Epiphanius on the Ebionites

[John2]

He [Epiphanius] also reports hearing that the Diatessaron is the Gospel of the Hebrews. Who cares.

So he reports what he heard. The information doesn't have to be true in order for him to report it, does it? All he says is, "It is said that the Diatessaron, which some call 'According to the Hebrews,' was written by [Tatian]."

And maybe it is true, to judge from the above translation anyway. Is he equating the Diatessaron with the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or is he saying that some people call the Diatessaron "according to the Hebrews" (perhaps given its Syrian provenance)? But in any event, what's wrong with reporting something he heard?

But this is not how we should proceed. I've demonstrated that

1. Epiphanius has NO first evidence for any contact with the Ebionites.
2. He uses at least two sources - Irenaeus and an expansion on Irenaeus which identifies Ebion as the founder of the Ebionites
3. Epiphanius is TOTALLY reckless with his source material. At best he uses Irenaeus as a 'main theme' but feels free to borrow from the account of the Ebionites and add the information to other groups.

He also had what he says was the Ebionite version of Matthew (from which he cites long portions) and other Ebionite writings (the Travels of Peter, the Ascents of James and an Acts, which line up fairly well with the supposed Ebionite sources in the Clementine writings) and talked with a Jewish convert ("For I heard all this from his own lips and not from anyone else, in his old age, when he was about 70 or even more").


And again, I'm not arguing that Epiphanius was the smartest guy in the world and always understood his sources, only that he had them (which in cases we can pick on him for being "reckless" with).

[John2]

John2,
what about the Clementine's where Paul is an opponent?
look, I've been around Christian groups and see how they fight and its basically like a woman's fight with scratching and hair pulling, very unseemly and then they storm off. its just my default assumption the same thing occurred in the church, and they covered it up. my beliefs come from human nature. i actually think there was a historical Jesus that i can believe, i can even believe in miracles, but that the early church was united? no God could achieve that feat.

The part in the Clementine writings where Paul is an opponent (though he is actually only called "the enemy" but I gather there is a margin note that calls him Saul and the account is similar to what Acts says about Saul/Paul) is in the supposed Ebionite source, and thus it is in keeping with what Epiphanius says about the Ebionites opposing him.

[John2]

I see that Hemphill argues in this old book something similar to what I suggested above regarding Epiphanius' report about the Diatessaron:

Now these words puzzled critics very much for a long time; nor was there any ready way of explaining them, except by supposing that Epiphanius here, as in many other places, made a blunder. But we must be fair even to Epiphanius. He says, "It is called by some the Gospel according to the Hebrews," but as Zahn notices, he himself does not call it so; and, moreover, whenever he alludes to the Gospel according to the Hebrews, he does so quite apart from any reference to Tatian. His view of the Hebrew Gospel is that it is a mangled edition of S. Matthew; so that here he merely chronicles the mistake of other persons ... The fact is, that the Diatessaron ... was current in Syriac, and was known to be the work of a heretic; at the same time, and in an adjoining tract of country, the Hebrew Gospel was used by the heretical Nazarenes; and certain Greek=speaking people meeting the works in about the same locality, hearing of the heretical authorship of each, and noticing that both were written in oriental characters, which they could not read, hastily concluded that they were the same work, and reported it to Epiphanius.


https://books.google.com/books?id=MizCF ... us&f=false

[Secret Alias]

Again. I've demonstrated that

1. Epiphanius has NO first evidence for any contact with the Ebionites.
2. He uses at least two sources - Irenaeus and an expansion on Irenaeus which identifies Ebion as the founder of the Ebionites
3. Epiphanius is TOTALLY reckless with his source material. At best he uses Irenaeus as a 'main theme' but feels free to borrow from the account of the Ebionites and add the information to other groups.

[Secret Alias]

I want to reinforce how BAD Epiphanius's reporting on the Ebionites really is. He starts with the seven sects of Judaism as he calls them. Then he makes mention of a certain Elxai - the alleged (and surely fictitious) founder of the 'Elxasites' i.e. those of the 'hidden God.' Since he knows of Irenaeus's report he just ASSUMES that Elxai was once an Ebionite but has no actual proof:

And I shall pass this sect by as well. For again, Elxai is associated with the Ebionites after Christ, as well as with the Nazoraeans, who came later. (5) And four sects have made use of him because they were bewitched by his imposture: Of those < that came > after him, < the > Ebionites < and > Nazoraeans; of those before his time and during it the Ossaeans, and the Nasaraeans whom I mentioned earlier

