Hope of Israel Ministries (Ecclesia of YEHOVAH):

1st. Century Ebionites: The Original Christians

by Vexen Crabtree

(1) The Nazoreans and Other Hebrew Christians

(2) Ebionites

    (a) The First Recognized Christians in Antiquity
    (b) Ebionite Beliefs
    (c) Adoptionism
    (d) The Easier "Christianity" of the Roman Church Eclipsed the Lawful Ebionites
    (e) Roman "Christians" Go in Search of the Past

(3) The Gospel of Matthew

(4) Roman Christians Edited the Gospels to Make the Ebionites Look Like Heretics

(5) Conclusion and the Demise of the Ebionites

(1). The Nazoreans and Other Hebrew Christians

The very first followers of the Messiah were called the Nazoreans. This was a general name for the Judean followers of the Messiah, but it is unknown to what extent they were actually Christian. They must have known and understood many aspects of the Messiah -- who spoke Aramaic like the Nazoreans -- which are now lost and misunderstood. From 70CE cataclysmic events led to the Nazoreans being dispersed and broken, which led to their demise (except for a brief resurgence in the 2nd century). They were eclipsed by Roman converts to a fake Christ.

Many gentiles (non-Israelites) already called the Nazoreans Christians, but, we still know little about them. The Ebionites are more distinct and had one of the first Christian documents, the Gospel of Matthew. Later Christians moved so far from their roots that they came to no longer recognize the earliest Christians.

“Besides the Ebionites, there were other Jewish Christian sects, such as the Nazarenes, the Symmachians, and the Elkasites, but it is difficult to distinguish one from the other, and the names are not used with any consistency. Ebionite is the most common designation, and it may simply have been a term used to characterize any form of Jewish Christianity with a stress on the observance of Jewish law” (The Encyclopedia of Religion by Eliade Mircea (1987)). [1]

"The Greek epithet Nazoraios is applied to Jesus 14 times in the New Testament, and is used once in Acts to refer to the sect of Christians of which Paul was a leader. It is traditionally translated as 'a man from Nazareth'; the plural Nazoraioi would mean 'men from Nazareth'. The title is first applied to the Christians by Tertullus (Acts 24:5), though Herod Agrippa II (Acts 26:28) uses the term 'Christians' which had first been used at Antioch (Acts 11:26). The name used by Tertullus survives into Mishnaic and modern Hebrew as notzrim a standard Hebrew term for 'Christian', the name also made it into the Quran and modern Arabic as na?ara (plural of na?rani "Christian") via the Syriac dialect.

"Tertullian (c. 160 - c. 220, Against Marcion, 4:8) records that the Jews called Christians 'Nazarenes' from Jesus being a man of Nazareth, though he also makes the connection with Nazarites in Lamentations 4:7. Jerome too records that, in the synagogues, the word 'Nazarenes' was used to describe Christians. Eusebius, around 311 CE, records that the name 'Nazarenes' had formerly been used of Christians. The use relating to a specific 'sect' of Christians does not occur until Epiphanius. According to Arnold Ehrhardt, just as Antioch coined the term Christians, so Jerusalem coined the term Nazarenes, from Jesus of Nazareth.

"The terms 'sect of the Nazarenes' and 'Jesus of Nazareth' both employ the adjective nasraya in the Syrian Aramaic Peshitta, from Nasrat for Nazareth" (Wikipedia -- "Nazarene (sect)").

Also, according to Christopher Partridge --

“Initially a sect of Judaism, Christianity first organized itself in Jerusalem. However, although Jewish Christianity was dominant at first, within 20 years it had moved out into the Gentile (non-Jewish) world” (Encyclopedia of New Religions, Christopher Partridge (2004)) [2]

It is apparent that the Way of the Nazoreans was too difficult for most people. The Letter of James warns: “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it” (2:10). During the first century CE some Hellenists apparently developed a religion in which “Jesus” was far more approachable. Their religion required only belief, not the continual self-denial and way of perfection taught by the Nazoreans (as well as the Essenes, Ebionites, and many other sects).

