Sheshbazzar

Jerome translated? interesting that Jerome here dosen't write "I recently translated..." but 'we', is "Jerome" a 'we'?

I have Hebrew texts, which I translate from, my fellows also have Hebrew texts which they translate from, sometimes we agree on our translations, sometimes we do not, but we are never an I, and I am never a we.

Ben C Smith

Yes, that is interesting. Now, about my question.... Where does Epiphanius or Jerome claim that the gospel of the Nazoraeans lacked the first two chapters of Matthew?

Ben.

Sheshbazzar

Do you always pose questions without first looking? just on a a quick look.
Wikipedia article on Ebionites

Irenaeus writing in the 1st century
('Cept his name was not "Jesus")
True not exactly a quotation, but I'm sure that can be provided, if needed, as well as the cooberating quotations from other early writers.

The Nazarenes, also identified by the Hebrew term "ebo'nim" "poor ones" are known to not have believed in the "virgin birth" nor accepted the infancy stories, the reason that their texts of Matthew would not contain such latter Gentile Christian church fabrications.

Ben C Smith

Rarely.

My question was about the gospel of the Nazoraeans. It was not about the gospel of the Ebionites.

Believe me when I say I know where to find references to the gospel of the Ebionites lacking those chapters. Those are my own web pages I am linking to up there. They stem from my master list of references to the Jewish-Christian gospels.

The simple fact is that Epiphanius knows (or at least thinks he knows) of two different texts, one of which he says is used by the Nazoraeans and the other of which he says is used by the Ebionites. Epiphanius calls the former text very complete (πληρεστατον), with the possible exception of the genealogies. When it comes to the Ebionite gospel in 30.13, however, he calls it not all very complete (ουχ ολω πληρεστατω).

That there were (at least) two different texts is also indicated by the baptism scenes in each. Jerome reports a baptism scene in the gospel he attributes to the Nazarenes in which Jesus appears to refuse to be baptized because he had not sinned; but the baptism scene in Epiphanius, attributed to the Ebionite text, has Jesus being baptized pretty much as we find in the synoptics (with the exception of the great light that shone).

What I was testing was whether perhaps you were confusing these two texts, and it turns out you are.

Make no mistake; there is room to operate with these texts, since the reports we have of them are quite confusing, but it will not do simply to quote Irenaeus referring to an Ebionite gospel and assume it is the Nazoraean gospel. You have to make the argument.

Ben.

Kelly

Ben,

I just went to your Gospel of the Nazoraeans page which discusses the crucifixion. I recently ran across an article on the custom of crucifixion that you might find interesting.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...l/crucify.html

I did some further research on it last week, and apparently not just the Romans, but the Egyptians and the Elamites regularly used crucifixion as a form of horrible, horrible punishment. I was rather shocked to find out that in the old days, the term 'crucifixion' also included impaling a person alive on a stake (generally through their private parts) and leaving that person to die a gruesome and agonizing death. There were apparently several 'god groups' practicing stuff that sounds straight out of the old Count Dracula stories, who was also known for impaling his victems live on a stake.

In Rev. 11:8 John tells us that our Lord was "also crucified in Sodom and in Egypt" which is a part of Biblical history I have been researching for years. If Y'shua was crucified in Sodom, based on the evidence, it would have been when the Elamite troops of Chedorlaomer attacked the Salt Sea cities. The Elamites were known (particularly in Ur and Sumer) for their horrible, horrible massacres and their cruelty beyond belief. The Lamentation texts of Ur, as well as a text titled "the Curse of the Agade" speak of the Elamites and their war practices.

It is no wonder Abraham, who originally lived in Ur, joined the Salt Sea Horites in their battle against Elam. Abraham would have been very, very aware of the horrible things the Elamites did when they went to war. The Elamites were basically another sun god worshipping cult devoted to the Vedic cult of Mithrus and Varuna. Mithrus was also the god worshipped by the Romans who probably picked up their penchant for crucifixion from the Elamites.

