0

My research of the study of Christianity shows the Christian canon first formalized at the Council of Rome. This is pretty much 2 years after Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire in 380 with the Edict of Thessalonica. So Rome was already in charge by this time.

In earlier works by the Church Fathers there are fragmentary references to a competing narrative today know as the Gospel of the Ebionites. This gospel evidently contained a narrative which was much less objectionable to people of a Jewish origin and faith. No mythical virgin birth. No hint of claiming divinity of the protagonist. Nothing that would support the heretical teachings of the apostate Paul. Clear support for continuing Torah observance including circumcision.

Clearly this version was not in line with the Roman agenda which was very much anti Jewish and anti Torah. So just how difficult was it for the Roman Church to suppress these competing narratives? My understanding is that the Ebionites lingered on for several more centuries before being reabsorbed by Jewish communities.

Yaakov Tzir
  • 13
  • 5
  • @NigelJ my website has nothing to do with this question which is about early Christianity. My website is about exposing Rome to the failed intelligence of other nations of the world which are currently focusing on Rome’s proxies rather than the true source of their nation’s problems. It is entirely political in nature and there would be no reason to mention the name of the Christian god in such a website. I don’t mention any of Rome’s other pagan gods either. Why would I? Perhaps you would do best to focus on the question rather than on the content of an unrelated website. – Yaakov Tzir Mar 11 '24 at 05:04
  • @NigelJ In agreement with the majority of early Jewish Christians I see that the evidence, even within the Rome approved canon, points to an originator of the Jewish movement we now call Christianity as never having even the remotest intention of nullifying Torah. I therefore rightly give Paul such an appellation as the Ebionites and other early Jewish Christians did as he was clearly not only an enemy of Torah but also of the express wishes of the originator of the movement as recorded in the sermon on the mount in the version we today call Matthew. Go ahead and censor that view if you like. – Yaakov Tzir Mar 11 '24 at 05:15
  • 2
    You state the heretical teachings of the apostate Paul [sic] so I have to assume that you do not accept about 65% of the New Testament writings, those of Paul and Mark and Luke, leaving about one third of the Greek scripture. Am I correct ? It is important on this website to clarify to whom the questions are being addressed since there are multiple views within the spectrum called 'Christianity'. I am just wondering if your question should have been asked on another part of Stack Exchange, than this particular site. Stack Exchange History is the one that springs to my mind. – Nigel J Mar 11 '24 at 05:24
  • @NigelJ interesting question. The writings of Paul are definitely out of the window. It then follows that Luke and Acts join that list of exclusion. John is a clear deviation from the synoptic gospels and contains a direct claim of divinity of a human being in its opening statement so that can go too. Mark is probably very close to the original source that was used in conjunction with Q to produce the synoptic gospels. So Mark is probably high in reliable content. Noteworthy is that Mark contains no mythical claims of a virgin birth or ascension to heaven. Could have been largely acceptable … – Yaakov Tzir Mar 11 '24 at 05:29
  • @NigelJ … to the Ebionites and other Jewish Christians. – Yaakov Tzir Mar 11 '24 at 05:29
  • So if John is excluded, that is another 22% omitted. You seem to be left with, according to my own sources, 13% of the 27 volumes called 'The New Testament'. I think you will have to clarify that in your questions in order to scope your answers accordingly, as required by the site rules. Please see the Tour and the Help (below) as to the purpose and the functioning of the site. Welcome to SE-C, a comparative Christianity site. – Nigel J Mar 11 '24 at 05:37
  • @NigelJ you want me to post in every future question a detailed explanation of how much and which parts of the Christian canon I view to be reliable? That’s going to make for very lengthy questions. – Yaakov Tzir Mar 11 '24 at 05:41
  • Not at all. But users need to scope their questions (please see the Tour and the Help) as to which group they are seeking responses from. It will be useless for users answering your queries to quote scriptures which you do not accept. Your question mentions 'the Christian canon formalized at the Council of Rome' but anyone quoting from that extensive canon is going to need to realise your own restriction. – Nigel J Mar 11 '24 at 05:46
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Yaakov Tzir Mar 11 '24 at 05:48
  • @NigelJ I imposed no such restrictions on those that would attempt to answer the question. I myself in my interaction with you have indirectly quoted sections of those sources to prove that the circumcision camp preceded Paul’s errant version of Christianity and that he acted against the wishes of the man he claimed to be representing (who incidentally he never even met). If you feel there are portions within those sources which are relevant to answering the question by all means go ahead and quote them to your heart’s content. – Yaakov Tzir Mar 11 '24 at 05:53
  • The system is discouraging from continuing comment, so I shall not comment further. – Nigel J Mar 11 '24 at 05:59
  • Views against the mainstream protestant or catholic dogmas are viewed threatening to many people, thus, I suggest you try using more palatable language for church saints or dogmas, otherwise you may get banned, not just censored and downvoted. – Michael16 Mar 11 '24 at 09:38
  • You are referring to the foreskin as useless, and it is ironic that it is you who like all modern torah observers, noahides etc have fallen in the fleshly emotional slavery of the circumcision party. I find it amusing why do any such torah observer want to follow Jesus who abolished the law. What was the reason for him to die if the law was still effective, it means he would die for nothing (Galatians). Bring some references from the NT in favour of judaising doctrine rather than snippets of gospels that say i came not to destroy the law. So we can have some answers/dialogue rather thn insult – Michael16 Mar 11 '24 at 11:06
