The Ebionites, locusts, & wafers in oil.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

The Ebionites, locusts, & wafers in oil.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Concerning the Ebionite Gospel:

Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13.4-5: 4 And, “John came baptizing, and there went out unto him Pharisees and were baptized, and all Jerusalem. And John had a garment of camel’s hair, and a girdle of skin about his loins. And his food,” it says, “was wild honey, whose taste was the taste of manna, as a wafer in oil” (= Matthew 2.4-5; Numbers 11.8). 5 This, if you please, is to turn the account of the truth into falsehood, and substitute “a wafer in honey” for “locusts.” / 4 Καί, «Ἐγένετο Ἰωάννης βαπτίζων, καὶ ἐξῆλθον πρὸς αὐτὸν Φαρισαῖοι καὶ ἐβαπτίσθησαν καὶ πᾶσα Ἱεροσόλυμα. καὶ εἶχεν ὁ Ἰωάννης ἔνδυμα ἀπὸ τριχῶν καμήλου καὶ ζώνην δερματίνην περὶ τὴν ὀσφὺν αὐτοῦ. καὶ τὸ βρῶμα αὐτοῦ, φησί, μέλι ἄγριον, οὗ ἡ γεῦσις ἡ τοῦ μάννα, ὡς ἐγκρὶς ἐν ἐλαίῳ,» 5 ἵνα δῆθεν μεταστρέψωσι τὸν τῆς ἀληθείας λόγον εἰς ψεῦδος καὶ ἀντὶ ἀκρίδων ποιήσωσιν ἐγκρίδα ἐν μέλιτι.

Matthew 3.4: 4 Now John himself had a garment of camel’s hair and a leather belt around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey [ἡ δὲ τροφὴ ἦν αὐτοῦ ἀκρίδες καὶ μέλι ἄγριον].

Mark 1.6: 6 John was clothed with camel’s hair and wore a leather belt around his waist, and he was eating locusts and wild honey [καὶ ἐσθίων ἀκρίδας καὶ μέλι ἄγριον].

Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13.1-5: 1 But I shall resume the thread of my argument against Ebion — because of the Gospel according to Matthew the course of the discussion obliged me to insert the whole of the knowledge which I had gained. 2 Now in what they call a Gospel according to Matthew, though it is not the entire Gospel but is corrupt and mutilated — and they call this thing “Hebrew” — the following passage is found: “There was a certain man named Jesus, and he was about thirty years of age (= Luke 3.23), who chose us. And coming to Capernaum he entered into the house of Simon surnamed Peter, and opened his mouth and said, 3 “Passing beside the Sea of Tiberias I chose John and James, the sons of Zebedee, and Simon and Andrew and <Philip and Bartholomew, James the son of Alphaeus and Thomas>, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot. You too, Matthew, seated at the receipt of custom, did I call, and you followed me. I will, then, that you be twelve apostles (= Clementine Recognitions 1.40.4; Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 6.6.48) for a testimony to Israel,” 4 and, “John came baptizing, and there went out unto him Pharisees and were baptized, and all Jerusalem. And John had a garment of camel’s hair, and a girdle of skin about his loins. And his food,” it says, “was wild honey, whose taste was the taste of manna, as a wafer in oil” (= Matthew 2.4-5; Numbers 11.8). 5 This, if you please, is to turn the account of the truth into falsehood, and substitute “a wafer [ἐγκρίδα] in honey” for “locusts [ἀκρίδων].”

