capnkirk

Thank you for taking the time to transcribe those fragments into your post; that must have been both tedious and time consuming.

As for your characterization of my position, I think that the only thing you may have missed is this: I DO contend that a group of Observant Jews that adamantly insists that they believed Jesus to be the Jewish Messiah sent from the Jewish God to the Jewish people in fulfillment of Jewish Scriptures, that to belong to the the people of God one had to be Jewish, AND who did not accept ANY of the writings of Paul, who considered him a heretic...were almost certain to be expecting an earthly Davidic messianic figure. This in no way excludes other groups of Jews from accepting a Pauline Christ as fulfillment of prophesy, just the Ebionites as described above (and TJC who can be understood (via Acts) as holding those self-same views.).

As more references like yours are appearing, I am beginning to see a pattern emerging. The more removed from Jerusalem the source of the reference, the more Hellenized it is likely to be...and the more they tend to point away from a HJ entirely. I have just gotten a long email from another poster containing a lot of Doherty's work, and I am still wading through it, so am not prepared to comment on it yet.

Ultimately, I am trying to gain the best possible insight into the process of the creation of the Christ myth in the first century CE. That includes the political and socio-economic environment, class structure, the primary features of Judaic religious practices, especially in Jerusalem and in Galilee and with respect to differences between the beliefs and practices of different classes, and the degree of Hellenization present in the various locales and classes. Substantial understanding of all these factors is necessary before a credible scenario can be established. I started years ago from the perspective of Hyam Maccoby's MYTHMAKER, and had already made some significant adjustments, but major revision of (a presumptive) HJ away from a conventional messiah had not yet happened. If there was in fact an HJ that was in fact crucified, then I hold that it was most likely for political reasons rather than religious ones. Some other explanation may ultimately prove more compelling, but will have to be a lot more complex to satisfy the existing evidence.

capnkirk

I just went back to read over the referenced bullet point summary, and realized when I saw the page that I had skipped that little comparison section...at the moment I had already given up on E's treatment of the Ebionites, and didn't have any interest in comparing the Marcionites with a "flawed" Ebionite definition, oh silly me.

...shure'nuf, sixth bullet downvoila, there it was, just like you said!

...but, waitaminnit...fourth bullet down, he says "The Ebionites saw Jesus as completely human." . . . .

So, even having said that, Ehrman still calls them Christians?! Not often I feel embarassed and vindicated all at the same time.

capnkirk

Check what you wrote here against your next quote (below)

This is the first of two paragraphs in the uncc quote. The content of both paragraphs supports what I have posted so closely you'd think that they copied it off this thread.


Actually the parenthetical letters identify the specific authors that make each specific assertion. Here is the legend from the site: O=Origen, I=Irenaeus, T-Tertullian, H=Hippolytus, Ep=Epiphanius, Eu-Eusebius, J=Jerome [/B][/QUOTE]

capnkirk

The last few sentences of the "ebionites.com" quote (just the part I copied here) represent the only issue I have with any of the quotes offered. I agree, I would label all of the above pretty gnostic all right. Compared with the other quotes, this one reeks of modern era redaction.

While all the discussion has revolved around the Ebionite "example", it was still just an example, albeit a most glaring one. There had been a number of "little" things like (here we go again): My antennae went up as soon as I read the first line of Part one: "Almost all of the "lost" Scriptures of the early Christians were forgeries." To open with a line like this struck me as dismissive and perjorative, as if that were their most important characteristic (and subtly implying that the Nicaean Council acted correctly in excluding them from the canon). That WAS my first impression. Off to a poor start, things slowly got worse, until we got to the Ebionites. That was the last straw. It was at that point that I gave up on Ehrman. My primary area of interest was the 1st century CE; I particularly wanted to see what he had to say about early corruption of canonical books (as that process subordinates inconvenient truths to doctrinal standards, and leaves behind "lost" Xtianities). I WAS disappointed to find that he chose not to go anywhere near there, so I started just skimming, then just lost interest and laid it down. Perhaps it was an overreaction, but I don't think so. I still think these observations warranted a "heads-up" (not "Incoming!!" as some of you took it.) to potential readers to be watchful for a very subtle bias on the part of this author.

godfry n. glad

Well, I can't speak for everybody, but I try do that anyway. With almost every writer I read.

Including you.

godfry

capnkirk

There is an old axiom that I firmly believe in that says, "We are all blind to our own prejudices." I certainly don't exclude myself from that indictment. That is why I also make it my default mode to "trust...but verify." If only everyone did.

But then I wouldn't have felt the need to post a "heads up"...and this most stimulating dialog would not have happened. Go figure!

Nom

Yup. What I was looking for when I found that particular site was some corroboration of Ehrman's claim that the Ebionites held an "adoptionist" viewpoint, of Jesus, i.e. he was imbued with a divine spirit at some point after his birth, and that spirit withdrew at some point prior to his death. This appears to do that. I was also intrigued by the "coming-thousand-year-reign" bit in which Jesus would return as spiritual overlord and earthly king, a concept very similar to what's found in Christian belief.
He does touch on the corruption of canonical books a bit, from the perspective of the "proto-orthodox" faction altering the gospels to remove support for "heretical" beliefs, back on pp 217-227. Just in case you missed it.
I look forward to your findings!

godfry n. glad

Heh... I don't exclude myself, either.

I think a lot of us here are more sophisticated than you give us credit for, but there are sufficient numbers that are new to the NT field and the Jesus historicity debate to warrant an occasional warning.

Indeed, I remember my entrance into this forum... Noting that Raymond Brown and John P. Meier, who are (or, in Brown's case, was) practicing priests of the Roman Catholic church. _Their_ works are under imprimatur.

Heh... For my pains, I was accused of "poisoning the well"...as if stating the obvious is poisoning the well.

Good luck on developing your understanding of the 1st century. Thanks for the enjoyable thread.

godfry

Jolly_Penguin

I'm giving this threat a well deserved bump.

I just finished reading Ehrman's "Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium" and I just wanted to say how much I enjoyed it. It is very well written, and not above the head of a layman like myself (with no education in religious studies).

I learned a fair bit from this book, from the reliability of the biblical writings, to the popular theories of who the historical Jesus really was. Excellent reading.

Next, I will be reading "Lost Christianities" and I'm hoping it is as good.
I am also reading "A History Of God" by Karen Armstrong, in which I expect to encounter a second take on the same material.

My other recent reads are "Case Against Christianity" by Michael Martin (I wasn't impressed with this book at all - if anything it would strengthen a theists beliefs) and "A History of Pagan Europe" by Prudence Jones (which I highly recommend to anybody interested in paganism).