Bathtime Stories: Ebion and Cerinthus

[Secret Alias]

Some sources identify "Hebion" as the founder of the Ebionites and "Elxai" as founder of the Elchasites.

[Peter Kirby]

The Epistle of the Apostles written about 160 AD would establish the personage as historical

On further reflection, this is a fair point.

I'm also less certain now that Cerinthus should be associated with the Gospel of the Ebionites (a harmony text, with some expansions, known from quotation by the much later Epiphanius), which undermines the OP's argument. Irenaeus writes (Adv. Haer. 1.26.1):

Cerinthus, again, a man who was educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by the primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from him, and at a distance from that Principality who is supreme over the universe, and ignorant of him who is above all. He represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men. Moreover, after his baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being.

It doesn't say which gospel Cerinthus used.

Based on the description of what Cerinthus believed, given by Irenaeus, the gospel he used was likely some kind of gospel of Mark, given the description: "having not been born of a virgin"; "after his baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler"; "at last Christ departed from Jesus"; "Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being." These are interpretations closely connected to the story of Mark, especially with regard to the beginning of Mark with the story of the baptism and with regard to the placement of references to Christ.

Ebionites are mentioned next, but Cerinthus is not one of them according to Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 1.26.2).

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.

[GakuseiDon]

It doesn't say which gospel Cerinthus used.

Irenaeus seems to suggest that separationists like Cerinthus used the Gospel of Mark, as per your analysis above. Irenaeus, Book 3:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... book3.html

So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavours to establish his own peculiar doctrine. For the Ebionites, who use Matthew's Gospel only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord. But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains. Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book. Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us, and make use of these [documents], our proof derived from them is firm and true.

[Peter Kirby]

Cerinthus, again, a man who was educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by the primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from him, and at a distance from that Principality who is supreme over the universe, and ignorant of him who is above all. He represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men. Moreover, after his baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being.

It doesn't say which gospel Cerinthus used.

Irenaeus seems to suggest that separationists like Cerinthus used the Gospel of Mark, as per your analysis above. Irenaeus, Book 3:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... book3.html

So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavours to establish his own peculiar doctrine. For the Ebionites, who use Matthew's Gospel only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord. But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains. Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book. Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us, and make use of these [documents], our proof derived from them is firm and true.

Good find! Thank you for mentioning that.

[Peter Kirby]

By the way, GakuseiDon, I would look forward to hearing more from you on the exploration of the theme of Chrestos, etc.

[GakuseiDon]

By the way, GakuseiDon, I would look forward to hearing more from you on the exploration of the theme of Chrestos, etc.

Thanks Peter, but given I have virtually no knowledge of the ancient languages involved, there isn't much I can contribute I'm afraid. I try to stay squarely within the English translations. If English was good enough for Jesus, then it's good enough for me.

[Peter Kirby]

By the way, GakuseiDon, I would look forward to hearing more from you on the exploration of the theme of Chrestos, etc.

Thanks Peter, but given I have virtually no knowledge of the ancient languages involved, there isn't much I can contribute I'm afraid. I try to stay squarely within the English translations. If English was good enough for Jesus, then it's good enough for me.

There's also lots of interesting stuff that Mr. Buckley and I are turning up as references to what I'm calling a Marcionite nexus. These are not always part of the typical "canon" of explicit "Marcion" references mined for such beliefs. Such as with reference to the Epistle to Diognetus, the Acts of Thomas, remarks by Clement of Alexandria, the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, the Second Apocalypse of James, and perhaps the Apology of Aristides. I wonder what you make of it.

If nobody says otherwise, I suppose I will have to assume it's all just brilliant.