Re: The Ebionites
Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2018 9:09 am
I took a fresh look at Jewish Christianity recently and this is how it looks to me:
viewtopic.php?t=3114
viewtopic.php?t=3114
Investigating the roots of western civilization (ye olde BC&H forum of IIDB lives on...)
https://earlywritings.com/forum/
It is dawning on me that 1st C CE ebionites are very elusive. Sadly.DCHindley wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 6:15 pm The problem I have long had with modern scholarship on the Ebionites is its willingness to accept the early-Christian version of events as something to be assumed, and not as if it were in need of proof itself.
I will accept that the term means "poor" in Hebrew or Aramaic. In the early stages of proto-christian (small "c" to designate "messianists" up to 70 CE, where a capital "C" would designate "Christ" worshippers = Christians) period of development, perhaps they saw themselves as folks who willingly assumed a poor man's lifestyle in pursuit of right conduct, rather than "sell out" and make compromises that violated the sect's strict code of ethics.
If so, then "The Poor" was a nickname for the assembly the group represented. That is, the followers of Jesus who preached a message regarding an impending regime change. For this group, to be "anointed" ("christos") was something that humans did to symbolically dedicate someone to a lofty task, in this case be a king. So this term related to a time when an earthly kingdom was the subject in question.
But when we start to talk about the view that these are "Ebionites" (capital "E," which sounds like capital "C") who would be the "Jewish-Christians" who were Judeans who had followed the teachings of Jesus immediately following his death, as opposed to Gentile followers of Jesus, that is another kind of animal.
Is there any particular reason to connect the small group of gentiles in Josephus (do you know what passages?) with ebionites?DCHindley wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 6:15 pmIn Josephus' works, he writes about a (small?) group of gentiles who sought protection from Galilean rebels. The rebel commanders wanted to compel the gentiles to accept circumcision to live in their captured territory, otherwise "adios!"
For whatever reason, the gentile group did not want to leave. Possibly they were proselytes to the practice of Judean ways, who were now being threatened by their fellow gentiles who held areas that remained loyal to Rome's lawfully appointed tetrarch-kings and the city-councils of gentile-Greek free cities. However, this proselyte lifestyle did not require circumcision. That was going farther than anyone had told them about. Josephus says he heard of this issue when he assumed his command in Galilee and ordered the rebel captains to allow them to live among them without circumcision.
I kind of think that the gentile wing of the followers of Jesus' teachings were of this kind. The Judean rebellion of 66+ CE became a great chopping block. While the Judean followers of Jesus' teachings were virtually wiped out by the war, and gentile followers of Jesus' teachings were not, this may just be a function of the fact that Romans would be much harsher on Judeans than gentiles residing in areas recaptured by Roman forces.
But the folks who seem to have popped up around 200 CE, who profess a belief in a divine savior Christ but assuming observance of Judean ways and the rite of circumcision, and supposedly represented by the group that penned the Pseudo-Clementine romance and teachings, I think were Gentiles who assumed Judean ways for whatever personal reasons they might have had. I dunno ...
DCH
This is one of the things I looked at again in the thread I linked to above. Epiphanius (who was aware of Jewish Christian writings as well as Jewish Christians in his day) and other Church fathers say that there were two branches of Jewish Christians, with Ebionites being one of them, and Epiphanius says in Pan. 30.2.7 that the Ebiontes' origin "came after the fall of Jerusalem."It is dawning on me that 1st C CE ebionites are very elusive. Sadly.
There're a few other propositions around these names, including it was Jews that called Christians Nazoraeans or Nazarenes (I think it is said b/c Jews did not want to acknowledge the messianic aspects of 'Christ'; there may be other reasons, if that indeed happened).John2 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:10 pm ... Epiphanius also says that the Nazarenes (Nazoraeans..)) did not call themselves Nazarenes, but that this is what orthodox Christians called them because of Acts and that they were okay with it. I don't recall offhand what he says they called themselves, but in any event he traces their origin to the time of Jesus.
You have piqued my curiosity, despite my having previously arrived at the point where I think the origins are too obscure to make any meaningful statements....but...that said, you sound fairly sure...so...what are you basing than on (or off, if you're American)?Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:38 am Ebionites nor Nazarenes existed as an autonomous group before 130 ad, and whenever their parent Community came to be is unclear, but it was long after 70 ad.
I'm American but still say based on.You have piqued my curiosity, despite my having previously arrived at the point where I think the origins are too obscure to make any meaningful statements....but...that said, you sound fairly sure...so...what are you basing than on (or off, if you're American)?
And:Ebionites nor Nazarenes existed as an autonomous group before 130 ad, and whenever their parent Community came to be is unclear, but it was long after 70 ad.
I start with Papias (who I've come to have increasing respect for), since he is the first to mention Mark and Matthew. And since he says that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and was translated into at least two Greek versions (with one of them presumably being the canonical version), I reckon the original Hebrew version must have predated Papias enough to have circulated and been translated multiple times (and combined with Mark, which in my view makes the canonical Matthew the first gospel harmony) before it reached him in the early to mid second century CE.Something I try to keep in focus is that, when dealing with Christian origins, we base much of what we think on the testimonies of people (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Jerome, Epiphanius, Eusebius) who were far removed from the period when it actually did emerge, and when traditions had already been split and and resewn many times.
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.