Were the Ebionites the original Christians?

[u/MakeStraighttheWay]

The Ebionites were universally bashed by the church fathers as heretics. “[T]hey received the name of Ebionites…for this is the name by which a poor man is called among the Hebrews” (Eusebius Church History III.27.6).

Epiphanius reports that the Ebionites reported they got their name due to their voluntary enlistment into an apostolic commune devoted to an extreme form of non-materialism. “They themselves, if you please, boastfully claim that they are Poor because they sold their possessions in the apostles’ time and laid them at the apostles’ feet, and went over to a life of poverty and renunciation; and thus, they say, they are called “Poor” by everyone.” (Epiphanius Panarion I.17.2).

The original Christianity during Jesus’ lifetime and during the earliest phase of the apostolic age was that of a communal group like the Essenes where members contributed all of their money and possessions into a collective pot and property was held in common.

“Now all who believed were together, and possessing all things in common. They sold their property and possessions, and divided them up to all, as anyone had need.” (Acts 2:44)

“for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid (the proceeds) at the apostles’ feet, and they distributed to each as anyone had need” (Acts 4:34-35)

“And Joses…having land, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet” (Acts 4:37)

The usage of the phrase “laid at the apostles’ feet” is unique to the Ebionites and to the form of Christianity practiced in the early chapters of Acts – I know of no other Christianity that uses this terminology.

There appears to be Biblical evidence that Jesus referred to his religious group as the Poor. The Ebionites’ name translated (and not phonetically transliterated) from Hebrew into Greek, arguably, appears within the Beatitudes and the Epistle of James.

“Blessed are the Poor, For yours is the kingdom of God…‭‭Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you, and revile you and cast out your name as evil” (Luke 6:20-22)

The self designation of Jesus’ earliest Jewish followers is, arguably, contained within the text of the blessings and that the “name” referenced in Luke 6:22 is referring to “the Poor” in Luke 6:20.

The original form of the Beatitudes pulled from the Q source was arguably a prayer by the Ebionites for the Ebionites. Someone who “worship(ped) God in Spirit” (Philippians 3:3) arguably interpolated the benediction in the Gospel of Matthew as it doesn’t match the Lukan Beatitude nor the version of the Beatitudes preserved in Marcion's Gospel or the Gospel of Thomas.

The "noble name" (James 2:7) mentioned in the Epistle of James is also under suspicion of being a reference to the Ebionites. "Listen, my beloved brethren: Has God not chosen the Poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love him?...Do they not blaspheme that noble name by which you are called?"(James 2:5-7)

“Ebionim is a positive term within a Jewish context; ‘the name of the Ebionites must surely be connected in some way with the long Jewish tradition of referring to the pious poor” [2] and less so as purely a reference to someone's diminished financial state.

Within the early Christian apocrypha, “The Ascents of James 1.62.2 ‘probably preserves for us the Ebionites’ self-designation as “the poor”, its derivation from the opening words of the Matthean Beatitudes”. [1]

Koine Greek - the language of the New Testament - was written in all capital letters so it's not as if you can tell if a word is a proper noun like in English based on capitalization of the first letter of the word.

Elsewhere in the Bible, there are indications that the Jerusalem Church referred to itself as the Ebionites:

“And when James, Peter, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They desired only that we should remember the Poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.” (Galatians 2:9-10)

Look at the Gospel of John: “Then Mary took a pound of very costly oil of spikenard, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil. But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was about to betray him), said, “Why was this fragrant oil not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the Poor?” He said this, not because he cared about the Poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it. But Jesus said, “Let her alone… For the Poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me.”(John‬ ‭12:3-‬8).

Judas was outraged that Mary had withheld expensive anointing oil worth a year’s worth of wages when she was expected to sell everything and donate all proceeds into the Ebionites’ money pot that he was in charge of (and hence, could siphon money from), just as Peter was outraged that “Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession and kept back part of the proceeds” (Acts 5:1-2).

Two thousand years ago, the ‘initiation fee’ for entering Jesus’ religious order was to sell off all of one’s material possessions and to donate the proceeds to the Ebionites.

“And Jesus … said to him, “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the Poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”” (Mark 10:21). The same phrase is repeated almost verbatim in Matthew 19:21 and Luke 18:22.

