Lutiferre
10-26-2009, 12:56 PM
After Pallamedes historically incorrect view of the Ebionites as he proposed it, which he fails to distinguish from the Nazarenes, I decided it would be a good idea to post an article which clarifies the subject with reference to historical data and the knowledge which we can actually say we have with minimal confidence from the earliest Jewish, Christian and other sources, unlike various desperate anti-Christian postulations..
the Ebionites, a purely Jewish sect of Christ-followers and, very likely, closely connected to the original followers of Jesus (and not made-up apostles) and Jesus' family
Good Question...
...are the Nazarenes and Ebionites the only TRUE "Christians"?
Over the past year I have received a number of inquiries about this subject, ranging from basic questions to quite developed positions. I would like to address several of these in this post. This question often comes up in Christian-Muslim discussions/arguments and I will accordingly be responding to some of the less polemical pieces on this...
The first small post is from a Christian who maintains a substantial site focused on Answering Islam--dealing with the issues involved in the encounter between these two faiths:
Dear Glenn,
I think I have seen that you have something about the early Christians and who they really were. The Muslims are pushing big time for Nazarenes and Ebionites as the only true Christians. Have you done any more detailed writing on this?
I will get into those two groups in just a moment, but let's first try to make some sense out of any claim that this or that group comprises the "only true Christians".
This is not as simple a task as one would assume, for although it would be easy to come up with a list of 'authentic criteria' it might be extremely difficult to defend such a list from being arbitrary or self-serving. For example, if someone said that 'true Christians' only wore blue jeans, we would want some kind of argument or evidence to support such a defining trait. Even if every member of the 1st century church wore blue jeans all of the time, this MIGHT not be a defining characteristic at all--it could be incidental and not substantial.
If, on the other hand, that same group had incorporated that behavior into a central belief of the group, then it could reasonably be assumed to be closer to (if not an example of) a defining trait or authentic criterion.
But many things may show up in belief-statements, since beliefs can show up in a variety of literatures: creeds, catechism instructions, hymns, ritual elements (e.g. baptismal formula). What we need, though, is some expression of the belief structure that the group itself uses to determine membership or non-membership.
In our hypothetical example, if the group had a creed that said that only those who confessed publicly that blue jeans were to be worn at all times could become members, and they APPLIED THAT CREED as a test for membership (or excommunicated people from the group for wearing dress slacks to a meeting), then we could consider this a 'defining trait' of the group.
So one major trait of being a 'true Christian' is whether a present group of "true Christians" publicly recognized the group in question as one. But this raises an obvious problem--how do we authenticate this PRESENT GROUP?
If we might call the above criterion 'synchronic' (referring to its occurrence in a point in time--either the group recognizes you in the present or it doesn't recognize you in the present), what we also need is a 'diachronic' criterion (referring to the authentication of a present group as being 'true to' the defining traits of the prior or founding group).
Now, this concept of 'true to' is somewhat fuzzy (for most groups--esp. religious ones), but not altogether unworkable. It is useful when it is seen in two contexts: (1) the purpose for the founding of the group and (2) the transformations of the group.
The first context would be obvious for many of the world religions. Some leader (e.g. Jesus, Moses, Mohammad, Buddha, Mani) had a particularly powerful and transforming view of certain aspects of reality, and that leader and vision captured the ultimate loyalties of followers. This is a 'normal' aspect of leadership dynamics (often seen in the business and institutional world), but the religious dimension transforms operating loyalties into ultimate loyalties. In other words, people do not generally suffer violent deaths as martyrs for the mission statements of Microsoft or the U.S. Census Bureau, but they do die and have died willingly for Mohammed's vision or Jesus' claims.
Vision is primarily cognitive (involving beliefs) but the 'system' will invariably have behavioral components (e.g. pray five times a day, don't eat meat offered to idols, honor your father and mother). But, remember ritual observance must be a means for determining exclusion or inclusion for it to be a defining trait of what constitutes a 'true believer' or follower of the founder.
The second context also shows up in ALL world religions--as they 'develop' from the founding set of beliefs. In every case, a religious community will encounter new issues, new questions, and new challenges to its identity/survival. It will attempt (generally) to 'unpack' what the founder explicitly taught, implicitly believed, and/or deliberately lived.
In the case of Islam, there were many gaps in the belief structure that had to be filled in after the Prophet's death, and the process of filling this out was accomplished by the development of hadith and sunna (or at least certain parts of it). There were the challenges of expressing Islam in non-Islamic cultures (e.g. Tunis, in which polygamy was abolished), of dealing with changing contexts of missionary endeavor (e.g. the very recent translation of the Quran into non-Arabic languages!), or of allowing the expression of personal interpretation differences among followers (cf. the four schools of interpreting the Sunnis, Sufi mysticism, or the 'liberal' Islam of Sayyid Amir Ali, Sir Muhammed Iqbal and A. A. Fyzee). When a situation requiring a 'new ruling' would present itself, the "true Islam" would attempt to formulate a position 'true to' the Prophet's intention. (Generally, the leadership of a group is the best organ for articulating a group's core values/vision. This implies, however, that leadership should generally be distributed among a 'committee' or 'ruling body' to avoid idiosyncratic directions arising from a dominant leader.) In any group there are typically multiple suggestions made, and the group (formally or informally) will decide which ones are 'true to' the founding and defining themes. Those dissenting from the majority consensus (e.g. ijma) either submit to the will of the body or break off to form schismatic or splinter groups (e.g. Kharijites/Khawarij, who argued, among other things, that "not all the Quran has the status of revelation" [WR:Eliade, p. 149]).
The case with the earliest followers of Jesus' is similar, but with one added element--explicit fidelity to the Law and the Prophets which pointed to Jesus' coming. Since Jesus was very clear that He understood Himself in that Judaic context (c.f. Luke 24.44: "He said to them, 'This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.'"), His followers would have to be true to that base. Since Jesus understood His death as inaugurating the New Covenant (cf. Luke 22.20: "In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you'"), His disciples were to understand it in this way. In other words, the defining traits were defined by Jesus in His words and works.
These defining characteristics of the young 'church' would likewise face interpretive and expansive challenges. How would it deal with the promises in the OT about salvation to the Gentiles? How would it deal with the destruction of the nation of Israel? How would it deal with rejection by the leadership of the Jewish people of the time? How would it deal with the New Covenant as replacement for the Old Covenant? As before, we would expect to find multiple voices raised, the majority group (generally in the leadership) deciding on what was 'true to' the founding message, and the possible break off of any hard-line dissenting groups.
These kinds of issues are not simple ones at all! Let's look briefly at two incidents in apostolic history to show the complexity.
The first is recorded by Paul in Galatians 2:11ff (NAS):
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?
Think about this from Peter's position. He KNOWS from (1) his experience in Acts 10-11; and (2) from Jesus' eating with 'sinners and tax collectors' (Mark 2.15) that it is quite okay to eat with Gentiles (esp. believing Gentiles!). At the same time, he remembers Jesus' personalized comment about not giving offense (Mt 17.27; echoed by Paul in Rom 14.20; 1 Cor 10.32; 2 Cor 6.3). He is caught between two difficult alternatives. He picks one, but made a mistake--he simply had not encountered that situation before and didn't have time to work the implications of the gospel out to that situation. Paul had already worked through the issue, since He faced the issue daily as the "apostle to the Gentiles", and since he understood the issue as much broader than just food. When you later get to the Jerusalem council (one to three years later, Acts 15), Peter is in perfect agreement with Paul on the matter of the Law:
"Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 "And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 "But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."
[Note that Peter's image of the "yoke of the Law" is similar to Paul's use of "yoke" in Gal 5:1.]
In this case, one of the major leaders of the foundational group saw that the Paul's view of grace was 'true to' the original vision/teaching of the Founder Jesus, and so the church developed.
The second case is the decision of the Jerusalem council(Acts 15). The church had largely been confined to Jews, many (if not most) of whom kept the Mosaic Law and customs routinely. As Diaspora Jewry (less rigorous in its practice of the Law) and as non-Jews came into the church, the issue of obligatory Law observance naturally came up. [One of the interesting side issues here concerns 'whose standards' of observance will be used, for the various groups in Judaism of the day had varying definitions of "observance": Pharisees, regular priests, regular Hebraists, Jerusalem Hellenists, Galileans, Diaspora Jews, Essenes, Sadducees.]
