The Ebionites and the Virgin Birth

The Ebionites and the Virgin Birth of Jesus 

 

Many of those who argue against the virgin birth of Jesus will often use the Ebionites as evidence that the virgin birth was a later fabrication of the Church and that the early followers of Jesus did not believe that Jesus was born of a virgin but rather he was the produce of the sexual union between Joseph and Mary. 

 

In an online article, it is claimed by the authors Jocelyn Rhys and John D. Keyser that the Ebionites did not believe in the virgin birth, but rather they believed Jesus was born through the sexual union of Mary and Joseph. Thus Joseph was the father of Jesus. 

“2) The Ebionites did NOT believe in the virgin birth of the Messiah. They believed that Yeshua was a real flesh-and-blood human being like the rest of us — born as the oldest son of the sexual union of his parents, Joseph and Mary.” 
https://www.hope-of-israel.org/VBdoc.html

 

The article also makes the claim that the Ebionites used only the Gospel of Matthew, which they claim was originally in Hebrew (as well as maybe using some of their own books). The claim also states that the Gospel of Matthew originally was without the first two chapters.

10) The Ebionites accepted the original Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew — without the first two chapters — as their sole New Testament scripture, with the possibility of several other books such as their own Gospel of the Ebionites
https://www.hope-of-israel.org/VBdoc.html

 

Furthermore, the article claims that as well as the first two chapters of Matthew not being original, the first two chapters of Luke are also later additions and that the original versions of both of these Gospels did not include the first 2 chapters. (The virgin birth Narratives)

The gospels of Mark and John say absolutely NOTHING about the virgin birth of the Messiah, and throughout assume Yeshua to have been of normal human birth. It is only in the gospels of Matthew and Luke that the pagan fable of the virgin birth is introduced — and ONLY in the first two chapters of these gospels. The evidence is overwhelming that the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke are later additions by pagan Greek priests who grafted the “Virgin-birth” and “son of God” myths onto the simple, original records of the human-born Messiah who descended from his ancestor David.
https://www.hope-of-israel.org/VBdoc.html

For the sake of brevity,  I will only utilise this article but many others could be cited all making similar claims. A simple google search will bring up a wide range of sites that use the Ebionites as evidence.

So we see there are a number of claims that need to be addressed regarding the Ebionites and their beliefs in how Jesus was conceived, which revolves around their denial of the virgin birth also the Gospels, specifically the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

 

When it comes to the beliefs of the Ebionites, in reality, we actually know very little about them. None of their own writings are existent today and what is known about them comes to us from those who wrote against them and their beliefs. The main details concerning the Ebionites come primarily from the writings of Irenaeus in his work “Against Heresies”, Epiphanius of Samalis in his work “Panarion”  and also Eusebius who wrote against the beliefs of the Ebionites in his works “Ecclesiastical history.” (Church History). We also have some mentions from Origen and Jerome. We shall look at all of these in this study.

 

It is important to note that dispite what you may see online, there are NO manuscript fragments from the actual “gospel of the Ebionites”. Anyone who claims that there are, is factually incorrect. If they isnsist that there are, simply ask them to show you these manuscuscripts, where are they? What do they say? What date are they? Where and when were they found? While the claim may be made regarding these fragments, no evidence of their existence will be provided. They do not exist outside the claims that they exist.

 

Before we examine the claims, lets find out a little about who Ebion and the Ebionites were.
Remember all that we know comes from their opponents.

Ebion arose from the Nazarenes although he also taught other things from what the Nazarenes believed.

He was of the Nazoraeans’ school, but preached and taught other things than they
Epiphanius Panarion book 1 30-1-1  

(8) And as far as I know, he first
lived in a village called Cocabe in the district of Qarnaim—also called
Ashtaroth—in Bashanitis. There he began his evil teaching—the place, if
you please, where the Nazoraeans I have spoken of came from. (9) For since
Ebion was connected with them and they with him, each party shared its
own wickedness with the other. Each also differed from the other to some
extent, but they emulated each other in malice.
Epiphanius Panarion book 1 30-1-1  

 

The statement of Epiphanius regarding the Ebionites coming from the Nazarenes is a rather important point that will become relevant during this study.

 

Epiphanius was not a fan of the Ebionites and stated that Ebion took all the bad and disgusting doctrines from other sects and followed them.

