Epiphanius on the Ebionites

[Secret Alias]

Who cares? It probably just comes from the Giuseppe-like character of all of us - i.e. bending the evidence to the point it serves one of our stupid theories.

[Secret Alias]

sds

[John2]

And let's take a step back for a moment and look at the big picture. I think it's great that Epiphanius uses earlier sources. It means we can follow the breadcrumbs. And since he uses the NT, patristic writings and arguably Ebionite sources that wound up in the Clementine writings, we can use them as control and see that he at least isn't making those things up. And we know he at least didn't invent the name Ebion or the idea that he founded the Ebionites (even if it's a dumb idea), since that information is mentioned by earlier writers.

So I'm thinking if Epiphanius is more or less true to his sources, then why couldn't the additional details he provides have come from the other sources he mentions, i.e., the Jewish Christians he says he talked to?

Now, I'm willing to concede that he could be making all of his oral information up, but on what grounds should we assume this given his fidelity to his written sources? Is it enough to say that since he generally makes stuff about other sects (assuming that he does, anyway) then he must be doing the same thing in this case? I suppose I could live with that, but as I re-read what he says he learned from Ebionites and Jewish converts, the information doesn't strike me as outlandish. It seems rather matter of fact, and in some cases more or less in line with the Clementine writings (e.g., "For some of them even say that Adam is Christ").

[Secret Alias]

Here's the difficulty with the Ebionite account. Irenaeus is writing an account against gnostics. Why are the Ebionites included if they are not gnostic? Can you name another non-gnostic group that makes the list?

[Secret Alias]

Another difficulty. Why is a sect with an Aramaic name demonstrated to be using a Greek gospel? Something fishy there too.

[Secret Alias]

Let's look at Irenaeus's account. He begins by linking them to the sects that precede and then adds the barest of details:

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 endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise 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.

While he doesn't explicitly connect the Ebionites to the statement in Book 3 that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew dialect the name 'Ebionites' would help facilitate that. What is most astounding though is that Irenaeus does not explain the name 'Ebionite.' Unlike other sects who are named after an individual he just states the name and then basically provides the barest of sketches of what appears - at least to me - as simply a group who Paul blamed for drawing Peter away in Galatians. I don't think any of the information in Irenaeus's sketch actually comes from first hand or second hand or third hand reporting. He's just called the opponents of Paul Ebionites without giving a reason for his understanding.

[Secret Alias]

The Irenaeus account becomes transferred over to the Philosophumena with the same link to Cerinthus and Carpocrates but then a slight reworking of the previously cited section:

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, 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).

No mention of Matthew (that seems to be Irenaeus's invention if both texts go back to a common source). Instead of saying that they reject Paul it seems the author has just worked to discover their doctrines from Galatians - in other words, the same assumptions found in Irenaeus (namely they are the opponents of Paul) is here. Once again no direct knowledge of the sect only 'reverse inference' from Galatians.

[John2]

Here's the difficulty with the Ebionite account. Irenaeus is writing an account against gnostics. Why are the Ebionites included if they are not gnostic? Can you name another non-gnostic group that makes the list?

He says in some respects they were Gnostics, since (for example) they had "the form of the Cerinthians, and the perversity of the Carpocratians."

[Secret Alias]

In Pseudo-Tertullian the same order appears as in the other two (i.e. Carpocrates, Cerinthus, Ebion) but now Ebion is the founder of the Ebionites and the rest is loosely drawn from Irenaeus:

His successor was Ebion,48 not agreeing with Cerinthus in every point; in that he affirms the world49 to have been made by God, not by angels; and because it is written, "No disciple above his master, nor servant above his lord, "50 sets forth likewise the law as binding,51 of course for the purpose of excluding the gospel and vindicating Judaism.

But again nothing resembling 'first hand knowledge' of the sect. The first inkling we have of that is with Origen, Pseudo-Ignatius and the rest.

[Secret Alias]

He says in some respects they were Gnostics, since (for example) they had "the form of the Cerinthians, and the perversity of the Carpocratians."

Right, but here's the problem with that. There is a logical disconnect with that. The Carpocratians are licentious orgy-participants. How do they square with the bare portrait of a 'Jewish Christian' sect? The reference is just there because of the sequential order. It wouldn't make sense to put them in the order of the narrative otherwise. It's done for logical cohesiveness.