1.2.1 Tertullian’s Writing

An important characteristic of Tertullian’s opus is that it is wide-ranging in terms of context. Readers can find throughout his texts more or less everything in which they might be interested. Within this diversity, Tertullian has a singular objective: to prove that Christianity must be everyone’s obvious choice. The tools that he employs to achieve this purpose are of secondary importance to him. Such a principle leads to numerous contradictions. Tertullian might make a specific assertion in one tractate and contradict it in another.Footnote ⁸ Sometimes this happens even within different sections of the same text. He can adore an idea, a group, or a place in one paragraph and abhor the same in the next. Consequently, it is almost impossible to definitively identify Tertullian’s systematic position on any given topic (e.g., women, the Roman Church, Jews, etc.).Footnote ⁹ His stance varies according to his mood, the specific circumstances under which he writes, the subject matter he addresses, and the audience he targets.Footnote ¹⁰

Tertullian addressed various categories of people. Among his audiences, his primary public consisted of Christians in a time when Christianity was illegitimate and perhaps threatened in the Roman Empire.Footnote ¹¹ Assessing the precise extent to which Christians were persecuted during Tertullian’s life presents a challenge. If the works of the Church Fathers are taken as direct testimonies of their contemporary reality, it appears that persecutions were a very acute daily issue. Conversely, the stance of many modern scholars suggests that descriptions of persecutions were largely rhetorical devices aimed at attracting attention, fostering communal cohesion, and serving as literary constructs that do not accurately represent the facts on the ground.

However, given the existence of a few external non-Christian testimonies relating to persecutions, and considering that individuals like Tertullian converted due to the profound impression martyrdom had on them, it seems that the reality lies somewhere between these two extreme positions: persecutions did occur, but they were rarer and less severe than how Christian authors often depicted them.Footnote ¹² This conclusion is corroborated by Trajan’s answer to Pliny (Letter 98), where the emperor recommends leniency in judgements of people accused of being Christians. Even if he did it in an exaggerated way, Tertullian wrote extensively about martyrdom and persecution, even encouraging the acceptance of death in some instances, though, as was his wont, in other cases he adopted different stances.

On the topic of persecution, his personal life poses some problems. Tertullian often addressed contemporary non-Christians. Whether this group read his treatises or not, it is likely that some were aware of this leader who championed the Christian cause. Nevertheless, he lived quite a long life, seemingly unchallenged by external threat as a Christian. Regardless, the very fact that he addresses the topic of persecution validates its relevance to his followers. When he addressed Christian audiences, Tertullian felt the need to comfort their members, encouraging them to face difficult conditions, mockery, physical or verbal assaults, trials, and repudiation by their former relatives and friends who did not adopt Christianity. Furthermore, he aimed to regulate their daily lives. What does it mean to be a Christian? What does a Christian believe? How should Christians behave? To explain all of this, to counter opponents and flawed interpretations, Tertullian composed guides on Christian behaviour and theological treatises.

The same works serve a second category of people that Tertullian addressed: neophytes or catechumens. For this group, in addition to the need to offer comfort and to explain a new way of life, Tertullian worked to reinforce their decision to embrace Christianity. As new adherents, they confronted unexpected challenges arising from their conversion. Moreover, attractive options still existed outside of Christianity. The Roman Empire offered, for example, numerous eastern cults that did not directly contradict Roman civic affiliation. Indeed, one could participate in such cults while simultaneously fulfilling the cult of the emperor, a practice incompatible with Christian faith.

Furthermore, Judaism, despite its many commandments, incorporated the same moral foundation as Christianity and remained appealing to individuals from a Graeco–Roman background as the very source of Christianity.Footnote ¹³ It is true that Judaism was a religio licita (a legal religion) in the Roman Empire, but the prohibition against circumcising non-Jews rendered a full conversion of men impossible, even if men could still be “God-fearers.” In light of laws regarding circumcision, women were more inclined to completely embrace the religion of the Jews, and Latin authors do not conceal their contempt for such propensities to adopt Jewish customs or cults.Footnote ¹⁴

Finally, given that loyalty to the mos maiorum is central to Roman citizenship, new converts might regret their infidelity. Tertullian dedicated the parts of his texts where he compares different cultures to the attention of new Christians, with Christianity always appearing as the obvious superior choice. He also denigrated other faiths and perceived heretics whose interpretations he viewed as flawed. In this way Tertullian hoped to maintain the new converts within the Christian fold and to convince them that they had made the right choice to embrace a religion of truth.

Tertullian’s third audience, or at least the one that he hopes his texts can reach, comprised non-Christians from a Graeco–Roman background – idolaters or pagans in his terms. He approached this group in two ways. First, he sought to counter attacks against Christianity. This orientation is especially prominent in his Apology, though apologetical arguments also occur in several other works. Tertullian makes clear to non-Christians that the members of his community are essentially like them; Christians participate in urban life, they shop in the same shops, eat the same food, bathe in the same places, adorn their homes with the same decorations, and share the same moral values, among other things (he often takes a different tact when addressing Christians exclusively). And if Christians are so similar to their neighbours, as he argues, they should not be despised or attacked. Instead, they should be admired for their commitment to higher moral behaviours and accepted as an integral part of the city. People have nothing to fear from Christians, who are of no threat to their neighbours. Second, Tertullian addresses non-Christians for the purpose of proselytising. If Christians are simultaneously so perfect and so akin to their contemporaries, then converting to Christianity might be a judicious consideration.

Finally, Jews constitute the last group of people who might be interested in Tertullian’s texts. Jews appear as protagonists in several works, are (indirectly) addressed in others, and are attacked directly in yet other writings. The question of whether Tertullian deliberately addressed Jews or expected his followers to convey his words to their Jewish neighbours, or whether perhaps Jews were merely another rhetorical asset in his toolbox, will be addressed in further detail below. However, each of these suggestions is plausible. Given that Jews are present in Carthage, that they share a monotheistic outlook, and that they are theologically closer to Christians than other neighbours might be, there may be reason to assume contact and exchange of thoughts between Jews and Christians. As is typical, Tertullian may admire Jewish manners in one text, and, a paragraph later, he might attack them for their stupidity in rejecting Christ, as will be expanded further.

1.2.2 Tertullian’s Works

Although dating Tertullian’s works is a challenging endeavour, it is attempted here to introduce some order in his writings. Tertullian’s relation to Montanism will be addressed in full later on. However, since scholarship tends to organise his works according to the extent to which they display features influenced by this “school of thought,” it is necessary to take them into account at this stage in a preliminary way. The works are generally divided into three chronological periods: early period (pre-Montanist; c. 197–c. 206 CE; 18 treatises), transitional (Montanist; c. 207–c. 212 CE; 11 treatises), and late works (radically Montanist; after 215 or 217 CE; 2 treatises) (Table 1). In his Tertullian the African, David Wilhite suggests that a linear anti-Roman progression might provide another parameter for dating the works.

Table 1Overview of Tertullian’s works

^a Barnes, Tertullian, 92.

^b Whilst the titles of works in Latin appear throughout the present survey in their English translation, the Latin Adversus Iudaeos remains in the original because of its ambiguity. It is generally translated as Against the Jews, but it might also be merely understood as less aggressive and just an Answer to the Jews. The English translations of Tertullian’s texts presented here are based on the versions available on the website: https://tertullian.org/latin/latin.htm.

Table 1Long description

Table 1 presents a chronological overview of the works of Tertullian, organised by period, title, intended audience, approximate date, thematic content, and additional scholarly notes. The table is divided into three major chronological sections: Early period (197–206 CE), Transitional period (after 207 to 212 CE), and Late works (after 215 CE).

The Early period section lists numerous writings produced between approximately 197 and 206 CE. Works addressed to non-Christians include Apology (Apologeticum), a comprehensive defence of Christianity directed to Roman magistrates and referring to imperial edicts and persecutions under Septimius Severus; To the Nations (Ad nationes), a polemical critique of pagan beliefs sharing material with the Apology; and On the Testimony of the Soul (De testimonio animae), which argues that knowledge of God is innate in the human soul. Other early writings target Christians, offering pastoral, moral, or doctrinal instruction. These include exhortations to imprisoned believers (To the Martyrs), critiques of participation in pagan entertainment (On Public Shows), warnings against idolatry (On Idolatry), guidance on modesty (On Women’s Dress), reflections on prayer (On Prayer), and theological explanations of baptism (On Baptism). Additional treatises address repentance, patience, remarriage, philosophical identity (On the Cloak), and debates with heretical thinkers, including Against Hermogenes and On Prescription Against Heretics. Apologetic and polemical works such as Scorpiace, Against the Jews, and the five books of Against Marcion defend orthodox Christian doctrine and respond to Gnostic or Jewish arguments. Many entries note engagement with contemporary Christian life or opposition to heretical teachings.

