Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I actually slept for almost an hour and a half. My concern is why do we default to the Church Fathers merely because they are our only source for evidence? I've had the same concern about (a) Josephus (b) Marcion and many other topics. The Church - unconsciously or otherwise - presents us with a catalog of 'sects' among which the Ebionites appear in a marginal reference. I've already mentioned that Irenaeus's original statement about them is connected to the Carpocratians. Cerinthus is like the Carpocratians regarding angel/angels creating the world but - Irenaeus adds - the Ebionites are 'like us' seeing God as the Creator. A few other statements are added. But the connective tissue seems to infer that someone - not Irenaeus (presumably Irenaeus's source) - was comparing the Carpocratians, Cerinthus and the Ebionites.

If Hegesippus was the original source for all three accounts it would be easy to make sense of. But Epiphanius uses Hegesippus and makes additional 'connections' and contrasts between the sects that aren't in Irenaeus ('the Cerinthians' using Matthew). The implication seems to me to be that either Irenaeus had three separate sources and tied them together on his own (unlikely) or one of the two (Cerinthus, the Ebionites) was contrasted with the Carpocratians by Hegesippus. It is tempting to think that Epiphanius placed the Ebionites in Batanae because of Hegesippus. It is by no means certain.

Whatever the case may be, there is no reason to think that Irenaeus had any first hand knowledge of the Ebionites. If Bauckham (and I think Bauckham's detective work is very good - my one MASSIVE reproach is his blind acceptance of Hegesippus 'family of Jesus' nonsense) is right that the twin villages of Nazara (Nazareth) and Kochabe (Kochabe) in Batanea (or Bashan) go back to the 'Branch' and 'Star' prophecies concerning the messiah, surely we have the right to question the legitimacy of this account. Simon bar Kosiba used this line of reasoning to explain his origins which rabbinic commentators later characterized as a 'lie.' The same prophesy led to the origins of the Ebionites and likely from a similar impulse to lie.

Who could have developed this lie? The logic seems somewhat similar to what we see in Tertullian's Against Marcion:

According to the prophecy, the Creator's Christ was to be called a Nazarene.a For that reason, and on his account, the Jews call us by that very name, Nazarenes. For we are also those of whom it is written, The Nazarenes were made whiter than snow,b having previously of course been darkened with the stains of sin, and blackened with the darkness of ignorance. But to Christ the appellation of Nazarene was to apply because of his hiding-place in infancy, for which he went down to Nazareth, to escape from Archelaus, the son of Herod.

This is a variation of the lie which led to the explanation of the name 'Nazarenes' (or Nazoraeans). But as an explanative tool - it is worthless. Yet bits and pieces of this same history - not as easily detected - are passed off as 'documentary evidence.' Indeed if the original author refrained from obvious lies (i.e. prophetic argumentation) we wouldn't know how to disprove any of his statements as the original context is lost.

So my point is - we can't write about the 'Jewish Christians.' We simply don't know anything about them. I think we should refrain from publishing authoritative things about the Marcionites, the Jewish War etc.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 5:03 pm My concern is why do we default to the Church Fathers merely because they are our only source for evidence?

I do not think we need the church fathers to establish the existence of Jewish Christianity. We have Paul, the Didache, the pseudo-Clementines, the Mishnaic parallels in the synoptics, the Odes of Solomon, and more. I personally do not trust the patristic evidence very much on its own. Everything has to be tested.

If Bauckham (and I think Bauckham's detective work is very good - my one MASSIVE reproach is his blind acceptance of Hegesippus 'family of Jesus' nonsense) is right that the twin villages of Nazara (Nazareth) and Kochabe (Kochabe) in Batanea (or Bashan) go back to the 'Branch' and 'Star' prophecies concerning the messiah, surely we have the right to question the legitimacy of this account.

I completely agree. And remember: I tentatively disagree with Bauckham on the single most basic fact concerning the family of Jesus: he thinks that James was Jesus' physical brother (along with Jude, Symeon, and Joses), and I doubt that. He is excellent at marshaling the evidence, but yes, his conclusions are (usually, not always) going to be as vanilla as the evidence will allow him to go. In this case, for example, since it is not impossible that the "desposyni" chose these precise towns for the potential messianic value of their names, that is the direction in which Bauckham leans. I myself would lean in the direction of suspecting that the tradition did not have specific towns named; so the tradents eventually filled in those names in a way which might befit a messianic family and movement.

This is a variation of the lie which led to the explanation of the name 'Nazarenes' (or Nazoraeans). But as an explanative tool - it is worthless. Yet bits and pieces of this same history - not as easily detected - are passed off as 'documentary evidence.' Indeed if the original author refrained from obvious lies (i.e. prophetic argumentation) we wouldn't know how to disprove any of his statements as the original context is lost.

I feel like Nazareth is not the source for the name of the Nazoraeans. I agree with spin on this one; the Nazoraeans came first, and the Nazareth connection was made later.

But none of this implies that Jewish Christianity did not even exist.