Epiphanius assumes in Panarion 30.13.4-5 that the Ebionite Gospel has perverted the ἀκρίδες (locusts) of Matthew and Mark into ἐγκρὶς (a wafer or cake). Modern interpreters, in their turn, often assume that the Ebionite Gospel has done so in the interests of preserving a vegetarian diet for John because, according to Epiphanius, the Ebionites abstain from meat:

Epiphanius, Panarion 30.15.1-4: 1 But 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. 2 Clement himself convicts them of this in every way in his general epistles which are read in the holy churches, because his faith and speech are of a different character than their spurious productions in his name in the Travels. He himself teaches celibacy, and they will not accept it. He extols Elijah, David, Samson and all the prophets, whom they abhor. 3 In the Travels they have changed everything to suit themselves and slandered Peter in many ways, saying that he was baptized daily for purification as they are. And they say he abstained from flesh and dressed meat as they do, and any other dish made from meat — since both Ebion himself and Ebionites entirely abstain from these. 4 When you ask one of them why they do not eat meat, having no explanation they answer foolishly and say, “Since it is a product of the congress and intercourse of bodies, we do not eat it.” Thus, according to their own foolish regurgitations, they are wholly abominable themselves, since they are the results of the intercourse of a man and a woman.

The Ebionites are not the only vegetarians, according to Epiphanius:

Epiphanius, Panarion 18.1.4: 4 And so, though they (= the Nasaraeans) 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.

Epiphanius, Panarion 53.1.4: 4 They (= Sampsaeans or Elkasaites) say that God is one, and supposedly worship him by the administration of some sort of baptisms. They are devoted to the Jewish religion — not in all ways. Some of them even abstain from meat.

And it seems incontrovertible that at least some Jewish Christian groups were vegetarians:

Clementine Homilies 8.15: 15 But from their unhallowed intercourse spurious men sprang, much greater in stature than ordinary men, whom they afterwards called giants; not those dragonfooted giants who waged war against God, as those blasphemous myths of the Greeks do sing, but wild in manners, and greater than men in size, inasmuch as they were sprung of angels; yet less than angels, as they were born of women. Therefore God, knowing that they were barbarized to brutality, and that the world was not sufficient to satisfy them (for it was created according to the proportion of men and human use), that they might not through want of food turn, contrary to nature, to the eating of animals, and yet seem to be blameless, as having ventured upon this through necessity, the Almighty God rained manna upon them, suited to their various tastes; and they enjoyed all that they would. But they, on account of their bastard nature, not being pleased with purity of food, longed only after the taste of blood. Wherefore they first tasted flesh.

Clementine Homilies 12.6: 6 Then Peter, hearing, smiled and said, What think you, then, O Clement? Do you not think that you are placed by very necessity in the position of my servant? For who else shall take care of those many splendid tunics, with all my changes of rings and sandals? And who shall make ready those pleasant and artistic dainties, which, being so various, need many skilful cooks, and all those things which are procured with great eagerness, and are prepared for the appetite of effeminate men as for some great wild beast? However, such a choice has occurred to you, perhaps, without you understanding or knowing my manner of life, that I use only bread and olives, and rarely pot-herbs; and that this is my only coat and cloak which I wear; and I have no need of any of them, nor of anything else: for even in these I abound. For my mind, seeing all the eternal good things that are there, regards none of the things that are here. However, I accept of your good will; and I admire and commend you, for that you, a man of refined habits, have so easily submitted your manner of living to your necessities. For we, from our childhood, both I and Andrew, my brother, who is also my brother as respects God, not only being brought up in the condition of orphans, but also accustomed to labour through poverty and misfortune, easily bear the discomforts of our present journeys. Whence, if you would obey me, you would allow me, a working man, to fulfil the part of a servant to you.

