Early Christian Ebionaen Canon

[RandyHelzerman]

As we are using the KJV for almost everything else, does it really matter?

Like my grandpa always said, if KJV english was good enough for Jesus, it was good enough for him.

[lclapshaw]

As we are using the KJV for almost everything else, does it really matter?

Like my grandpa always said, if KJV english was good enough for Jesus, it was good enough for him.

[ebion]

Probably just stick with Matthew and Acts (KJV of course) what else do you need?

Having figured out what else we need in the canon, we can look at the question of texts and translations.
We started looking at the texts part in rpearse's question What is the Gospel of Hebrews and agreed it's a duplicate name for the original Gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew dialect of Aramaic. I think we can handle early translation issues with an Ebionaen Commentary that goes alongside a reference translation.

I'm happy to use the commentary alongside a KJV, so that we have a reference versification. A lot of bible readers are really tied to expected versification schemes, and of course the KJV is the reference. But as to the KJV translation - we'll have to be independent of that because the original Matthew is in Aramaic .

So I've been collecting the English translations of the Early Christian Armaic texts, and have found a good one, that goes back to the oldest texts and still does a good job of translation. Which raises the issue of of "Rules of Translation".

The KJV NT is about 85% Tyndale, because it was based on a Tyndale bible, the Bishop's bible. He wrote a book that defended the list of words Tyndale defended that he chose, and justified his choice of words, and I agree with him. These words were referred to as the
The Old Ecclesiastical Words in the 15 principles of (mis)translation King James laid down. The fact that King James ordered them to be replaced in the KJV I consider to be Major KJV Tampering.

There's an excellent posting by the translator of a book on Faul that lists his choices of English words for translation: Paul's Literary Metamorphosis: Translations of Marcion's Apostolos and Canonical Counterparts. He goes even more detailed than Tyndale, and his choices look good to me.

So I'd like use to adopt a "Guideline For Ebionaen Translators" that we will avoid the Old Ecclesiastical Words (that came from the Vulgate) so that the spirit of Christ's words can come through.

PS: I think squirrels have it good: they can sleep through winter, surrounded by nuts. No shovelling.

[lclapshaw]

PS: I think squirrels have it good: they can sleep through winter, surrounded by nuts. No shovelling.

You just described me.

the original Gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew dialect of Aramaic

I'll believe this when someone finds a copy.

So I've been collecting the English translations of the Early Christian Armaic texts

What texts are these?

[ebion]

the original Gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew dialect of Aramaic

I'll believe this when someone finds a copy.

Oh ye of little faith!

But whilst you are waiting, we can take the known citations of the early writers and match them against an Matthew translated from the early Aramaic, using a Commentary.

So I've been collecting the English translations of the Early Christian Armaic texts.

What texts are these?

I need your OK on the "Rules from Ebionaen Translators" first.

[lclapshaw]

the original Gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew dialect of Aramaic

I'll believe this when someone finds a copy.

Oh ye of little faith!

But whilst you are waiting, we can take the known citations of the early writers and match them against an Matthew translated from the early Aramaic, using a Commentary.

So I've been collecting the English translations of the Early Christian Armaic texts.

What texts are these?

I need your OK on the "Rules from Ebionaen Translators" first.

Sure. Why not.

[ebion]

Sure. Why not.

Sure, but do you have any feedback? Is Tyndale's list enough or is the Paul book list too much? I think it's important.

Tyndale wrote a book that explains in detail his reasons for the critical choices of translation he made of those "et. cetera" words. These changes are major and systematic, and change the whole flavour of the KJV relative to a real Tyndale bible like Matthew's, which nonetheless are the root of the bibles that the KJV was made from (rules 1 and 14).

The top 5 of the "et. cetera" words that Tyndale explains in detail are:

• He translated ekklesia as congregation, not church. (Luther avoided the word Kirche, preferring instead Gemeinde.)
• He translated presbuteros as elder, not priest.
• He translated metanoeo as repentance, not penance.
• He translated exomologeo as (ac)knowledge, not confession.
• He translated agape as love, not charity.

King James' decree to not use Tyndale's translation we call KJV Tampering.

We can also note in passing some other English translations that were faced with similar choices of words, for what they call postclassical Greek literary conventions, and we'll call Post Vulgate English Conventions.

Paul's Literary Metamorphosis: Translations of Marcion's Apostolos and Canonical Counterparts provides the first English translation of Markus Vinzent's forthcoming Greek edition of Marcion's Apostolos. Translated by Mark Bilby; from his notes on Translation:

• - πνεῦμα / pneuma [is] translated as “spirit” (evoking the presence and/or power of a god or a demon) [...]
• - ἅγιος / hagios as “sacred spirit”, instead of “Spirit” or “Holy Spirit” (implying the third Person of the Trinity in later doctrine).
• - capitalization is retained for Χριστός / Christos, but it is not translated as the proper noun “Christ” (as if it were a name at the time), but instead as a common noun or substantive adjective, that is, “Anointed” (a role, title, or description).

