In examining the possible origin of Sunday observance among primitive

Jewish-Christians, we have just concluded that it is futile to seek among

them for traces of its origin, because of their basic loyalty to Jewish religious

customs such as Sabbath-keeping. We shall therefore direct our search

for the origin of Sunday to Gentile Christian circles. We would presume that

these, having no previous religious ties with Judaism and being now in conflict

with the Jews, would more likely substitute for Jewish festivities such

as the Sabbath and Passover new dates and meaning.

The adoption of new religious feast days and their enforcement on

the rest of Christendom could presumably be accomplished in a Church where

the severance from Judaism occurred early and through an ecclesiastical

power which enjoyed wide recognition. The Church of the capital of the

empire, whose authority was already felt far and wide in the second century,

validity of this hypothesis, we shall now proceed briefly to survey those

significant religious, social and political conditions which prevailed both in

the city and in the Church of Rome.

Paul’s addresses in his Epistle to the Romans, particularly the last

chapters, presuppose that the Christian community of Rome was composed

primarily of a Gentile—Christian majority (chapters 11, 13) and a Judaeo-

Christian minority (14f.). “I am speaking to you Gentiles” (11 :13), the

Apostle explicitly affirms, and in chapter 16 he greets the majority of believers

and their conflict with the Jews, inside and outside the Church, may

have necessitated a differentiation between the two communities in Rome

earlier than in the East.

Leonard Goppelt, in his study on the origin of the Church, supports

this view when he writes: “The Epistle presupposes in Rome, as one would

expect, a Church with a Gentile.Christian majority (11, 13) and a Judaeo-

Christian minority (14f.) This co-existence of the two parties provoked some

difficulties comparable to those known at Corinth at the same time.... The

situation of the Church of Rome in relationship to Judaism, as far as the

Epistle to the Romans allows us to suspect, is similar to the one presented us

by the post-Pauline texts of Western Christianity: a chasm between the Church

and Synagogue is found everywhere, one unknown in the Eastern churches

which we have described above. Judaism does not play any other role than

The Jewish-Christians, though a minority in the Church of Rome,

seem to have provoked “disputes” (Rom. 14:1) over questions such as the

value of the law (2 :17), the need for circumcision (2 :25-27), salvation by

obedience to the law (chs. 3, 4, 5), the need to respect special days and to

abstain from unclean food (chs. 14-15). However, the predominance of Gentile

members primarily of pagan descent, and their conflict with the Judaeo-

Christians inside the Church and with Jews outside, may have indeed contributed

to an earlier break from Judaism in Rome than in the Orient. The

abandonment of Sabbath-keeping and the adoption of Sunday could then

represent a significant aspect of this process of differentiation.

In the year A.D. 49 the Emperor Claudius, according to the Roman

historian Suetonius (ca. A.D. 70-122), “expelled the Jews from Rome since

Jews like Aquila and Priscilla were expelled from the city together

with the Jews (Acts 18 :2) proves, as Pierre Batiffol observes, “that the Roman

Fourteen years later, however, Nero identified the Christians as being a

separate entity, well distinguished from the Jews. The Emperor, in fact, according

to Tacitus (ca. A.D. 55-120), “fastened the guilt [i.e. for arson upon

them] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abomination,

This recognition on the part of the Romans of Christianity as a religious

sect distinct from Judaism seems to be the natural result of attempts

made on both sides to differentiate themselves in the eyes of the Roman

authorities. If initially Christians identified themselves with Jews to benefit

from the protection which the Roman law accorded to the Jewish faith and

customs, toward the sixties, as F. F. Bruce observes, “it was no longer possible

to regard Christianity (outside Palestine) as simply a variety of Judaism.”

the Christians, whose majority in the empire was now composed of uncircumcised.

The circumstances seem to have been favorable to force such a distinction

particularly in Rome. After the year 62, in fact, Jewish influence

was present in the imperial court in the person of the Empress Poppea Sabina,

Harnack thinks in fact that Nero in order to exculpate himself from the

people’s accusation of having provoked the fire, at the instigation of the

residential district of Trastevere was not touched by the fire, as P. Batiffol

remarks, “the Jews were not suspected for an instant of having started it; but

the accusation fell on the Christians: they were, then, notoriously and personally

The Christians did not forget the role played by the Jews in the first

imperial and bloody persecution they suffered, and the Fathers did not hesitate

to attribute to them the responsibility of having incited Nero to persecute

The fact that the Christians “by 64 A.D.,” as F. F. Bruce comments

‘‘were clearly differentiated at Rome . . .‘‘ while it “took a little longer in

datum for our research on the origin of Sunday. This suggests the

possibility that the abandonment of the Sabbath and adoption of Sunday as a

new day of worship may have occurred first in Rome as part of this process

of differentiation from Judaism. Additional significant factors present in the

Church of Rome will enable us to verify the validity of this hypothesis.

Following the death of Nero the Jews who for a time had experienced

a favorable position soon afterwards became unpopular in the empire

primarily because of their resurgent nationalistic feelings which exploded in

violent uprisings almost everywhere. The period between the first (A.D. 66-

70) and second (A.D. 132-135) major Jewish wars is characterized by numerous

anti-Jewish riots (as in Alexandria, Caesarea and Antioch) as well as

by concerted Jewish revolts which broke out in places such as Mesopotamia,

gain national independence, but it resulted in the desolation of their holy

city, in the loss of their country and consequently in their being no longer

The description that the Roman historian Dio Cassius (ca. A.D’. 150-

220) provides of these uprisings reveals the resentment and odium that these

provoked in the mind of the Romans against the Jews. For example, of the

Cyrenaica revolt he writes: “Meanwhile the Jews in the region of Cyrene

had put a certain Andreas at their head, and were destroying both the Romans

and the Greeks. They would eat the flesh of their victims, make belts

for themselves of their entrails, anoint themselves with their blood and wear

their skins for clothing; many they sawed in two, from the head downwards;

others they gave to wild beasts, and still others they forced to fight as gladiators.

