Loading...There are other interesting features of the Gospel of the Ebionites, known from the quotations of Epiphanius, the fourth-century heresiologist (= heresy-hunter). We wish we had the whole Gospel. We have only these eight fragments that Epiphanius quotes. We wish we knew who actually used the Gospel. We wish we knew how long it was, what it contained, and what its theological slant was. It is almost impossible to say from what remains.
One big question is whether, since it was used by the Ebionites according to Epiphanius, it had a particular bias in its reporting of the words and deeds of Jesus.
The term “Ebionite” was widely used in proto-orthodox and orthodox sources to refer to “Jewish-Christian” groups, or at least one group (it is likely that there were lots of these groups, and it may be that the church fathers assumed they were all the same group when in fact they had different views, different theologies, different practices, and so on). Some of the church fathers indicate that the name came from the founder of the group Ebion. But that’s a legend. Almost certainly the term came from the Hebrew word “Ebyon” which means “poor.” The normal hypothesis is that these Jewish-Christians accepted the early Christian policy of giving away their possessions for others and so took on lives of voluntary poverty. The church fathers who knew
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Thank you for highlighting this and sharing your thoughts on it! I talk about this in my forthcoming books about John the Baptist. One way of understanding John’s baptism is as an alternative to sacrifice, and I think it is possible to envisage an anti-temple and anti-sacrifice viewpoint emerging with Judaism. Between the prophetic hyperbole of God desiring mercy and not sacrifice, and being fed up with their offerings, and the emphasis on the temple as “made with hands” and a questionable replacement of the divinely-authorized tabernacle, the Jewish scriptures had rich resources for critiquing the temple and its sacrifices. It is noteworthy that, even in early Christian texts that advocate for a less radical view on this subject, some of these same scriptural texts are still clearly important to them, woven into the fabric of the movement (which was a continuation of John’s movement) at the deepest level.
Interesting. Thanks. And yup, I would think that Jesus’ anti-temple rhetoric didn’t come outta nowhere.
Were christians offering animal sacrifice before the temples destruction?
I’m afraid we don’t know. Seems likely that followers of Jesus in Jerusalem were.
Fascinating! Excellent reading for Rosh Hashanah😊 .
At what point did early Jewish Christians,the Jerusalem Church,create the doctrine of the perfect,last sacrifice,a human sacrifice,literally?
Hadn’t Isaiah already spoken against all sacrifices?
A direct explanation for this huge leap of faith could be trauma healing,turning stunning defeat into triumph.
But I cannot see how this transformation occurred,as its tenets were strictly prohibited in Judaism:both human sacrifice and redemption of sins by anyone but God or forgiveness from your fellow humans.
Was John’s”Lamb of God”literal or metaphorical?Did Jesus’human sacrifice begin with him?
Moreover,automatic redemption of sins by another was taboo in Judaism,where10 days from today world Jewry will beg God and fellow humans for forgiveness,without any guarantee of being granted it.
Was this second theological creation born at the same time as Jesus’ human sacrifice ?
Also,if Jesus refused to celebrate Passover (why would he?),then there was no Last Supper,no Eucharist and who knows what else.
Jesus ate everything,since he pronounced all foods clean.He even contrasted his full diet with the Baptist’s frugality when he said John ate no bread and drank no wine,which is not literally “bread”,but an expression meaning general eating.John barely subsisted,even as he may have eaten “cakes”similar to the Temple offerings.
But if he was a vegetarian(no locusts),it also begs the question:didn’t John celebrate Passover either?
It appears the followers of Jesus began to think of him as the perfect sacrifice just as soon as they believed he was raised from the dead. Their thinking: If God raised him, that shows he was the one specially favored by God. But if so why would God allow him to die? I must have been planned. God’s plan was for his messiah to die. But why? Passages in Scripture (including Isaiah 53, etc.) speak of a righteous one who suffers for the sake of others. That was the view that caught on: Jesus was the one who had to die for others.
Thanks!
On the Resurrection:
Perhaps this is a simplistic sounding question, but how do the resurrections of Lazarus and Jairus’ daughter , brought about also by God ( Jesus) , rate vis a vis Jesus’ own Resurrection ? God raised all of them, and apparently these “resurrections “were quite common.Later, I believe also on the apostles was the instruction to resurrect people given.
So Lazarus and Jairus’ daughter must have been very special too.
What separates their resurrections from Jesus’Jes
Jesus resurrected persons as God ( Son of God becoming a divine person, which was not so in Judaism). And then the Father raised Jesus.
What am I missing here?
