Early Church Views on Paul

1. Ebionites -- The First Christians

The earliest Christians were commonly called Ebionites,
meaning "the Poor."
In G. Uhlhorn, "Ebionites," A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical,
Doctrinal, and Practical Theology (3rd ed.) (edited by Philip Schaff) Vol. II at pages 684–685
[see PDF at this link], we read:
Ebionites. This designation was at first like 'Nazarenes,' a common name for all
Christians, as Epiphanius (d. 403) testifies (Adv. Har. xxix.1) It is derived from the
Hebrew Ebion, "poor," and was not given, as Origen supposes, for their low view of
Christ. Id. at 684.
Over one hundred years later, in about 180 AD, Irenaeus -- a Bishop from Gaul (now known
as France) -- clearly describes those who persisted in the designation as Ebionites rejected
Paul and followed the Law, relying upon Matthew's Gospel. In Against the Heresies, 1.26
Irenaeus says:
"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 endeavor to expound them
in a somewhat singular manner: they practice 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." (Against Heresies 1.26.)
This is comparable to Eusebius who in 325 AD wrote in Ecclesiastical History 3.27:
"These men, moreover, thought that it was necessary
to reject all the epistles of the apostle [Paul], whom they
called an apostate from the law; and they used only the so-
called Gospel according to the Hebrews and made small
account of the rest."
Eusebius thus acknowledges the Ebionites used more than just Matthew's Gospel,
yet similarly to Irenaeus, Eusebius said they emphasized Matthew's Gospel.
Thus, Professor James Dunn notes the original Jewish core of the church regarded
Paul as an apostate: “The most direct heirs of the Jewish-Christian groupings
within earliest Christianity [i.e., the early Jerusalem church] regarded Paul as the
great apostate, an arch enemy,” citing Epistula Petri 2.3; Clem. Hom. 17:18-
19. (James D. G. Dunn, The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul (Cambridge University
Press, 2003) at 2.)
2. Surprisingly Negative on Close Exam: Luke in Acts
Circa 80 A.D.
Most Christians have been trained to assume Luke is only praising Paul in Acts.
However, there is so much damaging information about Paul in Acts when read
carefully, many scholars (e.g., John Knox) now see an anti-Paul agenda to Luke's
work. Knox believes that Luke intended Acts to bring Paul down a notch to
undermine Marcion's Paul-only movement of 144 A.D. See John
Knox, Marcion and the New Testament: An Essay in the Early History of the
Canon (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942) at 114-39. On Marcionism,
see our webpage summarizing it.
However, I prefer to think of it as objectivity. Clearly Luke gave much evidence in
Paul's favor as well as much harmful information on Paul's legitimacy.
A. Luke Negative On Paul's Apostleship Coming From Jesus
Christ
For example, while Paul claimed Jesus appointed himself (Paul) an apostle of Jesus
Christ, in none of the three vision accounts - evidently which Luke heard from
Paul and recorded in Acts 9, 22 and 26 -- does Luke identify Jesus making Paul
His apostle. The Jesus of Damascus per Ananias appoints Paul solely as a
"witness" -- a martus in Greek. The Jesus of Damascus never says that Paul will be
His apostle.
Also in Acts 1, Luke says Judas's replacement as an apostle is Matthias, not Paul.
As a result, scholars note that in "Acts...Paul is denied the title of Apostle." (Martin
Hengel, Anna M. Schwemer, Paul between Damascus and Antioch: the unknown
years (Westminster John Knox Press, 1997) at 321 n. 3.) For more on this, see our
article "Was Paul A True Apostle of Jesus Christ?"
B. Luke Exposes Paul's Disobedience to Holy Spirit Which
Led To Temple's Desecration
Furthermore, we discuss elsewhere that Luke records in Acts 21:28-29; 24:6, 13,
18; and 25:7-8 that the post-conversion Paul defied the message of the Holy Spirit
through Agabus & other believers not to go to Jerusalem (Acts 21:4). As a result,
on that trip Paul's Gentile companion, Trophimus, ends up defiling the Temple.
Trophimus became an uncircumcised Gentile in the Holy Place. Luke records,
although few seek to emphasize this fact, that Trophimus, an Ephesian passed the
middle wall that kept uncircumcised Gentiles out of a specific area of the Temple.
Trophimus, an Ephesian, obviously trusted Paul who wrote to the Ephesians that
Christ tore down that same barrier at the Temple and now uncircumcised Gentiles
were implicitly free to enter. See Eph. 2:14-15. See our in depth discussion about
Trophimus' actions at this link.
Jesus, to the contrary, taught in 33 A.D. that Ezekiel's warning that an
uncircumcised Gentile in the Temple was an "abomination" (Ez. 44:9) was still a
valid principle because Jesus said Daniel's prophecy of an abomination standing in
the Temple was still in the future tense. (Matt. 24:15-16.)
This means Luke exposes to us that Paul was responsible in a spiritual sense for an
abomination of the Temple of God in 58 A.D. Paul told Ephesians like Trophimus
that the middle barrier no longer applied after Christ's resurrection. But Jesus
warned the abomination of desolation -- an uncircumcised Gentile standing in the
Holy Place as Daniel identified it -- was coming. This means had Paul truly known
of Jesus's message, and was obedient to the Holy Spirit, Paul never would have
uttered the words we read in Eph. 2:14-15 or gone to the Temple at Jerusalem
when God told Paul through the prophet Agabus and other believers by the Holy
Spirit not to do so. (Acts 21:4.) Paul disobeyed God, as Luke reveals, and the result