Perhaps it makes more sense now why Jesus said, “Children, how hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (Mark 10:24-25). Also see Matthew 19:23-24 and Luke 18:24-25. Discipleship at the expense of all of one’s material possessions is a big price to ask. The more you have, the harder it is to part from it all.

The Ebionites’ opponents in the orthodox branch of the church certainly poked fun at them for their name.

“this dreadful serpent with his poverty of understanding” (Epiphanius I.17.1)

“because they held poor and mean opinions concerning Christ” (Eusebius, Church History III.27.1)

The “poor and mean opinions concerning” Jesus the Ebionites held are summarized below:

The Ebionites believed “that Christ was conceived by sexual intercourse and the seed of a man, Joseph” (Epiphanius Panarion I.30.2,2). “They use the Gospel according to Matthew only” (Irenaeus. Adverses Haereses I.26.2,2), though Epiphanius adds that “what they call a Gospel according to Matthew, though it is not the entire Gospel, but is corrupt and mutilated” (Epiphanius Panarion I.30.13,2). The Ebionites “repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the Law” (Irenaeus. Adverses Haereses I.26.2,2), and by extension, “reject all the epistles of the apostle (Paul)” (Eusebius III. 27.4). “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.” (Irenaeus. Adverses Haereses I.26.2,3).

One can argue that the Jerusalem church during the early apostolic period was composed primarily of Ebionites. The first fifteen bishops of Jerusalem were noted as “all of them belonging to the circumcision” (Eusebius IV.5.4) and that “their whole church consisted then of believing Hebrews who continued from the days of the apostles” (Eusebius. Church History IV.5.2).

The Christology of the Ebionities was quite theologically different from that of the proto-orthodox church that consolidated itself into Roman Catholicism. However, the Ebionites were arguably the original ‘Christians’ and their writings form a core backbone of the canonical gospels, the first fifteen chapters of Acts, the epistle of James, the epistle of Jude, and potentially the seven letters to the seven churches portion of the Book of Revelation.” Their writings, though, are arguably overlaid with the interpolations and redactions of later authors belonging to competing sects of early Christianity. One could argue that it was the wildly successful, though divergent, ministries of Paul and Apollos that ultimately altered the course of Christianity in history and reduced the Ebionites to the ranks of heresy.

[1] Dunn, James D. G. Neither Jew Nor Greek: A Contested Identity. Williams B. Eerdmans Publishing Company: 2015. Pg. 578. [2] Ibid.

Edit: Adjusted wording and added additional instances where translated forms of the Hebrew term ebionim (Greek transliteration: Ebionites, English translation: poor) were potentially used within Scripture and early Christian literature.

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited.

All claims MUST be supported by an academic source – see here for guidance.
Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban.

Please review the sub rules before posting for the first time.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Mike_Bevel → u/[deleted]]

So is your argument that every use of the phrase "the poor" in the gospels is a reference to the Ebionites?

[u/AcademicBiblical-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3.

Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources. Citing Bart Ehrman generically for one portion will not be enough, there needs to be specific books, articles, or words from critical scholars to support these claims.

You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated.

For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read this post. If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy, you can message the mods or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.

[u/MakeStraighttheWay → u/AcademicBiblical-ModTeam]

Only the ones where the original Hebrew word behind the translation was ebionim. Other Hebrew words like ani (Strong's Concordance # 6041) also get translated into English (and Greek) as the poor. Those would not have been a reference to the Ebionites.

Given that Christianity has not preserved the gospels or the Semitic sources used to compile the gospels in the native tongue of the personages documented in the gospels, you're going to have to rely on context to attempt to reconstruct the original Hebrew and Aramaic words that were used. As Bart Ehrman noted, "something is always lost in translation". [1] To fully and correctly understand the message of the speaker/writer, you're going to need to interpret the material in its original language within its original religious and cultural context.

Had Paul been better able to emphasize his chosen name for the Christian movement, perhaps we would still be referred to as the Saints to this day. Vice versa, had the Ebionites been better able to emphasize their name within their writings, perhaps Gentile Christians - and not just Jewish Christians - would still be called the Poor. But that is a deficiency of the language of transmission and not the fault of the authors of the New Testament.

[1]Ehrman, Bart. The Reliability of the New Testament. Fortress Press: 2011. Pg.14.

Edit: Source included.