The Transitional period section, covering roughly 207–212 CE, is introduced by a summary note explaining that increasingly strict positions led scholars to label some works “Montanist.” Texts from this period emphasise moral rigour and discipline. These include On the Veiling of Virgins, advocating head coverings for virgins; On Exhortation to Chastity and On Monogamy, promoting permanent widowhood and opposing remarriage; and On Flight in Persecution, encouraging Christians to face persecution rather than flee. Other works include On the Soldier’s Crown, advising avoidance of practices associated with idolatry; On the Soul, a philosophical and theological treatment of the human soul; On the Flesh of Christ and On the Resurrection of the Flesh, defending the material reality of Christ’s incarnation and bodily resurrection; Against the Valentinians, criticising Gnostic groups; To Scapula, a warning letter to a Roman proconsul; and Against Praxeas, a major anti-Monarchian treatise notable for containing the earliest written use of the term “Trinity.”

The Late works section, dated after 215 CE, is introduced by a note describing Tertullian’s increasingly rigorous positions and strong criticisms of mainstream church leaders, sometimes characterised by scholars as post-Montanist. Two principal works are listed: On Modesty (or On Chastity), attacking lenient attitudes towards sexual sin among Christian leaders, and On Fasting, Against the Psychics, defending stricter fasting practices associated with Montanist Christianity.

Footnotes clarify scholarly details. One note cites Barnes for dating On Public Shows. Another explains the ambiguity of the Latin title Adversus Iudaeos, which may mean either “Against the Jews” or “An Answer to the Jews,” and indicates that English translations used in the table are based on texts available at tertullian.org.

Overall, the table provides a structured chronological survey of Tertullian’s literary output, highlighting shifts in audience, theological emphasis, pastoral concerns, and increasing rigorism across his career.

1.3.1 Montanism

1.3.2 Judaism

Tertullian’s attitude towards Jewish matters lies at the core of this Element. However, it is pertinent here to provide some contextual background. Tertullian was born a “pagan,” as Christians would have called him. Prior to his conversion to Christianity and later affiliation with Montanist approaches, he likely explored Judaism. Claude Aziza suggests that he was interested in Judaism, becoming close to the Jewish community and perhaps even considered becoming a Jew.Footnote ⁴² At some point, like numerous others who came from a Graeco–Roman background, he found that Christianity better suited his needs and aspirations. As previously noted in the discussion of Tertullian’s diverse audiences, Christianity offered a moral framework similar to that of Judaism, yet without the burden of legal commandments (particularly circumcision, which at the time was prohibited by Roman law) and without the inherent attachment to the Land of Israel and to Jewish history, a history marked by multiple rebellions, especially against the Roman authorities. In a different direction, some scholars have argued that Tertullian’s knowledge of Jewish customs was limited to what he could infer from the Bible or to what had been addressed by earlier Christian authors (a point to be explored further).Footnote ⁴³ In response, yet others observe that Tertullian demonstrates familiarity with anecdotes, exegetical approaches, and terminology that are distinctly Jewish and absent from prior Christian literature. This suggests that he had at least a partial direct acquaintance with Jews and their ideas.Footnote ⁴⁴

The origins of Christianity in Carthage remain a subject of scholarly discussion, with two primary theories prevailing: either that Christianity arrived from Rome or that it spread directly from the Levant, given Carthage’s extensive connections with the East.Footnote ⁴⁵ If Carthaginian Christianity was indeed inspired by Rome, it likely inherited some of the Jewish characteristics of early Roman Christianity, which often originated within established Jewish communities. Alternatively, the presence of a substantial Jewish population in Carthage before the advent of Christianity suggests that the local Christian community might have emerged from within the Jewish milieu itself.Footnote ⁴⁶ Carthage’s status as an open harbour, readily accessible from the Land of Israel and frequented by travellers and merchants, would have made it a natural point of contact between different Jewish traditions. Jews, particularly rabbinic authorities and new Christians identifying as verus Israel, were known to travel extensively, seeking to harmonise disparate Jewish practices according to their own interpretive frameworks. It is therefore entirely plausible that such figures could have reached Carthage and engaged with the city’s diverse communities.

Working on the Roman Church as a case study, Stephen Spence identifies two distinct groups within the early Church: “ethnic Jews” and “ethnic Gentiles.”Footnote ⁴⁷ The former adopted Christianity but, despite being seen as sectarians by mainstream Judaism, maintained Israelite religious beliefs and some practices within the Church. The latter, by contrast, entered Christianity from non-Jewish backgrounds and often emphasised the continuity between Christian teaching and their native cultural traditions. Given that, similarly to the Roman Church, a portion of Carthaginian Christianity probably stemmed from the Jewish local community, Tertullian might have continued his exploration of Judaism among “ethnic Jewish” Christians, or perhaps even begun his rapprochement with Christianity in an “ethnic Jewish” community.

Tertullian was active at a historical inflection point between Jewish and Christian communities across the Roman world. The elites of both Christianity and Judaism saw their mission as precisely defining the features that would characterise the members of their respective communities. The masses of Christians and Jews, for their part, were not entirely aware of what distinguished the two religions from one another, nor were the outsiders, who often viewed both groups as one and the same community.

1.3.3 Tertullian’s Language

Although Tertullian’s texts are preserved in Latin, there are indications that a significant portion of them originally existed in Greek versions. To broaden his reach among a wide, educated audience, he employed both languages, thereby demonstrating his linguistic ability and intellectual versatility. He presented himself as an embodiment of the idea that one could simultaneously be a Christian and an intellectual and that embracing Christianity did not mean renouncing deep thought, learned discourse, or the Graeco–Roman intellectual toolkit acquired through classical education. The absence of surviving Greek versions of his works suggests that they were of no special importance to his followers and that Tertullian’s switch to theological writing in Latin was a strategic and effective choice, providing further evidence of his adaptation to his audience’s needs.Footnote ⁴⁸

Resorting to the Latin language was significant for all of his intended audiences: Christian Roman citizens, new converts, potential future converts inquiring into Christianity – to enhance his appeal –, pagans who attacked Christianity or whom Tertullian aspired to convert, and potentially even the Jews. Scholarship concludes that neither TertullianFootnote ⁴⁹ nor most of the Carthaginian Jews truly mastered, or even possessed basic knowledge of, Hebrew,Footnote ⁵⁰ despite the fact that Punic was of Semitic origin, which would have facilitated Hebrew acquisition, had this population not used Latin almost exclusively.Footnote ⁵¹ In fact, scholars have suggested that initially Tertullian turned to Latin to strengthen his competitive position vis-à-vis the Jewish community, where Latin was the primary language, with the objective of diverting Jews, God-fearers, and inquirers from the synagogue to the Church.

Tertullian is generally considered the first Christian theologian to write in Latin. Scholarship occasionally suggests that, perhaps, Minucius Felix wrote his Octavius before Tertullian became a prolific Christian author. However, the date of composition of Octavius is uncertain, and the prevailing opinion is that Tertullian preceded Minucius Felix and inspired him. Another view is that Tertullian and Minucius Felix were contemporaries, and it is sometimes even proposed that Minucius Felix might have inspired Tertullian.Footnote ⁵² Although similar themes are found in Octavius and Tertullian’s treatises (Apology, To the nations, The soul’s testimony) and both authors are strongly influenced by Latin classical thinkers (such as Seneca and Cicero), Tertullian emerges much more clearly as a master of Christian literature, whereas Minucius is more often considered a traditional Roman writer. Consequently, even if Minucius Felix did write before Tertullian, and even though his work does present Christian apology, Tertullian should still be considered the founder of Christian Latin literature, not least because his writings are much more extensive.

