The Blogs: When Did the World Become Christian?

When Did the World Become Christian?

Yigal Bin-Nun

It is common to consider Jesus as the founder of Christianity, much like 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 activity and his ability to compromise on biblical laws, Paul developed a structured theology that facilitated the emergence of organized Christian communities throughout 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 example, presented an apologetic image of Jesus by describing him as a Judean prophet. Flusser even stated that Jesus was “one of the greatest minds of his time.” Some Israeli intellectuals have sought to absolve Judean leaders of any responsibility in Jesus’ condemnation, insisting that his crucifixion was primarily the work of the Romans.

These scholars often consider Paul to be the true creator of Christianity as we know it. By detaching Jesus’ disciples from Jewish laws, Paul initiated a process that Marcion (110–160) would push even further, advocating for a total break between Christianity and the Old Testament. After the crucifixion, Jesus, in Paul’s writings, becomes a divine figure, severed from his Jewish roots—far removed from the agitator who sought to liberate his people from Roman rule. From this perspective, Paul would have distorted the message of the historical Jesus, and his writings would have given rise to a religion that, centuries later, would manifest in the Crusades and the persecution of Jews.

Over the centuries, a vast body of literature has developed around a recurring scenario: “What would happen if Jesus returned to Earth?” This literary genre did not emerge by chance; it highlights the chasm that has formed between the Jesus of the Gospels and the institutionalized Christianity established by Paul, which later became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Jesus believed in the imminent end of the world and the coming of the “Day of the Lord,” but that day never arrived, and history took its course. He would therefore be deeply disappointed to see that the Kingdom of Israel was not restored, that Roman domination only intensified, and that the Empire exercised exclusive control over his homeland.

Jerusalem was renamed Aelia Capitolina, and Jesus’ new disciples made pilgrimages to Bethlehem, visited his tomb in Jerusalem, and walked the Way of the Cross to the site of his crucifixion, transforming these places of suffering into sacred shrines. Romans, coming from all corners of the Empire, claimed the title of the “true Israel,” relegating the Jews to the status of a tolerated, sometimes persecuted community, even being called “children of the devil” (John 8:44).

During his lifetime, Jesus never encountered individuals who spoke Greek or Latin and probably understood only Aramaic. If he were to enter a church today, he would be astonished to find that the Hebrew Bible had been relegated to the background and that the faithful read only the New Testament. He would learn that he is not merely a Galilean healer but also the Son of God, or even God himself, sharing the same essence as the Father. Faced with the opulent churches erected in his honor and that of his mother—whom he had once renounced—he would murmur sorrowfully: “If only I had had a roof over my head during my lifetime…” He had only known modest villagers who constantly complained about the Judean bourgeoisie and the Roman occupation.

By comparing the Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles with the Gospels, one can measure the gap between the world of Jesus and that of Paul. Jesus was a popular healer living among fishermen on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. Paul, on the other hand, was a cosmopolitan intellectual, trained in a Hellenized Cilicia, who traveled through the great cities of the Empire. While Jesus likely spoke Galilean Hebrew, Paul wrote in Greek and may have had some knowledge of Latin. One was a rural prophet; the other, an urban thinker. Everything distinguishes these two figures, who never met.

In the Gospels, Jesus appears as a figure deeply rooted in rural life, whereas Paul, a man of letters and culture, moved easily among both Judeans and Greeks, conversing in their language and sharing their intellectual universe. He knew how to combine rational arguments with a calculated dose of mysticism and miracle narratives, which stirred great enthusiasm among the popular classes, especially in the eschatological climate of the time. His writings contrast with the simpler storytelling of the Gospels, revealing a striking intellectual gap between him and the illiterate fishermen of Galilee. In the Epistles, Jesus is presented as a resurrected human being, the “Son of God,” an idealized, almost divine figure. The contrast between the Galilean Jesus and Paul’s divine Jesus is so stark that it becomes difficult to conceive of them as the same person.

Paul emerges as a bold and visionary reformer, willing to make compromises to adapt his doctrine to the globalized world of the Empire, much like figures such as Flavius Josephus, Philo of Alexandria, and later Saadia Gaon and Maimonides. He rejected certain precepts of the Torah, which he deemed obsolete, replacing them with a mystical faith centered on the resurrection of the Messiah—substituting ancestral ritual practices with a more accessible belief system. His task was arduous: he recounts having been beaten and expelled multiple times from the synagogues where he preached, yet he never gave up.

His reforms sparked intense rivalries within Jesus’ followers, who fragmented into various communities with opposing currents. His reformist approach aligned with the broader transformations of Jewish worship in the Hellenistic era, when the sages of the Talmud established a way of life distinct from biblical-era practices. Paul’s doctrinal adjustments, though pragmatic, were partly in line with the mission already undertaken by Peter and James among the Greeks. Moreover, he could draw on the vehement criticisms of prophets such as Amos, Hosea, Micah of Moresheth, and Isaiah ben Amoz against blood sacrifices and ritualistic practices. Thus, his preaching in the major cultural centers of the Empire could be perceived as an internal reform within Judaism rather than a radical break.

