.

Hundreds of rabbis participated in the creation of the corpus of Oral Law, a collective and multi-generation production that included the Mishnah, the Talmud (both the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud) and other subsidiary collections. Almost all of the rabbis mentioned in these works are eastern rabbis. There are practically no laws or sayings attributed to sages from the western diaspora in the entire corpus of the Oral Law.

The few sources that mention rabbis who went to the western diaspora point either to political journeys (to the Roman emperor, for instance) or to occasional questions put to them by local Jews about halakhic (legal) issues. We get the impression that the western diaspora was dissociated from the whole of the rabbinic corpus.

The few exceptions prove the rule. Two sages identified as westerners (Matya ben Heresh and Todos, ish Romi, “the Roman man”) went from the Land of Israel to Rome in order to establish a yeshiva (Talmudic academy). But the references are so minimal that this actually points to the almost complete absence of rabbinic teaching in the west. We do not know even if Matya and Todos succeeded in establishing a yeshiva, and, if so, what was taught there. There is no record in all of rabbinic literature of a new idea that emanated from the western diaspora.

In one telling episode, the Roman authorities sent two local agents to learn the Oral Law. They had to go to Palestine, to the yeshiva at Usha. Apparently they could not make a shorter trip to a closer Greek- or Latin-speaking school, let alone one in Rome.

That the western diaspora was not familiar with the Oral Law of the rabbis is illustrated by the way the new moon was declared. This was done by a rabbinic court in Israel and communicated by a system of fire signals or by emissaries. In all of the sources dealing with this issue, no reference is made to the western diaspora. Apparently only the eastern diaspora was within the rabbinic communication system.

Another example concerns the celebration of Passover in commemoration of the Exodus from 053Egypt. In the western diaspora it was observed only with the sacrifice of the lamb with songs of praise and a meal that included unleavened bread (matzah). In the east, an elaborate meal (the seder) was constructed around the recitation of a written text known as the Haggadah, which developed among the earliest generation of the post-destruction sages. The recitation of the Haggadah at the Passover meal was a substitute for the Passover offering described in the Bible. The Haggadah is a Hebrew and Aramaic text and was used in the east. We have no information that the Haggadah was ever translated into Greek or Latin for the western diaspora, nor even a surviving fragment of such a translation. (Compare the numerous English translations of the Haggadah used at Passover in modern times by American Jews.)

A similar situation prevailed regarding the Oral Law as it was ultimately written down: It was never translated into Greek or Latin. This supports the view that the Jews in the western diaspora had no access to the oral Hebrew/Aramaic corpus. In contrast, the books of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha that developed in the early Hellenistic period were fundamentally different from the eastern literature in language, content and genre.

Another bit of interesting evidence that the Oral Law was not available in the western diaspora comes, paradoxically enough, from the Church Fathers. Their polemics with Jews and Judaism were based on a text common to both communities, the Old Testament. Church Fathers from different places and different times, such as Ambrose (Milan fourth century), Augustine (Africa fifth century), Eusebius (Palestine third–fourth centuries) and John Chrysostom (Syria fourth century) largely ignored rabbinic laws and lore.

That the law of the Jews was oral also provides a key to understanding the gap between Jews and Christians. Christians tended to write down almost everything. Indeed, as we shall see, this partially explains the success of Christianity’s diffusion. The oral lore and laws of the rabbis, which had not substantially migrated to the west, probably seemed to many Christians to be lacking the authority of written material.

Even the Church Fathers who lived in Palestine (not far from the academies of the rabbis) showed little acquaintance with the world of Oral Law. And most of the Church Fathers who had encounters with western Jews were not at all acquainted with oral rabbinic literature.

054

Why did the rabbis make no effort even after their Oral Law was written down to translate it into Greek and Latin in order to expose the western diaspora to their world of knowledge, and thus preserve the unity of the Jewish people? First, the convoluted discussions of the Oral Law are almost impossible to translate (as can be seen by dipping into a modern English translation). More importantly, the rabbis were reluctant to expose their world of knowledge and beliefs in Greek and Latin for fear that the material would become accessible to the non-Jewish world. Indeed, one rabbi from the mid-fourth century C.E. prohibited the writing down of the Oral Law specifically so that it would not be possible to translate it:

R. Yehudah bar Shalom said: “When God said to Moses (Exodus 34:27): ‘Write for yourself,’ Moses requested that the Mishnah be written. But God anticipated that the nations of the world would in the future translate the Torah and read it in Greek, and they would claim ‘I am Israel,’ and until now the scales would be balanced. God said to the nations: ‘You claim that you are my children. I do not know, but the ones who have my secret are my children.’ And what is it? It is the Mishnah that was transmitted orally.”

