Jews, Gentiles, and Christ: An Examination of James D. G. Dunn's Christianity in the Making

7/26/2019 Jews, Gentiles, and Christ: An Examination of James D. G. Dunn's Christianity in the Making

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jews-gentiles-and-christ-an-examination-of-james-d-g-dunns-christianity 1/23

JEWS, GENTILES, AND CHRIST:

AN EXAMINATION OF JAMES D. G. DUNN’S

CHRISTIANITY IN THE MAKING

__________________

A Paper

Presented to

Dr. John Taylor

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

__________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for NEWTS 5363

__________________

by

Michael Metts

April 22, 2016



1

JEWS, GENTILES, AND CHRIST:

AN EXAMINATION OF JAMES D. G. DUNN’SCHRISTIANITY IN THE MAKING

It is the purpose of this paper to discuss the major points of Dunn’s third volume of

Christianity in the Making specifically related to (a) the growing tension among Jewish and

Gentile Christians, and secondly, (b) the growing divide between the emergence of both Judaism

and Christianity in the first and second centuries. The first part of this essay will point out the

significance of F. C. Baur and how his influence continues to inform the present discussion of

early Christianity. Secondly, and with this focus in mind, Jewish Christianity is carefully

examined. Paul’s opponents are considered thirdly since their Jewish identity provides an

important piece of the puzzle. Fourthly, factors which lead to the parting of ways between

Judaism and Christianity are considered. Finally, a look at the synagogue’s increasing

antagonism toward Christianity is discussed.

Careful attention to Dunn’s arguments – his strengths and his weaknesses – related to

each of the points discussed is provided, along with relevant texts from the New Testament and

secondary literature. While several of Dunn’s analyses are demonstrably accurate, his evident

concern to read the literature and understand early Christian history in light of competing

apostolic missions is criticized.

The Influence of F. C. Baur1

Ferdinand Christian (F. C.) Baur was Professor of Church History and Dogmatics at

1On Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792-1860) see: Scott J. Hafemann, “F. C. Baur,” in Dictionary of

Major Biblical Interpreters, ed. by Donald K. McKim (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007), 177-81; Robert

W. Yarbrough, “Tübingen School,” in Dictionary for the Theological Interpretation of the Bible, eds. Kevin J.

Vanhoozer, et al. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 822-3.



2

Tübingen from 1826 to 1860, and he was the founding and leading figure of the “Tübingen

School” of New Testament thought. Dunn begins Neither Jew nor Greek with reference to Baur:

“Our starting point here, however, is the impact made by F. C. Baur on the modern study of

Christianity’s origins.”2 In Baur’s ideological historiography, which is largely indebted to the

idealist philosophy of G. W. F. Hegel, Baur theorized that Jewish particularism – evidenced in

specified Petrine documents – is countered by Paul’s universalism – i.e. Paul’s proclamation of a

gospel which was inclusive of Gentiles – before an eventual resolution was made in early

Catholicism. The New Testament documents owing to Jewish “Petrine” Christianity are said to

be the Petrine epistles, Revelation, and the Gospel of Matthew; while Luke’s Gospel, 1 and 2

Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans are owing to Gentile “Pauline” Christianity; the early

Catholicism which synthesized the two is evidenced by the Pastoral Epistles, Acts, Hebrews, and

the Gospels of Mark and John.3

The influence of Baur on Dunn is evident in Dunn’s concern to address the questions

raised by the former – specifically in addressing New Testament diversity – as well as in Dunn’s

emphasis on tension in early Christianity. He follows Baur in generally assuming Jewish and

Gentile Christian sub-groups headed by James and Peter, and Paul, and understands these groups

existing, not in a state of tension, but in a state of significant conflict. It should be quickly added

that Dunn presents a softened view of this conflict which plots James, Peter, and Paul, along the

2James D. G. Dunn, Neither Jew nor Greek , vol. 3 of Christianity in the Making (Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 2015), 13.

3Steve Wilkens and Alan G. Padgett, Faith and Reason in the 19th Century, vol. 2 of Christianity and

Western Thought: A History of Philosophers, Ideas, and Movements (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000),

108. Notable is the split of Luke’s two-volume history, his Gospel and the book of Acts, between Petrine and early

Catholic Christianity, Matthean priority, and Mark as the last Synoptist writing. Baur also found the remaining

Pauline epistles dubious regarding authenticity.



3

entire spectrum of early Christianity where the opposing bookends are understood as “very

conservative Jewish believers (the ‘false brothers’, ‘false apostles’) marking one end,” and “one

or more of the (predominantly Gentile) factions who challenged Paul in places like Corinth at the

other end…”4 The apostles, then, exist within a larger gradient of early Christian diversity

understood holistically – they are not the cornerstones of the diversity itself as in the work of

Baur.

The Hegelian synthesis in Baur’s reconstruction saw the two opposing apostolic

parties coming together well into the second century, demonstrating reconciliation at last in the

form of early Catholic Christianity. Such documents indicative of this reconciliation include

Acts, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, the Gospel of Mark, and the deutero-Pauline epistles (i.e., all but

Romans, Galatians, and 1-2 Corinthians); with the height of reconciliation observed in the even

later dated Pastorals, 2 Peter, and the Gospel of John, each “near the close of the second

century.”5

The English-speaking response to Baur was firm, and chiefly the accomplishment of J.

