Christianity emerged at a time when people
were seeking a new and more fulfilling religion than that which we now
regard as classical mythology. That had become debased as perverted
Roman emperors assumed divinity and perhaps was seen to lack the
appealing philosophical aspects of some more mysterious eastern
religions. Various contenders were competing on the stage for the
public's attention, including Mithraism from Persia and the Isis/Osiris
mystery cults from Egypt. The religions of this day are all strangely
parallel to each other.
The Jews were divided, both politically and religiously, something
which Jesus played on, causing them to argue among themselves. The
Sadducees were essentially the priestly group, they served in the
temple and even sacrificed to Caesar to appease him and retain their
status quo. The Pharisees normally worshiped in synagogues rather than
the temple and were more interested in upholding the Law of Moses. With
the destruction of the temple the in 70 CE the Sadducees faded out of
existence but the Pharisees evolved into the synagogue movement,
upholding the law, Jewish family life and observance.
A detail of one of the Dead Scrolls
A third group existed and is
well documented by Josephus: the Essenes. Some have claimed that the
Essenes wrote the 'Dead Sea Scrolls', however their authorship is
disputed. There is no mention in the new testament of the Essenes. Much
investigation into the 'Dead Sea Scrolls' had been carried out linking
the early church and there are theories that characters mentioned refer
to Jesus, Paul and James. I personally feel there is not enough
evidence to support these connections and do not wish to comment
further on them, however I will mention linking of the groups a little
later.
What is apparent however is the
earlier scrolls were written before Christianity and the latter ones
during the life of the early Church. They therefore give a fascinating
insight into Jewish philosophy at that time.
Perhaps the earliest independent reference to
Christianity is in 'the twelve Caesars', by Seutonius. He mentions the
Jews during the reign of Claudius being expelled as they caused
constant disturbances because of 'Chrestus' (surely Christ). Many
assume this was due to the Jews having internal disagreements over
Jesus. It also indicates that Christianity at that time may have been,
or was at least seen as, purely a Jewish sect in Rome.
Later he mentions Nero persecuting the Christians and
seems to have had a negative view of them, describing them as new and
mischievous religion.
Contemporary independent references to Jesus are
unfortunately non-existent. Josephus wrote 'Antiquities of the Jews'
some time after the destruction of the temple and the expulsion of the
Jews in 70 CE. A reference to Jesus in this work cannot reasonably be
accepted as genuine, having being written in such a different style
that it is apparent even in translation and runs against the general
tone of Josephus' other writings. It was first quoted by Eusebius,
bishop of Caesarea, friend and advisor of Constantine
Why is this the case, did Jesus make less impact on
his day than we generally imagine, or were independent references
destroyed along with what the church saw as heretical gospels ? We can
be certain that Constantine purged gospels that were considered
heretical and the people that accepted they were eradicated too.
The New Testament cannon is considered in a separate
portion of this site, however here it is referred to a part of the
evolution of the first church.
On the death of Jesus, the Church passed to James the brother of Jesus, Galatians 1:19 (I saw none of the apostles - only James the Lord's brother.) who ruled in Jerusalem until his death around 66 CE, the time of the commencement of the Jewish war against the Romans.
Paul came onto the stage after the death of Jesus and
changed the scene completely, he disagreed with James with regard to
his whole philosophy - compare James 2:14-24 (What
good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no
deeds. Can such a faith save him ?...(James 2:14). Was not our ancestor
Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son
Isaac on the altar. You see faith and actions were working together....
you see a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
(James 2:21-24))
with Romans 3:28, 4,1-3 (For
we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the
law. (Rom 3:28). What shall we say that Abraham, our forefather,
discovered in this matter ? If in fact, Abraham was justified by works,
he had something to boast about - but not before God. what does the
Scripture say ? Abraham believed in God and it was credited to his as
righteousness. (Rom 4:1-3))
The two groups seemed diametrically opposed.
The Church of St Peter in Hatay - ancient Antioch, said to be the cave where Peter preached to the local Jewish community.
Paul claimed that he was
granted permission to preach to the gentiles while Peter preached to
the Jews. At this time there were large Jewish communities spread is
most of the major cities around the Mediterranean. The reality may have
been quite different from what we may often imagine; Paul may have been
the leader of a Greco Roman Church while James was head of essentially
a Jewish sect. This sect maintained Jewish dietary law, practised
circumcision and was to all appearances a normal Jewish group Galatians 2. (... even
Timothy who was with me was compelled to be circumcised, even though he
was a Greek ... I have been given the task of preaching the gospel to
the gentiles just as Peter was given the task of preaching the gospel
to the Jews. James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars ...
When Peter can to Antioch I opposed him to his face because he was
wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the
gentiles. But when they arrived he began to draw back and separate
himself from the gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged
to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined in his hypocrisy.)
Eusebius gives an interesting description of James,
his life and death. He refers to his 'throne' of Jerusalem, while other
bishops only had seats, indicating Jerusalem was then still held
somehow special. James' description seems similar to that of a
Nazerite, or John the Baptist, or an Essene. He didn't shave or cut
his hair, abstained from meat and alcohol. Whilst there is frequent
mention to the Sadducees and Pharisees in the New Testament, the
Essenes are conspicuous by their absence. There are theological
differences with respect to the resurrection for example which
different Jewish groups including the Pharisees and Sadducees disputed.
Yet, there are also parallels. Did the early Christians evolve from the
Essenes ?
Was James the head of the Church as Eusebius claims or was he simply
a Zadokite priest as may be implied from the Nag Hammadi scrolls ?
Certainly, his description recorded by Eusebius would support his
priestly role.
The traditional tomb of James is shown above with the two pillars. It faces the Temple mount.
At this point, I feel it is
impossible to say for certain, as there are distinct differences in
some of their writings, but there are also distinct similarities
between the two communities, for example, the sharing of property (Acts
4:32). (All the believers were one in heart and mind. No
one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared
everything they had.)
The essentially Jewish
community of James may well have perished fighting the Romans in 66-73
CE, leaving only Paul's distinctly different gentile sect to prosper.
The section on the new testament explores just what type of person may
have followed Jesus and what may have really led to his crucifixion at
the hands of the Romans. Let it suffice to say now that the early
Christians may have been an anti Roman group.
Conclusion
I consider that two distinctly different and
indeed opposed Christian philosophies emerged soon after the death of
Jesus. One expounded by Paul, who never met Jesus throughout his
earthly life and the other by James, the brother of Jesus, these were
aimed at the Gentiles and Jews respectively and conflicted with each
other. The former prospered while the latter disappeared. In the next
section on Constantine and the church I explore how the Emperor may
have further adulterated Christianity for his Greco Roman citizens.
