Re: Epiphanius on the Ebionites
Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2019 11:28 am
Regarding the idea that DSS are Sadducaic, not only do I disagree with this because they refer to resurrection and use other writings that do, like Daniel and Enoch (contrary to what all sources say about them), they also refer to themselves as "poor" (in several ways, including ebionites) and rail against "riches" (which constitute the first of the three "nets of Belieal" that "catch" Israel in the Damascus Document), and Josephus says the Sadducees appealed only to the rich (Ant. 13.10.6: "the Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich").
And regarding the idea of early Christianity being a non-violent movement, I see it as being a spectrum, with the violent proto-Ebionites in Acts being on one end and Jewish Christian leaders on the other, like the Fourth Philosophy on the whole, which consisted of moderates like Niger of Perea (who was killed by extremists for wanting to make peace with the Romans) on one end and sicarii and zealots on the other.
And to me it ultimately doesn't matter if the moderates didn't want to fight the Romans if what they were trying to accomplish by other means resulted in the same thing, i.e., "the "kingdom of heaven" (or "innovations and changes of the government," as Josephus puts it in War 2.13.4).
Mt. 11:12:
But what difference does it really make if Jesus thought he was going to "take it" when he returned as a spiritual being, Daniel's "son of man," given that this figure is said to have been "given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed"?
Jesus' philosophy was just a different way of accomplishing the same thing other Fourth Philosophers were trying to do, i.e., to bring about "innovations and changes of the government," i.e., the "kingdom of heaven," by suffering and dying first, then returning as a spiritual being to do it.
And regarding the idea of early Christianity being a non-violent movement, I see it as being a spectrum, with the violent proto-Ebionites in Acts being on one end and Jewish Christian leaders on the other, like the Fourth Philosophy on the whole, which consisted of moderates like Niger of Perea (who was killed by extremists for wanting to make peace with the Romans) on one end and sicarii and zealots on the other.
And to me it ultimately doesn't matter if the moderates didn't want to fight the Romans if what they were trying to accomplish by other means resulted in the same thing, i.e., "the "kingdom of heaven" (or "innovations and changes of the government," as Josephus puts it in War 2.13.4).
Mt. 11:12:
From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.
But what difference does it really make if Jesus thought he was going to "take it" when he returned as a spiritual being, Daniel's "son of man," given that this figure is said to have been "given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed"?
Jesus' philosophy was just a different way of accomplishing the same thing other Fourth Philosophers were trying to do, i.e., to bring about "innovations and changes of the government," i.e., the "kingdom of heaven," by suffering and dying first, then returning as a spiritual being to do it.