B. Lightfoot. Noted Anglican Bishop, Stephen Neill, writes:

It will be recalled that the main plank in the Tübingen platform is the theory of an intense

opposition between Jewish and Gentile Christianity, between Peter… and Paul… If this is acorrect account of the history, it would be expected that clear traces of the conflict would be

4This is in fact how Dunn concludes Beginning from Jerusalem (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), see p.

1174. But the question was set for Christianity in the Making from the beginning with its first volume, Jesus

Remembered (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003): “How and why did it come about that the movement which took off

from Jesus did not after his death remain within first-century Judaism and became unacceptable to emerging

rabbinic Judaism?” (3). Dunn proceeds to quote Baur and credits him with setting the agenda for the last half of the

last century since he posed the issue of Christianity and its emergence from Judaism.

5Yarbrough, “Tübingen School,” in Dictionary for the Theological Interpretation of the Bible, 823.



4

found in Clement and Ignatius… In point of fact in neither Clement nor Ignatius do wefind any trace that there had ever been such a conflict.

6

By demonstrating the authenticity of 1 Clement and the seven epistles of Ignatius, and

by demonstrating their reliance on the New Testament documents, Baur’s theory of competing

Petrine and Pauline Christianities, which relied so heavily on second-century dates, proved

untenable.7 If Clement and Ignatius are both writing near the turn of the century, and are citing

from each of the New Testament documents, then the New Testament obviously must be dated

earlier. Lightfoot’s definitive rebuttal was recognized by Adolf von Harnack, who was writing

from Tübingen at the height of the University’s influence.8 Concerning Lightfoot’s success, Neill

writes:

He had done too well. Every elementary text-book of Church history today takes forgranted the authenticity of the letters of Clement and of the seven letters of Ignatius, and

uses them as primary source material for the history of the sub-apostolic age. As a result the

majority of theological students do not even know that their authenticity was even seriously

questioned, and that one of the greatest critical battles of the century was fought aboutthem.

9

6Stephen Neill and Tom Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1986 (Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 1988; reprint 2003) 56. Neill continues in explaining that the opposite is in fact discerned in 1

Clement : Peter and Paul are presented together with no hint of schism (56-7). John A. T. Robinson notes, “The

entire construction was dominated by the Hegelian pattern of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, and the span of time

was determined more by the intervals supposedly required for this to work itself out than by any objective

chronological criteria.” Redating the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1976; reprint Eugene, OR: Wipf and

Stock, 2000) 4. Yarbrough, “Tübingen School,” in Dictionary for the Theological Interpretation of the Bible , 823,

states: “Few of Baur’s historical and literary judgments have stood the test of time. All of the New Testament

writings can be dated comfortably within the first century.”

7Robert W. Yarbrough, “Tübingen School,” in Dictionary for the Theological Interpretation of the

Bible, 823. Yarbrough notes that Revelation is “the sole first-century document reflecting the Petrine party’s

outlook…”

8Robinson, Redating the New Testament , 4.

9 Neill and Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1986 , 60-1. Neill further explains

that: “Baur himself had been aware from an early date that all his theories stood or fell with the spuriousness of the

Clementine and Ignatius Epistles.” And, “If Baur was right, large parts of the New Testament were written

subsequently to A.D. 130” (56). (Cf. Dunn, Neither Jew nor Greek , 113 nn.9 and 11.)



5

For the sake of convenience and to provide a holistic snapshot of Dunn, the dates he

assigns to each New Testament document are given in the chart below. Dunn’s dating is in the

center column, while Baur’s dates are given in the left column. E. Earle Ellis’ dating is given in

the right column. While Ellis does not figure in this paper, his method of dating is important to

the discussion since he takes an opposite approach to both Baur and Dunn in his dating of the

New Testament. Ellis sees the apostolic missionaries as complementary, and not competing. He

further sees a single Jewish counter-mission against James, Peter, Paul, and John, comprised of a

traditionalist Jewish faction on one side, and a proto-gnostic, immoral faction on the other side.10

Because Ellis discerns unity more than diversity, his work is important in providing a healthy

balance to the discussion.

The New Testament

Documents

F. C. Baur’s

Timeline11

James D. G. Dunn’s

Timeline

E. Earle Ellis’

Timeline

The Synoptic Gospels

MatthewMark

Luke

c. 150-200c. 150-200

c. 150-200

80s65-75

late 70s, early 80s

60-6255-58

63-64

Acts c. 150 80s, early 90s 63-64The “Authentic”Pauline Epistles

12

Romans

Galatians1 Corinthians

2 Corinthians

50s-60s

50s-60s50s-60s

50s-60s

56-57

49-5252-55

52-55

58

4956

57

10E. Earle Ellis, The Making of the New Testament Documents (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 314-8.

11 Not all dates for Baur could be found. Baur himself avoided specific dates and gave ranges instead.

Usually by quarters or half centuries.

12The categories here are those of Baur. Dunn lists the following as authentic: (a) Romans; (b) 1

Corinthians; (c) 2 Corinthians; (d) Galatians; (e) Philippians; (f) 1 Thessalonians; (g) Philemon; see Beginning from

Jerusalem, 99; cf. also 512.