After the revolt against Rome, the Judeans showed little enthusiasm for rebuilding the Temple of Jerusalem, despite imperial authorization. The weakening of the priests’ status benefited the Pharisees, who adapted their way of life to popular expectations. In this logic, they might have abandoned certain problematic practices, such as circumcision—a ritual mutilation symbolizing the covenant with Yahweh but carrying a high risk of infant mortality given the sanitary conditions of the time. Similarly, they could have lifted dietary restrictions to facilitate integration with their neighbors and allow for greater socialization around meals. Jesus’ followers had anticipated these issues long before the Talmudic sages and gained a strategic advantage in their mission among the nations.

The definition of Jesus as the Messiah by his disciples took place in a context marked by a proliferation of messianic figures, particularly on the eve of the revolt against Rome. The true divergence between Judean conceptions and Christian faith lies in this essential question: must the Messiah come or return? Thus, messianism served as a common ground between the two groups.

Despite Paul’s Epistles, the early followers of Jesus continued to observe dietary restrictions and observe the Sabbath. For nearly two centuries after the crucifixion, it remained difficult to differentiate Judeans from the first Christians, as no clear separation had yet been established. It was only at the beginning of the fourth century that this distinction became explicit, driven by the Hellenists themselves rather than the Judeans of the time.

By this period, Judean practices—what we now call “Judaism”—had already diverged from biblical prescriptions, particularly those found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. The influence of Persian and Hellenistic cultures profoundly transformed Judean traditions, leading to the emergence of a distinct religion separate from the sacrificial worship once practiced in the temples. Thus, Christianity was not merely an offshoot of Judaism, which itself was still evolving, but rather a parallel tradition that gradually took shape as both moved away from biblical laws.

Over time, alongside the canonical Christian literature, a vast body of extra-canonical and Gnostic texts developed, gradually infiltrating communities of believers in Jesus across the empire. As a religion, Christianity favored the teachings of Paul over those of the Judean Jesus, while still preserving his words, parables, and speeches as recorded in the Gospels. One should not overlook the messianic communities that remained attached to Judean practices, such as the Nazarenes, Ebionites, Elcesaites, and Docetists, who rejected Paul’s teachings and adhered to traditions expressed in the Gospel attributed to James, the brother of Jesus, as well as in the Second Epistle of Peter and various other extra-canonical writings.

Reading the New Testament raises a fundamental question: who was truly responsible for the birth of Christianity? As with any major historical phenomenon, the answer is complex. Christianity did not emerge in a single movement but was built gradually, marked by decisive stages:

The invention of the concept of Jesus’ resurrection
The deification of Jesus under Paul’s influence
The composition of the Gospels
Theological debates between Christians and Hellenistic thinkers (from 165 onward)
The integration of the Trinitarian concept and the adoption of pagan practices by Tertullian (circa 213)
The official recognition of Christianity by Constantine in 313
The definitive rupture between Jews and Christians after the Council of Nicaea (325)

The prohibition of polytheistic cults by Emperor Justinian in the early sixth century, marking the triumph of Christianity in the Hellenistic world

However, this triumph was gradual: Christianity did not firmly establish itself in the rural areas of the Byzantine Empire until around the tenth century. Analyzing this process reveals that if any of these steps had been absent, it is highly likely that Christianity would never have achieved such prominence.

The first tangible mention of a messianic community after the passing of foundational figures such as James, Peter, and Paul appears in the writings of the Samaritan Christian philosopher Justin Martyr (100–165), specifically in his polemical work Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, written around 165 CE. In my view, his contemporaries played a decisive role in the rise of Christianity. From this point onward, a new era began, characterized by intense intellectual controversies between polytheistic philosophers and monotheistic messianic thinkers, who debated the validity and contradictions of their respective beliefs.

From the second half of the second century, an intellectual fervor emerged: a flourishing of philosophical works that exerted a significant influence on the expansion of Christianity. These writings appealed to educated and structured social groups, gradually prompting imperial authorities to recognize the power of this new religion. At the same time, an anonymous Gnostic literature arose—later deemed heretical by Christian tradition because it deviated from the orthodoxy that was then taking shape.

Among the thinkers who contributed to this intense doctrinal effervescence 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. Their philosophical debates, radically different from the Gospel narratives recounting the life of Jesus, profoundly influenced the emerging Christian communities. In my view, they constitute one of the major factors behind Christianity’s triumph in the Greco-Roman world. These polemics, disseminated in written form, circulated among the intellectual elites of the Empire.

Such a controversy could not have emerged without a major cultural event that had taken place more than four centuries earlier, permanently reshaping the intellectual landscape of the Mediterranean world. This event was the gradual translation of the biblical library into Greek, undertaken in the young city of Alexandria, which had become the nerve center of the Hellenistic world. This literary project, carried out by the Judeans of Alexandria in the second century BCE for their Hellenophone descendants, allowed biblical texts to exert a considerable influence on Greek culture.