 

1,2 For it was as though someone were to collect a set of jewelry
from various precious stones and an outfit of varicolored clothing and tog
himself up conspicuously. Ebion, in reverse, took any and every doctrine
which was dreadful, lethal, disgusting, ugly and unconvincing, thoroughly
contentious, from every sect, and patterned himself after them all. (3) For
he has the Samaritans’ unpleasantness but the Jews’ name, the opinion of
the Ossaeans, Nazoraeans and Nasaraeans, the form of the Cerinthians,
and the perversity of the Carpocratians. And he wants to have just the
Christians’ title—most certainly not their behavior, opinion and knowledge,
and the consensus as to faith of the Gospels and Apostles!
Epiphanius Panarion book 1 30-1-1  

 

Epiphanius says that Ebion was a Samaritan

1,4 But since he is midway between all the sects, as one might say, he
amounts to nothing. The words of scripture, “I was almost in all evil, in the
midst of the church and synagogue,”3
are applicable to him. (5) For although
he is Samaritan, he rejects the name because of its objectionability. And
while professing himself a Jew, he is the opposite of the Jews—though he
does agree with them in part as I shall prove later with God’s help, through
the proofs of it in my rebuttal of them.
2,1 For this Ebion was contemporary with the Jews, and < since he
was > with them, he was derived from them
Panarion against Ebionites 30

 

A modern day Scholar, James Tabor, claims that they were the “earliest mostly-Jewish followers of Jesus“.

Associated with the term “Nazarenes” is a second Hebrew designation, namely Ebionites, that was also apparently used for the earliest mostly-Jewish followers of Jesus.
Ebionites & Nazarenes: Tracking the Original Followers of Jesus – TaborBlog (jamestabor.com)

Again we see the Ebionites being associated with the Nazarenes.

 

According to Jerome, the Nazarenes accepted the virgin birth

What shall I say of the Ebionites who pretend to be Christians? To-day there still
exists among the Jews in all the synagogues of the East a heresy which is called
that of the Minaeans, and which is still condemned by the Pharisees; [its
followers] are ordinarily called ‘Nazarenes’; they believe that Christ, the son of
God, was born of the Virgin Mary, and they hold him to be the one who suffered
under Pontius Pilate and ascended to heaven, and in whom we also believe. But
while they pretend to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither.
Jerome’s Epistle 70 to Augustine,

 

If the Nazarenes preceded the Ebionites then this would show that the virgin birth was believed before the Ebionites denial.

The beliefs of the Nazarene sect or sects are described through various church fathers and heresiologists.

• in Jesus as Messiah:

The Nazarenes… accept Messiah in such a way that they do not cease to observe the old Law.

— Jerome, On. Is. 8:14

• in the Virgin Birth:

They believe that the Messiah was born of the Virgin Mary.

— Jerome, Letter 75 Jerome to Augustine

• Adhering to circumcision and the Law of Moses:

They disagree with Jews because they have come to faith in Christ; but since they are still fettered by the Law – circumcision, the Sabbath, and the rest – they are not in accord with the Christians.

— Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 29.7.4

• Use of Old Testament and New Testament:

They use not only the New Testament but the Old Testament as well, as the Jews do.

— Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 29.7.2

• Use of Hebrew and Aramaic New Testament source texts:

They have the Gospel according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this, in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written.

— Epiphanius of Salamis,Panarion29.9.4

 

The Nazarenes are mentioned in the book of Acts. Paul is accused of being the ring leader of the sect of the Nazarenes.

Acts 24:5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:

 

Paul, while he denies certain accusations, actually affirms that he did indeed follow the sect they called Heresy.

Acts 24:12 And they neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, neither in the synagogues, nor in the city: 13Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me. 14But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets

The Greek word translated as Heresy is αἵρεσιν hairesin. This is the same word used in Acts 24:5.

As the Nazarenes held to the virgin birth this would show that Paul must also have believed in the vrirgin birth.

 

The Ebionites rejected the virgin birth of Jesus.

2,1 For this Ebion was contemporary with the Jews, and since he
was with them, he was derived from them. (2) In the first place, he said that Christ was conceived by sexual intercourse and the seed of a man,
Joseph
Epiphanius Panarion book 1 

As we see very clearly by the writings of Epiphanius, the Ebionites rejected the virgin birth. However, when we investigate further more of the beliefs of the Ebionites we will see that the rejection of the virgin birth actually comes from those other beliefs.

