The Beginnings of Christianity as an Integral Part of Early Judaism

Jesus and his first followers were Jews who never intended to form a new religion apart from Judaism. The so-called “parting of the ways” between Jews and Christians was long and by no means monolinear. Rather, it was a complex process that stretched over five hundred years, occurring in different places at different speeds and under a variety of circumstances. What we today call the “beginnings of Christianity” was in fact an integral part of multifaceted Judaism.

See also Early Judaism and the Beginnings of Christianity: Common Roots and the Parting of the Ways (Kohlhammer, 2026; open access).

By Markus Tiwald
Professor of New Testament
Faculty of Catholic Theology
University of Vienna
January 2026

The most exciting field of research in contemporary exegesis is most probably the question of the so-called “parting of the ways between Jews and Christians.” Certainly, this expression is a misnomer. In the first century “Jews” and “Christians” were not yet separated entities and there is an ongoing discussion about from what point onward we may talk about “Jews” and “Christians.” Secondly, this “parting” was a complex process that stretched over five hundred years, occurring in different places at disparate velocities and under a variety of circumstances. Thus, the focus should not rest on the “parting” but on the fact that what we today call “Christianity” in its beginnings was an integral part of multifaceted Second Temple Judaism (for more detail, see Tiwald 2026). 

1. The Late “Parting of the Ways”

Today we know that the often mentioned “Council of Yavneh” never existed (Stemberger 1988), the birkat ha-minim (“the curse on heretics”) was no instrument for the exclusion of Christians (Stemberger 2012), and also the title “messiah” (christos) was more common in early Judaism than generally assumed. Just to mention one example, Bar Kochba was proclaimed “messiah” by Rabbi Aqiva (y. Taʿan. 4.8, fol. 68d) and his name changed to Bar Kochba, “Son of the Star,” in accordance with Numbers 24:17. This reference to Numbers 24:17 was used in Qumran (CD 7.18–21) for the eschatologically relevant teacher of God’s law and in Matthew 2:2 for Jesus as the “newborn king of the Jews.” Other messianic pretenders are mentioned in Josephus, e.g., Theudas (Ant. 20.97; Acts 5:36–37), an Egyptian prophet (Ant. 20.169–172 par. B.J. 2.262–263; Acts 21:38), and a Samaritan prophet (Ant. 18.85–87). One should note that the divinity of Jesus was not fixed dogmatically until the 4th century CE at the great councils. Prior to this time definitions remained open, so that titles like “Son of God” or “Messiah” might be interpreted in a merely figurative way.

2. The Historical Jesus

Today among New Testament scholars it is agreed that the historical Jesus never intended to form a religion apart from Judaism. When Jesus announced the arrival of the basileia tou theou, the “reign of God,” he followed Jewish eschatological expectations. But in contrast to the community of Qumran, Jesus did not exclude sinners, lepers, and other ritually impure persons from this eschatological community, but deliberately included them: for him impurity was not contagious, but the power of the all-pervading basileia restored the protological, prelapsarian goodness of humankind in the now imminent eschatology. His conception of “offensive purity” and “inclusive holiness” (Loader 1997, Avemarie 2010, Theissen and Merz 2011) highlights God’s redemptive act. In the same way, Jesus’s critique of the Temple must be seen as a prophetic sign referring to the basileia. Critique of the Temple was widespread in early Judaism (T. Mos. 5:5; 6:1; Jub. 23:21b; Pss. Sol. 2:3–5; further Jos. B.J. 4:323; 2 Bar. 10:18; and Tg. Isa. 28:1), and the opinion was common that in eschatological times a heavenly temple would substitute the human-made sanctuary (Jub. 1:29; 4 Ezra 10:46–55; and 1 En. 90:28–29; 4Q174 3.6–7). Jesus as messenger of the now imminent eschatology does not abrogate the Temple as such but expects that according to Revelation 21:22, the immediate presence of God will replace the Jerusalem Temple, turning the entire city (totum pro parte) into a temple.

3. Stephen’s Circle and the Apostle Paul

After Easter, Jesus’s criticism of the Temple and his expectation – in accordance with the promised pilgrimage of the nations to Zion (Isa 2:2–5; 60:3; Mic 4:2f.) – that the Gentiles would also partake in salvation (reflected in Matt 8.11f.//Luke 13.28f.), were creatively carried on by the “Hellenists” mentioned in Acts 6, a circle of liberal diaspora Jews gathered around Stephen.

