[VigChr Supp 110] Petri Luomanen - Recovering Jewish-Christian Sects and Gospels, 2012.pdf

8/10/2019 [VigChr Supp 110] Petri Luomanen - Recovering Jewish-Christian Sects and Gospels, 2012.pdf

1/311


2/311

Recovering Jewish-Christian Sects and Gospels


3/311

Supplements

toVigiliae Christianae

exts and Studies o

Early Christian Lie and Language

Editors

J. den Boef B.D. Ehrman J. van OortD.. Runia C. Scholten J.C.M. van Winden

VOLUME 110

Te titles published in this series are listed at brill.nl/vcs


4/311

Recovering Jewish-Christian

Sects and Gospels

By

Petri Luomanen

LEIDEN BOSON2012


5/311


6/311

CONENS

Preace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.. Early Jewish Christians and Teir Gospels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.. Te Contents o the Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.. How to Dene Jewish Christianity: Indicators o

Jewish-Christian Proles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.. Gospel Harmonies and Harmonizing Gospels .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

. Patristic estimonies Reconsidered. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.. Te Proles o the Ebionites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

... Irenaeus Ebionites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18... Origens Ebionites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24... Eusebius Ebionites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29... Epiphanius Ebionites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30... From Irenaeus Ebionites to Epiphanius Ebionites? . . . 45

.. Te Nazarenes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49... Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49... Who Were Called Nazarenes? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51... Te Prole o Epiphanius Nazarenes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53... Te Prole o Jeromes Nazarenes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66... Conclusion: Who Were the Nazarenes? .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

. Jewish-Christian Gospels Recovered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.. Farewell to the Tree Gospel Hypothesis (the GH) . . . . . . . . . 83.. Jeromes Lie and Quotations rom Jewish-Christian Gospels 89

... Te Setting o the Quotations in Jeromes Biography . . 89... An Illustrious ranslator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100... A Greek ranslation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101... Jerome and the Nazarenes Gospel raditions . . . . . . . . . . 102

.. A New Reconstruction o the Gospel Used by the Nazarenes 103.. Reconstructing theGospel o the Hebrews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

... Eusebius estimony: TeGospel o the Hebrewsonthe Fringes o Canon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120


7/311

... A Reconstruction o theGospel o the Hebrews. . . . . . . . . 137... Q and theGospel o the Hebrews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

. Passion raditions Reinterpreted .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145.. Te Last Supper in theGospel o the Ebionitesand Luke

(Codex Bezae) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145... Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145... Arguments or and against the Shorter Reading . . . . . . . 147... Reconstructing the Passion Narrative in theGospel o

the Ebionites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150... TeGospel o the Ebionitesand Luke (D, Old Latin

and Old Syriac) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155... Te Dating o the Shorter Reading and theGospel o

the Ebionites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157... Eucharistic radition Preceding Luke? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159... EbionitesAn Offshoot o the Hellenists? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

.. Passion Fragments in JeromesCommentary on Matthew . . . . 165.. Jesus Appearance to James the Just . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168.. Conclusion: Passion raditions in Jewish-Christian Gospels 173

. Jewish-Christian Gospels and Syriac Gospel raditions . . . . . . . . . . . 175.. Tree Rich Men in theGospel o the Hebrewsand the

Diatessaron. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175... Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175... Te Rich Man in Origens Commentary on Matthew . . 177... Comparison with Parallel Passages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178... Comparison with Variant Readings and

Diatessaronic Witnesses.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

... Te Inuence o the Diatessaronic Context . . . . . . . . . . . . 187... Summary and Conclusions o the ext- and SourceCritical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

... Mapping Jewish-Christian Proles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193... Te Jewish-Christian Prole o Origens Story . . . . . . . . . 195... Conclusion: Where Did the Men Come From? . . . . . . . . 199

.. TeGospel o Tomasand Jewish-Christian GospelFragments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200... Introduction:Tomasand Jewish Christians . . . . . . . . . . . 200

... Te Provenance o theGospel o the Hebrewsand theGospel o Tomas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202... Let Him Who Seeks Continue Seeking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204


8/311

... Your Brothers and Mother Are Standing Outside . . . . . . 206... Wise As Serpents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

... O Man and He urned o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218... Jewish-Christian Gospel Fragments and theGospel oTomas: A Summary o Literary Relationships ........ 223

... Jesus As Wisdom Incarnate and the Spirit As JesusMother . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

... Conclusion: Common Roots in HarmonizedSynoptic radition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

. Conclusion: owards the History o Early Jewish Christianity .... 233

.. Te Ebionites and the Nazarenes .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233.. Jewish-Christian Gospels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235.. Summary and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

Abbreviations and Appendices .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245Abbreviat ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245Appendix : Te New wo Gospel Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245Appendix : Parallel Sayings and Common Harmonizing

Readings in Jewish-Christian Gospel Fragments and theGospel o Tomas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

Appendix : Development and estimonies o Jewish-ChristianGospel raditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255

Re e r e nce s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 7

Index o Ancient Authors and exts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277General Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286

Index o Modern Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294


9/311


10/311

PREFACE

I launched the research on which this book is based at the end o thes as my post-doctoral project at the Department o Biblical Studieso the University o Helsinki. Having published my doctoral thesis onthe Gospel o Matthew, I had become intrigued by the question othe history o Jewish Christianity afer the completion o the synopticgospels. Originally, my plan was to write a book which would trace the

history o Jewish Christianity rom pre-synoptic times through Matthewand other New estament material to post-synoptic apocryphal sourcesandreerencesbythechurchathers.BecauseIhadwrestledwiththeNewestament material or my doctoral thesis or some time, I wanted get myhands on some other sources and decided to start with the analysis o thechurch athers and their reerences.

I soon realized that the topic I had chosen was well worthy o HansWaitzs ofen cited charaterization o being the most difficult whichthe apocryphal literature presents: Das Problem, um das es sich han-delt, ist eines der schwierigsten der apokryphen Literatur, schwierig wegender Drfigkeit und Unstimmigkeit der patristischen Zeugnisse, schwierigauch wegen der sich vielach widersprechenden Ergebnisse der wissen-schaflichen Forschung (Waitz a, ). Moreover, afer Waitzs time,scholars had urther complicated the problem by becoming more awareo the problems connected with the denition o Jewish Christianitywhich was not so much an issue at the beginning o the th century.

In the beginning, I was relatively happy with the conventional story

about the Nazarenes and the Ebionites and the three gospels that wereattributed to early Jewish Christians (the Tree Gospel Hypothesis=theGH). However, a closer look at the sources started to reveal problemso the kind that had given Waitz the reason or his statement. How is itpossible that a relatively late writer like Epiphanius has the most detailedknowledge o the earliest phases o the sect o the Nazarenes? How isit possible that scholars can be so sure about the Matthean charactero the Gospel o the Nazarenes even though the ragments themselvesare not so obviously Matthean? How can they be so sure that Gnostic

materials cannot stand together with synoptic-type gospel materials,eventhoughthe Gospelo Tomas clearly includes both types o material?Tese and other observations led me to think that there are some serious


11/311

problems in the conventional reconstructions and that detailed historicalstudy is needed to resolve them.

Te overall picture presented in this book emerged slowly over thecourse o historical-critical research. Initially, I became aware o someo the problems in the traditional VielhauerStreckerKlijn reconstruc-tion o three apocryphal Jewish-Christian gospels in late s when Iwrote my contribution to the Finnish article that was intended to launcha project on early Jewish Christianity at the University o Helsinki (Myl-lykoski & Luomanen ). When I presented my rst critical reviewo the earlier research at the SBL Annual Meeting in (What isthe Gospel o the Nazoreans?; Denver, ), I had not yet any clear

ideas how to solve the problems I had ound up to that time. Te arti-cial nature o Epiphanius description o the Nazarenes dawned onme two years later, in , when I was preparing an article on theNazarenes or the Finnish Journal o Teology (Luomanen a). In, I was preparing an enlarged version o a paper delivered at theSBL International meeting or publication (Groningen, ). At thatpoint, I started to play with Jeromes reerences to the Gospel o theNazarenes in order to see i it was possible to reconstruct a gospelused by the Nazarenes on the basis o more neutral criteria than whatwas applied in the GH. Tis experimenting led me to recovering theNazarenes collection o anti-rabbinic Matthew passages. Te act thatthis collection cohered with the Nazarenes anti-rabbinic Isaiah collec-tion convinced me that I might be on the right track. Even more so,when I realized that my attempts to reconstruct the Gospel o theNazarenes had actually made a distinct gospel with that name disap-pear rom the scenea result that joined neatly with my earlier analy-sis o Epiphanius Nazarenes. Because the reconstruction o the Gospel

o the Nazarenes was originally treated as a problem o its own, thearguments presented were in no way dependant on my earlier analysiso Epiphanius Nazarenes, which had shown the articial, stereotypedcharacter o Epiphanius description. Because the basic ideas and argu-ments o this book have been developedin conerence papers and articlesthat were originally written in view o a monograph, I have been able tomake use o much o their contents, although with modications andadditions. I have listed the earlier articles used in this volume in Chap-ter ..

