Nazarene Jewish Christianity From The en

NAZARENE JEWISH CHRISTIANITY Chapter !
ree - Epiphanius
Chapter Four - Jerome
From the End of the New Testament Period Until Chapter Five - Patristic Evidence a"er Jerome
Its Disappearance in the Fourth Century Chapter Six - !e Gospel According to the Hebrews
Chapter Seven - Jewish Sources
Summary and Conclusions

Appendixes
I - Epiphanius, panarion 29
by II - Geography
III - !e Historicity of the Pella Tradition
Ray A. Pritz
List of Abbreviations
Bibliography
Indices
Scripture References
Jewish Sources
Christian Sources
Modern Authors
Subjects
THE MAGNES PRESS, THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY, JERUSALEM
PREFACE
!is book arose out of a fascination with that elusive

First Edition, 1988 enigma called Jewish Christianity. I first encountered it
Reprinted, 1992 under other names as a modern phenomenon. Many of
its adherents would claim a continuity of community
over the centuries in various places and forms. While
ISBN 965-223-798-1 this may prove to be a less-than-tenable position, it is
clear that sca#ered across the pages of relations
©
between Judaism and Christianity are numerous Jews
Copyright 1992 by !e Magnes Press who, for a wide spectrum of reasons, have a#ached
!e Hebrew University, Jerusalem themselves to the Christian faith. !ese too range wide-
ly, from the self-hating Donins and Pfefferkorns of the
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be later middle ages to the Edersheims and Chwolsons of
reproduced or translated in any form, by print, more recent times, men proud of their Jewish heritage
photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any other and whose scholarly contributions le" no small mark on
means without wri"en permission from the publisher. the search for Christian origins. A comprehensive study
of both phenomena is still desirable.
!e subject of this book was suggested to me over

