GOSPEL OF THE EBIONITES / OF THE TWELVE (1st -mid-2nd c.)

[rakovsky]

The Ebionites were a -observant Christian Jewish sect with a range of beliefs. Since their name means "the poor", they may have practiced voluntary poverty or simplicity in living. The Gospel of the Ebionites was apparently based on the Gospel of Matthew, and surviving quotations of it can be found here: www.textexcavation.com/ebionitegospel.html

The Wikipedia article on the Ebionites says:

Ebionim was one of the terms used by the sect at Qumran that sought to separate themselves from the corruption of the Temple. Many believe that they were Essenes.
...
The term "Ebionim" was also a self description given by the people who were living in Qumran, as shown in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The term "the poor" was at first a common designation for all Christians - a reference to their material and voluntary poverty. The hellenized Hebrew term "Ebionite" (Ebionai) was first applied by Irenaeus in the 2nd century without making mention of Nazarenes (c.180 CE).[16][17] Origen wrote "for Ebion signifies 'poor' among the Jews, and those Jews who have received Jesus as Christ are called by the name of Ebionites."
...
[It has been proposed] that the Ebionites rejected many of the precepts central to Nicene orthodoxy, such as his pre-existence, divinity, virgin birth, atoning death, and physical resurrection.[6] On the other hand, an Ebionite story has Jesus eating bread with his brother Jacob ("James the Just") after the resurrection, which indicates that the Ebionites, or at least the ones who accepted this version of the Gospel of the Hebrews, very much believed in a physical resurrection for Jesus. ... Origen (Contra Celsum 5.61) and Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica 3.27.3) recognize some variation in the Christology of Ebionite groups; for example that while all Ebionites denied Christ's pre-existence there was a sub-group which did not deny the virgin birth.

(Question 1) Is the Gospel of the Ebionites the same as the “Gospel of the Twelve”?
Wikipedia's article on the Gospel of the Ebionites says:

The Ebionite gospel has been recognized as distinct from the others [Hebrew gospels],[n 10] and it has been identified more closely with the lost Gospel of the Twelve.[11]

The phrase "who chose us" [in the Gospel of the Ebionites, referring to Jesus choosing the apostles] has been interpreted as evidence that the text may be the lost Gospel of the Twelve mentioned by Origen. However, the identification of the gospel text quoted by Epiphanius with this otherwise unknown gospel is disputed.

FOOTNOTE 11: Puech & Blatz 1991, p. 374 – "the majority of critics today are inclined to identify it (the Gospel of the Twelve) with the Gospel of the Ebionites,"

The Wikipedia entry on the Gospel of the Twelve says:

The Gospel of the Twelve (Greek: τους Δώδεκα Ευαγγελιον), possibly also referred to as the Gospel of the Apostles, is a lost gospel mentioned by Origen in Homilies in Luke as part of a list of heretical works.

Schneemelcher's standard edition of the New Testament Apocrypha states that Jerome incorrectly identified the Gospel of the Twelve, which he referred to as the Gospel according to the Apostles, with the Gospel of the Hebrews (Dial. adv. Pelag. III 2), whereas Origen clearly distinguished between them (Homilies in Luke 1.1). Ambrose and Bede may have also made allusions to it. A relationship has been postulated between this otherwise unknown gospel and the Gospel of the Ebionites.

Three reasons that the "Gospel of the Twelve Apostles" mentioned by Origen might be the same as the Gospel of the Ebionites are:

1) The title "Gospel of the Ebionites" is a modern name and we don't know its original title, so the original title could be the Gospel of the Twelve.

2) Jerome says that the Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of the Twelve are the same work. The Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature says about the Ebionites and their Gospel:

It was a Chaldee version written in Hebrew letters, afterwards translated into Greek and Latin by Jerome, who declared it identical with the "gospel of the Twelve Apostles" and the "gospel of the Nazarenes"... In the Ebionite "gospel" the section corresponding to the first two chapters of St. Matt. was omitted... The existence among them of the "Protevangelium Jacobi" and the Περιοδοὶ τοῦ Πέτρου[Circuits of Peter] indicates their respect for those Apostles.
(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Ebionism%20and%20Ebionites)

3) The Gospel of the Ebionites has the statement: "There was a certain man, Jesus by name, and he himself was about thirty years old, who elected us." "Us" refers to the narrator and appears to refer to the apostles, whom Jesus chose individually. So this passage could be presenting the work as the gospel according to the apostles.

(Question 2) Did John the Baptist eat (A) Locusts or (B) Honey Cakes?
I think that it’s the former because I find the canonical gospels more reliable. While the Gospel of Matthew says that he ate locusts and wild honey, the Gospel of the Ebionites says about John the Baptist: “And his meat was wild honey, which tasted like manna, formed like cakes of oil.” This is found in Bishop Epiphanius’ Panarion, where he writes (according to another translation):

And his food, [the Ebionites' gospel] says, was wild honey whose taste was of manna, as cake in oil. So that clearly they exchange the word of truth for a falsehood, and instead of locusts they make it cakes in honey.

The two foods sound similarly (locusts = "akrides"; honey cakes = "enkrides") in Greek.

(A) The locusts are one of the few kinds of insects that the Lord allowed the Israelites to eat in Leviticus 11:21-23, which says:

21. However, you may eat the following kinds of winged creatures that walk on all fours: those having jointed legs above their feet for hopping on the ground—
22. any kind of locust, katydid, cricket, or grasshopper.
23. All other winged creatures that have four legs are detestable to you.

I think that could allude to John the Baptist's humbleness.

Peter Leithart sees the reference to eating locusts as representing incorporating the gentiles into his ministry, since locusts were compared to gentile enemies in the Old Testament. Elijah had contact with gentiles in his ministry and John the Baptist ministered to soldiers who were likely gentiles. (http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-24-locusts-and-honey/).

(B) One reason for the Ebionite Gospels’ difference could be that, as Wikipedia's article on the Gospel of the Ebionites says, its “Distinctive features include... an advocacy of vegetarianism.” The reference to vegetarianism reminds me of a place in his Epistles where Paul says that it's silly to make vegetarianism a rule for Christians. On the other hand, the scholar Glen Koch proposed that the Ebionites' verse about John eating honey could refer to 1 Kings 17 and 19, when Elijah ate cakes in oil. This explanation would make sense because John the Baptist is compared in the gospels with Elijah, and Elijah repeatedly ate cakes, but the Bible doesn’t mention him eating locusts.

In 1 Kings 17, Elijah instructs a woman to make flour and oil cakes for the two of them because flour and oil won't depart from Israel until rain comes. (http://biblehub.com/1_kings/17-13.htm) Then in 1 Kings 19:5-8, an angel comes and gives Elijah water and a cake, and he goes as far as Horeb for forty days.
Another explanation could be that in Asian cuisine, locusts are sometimes cooked in honey sauce, and Epiphanius records that the Ebionites were saying that John's food was honey tasting of manna, like cakes in oil.

(Question 3) How could the Ebionites justify keeping the ’s rituals while not performing the sacrifices that the emphasizes, ie. those during Yom Kippur and Passover?