As the first Christian theologian to write in Latin, Tertullian is often thought to have invented most of the Latin vocabulary adapted from Greek Christian sources. Whilst it seems perfectly natural that he would have had to invent new concepts to transfer and express ideas in a new language, it has been proposed that he might have merely committed to writing the words used orally in daily discussions of topics relevant to the Christian community.Footnote ⁵³ That he would have partly relied on vocabulary already familiar to his followers sounds rather sensible. Nevertheless, the work of reflection and of articulating complex theories in writing certainly created the need for a new language that Tertullian had to invent, elaborate, and enrich.Footnote ⁵⁴

Finally, the discussion surrounding Tertullian and the languages he employed deals with the register of language implemented in his treatises. Beyond the fact that he uses two prestigious languages and contributes to the sophistication of Christian discourse in Latin, he also displays a high level of mastery of rhetorical techniques.Footnote ⁵⁵ The register of his language is a part of his strategy to reach educated people and to convey to them the value of Christianity. Furthermore, to avoid appearing as a purveyor of alien concepts – a stance that would hinder his ability to persuade some of the veracity of his beliefs – he draws upon references, examples, and quotations originating from a material and intellectual world familiar to his audiences.Footnote ⁵⁶

1.3.4 Tertullian as an African

Tertullian is the first Latin Christian theologian because he addressed Latin-speaking audiences. However, as previously alluded to in the discussion of his background, his relationship with Rome was complex. His North African origins, seeming opposition to Romanisation of North Africa, and the specific socio-cultural context of Roman Carthage influenced his theological output and worldview.Footnote ⁵⁷ Notwithstanding the tension that existed between the African and Roman Churches, it must be noted that, ultimately, western Christianity has been significantly shaped either in accordance with or in opposition to the ideas and decisions that emerged from the Christianity of Roman Africa.

Along these lines, Wilhite applies concepts from postcolonial studies and social anthropology to challenge traditional interpretations of Tertullian’s writing.Footnote ⁵⁸ He argues that Tertullian’s texts retain a strong non-Romanness and Africanity, leading him to interpret Tertullian’s critical stance towards Rome not merely as general Christian anti-imperialism, but as rooted in his indigenous identity as an African living under Roman yoke. Wilhite deems this perspective to be evidenced by Tertullian’s emphasis on symbols like the pallium over the Roman toga as a marker of identity.

The general population of Carthage was a blend of local African culture and Graeco–Roman influences. The African Church, for its part, has been described as tending towards sectarianism and a hostility to (Roman) conventional social life. This orientation led to a “denial of duties to the state, including military service, sense of brotherhood, acceptance of martyrdom, including voluntary martyrdom, a readiness to model conduct on the example of the Maccabees and a fanaticism that could vent itself on more moderate attitudes.”Footnote ⁵⁹ Tertullian appears to have both inspired and been inspired by this general character of the African Church. Indeed, his portrait is often drawn as characteristic of African Christianity, particularly in his “flexible intransigence”Footnote ⁶⁰ and his profound fear of being corrupted by the “pagans' stain of sin.”Footnote ⁶¹ However, Tertullian addressed his instruction not only to African Christians but also to the Christian community as a whole.

As already mentioned, Tertullian experimented with several religious approaches throughout his career. His pursuit of truth led him to seek insights from any framework that could contribute to his ultimate objective of promoting Christianity. Therefore, it is possible to consider his identity as manifold, complex, and discursive. He drew elements, all resonating with his inner convictions, from various intellectual “toolboxes,” including classical, eastern, Montanist, Jewish, and other traditions. Such a broad engagement with sources reflects his North African milieu as a vibrant crossroads of cultures and ideas. In line with the work of scholars like Éric Rebillard, who explores how individuals navigate and express their social and religious affiliations according to fluctuating circumstances, it can be stated that Tertullian was aware that his followers were also products of divergent backgrounds and might be interested in hiding certain aspects of their identities instead of displaying all of them simultaneously. In their everyday lives, they could “activate” different facets in varying contexts.Footnote ⁶² Tertullian provides tools that enabled them to live their lives the way they preferred without endangering their Christian faith and belonging. This dynamic understanding further enriches the interpretation of his diverse literary output.

1.3.5 Realia

Taking a postcolonial approach to Tertullian’s writings also leads to reassessments of the history of research on Tertullian’s texts. In engaging his oeuvre in view of material remains, scholars often face a kind of circular reasoning. Indeed, the realities described in Tertullian’s works – such as the daily lives of his community members or their relationships with non-Christians, whether pagans or Jews – were first examined in regard to archaeological findings from Carthage and across North Africa excavated in the context of European colonisation of Africa. The problem is that the archaeological findings were interpreted by the excavators based on the texts of the Church Fathers. The material evidence was therefore approached with a preconceived understanding of what it represented and testified for. Scholars projected onto it what they knew from the literary evidence. It is not surprising, then, that the written evidence from patristic sources was “confirmed” through material evidence.

The initial excavators in Carthage belonged to the French Catholic clergy, particularly members of the Missionaries of Africa (colloquially known as the White Fathers due to their distinctive cassocks), and they undertook archaeological explorations with varying degrees of expertise.Footnote ⁶³ Exploring Christian remains, their aim was to exalt the grandeur of the ancient African Church, upon which the contemporary European Christianity they represented was founded. They rewrote, misunderstood, or misinterpreted the evidence (consciously or not) in a way that legitimised their presence on African territory, positioning themselves as direct heirs to African Christianity, thereby justifying French colonisation.Footnote ⁶⁴ Such a position provokes differing reactions in contemporary scholarship, splitting into two opposing streams: one praising the European movement of colonisation in Africa and the other denigrating it.

Taken together, these critical discussions reveal the complexity of Tertullian’s legacy. The multiple tools he adopts from different contexts, his adaptability to varied audiences, contexts and topics, his affinities with Judaism and Montanism, his pioneering use of Latin in written Christian theology, and his African identity, all contribute to his very rich literary output. Beyond his ultimate objective of promoting Christianity, it is almost impossible to expose Tertullian’s definite positions on any matter. What does emerge clearly, however, is his dedication to the Church, his irritation and polemical tone in the face of heresy, and his role as a rigorous and prolific thinker committed to guiding people towards the Truth. With this framework in place, the next step is to contextualise Tertullian’s approach to the Jews within the wider patristic tradition while also considering the external influences that shaped scholarship on the ways early Christian writers constructed their figure of the Jews.

2.2.1 The Beginnings

The “prehistoric” stages of the idea of two groups parting paths go back to the second half of the nineteenth century with Joseph Barber Lightfoot and Ferdinand Christian Baur, who appear to be the first to employ a metaphorical way to depict their insights into the situation. They were followed in the early 1910s by Frederick John Foakes (e.g., The Parting of the Roads). James Parkes, in his 1934 work, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue, titled one of his chapters, “The Parting of the Ways.” There, he writes about the separation of the religions from one another.

In this initial phase of Jewish studies within the framework of Christian history, many researchers were themselves Christians. The dominant trend in the field echoed a theological point of view according to which Christianity had superseded Judaism. Their historical reconstruction situated this success of the Church already in the first-century CE with Jesus’s death. Within this paradigm, contemporary Judaism was commonly portrayed as a monolithic entity rather than as the diverse and multi-stream tradition recognised in current scholarship.Footnote ⁶⁹ In the eyes of these scholars, Jews who, from that time until the period in which the research was conducted, continued to “err” and persist in maintaining and observing Judaism according to an outdated and abrogated formula, were merely deserving of contempt and an inferior position within society.Footnote ⁷⁰ A tone hostile to Judaism was preeminent up until the Second World War.

This stance concerning the agonising nature of Judaism early on in the history of Christianity has a central influence on the interpretation of the image of the Jews in patristic literature. Adolf von Harnack in The Mission and Expansion of Christianity (1908) argued that since they actually had no status anymore in the world of the Church Fathers, the Jews appearing in their texts were largely rhetorical constructs, functioning as tools aimed at explaining to Christians what Christian identity should be, and displayed a “negative other” against whom they could understand themselves. Patristic polemic, including texts such as Tertullian’s Adversus Judaeos, had therefore to be read primarily as an internal exercise in Christian self-definition, with little connection to living Jewish interlocutors. His interpretation met many supporters, although it has been, in later stages of the evolution of scholarship on the topic, criticised for underestimating both the vitality of Jewish life in late antiquity and the likelihood of genuine Jewish–Christian encounters.

Christian (academic) hostility towards Jews and Judaism prompted certain scholars to investigate its origins and to consider its implications for the contemporary events unfolding around them, that is to say, the looming World War and its Nazi theories. The first sparks of a second current in scholarship reasserting the historical reality of Jewish presence and agency in late antiquity were ignited by Jean Juster.