Christmas dinner by Randall Buth. While I was sur-
CONTENTS prised to find that no comprehensive monograph had
been done on the Nazarenes, the present study is only a
Preface small step in that direction.
Introduction
Chapter One - !e Name of the Sect I would like to thank Prof. David Rokeah of the Hebrew
Chapter Two - Christian Sources before Epiphanius University for his faithful advice and assistance both
Pritz, R. A. (1992). Nazarene Jewish Christianity: from the end of the New Testament period until its disappearance
in the fourth century. Jerusalem: !e Magnes Press.
Exported from Logos Bible Software, 9:53 PM January 12, 2016. 1
during and a"er the completion of this work. I am also that of some free-thinking individual. It has been the
grateful to Dr. Wesley Brown for pu#ing at my disposal interest of the present writer for the past few years to
both the equipment and a quiet place to use it while I trace whatever remains can be found of the heirs of that
was preparing the final manuscripts. And finally, none first Jewish church in Jerusalem, those who “continued
of the work would have been accomplished without the in the apostles’ doctrine.” One event which would seem
generous financial assistance of the Memorial Founda- to provide the first link between that Jerusalem congre-
tion for Jewish Studies and the Warburg Foundation. gation and the Jewish Christianity of patristic writings
is the reported flight to Pella of the Decapolis.3 !is move
Jerusalem, 1987 to Pella was undertaken, according to Epiphanius, by
the sect known as the Nazoraioi (Nazarenes). Or, as
Epiphanius would rather express it, the Nazarenes were
the descendants of those Jerusalem believers who fled to
Pella. If this notice of the Bishop of Salamis is correct,4
Introduction
then we have the desired link and identity of the Jewish
In the course of the last century there has grown an Christian sect which we should investigate.
ever-increasing interest among Church historians in Curiously enough, investigative scholarship has dealt
the phenomenon known as Jewish Christianity.1 !e rel- almost entirely with Ebionism,5 and to date no compre-
ative newness of interest and complexity of the problem hensive monographic work has been dedicated to the
is shown by the large number of articles and chapters Nazarenes,6 nor even to such later “Jewish Christian”
which have been wri#en just a#empting to establish a sects as the Symmachians or Elkesaites. It is the aim of
definition of Jewish Christianity.2 In the end it may the present work to start filling these lacunae.
prove fruitless to define it because it is so varied, but all
should agree that needless argument over the differing
concepts of “Jewish Christianity” can be avoided. To the
student of Early Christianity one thing becomes quickly Chapter One
apparent: in the early centuries there were many off-
!e Name of the Sect
shoot sects having some connection both to New Testa-
ment and to Jewish thought.
!e earliest documentary reference to “Nazarene” as
Even in the writings of some of the Church Fathers
applied to a person is in the New Testament, and refers
from the third and fourth centuries and later, this pro-
to Jesus.1 We do not find it in Paul’s writings, which are
liferation of “Jewish Christian” sects led to confusion
commonly acknowledged to be the earliest of the New
and to the confounding of different sects under the
Testament canon, just as we do not find there the name
name “Ebionite.” So convenient (and subtle) was this
“Christian,” (which is found only in Acts 11:26, 26:28, and
that it has caused not a few modern scholars to make the
1 Pet. 4:16). Likewise, the earliest reference to a sect of
mistake of thinking that if we can box in the phe-
Nazarenes occurs in Acts 24:5, when it is used by Tertul-
nomenon known as Ebionism we will have defined
lus, Paul’s “prosecutor.” While it can be argued that the
Jewish Christianity. But Ebionism was not the direct heir
lawyer Tertullus invented the name for the occasion,2
of the Jewish apostolic church; it was at best only third
there is a tradition as early as Tertullian3 that an early
generation, and to reconcile its doctrines with those of
name for Christians was Nazarenes, and his claim is
the New Testament requires no small amount of mental
borne out by the earliest name in the various semitic
gymnastics.
languages. Obviously the name of the sect came from the
All of the first Christians were Jews, either by birth or
title NAZORAIOS/-NAZARENOS, evidently applied to
by conversion, and yet within a hundred years of the
Jesus from the beginning of his public ministry.
report that tens of thousands “from the circumcision”
had believed in Jesus as Messiah, there remained only Ma!hew 2:23
small, despised pockets of Jewish Christians, and of the-
se a large percentage seem to have been adherents to var- While it is not central to the theme of this study, it will
ious late-blooming hybrids of Christian teaching with prove worthwhile to take a look at the origins of this
name. !e key verse is Ma#hew 2:23, in which it is stat-
ed that Joseph brought Jesus to live in Nazareth that it first—without any explanation—that the name came
might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets “He from Jesse, the father of David. !en he wavers, and con-
shall be called a Nazarene.” !e difficulty is, of course, cedes that it might have come from the name of Jesus,
that no particular prophet says any such thing. It is a giving the impression that he has only the fact of the ear-
commonplace of scriptural criticism that Ma#hew ly name before him without anything but his own con-
quotes “the prophets,”4 which may mean the general jectures to explain it.11 Now if it is true that Nazarenes is
sense of prophecy rather than one particular reference. an earlier name than Christians, as we are told by sever-
While this may be true, the general sense itself is based al Church fathers,12 we must assume that the two
on specific prophetic statements. What passage or pas- pre-“Christian” names were in use simultaneously, if
sages of the Old Testament are both messianic in con- Epiphanius is correct. !e Greek name, Christian, was
tent and somehow connected to the name of Nazareth? first applied in Antioch, probably the earliest mission to
!e solutions which have been proffered are legion, non-Jews, and it is well known that “Christian” was orig-
and it is happily not necessary to go through them all inally used by non-Christians to designate believers
here,5 since this has been done recently by R.H. Gundry6 among the Gentiles, while “Nazarenes” was already used
who deals with the various solutions in their natural in Palestine to describe Jewish adherents to the new
groupings. A%er treating several minor suggestions and messianic sect.
noting their failings, he considers two major theories. Few passages in the Old Testament are more mes-
First, the references in Judges 13:5, 7, and 16:17 to the sianic—even in their early interpretation by Jewish
naziriteship of Samson; and secondly, the recent idea exegetes13—than Isa. 11:1–10. !e phrase in question
that the name came from an earlier Mandaean name reads ‫ויצא חטר מגזע ישי ונצר משרשיו יפרה‬.
perhaps through John the Baptist. !e first possibility
One immediately notices the juxtaposition of the words
was already noted and rejected by Epiphanius (pan. 29
yišaî (Jesse) and neẕer (branch). !is, I believe, can sup-
5,7),7 who sought a connection to the name Nazareth. As
port Epiphanius’ statement that the two names were
Gundry rightly notes, the most serious objection to this
both used before Christian. New Testament references
theory is that Jesus was not in fact a nazirite: “!e Son of
are not lacking to indicate that this verse occupied a posi-
Man has come eating and drinking; and you say ‘Behold,
tion of some importance in the early Church. Acts
a glu#onous man, and a drunkard’ ” (Luke 7:34).
13:22–23 reads: “He raised up David to be their king, con-
Gundry raises several serious objections to the second
cerning whom He also testified and said, ‘I have found
suggestion, of which we need mention only a few. Nei-
David the son of Jesse, a man a%er My own heart, who
ther the disciples of Jesus nor those of John the Baptist
will do all My will.’ From the offspring of this man,
are called Nazarenes in the gospels. John himself occu-
according to promise, God has brought to Israel a Savior,
pies a relatively small place in Mandaean literature, and
Jesus.”14 It is not difficult to imagine that Isa. 11:1 formed a
all that it does tell us could easily have been taken from
central part of the earliest Jewish Christian polemic,15
New Testament tradition. And finally, at the very root of
and that its centrally important words gave the follow-
the question, a close look at Mandaean practices shows
ers their first name or names. Neither one of these
that they were probably not even a Jewish sect at all,8 and
words in itself would have any meaning for the Gentile
therefore not valid candidates for the forebears of Chris-
world, but since Paul decided early to “preach Christ cru-
tianity.
cified” (1 Cor. 1:23, 2:2), the name Christ provided ready
As a solution to the origin of the name and the quote
material from which the Greeks could give a name. And
in Ma#. 2:23, Gundry, like the present author, returns to
of course the name Christos—messiah—for those who
the old but still valid reference to Isaiah 11:1, although
knew anything of Jewish thought (and the LXX) embod-
he—like not a few ancient writers before him—prefers
ied the essence of Isa. 11:1.
to see the verse as referring more to the sense of the
prophets than exclusively to one prophecy.9 Acts 24:5
Epiphanius provides an interesting area for specula-
About the year 57 Paul was brought to Caesarea and tried
tion, in writing about the Nazarenes, saying that before
