Cyprian:
If you really want to find a “line of succession,” then you should start with James, the brother of Yeshua. After the death of Yeshua, the Nazarenes recognized His brother, “James the Just,” as legal heir to the throne of David. For this reason the Nazarenes recognized “James the Just” as the Nasi of their Nazarene Sanhedrin (Acts 15).
According to Epiphanius:
It is evident that James became leader of the Nazarene movement very early on (Acts12:17; 15:13-29; 21:18-26 & Gal. 1:19; Eusebius Eccl. Hist. 2:23).
According to the Ascents of James (from the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, 1.33-71), in the middle of a discussion between Clement and Gamaliel, Clement tell us:
According to the Gospel of Thomas, it was Yeshua himself who named James the Just as their new leader:
Jerome quotes the Gospel according to the Hebrews as saying:
The Nazarene historian Hegesippus (c. 180 C.E.) is quoted by Eusebius (4th century) as describing James the Just this way:
If James was not a member of the “Judaizing”sect of the Nazarenes, as you call them, then why did he continue to be a Torah-observant Jew as can clearly be seen by the fact that he had taken a Nazirite vow in accordance with the Law of Moses?
The fact of the matter is: “Judaizers” weren’t Jews who exhorted Believers to obey the Law of Moses, they were Jews who exhorted Believers to follow the Pharisaic “Oral Torah.” The Nazarenes were NOT “Judaizers,” they were Torah-observant Believers in Yeshua who followed and obeyed Yeshua’s Torah commandments.
“James the Just” was very popular with the Jewish community in general. Under his influence the Nazarene movement grew until his death in 63 C.E which Hegesippus describes this way:
Josephus also records the death of James the Just:
After the death of James, it was Symeon, the son of Clopus, who became James’ successor on account of being a cousin of James (Clopus being Joseph’s brother), as Eusebius explains:
By 66 C.E. troubles between Rome and Judea boiled over. Judea had always been a troublesome province for Rome. “From the start Rome and its provincial governors had been obliged to grapple with an almost continuous and ever-worsening series of internal crises, embittered by mutual incomprehension of each other’s religious attitudes.” (Grant, Michael, History of Rome, (Scribners Press, 1978), p. 347).
Josephus describes the conditions on the eve of the Jewish Revolt:
Finally, Florus turned his avarice to the Temple, removing gold and silver from its treasury. In addition to everything else, this pushed the people of Jerusalem over the edge. Immediately Eleazar, son of Ananias the High Priest, persuaded the ministers of the Temple to ban all gifts and sacrifices from the Gentiles. This would make war with Rome inevitable since this act abolished the sacrifices offered for Rome and Caesar himself. The destruction of Jerusalem was now just a matter of time. In 70 C.E. the walls of Jerusalem were breached and the city and the Temple were sacked, looted and burned. Louis Feldman estimates that tens of millions of dollars worth of silver and gold were carried off from the Temple. (Feldman, Louis H. Biblical Archaeology Review, July/August, 2001, Vol, 27, No. 4). Zealot forces would hold out for another three years at Masada, but the fate of the Jews was sealed. Judea had become a stench to Rome and Roman authorities were determined never to allow such a revolt to occur again.
According to Eusebius, his version of Josephus's works contained the following in relation to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 C.E.:
In 70 C.E. the Romans laid siege to Jerusalem and after five months, invaded the city. This event had many profound effects on the Nazarenes, and the anti-Jewish sentiment throughout the Empire can hardly be overstated. For example, the Gentile inhabitants of Antioch, which had a sizable Jewish community, took advantage of the anti-Jewish prejudice of the Romans. Immediately after the war they instituted a systematic persecution aimed at the extinction of Jewish religious practices: all who failed to sacrifice to pagan deities were to be punished, religious manuscripts that were written in Hebrew were burned, cessation from work on Sabbath was forbidden, and other Jewish “privileges” were withdrawn. (Goodman, Martin, “Diaspora Reactions to the Destruction of the Temple,” Jews and Christians, the Parting of the Ways, A.D. 70 to 135. Ed. By James D.G. Dunn. (Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI., 1999), p. 30).
When the city was brought under siege, the Nazarenes remembered the words of Yeshua: “And when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those in Judea flee to the mountains... ( Luke 21:20-21a).
The Nazarenes heeded these words and fled to Pella, most likely dwelling in the caves of the wilderness outside of Pella. Dr. T.H. Morer describes the Nazarenes this way:
And Dr. Frances White, lord bishop of Ely, mentions the Nazarenes as one of the ancient bodies of Sabbath-keepers who were condemned by the church leaders for that heresy. Yet the Nazarenes have a peculiar claim to our regard, as being in reality the apostolic church of Jerusalem, and its direct successors:
Take note that it is the Nazarene sect which Dr. White identifies as that which “laid the foundations of the church.”
It is likely that the Pharisees and other Jews resented the Nazarene flight to Pella as an act of cowardice. With the flight of the Nazarenes to Pella, a great deal of confusion resulted and the coalition fell apart. It was at Pella that the Ebionites first emerged as a separate sect.
It was against this backdrop that Roman reprisals for the rebellion of Jerusalem fell on all Jews within the empire, symbolically expressed through the vigorous exaction of a special poll tax known as the Fiscus Judaicus (“Jewish Tax” ). (Goodman, Martin, “Diaspora Reactions to the Destruction of the Temple,” Jews and Christians, the Parting of the Ways, A.D. 70 to 135. Ed. By James D.G. Dunn. (Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI., 1999), p. 31). This tax amounted to two day’s wages per person per year for those between three and 60 years of age. Or, put another way, it equaled two days wages for each person in one’s household for three generations. If a man had himself, his wife, his five children, his father and mother and perhaps his in-laws (extended families were the norm), it would cost him 22 day’s wages just pay a tax for being Jewish. Translated into modern terms, if a family had an income of $200 per day, an 11-member household would require an annual payment of $4,400.
The impact this tax would have on the development of the early Church was significant for it struck at the heart of Jewish/Christian identity. If the tax was to be levied against all Jews, the question had to be asked, “Who is a Jew?” The answer was not as easy as it might seem. As Martin Goodman explains:
By the time Domitian became Emperor (81-96 C.E.) it was clear that no real system for determining one’s “Jewishness” had been firmly established. Suetonius writes:
Therefore, one of the unintended consequences of the Jewish Tax was that it forced the various communities to define themselves as either Jewish or non-Jewish. On the one hand there were those Traditional Jews who saw themselves as Torah-observant and Covenant members of Israel and would never shrink from that identity; they would clearly pay the tax. On the other hand, there were those who, although Jewish by blood, tried to hide their Jewishness in order to prevent having to pay the tax. How would this be done? By avoiding appearances of Jewish practices such as Sabbath observances, keeping of Jewish festivals, etc. This was far more widespread than one might initially realize. For example, there were thousands of Jews who had been captured as slaves and brought to Rome during Pompey’s assault on Jerusalem in 63 B.C.E.
