The Blogs: Jewish Religion and Christianity?

Did the Jewish Religion Emerge from Christianity?

Contrary to popular belief, Christianity did not originate from the Jewish religion. Moreover, a Jewish religion in the modern sense of the term did not exist at the time when the group of Jesus’ disciples emerged. During the Hellenistic and Roman periods, Jesus’ disciples on one side and the Judeans after the destruction of the Temple on the other shared a common literary corpus—the ancient Hebrew texts—which gradually gave rise to two distinct religions. Over time, the Judeans distanced themselves from biblical laws to develop rabbinic literature, while Christians moved away from the Gospels to create a religion based on the writings of the Church Fathers. Both religions, to varying degrees, distanced themselves from biblical practices and adapted their doctrines to a rapidly changing world.

Reading the Gospels raises the question: Who is responsible for the birth of Christianity? As with any major phenomenon, the answer is complex. Christianity developed gradually over several centuries, passing through various crucial stages. Among the decisive moments, one can cite:

The crucifixion of Jesus
The creation of the myth of the resurrection by James, his brother
The definition of Jesus as the Son of God by Paul
The writing of the Gospels
The first theological debates between Christians and Hellenistic thinkers (from 165 CE)
The adoption of the Trinitarian concept and pagan practices by Tertullian (circa 213 CE)
The recognition of Christianity as a legitimate religion by Constantine (313 CE)
The concrete separation between Jews and Christians
The prohibition of polytheistic cults by Emperor Justinian in the early 6th century, marking the triumph of Christianity in the Hellenistic world.

However, Christianity only truly conquered the rural areas of the Byzantine Empire around the 10th century. Analyzing this process reveals that if any of these stages had been absent, it is unlikely that Christianity would have gained such prominence.

It is common to consider Jesus as the founder of Christianity, similar to Muhammad for Islam, Buddha for Buddhism, or Moses as the author of the Torah. However, many scholars attribute a decisive role to Paul in the birth of Christianity. Through his missionary activities and compromises with biblical laws, Paul developed a structured theology that enabled the formation of hierarchical communities across the Roman Empire.

Israeli scholars often emphasize Jesus’ Galilean origins and his adherence to the laws of the Torah. Joseph Klausner and David Flusser, for instance, presented an apologetic image of Jesus, portraying him as a Judean prophet. Flusser even claimed that Jesus was “one of the greatest minds of his time.” Some Israeli intellectuals have sought to absolve Judean leaders of any responsibility for Jesus’ condemnation, insisting that the crucifixion was the work of the Romans.

These scholars often regard Paul as the true initiator of Christianity as we know it. By distancing Jesus’ followers from Jewish laws, Paul initiated a process later reinforced by the theologian Marcion (110–160 CE), who advocated a break between Christianity and the Old Testament. After the crucifixion, Jesus became, in Paul’s letters, a divine figure detached from his Jewish roots—no longer a man seeking to liberate his people from Roman rule. From this perspective, Paul is seen as having betrayed the historical Jesus, and his writings are viewed as having given rise to a religion that, centuries later, would be marked by the Crusades and the persecution of Jews.

Over the centuries, a vast body of literature has developed around a narrative framework centered on the question: What would happen if Jesus returned to Earth? This literary genre did not emerge by chance; rather, it seeks to highlight the gap that has widened between the figure of Jesus in the four Gospels and the Christianity institutionalized by Paul, which later became a recognized religion within the Roman Empire.

Jesus was convinced that the end of the world was imminent and that the “Day of the Lord” was approaching. Yet, the Kingdom of God never materialized, and the world continued its course. Were he to return, he would be profoundly disappointed to find that the Kingdom of Israel had not been restored, that Roman rule had only strengthened, exerting exclusive control over the land of Israel.

