patristic testimonies reconsidered (Judaean) traditions, but it is also the most significant feature that does
not agree with the Irenaean tradition about the Ebionites. The key ques-
tion here is if, in spite of this break, the Epiphanian Ebionites could still be
regarded as representatives of the same movement that Irenaeus attacked
two centuries earlier. It is hard to believe that all the similarities could be
incidental results from the judaizing tendencies of two unrelated Chris-
tian groups. Are we then to assume a development from Irenaeus’ Ebion-
ites to Epiphanius’ Ebionites?
In general, religious movements are rather conservative in their atti-
tude towards scriptures honored in their tradition. If necessary, new
scriptures may be adopted and old ones updated, reedited and reinter-
preted but they are seldom discarded if they have, at some point, held a
highly valued position. This kind of patching characterizes human cog-
nition in general: rather than starting all over from scratch, new informa-
tion is integrated into the existing cognitive structures and old structures
are modified only to the extent that is necessary.^37 Therefore, it is hard
to believe that a community that had interpreted the prophets “carefully”
or “curiously”—as Irenaeus’ Ebionites did (curiosius exponere;Irenaeus,
Haer. ..)—would suddenly have dropped them and resorted only to
the use of the Pentateuch.
Another type of development is more believable. The Jewish-Christian
profile of Epiphanius’ Ebionites would be a predictable result of the recep-
tion of Christian missionaries by Jews (or Samaritans) whose religious
canon consisted mainly (or only) of the Pentateuch. If inclined towards
the Christian message, they might accept Christ as the prophet predicted
by Moses but would probably be less willing to enlarge their collection of
scriptures if the understanding of the new message did not require it.
According to Acts, the Hellenists of the early Jerusalem community
commenced missionary activity among the Samaritans after the execu-
tion of Stephen (Acts :–; :–). If this activity really resulted in
conversions among the Samaritans—as is indicated in Acts—then the
religious profile of these “Samaritan-Hellenistic” Christians would be
likely to resemble the profile of Epiphanius’ Ebionites.^38 This possibility
(^37) Bless, et al. , –; Wilkes , –, –, –.
(^38) According to Acts, Philip headed to Samaria after Stephen’s execution and had
success there (Acts :–). Acts also refers to Cyprus as the target of the missionary
work that followed Stephen’s execution (Acts :–). Furthermore, in Luke’s view,
the religiosity of both Samaria and Cyprus was characterized by false prophets and
magicians (Acts :–; Acts :–; cf. the Ebionites’ use of theBook of Elchasai).