Wikipedia's article on the Ebionites describes their observance, as well as Epiphanius’ idea that the Ebionites’ founder was named Ebion:

Ebionites... insisted on the necessity of following Jewish law and rites.[3] They used only one of the Jewish–Christian gospels, revered James the brother of Jesus (James the Just), and rejected Paul the Apostle as an apostate from the Law.

Epiphanius of Salamis, in his book Panarion, 30:17:5, said the following: "But I already showed above that Ebion did not know these things, but later, his followers that associated with Elchasai had the circumcision, the Sabbath and the customs of Ebion, but the imagination of Elchasai". Doing so, Epiphanius made it clear that the original Ebionites were different from those heterodox Ebionites that he described...

Epiphanius, born into a Romaniote Jewish family, was the 4th century bishop of Salamis in Cyprus. He wrote that the Ebionites taught that Christ

came and declared, as their Gospel, which is called according to the Hebrews, reports: 'I am come to abolish the sacrifices, if ye cease not from sacrificing, the wrath will not cease from you'.
Panarion, 30.16

The Wikipedia entry on the Gospel of the Ebionites says:

There is a similarity between the gospel and a source document contained within the Clementine Recognitions (1.27–71), conventionally referred to by scholars as the Ascents of James, with respect to the command to abolish the Jewish sacrifices.[n 12]
...
The command to abolish the sacrifices in the sixth quotation (16.5) is unparalleled in the Canonical Gospels, and it suggests a relationship to Matthew 5:17 ("I did not come to abolish the Law")[12] that is echoed in the Clementine literature.[n 33] ... 33. Kloppenborg 1994, pp. 435–9; p. 439 – "In saying, 'I did not come to do away with the law', and yet doing away with something, he indicated that what he did away with had not originally been part of the law." (Ps-Cl Homilies 3.51.2)

FOOTNOTES
[12] Luomanen 2007, p. 95 – "there is such a fundamental agreement among the Pseudo-Clementine sources (especially Rec. 1.27–71), the "Gospel of the Ebionites", and Epiphanius' description of the Ebionites that there has to be a connection between them. The idea that Jesus came to abolish the sacrifices and that the temple was destroyed because the people were reluctant to cease sacrificing is unique within the early Christian tradition, making its appearance both in Rec. 1.27–71 and the "Gospel of the Ebionites" hardly coincidental."

So some scholars see Clementine Recognitions 1:27-71 as a version of the "Ascents of James", as well as re-worded version of the Gospel of the Ebionites.

Clementine Recognitions 1 talks about the cessation of sacrifices as a basis for the Temple's destruction here:

'For we,' said I, 'have ascertained beyond doubt that God is much rather displeased with the sacrifices which you offer, the time of sacrifices having now passed away; and because ye will not acknowledge that the time for offering victims is now past, therefore the temple shall be destroyed, and the abomination of desolation shall stand in the holy place; and then the Gospel shall be preached to the Gentiles for a testimony against you, that your unbelief may be judged by their faith.

Epiphanius notes about the Ebionites: "the gospel among them called according to the Hebrews has: 'I came to abolish the sacrifices, and, if you do not cease to sacrifice, the wrath will not cease from you.'" A related concept is found in the Clementine Homilies, which some scholars relate to the Ebionites: "And when he said: I did not come to abolish the law, and it appeared that he himself did abolish it, it was a sign that the things which he abolished were not of the law." This passage is referring to Matthew 5:17: "Don't think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."
The Pseudo-Clementines’ explanation for the abolition of sacrifice - that the sacrifices are not part of the - does not sound correct to me. The Law did prescribe the Yom Kippur and Passover rituals. So how could one no longer perform them without violating the Law?

Moreover, Jesus said in the gospels that he came to fulfill the Law but not to abolish it. Then, as I understand it, the emphasis on Christ as the Passover lamb, and as one who removes sins by his own sacrifice, effectively stopped his followers’ observance of the yearly Yom Kippur and Passover ritual animal sacrifices.

My own, best explanation would be that this change in observance does not mean that those sacrifices were never part of the Law, but that Christ fulfilled the sacrificial Law by replacing its prescribed sacrifices with his own. In jurisprudential thinking, what might have happened was a superseding, intervening event or condition that made the animal sacrifices irrelevant. To give an analogy, you could have a contract for a painter to paint your house, and to work on it every day. Once the house painting has been completed, there is no longer a need to paint the house the next day, and the contract has been fulfilled. So under this explanation, the itself might not be abolished, but the part of it regarding ritual animal sacrifice would be fulfilled or superseded and thus the animal sacrifices would no longer need to be performed.

(Question 4.) Does the Gospel of the Ebionites’ passage on Jesus not desiring to eat the Passover “meat” reflect the Ebionites’ vegetarianism? Is it compatible with Jesus’ declaration to His disciples that he wishes eat the Passover with them?

In Mark 14,

Jesus’ disciples asked Him, “Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?” So He sent two of His disciples and told them, “Go into the city, and a man carrying a pitcher of water will meet you.

Luke 22 says about Jesus at the Last Supper:

14. And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.
15. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
16. For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

According to Adam Clarke’s commentary, the phrase “with desire I have desired” is a Hebrew expression that means to eagerly or earnestly desire something. Here, Jesus says that he desired to eat the Passover, whereas in the Orthodox Christian tradition, the Last Supper was a meatless, ritual meal in Jewish tradition. The Last Supper preceded the Crucifixion, which occurred on the day when the Passover lambs were ritually sacrificed. The sacrifice in turn preceded the Passover Seder meal. According to the Russian theologian Lopukhin, the term “Passover” in Luke 22 referred to several days of Passover festivities, starting with the Day of Unleavened Bread.

So what did Jesus mean at the Last Supper when he said that he desired to eat this Passover with His Apostles? Eusebius, the 4th century bishop of Caesarea, took this to refer to the Eucharistic “Passover” meal, writing:

When our Lord was celebrating the new Passover, He fitly said, With desire have I desired this Passover, that is, the new mystery of the New Testament which He gave to His disciples, and which many prophets and righteous men desired before Him. He then also Himself thirsting for the common salvation, delivered this mystery, to suffice for the whole world. But the Passover was ordained by Moses to be celebrated in one place, that is, in Jerusalem. Therefore it was not adapted for the whole world, and so was not desired.

Epiphanius, on the other hand, took Jesus as indicating that He was participating in the Jewish Passover feast, writing:

Hereby we may refute the folly of the Ebionites concerning the eating of flesh, seeing that our Lord eats the Passover of the Jews. Therefore He pointedly said, "This Passover" that no one might transfer it to mean another.

