Recovering Jewish-Christian Sects and Gospels (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae)

(Axel Boer) #1

 chapter two


If Origen’s second group of the Ebionites are not camouflaged Naza-
renes, how are we to interpret Origen’s distinction? Of course, it is pos-
sible that Origen had received historically reliable information about
the Ebionites’ different views concerning Jesus’ virgin birth.^7 However,
I find it unlikely that—other things being equal—this doctrinal differ-
ence would have triggered a severe crisis within the Ebionite commu-
nity/communities and resulted in the formation of two separate groups
(or sets of communities), as is often assumed. If the Ebionites agreed
on the importance of circumcision, on the interpretation of the law,
and about their relation to Gentiles, had similar views about Jesus’ mes-
sage, entertained similar end-time expectations, interpreted the prophets
similarly, used the same gospel, and understood themselves as,
devout, pious, humble Jews, would it have made great difference if they
thought that Jesus was divine from the very beginning of his life, or if
they understood him to have become coupled with divine reality only at
his baptism? In the last analysis, Origen’s distinction may say more about
Origen’s own tendency to group people on the basis of their Christolog-
ical views than about differences in belief that the Ebionites themselves
would have found significant.
Although it cannot be excluded that Origen’s distinction is based on
reliable information that he had received about the Ebionites’ Christol-
ogy, I am more inclined to believe that Origen drew his conclusions about
the Ebionites’ Christological doctrine from earlier heresiologies. As was
noted above, there were two versions of Irenaeus’ passage on the Ebion-
ites available. One version suggested that the Ebionites believed in the
virgin birth (Irenaeus’ corrupted text) while the other one was open to
the opposite interpretation (Hippolytus and uncorrupted Irenaeus). Ori-
gen may have come across these two traditions and concluded that there
must be two kinds of Ebionites. This assumption is corroborated by the
fact that the passage inContra Celsumwhere Origen describes the two
kinds of Ebionites has clear verbal connections to Hippolytus’Refuta-
tion.^8 However, Origen must also have been familiar with the Irenaean


(^7) Origen wrote hisAgainst Celsus—where he referred to the two groups of the
Ebionites—after he had moved to Caesarea. There he may very well have met with or
heard about different kinds of “Ebionites” since he refers to Jewish-Christian missionaries
in his sermon on Psalm  (Eusebius,Hist. eccl. .). More on these missionaries
below (the sectionPossibly Ebionite Information II: The Book of Elchasai and Elchasaite
Missionaries).
(^8) Origen,Cels. ., and Hippolytus,Haer. .., share the verbμλγ ωand the
adverbμως. Hippolytus’ reference to becoming justified (δικαισαι) indicates that

Free download pdf