BLOG Home of Bruce A. Sarte

Saturday, June 28, 2025

NEW WEB SITE AND BLOG - www.bruceasarte.com

I have a new website and BLOG - this site will no longer be updated. All posts that were on this site prior to 01/01/2025 are now on the new site and BLOG.

Please visit the new site and BLOG.

https://www.bruceasarte.com

Wednesday, October 23, 2024

2024 World Series Comparison: Yankees vs Dodgers Position by Position

The 2024 World Series is upon us!

Like it or not, two of the top 5 teams from a spending perspective are facing off. The real upside here is that we will get to see more of the stars of the game on the same field than ever before. This is the first time in decades that two MVPs will be facing off. This World Series boasts 4 MVPS (Judge, Ohtani, Betts, Freeman) -- the most in history. And it is easy to argue that the two best teams in baseball will be playing one another for the first time in several years (yes, the playoffs are broken).

These two teams have a long, iconic history in the World Series. They have faced off 11 times, with the Yankees winning 8 times. This is the first time they have clashed in the fall classic since 1981, where the Yankees jumped out to a quick 2-0 lead, but ended up losing to the Dodgers in 4 straight after that (4-2). Who will win this year? I will take you through a position by position comparison. We will start with the position players, and talk about pitching in another post.

Position by Position Comparison

Catcher
Yankees: Austin Wells
Dodgers: Will Smith

During the regular season, Will Smith had a stronger offensive performance, slashing .327 OBP, .433 SLG, and .760 OPS over 128 games. Smith's power and consistency were crucial for the Dodgers’ lineup, with 24 doubles and 2 home runs in the NLCS alone. Austin Wells, on the other hand, played 115 games with a .322 OBP, .395 SLG, and .718 OPS. Though solid, Wells’ regular-season stats fall short compared to Smith’s impact at the plate. In the postseason, Wells continued to perform admirably, but Smith’s NLCS numbers were outstanding, batting .346 with a 1.182 OPS. Smith's ability to generate runs and handle pressure situations gives the Dodgers a clear advantage at the catcher position in this matchup, making him the stronger player overall. And let's not discount that Smith has been here before... this is new territory for Wells. We look for a strong performance from Wells, and although Smith was an All Star, he cooled off considerably in the second half. Still, Smith over Wells - but not by much.

Advantage: Dodgers (Smith)

First Base
Yankees: Anthony Rizzo
Dodgers: Freddie Freeman

Both Rizzo and Freeman are currently less than 100% — Rizzo battling a hand injury and Freeman nursing a bad ankle. During the regular season, Freeman had the edge, posting a stellar .378 OBP, .476 SLG, and .854 OPS across 147 games. Despite his injury, Freeman remained a key contributor to the Dodgers' lineup. In contrast, Rizzo, limited by his hand injury, put up more modest numbers with a .301 OBP, .335 SLG, and .637 OPS in 92 games. In the postseason, Freeman’s production dipped slightly, batting .167 with a .377 OPS in the NLCS, while Rizzo didn’t have postseason stats to add to his case. Even though Freeman is the bigger offensive force, Rizzo showed he can still swing the bat in the ALCS (.429/.500/1.000) across the 5 games. With Freeman sporting a bad wheel, it'll likely rob him of some power (.167/.211/.377), it is hard to put any weight in Freeman's regular season performance here. In fact, I wouldn't be surprise to see Muncy get a start or two, especially when Rodon pitches.

Advantage: Yankees (Rizzo)

Second Base
Yankees: Gleyber Torres
Dodgers: Enrique Hernandez/Gavin Lux

During the regular season, Torres was a consistent performer for the Yankees, with a .330 OBP, .378 SLG, and .709 OPS across 154 games. He was a key offensive contributor, racking up 151 hits and 26 doubles. In the postseason, Torres continued to provide value, though his power numbers were not as prominent. On the Dodgers' side, Hernandez and Lux offer versatility, but their regular-season stats fall short of Torres'. Hernandez posted a .393 OBP and .417 SLG in the NLCS but hit .292 in the regular season, while Lux had a .320 OBP and .383 SLG in the regular season over 139 games, showing solid contact ability. In the NLCS, Lux stepped up with a .407 average and a 1.022 OPS, giving the Dodgers an edge in recent postseason performance. However, based on overall consistency throughout the season and positional experience, Gleyber Torres stands as the better choice at second base, with his reliability across both the regular season and playoffs giving the Yankees an advantage.

Advantage: Yankees (Torres)

Shortstop
Yankees: Anthony Volpe
Dodgers: Tommy Edman

During the regular season, Volpe displayed his potential, batting .293 OBP, .364 SLG, and .657 OPS over 160 games. He contributed 27 doubles and 90 runs but struggled with consistency, particularly in terms of getting on base. In the postseason, Volpe’s production remained steady but not extraordinary. On the other hand, Tommy Edman had a strong regular season, posting a .337 OBP, .410 SLG, and .748 OPS, and his versatility in both offense and defense added significant value to the Dodgers' lineup. In the NLCS, Edman was even better, batting .407 with a 1.022 OPS and driving in 11 runs, showcasing his ability to perform in high-pressure situations. While Volpe is an exciting young talent, Edman’s superior regular-season stats and his outstanding postseason performance give him the edge, making him the better player at shortstop in this World Series matchup. And let's not forget Edman is coming off the NLCS MVP award. Much like at catcher, this advantage is not a big one, but I am going to go with Edman continuing his hot play.

Advantage: Dodgers (Edman)

Third Base
Yankees: Jazz Chisholm
Dodgers: Enrique Hernandez/Max Muncy

Chisholm, known for his athleticism, posted a .238 OBP, .211 SLG, and .449 OPS over 5 ALCS games, struggling to find consistency at the plate. His regular season numbers (.256/.324/.760) speak to more potential, and he did step it up once he became a Yankee (.273/.325..825) but it is hard to say who we are going to get. Although he brings speed and defensive versatility, his offensive numbers were underwhelming in comparison. Enrique Hernandez, playing across multiple positions for the Dodgers, had a solid regular season with a .393 OBP and .417 SLG in the NLCS, showcasing his ability to perform in the clutch. Max Muncy, though injured for part of the season, remains a power threat, evidenced by his regular-season .494 SLG and .852 OPS across 73 games. In the NLCS, Muncy added value with his veteran presence and ability to hit in big moments. While Chisholm offers speed and athleticism, Hernandez's versatility and postseason performance, combined with Muncy's power, give the Dodgers a stronger overall advantage at third base.