Clementine Recognitions 7.6: 6 Then Peter, laughing, said: And do you not think, Clement, that very necessity must make you my servant? For who else can spread my sheets, and arrange my beautiful coverlets? Who will be at hand to keep my rings, and prepare my robes, which I must be constantly changing? Who shall superintend my cooks, and provide various and choice meats to be prepared by most recondite and various art; and all those things which are procured at enormous expense, and are brought together for men of delicate upbringing, yea rather, for their appetite, as for some enormous beast? But perhaps, although you live with me, you do not know my manner of life. I live on bread alone, with olives, and seldom even with pot herbs; and my dress is what you see, a tunic with a pallium: and having these, I require nothing more. This is sufficient for me, because my mind does not regard things present, but things eternal, and therefore no present and visible thing delights me. Whence I embrace and admire indeed your good mind towards me; and I commend you the more, because, though you have been accustomed to so great abundance, you have been able so soon to abandon it, and to accommodate yourself to this life of ours, which makes use of necessary things alone. For we — that is, I and my brother Andrew — have grown up from our childhood not only orphans, but also extremely poor, and through necessity have become used to labour, whence now also we easily bear the fatigues of our journeyings. But rather, if you would consent and allow it, I, who am a working man, could more easily discharge the duty of a servant to you.

So it is quite possible that the people responsible for the Ebionite Gospel were vegetarians and decided to make it look like the canonical evangelists had misheard ἀκρίδες for ἐγκρὶς, thus turning John from a vegetarian into an eater of flesh.

But I wish to argue that it is also possible that this scenario is mistaken. If vegetarianism were the focus of the Ebionite Gospel with regard to John's diet, and locusts are an impediment to vegetarianism, then merely removing the locusts would have sufficed. If changing locusts to a wafer is supposed to have made it appear that the canonical evangelists instead changed a wafer to locusts, the effect is subtle. For one thing, the Greek word for "locusts" is plural whereas the Greek word for "wafer" is singular; keeping the same grammatical number would have made the words look more similar and mistakeable for one another. For another, the Ebionite Gospel does not say that John ate the wafers; rather, it is comparing the taste of his wild honey to that of manna, which is described as follows in the Pentateuch:

Exodus 16.31: 31 The house of Israel named it man [μαν], and it was like coriander seed, white, and its taste was like a wafer with honey [τὸ δὲ γεῦμα αὐτοῦ ὡς ἐγκρὶς ἐν μέλιτι].

Numbers 11.7-8: 7 Now the manna [μαννα] was like coriander seed, and its appearance like that of bdellium. 8 The people would go about and gather it and grind it between two millstones or beat it in the mortar, and boil it in the pot and make cakes with it; and its sweetness/pleasure was as the taste of a wafer with oil [καὶ ἦν ἡ ἡδονὴ αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ γεῦμα ἐγκρὶς ἐξ ἐλαίου].

Many are tempted to say that, according to the Ebionite Gospel, John actually ate wafers or cakes:

James Tabor, Did John the Baptist Eat Bugs, Beans, or Pancakes? (blog post): The Greek word for locusts (akris/ἀκρίδες) is very similar to the Greek word for “honey cake” (enkris/έγκρίς) that is used for the “manna” that the Israelites ate in the desert in the days of Moses. According to this ancient text was not locusts but these cakes cooked in olive oil. If this is the case then John would have eaten a cake of some type, made from a desert plant, similar to the “manna” that the ancient Israelites ate in the desert in the days of Moses. [Link.]

Simon Gathercole, The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas, page 113: 113 The seven testimonia for G. Eb. all come in Epiphanius, and there are strong suggestions in these extracts that their language is Greek: in Panarion 30.13.4–5, Epiphanius notes that the work twists the true diet of John the Baptist from ἀκρίδες (‘locusts’) to a honeyed ἔγκρις (a cake), a misprision that makes best sense in Greek; Epiphanius also refers to an impious addition of a ‘not’ in the reference to Jesus desiring to eat meat with his disciples at the Passover, noting that the additional ‘not’ is an addition of mu and ēta; Klijn argues that the same passage also shows knowledge of the Septuagint.

And Epiphanius himself says, "This, if you please, to turn the account of the truth into falsehood, and substitute a wafer in honey for locusts," the wording of which already (accidentally?) suggests a clean exchange of one food for another.

But what the text actually says is that John ate wild honey. The wafers are mentioned, not as food themselves, but rather in order to describe the taste of manna, which in turn is mentioned in order to describe the taste of the honey.