Juster, a Jew himself, left Romania, where the status of the Jews was rather dire, to study in France. His puzzlement at his encounter with the French Jewish way of life and Jews’ freedom of movement, so far from what he had witnessed at home, triggered his monumental opus: Les Juifs dans l’Empire romain, leur condition juridique, économique et sociale (1914). In this work, Juster systematically analysed legal, epigraphic, and literary sources to argue that after the fall of Jerusalem, the Romans continued to relate to the Jews as a gens, a nation, with corporate privileges and a visible civic role, rather than as a mere religious sect. The fiscus judaicus (Jewish tax) itself,Footnote ⁷¹ while punitive, implicitly acknowledged Jews as a distinct group rather than just another association. This position stood in sharp contrast to Theodor Mommsen who, in his Römisches Staatsrecht, had reduced Judaism to the status of a tolerated cult comparable to other collegia, denying it any national character after 70 CE. His position stemmed from nineteenth-century German assumptions about the relationship between territory, politics, national identity, and “nationalist aspirations” that do not necessarily resonate with ancient Roman concepts or Jewish self-understanding. By highlighting instead that Jewish communities were not marginal but integral to the urban and social fabric of cities such as Carthage, Juster not only undermined Mommsen’s juridical–legalistic reduction but also provided a powerful counterweight to Harnack’s rhetorical-only model, showing that figures like Tertullian were engaging with a community firmly embedded in the realities of Roman civic life.

At about the same time, Parkes’s interest in Jewish–Christian relations arose in response to outbreaks of antisemitism among European students in the late 1920s. In his aforementioned work, he argued that, in their depictions, Christian authors often distorted Jewish practice in ways driven by theological insecurities. Although his approach reflects the typical interwar liberal Protestant perspective, Parkes is pioneering in tracing the roots of antisemitism back to early Christian writings and the formative patristic period. He may go as far as suggesting that the texts, more than they reflect reality, create it.Footnote ⁷²

2.2.2 Post Second World War

Following the global conflict and the Holocaust, Christian scholars began to promote the idea that, for an extended period of time after the destruction of its Second Temple, Judaism remained strong and was a real competitor of early Christianity, vying for the same potential adherents as the Church. This provided a justification for what had occurred during the war.Footnote ⁷³ Jews in the first centuries were significant and threatening rivals, which compelled Christian elites to counter a genuine existential danger. They did it primarily by constructing a narrative that glorified Christianity and vilified Judaism. This resulted in the hostility and opposition to Judaism – justified from their perspective –Footnote ⁷⁴ that characterised the Christian world. In its extreme form, this became what was termed antisemitism and caused the disaster of their era, but the guilt was thus shared between Christians and Jews.

Simultaneously, Jewish scholars entered the ranks of circles specialising in Jewish studies and embraced this new approach that seemingly offered a more sympathetic understanding of ancient Judaism.Footnote ⁷⁵ The suggestion that a robust Judaism continued to flourish in the first centuries CE, contending with Christianity in its early years, that it did not collapse at the first assault but demonstrated considerable resilience, all of this provided encouraging perspectives. Indeed, if Judaism had once been thriving, it was possible for it to thrive again even after what it had endured in the twentieth century. According to this approach, emphasis was placed on how two proselytising factions (Jews and Christians) of a shared religion in the process of division competed to attract new members to their respective community.Footnote ⁷⁶ These new members could either come from the rival faction or from populations with backgrounds entirely unconnected to the Jewish world. In practice, this portrayal presented Judaism as far less miserable and degraded than the image that had characterised it in much of contemporary European history.

Both Juster and Parkes laid the groundwork for Marcel Simon’s decisive intervention in Verus Israel (1948). Simon argued persuasively that late antique Judaism was a living, intellectually vigorous religion, and that Christian polemicists were responding to real intercommunal tensions, scriptural disputes, and competition for converts. This line of interpretation restores Jewish agency and insists that early Christian anti-Judaism cannot be understood solely as a literary exercise. A missionary Judaism was also a pretext for Christian aggressivity against Judaism. Simon’s work significantly reshaped the study of early Jewish–Christian relations by reinstating the historical reality of Jews as interlocutors rather than mere rhetorical constructs.

Harnack and Simon thus function as the figureheads of the two main scholarly approaches, joined by numerous followers: Harnack (Barnes, Rokeah, Schreckenberg, Ruether, Efroymson, and others) maintains the stance that Jews in patristic writings were puppets or Jews of straw, that is merely rhetorical tools, and Simon (Juster, Krauss, Williams, Parkes, Blumenkranz, Wilken, Blanchetiere, Horbury, de Lange, Wilson, MacLennan, etc.)Footnote ⁷⁷ holds, on the opposite side, that the image of the Jews in patristic writings is loyal to contemporary Jews the authors could meet. Harnack and Simon respectively illustrate the common stance before the Second World War and the drastic shift after it, despite a few endeavours to improve their image dated to before the war. It is interesting to note Miriam Taylor’s comment on those two positions. Generally, Simon’s suggestion is deemed much more sympathetic than Harnack’s because it presents a flourishing Judaism, and Jewish scholars usually held to this position. However, Taylor argues that the difference between them is not overly large because both approaches reach the same overall conclusion: that Christianity superseded Judaism. This very conclusion, she contends, is inherently hostile to Judaism, regardless of whether the event is depicted as happening early and easily or late and after struggles.Footnote ⁷⁸ In any case, because of his thoroughgoing new approach, Simon emerges as a main protagonist in the evolution of the theories pertaining to the “parting of the ways” approach. In his view, theological polemic grounded in reality and competition for converts testify to ongoing contacts between Christians and Jews and therefore to an uncomplete separation between the two religions.

2.2.3 Rapprochement between Jews and Christians in the Mid Twentieth Century

If reconciliation between the Church and the Jews was officially recorded with the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council in 1965 and the publication of the Nostra Aetate declaration, the Seelisberg Conference, held in Switzerland in 1947, was the true harbinger of a turning point in Jewish–Christian relations. At this gathering, it was resolved that concerted efforts should be devoted to dismantling the traditional Christian antisemitic narrative and to reforming the transmission of religious instruction to young Christians.Footnote ⁷⁹ The conference promoted several key changes: reconnecting Christian history to its Jewish roots (with particular emphasis on the Jewish identity of Jesus), rewriting or eliminating demonising narratives about Jews, abandoning sweeping accusations that all Jews were responsible for killing the Christian messiah, and the renunciation of their designated role as rejecters of Christianity, who served as witnesses to its victory over the failure of their Judaism, which had been abandoned by God and replaced by Christianity. It should be mentioned that, in parallel, the discovery and subsequent decipherment of the Dead Sea Scrolls supported improvements in inter-community relations.Footnote ⁸⁰ The initiative of the conference was led by members of national Jewish–Christian organisations such as the British “Council of Christians and Jews” and the French “Amitié judéo-chrétienne.”Footnote ⁸¹ After a series of other meetings and small advances, such as corrections to anti-Jewish language in liturgical texts, they eventually achieved the production of the document Nostra Aetate.

The Second Vatican Council declared that Christians should be guided to behave with respect and acceptance towards members of other religions, and in particular that an alternative narrative and renewed characterisation of Christianity’s approach to Judaism should be adopted. Naturally, the changes that Christian elites instructed to be implemented in the Christian perception of Jews could not be applied overnight. The traditional perception, built and strengthened gradually over many centuries and deeply embedded in the mentality of many Christians, could not be immediately replaced entirely through the new guidance alone. Nevertheless, the declaration established new foundations for Christian education that, over time, improved the quality of interaction between the two religions. In parallel with this improvement in contemporary relations, scholarly interpretations of Jewish–Christian interactions in antiquity evolved as well, increasingly portraying them as far more amicable and collaborative than had previously been suggested. This constitutes, in effect, a projection of the new ideal of interreligious engagement between Jews and Christians onto the past. By the end of the twentieth century, Christians who strove to reach an irenic state in their relations with Jews seem to have achieved their goal. Jews who understand that, in an increasingly secular world, they have more in common with Christians than differences, cooperate with the effort of reconciliation.

