What were the beliefs of Early Ebionaen Christianity?

[StephenGoranson]

fwiw, it is debated whether "Galileans" in a Bar Kokhbah letter refers to Christians.

[ebion]

Unloading Paul gives us a lot of room to see Christianity in a new light, without the Crowleyism of the Faulines. And I don't find the Paul-addled historians of much use. I'm more interested in looking into the Clementine Recognitions as apocrypha to see if they shed light on this, and examine "Simon Magus" more carefully using only Acts and nothing from the Faulines.

Epiphanius in the Panarion writes 1.30.15:1

they use certain other books as well—supposedly the so-called Travels of Peter written by Clement

What do I use for the "Travels of Peter written by Clement" or is that the Clementines?

Epiphanius in the Panarion writes 1.30.16:7

They lay down certain ascents and instructions in the supposed 'Ascents of James,' as though he were giving orders against the temple and sacrifices, and the fire on the altar—and much else that is full of nonsense.

The Ascents of James may be a part of the Clementines: What do I use as a basis set for the Clementines?

[ebion]

Can the current Matthew be read in a way that sees Jesus surviving the Crucifixion? The Ebionaens hold that Christ was born a man of Mary and Joseph, and acquired his divinity at his baptism by John. As the book of Matthew recounts how Jesus showed the Apostles his wounds, they must have held that he survived the cruxifiction.

I think the current Matthew be can be read in such a way, and many others have said the same thing. There's not much in the the Panarion, our main source on the Ebionaens, but there's one snippet I will enjoy citing:

1.30.3:6 But again, when they choose to, they say, 'No! The Spirit—that is, the Christ—came to him and put on the man called Jesus.'^[627]15 And they get all giddy from making different suppositions about him at different times.

For concreteness I'll give a short cut-n-paste summary from a good exposition:

• Pilate thus set the crucifixion time to be a little before sundown on Friday. This was because he knew it was forbidden by Jewish law to have bodies hanging on the cross by the start of the Sabbath. After having carried his cross part of the way to Golgotha, the site of the crucifixion, there are discrepancies within the gospels as to exactly how long Jesus was on the cross, but what we do know is that after three to four hours of being on the cross, it became dark, [7] which forced them to take him down.
• Based on historical facts, the New Bible Dictionary concludes that death by crucifixion rarely occurs before thirty-six hours, and can take as long as nine days. [8] Flavius Josephus, a historian from the first century CE and writer Plutarch (ca. 75 CE) are among many others who have described survivors of crucifixions and mention some individuals who survived up to ten days on the cross. Thus, the likelihood of Jesus dying within the few hours he was on the cross would have been extremely low, and even the two thieves who were placed on the cross at the same time were still alive. [9] The very fact that Pilate was surprised to hear that Jesus was already dead [10] shows that it was very much out of the ordinary for a man to die so quickly on the cross.
• To speed up the process of death, it was customary to break the legs of those on the cross. This is what happened to the two thieves, but what is peculiar is that the Romans did not break the legs of Jesus . This is because as darkness fell, after Jesus cried out, ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ [11] he bowed his head, in what some describe as ‘giving up the ghost’, i.e., he was thought to have already died. So instead – likely on the command of Pilate – a Roman soldier used his spear to pierce the side of Jesus, causing a gushing forth of blood and water. [12] In the case of a dead person, the blood would congeal, resulting in poor blood flow, yet quite the opposite was witnessed in this case. This categorically points to the fact that the heart was still beating and circulating blood around the body whilst he was in a coma or swoon.
• We should also bear in mind that if Jesus died on the cross, then the Jewish people would be proven correct in their claim that he was the false Messiah. They lend support to this through the Biblical statement ‘…he that is hanged is the accursed of God.’ [13] If however he survived the crucifixion, it would mean he overcame the evil schemes of the conspirators and did not die an ‘accursed’ death.
• The tradition of embalming the dead, whereby herbs and spices are applied to the skin, was common practice in ancient Egypt. A similar practice was also found in Jewish burial tradition where spices were put on coffins or otherwise at the funerals themselves, undoubtedly with the view of removing the odour of the deceased. It was, however, unknown and against tradition for the Jewish people to apply herbs and spices directly to the skin of the bodies, so the question is – why did this happen in the case of Jesusand what was the relevance of the herbs used on his wounds?
• The herbs myrrh and aloe hold great significance, for they lend proof to the fact that Joseph and Nicodemus were certain that Jesus was alive and was in need of medical assistance to recover from the wounds he sustained, having been placed on the cross.
• Regarding the significance of aloe it is mentioned:

  ‘Aloe is a genus containing about 500 species, the most common one being aloe vera which grows in Africa and the Middle East. It is very valuable due to its qualities, so much so that the great thinker Aristotle, being aware that the healing properties of aloe would be invaluable to soldiers wounded in battle, advised his student Alexander III (‘the Great’) to conquer all lands that grew it, especially the island of Socotra off the coast of Eastern Africa. Similarly, Pedanius Dioscorides, a physician in the Roman army, mentioned medicinal aloes in his encyclopaedic Greek herbal De Materia Medica (approximately 75 BC).’ [16]

• And with regards to the importance of myrrh:

  ‘In the past myrrh was used by many cultures for religious ceremonies and as a healing agent. It was mentioned in the Bible as a gift at the birth of Christ. The Egyptians believed in its healing powers: they burned it every day as part of their worship rituals. In the Greek culture when soldiers went to battle it was an essential part of their combat gear because of myrrh’s extremely high antiseptic and anti-inflammatory properties. It was used to clean wounds and to prevent infection. It was also used to prevent the spread of gangrene in already infected parts of the body.’ [17]

• Although this use of a vast amount of herbs for the body of Jesus may seem strange, it was in fact a well-known practice amongst eminent physicians. Truth be told, it has been recorded in numerous books of medicine belonging to people of nearly all major religions that this treatment was actually administered to Jesus for the purpose of the healing of his wounds. This has been explained by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the long-awaited Promised Messiah, in his ground-breaking book Jesus in India. He states:

  ‘…a medical preparation known as Marham-i-Isa or the “Ointment of Jesus” and is found recorded in hundreds of medical books. Some of these books were compiled by Christians, some by Magians or even Jews, and some by Muslims. Most of them are old classics. Investigations show that in the beginning, based on oral tradition, the preparation came to be known by hundreds of thousands of people. Later it was duly recorded. In the days of Jesus, shortly after the crucifixion, a pharmacopoeia was compiled in Latin, which recorded this prescription and testified that it had been prepared for the treatment of the wounds of Jesus.’ [18]

• He then goes on to mention a number of books in which there is mention of the ointment of Jesus such as the famous Qanun Ibn Sina, or The Canon of Medicine of Avicenna, to highlight just how well-known a fact it was. He writes:

  ‘These books contained the prescription of the “Ointment of Jesus” as well as the explanation that this ointment was prepared for Jesus by his disciples. In the context of religion, those people – Jews, Christians, Muslims and Magians – were all opposed to one another. Therefore, the fact that they have mentioned this ointment in their books, regardless of their respective beliefs, proves beyond any doubt that the preparation of the ointment was too well-known a fact to be denied by any community or nation.’ [19]

• It is evident therefore that Joseph and Nicodemus were not there to prepare the body of Jesus for burial, for the only logical explanation for the requirement of such a large quantity of aloe and myrrh – the properties of which have been established to be medicinal and to treat wounds – is that Jesus was still alive and in need of medical assistance to help him recover as quickly as possible.

This is the viewpoint of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, an enlightened sect of Islam that is treated harshly in Pakistan. A senior member of the sect, a former foreign minister of Paksistan, Zafrulla Khan, wrote what I hold to be the best English translation of the Quran.

We note that the Ebionaen view that Jesus was a man, which implies that he must have survived the cruxifixion, allows for a fruitful dialogue between Christians and Muslims.

I'll collect references here to explanations, so we don't repeat other's work:

• https://www.reviewofreligions.org/30001 ... -unfolded/
• https://www.reviewofreligions.org/11445 ... pective-2/

[StephenGoranson]

"How the Ebionaens thought Jesus survived the Crucifixion" is stated more certainly than "Perhaps they held that he survived the cruxifiction."
Other than late Ahmadiyya claims, what is any basis for supposing ancient Ebionites held this?

[ebion]

Much of what we know of the Gospel of the Ebionites is according to Epiphanius in the Panarion. He cites the beginning of the Gospel, and it clearly starts with our Matt. 3:1, so it does not have the first 2 chapters, hence no genealogy or virgin birth. He gives the impression of having a copy of the Ebionaen Matthew at hand, and quoting from it.

There's one thing the stands out in his excerpts:

1.30.3:7 And after saying a good deal it adds, 'When the people had been baptized Jesus came also and was baptized of John. And as he came up out of the water the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove which descended and entered into him. And (there came) a voice from heaven saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased,^[639]27 and again, This day have I begotten thee.^[640]28 And straightway a great light shone round about the place.^[641]29 Seeing this,' it says, 'John said unto him, Who art thou, Lord?^[642]30 And again (there came) a voice to him from heaven, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.^[643]31

So according to Epiphanius, the Ebionites held that Jesus was born a man and acquired his divinity at his baptism by John.