In the first century CE the Hellenists were already several generations removed from the time of the Messiah. As an offshoot of the Nazoreans, they evidently accommodated Nazorean teachings to the popular mould of the Greek theios aner, “divine man” (cf. Hercules, Orpheus, Apollonius of Tyana, etc). The Hellenists also transferred many of the Messiah’s authentic preachings to awe-inspiring but entirely made-up characters: The fake long-haired Zeus and Apollo of pagan Greek tradition!

(2). Ebionites

(a). The First Recognized Christians in Antiquity

The first Christians were the Judeans who believed that Yeshua was the Israelite Messiah. In his earliest work which mentions the Ebionites, Eusebius, before 313CE, writes that in a village called Choba, "there are Hebrews who believed in Christ, called Ebionites." [3] They used an early Gospel of Matthew, and their beliefs are in accordance with the earliest reports of the gospels of Luke and Matthew, and with Hebrew prophecy.

The term Ebionite "was at first [...] a common name for all Christians, as Epiphanius (d. 403) testifies (Adv. Haer., xxix. 1)." [4] and it was "used by the Christian bishop Irenaeus of Lyons (Gaul) in the late second century to designate a Jewish Christian sect". Although some later Christians thought that it came from a person called Ebion, this is not the correct root of the word. Ebionites may mean "austere ones" but the origin of the term is obscure. [5]

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Ebionite, member of an early ascetic sect of Jewish Christians. The Ebionites were one of several such sects that originated in and around Palestine in the first centuries AD and included the Nazarenes and Elkasites. The name of the sect is from the Hebrew ebyonim, or ebionim ('the poor'); it was not founded, as later Christian writers stated, by a certain Ebion.

"Little information exists on the Ebionites, and the surviving accounts are subject to considerable debate, since they are uniformly derived from the Ebionites’ opponents. The first mention of the sect is in the works of the Christian theologian St. Irenaeus, notably in his Adversus haereses (Against Heresies; c. 180); other sources include the writings of Origen and St. Epiphanius of Constantia. The Ebionite movement may have arisen about the time of the destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (AD 70). Its members evidently left Palestine to avoid persecution and settled in Transjordan (notably at Pella) and Syria and were later known to be in Asia Minor and Egypt. The sect seems to have existed into the 4th century.

"Most of the features of Ebionite doctrine were anticipated in the teachings of the earlier Qumran sect, as revealed in the Dead Sea Scrolls. They believed in one God and taught that Jesus was the Messiah and was the true “prophet” mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:15. They rejected the Virgin Birth of Jesus, instead holding that he was the natural son of Joseph and Mary. The Ebionites believed Jesus became the Messiah because he obeyed the Jewish Law. They themselves faithfully followed the Law, although they removed what they regarded as interpolations in order to uphold their teachings, which included vegetarianism, holy poverty, ritual ablutions, and the rejection of animal sacrifices. The Ebionites also held Jerusalem in great veneration.

"The early Ebionite literature is said to have resembled the Gospel According to Matthew, without the birth narrative. Evidently, they later found this unsatisfactory and developed their own literature -- the Gospel of the Ebionites -- although none of this text has survived" (Encyclopedia Britannica, 4 Jan. 2007).

(b). Ebionite Beliefs

The Ebionites justified all of their beliefs by the example of the Messiah himself: "He was circumcised, observed the Sabbath and celebrated the Jewish festivals, and taught that all the precepts of the law should be observed." [5] Also, they believed the Messiah was the fulfillment of the prophecy found in Deuteronomy 18:15:

"The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me [Moses]  from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear" (NKJV).

Comments Bart Ehrman --

“The Ebionite Christians [...] believed that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah sent from the Jewish God to the Jewish people in fulfillment of the Jewish Scriptures. They also believed that to belong to the people of God, one needed to be Jewish. As a result, they insisted on observing the Sabbath, keeping kosher, and circumcising all males. [...] An early source, Irenaeus, also reports that the Ebionites continued reverence to Jerusalem, evidently by praying in its direction during their daily acts of worship.