This new stance is therefore reflected in the scholarship of the period, late antiquity being presented as an era of interrelated Christianity and Judaism. James Dunn, for instance, coined the expression “parting of the ways.” He initially employed it for a conference (and its published proceedings) organised to mark the 110th year of Lightfoot’s passing,Footnote ⁸² and subsequently in a book of his own.Footnote ⁸³ Almost immediately, criticism of the expression arose. Dunn therefore clarified his intention: he did not want to state a precise time when the two entities parted at once, as was the case in traditional scholarship, but to point to a dynamic process of separation that spread over an extended period. He added that this expression could cover different models of separation. The expression, however, found its place in all discussions, either in support of his theory or against it.

2.2.4 Different “Partings”

As it has crystallised scholarly ferment, disputes, and misunderstandings, it is necessary, in order to assess the scholarship that followed the emergence of this designation, to map the different insights it encompasses. The first one is the question of how long Jews and Christians remained in contact. Examination of texts, both rabbinic and patristic, indicates ongoing dialogue. Similarly, phenomena of self-definition amongst Jews and Christians show that adjustments were made on each side in response to what was done on the other side. In other words, a dynamic interplay of reactions and counter-reactions, back and forth, or shaping through a “ping-pong” game may be observed.Footnote ⁸⁴ Consequently, one may say that there was no absolute separation between the two religions, which have remained in some form of contact up to this day, what has been termed “living apart together.”Footnote ⁸⁵ Disagreements among scholars are usually based on the different manners in which they define the matter of separation, disconnection, or continuity of contact. Some will determine that separation occurs the moment the elites indicate a binding covenant for belonging to the community; remaining contacts are merely for attempts to draw members from the other camp. Others will emphasise that as long as contact exists and generates arguments for and against joining one camp or the other, this remains a nexus and there is no separation.

When one could distinguish between two separate entities, one Jewish and the other Christian, regardless of whether contact was ongoing or severed, is another question implied by the formulation. This approach recognises that for the elites who composed the foundational texts, it was clear very early on what they wanted to define as the identity of the community members they planned to lead, and what were the characteristics that were supposed to indicate belonging to the community they headed. Yet, it is evident from the way they discuss these issues in their writings that for those who heard their words, it was not so clear what distinguished between the two separate camps. This is even without questioning the role and circles of influence of the rabbinic stream amongst all Jews in the ancient period – who actually implemented rabbinic guidance?Footnote ⁸⁶ Moreover, if members of both communities were characterised by similar behaviour, certainly an external observer was unable to grasp that they belonged to two different groups. Most studies have sought to answer this second question of the time when the two communities became distinct. The proposed solutions range from the second to the fourth century, sometimes even the fifth – whereas traditional scholarship, as mentioned before, considered the rift to be definitive in the first century. In practice, the answer is not sweeping but depends specifically on the character of the author whose writings are being examined, their geographical place of redaction, the society that surrounded them, and other parameters that make each case unique.Footnote ⁸⁷ Although, ultimately, some phenomena repeat themselves and certain groups developed in the same manner at the same time. The ambiguity surrounding the meaning of the English expression for the “parting of the ways” has led to studies that came to attack it.

After Dunn’s release of the expression to the academic world, its practicality, multifunctionality, and metaphorical nature ensured its presence in all subsequent scholarship on the topic, regardless of whether it was used to support or critique the ideas it conveyed. One publication merits special consideration here because it constitutes an immediate response to Dunn. It is a collection of articles named The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages.Footnote ⁸⁸ The title is intentionally provocative, and the objective is to present Judaism and Christianity as belonging to the same ongoing “way.” The authors, of course, do not deny that two clearly distinct communities exist in their own time, but they aim to challenge the model and the suggestion that both religions may have entirely separated suddenly and on one single and precise occasion. In their opinion, the model may be useful in some cases but deceptive in others. The book offers alternative models of contacts and separations to interpret what happened between Judaism and Christianity. In particular, it stresses that instead of taking the “parting of the ways” for granted and studying the texts through its lens, one should examine the material with an unbiased approach and then see whether the findings echo one model or another. They propose to remain free from the fixation that a model imposes a priori on interpretation.

Another collection that challenges models and should be mentioned is Baron, Hicks-Keeton, and Thiessen’s The Ways that Often Parted. This volume further nuances the debate by rejecting both the idea of a single, definitive “parting” and the notion of complete continuity. Instead, it highlights the plurality of trajectories, showing that separations and overlaps between Jews and Christians varied by place, time, and circumstance. The essays collectively argue that one must speak of “partings” in the plural, stressing the fragmented, localised, and often reversible character of the processes involved.

The latest academic model suggested stems from a collaboration between Michal Bar-Asher Siegal and Yossi Yovel.Footnote ⁸⁹ Their work is innovative in that it draws on methods developed in the natural sciences, especially Yovel’s expertise in bat ecology and network analysis, to rethink religious interaction in late antiquity. By analysing the movement of bats within overlapping networks, they create an analogy for understanding the fluid and dynamic ways in which Jews and Christians in late antiquity shared spaces, practices, and discourses. The model emphasises interconnection rather than separation, multiplicity rather than binary opposition, and seeks to capture the shifting, porous boundaries between communities over time. In addition, the use of digital tools and network theory allows for a more precise visualisation of how encounters, exchanges, and divergences operated simultaneously, challenging linear or monolithic accounts of the “parting of the ways.”

Most of the recent studies on both the parting of the ways and the image of the Jews highlight the multiplicity of contexts and the complex spectrum of identities in late antiquity. The stance of scholars such as Daniel Boyarin and Judith Lieu – among many others – is that boundaries between Jews and Christians were permeable and often discursively constructed. “Judaism” itself, to some extent, was a Christian discursive construction, created in the process of defining Christianity as distinct; religious categories were not fixed but emerged through polemical and narrative processes.Footnote ⁹⁰ Therefore, caution is required against reading patristic anti-Judaism as straightforward historical reportage.Footnote ⁹¹

In a way familiar to anyone in a postmodernist environment, where partial truth is acknowledged in all suggestions, recent scholarship rejects the either-or, mutually exclusive solution. Instead, it allows for a more nuanced view: in the texts of Christian elites, Jews are represented simultaneously as an ideal and as symbols serving Christian interests and work of identity formation and as historical people whom Christians might actually encounter.Footnote ⁹² However, depending on the specific texts studied and the contexts from which they emerged, in some cases Jews can be more or less real or fake.Footnote ⁹³ As G. Dunn argues, the decision to depict non-contemporary Jews has in itself some significance regarding actual connections with Jews in real life.Footnote ⁹⁴

In her 1995 work, Anti–Judaism and Early Christian Identity, Taylor puts to test different scholarly explanations for early Christian anti-Judaism and proposes that it was not chiefly the product of direct competition with a vigorous Judaism, but rather a symbolic anti-Judaism: patristic authors constructed Judaism as a theological foil in order to define and legitimise Christian identity. Taylor is nevertheless not far from the assertion that the truth lies not in an either-or solution but in some intermediate position, where the image of the Jews in Christian texts is not only a tool but does also partly reflect reality, even if it happens under the form of a more or less distorted stereotype.Footnote ⁹⁵ Judith Lieu, for example, develops this approach in Neither Jew nor Greek? (2002), highlighting the fluidity and situational character of religious identity in late antiquity. For Lieu, the figure of “the Jew” often operates rhetorically, marking the boundaries of Christian identity without always signalling concrete social conflict.Footnote ⁹⁶ She deems Jews in general in Christian patristic texts, and Tertullian’s Jews in particular, to be both image and reality, at any rate not merely fictional characters. Geoffrey Dunn, James Carleton Paget, Claudia Setzer, and Guy Stroumsa have a similar understanding of the situation.Footnote ⁹⁷

To sum up, it is evident that the scholars’ understanding of the perception of Jews in Christian texts depends on their position concerning the separation between Judaism and Christianity. This separation can be envisioned in different manners in which the roles of the Jews vary. The significance of mocking Jewish customs, for example, is not the same if it targets a weak and insignificant group as it is if it targets a robust opponent whose faith is attracting new adherents.Footnote ⁹⁸ Similarly, if Jewish and Christian communities are not yet clearly distinct from one another, the resonance of polemical texts that address both groups differs from a situation in which Judaism has effectively disappeared, and treatises simply depict its past and its fall for the benefit of Christians whose religion has replaced it. The dynamics also change significantly when one views the connection between the two religions as a mother–daughter relationship (Christianity stems from Judaism and continues it), or as one between two siblings (the two groups build themselves parallelly in reaction to one another).Footnote ⁹⁹ Analogous considerations apply to the different models.