The similarity of ἀκρίδες to ἐγκρὶς in such a context may merely be a coincidence. Both words could also be serving much the same purpose in their respective gospels. The comparison of John's wild honey to manna in the Ebionite Gospel has the effect of making him a forager in the wilderness, dependent upon God for his food, just like the children of Israel were. But what of the locusts in Matthew 3.4 and Mark 1.6? James A. Kelhoffer essentially deflates any close connection between John's cuisine and the diet at Qumran in his article "Did John the Baptist Eat Like a Former Essene? Locust-Eating in the Ancient Near East and at Qumran," in Dead Sea Discoveries, volume 11.3 (2004). At the same time, he also points out that locusts were often prized by the upper echelons of society in antiquity, so it seems doubtful that John's eating of locusts is supposed to be a sign of his voluntary poverty. I think, rather, that the situation in Matthew and Mark is similar to what is happening in the Ebionite Gospel. Kelhoffer (who does not make the argument I am making on this point) refers to the article on the locust (erbu) in the Assyrian Dictionary published by the University of Chicago, from which both he and I have drawn the following ancient textual extracts, translated from the original Assyrian/Akkadian:

Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, volume 4 (E), erbu, page 257:

...and the locusts for which I asked you, do not forget the... and the locusts!

....

I have forwarded to my lord as many locusts as they were able to catch for me.

....

[S]end me as many locusts as you have been able to collect and kill.

Also, Kelhoffer quotes J. M. Aynard's rendition of a letter from Mari addressed to the king on page 302: "Locusts often come to Terqa and the day they arrived the heat was torrid so they did not alight. But all the locusts that were taken I have sent to my [l]ord."

What these instances have in common is that they depict locusts as a food of opportunity. Locusts were not domesticated and grown agriculturally; rather, they had to be caught whenever they swarmed across a region. John's other food, wild honey, belongs to the category of foods which must be gathered, the point once again being, in my estimation, that John was a forager; he relied upon the bounty of the wilderness, perhaps in homage to how Elijah had relied upon the divine generosity of ravens. Furthermore, it seems likely that the two foods ascribed to him in our canonical gospels (wild honey and locusts) might be available in inverse proportions at different seasons or times of the year. As John Burroughs observes in his chapter on the pastoral bee in Locusts and Wild Honey, "the fewer locusts, the more flowers." (And therefore the more honey.)

Replacing the locusts in the canonical texts with wafers (at whatever remove) may not even have been a good way to promote vegetarianism in antiquity anyway. The status of locusts vis-à-vis a vegetarian diet is less obvious than one might expect. Do locusts count as meat? Yes and no. Yes, they are flesh. No, they do not (necessarily) ruin vegetarianism:

CD-A, column 12, lines 11b-15a: 11b No one should defile his soul 12 with any living or creeping animal by eating them, from the larvae of bees to every living 13 being which creeps in water. And fish they should not eat unless they have been opened up 14 alive and their blood poured away. And all the locusts according to their kinds [וכל החגבים במיניהם] shall be put into fire or into water 15a while they are still alive, as this is the regulation for their species.

Mishnah, Kelim 24.15: 15 There are three different types of leather gloves. Those used by the hunters of animals and birds are susceptible to midras uncleanness; those used by locust [חֲגָבִין] gatherers are susceptible to corpse uncleanness; and those used by fig pickers are free from all uncleanness.

Mishnah, Chullin 8.1: 1 All types of flesh are forbidden to be cooked in milk, except for the flesh of fish and of locusts [כָּל הַבָּשָׂר אָסוּר לְבַשֵּׁל בְּחָלָב, חוּץ מִבְּשַׂר דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים]; and it is forbidden to place upon the table with cheese, except for the flesh of fish and of locusts [חוּץ מִבְּשַׂר דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים]. If one vowed to abstain from flesh, he may eat the flesh of fish and of locusts [הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַבָּשָׂר, מֻתָּר בִּבְשַׂר דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים]. "Fowl may be placed upon the table together with cheese, but may not be eaten together with it." These are the words of the School of Shammai. The School of Hillel says, "It may not be placed, nor may it be eaten with it." Rabbi Yose says, "This is one of the cases where the School of Shammai adopts the more lenient ruling while the School of Hillel adopts the stricter ruling." What kind of table were they referring to? On a table where one eats. But on the table where food is set out to be served one may place one beside the other without any fears.