6

The “Deutero”-

Pauline Epistles13

1 Thessalonians

2 Thessalonians

Ephesians

PhilippiansColossiansPhilemon

c. 70-75

c. 70-75

2nd century

c. 120-140c. 120-140c. 120-140

49-52

49-52

70s

60-6260-6260-62

51-52

51-52

58-60

62-6358-6058-60

The Pastoral Epistles

1 Timothy

2 TimothyTitus

c. 200

c. 200c. 200?

80-100

80-10080-100

64

6764

The Epistles of James c. 150 c. 60 late 50s

Hebrews c. 150 70s to 80s 68-70

1 Peter c. 150 65-75 63-64

Jude

2 Peter

?

?

late 1st cent.

110-120

55-65

60-62John’s Gospel c. 150-200 90s, early 2nd cent. 85-95

1 – 3 John ? end of 1st cent., early

2nd cent.

75-90

Revelation 90s early 90s 68-70

13Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, labels the following as of “uncertain authorship”: (a) Colossians,

and (b) 2 Thessalonians, though Dunn sees them as still deriving from Paul’s influence; and (c) Ephesians, and (d)

the Pastorals “are attributed to the generation following Paul” (99). These last four, Ephesians, 1 Timothy, 2

Timothy, and Titus, are regarded as pseudonymous (100).

14Dunn does not seem to offer a date for the epistle of 1 Peter, at least not that I am able to locate. His

narrative explains that it is after Peter’s imprisonment at Rome (64), and presumably before the destruction of the

temple, which is the stopping point to Beginning from Jerusalem (see pp. 1147-66; esp. 1156).



7

Jewish Christianity15

To begin with, Dunn establishes sensible definitions of both Christianity and Judaism

within his discussion. He regards Christianity as “the movement that began in Jerusalem in 30

CE”; and Judaism he understands as Second Temple Judaism with its “diverse set of sects and

emphases…”16

It is these definitions that the following discussion will respect.17

By “Jewish

Christianity” Dunn intends the earliest followers of Jesus and their continuation for the first few

centuries AD. He identifies Jewish-Christian beliefs as the following: (1) a Jewish sect that

became predominantly non-Jewish, “and traditionally dismissive of and antagonistic to the

religion of the Jews”; (2) its Scriptures are the Scriptures of Israel, the Hebrew Bible and its

Greek translation (LXX); (3) the God of Israel’s Scriptures is the God of Jewish Christianity,

“that is, the God of Israel”; (4) the exalted Savior is Jesus, the Jewish Messiah, as prophesied by

Israel’s prophets; (5) and all of the apostles were Jews.18

15Dunn, Neither Jew nor Greek, 509-97; idem. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry

into the Character of Earliest Christianity, 3rd ed. (London: SCM Press, 2006), 253-87; Helmut Koester, History

and Literature of Early Christianity, vol. 2 of Introduction to the New Testament , 2nd ed. (New York: Walter de

Gruyter, 2000), 204-24; Hans Conzelmann, Gentiles, Jews, Christians: Polemics and Apologetics in the Greco-

Roman Era (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 273-5; Oskar Skarsaune, In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish

Influences on Early Christianity (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008),183-207; Jonathan Knight, Christian

Origins (London: T & T Clark, 2008), 266-75; Ekkehard Stegemann and Wolfgang Stegemann, The Jesus

Movement: A Social History of Its First Century (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1999), 221-47; Everett

Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 613-6; Philip S. Alexander,

“‘The Parting of Ways from the Perspective of Rabbinic Judaism,’” in Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways

A.D. 70 to 135, ed. by James D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 1-25.

16Dunn, Neither Jew nor Greek , 12.

17Technically, “Christianity” was first coined (insofar as corrobo rated by history) by Ignatius in the

110s; Dunn, Neither Jew nor Greek , 12 (n.31 cites the following works of Ignatius: Magn. 10.1-3; Rom. 3.3; Phil .

6.1; Mart . Pol . 10.1). But it was at Antioch (Acts 11:26) where the term “Christians” is first used. Dunn notes that it

is a Latin term that made its way into Greek, perhaps used by Roman authorities of the Antiochene Jews (Josephus,

War of the Jews, 7.44); see Beginning from Jerusalem, 305-6.

18Dunn, Neither Jew nor Greek , 510. The last item is more of a note than characteristic.



8

Troubling the earliest Jewish believers was the increasing Gentile presence in the

Church,19

the question of Torah and Temple,20

and synagogue expulsions of those who

proclaimed Jesus as the Messiah. Concerning the place of Torah within Jewish Christianity,

Justin Martyr was of the orthodoxy that “distinguished between Jewish Christians who

themselves kept the Mosaic law but did not want to impose it on Gentile Christians and those

who did want to subject Gentile Christians to it. He considered the former category to be

authentic Christianity, but not the latter ( Dial . 47).”21

Dunn intimates a direct link between later sectarian Jewish Christian groups, such as

the Ebionites and the Nazoraeans,22 and the earliest Jewish Christians under James’ leadership in

Jerusalem.23

Acts 21:20 – where Paul meets with James to answer those slandering him –

19See Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 246-54. Dunn identifies the Hellenists in Acts 6:1 as Diaspora

Jews who had returned to Jerusalem for various reasons. He further writes that “The Hellenists more than likely

looked down on the Hebrews as parochial and traditionalist. Equally, the Hebrews probably regarded the Hellenists

as those who were diluting and compromising key traditions of their shared faith and praxis as Jews” (251).

