James 1.1 and 2.1.

[John2]

Bernard wrote:

So you think that the ones who thought the earthly human Jesus was plain and ordinary are Christians?

Yes. Hippolytus describes it this way in RH 7.22:

They live conformably to the customs of the Jews, alleging that they are justified. according to the law, and saying that Jesus was justified by fulfilling the law. And therefore it was, (according to the Ebionaeans,) that (the Saviour) was named (the) Christ of God and Jesus, since not one of the rest (of mankind) had observed completely the law. For if even any other had fulfilled the commandments (contained) in the law, he would have been that Christ. And the (Ebionaeans allege) that they themselves also, when in like manner they fulfil (the law), are able to become Christs; for they assert that our Lord Himself was a man in a like sense with all (the rest of the human family).

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050107.htm

[John2]

Bernard wrote:

James was a pillar of the "church" of Jerusalem, but that does not mean that "church" was Christian then.

That's not my impression given what Paul says in Gal. 1:22:

I was personally unknown, however, to the churches of Judea that are in Christ.

[Bernard Muller]

to John2,

Bernard wrote:

So you think that the ones who thought the earthly human Jesus was plain and ordinary are Christians?

Yes. Hippolytus describes it this way in RH 7.22:

They live conformably to the customs of the Jews, alleging that they are justified. according to the law, and saying that Jesus was justified by fulfilling the law. And therefore it was, (according to the Ebionaeans,) that (the Saviour) was named (the) Christ of God and Jesus, since not one of the rest (of mankind) had observed completely the law. For if even any other had fulfilled the commandments (contained) in the law, he would have been that Christ. And the (Ebionaeans allege) that they themselves also, when in like manner they fulfil (the law), are able to become Christs; for they assert that our Lord Himself was a man in a like sense with all (the rest of the human family).

[url]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050107.htm[/url]

These Ebionaens called Jesus "Christ" (=Anointed) because they thought Jesus observed the Law completely. They alleged that if they do just that, themselves will become Christs and therefore saved (when the Kingdom comes?).
No, that does not make them Christians but ultra/hyper Jews.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

Bernard wrote:

James was a pillar of the "church" of Jerusalem, but that does not mean that "church" was Christian then.

That's not my impression given what Paul say sin Gal. 1:22:

I was personally unknown, however, to the churches of Judea that are in Christ.

I agree that during Paul's early ministry, there were churches in Judea which likely had adopted early Jewish Christian beliefs (these churches were probably created by members of the Greek dispersion: see Acts 8:1). But would that apply to the church of Jerusalem also? The "churches of Judea that are in Christ" can mean just that: only the churches of Judea which are in Christ learned about Paul having become an apostle "in Christ". That does not mean all the churches in Judea were in "Christ".

Furthermore,
Gal 1:22-23 reads that way:
YLT' "and was unknown by face to the assemblies of Judea, that are in Christ,
and only they were hearing, that 'he who is persecuting us then, doth now proclaim good news -- the faith that then he was wasting;"
In Galatians 1:18-19, some members of the church of Jerusalem (Peter & James) had known "by face" Paul earlier and according to Acts 8:1, the Aramaic Galileans in the church of Jerusalem were not persecuted then (only the "Greek" members were, causing their scattering).

Cordially, Bernard

[robert j]

I think it could be explained by being an ... anti-Pauline writing ...

I think the letter James is clearly responding to Paul, but is not “anti-Pauline”. But rather, the letter attempts to put Paul in perspective, to correct misunderstandings of Paul’s teachings --- as did Paul himself.

The letter James stressed the need for both faith and good works. Paul did not come down on the side of faith over good works --- Paul only denied the need for circumcision and the Mosaic rituals for believers in his Jesus Christ.