According to Epiphanius, the Ebionites’ Gospel had Jesus replying that he didn’t want to eat the Passover Lamb’s meat. Referring to Luke 22:15, Epiphanius wrote: "They destroyed the true order and changed the passage ... they made the disciples say, 'Where wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the Passover'? To which He replied: 'I have no desire to eat the flesh of this Paschal Lamb with you'."(Panarion, 22.4)
One way to address the Ebionite Gospel’s denial that Jesus desired to eat the Passover meat, in light of Luke 22's statement that Jesus did want to eat the Passover, is to consider the Ebionites’ vegetarianism. They specified that Jesus didn’t want to eat the Passover lamb, which is meat, but they didn’t deny that Jesus wanted to eat the Passover meal at all. Based on their vegetarianism, they might have accepted Jesus as eating the Passover meal, but without its meat. So it looks like Epiphanius is right that this passage in the Ebionites’ gospel reflects their vegetarianism.

[alon]

Mar 26, 2019 14:18:28 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

The Ebionites were a -observant Christian Jewish sect with a range of beliefs. Since their name means "the poor", they may have practiced voluntary poverty or simplicity in living. The Gospel of the Ebionites was apparently based on the Gospel of Matthew, and surviving quotations of it can be found here: www.textexcavation.com/ebionitegospel.html

The Wikipedia article on the Ebionites says:

Ebionim was one of the terms used by the sect at Qumran that sought to separate themselves from the corruption of the Temple. Many believe that they were Essenes.
...
The term "Ebionim" was also a self description given by the people who were living in Qumran, as shown in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The term "the poor" was at first a common designation for all Christians - a reference to their material and voluntary poverty. The hellenized Hebrew term "Ebionite" (Ebionai) was first applied by Irenaeus in the 2nd century without making mention of Nazarenes (c.180 CE).[16][17] Origen wrote "for Ebion signifies 'poor' among the Jews, and those Jews who have received Jesus as Christ are called by the name of Ebionites."
...
[It has been proposed] that the Ebionites rejected many of the precepts central to Nicene orthodoxy, such as his pre-existence, divinity, virgin birth, atoning death, and physical resurrection.[6] On the other hand, an Ebionite story has Jesus eating bread with his brother Jacob ("James the Just") after the resurrection, which indicates that the Ebionites, or at least the ones who accepted this version of the Gospel of the Hebrews, very much believed in a physical resurrection for Jesus. ... Origen (Contra Celsum 5.61) and Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica 3.27.3) recognize some variation in the Christology of Ebionite groups; for example that while all Ebionites denied Christ's pre-existence there was a sub-group which did not deny the virgin birth.

Again, I am going to have to answer each question individually. But first, we need to be clear on who these Ebionim were. They were NOT directly descended from the Qumran Community or any other sect of Judaism oher than that of the Nazarenes. They may have went back and took on some of the theology of other sects, as well as calling themselves by the same name, but they were believers in Yeshua as HaMoshiach who split from the Nazarenes late in the 1st cen CE. They again split over some details, but the one defining thing about the Ebionite movement is their disbelief in the ETERNAL deity of Yeshua. They tried then to say they were the elect, the true believers with an unbroken line through Yeshua. And today they try and sell the same line of crap. It was a lie then, as it is now. But a lot of disinformation persists (mostly because they keep spreading it).

Since the 1st Council of Nicea did not occur until 325 CE, they were not originally anti-Nicene. However when the church did ake steps to formalize its own beliefs the question of eternal deity of Jesus did come up, and those against it lost. So in that respect they were anti-Nicene. But there was no church when they split away; only the Jewish sect of the Notsarim (Nazarenes). 

[alon]

(Question 1) Is the Gospel of the Ebionites the same as the “Gospel of the Twelve”?
Wikipedia's article on the Gospel of the Ebionites says:
The Ebionite gospel has been recognized as distinct from the others [Hebrew gospels],[n 10] and it has been identified more closely with the lost Gospel of the Twelve.[11]

The phrase "who chose us" [in the Gospel of the Ebionites, referring to Jesus choosing the apostles] has been interpreted as evidence that the text may be the lost Gospel of the Twelve mentioned by Origen. However, the identification of the gospel text quoted by Epiphanius with this otherwise unknown gospel is disputed.

FOOTNOTE 11: Puech & Blatz 1991, p. 374 – "the majority of critics today are inclined to identify it (the Gospel of the Twelve) with the Gospel of the Ebionites,"
The Wikipedia entry on the Gospel of the Twelve says:
The Gospel of the Twelve (Greek: τους Δώδεκα Ευαγγελιον), possibly also referred to as the Gospel of the Apostles, is a lost gospel mentioned by Origen in Homilies in Luke as part of a list of heretical works.

Schneemelcher's standard edition of the New Testament Apocrypha states that Jerome incorrectly identified the Gospel of the Twelve, which he referred to as the Gospel according to the Apostles, with the Gospel of the Hebrews (Dial. adv. Pelag. III 2), whereas Origen clearly distinguished between them (Homilies in Luke 1.1). Ambrose and Bede may have also made allusions to it. A relationship has been postulated between this otherwise unknown gospel and the Gospel of the Ebionites.
Three reasons that the "Gospel of the Twelve Apostles" mentioned by Origen might be the same as the Gospel of the Ebionites are:

1) The title "Gospel of the Ebionites" is a modern name and we don't know its original title, so the original title could be the Gospel of the Twelve.

2) Jerome says that the Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of the Twelve are the same work. The Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature says about the Ebionites and their Gospel:
It was a Chaldee version written in Hebrew letters, afterwards translated into Greek and Latin by Jerome, who declared it identical with the "gospel of the Twelve Apostles" and the "gospel of the Nazarenes"... In the Ebionite "gospel" the section corresponding to the first two chapters of St. Matt. was omitted... The existence among them of the "Protevangelium Jacobi" and the Περιοδοὶ τοῦ Πέτρου[Circuits of Peter] indicates their respect for those Apostles.
(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Ebionism%20and%20Ebionites)
3) The Gospel of the Ebionites has the statement: "There was a certain man, Jesus by name, and he himself was about thirty years old, who elected us." "Us" refers to the narrator and appears to refer to the apostles, whom Jesus chose individually. So this passage could be presenting the work as the gospel according to the apostles.

As you say, the names are later additions, so I wouldn't know. I would say that whatever ou call it, it is more pseudepigrapha. I'm not even sure the Ebionim authored any of this, so I wouldn't know of what value it could be reading it. How does the EO Church view this document?

Dan C

[alon]

(Question 2) Did John the Baptist eat (A) Locusts or (B) Honey Cakes?
I think that it’s the former because I find the canonical gospels more reliable. While the Gospel of Matthew says that he ate locusts and wild honey, the Gospel of the Ebionites says about John the Baptist: “And his meat was wild honey, which tasted like manna, formed like cakes of oil.” This is found in Bishop Epiphanius’ Panarion, where he writes (according to another translation):
And his food, [the Ebionites' gospel] says, was wild honey whose taste was of manna, as cake in oil. So that clearly they exchange the word of truth for a falsehood, and instead of locusts they make it cakes in honey.
The two foods sound similarly (locusts = "akrides"; honey cakes = "enkrides") in Greek.

