Andrews University

From the SelectedWorks of Félix H. Cortez

October 14, 2022

Narratives in Conflict: The Emergence of

Available at: https://works.bepress.com/felix_cortez/328/

Félix H. Cortez

On July 8, 2019, in a conversation through email, Clifford Goldstein asked me, “are you

a Marrano? Is there any Marrano blood in you?” The question surprised me greatly. Marrano is a

Spanish word that means “pig.” Why would Clifford ask me whether I was a pig or had blood of

a pig in me! After thinking for a moment, I remembered that “Marranos” was the epithet used for

Spanish and Portuguese Jews who converted, or were forcibly converted, to Christianity but that

continued to practice Judaism in secrecy. Clifford, who is himself a Jew, was asking me whether

I had any Jewish blood. “There is no Jewish blood in me”—I answered a couple of hours later. “I

am a wild branch that was grafted into God’s people through the Messiah. I glory in the promises

made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, my forefathers, all of which are mine by grace.”

This paper explores the origins of the struggle between Rabbinic Judaism and

Christianity for the heritage of biblical Israel in the aftermath of momentous, age-defining

events—the ministry and death of Jesus in AD 31 and the destruction of the Jewish temple in AD

70. This struggle has led to the current state of affairs in which I, a person with no Jewish blood,

have claimed the heritage of the earliest ancestors of Clifford Goldstein. This paper seeks to go

as close as possible to the essence of the early Christian identity and its relationship with the

Second Temple Jewish identity. It suggests that the story of the rift between Jews and Christians

has important lessons for Seventh-day Adventists as they negotiate their identity in the context of

the dramatical social and historical changes of the new century, and in the prelude of what

Adventist believe will be the last age-defining event.

The structure of the paper is simple. I will explore first the main aspects of the identity of

1
the Jews in the Second Temple period. Then, I will explore the main aspects of the identity of

early Christians and its relationship with Second Temple Judaism.1 I will conclude with a brief

reflection on the lessons the breach between Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism might offer

Seventh-day Adventists today.

Who Is a Jew?

The term “Jew” was ambiguous in the Second Temple period—and continues to be in the

present. It was—and is—both an ethnic and a religious term.2 Thus, you were a Jew if you were

born of a Jewish mother.3 Nevertheless, you could become a Jew if you converted to the Israelite

faith.4 Conversion had four requirements: acceptance of the Torah, circumcision for males,

1
It is difficult to establish clear boundaries of time in history. Second Temple Judaism refers roughly to the
time of the existence of the second temple, which was built by Zerubbabel and expanded and beautified by Herod
the Great (536 BCE–70 CE). Even when the second Jewish temple was destroyed in 70 CE, the temple continued to
be a fundamental factor for Jewish worldview and identity in the time between its destruction and its attempted
restoration through Bar Kosiba’s revolt (132–135 CE). Scholars also refer to the greater part of the Second Temple
period as Early Judaism, which goes from 330 BCE (Alexander the Great’s conquest of Palestine) to 130 CE
(Roman Emperor Hadrian; see G. W. Nickelsburg and Robert A. Kraft, “Introduction: The Modern Study of Early
Judaism,” in Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters, ed. Robert A. Kraft and George W. E. Nickelsburg, BMI 2
[Atlanta: Fortress; Scholars, 1986], 1–2).
The general formative period of Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity is enclosed by two great revolts: the
Hasmonean (or Maccabean) revolt against the Seleucids in the second century BCE (ca. 167 BCE) and the second
Jewish revolt against the Romans led by Simon bar Kosiba (or Bar Kokhba) in the second century CE (ca. 132–135
CE). The most critical context for the creation of the Rabbinic Jewish and Christian identities is probably the period
of the Roman occupation of Palestine that goes from the conquest of Jerusalem by Pompey (63 BCE) to the outbreak
of the first Jewish revolt against Rome (66 CE).
2
Jason A. Staples, The Idea of Israel in Second Temple Judaism: A New Theory of People, Exile, and
Israelite Identity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021), 11–19 (18). For a discussion of how ethnicity and
religion related to the concept of “Jewishness” in ancient Judaism, see David M. Miller, “Ethnicity, Religion, and
the Meaning of Ioudaios in Ancient ‘Judaism,’” CurBR 12/2 (2014): 216–265.
3
m. Qidd. 3:12; t. Qidd. 4:16. If the father was a Jew and the mother was a gentile, the children were not
considered to be Jews. Once Jewishness was determined, the status of the child was determined through the lineage
of the father (e.g., to determine eligibility to serve as a priest or a Levite, or whom he or she could marry). See
discussion in Lawrence H. Schiffman, Who Was a Jew? Rabbinic and Halakhic Perspectives on the Jewish
Christian Schism (Hoboken, NJ: KTAV, 1985), 9–17. Thus, Timothy was a Jew even if his father was Greek (Acts
16:1–3). Josephus considers Herod the Great a half-jew (hēmiioudaios, Ant. 14.403; m. Sotah 7:8). Antigonus, his
father, was a Jew (he descended from Idumeans that were compelled to convert to Judaism by John Hyrcanus;
Josephus, Ant. 13.257–8; 14.8–9), but his mother was Cypros, who came from a Nabatean noble family (Josephus,
Ant. 14.121; War 1.181).
4
See discussion in Schiffman, Who Was a Jew?, 19–39.

2
immersion, and offering a sacrifice (when the temple had not been destroyed).5 Conversion to

Judaism was permanent. It could not be canceled, even for the worst offenses.6 Persons who

believed or taught dissenting doctrines were minim,7 heretics, and forfeited their portion in the

world to come, but they were still Jews (m. Sanh. 10:1; b. Sanh. 90A). Those who transgressed

the standards of Jewish conduct were meshummadim, apostates, but they remained Jews (t. Sanh.

13:5; b. Hor. 11A).8

A Jew, however, was not the same as an Israelite.9 The term “Israel” is the name God

gave Jacob after he struggled with the angel (Gen 32:28; 35:10) and later identified the nation

that descended from him.10 After the split of the nation at the end of Solomon’s reign, “Israel”

referred to the northern kingdom—the ten tribes that separated from the Davidic kings.11 The

Assyrians exiled the northern kingdom in 722 BCE and the Babylonians exiled the southern

kingdom, beginning in 605 BCE. When the Persians allowed those who had been exiled by

Babylon to return to their land, only a portion of the southern kingdom came back to the land of

Israel. This people were called “Jews” (Ioudaios) because, as Josephus explains, the tribe of

Judah was the main tribe to return:

From the time they went up from Babylon they were called by this name [Ioudaios] after the
tribe of Judah. As the tribe was the prominent one to come from those parts, both the people
themselves and the country have taken their name from it (Ant. 11.173).12

5
Sifre Be-Midbar 108; b. Yebam. 47A–B; Schiffman, Who Was a Jew?, 19–21.
6
Schiffman, Who Was a Jew?, 51, also 41–49.
7
Minim literally means, “kinds.” Those who, according to the Rabbis, did not have legitimate views or
practices were called “kinds” (minim) of Jews.
8
A meshummad is literally, “one who has been destroyed.”
9
Jason A. Staples has shown convincingly that the commonly accepted idea that the terms “Israel” and “the
Jews” were synonymous in antiquity is wrong, despite going often unquestioned (The idea of Israel, chap. 1 “Jews
and Israelites in Antiquity”).
10
Gen 26:28; Exod 2:16; 3:18; 4:22, etc. The nation is also known as the children of Israel (e.g., Gen
36:31; 46:8; 50:25; Exod 1:1, 7, 9, etc.).
11
1 Kings 12; 14:7–18; etc. Also Josephus, Ant. 7.103; 8.224, 286, 298, 306, 311, 314.
12
Translation from Staples, The Idea of Israel, 45. The translation takes prōtos as meaning “the most
important” rather than “first” (temporal sense). Descendants from the tribe of Judah were not the “first” to return but

3
Josephus also explained that the great majority of the northern kingdom, Israel, remained in the

land of their exile:

But the whole people of Israel remained in that land; so it came about that only two tribes
came to Asia and Europe and are subject to the Romans. But the ten tribes are beyond
Euphrates until now and are a boundless multitude, not to be estimated by numbers (Ant.
11.132–133; cf. 10.183–185).

