In reading about early Christianity, I have discovered from some sources that Christians were far from a unified group; they fragmented into diverse sects - one of which became the basic religion we are familiar with today. Apparently, that faction wasn't even the one headed by the original apostles, as Judaic Christianity pretty much disappeared after the destruction of Jerusalem, dwindling to insignificance, while Paul's rendition of Christianity started to spread and blossom.
I'm wondering if the NT itself documents these various streams of Christianity that some historians believe existed, as I've often found it hard to reconcile the idea of not a "jot and tittle" being dropped from the Law and Jesus' statement to "teach men to observe all that I command you" in Matthew with Paul's message in Galatians. Basically, I'm really struggling with the seemingly works-based ideas in the Synoptic Gospels, which seemed to be steeped in radical Judaic ideals, and the Gentile-friendly expositions of Grace Paul gives.
I believe the Holy Spirit was at work inspiring all who penned their letters or gospels in the Bible, but this logical and historical problem is still a thorn in my faith.
Any help would be welcome.
i think you have noticed something that usually takes years to notice. There is a huge problem though. Whilst it appears that there was the gospel of the apostles to the Jews and the gospel of the apostle Paul to the non-Jews, there was only one gospel.
the idea that the gospels promote a 'work-based' righteousness is both true and false. Within the 2nd temple period, there existed multiple strands of Judaism, the most commonly known ones being the Separatist, the Sadducean, the Essene, the Qumran community. There were also a number more. The other most important jewish sect of the time was called 'ha-derekh' - 'the-way'. These were the messianic jews. The important thing about all these sects of judaism was that the prime authority was the Torah, the only difference between them being the authority of their rabbis to interpret the Torah properly (with the exception of the Sadduceans), rather than making a fudge of it, or completely mis-interpreting it.... this is what Jesus means when he says, "I have not come to abolish the Torah, but to fulfil it". The people who heard what he said then would have understood him perfectly as the concepts of fulfilling the Torah and destroying/abolishing the Torah were well known concepts within the writings of the sages and the mentality of the people of the day. This was not some new idea that Jesus invented.
But you mention a 'work-based' gospel. In actuality, all of the Judaisms outlined above, taught the same thing. Life in the age to come was only possible by becoming a covenant member. For most of the judaisms, the first step to becoming a covenant member was to be either born Jewish ('under Law') (by being circumcised at eight days), or you became a convert to judaism by being circumcised (works of law) as an adult (which is what was taught by the seperatists (pharisees) and what happened between Paul and Timothy.)
Once a member of this covenant people (by virtue of circumcision), you're place in the age to come was secured (with provisions) and you were then obliged to keep Torah (the gift that comes from being a covenant member). The Talmud records 'all Israel has a share in the age to come'. Paul makes a similar comment, when he says, 'so shall all Israel be saved'. We see the teachings of Jesus as being almost exclusively to Jews, and so we have to understand there mentality... they already believed they were 'saved' but rewards are a different mattter. Gifts are freely given (birthright is something no one has control over so the early Jewish sects interpreted their birth covenant status as a matter of God's grace - not a matter of works.) That said, rewards are earned, and that is at the heart of much of Jesus' teaching, particularly the stuff around the sermon on the mount (most easily placed Matthew 5 onwards.)
But there is another path.... The members of ha-derekh taught that gentiles could partake of this covenant (the one ade with Abraham, with the later gift of Torah) status simply by putting their trust into action (faith) and throwing themselves on the mercy of God who through His Messiah became a light to the nations. The apostles taught that by exercising faith, you stepped into the same ilk as the fathers of the Jewish faith, e.g. Abraham, as up until he circumcised himself he was a gentile, then becoming a covenant member. The promise had to be seen in action. This is what James meant when saying Abraham was justified by his works. Paul also uses the passage, but exegetes it differently (though both explanations are equally valid depending on whether you're talking to Jews or non-Jews.) (the idea that two peopel exegete the passage differently is only problematic to westerners with their greek way of thinking.... back then the same verse could hold differing views and both would be equally valid: this idea of exegesis is referred to as a 'drash' in hebraic thinking.)
All sects understood it quite well - a place in the age to come was purely by God's grace, and made to stand by faith in action. As Habbukuk says, 'the righteous will live by faithing' (I am sorry I have to resort the torturing the english language but in hebrew faith is a verb, and in greek the root word is also a verb.... but in english there is no verb for 'faith'.)
Steve
p.s. i will stop now and give someone else a look in, but i would recommend books like the following,
Paul and Palestinian Judaism,
Paul the Law and the Jewish People,
Jesus and Judaism,
What St. Paul really said: Was Paul of Tarsus the real founder of christianity?. the above books are quite deep, but the following ones are a little easier (but just as informative) - Meet the Rabbis, The Parables, Jesus the Jewish Theologian, The sage from galilee,
