JUDEO-CHRISTIANS. - These are converts to the Christian faith from Judaism, who originally constituted the entire community of the Church of Jerusalem and had at its head the Apostle St. James, called the Less, a relative of the Lord. Though they believed in the messiahship of Jesus and in His Resurrection, they retained the mentality and ritual practices of Judaism and insisted that these be observed even by those who came to the Church from paganism, including circumcision. Regarding 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. APOLLO, santo.
The siege of Jerusalem by the army of Vespasian and Titus (A.D. 70) forced a large part of the Judeo-Christian community of the city to withdraw to Pella under the leadership of St. Simeon, the Lord’s cousin, 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 groups (Simeon had already suffered martyrdom under Trajan around 107) dispersed throughout Transjordan, Galilee, and Perea.
The prestige that the small community derived from being governed at the outset by “brothers of the Lord” (ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ κυρίου), its cohesion maintained by the use of its own Gospel, the “Gospel according to the Hebrews,” partly echoing the Gospel of St. Matthew; its aversion to St. Paul, whom it regarded as a transgressor of Judaism; and its practice of a withdrawn and poor life that ended by causing it to be confused with the Ebionites (v.); all this meant that the Judeo-Christians retained until the end a distinctive character of their own. After the 4th century, no trace of them remains.
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 outset, the name given to all Christians; later (or earlier) they would also have been called Iessaei, from Jesse, father of David (ibid., 29, 1, 3) or from the name of Jesus (ibid., 29, 4, 9). They observed the Law and circumcision (ibid., 29, 4, 4), and the Sabbath (ibid., 29, 7, 5); and they should not be confused with the Nazirites of the Old Testament (ibid., 29, 5, 7), nor with the Jewish sect of the Nazareans (ibid., 29, 6, 1) dealt with by Epiphanius in Haer., 18. They possessed the New Testament and the canon of the Old Testament (ibid., 29, 7, 2), taught the Resurrection, creation, and monotheism (ibid., 29, 7, 3). Regarding their Christological doctrine, Epiphanius has no precise information (ibid., 29, 7, 6). The Nazoreans lived in the vicinity of Beroea, in the regions of Pella and in Cocaba. The Nazoreans at Pella would be the descendants of the Judeo-Christians of Jerusalem, who, before the destruction of that city, received the order from God to go to Pella (Eusebius, Hist. ecc., III, 5; Epiphanius, ibid., 29, 7, 8). The Nazoreans were hated by the Jews and were anathematized three times a day in their prayers (ibid., 29, 9, 2). They possessed a complete Gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew language. In contrast, however, to this assertion that their Gospel of Matthew was complete, stands Epiphanius’ statement that he did not know whether this Gospel contained the genealogy of Christ (ibid., 29, 9, 4).
As can be seen, this account by Epiphanius is not overly unfavorable to the Nazoreans.
Far harsher, however, is Epiphanius’ criticism of the Ebionites, of whom he speaks in Haer., 30. Their founder would have been a certain Ebion (ibid., 30, 1, 1), whose poverty Epiphanius judged to be genuine (ibid., 30, 17, 1, 2). He would have united all Jewish and Judeo-Christian heresies (ibid., 30, 1, 3). According to Epiphanius, Ebion taught that Jesus was the natural son of Joseph (ibid., 30, 2, 2; 3, 1; 14, 4); observed the Law, the Sabbath, and circumcision (ibid., 30, 3, 2), was a baptist, and continually purified himself when he touched a stranger or met a woman. The washing took place with clothes on (ibid., 30, 3, 5). This scrupulosity in purification Ebion would have taken from the Samaritans. He was, however, opposed to the ideal of virginity and continence (ibid., 30, 2, 7), although previously the ideal of virginity would have been known among the Ebionites because of otherwise unknown writings of James to the presbyters and to virgins (ibid., 30, 2, 7). After the destruction of Jerusalem and before the Nazoreans, Ebion would have gone to Cocaba (ibid., 30, 7, 8; cf. 18, 1), where Nazoreans and Ebionites would have exchanged ideas, and where a fusion with the ideas of Elkesai would also have taken place (ibid., 30, 3, 2). According to Epiphanius, the Ebionites are characterized by the great variety of their Christological opinions. According to some, Christ would be identical with Adam (ibid., 30, 3, 3); others teach that Christ would have been created first, 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 who clothed Jesus (ibid., 30, 3, 6). The Ebionites used exclusively the Gospel of Matthew (ibid., 30, 3, 7), which they called the Gospel according to the Hebrews (30, 3, 7). Of this Gospel of the Ebionites, Epiphanius gives some noteworthy quotations (ibid., 30, 13). Epiphanius asserts that this Gospel would also have been the Gospel of Cerinthus and Carpocrates (ibid., 14, 1). The narrative of the infancy of Jesus and His genealogy were lacking in this Gospel. The account begins with John the Baptist (ibid., 14, 2). Through the Ebionites, they knew the Acts of Peter, which, however, would have been falsified (ibid., 15, 1-3), and then the two letters of the same Clement to the virgins (ibid., 15, 