chapter six
partly because, for him, the Ebionites were not so much a contemporary
sectarian group as an example of a theologically questionable “Jewish”
position.HetakesthenameoftheEbionitestomeantheir“poor”intellect
which is exemplified in their literal understanding of the law. Origen also
labels the Quartodeciman timing of Easter as Ebionite. Although this
probably characterizes the Ebionites’ practice correctly, it is clear that
Origen’s main point is to criticize his contemporaries who are in danger
of falling prey to this “heresy.”
Although Origen’s description of the Ebionites depends on the work of
his predecessors, it is usually thought that his distinction between the two
types of Ebionites, the ones that accepted the virgin birth and the ones
who denied it, is historically reliable. However, a closer look at Origen’s
sources and his characterization of these two branches of the Ebionites
reveals that Origen has created the picture on the basis of the writings
of his predecessors. The distinction can actually be traced back to Ire-
naeus’ description, of which there were two textual variants: the original
according to which the Ebionites’ Christology was “similar” to Cerinthus
(did not believe in the virgin birth) and the corrupted one, according to
which it was “not similar” to Cerinthus (believed in the virgin birth).
Eusebius provides some additional information about the geograph-
ical location of the Ebionites and their practice of observing both the
Sabbath and the Lord’s Day. However, he does not seem to have any sig-
nificant first hand information about the Ebionites.
Some two hundred years after Irenaeus, the Jewish Christianity of
Epiphanius’ Ebioniteswas characterized by similar basic ideas and prac-
tices as Irenaeus’ Ebionites: obedience to Jewish law, anti-Paulinism, rev-
erence for Jerusalem, Eucharist with water and distinction between Jesus
and the Spirit/Christ who entered him at baptism. These similarities sug-
gest a connection between Irenaeus’ and Epiphanius’ Ebionites. How-
ever, the explicit rejection of the temple and its cult, the idea of the True
Prophet and the (selective) acceptance of the Pentateuch only, show that
Epiphanius’ Ebionites were not direct successors of Irenaeus’ Ebionites.
Because it is not easy to picture a linear development from Irenaeus’
Ebionites to Epiphanius’ Ebionites and because the Samaritans seem to
link Epiphanius’ Ebionites with the Hellenists of the early Jerusalem com-
munity, I am inclined to suggest that Epiphanius’ Ebionites were in fact
successors of the Hellenistic “poor” of the early Jerusalem community.
The connection to the Jerusalem community would explain the features
they shared with Irenaeus’ Ebionites (who were closer to the Hebrews of
the early Jerusalem community).