Interested in discussing early Christian writings

[rakovsky]

Hello! Shalom!

I read all the potential first century Christian writings that I could find, and in the course of the reading, questions arose for me, especially about things that I didn't understand. The Messianic forum could offer a special opportunity to discuss them, because it has a section for discussing the "Apocrypha". Some of these early writings are specifically attributed to -observant groups and individuals, like the Gospel of the Nazarenes and the Antiquities of the Jews, by Josephus. Others like 4 Esdras and the Lives of the Prophets are written in a theme resembling the "Old Testament Apocrypha". There was a genre of early Christian writing that was specially dedicated to "Old Testament" figures and events. This was a period in history when, although long after the writing of the Tanakh, the traditions about the ancient Hebrew prophets were still being written down (eg. in the Talmud and Targums).

In this regard, it's worth noting that observance was common in the first century Church (by which I mean the Christian community under the apostles, their "elders" and "bishops"). In the Council of Jerusalem (in Acts), James and the other leaders decided that gentiles wouldn't have to get circumcised in order to be part of the Christian community. One could infer though from this decision that Jewish Christians on the other hand were still following the ritual rules of observance. Besides that, the 4th century writer Ambrosiaster wrote about the early Christian period in Rome: “It is established that there were Jews living in Rome in the times of the apostles, and that those Jews who had believed [in Christ] passed on to the Romans the tradition that they ought to profess Christ but keep the law … One ought not to condemn the Romans, but to praise their faith; because without seeing any signs or miracles and without seeing any apostles, they nevertheless accepted faith in Christ.”

There are different reasons for how and why strong adherents of ritual observance decreased over time in the Christian community, and my goal on the forum isn't to argue for or against it (I'm Eastern Orthodox myself). On one hand, Jewish traditions, features, and ritual aspects never totally disappeared from the Orthodox Church's traditions. For example, an Orthodox church building has features carries over from both Jerusalem's Temple and the synagogues, such as an altar table, a seven branched candle, and a bishop's seat (like how synagogues had a seat for Moses). And on the other hand, it seems to me that Yeshua and the apostles seemed to be less strict about ritual observance than the rabbis and pharisees. Take for example the debate in Matthew 15 between Jesus and the pharisees over the rabbinical handwashing ritual found in the Oral (I posted about it here: theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/4380/why-pursuing-?page=1&scrollTo=23921). Or consider the vision in Acts 10 that Peter has where he is shown a collection of animals and instructed: "Eat". The sense seems to be that the Lord is telling Peter that he should eat the previously-forbidden animals.

Another benefit from Messianic Judaism is the insight that they can give into the TaNaKh because of their focus on Jewish culture. I found the arguments that Jewish Christians like Dr. Michael Brown made very helpful in coming to the opinion that the TaNaKh really does promote the concept of a Messiah who is killed and resurrects (I wrote about this on my website, which you can find in my profile.)

Someday I would also like to visit a Messianic synagogue. The New Testament records Yeshua and the apostles praying in the Temple and synagogues, and it would be nice to see how that style of service would look when matched with Christian worship.

Here I am listing all the potential 1st century writings on Christianity that I could find, which I categorized based on which groups might have authored them. First I listed dates that some scholars gave. After the title, I put the way that the institutional Church looked at it over time. These dates and descriptions are my notes and rough estimates. Feel free to disagree or give your own input for corrections or improvement. I highlighted in Bold the Writings that I made threads for on the forum.

Extra-canonical, Deuterocanonical

50-120 Didache
80-120 Epistle of Barnabas (Clement Alexandrine & Origen used it, Jerome considered its authorship genuine & Eusebius didn't, Vulgate used it as apocryphal)
80-140 1 Clement
88-160 Shepherd of Hermas (included in Codex Sinaiticus; Muratorian fragment says it "ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly"; Clement Alexandrine uses it but notes "many people despise it")
90-150 Apocalypse of Peter (Most of it extant. Muratorian canon has it but says some ban it from reading in church, Accepted by Clement Alexandrine, not counted genuine by Eusebius)
90-218 4 Esdras (Vulgate) / 2 Esdras (Protestant) / 3 Esdras (Slavic), including Chp 7 w/ NSRV verses 35-105 (Canonical in the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible, Apocryphal in the Vulgate, Russian, and KJV)
95-160 2 Clement (Part of Alexandrian Codex; Eusebius doubted its authorial authenticity)

