Researching early Christian movements

[Thomas]

@Ahanu raises interesting issues, and rather than derail his thread, I thought I'd post here, as a discussion in its own right.

“Vegetarianism is a motif found in the Pseudo-Clementine literature, the Gospel of the Ebionites, Epiphanius' reports on the ‘Ebionites,’ Elchasaite traditions, Hegesippus's references to James, and the Didascalia. Jewish Christian vegetarianism is also part of a broader tradition opposing animal sacrifice, a motif found in the Book of Elchasai, the Gospel of the Ebionites (Pan. 30.16.5), a reconstructed source underlying Recognitions 1.27-71, composed around 200 CE, and the Recognitions and Homilies, representing two interpretive lenses through which Jewish Christians remembered Jesus.”
-Simon J. Joseph, “Remembering the Marginalized Vegetarian in the Study of Christian Origins”

Albert Henrichs, in his article Mani and the Babylonian Baptists, says:
"(6) Encratism. Abstention from meat is attested for the Ebionites but not for the Elchasaites. The baptists of the Cologne Codex were confirmed vegetarians. The asceticism which they profess was apparently far more rigid than that of any known Jewish-Christian sect. This brings us to the question of continence. The Cologne Codex does not speak of women in connection with these baptists. Shortly before he joined them, Mani’s father was admonished by a mysterious voice to eat no meat, drink no wine, and abstain from women. It is likely, therefore, that Mani grew up in an exclusively male community, an assumption which would account for his total opposition toward sexuality. If so, their continuous continence was an ideal which was as foreign to all the other baptist sects as it was to Judaism or, for that matter, Mandaeism. Elchasai even encouraged marriage. But if we can trust Josephus, some Essenes lived without women and adopted little children to raise them in their religion, a fate similar to that of Mani. The references to marriage in the Qumran texts, however, are controversial."
(Henrichs, pps,53-54, emphasis mine.)

My point here is Henrichs rigorously observes the fact that we have no certainty as to who the baptists of the Cologne Codex were. We now know that patristic sources, such as Epiphanius, are not always reliable in their descriptions of what the various groups believed, as they often worked from hearsay, assumption, or their interpretation of texts ... I think 'Ebionite' might have been a catch-all term, like 'Gnostics'.

 

[Thomas]

... the Gospel of the Ebionites (Pan. 30.16.5) ...

This gospel was thought to be a Hebrew version of Matthew, although not the sayings gospel of Matthew, in Hebrew, that Papias refers to. Scholars believe the Gospel of the Ebionites is a gloss of the Synoptics.

... a reconstructed source underlying Recognitions 1.27-71, composed around 200 CE, and the Recognitions and Homilies, representing two interpretive lenses through which Jewish Christians remembered Jesus.”

This opens up a delightful rabbit-hole of research.

The pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and Homilies date from around the mid fourth century. They are probably based on an earlier source, theorised to be the Circuits of Peter (Periodoi Petrou), early 3rd century. Some scholars assume an earlier source in the Circuits, which they title the Preaching of Peter (Kerygmata Petrou), however Annette Yoshiko Reed in her book Jewish Christianity says: "I am less confident in our ability to reconstruct a nonexistent source of the nonexistent Circuits" (Reed, Jewish-Christianity, p102, n64.)

For general readers here – the Pseudo-Clementine literature claims (falsely) to be the work of Clement of Rome. The works contain narrative accounts of Clement's conversion, his journey with Peter, and his loss of and reunion with his family. This part of the literature gives the Recognitions their name, being acknowledged as the first Christian example of the genre of romance of recognitions, a genre common in the literature of the day, in which the central character finds themselves in some way 'lost' and then a suspenseful tale unfolds in which they experience moments of 'recognition' or 'realisation'.

A point of interest is that the Recognitions contain significant portions of the Book of the Laws of the Countries, a Syriac text thought to be composed by Bardaisan of Edessa, or one of his pupils, at the beginning of the 3rd century. Parts of this work are also present in Eusebius’s Preparation for the Gospel (written 313CE).

