The First Years

Introduction
Paul
The New Testament and Qumran
The James enigma
A Growing Tension
What Is at Stake
Summary

1
Jewish-Christian Relations
The First Centuries
Abel Mordechai Bibliowicz
January 2017

2
3
This monograph is a presentation, to the general public, of research first published in
Jews and Gentiles in the early Jesus movement by Palgrave, the academic division of
Macmillan Publishers (2013). This version is best suited for readers interested in
detailed and substantiated discussion and analysis. Expanded introductions, new
material, reviews of historical context, content reconfiguration, new chapter structure,
and enhanced background segments characterize this expanded, and updated edition.

Praise for the academic version of this book

‘May this book find a wide readership among people devoted to the cause of the
healing of memories between Jews and Christians.’

—Peter C. Phan, Professor. Chair of Catholic Social Thought, Georgetown

University; President of the Catholic Theological Society of America

‘Standing on a brilliant and insightful reconstruction of Paul, and on a quite shocking

(but perhaps compelling) reading of Mark—the author offers a number of original
and, in some cases, quite compelling theoretical reconstructions of the context and
purposes of early Christian texts... a work of sublime moral passion.’

—David P. Gushee, Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics

and Director, Center for Theology and Public Life, Mercer University; author
of Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context

4
‘An intrepid excursion into the Christian discourse... The quest of an intellectual, a
humanist... Interesting and, in fact overwhelming... A timely and honest engagement
of the Christian texts, authors, and scholars by a Jewish intellectual.’

—Burton L. Mack, – Professor of Early Christianity, Claremont School of

Theology, California; author of A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian
Origins

―There is great merit to Bibliowicz's approach... I highly recommend this book for
anyone interested in the Jewish-Christian dialogue.... Scholars may disagree with a
number of Bibliowicz' conclusions, as I do with his interpretation of the Epistle to
the Hebrews. But even in disagreeing, scholars in the field of Jewish-Christian
studies, will learn new ways of challenging and thinking about old presumptions."

Eugene J. Fisher, Distinguished Professor of Theology, Saint Leo University.

From 1977 to 2007, was the staff person for Catholic-Jewish relations for the
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and he served as Consultor to the
Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews and member of the
International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee representing the Holy See.

‘An important work... Sensitive and deeply researched... In the deepest sense, a
profound theological work.’

—Clark M. Williamson, Professor. Christian Theological Seminary, Indiana;

author of Way of Blessing, Way of Life: A Christian Theology

5
‘I very much appreciated the depth and scope of the scholarship, accompanied by the
kind and humble spirit of the author…it may also prove to be one of the formidable
and formative scholarly contributions of the decade for both biblical and historical
scholars. ‘

—Michael Thompson, Professor. Religious Studies – Oklahoma State

University

‘In methodical and precise fashion Bibliowicz takes the reader through the relevant
ancient Christian texts bearing on the question at hand. In so doing, he proposes an
intriguing, compelling thesis. The book should prove to be a major voice in the
ongoing debate.’

—Brooks Schramm, Professor of Biblical Studies, Lutheran Theological

Seminary
‘Impressive work... With this impassioned study available to us, it will no longer be
possible for us to ignore the unintended ways the unthinkable came to be and still say
‘we did not know.’’

—Didier Pollefeyt, Professor. Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies,

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Belgium; coauthor of Anti-Judaism and the
Fourth Gospel and Paul and Judaism

‘An original and plausible claim that goes beyond most of modern scholarship... a
solid contribution to the study of anti-Judaism in early Christianity.’

—Joseph B. Tyson, Professor. Religious Studies, Southern Methodist

University; author of Marcion and
Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle

6
‘A significant contribution to our understanding of the Christian-Jewish relationship
in the first centuries of the Common Era.’

—John T. Pawlikowski, Professor. Director, Catholic-Jewish Studies Program,

Catholic Theological Union, Chicago; author of The Challenge of the
Holocaust for Christian Theology

‘Well-researched and thorough. Intelligent and thoughtful... accessible, the

argumentation compelling.’

—Michele Murray, Professor. Bishop’s University, Canada; author of Playing

a Jewish Game: Gentile Christian Judaizing in the First and Second Centuries
C.E.

‘Mr. Bibliowicz’s book will challenge all readers to reexamine their foundational
religious narratives as to how they regard ‘the other.’ And this exercise may be as
painful as it is necessary.’

—Rev. Michael McGarry, C. S. P. President, The Paulist Fathers; author of

Christology after Auschwitz

‘A detailed and insightful exploration of the writings of the early Jesus movement...
argues convincingly that the origins of Christian anti-Judaism are to be found among
early non-Jewish followers of Jesus who were in conflict with Jesus’s disciples and
first followers... a must read.’

—Tim Hegedus, Professor of New Testament, Waterloo Lutheran Seminary,

Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada

7
‘Bibliowicz uses solid scholarship to engage large and difficult topics while managing
to be balanced and clear... invites Christians to walk a deep journey toward truth...
and suggests a compelling nuance that the conflicts in the early texts were between
Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus, not between Jews and Christians.’

—David L. Coppola, Executive Director, Center for Christian-Jewish

Understanding, Sacred Heart University

‘A meticulous study... a mammoth endeavor... goes beyond others in his

interpretation of the evidence, tracing and documenting distinctions and tensions in
the early Jesus movement.’

—N. A. Beck, Professor of Theology and Classical Languages, Texas

Lutheran University; author of Mature Christianity in the 21st Century: The
Recognition and Repudiation of the Anti-Jewish Polemic of the New
Testament

‘The topics Bibliowicz engages are complex. Although some of his interpretations are
controversial... Gentile Christians should set aside apologetical agendas and honestly
ponder the challenges put forward by the author.’

—Dale C. Allison, Jr. Professor of New Testament, Princeton Theological

Seminary; author of Constructing Jesus: History, Memory, and Imagination

8
9
Chapter 4

The First Years

Introduction
Paul
The New Testament and Qumran
The James enigma
A Growing Tension
What Is at Stake
Summary

Introduction
The legacies of towering founders anchor the great religious traditions of the world.
Most of the great religious leaders (Moses, Buddha, Confucius, Mohammad, and
Paul) enjoyed long lives and long ministries. Long ministries helped them develop,
clarify, and cement their legacies among their followers. A lifetime of leadership and
teaching enabled them to develop and articulate a comprehensive vision and to
inculcate in their followers a solid understanding of their legacy. Upon their death,
their followers had a path to follow and they could rally around a mature doctrinal
legacy.

Jesus’s ministry lasted only 18 to 36 months. 159 This extraordinarily short ministry
may account for the fact that his followers seem to have been unprepared for his
death. Jesus’s death seems to have plunged his disciples and followers into a crisis
that may have contributed to the theological and doctrinal anarchy that followed.
Instead of embracing a clear legacy, Jesus’s followers had to figure out what his legacy
should be. The absence of a substantial formative period and a large influx of

10
converts from Paganism seem to have contributed to the emergence of differing
Gentile forms of belief in Jesus.160

In Judaism, with the probable exception of Qumran, messianic movements have

come undone upon the leader’s death. Thus, continuation of the Jesus movement
required the articulation of a vision of Jesus’s life and ministry that would support
continuity. Lacking an authoritative pattern to follow, some may have left the
movement. Others searched the Jewish sacred scriptures for an explanation.

Paul’s Epistles were authored in the decades following Jesus’ death and are the
earliest extant attempts to formulate Jesus’ legacy. Other attempts to understand the
meaning of Jesus’s life and death engendered Q, James, proto-Matthew, and proto-
John. This would be the earliest, and Jewish, layer of the New Testament. The
canonical Gospels, the Epistle to the Hebrews, Revelation, Barnabas, the Gnostic
Gospels of Mary, Thomas, and Phillip, the Gospel of the Truth, the Apocryphon of
John, and the Dialogue of the Savior, are later texts that showcase the diversity of the
early Gentile strands.

Any attempt to gaze at the two– three decades following Jesus’s death must be highly
qualified. Attempting to make sense of the pre-Synoptic period is an excursion
fraught by low visibility and unpredictable ground. Of special interest to our pursuit
is whether the anti-Judaic bent of the canonical texts had antecedents in the pre-
canonical era. The pre-Synoptic phase of the Passion narratives is the arena where we
may find important indications that may clarify the emergence of the ‘Jewish
responsibility’ libel.161 Whether these attitudes were held by the descendants of Jesus’s
disciples and first followers or grew mostly among non-Jews is critical to our
attempts to understand the emergence of anti-Judaic attitudes among early Gentile
believers.

If the Passion narratives originate in one of several pre-Gospel traditions, the rhetoric
against the Jewish followers of Jesus can be assigned to a unique and concrete
situation (one community, one faction, one set of circumstances). On the other hand,
if the canonical Passion narratives originate from a wide spectrum of pre-Gospel
traditions or from a single but widespread tradition, the anti-Jewish strand would
have emerged out of a wider foundation, and a wider consensus. If the former is
supported, we have one tradition that has overtaken others. If the latter is upheld, it

11
may indicate that there was a tradition of anti-Jewish-establishment suspicion
regarding Jesus’s death that was widely espoused.

As we travel backward in time we need to tune our sensibilities to fit the militant tone
that characterized religious clashes during the first centuries of the era; there is
considerable evidence that turn-of-the-era religious disputes were intense and
vitriolic. Debates were often rancorous. ‘Bashing the competition’ was the norm.
Misrepresenting the opposition was unexceptional. Moreover, as we try to understand
the spirit of the age, we must separate our analysis of the author’s original intent from
its subordination to service later agendas. Furthermore, we need underline that, for
the most part, religious texts were deployed to proselytize —not to inform. They
were authored to shape the beliefs and attitudes of believers, rather than to provide
an accurate historical account.

12
 Paul

Paul and Judaism

The Theological Paul
The Controversial Paul
Paul and the Jewish Followers of Jesus
Paul, Faith, and the Law
Paul in Modern Scholarship
The Acts Rendition
Summary
My Paul

Introduction
The Pauline letters that are accepted as authentic by most scholars (Romans, 1 and 2
Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon) are the earliest
integral New Testament documents available to us. Paul is one of the most studied
and researched individuals in the Western tradition. He is, without doubt, the
foremost theologian of the New Testament and he underpins the New Testament.
Paul is also a charismatic, enigmatic, and frustrated religious visionary that was unable
to reach, in his lifetime, the recognition and the legitimacy he craved. Great efforts
have been made by theologians and by academics to interpret and to harmonize
Paul’s seemingly dissonant theological statements. These efforts have produced a
bewildering labyrinth of arguments and counter-arguments. Incursions into this
minefield are demanding. The superstore of Paul interpretation offers a wide array of
choices. Each creedal, theological, and denominational predisposition has its team of
favorite scholars. 162

13
I do not attempt to present a comprehensive study of Paul’s theology, personality,
thought, or deeds. My interest centers on the controversial, polemical, and rhetorical
Paul - the originator of the anti-Jewish strand, according to traditional scholarship.
Whether this role is in substantial harmony or dissonance with Paul’s intent is one of
the puzzles that will confront us.

Paul and Judaism163

Paul’s statements about Jews and about Judaism are, to many readers and scholars,
erratic, contradictory, confusing, and inconsistent. Throughout the ages, Judaism has
viewed Paul as a traitor that was disloyal to his people and caused great suffering.
Paul’s relationship with, and attitudes toward, Judaism are complex matters that are
the subject of intense debate and study.

A couple generations after Paul’s death, his followers appear to have split into two
main strands: Marcionite and Lukan. Paul’s legacy, as it regards Jews and Judaism,
was interpreted by both groups to signal ambivalence and antagonism. 164 According
to Gager,165 any reader of Paul has to address two separate sets of statements that are
in full contradiction:

The anti-Israel and anti-Law (anti-Torah observance) set:

a. For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse. (Gal. 3:10)
b. [N]o man is justified before God by the law. (Gal. 3:11)
c. For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new
creation. (Gal. 6:15)
d. For no human being will be justified in his [God’s] sight by works of the law,
since through the law comes knowledge of sin. (Rom. 3:20)
e. Israel who pursued the righteousness which is based on law did not succeed in
fulfilling that law. (Rom. 9:31)
f. But their minds were hardened; for to this day, when they read the old
covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it
taken away. Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their
minds. (2 Cor. 3:14–15)

14
The pro-Israel and pro-Law (pro-Torah observance) set:
a. Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?
Much in every way. (Rom. 3:1–2)
b. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary,
we uphold the law. (Rom. 3:31)
c. What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! (Rom. 7:7)
d. So, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good. (Rom.
7:12)
e. They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants,
the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the
patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. (Rom. 9:4–5)
f. I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! (Rom. 11:1)
g. [A]nd so all Israel will be saved. (Rom. 11:26)
h. Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not. (Gal. 3:21)

Throughout the centuries theologians and thinkers have wrestled with the apparent
inconsistency and incompatibility of Paul’s declarations. Paul’s letters were crafted to
address issues at hand; they were not intended to form a consistent theological whole.
Therefore, and unfortunately, we do not have an explicit and comprehensive
theological summary that would enable us to navigate his seemingly conflicting
conjectural statements. The closest we have, to a possible theological summary, may
be the Epistle to the Romans. 166

One’s conclusions on the complex questions that surround Paul’s legacy will depend
on one’s assessment of the reliability of the sources available to us. Students of Paul
must address the tensions and the inconsistencies between the two main early sources
of information about his ministry: The Acts/Luke rendition and Paul’s Epistles.
Scholars also differ on Acts’ agenda. Was Acts written to present an historical
account, as implied? Or was it crafted to portray followers of Jesus as loyal to Rome,
to mitigate Rome’s persecution, to exonerate Rome from responsibility for Jesus’s
death, to oppose Marcion or to legitimate Paul by presenting him as respectful of
authority and hierarchy?167

Traditional scholarship has emphasized Acts as a guide to decoding Paul, and has
read Paul as supportive and suggestive of anti-Judaism. Modern scholarship attempts
to understand Paul through his own writings and tends to reject other texts as biased
and tendentious – leading to a different, and non-anti-Judaic Paul. Whether we reach

15
the conclusion that Paul was anti-Judaic (as the traditionalists would have it) or not-
anti-Judaic (as the revisionists would have it) will color our understanding of his
theology.

The historical setting of Paul’s Epistles is crucial. Sanders points out that the Epistle
to the Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians and Galatians were all written within a very short
period.168 Thessalonians seems to be from several years earlier, and Philippians is
somewhat difficult to date. Sanders, reflecting mainstream scholarship, concludes that
since most discussions of Paul inevitably focus on the letters first mentioned, it must
be recalled that they represent Paul at a crucial moment in his history—with
difficulties in his previously evangelized churches breaking out just as he was hoping
to complete the collection for Jerusalem and press on to the west—and these
circumstances forced him into a critical examination of his gospel and the
restatement of it vis- à -vis seriously competing views. 169

To assess Paul’s contribution to anti-Jewish attitudes among early Gentile believers in

Jesus, we need to address the following questions:

1. What were Paul’s teachings regarding Jews and Judaism?

2. Were Paul’s teachings regarding Jews and Judaism consistent or erratic?
3. Did Paul attempt to lure Jews away from Judaism?

The Theological Paul

Many traditionalists (Bousset, Harnack, Holtzmann, Morgan, Reitzenstein, and
others) supported an understanding of Paul as grounded in the religious milieu of
first century Rome. Accordingly, Judaism, Gnosticism, Platonism, and the Mystery
Religions were all seen as significant contributors to the new religion. Traditional
scholarship advocated a fundamental antithesis between Paul and Judaism. In modern
scholarship, there is a growing emphasis on continuity (Davis, Sanders, Gager,
Gaston, and many others). At the dawn of the twenty-first century, an increasing
number of scholars see Judaism as the dominant component of Paul’s background
and thinking.170

W. D. Davis pioneered the shift of emphasis from antithetical to consonant and

derivative. Davies emphasized Paul’s close relation to Rabbinic Judaism and

16
concluded that we cannot too strongly insist that for Paul the acceptance of the
Gospel was not the rejection of Judaism nor the discovery of a new religion wholly
antithetical to it (as his polemics might lead us to assume). Rather, per Davies, Paul
advocates the recognition of the advent of the true and final form of Judaism, in
other words, the advent of the Messianic age of Jewish expectations.171

During the last decades of the twentieth century new inroads were made in the
attempt to carve out a ‘revised’ Paul, free from the anti-Jewish interpretations of his
immediate and later followers. My understanding of the theological foundations
visible in Paul’s Epistles is as follows:

Judaism —Judaism contributed monotheism (one omniscient, omnipresent, and

omnipotent God), a teleological view of history (history unfolds toward a destination
and reveals God’s purposes) and a scriptural religion (scripture as a vehicle for
safeguarding, transmitting, and legitimating religion, tradition, and political power).
Dead Sea Scrolls research has yielded a recognition of the debt of the Pauline creed
(The Kerygma - 1 Cor. 15.3)172 to Jewish sectarian theology. Judean sectarians, as
exemplified by the Qumran community, may have had a strong influence on Pauline
tenets and may have contributed elements that were attributed by earlier research to
non-Jewish sources. Dead Sea Scrolls research has also contributed to the growing
understanding that Paul’s dualism may have originated from Jewish sectarian lore.
Paul’s vision of the world as a battleground between dualistic forces (good and evil,
soul and flesh, sin and righteousness, light and darkness) may have originated in
Jewish sectarian-eschatological-dualistic theologies, to the inclusion of the Two Ways
tradition.173 (see pg. 113, 254)

Gnosticism —Gnosticism is a modern designation for a variety of spiritual trends

that flourished during the first centuries of the Common Era (Hermetica, Valentians,
Mandaeans, and Manichaeans). According to Gnosticism, salvation comes from
secret knowledge received and understood only by the few, the elect. The divine
spark within is to be freed, and a redeemer/savior will provide escape from suffering
(Gal. 4:3; Eph, 3:10, 12; Col. 2:8).174 Gnostics believed that both their origin and their
destiny lay in a supreme deity. The supreme God dwells in a heavenly place removed
from the evil world, which is seen as the creation of a disobedient angel or demiurge.
The demiurge seeks to hold humans in ignorance of their true identity - in sleepiness
and intoxication. A divine messenger will come and awaken humans and free them
from the bonds of ignorance by bringing true knowledge. 175 Harnack and others
since, see some features of Paul’s theology as deriving from Gnosticism.176

17
Mystery Religions —the cults of Mithra, Isis, Osiris, Attis, Dyonisus, Adonis,
Demeter, and others are known as ‘mystery religions.’ This is a modern designation
for a variety of ancient Greek, Persian, and Egyptian cults that competed for Roman
interest and patronage. Little is known about these religious groups given that their
members held their rituals and beliefs in secret. As the Jewish grounding of Paul has
been increasingly acknowledged, the emphasis on this source seems to have
weakened.177 The Mystery Religions have been a preferred source for the sacrifice of
the savior as a vehicle for atonement and salvation, for the negative view of the flesh
and of sex, and for a pervasive and overwhelming sense of sinfulness and
deprivation. (Sandon, the official god of Tarsus, Paul’s birthplace, is a suffering and
resurrecting savior God).

Overall, Paul’s theological synthesis is unique and powerful—so much so, that Jesus
would not have recognized it. 178 Paul’s integration of Jewish and non-Jewish
influences is a personal synthesis reinforced by a claim to revelation (Gal. 1:11–17; 2
Cor. 12:1–6; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8). Paul’s extraordinary theological synthesis seems to
reflect his personal cultural background, and may be substantially dependent on
Qumran theology.179

Paul’s emphasis on salvation by ‘faith alone’ was an intrepid attempt to introduce the
ethical core of Judaism to Gentiles, without the eccentricities that were most alien to
Gentile converts: Torah observance, circumcision, and dietary Law. 180 Although
Paul’s synthesis could be seen as the natural expression of personal experiences and
exposures, it is nonetheless a remarkable accomplishment.

