– Tangibilem –
(Christ Pantokrator Mosaic, Byzantine style. Cefalu Cathedral, Sicily, Italy – 1130)
From around the year 6 BCE the man now known as Jesus Christ was born and raised as a member of the Jewish community up until his execution by order of the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate around 30 CE (Jesus the Jew, Vermes). What Jesus did during the years before his ministry remains vague at best. Yet, towards the latter part of his life, from around the age of 30, Jesus began to spread the message of the One God in an attempt to guide people back to Him and to His law. Jesus would practice the law and urge that his followers also adhere to its tenets that were revealed to the prophet Moses by God on Mount Sinai. Jesus was soon accused of being a heretic and was crucified after a series of events and interactions with the Jewish Rabbis and Roman prefect Pontius Pilate; his crime? Blasphemy. The bulk of the information we have on Jesus is from the Gospels which may have been written towards the end of the 1st C (Ibid). There are other writings on Jesus from such historical works by Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (d. 120 AD), Pliny the Younger (d. 113 AD) and Titus Flavius Josephus (d. 100 CE), these are however, very limited. Regarding the Gospels, they were written after Paul’s career writings (Though, of the 27 that are attributed to him only 7 of these are accepted as being actually dictated by Paul). One of the most important points that stands out from the teachings of Paul was that the Law (of Moses) had been superseded when Jesus died on the cross i.e. being Christian meant that you were no longer beholden to the Law as it had effectively replaced the Torah, The Jewish Law/Law of Moses with the figure of the Christ. Redemption and salvation could only be found in Christ. By the end of the 1st C, many had accepted the teachings of Paul, and the authors of the Gospels seemed to have been influenced by his writings, even though Paul does not seem to ever quote Jesus in any direct way. Moreover, Paul’s teachings/writings also at times seem to be in contradiction to those espoused by Jesus himself. Paul’s objections to following and adhering to the Jewish commandments are likely to have come from the fact that doing so would have posed a threat to his vision and doctrine of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ (McGrath, Christianity: An Introduction, 2006). Paul also found opposition in the form of the Ebionites who outright rejected him as an apostate who had left the fold of Jewish Law as well as the teachings of Jesus; at least according to Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon (d. 202 AD):
“Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the Law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practice circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1-26)
According to prof James Dunn, the Ebionites effectively viewed Paul as:
“The most direct heirs of the Jewish-Christian groupings within earliest Christianity (i.e., the early Jerusalem church) regarded Paul as the great apostate, an arch enemy,” citing Epistula Petri 2.3; Clem. Hom. 17:18-19 – The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul.
The citations, sayings and stories about Jesus in the Gospels seem to be consistent with Jewish law. If this is so, then why did the ‘parting of the ways’ occur in the first place? Why did Christianity branch off into a new religion that absolved its followers of the Law when Jesus did not?
Before Jesus began his ministry and gained a following, it was the Pharisees, scribes and Sadducees who would set the standards for Jewish life. They were the keepers of the Law and had the monopoly on all aspects of Jewish religious matters. In fact, it was ‘the status of the Pharisees as the dominant party that makes intelligible Jesus’ charge of hypocrisy’ (Mason, Steve. The Harvard Theological Review, 1990)
The Scribes, Pharisees, and the Sadducees were all in clear opposition to Jesus early on in biblical text. Even before Jesus, they had already been chastised in Mathew 3:7 by John the Baptist: ‘But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptising, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?’ (Knowles, Michael P., Journal of Biblical Literature, 2014)
(St. John the Baptist and the Pharisees – James J. Tissot, 1886-1896)
Jesus would clash with the Pharisees over legal matters by way of presenting the Law in ways that interpreted them quite differently from the Pharisaic perspective of the period. In fact, many of Jesus’s ‘clearest pronouncements on the nature and proper use of the law come from his skirmishes with the Pharisees, the forerunners of rabbinic Judaism’. An example of these clashes and Jesus’s position on certain matters can be found in Mark 2:27 when he claims that “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Skeel, David A., Journal of Law and Religion, 2007) . Similarly, Jesus radically expands the concept of “neighbour” in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Furthermore ‘these tendencies… Professor Saiman argues, continue to distinguish Jewish and Christian perspectives today. Rabbinic reasoning “involves the application of text and precedent to facts,” whereas Christians tend to question whether law is “the correct platform through which to analyse and decide important religious and social issues. It is thought to be overly restrictive, and unjustifiably replaces faith and love with rules and precedents” (Saiman, Chaim., J.L. & Religion, 1999). These clashes and condemnations of the Pharisees would come to be known as ‘the woes of the Pharisees’. In Mathew there are eight listed woes which are known as ‘the eight woes’ and in Mark as ‘the six woes’. These criticisms are aimed at the hypocrisy and perjury committed by the Pharisees illustrating the differences between the internal and external states of morality.
