In studying the early conflict between Jews and Christians one must constantly guard against a tendency to oversimplify the issues in dispute and the causes of hostility. The conflict was as many-sided as the two opposing groups.

To suppose, for example, that the Pharisees were the sole protagonists on the Jewish side is to ignore the earlier conflict with pro-Roman Sadducees and the continuing conflict with anti-Roman Zealots. It further assumes that the primary opposition to Christianity was of an official nature, led by the acknowledged leaders of Jewry, and ignores the complexity of the Christian movement itself, which included a significant number of loyal Pharisees (Acts 15: 5; cf. 21: 20).

A similar inclination to oversimplification is seen in those statements which reduce the conflict to matters of orthopraxis as over against orthodoxy. It is not true to say that obedience to the requirements of Torah exempted one from conflict, regardless of one's beliefs. Whereas considerable tolerance prevailed in both areas (behaviour and belief) as far as most Jewish groups were concerned, there is reason for believing that Christians met with intolerance on account of their religious beliefs as well as for failure to observe all the requirements of Torah. The conflict is too narrowly conceived when viewed as a series of legal disputes.

The approach of historians, both Jewish and Christian, has generally been too theological. Jewish writers tend to find the basis of the conflict in the Church's rejection of Torah. Christians, on the other hand, are inclined to view the strife as due to Jewish rejection of the Messiah.