Any account of non-Pauline "Christianity"?

[Bernard Muller]

One passage from gMatthew defines the best most of the main beliefs of Jewish Christians:

25:31But when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory: 25:32and before him shall be gathered all the nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats; 25:33and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 25:34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 25:35for I was hungry, and ye gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in; 25:36naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 25:37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, and fed thee? or athirst, and gave thee drink? 25:38And when saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 25:39And when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 25:40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me. 25:41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels: ...

Added to that, Jesus is not pre-existent in the gospel, but starts his life by his birth from Mary. Also the Kingdom of God to come is to be extended from heaven to earth:

6:10Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth.

And obeying and practicing the whole of the Law is essential:

5:18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished. 5:19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Cordially, Bernard

[davidmartin]

Yes Bernard this is why I think the doctrine of hell came from this very group, since Matthew is far and away the gospel most full of this idea

The question is - does this form of Christianity represent the earliest phase, or is it an offshoot, or what is it?

I argue that it does not represent the earliest phase, although I think that you do? - and I admit - there's a lot going for that idea!
But it doesn't explain how come Paul is floating around people who pretty much think like him on the heavenly Christ stuff
Logically it doesn't make any sense. They are opposites

I could try to argue, look Matthew is based on Mark so doesn't that show this non-Pauline Christianity came after Mark (aka after Paul)
But that argument flunks if the non-Pauline Christians had their own gospel first. There's plenty of rumours of one
Instead, sure maybe this form of Christianity is very old but that doesn't mean it's the earliest phase of it. There's no proof of that
The thing that convinces me is all the remaining Ebionite writings (Clementina, the stuff i found yesterday the book of Clement) and basically anything remotely connected to these guys - none of them reveal anything about the historical Jesus or show any sign they knew him. It's just stuff about Peter and Clement and what they did, hardly any Jesus quotes. They should have been full of tales of Jesus! Not a sausage
It's true, neither does Paul ... that means the gospel sources are not related to either Paul or these non-Pauline Christians directly, but go back to some earlier group that is probably somewhere mid-way between them theologically. This then leads to the conclusion Christianity as we know it is a mixture of all these groups. Acts spells out how the non-Pauline Christians hooked up with the Pauline ones after working out and agreeing on what they always believed!

[andrewcriddle]

Only got a vague idea about those Oracles not sure what to make of them at all. I wonder what's going on there?

When I was checking that apocalypse i found something about an Arabic translation
it's got some more anti-Paul stuff in it i never heard of

Book of Clement

"When the book was finished Peter and Clement sealed it with their seals and Peter said :As God liveth no one ought to divulge these mysteries to Paul or those who resemble him.""

i'm not sure what the heck i'm reading here. It's fantastical stuff, more a romance/story. No historical Jesus evidence as such but an anti-Pauline stream of Christianity for sure...

"When these twelve books were finished the text adds that they were sealed with the seal of each Apostle, " beginning with the seal of my teacher Peter, then with that of Mary the mother of light, and with that of Paul who had tampered with the language of the books."

"And the jealous Lord sent His Son, the mighty Teacher, who came down to the earth and appeared in a covering which He chose to Himself from light, which He materialised and from which He spoke and performed the things which He wished to perform in His world."

A ton of more anti-Paul antics

"The messenger ushered us into the temple of the idols, and we entered and found Paul praying and worshipping before the idols, and suspicion entered into our mind concerning his faith"

"And Paul said to him : " And if these men are not able to raise your son to life ? "
The King answered : " I will torment them with every torment and remove them from this world." And Paul said : "I agree with his
condition." Then I, Peter, was summoned along with John to the house of the King"

Paul appears suspect throughout the text

It also says the martyr Stephen was Paul's sister's son, but he shows up in Acts after Stephen's martyrdom
I had my doubts over historicity of this Stephen as he doesn't show up outside Acts. I guess this is another place

The Arabic Apocalypse of Peter available here with a useful introduction.

