Did Christianity split from Judaism?

[Diagoras]

Can Christianity be fairly called a ‘doctrinal split from Judaism’? It’s a fact that the two religions largely share a common holy book (one comparison at link below):

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/ ... -testament

One view might be that “there were no Jews or Christians in the first century”, e.g. from here:

https://www.allsaintsvillage.com/docume ... SM%201.pdf

While the opposing view (from here):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ ... nd_Judaism

Might say, “Most historians agree that Jesus or his followers established a new Jewish sect, one that attracted both Jewish and gentile converts.”

Clearly, agreement on what to call different groups, based on ethnicity, geography or political allegiance has a bearing on the matter. For example, from a Jewish source, the origin of the term is explained in terms of geography:

https://www.hartman.org.il/how-did-the- ... sh-people/

So, for debate:

Did Christianity ‘split from’ Judaism?

N.B. My knowledge of the subject is very limited, so I’m posting in order to learn, rather than to debate a particular position.

[2timothy316]

The short answer is that Christianity wasn't supposed to be split from Judaism. Judaism was always supposed to become Christianity. There were many Jews that followed the new covenant of the Christ. There were many more that didn't. This is where the split comes in.

Really the whole answer to the OP question is to answer the question, what was the purpose of the Law Code, the way Jews were supposed to worship God? The Law covenant made between the Jews and Jehovah God wasn't supposed to be forever. The Law Covenant was to make sure a promise made to Abraham came to be. That there would be a person from his line that would bring blessings to ALL the nations of the Earth. (Genesis 22:18) Once that person arrived there was going to be a new covenant made with Israel. (Jeremiah 31:31-33)

So it wasn't that Christianity split from the Jews but the Jews that rejected the new covenant. If we dig deeper into the Jewish religion and all it's sects we find that they really were not following the Law Covenant correctly anyway in Jesus' day. Jesus points this out many times while he is on Earth. Many of the useless Jewish traditions such as washing his hands up to the elbows before a person ate, he simply didn't follow. So it's not that the Christian religion is a split from the Jewish religion, its that the Jewish religion had already split from it's own Law Covenant.

Centuries pass and now the Jewish religion hardly resembles the Jewish religion of Jesus' day at all. Yet in all fairness, what people call the Christian religion today doesn't resemble the Christian religion of the 1st century either does it.

Bottomline: If ALL of the Jews would have followed the instruction of the Law Covenant and would have listened to the person that even Moses said would come one day, like they said they would, then ALL Jews would have become Christians.

[Difflugia]

Did Christianity ‘split from’ Judaism?

I think that the answer is broadly "yes," but there was neither a monolithic Judaism nor a single Christianity.

First, the Church as represented by James, John, and Cephas was apparently Jewish (the "men from James" were "of the circumcision"). As long as we consider some of the weird groups like the Essenes to fall under the umbrella of Judaism, I think the "James" group must also be considered such, even with the little that we know about it. All we really know about the Jerusalem group is the list of things that Paul objected to (they required circumcision for membership and observed Jewish dietary laws), but I think that's enough to characterize them as "Jewish" rather than, say, a non-Jewish gnostic sect.

Paul seemed to consider himself Jewish and saw himself as remaking Judaism into something universal. Reading between Paul's lines a bit, I think it's fair to say that the "reputed pillars" of the Jerusalem church had a hard time accepting Paul's vision for Christianity, but at the same time, there's no indication that they considered him something other than Christian. The overall impression I get is that they were willing to meet with him and weren't exactly hostile, but also tried to forge a distinct separation between their sect and Paul's (the whole "apostle to the Gentiles" thing), while allowing Paul to at least consider himself Christian enough to help support them financially (Gal 2:6-10, Rom 15:26, 1 Cor 16:1-4).

My own speculation is that the Jerusalem sect was, for all practical purposes, completely destroyed by the Roman sack of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. If Paul died in the 60s as is traditionally held, that left the Pauline churches in Asia without an anchor and the Gospels were an attempt to backfill the now hazy Palestinian history with details gleaned from Paul's writings, which became a combination of hero fiction and theological allegory.

