Epiphanius on the Ebionites

[Secret Alias]

Or let me put it another way. Since everything comes down to Irenaeus one of the following must be true

1. the Gospel of Matthew really went back to a Hebrew dialect gospel and the Ebionites had that gospel
2. Matthew existed prior to Irenaeus's account and Irenaeus did what Epiphanius does in the Panarion - viz. he 'figured out' the characteristics of the sect mostly based on 'the Jewishness' of Matthew.
3. the Ebionites were a real sect. Irenaeus took over his information about them from some other source. Irenaeus created Matthew based on a synthesis of (a) Hegesippus's reference to a gospel of Matthew and (b) things presumed about the Jewish opponents of Paul.
4. Hegesippus wrote something about a gospel of logia associated with Matthew. Irenaeus was determined to make Hegesippus witness the canonical gospel of Matthew so he took over things presumed or implicit or even explicit in Hegesippus (i.e. that it was written in the Hebrew dialect, that it was more Jewish than Pauline Christianity etc. Developed a 'Jewish Christian' gospel which wasn't gnostic or kabbalistic or mystical but representative of a more 'normative' Judaism. Constructed his 'Ebionites' drawn from a pre-existent reference to Jewish Christians 'poor in understanding' fitted to a presumption about normative (an anachronistic conception in itself) Jewish Christian followers of the apostles.

I clearly think (4) is the reality. But (1) is certainly not possible. (2) makes no sense. I don't see (3) as at all likely. But it is still closer to the mark.

The point is that again you can't discount the importance of the Ebionite association with proto-Matthew. That Irenaeus even allows for the idea that was a proto-Matthew is actually quite surprising. You'd think that the Church Father would want to argue that his canon contains ur-Matthew. But he strangely allows for the idea that a proto-Matthew originally circulated which was different somehow from the first gospel of the true canon. That he allows this situation to arise is important to consider. He essentially opens the door to NONE of the texts of the canon being the original gospel.

When you think about matters CHRONOLOGICALLY this is what Irenaeus says:

1. first came ur-Matthew
2. then somehow, somewhere the Greek text of Matthew emerged. No time line is given. It could be late, it could have been early. All Irenaeus implies is that ur-Matthew was written by an apostle and was first gospel. Greek Matthew could have arisen as recent as the day before Against Heresies was written.
3. the gospel of Mark. Written not by an apostle but an apostolic. Certain heretics separate Jesus from Christ and say one was crucified while another stood impassably watching. But Mark was written later than ur-Matthew.
4. Luke wrote presumably at the behest of Paul before Marcion corrupted his gospel.
5. John, while an apostle, wrote much later than apostolic times (which ended at the Jewish War).

So the canonical four aren't 'original.' Irenaeus has deferred to Hegesippus's argument (which may or may not have been original to the Outlines). But it is a rather strange argument to me and then to tack on the argument that Matthew was associated with the Ebionites is especially strange in that one would expect they would have had a 'Hebrew dialect' gospel. After all their name is Semitic. Does that mean that Irenaeus thought that they falsified the Hebrew dialect gospel of Matthew?

In any event, Epiphanius, by the time he arrives presents a Greek Ebionite gospel. Very strange. Does that mean that whoever the first Jewish Christians were they criticized the Hellenized party which translated their gospel as 'poor in understanding' owing to their translation? There are so many possibilities. But there is yet another wrinkle to consider. Those who used Mark and said Jesus and Christ were separate 'falsified' the contents of Mark. The Marcionites who falsified Luke did so from a falsified Luke. Those who falsified John are identified as corrupting the introduction (Valentinians) and with respect to the Paraclete. It is not clear who this last sect is. But Irenaeus goes forward and makes an even more stunning charge that the Holy Spirit 'knowing that these heretics would arise' wrote Matthew against the Ebionites, Mark against the separators, Luke against Marcion and John against the Valentinians.

This would imply to me that the Ebionites were presumed to have a version of ur-Matthew - whether in Greek or 'the Hebrew dialect.' I strongly expect then that Matthew was written against the 'Jewishness' of those who used ur-Matthew. This doesn't mean that it was written 'against the Ebionites' per se. Only that some sort of Jewish Christian sect existed and Matthew poured cold water on whatever that sect wanted to get from their gospel and the Ebionites became the personified caricature of 'Jewish Christianity' thereafter. But I don't think we can simply presume that the Ebionites were 'real' merely because Irenaeus tells us so.

