1. The Metaphor of âParting Waysâ
In the last decade, the question of the so-called âparting of the waysâ1 between âJewsâ2 and âChristiansâ has become one of the most crucial topics of New Testament exegesis. This is so not only because of the questionâs intrinsic value for Jewish-Christian dialogue, but even more because our perception of the New Testament scriptures has been completely changed by the emerging consensus that the beginnings of what we today call âChristianityâ were fully embedded in early Judaism in the first century CE. Today, most scholars would agree that the âparting of the waysâ did not occur in one place at a specific time, but was a long process that took place in different locations at different times and for different reasons, not concluding before the fourth century.3 The expression âparting of the waysâ has established itself as the catchphrase for these complex processes of divisions between âJewsâ and âChristiansâ. However, the metaphor is problematic. The imagery was coined some thirty years ago by the late James D. G. Dunn in his ground-breaking, yet now outdated, book The Partings of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianity (London 1991). Dunn explicitly refers to partings in the plural form because the process of parting occurred in many places at many times and under various circumstances. Nevertheless, Dunn still underestimated the pluriformity of âJewishâ or âChristianâ âidentity markersâ. Even so, the metaphor of âparting waysâ has stuck, even if a more fitting image would be âa criss-crossing of muddy tracksâ4 or âa multi-lane highwayâ.5 T. Nicklas has proposed the imagery of a âdanceâ, where partners interact in a variety of steps, to-and-fro, advancing towards each other or getting further away from their partner.6 Still, we must admit that none of these metaphors are a perfect fit. Even the imagery of a dance assumes two precisely defined partners with regular steps. Yet, according to current reconstructions, âChristianityâ was not an independent partner in juxtaposition to early Judaism, but was in its beginnings part of it. There were therefore not two precisely defined entities that could figure as âdance partnersâ. Consequently, the question about when âChristianityâ emerged as an entity in its own right, thereby separating from âJudaismâ, is a question of fierce debate. In their introduction to the edited volume Jews and Christians â Parting Ways in the First Two Centuries CE?, J. Schröter, B. E. Edsall, and J. Verheyden therefore conclude: âWhile the metaphor of âparting waysâ can be questioned, then, it is also seen to be useful in helping to describe the historical processes of the formation of Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity.â7 In his search for a better image, M. Konradt concludes: âMaybe, for the time being, we should work without a new metaphor because of its inherent tendency to reduce complexity and just try to describe the complex processes, developments and multi-faceted relations as differentiated and nuanced as possible.â8 The editors of this volume have decided to retain the metaphor in the title of the volume while also insisting on the pluriformity of these processes: Parting of the Ways: The Variegated Ways of Separation between Jews and Christians.
Another deficiency of the metaphor, âparting of the waysâ, is that the common features of Jewish and Christian beliefs were for a long time stronger than those factors which led to multifaceted processes of parting. Accordingly, this volume wants not only to highlight the pluriformity of separation(s), but even more to insist on the shared roots of both groups. Accordingly, these results might give a boost to modern Jewish-Christian dialogue. The inclusion of systematic theologians into the discussion is an additional enrichment of this volume.
