Christian Texts and History • Re: Is *Ev a source of the Gospel of the Ebionites?

I'm not sure I'm following you. Paul thought that Torah observance was no longer necessary for Jews and calls himself Jewish, which makes his letters Jewish writings, and Marcion used them. And the Ebionite Matthew was a Jewish writing that was anti-sacrifice and largely unobservant, and I'm suggesting Marcion used that too.

You said Marcion would use a Jewish gospel that was for all intents and purposes anti-Jewish, anti-OT/anti-sacrifice. Why not just write his own Gospel at that point? Or heck, utilize a gospel that was already anti-OT/anti-sacrifice? Like Paul's, which is what he did. The problem is that you trying to salvage a consensus regarding Marcion that is no longer viable, while maintaining this quasi-Eisenmann/Ebionite theory.

Paul's Gospel was, for all intents and purposes anti-Judaism. Paul makes the accusation that people are Judaizing his Gospel. Marcion then comes along, and for all intents and purposes, does the exact same thing. Makes/uses a Gospel that is anti-Judaism; people are Judaizing it [again]. It is this duplication of the same thing that you getting tripped up over.

Where does Epiphanius say that Nazarenes antedated Christ? My guess is that he says this about Nasaraeans in Pan. 18 (which I can't see on Google Books right now). and this seems confirmed by Kampmeier, who writes that Epiphanius "clearly distinguishes the Nasareans from the Nazoreans of the New Testament, the first Christians" on page 86 here (https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewco ... ontext=ocj).

Nazarenes, Nasaraeans, does it truly matter at this point? Ebion is a completely fictional character, yet you are trying to legitimize him or at least using him to argue for a pre-Marcion Christianity. I'm not buying it.

And while Epiphanius wrote in the 4th century, he was in contact with Jewish Christians of his time and their writings, people who presumably knew something about their origins or in any event had writings that Epiphanius could access. And if Epiphanius could access Ebionite writings, then so could Marcion.

Speculation. Again Epiphanius wasn't above lying or using sources of spurious authenticity. This means either Epiphanius is of no count or the Christians he was responding to likewise were of no count. Being a Christian doesn't automatically make your word gospel.

There were certainly poor Christians before 70 CE, but Ebionites did not emerge as a sect until after 70 CE.

If that's what you want to think, that is you're right, just as it is my right to say there were no Christians priori to Marcion, and Ebionites were the members of r. Akiva's college.

But even striking that, how is it you know this? Even Tertullian puts them as coming into vogue in the second century, which is after 70ad but then again so are we, so I don't see you bring it up as a salient point.

Jewish Christian leaders approved of Paul's Torah-free gospel to the Gentiles and he says of them in 1 Cor. 15:11, "Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed." It was the ones he calls "false brothers" who wanted Gentiles to be Torah observant, and their view did not prevail with Jewish Christian leaders.

You say "false brothers" and "Jewish Christians" as if these are two different camps. Surely if the stipulation is that gentiles need to observe Torah that would make them Jewish Christians.

But more to the point, I find all of these a deliberate mischaracterization. It is not simply that the false brothers are telling gentiles to observe Torah, but to also follow Paul's Gospel of Christ. That is the Judaization Paul is beating against; not that they are telling gentiles to observe Torah alone.

Paul's Torah-free gospel was supposed to be for Gentiles, as per the agreement he made with Jewish Christian leaders. And since he calls himself Jewish, his letters are Jewish writings that are lax about Torah observance, and Marcion used them. Likewise, the Ebionite Matthew was a Jewish writing that was lax about Torah observance, and I think Marcion used that too.

You know, we're talking about these things as if they're actual history but it is no different than comparing different eras of Superman or Batman and arguing about which one is stronger.

Does calling oneself Jewish make you Jewish? Paul's letters are replete with references to Judaism. Does that alone make them Jewish? Paul has a gospel that essentially tells gentiles they don't need to observe Torah, that basis of Judaism, does that still make him Jewish? Well according to Paul himself, no, he is not Jewish, or no longer Jewish after his conversion to Christ and hence why he talks to both Jews and gentiles alike as if they are people apart from himself. That piqued Marcion's interest in Paul. Why would Marcion care what Jewish Christians thought insofar as to argue against them? As far as he would be concerned they would be the one's Judaizing Paul's Gospel, which is exactly what he was arguing against in Antithesis, which you seemingly forget even exists or disregard it. It is at this point that I feel you are just conveniently picking up and droping things to suite your particular pet theory.

Paul is anti-Jewish. His Gospel is anti-Jewish, he argues against Torah observance and those trying to enforce. Marcion is ostensibly anti-Jewish. He uses Paul precisely because of that, and has a Gospel he then argues is being Judaized.

Your position makes zero sense in light of this truthism. Why would there be those Judaizing Paul's Gospel, and then turn around and do it again with Marcion's? Either Marcion is lying; or the Judaizers were so unpopular that they had to resort to doing what Paul accused them of doing a second time. Either way your argument does not hold up.

Then you say that Marcion would be willing to use an anti-Jewish Gospel (then said you didn't say that even though you did) but ignore the logistical inconsistencies this makes for your own position and timelines. You depend on Ebion as a terminus post quem for your Ebionites all the while ignoring the fact that Ebion is a completely made up character which means you don't have an argument to make. Everything after Ebion is ad hoc and that's what makes this a losing battle for both of us.

Sure, after 70 CE can mean anytime after 70 CE, but Ebionites are said to have existed before Elchasai came along and changed them, and the Book of Elchasai was written during Trajan's reign (98-117 CE), so Ebionites existed before then, according to Epiphanius' timeline.

Written during Trajan's reign, 98-117ad. So for all you know the book of Elchasai could have been written in 116ad and the Ebionites came only after 114ad. That's the problem with your wide ranging margins.

And according to Tertullian Ebion/Ebionites follow Cerinthus, who was teaching at least while John was alive but nothing is known about the when. That's the problem with appending dates onto people who never existed in the first place.

What does Tertullian say that differs from Epiphanius? In Pan. 30.1.2-3 Epiphanius says that Ebion borrowed ideas from Cerinthians ("Ebion ... took any and every doctrine ... from every sect, and patterned himself after them all ... the Jews' name, the Ossaeans, Nazoraeans and Nasaraeans [notice how he distinguishes the two here], the form of the Cerinthians ...."). And Tertullian says, "His successor was Ebion, not agreeing with Cerinthus in every point," which sounds like the same thing to me.

And Ebion is a pure invention and all of this fiction, so what is your point?

Statistics: Posted by Joseph D. L. — Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:05 pm

---