However, Origen claims that there were differences between the Ebionites (just like christians as he argues in this chapter) Some accepted the virgin birth like us (christians) and some that denied the virgin birth

and these are the twofold sect of Ebionites, who either acknowledge with us that Jesus was born of a virgin, or deny this, and maintain that He was begotten like other human beings — what does that avail by way of charge against such as belong to the Church, and whom Celsus has styled those of the multitude? He adds, also, that certain of the Christians are believers in the Sibyl, having probably misunderstood some who blamed such as believed in the existence of a prophetic Sibyl, and termed those who held this belief Sibyllists.
Origen Contro Celsum book 5 chapter 61
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04165.htm

 

Eusebius also says that there were some Ebionites that accepted the virgin Birth

1. The evil demon, however, being unable to tear certain others from their allegiance to the Christ of God, yet found them susceptible in a different direction, and so brought them over to his own purposes. The ancients quite properly called these men Ebionites, because they held poor and mean opinions concerning Christ.

2. For they considered him a plain and common man, who was justified only because of his superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary. In their opinion the observance of the ceremonial law was altogether necessary, on the ground that they could not be saved by faith in Christ alone and by a corresponding life.

3. There were others, however, besides them, that were of the same name, but avoided the strange and absurd beliefs of the former, and did not deny that the Lord was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit. But nevertheless, inasmuch as they also refused to acknowledge that he pre-existed, being God, Word, and Wisdom, they turned aside into the impiety of the former, especially when they, like them, endeavored to observe strictly the bodily worship of the law.
Eusebius church history book 3
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

 

It is possible that the “Ebionites” who accepted the virgin birth, were actually Nazarenes.

Epiphanius stated that all Christians were called Nazarenes.

6,2 But besides, as I have indicated, everyone called the Christians
Nazoraeans, as they say in accusing Paul the apostle, “We have found this
man a pestilent fellow and a perverter of the people, a ring-leader of the sect
of the Nazoraeans.”32 (3) And the holy apostle did not disclaim the
name—not to profess these people’s heresy, but he was glad to own the
name his adversaries’ malice had applied to him for Christ’s sake. (4) For
he says in court, “They neither found me in the temple disputing with any
man, neither raising up the people, nor have I done any of those things
whereof they accuse me. But this I confess unto thee, that after the way
which they call heresy, so worship I, believing all things in the Law and
the prophets.”
Epiphanius Panarion book 1 section 29:6

The Ebionites Only used the Gospel of Matthew.

Irenaeus was the first person to write against the Ebionites. Irenaeus stated that the Ebionites used only the Gospel of Matthew and that they had similar views to Cerinthus.

2. Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, ….

Irenaeus against Heresies book 1 chapter 26 

 

This is repeated by Epiphanius

3,7 They too accept the Gospel according to Matthew. Like the Cerinthians and Merinthians, they too use it alone. They call it, “According
to the Hebrews,” and it is true to say that only Matthew expounded and
preached the Gospel in the Hebrew language and alphabet in the New
Testament.
Epiphanius Panarion Book 1

 

Both Irenaeus and Epiphanius mention that the Ebionites only used the Gospel of Matthew like Cerenthus and the Cerenthians (named after Cerenthus). We will come back and look at Cerenthus and the Cerenthians in more detail a bit later.

 

So we can see that it is true that from our available sources the Ebionites did use only the Gospel of Matthew.

This in itself is problematic. We have 3 other Gospels. If you are going to use the Ebionites as evidence against the virgin birth then you are also going to have to acknowledge that they did not accept the Gospels of Mark, Luke and John as scripture.

Furthermore, if we take a more detailed and expounded look at what Irenaeus wrote we will find that the Ebionites also rejected the writings of Paul, claiming he was an apostate from the law.

2. Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God.
Irenaeus against Heresies book 1 chapter 26

 

To be consistent those using the Ebionites as evidence are going to have to reject most of the New Testament altogether.

 

But that’s not all. It wasn’t just the other Gospels and the writings of Paul that the Ebionites rejected. According to Epiphanius they also rejected the Prophets, including Isaiah.

