(3 votes, average: 4.67 out of 5)
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 it’s 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 know the linguistic meaning of their name claimed that they were called “the poor ones” because the were “poor in faith.” (!)
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, GET WITH THE PROGRAM!!!
The vast majority of your posts are very interesting and thought provoking, but these last few on the “more Jewish” gospels have been even more so. I hope to get more of your insights on the lesser known early christian writings. Many thanks!
Was James, the brother of Jesus, a leader of the Ebionites?
They claimed he was more or less their “founder,” but in truth they arose after his death — though they did see the Jerusalem church as their spiritual ancestors.
It’s amazing how much you know and how much you work on your writing. I wish I had that kind of work ethic. I love watching your debates on YouTube btw, it amazes me that anyone would debate you.
Could an Ebionite rejection of temple sacrifice be sour grapes of a group who had been rejected by the priestly class and driven away from the temple: “Well… your sacrifices are just…. dumb! Yeah, and God doesn’t even want sacrifices any more, so there!”
could be!
To jump on the speculation wagon… this makes one wonder just how much of this Gospel has filtered into the mainstream traditions in the Christian church today with its rejection of the Torah and harmonization of the NT Gospels.
It does make one wonder…
Prof Ehrman
Even though there were various groups who were known as Ebionites, in your “Orthodox Corruption of Scripture” you identify some similar characteristics that seem to have been shared by all or at least perceived by the orthodox to have been shared by all. They self-consciously traced themselves back to the early Jesus movement, rejected the virgin birth and Jesus’ divinity believing him to have been adopted by god because of his righteousness, and retained their Jewish practice.
Realizing it’s probably not so cut and dried, but isn’t it possible that at least some of the Ebionites were the remnants of the original Jesus movement in Palestine? And if that’s possible isn’t it remarkable that at some point the groups that most closely resembled the original historical Jesus movement were declared heretics?
What do make of the idea of a “truncated” form of Matthew written in Hebrew? Or did they mean Aramaic? I think the idea of a truncated form of Matthew would not be hard to accept but is there any evidence there was an Aramaic literary layer in the development of the gospels?
Thanks
Yes, I’d say that that kind of Ebionite, or probably more accurately, that kind of Jewish- Christian (since there were several types) probably traced their lineage back to the original church in Jerusalem.
They probably meant Aramaic, but I don’t see evidence of any Aramaic layer beneath our Greek text, and there are compelling reasons for thinking Matthew was originally written in Greek.
Now this time I’m really straying way off topic. Next spring is the date for the end time. How do I know? Spring 2014 is the target for Richard Carrier’s book which I understand is tentatively titled “On the Historicity of Jesus” (presumably presenting the thesis of a myth of a God being humanized) and of course your book on how Jesus became God. If I’m not the only one interested, would you consider devoting one post to providing a list of suggested/recommended readings for those of us who would like to get up to speed in advance of at least your book.
Interesting idea. I’d say all one needs to know to get up to speed is something about what scholars of the historical Jesus (which, of course, would not include Carrier) have said about him. You might start with my book Jesus Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium or the books by Geza Vermes, E P Sanders, Dale Allison, Paula Fredriksen — lots to choose from!
Dear Professor Ehrman, I have recently finished reading Geza Vermes’ Nativity – Passion – Resurrection trilogy and he’s a fantastic writer but to my untrained eyes his view of the Resurrection as representing a spiritual revival of Jesus in the hearts of his disciples seemed a bit odd, in particular, when set against Paul’s expectation of a very real resurrection of the dead faithful and the ascension of the faithful to Heaven – would a purely spiritual reading of the Resurrection have led to such a fervent belief? Or does Prof. Vermes mean to say that the core disciples of Jesus viewed resurrection as a spiritual revival but Paul, who was a latecomer to the party, interpreted it to be a bodily revival and since he left the most indelible impact on future Christianity, it became the orthodox belief about this very puzzling event? Would love to get your views on this, either as a reply or in one of your future posts
I’m afraid I’m not familiar with what Vermes says about this. Some scholars who say something like what you summarized are talking about how they understand the resurrection, since they don’t believe in it literally: Jesus came alive to his disciples. Others who say something like you summarized mean that the original disciples believed in a spiritual but not a physical resurrection. I would agree with the first view (since I don’t believe in the literal resurrection) but not with the second (since I think the earliest followers certainly did believe in a physical resurrection.)
I understand that the enforcement of orthodoxy was largely confined to the Roman Emperors’ “pale.” For example, I’m pretty sure the so-called barbarians were Arians by and large (Lombards, Visigoths, etc). I recently read an assertion that lands to the east and southest of the empire’s frontiers (Arabia, the Parthian and later Sassanid empires, for example) widely adopted an Ebionite form of Christiianity (or at least one that did NOT view Christ as God). The context of this was in an assertion (which might be less supportable) that the widespread acceptance of this was the pre-exisiting belief framework onto which Islam was laid (these people would not have to “unlearn” Christ is God)
I’m not familiar with the evidence for that claim.