By Domitian’s time many of their offspring saw themselves as thoroughly Roman. They neither identified with their Jewish lineage nor its practices. Therefore, they bitterly resented having to pay such a heavy tax for what they viewed as an accident of birth. Finally, there were those who, although not Jewish by blood, nevertheless practiced the Jewish faith in both Messianic and Traditional Jewish communities. Of these two groups, the early Messianic Community found itself particularly vulnerable since these followers of “The Way” belonged to a faith that was still considered a party of Judaism, even though many or even most were Gentile believers by this time.
During this time, the Pharisees had begun to ban the Nazarene Believers in Yeshua from their synagogues. In 90 C.E. Samuel the Lesser was commissioned to add what came to be called the Birkat HaMinim to the Eighteen Benedictions of the Amidah. The Talmud records the event this way:
The Birkat HaMinim as it appears today reads:
However an old copy of the Birkat HaMinim found at the Cairo Genizah reads:
This benediction was in the form of a curse on the Nazarenes which would have the effect of casting them out of the synagogues (John. 16:2) since Nazarenes who attended would be expected to recite a curse upon themselves. As Epiphanius records in the fourth century:
In addition, they began burning books and manuscripts used by the Nazarenes. The Talmud states:
Since the books and manuscripts used by the Nazarenes were written in Hebrew, they looked identical, to a Gentile, to those used by the Jews themselves. With Gentiles burning Jewish books due to growing anti-Jewish sentiment, and Jews burning Nazarene books which they considered “heretical,” only the Greek manuscripts survived to our present day.
With the followers of Yeshua effectively shut out of the “mainline” Synagogues, missionary work was no longer possible among Torah observant people. From now on the audience would be a pagan audience. As Eusebius states:
Eusebius’ remarks tell us a great deal as to how and when the “Church” turned from its Hebrew roots to become the Hellenstic Catholic Church of the second century and beyond. First of all, he tells us very clearly that the evangelists went to those who had never yet heard the Word of God. These were apparently pagans who lacked any upbringing or training in Torah. Without any training or knowledge of Torah, they would have been completely incapable of discerning the validity of their message. Unlike the Bereans, whom Paul commended because they tested his message against the Torah, these people had no such way of guarding themselves.
Secondly, after staying only long enough to lay a minimal foundation before moving on, care and leadership of these new converts was put into the hands of men who were, themselves, new converts – violating one of Paul’s most basic tenants that an overseer “…must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil” (1 Timothy 3:6). So then, not only were these men untrained in the Torah, there is no indication that they ever would receive Torah instruction, even after their conversion. Eusebius even tells of how one young man was chosen for “leadership training” based on his “excellent physique, attractive appearance, and ardent spirit.” Therefore, being left with no formal training and perhaps only a single copy of a gospel account, they were left to fend for themselves as they tried to teach their new churches how to walk a godly way.
One has only to scan the lists of early Church Bishops to see names such as Xystus, Hero, Telesphorus, Eros, Theophilus, and on it goes. The information we have of these early leaders shows that they were all utterly deficient in Torah training. Rather, their training was in Hellenist Philosophy and it was through the eyes of a Greek philosopher that they interpreted and developed their new Christian religion.
The Jewish Tax would prove to be even more destructive, however, under Domitian’s successor, Nerva. For in 96 C.E., Nerva relaxed the collection of the tax to only those who, according to historian Cassius Dio, “followed their ancestral customs:”
The ramifications of this ruling were profound. Notice that “adopting the Jewish way of life” was equated with treason. Further, it indicated that by avoiding the outward practices of the Jewish faith, payment of the tax could be evaded. In other words, as far as Roman tax policies were concerned, being Jewish had nothing to do with ethnicity and everything to do with religious practice.
The impact of this can be seen very early in the Church’s development among the pagan peoples. There are three areas where we can clearly see the early Church turning aside from Apostolic instruction: the celebration of the “Last Supper,” Sabbath observance, and Congregational leadership.
The distortion of the Lord’s Supper, which was associated with the Passover Seder and which Paul admonished the Corinthian congregation to keep (1 Corinthians 5), came very early on. As early as 107 CE, we see the Christian Church developing a whole separate theology and cult around this observance. No longer is the practice associated with the Passover meal (which itself was eventually formally abolished by the Church), rather it is given an entirely new name, the Eucharist. The celebration of the “Eucharist” was to be given magical powers and strictly controlled. For example, it was to be considered valid only when it was held under the bishop or someone to whom he had committed it. It was given the status of “transubstantiation” for it was said that “the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ”(A. Roberts, J. Donaldson ed., “Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans.” The Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume I. Albany, OR: AGES Digital Library, 1999, Chapters 7-8). And that “this same Bread is the medicine of immortality, the antidote against death, and everlasting life in Jesus Christ” (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson ed., “Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians,” Ch. 20). With this we see all the primary elements of a Catholic Mass as early as 107 CE.
With respect to changing the day of worship from the Sabbath to Sunday, this too came very early on. We see in the writings of Ignatius written around 107 CE that Shabbat observance was considered part of “obsolete practices,” and believers were coerced to change their calendar in accordance with “the Lord’s Day, …on which our Life rose by His power…” (“Ignatius, Letter to the Magnesians,” Ch. 9). In the Letter of Barnabus written around 100 CE, we see an attempt to use the writings of the Prophets as proof that God no longer takes pleasure in the observance of the Sabbath but that it is now substituted with the “eighth day which is the beginning of another world. Wherefore also we keep the eighth day for rejoicing, in the which also Jesus rose from the dead, and having been manifested ascended into the heavens” (“The Letter of Barnabus,” Ch. 15). In the Epistle of Mathetes, written around 130 CE, Jewish practices in accordance with the Torah are condemned in no uncertain terms.
So clearly the Church leadership was advocating a change in proscribed worship days. Yet what is even more disturbing is how the Church put teeth into this policy, for without the ability to coerce the people into this change it could not have lasted. How was this done? By creating a hierarchical top-down structure that kept the people “in line.”
As it happens, it is at this time (100 to 165 CE.) that we have Justin Martyr’s dialogue with Trypho, a Nazarene Believer in Yeshua:
This is surely a profound passage for it begs the question as to whether or not one can be both “saved” and follow Torah. Justin’s answer is that although it is perhaps possible, it is greatly discouraged. He argued that Gentile Believers should not be compelled to follow the written Law of Moses. This indicates a break with Apostolic and Messianic theology that had equated Torah observance and faith in Yeshua as fully harmonious.
Christopher O’Quinn describes the dilemma this way:
With this in view, consider what must have gone through the minds of Gentile believers who were new to the Messianic faith, and who, up to this time, had never felt any identification with the Jews. Not only did they lack a natural affinity for things Jewish, but were finding themselves the recipients of a growing anti-Gentile polemic within the Traditional Jewish communities. The question must have been soon asked why they would wish to identify with people who, in many cases, had no desire to identify with them and pay a crushing and debilitating tax to boot? (Juster, Daniel C. “The Rabbinic Spirit and Messianic Judaism,” Jewish Roots, 1998).