Yup, there’s a key difference. Lazarus and Jairus’s daughter were brought back to life in order to live longer and then die (like those raised from the dead by Elijah and Elisha). Jesus was made immortal at his resurrectoin and exalted to heaven. His was the beginning of the fulfillment of the apocalyptic expectatoin that at the end of this age “the” resurrection would occur in which all would be raised, some to destruction and others to eternal life (as in Daniel 12). He was the “first” and so he’s called “the first fruits of the resurrection” (by Paul in 1 Cor. 15).
As indicated in the Book of Acts, some/many/most of these early followers of Jesus also continued to observe the Jewish festivals for at least 3 decades after his death. If that includes the Day of Atonement, as alluded to in Acts 27:9, would it be reasonable to conclude that at least some of the earliest Jerusalem Christians did not regard the death of Jesus as an atoning sacrifice for their sins? If so, might they have become the Ebionites, which would explain why their gospel fragment is decidedly anti-sacrifice — in keeping with Isaiah 1, Psalm 22, Amos 5, Micah 6, and Jeremiah 7?
I suppose it’s possible they did, but we have no record of it. I don’t think Acts 27:9 indicates Christians were actively participating in the Day of Atonement in Jerusalem. They may well have been “remembering it,” and possibly thinking that Jesus himself now was the atonement.
It appears the followers of Jesus began to think of him as the perfect sacrifice just as soon as they believed he was raised from the dead. Their thinking: If God raised him, that shows he was the one specially favored by God. But if so why would God allow him to die? I must have been planned. God’s plan was for his messiah to die. But why? Passages in Scripture (including Isaiah 53, etc.) speak of a righteous one who suffers for the sake of others. That was the view that caught on: Jesus was the one who had to die for others.
Do we know why Epiphanius’ work was called Panarion (ie. bread basket), please Dr Ehrman?
It means “medicine chest.” He was providing the antidote for the venemous bites of heretics.
One day maybe you can tell us about all the Torah precepts Jesus abandoned,possible interpretations,and whether these were so outrageous to profoundly offend the Pharisees and cause them to fear Israel would be lead astray.I have a vivid memory of my Orthodox grandfather’s apoplectic ire whenever Jesus was even hinted at.He would bang on the table and cry that he deceived Israel.
For example:
If he pronounced all foods clean,did that mean pork too?Did it mean that one could cook (cattle)meat together with milk?Kosher was more than consuming specific animals.
Did he mean nothing one ingests can corrupt (make ill,poison)the body?This is obviously untrue.Are there scholarly opinions,not necessarily Jewish?
Fine tuning that angle doesn’t contradict that one’s speech can definitively corrupt,oneself and others.
And then there is Shabbat and wheat gathering. Shabbat is the 4th commandment.Is man truly the lord of the Sabbath?Would Jesus have known about David’s altar bread,or could this be Christian early apologetics?
And then there is “family”,abandoning one’s mother and siblings,5th Commandment.John somehow restores the obligation to one’s mother.
And the washing and bathing….. and….. and.
I don’t mean “difficult sayings” from our contemporary mindset viewpoint but specifically pronouncements,if Jesus most likely said them,which went against Jewish tradition,custom and law in the Second Temple.
Yes, the problem is whether you’re talking about what Jesus really said or what his followers decades later *claimed* he said. I don’t think there’s any way “Jesus declared all foods clean.” Mark *says* he said that, so Mark’ Jesus would have abrogated kashrut. TBut that’s not hte same as saying Jesus actually did so. You have to decide on other grounds, by doing what historians do: applying rigid criteria before making final decisions. (In this case, though, in Mark 7 the *author* interprets Jesus’ words as a declaration that all foods are clean; Jesus himself doesn’t say that)
One passage to consider in light of this is Isaiah 1:10-17. It came to mind immediately – it says that God is tired of the sacrifices and celebrations from an iniquitous nation. It would make sense in a messianic worldview where Isaiah was considered a key prophetic text to take this to heart, and it provides a thoroughly Jewish context for the idea that the practice of sacrifice should cease. This does not seem distant from the idea that Jesus’s sacrifice is essentially ending the traditional Temple practices. Other groups like the Qumran sect that used Isaiah as a messianic text were also anti-Temple in their orientation but did not have any thought of doing away with the Torah.
