Spring 2025 · Vol. 54 No. 1 · pp. 137–138
Book Review
The Meeting that Changed the World: The Council of Jerusalem AD 49
Durham, UK: Sacristy, 2019. 368 pages.
In this book, Michael Knowles—who describes himself as a retired Catholic “freelance student of theology” with MAs in theology and sociology—makes a case for modernizing reforms within the Catholic Church by appealing to the example of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. From Knowles’s perspective, the Jerusalem Council, which represents Christianity’s “break with Judaism” (43), serves as an authoritative example for the modern Catholic Church, which needs to jettison ritualism, misogyny, and antiquated cultural remnants. “Orthodox Judaism,” in Knowles’s work, embodies these vices. Breaking with the “Judaic,” then, is key for the Church to regain relevance in Western society.
After a seventeen-page introduction, the first twenty-eight of the book’s thirty chapters contain a generally speculative recounting of the events in Luke-Acts from Jesus’ resurrection (Luke 24) to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), highlighting the “educational and enlightenment process” that led “Christianity” to break with “Judaism” and become a separate “religion.” Chapter 29 discusses relevant evidence in Colossians and Ephesians, and Knowles’s final chapter is an extended argument for reforms within the Catholic Church, advocating for women as priests and clerical marriage, and against traditional Catholic teaching on contraception and divorce.
Central to the book’s argument are the claims that contemporary Catholicism can be compared with first-century Judaism and that the Jerusalem Council exemplifies “liberation” from oppressive Judaism (10). Unfortunately, Knowles’s “Judaism” is merely a caricatured foil—the plot’s necessary bad guy—and his rhetorical interest and unsupported assumptions about Judaism lead to continual anachronistically and historically dubious assertions. On one occasion, Knowles clarifies that first-century Judaism had multiple traditions (35); nevertheless, his presentation of these traditions is simplistic and inadequate, and despite this disclaimer, he continually returns to an essentialized Judaism, depicted as racist, misogynistic, legalistic, ritualistic, and nationalistic. Further, apparently picturing Judaism as a modern religious institution, he accuses this essentialized Judaism itself of “rejecting Jesus” (87-88), a historically indefensible assertion.
Moreover, Knowles’s triumphalist reconstruction presents the spirit of the Jerusalem Council as that which has inspired Western culture, effectively pitting both Judaism and certain Catholic traditions that he deems “Judaic” against Western society. For Knowles, the church must become un-Jewish, p. 138 a thesis involving a distinct cultural chauvinism. For example, he criticizes Muslim men living in Northern Europe who wear distinctive cultural dress and do not assimilate to their surrounding culture as “divisive” (158). This comment may seem oddly placed to the reader, but it shows how Knowles has conflated the spirit of Christianity with the spirit of Western society and identified that which fails to assimilate—whether traditionalism in the church, Islam, or modern Judaism—as “Judaic.” This is a dangerous line of reasoning, especially amid centuries of Christian anti-Jewish violence and contemporary Islamophobia to which Knowles shows little sensitivity.
Knowles’s work is an extended assertion of Christian supersessionism. That the church has replaced a defective Judaism is merely an assumption. That there is any other understanding is not considered. Given his bold assertions, there is a striking lack of engagement with or knowledge of second Temple Jewish sources or related scholarship. Knowles cites only one Acts commentary, which was published in 1904. The bibliography lists only nine modern sources in total. Interestingly, Knowles lists Paula Fredriksen’s Paul the Pagans’ Apostle and When Christians Were Jews. Nevertheless, Fredriksen’s work is nowhere mentioned in the text or notes, nor has it made any appreciable impact on his argument. On occasion, Knowles vaguely references scholarly opinion but without citing scholars or demonstrating awareness of contemporary discussions on Acts.
Many of Knowles’s concerns for the Catholic Church are laudable. However, as a work of Acts scholarship, this book is significantly lacking. I would not recommend it either for scholars or for a general audience seeking to know more about Acts or the Jerusalem Council. Numerous historical inaccuracies, anachronisms, and speculative readings are presented as fact without evidence. Alternatively, since the seminal work of E. P. Sanders, much important work has been done on the relationship between the early-Christian movement and Jewish thought and practice. One might consider the work of Paula Fredriksen, Matthew Thiessen, Mark Nanos, Magnus Zetterholm, Terence Donaldson, and many others. The book’s supersessionist argument is not new, but its anti-Judaism is dangerous, offensive, inaccurate, and an unfortunately persistent viewpoint among Christians. I for one long for the church’s break with anti-Judaism.