before Felix, then governor of Judaea. !e lawyer for the
the Christians were called Christians they were, for a
prosecution was one Tertullus, who spoke on behalf of
short time, also called Iessaioi.10 He suggests at
Ananias the high priest and certain “elders.” According
to the record in Acts 24, as Tertullus began to state his name is so universally ignored. !e easy answer to this,
accusations against Paul, he said, “We have found this of course, is to say that there is no recollection of the
man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all name (and sect) of the Nazarenes because there was no
the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the such sect until a later one was described by Epiphanius
sect of the Nazarenes.” !is is the first time that we read and visited by Jerome (if indeed these two fathers were
the name Nazoraioi in reference to Christians as a group. not simply exercising their fantasies). But such an
As mentioned above, it is not impossible that Tertullus is answer is too easy and is precluded by the accumulated
in fact the author of the title. But this seems unlikely. For weight of evidence.
one thing, in his reply Paul seems to accept the title In searching for a more profound explanation, one is
without hesitation and even to equate it with the hon- tempted to fall back on the lost notices of antiquity. If
ored term, “the Way”16 (v. 14, ὁμολογῶ δε τοῦτό σοι ὅτι only we had the lost works of Papias or Hegesippus or
κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν ἣν λέγουσιν αἵρεσιν οὕτως λατρεύω τῷ Ariston of Pella or even Origen, two or three of whom
πατρῴῳ θεῷ). Also, Tertullus probably would not use a lived in the right area and had some knowledge of
term before Felix which was unknown or meaningless. It Hebrew … !is line of wishful thinking is not wholly
is more likely that the a"orney for the prosecution without validity, but it is weakened by its vulnerability
would choose a somewhat derogatory term, which, like to the counter-reply that those writers whose works are
most sect names, has been given from the outside. It extant (and voluminously) and who did still have access
would seem, then, that the earliest Jewish Christians to now-lost treatises, should be expected to know of the
called themselves something like “disciples (or follower- name of the Nazarene sect. Of course, Tertullian and
s) of the Way,” while their opponents called them Eusebius did know the name, and as I have stated above,
Nazarenes, most likely on the basis of some generally the single notice in Acts 24 is too flimsy to serve as the
known (and despised) characteristic, such as their insis- sole source for their assertions.
tence on the fulfillment of a particular verse of But perhaps the solution is simpler than this. Perhaps
prophecy.17 it is linguistic. If any early Church father wrote in
It is important to note that the name Nazarenes was at Hebrew, the work is unknown to us. It is true that Euse-
first applied to all Jewish followers of Jesus. Until the bius tells us of Hegesippus that he knew Hebrew and
name Christian became a"ached to Antiochian non- even used it,20 but as far as we know his Hypomnemata
Jews,18 this meant that the name signified the entire were wri"en only in Greek. !e difficulty is that
Church, not just a sect. So also in Acts 24:5 the reference Hebrew, Aramaic, or any other Semitic language would
is not to a sect of Christianity but rather to the entire have had the potential of preserving naturally the early
primitive Church as a sect of Judaism. Only when the name (as, in fact, the Talmud does),21 but for someone
Gentile Church overtook and overshadowed the Jewish writing in Greek it was more natural, upon finding the
one could there be any possibility of sectarian stigma name Nazarenes referring to the (early) catholic
adhering to the name Nazarene within the Church itself. Church, to change its form to the known and accepted
!is should be borne in mind when considering the total Christianoi. Of course the lamentable fact that precious
absence of the name from extant Christian literature few of those Greek fathers would have been able to read
between the composition of Acts and 376, when the a document in a semitic language only decreases the
panarion was wri"en. Even a#er the name Christianoi likelihood that the name Nazarene could have been pre-
had been commonly accepted by Christians as the name served in their writings.
they called themselves,19 it would require some passage So on the one hand it seems likely that the name was
of time until the earlier name would be forgo"en and preserved somewhere between Acts and Tertullian, but
those who carried it condemned as heretics. on the other it is equally likely that it was infrequently
It might be objected at this point that if it is true that mentioned in non-Semitic script, which may be
Nazarenes was the earliest name for Christians, then we accounted for by the predominance of Greek in early
should expect to find the name more frequently in patris- Church writing. It is no less important to keep in mind
tic literature before Epiphanius, more o#en certainly that any sect that did persist a#er the year 70 would
than the isolated notices of Tertullian and Eusebius. To almost certainly have been small, and given its basic
be sure, it is strange (not to say frustrating) that the orthodoxy of theology (including its acceptance of Paul),
it posed li"le threat. Since it also preserved one of the unknown. Dussaud further suggested30 that the writer
several names a"ested to in the New Testament at a time Greg. Aboulfaradj (Chron. Syr. I 173) in the year 891 con-
when the greater Church itself had not se"led on its own fused the Nuṣairi with the Mandaeans (‫נּאצוראייא‬
name, there would have been small reason to a"ack it;
Natzoraia) and was followed by others.
no more reason, at least, than an essentially orthodox
Can Pliny’s Nazerini be early Christians? !e answer
small group known as “brethren” or “disciples of the
depends very much on the identification of his sources,
Way.”
and on this basis the answer must be an unequivocal No.
It is generally acknowledged that Pliny drew heavily on
Pliny’s Nazerini
official records and most likely on those drawn up for
While treating the name of the sect, we may deal here Augustus by Marcus Agrippa (d. 12 B.C.).31 Jones has
with a short notice by Pliny the Elder which has caused shown that this survey was accomplished between 30
some confusion among scholars. In his Historia and 20 B.C.32 Any connection between the Nazerini and
Naturalis, Book V,22 he says: Nunc interiora dicantur. Coele the Nazareni must, therefore, be ruled out, and we must
habet Apameam Marysa amne divisam a Nazerinorum23 not a"empt to line this up with Epiphanius’ Nazoraioi.33
tetrarchia, Bambycen quae alio nomino Hierapolis vocatur, One may, however, be allowed to see the Nazerini as the
Syris vero Mabog.24 !is was wri"en before 77 A.D., when ancestors of today’s Nuṣairi, the inhabitants of the eth-
the work was dedicated to Titus. !e similarity of the nic region captured some seven centuries later by the
name with the Nazareni has led many to conclude, erro- Moslems.
neously, that this is an early (perhaps the earliest) wit-
ness to Christians (or Nazarenes) by a pagan writer.
Other than this, be it noted, there is no pagan notice of
Nazarenes.
Chapter Two
!e area described is quite specifically located by
Pliny. It is south of Antioch and east of Laodicea Christian Sources before Epiphanius
(Latakiya) on the River Marysas (Orontes) below the
mountains known today as Jebel el Ansariye (a name In se"ing the literary background for the notices of
which may preserve a memory of this sect). !e town of Epiphanius and Jerome by determining earlier patristic
Apamea25 was a bishopric in the time of Sozomen and an knowledge of the Nazarene sect, we must first note that
archbishopric in the medieval period. A fortress was no source mentions the Nazarenes by name as a distinct
erected there during the first Crusade.26 Today the group. Necessarily, then, any evidence will be derived or
region is inhabited by the Nuṣairi Moslem sect (which inferred and not obtained from direct testimony. In light
believes that women will not be resurrected, since they of this, it is best to state at the outset that the aim of this
do not have souls). chapter is to establish the fact of the Nazarenes’ contin-
If to the Nazerini and Nuṣairi and ued existence into or near the fourth century. We shall
Nazoraioi/Nazareni we add the Nasaraioi of Epiphanius be able to work from two directions: Firstly, from refer-
and the Nazorei of Filaster, we have all the ingredients ences where a Jewish Christian sect is described but not
for a scholastic free-for-all. named, we can compare the description with what is
!e confusions may have started quite early. At the known to us of Nazarene doctrine, and then try to identi-
turn of this century, R. Dussaud27 noted a passage in the fy a Nazarene presence. Secondly, we can find use or
Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen (VII 15) in which he tells knowledge of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. !is
of some “Galileans” who helped the pagans of Apamea la"er path, of course, depends on a positive identifica-
against the local bishop and the Christians.28 Dussaud tion of the Gospel according to the Hebrews with the
rightly called into question the likelihood that the Nazarene sect and is taken up separately in Chapter Six.
Galileans—that is, Jewish Christians—would side with
the pagans in a dispute over the keeping of idols, and he
suggested that the people referred to were “certainly
either Nuṣairi or Nazerini, whom Sozomen has con-
fused with the Nazarenes.”29 Sozomen’s source here is
Chapter !ree
Epiphanius
Epiphanius was born about 315 near Eleutheropolis (Beit