The Jews, then, are not Israel but a subset of it. After the exile of the tribes of the north, Israel

became a term with theological and eschatological implications, referring to or implying the

future reconstituted people of Israel, the twelve tribes that God would gather from the lands of

their exile.13 Therefore, those who returned from the exile in Babylon to the land of Israel did not

claim themselves to be Israel. They called themselves Jews and continued to hope for the

eschatological restoration of Israel.14

Second Temple Jewish Theology

What were the distinctive characteristics of the Jewish identity? The literary evidence we

have from the first century CE and before shows that Second Temple Judaism was diverse in

terms of belief and practice.15 It is possible to identify, however, a foundational core of belief

the most prominent or important tribe to return from exile. Descendants from the tribes of Levi and Benjamin also
returned (Ezra 1:5; 4:1; 10:9; 11:4; Neh 11:4, 7, 31, 36).
13
E.g., Deut 30:1–3,6–8; Isa 11:11–16; Eze 37. Israel, then, being essentially an eschatological term,
became a disputed notion. For example, two inscriptions of Delos (second or third century BCE) identify the
Samaritans as Israelites when it refers to “the Israelites in Delos who make offerings to holy Argarizim” (Staples,
The Idea of Israel, 60 n. 18). Josephus also recognized that the Samaritans claimed to be Hebrews, a term which is
coterminous with Israel, but emphasizes the language spoken by the nation (Hebrew/Aramaic). The Samaritans
denied, however, to be Jews. Note as well that, most likely, many of the members of the tribe of the north survived
the Assyrian deportations and remained in the land along with indigenous non-Israelite inhabitants and peoples
brought from outside. Eventually these peoples must have mixed to produce the Samaritans. The evidence of the
material culture suggests that the majority were Israelites who continued to worship Yahweh (Staples, The Idea of
Israel, 58–66).
14
See Staples, The Idea of Israel, chaps. 3–11.
15
The literary evidence includes the Dead Sea scrolls discovered in 1946 or 1947, the intertestamental
Jewish literature (apocrypha and pseudepigrapha), Philo, and Josephus. For studies on the beliefs and practice of
Judaism during this period, see James D. G. Dunn, The Parting of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and
their Significance for the Character of Christianity (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity, 1991); Jacob Neusner,

4
that all strands of Judaism shared, even if they expressed that core in different ways.16

God is One. The first fundamental Jewish belief was that there is only one God. Jews

were taught to recite the Shema twice a day17: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is

one” (Deut 6:4; cf. Isa 44:9–20; 45:20–25).18 Josephus says that the notion that there is one God

was common to all the Hebrews (Ant. 5.112). Philo concluded his exposition on the first

commandment by describing it the “most sacred of commandments”:

Let us, then, engrave deep in our hearts this as the first and most sacred of commandments, to
acknowledge and honour one God who is above all, and let the idea that gods are many never
even reach the ears of the man whose rule of life is to seek for truth in purity and goodness
(Decalogue 65).19

Cultured Hellenists in the Greco-Roman world were syncretistic monotheists in the sense

that they considered the gods of the many religions the manifestation of one and the same divine

being. Jews sometimes protected themselves legally by adopting that notion, that the God they

worshiped was the same God that the pagans worshiped but with a different name (e.g., Let.

Aris. 16). Jews were in fact, however, exclusive monotheists because they did not recognize any

other god.20 For this reason gentiles often accused them of being atheists.21 Later, rabbinic

Judaism considered blasphemy—whatever violated the majesty of God—the fundamental sin

and the most serious crime and called whoever negated the belief in one God kofer ba-‘Iqqar,

“one who denies the primary principle of faith.”22

Israel as the Chosen People. A second fundamental belief of Second Temple Jews was

Judaism When Christianity Began: A Survey of Belief and Practice (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002); and
E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice & Belief 63 BCE–66 CE (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity, 1992).
16
m. Ber. 1:12; Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, trans. Israel Abrahams
(London: VardaBooks, 2006), 19 (kindle edition, ch. 2, “The Belief in One God”).
17
Deut 6:7; m. Tamid 5:1; m. Ber. 1:1–2; Urbach, The Sages, 19.
18
The quotations of Scripture will be from the ESV translation, unless noted otherwise.
19
See also Judith 8:18; Sib. Or. 3.629; Wis 11–15 (esp. 11:15; 12:13; 13:10–15:19); Let. Aris. 132–137
20
Urbach, The Sages, 21.
21
Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.148; Mart. Pol. 3:2; Justin, 1 Apol. 13.1.
22
Beyer, “βλασφημία,” TDNT 1:622; Dunn, The Parting of the Ways, 21; Urbach, The Sages, 26.

5
that God had elected Israel as His own people and had bound himself to them by a covenant.23

Psalms of Solomon 9:8–10, produced before the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, put it this

way:

And now, you are God and we are the people whom you have loved; look and be
compassionate, O God of Israel, for we are yours, and do not take away your mercy from us,
lest they set upon us. For you chose the descendants of Abraham above all the nations, and
you put your name upon us, Lord, and it will not cease forever. You made a covenant with
our ancestors concerning us, and we hope in you when we turn our souls toward you (OTP
2:661).

This belief is found throughout the different types of Jewish Literature.24 God’s election

of Israel and his covenant with them provided the basis for the continued hope of restoration

after the exile. The Eighteen Benedictions (Shemoneh ‘Esreh), an early version of which was

prayed three times a day, addressed God as “the God of our fathers, the God of Abraham, the

God of Isaac, the God Jacob,” in the first benediction, and requested God “gather us together

from the four corners of the earth,” in the tenth benediction. The last benediction closed with the

request, “Great salvation bring over Israel Thy people for ever.”25

The Centrality of the Law. A third foundational belief was the central role of the Torah

for the life and the institutions of the Jewish people. The Torah provided the constitution of the

nation and the foundation for all its institutions, including its political parties. Deuteronomy

made clear that the Torah was central to the covenant between God and the nation and devoted

chapters 5–26 to restate and adapt the laws of Sinai to the new life of Israel in the land. The Jews

understood their relationship with God as consisting of a covenantal nomism in which their

obedience to the law of Moses was their response to God’s choice of Israel as his people. The

23
Gen 12:1–3; 15:2–21; 17:1–8; Exod 19:3–6; Deut 7:1–8.
24
Deut 32:9; 1 Kings 8:51, 53; 2 Kings 21:14; Pss 33:12; 74:2; Isa 63:17; Jer 10:16; Micha 7:18; Judith
13:5; Sir 24:8, 12; Jub. 1:19–21; 22:9–10, 15; 33:20; 3 Macc 6:3; 2 Bar. 5:1; Dunn, The Parting of the Ways, 286 n.
21.
25
Text taken from Emil Shürer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 2003), 2.2.85–87.

6
Jews obeyed the law not in order to enter into a relationship with God but in order to maintain

and manifest their status as God’s people.26 Alan F. Segal considers that the Torah was “the root

metaphor of Israelite society.”27

This understanding of the central role of the law in their covenant with God and in their

status as God’s chosen people had important consequences. The law became an expression of the

distinctiveness of the Jewish nation as God’s people and served as a boundary separating them

from other nations. This reaction is understandable in the context some of the instructions of God

to Israel to keep themselves separate from other nations. For example, after reminding them to

distinguish between clean and unclean animals, God instructed Israel: “You shall be holy to me,

for I the LORD am holy and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine” (Lev

20:26).28 Second Temple Judaism, in its effort to avoid the idolatry and unfaithfulness that

caused their exile, emphasized the importance of separation. Jubilees 22:16 said: “Separate

yourself from the gentiles, and do not eat with them, and do not perform deeds like theirs. And

do not become associate of theirs. Because their deeds are defiled, and all of their ways are

contaminated, and despicable, and abominable” (OTP 2:98). Similarly, the Letter of Aristeas

conceived the law as a means of separation from other nations: “In his wisdom the legislator …

surrounded us with unbroken palisades and iron walls to prevent our mixing with any of the

other peoples in any matter, being thus kept pure in body and soul, preserved from false beliefs,

and worshiping the only God omnipotent over all creation. …So, to prevent our being perverted

by contact with others or by mixing with bad influences, he hedged us in on all sides with strict

26
Dunn, The Parting of the Ways, 24. This view of the function of the law in the life of the people and their
relationship to the covenant was introduced by E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism. See Sir 17:11–17; Jub.
1:4–5; 2:21; 6:4–16; 22:15–16; 23:19; CD I, 13–II, 1; III, 7–16; 1QS I, 7–13; V, 1–3; LAB (Pseudo-Philo) 9:7–8;
23:10–11; 30:2; 35:2–3; Pss. Sol. 10:4.
27
Alan F. Segal, Rebecca’s Children: Judaism and Christianity in the Roman World (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1986), 38.
28
See also Eze 44:9; Joel 3:17; cf. Pss. Sol 17:28.

7
observances connected with meat and drink and touch and hearing and sight, after the manner of

the law” (Let. Aris. 139, 142 [OTP 2:22]). Another consequence was a sense of privilege, in the

sense of being the nation chosen by God and favored with knowledge and possession of the law

(Rom 9:4–5; Deut 4:32–40).29 Thus, Baruch noted that God “discovered the whole way of

knowledge” and gave it to Israel whom he loved (Bar 3:37). This knowledge is incarnated in “the

book of the decrees of God and the law that remains forever” (Bar 4:1). Thus, Baruch exhorts the

nation to “seize” this knowledge: “Do not give your glory to another and your benefits to a

foreign nation. Happy are we, O Israel, because what is pleasing to God is known to us” (Bar

4:3–4).30

The Temple. The last foundational belief was the role of the temple as the center of the

national and religious life of the Jews. Dunn has noted that “Judea was technically a temple state

or temple land. That is to say, the Jerusalem Temple provided the rationale for Judaea’s

existence as a separate entity within the Hellenistic and Roman empires. According to the same

rationale, the territory attached to the Temple was the amount of land needed to provide the

resources (wood, animals for sacrifice, etc.) for the temple cult.”31 Also, since Israel was a

religious state, the religious laws that regulated the operation of the temple and its role in the life

of the nation was also the state and civil law. The political centrality of the temple explains the

political power of the high priests during this time. The Hasmoneans merged the royal authority

with the authority of the priests and Herod would have continued this practice had he not been

disqualified from being a high priest.32 The temple had central economic importance. Since

Jerusalem was not a port and was not located near an important river or a trading route, the

29
Dunn, The Parting of the Ways, 27.
30
See also 4 Ezra 3:19; 9:31.
31
Dunn, The Parting of the Ways, 31.
32
Dunn, The Parting of the Ways, 32.

