The Folly of 'Jewish Christianity' Theories

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9359
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Folly of 'Jewish Christianity' Theories

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:55 am

I note that Evans translates the passage:
For the rest, let the apostle proceed, with his statement that by the works of the law a man is not justified, but only by faith.
Holmes again:
For the rest, the apostle must go on with his own statement
But de cetero means 'henceforth' making it seem plausible that the author implores his readers to use another recension of the Pauline writings 'henceforth' when trying to make sense of Paul's 'condemning Peter to his face.'

So again:
For if such a question had arisen, others also would have been "resisted face to face" by the man who had not even spared Peter on the comparatively small matter of his doubtful conversation. But what do the Marcionites wish to have believed (Sed quomodo Marcionitae volunt credi?)? In the future, the apostle must be allowed to go on with his own statement wherein he says that "a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith ...
Here implying a different recension at work in the Marcionite community than that used in the Catholic tradition.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9359
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Folly of 'Jewish Christianity' Theories

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:10 am

Tertullian:
De cetero indifferenter jejunandum, eac arbitrio, non eac imperio movae disciplinae, pro temporibus et causis uniuscujusque. Sic et apostolos observasse, nullum aliud imponentes jugum certorum et in commune omnibus obeundorum jejuniorum

Henceforth we must fast without compulsion, of free-will, not by commandment of this new discipline, accordingly as every man shall see time and cause. For so it appeareth the apostles kept it, laying on none other yoke of certain appointed fasts, to be observed in common of all men altogether.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:15 am, edited 2 times in total.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9359
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Folly of 'Jewish Christianity' Theories

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:14 am

It would seem that Tertullian has a different context for Paul's break with Peter than the Marcionites did. In the Catholic epistle we read:
When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in[d] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
But this was not in the Marcionite epistle. There was no connection between Peter's 'alleged' Jewishness and Paul's break from the Law. Paul does not condemn Peter for maintaining the Law. There were two different recensions, two different contexts for Paul's break with Peter. When Tertullian says 'henceforth understand that Paul uses the faith versus works justification' he is saying 'stop using your heretical version of the letter that says something else. There is another context for the break which is not in keeping with what appears in Acts.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9359
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Folly of 'Jewish Christianity' Theories

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:17 am

The point then is that if there are two different recensions of Galatians or two different contexts for the apostle's 'condemning Peter to his face' (cf. the Clementia) then idea that Peter was adhering to the Law and Paul was saying 'just believe' is a fake construct, is fake history, is something wholly based on the second century romance the Acts of the Apostles.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9359
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Folly of 'Jewish Christianity' Theories

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:17 am

Let's look at the entire section about Galatians:
Principalem adversus Iudaismum epistulam nos quoque confitemur quae Galatas docet.
The 'first' epistle against the Jews is also the first in the order of the Eastern canon. The statement can be read as the Marcionites having a different 'first gospel.' The previous statement (last sentence of the preceding paragraph) confirms that "That these (the Pauline letters) have suffered mutilation even in number, the precedent of that gospel, which is now the heretic's, must have prepared us to expect." The author's argument is that even though both he and the Marcionites agree that Paul announced the abolition of the Law they differ on whether or not the Creator commanded the destruction of his own ordinances - "(I say) the abolition itself derives from the Creator's ordinance and I have already in these books more than once discussed the renovation foretold by the prophets of the God who is mine."

To me at least if we suppose that Books 4 and 5 derive from a different source or from a separate source this argument has to be attributed to the redactor. As such it was not present in the original treatise. To this end what follows would also seem to come to this same redactor:
But if the Creator promised that old things would pass away, because, he said, new things were to arise, and Christ has marked the date of that passing—The law and the prophets were until John?—setting up John as a boundary stone between the one order and the other, of old things thereafter coining to an end, and new things beginning, the apostle also of necessity, in Christ revealed after John, invalidates the old things while validating the new, and thus has for his concern the faith of no other god than that Creator under whose authority it was even prophesied that the old things were to pass away. Consequently both the dismantling of the law, and the establishment of the gospel, are on my side of the argument when in this actual epistle they are connected with that assumption by which the Galatians conceived the possibility of having faith in Christ, the Creator's Christ, while still keeping the Creator's law: because it still seemed to them beyond belief that the law should be set aside by its own Author.
I want to stress that it was the redactor who is entirely responsible for the 'Jewish Christian' position that we have to come to attribute to the so-called Ebionites namely " the Galatians conceived the possibility of having faith in Christ, the Creator's Christ, while still keeping the Creator's law."

