The Folly of 'Jewish Christianity' Theories
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2018 8:20 am
I dislike 'Jewish Christianity' theorists because of the hidden presuppositions in their theories. The most annoying thing about 'Jewish Christianity' theorists is that they inevitably develop their theories around the clues given to us by the Church Fathers - people with a pronounced interest in denying the 'Jesus a god descending from heaven' tradition. Of this much we can be certain:
a. the heresies that Church Fathers spend the most time denouncing are of the 'Jesus a god descending from heaven' tradition (Marcionism, Valentinism, Basilideanism)
b. the Patristic literature that survives is almost exclusively (save for the Alexandrian tradition) of the 'Jesus born from a Holy Virgin) tradition
c. the idea that there was a 'Jewish Christianity' which formed the 'counter balance' to (1) and (2) is reported almost as an afterthought. Until Epiphanius there is no 'eyewitness' testimony (i.e. a meeting with a 'Jewish Christian,' someone who cites from literature associated with the 'total human Jesus'
My assumption from all of this is that it is at least possible that 'Jewish Christianity' - in the Eisenman, Tabor, variety - is a wholly invented commodity. It was invented to provide a 'counter weight' to the actual situation in the second century - i.e. that all the opponents of the Church Fathers were of the 'Jesus a god descending from heaven' tradition.
It is worth noting that Celsus's counter balance to Marcionism is a proto-orthodox tradition which held that Jesus was born to a Virgin (i.e. in Books 1 and 2). Even Celsus can't find a 'historical Jesus' tradition.
In fact if we look to the actual source of this historical Jesus tradition it is really based on five things - all textual in natural - with no actually 'eyewitness' reporting data:
1. the falsification of the Pauline gospel (i.e. with the 'Jesus a god descending from heaven' opening removed from the beginning and most scenes which reinforce Jesus's phantom nature altered or removed i.e. the flying Jesus)
2. the falsification of the Pauline letters (i.e. with Paul periodically spouting out things which assume Jesus's humanity)
3. chapter 26 in Irenaeus's Against Heresies. This one section in the 'second part' of a heresiological list perhaps originally found in Justin's Syntagma is used and reused in other heresiological compendiums without any new evidence. Basically the section begins with a certain heretical named 'Cerinthus' (who is identified also by the name 'Merinthus' by Epiphanius and identified as the 'Jewish Christian' instigator causing Peter to stumble against Paul in Antioch and then moving on to the 'Ebionites' the penultimate Jewish Christian sect. Cerinthus later appears as the opponent of the apostles in the Epistle of the Apostle and the opponent of John in Book Three. The description of his sect is basically as a two powers heresy which denied the Virgin Birth. Cerinthus is an adoptionist who seems to match up with those who use the Gospel of Mark incorrectly in Book Three i.e. those who say Christ was a spiritual being who watched Jesus suffer on the Cross leaving him after uniting with Jesus at baptism. It is difficult to make sense of the Gospel of Mark parallel given the fact that the description of the Gospel of the Ebionites has a few notable Markan features too - this despite every effort of Irenaeus to make it seem as if the Ebionites used the gospel of Matthew. This becomes explicit in the second paragraph of chapter 26 where Irenaeus identifies Matthew as the Ebionite gospel (something echoed or intimated at the beginning of Book 3) and that the Ebionites shared many of the beliefs of Cerinthus "and Carpocrates' save only for their opposition to Paul and with respect to 'the prophetical writings' - viz. 'they endeavor to expound them in a somewhat singular manner 'their Judaic style of life ... even (to) adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God."
4. Hegesippus. Hegesippus seems to be the source for chapter 25 of Against Heresies - the section that gets 'looped into' the discussion of the Ebionites in the following chapter. But he also constructs a Jerusalem succession list entire fictitious in nature where 'the family of Jesus' formed the 'bloodline' as it were of a Jerusalem church that 'just so happens' to become extinct at the alleged time of publication of Hegesippus original reporting (i.e. when he reports in the first person of Marcellina the Carpocratians encounter with Anicetus. The Roman succession list used by Irenaeus in Book 3 (undoubtedly also fictitious also comes from Hegesippus) happens to have been expanded by a 'second edition' of Hegesippus. This means that whereas in the earlier edition of Hegesippus you had two succession lists ultimately ending in the year 147 CE, a later expansion of the same work continued the Roman succession list down to a much later period. What this underscores then is that the textual tradition associated with Hegesippus was extremely unstable. This becomes even more apparent when we see that Clement seems to know of a chronology written by a person of a closely related name - Joseph or Josephus - which also stopped in the very same year 147 CE. The idea that there was a bloodline of Jesus established as part of a 'counter Church' in Jerusalem entirely Jewish in nature around a large family of Jesus is clearly fictitious in nature as it goes so completely against everything else we know about Christianity. It is not cited at all in any of the anti-Marcionite literature which makes clear to me at least that these writers knew that there was historicity to any of these claims. It was only resurrected by Eusebius in a period where most of Christian history had disappeared.
5. the Clementine literature. Another fictitious literary 'history' which develops around a preposterous plot - viz. a certain 'Clement' hears an unknown Christian preacher in Rome and goes to Alexandria to be initiated into Christianity and later spends time in Palestine watching the 'true Church' combat a lone wolf heretic who happens to have ensnared his father (in one version of the story) or becomes part of a fantastic plot in which he discovers his mother is also there with his twin brothers Nicetas and Aquila. In short none of this is history. It's all part of a fantastic romance. But isn't it interesting that Jewish history only exists within the realm of fiction! It is the only place that these 'Ebionites' actually exist.