The editors and contributors to this volume have benefitted from a plethora of publications on the âparting of the waysâ: The most recent are the edited volume of J. Schröter, B. E. Edsall, and J. Verheyden, Jews and Christians â Parting Ways in the First Two Centuries CE? (BZNW 253, Berlin 2021), which sums up the results of a conference held in Berlin in 2019, and the special issue of the journal Evangelische Theologie 2020 with the title Parting of the Ways. Die Trennung der Wege von Juden und Christen in der neueren Forschung. Another volume was edited by L. Baron, J. Hicks-Keeton, and M. Thiessen, The Ways That Often Parted. Essays in Honor of Joel Marcus (ECIL SBLECL 24, Atlanta 2018). In it, reference is made to earlier works that were dedicated to this topic from similar points of view: J. D. G. Dunn, The Partings of the Ways. Between Christianity and Judaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianity (London 1991); D. Boyarin, Border Lines. The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (Philadelphia 2004); further E. K. Broadhead, Jewish Ways of Following Jesus. Redrawing the Religious Map of Antiquity (WUNT 266, Tübingen 2010). The programmatic title of the volume edited by A. Becker and A. Y. Reed, The Ways That Never Parted. Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (TSAJ 95, Tübingen 2003), might even suggest that there was no parting at all. From the introduction to their volume, however, it becomes clear that its provocative title only intended to underline that both ways âremained intertwined long after the Second Temple had fallen, and the dust had settled from the Jewish revolts against Romeâ9 â a laudable and convincing position. Nevertheless, the metaphor of âways that never partedâ is likely to be problematic, given that many Jews today understandably become nervous when non-Jewish Christians claim to be âJewsâ. Such tendencies might spring from good intentions, but they are misled inasmuch as they end in the cultural appropriation by Christians of that which properly belongs to Jews. Christians must respect that there has been a âparting of the waysâ. Even if Christianity is historically linked to its Jewish roots, it must nevertheless respect the autonomy of todayâs Judaism.
The view that the âparting of the waysâ was ongoing until the fourth century has also triggered a backlash. In 2018, S. J. D. Cohen, in his article The Ways That Parted: Jews, Christians, and Jewish-Christians, ca. 100â150 CE, maintained that, âby the early second century CE Jews (that is, ethnic Jews who do not believe in Christ) and Christians (that is, ethnic gentiles who do believe in Christ) constituted separate communitiesâ and that in this time âabsent conversion, the boundaries between the Jewish and the Christian communities were clear enough and stable enough. As the century proceeded, the boundary would become ever clearer and ever more stable.â10 For U. Schnelle, Die getrennten Wege von Römern, Juden und Christen. Religionspolitik im 1. Jahrhundert n. Chr. (Tübingen 2019), the âparting of the waysâ was already completed with the circumcision-free mission of Paul.11 By contrast, K. Ehrensperger concludes, âPaul remained firmly rooted within Jewish tradition, was Torah observant, called to proclaim the gospel to the non-Jewish nations.â12 Such diverging positions clearly show that there is still need for more discussion â an aim that this book pursues.
2. The Present Volume
This book represents a collection of the papers presented at the conference Parting of the Ways: The Variegated Ways of Separation between Jews and Christians, convened in Vienna, Austria from 5â8 September 2022, by the editors Markus Tiwald and Markus Ãhler. The volume consists of five main chapters:
Jewish Identity and the Parting of the Ways
The Apostle Paul and the Parting of the Ways
The Gospels and the Parting of the Ways
The Parting of the Ways in Non-Canonical and Patristic Texts
Systematic-Theological Considerations Concerning the Parting of the Ways
2.1 Jewish Identity and the Parting of the Ways
Marianne Grohmann (Vienna): Group Identities in Ezra and Nehemiah: The primary focus of Marianne Grohmannâs paper is on illustrations from the book of Ezra-Nehemiah, which demonstrate the blending of ethnic and religious elements, and on the seamless continuity between pre-exilic and post-exilic Israel. These examples shed light on the ongoing identity of Israel throughout different historical periods. With a special focus on the book of Ezra-Nehemiah, Grohmann demonstrates that the loss of political sovereignty in biblical Israel during the Babylonian exile does not imply that its identity was subsequently shaped solely by religion. On the contrary, the ethnic significance attached to both designations ensures a continuous sense of identity from pre-exilic to post-exilic periods. This interplay of ethnic and religious connotations highlights the enduring and multifaceted nature of Israelâs identity throughout its historical development.
