Judeo-Christians

JUDEO-CHRISTIANS. - These are converts to the Christian faith from Judaism, who originally constituted the entire community of the Church of Jerusalem and had as its head the apostle St. James, called the Less, a relative of the Lord. Although they believed in the messiahship of Jesus and in his Resurrection, they preserved the mentality and ritual practices of Judaism and intended that those who came to the Church from paganism should also submit to them, circumcision not excluded. Concerning the controversy that agitated the early days of the Jerusalem community in the face of the universalistic vision upheld and practiced by St. Paul the apostle, v. PAOLO, santo.

The siege of Jerusalem by the army of Vespasian and Titus (70 A.D.) forced a good part of the Judeo-Christian community of the city to withdraw to Pella under the leadership of St. Simeon, cousin of the Lord, successor of James the Less who had suffered martyrdom by order of Agrippa I; and then, after the destruction of the city by Hadrian (130), the remaining Judeo-Christians (Simeon had already suffered martyrdom under Trajan around 107) dispersed into Transjordan, Galilee and Perea.

The prestige that came to the small community from having been governed at the beginning by "brothers of the Lord" (Δεσπόσυνο); its cohesion maintained by the use of its own Gospel, that "according to the Hebrews," in part echoing the Gospel of St. Matthew; its aversion for St. Paul, considered a renegade from Judaism; the habit of a retired and poor life that ended up causing them to be confused with the Ebionites (v.); all this meant that the Judeo-Christians preserved to the end a particular character of their own. After the 4th century every trace of them is lost.

The principal source for the history of the Judeo-Christians is St. Epiphanius (Haer., 29-30). Epiphanius distinguishes the Nazoreans and the Ebionites. "Nazoreans" would have been, at the beginning, the designation of all Christians; later (or earlier) they would also have called themselves Iesseans, from Jesse, father of David (ibid., 29, 1, 3) or from the name of Jesus (ibid., 29, 4, 9). They observe the Law and circumcision (ibid., 29, 4, 4), and the Sabbath (ibid., 29, 7, 5); and they must not be confused either with the Nazirites of the Old Testament (ibid., 29, 5, 7), nor with the Jewish sect of the Nazareans (ibid., 29, 6, 1) which Epiphanius treats in Haer., 18. They have the New Testament and the canon of the Old Testament (ibid., 29, 7, 2), they teach the Resurrection, creation and monotheism (ibid., 29, 7, 3). On their Christological doctrine Epiphanius knows nothing precise (ibid., 29, 7, 6). The Nazoreans live in the surroundings of Berea, in the parts of Pella and in Kokaba. The Nazoreans at Pella would be the descendants of the Judeo-Christians of Jerusalem, who before the destruction of that city received the order of God to go to Pella (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., III, 5, 3; Epiphanius, ibid., 29, 7, 8). The Nazoreans are hated by the Jews and three times a day anathematized by them in their prayers (ibid., 29, 9, 2). They have a complete Gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew language. In contrast, however, with this affirmation, that their Gospel of Matthew was complete, stands the affirmation of Epiphanius himself, that he did not know whether such a Gospel contained the genealogy of Christ (ibid., 29, 9, 4).

As can be seen, this account of Epiphanius is not too unfavorable to the Nazoreans.

Much harsher, on the other hand, is the criticism of Epiphanius regarding the Ebionites, of whom he speaks in Haer., 30. Their founder would have been a certain Ebion (ibid., 30, 1, 1; the name 'ebhūm would mean poor (ibid., 30, 17, 1, 2). He would have united all the Jewish and Judeo-Christian heresies (ibid., 30, 1, 3). Ebion taught, according to Epiphanius, that Jesus was the natural son of Joseph (ibid., 30, 2, 2; 3, 1; 14, 4); he observed the Law, the Sabbath and circumcision (ibid., 30, 3, 2), was a baptist, and purified himself continually when he touched a stranger or met a woman. The ablution took place with his clothes on (ibid., 30, 3, 5). This scrupulousness in purifications Ebion would have taken from the Samaritans. He was nevertheless opposed to the ideal of virginity and continence (ibid., 30, 2, 7), although previously the ideal of virginity would have been known also to the Ebionites because of the otherwise unknown writings of James to the presbyters and to the virgins (ibid., 30, 2, 7). Ebion would have gone after the destruction of Jerusalem and before the Nazoreans to Kokaba (ibid., 30, 7, 8; cf. 18, 1), where Nazoreans and Ebionites would have exchanged their ideas, and where a fusion with the ideas of Elkesai would also have taken place (ibid., 30, 3, 2). The Ebionites are, according to Epiphanius, characterized by the great variety of their Christological opinions. According to some the Christ would be identical with Adam (ibid., 30, 3, 3); others teach that Christ would have been created before all things, would be the Spirit and would have dominion over all the angels (ibid., 30, 3, 4; according to 30, 16, 4, Christ himself would be one of the archangels); according to others Christ would have appeared among the patriarchs and at the end would have clothed himself with the body of Adam (ibid., 30, 3, 5); finally others believe that Christ would have been the spirit that would have clothed Jesus (ibid., 30, 3, 6). The Ebionites use exclusively the Gospel of Matthew (ibid., 30, 3, 7), by them called the Gospel according to the Hebrews (30, 3, 7). Of this Gospel of the Ebionites Epiphanius gives some notable citations (ibid., 30, 13). Epiphanius affirms that this Gospel would also have been the Gospel of Cerinthus and Carpocrates (ibid., 14, 1). Missing in this Gospel was the narrative of the infancy of Jesus and his genealogy. The account begins with John the Baptist (ibid., 14, 2). Through the Ebionites they knew the travels of Peter, which however would have been falsified (ibid., 15, 1-3), then the two letters of the same Clement to the virgins (ibid., 15, 2). The Ebionites are, according to Epiphanius, Hemerobaptists (ibid., 15, 3 and 16, 1) and do not eat meat (ibid., 15, 3), because meat comes from carnal union (ibid., 15, 4). Moreover they also know the Sacrament of Baptism (ibid., 16, 1) but in the Eucharist they use unleavened bread and drink water (ibid., 16, 1). According to their Gospel Jesus came to abolish sacrifices (ibid., 16, 5). They do not have the Acts of the Apostles of Luke, but other Acts. They reject the Apostle of the gentiles who would have been originally also a pagan and would have made himself a Jew only out of desire for the daughter of a priest (ibid., 30, 16, 8, 9). The Ebionites have presbyters and archisynagogues and call their churches synagogues (ibid., 18, 2). They explain their name by the community of goods in Jerusalem (ibid., 17, 2). They recognize the patriarchs and reject the prophets (ibid., 18, 4, and 18, 9); they call Jesus the prophet of truth, who after many moral efforts would have become "Son of God" with divine assistance (ibid., 18, 5). Of the Pentateuch they do not accept everything. They make a selection in the text (18, 7) and say that it would not be necessary to read the Law, from the time the Gospel has come, basing themselves also on (private) revelations of Christ (30, 18, 7-9). It is therefore no wonder that they have many apocryphal writings under the name of James, Matthew, John and other disciples of the Lord (30, 23, 1-2). Such is the account of Epiphanius on the Ebionites.

