Epiphanius on the Ebionites

[John2]

Of course I can't do anything with this if no one can find what Lightfoot supposedly saw. And now that I take another look at the book (I had copied it from an older thread), I see I had typed it wrong. It actually says, "Lightfoot says that he [Ebion] is mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud as one of the founders of sects."

But if Lightfoot mistook Rabbi Abin for Ebion, I'd still like to see the passage that gave him the impression that he was "one of the founders of sects" (which I take to mean minim and thus as a pejorative). And where is the above passage you mention that refers to archheretics from? (Sorry if you've mentioned it already.)

The whole "founder of sects" thing looks like a misquote of Lightfoot to me, unless a passage can be found in which Lightfoot says that. What I have found is Lightfoot saying, "We find the names of some archheretics mentioned in the Talmuds, though we cannot say they were the same men." That is from here: https://books.google.com/books?id=-SlWA ... 22&f=false.

Strictly speaking an Archheretic is not an especially bad heretic. It means the founder of a heresy. I.E. It is almost the same as the founder of a sect.

Andrew Criddle

Okay, that makes sense. Even so, in the quoted passage Lightfoot is claiming that the names are present, not necessarily that the names belong to the archheretics themselves; he is being duly cautious. And it means that the Talmud itself need not be making the same claim.

This issue is still baffling me, and Lightfoot's archaic script isn't helping. But for the sake of seeking clarity on this matter, here is what the relevant part looks like to me:

Now all the these [Pharisees, Sadducees, Samaritans] being alike enemies to Christianity, what mischief might not they severely do in poisoning and seducing those that were not found in it [meaning those who were not Christians?]? We find the name of some arch heretics mentioned in the Talmuds, though we cannot say they were the same men. As Dositheus ... Ebion, Jerusalem Talmud Yoma fol. 4 col. 3 ... Symmachus ... And Papias also is a Talmud name, of which name there was one so zealous [EH 3.39].

I haven't been able to find JT Yoma in translation, but I haven't had any hits for Abin (אבין) in Yoma 4a or 4b here (assuming that this is where Lightfoot saw "Ebion"):


https://www.sefaria.org/Jerusalem_Talmu ... 4b?lang=bi


And I don't see anything about Abin or heresy in Yoma 4a or 4b in the Babylonian Talmud here:


https://www.sefaria.org/Yoma.4a?lang=bi


But in the big picture, I can't imagine Rabbi Abin being thought of as a founder of a sect (which I assume means min and is negative) given how well-regarded he appears to be. And I'm thinking "Jerusalem Talmud fol. 4 col. 3" does not correlate with Yoma 4a or 4b and that what Lightfoot saw could be somewhere else in Yoma, and if so, then I don't have the time or energy to track it down right now.

[John2]

Stephen,

As I told Ben upthread, I'm not arguing that Epiphanius was the smartest guy in the world, or that he always understood his sources, only that he had sources and that some of them were Jewish Christian and that we can thus use them as a control, like Luomanen does with the supposed Ebionite sources in the Clementine writings (which line up fairly well with what Epiphanius says).

Now, regarding the examples you have given, you cited Hall as saying:

Either by conjecture or [from] oral tradition, Epiph makes Cerinthus, who he believes taught the necessity of circumcision, the instigator of the controversies about circumcision which the NT records in Acts, 1 Corinthians and Galatians.

Well, as I had said, I think it is a reasonable conjecture given that Irenaeus says that Cerinthus was alive when John the disciple lived in Asia and that if John had also lived during Paul's time then perhaps Cerinthus did too and was thus one of the "false brothers" in Galatians who had opposed Paul, particularly given the similarities between Cerinthus and Jewish Christians regarding circumcision and such. I would also add that Acts says that Paul was opposed by "Jews from Asia" (21:27), and we have seen how Irenaeus mentions (via Polycarp) that Cerinthus had lived in Asia.


But I see that Klijn and Reinink also note that:

It is possible that all this may be explained by a tradition found in the Epistola Apostolorum written in the beginning of the second century. In this letter we find a warning against the "pseudo-apostles," Simon and Cerinthus, who, it is said, will "go out into the world." Apparently it was on the basis of this tradition that Epiphanius spoke about Cerinthus as a "pseudo-apostle" (28 4 1). It was only a small step from this to identifying this pseudo-apostle with the pseudo-apostles we find in II Cor. 11, 13, described as Paul's opponents in Corinth (28 4 6).


https://books.google.com/books?id=zs43A ... ns&f=false

Now, I see that Hippolytus follows Irenaeus' order of mentioning Carpocrates, Cerinthus and the Ebionites too in RH 7.20-22 and unlike Epiphanius he mentions Irenaeus' remark that Cerinthus "learned from the Egyptians." But neither he nor Irenaeus mention the tradition about Cerinthus living in the time of Paul like Epiphanius does (and which pre-dated them both), so should we consequently disregard what they say about the Ebionites because they were "terrible scholars"?