The Controversial Paul

Paul was a charismatic religious visionary deeply convinced of the centrality of Jesus’s
death and resurrection as the pivotal event of human history. This belief overrode all
else. Paul’s sense of mission and uniqueness was centered in his claim to superior
standing over the disciples and was grounded on his experience of direct revelation
from Jesus (Gal. 1:11–12). Unfortunately, Paul left us sketchy descriptions of the
revelation he experienced and of his meetings in Jerusalem. On these crucial events,
we are almost wholly dependent on the author of Acts. Although sympathetic to
Paul, Acts seems to deny him the status he yearned for. Paul’s claims to higher status
(on the basis of revelation) are addressed by omission.

18
According to Acts, when confronted by the Jewish followers of Jesus in the
Jerusalem meetings, Paul submits to the authority of James. 181 He is submissive and
subservient and does not claim authority of any type. In Acts, James is the undisputed
leader and Paul submits to his authority. 182 Paul is also a surprisingly candid and self-
professed master of theological gymnastics. He displays an approach to proselytizing
that is unparalleled in religious recruiting. In his own astonishing self-description:

20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those

under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am
not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. 21 To
those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I
am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law) so that I
might win those outside the law. (1 Cor. 9: 20–22)183

Most academic studies attempt to bypass the ‘controversial Paul’ by assigning one
text (mostly Galatians or Romans) as the pivotal and defining text. This approach
understates the contradictions that surface when all the Pauline texts are compared.
Paul, the center of gravity of the New Testament is difficult to pin down. Attempts to
salvage a consistent Paul have intensified in recent decades. Some assign the
inconsistencies and contradictions in Paul to his contingent target audiences; others
point to his rhetorical technique. 184

Paul and the Jewish Followers of Jesus185

The New Testament texts and later orthodoxy attempt to convey recognition of Paul
and his mission (and by inference of his theology) by James and the disciples—while
understating the ambivalence and opposition he seems to have faced. 186 Paul’s
relationship with the ‘founding fathers’ seems to have been difficult, complex, and
turbulent. I explore these relationships further in the chapter dedicated to the Epistle
of James.187 Furthermore, Paul claims pre-eminence over the founding fathers on the
basis of revelation, a stance that they would have rejected—if aware of it:188

For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was
preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from
man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus
Christ. (Gal 1:11–12) ... was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in
order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not
confer with flesh and blood. (Gal. 1:16).

19
Furthermore, the Acts depiction of James’s blessing of Paul’s mission to the Gentiles
(Acts 15) if historical, is short and leaves many questions unanswered. Although Acts,
the M material in Matthew, and the Epistle of James reflect James’s wish for the
Jewish followers of Jesus to remain Jews and to obey the Torah, scripture does not
clarify James’s vision on how the missions to the Jews and to the Gentiles were to
relate to each other. James’ cryptic statement, if historical, left many unanswered
questions as to fellowship between Jews and Gentiles in the Jesus movement.
Whether James bestowed upon Paul’s mission to Gentiles believers equal standing to
the Torah observant mission to the Jews, and whether (and under what
circumstances) fellowship between the parties was allowed – are open questions. 189
Chances are that we will never know what James’s intentions were.

According to Acts, during the period between the first and second meetings with
James, Paul breached James’s blessing by promoting attitudes toward the Torah and
toward Judaism that would be unacceptable to followers of Jesus of Jewish origin.
Paul’s anti-Law hyperbole, even if used only while addressing Gentile audiences, was
detrimental to the status of the Torah and would be anathema to Jesus and the
disciples. If Paul’s claim that the Law (the Torah) was to be considered replaced by
belief in Jesus’s death and resurrection (Gal. 3:10, 11; 6:15; Rom. 3:20; 9:31) was
proclaimed to audiences containing Jewish believers, it would be an affront to the
‘founding fathers.’

According to the Acts rendition of the second meeting (Acts 21) James expected Paul
to limit his activities to Gentiles. James’s blessing of Paul’s mission to the Gentiles
may have unintentionally created a two-tier movement and may have planted the
seeds of future frictions between the factions. It would seem that tensions between
Paul and the Jewish leaders of the Jesus movement escalated due to the fact that he
had not kept his side of the deal; Paul was accused of luring Jews away from Judaism
(Rom. 7:1–5; Gal. 4:21–29; 1 Cor. 9:20–22; Acts 21:21) and Acts corroborates that
point.190 This evidence seems to contradict the argument that Paul’s rhetoric can be
explained and justified on the grounds that his audiences were Gentile, as some
modern scholars contend.

It took years before gossip became rumor, and rumor became suspicion. Eventually,
Paul had to answer the accusations leveled against him that he was luring Jews away
from Judaism; of targeting Jewish communities and of breaching the boundaries of

20
James’s blessing. Paul’s position did become untenable: he needed James’s blessing to
vest his mission to the Gentiles with respectability and with legitimacy, but seems to
have transgressed his directives.

Corroboration of James’s position about Torah observance and works may have been
preserved in the Epistle that bears his name:

For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has
become guilty of all of it... What does it profit, my brethren, if a
man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save
him?... So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead... But some
one will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your
faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my
faith. (James 2:10–18)

Unfortunately, the authoritative lore does not educate us as to the extent of James’s
awareness of Paul’s ambivalent proclamations on Torah observance and Judaism. I
speculate that James, an upholder of the Law, would have had no room for Paul’s
ambivalent messages about Torah observance, even while addressing Gentile
audiences. We can summarize the position of James, as reflected in Acts and James,
as follows: 1. James blessed Paul’s mission to the Gentiles. 2. Gentiles don’t need to
keep the Torah.191 The Torah was not abrogated, superseded, or changed in any
way.192

Although the author of Acts places Paul center stage, he did not want Paul as the
founder of Christianity. For the author of Luke/Acts and for his audience, the
maverick Paul was problematic. The author of Luke/Acts fashioned a legitimating
narrative that emanates from Jesus and his disciples, not from Paul. The Acts
rendition of the second summons to Jerusalem (Acts 21) is a masterful attempt to
present an embarrassing situation in the best possible light. Paul was accused of
undermining the status of the Torah and of the founding faction (as the authoritative
leaders of the movement)—while evangelizing under the respectability bestowed
upon him by James’s blessing. Paul, claimant to independent and superior status
before Christ, was confronted about his theological acrobatics.

The Acts rendition of this episode is laconic: Paul was to undergo a public ceremony
designed to demonstrate his unequivocal adherence to the Torah. the charges are

21
presented and James orders to conduct a ceremonial ritual that would demonstrate
Paul’s Judaism. The announcement is made without giving Paul an opportunity to
respond and without Paul asking for one. Acts makes every effort to cast Paul as a
Torah-observant Jew193 and subordinates Paul to James, inheritor of Jesus’s
leadership. According to Acts, James tried (by the device of the ceremony), to no
avail, to save Paul from the mob. The ceremony (Acts 21) was not sufficient; Jews
were incensed by Paul’s actions. Paul was arrested to protect him from people that
were out to kill him.

We can only guess why the guidelines set by James were breached. We have
indications that they may have collapsed at both ends: whereas ‘some from James’
may have caused a split in the Antiochene community by demanding that Gentiles
keep the Torah (Gal. 2:11–14), Paul may have lured Jews away from Judaism (1 Cor.
9:20– 22 and Acts 21:18– 26). It would appear that, if historical, James’s blessing of
the mission to the Gentiles was unclear and/or dysfunctional. It seems that James’s
directive disintegrated upon impact with reality on the ground. 194

The Acts Rendition

The Act accounts are cryptic and focused on vesting Paul’s ministry with the
approval of James. It remains unclear whether James granted non-Jews equal standing
in the covenant, or just applied the Noachide Laws to the specific circumstances at
hand. We must assume that Paul traveled twice to Jerusalem in search of something
more than a partial reiteration of the Noachide Laws, which do not require James’
confirmation and cover all humans. We do not know whether Paul and James
debated his understanding of Jesus’s legacy, his rejection of Judaism as it pertains to
Gentiles, the possible emergence of two parallel but incompatible communities, or
his claim to higher standing based on direct revelation from Jesus—a claim he seems
to have made while addressing Gentiles. We may never know whether Acts’ rendition
of James’s blessing of Paul’s mission to the Gentiles should be read as historical or as
a legitimating myth. Either way, Paul’s journeys to Jerusalem indicate that James’s
blessing was quintessential to Paul.

It seems that the understanding reached in the first Jerusalem council (circa 45-49
CE), if historical, whereby there would be two separate missions, one to the Jews and
one to the Gentiles, proved to be not viable. It is possible that the Acts version of the
events, two dispensations—one to the Jews and one to the Gentiles—could be a
posterior Pauline expansion of James’s application of the Noachide Laws to the

22
specific circumstances at hand. Be it as it may, Paul’s later statements and the
tensions between Jews and Gentiles in the Jesus movement would appear to signal
that Paul may have heard more than James said. 195

Paul, Faith, and the Law

Paul put emphasis on a series of dualistic pairs that have been central in apologetics
since, and are a distortion of first-century Judaism. Paul’s presentation states:

Jewish belief Torah=Law - Sinful - Flesh - Works - Darkness > Superseded

Pauline belief Faith=Faith - Saved - Spirit - Belief - Light > Supersedes

Paul’s use of these imaginary contrasts requires looking into. Contrary to traditional
Gentile presentations, the Torah/Law does not replace or negate faith; it reinforces
it. The Torah edifies the individual and promotes good and compassionate
behavior.196 Paul’s dramatic juxtaposition of faith and the Law, of belief and works,
and of spirit and flesh is heavily influenced by Gnostic and Jewish sectarian
dualism.197 It carries the Gnostic seal of infatuation with sin and a negative attitude
toward the body (flesh) as the incarcerator of the spirit. These illusory juxtapositions
were successful with Gentile audiences that had no prior knowledge of what the
Torah, or Judaism, actually were. With time, the Gentile followers of Paul became
infused with high doses of anti-Law rhetoric and the Law became a major emotional
‘red flag,’ a central ‘wedge issue’ in the drive to de-Judaize belief in Jesus.

The confusion engendered by Paul’s anti-Law rhetoric is highlighted by indications of

an ethical void among some believers that inferred that rejection of the Law implied
rejection of moral behavior. It would appear that Paul’s anti-Law polemic created an
ethical vacuum that engendered confusion, anarchy (Rom. 16:17–19;1 Cor. 1:10–13;
15:23–24; Gal. 1:6–9; Phil. 3:1–2), sin, and transgression (Rom. 3:8; 6:1; 6:15; 7:7;
13:10–14; 1 Cor. 5:1–5; 2 Cor. 2:17; 1 Thess. 4:3–10). This result was unforeseen and
unintended by Paul who often calls upon his congregations to behave ethically, and
to restrain deviant behavior.

Paul in Modern Scholarship

23
Traditional interpretations of Paul’s writings are on the defensive following path
breaking works by scholars such as K. Stendahl, W. D. Davies, E. P. Sanders, P.
Gaston, and J. Gager who stand on earlier calls against traditional readings by G. F.
Moore, James Parkes, and T. Herford. Moreover, traditional scholarship reads Paul as
anti-Jewish, stresses Paul’s confrontation with Judaism and has attempted, by all
possible means, to present a consistent Paul. The shift away from traditional readings
of Paul198 has gained momentum in the last three–four decades. This shift has two
main pivots:

a. The discovery by Christian scholars of real first-century Judaism.

b. The attempts to understand Paul outside the orthodox hegemony (a ‘revised’
Paul).

Gager best summarized traditional views about Paul as follows: Paul underwent a
typical conversion from one religion to another, in this case from Judaism to
Christianity. As a result of this conversion, he preached against the Jewish Law,
against Judaism, and against Israel. The content of this negative teaching was that the
Law, the old covenant with Israel, was no longer the path to salvation, for Jews or for
Gentiles. Indeed, God had never intended it to be. God had rejected the Jews/Israel
as the chosen people.

Most traditional interpreters maintain that Paul’s attacks against the Law are founded
on a sound understanding of ancient Judaism. The radical antithesis between Judaism
and Christianity is represented as a decisive transition from religious particularism to
religious universalism. Accordingly, Paul transcended Judaism.

Gager articulates Paul’s unintended origination of the anti-Jewish strand and his
centuries-long status as the fountainhead of anti-Judaism as follows:

This rejection-replacement view of Judaism quickly became the

dominant stance within Christian circles in the early centuries; it
underlies the message and structure of the New Testament as a
whole. And it is within this structure that Paul stands as the
central figure. For the New Testament and certainly for those
who created it, Paul was the theologian of Christian anti-
Judaism.199

24
Pivots in scholarship emerge gradually. Most originate in changes in focus and
emphasis. Krister Stendahl stands at such an historical juncture. A shift of emphasis
by Stendahl (1964) and E. P. Sander’s attack on the view of Judaism as work-
righteousness (1977) questioned the traditional Christian understanding of Judaism.
Sanders argued that Judaism cannot be understood or defined by reading Paul.
Sanders also repudiated the view that first-century Judaism was legalistic and he
opposed interpretations of Paul as anti-Jewish. Nonetheless, he saw Paul as devaluing
and deemphasizing Judaism:

The Law is good, even doing the Law is good, but salvation is only
by Christ; therefore, the entire system represented by the Law is
worthless for salvation... Paul in fact explicitly denies that the
Jewish covenant can be effective for salvation, thus consciously
denying the basis of Judaism.’ 200

Stendahl, a leading Lutheran theologian, articulated his revolutionary views on Paul:

[A] doctrine of justification by faith was hammered out by Paul

for the very specific and limited purpose of defending the rights
of Gentile converts to be full and genuine heirs to the promises
of God to Israel. Their rights were based solely on faith in Jesus
Christ. This was Paul’s very special stance, and he defended it
zealously against any compromise that required circumcision or
the keeping of kosher food laws by Gentile Christians. As the
apostle to the Gentiles he defended this view as part and parcel
of the special assignment and revelation that he had received
directly from God. In none of his writings does he give us
information about what he thought to be proper in these matters
for Jewish-Christians.201

In other words, Stendahl challenged the focus of Paul scholarship by giving to Paul’s
letters a conjectural status. This ‘revised and new Paul’ may be labeled ‘non-anti-
Judaic.’202 According to Stendhal, we should not read Paul’s letters as general
theological statements addressed to Jews and Gentiles. Stendahl reads Paul’s letters as
directed toward, and applying to, his Gentile audience exclusively. Consequently,
Paul’s anti-Law and anti-Judaic statements are to be read within the context of his
fierce battle against those among the Jewish founders and their Gentile sympathizers
who opposed a separate dispensation for the Gentiles. These opponents insisted on a

25
stronger affinity to, and affiliation with, Judaism. 203 Thus, according to Stendahl,
Paul’s statements are irrelevant to Jews, or to the relationship between Judaism and
the Law. In summary form, Stendahl’s understanding of Paul may be summarized as
follows:

a. The focus is ‘Paul the apostle to the Gentiles.’ Failure to retain this focus can
only lead to distortions, misconstructions, and blocked access to Paul’s
original thought.
b. In particular, it was Augustine’s discovery of Paul’s introspective conscience,
along with Luther’s focus on justification by faith, that led readers to impose
(to read back) meanings that were absolutely the opposite of what Paul said.
c. Modern translations of the Bible regularly reflect this Augustinian and
Lutheran Paul.
d. In Galatians, Paul is defending his Gospel against Judaizers within the Jesus
movement, not against Jews outside it.
e. Romans Chapters 9 – 11 represent the culmination of his thinking, not an
incidental appendix.
f. If Paul argues against anything in Romans, it is against the first signs of anti-
Judaism among Jesus worshipers, not against Judaism. 204
g. We should not speak of Paul’s conversion as if it implied a transfer out of
Judaism; he had no concept of ‘Christianity as we know it’ or of his Gospel as
a new religion.
h. Paul remained a Jew throughout his life; we should always read him within the
context of traditional Jewish thought, not against it.
i. Paul does not speak of Jews and of Judaism in terms of the customary
stereotypes put forward by many scholars.

Fifty years after Stendahl’s proposal for a revised Paul, a significant number of
scholars have elaborated and nuanced Stendahl’s views. New voices have taken
center stage. Prominent New Testament scholars are working toward a new
understanding of Paul’s ministry and of his relationship to Judaism. The ‘revised
Paul,’ and ‘Paul within Judaism’ are current academic terms for the perspective that
emerged out of this paradigmatic shift in Pauline studies. This ‘revised Paul’
interprets Paul as fully grounded in first century Judaism. Stendahl, Sanders, Gaston,
Gager, Stowers, Nanos, Zetterholm and others highlight the Gentile nature of
Paul’s mission and frame Paul as a torah-observant Jew who was opposed to
demanding Torah observance from Gentiles.

26
 A deluge of books, cooperative surveys, dissertations and articles followed Sanders’
and Stendahl’s pioneering works on Paul and on the true nature of Second Temple
Judaism.205 As expected following paradigmatic shifts, recent scholarship seems to
indicate that some scholars are attempting to reevaluate, nuance, and mitigate the
impact of the New Perspective on Paul:

‘The new perspective by no means replaces the old perspective,

but the debate it has fostered cleans the lenses of both and allows
the Pauline perspective to be seen in more of its idiosyncratic
fullness.’206

Westerholm acknowledges that Sanders’ positive contribution lies not so much in

the details of his depiction of Judaism as in the serious effort he made to
understand Judaism on its own terms, as based on its own literature.

‘As an (almost immediate) result, it became no longer acceptable to

perpetuate earlier caricatures of Judaism with little basis in the
texts. Even Sanders’s sharpest critics acknowledge that depiction
of Judaism prior to Paul and Palestinian Judaism were often
misleading, at times maliciously so.’207

A commendable, and recent, attempt to present balanced views on the traditional and
new perspectives is to be found in Longenecker Bruce W. and Still Todd D.
Thinking Through Paul: An Introduction to His Life, Letters, and Theology (2014) where the
authors assess strengths and weaknesses of both, and by doing so offer a useful
summary.

For the most part, Luther’s Paul (the traditional Paul) is now seen as embarrassing
and as immaterial to the true nature of the first-century crucible.208 However, each
scholar reads Paul somewhat differently. Positioning is highly nuanced.
The ‘new’ Paul is nothing short of a revolution, not only in Paul scholarship, but also
in New Testament studies—and inevitably in the Christian self-understanding. Since
Paul is the theological foundation of the New Testament, re-forming Paul leads to
the inevitable reconstructing of the tradition.

27
Summary
Paul, unlike Buddha, Plato, and Mohammed, did not write or transmit to his
followers a comprehensive and systematic articulation of his views— setting off the
emergence of radically divergent interpretations of his legacy. In the absence of a
methodical and comprehensive presentation of his mature theology, believers have
created a cacophony of Pauline voices. Paul, the elusive first-century religious
visionary, who wanted to mold himself to fit all audiences, got a fitting legacy: every
denomination and faction has its Pauline scholars of preference. Every predisposition
has its affiliated branch of Paul scholarship.

The anti-Judaic/anti-Law Paul is still deeply ingrained in the lore and in the minds
and hearts of believers. Many have made one or more steps toward the ‘revised’ Paul,
but have difficulties in divorcing themselves from the traditional paradigm altogether.
In addition, whether Paul was obscure but consistent or clear but erratic remains a
contentious topic. 209 According to the supporters of the ‘revised’ Paul, the traditional
‘anti-Jewish’ and ‘anti-Law’ Paul is (mostly) based on a misrepresentation of his
message and intent, and on the misinterpretation of his letters as a systematic
theological statement.

Great effort has been invested in explaining Paul and in making him more appealing
to modern sensibilities. It is unclear what impact this shift will have on non-academic
readers of the texts. So far, access and exposure to the revised Paul has been limited.
For the most part, the anti-Jewish impact of the texts on the literal reader remains
largely unchanged. Unfortunately, the revised Paul is difficult to articulate and defend
for it requires deviation from long-ingrained and more inherently intuitive readings of
the texts. Centuries of traditional readings of Paul make the revised versions
counterintuitive, too contrary to the literal Paul that people encounter when reading
the New Testament.210

My Paul
Paul not only introduced ethical monotheism, 211 scriptural religion, and teleology212 to
the Roman world, he also pioneered the rich and fruitful universe of personal belief.
He was the first to familiarize ‘Western’ minds with the emotional and intellectual
universe that moderns call ‘individual consciousness and belief.’ This contribution has
not received proper credit due to our intuitive inclusion of beliefs and values within
the realm of religion and to our (modern) awareness of ‘individual belief.’

