Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
My Theory On The Nazarenes
#1
POST REMOVED BY ALBION ON JUNE 28, 2008, AS HURTFUL, AND HAVING THE WRONG MESSAGE ABOUT MY MODERN NAZARENE FRIENDS.
Reply
#2
Albion, many of the ideas in your post are common, but based on very poor scholarship. For instance, the idea that the Nazarenes didn't eat meat is based on phony etymology, where some people have said that the Nazaroi and Nazareni of Epiphanius are both the same group. This cannot be supported, realistically. The idea that the Nazarenes and Ebionites are the same is also far-fetched, and a summary reading of Epiphanius, Jerome, and/or Eusebius dismisses it very quickly.
The idea that the Nazarenes objected to Paul is also not really valid. The Ebionites certainly were, but we have no reason to believe that the Nazarenes were.
I highly reccomend to you a book called "Nazarene Jewish Christianity" by Ray Pritz. It is generally considered the most complete and most accurate scholarly work on Nazarene history. I agree with most of what Pritz has to say. There are a few things on which I think he was wrong, but he is mostly correct. He makes a very strong case for his position, aswell.
If you don't want to do that, please send me your email address and I'll send you a research paper I did on this subject.
Reply
#3
Dear Dawid,

Do you remember when I asked you if you had read Pritz' book?

Yes, I've read it, and yes, it's very good.

Have you ever read 'The Jewish People and Jesus Christ' by Jakob Jocz?

Another historical power house about the Nazarenes, Ebionites, Elkasites, etc.

Well worth borrowing from Inter-Library Loan, or buying from Abe Books (who has it cheaper than Amazon.com).

Shlama, Albion


P.S. I'd love to read your paper on the Nazarenes.

Please e-mail me at: <!-- e --><a href="mailto:red_panda@hushmail.com">red_panda@hushmail.com</a><!-- e -->

THANKS!






Dawid Wrote:Albion, many of the ideas in your post are common, but based on very poor scholarship. For instance, the idea that the Nazarenes didn't eat meat is based on phony etymology, where some people have said that the Nazaroi and Nazareni of Epiphanius are both the same group. This cannot be supported, realistically. The idea that the Nazarenes and Ebionites are the same is also far-fetched, and a summary reading of Epiphanius, Jerome, and/or Eusebius dismisses it very quickly.
The idea that the Nazarenes objected to Paul is also not really valid. The Ebionites certainly were, but we have no reason to believe that the Nazarenes were.
I highly reccomend to you a book called "Nazarene Jewish Christianity" by Ray Pritz. It is generally considered the most complete and most accurate scholarly work on Nazarene history. I agree with most of what Pritz has to say. There are a few things on which I think he was wrong, but he is mostly correct. He makes a very strong case for his position, aswell.
If you don't want to do that, please send me your email address and I'll send you a research paper I did on this subject.
Reply
#4
Sorry, no, I didn't remember that.
No, I haven't read that. At present I'm reading "Jesus and the World of Judaism" by Geza Vermes.

I'll send you the paper.
Reply
#5
Dear Dawid,

I read your paper on the Nazarene's......EXCELLANT!

I *strongly* encourage you to buy:

'The Jewish People and Jesus Christ' by Jakob Jocz

Honestly, I copied three chapters from it, from an Inter-Library Loan book.

If you can't really afford it, I could copy the copy that I have for you.

Let me know. Like I said, Abe Books has it cheap!

Jakob Jocz does as good a job as Ray Pritz!

Hard to believe, but true! Arnold Fruchtenbaum turned me onto Jakob Jocz' writing.

Check it out.....you'll love it!

Shlama, Albion




Dawid Wrote:Sorry, no, I didn't remember that.
No, I haven't read that. At present I'm reading "Jesus and the World of Judaism" by Geza Vermes.

I'll send you the paper.
Reply
#6
Shlama Akhi Albion,

PROBLEMATIC PASSAGES IN THIS POST REMOVED

I am sorry dear brother but you are seriously mistaken on a wide variety of issues. Nazarenes and Ebionites are not the same thing. Rav Shaul argued with the Ebionites in Acts 15 and the Evyonim split off to form their own movement. The word "evyonim" is derived from the meaning "poor", referring to a very low Christology that the Ebionites had. The Nazarenes had always proclaimed that Y'shua was YHWH; the Ebionites that he was just a man. The Nazarenes kept a full NT canon (22 or 27 is a matter of debate as is the content and correlation to what survived) whereas the Ebionites used a mangled and perverted copy of Matthew and threw out all of the rest of the NT. The Nazarenes accepted Rav Shaul (Paul) from day one. The Ebionites rejected him utterly and in fact still do today.

