What were the beliefs of Early Ebionaen Christianity?

[ebion]

Now that we have elaborated the Early Ebionaen Canon we can ask - what were the beliefs of Early Ebionaen Christianity?

To recap from that thread (see EcLive: What is an Ebionaen? for the details):
I think I'll use this post to define the term Ebionean, so that I can keep this thread focussed. I'll just state things as given without trying to justify them so we can focus on the consequence of these assumptions.
...
After the murder of James by the Sadducees in ~63 AD, the remaining members of the church under James had the good sense to flee Jerusalem to Pella, in what is now Jordan, and what was then a part of the Roman Decapolis, a sort of set of 10 citystates outside of Palestina. Then we define the Ebionaens as that Christian sect, starting then, and they survived the sack of Jerusalem because they were outside of the area that was sacked.

The Ebionaens were known for several things, all very Christian from the book of Matthew:

• They clung to (and perhaps wrote) the book of Matthew, and carefully guarded a copy, in HAramaic in a library.
• The Matthew they clung to lacked the first 2 chapters of the current Matthew, and was therefore seen by later heresy hunters as "corrupt and mutilated".
• There was no virgin birth in their canon, so Jesus was a man of Joseph's Davidic line, who acquired his divinity at his baptism.
• They were monotheistic in the sense of the Shema, and nothing but God was worshiped.
• They were mainly Hebrews may have accepted converts (Pan. 1.30.11:10), and kept Christ's respect for the Mosaic law.
• They required circumcision as the Jamesian church did, perhaps only of infants (Pan. 1.30.2:2).
• They kept the Sabbath, but lightly as Jesus did (Pan. 1.30.2:2).
• The conformed to the Mosaic law ("all the other Jewish and Samaritan observances"), but like Jesus, may not have held to all of the Pentateuch: e.g. Jewish Supremacism.
• They rejected the idea of Temple sacrifices, which became a moot point with the fall of the Temple. (Pan. 1.30.16:5).
• They forbid celibacy and continence altogether (Pan 1.30.2:6).
• They may or may not have sympathized with the Zealots, but weren't zealot themselves (Matt. 22:17).
• They hated the Pharisees as Jesus did, and probably the Sadducees because of the murder of James.

They may also be referred to Nazoraen unless one of these distinguishing criteria are mentioned:

1. Jesus was a man, which implies that survived the Cruxifiction, probably with the help of Josephus and his friends.
2. They rejected Paul as an apostate for teaching anti-Christian doctorines (unlike the Nazarenes, according to Jerome) rejected the Faulines.
3. They clung to the book of Matthew as primacy, but are also said to have read Luke and/or Acts

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05242c.htm: "It is very hazardous, therefore, to maintain, as is sometimes done, that the distinction between Nazarenes and Ebionites goes back to the earliest days of Christianity."

As the Ebionaens rejected Paul and the teachings of the Faulines were not in it's canon: I try to distinguish between the "Paul in Acts" and the "'Paul' in the Paulines" (written by the MarcionOrLater). I accept that Acts was a trial brief for the Roman/Pagan trial of Paul, which the Jamesian Christans had a lot riding on. Mauck and del Tondo have brought out too many tiny details in Acts to read it otherwise, like the Pythia and Castor and Pollux. So I accept Paul in Acts, as an apostate who was rebuked by James, and didn't get along very well with the Jamesian church and the 12 apostles. (At the same time, I'm cognisant of small things in Acts that can be read as against Paul, but by Christians only).

Common points not useable to distinguish post-Jamesian Nazoraens from Ebioneans include:

• They may read Acts as history, and maybe even Luke (we're covering 250 years...)
• They may have been vegetarian
• They may have kept the festivals of Unleavened Bread, Tabernacles and Pentecost (Pan. 29.8.1-2).
• They may have liked women and marriage and sex and babies, and families.
• Their attitude towards sacrifices didn't make them any less Jewish or Torah-reverent.
• They were still devout Hebrews but may have lightened up on the conversion thing (a deal breaker for some adult males :-,)
• They may have been known as “the Way,” which referred to the two ways in the Didache, the Way of God, or the WayOfGodInTruth.

