The Gospel Of The Ebionites Pdf

And they (the Ebionites) receive the Gospel according to Matthew. For this they too, like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus, use to the exclusion of others. And they call it according to the Hebrews, as the truth is, that Matthew alone of New Testament writers made his exposition and preaching of the Gospel in Hebrew and in Hebrew letters.Epiphanius goes on to say that he had heard of Hebrew versions of John and Acts kept privately in the treasuries (Geniza?) at Tiberias, and continues:In the Gospel they have, called according to Matthew, but not wholly complete, but falsified and mutilated (they call it the Hebrew Gospel), it is contained that ‘There was a certain man named Jesus, and he was about thirty years old, who chose us. And coming unto Capernaum he entered into the house of Simon who was surnamed Peter, and opened his mouth and said: As I passed by the lake of Tiberias, I chose John and James the sons of Zebedee, and Simon and Andrew and Thaddaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the Iscariot: and thee, Matthew, as thou satest as the receipt of custom I called, and thou followedst me.

You therefore I will to be twelve apostles for a testimony unto (of) Israel.And:John was baptizing, and there went out unto him Pharisees and were baptized, and all Jerusalem. And John had raiment of camel’s hair and a leathern girdle about his loins: and his meat (it saith) was wild honey, whereof the taste is the taste of manna, as a cake dipped in oil. That, forsooth, they may pervert the word of truth into a lie and for locusts put a cake dipped in honey (sic).These Ebionites were vegetarians and objected to the idea of eating locusts. A locust in Greek is akris, and the word they used for cake is enkris, so the change is slight.

We shall meet with this tendency again.And the beginning of their Gospel says that: It came to pass in the days of Herod the king of Judaea that there came John, baptizing with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan, who was said to be of the lineage of Aaron the priest, child of Zecharias and Elisabeth, and all went out unto him.The borrowing from St. Luke is very evident here.

He goes on:And after a good deal more it continues that:After the people were baptized, Jesus also came and was baptized by John; and as he came up from the water, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Ghost in the likeness of a dove that descended and entered into him: and a voice from heaven saying: Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased: and again: This day have I begotten thee. And straightway there shone about the place a great light. Which when John saw (it saith) he saith unto him: Who art thou, Lord?

And again there was a voice from heaven saying unto him: This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. And then (it saith) John fell down before him and said: I beseech thee, Lord, baptize thou me. But he prevented him saying: Suffer it ( or let it go): for thus it behoveth that all things should be fulfilled.And on this account they say that Jesus was begotten of the seed of a man, and was chosen; and so by the choice of God he was called the Son of God from the Christ that came into him from above in the likeness of a dove.

BooksWho Were The Ebionites?The earliest Christians were commonly called Ebionites, meaning 'the Poor.' Uhlhorn, 'Ebionites,' A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology (3rd ed.) (edited by Philip Schaff) Vol. II at pages 684–685 see PDF at this , we read:Ebionites. This designation was at first like 'Nazarenes,' a common name for all Christians, as Epiphanius (d. 403) testifies ( Adv. Har. xxix.1) It is derived from the Hebrew Ebion, 'poor,' and was not given, as Origen supposes, for their low view of Christ.'

Id. at 684.Why was this name POOR chosen? Likely because Zephaniah in prophesied of the new kingdom that God will establish, explaining God will 'gather the nations' (v.8) and 'take away the proud' (v.11), 'but I will leave in the midst of thee the afflicted and the poor, and they shall take refuge in the name of Yahweh.' (v.12.)Hence, the POOR (Ebion in Hebrew) was synonymous with these kingdom citizens who would be left when God raptures out the evil from earth. See.How close to the orthodox center of Christianity were they?Paul once says the Jerusalem apostles under James asked Paul to remember the 'poor' at Jerusalem If you translated into Hebrew the word 'poor' you would have the word EBION.

Paul apparently meant the Christians at Jerusalem were the EBION - meaning the name by which they went. Paul said he did intend to remember them by gifts.Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, concurs that the apostles' instruction to Paul mentioned in did not mean the economically poor, but instead the Jerusalem church: 'Jerome's more historically correct reading for whom the 'poor' here is meant to refer to are the Jewish believers of Acts 2:44-5.' (Stephen Cooper, Marius Victorinus' Commentary on Galatians (Oxford: 2005) at.)Ebionites on Paul.Over a hundred years later than the first Ebionites - in about 180 AD, - a Bishop from Gaul (modern France) - clearly describes those who persisted in the designation as Ebionites. They rejected Paul and followed the Law, relying upon Matthew's Gospel. In Against the Heresies, 1.26 Irenaeus says:'Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates.

They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavor to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practice circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God.' (.)This is comparable to Eusebius who in 325 AD wrote in:'These men, moreover, thought that it was necessary to reject all the epistles of the apostle Paul, whom they called an apostate from the law; and they used only the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews and made small account of the rest.'

