dog-on

Other than Paul, for the sake of argument, what Christian writings, from the first or second centuries were written by Jewish Christians?

steve_bnk

There were no 'Christians' in the first century. That split from Judaism came later. The Romans saw them as heretic Jews.

It was Paul who made concessions on Jewish law to take in gentiles.

Christ as depicted was a Jewish rabbai who went to temple and kept to Jewish tradition.

stephan huller

I've never understood the term 'Jewish Christian' or 'Jewish Christianity.' The implication is that there was a form of Christianity NOT indebted to Judaism and Samaritanism?

The Ebionites are a peculiar construct because the references are so obscure. Were they identified as evonim because they were literally 'beggar-like' or was it because they were spiritually 'lacking' (at least by the standards of the Church Fathers and their orthodoxy i.e. not accepting certain beliefs). While both appear in the literature, the latter seems to be real source of the statement.

But who made the original identification of the Ebionites as spiritually lacking? The Marcionites? The Catholics? If the identification was made in Syria or in the East the Marcionites and so-called 'Ebionites' lived side by side. It might also explain the Aramaic terminology.

But ...

The Church Fathers claim the existence of a 'Ebion the leader of the Ebionites.' There never was an 'Ebion' his name represents a back formation from the Aramaic Evionim i.e. 'the Ebionites' had a leader named 'Ebion' just as - I suggest Marcionite was developed from Mark.

What confuses things even more is the fact that there are references in the DSS which make it seem as if groups might have positively identified themselves as 'the poor.' There are also a number of references in the Jewish scriptures which could have been used to 'help' such an identification (Isa 61 etc)

dog-on

Thanks, but I am really asking for a document written by a Jew that espouses Christianity in the first or second century. Do you know of any?

steve_bnk

That's the rub. When the RCC became the state religion in Rome, it surpressed all Cristian variations that had become established and banned/destroyed all writings conflicting witrh the new dogma.. What we have as Christianity is better called Paulism as his NT wrtings are the most lengthy and coherent.
The NT as we have it was the result more of political wrangling than anything else among competing views. As an analogy, consider the developemnt of the health care bill on its way to passing.

While I believe an historical Jesus was likely, there is a case that can be made that the JC of the New Testamnt as we have it is a composite character created after the events by writers going on second-third hand verbal recounting of the events.

There is no authentic Christianity in an historcial sense.

steve_bnk

The writings arttributed to Peter and Paul in the New Testamant.

The problem is there is no tracebility to any specific individuals with certainty for any of the Christian writings.

semiopen

Interesting idea. A Jew converts to Christianity, decides it's not for him, and writes about his experience.

On a similar tack, when is the first written account of anyone converting to and then deconverting from any religion?

My guess is not very long ago.

steve_bnk

JC was a Jweish rabbai who cliamed to be the bibnlical messiah. There was no Christianity to convert to,

dog-on

Paul I gave for the sake of argument, but Peter? Do you believe that Peter of Cephas fame actually wrote the epistles of Peter?

James wrote James?

etc?

steve_bnk

No one knows. From my Oxford Bible commentary it was common practice for a writer to assign authorship to somone higher up in the hierachy.

I believe Paul's authorship has the highest academic credibility in the New Testament.

One can only conjecture what the early Jesus movement may have been. You can infer from Paul that splits and variations occured from the start.

Even Peter and Paul were at odds by the NT. Given the commuications of the day, drift in dogma and teachings certainly occured which goes to the point we have no more cetainty to any authenrtic Chrtianity. Judaism IMO is the authentic Chrtianity. The biblical JC never renounced his religion.

Western Christianity goes by Paul as giving dispensation from Jewish tradition and opening to gentiles. Paul speaks of recocniling the Jewish traditions to other cultures.

Asian and African Christianity werte well before our western European Christianity. Saint Augustine who was a major figure in defining Catholic dogma was a Black African.

The roots of the Greek tradition are probably closer to the origins than our western Christianity.

It wasn't until the second century that the split developed in which Christianity became defined form Judaism and they claimed the Old testamnet as their own as its own renoucng the Jews. The beginings of the anti-Jewish Chrtian enmity. The Jews killed Christ.

Paul took refuge behind his Roman citizenship from Jews out for his head. The liink betwen the early Jesus movement and Judaism is clear, at least by the NT.


The best that can probably be deduced is that an historical Jesus was a charisimatic evangelical Jewish rabbai, and in his time one of many. The Jewish doomsday was a major theme.

In context of the times an historical JC as a Jewish rabbai was likely prophesizing the destruction of the Jewish state, not the global 'world'.

There was a Christian who tried to go back to original sources, He learned Hebrew and Greek, his goal being to end all modern disputes. He discoverd there was no such orignal souces.

IMO the best resouce is the Oxford Bible along with lts companion commentary.

Decade back an inerfaith team went back to all availble documents and scarps and went through the bible from start to finish. There is copious annotation and commenatry on authorship, authenticity, inconsistencies, and translation issues. Even starting in Genesis there are translation issues that can alter the interpretation.

The volumes contain a good overview of the history of Christianity. There are criticisms of the work, but it is a good comprehisve look.