So the relationship between 'Elxai' - a wholly fictitious 'founder of a sect' (much like 'Ebion') - and the Ebionites is essentially made up owing to an attempt to reconcile his source on the Elxasites and Irenaeus's reporting on the Ebionites. Similarity he just ASSUMES that the Ebionites were somehow related to the'Ossaeeans' and the 'Sampsites' (the sun-worshipers) but again no actual proof:

At all events, these were the seven sects in Israel, in Jerusalem and Judaea, and the four I mentioned in “Samaritans” in Samaria. But most of them have been eliminated. There are no Scribes any longer, no Pharisees, Sadducees, Hemerobaptists or Herodians. (2) There are only a handful of Nasarenes, perhaps one or two, above the Upper Thebaid and beyond Arabia; and the remnant of Ossaeans, no longer practicing Judaism but joined with the Sampsites, who in their turn < live > in the < territory > beyond the Dead Sea. Now, however, they have been united with the sect of the Ebionites. (3) And as a result they have lapsed from Judaism—as though a snake’s tail or body had been cut off and a snake with two heads and no tail had sprouted from it, grown on and attached to a body chopped in half.

In other words, Epiphanius's 'knowledge' comes down to nothing more than holding one book in one hand and another book (Irenaeus) in the other and reconciling the two written reports with one another WITH NO OBVIOUS JUSTIFICATION OTHER THAN A NEED TO COMPLETE HIS PANARION. So again later:

Ebionites are very like these Cerinthians and the Nazoraeans; and the sect of the Sampsaeans and Elkasaites was associated with them to a degree = first part based on proximity in Irenaeus

The Nazoraeans are another example of 'one book in one hand' another book in another hand and a willingness to reconcile:

On the Nazoraeans: For they acknowledge both the resurrection of the dead and that all things have been created by God,35 and they declare that God is one, and that his Son is Jesus Christ. = This is said of the Ebionites at Iren. 1.26.2. Cf. Hipp. Refut. 7.34.1; PsT 3.

On the Nazoraeans - They disagree with Jews because of their belief in Christ; but they are not in accord with Christians because they are still
fettered by the Law—circumcision, the Sabbath, and the rest.36 (6) As to Christ, I cannot say whether they too are misled by the wickedness of Cerinthus and Merinthus, and regard him as a mere man—or whether, as the truth is, they affi rm that he was born of Mary by the Holy Spirit. = Cf. Iren. 1.26.2 (of the Ebionites); Eus. H. E. 3,27.3. The whole section here shows signs that Epiphanius is reading from the section on the Ebionites while explaining the Nazoraeans.

On the Nazoraeans - 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. = section drawn from Irenaeus

All of this is just reconciling (a) a report on the Nazoraeans with (b) Irenaeus's reporting on the Ebionites. This continues through the first lines of his account on the Ebionites:

On the Ebionites - Following these and holding views like theirs, Ebion,2 the founder of the Ebionites, arose in the world in his turn as a monstrosity with many forms, and practically represented in himself the snake-like form of the mythical many-headed hydra. He was of the Nazoraeans’ school, but preached and taught other things than they = Epiphanius making Irenaeus's account of the Ebionites fit with a presumption that the first Jewish Christians were called Nazoraeans.

For it was as though someone were to collect a set of jewelry from various precious stones and an outfit of varicolored clothing and tog himself up conspicuously. Ebion, in reverse, took any and every doctrine which was dreadful, lethal, disgusting, ugly and unconvincing, thoroughly contentious, from every sect, and patterned himself after them all. (3) For he has the Samaritans’ unpleasantness but the Jews’ name, the opinion of the Ossaeans, Nazoraeans and Nasaraeans, the form of the Cerinthians, and the perversity of the Carpocratians. And he wants to have just the
Christians’ title—most certainly not their behavior, opinion and knowledge, and the consensus as to faith of the Gospels and Apostles! 1,4 But since he is midway between all the sects, as one might say, he amounts to nothing. The words of scripture, “I was almost in all evil, in the
midst of the church and synagogue,”3 are applicable to him. (5) For although he is Samaritan, he rejects the name because of its objectionability. And while professing himself a Jew, he is the opposite of the Jews—though he does agree with them in part as I shall prove later with God’s help, through the proofs of it in my rebuttal of them = this is just a reflection of Epiphanius's own making sense of how Irenaeus's Ebionites fit in the middle of the various other names and reporting Epiphanius has uncovered

For this Ebion was contemporary with the Jews, and < since he was > with them, he was derived from them.= Epiphanius has Hippolytus's story about Ebion the founder of the Ebionites or some such text

The 'made up history' culminates in a claim that these sects had a common point of origin:

Their 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. (8) And as far as I know, he 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. (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