Advantage: Dodgers (Hernandez/Muncy)

Left Field
Yankees: Alex Verdugo
Dodgers: Teoscar Hernandez

Verdugo had a respectable regular season, posting a .330 OBP, .421 SLG, and .751 OPS. Although he had stretches where he was cold and looked disconnected in left field, compared to other options he looked consistent and reliable at the plate combined with his passable defense make him the best option out there. In the postseason, Verdugo looked more like the steady player the Yankees need, though without significant power numbers. On the other hand, Teoscar Hernández excelled during the regular season with a .308 OBP, .490 SLG, and .798 OPS, hitting 26 home runs and providing power from the Dodgers’ outfield. Hernández's postseason has been even more impressive, as he slashed .346 with a 1.182 OPS in the NLCS, demonstrating his ability to deliver in high-pressure situations. While Verdugo is a more well-rounded player, Hernández’s power and clutch hitting in the postseason give him the edge in left field. His ability to change the game with one swing makes Hernández the better player in this matchup.

Advantage: Dodgers (Hernandez)

Left Field
Yankees: Alex Verdugo
Dodgers: Teoscar Hernandez

Verdugo had a respectable regular season, posting a .291 OBP, .356 SLG, and .647 OPS. Although he had stretches where he was cold and looked disconnected in left field, compared to other options he looked consistent and reliable at the plate combined with his passable defense make him the best option out there. In the postseason, Verdugo looked more like the steady player the Yankees need, though without significant power numbers. On the other hand, Teoscar Hernández excelled during the regular season with a .308 OBP, .490 SLG, and .798 OPS, hitting 26 home runs and providing power from the Dodgers’ outfield. Hernández's postseason has been even more impressive, as he slashed .346 with a 1.182 OPS in the NLCS, demonstrating his ability to deliver in high-pressure situations. While Verdugo is a more well-rounded player, Hernández’s power and clutch hitting in the postseason give him the edge in left field. His ability to change the game with one swing makes Hernández the better player in this matchup.

Advantage: Dodgers (Hernandez)

Center Field
Yankees: Aaron Judge
Dodgers: Andy Pages

Aaron Judge is simply one of - if not the - best players in baseball today. There is no question. And in 2024, he had another dominant regular season. He posted a stellar .458 OBP, .701 SLG, and 1.159 OPS, along with 58 home runs. Judge’s combination of power, plate discipline, and defense makes him a cornerstone of the Yankees' lineup. In the postseason, Judge continued to be a major force, though pitchers often worked around him due to his ability to change games with a single swing. On the other hand, Andy Pages, a young and talented outfielder, had a promising regular season but lacks the experience and production that Judge brings. While Pages has potential, his .722 OPS in the regular season and more modest postseason performance don't compare to Judge's star power and proven impact in key moments. Judge’s leadership, experience, and game-changing ability at the plate give the Yankees a clear advantage in center field. His presence alone makes him the better player in this matchup.

Advantage: Yankees (Judge)

Right Field
Yankees: Juan Soto
Dodgers: Mookie Betts

This is the best match up on the field, without question. Two of the top ten players in the game today - on the same field in the same position. If you told me they make the same money and I had to choose between them, I could not. But today, I have to... so here it goes. During the regular season, both players had outstanding performances. Juan Soto posted a .419 OBP, .569 SLG, and an OPS of .989, along with 31 doubles and 35 home runs, making him one of the most dangerous hitters in the league. Mookie Betts, though slightly behind in terms of raw power, still had an excellent season with a .372 OBP, .491 SLG, and an OPS of .863, contributing 24 doubles and 18 home runs in 116 games.ve the Yankees a clear advantage in center field. His presence alone makes him the better player in this matchup. In the postseason, both players have been key contributors to their teams. Betts slashed .346/.452/.731 with a 1.182 OPS in the NLCS, demonstrating his ability to hit for power and get on base, while driving in 9 runs. Meanwhile, Soto had a spectacular ALCS, hitting .368/.478/.895 with a 1.373 OPS, including 3 home runs and 6 RBIs in just 5 games.

Betts is just a great all-around player who can do anything on the field, and so is Soto. Both players support the guy who is just a little bigger in the lineup. In the end, Soto has shown he is up for the task and his power is following him into the postseason. Edge to Soto.

Advantage: Yankees (Soto)

Designated Hitter
Yankees: Giancarlo Stanton
Dodgers: Shohei Ohtani

This is the second best match up on the field. Ohtani is... well... Shohei Ohtani, and Giancarlo Stanton is unquestionably one of the best power bats of this generation. If During the regular season, Ohtani had an extraordinary performance, posting a .390 OBP, .646 SLG, and a 1.036 OPS over 159 games, with 38 doubles, 44 home runs, and 134 runs scored. His ability to consistently produce at the plate made him one of the most feared hitters in baseball. In contrast, Stanton had a solid but less explosive season that was riddled with injuries, with a .298 OBP, .475 SLG, and a .773 OPS over 114 games, hitting 20 doubles and 25 home runs. In the postseason, both players have continued to be key contributors for their teams. Stanton stepped it up and had a strong ALCS, batting .222 with a .333 OBP and a .889 SLG, including 4 home runs and 7 RBIs, showing his ability to deliver power in key moments. Big G was the ALCS MVP. However, Ohtani was equally impressive in the NLCS, batting .364 with a .548 OBP and a .636 SLG, contributing 8 hits and 9 runs in 6 games and hitting every time someone was on base.

While Stanton’s power is undeniable, Ohtani’s overall production, both in the regular season and postseason, makes him the better player in this matchup. His ability to get on base, hit for power, and consistently deliver in clutch moments gives the Dodgers the advantage here.

