Early Christian Ebionaen Canon

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
ebion
Posts: 396
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2023 11:32 am

EcLive: Early Christian Ebionaen Canon ToDo List

Post by ebion »

StephenGoranson wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2023 5:56 am The above post "What is an Ebionaen?" differs in some respects with my article "Ebionites" in Anchor Bible Dictionary II 260-261. (It includes a misspelling of Klijn in the text but is ok in the bibliography, Klijn and Reinink, Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects [Brill, 1973], a good collection.)
Thanks; is it online so that I can link to it? If not would you PM me a private copy for me to look at privately?
StephenGoranson wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2023 5:56 am Why Ebionaen instead of Ebionites or Ebionim?
By using a new term I'm free to define what it means. I'm tired of nitt-picking differences compared to the gargantun features of Ebionaen Christianity:
  • the Christian observance of the Mosaic law, and the doctorine of works.
  • the rejection of Paul and the Faulines, and its Marcionism and inherent Crowleyism.
  • the natural affinity with the Kararites and Samaratains, and Sukkoth and Pessach.
  • the Christian emnity with the Sadducees and Pharasees.
  • the affinity with the Essenes, but their rejection of the Essenian misogyny.
  • the primacy of HAramaic over Greek, and hence interest in the PeshiitA.
  • the role of the Ebioinaens as the root of the PeshiitA, and the Church of the East.
StephenGoranson wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2023 5:56 am HAramaic is unnecessary; Hebrew is written in the Aramaic (shared) alphabet.)
I feel HAramaic is necessary because although their character sets are the same, the languages are different, and the subsequent evolution of vowels went differently. I want a term that encompasses both when I don't need the distinction, as the diferences will be minor. If there was a Hebrew Matthew in Hebrew letters in Caesarea, it hasn't survived. But the Aramaic Matthew in Hebrew letters may have survived as the PeshittA - that's what the Church of the East says. Jerome said he was given access to the guarded copy in Caesarea, and translated, it/them, I read somewhere that he did both versions but I can't now find the reference.
StephenGoranson wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2023 5:56 am The Ebionites were evidently not static, but evolved diachronically, not usually synonymous with Christians. And the name evolved too, from generic to more specific.
I've defined the Ebionaens as Early Christians, which are defined by what's in their book of Matthew.
StephenGoranson wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2023 5:56 am The Qumran pesher on Psalm 37, 4QpPs 37 III.10 (adat ha-)ebyonim, the congregation of the poor, is not Christian.
I ignore Qumran - it's been too heavily tampered with. I want to agree with Eisenman's conclusions reading the Habbukuk Pesher. I'll try to reach the same conclusions by reading the Ebionaen apocrypha: e.g. the Clementine literature. I'd rather spend my time on the, manifestly Early Christian, Nag Hammadi library.
StephenGoranson wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2023 5:56 am b.Shabb. 116a may be helpful in distinguishing later usage of Ebionites from Nazarenes.
I've drawn the line on distinguishing between the Ebionites from Nazarenes. I want to examine the consequences of the reasonable definitions that were made of the Ebionaens, rather than waste any more time on the definitions.

ToDo List

I'll use this post a ToDo list and ask people who are interested to start threads, and we'll point to them from here, and pull back conclusions into this thread.
To Look at List
  • Shepherd of Hermas
  • Travels of Peter
These todo items should lay down the foundation of a canon that could be used by a Christianity2.0.

PS: This post is tagged with EcLive: so you can easily search for the important post that are kept up-to-date.
Last edited by ebion on Sun Dec 24, 2023 8:25 pm, edited 15 times in total.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2143
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Early Christian Ebionaen Canon

Post by StephenGoranson »

Though I agree and disagree with portions of the above post (some of which I may get to later) one thing, for now, stands out:

Self-defined ebion wrote, above, in part:

"I ignore Qumran - it's been too heavily tampered with."

Qumran mss, including 4QpPs 37, are ancient.

What do you think was "tampered with," how, and by whom? Or, in other words, why ignore Qumran evidence?
ebion
Posts: 396
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2023 11:32 am

Re: Fragments of Ebioniaen Papyri

Post by ebion »

Ben Smith did some great work pulling an an index of Christian epistolary texts. A few of them are Ebionaen, or may be in our canon:
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2143
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Early Christian Ebionaen Canon

Post by StephenGoranson »

Please allow me to repeat the so-far unanswered question; I really wonder why you "ignore Qumran" as being "too heavily tampered with."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[SG] Though I agree and disagree with portions of the above post (some of which I may get to later) one thing, for now, stands out:

Self-defined ebion wrote, above, in part:

"I ignore Qumran - it's been too heavily tampered with."

Qumran mss, including 4QpPs 37, are ancient.

What do you think was "tampered with," how, and by whom? Or, in other words, why ignore Qumran evidence?
Secret Alias
Posts: 17978
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Early Christian Ebionaen Canon

Post by Secret Alias »

"Tampered with" = goes against my presuppositions. Must be wrong then.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2143
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Early Christian Ebionaen Canon

Post by StephenGoranson »

e, above you linked to The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception, by M. Baigent and R. Leigh. I have read that book, and I have a copy at hand.
As I recall, they (among others) criticized the Scrolls publication process.
But, as I recall, they did not say that Qumran DSS were "tampered with" in the sense of rewritten. (Putting aside for now some fakes that were later sold.)

