Amaleq13

If there was reliable 1st century evidence that such groups existed, I would consider Doherty's thesis much less credible. We only have to read Mack to conclude that extreme caution is advised when reading the "histories" created by later Church Fathers.

Untrue. Paul's gospel is clearly opposed though we have nothing directly from his opponents. The charge of heresy requires the existence of orthodoxy and there is clearly no such thing in Paul's time.

I Cor 9:1-5

Paul appears to be responding to charges against the legitimacy of his apostleship. Within the context of your position, Don, those charges should have been based on the fact that, unlike his opponents, Paul had never walked with or learned from the living Jesus. When we consider his reponse, however, there is not the slightest hint that such a claim was ever made against him:

"Am I am not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord. Mine answer to them that do examine me is this, Have we not power to eat and to drink? Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?"

Based on this, an apostle had to have witnessed the risen Christ, earn his keep by preaching the gospel, and obtain converts as a result of that preaching. Where is his argument that being a former follower is ultimately meaningless and not a legitimate criterion?

II Cor 11:5-12

"For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles. But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have been throughly made manifest among you in all things. Have I committed an offence in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely? I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service. And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all things I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself. As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting in the regions of Achaia. Wherefore? because I love you not? God knoweth. But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we."

Again, Paul declares that he is in no way inferior to the "very chiefest apostles". The specifics of his comparison do not support your claim. He acknowledges that they might be better public speakers or have a better education but explicitly denies they have greater knowledge. From your position, Don, those apostles did have greater knowledge and Paul's audience presumably would have known that. What we would expect Paul to argue, within the context of your position, is that their greater knowledge was ultimately irrelevant. He can't deny their knowledge but he can suggest it is unimportant to the theology of the risen Christ. Unfortunately for your claim, he does not provide this vital support.

II Cor 12:11-12

"I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing. Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds."

Paul claims to be just as much an apostle because, like them, he is capable of performing miraculous feats. No hint or suggestion is made that any greater criticism (ie he never knew the living Jesus) has been made against him.

II Cor 1:17-20

"When I therefore was thus minded, did I use lightness? or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be yea yea, and nay nay? But as God is true, our word toward you was not yea and nay. For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea. For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us."

I have no idea how this could be used to support your claim.

II Cor 10:10-13

"For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible. Let such an one think this, that, such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, such will we be also in deed when we are present. For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise. But we will not boast of things without our measure, but according to the measure of the rule which God hath distributed to us, a measure to reach even unto you."

So the "real" apostles have this really excellent basis to question Paul's legitimacy but, instead, they choose to focus on the fact that he was apparently a much better letter writer than a public speaker?

Regarding the Ebionites, I consider Maccoby's appeals to that sect to be one of the weakest parts of his book. He is far too uncritical in his consideration, IMO. These are supposed to represent the fully Jewish original followers of Jesus yet one of their central tenets was the claim that Jesus declared an end to the sacrifice system of the Temple! This group would have been just as opposed by the Jerusalem group (according to Acts and Paul's letters) as Paul's theology for these beliefs. The Jerusalem group is portrayed as maintaining Jewish practices not rejecting this central practice.

GakuseiDon

Can you tell me where you get that from? It sounds interesting.

GakuseiDon

If there was reliable 1st century evidence for the Ebionites, I'd agree. But I think a strong case can be built for it. From Paul's "Judaizers", to "James the Just", to Papias and on to what we know from Ireneus about the Ebionites and the Nazarenes. Certainly the Ebionites themselves seemed to believe that they were the true followers of Jesus and that Paul was apostate. It is a pretty consistent pattern.

OTOH, we have Doherty's Pauline MJ Christianity, that exists until around 180 CE, but no-one ever notices.

The charge of heresy requires the existence of a centralised authority to establish orthodoxy in the first place. You are right, it didn't exist in Paul's time. But Doherty sees MJ Christianity existing to 180 CE. The Marcion heresy was fought vigorously from about 140 CE. Why IYO was there no mention of MJ Christianity as a 2nd C heresy?

Paul warns against those who say "I am of Christ" (1 Cor 1:12) may well be that. Paul bases his authority on the Risen Christ. According to Paul, the Risen Christ appeared to the apostles and 500 of His followers anyway. Which of Jesus's important followers DIDN'T see the Risen Christ? Paul finishes off the list of people seeing the Risen Christ with himself "as one born out of due time". Paul is the only apostle who didn't see Jesus while He was alive. I think that strongly hints at Paul's recognition that he didn't meet Christ while He was alive.

But then, that passage doesn't seem to be about criticism of Paul's gospel message, but rather how he lived while he preached. I doubt "a believing wife" was part of Paul's gospel message.

For Paul, the Risen Christ was everything, and this runs through his epistles. Paul would have felt on a par with the apostles on that basis alone.

I don't understand why you'd think Paul would have wanted to deny the relevence of their knowledge of a HJ. Why do you think that?

Paul writes that the Jerusalem Group approved his gospel in Gals. The only real contention was whether Christian Gentiles had to conform to full Mosiac law. Remember, Paul believed that he had a special mission to the Gentiles commissioned by Jesus Himself, and approved by the Jerusalem Group itself (according to Paul). At the time Paul was writing his letters, there was no need to deny that the Jerusalem Group had special knowledge via a HJ.

Who would have made this criticism, and why? The Ebionites??? They were the ones who called Paul an apostate! The Jerusalem Group? They approved Paul's mission to the Gentiles.

Neither do I.

Again, why would they have wanted to question Paul's legitimacy, and on what points?

