You can read here for one more article suggesting that the move from Jesus' followers to Gentile Christianity represents a later change, mostly associated with Paul.
In the New Testament, Jesus only preaches to a Jewish audience. Geza
Vermes describes the mission of the 11 apostles to preach to “all the
nations” (Matthew 28:19) as a “‘post-Resurrection’ idea.” After the
crucifixion, the apostles began to champion a new faith in Jesus and the
ranks of the Jesus movement (known as “the Way” at the time) swelled to
3,000 Jewish converts. At first, these followers were distinctly
Jewish, following Mosaic law, Temple traditions and dietary customs.
Geza Vermes writes that “Acts identifies the demographic watershed
regarding the composition of the Jesus movement. It began around 40 C.E.
with the admission into the church of the family of the Roman centurion
Cornelius in Caesarea (Acts 10). Later came the gentile members of the
mixed Jewish-Greek church in Antioch (Acts 11:19–24; Galatians 2:11–14),
as well as the many pagan converts of Paul in Syria, Asia Minor and
Greece. With them the Jewish monopoly in the new movement came to an
end. Jewish and gentile Christianity was born.”
Geza Vermes presents the late first century C.E. Jewish Christian
Didache as an important text for understanding the Jewish Jesus
movement. The Christian document focuses on Mosaic Law and the love of
God and the neighbor, and describes the observance of Jewish traditions
alongside baptism and the recitation of “Our Father.” The Didache treats
Jesus as a charismatic prophet, referring to Jesus with the term pais, a word for servant or child that is also used for King David, rather than the “Son of God.”
By contrast, the early second century Epistle of Barnabas shows a
distinctly gentile Christianity in its presentation of the Hebrew Bible
as allegory instead of covenantal fact. The clearly divinized Jesus in
this document is distanced from the Jewish Christians and the divide
between the Christian communities continued to widen over time. Geza
Vermes writes that after Hadrian’s suppression of the Second Jewish
Revolt, the Jewish Christians quickly became a minority group in the
newly established church. At this point we can see the origin of
Christianity as a distinctly non-Jewish religion; late in the second
century, the Jewish Christians either rejoined their Jewish peers or
become part of the newly gentile Christian church.
While the Jewish character of Christianity did certainly transform into a Gentile identity, whether or not this is seen as an imposition upon the Jewish Christian identity or its fullness realized is a different question. As is fo often, the presumption here is that the more authentic Christianity is that which existed prior to the Gentile explosion. In fact, Vermes does imply in the article that the "all nations" directive is isolated only to Matthew 28 and Mark's spurious ending and decidedly of Pauline influence and, perhaps, source.
Vermes posits that on the few occasions that Jesus ventured beyond the boundaries of his
homeland, he never proclaimed his gospel to pagans, nor did his
disciples do so during his lifetime -- and therefore the transformation to Gentile identity represented a break from Jesus' words and practice.
My point is that this article, from Biblical Archeology, represents the constant skepticism of the critic who refuses to accept Scripture for what it says and believes, suspiciously, that the Christianity of the second century represents a break from Christianity of the first century. And that, my friends, is the problem.
Scripture is pitted against Scripture and every sinister motive presumed. It is the same kind of stuff we hear from the likes of Bart Ehrman and a host of others who find the speculative more interesting and more substantive than the concrete of the text itself. As we head toward Christmas, these things seem to pop up in the media more and more. The truth? Hardly. The truth lies with the Word that endures forever. Do not be deceived,we can trust the Word. Strangely, the orthodox Christians pay more attention to concrete evidence within and outside of Scripture than those who call themselves archeologists and scholars....