18,4 They acknowledge Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Moses and
Aaron—and Joshua the son of Nun44 simply as Moses’ successor, though
he is of no importance. But after these they acknowledge no more of the
prophets, but even anathematize David and Solomon and make fun of
them. Similarly they disregard Isaiah and Jeremiah, Daniel and Ezekiel,
Elijah and Elisha; for they pay them no heed and blaspheme their prophecies,45 but accept only the Gospel
Epiphanius Panarion book 1 30-1-1  

The prophet Isaiah is where we find the prophecy of the virgin birth.

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Although most of those opposed to the virgin birth will argue that this prophecy is not about the virgin birth of Jesus but rather a young woman at the time of Isaiah, I doubt many would go as far as the Ebionites and reject the prophecy or the prophet Isaiah altogether.

Its not hard to reject the fulfilment of a prophecy if you do not in fact even hold the belief that the prophet that stated the prophecy was in fact a prophet.

According to Epiphanius The Ebionites even rejected some of the writings of Moses

18,7 Nor do they accept Moses’ Pentateuch in its entirety; they reject
certain sayings.49 When you say to them, of eating meat, “Why did Abraham serve the angels the calf and the milk? Why did Noah eat meat, and
why was he told to by God, who said, ‘Slay and eat?’ Why did Isaac and
Jacob sacrifi ce to God—Moses too, in the wilderness?” he will disbelieve
those things and will say, “What need for me to read what is in the Law,
when the Gospel has come?

Epiphanius Panarion Book 1

 

This is because they themselves did not eat meat thus the necessity to reject the parts regarding eating meat.

15,3 In the Travels they have changed everything to suit themselves
and slandered Peter in many ways, saying that he was baptized daily34 for
purifi cation as they are. And they say he abstained from fl esh and dressed
meat as they do, and any other dish made from meat—since both Ebion
himself, and Ebionites, entirely abstain from these.35 (4) When you ask one
of them why they do not eat meat, having no explanation they answer
foolishly and say, “Since it is a product of the congress and intercourse of
bodies, we do not eat it.” Thus, according to their own foolish regurgitations, they are wholly abominable themselves, since they are the results of
the intercourse of a man and a woman.
Epiphanius Panarion Book 1

The Ebionites were vegetarians and rejected eating meat. They believed that Jesus was the perfect sacrifice and that no more sacrifices were to be made. As eating meat was mainly associated with sacrific, and the Ebionites no longer sacrificed, they no longer required the eating of meat.

They changed the scripture regarding John the Baptist having eaten locusts into eating some sort of honey cake. The Greek word for Locust is Akris,  while the Greek word for cake is Enkris. We can see that in Greek the change would be subtle….but this would not be the same in Hebrew, and we must remember that many who use the Ebionites as evidence claim that their Gospel was originally written in Hebrew, not Greek.

Epiphanius shows that Jesus himself did eat meat (fish)

19,4 But who does not know that the Savior arose from the dead and
ate (flesh)? As the holy Gospels of the truth say, “There was given unto
him bread, and a piece of broiled fish. And he took it, and did eat, and
gave to his disciples
Epiphanius Panarion Book 1

 

This is found in Luke 24:42

Luke 24:42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb

 

When rejecting parts of the Bible it isn’t long before the authority of more and more parts are brought into question. We see many cults utilising this kind of rejection of scripture. The use of just one Gospel is very similar to Marcion. Marcion used the Gospel of Luke, although in a much redacted form. Marcion rejected the Old Testament but did accept the writings of Paul.

 

Some scholars believe that the Gospel of Matthew that the Ebionites used was different than the Gospel of the Ebionites. They were two different books. The Gospel of Matthew being some kind of Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew we have today, that either was a precursor to  our modern Matthew, or was an abbreviated version of it. Then there would have been the Gospel of the Ebionites which was a mix of the four Gospels, spliced together including only the parts that they deemed relevant to their beliefs. It was this “Gospel” that Epiphanius may have been referring to

Bart Ehrman for example talks about this in Lost Christianities.