Guvrin) in Judea and died in 402 or 403 at sea.1 His native
language was Syrian, and besides Greek and Latin he
also had limited knowledge of Coptic and Hebrew.2 He
studied in Egypt and then returned home where, in
about 335, he set up a monastery which he governed for
30 years. In 367 the bishops of Cyprus elected him Bishop
of Constantia (Salamis), which made him effectively the
metropolitan of the island. His life was dedicated to the
fighting of heresy, particularly Origenism, and in 374 he
began writing the panarion (generally known as the Refu-
tation of All Heresies), which he completed in just over
two years. It included some eighty heresies, twenty of
them pre-Christian. While the panarion preserves for us
many traditions that would have otherwise been lost,
the work as a whole is tendentious in its use of its
sources, citing only what supports his own unbending
orthodoxy. !is quality, of course, presents the investi-
gator with frequent difficulties and demands extra cau-
tion in approaching the facts proffered by Epiphanius.
Before the year 4283 there appeared a kind of summa-
ry of the panarion, known as the anacephalaiosis. !is
work is almost certainly not by Epiphanius himself, but
it is not impossible that it was compiled by someone not
far removed from him.4 In 382 Epiphanius met Jerome in
Rome and from that time the two joined forces against
Origenism.5
!e question of Epiphanius’ sources for the panarion
is an important one in our investigation.6 Generally he
was dependent on earlier heresiological lists, notably
those of Irenaeus and Hippolytus. However, when we
come specifically to his chapter on the Nazarenes, we
must start from scratch: the Nazarenes are named in no
extant work before Epiphanius. First let us bring the
chapter in full.7
Chapter Four
Jerome
At least as important for our study as Epiphanius is his

younger contemporary Jerome.1 !is most learned and
prolific of the Church Fathers has le" us fully a third of
our testimonies and fragments of the Gospel according
to the Hebrews as well as other information about the
Nazarenes in some detail and valuable excerpts from
one of their own works. However, more than any other
of our sources, Jerome is surrounded by controversy. For
this reason it will be useful to set the chronology of his
life and writings insofar as it touches on the subject of
the Nazarenes.
Chapter Five
Patristic Evidence a"er Jerome
While it is true that Epiphanius and Jerome form the

