Nazarene Space

Views: 85

Replies to This Discussion

Hard to draw any distinction between the Essenes and "Ebionites"...

QUOTE:

Since historical records by the Ebionites are scarce, fragmentary and disputed, much of what is known or conjectured about the Ebionites derives from the Church Fathers, who wrote polemics against the Ebionites, whom they deemed heretical Judaizers.[6][7] Consequently, very little about the Ebionite sect or sects is known with certainty, and most, if not all, statements about them are conjectural.

There are clearly similarities between Qumran-essenes and Ebionites. (Note that according to Hippolyt there were at least 4 different Essene-groups). Yet they are not simply identical, because in Qumran there is no trace yet of a manifested Messiah. At Qumran cave 4 they discovered several fragments only fitting to the gospel of Mark. This seems to proove a missionary Outreach from the nazareans towards Qumran. My reading of the few bits of information goes like is that: Some Qumransectarians were converted by the apostles yet they were unable to leave all their Qumran doctrines behind, Around 70 CE when the Nazarean leaders exiled to Pella and Khirbet Qumran was destroyed, these people used the vaccuum and founded a sect of messianic Qumran-esseans later to be known as "Ebionites."      


Mikha El said:

Hard to draw any distinction between the Essenes and "Ebionites"...

QUOTE:

Since historical records by the Ebionites are scarce, fragmentary and disputed, much of what is known or conjectured about the Ebionites derives from the Church Fathers, who wrote polemics against the Ebionites, whom they deemed heretical Judaizers.[6][7] Consequently, very little about the Ebionite sect or sects is known with certainty, and most, if not all, statements about them are conjectural.

The claim tgat any fragments of Mark were found at Qumran was discredited many years ago.

I just read the wikipedia article. I studied the nazarenean & ebionite sources at length ´cause jewish christianity is an important part of my unpublished book. Therefore I feel tempted to make some remarks. When dealing with "church fatheres" one has to begin with their reliabilty which can range from quite good to 0 and depends also greatly on the subject. Example:  Eusebius as custodian of the caesarea library had access to the complete manuscripts of Origen who he adored. Origenes had no reason to lie when he told that he got Symacchus´ writings from a direct disciple of Sy. If then Eusebius tells us Symmachus was Ebionite we should believe him cause very likely he knew. Yet in many other cases his informations are only hearsay or simply wrong. With Epiphanius it´s even worse because he full of hate against many heresies and fills gaps of knowledge with fantasy. Yet I regard his chapters on nazareans and ebionites as important, because he was bishop of Salamis were jewish christians lived up to his time.    

Of the clementine writings, only the homilies are ebionite. Only the homilies attack Paul. They also confirm that ebionites at least in their later stage had some gnostic thoughts. The recognitions on the contrary were accepted writings among the savants in the roman church (more than 100 MSs!). Scholary consensus in this field is consistently (sometimes intentionally) misleading. Clements Recognitions are a challenge to the common christian doctrine and have been in the past a starting point for attempts to reform the churches toward a more nazarean doctrine. Unfortunately they also contain interpolations, editing and other texts inserted. That´s why only experts should draw conclusions from them.   

RSS

 

 

 


















 

LINKS

 

 

 

 

Badge

Loading…

© 2017   Created by James Trimm.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service