In all two hundred and twenty thousand persons perished. In Egypt,

Christians often suffered as victims of these outbursts of Jewish violence,

seemingly because they were regarded as traitors of the Jewish faith

and political aspirations and because they outpaced the Jews in the conversion

of the pagans. Justin, for instance, reports: “In the recent Jewish war,

Barkokeba .ordered that only the Christians should be subjected to dreadful

extent shown respect (some even admiration) for the religious principles of

Militarily, the statistic of bloodshed as provided by contemporary historians,

even allowing for possible exaggerations, is a most impressive evidence of

the Roman’s angry vengeance upon the Jews. Tacitus (ca. A.D. 33-120), for

In the Barkokeba war, according to Dio Cassius (ca. A.D. 150-235),

580,000 Jews were killed in action, besides the numberless who died of

hunger and disease. “All of Judea,” the same historian writes, “became almost

political and fiscal policies against the Jews. Under Vespasian (A.D. 69-79)

both the Sanhedrin and the office of the High Priest were abolished and

worship at the temple site was forbidden. Hadrian (A.D. 117-138), as we

noted earlier, went so far as to prohibit any Jew, under the threat of death, to

enter the area of the new city. Moreover he outlawed the practice of the

Also significant was the introduction by Vespasian (A.D. 69-79) of

shekel, which previously had formed part of the upkeep of the temple of

those, according to Suetonius (ca. A.D. 70-122) “who without publicly

have been included among them. E. L. Abel aptly points out that “although

the amount was insignificant, the principle was important since no

other religious group in the Roman society paid such a tax. It was clearly

discriminatory and marked the beginning of the social deterioration of the

The sources do not inform us of any specific action taken by the

Christians at this time to avoid the payment of such a discriminatory tax.

However we may suspect, as S. W. Baron perspicaciously remarks, that in

connection with this redefinition of the fiscal obligations as resting only

upon professing Jews, the growing Christian community secured from Nerva

exemption from the tax and, indirectly, official recognition of the severance

The introduction of Sunday worship in place of “Jewish”

Sabbath..keeping—the latter being particularly derided by several Roman

writers of the time—could well represent a measure taken by the leaders of

the Church of Rome to evidence their severance from Judaism and thereby

also avoid the payment of a discriminatory tax.

The Roman intelligentsia also resumed at this time their literary attaok

against the Jews. Cicero, the renowned orator, in his defense of Flaccus—a

prefect of Asia who had despoiled the Jewish’ treasure—already a century

earlier (59 B.C.) had immortalized his attack against Judaism, labeling it a

kept scarcely alive by the few sneers and jibes of Horace (65-8 B.C.), Tibullus

(d. ca. 19 B.C.), Pompeius Trogus (beginning of first century A.D.) and Ovid

of literary anti-Semitism surged in the sixties, undoubtedly reflecting the

new mood of the time against the Jews. This fervent stoic railed against the

Sabbath-keeping: “By introducing one day of rest in every seven, they lose

in idleness almost a seventh of their life, and by failing to act in times of

Persius (A.D. 34-62) in his fifth satire presents the Jewish customs

as the first example of superstitious beliefs. The Jewish Sabbath, particularly,

attributed to Petronius (ca. A.D. 66), the Jew is characterized as worshiping

“his Pig-god” and as cutting “his foreskin with a knife” to avoid

Great War (A.D. 66-70) of the Jews with the Romans,. according to Josephus

“misrepresented the facts, either from flattery of the Romans or from hatred

Quintilian (ca. A.D. 35-100) alludes to Moses as the founder “of the

Martial (ca. A.D. 40-104) the circumcised Jews and their Sabbath are a synonym

superstitious nation and singled out their Sabbath-keeping (which he regarded

as a time of drunkenness) as one of the many barbarian customs adopted by

influence of a Judaizing father who taught his son to eschew the uncircumcised

and to spend “each seventh day in idleness, taking no part in the

Tacitus (ca. A.D. 55-120), whom Jules Isaac labels as “the most beautiful

in bitterness. The Jews, according to this historian, descend from lepers expelled

from Egypt and abstain from pork in remembrance of their leprosy (a

disease which, according to prevailing beliefs, was common among pigs).

Their indolence on the Sabbath commemorates the day they left Egypt. “All

their customs,” Tacitus writes, “are perverse and disgusting” and as a people

After Tacitus, as F. L. Abel points out, “anti-Jewish literaturc declined.”

In describing the Cyrenaican Jewish uprising (ca. A.D. 115), Dio expresses,

as we read earlier, his resentment and hatred against the Jews, presenting

them as savages who ate their victims’ flesh and smeared their blood

lived in the capital city most of their professional lives and wrote from there,

suggests that their contemptuous remarks about the Jews—particularly against

their Sabbath-keeping—reflect the general Roman attitude prevailing toward

them, especially in the city. (We should not forget that the Jews were a sizable

community estimated by most scholars at about 50,000 already at the

“The feeling against the Jews was strong enough” for instance, as F.

