Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 8:35 pm
John2 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 11:45 am
I don't think the Ebionite Matthew was "anti-Jewish" for being anti-sacrifice and largely unobservant. That would be like saying Reform Jews are "anti-Jewish" for being anti-sacrifice and largely unobservant. But I figure a Jewish writing that promoted these things would have appealed to someone who
was "anti-Jewish."
That isn't what you said.
Yes, it is. The Ebionite Matthew was a Jewish writing that was anti-sacrifice and largely unobservant, just like Reform Judaism.
And the Ebionite Matthew must have been created after Paul, since Epiphanius says the Ebionites branched off from the Nazarenes after 70 CE. Marcion could have been under the impression that it was "Paul's gospel" for its stances on the OT, but I don't think there were any written gospels in Paul's time.
Why believe Epiphanius? Why not Paul himself (Gal 2:10)?
Because Epiphanius was in contact with post-70 CE Jewish Christians and their writings. And the word for poor that Paul (and by extension James) uses in Gal. 2:10 is ptochon, not ebionites, and this is in keeping with what Epiphanius says, that Ebionites did not branch off from Nazarenes until after 70 CE.
But doesn't this all sound conspicuously redundant? Paul accuses those of James of tampering with his gospel (Gal 3); Marcion claims his gospel has been Judiazed. (Antithesis)
Paul says that James gave him the right hand of fellowship, that Paul should preach his Torah-free gospel to Gentiles. Paul called Jews who believed that Gentiles should be Torah-observant "false brothers," and these are the ones he is complaining about in Gal. 3.
What you are saying (or did say) is that Paul had a gospel that was judiazed; that Marcion edited it and de-judiazed it (inferring Paul's original had been lost), only for it to once again be judiazed. Do you not also see that this creates a second Jewish gospel in turn? Which creates all sorts of other problems for your assessment.
I don't think Paul had a written gospel, only an unwritten one that he taught to Gentiles. And since Paul was Jewish, his letters are naturally Jewish writings, so there was no need for anyone to "judaize" them.
And the Ebonite Matthew was also a Jewish writing, but since Ebionites had become anti-sacrifice and largely unobservant after 70 CE, their gospel would have appealed to someone who
was "anti-Jewish" (or exclusively into Paul).
This is why it is just easier to say the traditional formulas no longer work, and attempting to salvage it only shows how weak it was in the first place. Epiphanius never says "after 70 CE". This is just rank traditionalism. He only says the Ebionites came after the Nazarenes.
Epiphaniuus says Ebionites branched off from Nazarenes "after the fall of Jerusalem" (which happened in 70 CE).