Advantage: Dodgers (Ohtani)

~~~
Bruce holds degrees in Computer Science, Biblical History, and American History from Temple University and Liberty University; he has also completed a Doctorate in Educational Organizational Leadership at Abilene Christian University. He is a member of the Epsilon Pi Tau Honor Society, Golden Key Honor Society, Historical Studies Honor Society, and the Saber and Scroll Society. He has worked in educational technology for 30 years and specializes in building infrastructures for schools that work to support the mission of technology in education in the classroom. He has also served as a classroom teacher in computer science, history, and English classes at both the high school and College levels. His baseball career spanned almost 15 years, from high school through Division I college ball and experience in MLB. He has coached players at various levels from ages 8 through 18.

Bruce is also the author of several books including Sands of Time, Towering Pines Volume One:Room 509, The Star of Christmas, Philadelphia Story: A Lance Carter Detective Novel and The Insider's Story: A Lance Carter Detective Novel

Sunday, October 6, 2024

American History 101: The History of John's Taylors Pork Roll

When it comes to iconic American foods, few can rival the quirky charm and delicious mystery of Taylor’s Pork Roll. This beloved New Jersey staple has been tantalizing taste buds since the 19th century, but how much do you really know about its storied past? From its humble beginnings in Trenton to its status as a breakfast legend, Taylor’s Pork Roll is more than just a meat product—it’s a slice of culinary history. Join us as we dive into the savory saga of this unique delicacy, exploring its origins, its rise to fame, and why it continues to hold a special place in the hearts (and stomachs) of so many. Are you ready to learn the history behind John Taylor's invention and -- finally -- put the debate about what its name is and how it got that name?

Get ready for a mouthwatering journey through time!

The Birth of Taylor's Prepared Ham: A Culinary Legend

Picture this: It's 1856 in Trenton, New Jersey, and a savvy state Senator named John Taylor is about to change breakfast forever. Known around Hamilton Square as a shrewd businessman, Taylor concocted a delectable blend of spices, salt, sugar cure, and preservatives, then smoked it to perfection. The result? A mouthwatering meat marvel he proudly dubbed "Taylor’s Prepared Ham."

But wait, the plot thickens! Fast forward to the early 1900s, and the Pure Food and Drug Act swoops in, declaring that Taylor's creation doesn't quite meet the strict definition of "ham." Undeterred, Taylor rebrands his beloved product as the "Original Taylor Pork Roll," and a legend is born. Despite the bureaucratic hiccup, this tube-shaped treat has secured its place in the annals of American culinary history, beloved by breakfast enthusiasts far and wide.

Rebranding a Future Legend

When John Taylor and his company, Taylor Provisions (established in 1939), decided to rebrand their beloved creation as "pork roll," they hoped to corner the market and keep competitors at bay. The plan? Trademark the new name and make Taylor's product the one and only pork roll in town.

But, as with many great plans, things didn't go quite as expected. The trademark attempt fell flat, and soon enough, other companies started rolling out their own versions of the tasty treat. Today, names like Case Pork Company, Mercer Meats, Thumann’s, and Kohler Provisions are all part of the pork roll family. Yet, ask any true New Jerseyan, and they'll tell you Taylor Provisions is the original.

Interestingly, George Washington Case of Case Pork Company began selling his hickory-smoked pork rolls from his Belle Mead farm in Somerset County back in 1870, just over a decade after Taylor's first batch hit the market.

Now, both Taylor Provisions and Case Pork Company call Trenton home, making New Jersey's capital the unofficial epicenter of the great pork roll vs. Taylor ham debate.

Absolutely, here’s a more entertaining version of the phenomenon story:

Becoming a Phenomenon: The Pork Roll Craze

What started as a humble cured meat has now exploded into a statewide sensation, gracing the shelves of nearly every deli in New Jersey. It’s even made its way into Pennsylvania and Maryland, spreading the deliciousness far and wide.

But here’s the million-dollar question: Is it Taylor ham or pork roll? According to Taylor Provisions, the names are interchangeable. In North Jersey, it’s proudly called Taylor ham, while South Jersey and Philadelphia stick to pork roll.

The debate over what to call this salty breakfast delight is still sizzling, and in New Jersey, saying “both are correct” just won’t cut it. But fear not, for Peter Genovese offers a nugget of wisdom in Thrillist: All Taylor ham is pork roll, but not all pork roll is Taylor ham. In other words, thanks to competing brands, you can have pork roll that’s not Taylor ham, but Taylor ham will always be pork roll.

So What is it?

People will call it what they call it... but today, the proper name is Pork Roll - much like you make copies, not Xeroxes. If Taylor had his way, it would have been called Taylor's Prepared Ham - but since it was not actually ham, he did not get his way.

One thins is for sure: New Jersey is undeniably the Taylor ham/pork roll capital of the United States, and probably the world. Trenton, USA - Pork Roll Capital of the World!

Monday, September 16, 2024

George Brett vs Bobby Witt, Jr - An Analytical Comparison

George Brett vs Bobby Witt, Jr - An Analytical Comparison
Is Bobby Witt, Jr the next George Brett?

The Kansas City Royals have a history filled with ups and downs, wins and losses, and a handful of legendary players. We can talk about Eric Hosmer, Bret Saberhagen, Willie Wilson, Frank White, Amos Otis, Dan Quisenberry, and many others. But no one is more revered and beloved in Royals lore than Hall of Famer George Brett. His storied career, marked by grit, consistency, and sheer excellence, has left an indelible mark on Kansas City and baseball history alike. Now, the Royals faithful have another rising star to rally behind: Bobby Witt Jr. Witt's arrival on the scene has been nothing short of electrifying, and his impact on the team has been just as anticipated as it has been impressive. With a unique blend of speed, power, and raw talent, Witt is bringing a fresh burst of energy to the franchise, sparking excitement for the Royals' future. Fans can’t help but draw comparisons between Witt’s early promise and Brett’s legendary career, creating a thrilling buzz around the team's new face of the future.

The Kansas City Royals are on the verge of something special in 2024, and for the first time since their magical 2015 World Series run, they’re on pace to make the playoffs. With 91 wins on the horizon and their first winning record in nearly a decade, Royals fans are buzzing with excitement. A huge reason for their resurgence? None other than Bobby Witt Jr. His presence in the lineup and dazzling defensive contributions have been absolute game-changers for the Royals this season. Already in his third year, Witt has emerged as a legitimate MVP candidate, reminding fans of the iconic George Brett’s ascent in the 1970s. Brett, in his fourth season, narrowly missed out on the MVP crown, finishing second to Thurman Munson, and went on to dominate the conversation for years, finishing in the top 20 for MVP voting six out of the next seven seasons, including one MVP win, a second-place finish, and a third-place finish.

