Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Another point of contrast is the 'holy poor' of Manichaeanism - https://books.google.com/books?id=-RPKC ... 22&f=false https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10 ... lCode=itqa

They included bishops and a newly professionalized clergy. The process of giving to the bishop (and especially of giving to the poor through the bishop) was increasingly sacralized. Bishops and clergy came to be spoken of as “Levites. They were likened to the priests of ancient Israel.

It is thus entirely possible that there were bishops and ecclesiastical men who identified themselves as 'the poor.' But again the terminology was rooted in Pauline Christianity.

Many thought that Christians should give mainly to the "holy poor" -- to the "poor among the saints" to use the phrase of Saint Paul's Letter to the Romans (15:26) when describing his collection for the poor "saints" of the community of Jerusalem. These "holy poor" claimed to give the etherial benefits of "spiritual" blessing, advice and prayer, in return for being entirely supported by the "earthly" offering of daily sustenance, as if they were beggars -- indeed, as if they were the only beggars that mattered.

From Peter Brown Treasure in Heaven:

These “holy poor” increasingly included exemplars of ascetic virtue. In the words of a dramatic third century legend, the Acts of Judas Thomas: good Christians, of course, were expected to give to the poor; but they were expected to give to the poor; but they were expected to give “particularly [malista] to those who live in a state of holiness [having renounced wealth and sex]. The Acts of Judas Thomas were written in ascetic circles in Syria. These circles already took a binary model of the Christian community for granted.

So to repeat. When we as modern readers peruse Against Heresies we imagine that there were separate 'churches' assigned to the various 'heresies.' So for instance there were 'Valentinian churches,' 'Marcionite churches,' 'Ebionite churches' etc. But I am not sure that is what we should infer from Irenaeus. Clearly the Valentinians were part of the Roman Church - before being excommunicated and were not separate churches but rather only filtered through the priesthood. The closest type of 'rival church' were the Marcionites. But even here I think there was a general resemblance before the publication of Irenaeus's work. Irenaeus worked to exclude presbyters who contaminated with beliefs associated with these 'sects.' But the idea that there was an 'Ebionite church' wholly separate from the Great Church seems a bit far of a stretch. At best he was recognizing that there were presbyters with these ideas in the Middle East. As such it is entirely possible that the Ebionites go back to the 'holy poor' presbyters referenced in the Acts of Judas Thomas. The text was written in the Near East likely originally in Syriac around the time Irenaeus published his work. Some point of contact is likely.

What's more there was a large body of Jewish proselytes in places like Syria, Egypt and the like. It is also worth noting studies of DNA from the cell nucleus have also shown “a very close similarity between Ashkenazi Jews and Italians.” The difficulty of course seems to be that contemporary 'on the ground' reporting suggests that Marcionites and various Jewish Christian groups were fueled by these proselytes attaching themselves to Christianity. Nevertheless in practice many more proselytes ultimately became Jews. Why this is is not clear. But it is important to note that Christianity could ultimately control its message better when the original core of Jewish proselytes became diluted with Gentiles converting directly to Christianity.

1. the Gospel of Matthew really went back to a Hebrew dialect gospel and the Ebionites had that gospel

I agree with the first part (it's what Papias, the earliest source to mention Matthew says, anyway), but I suppose the second part depends on what you mean by "Ebionites." If it's a catch-all term used by early writers for the two factions of Jewish Christians that Epiphanius mentions (the Nazarenes and Ebionites), then I suppose the second part would apply to the Nazarenes, since Epiphanius notes that they were "perfectly versed in the Hebrew language" (Pan. 29.7.4) and he doesn't say this about the Ebionites and their version of Matthew that he cites is in Greek. And given that Epiphanius says that the Nazarenes pre-dated the Ebionites and Papias says that the Hebrew Matthew pre-dated the Greek translations of it, I would suppose that the Nazarenes wrote the original Hebrew version.


And Epiphanius also says outright in Pan. 29.9.4, "They have the Gospel according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this as it was originally written, in the Hebrew alphabet."

2. Matthew existed prior to Irenaeus's account and Irenaeus did what Epiphanius does in the Panarion - viz. he 'figured out' the characteristics of the sect mostly based on 'the Jewishness' of Matthew.

Well, Hegesippus pre-dates Irenaeus, and Eusebius says that he was acquainted with Jewish Christian-related writings and traditions and he had travelled to Rome, so Irenaeus could have learned about Jewish Christians from what Hegesippus wrote and told people in Rome and not just from Matthew.

3. the Ebionites were a real sect. Irenaeus took over his information about them from some other source. Irenaeus created Matthew based on a synthesis of (a) Hegesippus's reference to a gospel of Matthew and (b) things presumed about the Jewish opponents of Paul.

I would say "transmitted" rather than "took over," and I would suppose at least one of his sources was Hegesippus (via what he wrote and said to people in Rome).

4. Hegesippus wrote something about a gospel of logia associated with Matthew. Irenaeus was determined to make Hegesippus witness the canonical gospel of Matthew so he took over things presumed or implicit or even explicit in Hegesippus (i.e. that it was written in the Hebrew dialect, that it was more Jewish than Pauline Christianity etc. Developed a 'Jewish Christian' gospel which wasn't gnostic or kabbalistic or mystical but representative of a more 'normative' Judaism. Constructed his 'Ebionites' drawn from a pre-existent reference to Jewish Christians 'poor in understanding' fitted to a presumption about normative (an anachronistic conception in itself) Jewish Christian followers of the apostles.