8
temple was by far the main source of income for Jerusalem. The temple was the only reason that

the great majority of Jews visited Jerusalem. In addition, every Jewish male of twenty years or

older, including those in the diaspora, paid the half-shekel tax annually to the temple.33 In

addition, the law instructed every Jew to spend a tenth of the produce (grain, wine, oil) in the

annual feasts (Deut 12:17–19; 14:22–289; 26:12–15). Fourth Maccabees mentions that the

temple treasury stored also private fortunes (4:3). It is not difficult to think that the large

platform and the porticos that Herod built around the temple functioned as well as a trading

center and marketplace. Above all, the temple was the religious center of Israel. It was the place

where God had chosen for his name to dwell, the place of God’s throne (Deut 12:11; 1 Kings

9:3; Ps 87:1–4; Isa 49:14–16; Eze 43:6–7; Sir 36:18). It was the place where God would gather

his children from all over the earth (1 Kings 8:48; Neh 1:9). It was the place where the priestly

mediation and the sacrifices, that is, all the means for atonement, were located. According to the

prophets, Jerusalem would also be the religious center for all the earth (Isa 2:1–4). In the

thinking of Second Temple Judaism, Jerusalem was the navel, or the middle, of the earth (Jub.

8:19; cf. Sib. Or. 5:248–250). Since there is only one God, there is only one temple (Josephus,

Ag. Ap. 2.193).34 Thus, Philo noted that Jewish “zeal for their holy temple is the most

predominant, and vehement, and universal feeling throughout the whole nation” (Embassy 210).

Second Temple Judaism: Political Stances and Practices

The core theological convictions of Second Temple Judaism, however, when faced with

the diverse social, political, cultural, and geographical conditions where Jews lived produced

33
Matt 17:24; Josephus, Ant. 18.312–313; J.W. 7.218; m. Sheqalim; Shürer, A History of the Jewish
People, 2.1.249–251.
34
See also Neusner, Judaism, 135–139.

9
diverse behaviors and stances. Thus, it is possible to speak of a unified Second Temple Judaism

only in the abstract and from a great distance. As we look more closely, we will recognize that

there was not one but many Judaisms.35

Josephus identified four main parties, or “philosophies,” within Judaism during the 50s

and 60s of the first century CE.36 These parties formed as a reaction to cultural, theological, and

political issues that were central to the Hasmonean revolt.37 First, how should Jews relate to the

Hellenistic culture? The extreme Hellenization view that advocated for sacrifices to foreign gods,

disregard of dietary laws, and concealing of circumcision marks was defeated during the revolt,

but questions about the introduction of Hellenistic institutions (for example, the games) and the

appropriate extent of social interaction between Jews and gentiles continued to be debated.

Second, how should the law of Moses be interpreted? After the triumph of the Hasmonean

revolt, it was clear that Jews, at least in Palestine, would live according to the Mosaic law. The

specific details of how that law should be interpreted, however, was debated during this period.

Third, who should be the high priest? This issue was probably the most significant. People

probably cared about the views of the high priest on the law of Moses and on the relationship

towards Hellenism, but the issue of the lineage of the high priest seemed to have had special

importance. In fact, some people thought that the lineage of the high priest—whether he was a

descendant of Zadok as expected in Ezekiel (48:11)—was even more important than his views (1

Macc 7:12–16).38

During the Second Temple period, rival sanctuaries were established where Zadokite

35
Neusner, Judaism, 4–13.
36
Josephus, J.W. 2.119–66; Ant. 18.11–25; cf. 13:171–172, 297.
37
See Sanders, Judaism, 19–29.
38
Joachim Jeremias has note that, “of the last twenty-eight Jewish high priests who were in office from 37
BC to AD 70, only the first and the last belonged … to a legitimate family” (Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus,
[Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969], 193).

10
priests officiated. Manasses, brother of the high priest Jaddus, built a sanctuary in Samaria in 332

BCE. Around 180 BCE, a certain Hyrcanos possibly established a temple across the Jordan in

Araq-el-Emir. During the decade of the 170 or the 160, a Zadokite established a temple in

Leontopolis, Egypt. Finally, who should exercise military control over the nation? If the nation

was free, should the high priest rule as a king and exercise control over the army? If the nation

was under the dominion of a foreign power, how should Israel relate to that foreign power?

Some recommended cooperation with foreign powers, while others promoted varying degrees of

resistance.

Second Temple Judaism was very diverse in its response to the issues just mentioned.

Three main parties, not completely unified, formed soon after the Maccabean revolt and a fourth

party formed towards the end of the Second Temple period, relatively close to the destruction of

the temple in 70 CE. First, the Sadducee party, which was composed of aristocrats, including

aristocratic priests some of whom may have been descendants of Zadok. They followed the

biblical law but did not accept the Pharisaic interpretations. They denied the resurrection and

considered cooperation as the best stance toward Rome. This party was more relaxed in its

relationship to Hellenism and the gentiles and supported the Hasmoneans as rulers (when Judea

was independent) or as priests (when Judea was under Rome’s dominion) despite the fact that the

Hasmoneans were not descendants of Zadok. Second, the Pharisee party, which was composed

by priests and laity. They were keen interpreters of the law, rigorous in its observance, and

believed in the resurrection. It is not clear what their stance toward Rome was. They were critical

of the Hasmonean assumption of the priesthood but were more or less satisfied to live under their

leadership. The Essenes was the third party. This group was composed by lay people and priests

(some of them of the line of Zadok) and had stricter views on purity and the law and had a higher

11
degree of separation from society. They rejected the Hasmonean leadership of the temple and

believed the house of Zadok should rule the nation. One of the branches was the Dead Sea Sect,

a monastic group that lived in a remote area in the desert and produced the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Josephus refers to a fourth party, or “philosophy,” which mostly agreed with the Pharisees in

opinion, but would not submit to any ruler except God.39 Many scholars have identified this

group as the Zealots.40 Christianity arose as another group within Judaism close to the end of this

period and grew significantly in Palestine and the diaspora (Acts 21:20). Christianity was a

diverse movement with different views on the issues that affected Second Temple Judaism.

There was a tendency, however, towards a rejection of the laws of ritual purity and a closer

relationship to gentiles (e.g., Mark 7:1–23; Acts 15; Gal 2; but see Acts 21:20–26). Christians

promoted submission to any earthly authority, Jewish or Gentile, as having been established by

God (Rom 13) unless it interfered with their obedience to God (Acts 5:29). Christians rejected

both the Hasmonean and the Zadokite priesthood and any earthly temple and service and

accepted Jesus as their high priest, the heavenly temple as the place for atonement, and the death

of Jesus on the cross as a sufficient sacrifice for all time for all the sins of the world (Hebrews 8–

10).

After the destruction of the temple in 70 CE and the defeat of the Second Jewish Revolt

in 130 CE, Judaism underwent a process of transformation in which only two parties survive:

Rabbinic Judaism (heir to the pharisees) and Christianity. Both Judaism and Christianity

consider themselves the inheritors of the promises given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but they

have interpreted and preserved that inheritance in different ways.41

39
Josephus, Ant. 18.1.1–6 (23); J.W. 2.8.1 (118).
40
Gareth Lee Cockerill, “Judas (Person)” ABD 3:1090–1091.
41
Segal, Rebecca’s Children, 179.

12
Second Temple Judaism Worldview

The single most important distinctive characteristic of Second Temple Judaism that

included all the different varieties of Judaisms in the Second Temple period was its worldview.

A worldview is a basic set of beliefs that helps people find their bearings in the world, the

organizing principle of life. This set of beliefs helps individuals orient their thinking and find

answers to the puzzling problems they face.42 A worldview is formed by the answers a group of

people give to the following questions: Who are we? Where are we? What is wrong? What is the

solution (or how do we solve our problem)? What time is it? Why?43 A worldview is the product

of a metanarrative, an overarching account of the events and circumstances that have made a

group of people what they are.44 Understanding the worldview of Second Temple Judaism is

essential, lest we run the risk of misreading—and, therefore, misinterpreting—it.

We might begin by noting that the Hebrew Bible, the sacred Scriptures that gave Second

Temple Judaism the overarching account of their origins, the reasons for their present situation,

and their future direction, was a collection of writings gathered by Jews, for Jews, about Israel.

In other words, “to explain its past, the people of Judah tell the story of Israel, only making sure

that we know Judah was one part of a larger group.”45 The Hebrew Scriptures suggests, then, that

what the Jewish people should long and strive for is not the triumph of Judea, but the gathering

and triumph of Israel of which the Jewish people is only a part. The gathering of all Israel is the

42
See commentary on Hebrews p. 112.
43
For example, for an analysis of the significance of understanding the worldview of Paul, see N. T.
Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 22–68.
44
For a description of how metanarratives shape humanity and examples of modern metanarratives, see
Christian Smith, Moral Believing Animals: Human Personhood and Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2003), 63–94.
45
Daniel E. Fleming, Legacy of Israel in Judah’s Bible: History, Politics, and the Reinscribing of Tradition
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), xii; quoted in Staples, The Idea of Israel, 89.