Such decisions correct anachronistic, pious editorial programs
that have sought (whether consciously or unconsciously) to treat
an early imperial set of texts emerging from a fledgling
socio-religious movement as if they fit a fully developed,
post-Constantinian theological and ecclesiastical mold. They also
bring the text fully into conversation with translations of other
ancient Greek literature, where references abound to “the god”, to
“spirit”, and to various messianic candidates deemed as “Anointed”.

• - εὐαγγέλιον / euangelion is transliterated “euangelion”, rather than translated “gospel” (derived from “good story”).
• - εὐαγγελίζω / euangelidzô is “euangelize” (i.e., to bring a good message), not “evangelize” (i.e., “convert”) nor “to preach the gospel”.

These transliterations help surface the close linguistic and thematic
connections with the word ἄγγελος, “angel” or “messenger”, a term
commonplace not only in ancient religions, but also theatrical plays
and royal courts.

• - ἐκκλησία / ekklêsia is “assembly” not “church”;
• - κοινωνία / koinônia is “partnership” not “fellowship”;
• - Ἰουδαῖος / Iudaios is “Judean” not “Jew” (as if a religious identity separated from a specific place and its culture);
• - ἅγιος / hagios is “devotee|devoted|sacred”, not “saint”;
• - χάρις / charis is “favor”, not “grace”;
• - καλός / kalos is “virtuous”, not “good”;
• - ἁμαρτία / hamartia and ἁμαρτωλός / hamartôlos are “offense|offend|offender”, not “sin|sinner|sinful”;
• - αἰών / aiôn is “aeon” (an era or heavenly power), not “age|eternal” (as if always temporal or invoking temporal transcendence);
• - γλῶσσα / glôssa is usually “language” not “tongue”;
• - ψυχή / psychê is “beast” or “animal” or “life”, not a Platonic “soul”; and
• - κόσμος / kosmos is typically “cosmic order”, not “world”.

Some terms may seem unusual, yet reflect common late antique social conventions or idiomatic expressions:

• - λειτουργία / leitourgia is “ritual service” not “ministry” or “work”;
• - ἀσπάζομαι / aspadzomai is “embrace” not “greet”; and
• - σπλάγχνα / splagchna is “gut-level empathies” or “entrails,” not “compassion” or “heart”.

Word choices follow common meanings in the Liddell-Scott-Jones (LSJ) lexicon, often against the sanitized jargon of theological lexicons and church-sponsored translations.

The Liddell Scott Jones (LSJ) lexicon is online at a number of places including:

• Liddell-Scott-Jones lexicon as a Wiki - a massive Wiki
• A Greek-English Lexicon, Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, revised and augmented throughout by Sir Henry Stuart Jones with the assistance of Roderick McKenzie (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1940).
• https://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/lsj/
• https://archive.org/details/Lsj--LiddellScott in HTML

In Aramaic;

• the word used for ekklessia is edtha which means assembly or congregation.

This post is tagged with EcLive: to your can easily search for the important postngs that are kept up-to-date.

[ebion]

Oh wait. You're right, we need to include Thomas, so...

The Gospel of Thomas can go in the group with John and maybe Philip.

Comments by Craig Schenk:

The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of traditional Sayings (logoi) of Jesus. It is attributed to Didymos Judas Thomas, the "Doubting Thomas" of the canonical Gospels, and according to many early traditions, the twin brother of Jesus ("didymos" means "twin" in Greek).

We have two versions of the Gospel of Thomas today. The first was discovered in the late 1800's among the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, and consists of fragments of a Greek version, which has been dated to c. 200. The second is a complete version, in Coptic, from Codex II of the Nag Hammadi finds. Thomas was probably first written in Greek (or possibly even Syriac or Aramaic) sometime between the mid 1st and 2nd centuries. There has been much speculation on the relationship of Thomas to the canonical Gospels.

We set as a criteria for inclusion into our Canon the synergy with the Gospel of Matthew. In other words, if a work cites passages from the Early Ebionaen Matthew, partiularly the words of Jesus in that Gospel, we use that as a selector, and hence a test of authenticity.

The Gospel of Thomas translation I like, directly is from the Coptic, is by Patterson Brown, at:

• http://www.metalog.org/files/valent.html
• https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/3426288/metalogos-the-gospels-of-thomas-philip-truth
• http://web.archive.org/web/20050208003646/http://www.metalog.org/files/philip.html
• All of his work is downloadable from https://archive.org/details/Metagosp

He does a lot of commentary to show the links back to the synoptic gospel passages, and it sufficiently links to Matthew and Philip for us to include it in the canon.

Turns out there are a lot, and a lot of people have elucidated the parallels: see
viewtopic.php?p=162449#p162449

[ebion]

I think I'll use this post to define the term Ebioneans, so that I can keep this thread focussed. I'll just state things as given without trying to justify them so we can focus on the consequence of these assumptions.

