I've created this thread to discuss who the Nazarenes were. I'm not talking about the modern groups of people who share that name, but the historical group the Bible and the early church fathers spoke of.

Please, keep your conversation fixed on discovering who they were based on historical and Biblical records. I've found a wonderful post that discusses the Nazarenes in much detail. This post also addresses the idea that they were the same as the Ebionites and does a good job of disproving that common idea.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnazonly.html

You can read the whole thing, but it is very long. I would recommend scrolling down about a third of the way to the section, "First the Nazarenes..." and starting there.

To whet your appetite, I'll post the author's conclusions:

OVERALL SUMMARY of the Nazarenes:

First, I want to note some of the statements in Pritz' summary chapter (pp.108ff):

• "The Nazarenes were distinct from the Ebionites and prior to them. In fact, we have found that it is possible that there was a split in Nazarene ranks around the turn of the first century...Out of this split came the Ebionites, who can scarcely be separated from the Nazarenes on the basis of geography, but who can be easily distinguished from the standpoint of Christology."
• "There were to be found in the Galilee and probably in Jerusalem until 135, when all Jews were expelled from the city"
• "What we have seen of their doctrines lines up well with the developing christological doctrines of the greater catholic Church. The sect seems to have been basically Trinitarian. They accepted the virgin birth and affirmed the deity of Jesus. They also seem to have had an embryonic, developing doctrine of the Holy Spirit, one which was no more nor indeed less developed than that of the greater Church at a comparable stage."
• "they did not reject the apostleship of Paul. They recognized his commission from God to preach to the gentiles."
• "The Nazarenes were not included in the earlier heresy lists because they were simply not considered heretical enough or a threat to 'orthodoxy'."

Now, let me cite some conclusions made in another scholarly assessment of the Nazarenes, Stephen Wilson [RS:155-156]:

1. They use the Old and New Testaments.
2. They knew Hebrew and one gospel written in Hebrew.
3. They accepted resurrection from the dead.
4. They believed in one God, the creator, and his Son Jesus Christ.
5. They observed the law.
6. They originated among the Christians who fled from Jerusalem and were located in Pella, Cochaba, and Coele-Syria.
7. They were hated and cursed by the jews for their messianic beliefs.
8. They held an orthodox Christology (by Jerome's standards), including virgin birth and divine sonship.
9. They disputed the value of Jewish 'tradition' (halakah)
10. They endorsed Paul and his Gentile mission.
11. They called for reconciliation with and repentance from the Jews.
12. "In most aspects the Nazarenes look like a mainstream Christian group."

Overall, I would have to say that the data is overwhelmingly in favor of the Nazarenes being VERY orthodox, VERY early, and VERY 'universal' in outlook.

To begin with, how are the Nazarenes identified in the Bible?

In Acts 24:5,