Over the years, I have become indebted to several persons who havehelped me with various academic and practical issues connected tothis research undertaking. In the beginning, a valuable ramework was


12/311

Heikki RisnensResearch Unit or the Formation o Early Jewish andChristian Ideology(Centre o Excellence o the Academy o Finland)

at the Department o Biblical Studies o the University o Helsinki. Itprovided a context or aProject on Early Jewish Christianitywhere I wasable delve into problems o studying the patristic sources, together withtwo colleagues, Matti Myllykoski and Sakari Hkkinen. Cooperationwith Matti and Sakari was most helpul in laying the grounds or myapproach to the topic o this volume.

Tree-year post-doctoral research unding rom the Academy o Fin-land and an invitation rom the Institute or Antiquity and Christian-ity, Claremont Graduate University, enabled me to spend the academic

year as a visiting scholar in the riendly Caliornian atmo-sphere, together with my wie iina and our three children Laura, Eveli-ina and Juhana. We all eel very grateul or the warm and helpul recep-tion both in the academic community as well as in the neighborhood.Jon Ma. Asgeirsson, the associate director o the IAC, gave generously ohis timehis last weeks in Claremont beore leaving or Iceland in orderto take up his chair as the Proessor o New estament Studies and EarlyChristianity therehelping us with the practical arrangements, includ-ing nding an appropriate house or the amily o ve. Our landlord,Donald Wang, and his exciting house as well as our most riendly andhelpul neighbors, the Gaetes and the Sears, will always have their specialplace in our hearts and collective memories. Dennis MacDonald, thennewly appointed director o the IAC, and Karen Jo orjesen, the Deano the School o Religion at CGU, were equally generous in their aca-demic hospitality. Te library o the IAC, with its une room providedan appropriate context or nalizing a Finnish translation o the Apoc-ryphon o James and my initial studies o the patristic sources o early

Jewish Christianity.In Claremont, we were also privileged to enjoy the hospitality oJames and Gesine Robinson. We discussed the relationship between theNazarenes, the Ebionites and Q, but, or a long time, I could not tthese considerations into the picture that was emerging rom my ownanalysis. Te short chapter I have included in the present volume suggestssome connections, but it is clear that the topic deserves a more elaborateanalysis, to which the conclusions o this book, i accepted,provides somenew starting points.

Te year in Claremont also launched my cooperation with F. StanleyJones, the director o the IACs projectJewish Christianity: Te Pseudo-Clementines. Stans research on Pseudo-Clementines has been most


13/311

helpul or my own study o the Ebionites and their gospel. Stan Jonesand Matt Jackson-McCabe (also a Claremont alumnus), were among the

driving orces when we started a new Jewish Christianity consultationat the SBL Annual Meeting (; chaired by Matt), ollowed bya Jewish Christian/Christian Judaism section () that I havebeen co-chairing, rst with Matt in and with Stan rom onwards. Discussion with Matt and the sessions that we have organizedin the context o the SBL have greatly assisted my own research.

Te late William L. Petersen was an invaluable guide through the jun-gles o textual criticism and Diatessaronic witnesses. Despite his severeillness, he was able to maintain his sense o humor and cheerul support

or a younger scholar to the very end. I wish this volume could, at leastpartly, ulll his overtly optimistic prophecyan encouraging arewell acouple o weeks beore his deaththat I will have something to give tothe study o Jewish Christianity.

Jrg Freys comments on my article on Eusebius were most helpuland he has been very generous in sharing his orthcoming publications,or which I am deeply grateul. Along with this project, I have also hadthe privilege o cooperating with several other (originally) Europeancolleagues, always in a congenial and supporting atmosphere: AndrewGregory, Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, obias Nicklas, Pierluigi Piovanelli,Christopher uckett and Joseph Verheyden deserve to be mentionedwithoutorgettingmanyotherEuropeanandAmericancolleagueswhosecomments on my papers and articles have helped me to develop myargumentation.

Te Department o Biblical Studies and the Helsinki Collegium oAdvanced studies () at the University o Helsinki have beenthe most inspiring rameworks or the present project. I have been able

to enjoy cooperation with several colleagues in a congenial, innovativeand broadly learned context. Te number o people in my home depart-ment who have given me useul comments and tips over the years is toogreat to be listed in detail herein any case, my memory would ail i Itried. Nevertheless, some names cannot be lef unmentioned since with-out these people, this work would probably not exist, or it would at leastbe much poorer. Risto Uros contacts with Claremont and his practicaladvice as an experienced Claremonter paved my way to Caliornia andto the new contacts and networks that are vital when a post-doc starts

with a new research topic. Antti Marjanen has always been a helpul col-league who has the admirable ability to plunge into a deep discussiono another persons research topicwith the same curiosity and involve-


14/311


15/311

that helped me to clean up the discrepancies that tend to creep in whenresults rom several articles, written over several years, are wrapped

together in one volume.I dedicate this book to the memory o my grandparents Sulo VilliamKauppi () and Helvi Maria Kauppi (). Having beenborn in poor working-class homes they had opportunities only or ele-mentary schooling but they were always supportive o the education otheir children and grandchildren. I have onthe wall o my study a modestpainting o a tiny two-room cottage in the midst o birches and blossom-ing apple trees, the birth place o my grandmother. It reminds me o theact that the ultimate poverty is not the poverty o the dispossessed but

the poverty o mind and spirit.

In Nummi-Pusula, on the traditional Midsummers Eve, June , the th anniversary o Sulos and Helvis engagement day.

Petri Luomanen


16/311

INRODUCION

.. E J C G

Te Ebionites and the Nazarenes possible relation to the early Jerusalem

community has ofen been debated. Over the history o research, bothhave been assessed as genuine successors o the early Jerusalem commu-nity. Ferdinand Christian Baur argued that the Ebionites were not origi-nally a heretical sect but successors o the very rst Jewish Christians inJerusalem. Te Nazarenes, or their part, represented a later phase o Jew-ish Christianity, which had developed rom itsstrictly anti-Pauline stanceto a more lenient attitude towards the gentiles.1 Among contemporaryscholars, GerdLdemann2 and Michael D. Goulder3 have supported sim-ilar views. On the other hand, Albrecht Ritschl4 already argued, against

Baur, that strict Jewish Christianity with its anti-Paulinism can not beconsidered the dominant current in rst-century Christianity. In hisview, the Nazarenes, who accepted the apostle Paul, were the successorso the early Jerusalem community. Ray A. Pritz5 has presented a similarinterpretation.6 According to him, the history o the Nazarenes can betraced back to the early Jerusalem community, while the Ebionites cameout o a split among the Nazarene ranks around the turn o the rst cen-tury.

Although the church athers reerred to gospels that were used by the

Ebionites and the Nazarenes, no manuscripts have survived that could beidentied with these reerences. Tis is also the case with theGospel o theHebrews romwhichthechurchathersalsopresentsomequotations.TeGospel o the Hebrewsis the only explicit title that appears in the ancient

1 Baur (), , n. .2 Ldemann , .3 Goulder , .4 Ritschl , .5 Pritz , , , .6 Pritz is ollowed by Mimouni , ; Blanchetire , , , ,

; Bauckham , .


17/311

sources. Although the evidence about early Jewish-Christian gospelsis ragmentary, it is ofen regarded important because o its possible

connections to the early Jesus movement. Tereore, modern scholarshave spent both time and energy in order to recover these lost gospelsrom the church athers quotations and reerences.

Te publication o the third edition o Edgar Henneckes Neutes-tamentliche Apocrypha in (edited by Wilhelm Schneemelcher)7

and its English translation in more or less created a consensus inthe German and English-speaking scholarly world about the numberand character o the long lost early Jewish-Christian gospels. Severaltextbooks and general articles on apocryphal gospels have repeated the

view according to which there were originally three Jewish-Christiangospels: theGospel o the Hebrews, theGospel o the Ebionitesand theGospel o the Nazarenes.8 In the ollowing, I shall call this the TreeGospel Hypothesis (the GH). An alternative reconstruction, avoredmainly by some French scholars, has counted two gospels: theGospel othe Ebionitesand theGospel o the Hebrews/Nazarenes.9

During the past decade, more and more critical voicesincludingminehave been raised against different aspects o the threeold dis-tinction that was presented in the third edition o Henneckes collec-tion by Philipp Vielhauer and Georg Strecker. Scholars who have becomemore aware o the weaknesses o the GH, are now either rerainingrom making any rm conclusions about the number and contents othe gospelsorganizing their presentation according to the availablesources, the church athers10or making adjustments to the threeold11

or to the twoold distinction.