Jerusalem had been renamed Aelia Capitolina, and Jesus’ new disciples visited his birthplace in Bethlehem, his tomb in Jerusalem, and walked the path of the Cross to the site of his crucifixion, transforming these places of suffering into sacred shrines. Romans, arriving from all corners of the Empire, claimed the title of the “true Israel,” relegating Jews to the status of a tolerated or persecuted community, at times even referring to them as the “sons of the devil” (John 8:44).

During his lifetime in Galilee, Jesus had never encountered individuals who spoke Greek or Latin and barely understood Aramaic. If he dared to enter a church in Europe, he would discover that the Hebrew Bible had been relegated to a secondary status, with the faithful now reading exclusively from the New Testament—to his great dismay. There, he would learn that he was not merely a Galilean healer but also the Son of God, or even God himself, sharing the same essence as the Father. If he were to visit the grand churches erected in his honor and that of his mother—whom he had renounced—he would be saddened, thinking: “If only I had had a roof over my head during my lifetime.” He had only known humble villagers who constantly complained about the wealthy Judeans and Roman occupation.

A close examination of the Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles reveals a stark contrast with the world of Jesus as described in the Gospels. Jesus was a popular healer living among fishermen by the Sea of Galilee. Paul, on the other hand, was born in Hellenized Cilicia and traveled through the great cities of the Empire, far from Galilee, where he likely never set foot. Jesus probably spoke a Galilean form of Hebrew, whereas Paul wrote in Greek and likely knew Latin. It is improbable that Jesus knew how to write, unlike Paul, an intellectual and prolific thinker. Everything sets these two figures apart—they never even met.

In the Gospels, Jesus appears as a rural figure, while Paul, a man of letters and culture, engaged in dialogue with both Judeans and Greeks in their own languages, sharing their intellectual traditions. He skillfully combined rational arguments with a measured dose of mysticism and miracle narratives, which resonated deeply with the common people living in the eschatological climate of the time. His writings contrast sharply with the simpler storytelling of the Gospels and highlight the intellectual divide between him and the illiterate fishermen of Galilee. In the Epistles, Jesus is depicted as a resurrected human being—the “Son of God”—a less tangible, almost divine figure. The gap between the Galilean Jesus and Paul’s divine Jesus is so vast that it becomes difficult to see them as the same person.

To a large extent, Paul was a bold and visionary reformer who dared to make compromises to adapt his doctrine to the vast and diverse world of the Empire—similar to figures such as Flavius Josephus, Philo of Alexandria, and later Saadia Gaon and Maimonides. Paul opposed certain precepts of the Torah, deeming them obsolete, and replaced them with the principle of mystical faith in the resurrection of the Messiah, thus substituting an ancient ritual with popular beliefs. His task was not an easy one: he recounted being beaten and expelled multiple times from synagogues where he preached, yet he never gave up.

Paul’s reform met with fierce rivalries among Jesus’ followers, who fragmented into various communities and opposing currents. His reformist approach aligned with the broader transformations of Judean worship during the Hellenistic period, when the sages of the Talmud established a new way of life distinct from biblical-era practices. Paul’s doctrinal adjustments were pragmatic and, to some extent, resembled the missionary efforts previously undertaken by Peter and James among Greek-speaking audiences. He could, of course, draw on the critiques of the prophets Amos, Hosea, Micah of Moresheth, and Isaiah ben Amoz against blood sacrifices, ritualistic ceremonies, and religious festivities. Thus, his preaching in the great cultural centers of the Empire could be perceived as an internal reform within Judaism.

Following the revolt against Rome, the Judeans showed little enthusiasm for rebuilding the Temple of Jerusalem, despite imperial authorization. As a result, the status of the priestly class weakened, while the Pharisees adopted a way of life more in line with popular expectations. In a similar vein, they might have abandoned the contentious practice of circumcision. This ritual mutilation, considered a sign of the covenant with Yahweh, was a hazardous procedure given the sanitary conditions of the time, with a high infant mortality rate. They might also have renounced dietary restrictions to better integrate with their neighbors and share communal meals. Jesus’ followers grasped these issues before the sages of the Talmud and leveraged them to their advantage in their mission among the nations.