Perhaps one more source could be identified as having an influence on this situation - viz. the report buried in the Pauline epistles that certain 'Judaizers' entered into the Church. This undoubtedly forms the basis for most of these romances. Yet was Paul reporting on an actual sect or simply labeling those who disagreed with him 'Jews' or 'Jewish'?
a. the heresies that Church Fathers spend the most time denouncing are of the 'Jesus a god descending from heaven' tradition (Marcionism, Valentinism, Basilideanism)
b. the Patristic literature that survives is almost exclusively (save for the Alexandrian tradition) of the 'Jesus born from a Holy Virgin) tradition
c. the idea that there was a 'Jewish Christianity' which formed the 'counter balance' to (1) and (2) is reported almost as an afterthought. Until Epiphanius there is no 'eyewitness' testimony (i.e. a meeting with a 'Jewish Christian,' someone who cites from literature associated with the 'total human Jesus'
My assumption from all of this is that it is at least possible that 'Jewish Christianity' - in the Eisenman, Tabor, variety - is a wholly invented commodity. It was invented to provide a 'counter weight' to the actual situation in the second century - i.e. that all the opponents of the Church Fathers were of the 'Jesus a god descending from heaven' tradition.
It is worth noting that Celsus's counter balance to Marcionism is a proto-orthodox tradition which held that Jesus was born to a Virgin (i.e. in Books 1 and 2). Even Celsus can't find a 'historical Jesus' tradition.
In fact if we look to the actual source of this historical Jesus tradition it is really based on five things - all textual in natural - with no actually 'eyewitness' reporting data:
1. the falsification of the Pauline gospel (i.e. with the 'Jesus a god descending from heaven' opening removed from the beginning and most scenes which reinforce Jesus's phantom nature altered or removed i.e. the flying Jesus)
2. the falsification of the Pauline letters (i.e. with Paul periodically spouting out things which assume Jesus's humanity)
3. chapter 26 in Irenaeus's Against Heresies. This one section in the 'second part' of a heresiological list perhaps originally found in Justin's Syntagma is used and reused in other heresiological compendiums without any new evidence. Basically the section begins with a certain heretical named 'Cerinthus' (who is identified also by the name 'Merinthus' by Epiphanius and identified as the 'Jewish Christian' instigator causing Peter to stumble against Paul in Antioch and then moving on to the 'Ebionites' the penultimate Jewish Christian sect. Cerinthus later appears as the opponent of the apostles in the Epistle of the Apostle and the opponent of John in Book Three. The description of his sect is basically as a two powers heresy which denied the Virgin Birth. Cerinthus is an adoptionist who seems to match up with those who use the Gospel of Mark incorrectly in Book Three i.e. those who say Christ was a spiritual being who watched Jesus suffer on the Cross leaving him after uniting with Jesus at baptism. It is difficult to make sense of the Gospel of Mark parallel given the fact that the description of the Gospel of the Ebionites has a few notable Markan features too - this despite every effort of Irenaeus to make it seem as if the Ebionites used the gospel of Matthew. This becomes explicit in the second paragraph of chapter 26 where Irenaeus identifies Matthew as the Ebionite gospel (something echoed or intimated at the beginning of Book 3) and that the Ebionites shared many of the beliefs of Cerinthus "and Carpocrates' save only for their opposition to Paul and with respect to 'the prophetical writings' - viz. 'they endeavor to expound them in a somewhat singular manner 'their Judaic style of life ... even (to) adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God."
4. Hegesippus. Hegesippus seems to be the source for chapter 25 of Against Heresies - the section that gets 'looped into' the discussion of the Ebionites in the following chapter. But he also constructs a Jerusalem succession list entire fictitious in nature where 'the family of Jesus' formed the 'bloodline' as it were of a Jerusalem church that 'just so happens' to become extinct at the alleged time of publication of Hegesippus original reporting (i.e. when he reports in the first person of Marcellina the Carpocratians encounter with Anicetus. The Roman succession list used by Irenaeus in Book 3 (undoubtedly also fictitious also comes from Hegesippus) happens to have been expanded by a 'second edition' of Hegesippus. This means that whereas in the earlier edition of Hegesippus you had two succession lists ultimately ending in the year 147 CE, a later expansion of the same work continued the Roman succession list down to a much later period. What this underscores then is that the textual tradition associated with Hegesippus was extremely unstable. This becomes even more apparent when we see that Clement seems to know of a chronology written by a person of a closely related name - Joseph or Josephus - which also stopped in the very same year 147 CE. The idea that there was a bloodline of Jesus established as part of a 'counter Church' in Jerusalem entirely Jewish in nature around a large family of Jesus is clearly fictitious in nature as it goes so completely against everything else we know about Christianity. It is not cited at all in any of the anti-Marcionite literature which makes clear to me at least that these writers knew that there was historicity to any of these claims. It was only resurrected by Eusebius in a period where most of Christian history had disappeared.
5. the Clementine literature. Another fictitious literary 'history' which develops around a preposterous plot - viz. a certain 'Clement' hears an unknown Christian preacher in Rome and goes to Alexandria to be initiated into Christianity and later spends time in Palestine watching the 'true Church' combat a lone wolf heretic who happens to have ensnared his father (in one version of the story) or becomes part of a fantastic plot in which he discovers his mother is also there with his twin brothers Nicetas and Aquila. In short none of this is history. It's all part of a fantastic romance. But isn't it interesting that Jewish history only exists within the realm of fiction! It is the only place that these 'Ebionites' actually exist.
Perhaps one more source could be identified as having an influence on this situation - viz. the report buried in the Pauline epistles that certain 'Judaizers' entered into the Church. This undoubtedly forms the basis for most of these romances. Yet was Paul reporting on an actual sect or simply labeling those who disagreed with him 'Jews' or 'Jewish'?