Their own version of Matthew, however, may have been a translation of the text into Aramaic. Jesus himself spoke Ara¬ maic in Palestine, as did his earliest followers. It would make sense that a group of Jewish followers of Jesus that originated in Palestine would continue to cite his words, and stories about him, in his native tongue. It appears likely that this Aramaic Matthew was somewhat different from the Matthew now in the canon. In particular, the Matthew used by Ebionite Christians would have lacked the first two chapters, which narrate Jesus’ birth to a virgin—a notion that the Ebionite Christians rejected. There were doubtless other differences from our own version of Matthew’s Gospel as well.

We do not know what the Ebionites called their version of Matthew’s Gos¬ pel. It may have been identical with a book known to some early church writ¬ ers as the Gospel of the Nazareans. Nazarean was a name sometimes used for groups of Jewish Christians, of which there were others besides the Ebionites. 7

We have evidence of yet another Gospel authority used by some or all groups of Ebionite Christians. The evidence comes to us from the fourth-century writ¬ ings of a vitriolic opponent of all things heretical, Epiphanius,
Page 102

 

Epiphanius devotes a chapter to the Ebionites and quotes a Gospel that they are said to have used. 8 He gives seven brief quotations—not nearly as many as we would like, but enough to get a general sense of this now lost Gospel. 9 For one thing, this particular Gospel of the Ebionites appears to have been a “harmonization” of the New Testament Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Evidence that it harmonized the earlier sources comes in the account that it gave of Jesus’ baptism. As careful readers have long noticed, the three Synoptic Gospels all record the words spoken by a voice from heaven as Jesus emerges from the water; but the voice says some¬ thing different in all three accounts: “This is my Son in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:17); “You are my Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Mark 1:11); and, in the oldest witnesses to Luke’s Gospel, “You are my Son, today 1 have begot¬ ten you” (Luke 3:23). What did the voice actually say? In the Gospel of the Ebionites, the matter is resolved easily enough. For here the voice speaks three times, saying something different on each occasion.
Page 102

 

The antisacrificial views of the Ebionites also come through in some of the fragments that Epiphanius quotes. In one of them, the disciples ask Jesus where he wants to eat the Passover lamb with them (cf. Mark 14:12), and he replies, “1 have no desire to eat the flesh of this Passover Lamb with you.” In another place, he says somewhat more forthrightly, “I have come to abolish the sacri¬ fices; if you do not cease from sacrificing, the wrath of God will not cease from weighing upon you.”

Where there is no sacrifice, there is also no meat.
page 102

 

This Gospel of the Ebionites was evidently written in Greek (hence the ability to change the locusts into pancakes), based to some extent on Matthew, Mark, and Luke (hence the harmonizing tendency). It would have been used by Ebionite Christians who no longer knew Aramaic, who were, therefore, living outside of Palestine. And it would have included the Ebionites’ own perspectives on the nature of true religion (hence the condemnation of animal sacrifice)—all the more reason to regret that we have such scant access to it, one more Gospel lost to posterity, destroyed or forgotten by the proto-orthodox victors in the struggle to decide what Christians would believe and read.
page103

 

These fragments show clearly that the Gospel was designed to support a particular set of views. They enable us also to distinguish it from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, for, among other things, the accounts of the Baptism in the two are quite different. Epiphanius is only confusing the issue when he talks of it as the Hebrew Gospel – or rather, the Ebionites may be guilty of the confusion, for he attributes the name to them.
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelebionites.html

 

 

 

The first two chapters of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are additions. 

While we have seen that the Ebionites used only the Gospel of Matthew what about the claim that the first two chapters of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are additions?

In his book Panarion, Epiphanius further stated that the Ebionites used the gospel of Matthew only in part and not in its entirety and that they DID use the genealogy recorded in Matthew.

5,1 For19 they use the Gospel according to Matthew—in part and not in its entirety, but they do use it for the sake of the physical genealogy.

 

Just because the Ebionites did not use the entire Gospel of Matthew does not mean that the parts they did not use were added at a later date. In fact, Epiphanius would seem to suggest that rather than material being added to the Gospel of Matthew, the Ebionites did not use the entirety of the Gospel which would mean that they simply rejected parts, just as they rejected the writings of Paul. The fact that they rejected them and did not use them would show that they were in existence at the time. If the Ebionites did use the genealogy in Matthew, this would show that they did have and used at least some of the first chapter of Matthew. The genealogy is an important part of the first chapter as it shows that unlike the other names in the Bible where the father begets, Jesus was born of Mary and not begat by Joseph.

