Epiphanius on the Ebionites

[Secret Alias]

Again what is the value of regurgitating Josephus? Surely Josephus's writings - assuming they were written in the late first century - are at least a somewhat inaccurate representation of the phenomenon he is reporting on. Aside from dogmatic bias there is the memory failure and the desire to make it appear the Jews were compatible with Greco-Roman values (note - they practice 'philosophy') and then layered on top of that there is the influence of the synergoi). What are the odds that even Josephus's reporting on the Essenes actual conforms to the phenomenon he is reporting on? A low probability indeed.

Now what you do is act as if Josephus is taking nothing short of the Essenes. They actually ARE a/the 'fourth philosophy.' But then you move on from this ridiculous assumption to say - the Essenes aren't just what Josephus says they are but that the Essenes are at once the identical or the same with:

1. the Qumran community
2. the Ebionites of Irenaeus
3. the Nazarenes of some unknown author
4. the apostolic community described in Acts
5. the opponents of Paul

Ignoring your preposterous assumption that the Essenes are as Josephus describes, let us acknowledge there are some distortions or inaccuracies. The idea that an imperfect portrait of the Essenes can then be used to 'identify' the same sect with (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) is so ludicrous it isn't even worth considering.

But on top of this you haven't bothered to consider inaccuracies in the reporting of (2) i.e. Irenaeus and Epiphanius (3) Epiphanius (4) 'Luke' and finally the transmission of the canon of Paul. For this reason alone your - I mean 'Eisenman's' - theory is not even worthy of serious consideration. You're not even trying to learn about the Marcionites and their different canon of Paul, the reasons why they rejected Acts as spurious, the motivation of Church Fathers like Irenaeus and Epiphanius. For whatever reason you want to make the early Church 'Jewish' to participate in the sneering disposition of your ancestors. 'Oh, the ignorant Gentiles! Two millennia of persecution of our people - for what?' This is the agenda that is at work in all this nonsense.

[John2]

You really think that Josephus is proof the Sadducees reject the resurrection? I don't. And let's see what else is there:

Nor do they regard the observation of any thing besides what the law enjoins them.

Isn't that true for all Jewish groups depending on how they define 'law'?

Josephus says that the Sadducees defined "law" as the written Torah (in contrast to the Pharisees who defined it as the written and oral Torah) in Ant. 13.10.6:

What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the laws of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them, and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers.

[John2]

Again what is the value of regurgitating Josephus? Surely Josephus's writings - assuming they were written in the late first century - are at least a somewhat inaccurate representation of the phenomenon he is reporting on.

As I noted already, he says he once joined the Sadducees (Life 2: "And when I was about sixteen years old, I had a mind to make trim of the several sects that were among us. These sects are three: - The first is that of the Pharisees, the second that Sadducees, and the third that of the Essens"), so I figure he was personally acquainted with them, and you can believe him or not.

[Secret Alias]

As I have noted many times here. We received these Christian texts from the hands of Irenaeus. Irenaeus had an agenda. He opposed the mystery religion promoted by the 'gnostics' of Alexandria. In order to do this, he created the Ebionites. While the Ebionites are mentioned among the heresies, it is acknowledged that they are not guilty of the chief crime of the other sects - viz. they acknowledge that the Creator made the world. In fact they are the preservers of the gospel was Irenaeus misrepresents as Papias's 'oracles of the Lord.' There was no gospel of Matthew. So there was likely no 'Ebionites' either. Papias had a collection of sayings associated with Jesus which he opposed against Mark's gospel. That's all. Clearly then if the gospel of Matthew was invented out of a falsifying of Papias, the Ebionites too were a necessary falsification. Who used the Gospel of Matthew? Well, Papias ... and the Ebionites. Who are the Ebionites? You know the 'Jews' who became Christians because of the apostles.

If Irenaeus could pass off his Hebrew as authoritative his audience was entirely made up of non-Hebrew speakers. As such Irenaeus's claim that the Ebionites existed and used a Hebrew gospel proves that they could not have been known to his audience. The fact that Irenaeus gets away with misrepresenting Papias proves that the Ebionites might similarly be the result of lie. At the very least no one could prove they existed or what they believed as his readers were unable to read their writings or communicate with them.

[Secret Alias]

This is such bullshit:

Josephus says that the Sadducees defined "law" as the written Torah (in contrast to the Pharisees who defined it as the written and oral Torah)

The Torah itself defines 'torah' as the ten commandments. WTF is the matter with you? You just regurgitate the nonsense of Gentiles when it suits you only to turn around and uphold an agenda of Jewish chauvinism. It's a deceptive game you play. The original meaning of Torah was the ten commandments. Only later was it defined as the entire Pentateuch. The oral law argument isn't even worth considering.

[Secret Alias]

so I figure he was personally acquainted with them

So you accept Hitler's 'reporting' on the Jews? The Protocols of Zion too? You accept Philo's account of the pogrom in Alexandria without reservation? There wasn't another side or POV? Ramban's dispute at Barcelona is EXACTLY as reported in the surviving manuscripts? Oh wait a minute a short Latin summary of the Christian side was found in the Vatican library? What do we do? This is so stupid. There are always two sides - if not more - to any event. It's incredible that you should behave so contemptibly.

[John2]

Now what you do is act as if Josephus is taking nothing short of the Essenes. They actually ARE a/the 'fourth philosophy.' But then you move on from this ridiculous assumption to say - the Essenes aren't just what Josephus says they are but that the Essenes are at once the identical or the same with:

1. the Qumran community
2. the Ebionites of Irenaeus
3. the Nazarenes of some unknown author
4. the apostolic community described in Acts
5. the opponents of Paul

Josephus says the Essenes were one of the three sects that weren't the Fourth Philosophy in Ant. 18.1.2:

The Jews had for a great while had three sects of philosophy peculiar to themselves; the sect of the Essens, and the sect of the Sadducees, and the third sort of opinions was that of those called Pharisees

[Secret Alias]

Great. Fascinating. It's the idea that Josephus can represent absolute truth. That Josephus gives us a photograph of the past which is the dispute here.

[John2]

I have any easier time following Josephus than you, at least, but as you've said, it's a free forum and I will leave you to your thoughts.

[Secret Alias]

I agree. I was eating a Shack Stack https://aht.seriouseats.com/2009/08/sha ... k-nyc.html thinking I have to pull out of this stupid conversation. You graciously explained that you think Jewish Christians used to carry out sacrifices in their synagogues before 70 CE. That was enlightening. I thought the temple was the only place Jews could make offerings. But what do I know. One more question please. You never have any doubt that any of these details in Irenaeus or Josephus might be outright inventions? Because it's in print it's true? No need to question, wrestle with what's written. It's there in print. Someone wrote it. It must be true.

That will be all. Thanks