>>Why would Jewish Christians intent on keeping the Jewish law
>> insist that Jewish sacrifices be stopped? Sacrifices were demanded
>>in the Law of Moses itself. So why would they need to be destroyed?
Becase there was more than one Jewist sect in the 1st century. Apart from the Pharisees and Sadducees, there were the Eseene and the Forth Sect Nazarenes. I think you will find that it was the Nazarene who were against animal sacrifices (they sacrificed their hair instead).
Remember it was Jesus, who was a Nazarene, who drove out the animal sacrifices from the Temple. So although Jesus wanted to preserve the Law (every jot and tittle), he nevertheless wanted to end animal sacrifice. Not to become a veggie, of course, for Jesus was still noted as being a glutton and wine-biber – just to end animal sacrifice.
It would appear that Josephus Flavius was also against animal sacrifice, and that as the last-Jew-standing after the siege of Jerusalem he would have wielded considerable power in the region. And correct me if I am wrong, but the Jews stopped all animal sacrifices at this time.
Note that Saul was also a Nazarene, and so if Saul was Josephus Flavius, as I have argued, then it would not be so surprising that Josephus wanted to end animal sacrifice – and had the power and influence (backed by Rome) to do so.
Ralph
What about Pythagorean or some other Hellenistic influence? Origen had his theory of the transmigration of the soul. Some of the sayings of Jesus have been interpreted to support reincarnation. (Which per the standard historical critical method would suggest their authenticity.) If you buy reincarnation/ you have to consider that that hamburger you are eating might have been grandma. Scholarship has often distinguished between Hellenistic and the Jewish tradition/ but Philo clearly was influenced by Hellenism/ so perhaps the questions of Jewish or Greek is much more complex than previously suspected. Maybe it was really Greek or Persian/ with Orthodoxy ultimately opting for the Persian conception of the afterlife. After all/ the Jews did not have any monolithic view of the afterlife in the first century of the Common Era. Of course/ this is rank speculation/ but if I learned eight dead ancient languages/ I could probably publish a dissertation somewhere making this very case.
Hi, Bart:
(1) If the Ebionite beliefs reflected an authentic tradition from Jesus, could this partly explain the fracas at the Temple when he reportedly staged a protest against sacrifice (overturning cages of pigeons and money-changers’ tables)?
(2) Or is it more likely that the protest (if it happened, in the only place to which he could get access), was against the wrong set of priests running the Temple and thus “polluting” the sacrifices (as the Essenes argued)? So he was driving out symbolically the current regime in preparation and announcement of the coming Kingdom of Heaven when he would come back as the Davidic Messiah …
(3) There are also reports that Mohammed was influenced by Ebionite Arab Christians, as Ebionite communities survived quite late in that part of the world. This would then explain why in Islam Jesus is special as a prophet, though human, and Mary is mentioned some six times, including as the woman blessed above all others. Do you have thoughts on this topic?
We don’t have any record of Ebionite beliefs about the “cleansing of the Temple.” I do think that historically there was some kind of small event/protest against people making money off of religion and thus polluting the temple. I don’t know what kinds of Christianity influenced the writings of the Quran.
What an interesting book or movie could be fashioned from the melancholy story of the Ebionites, driven out of their Jerusalem home into dusty desert obscurity.
But out there somehow they keep alive their little flame of the earliest Christian beliefs. Passed on for centuries and reworked, these beliefs emerge into Islam and eventually the modern world.
Thank you for your writings on this subject.
Why do you think we do not have the writings of the Ebionites? Was this a result of simple neglect to copy or a more sinister intent to destroy them?
I think almost certainly they just were never copied much and then at all…
What was the most probable diet of a Jesus and his disciples? I would assume it would have been Mediterranean based such as fish, whole wheat bread, olives, figs, dates and red wine. No/rarely any meat?
Yup, pretty much. Olive oil too of course.
Could the Ebionites have named themselves the ‘Poor’ because of 1 Samuel 2:6-8?
“The LORD kills and makes alive;
He brings down to the grave and brings up.
The LORD makes poor and makes rich;
He brings low and lifts up.
He raises the poor from the dust
Lifts the beggar from the ash heap,
To set among princes
And make them inherit the throne of glory.
“For the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s,
And He has set the world upon them.””
The epistle of James reports “Listen, my beloved brethren: Has God not chosen the Poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him” (James 2:5). “Blessed is the man who endures temptation (to sin against the Law); for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life (the resurrection from the dead) which the Lord has promised to those who love Him.” (James 1:12).
The Ebionites may have developed their ideology of a bodily resurrection from 1 Samuel 2:6 and the expectation to become heirs to the kingdom of God from 1 Samuel 2:8. 1 Samuel 2:10 also has Messianic undertones.