In fact, those who are described as Nazareth, Nazara, Nazarenes, and Nazoreans may have included all Christians (Pan 1.29.1.3) or include sects that were not Christians (Zealots or 4th way Pharisees - Pan.1.29.7.1); we only try to define Christian Ebionaens.

PS: I have switched to using Paul as in Acts, and Faul - False Paul - for the Faulines, for those knowledgable of contemporary English history.

PPS: we don't reply to posts in this thread by StephenGoranson,Ulan,SecretAgent as we do not see them.

[ebion]

Moved the response to Early Christians who may have edited or wrote the NT books were Hebrews who spoke Aramaic by DCHindley over here.

I would avoid using Jews/Judaism for anything pre-8 c. AD (pre-Talmud) when the rabbis, the descent of the Pharisees, started to exert a monopoly in Babylon. Back in the time of the Jamesian church, I think it's more productive to think Pharasees vs. Sadducees vs. Essenes vs. Hebrews, and Collabos/Herodians vs. Zealots, to name a few.

The word everyone was using in that time (including Josephus & Philo) was "Ioudaios," which most scholars today understand to refer to a lifestyle, not a "religion." It was "the Judean way of living."
...
Probably for about 15 years now I have stopped using the term "Jew" for non-Greek folks originating from areas formerly part of Herod's old kingdom (Judah, Samaria & Idumea mainly) until after around 400 when all hope of reconstituting the Judean temple(-state) had to be abandoned.
...
Until the 4th or 5th century CE, I always call them "Judeans" as did just about everyone in antiquity. Didn't matter if they were from Judea proper, Galilee, Samaria, or Idumea, only that they practiced the "Judean way."

I want to try and get at the distinctions between Judah, Samaria, Idumea and Amlek, both in that time and now (the distinctions are still very much in play - look at the PM/ruler of the zionist entity throw the latter around - to call it Israel is a misnomer.) So I avoid "Judean" because it was a tribe or a province and the best I can do for now is Hebrews. For me "Ioudaios," although good intentioned, is too close to "Judean". Yehudi/Yehudae would work for me and I translate that as Hebrew.

Let me give an example of what I look for: Samaritains in the NT are always presented in a favourable light. Athough it was a province, I assume that in Jesus' time they were seen as a bulwark against the Pharisees, whilst still maintaining the religious practices and laws of Moses, to which Jesus was firmly attached. So I'll stick with Hebrew for now; I guess don't consider it to be an artificial term. And I include Essenes, Samaratains and Kararites in it.

The other one I am struggling with is Herodian/Sadducee/Essene/Zealot which I think cuts across the provincial/tribal definitions given above. For example: were the Herodians Hebrews by definition? It's important to me because Paul (of Acts) was a Herodian and Paul says he was a Hebrew, but

1. he doesn't act like a Hebrew
2. he doesn't act like he knows much they'd know
3. he doesn't want to preach to them
4. he says he was one, but he lies a lot (like those who say they are Jews but are not...)
5. to believe the Clementines, he was born Gentile and converted to try to score the daughter of a HP.

(Which raises a question on the Clementines I have for you I'll put a followup post.)

The folks that the proto-orthodox church called "Ebionites" may not have been the same as those who might have followed the Jesus movement under James' leadership.
...
I think that the former (those referred to as Ebionites by 2nd or 3rd century Church fathers) were actually gentiles who had adopted Judaic ways.
...
The latter (the real followers of Jesus as governed by his brother James) would be the gentile followers of Jesus, which I had proposed were already (under Jesus) proselytes on the path to full conversion, if not already there.

In my Early Christian Ebionaen Canon thread, I've defined Ebionean as:

• post James, and in effect post-flight to Pella (> 60 AD)
• pre-Nicea1, athough Nag Hammadi is included (~< 325 AD)
• probably also referred to Nazoraen unless one of these distinctions are mentioned:
  1. Ebioneans hated Paul and rejected the Faulines
  2. They clung to the book of Matthew as primacy, but are also said to have read Luke and/or Acts
  3. Hated the Pharisees, and after the murder of James, probably the Sadducees

Certainly the Jamesian church was devoutly Hebrew. And a key feature of Christianity is that it accepts gentiles, but at least under James, I assume that implied conversion. under the Jamesian church the Nazarenes were the followers of Paul, but Paul retires to Spain, and we assume no link between the Jamesian-Nazarenes and the Pella+Nazoraens (although the possibility is not excluded).