As for his reports on the Nazarenes and the Ebionites, this distinction of two groups among the Judeo-Christians is not an innovation of Epiphanius, but was an old Christian tradition (Origen, C. Celsum, 5, 61-65). What is falsely novel is rather that the two groups received the two distinct designations of Nazarenes and Ebionites. Origen still spoke of two groups of Ebionites. It is evident that in reality Nazarenes and Ebionites were general names for all Judeo-Christians. They were called Nazarenes as adherents of Jesus of Nazareth (the explanation of the name as "observants," again defended by H. J. Schoeps, Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums, Tübingen 1949, p. 10, n. 2, has been contested by H. H. Schaeder, in G. Kittel, Theolog. Wörterbuch, IV, p. 879 ff.); "ebhōnīm" means "poor," as aspirants to the world to come, while in this world they are oppressed and poor. The distinction is motivated by Epiphanius with the mention of the founder of a group, Ebion, probably mentioned for the first time by Hippolytus. There is perhaps something true in the acceptance of a person who had theological authority among the Judeo-Christians, but the name of this person has been lost; only the nickname remained: Ebion.

Epiphanius asserts that the Judeo-Christians arrived in the places he recalled shortly before or after the destruction of the Temple. This is partly true. But perhaps they were already in these regions much earlier; in fact St. Paul went to Arabia (that is, Nabatea) after his conversion (Gal. 1:17), and it may be that he became acquainted with certain Judeo-Christian traditions that can be traced in his letters, precisely in that region. It may be that the great variety of theological opinions among the Judeo-Christians was in part also caused by sociological reasons. Already in the Christian community of Jerusalem, alongside the group that lived in common (Acts 2:44), there were others who remained outside it. This must have led to two distinct forms of life, with possible ideological consequences. The Ebionites of Epiphanius explain their name by the community of goods in Jerusalem (Haer., 30, 17, 2); that is, it means that their poverty is an ascetic renunciation, and this is interesting because it suggests the existence of Judeo-Christian ascetics in forms that seem to foreshadow the future Palestinian asceticism. Epiphanius found the ideas of the Judeo-Christians regarding sexual asceticism to be contradictory.

Some would have been favorable to virginity, while others would instead have recommended marriage at a young age. But this contrast would perhaps be resolved in part by the hypothesis of the existence of ascetic groups alongside a local community. That the organization of the local communities of these Judeo-Christians followed the example of the Jews cannot be surprising (Haer., 30, 18, 2); but the assertion that the Sabbath was observed is probably incomplete, because it is known from Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, 27, 5, source unknown) that the Ebionites also celebrated Sunday and not only the Sabbath. Epiphanius had not come into contact with the Judeo-Christians in Palestine, and for this reason his account is an indigestible mass of things. He knew what was written about Elkesai and had read a catholic recension of the pseudo-Clementine writings, but he was unable to place historically the reports he had read. Therefore his assertions of a fusion between Elkesaites and Ebionites and about the purifications (Samastian!) are suspect. On the other hand, he lacked knowledge of the doctrine on sin among the Judeo-Christians and likewise of their eschatological ideas. His reports on the various Christologies do not give much clarity. The distinction between those who taught that Jesus was the natural son of Joseph and others who accepted the virginal birth of Mary lacks precision, because even the acceptance of the virginal birth did not yet contain (as appears from Origen, In Math. comm., XVI, 12, and Eusebius, Hist. eccl., III, 27, 3) necessarily the affirmation of the dogma of the divine Incarnation. The report on the identification of Christ with Adam, Epiphanius took from the pseudo-Clementine writings. More interesting is his attribution of the doctrine of Christ as archangel (Haer., 30, 3, 4 and 16, 4) to the Ebionites, on account of the analogous doctrine in the Shepherd of Hermas. For the reconstruction of Judeo-Christian doctrines, a simple collection of texts in which Nazarenes and Ebionites are mentioned is not enough; one must consult the whole patristic literature in order to reach the bottom of the ideas that led to the development of Judeo-Christianity and had, especially in Syria, an importance much greater than is generally believed for the history of the Church.

Erik Peterson