28
However, for first-century Romans, belief (i.e., the beliefs of individuals) was to a
large extent an unknown and unappreciated component of the human cognitive and
religious experience. Individual belief was of no concern to the Roman authorities,
religious or secular. The focal point of Roman life, culture, and religion were actions
and deeds—not the beliefs of individuals. Religion was largely cultic. To most
Romans, religion was a ritual act of allegiance with few requirements or implications.
Beliefs and values, so central to moderns, were part of philosophy, not of religion.

St. Augustine is considered by many to be the first existentialist of the Western

tradition for his early investigation of inner consciousness. However, after studying
Paul, I consider him to be the true precursor of the Western exploration of individual
religious introspection. 213 Paul’s emphasis on individual belief must have been novel
and empowering. Moreover, by gravitating to the Gentile world, Paul became one of
the great trans-cultural figures.

By distilling the Jewish message to its essence and by choosing belief as the delivery
vehicle, Paul designed one of the most effective campaigns in the history of
theological trans-cultural ideological transfers. 214 ‘Sola Fide’ (by belief alone), Paul’s
doctrinal battle cry, turned out to be the perfect channel, the perfect vehicle for the
penetration of the Roman cultural and psychological defenses for it ‘delivered’ the
essence of Judaism to his target audience.

Individual belief, as understood by moderns, was an under-developed and

consequently unprotected, dimension in Roman religious thought. By concentrating
on belief, Paul fashioned an intellectual and religious Trojan horse that targeted an
open flank in the Roman armor. Paul’s message did penetrate the Roman cultural and
emotional defenses, without activating the defense mechanisms that protect sacred
tenets. Paul’s emphasis on belief must have been revolutionary. The notion that the
beliefs of every individual were the arena where the drama of salvation unfolded must
have been exhilarating in a society where individual freedom, regardless of class, was
very limited. Furthermore, the idea that individual belief not only mattered, but was
‘the’ essence of human existence and the only measure for salvation, must have been
an inspiring insight. For the first time in Western history what each individual
believed was crucial. We can only imagine the great impact that this encounter must
have caused in the Roman mind.

29
On the other hand, Judaism was too alien, demanding, and idiosyncratic for most.
‘Selling’ Judaism to the Romans would have necessitated a multi-dimensional
overhaul of Roman society and was destined to fail. Paul understood that Judaism’s
customs and traditions were a stumbling block on the path to bringing the Pagan
masses to righteousness. 215 Similar to the Muslim, Hindu, and Parsee religions, first-
century Judaism was a wide-ranging worldview of prescriptions and regulations that
governed the totality of individual and community life. 216 Although (mostly)
respectful of Judaism and intrigued by it, most Romans would not embrace it.

My reading emphasizes Paul’s confrontation with fellow Jewish followers of Jesus

and their Gentile sympathizers. What incenses Paul is the opposition of some among
the founding fathers to his de-Judaized interpretation of Jesus’s legacy. What ‘they’
(the Jerusalem leadership and their Gentile sympathizers) ‘reject’ and ‘do not
understand’ is not belief in Jesus, but Paul’s version of it. Contrary to the traditional
view (Paul’s theology as grounded in his theological confrontation with establishment
Judaism),217 I see the integrity of the Jesus movement and its fidelity to Torah as the
central issues at stake. 218 Since Paul was expecting an imminent second coming (Rom.
8:18) it seems that his ministry was not aimed at the creation of a new religion.
Nonetheless, in retrospect, we can see that Paul’s ministry was the beginning of a new
religion that developed ambivalent attitudes towards Jews and Judaism. Both may
have been unintended. As to the Jewish dimension, I see no clash between the
historical Paul and mainstream Judaism. Paul’s confrontation was with the Jewish
leadership of the Jesus movement,219 not with ‘external’ Jews.220

It seems to me that what Gentile followers of Paul did or did not do would be of no
interest to mainstream first-century Jews – unless Paul acted against Torah
observance among Jews, or attempted to lure Jews away from Torah observance.
However, being a Jew, Paul’s actions would be subject to strict scrutiny. According to
Paul, he was flogged five times (2 Cor. 11:24). This type of sentence was dispensed in
extreme circumstances, that is, when individuals violated sacred boundaries. Paul’s
words and activities suggest that he did attempt to lure Jews and God fearers221 away
from Judaism. We have noted that Jews and Jewish followers of Jesus accused Paul of
luring Jews away from the Torah, and we learn from Paul’s letters and from Acts that
Paul proselytized to Jews (Rom. 7:1–5; Gal. 4:21–29; 1 Cor. 9:20–22; Acts 18:4 and
21:21).222 Paul’s evangelizing among Jews would be perceived as threatening Jewish
identity and integrity. This behavior would have led him to conflict with Jews
everywhere. Furthermore, Paul’s attacks on Torah observance and on Judaism while
addressing mixed audiences may have become common knowledge, would be
opposed by the Jewish faction, and would have triggered retaliation. 223

30
I am not fully convinced either that Paul’s anti-Judaic and anti-Law statements can be
explained solely as rhetorical techniques or as limited to Gentile audiences. A ‘non-
anti-Jewish’ Paul may fit modern sensibilities and minds, but may have little in
common with the first-century charismatic and exclusivist Paul.224 Moreover, and
unfortunately, since literal readings of Paul tend to yield an anti-Jewish Paul, the
arguments that support the revised Paul may feel counterintuitive, complex, and
inaccessible to lay audiences.

The existence of a relatively good relationship between Paul and the Jerusalem
leadership, as portrayed by Acts (J. B. Lightfoot, Köstenberger, Schnabel, and
Bauckham), is countered by the argument that the Acts rendition is an attempt to
cover up the tensions (The Tubingen school— Bauer, Robinson, Koester, and
Dunn)225 as indicated in (Acts 15:1; 21:20–21; Gal 2:11–14; 5:1–12). Due to the
circumstantial nature of his Epistles, each student of Paul has to assign to this
extraordinary figure a center of gravity, a defining focal center. In Galatians Paul is
beyond himself with fury and resentment at ‘those from James.’ Therefore, those that
emphasize Galatians tend to see anger, resentment, estrangement and conflict. In
Romans (9–11, 11:1) Paul is introducing himself to Roman believers. Therefore,
those that emphasize Roman tend to see maturity, thoughtfulness, and reflection.

We have seen that the supporters of the ‘revised’ Paul contend that the traditional
understanding of Paul as anti-Jewish stems from a misinterpretation by Paul’s
followers. For them the question is whether the anti-Judaism is truly Paul’s own or
whether it belongs to the interpretative assumptions of his readers. Indeed, Stendahl,
Gaston, Gager, and E. P. Sanders emphasize that the process that led to the
canonization of the Pauline letters has also determined an anti-Jewish reading of them
in subsequent orthodox theology.
Regardless of one’s understanding of Paul, 226 his (intended or unintended) legacy was
understood by his immediate followers to be one of ambivalence toward Jesus’s
disciples, toward Torah observance, and toward Judaism. Both factions of Pauline
followers (Paulines and Marcionites) were very close to Paul in time, location, and
predisposition. It is interesting that they, who probably knew him best, considered
him the apostle of the rejection of Judaism. How far can the leader’s ideas be from
those espoused by his immediate and most fervent followers? Was Paul
misunderstood and misinterpreted by his immediate theological descendants, as put
forward by supporters of a non-anti-Jewish Paul? Whether a true interpretation of
Paul’s thinking or not, we will see that as the confrontation with the Jewish faction

31
and its Gentile sympathizers unfolds, anti-Judaic sentiment became endemic among
Paul’s followers.

My understanding of Paul emphasizes a conflict with the Jerusalem leadership over

his interpretation of Jesus’s legacy, his marginal standing among them, the rejection
of his claims to direct revelation and to authority (if aware of them) and his luring of
Jews away from the Law. 227 I am inclined to think that the founding fathers of the
Jesus movement wanted to remain a sect within Judaism. Paul, on the other hand,
attempted to craft a rationale for a Gentile, and de-Judaized, strand of belief in Jesus.

Paul was a charismatic theologian that laid down the foundations of the Christian
edifice as-we-know-it. He was the pivot and the trendsetter that paved the pathway
that led his Gentile followers to a religion, distinct and separate from the beliefs and
traditions of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers. Paul was a
visionary that was driven by great emotional stamina, militancy, enthusiasm, and a
deep personal yearning for recognition and legitimacy. Overall, to me, Paul comes out
high on theological creativity and synthesis, high on polemical skills, problematic on
consistency, ambivalent in his attitudes toward the Torah.228

Paul is the most intriguing persona in the New Testament, a theological thinker, an
enigmatic itinerant visionary, a grassroots organizer, and a turf nurturer and
protector. Paul’s trajectory, from a rather extreme and enthusiastic persecutor of the
Jewish followers of Jesus, to his extreme and militant defense of his de-Judaized
mission to the Gentiles, point to an extreme personality. He is willful, gutsy,
temperamental, and explosive. Paul was a theological and rhetorical innovator and
acrobat, as well as the dominant, most engaging and enigmatic character of the New
Testament.229

32
 The New Testament and Qumran

The Qumranites,230 similar to other Judean sectarians, 231 saw themselves as the only
lawful holders of the covenant with YHWH. 232 The members of the community
understood themselves to be ‘the true Israel,’ living apart from the rest of Israel,
which is seen as wicked and sinful. 233 The Qumran sect blights those outside the sect
as ‘the congregation of traitors’ (CD 1.12). The adversaries in the Thanksgiving
Hymns are: ‘an assembly of deceit, and a horde of Satan’ (2.2.2). In the War Rule:
they are ‘the company of the sons of darkness, the army of Satan’ (CD 1.1). The
Pharisees (the arch-villains of Matthew) may be among Qumran’s opponents. In
Pesher Nahum, ‘Those who seek smooth things’ (those who advocate lenient
interpretations of the Law) and the ‘deceivers’ are identified by most Jewish scholars
as the Pharisees.

The Qumran community is the clearest example of a ‘sect’ (in the modern sense of
the word) within first-century Judaism. Its distinctiveness has become more apparent
as the more sectarian of the Dead Sea Scrolls (from Cave 4) have been published,
showcasing strong predestinarian, dualistic, and mystical themes and motifs. The
community evidently regarded itself as an alternative to the Jerusalem Temple (hence
its withdrawal to the wilderness), determined membership by reference to its own
understanding and interpretation of Scripture, and applied strict rules for novitiate
and continuing membership (1QS 5–9). Most like the earliest Jesus movement in its
sense of divine grace (1QS 11; 1QH) and eschatological fulfillment and anticipation
(IQpHab, IQSa, 1QM), it was distinct from the former in a strict application of purity
rules and discipline. 234

I Enoch and Jubilees provide us additional windows into the worldview of Jewish
sectarian communities. I Enoch scourges fellow Jews and presents the world in sharp

33
binary contrasts: ‘sinners/irreverent’ on one side, ‘righteous/pious’ on the other (1.1,
7–9; 5.6–7). Daniel and I Enoch contributed to the substantial apocalyptic literature
that we encounter in the late Second Temple period and had a definitive impact on
messianic imagery among Jews (the son of man - a primordial being who would
preside over a final Judgment and would usher in the resurrection of the faithful) 235
and later among early believers in Jesus.

Dualism is another possible link between the early Jesus movement and the Judean
sectarian milieu. ‘Two Ways’ is the designation given by scholars to a worldview that
surfaced during the two centuries prior to the turn of the era and that, for the first
time in Jewish history, saw this world as a battleground between the forces of good
and evil. The Two Ways theology resonates with the Gnostic understanding of this
world as dominated by evil and suffering; the creation of an evil God. It also
resonates with Zoroastrian dualism that preceded it and may have influenced Judaism
during the Persian era.

The resentful, righteous, and militant posturing of Judean sectarians is oftentimes

intertwined with the Two Ways material. The juxtaposition of ‘good—evil,’ ‘us—
them,’ ‘sons of light—sons of darkness,’ which we encounter among some Gentile
believers in Jesus, may have originated in the sectarian-separatist posture of the
descendants of the Jewish founders and in the Two Ways mindset developed by
Judean sectarians, most notably at Qumran. 236

Dead Sea Scrolls research has yielded insights that we may harness in our excursion
to identify the cultural and religious traditions and antecedents that the New
Testament authors may have used to fashion their accounts of Jesus’s ministry.
Knohl237 argues the intriguing possibility that Jesus knew himself to be the Messiah,
and expected to be rejected, killed, and resurrected—based on the antecedent of the
messiah from Qumran. Moreover, in Qumeran’s Self-Glorification Hymn we see a
combination of divine or angelic status, and of suffering, not previously known
outside the Jesus story. The author describes himself in the image of the suffering
servant in Isaiah 53, an imagery that was later emulated-incorporated-appropriated by
early Gentile believers in Jesus. 238

Overall, I see strong similarities, parallels, and resonances between the texts found in
Qumran and the earliest strata of the New Testament, pointing to a significant
connection whose observable elements will surface throughout our inquiry. This

34
understanding of the affinities between some New Testament texts and the Judean
sectarian milieu diverges somewhat from the consensus among scholars. 239 The
current consensus seems to be moving away from dependence and tends to tone
down the importance of continuity.

A minority of New Testament scholars see significant affinity between Paul’s

theology and the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls, and little affinity between Jesus and his
disciples, and Qumran.240 According to D. Flusser (a minority view) there existed a
stratum of thought that was influenced by sectarian ideas, and John the Evangelist,
Paul, and the authors of some NT Epistles based themselves on the theological
achievements of this stratum.241

The similarities, parallels, and resonances between the texts found at Qumran and the
earliest, and Jewish, strata of the New Testament:
a. The earliest (and Jewish) followers of Jesus, similar to the Qumranites242 and
other Jewish sectarians would have perceived themselves as the only rightful
holders of the covenant with YHWH243 and understood themselves to be ‘the
true Israel,’ living apart from the rest of Israel, which is seen as wicked and
sinful.
b. The Pesher (Hebrew for ‘meaning’) method allows biblical passages to be
interpreted as addressing present circumstances, not the original historical
context in which they were first written. The Pesher exegetical method
(Typology) was unique to Qumran and was emulated-appropriated by Pauline
believers.
c. The main Pesher texts in Qumran are of the prophetic books Habakkuk,
Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, Nahum, and the book of Psalms, which are also popular
typological texts in the New Testament. 244
d. In the Qumran library, the most attested and most important biblical books
are Deuteronomy, Isaiah, and Psalms. These are also central in the New
Testament.
e. Both Qumran and some early believers in Jesus followed a charismatic leader
and considered themselves communities of the ‘chosen,’ guided by divine
revelation, existing between the powers of good and evil.
f. The arguments, attitudes, language, and imagery deployed by the Pauline
faction against the establishment of the Jesus movement seem to emulate the
arguments, attitudes, language, and imagery that Jewish sectarians, most
notably Qumran, deployed against the Jewish establishment.

35
g. Except for the Qumran community, there was no antecedent for the survival
of a messianic sect after the death of its leader. 245 Following Jesus’s death, the
Qumran community (having survived the death of The Teacher of
Righteousness) may have offered a template to follow.
h. The Qumran Messiah was believed to have resurrected after three days and his
second coming was anticipated. Jesus’s suffering, death, and resurrection after
three days suggest that his followers may have used the pre-existing template
of this messianic predecessor, the suffering servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 246
i. Qumran, contrary to mainstream Judaism, believed in continued revelation
beyond the biblical prophets, a theological stance present in the New
Testament.
j. Both communities had a sense of divine grace (1QS 11; 1QH) and
eschatological fulfillment and anticipation (IQpHab, IQSa, 1QM). An end-of-
times and earth-shattering battle is described in the War Scroll, in the Rule of
the Congregation IQSa, and in Revelation. 247
k. The ‘new covenant,’ of great significance to Qumran (CD 6:19; 8:21; 20:12;
IQpHab 2:3f.), is also a central theme in the New Testament (cf. Rom. 7:1–6;
Gal. 3:23–25; Heb. 8:1–15, 8:6–13, 10). However, Qumran reads Jeremiah
31:31–34 as emphasizing renewal, the NT as emphasizing replacement. 248
l. The covenant, as a result of the intervention of an extraordinary individual, 249
is the possession of the community and not those outside it, who have
forfeited their right to it through their sins.
m. Dualism and the Two Ways imagery250 are present in Qumran’s Community
Rule (I QS 3.13–4.16) and in the New Testament (mostly Paul and John).251
Qumran’s world is divided into good and evil. ‘Sons of light’ imagery occurs in
The War Scroll in Qumran, and in John 12:38 and 1 Thessalonians 5:5.
n. In Qumran’s Self-Glorification Hymn the author describes himself in the
image of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53, an imagery that was later emulated-
incorporated-appropriated by early Gentile believers in Jesus.
o. Both Qumran and early believers in Jesus distanced themselves from the
official Jewish sacrificial system and considered the priesthood unqualified and
sacrilegious.
p. Celibacy, disapproved of in Judaism, was practiced by some Essenes and was
idealized by early Paulines. Polygamy and divorce, approved by first-century
Judaism, were forbidden by both communities.
q. Similar to some early communities of believers in Jesus, Qumran led a
communal lifestyle with communal meals and no personal possessions.
r. Ritual immersion for the removal of ritual impurity was normative for first-
century Jews, but Qumran and the New Testament present something new:
immersion as an initiation rite (baptism).

36
 s. The most probable influence on Hebrews’ priesthood of Melchizedek seems
to be IQMelchizedek discovered at Qumran Cave 11, 252 although Attridge
instructs us of other instances of Melchizedek speculation (Philo, the
fragmentary Nag Hammadi tractate Melchizedek [NHC 9, 1], 2 Enoch, and 3
Enoch).253
t. Both communities lived in anticipation of an eminent end of times and a final
judgment. The pitch is militant and resentful, as we would expect from
separatist and self-righteous groups.
u. John the Baptist and Jesus ministered within walking distance from
Qumran,254 at a time when the community seems to have been active, pointing
to a plausible connection.

In regards to Pesher exegesis (item b) it is important to emphasize that it is highly

unlikely that early Pauline believers in Jesus, mostly recent converts from Paganism,
developed on their own the typological interpretation of a religious tradition alien to
them. Consequently, the use of typology is one of the strongest indications that
Pauline believers emulated-appropriated a number of Qumran traditions and
peculiarities. The emulation of this exegetical idiosyncrasy by early Gentile believers
in Jesus is one of many hints that Judean sectarian lore, views, and traditions migrated
to a Gentile setting (most probably) through the agency of Jesus’s disciples and first
followers or their descendants.

However, despite the substantial evidence for a link between Qumran and the early
Jesus movement, we should be cautious about its interpretation. The availability of
large numbers of Qumran texts, compared to other sectarian communities, may cause
us to overstate this connection. Rather, we should contemplate the possibility that
this evidence may be indicative of a connection between the early, and pre-Gentile,
Jesus movement with the general Judean sectarian milieu (Qumran being a specific
example of this broader phenomenon). It seems to be the case that the Qumran sect
and the pre-Gentile Jesus movement were contemporaneous sectarian Jewish
streams, accounting for the similarities we have encountered.

In summary, the parallels between the Judean sectarian milieu and the New
Testament are too numerous and too substantial to be set aside, and point to a
significant and important connection. Although none of the similarities and parallels
would be (by itself) conclusive proof of a nexus, their cumulative impact should tilt

37
the balance toward the view that Pauline believers in Jesus inherited-appropriated
many Qumran-like peculiarities. Since we do not have any indication of direct contact
between Gentile believers in Jesus and Qumran, we must assume that Jesus’s disciples
and first followers (who were Jewish sectarians with, plausibly, significant affinities
and similarities with Qumran) are the most likely agents of the migration of lore and
self-perception to non-Jews.