We've definedE arly Christians, Ebioneans and Nazoraens in the OP, including a list of features that cannot be used to distinguish one from another.

I conjecture the Essenes from Palestina fled towards Pella/Decopolis as the Romans came, so there may have been some Essene merging - did the Essenes require conversion? And please don't forget: no arguments about contrasting what Paul thought hold with the Ebionaens: they reject him outright as a Apostate (everyone completely ignores him until MarcionOrLater). So I disagree they were just gentiles who had adopted Judaic ways.

I do not think any Jesus follower, whether gentile or Judean, thought of Jesus as divine. Highly elevated, sure. ... It was 100% ceremonial. These folks did not become "real" gods.

I agree whole-heartedly. So that implies the Ebionaens believed that Jesus survived the cruxifiction?

It's plausible: he was only on the cross a few hours, he was a young heathly male, he didn't get lanced, he didn't have his knees broken. Joseph of Armithea was rich and powerful (he was on the Sanhedrin) and may have had some friends who were good healers - maybe guys that went around dressed in "raiment white as snow" (Matthew 28:3 [KJV]). "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself ... he shewed them his hands and his feet" (Luke 24:39-40 [KJV])

In which case, there was no resurrection.

Ebionaen christianity is starting to look a whole lot different to catholick.

[ebion]

We don't know if any of the 12 Apostles or 70 apostles were around when the Early Ebionaen Christians fled to Pella. A lot of the Apostles were known to have travelled away to spread the gospel: for example, Thomas and Bartolowmew and Thadeus to India. And of course, some may have fell to the Romans.

So that means the was Early Ebionaen Christianity a Sola Scriptura congregation: the scriptures was all they had. It was a time period before the great Councils, starting with Nicea in 325 AD.

Matthew precedent.

Without the Faulines.

[GakuseiDon]

I do not think any Jesus follower, whether gentile or Judean, thought of Jesus as divine. Highly elevated, sure. ... It was 100% ceremonial. These folks did not become "real" gods.

I agree whole-heartedly. So that implies the Ebionaens believed that Jesus survived the cruxifiction?

I don't see it that way myself. Jesus' death is an integral part of Ebionite beliefs. My 'head canon' is that the Ebionites were the direct continuation of the first Christians' movement. IMO they believed that Jesus became Christ through election; that is, Jesus perfected himself by fulfilling the law even though it resulted in his death, and because of that God made him 'Christ'.

As Hippolytus (c170-c236) wrote: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050107.htm

The Ebionaeans,9 however, acknowledge that the world was made by Him Who is in reality God, but they propound legends concerning the Christ similarly with Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They live conformably to the customs of the Jews, alleging that they are justified. according to the law, and saying that Jesus was justified by fulfilling the law. And therefore it was, (according to the Ebionaeans,) that (the Saviour) was named (the) Christ of God and Jesus,9 since not one of the rest (of mankind) had observed completely the law. For if even any other had fulfilled the commandments (contained) in the law, he would have been that Christ. And the (Ebionaeans allege) that they themselves also, when in like manner they fulfil (the law), are able to become Christs; for they assert that our Lord Himself was a man in a like sense with all (the rest of the human family)...

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Chp. 27 https://biblehub.com/library/pamphilius ... of_the.htm

The ancients quite properly called these men Ebionites, because they held poor and mean opinions concerning Christ. For they considered him a plain and common man, who was justified only because of his superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary. In their opinion the observance of the ceremonial law was altogether necessary, on the ground that they could not be saved by faith in Christ alone and by a corresponding life.