"Their insistence on staying (or becoming) Jewish should not seem especially peculiar from a historical perspective, since Jesus and his disciples were Jewish. But the Ebionites' Jewishness did not endear them to most other Christians, who believed that Jesus allowed them to bypass the requirements of the Law for salvation. The Ebionites, however, maintained that their views were authorized by the original disciples, especially by Peter and Jesus' own brother, James, head of the Jerusalem church after the resurrection” (Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman (2003)) [6]

(c). Adoptionism

According to the New World Encyclopedia:

"The Adoptionist view may date back almost to the time of Jesus. In academic circles some consider both the Apostle Paul and the Gospel of Mark to have Adoptionist Christologies. Jesus appears to be a mere human until a dramatic event or process changes him into a divine being. In Mark 1, Jesus is baptized by John the Baptist for the forgiveness of sins. God then declares him to be his Son. In Paul, Jesus is born as any Jew, under the law, but becomes divine after his resurrection. Orthodox Christians, of course, do not concur with this interpretation of Mark's and Paul's writings.

"In the second century, Adoptionism was one of two well known competing doctrines about the nature of Jesus Christ. The other, based on the Gospel of John, was that he pre-existed as a divine spirit (Logos). According to the nineteenth century biblical scholar Adolf von Harnack, the competing views were that:

"Jesus was either [a] regarded as the man whom God had chosen, in whom the Deity or the Spirit of God dwelt, and who, after being tested, was adopted by God and invested with dominion; or [b] Jesus was regarded as a heavenly spiritual being (the highest after God) who took flesh, and again returned to heaven after the completion of his work on earth" (New World Encyclopedia -- "Adoptionism").

“The very first Christians, the Ebionites [7], Nazorenes, Gnostic Christians and others, were all adoptionists. In accordance with the first hundred years of Christian belief and with the oldest manuscripts of the Bible, Jesus was born in a normal way like the rest of us, to his parents, Joseph and Mary, from the line of David as prophesized (Matt. 1:1,9:27, Luke 1:32, John 7:41-3, Acts 13:23, 2 Tim. 2:8, Rev. 5:5 and 22:16). Jesus kept God's laws so well that on his baptism, God adopted him as his son (as per Matt. 3:16, Mark 1:9-10 and Luke 3:22. In older manuscripts Luke 3:22 quotes Psalm 2:7: 'You are my Son, today I have begotten you'), and sent him to the cross as a truly innocent, perfect sacrifice, to atone for the sins of all mankind [actually, all of Israel -- not the entire world], to fulfill promises made in the Jewish scriptures.

"God signaled to the world that this sacrifice had been accepted by raising Jesus from the dead and raising him up directly into heaven. The doctrine of the Virgin Birth, so popular amongst Roman mystery religions and paganism at the time, was never accepted by adoptionists [1]. It was only hundreds of years later when the concept of the Trinity was codified by the Pauline [?]/Cappadocian Christians that adoptionist beliefs became condemned; yet, it represented the truer and original form of Christian belief” [8] (Christian Adoptionism and the Baptism of Jesus Christ: Centuries of Belief Before the Trinity by Vexen Crabtree (2011)).

The first known exponent of Adoptionism in the second century is Theodotus of Byzantium. He taught, according to Hippolytus of Rome, that the Messiah lived like other men, and was most pious. At his baptism in the Jordan the holy spirit of YEHOVAH God came down upon him in the likeness of a dove. Only after this could he perform miracles. This belief was declared heretical by Pope Victor I of the Roman Church (last decade of the second century CE).

The widely read second-century work Shepherd of Hermas also taught that the Messiah was a virtuous man filled with the holy spirit who was later adopted by YEHOVAH God:

"When [the fleshly body of the Messiah] had lived honorably in chastity, and had labored with the spirit, and had cooperated with it in everything, behaving itself boldly and bravely, He chose it as a partner with the holy spirit; for the career of this flesh pleased [the LORD], seeing that, as possessing the holy spirit, it was not defiled upon the earth. He therefore took the son as adviser…" (Shepherd of Hermas, translated by J. B. Lightfoot. www.earlychristianwritings.com).