Apparently there were those whose consciences did find ways to rationalize away Torah observances. For example, in a letter written by a provincial governor in Asia Minor named Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan (cir. 110 C.E.), Christians are treated as a separate and distinct group without any reference to Jews or Jewish practices. He writes:
So we see that by 110 C.E. the Roman government was able to look upon the Christian community as separate and distinct from the Synagogue. Perhaps it is what is not mentioned in this passage that is most striking. Notice there is no mention whatsoever of any characteristically Jewish customs or practices. There is no mention of Shabbat worship, circumcision, or even Torah reading. From a Roman perspective, the Christian Church had found a way to redefine its faith so as to be seen wholly independent from that of the Jewish communities.
Lastly, and most compelling, is the evidence coming from the Church itself. By examining the writings of the early Church Fathers one can see an obvious shift in how the Church defined itself after 96 C.E. One way this is seen is by examining how various Church fathers drew upon Scripture to lend authority to their writings. The benchmark is set in the Apostolic Scriptures where there is a full reliance upon the Tanach for Scriptural authority. By 96 C.E. in Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, we see that there are 101 references to Tanach passages, 24 direct references or allusions to Apostolic writings and 17 references to blended passages where he takes a passage from the Tanach and connects it to an Apostolic verse (e.g., Genesis 7; 1 Peter 3:30; 2 Peter 2:5). By the early to middle part of the 2nd century, however, in a letter from Polycarp to the Philippians there are some 59 references to Apostolic writings, including the Gospels, and only three references to passages in the Tanach (Psalms 2:11; Psalms 4:5; and Isaiah 52:5). And this trend is true across the board. After 96 C.E. it seems that the early Church fathers set aside Torah references almost entirely. Is this because they saw use of Torah as a distinctively Jewish practice from which they wished to distance themselves? Obviously this must be the case since we read Justin (cir. 135 C.E.) stating categorically that Christianity and Torah observance are not compatible.
It is significant, therefore, that at the very same time Rome was discouraging Torah observance through taxation, the Gentilized Church was developing a theology of disassociation with Torah and all things Jewish. This cannot be mere coincidence. It is inescapable that after 96 C.E., post-2nd Temple Christianity began to redefine itself in other than Jewish terms. For Rome’s part, the definition of a Jew was, for the purpose of the tax, a religious one. For Romans, Jews were those who worshipped the Divinity whose temple had been destroyed in Jerusalem and who refused to worship other gods (Goodman, Martin, “Diaspora Reactions to the Destruction of the Temple,” Jews and Christians, the Parting of the Ways: A.D. 70 to 135, Ed. James D.G. Dunn, (Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI., 1999), p. 34). For the Gentile Church, a Jew was one who continued to practice customs and “superstitions” that had been abolished by a now Gentilized “Jesus Christ.” However, for those Jews and Gentiles who continued to walk according to the commandments of Torah and held to the Messiahship of Yeshua, life would be very difficult. As Philip S. Alexander suggests in his article, ”A Parting of the Ways from a Rabbinic Jewish Perspective,” the Messianic community was eventually persecuted by an unwitting alliance of three powerful forces: the Roman government, the triumph of Rabbinical Judaism and Gentile seizure of the faith (Alexander, Philip S., “A Parting of the Ways from a Rabbinic Jewish Perspective,” Jews and Christians, the Parting of the Ways: A.D. 70 to 135, Ed. James D.G. Dunn, (Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI., 1999), p. 24).
In 132 CE. a second Jewish revolt against Rome began. The Emporor Hadrian banned circumcision. In reaction the Jews, Nazarenes and Pharisees alike, took up arms. During the revolt Akiva, a leading Pharisaic Rabbi at the time, declared the leading Jewish general known as Bar Kosiba to be the Messiah. Bar Kosiba was renamed Bar Kochba (son of the star) and was declared the Messiah based on Num. 24:17. The Nazarenes could not accept Bar Kokhba as the Messiah and so they left the army. From this time forward Nazarenes were labeled "meshumed" (traitor). Though the Pharisees later admitted Bar Kokhba was not the Messiah, their resentment toward the Nazarenes for refusing to follow him continued.
After the Romans defeated the Jews around 132 C.E. Yehuda the last of recorded Nazarene Nasi was exiled with the rest of the Jews from Jerusalem. A Gentile Christian named Markus was made Bishop of Jerusalem in his stead.
In 325 C.E. a Pagan Gentile named Constantine conquered Rome and made himself emperor. Constantine, although a Pagan himself, declared Christianity to be the Catholic (Latin: universal) religion, thus making Christianity the enforced state religion of the Roman empire. Constantine, who was an anti-Semite called the council of Nicea in 325 C.E. to standardize Christianity. Nazarenes were excluded from the meeting. Jewish practices were banned. For the first time Gentile Christianity officially labeled the Nazarenes as apostates. From this time forward Nazarenes begin to be listed in the catalogues of apostate movements (the first of these to include the Nazarenes was Epiphanius's "Panarion" (around 370 C.E.).
By the fourth century the Nazarenes had communities in Berea near Colesyria, in the Decapolis near Pella, and at Bashanitis at the place called Kokhba. (Epiphanius; Pan. 29). However, the Nazarenes by this time were a small sect which Epiphanius described as "small… like an insect." (ibid)
According to a tradition preserved by the Assyrian Christians known as Nestorians, these Nazarenes escaped the Roman empire into the Parthian Empire to its east. Here they either assimilated into the Nestorian Church of the East, finding fellowship with their fellow Semite Assyrians, or they were wiped out by the rise of Islam.
[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 2/11/2007 11:42p).]
If you really want to find a “line of succession,” then you should start with James, the brother of Yeshua. After the death of Yeshua, the Nazarenes recognized His brother, “James the Just,” as legal heir to the throne of David. For this reason the Nazarenes recognized “James the Just” as the Nasi of their Nazarene Sanhedrin (Acts 15).
According to Epiphanius:
quote:
After Alexander this office, which had existed since the time of Salina, also called Alexandra, ceased, this being the time of King Herod and the Roman emperor Augustus. This Alexander even put a diadem on himself, being one of the anointed ones and rulers. For once the two tribes, the royal and the priestly, meaning Judah and Aaron and the whole tribe of Levi, had been joined together, the kings were also made priests. For no prophecy in sacred scripture can prove false. But from then on King Herod, a foreigner, and not those of David's stock wore the diadem. Now when the royal chair was changed, the royal dignity was in Christ transferred to the church from the house of Judah and Israel which is of the flesh, but the throne is established in God's holy church forever, the throne whose royal and high-priestly dignity rests on two bases -- the royal dignity coming from Our Lord Jesus Christ in two ways, from the fact that he is of King David's seed according to the flesh and from the fact that he is, as is certainly true, a greater king from eternity in his divinity, and the priestly dignity coming from the fact that he is high priest and chief of high priests – James having been ordained at once the first bishop, he who is called the brother of the Lord and apostle, Joseph's son by nature and spoken of as having the place of the brother of the Lord due to having been reared with him. (Epiphanius, Panarion, 29.3.4 )
It is evident that James became leader of the Nazarene movement very early on (Acts12:17; 15:13-29; 21:18-26 & Gal. 1:19; Eusebius Eccl. Hist. 2:23).
