Is *Ev a source of the Gospel of the Ebionites?

[Peter Kirby]

Fragments are collected here from Panarion 30: https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... arion.html

Epiphanius says that they use this passage in a way similar to what Marcionites did:

"Moreover they deny that he was a man, evidently on the ground of the word which the Savior spoke when it was reported to him: 'Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without' , namely: 'Who is my mother and who are my brethren'? And he stretched forth his hand towards his disciples and said: 'These are my brethren and mother and sisters, which do the will of my Father'." (14.5)

And Epiphanius says that they have modified this passage in this way:

But they abandon the proper sequence of the words and pervert the saying, as is plain to all from the readings attached, and have let the disciples say:

"Where will you have us prepare the passover?"
And him to answer to that:
"Do I desire with desire at this Passover to eat flesh with you?"
(Epiphanius, Panarion 30.22.4)

This modification would overcome an objection to Marcionites. Compare Eznik, "Perhaps about this Pasch too they will say that it was fish and not lamb!" and Tertullian, "He considered it His own feast; for it would have been unworthy of God to desire to partake of what was not His own." (see Ben Smith for quotes)

Compare the statement that Epiphanius makes regarding the Marcionite gospel here:

'With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer.' 63. He falsified, 'I will not any more eat thereof until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.'

The difference where it isn't in the form of a question can be understood if Epiphanius read the Marcionite gospel directly (not perceiving an interpretation of the Marcionites according to which this is phrased as a question... an interpretation that is not necessarily that of the author of the Marcionite gospel btw). Epiphanius may have encountered the quote from the Ebionite gospel in the context of disputes, where the interpretation of a question was made more clear. The addition of the word "flesh" would be particular to the Ebionite gospel, but common to them both would be cutting off the words of Jesus at an earlier point (compared to the text of Luke).

Perhaps the most interesting passage here is this one:

"They say that he was not begotten of God the Father, but created as one of the archangels ... that he rules over the angels and all the creatures of the Almighty, and that he came and declared, as their Gospel, which is called according to the Hebrews, reports: 'I am come to abolish the sacrifices, if ye cease not from sacrificing, the wrath will not cease from you'." (16.4–5)

Given the presence of statements about the Marcionite gospel having said something similar to this.

According to Epiphanius (but not Tertullian), Marcion’s Gospel (*Ev) included two accusations against Jesus before Pilate, which are not found in the Lukan Gospel. One of these charges touches a critical and ambiguous theme in early Christianity: the dissolving (abolition, destruction) of the Law and the Prophets. (The other charge, about misleading women and children, is obscure and outside the scope of this thread.)

Luke 23.1-25 Evangelion 23:1-2, Jesus before Pilate

1 Καὶ ἀναστὰν ἅπαν τὸ πλῆθος αὐτῶν ἤγαγον αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸν Πειλᾶτον. 2 ἤρξαντο δὲ κατηγορεῖν αὐτοῦ λέγοντες Τοῦτον εὕραμεν διαστρέφοντα τὸ ἔθνος ἡμῶν καὶ καταλύοντα τὸν νόμον καὶ τοὺς προφήτας, κωλύοντα φόρους Καίσαρι διδόναι, καὶ ἀποστρέφοντα τὰς γυναῖκας καὶ τὰ τέκνα, καὶ λέγοντα ἑαυτὸν Χριστὸν βασιλέα εἶναι.

1 The whole company of them rose up and brought him before Pilate. 2 They began to accuse him, saying, “We found this man perverting the nation, destroying [dissolving, abolishing] the law and the prophets, forbidding paying taxes to Caesar, misleading women and children, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king.”

Adamantius Dialogue 2:18 (830e)
[Marcus the Marcionite:] The Judaists wrote this, i.e. “I came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it.” However, Christ didn’t say that, but “I came not to fulfill the law but to abolish it.”

These references make us think of the parallel in Matthew 5:17, seeing as they are with reference to "the law," or with reference to "the law and the prophets."

The Gospel of the Ebionites may have used *Ev, which raises the possibility that *Ev could have had a statement on the subject of "abolish[ing] the sacrifices" somewhere.

[Secret Alias]

Or Adversus Marcionem was developed from an original exemplar which used proto-Matthew against the Marcionites.

[Peter Kirby]

"They say that he was not begotten of God the Father, but created as one of the archangels ... that he rules over the angels and all the creatures of the Almighty, and that he came and declared, as their Gospel, which is called according to the Hebrews, reports: 'I am come to abolish the sacrifices, if ye cease not from sacrificing, the wrath will not cease from you'." (16.4–5)

There's a similar passage in the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.54.1 (considered the "Ascents of James" section).