[Secret Alias]

And it is worth noting that Paul seems to hint at 'poor' being a category in his mystery religion - and Clement's Alexandrian Church already takes over this category as part of its stratagem. Clement cites with special interest the words of Paul:

In everything approving ourselves as the servants of God; as poor, and yet making many rich; as having nothing, yet possessing all things. Our mouth is opened to you.

Anyone who knows about Clement of Alexandria's mystery religion has noticed that the 'Secret Mark' passage seems to develop out of the encounter with the rich man in chapter 10 of the gospel of Mark. Interestingly Clement seems to argue repeatedly that the story about the rich man presumes a category of 'poor' who are enriched by the gnostic character of martyrdom. I will list a few passages. The first:

Much more, then, is the Scripture to be believed which says, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man " to lead a philosophic life. But, on the other hand, it blesses "the poor;" as Plato understood when he said, "It is not the diminishing of one's resources, but the augmenting of insatiableness, that is to be considered poverty; for it is not slender means that ever constitutes poverty, but insatiableness, from which the good man being free, will also be rich."

The word here for 'insatiable' is ἀπληστία which means 'without greed.' So Clement here understands poor to mean 'without greed.' Rich is similarly defined as 'spiritually beneficent'"

And Homer seems to me to have said prophetically of the faithful, "Give to thy friend." And an enemy must be aided, that he may not continue an enemy. For by help good feeling is compacted, and enmity dissolved. "But if there be present readiness of mind, according to what a man hath it is acceptable, and not according to what he hath not: for it is not that there be ease to others, but tribulation to you, but of equality at the present time," and so forth. "He hath dispersed, he hath given to the poor; his righteousness endureth for ever," the Scripture says. For conformity with the image and likeness is not meant of the body (for it were wrong for what is mortal to be made like what is immortal), but in mind and reason, on which fitly the Lord impresses the seal of likeness, both in respect of doing good and of exercising rule.

In what sense then is one person 'rich' and another 'poor' again Clement tries to explain in another passage:

Just as the world is composed of opposites, of heat and cold, dry and wet, so also is it made up of givers and receivers. Again when he says, "If you would be perfect, sell your possessions and give to the poor," he convicts the man who boasts that he has kept all the commandments~ from his youth up. For he had not fulfilled "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Only then was he taught by the Lord who wished to make him perfect, to give for love's sake. Accordingly he has not forbidden us to be rich in the right way, but only a wrongful and insatiable grasping of money. For "property gained unlawfully is diminished." "There are some who sow much and gain the more, and those who hoard become impoverished." Of them it is written: "He distributed, he gave to the poor, his righteousness endures for ever." For he who sows and gathers more is the man who by giving away his earthly and temporal goods has obtained a heavenly and eternal prize; the other is he who gives to no one, but vainly "lays up treasure on earth where moth and rust corrupt"; of him it is written: "In gathering motley, he has gathered it into a condemned cell." Of his land the Lord says in the gospel that it produced plentifully; then wishing to store the fruits he built larger store-houses, saying to himself in the words dramatically put into his mouth "You have many good things laid up for many years to come, eat, drink, and be merry. You fool," says the Lord, "this night your soul shall be required of you. Whose then shall be the things you have prepared?"

Again Clement doesn't come right out and says what this 'transaction' he has in mind but in one passage he does:

Now we, too, say that those who have rushed on death (for there are some, not belonging to us, but sharing the name merely, who are in haste to give themselves up, the poor wretches dying through hatred to the Creator ) -- these, we say, banish themselves without being martyrs, even though they are punished publicly. For they do not preserve the characteristic mark of believing martyrdom, inasmuch as they have not known the only true God, but give themselves up to a vain death, as the Gymnosophists of the Indians to useless fire. But since these falsely named calumniate the body, let them learn that the harmonious mechanism of the body contributes to the understanding which leads to goodness of nature. Wherefore in the third book of the Republic, Plato, whom they appeal to loudly as an authority that disparages generation, says, "that for the sake of harmony of soul, care must be taken for the body," by which, he who announces the proclamation of the truth, finds it possible to live, and to live well. For it is by the path of life and health that we learn gnosis. But is he who cannot advance to the height without being occupied with necessary things, and through them doing what tends to knowledge, not to choose to live well? In living, then, living well is secured. And he who in the body has devoted himself to a good life, is being sent on to the state of immortality.