According to the Ascents of James (from the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, 1.33-71), in the middle of a discussion between Clement and Gamaliel, Clement tell us:
quote:
These sayings of Gamaliel did not much please Caiaphas; and holding him in suspicion, as it seemed, he began to insinuate himself cunningly into the discussions: for, smiling at what Gamaliel had said, the chief of the priests asked of James, the chief of the bishops, that the discourse concerning Christ should not be drawn but from the Scriptures; `that we may know, 'said he, `whether Jesus be the very Christ or no.' Then said James, `We must first inquire from what Scriptures we are especially to derive our discussion.' Then he, with difficulty, at length overcome by reason, answered, that it must be derived from the law; and afterwards he made mention also of the prophets" (Chapter LXVIII.-The Rule of Faith).
According to the Gospel of Thomas, it was Yeshua himself who named James the Just as their new leader:
quote:
The students said to Yeshua: "We know you will leave us. Who is going to be our leader then?" Yeshua said to them:" No matter where you reside, you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being." (Gospel of Thomas, Chapter 12).
Jerome quotes the Gospel according to the Hebrews as saying:
quote:
Now the Lord, when he had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest, went to James and appeared to him (for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour wherein he had drunk the Lord's cup until he should see him rise again from among them that sleep), and again after a little, "Bring you," said the Lord, a table and bread", and immediately it is added", "He took bread and blessed and broke and gave it to James the Just and said to him: "My brother, eat your bread, for the son of Man is risen from among them that sleep." (Jerome; Of Illustrius Men 2)
The Nazarene historian Hegesippus (c. 180 C.E.) is quoted by Eusebius (4th century) as describing James the Just this way:
quote:
But James, the brother of the Lord, who, as there were many of his name, was surnamed the Just by all, from the days of our Lord until now, received the government of the assembly with the emissaries. This emissary was consecrated from his mother's womb. He drank neither wine nor fermented liquors, and abstained from animal food. A razor never came upon his head, he never anointed with oil, and never used a bath. He alone was allowed to enter the sanctuary. He never wore woolen, but linen garments. He was in the habit of entering the Temple alone, and was often found upon his bent knees, and interceding for forgiveness of the people; so that his knees became as hard as camel's in consequence of his habitual supplication and kneeling before God. And indeed, on account of his exceeding great piety, he was called the Just, and Oblias (or Tzadik and Ozleam) which signifies justice and protection of the people; as the prophets declare concerning him. (Hegesippus in the fifth book of his [lost] commentaries, quoted by Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 2:23)
If James was not a member of the “Judaizing”sect of the Nazarenes, as you call them, then why did he continue to be a Torah-observant Jew as can clearly be seen by the fact that he had taken a Nazirite vow in accordance with the Law of Moses?
The fact of the matter is: “Judaizers” weren’t Jews who exhorted Believers to obey the Law of Moses, they were Jews who exhorted Believers to follow the Pharisaic “Oral Torah.” The Nazarenes were NOT “Judaizers,” they were Torah-observant Believers in Yeshua who followed and obeyed Yeshua’s Torah commandments.
“James the Just” was very popular with the Jewish community in general. Under his influence the Nazarene movement grew until his death in 63 C.E which Hegesippus describes this way:
quote:
Some of the seven sects, therefore, of the people, mentioned by me above in my commentaries, asked him what was the door to Y'shua? and he answered: "That he was the Saviour." From which, some believed that Y'shua is the Messiah. But the aforementioned heresies did not believe either a resurrection, or that he was coming to give to every one according to his works; as many however, as did believe, did so on account of James. As there were many therefore of the rulers that believed, there arose a tumult among the Jews, Scribes and Pharisees, saying that there was danger, that the people would now expect Y'shua as the Messiah. They came therefore together, and said to James: "We entreat you, restrain the people, who are led astray after Y'shua, as if he were the Messiah. We entreat you to persuade all that are coming to the feast of the Passover rightly concerning Y'shua; for we all have confidence in you. For we and all the people hear the testimony that you are just, and you respect not persons. Persuade therefore the people not to be led astray by Y'shua, for we and all the people have great confidence in you. Stand therefore upon a wing of the Temple, that you may be conspicuous on high, and your words may be easily heard by all the people; for all the tribes have come together on account of the Passover, with some of the Gentiles also. The aforesaid Scribes and Pharisees, therefore, placed James upon a wing of the Temple, and cried out to him: "Oh you just man, whom we ought all to believe, since the people are led astray after Y'shua that was crucified, declare to us what is the door to Y'shua that was crucified." And he answered with a loud voice, "Why do you ask me respecting Y'shua the Son of Man? He is now sitting in the heavens, on the right hand of Great Power, and is about to come on the clouds of heaven." (Ps. 110:1 & Dan. 7:13). And as many were confirmed, and glorified in this testimony of James, and said, Hosanna to the son of David, these same priests and Pharisees said to one another: "We have done badly in affording such testimony to Y'shua, but let us go up and cast him down, that they may dread to believe in him." And they cried out: "Oh, oh, the Just himself is deceived," and they fulfilled that which is written in Isaiah: Let us take away the just, because he is offensive to us; wherefore they shall eat the fruit of their doings. (Is. 3:10)
Going up therefore, they cast down the just man, saying to one another: "Let us stone James the Just." And they began to stone him, as he did not die immediately when cast down; but turning round, he knelt down saying, "I entreat you, O Lord God and Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Thus they were stoning him, when one of the priests of the sons of Recheb, a son of the Rechabites, spoken of by Jeremiah the prophet, cried out saying: "Cease, what are you doing? Justus is praying for you." And one of them, a fuller, beat out the brains of Justus with the club that he used to beat out clothes. Thus he suffered martyrdom, and they buried him on the spot where his tombstone is still remaining, by the Temple. He became a faithful witness, both to the Jews and the Greeks, that Y'shua is the Messiah. Immediately after this, Vespian invaded and took Judea. (Hegesippus as quoted by Eusebius Eccl. Hist. 2:23)
Josephus also records the death of James the Just:
quote:
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he [Ananus the High Priest] assembled the sanhedrin of the judges, and brought before them the brother of Y'shua, who was called Messiah, whose name was James, and some others, [or some of his companions;] and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done. (Josephus; Antiquities 20:9:1)
After the death of James, it was Symeon, the son of Clopus, who became James’ successor on account of being a cousin of James (Clopus being Joseph’s brother), as Eusebius explains:
quote:
After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book III, 11:1-2).
By 66 C.E. troubles between Rome and Judea boiled over. Judea had always been a troublesome province for Rome. “From the start Rome and its provincial governors had been obliged to grapple with an almost continuous and ever-worsening series of internal crises, embittered by mutual incomprehension of each other’s religious attitudes.” (Grant, Michael, History of Rome, (Scribners Press, 1978), p. 347).