This is a very interesting proposition as Tertullian (or possibly Irenaeus before him) makes a very convoluted argument that the Marcionites misunderstand Paul. The implication is that their 'falsifications' of his letters form the basis to their misunderstandings. But notice that the opposite can also be argued to be true for the orthodox. For in the last citation we see that Luke 16:16 - the gospel either falsified by the orthodox or the Marcionites we have as the sole basis that Paul did not abolish the law, that the law was already abolished with the coming of John. While no one pays too much attention to this statement it is utterly ludicrous as there is no 'historical' basis to any of it. It just appears as a bold statement in Luke without any supporting evidence.

What are the odds that one line from Luke - a disputed gospel - should form the entire basis to Tertullian/Irenaeus's reading of Galatians? The point here is that at the very least both the Catholic and the Marcionite use their gospel to support very different interpretations. But Luke at least has ridiculous claims which can't possibly be supported by anything resembling 'evidence.' How do we know what was going on in Jesus's mind when he was praying in Gethsemane? It appears in Luke in the same way that the same author 'knows' that the Law and the prophets ended with John. How does he know that? He just added it to the gospel and because the gospel was deemed to be the word of God it became part of the historical record of the community.

But again the author (Tertullian/Irenaeus) only allows us a glimpse of what the Marcionite position is in the very next line of Book 5's examination of Galatians when he says:
Now if they (the Galatians) had been taught by the apostle about an entirely different god, they would at once have known they must depart from the law of that God whom they had deserted when they followed the other. For would any man who had accepted a new god, have waited any longer to be told that he must follow a new rule of conduct? Really, the fact that the same deity was being preached in the gospel who had always been known in the law, while the rule of conduct was not the same— here lay the whole ground of the discussion, whether the Creator's law must needs be put out of court by the gospel, in the Creator's Christ. Take away that ground, and there is nothing left for discussion.
But again there a lot of assumptions that scholars typically fail to unpack here. We don't know exactly what the Marcionites were claiming. We don't know what was in their letter other than it was 'corrupt.' The Catholics assume that Paul converted a number of Galatians who had strayed from his idea that the Creator abolished his own Law; they had been influenced by a number of Judaisers associated with the supposed 'Jerusalem church.' But the Catholic position doesn't explain how the abolition took place. Again a line is added to Luke that the Law and the prophets were until John and that's the end of it. It would seem reading between the lines that the Marcionites held that Paul abolished the Law not John.

My point is that by backdating the abolition of the Law back to John Tertullian/Irenaeus neatly avoids continuing to view Paul as the source of the necessity of breaking the Law. To ignore the gravity of this change is to miss the whole problem with the premise of Against Marcion. It's like 'revising' a murder in a murder mystery to an act that took place outside the narrative of the book. The 'murder mystery' is no longer a 'murder mystery.' To the same end, Paul's letter to the Galatians may now represent what Tertullian/Irenaeus says it is - -i.e. Paul 'reminding' his community members that the Creator ordained the destruction of his own law 'long ago' with the coming of John the Baptist. But this is not what the letter was about originally. It's become like the murder-less murder mystery novel.