(A) The locusts are one of the few kinds of insects that the Lord allowed the Israelites to eat in Leviticus 11:21-23, which says:
21. However, you may eat the following kinds of winged creatures that walk on all fours: those having jointed legs above their feet for hopping on the ground—
22. any kind of locust, katydid, cricket, or grasshopper.
23. All other winged creatures that have four legs are detestable to you.

I think that could allude to John the Baptist's humbleness.

Peter Leithart sees the reference to eating locusts as representing incorporating the gentiles into his ministry, since locusts were compared to gentile enemies in the Old Testament. Elijah had contact with gentiles in his ministry and John the Baptist ministered to soldiers who were likely gentiles. (http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-24-locusts-and-honey/).

(B) One reason for the Ebionite Gospels’ difference could be that, as Wikipedia's article on the Gospel of the Ebionites says, its “Distinctive features include... an advocacy of vegetarianism.” The reference to vegetarianism reminds me of a place in his Epistles where Paul says that it's silly to make vegetarianism a rule for Christians. On the other hand, the scholar Glen Koch proposed that the Ebionites' verse about John eating honey could refer to 1 Kings 17 and 19, when Elijah ate cakes in oil. This explanation would make sense because John the Baptist is compared in the gospels with Elijah, and Elijah repeatedly ate cakes, but the Bible doesn’t mention him eating locusts.

In 1 Kings 17, Elijah instructs a woman to make flour and oil cakes for the two of them because flour and oil won't depart from Israel until rain comes. (http://biblehub.com/1_kings/17-13.htm) Then in 1 Kings 19:5-8, an angel comes and gives Elijah water and a cake, and he goes as far as Horeb for forty days.
Another explanation could be that in Asian cuisine, locusts are sometimes cooked in honey sauce, and Epiphanius records that the Ebionites were saying that John's food was honey tasting of manna, like cakes in oil.

"The two foods sound similarly (locusts = "akrides"; honey cakes = "enkrides") in Greek." As I've said before, a lot gets confused when original Hebrew manuscripts get translated into other languages; the first often being Aramaic, then from there into Greek, then Latin and every other language.

I to would go with the canonical gospels and not any Ebionite additions. They broke from the truth, and so probably had a mindset to find or to create areas of disagreement. However we were not told HOW he prepared his food, or that those were the only two things he ate. In English it kind of sounds like those were the only two things and he ate them plain. I can't imagine that would have been the case. The locusts would probably be better roasted, and if I had to eat the things I'd take mine with LOTS of honey, if you please!

The ancient Hebrews were not vegetarians, and this includes the Essenes. God told them and us what animals we could eat. And at times of some sacrifices and feasts it was commanded that they eat meat. So vegetarianism is a sin. And by the way, locusts are not vegetables either. Vegetarianism is some mens attempt to tell God they are better than Him (or His people) because they do not kill animals for food. I used to be in the Spokane Mountaineers, and I knew several vegetarians and vegans there. All were haughty and proud. But at altitude, I've seen the vegans eat real butter plain, with no honey or anything else, when it was offered to them. The body craves what it needs. We probably do eat too much meat and dairy. But I think the Almighty, the One who created us knows what we need in our diet. And I think this was the attitude of most if not all the Jews of the time of Yeshua. They ate meat, even if almost always for some only kosher bugs.

I am sure the author of the original book of Matthew, and probably of the Ebionite version as well were trying to paint us a picture of the humility of Yochanon the Immerser. However humility is not cowardice. He had the courage to speak the truth:

Matthew 3:7 (ESV) But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Most Christians leave it there, assuming this was just another denunciation of mainstream Judaism. They too are arrogant, and wrong. First, calling someone such a name was common in Judaism amongst those in agreement. For example, you'd hear it in an argument between pharisaical Rabbonim when one was calling others wrong in their theology on a particular question. It didn't mean they disliked each other, just that they strongly disagreed. Jews tend to be very in your face people. And if we bother to read this verse in context:

Matthew 3:5-11 (ESV) Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to him,  and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?  Bear fruit in keeping with repentance.  And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.  Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

It looks to me as though there was agreement, as these people could be there to be baptized. This would indicate a condition of repentence as well as conversion to Yochanon's teachings. And so he was admonishing them to truely repent before being baptized. The other possibility is that it was the responsibility of the Sanhedrin to investigate any Rabbi who was gathering a large following, as Yochanon was. They'd first send a delegation to listen to his teachings. Then if it was merited they would themselves investigate. However I don't think this was the case here, unless the delegation had decide to convert! And remember, Yochanon was preaching repentence to make way for the Messiah. Preparing the way for haMoshiach was a common thing at the time, but every serious effort to do so had to be investigated.

Note the phrase "Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" This, along with the admonishment to repent indicates to me they were wanting to get on board with Yochanon's teachings. The overall tone and content here leads me to believe they were there to undergo tevilah, baptism by this forceful, charismatic yet humble Rabbi. The coin has two sides. Likewise his diet was probably a bit more complex than only raw bugs and wild honey.

Locusts too have 2 sides: they are good for food on the one hand, which is good because the other side of this coin is if they are a large swarm they can strip a desert land bare very rapidly. I think the second is how locusts and Gentiles were compared in the TNK (OT). Hebrews were forbidden to eat Gentiles, roasted or otherwise! 

Dan C

[alon]

(Question 3) How could the Ebionites justify keeping the ’s rituals while not performing the sacrifices that the emphasizes, ie. those during Yom Kippur and Passover?

Wikipedia's article on the Ebionites describes their observance, as well as Epiphanius’ idea that the Ebionites’ founder was named Ebion:
Ebionites... insisted on the necessity of following Jewish law and rites.[3] They used only one of the Jewish–Christian gospels, revered James the brother of Jesus (James the Just), and rejected Paul the Apostle as an apostate from the Law.

Epiphanius of Salamis, in his book Panarion, 30:17:5, said the following: "But I already showed above that Ebion did not know these things, but later, his followers that associated with Elchasai had the circumcision, the Sabbath and the customs of Ebion, but the imagination of Elchasai". Doing so, Epiphanius made it clear that the original Ebionites were different from those heterodox Ebionites that he described...
Epiphanius, born into a Romaniote Jewish family, was the 4th century bishop of Salamis in Cyprus. He wrote that the Ebionites taught that Christ
came and declared, as their Gospel, which is called according to the Hebrews, reports: 'I am come to abolish the sacrifices, if ye cease not from sacrificing, the wrath will not cease from you'.
Panarion, 30.16
The Wikipedia entry on the Gospel of the Ebionites says:
There is a similarity between the gospel and a source document contained within the Clementine Recognitions (1.27–71), conventionally referred to by scholars as the Ascents of James, with respect to the command to abolish the Jewish sacrifices.[n 12]
...
The command to abolish the sacrifices in the sixth quotation (16.5) is unparalleled in the Canonical Gospels, and it suggests a relationship to Matthew 5:17 ("I did not come to abolish the Law")[12] that is echoed in the Clementine literature.[n 33] ... 33. Kloppenborg 1994, pp. 435–9; p. 439 – "In saying, 'I did not come to do away with the law', and yet doing away with something, he indicated that what he did away with had not originally been part of the law." (Ps-Cl Homilies 3.51.2)

FOOTNOTES
[12] Luomanen 2007, p. 95 – "there is such a fundamental agreement among the Pseudo-Clementine sources (especially Rec. 1.27–71), the "Gospel of the Ebionites", and Epiphanius' description of the Ebionites that there has to be a connection between them. The idea that Jesus came to abolish the sacrifices and that the temple was destroyed because the people were reluctant to cease sacrificing is unique within the early Christian tradition, making its appearance both in Rec. 1.27–71 and the "Gospel of the Ebionites" hardly coincidental."