13
persistent hope of the prophets.46 Thus, the biblical narrative positions Israel in the implied

context of exile and dispersion—even in their own land, because of their unfaithfulness to the

covenant, and awaiting reconciliation and return.47 The eschatological restoration of Israel would

include several aspects: the gathering of the twelve tribes from the land of their dispersion, the

subjugation or conversion of the nations, the purification of the temple and Jerusalem, and the

transformation of Israel into a pure and righteous people.48 This metanarrative of covenant and

restoration eschatology functioned in Second Temple Judaism as an organizing principle that

arranged and structured into a coherent whole the theological views of Israel about the one God

who is supreme over the world, the choice of Israel as the people of God, the covenant and the

law as the governing principle for the relationship between Israel and God, and the temple as the

hub of Israel’s life and aspirations.49 Second Temple Judaism was not uniform in their

interpretation of this Hebrew Bible metanarrative; yet, the covenant and a restoration

eschatology provided the “central grammar of discourse” that was “shared across the various

forms of Judaism in this period.”50 Jason A. Staples notes: “Despite the tremendous diversity in

early Judaism both in theology and practice, there remains no known Judaism in this period—

apocalyptic, wisdom, or any other form—outside a covenantal framework.”51 This covenantal

46
E.g., E.g., Deut 30:1–3,6–8; Isa 11:11–16; Eze 37.
47
The situation of Israel reflects and actualizes the story of humanity as exiled from Eden and dispersed,
awaiting reconciliation. Thus, Hos 6:7 compares Israel’s unfaithfulness with the unfaithfulness of Adam, or
humanity (v. 11a includes Judah’s unfaithfulness as well). Gen. Rab. 19.9.1–2 provides an extended comparison
between the story of Adam and the loss of Eden to the story of Israel and their exile from the land. The amount of
space that the story of Joseph’s exile and captivity in Egypt and its eventual reunion with his brothers suggests that it
was a powerful symbolism for the gathering of the tribes of Israel from their exile and dispersion, Staples, The Idea
of Israel, 91.
48
References to the four aspects of Israel’s restoration can be found in Isa 49:6; 54:12; 60:6, 12, 21. For
references in Second Temple Literature, see Sanders, Judaism, 291–298.
49
Restoration eschatology is a term coined by E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1985), 61–119.
50
Staples, The Idea of Israel, 96. See also James M. Scott, ed., Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and
Christian Perspectives, JSJSup 72, (Leiden: Brill 2001).
51
Staples, The Idea of Israel, 97.

14
framework both explained the exile and the dispersion and gave firm hope for restoration.

Similarly, Jacob Neusner notes that as a matter of fact all the various “Judaisms” that existed in

the Second Temple period recapitulated “a single experience, the experience of exile and

return.”52 There is in his view, then, a “formative Judaism” that tied together on the basis of the

“generative myth” of exile and return all the Judaisms of this period.53

Who Is a Christian?

Christianity was born in the womb of Second Temple Judaism in the four decades before

the destruction of the temple. According to Luke, the first designation Christians used for their

own movement was “the Way” (Acts 9:2),54 either referring to their movement as the right path

to God or the correct way of life. The expression does not put an emphasis on the theology of the

new movement but on its practice, the way of life of its members. The name was not an original

expression.55 The Qumran community also referred to themselves as “the Way” (1QS IX, 17–

21). They had retired to the desert to live a life of obedience to the law in order to prepare the

way of the Lord and the restoration of Israel (cf. Isa 40:3). The concept was also similar to the

idea expressed by the Hebrew noun halakah, from the Hebrew root halak (“to walk”), which

carries the sense of manner of conduct or life and is usually translated as “law.” The Halakah

refers to the manner of life that is aligned to the cosmic and social order God designed, which is

the duty of every Jew to ascertain and follow.56 The self–designation suggests that Christians did

not understand themselves to be a new religion, but a better expression of the theological

52
Neusner, Judaism, 57.
53
See references in Staples, The Idea of Israel, 97 nn. 42–46.
54
Acts 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:22; possibly 16:17; 18:25–26; 24:14.
55
E.g., Jub. 20:2; 23:20–21; 1 En. 82:4; CD I, 11–16; 1QS IX, 17–21; X, 21; Did. 1:2; 4:14; 5:1; 1 Clem.
35:5; 36:1; Barn. 1:4; 5:4; 11:7; 19:1–2, 12; 20:1.
56
Gary G. Porton, “Halakah,” ABD 3:26.

15
convictions of Israel.57 Outsiders also perceived Christians as a Jewish party. Tertullus, the

spokesman of the Jewish hierarchy in the trial of Paul before Felix, refers to them as a hairesis,

which is the term Josephus used to refer to the parties of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the

Essenes (Acts 24:14; cf. 24:5; 28:22).58 According to Luke, the followers of Christ were called

for the first time Christians in Antioch around the year 43 CE (Acts 11:26). This was probably an

official or juridical designation of the followers of Christ by Roman officials in Antioch.59

Χριστιανός is a Latinism. The ending -ιανός is a Grecized form of the Latin -ianus. This

formation is normally used to derive from a proper name or title a designation for “the followers,

supporters, adherents, or partisans of a person, as in Brutianus, Augustianus, Caesarianus, and so

on.”60 Christianity, then, emerged in Palestine as another Jewish party, a Jewish movement.

Jesus, the founder, and his twelve apostles were Jews. The gospels identified Jesus’s movement

as the fulfillment of the promises and prophecies made by God through the prophets in the

Hebrew Scriptures to the Israelite nation;61 therefore, the Hebrew Scriptures became an essential

part of the Christian Scriptures. The other part of the Christian Scriptures, the New Testament,

was written by Jews—with perhaps one exception.62

Christian Theological Convictions and Stances in

A close view of Christian theological convictions will show that Christianity fell within

57
E.g., Luke 24:25–27; Acts 1:6–7; 2:39; 3:12–26; Acts 7:2–53; 13:16–42.
58
Josephus, Ant. 13.171, 293; 15.6
59
Note the use of the term χρηματίζω “to refer to official or juridical designation rather than to informal
naming” (David G. Horrell, “The Label χριστιανός: 1 Peter 4:16 and the Formation of Christian Identity,” JBL 126/2
[2007]: 361–381).
60
Or Herodians (Matt 22:16; Mark 3:6; 12:13), Horrell, “The Label χριστιανός,” 362.
61
E.g., Matt 5:17; 11:10; Mark 1:16–18 (cf., vv. 1–3); Luke 4:17–21; 24:25–27, 44–45; John 2:22; 17:12;
19:28.
62
Paul does not include Luke in the list of his Jewish co-workers in Col 4:10–14.

16
the spectrum of beliefs of Second Temple Judaism.

The temple. During his judgment before the Sanhedrin, Jesus was accused of speaking

against the temple—the fourth pilar of Second Temple Judaism: “We heard him say, ‘I will

destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with

hands’” (Mark 14:58; cf. Matt 26:61). The accusation refers to Jesus describing the temple as

“made with hands,” which would suggest that the temple had an idolatrous status.63 The gospels

mention that Jesus cleansed the temple and predicted that the temple would be destroyed, but do

not mention that Jesus threatened to destroy the temple.64 It is likely, however, that Jesus

predicted that he would build the temple or something close to that effect, since the Hebrew

Bible—and Second Temple literature—predicted that the Messiah would build the temple of

God in the future (Zech 6:12).65 Note, however, that Jesus’s words do not mean the elimination

of the temple but its reformation. Jesus, according to the words of his accusers in Mark’s gospel,

promised a new temple “not made with hands,” that is, not marred by idolatry. There was a

challenge to the temple in Jesus’s ministry, however. Jesus offered forgiveness to sinners without

the authorization of the temple authorities and without reference to the temple cult (sacrifices).66

Again, this challenge did not necessarily mean the elimination of the temple and its cult, but

probably implied the advent of a better priesthood and a better sacrifice. Similarly, Jesus’

cleansing of the temple did not function as a symbolical act of destruction, but as expressing the

rejection of the temple in its current impure state and the need of purification before Israel could

be restored. The gospels, then, do not describe Jesus as seeking the destruction of the temple, but

63
The LXX often refers to idols as “made with hands” (Lev 26:1; Isa 2:18; 10:11; 19:1; Dan 5:4, 23; 6:28).
64
Cleansing of the temple: Matt 21:12–23; Mark 11:15; Luke 19:45; John 2:14–15. Prediction of the
temple destruction: Matt 24; Mark 13; Luke 21; cf. John 2:19–21.
65
Also, Tg. Zech 6:12 and an Aramaic paraphrase of Isa 53:5 (Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, WBC
34B [Dallas: Word, 2001], 446). Other Second Temple Literature asserted that God would build the temple, 2 Bar.
4:3; 11Q19 XXIX, 7–10; cf. Mek. Exod 15:17–21.
66
Dunn, The Parting of the Ways, 44–46.

