History of the Nazarenes

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Shlama all--

I found something interesting again on Internet Archive. It is a history of the Nazarenes including an accounting of the movement as it was in the early 20th century, more than 40 years before the rise of what most think of as "Messianic Judaism" in the mid 1960's in NYC.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.archive.org/details/TheHistoryOfJewishChristianity">http://www.archive.org/details/TheHisto ... ristianity</a><!-- m -->

Now the author, Hugh Schonfield, I do have some issues with respect to his views on Hebrew Matthew and with certain beliefs he took on late in life. But this book is written from a very interesting perspective as he claims that he can not only trace early Nazarenes but see some of them get absorbed by Rome and be counted as early Church Fathers later. It's not something you hear about often but from what I have seen he is doing a good job. I particularly found his Talmud section on teh Nazarenes very well done. See for yourself though. I have looked at this briefly but it seems rather good.

Enjoy!

[Thirdwoe]

...

Thanks Brother Andrew, I'll look it over.

I have a question for you if I may.

I have heard for a number of years now that there are these Messianic Jewish groups out there and I have been somewhat curious about their modes of worship and set of core doctrines, and if they would differ greatly from protestant Christian groups held core doctrines. And you seem to be up on all this.

I also wonder if they are united in their doctrines, or is it like in Protestantism, where for instance some groups teach that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are still active in the body of Christ such as healing miracles, speaking in spiritual languages, prophecies, words of wisdom and knowledge and such...while others believe and teach that there are no such thing from God and that those who claim to have such gifts are deceived by the devil.

And so I guess what I am asking you really, is who would the Messianic groups line up with more closely. Or is there disagreement among them as there are among the other Christian groups out there...

...

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Shlama Akhi Thirdwoe,

Thanks Brother Andrew, I'll look it over.

I have a question for you if I may.

AGR:

Sure, shoot!

I have heard for a number of years now that there are these Messianic Jewish groups out there and I have been somewhat curious about their modes of worship and set of core doctrines, and if they would differ greatly from protestant Christian groups held core doctrines. And you seem to be up on all this.

AGR:

Well, you put this in a very interesting way, and my answer I think will almost sound similar to what I have heard Protestants and Catholics say about their differences, i.e. "of course there is only one TRUE faith...". Judaism of course, Messianic or otherwise, has had even more time to develop sects, splinter groups, etc. Two of these breakaway sects of course are known as Christianity and Islam. Within even the fairly (relatively speaking) unified Rabbinic-Orthodox mode (and even here there Lubavitch, Karaites, Hasids, etc) you have the Talmud, which is essentially one very long argument about Jewish law. It is from the Talmud we are told that "where you have two Jews, you have 3 opinions".

Having said all that, I need one further clarification. All the sects of the Messianic-Netzari faith that I am aware of are meant to be, at least superficially, separated from Christian worship and practice. Even what is essentially a Protestant outreach group, Jews for Jesus, while fairly liberal on sacred names, keeping kosher and such, neverthless has adopted litgurical practices consistent with mainline Judaism-synagogue service. Having been to a JFJ assembly myself, I found little difference between it and the Reform/Conservative synagogues I grew up with excepting of course the Messiah-NT issue.

There are no crosses in any Messianic synagogue that I am aware of. Nor are Catholic rites like communion (esp with "transubstantiation") ever done. There is no "mass" in Latin or English. And even if they hold assembly on Sunday, they don't call it Shabbat. You can, after all, pray and assemble any day of the week. Other things, like baptism, vary greatly from one community and another, but when it is done they usually call it "mikveh" or "immersion". Suffice to say even when Messianics congregation are very much in line with mainline Christianity, and these are the "old-moderns" as I call them, the JFJ's, they are determined to carve out a presence and identity that is distinctively of a Jewish flavor.

I also wonder if they are united in their doctrines, or is it like in Protestantism, where for instance some groups teach that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are still active in the body of Christ such as healing miracles, speaking in spiritual languages, prophecies, words of wisdom and knowledge and such...while others believe and teach that there are no such thing from God and that those who claim to have such gifts are either deceived by the devil.

