The Parting of the Ways: The Roman Church As a Case Study by Stephen Spence (Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion, 5: Peeters: David Brown Book Company) This book seeks to inject into the general discussion of the "Parting of the Ways" of Judaism and Christianity the social realities of the separation of a particular Christian community and a particular Jewish community. By drawing upon the literary and the historical data available concerning the church in Rome, Spence seeks to discover when and how Christians came to see themselves as an identifiably distinct community. His findings will surprise those who see the "Parting of the Ways" as a slow process. He argues that although the "parting" was early, it was not without its complications. Drawing upon the work of Rodney Stark, a sociologist of religion, Spence suggests that within the church in Rome there was a struggle between those who saw the church as a Jewish sect and those who saw the church as a Roman cult — a struggle already under-way when the Apostle Paul wrote Romans. This struggle, however, was not an even one, because it was the cultists, those for whom the church's primary social location was the pagans of Rome, who held the positions of power over the numerically smaller sectarians who sought to maintain the church's primary identity as a Jewish sect acceptable within the synagogues of Rome. 

Stephen Spence was born in Scotland and raised in Australia. He has degrees from Melbourne University, Asbury Theological Seminary, the Bible College of Victoria, and a Ph.D. from Fuller Theological Seminary. In 1997 Stephen was appointed to the position of Lecturer in New Testament and Theology at Burleigh College (Adelaide, South Australia) and in 2001 he was appointed Principal. He is married to Colleen and has two teenaged children, Elissa and Jordan.

Excerpt: It is the goal of this study to bring into focus what is often left in the background when the New Testament is studied — the strug­gles of a new religious movement to establish itself as an independ­ent community. It has long been our conviction that each New Tes­tament document addresses this struggle at some level, and to read these documents as if the Church as we have come to know it was already a conceptual, if not social, reality would be to seriously misread them. Not surprisingly, this anachronistic practice is epi­demic among the members of today's Church. However, we believe that this practice can still be found in many current New Testament studies. Even when there is recognition of doctrinal development through the New Testament period, there is little recognition both of the social development of the Christian community and of the impact that this would have had upon the theologising of the early church.

It is the intent of this study to consider the social development of one particular Christian community: the church in Rome.' This community was not chosen because it is representative of all the developing churches of this period; no church could function in this role. The historical and social accidents of each individual church are too great to generalise from one to another. Neither was this community chosen because the evidence available is complete; it is barely adequate, even though it is as plentiful as that of any first-century church. The church in Rome was chosen because the evidence associated with it provides us with an opportunity to see the changes that time brought. Snap-shots of the church in 49 C.E., in 57 C.E., in 64 C.E., and then around the end of the century, when juxtaposed, provide us with some sense of this community's development. Of course, juxtaposing does not tell the tale by itself. The connections that are made and the implications that are drawn from these connections owe themselves to the interpreter's under-standing of how such a new religious movement might be expected to develop.

This study, then, must not only undertake the task of historical analysis but also that of sociological reconstruction. It is not a case of whether or not an investigator of the early church chooses to use sociological theory in this process, but a case of whether or not they will be explicit in their use of it. It is for this reason that we have chosen to investigate various theories associated with analysing sects and cults. This field within the discipline of the sociology of religion is a developing one, and it is our hope that the work presented here will contribute to a better-informed use of sect-theory.

The church in Rome has already been the object of much study, so it is unlikely that our observations or our conclusions will provoke much surprise. Yet, we believe that the observations made will con-tribute to a better understanding of the church in Rome, that the methodology employed will contribute to a better understanding of the significance of these observations and that the conclusions reached will suggest new possibilities for how we read the texts associated with this particular developing Christian community.

Jews & Gentiles: A Historical Sociology of Their Relations by Werner J. Cahnman, edited by Judith T. Marcus, Zoltan Tarr (Transaction Publishers) Studies of the Jewish experience among peoples with whom they live share some similarities with the usual histories of anti-Semitism, but also some differences. When the focus is on anti-Semitism, Jewish history appears as a record of unmitigated hostility against the Jewish people and of passivity on their part. However, as Werner J. Cahnman demonstrates in this posthumous volume, Jewish-Gentile relations are far more complex. There is a long history of mutual contacts, positive as well as antagonistic, even if conflict continues to require particular attention.