20

Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014) 2:1254, points out that the distinction between Hebraist and Hellenist made by the Tübingen school is (wrongly) a

theological one: “The apostles and ‘Hebrews’ supported the temple, whereas the Hellenists opposed the temple and

hence were driven from Jerusalem (8:1).” It is, rather, a linguistic distinction. Keener also expertly points out that

Stephen should not be thought of as rejecting the Law, as the Tübingen school supposes, since his speech (Acts 7:2-

53) is a largely developed Old Testament salvation history (1254). Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 261-2, does

depart from Baur ’s hypothesis by declaring that Stephen’s attack was on “the Temple and not on Moses,” despite

Stephen’s accusers (see Acts 6:13-14). As regards Dunn’s tradition analysis, the speech of Stephen is further

indicative of the oral, living Jesus tradition, going back to Jesus’ own talk of destroying the Temple; Jesus

Remembered , 631. Dunn notes Jesus’ reference to the temple’s destruction as well in the Gospel of Thomas.

21Conzelmann, Gentiles, Jews, Christians, 273.

22

Ebionite Christology of course affirmed adoptionism, or the view that Jesus was adopted by God, butwas a natural son of Mary and Joseph (note Epiphanius, Panarion [Adversus haereses], 30.18.5-6); Cf. Dunn, Unity

and Diversity in the New Testament , 262: “heretical Jewish Christianity would appear to be not so very different

from the faith of the first Jewish believers.” (Emphasis original.)

23Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 959-61; idem, Neither Jew nor Greek , 524-8; 577-85; 595-7; “The

evidence reads as though they [Ebionites] were full heirs of James and the Jewish believers in Jesus referred to in

Acts 21.20, that is, they were indeed Jewish believers in Jesus who maintained a Jewish way of life (circumcision

and law observance), and who reinforced the earlier antipathy to Paul and his law-free (or law-light) Gentile

mission” (581). Of the Nazoraeans, Dunn writes, “As those who continued to be known by one of the earliest names



9

provides important details regarding this traditionalist faction. Dunn notes two details of Acts

21:20 that are particularly noteworthy: (1) the verse tells us about the number of Jewish

believers, – myriads (μυριάδες);24 and (2) the verse also details the Jewish believers’ zeal for

Torah.25

The traditionalist faction in Jerusalem, closely related to James, would not have met

kindly with any compromise of James in his dealings with the Gentiles. James himself was likely

able to persevere as the Jerusalem church’s leader for the length of time that he did because he

sufficiently identified with the city’s “prevailing religious nationalism,” though this is not to

suggest that James held a similar political ideology as his countrymen.26

for the new Jewish sect (‘Nazarenes’) we may infer that they resisted the sort o f developments in theology and

Christology which are evident in the NT writings and saw no need or cause to move on form the basic beliefs of the

first Jewish believers in Jesus. Their continued retention of the name ‘Nazarene/Nazoraean’, when developing

Christianity (apart from Syria) largely abandoned it, can be regarded as a claim to direct continuity with the first-century Jerusalem/Palestinian church” (584-5). This connection is so due to the movement of Jewish Christianity in

the year starting the Jewish War from Jerusalem to Pella.

24BDAG, s.v., “μυριάς,” “a very large number, not precisely defined.”

25Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 960. On Acts 21:20, see Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary,

4 vols, 3:3123: “James and the elder s view the Jerusalem believers’ zeal for the law positively, and probably expects

Paul to view it the same way. It poses a problem in the current situation only when conjoined with the slander that

Paul is teaching Jewish people to abandon the law (Acts 21:21).” Keener continues to point out that Paul does

indeed respect Torah observance for Jewish Christians. He further writes that “The problem for Luke was not the

law but, instead, zeal for the law transgressing unity between Jewish and Gentile believers (cf. 21:25, 28); in a

current of rising nationalism, the temptation… would be to disown Gentiles as unacceptable to their people” (3124).

26Paul Barnett, Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament Times (Downers

Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 358. It was probably not long after Jesus’ resurrection that James came to

prominence in Jerusalem (cf. 1 Cor 15:7). He was certainly active in teaching the Gospel to Jews in Judea in the

thirties and forties (299). His death is c. AD 62. J ewish Christians often “acted in ways he [James] did not support,”

specifically in their Judaizing of Gentiles; Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 613. “What we do not find

in the sources is that the Christians also claimed the political privileg es of the Jews for themselves,” though they did

lay claim to Israel’s Scriptures and the Jerusalem cult; Conzelmann, Gentiles, Jews, Christians, 249-50.



10

Later Jewish Christian heresies claimed direct ancestry to James, and the claim is

“harder to deny than the heresiologists would have acknowledged.”27

Helmut Koester seems to

agree with this connection back to James and Jerusalem, though primarily by relating the

Ebionites (i.e., “the poor”) with “the poor” of Gal 2:10. He concludes: “It is therefore likely that

the later Jewish-Christian Ebionites preserved a memory of their ultimate derivation from the

Jerusalem community.”28

The Nazoraeans are connected by Dunn to the “sect of the Nazarenes”

mentioned in Acts 24:5.29

Still, the historian must provide more than patchwork similarities to bridge what is in

essence a period spanning more than two centuries, i.e., the time between James and the last

reference to the Nazarenes (fourth century).30

Such pieces as we have, such as the flight to Pella

in c. AD 66 and the Bar Kochba revolt of AD 132-5, are insufficient to account satisfactorily for

both the historical and theological developments which surely took place within the movement,


28Koester, History and Literature of Early Christianity, 206.