of Paul's disobedience is that his travelling companion -- Trophimus -- defiled
God's Temple.
Luke in fairness to Paul points out that Paul denied he escorted Trophimus into the
sacred area, but that was little consolation to soften the bigger fact which Luke
exposes -- Paul defied God's own instructions to Paul not to go to
Jerusalem (Acts 21:4) on a trip that ended up in Paul's traveling companion
defiling the Temple.
Hence, Luke was giving us a fair portrait of Paul -- giving the good along with
the very bad.
3. Early Church Leaders Who Do Not Even Know of
Paul's Works
"Justin [103-65 A.D.] took no notice of Paul...." (Encyclopedia Biblica.) In Justin
"Paul...is never quoted directly." (John Romanides, "Justin Martyr and the 4th
Gospel," Greek Orthodox Theological Review (1958) Vol. IV at 115 et seq.)
"Isidor Frank in his Der Sinn Kanonbildung (1971) argues that the 'Memoirs of the
Apostles' are regarded by Justin and his community as 'auf einer Stufe' with the Old
Testament. According to Frank, Justin definitely includes the three synoptic
gospels within his designation of Memoirs but not John orPaul....Justin represents
a reversal of the trend in the second century church of regarding apostolic writings
[i.e., letters] as canon." (Charles H. Cosgrove, "Justin Martyr and the Emerging
Christian Canon," Vigiliae Christianae 36 (1982) 209-232 Brill Leiden, excerpted
at this Jstor link.)
When Justin speaks of the apostles operating post-resurrection, Justin is clear God
sent "twelve," not "thirteen" which means he implicitly ignores Paul. (Justin, First
Apology XLIX at 47.)
Proof this may be deliberate is that Justin later in the same First Apology denies
Christians believe in "predestination," and "fatal destiny," (LIV) because the
"prophetic Spirit instructed us in the doctrine of free-will by Moses, who introduces
God speaking to man: 'Behold good and evil is before you; choose the good.'"
(First Apology LVI, quoting Deut. 30:15,19. See Link at page 51.)
And quite importantly, based upon Justin's many books, one may wonder if Paul's
epistles were truly circulating among leaders of the church, as Justin clearly was.
For Edwin Johnson in 1887 noted:
"His [Justin Martyr, St. c. 100 - c. 165 C.E.] silence about Paul, when he had every
reason to cite him in his anti-Judaistic reasonings, is a silence that speaks--a void
that no iteration of unattested statements, no nebulous declamation, can ever fill."
(Edwin Johnson [1842-1901] Antiqua Mater: A Study of Christian
Origins (London: Trubner & Co., Ludgate Hill, 1887) at 35.)
Papias (a disciple of Apostle John) from 130 A.D. too never once quotes Paul. See
JWO: 326.
Ironically most of all, the one person who should know of Paul's letters, but appears
to know nothing of them is Luke himself.
The fact Luke's Acts and Gospel show virtually no knowledge of Paul's epistles,
and says nothing in either to help their acceptance was first exposed by theologian
F.C. Bauer. Recently, Hengel and Schwemer, Paul: Between Antioch and
Damascus, supra, at 322 says "since F.C. Bauer and his pupils, there has been no
evidence that knowledge of Paul's letters by Luke can be demonstrated." Further,
no use was made by them by anyone else until after 100 AD, beginning with
Clement. Hengel and Schwemer add: "When Luke was writing, Paul's letters may
have been in the archives of one community or another. The use of them begins
only with I Clement or shortly after 100 CE....They will have been collected and
edited around this time" while Luke wrote "twenty years earlier." Id.
For example, Luke never conveys any of Paul's doctrines against the Law, of
salvation by faith alone, eternal security, etc. Luke knows only a Paul who obeys
the Law when requested by James in Acts 21, of one who affirms he believes in "all
points according to the Law" in testimony before Felix, etc. For a full discussion,
see our article Luke's Gospel is a Non-Pauline Gospel.
3B. Apocalypse of Peter - ca 100 AD
This was listed as canonical in the very first list of works in canon ... the
Muratorian fragment from the early 200s. Wikipedia records: "The Muratorian
fragment states: 'the Apocalypses also of John and Peter only do we receive, which
some among us would not have read in church.'" ("Apocalypse of Peter,"
Wikipedia.)
It has a reference that clearly is aimed at Paul, as it repeats the common criticisms
about Paul. See "Apocalypse of Peter," Wikipedia. The Apocalypse quotes Jesus
saying:
"And they will cleave to the name of a dead man, thinking that they will become
pure. But they will become greatly defiled and they will fall into a name of error,
and into the hand of an evil, cunning man and a manifold dogma, and they will be
ruled without law."
Then consider it is actually possible it was truly canon and removed, for the early
history would support this. As Wikipedia records:
Clement of Alexandria appears to have considered the Apocalypse of Peter to be
holy scripture. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiae (VI.14.1), describes a lost work of
Clement's, the Hypotyposes (Outlines), that gave "abridged accounts of all the
canonical Scriptures, not even omitting those that are disputed, I mean the book
of Jude and the other general epistles. Also the Epistle of Barnabas and that called
the Revelation of Peter."[10] So the work must have existed in the first half of the
2nd century, which is also the commonly accepted date of the canonic Second
Epistle of Peter.[11] Although the numerous references to it attest to its being once
 in wide circulation, the Apocalypse of Peter was ultimately not accepted into
the Christian canon.

