From the Jewish Sect of Nazarenes to Gentile Christianity
But for the flagrant indiscretions of the insufferable Stephen, the simple faith of the sect of Nazarenes, along with the "vile superstition" of a resurrected god-man, might have died a natural death in its native Palestine, what with the proverbial stiff-neckedness of the Jews and the encumbering influence of the conservatives of the "circumcision party.
" The persecution of the "Nazarenes" after the martyrdom of Stephen, rather than the conversion of Constantine, was the chief accident of history which placed the resurrection story on a world conquering course.
The martyrdom of Stephen and the persecution of the Nazarenes, which followed, forced the exportation of the message from its birthplace of Palestine to Antioch of Syria where in its naive simplicity it ran smack into the world of the Greek mind with its festering discontent with truth simply packaged and once delivered.
The invaluable record of the gentile physician, Luke, bears testimony to the fateful transition, early in the history of the movement, from the simple faith of the sect of Nazarenes to the all-conquering gentile religion of Christianity.
Christianity, as we know it today, began with the founding of the first Greek-Gentile church in the great city of Antioch, capital of Syria, the third city of the Roman Empire, only after Alexandria and the city of Rome in importance.
It is not incidental, especially in the context of the politics of the Jerusalem Church, that the "gentilizing" progressives in the early Church would soon converge on Antioch under the leadership of the hellenized Cilician Jew, Paul, who may justifiably be described as the founder of the gentilized version of the religion of the Nazarenes whose adherents came, for the first time, to be known as "Christians" at Antioch of Syria.
And what became of the sect of the Nazarenes with the ascendancy of Christianity? The initial evangelical offensive of the Nazarenes in Judea appears to have waned in vigor with the onset of the Stephenite persecution.
The Jerusalem group was forced by the Antioch group to hand over the baton of Church history.
And we witness the transition in the thirteenth chapter of the Book of Acts in which the preceding chapters appear to have deliberately delved on Peter's evangelizing mission amongst proselytizing gentiles only as a means to preparing the reader for the Pauline mission which would follow.
The attitude of the core leadership of the Jerusalem sect of Nazarenes to the gentile mission could only have been ambivalent.
The historic decision of the Jerusalem Council could only have been a cautious concession in the tradition of "Gamalielian" wisdom: "Lest we be found to fight against God.
" Quite apart from the failure of the Nazarenes to convert the Jewish nation to its viewpoint, one may see in the post-Pentecostal re-alignment of forces which brought James the "Lord's brother" to prominence, the circumstances which bound the sect of Nazarenes to extinction.
Why should the succession to leadership of the group have become hereditary? Tradition insists that a cousin of James took over leadership of the group after the martyrdom of James in 62 A.
D.
What qualified James for leadership of the church besides his blood relationship to the Messiah? The circumstances which favored the takeover of leadership by James must have been very closely associated with the ascendancy of a conservative group made up, probably, of the Pharisee supporters of Jesus in his lifetime.
The ascendancy of this group was to become a significant factor in the failure of the Nazarenes to seize the initiative in the context of the need for change forced by the circumstances of history.
The evidence, from the decision of the Jerusalem Council, suggests that James was of a relatively moderate persuasion, even though his headship of the Jerusalem Church had been sponsored by the conservatives of the "circumcision party.
" One cannot but detect evidence of a potentially more effective leadership in the party of moderates led by Peter, and consisting mostly of the original twelve Apostles and their associates.
And, indeed, one feels sympathy for the rightful heir to headship of the Nazarenes.
Peter was thrust aside by a newly dominant conservative group (being merely an uneducated fisherman?) which sponsored James' headship, probably only because James was the brother of the Messiah (there is no evidence that he was a better educated man than Peter).
We find Peter wedged between two opposing forces in the early church, vacillating in deference to the influential "party of the circumcision" when it was obvious, from his actions, that he would have considered steering the ship of the group's destiny into the uncharted waters of the gentile world.
The circumstances augured well for that bold and impetuous Cilician Jew, Paul.
While Peter vacillated, he grabbed lustily at the opportunity: "Am I not also an Apostle?" "Oh, how I wish they'd not only cut off the foreskin, but that they would chop off the entire dammed thing in the process!" It was left to Paul to assert the independence of the Gentile mission of the Jerusalem conservatives.
The sympathies of the moderates gravitated in time to his side.
The forces of history favored Paul of Tarsus.
The destruction of Jerusalem in A.
D.
70 by Roman forces and Hadrian's edict of A.
D.
135, which excluded all Jews from Judea and converted Jerusalem into a Greek city (Aelia Capitolina)--complete with pagan theaters and temples--afforded Christianity the opportunity to march on unmindful of its Jewish Nazarene roots.
Forsaken of Christianity; forsaken of Judaism, the Nazarenes could only have languished into obscurity and finally extinction.
By A.
D.
85, the sect of Nazarenes had been excommunicated by the Jewish religious authorities: May the Nazarenes be destroyed suddenly and their names removed from the book of life.
As late as the Fourth Century A.
D.
, small groups of the sect would persist in Syria, looking up to James the "Lord's brother" as spiritual mentor, even as the gentile church looked up to St.
Paul.
