Is *Ev a source of the Gospel of the Ebionites?

[Peter Kirby]

I think it's the other way around and Marcion used the Ebionite Matthew (as did Luke).

Is there evidence for the priority of the Gospel of the Ebionites (in Panarion 30) before *Ev or before Luke?

It's a deduction based on the Ebionites having branched off from the first Christians (according to Epiphanius). For me it follows that if the Ebionites were once Nazarenes (as Epiphanius says), then so was their version of Matthew. If we go by Epiphanius' timeline, why would Ebionites have needed to look elsewhere (and to Gentile Christians, at that) for a gospel?

The gospels used by Nazarenes and Ebionites were both called "Matthew," but one was in Hebrew and the other was in Greek (and was a "mutilated" version of Matthew, according to Epiphanius). And this fits what Papias says (according to my reading, anyway), that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and "each one" translated it as best as they could (like Josephus' Jewish War). I see the NT Matthew and the Ebionite Matthew as examples of this process. Both are translations (and "mutilations") of the Hebrew Matthew, espousing their particular doctrines.

Marcion and Luke would have come after this process and both of them did the same thing, turn the Ebionite Matthew into their respective gospels. The only difference appears to be that Marcion was more faithful to the Ebionite Matthew, since he espoused its vegetarian/anti-sacrifice doctrines. And Luke incorporated other sources besides the Ebionite Matthew (Mark and perhaps the NT Matthew).

So for me, Marcion and Luke are second century CE "mutilations" of the Hebrew Matthew. Even if Marcion came before Luke, they both seem relatively "late" to the gospel game (though still respectably "early" and important in the big picture).

But I will take another look at Pan. 30 and see if there is any direct evidence that supports this line of thinking.

I'm not comfortable with assigning historical groups and actors to the texts this way, which may have been produced by different people with different concerns. It sounds like your thoughts are motivated by viewing it as a text that "Marcion" made, then situating the place of "Marcion" in a development of groups where "Marcion" is secondary to Ebionites.

However, I would not assume that *Ev is "Marcionite," and I also wouldn't assume that the Gospel of the Ebionites is actually "Ebionite." I would start from the texts themselves, as best as we can understand them, independent of talking about the entities of Marcion/Marcionites and Ebionites, or assuming such things about the texts.

From that perspective, you haven't really said anything yet about the texts.

[John2]

I It sounds like your thoughts are motivated by viewing it as a text that "Marcion" made, then situating the place of "Marcion" in a development of groups where "Marcion" is secondary to Ebionites.

It's just the impression I get from what Church writers say. I realize they need to be read with a grain of salt, but without them we have nothing, and my understanding is that they say that Marcion created his gospel by mutilating Luke. And while I don't think Marcion used Luke, it was a close guess, since I think Marcion and Luke used the same source (the Ebionite Matthew).

However, I would not assume that *Ev is "Marcionite," and I also wouldn't assume that the Gospel of the Ebionites is actually "Ebionite." I would start from the texts themselves, as best as we can understand them, independent of talking about the entities of Marcion/Marcionites and Ebionites, or assuming such things about the texts.

From that perspective, you haven't really said anything yet about the texts.

I think you are on to something as far as how the Ebionite Matthew and Clementine writings line up with Marcion, and I think these similarities are due to Marcion using the Ebionite Matthew, because I can't not factor in Epiphanius' timeline and information, given that we would have nothing without him, and his contact with Jewish Christians of his time and their writings. The Ebionites had no need for Marcion's gospel according to this timeline.

[Peter Kirby]

my understanding is that they say that Marcion created his gospel by mutilating Luke. And while I don't think Marcion used Luke, it was a close guess

And I'm not vouching for their guess, or for your guess about what may be true about their guess.

[Peter Kirby]

From that perspective, you haven't really said anything yet about the texts.

I think you are on to something as far as how the Ebionite Matthew and Clementine writings line up with Marcion, and I think these similarities are due to Marcion using the Ebionite Matthew, because I can't not factor in Epiphanius' timeline and information, given that we would have nothing without him, and his contact with Jewish Christians of his time and their writings. The Ebionites had no need for Marcion's gospel according to this timeline.

You're still not really talking about the texts.