This is a total laughable 'history' which just tells us that there were a lot of 'Jewish Christians' in this region - whatever that means, and whatever characteristic these men had. Epiphanius's actual 'history' is nonsensical and useless. And notice that what Epiphanius goes on to contribute is the idea that a 'Jewish Christian element' lived in Palestine - not that Irenaeus's reporting about the Ebionites is confirmed in any way. Listen to how general and vague his account becomes of this 'mishmash' Jewish Christian community in what follows:

And at first, as I 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 of Christ, as though they have decided on something untenable and impossible themselves. (2) But I think it may be since they were joined by Elxai—the false prophet < I mentioned earlier > in the tracts called “Sampsaeans,” “Ossenes” and “Elkasaites”—that they tell an imaginary story about Christ and the Holy Spirit as he did. 3,311 For some of them even say that Adam is Christ—the man who was formed first and infused with God’s breath.12 (4) But others among them say that he is from above; created before all things, a spirit, both higher than the angels and Lord of all; and that he is called Christ, the heir of the world there.13 But he comes here when he chooses,14 as he came in Adam and appeared to the patriarchs clothed with Adam’s body. And in the last days the same Christ who had come to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, came and donned Adam’s body, and appeared to men, was crucified, rose and ascended. (6) But again, when they choose to, they say, “No! The Spirit—that is, the Christ—came to him and put on the man called Jesus.”15 And they get all giddy from making different suppositions about
him at different times. 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. 3,8 But some may already have replied that the Gospel of John too, translated from Greek to Hebrew, is in the Jewish treasuries ...

The story that follows has no value either. It just tells us that 'Jewish Christian' sectarians or in point of fact a variant Christianity which outwardly seemed more 'Jewish' was existing in Palestine. But how any of this proves that an 'Ebionite sect' ever existed or what it meant or what it was like is absolutely ridiculous.

It is utterly laughable to take Epiphanius's reporting seriously. He's just piecing together wholly separate things and making a false narrative.

[Secret Alias]

The story about 'Josephus' that follows is not ACTUALLY about the Ebionites. Epiphanius NEVER says Josephus was a self-confessed Ebionite. IN FACT if you read the story carefully it is introduced as follows:

1. the Ebionites mixed up with the other sects so you have a jumble of 'Jewish Christian' heresies with no specific name
2. Josephus of Tiberias had access to Jewish Christian written material some of which is later cited as 'the Gospel of the Hebrews' which was used by the Ebionites

It is important to note though that the gospel cited by Epiphanius is a 'harmony' - i.e. it has bits of Mark, Matthew and Luke (and possibly John). But the point is that Josephus of Tiberias can't be used to verify the reality of the Ebionite sect.

The point is that (a) we have evidence of 'Jewish Christianity' available to Epiphanius via Josephus of Tiberias (b) we have what Irenaeus and other in the centuries previous to Epiphanius say about 'Jewish Christian' sects. But the ACTUAL EVIDENCE given by Epiphanius about the existence or characteristics of the Ebionite sect is NOT an improvement over what we read in Irenaeus.

[Secret Alias]

Like for instance - listen carefully at what Epiphanius is actually saying about this gospel he cites:

See how their utterly false teaching is all lame, crooked, and not right anywhere! (2) For by supposedly using their same < so-called Gospel according to Matthew > Cerinthus and Carpocrates want to prove from the beginning of Matthew, by the genealogy, that Christ is the product of Joseph’s seed and Mary. (3) But these people have something else in mind. They falsify the genealogical tables in Matthew’s Gospel and make its opening, as I said, “It came to pass in the days of Herod, king of Judaea, in the high-priesthood of Caiaphas, that a certain man, John by name, came baptizing with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan” and so on. (4) This is because they maintain that Jesus is really a man, as I said, but that Christ, who descended in the form of a dove, has entered him—as we have found already in other sects—< and > been united with him. Christ himself < is from God on high, but Jesus > is the offspring of a man’s seed and a woman.

What does this have to do with the Ebionites? The Ebionites are the only one of these sects said to use the Gospel of Matthew. Clearly one of the books Epiphanius has open at this point is Irenaeus Against Heresies 1 where, under the Ebionites, we have the following statement:

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.

Irenaeus is making two separate statements namely (1) the Ebionites share the same ideas about Jesus being born from Mary and Joseph as outlined in his description of Cerinthus and Carpocrates and (2) they only use Matthew, reject Paul etc. The fact that (2) doesn't also get a 'like Cerinthus and Carpocrates' would lead the rational observer to conclude that the Ebionites were different than the other two in this respect i.e. the other two DID NOT ONLY USE MATTHEW nor did they reject Paul. But Epiphanius's reckless approach to the material only shows how unreliable he is.