I see the same idea of Christ being 'perfected' in Hebrews in the NT:

Hebrews:

Hbr 5:7 who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear,
8 though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered.
9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,

I think there really was an 'Ebion', and he was either James the Just or an immediate successor. These first Christians, including John the Baptist, were similar to Nazirites. According to Robert Eisenman in his "James The Brother Of Jesus And The Dead Sea Scrolls" (1997), page 61-2:

In the Hymns Scroll found at Qumran, we find much of the imagery that we have already encountered in these passages describing James in early Church Literature. These should, perhaps, not be called 'Hymns', which is a little misleading. It implies a parallel with the Psalms in the Bible, but this document, found in the first cave discovered at Qumran in 1947, also tells something of a story. Written in the first person, it relates some of the experiences of its narrator, who appears to be a real person.

He repeatedly refers to himself as 'the Poor One' or 'Ebion' - familiar terminology where James' followers are in question - as well as what he repeatedly calls 'the soul of the Poor One', apparently meaning, as in the biblical Psalms, his quick or 'life'. 3 In a key allusion in the Damascus Document, for instance, we hear of an attack or 'pursuit with the sword’, apparently led by the Liar, on 'the soul of the Righteous One (Zaddik ) and all the Walkers in Perfection', which parallels the sense of 'the Soul of the Poor One' here in Hymns. 4

In addition, Hymns repeatedly refers to 'Righteous works', 'Perfection', 'the Way', 'Piety' - even 'the Poor Ones of Piety' ( Ebionei-Hesed ) - 'zeal for Righteousness', 'zeal' against 'the Seekers after Smooth Things', and 'zeal' against all 'Lying interpretations’. 5 There is also a distinct note of predetermination and foreknowledge not very different from Paul in Romans 8:28-9:11, also discussing 'loving God' (Piety), 'separating', and 'telling the Truth’ and 'not Lying’, or the famous prologue to the Gospel of John - not to mention the same intense interest in 'Light' one finds there. The author of the Hymns writes: 'You alone created the Righteous One, establishing him from the womb'. Nothing could better give the sense of early Church testimonies to James being 'consecrated' or 'a Nazirite from his mother's womb' than these passages.

But our text goes further, using the language of 'Strength', ‘Fortress', and ‘Protection’ we have been encountering with regard to James and 'Peter'. We are even treated to 'Rock' imagery so familiar in Peter's very name, which is, indeed, parallel to the kinds of allusions we are encountering regarding James and now in these Hymns relating to their author.

I speculate the Ebionites were like a type of Nazirite "New Age" movement, the hippies of their day, reactionaries against a corrupt and morally bankrupt Temple system. Jesus was part of that movement. His execution led to the view that he had become perfected and so became a "Christ". Visions of him after death led to a splintering of the movement, with Paul having his own views about what this all meant.

[ebion]

I speculate the Ebionites were like a type of Nazirite "New Age" movement, the hippies of their day, reactionaries against a corrupt and morally bankrupt Temple system. Jesus was part of that movement. His execution led to the view that he had become perfected and so became a "Christ". Visions of him after death led to a splintering of the movement, with Paul having his own views about what this all meant.

1) I wouldn't use anything about Paul as a basis for argument in that time period, just because the Faulines didn't come until MarcionOrLater, and are not the Paul in Acts. Of the Paul in Acts there is complete silence by the Early Christian writers until Marcion or later (e.g. Tertullian).

2) "His execution led to the view that he had become perfected and so became a Christ" doesn't address the question that I raised: " the Ebionaens believed that Jesus survived the cruxifiction? " If he survived the cruxifiction then to the Ebionaens, he could not "become a Christ" because of it.

3) I don't see where: he had become perfected and "so became a Christ"" is defined in the Ebionaen Canon. To me "became a Christ" is a theological term, which will depend on your church, or your theology, or your Councils - it doesn't mean anything to me. But the Ebionaens are too early for all that and are Sola Scriptura; basically in this thread you have to argue what Christianity is from Matthew, or the rest of that canon.

Thanks for the Hippolytus quote which I did not know. It re-emphasizes that the Ebionaens saw Christ as a man, so it re-raises my question: the Ebionaens believed that Jesus survived the cruxifiction? To my eyes, the answer must be yes.

Thanks for the Eusebius quote and I agree with him that the Ebionaens felt they could not be saved by faith in Christ alone. That's very anti-Paul, which the Ebionaens were. We could chalk that up as our first dogma, but we don't need to: redemption by works and observance of the law is all through Matthew.