30On the Nazarenes dating into the fourth century, see Skarsaune, In the Shadow of the Temple, 203:

“After the fourth century the Nazarenes – very likely direct descendants of some from the early Jerusalem

community who fled to Pella in AD 70 – disappeared from the record of history.” Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early

Christianity, 614, states: “It is certain that Jewish believers continued after New Testament times, although their

history is vague and the sources are limited.” Dunn notes that references to the notzrim continued well into the

middle ages; Dunn, Neither Jew nor Greek , 582. But by this time the term is used in rabbinic Judaism of Christians

in general.



11

particularly given the severity of the events which caused Jewish Christian migration.31

Sadly,

and frustratingly as Dunn notes, history has not produced the lost Jewish-Christian Gospels.32

While Dunn does not see the Nazoraeans as heretics – for example he writes that “we

may infer that they resisted the sort of developments in theology and christology which are

evident in the NT writings” – Ferguson helpfully points out their sectarian and heretical

leanings.33

He notes in particular that they were affected by gnostic ideas – making a connection

with Docetism.34

The dilemma of Jewish Christianity in general should be noted as well. These were the

earliest followers of Jesus and his apostles. They separated themselves from the nationalistic

interests of their own countrymen all the while Roman power was a potent threat to Jewish

identity, a decision which would have made them very unpopular and easily targeted. They were

further disenfranchised from both the Jewish synagogue and the Gentile church – which had left

31See Knight, Christian Origins, 273. The report of the flight to Pel la “is an important one, for it is

precisely in Transjordania and Syria that the church fathers of the second century locate the majority of the Jewish

Christian sects” (273).

32Dunn, Neither Jew nor Greek , 144-6. Though the Gospel according to the Hebrews may have

originated in Alexandria, Egypt, it is more likely Syria (146).

33Dunn, Neither Jew nor Greek , 584. Dunn provides a summary of Epiphanius’ details of their beliefs

on p. 583; see also Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 614f.

34Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 614-5. He also helpfully notes that a second-century

Jewish Christian sect, the Elkesaites, had gnostic tendencies, and were later connected with Mani and Manichaeism

(614). Though the gnostic entanglement is a more difficult matter than is often appreciated. Skarsaune, In the

Shadow of the Temple, 204, more fairly writes that the gnostics “took great interest in the doctrines of the

Ebionites,” but that in some important respects the two groups “differed widely.” While the re is an alignment in

certain beliefs, the two are not identical, and these fringe groups likely caused problems for both the synagogue and

Church; Dunn, Neither Jew nor Greek , 586.



12

behind the Law of Moses. They held to the Gospel of Matthew dearly and had a Hebrew form

of it.35

In sum, while Jewish Christianity is traceable to Jerusalem, and while the earliest

Jewish Christians are likely genealogically related to the discussed later heresies, we should not

assume, as Ferguson helpfully points out, that this necessarily spells out a continuity of belief. As

Dunn frequently notes, Christianity did evolve and develop – it was, to a certain extent,

Christianity in the making . Are we not to imagine, then, similar developments in Jewish

Christianity which may also have led to heretical ideas such as those espoused in the discussed

sectarian groups?

Paul’s Judaizing Opponents

Concerning Paul, the opponents in his epistles to the Galatians and the Philippians are

identified as Jewish-Christians – Judaizers who require Torah obedience of Gentiles. The

opponents of the churches of Corinth (2 Corinthians 10-13) are also understood to be Judaizers.36

The opponents are explicitly connected by Dunn to the traditionalists in Jerusalem with James as

their leader.37

Paul Barnett, however, has identified the opponents with the believing Pharisees of

Acts 15:5, since in his letter to Galatians Paul explains that it was “certain men from James,” and

not necessarily men commissioned by James, who were troubling Paul’s churches (Gal 2:12).38


36Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem; on Galatians, 722; Philippians, 1014; Corinthians, 839-42, esp. 842.

37Dunn does intimate that this is the case due to James’ heritage in second-century Jewish-Christian

sources such as the pseudo-Clementine literature (which vehemently denigrated Paul through the narrated character

Simon Magus); see Beginning from Jerusalem, 1087; Neither Jew nor Greek , 520. James’ heritage within the

Patristics is somewhat nil (516).