[John2]

I'm not sure what else there is to say about the texts. What Church writers say about Marcion lines up with the citations you've given of the Ebionite Matthew and the Clementine writings (which are commonly thought to incorporate the other Ebionite writings mentioned by Epiphanius).

Why do these similarities exist, is the issue for me. And I think it's because Marcion used the Ebionite Matthew, since Ebionites are said to have branched off from the first Christians, and those first Christians are said to have used a Hebrew Matthew (which by my reading fits what Papias says about Matthew). And over and over again, Epiphanius points out the Ebionite gospel's connection to Matthew.

I also think it would be strange for a sect that hated Paul to use a gospel that was created or endorsed by someone who exclusively followed Paul.

[Peter Kirby]

I'm not sure what else there is to say about the texts.

You haven't really said anything yet about the texts. The material of the texts themselves is the primary evidence there.

What Church writers say about Marcion lines up with the citations you've given of the Ebionite Matthew and the Clementine writings (which are commonly thought to incorporate the other Ebionite writings mentioned by Epiphanius).

Why do these similarities exist, is the issue for me. And I think it's because Marcion used the Ebionite Matthew, since Ebionites are said to have branched off from the first Christians, and those first Christians are said to have used a Hebrew Matthew (which by my reading fits what Papias says about Matthew). And over and over again, Epiphanius points out the Ebionite gospel's connection to that Matthew.

I also think it would be strange for a sect that hated Paul to use a gospel that was created or endorsed by someone who exclusively followed Paul.

A sect that hated Paul certainly could have used a gospel (gEb) whose author used a gospel (*Ev) that was later endorsed by someone who "exclusively followed Paul." They wouldn't necessarily know which texts the author of gEb used.

And again the above is just talking about labels and only about labels: "Ebionite," "Marcion." We don't know when these labels were first associated with these texts. We also should be very careful with our assumptions about what the people labeled this way would have, or would not have, done. I have not said that they did, but some of the Ebionites could have hated Paul and also used *Ev itself, even though *Ev was also endorsed by those who revered Paul, as strange as that may seem to you. We don't know that they didn't.

[John2]

As I reread Pan. 30, another thing to consider is that Epiphanius says that Ebionites shared the Nazarene belief that Jesus was a man but that over time they "became associated with Elxai, and they have the circumcision, the Sabbath, and the custom's of Ebion, but Elxai's delusion. Thus they believe that Christ was a man-like figure invisible to human eyes" (Pan. 30.17.5). And in 30.3.1-2 he writes:

And at first, as I have said, Ebion declared that Christ is the offspring of a man, that is, of Joseph. For a while now, however, various of his followers have been giving conflicting accounts about Christ, as though they have decided on something untenable and impossible themselves. But I think it may be since they were joined by Elxai ... that they tell an imaginary story about Christ and the Holy Spirit as he did.

If there is a connection between Marcion and the Ebionites, for what it's worth, Epiphanius didn't see it.

[John2]

And it makes more sense for Ebionites to have been influenced by Elxaii since they were all Jewish, rather than Ebionites being influenced by Gentile Christianity or by a document that circulated among Gentiles.

[Joseph D. L.]

And it makes more sense for Ebionites to have been influenced by Elxaii since they were all Jewish, rather than Ebionites being influenced by Gentile Christianity or by a document that circulated among Gentiles.

But that logic cuts both ways as Marcion's gospel is dependent on a Jewish bedrock to support it, while accordingly there were such groups "judiazing" this gentile document.

I fully agree with Elchasai being an influence on the Ebionites and may very well be a proto-Revelation of John of Patmos.

[John2]

And it makes more sense for Ebionites to have been influenced by Elxaii since they were all Jewish, rather than Ebionites being influenced by Gentile Christianity or by a document that circulated among Gentiles.

But that logic cuts both ways as Marcion's gospel is dependent on a Jewish bedrock to support it, while accordingly there were such groups "judiazing" this gentile document.

But Paul was Jewish, so there is already a precedent for Marcion using Jewish writings. It's baked into Marcionism even if we set aside his gospel (unless Paul wasn't Jewish in Marcionism). So having access to and using a Jewish gospel wouldn't be unusual for Marcion (especially one that was largely anti-OT/anti-sacrifice), and It was the natural flow of things in Christianity, given the mission to the Gentiles.