He is distinguishing his own tradition from the Marcionites - at least overtly - who rush to make martyrs of themselves. Clearly the best explanation for the 'poor in understanding' fits the Marcionites as they run out to die.

But it is apparent that Clement's own tradition had these sorts of martyrs too as we read in what follows:

Our holy Saviour applied poverty and riches, and the like, both to spiritual things and objects of sense. For when He said, "Blessed are they that are persecuted for righteousness' sake," He clearly taught us in every circumstance to seek for the martyr who, if poor for righteousness' sake, witnesses that the righteousness which he loves is a good thing; and if he "hunger and thirst for righteousness' sake," testifies that righteousness is the best thing. Likewise he, that weeps and mourns for righteousness' sake, testifies to the best law that it is beautiful. As, then, "those that are persecuted," so also "those that hunger and thirst" for righteousness' sake, are called "blessed" by Him who approves of the true desire, which not even famine can put a stop to. And if "they hunger after righteousness itself," they are blessed. "And blessed are the poor," whether "in spirit" or in circumstances -- that is, if for righteousness' sake. It is not the poor simply, but those that have wished to become poor for righteousness' sake, that He pronounces blessed -- those who have despised the honours of this world in order to attain "the good;" likewise also those who, through chastity, have become comely in person and character, and those who are of noble birth, and honourable, having through righteousness attained to adoption, and therefore "have received power to become the sons of God," and "to tread on serpents and scorpions," and to rule over demons and "the host of the adversary."

Do you start to see why I am strongly doubting that there ever was such a thing as 'Jewish Christian' Ebionites? A strong case can be made that 'ebion' was applied to the 'poor' martyrs of Pauline mysticism. In other words, those who rushed out to die without a proper understanding were called Ebionites. They may have been so called by Aramaic speaking detractors.

The idea seems to be that there were a great number of illiterate Christians who were groomed for martyrdom and their detractors called them 'poor in understanding.' But 'the poor' were certainly a category in the martyr cult of earliest Christianity. Hear Clement again:

And this is the import of "Sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and come, follow Me" -- that is, follow what is said by the Lord. Some say that by what "thou hast" He designated the things in the soul, of a nature not akin to it, though how these are bestowed on the poor they are not able to say. For God dispenses to all according to desert, His distribution being righteous. Despising, therefore, the possessions which God apportions to thee in thy magnificence, comply with what is spoken by me; haste to the ascent of the Spirit, being not only justified by abstinence from what is evil, but in addition also perfected, by Christlike beneficence. In this instance He convicted the man, who boasted that he had fulfilled the injunctions of the law, of not loving his neighbour; and it is by beneficence that the love which, according to the gnostic ascending scale, is Lord of the Sabbath, proclaims itself. We must then, according to my view, have recourse to the word of salvation neither from fear of punishment nor promise of a gift, but on account of the good itself. Such, as do so, stand on the right hand of the sanctuary; but those who think that by the gift of what is perishable they shall receive in exchange what belongs to immortality are in the parable of the two brothers called "hirelings." And is there not some light thrown here on the expression "in the likeness and image," in the fact that some live according to the likeness of Christ, while those who stand on the left hand live according to their image? There are then two things proceeding from the truth, one root lying beneath both, -- the choice being, however, not equal, or rather the difference that is in the choice not being equal. To choose by way of imitation differs, as appears to me, from the choice of him who chooses according to knowledge, as that which is set on fire differs from that which is illuminated. Israel, then, is the light of the likeness which is according to the Scripture. But the image is another thing. What means the parable of Lazarus, by showing the image of the rich and poor? And what the saying, "No man can serve two masters, God and Mammon?" -- the Lord so terming the love of money. For instance, the covetous, who were invited, responded not to the invitation to the supper, not because of their possessing property, but of their inordinate affection to what they possessed. "The foxes," then, have holes. He called those evil and earthly men who are occupied about the wealth which is mined and dug from the ground, foxes. Thus also, in reference to Herod: "Go, tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and perform cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected." For He applied the name "fowls of the air" to those who were distinct from the other birds -- those really pure, those that have the power of flying to the knowledge of the heavenly Word. For not riches only, but also honour, and marriage, and poverty, have ten thousand cares for him who is unfit for them. And those cares He indicated in the parable of the fourfold seed, when He said that "the seed of the word which fell unto the thorns" and hedges was choked by them, and could not bring forth fruit. It is therefore necessary to learn how to make use of every occurrence, so as by a good life, according to knowledge, to be trained for the state of eternal life. For it said, "I saw the wicked exalted and towering as the cedars of Lebanon; and I passed," says the Scripture, "and, lo, he was not; and I sought him, and his place was not found. Keep innocence, and look on uprightness: for there is a remnant to the man of peace." Such will he be who believes unfeignedly with his whole heart, and is tranquil in his whole soul. "For the different people honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from the Lord." "They bless with their mouth, but they curse in their heart." "They loved Him with their mouth, and lied to Him with their tongue; but their heart was not right with Him, and they were not faithful to His covenant." Wherefore "let the false lips become speechless, and let the Lord destroy the boastful tongue: those who say, We shall magnify our tongue, and our lips are our own; who is Lord over us? For the affliction of the poor and the groaning of the needy now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety; I will speak out in his case." For it is to the humble that Christ belongs, who do not exalt themselves against His flock. "Lay not up for yourselves, therefore, treasures on the earth, where moth and rust destroy, and thieves break through and steal," says the Lord, in reproach perchance of the covetous, and perchance also of those who are simply anxious and full of cares, and those too who indulge their bodies. For amours, and diseases, and evil thoughts "break through" the mind and the whole man. But our true "treasure" is where what is allied to our mind is, since it bestows the communicative power of righteousness, showing that we must assign to the habit of our old conversation what we have acquired by it, and have recourse to God, beseeching mercy. He is, in truth, "the bag that waxeth not old," the provisions of eternal life, "the treasure that faileth not in heaven." "For I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," saith the Lord. And they say those things to those who wish to be poor for righteousness' sake. For they have heard in the commandment that "the broad and wide way leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in by it." It is not of anything else that the assertion is made, but of profligacy, and love of women, and love of glory, and ambition, and similar passions. For so He says, "Fool, this night shall thy soul be required of thee; and whose shall those things be which thou hast prepared?" And the commandment is expressed in these very words, "Take heed, therefore, of covetousness. For a man's life does not consist in the abundance of those things which he possesses. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" "Wherefore I say, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for your body, what ye shall put on. For your life is more than meat, and your body than raiment." And again, "For your Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things." "But seek first the kingdom of heaven, and its righteousness," for these are the great things, and the things which are small and appertain to this life "shall be added to you." Does He not plainly then exhort us to follow the gnostic life, and enjoin us to seek the truth in word and deed? Therefore Christ, who trains the soul, reckons one rich, not by his gifts, but by his choice. It is said, therefore, that Zaccheus, or, according to some, Matthew, the chief of the publicans, on hearing that the Lord had deigned to come to him, said, "Lord, and if I have taken anything by false accusation, I restore him fourfold;" on which the Saviour said, "The Son of man, on coming to-day, has found that which was lost." Again, on seeing the rich cast into the treasury according to their wealth, and the widow two mites, He said "that the widow had cast in more than they all," for "they had contributed of their abundance, but she of her destitution." And because He brought all things to bear on the discipline of the soul, He said, "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth." And the meek are those who have quelled the battle of unbelief in the soul, the battle of wrath, and lust, and the other forms that are subject to them. And He praises those meek by choice, not by necessity. For there are with the Lord both rewards and" many mansions," corresponding to men's lives. "Whosoever shall receive," says He, "a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet's reward; and whosoever shall receive a righteous man in the name of a righteous man, shall receive a righteous man's reward; and whoso shall receive one of the least of these my disciples, shall not lose his reward." And again, the differences of virtue according to merit, and the noble rewards, He indicated by the hours unequal in number; and in addition, by the equal reward given to each of the labourers -- that is, salvation, which is meant by the penny -- He indicated the equality of justice; and the difference of those called He intimated, by those who worked for unequal portions of time. They shall work, therefore, in accordance with the appropriate mansions of which they have been deemed worthy as rewards, being fellow-workers in the ineffable administration and service. "Those, then," says Plato, "who seem called to a holy life, are those who, freed and released from those earthly localities as from prisons, have reached the pure dwelling-place on high." In clearer terms again he expresses the same thing: "Those who by philosophy have been sufficiently purged from those things, live without bodies entirely for all time. Although they are enveloped in certain shapes; in the case of some, of air, and others, of fire." He adds further: "And they reach abodes fairer than those, which it is not easy, nor is there sufficient time now to describe." Whence with reason, "blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted;" for they who have repented of their former evil life shall attain to "the calling" (klhsin), for this is the meaning of being comforted (paraklhqhnai). And there are two styles of penitents. That which is more common is fear on account of what is done; but the other which is more special, the shame which the spirit feels in itself arising from conscience. Whether then, here or elsewhere (for no place is devoid of the beneficence of God), He again says, "Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy." And mercy is not, as some of the philosophers have imagined, pain on account of others' calamities, but rather something good, as the prophets say. For it is said, "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice." And He means by the merciful, not only those who do acts of mercy, but those who wish to do them, though they be not able; who do as far as purpose is concerned. For sometimes we wish by the gift of money or by personal effort to do mercy, as to assist one in want, or help one who is sick, or stand by one who is in any emergency; and are not able either from poverty, or disease, or old age (for this also is natural disease), to carry out our purpose, in reference to the things to which we are impelled, being unable to conduct them to the end we wished. Those, who have entertained the wish whose purpose is equal, share in the same honour with those who have the ability, although others have the advantage in point of resources. And since there are two paths of reaching the perfection of salvation, works and knowledge, He called the "pure in heart blessed, for they shall see God." And if we really look to the truth of the matter, knowledge is the purification of the leading faculty of the soul, and is a good activity. Some things accordingly are good in themselves, and others by participation in what is good, as we say good actions are good. But without things intermediate which hold the place of material, neither good nor bad actions are constituted, such I mean as life, and health, and other necessary things or circumstantials. Pure then as respects corporeal lusts, and pure in respect of holy thoughts, he means those are, who attain to the knowledge of God, when the chief faculty of the soul has nothing spurious to stand in the way of its power. When, therefore, he who partakes gnostically of this holy quality devotes himself to contemplation, communing in purity with the divine, he enters more nearly into the state of impassible identity, so as no longer to have science and possess knowledge, but to be science and knowledge.