17
its restoration. (This explains why Luke describes Jesus’s followers being continually in the

temple blessing God after Jesus’ death and ascension [Luke 24:53; Acts 2:46; 3:1; 5:42].) In this

sense, Jesus’s stance is similar to the Essenes who rejected the temple and its priesthood in their

current state and sought to prepare the way for the eschatological restoration of the temple and

the priesthood.67

The accusation against Stephen and his death is significant for at least two reasons. First,

it shows that the temple continued to be a major source of concern regarding the Christian

message. The second is that this story provides the first signs of a split in the theological views

and attitudes of the nascent Christian church. Stephen was accused of speaking against the

temple: “This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law, for we have

heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs that

Moses delivered to us” (Acts 6:13–14). Stephen was a Hellenist Christian, which means that his

primary language was Greek and that he had probably been born in the diaspora. His defense

suggests that Stephen viewed the temple as corrupt. He describes the temple as “made by hands”

(Acts 7:58), that is, an idol, and suggests that God’s relationship with human beings transcends

the temple. It is probable that Stephen was a member of, or had somehow been connected to, the

Synagogue of the Freedmen in Jerusalem, which was formed by Hellenist Jews from the

diaspora (Acts 6:9). Hellenist Jews who moved to live in Jerusalem were probable very devoted

to the temple—otherwise, why had they moved to Jerusalem in the first place?—and were some

of the fiercest persecutors of Christians. Paul, a fellow Hellenist (Acts 7:58),68 was a main

67
4Q174 I, 2–7; 11Q19 XXIX, 7–10.
68
Paul describes himself as a Hebrew of Hebrews (Phil 3:5), which means that he spoke Hebrew/Aramaic
and was born of Hebrew-/Aramaic-speaking fathers. He was born in the diaspora, however, and had probably deep
connections to the Hellenist community in Jerusalem (Acts 7:58). For a discussion on the meaning of the term
“Hebrew,” see Staples, The Idea of Israel, 71–80.

18
persecutor of the church. After Paul’s conversion, Hellenists sought to kill Paul in Jerusalem and

later, towards the end of his ministry, tried to lynch him in the temple (Acts 9:28; 21:27–29).

Hellenists, like Stephen, were the first to envision a religious life not bound by the strictures of

temple regulations. Philip first preached the gospel to the Samaritans, who had historically

protested the Jewish claim that the Jerusalem temple was the one true sanctuary (Acts 8:4–8).69

He also explains the gospel to an Eunuch, from Ethiopia, who had traveled to Jerusalem to

worship in the temple (8:27–28). Deuteronomy 23:1 made clear that a Eunuch could not enter the

assembly of the Lord. Despite his great interest, the Eunuch was barred from worshiping God by

the laws that regulated the temple cult. Acts 11:19–21 tells us that Hellenist Jews who came to

Antioch also spoke the gospel to gentiles and many of them converted. Again, gentiles were

barred from worshipping in the temple. The preaching of Philip to the Eunuch, and of the

Hellenists to the gentiles, shows that Hellenists were the first to envision a religious life beyond

the limits set by the current temple regulations and more in line with the eschatological view of

Isa 56:3–5 that anticipated a time when God would give the foreigner and the eunuch “a

monument and a name better than sons and daughters” within the house of God.

The openness of Hellenists to envision a religious life beyond the limits set by the temple

cult stands in contrast to Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. Luke tells us that at the end of Paul’s

third missionary journey, James and the elders of the church of Jerusalem asked Paul to purify

himself and pay for the sacrifices of four Jewish Christians that had taken a Nazirite vow. The

temple, with its sacrificial system and priestly mediation, was still very important to “the many

thousands … among the Jews” who had believed and “were zealous for the law” (Acts 21:20).

69
Samaritans build a temple on Mt. Gerizim in the fourth century BCE. John Hyrcanos destroyed this
temple in about 128 BCE. The story of the Samaritan woman shows, however, that the issue of the temple continued
to be the dividing issue between Jews and Samaritans (John 4:19–24).

19
The testimony of the New Testament, however, is consistent in the message that there was not

anymore a need for a temple on earth for the eschatological people of God. God made his

presence on earth known through the Holy Spirit and the church that was his temple (e.g., 1 Cor

3:16; Eph 2:21; 1 Pet 2:4–10). God also provided cleansing and forgiveness from sin through the

ministry of Jesus, our high priest in the heavenly sanctuary, based on Jesus’s sacrifice, once for

all, on the cross (Heb 9–10).

The law. The gospels describe Jesus as a law-observant Jew. He wore the tassels required

by the law in the four corners of his outer garment,70 instructed the cleansed leper to go and show

himself to the priests as the law required,71 and reminded the rich young ruler that it was

necessary to observe the law if he wanted to inherit eternal life.72 According to Matthew, Jesus

came to “reveal the true meaning of the law and demonstrate it in action”:73

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish
them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota,
not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of
the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the
kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the
kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and
Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt 5:17–20).

Thus, Jesus’ rejection of the lex talionis and of Moses’ permission for divorce do not mean an

abrogation of those laws but a return to the deeper intention and original purpose of the law.74

Jesus did not abrogate the difference between clean and unclean foods. He rejected human

traditions that obscured the greater importance of inner over outward purity.75 The pharisees

70
Num 15:38–39; Deut 22:12; Mark 6:56; Matt 9:20; 14:36; Luke 8:44.
71
Mark 1:44; Luke 17:14.
72
Mark 10:19.
73
See R. A. Guelich, The Sermon on the Mount: A Foundation for Understanding (Waco, TX: Word,
1982), 139–141, quoted in Dunn, The Parting of the Ways, 101.
74
Lex talionis: Matt 5:38–42; cf. Exod 21:24; Lev 24:20; Deut 19:21. Divorce: Mark 10:2–9; cf. Deut 24:1;
Gen 2:24; Matt 19:3–9.
75
Mark 7:14–23; Matt 15:1–20.

20
accused Jesus of transgressing the Sabbath (Mark 2:23–28). Note, however, that the debate

between Jesus and the pharisees was not whether the Sabbath should be observed, but how it

should be observed. Jesus was also accused of being “a friend of tax collectors and sinners,”

especially because he ate with them (Matt 11:19; Mark 2:15–16; Luke 7:39; 15:1–2). Those

sinners, however, were not wicked, impenitent lawbreakers.76 The word “sinners” had become

by this time a factional term by which members of a party disqualified those who did not agree

with them. A Jew that denounced another Jew as a sinner, reduced him to the status of a

gentile.77 Jesus’ table fellowship with these so-called sinners did not imply a rejection of the law.

At the most, implied a rejection of a factional interpretation of the law that magnified minor

aspects of the law to establish privileged groups. Jesus did not reject circumcision and expressed

that “salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22); yet, “Jesus regarded faith expressed by

whomsoever as more important than the ethnically understood and ritually expressed boundaries

surrounding and protecting the elect people.”78 Thus, he taught that the Sabbath does not belong

to the Jews, but to humanity (Mark 2:27–28), and that God is seeking beyond Jerusalem and

Gerizim worshipers that “will worship the Father in spirit and in truth” (John 4:21–25).

Similarly to Jesus, Paul was not against the law, but against the abuse of the law; that is,

against interpreting and practicing the law in such a way as to prevent the gentiles having full

access to the grace of God.79 Paul did expect believers, both Jews and gentiles, to obey the law of

God, but he understood that obedience as being characterized by faith and love (Rom 1:5; 3:31;

8:4; 13:8–10; Gal 5:6), not by “works of the law,” which focus on boundary markers that

76
E.g., Ps 1:1, 5; 37:32–36; Sir. 41:5–8.
77
The term sinner functioned roughly as a synonym for gentile (e.g., Jub. 23:23–24; Pss. Sol. 2:1–2; Gal
2:15), see Dunn, The Parting of the Ways, 103–107.
78
Dunn, The Parting of the Ways, 115.
79
Dunn, The Parting of the Ways, 137.

21
separate Jews from Gentiles (circumcision, purity laws, etc.). Thus, for Paul, to obey the law is to

live out the principle of love (Rom 13:8–10) and the real Jew is not the one who is circumcised,

but the one who walks according to the Spirit (Rom 2:28–29; 8:4). From Paul’s perspective, his

debate with those Jewish sectors that considered him an enemy of the law (Acts 21:28) was not

whether the law should be kept, but how it should be kept. It seems that Paul was not able to

convince even most Christian Jews that gentiles did not need to be circumcised in order to keep

the law or have full access to the grace of God. Thus, Paul was regarded with suspicion among

Christian Jews in Jerusalem (Acts 21:20–21) and was remembered by Christian Jews of the

second and third century as a virulent opponent of Peter.80 It was natural for Jews to understand

passages like Gen 17:9–14 and Lev 18:5 as suggesting that circumcision and law observance

were part of the same package and could not be separated. Paul’s perspective seems to have been

decisively altered, however, by the eschatological insight that the time had come for Abraham to

become the father of “a multitude of nations” so that the blessing of God might reach “all the

families of the earth.81 Paul must have reached that insight at his conversion, when the Messiah,

Jesus, had commissioned him to preach the gospel to the gentiles.82 He perceived that the words

of the prophet Isaiah had been fulfilled: the root of Jesse had risen to rule the gentiles, so that

they might have hope in him (Rom 15:11–12, quoting LXX Isa 11:10).83 Paul understood that

God was raising children to Abraham through the Messiah. In his view, the time had come when

those who were not God’s people, would be called by God “my people” (Rom 9:25–26, quoting

LXX Hos 2:25).84 Paul understood that God’s plan was not that all the nations would become

80
See Dunn, Parting of the Ways, 307 n. 85.
81
Gen 12:3; 15:5; 17:5; 22:17–18.
82
Rom 15:16; Gal 1:16; 2:2–10; Eph 3:1–10; 1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 4:17; cf. Acts 9:15; 13:46–48; 22:21; 26:27.
83
The early church arrived at the same conclusion when they understood that the resurrection and
enthronement of David had rebuilt/restored the tent of David (his ruling dynasty) with the result that the gentiles
would seek the Lord (Acts 15:16–17, quoting Amos 9:11.
84
Note the expression “that day” in LXX Hos 2:23.

