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

[GakuseiDon]

As far as Ebionites go, I view the Jewish Christians who hated Paul in Acts as "proto-Ebionites," and given the subject of this thread, I think it's worth noting that these Jews are said to have come from "the province of Asia," which is close to where Marcion is said to have come from

As an aside on the Ebionites and the Nazoraeans: they arose from the area of Pella, the very place that Epiphanius reports that the original disciples and their followers went just before Jerusalem fell.

Epiphanius's Panarion:

Chapter 29: Against the Nazoraeans

7:7 This sect of Nazoraeans is to be found in Beroea37 near Coelesyria, in the Decapolis near Pella, and in Bashanitis at the place called Cocabe38—Khokhabe in Hebrew.

7:8 For that was its place of origin, since all the disciples had settled in Pella after their remove from Jerusalem—Christ having told them to abandon Jerusalem and withdraw from it39 because of the siege it was about to undergo. And they settled in Peraea for this reason and, as I said, lived their lives there. It was from this that the Nazoraean sect had its origin.

8:1 But they too are wrong to boast of circumcision...

9:4 They have the Gospel according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew.48 For it is clear that they still preserve this as it was originally written, in the Hebrew alphabet. But I do not know whether they have also excised the genealogies from Abraham till Christ.

Chapter 30: Against the Ebionites

2:7 Their [Ebionites] origin came after the fall of Jerusalem. For since practically all who had come to faith in Christ had settled in Peraea then, in Pella, a town in the 'Decapolis'10 the Gospel mentions, which is near Batanaea and Bashanitis—as they had moved there then and were living there, this provided an opportunity for Ebion.

2:8 And as far as I know, he [Ebion] first lived in a village called Cocabe in the district of Qarnaim—also called Ashtaroth—in Bashanitis. There he began his evil teaching—the place, if you please, where the Nazoraeans I have spoken of came from.

2:9 For since Ebion was connected with them and they with him, each party shared its own wickedness with the other. Each also differed from the other to some extent, but they emulated each other in malice. But I have already spoken at length, both in other works and in the other Sects, about the locations of Cocabe and Arabia.
...
3:7 They too accept the Gospel according to Matthew. Like the Cerinthians and Merinthians, they too use it alone. They call it, 'According to the Hebrews,' and it is true to say that only Matthew expounded and preached the Gospel in the Hebrew language and alphabet16 in the New Testament.
...
18:1 Ebion too preached in Asia and Rome...

It's quite stunning to me that the earliest known Jewish sects -- the Nazoraeans and the Ebionites -- arose from the very place that the original disciples from Jerusalem and 'practically all who had come to faith in Christ' had settled, at least according to Epiphanius. And both groups believed that Jesus was born of Joseph and Mary and used a version of the Gospel of Matthew.

[Joseph D. L.]

That isn't what you said.

Yes, it is.

No it is not. You said: "So having access to and using a Jewish gospel wouldn't be unusual for Marcion (especially one that was largely anti-OT/anti-sacrifice)"

The syntactic construction of this line reads that Marcion would use a Jewish Gospel that was largely anti-OT/anti-sacrifice. If that is not what you meant then by all means set the record straight but that is the line I was going off of.

The Ebionite Matthew was a Jewish writing that was anti-sacrifice and largely unobservant, just like Reform Judaism.

I'm not even sure there was an Ebionite Matthew, by the time Matthew comes around the Ebionites were likely a distant memory, plus Matthew depends on a virgin birth scene and the Ebionites either ostensibly rejected it or didn't know of one (the Nazarenes had one though).

And the Ebionite Matthew must have been created after Paul, since Epiphanius says the Ebionites branched off from the Nazarenes after 70 CE. Marcion could have been under the impression that it was "Paul's gospel" for its stances on the OT, but I don't think there were any written gospels in Paul's time.

I have serious reservations with following the timeline from any church father, especially Epiphanius. Not only is he writing in the 4th century, far removed from the scene of the crime, and he is not above making stuff up (like the Nazarenes antedating Christ).

Because Epiphanius was in contact with post-70 CE Jewish Christians and their writings. And the word for poor that Paul (and by extension James) uses in Gal. 2:10 is ptochon, not ebionites, and this is in keeping with what Epiphanius says, that Ebionites did not branch off from Nazarenes until after 70 CE.