38See P. W. Barnett, “Opponents of Paul,” in Dictionary of Paul and his Letters (Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity Press, 1993), 644-53 (esp. 648). It does offer an elegant solution. It further avoids the difficulty of



13

And after a careful analysis touching on each of the critical points for discerning the Colossian

opponents, Dunn concludes that “the most obvious proponents of the Colossian ‘philosophy’ are

one or more of the Jewish synagogues.”39

However, Acts seems to point towards a more positive connection between Paul and

the synagogue (Acts 13:13-43; esp. 43; 17:1-9, 10-14, 16-17).40

Barnett maintains that the

Judaizing opponents which so terribly frustrated Paul and his churches are likely the believing

Pharisees of Acts 15. While it is impossible to say whether or not he is correct, the claim has

several advantages over Dunn’s understanding. Primarily, it avoids the difficulty in seeing Peter,

James, and Paul as (sharply) opposing one another, which Luke has no knowledge of.41 In fact,

Acts speaks of both James and Peter affirming and supporting Paul’s apostolic calling to the

Gentiles (cf. Acts 15:19-21 = James; Acts 15:10 = Peter).42

And the narrative of Acts in general

demonstrates the missions of Peter and Paul as complementary. From what is elsewhere stated of

the Pharisees in the New Testament, specifically the Gospels (e.g. Matthew 23), the theory

stands further corroborated. It sum, then, it would seem that Dunn has read too much apostolic

division into the evidence.

understanding the Pillars themselves as behind the attacks, if the believing Pharisees, given their description in Acts

15:1, 5 are understood as operating separately from James. Dunn has a section on these traditionalist Jewish

Christians and their connection with James in Beginning from Jerusalem, 1085-1090. Dunn questions whether or not

James may have gone back on the agreement reached at the council in Acts 15, nullifying in effect the decision not

to require Gentiles to keep Torah.

39Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 1044.

40B. Chilton, “Synagogue,” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, eds. Ralph

P. Martin and Peter H. Davids (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 1141-6 (here 1144).

41This is not a denial of any tension. That there was tension between Paul and Peter is clear.

42Also notable is Paul’s recognition of James as a “pillar apostle” (Gal 2:9), and his recitation of

tradition material that presents James as the premier apostle among resurrection witnesses (1 Cor 15:7). These are

hardly the words of a disenfranchised apostle.



14

The Partings of Ways

between Christianity and Judaism

Christology created the most obvious tension between Judaism and Christianity which

led to the parting of ways, but Dunn is surprisingly brief on this point.43

Again, he is curiously

quiet on the significance of Christology as an important factor leading to the parting of ways.

Dunn sees, rather, the greatest strain between the two arriving with Christianity’s openness to

Gentiles. Here he notes Paul’s redefinitions of both “Jew” and “Israel” according to one’s inner

disposition towards God and not something physical (circumcision).44

The acceptance of

Gentiles into the people of God, Dunn describes as “the most obvious strain.”45

This is critical

since it adjusts what has long been at “the heart of Jewish identity,” which is Abrahamic ancestry

according to the founding covenant.46

Though this was a theological issue for Paul (Dunn cites

Rom 9:6-12, 24 as a redefining of Israel to include Gentiles), not to be missed is the practical

work of Paul in forming somewhat autonomous communities of both Jews and Gentiles,

“including many Gentiles who had not much respect for such Jewish scruples.”47

Dunn also asks,

with the arrival of a new name (“Christians”) to designate the new Jewish sect (Acts 11:26),

whether or not this would have further created separation.48

43Dunn, Neither Jew nor Greek , 602-4. Stephen’s stoning for speaking against the temple, and the early

followers that understood Jesus’ death as a sacrificial offering with implicit criticisms of the temple cult are given.

However, on Dunn’s reading, these are tensions “experienced more within earliest Christianity than between

‘Christianity’ and ‘Judaism.’”

44Dunn, Neither Jew nor Greek , 604-6.




48Here he cites Tacitus’ use of the term ( Annals 15.44.2); Dunn, Neither Jew nor Greek , 608.



15

The destruction of the Jewish Temple in AD 70 by Rome had devastating

consequences for Judaism – from which it was never able to recover fully, specifically with the

loss of Jerusalem as a Jewish city (for centuries) and Israel as a Jewish state (for even more).49

The Jewish revolt of AD 132-135, led by a hailed Messiah, Simon ben Kosiba, is of great

importance as well. In this second war with Rome, Judaism asserted itself politically with bar

Kokhba as its messianic leader. This was an elitist movement with the support of rapidly

growing rabbinic Judaism and the famed rabbi Akiba. However, since Christians hailed Jesus as

the Messiah, unless Jewish Christians renounced him as such, they were seen traitorously by

their countrymen. 50 Rome again left Jerusalem in disaster and following the Bar Kokhba war,

“the church in Judea was no longer Jewish but was ‘composed of Genti les.’”51

Hadrian’s edict

against castration, “which was worded to include circumcision” 52

and required the death penalty,

was “tantamount to a ban of Judaism itself.”53

Hadrian further reestablished Jerusalem as a

wholly Roman colony, choosing Aelia Capitolina as its new name and building a Temple

49Dunn, Neither Jew nor Greek , 610-14; 610 notes that the event was “of epochal significance.” Quite

literally, it marks the end of an historical epoch (n.56). See also C. A. Evans, “Christianity and Judaism: Partings of

the Ways,” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, 159-70 (here 165). Evans is also

dependent upon Dunn.

50Dunn, Neither Jew nor Greek , 619: “The revolt must have shattered any association between the

rebels and the Jewish believers in Messiah Jesus. To follow Akiba in acknowledging Bar Kochba as Messiah would

have been impossible to them” (619). See also Philip S. Alexander, “‘The Parting of the Ways’ from the Perspective

of Rabbinic Judaism,” in Jews and Christians: The Parting of Ways A.D. 75 to 135, 22: “Jewish Christianity would

have found it hard to cope with Jewish nationalism, and nationalist sentiments were strong among the Jews of

Palestine in the first two centuries of the current era.” Further: “Natio nalism was bound up with traditionalism (zeal

for the Law) and attachment to the Land of Israel, and it easily took on messianic overtones.”

