[Footnote 417: Dialogue 47.]

[Footnote 418: Yet it should be noted that the Christians who, according to Dial. 48, denied the pre-existence of Christ and held him to be a man, are described as Jewish Christians. We should read in the pa.s.sage in question, as my recent comparison of the Parisian codex shews, [Greek: apo tou umeterou genous]. Yet Justin did not make this a controversial point of great moment.]

[Footnote 419: The so-called Barnabas is considerably older than Justin.

In his Epistle (4. 6) he has in view Gentile Christians who have been converted by Jewish Christians, when he utters a warning against those who say [Greek: hoti a diatheke ekeinon] (the Jews) [Greek: kai hemon (estin)]. But how great the actual danger was cannot be gathered from the Epistle. Ignatius in two Epistles (ad Magn. 8-10, ad Philad. 6. 9) opposes Jewish Christian intrigues, and characterises them solely from the point of view that they mean to introduce the Jewish observance of the law. He opposes them with a Pauline idea (Magn. 8 1: [Greek: ei gar mechri nun kata nomon. Ioudaismon zomen h.o.m.ologoumen charin me eilephenai]), as well as with the common Gentile Christian a.s.sumption that the prophets themselves had already lived [Greek: kata Christon].

These Judaists must be strictly distinguished from the Gnostics whom Ignatius elsewhere opposes (against Zahn, Ignat. v. Ant. p. 356 f.). The dangers from this Jewish Christianity cannot have been very serious, even if we take Magn. 11. 1, as a phrase. There was an active Jewish community in Philadelphia (Rev. III. 9), and so Jewish Christian plots may have continued longer there. At the first look it seems very promising that in the old dialogue of Aristo of Pella, a Hebrew Christian, Jason, is put in opposition to the Alexandrian Jew, Papiscus.

But as the history of the little book proves, this Jason must have essentially represented the common Christian and not the Ebionite conception of the Old Testament and its relation to the Gospel, etc; see my Texte u. Unters. I. 1 2. p. 115 ff.; I. 3 p. 115-130. Testimony as to an apostasy to Judaism is occasionally though rarely given; see Serapion in Euseb., H. E. VI. 12, who addresses a book to one Domninus, [Greek: ekpeptokota para ton tou diogmou kairon apo tes eis Christon pisteos epi ten Ioudaiken ethelothreskeian]; see also Acta Pionii, 13. 14. According to Epiphanius, de mens. et pond. 14, 15, Acquila, the translator of the Bible, was first a Christian and then a Jew. This account is perhaps derived from Origen, and is probably reliable. Likewise according to Epiphanius (l. c. 17. 18), Theodotion was first a Marcionite and then a Jew. The transition from Marcionitism to Judaism (for extremes meet) is not in itself incredible.]

[Footnote 420: It follows from c. Cels II. 1-3, that Celsus could hardly have known Jewish Christians.]

[Footnote 421: Iren. I. 26. 2; III 11. 7; III. 15. 1, 21. 1; IV. 33. 4; V. 1. 3. We first find the name Ebionaei, the poor, in Irenaeus. We are probably ent.i.tled to a.s.sume that this name was given to the Christians in Jerusalem as early as the Apostolic age, that is, they applied it to themselves (poor in the sense of the prophets and of Christ, fit to be received into the Messianic kingdom). It is very questionable whether we should put any value on Epiph. h. 30. 17.]

[Footnote 422: When Irenaeus adduces as the points of distinction between the Church and the Ebionites, that besides observing the law and repudiating the Apostle Paul, the latter deny the Divinity of Christ and his birth from the Virgin, and reject the New Testament Canon (except the Gospel of Matthew), that only proves that the formation of dogma has made progress in the Church. The less was known of the Ebionites from personal observation, the more confidently they were made out to be heretics who denied the Divinity of Christ and rejected the Canon. The denial of the Divinity of Christ and the birth from the Virgin was, from the end of the second century, regarded as the Ebionite heresy _par excellence_, and the Ebionites themselves appeared to the Western Christians, who obtained their information solely from the East, to be a school like those of the Gnostics, founded by a scoundrel named Ebion for the purpose of dragging down the person of Jesus to the common level. It is also mentioned incidentally, that this Ebion had commanded the observance of circ.u.mcision and the Sabbath; but that is no longer the main thing (see Tertull, de carne 14, 18, 24: de virg. vel. 6: de praescr. 10. 33; Hippol, Syntagma, (Pseudo-Tertull, 11; Philastr. 37; Epiph. h. 30); Hippol, Philos. VII. 34. The latter pa.s.sage contains the instructive statement that Jesus by his perfect keeping of the law became the Christ). This att.i.tude of the Western Christians proves that they no longer knew Jewish Christian communities. Hence it is all the more strange that Hilgenfeld (Ketzergesch. p. 422 ff.) has in all earnestness endeavoured to revive the Ebion of the Western Church Fathers.]