Fragmentary, Status Unknown, or Acceptance Varied
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel (maybe part of the Gospel of Peter)
50-140 Gospel of Thomas (Hippolytus and Cyril of Jerusalem rejected it as gnostic; scholars debate if it was)
1st-4th c. Epistle to the Laodiceans (Maybe multiple versions eg. Paul's vs. Marcion's; Vulgate version: Apocryphal in Vulgate Bibles, St. Gregory the Great accepted it, Jerome said "All reject it")
70-120 Egerton Gospel (could be fragments from a rejected gospel that we only have in fragments like g.Peter)
70-200 Fayyum Fragment (too short to tell what writing it belongs to)
73-200 Mara Bar Serapion (pagan or Christian)
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews (Fragments. Used by Origen, Jerome, Didymus Blind, Papias, Hegesippus; rejected by Pseudo-Cyril Jerusalemite & Philip Sidetes as heretical)
80-250 Christian Sibyllines (Books I-XIV and citations from Josephus, Justin, Theophilus, Origen, Lactantius, & the Anonymous Preface)
93 Flavius Josephus (Likely a Christian sympathizer; Origen labeled Josephus nonChristian; Some Greek Orthodox Bibles included Josephus' writings; Eisenman and W. Whiston considered him Christian, most scholars don't)(Church fathers' mentions of Josephus are at: www.tertullian.org/rpearse/josephus/josephus.htm)
------ Wars of the Jews
------ Antiquities of the Jews (contains passages on John the Baptist, James, Jesus) (Completed w/ LOEB)
------ Autobiography
------ Against Apion
100-150 Preaching of Peter (Fragmentary. Accepted by Clement Alexandrine, not counted as genuine by Eusebius)
100-160 Gospel/Traditions of Matthias (EW dates it to 110-160 ntcanon.org/Traditions_of_Matthias.shtml dates it to 100-150)(Clement Alexandrine respects it & Codex Baroccianus lists it as canonical; Eusebius & Gelasian Decree consider it heretical)
100-400 Gospel of Bartholomew / The Questions of Bartholomew (maybe the same work. Rejected by Gelasian Decree. Not sure what heresy, if any, it falls under)

Likely Christian influenced works about the OT period but not in Biblical apocryphas.
Early 1st to late 5th c. Lives of the Prophets (Was widespread in mainstream Church)
1st to 2nd c. Testament of Abraham (once widespread among Christians)
1st to early 3rd c. Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah (Apostolic Constitutions consider it apocryphal, Numerous translations suggest widespread use; some scholars find it Docetic)
1st c. - 300 3 Baruch (Origen could have cited it)
1st c. - 300 4 Baruch (part of the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible)
70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Has Qumranite themes; St.Athanasius lists it among Apocrypha; 17th c. Armenian Bible apocrypha)
100-200 Odes of Solomon (quoted by Lactantius, 6th c. Synopsis Sacrae Scripture says it's read to catechumens)
2nd-3rd c. Testament of Jacob (Egyptian Jewish or Coptic; once widespread among Christians)
100-400 Testament of Isaac (Egyptian Jewish or Coptic; once widespread among Christians)
100-400 Testament of Adam (maybe gnostic or Encratitic. Differs from canonical story, making Cain's jealousy to be over his sister)
100-400 Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers (from J. Charlesworth, "The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha"; From Books 7-8 of Apostolic Constitutions)
100-500 Apocalypse of Sedrach (EJW synopsis dates it to 150 AD or later)
100-900 Greek Apocalypse of Ezra (referred to in the Canon of Nicephorus c. 850 AD; Many writers date it as 150 or later)