This was NOT an issue the church had faced earlier (at least not the Jerusalem Church), so what was she to do? What principles of Jesus or the OT (or even providential acts of God) could help them through this? Just as a Muslim would try to 'unpack' some Surah in the Quran to apply to this, just as a Jewish Rabbi would 'unpack' the Torah (often through midrash) to apply to novel situations, so too the Jerusalem church had to 'unpack' the OT, the words of Jesus, and the acts of God in the New Covenant age for application.
Although there was considerable heated discussion and debate (v.7)--which would happen in ANY context of religious or ultimate commitment--James gives the consensus opinion, basing it on four factors/arguments:
1. The events of and implications of Peter's experience with the Gentiles in Acts 10-11;
2. The OT witness to the salvation of the Gentiles AFTER the advent of the Davidic Messiah (Amos 9)
3. The practicality of 'not troubling' those Gentiles who were responding to God.
4. The 'peacekeeping' effect of having the Gentiles at least do these few items. So the NT:BBC (v.21):
"James's statement here could mean that Moses already has enough observers of his law; but more likely it means that believers are to abstain from the practices in verse 20 lest they offend the many people of verse 21"
(Notice how this last point of 'giving no offense in love' also shows up in Paul's argument in Romans 14 and in the James-Paul joint plan/activity in Acts 21.20-26.)
When he then writes the decree to send to the Gentiles, he adds the following elements:
1. They distanced themselves from the 'circumcision party' (v.24: "Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls, ")
2. They stated that the view of the letter was NOW the new consensus view (v.25: "it seemed good to us, having become of one mind")
3. Their wholesale endorsement of Paul and Barnabas (v.25f: " to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ")
4. Additional proof of this novel decision (v.27: "Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by word of mouth").
5. Divine approval for this decision (v.28: "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials")
6. These Gentile believers (who had NOT been circumcised) were nevertheless called 'brethren' by the Jerusalem church in v.23!
7. The NT:BBC comments on this tiny list of specific restrictions (in.loc.):
"The few requirements James suggests they impose are representative of the handful of laws Jewish tradition declared that God gave Noah. According to the more lenient Jewish position, any righteous Gentiles who kept those basic laws would have a share in the world to come. Because even stricter Pharisees had to get along with the majority of more lenient people, these teachers did not try to invalidate other teachers' rulings if they had majority consent."
8. James is careful in his wording (v.29) about the benefits of doing these--the Gentiles will 'do well' as opposed to 'be saved'!
Here we see a major development undertaken by the majority of leadership (totally or predominantly Jewish Law-keepers) of the church at the time. The issue is NOT a simple one--hence the debate--but one in which the church makes a decision that 'not requiring the Law' is MORE 'true to' the foundational, defining traits of the followers of Jesus THAN IS the 'you must be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses' position of a internal faction of the group. (Obviously, this faction was NOT the majority faction or the outcome would have been MUCH different, and we would not be having this discussion!)
It is important to note that this was NOT a gentile group called a Law-keeping Jewish group 'heretics'; this is a majority group of Law-keeping Jews called a minority group of Law-keeping Jews "wrong".
Such much for the two examples of development by adaptation/unpacking of the heritage to face new situations.
But what about 'local differences'? What about two branches of the same parent stock, but that develop different traits? For example, a Galilean church and a Jerusalem church--assuming both sprang from the same set of Jesus' followers-- would have different attitudes (probably) toward Pharisaic authority. If they both made claims to being the 'true church' how would we sort through this controversy?
Well, first of all, we would have to ask how 'germane' the issue was. If they are quibbling over something like the mode of baptism (e.g. sprinkling, immersion, anointing), we might dismiss it as internecine squabbles--and say that they are BOTH 'true churches' but just differing over non-pivotal issues. [Because they are 'true' does not mean that they are not PETTY(!)--since ALL believers are in this process we call 'progressive sanctification' (a euphemism for 'God is not finished changing me yet!')] For example, if someone asked the group if they considered the OTHER group to be 'Christians' (however 'confused' they might consider them), all but the most obsessive among them would probably say "yes, but...". In other words, they recognize the difference between defining traits and important traits.
However, in some cases the differences might be reversed--the external appearances and terminology might look the same, but the content be so radically different that the answer would be "no, even though...".
This latter scenario was the case with the Gnostics, generally. They adopted Christian 'words' and put them onto Plotinian views of emanations and Pythagorean theories of transmigration of souls (sorta like human-only reincarnation). The content was not even close, but the language was very, very misleading.
An example from Islam might be instructive here as well. The Nusairi sect (also called the 'Aliwite) is a minority sect of Shi'ite Muslims living in Syria today. They are considered heretical by many mainstream Muslims today, but were legally declared Muslims by the Lebanese leader of the Twelver group. They are second in number in Syria to the Sunnite sect. The basic doctrine of the 'Alawite faith is the deification of Ali. He is one member of a trinity corresponding roughly to the Christian Father, Son, and Spirit. They interpret the Pillars of Islam as symbols and thus do not practice the Islamic duties. They do not believe that women will be resurrected, since women do not have souls. Yet, they consider themselves to be moderate Shi'ites! How "Islamic" would such a group be? How close is the content to the original formulation (or development) of Muslim belief? Does the legal recognition carry adequate weight? This example shows again how difficult fringe situations can be.
So, again, we have an aspect of consensus recognition of pivotal and defining traits.
So, where does this net out for the definition or delineation of what 'true Christianity' was?
Simply put, for a group to be considered 'truly Christian', it had to manifest ALL of the following criteria:
1. It had to carry forward the original message of the OT background and the teachings of Jesus (even those about Himself).
2. It had to develop itself in continuity with that background/message/vision (as judged by the consensus of the group).
3. The members must not vary on the pivotal beliefs (original or derived) of the group; but they could vary on ANYTHING else and still be members of the group. (There is still some range of imprecision of understanding on the pivotal terms though--several mistakes in Christian church history were cases of over-precision in my opinion).
4. Major shifts in membership profiles (e.g. ethnic mix, socio-economic mix, geographical mix) must result in belief statements that are STILL accepted by minority members of the larger group.
5. Culturally diverse groups must still admit that other groups are cases of "yes, but..." instead of "no, even though..."
6. And obviously, the group under question must be claiming that it is a 'true church' or claiming that it can use the name 'Christian' legitimately. For example, some gnostics never even claimed to be Christians, yet some writers have made the historical mistake of calling this group 'early Jesus movements' (e.g. The Jesus Seminar).
Practically put, this will imply that minority theological viewpoints will have to eventually triumph over, or at least transform, the majority position, in order to be judged as being 'true'--but only for pivotal beliefs.
So, with this starting point for understanding 'true Christianity', let's dive into the next poster's statements...
I wonder if Jochen would be willing to spend as much time researching the pre-Pauline religious movements such as the Nazarenes and ebionites.
Here we will find some rather interesting data about early expressions of Jewish Christianity (esp. Palestinian Jewish Christianity).
But first let's try to set the framework in what the poster called the 'pre-Pauline' period. What are the time frames in Paul's life we are roughly setting up here? (I am using Wenham's dating, RMML:xxv, with some mods]:
1. The crucifixion of Jesus (circa 30 ad)
2. "Conversion" of Saul to Paul (circa 33 ad) [Acts 9.1-22; Gal 1.15-17]
3. Years in Damascus (35-37) [Gal 1.17-18]
3. Paul's first post-conversion visit to Jerusalem (38 ad) [Acts 9.26-30; Gal 1.18-20]
4. Peter goes to Antioch (44 ad) [Acts 10-11]
5. Letter to Galatians (c.48)
6. Apostolic Council at Jerusalem (c.49) [Acts 15.6-29]
7. Letter to the Thessalonians (c.50)
[By 54-55ad, Much of the synoptic materials are circulating.]
8. Letters to the Corinthians (c.55-56)
9. Letter to the Romans (c.57)
10. Paul's detention and trial at Caesarea (c.57-59) [Acts 23.23-26.32]
11. Paul arrives at Rome (c.60) [Acts 28.14-16]
So, the obvious question concerns what is the 'pre-Pauline' period referring to?
1. Before Saul's conversion (a period of only three years after the Crucifixion)?
2. The Period before he makes the first trip to Jerusalem (a period of 5 years after the Crucifixion)?
3. The Period before the Apostolic Council, validating Paul's gospel (a period of 20 years after the Crucifixion)?
4. The Period before the 'domination' of Pauline thought (Marcion? Constantine?)
The first option--of only three years--has little impact on this question, although there are some beginning seeds of development. Paul begins preaching immediately after his conversion--that Jesus was the Messiah--in the synagogues (Acts 9.22: "But Saul kept increasing in strength and confounding the Jews who lived at Damascus by proving that this Jesus is the Christ"). His basic method is apparent from the verse--he 'proved' it through reference to the Tanakh/OT.