(Jesus clashes with the Pharisees)
Regardless of the clashes between Jesus and the Pharisees, he was still a practicing Jew who adhered to the Law. Jesus’s main issue with the Pharisees was not what they preached but what they did not do. He would even go on to say that people should learn the Law from them, but not to emulate their actions as he pronounces in Matthew 23:1 -3:
Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees sat on Moses’ seat. Therefore, all things whatsoever they tell you to observe, observe and do, but do not do their works; for they say, and do not do.”
Jesus’s ministry and preaching was in no way intended to separate from the religious Law or to deviate in to a separate religion that renounced the Law of Moses, a sentiment that mirrors Deuteronomy 17:10:
‘You must act according to the decisions they give you at the place the LORD will choose. Be careful to do everything they instruct you to do’.
The branching off from Judaism then seems to have been in contradiction to Jesus’s words of obedience to the Law, something Paul brushes aside in favour of a wider reaching Christianity that would be much more inclusive to non Jews.
The Gentiles (from the Hebrew Goyim), were all other nations/peoples other than the Jews. Gentiles were also members of various other religions and groups. When Paul began preaching to and converting the Gentiles he would occasionally preach in the synagogues. One advantage he had was the fact that they understood the meaning of the word Messiah. These ‘God-fearers’ were not always second class members of society and they outnumbered the Jewish community with whom they would come to practice their faith. Whilst Paul was proselytising and offering them a chance to take on these new teachings, he was not making life easier for the new converts. On the contrary, he was making things a little more difficult, as embracing Christianity would open them up to a world of many social restrictions. On accepting Christianity they would have to sever ties with the religious affiliations they were previously tied to as well as cut off from any cult followings. In this period of the Roman Empire, becoming Christian would mean being socially ostracised from many aspects of Roman life such as politics and any other religious activity. However, even after accepting the new religion that Paul was espousing, many would still retain some of their Jewish characteristics. They would eventually drift back into their synagogues and return to the Jewish way of practice, a kind of Juda’izing the new faith. A possible reason for this to have happened could be the fact that the teachings of Paul had not yet had time to be fully absorbed by the people on either social or psychological levels. Another reason could be the fact that since Judaism was already an old religion and had stood the test of time it was the logical and better choice since it was already proven to be lasting. It was also quite difficult to convert years of tradition In such a short time. In the 4th C, Christian works such as the ‘Commodianus’ and the ‘Thedosian Code’ had distinctly anti-Jewish and a more Christian attitude. Around this time in Antioch, which is near the coast in northern Syria, a Bishop by the name of John Chrysostom wrote a series of sermons called ‘against the Jews’ which was directed mostly at the ‘Juda’izing’ Christians. The tone of the sermons suggest that the ‘Juda’izing’ disease needed to be rooted out. By writing the sermons in this tone he presents ‘Juda’izers’ as a threat to Christianity and the Church. However, later on his writings take on a different tone in that they no longer even mention the ‘Juda’izing’ Christians or the Jews. The logic behind this perhaps is because there was so much polemic against them it seemed there was a fear of losing converts to them. This is not the start of what seems to be the Christian and Jewish polemic, but certainly is a part of it. The polemic between the two faiths started much earlier, almost immediately after the death of Jesus, however, it only took any real form with the advent of Paul taking his teachings to the Gentiles.