It should be noted that the history of scholarship has not reached an end. The first quarter of the twenty-first century witnessed an upsurge of religiosity worldwide, new conflicts, and outbreaks of wars in a Western culture that had forgotten the very meaning of military confrontations on its own soil. Even though Jewish–Christian relations appear to have got up to a steady pace, the prevailing atmosphere and new cultural developments are likely to impact scholarship and foster the emergence of new interpretative patterns through which antiquity will be understood henceforth.

3.2.1 Reaffirmation of the Jewish Heritage

Among Tertullian’s polemical works, Against Marcion stands out as both his longest and one of the most theologically ambitious. Written in five books over several years, it sought to dismantle Marcion’s theology of rejection of the Old Testament God and texts, reaffirming the indispensable bond and continuity between Christianity and Jewish Scripture.Footnote ¹²⁸ Placing the emphasis on the fact that Christ’s ministry began with Israel and only subsequently embraced the nations, Tertullian makes Jewish priority a theological cornerstone of his anti-Marcionite case.Footnote ¹²⁹ His polemic against the Marcionites thus demonstrates that even in rejecting Jewish unbelief, the Church could not sever itself from the heritage of Israel without forfeiting its very identity. This becomes an argument for the indispensability of Judaism to Christian self-definition. Considered in its wider socio-historical context, this insistence on a natural nexus between Judaism and Christianity betrays the need for the latter to avoid presenting itself as a new religion in the Roman Empire.Footnote ¹³⁰ The empire was tolerant of religious pluralism up to a certain limit, and Romans deemed exclusivism and especially cults that were in conflict with Roman traditional customs – characterised by political aspects more than any kind of faith – as threatening and thus, they forbade them.Footnote ¹³¹ Even if Romans had a hard time with Jews and their repeated rebellions, thanks to its antiquity, Judaism remained a religio licita, and it is only by basing itself on this right and arguing to be the verus Israel, or natural continuation of Judaism, that Christianity could gain legitimacy.Footnote ¹³² Most of the mentions of Jews in Graeco–Roman literature, and roughly all the Jewish Hellenistic texts, were preserved by the Church, which relied on these proofs of antiquity of the Jews and acknowledgement of their value by other nations to strengthen its own worthiness.Footnote ¹³³

3.2.2 The Necessity of Israel for Christian Theology

Tertullian repeatedly insists that Christianity cannot be understood apart from Israel’s Scriptures. Where Marcion dismissed the Old Testament as the product of a lower, alien god, Tertullian insisted that the Creator God of Israel is also the Father of Jesus Christ. The two testaments, for him, form a unity.Footnote ¹³⁴ Even though Tertullian believed the ancient order was obsolete, he viewed Christ as its continuation, rather than its negation.Footnote ¹³⁵ Unlike many other Church Fathers, Tertullian never portrays the Law as a punishment imposed on the Jewish people.Footnote ¹³⁶ Until the advent of Christ, their Law was justified and even non-Jewish biblical figures naturally followed the proto-Law given to Adam and Eve before its Mosaic final version – even though Tertullian can also, at times, present Christ’s Law as a restoration of the universal law Adam and Eve received.Footnote ¹³⁷ Tertullian views Jewish rules as burdensome, and yet, he is a champion of the reestablishment of laws for Christians so that they navigate the world with a clear and defined framework of how they must behave to be in adequation with their faith.Footnote ¹³⁸ When they oppose pagan and heretical rivals, Christian authors often align with Jewish features; affinity with Jewish aspects, in polemics, became a tool and was a sign of belonging to mainstream Christianity.Footnote ¹³⁹

Tertullian’s polemic against Marcion sharpened his exegetical method. Since Marcion attacked the Old Testament for its supposed contradictions and cruelties, and read it literally to expose its absurdities,Footnote ¹⁴⁰ Tertullian responded by using analogies, typology, and figura to unveil its deeper sense, as well as by allegorising the narratives and insisting on their prophetic fulfilment in Christ. As always, another Tertullian is found in other contexts – one who appears very circumspect towards allegory.Footnote ¹⁴¹ He repeatedly demonstrated that the Gospel had been announced in the Law and the Prophets and that Christ had spoken through the patriarchs.Footnote ¹⁴² The polemic surrounding the Old Testament led Tertullian to broach numerous biblical themes when opposing Marcion but also in other contexts, and especially when he had to clarify the link between Judaism and Christianity for non-Christians.Footnote ¹⁴³

3.2.3 Inventing Marcion

Scholars have questioned the extent to which Marcionites were actually present in Carthage, if at all. Wilhite has argued that Tertullian may never have encountered Marcionites directly and that he only knew of them from his readings (probably of Justin and Irenaeus as well as Marcion’s own texts). His five books against Marcion should then be read at least partly as literary constructions rather than as evidence for an African Marcionite community, its theology and practices. He posits that rhetorical techniques such as prosopopoeia (the impersonation of an opponent) allowed Tertullian to create an idealised heretic and his arguments, tailored to his own polemical purposes.Footnote ¹⁴⁴ In this sense, his “Marcion” resembles his “Jew”: both may be rhetorical adversaries rather than real interlocutors. The critical difference is that Jewish presence in Carthage is attested and that the society was not so huge that communities with a common heritage could live without encountering each other. Yet, the vehemence of the polemic testifies to a real need to negotiate the boundaries of Christianity, while the “othering” process helps solidify the Christian framework.

3.2.4 Hierarchy and Antagonism

Wilson mentions that Marcion wrote in a world where Judaism was still thriving and both gentile and Christian Judaisers were numerous. He finds it plausible that Marcion might have wanted to solve the theological paradox of a Judaism that did not disappear to leave space for Christianity by separating both religions, putting aside Judaism and its characteristics, and creating a new narrative for a superior and independent Christianity.Footnote ¹⁴⁵ Tertullian, for his part, belonged to those with “the desire to have the best of both worlds”: appropriation of the Jewish God, Jewish Scriptures, and the Jewish messiah – and denial of its tradition to the Jewish people – together with Christianity.

The general tendency in Christian theology was to replace Marcion’s theory of an inferior God with a narrative of an inferior people that had to be replaced. Tertullian’s approach slightly diverges from the usual one in that he recognises that Jewish customs were justified up until the renewal of the Covenant by Christ, and it is not a matter of hierarchy; he does not attack Jews for their previous practices, only for their refusal to recognise their own Saviour, announced in their very own texts.Footnote ¹⁴⁶ Wilson’s conclusion is inspiring: “the one [Marcionism] attacked the symbols but left the people alone; the other [mainstream Christianity] took the symbols and attacked the people. Judaism is the loser in either case. Whether the Marcionite position, had it prevailed, would have led to the same sad consequences [aggressions of Jews] as the view of its opponents is hard to say.”Footnote ¹⁴⁷ The way Marcion deals with Judaism – as it appears in the external sources that oppose him – reflects therefore an inner-Church dispute, which leads him on some points to agree with Jewish arguments and, as a reaction, Tertullian equates him to Jews and refers to their common errors.Footnote ¹⁴⁸

Despite the need to rely on Judaism to have the right to exist in the Roman Empire, considering that the ways had not yet completely parted between Christianity and Judaism, the figure of the Jew served as a theological foil central to the construction of Christian identity. By defining what Jews were – blind, literalist, and Christ-rejecting – Christians defined themselves as enlightened and faithful. Christian writers of the second and third centuries must have been aware that their movement, so reliant on Jewish traditions, risked being reabsorbed into Judaism.Footnote ¹⁴⁹ The Jew in Against Marcion functions both as a warning against relapse and as a guarantor of orthodoxy: Christianity, unlike Marcion’s aberrant position, with his connections to Gnosticism and Paulinism, maintains fidelity to Israel’s God.

The Against Marcion demonstrates how anti-heretical polemic could simultaneously reinforce anti-Jewish rhetoric and yet reaffirm Christianity’s rootedness in Judaism. Tertullian’s caricatures of Marcion and of the Jews both served to define Christian identity. Against Marcion, he insisted that the Church must retain the Scriptures of Israel; against the Jews, he claimed that only in Christ are those Scriptures fulfilled. The necessity of defending Christianity against Gnostic and Marcionite rivals thus set clear limits to his attitude towards Judaism: Israel’s institutions might be condemned as obsolete, but they could not be dismissed as alien. The Jewish Scriptures remained Christianity’s own heritage, and Tertullian’s polemic made that inheritance indispensable.

