mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/28/84)
Yirmiyahu claims that Christianity throughout its existence is merely
a bastardization of a Jewish sect and has no other connection with this
sect. He names this sect N'tzarim. He references the Interpreter's
Dictionary of the Bible (hearafter abbreviated IDB). This preliminary
response is based solely upon research in that volume, with references
to the Talmud (I used the Soncino translation).
The English equivalent of the Hebrew word transliterated as "N'tzarim"
appears to be Nazarene. Now, the IDB has this to say about the word:
A NT term used almost exclusively as an appellation of Jesus
(as to Acts 24:5, see below).
It continues with a discussion of the fact that there are two distinct
spellings in the Greek text, a matter which does not concern us. At the
end of this discussion, however, it continues:
Now in Acts 24:5, and on the tongue of a Jew, reference is made to
a SECT of Nazarenes [I have omitted the Greek and Hebrew in this
text since I am unprepared to transliterate]; and elsewhere the
term appears as a Jewish term of abuse for the Christians
(Ta'anith 27b, or in the famous twelth section of the Eighteen
Benedictions according to the Palestinian Recension; see further
Tert. Marcion IV.3; Jerome Commentary on Isaiah 5:18 et passim).
This makes it probable that originally, prior to the connection
with the name of the locality Nazareth, the term was the name of
a Jewish sect or heresy....If such a sect really did exist, then
we have in its name "observants" the basic term which has been
preserved...for Jesus and the Christians, ... for the Jewish
Christians, and...for the Mandeans ["a pre-Christian gnostic
sect", quoting from a passage I omitted].
The talmudic references are quite interesting. Unfortunately, Soncino's
abominable indexing prevented me from finding all of them; however, I
was able to locate the reference to Ta'anith cited above, a few references
to variant texts which mention Nazarenes, and a reference to Jesus (Yeshua)
in Sanhedrin. The last reference is by far the most useful, being
considerably longer than the others. It refers to a Yeshua, leader of
a heretical sect, who was hung the day before the passover, and then
goes on to tell how his followers should be dealt with in metaphoric
language.
Based on these and other references, I see no reason not to identify the
"sect" mentioned in the Talmud and in Acts with the early Christian
church, and especially with that sect of Christianity which persisted
in the observance of Mosaic law.
The textual evidence of the Pauline letters indicates a Christian church
with both gentile and Jewish members. Of course I expect a Jew such as
Yirmiyahu to insist that the Jewish adherents of Yeshua were
uncontaminated by all that heretical stuff in the New Testament as it
exists in the church tradition; the evidence, both internal and external,
however, indicates that the strictly Jewish branch of the church was in
fact also considered to heretical and in violation of the law.
The New Testament indicates that there was a lot of friction in the
early church between gentiles and Jews. In the end, the broad view won out.
The restrictive Jewish branch was eliminated.
Concerning the NT text: it is certainly true that the NT is highly variable.
The IDB says flatly that many of the non-trivial changes were made in the
interests of correcting the text to the "true" religion. To condemn this
process now, however, is to apply a false standard. When the gospels
were originally written, the represented the witnessing to a particular
perception of the Christian faith. Time passed and the perception changed.
Therefore, the scribes changed the witness. Now I must admit that we all
would like a straightfoward and accurate two volume set of the life and
teachings of Yeshua BenJoseph. But that is not what the evangelists chose
to write; they wrote theological instruments, instruments which simply
were not well-formed until the time of the church fathers.
Even among all the different texts now known, there is not sufficient
deiviation to cause the translators to abandon the traditional formulas,
WHEN ALL THE EVIDENCE IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. I can tell you right now
that the discovery of an early manuscript of a gospel in an obviously
Jewish-oriented version is not going to shake this up considerably,
although it will certainly force a re-evaluation of the merit of
the current text and readings.
One last point: what good is a religion which only those who have time
to devote twenty years of study to can participate in? At my tender
age, I would have to count Sunday School as part of those years. A
religion which the common day laborer, the housewife, and the ditchdigger
cannot participate in is useless, a mere intellectual curiosity.
Charles Wingate