PREFACE<\/p>\n
This book arose out of a fascination with that elusive enigma called Jewish Christianity. I first encountered it under other names as a modern phenomenon. Many of its adherents would claim a continuity of community over the centuries in various places and forms. While this may prove to be a less-than-tenable position, it is clear that scattered across the pages of relations between Judaism and Christianity are numerous Jews who, for a wide spectrum of reasons, have attached themselves to the Christian faith. These too range widely, from the self-hating Donins and Pfefferkorns of the later middle ages to the Edersheims and Chwolsons of more recent times, men proud of their Jewish heritage and whose scholarly contributions left no small mark on the search for Christian origins. A comprehensive study of both phenomena is still desirable.<\/p>\n
The subject of this book was suggested to me over Christmas dinner by Randall Buth. While I was surprised to find that no comprehensive monograph had been done on the Nazarenes, the present study is only a small step in that direction.<\/p>\n
I would like to thank Prof. David Rokeah of the Hebrew University for his faithful advice and assistance both during and after the completion of this work. I am also grateful to Dr. Wesley Brown for putting at my disposal both the equipment and a quiet place to use it while I was preparing the final manuscripts. And finally, none of the work would have been accomplished without the generous financial assistance of the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Studies and the Warburg Foundation.<\/p>\n
Jerusalem, 1987<\/p>\n
Introduction<\/p>\n
In the course of the last century there has grown an ever-increasing interest among Church historians in the phenomenon known as Jewish Christianity. The relative newness of interest and complexity of the problem is shown by the large number of articles and chapters which have been written just attempting to establish a definition of Jewish Christianity. In the end it may prove fruitless to define it because it is so varied, but all should agree that needless argument over the differing concepts of \u201cJewish Christianity\u201d can be avoided. To the student of Early Christianity one thing becomes quickly apparent: in the early centuries there were many offshoot sects having some connection both to New Testament and to Jewish thought.
\nEven in the writings of some of the Church Fathers from the third and fourth centuries and later, this proliferation of \u201cJewish Christian\u201d sects led to confusion and to the confounding of different sects under the name \u201cEbionite.\u201d So convenient (and subtle) was this that it has caused not a few modern scholars to make the mistake of thinking that if we can box in the phenomenon known as Ebionism we will have defined Jewish Christianity. But Ebionism was not the direct heir of the Jewish apostolic church; it was at best only third generation, and to reconcile its doctrines with those of the New Testament requires no small amount of mental gymnastics.
\nAll of the first Christians were Jews, either by birth or by conversion, and yet within a hundred years of the report that tens of thousands \u201cfrom the circumcision\u201d had believed in Jesus as Messiah, there remained only small, despised pockets of Jewish Christians, and of these a large percentage seem to have been adherents to various late-blooming hybrids of Christian teaching with that of some free-thinking individual. It has been the interest of the present writer for the past few years to trace whatever remains can be found of the heirs of that first Jewish church in Jerusalem, those who \u201ccontinued in the apostles\u2019 doctrine.\u201d One event which would seem to provide the first link between that Jerusalem congregation and the Jewish Christianity of patristic writings is the reported flight to Pella of the Decapolis. This move to Pella was undertaken, according to Epiphanius, by the sect known as the Nazoraioi (Nazarenes). Or, as Epiphanius would rather express it, the Nazarenes were the descendants of those Jerusalem believers who fled to Pella. If this notice of the Bishop of Salamis is correct, then we have the desired link and identity of the Jewish Christian sect which we should investigate.
\nCuriously enough, investigative scholarship has dealt almost entirely with Ebionism, and to date no comprehensive monographic work has been dedicated to the Nazarenes, nor even to such later \u201cJewish Christian\u201d sects as the Symmachians or Elkesaites. It is the aim of the present work to start filling these lacunae.<\/p>\n
Chapter One<\/p>\n
The Name of the Sect<\/p>\n
The earliest documentary reference to \u201cNazarene\u201d as applied to a person is in the New Testament, and refers to Jesus. We do not find it in Paul\u2019s writings, which are commonly acknowledged to be the earliest of the New Testament canon, just as we do not find there the name \u201cChristian,\u201d (which is found only in Acts 11:26, 26:28, and 1 Pet. 4:16). Likewise, the earliest reference to a sect of Nazarenes occurs in Acts 24:5, when it is used by Tertullus, Paul\u2019s \u201cprosecutor.\u201d While it can be argued that the lawyer Tertullus invented the name for the occasion, there is a tradition as early as Tertullian that an early name for Christians was Nazarenes, and his claim is borne out by the earliest name in the various semitic languages. Obviously the name of the sect came from the title NAZORAIOS\/-NAZARENOS, evidently applied to Jesus from the beginning of his public ministry.<\/p>\n
Matthew 2:23<\/p>\n
While it is not central to the theme of this study, it will prove worthwhile to take a look at the origins of this name. The key verse is Matthew 2:23, in which it is stated that Joseph brought Jesus to live in Nazareth that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets \u201cHe shall be called a Nazarene.\u201d The difficulty is, of course, that no particular prophet says any such thing. It is a commonplace of scriptural criticism that Matthew quotes \u201cthe prophets,\u201d which may mean the general sense of prophecy rather than one particular reference. While this may be true, the general sense itself is based on specific prophetic statements. What passage or passages of the Old Testament are both messianic in content and somehow connected to the name of Nazareth?
\nThe solutions which have been proffered are legion, and it is happily not necessary to go through them all here, since this has been done recently by R.H. Gundry who deals with the various solutions in their natural groupings. After treating several minor suggestions and noting their failings, he considers two major theories. First, the references in Judges 13:5, 7, and 16:17 to the naziriteship of Samson; and secondly, the recent idea that the name came from an earlier Mandaean name perhaps through John the Baptist. The first possibility was already noted and rejected by Epiphanius (pan. 29 5,7), who sought a connection to the name Nazareth. As Gundry rightly notes, the most serious objection to this theory is that Jesus was not in fact a nazirite: \u201cThe Son of Man has come eating and drinking; and you say \u2018Behold, a gluttonous man, and a drunkard\u2019 \u201d (Luke 7:34).
\nGundry raises several serious objections to the second suggestion, of which we need mention only a few. Neither the disciples of Jesus nor those of John the Baptist are called Nazarenes in the gospels. John himself occupies a relatively small place in Mandaean literature, and all that it does tell us could easily have been taken from New Testament tradition. And finally, at the very root of the question, a close look at Mandaean practices shows that they were probably not even a Jewish sect at all, and therefore not valid candidates for the forebears of Christianity.
\nAs a solution to the origin of the name and the quote in Matt. 2:23, Gundry, like the present author, returns to the old but still valid reference to Isaiah 11:1, although he\u2014like not a few ancient writers before him\u2014prefers to see the verse as referring more to the sense of the prophets than exclusively to one prophecy.
\nEpiphanius provides an interesting area for speculation, in writing about the Nazarenes, saying that before the Christians were called Christians they were, for a short time, also called Iessaioi. He suggests at first\u2014without any explanation\u2014that the name came from Jesse, the father of David. Then he wavers, and concedes that it might have come from the name of Jesus, giving the impression that he has only the fact of the early name before him without anything but his own conjectures to explain it. Now if it is true that Nazarenes is an earlier name than Christians, as we are told by several Church fathers, we must assume that the two pre-\u201cChristian\u201d names were in use simultaneously, if Epiphanius is correct. The Greek name, Christian, was first applied in Antioch, probably the earliest mission to non-Jews, and it is well known that \u201cChristian\u201d was originally used by non-Christians to designate believers among the Gentiles, while \u201cNazarenes\u201d was already used in Palestine to describe Jewish adherents to the new messianic sect.
\nFew passages in the Old Testament are more messianic\u2014even in their early interpretation by Jewish exegetes\u2014than Isa. 11:1\u201310. The phrase in question reads \u05d5\u05d9\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d7\u05d8\u05e8 \u05de\u05d2\u05d6\u05e2 \u05d9\u05e9\u05d9 \u05d5\u05e0\u05e6\u05e8 \u05de\u05e9\u05e8\u05e9\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d9\u05e4\u05e8\u05d4. One immediately notices the juxtaposition of the words yi\u0161a\u00ee (Jesse) and ne\u1e95er (branch). This, I believe, can support Epiphanius\u2019 statement that the two names were both used before Christian. New Testament references are not lacking to indicate that this verse occupied a position of some importance in the early Church. Acts 13:22\u201323 reads: \u201cHe raised up David to be their king, concerning whom He also testified and said, \u2018I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will.\u2019 From the offspring of this man, according to promise, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus.\u201d It is not difficult to imagine that Isa. 11:1 formed a central part of the earliest Jewish Christian polemic, and that its centrally important words gave the followers their first name or names. Neither one of these words in itself would have any meaning for the Gentile world, but since Paul decided early to \u201cpreach Christ crucified\u201d (1 Cor. 1:23, 2:2), the name Christ provided ready material from which the Greeks could give a name. And of course the name Christos\u2014messiah\u2014for those who knew anything of Jewish thought (and the LXX) embodied the essence of Isa. 11:1.<\/p>\n
Acts 24:5<\/p>\n
About the year 57 Paul was brought to Caesarea and tried before Felix, then governor of Judaea. The lawyer for the prosecution was one Tertullus, who spoke on behalf of Ananias the high priest and certain \u201celders.\u201d According to the record in Acts 24, as Tertullus began to state his accusations against Paul, he said, \u201cWe have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.\u201d This is the first time that we read the name Nazoraioi in reference to Christians as a group. As mentioned above, it is not impossible that Tertullus is in fact the author of the title. But this seems unlikely. For one thing, in his reply Paul seems to accept the title without hesitation and even to equate it with the honored term, \u201cthe Way\u201d (v. 14, \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u1ff6 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03cc \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f41\u03b4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f23\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f35\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff4\u1ff3 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7). Also, Tertullus probably would not use a term before Felix which was unknown or meaningless. It is more likely that the attorney for the prosecution would choose a somewhat derogatory term, which, like most sect names, has been given from the outside. It would seem, then, that the earliest Jewish Christians called themselves something like \u201cdisciples (or followers) of the Way,\u201d while their opponents called them Nazarenes, most likely on the basis of some generally known (and despised) characteristic, such as their insistence on the fulfillment of a particular verse of prophecy.
\nIt is important to note that the name Nazarenes was at first applied to all Jewish followers of Jesus. Until the name Christian became attached to Antiochian non-Jews, this meant that the name signified the entire Church, not just a sect. So also in Acts 24:5 the reference is not to a sect of Christianity but rather to the entire primitive Church as a sect of Judaism. Only when the Gentile Church overtook and overshadowed the Jewish one could there be any possibility of sectarian stigma adhering to the name Nazarene within the Church itself. This should be borne in mind when considering the total absence of the name from extant Christian literature between the composition of Acts and 376, when the panarion was written. Even after the name Christianoi had been commonly accepted by Christians as the name they called themselves, it would require some passage of time until the earlier name would be forgotten and those who carried it condemned as heretics.
\nIt might be objected at this point that if it is true that Nazarenes was the earliest name for Christians, then we should expect to find the name more frequently in patristic literature before Epiphanius, more often certainly than the isolated notices of Tertullian and Eusebius. To be sure, it is strange (not to say frustrating) that the name is so universally ignored. The easy answer to this, of course, is to say that there is no recollection of the name (and sect) of the Nazarenes because there was no such sect until a later one was described by Epiphanius and visited by Jerome (if indeed these two fathers were not simply exercising their fantasies). But such an answer is too easy and is precluded by the accumulated weight of evidence.
\nIn searching for a more profound explanation, one is tempted to fall back on the lost notices of antiquity. If only we had the lost works of Papias or Hegesippus or Ariston of Pella or even Origen, two or three of whom lived in the right area and had some knowledge of Hebrew \u2026 This line of wishful thinking is not wholly without validity, but it is weakened by its vulnerability to the counter-reply that those writers whose works are extant (and voluminously) and who did still have access to now-lost treatises, should be expected to know of the name of the Nazarene sect. Of course, Tertullian and Eusebius did know the name, and as I have stated above, the single notice in Acts 24 is too flimsy to serve as the sole source for their assertions.
\nBut perhaps the solution is simpler than this. Perhaps it is linguistic. If any early Church father wrote in Hebrew, the work is unknown to us. It is true that Eusebius tells us of Hegesippus that he knew Hebrew and even used it, but as far as we know his Hypomnemata were written only in Greek. The difficulty is that Hebrew, Aramaic, or any other Semitic language would have had the potential of preserving naturally the early name (as, in fact, the Talmud does), but for someone writing in Greek it was more natural, upon finding the name Nazarenes referring to the (early) catholic Church, to change its form to the known and accepted Christianoi. Of course the lamentable fact that precious few of those Greek fathers would have been able to read a document in a semitic language only decreases the likelihood that the name Nazarene could have been preserved in their writings.
\nSo on the one hand it seems likely that the name was preserved somewhere between Acts and Tertullian, but on the other it is equally likely that it was infrequently mentioned in non-Semitic script, which may be accounted for by the predominance of Greek in early Church writing. It is no less important to keep in mind that any sect that did persist after the year 70 would almost certainly have been small, and given its basic orthodoxy of theology (including its acceptance of Paul), it posed little threat. Since it also preserved one of the several names attested to in the New Testament at a time when the greater Church itself had not settled on its own name, there would have been small reason to attack it; no more reason, at least, than an essentially orthodox small group known as \u201cbrethren\u201d or \u201cdisciples of the Way.\u201d<\/p>\n
Pliny\u2019s Nazerini<\/p>\n
While treating the name of the sect, we may deal here with a short notice by Pliny the Elder which has caused some confusion among scholars. In his Historia Naturalis, Book V, he says: Nunc interiora dicantur. Coele habet Apameam Marysa amne divisam a Nazerinorum tetrarchia, Bambycen quae alio nomino Hierapolis vocatur, Syris vero Mabog. This was written before 77 A.D., when the work was dedicated to Titus. The similarity of the name with the Nazareni has led many to conclude, erroneously, that this is an early (perhaps the earliest) witness to Christians (or Nazarenes) by a pagan writer. Other than this, be it noted, there is no pagan notice of Nazarenes.
\nThe area described is quite specifically located by Pliny. It is south of Antioch and east of Laodicea (Latakiya) on the River Marysas (Orontes) below the mountains known today as Jebel el Ansariye (a name which may preserve a memory of this sect). The town of Apamea was a bishopric in the time of Sozomen and an archbishopric in the medieval period. A fortress was erected there during the first Crusade. Today the region is inhabited by the Nu\u1e63airi Moslem sect (which believes that women will not be resurrected, since they do not have souls).
\nIf to the Nazerini and Nu\u1e63airi and Nazoraioi\/Nazareni we add the Nasaraioi of Epiphanius and the Nazorei of Filaster, we have all the ingredients for a scholastic free-for-all.
\nThe confusions may have started quite early. At the turn of this century, R. Dussaud noted a passage in the Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen (VII 15) in which he tells of some \u201cGalileans\u201d who helped the pagans of Apamea against the local bishop and the Christians. Dussaud rightly called into question the likelihood that the Galileans\u2014that is, Jewish Christians\u2014would side with the pagans in a dispute over the keeping of idols, and he suggested that the people referred to were \u201ccertainly either Nu\u1e63airi or Nazerini, whom Sozomen has confused with the Nazarenes.\u201d Sozomen\u2019s source here is unknown. Dussaud further suggested that the writer Greg. Aboulfaradj (Chron. Syr. I 173) in the year 891 confused the Nu\u1e63airi with the Mandaeans (\u05e0\u05bc\u05d0\u05e6\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0\u05d9\u05d9\u05d0 Natzoraia) and was followed by others.
\nCan Pliny\u2019s Nazerini be early Christians? The answer depends very much on the identification of his sources, and on this basis the answer must be an unequivocal No. It is generally acknowledged that Pliny drew heavily on official records and most likely on those drawn up for Augustus by Marcus Agrippa (d. 12 B.C.). Jones has shown that this survey was accomplished between 30 and 20 B.C. Any connection between the Nazerini and the Nazareni must, therefore, be ruled out, and we must not attempt to line this up with Epiphanius\u2019 Nazoraioi. One may, however, be allowed to see the Nazerini as the ancestors of today\u2019s Nu\u1e63airi, the inhabitants of the ethnic region captured some seven centuries later by the Moslems.<\/p>\n
Chapter Two<\/p>\n
Christian Sources before Epiphanius<\/p>\n
In setting the literary background for the notices of Epiphanius and Jerome by determining earlier patristic knowledge of the Nazarene sect, we must first note that no source mentions the Nazarenes by name as a distinct group. Necessarily, then, any evidence will be derived or inferred and not obtained from direct testimony. In light of this, it is best to state at the outset that the aim of this chapter is to establish the fact of the Nazarenes\u2019 continued existence into or near the fourth century. We shall be able to work from two directions: Firstly, from references where a Jewish Christian sect is described but not named, we can compare the description with what is known to us of Nazarene doctrine, and then try to identify a Nazarene presence. Secondly, we can find use or knowledge of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. This latter path, of course, depends on a positive identification of the Gospel according to the Hebrews with the Nazarene sect and is taken up separately in Chapter Six.<\/p>\n
Justin Martyr<\/p>\n
In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew Justin gives us the following information: \u201c \u2018But if some, even now, wish to live in the observance of the institutions given by Moses, and yet believe in this Jesus who was crucified, recognising him to be the Christ of God, and that it is given to him to be absolute judge of all, and that his is the everlasting kingdom, can they also be saved?\u2019 he [Trypho] inquired of me.\u201d \u201cAnd Trypho inquired again, \u2018But if someone, knowing that this is so, after he recognises that this man is Christ, and has believed in and obeys him, wishes, however, to observe these institutions, will he be saved?\u2019 I said, \u2018In my opinion, Trypho, such a one will be saved, if he does not strive in every way to persuade other men\u2014I mean those Gentiles who have been circumcised from error by Christ, to observe the same things as himself, telling them that they will not be saved unless they do\u2019.\u201d After explaining that some Christians condemn these, he says that as far as he is concerned if they \u201cwish to observe such institutions as were given by Moses \u2026 along with their hope in this Christ \u2026 yet choose to live with the Christians and the faithful \u2026 then I hold that we ought to join ourselves to such, and associate with them in all things as kinsmen and brethren.\u201d Justin goes on to indicate that for him the test is whether they believe in the Christ or not, and not whether or not they keep the Law.
\nThis is all fairly general, and primarily it tells us that in Justin\u2019s day there were still Jews who believed in Jesus as the Messiah. Among these, evidently, there were some who tried to persuade Gentile Christians to keep the Law and some, by inference, who did not. But for Justin there is one further criterion: Christ must be more than mere man; he must have been pre-existent with God. \u201c \u2018For there are some, my friends,\u2019 I said, \u2018of our race, who admit that he is Christ, while holding him to be man of men; with whom I do not agree, nor would I, even though most of those who have [now] the same opinions as myself should say so\u2019.\u201d This strongly worded statement should be contrasted with the tolerance of the previous ones. The fact that these people \u201cadmit that he is Christ\u201d is an indication that Justin is still speaking of Jews, and of these there are \u201csuch as have confessed and known this man to be the Christ, yet who have gone back from some cause to the legal dispensation, and have denied that this man is Christ,\u201d who, he says, \u201cshall by no means be saved.\u201d
\nSuffice it to say at this point that Justin, around the beginning of the second half of the second century, recognizes two kinds of Christians of the Jewish race whom he differentiates on christological grounds. One group, whom Justin condemns, holds doctrines which line up well with what is known to us of Ebionite teaching. The other group differs from Justin\u2019s orthodoxy only in its continued adherence to Mosaic Law.<\/p>\n
Origen<\/p>\n
Some twenty years after Justin issued his Dialogue, the pagan author Celsus wrote his \u201cTrue Discourse\u201d against the Christians. This work was answered by Origen, about seventy years later, in the Contra Celsum, which supplies us with all extant fragments from the work of Celsus. Both Celsus and Origen show a firsthand acquaintance with viable Jewish Christian communities. What is of interest to us here is a statement in the fifth book (chap. 61):<\/p>\n
Let it be admitted, moreover, that there are some who accept Jesus, and who boast on that account of being Christians, and yet would regulate their lives, like the Jewish multitude, in accordance with the Jewish Law,\u2014and these are the twofold sect of the Ebionites, who either acknowledge with us that Jesus was born of a virgin, or deny this, and maintain that he was begotten like other human beings.\u2026<\/p>\n
This reference to the two kinds of Ebionites must remind us of the testimony of Justin, and it is not without significance that here again they are to be separated on the basis of Christology, and that one of the two sects holds the orthodox line in the disputed matter while the other denies anything divine in Jesus\u2019 origins. If the more orthodox Jewish Christians (who can only be faulted for keeping the Law) are Nazarenes, then we have an early misuse of the name Ebionite to include all Jewish Christian Law-keepers.
\nWhile looking at Origen, we may consider the statements he makes concerning the man from whom, perhaps, he learned some of his Hebrew. \u201cMy Hebrew master also used to say that those two seraphim in Isaiah, which are described as having each six wings, and calling to one another and saying \u2018holy, holy, holy is the Lord God of Hosts,\u2019 were to be understood of the only-begotten Son of God and of the Holy Spirit.\u201d \u201cFor my Hebrew teacher also used to teach thus, that as the beginning or end of all things could be comprehended by no one save only our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, so under the form of a vision Isaiah spoke of two seraphim alone \u2026\u201d. The passage referred to is Isa. 6:2\u20133 in both notices, and one is left to wonder if this expression of the trinity came from an individual or from some commentary. The original Greek of Origen would seem to have read \u1f41 \u1f11\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 (the Hebrew) which Rufinus took to mean a person and thus translated Hebraeus magister (Hebrew teacher). But could \u1f41 \u1f11\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 possibly indicate some sort of Jewish Christian commentary? Jerome quotes from such a work on Isaiah at least five times, a work which he specifically attributes to the Nazarenes. In a later work against Origen by Antipater, Bishop of Bostra (fl.454), we have an indication that this citation by Origen is indeed from a written work. Evidently, however, neither Rufinus nor Antipater had any further information on which to base their interpretations; each simply interpreted as seemed best to him.
\nIf we return to Jerome for a moment, we may be able to decide which of the two has understood Origen correctly. In each instance where Jerome cites the Nazarene commentary on Isaiah he relates to it in a neutral\u2014if not in fact respectful\u2014manner. However, in his own commentary on the prophet (in which all of the Nazarene citations appear), when he arrives at Isa. 6:2\u20133 he openly attacks Origen\u2019s interpretation, while making no mention of any Hebraeus. Indeed, Jerome attacks this interpretation on two other occasions, and both times he attributes the error directly to Origen without a hint that the Alexandrian had taken it from elsewhere. As far as Jerome was concerned, the heresy was Origen\u2019s. One may be allowed to surmise that had Jerome found this exegesis in the Nazarene commentary he would have been less absolute in his attribution of it to Origen.