Brett’s career took the Royals to seven postseason appearances, including two trips to the World Series, and that unforgettable 1985 championship. Now, there’s a growing anticipation that Witt could not only match Brett’s legendary career but perhaps surpass it, leading Kansas City to the promised land once again. With Witt at the helm, many believe the Royals’ next chapter could be even brighter than the last. So, let’s dive in and take a closer look at how these two generational talents—Witt and Brett—stack up over their first three seasons, and whether Witt is on track to become the next Kansas City legend.

Let’s take a deeper dive into the comparison between Bobby Witt, Jr and George Brett’s first three full seasons in the big leagues. Please note, that while Witt came up in his age 22 season and played full time (150 games), Brett was a September call up in 1973 (his age 20 season) and played in 13 games. Those numbers are included here.

Performance Overview:

Games Played (G): Brett has played slightly more games (464) than Witt (458) over their respective first years, indicating both have been regular fixtures in their lineups.
Plate Appearances (PA) and At-Bats (AB): Witt has more plate appearances (1988) than Brett (1929), reflecting his central role in the lineup. He also has more at-bats (1830 vs. Brett's 1776).

Offensive Performance:

Hits (H): Brett leads with 544 hits, compared to Witt's 525, showcasing Brett’s consistency at the plate during his early years.
Doubles (2B) and Triples (3B): Brett has fewer doubles (92 vs. Witt's 102) but more triples (33 vs. 21), indicating Brett’s skill in hitting for extra bases.
Home Runs (HR): Witt has hit 70 home runs in this span, vastly surpassing Brett’s 23, showing Witt's greater power-hitting ability early on.

Runs and Base-Running:

Runs Scored (R): Witt has scored 300 runs, significantly more than Brett's 229, highlighting Witt’s aggressive play and ability to get on base and score.
Stolen Bases (SB): Witt is a superior base runner with 107 stolen bases at a success rate of 75.89%, compared to Brett's 42 steals at a 61.76% success rate.

Defensive and WAR Contribution:

Wins Above Replacement (WAR): Both players have remarkably similar WAR values—Brett at 14.6 and Witt at 14.2—indicating their overall contribution to the team’s success is closely matched.
Defensive Wins Above Replacement (dWAR): Brett's defensive value is much higher (2.4 dWAR vs. Witt's 0.0), meaning Brett was a more impactful defender, while Witt’s contribution in this area is neutral or offset by his -24 runs in fielding.
Offensive Impact (oWAR): Witt excels in offensive WAR with a value of 16.8 compared to Brett’s 14.0, further solidifying Witt’s status as an offensive powerhouse.

Comparing these two great players was fun and entertaining to do. What is the verdict? Brett is a more balanced player in terms of offense and defense, with notable defensive contributions, especially in fielding. His ability to hit for extra bases, particularly triples, and his higher WAR defensively are standout traits. Witt, however, brings incredible power to the Royals' lineup, leading in home runs, stolen bases, and overall runs scored. He is a more dynamic offensive force early in his career with the potential to grow defensively as he ages. Witt sports a higher oWAR and better base-running skills. For the time being, Brett remains the better defensive choice, especially when you count his Gold Glove in 1985. Witt does not have that kind of performance to trumpet... yet!

I think we can safely say that Bobby Witt, Jr is on pace to be the next Kansas City Royals legend. Will he be better than George Brett? Time will only tell, but the future looks bright for Bobby!

All statistics courtesy of baseballreference.com

Saturday, September 14, 2024

Christianity 101: How did we get from Jesus to Christianity?

Christianity 101: How did we get from Jesus to Christianity?

Image source: inspiredpencil.com

The term "Jewish Christian" might seem like an oxymoron to those not well-versed in theology or religious history. How can someone follow both Moses and Jesus at the same time? Yet, in the early days of the Christian movement, during the first hundred years after Jesus, encounters with Jewish Christians (also known as Judeo-Christians) were common both in the Holy Land and in the diaspora.

During his ministry, Jesus of Nazareth focused solely on Jews, referring to them as "the lost sheep of Israel" (Matthew 10:5; 15:24). His disciples were specifically instructed not to approach Gentiles or Samaritans (Matthew 10:5). Even when Jesus ventured beyond his homeland, he did not preach to pagans, nor did his disciples during his lifetime. The mission of the eleven apostles to "all the nations" (Matthew 28:19) is a concept that emerged after the Resurrection, likely inspired by Paul, and is not found elsewhere in the Gospels, except in the longer ending of Mark (Mark 16:15), which is absent from older manuscripts. Jesus' focus was exclusively on Jews.

The Acts of the Apostles tells us that the early community of Jesus' followers consisted of 120 Jewish individuals, including the eleven apostles and Jesus' mother and brothers (Acts 1:14–15). This is the last mention of Mary in the New Testament, although there are further references to Jesus' male siblings in Acts and Paul's letters. James, referred to by Paul as "the brother of the Lord," is depicted as the leader of the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:19; Galatians 1:19). According to another passage by Paul, Jesus' married brothers also served as missionaries of the gospel (1 Corinthians 9:5).

On Pentecost after the crucifixion, Peter and the apostles transformed from scared fugitives to passionate advocates for Jesus, persuaded by the divine Spirit. Their powerful message in Jerusalem converted 3,000 new followers, who joined by believing in Peter's teachings and being baptized.

Early followers of the Jerusalem Jesus movement didn't give themselves a specific name, but their movement was called "the Way" (Acts 9:2, 19:9, 24:14). The term "Christians" or "Messianists" (Christianoi) first appears in Acts 11:26, referring to members of the Antioch community in northern Syria.

How did the original Judeo-Christians of Jerusalem compare to their Jewish neighbors? In many essential ways, they were indistinguishable. The Judeo-Christians saw themselves as Jews, adhering to Jewish customs and dietary laws. They meticulously followed the Mosaic Law, and the apostles, along with their followers, regularly visited the Temple of Jerusalem for both private and public worship. It was at the Temple that they performed charismatic healings, as documented in Acts 3:1–10 and 5:12, 20, 25, 42. According to Acts 2:46, the entire Jesus party gathered for daily prayer in the sanctuary.

Even Paul, who was a vocal critic of mandatory Jewish customs in his churches, was known to visit the Temple during his trips to Jerusalem. On one occasion, he fell into a trance while praying in the House of God (Acts 22:17). Later, he underwent the prescribed purification rituals and commissioned the priests to offer sacrifices on his behalf (Acts 21:24–26).

