- Becker, Adam H. and Reed, Annette Yoshiko, επιμ. The Ways That Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.
- Boyarin, Daniel. Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004.
- Dunn, James D. G. The Partings of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity. 2nd ed. London: SCM Press, 2006.
- Fredriksen, Paula. When Christians Were Jews: The First Generation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018.
- Kimelman, Reuven. “Birkat ha-Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an Anti-Christian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity.” Στο Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, τόμ. 2: Aspects of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman Period, επιμ. Sanders, E. P. με Baumgarten, Albert I. και Mendelson, Alan, 226–44. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981.
- Lieu, Judith M.. Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
- Nicklas, Tobias. “Parting of the Ways? Probleme eines Konzepts.” Στο Juden – Heiden – Christen? Religiöse Inklusionen und Exklusionen im Römischen Kleinasien bis Decius, επιμ. Stefan Alkier και Hartmut Leppin, 21–41. WUNT I/400. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018
- Carleton Paget, James. Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010.
- Zetterholm, Magnus. The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-Scientific Approach to the Separation between Judaism and Christianity. London: Routledge, 2003
One of the most lively discussions in New Testament scholarship over the past few decades concerns the so-called "parting of the ways" between Judaism and Christianity. The model proposed by James Dunn in 1991 — that the two communities were originally "sisters" stemming from the same root, the Israel of the 1st century CE, but later followed distinct paths — was quickly accepted as a useful analytical tool, particularly in anglophone scholarship. Over the years, however, the criticism directed at this model has been growing. Judith Lieu, Tobias Nicklas, and other New Testament scholars have pointed out that the binary framework this model presupposes (Christianity vs. Judaism) leaves out the plurality, the encounters, and the conflicts that the texts actually record. Consequently, the selection of a specific "moment of parting" is, at the very least, problematic.
It is within this context of productive critique that we should read the recent article by Markus Tiwald, Professor of New Testament at the University of Vienna, published on the website The Bible and Interpretation of the University of Arizona. The piece, which serves as an introduction to his new book (Early Judaism and the Beginnings of Christianity: Common Roots and the Parting of the Ways, Kohlhammer, 2026 — available in open access), formulates in a systematic and well-documented way a position that is gaining ever more ground in scholarship: that what we call "early Christianity" was, initially, nothing other than one more religious movement within the complex historical reality of Judaism in the Second Temple period.
Markus Tiwald, "The Beginnings of Christianity as an Integral Part of Early Judaism"
Tiwald's Position
Tiwald begins from three observations that now enjoy broad acceptance in scholarship. First, the so-called "Council of Yavneh" is not a historical event, and the birkat ha-minim (the prayer against the minim, the "heretics"/"apostates") was not a mechanism for the exclusion of Christians from the synagogue, as was previously assumed. Second, the title "Messiah" ("christos") was far more common in ancient Judaism than had been maintained until now — from Bar Kokhba, who proclaimed himself Messiah with the support of Rabbi Akiva, to the various prophet-leaders of apocalyptic groups mentioned by Josephus. Third, the divinity of Jesus was not formulated as dogma until the 4th century, at ecumenical councils. Before these, the titles "Son of God" and "Messiah" (which for Christians denoted the divinity of Jesus) were open concepts that could be understood in various ways — figuratively or literally — and therefore did not automatically place those who used them with reference to Jesus outside of Judaism.
Tiwald then moves through the sources, starting from the historical Jesus and reaching the Church Fathers of the 5th century. Each stage confirms the same thesis: the parting was a long-term process, took various forms, and usually consisted of a series of smaller separations, different in form, speed, and intensity from place to place. The "Judaizing" Christians mentioned in the texts did not disappear fully even by the 5th century — they appear in the work of Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, and Jerome. All of them confront this as a living reality, not as a theoretical threat.