            Stephen in Acts 7:42–50 envisions a cult without sacrifices. God’s actual temple is heaven, and the earth is his footstool. This is somewhat reminiscent of Philo’s statement that God made the “whole world” his temple (σύμπαντα κόσμον, sumpanta kosmon, Spec. 1.66f.), while the “handmade temple” (τὸ δὲ χειρόκμητον, to de cheirokmeton) is merely a concession to human necessities. Stephen urged a new interpretation of the temple service that downplayed ritual laws (Theissen 1996). Accordingly, Philo of Alexandria in Spec. 2.194–203 completely spiritualizes the temple ritual of Yom Kippur: blood, sacrifice, incense, the temple, and the Aaronic priesthood play no role in his interpretation.

            Abstinence and prayer are its principal features (Stökl Ben Ezra 2003). This fits seamlessly into the proclamation of Jesus’s appointment as hilasterion (Rom 3:25), which most probably stems from a pre-Pauline hymn going back to the ideas of Stephen’s circle. The interpretation of Christ as hilasterion, that is, as the kapporet, the place in the Temple’s Holy of Holies to which the atoning blood of Yom Kippur is applied (Lev 16:13–15), does not signify the substitution of the temple cult with Jesus, but rather an understanding of Jesus’s death on the cross by means of cultic metaphorology (Merklein 1987).

            Such a spiritualization and metaphorization of the temple cult are already known from the Qumran community: according to 4Q174 the Qumranites regarded themselves as a “temple of man” (מקדש אדם, miqdash adam) where “works of praise” (מעשי תודה, maʿase todah) would substitute for incense offerings (מקטירים, maqtirim) (Maier 2008). Likewise, the circumcision-free mission to the Gentiles seems to have been an issue in early Judaism: in Josephus’s account of the acceptance of the Jewish law by Queen Helena of Adiabene and her son Izates, the Jewish merchant Ananias states that it is possible “to worship God even without being circumcised.” Even if Josephus criticizes this view as wrong, we learn that such liberal positions were indeed possible in early Judaism (Konradt 2016).

            Likewise, the “radical allegorizers” criticized by Philo pushed his allegorical interpretation of the Bible to the extreme: if “circumcision does indeed portray the excision of pleasure and all passions” (Migr. 92), then physical circumcision is no longer necessary (Doering 1999). Regarding dietary regulations, we read already in the Letter of Aristeas 128 that there were “many” (most probably also Jews) who regarded the dietary laws as a senseless exaggeration. Thus, Let. Aris. 143 emphasizes that, by the law of nature (πρὸς τὸν φυσικὸν λόγον, pros ton phusikon logon), all foods are equally clean. The basic thesis, “that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it is unclean” (ὅτι οὐδὲν κοινὸν δι᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, εἰ μὴ τῷ λογιζομένῳ τι κοινὸν εἶναι, ἐκείνῳ κοινόν, hoti ouden koinon di heautou, ei me to logizomeno ti koinon einai, ekeino koinon; Rom 14:14), is also found in Paul.