And regarding what Epiphanius says about Ebion being from Cochabe, since Ebion was mentioned in Epiphanius' sources, for him he was thus a real person, and since his sources (e.g., Julius Africanus) also said that Jewish Christians had lived there after 70 CE, it seems reasonable to me that he put two and two together and supposed that that is where Ebion came from.

[Secret Alias]

So to summarize - because you see yourself operating like a latter day Epiphanius (stringing together inferences from Irenaeus and the canon Irenaeus put together you think you can arrive at "real history"). But clesrly the issue for you and Epiphanius is whether Irenaeus is reliable. I know why Epiphanius accepted Irenaeus- he was a Church Father. What's your excuse?

[davidmartin]

what John is saying has been my assumption for a few years, that Paul was opposed by Cerinthus who was an apostle of the Judaisers and likely compiler/redactor of Revelation. The split between these two branches of the church was far greater than Acts admits, and the fact it admits anything shows how great it was, yet these two branches did coalesce later on in the 1st century giving birth to the narrative as we have it

[Secret Alias]

But these assumptions only make sense if you harmonize the canon of Irenaeus with the wrirings of Irenaeus-. There is no independent evidence for this situation outside of Irenaeus

[davidmartin]

well hold on Secret, there's various different criteria you can put theories up against... for me the literary sources (nt, gnostics, church fathers, non-canonicals, josephus) are so utterly contradictory and confusing that any theory that manages to explain this would be a miracle in itself, it just needs to present an untangled thesis which would be self-supporting in a sense. So its ok to make assumptions so long as there's at least some backing for them and they fit into a bigger picture that explains everything else as well and pulls in all the more established stuff
Everyone has a pet theory often on slender proof but you have to start somewhere. I mean this is more the territory of art than science?

[Secret Alias]

It's always unfortunate when posters force us to listen to their ideosyncratic theories as price for admission to engage with them. I'm not interested in your theories. I am interested only in the limits of knowledge as it pertains to ancient reporting about the heresies. With regards to Epiphanius he is utterly reckless passing off things of low certainty as certainties. Moreover the main and often exclusive source for Epiphanius is Irenaeus - obviously not a good thing.

[Secret Alias]

Let's put things in perspective

1. Was there a Jewish Christian sect who called themselves Ebionites or the poor? No
2. Does Epiphanius provide us with an historically accurate account of their origins? No
3. Why are they called Ebionites? It has something to do with their being referenced in a hostile manner as poor in understanding.

[davidmartin]

Sigh... what makes your theories above everyone elses? We're all on the same level

1. Was there a Jewish Christian sect who called themselves Ebionites or the poor? No

Were there Jewish Christians?
Yes. Why else the Clementine Literature, why else the book of Revelation, or the references to them in the NT the "circumcision group"
The Odes of Solomon is also Jewish/Christian
Out of these were there some that were the 'Ebionites'.
Why should there not be?
We already know Jewish/Christians exist

2. Does Epiphanius provide us with an historically accurate account of their origins? No

Doubtful but if you have outside evidence + Epiphanius you can make him get it right sometimes

3. Why are they called Ebionites? It has something to do with their being referenced in a hostile manner as poor in understanding.

That's what the church fathers said. Also maybe they self-described themselves like this, making being poor a good thing. Humble/non-worldly
Hard to know.

[Secret Alias]

Were there Jewish Christians? ... Out of these were there some that were the 'Ebionites'.

So simply because Irenaeus is ONLY source of information we have to accept WHAT HE TELLS US about 'Jewish Christianity' (which isn't very much at that). No. That's not logical. Besides lurking behind Irenaeus's description of the 'Ebionites' is his fourfold gospel. He needs a certain type of heretic to match every gospel and thus in my opinion has shaped his account of the heresies to match the gospel. But let's analyze one further claim of Irenaeus's - they used Matthew in the Hebrew dialect.

Is that true? If Irenaeus's was borrowing a pre-existent account on the Ebionites his addition to the narrative was clearly 'that they used a NARRATIVE Matthew.' Hegesippus mention Matthew but it seems to have been in a form resembling 'the gospel according to Matthai' - i.e. as sayings logia. We can Irenaeus already reshaping this reference in Hegesippus to the full blown narrative gospel of Matthew albeit in Aramaic. We can see the borrowing from Hegesippus in the description of the gospel in 3.1.

ALL OF THIS IS BULLSHIT. Which of course lends to the question of whether 'canonical Matthew' was fabricated into a certain form to 'match' the description of 'Jewish Christianity' developing in Irenaeus's narratives. In other words, it was a completely artificial gospel. Why? Because Against Heresies was written against the Valentinians in special and 'Jewish Christianity' - i.e. encratites, Justin, Tatian - seemed to resemble certain aspects of Valentinism. To this end, a wholly artificial 'Jewish Christianity' was created. One which wasn't mystical or secretive but simply an idealized type of Judaism that never existed at any time or any age.