patristic testimonies reconsidered not fit with Epiphanius’ characterization of theAscents.^21 For instance,
Epiphanius attributes to James much more severe and outspoken criti-
cism of the temple and sacrifices than what is found in James’ speeches in
Rec. .–. For the sake of convenience, I will simply refer to this sec-
tion of theRecognitionsasRec. .–.^22 ThoughRec. .– clearly
forms an entity of it own, scholars think that it had become integrated
into theBasic Writingbefore theBasic Writingwas used by the editors of
theRecognitionsand theHomilies.^23
The similarities between ideas attributed to Epiphanius’ Ebionites
and theBasic Writing(includingRec. .–) include speculations on
Christ’s position over the angels (Pan. .., ..; cf.Rec. ..,
..–),^24 his pre-Christian appearances to Abraham and the patri-
archs (Pan. .., ..;Rec. ..–.; cf.Hom. .), and specula-
tions about Adam as a prophet and one that was anointed (Pan. ..,;
Rec..,par.Hom. .;Rec. ..–).^25 The Pseudo-ClementineBasic
Writingalso discusses food regulations and lustrations, and forbids shar-
ing meals with unbaptized gentiles because of their impurity (Rec. ..
par.Hom. ..;Rec. ..– par.Hom. ..–;Rec. .. par.Hom.
..; cf.Rec. ..). According to Epiphanius, the Ebionites shared
the same concerns but their policy was even more stringent. They forbade
the eating of meat altogether and did not want any physical contact with
gentiles under any circumstances. TheBasic Writingalso prohibits sex-
ual intercourse during menstruation. In this regard, Epiphanius’ Ebion-
ites may have been more lenient since they refer only to the obligation to
wash after intercourse. The fact Epiphanius explicitly mentions baptism,
in addition to the daily lustrations, as the Ebionite practice also finds a
parallel inRec. ...
Theologically, the most significant similarities between the Ebionite
ideas and theBasic Writingare Christ’s criticism of the sacrificial cult
and the rejection of the prophets. In this regard, the Ebionites’ position
(^21) Jones , –.
(^22) I agree with Jones (Jones , , –), however, that it is to be located more
specifically inRec. .–. and .–.. I rely on Jones’ () translation ofRec.
.– from the Syriac in what follows.
(^23) Jones , –.
(^24) Jones (, ), along with several others, attributesRec. .. to theBasic
Writing.Rec. ..–, for its part, belongs to the section (Rec. ..–.) that has been
inserted inRec. .–. However, Jones (, ) argues that this was done by the
editor of theBasic Writing.
(^25) Rec. ..– was probably in theBasic Writing. See above.