stephan huller

Jiri,

It is also interesting the words that the Jew in Celsus uses to describe the bird φάσμα = apparition, phantasm.

stephan huller

No robots:

Yes Origen says that but Celsus is much older than Origen. Celsus doesn't even name them as a 'sect.' They are the original people who used the (proto)gospel of Matthew.

Origen's explanation of 'ebionite' is interesting too because it implies (at least to me) that it is a play on the original name hebion that the sect associated with their god. Who would describe themselves as 'poor in understanding'? I don't even think Irenaeus explains the name of the sect and interestingly when he says that they share similar beliefs with the Carpocratians and Cerinthians let's not forget that Jesus was for these sectarians at once a hidden power.

stephan huller

Just look at the order in Against Heresies:

What can this 'agree that the world was made by God' unless it means 'agree with us' (i.e. the orthodox)?

I don't think that Irenaeus has a clear idea about what the Ebionites actually believed. He devotes no more than a paragraph to their beliefs - about a quarter of the space devoted to th Carpocratians who are a far less significant group. The reason for his interest in Carpocrates is that he has the Hegesippus as a source and the author wrote a lot of information which Irenaeus appropriated. It would seem he didn't have much information on the Ebionites.

stephan huller

Here is a similar report in pseudo-Tertullian. It has to be related given the ordering of the reports:

People have scratched their heads over the parallels between (a) Against Heresies, (b) the Philosophumena and (c) Against all Heresies. Which came first? The likelihood is that there is a lost exemplar which stands behind all three texts. Notice here the list appears to be chronological. Ebion 'succeeded' Cerinthus who came 'after' Carpocrates. This is nonsense of course but it is worth noting that pseudo-Tertullian emphasizes the differences between (c) and (b).

stephan huller

Here is what the Philosophumena has notice the order is the same but the content closer to Against Heresies (Irenaeus):

stephan huller

In Tertullian Prescription Against the Heretics we have the view which Epiphanius seems to have picked up - namely that 'Hebion' (= Ebion) was the opponent of Paul in the letter to the Galatians:

stephan huller

If most experts are to be believed the specific ordering of Carpocrates, Cerinthus and then Ebiontes derives from an original source written by Justin in the middle of the second century. I find this hard to believe if only because Celsus calls them 'Harpocratians' and the original information that comes down to Catholics appeared in Hegesippus's Notebook. The Harpocratians can't have been an actual sect but a name given to a group by outsiders. I think the order was established by Irenaeus not Justin but Irenaeus was drawing on a number of different sources including Justin.

stephan huller

So Irenaeus established a basic ordering of information which the lost Refutation of Hippolytus, the Philosophumena and pseudo-Tertullian's Against All Heresies made use of. Yet notice that very little information outside of this report actually exists. There seems to be one other report - used by Tertullian Prescription and Epiphanius which among other things identified the sect as believing that Jesus was a hidden power.

stephan huller

Adolph Harnack on the Ebionites (from the sixth book of the History of Dogma):

Apart from the false doctrines opposed in the Epistle to the Colossians, and from Cerinthus, this syncretistic Jewish Christianity which aimed at making itself a universal religion, meets us in tangible form only in three phenomena:433 in the Elkesaites of Hippolytus and Origen, in the Ebionites with their associates of Epiphanius, sects very closely connected, in fact to be viewed as one party of manifold shades,434 and [pg 305] in the activity of Symmachus.435 We observe here a form of religion as far removed from that of the Old Testament as from the Gospel, subject to strong heathen influences, not Greek, but Asiatic, and scarcely deserving the name "Christian," because it appeals to a new revelation of God which is to complete that given in Christ. We should take particular note of this in judging of the whole remarkable phenomenon. The question in this Jewish Christianity is not the formation of a philosophic school, but to some extent the establishment of a kind of new religion, that is, the completion of that founded by Christ, undertaken by a particular person basing his claims on a revealed book which was delivered to him from heaven. This book which was to form the complement of the Gospel, possessed, from the third century, importance for all sections of Jewish Christians so far as they, in the phraseology of Epiphanius, were not Nazarenes.436 The whole system reminds one of Samaritan Christian syncretism;437 but we must be on [pg 306] our guard against identifying the two phenomena, or even regarding them as similar. These Elkesaite Jewish Christians held fast by the belief that Jesus was the Son of God, and saw in the "book" a revelation which proceeded from him. They did not offer any worship to their founder,438 that is, to the receiver of the "book," and they were, as will be shewn, the most ardent opponents of Simonianism.439