51Evans, “Christianity and Judaism: Partings of the Ways,” 166; citing Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History,

4.5.4.

52Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 424.

53Dunn, Neither Jew nor Greek , 620; citing Emil Schürer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of

Jesus (New York: Schocken Books, 1961) 1:536-9.



16

dedicated to Zeus directly where the Jewish Temple had previously stood.54

As if this were not

enough, insult was added to injury when it was decided that Jews would be excluded from

entering Aelia Capitolina, i.e. the City of David, Jerusalem – the home of Jewish faith since the

time of King David.55

The edicts by Hadrian, on circumcision and banning Jews from Jerusalem,

read like an intentional effort to remove Judaism from existence. The gainful emergence of

formal rabbinic Judaism is a further factor widening the divide, and Dunn questions whether or

not it may have been the decisive factor.56

In summary, with the two continuously moving in different directions while each was

caught between Roman power and Gentile paganism, it was inevitable that an eventual parting

would take place. Though Dunn is right to point out the importance of both Rome and early

rabbinic Judaism as causal in the parting of ways, he makes too little of the theological basis for

these tensions. This is seen in the brevity of his treatment of Christology as a contributing factor,

and his uncertainty over whether Christology was a causal link. One might push back some

against Dunn’s emphasis on politics. While the points of tension which early Christianity

navigated were certainly political, they were not purely nor fundamentally political. It was

Jewish Christian belief in Jesus precisely as the true Messiah which kept the Jewish Christians

from participating in Jewish nationalistic causes with declared messiahs. It was their theological

convictions.

54Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 424-5; citing Dio Cassius 69.12.

55Dunn, Neither Jew nor Greek , 618 (and n.96).




17

The Antagonistic Synagogue

and the New Testament57

Several statements in the New Testament speak of the synagogues in a troubling way,

evidence that some friction between Judaism and Christianity was already under way. To begin

with the Gospels, Jesus is quoted in Mark 13:9 as saying: “But be on your guard. For they will

deliver you over to councils, and you will be beaten in synagogues…” The troubled relationship

between Judaism and Christianity is even more evident in John 9:22, which explicitly warns that

those who confess Jesus as the Messiah will be expelled from the synagogue. 58

It should be

noted that the direction of hostility is from the synagogue towards the Church. Dunn sees the

Johannine text as evidence that the birkat ha-minim was already being practiced by rabbinic

Jewish leaders towards Christians.59

This is a reasonable reading of the text, since it does

indicate that expulsion was standard policy.60

John’s Gospel reveals something else, and that is

the fact that Christianity had its roots in Judaism, including its missional activities which took the

teachings of Jesus to the synagogue from very early on. It should be observed we are still largely

witnessing a Jewish controversy over messiahship long before Christianity became a

predominantly Gentile religion.

57See Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, 4 vols, 1:1298-1310. In his treatment of Paul’s

churches in Beginning from Jerusalem, 598-659, Dunn also helpfully raises the question of Christianity’s relation to

the synagogue (600-1).

58Dunn, Neither Jew nor Greek , 642. Note also John 12:42 and 16:2. In both texts Christians are said to

be put out of the synagogue if they confess Jesus as the Messiah.

59Dunn, Neither Jew nor Greek , 641. Cf. Evans, “Christianity and Judaism: Partings of the Ways,”

Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Development , 166: “Although it is possible that such actions were

taken in the time of Jesus, it is probable that these threats reflected the experience of the Johannine community

sometime late in the first century,” perhaps as a reaction to the “twelfth benediction of the Amidah… as part of a

concerted ef fort to drive Christians out of the synagogue.”

60The matter is also indicative of a later first-century date for John’s Gospel.



18

By the end of the first century the synagogue had already developed negative liturgy

and curses concerning Christians, firmly criticizing Christian teaching. One example that has

come down to us is the birkat ha-minim, “the blessing against the heretics.”61

The growing

discomfort and hostility between Judaism and Christianity inevitably led – from what was once

an in-house, fraternal controversy – to a fractured and “completely antithetical relationship.”62

This is the historical context in which the book of Revelation also comes to us with its bold

declaration of unbelieving Jews as belonging to “the synagogue of Satan” (Rev 2:9; 3:9).63

Overall, Dunn largely succeeds in the discussion here, not least due to his talent for

discerning areas of tension among the various groups in the literature. The synagogue turmoil,

unlike his analysis of James, Peter, and Paul, actually has much to corroborate it. For one, it does

not require near as much speculation in its reconstruction. Further, as has been shown above,

there is significant textual support for it which is explicit.

Conclusion

Dunn’s greatest contributions also prove to be his most controversial. He is excellent

at recognizing diversity within the New Testament, but too often he reads tension into early

Christian history where some might wish for more evidence. The apostles are seen from the

beginning to contradict one another, specifically on questions of Torah and Gentile inclusion. A

61The “blessing” is the twelfth of eighteen collectively known as the Amidah which states: “may the

Nazarenes and the heretics [minim] perish quickly.” On the identification of the minim as Jewish Christians seen

Dunn, Neither Jew nor Greek , 626f.