In addition to their adherence to the Law of Moses and worship in the Temple, the early Jewish Christians embraced the practice of "breaking of the bread" (Acts 2:46). This act was not merely symbolic but a genuine meal that served a dual purpose: nourishing the participants and symbolically uniting them with each other, their Master Jesus, and with God. While the frequency of this rite isn't explicitly stated, it appears to have been a daily occurrence, much like the sacred dinners of the fully initiated Essenes described by Jewish writers Philo and Josephus, as well as the Community Rule of the Dead Sea Scrolls. "And day by day, attending the Temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts" (Acts 2:46). Conversely, Acts 20:7 notes that Paul in Troas broke bread on the first day of the week, and the Didache, the earliest Christian treatise (late first century C.E.), also mandates that bread should be broken and thanksgiving (Eucharist) performed each Sunday (Didache 14.1).

The Jerusalem Jewish Christians also practiced a form of religious communism. "No one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common" (Acts 4:32). Unlike the Essenes at Qumran, they were not formally required to divest themselves of their property and goods, but there was strong moral pressure to do so; failing to comply would have been deemed improper.

Before the inclusion of gentile members, the followers of Jesus were seen by the people of Jerusalem as part of a Jewish movement or sect. They were similar in number to the Essenes and shared customs like daily solemn meals and living off a common fund. In the late 50s of the first century, they were known as the "sect of the Nazarenes" (Acts 24:5, 14). Later, patristic literature referred to these Judeo-Christians as the Ebionites or "the Poor." The church historian Eusebius (260–339 C.E.) noted that up until the Bar-Kokhba war (the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome [132–135 C.E.]), all 13 bishops of Jerusalem, starting with James, the brother of Jesus, were from the "circumcision" (Ecclesiastical History 4.3,5).

Acts marks a significant demographic shift in the Jesus movement around 40 C.E. with the admission of the Roman centurion Cornelius's family in Caesarea (Acts 10). This was followed by the gentile members of the mixed Jewish-Greek church in Antioch (Acts 11:19–24; Galatians 2:11–14), and many pagan converts of Paul in Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece. This influx ended the Jewish monopoly in the movement, giving birth to both Jewish and gentile Christianity.

Let's delve into this fascinating historical moment with a bit more flair and engagement.

In the Cornelius episode (Acts 10), the Roman centurion and his entourage experienced a Pentecost-like ecstasy that left Peter astonished and convinced him to baptize them immediately. This event was quite exceptional, as no further conversion of a gentile is recorded in the Holy Land anywhere in the New Testament.

Fast forward to the late 40s C.E., in the vibrant city of Antioch, Syria, where the once-novel became commonplace. Emigré members of the Jerusalem church were joined by gentiles evangelized and baptized by Judeo-Christians from Cyprus and Cyrene (North Africa). The mother church in Jerusalem sent Barnabas to manage this new mixed community. Barnabas, recognizing the need for support, quickly brought his friend Saul/Paul from Tarsus in Cilicia to help oversee the burgeoning church.

In Antioch, Jewish and gentile Christians coexisted harmoniously, sharing meals and fellowship. Peter himself participated in these communal meals during his visits. However, the arrival of some zealous representatives from the Jerusalem church, led by James, the brother of Jesus, disrupted this harmony. Their disapproving stance led all Jewish Christians, including Peter and Barnabas, to cease their table fellowship with the Greek brethren, with the notable exception of Paul.

This division shattered the unity and fraternity of the new mixed church. Outraged by the hypocrisy, Paul confronted Peter publicly, marking the first major conflict in Christendom (Galatians 2:11–14).

After Paul’s first successful missionary journey to Asia Minor, the entry of pagans into the Jesus fellowship became a particularly acute issue. A council of the apostles, attended by Paul and Barnabas, was convened in Jerusalem, at which James the brother of the Lord and head of the mother community overruled the demands of the extremist members of his congregation and proposed a compromise solution (Acts 15:19–21): Gentiles wishing to join the church would be exempted from the full rigor of the Law of Moses, including circumcision, and would merely be required to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from the consumption of blood, from eating non-ritually slaughtered meat, and from certain sex acts judged particularly odious by Jews.

These rules were necessarily intended for gentile converts in the diaspora. In Jerusalem different conditions prevailed, for gentile Christians could not join their Judeo-Christian coreligionists in the Temple as non-Jews were prohibited under threat of instant death to set foot in the area of the holy precinct reserved for Jews.

The Jerusalem council of the apostles marked a pivotal moment in the divergence of Jewish and gentile Christianity. While they found common ground on some core beliefs and eagerly anticipated the imminent second coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the inauguration of the Kingdom of God, they also had their differences. Paul, for instance, was adamant that these events would occur within his own lifetime (1 Thessalonians 4:15–17).

However, their perspectives diverged in other areas. The original Judeo-Christian practices, such as baptism (a rite of purification) and the breaking of bread (a solemn communal meal), underwent significant transformations in the gentile church under Paul's influence. Baptism evolved into a mystical participation in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, while the communal meal became a sacramental reenactment of the Last Supper. These differences eventually led to animosity and a growing anti-Jewish sentiment within the gentile church.

Two of the oldest Christian writings provide valuable insights into the divergences between these two branches of Jesus' followers. The Didache, or Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles, likely composed in Palestine or Syria, stands as our last major Jewish-Christian document preserved in its entirety. On the other hand, the Epistle of Barnabas represents one of the earliest expressions of gentile Christianity, replete with anti-Jewish sentiments.

The Didache, dating back to the latter half of the first century C.E., likely predates some New Testament writings. Its religious framework is essentially a concise version of the Mosaic Law, emphasizing the love of God and neighbor, complemented by the "golden rule" in its negative Jewish form: "Whatever you do not want to happen to you, do not do to another" (Didache 1.2). This contrasts with the positive Gospel version: "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them" (Matthew 7:12; Luke 6:31).

The Didache advocates for a lifestyle akin to that of the early Jerusalem community depicted in Acts, promoting religious communism: "Share all things with your brother and do not say that anything is your own" (Didache 4.8). It appears to endorse the observance of the entire Mosaic Law, or at least as much of it as feasible (Didache 6.2).