Bardaisan (154-222CE) was a Syriac-speaking Christian writer and teacher with 'Gnostic' tendencies and founder of the Bardaisanites, a school of Syrian gnosticism.

He was a scholar, astrologer, philosopher and poet, According to Eusebius, Bardaisan was at one time a follower of the Gnostic Valentinus, but later opposed Valentinian Gnosticism and also Marcionism.

The Bardaisanites continued his teachings and his son, Harmonius, educated at Athens, added to his father's Babylonian astrology Greek ideas concerning the soul, the birth and destruction of bodies and a sort of metempsychosis. Marinus, a Bardaisan and a dualist in the belief that the devil was not created by God but was himself a primeval being, was also a Docetist, denying Christ's birth of a woman.

Bardaisan gnosticism influenced Manichaeism, but it's difficult to say whether these beliefs began with Bardaisan, or were later additions to the school. It existed into the 12th century.

Patristics scholar Ilaria Ramelli has argued that Bardaisan may have been one of the first Christian supporters of apokatastasis (universal restoration), citing especially the following passage in his Book of the Laws of Countries as evidence:
"There will come a time when even this capacity for harm that remains in (mankind) will be brought to an end by the instruction that will obtain in a different arrangement of things. And, once that new world will be constituted, all evil movements will cease, all rebellions will come to an end, and the fools will be persuaded, and the lacks will be filled, and there will be safety and peace, as a gift of the Lord of all natures."
(Ilaria Ramelli The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, pps112-113.)

 

[Ahanu]

@Ahanu raises interesting issues, and rather than derail his thread, I thought I'd post here, as a discussion in its own right.



Albert Henrichs, in his article Mani and the Babylonian Baptists, says:
"(6) Encratism. Abstention from meat is attested for the Ebionites but not for the Elchasaites. The baptists of the Cologne Codex were confirmed vegetarians. The asceticism which they profess was apparently far more rigid than that of any known Jewish-Christian sect. This brings us to the question of continence. The Cologne Codex does not speak of women in connection with these baptists. Shortly before he joined them, Mani’s father was admonished by a mysterious voice to eat no meat, drink no wine, and abstain from women. It is likely, therefore, that Mani grew up in an exclusively male community, an assumption which would account for his total opposition toward sexuality. If so, their continuous continence was an ideal which was as foreign to all the other baptist sects as it was to Judaism or, for that matter, Mandaeism. Elchasai even encouraged marriage. But if we can trust Josephus, some Essenes lived without women and adopted little children to raise them in their religion, a fate similar to that of Mani. The references to marriage in the Qumran texts, however, are controversial."
(Henrichs, pps,53-54, emphasis mine.)

My point here is Henrichs rigorously observes the fact that we have no certainty as to who the baptists of the Cologne Codex were. We now know that patristic sources, such as Epiphanius, are not always reliable in their descriptions of what the various groups believed, as they often worked from hearsay, assumption, or their interpretation of texts ... I think 'Ebionite' might have been a catch-all term, like 'Gnostics'.

We have to evaluate their reliability case by case. In the case of the Elchasaites, Epiphanius is reliable because it can be shown he had the source text: the Book of Elchasai. Scholars have already looked at this problem. Jones argues that "there is a solid, reliable kernel to Epiphanius’ remarks” concerning the Elchasaites. This reliability is supported by the fact that Hippolytus and Epiphanius "strikingly agree verbatim in certain of their excerpts.” Jones suggests that because Epiphanius "also has citations not found in Hippolytus," it is "virtually certain that he [Epiphanius]... had access to the Book [of Elchasai] itself.” Scholars can continue to search for reliable information in Epiphanius’ report and not “doubt Epiphanius's remarks without some substantial basis.’”

As noted above, “Jewish Christian vegetarianism is also part of a broader tradition opposing animal sacrifice, a motif found in the Book of Elchasai . . .” If the book really contained teachings opposing animal sacrifice, we can reasonably suppose they were vegetarian too even if it was not directly mentioned in the Book of Elchasai.

