Christspiracy Revisited: An Interview with Co-Director Kameron Waters
- Alexander Lang
- 6 days ago
- 11 min read
Updated: 5 days ago
A couple of months ago, I received a message on Facebook from Kameron Waters. I am not friends with a Kameron Waters, so you can imagine my surprise when I clicked into the message to discover that Kameron is one of the co-directors of the documentary Christspiracy. You may remember that last year I wrote a post about the film after watching it with a friend of mine.
Crazy enough, I went back to that article and realized it had more than 8,000 reads. It is my second most read post after my viral leaving the church article. Apparently, enough people read my post that when you type Christspiracy into Google, my article is one of the top references for the film.
Kam was reaching out to me because he wanted to discuss some of the points I brought up in my article and set the record straight. I welcomed the opportunity. I proposed we sit down for an interview, which would provide him the platform to discuss his ideas as well as an opportunity for me to respond. Below is the full interview.
How We do Anything is How We do Everything
Before I dive into the particulars of Kam’s argument surrounding Jesus (which I now understand much better), I want to focus on something we discussed at the end of our talk, which profoundly impacted me (see the clip below). We were talking about Jesus’ vision of the kingdom of God. If you’re not familiar with this vision, essentially it’s a version of our world where there is no violence: “The wolf shall live with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid, the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them.” (Is. 11:6)
Something Kam spoke about was how our violence as humans really begins with our plates. If you are able to eat the flesh of another living being, meaning you intellectually approve of its slaughter for your nourishment and survival, then adopting that same attitude of violence towards another human for your preservation is not too much of an intellectual leap.
Kam described how the origins of modern human warfare coincided with the rise of herding cultures. Particularly in areas where growing food is difficult, your next best option is growing herds who can survive on the shrubbery that thrives in arid climates. The problem comes when the herds run out of edible shrubbery. You have a choice to either eat your flock or attack the next village over and forcibly take their resources. Since you’re willing to commit violence against your flock, you are also willing to commit violence against other humans.
Whereas, if you refuse to commit violence against animals, then that next step of violence is not as natural. Therefore, rather than fight for resources, those who do not believe in violence against animals will be more likely to adopt Jesus’ tenets of pacifism spoken of in Matthew chapter 5. I give Kam a lot of credit for shifting my perspective on this. He said, “What if how we do anything is how we do everything? If we can slaughter, harm, kill to eat, what will prevent us from doing the same to our fellow humans?” I now recognize that if we truly want to see God’s kingdom on earth, a fundamental aspect of that vision begins with our diets because our attitude towards violence flows from the food on our plates.
For me, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with his assessment of the historical Jesus, watching Christspiracy to rethink this connection is worth your time!
Jesus of Nazareth vs. Jesus the Nazorean
You may recall from my original article, I scrutinized the documentary’s claim that Jesus’ title was not Jesus of Nazareth, but rather Jesus the Nazorean. This matters because the premise of the film hinges on this difference. Connecting Jesus with the Nazorean movement is the key to making the claim that Jesus would have been against the slaughter of animals and the consumption of meat.
Where I initially took issue with the film was the claim that Jesus did not come from Nazareth. The film claims Nazareth as a village didn’t exist in the ancient world until 200 years after Jesus’ death. For reference, here is the clip from the film where this claim was made.
In my article, I showed how archaeological digs of ancient Nazareth excavated evidence that Nazareth existed in the early first century, and also prior. I also took time to answer the claim as to why Josephus would not have included Nazareth in his list of residences within the Galilee.
However, for the purposes of this article, we’re going to set aside these elements and walk through Kam’s logic. Below is the portion of the interview where you can hear his entire explanation as to why he feels associating Jesus with the Nazorean movement is the most accurate representation of the historical Jesus. However, for those who may not have the time or inclination to watch, I will walk through his argument, step by step.
The first place Kam starts is with the Greek in the New Testament. There are two different designations utilized by the gospel authors. The first is the use of the word Nazarenos which is where the classic translation Jesus of Nazareth is derived. For example, the gospel of Mark says: Just then there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit, and he cried out, “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.” (Mk. 1:23-24)
The second is Nazoraios which can be translated as Nazorean, but is often rendered into English as Jesus of Nazareth. For example, this term is used throughout Luke’s gospel: As [Jesus] approached Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging. When he heard a crowd going by, he asked what was happening. They told him, “Jesus of Nazareth is passing by.” (Lk. 18:37) The last line of this could also be rendered: “Jesus, the Nazorean, is passing by.”