Baptism is described as an ablution, a purification rite, with a spray of water as an alternative to immersion if pools or rivers are unavailable. Communal prayer involved reciting the "Our Father" three times daily. The Eucharist, or thanksgiving meal, was celebrated on the Lord's Day (Sunday) (Didache 14:1). This meal was both a real dinner and a symbol of spiritual nourishment, with no reference to the Lord's Supper in the Pauline sense.

In the Didache, teaching authority was vested in itinerant prophets, as also mentioned in Acts 11:27–28. These prophets were supported by bishops and deacons, who were not appointed by apostolic successors, as was customary in gentile churches, but were democratically elected by the community.

One of the most significant aspects of the Didache’s doctrine is its portrayal of Jesus. This early Judeo-Christian text does not incorporate Paul’s theological concepts of the redeeming Christ or John’s divine Word or Logos. Remarkably, Jesus is never referred to as the “Son of God” in the Didache. This term appears only once, and it is used to describe the Antichrist, “the seducer of the world” (Didache 16.4). The sole title given to Jesus in the Didache is the Greek term "pais," which can mean either servant or child. Given that Jesus shares this title with King David in relation to God (Didache 9.2; see also Acts 4:25), it is evident that it should be interpreted as God’s “Servant.” Thus, the Didache employs the most humble Christological designation for Jesus.

In essence, the Jesus depicted in the Didache is primarily an eschatological teacher, anticipated to return soon to gather and lead the dispersed members of his church to the Kingdom of God. The Pauline and Johannine notions of atonement and redemption are absent in this early record of Judeo-Christian life. Passed down by Jewish teachers to Jewish listeners, the image of Jesus in the Didache remains closely aligned with the earliest traditions underlying the Synoptic Gospels, and the Christian community described in the Didache resembles the Jerusalem church depicted in Acts.

The transformation of Jesus' image from a charismatic prophet to a superhuman figure coincided with a significant geographical and religious shift. As the Christian gospel spread from the Galilean-Judean Jewish culture to the pagan realms of the Greco-Roman world, the perception of Jesus evolved. During this time, under the organizational brilliance of Paul, the church developed a hierarchical structure led by bishops, supported by presbyters and deacons. The diminishing Jewish influence paved the way for a rapid "gentilization," leading to the de-judaization and anti-judaization of early Christianity. This shift is evident in the Epistle of Barnabas, one of the earliest works of gentile Christianity.

This letter, falsely attributed to Barnabas, Paul's companion, was actually penned by a gentile-Christian author, likely from Alexandria, around the 120s C.E. It nearly became part of the sacred scriptures and is included in the oldest New Testament codex, the fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus, but was ultimately deemed non-canonical by the church. A reference to the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem dates it after 70 C.E., while the lack of mention of the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome (132–135 C.E.) suggests it was written before 135 C.E.

The Epistle of Barnabas is a hybrid work. It combines moral instructions (Barnabas 18–21), based on a Jewish tractate on the way of light and the way of darkness, also found in the Didache 1–5 and the first-century B.C.E. Community Rule among the Dead Sea Scrolls, with a lengthy anti-Jewish diatribe (Barnabas 1–17). The author portrays two opposing groups, simply referred to as "we" (Christians) and "they" (Jews), with the dispute centered on the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint), which both groups claimed as their own.

Let’s keep in mind that Barnabas is on a mission to enlighten his readers with "perfect knowledge" (gnosis) by unveiling the true essence of key Biblical concepts like Covenant, Temple, sacrifice, circumcision, Sabbath, and food laws. He passionately argues that the Jews have misunderstood the Old Testament by taking its institutions and precepts literally. Instead, these should be interpreted allegorically, following the popular exegesis in Alexandria. According to Barnabas, the laws of Moses have been given a spiritual makeover in the new law revealed by Jesus (Barnabas 2:5). Sacrifice, he says, shouldn't be about ritual slaughter but should come from a broken heart. Forgiveness of sin isn't achieved through animal sacrifices but through the mystical sprinkling of Christ's blood (Barnabas 5:1–6).

Barnabas is heavily influenced by Paul's ideas, which were ignored by the author of the Didache. He believes that those with gnosis understand that the true circumcision of the heart is granted not by physical mutilation but through the cross of Jesus (Barnabas 9:3–7).

For Barnabas and his gentile Christian followers, the covenant between God and the Jews was a sham; it was never ratified. When Moses descended from Mt. Sinai with the Law, he saw the Jews worshipping the golden calf and shattered the two stone tablets inscribed by God's hand, nullifying the Jewish covenant. This covenant had to be replaced by the one sealed with the redemptive blood of "beloved Jesus" in the hearts of Christians (Barnabas 4:6–8, 14:1–7).

Barnabas presents a more sophisticated portrayal of Jesus compared to the Didache’s depiction of the “Servant” of God. Barnabas refers to Jesus as “the Son” or “the Son of God” over a dozen times. This “Son of God” is described as having existed for all eternity and being active even before the creation of the world. It was to this preexistent Jesus that God spoke the words, “Let us make man according to our image and likeness” at the foundation of the world (Barnabas 5:5, 6:12). Barnabas implies the quasi-divine nature of Jesus by explaining that the Son of God took on a human form because, without such a disguise, no one could look at him and survive (Barnabas 5:9–10). The ultimate purpose of the descent of “the Lord of the entire world” among humans was to suffer in order to destroy death and demonstrate the reality of resurrection (Barnabas 5:5–6). This perspective aligns closely with, and perhaps even extends beyond, the Pauline-Johannine vision of Christ and his salvific work.

The divergence between Jewish and gentile Christianity is evident at this stage, with the Epistle of Barnabas marking the beginning of the church’s doctrinal evolution along exclusively gentile lines. About fifty years after Barnabas, the bishop of Sardis, Melito, accused the Jews of deicide, stating, “God has been murdered … by the right hand of Israel” (Paschal Homily 96). Consequently, Jewish Christianity no longer made sense.

The Didache represents the final bloom of Judeo-Christianity. Following Hadrian's suppression of the Second Jewish Revolt in 135 C.E., Jewish Christianity began its decline. Justin Martyr, who was executed in 165 C.E., proudly noted that by his time, non-Jews significantly outnumbered Jewish members in the church (First Apology).

From then on, Judeo-Christianity, the elder sister that adhered to Mosaic precepts while blending them with an early form of faith in Jesus, gradually became a fringe phenomenon. Judeo-Christians either rejoined the Jewish community or were absorbed into the gentile church.