However, based upon the Ebionite writing from the 200s - the Clementine Homolies - the Ebionites apparently allowed Paul's writings to be joined to Scripture, explaining that God intended their presence solely as a test, in particular of the Gentiles. The Clementines speak of 'Simon Magus' - a code-word meaning Paul.

In chapter 39, Apostle Peter is speaking, and says Simon Magus ('Paul') intends to speak of ' chapters against God that are added to Scripture for the sake of temptation that he may seduce as many wretched ones as he can from the love of God.' (CCEL at this.) Peter explains in chapter 4 'Snare to the Gentiles' that God long ago explained the 'mystery of the books which are able to deceive.since even the falsehoods of Scripture are with good reason presented for a test.' (See.)These words from Peter of the Clementines reflect the principle in.

It says God allows false prophets with true signs and wonders to test whether they can seduce you from following the Law given Moses, and thus test whether you love God with your whole heart mind and soul. Apparently, the Ebionites favored letting Paul's writings be connected to the Scripture as a test to the Gentiles - whether they could be seduced by them, and thus whether they loved God with their whole heart mind and soul.As to Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew, the same Homolies say it was to be guarded zealously in one place and copied to only those the most upright who were circumcised and live piously.Accepted Luke; What About Acts?The Ebionites also accepted Luke and some argue Acts too. In Patrick Gray's Paul as a Problem in History (2016) in footnote 13, he says:'Irenaeus also argues that the Ebionites ought to accept the letters of Paul if they make use of Luke-Acts, which gives a positive evaluation of Paul. (Adversus Haereses.)'Gray cites Irenaeus's argument that if the Ebionites 'made use of them,' i.e., the words of Luke's gospel, they should accept 'when he (Luke) tells us in Acts the Lord spoke to Paul,' etc. This proves Irenaeus understood that the Ebionites accepted Luke's Gospel. But Gray's idea that this meant they also accepted Acts appears an incorrect inference.

Rather, Irenaeus was saying that because they accept Luke's Gospel, they should accept passages in Acts but with Irenaeus' spin on Luke's words in Acts. Yet, it is possible that the Ebionites did accept Acts, but likely not with the spin that Irenaeus put on Luke's words about the wilderness-of-Damascus event. Thus, Gray overstated what Irenaeus said in Against Heresies 3.15; it appears only to justify saying the Ebionites accepted Luke's gospel.NOTE ON ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION OF IRENAEUS: As to the argument itself, Irenaeus had a wrong assumption. Luke never actually says that Jesus is talking from Luke's own belief or knowledge. Luke simply records Paul heard a voice, and then records what the voice said ('I am Jesus,') with Luke never vouching that indeed this was the true Lord Jesus speaking. The same is true of Ananias' vision where Jesus supposedly speaks to him, and Ananias relayed the vision substance to Paul.

Luke records what Ananias says to Paul, never vouching that what Ananias said was the true Lord Jesus speaking. While Irenaeus cites words of Luke in Acts that the Ebionites should accept, this does not mean that the Ebionites already accepted Acts.NOTE ON HOW EBIONITES LIKELY READ ACTS. Irenaeus had an overconfident view of the value of Acts to support Paul among those who know the Bible. There is much information in Acts that undermines Paul for one who has Biblical knowledge. Specifically, on the surface, Luke-Acts was designed to convince a Roman investigator named Theophilus.

He was likely investigating on behalf of Nero's Court at Rome as it prepared to decide the fate of a Roman citizen, Paulus of Tarsus. (See.)Hence, the pagan judges at Rome who would hear Theophilus' investigation report would be impressed that the Python Priestess at Philippi endorsed Paul's 'way of salvation' (Acts 16:16). She was considered the most important oracle-seer of the ancient Greco-Roman world. Many paid for her prophecies. This fact about the Priestess' endorsement of Paul's salvation doctrine likely helped win Paul his case in the pagan court of Rome more than any other fact.But don't you think the Ebionites knew this was a problem from a Christian perspective? Luke records that Paul later cast out a demon in the Python Priestess.

Gospel Of The Hebrews

This was after she had for 'many days' been telling everyone to follow Paul's 'way of salvation.' A pagan would not realize the harm this represents to Paul's validity among True Christians. But a discerning Bible-believer would see this means demons endorsed Paul's 'way of salvation.' Hence, Irenaeus' argument underestimated the value of Luke-Acts for Ebionites to prove Paul was following the wrong Jesus, and that Luke included facts helpful for acquittal in a pagan court but which in a Christian court necessarily has a different outcome. For more on Luke-Acts as a non-Pauline work, see our.Ebionites on Sabbath.The Ebionites observed both Sabbath (rest on Saturday) and the Lord's Day (celebrations over Jesus' resurrection). Eusebius wrote of the Ebionites:The sabbath and the rest of the discipline of the Jews they observed just like them, but at the same time, like us, they celebrated the Lord's days as a memorial of the resurrection of the Saviour. (.)Ebionite General Beliefs.According to Hippolythus, a converted Jew from the middle 200s, the Ebionites believed'the world was made by Him who is in reality God.