So some scholars see Clementine Recognitions 1:27-71 as a version of the "Ascents of James", as well as re-worded version of the Gospel of the Ebionites.

Clementine Recognitions 1 talks about the cessation of sacrifices as a basis for the Temple's destruction here:
'For we,' said I, 'have ascertained beyond doubt that God is much rather displeased with the sacrifices which you offer, the time of sacrifices having now passed away; and because ye will not acknowledge that the time for offering victims is now past, therefore the temple shall be destroyed, and the abomination of desolation shall stand in the holy place; and then the Gospel shall be preached to the Gentiles for a testimony against you, that your unbelief may be judged by their faith.
Epiphanius notes about the Ebionites: "the gospel among them called according to the Hebrews has: 'I came to abolish the sacrifices, and, if you do not cease to sacrifice, the wrath will not cease from you.'" A related concept is found in the Clementine Homilies, which some scholars relate to the Ebionites: "And when he said: I did not come to abolish the law, and it appeared that he himself did abolish it, it was a sign that the things which he abolished were not of the law." This passage is referring to Matthew 5:17: "Don't think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."
The Pseudo-Clementines’ explanation for the abolition of sacrifice - that the sacrifices are not part of the - does not sound correct to me. The Law did prescribe the Yom Kippur and Passover rituals. So how could one no longer perform them without violating the Law?

Moreover, Jesus said in the gospels that he came to fulfill the Law but not to abolish it. Then, as I understand it, the emphasis on Christ as the Passover lamb, and as one who removes sins by his own sacrifice, effectively stopped his followers’ observance of the yearly Yom Kippur and Passover ritual animal sacrifices.

My own, best explanation would be that this change in observance does not mean that those sacrifices were never part of the Law, but that Christ fulfilled the sacrificial Law by replacing its prescribed sacrifices with his own. In jurisprudential thinking, what might have happened was a superseding, intervening event or condition that made the animal sacrifices irrelevant. To give an analogy, you could have a contract for a painter to paint your house, and to work on it every day. Once the house painting has been completed, there is no longer a need to paint the house the next day, and the contract has been fulfilled. So under this explanation, the itself might not be abolished, but the part of it regarding ritual animal sacrifice would be fulfilled or superseded and thus the animal sacrifices would no longer need to be performed.

"In saying, 'I did not come to do away with the law', and yet doing away with something, he indicated that what he did away with had not originally been part of the law."

That has to be one of the most warped, twisted rationales for doing away with I've ever heard.

The Ebionites did away with the sacrifices the same way we did, as was in part of our quote above. The Temple was the only place sacrifices were allowed. So when it was gone, we could no longer sacrifice. 

Let's get one thing absolutely clear before we go on. Yeshua did not do away with animal sacrifice:

Matthew 5:17-20 (ESV) Christ Came to Fulfill the Law
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Note that heading which is typically added in most translations, "Christ Came to Fulfill the Law." Christianity focuses on this and takes the least likely definition of "fulfill," then builds a whole theology around that. But read in context there is absolutely no way an honest person can come to the conclusion that any of was done away with, including animal sacrifices. And we in fact see the apostles engaged in the practice after Yeshua:

Acts 21:21-24  (ESV)  and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs. What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law.

Those expenses were not tithes or offerings. They were to buy animals suitable for sacrifice as required for one under a Nazarene vow. This was the only reason a Hebrew man would voluntarily shave his head. This was done to show that Rav Shaul (Paul) did not preach against , and in fact practiced and kept it himself. And if you read Ezekiel 40-46, he gives a detailed description of the Millineal Temple and its ordinances, including the animal sacrifices required then.

The Christ never did away with, nor did He replace animal sacrifices. The only difference is in the TNK they looked forward to Messiah, and we look back to Him and what He did. And those sacrifices were and are a picture of what He did for us.

Dan C

[alon]

Christians, and indeed most Messianics have no idea about the answer to this question:

(Question 4.) Does the Gospel of the Ebionites’ passage on Jesus not desiring to eat the Passover “meat” reflect the Ebionites’ vegetarianism? Is it compatible with Jesus’ declaration to His disciples that he wishes eat the Passover with them?

In Mark 14,

Jesus’ disciples asked Him, “Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?” So He sent two of His disciples and told them, “Go into the city, and a man carrying a pitcher of water will meet you.
Luke 22 says about Jesus at the Last Supper:
14. And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.
15. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
16. For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
According to Adam Clarke’s commentary, the phrase “with desire I have desired” is a Hebrew expression that means to eagerly or earnestly desire something. Here, Jesus says that he desired to eat the Passover, whereas in the Orthodox Christian tradition, the Last Supper was a meatless, ritual meal in Jewish tradition. The Last Supper preceded the Crucifixion, which occurred on the day when the Passover lambs were ritually sacrificed. The sacrifice in turn preceded the Passover Seder meal. According to the Russian theologian Lopukhin, the term “Passover” in Luke 22 referred to several days of Passover festivities, starting with the Day of Unleavened Bread.

So what did Jesus mean at the Last Supper when he said that he desired to eat this Passover with His Apostles? Eusebius, the 4th century bishop of Caesarea, took this to refer to the Eucharistic “Passover” meal, writing:
When our Lord was celebrating the new Passover, He fitly said, With desire have I desired this Passover, that is, the new mystery of the New Testament which He gave to His disciples, and which many prophets and righteous men desired before Him. He then also Himself thirsting for the common salvation, delivered this mystery, to suffice for the whole world. But the Passover was ordained by Moses to be celebrated in one place, that is, in Jerusalem. Therefore it was not adapted for the whole world, and so was not desired.
Epiphanius, on the other hand, took Jesus as indicating that He was participating in the Jewish Passover feast, writing:
Hereby we may refute the folly of the Ebionites concerning the eating of flesh, seeing that our Lord eats the Passover of the Jews. Therefore He pointedly said, "This Passover" that no one might transfer it to mean another.
According to Epiphanius, the Ebionites’ Gospel had Jesus replying that he didn’t want to eat the Passover Lamb’s meat. Referring to Luke 22:15, Epiphanius wrote: "They destroyed the true order and changed the passage ... they made the disciples say, 'Where wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the Passover'? To which He replied: 'I have no desire to eat the flesh of this Paschal Lamb with you'."(Panarion, 22.4)
One way to address the Ebionite Gospel’s denial that Jesus desired to eat the Passover meat, in light of Luke 22's statement that Jesus did want to eat the Passover, is to consider the Ebionites’ vegetarianism. They specified that Jesus didn’t want to eat the Passover lamb, which is meat, but they didn’t deny that Jesus wanted to eat the Passover meal at all. Based on their vegetarianism, they might have accepted Jesus as eating the Passover meal, but without its meat. So it looks like Epiphanius is right that this passage in the Ebionites’ gospel reflects their vegetarianism.