Epiphanius also stated that the Gospel of Matthew that the Ebionites used was a corrupt and mutilated version.

Now in what they call a Gospel according to Matthew, though it is not
the entire Gospel but is corrupt and mutilated—and they call this thing
“Hebrew”
Epiphanius Panarion  Book 1 30-13-2

Epiphanius says that the Nazarenes used the Gospel of Matthew in its entirety. This would mean that the Gospel of Matthew used by the Nazarenes would be the same as the Gospel of Matthew used by Epiphanius.

saying three times a day, “God curse the Nazoraeans.”47
(3) For they harbor a further grudge against them, if you please, because despite
their Jewish origin, they preach that Jesus is < the > Christ—something that
is the opposite of those who are still Jews and have not accepted Jesus.
9,4 They have the Gospel according to Matthew in its entirety in
Hebrew.48 For it is clear that they still preserve this as it was originally written, in the Hebrew alphabet. But I do not know whether they have also
excised the genealogies from Abraham till Christ.
Epiphanius Panarion book 1 29:9

According to Epiphanius they were called so because they took on the name of Jesus of Nazareth.

5,6 For by hearing just Jesus’ name, and seeing the miracles performed
by the hands of the apostles, they came to faith in Jesus themselves. And
since they found that he had been conceived at Nazareth and brought up
in Joseph’s home, and for this reason is called “Jesus the Nazoraean” in
the Gospel—as the apostles say, “Jesus the Nazoraean, a man approved
by signs and wonders,”30 and so on—they adopted this name, so as to be
called Nazoreans.
Epiphanius Panarion book 1 section 29:5

 

 

 

While there are those that would still claim that the chapters were added, the authenticity of the first two chapters of the Gospel of Matthew are widely accepted by scholars as being authoritative.

As for the first two chapters of Luke, again they are almost universally accepted as authentic to the Gospel. While chapter 1 does contain the story of the angels visit to Mary it is in chapter 3 of this Gospel where we find the genealogy as recorded by Luke. Here we find Luke states that Joseph was supposed father of Jesus.

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Even without the first two chapters of Luke, Luke still makes it clear in his recorded genealogy  that Joseph is not the father of Jesus.

(I will do a longer and more detailed writing on the authenticity of these chapters in the near future).

 

More beliefs of the Ebionites and the beliefs of the Cerinthians. 

 

As we have already seen through the writings of Irenaeus and Epiphanius, the beliefs of the Ebionites were similar to those of Cerenthus and the Cerinthians. It is therefore worth delving into what these two writers stated about the beliefs of these people.

 

Cerinthus believed that Jesus was not born of a virgin but rather of Joseph and Mary as recorded by Ireneaus.

 

1. Cerinthus, again, a man who was educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by the primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from him, and at a distance from that Principality who is supreme over the universe, and ignorant of him who is above all. He represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men.
Irenaeus against Heresies book 1 chapter 26

14 (2) For by supposedly using their same so-called Gospel
according to Matthew, Cerinthus and Carpocrates want to prove from
the beginning of Matthew, by the genealogy, that Christ is the product of
Joseph’s seed and Mary.
Epiphanius Panarion book 1 

 

We have already seen that the Ebionites also believed this. Thus both sets of peoples shared the belief that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus.

 

The Cerinthians, however, believed that the Christ and Jesus were not the same being, but rather it was only at the Baptism of Jesus that the Christ descended onto him in the dove. 

14 (3) But these people have something else in mind.
They falsify the genealogical tables in Matthew’s Gospel and make its
opening, as I said, “It came to pass in the days of Herod, king of Judaea,
in the high-priesthood of Caiaphas, that a certain man, John by name,
came baptizing with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan” and
so on. (4) This is because they maintain that Jesus is really a man, as I
said, but that Christ, who descended in the form of a dove, has entered
him—as we have found already in other sects and been united with
him  Christ himself is from God on high, but Jesus is the offspring of
a man’s seed and a woman
Epiphanius Panarion book 1

We see here that Epiphanius states that they falsified the genealogies to show Christ was the seed of a man.

In the writings of Irenaeus he tells us that the Ebionites also believed that the Christ and Jesus were separate beings, that the Christ descended onto Jesus in the form of a dove and that the Christ departed from Jesus before his death.