core of our study, useful information about the Nazare-
nes, and particularly about their place in early Church
thought, can be gained from a consideration of their
treatment by later Christian writers. We shall be led into
a valuable path of investigation if we move chronologi-
cally and first consider a heresiogragher who made no
mention of the sect.
Chapter Six Although Eusebius does mention GH by name, it is a
moot point whether he actually saw the gospel.6 Epipha-
!e Gospel According to the Hebrews
nius only once (pan. 30 3,7) gives us the name κατὰ
Ἑβραίους (“according to the Hebrews”), as does Didymus
!ere can be no doubt that the story of Jesus was early
the Blind.7 !is takes us up to Jerome, who mentions GH
commited to writing in the Semitic language of his fol-
(secundum or juxta Hebraeos) frequently.8 If he saw it, he
lowers. First of all, the nature of the case makes this like-
was the only Latin writer to have done so.
ly. Secondly, we have numerous testimonies to the exis-
We have focused here on specific mentions of the
tence of such a gospel and a few fragments from it, albeit
“Gospel according to the Hebrews” for two reasons
not in the original language. In the preceding chapters
which will serve to highlight the complications
we saw that the Nazarenes themselves were reported to
involved. First of all, let us note that while the gospel
be in possession of a gospel wri"en in Hebrew. !is
may have been recorded in a Semitic language even
Hebrew gospel is generally said to be the Gospel of
before the end of the first century, we do not find the
Ma"hew but with some differences. It is clear that such
name “Gospel according to the Hebrews” until the third
a gospel, were it to come into our possession, would be a
century, and before Jerome at the end of the fourth cen-
valuable tool in gaining additional knowledge of the
tury it is mentioned by name less than ten times. Else-
Nazarene sect. Unfortunately, no Hebrew gospel exists
where we find references to a nameless gospel wri"en in
today for scholars to examine, although archeologists
Hebrew characters. !e general impression is that this
could conceivably discover one in some place such as Pel-
gospel did not have a specific, known name until fairly
la, Jerusalem, Galilee, or Aleppo.
late, and that this name designated its users rather than
Until that awaited find occurs, we must content our-
its author. However—and this is our second point—the
selves with examining existing fragments of the gospel
period during which the designation appeared was a
used by the Nazarenes and gleaning what information
time, as we have seen, when there was general unfamil-
we may from them. !is is not as easy as it may seem,
iarity in the Gentile Church with the finer distinctions
because there are many complications and uncertain-
existing in Jewish Christianity. !e name “Ebionite” was
ties. It must be stated at the outset that it is not our
used for Nazarenes as well as for Ebionites, and more
intent in this chapter to make another exhaustive study
generally, they were all thought of as those Christians
of all fragments of the Jewish Christian gospels nor even
from among the Jews or Hebrews who still adhered to
of the “Gospel according to the Hebrews.”1 !e scope of
the Law and read the Bible in Hebrew. If there were few
the present chapter remains within the limits of the
Christians from among the Gentiles who had actually
overall study: to extract whatever information is possi-
seen a gospel wri"en in Hebrew le"ers, they were even
ble on the history and doctrines of the Nazarene sect.
fewer who would have been able to tell if it was in
!e extremely complex problem of the Jewish Christian
Hebrew or Aramaic much less to discern textual and
gospels has been so complicated by the speculations of
doctrinal differences between two such gospels.
investigators that it is difficult to cut one’s way through
For indeed it is clear that there was not just one “au-
the jungle of suggestions and proofs. !is chapter deals
thorized version” of GH. !e fragments which have
only with those fragments where doubt as to provenance
come to us ascribed to some Hebrew gospel will not all fit
is at a minimum.
neatly into one consistent, contiguous work. All of this
!e earliest indication we have of the existence of a
is significant for our study of the Nazarenes and their
Hebrew wri"en account for some of Jesus’ life comes to
doctrines. No writer before Epiphanius mentions the
us from Papias.2 He speaks of a collection of logia of
Nazarenes by name, but Epiphanius, by his own admis-
Jesus made by Ma"hew in the “Hebrew language.” He
sion (pan. 29 9,4), never saw a copy of their gospel, and so
also knew of a story of a woman accused of many sins,
could not have compared it with that used by the Ebion-
which, Eusebius tells us, was to be found in the Gospel
ites, from which he quotes. !ere is, therefore, no rea-
according to the Hebrews. Hegesippus also knew the
son for us to assume that every patristic reference to a
Gospel according to the Hebrews (GH), this again from
gospel wri"en in Hebrew le"ers speaks of the same
Eusebius.3 !e first writer in whose extant works we
gospel. Nor should we be too quick to take all such refer-
actually have mention of the name of the gospel is Cle-
ences and use them as pieces in the Nazarene puzzle.
ment of Alexandria4 and soon a%er him Origen.5
It is our position, then, that the one earliest Urschri! way, let us be clear that we are doing so and not think
(if there was only one) or collection of logia was various- that we are speaking of two works independent of each
ly adapted, expanded, edited, and used by the different other, composed separately and in different languages.
streams of Jewish Christianity.9 By this view there was
only one so-called GH, but it made its appearance as the
GH of the Ebionites, the GH of the Nazarenes, and per-
haps the GH used by Egyptian Jewish Christians, called
“the Gospel according to the Egyptians.” From the earli-
est times the name assigned to the basic writing was
Ma#hew’s, and it was probably by that name that each
group knew its own recension of GH, if they did not sim-
ply call it “the gospel.” Some groups had their gospel in a
Greek translation, and it would seem that additions to
the basic translation may have been made in Greek.
Here we must make some observations on the name
“!e Gospel of the Nazarenes.” In most dictionaries and
encyclopedias of Christianity, as well as in other scholar-
ly work, this gospel is presented as an a#ested title for a
known ancient work. !e fact is that the eariest appear-
ances of the name “Gospel of the Nazarenes” are in the
ninth century, within a very few years of each other.
Haimo of Auxerre (d. 855) in his commentary on Isaiah10
makes an indirect quotation from an evangelium
Nazarenorum. Whether he actually saw a manuscript
with that title we cannot say for sure, but it seems most
likely that he was influenced in his use of the name by
Jerome.11 As we have noted, Jerome repeatedly mentions
the Gospel of (or according to) the Hebrews “which is
read by the Nazarenes.” While he himself never uses the
title evangelium Nazarenorum, it is a natural step from
his words, a step that Haimo evidently took.
!e other ninth-century appearance of this derived
name we have already seen in the previous chapter. It is
by Paschasius Radbertus around the year 860.12 We have
already noted his dependence on Jerome. !ere is no
reason to look for any connection between these two
medieval authors in this ma#er; the derivation of the
name “Gospel of the Nazarenes” from Jerome’s words is
so natural that many have done it and are doing it even
until today.13
!e name “Gospel of the Nazarenes” (GN), then, is a
later hybrid, derived from Jerome. Jerome himself only
knew the name “Gospel according to the Hebrews” or
“Ma#hew.” However, as Vielhauer has observed, Jerome
had only one work in mind when he wrote of this
Hebrew gospel.14 !e designations GH and GN may be
only a convenient way of differentiating recensions of
the same basic work. But if we are to use them in that
Chapter Seven
Jewish Sources
No investigation of the history of a phenomenon as

Jewish as early Jewish Christianity can safely ignore the
wealth of potential data available in Jewish wri"en
sources. Any wide study of Jewish Christianity will find
much that is useful there, and indeed the renewed inter-
est in the field in the last generation of scholarship has
only lately begun to tap this well. In a work as narrowly
defined as the present one, however, we shall find the
talmudic material of only small help. We have chosen to
restrict this study to that which can be identified as
“Nazarene” with a minimum of speculation, because a
structure built on a foundation of speculation and
guesswork will be easily undermined. Hence we have
kept our focus only on those places where the name
Nazarene specifically appears, or where the sect can
with reasonable certainty be identified from descrip-
tions of its peculiar doctrines.
With this limitation, we may note that the name
Nazarene(s) (‫נוצרי‬, ‫ נוצרים‬nôẕrî, nôẕrîm) appears only
some dozen times in all extant talmudic literature.1 In all

but two of these cases it is found in the name of ‫ישו‬
‫( הנוצרי‬yešû ha-nôẕrî), Jesus the Nazarene. It must be
noted that half of these passages were censored during

the Middle Ages, either by Christian censors or by
Jewish editors in fear of them.2 Almost certainly, numer-
ous other mentions of yešû ha-nôẕrî or nôẕrîm were cut
out of our extant texts and remain unrestorable,
replaced in centuries past by ‫( אפיקורסין‬ʾepiqôrsîn)
̱ or
‫( צדוקים‬ẕdûqîm) or similar harmless substitutes, or
simply omi"ed altogether.