22
Jews, but that God would use the Messiah “to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of

his name among all the nations” (Rom 1:4–5). The law as a means of separation, that is, the

commandments that separated the Israelites from the nations—including circumcision and purity

laws—were given to Israel in order to protect them against transgressions until the seed, the

Messiah, would come (Gal 3:19, 22). The law was the guardian of Israel until Christ came (v.

24).85 The key difference between Christ and Paul, in the one hand, and their opponents, in the

other, regarding the true nature and function of the law, was, then, the eschatological insight that

the time had arrived for the nations to be brought to obedience to the lordship of Christ. The law

did not belong exclusively to Israel and could not be constructed as creating ethnic boundary

markers. The nations could also obey the law without becoming Jews.

The election of Israel. The rejection of the gospel and Jesus by the majority of Jews

perplexed Christian believers and sometimes grieved them, yet New Testament writers continued

to believe that Israel was the chosen people of God. Paul, for example, expressed great sorrow,

even anguish, for the rejection of the gospel by his kinsmen but does not think that God’s

election of Israel has failed and emphatically denies that it has been overturned (Rom 9:1–6;

11:1–5). Israel continues to be the Olive tree trunk, which represents God’s chosen people, into

which God is grafting the wild olive branches that represent the gentiles. Similarly, Matthew

speaks of Israel as the vineyard of the Lord, the object of God´s care and attention.86 The Gospel

of Matthew expresses Jesus’s disapproval of the leaders of Israel and predicts that they will be

cast out from their position as tenants of the vineyard and their tenancy given to others. Note,

however, that for Matthew Israel continues to be the vineyard of the Lord. Luke considers

85
Thus, the sign of the circumcision and the gift of the land of Canaan in Gen 17 is given to the
descendants of Abraham in order to separate them and protect them as a nation, as the instrument of God’s purposes
for the world.
86
Matt 20:1–16; 21:28–32, 33–44; cf. Isa 5:1–7.

23
Jerusalem the nerve center of the Christian movement, the hub that coordinates its development.

His gospel begins and ends in the temple at Jerusalem as the focal point of God’s activity. The

book of Acts begins with Jesus’ instruction to his disciples to remain in Jerusalem until they

receive the promise of the Father and, then, to preach the gospel from Jerusalem, in ever growing

circles of action, until “the end of the earth” (Acts 1:4, 8). The important decisions for the

movement are taken in Jerusalem (Acts 15) and Paul finishes his missionary journeys with a visit

to Jerusalem where he presents a report. It is true that throughout Acts, Luke recounts the

rejection of the gospel first by the leaders in Jerusalem and then by Jewish leaders in many of the

cities of the diaspora and ends the book with the account of Paul’s meeting with the local leaders

of the Jews in Rome in which some were convinced by Paul’s message, but others disbelieved

Acts 28:17–28). Luke then relates Paul’s warning that they are exhibiting the dullness of heart

Isaiah had predicted and his decision to turn to the gentiles, who will hear. While disheartening,

Luke’s ending report does not signal the rejection of Israel. Luke portrays Paul as speaking

favorably of “the customs of our fathers” (v. 17), referring to Israel as “my nation” (v. 19), and

loyal to the “hope of Israel” (v. 20), and the Jews as remarkably open to Paul and his message

(vv. 21–22). Paul’s warning to the Jews for their dullness and his decision to turn to the gentiles

does not imply the rejection of the Jews as a whole. As they Jews leave the place, they continue

to debate, which suggests that at least some are willing to accept. Furthermore, Paul’s turning to

the gentiles is not more final than his earlier turnings.87

The Gospel of John seems especially hard on the Jews, whom the author often describes

as opponents of Jesus and seeking to kill him.88 The difficulty is that the designation “Jews”

identifies different groups of people in the gospel of John. More often, the “Jews” identify the

87
Acts 13:46–48; 18:6; 22:21; 26:17–18. Isaiah 6:9–10’s turning was not final either (see vv. 11–13).
88
John 7:1; 8:22; 10:31; 11:8, 54; 18:14, 31; 19:7, 12; etc.

24
leaders, who have rejected Jesus (John 9:22; 12:42). Other times, however, the “Jews” refer to

the common people, the crowd, most of which are still undecided about Jesus though some

believe in him.89 John seems to describe a contest between Jesus and the leaders for the heart of

the people where the decisive factor is their response to the gospel.90 Thus, John, despite his

rejection of the leaders of Israel, does not consider that Israel has disowned Jesus, while Jesus

continues to affirm that “salvation is from the Jews” (4:22). The severe views that John and other

writers of the New Testament often exhibit against the Jews are better understood as sibling

rivalry and line with intra-Jewish critique in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple literature.91

For example, Matthew’s rebuke of “an evil and adulterous generation” evokes Ezekiel’s and

Hosea’s reproach of Israel (Matt 12:39; Eze 23; Hos 3:1) and James’ reproach of fellow

Christians (James 4:4). Stephen’s condemnation of the Jews follows a long tradition of prophetic

denunciation of God’s erring people (Acts 7:51–53).92 Early Christians were puzzled and hurt by

the Jewish rejection of the gospel but continued to believe that Israel was the chosen people of

God.

The One God. Christians considered themselves monotheists. Jesus quoted the Shema,

which affirms that God is one and should be loved above all things, as the most important of the

commandments (Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; cf. Luke 10:27). He also affirmed that God alone is

good (Matt 19:16). Paul also affirmed that “there is no God but one” (1 Cor 8:4; also 1 Tim 2:5).

Christians, however, believed that there was “some sort of plurality within the one God of the

Shema‘,” which implied a reconfiguration of Jewish belief.93 This reconfiguration is most clearly

89
For example, John 6:52; 7:15; 10:19; etc. Some Jews believe in Jesus: John 8:31; 11:45; 12:11; etc.
90
Dunn, The Parting of the Ways, 156–157.
91
For example, John 8:44; 1 Thess 2:14–15.
92
Exod 33:3, 5; Lev 26:41; Num 27:14; Isa 63:10; Jer 6:10; 9:26. See Dunn, Parting of the Ways, 161.
93
Brant Pitre, Michael P. Barber, and John A. Kincaid, Paul, A New Covenant Jew: Rethinking Pauline
Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2019), 128.

25
perceived in Paul’s quotation of the Shema: “yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom

are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things

and through whom we exist” (1 Cor 8:6).94 In other words, Paul argued that the one God of

Israel, YHWH, should somehow be understood as two divine persons, “Father” and “Son.”95

It is not clear how Paul, and Christians in general, arrived at this conclusion.96 Scholars

have pointed out that there were in Second Temple Judaism quasi-divine beings whose

veneration was not considered to contradict the belief and worship of the one God.97 A good

number of them suggest that Christians first understood Jesus to be one of such quasi-divine

agents or mediators and that this understanding developed later into the belief that Jesus was

divine, one with God.98 More likely, it was the force of their experience of Jesus’s life and death

that compelled early Christians to discern the marks of divinity in Jesus. Daniel Boyarin, one of

94
The final phrase “through whom we exist” may mean instead “through whom we [go to God]” (Richard
B. Hays, First Corinthians, IBC [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2011], kindle edition, comment on 1 Cor
8:6.
95
Pitre, Barber, and Kincaid, Paul, A New Covenant Jew, 128. Paul does not explain how the Father and
the Son from one God. According to Richard Bauckham, Paul’s stunning reformulation explains that “the unique
identity of the one God consists of the one God, the Father, and the one Lord, the Messiah” (Jesus and the God of
Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity [Milton Keys, UK:
Paternoster, 2008], 28, emphasis original). I prefer more the idea that from the beginning, or at least very early,
Christians understood, though not necessarily in this explicit form, the Father and the Son as two persons sharing
one divine essence (Matthew W. Bates, The Birth of the Trinity: Jesus, God, and Spirit in New Testament & Early
Christian Interpretations of the Old Testament, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), Kindle edition, chap. 1,
“Reading as Birth: The Trinity Emerges”).
96
For a brief introduction to the debate see, Bates, The Birth of the Trinity, chap. 1. “Reading as Birth: The
Trinity Emerges”
97
For example, Daniel Boyarin has argued that there were in the first century AD, “many Jews who
believed in something quite like the Father and the Son and even in something quite like the incarnation of the Son
in the Messiah.” They believed “that God had a divine deputy or emissary or even son, exalted above all the angels,
who functioned as an intermediary between God and the world in creation, revelation, and redemption.” In fact,
some of them believed that this divine being was the same as the promised Messiah of David (The Jewish Gospels:
The Story of the Jewish Christ, [New York: New Press, 2012], 1–7).
98
Examples of those quasi-divine beings are personified Wisdom, the Logos, elevated patriarchs, the son of
Man of Daniel and Enochic Literature, kings and messiahs, priests, archangels. Scholars who support this
developmental model include James D. G. Dunn, Larry W. Hurtado, Adela Yarbro Collins, John J. Collins, Bart D.
Ehrman, and Daniel Boyarin. Richard Bauckham has noted, however, that there were two aspects that separated God
from quasi divine figures—only God received sacrificial worship and only God created. He argues that the NT
placed from the very beginning Jesus in the God side of the divide between God and quasi-divine agents or
mediators (Jesus and the God of Israel; also, Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels).