7 Hennecke & Schneemelcher 3 (1).8

Vielhauer & Strecker 2

(1

). A.F.J. Klijn (Klijn ) also argues or threeJewish-Christian gospels. In the rst edition o Henneckes collection, A. Meyer stillassumed there were only two Jewish-Christian Gospels. Foundations or the distinctiono three gospels were laid in Henneckes second edition by H. Waitz, and the theorywas developed urther in the third edition by Vielhauer and Strecker. See, Meyer b;a; Waitz a; b; c; d.

9 For instance, Mimouni , , . Some scholars have also arguedor only one Jewish-Christian gospel. W.L. Petersen has drawn attention to Diatessaronicreadings in many o the quotations suggesting that all the ragments could as well berooted in one and the same gospel that is somehow related to atians Diatessaron. See,or instance, Petersen , , ; Only one Jewish-Christian gospel is alsopresupposed by Pritz , ; Schmidt .

10 Tus, or instance, Evans , .11 J. Frey, who is writing on Jewish-Christian Gospels in the new Hennecke (=

Markschies & Schrter Forthcoming) is critical o the close connection that has been


18/311


19/311

irrelevant or the study o early Jewish Christianity. On the contrary,the New estament is our best source or the earliest Jewish Christian-

ity. However, during the past decades, there has been an extensive re-evaluation o the Jewish and Jewish-Christian character o most o theNew estament writings and I see no reason to recapitulate this discus-sion in this volume.14 Instead, my intention is to update the discussion othe non-canonical sources or the earliest Jewish Christianity since thishas not received so much attention.

My goal is twoold. On the one hand, my intention is to providea critical assessment o the hypothesisofen presented by those whohave ocused on non-canonical sources o Jewish Christianitythat the

ragments o Jewish-Christian gospels contain old traditions even datingback to pre-synoptic times. On the other hand, the goal is to see howtraditions about Jewish Christians developed and how Jewish Christiansthemselves developed their traditions afer the completion o the writingsthat are now contained in the canonical New estament.

Although one o the main intentions o Chapter is to discuss theJewish-Christianprole o the Ebionites and the Nazarenes rom the sec-ond century onwards, it will become clear in the course o the discussionthat I nd the Ebionites better candidates or being the successors o theJerusalem community than the Nazarenes. In act, I show in Chapter that the distinctive sect o the Nazarenes was Epiphanius own inven-tion, a stereotyped picture o the earliest orm o the Jewish-Christianheresy, which he developed on the basis o the literary sources availableto him: Acts o the Apostles and EusebiusEcclesiastical History. Jeromealso speaks o the Nazarenes but his reerences are best understood asreecting the act that Nazarenes was a common name or Christiansin the Syriac language. Because Epiphanius description o the Ebionites

is closely tied with the Pseudo-Clementine sources and a religious move-ment known as the Elchasites, Chapter also includes a short discussiono these movements and their relation to the Ebionites.

In Chapter , I argue or a theory that assumes only two Jewish-Christian apocryphal gospels: theGospel o the Ebionitesand theGospelo the Hebrews. However, the theory deviates rom the previous hypothe-ses that have assumed only two gospels because, in my view, the evi-dence indicates that, in addition to two actual gospels, there was also

14 My own contribution to this discussion has taken place especially within Mattheanstudies. See Luomanen ; Luomanen b.


20/311

a collection o anti-rabbinic testimonies that Jerome acquired rom theNazarenes. Tis collection was prepared by making minor adjustments

to the wording o an Aramaic translation o the canonical Matthew.15

Consequently, in this reconstruction, the contents and the character otheGospel o the Hebrewsbecomes different rom what has been previ-ously assumed in the twoold or in the threeold distinction. Five anti-rabbinic passages, transmitted by Jerome, are excluded rom the apoc-ryphal Jewish-Christian gospels, but all the restexcluding the ones thatare presentedby Epiphanius and commonly attributed to the GospelotheEbionitesare assumed to be rom theGospel o the Hebrews. Accordingto the new reconstruction, theGospelo the Hebrews would have included

passages that attest to the inuence o Wisdom speculations combinedwith eatures amiliar rom the synoptic gospels. Since these eatures alsocharacterize Q, Chapter includes a discussion o Qs possible connec-tions with Jewish-Christian gospel ragments.

Chapter deals with passion and resurrection stories, a theme thathas not received much attention in the study o Jewish-Christian gospels.Te evidence is ragmentary but upon closer examination it reveals someinteresting eatures characteristic o early Jewish-Christian interpreta-tions o Jesus death and resurrection.

Chapter deals with two topics that have been central to the discus-sion about early Jewish-Christian gospel traditions: the ragments rela-tion to theDiatessaronand to theGospel o Tomas. Te analysis shows,in contrast to A.F.J. Klijns interpretation, that the passage in the Latintranslation o Origens Matthew commentary is post-synoptic. Second, acomparison with Old Syriac translations shows a connection to Diates-saronic traditions but locates the points o contact to a pre-Diatessaroniclevel. April de Conick has revived Gilles Quispels old hypothesis about

a Jewish-Christian gospel as a kernel o traditions evolving in theGospelo Tomas. My analysis shows some points o contact between Jewish-Christian ragments and theGospel o Tomasbut the common denom-inators are all too meager to justiy an assumption about a Jewish-Christian kernel o the Gospel o Tomas. Furthermore, the most naturalexplanation or the common eatures is that the Jewish-Christian gospelragments and the Gospel o Tomas both draw on related, post-synoptic,harmonizing gospel traditions.

15 In the Tree Gospel Hypothesis, these passages are usually attributed to the Gospelo the Nazarenes.


21/311

Although the volume as a whole creates a new overall picture o theearly Jewish Christians and their gospels, it is still possible to take the

our main sections o the bookChapters , , and as independentstudies. One does not have to accept my characterization o the Ebionitesand the Nazarenes in Chapter in order to accept the newreconstructiono theGospel o the Hebrewsin Chapter or vice versa. Furthermore,thetwothematicchapters,Chaptersand,arewrittensothattheirbasicarguments do not necessarily presuppose the reconstructions presentedin the earlier chapters, even though I have updated these sections in orderto show how they t the overall theory.

Te contents o the present volume link up with my earlier articles

and conerence papers as ollows. Te study oindicators o early JewishChristianity, described in Chapter ., has been introduced in two earlierarticles in and : Where Did Another Rich Man Come From?:TeJewish-ChristianProleotheStoryAboutaRichManintheGospelo the Hebrews (Origen, Comm. in Matth. .).Vigiliae Christianae, ; and Ebionites and Nazarenes.Jewish Christianity Recon-sidered: Rethinking Ancient Groups and exts. Ed. Matt Jackson-McCabe.Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, . However, the rst versiono the approach was already drafed in , in a Finnish article I wrotejointly with Matti Myllykoski: Varhaisen juutalaiskristillisyyden jljill.eologinen Aikakauskirja(On the rail o Early Jewish Christianity;Finnish Journal o Teology) , .

Chapters . and . combine and elaborate two earlier articles: thearticle that was published in the volume edited by Matt Jackson-McCabe(see above) and Nazarenes.A Companion to Second-Century ChristianHeretics. Ed. Antti Marjanen & Petri Luomanen. Supplements to Vig-iliae Christianae . Leiden: Brill, .

Chapter .. is an elaboration o On the Fringes o Canon: EusebiusView o the Gospel o the Hebrews.Te Formation o the Early Church.Ed. Jostein dna. Wissenschafliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen esta-ment . bingen: Mohr Siebeck, . Other parts o Chapter combine arguments presented in several earlier articles and also includesome previously unpublished sections.

Chapter . is based on Sacrices Abolished: Te Last Supper inLuke (Codex Bezae) and in theGospel o the Ebionites.Lux Humana,Lux Aeterna: Essays on Biblical and Related Temes in Honour o Lars

Aejmelaeus. Ed. Antti Mustakallio in collaboration with Heikki Leppand Heikki Risnen. Publications o Finnish Exegetical Society. Helsinki/Gttingen: Finnish Exegetical Society/Vandenhoeck &


22/311


23/311

.. H D J C:I J-C P

Te problematic nature o the term Jewish Christianity is well known inpresent scholarship but no consensus has emerged on how to deal withit.16 Some scholars have questioned the generalized use o the term asobscuring historical realities17 or considered the term useless becausescholars have applied it in so many ways.18 Many have experimentedwith different variations o the term, such as Jewish Christianity (withand without a hyphen), Judaeo-Christianity, Judaic Christianity, JudaisticChristianity, Christian Judaism, Hebrew Christianity, etc., in order to

make distinctions between relevant subcategories o the phenomenon.19An overview o the latest attempts to dene the term allows only

one conclusion: Tere is no generally accepted and accurately denablemeaning or the term Jewish-Christianity (or or all its variations ascited above). Need there be?20

During the past decades scholars have become increasingly aware othe multiaceted character o both Judaism and Christianity during therst centuries . In scholarly discourse, this is ofen indicated by theplurals Christianities and Judaisms. Consequently, it is likely thatthere was not just one Jewish Christianity butseveral Jewish Christian-ities. Acknowledging this possibility, I have not tried to give any nar-row, conclusive denition to the term Jewish Christianity in this vol-ume. Rather, I approach Jewish Christianity rom an analytical point oview, looking orindicators o Jewish Christian proles.21 Te main idea

16 Te problems connected with dening Jewish Christianity have been dealt byStrecker ; Kraf , ; Klijn , ; Simon , ; Malina ,

; Riegel , ; Murray , ; Murray , ; Brown, ; aylor , ; Visotzky , . Recent overviews o thediscussion are provided by Jackson-McCabe and Paget .