In the third century, Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch, was a well known promoter of a form of Adoptionism. He said that the Messiah was a man who kept himself sinless and thereby achieved union with YEHOVAH God. Among teachings ascribed to him were: 'The Savior became holy and just; and by struggle and hard work overcame the sins of our forefather. By these means he succeeded in perfecting himself, and was through his moral excellence united with God… ' In 269 CE, 70 bishops, priests, and deacons -- of the Roman Catholic Church -- assembled at Antioch and deposed Paul as bishop, although he was able to retain his position for several years due to his political connections.

By the time of the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea (323) Adoptionism had been replaced by Arianism as the chief heresy against which the Orthodox party fought. However, the language of the Nicean Creed, in dealing with Arianism, also ruled out Adoptionism by affirming that the Messiah is "begotten of the Father the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father."

In Roman Christianity, the Messiah died for rather mystical reasons. It does not make sense to state that the Messiah died so that people could know the Messiah -- as worthy people such as Moses existed before the Messiah ever lived. Nor does it make sense to say that the Messiah died so YEHOVAH God could forgive, or lower the wages of sin: YEHOVAH could do that whenever it pleased Him. Ebionite Christianity did not suffer these problems: Animal sacrifices were made to God but were never perfect; only when (finally) a human who followed the Law perfectly sacrificed himself, was the ultimate sacrifice made, thus ending the need for routine animal sacrifices [6]. This simple and old Christian belief makes a lot of sense, without managing to introduce further complexities or scriptural contradictions, whereas the Christianity we know today struggles to explain why the Messiah was sacrificed at all.

(d). The Easier Christianity of the Roman Church Eclipsed the Lawful Ebionites

Ebionite Christianity did not remain the only form of Christianity. Simon Magus and his followers preached that the Mosaic Law was no longer necessary for salvation. This less strict form of Christianity gained many converts, especially amongst the gentiles (non-Hebrews), for whom circumcision was distasteful. The Ebionites repeatedly condemned Simon as his preachings gained support, because of his denigration of YEHOVAH's Law and the Ebionites considered all of his writings to be dangerous sources of sinful living. [5]

Other Christian groups arose who rejected the Hebrew foundation of true Christianity. Bart Ehrman in Lost Christianities [9] provides a detailed description of the history of many early Christian groups:

“We know of Christian groups taking stands on Judaism that were at polar ends of the spectrum, some groups insisting that the Jewish Law was to be followed for salvation and others insisting that the Jewish Law could not be followed if one wanted salvation. All of these groups claimed to be representing the view of Jesus himself” (Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman (2003)) [6]

(e). Roman "Christians" Go in Search of the Past

The success and popularity of these new groups caused the Ebionites to be eclipsed, and Roman Christianity as we know it today flourished. This developing Church, and its founders, largely forgot and rejected the Hebrew roots of their religion. But, curious Christians later wanted to know things that they did not know, for example when was the Messiah born, and when did he die? So they went in search of their past.

“Indeed, when in 160 Bishop Melito of Sardis went to Judea to discover what had become of the legendary Jerusalem Church, to his dismay he found not the descendants of the apostles, but instead a small group of [...] Christians, who called themselves the Ebionites or 'Poor Men', [who] had their own Gospel of the Ebionites and also a Gospel of the Hebrews, a Gospel of the Twelve Apostles and a Gospel of the Nazarenes. All of these gospels differed significantly from the gospels of the New Testament” (The Jesus Mysteries by Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (1999)) [10]

This is not the only time that Church elders went in search of their history, only to discover that what they found was not what they expected. They did not realize that over time their religion had changed, the same as with all other religious groups in history. They discovered that the beliefs of the early Ebionite Christians differed from those of their own developing Roman Church.

(3). The Gospel of Matthew

Examining all the evidence, we conclude that the New Testament was inspired in Hebrew (or Aramaic) and then later translated into Greek. The testimony to this is voluminous and logical. One needs only to consider that the writers were themselves Hebrews, and "while the language is Greek, the thoughts and idioms are Hebrew" (Companion Bible, appendix 94).