Short answer: no it is not compatible. And if Orthodox Christianity says this was a vegetarian meal, I would place them in the same category as other vegetarians, placing themselves above God.  

There are instances in the TNK when feasts were observed on different days as necessity demanded. One in particular concerned Pesach itself, when those who were tumah (ritually unavailable/unclean) were allowed to perform the seder later. So the argument it was a different day does not hold water. Yeshua desired to eat the Passover meal with them. What part of that leave room for ambiguity?

Luke 22:10 (ESV) He said to them, “Behold, when you have entered the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him into the house that he enters

So, was Yeshua being prophetic here? Or was He being logical?

Either could be argued, but I am going to argue for "logical," with maybe a hint of the prophetic.

Drawing water was typically womens work, which they performed in the cool of the day. And women being, well, women, I am sure this was a social ritual as well. So if you were to see a man drawing water after the women had left and men, being men wanted to miss the clutch of hens pecking for gossip; well he was either a bachelor or an Essene. There were Essene houses all over Israel at the time, inhabited by men who were there for charitable service. If you followed a man to his house, and it was a large house, then likely he was an Essene. If you asked the master of the house he would certainly have prepared for you a Pesach meal- which included meat! It-was-commanded. Christians and Ebionites alike need to get that through their heads. Even IF Yeshua HAD come to do away with , He couldn't have done it until AFTER His ascension. To do so pre-Crucifixion would have been a sin, which would have disqualified Him from being our Messiah.

Christians tend to compartmentalize scripture. They pull verses out of all context and view them as isolated phrases, then build false theologies around them. Look at the totality of scripture! None can contradict. If it does, either the verse is wrong, or we have a problem in our understanding. And my vote is always for the later. Look at it also in the context of the times and customs and who is being spoken to or about. Context, context, context. And not just Christians. This is a very human characteristic. We Meshiachim must watch this tendency as well. Learn the context, view scripture in context, then interpret it contextually.

Dan C

[rakovsky]

Question 4 is getting into a weird issue. Catholics/Protestants and Orthodox usually disagree with each other over whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal, based on a seeming difference between the Synoptics and John's Gospel on the topic. Epiphanius refers to the Synoptic version when he writes that the Ebionites "destroyed the true order and changed the passage ... they made the disciples say, 'Where wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the Passover'? To which He replied: 'I have no desire to eat the flesh of this Paschal Lamb with you'."

That is, in the Synoptics, Jesus has the disciples ask for a room to eat the Passover, but the Synoptics don't mention him eating a lamb. John's Gospel, which puts the crucifixion as happening the day of the Seder, doesn't of course mention the apostles eating a lamb either. So with the Ebionites' gospel, the Ebionites seem to be objecting to eating the "flesh" of the Paschal lamb. It seems a reference to either gnostic anti-flesh theology or vegetarianism, or both. But it also brings up an issue of whether Yeshua ate the Passover Seder, and if He did, then whether there was a lamb. Of course, the easy way to make Jesus' reply in the Gospel of the Ebionites against eating the lamb compatible with his desire in the Synoptics to eat the Passover would be to interpret the "Passover" that Jesus eats as a reference to the Eucharist and Last Supper, or else as a reference to the 's Passover with the exception of eating the lamb. Eusebius took the view that Yeshua was eating the Eucharist as a spiritual "Passover", whereas Epiphanius took the view that Yeshua was literally eating the Passover.

[rakovsky]

Mar 26, 2019 14:42:46 GMT -8 alon said:

I'm not even sure the Ebionim authored any of this, so I wouldn't know of what value it could be reading it. How does the EO Church view this document?

To answer your question, the EO Church fathers considered the Ebionites, unlike the Nazarenes, heretical. So they would agree with Epiphanius' dim view of this document when he wrote: "In the gospel among them named according to Matthew, but not all very complete, but illegitimized and adulterated, but they call it the Hebraic [gospel]..." To give an example of some big problems, consider this part of Epiphanius' description:

"And they say that he was not engendered from God the father, but created, as one of the archangels, but being greater than they are, and that he is Lord both of angels and of all things made by the creator of all, and that he came also to declare, as the gospel among them called according to the Hebrews has: I came to abolish the sacrifices, and, if you do not cease to sacrifice, the wrath will not cease from you."

One of the main EO beliefs is that Yeshua was begotten from God the Father, that He is God, and not a "created" archangel. Also, while maybe you could say that He abolished some aspect of the sacrifices, it would be wrong Biblically to say that if you don't cease to sacrifice then the wrath won't cease from you, because in the New Testament the leaders of the faithful have Paul perform a sacrifice with Timothy.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Origen is the first (Against Celsus V.61) to mark a distinction between two classes of Ebionites, a distinction which Eusebius also gives (Church History III.27). Some Ebionites accept, but others reject, the virginal birth of Christ, though all reject His pre-existence and His Divinity. Those who accepted the virginal birth seem to have had more exalted views concerning Christ and, besides observing the Sabbath, to have kept the Sunday as a memorial of His Resurrection. The milder sort of Ebionites were probably fewer and less important than their stricter brethren, because the denial of the virgin birth was commonly attributed to all. ... Besides these merely Judaistic Ebionites, there existed a later Gnostic development of the same heresy. These Ebionite Gnostics differed widely from the main schools of Gnosticism, in that they absolutely rejected any distinction between Jehovah the Demiurge, and the Supreme Good God. Those who regard this distinction as essential to Gnosticism would even object to classing Ebionites as Gnostics.

[rakovsky]

Question 1 (Is the Gospel of the Ebionites the same as the “Gospel of the Twelve”) is confusing.

Origen seems to consider the Gospel of the Hebrews different from the Gospel of the Twelve, because he writes positively about the first and negatively about the latter:

Origen, On John 2.12

But if any should admit the gospel according to the Hebrews, where the savior himself says... [etc. Origen goes on to justify the statement that is found in the Gospel of the Hebrews]

Origen, Homily on Luke 1.1

The church has four gospels, heresy many, from among which a certain one is written According to the Egyptians, another According to the Twelve (or "According to the Twelve Apostles", in the Latin version of Origen).

Epiphanius' quotation from the Ebionites' version of the "Gospel According to the Hebrews" suggests that it is the same as the Gospel of the Twelve. He writes in his Panarion 30.13:

In the gospel among them named According to Matthew, but not all very complete, but illegitimized and adulterated, but they call it the Hebraic [gospel], it states: There was a certain man, Jesus by name, and he himself was about thirty years old, who elected us. [Then Christ names his apostles] I wish, therefore, for you to be twelve apostles as a testimony of Israel.