I can only consider all of this spurious but that is just me. Ebion stems from Hebrew but both relate to poor, humble, or prostrate.

Paul says that James gave him the right hand of fellowship, that Paul should preach his Torah-free gospel to Gentiles. Paul called Jews who believed that Gentiles should be Torah-observant "false brothers," and these are the ones he is complaining about in Gal. 3.

Paul is specifically saying that there are those changing his message. Gal 3 is Paul correcting the Galatians who have been bewitched into accepting a Judaized gospel. Again, I am following your train of logic, that Paul's gospel was Judiazed, then de-Judiazed by Marcion.

What you are saying (or did say) is that Paul had a gospel that was judiazed; that Marcion edited it and de-judiazed it (inferring Paul's original had been lost), only for it to once again be judiazed. Do you not also see that this creates a second Jewish gospel in turn? Which creates all sorts of other problems for your assessment.

I don't think Paul had a written gospel, only an unwritten one that he taught to Gentiles. And since Paul was Jewish, his letters are naturally Jewish writings, so there was no need for anyone to "judaize" them.

Well be that as it may, what Paul says in Gal 3 and 2 Cor 4 is pretty clear: there are those who are adulterating his gospel, written or oral, and given Gal 2, it is clear that those messing with it are doing so by making it more Jewish than he likes. Whether that makes him an anti-Jewish is beside the issue. The issue is how that relates to Marcion wanting to use him.

And the Ebonite Matthew was also a Jewish writing, but since Ebionites had become anti-sacrifice and largely unobservant after 70 CE, their gospel would have appealed to someone who was "anti-Jewish" (or exclusively into Paul).

I feel like you're going in circles here.

Epiphaniuus says Ebionites branched off from Nazarenes "after the fall of Jerusalem" (which happened in 70 CE).

I can only hold my hands out and shrug my shoulders at this. "After the fall of Jerusalem" is a pretty big margin. And I am being facetious because I did neglect that fact in Epiphanius (I admit that), but the greater question is why we should take anything he says seriously? Why not Tertullian? who puts Ebion in the second century following Cerinthus.

[dabber]

I'm thinking the timeline we're all used to is simply wrong. Early church fathers didn't know of gospels until Papias 120s.

The timeline should be shifted several decades forward. So that the five gospels 4 + *ev were all written about the same time in a similar place.

I'm thinking...

Papias knew Mark's gospel or an early version of it. In addition he refers to Matthew writing logia (divine oracles) in Hebrew, probably Aramaic. This will be the mystery "other source".

Then Ebion or one of his followers consolidates both Mark and Matthew's logia in Greek to produce Matthew.

Marcion wrote early Luke. John about the same time. All of these written say in 120s-130s in Asia Minor. That's how they can copy off each other.

Not going to be decades apart in different countries. Its not like now just look up on Internet they've got to be in proximity with each other - similar time and place.

Does that make sense? Thanks Adam

[GakuseiDon]

I have serious reservations with following the timeline from any church father, especially Epiphanius. Not only is he writing in the 4th century, far removed from the scene of the crime, and he is not above making stuff up (like the Nazarenes antedating Christ).

Might you be confusing Nazarenes (Epiphanius calls them "Nazoraeans") with his "Nasaraeans"? Epiphanius describes a Jewish sect called Nasaraeans antedating Christ which didn't eat meat, didn't offer sacrifices and regarded parts of the OT as forgeries:

Nasaraeans, meaning 'rebels,' who forbid the eating of any meat and do not partake of living things at all...

Part 18. Epiphanius Against the Nasaraeans

1:1 Next I shall undertake the describe the sect after the Hemerobaptists, called the sect of the Nasaraeans... This sect practices Judaism in all respects and have scarcely any beliefs beyond the ones that I have mentioned.

1:2 It too had been given circumcision, and it kept the same Sabbath and observed the same festivals, and certainly did not inculcate fate or astrology.

1:3 ... it would not accept the Pentateuch itself. It acknowledged Moses and believed that he had received legislation—not this legislation though, they said, but some other.28

1:4 And so, though they were Jews who kept all the Jewish observances, they would not offer sacrifice or eat meat; in their eyes it was unlawful to eat meat or make sacrifices with it. They claimed that these books are forgeries and that none of these customs were instituted by the fathers.