This understanding repeated through QDS:

He then is truly and rightly rich who is rich in virtue, and is capable of making a holy and faithful use of any fortune; while he is spuriously rich who is rich, according to the flesh, and turns life into outward possession, which is transitory and perishing, and now belongs to one, now to another, and in the end to nobody at all. Again, in the same way there is a genuine poor man, and another counterfeit and falsely so called. He that is poor in spirit, and that is the right thing, and he that is poor in a worldly sense, which is a different thing. To him who is poor in worldly goods, but rich in vices, who is not poor in spirit and rich toward God, it is said, Abandon the alien possessions that are in thy soul, that, becoming pure in heart, thou mayest see God; which is another way of saying, Enter into the kingdom of heaven. And how may you abandon them? By selling them. What then? Are you to take money for effects, by effecting an exchange of riches, by turning your visible substance into money? Not at all. But by introducing, instead of what was formerly inherent in your soul, which you desire to save, other riches which deify and which minister everlasting life, dispositions in accordance with the command of God; for which there shall accrue to you endless reward and honour, and salvation, and everlasting immortality. It is thus that thou dost rightly sell the possessions, many are superfluous, which shut the heavens against thee by exchanging them for those which are able to save. Let the former be possessed by the carnal poor, who are destitute of the latter. But thou, by receiving instead spiritual wealth, shalt have now treasure in the heavens.

In summa, I don't think early Jewish Christians were called Ebionites. Ebionites were likely the ignorant martyrs of early Christianity. The term came up in Pauline Christianity as passed on to second and third century Christianity.

