Is *Ev a source of the Gospel of the Ebionites?

[Joseph D. L.]

But Paul was Jewish, so there is already a precedent for Marcion using Jewish writings. It's baked into Marcionism even if we set aside his gospel (unless Paul wasn't Jewish in Marcionism). So having access to and using a Jewish gospel wouldn't be unusual for Marcion (especially one that was largely anti-OT/anti-sacrifice), and It was the natural flow of things in Christianity, given the mission to the Gentiles.

You're all over the place here. So Marcion accepted a Jewish text that, perplexedly was anti-OT and anti-sacrified, but Marcionism emphasized a Jewish sacrifice par excellence in Chrestus, but he "de-judiazed" it(?); then others who were Jews or Jewish proselytes came along and re/judiazed it, which is what he (and Paul) claimed.

So if I am following this right, we have: Paul, ostensibly a Jew, with a Gospel that is ostensibly anti-Jewish; claims people are judiazing it; then Marcion, ostensibly a gentile, comes along, de-judiazes the judiazed Paul and his Gospel; only for it to be re-judiazed again.

That is some logic right there.

[John2]

But Paul was Jewish, so there is already a precedent for Marcion using Jewish writings. It's baked into Marcionism even if we set aside his gospel (unless Paul wasn't Jewish in Marcionism). So having access to and using a Jewish gospel wouldn't be unusual for Marcion (especially one that was largely anti-OT/anti-sacrifice), and It was the natural flow of things in Christianity, given the mission to the Gentiles.

You're all over the place here. So Marcion accepted a Jewish text that, perplexedly was anti-OT and anti-sacrified, but Marcionism emphasized a Jewish sacrifice par excellence in Chrestus, but he "de-judiazed" it(?); then others who were Jews or Jewish proselytes came along and re/judiazed it, which is what he (and Paul) claimed.

So if I am following this right, we have: Paul, ostensibly a Jew, with a Gospel that is ostensibly anti-Jewish; claims people are judiazing it; then Marcion, ostensibly a gentile, comes along, de-judiazes the judiazed Paul and his Gospel; only for it to be re-judiazed again.

That is some logic right there.

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."

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.

[Joseph D. L.]

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.

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)?

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)

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.

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.

[GakuseiDon]

Epiphanius never says "after 70 CE". This is just rank traditionalism. He only says the Ebionites came after the Nazarenes.

Epiphanius says that Ebion came after the Nazoraeans, whom had moved to Cocabe shortly before Jerusalem fell. The Ebionites' 'origin came after the fall of Jerusalem':

Chapter 29:

7:7 This sect of Nazoraeans is to be found in Beroea37 near Coelesyria, in the Decapolis near Pella, and in Bashanitis at the place called Cocabe38—Khokhabe in Hebrew.

7:8 For that was its place of origin, since all the disciples had settled in Pella after their remove from Jerusalem—Christ having told them to abandon Jerusalem and withdraw from it39 because of the siege it was about to undergo. And they settled in Peraea for this reason and, as I said, lived their lives there. It was from this that the Nazoraean sect had its origin.

Chapter 30:

2:6 This sect [Ebionites] now forbids celibacy and continence altogether,8 as do the other sects which are like it. For at one time they prided themselves on virginity, presumably because of James the Lord's brother, and so address their treatises to 'elders and virgins.'9

2:7 Their origin came after the fall of Jerusalem. For since practically all who had come to faith in Christ had settled in Peraea then, in Pella, a town in the 'Decapolis'10 the Gospel mentions, which is near Batanaea and Bashanitis—as they had moved there then and were living there, this provided an opportunity for Ebion.

2:8 And as far as I know, he first lived in a village called Cocabe in the district of Qarnaim—also called Ashtaroth—in Bashanitis. There he began his evil teaching—the place, if you please, where the Nazoraeans I have spoken of came from.

2:9 For since Ebion was connected with them and they with him, each party shared its own wickedness with the other.

[davidmartin]

- Paul had a gospel that was judiazed
One can see this contrasting Acts with the Epistles

[Joseph D. L.]

Epiphanius never says "after 70 CE". This is just rank traditionalism. He only says the Ebionites came after the Nazarenes.

Epiphanius says that Ebion came after the Nazoraeans, whom had moved to Cocabe shortly before Jerusalem fell. The Ebionites' 'origin came after the fall of Jerusalem

Fair enough.

[John2]

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).

[John2]

- Paul had a gospel that was judiazed
One can see this contrasting Acts with the Epistles

In what way does Acts "judaize" Paul? Paul calls himself a Jew (Gal. 2:15: "We who are Jews by birth") and was willing to be Torah observant around Jews (1 Cor. 9:5: "To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law -though I myself am not under the law- so as to win those under the law"). So there was no need for Acts to "judaize" Paul, since Judaism is baked into his writings.

What I see going on in Acts is an attempt by someone to not mention Paul's outburst in Antioch in Gal. 2. Acts wants to talk about the time when Paul says Peter did eat with Gentiles, before James decided to put a stop to it. So it highlights Peter's contact with Gentiles and then has him disappear until the council in Jerusalem, when rules for Gentiles were determined.

But even then, Acts addresses the heart of the Antioch incident indirectly, by noting frankly that some Jewish Christians had "the impression that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe our customs" (21:21), which is true, according to Gal. 2. But since Paul was willing to be Torah-observant around Jews (as per 1 Cor. 9:5), Acts highlights that side of Paul, for the sake of putting Church history in a nice light.

At the end of the day, Paul did overstep his bounds and preached against Jewish Torah observance, for which he was reproved by Jewish Christian leaders, but as long as he was willing to be Torah observant around Jews and stay in his lane, James and other Jewish Christian leaders were happy. This is why Nazarenes (as Christians are called in Acts) were (all things considered) okay with Paul from Acts down to Jerome's time.

[John2]

As far as Ebionites go, I view the Jewish Christians who hated Paul in Acts as "proto-Ebionites," and given the subject of this thread, I think it's worth noting that these Jews are said to have come from "the province of Asia," which is close to where Marcion is said to have come from:

21:27-29: ... some Jews from the province of Asia saw Paul at the temple. They stirred up the whole crowd and seized him, crying out, “Men of Israel, help us! This is the man who teaches everywhere against our people and against our law and against this place. Furthermore, he has brought Greeks into the temple and defiled this holy place.” For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, and they assumed that Paul had brought him into the temple.

So when an anti-Pauline sect emerged after 70 CE, I figure its influence could have reached to Asian Jews like the ones in Acts and that the Ebionite Matthew circulated there, and from there it got to Marcion.

[davidmartin]

In what way does Acts "judaize" Paul? Paul calls himself a Jew (Gal. 2:15: "We who are Jews by birth") and was willing to be Torah observant around Jews (1 Cor. 9:5: "To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law -though I myself am not under the law- so as to win those under the law"). So there was no need for Acts to "judaize" Paul, since Judaism is baked into his writings.

There's differences between the epistles and acts, the stress in Acts is on Paul being normal Jewish and emphasis on Jesus being the messiah
Why? Well, look at Marcion. The Act's Paul couldn't be interpreted in a Marcionite way. It may be the lighter end of "Judaize" but this is what's going on.