davidmartin wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 2:44 am
All of this is interesting but a bigger question is what influence did Ebionites have on the orthodox church in their earliest incarnation?
Why does the book of Acts look like a marriage between Pauline and Ebionite sources?
The Peter character in the Clementine's is the same Peter character in Acts except he's now best buddies with Paul
Did orthodoxy's claim to apostolic succession rest in their association with Ebionites at some point?
You could argue from the Ebionites a proto-Pauline based orthodoxy could have grafted in the doctrine of hell as well but rejected their Samaritan view of scripture and affirmed the whole of the old testament as inspired, and rejected any following of the law. The gospel of Matthew then came out this milieu
Interestingly neither Paul nor the Ebionites appear to have much association with a historical Jesus
The Clementines are a real let down showing the Ebionites hardly knew anything about him, no events of his life are recorded only stuff found already in Matthew's gospel
If you want additional early Jesus information you have to go to stuff like the Acts of John ... which are outside the Pauline/Ebionite traditions
I love your questions, David (here and in general), and I will give you my answers to them one by one.
... what influence did Ebionites have on the orthodox church in their earliest incarnation?
If we go by Acts (and yes, I understand people's reservations about Acts and I used to have them myself, but lately I've been coming around to the idea that it was written c. 95 CE and that its author really was a companion of Paul -specifically Epaphroditus- and was thus in a position to know things about early Christianity and have access to early Christian writings (in addition to knowing Josephus and
his writings). I thus view Acts as very important (and can pardon its ancient "special effects" that were common for religious writings of the era).
So if we go by Acts, then I think the Jews in Acts who opposed Paul were proto-Ebionites, and thus the influence they had on the orthodox church (which at this point I would say was Nazarene Jewish Christianity) regarding Paul was negligible.
Acts 21:20-25:
Then they {Jewish Christian leaders] said to Paul, “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. But they are under the impression that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe our customs. What then should we do? They will certainly hear that you have come.
Therefore do what we advise you. There are four men with us who have taken a vow. Take these men, purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know that there is no truth to these rumors about you, but that you also live in obedience to the law."
And since Paul is presented as being Torah observant and says himself in 1 Cor. 9:20 that, "To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law," the Nazarenes (the "orthodox" Christians of this time) were willing to tolerate him.
However, the proto-Ebionites in Acts continued to oppose Paul, and in my view this faction of Jewish Christianity became the Ebionites mentioned by early church writers.
But the Nazarenes accepted Paul and are said to have used all of the New Testament and not just Matthew like the Ebionites (as per Epiphanius Pan. 29.7.2: "They use ... the New Testament"), which makes sense because the NT of course accepts Paul.
But as for how
you mean orthodoxy, in the sense of the form of Christianity that prevailed, I don't see the Ebionites having any influence on that, since from Irenaeus (who is the first to mention them) on they appear to have been loathed.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.