            Consequently, Paul’s ominous phrase in Rom 3:20 that “no human being will be justified […] by works of the law (ἔργα νόμου, erga nomou)” must not be interpreted as a rejection of the Torah as such. In the Qumran texts, the Hebrew equivalent to the ἔργα νόμου (erga nomou), מעשי התורה (maʿase ha-torah; “works of the Torah”), occurs in 4QMMTe (= 4Q398 Frg. 14 II,3). While the expression “works of the Torah” appears only once in the Qumran texts, the phrase מעשי בתורה (maʿase ba-torah; “works in the Torah”) is more widely attested (e.g., 1QS V.20–24; VI.18; 4Q258 II.1–5). In such instances, the phrase refers to precisely quantifiable and measurable practices, which are mentioned in the context of purity regulations in 1QS V. An interpretation of “works of the law” as referring to cultic and purity regulations is also plausible in the context of Galatians 1–4 (Heil 1994), referring to circumcision and dietary commandments. Like Paul, Philo sees the meaning of the entire law contained in the “love commandment”: in Spec. 2.63 Philo refers to the double commandment as κεφάλαια (kephalaia, “head” commandments) employing Stoic argumentation (Niehoff 2018). Paul uses the same root in Rom 13:8−10: “All commandments are summed up (ἀνακεφαλαιοῦται, anakephalaioutai) in this word, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” Unlike Paul, Philo continues to adhere to the ritual purity regulations. Paul thus comes markedly close to the radical allegorizers’ interpretation of the law. The love commandment is central for him, while the “works of the law” are obsolete as legal regulations primarily concerned with ritual purity. An interpretation of the law focused on cultic and purity matters, such as he had formerly practiced as “a Pharisee according to the law” (Phil 3:5), now appears to him as “refuse” (Phil 3:8). However, a non-cultic interpretation of the Torah remains valid for Paul – for instance, in terms of the fulfillment of the salvation promised by God and “attested by the law and the prophets” (Rom 3:21), or as a fundamental ethical law in the form of the love commandment (see Rom 13:8 and Gal 5:14). While there was no explicit distinction between “ceremonial” and “moral” law at the time, such a distinction was nonetheless present in substance as is clearly evident in Philo’s distinction between natural moral law and the laws of the state, which are based on human statutes (Migr. 88–94). In the same way, the Let. Aris. 144–150 already called for understanding the dietary regulations of the Mosaic law in terms of their ethical symbolism. An increasing metaphorization of purity in the sense of a moral disposition is particularly observable in Hellenistic Judaism.

4. The Sayings Source and the Gospel of Matthew

Unlike Paul, the Sayings Source Q and the subsequent Gospel of Matthew still uphold the validity of purity regulations and circumcision. According to Q 16:17 (Matt 5:18 // Luke 16:17) “it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one iota or one serif of the law to fall” (quotation of Q: Robinson, Hoffmann, and Kloppenborg 2000). Thus, we have to assume that the Q community continued to observe not only the love commandment but also the ritual Torah and purity regulations. This passage is quoted in Matthew 5:18–20 (“not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law”), with reference in v. 19 to the “least of these commandments.” This is likely an allusion to the purity commandments, similar to Philo’s distinction between greater and lesser commandments in Migr. 94. For Philo, the greater commandments are the ethical ones based on natural law, whereas the lesser ones are human ordinances that encompass ritual and purity regulations. Is circumcision still binding in the Matthean community? A universal missionary mandate is issued in Matthew 28:19f., according to which Christians from the Nations (“Gentile Christians”) need not be circumcised. But as decided at the Apostolic Council, Jewish-Christian members of the Matthean community most probably continued to observe kashrut, the Sabbath, and the circumcision of their children, while Non-Jewish Christians only observed the law in the form of the love commandment (Strotmann and Tiwald 2016).

5. The Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke

Subsequently, also a new understanding of the Gospel of Mark has taken place: Mark 7:1–23 no longer is interpreted as an abrogation of Jewish law, but as an inner-Jewish discourse (Guttenberger 2017 and 2019, von Bendemann 2021a and b). Mark was therefore not a Gentile Christian unfamiliar with Judaism. Von Bendemann considers him to be a “Christ-believing Jew,” while Guttenberger sees him even as a Jewish “scribe” who handles biblical texts with scribal acumen. Even if the Markan Pharisees and “some of the scribes” (Mark 7:1) are clearly the main opponents of Jesus, there is also a scribe to whom Jesus attests, that he is “not far from the kingdom of God” (Mark 12:34; probably a self-portrait of Mark). Similarly, Luke, a third-generation Christian, seeks to counteract certain effects of a kind of hyper-Paulinism, misunderstanding Paul along lines that Marcion would soon follow. Luke insists that the Jewish law found its fulfillment in Jesus (Luke 2:22–24, 27, 39; 10:26; 16:17; 24:44). Acts extends this tendency further to the disciples of Jesus: Peter and John are devout in their observance of the temple cult (Acts 2:46; 3:1; 5:20f., 42), as Jesus and his parents had been (Luke 2:41, 42, 49; 19:46, 47; 21:37f.; 22:53) and as Paul was later (Acts 21:26; 22:17; 24:12, 18; 25:8). Luke thus draws a very Jewish portrait of “his” Paul. Paul consecrates himself in the Temple (Acts 21:21–26), thereby testifying (in Luke’s portrayal) that his Christian faith remains Torah observant (Acts 24:14; 25:8; 28:23). Luke deliberately and proactively counteracts the tendencies that soon thereafter show up “on the historical radar” in the Pastoral Epistles’ “forgetfulness of Israel” (Theobald 2016) and in the even more egregious anti-Jewish theology of Marcion and the (pseudepigraphic) Letters of Ignatius.