Syriac translation (1.54.1)	Latin translation (1.54.1)
"For as Christ was ready to be revealed for the abolition of sacrifices and in order to reveal and show forth baptism, the slanderer who was opposed recognized from predestination the point in time and created sects and divisions, so that if the former sin should receive renunciation and correction, a second vice would be able to obstruct redemption.	For when the coming of Christ was near, on the one hand to check sacrifices and on the other hand to impart the favor of baptism, the enemy understood from what had been predicted that the time was at hand and effected various schisms among the people so that, if the previous sin might possibly be abolished, the following offence would not be able to be corrected.

[Peter Kirby]

Epiphanius makes mention of the "Ascents of James" as follows (in Panarion 30, on the Ebionites):

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.

[davidmartin]

If so it's better to think of *Ev as a common gospel and not a Marcionite gospel, but one everyone made use of
which fits the idea Marcion adopted it into his canon and didn't write it
this is a general outline, we don't know exactly what was in it unfortunately i doubt its possible to know even basic things about it, for example, how did it originally treat the disciples. Positive? Negative? The answer to that question is of interest as we might be able to infer the author's attitude towards other texts going about in the name of disciples (IMO a negative view of the disciples = a negative view of other texts in their name)
I suspect one of the problems we do have is there's a significant earlier period of proto-gospels and sources which we know nothing about and may even date to a one off event, a single proto-gospel like *Ev being created from obscure and lost sources. If we have trouble re-creating *Ev, knowing about them is hopeless (except Thomas which never gets a fair hearing)

[Peter Kirby]

Epiphanius makes mention of the "Ascents of James" as follows (in Panarion 30, on the Ebionites):

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.

Notice this passage here in Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.48:

Syriac translation

Latin translation

(3) But the high priest was anointed with the fabricated ointment and was esteemed worthy of the office of prophet. He kindled the altar fire, raised up fire, and showed it to the whole world. (4) Now after Aaron the high priest, the one who sprang forth from water also arose. | am speaking not about Moses, but rather about the one who was called the Son, Christ, through baptism. (5) He was also called Jesus. He extinguished the altar that was burning there for sins, (6) for when he appeared, the unction of the high priesthood, prophecy, and kingship ceased.

(3) Now when the high priest or the prophet had been anointed with the composite oil and lit the altar of God, he was renowned in the entire world. (4) But after Aaron, who was high priest, another is enlisted from the water. | am speaking not of Moses but of the one who was called Son by God in the baptismal water. (5) For Jesus is the one who by the grace of baptism extinguished the fire that the high priest had lit for sins. (6) For when he appeared, the chrism ceased through which the office of high priest, prophet, or king was conferred.

[John2]

I think it's the other way around and Marcion used the Ebionite Matthew (as did Luke). This would explain why Marcion and the Ebionites shared similar doctrines, why these gospels resembled Luke, and why Marcon's gospel had some Matthew-like stuff.

[John2]

Epiphanius says the Ebionites branched off from the first Christians (Nazarenes), so it would make sense if their Matthew likewise "branched off" from the Matthew that Nazarenes used.

[Peter Kirby]

I think it's the other way around and Marcion used the Ebionite Matthew (as did Luke).

Is there evidence for the priority of the Gospel of the Ebionites (in Panarion 30) before *Ev or before Luke?

[John2]

I think it's the other way around and Marcion used the Ebionite Matthew (as did Luke).

Is there evidence for the priority of the Gospel of the Ebionites (in Panarion 30) before *Ev or before Luke?

It's a deduction based on the Ebionites having branched off from the first Christians (according to Epiphanius). For me it follows that if the Ebionites were once Nazarenes (as Epiphanius says), then so was their version of Matthew. If we go by Epiphanius' timeline, why would Ebionites have needed to look elsewhere (and to Gentile Christians, at that) for a gospel?

The gospels used by Nazarenes and Ebionites were both called "Matthew," but one was in Hebrew and the other was in Greek (and was a "mutilated" version of Matthew, according to Epiphanius). And this fits what Papias says (according to my reading, anyway), that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and "each one" translated it as best as they could (like Josephus' Jewish War). I see the NT Matthew and the Ebionite Matthew as examples of this process. Both are translations (and "mutilations") of the Hebrew Matthew, espousing their particular doctrines.

Marcion and Luke would have come after this process and both of them did the same thing, turn the Ebionite Matthew into their respective gospels. The only difference appears to be that Marcion was more faithful to the Ebionite Matthew, since he espoused its vegetarian/anti-sacrifice doctrines. And Luke incorporated other sources besides the Ebionite Matthew (Mark and perhaps the NT Matthew).

So for me, Marcion and Luke are second century CE "mutilations" of the Hebrew Matthew. Even if Marcion came before Luke, they both seem relatively "late" to the gospel game (though still respectably "early" and important in the big picture).

But I will take another look at Pan. 30 and see if there is any direct evidence that supports this line of thinking.