It seems to me in the early era there would have been Jewish and gentile followers of Christ who were happy to take a lot of the instructions, permissions and wisdom’s of Christ and add to it the near end of the world with it’s attendant rewards and punishments but subtract the deification, eating flesh of gods, mystical woo that other early preachers like Paul added. It’s also possible they didn’t want to go through the process of thinking about 50 different reasons the crucifixion was supposed to bring about salvation, each one sufficing independently yet somehow not being redundant. I’m rather inclined to this more practical method of Christianity though I think we should admit there is a natural in built tendency to dislike Jews and Judaism. If it it’s core it means an entire community has rejected the truth, were the first ones it was sent to and the first to turn it down, for you to value the truth claims you hold dear you may feel you HAVE TO denigrate or dislike Jews and Judaism. At the very least the logic seems as straightforward as the consequences were brutal.
I wonder how many temple sites, of all faiths and sects, show signs of sacrifice and cooking at that time. Temple sites in the UK and other places, show coin and metal objects to be a more popular offering in the Roman market economy rather than bartered goods. The meat was just a byproduct of the offering and to feed the priests and make a few dinari..
– [ ] If Jesus was the sacrifice, to end all blood sacrifice, was anything really sacrifice if Jesus was raised from dead, he really didn’t give anything, hell I’ll die thousand times for the cause if I’m raised from the dead. I could understand a real god, would think an animal sacrifice is pretty stupid and waste of time and animals.
Fair enough. But they say crucifixion ain’t a stroll in the park. Still, I know. A *human* sacrifice? *That’s* what God wants?
The problem is that the original claim was that gods justice requires punishment and pressing reset button to free oneself from punishment isnt meeting the original justice yhwh demanded for sin.
Hi Bart, my question is entirely unrelated to how people (Jews) come to John the Baptist to repent for forgiveness. How could that be since Hebrews 9:22 says: Indeed, under the law, almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins. I do appreciate your time.
Different Jews had different ways of understanding what it meant to worship God properly. Some of the prophets (Amos, Isaiah) seem to condemn sacrificial practices as well. John may have been in that line.
1. Polemic parodies of xtian sects
2. Real xtian sects
Apologists want 1 to be true because they dont want real christian sects going against their beliefs.
How do you establish 2? Have you written on this?
I’m not sure what you mean by real Christian sects. Aren’t all sectarian groups real?
Do you think it likely that these groups found inspiration for their meatless diet’s in the book of Daniel?
Good question. It’s possible.
If Jesus’s teachings have an emphasis on love and honoring God, could he have come to the conclusion that slaughtering God’s creations/creatures might be an abomination instead?
I don’t know! Nothing about that is on record, one way or the other, so I suppose if someone wanted to argue that they’d have to come up with some reasons for thinking so.
Interestingly, I read somewhere that while the romans thought nothing of executing people, of course, they thought the idea of human sacrifice (killing a human with that purpose, as to a god) as abhorrent.
Yes, the gods do not demand that you kill another human in worship to them. They’re against that. Many people today in America are in favor or executing people, but don’t believe in animal sacrifice to God.
Ebionites on the death of Jesus:
1. They believed that Jesus suffered and died as a prophet, in line with Old Testament prophets who were persecuted and killed. They did not see His death as a salvific event. Instead, they thought of Jesus as the last and greatest in the line of prophets who were often persecuted by their own people.
2. They did not accept the preexistence of Christ or His divine nature. Therefore, they didn’t view Jesus’ death as a cosmic event in which God sacrificed His only Son. Instead, they believed Jesus was a special human chosen by God and that he became the Messiah at his baptism, not by virtue of an eternal divine nature.
3. They rejected the writings of Paul, who emphasized the death of Jesus as a redemptive event for humanity’s sins.
4. While they had a unique perspective on Jesus’ death, they did believe in His resurrection. However, their interpretation of this event would have been influenced by their broader theological stance, which placed Jesus primarily in the prophetic tradition rather than as the preexistent Son of God.
Solutions to the Ebionite paradox:
1. They might have believed that with the coming of Jesus, a new eschatological era had begun. Even though Jesus was seen primarily as a prophet, his coming may have signaled a transition from the old covenant to a new one. In this new era, the physical sacrifices of the temple might no longer be necessary because of the spiritual teachings and changes introduced by Jesus.
2. They might have placed greater emphasis on inner piety and righteousness over ritualistic observances.
3. They might have judged Temple practices as corrupt or not in line with true worship.
4. They might have been influenced by certain teachings of Jesus that could be interpreted as critical of Temple sacrifices. For instance, sayings like “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Hosea 6:6, quoted by Jesus in Matthew 9:13 and 12:7) emphasize ethical behavior over ritualistic practices.
5. After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, sacrifices could no longer be offered. Jewish Christian sects like the Ebionites might have post-hoc rationalized this situation by interpreting it as a divinely ordained end to the sacrificial system, in line with the teachings of Jesus as they understood them.