So, how did the original Judeo-Christians of Jerusalem stack up against their Jewish neighbors? In many essential ways, they were quite similar. Judeo-Christians considered themselves Jews, and their outward behavior and dietary customs were distinctly Jewish. They faithfully observed all the rules and regulations of Mosaic Law. The apostles and their followers regularly visited the Temple of Jerusalem, the heart of Jewish worship, for both private and public worship. It was there that they performed charismatic healings (Acts 3:1–10; 5:12, 20, 25, 42). According to Acts, the entire Jesus party gathered for prayer in the sanctuary every day (Acts 2:46). Even Paul, who was a major opponent of the obligatory performance of Jewish customs in his churches, was a Temple-goer during his visits to Jerusalem. He once fell into a trance while praying in the House of God (Acts 22:17) and on another occasion, he underwent the prescribed purification rituals before commissioning the priests to offer sacrifices on his behalf (Acts 21:24–26).

In addition to their devotion to the Law of Moses and worship in the Temple, the early Jewish Christians embraced the practice of "breaking of the bread" (Acts 2:46). This act was not merely a symbolic ritual but a genuine meal that served a dual purpose: nourishing the participants and symbolically uniting them with one another, their Master Jesus, and with God. While the exact frequency of this rite is not specified, it appears to have been a daily occurrence, reminiscent of the sacred dinners of the fully initiated Essenes, as described by Jewish writers Philo and Josephus, and the Community Rule of the Dead Sea Scrolls. "Day by day, attending the Temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts" (Acts 2:46). Conversely, Acts 20:7 mentions Paul in Troas breaking bread on the first day of the week, and the Didache, the earliest Christian treatise (late first century C.E.), also instructs that bread should be broken and thanksgiving (Eucharist) performed each Sunday (Didache 14.1).

The Jerusalem Jewish Christians also practiced a form of religious communism. "No one said that any of the things which they possessed was their own, but they had everything in common" (Acts 4:32). Although they were not formally required to relinquish their property and goods, as was the case with the Essenes at Qumran, there was strong moral pressure to do so; failing to comply would have been deemed improper.

Before the inclusion of gentile candidates, the affiliates of the Jesus party were seen by the ordinary folks in Jerusalem as representatives of a Jewish movement or sect. They were similar in number to the Essenes and shared customs like the daily solemn meal and living off a common fund. In the late 50s of the first century, the followers of Jesus were known as the “sect [hairesis] of the Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5, 14). Later patristic literature referred to the Judeo-Christians as the Ebionites or “the Poor.” The church historian Eusebius (260–339 C.E.) noted that up until the Bar-Kokhba war (the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome [132–135 C.E.]), all 13 bishops of Jerusalem, starting with James, the brother of Jesus, were from the “circumcision” (Ecclesiastical History 4.3,5).

When we look closely, we see that Acts marks a significant demographic shift in the Jesus movement. Around 40 C.E., the family of the Roman centurion Cornelius in Caesarea was admitted into the church (Acts 10). This was followed by the gentile members of the mixed Jewish-Greek church in Antioch (Acts 11:19–24; Galatians 2:11–14), and many pagan converts of Paul in Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece. With these new members, the Jewish monopoly in the movement ended, giving birth to both Jewish and gentile Christianity.

In the Cornelius episode (Acts 10), the Roman centurion and his entourage experienced a Pentecost-like ecstasy that left Peter astonished and persuaded him to baptize them on the spot. This event, however, was quite exceptional, as no further conversion of a gentile is recorded in the Holy Land anywhere in the New Testament.

Fast forward to the late 40s C.E., in the bustling Syrian city of Antioch, where the once-novel became frequent. Emigré members of the Jerusalem church were joined by gentiles evangelized and baptized by Judeo-Christians from Cyprus and Cyrene (in North Africa). The mother church in Jerusalem dispatched Barnabas to manage this new mixed community. Barnabas, in turn, hurried to Tarsus in Cilicia to persuade his friend Saul/Paul, already a believer in Christ, to join him in overseeing the new church.

In Antioch, Jewish and gentile Christians coexisted happily and shared meals together. Peter, when visiting the community, willingly participated in their common meals. However, the arrival of some extra-zealous representatives from the Jerusalem church, led by James, the brother of Jesus, changed everything. Their disapproving attitude compelled all the Jewish Christians, including Peter and Barnabas, but notably not Paul, to stop their table fellowship with the Greek brethren (Acts 11:2). As a result, the union, fraternity, and harmony in the new mixed church vanished. Outraged, Paul confronted Peter and publicly called him a hypocrite (Galatians 2:11–14), sparking the first major row in Christendom.

The Jerusalem council marked the divergence of Jewish and gentile Christianity. While both groups agreed on key beliefs like Christ's return, the resurrection, and God's Kingdom, they had different views on other matters. Paul influenced gentile practices, transforming baptism into a mystical act and the communal meal into a sacramental event. These differences eventually led to animosity and anti-Jewish sentiment in the gentile church.

Two of the oldest Christian writings provide a fascinating glimpse into the differences between the two branches of early Jesus followers. The Didache, also known as the Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles, likely composed in Palestine or Syria, stands as our last major Jewish-Christian document preserved in its entirety. On the other hand, the Epistle of Barnabas is one of the earliest expressions of gentile Christianity, marked by its anti-Jewish sentiments.

The Didache is generally dated to the latter half of the first century C.E., potentially predating some New Testament writings. Its religious program is essentially a summary of the Mosaic Law, emphasizing the love of God and neighbor, and includes the so-called "golden rule" in its negative Jewish form: "Whatever you do not want to happen to you, do not do to another" (Didache 1.2). This contrasts with the positive Gospel version: "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them" (Matthew 7:12; Luke 6:31). The lifestyle advocated in the Didache mirrors that of the primitive Jerusalem community described in Acts, including religious communism: "Share all things with your brother and do not say that anything is your own" (Didache 4.8). It appears to recommend observing the entire Mosaic Law or as much of it as possible (Didache 6.2).

Baptism is depicted as an ablution, a purification rite, with a spray of water as an alternative to immersion if pools or rivers are unavailable. Communal prayer involved reciting the "Our Father" three times daily. The thanksgiving meal (Eucharist) was celebrated on the Lord’s Day (Sunday) (Didache 14:1). It was both a real dinner and a symbol of spiritual nourishment. Notably, there is no reference to the Lord’s Supper in the Pauline sense.