4. Early Church View of the Law

Elsewhere, we discuss the early church endorsed following the Law and Prophets,
as Jesus taught in Matthew 5:17-19. See this link. The predominant position was to
regard anyone who denied this as a heretic which means that anyone familiar with
Paul knew these statements placed Paul outside mainstream Christianity. One
scholar, Oskar Skarsaune, in “Heresy and the Pastoral Epistles,” Themelios 20.1
(October 1994): 9-14 at 10notes that
a passage in the Syrian Didascalia Apostolorum [from the 200s], defining heresy
[states]:
"[The heretics] all had one law, that they
* should not employ the Torah and the Prophets,
* and that they should blaspheme God Almighty,
* and should not believe in the resurrection." (Citing 5 Didasc. 23 (VI:10), quoted
according to R. Hugh Connolly, Didascalia Apostolorum (Oxford, 1929 (=1969))
at 202.)
While at first one might suppose only the first prong of what was heresy in the
early church applied to Paul, that is not necessarily true.
First, let us look at the last -- "not believe in the resurrection." Paul was interpreted
by the Gnostics in the 200s as teaching we were already raised in Christ by
baptism, but that "flesh shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (Paul writing the
Corinthians -- implying there was no physical resurrection.) (This is where Paul
ends up contradicting himself because he also teaches a bodily resurrection. See our
"Contradictions with Jesus" at end where we discuss Paul's self-contradictions.)
Hence, the Didascalia was identifying as heresy what many thought Paul taught
(justified by Paul's own words). Of course, the rebuttal was to find words in Paul
which talk of us 'meeting' Jesus in the clouds at His coming. It does not take away
from the fact Didascalia said it is heresy to say (as Paul was construed to say), that
there is no resurrection of the flesh to inherit the kingdom.
Finally, on the last prong of the three heresies identified by the Didaschalia, Paul
did blaspheme God - although I agree Paul did so inadvertently - when Paul said
"God does not live in Temples made with human hands." (See our article "Paul and
Blasphemy.") Paul meant to tell the Athenians that only their gods were false by
this principle. However, Paul's words extended further, and implied Yahweh whom
Jesus said lived in the Temple at Jerusalem was also a false god too by the same
principle that Paul gave the pagans. If God does not live in Temples made of
human hands, as Paul declared, then Yahweh was just as much a false god as any
of the other gods Paul was condemning. This would hence be blasphemy.
Hence, each of the 3 prongs of what identified a heretic in the 200s, recorded in
the Didascalia, applied to Paul or how Paul was or could be construed. This was
the period the church was fighting the Marcionites - Paul-only Christians. (See our
article, "The Marcionites.") Thus, it is not that surprising to see orthodoxy spelled
out in the Didaschalia in a way to undercut Marcionite arguments based upon
Paul's words. This therefore shows in the 200s how little regard the church had for
Paul and Paul's doctrine within the MAINSTREAM Church.
5. Ignatius, 58-90/117 AD
A subtle criticism of Paul's grace teaching appears in Ignatius.
Now note well those who hold heretical teachings about the grace of Jesus Christ
which came to us. Note how contrary they are to the mind of God. They have no
concern for love, none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the oppressed,
none for the prisoner or the one released, none for the hungry or thirsty. They
abstain from communion and prayer. (Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans 6:2, quoted
by Darrell L. Bock, The Missing Gospels (Nelson: Nashville Tennessee, 2006)
at 192.)
6. Tertullian, 207 A.D. - A Highly Critical Analysis
In 207 A.D., Tertullian in Against Marcion -- quoted at length in Jesus' Words
Only at 395 (see this link to read it in full) -- made the following sobering points
about Paul:

 Jesus never made Paul an apostle from the records that we can read.
 Paul's claim to apostleship solely relies upon Paul's veracity.
 If Paul were a true apostle, he is still an inferior apostle because Paul in Acts 15
submitted his doctrine to the twelve.
 If Paul later varied from the twelve, we must regard the twelve as more
authoritative than Paul because Paul came later.
 Paul's claim of being selected as an apostle later by Jesus seems implausible.
That story asks us to believe Jesus had not planned things adequately with the
twelve.
 Lastly, Tertullian said Jesus warned us of false prophets who would come doing
miracles in His name and signs and wonders, and Paul perfectly matches that
prophesied type of prophet.