I think the sect behind the Gospel of John is a later adoption of Christianity by a post-70 sect of Rabbinic Judaism that was ejected from its Jewish synagogue, then merged back with the proto-orthodox Christians.

[Tcg]

Can Christianity be fairly called a ‘doctrinal split from Judaism’? It’s a fact that the two religions largely share a common holy book (one comparison at link below):

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/ ... -testament

One view might be that “there were no Jews or Christians in the first century”, e.g. from here:

https://www.allsaintsvillage.com/docume ... SM%201.pdf

While the opposing view (from here):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ ... nd_Judaism

Might say, “Most historians agree that Jesus or his followers established a new Jewish sect, one that attracted both Jewish and gentile converts.”

Clearly, agreement on what to call different groups, based on ethnicity, geography or political allegiance has a bearing on the matter. For example, from a Jewish source, the origin of the term is explained in terms of geography:

https://www.hartman.org.il/how-did-the- ... sh-people/

So, for debate:

Did Christianity ‘split from’ Judaism?

N.B. My knowledge of the subject is very limited, so I’m posting in order to learn, rather than to debate a particular position.

I appreciate you starting this thread as I've often wondered about this. My own tentative view is that Jesus never intended to start a new religion, but rather to reform Judaism. When this failed, his followers then decided to create Christianity. I must admit there's not a lot of meat on the bones of this thought yet, but I'm hoping responses here from those more knowledgeable about the details will help. Indeed, this has already begun to happen.


Tcg

[Difflugia]

My own tentative view is that Jesus never intended to start a new religion, but rather to reform Judaism. When this failed, his followers then decided to create Christianity.

Two interesting authors along these lines are James Tabor and Robert Eisenman. Both are very strong advocates of a historical Jesus, yet treat the Gospels as mostly fictional. They fall into a sort of no-man's-land in which they don't treat the Gospels as historically reliable (even by the standards of secular scholarship), but have forged detailed understandings of Jesus and the early church, making their views unpopular with both conventional scholars and mythicists.

James Tabor is an expert on the archeaology of the Essenes. Unsurprisingly, he sees many parallels between the teachings of Jesus and those of the Essenes. He doesn't go so far as to claim that Jesus was an Essene per se, but he thinks that Jesus was a member of an Essene-like sect with two messiahs, John the Baptist and Jesus. After both John and Jesus were killed, James took the reins, after which Paul remade the Jewish apocalypticism of the John/Jesus/James church into a more Hellenistic form of mysticism. The Jesus Dynasty and Paul and Jesus are both underappreciated, in my opinion. He gave a number of interesting talks to the Biblical Archaeology Society that were available for sale in their video collection, but those are now unavailable anywhere as far as I can tell. After Herschel Shanks died, the Society clearanced everything out of its online store and now only sells a single book. A tiny minority is available on the website as a perk for subscribers, but most have simply vanished, at least for now.

As an interesting aside, Tabor is also an expert on Christian cults and was called on to advise the FBI during its siege of the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas. He later wrote a book about the experience, Why Waco? Cults and the Battle for Religious Freedom in America.

Robert Eisenman has a similar, but not identical set of views. He thinks that, again, Jesus was a member of an Essene-like sect, but that the twelve disciples or apostles are a later construct based on the twelve tribes of Israel. The original "disciples" were Jesus' own family members. Not only were his brothers, James, Joses, Simeon, and Judas involved, but so were his mother, Mary, and sister Salome. Later and sometimes conflicting traditions expanded each of these into multiple Gospel characters, making much of the duplication of names within the Twelve as well as the multiple Marys within the traditions. This is presented in his two-volume work, James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. I find his writing drier and harder to follow than Tabor's, but still interesting and well-argued within the limited range of evidence offered by the New Testament itself.

[Miles]

The short answer is that Christianity wasn't supposed to be split from Judaism. Judaism was always supposed to become Christianity.

Interesting. Whose intention was this?


.

[1213]

...
So, for debate:

Did Christianity ‘split from’ Judaism?
...

I think it depends on what is meant with “Christianity”. If Christianity means to be a disciple of Jesus and to be loyal to his teachings, I don’t think it splits. By Jesus God’s promises of the New Covenant came true and I think it is directly what Judaism should be.

Yahweh your God will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your seed, to love Yahweh your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, that you may live. Yahweh your God will put all these curses on your enemies, and on those who hate you, who persecuted you. You shall return and obey the voice of Yahweh, and do all his commandments which I command you this day. Yahweh your God will make you plenteous in all the work of your hand, in the fruit of your body, and in the fruit of your cattle, and in the fruit of your ground, for good: for Yahweh will again rejoice over you for good, as he rejoiced over your fathers;
Deuteronomy 30:6-9

For finding fault with them, he said, "Behold, the days come," says the Lord, "That I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, In the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; For they didn't continue in my covenant, And I disregarded them," says the Lord. "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel. After those days," says the Lord; "I will put my laws into their mind, I will also write them on their heart. I will be to them a God, And they will be to me a people. They will not teach every man his fellow citizen, Every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' For all will know me, From the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness. I will remember their sins and lawless deeds no more."
Hebrews 8:8-12 (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

Unfortunately, many “Christians” have gone astray from that.

[2timothy316]

The short answer is that Christianity wasn't supposed to be split from Judaism. Judaism was always supposed to become Christianity.

Interesting. Whose intention was this?


.

It seems it was part of God's plan from the beginning. Able, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, and other early patriarchs didn't worship God the same as Moses and Israel did. So there was a change in the way to worship with the Law covenant was made. The prophet Jeremiah said there would be a 'new covenant' to replace the old one. Jesus said in a parable in Matthew 9:16-17 that he was not coming to patch up old rituals. He was there to make something completely new. Then Jesus enacted a new covenant at the last supper with the bread and the wine. When Jesus died, the old law covenant went with him because that was the purpose of the Law covenant with Moses. What it was meant to accomplish was fulfilled. "Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill." - Matt 5:17. The New Living Translation puts it this way, "Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose."

With the Law covenant accomplished, naturally something was going to take it's place.

[Miles]

The short answer is that Christianity wasn't supposed to be split from Judaism. Judaism was always supposed to become Christianity.

Interesting. Whose intention was this?


.

It seems it was part of God's plan from the beginning. Able, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, and other early patriarchs didn't worship God the same as Moses and Israel did. So there was a change in the way to worship with the Law covenant was made. The prophet Jeremiah said there would be a 'new covenant' to replace the old one. Jesus said in a parable in Matthew 9:16-17 that he was not coming to patch up old rituals. He was there to make something completely new. Then Jesus enacted a new covenant at the last supper with the bread and the wine. When Jesus died, the old law covenant went with him because that was the purpose of the Law covenant with Moses. What it was meant to accomplish was fulfilled. "Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill." - Matt 5:17. The New Living Translation puts it this way, "Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose."

With the Law covenant accomplished, naturally something was going to take it's place.

So once again god's plan went awry. Poor guy. He certainly has a hard time keeping things on track down on Earth. Think it may be a faulty pinion bearing in his omnipotence?

And, what gives you the impression it was part of God's plan from the beginning anyway?



.

[Diagoras]

The short answer is that Christianity wasn't supposed to be split from Judaism. Judaism was always supposed to become Christianity. There were many Jews that followed the new covenant of the Christ. There were many more that didn't. This is where the split comes in.

Really the whole answer to the OP question is to answer the question, what was the purpose of the Law Code, the way Jews were supposed to worship God? The Law covenant made between the Jews and Jehovah God wasn't supposed to be forever. The Law Covenant was to make sure a promise made to Abraham came to be. That there would be a person from his line that would bring blessings to ALL the nations of the Earth. (Genesis 22:18) Once that person arrived there was going to be a new covenant made with Israel. (Jeremiah 31:31-33)

Thanks for a detailed response. There’s particular parts of your post that are at odds with a Jewish perspective, and I’ve linked to a rabbinical response about Jeremiah here:

https://www.aish.com/atr/Jeremiah-31-an ... mobile=yes

“The new covenant did not abrogate the original one”

If the split occurred over a disagreement whether the Law Covenant was broken or not, then that surely argues for Christianity splitting off, rather than Judaism, surely?