penguinfan

In Acts and Paul's letters, we learn of a group of early Jewish Christians (typically referred to as Nazarenes) who disagreed with Paul over the issue of which laws Gentiles were required to follow.

In certain places, Paul writes that even Peter disagreed with himself over the issue of table fellowship with uncircumcised Christians after men were sent from James (Jesus' brother) to check on Paul and his ministry.

According to Paul, he says that James, Peter and John did not disagree with him over his mission to the Gentiles and, more importantly, what his mission entailed.

The book of Acts also says that a council was formed over the issue of Gentile circumcision and dietary laws. Luke says that James headed the council and that Peter defended the practice of not requiring Gentiles to be circumcised, after which, James is recorded to have agreed with Peter and cites an OT passage from the Septuagint translation (my note - a bit strange since James probably would not have spoken Greek let alone cited a translation when he could have said it in Hebrew or Aramaic).

After this event, the issue is more or less settled. There are still some more extremists who quarrel with Paul but, to my understanding, the New Testament presents the problem as if it was over with.

Going back to the Ebionites, they were a group of Jewish Christians who believed in a universal Messiah (Jesus) but differed from Paul in their belief that Gentiles are required to follow all of Jewish laws and effectively become Jewish.

They revered James (Jesus' brother) and stayed primarily in Palestine until they were scattered by the Romans and I believed they migrated to Caesarea and other regions.

Now, keeping all of this in mind, a few questions are necessarily raised.

One, how should one treat Paul's letters - are they viewed as historically reliable when Paul says the apostles agreed with him and that Peter initially did not object to table fellowship with Gentiles?

Secondly, should Christians question the legitimacy of Paul when even the New Testament says that there were Jewish Christians (possibly early followers of Jesus) - men who were sent by James - who clearly disagreed with Paul?

Thirdly, who were the Ebionites and how should they be viewed when compared to mainstream Pauline Christianity? The Ebionites revered James and they may have been an offshoot or the historical ancestors to the Nazarenes who disagreed with Paul. Shouldn't their views of Jesus be more reliable than views of Jesus found in the New Testament?

Fourthly, were there other groups of Jewish Christians recorded by early Christian historians who themselves adhered to the Law but did not require Gentiles to follow all of the Law? What do we know happened to Peter and John (as well as the other apostles) and how reliable are these sources and, finally, were there any books that almost made it into the New Testament which can shed some further light on the issue of Jewish law and Gentiles?

bacht

It's interesting to compare the dispute between Torah-followers and proto-catholics in Paul & Acts versus the curses in Matthew against "the Pharisees". If Matthew's polemic refers to intra-Christian conflicts then there was no love lost between Jewish and non-Jewish followers of The Way. Acts is the most positive version, claiming that the James party reached an understanding with the Pauline believers (probably gentiles). But Paul in Galatians is critical of some of the torah people, and Matthew is absolutely hostile (one wonders if this is related to the special status enjoyed by Jews under Roman law, which early Christians could exploit by meeting in synagogues).

DCHindley

"Occasional" letters (personal letters written as occasion/chance called for them) are geneally treated as more reliable than a book of history or even a treatis that mentions historical events. However, unless you dig them out of trash heaps in Egypt, the ones preserved for posterity are edited for publication by either the original author or by others who wished to preserve them for some reason. Either of these situations might involve a certain amount of spin doctoring or changes.

You would need to ask that of Christians. The NT gospels and Acts do seem to suggest that the writers thought that some or all of the early disciples/apostles of Jesus did not fully understand what Jesus taught (i.e., the authors felt their understanding was unquestionably right, so any difference of view expressed by the early disciples/apostles must therefor been "wrong." They just didn't "get" it. To the victors go the spoils.)

See above. If the writers of the NT gospels and Acts were right, the Jewish followers of Jesus were in error of some kind (and vice versa).

Now you are enteing the no-man's-land of Didache scholarship, especially the "wandering itinerant" view of the early Jesus movement as proposed by Gerd Theissen, and seemingly accepted by Stephen Patterson, Kurt Neiderwimmer and Jonathan Draper. This "wandering itinerant" view is also more or less driving much Gospel of Thomas and Q hypothesizing recently.

DCH (on lunch break until exactly this minute ... bye!)

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Hi penguinfan, good questions, not so easy to give clear answers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by penguinfan were there other groups of Jewish Christians recorded by early Christian historians who themselves adhered to the Law but did not require Gentiles to follow all of the Law?

Probably the best overview of the more Hebraic groups in the first centuries is Nazarene Jewish Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Ray Pritz. It is worth actually buying, and trying to keep available. In a lot of cases it might not be so easy to determine if the group was seeking to keep the Mosaic law in what we might call today a rabbinic or karaite fashion, were more simply Messianic sabbath-keepers appealing to the Decalogue or Hebraic-oriented and appreciative of the food guidelines, and .. a bit part of your question .. whether they made an actual Jewish-Gentile distinction. (There are a lot of doctrinal variables possible.) However you will get a clearer picture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by penguinfan were there any books that almost made it into the New Testament which can shed some further light on the issue of Jewish law and Gentiles?

