Beware of Fake Ebionites
(in preparation)
More and more books today on Christian origins will mention "Ebionites." Some include work by Maccoby, Ehrman, Tabor, which have people looking at older volumes by Schoeps, Bauer, and others. Some are written for a popular audience who are bored of conventional, nominal religion and want to delve into Jesus as the husband of Miryam Magdala, fathering a daughter and bloodline. The Knights Templar, the ancient Essenes of the Dead Sea Scrolls, esoteric mysteries all pull in a great deal of money and its share of fools. Don't be one of those fools.
The sincere specialist can easily spot the crackpots at "ebionite" sites which have tried to mislead people by grabbing up free domain name extensions like .com, .net, .info, .tv, etc. The Ebionites have no "company" (.com), no network of computer servers (.net), we are literally too poor for such nonsense. The money is in New Age cults and semi-Christian cults, and there will be people ready to reap your spiritual chaos and naiveté just as Christianity does. In our experience these people behind such sites are quite ignorant of the subjects of Christian Origins, Historical Jesus Studies, Biblical Languages, Textual Studies, Textual Criticism, Anthropology and Sociology in relation to ancient times, Judaism/Yahwism, or even History and Bible in general. They certainly have not devoted their lives to living as a real Ebionite for more than 25 years, or the five years of intense study of Ebionitism before that.
Our long presence is a de facto legitimacy, and the Ebionite pretenders very possibly are illegally defaming us. They should cease and desist immediately.
As far as we can ascertain these groups look to be either Christian Messianic, most likely Pentecostal ("non-denominational") in the beginning, and /or "hippie" occultist types. One thing is for sure, except for a few beliefs they have been able to collect from real Ebionitism and other religions, their beliefs are historically untenable. Perhaps in their Christian boredom they looked out here for something they perceive as "cool" or "apostolic" (a favorite pastime for Pentecostal types--they're never satisfied!) and read a book that told something about Ebionitism in which they could relate. "Ebionite" is a suddenly a popular item, but we can assure you it was hardly known or popular 30 years ago at the beginning of Ebionitism's rediscovery. It has not been popular for us these long years facing constant criticism and harassment from Christians. We truly believe that these other sites are Christian attempts to defame and misrepresent and even misdirect people from the Ebionite way of life and religion. Perhaps they are nothing but Christian missionaries deliberately trying to confuse or malign Ebionitism.
We will analyze on this page the fallacies and failings of these new cults claiming to be ebionite.
Were the Ebionites Circumcising Jews?
On a false Ebionite site called ebionite.net the misguided writer, ignorant of scripture and context writes:
Do I have to become “Jewish” or get circumcised to be an Ebionite?
No. Although Yahweh chose the sons of Jacob (the twelve tribes of Israel) as His mashiach (“messiah”, meaning “anointed” of God) to be His messengers, one does not have to become culturally “Jewish” to follow the Law and Commandments of God and receive Yahweh’s forgiveness and salvation. (Isaiah 56:1-8) While the Law and Commandments of God will indeed influence one’s culture, much of Jewish or Hebraic culture is merely man-made tradition.Like the institution of the sacrifices themselves, circumcision was itself an ancient pagan practice that was adopted early within the Jewish faith and later written into the Torah. The act of circumcision makes little sense in light of the fact that our God has instructed His people not to cut or tattoo our bodies. (Leviticus 19:28, 21:5; Deuteronomy 14:1) If circumcision was so important to one’s salvation, then by its very nature, the act excludes half of the population of planet since only males are circumcised. It makes no sense in light of the Character of God who treats all of His created Children with laws and commandments that illustrate equal treatment and justice.
If these statements were not so ignorant and preposterous they would be funny. Today we have Christians who play a game of using the oldest terms in order to place their views with the earliest followers of Jesus. I use Jesus here because we are talking about a Christian phenomenon. And speaking of terms it is strange that the author negates the importance of being "Jewish" but yet needs to use words like mashiach, and "Yahushua" (an odd form which can be traced within Christian sacred name /Pentecostal groups). They seem to think Ebionite means "very first Christian church."