The key quote with most of these points is the following passage from Tertullian --
written in 207 A.D. inAgainst Marcion:
I desire to hear from Marcion the origin of Paul the apostle. I am a sort of new
disciple, having had instruction from no other teacher. For the moment my only
belief is that nothing ought to be believed without good reason, and that is believed
without good reason which is believed without knowledge of its origin: and I must
with the best of reasons approach this inquiry with uneasiness when I find one
affirmed to be an apostle, of whom in the list of the apostles in the gospel I find
no trace. So when I am told that he [i.e., Paul] was subsequently promoted by our
Lord, by now at rest in heaven, I find some lack of foresight in the fact that Christ
did not know beforehand that he would have need of him, but after setting in
order the office of apostleship and sending them out upon their duties, considered it
necessary, on an impulse and not by deliberation, to add another, by compulsion so
to speak and not by design [i.e., on the Road to Damascus]. So then, shipmaster out
of Pontus [i.e., Marcion], supposing you have never accepted into your craft any
smuggled or illicit merchandise, have never appropriated or adulterated any cargo,
and in the things of God are even more careful and trustworthy, will you please tell
us under what bill of lading you accepted Paul as apostle, who had stamped him
with that mark of distinction, who commended him to you, and who put him in
your charge? Only so may you with confidence disembark him [i.e., Paul]: only so
can he avoid being proved to belong to him who has put in evidence all the
documents that attest his apostleship. He [i.e., Paul] himself, says Marcion, claims
to be an apostle, and that not from men nor through any man, but through Jesus
Christ. Clearly any man can make claims for himself: but his claim is confirmed by
another person’s attestation. One person writes the document, another signs it, a
third attests the signature, and a fourth enters it in the records. No man is for
himself both claimant and witness. Besides this, you have found it written that
many will come and say, I am Christ. If there is one that makes a false claim to be
Christ, much more can there be one who professes that he is an apostle of
Christ.... [L]et the apostle, belong to your other god:.... (Tertullian, Against
Marcion (Oxford University Press, 1972) at 509, 511, reprinted online
at http://www.tertullian.org/articles/evans_marc/ evans_marc_12book5_eng.htm.)
In fact, Tertullian in Adversus Marcion at 3:5 (Caput V) (others erroneously
cite 3:6:4) said Paul is the "apostle of the heretics." In Latin, he called Paul
"haereticorum apostolus." One commentator says this meant "the writings of
Paul --- the haereticorum apostolos of Tertullian --- were regarded suspiciously at
Rome." (Hans Lietzmann, The Lord's Supper (Brill: 1979) at 282.) Tertullian was
categorized as having "a scornful'haereticorum apostolus' on his lips..." toward
Paul (W.C. Van Manen in "Epistle to the Romans" Encylopedia Brittanica (N.Y.:
1903) Vol. IV at 4127)
Tertullian spoke with justification. Among the early gnostic heretics, their writings
refer to Paul as "the great (or greatest) apostle" and "Paul who has become like
Christ." (A. H. B. Logan, A. J. M. Wedderburn, New Testament and Gnosis (2004)
at 13.) Tertullian was correct: Paul was the "apostle of the heretics."
Incidentally, to downplay this "apostle of the heretics" designation, some have
suggested Tertullian meant to write "ethnicorum apostolus" meaning "apostle of
the gentiles." Editors, however, reject this solution as "unnecessary." See Ante-
Nicene Library at 126 fn 5. But I reject it because the context and views of
Tertullian prove Tertullian meant precisely what he said. Paul was the "apostle of
the heretics."
Also to hide "apostle of the heretics" in the Latin original, the English translations
mollify the words. In theAnte-Nicene Fathers by Schaff, it offers an English
translation which replaces this clear expression with these words instead: "When
the very apostle whom our heretics adopt . . ." (Id., at 324 col. 2.)
Not only is this incorrect, but also it is clear from context what Tertullian is saying.
Tertullian in context is saying that sometimes Scripture speaks figuratively and by
analogies. First, Tertullian cites some non-Paul passages to prove this. Finally,
Tertullian says in effect that even Paul (whom Marcion says is the sole apostle in
the NT) spoke often figuratively and in allegories. It is in that context, the key
words appear. And the correct translation perfectly fits. So Tertulian says:
"But why enlarge on the subject when the apostle of the heretics [i.e., Paul]
... alleges that the rock which followed (the Israelites) and supplied them with drink
was Christ; [and] teaching the Galatians...that the two narratives of the sons of
Abraham had an allegorical meaning in their course...." [i.e., Paul in Galatians ch.
4.] (Schaff, Ante-Nicene, etc. id., at 324 col. 2.)
Why the alterations in the English translation? To obscure from us the truth that
Paul was often perceived negatively and inferior to follow.
And this quote's fuller context proves that Tertullian's "scornful" appellation of
"apostle of the heretics" is aimed at Paul. For Tertullian is paraphrasing Paul from
Galatians, identifying the author of Galatians (i.e., Paul) as the "apostle of the
heretics." Of this there is no doubt, as Leitzman, Manen and Schaff in the quotes
above agreed. Hengel likewise concurs that it is a "fact that he [i.e., Paul] is called
haereticorum apostolus...." in Tertullian's Against Marcion at 3:6:4. (Martin
Hengel, Paul: Between Antioch and Damascus: The Unknown Years at 321.) (For
more on Tertullian's quote, see my reply to a critic's article "Was Paul The Apostle
of the Heretics?")
Now such a scornful appellation for Paul does not mean Tertullian did not often
treat Paul kindly when he found many edifying things in Paul's words or life. I also
endorse this approach toward Paul as proper and fair. Indeed, Paul's words are often
edifying, such as in his speech about love. But in the main, Paul's 'difficult to
understand words' (if we are polite like Second Peter) make Paul the "apostle of the
heretics," i.e., his words are a support to those who diverge from the true faith
which Jesus taught.

