Bathtime Stories: Ebion and Cerinthus
-
- Posts: 2616
- Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am
Re: Bathtime Stories: Ebion and Cerinthus
fwiw:
Mishna Avoda Zara 3:4
Proclos, son of a plosphos, asked Rabban Gamaliel in Acco when the latter was bathing in the bathhouse of aphrodite.
He said to him, “It is written in your torah, ‘let nothing that has been proscribed stick to your hand (Deuteronomy 13:18)’; why are you bathing in the bathhouse of Aphrodite?”
He replied to him, “We do not answer [questions relating to torah] in a bathhouse.”
When he came out, he said to him, “I did not come into her domain, she has come into mine. People do not say, ‘the bath was made as an adornment for Aphrodite’; rather they say, ‘Aphrodite was made as an adornment for the bath.’
Another reason is, even if you were given a large sum of money, you would not enter the presence of your idol while you were nude or had experienced seminal emission, nor would you urinate before it. But this [statue of Aphrodite] stands by a sewer and all people urinate before it. [In the torah] it is only stated, “their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:3) what is treated as a god is prohibited, what is not treated as a deity is permitted.
https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explana ... .1?lang=bi
Mishna Avoda Zara 3:4
Proclos, son of a plosphos, asked Rabban Gamaliel in Acco when the latter was bathing in the bathhouse of aphrodite.
He said to him, “It is written in your torah, ‘let nothing that has been proscribed stick to your hand (Deuteronomy 13:18)’; why are you bathing in the bathhouse of Aphrodite?”
He replied to him, “We do not answer [questions relating to torah] in a bathhouse.”
When he came out, he said to him, “I did not come into her domain, she has come into mine. People do not say, ‘the bath was made as an adornment for Aphrodite’; rather they say, ‘Aphrodite was made as an adornment for the bath.’
Another reason is, even if you were given a large sum of money, you would not enter the presence of your idol while you were nude or had experienced seminal emission, nor would you urinate before it. But this [statue of Aphrodite] stands by a sewer and all people urinate before it. [In the torah] it is only stated, “their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:3) what is treated as a god is prohibited, what is not treated as a deity is permitted.
https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explana ... .1?lang=bi
Re: Bathtime Stories: Ebion and Cerinthus
Recall that the "Gospel of the Ebionites" (called the Gospel according to Matthew) was used by those who, among other things, are attributed with vegetarianism and a rejection of sacrifices. And Epiphanius quotes from this text as follows (Panarion 30.12):
Note that it is often said that this alleged substitution of "pancakes" (egkrides) for "locusts" (akrides) shows that the text was Greek instead of Hebrew.And, “John came baptizing, and there went out unto him Pharisees and were baptized, and all Jerusalem. And John had a garment of camel’s hair, and a girdle of skin about his loins. And his meat,” it says, “was wild honey, whose taste was the taste of manna, as a cake in oil.” This, if you please, to turn the account of the truth into falsehood, and substitute “a cake in honey” for “locusts”!
The Ebionite gospel doesn't mention locusts and this could be due to the Ebionites' vegetarianism, but it's also simply the way the taste of manna -which John's honey is liked to- is described in the OT (Num. 11:8: "And the taste of it was like the taste of cakes baked with oil"). And if the Ebionites were so concerned about vegetarianism that they changed the word "locusts" to "cake in oil," why didn't they similarly change John's clothing ("And John had a garment of camel’s hair, and a girdle of skin about his loins")? Maybe they were just reporting what there was to report about John, that he lived on wild honey (which tasted like manna, which tasted like "a cake in oil") and wore wool and leather clothing, and not pushing their agenda here.
And since I view Mark as being written by a follower of Peter (like Church writers say), maybe the "substitution" (or confusion) here could come (via Peter's oral tradition) from Mark misunderstanding the word "pancakes" for "locusts" (which was then picked up by Matthew and Luke).
As far as the Ebionite Matthew being in Greek goes, for me that is explained by their gospel being one of the translations that were made of the original Hebrew Matthew. I see the NT version of Matthew as a translation of the Hebrew Matthew that was combined with Mark with proto-orthodox edits, and I see the Ebionite Matthew as a translation of the Hebrew Matthew that was not combined with Mark with Ebionite edits.
And I think the Ebionite Matthew was used by Marcion and Luke, with both versions having their particular edits. In other words, the Ebionite Matthew was a translation and redaction of the Hebrew Matthew and was "proto-Luke" (so to speak) and Marcion and Luke did what they did with it.
The Ebionite Matthew itself isn't an entire translation of the Hebrew Matthew any more than the NT Matthew. It was an edited version of it that promoted Ebionte beliefs, the same way the author of the NT Matthew edited a translation of the Hebrew Matthew and combined it with Mark and promoted proto-orthodox beliefs. As Epiphanius puts it, "Now in what they [Ebionites] call a Gospel according to Matthew, though it is not the entire Gospel, but is corrupt and mutilated ..."