We have to arrive at their criteria for using the name "ebionite." It is either because they like the name, or because they have historical conformity to ancient ebionite practice. Then we have to look at actual ebionite practices, concerning circumcision and Jewishness, witnessed by contemporaries over five to ten centuries, and the worth of the witnesses themselves. We can also look at the biblical references misused by the author and his assumptions based on a defective understanding of scripture. He also uses biblical words, salvation, messiah, culture, equality, in a loaded Christian way.
On what basis does the author claim that circumcision was a pagan practice later inserted into the Torah, and why does he have such a problem with circumcision? Gentiles have always had a problem with b'rit mila, and this is the major reason for the existence of the Christian Church. Greeks and Romans detested circumcision on every level as much as the pagan author. This group claims they do not follow Paul of Tarsus, but use his sensibilities to denounce God's commandment of circumcision as a sign of Covenant. In fact the author might as well quote Paul.
English Christian Bibles they read do not clearly translate the Greek and perhaps purposely disguise Paul's loveless wish.
10 I have confidence in you through the Lord that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be. 11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased. 12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you.
-Galatians 5
The online bible itself shows that the actual word for "they were even cut off" in the AV (apokoptw) means "amputate" while Thayers Lexicon (used by Christians) explains: "ophelon kai apokospontai —I would that they (who urge the necessity of circumcision would not only circumcise themselves, but) would even mutilate themselves (or cut off their privy parts)..."
A better translation is "I wish they who harass you would amputate themselves." In other words, 'I wish the circumcisers would cut off their penises.'
2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. 3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
-Philippians 3
Here the word given as "concision" is Greek katatomh. It means to "cut up, mutilate". Continuing, he mocks circumcision in a hateful wordplay on peritomh, the Greek word for circumcision. "Beware of the hackers, for we are (real) circumcision," captures the sense of the statement. Is it any wonder he describes those in covenant with God (according to His commandment of circumcision as the mark between Him and His own people, Israel) as "dogs" and "workers of evil"? Then he repeats that circumcision —against the word of God Himself—means nothing! He claims the uncircumcised replace God's People. The folks at ebionite.net are as much Pauline as any Christian, and as much hypocrites as Yeshua ever met.
The issue over circumcision was primary, and Paul and his ilk refer to the "Jews" and the "Circumcision" as if they were criminals. These people were circumcising their male sons as the Torah commanded. Circumcision is part of Torah.
Why were the followers of Yeshua so upset when this Paul went to gentiles? According to Christianity's own writings, it was an innovation. Yeshua had told his students to go nowhere to the gentiles; he called gentiles dogs, "little pets" and swine. His followers were Jewish. They were continuing to be Jewish as was Yeshua, circumcising and keeping all the commandments of God. They were demanding that converts become Jews.
The Ebionites were well known as being Torah observant. They are synonymous with the "Circumcision" opponents of Paul who rejected him as an apostle.
The earliest Pauline Church Father, Irenaeus writing of the Evyonim about 180 CE, clearly states that they were Jewish/ Judaic in nature and practiced circumcision as well as the rest of Torah.
Against the Heresies, 1.26
"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 endeavor to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practice 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."
Admitting that the Ebionites did not believe the world was created by a demiurge, a premier Gnostic teaching according to a evil matter vs. spiritual tenet, Irenaeus also shows that Ebionites were not Gnostic. What could be a clearer condemnation of the fake Ebionites at both the .net and .com sites? The only difference between Ebionites and other Jews was their hope in Yeshua as the rightful anointed king with a program that would initiate the destruction of the Gentile powers and usher in a Reign of YHWH. Irenaeus also condemns the Ebionites for rejecting the divine origin of Yeshua, they saying he was only the son of Miryam and Yosef (Adv. Haer., 3.21; 4.33).
Were the Church Fathers irreproachable sources for the characteristics of the Ebionites or anyone else? Irenaeus is a very early witness, but the things he states are found to be simple, real world, descriptions of typically Jewish characteristics stripped of Christian mythology of a group of people who followed Yeshua in a reform type program. And this is exactly the conclusion modern scholars trying to reconstruct the historical Jesus.