Karin Heder Zetterholm (Lund): Jesus-Oriented Groups and the Emergence of a Rabbinic Jewish Identity: In her essay, Karin Heder Zetterholm contends that the rise of rabbinic Judaism was significantly influenced by the presence of Jesus-oriented groups, which posed a challenge to Jewish identity and self-perception. She shows that the discomfort arising from gentile attachment to Israelâs God and engagement with the Torah, and the redefining of the boundaries of Judaism to exclude Jesus-oriented Jews, found in certain early rabbinic texts, were responses to the alternative vision of Israelâs calling presented by the Jesus movement. The alignment of âinternal othersâ (Jesus-oriented Jews) with âexternal othersâ (Jesus-oriented gentiles) in promoting an alternative understanding of Israelâs covenantal identity led non-Jesus-oriented Jews to redefine Jewish identity in terms more aligned with rabbinic Judaism. In this way, the challenge posed by the Jesus movement played a significant role in the development of rabbinic Judaism and its emphasis on a distinct Jewish identity.
Günter Stemberger (Vienna): Continued Contacts between Jews and Christians: Knowledge of Rabbinic Traditions in Christian Texts and Vice Versa: Evidence for continuing contacts between Jews and Christians, not only polemical, but also in friendly exchange, can be found in many fields: in liturgy, religious literature, but also in architecture with parallel developments in the design and decoration of churches and synagogues. Stembergerâs contribution limits itself to the field of literature, namely, to traces of rabbinic traditions in Christian writings and traces of Christian traditions (mainly the New Testament) in rabbinic literature. The birth story of Jesus in Matthew (Mt 1:18â25) and the birth story of Moses in the Babylonian Talmud (bSotah 12a) gives reason to assume that the authors behind the Talmudic text knew the Christian story and countered it with a parallel story about the birth of Moses. On the other hand, the earliest clear reference to Jesus is found in tḤullin 2:22. R. Eleazar ben Dama was bitten by a snake. Jacob of Kefar Sama came to heal him in the name of Jesus son of Pantera. But R. Yishmael did not allow it. One should rather die than be healed in the name of Jesus. That Jesus is called the son of Panthera is mentioned already by Celsus, thus certainly early. Generally, in discussions with Christians, Jews could learn certain Christian traditions, normally in oral form. Frequently the Christians themselves, knew their texts from the liturgy and religious instruction without ever having read a written gospel. Such examples demonstrate that, also in the Late Roman, Byzantine and early Islamic period, contacts and mutual influences between Christians and Jews never completely ceased.
Jodi Magness (Chapel Hill/North Carolina): The Late Antique Synagogue at Capernaum: Was It Really a Congregation of Minim? In a 2014 article, Benjamin Arubas and Rina Talgam claim that the white limestone synagogue at Capernaum â which they say was constructed in the third century and rebuilt after the earthquake of 363 CE â served a community of Jews who, due to their contacts with Christian pilgrims to the site, are called minim (non-conforming Jews or Jewish-Christians). Their argument collapses if the white limestone synagogue dates to the sixth century, as the archaeological evidence indicates. Magnessâ paper shows that the often-mentioned references for minim in Capernaum, i.e., Epiphanius, Egeria, and Qohelet Rabbah, do not provide historically reliable evidence of a community of minim at Capernaum. Therefore, even apart from considerations of the archaeological evidence (specifically, the dating of the white limestone synagogue and the domus ecclesia), relying on these sources to argue for the presence of minim at Capernaum is fundamentally flawed and is based on a series of modern scholarly assumptions and interpretive leaps.