38
 The James Enigma

Introduction
Jewish-Gentile fellowship
The historical James
The canonical James
Major themes and addressees
James and Jesus
James and Peter
James and Paul
James and Judaism
James’ theology and ethics
My James

Introduction
During the last decades, the epistle of James has attracted considerable scholarly
interest. A bibliography of several hundred articles and monographs is now
available to those interested in this short but enigmatic, and challenging text. The
increased interest stems from a surge in the quest for the historical James, 255 his
beliefs, his role within the Jesus movement, and the study of his relationships and
views vis-à-vis those of the other central figures of early Jesus movement; Jesus,
Paul and Peter. The James revival is also associated with the growing awareness
about the Jewish grounding of the epistle and of the early Jesus movement. 256 As
Christian scholarship and theology have gravitated to a more comfortable embrace
of the Jewish grounding of the early Jesus movement, and of the diversity of early
belief in Jesus, interest in the earliest layers of the tradition has been on the rise.

Although the composition of James is attributed by most to a second century

author or community, there seems to be a consensus that its theology, ethics and
Torah observance emanate from the earliest strata of the lore. The epistles of
James and Jude, Q (The Q source is believed to be, by most scholars, the oldest
material of the tradition, is extant in Mark, Matthew and Luke, and is usually dated

39
about 50 CE.)257 and the M (the unique material associated with the author of
Matthew),258 are among the traces of the founding fathers of the Jesus movement
that survived the Pauline hegemony over the shaping of the canon. Their survival,
and the dissonance between these materials and the rest of the Pauline corpus,
eventually triggered, facilitated and enabled the growing embrace of the diversity of
the early Jesus movement. The Jewishness of James’ epistle seems now obvious,
given that ‘the essence of the Judaism of the epistle of James is similar to the
Judaism of the pre-rabbinic period.’ 259

Eusebius (mid-fourth century) informs us that James was a disputed text, unknown
to many earlier writers, and is not mentioned in the Muratorian Canon.260 The
epistle was canonized following its inclusion in Athanasius’s suggested canon (367
ce). The Pseudo-Clementine traditions that emphasize the authority of James do
not know anything about this important document.’ 261 Given this background, it is
important to query the epistle’s inclusion in the canon: first, it is plausible that by
the time the canonization process gained momentum, the Epistle of James was
authoritative and, similar to Matthew, could not be excluded. Second, a pro-Torah
observance and socially subversive text in the canon would be unacceptable, unless
it was believed to have been authored by Jesus’ brother. Third, we have some
evidence that constituencies with affinities to the beliefs and traditions of the
founding fathers remained influential throughout the fourth century (Pro-Jewish
and pro-Torah texts and sources in the New Testament: Q, the M material in
Matthew, and James. Outside the NT: The Didache, and the Pseudo-Clementine
literature)262

At the time of canonization literacy was minimal, access to the texts was limited,
and the perceived danger of inclusion was low. Therefore, we may tentatively
conclude that the inclusion of this problematic text, that advocated Torah
observance, did not mention Paul's teaching on faith in Jesus’ death and
resurrection, and was antagonistic to wealth and power, was deemed less damaging
than its exclusion.
Until the 20th century, the epistle was shunned by many early theologians and
scholars263 due to its advocacy of Torah observance and deeds, an uncomfortable
challenge to Pauline orthodoxy. Famously, Luther disliked the epistle due to its lack
of Christology and its focus on Torah observance, 264 and sidelined it to an appendix
due to its non-Pauline orientation.265 For many centuries, Athanasius strategy of
incorporate-but-subvert problematic traditions proved successful: James’ divergence
from orthodoxy did not cause major problems to the Church and for the most part,

40
until modern times, the epistle was relegated to benign disregard. ‘Modern
scholarly study of James has also been overshadowed, until quite recently, by a
strong tendency to read James in the light of Paul, leading not only to depreciation
of James by scholars with strongly Pauline theological predilections, but also to a
serious failure to appreciate the distinctive characteristics and qualities of James's
letter in their own right.’ 266 Although the epistle of James derives its legitimacy from
the founders and is vested with the authority of James, we must query whether it
escaped Pauline editing - given its survival within the Pauline corpus.

Recent readings that divest the Pauline hegemony over the discourse have begun to
re-place the epistle and the historical James in a more accurate historical context;
the early and Jewish grounding of the Jesus movement. During the last decades, the
epistle has been subjected to a variety of inquiries and new methodologies and has
been read from multiple perspectives, yielding an appreciation for its historical,
theological and sociological importance. Since the 1960s, rhetorical criticism,
textual-redaction criticism, and literary and structuralist strategies have paved the way
to new insights on the epistle.

Koester H. (1965) and Kloppenborg J. (1987) are widely recognized for bringing
about the pivot from emphasis on James as wisdom literature, to focus on the
apocalyptic and pre-Gentile context of James. Later studies strengthened this recent
appreciation for the pre-Gentile foundations of Q, M, and James. 267 Outside the
New Testament, traces of the Jewish followers of Jesus are to be found in the extra-
canonical Jewish Gospels (Nazoraeans, Ebionites, and Hebrews), 268 in the Didache269
and in the Pseudo-Clementine literature, 270 texts not focused on Jesus’ death and
resurrection that either advocate, or seem to advocate, Torah observance.

In addition to earlier works, students of James now benefit from a growing number
of quality individual and collaborative commentaries published during the 21 st
century. Among the latest individual works we find Popkes (2001), Hartin (2004);
Blomberg and Kamell (2008), McCartney (2009), McKnight (2011), Painter and
deSilva (2015), and Allison (2015). Noteworthy recent collaborative surveys include
Chilton B., and J. Neusner The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and his Mission (2001),
Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (2005), Webb,
Robert L., and John S. Kloppenborg, eds. Reading James with New Eyes: Methodological
Reassessments of the Letter of James (2007), and van de Sandt, Huub and Zangenberg,
eds. Matthew, James, and Didache (2008).

41
Jewish-Gentile fellowship

Jewish-Christian fellowship within the Jesus movement is a complex issue that

surfaces in various configurations throughout this survey. As we move forward in
time, and engage the texts before us in approximate chronological sequence, we will
follow the evolution and the manifestations of this relationship. Our discussion here
will focus on two events: The crisis at Antioch - Acts 15:1,5 and Gal 2:11-14, and
Paul's visits to Jerusalem - Gal 1:18-20 and Acts 9:26-30, Gal 2:1-10 and Acts 15:1-
19, 28-29. I adhere to the majority view; that the Antioch crisis followed the
Jerusalem council.

The crisis at Antioch271 - Antioch was the center of the Seleucid kingdom until 64
BCE, when it was annexed by Rome and made the capital of the province of Syria. It
became the third largest city of the Roman Empire in size and importance (after
Rome and Alexandria). The city was the headquarters of the Roman garrison in Syria,
whose principal duty was the defense of the empire’s eastern border from Persian
attacks. Antioch was also one of the earliest centers of belief in Jesus; it was there that
followers of Jesus were first called Christians, and the city was the headquarters of
Paul’s early mission (47–55 ce).

During or following the Jewish War of 70 ce, some among the Jewish followers of
Jesus fled to Pella while others went to Antioch (to which refugees from earlier
persecution had fled, and where they had established a significant community (Acts
11:19-20) which, at first, was Torah observant and accepted the leadership of the
Jewish followers of Jesus in Jerusalem (Acts 11:28)272 It is commonly assumed that
when these refugees arrived to Antioch they brought with them their lore; a
collection of sayings of Jesus that was later incorporated into the canonical Matthew
and is commonly designated as M. The M material, unique to Matthew, originated in
the lore of the pre-Gentile Jesus movement that has left textual traces in James and
Matthew. According to Streeter 273 the M tradition originated in Jerusalem, and reflects
the authority of James who is a strong advocate of the Law (the righteousness of
believers must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees). The Q
document is believed to be, by most scholars, the oldest material of the tradition, is
extant in Mark, Matthew and Luke, and is usually dated about 50 CE. Q’s existence
has been inferred. No actual Q document, in full or in part, has survived. Q is mostly
a collection of Jesus’s sayings. It is unclear where the Q tradition originated though it
was used by Mark and Matthew and written in Aramaic. 274 The Greek translation of

42
Q, which Streeter dates around 50 C.E., is seen by many as the original Gospel of
Antioch.275 However, it seems to me, that given geographical proximity and the
affinity between these communities, we should assume that the lore of the
communities of followers of Jesus at Jerusalem and Antioch were substantially
homogeneous, and would include M and Q.

During the late first century, the community at Antioch (originally mostly Jewish and
Torah observant)276 was experiencing the impact of a large influx of non-Jewish
converts. It seems that the majority of these Pagan converts where of Pauline
affiliation and inclination, but it is plausible that other forms of Gentile belief in Jesus
were also represented at Antioch. Painter posits that the missions to the Gentiles and
to the Jews at Antioch were divided into six factions. The factions of the
circumcision mission broadly fit the description of the first of two types of Jewish
believers distinguished by Justin (Dial. 47 – pg. 293).

At Antioch, up to the arrival of the emissaries from James (Gal 2:11-14) there seems
to have been some degree of fellowship between Jewish and Gentile followers of
Jesus. Historically, most scholars have agreed that the issue at the core of the incident
at Antioch was table fellowship: 277 In Gal 2:12 Paul writes about Peter’s role in the
Antioch incident:

for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the
Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself
separate for fear of the circumcision faction.

The current academic discussion seems to center on whether the arguments behind
the table fellowship episode where about ritual or moral purity, and whether the
underlying dislocations where mostly theological or socio-ethnic. Peter’s withdrawal
from table fellowship with Gentiles was understood by traditional scholarship to be
due to the incompatibility of Jewish food traditions with Gentile eating practices.
Recently, moral impurity claims have been the focus of several studies, an emphasis
that seems to have gained the center stage. Claims of moral impurity may have
surfaced due to Gentile participation in sacrifices to the Roman Gods, a requirement
on all inhabitants of the Roman empire – from which Jews, including the Jewish
followers of Jesus were exempt. 278 Significantly, Paul seems to acknowledge that
moral impurity is the issue and is concerned about the purity status of Gentile
believers in Jesus (Gal. 2:14-17 and 1 Cor. 6:11). 279

43
Given that avoidance of idolatry,280 and of the foods associated with Pagan sacrifices,
was a central demand of the Apostolic decree (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25)281 and are
connected to moral impurity in Jewish tradition, table fellowship would be
unacceptable to the founding fathers. 282 ‘This boundary is of paramount importance
for the men from James, but it is important because it was thought to protect Jews
from the contaminating influence of the idolatry and immorality thought to pervade
Gentile society. Ignoring the boundary is likely to lead into actual sin.’ 283
Furthermore, if moral impurity was indeed the central issue, ‘…according to James,
and despite Paul’s efforts to turn morally impure non-Jews into purified worshippers
of the God of Israel, intimate contact between Jews and non-Jews still constituted a
threat to the moral purity of the Jewish followers of Jesus.

In this situation, where close social relations between Jews and non-Jews already
existed, James may have concluded that this could only continue if non-Jews were
turned into Jews. Thus, from these assumptions, the rationale behind James’s course
of action in Antioch was his rejection of Paul’s way of dealing with the moral
impurity problem.’ 284 If Acts’ rendition of the Apostolic decree (Acts 15:20, 29;
21:25) is historical, and if the common interpretation of it (granting equal status to
the mission to the Gentiles)285 is sustainable, the participation of some Gentile
believers in Jesus in Pagan sacrifices would have violated James’ directive.

If emissaries from James appeared in Antioch requiring circumcision of non-Jews

(Gal 2:12)286 it would have contradicted the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:20, 29;
21:25)287 as traditionally understood. However, a demand requiring circumcision of
non-Jews as a condition for table fellowship may reflect James’ position on this
subject – and may be seen as a clarification of the decree. Some scholars see the
demand as reflective of a reversal of James’ previous position, or as reflective of the
existence of a conservative faction among the Jewish followers of Jesus that opposed
the decree and required Torah observance from non-Jews.288

Implementation of James’ stricter guidelines as to table fellowship would have led to

Jewish-Gentile segregation at Antioch. It seems that estrangement between Jewish
and Gentile followers of Jesus did indeed fester and intensify, feeding rancor and
animosity - although visibility as to the aftermath of this event is low. Whether the
incident at Antioch was historical or symbolic, we have little evidence about its
impact on Antioch’s community. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to assume an
escalation of tensions between Gentile and Jewish followers of Jesus from that point
forward. It is noteworthy that the resentment that must have accompanied the

44
estrangement between Gentile followers of Paul and the founding faction at Antioch
(and elsewhere) would have fueled the anti-Jewish sentiment that we encounter in the
lore.

James’ apparent victory at Antioch seems to have temporarily strengthened the Torah
observant mission. 289 We know, however, that the influx of Gentile converts will
gradually lead to a growing Gentile majority and to Pauline ascendance in the city
during the second century, 290 and to the first Gentile bishop there (Ignatius). This
incident has been understood as a turning point in relations between Jewish and
Gentile believers at Antioch. The crisis in Antioch has attracted much scholarly
attention due to the fact that it exemplifies and encapsulates the core issues behind
the estrangement between the Jewish followers of Jesus and the Gentile followers of
Paul. According to Pauline orthodoxy, this crisis also reflects and epitomizes a
divergence between James’ and Peter’s views on Torah observance.

However, it is unclear whether the cryptic information available to us justifies the

edifice that Pauline theology has erected on it. If historical, Peter’s table fellowship
with Gentiles may reflect a more accommodating and flexible personal attitude
toward Gentiles, rather than a rigorous and thought-trough theology that advocates a
non-Torah observant mission to the Gentiles – as claimed by Pauline orthodoxy.
Peter, whose persona was appropriated by the de-Judaizing camp to stand as a
compromise between James and Paul, has been cast by orthodoxy as the embodiment
of the via media, the compromise creed championed by the Paulines (pg. 280 ).291

Paul's visits to Jerusalem – Tensions at Antioch and elsewhere, about the salvation
status of non-Jews, may have led to the apostolic council. Acts 15: 1-2 informs us
that the core issue at the Jerusalem council between Paul and the leaders of the Jesus
movement was whether Gentiles had to observe the mandates of the Torah. In Acts
15: 28-29 James responds to Paul’s request to legitimize his mission to the Gentiles
by implying that Paul’s followers were to comply with four mandates:

28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose

on you no further burden than these essentials: 29 that you
abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood
and from what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep
yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.

45
This cryptic statement leaves many unanswered questions as to fellowship between
Jews and Gentiles in the Jesus movement, and we must question whether James
intended that compliance with these minimalistic requirements would suffice for
Gentile membership in the New Israel, the new people of God. 292 Unfortunately, the
meaning and implications of ‘If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.’ was
left open to interpretation. It seems to me that for James, full Torah observance was
a requirement for acceptance to the Jesus movement and to becoming rightful
believers in Jesus. To James (and to most first century Jews) the four mandates of
Acts 15:28-29 and the Noahide laws were variants of minimal ethical behavior
guidelines for all non-Jews, whether Pagans or Gentile believers in Jesus.

Unfortunately, we do not have anywhere in the New Testament a reliable clarification

of James’ views on the relative standing and relationship of the missions to the Jews
and to the Gentiles. James’ ruling at the council on the inclusion of Gentiles seems to
have been either unclear, incomplete, insufficient or dysfunctional – and seems to
have disintegrated upon contact with reality on the ground. Furthermore, it is
noteworthy that the epistle of James ‘… never alludes to the existence of Gentile
Christians (and can discuss the law and the relationship of faith and works with no
reference to the controversies around these topics that the conversion of Gentiles to
the Christian message provoked)’ 293

The discrepancies regarding the first visit have the most far-reaching consequences. 294
Whether James bestowed upon Paul’s mission to the Gentiles equal standing to the
Torah observant mission to the Jews, and whether (and under what circumstances)
fellowship between the parties was allowed – are open questions that were not
addressed by Acts. ‘That Paul does not harken back to the accord in the debate with
Cephas indicates that he knew there was more than one way to read the accord.’ 295
According to Acts, a Pauline perspective, following the breakdown of the accord Paul
accused Cephas of hypocrisy because he had not lived consistently as a Jew himself
and yet was attempting to compel Gentiles to live as Jews Gal (2:11-14).

… Paul's criticism was aimed at the Jerusalem position of

demanding circumcision and law observance if there was to be
full fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers. That is the
point of the withdrawal of table fellowship.’296

46
In summary, it is plausible that at first, the Gentile mission and the Jamesian
circumcision law-keeping party coexisted with some degree of fellowship. 297 At first,
Gentiles may have joined the Torah observant synagogues of the Jewish followers of
Jesus, but due to increasing alienation between Jews and Gentiles within the Jesus
camp – they seem to have seceded amidst great resentment, and established separate
and non-Torah observant communities. Whether historical or symbolic, Peter’s
withdrawal from table fellowship with Gentiles did become emblematic of the parting
of the ways between Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus, and the subject of a vast
literature. Belief in Jesus outside of Judea was becoming increasingly Gentile, and the
Jewish faction gradually became a minority at Antioch.

The historical James

James seems to have enjoyed great authority among the Jewish followers of Jesus.
The James most believers are acquainted with emerges out of Gal. 1-2; 1 Cor. 15:7
and Acts 12, 15, 21. However, we have useful accounts about James in Josephus,
Eusebius, Origen, the Gospel of Thomas, the Apocalypses of James, the Gospel of
the Hebrews and the Pseudo-Clementine literature - most of whom cast him as
righteous and as the undisputed leader of the Jewish camp.298 His influence is central
and palpable in Jerusalem and in Antioch, despite the fact that he did not minister at
Antioch. Although we are dependent on sources dominated by the Pauline
perspective, the role and influence of James overshadow all others at Antioch.
Sources outside the ‘mainstream’ show that James remained the single most powerful
figure among the Jewish followers of Jesus. 299 To the proto-orthodox, intent on de-
Judaizing belief in Jesus and uncomfortable with James’ demand for strict Torah
observance, it was important to limit his role to legitimizing Paul’s mission to the
Gentiles.300

Other than the Epistle of James, we do have a few pro-Jewish and pro-Torah
observance segments in the New Testament (Mostly the Q source in Mark and the M
material in Matthew). These seem to be, for the most part, appropriations and
incorporations of the lore of the Jewish founders into texts authored or edited by
Gentile believers. Whereas segments, that are supportive of the beliefs and traditions
of the Jewish founders, should be considered appropriations of the identity and lore
of the Jewish faction by the emerging Pauline majority – James is unique in the canon
by its explicit and wholehearted support of Torah-observance. Not only is this text a
unique view into the milieu of the Jewish founders - its inclusion in the canon signals
that as canonization begun (fourth century onward) Torah observance among
believers in Jesus was still authoritative and could not be delegitimized by exclusion.