(St. Paul, by Pompeo Giralamo Batoni, 1708-1787)
In the Gospels, it seems clear where Jesus stands with the Law. For example in Mark 1:40 – 45:
A leper came to him and pleaded on his knees: ‘if you want to he said ‘you can cure me ‘. Feeling sorry for him, Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him. ‘Of course I want he said. Be Cured! and the leprosy left him at once and he was cured. Jesus immediately sent him away and sternly ordered him, ‘mind you say nothing to anyone, but go and show yourself to the priest, and make the offering for your healing prescribed by Moses as evidence of your recovery’.
The above verse shows a Jesus very much in favour of the Law and would rather that everyone follow it as he instructs the one time leper to do. Again in Mathew, Jesus tells his people that the observance of the Law is fundamental – Mathew 5:17 – 20:
‘Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete them. I tell you solemnly. till heaven and earth disappear, not one little stroke shall disappear from the Law until its purpose is achieved. Therefore, the man who infringes even one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be considered the least in the kingdom of heaven; but the man who keeps them and teaches them will be considered great in the kingdom of heaven’.
It would seem that Paul had a different understanding of what this meant. To Paul, the acceptance of Jesus as the messiah, his crucifixion and resurrection, was what Jesus meant by the Law achieving its purpose, its ‘end game’ if you will. Since Jesus died for the sins of the people the Law no longer had to be observed. Some scholars would claim that of all the Gospels Mathew is trying to ‘Jewify’ Jesus (Saldarini, Mathew’s Christian – Jewish Community, 1994). According to Horbry’s ‘Jews and Christians,’ it seems that the impulses towards a separation came not only from outside the Christian community but also within the Christian body (Horbry, Jews and Christians, 1998). It is apparent that from within the community the teachings of Jesus already had a dividing tendency because of its implied claim to authority. What this claim to authority came to be understood as was Messianic in nature, divine. Before his arrest, the followers of Jesus had already established a recognisable Jewish group. It could be argued that the aim of Jesus was not to form a new sect but rather a renewal of Israel. Just because a new leader arises does not mean that a division must occur from within a particular faith that transforms it into a completely new one. However, recognition of Jesus as the Messiah had indeed defined the ‘Christians’ as a group with separate allegiance. It was this attitude that stayed with his followers, including those, and in particular, the ones that never met him.
In Jerusalem, James, known as the brother of Jesus was also spreading the message of the Messiah (Chilton and Neusner, The Brother of Jesus, 2001). In the New Testament, there is a letter written by James which as of yet is not clear as to its authenticity. If it is, in fact, his letter then it explains that he was a champion of the poor and not very fond of the aristocracy who eventually put him to death at the hands of a Sadducee high priest. It is reasonable to assume that James did not agree with Paul’s teachings that Jesus had divine origins. What leads us to this assumption is the fact that his followers would refer to him as ‘James the brother of Jesus’ rather than the Pauline ‘James brother of the Lord’. Paul seems to have had a direct hand in the ideas of Jesus’ divine nature and was quite adamant it be seen that way, regardless of who he was in opposition to.
(Neo – Byzantine Icon of James)
A problem people would have was that they could not tell the difference between ‘Juda’izing’ Christians or Jewish Christians. Jewish Christians start as Jews and convert to Christianity; however, they would still retain Jewish characteristics. The first Jewish Christians were the first Christians. Paul and others like him attracted a big following since they were already Jewish. James on the other hand was committed to the observance of the Law by way of Jesus’s direct instruction. In his view you would have to be Jewish to be Christian, this was the opposite of what Paul would teach.