F. Bruce writes, “to make Titus, when crown prince, give up his plan to

because of the mounting hostility of the populace toward the Jews, was forced,

That hostility toward Jews was particularly felt at that time in Rome,

is indicated also by the works of the Jewish historian Josephus. He was in

the city from ca. A.D. 70 to his death (ca. 93) as a pensioner of the imperial

family, and he felt the compulsion to take up his pen to defend his race from

he shows how the Jews could be favorably compared to any nation in regard

to antiquity, culture and prowess.

policies and hostile attitudes prevailing toward the Jews (particularly felt in

the capital city), what measures did the Church of Rome take at this time to

clarify to the Roman authorities her severance with Judaism? Any change in

the Christians’ attitude, policies or customs needs to be explained not solely

on the basis of the Roman-Jewish conflict, but also in the light of the relationship

which Christians had both with Rome and with the Jews. To this we

shall briefly address our attention before considering specific changes in

religious observances which occurred in the Church of Rome.

A survey of the Christian literature of the second century bears out

toward the empire, but toward the Jews they adopted a policy of radical

addressed treatises (generally called “apologies”) to Hadrian (A.D. 117-138)

to explain and defend the Christian faith. The early apologists, as J. Lebreton

notes, “believed in and worked for the reconciliation of the Church to the

Though they were unable to provide a definite formula of reconciliation

with the Empire, as A. Puech brings out, they were confident that

have been encouraged by the Roman policy toward Christianity, which particularly

under Hadrian (A.D. 117-138) and Antoninus Pius (A.D. 138-161)

Marcel Simon observes, while “he reserved his severity for the Jews, ... he

Emperor provided that no Christian was to be accused on the basis of public

calumnies.

On the other hand, how different at that time was the attitude of

many Christian writers toward the Jews! A whole body of anti-Judaic literature

was produced in the second century condemning the Jews socially and

theologically. It is beyond the scope of the present study to examine this

literature. The following list of significant authors and/or writings which

defamed the Jews to a lesser or greater degree may serve to make the reader

F. Blanchetiere, in his scholarly survey of the problem of anti-Judaism

in the Christian literature of the second century, persuasively concludes:

of the Apostolic Fathers give the impression of almost a total lack of interest

whole group of writings, treatises and dialogues, a whole literature “Against

it is not a question of the foundation of Judaism itself. Moreover we must

While disparaging remarks about the Jews and Judaism are already

of separation from and contempt for the Jews. The Fathers at this time,

as F. Blanchetière aptly states, “did not feel any longer like Paul ‘a great

sorrow and constant pain’ in their hearts, nor did they wish any longer to be

‘anathemas’ for their brethren... Without going to the extreme example of

abusive language as used by the author of the Epistle to Diognetus, Justin, in

the same manner as Barnabas, only knew that Israel throughout its history

had been hard-hearted, stiff-necked and idolatrous ... Israel, murderer of the

prophets, is guilty of not having recognized the Son of God ... It is only

justice, therefore, that Israel be collectively and indistinctly struck, condemned

The adoption of this negative attitude toward the Jews can be explained

(but not necessarily justified!) by several circumstances existing

particularly at the time of Hadrian. First, the relationship between Rome and

the Jews was extremely tense. The latter, as we noted earlier, were subjected

the Church and the Synagogue. Christians were not only barred from the

synagogues, but often denounced to the authorities and, whenever possible,

was granted to the Christians. Possibly Rome recognized that Christians

had no nationalistic aspirations and consequently posed no political

By insisting on the literal observance of certain Mosaic regulations, these

Such circumstances invited Christians to develop a new identity, not

only characterized by a negative attitude toward Jews, but also by the substitution

of characteristic Jewish religious customs for new ones. These would

serve to make the Roman authorities aware that the Christians, as Marcel

Simon emphasizes, “liberated from any tie with the religion of Israel and the

internal need of the Christian community to develop what may be called an

of unwarranted criteria of Scriptural hermeneutic through which

Jewish history and observances could be made void of meaning and function.

Regarding Jewish history, it is noteworthy that while the Apostolic

Fathers do not make explicit or implied references to it, the Apologists reinterpret

instance, attempts to demolish the historical validity of Judaism by voiding

its historical events and institutions of their literal meaning and reality. Though

the covenant, for example, was given by God to the Jews, “they lost it completely

just after Moses received it” (4 :7) because of their idolatry and it

was never reoffered to them.

For Barnabas the ancient Jewish economy has lost its sense or rather

between the “murdering of Christ and of His prophets” by the Jews,

and the two Jewish revolts of A.D. 70 and 135, concluding that the two

fundamental institutions of Judaism, namely circumcision and the Sabbath,

were a brand of infamy imposed by God on the Jews to single them out for

rhetorical fashion reinterprets the historical Exodus Passover to commemorate

the “extraordinary murder” of Christ by the Jews:

“You killed this one at the time of the great feast. (v. 92)

God has been murdered,

the King of Israel has been destroyed

by the right hand of Israel.

O frightful murder!

The history of Israel is viewed therefore as a sequel of infidelities,

of idolatries (particularly emphasized are Baal Peor and the golden calf) and

of murders (of the righteous, of the prophets and finally of Christ). Consequently

the misfortunes of the Jews, especially the destruction of the city,

their expulsion and dispersion and their punishment by Rome, represent a

just and divine chastisement.

This negative reinterpretation of Judaism, motivated, as we have

succinctly described above, by factors present inside and outside the Church,

particularly affected the attitude of many Christians toward Jewish religious

observances. In view of the fact that Judaism has rightly been defined as an

“orthopraxis” (deed rather than creed) and that religious observances such

as the circumcision and the Sabbath were not only outlawed by Hadrian’s

edict but also consistently attacked and ridiculed by Greek and Latin authors,

it should not surprise one that many Christians severed their ties with

Judaism by substituting for distinctive Jewish religious observances such as

the Sabbath and the Passover, new ones. In this process, as we shall now see,

the Church of Rome, where, as we noted above, the break with Judaism

occurred earlier and where anti-Judaic hostilities and measures were particularly

felt, played a leadership role. This can be best exemplified by a

study of her stand on the Sabbath and Passover questions.