3.3.1 Moral Models

It is a common trope in Graeco–Roman literature to resort to characters who serve as examples and counter-examples of proper or improper behaviour to illustrate principles, successful lives, or shameful failures.Footnote ¹⁵⁰ Tertullian is no exception.Footnote ¹⁵¹ Therefore, when he wants to explain to Christians how to behave, he models their ideal behaviour against what he despises in Jewish customs. The first example concerns patience. To express the contrast between Jews and Christians, Tertullian accuses Israel of impatience and praises Christ for his patience.Footnote ¹⁵² Christians must aspire to emulate their Saviour.Footnote ¹⁵³ Tertullian also uses “Jewish” as an insult even against non-Jews: “it would be ‘Jewish’ to adopt the alternative to the moral or disciplinary position.”Footnote ¹⁵⁴ It is then Jewish to be impatient and Christian to be patient.Footnote ¹⁵⁵ According to Efroymson’s analysis, Tertullian assumed that none of his followers wanted to be Jewish, and so he warned them against believing in the stories of the Jews, which would make them “Jewish.” Additionally, Jews are liars and if the sources of the stories are Jewish, nobody – Christian or non-Christian – should pay attention to their contents.Footnote ¹⁵⁶

It should be mentioned that in the case of Marcion, and for the reasons previously exposed, Judaism is central to the refutation of his heresy. However, over time, all the opponents of Christianity come to be associated with Jews, and the meaning of “Jewish” becomes “wrong” in a general way.Footnote ¹⁵⁷ This rhetorical accusation against all kinds of rivals often has nothing to do with Jews or Judaism, either historical Jews or contemporary Jews; it only refers to a system of thought that Tertullian deems flawed, as do many other Christian authors. The language and vocabulary sound anti-Jewish, the position is anti-Jewish, the mechanism of reasoning is anti-Jewish, but it occurs that attacks rooted in this register may target people and topics that are all but Jewish.

Another example concerns female modesty.

So, Jewesses adorn themselves with frills, but Christian women do not. They learnt from their Jewish ancestors/predecessors that such a behaviour leads to betraying God.Footnote ¹⁵⁹ It is not surprising, however, to find Tertullian unbothered by his inconsistencies. In On prayer (22.8), it is inspiring to him that Jews veil their virgins, he thus advises that Christians should do the same.

In many of his treatises, Tertullian attacks the Church for its laxity, whereas he is more stringent and finds an echo of his attitude in Montanist writings. By association, the obsolete Jewish Law appears as lenient and contrary to the severity of Christianity, which surpassed it.Footnote ¹⁶⁰ It should also be mentioned that, based on biblical stories, Jews are presented as unbelievers, and their behaviour is the opposite of everything a Christian should aspire to. Biblical Jews actually illustrate precisely those aspects of Judaism that were banished from Christianity. It is probable that accusations projected backwards onto historical times indirectly engaged contemporary Jews.Footnote ¹⁶¹

It is interesting to indicate as a last example the idea of continence.Footnote ¹⁶² The idea is quite alien to Jewish thought, but when Tertullian wants to promote it within Christian circles, he bases his arguments on biblical passages – with his personal interpretation of the text – and illustrates them through biblical figures.Footnote ¹⁶³ He even presents Moses as fulfilling for the Jews and their relation to God the exact same role as Christ does for the Christians.Footnote ¹⁶⁴ Therefore, when he refers to ancient times and mentions Jews or their laws, Tertullian is not systematically negative.Footnote ¹⁶⁵ His anti-Judaism is often a defence and a means to affirm Christian identity and less an attack against Jews, real or imagined.Footnote ¹⁶⁶

3.3.2 Blindness and Rejection of Christ

In Tertullian’s theology, the gravest sin of the Jews, for which they are harshly punished, is their refusal to acknowledge Christ.Footnote ¹⁶⁷ He portrays them as those who did not acknowledge their messiah and thus forfeited their election and status before God.Footnote ¹⁶⁸ This failure is not only historical but also paradigmatic: the Jews continue to embody disbelief, obstinacy, and spiritual blindness. Their definitive rejection by God – unless they become Christians – is repeatedly framed as divinely foreseen, even necessary, so that Christians might inherit the promises of scripture.Footnote ¹⁶⁹ The Jews deviate from their own teachings, do not understand the deepest signification of their texts, and hate Christians for having acknowledged their messiah.Footnote ¹⁷⁰ Tertullian thus strengthens the identity of the Church as the true Israel, contrasting the fidelity of Christians with the culpable unbelief of the Jews. This rejection functions as a theological convention rather than an observation of lived Judaism, yet it clearly draws on local rivalry over who constituted the authentic people of God. Tertullian remains confident that, in the end, Jews will recognise their errors and acknowledge Christianity. He expects the final triumph of his own ways more than punishment for those who err.

3.3.3 Jews as Persecutors

Like many early Christian authors,Footnote ¹⁷¹ Tertullian charges Jews as persecutors of Christians. He calls the synagogue “fountains of persecution,”Footnote ¹⁷² and he connects Jewish hostility to the martyrdoms of the apostles and the passion of Christ.Footnote ¹⁷³ Such claims do not stem from verifiable encounters with Jewish violence in his own day. As scholars have shown, they are largely retrospective, drawing upon New Testament traditions and apostolic memory rather than contemporary experience, although Christian resentment for persecutions persisted throughout the eras.Footnote ¹⁷⁴ Yet the rhetorical function of the accusation is significant: by casting the Jews as perennial aggressors, Tertullian reassures his audience that Christian suffering stands in continuity with the sufferings of Christ himself.Footnote ¹⁷⁵ At the same time, he universalises Jewish opposition, making it symbolic of all hostility to the Church.Footnote ¹⁷⁶ The emphasis on descriptions of biblical Jews and their customs may have been a way to avoid direct confrontation with real contemporaries, although the very intensity of this polemic suggests that Tertullian engaged in actual discussion with his Jewish neighbours and was not merely rehearsing inherited stereotypes.Footnote ¹⁷⁷

As previously noted, the extent of the persecutions of Christians in late antiquity is a tricky issue. Beyond the question of whether the Christian depiction is exaggerated, it is appropriate to ask what the role of Jews in this framework was. A part of the Christian narrative, including some of Tertullian’s assertions, presents Jews as persecutors.Footnote ¹⁷⁸ Full of envy or fear, they are said to have denounced Christians to the authorities because they could not get rid of this bothering sect by themselves. They relied on the Romans to solve their internal struggle with Christ’s followers.Footnote ¹⁷⁹ On the topic of portraying Jews as a threat, Tertullian sticks with the literary theological tradition he inherited from his predecessors. One problem is that it is almost impossible to find testimonies of Jewish denunciation of Christians in sources outside of Christian ones.Footnote ¹⁸⁰ Taylor stresses that modern scholars who took for granted that Jews truly were persecutors as asserted by early Christian authors often had “hidden apologetic agenda, making Christian antagonism seem justifiable […] it also implicitly passes judgment on ancient Judaism.”Footnote ¹⁸¹

Another issue is that, if indeed in Tertullian’s days Christians and Jews hardly understood what made them different from one another (with the exception of each group’s elite authors of formative texts), it stands to reason that Romans had difficulty distinguishing between them.Footnote ¹⁸² According to Eusebius, in Tertullian’s time, under the emperor Septimus Severus, at least one Christian became a Jew in order to escape persecution.Footnote ¹⁸³ But most scholars argue that Jews were not spared by the persecutions of these days, even if they targeted Christians more than Jews. Also, it seems that the persecutions were sporadic, of varying intensity, and occurred at different times and places, and were at any rate not a systematic Christian-hunting. However, the mention by Eusebius and Jerome of this conversion from Christianity to Judaism during Tertullian’s time lends some weight to the narrative of competition for proselytes and tension between the communities. As for the accusation of collaboration between Jews and pagans against Christians, the absence of non-Christian responses leaves the matter open.Footnote ¹⁸⁴ Nonetheless, this topic is not central in Tertullian’s writings. Had it been a burning issue, he would have dealt with it more thoroughly.

