Partings: How Judaism and Christianity Became Two

This is without a doubt the best book on this subject that I've ever read. While I will admit there are many things I do not understand, further research is needed, this book is just as thrilling as any novel I've ever read. Sure it would be easier if the two religions had just split in one act, but that is not how it happened. The history is riveting, the detail is flawless and a complex question is presented with perfection. The contributors to the book are experts in their studies and while, as I noted, there are more details than I can understand without doing more research I'm enthralled with this book and recommend it without hesitation. This book has answered questions that I've wondered about all my life and the answers are in there, the book also poses more questions I need answers for and will probably hunt them down due to the expert information given here. Read this book!

This is an excellent tour through the very early years of the judeochristian faith, and the many reasons why Christianity moved to divorce itself from its Jewish roots.

a treat for anyone interested in the history of religions.

Excellent book. It is scholarly, but is written so that the average person can understand it. I have wondered for a long time how and when and why early Jewish Christians branched off and ultimately parted from their parent religion.

There is no consensus among scholars as to when Judaism separated from Christianity, first, because the evidence is scanty, but also because liberal and orthodox scholars are sharply divided on the issue.Although this essay collection has a variety of opinions as to when Judaism and Christianity separated, for the most part, the scholars are liberal in perspective. Joan Taylor, for example, argues that Luke/Acts dates to 110-120 AD. And Dunn insists "the...conviction among the first believers in Jesus that he had been exalted to the right hand of God,...did not seem to attract much notice" (p 31).I am puzzled that Dunn could that there was no notice when, during the first three years after the crucifixion, Paul was sent to persecute Christians and he uses 'ediokon' and 'eporthoun' - violent action, most likely the famous 39 lashes given for blasphemy, which Paul himself went on to receive from the Jews five times. Orthodox scholars claim this was because the earliest Christians were worshiping Jesus as God, which would indeed have called forth blasphemy charges from pious Second Temple Jews, in an era when they were most fiercely monotheistic. This would have resulted in the early Christians being expelled from the synagogues, and would explain why many early Christians had to flee Jerusalem a few years after the crucifixion.This is not a topic discussed by these essayists. Reed and Vuong, for example, prefer to write that "The version of Acts 15 has been shaped by a later impulse to depict harmony between apostles" (p 116).Reed and Vuong insist there was no separation of Jew and Christian in 110 AD in the time of Ignatius of Antioch. A difficult nut to swallow, given how complete Ignatius regards the break. Reed and Vuong prefer to believe there was no clear break until the time of Marcion. Which means they not only have to ignore the many letters of Ignatius, they also have to ignore the fact that the Romans had no trouble locating an 'immense multitude' of Christians, clearly already detached from Jews in the mid 60s AD, they have to ignore 1 Clement, and the condemnation of the minim, and the persecution by Bar Kokhba.Here's a book that crushes their arguments: Ignatius of Antioch and the Parting of the Ways: Early Jewish-Christian Relations.There are two essays that shine, the first the essay on the separation of Christians from Jews in Rome, which of course argues for an early partings before Nero's slaughter, and another essay by Cohen. Cohen intelligently points out that "By the early second century....the Romans regarded Christians a not-Jews and Jews as not-Christians. This is seen most clearly in the persecutions" (p 210). Furthermore he notes the evidence that "Christian literature from 100 to 150 AD is uniformly hostile to Jews and Judaism" (p 212).Geraty's essay argues "The Jerusalem council...shows the concern...to respect Jewish scruples (p 257) while ignoring the main point that the council plunked down in favor of changing ancient Jewish beliefs to newl Christian practices.Charlesworth points out that "If the earthly Jesus made the claims found in John...(such as) 'I and the Father are one'...then it is understandable that Jews would have cast out any one who believed" it (p 289), but he gives no follow up to this statement. He offers no further discussion as to how the Gospel of John would have caused a break between Christians and Jews, and no insight into the earlier Gospels proclamations of Jesus as God - and there were many - nor any mention of Paul rewriting the daily Shema prayer to include Jesus, and how this would have impacted relations between Christians and Jews.Charlesworth loses all credibility when he argues that we should look to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas as proof of anti Jewish prejudice, having not grasped that it is a Gnostic, not a Christian work, an embarrassing error. He mutters about the editing going on in the Gospels, and accuses Christians of anti Jewish sentiment - "not to mention the Shoah or Holocaust" (p 292). Most Christians are distressed to see evidence of anti Jewish sentiment in the early Christian era, yet it does exist, painful as it is to admit.Charlesworth argues the two religions were one following the crucifixion because "Paul continued to visit, even worship, in synagogue" (p 296). Any orthodox scholar would agree Paul did visit synagogues, but not as merely a fellow Jew, but to evangelize. And, to go by the undeniable fact that he was given the famous 39-lashes-save-one five times, Paul preached that Jesus Christ was God of the universe.Only Charlesworth and Dunn even show the slightest evidence that the question of when the early Christians proclaimed Jesus God exists, and they both essentially reject it as forming an obstacle.Physically, this is an attractive book, with expensive, glossy pages, lots of black and white pictures, not to mention something I have never seen in a book of biblical scholarship before, a series of color photographs.It's the scholarship that's is lacking.