The adoption and enhancement of Sunday as the exclusive new day

of worship presupposes the abandonment and belittling of the Sabbath. We

would presume therefore that the Church where Sunday worship was first

introduced and enforced adopted some measures to discourage Sabbath observance.

While it must be admitted that we have evidence for the observance

solution on the part of those who wished to retain the old Sabbath while at

the same time accepting the new Sunday worship. Their very concern to

preserve some type of Sabbath observance disqualifies them as pioneers of

Sunday-keeping, since they could hardly have championed the new day while

trying to retain the old.

In the Church of Rome the situation was substantially different. Not

only was Sunday worship urged there, but concrete measures were also taken

to wean Christians away from any veneration of the Sabbath. These we shall

now consider, endeavoring to identify those motives which may have caused

such a course of action.

We shall start our investigation with Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 100- ca.

165), who taught and wrote in Rome by the middle of the second century.

While prior to him Ignatius in Asia Minor (ca. A.D. 110) and Barnabas at

Alexandria (ca. A.D. 135) explicitly upbraided Sabbath-keeping, it is Justin

who provides the most devastating and systematic condemnation of the Sabbath

and the first explicit account of Christian Sunday worship. Since in the

subsequent chapter we shall closely examine Justin’s views on the Sabbath

The Sabbath for Justin is a temporary ordinance, derived from Moses,

which God did not intend to be kept literally, for He Himself “does not stop

controlling the movement of the universe on that day.” He imposed it solely

on the Jews as a mark to single them out for punishment they so well deserved

to say the least, of discriminatory practices, inasmuch as He would have

given ordinances for the sole negative purpose of singling out Jews for punishment.

Someone could argue that Justin’s position does not necessarily reflect

the attitude of the whole Church of Rome toward the Sabbath, especially

since Rome was the crossroads of all ideas. While this caution deserves

attention, it is well to note that Justin does not represent a solitary

voice in Rome against the Sabbath. Similar views were expressed by the

renowned heretic, Marcion, who at that time (ca. A.D. 144) established his

headquarters in Rome. The influence of Marcion’s anti-Judaic and anti-Sabbath

More than half a century later, Tertullian still found it necessary to

defend the Christians in North Africa from the influence of Marcions teaching

the Sabbath, according to Epiphanius Marcion ordered his followers “to fast

on Saturday justifying it in this way: Because it is the rest of the God of the

Jews... we fast in that day in order not to accomplish on that day what was

How would fasting on the Sabbath demonstrate hatred against the

“evil” God of the Jews? The answer is to be found in the fact that for the

Jews the Sabbath was anything but a day of fast or of mourning. Even the

strictest Jewish sects objected to fasting on the Sabbath. The rabbis, though

they differed in their views regarding the time and number of the Sabbath

meals, agreed that food on the Sabbath ought to be abundant and good. The

following statement epitomizes perhaps the typical rabbinic view: “‘Do you

think that I (God) gave you the Sabbath as burden? I gave it to you for your

benefit.’ How? Explained Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba, ‘Keep the Sabbath holy

That the early Christians adopted this Jewish custom is implied, for

instance, by Augustine’s rhetorical remark, when referring to the Sabbath,

he says: “Did not the tradition of the elders prohibit fasting on the one hand,

to the Sabbath fast by Christians in the East and in some important

Western areas, such as in Milan at the time of Ambrose (d. A.D. 397), and in

Sabbath from a day of feasting and joy to a day of fasting and mourning, as

we shall see, represents a measure taken by the Church of Rome to degrade

It should be noted that Justin and Marcion, though they differ in

their theological interpretation of the Sabbath, both share the same anti-Sabbath

attituae: the former devaluates the theological meaning of the day, making

it the trademark of Jewish wickedness; the latter deprives the day of its physical

and psychological pleasures to show contempt to the God of the Jews.

Marcion was expelled from the Church of Rome because of his dualistic-

Gnostic views, but the custom of fasting on the Sabbath was retained.

In fact, the historical references from Pope Callistus (A.D. 217-222),

Hippolytus (ca. A.D. 170-236), Pope Sylvester (A.D. 402-417), Pope Innocent

1 (A.D. 401-417), Augustine (A.D. 354-430) and John Cassian (ca. A.

D. 360-435) all present the Church of Rome as the champion of the Sabbath

Did the Church of Rome borrow the custom directly from Marcion?

It would seem strange that the Church would have adopted a custom advocated

solely by a heretic whom she disfellowshiped, and whose motivations

for the Sabbath fast were mostly unacceptable. It seems more likely that

some, at least, already practiced Sabbath fasting in Rome prior to Marcion’s

arrival. It has been suggested in fact that the weekly Sabbath fast originated

as an extension of the annual Holy Saturday of Easter season when all Christians

fasted. Tertullian and Augustine, for instance, associated the two, but

while they approved of the annual paschal Sabbath fast, they condemned the

fasting of the weekly Sabbath which Rome and a few Western Churches

practiced. “You sometimes,” Tertullian writes, “continue your station [i.e.