Alcibiades of Apamea, one of their disciples, came from the East to Rome about 220-230, and endeavoured to spread the doctrines of the sect in the Roman Church. He found the soil prepared, inasmuch as he could announce from the "book" forgiveness of sins to all sinful Christians, even the grossest transgressors, and such forgiveness was very much needed. Hippolytus opposed him, and had an opportunity of seeing the book and becoming acquainted with its contents. From his account and that of Origen we gather the following: (1) The sect is a Jewish Christian one, for it requires the νομου πολιτεια (circumcision and the keeping of the Sabbath), and repudiates the Apostle Paul; but it criticises the Old Testament and rejects a part of it. (2) The objects of its faith are the "Great and most High God", the Son of God (the "Great King"), and the Holy Spirit (thought of as female); Son and Spirit appear as angelic powers. Considered outwardly, and according to his birth, Christ is a mere man, but with this peculiarity, that he has already been frequently born and manifested (πολλακις γεννηθεντα και γεννωμενον πεφηνεναι και φυεσθαι, αλλασσοντα [pg 307] γενεσεις και μετενσωματουμενον, cf. the testimony of Victorinus as to Symmachus). From the statements of Hippolytus we cannot be sure whether he was identified with the Son of God,440 at any rate the assumption of repeated births of Christ shews how completely Christianity was meant to be identified with what was supposed to be the pure Old Testament religion. (3) The "book" proclaimed a new forgiveness of sin, which, on condition of faith in the "book" and a real change of mind, was to be bestowed on every one, through the medium of washings, accompanied by definite prayers which are strictly prescribed. In these prayers appear peculiar Semitic speculations about nature ("the seven witnesses: heaven, water, the holy spirits, the angels of prayer, oil, salt, earth"). The old Jewish way of thinking appears in the assumption that all kinds of sickness and misfortune are punishments for sin, and that these penalties must therefore be removed by atonement. The book contains also astrological and geometrical speculations in a religious garb. The main thing, however, was the possibility of a forgiveness of sin, ever requiring to be repeated, though Hippolytus himself was unable to point to any gross laxity. Still, the appearance of this sect represents the attempt to make the religion of Christian Judaism palatable to the world. The possibility of repeated forgiveness of sin, the speculations about numbers, elements, and stars, the halo of mystery, the adaptation to the forms of worship employed in the "mysteries", are worldly means of attraction which shew that this Jewish Christianity [pg 308] was subject to the process of acute secularization. The Jewish mode of life was to be adopted in return for these concessions. Yet its success in the West was of small extent and short-lived.

Epiphanius confirms all these features, and adds a series of new ones. In his description, the new forgiveness of sin is not so prominent as in that of Hippolytus, but it is there. From the account of Epiphanius we can see that these syncretistic Judæo-Christian sects were at first strictly ascetic and rejected marriage as well as the eating of flesh, but that they gradually became more lax. We learn here that the whole sacrificial service was removed from the Old Testament by the Elkesaites and declared to be non-Divine, that is non-Mosaic, and that fire was consequently regarded as the impure and dangerous element, and water as the good one.441 We learn further, that these sects acknowledged no prophets and men of God between Aaron and Christ, and that they completely adapted the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew to their own views.442 In addition to this book, however, (the Gospel of the 12 Apostles), other writings, such as Περιοδοι Πετρου δια Κλημεντος, Αναβαθμοι Ιακωβου and similar histories of Apostles, were held in esteem by them. In these writings the Apostles were represented as zealous ascetics, and, above all, as vegetarians, while the Apostle Paul was most bitterly opposed. They called him a Tarsene, said he was a Greek, and heaped on him gross abuse. Epiphanius also dwells strongly upon their Jewish mode of life (circumcision, Sabbath), as well as their daily washings,443 and gives some information about the constitution and form of worship of these sects (use of baptism: Lord's Supper with bread and water). Finally, Epiphanius [pg 309] gives particulars about their Christology. On this point there were differences of opinion, and these differences prove that there was no Christological dogma. As among the common Jewish Christians, the birth of Jesus from the Virgin was a matter of dispute. Further, some identified Christ with Adam, others saw in him a heavenly being (ανωθεν ον), a spiritual being, who was created before all, who was higher than all angels and Lord of all things, but who chose for himself the upper world; yet this Christ from above came down to this lower world as often as he pleased. He came in Adam, he appeared in human form to the patriarchs, and at last appeared on earth as a man with the body of Adam, suffered, etc. Others again, as it appears, would have nothing to do with these speculations, but stood by the belief that Jesus was the man chosen by God, on whom, on account of his virtue, the Holy Spirit—'οπερ εστιν 'ο Χριστος—descended at the baptism.444 (Epiph. h. 30. 3, 14, 16). The account which Epiphanius gives of the doctrine held by these Jewish Christians regarding the Devil, is specially instructive (h. 30. 16): δυο δε τινας συνιστωσιν εκ θεου τεταγμενους, ενα μεν τον Χριστον, ενα δε τον διαβολον. και τον μεν Χριστον λεγουσι του μελλοντος αιωνος ειληφεναι τον κληρον, τον δε διαβολον τουτον πεπιστευσθαι ον αιωνα, εκ προσταγης δηθεν του παντοκρατοπος κατα αιτησιν εκατερων αυτων. Here we have a very old Semitico-Hebraic idea preserved in a very striking way, and therefore we may probably assume that in other respects also, these Gnostic Ebionites preserved that which was ancient. Whether they did so in their criticism of the Old Testament, is a point on which we must not pronounce judgment.

