When did the Church decisively break with Torah-observant Jewish Christians?

[ArmyMatt]

I would recommend the book Surprised by Christ: My Journey from Judaism to Orthodox Christianity by Father James Bernstein. One chapter shows his own personal study about what happened to the Jewish Christians in early Church history, his curiosity stemming from being a Jew. He makes an argument that the Ebionites (unitarians who believed following the Law of Moses was necessary, aka Judaizers) and Nazarenes (Orthodox Christians who followed the Law as ethnic and cultural Jews) were distinct groups. He followed the Nazarenes’ progress in history from Jerusalem at the time of its destruction in the second century north to the Syria/Lebanon area, and believes they eventually assimilated into the Church of Antioch.

agreed

 

[rakovsky]

I would recommend the book Surprised by Christ: My Journey from Judaism to Orthodox Christianity by Father James Bernstein. One chapter shows his own personal study about what happened to the Jewish Christians in early Church history, his curiosity stemming from being a Jew. He makes an argument that the Ebionites (unitarians who believed following the Law of Moses was necessary, aka Judaizers) and Nazarenes (Orthodox Christians who followed the Law as ethnic and cultural Jews) were distinct groups. He followed the Nazarenes’ progress in history from Jerusalem at the time of its destruction in the second century north to the Syria/Lebanon area, and believes they eventually assimilated into the Church of Antioch.

Thanks, Dracul.
Sure, I have read Surprised by Christ, and the theory about the Nazarenes moving from Jerusalem to Syria in order to avoid the ruin of the 135 AD war makes sense and is backed up by documentation. Sure, over time due to the Arab conquest and the majority of the area being gentile they would end up assimilating into the gentile Christians or Muslims.

Nonetheless, while one could theorize that this is what happened to the Nazarenes, correctly, my question still remains of whether the Orthodox Church ever actually made a rule against Torah observance. For example, Ignatius of Antioch made a declaration against Sabbath worship in his Epistle to the Magnesians, and being bishop of Antioch, his declaration might have had considerable influence over the customs of the Nazarenes in Syria. But his declaration was not itself actually a churchwide canon or rule.

Further, the fact that the Nazarenes got absorbed is not itself something that makes my question moot, since you could ask whether there was a Church rule that made the Nazarenes in Syria give up their Torah observance, and besides that issue, over the centuries there were other significance conversions of Jews into the Church, and a question that would naturally result is whether they could continue to practice Jewish rituals.

 

[RDKirk]

What is an orthodox-unfriendly answer?

One that responded to the actual question:

What was the earliest point, if any, that the Orthodox Church broke with Jewish Christians observing Torah?

 

[buzuxi02]

Most of the early conflict were Jewish believers wanting the gentiles to go through a Jewish conversion process (circumcision, observe certain tenets etc).
If a large number of Jews, let's says in a Jewish state like Israel convert to Orthodox christianity then they would be able to observe certain customs but not others. They would have to give up passover in exchange for the Christian celebration of Pascha. They would have to give up most aspects of the Talmud, although certain teachings compatible with Orthodoxy could be retained. Hannukah and Purim could be kept as holidays but not Yom Kippur etc. I dont see an Orthodox Christian version of a glatt kosher deli or restaurant with a rabbi on premises taking hold.

 

[rakovsky]

Most of the early conflict were Jewish believers wanting the gentiles to go through a Jewish conversion process (circumcision, observe certain tenets etc).
If a large number of Jews, let's says in a Jewish state like Israel convert to Orthodox christianity then they would be able to observe certain customs but not others. They would have to give up passover in exchange for the Christian celebration of Pascha. They would have to give up most aspects of the Talmud, although certain teachings compatible with Orthodoxy could be retained. Hannukah and Purim could be kept as holidays but not Yom Kippur etc.

I understand that if there was a teaching incompatible with Orthodoxy, it would not be kept.
I am wondering if there is a Church rule on point about Torah observance, or if there was ever a formal decisive break with those Jewish Christians observing it. Jerome and Epiphanius wrote of the Nazarenes as a ritually observant sect, but did not label them heretical, which sounds like in the 4th century there was not yet an official schism with them across the board like there was with, say, the Arians.