\nOne other simple consideration should settle the matter. In both passages the verb is in the imperfect tense. In the Greek preserved by Justinian we read \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5, translated by Rufinus as dicebat (I 3,4), while in the other passage we have tradebat, where the Greek presumably read \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5. This use of the imperfect tense would have been inappropriate if Origen were citing a written source (even one he had lost), but it is clearly in keeping with information heard from someone. We must conclude that Origen did have some contact with an individual of Jewish birth who believed in Jesus and whose Christology may not have been so damnable as Jerome would make out. He was clearly not an Ebionite, but whether he was a Nazarene or simply an isolated Jewish member of the greater Church we cannot say.<\/p>\n
Eusebius<\/p>\n
Finally we turn to Eusebius, who also makes mention of a dichotomy of \u201cEbionites.\u201d After describing the ones whom we know from Justin and Origen who \u201cheld him [Christ] to be a plain and ordinary man who had achieved righteousness merely by the progress of his character and had been born naturally from Mary and her husband, [who] insisted on the complete observation of the Law, and did not think that they would be saved by faith in Christ alone and by a life in accordance with it,\u201d he goes on to describe another kind of Ebionite.<\/p>\n
But there were others besides these who have the same name. These have escaped the absurd folly of the first mentioned, and did not deny that the Lord was born of a Virgin and the Holy Spirit, but nevertheless agreed with them in not confessing his pre-existence as God, being Logos and Wisdom. Thus they shared in the impiety of the former class, especially in that they were equally zealous to insist on the literal observance of the Law. They thought that the letters of the Apostle ought to be wholly rejected and called him an apostate from the Law. They used only the Gospel according to the Hebrews and made little account of the rest. Like the former they used to observe the Sabbath and the rest of the Jewish ceremonial, but on Sundays celebrated rites like ours in commemoration of the Savior\u2019s resurrection. Wherefore from these practices they have obtained their name, for the name Ebionites indicates poverty of their intelligence, for this name means \u201cpoor\u201d in Hebrew.<\/p>\n
What are Eusebius\u2019 sources? In the section immediately preceding this one [26,2] he cites Irenaeus and Justin. In the passage which follows he names Gaius, the Roman presbyter of a century earlier. This latter would seem to be eliminated, however, by the wording of the transition between the passages. Two other possible candidates are Tertullian and Hippolytus\u2019 Refutation of all Heresies. Let us consider the last-mentioned first.
\nThe information of Hippolytus about the Ebionites gives us precisely what Eusebius tells us about the first kind of Ebionites: they believed that Jesus was a righteous man who kept the Law, and we will also obtain righteousness only by keeping it. For their beliefs about Christ we must unite the statement, \u201cjust like Cerinthus and Carpocrates they relate only myths\u201d with the christological beliefs of Cerinthus given immediately before: \u201cand he held that Jesus was not born of a virgin but rather of Joseph and Mary, a son born like all other men, and more righteous and wiser.\u201d However, it is not necessary to stop with Hippolytus, who was a student of Irenaeus and is known to have borrowed freely from his master. So it is for the sections under consideration here. The order, the relative lengths, and the actual language used, show clearly that Hippolytus is here using Irenaeus, and in fact we probably have a good facsimile of the lost Irenaean Greek preserved in the Refutation for these chapters.
\nBut the source of Eusebius\u2019 information\u2014Irenaeus or Hippolytus\u2014can be resolved by looking carefully into Eusebius himself. A little earlier, in III 26, Eusebius deals with Menander. In fact, he is picking up a thread he dropped in II 13 and 14, when he wrote about Simon Magus. One could justly call II 15, 1\u2013III 23,7 an extended excursus, and this seems to be borne out by the way Eusebius returns to his subject: \u201cLet us now resume the account. Menandros succeeded Simon the magician.\u201d So after dealing with Simon and Menander, the Bishop of Caesarea then treats the Ebionites, Cerinthians, and Nicolaitans. Irenaeus\u2019 order of treatment is as follows (adv. haer. I 23\u201326): Simon, Menander, Saturninus and Basilides, Carpocrates, Cerinthus, Ebionites, and Nicolaitans. The missing Saturninus, Basilides, and Carpocrates are taken up by Eusebius in IV 7,4 and 9, where he expressly cites Irenaeus as his source. For the rest of the heresies also, Eusebius specifically cites Irenaeus for all but Ebionites. On this analysis alone we must give Irenaeus first consideration as Eusebius\u2019 primary source for the Ebionites.
\nThere is a further reason. It is a notable fact that Eusebius never mentions a person named Ebion as one from whom the Ebionites received their name. Even Origen, who seems to have been the first to supply the fact that eby\u00f4n means poor in Hebrew, nevertheless seems, curiously, to have made one mention of Ebion. Irenaeus alone, of all of Eusebius\u2019 possible sources for the Ebionite sect, never mentions an Ebion. The first to do so was either Tertullian or Hippolytus, and after them this is the common story, except in Eusebius, until Epiphanius took over and gave Ebion an evil, tentacled personality.
\nEusebius is primarily dependent on Irenaeus, but not exclusively. That is not his way. As he often does, Eusebius has included information and impressions from several sources, in this case Origen and perhaps Justin. For example, returning to our present subject, Irenaeus gives no hint of two classes of Ebionites. Origen is the first to do so, and Eusebius is surely following him in this.
\nAnother point at which Eusebius may be dependent on someone other than Irenaeus is in his statement that \u201cthese [other Ebionites] escaped the folly of the first mentioned, and did not deny that the Lord was born of a virgin and the Holy Spirit, but nevertheless agree with them in not confessing his pre-existence as God, being the Logos and Wisdom\u201d (\u03bf\u1f50 \u2026 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03cb\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f30 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2). The source for this may be either Justin or Origen. In the Dialogue passage (48,2) already cited, we read: \u201c \u2018now assuredly, Trypho,\u2019 I continued, \u2018(the proof) that this man is the Christ of God does not fail, though I be unable to prove that he existed formerly (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03cb\u03c0\u1fc6\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03bd) as son of the Maker of all things, being God, and was born a man by the Virgin. But since I have certainly proved that this man is the Christ of God, whoever he be, even if I do not prove that he pre-existed (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03cb\u03c0\u1fc6\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5) \u2026\u2019.\u201d It will readily be seen that this has several points of contact with Eusebius, not least of which is the use of the word \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03cb\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.
\nThe other possible source is Origen\u2019s in Ep. ad Titum:<\/p>\n
But now one and the same must be believed also with regard to him who thinks something wrong about our Lord Jesus Christ, or according to those who say that he was born of Joseph and Mary, like the Ebionites and the Valentinians, or according to those who deny that he is the first born, God of all creation, Word, Wisdom, which is the beginning of the ways of God, before anything came into being, founded before the worlds and generated before the hills, but say that he was only a man.\u2026<\/p>\n
The reader may decide for himself. The present writer would have to be swayed by the obvious parallel of \u201cDeum et Verbum et Sapientam\u201d to \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, where antequam aliquid fieret (\u201cbefore anything came into being\u201d) could possibly have provided the basis for Eusebius\u2019 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03cb\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. The important point is that he has mixed together more than one source, and perhaps even several sources from several authors. The result is confused and confusing. While Eusebius is aware of more than one kind of \u2018Ebionite\u2019 in his sources, he has not succeeded very well in distinguishing their traits. So in III 27,1\u20132, we find the known, unorthodox kind of Ebionites, but in the following section (3\u20136) some of the traits which rightly belonged to the first group are erroneously assigned to the second, as indeed is the very name of the sect.
\nHow did this confusion come about? Justin knew of two kinds of Jewish Christians but gives them no name in his extant works. Irenaeus wrote against Ebionites but knew of no distinctions, christological or otherwise, within Ebionism itself. The same can be said of Tertullian and Hippolytus. When we come to Origen, however (and return to the East), we again find two classes of Jewish Christians which he calls Ebionites. From this point on, the name Ebionite becomes a catch-all for Law-keeping Christians of Jewish background. It would seem that this tendency began somewhere in the first half of the third century. Other confusions in this second part of Eusebius\u2019 notice are reserved for the chapter on Epiphanius, which follows.
\nIn summary we may say that Justin knows of two divisions of Jewish Christians, one of whom held an orthodox Christology with regard to the virgin birth and pre-existence of Jesus. Origen, who also knows of two groups, identifies the unorthodox group of Justin as Ebionites. While he calls his more orthodox Jewish Christians Ebionites also, he is inconsistent in this, and we may be justified in concluding that the two groups did not carry the same name. Eusebius, in his turn, cannot avoid seeing\u2014in his sources, if not also from hearsay\u2014two distinguishable Jewish Christian groups, but he does not succeed very well in discerning the beliefs which separate them. For him there is only one name, Ebionite.
\nThis establishes the continued existence, into the third century at least, if not later, of a Jewish Christian entity whose doctrines tend to distinguish it\u2014in the direction of \u201corthodoxy\u201d\u2014from the Ebionites. These are the Nazarenes. In the chapters which follow we shall further isolate them and define their doctrines.<\/p>\n
Chapter Three<\/p>\n
Epiphanius<\/p>\n
Epiphanius was born about 315 near Eleutheropolis (Beit Guvrin) in Judea and died in 402 or 403 at sea. His native language was Syrian, and besides Greek and Latin he also had limited knowledge of Coptic and Hebrew. He studied in Egypt and then returned home where, in about 335, he set up a monastery which he governed for 30 years. In 367 the bishops of Cyprus elected him Bishop of Constantia (Salamis), which made him effectively the metropolitan of the island. His life was dedicated to the fighting of heresy, particularly Origenism, and in 374 he began writing the panarion (generally known as the Refutation of All Heresies), which he completed in just over two years. It included some eighty heresies, twenty of them pre-Christian. While the panarion preserves for us many traditions that would have otherwise been lost, the work as a whole is tendentious in its use of its sources, citing only what supports his own unbending orthodoxy. This quality, of course, presents the investigator with frequent difficulties and demands extra caution in approaching the facts proffered by Epiphanius.
\nBefore the year 428 there appeared a kind of summary of the panarion, known as the anacephalaiosis. This work is almost certainly not by Epiphanius himself, but it is not impossible that it was compiled by someone not far removed from him. In 382 Epiphanius met Jerome in Rome and from that time the two joined forces against Origenism.
\nThe question of Epiphanius\u2019 sources for the panarion is an important one in our investigation. Generally he was dependent on earlier heresiological lists, notably those of Irenaeus and Hippolytus. However, when we come specifically to his chapter on the Nazarenes, we must start from scratch: the Nazarenes are named in no extant work before Epiphanius. First let us bring the chapter in full.<\/p>\n
Panarion 29<\/p>\n
[1,1] (K) They are succeeded by the Nazarenes. They lived at the same time, or before them, either with them or after them. In any case they are contemporaries. For I cannot determine who are the successors of whom. For, as I said, they were contemporaries and possessed identical ideas. [1,2] They did not give themselves the name of Christ, or that of Jesus, but they called themselves Nazarenes. [1,3] All Christians were called Nazarenes once. For a short time they were also given the name Iessaians, before the disciples in Antioch began to be called Christians. [1,4] (P) And they were called Iessaians because of Jesse, it seems to me, since David was from Jesse, and by lineage Mary was of the seed of David, fulfilling the holy scriptures according to the Old Testament when the Lord said to David [Ps 131:11 LXX(=132:11)], \u201cFrom the fruit of your loins will I set upon your throne.\u201d
\n[2,1] But I am afraid that with any proposed interpretation such as that which I have just made, I will be violating the truth if I concentrate too much on the literal meaning, because not much breadth is to be obtained in the construction of the statement. [2,2] For when the Lord said to David \u2018from the fruit of your loins will I set upon your throne,\u2019 clearly the promise of God is unchangeable. [2,3] And what is the primary quality of an oath by God if not \u2018The Lord says, I have sworn by myself\u2019? \u2018for God could swear by no one greater.\u2019 But even without the divine oath, the word is able to demonstrate its own certainty. For the Lord swore with an oath to David that from the fruit of his loins he would set upon his throne. [2,4] And the apostles bear witness that the Christ had to be born of the seed of David, just as also our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was born. I will pass over the many testimonies so as not to burden the narrative, as I have already said. [2,5] But someone may perhaps say that after the Christ was born of the seed of David according to the flesh (i.e., from the holy virgin Mary), why is it that he has not been seated on the throne of David? For the gospel says, \u2018They were going to anoint him king, and when he learned of it, he withdrew\u2019 [John 6:15] and \u2018he hid in Ephraim, a city of the wilderness\u2019 [John 11:54]. [2,6] Since we have spoken here about the saying and we may be asked about this testimony and the claim that some of the word regarding the Savior on the physical side was not fulfilled, that he be seated on the throne of David (for it may be thought by some that it was not fulfilled), let us say that it has been fulfilled nonetheless. For not one word of God\u2019s holy scripture fails.
\n[3,1] The throne of David and the royal seat are the priesthood in the holy church, the very royal honor and high priesthood which the Lord gave to his holy church, which he himself united into one. He transferred the throne of David into the church, never to leave her. [3,2] For the throne of David proceeded from that time according to the succession up until Christ himself, not departing from the leaders of Judah until there came \u2018the one for whom the things were reserved, and he is the expectation of the nations\u2019 [Gen. 49:10], as it says. [3,3] With the coming of Christ, the succession of leaders of Judah came to an end. Until him the anointed kings ruled, but the order crumbled and ceased when he was born in Bethlehem of Judaea, in the time of Alexander, who was of priestly and royal stock. [3,4] After Alexander, this office crumbled, from the time of Salina (also called Alexandra), during the years of Herod the king and Augustus the Roman emperor. This same Alexander, one of the anointed rulers, also placed the diadem on himself. [3,5] For joining together the two tribes, both royal and priestly, in other words Judah and Aaron and the whole tribe of Levi, he became king and priest. For not one of the figurative sayings of holy scripture has gone astray. [3,6] Moreover, the foreign king Herod then assumed the diadem, and there were no longer any descendants of David. [3,7] And after the royal seat was changed, the royal honor was transferred in Christ from its fleshly dwelling of Judah and Israel to the Church, and the throne has been established forever in the holy church of God. It holds this honor from two aspects, both royal and high-priestly\u2014[3,8] that is, it holds the royal honor from our Lord Jesus Christ according to two ways: both because he is from the seed of King David according to the flesh and because he is the very one who is the greater eternal king by virtue of his divine nature. The priestly honor it holds, because he who is high priest and chief of high priests afterward was installed as the first bishop: James, [3,9] called apostle and brother of the Lord. (He was the physical son of Joseph by lineage and called \u2018the brother of the Lord\u2019 because he lived closely together with him.)
\n[4,1] This James was the son of Joseph from his [first] wife, not from Mary, just as this has also been told to us in many places and very clearly worked out for us. [4,2] We find, on the one hand, that he also was from David because he was the son of Joseph, and he became a Nazirite (because he was the firstborn of Joseph and consecrated [as such to God]). [4,3] Wherefore he was also allowed once a year to enter into the holy of holies, just as the Law commanded the high priests according to the scriptures. So relate many who came before us concerning him, Eusebius and Clement and others. [4,4] On the other hand, he was even allowed to wear the high priest\u2019s mitre on his head, just as the aforementioned trustworthy men bear witness in their writings. [4,5] Accordingly, as it says, our Lord Jesus Christ is \u2018a priest forever after the order of Melchisedek\u2019 [Heb. 6:20], and at the same time a king according to heavenly order, so that he might hold the priesthood together with the office of lawgiver. [4,6] Having sat down on the throne of the seed of David through Mary, [the throne remains his] forever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end [Luke 1:33]. Necessarily he also holds the order of the kingship. However, his kingdom is not from the earth, as he said to Pontius Pilate in the gospel, \u2018My kingdom is not of this world.\u2019 [4,7] For that which was written [\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2] was, to a degree, a figurative anticipation, but now Christ has fulfilled all things. For he did not come to receive the dignified position of kingship, since he is eternally king, but rather he granted the kingdom to those who have been enthroned by him, lest it be thought that he proceeded from the lower estate to the higher. [4,8] For the throne remains his, and of his kingdom there shall be no end, and he is seated on the throne of David, having removed the kingship from David and given it together with the high priesthood to his bondservants, that is, to the high priests of his universal church. [4,9] There is also much to say about this; however, I have come to the passage because of which those who had believed in Christ were called Iessaians before they were called Christians, and because of this I said that Jesse was the father of David; and either on the basis of this Jesse or from the name of Jesus our Lord they were named Iessaians\u2014because they began from Jesus, being his disciples, or because of the etymology of the name of the Lord. For Jesus in the Hebrew dialect means either healer or physician and savior. [4,10] Be that as it may, they acquired this name before they were called by the name Christians. But in the time of Antioch, as if we were named from above and because our way of life had to do with the truth, the disciples and all the church of God began to be called Christians.
\n[5,1] But you may also find, O Philologist, the way of life of these we are discussing in the writings of Philo, in his book written about the Iessaioi. When he relates in full their custom in words of praise, depicting their monasticism in the area surrounding the Mareotis lake, the man is not telling about Christians. [5,2] For he was in the region [the area is called Mareotis], and staying for a while among them, he was helped in the monasteries of the region. [5,3] And as he was there during the days of Pascha, he even observed their customs, how some extended their fast right through the holy week of Pascha, while others were eating every second day, and still others were eating evening by evening. But, as I said, all of these matters have been worked out by the man in his treatise pertaining to the faith and the practices of the Christians. [5,4] (K) When they were once called Iessaians during a short period, some again withdrew at that time after the ascension of the Lord when Mark preached in the land of Egypt. They were so-called followers of the apostles, but I suppose that they were Nazarenes who are described by me here. By birth they are Jews and they dedicate themselves to the Law and submit to circumcision. [5,5] But as some happen to see a fire but do not understand why they have kindled the fire or for what purpose they did it\u2014whether to get food ready to eat for their subsistence with the help of fire, or because they are used to destroy with the help of fire inflammable wood or firewood\u2014in the same way they have kindled a fire and have set fire to themselves. [5,6] For after having heard the name of Jesus only and having seen the divine signs performed by the hands of the apostles, they also believed in Jesus. When they came to know that he was conceived in Nazareth and had grown up in the house of Joseph and therefore is called Jesus the Nazarene in the Gospel, as also the apostles say: \u2018Jesus the Nazarene, a man made known by signs and miracles,\u2019 etc., they gave themselves this name calling themselves Nazarenes\u2014[5,7] not Naziraeans, which translated means sanctified ones. For this title of honor was borne in the past by the first-born children who were sanctified to God. Samson belonged to them and others after him and also many before him. But also John the Baptist himself was one of those who were sanctified to God \u2018for he drank no wine and strong drink.\u2019 This way of life has been determined for such people in agreement with their dignity.
\n[6,1] But they also did not call themselves Nasaraeans, for the heresy of the Nasaraeans existed before Christ and they did not know him. [6,2] However, everyone called the Christians Nazarenes, as I said before. This appears from the accusation against Paul which was as follows: \u2018We discovered that this man is a pest, somebody disturbing the people, the leader of the heresy of the Nazarenes\u2019 [Acts 24:5]. [6,3] The holy apostle did not deny this name although he was not a follower of their heresy, but he gladly accepted the name which was inspired by the malice of his opponents because it had been borne by Christ. [6,4] For he said at the tribunal: \u2018They did not find me in the temple speaking with somebody or causing a riot. Nothing of what I am accused of did I do. I admit to you that I serve God in that way which they call a heresy, believing everything which is in the Law and the Prophets.\u2019 [6,5] For it is no wonder that the Apostle admitted he was a Nazarene because everybody called Christians with that name at that time, because of the city of Nazareth and because at that time there was no other name in use. Therefore persons were called Nazarenes who came to believe in Christ, of whom it is written that \u2018he will be called a Nazarene\u2019 [Matt. 2:23]. [6,6] For also at this time people give all heresies\u2014I mention the Manichaeans, the Marcionites and the Gnostics and all the others\u2014the same name of Christians while they are not Christians. And also every heresy, even if it has a different name, will gladly bear that name because it gives them lustre. For they may suppose that they can be proud of the name of Christ but that does not apply to their beliefs and works. [6,7] Likewise the holy disciples of Christ called themselves disciples of Jesus, which they really were. When they heard the name Nazarenes from others, they did not reject it, because they saw what was meant by those who called them by this name, viz. that they called them by this name because of Christ, since our Lord himself was also called Jesus the Nazarene, as appears from the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. [6,8] For he grew up in the city of Nazareth, at the time a village, in the house of Joseph after being born according to the flesh in Bethlehem of Mary, ever virgin, who was betrothed to Joseph. He moved to that same Nazareth when he settled down in Galilee after his departure from Bethlehem.
\n[7,1] These heresies, just mentioned, of which we here are giving a brief sketch, passing over the name of Jesus, did not call themselves Iessaians and did not keep the name Jews; they did not call themselves Christians, but Nazarenes, taking this name from the place Nazareth. But actually they remained wholly Jewish and nothing else. [7,2] For they use not only the New Testament but also the Old, like the Jews. For the Legislation and the Prophets and the Scriptures, which are called the Bible by the Jews, are not rejected by them as they are by those mentioned above. They are not at all mindful of other things but live according to the preaching of the Law as among Jews: there is no fault to find with them apart from the fact that they have come to believe in Christ. [7,3] For they also accept the resurrection of the dead and that everything has its origin in God. They proclaim one God and his Son Jesus Christ. [7,4] They have a good mastery of the Hebrew language. For the entire Law and the Prophets and what is called the Scriptures, I mention the poetical books, Kings, Chronicles and Esther and all the others, are read by them in Hebrew as is the case with the Jews, of course. [7,5] Only in this respect they differ from the Jews and Christians: with the Jews they do not agree because of their belief in Christ, with the Christians because they are trained in the Law, in circumcision, the Sabbath and the other things. [7,6] With regard to Christ I cannot say whether, misled by the wickedness of the aforesaid followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus, they believe that he is a mere man or whether, in agreement with the truth, they emphatically declare that he was born of the Holy Spirit from Mary. [7,7] This heresy of the Nazarenes exists in Beroea in the neighborhood of Coele Syria and the Decapolis in the region of Pella and in Basanitis in the so-called Kokabe, Chochabe in Hebrew. [7,8] For from there it took its beginning after the exodus from Jerusalem when all the disciples went to live in Pella because Christ had told them to leave Jerusalem and to go away since it would undergo a siege. Because of this advice they lived in Perea after having moved to that place, as I said. There the Nazarene heresy had its beginning.
\n[8,1] (P) But these have also erred in boasting of circumcision, and such are still \u2018under a curse\u2019 not being able to fulfill the Law. For how would they be able to keep that which is said in the Law, that \u2018you shall appear before the Lord your God three times every year\u2019 [Exod. 23:17], at the Feast of Unleavened Bread and at Tabernacles and at the Feast of Weeks in Jerusalem? [8,2] Since they have been banned from the region, and the things of the Law cannot be fulfilled, it is clear to all who have any intelligence whatever that Christ came that the Law might be fulfilled; he did not come destroying the Law but rather fulfilling it, and he determined to take away the curse which resulted from transgressing the Law. [8,3] For after the completion of the whole commandment by Moses, when he came to the end of the book, \u2018he included everyone together under a curse\u2019 saying \u2018cursed is he who does not keep all of the words written in this book to do them [Deut. 27:26]. [8,4] So he [Jesus] came releasing those things chained by the bonds of the curse and instead of the small things which could not be fulfilled, he has granted us greater things which do not conflict with each other for fulfillment as did the former things. [8,5] For thus it is with every heresy, often trying to outdo each other in the matter prescribed concerning the keeping of the Sabbath and circumcision and other things, even though our Lord freely gave us a more perfect way. [8,6] And how can such maintain any argument, when they do not listen to what was said by the Holy Spirit through the apostles to the believers from the Gentiles: \u2018to lay [on you] no greater burden than these essentials: refrain from blood and from things strangled and from fornication and from things sacrificed to idols\u2019? [8,7] And how will they not fall away from the grace of God when Paul the holy apostle says that \u2018if you are circumcised Christ will be of no benefit to you,\u2019 \u2018you who boast in the Law, you have fallen from grace\u2019?
