Epiphanius on the Ebionites

[Secret Alias]

I simply think that it comes closer than any other group of which we are reasonably informed first hand

Have any other Jewish materials from before 70 CE survived? Might simply represent the closest surviving witness. Philo's writings are apologetic in nature - he is defending the Jewish exegesis of the Pentateuch from Alexandrian pagan detractors.

[Secret Alias]

Well, since they are said to have used all of Matthew (which is pro-sacrifice) and believed in observing all of the Torah (which is pro-sacrifice), I would assume they were pro-sacrifice, for Epiphanius, for one, ridicules them for in Pan. 29.8.1-2:

Let's break this down

1. since they [the Nazarenes] are said to have used all of Matthew (which is pro-sacrifice)
2. and believed in observing all of the Torah (which is pro-sacrifice)
= 3. I would assume they were pro-sacrifice

Are you saying then that the Nazarenes sacrificed animals? Really? They had an altar in their churches for the slaughter of animals? Which animals? When were they slaughtered and by whom?

[John2]

I suppose there could have been some Sadducees around then

So there is no chance in your mind that the information about the Sadducees rejecting the resurrection is as bad as the information about the Samaritans rejecting the resurrection. Or maybe you think the Samaritans changed their minds about the resurrection? I've never met a Jew who has such a strong faith in the Church Fathers ... except for Eisenman. I remember he had a well worn copy of Epiphanius opened, like it was a road map to the truth! I remember musing to myself - is his certainty based on actual confidence or a need to create art (or bullshit same difference)? You know what I think. So now it's two Jews who revere the Church Fathers. Amazing. They are always saying that species of animals long thought extinct show up out of the blue. Maybe a third Jew who reveres the Church Fathers as sacrosanct will one day emerge!

Do you think Josephus, Mark and the Mishnah were in cahoots about this? And while Josephus was a Pharisee, he was open minded enough to have tried out being a Sadducee (Life 2: "I had a mind to make trim of the several sects that were among us").

And I would imagine that Luomanen's, Ehrman's and Pearse's copies of Epiphanius had some wear on them since they regard what Epiphanius says about Jewish Christians as valuable.

[Secret Alias]

Josephus does not in my mind specifically identify the Sadducees as rejecting the resurrection of the dead.

canonical Mark was edited in the second century

the Mishnah was edited by the third century

the Christian editor of the canon revised an original hostility to the Pharisees with an acknowledgement (perhaps based on Josephus) that the Pharisees were the best sect of Judaism. The Mishnah purports to represent the continuation of Phariseeism. Imperially favored Christians and Jews opposed the Sadducees, Samaritan and Alexandrian Christian communities in the same way as Sadducees, Samaritans and Alexandrian Jews shared a common heritage against the Pharisees. For whatever reason, by the late second century Christian mystery cults or associations were viewed with suspicion and so the traditions they appealed for support were condemned.

[Secret Alias]

BTW you've never answered my last question. Are you saying the Nazarenes sacrificed animals in their assemblies? Again I ask - what animals and when? Lamb for Passover? They literally slaughtered lambs at Passover? That's quite a revision of history. Good luck with that.

[John2]

You act like saying (a) is closely related to (b). It isn't. It's just a way of advancing your whole purpose in participating at this forum - getting people to talk about Eisenman's hypothesis.

You do a better job of that than I do (not that I care). I haven't mentioned his name once in this thread (or in some others you've harped about him in). I don't agree with everything he (or anyone else) says (particularly regarding the Essene connection to Christianity). And in the big picture, Hegesippus does not equal Eisenman. Epiphanius does not equal Eisenman. And most importantly, Jewish Christianity and whatever degree of connection it may have to the DSS does not equal Eisenman. Except to you, I guess.

[John2]

Well, since they are said to have used all of Matthew (which is pro-sacrifice) and believed in observing all of the Torah (which is pro-sacrifice), I would assume they were pro-sacrifice, for Epiphanius, for one, ridicules them for in Pan. 29.8.1-2:

Let's break this down

1. since they [the Nazarenes] are said to have used all of Matthew (which is pro-sacrifice)
2. and believed in observing all of the Torah (which is pro-sacrifice)
= 3. I would assume they were pro-sacrifice

Are you saying then that the Nazarenes sacrificed animals? Really? They had an altar in their churches for the slaughter of animals? Which animals? When were they slaughtered and by whom?

According to Acts 21:23-26 (which you are free to dismiss), Nazarenes sacrificed animals at the instigation of James and other Jewish Christian leaders:

Therefore do what we advise you. There are four men with us who have taken a vow. Take these men, purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know that there is no truth to these rumors about you, but that you also live in obedience to the law ...

So the next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he entered the temple to give notice of the date when their purification would be complete and the offering would be made for each of them.

This is commonly understood to be the sacrifice that Nazirites make upon the completion of their vow, which involves the sacrifice of animals according to Num. 6:13-17:

Now this is the law of the Nazirite when his time of separation is complete: He must be brought to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, and he is to present an offering to the Lord of an unblemished year-old male lamb as a burnt offering, an unblemished year-old female lamb as a sin offering, and an unblemished ram as a peace offering— together with their grain offerings and drink offerings—and a basket of unleavened cakes made from fine flour mixed with oil and unleavened wafers coated with oil.

The priest is to present all these before the Lord and make the sin offering and the burnt offering. He shall also offer the ram as a peace offering to the Lord, along with the basket of unleavened bread. And the priest is to offer the accompanying grain offering and drink offering.

[John2]

BTW you've never answered my last question. Are you saying the Nazarenes sacrificed animals in their assemblies? Again I ask - what animals and when? Lamb for Passover? They literally slaughtered lambs at Passover? That's quite a revision of history. Good luck with that.

They don't seem to have sacrificed after 70 CE, but since they approved of all of the Torah after 70 CE I suppose they were okay with it in theory, the same way Orthodox Jews are today.

[John2]

Josephus does not in my mind specifically identify the Sadducees as rejecting the resurrection of the dead.

Well, that's okay. And in my mind (and the minds of plenty of others) he does. And the way he says it is in keeping with how Paul describes resurrection in 1 Cor. 15:42-44.


Ant. 18.1.4:

But the doctrine of the Sadducees is this: That souls die with the bodies.

1 Cor. 15:42-44:

So will it be with the resurrection of the dead: What is sown is perishable; it is raised imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.

[John2]

I do not think that the Qumran community is the exact community from which Christianity sprang; I simply think that it comes closer than any other group of which we are reasonably informed first hand, and is (as I mentioned before) an instantiation of the kind of group which produced Christianity. But this does not mean that everything is a perfect fit, since different groups will differ; it means only that we cannot ignore the parallels, since they are core.

I can agree with this, since I think the DSS are largely Fourth Philosophic writings and see Christianity as being a faction of the Fourth Philosophy and thus that if some of the DSS I think could be Jewish Christian are not then they were written by some other Fourth Philosophic faction(s).