47
It is noteworthy, that to the exclusion of Paul’s letters, the texts of the New
Testament come from the period after the Jewish War. Following the Jewish War,
and the decimation of the communities of believers in Jesus that accompanied it,301
the Torah observant traditions associated with Peter and James lost ground and were
gradually appropriated-subverted by the Pauline proto-orthodox:

‘Apart from the Epistle of James, which has been subverted to

appear as a General Epistle, there is no writing in the New
Testament that takes the part of James… What had begun as a
Jewish movement was now increasingly isolated from Judaism
and James became increasingly identified with what was
simultaneously Jewish and Gnostic. In the great church, though
he was honored, his relationship to Jesus was interpreted in a way
that distanced him from Jesus, and he was made subject to
apostolic authority. For James the brother of Jesus, this path was
truly a dead end.’ 302

The canonical text

The debate about the authorship of the canonical text is inconclusive and parallels
the debates about its Christology, and about the extent to which the text is
informative regarding the beliefs of the historical James. The final text reflects
second century Pauline influence on, or appropriation of, traditions emanating
from the early (and Jewish) Jesus movement. Although few support direct
authorship by James, many acknowledge the text’s affinity to Torah observance,
good deeds, and the traditions that emanated from the historical James. The
earliest extant texts of the epistle date to the third century, 303 necessitating
scholarly debate as to authorship. A partial summary regarding the authorship of
James:
 Not authored by James, brother of Jesus - Dibelius and Greeven 1975; Laws

 The letter contains teachings coming from the historical James, but the final
1980; Pratscher 1987; Burchard 2000; Popkes 2001; Edgar 2001

composition was later - Davids 1982; Martin 1988; Painter 1997; Walls 1997;
Davids 1999; Byrskog 2000, 167-71; Evans 2001; Davids 2001; Chilton 2005;

 Authorship by James - Hengel 1987; Adamson 1989; Johnson 1995;

Painter and deSilva (2015)

Bauckham 1999; Bauckham 2001; McKnight Scot 2011

48
Although James eventually became part of the NT, was subject to Pauline theological
appropriation-subversion, may be suspect of Pauline editing, and was absorbed into
the Pauline narrative – its grounding in the early and pre-Gentile Jesus movement
(and its affinity to the Q and M materials, its resonance with the Didache, and the
Pseudo-Clementine literature) are increasingly acknowledged by a growing number of
scholars. Although these linkages are indications of a common, earlier and pre-
Gentile layer, the epistolary greeting common in Pauline circles, and possible parallels
with 1 Peter and the Shepherd of Hermes304 may reflect later incorporation-
appropriation into the Pauline corpus. If the epistle of James is a second century text
originating in a community with affinities to the traditions emanating from the Jewish
followers of Jesus, it may reflect their need to respond to the Pauline advocacy of
non-Torah observance among Gentiles.

However, if the existence of textual echoes between James, Paul and other later
Gentile authors,305 a minority view among current scholars, gains ground – a Gentile
audience or a substantial Gentile layer in the evolution of the text may have to be
posited. This evolutionary trajectory would be strengthened by the fact that the
epistle’s Greek seems ornate and learned 306 and its theology is alleged by some to
echo Pauline themes and imagery. 307 If this scenario gains the upper hand, it may
indicate that a Gentile author was attempting to be inclusive toward the Jewish
faction and/or was attempting to fashion a text that would strengthen the Pauline
claim to continuity with Jesus’ Jewish followers.

Major themes, addressees, and context

Martin Dibelius’s 1921 commentary on the Letter of James was very influential for
well over half a century. 308 Dibelius viewed James as paraenesis, a text which strings
together admonitions of general ethical content. 309 Influenced by Dibelius, most
scholars saw no dominant theme grounding the letter. In twentieth century
scholarship, the wisdom character of James was front and center. Recently, a possible
eschatological background has received growing attention. Fine-tuning our
understanding of the co-existence, symbiosis, and relationship between these
elements is now a main concern. 310

Recent scholarship sees James as focused on the community of the poor, emphasizes
his anti-establishment tone, and highlights his dispensation of misfortunes on
community opponents. 311 Most among recent scholars, including Hartin, Allison,
McKnight,312 Bauckham,313 and Painter argue that the intended addressees are
Jewish and that the epistle reflects the continuation of the mission to the Jews.
Hartin supports Walter Bauer’s thesis that the Christian movement developed as

49
‘numerous independent Christian communities each with its own theologies and
understandings’ and identifies James’ audience as a community with an
eschatological outlook. 314

The addressees seem to be Jewish followers of Jesus, although it is plausible to

claim that the epistle hopes to include Jewish non-believers in Jesus in its audience.
Overall, to the exclusion of this reflection of the mission to the Jews, nothing in the
epistle requires us to expand the horizon or the intended addressees of James’
epistle beyond a Jewish milieu. Some, including Dibelius, Cargal, and Wall see ‘the
twelve tribes of the Dispersion’ (1:1) in the opening of the epistle as metaphorical
and therefore open somewhat the door to inclusion of Gentiles in the intended
audience.

A detailed argument for the Jewish grounding and audience of the epistle has been
made recently in Allison:

The strange truth is that, aside from 1:1 and the textually
dubious 2:1, James, although certainly written by a believer in
Jesus, explicitly says nothing distinctively Christian. It is as
though the readers are neither assumed nor required to be
members of the church themselves. The whole epistle rather
stays within, or at least could be read within, a Jewish frame of
reference. One modern scholar has opined that 'every
sentence... could have been written by a proto-rabbi' (Sigal
1980:424). Readers of James often miss this, because,
consciously or not, they are canonical readers, assuming that
James must be saying what the New Testament says elsewhere,
but he does not. He remains resolutely silent in remarkable
ways, even when we would expect otherwise. 315

Much has been written about the main intent behind the authorship of this peculiar
text. It seems to me that whereas the canonical text would appeal to Jewish
audiences and to Gentile sympathizers with the founding faction, we can postulate
that audiences affiliated with the Pauline mission would be unreceptive to it. The
Jewishness of the messages and exhortations, the call for strict Torah observance,
and the author’s silence on Jesus’ death and resurrection seem to preclude a Pauline
audience for the earliest layer of the text. Proto-James seems to reflect a group of

50
Jewish believers in Jesus still engaged in the mission to the Jews, and attempting to
battle those advocating non-observance of the Torah.

James and Jesus

Uncompromising ethical demands, Torah observance, and radical anti-establishment
and anti-wealth are strikingly common to both, the teaching of Jesus (the M material
in Matthew) and the Epistle of James. 316 It seems that James follows Jesus’ ethical
concerns. In M, the Sermon on the Mount, and the narrative of the rich young ruler,
the teaching of Jesus assumes the obligation of charity. 317 However, although the
epistle is acknowledged by most as echoing Jesus, 318 it has little to say about the
historical Jesus, including about his death and resurrection. 319

The debate about James-Jesus affinities is a proxy for the debate about James’
affinities with the pre-Gentile strata of the Jesus movement, to the inclusion of Q, the
M material in Matthew, and in The Didache and in the Pseudo-Clementine literature.
James mentions the forgiveness of sins (5:15) but does not mention Jesus' atoning
death, a clear indication that the context is not Pauline. Overall, James seems to fit
the early, and Jewish, strata of belief in Jesus alongside Q and M. 320 ‘The evidence of
the Gospels suggests that James, in limiting his active role in mission to the Jews, was
consistent with the practice of Jesus…’ 321

James and Peter

Petrine theology322 is a Pauline construct that stands on texts attributed to Peter and
James323 and emerged during the second century. The Petrine texts may have been
authored to legitimize the Gentile followers of Paul as the authoritative leaders of
belief in Jesus. As the Pauline strand of belief in Jesus became increasingly influential,
Peter’s Torah observant mission was appropriated, subverted and rendered pro-
Pauline. Peter’s Torah observant emphasis324 was obscured and veiled, and he was
transformed into a quasi-Pauline evangelist - the rock on which the Church’s Pauline
evangelical impulse was to stand. Worded differently:

In the light of the emergence of the Gentile mission Peter's

position became more important and Acts obscures the
leadership of James in order to portray the Jerusalem church in
terms closer to Peter than James. The emergence of the leading
role of Petrine tradition is imposed in the wake of the destruction
of Jerusalem and the dispersal of the Jerusalem church. 325

51
During their lifetimes, the preeminence of James is self-evident. However, Peter,
head of the Torah-observant mission and more visible to Gentile audiences, eclipsed
James in the Pauline narrative. Given the ambivalent attitude of Luke/Acts toward
Paul, and persistent rumors about tensions between him and the Pillars, Peter’s more
accommodating attitude toward Gentiles was harnessed and converted into a Pauline
construct that advocated the supremacy of the Gentile mission to the Gentiles –
facilitating the transformation of the Jesus movement into a Gentile and non-Jewish
undertaking. The Lukan author … ‘acknowledges the more difficult aspects of Peter’s
reputation while recasting the apostle as a favorable, inclusive champion of inter-
ethnic ideals.’ 326

Further corroboration of the Pauline appropriation and distortion of Peter’s persona

into the rock on which the Church’s theology was built (Petrine theology) is to be
found in the fact that Mark, writing a few decades earlier, aimed his choosiest
polemical arrows at Peter. Indeed, throughout his gospel, and in line with the ancient
tradition of denigrating the ancestors of one’s opponents, Mark disparages the
Twelve Apostles, the special Three, and Peter. However, Peter is the recipient of the
lion’s share of Mark’s arrows and seems to be the leader of those that are seen by
Mark as his adversaries.

Although a cautionary caveat about possible Pauline bias in the selection and content
of canonical texts is always necessary, James and 2 Peter, to the extent that they are
instructive about the historical figures ‘show a Peter and James growing apart,
inhabiting two different worlds. The one remained in the Jewish-Christian world that
would collapse with the war of 66-70 CE and never regain the importance that it had
enjoyed before that time. The other left that world for the Graeco-Roman world and
thus becomes part of the stream that would be the leading influence in the church in
the successive decades and centuries.’ 327

Contrasting and comparing James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter is a fruitful exercise that sheds
light on the transformation of Peter into an advocate of a non-Torah observant
mission to the Gentiles and into the rock on which the Catholic Church chose to
stand. The authors of 1 Peter and 2 Peter, in the footsteps of Luke-Acts, seem to
have wanted belief in Jesus to be Pauline – but wished to distance themselves from
the controversial Paul. It seems that placing Peter as the cornerstone of the Catholic
Church was considered a safer and more conservative move.

52
James and Paul
The crisis at Antioch - Acts 15:1,5 and Gal 2:11-14
Paul's visits to Jerusalem - Gal 1:18-20 and Acts 9:26-30, Gal 2:1-10 and Acts
15:1-19, 28-29

Recent scholarship seems to have gravitated toward the view that the epistle of James
reflects the views of the historical James. However, and significantly, there is a lack of
consensus on the matter of the James-Paul relationship. We have already noted that
James' preeminence in early Christianity is attested throughout and is showcased by
the incident at Antioch (Acts 15:1,5 and Gal 2:11-14), the Apostolic decree (Acts
15:20, 29; 21:25) and James’ command to Paul to undergo the ceremony
accompanying the Nazirite vow Gal 2:1-10 and Acts 15:1-19, 28-29.328 The majority
of recent scholarship describe the relationship as adversarial, including Popkes, 329
Edgar,330 Painter,331 Jackson-McCabe.332 A minority see it as compatible – Mitchell,333
McKnight.334 Chilton’s remarks on this matter are insightful and yield a different
perspective: ‘Where Paul divided the Scripture against itself in order to maintain the
integrity of a single fellowship of Jews and Gentiles, James insisted upon the integrity
of Scripture, even at the cost of separating Christians from one another.’ 335

Jas 2:14-18 is a key passage that highlights another James-Paul dissonance (‘faith
without deeds is dead’ versus ‘by faith alone’):

‘14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to

have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15
Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16
If one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and well
fed,’ but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?
17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by
action, is dead. 18 But someone will say, ‘You have faith; I have
deeds.’ Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you
my faith by my deeds.

Not surprisingly, scholars representing all possible methodologies, inclinations,

affiliations, and predispositions have weighed-in on the debate about this segment. As
anticipated in the introduction to this chapter, my reading of Jas 2:14-18 follows and
supports my view on the Torah observance and self-segregation of the Jewish faction,
and the resentment and estrangement it may have caused among Gentiles. Whether
the author is the historical James (doubtful) or a later community associated with him,
the segment seems to be targeting those favoring ‘faith without deeds.’ This is a
plausible perception of Paul’s Law-free mission to the Gentiles – as seen from the

53
perspective of the Jewish-founders, and a response to Pauline rhetoric on the matter
(1 Corinthians 5-6 being the best known).

Charity, an essential part of James’ emphasis on deeds, is not in any way optional.
It is essential to faith. Paul, in contrast, views charity as voluntary. Furthermore,
‘…nowhere in the Pauline corpus is there a reference to scriptures teaching tithing
or other charitable giving. One assumes that this is because to do this would mean
his returning to the Law, which would cost him his Christological base as well as
undermine his argument about freedom from the law. It may show the reality of
one's confession, but he never makes it essential to the reality's being there.’ 336

James and Judaism

The M source within Matthew is widely acknowledged as a window into the way
James, and the pre-Gentile Jesus movement, interpreted the teachings of Jesus.
The M material, unique to Matthew, originated in the lore of the pre-Gentile Jesus
movement that has left textual traces in James. We have noted that, according to
Streeter,337 the M tradition originated in Jerusalem, and reflects the authority of
James who is a strong advocate of the Law (the righteousness of believers must
exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees). 338 Although Pauline
apologetics tends to engage each command and tradition separately, for Jews they
are part, and inseparable from, Torah observance.

James and Torah observance - According to some scholars James, Q, and the M
Material in Matthew, the Didache, and the pseudo-Clementine literature reflect a
similar ethos, ethical perspective, and stand on, or assume, Torah observance.
James call to Torah observance (1:22-27) insures salvation (2:12-13, 14-26). Hartin
is supportive of the focus on Torah observance (1999) compares these documents
and concludes that they support faith through action and sees them as reflecting
the milieu of the Jewish followers of Jesus (2008). 339 Hub van de Sandt sees
Matthew’s and James’ Torah observance reflected in a similar use of the Jewish
Two Ways theme340 which is detectable in the Didache too (3:1–6).341 McKnight
thinks that Torah observance is at the heart of James’s ethics. 342 A strong message
against those advocating the rejection of Torah observance characterizes, and
emanates from, this tradition:

Some have attempted while I am still alive, to transform my

words by certain various interpretations, in order to teach the
dissolution of the law; as though I myself were of such a mind,
but did not freely proclaim it, which God forbid! For such a thing
were to act in opposition to the law of God which was spoken by

54
 Moses, and was borne witness to by our Lord in respect of its
eternal continuance; for thus he spoke: ‘The heavens and the
earth shall pass away, but one jot or one tittle shall in no wise
pass away from the law.’ (Matt 5:18).343

The Jewish followers of Jesus had to fight two fronts simultaneously: they
defended the messiahship of Jesus vis-à-vis fellow Jews, and advocated Torah
observance vis-à-vis fellow believers in Jesus. Paul’s followers do not keep the
commandments and teach others to break them as well (Matt 5:19 and cf. Acts
21:21) and they are chastised for it.

To some scholars, M and James seem to propose a more radical and demanding
interpretation of the law than mainstream Judaism. However, we must keep in
mind that the six antitheses of Matt 5:21-48 advocate a rigorous interpretation of
the Law; they do not encourage breaking or dispensing with it. The antitheses
seem to advocate an intensification of Torah observance and argue that Jesus’
followers are not only part of Judaism, they are more righteous and observant than
their Jewish critics.

James, the antitheses specifically, and the M material in general, may reflect a
posture aimed to exalt belief in Jesus and to fend off claims from mainstream Jews
that questioned the Jewishness of Jesus’ followers. ‘The antitheses set out the
demand for greater righteousness. There is nothing here to suggest any relaxation
of the demands of the law. Matthew may be going beyond, not going against, the
biblical laws.’ 344 ‘No doubt James takes for granted his readers' observance of the
whole law, while focusing his attention on its moral demands. There is no reason
why a Palestinian Jew should not do this, especially if he were a disciple of Jesus,
who also seems to have foregrounded the moral aspects of the Torah without
negating others.’ 345 What makes Israel the chosen people, is the Torah.

According to Neusner, during the first century, Judaism’s view of Torah

observance may be summarized as follows: (1) Israel differs from non-Israelites
because Israel possesses the Torah and the non-Israelites do not; (2) because they
do not possess the Torah, non-Israelites worship idols instead of God; and (3)
therefore God rejects non-Israelites and identifies with Israel. Non-Israelites
deprived themselves of the Torah because they rejected it, and, showing the
precision of justice, they rejected the Torah because the Torah deprived them of
the very practices or traits that they deemed characteristic, essential to their
being… which, by an act of will, as we have noted, they can change. 346

55
James and Works - Throughout the ages, mainstream Judaism has considered all
the requirements of Torah observance as mandatory. Opinions diverged on
implementation and actual execution varied, but there was little argument as to
what was required from observant Jews. James’ emphasis on deeds (works)
derives from his emphasis on Torah observance, where the impetus for deeds
originates.

James and the M material in Matthew are unique in the canon in their stand against
the Pauline rejection of works and deeds. Given the Pauline traditional view of
Judaism as legalistic and sinful, Judaism was often presented as divested of ethics
and good deeds. In Pauline theology, the term ‘works’ has been divested of ethical
grounding, is part of the terminology deployed to characterize Judaism as legalistic,
and is often used to divest Torah observance from its ethical grounding. However,
for James and all Jews, faith is alive when it is reflected by Torah observance. In
other words - what we believe in, demonstrates itself through practice and
manifestation. For James, claims about belief are empty, unless they are alive in
action, works and deeds. 347

James’ theology and ethics - In James, the traditions of the Jewish followers of
Jesus and quotations from Hebrew Scripture enable the idea of wisdom as the way
to perfection.348 James’ ethics and spirituality have been ably explored in recent
studies.349 James does reflect a Jewish milieu and does emphasize the ethical
teachings and requirements embedded in Torah observance. Although James’
focus on strict Torah observance must be assumed to include its derivative themes
(Sabbath observance, dietary traditions, circumcision, deeds, charity etc.…), the
focus on some subjects and the brevity of the epistle preclude engagement of all
the traditional Jewish markers.350

One theme that is elaborated in detail is concern for the poor. The emphasis on
the poor that characterizes the epistle (1:2-8, 2:8; cf. 1:22-25, 1:27; 1: 17-21, 2:12-
13) is one aspect of the spiritually we encounter in the epistle that includes the
spirituality of integrity, of friendship with God, of prayer, and of love of
neighbor.351

The debate about the Christology of the epistle of James is inconclusive but seems
to be tilting toward a consensus that acknowledges the predominance of a Torah
observant theological outlook. Standing on Dibelius’ famous conclusion that the
epistle has no specific theology,352 many scholars did not recognize the fact that
Torah observance is embedded in (and is reflective of) a Jewish theological
context. Recent scholarship seems to be gravitating toward assigning a pre-Gentile

56
 theological grounding to the text, coupled with the qualification that the author’s
belief system is implied – rather than explicit.

Most agree that there is an emphasis on Torah observance which delineates the
boundaries of the theological context. A minority detects an implied high
Christology.353 Some scholars wrestle with James’ lack of Christology and attempt,
by all means possible, to categorize the epistle as ‘Christian’ – despite the multiple
meanings of the term and the confusion it engenders. Although some see in James
resonances with NT texts, these echoes seem to originate in the Pauline de-
contextualization of Jewish traditions and in the infusion of Christology into the
appropriated lore.

My James
In Acts 21 James tells Paul about the "many thousands" (21:20) among the Jews who
have come to faith. Even if this was an overstatement, it is likely that there were a
significant number of Jewish followers of Jesus in the first century. However,
traditional scholarship has tended to obscure the existence of an active mission to the
Jews, attempted to veil the Jewish origins of belief in Jesus, and emphasized ‘the
Jewish rejection of Jesus’. During the twentieth century, initial progress was made
toward the acknowledgement that a mission to the Jews existed beyond Jesus’
ministry. Recent scholarship has started to open the flood gates on this subject.
Although the devastation of the Judean strongholds of the Jewish faction during
Jewish War of 70 CE. seems to have inflicted a significant blow to the activities of the
mission to the Jews, evidence supportive of the continuity of the Jewish followers of
Jesus and of their mission to the Jews well into the fourth century 354 emerges from
significant affinities and resonances between James, Q, the M material in Matthew,
the Didache, the Pharisaic believers of Acts 15:1, 5, the Jewish followers of Jesus in
Justin, Ignatius’ Jewish antagonists, Justin’s Jewish followers of Jesus, and Jewish
echoes in the Pseudo-Clementines (fourth century).