2.2 The Apostle Paul and the Parting of the Ways
Markus Tiwald (Vienna): The âWorks of the Lawâ: The Transformation of Jewish Identity Markers and the Parting of the Ways: The expression identity marker(s) of Judaism was coined by J. D. G. Dunn, albeit in a way seen as outdated today. Dunn underestimated the pluriformity of Second Temple Judaism when he defined the âThe Four Pillars of Second Temple Judaismâ (âmonotheismâ, âelectionâ, âcovenant focussed in Torahâ, and âland focussed in Templeâ) as fixed unities. According to Dunn, by the end of the second Jewish revolt, early Christianity had redefined each of these four axioms to a degree unacceptable to what he calls âmainstream Judaismâ. In contrast to this, the most recent research has shown that neither a ânormative Judaismâ nor a âcommon Judaismâ and not even a âmainstream Judaismâ existed in the first century CE. Thus, rivalling groups, such as Sadducees, Pharisees, or Qumranites, campaigned for diverging identity markers, especially in Torah- and Temple-related matters. Especially in the person of Paul of Tarsus we can see how such identity markers could change in the lifespan of the former Pharisee and later apostle of Christ. Tiwald identifies Paulâs rejection of the âworks of the lawâ (Gal 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10; Rom 3:20â21) as a rejection of ritual, cultic, and purity-based matters of the Jewish Torah, which did not abrogate the Torah as such. Thus, he identifies Paul as standing in one particular trajectory, together with the radical allegorizers that Philo mentions in De migratione Abrahami. According to this interpretation, Paulâs attitude towards the law during his time as a follower of Jesus represents a possible â albeit quite liberal â interpretation of the ritual, cultic, and purity-based matters of the Jewish Torah, within the broad range of diverse Torah interpretations in multifaceted early Judaism.
Kathy Ehrensperger (Potsdam): Identity Transformation in Christ: Struggling with â
Christina Eschner (Berlin), Paul and the Galatians as âChildrenâ of Abraham: The Law as Space of Salvation in Ancient Judaism and Paul: After a thorough consideration of Paulâs Letter to the Galatians Christina Eschner asserts that, in terms of adhering to the practical aspects of the Law, believers in Christ and Jews were able to coexist for an extended duration. However, when it comes to the purpose and role attributed to the Law, Paul unmistakably diverges from the prevailing perspective found in ancient Judaism. He accomplishes this by reassigning essential functions connected to the Law in ancient Judaism to either faith or Christ. The apostle emphasizes the notion of salvation by faith, tracing it back to Abraham, to underscore that even the Jews cannot achieve it through any means other than pistis. The descendants of Abraham are typically identified as believers. Thus, Christ enables the seamless continuation of the same trust that Abraham had, but now in an eschatological perspective. It is faith that upholds the continuity between Judaism and Christianity.
2.3 The Gospels and the Parting of the Ways
Christoph Heil (Graz): The Sayings Source Q and the Parting of the Ways underscores the broad consensus that Q thinks and formulates completely within Jewish categories. However, where Q positions itself in the wide spectrum of Second Temple Judaism is a still debated issue. To approach this question, Heil sheds light on some crucial passages in Q, e.g., the word
Matthias Konradt (Heidelberg): Matthewâs Ethics and the Complex Processes of Differentiation and Separation of the Matthean Communities from Judaism: Matthewâs ethics â of which reference to the Torah is a significant part â bear witness to the Jewish roots and context of the evangelist and his communities. At the same time, however, there is a formative Christological dimension in Matthean ethics which sets it apart from all other forms of early Jewish ethics and provides the basis for its reception in Gentile communities. Jesusâ own fulfillment of the Torah and the prophets includes both his teaching and his own Torahpractice. When, for example, Jesus justifies his turning to sinners with a quotation from Hos 6:6 (Matt 9:13), he intimates that this is not contrary to the Torah, but part of his true fulfillment of it, which serves as a guideline for his disciples. The social location of the Matthean Christ-believers should thus not be considered exclusively in terms of their belonging to Judaism. Instead, a multi-perspective approach suggests itself. With very few exceptions, the aspect of the Matthean communitiesâ relations within the Christ-believing movement has been given short shrift in recent research with its strong focus on the relation to Judaism. But these two aspects ought to be connected with one another. With its probable impact on the life of the members of the Christ-believing communities, Matthewâs ethics supports this claim. If this is correct, it is indeed necessary to move beyond the new perspective on âMatthew within Judaismâ and to connect it with a âMatthew within emergent Christianityâ-perspective.