In the Didache, teaching authority was vested in itinerant prophets, much like those mentioned in Acts 11:27–28. These prophets were supported by bishops and deacons, who were not appointed by apostolic successors as was customary in gentile churches but were instead democratically elected by the community.

One of the most intriguing aspects of the Didache’s doctrine is its portrayal of Jesus. This early Judeo-Christian text does not incorporate Paul’s theological concepts of the redeeming Christ or John’s divine Word or Logos. Remarkably, Jesus is never referred to as the “Son of God” in the Didache. The only instance of this term appears in reference to the Antichrist, described as “the seducer of the world” (Didache 16.4). The sole title given to Jesus in the Didache is the Greek term "pais," which can mean either servant or child. Given that Jesus shares this title with King David in relation to God (Didache 9.2; see also Acts 4:25), it is evident that it should be interpreted as God’s “Servant.” Thus, the Didache employs the humblest Christological designation for Jesus.

In essence, the Jesus depicted in the Didache is primarily an eschatological teacher, anticipated to return soon to gather and lead the dispersed members of his church to the Kingdom of God. The Pauline and Johannine notions of atonement and redemption are conspicuously absent in this earliest account of Judeo-Christian life. Passed down by Jewish teachers to Jewish listeners, the image of Jesus in the Didache remains closely aligned with the earliest traditions underlying the Synoptic Gospels, and the Christian community described in the Didache mirrors the Jerusalem church depicted in Acts.

The transformation of Jesus' image from a charismatic prophet to a superhuman figure coincided with a significant geographical and religious shift. As the Christian gospel spread from the Galilean-Judean Jewish culture to the pagan Greco-Roman world, the church, under Paul's organizational brilliance, adopted a hierarchical structure led by bishops, presbyters, and deacons. This shift led to the diminishing Jewish influence, paving the way for a rapid "gentilization" and subsequent de-judaization and anti-judaization of early Christianity. This evolution is evident in the Epistle of Barnabas, one of the earliest works of gentile Christianity.

This letter, falsely attributed to Barnabas, Paul's companion, was actually penned by a gentile-Christian author, likely from Alexandria, around the 120s C.E. It nearly became part of the sacred scriptures, being included in the fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus, but was ultimately deemed non-canonical by the church. The letter references the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, dating it post-70 C.E., but its lack of mention of the Second Jewish Revolt (132–135 C.E.) suggests it was written before 135 C.E.

The Epistle of Barnabas is a hybrid work. It combines moral instructions (Barnabas 18–21), based on a Jewish tractate on the way of light and darkness, also found in the Didache 1–5 and the first-century B.C.E. Community Rule among the Dead Sea Scrolls, with a lengthy anti-Jewish diatribe (Barnabas 1–17). The author portrays two opposing groups, "we" (Christians) and "they" (Jews), with their dispute rooted in the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint), which both sides claimed as their own.

Barnabas seeks to enlighten his readers with "perfect knowledge" (gnosis) by unveiling the true meanings behind key Biblical concepts such as Covenant, Temple, sacrifice, circumcision, Sabbath, and food laws. He argues that the Jews have misunderstood these Old Testament institutions and precepts by interpreting them literally, whereas they should be understood allegorically, in line with the exegesis popular in Alexandria. Essentially, the laws of Moses have been spiritualized in the new law revealed by Jesus (Barnabas 2:5)

Barnabas emphasizes that sacrifice should not involve ritual slaughter but should instead demand a contrite heart. Forgiveness of sins is not achieved through the killing of animals but through the mystical sprinkling of Christ's blood (Barnabas 5:1–6). The ideas of Paul, which are overlooked by the author of the Didache, are central to Barnabas's thought. He asserts that those with gnosis understand that the grace of true circumcision of the heart is granted not by physical mutilation but through the cross of Jesus (Barnabas 9:3–7).

For Barnabas and his gentile Christian followers, the covenant between God and the Jews was never valid; it was nullified when Moses, upon seeing the Jews worshiping the golden calf, shattered the stone tablets inscribed by God's hand. This act rendered the Jewish covenant void, necessitating its replacement by the covenant sealed with the redemptive blood of "beloved Jesus" in the hearts of Christians (Barnabas 4:6–8, 14:1–7).

Barnabas presents a significantly more sophisticated image of Jesus compared to the Didache’s portrayal of Him as merely the “Servant” of God. Barnabas refers to Jesus as “the Son” or “the Son of God” over a dozen times, emphasizing His divine nature. This “Son of God” is depicted as having existed for all eternity, actively participating in the creation of the world. It was to this preexistent Jesus that God spoke the words, “Let us make man according to our image and likeness” at the foundation of the world (Barnabas 5:5, 6:12).

Barnabas further implies Jesus’s quasi-divine nature by explaining that the Son of God took on a human form because, without such a disguise, no one could look upon Him and survive (Barnabas 5:9–10). The ultimate purpose of the descent of “the Lord of the entire world” among humanity was to suffer in order to conquer death and demonstrate the reality of resurrection (Barnabas 5:5–6). This perspective aligns closely with, and perhaps even extends beyond, the Pauline-Johannine vision of Christ and His salvific work.

The divergence between Jewish and gentile Christianity is already evident at this stage, with the Epistle of Barnabas marking the beginning of the church’s doctrinal evolution along exclusively gentile lines. About fifty years after Barnabas, the bishop of Sardis, Melito, accused the Jews of deicide, stating, “God has been murdered … by the right hand of Israel” (Paschal Homily 96). Consequently, Jewish Christianity no longer holds any relevance.

The Didache represents the last gasp of Judeo-Christianity. Following Hadrian's suppression of the Second Jewish Revolt in 135 C.E., Jewish Christianity began its decline. Justin Martyr, who was executed in 165 C.E., proudly observed that by his time, non-Jews significantly outnumbered Jewish members within the church (First Apology).

As time went on, Judeo-Christianity, the elder sister that adhered to Mosaic precepts while embracing a primitive faith in Jesus, gradually became a fringe phenomenon. Judeo-Christians slowly disappeared, either rejoining the Jewish community or being absorbed into the gentile church.

Need more information on who Barnabas was, and what The Didache is? Click below!
Who was Barnabas in the Bible?
What is The Didache?

Please note: sources for this article include Biblical Archaeology Society and BibleRef.Com.