Messianic Jewish
100-160 Gospel of the Nazarenes/Nazoreans (-observant, theologically orthodox Christian Nazarene sect; Jerome used it)
100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites / ?-250 Gospel of the Twelve (Origen calls Gosp.Twelve heretical, Jerome calls it the same as the Ebionites' gospel)

Celibate / Encratitic?
80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians (Clement Alexandrine quoted it as having real Jesus sayings, Origen called it heretical)

Docetic (eg. Jesus only appeared to suffer)
70-160 Gospel of Peter (Including P.Oxy 4009 and P.Oxy. 2949. Rejected by Serapion Antiochene, Eusebius, & Philip Sidetes)

Gnostic
50-150 Apocalypse of Adam (IMO it's Sethian Christian gnostic)
50-150 Eugnostos the Blessed (Nag Hammadi)
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ (Nag Hammadi)
100-150 Apocryphon(Secret Book) of James (Nag Hammadi. Work supports James & Peter but dissents from other disciples. Cerinthian? Cerinthus the gnost required observance & conflicted w St.John who was 1 of 3 church pillars)
100-200 Gospel of Eve (used by Borborite sect)
100-230 Thunder, Perfect Mind
100-300 Coptic Apocalypse of Peter / "Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter"(Wikipedia dates it to 100-200 AD. What dating is best?)

Rabbinical writing on Christianity
70-100 Shmuel ha-Katan's Birkat Ha Minim (A story on its background is in Talmud Bab. B'rakhot 28b-29a & Talmud Jer. Ber. 4:3, 8a)

Pagans writing on Christianity
112-109 BC - 180 AD Thallus' History (on the darkness or eclipse)
41-51 Seneca's On Anger (maybe not about Jesus))
77-79 Pliny the Elder's Historia Naturalis, Book V (about the Essenes and Nazerini / Nosairis)

Works sometimes mistakenly ascribed to 1st or 2nd c. authors' writings or to describing Christians:
Scholars consider the Christian version of the Apocalypse of Elijah to be a 3rd-4th c. AD work that is a revision of an earlier nonChristian work. I couldn't find any scholars proposing that the 1st-2nd c. AD document was Christian.
Scholars consider the Correspondence between Seneca and Paul to be a forgery as its first mentioned in the 4th century.
Slavonic Josephus (c.10th-11th c.) is likely not from an Aramaic original, since as Boris Derevensky points out in "Иисус Христос в документах истории" (Jesus Christ in the Documents of History), many words in it are taken without translation from Greek.
On Hades, ascribed sometimes to Josephus, was more likely written by Pope Hippolytus (170-235 AD).
Philo's essay on the Therapeutae probably doesn't describe a specifically Christian community.
Secret Mark was likely forged by Morton Smith in 1958, possibly based on The Mystery of Mar Saba, Anglo-Saxon Attitudes, the forging of Ignatius' Epistles, Morton's own earlier published studies (on homosexuality, forbidden and secret rituals, Clement, and the mystery of the kingdom), etc.

[alon]

Jan 20, 2019 19:34:34 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Hello! Shalom!

I read all the potential first century Christian writings that I could find, and in the course of the reading, questions arose for me, especially about things that I didn't understand. The Messianic forum could offer a special opportunity to discuss them, because it has a section for discussing the "Apocrypha". Some of these early writings are specifically attributed to -observant groups and individuals, like the Gospel of the Nazarenes and the Antiquities of the Jews, by Josephus. Others like 4 Esdras and the Lives of the Prophets are written in a theme resembling the "Old Testament Apocrypha". There was a genre of early Christian writing that was specially dedicated to "Old Testament" figures and events. This was a period in history when, although long after the writing of the Tanakh, the traditions about the ancient Hebrew prophets were still being written down (eg. in the Talmud and Targums).

There were many literary traditions from that 400 yr period between the OT and NT. The apocalyptic tradition, for instance focused on the end times, and a sort of sub-set of this was the throne tradition, which was obsessed with the throne of the Almighty and the heavenly court. Revelation is taken from the apocalyptic tradition, and most of it is either quotes or a reorganization of different writings from this style dating up to 300 yrs before Yeshua. This shocks most Christians to unbelief, but i always tell them "Imagine you are a 1st cen Jew living in Asia Minor. Here comes this guy with a letter, and it is the Revelation of John. Now, if you had never heard anything like this before you'd be a bit incredulous; maybe even accusing him of smoking the hemp ropes on the ship coming across! So it isn't that unbelievable that there were similar books out there. Besides, if the fact they found similar documents in a cave at Qumran can destroy your faith, you have more problems than just acknowledging some similar documents!"

rakovsky said: In this regard, it's worth noting that observance was common in the first century Church (by which I mean the Christian community under the apostles, their "elders" and "bishops"). In the Council of Jerusalem (in Acts), James and the other leaders decided that gentiles wouldn't have to get circumcised in order to be part of the Christian community. One could infer though from this decision that Jewish Christians on the other hand were still following the ritual rules of observance. Besides that, the 4th century writer Ambrosiaster wrote about the early Christian period in Rome: “It is established that there were Jews living in Rome in the times of the apostles, and that those Jews who had believed [in Christ] passed on to the Romans the tradition that they ought to profess Christ but keep the law … One ought not to condemn the Romans, but to praise their faith; because without seeing any signs or miracles and without seeing any apostles, they nevertheless accepted faith in Christ.”

It wasn't just common, it was the norm. 1st cen believers were all Jews and people either converted to or in the process of being converted to the Jewish sect of the Nazarenes. They worshiped in synagogues, not churches. And the 1st church father, Marcion (later excomunicated) wasn't even born until the late 1st century. The sect of the Nazarenes, according to the writings of the church fathers themselves, flourished as a observant faith for centuries completely apart from the church. Ambrosiaster was correct in his quote there.

rakovsky said: There are different reasons for how and why strong adherents of ritual observance decreased over time in the Christian community, and my goal on the forum isn't to argue for or against it (I'm Eastern Orthodox myself). On one hand, Jewish traditions, features, and ritual aspects never totally disappeared from the Orthodox Church's traditions. For example, an Orthodox church building has features carries over from both Jerusalem's Temple and the synagogues, such as an altar table, a seven branched candle, and a bishop's seat (like how synagogues had a seat for Moses). And on the other hand, it seems to me that Yeshua and the apostles seemed to be less strict about ritual observance than the rabbis and pharisees. Take for example the debate in Matthew 15 between Jesus and the pharisees over the rabbinical handwashing ritual found in the Oral (I posted about it here: theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/4380/why-pursuing-?page=1&scrollTo=23921). Or consider the vision in Acts 10 that Peter has where he is shown a collection of animals and instructed: "Eat". The sense seems to be that the Lord is telling Peter that he should eat the previously-forbidden animals.

While the EO Church is not as far off as some, like the RC Church, they still have abandoned observance. And there is one overriding reason for this: the church fathers were almost to a man pagan, anti-Semitic, and determined to distance every aspect of their new religion as much as possible from Judaism. I'd give you the quotes for all this, but there are other threads dealing with this and you are putting up a lot of stuff right now, so I don't have the time to go into my notes and find them.

Yeshua was not only a Pharisee, but Himself a rabbi, and one who'd underwent smicha, or ordination. That meant He was a learned Rabbi who had His own following and who could make halachic rulings, setting halacha for His followers and making judgements whether things were in accordance with that path; that way of walking out their faith. He used many of the rabbinical techniques when He taught. Do a search for Yelamendu here. Yeshua was strict about observing , but not about making a lot of extra rules and fences. The Hebrew slang term for following a particular Rabbi was to take his yke upon yourself. To be obseervant was to take the yoke of . When Yeshua said His yoke was leasy, He meant easy to understand. Not so may extra rules you couldn't remember them all, let alone keep hem. This is one of the things the Jews expected of Messiah when He came: He would better explain and simplify . Yeshua fit that description to a T. 

rakovsky said: Someday I would also like to visit a Messianic synagogue. The New Testament records Yeshua and the apostles praying in the Temple and synagogues, and it would be nice to see how that style of service would look when matched with Christian worship.

Messianic Judaism is not at all cohesive or homogenous. First off, you have to be careful, as theree is a lot of wierdness out there trying to fly our flag. But they are not MJ. Some are cults, others just idiots. Being a relatively new movement, there are few really qualified Mssianic Rabbis. Some really try, and are learning as they go. Others are just "Baptists with tallits." The parent synagogue has live streaming of their service every Shabbat. It can go over 3 hrs, and follows a more traditional Jewish format. my synagogue has a more relaxed format which I find more comfortable. Our services typically go 2, maybe 2 1/2 hrs. But my rabbi was raised in Jerusalem, literally at the feet of the founders of the Messianic movement. So the teachings at times can be incredible! 

akovsky said: Here I am listing all the potential 1st century writings on Christianity that I could find, which I categorized based on which groups might have authored them. First I listed dates that some scholars gave. After the title, I put the way that the institutional Church looked at it over time. These dates and descriptions are my notes and rough estimates. Feel free to disagree or give your own input for corrections or improvement.

Lists are great, but you have to be careful with hem. nd never get too hung up on a list- just my .02.

Much of what you list as Extra-canonical, Deuterocanonical is not. The Didache, for example is a proven pseudpigraphical work, claiming to be from an earlier time than it actually was. And I know of no groups that accept the documents listed as Messianic Jewish. Also you mentioned the Ebionites in one group. They are not Messianic, though the contemporary Ebionites try to claim to be. But he Ebionites split off from the Nazarenes in the late 1st cen. The main point of contention was they did not believe in the deity of Yeshua. That is still our main difference even today. There are many kinds of contemporary Ebionites, but all deny Yeshua as God, at least in any eternal sense. Any true Messianic does hold to the deity of Yeshua from infinity past and future. Period. If they want to argue that point with you, be like Monty Python's k'niggets and "run away!"

Dan C

[rakovsky]

Dan!
Thanks for your thoughtful reply! You might want to delete the second half of your post that started with my words "In this regard, it's worth noting that..." and copied my own words.
The idea about a yoke from a rabbit vs. Jesus' "yoke" was a good example of Messianic insights from you.
I know what you mean about the need for discernment in the Messianic movement. There were a pair of speakers, Michael Rood and Nehemiah Gordon, who were giving talks and outreach to the Messianic community with the inner goal of getting them to convert to their own group that didn't consider Yeshua to be the Messiah.
As for the Ebionites, I read in one Church father that they (I don't mean the Nazarenes) were really divided as a group, with one part of them accepting Jesus' divinity and another part having very heretical theology. I would have to review the quote.

[alon]

Jan 20, 2019 21:15:49 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Dan!
Thanks for your thoughtful reply! You might want to delete the second half of your post that started with my words "In this regard, it's worth noting that..." and copied my own words.
The idea about a yoke from a rabbit vs. Jesus' "yoke" was a good example of Messianic insights from you.
I know what you mean about the need for discernment in the Messianic movement. There were a pair of speakers, Michael Rood and Nehemiah Gordon, who were giving talks and outreach to the Messianic community with the inner goal of getting them to convert to their own group that didn't consider Yeshua to be the Messiah.
As for the Ebionites, I read in one Church father that they (I don't mean the Nazarenes) were really divided as a group, with one part of them accepting Jesus' divinity and another part having very heretical theology. I would have to review the quote.

Done. Thanks.

rakovsky said: The idea about a yoke from a rabbit vs. Jesus' "yoke" was a good example of Messianic insights from you.
I know what you mean about the need for discernment in the Messianic movement. There were a pair of speakers, Michael Rood and Nehemiah Gordon, who were giving talks and outreach to the Messianic community with the inner goal of getting them to convert to their own group that didn't consider Yeshua to be the Messiah.
As for the Ebionites, I read in one Church father that they (I don't mean the Nazarenes) were really divided as a group, with one part of them accepting Jesus' divinity and another part having very heretical theology. I would have to review the quote.

You have ht on 2 very popular Messianic frauds. Especially Rood- the guy is a clown. He is the darling of the Sacred Names folks though.

The division you speak of is probably when the Ebionites split off from the sect of the Nazarenes. The eternal deity of Yeshua was the biggest bone of contention. But they fractured again, some believing Yeshua was just a man created to be the perfect sacrifice, others that He was God but He was created at the earthly conception. Today Ebionism takes on many forms. I was told by one of my own homegrown Ebionim that Yeshua was created when God created light. They are a strange bunchoften coexisting with other heresies as well.

Dan C

[alon]

OI have a little time now. Here are some of the quotes indicating both the church fathers attitudes towards the Nazarene sect of the apostles and the fact that they existed completely apart from the church for centuries as observant Jews:

(Epiphanius, AD 370, Panarion 29) "But these sectarians... did not call themselves Christians-but "Nazarenes," ... However they are simply complete Jews. They use not only the New Testament but the Old Testament as well, as the Jews do… They have no different ideas, but confess everything exactly as the Law proclaims it and in the Jewish fashion-- except for their belief in Messiah, if you please! For they acknowledge both the resurrection of the dead and the divine creation of all things, and declare that G-d is one, and that his son is Yeshua the Messiah. They are trained to a nicety in Hebrew. For among them the entire Law, the Prophets, and the... Writings... are read in Hebrew, as they surely are by the Jews. They are different from the Jews, and different from Christians, only in the following. They disagree with Jews because they have come to faith in Messiah; but since they are still fettered by the Law -- circumcision, the Sabbath, and the rest-- they are not in accord with Christians...they are nothing but Jews… They have the Good News according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this, in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written.”

"We shall now especially consider heretics who... call themselves Nazarenes; they are mainly Jews and nothing else. They make use not only of the New Testament, but they also use in a way the Old Testament of the Jews; for they do not forbid the books of the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings..., and they profess all the dogmas pertaining to the prescriptions of the Law and to the customs of the Jews, except they believe in [Messiah] ... They differ from the Jews because they believe in Messiah, and from the Christians in that they are to this day bound to the Jewish rites, such as circumcision, the Sabbath, and other ceremonies."

“They are trained to a nicety in Hebrew. For among them the entire Law, the Prophets, and the... Writings... are read in Hebrew, as they surely are by the Jews. They are different from the Jews, and different from Christians, only in the following. They disagree with Jews because they have come to faith in Messiah; but since they are still fettered by the Law-circumcision, the Sabbath, and the rest- they are not in accord with Christians.... they are nothing but Jews.... They have the Good News according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this, in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written.” (Epiphanius; Panarion 29)

Interesting he also admits that at least Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. 

There is little historical documentation of the Nazarenes, and quite often the church in their ignorance mixed up the Nazarenes, Ebionites, and Passagini so that history is muddied and unreliable. However in 1966 Schlomo Pines published discovery of an Arabic treatise written around the year 1000, with a Jewish Christian (Nazarene) source. The source reflects traditions and opinions of a Jewish Christian group,  probably identical with the Nazarenes. It contained documents going back to the origins of the Nazarene sect, which Pines confuses with Christianity. Christianity did not exist at the origins of this sect, and never mixed with it in the centuries after. Pines stated:

"The text appears to be of purely Jewish Christian origin and seems to relate some of the traditions of the sect. These traditions bear in part on the history of Christianity in the first century (and perhaps in the first half of the second) and do not appear to derive from a tradition which gives the point of view of the dominant churches. In other words, there is a fair chance that this text which may have been written in the fifth century or later represents an independent, otherwise quite unknown tradition concerning some events which occurred in the earliest Christian community; this tradition, however distorted it may have been in the course of transmission, could conceivably go back in parts to the first period of Christianity" (Shlomo Pines, Jewish Christians According to a New Source, Jerusalem, 1966, p. 21).

So we don't really know how long the Nazarene sect existed. But we do know it existed as a Jewish sect which believed in Yeshua as God and which existed completely apart from the church for several centuries. 

Dan C

[rakovsky]

In the OP, I highlighted in Bold the Writings that I made threads for on the forum.