On that subject. I think that Christianity developed from Judaism. But I don't know how, when or why. I don't think we can know. I suspect that Greek speaking Jews had very little in common with Hebrew and Aramaic speaking Jews. I can't find any evidence for the existence of a Hebrew gospel. I don't think we can assume that Semitic texts were available or known to Greek speaking Jews. The only evidence I have ever seen of this cross-cultural cross-linguistic textual movement is in the writings of Marqe where an Aramaic text knows and appeals to Greek kabbalah. There may be other examples of allusions to what they say in Greek or alternatively what they say in Hebrew or Aramaic but not a central argument.

Furthermore how do we know when we stumble across 'Jewish Christianity'? Is Pliny's letter a testimony to the existence of 'Jewish Christianity.' How would we know? It seems that we can only know if (a) the author references some distinguishing features of the sect which make it apparent it is NOT the Gentile Church or (b) if the Church Fathers themselves distinguish the existence of a 'Jewish Christianity.' But let me give another example. I think this is Jewish Christianity:

For they falsely hold, that the Creator was seen by the prophets. But this passage, "No man shall see God and live," they would interpret as spoken of His greatness unseen and unknown by all; and indeed that these words, "No man shall see God," are spoken concerning the invisible Father, the Maker of the universe, is evident to us all; but that they are not used concerning that Bythus whom they conjure into existence, but concerning the Creator (and He is the invisible God), shall be shown as we proceed. They maintain that Daniel also set forth the same thing when he begged of the angels explanations of the parables, as being himself ignorant of them. But the angel, hiding from him the great mystery of Bythus, said unto him, "Go thy way quickly, Daniel, for these sayings are closed up until those who have understanding do understand them, and those who are white be made white." Moreover, they vaunt themselves as being the white and the men of good understanding.

Why do I think this is Jewish? Because we Jews use Daniel chapter 12 in the same way - i.e. to refer to ourselves as 'gnostics.' This is why I find 'Jewish Christianity' in places scholars don't.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 5:03 pm So my point is - we can't write about the 'Jewish Christians.' We simply don't know anything about them.

I agree.

a lot of the notions of a Jewish-Christianity are a nonsense.

Though I wonder why you then say

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 5:03 pm I think we should refrain from publishing authoritative things about the Marcionites, the Jewish War etc.

What do you mean by that? ...

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 5:39 pm ... I think that Christianity developed from Judaism. But I don't know how, when or why. I don't think we can know.

I think the concept of something being 'Judaised' is worth teasing out. There may be several steps. eg. Paul mostly using the LXX scriptures (+/- something else). Mark using Paul and the LXX scriptures, and something else. Matthew further 'judaising' Mark.

But what texts would Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and others have been using???

i was only kidding with you earlier, we are all tough guys here right?

I will give you this SA, most of the church fathers seem pretty crazy to me and hardly reliable. God only knows what was going on back then
Lets face it the Roman empire was collapsing and maybe people were just going nuts, why not? The later Roman emperors were all stark raving lunatics

Clement seems to be the sanest one and the one I enjoy reading for what its worth

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 5:03 pm
Whatever the case may be, there is no reason to think that Irenaeus had any first hand knowledge of the Ebionites. If Bauckham...is right that the twin villages of Nazara (Nazareth) and Kochabe (Kochabe) in Batanea (or Bashan) go back to the 'Branch' and 'Star' prophecies concerning the messiah, surely we have the right to question the legitimacy of this account.

"this account"?? = Irenaeus' account of the Ebionites??

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 5:03 pm Simon bar Kosiba used this line of reasoning to explain his origins which rabbinic commentators later characterized as a 'lie.' The same prophesy led to the origins of the Ebionites and likely from a similar impulse to lie.

or were words put in bar Kosiba's mouth?

Are accounts of bar Kosiba a spark or seed for Jesus of Nazareth??

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 5:03 pm Who could have developed this lie? The logic seems somewhat similar to what we see in Tertullian's Against Marcion:

According to the prophecy, the Creator's Christ was to be called a Nazarene. For that reason, and on his account, the Jews call us by that very name, Nazarenes. For we are also those of whom it is written, The Nazarenes were made whiter than snow,b having previously of course been darkened with the stains of sin, and blackened with the darkness of ignorance. But to Christ the appellation of Nazarene was to apply because of his hiding-place in infancy, for which he went down to Nazareth, to escape from Archelaus, the son of Herod.

This is a variation of the lie which led to the explanation of the name 'Nazarenes' (or Nazoraeans). But as an explanative tool - it is worthless. Yet bits and pieces of this same history - not as easily detected - are passed off as 'documentary evidence' ...

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 5:31 pm I feel like Nazareth is not the source for the name of the Nazoraeans. I agree with spin on this one; the Nazoraeans came first, and the Nazareth connection was made later.

I agree with both of you, fwiw.

davidmartin wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 5:47 pm Lets face it the Roman empire was collapsing and maybe people were just going nuts, why not?

Good point. The collapse started around the time of Irenaeus. The capital of the empire was moved to Nicomedia or thereabouts within 100 yrs.

davidmartin wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 5:47 pm Clement seems to be the sanest one and the one I enjoy reading for what its worth

Which Clement?