6. The Gospel of John

Finally, the fourth Gospel also emerged from a Jewish cultural matrix. The term Ἰουδαῖοι (Ioudaioi; “Jews”) is not only used negatively, but also in a positive way for Jesus himself (John 4:9a) and his sympathizers (John 3:1; 8:31; 11:45; 12:11; 19:38; cf. Frey 2013 and 2021, Zimmermann 2013). Nevertheless, the most polemical statement is 8:44, where the Ioudaioi are branded as “children of the devil.” Interestingly, the Gospel also refers to believers in Jesus who remained within the Jewish community, such as Joseph of Arimathea (John 19:38) and Nicodemus (John 3:1f.; 7:50–52; 19:39). Joseph is said to have been a disciple of Jesus in secret “because of his fear of the Jews” (John 19:38). Similarly, Nicodemus comes to Jesus only under the cover of night and does not dare to confess him openly (John 3:2; 7:52). In these figures, the fourth evangelist likely portrays certain contemporaries who, to his mind, are too hesitant in openly professing their discipleship to Jesus. Although the “parting of the ways” was clearly not yet fully realized at the time of the fourth Gospel’s writing, the author already seems to wish for a separation. Even if the polemic of the fourth Gospel does not follow a generalized pattern of anti-Judaism, its demonization and exclusion of “the Jews” nevertheless remains a deficient approach to identity formation.

7. Concluding Remarks

In the following centuries, the Church Fathers pressed on with the “parting of the ways” for reasons of ideology, although there were also parallel visions of a peaceful coexistence. Thus, Origen (died c. 254 CE) accuses “some” Christians of still continuing to observe the Jewish law (Or. Cels. 5:61); Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386 CE) in his 4th Mystagogic Catechesis (37) admonishes Christians not to indulge in Judaism by observing Sabbatical and purity laws; and John Chrysostom (d. 407 CE) has to admit that there are “many” Christians who participate in the Jewish feasts and customs (Chrys. Jud. 8.4.7) – which he strictly condemns. Finally, Jerome (d. 420 CE) declares in his 112th letter addressed to Augustine of Hippo that it is not possible to be a Jew and a Christian at the same time. These verdicts permit us, in contrast to the fierce polemics of these authors, to concede that there indeed were many Christians until the 5th century CE who still continued to practice Jewish customs, went to the synagogue, and observed Jewish purity laws. The “parting of the ways” of Jews and Christians did not occur at one place at a specific time but was a long process that took place at different locations at different times and for different reasons. For Christians today, the awareness of their Jewish roots forms an indispensable part of their identity and offers the possibility to reread the so-called “New Testament” against an early Jewish backdrop. It helps Christians to understand the “parting of the ways” as a history of guilt, marking the failure to uphold Jesus’s lofty ideal of integration.

References

Avemarie, Friedrich. “Jesus and Purity.” In Reimund Bieringer, Florentino García Martínez, Didier Pollefeyt, and Peter Tomson (eds), The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature (JSJS 136; Leiden: Brill 2010), pp. 255–79.

Bendemann, Reinhard von. “Das Markusevangelium als Herausforderung für die Theologie.” ZNT 47 (2021): 23–39.

Bendemann, Reinhard von. “Antagonismen im Markusevangelium.” In Stefan Alkier (ed.), Antagonismen in neutestamentlichen Schriften: Studien zur Neuformulierung der “Gegnerfrage” jenseits des Historismus (Beyond Historicism – New Testament Studies Today 1; Leiden: Brill, 2021), pp. 219–52.

Doering, Lutz. Schabbat: Sabbathalacha und -praxis im antiken Judentum und Urchristentum (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999).

