EBIOXISM
EBIOXISM
ence when the author of Canonical Matthew wrote his book, and upon whicli to some extent he may have drawn, — a tradition wliich would naturally be more Jewish and national in its outlook than that represented by the Greek written sources on which he placed liis main dependence (see Hastings' DB, Extra Vol. 342 f.).
(2) The Gospel of St. Luke. — On the giound that much of the teaching which is peculiar to St. Luke bears specially upon wealth and poverty, it has frequently been alleged that the Evangelist made use of a distinctly Ebionitic source, or was himself in sympathy with Ebionism. It is true that the Ebionites, as we meet them later in Church history, resemble the Essenes in taking an ascetic view of life, and regarding voluntary poverty as a thing of merit and a means of preparing for the Messianic kingdom. But it is altogether a misrepresentation of the facts to say that this is the type of the ideal Christian life as it meets us in Luke, or that his references to riches and poverty ' rest on the idea that wealth is pernicious in itself and poverty salu- tary in itself (Weiss, Introd. ii. 309). The form in which the first Beatitude of Matthew (5^) is given in Luke, ' Blessed are ye poor : for yours is the kingdom of God' (6™), together with the closely following Woe pronounced upon the rich (v."), has especially been fastened on as a clear proof that these sayings proceed from an Ebionitic circle ' ascetic in spirit and believing poverty to be in itself a passport to the kingdom, and riches the way to perdition.' Similarly in the parable of Dives and Lazarus (16'^-^'), it is supposed that Dives goes to the place of torment because he is rich, while the beggar is carried into Abraham's bosom simply because he is a beggar. Such inter- pretations, however, spring from a very superficial ■ (cf. Bruce, Expos. Gr. Test, on Lk 6™,
Parabolic Teaching of Christ, p. 376 ff.). And, whUe it is true that St. Luke dwells, more than the other Evangelists, on the consolations of the poor and the perils of rich men (.see, besides the passages already quoted, 4'8 7=^ i2i6ff. i6"r- ]9--ff. 21'^-). the fact is sufficiently accounted for, on the one hand, by that humane and philanthropic spirit which is so characteristic of the Third Evangelist and so natural in one who is called ' the beloved physician '; and, on the other, as Zahn has suggested {Einleitiirtij, ii. 379), by his sense of the appropriate- ne.ss for one in the position of Theophilus, to whom his (iospel is immediately addressed, of our Lord's frtM|uont warnings of the spiritual dangers of wuahli ami the worldliness to which wealth is so pnuK' tci lead. It is to be noted, however, that uur Lord's .strongest utterancn aLrain-^t wpalth is fuund in Matthew (19-^ and .M:nk . In- :, ,-.. well as Luke (IS'^j: and that a ooiiipai i-.u m ii,,. Third Synoptic with the other two ii\.aU <.ria>i()nal touches, on the one side or the other mote, c.rf., the presence of dypoii in Mt 19^, Mk 10-"-', and its absence from Lk 18^), which an ingenious theorist might very well use to support the thesis that not so Ebionitic as Matthew and Mark
Luke
(see Plummer, 'St. Lnke' in Internat. Crit. Com. p. XXV f.).
(3) It is curious to notice how, from the 2nd cent, to the 19th, the Fourth Gospel has been associated in two quite diflerent ways with Ebion- ism, and specifically with Cerinthus, an Ebionite of the Gnosticizing type who taught in Ephesus towards the close of the Apostolic age. On the one hand, we have the statements of Irenaeus and others that the Apostle John wrote his Gospel to combat the errors of Cerinthus (Iren. III. xi. 1) and the Ebionites (Epiphanius, Hmr. Ii. 12, Ixix. 23) ; statements wliich should be taken in con- nexion witli the well-known story, attributed to Polycarp, of the dramatic encounter between St.
John and Cerinthus in the baths of Ephesus (Iren. III. iii. 4 ; Epiphan. I.e. xxx. 24).* Even down to recent times these statements have been widely accepted as furnishing an adequate account of the origin of the Fourth Gospel. Thus Ebrard says : ' We are thus led to the conclusion that the Cer- inthian gnosis was the principal cause which in- dticed John to believe that the time had come for him to make known his peculiar gift, wliich he had hitherto kept concealed. ... He emphasizes faith in Jesus the Son of God (xx. 31) over against a bare vno^is ' (Schaff-Herzog, Encyc. of Bel. Knmv- ledqc, ii. 1189).
At the opposite extreme from the belief of Ire- n:eus was the view of a sect referred to by Epi- phanius (I.e. Ii. 3), and named by him the Alogi (because of their refusal to accept St. John's teacii- ing regarding the Logos), who ascribed the Johan- nine WTitings to Cerinthus himself, and on that ground discarded them altogether. A parallel of a sort to this view was furnished by the Tiibingen writers when they assigned the Gospel to some Gnosticizing dreamer of the 2nd century.
The residuum of truth that lies between these two contrary %-iews may perhaps be found in the fact that the author was a contemporary of Cer- inthus, and that he wrote his Gospel in full view of prevailing Cerinthian error. It is a mistake, however, to suppose that the work was intended as a direct polemic against Cerinthus and his followers.