The word "us" suggests that the narrators are the twelve apostles, which would agree with this being the same as the Gospel of the Twelve. Epiphanius says that the gospel is "named According to Matthew" and called by them the "Hebraic", but it is hard to consider it to be "According to Matthew" its narrator is the twelve apostles.

Jerome seems to equate the Nazarenes' Gospel of the Hebrews with the "Gospel According to the Apostles":

Jerome, Against the Pelagians 3.2
In the gospel According to the Hebrews, which indeed is written in Chaldean and Syrian speech, but with Hebraic letters, which the Nazarenes use until this day, According to the Apostles, or as most term it According to Matthew, which is also held in the Caesarean library, it narrates the story: Behold, the mother of the Lord and his brothers were saying to him: John the baptist is baptizing for the remission of sins. Let us also be baptized by him. But he said to them: How have I sinned, that I should go and be baptized by him? Unless perchance this that I have just said is ignorance.

Jerome's quote in another of his writings (Jerome, On Isaiah 4) on God's words at Jesus' baptism from the Gospel of the Nazarenes differs substantially from Epiphanius' quote in Panarion 30.13 on God's words at Jesus' baptism from the Gospel of the Ebionites. So the Gospel of the Nazarenes was not the same text as the Gospel of the Ebionites. That would make sense because those groups differed ideologically, and the gnostics had different versions of the same texts that other believers had.

I think that the best answer is that based on Epiphanius' quote from the Ebionites' gospel where the narrators identify themselves as the chosen apostles, it would be right to label the Ebionites' gospel as "According to the Twelve". Plus, it looks like the Gospel of the Twelve is different from the Gospel According to the Hebrews. Also, the Ebionites' Gospel based on what Epiphanius wrote could go under different names like "According to Matthew" or "the Hebraic Gospel", so there was no clear distinguishing title for their Gospel. And Jerome wrote that the Nazarenes' gospel was called "According to the Twelve", yet as mentioned earlier, the Nazarenes' Gospel was not the same as the Ebionites'. It looks like there were shared names for different groups' different texts.

[rakovsky]

For Question 2 (Did John the Baptist eat (A) Locusts or (B) Honey Cakes?), one should consider that the Ebionites' gospel was apparently an adulterated version of Matthew's gospel like when it said that wrath won't cease from you if you don't cease the sacrifices, which doesn't sound like something that James' community would teach, since it instructed Paul to sacrifice. This puts in question its reliability whenever it conflicts with Matthew.

Also for Question 2, I found that in the LXX of 1 Kings 17, Elijah does not ask for honey cakes (enkrides), but rather for ἐγκρυφίαν (enkryphian), which means something like a secret cake baked in ashes. The Masoretic Hebrew calls them round cakes in 1 Kings 17, but one book online says that the LXX rendering as enkryphian was based on the context.

Also, the Ebionite gospel doesn't deny that John the Baptist ate locusts, but it doesn't mention it, probably because of the Ebionites' vegetarianism. The difference in Greek between honey cakes and locusts makes it look like they were trying to cover up the word locusts. Certainly the original narrator in Hebrew knew whether he meant locusts or cakes. So the confusion could arise when someone tried to translate the Hebrew word into Greek. But if the Hebrew meant that John ate honey and cakes like the Ebionites put it, then it seems odd that they expressed it in such long terms as "honey that tasted like manna in the form of cakes", and that Greek canonical Matthew would have somehow totally missed all that and put "locusts". If the Ebionite Hebrew gospel were correct, then the original Hebrew form would have looked like that long quote, because the Ebionites' gospel was already in Hebrew. This long Hebrew form looks hard to confuse with just "locusts and honey". If the Ebionite version were correct, you would have to theorize that Matthew originally said "honey that tasted like manna in the form of cakes", maybe based on 1 King 17's reference to Elijah eating a cake based in ashes, and then somehow a Greek reader put this into "locusts and wild honey", maybe by confusing the Greek word enkrides (honey cakes) with akrides (locusts). I guess that it's rational. But confusing akrides with enkrides would seem much more like the kind of mistake that a translator would make if the original text were in Greek.

For example, Hello and Hallow might seem close in English, but if you are translating those terms from Spanish into English, you would probably not make the mistake of confusing them, because they are dissimilar in the language that you would be translating them from. But I guess that if your translator were not very familiar with English, he could make that mistake. I guess a Greek translator who didn't know Greek well but knew Hebrew very well could accidentally put "locusts and wild honey" instead of "honey like manna that tasted like honey cakes", but it doesn't seem very likely. It looks so dissimilar in terms of grammar and vocabulary that it looks more like a deliberate mistranslation or rewriting.

[alon]

Sept 3, 2019 19:00:42 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Mar 26, 2019 14:42:46 GMT -8 alon said:

I'm not even sure the Ebionim authored any of this, so I wouldn't know of what value it could be reading it. How does the EO Church view this document?

To answer your question, the EO Church fathers considered the Ebionites, unlike the Nazarenes, heretical. So they would agree with Epiphanius' dim view of this document when he wrote: "In the gospel among them named according to Matthew, but not all very complete, but illegitimized and adulterated, but they call it the Hebraic [gospel]..." To give an example of some big problems, consider this part of Epiphanius' description:

"And they say that he was not engendered from God the father, but created, as one of the archangels, but being greater than they are, and that he is Lord both of angels and of all things made by the creator of all, and that he came also to declare, as the gospel among them called according to the Hebrews has: I came to abolish the sacrifices, and, if you do not cease to sacrifice, the wrath will not cease from you."

One of the main EO beliefs is that Yeshua was begotten from God the Father, that He is God, and not a "created" archangel. Also, while maybe you could say that He abolished some aspect of the sacrifices, it would be wrong Biblically to say that if you don't cease to sacrifice then the wrath won't cease from you, because in the New Testament the leaders of the faithful have Paul perform a sacrifice with Timothy.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Origen is the first (Against Celsus V.61) to mark a distinction between two classes of Ebionites, a distinction which Eusebius also gives (Church History III.27). Some Ebionites accept, but others reject, the virginal birth of Christ, though all reject His pre-existence and His Divinity. Those who accepted the virginal birth seem to have had more exalted views concerning Christ and, besides observing the Sabbath, to have kept the Sunday as a memorial of His Resurrection. The milder sort of Ebionites were probably fewer and less important than their stricter brethren, because the denial of the virgin birth was commonly attributed to all. ... Besides these merely Judaistic Ebionites, there existed a later Gnostic development of the same heresy. These Ebionite Gnostics differed widely from the main schools of Gnosticism, in that they absolutely rejected any distinction between Jehovah the Demiurge, and the Supreme Good God. Those who regard this distinction as essential to Gnosticism would even object to classing Ebionites as Gnostics.

True. Today Ebionism has split and combined with other beliefs to the point you can find almost anything within their doctrine. But the one thing that marks an Ebionite is the denial of the eternal deity of Yeshua.