7. Elcesaites - Reject Paul

Ferdinand Bauer in Church History of the First Three Centuries (1879) Vol. 2
at 270 states:
Another characteristic trait preserved in Eusebius, E.H. 6:38, where he quotes from
a homily of Origen, on Psalm lxxxii, the doctrine of an Elcesaite, that he rejects the
apostle Paul.
The Elcesaites began at the time of Trajan at Rome. (Trajan was emperor 98 A.D-
117 A.D.).
Their "period of influence extended from about 100 to 400" A.D.
("Eclesaites," Jewish Encyclopedia.)
They must be regarded as Jewish because they expressly insisted on "the rule of
the Law," and held that "the faithful must be circumcised and live according to the
Law" (Hippolytus, "Hæreses," ix. 14). Special emphasis was laid on the observance
of the Sabbath (l.c.ix. 16), and the turning of the face toward Jerusalem during
prayer (Epiphanius,l.c.xix. 3). At the same time they asserted that sacrificing had
not been enjoined upon the Patriarchs, and condemned it altogether (compare
Uhlhorn, "Homilien und Recognitionen," p. 396). ("Eclesaites," Jewish
Encyclopedia.)
Samuel Coleridge's Encyclopedia Metropolitania (Fellowes: 1845) at 139 provides
this synopsis of this sect which is based upon the characterization of an opponent --
Epiphanius:
The Elcesaite were followers of Elxai, (sometimes Sect arising called Elxxus and
sometimes Elcesai,) who lived in the time of Trajan. [Elxai was] educated in the
Jewish faith, acquainted with the Christian Religion, ....
Attached to Jewish notions, the Elcesaitas turned towards Jerusalem in their
prayers, kept the Sabbath, practised circumcision, and observed other ceremonies ;
but, retaining little, if any, entire part of the Old Testament, they expressed
detestation of Sacrifices, which they maintained had never been offered by the
ancient Patriarchs. Though they believed in the existence of one unbegotten and
Supreme Being, (whom they thought to honour by frequent purifications,) they
contended, that external compliance with idolatrous rites was irreprehensible, as
long as the inward mind remained uninfluenced. They regarded it, therefore, as the
part of an intelligent man, on trying occasions, to renounce his faith in words,
provided he preserved it in his heart.
It has been doubted whether the Elcesaitae ought to be reckoned among the
Christian or the Pagan Sects; and Epiphanius acknowledges his uncertainty on that
point. They spoke, indeed, of Christ as of a great King, representing him
as clothed in a human but invisible form, of stupendous dimensions ; but it is not
clear whether they applied the title to our Lord or to some expected Messiah. Since,
however, as we learn from Origen they retained various passages of the New
Testament, (though they rejected the whole of St. Paul's, Epistles,) it must, we
think, be concluded, that they had partially admitted the Christian Religion.
The Jewish Encyclopedia depicts their baptism in a way that indirectly snipes at
Christian practices as reflecting paganism but in most ways is normative Christian
practice:
The Christo-Messianology of the book is very ambiguous. The Messiah is conceived, on the one
hand, as an angel of giant dimensions, a concept that recalls Shi'ur ?omahin the Cabala, and
Adam in the Haggadah; and, on the other hand, the doctrine of the continuous incarnation
of the Messiah from Adam to Jesus(seeAdam ?admon) is taught. [NOTE: The "eternal Son
of God" notion of Roman Catholicism later relied upon a similar notion.] A strongly marked
naturalistic-pagan element is found in the prescribed ablutions which among the
Elcesaites answered to the Christian baptism . Water was held sacred by them—an ancient
pagan conception widely spread, especially in Babylonia (Anz, "Ursprung des Gnostizismus," pp.
99et seq.); hence the Elcesaites preached not only forgiveness of all sins with the new
baptism , but also enjoined ablutions against madness, consumption, and possession. During
baptism they invoked, besides God and His son , thegreat king , also heaven, earth,
water, oil, and salt, representing the five elements, according to the ancient Semitic conception.
It may also be gathered from Hippolytus' quotations from the book of the Elcesaites that
astrology and magic were prominent in their religion. The doctrine of Elcesai is as follows: "There
exist wicked stars of impiety. This declaration is now made by us: O ye pious ones and disciples,
beware of the power of the days of the sovereignty of these stars, and engage not in the
commencement of any undertaking during the ruling days of these." The Sabbath is important as
"one of those days during which prevails the power of these stars." For a similar astrological
reason no work must be begun on the third day from the Sabbath—Monday (Hippolytus,l.c.).
The asceticism of this sect, which forbade the
eating of meat , but maintained the sanctity
of marriage , must be noted. ("Eclesaites,"Jewish Encyclopedia.)
They were allies of the Essenes and Nazarenes:
According to Epiphanius, Elcesai and his brother Jexai had joined the Ossæans,
probably identical with the Essenes, who, as well as the related sect of the
Nazarites, recognized Elcesai's authority. They lived in the region beyond the
Jordan, offering no sacrifices, and condemning the use of
meat.("Eclesaites," Jewish Encyclopedia.)
Hence, in sum, the Eclesaites:

 accepted God and His Son Jesus, the great King;

 God was one, and unbegotten;
 Jesus had a pre-existence as Messiah, generated since Adam;
 Baptism was in the name of God and His Son;
 Jesus as Messiah was clothed in human flesh but also in an invisible form;
 The Law remained valid
 Sabbath must still be followed
 Circumcision of the faithful was still valid.
 Forbade sacrifice;
 Forbade eating meat;
 Marriage was sacred; and
 Paul's writings were to be rejected.

8. Macarius Magnes ca. 300

Macarius Magnes, Apocriticus, III.30-36 (ca. 300) presents a hypothetical debate
between a Paul advocate and a Paul critic. The defenses of Paul are far weaker than
the critic's argument, and thus Magnes appears to be overall criticizing Paul. Here
is how Magnes writes derisively of Paul's inconsistencies when talking of the Law:
[Paul] says, ‘As many as are under the Law are under a curse’ (Gal 3:10). The man
who writes to the Romans, ‘The Law is spiritual’ (7:14), and again, ‘The Law is
holy and the commandment holy and just’ (7:12), places under a curse those who
obey that which is holy!... In his Epistles … he praises virginity (I-Tim 4:1, I-Cor
7:25), and then turns round and writes, ‘In the latter times some shall depart from
the faith,... forbidding to marry’ (I-Tim 4:1-3).... And in the Epistle to the
Corinthians he says, ‘But concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord’
(I-Cor 7:25).

