Nostra Aetate at 60: What “roots” really means
The Vatican’s three dicasteries released the note "Un chemin d’espérance" on 16 September to mark 60 years since Nostra Aetate. The note reaffirms God’s covenant with the Jewish people as irrevocable and frames the Church’s relationship to Judaism as constitutive of Christian identity. It echoes Nostra Aetate’s language of Jewish roots, common spiritual patrimony, and the fact that many early apostles were born Jewish. The article discusses historian Daniel Boyarin’s scholarship, arguing that Judaism and Christianity emerged more entangled and earlier than traditional narratives, reinforcing the Vatican’s stance.
12 days ago
The article examines the meaning of Christianity’s “Jewish roots” sixty years after Nostra Aetate, arguing that recent historical scholarship presents Jewish and Christian origins as more intertwined and prolonged than the traditional account of two traditions separating from a common source. It highlights Daniel Boyarin’s work as a way to deepen, rather than challenge, the Catholic Church’s understanding of its relationship with Judaism.
A September 2026 document from three Roman Curia dicasteries, Un chemin d’espérance, reaffirmed key elements of the Church’s postconciliar teaching: God’s covenant with the Jewish people is irrevocable, and the Church’s relationship with Judaism is “constitutive” of Christian identity. It also repeated Nostra Aetate’s recognition that the Apostles and many of the first disciples were Jewish.
The article presents this language of Jewish “roots” and a “common spiritual patrimony” as theologically significant, while noting that historical scholarship has developed substantially since the Second Vatican Council.
Daniel Boyarin, a Talmudic scholar and historian of religion, has argued that Judaism and Christianity formed as distinct traditions through a much longer and more entangled process than conventional narratives suggest. His 2004 book Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity is identified as the central work for this argument.
According to the article’s presentation of Boyarin, early Jewish and Christian movements occupied a shared intellectual and religious environment. They drew on common scriptures, apocalyptic ideas, and messianic speculation, while theological concepts later associated with Christianity also existed within non-Christian Jewish thought.
The older 20th-century model described Second Temple Judaism as the common source from which Judaism and Christianity eventually diverged. Proposed turning points included the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, the traditionally reported council at Yavneh, or Paul’s missionary activity.
This model is represented as two rivers flowing away from one source, a framework the article associates with scholars such as James Parkes and Marcel Simon. The language of roots and branches in Nostra Aetate and the 2026 document remains compatible with this model.
Boyarin’s alternative account holds that “Judaism” and “Christianity” were not yet fully formed as mutually exclusive identities during much of the period when they are commonly assumed to have separated. The boundary between them was gradually established by authorities and teachers on both sides.
The article cites Justin Martyr’s second-century writings as one example of Christian identity being defined by excluding certain positions, while rabbinic authorities were simultaneously shaping what would become normative Judaism. In this account, each community clarified its identity partly through defining itself against the other.
Boyarin places the substantial completion of this partition in the fourth century, while acknowledging that communities positioned between the emerging traditions continued to exist afterward. The article also notes later contributions by Annette Yoshiko Reed and scholars associated with The Ways That Never Parted.
The article states that Boyarin’s account does not contradict Nostra Aetate or Un chemin d’espérance. Instead, it portrays the “common spiritual patrimony” identified by the Church as a longer and more directly shared history than the roots-and-branches metaphor alone conveys.
On this reading, Christianity’s relationship with Judaism reflects not only ancestry but also sustained interaction and mutual formation. The article concludes that historical scholarship can reinforce the Church’s affirmation of its relationship with the Jewish people by showing the depth and duration of that shared history.
Nostra Aetate redefines Christian identity through Jewish covenant
The statement is substantially correct, but it needs qualification: Nostra Aetate does not redefine Christianity as Judaism, nor does it replace Christ with the Jewish covenant. Rather, it rearticulates Christian identity as inseparably rooted in Israel’s election, Scriptures, covenant, and history.
Nostra Aetate directs the Church to understand “the mystery of the Church” through her spiritual bond with Abraham’s descendants. It teaches that the Church’s faith and election begin with the patriarchs, Moses, and the prophets; that she received the Old Testament through the Jewish people; and that Gentile Christians are grafted onto Israel’s cultivated olive tree.
This is more than a call for improved tolerance. Jewish-Christian dialogue becomes a means by which Christians recover their own identity. The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith describes it as “becoming fully aware of one’s own original identity,” because the Church cannot understand herself apart from her Jewish roots.
Thus, Christian identity is not self-contained or detached from Judaism. Jesus, Mary, the apostles, the first disciples, the Scriptures, and the promises of salvation all belong within Israel’s history.
Nostra Aetate does not teach two independent ways of salvation. The Church continues to confess Christ as the one and only Redeemer. The DDF explicitly rejects the interpretation that the irrevocability of God’s covenant with the Jewish people establishes a parallel salvific path alongside Christianity.
The relationship is therefore neither simple replacement nor religious equivalence. The Church is the “new people of God,” yet the Jewish people must not be portrayed as rejected or accursed by God. Christian fulfillment is understood as continuity with—and transformation of—the promises given to Israel, centered on Christ.
The decisive theological claim is that God’s election and gifts are not revoked. Nostra Aetate recalls Paul’s teaching that the Jewish people remain beloved for the sake of their ancestors and that God does not repent of his gifts and calling. Later Catholic teaching describes the Ancient Covenant as irrevocable while still affirming salvation through Christ.
This produces a distinctly Catholic understanding of identity:
The Council did not resolve every question concerning the present theological status of the Jewish covenant or precisely how “fulfillment” relates to older supersessionist categories. Catholic theologians continue to debate how to express both the enduring significance of Israel’s covenant and the uniqueness of Christ’s saving work.
Therefore, “Nostra Aetate redefines Christian identity through Jewish covenant” is best stated as follows:
Nostra Aetate renovates Christian self-understanding by insisting that the Church’s identity is covenantally and historically rooted in Israel, while maintaining that this identity reaches its fulfillment in Jesus Christ and does not establish a second path of salvation apart from him.