It seems though like there actually was one, and I just haven't found yet where or when it happened. Fr. Matt, what was it in the Didache that you found as marking such a split? THe only thing that comes to mind is where it criticizes fasting on Monday and Thursday, which was a rabbinic practice that I read began after the Temple's destruction.

 

[ArmyMatt]

the fasting distinction was during the time of Christ, which we know from the parable of the publican and the Pharisee.

and yes, that was the main early distinction I was thinking of.

 

[buzuxi02]

I understand that if there was a teaching incompatible with Orthodoxy, it would not be kept.
I am wondering if there is a Church rule on point about Torah observance, or if there was ever a formal decisive break with those Jewish Christians observing it. Jerome and Epiphanius wrote of the Nazarenes as a ritually observant sect, but did not label them heretical, which sounds like in the 4th century there was not yet an official schism with them across the board like there was with, say, the Arians.

It seems though like there actually was one, and I just haven't found yet where or when it happened. Fr. Matt, what was it in the Didache that you found as marking such a split? THe only thing that comes to mind is where it criticizes fasting on Monday and Thursday, which was a rabbinic practice that I read began after the Temple's destruction.

There was never a schism with Ebionites or Nazarenes as they were an insulated group never in the Church. They seemed to refuse contact with gentile Christians preferring to be segregated from gentiles but would dialogue and persuade gentile Christian's to accept the observance of Torah. Justin Martyr dialogue with Trypho mentions them:

I said, “In my opinion, Trypho, such an one will be saved, if he does not strive in every way to persuade other men, —I mean those Gentiles who have been circumcised from error by Christ, to observe the same things as himself, telling them that they will not be saved unless they do so......But if some, through weak-mindedness, wish to observe such institutions as were given by Moses, from which they expect some virtue, but which we believe were appointed by reason of the hardness of the people’s hearts, along with their hope in this Christ, and [wish to perform] the eternal and natural acts of righteousness and piety, yet choose to live with the Christians and the faithful, as I said before, not inducing them either to be circumcised like themselves, or to keep the Sabbath, or to observe any other such ceremonies, then I hold that we ought to join ourselves to such, and associate with them in all things as kinsmen and brethren. But if, Trypho,” I continued, “some of your race, who say they believe in this Christ, compel those Gentiles who believe in this Christ to live in all respects according to the law given by Moses, or choose not to associate so intimately with them, I in like manner do not approve of them. But I believe that even those, who have been persuaded by them to observe the legal dispensation along with their confession of God in Christ, shall probably be saved. (Ch 47)

 

[rakovsky]

The ACROD website says:

The Orthodox Church does not prohibit circumcision so long as it is not practiced for spiritual or religious reasons. Orthodox believers are not bound by the lapsed Law of Moses.American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese of North America | Moral Issues

It would address the issue better if it quoted a canon rule or conciliar statement saying that circumcision was banned if performed in observance of the Torah.

The Society of St. John of Gothia webpage "An Orthodox Christian Perspective On Circumcision" claims:

our Church has not taken a Traditional stance on the matter of circumcision, since the Byzantine era. The Roman Catholics banned its practice at the Council of Florence, and the Oriental orthodox banned it in 1086 (Canons of Cyril II)

 

[rakovsky]

There was never a schism with Ebionites or Nazarenes as they were an insulated group never in the Church.
Justin Martyr dialogue with Trypho mentions them:

I said, “In my opinion, Trypho, such an one will be saved, if he does not strive in every way to persuade other men, —I mean those Gentiles who have been circumcised from error by Christ, to observe the same things as himself, telling them that they will not be saved unless they do so......But if some, through weak-mindedness, wish to observe such institutions as were given by Moses, from which they expect some virtue, but which we believe were appointed by reason of the hardness of the people’s hearts, along with their hope in this Christ, and [wish to perform] the eternal and natural acts of righteousness and piety, yet choose to live with the Christians and the faithful, as I said before, not inducing them either to be circumcised like themselves, or to keep the Sabbath, or to observe any other such ceremonies, then I hold that we ought to join ourselves to such, and associate with them in all things as kinsmen and brethren.

As I underlined above, Justin actually proposes associating with the gentile-friendly faction of Torah observant Christians "in all things as kinsmen and brethren", which suggests being associated and united with them as fellow Christians, like with communion.
So I want to see if at what point the Church laid on a prohibition against the Torah observant believers, like communing them.