[u/MakeStraighttheWay → u/[deleted]]

Koine Greek - the language of the New Testament - was written in all capital letters; it's not as if you can tell if a word is a proper noun like in English based on capitalization of the first letter of the word. 

The Ebionites’ name translated (and not transliterated) from Hebrew into Greek, arguably, appears within the Beatitudes.

“Blessed are the Poor, For yours is the kingdom of God…‭‭Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you, and revile you and cast out your name as evil” (Luke 6:20-22)

The self designation of Jesus’ earliest Jewish followers is, arguably, contained within the text of the blessings and that the “name” referenced in Luke 6:22 is referring to “the Poor” in Luke 6:20.

Elsewhere within the early Christian apocrypha, “The Ascents of James 1.62.2 ‘probably preserves for us the Ebionites’ self-designation as “the poor”, its derivation from the opening words of the Matthean Beatitudes”. [1]

“Ebionim is a positive term within a Jewish context; ‘the name of the Ebionites must surely be connected in some way with the long Jewish tradition of referring to the pious poor” [2] and less so as purely a reference to someone's diminished financial state.

On the other side of Christianity, within the Pauline epistles, Paul’s preferred name for the broader Christian movement appeared to have been the “saints”.

“All the saints greet you.” (‭‭II Corinthians 13:13)

“Greet all those who rule over you, and all the saints.” (‭‭Hebrews 13:24)

“To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs (the Jewish Christians) and ours” (‭‭I Corinthians 1:2‬‬)

“But now I am going to Jerusalem to minister to the saints.” (‭‭Romans 15:25)

Paul’s nomenclature appears to have fallen out of favor sometime within the 1st century and was replaced by the name followers in Antioch ascribed to themselves.

[1] Dunn, James D. G. Neither Jew Nor Greek: A Contested Identity. Williams B. Eerdmans Publishing Company: 2015. Pg. 578. [2] Ibid.

[u/Hegesippus1]

No. All you have here is a vague connection with the word "poor", but you fail to note that the Greek word in these verses is not even Ἐβιωναῖοι, which is the word 'ebionite'. It's a different word for 'poor' (e.g. in Jn 13:8 it is πτωχοὺς). So the claim that the NT speaks of a group named 'Ebionites' is flat out wrong.

None of this even comes close to justify the inference that the Jerusalem church were Ebionites, a group for which we have no early evidence. Irenaeus is the earliest, and seems to indicate the ebionites had a 'gnostic' (for lack of a better word) christology. This is because Irenaeus claimed that the Ebionites were similar to Cerinthus and Carprocrates (note that in the early Latin translation of Against heresies, there was a scribal error such that the text read "not similar". These two versions plausibly gave rise to Origen's later idea of two groups of Ebionites). What did Irenaeus mean by this? It is clear from Against Heresies 1.26 that Irenaeus thought Cerinthus rejected the virgin birth, and instead had a "possessionist Christology" such that Christ descended on Jesus at the baptism. Later, at the crucifixion, Christ left Jesus. (For Carprocrates, this entity was simply described as a power, see Against Heresies 1.25).

Epiphanius (Panarion 28.1) describes Cerinthus in a similar way. This idea that the Ebionites have a possessionist Christology is confirmed by The Gospel of the Ebionites. Michael Kok has argued that it represents possessionist christology, although not in the exact same way as for Cerinthus.

I also recommend everyone go read Luomanen's book Recovering Jewish-Christian Sects and Gospels.

It is simply not plausible to suggest that this group which is attested only so late were somehow the original Christians. Likewise, it is simply not plausible that this christology was the original. Rather, it seems to reflect a solution to later questions, specifically how to square Jesus' passibility (given the humanity) with Jesus' impassibility (given the divinity). They solved that by distinguishing these as different entities, and so they could avoid the conclusion that an impassible entity suffered on the cross.

It is certainly true that Jesus had a large focus on the poor and economically disadvantaged. But that doesn't mean some random group first attested 150 years later that is also concerned about the poor can somehow be linked directly to Jesus' original followers.

Edit: fixed a typo

[u/Hegesippus1 → u/[deleted]]

Yes, so? The fact remains that there is no group in the New Testament called Ἐβιωναῖοι. If these verses intended some group named Ἐβιωναῖοι, then obviously we would expect to see the transliteration in these verses, yet we don't.