DCHindley

Below is the entire contents of what Celsus had his Jewish character say, stripped of all of Origen's disparging remarks and often lengthy refutations. Black Underlined text are Origen's recaps of what Celsus asserts, and Red Font is used for direct quotes from his True Word. Please tell me where Celsus says he is citing a document.

1:28 … in imitation of a rhetorician training a pupil, he [Celsus] introduces a Jew, who enters into a personal discussion with Jesus, and speaks in a very childish manner, altogether unworthy of the grey hairs of a philosopher,

… For he represents him [his fictional Jewish character] disputing with Jesus, and confuting Him, as he thinks, on many points; and in the first place, he accuses Him of having "invented his birth from a virgin," and upbraids Him with being "born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God." …

1:32 But let us now return to where the Jew is introduced, speaking of the mother of Jesus, and saying that "when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera;"

1:37 … And since Celsus has introduced the Jew disputing with Jesus, and tearing in pieces, as he imagines, the fiction of His birth from a virgin, comparing the Greek fables about Danae, and Melanippe, and Auge, and Antiope,

1:38 But … he invents something altogether different [from the account of the Gospel of Matthew], admitting somehow the miraculous works done by Jesus, by means of which He induced the multitude to follow Him as the Christ.

And yet he desires to throw discredit on them, as being done by help of magic and not by divine power; for he asserts "that he (Jesus), having been brought up as an illegitimate child, and having served for hire in Egypt, and then coming to the knowledge of certain miraculous powers, returned from thence to his own country, and by means of those powers proclaimed himself a god." …

The assertion … [is made] that they [Jesus’ disciples] did no miracles at all, but that, after yielding their belief [in Jesus as a god] to arguments which were not at all convincing, like the wisdom of Grecian dialectics, they gave themselves up to the task of teaching the new doctrine to those persons among whom they happened to take up their abode …

1:40 After these assertions, he takes … the account of the dove alighting upon our Savior at His baptism by John, and desires to throw discredit upon the statement, alleging that the narrative is a fiction. …

But now, after the birth from a virgin, this Celsus … attacks the account of the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove at the baptism. He then, after that, tries to throw discredit upon the prediction that our Lord was to come into the world. In the next place, he runs away to what immediately follows the narrative of the birth of Jesus -- the account of the star, and of the wise men who came from the east to worship the child.

1:41 Let us therefore notice what he has to say by way of impugning the bodily appearance of the Holy Spirit to our Savior in the form of a dove.

And it is a Jew who addresses the following language to Him whom we acknowledge to be our Lord Jesus: "When you were bathing," says the Jew, "beside John, you say that what had the appearance of a bird from the air alighted upon you."

And then this same Jew of his, continuing his interrogations, asks, "What credible witness beheld this appearance? or who heard a voice from heaven declaring you to be the Son of God?

What proof is there of it, save your own assertion, and the statement of another of those individuals who have been punished along with you?"

1:47 … Celsus, … represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus

1:48 … Celsus imagines, viz., that Jesus Himself related the account of the opening of the heavens, and the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Him at the Jordan in the form of a dove,

… a Jew who, in the work of Celsus, uses the language [of God] to Jesus regarding the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove,

1:49 the Jew in the dialogue … expressed himself in language like the following: "But my prophet once declared in Jerusalem, that the Son of God will come as the Judge of the righteous and the Punisher of the wicked."

… he [Celsus] attributes to the Jewish disputant, … such language as, "My prophet once declared in Jerusalem that the 'Son of God' will come."

1:50 In the next place, ... he continues "Why should it be you alone, rather than innumerable others, who existed after the prophecies were published, to whom these predictions are applicable?"

… he says that "some [folks], carried away by enthusiasm, and others having gathered a multitude of followers, give out that the Son of God is come down from heaven." …

… in what follows he says, in the character of the Jew addressing the converts [to Christianity] from his own nation, and repeating emphatically and malevolently, that "the prophecies referred to the events of his life may also suit other events as well," …

1:54 Celsus, … reproaches the Savior because of His sufferings, saying that He received no assistance from the Father, or was unable to aid Himself;

1:57 The Jew, moreover, in the treatise [of Celsus, i.e., The True Word], addresses the Savior thus: "If you say that every man, born according to the decree of Divine Providence, is a son of God, in what respect should you differ from another?" …

But, according to the Jew of Celsus, "countless individuals will convict Jesus of falsehood, alleging that those predictions which were spoken of him were intended of them."