Stefan Schreiber (Augsburg): Finding Their Own Way in a Jewish Environment: The Letters (and Gospel) of John and the Parting of the Ways describes the âAntichrist groupâ (1 John pointedly calls the opponents âantichristsâ) not as an inner-Christian conflict, but one between two specific groups within the Jewish culture. The conflict arose about group identity, more precisely, about the confession of Jesus as the Messiah, the unique representative, revealer and messenger of God for the salvation of the world. Since individual groups, which until then had been part of the (Jewish) Johannine circle, rejected this confession, a split occurred. Thus, 1 John is a testimony of an inner-Jewish struggle. Compared to Johnâs Gospel, 1 John documents a more advanced stage in the process of distancing between the Johannine circle and the synagogues. While in the Gospel the polemic against âthe Jewsâ and the danger of exclusion from the synagogue because of confessing Jesus as Messiah point to the beginning of a process of distancing, 1 John does not talk about âJewsâ anymore and focuses on its own identity. A discussion about Jewish identity markers no longer matters. The split of the Johannine circle, only hinted at in the Gospel (John 6:60â71), is a threatening reality in 1 John. The Johannine circle is already living at a greater distance from the local synagogues, without having left the wide area of Judaism.
Hildegard Scherer (Essen): Not
2.4 The Parting of the Ways in Non-Canonical and Patristic Texts
Lutz Doering (Münster): The Didache and the Parting of the Ways reviews some aspects of the Didacheâs literary structure and source-critical questions and then comments on its genre and the two selected topics of fasting and prayer in Did. 8.1â3, with a view to what the Didache might contribute to the issue of the so-called âParting of the Waysâ. Did. 8.1â3 positions the readership of the text against some Jews, labelled âhypocritesâ. The latter were most likely somehow related to the Pharisees or their (âproto-rabbinicâ) heirs, with respect to the regular weekdays for voluntary fasting and the text to be said at the thrice-daily fixed prayer. We witness a deliberately divergent, demarcating practice, which however appears to establish distance more than express it. There is no setting off from âthe Jewsâ or from any practice generically labelled as âJewishâ. Instead, the sobriquet continues and yet develops terminology familiar from the Gospel of Matthew. In both cases (fasting and prayer), the position in the Didache seems to reflect more developed, time-bound practice when compared with the Gospel of Matthew, and reacts to it, displaying a usage of the sobriquet âhypocritesâ that seems to be more solidified and providing later evidence than Matthew. The community to which the Didache is addressed seems to be made up of Jewish and gentile believers in Christ. Their practice of baptism (Did. 7.1â4) and eucharist (Did. 9.1â5), while certainly creating an insider-outsider distinction, does not mark a general departure âfrom Judaismâ. The Didache erects boundaries against those it calls âhypocritesâ, but in so doing, shows that the ways have not (yet) fully âpartedâ between this mixed community and these âhypocritesâ, let alone âthe Jewsâ more generally.
Paul Foster (Edinburgh): Ignatius of Antioch. Redefining Identities and Creating Irreversible Separation: Ignatius does not hold
Markus Ãhler (Vienna): Judaism and Christianity in the Epistles of Ignatius: Reflections on Contextualisation in the 2nd century CE: The definition of the terms âJudaismâ and âChristianityâ is usually traced back to Ignatius of Antioch. In his letters to Christ believers in Magnesia and Philadelphia, the question of identity formation is addressed in detail. Attempts at sharp demarcation predominate, in which Jewish traditions are devalued. In the process, the terms
Agnethe Siquans (Vienna): Jewish Scriptural Interpretation and Ritual Practice in Origenâs Homilies on Leviticus: Agnethe Siquans employs Origenâs Homilies on Leviticus as an example to illustrate a certain perspective on Jewish scriptural interpretation, as well as an understanding of the importance and meaning of ritual practices. Origenâs interpretative strategies often draw parallels with Jewish traditions and his engagement with their approaches showcases the complexity and fluidity of scriptural interpretation in his time. While he may reject certain aspects associated with Judaism, his hermeneutical approach reflects a noteworthy convergence with Jewish exegetical methods. Overall, he presents his interpretation as a seamless and coherent way of engaging with the Scriptures, encouraging his audience to embrace it as a guiding principle to shape their beliefs and practices.