9. Methodius Circa 311 A.D.

Methodius, bishop of a see somewhere in Lycia, perhaps at Olympus wrote of Paul:
‘You should not be upset by the sudden shifts in Paul’s arguments, which give the
impression that he is confusing the issue or dragging in irrelevant material or
merely wool-gathering.... In all his transitions he never introduces anything that
would be irrelevant to his teaching; but gathering up all his ideas into a wonderfully
harmonious pattern, he makes all bear on the single point which he has in view.’
(Symposium III, 3.) (Quoted in Henry Chadwick, The Enigma of St. Paul. The
Ethel M. Wood Lecture delivered before the University of London on 27 February
1968 (London: The Athlone press, 1969) at 5.)

10. Chrysostum - Says Paul Not Well Known

Chrysostum [ca. 398 AD] "writes in his Preface he wishes he [i.e., Paul] was better
known for some are so ignorant of him that they do not know exactly the number
of his epistles." (Nathaniel Lardner, Andrew Kippis, The Works of Nathaniel
Lardner (1815) Vol. 2 at 605.)
11. Jerome Believed Paul Lied About Peter (Reflected in
Augustine's 394 & 397 A.D. Letters)
Augustine of Hippo, Letter 28, to Jerome (394 AD) says if Paul contradicts and
attributes to one of the 12 falsehood or error (i.e., to Peter), then all of the NT
collapses:
"I have been reading also some writings ascribed to you, on the Epistles of the
Apostle Paul. In reading your exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians,... most
disastrous consequences must follow upon ourbelieving that anything false is
found in the sacred books: that is to say, that the men by whom the Scripture
has been given to us and committed to writing, did put down in these books
anything false.... For if you once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority
one false statement as made in the way of duty, there will not be left a single
sentence of those books which, if appearing to any one difficult in practice or
hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away, as a
statement in which intentionally and under a sense of duty, the author declared
what was not true.... If indeed Peter seemed to (Paul) to be doing what was
right, and if notwithstanding, he, in order to soothe troublesome opponents,
both said and wrote that Peter did what was wrong— if we say thus,...
nowhere in the sacred books shall the authority of pure truth stand sure."
|Letter 40, to Jerome (397 AD) - Augustine accuses Paul directly of lying / falsely
accusing Peter of error:
"If it be possible for men to say and believe that, after introducing his narrative
with these words, ‘The things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie
not’, the apostle (Paul) lied when he said of Peter and Barnabas, ‘I saw
that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel’,... [then]
if they did walk uprightly, Paul wrote what was false; and if he wrote what was
false here, when did he say what was true?"|
12. Jerome's View That Paul Was A Hypocrite (Letter to
Augustine, 404 A.D.)
Jerome, Letter 112, to Augustine (404):
"Porphyry ... accuses Paul of presumption because he dared to reprove Peter
and rebuke him to his face, and by reasoning convict him of having done
wrong; that is to say, of being in the very fault which he himself, who blamed
another for transgressing, had committed.... Oh blessed Apostle Paul— who
had rebuked Peter for hypocrisy, because he withdrew himself from the
Gentiles through fear of the Jews who came from James—why are you,
notwithstanding your own doctrine, compelled to circumcise Timothy(Acts
16:3), the son of a Gentile, nay more, a Gentile himself?"
A. Jerome's Reply To Augustine Preserved by Abelard:
Insists Paul Was Hypocrite In Peter Incident
Peter Abelard, Sic et Non (1120 AD):
"Writing in reply to St. Augustine, after he had been brought to task by
Augustine concerning the exposition of a certain spot in Paul's Epistle to the
Galatians, Jerome said (Epist.112.4), ‘You ask why I have said in my
commentary on Paul's letter to the Galatians that Paul could not have rebuked
Peter forwhat he himself had also done. And you asserted that the reproof of
the Apostle was not merely feigned, but true guidance, and that I ought not to
teach a falsehood. I respond that ... I followed the commentary of Origen.'"
B. Aquinas Summarizes The Jerome Criticism of Paul
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I-II, Q.103, Art.4, Reply Obj.2 (1272 AD):
"According to Jerome, Peter [in Gal 2:6-14] withdrew himself from the
Gentiles by pretense, in order to avoid giving scandal to the Jews, of whom he
was the Apostle; hence he did not sin at all in acting thus. On the other hand,
Paul in like manner made a pretense of blaming him, in order to avoid
scandalizing the Gentiles, whose Apostle he was. But Augustine disapproves of
this solution [offered by Jerome]."
13. Jerome's Low View of Paul in 411 A.D.
Jerome severely criticizes Paul for lack of clarity, and giving feints difficult to
understand. Jerome translated the Greek NT in 411 A.D. into the Latin Vulgate.
Jerome in his Commentary on Galatians and Ephesians wrote:
"Paul does not know how to develop a hyperbaton [i.e., a change of normal
word order for emphasis],nor to conclude a sentence; and having to do with
rude people, he has employed the conceptions, which, if, at the outset, he had
not taken care to announce as spoken after the manner of men, would have
shocked men of good sense." (Gaussen, Theopneusty (1844): 119 quoting
Comm. Galatians Bk 11, titl. Bk 1, i.1; and Comm. Ephesians Bk. 11: 3.1; also
quoted in Methodist Review at 602.)
In other words, Paul is difficult to understand, as Second Peter says. Paul's writing
and grammar is atrocious to decipher. And his arguments use terrible and shocking
analysis that requires one to pick apart what he says to prevent him from meaning
the opposite of what he is saying. Thus, one may be able to untangle Paul's word
meanings, Jerome seems to imply, but it is very rough going. Obviously, basing
doctrine on Paul was regarded as precarious in the early church.
14. Abelard, 1142 AD, Say Paul At Odds With What
Christ Approved
Peter Abelard, Letters of Direction (before 1142 AD):
"We know of course that when writing to the Thessalonians the Apostle [Paul]
sharply rebuked certain idle busybodies by saying that ‘A man who will not
work shall not eat.’... But was not Mary sitting idle in order to listen to the
words of Christ, while Martha was ... grumbling rather enviously about her
sister's repose?"