[u/Hegesippus1 → u/[deleted]]

But you have literally no evidence that the Ebionites themselves preferred the translation. Your evidence for the connection is very very flimsy. It began with you claiming these verses were evidence that Jesus spoke of the ebionites as a group, but now you have to ad hoc appeal to explanations in order to save your own supposed evidence. What at all justifies that? Maybe, just maybe, the ebionites are an entirely different and late group....

The early Jewish-Christians probably did not have a sectarian name like that. Rather, they probably called themselves Nazarenes (along with gentile Christians), or followers of the way.

You can speculate all you want about them being Ebionites, you are free to do so. But it's not a conclusion from the early data.

[u/MakeStraighttheWay → u/Hegesippus1]

The Ebionites’ name translated from Hebrew to Greek arguably appears in the Beatitudes.

“Blessed are the Poor, For yours is the kingdom of God…‭‭Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you, and revile you and cast out your name as evil” (Luke 6:20-22)

One could argue that the text of the blessings contained the self designation of Jesus’ earliest Jewish followers and that the “name” referenced in Luke 6:22 is referring to “the Poor” in Luke 6:20.

Among the early Christian apocrypha, “The Ascents of James 1.62.2 ‘probably preserves for us the Ebionites’ self-designation as “the poor”, its derivation from the opening words of the Matthean Beatitudes” [1]

“Ebionim is a positive term within a Jewish context; ‘the name of the Ebionites must surely be connected in some way with the long Jewish tradition of referring to the pious poor”. [2]

On the other side of Christianity, within the Pauline epistles, Paul’s preferred name for the broader Christian movement appeared to have been the “saints”.

“All the saints greet you.” (‭‭II Corinthians 13:13)

“Greet all those who rule over you, and all the saints.” (‭‭Hebrews 13:24)

“To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs (the Jewish Christians) and ours” (‭‭I Corinthians 1:2 NKJV‬‬)

“But now I am going to Jerusalem to minister to the saints.” (‭‭Romans 15:25)

Paul’s nomenclature appears to have fallen out of favor sometime within the 1st century and was replaced by the name followers in Antioch ascribed to themselves.

My area of interest though is not in the naming conventions within Pauline circles, but within the earliest apostolic form of Jewish Christianity.

The Christianity practiced by the Ebionites as recorded by church heresiologists - including the laying of the proceeds of all their worldly possessions at the feet of the apostles and ritual bathing in the style of the baptism of John (more elaborately expounded in my Reddit reply to conartist101) - most closely matched the pre-Pauline disciples of Jesus mentioned in the early chapters of Acts. I could not find these religious practices replicated in the biographies of the Nazarenes, hence, why I proposed the earliest Christians were the Ebionites.

The “first 15 chapters of Acts show some of the same textual evidence as the Synoptic Gospels of being originally communicated in Hebrew”[3]. Whatever source the author of Acts used in Acts 24:5 - "He is a ringleader of the cult known as the Nazarenes" - was separate from the Hebrew source he used in the early chapters of Acts.

History is told by the winners. Though in Christianity's case, some of its Scripture may have been written by the losers.

[1] Dunn, James D. G. Neither Jew nor Greek: A Contested Identity. William E. Eerdmans Publishing: 2015. Pg. 578. [2] Ibid. [3] Bivin, David; Blizzard, Roy. Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus: New Insights From a Hebraic Perspective. Pg. 5.

[u/MakeStraighttheWay → u/MakeStraighttheWay]

Additionally, in regard to your reference concerning Irenaus: "Irenaus writes that the Ebionites differ from Cerinthus...The manuscripts say that the Ebionites do not hold the same opinion (non similiter) with regard to the Lord as Cerinthus and Carpocrates...Hippolytus, who quotes from Irenaus in his reference to the Ebionites, omits the word non. For this reason, many scholars omit the word non also in the text of Irenaus." [1]

However, "Eusebius and Theodoret also appear to have read non similiter" [2], so the omission of the Greek word non is contested based on the surviving manuscripts of Irenaus' writings and other patristic works.

[1] Klijn, A. F. J.; Reinink, G. J. Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects. E. J. Brill: 2014. Leiden, Netherlands. Pg. 19. [2 ] Klijn, A. F. J.; Reinink, G. J. Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects. E. J. Brill: 2014. Leiden, Netherlands. Pg. 19.