17 Tus, aylor , .18 Paget , .19 For distinctive terms see, Malina , ; Riegel , ; Murray ,

; Murray , ; Brown , .20 Te problem does not concern only the study o Jewish Christianity. Te concept o

Gnosticism has become equally problematic,especiallyafer Michael Williams (Williams) critique. A good overview o the discussion and a reasonable denition is providedby Marjanen a; . For the discussion on Valentinians, see Dunderberg , .

21 I have used the approach in a number o earlier articles: Luomanen , ;Luomanen a; Luomanen . Recently, it has been cited approvingly by Verheyden, .


24/311

o this approach is to list and analyze the Jewish and Christian com-ponents o a particular text or a community, paying special attention to

the question o how its conceptions and practices create, maintain andcross boundaries between insiders and outsiders.Tus, a reader who wishes to nd a list o necessary and sufficient

traits that would constitute the category o Jewish Christianity will bedisappointed when reading the ollowing pages. No such denition willbe provided. Instead, the basic tenet o the approach is the same asJonathan Z. Smiths sel-consciouslypolytheticmode o classicationwhich Matt Jackson-McCabe suggests as a good starting point or thestudy o Jewish Christianity (or Christian Judaism). Jackson-McCabe,

however, only presents the general idea o polythetic classication butdoes not proceed to discuss the specic array o traits that wouldconstitute the basis o classication.22 In this respect, the analysis oindicators goes urther. Te analysis o indicators is also compatible withthe principles o classication that Daniel Boyarin has brought romlinguistic and cultural studies. Tese approaches imagine members oclasses as points on a continuum, not as dened through one singledenitive trait.23

In my view, both Smith and Boyarin have correctly noticed that theclassic Aristotelian idea about classication on the basis o sufficient andnecessary traits is problematic or historians whose data seldom meet thecriteria o pure categories. Te idea about categorization through xeddenitive traits is also incompatible with the way the human brain works.Tereore, it ails to capture social categorizations rom the emic point oview. In the human mind, categories are ormed through exemplars andprototypes, or which there are separate but parallel running cognitivesystems in the brain. Our brains continuously abstract prototypes rom

the available exemplars.

24

Tis results in exibility and continuously

22 C. Jackson-McCabe , .23 Boyarin , , .24 Ground-breaking experiments in this area were conducted by Eleanor Rosch

(Rosch ). Social psychologists and cognitive scientists have disputed the role o pro-totypes and their relation to exemplars in (social) categorizations. Some have argued orprototypes as picture-like images o ideal category members (or instance, Brewer )but sel-categorization theorists like urner and his colleagues (Oakes, et al. , )have emphasized (drawing on Medin ) the dynamic character o prototypes as con-textual variables. Tey also preer to speak about prototypicality instead o xed proto-types. For a more detailed discussion, see Luomanen b, , , esp. .


25/311

revised categories which are necessary in changing social situations.However, these categorizations cannot be captured through the analysis

o necessary and sufficient traits. Tus, it ollows that an approach whichallows degrees o Jewishness and degrees o Christianness and whichocuses on several aspects that are determinative in social relationssuch as ideology, practice, identity and group ormationis likely todo better justice to ancient Jewish Christian groups than the attemptsto nd one clear denition or a set o denitions or Jewish Christian-ity.

A number o Jewish and Christian scholars have, during the pastdecades, emphasized that the parting o ways between Judaism and

Christianity took much longer than was assumed earlier and that wecan start speaking o two separate religions only afer the Constantineturn. A notable proponent o this view, which can be termed as waysthat never parted-paradigm, has been Daniel Boyarin.25 Iagreewiththisoverall characterization although it is also clear that the ways started toseparate much earlier locally. I gladly admit that the concept o JewishChristianity is anachronistic. It does not appear in ancient sources butI think that it still provides the best starting point or historical analy-sis. It is useul because it directs attention to the way our modern cate-gories Judaism and Christianity overlapped in some ancient commu-nities.

Te ollowing list oindicators o Jewish Christianityincludes the mostcommon meanings given to the term Jewish Christianity. Instead ocalling these subcategories as competing denitions, I have called themindicators. Te term indicator acknowledges the value o differentdenitions as appropriate viewpoints in the discussion about JewishChristianity but keeps reminding that none o them can be taken as the

denitive characterization o Jewish Christianity or conclusive proo othe Jewish Christianity o a document or a group. In each case, the typeo Jewish Christianity under examination can only be determined in acritical discussionthat brings together several o these indicatorsorminga Jewish-Christian proleo a text or a group.

Te study o the indicators o Jewish Christianity concentrates on theollowing questions:

25 Boyarin , . Tis position is emphatically argued or in a collection oarticles edited by Adam Becker and Annette Yoshiko Reed (Becker & Reed ; MohrSiebeck edition in ). See also Skarsaune , .


26/311

. Are characteristically Jewish practices such as (Jewish) circumcision, theSabbath and purity laws observed?

Ofen these indicators are, together with the second indicator, consideredas the most clear evidence o Jewishness.26

. Are characteristically Jewish ideas such as Yahweh as the only God, thetemple as Yahwehs abode, or the orah, maintained?

. What is the pedigree o the group/person? Jewish or not?Tis indicator o Jewish Christianity can be characterized as the mostnatural. At the same time, it is the least revealing since there were

contradictory practices and ideas present among Christians o Jewishdescendant. Nevertheless, in some cases, knowledge about peoples kin,the rame o their primary socialization, may help to understand someaspects o behavior and thinking. For instance, in the light o the rsttwo indicators, Paul hardly meets the standards o a Jewish Christian buttheactthathewasaJewbybirthhelpstounderstandwhyhegottangledwiththe theologicalproblemothelawintherstplaceandwhy,althoughhepracticeda law-ree mission to the gentiles he nevertheless wanted topay tribute to the poor in the law observant Jerusalem community.

. What is the role o Jesus in the worship and ideology o the community?Is Jesus considered as a Jewish prophet or is he more a divine being, wor-shipped as Kyrios (Lord), an equal to God?Te ourth indicator turns the ocus on the Christian part o JewishChristianity. ogether with the rst two indicators, this orms the core oa classic prole o Jewish Christianity as it is determined by Strecker, orinstance.27

. Is baptism in the name o Jesus (or the triune God) an entrance rite tothe community?Tis indicator turns attention to the point where daily puricationsand baptisms known rom many Jewish groups are replaced or

26 aylor , : For it [Jewish-Christianity] to have any real meaning, the termmust reer not only to ethnic Jews but those who, with their Gentile converts, upheldthe praxis o Judaism. Strecker , : Anderseits hlt das Judenchristentum ander berkommenen jdischen Struktur von Teologie und Lebenshaltung; insbesonderepraktiziert es die Forderungen des Gesetzes Moses mit seinen wesentlichen, auch ritu-algesetzlichen Weisungen bis hin zu Beschneidung.

27 See, Strecker , .


27/311

complemented with a once-and-or-all rite that marks a persons transi-tion into a Christian community.28 InPseudo-Clementines, Peter bathes

beore eating or prayer (Hom. .; .; Rec. .; .). Tis would well tin with Judaism but marks him off as a special kind o Christian. How-ever, a separate baptism is also known. It replaces the sacrices (Rec..)and is necessary beore a person is pure enough to eat with other Chris-tians (Rec. .;Hom. .; .).

. o what extent are these or other issues important or inter- orintra-group relations? What roles do they play in dening the borders andidentity o the group in question?

A discussion o the aboveindicatorswill yield aJewish-Christian prolewhich will show to what extent a group has characteristics which aretoday associated either with Judaism or Christianity. Te above list isnot an exhaustive collection o the questions that may help to sketch aJewish-Christian prole o a community. Obviously, subcategories couldbe added to every indicator and a number o other indicators might bedetected as well. However, in my view, the above list contains the core othe questions that deserve to be discussed beore phenomena are labeledJewish Christian.

Te last point in the list also enables one to make a distinction betweensimple Jewish-Christian inclinations, which might characterize severalJewish and Christian communities, and independent Jewish-Christianmovements that stick so devoutly to some o their own border-markingpractices and ideas that they become socially distinguishable rom otherJewish and Christian movements. Tese questions that tap into the bor-der-marking o communities are particularly signicant in the case o

the Ebionites and Nazarenes, who are described as distinct groups by thechurch athers, Epiphanius in particular.