Paul taught that humans were sinful and could not be saved through their own merit or simply observing the law. Only through the crucifixion could humans achieve this grace. In Jerusalem, the Jewish Christian movement seemed to be more of a movement from within Judaism i.e. a Jewish movement within a Jewish movement. The only way you could become one of them would be to first convert to Judaism in order to be a Christian. Despite this ‘Paul wanted the Gentiles, who did not belong to God’s elect people, also to have unconditional access to belief in in the God of Israel without first having to submit to circumcision and thus to the Jewish commands relating to cleanliness, the halakhic regulations about food and the Sabbath. In other words, a Gentile was to be able to become a Christian without first having to become a Jew and then having to fulfil the specific ‘works of the Law’. And at a very early stage this theological insight and missionary practice of Paul’s meant a revolution in world history with long term consequences for world history’ (Hans Kung, Christianity, 95). Paul would rather stress ‘mission’ and taught that conversion was not a requirement; it was, in effect, new religion. Paul did not know Jesus during his lifetime and had never met him, and cites only very few actual sayings of Jesus. His only claim to knowing the Messiah is that Jesus appeared to him in a vision. Paul’s emphasis of Jesus centred on his death and resurrection: that Jesus died for the sins of humanity according to the scriptures and rose again on the third day. The main human problem was sinfulness. The Jewish system of sacrifice at the temple was meant to expiate impurity caused by wrong deeds through the death of animals through sacrifice. For Paul, Jesus was the “super sacrifice”, his blood was the expiation for the sins of all humanity, for all time, rendering the temple sacrifices unnecessary. Because Jesus, in Paul’s mind, was the divine Son of God, his sacrifice was the perfect sacrifice of a guiltless individual; in fact, a sort of divine self-sacrifice on Gods behalf for the salvation of mankind. Paul thought of Jesus as the new Adam. Just as Adam’s actions brought sin and death to all humanity, Jesus’s obedience brought forgiveness and life as presented below in one of Paul’s letters:
Therefore, just one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. For just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. (Paul, Letter to the Romans, 5:18-I9)
Further explained by D. Boyarin in his book ‘Borderlines’ (D. Boyarin, Border Lines: Hybrids, Heretics…, 2003) –
‘Paul’s powerful, brilliant and poetic imagination creates a magnificent drama, echoing the mystery cults of his age in which through the baptism and in to his death and his resurrection, Jesus Christ, the new initiate, enters in to a communion with the great act of salvation by means of which a new Adam removes from human nature the universal sinfulness which resulted from the fall of the first man in the Garden of Eden. The migration of Christianity from the Jewish to the Greco Roman world was another of Paul’s masterly apostolate which necessitated a further drastic interference with Jesus’ religion. Since the obligatory imposition of the Torah on the Gentiles, including circumcision, would have stopped many from joining the church, the Jewish Law, the innermost source of Jesus’ piety, was not only made optional but had to be abolished in the name of Christ. In what has come to be known as ‘Pauline Christianity’, which is largely identical to western Christianity, the Torah is perversely metamorphosed from a well-spring of life into the instrument of death as can be understood here:
‘While we were living in the flesh our sinful passions, aroused by the Law, were at work in our members to bear fruit of death. But now we are discharged from the Law ‘. (Rom 7:5.f)
‘Christ is the end of the Law’. (Rom 10:.4)
Paul, like Jesus, was Jewish ‘through and through, though… steeped in the Hellenistic spirit. And on the basis of his restless intellectual, theological and missionary church political activity, Paul the apostle to the Gentiles introduced the first great change in early Christianity: the teansition from Jewish Christianity (speaking partly Aramaic, partly Greek) to an exclusively Greek- (or later Latin) Speaking Gentile Christianity‘ (Hans Kung, Christianity, 95). Followers of Jesus were thus considered Jews because they were followers of a Jew who taught Jewish Law. Paul on the other hand came with something new. The connundrum was that the Gentiles, who were not Jews, were also attracted both to Judaism and to the ‘Jesus movement’ within Judaism. Before Paul, Gentiles sometimes converted to Judaism, but sometimes were only God-Fearers, who attended synagogue yet did not convert, that is, they did not get circumcised and did not keep the whole of the Torah. Paul’s major teaching was that God-fearers could be Christian through faith in Jesus, and of course, many Christians did not agree with him. They believed that one needed to be observant of the Torah to be part of the covenant upon which it depended, whether Jew or Gentile. The followers of Jesus agreed to disagree, and divided into separate missions; in effect, Paul went off to spread the message among the non-Jews and Peter to the Jews. In Antioch, there were both Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus. Peter came to Antioch and ate with Gentiles; some Jews thought it acceptable to do this, and possible to remain kosher if one ate only vegetarian foods and drank no wine which may have been offered to a Greek or Roman god. Then people came from James, the leader of the conservative Christians in Jerusalem, to Antioch, and criticised Peter, who stopped eating with the Gentiles to keep more strictly the dietary regulations for kosher foods. From the perspective of the Jerusalem leaders, Peter was supposed to separate himself from the Gentiles to follow the compromise set out in the Jerusalem Council. Other Jews joined him, which led to a division of the church. Any Gentiles who wanted to eat with Peter had to follow the dietary regulations.