Paul was a prude, and retained his conservative, Jewish sensibilities and sense of moral behavior. But it seems in his own time and in his own congregations some misinterpreted his “freedom from the law” and he found it necessary to set them straight, and not just from sexual immorality, but also theft, jealousy, drunkenness, and cheating ---

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, NASB)

Do not be deceived: "Bad company corrupts good morals." Become sober-minded as you ought, and stop sinning; for some have no knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame. (1 Corinthians 15:33-34, NASB)

The author of the letter James asked ---

What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? (James 2:14, NASB)

I think Paul would have answered such a question with, “of course not”.

In Galatians, Paul was vehemently defending his position on circumcision and was in his finest “antinomian form”, yet he is still not always that far from what is found in James. But the comparison in the first box below is a bit of "apples and oranges", as circumcision is not addressed in the letter James ---

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. For He who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not commit murder." Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. (James 2:10, NASB)

And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. (Galatians 5:3, NASB)

If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing well. (James 2:8, NASB)

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but [only] faith working through love. (Galatians 5:6, NASB)

But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love. (1 Corinthians 13:13, NASB)

Early collections of NT canonical texts are most often found in partial canon manuscripts, likely due to the cost and size of a more complete collection. The “Catholic Epistles” were almost always bound together with Acts. And the Acts + Catholic Epistles were much more commonly bound together with Paul’s letters than with the Gospels. I don’t think the early compilers of the canon saw the letter James as “anti-Pauline” either.

[Bernard Muller]

to John2,

Eusebius put the beginning of the Ebionite sect between 70 & 100 CE.

Irenaeus wrote (around 180 CE) in 'Against Heresies:
Book I, ch. XXVI, 2 "They [the Ebionites] ... repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God."

Book V, ch. I, 3 "Vain also are the Ebionites, who do not receive by faith into their soul the union of God and man, but who remain in the old leaven of [the natural] birth, and who do not choose to understand that the Holy Ghost came upon Mary, and the power of the Most High did overshadow her"

Cordially, Bernard

[John2]

robert j wrote:

I think the letter James is clearly responding to Paul, but is not “anti-Pauline”. But rather, the letter attempts to put Paul in perspective, to correct misunderstandings of Paul’s teachings --- as did Paul himself.

I agree, "anti-Pauline" might be too strong. James appears to hold out hope for "reforming" Paul (and anyone else) at the end of his letter in 5:19-20:

My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, consider this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

So let's call it "anti-Pauline teaching regarding the issue of works and faith."

[John2]

Bernard wrote:

I agree that during Paul's early ministry, there were churches in Judea which likely had adopted early Jewish Christian beliefs (these churches were probably created by members of the Greek dispersion: see Acts 8:1). But would that apply to the church of Jerusalem also? The "churches of Judea that are in Christ" can mean just that: only the churches of Judea which are in Christ learned about Paul having become an apostle "in Christ". That does not mean all the churches in Judea were in "Christ".

Furthermore,
Gal 1:22-23 reads that way:
YLT' "and was unknown by face to the assemblies of Judea, that are in Christ,
and only they were hearing, that 'he who is persecuting us then, doth now proclaim good news -- the faith that then he was wasting;"
In Galatians 1:18-19, some members of the church of Jerusalem (Peter & James) had known "by face" Paul earlier and according to Acts 8:1, the Aramaic Galileans in the church of Jerusalem were not persecuted then (only the "Greek" members were, causing their scattering).

Let's take another look at the context of this.

Gal. 1:17-2:9.

… nor did I go up to Jerusalem to the apostles who came before me … Only after three years did I go up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas, and I stayed with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother … I was personally unknown, however, to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only heard the account: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy" … Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem … I spoke privately to those recognized as leaders … And recognizing the grace that I had been given, James, Cephas, and John—those reputed to be pillars—gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the Jews.

Who were "the apostles that came before" Paul if not James, Cephas and John? What were they apostles of if not Jesus (like Paul was)? And what were they teaching Jews about if not Jesus?

