Epiphanius on the Ebionites

[John2]

I can't say I've ever thought about what sect Justus of Tiberius belonged to before, and that is an interesting question. And as I look at what Photius and Josephus say about him, I'm getting the impression that he was a Fourth Philosopher, and from Josephus' perspective, a rival one, since he had joined the Fourth Philosophy too, however reluctantly and briefly.

I think this is what is behind Photius' statement that Justus was a "political opponent of Josephus":

He was a political opponent of Josephus, against whom he is said to have concocted several plots; but Josephus, although on several occasions he had his enemy in his power, only chastised him with words and let him go free.


http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/justus.htm

This information is in keeping with what Josephus says in Ant. 18.1.1 about "the madness of these men [Fourth Philosophers] towards one another, while their desire was that none of the adverse party might be left."


And in Life 9 Josephus says:

... all these persons before named gave their advice, that the city should then continue in their allegiance to the Romans and to the king. But Pistus, who was guided by his son Justus, did not acquiesce in that resolution ... Justus ... although he pretended to be doubtful about going to war, yet was he really desirous of innovation, as supposing that he should gain power to himself by the change of affairs ... . So when Justus had, by his persuasions, prevailed with the citizens of Tiberias to take arms, nay, and had forced a great many so to do against their wills, he went out, and set the villages that belonged to Gadara and Hippos on fire; which villages were situated on the borders of Tiberias, and of the region of Scythopolis.

This is the same kind of language Josephus uses to describe Fourth Philosophers, e.g., Ant. 18.1.1, War 2.13.4 and 2.17.1:

[They] exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity ... in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of gain to themselves.

These were such men ... for procuring innovations and changes of the government ...

... the violence of those that were for innovations was not to be restrained ...

And Justus was also from the Galilee region, which was a hotbed of the Fourth Philosophy.

So to me Josephus and Justus sound like two ex-Fourth Philosophers who carried their "madness ... towards one another" into the literary arena after the 66-70 CE war.

[John2]

And no, I don't expect you to give me a "detailed list" of Pharisees and Sadducees who killed each other over doctrinal disputes. I would just like to see one good example, since the two you have given me do not suffice.

[John2]

But to get back to the main topic, I don't think we even need Epiphanius to know that there were two factions of Jewish Christians (at least during the first century CE), since it seems clear enough from Acts (which I date c. 95 CE) and Peter and Paul's letters (which I date pre-70 CE). Just like for the Fourth Philosophy in general, there was a spectrum within early Christianity, from the extreme (proto-Ebionites) to the moderate (Nazarenes), with Jewish Christian leaders (and Paul) representing the moderates. I think this is why Peter (in 1 Peter, which I view as being genuine) and Paul counseled Christians to not rebel against authorities, because there were some who were for it (like the proto-Ebionites in Acts).

And while both factions were pro-Torah and pro-sacrifice and were called Nazarenes before 70 CE, to judge from the patristic sources (from Irenaeus to Epiphanius), they split into two distinct groups after 70 CE, one of which continued to be pro-Torah and pro-sacrifice (Nazarenes) and the other became vegetarian (like the ascetics mentioned in Rabbinic writings) and anti-sacrifice and rejected parts of the Torah and parts of the rest of the OT (Ebionites).

And I think the Church writers before Epiphanius lumped both factions together in the same way that pagan critics lumped Gnostic and orthodox Christians together, and they called them Ebionites because they could make fun of that name (i.e., they were "poor" in understanding) and not Nazarenes because Jesus is called a Nazarene in the NT. But since Epiphanius had more sources (Ebionite writings, Josephus the Jewish convert and perhaps other oral sources) he was able to appreciate the distinction between the two factions.

Of course, one can dismiss all of the sources we have for Jewish Christianity (which is fine with me since I'm a "whatever floats your boat" guy), but this is the sense I get from them at least.