  • @Michael16 please show me a single quote from one of the four Rome approved gospels that supports the notion that he wanted to ‘abolish the law’. – Yaakov Tzir Mar 11 '24 at 11:22
  • I need not present that. Maybe post a new question "can a christian follow the new covenant of christ just by reading the 4 biographies?" or "are there gospel only sects?". The biographies are not systematic theology/doctrine which covers the issue of law being abolished, for that we read history Acts 15. How do u explain the "baptise all nations in my name" which doesn't indicate any conversion to judaism for all nations, but simply by faith? you did not answer my question, for what purpose he had to die if he wanted to continue the law as effective? whats grace in John 1:17? – Michael16 Mar 11 '24 at 11:36
  • @Michael16 The Ebionite view which Rome has evidently taken measures to suppress does not have any notion of his death removing sin. This a Pauline notion. And as evidenced by your comment above you are relying exclusively on quotes from his letters and the ‘history’ as presented by his chief propagandist Luke to support this dogma. – Yaakov Tzir Mar 11 '24 at 11:45
  • you need to read Michael Brown's books answering jewish objection, or watch his debates with rabbis and video teachings http://www.biblestudying.net/rabbinic5.html Targeting Paul alone or Luke cannot help avoid the fact that the main church of jerusalem authorised all those doctrines Paul taught. James, Peter, the pillars of church. Attacking just one of them is useless. Sacrificial atonement of Jesus is taught in all gospels. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4MWFd-Zg_I&list=PLDiRnTTAyp8waG0m5NqExEopUvEPkb-O1&index=13&pp=iAQB – Michael16 Mar 11 '24 at 11:51
  • @Michael16 also for the record it is the Pauline camp and not the circumcision camp that is proposing a departure from orthodoxy. Therefore the onus of proof is very much on the Paulians not on those that would faithfully continue to be faithful to the only law code that a nation ever received from heaven. Just to be clear are you proposing that Christians should live in a lawless society? Is there any particular reason you seem to think living under Rome’s man made invented laws is somehow superior to those revealed at Sinai? – Yaakov Tzir Mar 11 '24 at 11:52
  • @Michael16 I have watched Brown a number of times and read sections of his literature. I remain largely unimpressed and unconvinced by his ‘scholarship’. – Yaakov Tzir Mar 11 '24 at 11:54
  • @Michael16 I can’t help but notice an immediate flaw in your reasoning. The surviving Church Father snippets that are our major sources for Ebionite beliefs clearly states they held Jacob the Just to be their leader. How can we therefore trust the claim in Acts that he approved of Paul or his doctrine. Somewhat of a contradiction don’t you think? – Yaakov Tzir Mar 11 '24 at 11:58
  • that's a good question, you can make a question "Ebionites supposedly claim that they follow Jacob the just, how do we judge them?" in this case their claim cannot be accepted as authorised by the Jerusalem church for just their words, bec we also have Peter who gave supported Paul. The Acts 15 council was by the church leaders. Circumcision for jews was not banned, but gentiles never required it; the law was observed merely for jewish culture, not for covenantal obligation for righteousness. Peter also mentions Christ's atonement. Ebionite view makes Christ's mission/death useless. – Michael16 Mar 11 '24 at 12:07
  • @Michael16 it is the claims about them in the Church Fathers that names Jacob the Just their leader. We don’t have any surviving sources that relates their side of the story. How do reconcile this claim of the Church Fathers with the claim in Acts? – Yaakov Tzir Mar 11 '24 at 12:12
  • the claim is definitely bogus, Jacob/James did not support the judaising position, however, the some jewish legalists definitely had some power in the church. There may have been some legalists, some judaisers who started making the claim that they come from the original church. The church leaders cannot condemn Jacob himself as a judaiser, if so, we need to reject such writings which would condemn the pillars of the church. Read those quotes in context. – Michael16 Mar 11 '24 at 12:20
  • @Michael16 what scholarly process exactly did you use to conclude that the claim of the Church Fathers that Jacob the Just was their leader is bogus? As an add on I refuse to call him James just because King James wanted his unbiblical name to be in the Bible. It’s already hard enough for me to write Jacob instead of Yaakov but I do so only to facilitate communication with the ignorant and clearly uneducated. – Yaakov Tzir Mar 11 '24 at 12:32
  • 3
    This question makes a pretty large assumption. 1. That a suppression took place 2. that there was in fact a church controlled by the Roman Empire. But, and this is the reason I have to close this question. A question like "how difficult was it ..." is a matter of opinion. Maybe you could ask "What steps did the Catholic Church take in the 4th century to Christian movements borne of competing gospels?" – Peter Turner Mar 11 '24 at 12:43
  • I already described you how we refute inconsistent claims or falsehood, by verifying the teachings of the church's overall teachings with this fringe judaisers claim which contradict the church. The apostolic church was consistent. – Michael16 Mar 11 '24 at 12:54
  • @Michael16 so because Paul succeeded in attracting a number of non Jews to his version that would come to outnumber the Jewish Christians that remained faithful to the Torah who were clearly in the majority amongst Jewish believers that somehow overrides their orthodox view and justifies a complete departure from orthodoxy? Really? That is your scholarly method? Please forgive me if I remain unimpressed because by that kind of logic I would have chosen to be an idol worshipping pagan a long time ago. – Yaakov Tzir Mar 11 '24 at 13:00