[Secret Alias]

What I am suggesting then is that 'Ebionites' are a Pauline mystery position - something akin to catechumen. Somehow this was turned into a sect of Jewish Christianity. And I think I have an explanation for that. If we follow Clement of Alexandria's Christianity - and even that of Ethiopia to this day. There was clearly an idea that the 'Old Testament' was for everyone and the 'New Testament' was for those who underwent the mysteries. Now do we get a sense of how a 'sect' of 'Jewish Christians' was born? If you had only fully initiated Christians living the gospel, it stands that 'the poor' were 'stuck' in Judaism. The whole idea that 'Jewish Christianity' was to be identified with 'the apostles beyond Paul' is true to a degree. Nevertheless I think the specific terminology 'the poor' was absolutely Pauline. It was what the apostle called everyone who didn't fulfill HIS mystery religion. Do you see then? We don't use terminology in the right way and I think Irenaeus just twisted the term to mean 'a certain kind of sect' when in fact it was just a mystery terminology which applied to the people Irenaeus said it did BUT NOT IN THE WAY he meant it - i.e. a specific sect.

[Secret Alias]

Since I think most people have no clue how a church functioned I think a crash course might be instructive:

1. The narthex, or ante-temple, where the penitents and catechumens stood.
2. The naos, or temple, where the communicants had their respective places.
3. The Bema, or sanctuary, where the clergy stood to officiate at the altar.

and furthermore about (1):

These Porches in such Churches as had no other Ante-Temple, served to receive the first Class of Penitents, called, The Mourners, which otherwise were remitted to the Atrium and Portico's before the Church, as I have shewed already in the temple of Paulinus. And these Things are accurately to be observed by those, who would not mistake the Ancients, when they seem to speak differently of the Place of the Mourners. Du Fresne has also observed out of Paulinus Nolanus, that these Porches and Gates are sometimes called Arcus, from the Manner of their Strućture, which was Arch-work; and Apsides for the same Reason, for Apsis denotes any Thing hat is framed in the figure of an arch or a convex, as the heavens: and therefore he thinks the thirty-second canon of the third council of Carthage is to be understood of this place, when it says,' That such penitents as had committed very notorious and scandalous crimes, known to the whole church, should have imposition of hands before the Apsis;” that is, before the porch or doors of the church. Here it was also that the poor of the church placed themselves both before and after Divine service, to ask alms of such as came from the altar.

In other words, there always seems to have been a class of people - from whom the martyrs were drawn owing to some mystical understanding of the symbolism of sacrifice.

[Secret Alias]

So what I am suggesting is:

1. a large body of the 'poor' from whom the catechumen derived their origins
2. the catechumen being principally raised to die as martyrs
3. the quip that 'they are (really) poor in understanding' to live to die

I think Christian communities were built on top of Jewish proselyte communities. In the period immediately after the Bar Kochba revolt (c 138 - 161 CE) there was no 'traditional Jewish leadership' to speak of. Jewish proselytes seems to have latched on to Christianity. The central tenet of Christianity at the time was that the poor weren't fully Christian yet. They had to 'come over' to perfection through initiation. The existence of 'Ebionites' i.e. Jewish Christian believers seems to have emerged from a large swath of Jewish proselytes after the bar Kochba revolt (and before that the first Jewish War presumably) who went over to become 'full Christians.' The Ebionites were entirely a phenomenon within Pauline Christian.

[John2]

For me the big problem is reconciling Epiphanius' Ebionites with what earlier writers say about them (though I suppose the passage of several centuries between the former and the latter could be a factor In this respect, in that things may have changed in Jewish Christianity over that time).

For one thing, wherever he may have gotten the idea (written or oral sources or conjecture), even if Epiphanius did not say that his Ebionites emerged after 70 CE, I think we could infer this from the data (as per the Clementine writings) that they were vegetarians and opposed sacrifices (including the parts of the Torah that command them) and some of the OT prophets.

While the Dead Sea Scrolls also "oppose" sacrifice and are pre-70 CE, they don't oppose the idea of sacrifice or reject the parts of the Torah that command them or any of the prophets, only sacrifices in an unclean Temple run by unclean people, and they long for the day when sacrifices can be done properly.