To take up an earlier ma"er, in the few appearences
of (‫נוצרי)ם‬, there are no etymological data given. !e
town of Nazareth never appears in Talmudic literature,

and Jewish sources have nothing to tell us of the prove-
nance of the name Nazarene.
Summary and Conclusions that of the greater Church at a comparable stage. Con-
trary to other Jewish Christian groups of the time (and
!ere emerges from our considerations an entity, a also to current scholarly opinion) they did not reject the
viable entity of Law-keeping Christians of Jewish back- apostleship of Paul. !ey recognized his commission
ground. !ese were direct descendants of the first from God to preach to the gentiles, and they seem fully to
Jewish believers in Jesus. !ey survived the destruction have accepted the fruit of his labors: the “Church from
of Jerusalem in part because they fled successfully to Pel- the Gentiles.” !ose fathers of the fourth century who
la of the Decapolis, and in part because they had roots wrote against them could find nothing in their beliefs to
also in the Galilee. !ese Jewish Christians were called condemn; their objections were to ma#ers of praxis. !e
Nazarenes a"er Jesus, and probably received the title on Nazarenes, as Jews, continued to observe certain aspects
the basis of early Christian interpretation of certain Old of Mosaic Law, including circumcision and the Sabbath,
Testament passages (e.g. Isa. 11:1) as referring to the Mes- and it was this which brought about their exclusion
siah and specifically to Jesus himself. !e Nazarenes from the Church. !is rejection and exclusion was, how-
were distinct from the Ebionites and prior to them. In ever, gradual. For this reason—and because Nazarene
fact, we have found that it is possible that there was a numbers remained small throughout—Church writers
split in Nazarene ranks around the turn of the first cen- do not mention Nazarenes by name until such a time as
tury. !is split was either over a ma#er of christological the Church was free from persecution and began to
doctrine or over leadership of the community. Out of refine its own narrowed orthodoxy. !e Nazarenes were
this split came the Ebionites, who can scarcely be sepa- not included in the earlier heresy lists because they were
rated from the Nazarenes on the basis of geography, but simply not considered heretical enough or a threat to
who can be easily distinguished from the standpoint of “orthodoxy.” While there may have been very li#le
Christology. intercommunal contact, individual Nazarenes seem to
!e continued existence of this Nazarene entity can have had sporadic visits with certain Church leaders.
be traced with reasonable certainty through the fourth We have found it unlikely that either Epiphanius or
century, contingent upon the credence we give to the Jerome had any direct contact with the community of
evidence of Epiphanius and Jerome at the end of that the Nazarenes, although the la#er may just possibly
century. While their corroborating testimonies cannot have met individuals from the sect.
fairly be dismissed, even without them we must allow On the Jewish side, the exclusion of the Nazarenes
for the continuation of the Nazarenes at least to the was not nearly so gradual. At the end of the first century,
third century. !e sect numbered only a few members, the birkat ha-mînîm was formulated with the sect specifi-
no doubt. Geographically they were limited to pockets of cally named. !is is recorded in both patristic and
se#lement along the eastern shore of the Mediter- Jewish sources. Nonetheless, we have found it possible
ranean, mostly just east of the Jordan ri". !ey were to that there was some limited synagogue a#endance by
be found in the Galilee and probably in Jerusalem until Nazarenes into the early decades of the second century.
135, when all Jews were expelled from the city. It would In addition to this, we find continued contact between
seem that members of the sect moved northward at a the two communities in the form of a polemic or dia-
somewhat later date and were to be found also in the logue. Such contact should not surprise us, since the
area of Beroea of Coele Syria near the end of the fourth Nazarenes lived in the same geographical areas with
century. !ere is no firm evidence of any Nazarene pres- predominantly Jewish communities. However, as the
ence in the West, in Africa, or even further to the East. polemic and distrust grew, the separation and isolation
!eir numbers stayed as limited as their geographical from the Jewish community were increased. Different
presence. steps along the way effected this separation: the flight to
What we have seen of their doctrines lines up well Pella, the birkat ha-mînîm, the refusal of the Nazarenes
with the developing christological doctrines of the to recognize and support Bar Kochba. By the middle of
greater catholic Church. !e sect seems to have been the second century, the ri" was probably complete.
basically trinitarian. !ey accepted the virgin birth and !e sectarians themselves kept up their knowledge of
affirmed the deity of Jesus. !ey also seem to have had Hebrew, and in this we may perhaps see an indication
an embryonic, developing doctrine of the Holy Spirit, that they maintained (as one would expect) some inter-
one which was no more nor indeed less developed than
nal system of education. !ey read the Old Testament
and at least one gospel in Hebrew. What we can clearly
isolate from this gospel as being appropriate to the
Nazarene sect confirms what we find elsewhere about
their doctrines, although the inherently uncertain
nature of fragment isolation and gospel exegesis yields
relatively li"le by way of fresh information about the
group.
Of particular interest is the Nazarene commentary on
Isaiah. !is work shows clearly that the rejection was
not solely from the Jewish side. !e Nazarenes refused to
accept the authority established by the Pharisaic camp
a#er the destruction of Jerusalem, and in so refusing
they adjudicated their own isolation from the converg-
ing flow of what we call Judaism. Just as they rejected
the Church’s se"ing aside of the Law of Moses, so also
they refused the rabbis’ expansive interpretations of it.
In other words, they rejected halaḵah as it was develop-
ing in rabbinic Judaism. It is not far wrong to say that the
demise of the Nazarenes resulted from their own
restrictive approach to the Law. Such a spurning of rab-
binic authority could not, of course, be tolerated by that
authority.
!ere is another factor in this separation from
Judaism, one of perhaps greater importance than the
rejection of halaḵah. It is the person of Jesus. With their
acceptance and proclamation of the deity of Jesus, the
Nazarenes went beyond allowable limits for a Judaism of
ever stricter monotheism. Either one of these—their
non-acceptance of rabbinic halaḵah and even more their
belief in Jesus—would have been sufficient to consign
them to the category of apostates. From talmudic
sources we have seen that the Nazarenes may have con-
ducted an active program of evangelism among Jews.
!e Isaiah commentary confirms that they never relin-
quished hope that Jews would one day turn away from
tradition and towards Jesus: “O Sons of Israel, who deny
the Son of God with such hurtful resolution, return to
him and to his apostles.”
APPENDIXES
List of Abbreviations PL J.P. Migne, ed., Patrologia Latina
RAC Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum
Altaner B. Altaner and A. Stuiber, Patrologie (1966) RB Révue Biblique
ANCL Ante-Nicene Christian Library REJ Révue des Études Juives
Av. Zar. Avodah Zarah RGG Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart
Bardenhewer O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte RSR Recherches de Science Religieuse
der altkirchlichen Literatur (1913–1932) Sanh. Sanhedrin
BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Shabb. Shabbat
Brach. Brachot T Tose$a
BZ Biblische Zeitschri! "DNT "eological Dictionary of the New Testament
Cath. Enc. Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) "Z "eologische Zeitschri!
CC Corpus Christianorum TLZ "eologische Literaturzeitung
CSEL Corpus Scriptorum TU Texte und Untersuchungen zur
Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur
DTC Dictionnaire de "éologie Catholique VC Vigiliae Christianae
ep. epistula ZATW Zeitschri! für die
Epiph. Epiphanius al#estamentliche Wissenscha!
ERE Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics ZNTW Zeitschri! für die
(Hastings) neutestamentliche Wissenscha! und
Eus. Eusebius die Kunde des Urchristentums
GCS Die Griechischen Christlichen Schri!steller
GenR Midrash Genesis
GH Gospel according to the Hebrews
GN Gospel according to the Nazarenes
Bibliography
HE Historia Ecclesiastica
