Peter in the Clementine Homilies Does Not Accept the Sacredness of the Pentateuch

[Secret Alias]

So who made the original material behind the Clementines? Irenaeus's Ebionites or Epiphanius's Ebionites?

[John2]

So who made the original material behind the Clementines? Irenaeus's Ebionites or Epiphanius's Ebionites?

I think they both could have had a hand in it, which would be apt, since later Ebionites would have naturally had access to earlier Ebionite writings (and been in a position to alter them to suit their evolved beliefs).

But let's bear in mind that the Grundshrift forms only a small portion of the Clementine writings.

[Secret Alias]

So you won't answer the question. So typical. Glad you learned a new word. It is actually Grundschrift. The German schrift is where we get our English word script from. In the case of which Ebionites it simply can't be both. Your answer is a non-answer. Clearly Irenaeus is reporting nonsense.

[John2]

So you won't answer the question. So typical. Glad you learned a new word. It is actually Grundschrift. The German schrift is where we get our English word script from. In the case of which Ebionites it simply can't be both. Your answer is a non-answer. Clearly Irenaeus is reporting nonsense.

I spell Grundschrift correctly in other posts. I'm busy at work right now and misspelled it in the above post, but I've been using the term for years on the forum, including in discussions with you, as a word search of the forum will show (though I wouldn't be surprised if I've misspelled it some other times too, since I typically use the forum when I'm at work -I've been called away about ten times in the midst of writing posts here today, for example- and it's an easy word to mistype in any event).

I don't think Irenaeus is reporting nonsense. As I pointed out, what he says is in keeping with Recognitions 1.68-71, which is thought to be from a Jewish Christian source.

[John2]

In the case of which Ebionites it simply can't be both.

I think it can in the way that I outlined. As Kelley notes in the link I gave above (pg. 12-13):

It is generally agreed that the Grundschrift makes use of a number of different source documents ... It is important to note that most of the "sources" in this book [the Recognitions] are not generally thought to have been employed directly by the author of the Recognitions. Rather, they were used by the Grundschrift, which was in turn used by the Recognitions.

And I'm thinking that these sources used by the Grundschrift were redacted by later Ebionites and reflect their beliefs (like in your citation from the Homilies in the OP, which align with what Epiphanius says about later Ebionites), but given the correspondences between Rec. 1.68-71 and what Irenaeus says about the Ebionites, I think that passage could be from an earlier Ebionite source that Epiphanius says survived the redaction process of later Ebionites:

... they use certain other books as well -supposedly the so-called Travels of Peter written by Clement, though they corrupt their contents while leaving a few genuine passages ...

[davidmartin]

it doesn't really matter because at the end of the day to be an Ebionite you had to get circumcised, the church fathers can say whatever they want and still win because no-one wants to get their dick cut. In some earlier time they had an influence but it disappeared pretty fast but left it's mark, the Clementines affirm a rigid belief in hell. This was one of their influences I'd say

[Secret Alias]

Rec. 1.68-71 and what Irenaeus says about the Ebionites

Not like I expect an actual answer Steve but either the Clementines had heretical material added to a more traditionally 'Jewish' document or the Clementines were originally produced by a group which didn't accept normative Jewish beliefs (the sacredness of the Torah etc) and was later reworked to make it seem more normative (monotheism etc). It can't be both at the same time. It's either one or the other.

[John2]

Rec. 1.68-71 and what Irenaeus says about the Ebionites

Not like I expect an actual answer Steve but either the Clementines had heretical material added to a more traditionally 'Jewish' document or the Clementines were originally produced by a group which didn't accept normative Jewish beliefs (the sacredness of the Torah etc) and was later reworked to make it seem more normative (monotheism etc). It can't be both at the same time. It's either one or the other.

There are generally thought to be three layers to the Clementine writings (as Kelley notes): Jewish Christian (and other) sources that pre-date the third century CE; the Grundschrift, which used these earlier sources in the third century CE; and the final redactor(s) of the Recognitions and Homilies (with the Homilies being "generally considered to reproduce the content of the Grundschrift more closely than the Recognitions").


And since Epiphanius appears to know the Clementine writings in different forms than their final redactions, what he says about later Ebionites using earlier writings is no different in concept than what modern scholars say about the Grundschrift using earlier (including Jewish Christian) sources.

And thus I think Irenaeus and Epiphanius could both be right, with Irenaeus' Ebionites being represented in sources used by the Grundschrift, and later Ebionites being reflected in the Grundschrift, which, to employ Epiphanius' phrasing, had "corrupted" the contents of earlier sources "while leaving a few genuine passages" (such as, in my view, Rec. 1.68-71, which corresponds with what Irenaeus says about Ebionites).

[Secret Alias]

No for fuck's sake, there can't be TWO original authors for the document. This is how I know that John2 is a Christian - his reluctance to even consider that 'the Holy Spirit' didn't reside in both Irenaeus and Epiphanius (thus allowing for one of them to be wrong). Irenaeus says again:

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 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.

The Clementines do infer that Jesus was a 'great prophet' - so that could work for either proposed group authoring the document. But the gospel citations - core citations - extend beyond Matthew. At the core of the text Paul is identified as Simon Magus which works. But here is where it breaks down:

1. the Clementines' understanding of prophesy is weird to say the least. Not what you would expect from the group Irenaeus describes here.
2. the text implicitly understood that baptism replaced circumcision, contradicting another aspect of Irenaeus's description.
3. I have shown the Clementines do not 'persevere in the observances' of those customs enjoined by the law'

As such the group which Irenaeus describes as 'the Ebionites' cannot have authored this text.

[John2]

No for fuck's sake, there can't be TWO original authors for the document. This is how I know that John2 is a Christian - his reluctance to even consider that 'the Holy Spirit' didn't reside in both Irenaeus and Epiphanius (thus allowing for one of them to be wrong). Irenaeus says again:

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 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.

The Clementines do infer that Jesus was a 'great prophet' - so that could work for either proposed group authoring the document. But the gospel citations - core citations - extend beyond Matthew. At the core of the text Paul is identified as Simon Magus which works. But here is where it breaks down:

1. the Clementines' understanding of prophesy is weird to say the least. Not what you would expect from the group Irenaeus describes here.
2. the text implicitly understood that baptism replaced circumcision, contradicting another aspect of Irenaeus's description.
3. I have shown the Clementines do not 'persevere in the observances' of those customs enjoined by the law'

As such the group which Irenaeus describes as 'the Ebionites' cannot have authored this text.

But this overlooks the influence of the final redactors and other (non-Jewish Christian) sources (like Bardaisan or Syrian Christianity) thought to have been incorporated into the Clementine writings (which Kelley discusses in the link I gave). I am only concerned with the parts of the Clementines that are thought to be derived from Jewish Christian sources, which in my view align with what Irenaeus and Epiphanius say about Ebionites.

In other words, I'm not saying that Irenaeus' or Epiphanius' Ebionites "authored this text" (i.e., the Clementine writings as a whole), only the parts of it that are generally thought to be derived from Jewish Christian sources (like the passage from the Recognitions I've been citing).