The Hebrews quote is nice, but it's just the opinion of the author of Hebrews (Barnabas according to Tertullian?).

Although I usually agree with Eisenman's conclusions, I have a hard time with his logic, and usually try to prove whatever he concludes by some other way :-,)

I assume that what you call the Nazorites are what we call the Nazoraens, which we hold by construction to be the same as the Ebionaens in the early writings, unless one of these distinctions are mentioned:

• Ebioneans hated Paul and rejected the Faulines
• They clung to the book of Matthew as primacy, but are also said to have read Luke and/or Acts
• They hated the Pharisees and maybe the Saducees after the murder of James.

[StephenGoranson]

ebion wrote, above, Sun Nov 19, 2023 4:30 pm, in part:
".... I'll just state things as given without trying to justify them so we can focus on the consequence of these assumptions."

I suggest that occasionally questioning some assumptions is one purpose of this Forum. Why, or on what authority, such dogmatism?

In the same post, ebion wrote, in part:
".... For me "Ioudaios," although good intentioned, is too close to "Judean". Yehudi/Yehudae would work for me and I translate that as Hebrew."

But Yehudi as Hebrew is a mistranslation.

Though I am interested in Semitic versions of gMatthew (whose dates are debated), and though I am interested in Ebionites and their relationships and differences with Nazarenes and minim (and wrote about such in my dissertation*), I don't find "HAramaic" to be a helpful term.

* on pages 74 to 97 in:

https://people.duke.edu/~goranson/Josep ... berias.pdf

[GakuseiDon]

2) "His execution led to the view that he had become perfected and so became a Christ" doesn't address the question that I raised: " the Ebionaens believed that Jesus survived the cruxifiction? " If he survived the cruxifiction then to the Ebionaens, he could not "become a Christ" because of it.

That's right, and that's why I think they thought that he had been crucified and killed -- obedient to God "unto death". It was part of the process towards perfection for the earliest Christians. I can't imagine 'perfection' happening without the death. I'd like to see your reasoning for thinking this.

According to Ignatius: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... berts.html

I undergo all these things that I may suffer together with Him, He who became a perfect man inwardly strengthening me.

The Hebrews quote is nice, but it's just the opinion of the author of Hebrews (Barnabas according to Tertullian?).

It's an early view that seems to pre-date the written Gospels and one I believe represents the view of the earliest Christians:

1. Jesus came to earth humbly, as a man. No miracles, no powers.
2. He lived a life that conformed to God's law, to the point that he was killed for it.
3. God exalted him for it and raised him to heaven, where he became a magical resource for Paul and other Christians. In effect, a pagan god that could be invoked like all the other pagan gods.

Philo writes how the first man was perfect but subsequent generations had degenerated: http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... book1.html

...the first man who was ever formed appears to have been the height of perfection of our entire race, and subsequent generations appear never to have reached an equal state of perfection, but to have at all times been inferior both in their appearance and in their power, and to have been constantly degenerating...

I speculate that the Ebionaens held to an 'Adam Christology' where Jesus reversed all this by becoming a perfect man through adherence to the law and being killed for it. I just don't see how Jesus surviving the cross fits into all this.

Do you think that the Ebionaens taught that Jesus was still alive? Or did they hide that fact and taught that Jesus had died on the cross, even while knowing he was still alive?

[ebion]

2) "His execution led to the view that he had become perfected and so became a Christ" doesn't address the question that I raised: " the Ebionaens believed that Jesus survived the cruxifiction? " If he survived the cruxifiction then to the Ebionaens, he could not "become a Christ" because of it.

According to Ignatius: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... berts.html

I undergo all these things that I may suffer together with Him, He who became a perfect man inwardly strengthening me.

The (mess of the) Ignatian letters are important to us because they're often used against the conclusion we have drawn that the Faulines are MarcionOrLater. There's enough citations of the letters attributed to Paul to say that, if genuine, Paul's letters are extant before Marcion. The Ignatian letters are about the only thing we know of that could argue that.

