You are here:   Christianity > Jews, Christians and Judaeo-Christians
 

Another distinguishing mark of the Jerusalem Jewish Christians was religious communism. "No one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common" (Acts 4:32). They were not formally obliged to divest themselves of their property and goods, as was the case with the Essenes, but there was strong moral pressure and not to do so would have been judged improper.

So prior to the admission of Gentile candidates, the affiliates of the Jesus party appeared to ordinary people in Jerusalem as representatives of a Jewish sect. They reminded them of the Essenes, who were comparable in number, and exhibited similar customs such as the daily solemn meal and life from a common kitty. Indeed, the followers of Jesus were referred to in the late Fifties of the first century as the "sect [hairesis] of the Nazarenes" (Acts 24:5, 14) and in later patristic literature the Judaeo-Christians were designated as the Ebionites or "the Poor". The Church Fathers, who counted the Ebionites as heretics, sarcastically (and mistakenly) interpreted the title as pointing to the poverty of the Ebionites' beliefs. If the final sentence of the Jesus notice of Josephus is accepted as genuine then the Palestinian Jewish-Christian community still existed in the Holy Land after the war against Rome in 66-73/4 CE. The Testimonium Flavianum (Jewish Antiquities 18. 63-4) in fact speaks of them as a tribe (phylon) of the Jewish nation. In his turn, the church historian Eusebius (260-339 CE) reports that up to the war of Bar Kokhba (132-5 CE) all the 13 bishops of Jerusalem, starting with James, the brother of Jesus, came from the "circumcision" (Ecclesiastical History 4. 3, 5).

The author of the Acts of the Apostles identifies the big demographic watershed regarding the composition of the Jesus movement. I do not allude here to the admission, despite Jesus's earlier prohibition, of the Samaritans into the church by Peter and John (Acts 8:16-7), for the Samaritans were Jews, inhabitants of the former northern kingdom of Israel, notwithstanding their differences from the Judaeans in religious traditions (they worshipped on Mount Gerizim and not in Jerusalem and their Bible was restricted to the Law of Moses, without the Prophets and the Writings). Nor was the baptism of an Ethiopian official, the finance minister of Queen Candace (Acts 8:26-38), by the deacon Philip against the accepted rules, because he was already a Jewish proselyte. 

The revolution started around 40 CE with the admission into the church of the family of the Roman centurion Cornelius in Caesarea, and later that of the Gentile members of the mixed Jewish-Greek church in Antioch, not forgetting the many pagan converts of Paul in Syria, Asia Minor and Greece. With them the Jewish monopoly in the new movement came to an end and Jewish and Gentile Christianity was born.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Steve
December 13th, 2011
6:12 PM
Moshe Idel's book "Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism" is a fascinating (if lengthy) discussion of the concept of 'son' in Jewish mysticism, with the New Testament serving as one of point of reference.

Aaron Beach
December 13th, 2011
6:12 PM
John 4 clearly demonstrates Jesus sharing "the gospel" with Samaritans and many believing. The universality of Jesus message is made clear in John 12:32 reflecting prophesies made in Isaiah (every knee shall bow, tongue confess...). Maybe I'm not being inventive enough - but the idea that Paul invented universal salvation or deified Jesus seems interesting but unbiblical.

Charles
December 13th, 2011
4:12 PM
Excuse me, any relatively well-educated person, not only a specialist, knows that Jesus' first followers were Jews and that Gentile Christianity came later.

Jack
December 13th, 2011
3:12 PM
Great article. I just wish that people would accept the truth for a change. Reading this article would be a good start. The idea of the Messiah, for example, implies no divinity. Messiah is just a man based on the Jewish notion. One has to take the Jewish notion since the very idea came from them. Virgin birth: when are we going to accept that this has to do with ignorance about human physiology since "virgin" in the prophecy really means a young girl! What is the number one commandment according to Jesus? It is the Shema! That means only One God and not the Trinity! Not 3 in 1. Only 1. Jesus would be appalled by such nonsense. The faster we accept these simple truths the better and the less idolatry we commit.