The inquiring Bible student soon realizes that the New Testament is undeniably Hebrew in grammar, idiom, and thinking. This opens up a whole new understanding of the essence of truth for the New Testament believer. If the New Testament is rooted in the Hebrew Language, then its teachings also derive from the Hebrew culture and are embedded in the Hebrew -- and not pagan Greek -- view of truth. Those who would object to this reality must be asked the question, does arguing for a Greek New Testament bring one closer to the truth, or take one further from it, knowing that the Old Testament is a thoroughly Hebrew work?

Is the New Testament a complete replacement of Old Testament teachings, with entirely new truth flavored with Hellenistic thought, practice, and understanding? Not according to the Apostle Paul. He wrote that the New Testament is built on the foundation of the Old Testament prophets as well as the apostles, Ephesians 2:20-21:

"...and you have been built up upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, while Christ Jesus himself is the foundation cornerstone. In union with him the whole building, being harmoniously joined together, is growing into a holy temple for [Y]Jehovah" (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures).

The Messiah also gave the directive to "search the Scriptures," John 5:39. The only "scriptures" extant at that time were those of the Old Testament. The New Testament writings were not yet finished and compiled.

In His parable of Lazarus, the Messiah again advised the unknowing to listen to "Moses and the prophets," meaning the Old Testament, Luke 16:29. It was these same Old Testament Scriptures that the "noble Bereans" used to establish truth in Acts 17:11, and the very ones Paul told Timothy would make one perfect, 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

"Now the latter [Bereans] were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so..." (Acts 17:11, ibid.).

"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-127, ibid.).

A peculiar discrepancy within the New Testament is this: if the New Testament were originally composed in Greek, why does it contain many untranslated Hebrew words? Why did the writers go to all the trouble of preserving Hebrew terms in their Greek writings? The only valid explanation is that the Greek language had no equivalent words for these uniquely Hebrew terms taken from an original Hebrew text and translated into Greek. These Hebrew survivals attest to a Hebrew original -- and a Greek (and English) translation that brought them across unchanged from the Hebrew.

Even more compelling evidence for a New Testament originally composed in Hebrew is found in the clear Hebrew word order extant in the New Testament. Many sentences contain the verb-noun reversal common to Hebrew and Semitic languages. Scholars also have long recognized that the grammar of the New Testament does not befit good Greek, but does reflect excellent Hebrew grammar. In addition, many Hebraic idioms and expressions are scattered throughout the New Testament. Had the original been composed in Greek, these sayings would have been put into Greek form and expression.

With this in mind, it is evident that the Gospel of Matthew, utilized by the Ebionites and other groups of the time, was in its original Hebrew form.

It is logical to believe that the Gospel of Matthew came to us in three phases. First, the apostle Matthew wrote the teachings of the Messiah in Aramaic. Then, Matthew added the miracles and deeds of the Messiah to his Aramaic and/or Hebrew edition of his Gospel adding his eyewitness testimony and the testimony of Simon Peter as found in Mark’s Gospel. Finally, either Matthew himself or a highly trained scribe translated the Gospel in Greek.

Scholars acknowledge that Matthew’s name was associated with the First Gospel from the earliest times. The writers of the CSB Study Bible denote that “the title that ascribes this Gospel to Matthew appears in the earliest manuscripts and is possibly original. Titles became necessary to distinguish one Gospel from another when the four Gospels began to circulate as a single collection.”

It is certainly reasonable to accept that Matthew was written in the 50s due to the reasonable assumption that Acts was finished before 64CE, with Luke coming before Acts, and Matthew writing his Gospel before Luke’s. Scholars generally hold that Matthew composed his Gospel in or around Antioch of Syria. It was written before the fall of the Jerusalem Temple in 70CE and went through several versions, probably edited by different authors, until it reached its final Greek form by the 3rd century. The first two chapters, the birth of the Messiah and the genealogy, were not found in the early versions.

The Ebionites had a very early version of the Gospel of Matthew. There were many versions and editions of the gospels in the early years of Christianity. The Ebionites, being such an early group of Christians, had access to the earlier, less edited, version of Matthew.