(Midrash Tanhuma [ki Tissa 34])

The Bible of course had long been available in Greek. Thus, as to the Written Law, the “scales are balanced”; there is equality, as it were, between Israel and the nations. In contrast, the Oral Law is unique to Israel—it is the secret between God and Israel. This midrash is responding to the claim of the church, which saw itself as the true heir of Israel. Maintaining the Oral Law as oral in effect prevents it from translation into Greek. And preserving the oral nature of the law ensured that it would remain the exclusive possession of the Jews. This, in turn ensured that what happened with the Bible would not happen with the Oral Law, i.e., that the nations of the world would not adopt it as they had the Bible.

The distinctions between the western and eastern Jewish diasporas may explain some of the early success of Christianity. As we have seen, the rabbis and the Oral Law were largely confined to the eastern diaspora. The western diaspora was cut off from the main Hebrew/Aramaic network of the eastern Jewish community. It is interesting that Paul never considered going east despite the fact that he himself was well equipped to do so; he had been a student of Rav Gamliel I. Paul realized the difficulty of such a venture, however. The only population he thought might accept his teachings were the Jews of the Greek-speaking diaspora who did not have the Oral Law. Paul and the apostles and subsequently the Church Fathers all taught in the west. Paul’s big advantage, and subsequently that of the Church Fathers, was that they, unlike the sages of the eastern diaspora, taught in Greek. Paul’s ability to enter the public sphere of the Jewish community via the synagogue was possible because these Jews were spiritually cut off from the center in the Land of Israel and from Babylonia—places where the Oral Law, with its intricate legal traditions, bound and governed the Jewish community.

The lack of hierarchical (rabbinical) and structured communication within the western diaspora, and its isolation from the Jewish east, created a space for early Christianity to build a structured Christian hierarchy. The people who attached themselves to this Christian hierarchy were, inter alia, Jews who were estranged from their brethren in the east. The sermons delivered by Paul in synagogues in the western diaspora, as described in the Book of Acts, could be understood by the Jews of the west, even by simple Jews who knew Greek but not Hebrew. And a Christian hierarchy could be established.

Paul and the early apostles were agents who brokered between two worlds. Paul, a Jew from the western diaspora (Tarsus in Asia Minor), had one leg in Palestine with its Hebrew/Aramaic cultural milieu, but he also traveled to the west and was fluent in Greek. He thus carried in his bag a “religious commodity” from the Land of Israel that he could transmit in Greek—as the rabbis did not and could not.

Paul and the early apostles understood the deepening gap developing between the western diaspora and the Jews of the east (who were structured and bound by the Oral Law). Paul and the apostles actually contributed to widening the schism between the rabbinic Jews of the east and the Biblical Jews of the west. In terms of what modern scholars refer to as networks of knowledge, Christianity benefited because it was capable of transferring knowledge in written form; Paul and the apostles capitalized on their knowledge of Greek to create a network for transferring knowledge from the Land of Israel to the west, whereas rabbinic messages were not transferred there by the rabbis. (Paradoxically, a taste of the rabbinic lore reached these Jewish audiences of the west through the preaching in Greek of Paul and the other apostles.²)

By the seventh century the oral rabbinic corpus had been committed to writing. It became available in Europe in the eighth or beginning of the ninth century. By this time the knowledge of Hebrew 068in the west had increased to a certain degree (and not decreased, as might have been expected). Henceforth, the rabbinic corpus was accessible to western Jewry. The rift between east and west was thus ultimately healed, but that is another story.

The Jewish diaspora in Roman times and Late Antiquity was not just a scattering of people from the Land of Israel. Geographical, cultural, religious and language differences resulted in two distinct diasporas—western and eastern—which helps explain why Paul went west from Jerusalem.