fast] even over the Sabbath, a day never to be kept as a fast except at the

Since Easter-Sunday, as we shall soon show, was apparently introduced

first in Rome in the early part of the second century to differentiate

the Christian Passover from that of the Jews, it is possible that the weekly

Sabbath fast arose contemporaneously as an extension of the annual paschal

Sabbath fast. If this was the case, Sabbath fasting was introduced prior to

Marcion’s arrival in Rome, and he exploited the new custom to propagate

his contemptuous views of the God of the Jews. That the weekly Sabbath

fast was introduced early in Rome is clearly implied by a statement of

Hippolytus (written in Rome between A.D. 202-234) which says: “Even today

establish whether Hippolytus was referring to Bishop Callistus’ decretal concerning

the Sabbath fast or to some Marcionites against whom he wrote a

treatise (possibly to both?), the expression even today” clearly presupposes

that the custom had been known for some time, presumably since the introduction

Hippolytus does not explain who are those who “order fasting on

the Sabbath.” However, since a liturgical custom such as Sabbath fasting

could be rightfully enjoined only by official ecclesiastical authority, and since

time a seasonal Sabbath fast, it would seem reasonable to assume that the

writer was indirectly referring to the very hierarchy of the Roman Church as

responsible for the ordinance. It might be objected that Hippolytus, by disapproving

the custom, weakens the argument of a widespread Sabbath fast

in Rome.

The objection loses force, however, when we consider the writer’s

cultural background and position in Rome. In fact, even though he lived in

Rome under the pontificate of Zephyrinus (A.D. 199-217), Callistus (A.D.

217-222), Urban (A.D. 222-230) and Pontianus (A.D. 230-235), he was neither

a Roman nor a Latin. His language, philosophy and theology were

was elected instead in A.D. 217), he headed a dissident group and was consecrated

antipope. His condemnation of those who ordered the Sabbath fast

could then be explained in the light of his Eastern origin and orientation

(Sabbath fast was generally condemned in the East because of the existing

of Rome. In other words, both personal and theological reasons could have

motivated Hippolytus to oppose the Sabbath fast which by the decretal of

Callistus at that time was enjoined particularly as a seasonal fast.

accepted by Christians everywhere. Opposition to it, in fact, seems

to have been known even in Rome, as indicated by Pope Siricius’ condemnation

(A.D. 384-398) of a certain priest, Jovinianus, who according to the

Pope, “hates the fastings ... saying they are superfluous; he has no hope in

limits the practice of Sabbath fasting prevailing in his day to “the Roman

(d. ca. A.D. 440) similarly confines the Sabbath fasting custom to “some

Most scholars agree that the custom originated in Rome and that

from there it spread to certain Western communities. It should be added that

Rome maintained such a custom until the eleventh century, in spite of repeated

in spite of the lively remonstrances of the Greeks, which were refuted by the

polemic works of Eneas of Paris (d. 870 A.D.) and Retrannus of Corby (d.

A.D. 868), preserved the traditional Sabbath fast until beyond the year A.D.

R. L. Odom has persuasively brought out that the Roman insistence

on making the Sabbath a day of fast contributed significantly to the historic

break between the Eastern and Western Christian Church which occurred in

however of relatively little value to our present research, unless we understand

why such a practice arose in the first place and what causal relationship

exists between it and the origin of Sunday.

the time, when to use Tertullian’s phrase, “the Bridegroom was taken away,”

Sabbath fasts were however designed to express not only sorrow for Christ’s

death, but also contempt for its perpetrators, namely the Jews. In two related

similar vein enjoined to fast on Easter-Friday and Saturday “on account of

the disobedience of our brethren [i.e., the Jews] ... because thereon the People

He was taken from us by the Jews, falsely so named and fastened to the

In the light of the close nexus existing between the annual Paschal

originated in Rome as an extension of the former, not only to express sorrow

for Christ’s death but also to show contempt for the Jewish people and particularly

statement, often quoted by his successors in defence of the Roman Sabbath

fast, clearly supports this conclusion: “If every Sunday is to be observed

joyfully by the Christians on account of the resurrection, then every Sabbath

on account of the burial is to be regarded in execration of the Jews

on the Sabbath, bewailing the buried Lord, and gladness prevailed for

the exulting Jews. But sadness reigned for the fasting apostles. In like manner

we are sad with the saddened by the burial of the Lord, if we want to

In this statement Pope Sylvester places in clear contrast the difference

in theological meaning and manner of observance between Sabbath

and Sunday. Christians are enjoined to mourn and abstain from food on the

Sabbath, not only on account of the burial” of Christ, but also to show contempt

Pope Sylvester wrote, “to rejoice... in the day of the Lord’s resurrection.”

Victorinus, Bishop of Pettau (ca. A.D. 304), present-day Austria,

similarly emphasizes the same function of the Sabbath fast when he writes:

“On the seventh day... we are accustomed to fast rigorously that on the Lord’s

hunger which Christians experienced even more severely on the Sabbath,

to predispose the Christians to enter more eagerly and joyfully into the

observance of Sunday and on the other hand, as stated by Victorinus, to

avoid “appearing to observe the Sabbath with the Jews, of which the Lord of

A strict Sabbath fast would naturally preclude also the celebration of

the Eucharist, since the partaking of its elements could be regarded as breaking

the fast. While some Christians opposed such a view, believing rather

Rome we know for certain that Saturday was made not only a day of fasting,

but also a day in which no eucharistic celebration and no religious assemblies

were allowed. Pope Innocent I (A.D. 402417) in his famous letter to

Decentius which was later incorporated into the Canon Law, establishes that

“as the tradition of the Church maintains, in these two days [Friday and

Two contemporary historians, namely Sozomen (ca. A.D. 440) and Socrates

(ca. A.D. 439) confirm Innocent I’s decretal. The latter writes, for instance,

that “although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred

mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria

Socrates does not explain why in Rome and Alexandria there were

no eucharistic celebrations on the Sabbath; he states however that the custom

went back to “an ancient tradition.” This would allow us to suppose that

the proscription of the celebration of the Mass and the injunction of fasting,

because of their close nexus, may well have originated contemporaneously,

possibly early in the second century as part of the effort to break away from

strikingly similar to the one of Socrates, though he speaks only of religious

assemblies, without reference to any eucharistic celebration. He confirms

however that while “the people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere,

assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week,”

