A few days ago a reader posted a lengthy comment to my ‘What I Believe’ page. His second point involved the Ebionites, a branch of Jewish believers in Jesus who did not embrace some of what was taught by the Apostolic or orthodox Jewish believers in Jesus. My reply to this part of my reader’s commentary is written below. His comments are in blue.
2.3. Ebionite Christians (1st-4th Century)
Ebionite Christians believed that all the Jewish Laws had to be obeyed; including the Sabbath and circumcision for all males. As such, they considered St Paul to be the archenemy of Christianity as he taught that people did not have to obey the Law in order to be saved. They believed Jesus was Human, and adopted by God as a perfect sacrifice.
We are in agreement with the above. The only exception might be whether the Ebionites viewed Paul as an ‘archenemy’. They certainly believed he was wrong, but I am uncertain if they would have considered him an ‘archenemy.’
“The Ebionites were some of the original Christians: Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah. They populated the legendary Jerusalem Church. ‘Ebionite’ was sometimes used as a term to describe all Christians. Those who we now know as Pauline Christians opposed the Ebionites, after discovering them and realizing that their beliefs differed. Authors such as Tertullian, Origen of Alexandria, and many other intolerant “heresy-hunters” wrote at great length against the Ebionites. Many of the claims made against them were based on misunderstandings of their beliefs, and many anti-Ebionite claims were plainly ridiculous. [Ehrman, 2003].
I do not dispute that there were Jewish believers who held beliefs that would be termed “Ebionite” later existed from the beginning of the Jesus Movement. However, I do believe you go too far by saying ‘Ebionite’ was a term used for all Christians at one time. The term simply didn’t exist until there was a reason for using it. In fact, the first time we even hear of them is from the writings of Irenaeus in the middle of the 2nd century CE. The term means “poor men” and is thought to refer to their poverty of understanding, which probably has reference to the poverty understanding the Law to which they clung, or to the poor understanding they held concerning Christ, perhaps this poverty of understanding is intended to refer to both opinions. The point is that obviously a group of believing Jews had to have existed who understood the Law differently and who believed Jesus was God in order to even reference others as Ebionites. Why say they were “poor” at anything, if an alternative didn’t already exist?
Concerning Paul, he recognized a fundamental difference in practice between believing Jews and believing gentiles. This is what Acts 15 ironed out. It was Paul’s method to advise all practicing Jewish believers to continue in the Law and not reject the Law of their fathers. The Law and Christianity are not incompatible. The point is: the Law cannot save anyone. Jesus saves us with or without the Law, showing that both need to be saved; so both law-keepers and law-breakers need a Savior.
Pauline Christians eradicated the Ebionites, burning all of their books (none survived) and harassing and arresting the people until none were left. They edited Luke 2:32 and 2:48 where Joseph was twice called the ‘father’ of Jesus so that it did not say so, and they also edited Luke 3:22 where it plainly stated, in accordance with Ebionite beliefs, that God adopted Jesus. Pauline Christians, as non-Jewish Romans, handily came across a mistranslated prophecy that said Jesus would be born of a virgin (like other Roman sons-of-gods), adding a whole two chapters to the beginning of Matthew to prove their point. These edits, now they are uncovered, show that the Ebionites were treated very cruelly and unfairly, and that the original readings of Matthew and Luke both support Ebionite Christianity, rather than the Pauline Christianity that the West has inherited.
I just did a search on Pauline Christians eradicating Ebionites, and I came up with a website (Types of Christianity in History: http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_historical.html) with the exact wording of this person’s comment to my blog. While I appreciate the remarks of others as they apply to what I have written, I am not in the habit of refuting ‘copy and paste’ remarks. Under this strategy, the commentator could, effortlessly, copy and paste material from the web ad infinitum, while I study and research how to reply to the person’s presumed personal beliefs. I don’t believe this is a fair method of commenting, especially when the commentator doesn’t alert me to what he is doing by showing the website from which his remarks are taken. Therefore, my response to this particular comment ends with this posting.
Concerning the Ebionites being destroyed by “Pauline Christians,” I have never heard of this claim until now. I did a brief search of the web and found several sites claiming that this is what occurred, but no one references their remarks with any literature of antiquity. Everything seems to be opinion based upon… (?). As far as being wiped out is concerned, the Ebionites may have been silent for hundreds of years, but they do have a website today and can be found HERE. Concerning modifying scripture, Bart Ehrmen’s writings, from which the above claims are taken, undoubtedly say many things about early Christianity, but if he supports his arguments in his earlier work as he does in Misquoting Jesus (a book I possess), he does so with little solid evidence. His claims are based upon variants in the text, which he presumes represent the most ancient understanding. Mr. Ehrmen did not nor could he support his opinions with solid proof. I can only assume the same regarding the above text which my reader has copied and pasted to my blog, and, by the way, the reference to Bart Ehrman’s work above is from an earlier book (Lost Christianities – first published in 2003); Misquoting Jesus was published in 2005. Why would his method of supporting his opinions be better in his earlier work than that which he produced two years afterward?
Smoodock's Blog 