What Kam argues is that the Greek term Nazoraios is indicating to us that Jesus was associated with the Nazorean sect. I will admit, I had never paid much attention to this linguistic difference. Therefore, this leads to a vital question: Who exactly are the Nazoreans? Well, this is where things get a little bit complicated. Below is a graphical summation of Kam’s argument, but the rest of this article is dedicated to connecting the dots that he connects for supporting his claim that Jesus is part of the Nazorean sect.
Pliny the Elder
Pliny the Elder (c. 23–79 CE) was a Roman author, naturalist, and military commander, best known for a massive 37-volume encyclopedia titled Naturalis Historia (Natural History), which contained all known knowledge in his time. Pliny died during the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 CE while trying to rescue people from Pompeii.
In Book V, Chapter 23 of Naturalis Historia, Pliny makes a reference to a tribal or provincial region in Coele, Syria known as the Tetrarchy Nazerini. By itself, this reference doesn’t mean much, but the church historian Eusebius (260-319 CE) actually cites this passage from Pliny the Elder in his work Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel) where he states: “Pliny, the very learned man, mentions a tribe of people called the Nazaraeans who lived in a part of Syria.” (9.1)
This raises an interesting question: Who were these Nazerini or, as Eusebius calls them, Nazaraeans? Well, they are a group of Jews who are very similar to the Essenes: Ascetics who have rejected the sacrificial system, reject the consumption of flesh and eat only a vegetarian diet.
Kam claims that this group of Jews who belong to the Nazerini were present in the Transjordan as early as 30 BCE. In other words, this group predates Jesus’ birth by several decades and are well within the geographical proximity to Jesus’ upbringing. The question becomes: What evidence do we possess to suggest that Jesus was affiliated with this sect?
John the Baptist and the Temple
For Kam there are two aspects of Jesus’ life that really highlight the likelihood that Jesus would have been affiliated with the Nazerini sect. The first is Jesus’ connection with John the Baptist. Thanks to the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, we know that John the Baptist “exhorted the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism.” (Antiquities 18.5.2)
What is clear from all the sources we have about John the Baptist, both biblical and extrabiblical, is that John was an ascetic. He lived a lifestyle very close to that of the Essenes. We also know that Jesus was affiliated with John’s movement before launching out on his own due to the fact that Jesus was baptized by John. I am of the opinion that Jesus was a disciple of John before entering his own ministry.
This means that some of Jesus’ teachings originate from John the Baptist. For Kam, the clearest indicator of John’s influence on Jesus happens when Jesus cleanses the Temple. In the gospels, Jesus says, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of thieves.” (Mk. 11:17)
The second part of this quote comes from Jeremiah 7:11 where the Hebrew word for thieves is periyts, which is best rendered as murderers or shedders of blood. In other words, the reason why Jesus is storming the Temple is not because he’s protesting the corrupt Roman political influence on the Temple priests, but rather he’s protesting the sacrificial system itself and the killing of animals.
Kam believes the etymology of periyts and the gospel depiction of Jesus releasing all of the animal sacrifices points to the fact that Jesus and John the Baptist were both likely affiliated with the Nazerini movement in the Transjordan. Not convinced? Kam believes this assertion is reinforced by something even more compelling—Jesus’ brother.
James the Just
The documents in the New Testament convey an interesting turn of events after Jesus’ death: Jesus’ brother, James, becomes the leader of the early church. As word of Jesus’ resurrection spreads and more converts believe in Jesus as the messiah, James establishes the mother church in Jerusalem.
This is quite strange as James does not play a significant role in any of the gospels, so it’s a bit of a mystery as to how James emerges as the leader of the church. What we know about James comes from several sources, but one of the most interesting is a second century Christian named Hegesippus. Although his work has not survived, Hegesippus is quoted once again by the church historian Eusebius (260-319 CE):
“[James] was holy from his mother’s womb; he drank no wine or strong drink, nor did he eat meat. No razor came upon his head, he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath.” (Ecclesiastical History 2.23)
From this description, we can see that James does not eat meat, which is the custom of the Nazerini. Therefore, given that James grew up with Jesus and is the one who becomes the leader of Jesus’ movement after his death and resurrection, it stands to reason that James would represent his brother’s attitude towards the consumption of meat.
However, what Kam believes is the greatest indicator of Jesus’, James’ and John the Baptist’s affiliation with the Nazerini is where this whole argument began: The gospel of Luke/Acts and John incorporate the Greek word Nazoraios to refer to Jesus. Rather than referring to the town of Nazareth, this is a sectarian designation referring to Jesus’ affiliation with the sect of the Nazarini.