Basically he's being so reckless BECAUSE HE HAS NO WAY TO CONNECT THE GOSPEL HE SEEMS TO HAVE GOTTEN FROM JOSEPHUS OF TIBERIAS WITH THE EBIONITES. He wants to make the connection because he doesn't know where to put the story. Indeed Epiphanius's real accomplishment is to try and reconcile one history - i.e. Irenaeus's reference to the Ebionites in connection with Carpocrates and Cerinthus - with HIS OWN EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY from Josephus of Tiberias - namely the business about Christians originally being named after Jesus (i.e. the Jessian sect) which was the original name of Christians and witnessed by Philo and that the Nazoraeans were another name of this sect because of Jesus's birth at Nazareth. This is Epiphanius's own creation it seems and his preferred explanation for the origin of Jewish Christianity. All he did to make this 'eyewitness' testimony reconcile with Irenaeus is to assume that Irenaeus's Ebionites were a sect of Epiphanius's Nazoraeans.

Nevertheless the takeaway is clearly that (i) Jewish Christians were called 'Nazoraeans' in Epiphanius's day (ii) he has ran across a text in Hebrew which identifies the sect as originally being called 'Jessaeans' or some such name (Essenes) AND THAT EPIPHANIUS RECONCILES THIS with Irenaeus's testimony by blurring the details in Irenaeus's original report to make it easier to fit 'the Ebionites' into his own model.

[Secret Alias]

In conclusion Epiphanius provides NO FURTHER EVIDENCE of the existence of the Ebionites over what appears in Irenaeus and in fact introduces a series of WILLFUL misunderstandings to help reconcile this alleged sect with eyewitness testimony of Jewish Christianity WHICH DOES NOT EXPLICITLY identify itself as 'Ebionite' or related to a founder called 'Ebion.'

[Secret Alias]

And let's suppose for a minute you take the reasonable approach of admitting - Epiphanius's value is in his access to alternative sources which are no longer available to us. That's only true to a degree because (a) he doesn't tell us when he is making stuff up and when he is using sources and (b) his use of source material is HORRIBLE. For instance, we know that Irenaeus is his 'road map' to everything. So he always has a copy at hand to make sense of things. But his use of Irenaeus demonstrates how terrible he is with sources. We've seen just in this section alone that the reference to the Ebionites using Matthew became Carpocrates and Cerinthus using Matthew. A report about the Nazoraeans or a Jewish Christian tendency to name themselves 'Jessenes/Essenes' ends up in the Ebionite section even though the name 'Ebion' or 'Ebionite' appears nowhere in the report. The proper question to ask is why does Epiphanius drop the Josephus of Tiberias story in the Ebionite section? The answer is obvious - he has to fill up this massive tome with information, stories and narratives. He can't just mirror Irenaeus's account which was widely known in the fourth and fifth centuries. He has to come up with 'new material' and like all artists he stoops to any lengths to fill up pages.

[John2]

I want to reinforce how BAD Epiphanius's reporting on the Ebionites really is. He starts with the seven sects of Judaism as he calls them. Then he makes mention of a certain Elxai - the alleged (and surely fictitious) founder of the 'Elxasites' i.e. those of the 'hidden God.' Since he knows of Irenaeus's report he just ASSUMES that Elxai was once an Ebionite but has no actual proof:

And I shall pass this sect by as well. For again, Elxai is associated with the Ebionites after Christ, as well as with the Nazoraeans, who came later. (5) And four sects have made use of him because they were bewitched by his imposture: Of those < that came > after him, < the > Ebionites < and > Nazoraeans; of those before his time and during it the Ossaeans, and the Nasaraeans whom I mentioned earlier

So the relationship between 'Elxai' - a wholly fictitious 'founder of a sect' (much like 'Ebion') - and the Ebionites is essentially made up owing to an attempt to reconcile his source on the Elxasites and Irenaeus's reporting on the Ebionites.

Okay, one thing at a time (since I don't have a lot of it).

Epiphanius also had Hippplytus, and he says some things about Elchasai that would make me suppose there was a relationship between him and Ebionites in RH 9.9:

This Elchasai puts forward as a decoy a polity (authorized in the) Law, alleging that believers ought to be circumcised and live according to the Law, (while at the same time) he forcibly rends certain fragments from the aforesaid heresies. And he asserts that Christ was born a man in the same way as common to all.

And also Eusebius (via Origen) EH 6.38:

... [the heresy of the Elchasaites] rejects the apostle [Paul] altogether ...

Cf. Irenaeus AH 1.26.2:

... their [the Ebionites] opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates [i.e., Cerinthus had "represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation"] ... [and they] repudiate the Apostle Paul ... [and] they practice circumcision [and] persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law ...

So I figure this was just another matter of Epiphanius putting two and two together (whether it is true or not).