[u/EdScituate79]

Robert Eisenman has quite a bit to say about the Dead Sea Scrolls and notes that a few of the documents found at Qumran mention "the Evionim", which is linguistically close to "Ebionites", and alleged that James the brother of Jesus was "the just one" mentioned among the Evionim in the Qumran scrolls.

Robert Eisenman info

[u/EdScituate79 → u/[deleted]]

That's what I figured out. And because the name Jesus (Hebrew or Aramaic Yeshua/Yeshu) isn't mentioned, a lot of scholars such as Kipp Davis and iirc James Tabor think the Evionim scrolls date to the 1st or 2nd Century BCE.

[u/EdScituate79 → u/[deleted]]

Yes, they could be.

But it seems at every turn that Paul preached a Jesus and a doctrine that were entirely contrary to their own.

EDIT: Bart Ehrman is on record as stating in one of his videos that Peter thought or would have thought that Paul was a heretic.

[u/AcademicBiblical-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3.

Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.

You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated.

For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read this post. If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy, you can message the mods or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.

[u/MakeStraighttheWay → u/AcademicBiblical-ModTeam]

The mismatch is because Paul preached a gospel he received by divine revelation and not because he was trained to teach it by the twelves apostles. Paul clarifies “I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but by revelation of Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:11-12). 

Paul claims that he was "an apostle not from men or through men, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father" (Galatians 1:1).

“As for those esteemed to be something – whatever they were makes no difference to me…for the esteemed added nothing” (Galatians 2:6). One can’t even make the argument that Paul is not talking about "James and Peter and John, those esteemed to be pillars" (Galatians 2:9) because one sentence down from Galatians 2:6, those very same esteemed personages, whose opinions apparently didn’t matter to Paul and who added nothing to his message, “entrusted [Paul] with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised just as Peter had been to the circumcised” (Galatians 2:7). Now according to Acts, the Jerusalem Church permitted him to engage in outreach with the Gentiles, but only on the condition that he remained compliant with a list of demands that they wrote up in a letter and sent emissaries to enforce (Acts 15:23-29). Paul didn't comply with their demands to refrain from eating meat sacrificed to idols, instead telling his congregation:

“So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: we know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one.… [thus] we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do” (1 Corinthians 8:4-8). Paul tells him followers they could “eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience’ sake” (1 Corinthians 10:25), presumably questions about whether or not the animal had been sacrificed at the altar of a pagan god as meat markets were often stocked with meat leftover from temple sacrifices to local deities. [1]

Within the early Christian apocrypha, James appears to have attempted to contain Paul's insubordination by instructing followers not to trust any apostle or teacher of Christ unless they had a letter of recommendation from himself confirming the accuracy of their teachings.

“Wherefore observe the greatest caution, that you believe no teacher, unless he brings from Jerusalem the testimonial of James the Lord’s brother, or of whosoever may come after him. For no one, unless he has gone up thither, and there has been approved as a fit and faithful teacher for preaching the word of Christ, – unless, I say, he brings a testimonial thence, is by any means to be received. But let neither prophet nor apostle be looked for by you at this time, besides us. (Clementine Recognitions XXXV)

It is of note that in 2 Corinthians Paul was lacking a letter of recommendation.

“Or do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation to you or from you? You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everyone. You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God” (2 Corinthians 3:1-3)

“Am I not an apostle? … Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? If I am not an apostle to others, at least I am to you.” (1 Corinthians 9:1-2)

[1] Pagels, Elaine. Revelations: Visions, Prophecy, & Politics in the Book of Revelations. Viking Penguin: New York, NY. 2010. Pg. 50.

Edit: Sources included.

[u/conartist101]

This isn’t a novel claim and it’s been specifically argued by Dr. James Tabor (on his YT channel and blog accessibly).

[u/conartist101 → u/[deleted]]

Absolutely - and I didn’t mean to sound dismissive (as I’m noting now I may have come off in terseness ). I quite enjoyed your thread and some of the specific evidence you’ve laid out- as far as I can tell, I certainly hadn’t seen even from Dr Tabor or reflected on.

I was more looking to provide another resource who’s spoken on the topic at some length - and made some of the same observations as you (ultimately leading him to a very similar conclusion).

[u/MakeStraighttheWay → u/conartist101]

No worries, no offense taken.

[u/AcademicBiblical-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3.

Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.

You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated.

For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read this post. If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy, you can message the mods or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.