Despite Paul’s epistles, Jesus’ early followers continued to avoid prohibited foods and to observe the Sabbath rest. For nearly two centuries after Jesus’ crucifixion, it remained difficult to distinguish Judeans from early Christians, as no clear separation had yet emerged. The distinction between Jesus’ followers and Hellenistic Christians only took shape in the early fourth century, initiated by the Hellenists themselves rather than by the Jews of the time.

The definition of Jesus as the Messiah by his disciples was not unusual in Israel’s history, given the proliferation of messianic figures on the eve of the revolt against Rome. The key difference between these Judean conceptions and Christian faith lies primarily in one question: Must the Messiah come, or must he return? In this sense, messianism constituted common ground between the two groups.

At that time, Judean practices—what we now call “Judaism”—had already diverged from many biblical laws, particularly those in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. The influence of Persian and Hellenistic cultures had radically transformed Judean customs, giving rise to a distinct religion that moved away from the blood-based sacrificial worship practiced in the Temple. Therefore, it can be argued that Christianity did not emerge directly from Judaism, which had not yet taken its definitive form, but rather that both traditions gradually distanced themselves from biblical laws in parallel.

Over time, alongside the canonical Christian literature, an extensive body of extra-canonical and Gnostic texts emerged, permeating Jesus-believing communities throughout the Empire. Christianity, as a religion, prioritized Paul’s teachings over those of Jesus the Judean, even as it preserved his words, parables, and discourses. It is also important to acknowledge the messianic communities that remained faithful to Judean practices—Nazarenes, Ebionites, Elchasaites, and the Docetists—who rejected Paul and aligned themselves with tendencies expressed in the Gospel of James (Jesus’ brother) as well as in the Second Epistle of Peter, both extra-canonical writings.

The first tangible mention of a messianic community after the disappearance of the “pillars” (James, Peter, and Paul) appears in the work of the Samaritan Christian philosopher Justin of Sichem (100–165). In his polemical treatise Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, published around 165, he describes their existence. In my view, his contemporaries marked the decisive phase in the birth of Christianity. From this moment onward, a new era began, characterized by intense intellectual controversies between polytheistic philosophers and monotheistic messianic thinkers, who debated the strengths and weaknesses of their respective beliefs.

From the mid-second century onwards, a remarkable proliferation of philosophical works emerged, exerting considerable influence on the development of Christianity. These writings attracted educated social classes, which were organized into hierarchical structures, prompting imperial authorities to recognize the power of this new religion. Simultaneously, an anonymous Gnostic literature surfaced, later deemed heretical by Christian tradition, as it did not align with the orthodoxy in formation.

Among the thinkers who contributed to this intellectual controversy were Ignatius of Antioch and Papias of Phrygia, who preceded Justin, as well as Marcion, founder of Marcionism, Tatian the Syrian, Irenaeus of Lyon, Clement of Alexandria, Valentinus the Egyptian, Tertullian of Carthage, Melito of Sardis, Eusebius of Caesarea, Epiphanius of Salamis, and many others. These philosophical debates, fundamentally different from the Gospel texts recounting the life of Jesus, had a decisive influence on members of Christian communities. In my view, they constitute one of the principal reasons for the triumph of Christianity in the Greco-Roman world. This controversy was conducted in writing and circulated among the intellectual elites of the Empire.

Such a controversy could not have existed without a major cultural event that had occurred over four centuries earlier, changing the face of the world. This was the gradual translation of the biblical library into Greek, undertaken in the young city of Alexandria, which had become the heart of the Hellenistic world. This literary project was carried out progressively by the Judeans of the city for their children and grandchildren, who no longer understood Hebrew. Thanks to this translation, biblical books exerted a major influence on Hellenic culture. The polytheistic controversy against early Christianity drew on quotations from these Greek texts and unfolded among intellectuals, far removed from the rural world, which was labeled “pagan.” Following the revolts against the Romans, no polemical Judean writings targeting Jesus’ disciples, whose numbers continued to grow, have survived. However, shortly before his death, Flavius Josephus wrote a polemical work titled Antiquities of the Jews, in which he responded to the attacks of a polytheistic Greek intellectual named Apion, who criticized Judean customs, worship, and festivals. Nevertheless, this episode remained isolated.