Krzysztof Ciuba
December 13th, 2011
1:12 PM
A good article. Like in any science it shine the light on the epistemology of creation of an axiomatic system of knowledge, here, Christianity ( a system's beliefs). True, the historical Jesus considered himself only as a the Son of Man (read even, Benedict xvi, Jesus from Nazareth, ch. on Jesus's titles). Nicene's Creed is the language of...mataphor; that Fathers did not know the subtelity of St.Thomas 'definition" of God (as not an Greek or other religions intuition as the "best of best of....") or syntactical@semantical meanings of such terms like: being, relation, God, Father, Son, and of course the historical person of Jesus from Nazareth, who after conversion (Mk 1:4,9+Stories of BAptism)) started his mission. The title "Son of God" has a meaning but not of a mythical one of Greek Olimp; but The Son of God is not ...God! (S.Th1,2,3+ 20th cent logic+the hermeneutics of NT: Gr. theos in NT writiongs refer mostly to Father

John Quill
December 13th, 2011
11:12 AM
The author's knowledge of the gospels is very superficial. Jesus indeed made strong statements about being sent to the nation of Israel, but several passages make it very clear that the gospel would go to the Gentiles. Three prominent miracles were for non-Jews (healing the centurions servant, healing the Syro-Phoenician woman with an issue of blood, and exorcising a legion of demons into a herd of swine in the Decapolis). The "woman at the well" was a Samaritan, and she evangelized her city. Some of the parables are clearly indicative of Gentile inclusion (tenants, wedding feast) as are prophecies (Abraham, dreams in Daniel, Isaiah 9). We also have clear indications at his birth (blessing of Simeon in Luke 2, visit by the wise men) that Jesus was Lord of all. However, if you don't believe me, then believe Jesus' last instruction to his disciples in Acts 1:8: "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." In short, the church had to start someplace, and the chosen nation of Israel was it. However, the gospel went to the Gentiles rapidly because God has chosen his own from every nation - it was certainly no accident.

Almagor
December 6th, 2011
8:12 AM
It is a sin and a shame that there came to be hostility between the the Christian Jews or the Jewish Christians and the gentile Christians. Jesus never said one negative thing about the religion that God gave to Moses and never said anyone should leave that religion. Christians, later had a lot of hostility against the people who practiced the religion that God gave to Moses because of ignorance of the Bible and ignorance of the meaning of the word Jew. In Jesus day a Jew was a resident of Judea instead of Samaria or the Galilee region. When there are negative things about the Jews said in the Gospels the word can not mean those who practiced the religion that God gave Moses because Jesus was a devout practitioner of that religion and in fact, was a Rabbi. But Gentiles later didn't know that a Jew was a resident of Judea and blamed them for killing Jesus which is ridiculous. God sent Jesus to Earth to teach us about The Father and to be crucified. Since Jesus was crucified to pay for our sins, all of us are responsible for Jesus Crucifixion.

Paddy
December 3rd, 2011
8:12 PM
A most interesting article regarding the early church. Thank you. It is interesting how definitions can change. In modern times (by my unstudied observation), the term Judeo-Christian is popularly used as a propaganda term for those who wish to emphasise the "sameness" between the Jews and the Christians in reference to the Muslims. The reality is that there is much in common between all three religions.

Anonymous
December 1st, 2011
3:12 PM
Jesus most certainly is called the Son of God. Matthew 3:17.

elixelx
December 1st, 2011
7:12 AM
Judge not lest ye be judged; Let he who is without sin cast the first stone: The Gospels. Be deliberate in Judgement! Pirke Aboth. Would the author care to tell us how those two BASIC, FUNDAMENTAL tenets are to be resolved? If you want to enter the kingdom of Heaven give your wealth to the`poor and come follow me... In (Genesis 28:22), Abraham's grandson Jacob also made a commitment to give God back a tenth of his increase if God would fulfill certain conditions like God would be with him and will watch over him on this journey Jacob was taking and would give him food to eat and clothes to wear, so that I return safely to my father’s household (Genesis 28:20-22). Would the author care to explain and resolve the Mitzva of tithing and how having money and increase of riches DISQUALIFIED one from the Kingdom of Heaven? I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. And what does the LORD require of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God?" (NKJV) Would the author care to explain why one group has dirct communication with the Almighty while the other requires an intermediary? Finally, why did the early Christans reject the Oral Law and its practitioners, the Pharisees and come to see these as hypocrites and finally enemies? How did it happen that Jew-haters came to dominate the power of the Church?

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.