No Robots

For Ebion was contemporary with the Nazoraeans and <since he was> their ally, was derived from them. In the first place, he said that Christ was generated by sexual intercourse and the seed of a man, Joseph.--Panarion

The descriptions of the Ebionites provide some of the best evidence against mythicism and the divinity of Christ, and for his existence as a man.

stephan huller

But Ebion can be identified as meaning 'hidden power' in one notable place:

Also see what I quoted above also from Epiphanius. It's Irenaeus who is fucking things up (as usual). In the quote above Jewish mystics always took the yesh reference to be the name of the power who is clearly remembered in Christian sources as Jesus (= yeshu = his being).

Remember also that in our earliest references the name is often identified as Hebion not Ebion.

stephan huller

Jastrow says on page 5 of his Jewish Aramaic Dictionary that in some dialects of Jewish Aramaic the word חֶבְי֥וֹןה which means 'hidden' one was pronounced אבְי֥וֹןה (= Ebion).

stephan huller

The idea that the Ebionites were derived from a guy named Ebion like Epiphanius claims is utterly idiotic. When Origen explains the name he tries to connect with the Aramaic term for 'beggar' as if they were 'poor in knowledge' which also can't be right. Irenaeus doesn't bother to explain the term but the Philosophumena preserves the name as Hebion = hidden (one). Epiphanius also says the Ebionites were into the Elxai (= hidden power).

stephan huller

i was wrong for condemning irenaeus. there is nothing problematic about his report either

dog-on

Something interesting here is that, in a careful reading of Mark, is John really a witness?

I do not think so as Mark never says that John recognizes him, nor does he imply that John actually witnesses the magical event following Jesus's immersion.

In fact, I think it is another point where Mark states that the Jews did not recognize the Christ of God. Quite Pauline, in original redaction...

No Robots

Glad to hear you say so:

God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus:] "Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son," Isaiah 7:14 as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes. The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph; thus destroying, as far as in them lies, such a marvellous dispensation of God, and setting aside the testimony of the prophets which proceeded from God.--Against Heresies

The Ebionites held the view that Christ was born naturally, and was not god.

stephan huller

The report I was speaking about was the one in Book One which was written first probably about 180 CE. This book was written much later perhaps as late as 192 CE. The idea that some group of Jewish believers held that Jesus was born of Joseph is clear also but so too that the original group who used a Hebrew form of Matthew - the group known to Celsus long before Irenaeus - held that Jesus was god and not human. Compare also Clement of Alexandria at the end of the Stromata:

No Robots

From the first book:

Cerinthus...represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men....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.

Again, the Ebionites assert that Christ was man, not god.

As for Clement, he was a Gentile who came after the original Jewish followers of Christ.

stephan huller

Similar is not the same. The Ebionites clearly believed that Jesus was a God not human. We have this from Celsus (as noted above) and from Epiphanius (also cited above) a Church Father who wrote after Irenaeus but often has access to earlier material (see Lawlor's study of Hegesippus). Here is the material again from Epiphanius including a line by line citation of the original Ebionite gospel:


It came to pass in the days of Herod the king of Judaea, when Caiaphas was high priest, that there came one, John by name, and baptized with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan. It was said of him that he was of the lineage of Aaron the priest, a son of Zacharias and Elisabeth: and all went out to him.

the narrative proceeded to tell of Jesus’s baptism by John in the Jordan:

When the people were baptized, Jesus also came and was baptized by John. And as he came up from the water, the heavens was opened and he saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove that descended and entered into him. And a voice sounded from Heaven that said: "You are my beloved Son, in you I am well pleased. " And again: " I have this day begotten you". And immediately a great light shone round about the place. When John saw this, it is said, he said unto him : "Who are you, Lord?" And again a voice from Heaven rang out to him: "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." And then, it is said, John fell down before him and said: "I beseech you, Lord, baptize me." But he prevented him and said: "Suffer it; for thus it is fitting that everything should be fulfilled."

Epiphanius goes on to say:

Moreover they deny he was a man,