AGR:

Here we need another clarification. If you look at Acts 15, you will see TWO early groups of Jewish believers. In effect, two kinds of "Messianic Pharisees". Yes, I said PHARISEES. It may be hard to believe, but both Y'shua and Rav Shaul were Pharisees. Y'shua was never in conflict with Pharisaic timing of feasts but only against the elevation of extra-biblical man made traditions ove Scripture. When they were going straight from Torah, he said they sat
"in Moses' seat" and told the people of Israel to follow them. Rav Shaul, for his part, calls himself "a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee" IN THE PRESENT TENSE. In Rav Shaul's definition, his Pharisaism was not in conflict with being "a ringleader of the Way/Nazarenes, which YOU CALL A SECT" (Acts 24:1-14). Rav Shaul in that quote did not see his belief in Y'shua as a SECT but was responding to charges from others that it was. Therefore, his Pharisaism we will call MP #1.

With me so far?

Now, also in Acts 15, and this may stray into dangerous territory so I will try and be careful, we have MP #2. These are the ultra conservatives, whom my colleague Avi ben Mordechai called "the Kedusha (Holiness) club". These guys taught in Acts 15:1-2 that circumcision itself was salvation-specific, that in effect Gentiles had to become Jews and then Christians. Rav Shaul disagreed, but in Nazarene halacha, that disagreement deferred circumcision as opposed to negating it. Circumcision was something that needed to be understood first through Torah study, and this has widespread agreement in Nazarene circles. To anyone who has a problem with this, I will NOT argue it here as that is a violation of the rules. I am just answering the question.

In any case, these guys from MP2 split from the assembly at Jerusalem and formed their own sect, sometimes calling themselves "Nazarenes" but they are NOT. We know them today more accurately as EVYONIM (Ebionites).

In the 4th century, the Church Fathers themselves explained the differences between Evyonim (called so for their "poor" or mortal opinion on Messiah) and the MP 1, or Nazarenes as Paul was and I am. They said that the Evyonim threw out all the NT except a redacted and inferior version of Matthew in Hebrew whereas Nazarenes, "not only use the Old Testament but the (entire) NT as well". Nazarenes also have a "high Christology" that I won't get into here, but suffice to say we don't believe as the Evyonim did that Y'shua was only a man. Both Evyonim and Nazarenes though were and are into Torah observance, but in Rabbinic eyes the other beliefs made the Evyonim more acceptable to them. They therefore CURSED the Nazarenes but not the Evyonim, and issued an opinion that it was in effect more okay for a rabbi to be in an Evyonim house but totally unacceptable to be in a Nazarene's. This discussion was dated to the early 2nd century (Mas Shabbath 116a).

So, to make a long story a little shorter, I have compiled in Mari "The Thirteen Principles of the Netzari Faith" which is intended to separate out Netzarim from Evyonim belief, but like all faiths, there are always minority extremists who will disagree and say their version, like our Christian counterparts, must be THE ONE. Nevertheless, I do think a case can be made for an ORTHODOXY of the Nazarenes, which functions in much the same way as Rome did in relation to what she thought was "heterodox" (heretics, minority) among Western Christians.

This list of mine is similar to what Maimonides tried to do in his "Guide to the Perplexed" as a way to define majority Orthodox position. So, as the saying goes, the exception does not disprove the rule.


And so I guess what I am asking you really, is who would the Messianic groups line up with more closely. Or is there disagreement among them as there are among the other Christian groups out there...

AGR:

I would say the majority line up with Christianity in terms of who Y'shua was/is, born a virgin, did miracles, rose from the dead. We would think of John 3:16 and Deuteronomy 6:4 as equally essential. But we would also not be in line with Christianity in terms of rituals, holidays or Trinitarian formulas. This fact led one Church Father (Epiphanus) to comment, and I am paraphrasing:

"These Nazarenes are simply Jews who believe in Messiah but they have persuaded themselves in the necessity of keeping the Old Law, and for that, they are not in line with Christians. But they use not only the Old Testament but the New as well." (I have the actual comment online somewhere.)

So to sum up, the majority Nazarene position is "yes to Messiah, no to conventional worship about Messiah."