As Christianity developed, it had to contend with the existence of Judaism, constantly oscillating between fidelity and the desire for emancipation. From its inception, communities of believers in Jesus structured themselves into rival ideological factions, engaging in literary disputes while remaining aware of opposing positions. This intellectual effervescence helped convince many Hellenistic thinkers to join their cause. While new Christians wrote polemical texts against Greek polytheistic philosophers, Jewish sages debated among themselves, often detached from their environment and ignoring their detractors. Early Christians of Judean origin, and later the Judeans themselves, passively awaited the adherence of Roman intellectuals without seeking to engage in true theological debates, whether with Christians or polytheists. This polemical dynamic was one of the primary engines behind the success and dissemination of Christianity across the world.

Although Christianity and Judaism both originated from biblical texts, neither religion was immune to the surrounding popular beliefs. Numerous practices stemming from local traditions gradually infiltrated Christian and Jewish rites. The official prohibition of pagan worship in the early sixth century had only a limited impact on rural areas, where only the educated classes truly embraced the new religion. Rural populations continued to follow their ancient customs. Initially, the Church Fathers, like the sages of Jewish tradition (Hazal), sought to eradicate these pagan influences, but their efforts were in vain. Ultimately, both religions had to yield to reality and absorbed these beliefs and practices, gradually granting them legitimacy.

If one were to imagine a hypothetical scenario in which Paul’s disciples had not abandoned circumcision as a prerequisite for joining Christian communities, it is likely that Christianity would have remained a marginal Judean sect, destined for gradual decline, without ever conquering the world. Similarly, what would have happened if the Judeans of Alexandria had not undertaken the translation of the Scriptures into Greek? Would the thinkers of early Christianity have been able to carry out their evangelistic mission without this immense literary treasure? Would Paul and his disciples have had the same resonance without access to such a widely disseminated body of literature? Could Christianity have established itself as a universal religion without the biblical heritage and its Judean roots? It is highly probable that, in this case, the Judeans and their many sympathizers would have eventually conquered the Greco-Roman space, armed with the antiquity and richness of their literary tradition.

Today, post-biblical Judaism is considered to have emerged alongside Christianity, often in interaction with it. This process began with the diaspora revolt against the Romans (115-117) and concluded only in the early sixth century when polytheistic worship was prohibited in the Empire. Christianity provoked a profound transformation of religious beliefs and practices in the Hellenistic world. Its culture extended far beyond the borders of the Byzantine Empire. Yet Greek-Hellenistic thought, its philosophy, and its scientific advancements did not disappear with the rise of Islam but continued to shape global culture. Today, our civilization is often referred to as “Judeo-Christian culture.” In my opinion, this expression is inaccurate. In reality, the true revolution was not the work of Christianity but of the biblical library, the product of the genius of the Israelites and Judeans. It is this library that constitutes the fundamental foundation of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. More precisely, it would be more accurate to speak of a “biblical-Hellenistic culture,” a fusion of Greek intellectual heritage and biblical spiritual legacy.

Considering the influx of affiliates to the Judeans during the Greco-Roman era, as well as the antiquity and richness of the biblical library, the Judeans seemed to have all the assets necessary to establish themselves as the dominant culture. Greek philosophy and Hellenism could also have supplanted a Christianity perceived as irrational. It is even surprising to observe how the story of the resurrection of a Galilean preacher ultimately triumphed over the teachings of Plato and Aristotle. The indifference of the Judeans to the rise of Christians played into the latter’s hands. Despite their cultural and intellectual superiority, the Judeans remained passive, engaging in no real ideological struggle. In the end, it was the Christians who did the work for them, transmitting the biblical library to the entire world, up to the present day.