I can back this up directly from primary sources. The Rabbinics in the year 125 made a clear distinction between the Evyonim and the Nazarenes. I will post Mas Shabbat 116a below in a moment, but let me just sum up first. The Rabbinics placed a ban on the Nazarenes who were ultimately called either "Nizrefe" or Minnim in their literature . The latter term is an acrostic:

Mahaymim (believers in)
Y'shua
(of) Netzeret

While the Ebionites were techincally also Minnim, it is clear the Rabbinics made a distinction between them and the Nazarenes and favored the Ebionites with more respect because their position that Y'shua was a man but still Messiah was more palatable to them. As a result they did NOT lump the two groups together but called the Ebionites "Abedan".

Here is how the Rabbis debated what to do about the DIFFERENT SCRIPTURES that both groups kept:

Come and hear: The blank spaces above and below, between the sections, between the columns, at the beginning and at the end of the Scroll, defile one's hands.13 ??? It may be that [when they are] together with the Scroll of the Law they are different.14 Come and hear: The blank spaces15 and the Books of the Minim16 may not be saved from a fire, but they must be burnt in their place, they and the Divine Names occurring in them. Now surely it means the blank portions of a Scroll of the Law? No: the blank spaces in the Books of Minim. Seeing that we may not save the Books of Minim themselves, need their blank spaces be stated? ??? This is its meaning: And the Books of Minim are like blank spaces.

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, 17 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 me18 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. 19 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, 20 these, who stir up jealousy, enmity, and wrath between Israel and their Father in Heaven, how much more so; 21 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.22 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.

R. Joseph b. Hanin asked R. Abbahu: As for the Books of Be Abedan, 23 may we save them from a fire or not? ??? Yes and No, and he was uncertain about the matter.24 Rab would not enter a Be Abedan, and certainly not a Be Nizrefe; 25 Samuel would not enter a Be Nizrefe, yet he would enter a Be Abedan. Raba was asked: Why did you not attend at the Be Abedan? A certain palm-tree stands in the way, replied he, and it is difficult for me [to pass it]. 26 Then we will remove it? ??? Its spot will present difficulties to me.27 Mar b. Joseph said: I am one of them28 and do not fear them. On one occasion he went there, [and] they wanted to harm him.29

Imma Shalom, R. Eliezer's wife, was R. Gamaliel's sister. Now, a certain philosopher 30 lived in his vicinity,
____________________
(13) Cf. supra 14a. This proves that they have the same sacred character as the rest of the Scroll.
(14) The writing there being sound.
(15) Jast. s.v. iuhkd translates, the gospels, though observing that here it is understood as blanks. V. Herford, R.T., ???Christianity in the Talmud???, p. 155 n.
(16) Sectarians. The term denotes various kinds of Jewish sectarians, such as the Sadducces, Samaritans, Judeo-Christians, etc., according to the date of the passage in which the term is used. The reference here is probably to
the last-named. V. J.E., art. Min; Bacher in REJ. XXXVIII, 38. Rashi translates: Hebrew Bibles written by men in the service of idolatry.
(17) v. p. 429, n. 5.
(18) Lit., ???him??? ??? he meant himself but used the third person owing to a reluctance to speak even hypothetically of evil befalling himself.
(19) Isa. LVII, 8; they know of the true God, but have rejected Him, thrusting Him out of sight, as it were.
(20) The reference is to the trial of a wife accused of adultery; v. Num. V, 23f.
(21) Not only do they themselves go astray from God, but lead many others astray from Him.
(22) Ps. CXXXIX, 21f.
(23) The meeting place of early Christians where religious controversies were held (Jast.). Rashi: the books written for the purpose of these controversies; v. also Weiss, Dor, III, p. 166 and n. 13. [The meaning of Be Abedan is still obscure in spite of the many and varied explanations suggested; e.g., (a) House of the Ebionites; (b) Abadan (Pers.) ???forum???; © Beth Mebedhan (Pers.) ???House of the chief Magi???; v. Krauss's Synagogale Altertumer, p. 31].
(24) V. supra 113a.
(25) hprmb hc; a meeting place of the Nazarenes, Jewish Christians, where local matters were discussed and religious debates were held. (Levy).
[Ginzberg, MGWJ LXXVIII, p. 23 regards it as the name of a Persian house of worship meaning the Asylum of Helplessness].
(26) This of course was merely an evasion.
(27) It will leave a hole and render the road impassable.
(28) I am well acquainted with them.
(29) Uncensored text adds: R. Meir called it (the Gospel) ???Awen Gilyon, the falsehood of blank Paper; R. Johanan called it ???Awon Gilyon, the sin of etc. On the whole passage v. Herford, op. cit., pp. 161-171.
(30) Rashi: min (i.e., sectarian).