Hans Förster (Vienna): Parted by Nature or by Translation? Translation Choices in the Vulgate New Testament as a Factor in Perceptions of the âParting of the Waysâ: Hans Förster explores how a Latin understanding of the text of the New Testament was initially introduced and still persists in modern translations. Through that Latin understanding, a sense of separation and hostility between Christianity and Judaism is introduced into New Testament translations that is not present to the same extent in the original Greek text. Examples from the Gospels of John (8:43; 12:40) and Luke (20:20) and Paulâs Letter to the Romans (14:14) show how important a careful evaluation of translational choices is. To this end, Förster offers concise suggestions on the potential implications for New Testament studies and its approach to translating the text that lead to a deeper understanding of its meaning and theological positions.
2.5 Systematic-Theological Considerations Concerning the Parting of the Ways
Jan-Heiner Tück (Vienna): âConsubstantial with the Fatherâ: Did the Council of Nicaea neglect the Jewish roots of Christianity?: Jan-Heiner Tück devotes his essay to the question whether the Council of Nicaea neglected the Jewish roots of Christianity. He suggests a cautious approach when discussing a transformation that exhibits both moments of continuity and moments of discontinuity occurring simultaneously. To comprehend this intricate transformation, it is advisable to focus more intently on the traditions of Hellenic Judaism. Additionally, delving into how Greek philosophical concepts were embraced and applied in the interpretation of the Arian controversy could provide valuable insights. According to Tückâs reconstruction, the concept of pre-existent mediators and ideas of incarnation are not an original invention of Christian theology. Instead, it can be traced back to a Jewish heritage. In both Judaism and Christianity, there are theological perspectives on the indwelling and condescension of God.
Christian Danz (Vienna): Jesus the Judean and Jesus the Christ: Systematic- Theological Considerations: Christian Danz asks whether the intricate perspective on the origins of the Christian religion, which has emerged in contemporary historical discussions, can be integrated into systematic theology, provided that a clear theological distinction between Christianity and Judaism is upheld. His approach rejects an all-encompassing assimilation of Judaism into Christianity. Instead, it posits that the essence of the Christian religion lies in the preservation and transmission of the religious memory of Jesus Christ. Building on this foundation, the doctrines of the Trinity and Christology are expounded in a manner that respects and acknowledges the distinctiveness and independence of Judaism. Christianity does not merely augment the existing concept of God that it shares with Judaism. By incorporating Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit into the divine framework, Christianity fundamentally alters the perception of what constitutes religion, distinguishing it from Judaism.
Bibliography
Becker, A./Reed, A. Y. Introduction: Traditional Models and New Directions, in: A. Becker/A. Y. Reed (eds.), The Ways That Never Parted. Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (TSAJ 95), Tübingen 2003, 1â33.
Boyarin, D., Border Lines. The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity, Philadelphia 2004.
Cohen, S. J. D., The Ways That Parted: Jews, Christians, and Jewish-Christians, ca. 100â150 ce, in: J. Schwartz/P. J. Tomson (eds.), Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries: The Interbellum 70â132 CE, Leiden 2018, 307â339.
Dunn, J. D. G., The Partings of the Ways. Between Christianity and Judaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianity, London 1991.
Ehrensperger, K., Die âPaul within Judaismâ-Perspektive, in: EvTh 80 (2020) 455â464.
Konradt, M., Matthew within or outside of Judaism? From the âParting of the Waysâ Model to a Multifaceted Approach, in: J. Schröter/B. A. Edsall/J. Verheyden (eds.), Jews and Christians â Parting Ways in the First Two Centuries CE? Reflections on the Gains and Losses of a Model (BZNW 253), Berlin 2021, 121â150.
Lieu, J. M., The Parting of the Ways: Theological Construct or Historical Reality?, in: J. M. Lieu (ed.), Neither Jew nor Greek. Constructing Early Christianity, London 22016, 31â49.