62Evans, “Christianity and Judaism: Partings of the Ways,” Dictionary of the Later New Testament and

Its Development , 168.

63Reflective perhaps of a post-70 period of tension. See Chilton, “Synagogue,” in Dictionary of the

Later New Testament and Its Development , 1141-6 (here 1145); see also Evans, “Christianity and Judaism: Partings

of the Ways,” Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Development , 166.



19

more balanced reading of the literature is needed, one with a greater appreciation for unity.64

Is it right to see James and Peter competing with Paul, and their respective churches so aligning

as well? Are the apostles indeed apostles in conflict? Baur himself would have been able to hold

to such conclusions; he would only differ on the severity and chronology of the events. Given

Dunn’s argument for competing apostolic missions in early Christianity, two questions quickly

pronounce themselves: (1) In what meaningful way, given that the subgroups are moving in

different, and at times contradictory, directions, are we witnessing Christianity as a unified

movement? (2) And secondly, what effect would this diversity have upon Dunn’s previous work

concerning tradition transmission as informal-controlled? If the controlling aspect of tradition

transmission cannot produce more consistent agreement among the apostles, then in what

meaningful way can we discuss Christianity as a holistic entity?

Jewish Christianity need not be understood as evolving from the teachings of James

and the Jerusalem Church in a linear fashion – with the result that their espoused heresies are

connected with Jerusalem as well. Regarding Paul’s Judaizing opponents, it was observed that

they need not be so closely connected with James, whom Paul himself recognizes as a pillar of

the church, and recounts as a reliable witness of the resurrected Lord. Acts further demonstrates

that James and Peter both supported the Gentile calling and mission of Paul. In his account of the

parting of ways between Judaism and Christianity, and in his tracing of the hostility between the

synagogue and the Church, Dunn’s diversity is on firmer ground. The expulsion of Christians

from the synagogue is well attested in the sources. As the Church became more welcoming of

Gentiles, Judaism increasingly distanced itself. The dilemma of Gentiles and their place within

64Dunn, Neither Jew nor Greek , 811f, concludes only that Jesus is the defining center. Baur would have

been able to hold this position.



20

Christianity, however, is not seen as a divisive matter in the New Testament. It was a matter of

concern, to be sure, but it was not one that fragmented the budding movement of Jesus’

followers.

Contrastingly, the New Testament portrays the apostles working together with

incredible diligence and unity in their proclamation of the Gospel. The apostles passed on the

teachings of Jesus faithfully (as Dunn argues in his first volume), they established churches,

struggled with synagogues, maintained Jewish moorings, Jewish Scriptures, the declaration of

Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, avoided Jewish nationalism during the periods of revolt –

effectively making themselves traitors to their own countrymen – and continued to patiently wait

for and trust in the Messiah's promise of return, all within a hostile world full of Roman power

and Greek paganism.



21

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander, Philip S. “‘The Parting of Ways’ from the Perspective of Rabbinic Judaism.”

Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways A.D. 70 to 135. Edited by James D.

G. Dunn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. 1-25.

Barnett, P. W. “Opponents of Paul.” Dictionary of Paul and his Letters. Downers Grove,IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. 644-53.

Barnett, Paul. Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament Times.

Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999.

Chilton, B. “Synagogue.” Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments.

Editors Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,1997. 1141-6.

Conzelmann, Hans. Gentiles, Jews, Christians: Polemics and Apologetics in the Greco- Roman Era. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.

Dunn, James D. G. Beginning from Jerusalem. Volume 2 of Christianity in the Making .

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.

_________. Jesus Remembered . Volume 1 of Christianity in the Making . Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 2003.

________. Neither Jew nor Greek: A Contested Identity. Volume 3 of Christianity in the

Making . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015.

________. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of

Earliest Christianity. 3rd edition. London: SCM Press, 2006.

Ellis, E. Earle. The Making of the New Testament Documents. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

Evans, C. A. “Christianity and Judaism: Partings of the Ways.” Dictionary of the Later

New Testament and Its Developments. Editors Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. DavidsDowners Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997. 159-70

Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. 3rd edition. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 2006.



22

Hafemann, Scott J. “F. C. Baur.” Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters. Edited byDonald K. McKim. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007. 177-81.

Keener, Craig S. Acts: An Exegetical Commentary. 4 volumes. Grand Rapids: BakerAcademic, 2014.

Knight, Jonathan. Christian Origins. London: T & T Clark, 2008.

Koester, Helmut. History and Literature of Early Christianity. Volume 2 of Introduction

to the New Testament . 2nd edition. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2000.

Neill, Stephen, and Tom Wright. The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1986 .

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988; reprint 2003.

Robinson, John A. T. Redating the New Testament . London: SCM Press, 1976; reprintEugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2000.

Skarsaune, Oskar. In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity.Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008.

Stegemann, Ekkehard, and Wolfgang Stegemann. The Jesus Movement: A Social Historyof Its First Century. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1999.

Wilkens, Steve, and Alan G. Padgett. Faith and Reason in the 19th Century. Volume 2 of

Christianity and Western Thought: A History of Philosophers, Ideas, and Movements. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000.

Yarbrough, Robert W. “Tübingen School.” Dictionary for the Theological Interpretationof the Bible. Edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer, et al. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,

2005. 822-3.