Josephus describes the conditions on the eve of the Jewish Revolt:
quote:
The next procurator, Festus, tackled the chief curse of the country; he killed a considerable number of bandits and captured many more. Albinus, who followed him, acted very differently, being guilty of every possible misdemeanor. Not content with official actions that meant widespread robbery and looting of private property, or with taxes that crippled the whole nation, he allowed those imprisoned for banditry by local courts or his own predecessors to be bought out by their relatives, and only the man who failed to pay was left in jail to serve his sentence… Free speech was completely suppressed and tyranny reigned everywhere; from then on the seeds of the coming destruction were being sown in the City. Such a man was Albinus, but his successor Gessius Florus made him appear an angel by comparison… He stripped whole cities, ruined complete communities, and virtually announced to the entire country that everyone might be a bandit if he chose, so long as he himself received a rake-off. (Josephus, The Jewish War).
Finally, Florus turned his avarice to the Temple, removing gold and silver from its treasury. In addition to everything else, this pushed the people of Jerusalem over the edge. Immediately Eleazar, son of Ananias the High Priest, persuaded the ministers of the Temple to ban all gifts and sacrifices from the Gentiles. This would make war with Rome inevitable since this act abolished the sacrifices offered for Rome and Caesar himself. The destruction of Jerusalem was now just a matter of time. In 70 C.E. the walls of Jerusalem were breached and the city and the Temple were sacked, looted and burned. Louis Feldman estimates that tens of millions of dollars worth of silver and gold were carried off from the Temple. (Feldman, Louis H. Biblical Archaeology Review, July/August, 2001, Vol, 27, No. 4). Zealot forces would hold out for another three years at Masada, but the fate of the Jews was sealed. Judea had become a stench to Rome and Roman authorities were determined never to allow such a revolt to occur again.
According to Eusebius, his version of Josephus's works contained the following in relation to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 C.E.:
quote:
These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was brother of him that is called the Messiah, and whom the Jews had slain, not withstanding his pre-eminent justice. (Josephus quoted by Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 2:23).
In 70 C.E. the Romans laid siege to Jerusalem and after five months, invaded the city. This event had many profound effects on the Nazarenes, and the anti-Jewish sentiment throughout the Empire can hardly be overstated. For example, the Gentile inhabitants of Antioch, which had a sizable Jewish community, took advantage of the anti-Jewish prejudice of the Romans. Immediately after the war they instituted a systematic persecution aimed at the extinction of Jewish religious practices: all who failed to sacrifice to pagan deities were to be punished, religious manuscripts that were written in Hebrew were burned, cessation from work on Sabbath was forbidden, and other Jewish “privileges” were withdrawn. (Goodman, Martin, “Diaspora Reactions to the Destruction of the Temple,” Jews and Christians, the Parting of the Ways, A.D. 70 to 135. Ed. By James D.G. Dunn. (Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI., 1999), p. 30).
When the city was brought under siege, the Nazarenes remembered the words of Yeshua: “And when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those in Judea flee to the mountains... ( Luke 21:20-21a).
The Nazarenes heeded these words and fled to Pella, most likely dwelling in the caves of the wilderness outside of Pella. Dr. T.H. Morer describes the Nazarenes this way:
quote:
They "retained the Sabbath; and though they pretended to believe as Christians, yet they practiced as Jews, and so were in reality neither one nor the other" (T.H. Morer, Dialogues on the Lord's day, p. 66).
And Dr. Frances White, lord bishop of Ely, mentions the Nazarenes as one of the ancient bodies of Sabbath-keepers who were condemned by the church leaders for that heresy. Yet the Nazarenes have a peculiar claim to our regard, as being in reality the apostolic church of Jerusalem, and its direct successors:
quote:
"The Jewish converts, or, as they were afterwards called, the Nazarenes, who had laid the foundations of the church, soon found themselves overwhelmed by the increasing multitudes, that from all the various religions of polytheism enlisted under the banner of Christ . . . The Nazarenes retired from the ruins of Jerusalem to the little town of Pella beyond the Jordan, where that ancient church languished above sixty years in solitude and obscurity." (Dr. Frances White, Dec. and Fall, chap. xv).
Take note that it is the Nazarene sect which Dr. White identifies as that which “laid the foundations of the church.”
It is likely that the Pharisees and other Jews resented the Nazarene flight to Pella as an act of cowardice. With the flight of the Nazarenes to Pella, a great deal of confusion resulted and the coalition fell apart. It was at Pella that the Ebionites first emerged as a separate sect.
It was against this backdrop that Roman reprisals for the rebellion of Jerusalem fell on all Jews within the empire, symbolically expressed through the vigorous exaction of a special poll tax known as the Fiscus Judaicus (“Jewish Tax” ). (Goodman, Martin, “Diaspora Reactions to the Destruction of the Temple,” Jews and Christians, the Parting of the Ways, A.D. 70 to 135. Ed. By James D.G. Dunn. (Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI., 1999), p. 31). This tax amounted to two day’s wages per person per year for those between three and 60 years of age. Or, put another way, it equaled two days wages for each person in one’s household for three generations. If a man had himself, his wife, his five children, his father and mother and perhaps his in-laws (extended families were the norm), it would cost him 22 day’s wages just pay a tax for being Jewish. Translated into modern terms, if a family had an income of $200 per day, an 11-member household would require an annual payment of $4,400.
The impact this tax would have on the development of the early Church was significant for it struck at the heart of Jewish/Christian identity. If the tax was to be levied against all Jews, the question had to be asked, “Who is a Jew?” The answer was not as easy as it might seem. As Martin Goodman explains:
quote:
Some Gentiles might become Jews by conversion to Jewish religious practice, a process explicitly formulated in the mid 1st century by Philo. Other Gentiles were attracted to Jewish customs such as the Sabbath, without necessarily being thought of by other Jews as proselytes. Of these a large number in Antioch had, according to Josephus, been made by the resident Jews “in some way apart of themselves.” Which, if any, of these anomalous characters were to pay the Jewish tax? (Goodman, Martin, “Diaspora Reactions to the Destruction of the Temple,” Jews and Christians, the Parting of the Ways, A.D. 70 to 135. Ed. By James D.G. Dunn. (Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI., 1999), p. 32).
By the time Domitian became Emperor (81-96 C.E.) it was clear that no real system for determining one’s “Jewishness” had been firmly established. Suetonius writes:
quote:
Domitian’s agents collected the tax on Jews with a peculiar lack of mercy; and took proceedings not only against those who kept their Jewish origins a secret in order to avoid the tax, but against those who lived as Jews without professing Judaism. As a boy, I remember once attending a crowded Court where the imperial agent had a ninety-year-old man inspected to establish whether or not he had been circumcised” (Graves, Robert, Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, (Penguin Books, New York, 1979), p. 308).