In the light of this cumulative evidence, it appears that the Church of

Rome played a key role in early Christianity in emptying the Sabbath of its

theological-liturgical significance and in urging the abandonment of its observance.

to celebrate the Lord’s Supper and to hold religious meetings on this

day, represent definite measures taken by the Church of Rome, on the one

hand, to wean Christians away from the veneration of the Sabbath, and, on

the other hand, to enhance Sunday worship exclusively. The reason for such

an intransigent attitude toward Jewish institutions such as Sabbath-keeping

can be found in the need for a radical differentiation from Judaism which

was particularly felt in the early part of the second century.

We noted above how the fiscal, military, political and literary attaoks

and measures of the Romans against the Jews encouraged Christians to sever

their ties with the latter. This was particularly true in Rome where most

Christian converts were of pagan extraction and experienced an earlier differentiation

manner of observance of Jewish festivals such as the Sabbath and Passover

would help to clarify to the Roman authorities their distinction from Judaism.

The adoption of Easter-Sunday, which we shall now consider, furnishes

an additional indication to support this thesis.

260-340) provides a valuable dossier of documents regarding the controversy

which flared up in the second century over the date for the celebration

On the one side, Bishop Victor of Rome (A.D. 189-199) championed the

Easter-Sunday custom (i.e., the celebration of the feast on the Sunday usually

following the date of the Jewish Passover) and threatened to excommunicate

the recalcitrant Christian communities of the province of Asia which

On the other side, Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus and representative

of the Asian Churches, strongly advocated the traditional Passover date of

Nisan 14, commonly called “Quartodeciman Passover.” Polycrates, claiming

to possess the genuine apostolic tradition transmitted to him by the

Apostles Philip and John, refused to be frightened into submission by the

threats of Victor of Rome.

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (from ca. A.D. 176), according to Eusebius,

intervened as peacemaker in the controversy. In his letter to Victor, Irenaeus

not only displays a magnanimous spirit, but also endeavors to show to the

Roman Bishop that the predecessors of Soter, namely, “Anicetus, and Pius,

and Hyginus and Telesphorus and Sixtus,” even though “they did not observe

it [i.e., the Quartodeciman Passover] ... were none the less at peace

Soter’s predecessors did not observe the Quartodeciman Passover, Irenaeus

implies that they also, like Victor, celebrated Easter on Sunday. By tracing

the controversy back to Bishop Sixtus (ca. A.D. 116-ca. 126), mentioning

him as the first non-observant of the Quartodeciman Passover, Irenaeus suggests

that Passover began to be celebrated in Rome on Sunday at his time

(ca. A.D. 116-126).

To conclude this from this passing reference of Irenaeus may be

rightly deemed hazardous. There are however complementary indications

which tend to favor this possibility. Bishop Sixtus (ca. A.D. 116-ca. 126), for

instance, administered the Church of Rome right at the time of Emperor

Hadrian (A.D. 117-138) who, as we noted earlier, adopted a policy of radical

encourage Christians to substitute for customs regarded as Jewish, new ones.

In Jerusalem, we noticed, the Judaeo-Christian members and leaders were at

that time expelled from the city together with the Jews, and were replaced

by a new Gentile group. It was also at that historical moment that, according

to Epiphanius, the Easter-controversy arose. The Bishop of Cyprus writes,

“the controversy arose after the time of the exodus (ca. A.D. 135) of the

If, as Epiphanius implies, the controversy was provoked by the introduction

after A.D. 135 of the new Easter-Sunday celebration which a significant

number of Quartodeciman Christians rejected, then Sixtus could

very well have been the initiator of the new custom, since he was Bishop of

Rome only a few years before. Some time must be allowed before a new

custom becomes sufficiently widespread to provoke a controversy. The references

of Irenaeus and Epiphanius appear then to complement one another.

The former suggests that Easter-Sunday originated in Rome under Sixtus

and the latter that the new custom was introduced in Jerusalem by the new

Greek bishops, thus provoking a controversy. Both events occurred at approximately

the same time.

Marcel Richard endeavors to show that the new day was introduced

at this time not by the Church of Rome but by the Greek bishops who settled

in Jerusalem. Owing to Hadrian’s prohibition of Jewish festivals, they would

have pioneered the new Easter-Sunday date to avoid appearing “Judaizing”

Sunday was first introduced in Hadrian’s time, we find it hard to believe

that it was the new Gentile leadership of the Jerusalem Church that introduced

the new custom and to cause a large segment of ‘Christianity to

accept it especially at a time when the Church in the city had fallen into

obscurity.

There is a wide consensus of opinion among scholars that Rome is

indeed the birthplace of Easter-Sunday. Some, in fact, rightly label it as “Roman-

later historical sources. In two related documents, namely the conciliar letter

the prime example to emulate on the matter of Easter-Sunday, undoubtedly

because of her historical position and role in championing its observance.

may ask, between the annual Easter-Sunday and the weekly Sunday? Were

the two feasts regarded perhaps as one similar feast that celebrated at different

times the same resurrection event, or were they considered as two different

feasts which fulfilled different objectives? If the two were treated as one

similar feast, it would seem plausible to suppose that the birthplace of Easter-

Sunday could well be also the place of origin of the weekly Sunday observance,

since possibly the same factors acted in the same place to cause

the contemporaneous origin of both.