There's something similar in Hebrews (not written by Paul or Marcion):

So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. (Hebrews 5:5 [KJV])

But in Hebrews, it's ambiguous who the he is - we assume it's God; in the Gospel of the Ebionites it is, and we get the full context. The Ebionaens use this to say that Jesus acquired his divinity at his baptism, which Christians celecrate as Epiphany (Jan. 7). I assume that Ebionaens celebrated Epiphany as the second biggest Christian holiday of the year, and would not have celebrated Xmas, the birthday of Sol Invictus.

Epiphanius goes on to say that in the Gospel of the Ebionites Jesus explicitly abolished the sacrifices:

1.30.16:5 As their so-called Gospel says, 'I came to abolish the sacrifices, and if ye cease
not from sacrifice, wrath will not cease from you.'^[649]37

We'll add this to our list of distinguishing criteria of the Ebioneans.

PS: I overlooked that Luke 3 gives a rendirion of this, including the fatherhood of Joseph:

The Spirit of Holiness descended upon Him in the bodily form of a Dove. And a Voice came from The Heavens, which said, "You are My Son, The Beloved One, in whom I have been pleased.
Now He, Yeshua, was about a son of thirty years {i.e. about 30 years old}, and it was thought that He was bar-Yuseph {the son of Joseph}, bar-Heliy {the son of Helee},
(Luke 3:22-23 [HAS])

[GakuseiDon]

There's one thing the stands out in his excerpts:

1.30.3:7 And after saying a good deal it adds, 'When the people had been baptized Jesus came also and was baptized of John. And as he came up out of the water the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove which descended and entered into him. And (there came) a voice from heaven saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased,^[639]27 and again, This day have I begotten thee.^[640]28 And straightway a great light shone round about the place.^[641]29 Seeing this,' it says, 'John said unto him, Who art thou, Lord?^[642]30 And again (there came) a voice to him from heaven, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.^[643]31

So according to Epiphanius, the Ebionites held that Jesus was born a man and acquired his divinity at his baptism by John.

Not necessarily 'divinity' though. IIUC Ebionites believed that Jesus was Christ by election, i.e. he was so perfect with performing God's Law that God made him Christ. It could happen to anyone who was perfect.

Ireneaus writes that other early heretics had the same beliefs:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... book1.html

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.

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. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law.

I don't think the Ebionites regarded Jesus as divine until he ascended to heaven. But even then that would have been like how the saints in the Catholic Church are 'divine': immortal beings to whom you could pray for help.

[ebion]

This stuff is not easy to sort out and I appreciate your input and help. Ireneaus doesn't help by using a broad tarbrush with "their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus ". So I'll try to sort it out to what I think and then try to back it up: it could be we are saying the same thing.

Ebionites believed that Jesus was Christ by election, i.e. he was so perfect with performing God's Law that God made him Christ. It could happen to anyone who was perfect.

I had never considered "It could happen to anyone who was perfect" and have to agree: God is all-powerful and could bestow his Grace on another - and I expect the Ebionaens would agree.

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.

That is the two-Gods of Cerinthus that I'm told is a basis for the two Gods of Marcion, so the broad tarbrush of Ireneaus does not apply to that because "their opinions with respect to the Lord are opposite to those of Cerinthus " - the Ebionaens were very much Hebrew/mono-theistic/Shemaers.

That leaves the 2 parts in the middle:

He [Cerinthus] 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.

If Cerinthus believed that then he agrees with the Ebionaens so I agree with Ireneaus.

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.

If Cerinthus believed that then he agrees with the Ebionaens so I agree with Ireneaus, but (respectfully) disagree with you: "I don't think the Ebionites regarded Jesus as divine until he ascended to heaven." No, as I cited "the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove which descended and entered into him" at his baptism, and the Ebionaens hold to what is written in Hebrews and recounted in the Panarion. I contend that Epiphany, the celebration of Christ's baptism, is a big Ebionaen Christian holiday, as it is even today with the Greek Orthodox.

Does that help clarify things?

PS: This raises a side question in my mind: is there a consensus as to who wrote Hebrews? Definitely it's not Fauline. It's anti-Fauline: does that make it written after the Faulines?

[GakuseiDon]

Ebionites believed that Jesus was Christ by election, i.e. he was so perfect with performing God's Law that God made him Christ. It could happen to anyone who was perfect.

I had never considered "It could happen to anyone who was perfect" and have to agree: God is all-powerful and could bestow his Grace on another - and I expect the Ebionaens would agree.