\n[9,1] (K) The brevity of this exposition will also be sufficient for this heresy. For such prople make a fine object to be refuted and are easy to catch, for they are rather Jews and nothing else. [9,2] However, they are very much hated by the Jews. For not only the Jewish children cherish hate against them but the people also stand up in the morning, at noon, and in the evening, three times a day and they pronounce curses and maledictions over them when they say their prayers in the synagogues. Three times a day they say: \u2018May God curse the Nazarenes.\u2019 [9,3] For they are more hostile against them because they proclaim as Jews that Jesus is the Christ, which runs counter to those who still are Jews who did not accept Jesus. [9,4] They have the entire Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew. It is carefully preserved by them in Hebrew letters, as I wrote in the beginning. But I do not know whether they also have omitted the genealogies from Abraham to Christ. [9,5] (P) But now that we have exposed this heresy as weak and the cause of pain by wasp\u2019s poison, and having crushed it with the truth, let us go on to what remains, Beloved, asking help from God.<\/p>\n
There is no clear internal evidence as to Epiphanius\u2019 source or sources for this information. What is more, there is nothing in this long chapter which gives any clear indication that Epiphanius had any personal contact with the sect against whom he writes. This is particularly surprising, since one often finds it stated that Epiphanius had some personal knowledge of the Nazarenes. As a matter of fact, we may have some evidence that he was not personally acquainted with them in his admissions that he cannot determine whether they succeeded the Cerinthians or vice versa (1,1) and that he is unsure about their Christology (7,6). This latter is the one thing we would expect him to discover at the very outset of any direct enounter with them.
\nWe may reserve further assessment of possible sources until we have isolated the facts given peculiar to the sect. They are precious few. We may include here information found elsewhere in the panarion.
\n1. They use both Old and New Testaments (7,2).
\n2. They have a good knowledge of Hebrew and read the Old Testament and at least one gospel in that language (7,4; 9,4).
\n3. They believe in the resurrection of the dead (7,3).
\n4. They believe that God is the creator of all things (7,3).
\n5. They believe in one God and his son Jesus Christ (7,3).
\n6. They observe the Law of Moses (7,5; 5,4; 8,1ff).
\n7. They were joined by Elxai and later adopted his book (19,5,4; 53,1,3 with 19,14; 19.3,4ff and 19,4,1).
\n8. Ebion came out of them (30,2,1).
\n9. Earlier they were called Iessaioi (5,1\u20134).
\n10. They had their origin from the Jerusalem congregation which fled to Pella before 70 (7,8).
\n11. Geographical location in Pella, Kokaba, and Coele Syria (7,7).
\n12. They are hated and cursed by the Jews (9,2\u20133).
\nIt will be seen immediately that the bulk of the peculiar data is concentrated in section 7, and one in fact gets the impression that Epiphanius is, in this section, relying on a single source. The confusions here are minor, and the information will be seen to be more reliable than elsewhere. Let us first consider those four items which are not from section 7.<\/p>\n
Elxai joined them and later they adopted his book.
\nIt is beyond the scope of the present work to examine in depth Elxai (or Elchasai) and the so-called Elkesaites. Suffice it to say that among scholars there are those who believe that there was a historical character by that name, after whom the \u2018Book of Elxai\u2019 was named; and there are those who hold that there was only a Book of Elxai (\u05d7\u05d9\u05dc \u05db\u05e1\u05d9, \u2018Hidden Power\u2019\u2014see pan. 19, 2,2) which was later attributed to a man invented for the need. According to its own testimony the sect had its origins at the beginning of the second century, during the reign of Trajan. However, there is no external evidence of its existence until about 220, and scholars have often called its early origins into doubt. The Book of Elxai was evidently written in Aramaic and translated into Greek.
\nNow if there was never a person named Elxai, then Epiphanius has clearly erred in stating that he joined the Nazarenes. In that case, we are left only with the piece of information that the Nazarenes adopted the Book of Elxai. Interestingly enough, for all the lack of unity among scholars on the subject of Elxai and his book, on one thing there is practically universal agreement, that it is extremely unlikely that the Nazarenes really adopted the Book of Elxai as Epiphanius states. We should be able to surmise this when we compare Elkesaite Christology with what we can discern of Nazarene Christology. On this basic, essential point there is a great difference. Hippolytus, who gives us the most complete description of the Elkesaites, tells us that they believed \u2018that Christ was born a man in the same way common to all and that he was not at this time born for the first time of a virgin but that, having been previously born and being re-born, he thus appeared and exists, undergoing alterations of birth and moving from body to body.\u2019 Such a Pythagorean concept (as Hippolytus notes it to be) is quite foreign to Nazarene Christology. Differences exist in other areas, such as the acceptance of Paul and the full Old and New Testament canons, but this matter is enough by itself to assure us that the Nazarene sect as we have thus far understood it would not have been able to accept the Book of Elxai.
\nBrandt notes that Epiphanius tends to join his heresies together or at least to ascribe to them a kind of line of succession. Each one came out of the one before it and was even worse than the evil which spawned it. Thus we see that the Ossaioi mingled with the Nasaraioi who were later joined by Elxai, and Ebion was a successor of the Nazarenes and generally adopted elements from various other \u2018Jewish Christian\u2019 groups. In fact the impression one gets is that the lines of demarcation are faint to Epiphanius and that he frequently makes generalizations concerning succession or interrelation of heresies that may not have been justified from his sources. This seems to be the case with his statement that the Nazarenes adopted the Book of Elxai.<\/p>\n
Ebion came out of them<\/p>\n
The problems involved here are similar to those in the case of Elxai, as are the conclusions. First of all, of course, there is serious doubt as to the historicity of a character named Ebion. While there are some scholars who accept that a heresiarch by that name truly existed, most believe that the man was the child of the sect and not vice versa. It is not necessary to explain in depth but only to recall that \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05df means poor (\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c7\u03cc\u03c2), and that the group was called \u201cthe poor.\u201d Irenaeus, who first mentions the sect, knows only the group name. It is Tertullian (or perhaps Hippolytus\u2014see above chap. 2, n. 28) who first mentions an Ebion, apparently deriving a hypothetical Ebion from the Ebionaioi.
\nAs we have noted for the Elkesaites, it is a literary device of Epiphanius\u2014often supplementary to the evidence of his sources\u2014to state that one heresy grew out of another. While this is probably true in this case also, we may have here a recollection of some split in the Nazarene ranks after the move to Pella. We have little reason to doubt the other statements of Epiphanius which consistently tell us that the Ebionites were later than the Nazarenes. It is reasonable to assume that it was a question of Christology which precipitated the split, although a struggle for leadership is also a possibility. (It is tempting to conjecture that it occurred sometime after the formulation and institution of the birkat ha-m\u00een\u00eem and in some way resulted from it.) Such a split would explain the identical geographical locations of the two groups and why they were so often confused by Christian writers.
\nWe cannot accept, then, that a Nazarene named Ebion developed his own doctrines and gathered a following. But this statement by Epiphanius might preserve a faint recollection that the Ebionite sect had its roots in the remnant of the earliest Jerusalem community. It was, as it were, the grandchild of the first church. Here again one can only speculate as to Epiphanius\u2019 source for this information. It seems reasonable to think that a break in the Nazarene ranks would have been more likely remembered in a Nazarene or Ebionite source than in any records of the catholic Church from the Gentiles. However, in light of his general lack of acquaintance with the Nazarenes and their doctrines, it seems safer to say that Epiphanius\u2019 knowledge of such a source was only secondary.<\/p>\n
They were called Iessaioi<\/p>\n
This information occupies a sizeable amount of space in the chapter on the Nazarenes (from 4,9 to 5,4\u2014some 30 lines out of about 266), but does it tell us anything about the sect? Let us begin at the end of the section where Epiphanius states, \u2018They were so-called followers of the apostles, but I suppose that they were Nazarenes who are described by me here.\u2019 Here we learn that he himself has made the equation between Iessaioi and Nazoraioi. He has just cited Philo\u2019s description of the Therapeutai in de vita contemplativa and expresses his opinion that Philo is referring to none other than Christians (5,1 and 3). This very point causes him some trouble, because on the one hand he wants to see Philo\u2019s treatise as an independent description of early Christians, while on the other he has decided that these are Nazarenes, whom he is out to attack. He tries to reconcile the problem in 5,5, but he only resorts to polemic and allegory and not to logic and fact.
\nEpiphanius takes this idea\u2014that Philo is actually writing about Christians\u2014from Eusebius. In fact, it is evident that the heresiologist is largely dependent on the historian in this whole passage, though he never cites him. But it is too simplistic to say that he is dependent on Eusebius and leave it at that. It would be more accurate to say that Epiphanius is using (or even recalling) Eusebian information and expanding it for his own purposes.
\nLet us deal with the above-mentioned problem first: \u2018they were so-called followers of the apostles.\u2019 By whom were they so called? Not by Philo certainly, nor does Eusebius ever state this directly. However, the impression from Eusebius is exactly that. Compare HE II 16, that these were converts of Mark whom Philo describes; 17,2: Philo\u2019s description shows that he \u2018recognized the divine mission of the apostolic men\u2019; 17,5\u20136: their community of property was like that of the Church in the book of Acts; 17,12: their scriptures probably included the Gospels and apostolic writings; and finally this statement at the end of Eusebius\u2019 treatment (17,24): \u2018it is plain to everyone that Philo perceived and described the first heralds of teaching according to the Gospel and the customs handed down from the beginning by the Apostles.\u2019 From all of this it is quite reasonable for Epiphanius to refer to \u2018so-called followers of the apostles.\u2019 He is relating the sense of what he has read in Eusebius.
\nA further look at how he adapts the notice of Eusebius will be useful when we come to the main problem below. In 5,2 Epiphanius relates that Philo \u2018was helped in the monasteries of the region.\u2019 Now as a matter of fact Philo does speak of (monast\u0113ria), but they are small rooms in the individual houses. Eusebius quotes Philo on this without falling into the anachronism (17,9). But Epiphanius, again probably conflating the general tenor of his source with his recollection that the word monast\u0113ria is used, develops for the Iessaioi a system of monast\u0113ria. Not surprising, perhaps, for an old abbot.
\nPhilo does not tell us that he himself had any direct contact with his Therapeutai. Eusebius (17,12) not unreasonably surmises that Philo might have heard some of their expositions of scripture, but Epiphanius (5,2\u20133) does not hesitate to say that Philo stayed with them and observed their customs, even stating categorically that he was there at Easter (\u03a0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1).
\nThis matter of \u03a0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1 further illustrates his tendency to extrapolation in our passage. Epiphanius describes (5,3) the paschal eating habits of three divisions of these Iessaians, saying that it was all worked out by Philo. This corresponds to HE II 17,16\u201317 (= de vita 34\u201335) in which three levels of abstinence from eating are depicted. But neither Philo nor Eusebius gives any hint that Pascha is intended, and in fact it is clear that no particular time is meant. Now as a matter of fact, in HE II 21\u201322 Eusebius does speak of certain abstinences from food during \u2018the feast of the Passion of the Savior,\u2019 but not in the context of the notice of the three kinds of eating habits. Here, I believe, we have further evidence that Epiphanius is writing from his recollection of Eusebius\u2019 account without checking it directly at the time of writing. In so doing he has produced a hybrid which is of little use as a source for the Therapeutai and of no use at all for preserving valid data on the \u2018Iessaioi.\u2019
\nBut who are the Iessaioi? Epiphanius himself gives two possible etymological derivations of the name. The one he would seem to prefer is that it comes from the name of Jesse (Iessai), David\u2019s father. His preference is shown in giving this explanation first and in his repetition of it. I must confess a prejudice toward this explanation myself, because it brings together the two names which appear in juxtaposition in Isaiah 11:1 and increases the likelihood that the name Nazarene truly was one of the earliest for the Church in Palestine. It was, therefore, with no little pleasure that I came across the treatment by E.A. Abbott of the name Nazarene. After a thorough survey showing that a connection can be demonstrated in talmudic literature between the name Jesse and the word \u05e0\u05e6\u05e8 (netzer), he turns to the panarion of Epiphanius and states: \u2018If there were such sects [Nazoraeans and Nasaraeans], or early traditions mentioning such names, it must occur to everyone that the names had some connection with Isaiah\u2019s mention of the Netzer of Jesse.\u201d It may indeed have occurred to everyone, but no one except the distinguished Cambridge don has seen fit to record it.
\nEpiphanius\u2019 alternate suggestion is that the name is derived from the name of Jesus. This is, of course, what we would have expected and of his two choices must be considered lectio facilior. However, it is evident that this is a guess by Epiphanius. In fact, in making this suggestion he contradicts his earlier statement (1, 2) that the Nazarenes (= Iessaians) did not call themselves after Jesus. We would be able to drop this second derivation were it not for Epiphanius\u2019 own attempts at working out the etymology: \u2018for Jesus in the Hebrew dialect means either healer (therapeutes) or physician and savior.\u2019 This word therapeutes seemingly makes the connection to Philo: Epiphanius has simply given us a slightly different form of the name Essaioi which, in a momentary oversight, he has inserted in place of the Therapeutai. But solutions are rarely so simple, and this one is no exception.
\nIt is well known that in the de vita passage in question neither Philo nor Eusebius makes any reference to Essenes, speaking solely of Therapeutai. In his praeparatio evangelical Eusebius does quote two passages from Philo which deal with the Essaioi. In neither one does he try to say that these were actually early Christians, as he says about the Therapeutai, and neither he nor Philo suggests that Therapeutai and Essaioi were the same. Philo, in fact, is careful to tell us that they are distinct (de vita I,1). The easiest explanation is that Epiphanius has concluded (with no small number of later scholars) that the Therapeutai and the Essaioi are nonetheless the same and that he has just given us a variation of the name of the latter. Are the Iessaioi Essaioi?
\nThe following considerations do not make a negative response mandatory, but they must put a positive one in serious doubt. First, it could have been no \u2018momentary oversight\u2019 which exchanged the two names, as might be claimed for a modern scholar. At the end of the fourth century no scholar had yet concluded that Philo\u2019s two monastic sects were one and the same. If Epiphanius is saying as much, then he is the first to do so. Secondly, the form of the name Iessaioi is unique to Epiphanius. It is never a variorum reading for Essaioi and must be considered pure invention if he did not, in fact, find the name somewhere for early (Nazarene?) Christians. If he was familiar with the praep. ev. quotes of Eusebius, then he surely read Essaioi. Why should he change the form? Thirdly, Epiphanius was otherwise familiar with the Essenes. His usual form of the word is Essenoi, the normal Greek alternate for Essaioi. Did he then invent a name to suit his purposes? And fourth and last, as we have said above, Eusebius never claims for the Essaioi that they are early Christians. If the form Iessaioi is a simple alternate spelling for a known sect, would Epiphanius have been so innovative as to come along and claim for the first time that they were actually Christians? It would hardly have been characteristic of this strongly conservative bishop.
\nThere is just enough confusion in Epiphanius\u2019 notice to prevent us from drawing any major conclusions about the name Iessaioi, but it may at least be allowed that the solution Iessaioi = Therapeutai-Essaioi is an oversimplification. One would hope that the name Iessaioi may truly have some tradition, that Epiphanius has not simply invented it but may actually have found the name somewhere in reference to early Christians. If so, then his manifold confusions would be the result of an attempt to reconcile the name with the remainder of his data.<\/p>\n
The Nazarenes were hated and cursed by the Jews<\/p>\n
We come to the fourth piece of information which does not fall within section seven. This, of course, refers to the birkat ha-m\u00een\u00eem the \u2018Benediction of the sectarians.\u2019 While I shall take this up in full in Chapter Seven below, we may focus on it here for a moment in the course of our quest for Epiphanius\u2019 sources. Unlike the previous three points, this fact is well-attested elsewhere, and there is no question of its historicity. But what was the source of this information?
\nAlthough Jerome frequently writes of the cursing of the Nazarenes, it is chronologically unlikely that Epiphanius is using him. Jerome\u2019s earliest mention of it is about the year 404. Epiphanius wrote this in 375 and did not meet Jerome until 382. We can also eliminate Irenaeus and Hippolytus as possible sources because of their location in the West. Justin must remain a viable candidate here. We know from his Dialogue with Trypho (16 and 96) that he was possibly familiar with the Benediction. This leaves the possibility that he mentioned it also in his lost Syntagma. In Chapter Five below it is demonstrated to be very unlikely that the Nazarene sect was actually attacked in the Syntagma. This, however, does not eliminate the possibility that the name of the sect was mentioned\u2014Justin surely knew the name\u2014and a likely context would be the birkat ha-m\u00een\u00eem.
\nIt seems to me that another possible \u2018source\u2019 must be considered. The testimony of Jerome as well as the Geniza fragments show that the curse in question was still part of the synagogue service in the days of Epiphanius. When we consider that the Church was now in government (and had just come through Julian\u2019s attempt to rebuild the Temple), it is not unreasonable to assume that the existence of the birkat ha-m\u00een\u00eem was fairly common knowledge in Church circles. Epiphanius, born and raised in Palestine, could easily have been familiar personally (or at least from hearsay) with this sentence of the synagogue liturgy.<\/p>\n
A brief review, then, of what we have been able to isolate concerning Epiphanius\u2019 sources for non-section 7 material shows the following: a. Elxai\u2014Epiphanius wrongly grouped the Nazarenes together with other sects. This is his own invention and does not indicate a separate source. b. Ebion\u2014generally he has again conflated material from other areas to include Nazarenes. There is a possible echo of a Nazarene (or Ebionite) source dealing with a split in the Nazarene ranks, resulting in the sect of the Ebionites. If such a source ever existed, Epiphanius knew of it only by secondary sources. c. Iessaioi\u2014he uses Eusebius but not for the essential data. Otherwise there may be a vague recollection of an early name, but the source must remain unknown. d. Birkat ha-m\u00ee\u0303n\u00ee\u0303m\u2014Justin is speculatively possible as a source; or perhaps Epiphanius\u2019 own general knowledge. One thing is clear from this review: Here is surely no tangible written source. We see only a collection of strange ideas which reflect Epiphanius\u2019 desire to fill in a sketchy picture. It is only in pan. 29,7 that he has preserved for us the testimony of a knowledgeable source.<\/p>\n
Panarion 29,7<\/p>\n
The data in this section present us with a body in every way \u2018orthodox\u2019 except for its adherence to the Law of Moses. If we remember that the Jewish Church of Jerusalem also kept the Law through the period covered by the book of Acts, then we have a picture of the earliest Jewish Christian community. Two items from section 7, the flight to Pella and the geographical data, are dealt with below.
\n1. They use both Old and New Testaments. This implies, though it is not clearly stated, that they make use also of Paul. We know from Jerome that the Nazarenes respected the Pauline writings, a fact which sets them apart from other Jewish Christian groups. In fact it is generally a characteristic of the heresies that they reject some portion of scripture. The very fact that Epiphanius can credit them with acceptance of canonical scripture is a strong statement in favor of their \u2018orthodoxy\u2019. The fact that they read the Old Testament \u2018and at least one gospel\u2019 in Hebrew, which they know well, only serves to confirm their Jewish background.
\n2. Section 7,3 gives us three brief pieces of information about the doctrines of the Nazarenes. One need make only a quick comparison with the opening chapters of Acts to see that these basic doctrines had a place in the teaching of the earliest Jerusalem Church: the resurrection of the dead (Acts 2:24, 32; 3:15; 4:10); God is the creator of all things (4:24); and belief in one God and his child (\u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2) Jesus Christ (3:13, 26; 4:27, 30). To this point we have nothing that would differentiate the Nazarene sect from the primitive Church. The picture is not full, certainly, but what we are given in every way confirms the identity of the Nazarenes as the heirs of the earliest Jerusalem congregation. Even Epiphanius has nothing condemnatory to say about the data thus far.
\n3. The parting of the ways is at the Law of Moses. It is their observance of the Law\u2014and this alone\u2014which, for Epiphanius, separates the Nazarenes from the main Church. \u2018Only in this respect they differ from the \u2026 Christians.\u2019 It is this one thing which so stands out that it is essentially the only thing remembered by subsequent Fathers against the sect, starting with the anacephalaiosis. It makes little difference that the first Jewish believers continued to keep the Law (Acts 15; 21:20\u201326); it is immaterial that the epistle to the Galatians was addressed to Christians from gentile background or that Paul perhaps never wrote against Jewish Christians keeping the Law. The significance of all of this has long since been lost to men like Epiphanius. The Law is taboo. To attempt to keep it is to put oneself under a curse. If the Nazarenes want to observe parts of the Law, then they are \u2018Jews and nothing else.\u2019 Never mind if the same could be said for James or Peter, or, indeed, Paul. For our purposes, of course, this matter of the Law only reinforces the conviction that we have here a body of Jewish believers who have managed to preserve the very earliest traditions of their forebears.<\/p>\n
Nasaraioi<\/p>\n
We cannot leave a discussion of Epiphanius and the Nazarenes without dealing with another sect against whom he writes, the Nasaraioi. He is the only Church Father to mention them, telling us that they were a pre-Christian Jewish sect which lived in the area of Galaatides (Gilead), Basanitis (Bashan), and other regions along the Jordan. They accepted the fathers of the Old Testament but rejected the Torah as not given by God. They kept Jewish practices, such as circumcision, the Sabbath, and various feasts, (\u201cbeing Jews\u201d), but they rejected sacrifices and did not eat meat.
\nAmong scholars the Nasarenes often enjoy the position of a kind of passepartout. They are an obscure entity with characteristics just non-specific enough to allow them to be called in to solve numerous and varied riddles. Many scholars, of course, simply dismiss them as unhistorical, a confusion of Epiphanius. Among these are some who say that the Bishop of Constantia has simply invented (albeit unwittingly) a pre-Christian sect out of the Nazarenes. Alternately, the Nasarenes existed but Epiphanius has created in them the Jewish Christian sect. A milder corollary to this, of course, is to refrain from denying altogether the existence of the Nazarenes but to say that they were just the continuation of the earlier, pre-Christian sect of Judaism. Having gone this far, one must necessarily conclude that Jesus received his title from them. Among this Nazarene-from-Nasarene group there are those who call in the Mandaeans as well, generally equating them with the former.
\nThe majority of scholars, however, seem to accept Epiphanius\u2019 notice at more or less face value: there was a pre-Christian Jewish sect of Nasaraioi who are not to be identified with the sect of Nazaraioi while some connect this sect with the Nazerini of Pliny. This is not impossible, although it does meet with a geographical inconsistency. Epiphanius states that the Nasaraioi were in the areas to the east of the Jordan. This is quite specific enough to make it believable. The notice of Pliny, who is reliable in his geographical details, puts the Nazerini considerably farther north and west. This is a difficulty which should be met by those who would identify the two.
\nWe may limit ourselves here to the question of the identification or non-identification of the Nazarenes with the Nasaraioi. The problem exists mostly, it seems to me, because of the similarity of the names. The earlier group is called Nasaraioi or Nasarenoi and perhaps Nazorei, while the later sect is called (including readings outside of Epiphanius) Nazoraioi, Nazaraei, Nazareni, and\u2014in at least one manuscript\u2014Nazorei. Holl (GCS 25, 215) suggests that the name of the Nasaraioi comes from \u05e0\u05e1\u05e8 or \u05e0\u05e9\u05e8, \u2018fallen\u2019 or \u2018fallen away.\u2019 He notes that the anacephalaiosis gives the meaning of the name as aph\u0113niast\u0113s, \u2018rebellious.\u2019 We have already dealt with the name of the Nazoraioi above. It is at least a possibility that the two names have separate origins.