In numerous patristic testimonies the weekly and annual Easter-Sunday

are treated as basically the same feast commemorating the same event

of the resurrection. In a document attributed to Irenaeus it is specifically

enjoined not to kneel down on Sunday nor on Pentecost, that is, the seven

weeks of the Easter period, “because it is of equal significance with the

Tertullian confirms that custom but adds the prohibition of fasting

as well: “On Sunday it is unlawful to fast or to kneel while worshiping. We

on the text, saying: “In the season extending from Easter to Pentecost, the

same custom was followed, thus showing the relation between the annual

Origen explicitly unites the weekly with the yearly commemoration

of the resurrection: “The resurrection of the Lord is celebrated not only

“While the Jews faithful to Moses, sacrificed the Passover lamb once a year

Pope Innocent I, in a letter to Bishop Decentius of Gubbio, confirms the

unity existing between the two feasts: “We celebrate Sunday because of the

venerable resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, not only at Easter but in

In the light of these representative statements, it would appear that

when the weekly and yearly Easter-Sunday gained acceptance, they were

regarded by many as one feast that commemorated at different times the

same event of the resurrection. Though the resurrection is not presented in

earlier sources as the dominant motivation for Sunday observance, there

seems to be no question as to the basic unity of the two festivities.

At this point it is important to ascertain what in Rome caused the

abandonment of the Quartodeciman Passover and the introduction of Easter-

Sunday. We would presume that the same causes motivated also the repudiation

of the Sabbath and the introduction of Sunday-keeping, since the

latter was regarded by many Christians as an extension of the annual Easter.

Scholars usually recognize in the Roman custom of celebrating Easter

on Sunday instead of the 14th of Nisan, to use J. Jeremias’ words, “the

that Rome and Alexandria adopted Easter-Sunday to avoid “even the

also that Rome and Alexandria, after “having eliminated the Judaizing

Quartodeciman tradition, repudiated even the Jewish computations, making

their own time calculations, since such a dependence on the Jews must have

The Nicene conciliar letter of Constantine explicitly reveals a marked

anti-Judaic motivation for the repudiation of the Quartodeciman Passover.

The Emperor, in fact, desiring to establish a religion completely free from

any Jewish influences, wrote: “It appeared an unworthy thing that in the

celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews,

who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore,

Saviour a different way... Strive and pray continually that the purity of your

souls may not seem in anything to be sullied by fellowship with the customs

of these most wicked men... All should unite in desiring that which sound

The anti-Judaic motivation for the repudiation of the Jewish reckoning

of Passover could not have been expressed more explicitly and forcefully

than in the letter of Constantine. Nicaea represents the culmination of a

controversy initiated two centuries earlier and motivated by strong anti-Judaic

feelings and one which had Rome as its epicenter. The close nexus

existing between Easter-Sunday and weekly Sunday~ presupposes that the

same anti-Judaic motivation was also primarily responsible for the substitution

of Sabbath-keeping by Sunday worship.

Several indications have already emerged in the course of our study

supporting this conclusion. We noticed, for instance, that some Fathers reinterpreted

the Sabbath as the trademark of Jewish unfaithfulness. Specific

anti-Sabbath measures were taken particularly by the Church of Rome. The

‘Sabbath was made a day of fasting to show, among other things, contempt

for the Jews. Similarly, to avoid appearing to observe the day with the

Jews, the eucharistic celebration and religious assemblies were forbidden

on the Sabbath. Additional evidence on the role played by anti-Judaism

in the abandonment of Sabbath observance will be submitted in chapters

seven and nine.

In the course of our investigation various indications have emerged which

point to the ‘Church of Rome as the one primarily responsible for liturgical

innovations such as Easter-Sunday, weekly Sunday worship and Sabbath

fasting. But the question could be raised, did the Church of Rome in the

second century already exert sufficient authority through her Bishop to influence

the greater part of Christendom to accept new festivities? To answer

this question, it is necessary to verify the status she enjoyed particularly in

the second century.

The process of affirmation of the primacy of the Bishop and of the

Church of Rome in the early Church is difficult to trace, primarily because

the sources available report facts or events but do not define the jurisdictional

authority exerted 3t that time by the Church of Rome. However, history

teaches us that the authority of Metropolitan Sees was defined not prior

shall make no attempt to define the nature or extent of the jurisdictional

authority of the Roman Church, but simply to describe what appears to be

About the year A.D. 95, Clement, Bishop of Rome, wrote a letter to

the Church of Corinth to settle a discord which had broken out within the

Church and had resulted in the deposition of the presbyters (ch. 47). The

prestige of the Roman Church in this case is implied by the resolute and in

some cases even threatening tone of the letter that expects obedience (cf.

its authority, and the responsibility which this involved; Corinth also recognized

it and bowed to it. Batiffol has described this intervention as ‘the

The fact that the letter was highly respected and regularly read not

only in Corinth but in other churches as well, so that it came to be regarded

by some as inspired, implies, as Karl Baus notes, “the existence in the consciousness

of non-Roman Christians of an esteem of the Roman Church as

epithets to the Church of Rome (c. Prologue). While in his Epistles to the

says: “You have never envied any one; you have taught others. What I desire

In his prologue Ignatius describes the Church of Rome as being “worthy

of God, worthy of honor, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy

of success, worthily pure and preeminent in love.” In his final recommendation

he requests: “Remember in your prayers the church of Syria, which has

God for its pastor in my place. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, together

actual jurisdictional power exerted by the Church of Rome, nevertheless

they do indicate that Ignatius at the beginning of the second century attributed

to her a precedence of prestige and honor.