What is of interest is that there existed Jewish groups that were against sacrifices, even before the destruction of the Second Temple. While Epiphanius might indeed have been making things up, I don't see why he would on this occasion. Ebionites also were known to be against the eating of meat (their John the Baptist and James brother of the Lord were vegetarians apparently!) and against sacrifices.

[John2]

That isn't what you said.

Yes, it is.

No it is not. You said: "So having access to and using a Jewish gospel wouldn't be unusual for Marcion (especially one that was largely anti-OT/anti-sacrifice)"

The syntactic construction of this line reads that Marcion would use a Jewish Gospel that was largely anti-OT/anti-sacrifice. If that is not what you meant then by all means set the record straight but that is the line I was going off of.

I'm not sure I'm following you. Paul thought that Torah observance was no longer necessary for Jews and calls himself Jewish, which makes his letters Jewish writings, and Marcion used them. And the Ebionite Matthew was a Jewish writing that was anti-sacrifice and largely unobservant, and I'm suggesting Marcion used that too.

And the Ebionite Matthew must have been created after Paul, since Epiphanius says the Ebionites branched off from the Nazarenes after 70 CE. Marcion could have been under the impression that it was "Paul's gospel" for its stances on the OT, but I don't think there were any written gospels in Paul's time.

I have serious reservations with following the timeline from any church father, especially Epiphanius. Not only is he writing in the 4th century, far removed from the scene of the crime, and he is not above making stuff up (like the Nazarenes antedating Christ).

Where does Epiphanius say that Nazarenes antedated Christ? My guess is that he says this about Nasaraeans in Pan. 18 (which I can't see on Google Books right now). and this seems confirmed by Kampmeier, who writes that Epiphanius "clearly distinguishes the Nasareans from the Nazoreans of the New Testament, the first Christians" on page 86 here (https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewco ... ontext=ocj).


And while Epiphanius wrote in the 4th century, he was in contact with Jewish Christians of his time and their writings, people who presumably knew something about their origins or in any event had writings that Epiphanius could access. And if Epiphanius could access Ebionite writings, then so could Marcion.

Because Epiphanius was in contact with post-70 CE Jewish Christians and their writings. And the word for poor that Paul (and by extension James) uses in Gal. 2:10 is ptochon, not ebionites, and this is in keeping with what Epiphanius says, that Ebionites did not branch off from Nazarenes until after 70 CE.

I can only consider all of this spurious but that is just me. Ebion stems from Hebrew but both relate to poor, humble, or prostrate.

There were certainly poor Christians before 70 CE, but Ebionites did not emerge as a sect until after 70 CE.

Paul says that James gave him the right hand of fellowship, that Paul should preach his Torah-free gospel to Gentiles. Paul called Jews who believed that Gentiles should be Torah-observant "false brothers," and these are the ones he is complaining about in Gal. 3.

Paul is specifically saying that there are those changing his message. Gal 3 is Paul correcting the Galatians who have been bewitched into accepting a Judaized gospel. Again, I am following your train of logic, that Paul's gospel was Judiazed, then de-Judiazed by Marcion.

Jewish Christian leaders approved of Paul's Torah-free gospel to the Gentiles and he says of them in 1 Cor. 15:11, "Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed." It was the ones he calls "false brothers" who wanted Gentiles to be Torah observant, and their view did not prevail with Jewish Christian leaders.

What you are saying (or did say) is that Paul had a gospel that was judiazed; that Marcion edited it and de-judiazed it (inferring Paul's original had been lost), only for it to once again be judiazed. Do you not also see that this creates a second Jewish gospel in turn? Which creates all sorts of other problems for your assessment.

I don't think Paul had a written gospel, only an unwritten one that he taught to Gentiles. And since Paul was Jewish, his letters are naturally Jewish writings, so there was no need for anyone to "judaize" them.

Well be that as it may, what Paul says in Gal 3 and 2 Cor 4 is pretty clear: there are those who are adulterating his gospel, written or oral, and given Gal 2, it is clear that those messing with it are doing so by making it more Jewish than he likes. Whether that makes him an anti-Jewish is beside the issue. The issue is how that relates to Marcion wanting to use him.