Cahnman's approach, while following a historical sequence, is sociological in conception. From Roman antiquity through the Middle Ages, into the era of emancipation and the Holocaust, and finally to the present American and Israeli scene, there are basic similarities and various dissimilarities, all of which are described and analyzed. Cahnman tests the theses of classical sociology implicitly, yet unobtrusively. He traces the socio-economic basis of human relations, which Marx and others have emphasized, and considers Jews a "marginal trading people" in the Park-Becker sense. Simmel and Toennies, he shows, understood Jews as "strangers" and "intermediaries." While Cahnman shows that Jews were not "pariahs," as Max Weber thought, he finds a remarkable affinity to Weber's Protestantism-capitalism argument in the tension of Jewish-Christian relations emerging from the bitter theological argument over usury.

The primacy of Jewish-Gentile relations in all their complexity and variability is essential for the under-standing of Jewish social and political history. This volume is a valuable contribution to that understanding.

Cahnman's historical account runs from Roman antiquity through the Middle Ages, into the era of emancipation and the Holocaust, and finally to the present American and Israeli scene. To be sure, as far as the "present" American and Israeli scene is concerned, the account appears unfinished as well as dated. But the basic similarities and dissimilarities throughout history are laid out and analyzed. He tests the theses of classical sociology implicitly, yet unobtrusively. For example, he traces the socio-economic basis of human relations emphasized by Marx and others, and considers Jews as "strangers" and "intermediaries." He disagrees with Max Weber in that for him Jews were not "pariahs" although he finds a remarkable affinity to Weber's Protestantism-capitalism argument in the tension of Jewish-Christian relations emerging from the bitter theological argument over usury, where the antagonism between Jews and Gentiles took on a pronouncedly socio-economic rather than religious character. It is depicted how the nineteenth century added a nationalist dimension as well as the distortions of biology and race, with fateful consequences.

For Werner Cahnman, the sociological study of Jewish Gentile relations was of importance for more than one reason. For one, he held that the preservation of past history "must serve as pillars of the new Jewish consciousness which is to arise out of the memories of the past." And similarly to his promotion of intercultural relations that guided his establishment of The Rashi Association, he counted this time too on the psychological and educational impact of the examination of Jewish history that proved to be part and parcel of Gentile history. Finally, it attests to Cahnman's self-understanding as a sociologist and a student of Jewish life. On the occasion of his seventieth birthday, he was asked about his approach to Jewish history. His answer? An approach from the vantage point of the historical sociologist, and a scholar who is not chiefly concerned with "isolated phenomena but with relations between phenomena." In fact, he continued,

When I came to understand that the trader and the peasant live in symbiosis and conflict, I was relieved....The Jewish people dwells among the nations, whether in Israel or in the Diaspora, and the tensions between intimate symbiosis and bitter conflict remains a guiding theme of Jewish history.

In sum, for Cahnman the primacy of Jewish-Gentile relations in all their complexity and variability seemed essential for the under-standing of Jewish social and political history. While it is evident that the history of post-Emancipation German Jewry and of the Holocaust aftermath has received considerable scholarly attention, the study of Jewish life in the Diaspora, or the migrational movements has been somewhat neglected; Cahnman clearly was intent to fill the gap. His research data, his personal experiences, and historical view combined resulted in a scholarly lifework that should constitute an important element in any future large-scale historical account. Reminiscent of Martin Buber, Cahnman makes a confessional statement in this regard: "I shall try to testify... in the belief that what I have to say will stand for the truth which, while it becomes manifest only in personal experience, nevertheless transcends it."

Eusebius of Caesarea Against Paganism by Aryeh Kofsky (Jewish and Christian Perspectives: Brill Academic) Excerpt: Eusebius began his apologetic‑polemical writing early in his literary career. The new polemics against Christianity, written by pagan authors, especially Porphyry, demanded a fresh, up‑to‑date response to the new challenge. Literary polemics quickly became linked to the socio‑religious attacks on Christianity by the authorities. From the moment he joined the campaign, Eusebius never forsook the struggle and his apologetic works became a major part of his literary activity. Many of his writings have a distinctly apologetic character. Even those works that are not particularly apologetic‑polemical in content have apologetic motives and motifs. He had in mind a specific audience and well‑defined goals for early apologetic works such as those refuting the polemics of Hierocles and Porphyry, the General Basic Introduction, and texts composed to resolve the difficulties and contradictions in the Gospels that had been targeted by pagan critics. Eusebius' early works outline the major concepts and motifs that would be fully expanded and refined in his great apologetic project, the Praeparatio Evangelica and Demonstratio Evangelica.