The same could be said (if not exactly in the sense that Epiphanius means it) for the NT Matthew, Marcion's gospel and Luke. In my view they all incorporate "corrupt and mutilated" translations of the Hebrew Matthew. This is why Marcion's gospel was thought to resemble Luke. They were both working with the same text (the Ebionite Matthew), but since they did different things with it, Marcion's gospel appeared to be "mutilated" to the orthodox (and vice versa for Marcion). It's the pot calling the kettle black for both of them.
This would explain why Marcionism is similar to the way Epiphanius describes the Ebionites (vegetarian, celibate, anti-OT). The Ebiontes say,"What need for me to read what is in the Law, when the Gospel has come?" and "blaspheme most of the legislation, and Samson, David, Elijah, Samuel, Elisha and the rest" because "Christ has revealed this to" them. This sounds like a kind of proto-Marcionism to me, or something that could easily be made to support Marcionism.
Epiphanius also says that the Ebionites "deny that he [Jesus] is a man, supposedly on the basis of the words the Savior spoke ... Who are my mother and my brethren?", and I gather this verse was also cited to support Marcionism.
So for me Marcion's gospel is not the first, since it appears to be based on an Ebionite translation of the original Hebrew Matthew, and Ebionites are said to have emerged from the earlier Nazarenes, who are said to have used the Hebrew Matthew.
- Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8626
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Re: Bathtime Stories: Ebion and Cerinthus
I suppose the argument is reversible, if someone thinks it plausible that Mark depends on the Greek gEbionites. On the other hand, it seems impossible to misunderstand the longer expression with its explanations, while more possible to misunderstand a single word being altered. So maybe there is some justice in viewing the version in Mark as earlier.
It's too bad that nobody seems to have seen this text. The ones who say they have (like the Ebionites) all seem mistaken.
Good find.
It does seem to presuppose a text without the verse where the game is given away, so to speak, describing them as true relatives already.
Of course, I haven't said that it is, by the way.
I'm not sure if we can show a dependence of gMarcion on gEbionites rather than the reverse. Can we?
Re: Bathtime Stories: Ebion and Cerinthus
You know, people should really read what they write before they postPeter Kirby wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2023 6:52 pmI suppose the argument is reversible, if someone thinks it plausible that Mark depends on the Greek gEbionites. On the other hand, it seems impossible to misunderstand the longer expression with its explanations, while more possible to misunderstand a single word being altered. So maybe there is some justice in viewing the version in Mark as earlier.
It's too bad that nobody seems to have seen this text. The ones who say they have (like the Ebionites) all seem mistaken.
Good find.
It does seem to presuppose a text without the verse where the game is given away, so to speak, describing them as true relatives already.
Of course, I haven't said that it is, by the way.
I'm not sure if we can show a dependence of gMarcion on gEbionites rather than the reverse. Can we?
One can't claim that A 'is' because B 'appears to be', it is precisely the other way around: something A appears to be X or Y because something B is
One is the (alleged or claimed) fact, the other is the deduction.
What John2 is doing - which is perfectly in line with the majority of people - is deducing "facts" from allegations
The least you'd have to do is to swap the verbs
![Tomato :tomato:](./images/smilies/tomato.gif)
-
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm
Re: Bathtime Stories: Ebion and Cerinthus
i read the etymology of Cerinthus had something to do with circumcision or cutting
also, i remember reading something about him being an opponent of paul
sorry, these references are from memory i can't recall who suggested these things or where i read them
it did strike me that this depiction made it sound like Cerinthus was an apostle claimant and a nickname of sorts
the tenuous link of revelation to him does have a bit going for it the problem is if you add up the scraps of what might be Ebionite (The Clementines, Apoc. of Peter, Revelation even James) there may be enough to think there was such a wing, but there seems nothing that suggests any familiarity with the gospel Jesus, no real information. If there had been then the idea that the original Jesus movement was a strict Torah observant one that Paul corrupted would have a lot of merit - but there's nothing like that.
The Ebionites just appear to be an offshoot as far adrift from historical Jesus as Paul was, or the gnostics, etc.
also, i remember reading something about him being an opponent of paul
sorry, these references are from memory i can't recall who suggested these things or where i read them
it did strike me that this depiction made it sound like Cerinthus was an apostle claimant and a nickname of sorts
the tenuous link of revelation to him does have a bit going for it the problem is if you add up the scraps of what might be Ebionite (The Clementines, Apoc. of Peter, Revelation even James) there may be enough to think there was such a wing, but there seems nothing that suggests any familiarity with the gospel Jesus, no real information. If there had been then the idea that the original Jesus movement was a strict Torah observant one that Paul corrupted would have a lot of merit - but there's nothing like that.
The Ebionites just appear to be an offshoot as far adrift from historical Jesus as Paul was, or the gnostics, etc.
Re: Bathtime Stories: Ebion and Cerinthus
Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2023 6:52 pmI suppose the argument is reversible, if someone thinks it plausible that Mark depends on the Greek gEbionites. On the other hand, it seems impossible to misunderstand the longer expression with its explanations, while more possible to misunderstand a single word being altered. So maybe there is some justice in viewing the version in Mark as earlier.