15. Indirect Proof From Early Orthodox Doctrines
Another way to prove the low opinion of Paul in the early orthodox church is to
examine the prevalant doctrines within that early church. We have demonstrated
elsewhere that Marcion (ca. 144 A.D.) advanced all of Paul's views --
predestination, eternal security, faith alone, the abrogation of the Law of Moses,
and finally that Jesus "appeared to have human flesh" (Phil. 2:7), but did not
actually have such flesh, etc. However, Paul's views in the mouth of Marcion were
uniformally rejected in the early church. See "Tertullian Criticizes Every Pauline
Doctrine of Marcion" at JWO:402 et seq.
Then, without ever naming Paul, all his peculiar doctrines which had no foundation
in Christ's teachings were rejecting uniformally in the pre-325 A.D.
Church. See "Patristic Era Rejects Paul's Salvation Doctrine," at JWO:406 et seq.;
"The Patristic Era Church Also Rejected Paul's Predestination Doctrine," at
JWO:412 et seq.; "The Patristic Era Church Also Blasted Paul's Doctrine on Idol
Meats," at JWO:415 et seq.
Also, see a webpage here entitled "Early Church View on Law given Moses" which
shows the prevalent view in the early church prior to 325 A.D. endorsed the
validity of the Law given Moses. This is completely opposite to Paul's view.
On the issue of salvation, scholars concur on the divergence between Paul and the
Early Church as reflected in the gospels. For example, Guthrie (1871-1940), a
Scottish-born Episcopalian, analyzed each of the gospels separately and found the
early church writers emphasized morality as a key to salvation. See Kenneth Sylvan
Guthrie, The soteriology of Jesus (Dunlap Printing Co., 1896) at 60. Matthew's and
Luke's gospel set forth this same principle -- that repentance, morality, works etc.,
are criticial to salvation. Id., at 83 (Luke) and 90-92 (Matthew). While John's
Gospel emphasized one must believe in Jesus for salvation (id., at 77), it did not
say belief was the only requirement.
By contrast, Paul appears to emphasize that if one had faith, it was enough for
salvation; and thus good works are merely a "desirable addition" to salvation. Id.,
at 61. Hence, Paul appears to teach that belief is the ONLY requirement, going far
beyond the Gospel of John's stress on the importance of belief.
Thus what Paul taught was far in divergence from what the gospels were
understood to teach in the early church.
The only explanation for this ignoring of Paul and rejection of his unique doctrines
in the early church is that he had no weight in the early pre-325 A.D. church. Paul
would be cited generally for agreeable sentiments, but not on anything that would
teach repentance/works were merely a desirable addition to salvation. And the
earliest writers -- Justin and Papias -- write as if they never heard of Paul!
16. A Mirror of Negative Comments in Chrysostum,
391 AD
Below are quotes from Chrysostom, an apologist for Paul, who is identifying
criticisms that can be leveled at Paul from various statements in his epistles. Then
Chrysostom tries to reply. These criticisms must have been circulating in the early
church although rarely preserved. Tertullian was the exception because of the
obviously greater need to fight Marcionism than be too concerned about his
negative comments about Paul in Against Marcion. In the quotes below,
Chrysostom offers palliatians to mollify negative opinions about Paul. However, as
I will explain, they are typically weak and unconvincing ones. Thus, you must read
commentators in the early church who promote Paul as sometimes representing a
mirror reflecting back something you cannot see: the writings/views critical of Paul
which were not being preserved with rare exception, e.g., Tertullian.
John Chrysostom, Homilies on Galatians (391 AD):
Gal. 2:2 [Critic of Paul paraphrased by Chrysostum] "What is this, Oh Paul! Thou
who neither at the beginning nor after three years wouldest confer with the
Apostles, do you now confer with them after fourteen years are past, lest you
should be running in vain? Better would it have been to have done so at first, than
after so many years; and why did you run at all, if not satisfied that thou were not
running in vain? Who would be so senseless as to preach for so many years,
without being sure that his preaching was true?...1
[My Comment: In context, Chrysostum will then argue that the reason Paul went to
the see the apostles was due to revelation, and therefore it would supposedly have
been folly for Paul to see the Apostles sooner than revelation directed him.
However, such a statement makes no sense. Had Paul stayed away by revelation
telling him NOT to go, it would make sense. But Paul says he went to see the
apostles by revelation to do something which evidently was so long overdue God
had to tell Paul to go! The excuse Chyrsostom makes is thus an obvious white-
wash of what Chrysostom intelligently expressed in the quote above from an
unnamed critic who saw as a flaw that Paul had not gone to visit the true apostles of
Jesus Christ for so long.]
Gal. 2:6 But of those who seemed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh
no matter to me, God accepteth no man's person.
[Critic of Paul paraphrased by Chrysostum]: "Here he not only does not defend the
Apostles, but even presses hard upon those holy men, for the benefit of the weak.
His meaning is this: although they permit circumcision, they shall render an
account to God, for God will not accept their persons, because they are great and
in station. But he does not speak so plainly, but with caution.2
[My Comment: Chrysostom in reply to the critic says that Paul implies that the true
apostles had given up the practice of circumcision. He bases this on the tense of
"those who seemed to be somewhat, whatsoever theywere." Supposedly the 'were'
did not mean the status of apostle at a prior time (which is the obvious meaning)
but the practice of circumcision now supposedly being universally abandoned even
among the true apostles. In this way, Chrysostum tries to portray the 12 also
accepted Paul's practice of giving up circumcision of even Jews. However, in Acts
21 we see James confronting Paul years after the Jerusalem Council, and telling
him the prior policy of non-circumcision was only true for Gentiles, not Jews.
James then seeks reconfirmation from Paul that it is not his policy to teach
abrogation of the Law. Therefore, Chrysostom's excuse using "were" was
grammatically and factually baseless.]
Gal. 5:11. And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer
persecution ?