The Dead Ringer: Epiphanius
During our interview, Kam said that the person who really brings all of this together is Epiphanius of Salamis (310–403 CE), a bishop and Church Father who gives one of the most detailed early Christian accounts of the Nazoraioi (Nazoreans) in his major work the Panarion (also known as the Medicine Chest). Written around 374–377 CE, the Panarion catalogs and refutes what Epiphanius sees as eighty heresies, and the Nazoraioi are among them:
“They are Jews by nationality, who acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, but are very much like Jews in practice, for they have not abandoned the Law… They are called Nazoraeans. They are different from Christians (as they are now called), and different from Jews, and yet are not entirely separate from either.” (Panarion 29.7.1–3)
According to Epiphanius, these Nazaroaioi kept the Jewish Law, believed that Jesus was the Messiah, but rejected his divinity. And most importantly, rejected animal sacrifice and the consumption of flesh. Kam contends that this group is connected to the original Nazarini that date back to 30 BCE.
Within this same text, Epiphanius refers to another group called the Ebionites, who scholars believe are an offshoot of the Nazaroaioi. Their scriptures include a Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew. This version of Matthew’s gospel veers from the Greek version of Matthew’s gospel found in our Bible’s in two very important ways: 1) John the Baptist was a vegetarian and 2) Jesus refuses to eat the Passover lamb because he is a vegetarian, rejecting animal sacrifice and the consumption of flesh. Jesus rejects the Passover lamb saying:
“They made the disciples say: ‘Where will you have us prepare to eat the Passover?’ And [Jesus replies], ‘Have I desired with desire to eat flesh at this Passover?’” (Panarion 30.22.4)
Kam believes this Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was written prior to the Greek version we have in our New Testaments and supports the claim that Jesus was part of the Nazorean movement. Ultimately, the reason why this version of Jesus was lost to history is because Paul’s version of Christianity became orthodoxy, which emphasized Jesus’ divinity, reshaping Jesus’ entire message.
Thanks to Paul, rather than Jesus ending the sacrificial system to stop the killing of animals, Christians today believe Jesus wanted to stop the sacrificial system because his sacrifice on the cross for the forgiveness of sins made the Temple sacrifice system irrelevant.
Assessment and Conclusion
Now that I better understand the argument, what do I make of Kam’s claim that Jesus was part of this Nazorean sect who rejected the sacrificial system and ate a vegetarian diet? Well, I actually agree with some components of Kam’s argument and disagree with others.
Personally, I agree with Kam that James, Jesus’ brother, did not believe that his brother was divine during his lifetime. As Barth Ehrman has suggested, Jesus’ disciples came to believe that Jesus had been divinized after his resurrection. I also agree that James was always Jewish through-and-through and, unlike Paul, never wanted to do away with Torah Law. For James, Jesus’ movement was meant to remain a Jewish movement.
As for the claim that Jesus was affiliated with the Nazorini and wanted to end the sacrificial system so as to stop the eating of animal flesh, I am less convinced. Among scholars, this is a minority view with Dr. James Tabor, retired Professor of Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte being the biggest proponent. Kam has developed a close relationship with Dr. Tabor and the two of them are working through the numerous linguistic issues preventing a direct connection that associates Jesus with Nazoreans. Setting aside those issues, the problem for me still comes back to the issue of Jesus of Nazareth versus Jesus the Nazorean.
In the gospel of Mark, the earliest narrative rendition of Jesus’ life (written circa 70 CE), not only is Jesus referred to as Jesus of Nazareth, but he visits his hometown in Mark chapter 6. The sectarian designation of Jesus the Nazorean only finds its way into the New Testament with the later gospels of Luke and John. Luke/Acts is often dated to 85 CE (but could be as late as 115 CE) and we know John is composed between 90-100 CE. What this suggests is that the Nazorean label emerges towards the end of the first century, referring to a specific group of Jewish-Christian followers of Jesus, one of many off-shoots forming at the time.
I’m not denying these movements existed, I just think it’s a stretch to connect Jesus’ personal ideology with the Nazerini. If Jesus was known as “the Nazorean” during his lifetime, this sectarian designation would have appeared in Mark or Paul's letters.
From my perspective, I would give Kam’s claim a lot more credence if he could prove that the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew predates gospel of Mark (i.e. written prior to 70 CE). By demonstrating this Hebrew gospel was written prior to the Greek gospels, he could firmly place the Nazorean tradition in the mid-first century, connecting it more firmly to Jesus’ ministry. Unfortunately, there is no surviving copy of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew…but archaeologists are always stumbling upon new finds all the time, so who knows what the future could reveal!