Besides the long practice of scholars referring to Ebionites as "Jewish-Christians" (We prefer a more accurate term, "Yeshuine Jews."), it was common knowledge among Church Fathers that the Ebionites were Jewish or Judaic and practiced circumcision, for centuries.
Irenaeus says this above. Tertullian, in de Praescriptione Haereticorum 33, in his poem, Carmen adversus Marcionitas, lists circumcision specifically as an Ebionite practice. Origen says it in his Homilia in Genesim 3.5. So does Jerome in Epitulae 116.16 and in his commentary on Galatians (3.5.3), as does Rufinas' Commentarius in Symbolum 39. Epiphanius is not an accurate source on Ebionites, but even he says the Ebionites circumcised (Panarion 30.2.2).
Elsewhere, in addition to Irenaeus, Origen, in Contra Celsum 5.61, Commitarius in Matthaeum 11.12 (Greek); Hippolytus in Refutatio Omnium Haereses 7.34, 10.22; Eusebius in Historia Ecclesiastica 3.27, 6.17; Jerome in de Situ et Nominibus Locorum Hebraicorum 112, Commentarius in Esiam 1.1.12, and Commentarius in Matthaeum 2.12.2; and Epiphanius Panarion 30.2.2 all say that the Ebionites were Jewish/ observant to Torah.
Why would someone try to claim that you do not need to be Jewish and observant to Torah to be Ebionite? Do they mean you do do not have to be "born Jewish"? Perhaps the author at .net means to say you do not have to be rabbinic. Not all Jews are rabbinic Jews, following the decisions and teachings of the rabbis who have given the Talmud and other literature to the world. The Written Torah, what commandments you will find printed in your Bible in the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, are the core of Judaism while rabbinic literature expands and tries to clarify those commandments.
When the Ebionites say you must practice these written commandments which include the command circumcision of male infants and converts, we are not asking people to become rabbinic Jews following particular customs developed by the rabbis.
During the days of Yeshua and the early Ebionites, the rabbinic codes and customs did not fully exist yet, and so these are not even part of the issue.
Is Circumcision a Pagan Rite Adopted by Jews?
The author from .net cites Isaiah 56:1-8 to somehow reject circumcision and "Judaism."
1 Thus, saith Yahweh, Observe ye justice, And execute righteousness,––For, near, is, My salvation, to come in, and, My righteousness to be revealed.
2 How happy the frail man, who doeth this! Yea the son of the earth–born who firmly graspeth it! Keeping the sabbath, lest he profane it, and, Keeping his own hand, from doing any wrong.
3 And let not the son of the foreigner, who hath joined himself unto Yahweh, speak, saying, Yahweh, will separate, me from his people, Neither let the eunuch, say, Lo! I, am a tree dried up!
4 For, thus, saith Yahweh––Of the eunuchs, Who shall keep my sabbaths, And choose what I delight in,––And lay firm hold on my covenant,
5 That I will give unto them––In my house, And within my walls, A sign and a name, better than sons and daughters,––A name age–abiding, will I give him, which shall not be cut off.
6 And, as for the sons of the foreigner––Who have joined themselves unto Yahweh, To wait upon him, and, To love the name of Yahweh, To become his, for servants,––Every one who keepeth the sabbath, lest he profane it, And who layeth firm hold on my covenant,
7 Surely I will bring them into my holy, mountain, And make them joyful in my house of prayer, Their ascending–offerings and their sacrifices, being accepted upon mine altar,––For, my house, a house of prayer, shall be called, for all the peoples!
8 Declareth My Lord, Yahweh, Who is gathering the outcasts of Israel:––Yet others, will I gather unto him, Besides his own gathered ones.
Okay. Where is the suspension of Torah, including circumcision, in the passage above? Justice? What is that? It is defined by Torah. Laying hold firmly on the Covenant? Torah is the living of Covenant, and circumcision is part of it, and the sign of grabbing hold of Covenant. The Shabbat is the pre-eminent symbol of Torah since no other culture had it. No where is Torah or circumcision put aside. What it does talk about, whether literally or figuratively, are eunuchs--those who were Israelites who had been made eunuchs (damaged, castrated or deformed) were excluded from Temple worship. Gentile eunuchs were not in view because they were excluded, eunuch or not. But this passage is speaking of both repentant Israelites and gentiles becoming "Jews" (Israelites) who would be forgiven of things done as gentiles once they had sought covenant with God. Zechariah speaks of the same thing (14).