Andrew Criddle

[GakuseiDon]

The thing that convinces me is all the remaining Ebionite writings (Clementina, the stuff i found yesterday the book of Clement) and basically anything remotely connected to these guys - none of them reveal anything about the historical Jesus or show any sign they knew him. It's just stuff about Peter and Clement and what they did, hardly any Jesus quotes. They should have been full of tales of Jesus! Not a sausage

Can I ask: Why do you think that they should have been full of tales of Jesus? What works outside of the Gospels are you comparing them to, that you have that expectation?

[davidmartin]

The thing that convinces me is all the remaining Ebionite writings (Clementina, the stuff i found yesterday the book of Clement) and basically anything remotely connected to these guys - none of them reveal anything about the historical Jesus or show any sign they knew him. It's just stuff about Peter and Clement and what they did, hardly any Jesus quotes. They should have been full of tales of Jesus! Not a sausage

Can I ask: Why do you think that they should have been full of tales of Jesus? What works outside of the Gospels are you comparing them to, that you have that expectation?

The greatest prophet comes, tales about him should be expected. it's that simple really
i think it's a natural expectation to have, and also the reason for mythicists to doubt a historical Jesus, so it's the same expectation mythicists have i guess. these ebionite writings don't impress me. they had the chance to spill a load of information that their opponents didn't have and they come up empty

[GakuseiDon]

The greatest prophet comes, tales about him should be expected. it's that simple really
i think it's a natural expectation to have, and also the reason for mythicists to doubt a historical Jesus, so it's the same expectation mythicists have i guess.

Sure, but to my mind, that expectation just doesn't appear to match the data that we have. If you look at the earliest 'historicist' writers (that is, writers who appear to believe in an earthly and apparently historical Jesus), those expectations aren't met. There are LOTS of examples of historicist writers who don't meet those expectations. I've raised this issue before. In the NT the obvious examples are 2 Peter, 1 Timothy and Acts of the Apostles (to an extent).

So why have that expectation, when that expectation isn't supported by the data?

As I wrote here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7519&p=116303

1 Clement doesn't have those things? Well, that's unexpected. 2 Peter doesn't have those things? Well, that's unexpected. 1 John doesn't have those things? Well, that's unexpected. 1 Timothy doesn't have those things? Well, that's unexpected. Other texts outside the NT like the Shepherd of Hermas doesn't have those things? Well, that's unexpected. And so on.

At a certain point, it stops being unexpected. Unexplained perhaps, but not unexpected. The implications of that seem to be overlooked.

It's like that some mythicists are under a spell: that the only version of an original historicist Jesus can be is a Fourth Century one, with all the bells and whistles. However, when we look at the earliest apparent 'historicist' writers, the data just doesn't support it. If that supports a mythicist viewpoint, then so be it. But since the data doesn't support a bells-and-whistles Jesus at the very start of Christianity, it makes no sense starting the analysis at that particular point.

[davidmartin]

It's because my starting point is to assume a historical witness existed to the man in question. I have to make all the pieces of evidence fit that theory. If they won't fit realistically together then maybe my starting point is wrong

So with this base, the life of the man would have been important to any historical followers and the obvious source of the gospel data

That so many early church writings have zero historical data is explicable i think from their theology but for that to make sense there would have to be a disconnect between these groups and those historical followers where the historical data and it's importance was lost. I call this 'the great disconnect'
In the schema the gospels are trying to re-introduce the man back into the churches that became disconnected from him through the factions that emerged in the great disconnect

It seems clear that any historical movement would have thought the man to be the messiah, wouldn't they?

[GakuseiDon]

It's because my starting point is to assume a historical witness existed to the man in question. I have to make all the pieces of evidence fit that theory. If they won't fit realistically together then maybe my starting point is wrong

So with this base, the life of the man would have been important to any historical followers and the obvious source of the gospel data

But is that what the data is telling you? Look at the earliest writings that you personally consider are 'historicist'. Are they fulfilling your expectations?

Think about it this way: You expect that the life of the man Jesus would have been important to any historical followers. So, given that expectation, the earliest layer of 'historicist' writers should show that they considered the life of the man Jesus to be important. But does the data show that? If it doesn't, then it means your expectation isn't correct. Is your expectation correct?