Further, it's hard to accept that the "Nazarenes" were never part of the Church. My reading of Surprised by Christ is that they were originally a major part of it. If you look at the debate in Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem, the debate was over whether gentile Christians also needed to observe Torah. They were not debating whether Jewish Christians like the "circumcision" part could keep on observing the Torah. Eusebius says that up until 135 AD, the bishops of Jerusalem were of the circumcision. So there is a relevant historical question of what happened to Torah observant Christians who had been in fact a significant portion of the Church, and if the Church ever took an official stance against such Torah observance by even Jewish Christians.

 

[buzuxi02]

The ACROD website says:

It would address the issue better if it quoted a canon rule or conciliar statement saying that circumcision was banned if performed in observance of the Torah.

The Society of St. John of Gothia webpage "An Orthodox Christian Perspective On Circumcision" claims:

There is no canon specifically banning circumcision. Also the canon amongst Orientals about prohibiting circumcision has never been observed. It was an attempt to curb the Islamic influence on Egyptian culture which practises circumcision. Its customary for both Copts and Ethiopians to circumcise.

. If you look at the debate in Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem, the debate was over whether gentile Christians also needed to observe Torah. They were not debating whether Jewish Christians like the "circumcision" part could keep on observing the Torah. Eusebius says that up until 135 AD, the bishops of Jerusalem were of the circumcision.

While some Jewish Christians ended up as members of the Nazarene/ebionite sect are highly plausible these groups were more likely distinct spurious groups coalescing into one (or two sects). These various Jewish-christ believing sects are mentioned in Acts 19 and they had constant conflict with Paul. (Note we are told by Ienaeous they labeled Paul an apostate of the law).
The Jewish Roman wars of 135 AD destroyed Jerusalem, all Jews were expelled from the province and it was replaced by a Roman colony named Aelia. This is why the Jewish bishops (relatives of Jesus who were killed during the war) ceased. The closest major Episcopal see to Jerusalem became Ceasaria and they appointed bishops for the area.

.

 

[dzheremi]

Just to provide a bit more information on what Buzuxi02 said, circumcision is written about negatively in certain parts of the History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria (a collection of previous and contemporary biographies and histories, begun in the 10th century by Bp. Severus El Ashmunein), showing that it was known in that time, but still enough of a novelty/innovation to be recognized as unacceptable and foreign. From that source, the earliest evidence we have for the Coptic practice of circumcision is from the biography of John, bishop to the Abyssinians during the time of HH Abba James (50th Coptic Patriarch, 819-830), but it came about in an odd way that didn't really have anything to do with Muslims or Islam (that influence came even later). On the strength of the witness of John II, writing in 866 the biographies of patriarchs Mina I (767-744) to Shenouda I (whose papacy was contemporaneous with John II's writing, and would not end until 880), we are told that in the time of HH Pope James, he ordained one Abba John to be bishop to the Abyssinians. At that time, the Abyssinians were at war and were not welcoming to outsiders, and hence drove out the bishop and elected one of their own, in violation of the canons. So John returned to Egypt to the monastery of El Baramous in Wadi Habib, where he had previously been a monk.

After the Abyssinians subsequently lost their war and were beset by famine and drought, their king wrote to the patriarch, asking him to please send Bp. John back to them. The patriarch obliged. Here the biography shows its disdain for the practice of circumcision, in its phrasing concerning what happened next:

“After this, Satan, the enemy of peace, suggested an idea to some of the people of that country. Accordingly, they waited upon the king, and said to him: “We request thy majesty to command this bishop to be circumcised. For all the inhabitants of our country are circumcised except him”. And the working of Satan was so powerful that the king approved this proposal, namely that the aged bishop should be taken and circumcised, or else that he should return to the place whence he had come. And when the bishop recollected the hardships of his journeys, both when he departed and when he returned, and then of what he would experience again, he dreaded the difficulties of the road both by land and water. So he said: “I will submit to this, for the salvation of these souls, of which the Lord has appointed me shepherd without any merit of mine. Yet now Paul the apostle enjoins us, saying: ‘If any man is called without circumcision, let him not be circumcised’”.