Clearly Paul was the sabbath breaker. The realization that the law was abolished came with him, not with John. We can't restore the truth obscured by Luke 16:16 and expect everything to stay the same. Paul's opposition to Peter has also been affected by the new situation. For the community that holds fast to the teaching of Paul's opponents believes in the sanctity of the Law because they haven't been told yet by anyone that it has been abolished. Why? Because the Law was only abolished by Paul. Paul comes then as a Sabbath-breaker, as a law breaker to a community apparently associated with Peter and which still believes in the sanctity of the Law.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9359
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Folly of 'Jewish Christianity' Theories

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:43 am

Again I am not saying that a reconstruction of the Marcionite epistle proves that there was no 'Jewish Christianity' or Jerusalem Church. My point is that we haven't actually considered the state of the evidence outside of the falsified canon of Tertullian/Irenaeus. If we continue through the discussion where we left off the next lines read:
But if there were nothing left for discussion because all of them acknowledged they had to depart from the Creator's order through faith in that other god, the apostle would have found no reason for so strongly enforcing a duty which faith itself had naturally enjoined. Therefore the whole intent of this epistle is to teach that departure from the law results from the Creator's ordinance, as I shall next proceed to show. Also if he projects no mention of any new god—a thing he could never have more conveniently done than while on this subject, where he could have found for them a reason for the abeyance of the law in this sole and all-inclusive proposition of a new divinity—it is evident in what sense he writes, I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into grace, unto another gospel—another in manner of life, not in religion, another in rule of conduct, not in divinity: because the gospel of Christ must needs be calling them away from the law, towards grace, not away from the Creator towards another god. For no one had removed them away from the Creator, so as to give them the impression that being transferred to another gospel was as though they were being transferred to the Creator. For when he also adds that there is no possible other gospel, he confirms that that is the Creator's, which he claims is the gospel.
I want to stress again that this is the redactor speaking. He has been speaking since the beginning and has before him a Galatians first edition of the Pauline epistles and a gospel with Luke 16:16 in it or Luke itself.

What is odd about this discussion so far is that does not resemble that of Book Four at all. Book Four had a multilayered appearance from the beginning - in fact from the end of Book Two which seems to have been the beginning of the original work now known as Book Four of Against Marcion (Book Three was clearly added later and developed from a common source behind it and Against the Jews). Whereas the ur-Book Four was focused (strangely) on whether or not 'the Antitheses' (which I take to be the originally form of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew) were originally part of the commonly shared gospel, already there are signs of this insipid discussion of two gods which has continued throughout these opening lines of Book Five. I can't shake the idea that none of this which appears in Book Five's discussion of Galatians is any older than the redactor (i.e. the guy who added the existence of Luke to Book Four).