“Considering the relatively close relationship between the rejection of animal sacrifice and the affirmation of vegetarianism in Jewish Christian traditions (of Jesus, John, James, Peter, and Matthew), it is tempting to draw the conclusion that vegetarianism represents a continuum of Jewish Christian identity from the mid-first century through the fourth century of the common era.”

 

[Thomas]

I rather think, following different scholars, we can't be quite so prescriptive.

Working backwards, the Cologne Mani Codex offers the only Greek primary source for Manichaeism. The origin of Manichaeism becomes quite complex, since although we possess evidence of the connection of Mani's baptists with Elchasai, the alleged founder of a Jewish-Christian sect, we cannot for certain say that the ritual practices and theology of the baptist sect in which Mani was reared was purely Elchasaite.

In Mani's Baptists and the Elchasaites G. P. Luttikhuizen argues that what the translators of the Codex offer as 'founder' in reference to Elchasai, is a term used elsewhere in Manichæn literature to mean 'leader' and does not apply to Elchasai. Nor does the Codex offer any references to the Book of Elchasai, and nothing in the information given about the Babylonian baptists corresponds to it.

I have edited the text for brevity:

Our primary source for the Book of Elchasai (dated between 98-117CE) are Hippolytus of Rome (170-235) and Epiphanius of Salamis (310-403). Eusebius' (260-339) Church History offers a brief report by Origen (185-253) which to an extent agrees with Hippolytus.

Hippolytus:
Hippolytus' knowledge of the book and the sect comes from an Elchasaite missionary, Alcibiades, from Syria. Hippolytus had no first hand knowledge of the Elchasaites or the book. Alcibiades came to Rome with a book that he claimed had been revealed by an angel, and that a certain Elchasai had received the book somewhere in Parthia, and that this 'righteous man' had transmitted the book to someone called 'Sobiai'.

The Book of Elchasai was written around the Parthian War (114–117CE) in Aramaic, and the purpose of the book may have been an apocalyptic text to bring comfort to Jews surviving the massacres of that war (Parthia is Iran/Iraq). The book describes angelic beings announcing universal destruction, a war among wicked angels, and the requirements which would allow absolution on the judgment day. Similar angels are described in 3 Enoch, but Elchasai is particularly describing Christ and the Holy Spirit. A century later, a Hellenistic version of this manuscript was used by Syrian Judeo-Christians.

Hippolytus reading of Sobiai as a name is probably a misunderstanding, it being more likely that Alcibiades stated that Elchasai had transmitted the book to the Sobiai or 'Baptists' – that is the Syrian baptists represented by Alcibiades.

Following this introduction of Alcibiades and the book, Hippolytus immediately draws attention to the 'second baptism' which Alcibiades decreed for Christians who had committed a grave sin, an innovation introduced by Alcibiades. At the time, the Roman church did not yet have an institutional possibility for the remission of grave sins committed by baptised Christians (the sacrament of penance). In the preceding sections of his book, Hippolytus speaks at length of a controversy with Calixtus, his rival in Rome, about the position and reception of sinners in the church.

Alcibiades' promise of remission of sins even to notorious sinners was used by Hippolytus to continue his polemic against Calixtus. In the subsequent refutation of Alcibiades, Hippolytus states that the idea of a baptism for the remission of grievous sins was suggested to this "heretic" by the teachings of Calixtus. Thus Hippolytus made a fellow bishop accountable for what he considered the most objectionable aspect of Alcibiades’ heresy.

In the second part of his report, Hippolytus summarises what he designates as "some main points of his statements." Although scholars assume Hippolytus is referring to the book, it may well be the case he was referring to the teaching of Alcibiades. What we do not have is any way of determining how much Elchasai's original message had mutated in the intervening years, or how much Alcibiades introduced his own Syrian Jewish-Christian doctrines into the teachings of the Elchasaites.