From this we can learn two things: still in the 9th century, the circumcision of Christians was being called by the Copts an idea that came from Satan (!), and that the first Copt to submit to the practice did so in order to be accepted by the Ethiopians, not the Muslims. Even in accepting it, John himself does not allow for any confusion as to whether or not the practice ought to be commanded of Christians, with his quote from St. Paul.

We can tell by looking at subsequent canons that Islamic influence in Egypt had grown within about two and a half centuries of HH James' time such that probably no bishop could've stopped it by that point, but I just thought it was interesting to see the very beginning of Coptic circumcision, because before I got my own copy of the History of the Patriarchs, I had thought it was as simple as Muslim influence, too. (This being repeated in several sources, including later Coptic sources, which are not wrong about why it has unfortunately remained a part of many people's practice despite the canons against it.)

 

[rakovsky]

It looks like this unresolved issue where historically, and in cases up to today, there have been Jewish Christians who have been Torah observant, with some of them like St. James being very respected in our Church. And meanwhile there have been declarations by Church fathers and other important and influential figures against Torah observance by anyone. And even along with this, there have been figures who nonetheless continue to accept Torah-observant individuals as part of the Church.

So on one hand you had St. James and his faction observing Torah, while you also had St Ignatius approving of Jewish Christians who gave up Sabbath observance in his Letter to the Magnesians, and then in c. 150 AD you have St. Justin promoting full association as brethren with Torah observant Jewish Christians who accept non-Torah observant gentile Christians.

And then in the 4th century you have the Torah observant Nazarene sect in the region of Syria whom apparently included whom Eusebius wrote were the Jewish Christians who fled Jerusalem in c. 70 AD for Syria and Jordan. They would be the same group, it appears, whom the Church fathers respected as being a major, important component of the Church's founding in the 1st century. But meanwhile you had St. Cyril of Jerusalem saying in his Catechetical Lectures 4:37: “Fall not away either into the sect of the Samaritans or into Judaism, for Jesus Christ has henceforth ransomed you. Stand aloof from all observance of Sabbaths and from calling any indifferent meats common or unclean”. You could theorize that he was only directing this message at gentile Christians. But at least he doesn't specify his audience that way in the passage. Besides, Jerome in a letter to Augustine in this period wrote against letting Torah observant Christians into the Church because he said that they would lead the Church into judaizing. The Council of Laodicea (360 AD) says:
“Christians should not Judaize and should not be idle on the Sabbath, but should work on that day; they should, however, particularly reverence the Lord’s day and, if possible, not work on it, because they were Christians” (Canon 29).
It appears to direct this at all Christians, but this was a regional Council, not a canon for all Christians everywhere like Nicea was.
Finally, Byzantine emperors made laws against circumcising Christians. But those were secular, state laws, not religious canons. Sure, they had a major practical effect on the lives of believers, but it's not like we can point to them as a religious, churchly law that applies directly to all Christians.

 

[JohnTh]

So I am looking the earliest official Church prohibition or official break, but I don't know of any at all.

It was a progressive path - the first steps being, as you observed, at the Apostolic Synod. Also, St. Paul is clear in his positions that the new law is the fulfillment of the old one and, as we know, this position was/is very influential in Church.

 

[Lukaris]

There were also centuries of social tensions between various communities within the Roman Empire. In Alexandria there were centuries of tensions between the Greeks and Jews. As Christianity spread among the Gentiles, theological matters ( I think) became bound with secular problems (nothing unique there). A major example of this is the murder of the pagan female philosopher Hypatia (415 AD?).

I think the homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Jews reflected this and perhaps stress he was undergoing in those times. I am not excusing some of the tones but I think certain traditions just became discarded over time.

 

[peregrinus2017]

I don't know about any official break, but from what I understand Jewish Christian's were kicked out of the synagogues and generally ostracized by the Jewish people that refused to accept Jesus as the Messiah. It doesn't take much more than one generation for a family to assimilate into another culture unless they work really hard at retaining that culture. I can certainly see the children and grandchildren of Jewish Christians that were rejected by the Jewish community identifying much more as Christians than Jews.

 

[buzuxi02]

. It doesn't take much more than one generation for a family to assimilate into another culture unless they work really hard at retaining that culture

.Also the Church was eager to distance itself from Judaism after the Kitos war. After the uprisings on their neighbors Jews developed a horrible reputation of a violent dangerous pariah people.