\nThe other ground for identifying the two sects is geographical. This has been attempted by Gressmann. He equated \u2018east of Jordan\u2019 with Pella, Gilead with Kokabe, and then stretched Bashan to reach Aleppo (Beroea). The first two parallels are already general and not very obligating. The third is exaggerated, and here the attempt fails.
\nWhen we come to matters of sectarian substance, the similarities cease altogether. The Nasaraioi rejected the books of Moses; the Nazarenes accepted them. The Nazarenes were never accused of being vegetarians, a singular trait of the Nasaraioi. Black suggests they were Samaritans, pointing out the various differences between Nazarenes and Nasaraioi, the possible connection of the latter to the Nazorei of Filaster (who traces them to the Nazirites, the descendants of Jonadab ben Rechab), and the existence of a large group of Jewish, pre-Christian forerunners of the Mandaeans. This group, the Natzoraeans, left Palestine about 37 A.D. There is again a geographical difficulty, but it disappears when we recall that we could be talking of a group which had to pick up and leave, heading east. The more serious objection is the Nasaraean rejection of the Pentateuch, which, of course, is the only part of the Bible accepted by the Samaritans. Black, however, interprets Epiphanius\u2019 words, not unreasonably, as meaning that they had their own version of the Torah in place of the one accepted by other Jews. This, indeed, is precisely the case with the Samaritans.
\nWithout going any deeper into the controversy over Mandaean origins, we may conclude here that there is enough evidence in favor of accepting Epiphanius\u2019 testimony that there were two distinct and unrelated sects, and that therefore the Nazarenes and Nasaraioi should not be confused with each other. Such confusion is easy and understandable, and Epiphanius himself may have mixed them up at least once.<\/p>\n
Chapter Four<\/p>\n
Jerome<\/p>\n
At least as important for our study as Epiphanius is his younger contemporary Jerome. This most learned and prolific of the Church Fathers has left us fully a third of our testimonies and fragments of the Gospel according to the Hebrews as well as other information about the Nazarenes in some detail and valuable excerpts from one of their own works. However, more than any other of our sources, Jerome is surrounded by controversy. For this reason it will be useful to set the chronology of his life and writings insofar as it touches on the subject of the Nazarenes.<\/p>\n
Chronology<\/p>\n
Born in the northeastern part of the Italian peninsula in the first half of the fourth century, Jerome stayed in the West until about 372. In that year he journeyed overland to Antioch intending to become an ascetic. After some delay he did go, at the beginning of 375, into the wilderness of Chalcis ad Belum, about 27 kilometers southwest of Beroea. During his sojourn in the desert he studied Greek and, under \u201cA believing brother from among the Hebrews\u201d, he learned Hebrew. This desert period is the most likely time when Jerome could have had contact with the Nazarenes of Beroea. Realistically, it is the only time, since he was never again closer than Antioch.
\nThe chronology for this time in the East is not completely clear, but it is likely that he returned to Antioch in 377. He stayed there until 380, and during this time he studied Bible under Apollinaris of Laodicea. This is surprising, since the latter had been anathematized in the Synod of Rome in 374, and was again condemned in 378 in Antioch itself while Jerome was present in the city. He was later to write: \u2018While he instructed me in Scripture, I never accepted his disputable dogma on Christ\u2019s human mind.\u2019 From Antioch he went to Constantinople and then, in 382, sailed to Rome in the company of Epiphanius. In 385 Jerome returned eastward on his way to Bethlehem and stopped in Cyprus to visit the aging Bishop of Constantia. After an extensive pilgrimage-tour of the Holy Land, including a few weeks in Egypt, Jerome and his party arrived, in the early part of 386, in Bethlehem. He was never again to leave the region of Palestine, and in fact the only travelling we can be sure he did at all were frequent visits to Jerusalem and probably to the library in Caesarea.<\/p>\n
Jerome and the Nazarenes<\/p>\n
More than any other Church Father, one must analyze not only Jerome\u2019s information but also his own relationship to the sect and its writings. This is because of his way of tying himself so inseparably to the facts he relates. In order to do this analysis best, the historian must also play psychoanalyst, because Jerome\u2019s personality seems frequently to have colored his claims.
\nThere is only one place where Jerome is usually seen to be claiming that he had personal contact with members of the Nazarene sect. In de viris illustribus 3 we read: \u201cThe Hebrew itself [of the original Gospel of Matthew] has been preserved until the present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilius the martyr so diligently collected. From the Nazarenes who use this book in Beroea, a city in Syria, I also received the opportunity to copy it.\u201d For the moment let us deal only with the matter of his personal contact with the sect. If Jerome did make such contact, the only possible time, as noted above, could have been during the years 372\u2013380, when he was in Antioch and in the desert near Beroea (375\u2013377 being the most likely time). But Jerome, in this unique passage, does not specifically say that he had had intercourse with the Nazarene sect. That, indeed, may have been the impression he wanted to give, but all he in fact says is that they made it possible for him to copy their Hebrew gospel. We know that he later was in the habit of borrowing Hebrew manuscripts from synagogues, and that he did this indirectly, not actually taking or returning them in person.\u201d For a man committed to live the ascetic life in the desert, it must be considered likely that a loaned copy of the Hebrew gospel was brought to him and not borrowed personally. This passage, then, should not be taken alone as proof that Jerome was personally acquainted with the Nazarenes as a sect. But no other notice corroborates the supposition.
\nHaving taken the narrow view, we may now broaden our vision slightly. In his accounts of his desert sojourn, Jerome never mentions leaving Chalcis, and there is no pressing reason to think that he did. It is not, however, unreasonable to assume that he could have passed through Beroea on his way into and out of his monastic retreat. No one disputes the fact that he did spend several years near Beroea, and few would deny the presence of Nazarenes in that town. Surely, then, Jerome had ample opportunity to ask about them from local Christians and to make himself reasonably informed.
\nA further context for such familiarization with the sect was suggested by Schmidtke in his pioneering work cited above, in which he tried to show that both Epiphanius and Jerome were primarily dependent on Apollinaris for their knowledge of the Nazarenes and their writings. His conclusions are still generally accepted, although occasionally one hears a dissenting voice. The important point for our investigation is that Jerome did study under Apollinaris, an extremely learned and informed man who spent his entire long life in the area of Laodicea and Antioch, that is, in the vicinity of Beroea. The younger scholar was deeply impressed with Apollinaris\u2019 erudition, and continues to refer to him with respect long after Apollinarism was a condemned heresy. The potential was there, in those first years after Jerome had started learning Hebrew, for him to learn much orally from Apollinaris. Certainly later, when he was writing his own Bible commentaries, he made extensive use of Apollinaris\u2019 voluminous works\u2014notably in those commentaries in which we have references to the Hebrew gospel.
\nFrom the foregoing considerations we may conclude that, while Jerome may or may not have made personal contact with the body of Nazarene Christians, he was certainly well enough situated to have learned much about them from contemporaries who did know them well. Not the least important corollary to this is that Jerome may be considered a good witness to their continued existence until at least the end of the fourth century.<\/p>\n
Jerome and the Hebrew gospel<\/p>\n
While Jerome makes no explicit claim to have known the Nazarene sect personally, he does, however, make two other claims which have frequently been called into question: he copied the Gospel according to the Hebrews (GH), \u201cwhich is read by the Nazarenes,\u201d and he translated it into both Greek and Latin. The parameters of this complicated problem and the limitations of any possible solutions have been well laid down by Vielhauer. His general conclusions were, first, that Jerome was thinking of only one work when he spoke of GH and its various other designations; that this gospel was to be found in Caesarea and was probably the same as the one used by the Nazarenes; and lastly, that Jerome never translated all the gospel. To Vielhauer\u2019s article we would add some observations and suggestions.
\nAs we have noted above, it is not a priori unlikely that Jerome could have been brought a copy of GH during his stay in Chalcis. As a beginning student of Hebrew, he could have copied it (in whole or in part) as an exercise without actually knowing what he was writing. His first mention of GH is in his commentary on Ephesians (5,4), which he wrote in 386\/7. Here he makes no mention of translating it, and it is most likely that he simply found this quotation in an earlier commentary (Origen or perhaps Apollinaris). We must bear in mind that from 386 Jerome had access to the library of Pamphilius in Caesarea to which he made occasional visits. Whether he personally owned a copy of GH or not, he could now use the one in Caesarea (which he believed to be the same and which may indeed have been the same). In 390 he began his project of translating the Old Testament Hebrew into Latin. He began first with the books of Samuel and Kings, perhaps because they could be expected to be easier. He had been preparing himself for this task since his arrival in Bethlehem, and it was during these years that he evidently translated GH, perhaps as a practice exercise before beginning his magnum opus. Therefore, we find his first claims to have translated GH \u201crecently\u201d in about 391 and 392.
\nBut these claims to have translated GH do not oblige us to conclude that he in fact finished the whole gospel. In 392, when he wrote his treatise on Famous Men, he claimed for himself that he had translated the Old Testament. In fact he did not complete the translation until 405 or 406. It was a project he had under way, the completion of which was still \u201conly in his intentions.\u201d So it may have been also with GH.
\nAt this point we must consider Jerome\u2019s personality. It is commonly acknowledged that he was a volatile and gifted man. There can be no doubt that he was extremely learned. But Jerome had a quirk in his personality which seems to have made him claim to be even more learned than he really was. He often exaggerates his achievements in an effort to impress, even on occasion claiming to have read works which we now know never existed. This is germane to our discussion, because it has often been said against Jerome that he totally fabricated his claim to have translated GH, that in fact he never saw such a gospel but only copied from Origen or Apollinaris and then claimed it as his own. This viewpoint is extreme, often tendentious. In the end, the statements of Jerome may prove to be more reasonable than those of his detractors.
\nAgain in 398, in his commentary on Matthew, he says he recently translated GH. It is significant that we find this claim in this particular commentary. If Jerome did believe GH to be an early (or original) edition of Matthew, then he would naturally consult it at points where he needed help. And, of course, he would make at least cursory translations of those passages which he used. The entire commentary on Matthew was done in about two weeks, and this haste would suggest that once again Jerome did not translate GH in its entirety but only passages from it. While he continues to quote from GH until as late as 415, he never again claims to have translated it\u2014recently or otherwise. We may see this as a plan unfinished, and while there is no way to be sure, we conclude that Jerome did have access to a copy of \u201cthe gospel in Hebrew letters which the Nazarenes read\u201d and that on several occasions he translated passages from it without ever completing a systematic translation.<\/p>\n
The Nazarenes in Jerome<\/p>\n
We may now attempt to isolate and analyze what specifics Jerome gives us about the Nazarene sect and see how it fits in with what we have seen before. We concluded above that it is less than likely that he had personal contact with the sect itself as a group, although he may have encountered individual members of it and he certainly was acquainted\u2014at least in part\u2014with some of their writings. We have also seen that whether he did spend time with the Nazarenes or not, his acquaintance would strongly suggest that his disinterested information be treated as reliable. It is on this assumption that we proceed.
\nLet us deal first of all with that all-important issue of Christology. The clearest statement comes in Jerome\u2019s letter to Augustine, written about 404: \u201cThey believe in Christ, the Son of God, born of Mary the Virgin, and they say about him that he suffered under Pontius Pilate and rose again.\u201d This statement, giving the impression almost of an early creedal formula, is corroborated in part in a couple of other places in Jerome\u2019s writings. That the Nazarenes believed Christ to be the Son of God we can derive from two citations from their commentary on Isaiah. At 29:17\u201321 the Nazarenes say against the Pharisees and Scribes that they \u201cmade men sin against the Word of God in order that they should deny that Christ was the Son of God.\u201d And similarly we read at 31:6\u20139: \u201cThe Nazarenes understand this passage in this way: O sons of Israel, who deny the Son of God with such hurtful resolution.\u201d It is possible also that in the same work at 11:1\u20133 we have a statement of Nazarene belief in the virgin birth, although what appears there may be Jerome\u2019s own comment. What we do find in that passage, however, is a clear statement of Christology which Jerome (and perhaps the Nazarenes themselves) connected to Paul\u2019s statement in his epistle to the Colossians (Col. 1:19; 2:9): \u201cbecause in him the whole fulness of the Godhead took pleasure to dwell corporally; not as in the other holy ones moderately, but according to the Gospel read by the Nazarenes which was written in the Hebrew language: \u2018The whole fountain of the Holy Spirit came upon him\u2019.\u201d
\nIt has been objected that Jerome contradicts this statement of Christology (in the letter to Augustine) when he says in his commentary on Matthew, written in 398: \u201cStrange stupidity of the Nazarenes! They wonder whence wisdom possessed wisdom and power possessed powers, but their obvious error is that they looked only at the son of the carpenter.\u201d At first glance we would seem to have here evidence of Nazarene Christology, evidence which contradicts what we already know of the sect and which seems to go against what Jerome himself later told Augustine. However, the difficulty is an artificial one. If we look more closely at the context we find that Jerome is commenting on the passage in Matt. 13:53\u201358 where Jesus goes to visit \u201chis own country\u201d and is rejected. The gospel does not state specifically whether Nazareth or Capernaum or Bethlehem is meant, but Jerome clearly understands the first. It is with this understanding that he quotes the words of the people in the pericope \u201cwhere did he get this wisdom and these powers\u201d and calls this stultitia Nazarenorum (stupidity of the Nazarenes), i.e., of the citizens of the town of Nazareth. They were the ones who had just said \u201cIs this not the son of the carpenter?\u201d, and Jerome superficially comments on their query. Nowhere in this passage or near it is he speaking of the sect of the Nazarenes. He has simply given the name Nazareni to the inhabitants of Nazareth. So we have no christological statement and no contradiction in Jerome\u2019s notices.
\nSchmidtke suggested that the christological formula of the letter to Augustine was taken from Epiphanius (pan. 30,9) or rather that both had it from the same source, Apollinaris. This cannot be proven. The similarities are certainly striking, but so are the similarities to the various evolving creedal declarations of the early centuries. The formula given by Jerome is just simple enough to suggest that it is earlier than that of Epiphanius, which in any case is not expressly attributed to the Nazarenes.
\nAccording to Jerome, then, Nazarene Christology is basically what we have noted previously, a belief in the divine origins and virgin birth of Jesus in accordance with the accepted doctrines of the greater Church. Here we also see an express avowal of Jesus\u2019 death and resurrection.
\nIn other matters also Jerome supports what we have found earlier about the sect. He tells us that they are cursed in the synagogues \u201cby the Pharisees, that they mix faith in Christ with the keeping of the Law, and that they have a gospel in Hebrew. He also tells us that they live in Beroea, but later in that same letter to Augustine he indicates that they are to be found \u201cin all the synagogues of the East among the Jews.\u201d<\/p>\n
Nazarene Literature: The Jeremiah Apocryphon<\/p>\n
Jerome tells us of two pieces of literature which the Nazarenes possessed, and a consideration of these is an issue central to this chapter. In 398 in his rapidly completed commentary on Matthew we read: \u201cRecently I read a certain Hebrew work, which a Hebrew person of the Nazarene sect offered me as the apocryphal book of Jeremiah, in which I found these words literally.\u201d The context is an Old Testament citation of Matthew which is wrongly attributed to Jeremiah instead of Zechariah. Jerome in fact decides that the passage should be understood to come from Zechariah, but then he adds the above comment. May we conclude from this that the Nazarenes possessed an apocryphal Jeremiah? It should perhaps first be noted that there is effectively no supporting evidence for Jerome\u2019s statement, so our acceptance or rejection will have to depend solely on our analysis of his own words.
\nIn the preface to this commentary, Jerome tells us that he read Origen\u2019s commentary (in 25 volumes) on Matthew many years before (ante annos plurimos). While it is certainly no proof, it is an indication that he may have consulted his favorite Bible commentator as he wrote his own commentary. At the place in question, Origen deals with the difficulty of Jeremiah\/Zechariah, notes that the solution is either an error of Matthew or some apocryphal writing of Jeremiah and offers his opinion that the quote simply came from Zechariah. He then concedes that, if someone is offended by such an idea, it is quite possible that there really was some secret prophecy of Jeremiah. He makes no mention of any known apocryphal book and even says that such a statement of Jeremiah is not to be found \u201ceither in those books which are read in the church or in those used by the Jews.\u201d
\nWith this background, Schmidtke rejected the claim of Jerome to have seen an apocryphal Jeremiah. Jerome, he said, was simply using Origen\u2019s sop and adding a little meat to it and in the process enhancing his own scholarly reputation with regard to Origen. He noted Jerome\u2019s well-known tendency to exaggerate and invent and claim knowledge he did not have. Against this judgment of the Lutheran scholar, Fr. M.-J. Lagrange writes: \u201cSchmidtke, who pretends to understand the psychology of Jerome so well, has in fact grasped it quite poorly.\u201d<\/p>\n
Lagrange acknowledged that Jerome was familiar with Origen\u2019s conclusions but suggested that they only served to make Jerome search for the source. Noting that the Nazarenes would have been the most likely to preserve the answer to the Matt. 27:9\u201310 puzzle because of their polemic with Judaism, Lagrange suggests that Jerome may have sought them out. For him the best guarantee of the accuracy of Jerome\u2019s statements is the Bethlehem father\u2019s \u201csincerity.\u201d While not wishing to get caught in the crossfire of a holy war, one cannot help but note some weaknesses in Lagrange\u2019s stand. He himself reminds us that the scholars of that time had no access to concordances or lexicons or indexes, and we must not forget that Jerome was writing against a deadline and would hardly have had time to search through countless volumes, nor to seek out a Nazarene for the answer.
\nIt is, in fact, difficult not to accept Schmidtke\u2019s judgment in this. He points out that where we today read secretam Jeremiae scripturam, Jerome probably read \u1f38\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03bc\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd in the original, which he himself then rendered Hieremiae apocryphum. We might add one proviso to the words of Schmidtke: \u201cIt is not to be credited that the Nazarenes composed a Hebrew Jeremiah writing.\u201d He is right. However, there is no reason to prove or disprove that particular idea, because no one\u2014not even Jerome\u2014ever claimed that the Nazarenes themselves composed the work. It is in this sense that it is relatively unimportant for our present study if Jerome is accurate or not. The very most his words can tell us is that some individual Nazarene possessed such an apocryphal work. In this light, the \u201cHebrew of the Nazarene sect\u201d does indeed seem like a literary device to add credibility to Origen\u2019s \u201cApocryphon of Jeremiah.\u201d<\/p>\n
Nazarene Literature: The Interpretation of Isaiah<\/p>\n
Of all the study of the Nazarene sect, perhaps none is more interesting nor potentially more fruitful than five notices which Jerome has left us in his commentary on Isaiah. In these five short passages he quotes from what seems to be a Nazarene work on the prophet.\u201d Jerome never specifically identifies the work as to type, but it seems to be some sort of brief commentary or expanded targum.<\/p>\n
On Isaiah 8:14<\/p>\n
The Nazarenes, who accept Christ in such a way that they do not cease to observe the old law, explain the two houses as the two families, viz. of Shammai and Hillel, from whom originated the Scribes and the Pharisees. Akiba, who took over their school, is called the master of Aquila the proselyte, and after him came Meir who has been succeeded by Joannes the son of Zakkai and after him Eliezer and further Telphon, and next Joseph Galilaeus and Joshua up to the capture of Jerusalem. Shammai then and Hillel were born not long before the Lord; they originated in Judea. The name of the first means scatterer and of the second unholy, because he scattered and defiled the precepts of the Law by his traditions and \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2. And these are the two houses who did not accept the Savior who has become to them destruction and shame.<\/p>\n
We may first note the complete lack of condemnation of the Nazarenes by Jerome. They are simply those \u201cwho accept Christ in such a way that they do not cease to observe the old Law.\u201d True, there are places where he castigates them precisely for that, but the only place where he dwells on and attacks it is in his controversy on the whole matter of Law observance with Augustine (ep. 112,13). It would seem that in principle he believed it wrong for even Jewish-born believers to continue to observe the precepts of the Mosaic Law, but this principle did not stop him from using their writings or citing their opinions, nor did it cause him to vent his anger against them as despicable heretics.
\nEven with its problems, which we shall discuss presently, this is an amazing passage. No less a scholar than F. C. Burkitt was able to say, \u201cI do not think that there is another passage in any of the Church Fathers which betrays so much acquaintance with Talmudic Judaism.\u201d Certainly from a prima facie view this must tell us something about the continued contact which the Nazarenes maintained with rabbinic Judaism. This is not to say that the passage is free from difficulties. Far from it. For one thing, the order of succession given seems quite confused. For our analysis we shall assume that Eliezer is Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, that Telphon is Tarphon, and that Iosue is Joshua ben \u1e24ananiah, all three of whom, probably (about Tarphon there is some doubt), were students of Yo\u1e25anan ben Zakkai. The latter established the school in Yavne (Jamnia) after the destruction of the Temple in 70, but he is said here to succeed R. Meir, who was not prominent until after the Bar Kochba revolt (132\/135). R. Meir is the latest of the rabbis in our list and takes us perhaps into the second half of the second century. How do we account for the confusion?
\nSchmidtke has made what seems to be the most plausible suggestion. He thinks that Jerome\u2019s source (which he took to be Apollinaris, but which we shall take here to be the Nazarene document itself) spoke of Hillel and Shammai as the forerunners of Akiva (the teacher of Aquila) and his student Meir. Then, having made this broad statement, the source went on to fill in the hundred-year gap between them, naming Yo\u1e25anan ben Zakkai, his three disciples, and Yosei haGlili (Ioseph Galiliaeus) in an acceptable chronological order. Jerome then copied this passage in the order he found it, said Schmidtke, but failed to notice that the later names should follow Hillel and Shammai instead of Meir. While we must add several provisos to this solution, we may note in its favor that it places the onus of historical confusion on Jerome rather than on the Jewish Christian Nazarenes. This is a priori more likely.
\nFirst of all, Schmidtke\u2019s suggestion makes most sense if we see that the emphasis of the Nazarene comment falls not only on Hillel and Shammai but also on Akiva. Of all the rabbis of the first two centuries the most significant for the Jewish Christians must have been Rabban Gamliel the Elder and Akiva, the former, of course, because of his appearance in the New Testament (Acts 5:34; 22:3), and the latter because of his involvement with the messianic rise of Simon ben Cosiba and the compilation of the earlier Mishnah. The two houses mentioned in Isa. 8:14 naturally would recall the two pharisaic houses, Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai. However, the introduction of the subject of pharisaic leaders led in turn to a mention of Akiva. It was his endorsement of a false messiah (and for Jewish Christians a rival messiah) which was the last straw which broke the ties of the \u05e0\u05d5\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd with rabbinic Judaism. This provides the natural framework for recalling Aquila, another figure surely known to a Jewish Christian sect of the second century, and R. Meir, disciple of Akiva and perhaps the most important figure in the formation of the Mishnah.
\nTwo noticeable absentees from this list of succession are the first two Gamliels. The omission of the elder Rabban Gamliel is perhaps not too difficult to explain. He is mentioned twice in the book of Acts, both times in a relatively positive light, and he was, indeed, a man noted for this tolerance. Moreover, he held a place of some respect in early Christian literature. Is it too much to suppose that the Nazarenes (remembering that their first leaders were freed on Gamliel\u2019s counsel) simply omitted a negative reference to him? The second Gamliel\u2019s omission is more difficult. He, after all, was the instigator of the malediction against the sectarians, an act for which he must have been infamous with the Nazarenes. It is tempting to suggest that he was omitted because of his namesake. Or perhaps the very fact of the birkat ha-m\u00een\u00eem caused his name and memory to be erased. Perhaps most likely of all is that the Nazarenes did in fact include the name of the younger Gamliel but that Jerome omitted it, confusing him with his more venerable forebear.