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (from ca. A.D. 178), whom we have already

(composed under the pontificate of Pope Eleutherus—A.D. 175-189),

known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most

a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on

Irenaeus’ high regard for the office and authority of the Bishop of

Rome is best exemplified in his embassy to Bishop Eleutherus (A.D. 175-

189) intended to solicit his intervention in the Montanist heresy which was

disturbing the peace of the churches of Gaul, as well as in his letter to Bishop

it is worth noting that though Irenaeus protested against Victor’s

excommunication of the Asiatics, as P. Batiffol aptly observes, “he did not

The Bishop of Rome demonstrated his unsurpassed authority when

enforcing the Roman-Easter. Asian Bishops such as Polycarp and Polycrates,

though they refused to accept the Roman custom, nevertheless both took

cognizance of the request of the Roman Bishops. The former felt the compulsion

in A.D. 154 to go personally to Anicetus of Rome to regulate the

Passover question and other matters. The latter complied with the order of

Victor to summon a council. “I could mention the bishops who are present,”

When notified of the Asian bishops’ refusal to accept Easter-Sunday,

Victor drastically “declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicated.”

Roman Bishop to enforce a new custom, and even to cut off from the communion

of the Church an entire dissident community. P. Batiffol aptly comments

in this matter that “It is Rome alone that Ephesus answers and resists.

We see the authority Rome exercises in this conflict. Renan has said appropriately

The undisputed authority exerted by the Church of Rome through

her Bishop could be further substantiated by later instances such as: Pope

Victor’s excommunication of the Monarchian Theodotus; Tertullian’s statement

that from the Church of Rome “come into our hands the very authority

the heretic Sabellius; Pope Stephen’s (A.D. 245-7) rehabilitation of Basilides

of Emerita in spite of his deposition by Cyprian; Cyprian’s request to Pope

Stephen to depose Marcion of Arles, a convinced follower of Novatian. Other

indications could be added such as the designation of the Church of Rome as

and by Firmilian of Caesarea; the role played by the Pope in the question of

by the Church of Rome of the date December 25 for the celebration

In the light of these indications the Church of Rome seems to have

emerged to a position of pre-eminence already in the second century. The

Roman Pontiff was in fact the only ecclesiastical authority widely recognized

and capable of influencing the greater part of Christendom (even though

some churches rejected his instructions) to accept new customs or observances.

abandonment of the Sabbath and the adoption of Sunday has been underestimated,

if not totally neglected, in recent studies. If one recognizes, as admitted

by 0. Cullmann, that “in deliberate distinction from Judaism, the first

most logical place for the origin of Sunday. It is there that we found both the

circumstances and the authority necessary to accomplish such a liturgical

change.

Vincenzo Monachino in the conclusion of his dissertation on the

the role of leadership in the West by the Church of Rome. He writes,

“we do not think to err if we affirm that the place where this type of pastoral

care had been elaborated was the city of Rome, though we must recognize

that Rome was influential in causing the disappearance of the veneration

of the Sabbath. He states, “perhaps in this [i.e. disappearance of Sabbath]

the example of Rome, which never had any special cult on the Sabbath,

East where Jewish influence survived longer, as evidenced by the survival

of a veneration for the Sabbath and of respect for the Jewish reckoning of

Our investigation so far has established that Sunday observance arose,

as W. D. Davies states, “in conscious opposition to or distinction from the

seems to have been encouraged, on the one hand, by the social, military,

political and literary anti-Judaic imperial policies which made it necessary

for Christians to sever their ties with the Jews, and, on the other hand, by the

very conflict existing between Jews and Christians.

The Church of Rome, whose members, mostly of pagan extraction,

experienced a break from the Jews earlier than in the East and where the

unpopularity of the Jews was particularly great, appears to have played a

leading role in inducing the adoption of Sunday observance. This we found

indicated not only by the introduction and enforcement of the new Easter-

Sunday festivity (closely related to the weekly Sunday) but also by the measures

Rome took to devaluate the Sabbath theologically and practically. The

Sabbath was in fact re-interpreted to be a temporary institution given to the

Jews as a sign of their unfaithfulness. Therefore Christians were enjoined to

show their dissociation from the Jewish Sabbath by fasting on that day, by

abstaining from the Lord’s supper and by not attending religious assemblies.

In view of the fact that anti-Judaism has emerged as a primary factor

which contributed to the introduction of Sunday observance in the place of

Sabbath, it is now important to more fully verify its presence and influence

in the Christian literature of the early part of the second century.

1. The role of leadership of the Church of Rome in the second century

is discussed below pp. 207-211.

demonstrates from archeological inscriptions of ancient Rome, many Jews

preferred Latin and Greek names. He submits a compilation of 254 examples

of Latin names and 175 examples of Greek names used by Jews in ancient

the members in Rome were pagan converts is clearly indicated by Paul’s

statement in Romans 1:13-15, where he says: “I am eager to preach the gospel

to you also who are in Rome ... in order that I may reap some harvest

Apparently this Gentile — Christian community of Rome had limited contacts

with the Jews prior to Paul’s arrival. This is suggested, for instance, by

the fact that when Paul met with the Jewish leaders three days after his arrival,

they told him: “We have received no letters from Judea about you, and

none of the brethren coming here has reported or spoken any evil about you”

persuasively on the basis of several statements of Paul (Phil. 1:12-14; 4 :22;

regarding Pomponia Graecina (the wife of Aulus Plautius, the conqueror of

Britain, and an early convert to Christianity), that a “clear separation” existed

between the Church and the synagogue in Rome. Christians apparently

gathered in the home of converted nobles “avoiding any conflict with the

local Judaism” (p. 69). Apparently Paul came in conflict with Jewish circles,