This two‑part work was conceived as a comprehensive response to the attacks of all the enemies of Christianity. Its encyclopedic structure relates to several major pagan arguments raised by the pagan‑Christian polemic, rather than refuting individually the many different charges leveled by pagan polemicists, although several of their secondary arguments can also be found in the text. The main part of the PE is a critique of the philosophy and forms of pagan religion, for which Eusebius adduces copious quotations from pagan, Jewish, and Christian scholars. However, Eusebius saw the main thrust of his work as the presentation and demonstration of the truths of Christianity; this was the affirmative aspect of his apologetic undertaking‑first in the Praeparatio Evangelica, but mainly in the Demonstratio Evangelica. This section of his work is distinguished by the way in which Eusebius deals with the problems posed by polemics.

In the course of this endeavor, Eusebius formulated his principal concepts and arguments. Thus the central concept of Christian prehistory evolved as a reply to the two‑fold pagan argument that Christians had abandoned the traditions of their ancestors and deserted the gods for a strange and alien religion, and that they had perversely betrayed Judaism in order to blaze a convoluted trail in the wilderness guided by ignorance and irrationality. The reply to the second part of the argument also includes the refutation of Jewish arguments against Christianity‑arguments that were actually expounded in the Jewish‑Christian debate, or else, perhaps, presented by Christian apologists as Jewish arguments within the framework of the pagan‑Christian polemic. Eusebius' main arguments are based on prophecy and miracles, but these became problematic in light of pagan criticism. Thus Eusebius had to examine these arguments and reformulate the fundamental principles of his work, which he had derived from many earlier apologetic texts, notably Origen's Against Celsus. On the other hand, motifs that had appeared only briefly in these writings were revised and expanded in his large work. He pledges that he will be a fair opponent, presenting an objective account of his rivals' views, and he states that his polemic is honest and unprejudiced. Nevertheless, he frequently resorts to rhetoric to cover the weak points in his argument. Considering, however, the sarcastic and caustic style of pagan polemics, Eusebius manages to keep his promise.

We have noted the major influence of Porphyry in stimulating Eusebius' earlier polemical writing. The question of Porphyry's role in Praeparatio Evangelica and Demonstratio Evangelica is more problematic. Although Porphyry was a key figure behind the work, close scrutiny of the text shows that Eusebius did not want the work to be seen as just another refutation of Porphyry's Against the Christians. There is no direct polemic against arguments presented in the latter work, despite the fact that pagan arguments identical to Porphyry's appear anonymously as the fundamental points around which Praeparatio Evangelica and Demonstratio Evangelica is structured. Direct polemic against Porphyry relates to him only as the leading representative of pagan philosophy and chief commentator on religion of his day; also targeted are his statements in various works, but not the criticism expressed in Against the Christians. Thus even if it was Porphyry's polemic that motivated the writing of Praeparatio Evangelica and Demonstratio Evangelica, the purpose of Eusebius' work extends beyond any limited polemic against Porphyry. In this work, Eusebius embarked on a comprehensive campaign against pagan culture, along with a defense of Christian tenets. Porphyry plays a leading role in the campaign, in the course of which his status and authority are undermined, thus devaluing his critique of Christianity. Moreover, Porphyry himself contributes many statements to the critique of pagan philosophy and religion, and even appears to attest to the truth of Christianity.

The Theophany, Eusebius' last apologetic work written near the end of his life, is an abridgment and simplification of his major ideas in Praeparatio Evangelica and Demonstratio Evangelica. But it also contains new emphases and perspectives with regard to several issues. In addition, The Theophany introduces new material, not found in his other compositions, and probably taken from earlier, lost works. Examples include the detailed discussion of the Resurrection of Jesus and the detailed treatment in Book IV of the prophecies of Jesus as a major argument and proof of the truths of Christianity. The additions and new viewpoints reflect the great change undergone by Eusebius in the period between the Demonstratio Evangelica and The Theophany, when euphoria reigned in the wake of the dramatic events that changed the course of Christianity in his generation.

This study has traced the development of Eusebius' apologetic-polemical writing. I have dealt with the main factors that shaped his great apologetic project, in the Praeparatio Evangelica and Demonstratio Evangelica, by closely examining the polemical context that formed his views, and the emergence of ideas from his experience of contending with pagan criticism. His intensive apologetic enterprise testifies to the vitality of pagan‑Christian polemics in his day, and the importance of such writing for Eusebius and his contemporaries.

I have limited the scope of this study to a discussion of Eusebius' works and earlier apologetic literature, and have not broached the subject of his influence on subsequent apologetics. Porphyry's legacy to pagan polemics against Christianity in subsequent generations has been partially investigated by other scholars. In contrast, the influence of Eusebius on Christian apologetic literature has received only scant attention. Further study of this subject could reveal that his impact was considerable.