28 In rabbinic Judaism, circumcision, baptism and sacrices were requirements set orproselytes. It is a matter o contention whether baptism was understood as an initiationrite in the Second emple period or only later on. In any case, Christian baptismdiffers rom the rabbinic one in two respects. First, rabbinic sources do not indicatethat immersionwhich was closely connected with the idea o washing away the impuregentile liewas practiced in someones name. Second, rabbinic baptism supplemented,but did not replace, circumcision and commitment to the orah as the real indicatorso ones conversion. Te earliest description o a rabbinic conversion ceremony is to beoundin b. Yebam. ab. For the analysis othis passage (and a later description in Gerim:), see Cohen , .


28/311

Overall, the study o indicators o Jewish-Christian proles is an ana-lytical approach where the prole, the summary o Jewish and Chris-

tian components,is the main thing. Te terms that are used to character-ize this prole are secondary. In the ollowing, I occasionally use varioustermsgeneral terms such as Christian Jews (emphasizing the Jew-ish core to which Christian components are added) or Jewish Chris-tians (emphasizing the Christian core to which Jewish componentsare added), or more exact terms like Samaritan-Elchasite Christians,etc.in order to characterize the overall prole which is being discussed.Notably, these terms are o secondary importance; other terms could beused as wellas long as there is agreement on the actualJewish-Christian

prole.

Indicators o Jewish-Christian Gospels?Andrew Gregory has questioned whether it is justied to speak oJewish-Christian gospels as a category that is somehow set apart rom othercanonical and apocryphal gospels.29 Given our meager knowledge aboutthe complete Jewish-Christian gospels, Gregorys point is well taken; aslong as we do not have entire gospels available, it is hazardous to char-acterize the gospelsper seas Jewish Christian. It might, indeed, be morepreerable to speak o apocryphalthese gospels are truly apocryphal!gospels used by early Jewish Christians. Tis would leave open the pre-cise nature o the gospels. It is also problematic that the Jewish-Christiancharacter o theGospel o the Ebionitesand theGospel o the Hebrewsand/or the Gospel o the Nazarenes is usually taken more or less asgranted. In my opinion, this has ofen led into eisegesis as regards thesocial setting o the Jewish Christian gospels: Jewish and Christiantraits are selectively picked rom the texts to line up with a scholars over-

all theory o the history o Jewish Christianity.

30

29 C. Gregory .30 In addition to Klijns reconstruction o the social setting o the Rich Mans Question

in Origens commentary on Matthew (see below, Chapter .), I provide two otherexamples that demonstrate how this has happened in the case o Origens passage. Resch,who thought that the Gospel o the Nazarenes and the Gospel o the Ebionites werelater editions o theGospel o the Hebrews(Resch , ), assumed that the miserableconditions o the Jews in the quotation (which he thought was rom the Gospel o theHebrews) suggest that it originated among Jewishreugees in easternJordan andsouthernparts o Syria afer the destruction o Jerusalem (Resch , ). Handmannorwhom theGospel o the Hebrews(which had nothing to do with Epiphanius mutilatedGospel o the Ebionites) was different rom the Hebrew original o Matthew but was equalto it as regards age and importanceexplained that the story about the rich man in the


29/311

Te study o indicators o Jewish Christianity also helps to deal withthe Jewish-Christian gospel ragments in a more analytical and nuanced

manner. Although Gregorys points are healthy reminders o how lit-tle we actually know about these gospels, his criterion o what count asJewish-Christian textsthe ones that deal with law observanceappearsquite rigorous and not sensitive enough to the variety o ways Judaismessentially affected the identities o Christ believers during the rst cen-turies 31 Although law observance was the bone o contention in manycases, in some other circumstances, other indicators o Judaism may havestamped the identities and border-marking o the Christ believers, alsoleaving their mark on the gospels that were used by them to such a degree

that it is justied to speak o Jewish Christians transmitting and reinter-pretingtheir owngospel traditions.

In the ollowing chapters, the discussion about the Nazarenes anti-rabbinic collectionwhich seems to have culminated in Jesus passionsuitably illustrates this point. Although these pro-Pauline Christianswere probably not conservative in their interpretation o the law, therewere still strong Jewish components in their religious prole. Whetherthese were strong enough to grant themor their version o Matthewsgospelthe label o Jewish Christian will be discussed in more detailbelow (Chapter .).

.. G H H G

In this work, I have used the term harmonizing(gospel) in a broad sense.It simply reers to the act that readings, phrases or passages that wereoriginally in different gospels have come together in the passage (orgospel)under consideration. Tus, whenusing the term harmonizing, I

have not made any distinction whether the harmonizing aims at creatingone narrative out o two or more earlier versions or whether it is simply aquestion about some phrases jumping rom one passage to another. Tisis mostly because o the ragmentary nature o the evidence. In manycases, we do not have the whole gospel passages available which makesit difficult to judge whether it is a question about a minor mixture o

Gospel o the Hebrews was clearly earlier and more authentic because it was still reerom Jewish legalism and a detailed listing o individual commandments (c. the synoptic

versions o the story) and concentrated only on the commandment o love, exactly theway Christ himsel must have taught (Handmann , , , ).

31 Gregory , .


30/311

phrases or a case o a more proound reediting which seeks to harmonizeentire stories with each other. Another reason or this generalized use

o the term harmonizing is that my central concern is to determinewhether a certain passage precedes or ollows the synoptic gospels. Forthis purpose, it is not necessary to create very detailed taxonomies orthe ways different traditions become mixed. It suffices to show that anew composition includes a mixture o smaller or larger elements thatoriginally belonged to different gospels.

However, when I use the termgospel harmony, I reer to a work whichprogrammatically seeks to conate parallel stories with each other. In theGospel o the Ebionites, there are traces o gospel harmony but the best

example o a gospel harmony is atiansDiatessaron. Nevertheless, mosto the cases to be discussed in the ollowing all into the broad categoryo harmonizing readings or passages.


31/311


32/311

PARISIC ESIMONIES RECONSIDERED

Early Christian heresiologists painted stereotyped pictures o the Ebion-ites and the Nazarenes as Christians who erroneously ollowed Jewishlaws and customs. Tereore, these two groups have requently served asthe best examples o ancient Jewish Christianity.

Te Ebionites and the Nazarenes are known only rom the writingso the church athers who present short summaries o their teachingsand quotations rom their writings, usually in order to conute what theyconsidered to be heretical ideas. Te Ebionites appear or the rst timein IrenaeusAdversus haereses, written around In order to ndthe rst description o the heresy o the Nazarenes, we must turn toa work authored some two hundred years later, Epiphanius Panarion(ca. ). TePanarionalso contains the richest ancient descriptiono the Ebionites. Because Epiphanius was writing at the end o the ourthcentury, he was able to use all the inormation about the Ebionitescollected by his predecessors (Irenaeus, Hippolytus, ertullian, Pseudo-ertullian, Origen and Eusebius), which he supplemented with manydetails obtained rom his contemporaries.

My treatment o the Ebionites in this chapter will ocus especiallyon Irenaeus and Epiphanius since these two provide the most impor-tant inormation about the Ebionites. Te church athers who ollowedIrenaeus relied heavily on the inormation he provided, adding only

some details to the picture. I shall briey discuss this additional inor-mation on the basis o Origens and Eusebius works but my discussionocuses on comparing Epiphanius inormation with the earliest inor-mation available, namely IrenaeusAdversus haereses. Tis makes it pos-sible to sketch an overall view o how the inormation about the Ebion-ites developed rom the second to the ourth century and reect uponthe question whether this development in the descriptions might mir-ror actual changes in the Jewish-Christian prole o the Ebionite move-ment.

In the case o the Nazarenes, there are only two church athers whoseinormation provides a practical starting point or a discussion aboutthe history o the Nazarenes: Epiphanius and Jerome. Tese two church


33/311


34/311

later sources and where Judaism had more inuence on Christianity ingeneral.

All the key indicators o Judaism are clearly observable in Irenaeusdescription. Te Ebionites practiced circumcision and observed otherJewish laws and customs. As regards ideology, they represented mono-theism which excluded the idea o a demiurge. Jerusalem also played acentral role in their ideology and practice. What Irenaeus describes as theadoring o Jerusalem may reect the Ebionites practice o saying theirprayers while acing the Holy City. I so, this hardly was only a supercialrite that was carried on even afer the house o God in Jerusalem wasdestroyed in Rather, the act that Jerusalem was able to retain its

central position even afer the destruction o the temple characterizesthe perseverance o Jewish ideas in the religion o the Ebionites andsuggests that Jerusalem may also have had central role in their end-timeexpectations.