Afaik, no. There were only two or three books that had any significant .. and that minor .. support that did not make the NT canon, and I have never heard of their being of any assistance on this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by penguinfan James is recorded to have agreed with Peter and cites an OT passage from the Septuagint translation

We could look at the passage but likely the reverse was the story. James simply midrashed the Hebrew and the Greek OT then modified its text to 'smooth' to the NT. Psalm 14 in the Greek OT shows the dynamic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by penguinfan One, how should one treat Paul's letters - are they viewed as historically reliable when Paul says the apostles agreed with him and that Peter initially did not object to table fellowship with Gentiles?

Yes, they are clearly scripture and accurate. I am not checking what verse you are using for "initially did not object" .. and what means initially. Luke-Acts and Paul are very closely connected.

Quote:

Originally Posted by penguinfan Secondly, should Christians question the legitimacy of Paul when even the New Testament says that there were Jewish Christians (possibly early followers of Jesus) - men who were sent by James - who clearly disagreed with Paul?

Nope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by penguinfan Thirdly, who were the Ebionites and how should they be viewed when compared to mainstream Pauline Christianity?

At times this is a term used for those who deny the virgin birth and (snipped) out the first chapters of Matthew .. however the term can have a variety of uses. The ebionites as decsribed above would be spiritually impoverished, and you can find some groups pretty similar today, however that probably does not match any of those in fellowship with James.

Quote:

Originally Posted by penguinfan The Ebionites revered James and they may have been an offshoot or the historical ancestors to the Nazarenes who disagreed with Paul. Shouldn't their views of Jesus be more reliable than views of Jesus found in the New Testament?

Short answer .. no. The Ray Pritz book may shed some light.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Toto

Robert Price has a generally favorable review of Pritz here.

IamJoseph

Firstly, the correct and only name of this land was Judea - not Palestine! Such distortions, whether intentionally or not, gives rise to great fasehoods which continue today.


This is a most interesting thread. The problem is the writings in the Gospels cannot be authenticated, and could have been made retrospectively: a clear motive exists here, namely it culminated in Rome's greatest war with the Jews.

The other issue is that the Nazerites and Ebonites had a following as two groups before Paul landed in Judea, and that Paul never met Jesus. This is about historical truth VS truth of enforced belief.

Both these groups rejected Paul and expelled him from Jerusalem - and this can account for his leaving in a huff and then claiming he had a revelation on the road to Damascus - alone and by himself. This raises blatant suspician, goes against the grain of those who did know and revere Jesus, is accepted only by Romans and Greeks and those in the European continent, and is compounded by the precedent historical fact Paul's claims would never be accepted if he did not negate most of the Hebrew laws. Try telling a Roman and Greek to circumsize or refrain from eating pig and shell fish - they will kill such a person! To conclude that any Jews would allign with Paul is totally ludicrous - especially after the followers of Jesus themselves rejected and expelled Paul!

None of the Apostles' veracity can be evidenced, even that they ever existed, their writings appear Roman and Greek villifications, based on no legitimate reasons other than a desperate claim Jews conspired and commited Deicide. This says there is no proof of anything verifiable, thus it is desperate and shameless - not to mention a total blasphemy for any Monotheist. Further, no Roman trial can be evidenced, notwithstanding the Roman archives list numerous trials, many far less important than the Gospels listed trial.

The other issue is that when Christianity became a religion 300 years later - the Gospels was forbidden to the people. This says the people recieved their teachings only via fiery priests - it was enforced, and anyone questioning or rejecting it would be subject to the Heresy factor which the church took on board from Rome, which killed 100s of 1000's.

It appears the Jews were the only people with first hand knowledge and witness to the truth here. The Jews never rejected Christianity - they just remained Jews. That is a terrible crime for two religions which sprang up assuming Israel is dead. The truth can get one killed.

IamJoseph

One thing you won't fnd in Mathew is that the Pharisees sacrificed themselves along with their families, and were killed in the temple for not surrendering their beliefs to Rome. In fact Mathew does not mention the sacrifice of over a million Jews who displayed the greatest defense of a faith in all recorded history. This makes the Gospels a lie-by-omission. Its akin to the NYT not menining 9/11 on 9/12. A greater mystery is that no christians questioned this anomoly.

spamandham

Of the 13 letters originally attributed to Paul, 6 have been found to be undeniably the works of other people. The remaining 7, although generally referred to as 'authentic', have not actually been authenticated, they simply have not been proven to be inauthentic.

I think any reasonable unbiased person, would be very skeptical that the remaining letters attributed to Paul, were actually written by the character represented in those texts.

There is an inexplicable assumption of authenticity that pervades, in spite of all the known fraud. (we consider it fraud, the ancients seemed to simply consider it standard fare).

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

A little bogus factoid from spamandham.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham9 Of the 13 letters originally attributed to Paul, 6 have been found to be undeniably the works of other people.....There is an inexplicable assumption of authenticity that pervades, in spite of all the known fraud.

While I agree 100% that what call pseudonymity (or the Ian Howard Marshall version allonymity) can be properly and much more simply called fraud or forgery for any letter than has a 1st person authorship tag - it is simply a fabrication that anything been "found" of fraud, "undeniably". Why this agiprop canard gets repeated is the puzzle.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

It should be plain to most that neither your nor spamandham's opinions on what is fraud is meaningful in a context for which neither of you show you have knowledge or grounds for such opinions.


spin