Paul's Torah-free gospel was supposed to be for Gentiles, as per the agreement he made with Jewish Christian leaders. And since he calls himself Jewish, his letters are Jewish writings that are lax about Torah observance, and Marcion used them. Likewise, the Ebionite Matthew was a Jewish writing that was lax about Torah observance, and I think Marcion used that too.

Epiphaniuus says Ebionites branched off from Nazarenes "after the fall of Jerusalem" (which happened in 70 CE).

I can only hold my hands out and shrug my shoulders at this. "After the fall of Jerusalem" is a pretty big margin. And I am being facetious because I did neglect that fact in Epiphanius (I admit that), but the greater question is why we should take anything he says seriously? Why not Tertullian? who puts Ebion in the second century following Cerinthus.

Sure, after 70 CE can mean anytime after 70 CE, but Ebionites are said to have existed before Elchasai came along and changed them, and the Book of Elchasai was written during Trajan's reign (98-117 CE), so Ebionites existed before then, according to Epiphanius' timeline.

What does Tertullian say that differs from Epiphanius? In Pan. 30.1.2-3 Epiphanius says that Ebion borrowed ideas from Cerinthians ("Ebion ... took any and every doctrine ... from every sect, and patterned himself after them all ... the Jews' name, the Ossaeans, Nazoraeans and Nasaraeans [notice how he distinguishes the two here], the form of the Cerinthians ...."). And Tertullian says, "His successor was Ebion, not agreeing with Cerinthus in every point," which sounds like the same thing to me.

[John2]

I have serious reservations with following the timeline from any church father, especially Epiphanius. Not only is he writing in the 4th century, far removed from the scene of the crime, and he is not above making stuff up (like the Nazarenes antedating Christ).

Might you be confusing Nazarenes (Epiphanius calls them "Nazoraeans") with his "Nasaraeans"?

Ah, thank you, GDon. I mentioned this in my previous post before I saw your post.

[Joseph D. L.]

I have serious reservations with following the timeline from any church father, especially Epiphanius. Not only is he writing in the 4th century, far removed from the scene of the crime, and he is not above making stuff up (like the Nazarenes antedating Christ).

Might you be confusing Nazarenes (Epiphanius calls them "Nazoraeans") with his "Nasaraeans"? Epiphanius describes a Jewish sect called Nasaraeans antedating Christ which didn't eat meat, didn't offer sacrifices and regarded parts of the OT as forgeries

Truthfully I don't think Epiphanius himself knew what he was talking about. He does this kind of duplication often, the most obvious coming to mind is Cerinthus/Merinthus. God knows what Epiphanius had in mind.

Nasaraeans, meaning 'rebels,' who forbid the eating of any meat and do not partake of living things at all...

Part 18. Epiphanius Against the Nasaraeans

1:1 Next I shall undertake the describe the sect after the Hemerobaptists, called the sect of the Nasaraeans... This sect practices Judaism in all respects and have scarcely any beliefs beyond the ones that I have mentioned.

1:2 It too had been given circumcision, and it kept the same Sabbath and observed the same festivals, and certainly did not inculcate fate or astrology.

1:3 ... it would not accept the Pentateuch itself. It acknowledged Moses and believed that he had received legislation—not this legislation though, they said, but some other.28

1:4 And so, though they were Jews who kept all the Jewish observances, they would not offer sacrifice or eat meat; in their eyes it was unlawful to eat meat or make sacrifices with it. They claimed that these books are forgeries and that none of these customs were instituted by the fathers.

What is of interest is that there existed Jewish groups that were against sacrifices, even before the destruction of the Second Temple. While Epiphanius might indeed have been making things up, I don't see why he would on this occasion. Ebionites also were known to be against the eating of meat (their John the Baptist and James brother of the Lord were vegetarians apparently!) and against sacrifices.

We need to be careful with such benefits of the doubt. Even if Epiphanius were to have said something true, for him it is all about fulfilling a narrative. The same can be said of all church fathers, and while there were Jewish sects that were disillusioned with mainstream Judaism (that much is clear reading Philo and Josephus, and even the New Testament) it cannot equally be known how these groups shaped the interreligious dynamics of early Christianity.