Because the Ebionites considered Paul as an apostate, it is to be as-sumed that they were preponderantly o Jewish origin. Active anti-Paul-inism also implies that circumcision and observance o Jewish laws wasrequired o those religionists that were o non-Jewish origin.

According to Irenaeus, the Ebionites views with respect to the Lordaresimilarto those o Cerinthus and Carpocrates. Tis does not reveal

very much about the Christology o the Ebionites but it provides someclues or its reconstruction. However, beore moving on to discuss theimplications o this statement, two related problems need to be noted.

First, the act that Irenaeus presented the Ebionites immediately aferCerinthus and Carpocrates and compared the Ebionites views with theirdoctrines had ar-reaching consequences. Tis inspired later heresiolo-gists to enrich their descriptions o the Ebionites by reasoning the nec-

essary details o the Christology o the Ebionites on the basis o theCerinthian and Carpocratian doctrines, which Irenaeus described aspartly compatible and party incompatible with the Ebionite views.

Second, the word similar is problematic rom a text-critical pointo view. Te available Latin translation o IrenaeusAgainst Heresies(theoriginal Greek is lost) reads non similiter, which would mean that theEbionites Christology wasnot similarto Cerinthus and Carpocrates. Inpractice, this would suggest thatthe Ebionites believed in the virgin birth,did not separate Christ and Jesus, etc. However, Hippolytus Reutation

includes an almost verbatim parallel o this passage in Greek and itreadswithoutthenegative, similarly (Hippolytus, Haer...).Because this reading also suits the context better, it is usually considered


35/311

as the original reading derived rom Irenaeus. Tus, Irenaeus GreekAgainst Heresiesoriginally stated that the Ebionitesdid not believe in the

virgin birthandseparated Christ and Jesus.Te exact date o the Latin translation is unknown but it is usuallyconsidered very early (and literal). It is important to note that once theLatin translation was madeor the negative was added to the Greekmanuscript which the translator useda possibility or two contradict-ing interpretations about the Ebionites Christology was also created. ()On the one hand, those who read Latin (or the corrupt Greek version)would conclude that the Ebionites did not agree with the Cerinthiansand Carpocratians and somust have accepted the virgin birth. () On the

other hand, those who read Hippolytus or Irenaeus uncorrupted Greekwould conclude that theydid not accept the virgin birth. In Origen andEusebius, we will nd precisely these two options in the religious proleo the Ebionites.

Nevertheless, according to Irenaeus original version, the Christologyo the Ebionites wassimilarto that o Cerinthus and Carpocrates. Whatdoes this mean in practice? It is clear that Irenaeus Ebionites hardlyshared all the Cerinthian views about Christ. Te Cerinthian Christology,as described by Irenaeus, included the views that Jesus was born in thesame way as all other men, that he was more versed in righteousness,and he received Christ rom above at his baptism. In Irenaeus opinion,Cerinthians also claimed that afer receiving Christ, Jesus started toproclaim the unknown God and that Christ remained impassive becausehe ew away rom Jesus beore his crucixion. Te mere act that theEbionites were monotheists makes it improbable that the Christ o theEbionites would have proclaimed the unknown God.

Te idea o Christ ascending rom above also resembles the role o

Christ in Gnostic cosmogonies that Irenaeus described in the beginningo hisAgainst Heresies. Irenaeus may have exaggerated the Gnostic out-look o Cerinthus doctrine and described him as believing in the demi-urge.1 Nevertheless, it is probable that Cerinthus teaching included spec-ulations about a pre-existent Christ who entered Jesus at baptism andor this very reason, he was easily connected to Gnosticism. Most likely,Irenaeus Ebionites already shared these ideas because in later sourcesthese kinds o speculations are explicitly connected to the Ebionites (seeEpiphanius below).

1 For this, see Myllykoski .


36/311


37/311

o the world only, not receiving God as to have union with Him ...(Irenaeus, Haer. ..; trans. Klijn & Reinink ). Irenaeus main

point is to criticize the Ebionites because they do not believe that Godwas united with man in Jesus. Nevertheless, his argument carries con-viction only i the Ebionites chalice really contained only water. Lateron, Epiphanius explicitly attributes this practice to the Ebionites (Pan...).

Te Ebionites anti-Paulinism, which probably also meant that theywanted the Gentile believers to be circumcised and observe the law,must have resulted in the separation o the Ebionites rom the ormativeCatholic Christianity, at least in the orm that was developing in Rome

and the Western parts o the Empire. Even Justin, who was more lenientin his attitude towards Jewish Christians than Irenaeus, accepted theJewish believers as part o Christian communities only as ar as they didnot try to impose the law and Jewish customs on gentile believers (seeDial. ).

Another question is how close relations the Ebionites were able toretain with (other) Jewish communities. Because the Ebionites seemto have represented a rather low Christology, their Jesus belie alonemight not have prevented them rom living on positive terms withJewish congregations. Even their baptism might not have aroused ercecriticism, especially i it was interpreted in the light o Jewish puricationrites (c. Dial.). Nevertheless, very much depends on what kindso practical orms their Jesus cult took. In any case, it is clear that theEbionites saw something special in Jesus and i that something wasnot his divine preexistence or his virgin birth then it must have beensomething connected to his prophetic message. Tis, in turn, may alsohave had some practical consequences as regards the way the Jewish laws

were interpreted and practiced by the Ebionites, and possibly also whatkind o eschatological expectations they entertained.Te act that Irenaeus reports that the Ebionites expounded the proph-

ets diligently or singular manner (lat. curiosius)whatever thatmeans exactlysuggests that their interpretation o the prophets wassomewhat singular, evidently not in line with Irenaeus (or his sources)own view. Nevertheless, it may still have been acceptable within (other)Jewish communities. Tus, the Ebionites may not have been regarded asoutward heretics by (other) Jews. According to Epiphanius, the Ebionites

hadtheirownsynagogues(Pan. ..) but this probably applies onlyto the more syncretistic branch o the Ebionites that Epiphanius knew inCyprus (see below).


38/311

Te assumption that the Ebionites ormed separate actions or com-munitieswithin Judaism but separated rom other Christian commu-

nitiesis also attested by their name. Irenaeus introduction suggeststhat his audience was amiliar with the name Ebionites. Tey are simplytermed those who are called Ebionites. Irenaeus designation does noteven add any derogatory explanations to their name. Since in Hebrew(pl.) means poor, later heresiologists explained the name as sig-naling the Ebionites poor intellect. Tey also derived the name o theEbionites rom Ebion, the putative ounder o this branch o heresy (seebelow). Apparently, these derogatory explanations are later attempts tocover the pious Jewish and Christian connotations o the name: the poor

as the traditional Hebrew Bible designation o the humble servants oGod and as the term that was used to characterize an esteemed group oChristians in Jerusalem. Because the name is accepted as an appropri-ate designation o these people by outsiders, it must also have matchedtheir liestyle to some extent. I they only claimed to be poor but werenot in practice, their opponents would surely have picked up on that.Because o the positive connotationsthat the later heresiologists triedto suppressit is unlikely that hostile outsiders would have originallygiven them the name. Instead, it must be based on their sel-designationor be a name originally given to a subgroup by riendly coreligionists (asActs suggest).

Four acts make an assumption about the Ebionites connection to theearliest Jerusalem community reasonable:2

. Te title Ebionites, the poor, which matches the title o the earliestJerusalem community (or at least its subgroup). C. Rom :; Gal:.

. Anti-Paulinism especially characterizes the groups that come rom

Jerusalem beore . Te same groups also emphasize the observance o the law and the

need to circumcise the gentile Christians as well.. Directing prayers towards Jerusalem testies to the centrality o

Jerusalem in the Ebionites ideology and possibly in their end-timeexpectations. Te earliest Jerusalem community stayed in the HolyCity or the same reasons. Tere is also evidence o the importanceo the temple or the early Jerusalem community and its leader,James the Just (Acts :; :; Eusebius,Hist. eccl. ..;

2 C. Ldemann , .


39/311


40/311

Ambrosius, a wealthy Alexandrian whom Origen had converted romGnosticism, became his patron and lielong riend. Ambrosius provided

Origen with scribes and means which enabled him to become one o themost prolic authors o Antiquity, esteemed both by his Christian andnon-Christian contemporaries. Afer , Origen settled in Palestine,in Caesarea, but beore that he had already made several trips to Romeand Greece, and he had been called to an audience by the empress JuliaMammaea at Antioch in . Origens survived literary production datesmostly to the time he lived in Caesarea. He died during the Decianpersecutions (ca. ).

As regards Origens understanding o the Ebionites, it should be, rst

o all, noted that Origen understood the name Ebionites as a general titleor all Jews who accepted Jesus but were not willing to orsake their Jew-ish heritage (Cels. ..;Comm. Matt. .). Origen comments are alsovery polemical because he ofen reers to the Ebioniteswhose name hetakes as a reerence to their poor intellectin order to provide exampleso poor literal interpretation o scriptures. In his view, the Ebionites areprimary examples o interpreters who do not understand the deeper spir-itual meaning o the text. Tus, his comments are ofen more like gener-alizations concerning certain theological position, than observations othe belies and practices o historical Ebionite communities.