After Christ, James, called James the Just, and said to be the brother of Jesus, accepted the invitation of the Apostles to be the head of the Earliest Christian church in Jerusalem. He was well respected and arbitrated wayward members of the Christian community (like Paul), and prayed a lot. This is described in Acts. We call this the Jamesian church during James.

After the murder of James by the Sadducees in ~63 AD, the remaining members of the church had the good sense to flee Jerusalem to Pella, in what is now Jordan, and what was then a part of the Roman Decapolis, a sort of set of 10 citystates outside of Palestina. We define the Ebionaens as that Christian sect, starting then, and they survived the sack of Jerusalem because they were outside of the region that was sacked.

The Ebionaens were known for several things, all very Christian from the book of Matthew:

• They clung to (and perhaps wrote) the book of Matthew, and carefully guarded a HAramaic copy in a library.
• The Matthew they clung to lacked the first 2 chapters of the current Matthew, and was therefore seen by later vigilanties as "corrupt and mutilated".
• As a result, there was no virgin birth in their canon, so Jesus was a man of Joseph's Davidic line, who acquired his divinity at his baptism.
• They were monotheistic in the sense of the Shema, and God alone was worshopped.
• They were mainly Hebrews but accepted converts, and kept Christ's respect for the Mosaic law.
• They kept the Mosaic tradition of circumcision, perhaps just of infants.
• They rejected the old Hebrew idea of Temple sacrifices, which became a moot point with the fall of the Temple.
• They hated the Pharisees as Jesus did, and the Sadducees because of the murder of James.
• They rejected Paul as an apostate for teaching anti-Christian doctorines.

We have introduced the term HAramaic, which is taken to mean Aramaic written in Hebrew letters, but could be Aramaic or Hebrew. Palestinian Aramaic was the language of the land, and Hebrew was mainly confined to the educated Hebrews in the synagogues and temples, but the alphabets are the same and we won't waste time trying to distinguish one from the other. From here we can make the following assumptions:

• Although they clung to Matthew, they are said to have read Luke.
• They used not only the New Testament but the Old Testament as well,
• We define the HAramaic Matthew to be the original gospel, and assume the current Matthew and Luke in Greek are the translations of it. (Mark seems to us to be fudged to minimize the obvious conflicts between Christ and Paul.)
• We assume the Matthew and Luke in the Aramaic PeshittA come from it, and even may be it. From the early writings, if there are any differences to the original Matthew, they are too small enough to affect doctorine.
• Because they rejected Paul, we save a lot of time by ignoring the Paulines. In fact we suspect those were written by Marcion, and refer to "Paul in Acts" and "Faul in the Faulines".
• Because they had the Original Matthew, we save a lot of time ignoring Q, which we use to add other things considered to be Ebionaen to our canon.
• We assume that they celbrated the Hebrew holidays such as Sukkoth, Pessach, which Jesus did.
• They accepted converts, but requiring circumcision might have limited their appeal to adult men

With all of the above, it is hard to say from the writings of the Early Christians what the difference is between the Ebionaens and the Nazoreans, except for the rejection of Paul. In addition we define our Ebionaens as naming a post-Jamesian congregation, whereas some early writers write of both before 70 AD; the names are not used with any consistency, and Epiphaneus gives the both 2 different sections. So for the sake of this thread, we will make the following conjectures or definitions, even if it conflicts with some writings:

• The most important difference between the Ebionites and the Nazoreans is that the former rejected Paul.
• The Nazoreans may have alse differed by omitting only the genealogy from Matthew; we rejec
• They not only permitted but enjoined matrimony on young men. and Epiphanius adds they permit second marriages. This is unlike some of their friends: the Essenses.
• Additionally there may have been some merging with fleeing Essene communies after 70 AD.
• Either may have been vegetarian, but it's not known be a religious obligation; the Essenes were.
• They would have been natural allies of Kararite and Samaratain Hebrews who reject the Rabbinical "traditions".
• In time they grew or migrated from Pella to Antioch, Syria, which already had a Christian community during James.
• Thomas and Bartholomew are said to have travelled east even during James, and the CoE may have met and merged with their disciples.
• They were still around at the time of Jerome.

And for those who were wondering, the Ebionites were heretics that Epiphanius hated, wheras Ebionaens are the Earliest Christians who everybody loves. And wants to know more about...

[StephenGoranson]

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.)

(Other minor stuff. I assume Shelma above was a typo for Shema. Why Ebionaen instead of Ebionites or Ebionim? HAramaic is unnecessary; Hebrew is written in the Aramaic (shared) alphabet.)

The Ebionites were evidently not static, but evolved diachronically, not usually synonymous with Christians. And the name evolved too, from generic to more specific. The Qumran pesher on Psalm 37, 4QpPs 37 III.10 (adat ha-)ebyonim, the congregation of the poor, is not Christian.

b.Shabb. 116a may be helpful in distinguishing later usage of Ebionites from Nazarenes.