Where I think we get a little closer to the original source material behind Book 5 is in the next lines which follow what we last cited. We read:
Now the Creator promises a gospel when he speaks by Isaiah, Get thee up into the high mountain, thou that preachest the gospel to Sion, lift up the voice in thy strength, thou that preachest the gospel to Jerusalem:b also, to the person of the apostles, How timely are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, that preach the gospel of good thingsc—those, he means, who preach the gospel among the gentiles, because again, In his name shall the gentiles hoped— Christ's name, that is, to whom he says, I have set thee for a light of the gentiles.e So that if there is also a gospel of this new god, and you will have it that this is what the apostle was then upholding, in that case there are two gospels, belonging to two gods, and the apostle told a lie when he said there was no possible other gospel, though there is another, and he could just as well haveupheld his own gospel by proving it the better one, not by laying it down that it is the only one. But perhaps, to escape from this, you will say, And that is why he subjoined, Though an angel from heaven preach the gospel otherwise, let him be anathema, because he knew the Creator also was going to preach the gospel. So again you are tying yourself in knots: for this is what you are entangled with. It is not possible for one to affirm there are two gospels, who has just denied that there is more than one. Yet his meaning is clear, as he has put himself down first: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach the gospel otherwise. He said it for the sake of emphasis. And yet, if he himself is not going to preach the gospel otherwise, certainly an angel is not. So the reason why he referred to the angel was that as they were not to believe an angel, or an apostle, even less must they believe men: he had no intention of connecting the angel with the Creator's gospel. After that, as he briefly describes the course of his conversion from persecutor to apostle he confirms what is written in the Acts of the Apostles, in which the substance of this epistle is reviewed; namely, that certain persons intervened who said the men ought to be circumcised, and that Moses' law must be kept, and that then the apostles, when asked for advice on this question, reported on the authority of the Spirit that they ought not to lay burdens upon men which not even their fathers had been able to bear. Now if even to this degree the Acts of the Apostles are in agreement with Paul, it becomes evident why you reject them: for they preach no other god than the Creator, nor the Christ of any god but the Creator, since neither is the promise of the Holy Spirit proved to have been fulfilled on any other testimony than the documentary evidence of the Acts. And it is by no means reasonable that that writing should in part agree with the apostle, when it relates his history in accordance with the evidence he supplies, and in part disagree, when it proclaims in Christ the godhead of the Creator, with intent to make out that Paul did not follow the preaching of the apostles, though in fact he did receive from them the pattern of teaching how the law need not be kept.
The point here is clearly that we can't simply assume that the Marcionite text of Galatians had any of the nonsense that 'agreed' with Acts. As the author notes "Now if even to this degree the Acts of the Apostles are in agreement with Paul, it becomes evident why you reject them." But surely that doesn't just mean that the two churches shared replica editions of Galatians and the Marcionites rejected Acts. Clearly "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach the gospel otherwise" and the "anathema" were immediately connected with the "condemning to his face" of Peter in the Marcionite edition. All the material added from Acts was spurious and was not present in the original. Hence the portrait of this 'Jewish Christian' community and the Jerusalem Church is wholly fictitious.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9359
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Folly of 'Jewish Christianity' Theories

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:49 pm

Indeed I want to take the argument of the last post one step further - can't we agree that the author is citing from his text of Galatians? There is no pretense in any of this that he has in his possession the Marcionite recension. Why else does he say with respect to his own text of Galatians (how does it make sense for the Marcionite recension?) - "now if even to this degree the Acts of the Apostles are in agreement with Paul, it becomes evident why you reject them." Surely if the Marcionite recension had all the stuff listed as agreeing with Acts that would have been 'checkmate' for the Catholic tradition. The history of Acts is proved by the reference to its account of Paul's meeting with the Jerusalem Church and vice versa. The fact that the author (Tertullian/Irenaeus) doesn't pronounce 'checkmate' demands an explanation. The most obvious explanation is that he is merely reading from his own text of Acts throughout.
Si enim et creator evangelium repromittit, dicens per Esaiam, Ascende in montem excelsum, qui evangelizas Sioni, extolle vocem in valentia tua, qui evangelizas Hierusalem (Get thee up into the high mountain, thou that preachest the gospel to Sion, lift up the voice in thy strength, thou that preachest the gospel to Jerusalem); item ad apostolorum personam, Quam tempestivi pedes evangelizantium pacem, evangelizantium bona (How timely are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, that preach the gospel of good things), quoniam et, utique et nationibus evangelizantium, In nomine eius, inquit, nationes sperabunt (In his name shall the gentiles hope), Christi scilicet, cui ait, Posui te in lumen nationum (I have set thee for a light of the gentiles); est autem evangelium etiam dei novi (So that if there is also a gospel of this new god), quod vis tunc ab apostolo defensum (and you will have it that this is what the apostle was then upholding); iam ergo duo sunt evangelia apud duos deos (in that case there are two gospels, belonging to two gods), et mentitus erit apostolus dicens quod aliud omnino non est (and the apostle told a lie when he said there was no possible other gospel), cum sit et aliud (though there is another), cum sic suum evangelium defendere potuisset, ut potius demonstraret, non ut unum determinaret (and he could just as well have upheld his own gospel by proving it the better one, not by laying
it down that it is the only one). Sed fortasse, ut fugias hinc, Et ideo, dices, subtexuit, Licet angelus de caelo aliter evangelizaverit, anathema sit, quia et creatorem sciebat evangelizaturum (But perhaps, to escape from this, you will say, And that is why he subjoined, Though an angel from
heaven preach the gospel otherwise, let him be anathema, because he knew the Creator also was going to preach the gospel.
There are so many things that are interesting about this passage. The hint that the Marcionites imagine two gospels - one associated with the Creator, the other with the better god - is a most intriguing suggestion. It explains the 'two god' discussions elsewhere in the treatise.