Mas Shabbat 116a

Christian sources from the fourth century, relying on much more ancient material, also agree with this assessment:

Moreover, they [the Ebionites] deny that he was a man, evidently on the ground of the
word which the Saviour spoke when it was reported to him:
"Behold, your mother and your brethren stand without." namely:"Who is my mother and who are my brethren?"And he stretched his hand towards his disciples and said:"These are my brethren and mother and sisters, who do the will of my Father."
(Epiphanius, Panarion 30.14.5)

And here is some more commentary on the Ebionites having heretical interpretations that the Nazarenes did not:

[The Ebionites] say that Messiah was not begotten of Elohm the Father, but created as one of
the archangels ... that he rules over the angels and all the creatures of the Almighty, and that he came and declared, as their Gospel, which is called Gospel according to Matthew, or Gospel According to the Hebrews?,reports:

"I am come to do away with sacrfices, and if you cease not sacrificing, the wrath of Elohim will not cease from you."
(Epiphanius, Panarion 30.16,4-5)

But [The Ebionites] abandon the proper sequence of the words and pervert the saying,as is plain to all from the readings attached, and have let the disciples say:

"Where will you have us prepare the passover?" And him to answer to that: "Do I desire with desire at this Passover to eat flesh with you?"
(Epiphanius, Panarion 30.22.4)

And:

"We shall now especially consider heretics who... call themselves Nazarenes; they are mainly Jews and nothing else. They make use not only of the New Testament, but they also use in a way the Old Testament of the Jews; for they do not forbid the books of the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings... so that they are approved of by the Jews, from whom the Nazarenes do not differ in anything, and they profess all the dogmas pertaining to the prescriptions of the Law and to the customs of the Jews, except they believe in [Messiah]... They preach that there is but one [Elohim], and his son [Yahshua the Messiah]. But they are very learned in the Hebrew language; for they, like the Jews, read the whole Law, then the Prophets...They differ from the Jews because they believe in Messiah, and from the Christians in that they are to this day bound to the Jewish rites, such as circumcision, the Sabbath, and other ceremonies." (Epiphanius; Panarion 29; translated from the Greek).

By saying "use the New Testament", Epiphanus is making a clear distinction from the fourth century that the Nazarenes accepted basically the same corpus of books he used; not just Ebionite Matthew. If you think then dear Albion that the Nazarenes and Ebionites are the same, I urge you to go to their websites now and see if they fit this description. They will tell you no--that they never did accept the rest of the NT and still don't accept it even now. Here is some more evidence to back up the different scriptures used by the two groups, this time from Irenaeus:

Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by Elohim; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of Elohim.

???Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.26.2 (180 CE)

Finally there was a splinter group of Ebionites that are often confused with the ones we are talking about. They believed in a Virgin Birth, but in all other respects shared the beliefs of the others by the same name.

Akhi ALbion, theories are fine and there are many things historically that can be debateable and open to interpretation. This however is not one of those topics. When Rabbinic and early Catholic sources that disagree with each other on everything else agree on this matter and owing to the fact that these people had access to even more ancient material than we do today, the credibility for their combined testimony is about as compelling as ancient records can get. You throw this out and you have to also throw out just about any other beliefs you might have in the relability of Scripture itself and I don't think you want to go down that road.


Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#7
My Brother Andrew,

First, I'm *NOT "A Protestant", Pro-test-ant, of ANY sort.

I protested for literally years, and never saw an ounce of goodness come out of ANY of it. Please don't refer to me with that term again. Thank you.