The makeup of the Jerusalem church, however, was quite varied, and not without internal consistency issues. The creation of the office of deacon was related to the mix of Hellenistic Jews and native Palestinian Jewry (Acts 6), and the socio-economic mix was very widespread. Fiensy [BAFCSP:226ff] lists some of the various classes of folk known to be in that group:
1. The Wealthy or Semi-wealthy (Simon of Cyrene, Barnabas, Ananias & Sapphira, Mary mother of John Mark, Manaen, Levi/Matthew)
2. The lower class (some of the disciples, James)
3. Ordinary temple priests (but not from High Priestly family)
4. One Levite (Joseph Barnabas, Acts 4.36)
5. Submerged classes (e.g. beggars, impoverished widows, and healed people)
6. Women of various classes
7. Hebraists (Jews who spoke both Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek) and Hellenists (Jews who only spoke Greek).
8. Pharisees (Acts 15.5)
What is interesting about this group (and its representation in the text) is that the mix is wide but not drawn attention to [Fiensy, op. Cit.]
"What is striking about our main source for early Jerusalem Christianity--the book of Acts--is that so little is said about socio-economic class distinctions. The wealthy are hardly noticed at all except for a few cases of extraordinary generosity. We cannot document that any of the High Priestly family or any of the governing elite were members of the earliest church. The lower class has the fewest references, although one could speculate that they had the largest representation. The submerged class enters the story only to indicate that the church is caring for them. The central figures are those that perform ministries of some kind, whether they come from the upper or lower class. One should stop short of concluding that class went unnoticed in this religious community, but the traditions we have certainly de-emphasise it."
"Second, we should note, however, that all the classes were represented. Neither the wealthy nor the impoverished were excluded. Earliest Christianity was not a movement within one socio-economic class, but from the beginning, was as pluralistic as the city of Jerusalem. The observation made by G. Theissen and others about the Pauline churches is also true for the Jerusalem church. Christianity was no proletarian movement. It appealed to a broad spectrum of classes."
The significance of this for us is that the defining traits were by definition narrower than the 'total traits' of the community at the outset of the movement! The cultural trappings, such as language spoken or ritual purity, were NOT uniform in the earliest, "pre-Pauline" group. As noted above, several of these groups would have had different understandings of was delineated 'ritual purity'. This argues that the defining traits were centered about confessional or creedal elements--as articulated by them thus far--surrounding the person and work of Jesus the Messiah. In other words, the defining traits of this earliest church would have been the preaching and teaching of the Twelve in the earliest chapters of the Book of Acts.
The earliest pre-Pauline sermons consisted of the following elements (all pre-Acts 9):
1. Jesus was a man attested by God via miracles and signs (Acts 2.22)
2. Jesus was delivered by God into the hands of those who crucified Him (2.23; 3.15; 4.10; 5.30; 7.52), both Jews and Gentiles (4.28)
3. God raised Jesus from the dead (2.24, 32; 3.15; 4.10; 5.30)
4. Jesus was the Davidic descendant of the prophetic OT (2.29-31)
5. Jesus ascended to heaven, to the right hand of God (2.33-34; 5.31; 7.56)
6. Jesus is both Messiah AND "Lord" -- (2.36; 5.42) [Notice that the two terms are NOT interchangeable--"Lord" is a much more exalted term/title than Messiah (i.e. implicit "more-than-man" due to divine sonship), although the implications of this would not be worked out for a while.]
7. Jesus had authority to receive and pour out the Holy Spirit(!)--(2.33)
8. The offer was specifically for forgiveness of sins (2.38; 3.19; 5.31)
9. Proper response was a change of mind (i.e. repentance) and sometimes baptism (2.38; 3.19; 8.12).
10. This offer of forgiveness is for a wider group of Jews than just those at Pentecost (2.39), and extending beyond the Jew (but 'first' to the Jew, 3.26).
11. Jesus was gloried by the Covenant YHWH (3.13)
12. Jesus is called the Holy One (3.14f), the Righteous One (3.14-15; 7.52), the Prince of Life (3.14-15), the Prophet-like-Moses (3.22; 7.37), the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant (3.25), the Stone of Stumbling in Psalm 118.22 (4.11), the fulfillment of Psalm 2 (4.25), the Holy Servant (4.28-30), a Prince and Savior (5.31), the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 (8.35)
13. Healing and power came through faith in the name of Jesus (3.16; 4.10)
14. The sufferings of Christ were foretold by ALL the OT prophets and fulfilled in the life of Jesus (3.18, 24; 7.52; 8.35)
15. Acceptance of Jesus by Israel at that time would have resulted in the return of Christ to fulfill the OTHER prophecies in the OT, of the full restoration of Israel and the world (3.20-21)
16. He is the exclusive means of salvation (4.12)
17. Jesus had authority in heaven to 'receive souls' (as His Father did His own on the Cross). [7.59]
18. The kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ (8.12)
19. One of the benefits of the Messiah would be 'fewer sins' (3.26).
20. This outbreak of the Spirit at Pentecost was prophesied in fulfillment of the promise (connected with the New Covt in the Tanakh/OT) in Joel 2 (2.16).
What is missing from this list?
1. Anything about the Law of Moses (but Stephen pointed out that the Jews didn't keep it anyway in 7.53!).
2. Anything about Circumcision.
Now, it might be argued that these items were presupposed by the message (notice, however, that this is an argument from silence), but the fact that faith and a non-Mosaic institution are mentioned (i.e. baptism) is significant. The main point of the content of the pre-Pauline sermons is the identity, exalted status, and work of Jesus Christ, as fulfillment of the Tanakh/OT promises to Abraham and David. The focus is on His person and work, not the Law. Moses is brought in only as a witness to Christ, via the Deut 18 passage!
[Notice that I am here assuming the historicity of early Acts. I do this here for two reasons. First, the historical data to support this is immense (see Helmer [NT:BASHH] and the series [BAFCS*] in my Booklist). And, secondly, because much of the argument that Paul was a 'heretic' comes from the Book of Acts, specifically in chapters 15 and 21, in his interchanges with James and the Jerusalem church. If we 'throw out Acts' from the discussion, the "Paul vs. James" camp loses much of its material, and I want to make sure that we BOTH get to analyse that data.]
But notice one other thing about this period--the Samaritan expansion. In Act 8 we have the evangelization of Samaria by Philip and the subsequent visit by the apostles. The message is explicitly said to be about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus (8.12). What is important here is that the Samaritans, although completely Kosher in many respects, did NOT obey Torah on the required visits to Jerusalem. They had a 'rival' religious center at Mt. Gerazim, and THEIR versions of the Pentateuch (the only part of the Tanakh/OT they accepted) substituted Gerazim in most of the places the text had Jerusalem! The significance should be obvious: a message of Jesus PLUS 'Law' would have had to 'correct' the Samaritan error, but we have no indication that the evangelists did this. We DO have positive mention that they focused on the person and message of Jesus.
So, if we had to define the Church before Paul's conversion, it would be defined in terms of response to Jesus--irrespective of cultural or religious ritual:
1. His being prophesied about by ALL the OT prophets.
2. His being crucified, raised, and exalted by the Covenant God of Israel--in accordance with the long-term plan of God.
3. His being the fulfillment of the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenant promises(!).
4. His being an absolutely unique figure (2nd Moses, Suffering Servant, intersection of all messianic strains, at Right Hand of God!)
5. His super-human aspects (e.g. "Lord", receiver of souls, pouring out of Holy Spirit, Right Hand of God, Holy One, etc.)
Israel (both Palestinian and Diaspora) was to respond to God's answer to their needs. This response was to be in acceptance of God's Savior, a change of mind about their lifestyles, and public identification with this new life/community (e.g. through baptism).
So, at Pre-Pauline Period One (the first three years of the church), there is not much that could be considered Pauline or anti-Pauline, and certainly nothing Paul would need to 'change' via persuasion etc.
Pre-Pauline Period Two (the first 5-7 years after the Crucifixion) was essentially the same, except the church community had expanded considerably into the Diaspora, and the Jerusalem church was persecuted. James the son of Zebedee was put to death by the new leader Herod Agrippa I. Paul is in Damascus and Arabia, preaching, teaching, and thinking. His influence was minimal on the theology of the church at this point.