[Chrysostum's point-of-view:]" "Observe how clearly he exonerates himself from

the charge, that in many places he judaized and played the hypocrite in his
preaching. He calls them as witnesses; for ye know, he says, that my command to
abandon the Law is made the pretext for persecuting me. If I yet preach
circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? for this is the only charge which
they of Jewish descent have to bring against me. Had I permitted them to receive
the Faith, still retaining the customs of their fathers, neither believers nor
unbelievers would have laid snares for me, seeing that none of their own usages
were disturbed. What then! did he not preach circumcision ? did he not circumcise
Timothy ? Truly he did. How then can he say, "I preach it not?" Here observe his
accuracy; he says not, " I do not perform circumcision," but, " I preach it not," that
is, I do not bid men so to believe. Do not therefore consider it any confirmation of
your doctrine, for though I circumcised I did not preach circumcision."
[My Comment: Chyrsostom's handling of this shows Paul is a quibbler of words as
a means of not blatantly lying, and Chrysostom tries using this to prove Paul is
honest. Obviously critics pointed to Paul as a hypocrite in the case of Timothy.
Chrysostom's analysis is useful to prove in fact how hypocritical Paul truly was in
the sense condemned by our Lord. For Chrysostom admits that Paul chose his
words carefully. So Chrysostom says Paul does not preach circumcision even
though, as in Timothy's case, he practiced it. Chrystostum conveniently overlooks
5:11 where Paul says the opposite, that he indeed is "still preaching circumcision,
so why am I still being persecuted?" Paul engaged in double-speak and self-
contradictions to confuse opponents and baffle defenders like Chrysostum on what
basis they could defend Paul.
What is hard to fathom is how Chrysostom could conclude his own argument was a
valid means to rebut a charge of hypocrisy. It required Chrysostum to simply
contradict Paul in 5:11, and say Paul never preached circumcision; he merely
practiced it. Such fine-line expressions of Paul prove hypocrisy: the listener had a
right to expect that if Paul says he does not preach circumcision (which Paul
contradicts in 5:11), then surely he would not teach circumcision needs to be
sometimes performed. Such behavior is clearly hypocrisy as Jesus defined it! The
outside of the cup is clean, but not the inside. They perform deeds conforming to
the Law solely to be seen by MEN. That's Paul to a T! Yet, Chrysostum chose to
defend Paul on that basis--on a sophistry distinction. Yet, the truth was that
Chrysostum had to ignore / contradict Paul says in 5:11 he still "preaches
circumcision."]

Roman Catholicism Switched To Favor

Paul
Paul's ascendancy began in the 300s when the Roman Catholic Church had an
emperor who wanted to abolish Sabbath. He wanted all worship on the Day of the
Sun -- the day to worship Sol Invictus, the god of the Sun. From that time forward,
canon was re-arranged to make Paul of first rank among the epistles. This reflected
itself in manuscripts printed in the late 300s where Paul's position was changed:
The ancient manuscript order of the books of the "New Testament" has first the
"Gospels" then "Acts" followed by the Jewish Epistles (Ya,akov (James); 1 & 2
Kefa (Peter); 1, 2 & 3 Yochanan (John) and Y'hudah (Jude)) followed by the
Pauline epistles which are followed by Revelation. This order wasrearranged by
Rome in the Latin Vulgate in which the Pauline epistles were given first place
and the Jewish epistles given second place. ("The Hebraic Roots Version of the
New Testament.")
The consequence of this shift placed the emphasis on Paul, and off the true
aspostles:
The original manuscript order had an important significance. It agreed with the
precept that the message was to the Jews first and then to the Goyim (Gentiles). It
also agrees with the concept that Ya'akov, Kefa and Yochanan were emissaries that
come BEFORE Paul (Gal. 117) and with the concept that Kefa, Ya'akov and
Yochanan served as three pillars which lend authority upon which Paul's message
was built (Gal. 2:9) and not vice-versa. The reader of the NT was intended to read
the "Jewish" epistles FIRST andthen to read the Pauline epistles already having
understood the Jewish epistles. The NT reader was intended to read Ya'akov's
(James') admonition concerning faith and works (Ya'akov 2) as well as
Kefa'swarnings about Paul being difficult to understand and often twisted (1Kefa
315-16) etc. before ever attempting to understand the writings of Paul. The HRV
follows the ancient manuscript order (which agrees also with the order of the
ancient Aramaic manuscripts) in placing the "Jewish epistles" immediately after
Acts and placing the Pauline Epistles AFTER them. Id.
Thus, by 396 AD, Augustine in his summary entitled "Christian Doctrine" from
396 AD quotes Paul 116 times to 69 times for Jesus. (And Jesus was quoted most
often to try to confirm the Trinity doctrine.) Almost all of Christianity now was
about Paul's rule that the Law is gone. See Augustine, On Christian Doctrine(N.Y.:
Liberal Arts Press, 1955). What a far cry from Justin Martyr from 120 AD who
wrote numerous books quoting only Jesus, and nothing from Paul. Not one quote!

Conclusion
The notion that the early church was ecstatic about Paul is a myth.