“Their own version of Matthew, however, may have been a translation of the text from Aramaic. Jesus himself spoke Aramaic 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” (Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman (2003)) [6]

(4). Roman Christians Edited the Gospels to Make the Ebionites Look Like Heretics [14]

Early scribes were not beyond editing the text in order to prove their own views or to disprove the views of others. When the later Roman Christians went in search of their own history and discovered the Ebionites, they found that their Hebrew and adoptionist beliefs were different to their own [10]. They could not accept that they were the ones who had deviated from the truth. So, first, they set out to discredit and disprove the Ebionites in literature. Secondly, they burnt all the Ebionites' books.

Luke was edited in three places. Luke 2:33 and Luke 2:48 both contain verses that state that Joseph was Messiah's father. At least, that is what is said in the oldest manuscripts:

"Yeshua's father and mother were marveling at the things Shimon was saying about him. Shimon blessed them and said to the child's mother, Miryam..." (Luke 2:33, Jewish New Testament).

"When his [Yeshua's] parents saw him, they were shocked; and his mother said to him, 'Son! Why have you done this to us? Your father and I have been terribly worried looking for you!'" (Luke 2:48. ibid.).

"Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead" (Romans 1:3-4).

"Jesus Christ of the seed of David...." (II Timothy 2:8).

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus" (I Timothy 2:5).

Verses such as Luke 2:33, and others, supported the Ebionite Christians' belief in adoptionism. Strangely, in some later manuscripts Luke 2:33 and Luke 2:48 both had the word "father" edited out although over half of our bibles today have thankfully reverted to the original version. Luke 3:22, where YEHOVAH God clearly says that He is adopting the Messiah, was also edited so that it did not say so. "This is one proto-orthodox alteration that proved remarkably successful. Even though the potentially dangerous ('heretical') form of the text is found in virtually all our oldest witnesses [...] it is the altered form of the text that is found in the majority of surviving manuscripts and reproduced in most of our English translations." [15]

"...and the holy spirit in bodily shape like a dove came down upon him [the Messiah], and a voice came out of heaven: 'You are My Son, the beloved; I have approved you.' Furthermore, Jesus himself, when he commenced his work, was about thirty years old, being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli" (Luke 3:22-23, The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures).

Later editors "mistranslated" Isaiah 7:14 in the Septuagint and handily turned the prophecy that a young woman would have a child, to a prophecy that a virgin would have a child. This was used heavily in the debate against the Ebionites and other adoptionists by later Christians.

Matthew, in chapter 1, verses 22 and 23, explains that the event which is to take place is the fulfillment of a prophecy in Isaiah (7:14) regarding a "virgin" who would bring forth a son. This explanation is based upon a MISTRANSLATION. Matthew (or rather the author of the first two books of Matthew) is quoting from the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament. In the original Hebrew the word "almah" is used, and this word means only a "young woman." In the Greek text the word "parthenos" (virgin) is used, but probably only in its metaphorical sense.

The original prophecy merely foretold that SOME young woman would give birth to a son from whom great things might be expected. The Hebrew word for "virgin" is frequently used in the Old Testament and would, presumably, have been used in this passage of Isaiah if a virgin had really been meant! But the word for "young woman" having actually been used, the misleading translation in the Septuagint cannot give the "prophecy" a new meaning.

(5). Conclusion and the Demise of the Ebionites

The Ebionites were some of the original Christians: Hebrews who believed that Yeshua was the Messiah. They populated the legendary Jerusalem Church. "Ebionite" was sometimes used as a term to describe all Christians [4]. Those who we now know of as Roman Christians opposed the Ebionites, after discovering them and realizing that their beliefs differed. Authors such as Tertullian, Origen of Alexandria, and many other intolerant "heresy-hunters" wrote at great length against the Ebionites. Many of the claims made against them were based on misunderstandings of their beliefs, and many anti-Ebionite claims were plainly ridiculous. Roman Christians eradicated the Ebionites, burning all of their books (none survived) and harassing and arresting the people until none were left.

