patristic testimonies reconsidered later sources and where Judaism had more influence on Christianity in
general.
All the key indicators of Judaism are clearly observable in Irenaeus’
description. The Ebionites practiced circumcision and observed other
Jewish laws and customs. As regards ideology, they represented mono-
theism which excluded the idea of a demiurge. Jerusalem also played a
central role in their ideology and practice. What Irenaeus describes as the
adoring of Jerusalem may reflect the Ebionites’ practice of saying their
prayers while facing the Holy City. If so, this hardly was only a superficial
rite that was carried on even after “the house of God” in Jerusalem was
destroyed in ce Rather, the fact that Jerusalem was able to retain its
central position even after the destruction of the temple characterizes
the perseverance of Jewish ideas in the religion of the Ebionites and
suggests that Jerusalem may also have had central role in their end-time
expectations.
BecausetheEbionitesconsideredPaulasanapostate,itistobeas-
sumed that they were preponderantly of Jewish origin. Active anti-Paul-
inism also implies that circumcision and observance of Jewish laws was
required of those religionists that were of non-Jewish origin.
According to Irenaeus, the Ebionites’ views “with respect to the Lord
aresimilarto those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates.” This does not reveal
very much about the Christology of the Ebionites but it provides some
clues for its reconstruction. However, before moving on to discuss the
implications of this statement, two related problems need to be noted.
First, the fact that Irenaeus presented the Ebionites immediately after
Cerinthus and Carpocrates and compared the Ebionites’ views with their
doctrines had far-reaching consequences. This inspired later heresiolo-
gists to enrich their descriptions of the Ebionites by reasoning the nec-
essary details of the Christology of the Ebionites on the basis of the
Cerinthian and Carpocratian doctrines, which Irenaeus described as
partly compatible and party incompatible with the Ebionite views.
Second, the word “similar” is problematic from a text-critical point
of view. The available Latin translation of Irenaeus’Against Heresies(the
original Greek is lost) readsnon similiter, which would mean that the
Ebionites’ Christology wasnot similarto Cerinthus and Carpocrates. In
practice, this would suggest thatthe Ebionites believed in the virgin birth,
did not separate Christ and Jesus,etc.However,Hippolytus’Refutation
includes an almost verbatim parallel of this passage in Greek and it
reads without the negativeμως, “similarly” (Hippolytus,Haer. ..).
Because this reading also suits the context better, it is usually considered