The polytheistic polemic against early Christianity thus drew upon these Greek texts and took place mainly within intellectual circles, far from the rural world, which was still referred to as “pagan.” After the Jewish revolts against the Romans, no polemical literature of Jewish origin criticizing Jesus’ disciples has survived. However, shortly before his death, Flavius Josephus wrote a polemical work, Against Apion, in which he responded to the attacks of a Greek polytheistic intellectual named Apion, who criticized Jewish customs, worship, and festivals. Nevertheless, this episode remained isolated.

Contrary to a widely held belief, Christianity did not emerge directly from the Jewish religion. This assertion may seem surprising, but it is essential to recall that in antiquity, the very concept of a “Jewish religion” in the modern sense did not yet exist. In the Hellenistic and Roman eras, after the destruction of the Temple, Jesus’ disciples and Judeans shared a common literary corpus: the ancient Hebrew texts, which gradually gave rise to three distinct religious traditions. Over time, the Judeans moved away from biblical laws to develop rabbinic literature, while Christians distanced themselves from the Gospels to establish a religion primarily structured around the writings of the Church Fathers. Thus, both traditions, each in its own way, disengaged from biblical practices and adapted their doctrines to the transformations of a changing world.

Although Christianity and Judaism originate from biblical texts, neither of these two religions escaped the influences of surrounding popular beliefs. Gradually, numerous practices from local traditions infiltrated Christian and Jewish rites. The official prohibition of pagan worship at the beginning of the sixth century had only a limited effect in rural areas, where only educated circles fully embraced the new religion. The rural populations, for their part, continued to follow their ancient customs. Initially, both the Church Fathers and the sages of Jewish tradition (Hazal) attempted to eliminate these pagan influences, but to no avail. Ultimately, both religious traditions had to confront reality, and rather than eradicating these influences, they gradually absorbed them, thereby granting them a certain legitimacy.

If we imagine a hypothetical scenario in which Paul’s disciples had maintained circumcision as a prerequisite for joining Christian communities, it is likely that Christianity would have remained a marginal Jewish sect, doomed to slow 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 spread their message without this immense literary treasure? Would Paul and his disciples have gained the same resonance without access to this widely disseminated literature? Could Christianity have established itself as a universal religion without the biblical heritage and its Jewish roots? It is highly probable that, in such a case, the Judeans and their numerous followers and sympathizers would have ultimately dominated the Greco-Roman world, carried by the antiquity and richness of their library.

As it developed, Christianity had to contend with the omnipresence of Judaism, constantly oscillating between fidelity to its roots and a desire for emancipation. From its inception, communities of believers in Jesus structured themselves into various ideological currents, engaging in polemical writings while taking opposing positions into account. This intellectual effervescence attracted numerous Hellenistic thinkers, who gradually joined their cause. While the new Christians wrote polemical texts against Greek polytheistic thinkers, Jewish sages, for their part, debated among themselves, often detached from external controversies and even ignoring the criticisms of their detractors. The first Christians of Jewish origin, and later the Judeans themselves, passively awaited the conversion of Roman intellectuals without actively engaging in theological debates, whether with Christians or with polytheists. This polemical dynamic became one of the main drivers of Christianity’s success and expansion throughout the world.

Today, it is generally acknowledged that post-biblical Judaism developed in parallel with Christianity, often in interaction with it. This process began with the Jewish diaspora revolt against the Romans (115–117) and concluded only in the early sixth century when polytheistic worship was officially banned in the Empire. Christianity then triggered a profound transformation of religious beliefs and practices in the Hellenistic world, imposing its culture far beyond the borders of the Byzantine Empire. However, Greek-Hellenistic thought, its philosophy, and its scientific advancements did not disappear with the rise of Islam but continued to shape global culture in a lasting way. Today, our civilization is often described as having a “Judeo-Christian culture.” In my opinion, this expression is reductive. In reality, the true revolution was not so much the work of Christianity as that of the biblical library, the product of the genius of the Israelites and the Judeans. It is this library that constitutes the fundamental foundation of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It would therefore be more accurate to speak of a “biblical-Hellenistic culture,” resulting from the fusion of Greek intellectual heritage and biblical spiritual tradition.

Considering the influx of converts and sympathizers toward Judaism in the Greco-Roman era, as well as the antiquity and richness of the biblical library, the Judeans appeared to have all the advantages to establish themselves as the dominant culture. Greek philosophy and Hellenism could also have supplanted Christianity, which was perceived as irrational. It is even surprising to observe how the narrative of the resurrection of a Galilean preacher ultimately prevailed over the teachings of Plato and Aristotle. The Judeans’ indifference to the rise of Christianity played in the latter’s favor. Despite their cultural and intellectual advantage, the Judeans remained on the sidelines, engaging in no true ideological struggle. Ironically, it was the Christians who, by disseminating the biblical library, transmitted this heritage to the entire world, up to the present day.

Yigal Bin-Nun, historian, author of the book How We Became Jews, published by Dvir.