The New Testament gives you two churches hiding under one name. There’s the church of Peter and James in Jerusalem, running the operation from the city where Jesus preached, keeping the Law, circumcising their sons, eating kosher. And there’s the church of Paul, a man who never met the living Jesus, planting congregations across the Greek-speaking world and telling gentile converts they could skip the whole Torah. These two versions didn’t coexist in gentle disagreement. They fought, and the fight left scars all over the documents we still read on Sunday mornings.
Most people never notice because the canon was arranged to hide the seam. Put the four gospels first, then Acts, then thirteen letters signed by Paul, and you get the impression of a single expanding movement with Paul as its natural spokesman. Read the letters in the order they were written, watch for what Paul is defending against, and a different story surfaces. Paul spent a large part of his career fighting other Christian missionaries who thought he was a fraud.
Galatians as a Deposition
Galatians is the clearest evidence because Paul lost his temper writing it. Someone had come to his congregations in Galatia after he left and told the converts that Paul’s gospel was incomplete, that to be right with the God of Israel they needed to be circumcised and keep the Law like everyone else in the movement. Paul’s response isn’t a calm theological essay. He opens by refusing to include the usual thanksgiving and goes straight for the throat, calling the Galatians foolish and asking who bewitched them.
Then he does something revealing. He reconstructs his own resume to prove he never answered to Jerusalem. He insists his gospel came by direct revelation, not from any human being, and stresses that he didn’t go up to consult the apostles for three years after his conversion. When he finally describes meeting Peter and James, he can’t resist telling us he confronted Peter to his face at Antioch over whether Jewish and gentile Christians could share a table. James had sent men to Antioch, and when they arrived, Peter stopped eating with the gentiles. Paul read that as cowardice and said so publicly.
You don’t write like this about people you consider allies. Paul is describing a rival leadership that had the authority to make Peter fold, and the men from James could do it with a single delegation. Bart Ehrman has spent a career pointing out how thoroughly this conflict got smoothed over by later readers who assumed the apostles must have all agreed.
The Ebionites and the Jesus Who Stayed Jewish
The Jerusalem side survived for centuries as a group the church fathers called the Ebionites, from a Hebrew word for the poor. What they believed tells you what the original Jesus movement might have looked like before Paul’s version won.
The Ebionites kept the Law, holding that Jesus was the human Messiah, the son of Joseph and Mary, chosen by God rather than divine from eternity, and they rejected Paul completely. Later heresy-hunters like Epiphanius record that the Ebionites regarded Paul as an apostate, a gentile by birth who converted only so he could marry a priest’s daughter and turned on the Law when the marriage fell through. That’s almost certainly a hostile legend, but it tells you the temperature. A whole wing of the early movement thought the man who wrote half the New Testament was an enemy of the faith.
They had their own gospel, a version of Matthew adjusted to their theology, and it didn’t make the cut any more than they did. When the canon closed, the group with the strongest genealogical claim to Jesus, the Torah-keeping Jewish believers led by his own brother, ended up branded as heretics.
The Letter That Answers Paul
If you read the Epistle of James and Galatians side by side you’ll see it sounds more like a reply than anything. Paul insists a person is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. James writes that faith without works is dead and asks pointedly whether a man isn’t justified by works after all. Luther noticed the collision and hated it, calling James an epistle of straw and wanting it demoted out of the New Testament proper.
Scholars debate whether James is answering Paul directly or answering a garbled popular version of Paul’s teaching. Either way the letter preserves the losing side’s instinct, that a gospel dissolving the moral demand of the Law was a gospel gone wrong. James got into the canon by a thread, tied to the name of Jesus’s brother, and Christians have been performing exegetical acrobatics to reconcile it with Paul ever since.
If a few more readers upgrade, I can spend more hours in the sources and bring back more stories like this one. If you can afford it, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Why the Winners Wrote the History
Written a generation or more after Paul, it takes the Antioch blowup and the circumcision fight and resolves them into a tidy council where everyone shakes hands and Peter and James endorse Paul’s mission. The author had a stake in showing a unified church, and the friction in Paul’s own letters is exactly what an idealized account would sand down. When Acts and Galatians disagree about the same events, the angry firsthand letter is the better witness.
The movement that produced our New Testament was Pauline and gentile. It kept Paul’s letters, adopted gospels comfortable with a divine Christ, and let the Torah-keeping originals fade into a heresy footnote. History gets written by whoever’s still standing to write it, and in this case the people still standing were the ones who’d won the argument Paul was losing badly enough, in Galatia, to write the maddest letter in the canon.
The Jesus who kept kosher and expected his followers to do the same had a church for generations after the crucifixion, and the reason most Christians have never heard of them is that the winning side edited the table of contents.
Sources and Further Reading
Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew
Bart D. Ehrman, Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene
James D. G. Dunn, The Partings of the Ways Between Christianity and Judaism
Gerd Lüdemann, Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity
Epiphanius, Panarion (for the patristic reports on the Ebionites)
Tags: early Christianity, Paul, Ebionites, biblical criticism, James, canon formation, historical Jesus
So Christianity, like Islam, was deeply divided nearly from its start. As soon as the founder was dead and gone, a schism began.
Paul taught all four things listed in the Jerusalem Decree, so the level of mutual agreement between the parties seems to be very low. Timothy was circumcised under pressure but Titus wasn't. The Jerusalem Decree doesn't mention circumcision at all, but there was clearly an issue of whether mixed Jewish families needed to obey Torah by circumcising their sons.
As we all recall, the basic gospel plot outline starts with Jewish royals not observing Torah, which it turned out was fine after the brand new Jewish meaning of resurrection was created. The only people with a motive to create that new meaning were Jews interfacing peacefully with other nations, for example by intermarriage. The disciples remained Torah observant, but many Jews then clearly were not (as is also the case today).