chapter two
of the world only, not receiving God as to have union with Him.. .”
(Irenaeus,Haer. ..; trans. Klijn & Reinink ). Irenaeus’ main
point is to criticize the Ebionites because they do not believe that God
was united with man in Jesus. Nevertheless, his argument carries con-
viction only if the Ebionites’ chalice really contained only water. Later
on, Epiphanius explicitly attributes this practice to the Ebionites (Pan.
..).
The Ebionites’ anti-Paulinism, which probably also meant that they
wanted the Gentile believers to be circumcised and observe the law,
must have resulted in the separation of the Ebionites from the formative
Catholic Christianity, at least in the form that was developing in Rome
and the Western parts of the Empire. Even Justin, who was more lenient
in his attitude towards Jewish Christians than Irenaeus, accepted the
Jewish believers as part of Christian communities only as far as they did
not try to impose the law and Jewish customs on gentile believers (see
Dial. –).
Another question is how close relations the Ebionites were able to
retain with (other) Jewish communities. Because the Ebionites seem
to have represented a rather low Christology, their Jesus belief alone
might not have prevented them from living on positive terms with
Jewish congregations. Even their baptism might not have aroused fierce
criticism, especially if it was interpreted in the light of Jewish purification
rites (cf.Dial.). Nevertheless, very much depends on what kinds
of practical forms their Jesus cult took. In any case, it is clear that the
Ebionites saw something special in Jesus and if that something was
not his divine preexistence or his virgin birth then it must have been
something connected to his prophetic message. This, in turn, may also
have had some practical consequences as regards the way the Jewish laws
were interpreted and practiced by the Ebionites, and possibly also what
kind of eschatological expectations they entertained.
The fact that Irenaeusreports that the Ebionites expounded the proph-
ets “diligently” or “singular manner” (lat. curiosius)—whatever that
means exactly—suggests that their interpretation of the prophets was
somewhat singular, evidently not in line with Irenaeus’ (or his sources’)
own view. Nevertheless, it may still have been acceptable within (other)
Jewish communities. Thus, the Ebionites may not have been regarded as
outward heretics by (other) Jews. According to Epiphanius, the Ebionites
had their own synagogues (Pan. ..–) but this probably applies only
to the more syncretistic branch of the Ebionites that Epiphanius knew in
Cyprus (see below).