Well, the Vietnam war DID end, but I honestly don't think that it was we protestors who did it. And, what's WORSE, is that we were DUPED by the Communists. But we were all young in those days, and maybe stupid. PROBABLY STUPID, in fact.

And I'm especially NOT "a Protestant" in the religious sense of the word.

(You know how Jewish folks who don't believe in Messiah Yeshua say "Don't use THAT MAN'S name to me!" ?? That's how strongly I feel about that word.)

I would consider myself "a Messianic Gentile". This is my preferred word.

Secondly. These theories were/are NOT my own, but were put forth by Hugh Schonfield, when he was still a young man, and still a Believer in Yeshua.

I DID transmit them here, as "a theory", and nothing more.

The other book that I mentioned 'The Jewish People and Jesus Christ', by Jakob Jocz, says exactly the same thing that you said here.

I've read Ray Pritz' book extensively, several times, and he too makes the same distinctions as you.

I also read Dawid's excellant paper on the Nazarenes, that he personally sent to me, and he and Pritz share much of the same kind of thinking.

I honestly don't know what "open season on the Nazarenes means".

I've shared my heart many times here about your Jewish people, Messianic Jews, and I have NOTHING but respect for you, especially for you as a friend, a confidant, and a Brother in Messiah.

Not to mention that I have waited anxiously (but happily) for your NAZARENE notes to be a part of my studies along with Mari/P.E.A.C.E.

Your note here hurts me as you know (or you SHOULD KNOW) how much that I've looked up to you, and continue to do so till this day.

OK, I was wrong, I can accept that, but could you not have told me this in private per Matthew's gospel (chapter 18, I think) teaching?

I don't know what more to say. I await for Mari/P.E.A.C.E. in Messiah's Love.

Your Brother, Albion

P.S. If you'll simply go and read my review of Janet Magiera's "Peshitta" (which is really the PeshittO) at Barnes and Nobles Bookstore, where I mention your coming New Covenant translation (and this was over a year ago now), maybe it will help you to really see me in the light of how I feel about you, and about your work.
Reply
#8
NOTE: MY LANGUAGE FROM THE ORIGINAL POST HAS NOW BEEN EDITED OUT SO AS TO SHOW MY REPENTANCE FOR UNINTENTIONALLY HURTING YOU.

Shlama Akhi Albion,

First of all dear brother, where did I call you a Protestant??? I didn't. I said that saying Ebionites and Nazarenes were the same this was LIKE saying Protestants and Mormons were the same thing. I suspect you picked it up from "you both use the Bible" but I didn't mean it in that sense. I look upon you as a righteous believer in Y'shua coming from a Christian tradition but open to Hebraic roots and I simply used some shorthand to say that you are from a popular tradition and you would not want that tradition linked to another group that was far from those beliefs. That was my point. If it didn't come across that way I apologize. And by the way, how exactly was I supposed to know you found the word Protestant so offensive??? It was not used as a put down but in a neutral sense.

I was not being perjorative to Protestantism at all, but using it as a "control example" of mainstream Christian belief that was not the same as Mormonism. It was an EXPRESSION, not a literal accusation.

Secondly, I said I had a problem with what you wrote, not you as a person, friend, brother, someone I look up to and respect. Why is it that I can't say anything about disagreeing with something of yours without you taking it as a personal attack?

Thirdly, I did take the opportunity to say that I have seen a lot of highly critical anti-Nazarene posts here, but I also went out of my way to say it was NOT you I was talking about. And yet, you have again took it as an attack on you. Let me repeat the line I wrote:

Also, I don't understand why it seems to be open season on Nazarenes here lately. Should we Nazarenes respond in kind and say stuff about the rest of the faith traditions here in a place where theological debate is supposed to be avoided? Personally, I am growing weary with these attacks. Historical inquiry is fine. Saying you are not sure about something totally kosher too. But in many cases over the last two months it crossed the line and became a direct assault on our faith. I don't like it, and am going on record about it. And no Albion, I am not talking about you directly, but I have big problems with what you said here because we Nazarenes are not the same as the Evyonim who in our opinion have huge problems doctrinally with us.

I suspect when I said "I am not talking about you directly" that you took it to mean I was doing so indirectly? If so, again I have to clarify. I WAS NOT REFERRING OR TALKING/ATTACKING YOU AT ALL. I WAS NOT INCLUDING YOU IN THE POSTS I HAD A PROBLEM WITH. I ONLY TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY OF THIS POST TO ADDRESS THE OTHERS.