[Footnote 423: See Orig. c. Cels II. 1; V. 61, 65; de princip. IV. 22; hom. in Genes. III. 15 (Opp. II. p. 65); hom. in Jerem XVII. 12 (III. p.

254); in Matth. T. XVI. 12 (III. p. 494), T. XVII. 12 (III. p. 733); cf.

Opp. III. p. 895; hom in XVII. (III. p. 952). That a portion of the Ebionites recognised the birth from the Virgin was according to Origen frequently attested. That was partly reckoned to them for righteousness and partly not, because they would not admit the pre-existence of Christ. The name "Ebionites" is interpreted as a nickname given them by the Church ("beggarly" in the knowledge of scripture, and particularly of Christology).]

[Footnote 424: Eusebius knows no more than Origen (H. E. III. 27), unless we specially credit him with the information that the Ebionites keep along with the Sabbath also the Sunday. What he says of Symmachus, the translator of the Bible, and an Ebionite, is derived from Origen (H.

E. VI. 17). The report is interesting, because it declares that Symmachus _wrote_ against Catholic Christianity, especially against the Catholic Gospel of Matthew (about the year 200). But Symmachus is to be cla.s.sed with the Gnostics, and not with the common type of Jewish Christianity (see below). We have also to thank Eusebius (H. E. III. 5.

3) for the information that the Christians of Jerusalem fled to Pella, in Peraea, before the destruction of that city. In the following period the most important settlements of the Ebionites must have been in the countries east of the Jordan, and in the heart of Syria (see Jul. Afric.

in Euseb. H. E. I. 7. 14; Euseb. de loc. hebr. in Lagarde, Onomast p.

301; Epiph., h. 29. 7; h. 30. 2). This fact explains how the bishops in Jerusalem and the coast towns of Palestine came to see very little of them. There was a Jewish Christian community in Beroea with which Jerome had relations (Jerom., de Vir inl 3).]

[Footnote 425: Jerome correctly declares (Ep. ad. August. 122 c. 13, Opp. I. p. 746), "(Ebionitae) credentes in Christo propter hoc solum a patribus anathematizati sunt, quod legis caeremonias Christi evangelio miscuerunt, et sic nova confessi sunt, ut vetera non omitterent."]

[Footnote 426: Ep. ad August. l. c.: "Quid dicam de Hebionitis, qui Christianos esse se simulant? usque hodie per totas orientis synagogas inter Judaeos(!) haeresis est, que dicitur Minaeorum et a Pharisaeis nunc usque d.a.m.natur, quos vulgo Nazaraeos nuncupant, qui credunt in Christum filium dei natum de Virgine Maria et eum dic.u.n.t esse, qui sub pontio Pilato pa.s.sus est et resurrexit, in quem et nos credimus; sed dum volunt et Judaei esse et Christiani, nec Judaei sunt nec Christiani." The approximation of the Jewish Christian conception to that of the Catholics shews itself also in their exposition of Isaiah IX. 1. f. (see Jerome on the pa.s.sage). But we must not forget that there were such Jewish Christians from the earliest times. It is worthy of note that the name Nazarenes, as applied to Jewish Christians, is found in the Acts of the Apostles XXIV. 5, in the Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus, and then first again in Jerome.]

[Footnote 427: Zahn, l. c. p. 648 ff. 668 ff. has not convinced me of the contrary, but I confess that Jerome's style of expression is not everywhere clear.]

[Footnote 428: Zahn, (l. c.) makes a sharp distinction between the Nazarenes, on the one side, who used the Gospel of the Hebrews, acknowledged the birth from the Virgin, and in fact the higher Christology to some extent, did not repudiate Paul, etc., and the Ebionites on the other, whom he simply identifies with the Gnostic Jewish Christians, if I am not mistaken. In opposition to this, I think I must adhere to the distinction as given above in the text and in the following: (1) Non-Gnostic, Jewish Christians (Nazarenes, Ebionites) who appeared in various shades, according to their doctrine and att.i.tude to the Gentile Church, and whom, with the Church Fathers, we may appropriately cla.s.sify as strict or tolerant (exclusive or liberal). (2) Gnostic or syncretistic Judaeo-Christians who are also termed Ebionites.]