Markschies, C., From âWide and Narrow Wayâ to âThe Ways that Never Partedâ? Road Metaphors in Models of Jewish-Christian Relations in Antiquity, in: J. Schröter/ B. A. Edsall/J. Verheyden (eds.), Jews and Christians â Parting Ways in the First Two Centuries CE? Reflections on the Gains and Losses of a Model (BZNW 253), Berlin 2021, 11â32.
Nicklas, T., Parting of the Ways? Probleme eines Konzepts, in: S. Alkier / H. Leppin (eds.), Juden â Heiden â Christen? Religiöse Inklusion und Exklusion in Kleinasien bis Decius (WUNT 400), Tübingen 2018, 21â41.
Ãhler, M., Judäer oder Juden? Die Debatte âEthnos vs. Religionâ im Blick auf das 2. Makkabäerbuch, in: F. Avemarie (ed.), Die Makkabäer (WUNT 382), Tübingen 2017, 157â185.
Reinhartz, A., A Fork in the Road or a Multi-Lane Highway? New Perspectives on the âParting of the Waysâ Between Judaism and Christianity, in: I. H. Henderson/ G. S. Oegema (eds.), The Changing Faces of Judaism, Christianity, and other Greco-Roman Religions in Antiquity (JSHRZ Studien 2), Gütersloh 2006, 280â295.
Schnelle, U., Die getrennten Wege von Römern, Juden und Christen. Religionspolitik im 1. Jahrhundert n. Chr., Tübingen 2019.
Schröter, J., Was Paul a Jew Within Judaism? The Apostle to the Gentiles and His Communities in Their Historical Context, in: J. Schröter/B. A. Edsall/J. Verheyden (eds.), Jews and Christians â Parting Ways in the First Two Centuries CE? Reflections on the Gains and Losses of a Model (BZNW 253), Berlin 2021, 89â119.
Schröter, J./Edsall, B. A./Verheyden, J., Introduction, in: J. Schröter/B. A. Edsall/ J. Verheyden (eds.), Jews and Christians â Parting Ways in the First Two Centuries CE? Reflections on the Gains and Losses of a Model (BZNW 253), Berlin 2021, 1â10.
Tiwald, M., Frühjudentum und beginnendes Christentum. Gemeinsame Wurzeln und das Parting of the Ways (KStTh 5), Stuttgart 2022.
For a detailed status questions on the âparting of the waysâ, see the edited volume of Schröter/Edsall/Verheyden, Parting (especially: Schröter/Edsall/Verheyden, Introduction, 1â10); further, the special issue of EvTh 80 (2020) Parting of the Ways. Die Trennung der Wege von Juden und Christen in der neueren Forschung; or the monograph of Tiwald, Frühjudentum, especially 28â51.
Concerning the question, whether to translate
Cf. Tiwald, Frühjudentum, 28â51.
Lieu, Parting, 31â49.
Reinhartz, Fork, 280â295.
Nicklas, Parting, 37f.
Schröter/Edsall/Verheyden, Introduction, 5. Cf. also Markschies, Way, 11â32.
Konradt, Matthew, 145.
Becker/Reed, Ways, 3.
Cohen, Ways, 335.
Schnelle, Wege, 187: âNach einer diffusen Anfangsphase (ca. 30â50 n. Chr.), in der Identitäten noch nicht geklärt und erst gefunden werden mussten, kann mit der paulinischen Theologie und Missionsarbeit vom Christentum als einer eigenständigen und erkennbaren Bewegung gesprochen werden. Alle Versuche, die Bedeutung des Paulus zu minimieren und Trennungsprozesse erst ab dem 2. Jahrhundert zuzulassen, können nur als unhistorisch bezeichnet werden, denn: Der Apostel schuf mit seiner beschneidungsfreien Völkermission Tatsachen, hinter die niemand mehr zurückkonnte!â
Ehrensperger, Perspektive, 455.