I don't think Mark knew the Ebionite Matthew, but he is said to have known Peter (as did presumably the Christians who became Ebionites, given Peter's prominence in their writings and their connection to the Nazarenes), and while taking notes of Peter's teachings he may have misunderstood what Peter said about John's food. As Papias says, Mark "wrote some things as he remembered them."
So it wouldn't be a matter of Mark changing something in the Ebionite Matthew but Mark misunderstanding Peter. And the Ebionites are said to have only used the Ebionite Matthew and do not appear to have known the gospel of Mark ("They too accept the Gospel according to Matthew. Like the Cerinthians and Merinthians, they too use it alone."
And according to my reading of the Church writers, only two gospels were known to Papias (who, according to Eusebius' chronology, lived no later than Trajan's time), Mark and Matthew (with the latter having multiple translations), and Mark was bilingual and interpreted what Peter said "as he remembered them." So if the Ebiontes didn't use Mark and Mark wrote things down "as he remembered them," my guess is that Mark made a mistake.
The Nazarenes had it (Pan. 29.7.4 and 9.4: "They are perfectly versed in the Hebrew language ... They have the Gospel according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this as it was originally written, in the Hebrew alphabet").
And while the text is no longer extant, it is said to have existed for centuries and some Church writers cite from it. I imagine it as being more or less like the NT Matthew sans Mark and promoting Nazarene beliefs (like Jesus does in Mark and Luke, but in Hebrew).
-
- Posts: 2616
- Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am
Re: Bathtime Stories: Ebion and Cerinthus
ANE Today
June 2023
Vol. 11, No. 6
Baths of the Roman and Byzantine Southern Levant: Roman Ideas and Local Interpretations
By Arleta Kowalewska and Craig A. Harvey
for text, photos, and bibliography:
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www ... pX6wnYmPPc$ >
June 2023
Vol. 11, No. 6
Baths of the Roman and Byzantine Southern Levant: Roman Ideas and Local Interpretations
By Arleta Kowalewska and Craig A. Harvey
for text, photos, and bibliography:
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www ... pX6wnYmPPc$ >
- Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8626
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Re: Bathtime Stories: Ebion and Cerinthus
The references from Jerome don't show "sans Mark" or "promoting Nazarene beliefs." It just shows a Greek Matthew in Hebrew, with variations and slight expansions in wording that are both minor and unsystematic. Epiphanius likewise calls it the "Gospel according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew." This kind of Gospel in Hebrew is the only one we know about.John2 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 11:16 amThe Nazarenes had it (Pan. 29.7.4 and 9.4: "They are perfectly versed in the Hebrew language ... They have the Gospel according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this as it was originally written, in the Hebrew alphabet").
And while the text is no longer extant, it is said to have existed for centuries and some Church writers cite from it. I imagine it as being more or less like the NT Matthew sans Mark and promoting Nazarene beliefs (like Jesus does in Mark and Luke, but in Hebrew).
- Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8626
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Re: Bathtime Stories: Ebion and Cerinthus
Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 12:43 pmThe references from Jerome don't show "sans Mark" or "promoting Nazarene beliefs." It just shows a Greek Matthew in Hebrew, with variations and slight expansions in wording that are both minor and unsystematic. Epiphanius likewise calls it the "Gospel according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew." This kind of Gospel in Hebrew is the only one we know about.John2 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 11:16 amThe Nazarenes had it (Pan. 29.7.4 and 9.4: "They are perfectly versed in the Hebrew language ... They have the Gospel according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this as it was originally written, in the Hebrew alphabet").
And while the text is no longer extant, it is said to have existed for centuries and some Church writers cite from it. I imagine it as being more or less like the NT Matthew sans Mark and promoting Nazarene beliefs (like Jesus does in Mark and Luke, but in Hebrew).
Church writers cite things from the Hebrew Matthew that stood out to them in contrast to the NT Matthew so I assume it was otherwise more or less in line with the NT Matthew.
It was also said to have been shorter than the NT Matthew (I always forget the source for that, but they counted all the lines), and since I am unaware of anything Markan in Church writer citations of the Hebrew Matthew (though I need to investigate this further and could be wrong, and if so, then that would be fine and I'll let it go), and since it was written in Hebrew and I am unaware of anyone writing or translating Mark in Hebrew, I imagine that the Hebrew Matthew was "sans Mark." And if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but that's how it looks to me right now.
I also assume it promoted Nazarene beliefs because it was used by Nazarenes and it's what the NT Matthew does (and Mark and Luke and Acts, for that matter). And Jerome says he translated it and that it was available in the library in Caesarea.
Dialogue against Pelagius, iii.2. In the Gospel according to the Hebrews which is indeed in the Chaldaean and Syrian speech but is written in Hebrew letters, which the Nazarenes use to this day, called 'according to the apostles', or, as most term it, according to Matthew', which also is to be seen in the library of Caesarea,
Of illustrious men, 2
Also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, lately translated by me into Greek and Latin speech, which Origen often uses ...