2 Answers2

1

It wouldn't have been hard, given Rome's stance against the Christian Quartodeciman faction found very early on from among others the Apostle John teaching Polycarp teaching Irenaeus. Constantine, in this situation, was the guarantee of the Quartodeciman acceptance of Rome's view of the days and dates of Christ's passion.

But Rome had nothing to do with the Ebionites. Over the decades, they had already been rejected from within the church due to their very contradictory doctrines to what the bible says. Here is the early church's view of their doctrines.

  1. Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God. Irenaeus AH Book I Chapter XXVI
  1. God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus:] “Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son,”3708 as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus,3709 both Jewish proselytes. The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph; thus destroying, as far as in them lies, such a marvellous dispensation of God, and setting aside the testimony of the prophets which proceeded from God. Irenaeus AH Book III Chapter XXI
  1. Vain also are the Ebionites, who do not receive by faith into their soul the union of God and man, but who remain in the old leaven of [the natural] birth, and who do not choose to understand that the Holy Ghost came upon Mary, and the power of the Most High did overshadow her:4453 wherefore also what was generated is a holy thing, and the Son of the Most High God the Father of all, who effected the incarnation of this being, and showed forth a new [kind of] generation; that as by the former generation we inherited death, so by this new generation we might inherit life. Irenaeus Book V Chapter I

I could go on, but it is clear that the Ebionites believed something polar opposite to what Christians believed from Pentecost to today. It never took Rome to do what the church clearly had done; that is, reject falsehood parading as truth.