The epistle of James, is now widely acknowledged by many scholars as a second

century text that emanates from the traditions associated with the historical James, is
part of an active mission to the Jews, and aims at a wide Jewish audience. The
historical ‘James looked to winning Jews to faith in Jesus the Messiah, who was to
come again in judgement.’ 355

Given that the effort to legitimize Paul’s non-Torah observant mission to the
Gentiles is central to the canonical corpus, 356 we should be cautious about Acts
renditions regarding the meetings in Jerusalem and the nature and details of James’

57
blessing of a non-Torah observant mission to the Gentiles. The author of
Luke/Acts, while crafting a narrative that would legitimize the de-Judaizing of the
Jesus movement, the demotion of the founding fathers as the custodians of Jesus
legacy, and the Pauline ascendancy - needed a transitional figure that would bestow
upon the Pauline mission the authority inherent in Jesus’ disciples. The author of
Luke/Acts assigned that role to Peter and fashioned a persona, whether historical or
apologetic that enables, and points to, the demotion and replacement of the Jewish
followers of Jesus as the New Israel, the New People of Good.

The Pauline faction needed a bridge between James and Paul to facilitate the
transition from a leader affirming Torah observance, the Jewishness of belief in Jesus,
and the preeminence of the Jewish followers of Jesus within the Jesus movement - to
the Pauline view of a law-free mission as the true fulfillment and expression of Jesus’
ministry (Gal 2:15-21). In Pauline theology and lore, ‘Petrine Christianity’ is the
vehicle that smooths and ushers-in the transition from Jesus’ and James’ Torah
observance, to Paul’s non-Torah observant mission. James’ … ‘strategy was to
preserve the mission to his own people. History proved his worst fears concerning
the Pauline mission to be correct. The mission to the nations ensured the ultimate
failure of the circumcision mission.’ 357

58
 A Growing Tension

Most Gentile believers in Jesus were inhabitants of the Roman Empire and were
culturally and ethnically diverse. Creedal confusion, organizational chaos, ceremonial
improvisation, and religious experimentation were rampant. 358 Therefore, it is not
surprising that differing accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus were written during
the first and second centuries, reflecting the transitional and tentative nature of this
period. Whereas several Gospels have survived, only four are included in the New
Testament canon.

As Gentiles grew increasingly assertive in their opposition to the imposition of the

beliefs and traditions of the descendants of the founding fathers, they began using
Jesus’s life story, parables, epistles, homilies, and sermons to address questions and
issues of concern to their rank and file, and to provide guidance to their beleaguered
communities:

1. Should belief in Jesus be Jewish, Pauline, or Gnostic?

2. Could Gentiles follow Jesus without becoming Jews?
3. How did Gentiles fit in the ministry of a Jewish Messiah?
4. Why did the disciples reject Paul’s interpretation of Jesus’s ministry?
5. How to explain the Gentiles’ estrangement from the descendants of the founders?

During the period between the two failed Judean uprisings (70–135 CE), reassured by
the success of the Pauline and Gnostic missions and by the devastation of the
strongholds of the Jewish faction in Judea, Gentile intellectuals and leaders deployed
a variety of rhetorical and literary platforms to put forward their claim as rightful
believers in Jesus. However, lacking the means to impose an outcome, the internal
struggle within the Jesus movement lingered through two–three centuries of impasse

59
and slow attrition. The battle about ‘what belief in Jesus should be’ deteriorated into a
long-drawn-out struggle in which the weapons of choice seem to have been
defamation and bitter and derogatory vitriol. The canonical Gospels were authored
during this transitional period.

Gentile believers, diverse and lacking a coherent and normative theology, had to steer
through counter-currents of continuity and discontinuity vis- à -vis the legacy of the
founding fathers. The Pauline claim of a superior understanding of Jesus’s ministry
vis- à -vis that of the founders, the casting of the disciples as not understanding,
denying and betraying Jesus, and the Pauline rejection and denigration of the beliefs
and traditions of the Jewish followers of Jesus (Torah-Law observance, dietary
traditions, circumcision, etc.) seem to part of the attempts to navigate this turbulence.
These mutually sustaining polemical tools seem to signal to Gentile converts that
opposition to the imposition of the beliefs and traditions of the descendants of
Jesus’s disciples and first followers is legitimate.

Overall, the tactical dilemma of the Pauline literati was how to de-Judaize belief in
Jesus, without appearing irreverent toward the founding fathers and to Jesus’s
religious beliefs. In pursuit of these goals they gradually gravitated toward a strategy
that had two components: to insert a wedge between Jesus and his disciples and first
followers, and to build on the aversion of most Gentiles to the beliefs and traditions
of the founders.

The Synoptics gave their communities, beleaguered by dissent and self-doubt, a

legitimating narrative: The Jewish faction may be the descendants of Jesus’s disciples
and first followers but their ancestors did not ‘understand’ Jesus’s true message.
Moreover, his messiahship was hidden to ‘them’ but clear to ‘us.’ As proven by their
scriptures, the Jews were sinful and had lost God’s favor. Consequently, the
descendants of the founding fathers cannot claim to be the custodians and
interpreters of Jesus’s legacy.

The Qumran-New Testament connection seems to support a major thesis of this

manuscript, namely, that in their quest to de-Judaize the Jesus movement, Pauline
believers subverted-emulated-appropriated the anti-Jewish-establishment traditions,
attitudes, and rhetoric of the founding fathers toward the Jewish mainstream, and
converted them into an anti-Jewish-establishment tool within the Jesus movement.

60
This ‘second generation’ anti-Jewish-establishment rhetoric will be aimed at the
descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers, who were (at the time) the
establishment of the Jesus movement and the authoritative guardians and keepers of
Jesus’s legacy. In the New Testament, these two anti-Jewish-establishment layers are
intertwined and provide the scaffold for Jewish-Gentile relations in the Jesus
movement. In other words, the ‘Jews’ of the canonical Gospels seem to reflect the
fusion and confusion of two types of Jews, the antagonists of two distinct struggles.
In the most ancient strata, the protagonists are the Jewish followers of Jesus and their
antagonists are Judeans in positions of authority (i.e., the Pharisees, the scribes, the
elders, the High Priests). In the later strata, the protagonists are Gentile believers in
Jesus and their antagonists are the founding faction and their Gentile sympathizers.
The earlier stratum reflects the debate among Jews about who Jesus was (messiah or
not).359 The later one reflects the debate among Gentile believers about ‘what belief
in Jesus ought to be (Jewish, Pauline, Marcionite, or Gnostic), and about who Jesus
was (human, divine, or both).

In the canonical texts, we find corroborating hints that a challenge to the legitimacy
of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers, the original guardians of his
legacy, was brewing up. The main clues that did steer our inquiry in that direction are:



The denigration and vilification of the disciples.


Denigration of the beliefs and traditions of the Jewish followers of Jesus.
Family, friends, and disciples that ‘do not understand, deny and abandon.’
 Shift of culpability from ‘the chief priests, the scribes and the elders’ to ‘the


Jews.’
Appropriation and de-contextualization of the identity and lore of the


founders.360


Intensification of the anti-Jewish incitement as time passes.
Exoneration of the Romans, and culpability of ‘the Jews,’ in Jesus’ death.
 Embrace of the biblical narrative while divesting beliefs and traditions
demanded by it.

In the anti-Jewish-establishment traditions of Judean sectarians, Pauline believers

found a ‘ready to deploy’ arsenal that could be used to demote the establishment of
the Jesus movement: the descendants of the founding fathers. This throve of anti-
Jewish-establishment lore will become a tool to sever the influence of the founding
faction and to de-Judaize belief in Jesus. By appropriating and by de-contextualizing

61
the Judean anti-establishment lore of the founding fathers and other Judean
sectarians, and by de-contextualizing the Judean prophetic tradition and the Judean
tradition of self-criticism - Pauline believers embedded the campaign to de-Judaize
belief in Jesus in seemingly authoritative and venerated claims.

In light of these conclusions, I found it necessary to suggest a modified and expanded

version of Hare’s terminology (his categories of anti-Judaism)361 as follows:

1. Prophetic anti-establishment criticism, as found among the Jewish

prophets.
2. Jewish sectarian anti-establishment polemic.9 The anti-Jewish
establishment lore of Jewish sectarians (Enochic, Jubilean, and Qumran
rhetoric as well as the anti-establishment polemic of the Jewish followers of
Jesus).
3. Gentile anti-Jewish-establishment polemic. Gentile polemic directed
against the Jewish establishment of the Jesus movement.
4. Gentile anti-Judaism. The anti-Jewish strand, the polemic that emerged out
of fusion and confusion of the previous layers, and the transformation of a
conflict about Judaism, into a conflict with Judaism.
5. Anti-Semitism, the later culture of disenfranchisement, hatred, and
persecution that emerged out of the sacrosanct status of the anti-
Jewish strand in the canonical lore.

62
 What is at Stake

Many scholars active in the twenty-first century have embraced the diversity of the
early Jesus movement. The argument as to whether the Jesus movement was
significantly uniform, or substantially diverse, still rages—but the balance is tilting
toward the latter. Jesus’s ministry was the common ground, but the view that the
emerging factions were diverse to the point of incompatibility is gaining support. For
the pre-Synoptic period (40-70 CE), scholars have identified communities with
differing theological anchors: Torah observance (the descendants of the founders),
Jesus’s death and resurrection (Pauline believers), 362 Jesus’s sayings and teachings (the
Jewish followers of Jesus, Q, M, and some Gnostic communities)363 and esoteric and
secret knowledge (Gnostic believers in Jesus). Scholars have also classified early
Gentile believers in Jesus according to their affiliation to either of two broad and
somewhat mutually exclusive Jesus traditions:

The ‘life tradition’ is an academic term applied to traditions about Jesus’s life and
ministry. This tradition was centered on Jesus’s teachings and sayings and had a
strong anti-establishment bent that would alienate the Roman elites. The life tradition
is reflected in the gospel of Thomas, Q, M, James, the opponents of Paul in 1
Corinthian 1–4, in Gnostic texts, and in some of the opponents of the Johannines.

The ‘Cross tradition’ is an academic identifier given to the tradition focused on

Jesus’s death and resurrection. This tradition, embraced by the Pauline factions,
deemphasized the subversive and anti-establishment message of Jesus’s ministry and
emphasized Jesus’s death and an otherworldly creed. The Cross tradition
deemphasized ‘Jesus the social critic’364 and emphasized ‘Jesus the divine being’ and
thus opened the door for the successful introduction of the new faith to the Roman
elites. This tradition dominates most of the New Testament texts.

63
Hypotheses about pre-Gospel passion traditions365 are crucial for our search for they
can shed light on Jewish-Gentile relations in the Jesus movement, as we encounter
them in the canonical texts. For our purposes, the relevant questions at the pre-
Synoptic level can be phrased in several ways: were anti-Jewish feelings central to all
pre-Synoptic Gentile communities? Are the anti-Judaic arguments, themes, and
imagery that permeate the canonical passion narratives factional or are they present
throughout the pre-Synoptic lore and texts? Was the ‘Jewish responsibility’ motif
present in all the pre-Synoptic groups? If widely held, did it have the same meaning,
centrality, and intensity for all believers? Is there a connection between focus on
Jesus’s death and anti-Judaic attitudes? Was the focus on Jesus’s death a Pauline
theme or was it widely accepted and authoritative?

Whether the anti-Judaic bent of the canonical passion narratives originates in the
Pauline appropriation-emulation-intensification of the anti-Jewish-establishment
sentiment of the Jewish followers of Jesus, or is mostly the creation of non-Jewish
believers - is significant to our journey. The work of Crossan, Flusser, Koester, and
others on the pre-Gospel layers of the passion narratives (a minority view) points to a
factional origin. The work of these scholars supports the view that the canonical
passion narratives emerged as part of a legacy that was not an intrinsic and
constitutive theme for all believers in Jesus. The growing recognition that anti-Jewish
themes were central for some (but were not universally authoritative for all) early
believers in Jesus is central to my analysis of the socio-theological context that gave
birth to the canonical texts.

The question is, in a nutshell, whether the passion narratives we encounter in the
canonical Gospels originate in one of multiple and differing pre-Synoptic strands
(Flusser, Crossan, Koester) or originate in a wider pre-existing tradition (Brown,
Dunn). This question has shadowed the battle over variants of the ‘Jewish
responsibility for Jesus’ death.’ If Mark and John are independent, and stand on a
widely embraced pre-Synoptic tradition, it is supportive of some variant of the claim.
If there were multiple pre-Synoptic traditions, some of which did not stand on the
‘Jewish responsibility for Jesus’ death’ theme, it points to a factional origin.

64
 Summary
Turn-of-the-era Jewish theological battles were occasionally bitter but they were also
mostly harmless. The pitch could be intense, but we have almost no examples of
violence between Jewish sectarians and the Jewish mainstream. In line with other
Jewish sectarians, the Jewish followers of Jesus would have considered themselves to
be the ‘New Israel,’ a community living against apostate and sinful Israel.
Characteristically, those outside the community would be seen as bound for
damnation and outside God’s favor. The Qumran community and the communities
that produced other Judean sectarian texts may have been precursors or templates for
the Jewish followers of Jesus and may provide ‘the missing link’ to re-place the early
Jesus movement in continuation to turn-of-the-era sectarian Judaism. The anti-
Jewish-establishment rhetoric that the Jewish followers of Jesus may have deployed
against fellow Jews, a characteristic motif among Jewish sectarians, is not extant
outside the Christian authoritative texts.

Acknowledgment of the similarities and continuity between Gentile anti-Jewish

rhetoric and the anti-Jewish-establishment rhetoric of turn-of-the-era Jewish sectarian
movements is an important shift in our understanding of the attitudes of Gentile
believers in Jesus toward Judaism. Probable parallels between the lore of the early
Jesus movement and the lore of Jewish sectarians provide us a new perspective on
the early anti-Judaic polemic we encounter in the New Testament. Many themes,
motifs, traits, and imagery traditionally seen as radically new and opposing Judaism
may have originated in the Jewish sectarian milieu.

As we started our journey, we overheard echoes of the descendants of Jesus’s

disciples and first followers denigrating fellow Jews. As our train stops at the midway
stations scattered along our path, we will eavesdrop on debates, mostly among
Gentile believers. We will hear them vilify ‘the Jews’ (their Jewish opponents within
the Jesus movement) with ever-increasing viciousness. At the later stations of our
voyage we will hear Gentiles denigrating all Jews.

Notes
65
159
In John, Jesus’s ministry seems to include three Passovers. See James D. G. Dunn, Christianity in the
Making—Vol 1—Jesus Remembered (2003), 165–167.
160
On early diversity, see R. E. Brown, ‘Not Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity but Types of
Jewish/Gentile Christianity,’ CBQ 45, January 1983.
161
On the pre-Synoptic era, see scholarship on Q and M see Pg. 416.
162
Recently, White Benjamin L. Remembering Paul: Ancient and Modern Contests over the Image of the
Apostle (2014); For a comprehensive review of scholarship on the subject, see R. Biering er and D.
Pollefeyt, eds., Paul and Judaism: Crosscurrents in Pauline Exegesis and the Study of Jewish -Christian
Relations (2012).
163
See analysis in Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik, eds., Jewish Believers in Jesus (2007), 151. Also,
Jackson-Mccabe Matt ed. Jewish Christianity Reconsidered: Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts (2007).
164
See analysis in Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik, eds., Jewish Believers in Jesus (2007), 151.
165
John G. Gager, Reinventing Paul (2000), 4–7.
166
Beker Christiaan J. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (1980); Keck, Leander E.
Romans (2005); For a recent volume see Sumney Jerry L. ed. Reading Paul’s letter to the Romans SBL
(2012), Fredriksen Paula Paul’s Letter to the Romans, the Ten Commandments, and Pagan ‘Justification by
Faith’ JBL 133, no. 4 (2014): 801–808.
167
Conversation with N. Beck (January 2008). See discussion in Luke/Acts segment ‘Ma rcion and
Luke/Acts’.
168
For an updated, thorough, and comprehensive review of scholarship on the subject, see R. Bieringer and
D. Pollefeyt, eds., Paul and Judaism: Crosscurrents in Pauline Exegesis and the Study of Jewish -Christian
Relations (2012).
169
My summary of E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977), 432. See Hagner Donald A. Paul
as a Jewish Believer in the History of Research in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds.
Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 97-154.
170
On Paul’s use of scripture - recommended recent collections of essays: Paul and scripture Stanley E.
Porter and Christopher D. Stanley, eds., As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture SBL SymS 50
(2008), Paul and scripture: extending the conversation / edited by Christopher D. Stanley (2012); Hagner
Donald A. Paul as a Jewish Believer in the History of Research in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early
centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 97-154.
171
My interpretation of W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (1958), 324.
172
Kerygma —Greek for preaching. Bultmann distinguishes between two theological strata in the early
Church: (i) the doctrine of the Mother-Church in Jerusalem, and (ii) ‘The Kerygma of the Hellenistic
Community.’
173
For an updated guide to the subject, see Hans -Josef Klauck, The Religious Context of Early Christianity:
A Guide to Graeco-Roman Religion (2003). See also David Flusser, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pre-Pauline
Christianity (1988),
242. Further discussion of Gnosticism in pg. 96.
174
The usefulness and relevancy of the term ‘Gnosticism’ has recently been criticized a s interest in
Gnosticism has increased, due to its multiple meanings. See Williams Michael Allen Rethinking
‘‘Gnosticism’’: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category (1996). King Karen L. What Is
Gnosticism? (2003).
175
My summary of Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels (1990), 125.
176
See ibid.; Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew
(2003); and Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (1943).
177
For a detailed presentation of the Mystery Religions, see Hans-Josef Klaick, The Religious Context of
Early Christianity (2003).
178
James D. G. Dunn, Christianity in the Making—Vol. 1—Jesus Remembered (2003), 181–184. ‘Paul in
particular seems to show little interest in the ministry of Jesus and little knowledge of the Jesus tradition.’