Does that help? Remember, every rule has its exception...

[Thirdwoe]

...

Thanks for your response above, I'll chew on it a bit....

So, would any or all of the Messianic groups active today believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are still given by God and to be a part of the believer's life and in the gatherings of believers...not just one or two, but all the gifts mentioned in the NT. I wonder how much of this is present or not present and if it is allowed or forbidden.

And speaking of Y'Shua as being more than a Man.... After reading some of Mr. Bauscher's translations, (which I don't say is of no use) I see that it shows that Y'shua is revealed as YHWH or Mar-Ya...which I have always understood as being God, The Father of Y'shua His Son.

If his translation is right about this, then it would seem that God, The Father has never given us His proper name and that it was The Son of God who spoke to Moses on the Mount at Sinai.

And Y'shua seems to always call Him Father and instructed us to call on Him that way as well when we prayed.

I also read once from Justin Martyr I believe, that the Father has no name, so I wonder if this is right. I know I am wandering off here from the above question, which is my main concern...but it is a biggy if this is true that the Aramaic makes this plain....

...

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Thanks for your response above, I'll chew on it a bit....

So, would any or all of the Messianic groups active today believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are still given by God and to be a part of the believer's life and in the gatherings of believers...not just one or two, but all the gifts mentioned in the NT. I wonder how much of this is present or not present and if it is allowed or forbidden.

AGR:

Shlama Akhi Thirdwoe,

I do not think these issues have arisen to the top halachic (legal) discussion tier in terms of developing a fixed positional formula. My belief is that the majority would look at say tongues as I have translated it in Mari, sometimes referring to spiritual origins and other times man made languages, depending on context. It is not all one or the other. I think both the benefits and pitfalls of the Chrarismatic positions are laid out in Scripture, and therefore represented fairly among the Nazarenes. It is a middle ground though between those who may elevate that gift excessively and those who would deny their complete relevance post apostolic age.

The Nazarene service does not in my experience have a specified place to encourage angelic communication, but some manifesting or outpouring of the Ruach, while not anticipated officially, is not necessarily ignored if it does happen.

Next:

And speaking of Y'Shua as being more than a Man.... After reading some of Mr. Bauscher's translations, (which I don't say is of no use) I see that it shows that Y'shua is revealed as YHWH or Mar-Ya...which I have always understood as being God, The Father of Y'shua His Son.

AGR:

The Aramaic clearly reads this way. 1 Cor 12:3 reads, "MarYah haw Eshoa" or "YHWH is Y'shua"; however the route to understanding that must not stop there, for as the verse also says, this understanding can ONLY come through the Ruach haKodesh. Y'shua the Messiah has the Ruach of YHWH (aka "The Holy Spirit") in dwelling separately and side by side with his humanity, and it that aspect, not his human nefesh that Y'shua says clearly will die, that is YHWH.

If his translation is right about this, then it would seem that God, The Father has never given us His proper name and that it was The Son of God who spoke to Moses on the Mount at Sinai.

AGR:

Sorry, I must very strongly disagree with you on that. The Father has ALWAYS revealed His Proper Name and well before Moses too. Genesis 4 says men began calling on the name of YHWH very early, and the understanding as to why it seems the Torah says otherwise is beyond the scope of my answer. Suffice to say for the moment that the "revelation" of the Name is not just the syllable and sound; but the meaning and purpose behind it. That is why Abram (exalted father) later becomes Abraham (father of many nations). The same is true of YHWH's name--the purpose of it is revealed to Moses.

What the Gospels add though is that Y'shua and YHWH's name ARE ONE AND THE SAME. I suggest a detailed read of John 17, particularly verse 11. Y'shua's name is to be understood as a call to affirming YHWH's salvation (Matthew 1:21), through the separate office of His Son.

Next:

And Y'shua seems to always call Him Father and instructed us to call on Him that way as well when we prayed.

AGR:

And Y'shua isn't talking to himself when he does pray. Contrary the opinion of Bauscher, Y'shua does directly refer to His Father not just as "Father" but as YHWH, when quoting Psalm 110 for example, and in other places.