Therefore, one of the unintended consequences of the Jewish Tax was that it forced the various communities to define themselves as either Jewish or non-Jewish. On the one hand there were those Traditional Jews who saw themselves as Torah-observant and Covenant members of Israel and would never shrink from that identity; they would clearly pay the tax. On the other hand, there were those who, although Jewish by blood, tried to hide their Jewishness in order to prevent having to pay the tax. How would this be done? By avoiding appearances of Jewish practices such as Sabbath observances, keeping of Jewish festivals, etc. This was far more widespread than one might initially realize. For example, there were thousands of Jews who had been captured as slaves and brought to Rome during Pompey’s assault on Jerusalem in 63 B.C.E.
By Domitian’s time many of their offspring saw themselves as thoroughly Roman. They neither identified with their Jewish lineage nor its practices. Therefore, they bitterly resented having to pay such a heavy tax for what they viewed as an accident of birth. Finally, there were those who, although not Jewish by blood, nevertheless practiced the Jewish faith in both Messianic and Traditional Jewish communities. Of these two groups, the early Messianic Community found itself particularly vulnerable since these followers of “The Way” belonged to a faith that was still considered a party of Judaism, even though many or even most were Gentile believers by this time.
During this time, the Pharisees had begun to ban the Nazarene Believers in Yeshua from their synagogues. In 90 C.E. Samuel the Lesser was commissioned to add what came to be called the Birkat HaMinim to the Eighteen Benedictions of the Amidah. The Talmud records the event this way:
quote:
Our Rabbis taught: Simeon ha-Pakuli arranged the eighteen benedictions in order before Rabban Gamaliel in Yavneh. Said Rabban Gamaliel to the Sages: "Can any one among you frame a benediction relating to the Minim?" Samuel the Lesser arose and composed it. (b.Berakot 29a)
The Birkat HaMinim as it appears today reads:
quote:
And for slanderers let there be no hope, and let all wickedness perish as in a moment; let all thine enemies be speedily cut off, and the dominion of arrogance do you uproot and crush, cast down and humble speedily in our days. Blessed are you, O Lord, who breakest the enemies and humbles the arrogant.
However an old copy of the Birkat HaMinim found at the Cairo Genizah reads:
quote:
For the renegades let there be no hope, and may the arrogant kingdom soon be rooted out in our days, and the Nazarenes and the Minim perish as in a moment and be blotted out from the book of life and with the righteous may they not be inscribed. Blessed are you, O L-rd, who humbles the arrogant.
This benediction was in the form of a curse on the Nazarenes which would have the effect of casting them out of the synagogues (John. 16:2) since Nazarenes who attended would be expected to recite a curse upon themselves. As Epiphanius records in the fourth century:
quote:
Not only do Jewish people have a hatred of them; they even stand up at dawn, at midday, and toward evening, three times a day when they recite their prayers in the synagogues, and curse and anathemize them. Three times a day they say, "God curse the Nazarenes." For they harbor an extra grudge against them, if you please, because despite their Jewishness, they proclaim that Y'shua is Messiah... (Epiphanius Panarion 29)
In addition, they began burning books and manuscripts used by the Nazarenes. The Talmud states:
quote:
It was stated in the text: The blank spaces and the Books of the Minim, we may not save them from a fire. R. Jose said: On weekdays one must cut out the Divine Names which they contain, hide them, and burn the rest. R. Tarfon said: May I bury my son if I would not burn them together with their Divine Names if they came to my hand. For even if one pursued me to slay me, or a snake pursued me to bite me, I would enter a heathen Temple [for refuge], but not the houses of these [people], for the latter know (of God] yet deny [Him], whereas the former are ignorant and deny [Him], and of them the Writ saith, and behind the doors and the posts hast thou set up thy memorial. R. Ishmael said: [One can reason] a minori: If in order to make peace between man and wife the Torah decreed, Let my Name, written in sanctity, be blotted out in water, these, who stir up jealousy, enmity, and wrath between Israel and their Father in Heaven, how much more so, and of them David said, Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? And am I not grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate then with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies. And just as we may not rescue them from a fire, so may we not rescue them from a collapse [of debris] or from water or from anything that may destroy them. (b.Shabbat 116a).
Since the books and manuscripts used by the Nazarenes were written in Hebrew, they looked identical, to a Gentile, to those used by the Jews themselves. With Gentiles burning Jewish books due to growing anti-Jewish sentiment, and Jews burning Nazarene books which they considered “heretical,” only the Greek manuscripts survived to our present day.
With the followers of Yeshua effectively shut out of the “mainline” Synagogues, missionary work was no longer possible among Torah observant people. From now on the audience would be a pagan audience. As Eusebius states:
quote:
[Belonging] to the first stage in the apostolic succession…. [They] spread the message still further and sowed the saving seed of the Kingdom of Heaven far and wide through the entire world…. Ambitious to preach to those who had never yet heard the message of the faith and to give them the inspired gospels in writing. Staying only to lay the foundations of the faith in one foreign place or another, appoint others as pastors, and entrust to them the tending of those newly brought in, they set off again for other lands and peoples with the grace and cooperation of God…(Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. Bk. 3, ch 37, pg. 100).
Eusebius’ remarks tell us a great deal as to how and when the “Church” turned from its Hebrew roots to become the Hellenstic Catholic Church of the second century and beyond. First of all, he tells us very clearly that the evangelists went to those who had never yet heard the Word of God. These were apparently pagans who lacked any upbringing or training in Torah. Without any training or knowledge of Torah, they would have been completely incapable of discerning the validity of their message. Unlike the Bereans, whom Paul commended because they tested his message against the Torah, these people had no such way of guarding themselves.
Secondly, after staying only long enough to lay a minimal foundation before moving on, care and leadership of these new converts was put into the hands of men who were, themselves, new converts – violating one of Paul’s most basic tenants that an overseer “…must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil” (1 Timothy 3:6). So then, not only were these men untrained in the Torah, there is no indication that they ever would receive Torah instruction, even after their conversion. Eusebius even tells of how one young man was chosen for “leadership training” based on his “excellent physique, attractive appearance, and ardent spirit.” Therefore, being left with no formal training and perhaps only a single copy of a gospel account, they were left to fend for themselves as they tried to teach their new churches how to walk a godly way.
One has only to scan the lists of early Church Bishops to see names such as Xystus, Hero, Telesphorus, Eros, Theophilus, and on it goes. The information we have of these early leaders shows that they were all utterly deficient in Torah training. Rather, their training was in Hellenist Philosophy and it was through the eyes of a Greek philosopher that they interpreted and developed their new Christian religion.
The Jewish Tax would prove to be even more destructive, however, under Domitian’s successor, Nerva. For in 96 C.E., Nerva relaxed the collection of the tax to only those who, according to historian Cassius Dio, “followed their ancestral customs:”
quote:
“No one was permitted to accuse anyone of treason or of adopting the Jewish way of life; and Nerva wiped out the abuses in the collection of the Jewish Tax”(Birley, Anthony, Nerva, Lives of the Later Caesars, (Penguin Books, N.Y., 1976), p. 32).