26
the foremost rabbinic scholars today, has argued that “The theology of the Gospels [regarding

Jesus’s divinity], far from being a radical innovation within Israelite religious tradition, is a

highly conservative return to the very most ancient moments within that tradition, moments that

had been largely suppressed in the meantime—but not entirely.”99 The belief in the divinity of

Jesus was also the result of an eschatological insight. Christians believed that the coming of

Jesus Christ had fulfilled the promise of the One God of Israel that He would return to His

temple.100 Probably the most important prediction of the return of YHWH to Zion is found in Isa

40–55.101 The New Testament describe Jesus as the fulfillment of that prophecy. Thus, John the

Baptist appeared in the desert to “prepare the way of the Lord,” YHWH, who is returning to

Israel to reveal His glory and announce the forgiveness and consolation of Israel (Isa 40:1–5).102

The watchmen of Israel see this and declare it as the “good news” that the Lord, YHWH, has

come with a reward and “will tend his flock like a shepherd” (Isa 40:9–11).103 The Lord,

YHWH, is the creator of all things, who is sovereign over the nations reducing idols to

nothingness and the rulers to insignificance (Isa 40:12–26; 42:5; 45:12, 18).104 He is the first and

the last (Isa 41:4; Rev 1:11). He gives His glory “to no other” (Isa 42:8). He bears the sin and the

iniquity of Israel (Isa 43:24–25; 53:4–5). He is among His people “and there is no other, no god

besides him” (45:14; 1 Cor 14:25). Thus, to Him “every knee shall bow, every tongue shall

swear allegiance” (Isa 45:23; Phil 2:10). Jesus is the LORD, YHWH, who has come to Israel

bringing salvation.

99
Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels, 47.
100
E.g., Eze 48:35; Hag 2:7; Zech 2:4–5, 10; Mal 3:1–2; cf. Eze 10. See N. T. Wright, Paul and the
Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 104–106, 653–654.
101
See Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 681–684.
102
Matt 3:1–3; Mark 1:2–4; Luke 3:2–6; John 1:19–23; also, Luke 1:76–79; 2:25, 30.
103
Matt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; Mark 1:1, 14–15; 13:10; Luke 9:6; 20:1; Acts 8:25, 40; 14:7, 21; etc.; Rom 1:1;
10:16; 15:16.
104
Matt 28:18; 1 Cor 15:24; Eph 1:20–23; Col 1:15–20; Heb 1:2, 10–12.

27
 Worldview. Christians shared the hope of Second Temple Judaism. Right before the

ascension, the disciples asked Jesus: “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?

(Acts 1:6). In the Scriptures of Israel, the restoration, or salvation, of Israel involved the

gathering of the twelve tribes from their exile and the restoration of God’s kingly rule over them

in the last days.105 Many Gentiles would be drawn to Zion, to share in the blessings bestowed on

restored Israel.106 Christians differed from other Second Temple Jews, however, in that they

believed that the restoration of Israel had begun already with Jesus.107 John the Baptist had

announced and prepared the way for the fulfillment of this restoration (Mt. 17:11; Mk. 9:12).

Jesus had chosen twelve apostles—signaling the beginning of the gathering of the twelve tribes

of Israel—and announced the coming of the kingdom of God (Mark 1:14–15; Matt 19:28/Luke

22:28–30).108

The same hope is found throughout the other writings of the New Testament. Matthew

begins his gospel with the genealogy of Jesus organized in three sections: from Abraham to

David fourteen generations, from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and

from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ, fourteen generations (Matt 1:17). The arrival of

105
E.g., Jer 16:15; 23:8; 24:6; Hos 11:11; cf. Ps 14:7; 85:4. For the expectation that Israel will be restored
in the last days, see also Isa 2:2–4; 49:6; Jer 31:27–34; Ezek 34–37; Amos 9:11–15; Tob 13–14; Pss. Sol. 17–18; 1
En. 24–25; Eighteen Benedictions 14; Eckhard J. Schnabel, Acts, Expanded Digital edition, ZECNT (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2012), Ac 1:6.
106
Cf. Is. 2:2–4; Mi. 4:1–8; Zc. 8:20–23, David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, PNTC (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 109 n. 32.
107
Luke 1:32–33, 46–55, 68–79; 2:29–32, 38; cf. Acts 2:39; 13:23–26, 32–39; 26:6–7. See Richard B.
Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016), 195–265; D. L. Tiede, “The
Exaltation of Jesus and the Restoration of Israel in Acts 1,” HTR 79 (1986): 278–86, quoted in John B. Polhill, Acts,
NAC 26 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 84 n. 27. The restoration of Israel was a process,
however, that would culminate at Jesus’s second coming (Acts 3:20–21).
108
See John P. Meier, “Jesus, the Twelve and the Restoration of Israel,” Restoration: Old Testament,
Jewish, and Christian Perspectives, ed. James M. Scott, JSJSup 72 (Leiden: Brill 2001), 365–404. The community
at Qumran also established an eschatology-oriented group that represented the twelve tribes consisting of twelve
chief priests, twelve chief Levites (1QM II, 1–3; cf. 4Q164 I, 4b–7), and a council of the community consisting of
twelve laymen and three priests (1QS VIII, 1–4). See Lawrence Schiffmann, “The Concept of Restoration in the
Dead Sea Scrolls,” Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives, ed. James M. Scott, JSJSup 72
(Leiden: Brill 2001), 203–221.

28
the Christ signals the restoration of Israel.109 Mark introduces his account of Jesus with a

combined quotation of Mal 3:1 and Isa 40:3, which announce the preparation of Israel for the

visit of God himself to his people.110 In Isaiah, the coming of God is to restore them to their land

from all the lands in which they had been scattered (Isa 43:5–6). The hope of restoration and its

fulfillment is also central to the argument of Luke-Acts.111 The pouring of the Spirit of God on

his people was part of the process of the restoration of the fortunes of Israel and Jerusalem (Joel

2:28; cf. 2:29–3:1). The restoration of Israel launched a new stage in God’s purpose for the

world. The Israelites who had been redeemed would become God’s witnesses to the nations so

that God’s salvation would reach the ends of the earth (Isa 49:6; Isa 43:10, 12; 44:8; 42:6–7).

Therefore, Jesus instructs his disciples to be his witnesses and announce the salvation of God to

all nations beginning from Jerusalem (Acts 1:8; cf. Matt 28:18–20; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:47; 2

Cor 2:14). Thus, Christians considered themselves “the climax of Judaism.”112 They did not

consider themselves a new religion, but the restored or eschatological people of God, the

fulfillment of the promises of God through the prophets, the twelve tribes (James 1:1), the Israel

of God (James 1:1; Gal 6:16; cf. 1 Pet 2:9–10).113

Conclusion: Rebecca’s Children

Alan F. Segal has argued that Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity are twin brothers, like

109
Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 109–113.
110
See Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 16–44.
111
See Richard Bauckham, “The Restoration of Israel in Luke-Acts,” Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish,
and Christian Perspectives, ed. James M. Scott, JSJSup 72 (Leiden: Brill 2001), 435–487 (especially 437 n. 8 for
further bibliography).
112
Dunn, The Parting of the Ways, 117.
113
The precise identity of the twelve tribes in James 1:1 is debated. It is possible that James does not
understand the twelve tribes in an spiritual sense to refer to Christian believers, regardless of their ethnic origin, but
in a literal sense denoting “the worldwide community of believing Jews of the messianic faith,” Ralph P. Martin,
James, WBC 48 (Dallas: Word, 1988), 8.

29
Rebecca’s children, born at the same time, nurtured in the same environment, and fighting each

other for the spiritual inheritance of their father.114 Why did they break apart? I would like to

suggest that the wedge that separated irreconcilably early Christianity from Rabbinic Judaism

were two events, the arrival of Jesus and the destruction of the temple. The metanarratives that

emerged from the reactions that Christians Jews and non-Christian Jews had to these events

defined opposite directions for their movements. The arrival of Jesus and the destruction of the

temple were age-defining events. From the point of view of Christianity, they were

eschatological events. If, as Jacob Neusner has argued,115 the generative myth that bound

together all the different strands of Judaism was the reality of the exile and the hope of

restoration of Israel to their land, the generative myth of Christianity was that the restoration of

Israel had begun with Jesus. These generative myths defined their understanding of the nature of

the God of Israel, the election of Israel, the interpretation of the law, and the function of the

temple in opposite directions and are fundamentally irreconcilable.