So, 4QpesherPsalms does have your apparently favorite Hebrew word, )ebyonim in the collocation
(adat ha-)ebyonim, the congregation of the poor.

Genuine ancient text. Not Christian.
Why do you ignore it?
ebion
Posts: 396
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2023 11:32 am

EcLive: Revised Early Christian Ebionaen Canon

Post by ebion »

The thread I wanted to put in place before finalizing the canon was: Was the New Testament Originally Written in Aramaic?. Now that I've gone through it, I find the evidence very strong, perhaps conclusive, and I want to leave the door open for those who believe in Aramaic Primacy, which may soon include me.

The problem this poses is that the Apostolic Church of the East (ACoE) canon, which curated the PeshittA, does not include what they call the Western 5 books: Revelations, Jude, 3John, 2John and 2Peter. It's not that they decided against them: it was more the books didn't make the cutoff, as the canon closed before they were in wide circulation (at least in the East), and they never wanted to reopen the canon discussions.

As a result there are (probably) no Aramaic originals of these work, and I'd like to be able to choose Aramaic Primacy later if it clearly wins out. I'm talking about dropping them in priority to Apocrypha, not excluding them, unlike the Faulines which were excluded as anti-Christian and definitely written later, by not Paul.

3John, 2John and 2Peter don't matter very much so I have no problem dropping them down. Jude and the beginning 3 chapters of Revelations are very important in a Canon that has the Faulines in it, because they're the condemnation of Faul's teaching. But in a canon without Faul, they can drop down no problem, and I have real reservations about Revelations anyway: it clearly wasn't written in Greek, so the TR Revelations is not original.

Revised Early Christian Ebionaen Canon (In some kind of rough grouped order):

1. Gospel of Matthew ( >= ch. 3 )

2. Gospel of Luke ( >= ch. 3 )
3. Book of Acts - as history

4. The Didache - as a community rule, not as scripture

5. James and the rest of the non-Fauline letters including Hebrews from the CoE canon.
(Hebrews may be better as Apochrypha).

6. Gospel of John
7. Gospel of Mark (has been "edited" to lessen the conflict with Paul)

8. Gospel Of Thomas - from the Nag Hammadi Library
9*. Gospel Of Philip - from the Nag Hammadi Library (tentative)
10*. Gospel Of Truth - from the Nag Hammadi Library (tentative)

Apochrypha:
100. The Western 5 including the Letter of Jude and Book of Revelations.

101. Letter from Peter To James (preface to the Homilies)
102. Clementine Homilies - not Rufinized, as historical fiction?
Last edited by ebion on Wed Jan 24, 2024 4:15 am, edited 12 times in total.
RandyHelzerman
Posts: 349
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2023 10:31 am

Re: Early Christian Ebionaen Canon

Post by RandyHelzerman »

Why both Matthew and Mark? Hasn't Matthew already done the editing that you would want?

Also do you mean "Letter of James" instead of "Gospel of James?"
ebion
Posts: 396
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2023 11:32 am

Re: Early Christian Ebionaen Canon

Post by ebion »

RandyHelzerman wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2023 10:19 am Why both Matthew and Mark? Hasn't Matthew already done the editing that you would want?
lclapshaw argued that too, and I sorta feel the same way, but decided to leave it in for the following reasons:
  1. it's not my canon, it's our extrapolation of the Ebionaen canon. There's lots of evidence they rejected Paul, which I agree with them strongly, so I can throw the Faulines (but not Acts) out.
  2. ( That leaves Hebrews as uncertain - I don't see them as Fauline in their theology, but don't know who wrote it. Tertullian says Barnabas which is good enough for me to keep them in.)
  3. There's some evidence they at least read Luke, but we have no evidence of anything they thought regarding Mark or John. So I'd rather leave them in, albeit farther down. I'm in no position to say "Mark can't be studied" (even though I don't usually).
  4. Mark John and some others may have been written later, but before our cutoff date of Nag Hammadi.
  5. The only things that really matter is that Matthew, in Hebrew and/or Aramaic, is the sole #1, and no Faulines.
RandyHelzerman wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2023 10:19 am Also do you mean "Letter of James" instead of "Gospel of James?"
Oops! Thanks. Fixed.
Steven Avery
Posts: 977
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Revised Early Christian Ebionaen Canon

Post by Steven Avery »

ebion wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2023 10:16 pm The problem this poses is that the Church of the East (ACOE) canon, which curated the PeshittA, does not include what they call the Western 5 books: Revelations, Jude, 3John, 2John and 2Peter. It's not that they decided against them: it was more the books didn't make the cutoff, as the canon closed before they were in wide circulation (at least in the East), and they never wanted to reopen the canon discussions.
Do you have any evidence that these five books were in the Western (aka Jacobite) Peshitta prior to the c. AD 510 Philoxenian recension?
Post Reply