[Footnote 429: This Gospel no doubt greatly interested the scholars of the Catholic Church from Clement of Alexandria onwards. But they have almost all contrived to evade the hard problem which it presented. It may be noted, incidentally, that the Gospel of the Hebrews, to judge from the remains preserved to us, can neither have been the model nor the translation of our Matthew, but a work independent of this, though drawing from the same sources, representing perhaps to some extent an earlier stage of the tradition. Jerome also knew very well that the Gospel of the Hebrews was not the original of the canonical Matthew, but he took care not to correct the old prejudice. Ebionitic conceptions, such as that of the female nature of the Holy Spirit, were of course least likely to convince the Church Fathers. Moreover, the common Jewish Christians hardly possessed a Church theology, because for them Christianity was something entirely different from the doctrine of a school. On the Gospel of the Hebrews, see Handmann (Texte u. Unters V.

3), Resch, Agrapha (I. c. V. 4), and Zahn, 1. c. p. 642 ff.]

[Footnote 430: We have as yet no history of the sacrificial system, and the views as to sacrifice in the Graeco-Roman epoch, of the Jewish Nation. It is urgently needed.]

[Footnote 431: We may remind readers of the a.s.sumptions, that the world was created by angels, that the law was given by angels, and similar ones which are found in the theology of the Pharisees Celsus (in Orig.

I. 26; V. 6) a.s.serts generally that the Jews worshipped angels, so does the author of the Praedicatio Petri, as well as the apologist Aristides.

Cf Joel, Blicke in die Religionsgesch I. Abth, a book which is certainly to be used with caution (see Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1881. Coll. 184 ff.).]

[Footnote 432: No reliance can be placed on Jewish sources, or on Jewish scholars, as a rule. What we find in Joel, l. c. I. Abth. p. 101 ff. is instructive. We may mention Gratz, Gnosticismus und Judenthum (Krotoschin, 1846), who has called attention to the Gnostic elements in the Talmud, and dealt with several Jewish Gnostics and Antignostics, as well as with the book of Jezira. Gratz a.s.sumes that the four main dogmatic points in the book Jezira, viz., the strict unity of the deity, and, at the same time, the negation of the demiurgic dualism, the creation out of nothing with the negation of matter, the systematic unity of the world and the balancing of opposites, were directed against prevailing Gnostic ideas.]

[Footnote 433: We may pa.s.s over the false teachers of the Pastoral Epistles, as they cannot be with certainty determined, and the possibility is not excluded that we have here to do with an arbitrary construction; see Holtzman, Pastoralbriefe, p. 150 f.]

[Footnote 434: Orig. in Euseb. VI. 38; Hippol., Philos. IX. 13 ff., X.

29; Epiph., h. 30, also h. 19, 53; Method, Conviv. VIII. 10. From the confused account of Epiphanius who called the common Jewish Christians Nazarenes, the Gnostic type Ebionites and Sampsaei, and their Jewish forerunners Osseni, we may conclude, that in many regions where there were Jewish Christians they yielded to the propaganda of the Elkesaite doctrines, and that in the fourth century there was no other syncretistic Jewish Christianity besides the various shades of Elkesaites.]

[Footnote 435: I formerly reckoned Symmachus, the translator of the Bible, among the common Jewish Christians; but the statements of Victorinus Rhetor on Gal. I. 19. II. 26 (Migne T. VIII. Col. 1155, 1162) shew that he has a close affinity with the Pseudo-Clementines, and is also to be cla.s.sed with the Elkesaite Alcibiades. "Nam Jacob.u.m apostolum Symmachiani faciunt quasi duodecimum et hunc sec.u.n.tur, qui ad dominum nostrum Jesum Christum adjungunt Judaismi observationem, quamquam etiam Jesum Christum fatentur; dic.u.n.t enim eum ipsum Adam esse et esse animam generalem, et aliae hujusmodi blasphemiae." The account given by Eusebius, H. E. VI. 17 (probably on the authority of Origen, see also Demonstr.

VII. I) is important: [Greek: Ton ge men hermeneuton auton de touton histeon, Ebionaion ton Summachon gegonenai ... kai hupomnemata de tou Summachou eiseti nun pheretai, hen ois dokei pros to kata Matuaion apoteinomenos euaggelion ten dedelomenen airesin kratunein.] Symmachus therefore adopted an aggressive att.i.tude towards the great Church, and hence we may probably cla.s.s him with Alcibiades who lived a little later. Common Jewish Christianity was no longer aggressive in the second century.]