Detering does a good demolition of the authenticity of the letters, (all "recensions"), by raising 8 points and concluding:

From this overview of the reasons that prompted the Dutch radical critics to deny the authenticity of the Ignatian letters, it may have become clear that they did not thoughtlessly abandon the genuineness of the Ignatians but based their verdict on a careful analysis of the letters. Their contradictions, internal tensions, and historical improbabilities were noticed not only by the Dutchmen but also by other researchers before them. Therefore, one can hardly blame the Dutch radicals on the ground that they were simply not satisfied with the results of the investigations of ZAHN, LIGHTFOOT, and HARNACK but kept asking their critical questions.

My personal favourite of his points is:

5. The situation that is presupposed in the letters is fictitious, as is apparent when one considers the contradictions. Ignatius the martyr is condemned to death (Eph 12:1 f., Rom. 5:1), but it is still uncertain whether Ignatius is going to die. He is in chains but is still able to visit the churches and write letters to them. The author writes to the Romans from Smyrna, after an overland journey from Antioch: „From Syria even unto Rome I fight with wild beasts, by land and sea…” (Rom. 5,1). Furthermore, „…there is a tradition, which has Ignatius die as a martyr in the winter of 115-116 on the instruction of Trajanus while in Antioch (Johannes Malalas, Chronographie, ed. Dindorf p. 275). This tradition must be more ancient than what is assumed in the letters of Ignatius.“[xxxiii] The journey of Ignatius to Rome seems to be copied from the Pauline travels narrative.

A view that seems to pre-date the full canon of the written Gospels, and one we believe represents the view of the earliest Christians is:

1. Jesus came to earth humbly, as a man. No miracles, no powers, but of the Davidic line.
2. He lived a life that conformed to God's law, and acquired his divinity at his baptism:
   "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee" (Acts 13:33 [KJV]) and (Heb 5:5).
3. God exalted him for it and raised him to work miracles, where he survived the cruxifiction with the help of his uncle and his uncle's (Essene?) friends, who dressed in white.
4. The Ebionaens in Pella and Antoich, with the rest of the Jamesian 12+70, spread the Gospel eastwards, so that for almost 1000 years , most Catholics were not Roman.
5. Nothing became a magical resource for Paul as nothing was heard from Paul until MarcionOrLater "found" his letters. I heard he retired to Spain.
6. Constantine turned Christ into a pagan god that could be invoked like all the other pagan gods because he was the Pontifex Maximus. Faul was useful to him because the Faulines can be used to change the Ebionaen/Hebrew sabbath into his Lord's day of SolInvictus/Mithras/Mollech
   (who's birthday by statute was fixed as December 25th).
7. The WayOfGodInTruth community has continued Christ's Sola Scriptura teachings through the Ebionaens, Waldensians, Anabaptists, Quakers, and Shakers despite everything the Churches, and their familiars (which now includes the intelligence apparatus), continue to throw at it.

Since then, the Constantine Church has gone from bad to worse and many western protestant denominations are now outright Marcionite. Instead locally roasting babies alive like in the good-old-pagan days, they now use their abortionists and their pHarma to sacrifice them globally (or euthanize them in Canaza). As a well-informed observer of Vatican affairs pointed out many years ago, the smoke of Satan has entered the Church, and the current Jesuit and Freemason bishop of Rome, who leads the globalizt anti-Christian movement complete with fraudulent new bibles, is IMHO the wokest in history, which says a lot.

PS: See also https://vridar.org/2013/04/02/final-of- ... questions/

[GakuseiDon]

A view that seems to pre-date the full canon of the written Gospels, and one we believe represents the view of the earliest Christians is:

1. Jesus came to earth humbly, as a man. No miracles, no powers, but of the Davidic line.
2. He lived a life that conformed to God's law, and acquired his divinity at his baptism:
   "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee" (Acts 13:33 [KJV]) and (Heb 5:5).
3. God exalted him for it and raised him to work miracles, where he survived the cruxifiction with the help of his uncle and his uncle's (Essene?) friends, who dressed in white.
4. The Ebionaens in Pella and Antoich, with the rest of the Jamesian 12+70, spread the Gospel eastwards, so that for almost 1000 years , most Catholics were not Roman.