The ramifications of this ruling were profound. Notice that “adopting the Jewish way of life” was equated with treason. Further, it indicated that by avoiding the outward practices of the Jewish faith, payment of the tax could be evaded. In other words, as far as Roman tax policies were concerned, being Jewish had nothing to do with ethnicity and everything to do with religious practice.
The impact of this can be seen very early in the Church’s development among the pagan peoples. There are three areas where we can clearly see the early Church turning aside from Apostolic instruction: the celebration of the “Last Supper,” Sabbath observance, and Congregational leadership.
The distortion of the Lord’s Supper, which was associated with the Passover Seder and which Paul admonished the Corinthian congregation to keep (1 Corinthians 5), came very early on. As early as 107 CE, we see the Christian Church developing a whole separate theology and cult around this observance. No longer is the practice associated with the Passover meal (which itself was eventually formally abolished by the Church), rather it is given an entirely new name, the Eucharist. The celebration of the “Eucharist” was to be given magical powers and strictly controlled. For example, it was to be considered valid only when it was held under the bishop or someone to whom he had committed it. It was given the status of “transubstantiation” for it was said that “the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ”(A. Roberts, J. Donaldson ed., “Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans.” The Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume I. Albany, OR: AGES Digital Library, 1999, Chapters 7-8). And that “this same Bread is the medicine of immortality, the antidote against death, and everlasting life in Jesus Christ” (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson ed., “Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians,” Ch. 20). With this we see all the primary elements of a Catholic Mass as early as 107 CE.
With respect to changing the day of worship from the Sabbath to Sunday, this too came very early on. We see in the writings of Ignatius written around 107 CE that Shabbat observance was considered part of “obsolete practices,” and believers were coerced to change their calendar in accordance with “the Lord’s Day, …on which our Life rose by His power…” (“Ignatius, Letter to the Magnesians,” Ch. 9). In the Letter of Barnabus written around 100 CE, we see an attempt to use the writings of the Prophets as proof that God no longer takes pleasure in the observance of the Sabbath but that it is now substituted with the “eighth day which is the beginning of another world. Wherefore also we keep the eighth day for rejoicing, in the which also Jesus rose from the dead, and having been manifested ascended into the heavens” (“The Letter of Barnabus,” Ch. 15). In the Epistle of Mathetes, written around 130 CE, Jewish practices in accordance with the Torah are condemned in no uncertain terms.
quote:
But again their scruples concerning meats, and their superstition relating to the Sabbath and the vanity of their circumcision and the dissimulation of their fasting and new moons, I do [not] suppose you need to learn from me, are ridiculous and unworthy of any consideration (“The Letter of Mathetes to Diognetus,” Ch. 4).
So clearly the Church leadership was advocating a change in proscribed worship days. Yet what is even more disturbing is how the Church put teeth into this policy, for without the ability to coerce the people into this change it could not have lasted. How was this done? By creating a hierarchical top-down structure that kept the people “in line.”
quote:
You must all follow the lead of the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed that of the Father; follow the presbytery as you would the Apostles; reverence the deacons as you would God’s commandment. Let no one do anything touching the Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone to whom he has committed it. Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permitted without authorization from the bishop either to baptize or to hold an agape; but whatever he approves is also pleasing to God. (“Ignatius to Smyrnaeans,” Ch. 8).
quote:
Let no one deceive himself: unless a man is within the sanctuary, he has to go without the Bread of God. Assuredly, if the prayer of one or two has such efficacy, how much more that of the bishop and the entire Church! …he who absents himself from the common meeting, by that very fact shows pride and becomes a sectarian; for the Scripture says: God resists the proud. Let us take care, therefore, not to oppose the bishop, that we may be submissive to God. (“Ignatius to Ephesians,” Ch. 5).
quote:
Avoid the noxious weeds. Their gardener is not Jesus Christ, because they are not the planting of the Father. …all those that belong to God and Jesus Christ are the very ones that side with the bishop; and all those that may yet change their mind and return to the unity of the Church, will likewise belong to God, and thus lead a life acceptable to Jesus Christ. Do not be deceived, my brethren: if a man runs after a schismatic, he will not inherit the kingdom of God; if a man chooses to be a dissenter, he severs all connection with the Passion. (“Ignatius to Philadelphians,” Ch. 3).
quote:
Take, then, to partake of one Eucharist; for, one is the Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one the cup to unite us with His Blood, and one altar; just as there is one bishop assisted by the presbytery and the deacons, my fellow servants. Thus you will conform in all your actions to the will of God (“Ignatius to Philadelphians,” Ch. 4).
As it happens, it is at this time (100 to 165 CE.) that we have Justin Martyr’s dialogue with Trypho, a Nazarene Believer in Yeshua:
quote:
But if, Trypho, I continued, some of your race, who say they believe in this Christ, compel those Gentiles who believe in this Christ to live in all respects according to the law given by Moses, or choose not to associate so intimately with them, I in like manner do no approve of them. But I believe that even those, who have been persuaded by them to observe the legal dispensation along with their confession of God in Christ, shall probably be saved. (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Ch 47).
This is surely a profound passage for it begs the question as to whether or not one can be both “saved” and follow Torah. Justin’s answer is that although it is perhaps possible, it is greatly discouraged. He argued that Gentile Believers should not be compelled to follow the written Law of Moses. This indicates a break with Apostolic and Messianic theology that had equated Torah observance and faith in Yeshua as fully harmonious.
Christopher O’Quinn describes the dilemma this way:
quote:
One must wonder about the tax implications of such a theology. Consider the local Roman tax collector who knew where the local synagogues were and the names of those who attended them. Since he was paid a commission on all taxes collected, it was very much in his financial interest to achieve 100% compliance regarding the Jewish Tax.
Imagine his bewilderment when finding out that an entire class of people within the Synagogue were evading the Jewish Tax on the grounds that they were not Jewish. Yet Rome had declared that as far as she was concerned, adopting the “Jewish way of Life” was, for tax purposes, the same as being Jewish. Therefore, if the Gentile believers wished to avoid the Jewish Tax it was becoming clear that new traditions would need to be created – traditions that could be explained as non-Jewish.
For Jews within the Messianic communities the choice must have been agonizing. For they, unlike many Gentile believers, did see themselves as thoroughly Jewish and believers in a Jewish Messiah. For them, giving up their ancestral traditions would mean turning their backs on the whole context of their faith. Whereas Gentiles might view “Jewish forms of worship” as unnecessary or optional, for the Jew these were the very signs of the Covenant made between HaShem and His people. Not much more than a hundred years earlier the Jews had suffered severely resisting Hellenized Syrian attempts to abolish the Signs of the Covenant within the Jewish communities. Would some Messianic believers now develop a Hellenized theology to explain away the Signs of the Covenant – thus succeeding where the Syrians had failed?