That so many early church writings have zero historical data is explicable i think from their theology but for that to make sense there would have to be a disconnect between these groups and those historical followers where the historical data and it's importance was lost. I call this 'the great disconnect'

In the schema the gospels are trying to re-introduce the man back into the churches that became disconnected from him through the factions that emerged in the great disconnect

That may well be true, but the data suggests that the earliest 'historicist' Christians weren't concerned with details about the life of the man Jesus. I suggest that the data can be explained by the earliest Christians thinking that the death of Jesus indicated that the world was coming to an end very soon, so their main concern was the theology around the death. It was only when that generation died off without the world ending that the Gospels were produced. Again: that to me is what the data is telling us.

It seems clear that any historical movement would have thought the man to be the messiah, wouldn't they?

Yes, and we shouldn't confuse what was the Messiah was supposed to be for First Century Jews with what the Messiah was for Fourth Century Christians. For Fourth Century Christians, Jesus lived an incredible life of marvels. For First Century writers, not so much. As Paul wrote:

But made himself of no reputation [emptied himself], and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him... (Phl 2:7-9)

[Christ Jesus. . .] who came from the seed of David according to the flesh, who was appointed Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead" (Rom 1:3-4)"

He showed he was the Messiah because he "took upon him the form of a servant" and was "obedient unto death". Visions of him after his death confirmed he had the right stuff, and that it was only a matter of time before he came back to earth as the Messiah with power. That's the Jesus we see in the earliest 'historicist' layer.

Look at the earliest layer of what you personally think are 'historicist' writings outside of the Gospels, and tell me whether they meet your expectations about what 'historicists' should have been concerned with. If they don't meet your expectations, then why expect it?

Do the earliest 'historicist' writers (whatever you consider them to be) outside the Gospels meet your expectations with what they write about the life of Jesus?

[rgprice]

Sure, but to my mind, that expectation just doesn't appear to match the data that we have. If you look at the earliest 'historicist' writers (that is, writers who appear to believe in an earthly and apparently historical Jesus), those expectations aren't met. There are LOTS of examples of historicist writers who don't meet those expectations. I've raised this issue before. In the NT the obvious examples are 2 Peter, 1 Timothy and Acts of the Apostles (to an extent).

So why have that expectation, when that expectation isn't supported by the data?

Because the exception isn't to be set only in relation to Jesus. The exception should be set against other figures. It's not a matter of how early writers talked about Jesus, its a matter of how they talked about other real people. Even within Christianity we have the simple case of Paul. Look at how 1 Clement talks about Paul relative to Jesus.

But beyond that, look at how Jewish writers talked about other people they believed to be real. We can even use the Teacher of Righteousness from Qumran as an example. Even the ToR is talked about more like a real person than Jesus.

You can't just say, no one talked about Jesus, therefore it was normal not to talk about Jesus, which proves that not talking about Jesus is what we should expect.

It appears that up until around the turn of the first century, Jesus is only described as a figure derived from the scriptures. Then there is some recognition of the Gospel Jesus in letters like Barnabas and 2 Peter, while still trying to blend the scriptural Jesus with this new Gospel concept. In this phase, as Papias alludes to, the Gospel stories are perhaps still not fully trusted. There are still strong traditions that relate Jesus to the OT scriptures.

Then, by around 140, which "coincidently", is both right after the Hadrian pogroms / Bar Kokhba Revolt and the "publication" of Marcion's Gospel, then we start seeing Jesus being talked about like a fully real person.

[davidmartin]

You're quoting Paul's concept of the messiah which appears to be one among many understandings of the messiah
There's probably many ancient witnesses to that but to take the example of the woman at the well in John "he would explain all things"
That isn't how he is described in the NT very much
If the gospels contradict this understanding of the messiah, why should we assume that was what the original Christians believed?

But i'm not really answering your question and I will - I think everyone should have a pop at the whole Jesus conundrum
It really doesn't matter what one's starting position is or what evidence there is for it, all that matters is whether the thesis best explains the evidence and accounts for all the problems and gives a believable solution to them. In other words.. you have to start somewhere and any starting point is as good as any other - there's no reason one starting point is worse or better than another one