Because Origen did not write any heresiology, his view o the Ebioniteshas to be reconstructed rom short remarks scattered throughout hisliteraryproduction.Becauseothis,itisalsodifficulttoconcludeihewasamiliar with the heresiologies that already existed by his time (Justins,Irenaeus and Hippolytus). Nevertheless, it is clear that he attributes tothe Ebionites the same basic belies and practices that can also be oundin Irenaeus and Hippolytus works. Tere are some verbal similarities

(see below) and the contents o his inormation cohereswith someenlargementsso well with the Irenaean tradition that I am inclined toassume Origens dependence on the earlier heresiologists, Hippolytus inparticular.

Origen shares with the Irenaean tradition the notions that Ebion-ites require circumcision (Hom. Gen. .), ollow Jewish customs (oodlaws;Comm. Matt. .), do not believe in the virgin birth (Comm.Matt. .), and are anti-Pauline (Hom. Jer. .). Origen also knowsthat the Ebionites assumed Jesus to have been sent primarily to the

Israelites (Princ. ..). Tis agrees with the prole o Irenaeus Ebioniteswhose religion was also centered on traditional Jewish identity markers,circumcision, Jewish laws and Jerusalem, and who must have thought


41/311

that the salvation o the Gentiles was possible only i they were integratedinto Judaism.

Origen does not give any inormation about the writings that theEbionites used but he adds some new details to their prole. Accordingto Origen, the assumption that Easter should be celebrated in the way othe Jews, is characteristic o the Ebionite heresy (in Matth comm. ser. ).Origens comments seem to be connected to the so-called Quartodec-iman controversy, which concerned the timing o Passover/Easter. TeQuartodecimans deemed it appropriate to celebrate Passover/Easter onthe th o Nisan, like the Jews did, irrespective o which day o the weekthat might be. Others thought that Easter should always be celebrated

on Sunday. Te Quartodeciman timing was common in Asian churches.Tus, it was not restricted only to the Ebionite churches and Origen isalso well aware o that because he states: somebody with no experienceperhaps does some investigating and alls into the Ebionite heresy . . .Obviously, these inexperienced somebodies were the Quartodecimanswhose position thereby is labeled as Ebionite heresy. What does this sayabout the Ebionites themselves? I the Ebionites ollowed Jewish law, itis natural that they sided with the Quartodecimans. Tus, although theevidence is indirect, it is sae to assume that the Ebionites also ollowedthe same timing o Passover/Easter as the Quartodecimans.

Te most signicant new eature Origen adds to the prole o theEbionites is that there were two actions among them which had differentviews about Jesus virgin birth.

Tese are the two kinds o Ebionites, some conessing that Jesus was borno a virgin as we do and others who deny this but say that he was born likethe other people. (Cels. .; trans. Klijn & Reinink ).

Tis distinction has ofen played a central role in the attempts to recon-

struct the history o Jewish Christianity. For those scholars who arguethat the nearly orthodoxNazarenes werethe real offshooto the earliestJerusalem community, this passage works as one stepping stone, whichhelps them to connect Jeromes and Epiphanius ourth century descrip-tions o the Nazarenes to the Nazarenes described in Acts. Te assump-tion is that the Nazarenes were there all the time but were erroneouslycalled Ebionites by Origen.5 However, this theory is problematic in manyrespects. It is doubtul in my opinion i the kind o separate group othe Nazarenes that Epiphanius describes inPanarion ever existed

5 See Pritz , , , .


42/311

Nazarenes was instead a common name or Syriac Christians. Since thisquestion will be discussed in more detail below, we may or a moment

or the sake o argumentassume that a sect o the Nazarenes existedat the end o the ourth century. Even in this case, it would be hard to seea reerence to this kind o group in Origens passage, or two reasons.

First, the distinctive eature o the rst group o Origens Ebionites istheir belie in the virgin birth. However, this belie does not play anyrole in the religious prole o Epiphanius Nazarenes who are depictedas the successors o Origens Ebionites in this theory. Epiphanius explic-itly states that he does not know what the Nazarenes thought aboutJesus birth (see below). Tus, i we presume that Origens rst group o

the Ebionites was in act Epiphanius Nazarenes we would also have toassume that the dispute about Jesus birthwhich originally could havecaused a split among the Ebioniteshad become a matter o indifferenceby the end o the ourth century. Given the increasing interest in Chris-tological speculation among Christians in the third and ourth centuries,this kind o development is unbelievable.

Second, the reerence is also incompatible with Jeromes descriptionso Christians he called Nazarenes. o the extent that Jerome provides his-torical evidence about the belies o Christians called Nazarenes (whichcannot be identied with Epiphanius Nazarenes; see below), their reli-gious prole differed rom Origens and his predecessors Ebionites inmany respects, most notably in their relation to Paul whose message theyheeded (see below). Tis means that the religious outlook o JeromesNazarenes was totally different rom the prole o the Ebionites as it isdescribed by Origen. Notably, Origen explicitly states that both groups othe Ebionites were against Paul (Cels. .). Tereore, it should be clearthat neither the rst nor the second o Origens two types o Ebionites can

be identied with Jeromes Nazarenes.In one o Jeromes letters to Augustine, there is a reerence whichsome scholars have taken as proo that Jeromes Nazarenes believed inthe virgin birth. Tis reerence, however, is o little value as a historicaldescription o the Nazarenes doctrine because it quotes early creeds andonly aims at reinorcing Jeromes arguments. In this connection, Jeromealso uses the terms Nazarenes, Ebionites andminiminterchangeably,which makes it difficult to argue that Jerome was reerring to character-istically Nazarene ideas.6

6 Jeromes letter to Augustine is discussed in more detail below. See Chapter ..


43/311

I Origens second group o the Ebionites are not camouaged Naza-renes, how are we to interpret Origens distinction? O course, it is pos-

sible that Origen had received historically reliable inormation aboutthe Ebionites different views concerning Jesus virgin birth.7 However,I nd it unlikely thatother things being equalthis doctrinal differ-ence would have triggered a severe crisis within the Ebionite commu-nity/communities and resulted in the ormation o two separate groups(or sets o communities), as is ofen assumed. I the Ebionites agreedon the importance o circumcision, on the interpretation o the law,and about their relation to Gentiles, had similar views about Jesus mes-sage, entertained similar end-time expectations, interpreted the prophets

similarly, used the same gospel, and understood themselves as ,devout, pious, humble Jews, would it have made great difference i theythought that Jesus was divine rom the very beginning o his lie, or ithey understood him to have become coupled with divine reality only athis baptism? In the last analysis, Origens distinction may say more aboutOrigens own tendency to group people on the basis o their Christolog-ical views than about differences in belie that the Ebionites themselveswould have ound signicant.

Although it cannot be excluded that Origens distinction is based onreliable inormation that he had received about the Ebionites Christol-ogy, I am more inclined to believe that Origen drew his conclusions aboutthe Ebionites Christological doctrine rom earlier heresiologies. As wasnoted above, there were two versions o Irenaeus passage on the Ebion-ites available. One version suggested that the Ebionites believed in thevirgin birth (Irenaeus corrupted text) while the other one was open tothe opposite interpretation (Hippolytus and uncorrupted Irenaeus). Ori-gen may have come across these two traditions and concluded that there

must be two kinds o Ebionites. Tis assumption is corroborated by theact that the passage inContra Celsumwhere Origen describes the twokinds o Ebionites has clear verbal connections to HippolytusReuta-tion.8 However, Origen must also have been amiliar with the Irenaean

7 Origen wrote his Against Celsuswhere he reerred to the two groups o theEbionitesafer he had moved to Caesarea. Tere he may very well have met with orheard about different kinds o Ebionites since he reers to Jewish-Christian missionariesin his sermon on Psalm (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. .). More on these missionariesbelow (the sectionPossibly Ebionite Inormation II: Te Book o Elchasai and ElchasaiteMissionaries).

8 Origen,Cels. ., and Hippolytus,Haer. .., share the verband theadverb . Hippolytus reerence to becoming justied () indicates that


44/311

tradition while he was writingContra Celsum because later on he reers tothe Ebionites anti-Paulinism (Cels. .), which HippolytusReutation

does not mention. I this Irenaean text was in its corrupted orm, then itsuggested that some Ebionites accepted the virgin birth.On the whole, Origen does not add very much substantially new and

historically reliable inormation to the religious prole o the Ebionites.He reers to the Ebionites timing o Passover/Easter but he is not con-cerned with characterizing the Ebionite practices on their own in thisconnection. He only aims at labeling the Quartodeciman practice asbased on poor, Ebionite, literal interpretation o the law. His distinc-tion between the two kinds o Ebionites is the most notable new eature

in the Ebionites prole but i the above considerations have been on theright track, the distinction reveals more about Origens careul readingo his sources and about the categories that he himsel ound distinctive,than about the Ebionites themselves and the actions among them.

