chapter two
of the high priest. In order to get the girl, he became a proselyte and
had himself circumcised. However, because he still could not get the girl
after all his trouble, he became angry and wrote against circumcision, the
Sabbath and the Jewish law (Pan. ..–).^14
Because many of the new ideas and practices attributed to the Ebion-
ites are paralleled in the literature that Epiphanius was using as his
sources, it is not clear at the outset how many of these ideas can be
attributed to Epiphanius’ contemporary Ebionites.^15 Thus, a critical as-
sessment of Epiphanius’ sources and information is necessary before it is
possible to sketch a picture of the religious profile of Epiphanius’ Ebion-
ites. I shall do this by proceeding from “clearly Ebionite” evidence and
sources to “possibly Ebionite” ones. The information Epiphanius received
from his contemporaries and the fragments he quoted from theGospel
of the Ebioniteswill provide the basic “clearly Ebionite” information. A
critical assessment of Epiphanius’ “possibly Ebionite” information—his
references to Pseudo-Clementine and Elchasaite sources—will add some
important details to the profile.
Since the resulting overall profile of Epiphanius’ Ebionites will be
clearly different from the profile of Irenaeus’ Ebionites, I shall discuss in
the following subsection (..) if it is possible to regard Epiphanius’ and
Irenaeus’ Ebionites as representatives of the same Ebionite movement
which might have considerably changed its character in two hundred
years.
Clearly Ebionite Information I: Contemporary Reports
There are four ideas in Epiphanius’ description that are not easily at-
tributable to literature but seem to be based on his own knowledge of
contemporary Ebionite practices. First, the Ebionites claimed (falsely, in
(^14) Epiphanius also tells a story about the apostle John meeting Ebion in a bathhouse
(Pan. ..–). Irenaeus had presented the same legend but with Cerinthus and John
as the main characters (cf. Irenaeus,Haer. ..).
(^15) Many scholars think that Epiphanius mistakenly read Ebionite doctrines from the
Pseudo-Clementine sources. I do not agree. It would have been much easier for Epipha-
nius to write his confutation of the Ebionites only on the basis of the Irenaean information
which was heretical enough. Why would he have wanted to make things more compli-
cated for himself by inventing the idea that the Pseudo-Clementine writings are Ebionite?
It is much more believable the Ebionites, who were Epiphanius’ contemporaries, really
used Pseudo-Clementine sources. That is a historical fact that Epiphanius cannot escape.
The only thing he was able to do was to try to rewrite the Ebionites’ prehistory so that it
would explain his present reality.