3.5.1 Supersession

Central to Tertullian’s theology and exegesis is the conviction that the Jewish covenant has been replaced by the Christian one – because of the Jews’ infidelity, disobedience, and refusal to recognise the messiah. The fulfilment of the Mosaic Law in Christ is framed as a divine decision: what was once legitimate is now obsolete. To go on observing the old commandments constitutes disobedience to God’s new will. The Church is the “true Israel,” the inheritor of the promises of the Old Testament. This Jewish Bible represents the past “over against which Christianity defines itself.”Footnote ²⁰⁷ This argument is not only theological but also apologetic. As already explained, claiming antiquity for Christianity through continuity with the Jewish Scriptures allowed it to appear as an ancient religion with the right to exist or at least a claim to tolerance.

Tertullian’s supersessionism, or replacement theology, is marked by legal–historical logic rather than essentialist blame. Unlike other Church Fathers, such as Barnabas or Melito of Sardis, he does not portray Jews as inherently defective or incapable of knowing God. Instead, he acknowledges that Israel was right to obey the commandments until Christ came. Mosaic Law was a temporary covenant superseded by the new dispensation in Christ. For Tertullian, the Old Testament announced the new Law as well as Christ, who would fulfil prophecies and improve the Law of old.Footnote ²⁰⁸ Scriptures and ancient prophecies provided confirmation of the new faith.Footnote ²⁰⁹

At the same time, Tertullian stresses that the supersession of Judaism does not entail the abolition of moral law. Ritual practices such as circumcision or sabbath observance have been abrogated – or rather, gained spiritual meaning – but the moral precepts remain binding. In his words: “the yoke of works has been cast off, not the yoke of moral precepts […] The law of piety, sanctity, humanity, truth, chastity, justice, mercy, benevolence, modesty, remains in its entirety; in which law ‘blessed (is) the man who shall meditate by day and by night’” (On modesty 6.2-4). The New Covenant intensifies rather than abolishes ethical obligations, particularly concerning righteousness, chastity, and purity.Footnote ²¹⁰ For instance, citing Jeremiah 31:31-32, he argues that the prophets themselves announced a new covenant: “Behold, days shall come, saith the Lord, and I will draw up, for the house of Judah and for the house of Jacob, a new testament; not such as I once gave their fathers in the day wherein I led them out from the land of Egypt” (Adversus Iudaeos 3.6).

3.5.2 Exegesis

Having established the supersessionist framework, the way Tertullian employs scriptural interpretation to support his claims can now be examined. Whilst supersessionism defines the status of Israel, scriptural interpretation, or rather competition over interpretation, determines who has access to the right meaning of the divine words and message. Scripture has passed from Jewish to Christian ownership as a transfer of covenant. This polemical claim undergirds Tertullian’s repeated assertion that Jews not only fail to recognise Christ in their texts but also mock Christian interpretations of them: “if the hardness of your heart shall persist in rejecting and deriding all these interpretations” (Adversus Iudaeos 10.14).

Tertullian builds this case through a mixture of prooftexts and hermeneutical principles, which he strengthens with arguments drawn from other frameworks such as nature, discipline, or tradition.Footnote ²¹¹ He affirms the Pauline conviction that Christ did not abolish the Law but fulfilled it, a fulfilment that Jews have missed through flawed exegesis. Rokeah rightly remarks that Christian exegesis is based more on quotations from the Old Testament than on words from Christian texts.Footnote ²¹² Tertullian is no exception to this trend. His polemical method often consists of recourse to prophecy-fulfilment logic. He argues that what the prophets spoke of has already been realised in Christ, whereas Jews persist in awaiting a messiah still to come. O’Malley notes that for Tertullian this hermeneutical divide constitutes the decisive point of separation between Jews and Christians.Footnote ²¹³ Also, Christians maintain that it is Christ himself who speaks through the prophets, whereas Jews claim that the prophets merely spoke about him. In his approach to finding announcements of Christianity in the Jewish Bible, Tertullian relies extensively on exegeses his predecessors supplied.

O’Malley considers Tertullian’s position as revealing of his exegetical principle: the first level of explanation is that “of prophetic time, by which the future is announced as if present” and the second is “the deeper sense which lies in prophecy, demanding an interpretation that goes farther than the literal meaning.”Footnote ²¹⁴ From this perspective, the Old Testament discloses its full meaning only in Christ and the New Testament.Footnote ²¹⁵ The supersessionary framework allows Tertullian simultaneously to undermine Jewish claims to scripture and to affirm the continuity of the two Testaments as a unified Christian revelation.

In this way, exegesis becomes a weapon of forensic argumentation. The claim that Christians own the Scriptures is not limited to debate with Jews. Against Marcion, Tertullian insists that the New Testament is unintelligible without the Old. “Both Testaments are necessary. Neither alone is sufficient.”Footnote ²¹⁶ He thus defends not only the validity of the Hebrew Bible but also its Christian appropriation, a stance that simultaneously repudiates Jewish literalism and Marcionite rejection. What also unequivocally emerges from Tertullian’s presentation is that Christians are clearly not Jews. For him the distinction between the characteristics of each group makes no doubt.

3.5.3 Fulfilment

This hermeneutical competition finds its most sophisticated expression in Tertullian’s theology of fulfilment, his conviction that Christ brings the Old Testament to completion. This theology constitutes another central point at the heart of his exegetical approach. Tertullian’s specificity on this topic is that he takes typological arguments elaborated by his predecessors to wield them with his characteristic legalistic and combative style. He refines and systemises usual ideas, using them as the primary theological basis when confronting Judaism. He demonstrates that Jewish rituals and institutions function as shadows pointing forward to Christian realities: circumcision is fulfilled in baptism, the Passover lamb in Christ’s Passion, and the written law in the law of the Spirit.

Tertullian is a consummate typologist, as he points to figures, events, and institutions as “types” (pre-figurations) that found their fulfilment in Christ and Christian Scripture.Footnote ²¹⁷ His typological method is both exegetical and apologetic (in defending Christian claims to Jewish heritage), and is essential for proving his supersessionist approach. It allows him to argue that Christians are the rightful inheritors and interpreters of Jewish Scripture because they can access the true meaning of the signs provided in the texts. Exegesis can be either flawed or right; Jews are wrong in their interpretations, while Christians grasp scriptural real signification;Footnote ²¹⁸ their understanding comes apparently from the fact that they are the true Israel. At any rate, Scriptures are really efficient: “Whoever gives ear will find God in them; whoever takes pains to understand, will be compelled to believe” (Apology 18.9).

For instance, Tertullian exposes the deeper spiritual meaning of Scriptures and reads the sacrifice of Isaac as a foreshadowing of the Passion; the Passover lamb is a type of Christ’s sacrificial death; the brazen serpent is a figure of the crucifixion; Jonah’s three days in the belly of the fish anticipate Christ’s burial and resurrection. Far from denigrating the Jewish Scriptures, he insists on their divine inspiration and continuing authority – yet always as texts whose ultimate meaning is Christological. This hermeneutic allows him both to reject Jewish practice and to claim its scriptural basis for Christianity, a subtle supersessionist move grounded in the authority of the Hebrew Bible itself.

Against Marcion, the theology of fulfilment serves an additional purpose: it demonstrates that the God of Israel is the Father of Jesus Christ, and that the unity of scripture testifies to one divine economy. In such a case, Tertullian converges with Justin Martyr and Origen in affirming prophecy fulfilment as the hermeneutical centre of Christian identity. Yet, his approach is sharper and more forensic: where Justin dialogues and Origen allegorises, Tertullian prosecutes. As Ruether observes, Christian midrash on Jewish texts, supposed to reveal their true meaning, usually functions less as dialogue with living Judaism than as a negative mirror through which the Church legitimises itself.Footnote ²¹⁹ Tertullian appropriates (for Christian use) the Hebrew Scriptures that form the basis of his argumentation for proper Christian behaviour, including his positions against second marriages, idolatry, and participation in urban pagan settings and in the army, as well as his warnings against the “perils of sexual sins.”Footnote ²²⁰

The result is a theology that situates Christianity as the intended culmination of Israel’s story. As Aziza stresses, Tertullian presents the New Covenant not as an innovation but as the continuation and perfection of the Old. This continuity through fulfilment allowed Tertullian to claim both the antiquity of Christianity and the legitimacy of its interpretation of scripture, while consigning Judaism to obsolescence.