I would like to suggest that the emergence of Christianity and their separation from what

would become Rabbinic Judaism has several lessons for Seventh-day Adventists today. I will

introduce them as topics for discussion with the hope that they will generate reflection and

dialogue among Adventists.

First, factional conflict has dangerous theological consequences. Early Christianity

emerged in the context of a vigorous debate within different Jewish sects. I have mentioned that

the foundational beliefs of early Christianity fit within the broad boundaries of Second Temple

Jewish beliefs. An environment of conflict, however, tends to focus our attention on those things

114
Rebecca’s Children, 1.
115
Neusner, Judaism, 57. See also references to others who support this view in Staples, The Idea of Israel,
97 nn. 42–46.

30
that differentiate us from competing parties, without regard to the central or marginal nature of

those things. In other words, conflict tends to shape the contesting parties in relationship to each

other. The closer two groups are in their identity, the more important the differences between

them are, and the more intense the conflict between them is. Thus, it is not strange to find that

issues that were not important for a movement at their origin eventually become defining

elements of their identity because those issues differentiate them from their competitors. For

example, Christianity began with Jesus claiming lordship of the Sabbath, but found itself many

years later rejecting the Sabbath as a sign of difference from the Jews.

Second, God often uses third perspectives to introduce new directions for his people.

Jesus explicitly instructed his disciples to preach the gospel to all the nations, but Christian Jews

of Palestine that had grown learning and practicing ways to separate from the gentiles were slow

to understand and obey Jesus’s instruction. The Hellenist Jews, however, who had grown in

contact with the gentile world were the first to understand that with the coming of Jesus and his

death on the cross the religion of Israel should not be defined in relationship to the temple and

the priestly Levitical mediation. They were the first to understand that the temple and its rituals

had lost meaning and were also the first to preach the gospel to the Samaritans, the eunuch, and

the gentiles (Acts 7–8; 11:19–26). Nevertheless, members of the core, original sector of a

movement have an important role in legitimating new directions. Thus, God chose Peter to

preach the gospel to the gentiles and he became a key player in the legitimization of the mission

to the gentiles. Sadly, despite Peter’s advocacy, it seems that Christian Jews did not embrace in

its majority the mission to the gentiles (Acts 21:18–25).

Third, I want to mention the importance of spiritual discernment, even though it is the

more difficult to define and grasp. The factor that determined the separation between Christianity

31
and other Second Temple Jewish groups was their reaction to an event, the ministry and death of

Jesus. Some groups discerned a deceiver and blasphemer who died under the curse of God (Deut

21:23; Gal 3:13). Others discerned the savior of Israel, the son of God (John 20:30–31). Those

who rejected Jesus came from all the sectors of Judaism, rich and poor, learned and ignorant,

powerful and powerless. Most of the sectors of Judaism, if not all, were also represented among

those who accepted Jesus, though clearly very few from the rich and powerful. The diverse

representation in the responses to Jesus suggests that in the final analysis, this liquid, undefinable

aspect may be the most important of all. Theology and belief tend over time to morph to support

attitude.

Finally, there important parallels between the emergence of the Christian identity and the

emergence of the Adventist identity. Like Christianity, Seventh-day Adventist identity is also

eschatological in nature. It emerged as the response to an eschatological event, the beginning of

the pre-advent judgment on October 22, 1844. Adventist believe that on this date Jesus began a

new phase of his high priestly ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. This belief was the wedge that

separated them from other Adventist movements and is also the organizing principle of

Adventist theology.116 Thus, Adventists understand themselves as the embodiment of the three

angels of Revelation 14 that announce the coming of the judgment (Rev 14:6–7). The insight that

Jesus had begun a new phase of his ministry in 1844 led their attention to the opening of the

most holy place in the heavenly sanctuary described in Rev 11:19 and its emphasis on the ark of

the covenant where the law of God was. Thus, the understanding of Jesus’s movement in the

heavenly sanctuary in 1844 brought their attention to the law of God and the Sabbath. Similarly,

116
See George R. Knight, A Search for Identity: The Development of Seventh-day Adventist Beliefs (Hagerstown,
MD: Review and Herald, 2000), 55–89.

32
Adventists understood that the biblical teachings of the conditional immortality of human beings

and of a great controversy between Jesus and Satan were essential to their understanding of the

pre-advent judgment. In other words, the doctrine of the sanctuary became the principle that

organized the different Adventist doctrines into a theological system. This may suggest, then,

that just as Christian Jews and non-Christian Jews parted ways on their interpretation of the

significance of the Jesus’ event, the key or defining issue that determines Adventist identity is

the understanding of what happened in 1844.

Bibliography

Alexander, Philip S. “‘The Parting of the Ways’ from the Perspective of Rabbinic Judaism.”
Pages 1–26 in Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways AD 70 to 135. Edited by
James D. G. Dunn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Baker, Coleman A. “Early Christian Identity Formation: From Ethnicity and Theology to Socio-
Narrative Criticism.” Currents in Biblical Research 9/2 (2011): 228–237. (PDF)

Bates, Matthew W. The Birth of the Trinity: Jesus, God, and Spirit in New Testament & Early
Christian Interpretations of the Old Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Kindle edition.

Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New
Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity. Milton Keys, UK: Paternoster, 2008.

__________. “The Restoration of Israel in Luke-Acts.” Pages 435–487 in Restoration: Old

Bennema, Cornelis. “Early Christian Identity Formation Amidst Conflict.” Journal of Early
Christian History 5/1 (2015): 26–48. (PDF)

Boyarin, Daniel. The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ. New York: New Press,
2012.

Dunn, James D. G. The Parting of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and their
Significance for the Character of Christianity. London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity,
1991.

Filtvedt, Ole Jakob. The Identity of God’s People and the Paradox of Hebrews. WUNT II/400.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015.

33
Fredriksen, Paula. When Christians Were Jews: The First Generation. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2018.

Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016.

__________. First Corinthians. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and

Horrell, David G. “The Label χριστιανός: 1 Peter 4:16 and the Formation of Christian Identity.”
Journal of Biblical Literature 126/2 (2007): 361–381. (PDF)

Hooker, Morna D. Continuity and Discontinuity: Early Christianity in Its Jewish Setting.
Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1986.

Hurtado, Larry W. Destroyer of the Gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World.
Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016.

__________. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2003.

Jeremias, Joachim. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969.

Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.
Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976.

Knight, George R. A Search for Identity: The Development of Seventh-day Adventist Beliefs.
Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000.

Lieu, Judith. Neither Jew Nor Greek? Constructing Early Christianity. London: T & T Clark,
2002. (Logos)

McKnight, Scot. A New Vision for Israel: The Teachings of Jesus in National Context. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Meier, John P. “Jesus, the Twelve and the Restoration of Israel.” Pages 365–404 in Restoration:
Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives. Edited by James M. Scott. JSJSup
72. Leiden: Brill 2001.

Miller, David M. “Ethnicity, Religion, and the Meaning of Ioudaios in Ancient ‘Judaism,’”
Currents in Biblical Research 12/2 (2014): 216–265.

Neusner, Jacob. Judaism When Christianity Began: A Survey of Belief and Practice. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 2002.

Nickelsburg G. W., and Robert A. Kraft, eds. Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters. The
Bible and Its Modern Interpreters 2. Atlanta: Fortress; Scholars, 1986.

Pitre, Brant, Michael P. Barber, and John A. Kincaid. Paul, A New Covenant Jew: Rethinking
Pauline Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2019.

34
Regev, Eyal. The Temple in Early Christianity: Experiencing the Sacred. AYBRL. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2019. Logos edition.

Sanders, E. P. Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.

__________. Judaism: Practice & Belief 63 BCE–66 CE. London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity,
1992.

Sandgren, Leo Duprée. Vines Intertwined: A History of Jews and Christians from the Babylonian
Exile to the Advent of Islam. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010).

Schiffman, Lawrence H. “The Concept of Restoration in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 203–221
in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives. Edited by James M.
Scott. JSJSup 72. Leiden: Brill 2001.

__________. Who Was a Jew? Rabbinic and Halakhic Perspectives on the Jewish Christian
Schism. Hoboken, NJ: KTAV, 1985.

Scott, James M., ed. Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives. JSJSup 72.
Leiden: Brill 2001.

Segal, Alan F. Rebecca’s Children: Judaism and Christianity in the Roman World. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1986.

Shürer, Emil. A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ. 2 Vols. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 2003.

Smith, Christian. Moral Believing Animals: Human Personhood and Culture. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2003.

Staples, Jason A. The Idea of Israel in Second Temple Judaism: A New Theory of People, Exile,
and Israelite Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021.

Stenschke, C. Review of Early Christian Prayer and Identity Formation, by R. Hvalvik and K.
O. Sandnes, eds. Acta Theologica 38/1 (2018): 154–158.

Urbach, Ephraim E. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. Translated by Israel Abrahams.
London: VardaBooks, 2006. Kindle edition.

Wright, N. T. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013.

35