2.1 Jewish Identity and the Parting of the Ways

Marianne Grohmann (Vienna): Group Identities in Ezra and Nehemiah: The primary focus of Marianne Grohmann’s 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 Israel’s 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 Israel’s 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 Israel’s calling presented by the Jesus movement. The alignment of “internal others” (Jesus-oriented Jews) with “external others” (Jesus-oriented gentiles) in promoting an alternative understanding of Israel’s 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. Stemberger’s 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 1:18–25) 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 – which they say was constructed in the third century and rebuilt after the earthquake of 363 CE – 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. Magness’ 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 “Works of the Law”: 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 “The Four Pillars of Second Temple Judaism” (“monotheism”, “election”, “covenant focussed in Torah”, and “land focussed in Temple”) 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 “mainstream Judaism”. In contrast to this, the most recent research has shown that neither a “normative Judaism” nor a “common Judaism” and not even a “mainstream Judaism” 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 Paul’s rejection of the “works of the law” (Gal 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10; Rom 3:20–21) 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, Paul’s attitude towards the law during his time as a follower of Jesus represents a possible – albeit quite liberal – 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 ‘Ἔργα νόμου’ in Paul: Kathy Ehrensperger argues that Paul does not engage in a critique of any facet of his fellow Jews’ way of life. The terms he employs, namely, νόμος, ἔργον, and δίκαιος/δικαιοσύνη, pertain to certain aspects of observing the νόμος, particularly the performance of rituals. Thus, ἔργα νόμου means the act of carrying out rituals in connection with a deity. In Greek and Roman traditions, the divine-human relationship revolved around offering the gods their proper due by meticulously performing rituals to ensure the gods’ favour and benevolence toward humans. Paul, however, emphasizes that for non-Jews, being in right relationship with the God of Israel depends solely on God’s initiative rather than human efforts. As they were anticipated to embrace their ethnic identity as non-Jews, it naturally followed that their way of life would differ from that of the Jews. Within the dynamic interplay of shared attributes and distinctions, non-Jews who embraced Christ were inherently linked to the Jewish people. Therefore, the interplay of common elements and distinctions formed the core of the connection between Jews and non-Jews.

Christina Eschner (Berlin), Paul and the Galatians as “Children” of Abraham: The Law as Space of Salvation in Ancient Judaism and Paul: After a thorough consideration of Paul’s 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 κρίνειν in Q 22:28, 30, the parable on the invited dinner guests in Q 14:16‒21, 23, the polemics against “this generation” in Q 10:21, as well as topics like covenant, Torah, circumcision, Sabbath, kashrut, and tithing in Q. In his conclusion, he notes that the Q group understood itself as Jewish: the members of the Q group were ethnically and religiously Ἰουδαῖοι, (even if the term does not occur in Q). Q is silent on land, circumcision, and sabbath, but every argumentum e silentio can be used in both directions, and the absence of some Jewish identity markers in Q can support a Jewish context where this is not necessary to note explicitly. Nevertheless, Q’s attitude towards the temple and as well as its explicit high Christology make it probable that the Q group was not really at ease with the large majority of Israel. The relationship was not broken, to be sure. However, there were cracks which could – and did – widen.

Matthias Konradt (Heidelberg): Matthew’s Ethics and the Complex Processes of Differentiation and Separation of the Matthean Communities from Judaism: Matthew’s ethics – of which reference to the Torah is a significant part – 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. Jesus’ 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 communities’ 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, Matthew’s ethics supports this claim. If this is correct, it is indeed necessary to move beyond the new perspective on “Matthew within Judaism” and to connect it with a “Matthew within emergent Christianity”-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 “Antichrist group” (1 John pointedly calls the opponents “antichrists”) 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 John’s 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 “the Jews” 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 “Jews” 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 6:60–71), 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 Χριστιανοί: Group Designations by Christ Believers in the New Testament: In her analysis of the designations given to Christ believers, Hildegard Scherer demonstrates that assigning certain labels to one group does not necessarily imply a denial of those designations to others. Often, they serve as a way for the in-group to cope with issues related to their status. Terms such as “the way” or “the assembly of God” function at the level of intra-group competition within the framework of Israel. Ephesians even shows a blending of these designations when Jesus followers, especially from non-Jewish backgrounds, attempt to integrate themselves into the categories of God’s chosen people. More problematic designations might apply to larger groups or the covenant itself. However, the categories used in the New Testament are never equated with Israel nor do they seek to supersede Israel as the people of God. Instead, they exist alongside and within the framework of Israel’s identity and covenant, offering distinct expressions of faith and devotion.