At least in Eusebius' citations of him, Hegesippus doesn't associate his gospel with Matthew. But I think it's reasonable to suppose that it was a version of Matthew judging from what Eusebius and others say about the Gospel of the Hebrews elsewhere, perhaps even the original Hebrew version of it, and that it was more than a sayings gospel, judging from what Eusebius says in EH 4.22.7 ("And from the Syriac Gospel according to the Hebrews he quotes some passages in the Hebrew tongue"). And it's existence would presumably have been known to people in Rome before Irenaeus wrote AH given Hegesippus' visit there in the mid-second century CE. In other words, I don't think Irenaeus needed to develop or make anything up about Jewish Christian-related writings and traditions.

And whether he was a Jewish Christian or not, I've come around to the idea that Hegesippus was cool with Paul like the Nazarenes were. I used to suppose that because he knew Jewish Christian-related writings and traditions and doesn't mention Paul (at least in Eusebius' citations of him) that he opposed Paul like the Ebionites did, but then I realized that I don't need to suppose this because the answer has been right in front of my face in EH 4.2.4:

The same author [Hegesippus] also describes the beginnings of the heresies which arose in his time, in the following words: And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord. Therefore, they called the Church a virgin, for it was not yet corrupted by vain discourses.

Judging from this, it doesn't appear that Hegesippus thought that Paul had corrupted the Church, at least.

what does being "cool with Paul" mean though?

After all you have Marcion whose Paul was compatible with opposition to the OT and it's God
You have Gnostics who quoted his teaching and some claimed their origin from him (Valentinians)
Why not the Nazarenes do something similar?

let me clarify I mean "accept" him nominally + whatever of his teachings could be made to fit
But not "full acceptance" of his entire doctrine, literally and I assume the general points of his doctrine do go back to him despite interpolation, etc

The question then become, why would they feel the need to do this?

One answer might be the emerging orthodoxy was forming around Paul and Nazarene merger, to be in the club you had to "accept Paul"
If you didn't you were beyond the pale and no chance of broader acceptance, and his writings are so easy to make support various positions too with a little persuasion...why not?

What i'm saying is the position of the churches mid-late 2nd century was very different from mid-late 1st. A lot of water had flowed under the bridge and marriages of convenience made, earlier splits played down and papered over. Splits that were a big deal before lost sight of
The entire book of Acts marks a nice marriage between Paul and Nazarene factions of the church who had been at odds before
This matters when seeking the earlier Christian forms that may or may not have themselves agreed with these two and probably didn't

The idea the early church was a 'virgin' uncorrupted by heresy is an obvious piece of fiction. Pauls own letters contradict it!
It only goes to show that was the 'official line' to all, and a very weak one that many church fathers couldn't even accept

I agree with the first part (it's what Papias, the earliest source to mention Matthew says, anyway), but I suppose the second part depends on what you mean by "Ebionites."

No this is certainly NOT true. The canonical gospel of Matthew is not what Hegesippus is talking about.

And Epiphanius also says outright in Pan. 29.9.4, "They have the Gospel according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this as it was originally written, in the Hebrew alphabet."

Exactly and Epiphanius is not a reliable witness so who cares. He also reports hearing that the Diatessaron is the Gospel of the Hebrews. Who cares.

Epiphanius is just reinforcing - as if by 'eye witness testimony' - what he read in Irenaeus. He's like Donald Trump in that regard except Trump uses 'from what I hear' or 'I am hearing' which is less dishonest.

Let's go through this step by step:

• 1. Papias says "The Elder also said this, “Mark, being the interpreter of Peter, whatsoever he remembered he wrote accurately, but not however in the order that these things were spoken or done by our Lord. For he neither heard the Lord, nor followed him, but afterwards, as I said, he was with Peter, who did not make a complete [or ordered] account of the Lord’s logia, but constructed his teachings according to chreiai. So Mark did nothing wrong in writing down single matters as he remembered them, for he gave special attention to one thing, of not passing by anything he heard, and not falsifying anything in these matters.”

• 2. Irenaeus says "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
  
  These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.
  
  But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.
  
  Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Where- fore they must be opposed at all points, if per- chance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
  
  Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,(3) that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Now let's start at the beginning. Irenaeus constructs a fourfold gospel out of passages in Papias which intend no such thing. This is the first dishonesty. But the real purpose of the material is to subordinate Mark. Matthew is identified clearly as the oldest gospel. The assumption that it was originally written in the Hebrew dialect may well go back to something Papias said and is now lost.

It is important to note that even Irenaeus never claims to have seen this ur-gospel. Instead he seems to posit an attachment to the Markan tradition insofar as Mark wrote for a Roman audience "while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church." The here and now of Irenaeus's experience is Rome. All the talk about secrets and a secret gospel is firmly placed in the Roman Markan setting:

we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul

I of course think that in the background of Irenaeus's discussion in Secret Mark. It stands to reason given (a) the association with Rome that he gives to Mark and (b) the centrality of this Markan Roman experience in his argumentation. The fact that Mark's gospel is made subordinate to Matthew only follows because he is trying to escape the implication of Secret Mark standing behind Roman Mark.

Yet to argue that Irenaeus actually knows about an association between 'the Ebionites' and 'the canonical gospel of Matthew' is silly. He's just doing what all the Church Fathers do - he's just superimposing things said in previous Church Fathers upon one another to arrive at a desired conclusion. In this case Papias knows nothing about Secret Mark. He's merely saying that some Matthew sayings gospel is the correct gospel. Irenaeus uses this passage to argue that the truth about Mark can be known by the manner in which it agrees with canonical Matthew.

John2, what will you do if we ever find an early unorthodox writing claiming that the church fathers made up this tradition and apostolic succession? Just wondering because you give them (apostolic fathers) a lot of credulity.

There are probably reasons beyond time why Papias, Hegesippus, etc writing's no longer exist, and why you only get select quotes.