The specific content of his preaching was essentially along the same lines as Peter. He proclaimed Jesus to be the Christ (9.22) and using the same Psalm 2 that Peter used in Acts 4.25, he pointed out that the Psalm called Jesus the "Son of God". [Of course, Peter had also called Jesus the "Son of the Living God" in Matt 16.16: "And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."").
By this time (c.40-41ad) one or more of the gospels had been written, and there are many references to Jesus (pre-Crucifixion) as being the 'Son of God' (e.g. Matt 4.3; 14.33; 26.63 [Jesus' own words about Himself!], Mark 3.11; Mark 5.7; Luke 1.35; and esp. Mark 1.1). This means that Paul's early message was no different that the apostolic preaching of the "pre-Pauline church" at this point.
Pre-Pauline Period Three (20 years or so after the Crucifixion) saw the expansion of the church to the Gentiles, via the preaching of Peter in Acts 10-11. This story (which is only a couple of years before the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem) has Peter preaching the same message he always did (10.36ff):
The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all)- 37 you yourselves know the thing which took place throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee, after the baptism which John proclaimed. 38 "You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good, and healing all who were oppressed by the devil; for God was with Him. 39 "And we are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. And they also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross. 40 "God raised Him up on the third day, and granted that He should become visible, 41 not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us, who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. 42 "And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. 43 "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins."
Notice:
1. Jesus is "Lord of All" (this would have meant something really BIG to this Roman centurion!)
2. Jesus had power and the special anointing of God.
3. Jesus' death (by crucifixion) and bodily resurrection.
4. Jesus will be the ultimate judge of all people of history. [Is this something a mere man--no matter HOW good he was--can do?!]
5. ALL the prophets witnessed to Jesus.
6. The offer is for forgiveness of sins.
7. The offer comes through 'believing in Him'.
We have a "human-plus" figure (e.g. Lord of Everything(!), ultimate judge of ALL history!, the sole criterion for forgiveness!), a message then centers around Him, and no mention of the Law.
And this is before the major visit of Paul to Jerusalem, or even his letters to the churches.
So, I am not sure what to make of the poster's point about 'pre-Pauline' movements. The pre-Pauline early church did not seem very different (in preaching) than did the 'post-Pauline' church of Acts 15 (which we looked at above).
Now, the possible Pre-Pauline Period Four (after Paul's death and some nebulous time when Pauline Christianity became dominant): This might be when his epistles were accepted as canonical (no later than Marcion's canon in 160ad) or perhaps when Christianity became the "state religion" under Constantine (4th century).
By either of these times, of course, the church is largely Gentile. But ALL of the heresies of the Church occurred before this time--Jewish, Gnostic, libertine, legalism--so this time frame adds nothing to the discussion. For good or ill, the issue of the Law (esp. for Gentiles) was settled during the time of Acts--long before either of these points could be reached. By the time we get to Marcion or Constantine, the rift between the Jew and Christian--set in motion during the years 60-135--have long since reduced the issue of the Law to the trivial. All the data we have indicates that the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 settled the issue for mainstream Christianity.
But the poster gives us two names that he/she apparently considers being 'pre-Pauline': Nazarenes and ebionites.
So, let's look at these carefully.
First the Nazarenes...
ONE: The Name "Nazarene":
We are fortunate to have a recent work of serious scholarship on this specific topic, often listed by Muslims in their booklists: Nazarene Jewish Christianity, by Ray A. Pritz (NT:NJC). It is frequently cited in scholarly works, and ONLY deals with the conclusions that can be reached with a high degree of confidence. This limits his range of conclusions, of course, since the more speculative studies of the PseudoClementine literature (for example) is excluded for that reason, but his conclusions will provide firm handholds for us as we climb our way through this data.
"The earliest documentary reference to 'Nazarene' as applied to a person is in the New Testament, and refers to Jesus. We do not find it in Paul's writings, which are commonly acknowledged to to be the earliest of the New Testament canon, just as we do not find there the name 'Christian' which is found only in Acts 11.26, 26.28, and 1 Pet. 4.16). Likewise, the earliest reference to a sect of Nazarenes occurs in Acts 24:5, when it is used by Tertullus, Paul's 'prosecutor.' While it can be argued that the lawyer Tertullus invented the name for the occasion, there is a tradition as early as Tertullian that an early name for Christians was Nazarenes, and his claim is borne out by the earliest name in the various semitic languages. Obviously the name of the sect came from the title NAZORAIOS/NAZARENOS." (NT:NJC:11).
The derivation of this name is obscure. Most commentators related it to 'netzer' (branch) of Isaiah 11.1-10, but I personally reject this view in favor of a 'disparaging use' of the term, something like 'rejected' or 'not esteemed'.
The first usage of this term for a group is Acts 24:
And after five days the high priest Ananias came down with some elders, with a certain attorney named Tertullus; and they brought charges to the governor against Paul. 2 And after Paul had been summoned, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying to the governor, "Since we have through you attained much peace, and since by your providence reforms are being carried out for this nation, 3 we acknowledge this in every way and everywhere, most excellent Felix, with all thankfulness. 4 "But, that I may not weary you any further, I beg you to grant us, by your kindness, a brief hearing. 5 "For we have found this man a real pest and a fellow who stirs up dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. 6 "And he even tried to desecrate the temple; and then we arrested him. [And we wanted to judge him according to our own Law. 7 "But Lysias the commander came along, and with much violence took him out of our hands, 8 ordering his accusers to come before you.] And by examining him yourself concerning all these matters, you will be able to ascertain the things of which we accuse him." 9 And the Jews also joined in the attack, asserting that these things were so.
It is clear from this that the term 'Nazarenes' does not apply to a sect within followers of Jesus, but to a sect within Judaism itself.
Paul does not shrink from associating himself with this group (important to notice!), but prefers to use the believers' favorite term for themselves (24.14):
"But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law, and that is written in the Prophets;
It is important to note that Jesus did NOT give any such name to His group. He refers to them as disciples and believers and followers and friends and students, but does NOT give them a 'group name'. He does refer to the group as a generic 'church' or 'assembly' (Matt 16.18: "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.").The believers normally refer to themselves as 'the church' (75+ times in the NT).
But the enemies of the new group found a name--the 'despised' name of its Founder--Nazarene. It shows up in negative usage in the period (e.g. the lawyer above, Pilate's title on the Cross, the Talmuds). But the church arrived at something more neutral (but still of obscure derivation)--'followers of the Way':
* Now Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, 2 and asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. (Acts 9.1-2)
* And he entered the synagogue and continued speaking out boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. 9 But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the multitude, he withdrew from them and took away the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. (Acts 19.8-9)
* And about that time there arose no small disturbance concerning the Way. (Acts 19.23)
* But Felix, having a more exact knowledge about the Way, put them off, saying, "When Lysias the commander comes down, I will decide your case." (Acts 24.22)
This self-designation may be based on Jesus' statements about being the Way (John 14.4-6) , the effect of the movement ("way of salvation" Acts 16.7), or simply a reference to the 'correct' Way of the Lord (Acts 18.25-26). In any event, we do not know where it came from, nor does it really matter. It is only important to note that the church did NOT call itself 'Nazarene' during this time period.
With 'Christian' being the term used by Gentiles to describe believers, we get the following terms within the first 15 years of the Cross:
1. "Nazarenes" was the term used by Jewish 'enemies' about the Church.
2. "Christian" was the term used by Gentiles about the Church.
3. "Followers of the Way" was the term sometimes used by the church about herself.
4. "The church" is the most common way the believers described the group of Jesus' followers (some 75+ references in the NT)
Now, this is all the data we have from the NT, but the Church Fathers provide some data that gets closer to the poster's intent. However, it should be recognized that the NT documents (mostly 'post-Pauline' to use the idea of the poster) do NOT indicate the existence of an internal sect called the Nazarenes. There are many and varied factions and 'parties' described as comprising the church (e.g. Acts 23.9; Gal 2.12; I Cor 3) but NONE of them are called 'Nazarene' or 'Ebionite' etc. It is therefore unwarranted to label the early church as 'Nazarene' in the same sense as the Nazarene sect of the post-apostolic era.
Wilson [RS:157] suggests this:
"This evidence suggests the following: that the term 'Nazarene' was originally a general term for early Christians in Semitic circles; that it was soon superseded by the term Christianoi among the increasingly dominant Greek-speaking converts; that it lingered on in Jewish usage as a traditional term for Christians; and that it was preserved by one group of Jewish Christians as a self-designation because it had deep historical roots."