The idea is found in Hippolytus (c170-c236)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050107.htm

The Ebionaeans,9 however, acknowledge that the world was made by Him Who is in reality God, but they propound legends concerning the Christ similarly with Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They live conformably to the customs of the Jews, alleging that they are justified. according to the law, and saying that Jesus was justified by fulfilling the law. And therefore it was, (according to the Ebionaeans,) that (the Saviour) was named (the) Christ of God and Jesus,9 since not one of the rest (of mankind) had observed completely the law. For if even any other had fulfilled the commandments (contained) in the law, he would have been that Christ. And the (Ebionaeans allege) that they themselves also, when in like manner they fulfil (the law), are able to become Christs; for they assert that our Lord Himself was a man in a like sense with all (the rest of the human family)...

If Cerinthus believed that then he agrees with the Ebionaens so I agree with Ireneaus, but (respectfully) disagree with you: "I don't think the Ebionites regarded Jesus as divine until he ascended to heaven." No, as I cited "the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove which descended and entered into him" at his baptism, and the Ebionaens hold to what is written in Hebrews and recounted in the Panarion. I contend that Epiphany, the celebration of Christ's baptism, is a big Ebionaen Christian holiday, as it is even today with the Greek Orthodox.

Does that help clarify things?

Yes, but I was more being nitpickery over the word 'divine', which to me has more of a proto-orthodox flavour. I don't think that Ebionites believed that Jesus was a God, so I'd be wary of suggesting that they thought Jesus became 'divine' at his baptism.

[ebion]

Yes, but I was more being nitpickery over the word 'divine', which to me has more of a proto-orthodox flavour. I don't think that Ebionites believed that Jesus was a God, so I'd be wary of suggesting that they thought Jesus became 'divine' at his baptism.

OK: in the sprit of nit-pickery I'll point out that I didn't say he was divine (lowercase h), but that "he acquired his divinity at baptism" which is not the same thing to us nit-pickers.

I agree the Ebionaens didn't believe that Jesus was a God, but on the other hand, what do you call someone who raises people from the dead? I'll stay with "he acquired his divinity at baptism", and agree with you that there's nothing to stop God from "doveing" another perfect man.

[GakuseiDon]

Yes, but I was more being nitpickery over the word 'divine', which to me has more of a proto-orthodox flavour. I don't think that Ebionites believed that Jesus was a God, so I'd be wary of suggesting that they thought Jesus became 'divine' at his baptism.

OK: in the sprit of nit-pickery I'll point out that I didn't say he was divine (lowercase h), but that "he acquired his divinity at baptism" which is not the same thing to us nit-pickers.

What do you mean then by "acquiring divinity"? If the dove left Jesus' body, would Jesus no longer have divinity? Was it Jesus' body that acquired divinity, or was it just the Holy Spirit inside him? (Questions like these are what start schisms! )

I don't get the impression that the earliest Ebionites considered Jesus as God, nor divine, nor acquired divinity. Perhaps I'm missing your meaning of what acquiring divinity entails.

I agree the Ebionaens didn't believe that Jesus was a God, but on the other hand, what do you call someone who raises people from the dead?

Elijah, Elisha. From here:

The excellent book “Saints Who Raised The Dead” (Tan Books, Father Alfred J. Hebert S.M., 2004) documents over 400 true stories of resurrection miracles in the lives of the Saints. Some of the many Saints listed in this book are: St. Francis of Paola, Venerable John Baptist Tholomei, St. Bernardine of Siena, St. John Capistrano, St. Francis of Paola, St. Joseph of Cupertino, St. Peter of Alcantara, St. Dominic, St. Ignatius Loyola, St. Philip Neri, St. Paul of the Cross, St. John Bosco, Blessed James Salomoni, St. Agnes of Montepulciano, Blessed Constantius of Fabrino, Blessed Sadoc and Companions, Blessed Mark of Modena, Blessed Ceslas, Blessed Augustine of Bugela, Colomb a of Rieti, St. Rose of Lima, St. Martin de Porres, St. Francis Solanus, Marianne de Jesus of Quito, Blessed Sebastian of Apparizio, St. Bernard of Abbeville, St. Stanislaus of Cracow, St. James of Tarentaise, St. Cyril of Constantinople, St. Peregrine, St. Philip Benizi, Bl. Peter Armengol, Blessed Eustachio, St. Gerard Majella, St. Charbel Makhlouf, St. Padre Pio, St. Margaret of Cortona, St. Felix of Cantalice, St. Rose of Viterbo, St. Pacific of San Severino, St. Hyacinth, St. Louis Bertrand, St. Francis Xavier, St. John Francis Regis, St. Andrew Bobola; St. Francis Jerome, Brother Antony Pereyra, and St. Patrick, the Apostle of Ireland, to name just a few.