Next:

I also read once from Justin Martyr I believe, that the Father has no name, so I wonder if this is right. I know I am wandering off here from the above question, which is my main concern...but it is a biggy if this is true that the Aramaic makes this plain....

AGR:

Obviously you know I wouldn't look at Justin as a credible source. He is,in fact totally ignorant of the 300+ times when we are commanded in Tanakh to call on, shout, sing, laud, extol, play with instruments and make joyful noise on the Name of YHWH. I suggest a re-reading of Exodus 15:1-2, Psalm 68:1-4 (Yah is YHWH there), and surely the statement in Isaiah 42:9 expects us to make some attempt to call on His Name: "I am Yodh-Hey-Waw-Hey, that is My Name, and I will not give My Glory to other (gods) or My praise to idols." That verse, to my mind, means any title uses for pagan deities which is not directly also sanctioned by YHWH as general enough to apply to Him (El, Adon, etc)in the Torah, must be spurious. This would include all Greek titles to be sure, and a few others I suppose could be deemed "neutral", but that's another story.

There is some debate on the finer points of its pronunciation (I have a particular view of course) but there should be no doubt that the YAH part is valid and that MarYah means "Master Yah/YHWH". I do not want to address the whole Yahuah, Yehovah, and other positions here. I deal with them extensively elsewhere.

YHWH is not the author of confusion, and whatever the controversy we know 100% that His name wasn't to be pronounced as "LORD" and there was no "J" around either. Hope this helps!

[Thirdwoe]

...

Yes, very helpful and much appreciated. And I am glad to hear that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are neither shunned nor over emphasized to fanaticism...as some groups do.

To me the Scripture is clear that The Father and Y'shua are ONE, yet as Y'shua points out, that The Father is "Greater" than I, it seems clear that there is to be this distinction.

They share the NAME then.

This is how I look at it. It says..."Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...." and He made them male and female in the day that He created them...and called their name Adam/Man

Eve, the mother of all living, was in Adam/Man and was later taken out of him...bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. They two, being one really, but with a distinction of order and rank??? and in position and authority.

I see the Father and the Son in this picture...YH'shua coming forth from the midst of YHWH, being Spirit of Spirit and Light From Light....

Their offspring comes fourth from both of them and is them in substance and being,...this is a picture of The Holy Spirit to me. Of both the Father and The Son and proceeding forth from them.

Though crude, I think this is a revelation to us in the Scripture.

I just wanted to get a hint on how my brothers out there in these groups see these things. I long for the day when there is complete unity in Spirit and Truth...and the traditions of men are no more.

...

[Dawid]

Mr. Roth, this may seem nit-picky, but in your first reply here you listed the Karaites as a Rabbinic sect. I just wanted to point out that they are not a Rabbinic sect. They reject Oral Torah and accept only the TN"K. (Thus warranting the name "Karaites" Qera'im, from the same root as "Qere")

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Shlama Akhi Dawid,

The line was:

unified Rabbinic-Orthodox mode (and even here there Lubavitch, Karaites, Hasids, etc) you have the Talmud, which is essentially one very long argument about Jewish law. It is from the Talmud we are told that "where you have two Jews, you have 3 opinions".

Also, the fact that Rabbnics and Karaites disagree and have different positions and traditions was the point of the post. Their arguments are very much mirrored between those of Pharisees and Saducees and to a lesser extent by the schools of Hillel and Shammai, but all were Torah observant, again the main point, relatively unified but big diffrences remain, 2 Jews, 3 opinions. Clear?

By "orthodox" I mean fundamentalist, taken from the Greek "straight way". And by "rabbinic" I refer to a formalized yeshivah based teaching system/ordination.The Karaites are ORTHODOX in their approach to Tanakh, but reject Majority Rabbinic Oral Law. The fact is Karaites simply replace Rabbinic traditions with their own, which THEY refer to their line rabbis in supporting. Some form of rabbinate and some form of orthodox interpretation applies to both groups, or will you tell me there are no orthodox Karaite rabbis?

So yes, you are nit picking and heaven help me if I ever write something quickly here.

[Dawid]

Thank you. That's all I needed to know.