(continued in next post..)
the Ebionites, a purely Jewish sect of Christ-followers and, very likely, closely connected to the original followers of Jesus (and not made-up apostles) and Jesus' family
Good Question...
...are the Nazarenes and Ebionites the only TRUE "Christians"?
Over the past year I have received a number of inquiries about this subject, ranging from basic questions to quite developed positions. I would like to address several of these in this post. This question often comes up in Christian-Muslim discussions/arguments and I will accordingly be responding to some of the less polemical pieces on this...
The first small post is from a Christian who maintains a substantial site focused on Answering Islam--dealing with the issues involved in the encounter between these two faiths:
Dear Glenn,
I think I have seen that you have something about the early Christians and who they really were. The Muslims are pushing big time for Nazarenes and Ebionites as the only true Christians. Have you done any more detailed writing on this?
I will get into those two groups in just a moment, but let's first try to make some sense out of any claim that this or that group comprises the "only true Christians".
This is not as simple a task as one would assume, for although it would be easy to come up with a list of 'authentic criteria' it might be extremely difficult to defend such a list from being arbitrary or self-serving. For example, if someone said that 'true Christians' only wore blue jeans, we would want some kind of argument or evidence to support such a defining trait. Even if every member of the 1st century church wore blue jeans all of the time, this MIGHT not be a defining characteristic at all--it could be incidental and not substantial.
If, on the other hand, that same group had incorporated that behavior into a central belief of the group, then it could reasonably be assumed to be closer to (if not an example of) a defining trait or authentic criterion.
But many things may show up in belief-statements, since beliefs can show up in a variety of literatures: creeds, catechism instructions, hymns, ritual elements (e.g. baptismal formula). What we need, though, is some expression of the belief structure that the group itself uses to determine membership or non-membership.
In our hypothetical example, if the group had a creed that said that only those who confessed publicly that blue jeans were to be worn at all times could become members, and they APPLIED THAT CREED as a test for membership (or excommunicated people from the group for wearing dress slacks to a meeting), then we could consider this a 'defining trait' of the group.
So one major trait of being a 'true Christian' is whether a present group of "true Christians" publicly recognized the group in question as one. But this raises an obvious problem--how do we authenticate this PRESENT GROUP?
If we might call the above criterion 'synchronic' (referring to its occurrence in a point in time--either the group recognizes you in the present or it doesn't recognize you in the present), what we also need is a 'diachronic' criterion (referring to the authentication of a present group as being 'true to' the defining traits of the prior or founding group).
Now, this concept of 'true to' is somewhat fuzzy (for most groups--esp. religious ones), but not altogether unworkable. It is useful when it is seen in two contexts: (1) the purpose for the founding of the group and (2) the transformations of the group.
The first context would be obvious for many of the world religions. Some leader (e.g. Jesus, Moses, Mohammad, Buddha, Mani) had a particularly powerful and transforming view of certain aspects of reality, and that leader and vision captured the ultimate loyalties of followers. This is a 'normal' aspect of leadership dynamics (often seen in the business and institutional world), but the religious dimension transforms operating loyalties into ultimate loyalties. In other words, people do not generally suffer violent deaths as martyrs for the mission statements of Microsoft or the U.S. Census Bureau, but they do die and have died willingly for Mohammed's vision or Jesus' claims.
Vision is primarily cognitive (involving beliefs) but the 'system' will invariably have behavioral components (e.g. pray five times a day, don't eat meat offered to idols, honor your father and mother). But, remember ritual observance must be a means for determining exclusion or inclusion for it to be a defining trait of what constitutes a 'true believer' or follower of the founder.
The second context also shows up in ALL world religions--as they 'develop' from the founding set of beliefs. In every case, a religious community will encounter new issues, new questions, and new challenges to its identity/survival. It will attempt (generally) to 'unpack' what the founder explicitly taught, implicitly believed, and/or deliberately lived.
In the case of Islam, there were many gaps in the belief structure that had to be filled in after the Prophet's death, and the process of filling this out was accomplished by the development of hadith and sunna (or at least certain parts of it). There were the challenges of expressing Islam in non-Islamic cultures (e.g. Tunis, in which polygamy was abolished), of dealing with changing contexts of missionary endeavor (e.g. the very recent translation of the Quran into non-Arabic languages!), or of allowing the expression of personal interpretation differences among followers (cf. the four schools of interpreting the Sunnis, Sufi mysticism, or the 'liberal' Islam of Sayyid Amir Ali, Sir Muhammed Iqbal and A. A. Fyzee). When a situation requiring a 'new ruling' would present itself, the "true Islam" would attempt to formulate a position 'true to' the Prophet's intention. (Generally, the leadership of a group is the best organ for articulating a group's core values/vision. This implies, however, that leadership should generally be distributed among a 'committee' or 'ruling body' to avoid idiosyncratic directions arising from a dominant leader.) In any group there are typically multiple suggestions made, and the group (formally or informally) will decide which ones are 'true to' the founding and defining themes. Those dissenting from the majority consensus (e.g. ijma) either submit to the will of the body or break off to form schismatic or splinter groups (e.g. Kharijites/Khawarij, who argued, among other things, that "not all the Quran has the status of revelation" [WR:Eliade, p. 149]).
The case with the earliest followers of Jesus' is similar, but with one added element--explicit fidelity to the Law and the Prophets which pointed to Jesus' coming. Since Jesus was very clear that He understood Himself in that Judaic context (c.f. Luke 24.44: "He said to them, 'This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.'"), His followers would have to be true to that base. Since Jesus understood His death as inaugurating the New Covenant (cf. Luke 22.20: "In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you'"), His disciples were to understand it in this way. In other words, the defining traits were defined by Jesus in His words and works.
These defining characteristics of the young 'church' would likewise face interpretive and expansive challenges. How would it deal with the promises in the OT about salvation to the Gentiles? How would it deal with the destruction of the nation of Israel? How would it deal with rejection by the leadership of the Jewish people of the time? How would it deal with the New Covenant as replacement for the Old Covenant? As before, we would expect to find multiple voices raised, the majority group (generally in the leadership) deciding on what was 'true to' the founding message, and the possible break off of any hard-line dissenting groups.
These kinds of issues are not simple ones at all! Let's look briefly at two incidents in apostolic history to show the complexity.
The first is recorded by Paul in Galatians 2:11ff (NAS):
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?
Think about this from Peter's position. He KNOWS from (1) his experience in Acts 10-11; and (2) from Jesus' eating with 'sinners and tax collectors' (Mark 2.15) that it is quite okay to eat with Gentiles (esp. believing Gentiles!). At the same time, he remembers Jesus' personalized comment about not giving offense (Mt 17.27; echoed by Paul in Rom 14.20; 1 Cor 10.32; 2 Cor 6.3). He is caught between two difficult alternatives. He picks one, but made a mistake--he simply had not encountered that situation before and didn't have time to work the implications of the gospel out to that situation. Paul had already worked through the issue, since He faced the issue daily as the "apostle to the Gentiles", and since he understood the issue as much broader than just food. When you later get to the Jerusalem council (one to three years later, Acts 15), Peter is in perfect agreement with Paul on the matter of the Law:
"Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 "And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 "But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."
[Note that Peter's image of the "yoke of the Law" is similar to Paul's use of "yoke" in Gal 5:1.]
In this case, one of the major leaders of the foundational group saw that the Paul's view of grace was 'true to' the original vision/teaching of the Founder Jesus, and so the church developed.
The second case is the decision of the Jerusalem council(Acts 15). The church had largely been confined to Jews, many (if not most) of whom kept the Mosaic Law and customs routinely. As Diaspora Jewry (less rigorous in its practice of the Law) and as non-Jews came into the church, the issue of obligatory Law observance naturally came up. [One of the interesting side issues here concerns 'whose standards' of observance will be used, for the various groups in Judaism of the day had varying definitions of "observance": Pharisees, regular priests, regular Hebraists, Jerusalem Hellenists, Galileans, Diaspora Jews, Essenes, Sadducees.]
This was NOT an issue the church had faced earlier (at least not the Jerusalem Church), so what was she to do? What principles of Jesus or the OT (or even providential acts of God) could help them through this? Just as a Muslim would try to 'unpack' some Surah in the Quran to apply to this, just as a Jewish Rabbi would 'unpack' the Torah (often through midrash) to apply to novel situations, so too the Jerusalem church had to 'unpack' the OT, the words of Jesus, and the acts of God in the New Covenant age for application.