H-S E. Hennecke (W. Schneemelcher) Abbo#, E.A. "e Fourfold Gospel II (“!e
New Testament Apocrypha (1963) Beginning”). Cambridge: University Press, 1914.
HTR Harvard "eological Review Albright, W.F. “!e Names ‘Nazareth’ and ‘Nazarene’.”
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual JBL 65 (1946), 397–401.
Ḥull. Ḥullin Alon, G. Studies in Jewish History. Tel Aviv:
j Palestinian (Jerusalem) Talmud Hakibutz Hameuchad, 1957. In Hebrew.
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature ——. "e Jews in their Land in the
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies Talmudic Age. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1980.
JQR Jewish Quarterly Review Altaner, B. “Augustinus und Epiphanius von Salamis.”
JTS Journal of "eological Studies TU 83 (1967), 286–296.
K-R A.F.J. Klijn & G.J. Reinink, Aspects du Judéo-Christianisme. Travaux du
Patristic Evidence for Jewish Christian Sects centre d’études supérieurs spécialisé d’histoire
(1973) des religions de Strasbourg, 1964.
LA Liber Annuus Bacher, W. “Le mot ‘Minim’ dans le Talmud designe-t-
Liddell-Sco# H.G. Liddell, R. Sco#, H.S. Jones, il quelquefois des Chrétiens?” REJ 38 (1899) 38–46.
Greek-English Lexicon (1968) Bacon, B.W. Studies in Ma#hew. London: Constable, 1930.
M Mishnah Baga#i, B. "e Church from the Circumcision.
NovTest Novum Testamentum Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1971.
NT New Testament ——. “Richerche su alcuni antichi siti
NTS New Testament Studies Giudeo-Cristiani.” LA 11 (1960/61), 289–314.
ODCC Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church Bardy, G. “Saint Jérôme et ses Maitres hébreux.”
OT Old Testament Révue Bénédictine 46 (1934), 145–164.
pan. panarion ——. “Philastre de Brescia.” DTC 12 (1935), c. 1398–1399.
PG J.P. Migne, ed., Patrologia Graeca
——. “St. Jérôme et l’Évangile selon les Hébreux.” la Apostolorum and the Gospel to the Hebrews.”
Mélange de Science Religieuse 3 (1946), 5–36. Studia Evangelica (=TU 85) (1964), 360–382.
Barr, J. “St. Jerome’s Appreciation of Hebrew.” BJRL Elliot-Binns, L.E. Galilean Christianity. London:
49 (1966/7), 281–302. SCM, 1956.
Basset, R. “Nusairis.” ERE IX (1917). Enslin, M.S. “Nazarenes, Gospel of the.”
Bauer, J.B. “Sermo peccati / Hieronymous u. Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Ed.
das Nazaräerevangelium.” BZ 4 (1960), 122–128. G.A. Bu#rick. 1962.
Bickerman, E.J. “!e Name of Christians.” HTR 42
Finkel, A. “Yavneh’s Liturgy and Early Christianity.”
(1949), 109–124.
Jour. of Ecumenical Studies 18 (1981), 231–250.
Black, M. “!e Patristic Accounts of
Finkelstein, L. “!e Development of the Amidah.” JQR
Jewish Sectarianism,” BJRL 41 (1958/9), 285–303.
16 (1925/6), 127–170.
——. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts.
Fortesque, A. “Apollinarism.” ERE I (1908).
Oxford: Clarendon, 1967.
Friedländer, M. “Encore un mot sur Minim, Minout
Bousset, W. “Noch einmal der ‘vorchristliche Jesus’.”
et Guilionim dans le Talmud.” REJ 38 (1899),
!eologischer Rundschau 14 (1911), 373–385.
194–203.
Brandon, S.G.F. !e Fall of Jerusalem and the
Christian Church. London: SPCK, 1951. Gärtner, B. “Die rätselha$en Termini Nazoräer
——. Jesus and the Zealots. New York: Scribner, 1967. u. Iskariot.” Horae Soederblomianae 4 (1957), 5–36.
Brandt, W. Elchasai, ein Religionsti"er und Gevaryahu, C.M.Y. “Birkat ha-mînîm.” Sinai 44
sein Werk. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1912. (1958/9), 367–376. In Hebrew.
Broydé, I. “Min.” Jewish Encyclopedia VIII (1904), 594–596. Ginzberg, L. “Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvätern VI. Der
Büchler, A. “!e Minim of Sepphoris and Tiberias in the Kommentar des Hieronymus zu Jesaja.” Jewish
Second and !ird Centuries.” Studies in Jewish His- Studies in Memory of George A. Kohut. New York: A.
tory, Memorial Volume. London: Oxford, 1956, pp. Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1935, pp. 279–314.
245–274. First published in Festschri" für Hermann Goldstein, M. Jesus in the Jewish Tradition. New
Cohen. Berlin, 1912, pp. 271–295. York: Macmillan, 1950.
Bugge, C. “Zum Essäerproblem.” ZNTW 14 (1913), 147–174. Grabius, J.E. Spicilegium SS. Patrum, ut
Burki#, F.C. Christian Beginnings. London: University et Haereticorum. Oxford: 1698.
of London, 1924. Graetz, H. !e History of the Jews. Philadelphia:
Jewish Publication Society, 1956 [1893].
Cameron, R., ed. !e Other Gospels: Non-Canonical
Grant, F.C. !e Earliest Gospel. New York:
Gospel Texts. 1982.
Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1943.
Carroll, K.L. “!e Fourth Gospel and the Exclusion
Grant, R.M. “!e Problem of !eophilus.” HTR 43
of Christians from the Synagogues.” BJRL
(1950), 179–196.
40 (1957/8), 19–32.
Grego, I. La reazione ai Giudeo-Cristiani nel IV secolo negli
Caspari, W. “Ναζωραῖος Mt 2:23 nach
scri#i patristici e nei canom conciliari. Jerusalem:
al#est’n Voraussetzungen.” ZNTW 21 (1922),
Franciscan Printing Press, 1973.
122–127.
Gressmann, H. “Die Aufgaben der Wissenscha$
Cullmann, O. !e Christology of the
des nachbiblischen Judentums.” ZATW 43 (1925),
New Testament. London: SCM, 1959.
1–32.
Daniélou, J. !e !eology of Jewish-Christianity.
Grotius, H. Annotationes in quatuor Evangelia et
London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1964.
Acta Apostolorum. Opera !eologica, Tomi II, vol.
Davies, W.D. !e Se#ing of the Sermon on
I. London: Pi#, 1679.
the Mount. Cambridge: University Press, 1964.
Grützmacher, G. “Jerome” ERE VII (1914), 497–500.
Dodd, J.T. !e Gospel According to the Hebrews.
Guignebert, C. Jesus. London: Paul, Trench,
London: Search, 1933.
Trubner, 1935.
Dussaud, R. Histoire et religion des Nosairis.
Gundry, R.H. !e Use of the Old Testament in St.
Paris: Bouillon, 1900.
Ma#hew’s Gospel. Suppl. to NovTest 18. Leiden:
Ehrhardt, A.A.T. “Judaeo-Christians in Egypt, the Epistu- Brill, 1967.
Handmann, R. “Das Hebräer-Evangelium.” TU 5, He" (1947), 79–81.
3 (1888). Klijn, A.F.J. “Jerome’s Quotations from a
Harnack, A. Geschichte der Nazoraean Interpretation of Isaiah.” RSR 60
altchristlichen Literatur. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1904. (1972), 241–255.
——. “Review of W. Brandt’s Elchasait.” TLZ 37 (1912), ——, and Reinink, G.J. Patristic Evidence for
c. 683–685. Jewish-Christian Sects. Suppl. to NovTest 36.
——. History of Dogma. New York: Dover, 1961 (1900). Leiden: Brill, 1973.
Hedegard, D. Seder R. Amram Gaon. Lund: Lindstedt, 1951. Koch, G.A. “A Critical Investigation of Epiphanius’
Hennecke, E. and Schneemelcher, W. New Knowledge of the Ebionites: A Translation and
Testament Apocrypha. Eng. trans. ed. By Critical Discussion of Panarion 30.” Dissertation,
R.M. Wilson. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963. 1976.
Herford, R.T. “!e Problem of the ‘Minim’ Further Con- Kohler, K. “!e Origin and Compilation of the 18 Bene-
sidered.” Jewish Studies in Memory of George A. dictions with a Translation of the corresponding
Kohut. New York: A. Kohut Memorial Foundation, Essene Prayers in the Apostolic Constitutions.”
1935, pp. 359–369. HUCA 1 (1924), 387–425.
——. Christianity in Talmud and Midrash. New Kraus, J. “Filastrius.” Lexikon für "eologie u. Kirche
York: Ktav, 1975 [1903]. 4 (1960), c. 124f.
Hilgenfeld, A. Die Ketzergeschichte Krauss, S. “!e Jews in the Works of the
des Urchristentums. Leipzig: Fues, 1884. Church Fathers.” JQR 5 (1892/3), 122–157; 6
——. Judentum u. Judenchristentum. Eine Nachlese zu der (1894), 82–99, 225–261.
Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums. ——. “Zur Literatur der Siddurim.” Aron
Leipzig: Fues, 1886. Freimann Festschri!. Berlin: 1935, pp. 125–140.
Hirschberg, H. “Allusions to the Apostle Paul in Kuhn, K.G. “Giljonim und Sifre Minim.” Judentum,
the Talmud.” JBL 62 (1943), 73–87. Urchristentum, Kirche. Festschri! für Joachim
——. “Once Again—the Minim.” JBL 67 (1948), 305–318. Jeremias. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1964, pp. 24–61.
Hoennicke, G. Das Judenchristentum im ersten und Lagrange, M.-J. “Évangile selon les Hébreux.” RB
2. Jahrhundert. Berlin: Trowitzsch, 1908. 31 (1922), 321–349.
Holl, K. Die handschri!liche Überlieferung des Epiphanius ——. Le Messianisme chez les Juifs, 150 B.C.–200 A.D.
(Ancoratus und Panarion). TU 36, 2, 1910. Paris: Lecoffre, 1909.
Horbury, W. “!e Benediction of the Minim and Laible, H. Jesus Christus im Talmud. Berlin, 1891.
the Early Jewish-Christian Controversy.” JTS Lammen, H. “Les Noṣairis.” Études religieuses, 1899.
33 (1982), 19–61. Lawlor, H.J., and Oulton, J.E.L. Eusebius. London:
Hort, F.J.A. Judaistic Christianity. London: SPCK, 1928.
Macmillan, 1904. Lessing, G.E. “Neue Hypothese über die Evangelisten, als
Jocz, J. "e Jewish People and Jesus Christ. Grand bloss menschliche Geschichtschreiber betrachtet.”
Rapids: Baker, 1979 [1949]. "eologischer Nachlass (1778) in Lessings sämtliche