\nThis passage and the ones which follow make it difficult to accept Schmidtke\u2019s hypothesis that Jerome took all this from a lost work of his master Apollinaris. For one thing, the name Telphon here is a mistake for Tarphon (who is not to be identified with Justin\u2019s Tryphon). The mistake is most easily accounted for by a simple orthographical variation, where an elongated q\u00f4z of the \u05e8 (re\u0161) has caused it to be read as a \u05dc (lamed), i.e., \u05d8\u05e8\u05e4\u05d5\u05df (\u1e6darf\u00f4n), has become \u05d8\u05dc\u05e4\u05d5\u05df (\u1e6delf\u00f4n). (The corollary to this is significant: the Nazarene commentary on Isaiah must have been written in Hebrew characters.) Furthermore, at the end of this section we read the definitions of the names Hillel (profanus) and Shammai (dissipator). The first is from \u05d7\u05dc\u05dc (\u1e25illel) where the \u05d4 (heh) of \u05d4\u05dc\u05dc (hillel) has become a \u05d7 (\u1e25et); the second is taken to come from \u05e9\u05de\u05dd (\u0161amom).
\nG. F Moore suggests that the confusion of \u05d4\u05dc\u05dc (hillel) and \u05d7\u05dc\u05dc (\u1e25illel) could not have been that of the Nazarenes and must, therefore, be assigned to Jerome. The Nazarenes, he said, who knew the language and the traditions would not have made such a mistake. Ginzberg disagrees and cites the Jerusalem Talmud (M. Shen. V 56a = Brachot 35a) where \u05d4\u05dc\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd = \u05d7\u05dc\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd (hill\u00fbl\u00eem = \u1e25ill\u00fbl\u00eem) and the text goes on to explain that the rabbis do not differentiate between \u05d7 and \u05d4. All in all, while we accept here that the basic outline of the latter part of the citation (after \u201cand Joshua up to the capture of Jerusalem\u201d) is from the Nazarenes, there are several indications that Jerome has made his own additions.
\nHere we must take a closer look at his Vulgate. Immediately before, in his translation of Isa. 8:10, he has rendered \u05e2\u05e6\u05d5 \u05e2\u05e6\u05d4 \u05d5\u05ea\u05e4\u05e8 (\u1d9cuz\u00fb \u1d9ce\u1e93ah vatufar) as inite consilium, et dissipabitur, a phrase he returns to twice in his commentary on that verse. The word dissipare, however, often translates the root \u05e9\u05de\u05dd (\u0161amom) in Jerome\u2019s Old Testament, especially in Isaiah, and it is not at all unlikely that the association of the verse immediately preceding this section with the Nazarene mention of Shammai evoked the response \u05e9\u05de\u05d0\u05d9 = dissipator.
\nThe exchange \u05d4\u05dc\u05dc\/\u05d7\u05dc\u05dc could in fact be Jerome\u2019s own. If his manuscript was not in fact defective at this point, it was not beyond the Latin Father to make his own equation \u05d4 = \u05d7 and proceed from there. It would have been reasonably natural in the context before us. The Vulgate at this point speaks twice of holiness: sanctificate (v. 13) and sanctificationem (v. 14) for \u05ea\u05e7\u05d3\u05d9\u05e9\u05d5 (taqd\u00ee\u0161\u00fb) and \u05de\u05e7\u05d3\u05e9 (miqda\u0161) respectively. The opposites, of course, are profanus and \u05d7\u05dc (\u1e25ol) which it sometimes translates. It seems that Jerome himself assigned the meanings to the names, that taking his cue from the names of Hillel and Shammai and the context of the scripture on which he was commenting, he contrived this ingenious etymology. All of this necessitates his using a Latin bible text, which would obviate the involvement of Apollinaris. The last phrase of this passage, qui factus sit eis in ruinam at scandalum, also points to Jerome\u2019s use of his own Vulgate, where the words in petram scandali and in ruinam have evoked this independent conclusion.
\nAllowing for additions by Jerome does not, however, change the fact that this passage from the Nazarene interpretation of Isaiah reveals an antipathy towards the rabbis. The very identification of the two pharisaic houses with the context of Isa. 8:14 is strong enough condemnation. We shall see in the remaining passages that this is a dominant and repeated motif.
\nIt remains then only to see what terminus ad quem this portion of the Nazarene work establishes for us. Of the rabbis named, as we have noted, the latest was R. Meir. He was a student of R. Akiva and was not active in Yavne, which ceased to be a center of learning with the end of the Bar Kochba revolt. With the revolt, the Hadrianic government began a persecution of the Jews of Palestine which was stopped only at the command of Antoninus Pius, who succeeded Hadrian in 138. During the persecutions, Meir left the country, returning after the decree of Antoninus. Before he left, he was ordained by R. Judah b. Bava, who was then martyred by the Romans. Subsequently Meir was appointed \u1e25a\u1e35am at ahe Sanhedrin of Usha, while R. Shimon b. Gamliel was appointed nas\u00ee. Thus begins the period of Meir\u2019s influence, and it was the \u2018Mishnah of R. Meir\u2019 which formed a substantial part of the basis for the compilation of R. Judah the Patriarch. The dates for Meir can only be approximated, but the time of his influence can be set in the middle of the second century. Any non-talmudic reference to him in a context in which he appears along with such rabbis as Yo\u1e25anan b. Zakkai and Akiva can date from no earlier than the latter half of the second century.
\nHowever, there is another observation which should be made. Such a listing of names as we find here draws us to a significant conclusion: The Nazarenes must have remained on such intimate terms with rabbinic Judaism that they were familiar with the names of its leaders into the later second century. This necessitates a familiarity with the mishnaic tradition, which in turn indicates some continuing contact between communities. It is quite possible that the information contained here came from a convert from rabbinic Judaism to the Nazarenes. This would be quite in keeping with the subsequent history of Talmud-trained Christians from Jewish background.<\/p>\n
On Isaiah 8:20\u201321<\/p>\n
For the rest the Nazarenes explain the passage in this way: when the Scribes and Pharisees tell you to listen to them, men who do everything for the love of the belly and who hiss during their incantations in the way of magicians in order to deceive you, you must answer them like this: \u201cIt is not strange if you follow your traditions since every tribe consults its own idols. We must not, therefore, consult your dead about the living ones. On the contrary, God has given us the Law and the testimonies of the scriptures. If you are not willing to follow them you shall not have light, and the darkness will always oppress you. It will cover your earth and your doctrine so that, when you see that they have been deceived by you in error and they feel a longing for the truth, they will then be sad or angry. And let them who believe themselves to be like their own gods and kings curse you. And let them look at the heaven and the earth in vain since they are always in darkness and they can not flee away from your ambushes.\u201d<\/p>\n
Here again we see the focus of the polemic is the Scribes and Pharisees, that is, presumably, the rabbis. Much of the actual wording of the passage comes directly or indirectly from the Isaiah verses themselves, so the harshness of the attack must be seen in the light of Isaiah\u2019s words. At first glance this might seem to indicate some familiarity with synagogue worship, but this cannot be sustained; the hissing and incantations are Isaiah\u2019s own words and no clear indication in themselves of Nazarene presence at Jewish ceremonies. The reference to traditions reminds us of the traditiones et \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 of the previous passage, one which would have almost immediately preceded this one in the original work. The phrase \u201cyou must answer them like this\u201d is surely an indication of an ongoing dialogue and polemic, one which we see frequently attested to in the talmudic sources. It is clear that the Nazarenes considered the final authority in any such debate to be the Old Testament and not later rabbinic interpretation, i.e. they rejected the concept of hala\u1e35ah. With this one may compare the words of Jesus as recorded in John\u2019s gospel near the turn of the first century:<\/p>\n
Search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of me \u2026 Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?<\/p>\n
This passage reflects more the style of a targum than a commentary. Klijn has shown the possible influence of both the LXX and the Targum, while admitting the possibility that the whole has come in Jerome\u2019s own free rendition from the Vulgate. While he would find that the Isaiah commentary had been directly influenced by the Targum, we must remain cautious. It is an attractive suggestion and a not unlikely one. But we would prefer to say that the Nazarene work reflects a knowledge of the targumic tradition.<\/p>\n
On Isaiah 9:1\u20134<\/p>\n
The Nazarenes, whose opinion I have set forth above, try to explain this passage in the following way: When Christ came and his preaching shone out, the land of Zebulon and Naphtali first of all were freed from the errors of the Scribes and Pharisees and he shook off their shoulders the very heavy yoke of the Jewish traditions. Later, however, the preaching became more dominant, that means the preaching was multiplied, through the Gospel of the apostle Paul who was the last of all the apostles. And the Gospel of Christ shone to the most distant tribes and the way of the whole sea. Finally the whole world, which earlier walked or sat in darkness and was imprisoned in the bonds of idolatry and death, has seen the clear light of the Gospel.<\/p>\n
Let us note once again the polemic against Scribes and Pharisees and the Jewish traditions. The two most significant things about this excerpt from the Nazarene work are its positive view of Paul, and the refusal to bind Gentile Christians to keeping the Law. We see here that the Nazarene view of Paul\u2019s mission corresponded very closely to that of Paul himself. In none of the remains of Nazarene doctrine can one find a clear rejection of Paul or his mission or his message. This, of course, is quite the opposite of what we usually hear described as \u201cJewish Christain,\u201d which almost by definition oposses itself to Paul. What we have here, then, is an endorsement of Paul\u2019s mission to the Gentiles. This spreading of the Gospel to the Gentiles was, according to the Nazarenes, a natural, even a glorious development. One is often led to expect a sort of bitterness on the part of the Jewish Christians that they were swamped, their position usurped by the Gentile Church. But here we find only a positive reaction to the flow of events. As Klijn has pointed out, the land of Zebulon and Naphtali obviously represents the land of the Jews as compared to the rest of the world, and significantly it is this land which was first freed from the yoke of Jewish traditions, the land where Jesus taught.
\nThere is a further indication in this passage that the commentary was in Hebrew letters. The spelling of the name Nephthali agrees with the Hebrew text against both the LXX and Matt. 4:15\u201316. Also, we see here again the targumic form, although our passage adheres far more closely to the Hebrew text of Isaiah than does the Targum. The form here is a bit too loose to be called a targum, yet at the same time too restricted to be called a commentary.<\/p>\n
On Isaiah 29:20\u201321<\/p>\n
What we have understood to have been written about the devil and his angels, the Nazarenes believe to have been said against the Scribes and the Pharisees, because the \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03af passed away, who earlier deceived the people with very vicious traditions (and they watch[ed] day and night to deceive the simple ones), who made men sin against the Word of God in order that they should deny that Christ was the Son of God.<\/p>\n
It is not clear whence Jerome takes his idea that verses 20 and 21 refer to the devil and his angels (daemones just previously in his commentary). The lost commentaries of Origen, Didymus, and Apollinaris are all possibilities, or the idea could have been Jerome\u2019s own. The same interpretation does occur earlier in Eusebius\u2019 commentary, to which Jerome would surely have had access in the library at Caesarea, and which indeed he cites along with the other three in his prologue to his commentary on Isaiah. However this may be, for the last two verses of his section on verses 17\u201321 he found the above exegesis in the Nazarene commentary. Again the phrasing is built around the words of the text. In fact the similarity to the Vulgate is marked, but this need mean no more than that the Hebrew texts of Jerome and of the Nazarenes were nearly the same.
\nThis is the fourth of the five citations to stand against the rabbis and their traditions. The significance of this passage hinges on the lone Greek word \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03af, which we saw in its form \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 in the first quotation. Schmidtke suggested that its appearance is proof of Jerome\u2019s use of a Greek source (i.e. Apollinaris). It stands, he noted, in the place of the Hebrew word \u05e2\u05e8\u05d9\u05e5 (\u2018ar\u00eez), which we saw in other forms also at Isa. 8:12, 13. But does the appearance of this word in two of the five pasages necessitate an underlying Greek text?
\nThe word \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 and its related forms are the most common LXX rendering of the Hebrew \u05de\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 (mi\u0161neh). The Hebrew word comes from the root \u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 (\u0161anoh) and has the sense of duplicity or repetition. It came early to carry the specific meaning of the teaching handed down from teacher to disciple, even before that body of teaching was actually written down. This repeated teaching was eventually codified and recorded in the work which we now know as the Mishnah. To the Church Fathers it was known as the \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2. For them the term signified either simply \u201ctradition\u201d or the written Mishnah. Evidently the word became very early a terminus technicus and does not seem to have been given a Latin translation. As we have seen in the first passage, \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 appears together with traditiones, so strictly speaking the two should probably not be equated. However, the use of the two words in 29:20\u201321 shows just how closely they were associated. Jerome may indeed have first heard the Greek word \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 for the traditions and secondary writings of the Jews while he was in Antioch learning Greek and studying under Apollinaris, but there is no strong reason to suppose that his use of the word here implies his copying a Greek document. Unless he transcribed the Hebrew itself, he had no other word available\u2014even though he was writing in Latin. And if he did have a Hebrew text in front of him, with his knowledge of both the Hebrew and the LXX, the most natural exchange for him to make for \u05de\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4, would be \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2.
\nThe actual use of the word \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03af in the excerpt before us is not entirely clear. For the Hebrew \u05e2\u05e8\u05d9\u05e5 (\u2018ar\u00eez) Jerome\u2019s Vulgate has qui praevalebat while in the same place in the Nazarene commentary we find \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03af. In his own comments before coming to the Nazarene work, Jerome returns to the qui praevalebat, without, however, really touching on the true meaning of \u05e2\u05e8\u05d9\u05e5. The only other place where the Vulgate renders \u05e2\u05e8\u05d9\u05e5 with a form of praevaleo is in the fifth verse of this same chapter: qui \u2026 praevaluerunt. This fact, at least, should assure us that Jerome did read \u05e2\u05e8\u05d9\u05e5 here. But Jerome is quite inconsistent in his translating of this Hebrew word. Of about 20 instances, he uses no less than eight different words to render it. We must conclude that there is no connection between Jerome\u2019s qui praevalebat and the \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03af. Since it is most unlikely that the Nazarene document was written in Greek, \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03af must be Jerome\u2019s rendition of some Hebrew or Aramaic word. What could it have been? One can only conjecture, but if the basic hypothesis is correct\u2014that \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03af is Jerome\u2019s rendering of something he read in the Nazarene work\u2014then the options are limited. The most likely is the word \u05ea\u05e0\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd (tanna\u2019\u00eem). This is the Aramaic form from the Hebrew \u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 (\u0161anoh), which, as we have seen, is the basis for \u05de\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 and the most common root to be rendered by some form of \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c9.
\nThis conclusion requires us to set a rather later date for the composition of the Nazarene interpretation. The generally accepted period for the transition from Tannaim to Amoraim is with the publication of the Mishnah. We may put this roughly at the beginning of the third century. The statement is that the \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03af (or \u05ea\u05e0\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd, tanna\u2019\u00eem) passed away. We must voice some caution, because defecerint is only an echo of the Isaiah original. The commentary goes on to say that these \u201cformerly\u201d (prius) deceived the people. Here again illudebant is the illusor of the biblical text. Nonetheless, the use of prius and the emphasis on the past would make less sense if the whole comment had been written before, say, 200. One would, in fact, feel safe placing the composition of this targum\/commentary in the mid-third century, and at least after 200, when the Mishnah was compiled.<\/p>\n
On Isaiah 31:6\u20139<\/p>\n
The Nazarenes understand this passage in this way: O Sons of Israel, who deny the Son of God with a most vicious opinion, turn to him and his apostles. For if you will do this, you will reject all idols which to you were a cause of sin in the past, and the devil will fall before you, not because of your powers, but because of the compassion of God. And his young men, who at a certain time earlier fought for him, will be the tributaries of the church and any of [his] power and stone will pass. Also the philosophers and every perverse dogma will turn their backs to the sign of the cross. Because this is the meaning of the Lord that his will take place, whose fire or light is in Sion and his oven in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n
The tenor of this excerpt is different from those we have examined. Here we see no mention of the Scribes and Pharisees nor of the Jewish traditions. Here, rather than simple rejection, we have the proffered hand of reconciliation. The targumic approach is still evident, following the biblical phrasing closely.
\nSchmidtke, while attempting rather unconvincingly to show references here to specific Pauline verses, did draw attention to the Pauline approach to faith and works and God\u2019s mercy. The references mentioned by Schmidtke do indeed show a strong similarity of outlook, and this is significant. To be sure, the words in question \u201cnot because of human powers but because of God\u2019s mercy\u201d are triggered by the text of Isaiah, but the very decision of the Nazarenes to highlight them in such a way must be taken as an indication that they were not disagreeable to Paul\u2019s gospel. This confirms what we have seen more explicitly stated above on 9:1.
\nIn fact, we must see the greatest significance of this final passage in the way it relates to the greater Church. The sons of Israel are called to turn to the Son of God and to his apostles. These latter are not limited to James and perhaps Peter, as we might expect, but they seem to be inclusive of the twelve and even of Paul. Then we find the phrase Ecclesiae vectigales (tributaries of the church). Jerome is systematic in translating \u05e7\u05d4\u05dc (qahal) as ecclesia, and we must assume that this is also what he read here. The word \u05e7\u05d4\u05dc generally takes the sense of the larger body or gathering as compared to \u05e2\u05d3\u05d4 (\u2018edah) which is a word, at least in New Testament times, more specific, tending to signify the local group. If the Nazarenes had developed some sort of exclusivist doctrine, some rejection of the Church from the Gentiles, then we might expect to find here Synagogae vectigales (tributaries of the synagogue). The expression as it stands\u2014taken together with the other hints we have seen\u2014may serve as testimony to a rather ecumenical ecclesiology among the Nazarenes. This, we admit, is tenuous, but the evidence can bear that interpretation. The statement itself speaks of the fall of the devil and the turning of young men from supporting him to supporting the Church. This is more than tolerant; it is positive.<\/p>\n
Summary<\/p>\n
As we noted at the outset, these passages are very important, perhaps as informative as anything we will consider in this study. We have been able to trace through them an active Nazarene presence well into the third century. The sect which produced this document was actively engaged in a dialogue\u2014heated, no doubt\u2014with rabbinic Judaism. It was familiar with the developments within Judaism and rejected the authority of the pharisaic scholars to interpret scripture definitively. The Nazarenes of this work may themselves have continued to keep the Law of the Pentateuch, but they did not see it as binding on those who believed from among the Gentiles. Nor did they accept as binding on themselves (or on any Jews) the Oral Law as embodied in the Mishnah. These Jewish Christians viewed Paul and his mission favorably and evidently even accepted\u2014in theory at least\u2014the unity of the Church as composed of both Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ. Their Christology too called Christ the Son of God. The document itself displays an active familiarity with the Hebrew language and must have been written in either Hebrew or Aramaic. It seems to betray a knowledge of the targumic tradition. And finally, this group had not lost hope that the Jewish people might yet turn to accept Jesus as the Messiah.<\/p>\n
Chapter Five<\/p>\n
Patristic Evidence after Jerome<\/p>\n
While it is true that Epiphanius and Jerome form the core of our study, useful information about the Nazarenes, and particularly about their place in early Church thought, can be gained from a consideration of their treatment by later Christian writers. We shall be led into a valuable path of investigation if we move chronologically and first consider a heresiogragher who made no mention of the sect.<\/p>\n
Filaster<\/p>\n
Filaster, Bishop of Brescia, was a contemporary of Epiphanius (d.397). His diversarum haereseon liber was written in 385 (also possible are 380 and 390)\u2014about five or ten years after Epiphanius\u2019 panarion\u2014and covered 156 heresies or heretical teachings. The Jewish Christian Nazarene sect is not mentioned by Filaster. This fact naturally causes one to wonder why the Nazarenes were omitted from so extensive a work when Filaster went so far as to condemn even those who differed from the Church only in their belief that the stars occupied fixed positions in the heavens (as against the then-current teaching that God set them in place every evening). It is often held that Filaster drew from Epiphanius, but we have seen that the Bishop of Salamis quite roundly condemned the Nazarenes. Why did Filaster omit them? Was he at this point using a source other than Epiphanius?
\nThe treatment of this question by Bishop Lightfoot is most instructive. First of all, it had been commonly assumed that the work of Hippolytus against the heresies had given both Epiphanius and Filaster their material. For a long time this work, mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome, had been lost, but with the discovery and publication in 1851 of the so-called Philosophumena by E. Miller (who wrongly attributed the work to Origen), scholars at last had an anti-heretical work whose author was Hippolytus, as was demonstrated by J.J.I. D\u00f6llinger. Numerous scholars at the time also wanted to identify the Philosophumena (or, more correctly, Refutation of All Heresies) with a treatise described in some detail by Photius. Photius gave a rather full description of this work, which he calls a syntagma, or compendium. It contained 32 heresies, beginning from the Dositheans and ending with Noetus and the Noetians, and he calls it a \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, libellus, a little book. It was founded on some lectures by Irenaeus (Hippolytus\u2019 teacher) and was brief (\u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) in its style. But this description does not fit the Philosophumena, which is not a short work at all, does not contain 32 heresies, and neither begins nor ends as Photius described. As it happens, the Philosophumena itself describes just such a work, the author stating that he had long ago written against these heresies roughly, not in detail, but that since they had not been shamed by what he wrote then, he would now reveal their secret mysteries.
\nLightfoot went on to point out, like others before him, that the short appendix to Tertullian\u2019s Praes. haer. (=Ps. Tertullian) is a brief summary of heresies which fits Photius\u2019 description (as well as that of Hippolytus himself just mentioned) in almost every detail. This most assuredly is the work described by Photius, not the Philosophumena, and the author of both was Hippolytus. If we then list the heresies of Ps. Tertullian synoptically with those of Epiphanius and Filaster (see Table I), we find that those of Ps. Tert., in the words of Lightfoot, \u201crun like a backbone\u201d through the works of the later heresiographers. However, when we remove this framework, we find almost no correspondence at all between Epiphanius and Filaster. From these facts we may draw two inescapable conclusions: both Epiphanius and Filaster made use of Ps. Tert. (i.e. Hippolytus) as a basis for their works against heresies; and the two fourth-century works are independent of each other.
\nIt hardly needs more than a synoptic look at the lists to show that the first conclusion is correct. In a few places (designated by Lightfoot with brackets) there are slight variations in order. Without exception the variation is on the part of Epiphanius, while Filaster follows the order of Ps. Tert. faithfully. This would seem to strengthen the conclusion that Filaster is not using Epiphanius (but see note 12 above). If we now turn to the question of why Filaster omitted mention of the Nazarenes, we must direct the question in turn at Hippolytus. It is generally recognized that Hippolytus drew from his master Irenaeus for his information on the heresies, both from the latter\u2019s verbal instruction, and from his written works, which Hippolytus quotes frequently. Irenaeus\u2019 work adversus omnes haereses (Against all Hereses), written in the latter part of the second century, is the earliest major heresiological treatise of its kind still extant. In the first book he deals with about 21 heresies, placing most of his emphasis on Valentinus (an older contemporary) and Gnosticism. Of these 21 heresies, no less than 18 form the core of the Ps. Tert. list, often appearing in the same order.