66
179
see Robin Scoggs, in Pauline Conversations in Context, J.C. Anderson, J. Capel, P. Sellew, and C.
Seltzer, eds. (2002).
180
H. Conzelmann, An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament (1969),
164, on the centrality of ‘by faith alone’ in Paul’s teaching. Recent: Wright, N. T. Paul and the Faithfulness
of God, 2 vols. (2013).
181
On the Jewish followers of Jesus during the first decades: Bibliowicz Abel M. Jews and Gentiles in The
Early Jesus Movement (2013) pg. 11-21; Skarsaune and Hvalvik, Jewish Believers in Jesus (2007);
Skarsaune Oskar The History of Jewish Believers in the Early Centuries in Jewish believers in Jesus: the
early centuries Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 745-777; Skarsaune Oskar Jewish-Christian
Gospels: Which and How Many? In Ancient Israel, Judaism, and Christianity in Contemporary Perspective
Edited by Jacob Neusner et al. Studies in Judaism (2006) 393-408; Murray Michele Playing a Jewish
Game: Gentile Christian Judaizing in the First and Second Centuries CE (2004); Hengel, Martin. Early
Christianity as a Jewish-Messianic, Universalist Movement in Conflicts and Challenges in Early
Christianity. Edited by D. A. Hagner (1999) 1-41; Paget James Carleton Jewish Christianity in vol. 3 of
The Cambridge History of Judaism Edited by William Horbury, W. D. Davies, and John Sturdy (1999)
731-75; Flusser D. Paul’s Jewish-Christian Opponents in the Didache in Gilgul: Essays on
Transformation, Revolution and Permanence in the History of Religions. Edited by S. Shaked et al. (1987)
71-90; For a general bibliography on the Jewish followers of Jesus see pg. 416.
182
Gerd Luedemann, Paul—The Founder of Christianity (2002), 16.
183
See recent Harding Mark and Nobbs Alanna eds. All Things to All Cultures: Paul Among Jews, Greeks,
and Romans (2013).
184
see also Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps, eds., The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture (1999);
Anthony J. Blasi, Jean Duhaime, and Paul-Andre’ Turcotte, eds., Handbook of Early Christianity (2002),
section 2, for a discussion of rhetorical techniques and their effectiveness. L. T. Johnson,
The New Testament’s Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic (1989), 419–441; G. N.
Stanton, Aspects of Early Christian-Jewish Polemic and Apologetic (1985); and Mary C. Boys, Has God
Only One Blessing? (2000), 184–185.
185
For bibliography on the Jewis h followers of Jesus see Pg. 415.
186
Luedemann, Paul—The Founder of Christianity, 41, on the Jewish Christian ambivalence toward Paul.
Recent: Wright, N. T. Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 2 vols. (2013).
187
Per Murray’s research: F. C. Baur (1876); H. D. Betz (1979); F. F. Bruce (1982); E. D. Burton (1921);
Gager (2000); G. Howard (1979); R. Jewett (1971); J. B. Lightfoot (1865); J. Murphy O’Connor (1996)—
Michele Murray, Playing a Jewish Game (2004); David Flusser, ‘Paul’s Jewish-Christian Opponents in the
Didache,’ in Jonathan A. Draper, ed., The Didache in Modern Research (1996), 197; Gerd Luedemann,
Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity, trans. E. Boring (1989), 1–34. H. J. Schoeps, Jewish Christianity
(1969); A. F. J. Klijn, The Study of Jewish-Christianity (NTS 1973 –74), 419–426. Updated views in Matt
Jackson-Mccabe, ed., Jewish Christianity Reconsidered (2007).
188
On Paul’s need and yearning for pre-eminence, see ibid., 187–191.
189
Painter John in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (2005) 176-7.
190
According to O. Skarsaune and R. Hvalvik, eds., Jewish Believers in Jesus (2007), the Gentiles he went
to were the same as the ones he had already met in the synagogue (Acts 13:43; 18:7).
191
J. C. Becker, Paul the Apostle—The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (1980), 144. Non-Torah
observance by Gentiles at the core of Paul’s theology.
192
Magnus Zetterholm, The Formation of Christianity in Antioch (2003), 142, correctly identifies the
lenient position of the early Jewish followers of Jesus toward the inclusion of gentiles. The argument was
about Torah observance as a condition for inclusion.
193
Same position in Skarsaune and Hvalvik, Jewish Believers in Jesus, 151; and S. G. Wilson, Luke and the
Law (2005), 68.
194
For a somewhat similar view of the collapse of the Jerusalem compromise, see Philip

67
Alexander, in James D. G. Dunn, ed., Jews and Christians—the Parting of the
Ways (1989), 24; Recently, Cohen, Shaye JD. The ways that parted: Jews, Christians, and Jewish-
Christians ca. 100-150 CE (2013).
195
See Magnus Zetterholm, The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A
Social-Scientific Approach to the Separation between Judaism and Christianity
(2003), 156–166, for a consonant presentation of the Paul-James relationship.
196
G. Nickelsburg, Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins: Diversity, Continuity and Transformation
(2003), Chapter 2; and E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977) for critiques of the traditional
view of Judaism.
197
Recently, Rosner Brian S. Paul and the Law: What he Does not Say Journal for the Study of the New
Testament (June 2010) 32: 405-419.
198
E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977). For a discussion of Sander’s thesis, see E. Fabian,
S. Heschel, M. Chancey, G. Tatum, eds., Redefining First-Century Jewish and Christian Identities: Essays
in Honor of Ed Parish Sanders (2008).
199
H. J. Schoeps, Paul. The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History (1961), 213–
219, argues that Paul failed to see the connection between covenant and the Law.
200
Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 550–551.
201
Krister Stendahl, Paul among Jews and Gentiles (1976), 2. Recent: Dunn, James D. G. The New
Perspective on Paul. 2nd edition (2008).
202
Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 70, pioneered the shift toward a Law observant Paul who opposed
Law observance only as it regards Gentiles. Also Hagner Donald A. The Changing Understanding of Paul
in the History of Research in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and
Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 97-101, 118-121.
203
For the contrary view that Paul may be anti-Jewish, see J. C. Becker, Paul the Apostle. The Triumph of
God in Life and Thought (1980), 75–90.
204
For an opposing view, see P. Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church (1969) 133–136.
205
A non-exhaustive list: Stuhlmacher P. Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification: A Challen ge to the
New Perspective (2001); Das A. A. Paul, the Law, and the Covenant (2001); Kim S. Paul and the New
Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origins of Paul’s Gospel (2002); Carson D. A., O’Brien Peter T. and
Seifrid Mark A. eds., Justification and Variegated Nomism. Volumes I and II (2001); Gathercole S. J.
Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1 -5 (2002); Dunn James
D.G. Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels (2011), Wright N. T. Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Volumes 1 and 2
(2013), Harmon Matthew S. and Smith Jay E., editors Studies in the Pauline Epistles (2014), Longenecker
Bruce W. and Still Todd D. Thinking Through Paul: An Introduction to His Life, Letters, and Theology
(2014); Nanos Mark D. and Zetterholm Magnus, eds . Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century
Context to the Apostle (2015).
206
Dunn James D.G. What’s Right about the Old Perspective on Paul in Harmon Matthew S. and Smith
Jay E., editors Studies in the Pauline Epistles (2014) 229; Charlotte Klein, Anti-Judaism in Christian
Theology (1978), 39–66. Luther’s impact on later readings of the New Testament texts.
207
Westerholm Stephen What’s Right about the Old Perspective on Paul in Harmon Matthew S. and Smith
Jay E., editors Studies in the Pauline Epistles (2014) 235-6
208
Recently; Zetterholm Magnus Paul within Judaism: The State of the Questions in Nanos Mark D. and
Zetterholm Magnus, eds. Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context to the Apostle (2015)
46; Hagner Donald A. The Changing Understanding of Paul in the History of Research in Jewish believers
in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 97-101, 118-121.
209
See appendix I for a survey of modern scholarship on Paul.
210
Recently, Nanos Mark D. and Magnus Zetterholm Magnus eds. Paul Within Judaism: Restoring the
First-Century Context to the Apostle. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015);

68
For a somewhat different presentation, see P. J. Tomson, If This Be from Heaven...: Jesus and the New
Testament Authors in Their Relationship to Judaism (2001), 400. Tomson sees a split within the Pauline
tradition between the Lukean (non-anti-Jewish) tradition and the Ignatian interpretation that reads Paul as
‘anti-Jewish.’
211
An omnipotent, universal, and benevolent God.
212
Teleology is the philosophical study of purpose (from the Greek from telos,
end, result).
213
Worldwide the earliest explorer of inner consciousness appears to be Siddhartha Gautama (The
Buddha). There is no consensus on the date of the historical Budd ha (estimates range from early fifth
century to mid-fourth century BCE).
214
For a detailed discussion of Paul’s ‘justification by faith alone’ in the context of traditional versus new
interpretations of Paul, see Westerholm Stephen Understanding Paul: the early Christian worldview of the
letter to the Romans (2004, part 3 and 445), and Sumney Jerry L. ed. Reading Paul’s letter to the Romans
SBL (2012).
215
1 Cor. 1:23.
216
Similar views in Dunn, Christianity in the Making—Vol. 1—Jesus Remembered, 260.
217
Paul’s Jewish grounding: W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (1958) pioneered the shift toward a
Law-observant Paul who opposed Law observance only as it regards Gentiles. Also E. P. Sanders, Paul and
Palestinian Judaism (1977); Lloyd Gaston, Paul and the Torah (1987); John G. Gager, Reinventing Paul
(2000); Luedemann, Paul—The Founder of Christianity, 136; Dunn, James D. G. The New Perspective on
Paul. 2nd edition (2008).
218
Standing on Paul M. Van Buren, A Theology of the Jewish Christian Reality: Christ in Context (1983),
274, but emphasizing the intra-muros nature of the debates (within the Jesus movement).
219
James D. G. Dunn, ed., Paul and the Mosaic Law: The Third Durham- Tübingen Research Symposium
on Earliest Christianity and Judaism, Durham; Dunn, James D. G. The New Perspective on Paul. 2nd
edition (2008) 312.
220
Also Gaston, Paul and the Torah, 32.
221
Hvalvik Reidar The Struggle for Scripture and Covenant: The Purpose of the Epistle of Barnabas and
Jewish-Christian Competition in the Second Century (1996) 249-67; Trebilco Paul R. Jewish Communities
in Asia Minor (1991) 145-66.
222
Jacob Jervell, The Theology of the Acts of the Apostles (1996): Paul proselytizes in synagogues, creating
friction and animosity; ‘we find nowhere in Acts Paul addressing audiences which consist of Gentiles only’
(p. 85).
223
J. T. Sanders aims in the right direction when he states regarding Matthew:
Nowhere does Matthew provide clues about the causes of this persecution, and
the question of cause is the more puzzling due to the fact that, in the Jewish
Christian source of Matthew, the Christian mission is clearly restricted to ‘Israel’
(Mf 10.23). Therefore, the synagogue flogging known to this Jewish Christian
source cannot have been for the ‘crime’ of admitting Gentiles to Christianity
without converting them at the same time to Judaism. J. T. Sanders, in Blasi,
Duhaime, and Turcotte, Handbook of Early Christianity, 362.
224
On this matter see recent Mark D. Nanos and Daniel Boyarin, and Neil Elliott in Nanos Mark D. and
Zetterholm Magnus, eds. Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context to the Apostle (2015);
Similar views in Clark M. Williamson, A Guest in the House of Israel (1993), 87.
225
For diversity and adversity in early Christianity, see the foundational works of Walter Bauer Orthodoxy
and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (trans. 1971) and James M. Robinson and Helmut Koester Trajectories
through Early Christianity (1971); James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An
Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity (1990). For a critical appraisal of Bauer’s thesis, see
Köstenberger Andreas J. and Michael J. Kruger The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's

69
Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity (2010); Bauckham
Richard James and the Jerusalem Church in The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting, vol. 4: The Book
of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting ed. Bruce W. Winter (1995) 415–80; Bauckham Richard James, Peter,
and the Gentiles in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (2005) 91–142;
Schnabel Eckhard J. Early Christian Mission (2004).
226
Traditionalist-universalist (Dunn), neo-traditionalist (Westerholm),
Christological (E. P. Sanders), sociological (Watson), or revisionist (Stendahl, Gaston, Gager).
227
On Paul’s need and drive for pre-eminence, see Luedemannn, Paul—The Founder of Christianity, 187–
191.
228
My view on Paul is somewhat close to Räisänen’s ‘probably not the dominant voice in early Christian
theology,’ ... not a ‘a theologian in the modern sense, and more a mix of charismatic enthusiast and
pragmatic community organizer.’ Heikki R, Paul and the Law (1987), 200, 218. See also Rosner Brian S.
Paul and the Law: What he Does not Say Journal for the Study of the New Testament (June 2010) 32: 405-
419.
229
On Jewish perspectives on Paul, see Daniel R. Langton, The Apostle Paul in the Jewish Imagination: A
Study in Modern Jewish-Christian Relations (1999).

The New Testament and Qumran

230
Collins John J. Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Dead Sea Scrolls
(2010); George J. Brooke, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament (2005); George Nickelsburg,
Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins: Diversity (2003), 48; and James VanderKam and Peter Flint, The
Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2002). See also Schiffman Lawrence H. Reclaiming the Dead Sea
Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran
(1994).
231
Recent work on Judean sectarian groups and culture: Collins, John J. Scriptures and Sectarianism:
Essays on the Dead Sea Scrolls (2014); Collins John J. Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian
Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2009); Lynn LiDonnici Lynn and Lieber Andrea eds. Heavenly
Tablets: Interpretation, Identity, and Tradition in Ancient Judaism JSJSup, 119 (2007) 177-92
232
‘The sons of light,’ ‘the house of perfection and truth in Israel,’ the chosen ones, and so on (1QS 2.9;
3.25; 8.9; 11.7). Dunn Christianity in the Making—Vol 1—Jesus Remembered 86.
233
Standing on George Nickelsburg Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins: Diversity (2003) 48.
234
Dunn, Christianity in the Making—Vol. 1—Jesus Remembered, 86. Streeter dated Matthew circa 85 CE
in Antioch, the foundation for the contemporary consensus.
235
‘Son of Man’ derives from Dan 7:13–14. See Dale C. Allison Jr. Constructing Jesus: Memory,
Imagination, and History (2010) 298–303.
236
See next segment and p. x and y for more on this topic and in G. W. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch: A
Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch (2001), 454–459.
237
Israel Knohl, The Messiah before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2000).
238
Watts Rikk Messianic Servant or the End of Israel’s Exilic Curses? Isaiah 53.4 in Matthew 8.17 Journal
for the Study of the New Testament (September 2015) 38: 81-95.
239
Recent work on Judean sectarian groups and culture: Collins, John J. Scriptures and Sectarianism:
Essays on the Dead Sea Scrolls (2014); Collins John J. Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian
Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2009); Lynn LiDonnici Lynn and Lieber Andrea eds. Heavenly
Tablets: Interpretation, Identity, and Tradition in Ancient Judaism JSJSup, 119 (2007) 177-92.
240
Nickelsburg, Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins, for comments on the
impact of DSS scholarship on the Christian origins.
241
See David Flusser, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pre-Pauline Christianity (1988, 23–25. At the other end of
this side of the spectrum we encounter Robert Eisenman and Barbara Theiring, who believe that the Dead

70
Sea Scrolls originated in the first century with distinct connections to the early, and pre -Gentile, Jesus
movement.
242
The arguments, attitudes, language, and imagery deployed by the Pauline-Lukan faction against the
establishment of the Jesus movement seem to emulate the arguments, attitudes, language, and imagery that
Jewish sectarians, most notably Qumran, deployed against the Jewish establishment.
243
With the exception of the Qumran community, there was no antecedent for the survival of a messianic
sect after the death of its leader.16 Following Jesus’s death, the Qumran community (having survived the
death of The Teacher of Righteousness) may have offered a template to follow.
244
Among the most important examples: Isaiah 42:52–53; Psalms 22, 69, 110, and 118:22- Daniel 7- Hosea
6:2- Zecharia 12:10- Matthew 1:23 (standing on Isaiah 7:14). Habakkuk 2:4 is used in Qumran (Pesher
Habakkuk) and in Romans 1:17, Galatians 3:11, and Hebrews 10:37–380.
245
Knohl, The Messiah before Jesus.
246
Ibid.; Collins John J. The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient
Literature (1995).
247
Also in Daniel, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and 1Enoch.
248
S. Lehne, The New Covenant in Hebrews (1990), 130–131; and W. D. Davies, ‘Torah in the Messianic
Age and/or the Age to Come,’ JBLMS 7 (1952), 21–28.
249
The Teacher of Righteousness in Qumran texts. Jesus in the New Testament.
250
In the non-canonical texts of the period it is found in Barnabas and in the
Didache. See Didache (chaps. 1–6) and Barnabas (2.10, 18.2). See alsoVan de Sandt H. and D. Flusser. The
Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity (2002); Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch,
454–459.
251
For the John-Qumran connection see Mary L. Coloe and Tom Thatcher, eds., John, Qumran, and the
Dead Sea Scrolls: Sixty Years of Discovery and Debate (2011).
252
G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (1975), 265–268.
253
See Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews (1989),
192–195. See also Barnabas Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews
(1991), 75.
254
See Mark 1:4–6 and Matthew 3:1–6.

The James Enigma

255
See Streeker The Four Gospels (1924), Kilpatrick G. D. The Origins of the Gospel according to St.
Matthew (1946), Manson T. W. Sayings of Jesus (1949); Hartin Patrick James and the Q Sayings of Jesus
JSNTSup 47 (1991); Van Voorst, Robert E. The Ascents of James: History and Theology of a Jewish
Christian Community. SBL Dissertation Series 112 (1989); Bauckham R. ed. James and the Jerusalem
Church in The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting. Vol. 4 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century
Setting Edited by Bruce W. Winter (1995) 417-80; Johnson Luke Timothy The Letter of James Anchor
Bible 37A. (1995); Painter John Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition (1997); Chilton
B. and Evans C. A. Eds. James the Just and Christian Origins Supplements to Novum Testamentum 98
(1999) 33-57; Chilton Bruce and Jacob Neusner, eds. The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and His Mission
(2001); Chilton B. and Evans C. A. Eds. Peter, James and the Gentiles in The Missions of James, Peter,
and Paul: Tensions in Early Christianity Supplements to Novum Testamentum 115 (2005) 91-142;
Bauckham Richard James and the Jerusalem Community Jewish Believers in Jesus in Jewish believers in
Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 55 -77.
256
Evans Craig A., Bauckham R., Chilton B., Neusner J., Painter John, Davids Peter H and others.
257
See bibliography on the Q source, Pg. 415
258
For scholarship on Q and M see Pg. 416.

71
259
Bauckham Richard The Community's Self-Understanding in James and the Jerusalem Community in the
History of Research in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik
Reidar (2007) 55-60.
260
List of canonical books in Greek. A Latin version was discovered by Muratori in the eighteen century.
The date of the Greek original is disputed (second to fourth century).
261
Bauckham Richard James and Jesus in Chilton B., and J. Neusner The Brother of Jesus: James the Just
and his Mission (2001).
262
Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar Jewish Christian Groups according to the Greek and Latin
Fathers in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007)
419-505; Stanton Graham Jewish Christian Elements in the Pseudo-Clementine Writings in Jewish
believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 305-323; Van de
Sandt H. and D. Flusser. The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity
(2002); Jones F. Stanley An Ancient Jewish Christian Source on the History of Christiani ty: Pseudo-
Clementine Recognitions 1.27-71. Christian Apocrypha Series 2 (1995).
263
Among them (Clarke 1856), Luther (1960:396) and (1967:424), Bultmann (1955:143), Kümmel
(1975:416).
264
Luther Preface to the New Testament 1522; cf. Luther’s Works, vol. 35: 362.
265
On the history of the Epistle see L. T. Johnson, Brother of Jesus, Friend of God (2004), The Letter of
James: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (1995).
10. Bauckham Richard James and Jesus in The brother of Jesus: James the Just and his mission in Chilton
Bruce and Neusner Jacob eds. (2001) 100.
266
Bauckham Richard James and Jesus in The brother of Jesus: James the Just and his
mission in Chilton Bruce and Neusner Jacob eds. (2001) 100
267
Koester H. GNOMAI DIAPHOROI HTR 58 (1965) 279-318, Kloppenborg J. The Formation of Q
(1987), Hartin P. James and the Q Sayings of Jesus JSNTSup 47(1991), Penner T. The Epistle of James
and Eschatology: Rereading an Ancient Christian Letter JSNTSup 121(1996); Hartin P. Who is wise and
understanding among you?' (James 3:13): An Analysis of Wisdom, Eschatology and Apocalypticism in the
Epistle of James (1996) 483-503; Jackson-McCabe M. A Letter to the Twelve Tribes in the Diaspora:
Wisdom and 'Apocalyptic' Eschatology in the Letter of James (1996) 504-17) .
268
The existence of these Gospels has been deducted from the writings of Jerome, Epiphanius, and Origen.
See Klijn A. F. J. Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition VCSup (1992) 27-30; Knox John The Origin of the
Ebionites in The Image of the JudaeoChristians in Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature Edited by P. J.
Tomson and D. Lambers-Petry (2003) 162-81; Evans Craig A. The Literary Heritage of Jewish Believers
[Part Three] in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar
(2007) 241-278; Skarsaune Oskar The Ebionites in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds.
Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 419-463; Kinzig Wolfram The Nazoraeans in Jewish believers
in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 463-488; afHällström Gunnar
Cerinthus, Elxai, Elkesaites, and Sampseans in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds.
Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 488-505; Skarsaune Oskar Jewish Christian Traditions in
Origen in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007)
361-373.
269
Van de Sandt H. and D. Flusser. The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and
Christianity (2002); van de Sandt, Huub and Zangenberg, eds. Introduction in Matthew, James and the
Didache (2008) 1, Schröter Jens Problems with Pluralism in the Second Temple Judaism van de Sandt,
Huub and Zangenberg, eds. in Matthew, James and the Didache (2008) 259-71; Draper Jonathan A. and
Jefford Clayton N. The Didache: A Missing Piece of the Puzzle in Early Christianity SBLECL 14 (2015).
270
Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar Jewish Christian Groups according to the Greek and Latin
Fathers in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007)
419-505; Stanton Graham Jewish Christian Elements in the Pseudo-Clementine Writings in Jewish