The seeds of a complete split leading to a parting of the ways between the religious factions were sown early on. On one hand, we have the Jewish group and a Jewish movement within the Jewish faith led by the likes of James and Peter (P. F. Esler, The Early Christian World, 2000). On the other hand, there is Paul with his Jewish Christian movement leading to an irreparable rift that would forever change the course of history. This polemic is presented as the foundation of what would become anti-Semitism. Both groups were subject to the Roman Empire and therefore could not persecute each other. However, the Romans did persecute the Christians as they were a threat to other cults in the sense that it drew people away from their religions and it was also of opinion that the Christians were worshipping a crucified criminal (P. F. Esler, The Early Christian World, 2000). In the late 4th C, violent actions would arise with Christianity becoming a state religion. Very early on there are anti Jewish writings. In the 1st C Paul writes that the Jews are cursed because they observe the Law when it was superseded with the crucifixion. In the middle of the second century, the polemical atmosphere intensifies with Christian works in which the deliberate central purpose is dedicated to the crusade against the Jews. Such literary works would include ‘On Easter’ (Melito of Sardis d. 180), ‘Apology of Aristides’ (Aristides the Athenian d. 133/134) and ‘Dialogue with Trypho’ (Justin Martyr, d. 165) which was a written account of a dialogue between a Jew and a Christian. These literary works were filled with anti-Jewish remarks. A reason for these productions at this time was the fact that the church was now well established and positioned to make a separate identity for itself. Whether these works are genuine transcriptions of conversations that took place or not, modern scholars cannot be sure (nor does it matter, the sentiment is clear). What is certain is that these works are clearly intended to find superior ground for Christianity. In the 3rd C, there was a literary tradition of people writing what others have already produced in one way or another and it is more than likely that there was no real dialogue at all. However, since Justin seems to be writing an original work, then the question that arises is, did he out of the others have an actual dialogue with a Jewish person or is it completely made up. Whatever the case, he seems to have been trying to establish Christianity as separate from Judaism; it was a process of self-definition. The theme in this type of literature is that the Jews were the killers of God. This is also prominent in Melito’s ‘On Easter’ and also in Thessalonians ch. 2 (New Testament). There is a tradition of depicting the Jews as the killers of God in the martyrdom of St Polycarp in the middle of the 2nd C who was publicly executed by the Romans during Passover; in this account, the Jews are depicted as cheering in the crowd. There seems to be an accusation that they were the ones who instigated the execution. Another theme in the literature, which is part of Paul’s teaching (as previously mentioned), is that the Jews are cursed because of their observance of the Law. One factor that also made the idea of the Jews being cursed more popular was the destruction of the Temple in the year 70 due to the first revolt. And in 135 the defeat of the Jews by the Romans was seen as a sign that Judaism was at an end.
Judaism and Christianity share mostly the same scriptures, yet the Christians, regardless of this, wanted to show that they were separate. Each believes that the other has misunderstood scripture and they have the right of it. This is one way of making it a polemic debate. The interpretation of the text between the two groups is very different, they even share Passover which is now known to the Christians as Easter. Yet, Melito explains that the event is different in that it celebrates the crucifixion rather than the sacrifice of the ‘lamb’. Paul writes that Christians are the true ‘Israel’ (D. Boyarin, Border Lines, 2003). In the Second Century, this becomes a big debate as both factions claim to be the true ‘Israel’.
In the Birkat haMinim, ‘benediction of the heretics’, a silent prayer from rabbinic literature which ‘petitions God to doom groups of people deemed harmful to the Jewish community, both Jews and gentiles. The blessing’s text consequently was often adapted to reflect new realities. Throughout its history, it has attracted attention from those, especially Christians, concerned about Jewish attitudes to them. This concern led to extensive censorship of the text’ (Ehrlich, Uri, Langer, Hebrew Union College Annual, 2005). Modern studies have generally viewed that the ‘heretics’ also included or points to the early split between Judaism and Christianity which would make the heretics early Jewish Christians. However there is also the view that the Birkat haMinim was in reference to the Sadducees who may have been viewed as separatists (Doris Lambers-Petry; Peter J. Tomson, he image of the Judaeo-Christians in ancient Jewish and Christian literature, 2003).