2). According to Epiphanius, the Ebionites were emerobaptists (ibid., 15, 3 and 16, 1) and did not eat meat (ibid., 15, 3), because meat comes from carnal union (ibid., 15, 4). They also knew the Sacrament of Baptism (ibid., 16, 1), but in the Eucharist they used unleavened bread and drank water (ibid., 16, 1). According to their Gospel, Jesus came to abolish sacrifices (ibid., 16, 5). They did not have the Acts of the Apostles of Luke, but other Acts. They rejected the Apostle to the Gentiles, whom they claimed had originally been a pagan and had become a Jew only out of desire for the daughter of a priest (ibid., 30, 16, 8, 9). The Ebionites had presbyters and archisynagogues and called their churches synagogues (ibid., 18, 2). They explained their name by the community of goods in Jerusalem (ibid., 17, 2). They recognized the patriarchs and rejected the prophets (ibid., 18, 4, and 18, 9); they called Jesus the prophet of truth, who after many moral efforts would have become “Son of God” through divine concurrence (ibid., 18, 5). From the Pentateuch they did not accept everything. They made a selection in the text (18, 7) and said that it would no longer be necessary to read the Law since the coming of the Gospel, basing this also on private revelations of Christ (30, 18, 7-9). It is therefore not surprising that they had many apocryphal writings under the names of James, Matthew, John, and other disciples of the Lord (30, 23, 1-2). This is Epiphanius’ account of the Ebionites.
As for his information on the Nazarenes and Ebionites, this distinction between two groups among the 9. is not a novelty of Epiphanius, but rather an old Christian tradition (Origen, C. Celsum, 5, 61-65). What is false, however, is the novelty that the two groups received the two distinct denominations 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 the 9. They were called Nazarenes and Ebionites as adherents of Jesus of Nazareth (the explanation of the name as "observant," 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, pp. 879 sg.); "ebionim" means "poor," as aspirants to the future world, while in this world they are oppressed and poor. The distinction is motivated by Epiphanius with the mention of the founder of one group, Ebion, first probably mentioned by Hippolytus. There may be some truth in accepting a person who had theological authority among the 9., but the name of this person has been lost; only the nickname "Ebion" remains.
Epiphanius states that the 9. reached the places he recalls shortly before or after the destruction of the Temple. This is partly true. But perhaps they were already in these regions much earlier; indeed, St. Paul went to Arabia (i.e., Nabatea) after his conversion (Gal. 1, 17) and may have become acquainted with some 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 9. is partly due to sociological reasons as well. Already in the Christian community of Jerusalem, alongside the group that lived in common (Acts 2, 44), there were others who remained outside II. This must have led to two distinct forms of life, with possible ideological consequences. The Ebionites of Epiphanius explain their name with the community of goods in Jerusalem (Haer., 30, 17, 2); that is, their poverty means an ascetic renunciation, and this is interesting because it suggests the existence of Judeo-Christian ascetics in forms that seem to anticipate future Palestinian asceticism. Epiphanius found conflicting ideas among the 9. regarding sexual asceticism.
Some would have favored virginity, while others recommended early marriage. But this contrast might 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 9. followed the example of the Jews is not surprising (Haer., 30, 18, 2); but the assertion that the Sabbath was observed is probably incomplete, because it is known from Eusebius (Hist. ecc., III, 27, 5, source unknown) that the Ebionites celebrated Sunday as well as the Sabbath. Epiphanius had not come into contact with the 9. in Palestine, and for this reason his account is an indigestible mass of things. He knew what was written about Eleazar and had read a Catholic review of the pseudo-Clementine writings, but he was unable to place the information he read in its historical context. Hence his statements about a fusion between the Eccleasians and the Ebionites or about Samaritan purifications are suspect. On the other hand, he lacked knowledge of the doctrine of sin among the 9., as well as of their eschatological ideas. His information on their various Christologies does not provide 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 (as is clear from Origen, In Math. comm., XVI, 12, and Eusebius, Hist. ecc., III, 27, 3) necessarily imply the affirmation of the dogma of the divine Incarnation. The notice about the identification of Christ with Adam Epiphanius took from the pseudo-Clementine writings. More interesting is his attribution to the Ebionites of the doctrine of Christ as archangel (Haer., 30, 3, 4 and 16, 4) on account of the analogous doctrine in the Shepherd of Hermas. For the reconstruction of Judeo-Christian doctrines, a mere collection of texts where Nazarenes and Ebionites are mentioned is not enough; one must consult all patristic literature to reach the depths of the ideas that led to the development of Judeo-Christianity and had, especially in Syria, a much greater importance for the history of the Church than is generally believed.