1:58 After these matters this Jew of Celsus … says that "Chaldeans are spoken of by Jesus as having been induced to come to him at his birth, and to worship him while yet an infant as a God, and to have made this known to Herod the tetrarch; and that the latter sent and slew all the infants that had been born about the same time, thinking that in this way he would ensure his death among the others; and that he was led to do this through fear that, if Jesus lived to a sufficient age, he would obtain the throne."

1:61 That Herod conspired against the Child … the Jew of Celsus does not believe … really happened,

… Celsus … said: "But if, then, this was done in order that you might not reign in his stead when you had grown to man's estate; why, after you did reach that estate, do you not become a king, instead of you, the Son of God, wandering about in so mean a condition, hiding yourself through fear, and leading a miserable life up and down?"

1:62 And after such statements … he proceeds thus: "Jesus having gathered around him ten or eleven persons of notorious character, the very wickedest of tax-gatherers and sailors, fled in company with them from place to place, and obtained his living in a shameful and importunate manner."

1:63 … Celsus has termed the apostles of Jesus men of infamous notoriety, saying that they were tax-gatherers and sailors of the vilest character,

1:65 Celsus takes occasion to bring a … accusation, -- the Jew whom he brings forward saying to Jesus, "In company with your disciples you go and hide yourself in different places."

He further says, "that Jesus went about with His disciples, and obtained His livelihood in a disgraceful and importunate manner."

1:66 And in addition to the above, this Jew of Celsus afterwards addresses Jesus: "What need, moreover, was there that you, while still an infant, should be conveyed into Egygt?

Was it to escape being murdered? But then it was not likely that a God should be afraid of death; and yet an angel came down from heaven, commanding you and your friends to flee, lest ye should be captured and put to death!

And was not the great God, who had already sent two angels on your account, able to keep you, His only Son, there in safety?"

… with a taunt also at the blood of Jesus which was shed upon the cross, he adds that it was not "Ichor, such as flows in the veins of the blessed gods." [Homer, Iliad, v. 340]

1:67 After the above, this Jew of Celsus, as if he were a Greek who loved learning, and were well instructed in Greek literature, continues: "The old mythological fables, which attributed a divine origin to Perseus, and Amphion, and Aeacus, and Minos, were not believed by us.

Nevertheless, that they might not appear unworthy of credit, they represented the deeds of these personages as great and wonderful, and truly beyond the power of man; but what hast thou done that is noble or wonderful either in deed or in word?

Thou hast made no manifestation to us, although they challenged you in the temple to exhibit some unmistakeable sign that you were the Son of God."

1:68 But after this, Celsus, … affects to grant that those statements may be true which are made regarding His cures, or His resurrection, or the feeding of a multitude with a few loaves, from which many fragments remained over, or those other stories which Celsus thinks the disciples have recorded as of a marvellous nature; and he adds: "Well, let us believe that these were actually wrought by you."

But then he immediately compares them to the tricks of jugglers, who profess to do more wonderful things, and to the feats performed by those who have been taught by Egyptians, who in the middle of the market-place, in return for a few obols, will impart the knowledge of their most venerated arts, and will expel demons from men, and dispel diseases, and invoke the souls of heroes, and exhibit expensive banquets, and tables, and dishes, and dainties having no real existence, and who will put in motion, as if alive, what are not really living animals, but which have only the appearance of life.

And he asks, "Since, then, these persons can perform such feats, shall we of necessity conclude that they are 'sons of God,' or must we admit that they are the proceedings of wicked men under the influence of an evil spirit?"

1:69 After this, Celsus, … says: "Such a body as yours could not have belonged to God."

Then Celsus says: "The body of god would not have been so generated as you, O Jesus, were."

But he disbelieves the accounts of His conception by the Holy Ghost, and believes that He was begotten by one Panthera, who corrupted the Virgin, "because a god's body would not have been so generated as you were."

1:70 He asserts, moreover, that "the body of a god is not nourished with such food (as was that of Jesus)," since he is able to prove from the Gospel narratives both that He partook of food, and food of a particular kind.

"But," objects Celsus, "the body of a god does not make use of such a voice as that of Jesus, nor employ such a method of persuasion as he."

1:71 Continuing to pour abuse upon Jesus as one who, on account of his impiety and wicked opinions, was, so to speak, hated by God, he asserts that "these tenets of his were those of a wicked and God-hated sorcerer."

… the Jew of Celsus has, with the above remarks, brought to a close his charges against Jesus

DCH