But let's start by noticing that Galatians 1:8 is cited two different ways in the treatise. Here:

Licet angelus de caelo aliter evangelizaverit, anathema sit

and later:

Sed et si nos aut angelus de caelo aliter evangelizaverit

The natural assumption (I would say 'lazy' assumption) of scholars is that the first citation is the 'Marcionite reading' and the latter the Catholic reading. But this assumptions fades from view when we see Tertullian cites Galatians 1:8 without the 'we' reference. For instance:

In Marc. 5,2,6 zitiert Tertullian Gal 1,8 folgendermaßen: sed et si nos au! angelus de caelo aliter evangelizaverit. Dazu ist zu vergleichen cam. 6,2; 24,2: etiamsi angelus de caelis aliter evangelizaverit vobis, quam nos (24,2: evangelizavimus), anathema sit; praescr. 6,5: itaque etiamsi angelus de caelis aliter evangelizaret anathema diceretur a nobis; praescr. 29,7: et si angelus de caelo aliter evangelizaverit citra quam nos, anathema sit.

Most scholarship struggles over the question of whether the Marcionite gospel read "other gospel" but Schmid rightly sees this as a "lateinische Übersetzungsvariante" within Tertullian. Indeed I see what is going on here as the best proof that almost none of the readings in Tertullian are specifically 'Marcionite.'

Note that while the 'aliter' (other) is consistent the variant reading within Tertullian involves whether or not Paul says 'we' or 'us' in this section:
But perhaps, to escape from this, you will say, And that is why he subjoined, Though an angel from heaven preach the gospel otherwise, let him be anathema (Licet angelus de caelo aliter evangelizaverit, anathema sit), because he knew the Creator also was going to preach the gospel. So again you are tying yourself in knots: for this is what you are entangled with. It is not possible for one to affirm there are two gospels, who has just denied that there is more than one. Yet his meaning is clear, as he has put himself down first: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach the gospel otherwise (Sed et si nos aut angelus de caelo aliter evangelizaverit). He said it for the sake of emphasis. And yet, if he himself is not going to preach the gospel otherwise, certainly an angel is not. So the reason why he referred to the angel was that as they were not to believe an angel, or an apostle, even less must they believe men: he had no intention of connecting the angel with the Creator's gospel.
Indeed in Carne Christi:

Etiamsi angelus de caelis aliter evangelizaverit vobis quam nos evangelizavimus, anathema sit

Most commentators argue that Licet angelus de caelo aliter evangelizaverit, anathema sit has been truncated. But clearly the original reading was:
Though an angel from heaven preaches otherwise than we preach let him be anathematized.
The material in Book 5 is not wrestling with 'variant Marcionite readings' but rather is actively 'working out' what the anti-Marcionite, what the best position 'against Marcion' is by playing with, rewriting not only each new recension of 'Against Marcion' but ultimately what the final text of the Catholic Pauline Epistles should be.

In other words, the original author (perhaps Irenaeus or some previous Church Father) simply laid out the Marcionite position of Paul in the letter:
there is a gospel of this new god [and the gospel of the Creator] ... there are two gospels, belonging to two gods ... the apostle upheld his own gospel ... [as] the better one
Against Marcion is at its core a systematic approach to countering this understanding - viz. two gospels, one according to the Son another according to the Father essentially. The critical manner to understand how the Catholic corpus developed is to see it expanding hand in hand with the argumentation in Against Marcion as if Against Marcion was reshaping both the Gospel of Luke (Book 4) and the Pauline Epistles (Book 5).