Yet, pressures were enormous. If they could not pay the tax they would certainly be thrown into slavery, making Torah observance almost impossible. On the other hand, how could they justify paying a tax that went to pay for the upkeep of the pagan temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome? Finally, could they be both loyal to Messiah and redefine their faith in Yeshua HaMashiach in such a way that did not require observance of Sabbath worship, circumcision and Torah festivals? (Christopher O’Quinn, “Up-Rooted,” The Early Messianic Communities, Part 2).
With this in view, consider what must have gone through the minds of Gentile believers who were new to the Messianic faith, and who, up to this time, had never felt any identification with the Jews. Not only did they lack a natural affinity for things Jewish, but were finding themselves the recipients of a growing anti-Gentile polemic within the Traditional Jewish communities. The question must have been soon asked why they would wish to identify with people who, in many cases, had no desire to identify with them and pay a crushing and debilitating tax to boot? (Juster, Daniel C. “The Rabbinic Spirit and Messianic Judaism,” Jewish Roots, 1998).
Apparently there were those whose consciences did find ways to rationalize away Torah observances. For example, in a letter written by a provincial governor in Asia Minor named Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan (cir. 110 C.E.), Christians are treated as a separate and distinct group without any reference to Jews or Jewish practices. He writes:
quote:
”…not knowing what to do in the future, he sent a report to the Emperor Trajan to the effect that except for their refusal to worship idols he had detected nothing improper in their behavior. He also informed him that the Christians got up at dawn and hymned Christ as a god, and in order to uphold their principles were forbidden to commit murder, adultery, fraud, theft, and the like. In response, Trajan sent a rescript ordering that members of the Christian community were not to be hunted, but if met with were to be punished” (Williamson, G.A., Eusebius, The History of the Church, (Penguin Books, New York, 1989), p. 97).
So we see that by 110 C.E. the Roman government was able to look upon the Christian community as separate and distinct from the Synagogue. Perhaps it is what is not mentioned in this passage that is most striking. Notice there is no mention whatsoever of any characteristically Jewish customs or practices. There is no mention of Shabbat worship, circumcision, or even Torah reading. From a Roman perspective, the Christian Church had found a way to redefine its faith so as to be seen wholly independent from that of the Jewish communities.
Lastly, and most compelling, is the evidence coming from the Church itself. By examining the writings of the early Church Fathers one can see an obvious shift in how the Church defined itself after 96 C.E. One way this is seen is by examining how various Church fathers drew upon Scripture to lend authority to their writings. The benchmark is set in the Apostolic Scriptures where there is a full reliance upon the Tanach for Scriptural authority. By 96 C.E. in Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, we see that there are 101 references to Tanach passages, 24 direct references or allusions to Apostolic writings and 17 references to blended passages where he takes a passage from the Tanach and connects it to an Apostolic verse (e.g., Genesis 7; 1 Peter 3:30; 2 Peter 2:5). By the early to middle part of the 2nd century, however, in a letter from Polycarp to the Philippians there are some 59 references to Apostolic writings, including the Gospels, and only three references to passages in the Tanach (Psalms 2:11; Psalms 4:5; and Isaiah 52:5). And this trend is true across the board. After 96 C.E. it seems that the early Church fathers set aside Torah references almost entirely. Is this because they saw use of Torah as a distinctively Jewish practice from which they wished to distance themselves? Obviously this must be the case since we read Justin (cir. 135 C.E.) stating categorically that Christianity and Torah observance are not compatible.
It is significant, therefore, that at the very same time Rome was discouraging Torah observance through taxation, the Gentilized Church was developing a theology of disassociation with Torah and all things Jewish. This cannot be mere coincidence. It is inescapable that after 96 C.E., post-2nd Temple Christianity began to redefine itself in other than Jewish terms. For Rome’s part, the definition of a Jew was, for the purpose of the tax, a religious one. For Romans, Jews were those who worshipped the Divinity whose temple had been destroyed in Jerusalem and who refused to worship other gods (Goodman, Martin, “Diaspora Reactions to the Destruction of the Temple,” Jews and Christians, the Parting of the Ways: A.D. 70 to 135, Ed. James D.G. Dunn, (Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI., 1999), p. 34). For the Gentile Church, a Jew was one who continued to practice customs and “superstitions” that had been abolished by a now Gentilized “Jesus Christ.” However, for those Jews and Gentiles who continued to walk according to the commandments of Torah and held to the Messiahship of Yeshua, life would be very difficult. As Philip S. Alexander suggests in his article, ”A Parting of the Ways from a Rabbinic Jewish Perspective,” the Messianic community was eventually persecuted by an unwitting alliance of three powerful forces: the Roman government, the triumph of Rabbinical Judaism and Gentile seizure of the faith (Alexander, Philip S., “A Parting of the Ways from a Rabbinic Jewish Perspective,” Jews and Christians, the Parting of the Ways: A.D. 70 to 135, Ed. James D.G. Dunn, (Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI., 1999), p. 24).
In 132 CE. a second Jewish revolt against Rome began. The Emporor Hadrian banned circumcision. In reaction the Jews, Nazarenes and Pharisees alike, took up arms. During the revolt Akiva, a leading Pharisaic Rabbi at the time, declared the leading Jewish general known as Bar Kosiba to be the Messiah. Bar Kosiba was renamed Bar Kochba (son of the star) and was declared the Messiah based on Num. 24:17. The Nazarenes could not accept Bar Kokhba as the Messiah and so they left the army. From this time forward Nazarenes were labeled "meshumed" (traitor). Though the Pharisees later admitted Bar Kokhba was not the Messiah, their resentment toward the Nazarenes for refusing to follow him continued.
After the Romans defeated the Jews around 132 C.E. Yehuda the last of recorded Nazarene Nasi was exiled with the rest of the Jews from Jerusalem. A Gentile Christian named Markus was made Bishop of Jerusalem in his stead.
In 325 C.E. a Pagan Gentile named Constantine conquered Rome and made himself emperor. Constantine, although a Pagan himself, declared Christianity to be the Catholic (Latin: universal) religion, thus making Christianity the enforced state religion of the Roman empire. Constantine, who was an anti-Semite called the council of Nicea in 325 C.E. to standardize Christianity. Nazarenes were excluded from the meeting. Jewish practices were banned. For the first time Gentile Christianity officially labeled the Nazarenes as apostates. From this time forward Nazarenes begin to be listed in the catalogues of apostate movements (the first of these to include the Nazarenes was Epiphanius's "Panarion" (around 370 C.E.).
By the fourth century the Nazarenes had communities in Berea near Colesyria, in the Decapolis near Pella, and at Bashanitis at the place called Kokhba. (Epiphanius; Pan. 29). However, the Nazarenes by this time were a small sect which Epiphanius described as "small… like an insect." (ibid)
According to a tradition preserved by the Assyrian Christians known as Nestorians, these Nazarenes escaped the Roman empire into the Parthian Empire to its east. Here they either assimilated into the Nestorian Church of the East, finding fellowship with their fellow Semite Assyrians, or they were wiped out by the rise of Islam.
[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 2/11/2007 11:42p).]