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 Didache’s literary structure and source-critical questions and then comments on its genre and the two selected topics of fasting and prayer in Did. 8.1–3, with a view to what the Didache might contribute to the issue of the so-called “Parting of the Ways”. Did. 8.1–3 positions the readership of the text against some Jews, labelled “hypocrites”. The latter were most likely somehow related to the Pharisees or their (“proto-rabbinic”) 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 “the Jews” or from any practice generically labelled as “Jewish”. 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 “hypocrites” 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. 7.1–4) and eucharist (Did. 9.1–5), while certainly creating an insider-outsider distinction, does not mark a general departure “from Judaism”. The Didache erects boundaries against those it calls “hypocrites”, but in so doing, shows that the ways have not (yet) fully “parted” between this mixed community and these “hypocrites”, let alone “the Jews” more generally.

Paul Foster (Edinburgh): Ignatius of Antioch. Redefining Identities and Creating Irreversible Separation: Ignatius does not hold Ἰουδαϊσμός in high regard. In fact, quite the opposite, he sees it as having found its fulfilment in Christ, and thus having served its purpose as pointing to the coming of Christ principally through its prophetic writings. Beyond that, he considers Judaism to be essentially defunct, without soteriological value, and without value as a religious system. He is strident in his rebuttal of any form of reverting to its practices, beliefs, or forms of scriptural interpretation. Yet, despite the ferocity of this rejection, it is not certain that Ignatius was actually responding to ethnic Jews who were not believers in Christ. Rather, the target of his rhetoric appears to have been individuals who in some way claimed a connection with the Jesus movement and were likely at some level members of the communities of Christ believers in Magnesia and Philadelphia. Alongside this, the issues to which Ignatius responds in his two letters that use the term Ἰουδαϊσμός suggest that the situations in Magnesia and Philadelphia were different, and that there was no single group responsible for the teachings that Ignatius rejected in these two locations. When he does mention Jewish figures such as the patriarchs or the prophets, they are presented as proleptically being followers of Christ. The prophetic scriptures of Judaism are viewed as an anticipation of the gospel. This may be considered a usurpation of Jewish traditions, or even as a type of supersessionism. For Foster it is clear that Ignatius’ writings reflect considerable and irreversible distance between Christianity in the early second century and post Temple destruction Judaism. That does not mean the same degree of separation had occurred in all locations in the Mediterranean world. However, the evidence that Ignatius supplies reflects a circumstance in which Christianity had emerged as a movement with its own beliefs and structures that were separate and distinct from contemporary Judaism.

Markus Öhler (Vienna): Judaism and Christianity in the Epistles of Ignatius: Reflections on Contextualisation in the 2nd century CE: The definition of the terms “Judaism” and “Christianity” 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 Χριστιανισμός and Ἰουδαϊσμός are coined, the concepts still used today to determine belonging. The question arises, however, whether this clear terminology (as well as the also used terms σαββατίζειν and ἰουδαΐζειν) actually goes back to the Antiochian bishop Ignatius and the years 114/117, or whether the passages under discussion were written in a later period. Indeed, a comparison with the other evidence for these expressions shows that they are only used from the middle of the 2nd century onwards to define the relationship of Christianity to Judaism. A clear affinity with Tertullian’s polemic against Marcion becomes evident. A plausible explanation for this might be that the terminological proximity between Ignatius, whose letters could also have been written in the middle of the 2nd century, and Marcion was based on a broader tradition.

Agnethe Siquans (Vienna): Jewish Scriptural Interpretation and Ritual Practice in Origen’s Homilies on Leviticus: Agnethe Siquans employs Origen’s 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. Origen’s 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 “Parting of the Ways”: 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 Paul’s 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): “Consubstantial with the Father”: 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 Tück’s 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.