[Joseph D. L.]

I'm not sure I'm following you. Paul thought that Torah observance was no longer necessary for Jews and calls himself Jewish, which makes his letters Jewish writings, and Marcion used them. And the Ebionite Matthew was a Jewish writing that was anti-sacrifice and largely unobservant, and I'm suggesting Marcion used that too.

You said Marcion would use a Jewish gospel that was for all intents and purposes anti-Jewish, anti-OT/anti-sacrifice. Why not just write his own Gospel at that point? Or heck, utilize a gospel that was already anti-OT/anti-sacrifice? Like Paul's, which is what he did. The problem is that you trying to salvage a consensus regarding Marcion that is no longer viable, while maintaining this quasi-Eisenmann/Ebionite theory.

Paul's Gospel was, for all intents and purposes anti-Judaism. Paul makes the accusation that people are Judaizing his Gospel. Marcion then comes along, and for all intents and purposes, does the exact same thing. Makes/uses a Gospel that is anti-Judaism; people are Judaizing it [again]. It is this duplication of the same thing that you getting tripped up over.

Where does Epiphanius say that Nazarenes antedated Christ? My guess is that he says this about Nasaraeans in Pan. 18 (which I can't see on Google Books right now). and this seems confirmed by Kampmeier, who writes that Epiphanius "clearly distinguishes the Nasareans from the Nazoreans of the New Testament, the first Christians" on page 86 here (https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewco ... ontext=ocj).

Nazarenes, Nasaraeans, does it truly matter at this point? Ebion is a completely fictional character, yet you are trying to legitimize him or at least using him to argue for a pre-Marcion Christianity. I'm not buying it.

And while Epiphanius wrote in the 4th century, he was in contact with Jewish Christians of his time and their writings, people who presumably knew something about their origins or in any event had writings that Epiphanius could access. And if Epiphanius could access Ebionite writings, then so could Marcion.

Speculation. Again Epiphanius wasn't above lying or using sources of spurious authenticity. This means either Epiphanius is of no count or the Christians he was responding to likewise were of no count. Being a Christian doesn't automatically make your word gospel.

There were certainly poor Christians before 70 CE, but Ebionites did not emerge as a sect until after 70 CE.

If that's what you want to think, that is you're right, just as it is my right to say there were no Christians priori to Marcion, and Ebionites were the members of r. Akiva's college.

But even striking that, how is it you know this? Even Tertullian puts them as coming into vogue in the second century, which is after 70ad but then again so are we, so I don't see you bring it up as a salient point.

Jewish Christian leaders approved of Paul's Torah-free gospel to the Gentiles and he says of them in 1 Cor. 15:11, "Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed." It was the ones he calls "false brothers" who wanted Gentiles to be Torah observant, and their view did not prevail with Jewish Christian leaders.

You say "false brothers" and "Jewish Christians" as if these are two different camps. Surely if the stipulation is that gentiles need to observe Torah that would make them Jewish Christians.

But more to the point, I find all of these a deliberate mischaracterization. It is not simply that the false brothers are telling gentiles to observe Torah, but to also follow Paul's Gospel of Christ. That is the Judaization Paul is beating against; not that they are telling gentiles to observe Torah alone.

Paul's Torah-free gospel was supposed to be for Gentiles, as per the agreement he made with Jewish Christian leaders. And since he calls himself Jewish, his letters are Jewish writings that are lax about Torah observance, and Marcion used them. Likewise, the Ebionite Matthew was a Jewish writing that was lax about Torah observance, and I think Marcion used that too.

You know, we're talking about these things as if they're actual history but it is no different than comparing different eras of Superman or Batman and arguing about which one is stronger.

Does calling oneself Jewish make you Jewish? Paul's letters are replete with references to Judaism. Does that alone make them Jewish? Paul has a gospel that essentially tells gentiles they don't need to observe Torah, that basis of Judaism, does that still make him Jewish? Well according to Paul himself, no, he is not Jewish, or no longer Jewish after his conversion to Christ and hence why he talks to both Jews and gentiles alike as if they are people apart from himself. That piqued Marcion's interest in Paul. Why would Marcion care what Jewish Christians thought insofar as to argue against them? As far as he would be concerned they would be the one's Judaizing Paul's Gospel, which is exactly what he was arguing against in Antithesis, which you seemingly forget even exists or disregard it. It is at this point that I feel you are just conveniently picking up and droping things to suite your particular pet theory.