Frey, Jörg. “‘John within Judaism?’ Textual, Historical, and Hermeneutical Considerations.” In Jens Schröter, Benjamin A. Edsall, and Joseph Verheyden (eds), Jews and Christians – Parting Ways in the First Two Centuries CE? Reflections on the Gains and Losses of a Model (BZNW 253; Berlin: de Gruyter 2021), pp. 185–215.

Frey, Jörg. “Die ‘Juden’ im Johannesevangelium und die Frage nach der ‘Trennung der Wege’ zwischen der johanneischen Gemeinde und der Synagoge.” In Juliane Schlegel (ed.), Die Herrlichkeit des Gekreuzigten: Studien zu den Johanneischen Schriften I (WUNT 307; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), pp. 339–77.

Guttenberger, Gudrun. “Markus als Schriftgelehrter.” In Geert van Oyen (ed.), Reading the Gospel of Mark in the Twenty-First Century: Method and Meaning (BETL 301; Leuven: Peeters, 2019), pp. 171–216.

Guttenberger, Gudrun. Das Markusevangelium (ZBK: NT 2; Zürich: TVZ, 2017).

Heil, Christoph. Die Ablehnung der Speisegebote durch Paulus: Zur Frage nach der Stellung des Apostels zum Gesetz (BBB 96; Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1994).

Konradt, Matthias. “Matthäus im Kontext”: Eine Bestandsaufnahme zur Frage des Verhältnisses der matthäischen Gemeinde(n) zum Judentum.” In Alida C. Euler (ed.), Studien zum Matthäusevangelium (WUNT 358; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), pp. 3–42.

Loader, William R.G. Jesus’ Attitude towards the Law: A Study of the Gospels (WUNT 2, 97; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997).

Maier, Johann. “Bausymbolik, Heiligtum und Gemeinde in den Qumrantexten.” In Andreas Vonach and Reinhard Messner (eds), Volk Gottes als Tempel (Synagoge und Kirchen 1; Vienna: LIT, 2008), pp. 49–106.

Merklein, Helmut. “Die Bedeutung des Kreuzestodes Christi für die paulinische Gerechtigkeits- und Gesetzesthematik.” In Helmut Merklein (ed.), Studien zu Jesus und Paulus (WUNT 43; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), pp. 1–106.

Niehoff, Maren. Philo of Alexandria: An Intellectual Biography (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018).

Robinson, James M., Paul Hoffmann, and John S. Kloppenborg. The Critical Edition of Q (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000).

Stemberger, Günter. “The birkat ha-minim and the Separation of Christians and Jews.” In Benjamin Isaac and Yuval Shahar (eds), Judaea-Palaestina, Babylon and Rome: Jews in Antiquity (TSAJ 147; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), pp. 75–88.

Stemberger, Günter. “Jabne und der Kanon.” JBTh 3 (1988), pp. 163–74.

Stökl Ben Ezra, Daniel. The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity: The Day of Atonement from Second Temple Judaism to the Fifth Century (WUNT 163; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003).

Strotmann, Angelika, and Markus Tiwald. “Das Matthäusevangelium – eine Paulus-Polemik? Überlegungen zum Toraverständnis des ersten Evangelisten.” In Martin Ebner, Gerd Häfner, and Konrad Huber (eds), Kontroverse Stimmen im Kanon (QD 279; Freiburg: Herder, 2016), pp. 64–106.

Theissen, Gerd. “Hellenisten und Hebräer (Apg 6,1–6): Gab es eine Spaltung der Urgemeinde?” In Hermann Lichtenberger (ed.), Geschichte – Tradition – Reflexion III (FS M. Hengel; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), pp. 323–43.

Theissen, Gerd, and Anette Merz. Der historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch (4th edn; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011).

Theobald, Michael. Israel-Vergessenheit in den Pastoralbriefen: Ein neuer Vorschlag zu ihrer historisch-theologischen Verortung im 2. Jahrhundert n. Chr. unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Ignatius-Briefe (SBS 229; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2016).

Tiwald, Markus. Early Judaism and the Beginnings of Christianity: Common Roots and the Parting of the Ways (trans. Jason Valdez; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2026).

Zimmermann, Ruben. “‘The Jews’: Unreliable Figures or Unreliable Narration?” In Steven A. Hunt, D. Francois Tolmie, and Ruben Zimmermann (eds), Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Approaches to Seventy Figures in John (WUNT 314; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), pp. 71–109.