[distazo]

"in Moses' seat" and told the people of Israel to follow them. Rav Shaul, for his part, calls himself "a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee" IN THE PRESENT TENSE. In Rav Shaul's definition, his Pharisaism was not in conflict with being "a ringleader of the Way/Nazarenes, which YOU CALL A SECT" (Acts 24:1-14). Rav Shaul in that quote did not see his belief in Y'shua as a SECT but was responding to charges from others that it was. Therefore, his Pharisaism we will call MP #1.
Or is there disagreement among them as there are among the other Christian groups out there...

b.t.w. Gabri??l, where did you get that rendering from 'which you call a sect?'
Isn't that the Greek Acts 24:14?

I'm not disputing your point, which is an interesting one, but just wondering which rendering makes sense. I believe that Saul was not accused of being a 'sect'-leader, since the rootword in Aramaic is about doctrine, teaching, not about a sect.

Unless, of course, the Greek acts is more original. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Shlama Akhi Distazo,

YOLPANA does mean "teaching/doctrine" and I have translated it as such in Acts 24:14. However your view is a bit too narrow in my opinion. Lamsa and Murdock translate Acts 24:5 as I have, "sect". Etheridge says "chief of the teaching of the Nazarenes", and either is valid.

The Pharisees in the passage are clearly referring to the Nazarenes as a group with a minority teaching, and in English that teaching in minority status is best expressed as "sect". Of course it was the DOCTRINE that was being discussed, but Paul makes it clear that there was nothing in his belief that was apart from normative Judaism with the exception of taking Y'shua -s Savior. He says so clearly in Acts 24:12-14 and in both the previous and subsequent chapters of Acts.

Show me a sect in contention and I will show you a controversial teaching behind that sect every time.

[Havah]

Have you ever heard the Mandeans also claim themselves Nazarenes?

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Shlama Khati Havah,

Yes I have, but I wouldn't call them Nazarenes. There seem to be several varieties of faith under this title. At a minimum, they seem to venerate the Baptist more than Messiah. Other varieties seem more Gnostic in nature, and still others from what I have read are openly hostile to Y'shua.

Because of this last and perhaps most extreme form of this faith, they cannot be "Nazarenes" because they don't venerate Y'shua of Nazareth!

On the other hand, I cannot claim to be an expert on this topic. There may be some calling themselves "Mandeans" who have a whole different way of explaining these beliefs. I hesitate to be more definitive because I know this type of title repetition is rampant in this area, such as how some Ebionites for example believe in a virgin birth and are closer to Nazarenes but others are not. I have found at least four different versions of what this or that group with the same name believes, and the same seems true of the Mandeans.

Of course some say the same of us Nazarenes....

[Aaron S]

Shlama Ben,

Would that not make Paulus hypocritical? How does he so quickly go from one who preaches the truth and wisdom of Torah to one who says it's of little value?

[Burning one]

Shlama,

...and if Paulus cannot be trusted, then Keepha himself is questionable, since he considered Paulus a brother and upheld his teachings, and even Luwqa becomes suspect, since he advocated for Paulus, so that strikes out the book of Acts, and Luwqa from the Gospels, as well.... ....what else do we wish to chop down? let's see, Yaquwb also extended fellowship to Paulus, so he gets the boot, as well. there are others, i'm sure. oh, Yeshuwa Himself ordained Paulus, so maybe we should simply reconsider the whole she-bang...? so we're left with a New Testament based on a handful of students who faithfully followed...nobody? seriously, the path you're on is destructive to your faith, and to the faith of others.

so here's a better alternative: read Paulus' letters in context, and you will find a different contextual content than what the typical Protestant bend is that you're espousing. especially, read the Peshitta - learn the ARAMAIC, not a translation, and be blown away by the subtle nuances which vindicate his teaching as correct and in line with the Messiah's.

btw, the Peshitta's account of Yeshuwa as the Son of Alaha is not a Pauline fabrication, but is trustworthy, and is supported by several passages in the TN"K, as well. think Psalm 2 and Proverbs 30, for starters. bearing false witness is an offense against the Holy One and your neighbor, so you might want to retract some of those statements once you see that Scripture says otherwise, even if the man is long dead.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy