2.b. Identifying "The Weak" Brethren and Their Doctrine
Perhaps you're in doubt that Jesus is opposed to Paul's doctrine. Perhaps you don't believe Jesus himself abstained from meat at all but ate "clean meat." In this subsection, we will establish beyond shadow of doubt that "the weak" brethren Paul speaks against are the Apostles, James, and Jesus, and converting Gentiles who sided with them. In what's called The Clementine Homilies, which are Clement's record of what the Apostle Peter taught, we are introduced to a Peter who is virtually unknown to modern Christians. But many scholars have agreed that the documents are authentic. Here I want to quote at length from an article titled "Hermann Detering on The Clementines" by Doug DelTondo of Jesus' Words Only.
Many scholars concur that "Simon Magus" in the Ebionite influenced works such as the Clementine Homilies (sometimes misleadingly referred to as the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies) represents a name-replacement for Paul. The purpose was to protect Paul from embarrassment of what the Clementines in the early church recorded as part of the history of Paul.
The Berlin Pastor, Hermann Detering (born 1953), believes these works are actually historical accounts of the life of Paul. And thus, it demonstrates Peter went to Rome not to work with Paul so much as to confront him. As the Wikipedia article on "Hermann Detering" explains:
"Many scholars, since Ferdinand Christian Baur in the 19th Century, have concluded that the attacks on "Simon Magus" in the 4th Century Pseudo-Clementines may be attacks on Paul. Detering takes the attacks of the Pseudo-Clementines as literal and historical, and suggests that the attacks of the Pseudo-Clementines are correct in making "Simon Magus" a proxy for Paul of Tarsus,[3] with Paul originally having been detested by the church, and the name changed when Paul was rehabilitated by virtue of forged Epistles correcting the genuine ones.[4]"
Detering's argument expands beyond the Clementines to include other apocrypha, arguing that Simon Magus is sometimes described in apocryphal legends in terms that would fit Paul, though most significantly does so in the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies. [...] Thus, according to Detering, the idea of Peter at Rome really originated with the Ebionites, but it was afterwards taken up by the Catholic Church, and then Paul was associated with Peter in opposition to Simon, who had originally been Paul himself. Rufinis created a revised Clementine to allow for such myth and hero worship to turn toward Paul.
They are considered a "pseudo" work because of changes made by Rufinis, but scholars conclude they're authentic with changes being made to remake Paul's image. What do these documents offer for us in light of this discussion? That Peter was rebuking Paul. Here are quotes from the document related to the specific topics at hand:
Homily 2
Chapter 37:
“He who has taught us that God desires neither sacrifices, nor burnt-offerings, nor oblations, nor blood, nor death, nor slaughter, but pure and upright conduct, has taught us wisdom.”
Homily 3
Chapter 18:
“But God is not pleased with the sacrifices of the law. For the sacrifices are flesh, and the offering of these is the consumption of the body and the destruction of the soul.”
Chapter 26:
“They think that they sacrifice to God those victims which He neither needs nor wishes, slaying His dumb creatures, to the torment of their souls and the defilement of their flesh.”
“For in the beginning, eating meat was not ordained; for in the Paradise of delight, there was no slaughter of animals, nor eating of flesh, but only the fruits of trees.”
Chapter 30:
“Return, then, to God’s command, as it was in the beginning: eat only the fruits of the earth and the produce of trees.”
Chapter 45:
“God does not require sacrifices; neither has He pleasure in whole burnt offerings, nor in sacrifices, nor in fat of lambs, nor the blood of bulls and goats, nor in any sacrifice of irrational animals, but in faith and a pure heart, and a good life, and righteousness with love.”
“From the beginning, sacrifices were not ordained by God, nor were drinking and eating of flesh. But they were instituted by unrighteous men, under the influence of demons.”
“God does not command what is vile; for to slay a sheep is like slaying a man, and to sacrifice an ox is like killing a human being.”
Chapter 52:
“Do not suppose, my brothers, that God is pleased with sacrifices; nor with burnt-offerings, nor with blood, nor with the sweet savor of flesh, nor with the fragrant smell of frankincense, nor with flowers and garlands.”
Chapter 58:
“Sacrifices are not pleasing to God, but the putting away of sin and righteousness are His delight.”
Homily 7
Chapter 3:
“God, when He had created man, did not permit him to eat flesh, but only of every seed-bearing plant, and of all fruits of trees that do not yield milk or blood, He has appointed them as food.”
“The unnatural eating of flesh is of demonic origin, introduced by those who were strangers to the true worship of God.”
Chapter 4:
“Wherefore I say unto you, If you eat dead flesh, you become the fellow-workers with them that prepared it, and are polluted with blood, and are filled with foul odors, and are weighed down with fat. And you eat what is unclean, and take part with the murderer of animals.”
“Sacrifices are not of God’s appointment. For the true prophet has testified that God desires mercy and not sacrifice; for He taught men to worship Him, not by the slaughter of animals, but by pure prayer and good works.”
“God desires no blood, nor fat, nor smoke, nor sacrifices, nor drink-offerings, but righteousness, purity, and truth.”
Chapter 6:
“Blessed are those who abstain from all bloodshed and show mercy, for they shall obtain mercy from God.”
Chapter 8:
“The unnatural eating of flesh-meats is as polluting as the heathen worship of devils, with its sacrifices and its impure feasts, through participation in which a man becomes a fellow-eater with devils.”
Homily 8
Chapter 6:
“The law of God commands you not to kill; and why does it command this, but that you may not do to man what you do to sheep and oxen? For if you kill a sheep, you have brought it to death.”
“What madness is this, to suppose that God delights in the slaughter of cattle, and in the presentation of blood as a drink-offering to Him?”
Chapter 15:
“The true prophet of the true God has forbidden the eating of flesh and the drinking of wine, for it is not necessary for a righteous life. For much wine is harmful, and flesh makes the soul dull.”
“But eating of flesh meats and drinking of wine He has neither ordained nor blessed, for no righteous man among those who were before us ever used them.”
“Neither did He require of them sacrifices for sin, for the whole of such ordinance is given for the hardness of the hearts of the people.”
Chapter 16:
“Flesh-eating fills men with lust, cruelty, and hardness of heart, making them unfit for the service of God.”
Homily 9
Chapter 8:
“For in the beginning God did not make the use of flesh necessary for men, but gave them the produce of the earth.”
Chapter 14:
“The fruits of the trees, and seeds, and vegetables are appointed for food; but flesh is not permitted, except to the irrational animals and birds.”
Critics will object and cite the places where Jesus "serves and eats fish." Let's consider their claim. In addition to The Homilies and Acts of the Nazarenes, we have additional gospels that testify to these notions that were held by the Ebionites/ Nazarenes. From the Ebionite Gospel, Dead Sea Scrolls, we find these sayings attributed to Jesus:
Fragment Six
1. "I have come to abolish the sacrifices."
2. “If you don’t stop sacrificing, the suffering won’t stop weighing upon you.”
Fragment Seven
1. “Where do you want us to prepare for you to eat for the Passover?”
2. To this, he replied, “I do not want to eat the flesh of this Paschal Lamb with you.”
Likewise, this saying is attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas: "(87) Jesus said: Wretched is the body which depends upon a body, and wretched is the soul which depends on these two." Despite whatever issue(s) one might take with these documents (especially Thomas’), these sayings stand as more witnesses to the surmounting evidence we’ve seen already. There are more witnesses verifying my claims than Paul has witnesses for his claim of "seeing Jesus." Whatever corruptions have entered Thomas’ text or the others (thanks to Rufinis), we should understand that no text that we've seen so far in the entire paper has been without corruptions! I say again, the overwhelming evidence supports a vegetarian society of disciples who followed a vegan/ vegetarian Rabbi, Jesus the Messiah.
In Matthew 14:16-21 and 16:6-12 respectively, we read,
And Jesus said to them, `They have no need to go away -- give ye them to eat.' And they say to him, `We have not here except five loaves, and two fishes.' And he said, `Bring ye them to me hither.' And having commanded the multitudes to recline upon the grass, and having taken the five loaves and the two fishes, having looked up to the heaven, he did bless, and having broken, he gave the loaves to the disciples, and the disciples to the multitudes, and they did all eat, and were filled, and they took up what was over of the broken pieces twelve hand-baskets full; and those eating were about five thousand men, apart from women and children.
and Jesus said to them, `Beware, and take heed of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees;' and they were reasoning in themselves, saying, `Because we took no loaves.' And Jesus having known, said to them, `Why reason ye in yourselves, ye of little faith, because ye took no loaves? do ye not yet understand, nor remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many hand-baskets ye took up? nor the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? how do ye not understand that I did not speak to you of bread -- to take heed of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees?' Then they understood that he did not say to take heed of the leaven of the bread, but of the teaching, of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
It's clear that in Matthew 14 Jesus receives loaves and fishes, but the language doesn't suggest the fish were distributed because the text doesn't say they were multiplied or distributed. Rather, "he did bless, and having broken, he gave the loaves to the disciples, and the disciples to the multitudes, and they did all eat." A careful reading leads us to the conclusion that, though he might've received the fish, he didn't distribute them--and why would he, given that he was a vegetarian Essene? Proof of this comes two chapters later when Jesus says, "Do ye not yet understand, nor remember the five loaves of the four thousand [...] nor the seven loaves of the four thousand [...]" Why didn't Jesus frame the question with the fish? In the context, the issue concerns "leaven" being used as a metaphore--leaven of bread, not fish. Either he actually received the dead fish but chose not to multiply and distribute dead carcasses, or the fish were inserted later into the text. This could be a potential, considering "fish" are absent in the later discussion between him and Apostles, suggesting the redactor forgot or neglected to be consistent. Either way, you won't have an Essene feeding others, or themselves, meat. In anticipation of more gainsaying, I'll quote a section from a Q&A found on the All-Creatures website. Brother John Vijucic makes several reasonable observations for the questioner:
In John’s version even though reference is indirectly made to Jesus’s breaking of the fishes, nevertheless the twelve baskets contained only the broken pieces of five loaves. It is therefore evident to me that Jesus used only five loaves to feed the people and the reference to the fishes is a later interpolation.
What's obvious from my analysis and John's analysis, as well as others', is that the text must be carefully read in order to prevent bias. The bias in this case is "meat is food," which is based on the assumptions that Jesus ate meat like everyone else and that the text hasn't been altered to support that idea. The surmounting evidence so far suggests that the Jesus movement didn't eat meat but that later interpolations were added to suggest they did.
Here are two additional accounts of the diet of the Apostles as well as Jesus' own family member, James:
NazActs 7:6 [Apostle Peter] "But maybe, although you live with me, you do not know my manner of life. I live on bread alone, with olives, and seldom even with pot-herbs; and my dress is what you see, a tunic with a tallit: and having these, I require nothing more. This is sufficient for me, because my mind does not regard things present, but things ageless, and therefore no present and visible thing delights me. For we—that is, I and my brother Andrew—have grown up from our childhood not only orphans, but also extremely poor, and through necessity have become used to labor, whence now also we easily bear the fatigues of our journeyings."
Hegesippuss’ Fragments from Five Books of Commentaries on the Acts of the Church, Book V: "James, the Lord’s brother, succeeds to the government of the church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother’s womb. He drank no wine or other intoxicating liquor, nor did he eat flesh; no razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, nor make use of the [public] bath. He alone was permitted to enter the holy place: for he did not wear any woollen garment, but fine linen only."
We see from these It isn't likely that if James had that lifestyle that Jesus wouldn't have. They grew up in the same household. Peter, likewise, is passionately opposed to meat consumption throughout the Homilies. These extant sources help provide missing background to the issue unfolding in Acts.