72
believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 305-323; Van de
Sandt H. and D. Flusser. The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity
(2002); Jones F. Stanley An Ancient Jewish Christian Source on the History of Christianity: Pseudo -
Clementine Recognitions 1.27-71. Christian Apocrypha Series 2 (1995);
Jones F. Stanley An Ancient Jewish Christian Source on the History of Christianity: Pseudo -Clementine
Recognitions 1.27-71. Christian Apocrypha Series 2 (1995), Painter John Who was James? The brother of
Jesus: James the Just and his mission in Chilton Bruce and Neusner Jacob eds. (2001) 61-62.
271
My views in this subchapter are indebted to Mark D. Nanos ed. The Galatians Debate: Contemporary
Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation (2002), and Zetterholm Magnus The Didache, Matthew,
James—and Paul: Reconstructing Historical Developments in Antioch in Matthew, James, and Didache
(2008).
272
Bauckham Richard Leadership in James and the Jerusalem Community in the History of Research in
Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 66-70;
Hidal Sten The Emergence of Christianity in Syria 568 in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds.
Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 568-581.
273
Streeter B.H. The Four Gospels. A Study of Origins Treating the Manuscript Tradition, Sources,
Authorship, & Dates (1930) 511-12.
274
The foundational work is Streeter B.H. The Four Gospels. A Study of Origins Treating the Manuscript
Tradition, Sources, Authorship, & Dates (1930) 232; Flusser David Evidence Corroborating a Modified
Proto-Matthean Synoptic Theory NTS 29 (1983); Evans Craig A. Comparing Judaisms in Chilton Bruce
and Neusner Jacob eds. James the Just and His Mission (2001) 182, Schröter Jens Problems with Pluralism
in the Second Temple Judaism van de Sandt, Huub and Zangenberg, eds. Introduction in Matthew, James
and the Didache (2008) 259-71.
275
Streeter B.H. The Four Gospels. A Study of Origins Treating the Manuscript Tradi tion, Sources,
Authorship, & Dates (1930) 513.
276
Zetterholm Magnus The Didache, Matthew, James—and Paul: Reconstructing Historical Developments
in Antioch in Matthew, James, and Didache (2008); Hidal Sten The Emergence of Christianity in Syria 568
in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 568-581;
Zetterholm, Magnus Purity and Anger: Gentiles and Idolatry in Antioch Interdisciplinary Journal of
Research on Religion (2005) 17–18; Painter John in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of James,
Peter, and Paul (2005) Lieu Judith, neither Jew nor Greek? in The Ways that never Parted (2003);
Zetterholm Magnus The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-Scientific Approach to the
Separation between Judaism and Christianity (2003); Painter John Just James: The Brother of Jesus in
History and Tradition (1997 2nd ed.); Painter John Who was James? in The brother of Jesus: James the
Just and his mission in Chilton Bruce and Neusner Jacob eds. (2001).
277
Mark D. Nanos, ‘What Was at Stake in Peter’s ‘eating with Gentiles’ at Antioch? ’ in The Galatians
Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation Ed. M. D. Nanos (2002) 282–
318.
278
Dieter Mitternacht, Foolish Galatians? A Recipient-Oriented Assessment of Paul’s Letter’ in Nanos, ed.,
Galatians Debate, 408–32: 431–32; Mark D. Nanos The Irony of Galatians: Pauls’ Letter in First Century
Context (2001) 257–71.
279
See also 1 Cor 1:2; 3:17; 6:1–2, 19; 7:14; Phil 1:10; 2:14; 4:21; 1 Thess 4:3, 7.
280
Terrance Callan, The Background of the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25) CBQ 55 (1993) 28–
97. Cf. Acts 15:29; 21:25.
281
Zetterholm, Formation of Christianity in Antioch, 13–9. See also John C. Hurd, The Origin of 1
Corinthians (1983, 1965) 259–62; Mark D. Nanos, The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s
Letter 50–56.
282
Other interpretations: Nanos, Irony of Galatians, 152–5; Nanos, What Was at Stake in Peter’s ‘eating
with Gentiles 285–92; Zetterholm, Magnus Purity and Anger: Gentiles and Idolatry in Antioch

73
Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion (2005) 17–18, Zetterholm Magnus The Didache,
Matthew, James—and Paul: Reconstructing Historical Developments in Antioch in Matthew, James, and
Didache (2008) 84-6.
283
Bauckham Richard James, Peter, and the Gentiles in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of
James, Peter, and Paul (2005) 125-6.
284
Zetterholm Magnus The Didache, Matthew, James—and Paul: Reconstructing Historical Developments
in Antioch in Matthew, James, and Didache (2008) 86
285
Bauckham Richard Mission and Gentile Believers in James and the Jerusalem Community in the
History of Research in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik
Reidar (2007) 70-75.
286
Other possible interpretations of Gal 2:12: Nanos, Irony of Galatians, 152–5; Nanos, What Was at Stake
in Peter’s ‘eating with Gentiles 285–92; Zetterholm, Magnus Purity and Anger: Gentiles and Idolatry in
Antioch Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion (2005) 17–18.
287
Esler P. a New Reading of Galatians 2:1-14 in Biblical Interpretation: A Journal of Contemporary
Approaches (1995) 285–31.
288
For further discussion, see Zetterholm Magnus The Didache, Matthew, James—and Paul:
Reconstructing Historical Developments in Antioch in Matthew, James, and Didache (2008) 84-6, and
Bauckham Richard James, Peter, and the Gentiles in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of James,
Peter, and Paul (2005) 125-6.
289
See J. D. G. Dunn, The Incident at Antioch JSNT 18 (1982) 3-57; and P. J. Hartin, James and the Q
Sayings of Jesus JSNTSup 47 (1991) 230.
290
M. Goulder, A Tale of Two Missions (1994) 3, 108.
291
Contra Streeter B.H. The Four Gospels. A Study of Origins Treating the Manuscript Tradition, Sources,
Authorship, & Dates (1930) 514-15.
292
There are traces and insinuations of the term ‘New Israel’ in Matthew, Hebrews, and in the Pauline
letters but the unequivocal and overt claim to the designation ‘New Israel’ does not occur in any of the New
Testament documents. I assume the use of this designation, or similar and equivalent ones, by the Jewish
followers of Jesus.
293
Bauckham Richard James and Jesus in The brother of Jesus: James the Just and his mission in Chilton
Bruce and Neusner Jacob eds. (2001) 100.
294
See R. N. Longenecker, Galatians CWBC 41(1990); D. Wenham (ed.). The Book of Acts in its Ancient
Literary Setting (1993) chap. 9; Bauckham (ed.), The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting chap. 15
(1995); There are significant differences between Paul and Acts about Paul's two visits to Jerusalem
(FIRST - Gal 1:18-20 and Acts 9:26-30, SECOND - Gal 2:1-10 and Acts 15). However, the discrepancies
for the first visit are much more consequential. are more far reaching than the regarding the second visit.
295
Betz Hans Dieter Galatians in A Critical & Historical Commentary on the Bible (1989) 106.
296
Painter John in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (2005) 176-7.
297
Painter Paul in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (2005) 193-4;
Cohen, Shaye JD. The ways that parted: Jews, Christians, and Jewish-Christians ca. 100-150 CE (2013),
3.
298
Bauckham Richard Leadership in James and the Jerusalem Community in the History of Research in
Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 66-70; See
summary in Painter, John Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition (1997).
299
Painter John Who was James? in The brother of Jesus: James the Just and his mission in Chilton Bruce
and Neusner Jacob eds. (2001) 32-35.
300
On the proto-orthodox ambivalent casting of James Hartin Patrick J. James of Jerusalem: Heir to Jesus
of Nazareth (2004) 135-40.

74
301
Bauckham Richard the Jerusalem Community after James Jewish Believers in Jesus in The New
Testament and Related Material in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and
Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 77-81.
302
Painter John Who was James? In The brother of Jesus: James the Just and his mission in Chilton Bruce
and Neusner Jacob eds. (2001) 61-62.
303
McCartney, Dan G (2009). Robert W Yarbrough and Robert H Stein, ed. Baker Exegetical Commentary
on the New Testament: James.
304
Allison, D.C., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of James, T&T Clark, New
York/London/New Delhi/Sydney, Bloomsbury. (International Critical Commentary), 67-68
305
Allison Dale C. The Jewish Setting of the Epistle of James (2015) In die Skriflig 49(1), Art. #1897
306
Has been found to be remarkably similar to the Septuagint’s Greek and would have required more
exposure to Hellenistic culture and learning than James’ background would seem to grant.
307
For support of this argument see F. 0. Francis The Form and Function of the Opening and Closing
Paragraphs of James and 1 John ZNW 61 (1970) 110-26.
308
Martin Dibelius, James: A Commentary on the Epistle of James, ed. Helmut Koester; trans. M. A.
Williams (1975).
309
Ibid., 6.
310
Wisdom: Hartin Patrick J. James and the Q Sayings of Jesus JSNTSup 47 (1991): 23-35, 42-43, Mullins
T. Y. Jewish Wisdom Literature in the New Testament JBL 68 (1949) 339. Eschatology: Penner Todd The
Epistle of James and Eschatology: Re-reading an Ancient Christian Letter, JSNTSS, 121 (1996). Jackson-
McCabe Matt, A Letter to the Twelve Tribes in the Diaspora: Wisdom and ‘Apocalyptic’ Eschatology in the
Letter of James in SBL Seminar Papers (1996): 504-17; Penner, Todd C. The Epistle of James and
Eschatology JSNT Sup 121 (1996) and Verseput Donald J. Wisdom, 4Q185, and the Epistle of James JBL
117 (1998): 691-707, favor an eschatological background for James and question the more established label
of wisdom literature. Both: John J. Collins, ‘Wisdom, Apocalypticism, and Generic Compatibility’, in L. G.
Perdue, B. B. Scott, and W. J. Wiseman, eds., In the Search of Wisdom: Essays in Memory of John G.
Gammie (Louisville: Westminster, 1993): 165-86, Bauckham, James Wisdom of James, Disciple of Jesus
the Sage (1999) 33, Lockett, Darian R. 2005. ‘The Spectrum of Wisdom and Eschatology in the Epistle of
James and 4QInstruction,’ Tyndale Bulletin 56 (2005) 132-3.
311
Standing on Davids Peter H. The Literary evidence in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of
James, Peter, and Paul (2005) 50-1.
312
McKnight Scot, The Letter of James, New International Commentary on the New Testament (2011)
313
Bauckham Richard James and Jesus in The brother of Jesus: James the Just and his mission in Chilton
Bruce and Neusner Jacob eds. (2001) 100
314
Hartin, Patrick J. A Spirituality of Perfection: Faith in Action in the Letter of James (1999) 3
315
Allison Dale C. The Jewish Setting of the Epistle of James (2015) In die Skriflig 49(1), Art. #1897 pg. 3-
4
316
Bauckham Richard James and Jesus in Chilton B., and J. Neusner The Brother of Jesus: James the Just
and his Mission (2001) among many.
317
Standing on Painter John The Power of Words: Rhetoric in James and Paul in Chilton Bruce & Evans
Craig The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (2005) 270
318
Hartin, Patrick J. A Spirituality of Perfection: Faith in Action in the Letter of James (1999)
319
Allison Dale C. The Jewish Setting of the Epistle of James (2015) In die Skriflig 49(1), Art. #1897 pg. 2.
320
Allison Dale C. The Jewish Setting of the Epistle of James (2015) In die Skriflig 49(1), Art. #1897 pg. 3
321
Painter John James and Peter models of leadership and mission in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The
Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (2005) 205.
322
Recent contributions: Horrell David G. and Wei Hsien Wan Christology, Eschatology and the Politics of
Time in 1 Peter Journal for the Study of the New Testament (March 2016)

75
; Hurtado L. and Bond H. eds. Peter in History and Tradition (2015) 130-45; Horrell David G. Ethnicity,
Empire, and Early Christian Identity: Social-Scientifi c Perspectives on 1 Peter in Mason Eric F. and
Martin Troy W. eds.Reading 1–2 Peter and Jude (2014) 135-151 Bockmuehl Markus Simon Peter in
Scripture and Memory: The New Testament Apostle in the Early Church (2012) 32; Foster Paul The Gospel
of Peter: Introduction, Critical Edition and Commentary TENTS 4 (2010) 91, Lapham Fred Peter: The
Myth, the Man and the Writings JSNTSup 239 (2003). Earlier contributions: Selwyn Edward G. The First
Epistle of St. Peter (1947) 7-63; Elliott John H. The Rehabilitation of an Exegetical Step-Child: 1 Peter in
Recent Research (1976) 118-38; Michaels J. Ramsey 1 Peter WBC 49 (1988); Soards Marion L. 1 Peter, 2
Peter, and Jude as Evidence for a Petrine School ANRW II.25.5 (1988).
323
The Apocryphon of James (first half of second century), Protevangelium of James (second half of
second century). First and Second Apocalypse of James, the Gospel of Peter (mid-second century).
Apocalypse of Peter (first half of second century), Kerygma Petrou (second century), Kerygmata Petrou (c.
200 C.E.), Acts of Peter (180-190 C.E.), the Letter of Peter to Philip (late second century), or the Act of
Peter (c. 200 CE or later) – In Davids Peter H. The Literary evidence in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The
Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (2005) 8.
324
Painter John James and Peter models of leadership and mission in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The
Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (2005) 209
325
Painter Paul in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (2005) 191
326
Tappenden Frederick On the Difficulty of Molding a Rock: The Negotiation of Peter's Reputation in
Early Christian Memory in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity: A Conversation with Barry Schwartz
SBL (2014) 263-87.
327
Davids Peter H. The Literary evidence in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of James, Peter,
and Paul (2005) 51.
328
Chilton Bruce Conclusions and Questions in Chilton B in Chilton, B., and C. Evans. James the Just and
Christian Origins (1999).
329
Popkes Ward The Mission of James in His Time in Chilton B., and J. Neusner The Brother of Jesus:
James the Just and his Mission (2001).
330
Edgar David Hutchinson, Has God Not Chosen the Poor? The Social Setting of the Epistle of James
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 206 (2001) 250.
331
Painter John Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition (1997 2nd ed.)
332
Matt Jackson-McCabe Logos and Law in the Letter of James (2001).
333
Mitchell Margaret M., The Letter of James as a Document of Paulinism? in Webb, Robert L., and John
S. Kloppenborg, eds. Reading James with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of James
(2007) 75–98.
334
McKnight Scot, The Letter of James, New International Commentary on the New Testament (2011) 263.
335
Chilton Bruce James, Peter, Paul, and the Formation of the Gospels in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig
The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (2005).
336
My summary of Painter John The Power of Words: Rhetoric in James and Paul in Chilton Bruce James,
Peter, Paul, and the Formation of the Gospels in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of James,
Peter, and Paul (2005) 269.
337
Streeter B.H. The Four Gospels. A Study of Origins Treating the Manuscript Tradition,
Sources, Authorship, & Dates (1930) 511-12.
338
Hartin, Patrick J. A Spirituality of Perfection: Faith in Action in the Letter of James (1999) 77, 81, 84,
McKnight Scot A Parting of the Way: Jesus and James on Israel and Purity in Chilton B., and J. Neusner
The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and his Mission (2001), Painter John in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig
The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (2005) 197-2007, Edgar David Hutchinson, Has God Not Chosen
the Poor? The Social Setting of the Epistle of James Journal for the Study of the New Testament
Supplement Series 206 (2001).

76
339
Hartin Patrick J. Law and Ethics in Matthew’s Antitheses and James’s Letter 315, van de Sandt, Huub
and Zangenberg, eds. Introduction in Matthew, James and the Didache (2008) 365, also Hartin, Patrick J.
A Spirituality of Perfection: Faith in Action in the Letter of James (1999) 77, 81, 84.
340
Lockett, Darian R. Structure or Communicative Strategy? The 'Two Ways' Motif in James' Theological
Instruction Neotestamentica 42, no. 2 (2008): 269-87, Van De Sandt, Huub. James 4,1-4 in the Light of the
Jewish Two Ways Tradition 3,1-6 Biblica 88.1 (2007): 38-63.
341
van de Sandt, Huub and Zangenberg, eds. Introduction in Matthew, James and the Didache (2008) 6- 7.
342
McKnight Scot, The Letter of James, New International Commentary on the New Testament (2011).
343
Painter John James and Peter models of leadership and mission in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The
Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (2005) 208.
344
Painter John in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (2005) 222.
345
Bauckham Richard James and Jesus in The brother of Jesus: James the Just and his mission in Chilton
Bruce and Neusner Jacob eds. (2001) 105.
346
Standing on Neusner Jacob What, Exactly, Is Israel's Gentile Problem? Rabbinic Perspectives on
Galatians 2 in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (2005) 292-3.
347
Hartin, Patrick J. The Letter of James: Faith Leads to Action, Word & World, Volume 35, Number 3
(2015) 229.
348
Schröter Jens Problems with Pluralism in the Second Temple Judaism van de Sandt, Huub and
Zangenberg, eds. Introduction in Matthew, James and the Didache (2008) 259-71.
349
Baker W. R. Personal Speech-Ethics: A Study of the Epistle of James Against Its Background WUNT
2/68 (1995), Lockett D. R. Purity and Worldview in the Epistle of James LNTS 366 (2008) and Batten A. J.
Friendship and Benefaction in James Emory Studies in Early Christianity 15 (2010).
350
Penner, Todd C. The Epistle of James and Eschatology: Re-reading an Ancient Christian Letter (1996).
351
Hartin, Patrick J. A Spirituality of Perfection: Faith in Action in the Letter of James (1999), Hartin,
Patrick J. James of Jerusalem: Heir to Jesus of Nazareth (2004), McKnight Scot, The Letter of James, New
International Commentary on the New Testament (2011).
352
Martin Dibelius, James: A Commentary on the Epistle of James, ed. Helmut Koester; trans. M. A.
Williams (1975).
353
Witherington Ben III The Many Faces of the Christ The Christologies of the New Testament and
Beyond (1998) 201, cf. Bauckham 1998, Bauckham Richard James and Jesus in The brother of Jesus:
James the Just and his mission in Chilton Bruce and Neusner Jacob eds. (2001) 135.
354
Evans Craig A. Comparing Judaisms in Chilton Bruce and Neusner Jacob eds. James the Just and His
Mission (2001) 182-3; Part Five - Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar Jewish Christian Groups according
to the Greek and Latin Fathers in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and
Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 419-505.
355
Painter John James and Peter models of leadership and mission in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The
Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (2005) 209.
356
See Bauckham Richard Mission and Gentile Believers in James and the Jerusalem Community in the
History of Research in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik
Reidar (2007) 70-75.
357
Painter John James and Peter models of leadership and mission in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The
Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (2005) 206-7.

A Growing Tension
358
On the cross-influence among Judaism, Christianity, and Gnosticism, see
Alan F. Segal in Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity, vol. 2, Stephen G. Wilson,
ed. (1986), 133–162.
359
Both sides of the debate among Jews considered Jesus an exalted human, not a divine being.
360
For bibliography on the appropriation of the Jewish scriptures by Pauline believers see pg. 415

77
 D. R. A. Hare, ‘The Rejection of the Jews in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts,’ in Anti-Semitism and the
361

Foundations of Christianity, A. T. Davis, ed. (1979), 28–32.

What is at stake
362
During the second century Paulines split into Pauline-Lukan and Pauline-Marcionite strands.
363
‘Thus Q cannot be seen as a teaching supplement for a community whose theology is represented by the
Pauline kerygma. Q’s theology and soteriology are fundamentally different.’ Helmut Koester, Ancient
Christian Gospels (1990), 160. For scholarship on Q and M see Pg. 416.
364
For an updated review on ‘the historical Jesus,’ see Amy -Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison Jr., and John
Dominic Crossan, eds., The Historical Jesus in Context (2006).
365
The better known—L. Vaganay (Mark drew on proto-Mark), B. H. Streeter (proto-Luke first, second
edition drew on Mark), and C. Lachmann and H. J. Holtzmann (Matt and Luke draw on proto -Mark). Other
proposals include Koester’s ‘dialogue Gospel’ and Crossan’s ‘Cross Gospel’ whose existence as separate
texts or textual traditions are hotly debated.

05 – Chapter 5 - Crisis in the Jesus movement

78