They live comformably to the customs of the Jews, alleging that they are justified according to the Law, and that Jesus was justified by fulfilling the Law. And therefore it was that the Savior was the Christ of God, since not one of the rest of mankind had observed the Law completely. Had any one else fulfilled the commandments of the Law, he would have been that Christ.Hence when Ebionites thus fulfill the law, they are able to become Christs, for they assert that our Lord Himself was a man in like sense with all humanity.'

(Hippolytus, Refut. ).Hippolytus was a critic, so some of this one must take with a grain of salt.Several sources say the Ebionites practiced circumcision, yet never say they required Gentiles to be circumcised. Tertullian, in de Praescriptione Haereticorum 33, in his poem, Carmen adversus Marcionitas, lists circumcision specifically as an Ebionite practice. Origen says the same in his Homilia in Genesim 3.5. So does Jerome in Epitulae 116.16 and in his commentary on Galatians (3.5.3), as does Rufinas' Commentarius in Symbolum 39. Epiphanius is not an unbiased source on Ebionites, but even he says the Ebionites practiced circumcision. ( Panarion 30.2.2).

Gospel Of The Ebionites Text

Yet again, none of these sources said this pratice was necessary for a Gentile to be saved / become a Christian.Elsewhere the following sources say the Ebionites were observant of Torah/the Law: Irenaeus, Origen, in Contra Celsum 5.61, Commitarius in Matthaeum 11.12 (Greek); Hippolytus in Refutatio Omnium Haereses 7.34, 10.22; Eusebius in Historia Ecclesiastica 3.27, 6.17; Jerome in de Situ et Nominibus Locorum Hebraicorum 112, Commentarius in Esiam 1.1.12, and Commentarius in Matthaeum 2.12.2; and Epiphanius Panarion 30.2.2.As to Jews in Christ: Who Were Orthodox Christians? Who Were The Apostates?For this adherence to the Law, Ebionites were deemed apostates by at least the third century. But notice that, as the Jewish Encylopedia explains below, in Judaism that those who were not observant of the Law were apostates. In agreement, James in spoke to Paul about hearing Paul was involved in ' apostasy' (Greek, apostasian). (See Greek tab for.)James was concerned that Paul taught Jews coming to Christ could forsake the Law given Moses.

James asked for Paul's reassurance that this was not the case by Paul observing the Temple ritual in Numbers 6. Paul complied, never revealing Paul did indeed teach the Law is dead even as to Jews, as reflected in Romans 7:1-7. In line with James's concern, the Jewish Encyclopedia says apostasyis applied in a religious sense to signify rebellion and rebels against God and the Law, desertion and deserters of the faith of Israel. Accordingly it is stated in I Mace. 2:15 that “the officers of the king compelled the people to apostatize,” that is, to revolt against the God of Israel; and Jason, the faithless high priest, is “pursued by all and hated as a deserter of the law.” (II Mace. Gratz in History of the Jews explains apostasy as: “those of the Jewish race who voluntarily apostatized from the holy God and from the law of God, transgressing the divine commandments for the belly’s sake.” (“Apostasy and Apostates from Judaism,” Jewish Encyclopedia (editors Isidore Singer, Cyrus Adler) (Funk and Wagnalls, 1912) at.)For links to all early church texts on Ebionites, seeHence, the derision which the Ebionites received for following the Law by Epiphanius in the 300s is a persecution they suffered for what our Lord said was obeying and following His words, e.g., Matt. Practicing circumcision is itself not wrong or heretical.

For in the Law 'Sons of Israel' had broader duties than the Law imposed upon 'sojourners in your gates' (Gentiles). Circumcision is a perfect example. It only applies to a 'son of Israel' under Lev 12:1-3, not Gentiles (unless they sought to enter the Temple), as was implied from the Jerusalem Conference in Acts 15. The same James who gave that apostlic ruling in Paul's presence in Acts 15 even years later - in Acts 21 - wants confirmation from Paul that he does not teach 'apostasia' by Jewish followers from duties upon Jews, including circumcision. Hence, the Ebionites were completely orthodox on the Law and Christianity.

The 'apostasia' in the apostolic church would have been had Paul ever said he did teach against circumcision for Jewish believers. Eusebius on the Ebionites' View of ChristRoman Catholicism by 325 AD came to a docetic view of Jesus - He only appeared to be human but His flesh was divine from birth. Instead of Jesus being a man indwelled by God as Jesus Himself repeatedly said He was (John 14), the Roman Catholics eventually taught that Jesus supposedly came only in the appearance of a man. (Protestants who see this error correct this by claiming Jesus was 100% God and 100% man. More accurately, a 100% man was filled fully 100% by God's Shekinah presence.)Eusebius in the History of the Church wrote that the Ebionites were heretics for insisting Jesus was a true man.