\nIrenaeus\u2019 sources were Justin and Theophilus of Antioch. We have analyzed above the places in Justin\u2019s extant writings in which he may have been referring to the Nazarene sect. All in all, we can hardly say that he considered them \u201cheretical\u201d enough to be included in his Syntagma, and a priori we should not be risking too much in suggesting that Irenaeus would not have found Nazarenes in a heresy list of Justin. But what of Theophilus of Antioch? What remains to us of his writings is relatively scant. Most recently his work has been edited and analyzed by R.M. Grant. At the end of his analysis, Grant found strong Ebionite leanings in Theophilus, that this Bishop of Antioch was \u201cfollowing a Jewish or Jewish-Christian source\u201d and that \u201cin spirit and in content he is very close to Judaism.\u201d He goes on to note \u201cthat there is no mention of a bishop of Antioch among those who opposed Jewish Quartodecimanism in the East (Eusebius, HE V,23).\u201d We may recall at this point that Irenaeus himself wrote in 190 to Pope Victor supporting the Quartodecimans. Clearly, one would scarcely expect to find much of a polemic against Jewish Christians in a writer such as Theophilus. So, whether Irenaeus used Justin or Theophilus or both, we must conclude that he would not have found material to warrant special attention to the Nazarene sect.<\/p>\n
EPIPHANIUS
\nPSEUDO-TERTULLIAN
\nPHILASTER
\nEPIPHANIUS
\nPSEUDO-TERTULLIAN
\nPHILASTER<\/p>\n
Hellenism:\u2014
\nValentinus
\nValentinus
\nValentinus
\nPlatonists
\nSecundus
\n}
\nPtolemaeus
\n}
\nPtolemaeus
\n}
\nPythagoreans
\nPtolemacus
\nSecundus
\nSecundus
\nStoics
\nMarcosians
\n}
\nHeracleon
\n}
\nHeracleon
\n}
\nEpicureans
\nColarbasus
\nMarcus
\nMarcus
\nSamaritans:\u2014
\nHeracleon
\nColarbasus
\nColarbasus
\nGortheni
\nOphites
\nSebuaei
\nCainites
\nEssenes
\nSethites
\nDositheus
\nDositheus
\nDositheus
\nArchontici
\nJudaism:\u2014
\nCerdon
\nCerdon
\nCerdon
\nScribes
\nMarcion
\nMarcion
\nMarcion
\nPharisees
\n}
\nSadducees
\n}
\nSadducees
\n}
\nApelles
\n}
\nLucan
\n}
\nLucan
\n}
\nSadducees
\nPharisees
\nPharisees
\nLucian
\nApelles
\nApelles
\nHemerobaptists
\nSamaritans
\nSeverians
\nOssenes
\nTatian
\nTatian
\nTatian
\nNazarenes (\u039d\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9)
\nNazarenes (Nazaraei)
\nEncratites
\nCataphrygians:\u2014
\nCataphrygians:\u2014
\nEssenes
\nsecundum Proclum
\nHeliognosti
\nsecundum Aeschinem
\nFrog-worshippers (Ranarum cultores)
\nMontanists
\nTascodrugites
\nMusorites
\nPepuzians
\nMusca-accaronites
\nQuintillians
\nTroglodytes
\nArtotyrites
\nDe Fortuna Caeli
\nQuartodecimans
\nBaalites
\nAlogi
\nAstarites
\nAdamians
\nMoloch-worshippers
\nSampsaeans (Elkesaeans)
\nDe Ara Tophet
\nPuteorites
\nBlastus
\nWorshippers of the Brazen Serpent
\nTheodotus
\nTheodotus
\nTheodotus
\nDe Patris et Filii substantia
\nWorshippers in subterranean caves
\nMelchizedekites
\nMelchizedekites (Theodotus II)
\nMelchizedekites
\nThammuz-mourners
\nBaalites (or Belites)
\nBardesanes
\nBaal-worshippers
\nNoetians
\nPraxeas (end)
\nNoetians
\nde Pythonissa
\nAstar and Astaroth-worshippers
\nValesians
\nSabellians (Praxeans) (Hermogenians)
\nHerodians
\nHerodians
\nHerodians
\nCathari
\nSimon Magus
\nSimon Magus
\nSimon Magus
\nAngelici
\nMenander
\nMenander
\nMenander
\nApostolici
\nSeleucus
\n}
\nSaturninus
\nSaturninus
\nSaturnius
\nSabellians
\nHermias
\nBasilides
\nBasilides
\nBasilides
\nOrigenaeans
\nProclianites (Hermeonites)
\nNicolaitans
\nNicolaitans
\nNicolaitans (isti Barbelo venerantur)
\nPaul of Samosata
\nGnostici
\nManichaeans
\nFlorians (Carpocratians)
\nBorborians (Barbelites)
\nHierakites
\nMeletians
\nQuartodecimans
\nJudaites
\nChilionetites
\nOphites
\nAlogi
\nCainites
\nManichaeans
\nSethites
\nPatricians
\nCarpocrates
\nCarpocrates
\nCarpocrates
\nSymmachians
\nCerinthus
\nCerinthus
\nCerinthus
\nPaul of Samosata
\nNazarenes (\u039d\u03b1\u03b6\u03c9\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9)
\nPhotinus
\nArians
\nArians
\nEbionites
\nEbionites
\nEbionites<\/p>\n
Where does all this leave us? In tracing Filaster\u2019s literary heritage back to near its beginnings, we may at least hazard the suggestion that the earliest heresiographers did not include the Nazarenes for the simple reason that they did not consider them heretics. This, of course, was not true of the offshoot Ebionites, who even by the time of Irenaeus (and earlier Justin, who, however, does not mention them by name) had been recognized as heretics. If we extend this logic into the late fourth century, we arrive at this important conclusion: the lack of polemic against the Nazarenes until the fourth century does not show that they were a late phenomenon; rather, it shows that no one until Epiphanius considered them heretical enough to add them to older catalogues. The very existence of Filaster\u2019s contemporary anti-heretical work with its omission of the Nazarenes in accord with his inherited tradition lends weight to the suggestion that Epiphanius is solely responsible for their inclusion in his own heresiography, and this despite the fact that he could not deny their ancient beginnings. While each author used the lists of his predecessors and added to them where he saw fit, no one until Epiphanius felt it necessary to include the Nazarenes, even though they had existed from the earliest times and their gospel was known. As a final argument in favor of this view, we may mention again the ambivalence of Jerome toward the sect, sometimes treating them with respect, sometimes attacking them. After Augustine, such indecision would be unthinkable.<\/p>\n
Didymus the Blind<\/p>\n
Didymus the Blind (313\u2013398) was an older contemporary and teacher of Jerome. In his commentary on the Psalms he mentions the Gospel according to the Hebrews once: \u201cIt seems that Matthew is named Levi in the Gospel according to Luke. But they are not the same, but Mathias who replaced Judas and Levi are the same with a double name. This appears from the Gospel according to the Hebrews.\u201d This particular quotation from GH appears nowhere else. It is not impossible that Didymus himself saw the Gospel (or rather had it read to him, since he was blind almost from birth). As an Alexandrian and one who was greatly influenced by Origen, we must also consider that he may have found this citation in some lost work of Origen, who frequently used the Hebrew gospel.
\nThe passage itself is not without interest. The mention of Mathias would seem to indicate that GH contained information on events subsequent to Jesus\u2019 ascension. Especially noteworthy is the way in which Didymus refers to GH. He seems to treat it as having no less authority than the canonical Gospel of Luke and even used it to correct a false impression gained from Luke. This fact in itself, though hardly decisive, may weigh in favor of Didymus\u2019 personal use of GH rather than his extracting here from Origen, who frequently adds some hesitant proviso such as \u201cif one is willing to accept the Gospel of the Hebrews.\u201d Nevertheless, because the possibility remains that Didymus may have used Origen, we cannot assert that he had any direct knowledge of the sect. In fact, his location in Alexandria in the fourth century makes this highly unlikely.<\/p>\n
Augustine<\/p>\n
Augustine of Hippo (354\u2013430) marks a decisive point in the history of the Church\u2019s view of the Nazarenes. While Epiphanius was the first to brand them clearly as heretical, it was the authority of Augustine\u2019s acceptance of this judgment which seems to have fixed their fate and led to their final rejection by the Church. As we shall see, later Christian writers generally followed Epiphanius\u2019 statements about the sect, but theirs was only a reflection or echo of the definitive stamp of authority which permeates so much of what Augustine wrote.
\nHe mentions the Nazarenes in five places in his writings, always in a negative tone, and, as if to complete their rejection, he never once quotes from or even mentions the Gospel acording to the Hebrews. In his treatise de baptismo contra Donatistas he says, \u201cjust as they persist to the present day who call themselves Nazarene Christians and circumcise the carnal foreskins in a Jewish way, are born heretics in that error into which Peter drifted and from which he was called back by Paul.\u201d This would seem to indicate that Augustine was personally aware of their continued existence. However, in contra Faustum, written at about the same time, or perhaps even three or four years earlier, he seems less sure, when he says \u201cthey exist until the present day or at least until recently.\u201d While it is true that he writes in 405\/6 \u201cnow there are some heretics who call themselves Nazarenes\u201d, this is hardly as strong as \u201cwho persist until now\u201d or \u201cup until our own time.\u201d Augustine never travelled outside the Italy-North Africa axis, and this in itself is enough to suggest that he had no first-hand knowledge of Nazarenes.
\nWe have a strengthening of this suggestion in his repeated identification of the Nazarenes with Symmachians. In fact there is little reason to brand Nazarenes as Symmachians, and had he had any personal contact with these sects (if indeed the Symmachians still existed in his time), he would not have committed such an error. It is generally stated that Augustine had his information on heresies from either Filaster or Epiphanius. However, the former never mentions the sect, as we have seen above, and the latter does not mention the Symmachians; so he could not have found this identification of the two sects in either author. It is equally unlikely that he himself made a synthesis of the two authors: The notice of Filaster on the Symmachians is short and bears no resemblance to Epiphanius\u2019 Nazarenes.
\nIn all likelihood we need search no farther for the source of this confused identification than the words of Augustine himself: \u201cthese are those whom Faustus recalls by the name of Symmachians or Nazarenes.\u201d Before his conversion, Augustine adhered for some years to Manichaean philosophy. In 383 Faustus of Milevis, a Manichaean propagandist, visited nearby Carthage and taught for a short time. Augustine\u2019s keen intellect had raised certain questions, and he began to study under Faustus. However, Faustus was unable to satisfy Augustine, and thence began his turn to Christianity, completed some three years later. So it is not unlikely that he heard this identification from Faustus. This would also explain that hesitating statement in the treatise against Faustus that \u201cthey exist until the present day or at least until recently\u201d; it could be information heard from the Manichaean some fifteen years before but unconfirmed by any later witness.
\nIn addition to this second-hand information, that the Nazarenes still existed in his day, Augustine supplies us with the following information about the sect: 1) they profess to be Christians and confess that Christ is the Son of God; 2) they practice baptism; 3) they keep the old law, specifically including a) circumcision, b) Sabbath observance, and c) food restrictions such as abstinence from swine; and 4) they are few in number. Of these eight items, five are clearly stated by Epiphanius and the anacephalaiosis, and in fact elsewhere he clearly admits using Epiphanius. The statement that they are few in number, coming as it does after Augustine\u2019s uncertainty as to whether they still exist, gives the impression that it is not so much a statement of known fact as it is a reasonable assumption based on their obscurity. He himself has not encountered them and knows very few who have, therefore they cannot be (or ever have been) a very populous group. Likewise the assertion (3c) that they abstain from eating swine\u2019s flesh could well be a conclusion Augustine has drawn on his own. He knows that they keep the Law and are \u201cJews and nothing else,\u201d as Epiphanius says. He may logically infer that these Jewish Christians will not eat swine. It should be remembered that neither Epiphanius nor Jerome nor indeed any other writer brings this charge against the sect. Epiphanius does state that the Ebionites abstain from all flesh, and this may have influenced Augustine. Similarly, the statement that the Nazarenes \u201chave Christian baptism,\u201d while not having a direct counterpart in Augustine\u2019s known sources, could have been prompted by Epiphanius\u2019 testimonies about other Jewish Christian sects. In sum, there is no obligation to conclude that Augustine had any personal knowledge of the Nazarenes, nor even that he has any new material to contribute. His primary, if not sole source of information about a named sect of Nazarenes (before his correspondence with Jerome) was Epiphanius.<\/p>\n
Theodoret of Cyrrhus<\/p>\n
We may safely pass by a short notice in the treatise entitled Praedestinatus. The work is nothing more than a plagiarism of Augustine\u2019s de haeresibus (wich it was written to refute).
\nTheodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus (c. 393\u2013c.466) has left us a short notice on the Nazarenes in his haereticorum fabularum compendium, composed about 453: \u201cThe Nazarenes are Jews. They honor Christ as a righteous man and use the Gospel according to Peter. Eusebius said that these heresies originated during the time of the emperor Domitian. Against those Justin the philosopher and martyr has written, as also Irenaeus, the successor of the apostles, and Origen.\u201d He offers us two clear bits of information about the Nazarenes: They honor Christ as a righteous man, and they use the Gospel according to Peter. The first statement has no precise parallel in extant patristic literature, and we need not understand it as any definitive christological statement, no more at least than such New Testament statements as Luke 23:47 or 1 John 2:1, 2:29 and 3:7. The most likely source of this statement would seem to be the Ecclesiastical History (III 27,2) of Eusebius: \u201cfor they considered him a plain and common man who was justified only because of his progress in virtue, born of the intercourse of a man and Mary.\u201d If this indeed be the source of Theodoret\u2019s statement, we must first note that he has confused the Nazarenes with the Ebionites. In fact, if we look at the immediately preceding paragraph about the Ebionites, we find that he may have given us more information about the Nazarenes here than in the paragraph under their name. In any case, he has clearly mixed them together.
\nIn II,1 he tells us of two groups, both known as Ebionites, who are different in several ways. One does not accept the virgin birth, one does. One uses the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the other the Gospel according to Matthew. To the first group belongs Symmachus, and these reject Paul. The second group honors the Sabbath and \u201cthe Lord\u2019s day.\u201d The general run of this information comes from the above-mentioned passage of Eusebius, but Theodoret seems to have combined it with a second passage on the Ebionites (HE VI 17), which brings in the Symmachus connection and opposes the Gospel of Matthew. We need look no further for Theodoret\u2019s source for the Ebionites; it is a synthesis of information given by Eusebius in his Church History. It is in this light that we should read the statement in haer. fab. II 2 that \u201c \u2018Eusebius stated that these heresies arose during the reign of Domitian. Justin, the philosopher and martyr, Irenaeus the successor of the apostles, and Origen wrote against them.\u201d He is not stating that his information about the Nazarenes is taken from Eusebius, Justin, Origen, and Irenaeus, but rather that he has consulted all of these for his data on the Jewish Christian sects generally. At this point we may recall that three of the four mention the existence of two kinds of Ebionites (above, chap. 2) while Irenaeus, who does not make that distinction, does speak of a sect which reads only Matthew.
\nThe opening statement, that \u201cthe Nazarenes are Jews\u201d, may give us the hint that Theodoret has taken the name of the sect from Epiphanius, who says \u201cthey are rather Jews and nothing else.\u201d
\nFinally it remains for us to consider Theodoret\u2019s curious reference to the Gospel according to Peter. Here again is a unique claim with no confirmation in any other known literature. Both Eusebius (HE III 23) and Origen (Comm. in Matth. X 17) mention the Gospel of Peter. In about the year 200 Serapion saw a copy of it and decided that it was inadmissable on the grounds that it was docetic. If Serapion was correct, then this Gospel does not coincide with what we know of Nazarene doctrine, and we are safe in assuming that Theodoret has erred. How the error came about is a matter of conjecture.<\/p>\n
Later Writers<\/p>\n
With one exception later fathers quote some early predecessor directly without expansion. Eugippius Abbas Africanus (c. 455\u2013535) extracted from Augustine\u2019s writings and in his thesaurus ex s. Augustini operibus he quotes directly from the passage in de baptismo VII 1,1.
\nIsidorus, Archbishop of Seville (c. 560\u2013636) twice mentions the Nazarenes, once in etymologiarum libri xx (VIII 6,9) and once in de haeresibus (X). In both cases he gives a close paraphrase of anacephalaiosis 29. Isidorus is followed or even quoted verbatim by Honorius Augostodunensis (de haeresibus libellus, XXIV) and Paulus (de haer. libell., V). Also directly dependent on the anacephalaiosis are John Damascene (de haer. 29) and Theodor Bar Khonai (liber scholiorum).
\nThe single exception to this tradition of plagiarism of the ancients is Paschasius Radbertus (790\u2013865) in his expositio in Mattheum II 2. This abbot of Corbie (near Amiens) is noted for his critical and extensive use of the fathers in his writings. The passage cited would seem to depend primarily on Jerome for such information as the earliest name of Christians, the holiness of the sect, the reference to the root, and even the name evangelium Nazarenorum (\u201cGospel of the Nazarenes\u201d). This is in fact the first time that this name appears, although it is clearly a natural progression from the words of Jerome in several places. It is worth noting here that Isidorus is the first writer to refer to the Nazarenes in the past tense, even though the sect must have ceased to exist as a recognizable entity centuries before.<\/p>\n
We need only briefly summarize our findings. No author after Jerome seems to have had any direct knowledge of the Nazarene sect, and only one (Didymus) even so much as quotes from the gospel they used. When exactly the sect passed out of existence is impossible to determine. If we give a measure of credence to Jerome\u2019s claims to their presence in his time, then we must conclude that they survived into the early fifth century. But if we accept the judgment of certain scholars in denying Jerome\u2019s credibility and refusing his testimony, then there is little to force us to continue their existence even to the end of the fourth century. As we have noted above, it is not likely that Epiphanius knew them personally. Nonetheless, the attestations of extant Nazarene literature at the end of the fourth century may allow us to see their final demise somewhere around that time.
\nThe most important conclusion of this chapter is that the Nazarenes were not mentioned by earlier fathers not because they did not exist but rather because they were still generally considered to be acceptably orthodox. The history of the Nazarene sect must be clearly distinguished from that of the Ebionites. Once Epiphanius failed to do so, he introduced a confusion which continues until today. The Bishop of Salamis did us the service of preserving certain data on a sect about which we would have been otherwise ignorant. But he did us the disservice of overreacting and misinterpreting his sources.<\/p>\n
Chapter Six<\/p>\n
The Gospel According to the Hebrews<\/p>\n
There can be no doubt that the story of Jesus was early commited to writing in the Semitic language of his followers. First of all, the nature of the case makes this likely. Secondly, we have numerous testimonies to the existence of such a gospel and a few fragments from it, albeit not in the original language. In the preceding chapters we saw that the Nazarenes themselves were reported to be in possession of a gospel written in Hebrew. This Hebrew gospel is generally said to be the Gospel of Matthew but with some differences. It is clear that such a gospel, were it to come into our possession, would be a valuable tool in gaining additional knowledge of the Nazarene sect. Unfortunately, no Hebrew gospel exists today for scholars to examine, although archeologists could conceivably discover one in some place such as Pella, Jerusalem, Galilee, or Aleppo.
\nUntil that awaited find occurs, we must content ourselves with examining existing fragments of the gospel used by the Nazarenes and gleaning what information we may from them. This is not as easy as it may seem, because there are many complications and uncertainties. It must be stated at the outset that it is not our intent in this chapter to make another exhaustive study of all fragments of the Jewish Christian gospels nor even of the \u201cGospel according to the Hebrews.\u201d The scope of the present chapter remains within the limits of the overall study: to extract whatever information is possible on the history and doctrines of the Nazarene sect. The extremely complex problem of the Jewish Christian gospels has been so complicated by the speculations of investigators that it is difficult to cut one\u2019s way through the jungle of suggestions and proofs. This chapter deals only with those fragments where doubt as to provenance is at a minimum.
\nThe earliest indication we have of the existence of a Hebrew written account for some of Jesus\u2019 life comes to us from Papias. He speaks of a collection of logia of Jesus made by Matthew in the \u201cHebrew language.\u201d He also knew of a story of a woman accused of many sins, which, Eusebius tells us, was to be found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Hegesippus also knew the Gospel according to the Hebrews (GH), this again from Eusebius. The first writer in whose extant works we actually have mention of the name of the gospel is Clement of Alexandria and soon after him Origen. Although Eusebius does mention GH by name, it is a moot point whether he actually saw the gospel. Epiphanius only once (pan. 30 3,7) gives us the name \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f19\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 (\u201caccording to the Hebrews\u201d), as does Didymus the Blind. This takes us up to Jerome, who mentions GH (secundum or juxta Hebraeos) frequently. If he saw it, he was the only Latin writer to have done so.
\nWe have focused here on specific mentions of the \u201cGospel according to the Hebrews\u201d for two reasons which will serve to highlight the complications involved. First of all, let us note that while the gospel may have been recorded in a Semitic language even before the end of the first century, we do not find the name \u201cGospel according to the Hebrews\u201d until the third century, and before Jerome at the end of the fourth century it is mentioned by name less than ten times. Elsewhere we find references to a nameless gospel written in Hebrew characters. The general impression is that this gospel did not have a specific, known name until fairly late, and that this name designated its users rather than its author. However\u2014and this is our second point\u2014the period during which the designation appeared was a time, as we have seen, when there was general unfamiliarity in the Gentile Church with the finer distinctions existing in Jewish Christianity. The name \u201cEbionite\u201d was used for Nazarenes as well as for Ebionites, and more generally, they were all thought of as those Christians from among the Jews or Hebrews who still adhered to the Law and read the Bible in Hebrew. If there were few Christians from among the Gentiles who had actually seen a gospel written in Hebrew letters, they were even fewer who would have been able to tell if it was in Hebrew or Aramaic much less to discern textual and doctrinal differences between two such gospels.
\nFor indeed it is clear that there was not just one \u201cauthorized version\u201d of GH. The fragments which have come to us ascribed to some Hebrew gospel will not all fit neatly into one consistent, contiguous work. All of this is significant for our study of the Nazarenes and their doctrines. No writer before Epiphanius mentions the Nazarenes by name, but Epiphanius, by his own admission (pan. 29 9,4), never saw a copy of their gospel, and so could not have compared it with that used by the Ebionites, from which he quotes. There is, therefore, no reason for us to assume that every patristic reference to a gospel written in Hebrew letters speaks of the same gospel. Nor should we be too quick to take all such references and use them as pieces in the Nazarene puzzle.
\nIt is our position, then, that the one earliest Urschrift (if there was only one) or collection of logia was variously adapted, expanded, edited, and used by the different streams of Jewish Christianity. By this view there was only one so-called GH, but it made its appearance as the GH of the Ebionites, the GH of the Nazarenes, and perhaps the GH used by Egyptian Jewish Christians, called \u201cthe Gospel according to the Egyptians.\u201d From the earliest times the name assigned to the basic writing was Matthew\u2019s, and it was probably by that name that each group knew its own recension of GH, if they did not simply call it \u201cthe gospel.\u201d Some groups had their gospel in a Greek translation, and it would seem that additions to the basic translation may have been made in Greek.
\nHere we must make some observations on the name \u201cThe Gospel of the Nazarenes.\u201d In most dictionaries and encyclopedias of Christianity, as well as in other scholarly work, this gospel is presented as an attested title for a known ancient work. The fact is that the eariest appearances of the name \u201cGospel of the Nazarenes\u201d are in the ninth century, within a very few years of each other. Haimo of Auxerre (d. 855) in his commentary on Isaiah makes an indirect quotation from an evangelium Nazarenorum. Whether he actually saw a manuscript with that title we cannot say for sure, but it seems most likely that he was influenced in his use of the name by Jerome. As we have noted, Jerome repeatedly mentions the Gospel of (or according to) the Hebrews \u201cwhich is read by the Nazarenes.\u201d While he himself never uses the title evangelium Nazarenorum, it is a natural step from his words, a step that Haimo evidently took.
