Ebion or Tzebion

First, lets get the spelling Hebion out of the way. The h is an internal development in Latin and Greek transmission.

Second, let’s see what can be made out of the invention of a person called Ebion.This is a fantasy on the part of authors that knew nothing about the Ebionites, and guessed that people called Ebionites must go back to someone called Ebion. Others knew the meaning of the Hebrew word, and had the single datum that they “ascribed everything to Gods will”. They then artificially tried to connect this datum with their name, and GUESSED, but wrongly. Others later on set the correct statement of the meaning of the Hebrew word (evyon in modern transcription, ebion in the system of the time) along with the guess about the explanation next to the INCOMPATIBLE statement about derivation from some person called Ebion. Epiphanius does all this, but he had no critical sense whatsoever.

What is left? The datum about ascribing everything to God’s will, in a fixed and therfore reliable wording, but without any accompanying tradition of explanation. So we have to work it out ourselves. It goes back to the debate about apparent incompatibility of real human freewill with the complete power of Providence. As you know this is debated in the Rabbinic texts, and there are three possible formulations of the answer. The best is ascribed to R. ‘Akiva, that both statements are completely true, with the implication that trying to satisfy human logic by making one force more powerful than the other leads to confusion. I think it best to go along with Josephus here. As you know, he ascribed the doctine just quoted in the name of ‘Akiva to the Pharisees, and the subordination of freewill to Providence to the Essenes. The Qumrân sect might or might not have been Essenes, but they did belong to that stream. The Qumrân sect called themselves both ‘anavim with a reference to Moses and evyonim. The word ‘anav is ambiguous, and the Sifrei on Numbers XII runs through the catalogue of meanings and connotations, ‘poor”, “powerless”, and “meek” (we might say humble in modern usage). They conclude that the meaning is “meek” (humble) when referred to Moses, since he was certainly not weak or poor or powerless. They then say that Moses was powerful BECAUSE he was meek, meaning he had exactly the right understanding of his relationship to God. This is one of the implications of the words “he sees the the Lord’s picture” meaning he sees Providence, and understands how ther can be both freewill and Provdence. I still can’t quite see where the choice of the word evyonim comes from. I would have to go through all of its occurrences in the O.T., and this will have to wait a few days. I would guess that what is meant is what Jesus meant when he used the word in the Sermon on the Mount, addressed privately to the disciples. It means those IMPELLED to understand more and ATTAIN more. This is glossed in the editorial addition “Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after tsedek”. What is meant is more than intellectual interest, but a feeling of NECESSITY and INNER DRIVE. Now we have come to our ideas about Paul’s use of the term “desire”.

I don’t think the evyonim necessarily said that freewill was overridden by Providence. A statement on the lines of what is said about Moses could easily be misunderstood by anyone not capable of getting the meaning i.e. by anyone thinking according to what might be called the Romanised watering down of Christianity. The evyonim might easily have been any group that understood what Jesus was getting at in the Sermon on the Mount.