I’d love to now if they appealed to that passage or not. Alas, we don’t have any of their own writings to say. There are, as you know, a lot of writings in the Hebrew Bible where God is describecd as the God of the poor, and I wod say it’s almost certain that they understaood Jesus’ teahchings in light of them, so I wouldn’t be surprised.
Could the epistle of James be considered one of the compositions of the Ebionites? Paul seems to have read a copy of it or at least was familiar with the arguments recorded within the epistle.
James:
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar…You see then a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. (James 2:21-24)
Paul:
For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God…Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace, but as sin. (Romans 4:2-4)
James:
“But if you have bitter zealousness and self-interest in the heart [mind] of you, do not boast and lie against the truth. This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, unSpiritual, demonic.” (James 3:14-15)
Paul:
“since you seek a proof of Christ speaking in me [instead of a demon]…Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you – unless indeed you are disqualified?” (2 Corinthians 13:3-5)
I have become a fool in boasting…for in nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles (2 Corinthians 12:11)
I”m afraid we don’t know of any group called the Ebionites until into the second century, long after James was written. It’s usually thought that James is responding to Paul, not hte other way around. I have a full discussion of this in my book Forgery and Counterforgery, and a more accessible but still reasonsbly fullone in my book Forged.
Insomuch as the word ‘Christian’ wasn’t used as a self-epithet by the early church, one could argue that “James, Peter, and John… [desired] only that we should remember the Poor” (Galatians 2:9-10) and “certain contribution for the Poor among the saints who are in Jerusalem” (Romans 15:26) were (self) references to the Ebionites.
Concerning authorship, even Paul used an amanuensis to write his letters: “I, Tertius, who wrote this epistle, greet you in the Lord.” (Romans 16:22). Paul was confessedly clumsy with words: “I’m unskilled in speaking” (2 Corinthians 11:6); “did not come with excellence of speech” (1 Corinthians 2:1); “For his letters…are weighty and powerful, but his bodily presence is weak and his speech contemptible.” (2 Corinthians 10:10). Paul had to borrow Tertius’s wordsmithing skills to communicate his theological ideas – to great effect, I might add.
Presumably, “James, the lord, and the bishop of bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the holy church of the Hebrews” (Letter of Clement to James 1:1) had access to a competent scribe if he himself was illiterate, especially for a letter as important as addressing theological contamination within the church, potentially as a sister epistle to the letter to the Gentiles in Acts15:23-29.
The term “Christian” is used of followers of Jesus thre times in the NT, as you probalby know.
Yes it was, but the usage appears to be an adoption by later believers and not used by the earliest converts during the time of the undisputed Pauline epistles. It looks like the more common self epithet in that early time period was the ‘saints’. Paul’s Mosaic Law observant adversaries, however, may have called themselves something different, with the Poor being a potential candidate.
The prayer of Hannah in 1 Samuel does appear to equate the poor in line 8 with the saints in line 9. A potential origin source for both self epithets.
If you date the epistle of James to sometime before Galatians, then any theological differences can be explained by Paul honing his arguments in response to attacks from the Jerusalem leadership following the 1st Council of Jerusalem.
Sorry, ‘theological differences’ is too vague in my previous post, theological misunderstandings better conveys my intent.
There is Biblical evidence that the earliest Christians may have referred to themselves as Ebionites.
Epiphanius notes that the Ebionites “boastfully claim that they are Poor because they sold their possessions in the apostles’ time and laid them at the apostles’ feet, and went over to a life of poverty and renunciation; and thus, they say, they are called “poor” by everyone.” (Epiphanius Panarion I.17.2).
“Now all who believed were together, and possessing all things in common. They sold their property and possessions, and divided them up to all, as anyone had need.” (Acts 2:44)
“for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid (the proceeds) at the apostles’ feet, and they distributed to each as anyone had need” (Acts 4:34-35)
“And Joses…having land, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet” (Acts 4:37)
The phraseology ‘laid at the apostles’ feet’ matches that used by the Ebionites.
“And Jesus … said to him, “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the Poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”” (Mark 10:21).
Perhaps it makes more sense now why Jesus said, “Children, how hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (Mark 10:24-25). Discipleship required giving away all of one’s worldly possessions. The more you have, the harder it is to part with it all.
Additionally, “Judas Iscariot…said, “Why was this fragrant oil not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the Poor?” He said this, not because he cared about the Poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it. But Jesus said, “Let her alone… For the Poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me.”(John 12:5-8).
“Blessed are you Poor for yours is the kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20)
“Has God not chosen the Poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom” (James 2:5)
Hence why I argue that the passage “James, Peter, and John, who seemed to be pillars…desired only that we should remember the Poor” (Galatians 2:9-10) was a reference to the Ebionites.