Although there was considerable heated discussion and debate (v.7)--which would happen in ANY context of religious or ultimate commitment--James gives the consensus opinion, basing it on four factors/arguments:
1. The events of and implications of Peter's experience with the Gentiles in Acts 10-11;
2. The OT witness to the salvation of the Gentiles AFTER the advent of the Davidic Messiah (Amos 9)
3. The practicality of 'not troubling' those Gentiles who were responding to God.
4. The 'peacekeeping' effect of having the Gentiles at least do these few items. So the NT:BBC (v.21):
"James's statement here could mean that Moses already has enough observers of his law; but more likely it means that believers are to abstain from the practices in verse 20 lest they offend the many people of verse 21"
(Notice how this last point of 'giving no offense in love' also shows up in Paul's argument in Romans 14 and in the James-Paul joint plan/activity in Acts 21.20-26.)
When he then writes the decree to send to the Gentiles, he adds the following elements:
1. They distanced themselves from the 'circumcision party' (v.24: "Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls, ")
2. They stated that the view of the letter was NOW the new consensus view (v.25: "it seemed good to us, having become of one mind")
3. Their wholesale endorsement of Paul and Barnabas (v.25f: " to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ")
4. Additional proof of this novel decision (v.27: "Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by word of mouth").
5. Divine approval for this decision (v.28: "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials")
6. These Gentile believers (who had NOT been circumcised) were nevertheless called 'brethren' by the Jerusalem church in v.23!
7. The NT:BBC comments on this tiny list of specific restrictions (in.loc.):
"The few requirements James suggests they impose are representative of the handful of laws Jewish tradition declared that God gave Noah. According to the more lenient Jewish position, any righteous Gentiles who kept those basic laws would have a share in the world to come. Because even stricter Pharisees had to get along with the majority of more lenient people, these teachers did not try to invalidate other teachers' rulings if they had majority consent."
8. James is careful in his wording (v.29) about the benefits of doing these--the Gentiles will 'do well' as opposed to 'be saved'!
Here we see a major development undertaken by the majority of leadership (totally or predominantly Jewish Law-keepers) of the church at the time. The issue is NOT a simple one--hence the debate--but one in which the church makes a decision that 'not requiring the Law' is MORE 'true to' the foundational, defining traits of the followers of Jesus THAN IS the 'you must be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses' position of a internal faction of the group. (Obviously, this faction was NOT the majority faction or the outcome would have been MUCH different, and we would not be having this discussion!)
It is important to note that this was NOT a gentile group called a Law-keeping Jewish group 'heretics'; this is a majority group of Law-keeping Jews called a minority group of Law-keeping Jews "wrong".
Such much for the two examples of development by adaptation/unpacking of the heritage to face new situations.
But what about 'local differences'? What about two branches of the same parent stock, but that develop different traits? For example, a Galilean church and a Jerusalem church--assuming both sprang from the same set of Jesus' followers-- would have different attitudes (probably) toward Pharisaic authority. If they both made claims to being the 'true church' how would we sort through this controversy?
Well, first of all, we would have to ask how 'germane' the issue was. If they are quibbling over something like the mode of baptism (e.g. sprinkling, immersion, anointing), we might dismiss it as internecine squabbles--and say that they are BOTH 'true churches' but just differing over non-pivotal issues. [Because they are 'true' does not mean that they are not PETTY(!)--since ALL believers are in this process we call 'progressive sanctification' (a euphemism for 'God is not finished changing me yet!')] For example, if someone asked the group if they considered the OTHER group to be 'Christians' (however 'confused' they might consider them), all but the most obsessive among them would probably say "yes, but...". In other words, they recognize the difference between defining traits and important traits.
However, in some cases the differences might be reversed--the external appearances and terminology might look the same, but the content be so radically different that the answer would be "no, even though...".
This latter scenario was the case with the Gnostics, generally. They adopted Christian 'words' and put them onto Plotinian views of emanations and Pythagorean theories of transmigration of souls (sorta like human-only reincarnation). The content was not even close, but the language was very, very misleading.
An example from Islam might be instructive here as well. The Nusairi sect (also called the 'Aliwite) is a minority sect of Shi'ite Muslims living in Syria today. They are considered heretical by many mainstream Muslims today, but were legally declared Muslims by the Lebanese leader of the Twelver group. They are second in number in Syria to the Sunnite sect. The basic doctrine of the 'Alawite faith is the deification of Ali. He is one member of a trinity corresponding roughly to the Christian Father, Son, and Spirit. They interpret the Pillars of Islam as symbols and thus do not practice the Islamic duties. They do not believe that women will be resurrected, since women do not have souls. Yet, they consider themselves to be moderate Shi'ites! How "Islamic" would such a group be? How close is the content to the original formulation (or development) of Muslim belief? Does the legal recognition carry adequate weight? This example shows again how difficult fringe situations can be.
So, again, we have an aspect of consensus recognition of pivotal and defining traits.
So, where does this net out for the definition or delineation of what 'true Christianity' was?
Simply put, for a group to be considered 'truly Christian', it had to manifest ALL of the following criteria:
1. It had to carry forward the original message of the OT background and the teachings of Jesus (even those about Himself).
2. It had to develop itself in continuity with that background/message/vision (as judged by the consensus of the group).
3. The members must not vary on the pivotal beliefs (original or derived) of the group; but they could vary on ANYTHING else and still be members of the group. (There is still some range of imprecision of understanding on the pivotal terms though--several mistakes in Christian church history were cases of over-precision in my opinion).
4. Major shifts in membership profiles (e.g. ethnic mix, socio-economic mix, geographical mix) must result in belief statements that are STILL accepted by minority members of the larger group.
5. Culturally diverse groups must still admit that other groups are cases of "yes, but..." instead of "no, even though..."
6. And obviously, the group under question must be claiming that it is a 'true church' or claiming that it can use the name 'Christian' legitimately. For example, some gnostics never even claimed to be Christians, yet some writers have made the historical mistake of calling this group 'early Jesus movements' (e.g. The Jesus Seminar).
Practically put, this will imply that minority theological viewpoints will have to eventually triumph over, or at least transform, the majority position, in order to be judged as being 'true'--but only for pivotal beliefs.
So, with this starting point for understanding 'true Christianity', let's dive into the next poster's statements...
I wonder if Jochen would be willing to spend as much time researching the pre-Pauline religious movements such as the Nazarenes and ebionites.
Here we will find some rather interesting data about early expressions of Jewish Christianity (esp. Palestinian Jewish Christianity).
But first let's try to set the framework in what the poster called the 'pre-Pauline' period. What are the time frames in Paul's life we are roughly setting up here? (I am using Wenham's dating, RMML:xxv, with some mods]:
1. The crucifixion of Jesus (circa 30 ad)
2. "Conversion" of Saul to Paul (circa 33 ad) [Acts 9.1-22; Gal 1.15-17]
3. Years in Damascus (35-37) [Gal 1.17-18]
3. Paul's first post-conversion visit to Jerusalem (38 ad) [Acts 9.26-30; Gal 1.18-20]
4. Peter goes to Antioch (44 ad) [Acts 10-11]
5. Letter to Galatians (c.48)
6. Apostolic Council at Jerusalem (c.49) [Acts 15.6-29]
7. Letter to the Thessalonians (c.50)
[By 54-55ad, Much of the synoptic materials are circulating.]
8. Letters to the Corinthians (c.55-56)
9. Letter to the Romans (c.57)
10. Paul's detention and trial at Caesarea (c.57-59) [Acts 23.23-26.32]
11. Paul arrives at Rome (c.60) [Acts 28.14-16]
So, the obvious question concerns what is the 'pre-Pauline' period referring to?
1. Before Saul's conversion (a period of only three years after the Crucifixion)?
2. The Period before he makes the first trip to Jerusalem (a period of 5 years after the Crucifixion)?
3. The Period before the Apostolic Council, validating Paul's gospel (a period of 20 years after the Crucifixion)?
4. The Period before the 'domination' of Pauline thought (Marcion? Constantine?)
The first option--of only three years--has little impact on this question, although there are some beginning seeds of development. Paul begins preaching immediately after his conversion--that Jesus was the Messiah--in the synagogues (Acts 9.22: "But Saul kept increasing in strength and confounding the Jews who lived at Damascus by proving that this Jesus is the Christ"). His basic method is apparent from the verse--he 'proved' it through reference to the Tanakh/OT.