[alon]

Sept 3, 2019 17:55:03 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Question 4 is getting into a weird issue. Catholics/Protestants and Orthodox usually disagree with each other over whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal, based on a seeming difference between the Synoptics and John's Gospel on the topic. Epiphanius refers to the Synoptic version when he writes that the Ebionites "destroyed the true order and changed the passage ... they made the disciples say, 'Where wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the Passover'? To which He replied: 'I have no desire to eat the flesh of this Paschal Lamb with you'."

That is, in the Synoptics, Jesus has the disciples ask for a room to eat the Passover, but the Synoptics don't mention him eating a lamb. John's Gospel, which puts the crucifixion as happening the day of the Seder, doesn't of course mention the apostles eating a lamb either. So with the Ebionites' gospel, the Ebionites seem to be objecting to eating the "flesh" of the Paschal lamb. It seems a reference to either gnostic anti-flesh theology or vegetarianism, or both. But it also brings up an issue of whether Yeshua ate the Passover Seder, and if He did, then whether there was a lamb. Of course, the easy way to make Jesus' reply in the Gospel of the Ebionites against eating the lamb compatible with his desire in the Synoptics to eat the Passover would be to interpret the "Passover" that Jesus eats as a reference to the Eucharist and Last Supper, or else as a reference to the 's Passover with the exception of eating the lamb. Eusebius took the view that Yeshua was eating the Eucharist as a spiritual "Passover", whereas Epiphanius took the view that Yeshua was literally eating the Passover.

Go with scripture, not the Ebionite version. It was a Passover meal, and Yeshua most definitely partook. And it is from this meal your communion comes (though the RC doctrine of Transubstantion is not biblical, the rest is). Passover was a 1500 year by the minute dress rehearsal for the crucifixion and resurrection. For Yeshua to pervert that or refuse to take part would be unthinkable, and a lie from the pit of hell!

[alon]

Sept 3, 2019 20:10:47 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Question 1 (Is the Gospel of the Ebionites the same as the “Gospel of the Twelve”) is confusing.

Origen seems to consider the Gospel of the Hebrews different from the Gospel of the Twelve, because he writes positively about the first and negatively about the latter:

Origen, On John 2.12

But if any should admit the gospel according to the Hebrews, where the savior himself says... [etc. Origen goes on to justify the statement that is found in the Gospel of the Hebrews]

Origen, Homily on Luke 1.1

The church has four gospels, heresy many, from among which a certain one is written According to the Egyptians, another According to the Twelve (or "According to the Twelve Apostles", in the Latin version of Origen).

Epiphanius' quotation from the Ebionites' version of the "Gospel According to the Hebrews" suggests that it is the same as the Gospel of the Twelve. He writes in his Panarion 30.13:

In the gospel among them named According to Matthew, but not all very complete, but illegitimized and adulterated, but they call it the Hebraic [gospel], it states: There was a certain man, Jesus by name, and he himself was about thirty years old, who elected us. [Then Christ names his apostles] I wish, therefore, for you to be twelve apostles as a testimony of Israel.

The word "us" suggests that the narrators are the twelve apostles, which would agree with this being the same as the Gospel of the Twelve. Epiphanius says that the gospel is "named According to Matthew" and called by them the "Hebraic", but it is hard to consider it to be "According to Matthew" its narrator is the twelve apostles.

Jerome seems to equate the Nazarenes' Gospel of the Hebrews with the "Gospel According to the Apostles":

Jerome, Against the Pelagians 3.2
In the gospel According to the Hebrews, which indeed is written in Chaldean and Syrian speech, but with Hebraic letters, which the Nazarenes use until this day, According to the Apostles, or as most term it According to Matthew, which is also held in the Caesarean library, it narrates the story: Behold, the mother of the Lord and his brothers were saying to him: John the baptist is baptizing for the remission of sins. Let us also be baptized by him. But he said to them: How have I sinned, that I should go and be baptized by him? Unless perchance this that I have just said is ignorance.

Jerome's quote in another of his writings (Jerome, On Isaiah 4) on God's words at Jesus' baptism from the Gospel of the Nazarenes differs substantially from Epiphanius' quote in Panarion 30.13 on God's words at Jesus' baptism from the Gospel of the Ebionites. So the Gospel of the Nazarenes was not the same text as the Gospel of the Ebionites. That would make sense because those groups differed ideologically, and the gnostics had different versions of the same texts that other believers had.

I think that the best answer is that based on Epiphanius' quote from the Ebionites' gospel where the narrators identify themselves as the chosen apostles, it would be right to label the Ebionites' gospel as "According to the Twelve". Plus, it looks like the Gospel of the Twelve is different from the Gospel According to the Hebrews. Also, the Ebionites' Gospel based on what Epiphanius wrote could go under different names like "According to Matthew" or "the Hebraic Gospel", so there was no clear distinguishing title for their Gospel. And Jerome wrote that the Nazarenes' gospel was called "According to the Twelve", yet as mentioned earlier, the Nazarenes' Gospel was not the same as the Ebionites'. It looks like there were shared names for different groups' different texts.

You can name either of them what you want, they are still false teaching.

[alon]

Sept 3, 2019 20:37:31 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

For Question 2 (Did John the Baptist eat (A) Locusts or (B) Honey Cakes?), one should consider that the Ebionites' gospel was apparently an adulterated version of Matthew's gospel like when it said that wrath won't cease from you if you don't cease the sacrifices, which doesn't sound like something that James' community would teach, since it instructed Paul to sacrifice. This puts in question its reliability whenever it conflicts with Matthew.

Marcion flat out said that other men were changing scripture to suit them, writing their own versions. That's why he wrote his own version of at least Galatians. Once primacy passed from Hebrew to Greek (depending on how you view prrimacy- I still am "Hebrew primacy" with regad to the NT) and the NT was translated from the original (Hebrew), all manner of abuses started to occur. Jews were used to a strict methodology and absolute accuracy when copying sacred texts. The Greeks were not only dealing with a different language, but being pagans it was expected that a certain amount of the "story" would be changed to suit the storyteller. This is why according to Moody Bible Institute (a very Christian org.) there are way over 5800 different source documents for the NT, most of which disagree.

Dan C 

[rakovsky]

T. Alex Tennent seems to have a Jewish or Messianic take on the Last Supper, where he poses a theory whereby the Last Supper was not actually a Passover Seder. His 50 Reasons The Last Supper Was Not a Passover can be found here:
themessianicfeast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/TMF_50-Reasons.pdf
Feel free to delete the link if it violates the rules.
I found his arguments persuasive, except when it comes to Mark 14:12 and Luke 22:7. Those verses create a disconnect for me, because they sound like they are saying that the Last Supper was at the time of the Seder, whereas it looks like there are more arguments for me in favor of it not actually being a literal Seder. For example, the Gospels don't clearly narrate the Passover Haggadah, they don't mention Yeshua having an animal lamb meal (Yeshua would have been the lamb theologically), all the Gospels say that the apostles ate "artos" bread, which has a connotation of leavened bread, and the Gospels don't mention there being "azyme" bread. In order to theorize that it was a Seder, one would have to infer that those elements were present and that the Gospel writers didn't mention them directly.

I am not demanding an answer about that issue- it's one that believers have debated among themselves for centuries.