To the casual observer, it may seem that the above prayer was written as a rejection of Christianity. Much attention has been given to this as a historical document against the Christian movement. However, the Prayer seems to act as a ‘catch-all’ i.e. intended not just for Christianity, but for all the peoples the Jews have had to ‘put up with’. Whatever the case, the parting of the ways began early on (A. H. Becker, The Ways that Never Parted, 2003) whether it was by design or not, it seems it was destined to happen.
To what extent did Judaism see Christianity as separate from itself, and when did this divorce officially happen? It is difficult to determine a precise point in time as to when Christianity became a distinct and separate religion from its Jewish counterpart, just as it is difficult to trace the process by which it happened with great clarity. The separation was a gradual process that had been marinating over a long period of time. As Hans Kung put it – (Hans Kung, Christianity, 95)
‘A macro paradigm needs a long time to mature before it establishes itself historically. And the ecumenical Hellenistic paradigm… which replaced the apocalyptic paradigm of the earliest church almost throughout the Roman Empire did not simply ‘appear’ in the third and fourth centuries, but was already initiated by persons and circumstances in the first century‘. Asking when and how this split happened has been likened to “deceptively simple questions which should be approached with great care” (Philip S., The Parting of the Ways’ from the Perspective of Rabbinic Judaism, 92).
The Eccentric Seeker
- P. F. Esler (ed.), The Early Christian World, 2 vols., London: Routledge, 2000.
- D.Boyarin, Border Lines: Hybrids, Heretios, and the Partition of Judeo-Christianity, Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 2003
- Becker (ed.), The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity
- and the Early Middle Ages, Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003
- The brother of Jesus, James the Just and his mission / edited by Bruce Chilton and Jacob Neusner, Louisville, KY z Westmihster John Knox Press, 2001
- Anthony J. Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community, University of Chicago Press, 1994
- McGrath, Alister E. (2006), Christianity: An Introduction, Blackwell Publishing
- Horbury, William, Jews and Christians, T &T Clark, 1998
- Vermes, Geza, Jesus The Jew, Augsburg Fortress, 1981
- Mason, Steve. “Pharisaic Dominance before 70 CE and the Gospels’ Hypocrisy Charge (Matt 23:2-3).” The Harvard Theological Review, vol. 83, no. 4, 1990, pp. 363–381. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1510171. Accessed 11 Feb. 2020.
- Knowles, Michael P. “Serpents, Scribes, and Pharisees.” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 133, no. 1, 2014, pp. 165–178. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15699/jbibllite.133.1.165. Accessed 11 Feb. 2020.
- Skeel, David A. “What Were Jesus and the Pharisees Talking about When They Talked about Law?” Journal of Law and Religion, vol. 23, no. 1, 2007, pp. 141–146. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27639085. Accessed 11 Feb. 2020.
- Chaim Saiman, Jesus’ Legal Theory – A Rabbinic Reading, 23 J.L. & Religion 99
- Alexander, Philip S. “The Parting of the Ways’ from the Perspective of Rabbinic Judaism“. James D. G. Dunn, ed. Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, Durham-Tübingen Research Symposium on Earliest Christianity and Judaism 1992 (2nd: 1999: Wm. B. Eerdmans). p1 in the 1992 edition.
- Doris Lambers-Petry; Peter J. Tomson, (eds.) The image of the Judaeo-Christians in ancient Jewish and Christian literature, 2003, chapter ‘The War Against Rome‘, p.15
- Ehrlich, Uri, and Ruth Langer. “The Earliest Texts of the Birkat Haminim”. Hebrew Union College Annual, vol. 76, 2005, pp. 63–112. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23508929. Accessed 21 Apr. 2020.
- Against Heresis: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103126.htm The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul, Cambridge University Press, 2003
- Hans Kung, Christianity: The Religious Situation of Our Time, Piper Verlag, Munich, 1995