...Eusebius Ebionites

Eusebius was elected the bishop o Caesarea in . Eusebius admiredOrigen and he had also careully studied Origens writings which were

readily available to him in the library o Caesarea. He was also amiliarwith Irenaeus heresiology (see, or instance,Hist. eccl. ..). All thisis reected in his reerences to the Ebionites. His Ecclesiastical Historyhas one overall description o the Ebionites which repeats the basics oIrenaean tradition in the ramework o Origens distinction between twokinds o Ebionites and is decorated with Origens derogatory interpreta-tion o the name o the Ebionites as a reerence to the Ebionites poorintellect.

Eusebius also adds two interesting details to the prole o the Ebion-

ites. First, he notes in hisOnomasticonthat the Hebrews who believedin Christ, the Ebionites, were living in the region o the village o Choba

he already enriched the description o the Ebionites by picking out some details romIrenaeus description o Cerinthus and Carpocrates teaching (c. Irenaeus, Haer. ..;..). Because it was Hippolytus version that identied the Ebionites teaching withthat o Cerinthus and Carpocrates (), it is natural that Origen also checked withwhat HippolytusReutationhad to say about these teachers and described thesimilarteaching o the Ebionites accordingly. Tereore, OrigensCels. . shares expressionswith Hippolytus,Haer. ..: , , /, / .Tus,itisclearOrigenmadeuseatleastHippolytusReutation.


45/311

(Onom. ed. Lagarde [], p. ,). Unortunately, the exactlocation o this village remains open. It may have been a village near

Nazareth or located somewhere in Syria, perhaps to the north o Damas-cus. Second, Eusebius notes that the Ebionites observed the Sabbath butalso celebrated the Lords Day. I this inormation is historically correct,it would strengthen the picture o the Ebionites as people who wanted tobe both Jews and Christians at the same time.

As was noted in connection with Irenaeus Ebionites, it is likely thatthe Ebionites practiced baptism. We also know that they had Eucharisticmeals, albeit not with wine but water. Although we cannot be sure iEusebius had much personal contact with the Ebionites, the inormation

about the Ebionites celebration o the Lords Day is unlikely to be basedon Eusebius own imagination. It is less certain, though, i we can addthis detail to the prole o Irenaeus Ebionites since it is also possiblethat Eusebius note reects the practice o some Jewish Christians thatdid not necessarily share all the ideas o Irenaeus Ebionites. Eusebiusmay reer here to the problem that is also addressed in the DidascaliaApostolorum(DA) which exhorts the Jewish converts to stop observingthe Sabbath (DAXXVI/ed. Lagarde [], pp. ). JohnChrysostom was also aced with the same problem in his Discoursesagainst Judaizing Christians.9 Te intensity o these admonitionsandother relatedexhortationssuggests that double attendance was an acuteproblem which the writer(s) sought to overcome.

Whether Eusebius reerence to those who kept both the Sabbath andthe Lords Day applies to a specic group o Ebionites or only to someconverts that did not stop attending synagogues on the Sabbath, it showsin any case, that by Eusebius time therewere people whotried to practiceboth Judaism and Christianity. Tis presented a serious challenge to

representatives o the ormative Catholic tradition. In the ollowing, wewill take a closer look at some o the strategies that were developed inorder to tackle this problem.

...Epiphanius Ebionites

Epiphanius was born in Palestine near modern Gaza around . Heprobably had Christian parents, and was rst educated in local monas-teries. He later moved to Egypt to complete his education but came backto Palestine in his twenties and ounded a new monastery in Eleuthero-

9 For discussion and the collection o passages, see Skarsaune , .


46/311

polis. He was the head o that monastery or about thirty years untilhe was elected the bishop o Salamis in Cyprus in . About ten years

later, he completed a major work on heresies, thePanarion, in which hedescribes and conutes eighty Jewish and Christian heresies. Te nameo the work, Medicine Chestin English, characterizes its main intent:In Epiphanius view, the heresies represented poisonous doctrines thatthreatened the Christians o his day, and his intention was to provide theantidotes.

Although Epiphanius may have believed that there once was a personcalled Ebion, who ounded the heresy o the Ebionites, modern schol-ars generally agree that the person is ctive. Ebion was introduced by

ertullian and Hippolytus but, by Epiphanius time, his existence seemsto have been taken or granted. Because heresies were usually thought tohave been introduced by actual persons, the genesis o the Ebionites wasmade to conorm by being traced back to the activity o a person calledEbion.

Epiphanius description and reutation o the Ebionites (Panarion) is the richest ancient source on the Ebionites available. ogetherwith the passage on the Nazarenes (Panarion), it amounts to a ull-blown history o the Jewish-Christian heresy rom the times o theearly Jerusalem community to Epiphanius day. Earlier heresiologistshaddescribed the heresies o Cerinthus10 and the Ebionites successively, butEpiphanius placed the Nazarenes between thesetwo, claiming that Ebionwhom he identies as the originator o the Ebionite heresy, was originallyone o the Nazarenes. As we shall see below, this whole history mainlyserves Epiphanius polemical interests and has little or nothing to do withthe actual course o events.

In thePanarion, Epiphanius was able to use all the inormation pro-

vided by his predecessors, especially by Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origenand Eusebius. In addition, he had some knowledge about Ebionites whowere his contemporaries, and was able to quote passages rom their lit-erature.11 Epiphanius presents quotations rom a gospel they used, and

10 Scholars have debated whether the historical Cerinthus was a Gnostic or a Jewish-Christian teacher. Irenaeus heresiology (Haer. ..) depicts him more like a Gnosticbut Epiphanius (Pan. ) counts him among the conservative Jewish Christians whoopposed Paul. For discussion, see above and Myllykoski .

11 When Epiphanius lists the dwelling places o the Ebionites, he also remarks thatthere are Ebionites in Cyprus where he himsel was bishop (Pan. ..; ..). TeEbionite literature he used was probably derived rom them.


47/311


48/311

. In Epiphanius view, they maintain contradictory views o Christ:Some o them say that (a) Adam is Christ (Pan. ..) while others

claim that (b) Christ is eternal and has appeared several times inhistoryto Abraham and othersin the guise o Adams body, andthat he was nally crucied, raised and returned to heaven (Pan...). Some o them may also say that (c) Christ went into Jesus(Pan. ..; see alsoPan. ..).

. Epiphanius presents quotations rom the Ebionites gospel, arguingthat the Ebionites have mutilated the Gospel o Matthew (Pan..., etc.).

. Tey detest Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Elijah, Elisha, Sam-

son, Samuel, David, Salomon and all the prophets (Pan. ..,.., ..).

. Tey abstain rom meat (Pan. .., .., .., ..).. Tey accept baptism in addition to their daily purications (Pan.

..).. Tey celebrate the Eucharist annually with unleavened bread and

water only (Pan. ..).. Tey believe that Christ came to abolish the sacrices (Pan...)

and James, the brother o Jesus, preached against the temple and thesacrices (Pan. ..).

. Tey claim to have received their name, Ebionites (poor, romthe Hebrew word), when their ancestors had given up theirproperty to the Apostles (Pan. ..; c. Acts :).

. Tey have invocations and lustrations to help those stricken bysickness or bitten by a snake (Pan. ..; also in theBook oElchasai).

. Like Elchasai, they picture Christ as a huge invisible gure, miles

longandmileswide(Pan...;alsointhe Book o Elchasai).. Young Ebionite men are obliged to marry, coerced by their teachers(Pan. ..; c. above ).

. Te Ebionites have synagogues, governed by archisynagogues andelders (Pan. ..).

. Tey do not accept the entire Pentateuch (Pan. ..).

In addition, Epiphanius transmits some new (ctitious) stories that illus-trate the Ebionites anti-Paulinism. For instance, the Ebionites explainedthat Pauls antipathy toward the law and circumcision was caused by hisunortunate love affairs. According to this account, Paul was originally oGreek parentage. He went to Jerusalem and ell in love with the daughter


49/311

o the high priest. In order to get the girl, he became a proselyte andhad himsel circumcised. However, because he still could not get the girl

afer all his trouble, he became angry and wrote against circumcision, theSabbath and the Jewish law (Pan. ..).14

Because many o the new ideas and practices attributed to the Ebion-ites are paralleled in the literature that Epiphanius was using as hissources, it is not clear at the outset how many o these ideas can beattributed to Epiphanius contemporary Ebionites.15 Tus, a criti

[VigChr Supp 110] Petri Luomanen - Recovering Jewish-Christian Sects and Gospels, 2012.pdf

Documents

Transcript of [VigChr Supp 110] Petri Luomanen - Recovering Jewish-Christian Sects and Gospels, 2012.pdf