The makeup of the Jerusalem church, however, was quite varied, and not without internal consistency issues. The creation of the office of deacon was related to the mix of Hellenistic Jews and native Palestinian Jewry (Acts 6), and the socio-economic mix was very widespread. Fiensy [BAFCSP:226ff] lists some of the various classes of folk known to be in that group:
1. The Wealthy or Semi-wealthy (Simon of Cyrene, Barnabas, Ananias & Sapphira, Mary mother of John Mark, Manaen, Levi/Matthew)
2. The lower class (some of the disciples, James)
3. Ordinary temple priests (but not from High Priestly family)
4. One Levite (Joseph Barnabas, Acts 4.36)
5. Submerged classes (e.g. beggars, impoverished widows, and healed people)
6. Women of various classes
7. Hebraists (Jews who spoke both Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek) and Hellenists (Jews who only spoke Greek).
8. Pharisees (Acts 15.5)
What is interesting about this group (and its representation in the text) is that the mix is wide but not drawn attention to [Fiensy, op. Cit.]
"What is striking about our main source for early Jerusalem Christianity--the book of Acts--is that so little is said about socio-economic class distinctions. The wealthy are hardly noticed at all except for a few cases of extraordinary generosity. We cannot document that any of the High Priestly family or any of the governing elite were members of the earliest church. The lower class has the fewest references, although one could speculate that they had the largest representation. The submerged class enters the story only to indicate that the church is caring for them. The central figures are those that perform ministries of some kind, whether they come from the upper or lower class. One should stop short of concluding that class went unnoticed in this religious community, but the traditions we have certainly de-emphasise it."
"Second, we should note, however, that all the classes were represented. Neither the wealthy nor the impoverished were excluded. Earliest Christianity was not a movement within one socio-economic class, but from the beginning, was as pluralistic as the city of Jerusalem. The observation made by G. Theissen and others about the Pauline churches is also true for the Jerusalem church. Christianity was no proletarian movement. It appealed to a broad spectrum of classes."
The significance of this for us is that the defining traits were by definition narrower than the 'total traits' of the community at the outset of the movement! The cultural trappings, such as language spoken or ritual purity, were NOT uniform in the earliest, "pre-Pauline" group. As noted above, several of these groups would have had different understandings of was delineated 'ritual purity'. This argues that the defining traits were centered about confessional or creedal elements--as articulated by them thus far--surrounding the person and work of Jesus the Messiah. In other words, the defining traits of this earliest church would have been the preaching and teaching of the Twelve in the earliest chapters of the Book of Acts.
The earliest pre-Pauline sermons consisted of the following elements (all pre-Acts 9):
1. Jesus was a man attested by God via miracles and signs (Acts 2.22)
2. Jesus was delivered by God into the hands of those who crucified Him (2.23; 3.15; 4.10; 5.30; 7.52), both Jews and Gentiles (4.28)
3. God raised Jesus from the dead (2.24, 32; 3.15; 4.10; 5.30)
4. Jesus was the Davidic descendant of the prophetic OT (2.29-31)
5. Jesus ascended to heaven, to the right hand of God (2.33-34; 5.31; 7.56)
6. Jesus is both Messiah AND "Lord" -- (2.36; 5.42) [Notice that the two terms are NOT interchangeable--"Lord" is a much more exalted term/title than Messiah (i.e. implicit "more-than-man" due to divine sonship), although the implications of this would not be worked out for a while.]
7. Jesus had authority to receive and pour out the Holy Spirit(!)--(2.33)
8. The offer was specifically for forgiveness of sins (2.38; 3.19; 5.31)
9. Proper response was a change of mind (i.e. repentance) and sometimes baptism (2.38; 3.19; 8.12).
10. This offer of forgiveness is for a wider group of Jews than just those at Pentecost (2.39), and extending beyond the Jew (but 'first' to the Jew, 3.26).
11. Jesus was gloried by the Covenant YHWH (3.13)
12. Jesus is called the Holy One (3.14f), the Righteous One (3.14-15; 7.52), the Prince of Life (3.14-15), the Prophet-like-Moses (3.22; 7.37), the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant (3.25), the Stone of Stumbling in Psalm 118.22 (4.11), the fulfillment of Psalm 2 (4.25), the Holy Servant (4.28-30), a Prince and Savior (5.31), the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 (8.35)
13. Healing and power came through faith in the name of Jesus (3.16; 4.10)
14. The sufferings of Christ were foretold by ALL the OT prophets and fulfilled in the life of Jesus (3.18, 24; 7.52; 8.35)
15. Acceptance of Jesus by Israel at that time would have resulted in the return of Christ to fulfill the OTHER prophecies in the OT, of the full restoration of Israel and the world (3.20-21)
16. He is the exclusive means of salvation (4.12)
17. Jesus had authority in heaven to 'receive souls' (as His Father did His own on the Cross). [7.59]
18. The kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ (8.12)
19. One of the benefits of the Messiah would be 'fewer sins' (3.26).
20. This outbreak of the Spirit at Pentecost was prophesied in fulfillment of the promise (connected with the New Covt in the Tanakh/OT) in Joel 2 (2.16).
What is missing from this list?
1. Anything about the Law of Moses (but Stephen pointed out that the Jews didn't keep it anyway in 7.53!).
2. Anything about Circumcision.
Now, it might be argued that these items were presupposed by the message (notice, however, that this is an argument from silence), but the fact that faith and a non-Mosaic institution are mentioned (i.e. baptism) is significant. The main point of the content of the pre-Pauline sermons is the identity, exalted status, and work of Jesus Christ, as fulfillment of the Tanakh/OT promises to Abraham and David. The focus is on His person and work, not the Law. Moses is brought in only as a witness to Christ, via the Deut 18 passage!
[Notice that I am here assuming the historicity of early Acts. I do this here for two reasons. First, the historical data to support this is immense (see Helmer [NT:BASHH] and the series [BAFCS*] in my Booklist). And, secondly, because much of the argument that Paul was a 'heretic' comes from the Book of Acts, specifically in chapters 15 and 21, in his interchanges with James and the Jerusalem church. If we 'throw out Acts' from the discussion, the "Paul vs. James" camp loses much of its material, and I want to make sure that we BOTH get to analyse that data.]
But notice one other thing about this period--the Samaritan expansion. In Act 8 we have the evangelization of Samaria by Philip and the subsequent visit by the apostles. The message is explicitly said to be about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus (8.12). What is important here is that the Samaritans, although completely Kosher in many respects, did NOT obey Torah on the required visits to Jerusalem. They had a 'rival' religious center at Mt. Gerazim, and THEIR versions of the Pentateuch (the only part of the Tanakh/OT they accepted) substituted Gerazim in most of the places the text had Jerusalem! The significance should be obvious: a message of Jesus PLUS 'Law' would have had to 'correct' the Samaritan error, but we have no indication that the evangelists did this. We DO have positive mention that they focused on the person and message of Jesus.
So, if we had to define the Church before Paul's conversion, it would be defined in terms of response to Jesus--irrespective of cultural or religious ritual:
1. His being prophesied about by ALL the OT prophets.
2. His being crucified, raised, and exalted by the Covenant God of Israel--in accordance with the long-term plan of God.
3. His being the fulfillment of the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenant promises(!).
4. His being an absolutely unique figure (2nd Moses, Suffering Servant, intersection of all messianic strains, at Right Hand of God!)
5. His super-human aspects (e.g. "Lord", receiver of souls, pouring out of Holy Spirit, Right Hand of God, Holy One, etc.)
Israel (both Palestinian and Diaspora) was to respond to God's answer to their needs. This response was to be in acceptance of God's Savior, a change of mind about their lifestyles, and public identification with this new life/community (e.g. through baptism).
So, at Pre-Pauline Period One (the first three years of the church), there is not much that could be considered Pauline or anti-Pauline, and certainly nothing Paul would need to 'change' via persuasion etc.
Pre-Pauline Period Two (the first 5-7 years after the Crucifixion) was essentially the same, except the church community had expanded considerably into the Diaspora, and the Jerusalem church was persecuted. James the son of Zebedee was put to death by the new leader Herod Agrippa I. Paul is in Damascus and Arabia, preaching, teaching, and thinking. His influence was minimal on the theology of the church at this point.