[Footnote 436: Wellhausen (l. c. Part III. p. 206) supposes that Elkesai is equivalent to Alexius. That the receiver of the "book" was a historical person is manifest from Epiphanius' account of his descendants (h. 19. 2; 53. 1). From Hipp, Philosoph. IX. 16, p. 468, it is certainly probable, though not certain, that the book was produced by the unknown author as early as the time of Trajan. On the other hand, the existence of the sect itself can be proved only at the beginning of the third century, and therefore we have the possibility of an ante-dating of the "book." This seems to have been Origen's opinion.]

[Footnote 437: Epiph. (h. 53. 1) says of the Elkesaites: [Greek: oute christianoi huparchontes oute Ioudaioi oute Ellenes, alla meson aplos uparchontes.] He p.r.o.nounces a similar judgment as to the Samaritan sects (Simonians), and expressly (h. 30. 1) connects the Elkesaites with them.]

[Footnote 438: The worship paid to the descendants of this Elkesai, spoken of by Epiphanius, does not, if we allow for exaggerations, go beyond the measure of honour which was regularly paid to the descendants of prophets and men of G.o.d in the East. Cf. the respect enjoyed by the blood relations of Jesus and Mohammed.]

[Footnote 439: If the "book" really originated in the time of Trajan, then its production keeps within the frame-work of common Christianity, for at that time there were appearing everywhere in Christendom revealed books which contained new instructions and communications of grace. The reader may be reminded, for example, of the Shepherd of Hermas. When the sect declared that the "book" was delivered to Elkesai by a male and a female angel, each as large as a mountain, that these angels were the Son of G.o.d and the Holy Spirit, etc., we have, apart from the fantastic colouring, nothing extraordinary.]

[Footnote 440: It may be a.s.sumed from Philos. X. 29, that, in the opinion of Hippolytus, the Elkesaites identified the Christ from above with the Son of G.o.d, and a.s.sumed that this Christ appeared on earth in changing and purely human forms, and will appear again ([Greek: auton metangizomenon en somasi pollois pollakis, kai nun de en to Iesou, h.o.m.oios pote men ek tou theou gegenesthai, pote de pneuma gegonenai, pote de ek parthenou, pote de ou kai toutou de metepeita aei en somati metangizesthai kai en pollois kata kairous deiknusthai]). As the Elkesaites (see the account by Epiphanius) traced back the incarnations of Christ to Adam, and not merely to Abraham, we may see in this view of history the attempt to transform Mosaism into the universal religion.

But the Pharisitic theology had already begun with these Adam-speculations, which are always a sign that the religion in Judaism is feeling its limits too narrow. The Jews in Alexandria were also acquainted with these speculations.]

[Footnote 441: In the Gospel of these Jewish Christians Jesus is made to say (Epiph. h. 30. 16) [Greek: elthon katalusai tas thusias, kai ean me pausesthe tou thuein, ou pausetai aph' humon he orge]. We see the essential progress of this Jewish Christianity within Judaism, in the opposition in principle to the whole sacrificial service (vid. also Epiph., h. 19. 3).]

[Footnote 442: On this new Gospel see Zahn, Kanongesch II. p. 724 ff.]

[Footnote 443: It is incorrect to suppose that the l.u.s.trations were meant to take the place of baptism, or were conceived by these Jewish Christians as repeated baptisms. Their effect was certainly equal to that of baptism. But it is nowhere hinted in our authorities that they were on that account made equivalent to the regular baptism.]

[Footnote 444: The characteristic here, as in the Gentile Christian Gnosis, is the division of the person of Jesus into a more or less indifferent medium, and into the Christ. Here the factor const.i.tuting his personality could sometimes be placed in that medium, and sometimes in the Christ spirit, and thus contradictory formulae could not but arise. It is therefore easy to conceive how Epiphanius reproaches these Jewish Christians with a denial, sometimes of the Divinity, and sometimes of the humanity of Christ (see h. 30. 14).]

[Footnote 445: This syncretistic Judaism had indeed a significance for the history of the world, not, however, in the history of Christianity, but for the origin of Islam. Islam, as a religious system, is based partly on syncretistic Judaism (including the Zabians, so enigmatic in their origin), and, without questioning Mohammed's originality, can only be historically understood by taking this into account. I have endeavoured to establish this hypothesis in a lecture printed in MS form, 1877. Cf. now the conclusive proofs in Wellhausen, l. c. Part III.

p. 197-212. On the Mandeans, see Brandt, Die Mandaische Religion, 1889; (also Wellhausen in d. deutschen Lit. Ztg., 1890 No. 1. Lagarde i. d.

Gott. Gel. Anz., 1890, No. 10).]