Epiphanius' Ebionites, however, totally reject the idea of sacrifice and eating meat (and even have Jesus saying such in their version of Matthew), and to me that smells like a post-70 CE development in response to the destruction of the Temple, and in any event is not in keeping with Jesus' pro-sacrifice position in the NT and Nazarene versions of Matthew.

Irenaeus' Ebionites (and Hippolytus following him), however, appear to accept sacrifices and all of the Torah and the prophets, though at the same time they are similar to Epiphanius' Ebionites in that they rejected Paul (unlike the Nazarenes, according to Jerome).


Irenaeus AH 1.26.2:

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. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practice 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.

Hippolytus RH 7.22:

The Ebionaeans, 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, 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).

I suspect these earlier writers may not have appreciated the differences between the factions of Jewish Christianity, like the way they complained about pagans not appreciating the differences between "bad" Christian factions (like Gnostics) and the "good" one (orthodox). In other words, it may not be entirely accurate in the small picture, but in the big picture it is, i.e., that there were Jewish Christian factions that held these beliefs, even if they all didn't share them.

In that case, it would only be a matter of their name, since Epiphanius says that the faction that accepted all of the Torah and Paul were called Nazarenes and the ones who didn't were called Ebionites. However, he doesn't say that the Nazarenes called themselves that, only that this is what other Christians had called them.


Pan. 29.6.7 (on the Nazarenes):

Thus Christ’s holy disciples too called themselves “disciples of Jesus” then, as indeed they were. But when others called them Nazoraeans they did not reject it, being aware of the intent of those who were calling them that. They were calling them Nazoraeans because of Christ, since our Lord Jesus was called “the Nazoraean” himself—as the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles say.

So I suspect that earlier writers may have lumped the "no name" Nazarene Jewish Christian faction with the Ebionite faction and didn't appreciate their differences (similar to pagan observers of Gentile Christian factions), but that on the whole their information is correct, i.e., that Jewish Christians (as a whole) held these beliefs.

[Secret Alias]

that they were vegetarians and opposed sacrifices (including the parts of the Torah that command them) and some of the OT prophets.

Remember what the early rabbinic literature says about those who refused to eat meat and drink wine because of the loss of the temple. These individuals are clearly in some sense still 'Jewish.' I think this shows that Christianity was drawing from the same pool of proselytes to Judaism.

[John2]

that they were vegetarians and opposed sacrifices (including the parts of the Torah that command them) and some of the OT prophets.

Remember what the early rabbinic literature says about those who refused to eat meat and drink wine because of the loss of the temple. These individuals are clearly in some sense still 'Jewish.' I think this shows that Christianity was drawing from the same pool of proselytes to Judaism.

I agree! And I suspect some of them already were Jewish Christians (and thus like Epiphanius' Ebionites).

[Secret Alias]

But here's where you understanding of Christianity breaks down and I fear it is not just you. 'Christian' was a term reserved for those who had completed the initiation into the religion. There was a swath of believers, hangers on, catechumen - whatever. But the term 'poor' clearly means something other than living, breathing, functioning 'finished' Christians. It devotes a subclass within Christianity much like 'proselyte' was within Judaism. There wasn't a congregation of 'proselyte Jews' even though each Jewish congregation was filled with proselytes before 140 CE. Similarly there were lots of 'poor' but no such thing as 'Poor Christianity.'

[Secret Alias]

there were Jewish Christian factions that held these beliefs, even if they all didn't share them.

I think this is what has to be cleared up. At bottom there were thousands of illiterate believers who accepted something about a divine man named 'Jesus' being crucified and saving humanity. I think they practiced something rooted in Judaism. Perhaps as little as venerating the ten commandments. Some circumcision and other rites. But they weren't organized into formal churches. They gathered together in the houses of benefactors who were also ecclesiastic authorities of some sort. But the illiterate had little in the way of self-identity. They didn't see themselves as 'Christians.' Perhaps they identified themselves as 'Hebrews' or 'Jews.' They were the periphery of 'Christianity' which also existed from the beginning and was run by educated men.

The same situation existed in 'Judaism.' Before the destruction of the temple the rich men ran the Jewish community. Indeed even to this day most synagogues are run by rich families. Yes individuals can feel 'Jewish' or identify as 'Jews.' But the religion of identity is run by rich men.