What is the Evidence for 'Jewish Christianity' Beyond Literary References?

[Secret Alias]

Any feedback welcomed.

[Ben C. Smith]

What is the fallout for you if all of the evidence is literary? What happens then?

[Secret Alias]

Hegesippus is garbage.

Irenaeus is deliberate garbage picking (cherry picking).

What else is there? Galatians chapter 2? The latter parts of 2 Corinthians where Paul 'confesses' he's speaking like a madman?

There's something there. There has to be. But what?

[Secret Alias]

What is the fallout for you if all of the evidence is literary? What happens then?

My difficulty is believing in anything that comes from the mouth of the Church Fathers. Forget about God and whether or not Jesus existed. Look at chapter 3 of Against Heresies. Irenaeus's fourfold gospel seems to develop from that passage in Papias. Papias is behind the introduction of the fourfold gospel. The Ebionites are quickly matched with Matthew. Matthew implicitly comes from the place where they speak the Hebrew dialect. But Matthew is a misunderstanding of Papias. Irenaeus mentions the secret gospel of the heretics (perhaps 'secret gospels') and then he's onto Hegesippus's episcopal succession - only expanded to a later period.

The point is there are writings more ancient than Irenaeus theoretically. Irenaeus was an 'exegete' which means you'd expect he's treat books with respect. But Irenaeus abuses his source and comes up with new material. It reminds me of the saying from the Samaritan Asatir - 'new words will come from the Law.' I don't care what people will say - there is a Montanist, a new prophesy characteristic to Irenaeus. He's improvising 'meaning' from existing material. The Montanists are unmentioned in Against Heresies and Tertullian ranks Irenaeus beside Proclus.

From the perspective of the third century 'Montanism' is made to seem like an aberration. Like there was a sect which encouraged people to make up shit and before and after it everything was good and normal. But what if Montanism wasn't an exception, what if Irenaeus's wasn't a blip. What if there was a 'Montanist character' to all early Christian texts. People were working and reworking everything. Texts were in flux. They kept expanding until at some point some yelled 'stop!'

That's my problem. Maybe the texts of Christianity have no reality behind them. If Matthew is a development of a misunderstanding of Papias in Irenaeus why is there a Matthew before Irenaeus? If the Ebionites are derived from Hegesippus via Irenaeus what makes them real?

[davidmartin]

The Odes of Solomon? I rest my case

[Ben C. Smith]

Is this thread asking about the existence of Jewish Christians in general or only about the existence of those groups (such as the Ebionites) described by the fathers in particular?

[Secret Alias]

Everything. I don't understand mythicists in a way. Why the existence of Jesus so much different from anything in early Christianity? The Roman authorities never doubted his existence. But then again their legal codes just took over the existence of the stupidest sects from the heresiologists. What's the difference between the Acts of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles? So if Jesus's existence is in line with other "products" of ancient Christianity scholars say believe everything accepted by the Church. But I'm like why isn't everything a murky undetanglible mess?

[Ben C. Smith]

Everything. I don't understand mythicists in a way. Why the existence of Jesus so much different from anything in early Christianity? The Roman authorities never doubted his existence. But then again their legal codes just took over the existence of the stupidest sects from the heresiologists. What's the difference between the Acts of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles? So if Jesus's existence is in line with other "products" of ancient Christianity scholars say believe everything accepted by the Church. But I'm like why isn't everything a murky undetanglible mess?

What is going on? Why are you so all over the map? You are losing me completely.

[davidmartin]

I assume he's hoping Guiseppe will reply and this is bait to lure him in, as SA wants to spar with someone.
He's forgot about the 'curse'/'blessing' in synagogues against Nazarenes for one thing, but it's immaterial, we are alike SA and I, we ignore evidence that disagrees with our theories. He's also forgot about the Christian floor mosaics found in Galilee region. Let's see if he will disagree with archaeology

[Secret Alias]

Actually I took a nap after I wrote that. Give me a few minutes getting my son ready.