Christian commentators, forgetful of their roots, would class these groups amongst the heretical sects of Christianity, and there would never be lacking sincere souls in the gentile christian world who would regret that the Jewish nation, in rejecting the Messiah, missed the cart of national salvation.
" The persecution of the "Nazarenes" after the martyrdom of Stephen, rather than the conversion of Constantine, was the chief accident of history which placed the resurrection story on a world conquering course.
The martyrdom of Stephen and the persecution of the Nazarenes, which followed, forced the exportation of the message from its birthplace of Palestine to Antioch of Syria where in its naive simplicity it ran smack into the world of the Greek mind with its festering discontent with truth simply packaged and once delivered.
The invaluable record of the gentile physician, Luke, bears testimony to the fateful transition, early in the history of the movement, from the simple faith of the sect of Nazarenes to the all-conquering gentile religion of Christianity.
Christianity, as we know it today, began with the founding of the first Greek-Gentile church in the great city of Antioch, capital of Syria, the third city of the Roman Empire, only after Alexandria and the city of Rome in importance.
It is not incidental, especially in the context of the politics of the Jerusalem Church, that the "gentilizing" progressives in the early Church would soon converge on Antioch under the leadership of the hellenized Cilician Jew, Paul, who may justifiably be described as the founder of the gentilized version of the religion of the Nazarenes whose adherents came, for the first time, to be known as "Christians" at Antioch of Syria.
And what became of the sect of the Nazarenes with the ascendancy of Christianity? The initial evangelical offensive of the Nazarenes in Judea appears to have waned in vigor with the onset of the Stephenite persecution.
The Jerusalem group was forced by the Antioch group to hand over the baton of Church history.
And we witness the transition in the thirteenth chapter of the Book of Acts in which the preceding chapters appear to have deliberately delved on Peter's evangelizing mission amongst proselytizing gentiles only as a means to preparing the reader for the Pauline mission which would follow.
The attitude of the core leadership of the Jerusalem sect of Nazarenes to the gentile mission could only have been ambivalent.
The historic decision of the Jerusalem Council could only have been a cautious concession in the tradition of "Gamalielian" wisdom: "Lest we be found to fight against God.
" Quite apart from the failure of the Nazarenes to convert the Jewish nation to its viewpoint, one may see in the post-Pentecostal re-alignment of forces which brought James the "Lord's brother" to prominence, the circumstances which bound the sect of Nazarenes to extinction.
Why should the succession to leadership of the group have become hereditary? Tradition insists that a cousin of James took over leadership of the group after the martyrdom of James in 62 A.
D.
What qualified James for leadership of the church besides his blood relationship to the Messiah? The circumstances which favored the takeover of leadership by James must have been very closely associated with the ascendancy of a conservative group made up, probably, of the Pharisee supporters of Jesus in his lifetime.
The ascendancy of this group was to become a significant factor in the failure of the Nazarenes to seize the initiative in the context of the need for change forced by the circumstances of history.
The evidence, from the decision of the Jerusalem Council, suggests that James was of a relatively moderate persuasion, even though his headship of the Jerusalem Church had been sponsored by the conservatives of the "circumcision party.
" One cannot but detect evidence of a potentially more effective leadership in the party of moderates led by Peter, and consisting mostly of the original twelve Apostles and their associates.
And, indeed, one feels sympathy for the rightful heir to headship of the Nazarenes.
Peter was thrust aside by a newly dominant conservative group (being merely an uneducated fisherman?) which sponsored James' headship, probably only because James was the brother of the Messiah (there is no evidence that he was a better educated man than Peter).
We find Peter wedged between two opposing forces in the early church, vacillating in deference to the influential "party of the circumcision" when it was obvious, from his actions, that he would have considered steering the ship of the group's destiny into the uncharted waters of the gentile world.
The circumstances augured well for that bold and impetuous Cilician Jew, Paul.
While Peter vacillated, he grabbed lustily at the opportunity: "Am I not also an Apostle?" "Oh, how I wish they'd not only cut off the foreskin, but that they would chop off the entire dammed thing in the process!" It was left to Paul to assert the independence of the Gentile mission of the Jerusalem conservatives.
The sympathies of the moderates gravitated in time to his side.
The forces of history favored Paul of Tarsus.
The destruction of Jerusalem in A.
D.
70 by Roman forces and Hadrian's edict of A.
D.
135, which excluded all Jews from Judea and converted Jerusalem into a Greek city (Aelia Capitolina)--complete with pagan theaters and temples--afforded Christianity the opportunity to march on unmindful of its Jewish Nazarene roots.
Forsaken of Christianity; forsaken of Judaism, the Nazarenes could only have languished into obscurity and finally extinction.
By A.
D.
85, the sect of Nazarenes had been excommunicated by the Jewish religious authorities: May the Nazarenes be destroyed suddenly and their names removed from the book of life.
As late as the Fourth Century A.
D.
, small groups of the sect would persist in Syria, looking up to James the "Lord's brother" as spiritual mentor, even as the gentile church looked up to St.
Paul.
Christian commentators, forgetful of their roots, would class these groups amongst the heretical sects of Christianity, and there would never be lacking sincere souls in the gentile christian world who would regret that the Jewish nation, in rejecting the Messiah, missed the cart of national salvation.
Source...