Of particular interest in Tiwald's article is the discussion of Paul and the circle of Stephen. Tiwald points out that the use of the Temple and its worship as metaphorical images for the Christian church and its worship (the understanding, for instance, of the church as a "temple," or the replacement of sacrifices with "works of praise") was not a Christian innovation, but a tendency already observable in the Qumran community and in Philo. Likewise, the abstention from the regulations on circumcision and purity was not exclusively Paul's position; already the radical allegorizers whom Philo criticizes, or the authors of the Letter of Aristeas, constitute witnesses to such tendencies within Judaism itself.
The Case of Antioch on the Orontes: A Case Study
Tiwald's article provides a general theoretical framework, very important for understanding the relations between Christianity and Judaism in the first Christian centuries. It would be useful, however, to test this model against specific geographically and culturally defined examples. One such interesting case is Antioch on the Orontes. It is no coincidence, in fact, that it is frequently presented as the paradigmatic example of the parting by those who embrace the theory of the two ways. The city constituted a place of encounter and coexistence between a Jewish community — with civic equality that was maintained even after the destruction of the Temple — and a rising Christian community of diverse origins: Jewish Christians from Palestine, Syrian former gentiles, Jews of the Diaspora who had become Christians, former gentiles from Cyprus and Cyrene.
If we read the texts connected with Antioch following Tiwald's methodological proposal, interesting conclusions emerge. In Acts 15, the instructions given to the gentile Christians of Antioch resemble the corresponding discussions about kashrut and the regulations for the gerim — the non-Israelites, that is, who attached themselves to Israel at the time of its entry into the Land of Promise. It is difficult to speak of a "parting," when the instructions given to the community are the same as those of the Jewish tradition for the foreigners who enter into Israel.
The incident described by Paul in Gal. 2 — the tension between Paul and Peter in Antioch — is even more revealing. The emphasis here is not on the division between Jews and Christians but on the question internal to the Christian community: which Jewish practices should constitute a common element of Christian identity. The way Paul uses the terms "Judaism" and "to Judaize" does not denote an absolute categorical identity but rather a series of practices conforming to Jewish traditions that can admit of degrees. This understanding fits perfectly with the framework set by Tiwald, and particularly with the observation that the "works of the law" to which Paul refers concern mainly the regulations of ritual and purity.
Beyond Tiwald: Political and Economic Factors
The local dimension of the study of Jewish-Christian relations also brings to light a series of other non-theological factors to which Tiwald does not refer particularly in his article. It is possible, that is, that the parting of the ways is influenced or accelerated by the surrounding political situation or by local cultural particularities (in the case of Antioch, for example, the incident with the Jewish "apostate" Antiochus, or the anti-Jewish climate in the city). Taking into account political and cultural factors as well makes it clear that the parting was not exclusively a theological decision but also a matter of political balance and social survival.
In an analogous way, Ignatius of Antioch's reference to "Christianity" as an autonomous entity requires a more complex reading than the one usually given. Although his language points to a clear distinction between Judaism and Christianity, the images he employs — sacrifice, altar, the relationship between the Old Testament and the gospel as christological continuity, not rupture — show that Ignatius's stance should not be understood through the binary of "us vs. them," but has a more complex content.
Conclusion
Tiwald's article and of course his new book constitute worthy contributions to the discussion about the "parting of the ways," particularly in the German-speaking world, where this model is not yet fully accepted. The narrative of this parting, as proposed by Dunn and others, undoubtedly contributed to the establishment of a new paradigm and to the move away from the older model of "supersessionist theology." However, what must always remain clear is that this process was not as straightforward as it is often presented. Tiwald's article correctly points out that there is no single historical moment at which this parting took place definitively and irreversibly. Furthermore, it is now important to ask which markers of differentiation (common table / purity / circumcision / feasts / Scripture / institutions / rhetorical discourse) led to differentiation, and how this was achieved locally. The study of the sources demonstrates that this process was not so clean-cut everywhere: a community can differentiate institutionally while sharing practices; or it can sharpen its rhetoric while in practice continuing to live in "grey zones" of coexistence. Rhetoric can be strategic — and precisely for that reason it is historical evidence, but not a "photograph" of everyday life.