SLM
  • 13,666
  • 1
  • 10
  • 44
  • Jews insisting on continuing Torah observance is “falsehood parading as truth”? – Yaakov Tzir Mar 11 '24 at 04:44
  • @YaakovTzir I've no idea if all Ebionites were Jewish or not. The point is the Ebionite doctrines were diametrically opposed to what Christians (Jew or Gentile) believe. See also what Peter said about Torah observance on one's salvation. – SLM Mar 11 '24 at 14:32
0

The principal weakness shared by all of the non-canonical Gospels written in the first few centuries AD, including the Gospel of the Ebionites, is that they could not be traced to authoritative primary sources.

  • Matthew is attributed to an eyewitness who was an apostle. This attribution is unanimous among early historians, is explicit already in the 2nd century (though it can be traced to the 1st century -- see my work here), and it is consistent with 100% of the manuscript titles, superscripts, and subscripts.
  • Mark is attributed to the missionary companion of multiple apostles, and in the 2nd century multiple historians report that Mark wrote based on the testimony of Peter. This attribution is unanimous among early historians, and it is consistent with 100% of the manuscript titles, superscripts, and subscripts.
  • Luke is attributed to a companion of the apostle Paul, who diligently acquired the information in his gospel from eyewitnesses (see Luke 1:1-4). This attribution is unanimous among early historians, and it is consistent with 100% of the manuscript titles, superscripts, and subscripts.
  • John is attributed to an eyewitness who was an apostle. The eyewitness testimony is affirmed by the text itself (see John 21:24). This attribution is affirmed by a scholar one link removed from John himself (Irenaeus of Lyons). This attribution is almost unanimous among early historians, and it is consistent with 100% of the manuscript titles, superscripts, and subscripts.

The Gospel of the Ebionites has no such pedigree. The author and the authority upon which he wrote are unknown (even to the ancient historians). The text appears to date to the 2nd century when no eyewitnesses were available, whereas all 4 canonical Gospels were written in the 1st century, at a time when eyewitnesses were still around.

It was very easy for the Christian scholars to reject the authority of the Gospel of the Ebionites by pointing out these straightforward, historical facts.

Enforcing a canon, on the other hand, was not a simple task, as evidenced by the proliferation of pseudepigraphal literature in early Christianity. Prior to the 4th century there was not a centralized structure in the church capable of instituting one canon that everyone would use. By the time period specified in the OP, this centralized structure was much more developed.

Hold To The Rod
  • 12,999
  • 1
  • 12
  • 48
  • The internal evidence of Paul’s letters and the work of his main propagandist who authored the so called Acts of the Apostles which is basically all about how great Paul is and contains very little about the men who actually spent time with the protagonist shows quite clearly that the circumcision camp preceded Paul’s version of Christianity. The internal evidence of Matthew presents a protagonist that had no intention of changing or nullifying Torah. So your whole thesis is going nowhere. – Yaakov Tzir Mar 11 '24 at 04:54
  • @YaakovTzir in the video series linked in my answer I actually discuss the Jewish origins of what would later become a majority-Gentile church, and its implications for the Gospels. However, this isn't the matter discussed in my answer. Whether the attributions of the canonical Gospels is correct, the arguments I presented are what the people of the time believed. If they believed based on the available historical data (right, wrong, or otherwise) that Luke wrote the 3rd Gospel in the 1st century, and the Ebionite Gospel came later from an untrusted source, their decision makes sense. – Hold To The Rod Mar 11 '24 at 14:13
  • I.e. they traced 4 Gospels to relevant sources and accepted those 4 Gospels. Whether they traced them correctly is another matter - much more discussion there is available on my channel, if that's of interest. – Hold To The Rod Mar 11 '24 at 14:15