Moreover, after his baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being.
Irenaeus against Heresies book 1 chapter 26

 

Epiphanius also tells us that this belief was shared by the Ebionites. They believed that the Christ, which was separate from Jesus, was created and that the Christ first lodged in Adam.

30,1 30. Ebionites are very like these Cerinthians and the Nazoraeans;
and the sect of the Sampsaeans and Elkasaites was associated with them
to a degree.
30,2 They say that Christ was created in heaven, also the Holy Spirit.
But Christ lodged in Adam at first, and from time to time takes Adam
himself off and puts him on again—for this is what they say he did at the
time of his advent in the flesh.
30,3 Although they are Jews they have Gospels, abhor the eating of
flesh, take water for God, and, as I said, hold that Christ clothed himself
with a man at the time of his advent in the flesh. (4) They immerse themselves in water regularly, summer and winter for supposed purification, like
the Samaritans
Epiphanius Panarion Book 1 section 2

 

 

 

 

Epiphanius indicates that the beliefs of the Ebionites changed over time. Starting with the belief that the Christ was the offspring of Joseph but later changing that to the Christ being distinct and separate from Jesus.

3,1 And at first, as I said, Ebion declared that Christ is the offspring of
a man, that is, of Joseph. For a while now, however, various of his followers
have been giving conflicting accounts of Christ, as though they have decided
on something untenable and impossible themselves. (2) But I think it may be
since they were joined by Elxai—the false prophet  I mentioned earlier
in the tracts called “Sampsaeans,” “Ossenes” and “Elkasaites”—that they
tell an imaginary story about Christ and the Holy Spirit as he did.
3,311 For some of them even say that Adam is Christ—the man who
was formed first and infused with God’s breath.12 (4) But others among
them say that he is from above; created before all things, a spirit, both
higher than the angels and Lord of all; and that he is called Christ, the
heir of the world there.13 But he comes here when he chooses,14 as he came
in Adam and appeared to the patriarchs clothed with Adam’s body. And
in the last days the same Christ who had come to Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob, came and donned Adam’s body, and appeared to men, was crucified, rose and ascended. (6) But again, when they choose to, they say, “No!
The Spirit—that is, the Christ—came to him and put on the man called
Jesus.”15 And they get all giddy from making different suppositions about
him at different times
Epiphanius Panarion book 1

 

 

Eusebius wrote a chapter on the Ebionites in his Church History book 3. He stated much of what Irenaeus and Epiphanius stated.

Chapter 27

1. The evil demon, however, being unable to tear certain others from their allegiance to the Christ of God, yet found them susceptible in a different direction, and so brought them over to his own purposes. The ancients quite properly called these men Ebionites, because they held poor and mean opinions concerning Christ.

2. For they considered him a plain and common man, who was justified only because of his superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary. In their opinion the observance of the ceremonial law was altogether necessary, on the ground that they could not be saved by faith in Christ alone and by a corresponding life.

3. There were others, however, besides them, that were of the same name, but avoided the strange and absurd beliefs of the former, and did not deny that the Lord was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit. But nevertheless, inasmuch as they also refused to acknowledge that he pre-existed, being God, Word, and Wisdom, they turned aside into the impiety of the former, especially when they, like them, endeavored to observe strictly the bodily worship of the law.

4. These men, moreover, thought that it was necessary to reject all the epistles of the apostle, whom they called an apostate from the law; and they used only the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews and made small account of the rest.

5. The Sabbath and the rest of the discipline of the Jews they observed just like them, but at the same time, like us, they celebrated the Lord’s days as a memorial of the resurrection of the Saviour.

6. Wherefore, in consequence of such a course they received the name of Ebionites, which signified the poverty of their understanding. For this is the name by which a poor man is called among the Hebrews.

Eusebius Church History Book 3 chapter 27

 

The evidence that we have shows that the Ebionites did reject the virgin birth but this may well have been influenced by their understanding of who the Christ and Jesus were. It was most certainly as a direct result of their rejection of Isaiah and much of the Old Testament.

The Ebionites may not be the best sect on which to base Biblical truth. Their rejection of the Virgin birth does not actually support the claims that the virgin birth is a later addition by the church.

 

If you liked this study please subscribe here

You can buy my books on Amazon there is a link here 

Help me keep this site free for all. Join our Patreon membershiphere