Mishnah, Keritot 5.1: 1 The blood of slaughter of cattle, of animals, and of birds, either kosher or nonkosher species, or the blood of a stabbed animal, or the blood of the animal whose esophagus and trachea were severed, the blood of bloodletting, the blood of arteries with which the soul expires, he is liable. But the blood of the spleen, blood of the heart, or blood found in eggs, or the blood of fish, or the blood of locusts [דַּם דָּגִים, דַּם חֲגָבִים], or secondary blood he is not liable. Rabbi Yehudah maintains he is liable for secondary blood.

And note that Epiphanius himself does not actually connect the issue of locusts and wafers to Ebionite vegetarianism; he simply accuses the Ebionites of corrupting the text. Elsewhere in this same chapter he treats locusts as if they did not count as meat:

Epiphanius, Panarion 30.19.1-3: 1 But the tramp is completely exposed by the Savior, who refutes the whole of his deceitful teaching expressly and as though in summary form with one utterance when he says, “John came in the way of righteousness, neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a devil.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, <and they say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a winebibber’>” (= Matthew 11.18-19). 2 And he certainly does not mean that John never by any chance ate, or that the Savior ate anything and everything — with the suspicion of forbidden foods as well. 3 The passage makes the meaning of the truth plain, since “he is a glutton and a winebibber” can mean only the eating of meat and the drinking of wine; and “neither eating nor drinking” means that John did not partake of meat and wine, but only of locusts and honey — water, too, obviously.

This particular Ebionite passage is, on its own, therefore, shaky at best as evidence of Ebionite vegetarianism.

I also believe that this Ebionite passage is, again on its own, shaky at best as evidence of canonical priority. If there is an historical connection between the singular ἐγκρίδα and the plural ἀκρίδων in our texts, it may be the result of accidentally misunderstanding one word for the other, or what if the word play goes in the other direction than what is usually presumed, with the canonical gospels interpreting a scriptural reference painting John as a forager as one of the foods he might well have been foraging when wild honey was scarce? Neither of these options is my preferred one, since I am not at all certain that the words are historically connected, but both ought to be considered as possible alternatives to the usual explanation.

I myself am not of the opinion that the Ebionite Gospel as it stands is a very early text, predating either Matthew or Mark or even both, but the matter of the locusts and the wafers is not currently one of my reasons for thinking it may be late.

Ben.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Wed May 05, 2021 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: The Ebionites, locusts, & wafers in oil.

Post by perseusomega9 »

I agree there's nothing in this passage that leads to priority one way or the other as far as 'vegetarianism' is concerned, but which version is closer (or) to the original? Either way it's a very interesting description for the Sprinkler, I wonder how much the answer comes from 1st-2nd century conceptions of Elijah (if that's what the description is going for).
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Ebionites, locusts, & wafers in oil.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

perseusomega9 wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 11:45 am I agree there's nothing in this passage that leads to priority one way or the other as far as 'vegetarianism' is concerned, but which version is closer (or) to the original?
Not sure. So many changes like this just do not scream one direction or another. Adding a scriptural reference (to manna, in this case) can be done at any time, it seems, whether early or late, and derivative evangelical authors do not transmit or even necessarily pick up on every single scriptural reference which came before them, either.

I have wondered whether the locusts in Matthew and Mark have a scriptural meaning, and locusts do get some air time in the scriptures (mainly as part of a promised judgment), but nothing leaps off the page at me as having any intended connection to John the Baptist.
Post Reply