The author speaks of "Jewish culture" as unnecessary, but the Torah created Jewish culture; it is Jewish (Yahwistic) culture based on biblical commandments.
They use the command against gashing oneself in mourning rituals and compare the sign of circumcision, a deliberated act sanctified by God, to blood frenzy. Gashing is not the same thing as b'rit milah. I suppose they may reject surgery in hospitals as well.
e...net (I do not want to disgrace our name by associating them with ebionite) takes the position of Paul and his Jew hating gentiles who hated the sign of covenant with YHWH. They use the same arguments as they did. They both say that the Torah is of inferior origin (Paul says "angels" mediated it; these guys say that parts of the Torah were slipped into the Torah and thus can be picked through according to their own preferences); and that circumcision is mutilation, just as Paul and the Hellenistic Greeks and Romans Paul courted did.
Comment on illegally defaming us.
Recently, Ebionite.org has been threatened by one of the new "ebionite" (allegedly ebionite) sites, in this email below.
I am not a lawyer, or running a company to profit on ebionite topics, but I have looked into the matter. Ebionite.org, the Ebionite/Ebionite Jewish Community has been in existence as a religious group since 1985, and on the internet since 1996. Its beliefs, practices, doctrines, research perspectives, etc. have been clearly established and existing since that time. In United States trademark law such usage and existence is proof of establishment. "Ebionite" as an organizational name for trademark would be denied to any other organization based on longstanding use. A "de facto" trademark, such as the identity Ebionite, or Ebionite™, identifying our religious organization and its members for over 20 years, is a protection from others when there is "likelihood of confusion" (see, trademark) in the minds of the consuming public. We, and I personally, have been linked as the modern revival of the Ebionite movement on Wikipedia, and other sites. (Wikipedia removed this reference from its "ebionite" article at my personal request when several years later a pseudo-ebionite group added their own site and information to the article, and this information was repeatedly removed by the authors. I told Wikipedia that I would rather see no links to modern "ebionite" sites than give credence to groups infringing on our name. And so they were then removed.) People going to "knock-off" sites claiming to be Ebionite are confused when they go to these. Using our name, and names so similar to ours is known "trademark dilution." So on this point, it appears that the writer is wrong. Trademark dilution is not any more legal or ethical than setting up a website called "thevatican.com" or the "catholicchurch.org" and teaching against the actual doctrines and beliefs of the Catholic Church and claiming to be legitimate spokesmen for them.
Are these sites defaming us? They are essentially saying that Ebionites are Christians or Gnostics. Defamation used here is a common term, not the legal term. "In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against criticism." If there are legal grounds, according to the legal definition, to sue, and there certainly seem to be, we have not chosen to do so yet. We would rather allow the behavior evidenced by such sites speak for its self.
The author also misdirects the issue.
"The act of challenging your religious scholarship and claim as the de facto supreme leader of the Ebionites in the modern era does not rise to the level of "illegal" nor "defamatory". However, your claim that our benevolent organization is engaging in 'illegal defamation' indeed does cross this line of libelous legality and opens your organization to full liability."
Who said anything about their "act of challenging your religious scholarship and claim as the de facto supreme leader of the Ebionites in the modern era" giving rise to the description of this page saying, "illegally defaming us"? It would be their claim to represent Ebionitism, deliberately confusing and misleading readers, without the historical facts or over 20 years of representing them as has Ebionite.org to establish Ebionitism —that we find offensive, and at the very least commonly unethical. The effect would be the same if a Christian evangelism group started a website using the word "Ebionite" in order to hinder the Ebionite Movement today.
I was told by a lawyer that this libel claim was nonsense. To me, it is another opportunity to reveal these people once again by their own words and unfounded allegations. As the CEO of a publishing company, the person throwing allegations would do better to convert and use his publishing business to print real Ebionite information.