\nThe other ninth-century appearance of this derived name we have already seen in the previous chapter. It is by Paschasius Radbertus around the year 860. We have already noted his dependence on Jerome. There is no reason to look for any connection between these two medieval authors in this matter; the derivation of the name \u201cGospel of the Nazarenes\u201d from Jerome\u2019s words is so natural that many have done it and are doing it even until today.
\nThe name \u201cGospel of the Nazarenes\u201d (GN), then, is a later hybrid, derived from Jerome. Jerome himself only knew the name \u201cGospel according to the Hebrews\u201d or \u201cMatthew.\u201d However, as Vielhauer has observed, Jerome had only one work in mind when he wrote of this Hebrew gospel. The designations GH and GN may be only a convenient way of differentiating recensions of the same basic work. But if we are to use them in that way, let us be clear that we are doing so and not think that we are speaking of two works independent of each other, composed separately and in different languages.<\/p>\n
The Nazarenes and the Gospel according to the Hebrews<\/p>\n
Hebrew.\u201d When writing about the Ebionites (pan. 30 3,7), he also credits them with accepting Matthew, which they call \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f19\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 (\u201caccording to the Hebrews\u201d). However, this cannot be equated with the canonical Matthew, both because it omitted the opening two chapters and because quotations from it which Epiphanius does preserve for us are not found in Matthew. Moreover, he is not sure that the Nazarenes omitted the first two chapters, thus leaving us in doubt whether the versions used by the two sects were the same. So on the one hand we find both Nazarenes and Ebionites calling their gospels \u201cMatthew,\u201d while on the other the works are demonstrably not the same. We may recall that it is Epiphanius who tells us that the Ebionites arose out of (or split off from) the Nazarenes. In such a split it would be natural that the dissenters take with them the gospel they had used. But if the split arose as a result of christological differences, then we might expect that the basic document would be revised, deletions made (like the genealogies), and appropriate phrases added.
\nAmong ancient writers the only Church Father specifically to connect the Nazarene sect to GH is Jerome. This he does in eight places: de vir. ill. 3; in Matt. 12:13; 23:35; in Is. 40:9\u201311 (= in Ez. 16:13); prol. 65; in Ez. 18:5\u20139; and adv. Pelag. III 2. One other passage, in Is. 11:2, mentions a \u201cgospel written in Hebrew which the Nazarenes read\u201d; this we will take to be the same work. The passage in Matt. 12:13 is one of the three which support Epiphanius in calling this gospel by Matthew\u2019s name (also the de vir. ill. and adv. Pelag. passages). In another respect this passage is unique when it says that both Nazarenes and Ebionites use this gospel. Although it is most likely that Jerome is simply making a generalization based on Epiphanius, if there is any factual basis to what he says, it can only support our hypothesis that both sects made use of gospels which were commonly thought to be the same work and which were in fact of the same family.
\nIt must be pointed out that the situation we have surmised\u2014two related gospels, both called Matthew by their users and GH by outsiders but diverging to a greater or lesser degree from each other\u2014such a state of affairs must cause grave difficulties to one who would collect the fragments of one or the other. Let us say that fragment A is said to come from GH as used by Nazarenes. Then we find fragment A elsewhere, also assigned to GH but without mention of the Nazarenes. We cannot automatically conclude that both quotations were taken from the Nazarene version of GH. The gospel tradition for GH may have left fragment A synoptically in both Nazarene and Ebionite versions of GH (see note 37 below). Thus, Origen or Clement of Alexandria quotes a fragment from GH, and it is clear that he found it in Greek. Then Jerome comes along, quotes the same saying, also assigns it to GH, but tells us that it was in Hebrew. Do we have a contradiction? Not necessarily. Jerome is using the version of the Nazarenes, which he first translated to Greek and Latin. The Egyptian authors had the Ebionite version, already in Greek. Now to be sure, Jerome thought his was the same as theirs, but may not that be because he knew the Ebionite (Greek) version only through their citations?
\nOne more limiting proviso must be made before extracting from GH fragments what data we can about the Nazarenes. Even if we manage successfully to select fragments only from the Nazarene recension of GH, we must beware of putting our own interpretation on a particular pericope and then making far-reaching conclusions based on that exegesis. Our information is limited at best, and one spotlighted phrase may give a distorted picture of their doctrines, especially if we begin to extrapolate from that one saying. Nicholson demonstrated the potential hazards of such extrapolation from verses out of context. He proposed an exercise in which we imagine that only three canonical gospels had come to us and that the fourth had been preserved\u2014in fragments\u2014by the Nazarenes. Selecting material peculiar to Matthew, such as Matt. 5:17, 10:5,6, and 15:24 would show the extreme Judaizing views of this Matthean sect. \u201cOr let us suppose Mark to have been the Nazarene Gospel. From the fact that it began with the Baptism, we should forthwith conclude that it was designed to support the heresy that Jesus was mere man until the divine Christ descended into him in \u2018the shape of a dove.\u2019 \u201d Let us recall that the Nazarenes, unlike the Ebionites, used New Testament material in addition to GH. By now we have seen enough of their general \u201corthodoxy\u201d to prevent us from \u201cdiscoveries\u201d of aberrent Christology.<\/p>\n
Information on the Nazarenes derivable from the Gospel according to the Hebrews<\/p>\n
The foregoing considerations will seriously limit the number of fragments which we may allow ourselves to use with reasonable certainty that they have something reliable to tell us about the Nazarene sect. This is no bad thing, however, because the very purpose of this study limits the selection even more. Let us reiterate: We are not attempting here a new analysis or compilation of GH. Rather our purpose is to derive all information possible about the history and beliefs of the Nazarenes. With our self-imposed limitation of avoiding speculative extrapolation from doubtful fragments, we have to consider only a handful of passages.<\/p>\n
1. According to the Gospel written in Hebrew speech, which the Nazarenes read, the whole fount of the Holy Spirit shall descend upon him \u2026 Further in the Gospel which we have just mentioned we find the following written: And it came to pass when the Lord was come up out of the water, the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descended upon him and rested on him and said to him: My Son, in all the prophets was I waiting for thee that thou shouldest come and I might rest in thee. For thou art my rest; thou art my first-begotten Son that reignest for ever.
\n(Jerome, in Is. 11:2)<\/p>\n
We may first of all note the difference between this account of Jesus\u2019 baptism and the account given by Epiphanius (pan. 30 13,7\u20138), which may also come from a work called GH. It is clear that our gospel here is different from the one which the old heresiologue assigns to the Ebionites.
\nThis passage contains a strong affirmation of that Christology of Jesus\u2019 sonship which we have seen elsewhere, without necessarily falling into the Cerinthian heresy that he was somehow adopted at his baptism. We also note here a strong resemblance to the canonical Epistle to the Hebrews with its emphasis on the sonship and the culmination of prophetic word in the Messiah.<\/p>\n
2. But in that Gospel written according to the Hebrews, which is read by the Nazarenes, the Lord says: \u201cA moment ago my mother, the Holy spirit, took me up.\u201d
\n(Jerome, in Is. 40:9)<\/p>\n
This quotation is repeated by Jerome in his commentary on Ezekiel 16:13 and earliest in Micah 7:6, where he adds the phrase in uno capillorum meorum. The earliest appearance of this saying is in Origen\u2019s Commentary on John 2:12, repeated by him (without the hair) in his homily on Jeremiah 15:4; he adds that the Holy Spirit took Jesus to Mount Tabor. The possibility cannot be discounted that Jerome simply took this quotation from Origen\u2019s Commentary, where it is specifically attributed to GH. This cannot be taken for granted, however, as Jerome goes on in his own comments on the logion to note that the unfamiliar reference to the Spirit as Jesus\u2019 mother is attributable to the feminine gender of the Hebrew word. This is an observation which Origen (who, as we have suggested, only knew GH in Greek) never makes and one which would seem to reinforce the chance that Jerome was actually using the Hebrew version of GH. (He makes a similar comment at Micah 7:6.)
\nBut we have brought this passage only on the chance that it has something to tell us of Nazarene Christology. What is this reference by Jesus to the Holy Spirit as his mother? The explanation of Jerome is ingenious and not wholly unsatisfying: \u201cNo one need be scandalized by this, since in Hebrew spirit is in the feminine gender, while in our language it is masculine and in Greek it is neuter. There is no gender in the godhead.\u201d We must add to this the observation that the most likely setting for this saying is when the Spirit took Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted (Matt. 4:1). This follows the story of Jesus\u2019 baptism where, in the verses immediately preceding, the Spirit descends on him and a voice declares \u201cthis is my son.\u201d
\nIn the canonical account the voice comes \u201cout of heaven,\u201d from which the Spirit is descending. Even this could easily enough be understood as the Spirit speaking; passage 1 above is simply more explicit in having the Spirit say \u201cMy Son.\u201d The doctrine of the Holy Spirit was the slowest to develop in the doctrine of the trinity in the Church catholic, and there is no reason to assume that it was otherwise among the Nazarenes. This passage reveals a primitive pneumatology but not some developed heretical view of the Holy Spirit. In the last analysis it only confirms Nazarene belief in the divine sonship of Jesus.<\/p>\n
3. The Gospel called according to the Hebrews which was recently translated by me into Greek and Latin, which Origen frequently uses, records after the resurrection of the Savior: And when the Lord had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest, he went to James and appeared to him. For James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he had drunk the cup of the Lord until he should see him risen from among them that sleep. And shortly thereafter the Lord said: Bring a table and bread! And immediately it is added: he took bread, blessed it and brake it and gave it to James the Just and said to him: My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of Man is risen from among them that sleep.
\n(Jerome, de vir. ill. 2)<\/p>\n
Even though we are working from the hypothesis that Jerome knew only the Nazarene version of GH, we can further confirm it as the provenance for this fragment from the next chapter (3) of de vir. ill., in which he specifically identifies the work as that used by the sect. We may first note that this entire pericope takes place after the resurrection of Jesus and strongly affirms Nazarene belief in that event. As we have seen in Chapter 3, Epiphanius (pan. 29 7,3) tells us that they believed in the resurrection of the dead. The present passage connects that belief specifically to Jesus.
\nOf no less significance is the honor with which this fragment treats James, vouchsafing him this personal visit and endorsement by Jesus. The chronology would seem to differ from that of the canonical gospels, but the tradition of a Christophany to James is as old as Paul\u2019s first epistle to the Corinthians (15:7). This expanded account of that appearance, whenever it took place, recalls the respectful treatment of James by Epiphanius in his chapter on the Nazarenes. While he specifically refers (pan. 29 4,3) to Eusebius and Clement (for which we should read Hegesippus), it is not unlikely that this association is a reflection of what he found in his source for the Nazarenes.<\/p>\n
4. For since the apostles believed him to be spirit according to the Gospel which is of the Hebrews and is read by the Nazarenes, a demon without a body, he said to them (Luke 24:38f) \u2026
\n(Jerome, in Is., prol. 65)<\/p>\n
Rather than being a full passage, this is more like a variorum reading, where Jerome found incorporale daemonium (bodiless spirit) in place of the spiritum of Luke 24:39. If this is authentically from the GH used by the Nazarenes, then it gives further evidence of Nazarene belief in the resurrection of Jesus. But there must be some doubt as to its authenticity, or at least as to its provenance. The Vulgate spiritum and the GH daemonium are both valid translations of \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1. However, the word incorporale is from the Greek \u03b1\u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd and cannot have come from a Hebrew original. Some years before writing the above, Jerome quoted this same fragment, saying that it was \u201cfrom the Gospel which was recently translated by me,\u201d that is, GH. He was, he said, quoting Ignatius, but he wrongly attributed the saying to the Epistle to Polycarp. (It is in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 3.) Vielhauer points out that Jerome was not using GH nor even Ignatius but rather Eusebius\u2019 report of what Ignatius said. However, Eusebius, in his reference to this logion, confesses that he does not know where it originated (HE III 36), even though he himself seems to have had access to GH in the Caesarea library. As we have seen above (no. 3), Jerome first uses the phrase \u201cthe Gospel which was recently translated by me\u201d in the second chapter of de vir. ill., where he went on to say \u201cof which also Origen often makes use.\u201d Now in fact Origen once gives us the same logion, but he ascribes it to a different work, the Doctrina Petri Lightfoot delineated two possible conclusions: either Jerome had a lapse of memory when quoting Origen, or his copy of GH was a different recension from that known to Eusebius and Origen. We would combine his conclusions, agreeing that Jerome\u2019s GH was not the same as Origen\u2019s and that Jerome, misunderstanding his Eusebius, recalled the same logion from Origen but mistakenly remembered it as coming from GH (which Origen frequently quoted). In other words, we cannot accept it as coming from a gospel used by the Nazarenes.<\/p>\n
5. In the Gospel according to the Hebrews which is indeed in the Chaldaean and Syrian speech but is written in Hebrew letters, which the Nazarenes use to this day \u2026 the story tells us: Behold, the mother of the Lord and his brethren said unto him: John the Baptist baptizeth unto the remission of sins; let us go and be baptized of him. But he said unto them: Wherein have I sinned, that I should go and be baptized of him? Unless peradventure this very thing that I have said is [a sin of] ignorance.
\nAnd in the same book: If thy brother (saith he) have sinned by a word and made thee amends, seven times in a day receive thou him. Simon his disciple said unto him: Seven times in a day? The Lord answered and said unto him: Yea, I say unto thee, seventy times seven times. For in the prophets also, after they were anointed by the Holy Spirit, the word of sin was found.
\n(Jerome, adv. Pelag. 3,2)<\/p>\n
We may comment on several points from this long fragment. First of all we should note Jesus\u2019 own awareness of his sinlessness as compared to the sinful natures of the prophets. This is more than just the \u201cprogress in righteousness\u201d of Ebionite doctrine; it may even point, as Dodd has suggested, to a self-awareness of divinity. On the other hand, this Nazarene fragment has Jesus admitting to the possibility of ignorance. This Christology, Nicholson has suggested, may have its canonical parallels in passages such as Luke 2:52 and Mark 13:32, which indicate a partial knowledge in Jesus. The same writer has also noted that here we have a clear endorsement of the divine inspiration of the prophets. This opposes Ebionite doctrine, which did not accept the Old Testament prophets.<\/p>\n
Let us bundle our gleanings. This purposely limited analysis of five fragments from GH has yielded a picture of a group distinctive from the Ebionites in its doctrine of the divine sonship of Jesus and its acceptance of the Old Testament prophets. The Nazarenes who used this gospel clearly affirmed the resurrection of Jesus from the dead but may have had (at least at the time when the gospel was composed) an incomplete doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The recension of GH which we have examined may have revealed a balance between Jesus\u2019 humanity and his divinity, and especially of his own self-awareness of a \u201cdual nature.\u201d One fragment shows a sect which afforded James the Just a place of special honor in its records. This in itself may be taken as another difference from Ebionite tradition, which tended to honor Peter, while not, however, belittling James. Finally, we note that all these data are consistent with what we have already learned elsewhere about the Nazarenes. Along the way (and incidentally) we have perhaps seen that Jerome is not to be trusted in everything that he says, but neither is he to be rejected out of hand as unreliable.<\/p>\n
Chapter Seven<\/p>\n
Jewish Sources<\/p>\n
No investigation of the history of a phenomenon as Jewish as early Jewish Christianity can safely ignore the wealth of potential data available in Jewish written sources. Any wide study of Jewish Christianity will find much that is useful there, and indeed the renewed interest in the field in the last generation of scholarship has only lately begun to tap this well. In a work as narrowly defined as the present one, however, we shall find the talmudic material of only small help. We have chosen to restrict this study to that which can be identified as \u201cNazarene\u201d with a minimum of speculation, because a structure built on a foundation of speculation and guesswork will be easily undermined. Hence we have kept our focus only on those places where the name Nazarene specifically appears, or where the sect can with reasonable certainty be identified from descriptions of its peculiar doctrines.
\nWith this limitation, we may note that the name Nazarene(s) (\u05e0\u05d5\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9, \u05e0\u05d5\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd n\u00f4\u1e95r\u00ee, n\u00f4\u1e95r\u00eem) appears only some dozen times in all extant talmudic literature. In all but two of these cases it is found in the name of \u05d9\u05e9\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d5\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9 (ye\u0161\u00fb ha-n\u00f4\u1e95r\u00ee), Jesus the Nazarene. It must be noted that half of these passages were censored during the Middle Ages, either by Christian censors or by Jewish editors in fear of them. Almost certainly, numerous other mentions of ye\u0161\u00fb ha-n\u00f4\u1e95r\u00ee or n\u00f4\u1e95r\u00eem were cut out of our extant texts and remain unrestorable, replaced in centuries past by \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05e7\u05d5\u05e8\u05e1\u05d9\u05df (\u02bee\u0331piq\u00f4rs\u00een) or \u05e6\u05d3\u05d5\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd (\u1e95d\u00fbq\u00eem) or similar harmless substitutes, or simply omitted altogether.
\nTo take up an earlier matter, in the few appearences of \u05e0\u05d5\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9(\u05dd), there are no etymological data given. The town of Nazareth never appears in Talmudic literature, and Jewish sources have nothing to tell us of the provenance of the name Nazarene.<\/p>\n
Yeshu Ha-n\u00f4\u1e95r\u00ee<\/p>\n
Jesus the n\u00f4\u1e95r\u00ee is mentioned in five places in the Babylonian Talmud only. The earliest is that in Avodah Zarah 16b\u201317a, where the name appears twice and seems to have escaped the eye of the censor.<\/p>\n
Our Rabbis teach, When R. Eliezer was arrested for Minut they took him up to the tribunal to be judged. The governor said to him, \u201cWill an old man such as thou busy himself about these vain things?\u201d He said \u201cFaithful is the judge concerning me.\u201d The governor supposed he said this in reference to him; but he only said it in regard to his Father in Heaven. He (the governor) said, \u201cSince I am trusted concerning thee, Dimissus, thou art released.\u201d When he came to his house his disciples came in to comfort him, but he would not take comfort. R. Akiva said to him, \u201cRabbi, suffer me to say something of what thou hast taught me.\u201d He said to him, \u201cSay on.\u201d He said to him, \u201cRabbi, perhaps there has come Minut into thy hand and it has pleased thee, and on account of that thou hast been arrested for Minut.\u201d He said to him, \u201cAkiva, thou hast reminded me. Once I was walking in the upper street of Sepphoris, and I found a man of the disciples of Jeshu the Nazarene, and Jacob of Kfar Sechania was his name. He said to me, \u2018It is written in your Torah, \u201cThou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot,\u201d etc. What may be done with it? Latrinae for the high priest.\u2019 And I answered him nothing. He said to me, \u2018Thus hath Jeshu the Nazarene taught me, \u201cFor the hire of a harlot hath she gathered them, and unto the hire of a harlot shall they return.\u201d From the place of filth they come, and unto the place of filth they shall go.\u2019 And the saying pleased me, and because of this I was arrested for Minut; and I transgressed against what is written in the Torah, \u2018Keep thy way far from her,\u2019 this is Minut; \u2018and come not nigh the door of her house,\u2019 this is the Government.\u201d<\/p>\n
We have quoted this passage in full because it is probably quite early and because it raises a number of questions. The terminus ad quem, given the appearance of Eliezer b. Hyrkanos, must be about 130. However, as Herford has pointed out, the arrest of R. Eliezer for minut indicates a Roman persecution of Christians and may be placed about 109. Additionally, one must remember that the conversation in question happened long enough before that R. Eliezer had forgotten it. This may have been a long time previously, but since he is called an old man and his memory may not have been what it once was, the time lapse need not have been extremely long. We may be justified in pushing the event itself back, say, ten years, to the turn of the century.
\nBut on what basis may we assert that Jacob was a member of the Nazarene sect? The appearance of the name n\u00f4\u1e95r\u00ee in itself is not decisive, since it is applied to Jesus, not to Jacob. However, if we consider that Jacob was likely born before 70, that his name indicates that he was Jewish, that his town makes him a local, and that before 70 all Jewish Christians were Nazarenes, then we may conclude that Jacob was indeed a member of the sect. Of course, we do not need the name ha-n\u00f4\u1e95r\u00ee to arrive at this. If Jacob was a Jew and a Christian and flourished in the Galilee at the time of R. Eliezer, then our options are limited. Most likely he was a descendant of the first Jewish (Nazarene) Christians. Less likely is the possibility that he was a product of the Ebionite split, a gnostic Christian (Jewish), or just a Jewish adherent to the main Church. We shall return to Jacob later.
\nIt must be noted that there is an earlier version of the same incident, parallel in most aspects with one significant difference: The name is Yeshu ben Pantiri instead of Yeshu ha-n\u00f4\u1e95r\u00ee. This in fact may be the earlier reading of the text; every other reference to the name \u05e0\u05d5\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9(\u05dd) in Talmud (which can with some certainty be dated) is from the third century, a fact which must weigh in favor of the Tosefta reading here.
\nThe other appearances of the name \u05d9\u05e9\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d5\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9 add nothing to our discussion. In these, mostly from the latter part of the third century, no disciple appears, only Jesus. Even the use of the name \u201cNazarene\u201d in these passages is of no more significance (nor less) than it is in the New Testament. We can assume from the gospels that Jesus was called ha-n\u00f4\u1e95r\u00ee from early in his ministry. The meaning of the name\u2014as we have seen above\u2014is obscure. It should not be a surprise that it is preserved in the rabbinic tradition. But we find it etymologically no less enigmatic there.<\/p>\n
Ha-n\u00f4\u1e95r\u00eem<\/p>\n
In two passages we find the sect title ha-n\u00f4\u1e95r\u00eem. Avodah Zarah 6a: \u201cR. Ta\u1e25lifa bar Abdimi said that Shmuel said \u2018The n\u00f4\u1e95r\u00ee day is forbidden forever, according to R. Ishmael\u2019.\u201d The question here is on the extent of business-dealings allowed with idol worshippers (literally star worshippers) before their feasts. The ruling of the rabbis is that business is forbidden on the feast day and the three days preceding. R. Ishmael gave his own opinion that the prohibition should include also the three days following an idolatrous holiday, thus a total of seven days. Logically then business should always be forbidden with the Christians, who have Sunday as a weekly holiday. There are difficulties here. It is clear from both extant readings that Christians are intended (and the censoring of the text bears this out). What is not clear is who is intended by \u05e0\u05d5\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd, and who made the statement, R. Ishmael or R. Shmuel? If Shmuel is the one introducing the y\u00f4m n\u00f4\u1e95r\u00ee, then he is most likely referring to catholic Christianity. The simple sense of this sentence is that Shmuel is basing a statement on the broader opinion of Ishmael under discussion. This would place the saying in the first half of the third century in Babylonia.