And to judge from this context, I would say that Paul could have met Cephas and James in Jerusalem and been "unknown by face" to the churches (plural) that were in Judea. And who do you suppose that the people in these churches heard that Paul was "preaching the faith he once tried to destroy" from if not Cephas and James?

[John2]

to John2,

Eusebius put the beginning of the Ebionite sect between 70 & 100 CE.

Irenaeus wrote (around 180 CE) in 'Against Heresies:
Book I, ch. XXVI, 2 "They [the Ebionites] ... repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God."

Book V, ch. I, 3 "Vain also are the Ebionites, who do not receive by faith into their soul the union of God and man, but who remain in the old leaven of [the natural] birth, and who do not choose to understand that the Holy Ghost came upon Mary, and the power of the Most High did overshadow her"

What does what you've cited from Irenaeus have to do with Eusebius or his dating of the Ebionites?

[John2]

Bernard wrote:

These Ebionaens called Jesus "Christ" (=Anointed) because they thought Jesus observed the Law completely. They alleged that if they do just that, themselves will become Christs and therefore saved (when the Kingdom comes?).
No, that does not make them Christians but ultra/hyper Jews.

I don't follow you. Even the NT (Acts 11:26) says that "The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch."

Epiphanius (who knew Jewish Christians in his time) notes this verse when discussing the name of the earliest faction of Jewish Christians, the Nazarenes (my preferred spelling), in Pan. 29.1.2:

For these people did not give themselves the name of Christ or Jesus’ own name, but that of “Nazoraeans.” But at that time all Christians
alike were called Nazoraeans. They also came to be called “Jessaeans” for a short while, before the disciples began to be called Christians at Antioch.

And in Pan. 29.7.7 he writes:

This sect of Nazoraeans is to be found in Beroea near Coelesyria, in the Decapolis near Pella, and in Bashanitis at the place called
Cocabe —Khokhabe in Hebrew. For that was its place of origin, since all the disciples had settled in Pella after their remove from Jerusalem—Christ having told them to abandon Jerusalem and withdraw from it because of the siege it was about to undergo. And they settled in Peraea for this reason and, as I said, lived their lives there. It was from this that the Nazoraean sect had its origin.

And in Pan. 29.6.6-7:

Even today in fact, people call all the sects, I mean Manichaeans, Marcionites, Gnostics and others, by the common name of “Christians,” though they are not Christians. However, although each sect has another name, it still allows this one with pleasure, since the name is an ornament to it. For they think they can preen themselves on Christ’s name—certainly not on Christ’s faith and works! Thus Christ’s holy disciples too called themselves “disciples of Jesus” then, as indeed they were. But when others called them Nazoraeans they did not reject it, being aware of the intent of those who were calling them that. They were calling them Nazoraeans because of Christ, since our Lord Jesus was called “the Nazoraean” himself—as the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles say.

Then he notes in Pan. 30.2.7 that while the Ebionite faction of Jewish Christians arose after the fall of Jerusalem they were connected to the earlier Nazarenes:

Their origin came after the fall of Jerusalem. For since practically all who had come to faith in Christ had settled in Peraea then, in Pella,
a town in the “Decapolis” the Gospel mentions, which is near Batanaea and Bashanitis—as they had moved there then and were living there,
this provided an opportunity for Ebion. And as far as I know, he first lived in a village called Cocabe in the district of Qarnaim—also called
Ashtaroth—in Bashanitis. There he began his evil teaching—the place, if you please, where the Nazoraeans I have spoken of came from. For since
Ebion was connected with them and they with him, each party shared its own wickedness with the other. Each also differed from the other to some
extent, but they emulated each other in malice.

So I don't think it matters what you call anyone who believes that Jesus was "Christ" because anyone who does is a de facto "Christian." But that's a later term in any event, since he says that the earliest "Christians" were called "disciples of Jesus" and "Nazarenes," and these were the people that the Ebionite faction emerged from.