They edited Luke 2:33 and Luke 2:48 where Joseph was twice called the "father" of the Messiah so that it did not say so, and they also edited Luke 3:22 where it plainly stated, in accordance with Ebionite beliefs, that YEHOVAH God adopted the Messiah. Roman Christians, as non-Hebrew Romans, handily came across a mistranslated prophecy that said the Messiah would be born of a virgin (like other Roman sons-of-gods), adding a whole two chapters to the beginning of Matthew to prove their point. These edits, when they were uncovered, have shown that the Ebionites were treated very cruelly and unfairly, and that the original readings of Matthew and Luke both support Ebionite Christianity, rather than the Roman Christianity that the West has inherited.

If we were to guess which group was the more austere, holy and godly, we would have to guess it was the Ebionites rather than the Roman Christians who slaughtered, slandered and oppressed them. Unfortunately the victors get to write history, and it is Roman "Christianity" that became the legacy of the Roman Empire. After the fourth century, the Ebionites were vanquished.

References:

Ehrman, Bart
(2003) Lost Christianities. Published by Oxford University Press, New York, USA. A hardback book.
(2011) Forged. Subtitled: "Writing in the Name of God -- Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are". Published by HarperCollins, New York, USA. A hardback book.

Eliade, Mircea
(1987, Ed.) The Encyclopedia of Religion. Published by Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, USA. 16 huge volumes. Eliade is editor-in-chief. Entries are alphabetical, so, no page numbers are given in references, just article titles. A hardback book.

Freke, Timothy & Gandy, Peter
(1999) The Jesus Mysteries. 2000 edition. Published by Thorsons, London, UK. A paperback book. Book Review.

Partridge, Christopher
(2004, Ed.) Encyclopedia of New Religions. Published by Lion Publishing, Oxford, UK. A hardback book.

Price, Robert M.
(2003) Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition?. Published by Prometheus Books, NY, USA

Stern, David H.
(1994) Jewish New Testament. Published by Jewish New Testament Publications, Jerusalem, Israel.

The Bible (NIV). The NIV is the best translation for accuracy whilst maintaining readability. Multiple authors, a compendium of multiple previously published books. I prefer to take quotes from the NIV but where I quote the Bible en masse I must quote from the KJV because it is not copyrighted, whilst the NIV is.

The Companion Bible

The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures
(1969) Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, USA.

The New King James Version of the Bible
(1983) Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Camden, New York.

Footnotes:

[1] Eliade (1987). Volume 4 entry "Eastern Christianity".

[2] Partridge (2004). p.27.

[3] Gregory C. Finley's essay The Ebionites and "Jewish Christianity": Examining Heresy and the Attitudes of Church Fathers (2009), held by the Faculty of the Program in Church History, School of Theology and Religious Studies of the Catholic University of America. He refers to Eusebius' work Omon., page 289 of the Greek text.

[4] www.earlychurch.org.uk, The Ebionites or the 'Poor Ones', website accessed 2006 Aug 10.

[5] Eliade (1987) Volume 4 entry "Eastern Christianity". Added to this page on 2012 Dec 28.

[6] Ehrman (2003). Chapter 5 At Polar Ends of the Spectrum: Early Christian Ebionites and Marcionites p.99-102.

[7] Price (2003). Chapter 4 Jesus and John the Baptist.

[8] Ehrman (2003). Chapter 5 At Polar Ends of the Spectrum: Early Christian Ebionites and Marcionites p.99-102. . A masterful summary of the case for Ebionite adoptionism.

[9] Ehrman (2003).

[10] Freke & Gandy (1999). p.212.

[11] Ehrman (2011). p.248.

[12] Ehrman (2011). p.225.

[13] Ehrman (2011). p.228.

[14] Added to this page on 2006 Jul 11.

[15] Ehrman (2003). Chapter 10 Additional Weapons in the Polemical Arsenal: Forgeries and Falsifications p.222.

[16] Eliade (1987).

[17] 2012 Dec 28: Summarized the texts on adoptionism in Matthew and in Luke, replacing them with a single section on adoptionism in general (taken from my page on adoptionism), and edited and reorganized most the rest of the text.

-- Edited by John D. Keyser.

Hope of Israel Ministries -- Preaching the Truth of YEHOVAH God to the Modern Descendants of Ancient Israel!

Hope of Israel Ministries P.O. Box 853 Azusa, CA 91702, USA www.hope-of-israel.org

Scan with your Smartphone for more information