The specific content of his preaching was essentially along the same lines as Peter. He proclaimed Jesus to be the Christ (9.22) and using the same Psalm 2 that Peter used in Acts 4.25, he pointed out that the Psalm called Jesus the "Son of God". [Of course, Peter had also called Jesus the "Son of the Living God" in Matt 16.16: "And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."").
By this time (c.40-41ad) one or more of the gospels had been written, and there are many references to Jesus (pre-Crucifixion) as being the 'Son of God' (e.g. Matt 4.3; 14.33; 26.63 [Jesus' own words about Himself!], Mark 3.11; Mark 5.7; Luke 1.35; and esp. Mark 1.1). This means that Paul's early message was no different that the apostolic preaching of the "pre-Pauline church" at this point.
Pre-Pauline Period Three (20 years or so after the Crucifixion) saw the expansion of the church to the Gentiles, via the preaching of Peter in Acts 10-11. This story (which is only a couple of years before the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem) has Peter preaching the same message he always did (10.36ff):
The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all)- 37 you yourselves know the thing which took place throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee, after the baptism which John proclaimed. 38 "You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good, and healing all who were oppressed by the devil; for God was with Him. 39 "And we are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. And they also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross. 40 "God raised Him up on the third day, and granted that He should become visible, 41 not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us, who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. 42 "And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. 43 "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins."
Notice:
1. Jesus is "Lord of All" (this would have meant something really BIG to this Roman centurion!)
2. Jesus had power and the special anointing of God.
3. Jesus' death (by crucifixion) and bodily resurrection.
4. Jesus will be the ultimate judge of all people of history. [Is this something a mere man--no matter HOW good he was--can do?!]
5. ALL the prophets witnessed to Jesus.
6. The offer is for forgiveness of sins.
7. The offer comes through 'believing in Him'.
We have a "human-plus" figure (e.g. Lord of Everything(!), ultimate judge of ALL history!, the sole criterion for forgiveness!), a message then centers around Him, and no mention of the Law.
And this is before the major visit of Paul to Jerusalem, or even his letters to the churches.
So, I am not sure what to make of the poster's point about 'pre-Pauline' movements. The pre-Pauline early church did not seem very different (in preaching) than did the 'post-Pauline' church of Acts 15 (which we looked at above).
Now, the possible Pre-Pauline Period Four (after Paul's death and some nebulous time when Pauline Christianity became dominant): This might be when his epistles were accepted as canonical (no later than Marcion's canon in 160ad) or perhaps when Christianity became the "state religion" under Constantine (4th century).
By either of these times, of course, the church is largely Gentile. But ALL of the heresies of the Church occurred before this time--Jewish, Gnostic, libertine, legalism--so this time frame adds nothing to the discussion. For good or ill, the issue of the Law (esp. for Gentiles) was settled during the time of Acts--long before either of these points could be reached. By the time we get to Marcion or Constantine, the rift between the Jew and Christian--set in motion during the years 60-135--have long since reduced the issue of the Law to the trivial. All the data we have indicates that the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 settled the issue for mainstream Christianity.
But the poster gives us two names that he/she apparently considers being 'pre-Pauline': Nazarenes and ebionites.
So, let's look at these carefully.
First the Nazarenes...
ONE: The Name "Nazarene":
We are fortunate to have a recent work of serious scholarship on this specific topic, often listed by Muslims in their booklists: Nazarene Jewish Christianity, by Ray A. Pritz (NT:NJC). It is frequently cited in scholarly works, and ONLY deals with the conclusions that can be reached with a high degree of confidence. This limits his range of conclusions, of course, since the more speculative studies of the PseudoClementine literature (for example) is excluded for that reason, but his conclusions will provide firm handholds for us as we climb our way through this data.
"The earliest documentary reference to 'Nazarene' as applied to a person is in the New Testament, and refers to Jesus. We do not find it in Paul's writings, which are commonly acknowledged to to be the earliest of the New Testament canon, just as we do not find there the name 'Christian' which is found only in Acts 11.26, 26.28, and 1 Pet. 4.16). Likewise, the earliest reference to a sect of Nazarenes occurs in Acts 24:5, when it is used by Tertullus, Paul's 'prosecutor.' While it can be argued that the lawyer Tertullus invented the name for the occasion, there is a tradition as early as Tertullian that an early name for Christians was Nazarenes, and his claim is borne out by the earliest name in the various semitic languages. Obviously the name of the sect came from the title NAZORAIOS/NAZARENOS." (NT:NJC:11).
The derivation of this name is obscure. Most commentators related it to 'netzer' (branch) of Isaiah 11.1-10, but I personally reject this view in favor of a 'disparaging use' of the term, something like 'rejected' or 'not esteemed'.
The first usage of this term for a group is Acts 24:
And after five days the high priest Ananias came down with some elders, with a certain attorney named Tertullus; and they brought charges to the governor against Paul. 2 And after Paul had been summoned, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying to the governor, "Since we have through you attained much peace, and since by your providence reforms are being carried out for this nation, 3 we acknowledge this in every way and everywhere, most excellent Felix, with all thankfulness. 4 "But, that I may not weary you any further, I beg you to grant us, by your kindness, a brief hearing. 5 "For we have found this man a real pest and a fellow who stirs up dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. 6 "And he even tried to desecrate the temple; and then we arrested him. [And we wanted to judge him according to our own Law. 7 "But Lysias the commander came along, and with much violence took him out of our hands, 8 ordering his accusers to come before you.] And by examining him yourself concerning all these matters, you will be able to ascertain the things of which we accuse him." 9 And the Jews also joined in the attack, asserting that these things were so.
It is clear from this that the term 'Nazarenes' does not apply to a sect within followers of Jesus, but to a sect within Judaism itself.
Paul does not shrink from associating himself with this group (important to notice!), but prefers to use the believers' favorite term for themselves (24.14):
"But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law, and that is written in the Prophets;
It is important to note that Jesus did NOT give any such name to His group. He refers to them as disciples and believers and followers and friends and students, but does NOT give them a 'group name'. He does refer to the group as a generic 'church' or 'assembly' (Matt 16.18: "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.").The believers normally refer to themselves as 'the church' (75+ times in the NT).
But the enemies of the new group found a name--the 'despised' name of its Founder--Nazarene. It shows up in negative usage in the period (e.g. the lawyer above, Pilate's title on the Cross, the Talmuds). But the church arrived at something more neutral (but still of obscure derivation)--'followers of the Way':
* Now Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, 2 and asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. (Acts 9.1-2)
* And he entered the synagogue and continued speaking out boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. 9 But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the multitude, he withdrew from them and took away the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. (Acts 19.8-9)
* And about that time there arose no small disturbance concerning the Way. (Acts 19.23)
* But Felix, having a more exact knowledge about the Way, put them off, saying, "When Lysias the commander comes down, I will decide your case." (Acts 24.22)
This self-designation may be based on Jesus' statements about being the Way (John 14.4-6) , the effect of the movement ("way of salvation" Acts 16.7), or simply a reference to the 'correct' Way of the Lord (Acts 18.25-26). In any event, we do not know where it came from, nor does it really matter. It is only important to note that the church did NOT call itself 'Nazarene' during this time period.
With 'Christian' being the term used by Gentiles to describe believers, we get the following terms within the first 15 years of the Cross:
1. "Nazarenes" was the term used by Jewish 'enemies' about the Church.
2. "Christian" was the term used by Gentiles about the Church.
3. "Followers of the Way" was the term sometimes used by the church about herself.
4. "The church" is the most common way the believers described the group of Jesus' followers (some 75+ references in the NT)
Now, this is all the data we have from the NT, but the Church Fathers provide some data that gets closer to the poster's intent. However, it should be recognized that the NT documents (mostly 'post-Pauline' to use the idea of the poster) do NOT indicate the existence of an internal sect called the Nazarenes. There are many and varied factions and 'parties' described as comprising the church (e.g. Acts 23.9; Gal 2.12; I Cor 3) but NONE of them are called 'Nazarene' or 'Ebionite' etc. It is therefore unwarranted to label the early church as 'Nazarene' in the same sense as the Nazarene sect of the post-apostolic era.
Wilson [RS:157] suggests this:
"This evidence suggests the following: that the term 'Nazarene' was originally a general term for early Christians in Semitic circles; that it was soon superseded by the term Christianoi among the increasingly dominant Greek-speaking converts; that it lingered on in Jewish usage as a traditional term for Christians; and that it was preserved by one group of Jewish Christians as a self-designation because it had deep historical roots."
(continued in next post..)