Paul is anti-Jewish. His Gospel is anti-Jewish, he argues against Torah observance and those trying to enforce. Marcion is ostensibly anti-Jewish. He uses Paul precisely because of that, and has a Gospel he then argues is being Judaized.

Your position makes zero sense in light of this truthism. Why would there be those Judaizing Paul's Gospel, and then turn around and do it again with Marcion's? Either Marcion is lying; or the Judaizers were so unpopular that they had to resort to doing what Paul accused them of doing a second time. Either way your argument does not hold up.

Then you say that Marcion would be willing to use an anti-Jewish Gospel (then said you didn't say that even though you did) but ignore the logistical inconsistencies this makes for your own position and timelines. You depend on Ebion as a terminus post quem for your Ebionites all the while ignoring the fact that Ebion is a completely made up character which means you don't have an argument to make. Everything after Ebion is ad hoc and that's what makes this a losing battle for both of us.

Sure, after 70 CE can mean anytime after 70 CE, but Ebionites are said to have existed before Elchasai came along and changed them, and the Book of Elchasai was written during Trajan's reign (98-117 CE), so Ebionites existed before then, according to Epiphanius' timeline.

Written during Trajan's reign, 98-117ad. So for all you know the book of Elchasai could have been written in 116ad and the Ebionites came only after 114ad. That's the problem with your wide ranging margins.

And according to Tertullian Ebion/Ebionites follow Cerinthus, who was teaching at least while John was alive but nothing is known about the when. That's the problem with appending dates onto people who never existed in the first place.

What does Tertullian say that differs from Epiphanius? In Pan. 30.1.2-3 Epiphanius says that Ebion borrowed ideas from Cerinthians ("Ebion ... took any and every doctrine ... from every sect, and patterned himself after them all ... the Jews' name, the Ossaeans, Nazoraeans and Nasaraeans [notice how he distinguishes the two here], the form of the Cerinthians ...."). And Tertullian says, "His successor was Ebion, not agreeing with Cerinthus in every point," which sounds like the same thing to me.

And Ebion is a pure invention and all of this fiction, so what is your point?

[GakuseiDon]

Truthfully I don't think Epiphanius himself knew what he was talking about. He does this kind of duplication often, the most obvious coming to mind is Cerinthus/Merinthus. God knows what Epiphanius had in mind.

It's clear what he had in mind, at least for his 'Panarion'. He describes it himself in a letter attached to the preface. It is a list of sects in three sections: (1) from the beginning of time (for Epiphanius it starts with Adam), (2) those before Christianity and finally (3) those after Christianity. As it is organised by time-line, those sects that predate Christianity (like the 'Nasaraeans') are listed earlier, while those sects that started after Christianity ("Nazoraeans") are listed later. So there is no confusion. You just need to check where Epiphanius places each sect on his time-line.

We need to be careful with such benefits of the doubt. Even if Epiphanius were to have said something true, for him it is all about fulfilling a narrative. The same can be said of all church fathers...

The same can be said for most people, including those on this forum, including you and me. First we need to understand what Epiphanius actually wrote, as near as we can make out. After that, we can determine how much we trust him.

and while there were Jewish sects that were disillusioned with mainstream Judaism (that much is clear reading Philo and Josephus, and even the New Testament) it cannot equally be known how these groups shaped the interreligious dynamics of early Christianity.

Yes, "disillusioned with mainstream Judaism" is a good way of putting it, which is not 'anti-Judaism'. Marcion built from the letters of Paul, who appears to have been a Jew. Marcion used a Gospel about an apparently Jewish man (even if in appearance) who walked around Galilee and was concerned with interacting with Jewish religious leaders. Epiphanius reports that there was a Jewish sect predating Christianity that was against sacrifices, while there was another sect established soon after Christianity began that was also against sacrifices. It's a fair question about whether and how they were connected.

[davidmartin]

it cannot equally be known how these groups shaped the interreligious dynamics of early Christianity

why not?