Ben C Smith

Thanks for the link.

I never hesitate to recommend Martin Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross (or via: amazon.co.uk), which that article references.

Ben.

spin

As did the Seleucids and the Persians. In fact the Jews were not adverse to the act, given that both Alexander Jannaeus and Shimeon ben Shetah both use it.


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
1 Thessalonians is generally considered to be Paul's first Epistle:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31

Note that here Paul never mentions crucifixion although he has opportunities to do so and suffering is a primary theme:

JW:
At a minimum this suggests that at the start of Paul's ministry Jesus' crucifixion was not an important part of Paul's Gospel and may indicate that at the start Paul was not asserting crucifixion.

Homework assignment for those who assert that crucifixion was always a primary part of Paul's Gospel, count how many times he uses "Gospel" in 1 Thessalonians.

The Good Noose (with Apologies to Didymus) is tightening.



Joseph

Sheshbazzar

And I was testing you also.
I was expecting a response along these lines.
You, of course have selected your... "own web pages" as your reference material of choice.
Wiki however, supports views that are substantially different from yours.

From Wikipedia on "The Gospel of the Nazoraeans"

However, I specifically pointed out that The Sect of The Nazarenes were always associated with, and identified by the Hebrew term "ebo'nim", that is "the poor" , there was (and is) no Nazarene that the term "ebo'nim" did (does) not apply to.

These latter hostile Gentile Christian writers living in Gentile nations were offended that the original Torah observant NT believers, by right, were known by name as The Nazarenes.
The Christian catholic church couldn't get them abandon the name, and the fact of their continued existence was a living testimony that Greco/Roman Christianity had strayed from the original teachings of the Hebrew founding sect, and was an embarrassment that needed covered up.
Thus church apologetic propaganda machinery, deciding that these legalist were "not worthy of the name Nazarene", began a concentrated attempt to substitute the name "Ebionite" for "Nazarene", and there is plenty Pataristic of evidence that this is exactly what they did.

The points I am making here however do not revolve around the details of the Christian church's skull-drudgery in achieving their goals.
But rather the simple matter that their own documents reveal them as perjured.
What they have to say on any matter of religion becomes quite irrelevant, as we know that they were hostile against the beliefs of the original Jerusalem Nazarene New Testement faith, and bereft any genuine of love towards their fellow man. Liars, thieves, and murderers, plundering the world for gain.
whatever religious crock they published is only fit to be salted with salt and thrown over the fence, so that even the dogs won't swallow it.

Ben C Smith

Of course you were.

I put together my web page using material from Montague Rhode James, Aurelio de Santos Otero, M. J. Lagrange, Kurt Aland, and A. F. J. Klijn. If you disagree with anything I put there, by all means speak up. I welcome corrections and clarifications to my website with open arms, and am swift to make the necessary changes.

The Wiki page quotes Ehrman as saying that the Nazoraean gospel lacked the infancy narratives of Matthew 1-2; and indeed he does say that on page 9 of Lost Scriptures. But he cites no reference for this assertion, offers no ancient comment to that effect, gives no footnote, and his own 11 patristic texts on this Nazoraean gospel do not hint at it. Quite simply, he has assumed, for whatever reason, that what Epiphanius says about the Ebionite gospel holds true for the Nazoraean gospel, even though his own book treats the two as different texts.

It is this sort of issue that my web page is intended to help to clear up, precisely by assembling the available ancient data. Perhaps you can help Ehrman out here and answer the question I asked earlier: Where does Epiphanius, Jerome, or any other father tell us that the Nazoraean gospel lacked the infancy narrative?

When I asked this the first time, you gave me a quote from Irenaeus about the Ebionite gospel (which all commentators on these texts that I have consulted agree is a different gospel text). When I asked this the second time, you gave me Wikipedia (which does not count as one of the fathers), which quotes Ehrman (who is not one of the fathers, either). Third time is a charm.

Can you back this statement up with the original texts? Thanks.

Ben.