I think you are referring to their beliefs in the 2nd C CE, after the Second Temple was destroyed. The Ebionites WERE the Jerusalem Group, or at least the remnant of the group that existed into the 2nd C CE, before being gradually assimilated by Pauline Christianity.

Amaleq13

A "strong case" absent reliable evidence is an oxymoron.

The only thing consistent is their opposition to Pauline beliefs and even that is not specifically consistent. What evidence is there that TJG rejected the practice of Temple sacrifices?

The "orthodoxy" had clearly absorbed Paul's theology with the first Gospel story.

That is an interesting interpretation of a passage that many scholars consider puzzling. I don't think it is sufficiently clear to carry that much weight.

Paul bases the authority of all apostles on the Risen Christ.

There is absolutely no suggestion that the earlier witnesses to the Risen Christ had known a living Jesus. You are reading into the text.

You have entirely missed the point. I agree that Paul likely genuinely believed his authority was equivalent but the point is nobody else should have since being a former follower clearly trumps any subsequent experiences as far as being an authority on what Jesus wanted or who he was is concerned.

If TJG were former followers of the living Jesus, that would clearly provide automatic authority. It would be reasonable to expect them to use that fact in any attempt to denegrate Paul's authority. But there is no evidence in Paul's letters that such an attempt was ever made.

That is the only evidence we have for their existence.

GakuseiDon

I suggest there is stronger evidence than for Doherty's thesis. There is no evidence that a group called "the Ebionites" existed in the 1st C, but there is evidence that they were a continuation of the TJG.

I'm not saying that. TJG existed before 70 CE. The Ebionites were a 2nd C continuation. The consistency were their beliefs in observance of circumcision, etc.

Well, Doherty at least believes that MJers existed until 180 CE. Would you agree that it is strange that such a belief could have existed until then without being considered heretical? Marcion was vigorously denounced for (among other things) claiming that Jesus didn't come "in the flesh"! Why would they have ignored a group that said that Jesus didn't come at all?

It's a cumulative case. But I agree it doesn't help much.

How do you explain Paul's "one born out of time" comment? Everyone else that Paul explicitly names in that passage are people traditionally thought to have associated with a living Jesus. How is Paul "born out of time"?

Amaleq, I don't know why you keep saying this. Paul took his gospel to the TJG for approval. That he did so implies that he considered that they had some kind of primacy, does it not? But then, according to Paul, the TJG approves Paul's gospel. Why do you keep saying that they wanted to denigrate Paul's authority?

The Judaizers wanted the Gentiles to follow Jewish laws. This seemed to have been a problem for some in TJG, but it didn't stop them approving Paul's gospel to the Gentiles. It's only after Pauline Christianity had matured and become strong enough to enforce their "gentilised" views at the expense of the traditional Jewish ones that the Ebionites regarded Paul as apostate.

The fact that an Ebionite Christianity existing so early at all is ignored by Doherty AFAIK. Surely you can see the significance on Doherty's thesis of a group of early 2nd C Jewish Christians who believed in a non-divine Jesus?

Toto

May I quote myself?:

1 Cor 15:8 "and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally [or untimely] born" seems to imply that Paul regrets missing out on the real Jesus, if you do not know what it actually means.

"Abnormally born" is ektrwma, sometimes translated "untimely born". It is also translated as "abortion". [but more accurately "miscarriage" or "premature birth"] The "abortion" is a gnostic concept explained here:

The author of that passage assumed that Paul must have been a Gnostic speaking to other Gnostics. But that passage could have been interpolated by later Gnostics. In any case, Paul is not speaking enviously of those who knew Jesus, but of his own spiritual imperfection that must be cured and redeemed by the spiritual Christ.

So, rather than being born too late to know Jesus, Paul says that he was born prematurely in a spiritually unformed state.

GakuseiDon

An interesting link, Toto, esp regards the early Christian movements. Is there any support outside the NT for this Gnostic meaning of "abortion"?

rlogan

The able and learned scholars here have covered it well.

You had advanced the argument Paul was preaching against a group asserting only earthly characteristics to Jesus.

That was based on 2nd century evidence of "earthly Jesus" sects.

What I am asking for is not just first century evidence, but evidence from Paul's letters themselves.

You do not see Paul stating in any of these letters that there are groups thinking of Jesus as "only human". That is the one place most likely to contain such a statement if any such groups existed.

And it would not be some tangential reference. Proving someone is a God when the opposition thinks he's human requires marshalling a great deal of "Godly" evidence.

We can't advance an argument Paul is not making himself.

GakuseiDon

No, I'm saying that the Judaizers in Paul's time were a group who believed as Paul did (i.e. a HJ combined with what Mead below calls the "doctrine of the mystic Christ"), except they wanted Gentile Christians to conform to Mosaic laws. That was the start of the split into Gentile and Jewish components of the church, but at that time, they were still one church.

You need to look at the views of the 2nd C Ebionite and Nazorene groups themselves. This is from Mead (from Toto's link above):
At the time of Paul, both Paul and TJG believed in a human Jesus who was resurrected and became the intermediary of God. But Paul put this into Hellenistic terms for the Gentiles. After 70 CE, this view became progressively 'paganised'. TJG became Ebionites who continued believing in a resurrected "mystic Christ", but rejected the paganised version, with the virgin birth, etc.

It's right there, right under where Paul explicitly says that Jesus lived and died in a lower celestial realm.

That's because these groups thought as Paul did - Jesus was born as a human, as a descendant of David, and was resurrected and became a "Son of God". But Paul's successors developed this in a pagan way, while the Ebionites didn't.

As you can see, I'm not saying that.

Ha! Please tell that to Doherty.

rlogan

I'm wanting 1st century data.