History of the Nazarenes

[Dawid]

My private theory on why the Mandeans call themselves Nazarenes is that they at some point were members of the Church of the East (when the COE was referred to exclusively as Nazarenes by the Persians, Arabs, Romans, etc.) but somehow along the road they got separated and absorbed foreign concepts which changed their faith. This happened to the Yezidi of Iraq, who are still considered members of the COE despite some clearly heretical ideas (according to that book Asahel Grant wrote on Akhi Paul's people, the Yezidi were COE members who developed a curious mix of Zoroastrianism and Christianity, they became seperated at some point). Isn't this the pattern seen throughout the middle East, the COE due to not having secured borders splintering in small groups such as Jacobites, Chaldeans, etc.?

------------------------------

And here is a little of what I have about the History of the Nazarenes. These were members of a Jewish Sect organized by the Apostles of Jesus as soon as Jesus was gone. In fact, I do believe that Jesus had spent those 40 days with his disciples, after the crucifixion, to instruct them not to let the Sect die out.

The Sect of the Nazarenes had become the most proselytizing Jewish sect ever in the History of Judaism proper throughout Asia Minor, North Africa and Rome, especially Alexandria in Egypt. Moreover, the converts from the Gentiles through the Nazarenes would become fully Jews, as they became staunch deffenders of the Law. (Acts 21:20)

About 30 years after Jesus had been gone, Paul showed up in Jerusalem preaching about Jesus as Christ, son of God and that he had resurrected, causing a havoc among the local Jews, who were on an uproar to kill him, were not for the Nazarenes who
helped him escape back to Tarsus where he belonged. (Acts 9:29-31) By helping Paul escape, Paul got the title of a ringleader
of the Nazarenes by the Jewish Lawyer Tertullus, as Paul was arrested and stood trial 14 years laer when he returned to Jerusalem for a fast visit to the Temple.(Acts 24:5)

The Nazarenes lost some of their credibilty because the connection of Paul with them was not true. Paul had raised a new religious organization completely opposite to the Nazarenes in Antioch where he had spent a whole year preaching about Jesus
as Christ, giving origin to Christianity, as his disciples were fist called Christians. (Acts 11:26) And there is much more.
Ben

Fascinating theory, but completely out of touch with history. A quick glance at any and all available sources on the Nazarenes shows that Paul was an integral part of their conversation from the beginning. Whether we look at Acts (the first mention of Nazarenes is actually in reference to Paul, made by Tertullus), or if we look at the Christian sources such as St. Epiphanius of Salamis's Penerion, we see clear statements that Paul was part of the Nazarene conversation, and while the Talmudic references never talk about Paul, they give us no reason to believe that the Nazarenes did not accept Pauline authority.

As to Paul teaching against the Torah, there are several theories that may deal with this issue. Most popular is that Paul was speaking strictly to gentiles (which deals most easily with acts and Galatians). However, a more thorough view is that supported by the New Perspective school of thought. Dr. E.P. Sanders argues that Paul's theology is not entirely consistent, and that he argues against the Torah because he understands salvation to be strictly by the grace of God (in keeping with his contemporaries), but that when Paul speaks on morality, he automatically appeals to the Torah. It gets a bit more complicated in dealing with ideas like Kashrut, Taharat HaMishpocha, and a few other issues. Well...I say "it gets more complicated." What I mean is I'm not sure what I make of Sanders' theory on those issues.

Paul makes us uncomfortable. I know he makes me uncomfortable. What I think is a mistake is ignoring his voice, or labeling him a heretic simply because he is difficult to understand and doesn't fit perfectly into our theories. God forbid we should ever become comfortable in our theology.
Let's think of it in terms of the TN"K: on the one hand, we have the Torah, which clearly promises material gain from obedience to the Torah. We have the Psalms telling us that "I have been young and am now old, but I have not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread." On the other hand, we have Job telling us that bad things happen to good people, and while Abraham and Moses argued with God about what He said He would do, Job teaches us not to question God's will. So are we going to throw one of them out of the canon? God forbid. Rather, we should understand that they both have application. We should take the road set out by Shlomo HaMelech, "For everything there is a season, and a time for every experience under the heavens." Likewise with Paul, Rabbeynu Yeshua, Ya'akov HaTzaddik, and Keffa HaNasi. While Paul emphasizes grace, and Rabbeynu emphasizes law, and Ya'akov HaTzaddik stands firmly in the middle, we should not throw one or the other of them out. Rather, we should understand that for everything there is a season.