\nTaanit 27b: \u201cOn Sabbath eve it was customary not to fast out of respect for the Sabbath; of course the same was true on the Sabbath itself. Why did they not fast on Sunday? R. Yohanan said, because of the n\u00f4\u1e95r\u00eem.\u201d The context for this passage is one of the custom of \u05d0\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9 \u05de\u05e2\u05de\u05d3 (\u02bean\u0161e\u00ee ma\u02bfamad)\u2014those who prayed while sacrifices were being offered\u2014to fast four days a week, Monday through Thursday. The reason for the fast (and the subject of their prayers) is given for each of these four days. There is no fasting on Friday or Saturday, and all agree that it is out of respect for the Sabbath. But the original reason for refraining from fasting on Sunday seems to have been forgotten, and three rabbis each give their opinions, but no concensus is given. The three, Yo\u1e25anan, Shmuel b. Na\u1e25mani, and Resh Lakish, were all contemporary in Eretz Israel in the latter half of the third century. At first glance, R. Yo\u1e25anan\u2019s reason seems a bit strange. If Friday and Saturday are avoided out of respect, consistency would dictate that avoidance of fasting on Sunday somehow also indicated a respect for the day. This is, in fact, the sense given by R. Shmuel (\u201cbecause it is the third day after the creation of man\u201d). But this cannot be the sense intended by R. Yo\u1e25anan. There would have been no respectful treatment of the holy day of either Nazarenes or catholic Christians. R. Yo\u1e25anan died over thirty years before the Edict of Milan and would have had nothing to fear from a persecuted Christianity. Indeed the very introduction of the n\u00f4\u1e95r\u00eem into the discussion is rather strange. R. Yo\u1e25anan is answering a question of why something was done (or not done) while the Temple stood, at a time effectively before the n\u00f4zr\u00eem were any factor. Or conversely, he is speaking about n\u00f4zr\u00eem in a Temple activity long after the Temple was destroyed. Hereford\u2019s assessment seems valid: R. Yo\u1e25anan has simply introduced an anachroism into the time of the Temple Service, although even so it is not easy to understand his reasoning. Be that as it may, the n\u00f4\u1e95r\u00eem of this passage are most likely catholic Christians of the mid-third century and not only the almost-extinct Jewish Christian Nazarenes.
\nA third passage which we must consider is found in Gittin 57a:<\/p>\n
Once when R. Manyumi b. \u1e24elkiah and R. \u1e24elkiah b. Tobiah and R. Huna b. \u1e24iyya were sitting together they said: If anyone knows anything about Kfar Sechania of Egypt, let him say. One of them thereupon said: Once a betrothed couple (from there) were carried off by heathens who married them to one another. The woman said: I beg of you not to touch me, as I have no Ketubah from you. So he did not touch her until his dying day. When he died, she said: Mourn for this man who has kept his passions in check more than Joseph, because Joseph was exposed to temptation only a short time, but this man every day. Joseph was not in one bed with the woman but this man was; in Joseph\u2019s case she was not his wife, but here she was. The next began and said: On one occasion forty bushels (of corn) were selling for a dinar, and the number went down one, and they investigated and found that a man and his son had had intercourse with a betrothed maiden on the Day of Atonement, so they brought them to the Beth Din and they stoned them, and the original price was restored. The third then began and said: There was a man who wanted to divorce his wife, but he hesitated because she had a big marriage settlement. He accordingly invited his friends and gave them a good feast and made them drunk and put them all in one bed. He then brought the white of an egg and scattered it among them and brought witnesses and appealed to the Beth Din. There was a certain elder there of the disciples of Shammai the Elder, named Baba b. Buta, who said: This is what I have been taught by Shammai the Elder, that the white of an egg contracts when brought near the fire, but semen becomes faint from the fire. They tested it and found that it was so, and they brought the man to the Beth Din and flogged him and made him pay her Ketubah. Said Abaye to R. Joseph: Since they were so virtuous, why were they punished?\u2014He replied: Because they did not mourn for Jerusalem, as it is written: Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad for her, all ye that love her, rejoice for joy with her all ye that mourn over her. (Ps. 60:12).<\/p>\n
Samuel Klein has suggested a minor and plausible emendation here, reading \u05e0\u05d5\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd (or \u05e0\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd) for \u05de\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd (mi\u1e95ra\u00eem). This would give us \u201cKfar Sechania of the Nazarenes\u201d and would line up well with the town of the same name which was notorious as the home of Jacob the Min, the disciple of Yeshu ha-n\u00f4\u1e95r\u00ee. The passage can be set sometime in the first quarter of the fourth century in Babylonia, more specifically in Pumbedita. The three stories give every indication of being authentically early: the fact that it was considered exceptional and unacceptable that the value of the dinar should drop shows that the second story took place before the inflation of the third century; the appearance of Baba b. Buta limits the third story to a period before 70 (see n. 20); the final reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, if it is not simply a didactic addition of R. Joseph, gives us a terminus ad quem of 70 A.D.; and the reference in the second story to the imposition of the death penalty would also require a pre-70 dating, since capital punishment was said to have ceased with the destruction of the Temple (Ketubah 30a).
\nSo Kfar Sechania was noted for its adherence to hala\u1e35ah before 70 but was \u201cpunished\u201d after the fall of Jerusalem. What was its punishment? Perhaps it was some unrecorded destruction of the village. Or just maybe the hint is to be found in the epithet \u201cKfar Sechania of the Nazarenes\u201d; the appearance there of the Nazarene sect is the punishment\u2014the village has become somehow spiritually \u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05de\u05d3 (me\u0161\u00fbmad). If this latter suggestion has some validity, then R. Joseph\u2019s explanation of why this \u201cpunishment\u201d came about takes on extra meaning: because they did not mourn for Jerusalem. This, it seems to me, is a reminder of the events immediately following the loss of the capital: the work of Rabban Yo\u1e25anan ben Zakkai and his colleagues at Yavne. With the destruction of Jerusalem the Pharisees went west and the Nazarenes went east. The separation was more than just one of geography. With Yavne began the consolidation of Judaism. In the post\u201370 crisis, there was no place for the diversity which had so characterized the later Second Temple period. The Sadducees, of course, were out. But so, soon, was the school of Shammai after the well-known voice from heaven (bat q\u00f4l) declared all rulings to be according to Bet Hillel. Now a centrally recognized authority was paramount, and a refusal by any group or locality to accept that authority could only result in its isolation. This is not to say that R. Yo\u1e25anan b. Zakkai advocated a Judaism which only mourned over Jerusalem; far from it. But the picture of collective mourning in the words of R. Joseph speaks of joining the national attempt to adjust to the new status quo without forgetting the old ways. One can see that the loss of the Temple did not hit the Jewish Christians quite as hard as it did their compatriots, and if the village of Kfar Sechania accepted their interpretation of events, then they could easily be accused of failing to mourn over Jerusalem.
\nWith this identification of Kfar Sechania as a town \u201cof the Nazarenes,\u201d we are led to reconsider the town\u2019s best-known citizen, Jacob. Herford concluded that Jacob flourished in Galilee in the early part of the second century, and that he is not, therefore, to be identified with any known New Testament figure. The time and place of his activity should come as no surprise to us, although we can see here at least a confirmation of the continued existence and activity of the Nazarenes in the second century. We know that Jacob recalled an apocryphal saying of Jesus. What is perhaps of more interest for our purposes is what we learn of the relations between rabbinic Judaism and the Nazarenes at this time. On the one hand, there seems to have been a fair amount of contact and intercourse. R. Eliezer meets Jacob on a street of Sepphoris and not only exchanges views with him but is even pleased with what Jacob says in the name of Jesus. This happens before Bar Kochba but after the time when the atmosphere was right for the introduction of the birkat ha-m\u00een\u00eem, if not after it had already been composed. The separation process was no sudden tear but a slow parting of company. Nevertheless, we see on the other hand that even here, before 135, there was no small opposition by some to this contact. Between the time of R. Eliezer\u2019s conversation with Jacob and the reminder of it by Akiva, attitudes were changing. R. Ishmael prefers the death of his nephew to his healing in the name of Jesus.<\/p>\n
Birkat ha-m\u00een\u00eem<\/p>\n
There remains one important aspect of talmudic tradition to consider. This is the enigma of the m\u00een\u00eem and their inclusion in the twelfth Benediction of the \u02bfam\u00eedah prayer.
\nNumerous studies, few of them comprehensive, most of them tendentious, have been done on the question of who the m\u00een\u00eem are in talmudic literature. Some have decided that the term refers to Christians, either Pauline Christians or, more often, Jewish Christians. Others, on the other hand, have asserted that the m\u00een\u00eem are never Christians in the Talmud, and Friedl\u00e4nder tried to prove that they were always pre-Christian anti-nomistic Gnostics. Most scholars, however, agree that the term has a variety of applications, and even most of those who opt for Jewish Christians make this concession. A survey of the term reveals m\u00een\u00eem who clearly lived before Christianity, m\u00een\u00eem who reject the resurrection from the dead and therefore cannot be Christians, etc. However, one will also see many places where the m\u00een\u00eem clearly are Christians and most likely Jewish Christians. Generally, it is safe to say that m\u00een\u00eem are Jews who reckon themselves to be Jews but who are excluded by the rabbis.
\nAs was stated at the beginning of this chapter, we cannot allow ourselves to speculate that the m\u00een\u00eem might be Nazarenes in places where a variety of interpretations is possible. There is one event, however, which promises a positive contribution to our survey, the birkat ha-m\u00een\u00eem. Brach. 28b: \u201cSaid R. Gamaliel to the Sages: Can anyone among you frame a benediction relating to the m\u00een\u00eem? Samuel the Lesser arose and composed it.\u201d The time of this event falls somewhere between 80, when R. Gamaliel became nas\u00ee, and the death of Shmuel ha-qa\u1e6dan. Herford has shown, and most scholars agree, that it is more likely soon after 80 rather than much later. Almost no one would date it after 95. The matter in question is the formulation (or perhaps more precisely the revision) of the twelfth Benediction in the \u0161em\u00f4neh-\u02bfesreh prayer of the daily \u02bfam\u00eedah. In its present form in all Ashkenazi liturgies there is no mention of m\u00een\u00eem, although the term is preserved in Sephardi rites (where censorship did not interfere). The very reference in our passage and parallels to birkat ha-m\u00een\u00eem indicates that the original version included the word m\u00een\u00eem. But this is not the limit of its significance.
\nFollowing an analysis primarily of the patristic evidence (see below) Krauss, in a remarkable piece of scholarship, concluded in 1892 that the actual wording of the original formula must have been something like \u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e0\u05d5\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05e8\u05d2\u05e2 \u05d9\u05d0\u05d1\u05d3\u05d5 (\u201cmay all the n\u00f4\u1e95r\u00eem perish in a moment.\u201d) The yields of the Cairo Geniza soon began to vindicate his assertion. In 1898 Schechter published the first of several fragments of the \u0161em\u00f4neh-\u02bfesreh from the Geniza. The twelfth Benediction includes the words \u05d5\u05d4\u05e0\u05d5\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05e8\u05d2\u05e2 \u05d9\u05d0\u05d1\u05d3\u05d5 (\u201cmay the n\u00f4\u1e95r\u00eem and the m\u00een\u00eem [sectarians] perish in a moment\u201d.) In subsequent years further manuscripts came to light from widely scattered provenances which would seem to prove conclusively that a very early version of the birkat ha-m\u00een\u00eem (if not the original of Shmuel ha-qa\u1e6dan) contained the words n\u00f4\u1e95r\u00eem and m\u00een\u00eem. In 1907 Marx published a text of the Siddur of R. Amram Gaon. The manuscript dates from 1426 and reads \u05d5\u05d4\u05e0\u05d5\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d9\u05db\u05dc\u05d5 \u05db\u05e8\u05d2\u05e6 (\u201cmay the n\u00f4\u1e95r\u00eem and m\u00een\u00eem be destroyed in a moment.\u201d) In 1925 another Geniza fragment was published with exactly the same words at the point in question as Schechter\u2019s fragment. In the first Venice printing of the Talmud we find this comment by Rashi (missing in later, censored editions) at Brachot 30a (=28b in today\u2019s pagination): \u201cThey revised it at Yavne after a long time in the vicinity of the teaching of the n\u00f4\u1e95r\u00ee, who taught to overturn the ways of the living God.\u201d
\nRecently Sch\u00e4fer has compared numerous versions of the twelfth Benediction and reached a conclusion to which the present writer would subscribe. He noted that another version of Amram reads only m\u00een\u00eem; a version of Saadya has neither m\u00een\u00eem nor n\u00f4\u1e95r\u00eem; and the Old Yemenite version has m\u00een\u00eem and mosar\u00eem. Sch\u00e4fer compares all of this with a passage from the Tosefta, a parallel to the birkat ha-m\u00een\u00eem which reads:<\/p>\n
but the minim, and the apostates (\u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd) and the betrayers (\u05de\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea) and the \u02beepiqurs\u00een, and those who have lied concerning the resurrection of the dead, and everyone who has sinned and caused the multitude to sin, after the manner of Jeroboam and Ahab, and those \u2018who have set their fear in the land of the living\u2019 [Ezek. 32:24], and have stretched forth their hand against Zebul, Gehinnom is shut in their faces and they are judged there for generations of generations.\u2026<\/p>\n
This is a list of heresies, many of which appear in the various versions of the twelfth Benediction. One of the heresies was the n\u00f4\u1e95r\u00eem, but we cannot say for sure whether it was part of the original of Shmuel. Sch\u00e4fer concludes that the actual wording at the critical point varied according to the local situation.
\nThe patristic evidence provides an interesting corollary to Sch\u00e4fer\u2019s conclusion. We find clear references to the synagogue curse in Epiphanius and Jerome. Epiphanius (pan. 29 9,2) states:<\/p>\n
However, they are very much hated by the Jews. For not only the Jewish children cherish hate against them, but the people also stand up in the morning, at noon and in the evening, three times a day, and they pronounce curses and maledictions over them when they say their prayers in the synagogues. Three times a day they say: \u201cMay God curse the Nazarenes.\u201d<\/p>\n
Jerome wrote to Augustine (ep. 112,13): \u201cUntil now a heresy is to be found in all of the synagogues of the East among the Jews; it is called \u2018of the Minaeans\u2019 and is cursed by the Pharisees until now. Usually they are called Nazarenes.\u201d In Amos 1.11\u201312: \u201cuntil today they blaspheme the Christian people in their synagogues under the name of Nazarenes.\u201d In Is. 5.18\u201319: \u201cThree times each day they anathematize the Christian name in every synagogue under the name of Nazarenes.\u201d In Is. 49.7: \u201cThey curse him [Christ] three times a day in their synagogues under the name of Nazarenes.\u201d In Is. 52.4\u20136 adds nothing different to the above.
\nIt was from these clear statements with their inclusion of the name Nazarenes that Krauss concluded that the word \u05e0\u05d5\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd must have figured in the original of the twelfth Benediction, as indeed it did. We note here that any knowledge of the cursing of Christ or Christians is only to be found among Christian writers who had spent time in the East. This observation is highlighted by the fact that Jerome in the East found it necessary to explain the whole matter to his younger western contemporary Augustine. The suggestion is that western fathers knew nothing of a synagogue cursing because in fact such a curse was not uttered in the synagogues of the West. Thus Jerome\u2019s words per totas Orientis synagogas inter Iudaeos (\u201camong the Jews in all the synagogues of the East\u201d). Jerome evidently took it for granted that Augustine would not know about this curse, which he himself only discovered since moving eastward. Add this to Sch\u00e4fer\u2019s suggestion that the wording of the twelfth Benediction varied according to locality, and we may conclude that the name n\u00f4\u1e95r\u00eem appeared only in places where there were (or had been) Nazarenes threatening synagogue life.
\nThe wording of Jerome\u2019s letter to Augustine raises one further question. He seems to equate the names minaei (m\u00een\u00eem) with Nazaraei (n\u00f4\u1e95r\u00eem). In the Geniza fragment the wording is \u05d5\u05d4\u05e0\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd. Are the two names equivalent in the benediction? In other words, is this a tautology or are the two specifically separated by the original wording? Jerome would seem to be the first scholar to decide that they are tautologous. He has been followed by most investigators, although acceptance of this idea has not been universal. We would suggest a slight modification to the tautology approach. As we noted above, the term m\u00een\u00eem in talmudic literature frequently refers to Jewish Christians. It is feasible that there was a transition in the meaning of m\u00een\u00eem, so that whereas it began as a general term for Jewish heretics, it gradually came to be understood as Jewish Christians primarily, and later occasionally may have included Gentile Christians. So not all m\u00een\u00eem are always Jewish Christians, and neither are all Jewish Christians Nazarenes. Therefore, all Nazarenes are m\u00een\u00eem, but not all m\u00een\u00eem are Nazarenes. And this would have been truer, of course, at the time the Benediction was formulated than, say, at the time of Jerome\u2019s letter to Augustine. So we would suggest that the formula \u05d5\u05d4\u05e0\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd is a kind of refining or narrowing of terms: \u201cthe sectarians, including the n\u00f4\u1e95r\u00eem,\u201d or \u201cthe sectarians and especially the n\u00f4\u1e95r\u00eem.\u201d<\/p>\n
By way of summary for this chapter we may compare what we have found with corresponding findings in the patristic sources. We find in the Jewish sources nothing of any clarity about the Christology of the Nazarenes. Neither, of course, do we have any real information about their relations with the non-Jewish Church, acceptance of Paul, etc. In four areas, however, we find useful corroborating data. First of all, the talmudic writings provide us with a reasonably certain continuity of the existence of Jewish Christian Nazarenes after 70. How long after 70 is difficult to say, perhaps impossible; but in combination with the patristic evidence, these sources make it clear that there was a continuation of the sect. Secondly, the geographical picture is filled in somewhat by the clear references to Jacob of Kfar Sechania and his activities in the Galilee. Thirdly, the study of the birkat ha-m\u00een\u00eem from Jewish documents provides an excellent example of how the two sides can complement and confirm each other. Finally, and here again we must call Jacob to witness, we see further evidence of the ongoing attempt of these Jewish believers in Jesus to win over their brothers. In this light Jacob may be seen as more that just an isolated individual; he is representative, a type of Jewish Christian evangelist-healer which post\u201370 Jewish communities in Palestine may have encountered frequently.<\/p>\n
Summary and Conclusions<\/p>\n
There emerges from our considerations an entity, a viable entity of Law-keeping Christians of Jewish background. These were direct descendants of the first Jewish believers in Jesus. They survived the destruction of Jerusalem in part because they fled successfully to Pella of the Decapolis, and in part because they had roots also in the Galilee. These Jewish Christians were called Nazarenes after Jesus, and probably received the title on the basis of early Christian interpretation of certain Old Testament passages (e.g. Isa. 11:1) as referring to the Messiah and specifically to Jesus himself. The Nazarenes were distinct from the Ebionites and prior to them. In fact, we have found that it is possible that there was a split in Nazarene ranks around the turn of the first century. This split was either over a matter of christological doctrine or over leadership of the community. Out of this split came the Ebionites, who can scarcely be separated from the Nazarenes on the basis of geography, but who can be easily distinguished from the standpoint of Christology.
\nThe continued existence of this Nazarene entity can be traced with reasonable certainty through the fourth century, contingent upon the credence we give to the evidence of Epiphanius and Jerome at the end of that century. While their corroborating testimonies cannot fairly be dismissed, even without them we must allow for the continuation of the Nazarenes at least to the third century. The sect numbered only a few members, no doubt. Geographically they were limited to pockets of settlement along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean, mostly just east of the Jordan rift. They were to be found in the Galilee and probably in Jerusalem until 135, when all Jews were expelled from the city. It would seem that members of the sect moved northward at a somewhat later date and were to be found also in the area of Beroea of Coele Syria near the end of the fourth century. There is no firm evidence of any Nazarene presence in the West, in Africa, or even further to the East. Their numbers stayed as limited as their geographical presence.
\nWhat we have seen of their doctrines lines up well with the developing christological doctrines of the greater catholic Church. The sect seems to have been basically trinitarian. They accepted the virgin birth and affirmed the deity of Jesus. They also seem to have had an embryonic, developing doctrine of the Holy Spirit, one which was no more nor indeed less developed than that of the greater Church at a comparable stage. Contrary to other Jewish Christian groups of the time (and also to current scholarly opinion) they did not reject the apostleship of Paul. They recognized his commission from God to preach to the gentiles, and they seem fully to have accepted the fruit of his labors: the \u201cChurch from the Gentiles.\u201d Those fathers of the fourth century who wrote against them could find nothing in their beliefs to condemn; their objections were to matters of praxis. The Nazarenes, as Jews, continued to observe certain aspects of Mosaic Law, including circumcision and the Sabbath, and it was this which brought about their exclusion from the Church. This rejection and exclusion was, however, gradual. For this reason\u2014and because Nazarene numbers remained small throughout\u2014Church writers do not mention Nazarenes by name until such a time as the Church was free from persecution and began to refine its own narrowed orthodoxy. The Nazarenes were not included in the earlier heresy lists because they were simply not considered heretical enough or a threat to \u201corthodoxy.\u201d While there may have been very little intercommunal contact, individual Nazarenes seem to have had sporadic visits with certain Church leaders. We have found it unlikely that either Epiphanius or Jerome had any direct contact with the community of the Nazarenes, although the latter may just possibly have met individuals from the sect.
\nOn the Jewish side, the exclusion of the Nazarenes was not nearly so gradual. At the end of the first century, the birkat ha-m\u00een\u00eem was formulated with the sect specifically named. This is recorded in both patristic and Jewish sources. Nonetheless, we have found it possible that there was some limited synagogue attendance by Nazarenes into the early decades of the second century. In addition to this, we find continued contact between the two communities in the form of a polemic or dialogue. Such contact should not surprise us, since the Nazarenes lived in the same geographical areas with predominantly Jewish communities. However, as the polemic and distrust grew, the separation and isolation from the Jewish community were increased. Different steps along the way effected this separation: the flight to Pella, the birkat ha-m\u00een\u00eem, the refusal of the Nazarenes to recognize and support Bar Kochba. By the middle of the second century, the rift was probably complete.
\nThe sectarians themselves kept up their knowledge of Hebrew, and in this we may perhaps see an indication that they maintained (as one would expect) some internal system of education. They read the Old Testament and at least one gospel in Hebrew. What we can clearly isolate from this gospel as being appropriate to the Nazarene sect confirms what we find elsewhere about their doctrines, although the inherently uncertain nature of fragment isolation and gospel exegesis yields relatively little by way of fresh information about the group.
\nOf particular interest is the Nazarene commentary on Isaiah. This work shows clearly that the rejection was not solely from the Jewish side. The Nazarenes refused to accept the authority established by the Pharisaic camp after the destruction of Jerusalem, and in so refusing they adjudicated their own isolation from the converging flow of what we call Judaism. Just as they rejected the Church\u2019s setting aside of the Law of Moses, so also they refused the rabbis\u2019 expansive interpretations of it. In other words, they rejected hala\u1e35ah as it was developing in rabbinic Judaism. It is not far wrong to say that the demise of the Nazarenes resulted from their own restrictive approach to the Law. Such a spurning of rabbinic authority could not, of course, be tolerated by that authority.
\nThere is another factor in this separation from Judaism, one of perhaps greater importance than the rejection of hala\u1e35ah. It is the person of Jesus. With their acceptance and proclamation of the deity of Jesus, the Nazarenes went beyond allowable limits for a Judaism of ever stricter monotheism. Either one of these\u2014their non-acceptance of rabbinic hala\u1e35ah and even more their belief in Jesus\u2014would have been sufficient to consign them to the category of apostates. From talmudic sources we have seen that the Nazarenes may have conducted an active program of evangelism among Jews. The Isaiah commentary confirms that they never relinquished hope that Jews would one day turn away from tradition and towards Jesus: \u201cO Sons of Israel, who deny the Son of God with such hurtful resolution, return to him and to his apostles.\u201d<\/p>\n
title Nazarene Jewish Christianity: from the end of the New Testament period until its disappearance in the fourth century<\/p>\n
author Pritz, Ray A.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
PREFACE This book arose out of a fascination with that elusive enigma called Jewish Christianity. I first encountered it under other names as a modern phenomenon. Many of its adherents would claim a continuity of community over the centuries in various places and forms. While this may prove to be a less-than-tenable position, it is … <\/p>\n