Here we uncover the ultimate 'logic' in this effort. It is the manner in which the original author(s) struggled with the original line:
Though an angel from heaven preaches otherwise than I preach let him be anathematized.
The apostle may have at one time been attached to an apostle - let's say for argument sake Peter. In this way he was like Mark who in some sense published a gospel according to Peter and then had a revelation and published a secret gospel. This is the problem the Catholics were wrestling with:
So that if there is also a gospel of this new god, and you will have it that this is what the apostle was then upholding, in that case there are two gospels, belonging to two gods, and the apostle told a lie when he said there was no possible other gospel, though there is another, and he could just as well have upheld his own gospel by proving it the better one, not by laying it down that it is the only one. But perhaps, to escape from this you will say, And that is why he subjoined, Though an angel from heaven preach the gospel otherwise, let him be anathema, because he knew the Creator also was going to preach the gospel. So again you are tying yourself in knots: for this is what you are entangled with. It is not possible for one to affirm there are two gospels, who has just denied that there is more than one. Yet his meaning is clear, as he has put himself down first: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach the gospel otherwise. He said it for the sake of emphasis. And yet, if he himself is not going to preach the gospel otherwise, certainly an angel is not. So the reason why he referred to the angel was that as they were not to believe an angel, or an apostle, even less must they believe men: he had no intention of connecting the angel with the Creator's gospel.
The 'we' is clearly related to what originally followed in the Marcionite recension - the condemning of Peter 'to his face' in Galatians chapter 2 (of our recension).

Indeed let us leap forward to the discussion of that incident in Galatians. Tertullian writes after a long argument drawn from the parallels with Acts that:
Thus it is beyond doubt that it was a question solely of the law, until decision was reached as to how much out of the law it was convenient should be Thus it is beyond doubt that it was a question solely of the law, until decision was reached as to how much out of the law it was convenient should be retained. But, you object, he censures Peter for not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel. Yes, he does censure him, yet not for anything more than inconsistency in his taking of food: for this he varied according to various kinds of company, through fear of those who were of the circumcision, not because of any perverse view of deity: on that matter he would have withstood any others to their face, when for the smaller matter of inconsistent converse he did not spare even Peter. But what do the Marcionites expect us to believe?
My point is that the Marcionite recension of Galatians simply connected "Though an angel from heaven preaches otherwise than I/we preach let him be condemned' to when Peter " came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned." All the other details - which Tertullian admits are exactly paralleled by Acts which Marcionites reject - were added to smooth over this original understanding.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Michael BG
Posts: 607
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: The Folly of 'Jewish Christianity' Theories

Post by Michael BG » Mon Jul 09, 2018 2:58 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:58 am
Michael BG wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:13 am
I thought it was used in Judaism with the definitive article 'the in Enoch and 4 Ezra.
All I know about that is is
While Daniel 7:13 "like a son of man" probably did not stand for the Messiah, where the phrase appears in extant versions of later apocryphal and deuterocanonical works such as the Similitudes of Enoch and 4 Ezra gave it this interpretation.[3] Whether these messianic "Son of Man" references are genuinely Jewish or the result of Christian interpolation is disputed.[4] An example of a disputed section is that of The Similitudes (1 Enoch 37-71) which uses Daniel 7 to produce an unparalleled messianic Son of Man, pre-existent and hidden yet ultimately revealed, functioning as judge, vindicator of righteousness, and universal ruler.[5] The Enochic messianic figure is an individual representing a group, (the Righteous One who represents the righteous, the Elect One representing the elect), but in 4 Ezra 13 (also called 2 Esdras) he becomes an individual man.[6][7][8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_ma ... depigrapha
Hopefully we can agree that the term Son of Man is used in a similar way in the Similitudes of Enoch and 4 Ezra and therefore we need to discuss if these are Christian or Jewish.

John J Collins in The Apocalyptic Imagination writes, “The present form of the Similitudes, which explicitly identifies Enoch as the ‘Son of Man,’ must be Jewish” (p 178). I assume this is because it is inconceivable that a Christian would give a title of Jesus to Enoch. He dates them to earlier than the gospels and especially earlier than Matthews gospel as he write, “(Matt 19:28 and 25:31), which refer to the ‘glorious throne,’ seem to depend on the Similitudes” (p 178).