Jones, A.H.M. "e Cities of the Eastern Werke. Ed. H. Göring. Bd. XVIII, pp. 203–220.
Roman Provinces. Oxford: University Press, 1971. Stu&gart.
Judéo-Christianisme: Recherches historiques et Levi, J. “Le mot ‘Minim’ désigne-t-il jamais une secte
théologiques offertes en homage au Cardinal juive de Gnostiques antinomistes ayant exercé son
Jean Daniélou. RSR 60 (1972). action en Judée avant la destruction du Temple?”
Juster, J. Les Juifs dans l’Empire Romain. Paris: REJ 38 (1899), 204–210.
Geuther, 1914. Lidzbarski, J. “Nazoraios.” Zeitschri! für Semitistik
Katz, S.T. “Issues in the Separation of Judaism u. verwandte Gebiete 1 (1922), 230–233.
and Christianity a"er 70 C.E.: A Reconsideration.” Lightfoot, J.B. "e Apostolic Fathers. New York: Olms,
JBL 103 (1984), 43–76. 1973 [1890].
Kelly, J.N.D. Jerome. London: Duckworth, 1975. Longenecker, R.N. "e Christology of Early Jewish Chris-
Kennard, J.S. “Nazoraean and Nazareth.” JBL 66 tianity. Studies in Biblical "eology, 2nd Series, no. 17.
Naperville: Allenson, 1970. the Mishnah.” Proceedings of the Eighth World Con-
Mann, J. “Geniza Fragments of the Palestinian Order gress of Jewish Studies. Division A (1982), pp. 125–130.
of Service.” HUCA 2 (1925), 269–338. Quispel, G. “Das Hebräerevangelium im
Manns, F. Essais sur le Judéo-Christianisme. gnostischen Evangelium nach Maria.” VC 11
Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1977. (1957), 139–144.
——. Bibliographie du Judéo-Christianisme. ——. “!e ‘Gospel of !omas’ and the ‘Gospel of
Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1978. the Hebrews’.” NTS 12 (1966), 371–382.
Marmorstein, A. “Judaism and Christianity in Rembry, J.G. “ ‘Quoniam Nazaraeus
the Middle of the !ird Century.” HUCA 10 vocabitur’ (Mt 2/23).” LA 12 (1961/2), 46–65.
(1935), 223–263. Repo, E. Der “Weg” als Selbstverzeichung des
Marx, A. “Untersuchungen zum Siddur des Gaon Urchristentums. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche und
R. Amram.” Jahrbuch der semasiologische Untersuchung. Helsinki: Suoma-
jüdischliterarischen Gesellscha! 5 (1907). lainen tiedeakatemia, 1964.
Hebrew section, pp. 1–38. Rubinstein, A. “!e Appellation ‘Galileans’ in
Massignon, L. “Nuṣairi.” "e Encyclopedia of Islam, Ben Kosebha’s Le$er to Ben Galgolah.” JJS 6
III (1913), 2. (1955), 26–34.
Ma$ingly, H.B. “!e Origin of the Name Christiani.” JTS Rueger, H.P. “NAZARETH/NAZARA
9 (1958), 26–37. NAZARENOS/NAZORAIOS.” ZNTW 72 (1981),
Médebielle, P.A. “ ‘Quoniam Nazaraeus Vocabitur’ (Mt 257–263.
II 23).” Miscellanea Biblica et Orientalia. Safrai, S. “Pluralism in Judaism of the Yavne Period.”
Rome: Herder, 1951, pp. 301–326. Deot 48 (1980), 166–170. In Hebrew.
Meyer, E. Ursprung und Anfänge Schaeder, H. “Ναζαρηνός, Ναζωραῖος.” "DNT 4,
des Christentums. Stu$gart: Co$a, 1921–4. (1942), 874–889.
Moore, G.F. “Nazareth and Nazarene.” "e Beginnings Schäfer, P. “Die sogenannte Synode von Jabne.” Judaica
of Christianity I. Eds. H.M. Jackson and K. 31 (1975), 54–64.
Lake. London: Macmillan, 1920, pp. 426–432. Schechter, S. “Geniza Specimens.” JQR 10 (1897/8),
——. Judaism. Cambridge: Harvard, 1946–48. 654–659.
Munck, J. “Jewish Christianity in Post-Apostolic Times.” Schla$er, A. Synagoge und Kirche bis zum
NTS 6 (1960), 103–116. Barkochba Aufstand. Stu$gart: Calver, 1966.
——. “Primitive Jewish Christianity and Later Jewish Schmidtke, A. Neue Fragmente und Untersuchungen zu
Christianity: Continuation or Rupture?” Aspects du den judenchristlichen Evangelien. TU/37/1,
Judéo-Christianisme. Strasbourg, 1965, pp. 77–91. Leipzig, 1911.
Murphy, F.X. “St. Jerome.” Catholic Encyclopedia ——. “Zum Hebräerevangelium.” ZNTW 35 (1936), 24–44.
VII (1967), 872–874. Schoeps, H.J. "eologie und Geschichte
Neusner, J. A History of the Jews in Babylonia. des Judenchristentums. Tübingen: Mohr, 1949.
Leiden: Brill, 1968. ——. Urgemeinde Judenchristentum Gnosis.
Nicholson, E.B. "e Gospel According to Tübingen: Mohr, 1956.
the Hebrews. London: Kegan Paul, 1879. ——. Jewish Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress,
Parkes, J. "e Conflict of the Church and 1969 [1964].
the Synagogue. New York: Athanaeum, 1977 [1934]. Schonfield, H.J. "e History of Jewish Christianity.
Pieper, K. Die Kirche Palästinas bis zum Jahre 135. Köln: London: Duckworth, 1939.
J.P. Bachem, 1938. Schweizer, E. “Er wird Nazoräer heissen.”
Pines, S. "e Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche: Festschri!
Christianity according to a New Source. Jerusalem: für Joachim Jeremias. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1964.
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1965. Schwen, P. “Nazareth u. die Nazoräer.” Zeitschri!
Pritz, R.A. “On Brandon’s Rejection of the für wissenscha!liche "eologie 54 (1912), 31–35.
Pella Tradition.” Immanuel 13 (1981), 39–43. Simon, M. St. Stephen and the Hellenists in the
——. “!e Jewish Christian Sect of the Nazarenes and Primitive Church. London: Longmans, Green, 1958.
——. Verus Israel. Paris: Boccard, 1964 [1948]. Winter, E.K. “Das Evangelium der
Simon, R. Histoire Critique des principaux commentateurs Jerusalemitischen Mu#erkirche. Aufgaben
du Nouveau Testament, depuis le commencement du der Ma#häus-Forschung.” Judaica 9 (1953), 1–33.
Christianisme jusque à nôtre temps: avec une Winter, P. “ ‘Nazareth’ and ‘Jerusalem’ in Luke chs. i
dissertation critique sur les principaux Actes and ii.” NTS 3 (1956/7), 136–142.
Manuscrits qui ont été cités dans les trois Parties de cet Wirthmüller, J.B. Die Nazoräer, Regensburg: Pustet, 1864.
Ouvrage. Ro#erdam, 1963. Young, F.M. “Did Epiphanius know what he meant
Sperber, D. “Min.” Encyclopedia Judaica XII (1971), 1–3. by ‘Heresy’?” Studia Patristica I, 199–208.
Stemberger, G. “Die sogenannte ‘Synode von Jabne’ Zimmern, H. “Nazoräer (Nazarener).” Zeitsch.
und das frühe Christentum.” Kairos 19 (1977), 14–21. der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellscha!
Stern, S.M. “Quotations from Apocryphal Gospels 74 (1920), 429–438.
in Abd al-Jabbar.” JTS 18 (1967), 34–57. Zöckler, O. Hieronymus. Gotha: Perthes, 1865.
——. “Abd al-Jabbar’s Account of How Christ’s Zuckschwerdt, E. “Nazoraios in Ma#h. 2, 23.” "Z
Religion was Falsified by the Adoption of 31 (1975), 65–77.
Roman Customs.” JTS 19 (1968), 128–185.
Strack, H.L. Jesus, die Häretiker u. die Christen nach den
ältesten jüdischen Angaben. Leipzig: Schri$en des
Institutum iudaicum in Berlin (fasc. 37), 1910.
INDICES
——, and Billerbeck, P. Kommentar zum Neuen
Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. Munich:
Beck, 1926–28.
Strecker, G. Das Judenchristentum in
den Pseudoklementinen. Berlin: Akademie, 1958.
——. “On the Problem of Jewish Christianity.” Appendix
I to W. Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Chris-
tianity. London: SCM, 1971, pp. 241–285.
Sutcliffe, E.F. “St. Jerome’s Hebrew Manuscripts.” Biblica
29 (1948), 195–204.
Tatum, W.B., “Ma#hew 2:23—Wordplay and
Misleading Translations.” Biblical Translator
27 (1976), 135–138.
Taylor, R.E. “A#itudes of the Fathers toward Practices
of Jewish Christians.” Studia Patristica IV (=TU
8), 1961, 504–511.
Testa, E. Il Simbolismo dei Giudeo-Cristiani.
Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1962.
Waitz, H. “Das Evangelium der zwölf
Apostel (Ebionitenevangelium).” ZNTW 13
(1912), 338ff; 14 (1913), 38–64, 117–132.
——. “Das Buch des Elchasai, das heilige Buch
der judenchristlichen Sekte der Sobiai.”
Harnack-Ehrung. Leipzig, 1921, pp. 87–104.
Waitz, W. “Neue Untersuchungen über die
sogenannten judenchristlichen Evangelien.”
ZNTW 36 (1937), 60–81.
Weiss, B. Die Apostelgeschichte. TU 9, vol. 3/4, 1893.
Wilkinson, J. “L’apport de saint Jérôme a
la topographie.” RB 81 (1974), 245–257.

Nazarene Jewish Christianity From The en

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nazarene Jewish Christianity From The en

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nazarene Jewish Christianity From The en

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NAZARENE JEWISH CHRISTIANITY Chapter !

Summary and Conclusions

THE MAGNES PRESS, THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY, JERUSALEM

!is book arose out of a fascination with that elusive

!e subject of this book was suggested to me over

Epiphanius was born about 315 near Eleutheropolis (Beit

At least as important for our study as Epiphanius is his

Patristic Evidence a"er Jerome

While it is true that Epiphanius and Jerome form the

No investigation of the history of a phenomenon as

some dozen times in all extant talmudic literature.1 In all

‫( הנוצרי‬yešû ha-nôẕrî), Jesus the Nazarene. It must be

noted that half of these passages were censored during

‫( צדוקים‬ẕdûqîm) or similar harmless substitutes, or

simply omi"ed altogether.

town of Nazareth never appears in Talmudic literature,

You might also like