Fourth, I have only heard you describe yourself as a Christian--"Albion from the Christians" and had no idea you called yourself a "Messianic Gentile". I chose "Protestant" again because it is the majority Christian sect in the United States, not being directed at you.

Fifth, I don't like Schonfield at all. I don't care if it was from when he believed or when he did not. I did not see the article you were sent by Yochanan either to know what you were agreeing with. The subject like though was MY THEORY ON THE NAZARENES--meaning yours--not Schonfield's although you mention him too. I was taking issue with YOUR THEORY and not YOU. I take issue with it because it suggests to me that my Nazarene faith is something other than what I know it is, as if I have low Christology as the Evyonim did, when I don't. I also didn't like the idea that my own spritual ancestors in this theory were complicit in Rav Shaul's capture and arrest--can you see why? That actually was something I had a problem with.

In sum Akhi Albion, I meant no offense to you. I was not nor am I angry with you. I was not saying anything against Protestants either but used the term for shorthand for reasons I stated above. If I could re-do I would say something that referenced majority and minority viewpoints getting interchanged or confused for one another, and leave the titles and "yous" out of it. That's what I meant.

I apologize if it came off wrong--really. I know your heart and have praised your yearnings for Mari many times. I didn't write privately first because you posted your view publicly and I did not see my response as attacking you but presenting evidence contrary to your views (and Schonfield's).

Hope this clarifies--I really wish you would not think I am attacking you. I have not. I value you as a brother and friend and that's why I thought I could disagree with you without your taking offense. Now I see I have to strain every word carefully because if there is a way to turn it into something dark that I didn't mean it will be done. So lesson learned. I will be more careful next time I write to you since I don't want you feeling hurt.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#9
Dear Andrew,

Honestly my friend, we just "mis-heard" each other. Let's just leave it at that.OK?

One more question though, were you speaking about 'Tubal-Cain' in the recent talk here about "a strong relative of Cain" (I THINK that) you said?

Just wondering.

Shlama, Albion
Reply
#10
Shlama Albion,

Quote:One more question though, were you speaking about 'Tubal-Cain' in the recent talk here about "a strong relative of Cain" (I THINK that) you said?

If Andrew doesn't mind, I think I can answer that for him. It was his answer to my question elsewhere.

Quote:I am so angry about it that I cannot even speak on it. To give voice to it will simply defile me but it is something I believe all of here would easily and completely reject. I will give one clue, but don't expect me to answer back directly if you guess my meaning, but I may based on your answer give you another hint. But as for being direct and plain spoken on the matter, I will only detail my outrage in Mari/PEACE. That's the only way I can vent on it. My clue is this: I've named the heresy after a powerful descendant of Cain.

Whosever name was chosen, I decided not to push the issue. Obviously it has greatly upset Andrew, and I decided to respect him with a silence on it. I've learned great patience over waiting, like you, for the manifestation of MARI. If it is Andrew's desire to vent this heresy in MARI, then so be it. Just so long as I don't find myself committing the heresy!

~Ryan
Reply
#11
Shlama all---

To answer Albion's question (and to thank Ryan for being so considerate) let me just say that NO, Tubal Cain was not the person I had in mind. I don't want to speak this heresy out loud, but since I posted about it others have asked for clues, and I gave a few. So far, no one has been able to get anywhere though. My clues are Hebrew-based and in code.

I don't see any harm in sharing these clues here, but my responses as to if someone is right or wrong will also be encoded. I have my reasons for this. The main one is I don't want to speak of this horrible thing directly before Mari is out. I may however email the one who gets this right privately to let them know they did, but only if they promise in return not to share the info with anyone else.

So, clue number 1 in the heresy code that I gave here was:

1) The heresy is named after a powerful descendant of Cain.

Clue #2 is a confirmation if you figured out clue #1.

2) The powerful man sought the king with letters, but the king threw the letters back at him and altered the sound. The ornament of the shade is joined.

Clue #3 is about who said what I am so upset abut:

3) He has proclaimed for himself, 'I am my own great one' and he has drawn forth controversy from pure waters. The beginning of his end is spelled, depending on the grammarian, with the 11th or 19th letter of Noah's first son.

You can email me privately also if you like via PM with any ideas.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)