[Footnote 446: See Bestmann, Gesch. der Christl. Sitte Bd. II. 1 Part: Die juden-christliche Sitte, 1883; also, Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1883. Col. 269 ff. The same author, Der Ursprung des Katholischen Christenthums und des Islams, 1884; also Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1884, Col. 291 ff.]

[Footnote 447: See Schliemann, Die Clementinen etc. 1844; Hilgenfeld, Die Clementinischen Recogn. u. Homil, 1848; Ritschl, in d Allg Monatschrift f. Wissensch. u. Litt., 1852. Uhlhorn, Die Homil. u.

Recogn., 1854; Lehmann, Die Clement. Schriften, 1869; Lipsius, in d.

Protest. K. Ztg., 1869, p. 477 ff.; Quellen der Romische Petrussage, 1872. Uhlhorn, in Herzog's R. Encykl. (Clementinen) 2 Edit. III. p. 286, admits: "There can be no doubt that the Clementine question still requires further discussion. It can hardly make any progress worth mentioning until we have collected better the material, and especially till we have got a corrected edition with an exhaustive commentary." The theory of the genesis, contents and aim of the pseudo-Clementine writings, unfolded by Renan (Orig. T. VII. p. 74-101) is essentially identical with that of German scholars. Langen (die Clemensromane, 1890) has set up very bold hypotheses, which are also based on the a.s.sumption that Jewish Christianity was an important church factor in the second century, and that the pseudo-Clementines are comparatively old writings.]

[Footnote 448: There is no external evidence for placing the pseudo-Clementine writings in the second century. The oldest witness is Origen (IV. p. 401, Lommatzsch); but the quotation: "Quoniam opera bona, quae fiunt ab infidelibus, in hoc saeculo iis prosunt," etc., is not found in our Clementines, so that Origen appears to have used a still older version. The internal evidence all points to the third century (canon, composition, theological att.i.tude, etc.) Moreover, Zahn (Gott. Gel. Anz.

1876. No. 45) and Lagarde have declared themselves in favour of this date; while Lipsius (Apokr. Apostelgesch II. 1) and Weingarten (Zeittafeln, 3 Edit. p. 23) have recently expressed the same opinion.

The Homilies presuppose (1) Marcion's Ant.i.theses, (2) Apelles'

Syllogisms, (3) perhaps Callistus' edict about penance (see III. 70), and writings of Hippolytus (see also the expression [Greek: episkopos episkopon], Clem. ep. ad Jacob I, which is first found in Tertull, de pudic I.) (4) The most highly developed form of polemic against heathen mythology. (5) The complete development of church apologetics, as well as the conviction that Christianity is identical with correct and absolute knowledge. They further presuppose a time when there was a lull in the persecution of Christians, for the Emperor, though pretty often referred to, is never spoken of as a persecutor, and when the cultured heathen world was entirely disposed in favour of an eclectic monotheism.

Moreover, the remarkable Christological statement in Hom. XVI. 15, 16.

points to the third century, in fact probably even presupposes the theology of Origen; Cf. the sentence: [Greek: tou patros to me gegennesthai estin, huiou de to gegennesthai genneton de agenneto e kai autogenneto ou sunkrinetai.] Finally, the decided repudiation of the awakening of Christian faith by visions and dreams, and the polemic against these is also no doubt of importance for determining the date; see XVII. 14-19. Peter says, -- 18: [Greek: to adidaktos aneu optasias kai oneiron mathein apokalupsis estin], he had already learned that at his confession (Matt. XVI.). The question, [Greek: ei tis di optasian pros didaskalian sophisthenai dunatai], is answered in the negative, -- 19.]

[Footnote 449: This is also acknowledged in Koffmane. Die Gnosis, etc, p. 33].

[Footnote 450: The Homilies, as we have them, are mainly composed of the speeches of Peter and others. These speeches oppose polytheism, mythology and the doctrine of demons, and advocate monotheism, ascetic morality and rationalism. The polemic against Simon Magus almost appears as a mere accessory.]

[Footnote 451: This distinction can also be shewn elsewhere in the Church of the third century. But I confess I do not know how Catholic circles got over the fact that, for example, in the third book of the Homilies many pa.s.sages of the old Testament are simply characterised as untrue, immoral and lying. Here the Homilies remind one strongly of the Syllogisms of Apelles, the author of which, in other respects, opposed them in the interest of his doctrine of creating angels. In some pa.s.sages the Christianity of the Homilies really looks like a syncretism composed of the common Christianity, the Jewish Christianity, Gnosticism, and the criticism of Apelles. Hom. VIII. 6-8 is also highly objectionable.]

APPENDIX I.