Yes, could be. But do you think the Ebionaens' Gospel that they spread was about a Jesus who survived the cross (assuming they believed that), or did they teach about a Jesus who was killed on the cross (i.e. they were preaching something they knew wasn't true)?

[DCHindley]

Moving the response to Early Christians who may have edited or wrote the NT books were Hebrews who spoke Aramaic by DCHindley over here.
...
In my Early Christian Ebionaen Canon thread, I've defined Ebionean as:
* post James, and in effect post-flight to Pella (> 60 AD)
...
I conjecture the Essenes from Palistina fled towards Pella/Decopolis as the Romans came,
...
Ebionaen christianity is starting to look a whole lot different to catholick.

I wanted to examine the Pella flight story, which is dated to approximately 66 CE, just before or just as hostilities erupted. Unfortunately, the way Eusebius presented the story does not cohere well with the history of the revolt as told by Josephus in War 2.458.

"Upon which stroke that the Jews received at Caesarea, the whole nation was greatly enraged; so they divided themselves into several parties, and laid waste the villages of the Syrians, and their neighboring cities, Philadelphia, and Sebonitis, and Gerasa, and Pella, and Scythopolis."

In a 9 yr old post, I had said that "I'd think that "laid waste" means "burning the villages that feed the town" as I doubt that marauding bands of Judeans could really take a "city." Off hand, though, I do not remember if Pella was a fortified city or a Greek/Roman colony (meaning the residents were ex-soldiers or descended from same, who would know how to put up an effective defense)."

But, anyways, why would the city of Pella in the gentile populated Decapolis region have agreed to accept Judean refugees from the internecine war between rebel parties going on in Jerusalem?

Right at the beginning of hostilities in 66 CE, the rebels raided the farmlands allotted to Pella and "laid waste" the region, which would suggest they set fire to the dwellings and the barns and dug up fixtures like olive presses, then set the fields on fire to slow down any city's response to the rebellion. This would suggest the rebels and the city dwellers were at loggerheads. They likely confiscated as much of the grain stores they encountered as they could - using local carts and pack animals - and burned the rest.

The scenes of mutual genocide and fighting that occurred between Jewish and gentile populations of Judaea, Samaria, Galilee and areas of lower Syria up to Tyre & Sidon is part of the reason why I have become convinced that this period was the catalyst that caused the synthesis of high christology from the preceding theses that 1) Jesus was the Jewish messiah figure who may have been resurrected after being crucified by the Romans, and that 2) there would be a coming fruitful "kingdom of God" on earth in which gentiles who revered the Judean God could participate.

The interethnic strife and the utter defeat of the Judean revolutionaries by the Romans made it pretty clear that no earthly kingdom of God was likely to occur anytime soon. To the gentile convert wing of the Jesus movement, having held out since his death under Pilate in the hopes Jesus would be resurrected to lead the messianic age, now seem to have largely severed themselves from Judaic ways, and in the self reflection of social upheavals and dashed expectations, and the rationalizations that will happen, Jesus was transformed from a Judean messiah into a Divine Redeemer figure on the model of mystery cults. The destruction of the Judean cultic center and sacrificial system lent itself to the idea that perhaps God had somehow "demoted" the Judeans and their "Law," and transferred the mantle of inheriting that future age to themselves, the patient sufferers.

I thought I had posted about this but am not getting any hits from Peter Kirby's search engine (either current BC&H, or the predecessors IIDB & FRDB. The search engine does not seem to return any tables that were in the old board messages. It may have been on Crosstalk2, but I am not sure if the WayBack Machine archived that board's messages. I did not save my own, but others may have saved posts relating to their interests. Perhaps Peabody or Sherman.

I have posted a pretty detailed description of the social stratification that occurred during the rebellion, from Josephus' works, here:

viewtopic.php?p=14553#p14553

The brutality on all sides rivals anything we've seen in Middle East, the Balkans, Rwanda or Ukraine today. That the citizens of the city state of Pella may have been forgiving towards these gentile converts is of course possible, but an examination of the sources in the link above would suggest it was highly unlikely.

It does make me wonder what Really happened then, but I am pretty sure it wasn't what they made it seem to have been.

DCH