I couldn’t find Collins stating that 4 Ezra was Jewish but it seems implied when he writes “No extant Jewish apocalypse can be associated with the Jewish revolt … (of) 66 C.E. … In contrast, we have several major apocalypse from the period after the revolt: 4 Ezra; … There is general agreement that the original language was Hebrew” and he gives as references – Stone, Bergren, VanderKam & Adler. He continues, “There is also a consensus that the book was written in Palestine about the end of the first century C.E. ... In the period after the fall of Jerusalem” (p 194-96).

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9359
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Folly of 'Jewish Christianity' Theories

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:09 pm

An echo of this situation might be referenced in Prescription Against the Heretics 23:
For the purpose of scoffing at some ignorance in the Apostles, the heretics bring forward the point that Peter and his companions were blamed by Paul. "Something therefore," say they, "was lacking in them." They say this in order to build up that other contention of theirs, that a fuller knowledge might afterwards have come to them, such as came to Paul who blamed his predecessors ... Yet they must shew from the instance
adduced of Peter being blamed by Paul that another form of Gospel was introduced by Paul beside that which Peter and the rest had previously put forth ... But if Peter was blamed because, after he had lived with Gentiles he separated himself from their companionship out of respect of persons, that surely was a fault of behaviour, not of preaching. For no question was therein involved of any other god than the Creator,3 nor of any other Christ than He Who came from Mary,1 nor of any other hope than the resurrection. I am not good man enough, or rather I am not
bad man enough, to pit Apostle against Apostle.
Clementine Homilies 17:
If you were not opposed to me, you would not accuse me, and revile the truth proclaimed by me, in order that I may not be believed when I state what I myself have heard with my own ears from the Lord, as if I were evidently a person that was condemned and in bad repute. But if you say that I am condemned, you bring an accusation against God, who revealed the Christ to me, and you inveigh against Him who pronounced me blessed on account of the revelation. But if, indeed, you really wish to work in the cause of truth, learn first of all from us what we have learned from Him, and, becoming a disciple of the truth, become a fellow-worker with us
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5419
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Folly of 'Jewish Christianity' Theories

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:34 pm

Michael BG wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 2:58 pm
I couldn’t find Collins stating that 4 Ezra was Jewish but it seems implied when he writes “No extant Jewish apocalypse can be associated with the Jewish revolt … (of) 66 C.E. … In contrast, we have several major apocalypse from the period after the revolt: 4 Ezra; … There is general agreement that the original language was Hebrew” and he gives as references – Stone, Bergren, VanderKam & Adler. He continues, “There is also a consensus that the book was written in Palestine about the end of the first century C.E. ... In the period after the fall of Jerusalem” (p 194-96).
I agree that Collins treats 4 Ezra as Jewish. The structure of his book implies it, and later on in the same chapter you quoted he writes:

John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, pages 211-212: Because of the Deuteronomic presuppositions of the early questions, 4 Ezra has often been regarded as a Pharisaic apocalypse. This characterization receives some support from analogies with the rabbinic writings in such matters as the "evil inclination," the distinction between this world and the world to come, and the signs of the end. Yet 4 Ezra's conceptions are generally atypical of rabbinic literature. The difference is apparent in the sharpness of the break between this world and the world to come. It is also apparent in the pessimistic attitude to the judgment, which sees most of humanity as helpless before the evil inclination and allows little if any place for atonement or divine mercy. The perception of human inability to satisfy the law is closer to Paul's teaching in Romans than to the typical attitudes of the Rabbis. This is not to deny that 4 Ezra falls within the spectrum of Jewish opinion at the end of the first century C.E. Parallels can be found for such pessimism, and the Judaism of Jamnia was remarkably tolerant of diversity. There is no reason to regard 4 Ezra as sectarian in any sense.

ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply