This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Is τὸ Ευαγγελιον με τους Εβραίους supposed to be τὸ Ευαγγελιον μετα τους Εβραίους? -- AnonMoos ( talk)
Do you have any references citing that Nicholson was not a Biblical scholar? Also the point I was trying to make was that it would be 'wrong' to call Wilhelm Schneemelcher a Nazi because he was a respected scholar. Feel free to debate the scholarship but let's drop the slurs. Now is there any chance that we can put this back and forth behind us? - Ret.Prof ( talk) 05:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Why does this article not include a section devoted to the extant text assigned to the Gospel of the Hebrews? It seems implicit in the article that the full text of this gospel has not survived; that there are many quotes, paraphrases, and references to it amongst the writings of the early Church fathers; and common sense tells us that there must be scraps (at least) of papyri and other ancient documents that embody portions of the text.
When a subject is as contentious as this one seems to be, it is highly relevant to understanding that readers be given a dispassionate account of the available textual material. Otherwise, many of the assertions in this article are (so to speak) free floating without context.
Possibly all that is needed is a reference to a good website on the subject.
Floozybackloves ( talk) 18:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Ictu and I agreed to stop editing this topic as of Feb 2. We agreed to just walk away and let other editors edit. It appears Ictu has not kept his word. Please explain. -
Ret.Prof (
talk) 23:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Please see apology below. -
Ret.Prof (
talk)
17:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
RetProf, throwing around charges like Serious breach of Wikipedia Ethics (?) is unneccessary. I didn't agree to walk away away for ever leaving this article overweight/POV, I took a break. You've been editing too, duplicating the POV content here (which is itself largely duplicated) again on new articles you've written Oral tradition and the historical Jesus and Jesus outside the New Testament. In any case this article shouldn't be left as it is without (a) some correction, (b) tagging. In ictu oculi ( talk) 00:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
( talk) 00:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Flinging around accusations of bad ethics is a breach of wp:civil or WP:AGF, and not generally helpful. If information is being duplicated then that is bad editing practice and should be replaced by links to some centralised article. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 06:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Ictu and I had been in a heated debate. It would be fair to say our work on the Gospel of the Hebrews was bogged down in conflict. He then made the following offer:
I accepted his offer (see above on this talk page) as follows:
I sincerely believed that we had agreed to stop editing the Gospel of the Hebrews. I stopped all editing of this article and moved on with my editing project (see my talk page). When I discovered that Ictu had continued editing I felt I had been played like an old violin (or is that a deck of cards). On March 17, I acted out of anger. I fully and in good faith apologize for my behavior and misunderstanding the nature of our agreement. Let's put this behind us. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 17:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I've done an undo on the last revert by Ret Prof. The POV tag specifically says it should not be removed. I personally regard the other tags in the same light. I cannot prevent other individual content being removed. Ret Prof, if you do wish to remove content please do so the normal edit method, do not do so by pressing revert/undo as that will remove again the POV tag. I also request that you do not remove the actual text of the subject of the article: Extant text
The seven fragments which comprise the common extant text of the Gospel of the Hebrews, "GH", are found pp.176-177 in Chapter IV Jewish-Christian Gospels by Philip Vielhauer and George Strecker of the standard edition of the New Testament Apocrypha edited by Wilhelm Schneemelcher.[7] The seven fragments comprise:
and so on. In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I have added the factual dispute template to the article for the time being while the above issues remain active. I suggest that specific issues be introduced below in order to derive consensus. Eusebeus ( talk) 14:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Thought it might be a good idea to add this "Disputed" section (required by the maint. tag) before another editor comes along and removes the maint. tag for lack of discussion. So here it is editors; what exactly is against WP:NPOV and/or WP:UNDUE?
It's possible that too many {{ Citation needed}} tags have been placed too closely together, and there shouldn't be more than three or four inline citations for a claim. That makes articles more difficult for general readers to follow. Very distracting! Also, is it customary to require a ref. citation for language translations such as the one in the first sentence of the lede? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 16:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
True. It is also possible that undue weight is being given to material that falls outside mainstream scholarly consensus (e.g. concerning Marcan priority). Both issues should be addressed below in a way that allows editors to weigh in on the question. Eusebeus ( talk) 17:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC) this edit seems to represent passive-aggressive tagspam. Eusebeus ( talk) 18:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with Paine that editors "are being careless and not looking very hard for sources." I could only find one non referenced piece of material which I fixed.
The Tagspam is not justified. Again please outline your concerns on the talk page clearly, one at a time. We will discuss it and if I cannot properly reference it then be assured it will be deleted. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 17:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC) - PS - ******Please see main discussion at the Talk:Gospel of Matthew******
17:56, 19 March 2011 Ret.Prof (talk | contribs) (88,094 bytes) (FACT CHECK COMPLETE - Facts are now reliably sourced. Removed Tags. If you think I have missed anything please point it out on the talk page) (undo)
In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Paine - Inline indications of POV are problematic since if we have, say as here 400 sentences supporting the theory of a lost Hebrew Ur-Matthew being preserved in 4thC Nazarene versions, per Edward Nicholson (librarian) (1874) and Ret Prof, then all 400 sentences would require inline POV tags. At least Where the 20-30 citation needed tag was added it was clear that a POV sentence had no ref, before Ret Prof deleted the tags. Yes we are in dispute, but finding an editor on Wikipedia who is willing to "push" (in the sense of "push back" against an installed POV as here) to get included mainstream/critical/majority scholarship views is not an easy task. Those with mainstream/critical/majority scholarship tend to shy away from this, and I don't blame them. It would actually need 4 or 5 editors in favour of SBL type sources being added to the article and the Messianic/Aramaic (?) POV removed to make any headway.
Ovadyah - I actually don't want to do the editing here or be involved, I would much prefer that 2 or 3 mainstream editors came along with a passing knowledge based on general modern/mainstream/critical reference works and did it. In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The real problem I think is that there is a conflict here between two different articles. To myself Gospel of the Hebrews is simply what GH means in the ref index of SBL publications: the 7 verses of that name preserved from a 4th Century Nazarene edition of Matthew which Jerome had sent to Chalcis; wheras to Ret Prof it means the "Hebrew Gospel theory" of a lost Hebrew Ur-Matthew theory. An article which could begin "Hebrew Ur-Matthew is the theory that..." and start with the ref Hans-Josef Klauck Apocryphal gospels: an introduction 2003 p78 "... fictitious exchange of letters between two bishops and the church father Jerome which precedes the work in some manuscripts, where it is described as the Hebrew or Aramaic Ur-Matthew, which Jerome himself had translated into Latin." In this Hebrew Ur-Matthew theory article Ret Prof could cut and paste to his heart's desire without generating conflict with what scholarship means by Gospel of the Hebrews in the Schneemelcher NTA. And since its a theory it only has to describe Nicholson/Edwards POV. In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
There is remarkable agreement among the secondary sources. The following are representative of the early secondary source material.
Summary by Epiphanius:
- They too accept Matthew's gospel, and like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus, they use it alone. They call it the Gospel of the Hebrews, for in truth Matthew alone expounded and declared the Gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script. - Epiphanius, Panarion 30.3.7
Summary by Jerome:
- "In the Gospel of the Hebrews, written in the Chaldee and Syriac language but in Hebrew script, and used by the Nazarenes to this day (I mean the Gospel of the Apostles, or, as it is generally maintained, Matthew's Gospel, a copy of which is in the library at Caesarea), we find . . ." - Jerome, Against Pelagius 3.2
Among the secondary sources to the time of Jerome, by both Christians and Non-Christians, no writer ever asserts either directly or indirectly that the Hebrew Gospel (aka the Gospel of the Hebrews) was ever composed in Greek. Jerome clarifies this on several different occasions.
Clarification by Jerome:
- Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author uncertain. The Hebrew original has been preserved to this present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it. - Jerome, On Illustrious Men 3
Clarification by Jerome:
- In this last he bore witness to the Gospel which I have recently translated . - Jerome, On Illustrious Men
Language clarification by Jerome:
- The Gospel called of the Hebrews, recently translated by me into Greek and Latin, which Origen often uses, states ... - Jerome, On Illustrious Men, 2
Clarification by Jerome:
- In the gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call the Authentic Gospel of Matthew (or " Matthaei Authenticum " ) the . . . - Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 2
Clarification by Jerome:
- And whoever accepts the Gospel circulating under the title "Gospel of the Hebrews", which we most recently translated, in which it is said by the Saviour, “Even now my mother, the Holy Spirit, carried me away by one of my hairs,” will not hesitate to say that the Word of God proceeds from the Spirit, and that the soul, which is the bride of the Word, has the Holy Spirit (which in " Hebrew " is feminine in gender, RUA). - Jerome, Commentary on Micah 7.6
Finally, it must be stated that among the sources to the time of Jerome there is no mention of a Gospel of the Ebionites or a Gospel of the Nazarenes nor is there any mention of either the Ebionites or the Nazarenes ever composing their own Gospel. The sources are in agreement that these Jewish groups used Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 02:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
While we're talking about Jerome, can we at least fix the sentence re. Jerome's Latin description: My suggested text:
Ret Prof's preferred text:
Can we please mention that the term 'demon' in the days in which the Hebrew Gospel is said to have been written would not have had the same meaning that it has today. 'Demon,' in the original sense of the word, referred to a spirit or an angel, or a similar presence, not at all necessarily evil, having acquired its characteristic as 'evil' much later. We may wish to include this so that we may clarify that the term 'bodiless demon' would not have been grounds to eject this gospel from the canon, as some may tend to believe, as it is not inconsistent with the term used in the canonical gospels in the same circumstance: 'ghost' or 'spirit' (ie, a spirit does not have flesh and bones, etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.157.235 ( talk) 06:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I checked out what you said and you are correct. However, we must keep focused on the two main issues that affect this and a number of other articles.
First Issue - Matthaei authenticum
- The Historical writings from the time of Jesus to the time of Jerome c.385 C.E., state Matthew wrote an eyewitness account of the life of Jesus called the Hebrew Gospel or sometimes the Gospel of the Hebrews. No ancient source either Christian or non-Christian disputes this. There are many scholars such a Lillie, Nicholson, Parker, Cassels, Edwards, Tabor, Schoemaker and Butz, who agree with the historical sources and explain why. Then there those who disagree such as Vielhauer and Schneemelcher.
Second Issue - Matthew and the Gospel of Matthew
- What is the relationship of Matthew to the Canonical Gospel of Matthew?
- The Roman Catholic position is that the Gospel of Matthew in the Bible was written by Matthew and is authentic.
- Liberal scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew is a "false Matthew" written by an unknown redactor long after the time of Matthew.
- A third group believe the Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew (See Aramaic original) was used as one of the sources of the Canonical Gospel of Matthew.
We as editors must work together to blend all the sources into a NPOV article(s). (See Reflections of an Old Geezer at User talk:Ret.Prof and Talk:Gospel of Matthew) - - Ret.Prof ( talk) 12:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello. At the risk of stating the obvious, just a note that
Therefore the main content of the article should be about the text. Currently this article contains almost no reference to the text and what reference there was has been deleted. Therefore I have attempted to add a brief discription of the text:
If this is not deleted I will attempt to add back GH1 and GH2 of the GH1-7 from the standard edition. In ictu oculi ( talk) 13:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Ret Prof. Regarding your question "Could you supply a reliable source that "GH1 and GH2 of the GH1-7" are the standard edition?"
Your deletion says "see talk" but on talk you are not answering questions. As before:
To which I will add:
Is there any other article on a text in Wikipedia where the actual subject of article keeps getting deleted? This is how the Mercer Dictionary of the Bible p364 Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard - 1990 starts:
Mercer Dictionary of the Bible "The Gospel of the Hebrews is one of three Jewish-Christian gospels known to the church fathers, (cf. Gospel of the Nazareans and the Gospel of the Ebionites.) This gospel is referred to in a variety of ways..."
Unfortunately one editor is persistently deleting any material related to the subject of the article The Gospel of the Hebrews as per Mercer Dictionary - in favour of recycling primary testimony of a 4thC writer whom most modern scholars consider from linguistic analysis was mistaken, and did not realise that he was simply translating a sectarian Hebrew translation of Greek Matthew back into Greek. In ictu oculi ( talk) 22:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
See below In ictu oculi ( talk) 16:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
DURING the first and early part of the second centuries of Christian era, there were numerous traditions both oral and written concerning the life, work and sayings of Christ, not found in four gospels of the Bible. Bernard Pick made an exhaustive study of the Paralipomena. Google Link
This web source has an extensive collection of the Paralipomena. It has the advantage of putting the the Paralipomena in their original context. New Advent.org
His collection of the Hebrew Paralipomena can be found on pages 263-291 of the The Hebrew Gospel. He has both the original text and English translation. Although all the aforementioned translations are good, his are very readable
The rest of your questions are addressed in my "reply" at Talk:Gospel of Matthew Please read it more carefully. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 23:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
In ictu oculi ( talk) 23:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
It is WP Policy to:
When editing warring takes place I temporarily revert the wrongful edit and go to the talk page where I politely remind the person
It is WP Policy to:
Please see "False accusations" and "Waffle" at Reflections of an Old Geezer at User talk:Ret.Prof. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 00:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Ret Prof. You are saying that the answer to Q.1 and Q.2 is that you did not delete the tags?
Please consult your edit History.
Regarding these two:
In ictu oculi ( talk) 00:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I see that another editor has just restored the paragraph on the text:
Please RetProf, before you delete again, give specific reason on a line by line basis challenging the factual accuracy of the paragraph. And please do not cite primary sources (Jerome). In ictu oculi ( talk) 16:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I have added:
RetProf, please explain your deletion of this text above before you delete it. In ictu oculi ( talk) 21:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
This article's factual accuracy is
disputed. (March 2011) |
This article possibly contains
original research. (March 2011) |
Part of a series on |
Jewish Christianity |
---|
The Gospel of the Hebrews ( Greek: το καθ εβραιους ευαγγελιον), commonly shortened from the Gospel according to the Hebrews or simply called the Hebrew Gospel, is a lost gospel preserved in fragments within the writings of the Church Fathers.
This non- canonical gospel gave an account of the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth detailing his story from the events of his Baptism to his Resurrection. [2] [3] [4]
A major source regarding the Gospel is the testimony of Jerome who received a copy from a Nazarene group while he was at Chalcis between 373 and 376. [5] Jerome records that it was regarded by many of the Nazarenes and Ebionites as the original version of Matthew: "In evangelio quo utuntur Nazaraeni et Ebionitae, quod nuper in Graecum de Hebraeo sermone transtulimus, et quod vocatur a plerisque Matthaei authenticum." [6]
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)In ictu oculi ( talk) 03:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Note that material cut and pasted from Gospel of the Hebrews to Gospel of Matthew has restored there. There is a duplicate proposal to remove the same duplicate text on Talk:Gospel of Matthew, Talk:Saint Matthew, Talk:Canonical gospels etc. If anyone supports or opposes they should add support or oppose here, or there, In ictu oculi ( talk) 04:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Stop all personal attacks and focus on references. . . end your voter registration campaign. Thanks - Ret.Prof ( talk) 04:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Well this felt like a personal attack:
**Scholarly dispute** This is an area of contention among Biblical scholars. The following is a list of major scholars who support Matthaei Authenticum:
The Catholic Encyclopedia condemns the aforementioned in the strongest possible terms.
Deception plays a major factor in Ictu's editing strategy. (See Reflections on my talk page.) One of his favorite ploys is to "suggest" to a good faith editor that he would be "quite happy to walk far far away and let mainstream editors like PiCo and History2007 get on with a clean up here without obtaining your "consensus". Sound good? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)" or Will you join me and just walk away and let other editors edit? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC) When the good faith editor agrees to step back from editing the article in question, Ictu sneeks back to the article and continues his POV pushing. I am getting wiser in the ways of our wiki-warrior. At the Gospel of the Hebrews it took me several weeks to call him on his playing the con. At the Gospel of Matthew I caught his deception right away. It again confirms what I have said on my talk page. A wiser Ret.Prof ( talk) 18:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Ictu, it is not that you are wrong, it is that you are simply not right. The references you cite are legitimate . . . but only tell half the story. My problem is not with what you have written! Rather, it is that any reference that does not support your theology is cleansed from Wikipedia.
There was a time when Ictu's anti Hebrew Gospel beliefs prevailed. Indeed, most scholars in the last century followed Philipp Vielhauer and Georg Strecker (in Hennecke and Schneemelcher NTApoc), and more recently AFJ Klijn (1992), as Ictu has pointed out. It should be noted that their were always some dissenting voices such as W. R. Schoemaker, Cassels, Parker and Nicholson.
Citations from W. R. Schoemaker, Cassels, Parker and Nicholson |
---|
References adduced by Ret.Prof ( talk · contribs) |
"The Gospel according to the Hebrews: its fragments translated and annotated, first published 1879, is a highly creditable work. The list of fragments and of references has never been so completely made as by Nicholson" - Review of The Gospel according to the Hebrews 1879 by Robert Vaughan, The British quarterly review, Volume 71-72, Hodder and Stoughton, 1880. p 277 Google Link
|
By 1988, cracks cracks started to form. (See Ray A. Pritz.) Then, in 1998 Peter Lebrecht Schmidt, called this near consensus into question. Critically assessing the discussion from Schmidtke to Klijn, Schmidt showed that originally there was only one Jewish gospel, called the "Gospel according to the Hebrews," which was subsequently translated into Greek and Latin. Schmidt's work was powerful, well sourced and thought provoking. By the turn of the century it had become obvious "that the state of the scholarly question had been thrown into the air and there is simply no consensus" (Please read pages 245 - 246, Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries by Oskar Skarsaune & Reidar Hvalvik Hendrickson Publishers, 2007)
Citations re New Consensus |
---|
References adduced by Ret.Prof ( talk · contribs) |
Google Link Google Link Google Link
This new consensus argues that there was remarkable agreement among the Church Fathers.
Finally, Schmidt et al point out that in the sources to the time of Jerome, there is no mention of a Gospel of the Ebionites or a Gospel of the Nazarenes nor is there any mention of either the Ebionites or the Nazarenes ever composing their own Gospel. The sources are in agreement that these Jewish groups used Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. |
Since then, Schmidt has been joined by such noted scholars as James Edwards, James Tabor and Jeffrey J. Bütz.
Citations re New Consensus |
---|
References adduced by Ret.Prof ( talk · contribs) |
The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition - by James R Edwards, 2009====
Links: p 259 p 260 p 117 pp 121 - 123 The Secret Legacy of Jesus: The Judaic Teachings - by Jeffrey J. Bütz & James Tabor, 2010
|
Here on Wikipedia, scholars such have as E.B. Nicholson, James Edwards, James Tabor, Peter Lebrecht Schmidt and Jeffrey J. Bütz have had their reputations called into question. These smears against noted scholars are unfounded. In real world they are considered "reliable sources" and are respected.
E.B. Nicholson, James Edwards, James Tabor, Peter Lebrecht Schmidt and Jeffrey J. Bütz are reputable scholars |
---|
References adduced by Ret.Prof ( talk · contribs) |
"The Gospel according to the Hebrews: its fragments translated and annotated, first published 1879, is a highly creditable work. The list of fragments and of references has never been so completely made as by Nicholson" - Review of The Gospel according to the Hebrews 1879 by Robert Vaughan, The British quarterly review, Volume 71-72, Hodder and Stoughton, 1880. p 277 Google Link The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition - by James R Edwards, 2009
|
The main issue is "Did Matthew, follower of the Jewish Rabbi Jesus write a Hebrew Gospel?" As has been pointed out in the references above, the answer is probably yes, as there is a lot of historical data confirming this position. To exclude all these reliable sources is the worst kind of POV pushing. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 18:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I have added this paragraph at the heading of the "scholarship" section expressing both views:
Number of Jewish-Christian Gospels? Main article: Jewish-Christian Gospels
Since no complete text of any Jewish-Christian Gospel survives, a primary task of scholarship is determining how many distinct Gospels are indicated by the patristic evidence. Hans-Josef Klauck in Apocryphal gospels: an introduction (2003) notes that "it has become almost canonical in twentieth-century scholarship to speak of three Jewish-Christian gospels: a Gospel of the Hebrews (EvHeb), a Gospel of the Nazaraeans (EvNaz) and a Gospel of the Ebionites (EvEb)".[28] This, effectively, is the distinction observed by Hans Waitz, Wilhelm Schneemelcher and Philipp Vielhauer in what is often termed the "standard" edition of the New Testament Apocrypha. A notable supporter of this now traditional division into three is Albertus Klijn (1992) who he writes that "The presence of three Jewish Christian Gospels is an established fact."[29] There are those who differ with this conclusion; for example Paul Foster (2008).[30] Part of the reason for three Gospels is the presence of differences in the surviving fragments, particularly the presence of three separate accounts of Christ's baptism, while another factor was the scepticism towards the reliability of the evidence of Jerome.[31] However, Klauck also notes that "In more recent years (cf. [P. L.] Schmidt) in a pendulum swing away from this scepticism, there has been a tendency to regard Jerome as more trustworthy."[32] With the result that the division of Jerome's testimony into 2: a Gospel of the Hebrews (EvHeb), a Gospel of the Nazaraeans (EvNaz), is less confident.[33] This still leaves however the problem of the multiple accounts of Christ's baptism, which seem to require at least three sources.[34] Craig A. Evans (2005) views that it is probably more safe to divide the material into Origen's Gospel, Jerome's Gospel, Epiphanius' Gospel, etc.[35]
I propose to go on and turn all primary evidence in this section into bracketed refs (On Illustrious Men 2.2) etc. Then start to trim away duplicate. In ictu oculi ( talk) 09:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Ref 104 reads in its entirety:
a b c d e f g Trite
What does that mean? Is it an author's name? Vandalism? Commentary?
Also, the text that was cut & pasted here--wouldn't it be in the history? It's a little confusing & overwhelming to have all that text here.
Sorry all I can do at the moment is point these things out.
Thanks, -- Geekdiva ( talk) 06:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Critical editions of the Gospel of the Hebrews vary, but there is general agreement among modern scholars that seven quotations from Patristic sources are from a distinct Gospel of the Hebrews, although two of these are ambiguous. [7] Hans Waitz (1937) [8] provides a list of the major German scholars who up to that date divide the Jewish-Christian Gospels into different traditions, though Waitz himself argues for only two Gospels. [9] There is now a tendency to reduce the traditional division of the Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Nazarenes and Gospel of the Ebionites to two Gospels, [10] though Klauck (2003) [11] notes that against this hypothesis, the material includes "three extra-canonical narratives of the baptism of Jesus which vary to such an extent that they cannot come from one or even two gospels alone."
The standard critical edition [12] of the Gospel of the Hebrews is by Philipp Vielhauer, translated by George Ogg, in Hennecke and Schneemelcher's New Testament Apocrypha (1962), [13] also reproduced in Cameron (1982) [14] and Lapham (2003). [15]
Scholarship generally holds that it was probably composed in Egypt in the 2nd century and originally in Greek, [16] [17] though Jerome considered the copy he obtained to be an original composition in Hebrew (Against Pelagius 3.2). [18] [19]
It is the only one of the Jewish-Christian Gospels to be included in the Early Church Catalogs. citation needed It is subject to heated and ongoing scholarly debate. [20] [21] [22] [23]
This article
duplicates the scope of other articles. |
After the Crucifixion of Jesus, his disciples gathered together in Jerusalem, in an "upper room" perhaps where the Cenacle is today. James, [24] the brother of Jesus, was the early leader in Jerusalem of the Jewish sect that became known as Christianity. This group was located in and about Jerusalem and proclaimed that Jesus was the promised Messiah. [25] [26] [27]
These early Jewish Christians were thought to have been called Nazarenes. [28] The term Nazarene was first applied to Jesus. [29] After his death, it was the term used to identify the Jewish Sect that believed Jesus was the Messiah. [28] [30] The Nazarenes were generally accepted as being the first Christians who were led by [31] James "the Just", until he was martyred c.62 AD. [32] [33]
As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh. This oral tradition interpreted the written law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. [34] [35] It was in this cultural context or Sitz im Leben that the Christian Oral Tradition had its roots, as Jesus and later Christian 'Rabbis' developed the oral "Gospel" to interpret the written Law given to Moses by God. [36] [37]
When the Temple at Jerusalem was destroyed in the year 70, this oral tradition was no longer viable and it became necessary for it to be written down. Scholars are in general agreement that the Jewish Christians up to the destruction of the Temple had no written Gospels being circulated among them. [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]
This article
duplicates the scope of other articles. |
Originally, Jewish/Christian scholarship had been oral. Jesus and other rabbis expounded and debated the Torah (the written law expressed in the Hebrew Bible) and discussed the Tanakh without the benefit of written works (other than the Biblical books themselves), though some may have made private notes (megillot setarim)
This situation changed drastically, however, mainly as the result of the destruction of the Jewish commonwealth in the year 70 and the consequent upheaval of Jewish/Christian social and legal norms. Jewish Christians were required to face a new reality— without a Temple (to serve as the center of teaching and study), the old system of oral scholarship could not be maintained. It is during this period that rabbinic discourse began to be recorded in writing. [43] [44]
The Church Fathers recognized this and said that the first gospels were born out of necessity. [45] Matthew, a Galilean Jew and follower of the rabbi Jesus is said to have written the first gospel. [46] It was written in Hebrew and meant for Hebrew Christians. [47] [48]
As a disciple, Matthew followed Jesus, and would have been an eye witness to the rabbinical midrashic discourse of the "Rabbi from Nazareth". Matthew may have even participated in the development of the Torah Shebeal Peh as the Talmud mentions him as a follower of Jesus the Nazarene. [49] [50] [51] Matthew reduced this Logia into a written form in what would become known to as the first Gospel. [52] [53] [54]
Because of the writings of the Church Fathers we know a great deal about Matthew's gospel. It was composed in Hebrew near Jerusalem for Hebrew Christians and it was translated into Greek, but the Greek copy was lost. The Hebrew original was kept at the Library of Caesarea. The Nazarene Community transcribed a copy for Jerome which he used in his work. [55] [56] [57]
Matthew's Gospel was called the Gospel according to the Hebrews [58] [59] or sometimes the Gospel of the Apostles [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] and it was once believed that it was the original to the Greek Matthew found in the Bible, although this is currently the subject of scholarly debate. [65]
Matthew's Gospel according to the Hebrews was widely circulated among early Hebrew Christians. [66] [67] These groups included the Nazarenes, Ebionites etc. It was generally believed that they added their own oral traditions or midrash to the "Hebrew Gospel" giving rise to what are now known as the Jewish Gospels. [68] Almost all critics are agreed, that the Gospel according to Nazarenes, the Gospel according to Ebionites, etc. are just modified editions of Matthew's Gospel according to the Hebrews but were essentially the same gospel and are important to understanding the gospel tradition of early Christianity. [69] [70] From Egypt, to as far away as India, [71] in various editions, [72] the Gospel according to the Hebrews [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] remained one of the most important primary Christian writings [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] until the Jewish Christianity was replaced by the modern Christianity of today. [76] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88]
There was a strong tradition in the early church, mentioned for by Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome, that Matthew had written a gospel in the Hebrew language. Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and Jerome identify the Gospel of the Hebrews with this Hebrew gospel of Matthew. [89]
By the time of Jerome, [90] many commentators believed that the Gospel of the Hebrews was the original Gospel of Matthew. [91] Epiphanius of Salamis in the Panarion wrote that, "They [Jewish Christians] too accept Matthew's gospel and like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus, they use it alone. They call it the Gospel of the Hebrews, for in truth, Matthew alone of the New Covenant writers expounded and declared the gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script." [92]
Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor during the first half of the 2nd century, writes that Matthew composed the logia in the Hebrew tongue and each one interpreted them as he was able. He also notes that the story of the Sinful Woman was originally from the Gospel of the Hebrews. [93] [94] Apart from Papias' comment, we do not hear about the author of the Gospel until Irenaeus around 185 who remarks that Matthew issued a written Gospel of the Hebrews. [95] Pantaenus, Origen and other Church Fathers also believed Matthew wrote the Gospel of the Hebrews. [96] [97] Also, none of the Church Fathers asserted that Matthew wrote the Greek Gospel found in the Bible. [93]
Traditionally within orthodox Christianity, the Gospel of Matthew was believed to have been composed by Matthew with some believing it to be the first gospel written. This view is not widely held within contemporary Biblical studies. Most scholars believe that the author of the Gospel of Matthew made use of the Gospel of Mark and another source known as Q. This solution to the origin is known as the Two-source hypothesis. For this and other reasons, the Gospel of Matthew was composed in Greek and not Hebrew as suggested by Papias. [98]
Irenaeus believed Matthew issued a written Gospel of the Hebrews in their own language while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the Church (Against Heresies 3:1). According to Eusebius Hegesippus said Matthew's Gospel was written in Syriac (Ecclesiastical History 3:22-24) a view Eusebius shared (Theophania 4:12). This is repeated in the Stichometry of Nicephorus (c.810). Epiphanius wrote that the Ebionites used only the Gospel of the Hebrews, which was expounded and declared Hebrew using Hebrew script.
Jerome makes frequent reference to the Nazarene Gospel of the Hebrews being composed in Hebrew in his commentaries (Commentary on Isaiah 4, Commentary on Ezekiel 16:3, Commentary on Isaiah 40:9, Commentary on Micah 7:6) Jerome considered that the Gospel of the Hebrews, was written in the Chaldee and Syriac( Aramaic) language but in Hebrew script. Jerome claimed to have translated the whole into Greek (Against Pelagius 3:2) but this is doubted by many scholars since Jerome also made this claim about the Old Testament before he had actually done so. Jerome claimed that a Hebrew original of the Nazarene text was preserved in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus of Caesarea had gathered.(Illustrious Men 2"). In recent years some modern scholars have given more credence to Jerome's testimony. [99]
Jerome identifies the readers of this gospel as observant Jews, distinct from the culturally assimilated and Hellenized Jews, for whom the Greek Septuagint had been translated from Hebrew. It was used extensively by the followers of Hegesippus, Merinthus and Cerinthus as well as by the Ebionites and the Nazarenes.
According to Pantaenus, it was also in circulation in India, having been brought there by Bartholomew. [100] Pantaenus became head of the School in Alexandria and was responsible for much of the Library in Caesarea. In this library was preserved a copy of the Gospel of the Hebrews. The Nazarenes of Beroea gave a copy to Jerome. [101]
The title "The Gospel of the Hebrews" designates merely the class of readers among whom it circulated. They were Jewish Christians (or a particular sect of such) who still spoke the Aramaic language. [102] citation needed
Many early Christian writers came to believe that there was only one Hebrew gospel in circulation in the early church. In the Catalog of Eusebius, only one Hebrew gospel is listed: "And among these some have placed also the Gospel of the Hebrews with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted." [103]
Epiphanius too claims that there was only one Hebrew gospel: "They call it the Gospel of the Hebrews for, in truth, Matthew alone in the New Covenant expounded and declared the Gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script." [20]
The topic of the Gospel according to the Hebrews continues to be one of ongoing and heated debate. Scholars do agree that the title, Gospel according to the Hebrews is not a scholarly neologism, nor is it simply a "hypothetical" gospel. They agree that its title was used in the Early Church as well as in the early church catalogs. [104] [105]
The three main areas of disagreement are Matthaei Authenticum, language of composition and the relationship of the Gospel of the Hebrews to both the Canonical and non Canonical gospels
There are various hypotheses concerning the relation of the material preserved by Jerome to the New Testament. The Hebrew Gospel hypothesis of Nicholson (1879) claims two versions of Matthew, Greek and Hebrew, while that of James R. Edwards (2009) is that the Jewish Christian Gospels preserve some of the source material of Gospel of Luke. These hypotheses are contested by scholars such as Hans-Josef Klauck (2002) who writes, "the Gospel of the Hebrews is not to be equated with an Ur-Matthew." [106]
Traditionally, although the Gospel is technically anonymous, it was believed that the Gospel of Matthew was the work of Saint Matthew, and scholars believed that it was a eyewitness account of the life of Jesus Christ. This is still the 'official' position of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Evangelical Churches. Indeed, Craig Blomberg, [107] F. F. Bruce [108] and Gregory Boyd [109] maintain that the apostle Matthew did write 'his' gospel.They support their position by arguing that, as a former tax collector, Matthew would not have been an ideal person to falsify a gospel.
Nevertheless, most critical scholars still reject Matthean authorship of the first Gospel. Some argue that an apostle and eyewitness of Jesus' ministry would not have used a secondary source, yet the first Gospel relies on Mark for much of its material.Others claim that the perspectives of the book show a fuller development of traditional material and of relations with the Jews than one might expect in an "early Gospel". [110]
The two-source hypothesis is the most commonly accepted solution to the synoptic problem. It argues that Matthew borrowed from two Greek sources, the Gospel of Mark and a hypothetical sayings collection, known by scholars as Q. Therefore Canonical Matthew was composed in Greek at a later time than the Gospel of Mark. More importantly, it was probably not written by Matthew. [111] [112] According to Jerome, the "authentic" or "true" gospel of Matthew (ie Matthaei Authenticum), was the Gospel of the Hebrews used by the Nazarenes and the Ebionites. [113] [114]
Scholars of the Tübingen School such as Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (d.1827), [115] [116] Christian Friedrich Weber (1806), [117] thought that the Gospel of the Hebrews may indeed be an authentic eyewitness account written by the Apostle Matthew himself. [118] If this is the case, the Gospel of the Hebrews clearly has important data to contribute toward the solution of the synoptic problem. [119] A study of the external evidence regarding this gospel shows that among the Nazarenes and Ebionites existed a gospel commonly called the Gospel of the Hebrews. It was written in Aramaic with Hebrew letters. Its authorship was attributed to St. Matthew. [120] While Jerome regarded his Gospel of the Hebrews was with respect, the Jewish-Christian Gospels were generally regarded as heretical and corrupted texts. Nevertheless the ascription of the source of a Hebrew Gospel to the apostle Matthew was widespread and no Church Father attributes a Hebrew Gospel to anyone other than Matthew. Even Epiphanius, in criticizing the Gospel of the Ebionites recognises the tradition that Matthew wrote a Gospel in in Hebrew. [121]
Needless to say, this position has been widely contested. Rudolf Handmann (1888) regarded the Gospel of the Ebionites as a pasticcio which belongs with the dregs of the gospel tradition. [122] [123] [124] [125] Thus the issue of Matthaei Authenticum is far from being resolved.
Modern scholars, however, have called this into question. After explaining in great detail why the Church Fathers such as Epiphanius and Jerome were in error, Wilhelm Schneemelcher argues that there are three distinct Jewish Gospels:
Others have assumed, together with early Christian authors, that there was only one Hebrew Gospel. The title Gospel of the Nazarenes is a scholarly neologism, that does, however, harken back to a single use in the 13th century. Both the titles used to refer to the gospel(s), and how the fragments should be assigned have generated a great deal of confusion.
The position of Parker (1940) [126] and his followers who? is that there is only one Hebrew gospel, the Gospel of the Hebrews but that there were several editions of this one gospel in the Early Church.
Although there is still ongoing debate about the Jewish Christian Gospels and "only the very daring, nowadays, venture on speculations in regard to the Gospel of the Hebrews ", [5] most scholars agree with Schneemelcher when he says, "Thus the number of Jewish Gospels -- whether there be one, two or three such gospels -- is uncertain, the identification of the several fragments is also uncertain and, finally the character and the relationship to one another of the several Jewish gospels is uncertain." [127]
B. H. Streeter argued that a third source, referred to as M, and also hypothetical, lies behind the material in Matthew that has no parallel in Mark or Luke. [128] Through the remainder of the 20th century there were various challenges and refinements of Streeter's hypothesis. In 1953, Parker posited an early version of Matthew (Aramaic M) as a primary source. The Church Fathers also wrote of such a source, [129] called the Gospel of the Hebrews [130]
Scholars agree that there is a connection between the Gospel of the Hebrews and Matthew, but critical scholars generally consider that the extant Gospel of the Hebrews to be translated from a Greek source text into Hebrew and back into Greek. [131] One of the reasons for this view is the opinion that the 4th Century might offer more favourable circumstances for the circulation and perhaps the making of a Hebrew Gospel among Jews than the 1st or 2nd Century. [132]
Although, as Hans-Josef Klauck writes, "the Gospel of the Hebrews is not to be equated with an Ur-Matthew." [133] A study of the external evidence regarding this gospel shows that among the Nazarenes and Ebionites existed a gospel commonly called the Gospel of the Hebrews. It was written in Aramaic with Hebrew letters. Its authorship was attributed to St. Matthew. [134] While the Gospel of the Hebrews was still being circulated and read, the Church Fathers referred to it always with respect, often with reverence. They accepted it as being the work of Matthew. [135]
Although scholarly consensus still holds to Markan priority, some modern scholars believe that the Gospel of the Hebrews was the second source used in the Gospel of Luke [136] and helped form the basis [137] [138] for the Synoptic Tradition. [139] They point out that in the first section of De Viris Illustribus (Jerome), we find the Gospel of Mark listed as the first gospel written, and thus the basis of later gospels. [140] Following it should be Q. However, such a source document (quelle means "source") is absent from Jerome's list, nor is one mentioned by Jerome in his writings. [140] Rather, the first seminal document is not Q but the Gospel of the Hebrews. [141] In "the place of honor" that should be given "the phantom Q" we find a Hebrew usurper. [142]
Scholarly consensus remains overwhelmingly citation needed in favor of Markan priority, and this consensus has not been seriously challenged by speculations surrounding the origins of the Hebrew Gospel. That no copy of either Q or the Hebrew Gospel exists makes the determination of their early role in the development of the Synoptic gospels highly conjectural. Nonetheless, arguments in favor of Q as a primary source for Matthew and Luke remain compelling. [143]
Early Jewish Christians were thought to have been called Nazarenes (Nazoreans). According to the synoptic Gospel of Mathew, the term Nazarene was first applied to Jesus due to his living in a town named Nazareth. [144] Controversy over the existence of such a town, and whether it was founded by Nazarenes, continues. A town of Nazareth may have been founded as a place of gathering of nazarites from the Nazarene sect. The term " nazirite" comes from the Hebrew word nazir meaning "consecrated" or "separated", exemplified by the story of Samson, Samuel, and David. The relationship between consecrated, anointed, messiah, baptized, and christened would indicate that "Jesus the Nazarite" and "Jesus the Christ" were the same person. A Nazarene warrior cult may have existed prior to Jesus, and may go back to the time of Judas Maccabeus. After his death, it was the term used to identify the Jewish Sect that believed Jesus was the Messiah. When this group grew into the Gentile world, they became known as Christians. By the 4th century, Nazarenes were considered orthodox Christians who embraced the Jewish Law, but rejected Hebrew Heresies.
The Nazarenes are generally accepted as being the first Christians who were led by James the Just, who was said to be the brother of Jesus. He led the Church from Jerusalem and had a special experience of the Risen Lord. [145]
The Fathers of the Church believed the Nazarenes used the Gospel of the Hebrews. [146] [147]
Irenaeus wrote that they used only Matthew's Gospel. [148] But, Eusebius wrote that the Ebionites used only the Gospel of the Hebrews. [149] This confusion is clarified by Epiphanius who explained that the Ebionites used the Gospel of the Hebrews written by Matthew. Although the Ebionites may have "edited it" according to their Oral tradition, they never composed a gospel of their own. [150]
The origin of the name Ebionite (or Ebionaean) [151] is debated. Tertullian, Irenaeus, Hippolytus of Rome, Epiphanius, and Jerome ascribed the movement to a heretic named Ebion or Hebion. [152] Others claim the name Ebionite means "poor one" and is derived from Matthew 5:3, for they rejected material wealth. [153] Conflict grew between them and other Christians when the Ebionites failed to embrace the developing Church doctrines of the Virgin birth and Jesus' divinity. They believed Jesus was begotten of God at his baptism.
Conflict also grew over the issue of the Mosaic law, which the Ebionites believed remained in full force. [154] They are said to have rejected Paul's teachings and used only one Gospel, the Gospel of the Hebrews. [155]
One of the ongoing debates is why the Gospel of the Hebrews was left out of the Canon when the Church Fathers wrote that it was composed by Matthew. Origen and Eusebius classed it among the "disputed writings" which some reject, but which others class with the accepted books: 'And among these some have also placed the Gospel according to the Hebrews , with which those Hebrews who accept Christ are especially delighted.' [156] Hence there must have been a large body of Jewish Christians who regarded it as their authority regarding the life, work, and teaching of Jesus. Jerome often cites it as though it were a trustworthy source. Beyond this we know very little of its status. [157]
It has been claimed that the rivalry between Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians brought about the intentional destruction of Hebrew texts. The doctrinal reason centered on Adoptionism. This theology was a minority Hebrew Christian belief that Jesus was merely human, being born of a physical union between Joseph and Mary. [158] He only became divine, by adoption at his baptism, being chosen because of his sinless devotion to the will of God. [159] The Adoptionist view may date back almost to the time of Jesus reconciling the claims that Jesus was the Son of God with the radical monotheism of Judaism. [160] page needed Both the primary gospels i.e. (the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of Mark) had similar adoptionist views of the incarnation, but the Gospel of the Hebrews was the most radical. Jesus was seen to be "adopted" at his baptism when the voice from heaven declared: "You are my beloved Son, this day have I begotten you" [161]
By the end of the 2nd century, Adoptionism was declared a heresy and it was formally rejected by the First Council of Nicaea (325), which wrote the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and identified Jesus as eternally begotten of God. The Roman Emperor Constantine, [162] fostered the faith as an imperial religion.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)The presentation in the Gospel of the Hebrews is simple, thoughtful, lifelike; for the most part it shows its primitive character by the absence of the marvelous and fantastic which adorn the apocryphal gospels. The gospel does not bear the marks of having been constructed to inculcate any particular theological tenets, with the exception its Jewish view as to the origin and nature of Christ. It is, in the main, a simple historical narrative whose purpose seems to have been to preserve the living, evangelical tradition for present and future use. [89] Although the Gospel of the Hebrews was not identical to the Greek Gospel of Matthew found in the Bible, they were similar. [6]
The Gospel of the Hebrews was 2200 lines, just 300 lines shorter than Greek Matthew. [7] Scholars have been able to study much of the theological structure because of the Fathers of the Early Church.
Didymus the Blind held a source he calls "the Gospel of the Hebrews" to be informative when he explains that there are many people with two names, that scripture calls Matthew “Levi” in the Gospel of Luke, but they are not the same person (Psalm Commentary 3) [163]
Within Judaism, the Shekinah (or "visible" cloud of the Presence) is a feminine word, thought to be Yahvah's feminine aspect; therefore, they called the Spirit the "mother". Thus in the Gospel of the Hebrews we should not be surprised, that after the temptation of Jesus it says, “Even so did my Mother, the Holy Spirit, took me by one of my hairs, and carried me to the great mountain Tabor." It should also be noted that “Spirit” in Hebrew is feminine, while in Latin it is masculine and in Greek it is neuter. [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169]
This is an important theme among Hebrew Christians. In the Gospel of the Hebrews one of the greatest sins is, "To grieve the spirit of one's brother" and we also read that the Lord spoke to his disciples saying, "And never be joyful except when you look on your brother with love." [170] [171] [172]
In the Gospel of the Hebrews:
Papias tells us that the Gospel of the Hebrews also gives story of a woman accused of many sins before the Lord. Scholars have noted the connection to the sinful woman in John's Gospel. [94] There has been much debate but some believe this narrative is historical [8]
This Gospel puts a particular emphasis on James the Just, as head of the Jerusalem church, and especially concentrates on arguing for obedience to Jewish law. The gospel contains an independent legend that the first resurrection appearance was witnessed by James. The gospel also recounts that James was present at the Last Supper. [174] The stories are in contradiction to the canonical gospels which recount that James and his brothers were not followers of Jesus prior to the Resurrection with John 7:5 mentions such unbelief explicitly. At the Feast of Weeks, however, Judas the brother of James, is at least listed among the group of believers. [175] Jude, in his own epistle, claims that he is the same "brother of James". [176] Paul would seem to provide the evidence that Jesus did, in fact, visit James after the resurrection [177] but after Cephas and the twelve, then more than five hundred "brethren" who were still alive at the time of Paul's writing: "After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles". During the beginning of Jesus's ministry, James did not believe Jesus was the Messiah; however, there was some great catalyst that changed his mind, for he became the leader of the Nazaraean community in Jerusalem and produced the Epistle of James written before 61 C.E. When he was stoned by the Sanhedrin under the authority of Ananus, the son or grandson of Annas who had been responsible for bringing Jesus to trial. [178]
Eusebius quotes Hegesippus, who states: "This apostle was consecrated from his mother's womb. He drank neither wine nor fermented liquors, and abstained from animal food. A razor never came upon his head, he never anointed with oil, and never used a bath. He alone was allowed to enter the sanctuary. He never wore woolen, but linen garments [i.e. as the priests did]...And indeed, on account of his exceeding great piety, he was called the Just, and Oblias (or Zaddick and Ozleam) which signifies justice and protection of the people. Some of the seven sects [of Judaism], therefore, of the people, mentioned by me above in my Commentaries, asked him what was the door to Jesus? And he answered, 'that he was the Saviour.'. From which, some believed that Jesus is the Christ...". [179] In the Gospel of the Hebrews it is written as follows:
The gospel quotation found in the letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans may be one of the oldest recorded sayings of Jesus. citation needed An Exegesis of the Sayings of the Lord by means of an in-depth analysis of the available Patristic evidence as well as a comparison with the Hebrew Gospel tradition, leads to this conclusion. [180]
The Gospel of the Hebrews states that when the Risen Lord came to those with Peter, Jesus said to them, “Take hold of me, handle me, and see that I am not a bodiless demon.” [180] [181] Jerome also points out that the Apostles thought Jesus to be a spirit, for in the Gospel of the Hebrews Jesus says that he is not a “A bodiless demon” [182] [183]
The material in the Comparison Chart of the major gospels is from the Gospel Parallels by B. H. Throckmorton, The five Gospels by R. W. Funk, The Gospel According to the Hebrews by Nicholson (1879) & The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition by J. R. Edwards. [184]
Item | Matthew, Mark, Luke | John | Thomas | Gospel of the Hebrews | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
New Covenant | The central theme of the Gospels – Love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself [185] | The central theme – Love is the New Commandment given by Jesus [186] | Secret knowledge, love your friends [187] | The central theme – Love one another (Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians) [188] | |
Forgiveness | Very important - particularly in Matthew and Luke [189] | Assumed [190] | Not mentioned | Very important - Forgiveness is a central theme and this gospel goes into the greatest detail (Jerome, Against Pelagius 3.2) [191] | |
The Lord's Prayer | In Matthew & Luke but not Mark [192] | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Important - “mahar” or "tomorrow" [193] [194] | |
Love & the poor | Very Important - The rich young man [195] | Assumed [196] | Important [197] | Very important - The rich young man (Origen, Commentary on Matthew 15:14) [198] | |
Jesus starts his ministry | Jesus meets John the Baptist and is baptized [199] | Jesus meets John the Baptist [200] | Only speaks of John the Baptist [201] | Jesus meets John the Baptist and is baptized. This gospel goes into the greatest detail [202] | |
Disciples-number | Twelve [203] | Twelve [204] | not mentioned [205] | Twelve [206] | |
Disciples-inner circle | Peter, Andrew, James & John [203] | Peter, Andrew, James & the Beloved Disciple [204] | Peter [205] | Peter, Andrew James & John [202] | |
Disciples-others |
Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James, Simon the Zealot, Jude Thaddaeus, & Judas [204] |
Philip, Nathanael, Matthew, Thomas, James, Simon the Zealot, Jude Thaddaeus & Judas [204] |
Matthew, Thomas, James the Just (Brother of Jesus) [207] |
Matthew, James the Just (Brother of Jesus), Simon the Zealot, Thaddaeus, Judas [208] | |
Possible Authors | Unknown; [209] Mark the Evangelist & Luke the Evangelist | The Beloved Disciple [210] | Thomas [211] | Matthew the Evangelist [212] | |
Virgin birth account | In Matthew & Luke, but not Mark [213] | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | |
Jesus' baptism | Described [192] | Not Mentioned [192] | N/A | Described great detail [214] | |
Preaching style | Brief one-liners; parables [192] | Essay format, Midrash [192] | Sayings, parables [215] | Brief one-liners; parables [192] | |
Storytelling | Parables [216] | Figurative language & Metaphor [217] | Gnostic, hidden, parables [218] | Parables [219] | |
Jesus' theology | 1st Century liberal Judaism. [220] | Critical of Jewish Authorities [221] | Gnostic [192] | 1st Century Judaism [220] | |
Miracles | Many miracles | Seven Signs | N/A | Fewer but more credible miracles [222] | |
Duration of ministry | 1 year [223] | 3 years (Multiple Passovers) | N/A | 1 year [223] | |
Location of ministry | Mainly Galilee | Mainly Judea, near Jerusalem | N/A | Mainly Galilee | |
Passover meal | Body & Blood = Bread and wine | Interrupts meal for foot washing | N/A | Hebrew Passover is celebrated but details are N/A Epiphanius [224] | |
Burial shroud | A single piece of cloth | Multiple pieces of cloth [225] | N/A | Given to the High Priest [146] | |
Resurrection | Mary and the Women are the first to learn Jesus has arisen [226] | John adds detailed account of Mary's experience of the Resurrection [227] | Not Applicable as Gospel of Thomas is a collection of the "sayings" of Jesus, not the events of his life | In the Gospel of the Hebrews is the unique account of Jesus appearing to his brother, James the Just. [228] |
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help); Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help); Check date values in: |year=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help){{
cite journal}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help); Check date values in: |year=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help) Pacific School of Religion Pub.{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)It is the only one of the Jewish-Christian Gospels to be included in the Early Church Catalogs. citation needed It is subject to heated and ongoing scholarly debate. [1] [2] [3] [4]
After the Crucifixion of Jesus, his disciples gathered together in Jerusalem, in an "upper room" perhaps where the Cenacle is today. James, [5] the brother of Jesus, was the early leader in Jerusalem of the Jewish sect that became known as Christianity. This group was located in and about Jerusalem and proclaimed that Jesus was the promised Messiah. [6] [7] [8]
These early Jewish Christians were thought to have been called Nazarenes. [9] The term Nazarene was first applied to Jesus. [10] After his death, it was the term used to identify the Jewish Sect that believed Jesus was the Messiah. [9] [11] The Nazarenes were generally accepted as being the first Christians who were led by [12] James "the Just", until he was martyred c.62 AD. [13] [14]
As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh. This oral tradition interpreted the written law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. [15] [16] It was in this cultural context or Sitz im Leben that the Christian Oral Tradition had its roots, as Jesus and later Christian 'Rabbis' developed the oral "Gospel" to interpret the written Law given to Moses by God. [17] [18]
When the Temple at Jerusalem was destroyed in the year 70, this oral tradition was no longer viable and it became necessary for it to be written down. Scholars are in general agreement that the Jewish Christians up to the destruction of the Temple had no written Gospels being circulated among them. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]
Originally, Jewish/Christian scholarship had been oral. Jesus and other rabbis expounded and debated the Torah (the written law expressed in the Hebrew Bible) and discussed the Tanakh without the benefit of written works (other than the Biblical books themselves), though some may have made private notes (megillot setarim)
This situation changed drastically, however, mainly as the result of the destruction of the Jewish commonwealth in the year 70 and the consequent upheaval of Jewish/Christian social and legal norms. Jewish Christians were required to face a new reality— without a Temple (to serve as the center of teaching and study), the old system of oral scholarship could not be maintained. It is during this period that rabbinic discourse began to be recorded in writing. [24] [25]
The Church Fathers recognized this and said that the first gospels were born out of necessity. [26] Matthew, a Galilean Jew and follower of the rabbi Jesus is said to have written the first gospel. [27] It was written in Hebrew and meant for Hebrew Christians. [28] [29]
As a disciple, Matthew followed Jesus, and would have been an eye witness to the rabbinical midrashic discourse of the "Rabbi from Nazareth". Matthew may have even participated in the development of the Torah Shebeal Peh as the Talmud mentions him as a follower of Jesus the Nazarene. [30] [31] [32] Matthew reduced this Logia into a written form in what would become known to as the first Gospel. [33] [34] [35]
Because of the writings of the Church Fathers we know a great deal about Matthew's gospel. It was composed in Hebrew near Jerusalem for Hebrew Christians and it was translated into Greek, but the Greek copy was lost. The Hebrew original was kept at the Library of Caesarea. The Nazarene Community transcribed a copy for Jerome which he used in his work. [36] [37] [38]
Matthew's Gospel was called the Gospel according to the Hebrews [39] [40] or sometimes the Gospel of the Apostles [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] and it was once believed that it was the original to the Greek Matthew found in the Bible, although this is currently the subject of scholarly debate. [46]
Matthew's Gospel according to the Hebrews was widely circulated among early Hebrew Christians. [47] [48] These groups included the Nazarenes, Ebionites etc. It was generally believed that they added their own oral traditions or midrash to the "Hebrew Gospel" giving rise to what are now known as the Jewish Gospels. [49] Almost all critics are agreed, that the Gospel according to Nazarenes, the Gospel according to Ebionites, etc. are just modified editions of Matthew's Gospel according to the Hebrews but were essentially the same gospel and are important to understanding the gospel tradition of early Christianity. [50] [51] From Egypt, to as far away as India, [52] in various editions, [53] the Gospel according to the Hebrews [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] remained one of the most important primary Christian writings [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] until the Jewish Christianity was replaced by the modern Christianity of today. [57] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69]
EpiphaniusP3037
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
This article seems to have been suffering duplicate POV edits from Authentic Gospel of Matthew since 2005. For example:
Someone recently added a proposal to merge template to the article without creating a discussion section, so I am doing that here. This discussion has already been beaten to death on this and related talk pages, so I'm going to hold off on commenting for now and give others a chance. Ignocrates ( talk) 02:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
This proposal to merge went just as I expected, i.e. nowhere. I'm going to wait a few more days for comments. If there are none, I will close this discussion and remove the merge template. Ignocrates ( talk) 16:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Is τὸ Ευαγγελιον με τους Εβραίους supposed to be τὸ Ευαγγελιον μετα τους Εβραίους? -- AnonMoos ( talk)
Do you have any references citing that Nicholson was not a Biblical scholar? Also the point I was trying to make was that it would be 'wrong' to call Wilhelm Schneemelcher a Nazi because he was a respected scholar. Feel free to debate the scholarship but let's drop the slurs. Now is there any chance that we can put this back and forth behind us? - Ret.Prof ( talk) 05:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Why does this article not include a section devoted to the extant text assigned to the Gospel of the Hebrews? It seems implicit in the article that the full text of this gospel has not survived; that there are many quotes, paraphrases, and references to it amongst the writings of the early Church fathers; and common sense tells us that there must be scraps (at least) of papyri and other ancient documents that embody portions of the text.
When a subject is as contentious as this one seems to be, it is highly relevant to understanding that readers be given a dispassionate account of the available textual material. Otherwise, many of the assertions in this article are (so to speak) free floating without context.
Possibly all that is needed is a reference to a good website on the subject.
Floozybackloves ( talk) 18:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Ictu and I agreed to stop editing this topic as of Feb 2. We agreed to just walk away and let other editors edit. It appears Ictu has not kept his word. Please explain. -
Ret.Prof (
talk) 23:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Please see apology below. -
Ret.Prof (
talk)
17:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
RetProf, throwing around charges like Serious breach of Wikipedia Ethics (?) is unneccessary. I didn't agree to walk away away for ever leaving this article overweight/POV, I took a break. You've been editing too, duplicating the POV content here (which is itself largely duplicated) again on new articles you've written Oral tradition and the historical Jesus and Jesus outside the New Testament. In any case this article shouldn't be left as it is without (a) some correction, (b) tagging. In ictu oculi ( talk) 00:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
( talk) 00:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Flinging around accusations of bad ethics is a breach of wp:civil or WP:AGF, and not generally helpful. If information is being duplicated then that is bad editing practice and should be replaced by links to some centralised article. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 06:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Ictu and I had been in a heated debate. It would be fair to say our work on the Gospel of the Hebrews was bogged down in conflict. He then made the following offer:
I accepted his offer (see above on this talk page) as follows:
I sincerely believed that we had agreed to stop editing the Gospel of the Hebrews. I stopped all editing of this article and moved on with my editing project (see my talk page). When I discovered that Ictu had continued editing I felt I had been played like an old violin (or is that a deck of cards). On March 17, I acted out of anger. I fully and in good faith apologize for my behavior and misunderstanding the nature of our agreement. Let's put this behind us. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 17:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I've done an undo on the last revert by Ret Prof. The POV tag specifically says it should not be removed. I personally regard the other tags in the same light. I cannot prevent other individual content being removed. Ret Prof, if you do wish to remove content please do so the normal edit method, do not do so by pressing revert/undo as that will remove again the POV tag. I also request that you do not remove the actual text of the subject of the article: Extant text
The seven fragments which comprise the common extant text of the Gospel of the Hebrews, "GH", are found pp.176-177 in Chapter IV Jewish-Christian Gospels by Philip Vielhauer and George Strecker of the standard edition of the New Testament Apocrypha edited by Wilhelm Schneemelcher.[7] The seven fragments comprise:
and so on. In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I have added the factual dispute template to the article for the time being while the above issues remain active. I suggest that specific issues be introduced below in order to derive consensus. Eusebeus ( talk) 14:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Thought it might be a good idea to add this "Disputed" section (required by the maint. tag) before another editor comes along and removes the maint. tag for lack of discussion. So here it is editors; what exactly is against WP:NPOV and/or WP:UNDUE?
It's possible that too many {{ Citation needed}} tags have been placed too closely together, and there shouldn't be more than three or four inline citations for a claim. That makes articles more difficult for general readers to follow. Very distracting! Also, is it customary to require a ref. citation for language translations such as the one in the first sentence of the lede? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 16:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
True. It is also possible that undue weight is being given to material that falls outside mainstream scholarly consensus (e.g. concerning Marcan priority). Both issues should be addressed below in a way that allows editors to weigh in on the question. Eusebeus ( talk) 17:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC) this edit seems to represent passive-aggressive tagspam. Eusebeus ( talk) 18:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with Paine that editors "are being careless and not looking very hard for sources." I could only find one non referenced piece of material which I fixed.
The Tagspam is not justified. Again please outline your concerns on the talk page clearly, one at a time. We will discuss it and if I cannot properly reference it then be assured it will be deleted. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 17:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC) - PS - ******Please see main discussion at the Talk:Gospel of Matthew******
17:56, 19 March 2011 Ret.Prof (talk | contribs) (88,094 bytes) (FACT CHECK COMPLETE - Facts are now reliably sourced. Removed Tags. If you think I have missed anything please point it out on the talk page) (undo)
In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Paine - Inline indications of POV are problematic since if we have, say as here 400 sentences supporting the theory of a lost Hebrew Ur-Matthew being preserved in 4thC Nazarene versions, per Edward Nicholson (librarian) (1874) and Ret Prof, then all 400 sentences would require inline POV tags. At least Where the 20-30 citation needed tag was added it was clear that a POV sentence had no ref, before Ret Prof deleted the tags. Yes we are in dispute, but finding an editor on Wikipedia who is willing to "push" (in the sense of "push back" against an installed POV as here) to get included mainstream/critical/majority scholarship views is not an easy task. Those with mainstream/critical/majority scholarship tend to shy away from this, and I don't blame them. It would actually need 4 or 5 editors in favour of SBL type sources being added to the article and the Messianic/Aramaic (?) POV removed to make any headway.
Ovadyah - I actually don't want to do the editing here or be involved, I would much prefer that 2 or 3 mainstream editors came along with a passing knowledge based on general modern/mainstream/critical reference works and did it. In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The real problem I think is that there is a conflict here between two different articles. To myself Gospel of the Hebrews is simply what GH means in the ref index of SBL publications: the 7 verses of that name preserved from a 4th Century Nazarene edition of Matthew which Jerome had sent to Chalcis; wheras to Ret Prof it means the "Hebrew Gospel theory" of a lost Hebrew Ur-Matthew theory. An article which could begin "Hebrew Ur-Matthew is the theory that..." and start with the ref Hans-Josef Klauck Apocryphal gospels: an introduction 2003 p78 "... fictitious exchange of letters between two bishops and the church father Jerome which precedes the work in some manuscripts, where it is described as the Hebrew or Aramaic Ur-Matthew, which Jerome himself had translated into Latin." In this Hebrew Ur-Matthew theory article Ret Prof could cut and paste to his heart's desire without generating conflict with what scholarship means by Gospel of the Hebrews in the Schneemelcher NTA. And since its a theory it only has to describe Nicholson/Edwards POV. In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
There is remarkable agreement among the secondary sources. The following are representative of the early secondary source material.
Summary by Epiphanius:
- They too accept Matthew's gospel, and like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus, they use it alone. They call it the Gospel of the Hebrews, for in truth Matthew alone expounded and declared the Gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script. - Epiphanius, Panarion 30.3.7
Summary by Jerome:
- "In the Gospel of the Hebrews, written in the Chaldee and Syriac language but in Hebrew script, and used by the Nazarenes to this day (I mean the Gospel of the Apostles, or, as it is generally maintained, Matthew's Gospel, a copy of which is in the library at Caesarea), we find . . ." - Jerome, Against Pelagius 3.2
Among the secondary sources to the time of Jerome, by both Christians and Non-Christians, no writer ever asserts either directly or indirectly that the Hebrew Gospel (aka the Gospel of the Hebrews) was ever composed in Greek. Jerome clarifies this on several different occasions.
Clarification by Jerome:
- Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author uncertain. The Hebrew original has been preserved to this present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it. - Jerome, On Illustrious Men 3
Clarification by Jerome:
- In this last he bore witness to the Gospel which I have recently translated . - Jerome, On Illustrious Men
Language clarification by Jerome:
- The Gospel called of the Hebrews, recently translated by me into Greek and Latin, which Origen often uses, states ... - Jerome, On Illustrious Men, 2
Clarification by Jerome:
- In the gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call the Authentic Gospel of Matthew (or " Matthaei Authenticum " ) the . . . - Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 2
Clarification by Jerome:
- And whoever accepts the Gospel circulating under the title "Gospel of the Hebrews", which we most recently translated, in which it is said by the Saviour, “Even now my mother, the Holy Spirit, carried me away by one of my hairs,” will not hesitate to say that the Word of God proceeds from the Spirit, and that the soul, which is the bride of the Word, has the Holy Spirit (which in " Hebrew " is feminine in gender, RUA). - Jerome, Commentary on Micah 7.6
Finally, it must be stated that among the sources to the time of Jerome there is no mention of a Gospel of the Ebionites or a Gospel of the Nazarenes nor is there any mention of either the Ebionites or the Nazarenes ever composing their own Gospel. The sources are in agreement that these Jewish groups used Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 02:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
While we're talking about Jerome, can we at least fix the sentence re. Jerome's Latin description: My suggested text:
Ret Prof's preferred text:
Can we please mention that the term 'demon' in the days in which the Hebrew Gospel is said to have been written would not have had the same meaning that it has today. 'Demon,' in the original sense of the word, referred to a spirit or an angel, or a similar presence, not at all necessarily evil, having acquired its characteristic as 'evil' much later. We may wish to include this so that we may clarify that the term 'bodiless demon' would not have been grounds to eject this gospel from the canon, as some may tend to believe, as it is not inconsistent with the term used in the canonical gospels in the same circumstance: 'ghost' or 'spirit' (ie, a spirit does not have flesh and bones, etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.157.235 ( talk) 06:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I checked out what you said and you are correct. However, we must keep focused on the two main issues that affect this and a number of other articles.
First Issue - Matthaei authenticum
- The Historical writings from the time of Jesus to the time of Jerome c.385 C.E., state Matthew wrote an eyewitness account of the life of Jesus called the Hebrew Gospel or sometimes the Gospel of the Hebrews. No ancient source either Christian or non-Christian disputes this. There are many scholars such a Lillie, Nicholson, Parker, Cassels, Edwards, Tabor, Schoemaker and Butz, who agree with the historical sources and explain why. Then there those who disagree such as Vielhauer and Schneemelcher.
Second Issue - Matthew and the Gospel of Matthew
- What is the relationship of Matthew to the Canonical Gospel of Matthew?
- The Roman Catholic position is that the Gospel of Matthew in the Bible was written by Matthew and is authentic.
- Liberal scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew is a "false Matthew" written by an unknown redactor long after the time of Matthew.
- A third group believe the Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew (See Aramaic original) was used as one of the sources of the Canonical Gospel of Matthew.
We as editors must work together to blend all the sources into a NPOV article(s). (See Reflections of an Old Geezer at User talk:Ret.Prof and Talk:Gospel of Matthew) - - Ret.Prof ( talk) 12:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello. At the risk of stating the obvious, just a note that
Therefore the main content of the article should be about the text. Currently this article contains almost no reference to the text and what reference there was has been deleted. Therefore I have attempted to add a brief discription of the text:
If this is not deleted I will attempt to add back GH1 and GH2 of the GH1-7 from the standard edition. In ictu oculi ( talk) 13:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Ret Prof. Regarding your question "Could you supply a reliable source that "GH1 and GH2 of the GH1-7" are the standard edition?"
Your deletion says "see talk" but on talk you are not answering questions. As before:
To which I will add:
Is there any other article on a text in Wikipedia where the actual subject of article keeps getting deleted? This is how the Mercer Dictionary of the Bible p364 Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard - 1990 starts:
Mercer Dictionary of the Bible "The Gospel of the Hebrews is one of three Jewish-Christian gospels known to the church fathers, (cf. Gospel of the Nazareans and the Gospel of the Ebionites.) This gospel is referred to in a variety of ways..."
Unfortunately one editor is persistently deleting any material related to the subject of the article The Gospel of the Hebrews as per Mercer Dictionary - in favour of recycling primary testimony of a 4thC writer whom most modern scholars consider from linguistic analysis was mistaken, and did not realise that he was simply translating a sectarian Hebrew translation of Greek Matthew back into Greek. In ictu oculi ( talk) 22:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
See below In ictu oculi ( talk) 16:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
DURING the first and early part of the second centuries of Christian era, there were numerous traditions both oral and written concerning the life, work and sayings of Christ, not found in four gospels of the Bible. Bernard Pick made an exhaustive study of the Paralipomena. Google Link
This web source has an extensive collection of the Paralipomena. It has the advantage of putting the the Paralipomena in their original context. New Advent.org
His collection of the Hebrew Paralipomena can be found on pages 263-291 of the The Hebrew Gospel. He has both the original text and English translation. Although all the aforementioned translations are good, his are very readable
The rest of your questions are addressed in my "reply" at Talk:Gospel of Matthew Please read it more carefully. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 23:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
In ictu oculi ( talk) 23:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
It is WP Policy to:
When editing warring takes place I temporarily revert the wrongful edit and go to the talk page where I politely remind the person
It is WP Policy to:
Please see "False accusations" and "Waffle" at Reflections of an Old Geezer at User talk:Ret.Prof. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 00:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Ret Prof. You are saying that the answer to Q.1 and Q.2 is that you did not delete the tags?
Please consult your edit History.
Regarding these two:
In ictu oculi ( talk) 00:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I see that another editor has just restored the paragraph on the text:
Please RetProf, before you delete again, give specific reason on a line by line basis challenging the factual accuracy of the paragraph. And please do not cite primary sources (Jerome). In ictu oculi ( talk) 16:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I have added:
RetProf, please explain your deletion of this text above before you delete it. In ictu oculi ( talk) 21:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
This article's factual accuracy is
disputed. (March 2011) |
This article possibly contains
original research. (March 2011) |
Part of a series on |
Jewish Christianity |
---|
The Gospel of the Hebrews ( Greek: το καθ εβραιους ευαγγελιον), commonly shortened from the Gospel according to the Hebrews or simply called the Hebrew Gospel, is a lost gospel preserved in fragments within the writings of the Church Fathers.
This non- canonical gospel gave an account of the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth detailing his story from the events of his Baptism to his Resurrection. [2] [3] [4]
A major source regarding the Gospel is the testimony of Jerome who received a copy from a Nazarene group while he was at Chalcis between 373 and 376. [5] Jerome records that it was regarded by many of the Nazarenes and Ebionites as the original version of Matthew: "In evangelio quo utuntur Nazaraeni et Ebionitae, quod nuper in Graecum de Hebraeo sermone transtulimus, et quod vocatur a plerisque Matthaei authenticum." [6]
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)In ictu oculi ( talk) 03:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Note that material cut and pasted from Gospel of the Hebrews to Gospel of Matthew has restored there. There is a duplicate proposal to remove the same duplicate text on Talk:Gospel of Matthew, Talk:Saint Matthew, Talk:Canonical gospels etc. If anyone supports or opposes they should add support or oppose here, or there, In ictu oculi ( talk) 04:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Stop all personal attacks and focus on references. . . end your voter registration campaign. Thanks - Ret.Prof ( talk) 04:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Well this felt like a personal attack:
**Scholarly dispute** This is an area of contention among Biblical scholars. The following is a list of major scholars who support Matthaei Authenticum:
The Catholic Encyclopedia condemns the aforementioned in the strongest possible terms.
Deception plays a major factor in Ictu's editing strategy. (See Reflections on my talk page.) One of his favorite ploys is to "suggest" to a good faith editor that he would be "quite happy to walk far far away and let mainstream editors like PiCo and History2007 get on with a clean up here without obtaining your "consensus". Sound good? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)" or Will you join me and just walk away and let other editors edit? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC) When the good faith editor agrees to step back from editing the article in question, Ictu sneeks back to the article and continues his POV pushing. I am getting wiser in the ways of our wiki-warrior. At the Gospel of the Hebrews it took me several weeks to call him on his playing the con. At the Gospel of Matthew I caught his deception right away. It again confirms what I have said on my talk page. A wiser Ret.Prof ( talk) 18:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Ictu, it is not that you are wrong, it is that you are simply not right. The references you cite are legitimate . . . but only tell half the story. My problem is not with what you have written! Rather, it is that any reference that does not support your theology is cleansed from Wikipedia.
There was a time when Ictu's anti Hebrew Gospel beliefs prevailed. Indeed, most scholars in the last century followed Philipp Vielhauer and Georg Strecker (in Hennecke and Schneemelcher NTApoc), and more recently AFJ Klijn (1992), as Ictu has pointed out. It should be noted that their were always some dissenting voices such as W. R. Schoemaker, Cassels, Parker and Nicholson.
Citations from W. R. Schoemaker, Cassels, Parker and Nicholson |
---|
References adduced by Ret.Prof ( talk · contribs) |
"The Gospel according to the Hebrews: its fragments translated and annotated, first published 1879, is a highly creditable work. The list of fragments and of references has never been so completely made as by Nicholson" - Review of The Gospel according to the Hebrews 1879 by Robert Vaughan, The British quarterly review, Volume 71-72, Hodder and Stoughton, 1880. p 277 Google Link
|
By 1988, cracks cracks started to form. (See Ray A. Pritz.) Then, in 1998 Peter Lebrecht Schmidt, called this near consensus into question. Critically assessing the discussion from Schmidtke to Klijn, Schmidt showed that originally there was only one Jewish gospel, called the "Gospel according to the Hebrews," which was subsequently translated into Greek and Latin. Schmidt's work was powerful, well sourced and thought provoking. By the turn of the century it had become obvious "that the state of the scholarly question had been thrown into the air and there is simply no consensus" (Please read pages 245 - 246, Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries by Oskar Skarsaune & Reidar Hvalvik Hendrickson Publishers, 2007)
Citations re New Consensus |
---|
References adduced by Ret.Prof ( talk · contribs) |
Google Link Google Link Google Link
This new consensus argues that there was remarkable agreement among the Church Fathers.
Finally, Schmidt et al point out that in the sources to the time of Jerome, there is no mention of a Gospel of the Ebionites or a Gospel of the Nazarenes nor is there any mention of either the Ebionites or the Nazarenes ever composing their own Gospel. The sources are in agreement that these Jewish groups used Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. |
Since then, Schmidt has been joined by such noted scholars as James Edwards, James Tabor and Jeffrey J. Bütz.
Citations re New Consensus |
---|
References adduced by Ret.Prof ( talk · contribs) |
The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition - by James R Edwards, 2009====
Links: p 259 p 260 p 117 pp 121 - 123 The Secret Legacy of Jesus: The Judaic Teachings - by Jeffrey J. Bütz & James Tabor, 2010
|
Here on Wikipedia, scholars such have as E.B. Nicholson, James Edwards, James Tabor, Peter Lebrecht Schmidt and Jeffrey J. Bütz have had their reputations called into question. These smears against noted scholars are unfounded. In real world they are considered "reliable sources" and are respected.
E.B. Nicholson, James Edwards, James Tabor, Peter Lebrecht Schmidt and Jeffrey J. Bütz are reputable scholars |
---|
References adduced by Ret.Prof ( talk · contribs) |
"The Gospel according to the Hebrews: its fragments translated and annotated, first published 1879, is a highly creditable work. The list of fragments and of references has never been so completely made as by Nicholson" - Review of The Gospel according to the Hebrews 1879 by Robert Vaughan, The British quarterly review, Volume 71-72, Hodder and Stoughton, 1880. p 277 Google Link The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition - by James R Edwards, 2009
|
The main issue is "Did Matthew, follower of the Jewish Rabbi Jesus write a Hebrew Gospel?" As has been pointed out in the references above, the answer is probably yes, as there is a lot of historical data confirming this position. To exclude all these reliable sources is the worst kind of POV pushing. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 18:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I have added this paragraph at the heading of the "scholarship" section expressing both views:
Number of Jewish-Christian Gospels? Main article: Jewish-Christian Gospels
Since no complete text of any Jewish-Christian Gospel survives, a primary task of scholarship is determining how many distinct Gospels are indicated by the patristic evidence. Hans-Josef Klauck in Apocryphal gospels: an introduction (2003) notes that "it has become almost canonical in twentieth-century scholarship to speak of three Jewish-Christian gospels: a Gospel of the Hebrews (EvHeb), a Gospel of the Nazaraeans (EvNaz) and a Gospel of the Ebionites (EvEb)".[28] This, effectively, is the distinction observed by Hans Waitz, Wilhelm Schneemelcher and Philipp Vielhauer in what is often termed the "standard" edition of the New Testament Apocrypha. A notable supporter of this now traditional division into three is Albertus Klijn (1992) who he writes that "The presence of three Jewish Christian Gospels is an established fact."[29] There are those who differ with this conclusion; for example Paul Foster (2008).[30] Part of the reason for three Gospels is the presence of differences in the surviving fragments, particularly the presence of three separate accounts of Christ's baptism, while another factor was the scepticism towards the reliability of the evidence of Jerome.[31] However, Klauck also notes that "In more recent years (cf. [P. L.] Schmidt) in a pendulum swing away from this scepticism, there has been a tendency to regard Jerome as more trustworthy."[32] With the result that the division of Jerome's testimony into 2: a Gospel of the Hebrews (EvHeb), a Gospel of the Nazaraeans (EvNaz), is less confident.[33] This still leaves however the problem of the multiple accounts of Christ's baptism, which seem to require at least three sources.[34] Craig A. Evans (2005) views that it is probably more safe to divide the material into Origen's Gospel, Jerome's Gospel, Epiphanius' Gospel, etc.[35]
I propose to go on and turn all primary evidence in this section into bracketed refs (On Illustrious Men 2.2) etc. Then start to trim away duplicate. In ictu oculi ( talk) 09:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Ref 104 reads in its entirety:
a b c d e f g Trite
What does that mean? Is it an author's name? Vandalism? Commentary?
Also, the text that was cut & pasted here--wouldn't it be in the history? It's a little confusing & overwhelming to have all that text here.
Sorry all I can do at the moment is point these things out.
Thanks, -- Geekdiva ( talk) 06:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Critical editions of the Gospel of the Hebrews vary, but there is general agreement among modern scholars that seven quotations from Patristic sources are from a distinct Gospel of the Hebrews, although two of these are ambiguous. [7] Hans Waitz (1937) [8] provides a list of the major German scholars who up to that date divide the Jewish-Christian Gospels into different traditions, though Waitz himself argues for only two Gospels. [9] There is now a tendency to reduce the traditional division of the Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Nazarenes and Gospel of the Ebionites to two Gospels, [10] though Klauck (2003) [11] notes that against this hypothesis, the material includes "three extra-canonical narratives of the baptism of Jesus which vary to such an extent that they cannot come from one or even two gospels alone."
The standard critical edition [12] of the Gospel of the Hebrews is by Philipp Vielhauer, translated by George Ogg, in Hennecke and Schneemelcher's New Testament Apocrypha (1962), [13] also reproduced in Cameron (1982) [14] and Lapham (2003). [15]
Scholarship generally holds that it was probably composed in Egypt in the 2nd century and originally in Greek, [16] [17] though Jerome considered the copy he obtained to be an original composition in Hebrew (Against Pelagius 3.2). [18] [19]
It is the only one of the Jewish-Christian Gospels to be included in the Early Church Catalogs. citation needed It is subject to heated and ongoing scholarly debate. [20] [21] [22] [23]
This article
duplicates the scope of other articles. |
After the Crucifixion of Jesus, his disciples gathered together in Jerusalem, in an "upper room" perhaps where the Cenacle is today. James, [24] the brother of Jesus, was the early leader in Jerusalem of the Jewish sect that became known as Christianity. This group was located in and about Jerusalem and proclaimed that Jesus was the promised Messiah. [25] [26] [27]
These early Jewish Christians were thought to have been called Nazarenes. [28] The term Nazarene was first applied to Jesus. [29] After his death, it was the term used to identify the Jewish Sect that believed Jesus was the Messiah. [28] [30] The Nazarenes were generally accepted as being the first Christians who were led by [31] James "the Just", until he was martyred c.62 AD. [32] [33]
As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh. This oral tradition interpreted the written law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. [34] [35] It was in this cultural context or Sitz im Leben that the Christian Oral Tradition had its roots, as Jesus and later Christian 'Rabbis' developed the oral "Gospel" to interpret the written Law given to Moses by God. [36] [37]
When the Temple at Jerusalem was destroyed in the year 70, this oral tradition was no longer viable and it became necessary for it to be written down. Scholars are in general agreement that the Jewish Christians up to the destruction of the Temple had no written Gospels being circulated among them. [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]
This article
duplicates the scope of other articles. |
Originally, Jewish/Christian scholarship had been oral. Jesus and other rabbis expounded and debated the Torah (the written law expressed in the Hebrew Bible) and discussed the Tanakh without the benefit of written works (other than the Biblical books themselves), though some may have made private notes (megillot setarim)
This situation changed drastically, however, mainly as the result of the destruction of the Jewish commonwealth in the year 70 and the consequent upheaval of Jewish/Christian social and legal norms. Jewish Christians were required to face a new reality— without a Temple (to serve as the center of teaching and study), the old system of oral scholarship could not be maintained. It is during this period that rabbinic discourse began to be recorded in writing. [43] [44]
The Church Fathers recognized this and said that the first gospels were born out of necessity. [45] Matthew, a Galilean Jew and follower of the rabbi Jesus is said to have written the first gospel. [46] It was written in Hebrew and meant for Hebrew Christians. [47] [48]
As a disciple, Matthew followed Jesus, and would have been an eye witness to the rabbinical midrashic discourse of the "Rabbi from Nazareth". Matthew may have even participated in the development of the Torah Shebeal Peh as the Talmud mentions him as a follower of Jesus the Nazarene. [49] [50] [51] Matthew reduced this Logia into a written form in what would become known to as the first Gospel. [52] [53] [54]
Because of the writings of the Church Fathers we know a great deal about Matthew's gospel. It was composed in Hebrew near Jerusalem for Hebrew Christians and it was translated into Greek, but the Greek copy was lost. The Hebrew original was kept at the Library of Caesarea. The Nazarene Community transcribed a copy for Jerome which he used in his work. [55] [56] [57]
Matthew's Gospel was called the Gospel according to the Hebrews [58] [59] or sometimes the Gospel of the Apostles [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] and it was once believed that it was the original to the Greek Matthew found in the Bible, although this is currently the subject of scholarly debate. [65]
Matthew's Gospel according to the Hebrews was widely circulated among early Hebrew Christians. [66] [67] These groups included the Nazarenes, Ebionites etc. It was generally believed that they added their own oral traditions or midrash to the "Hebrew Gospel" giving rise to what are now known as the Jewish Gospels. [68] Almost all critics are agreed, that the Gospel according to Nazarenes, the Gospel according to Ebionites, etc. are just modified editions of Matthew's Gospel according to the Hebrews but were essentially the same gospel and are important to understanding the gospel tradition of early Christianity. [69] [70] From Egypt, to as far away as India, [71] in various editions, [72] the Gospel according to the Hebrews [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] remained one of the most important primary Christian writings [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] until the Jewish Christianity was replaced by the modern Christianity of today. [76] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88]
There was a strong tradition in the early church, mentioned for by Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome, that Matthew had written a gospel in the Hebrew language. Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and Jerome identify the Gospel of the Hebrews with this Hebrew gospel of Matthew. [89]
By the time of Jerome, [90] many commentators believed that the Gospel of the Hebrews was the original Gospel of Matthew. [91] Epiphanius of Salamis in the Panarion wrote that, "They [Jewish Christians] too accept Matthew's gospel and like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus, they use it alone. They call it the Gospel of the Hebrews, for in truth, Matthew alone of the New Covenant writers expounded and declared the gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script." [92]
Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor during the first half of the 2nd century, writes that Matthew composed the logia in the Hebrew tongue and each one interpreted them as he was able. He also notes that the story of the Sinful Woman was originally from the Gospel of the Hebrews. [93] [94] Apart from Papias' comment, we do not hear about the author of the Gospel until Irenaeus around 185 who remarks that Matthew issued a written Gospel of the Hebrews. [95] Pantaenus, Origen and other Church Fathers also believed Matthew wrote the Gospel of the Hebrews. [96] [97] Also, none of the Church Fathers asserted that Matthew wrote the Greek Gospel found in the Bible. [93]
Traditionally within orthodox Christianity, the Gospel of Matthew was believed to have been composed by Matthew with some believing it to be the first gospel written. This view is not widely held within contemporary Biblical studies. Most scholars believe that the author of the Gospel of Matthew made use of the Gospel of Mark and another source known as Q. This solution to the origin is known as the Two-source hypothesis. For this and other reasons, the Gospel of Matthew was composed in Greek and not Hebrew as suggested by Papias. [98]
Irenaeus believed Matthew issued a written Gospel of the Hebrews in their own language while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the Church (Against Heresies 3:1). According to Eusebius Hegesippus said Matthew's Gospel was written in Syriac (Ecclesiastical History 3:22-24) a view Eusebius shared (Theophania 4:12). This is repeated in the Stichometry of Nicephorus (c.810). Epiphanius wrote that the Ebionites used only the Gospel of the Hebrews, which was expounded and declared Hebrew using Hebrew script.
Jerome makes frequent reference to the Nazarene Gospel of the Hebrews being composed in Hebrew in his commentaries (Commentary on Isaiah 4, Commentary on Ezekiel 16:3, Commentary on Isaiah 40:9, Commentary on Micah 7:6) Jerome considered that the Gospel of the Hebrews, was written in the Chaldee and Syriac( Aramaic) language but in Hebrew script. Jerome claimed to have translated the whole into Greek (Against Pelagius 3:2) but this is doubted by many scholars since Jerome also made this claim about the Old Testament before he had actually done so. Jerome claimed that a Hebrew original of the Nazarene text was preserved in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus of Caesarea had gathered.(Illustrious Men 2"). In recent years some modern scholars have given more credence to Jerome's testimony. [99]
Jerome identifies the readers of this gospel as observant Jews, distinct from the culturally assimilated and Hellenized Jews, for whom the Greek Septuagint had been translated from Hebrew. It was used extensively by the followers of Hegesippus, Merinthus and Cerinthus as well as by the Ebionites and the Nazarenes.
According to Pantaenus, it was also in circulation in India, having been brought there by Bartholomew. [100] Pantaenus became head of the School in Alexandria and was responsible for much of the Library in Caesarea. In this library was preserved a copy of the Gospel of the Hebrews. The Nazarenes of Beroea gave a copy to Jerome. [101]
The title "The Gospel of the Hebrews" designates merely the class of readers among whom it circulated. They were Jewish Christians (or a particular sect of such) who still spoke the Aramaic language. [102] citation needed
Many early Christian writers came to believe that there was only one Hebrew gospel in circulation in the early church. In the Catalog of Eusebius, only one Hebrew gospel is listed: "And among these some have placed also the Gospel of the Hebrews with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted." [103]
Epiphanius too claims that there was only one Hebrew gospel: "They call it the Gospel of the Hebrews for, in truth, Matthew alone in the New Covenant expounded and declared the Gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script." [20]
The topic of the Gospel according to the Hebrews continues to be one of ongoing and heated debate. Scholars do agree that the title, Gospel according to the Hebrews is not a scholarly neologism, nor is it simply a "hypothetical" gospel. They agree that its title was used in the Early Church as well as in the early church catalogs. [104] [105]
The three main areas of disagreement are Matthaei Authenticum, language of composition and the relationship of the Gospel of the Hebrews to both the Canonical and non Canonical gospels
There are various hypotheses concerning the relation of the material preserved by Jerome to the New Testament. The Hebrew Gospel hypothesis of Nicholson (1879) claims two versions of Matthew, Greek and Hebrew, while that of James R. Edwards (2009) is that the Jewish Christian Gospels preserve some of the source material of Gospel of Luke. These hypotheses are contested by scholars such as Hans-Josef Klauck (2002) who writes, "the Gospel of the Hebrews is not to be equated with an Ur-Matthew." [106]
Traditionally, although the Gospel is technically anonymous, it was believed that the Gospel of Matthew was the work of Saint Matthew, and scholars believed that it was a eyewitness account of the life of Jesus Christ. This is still the 'official' position of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Evangelical Churches. Indeed, Craig Blomberg, [107] F. F. Bruce [108] and Gregory Boyd [109] maintain that the apostle Matthew did write 'his' gospel.They support their position by arguing that, as a former tax collector, Matthew would not have been an ideal person to falsify a gospel.
Nevertheless, most critical scholars still reject Matthean authorship of the first Gospel. Some argue that an apostle and eyewitness of Jesus' ministry would not have used a secondary source, yet the first Gospel relies on Mark for much of its material.Others claim that the perspectives of the book show a fuller development of traditional material and of relations with the Jews than one might expect in an "early Gospel". [110]
The two-source hypothesis is the most commonly accepted solution to the synoptic problem. It argues that Matthew borrowed from two Greek sources, the Gospel of Mark and a hypothetical sayings collection, known by scholars as Q. Therefore Canonical Matthew was composed in Greek at a later time than the Gospel of Mark. More importantly, it was probably not written by Matthew. [111] [112] According to Jerome, the "authentic" or "true" gospel of Matthew (ie Matthaei Authenticum), was the Gospel of the Hebrews used by the Nazarenes and the Ebionites. [113] [114]
Scholars of the Tübingen School such as Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (d.1827), [115] [116] Christian Friedrich Weber (1806), [117] thought that the Gospel of the Hebrews may indeed be an authentic eyewitness account written by the Apostle Matthew himself. [118] If this is the case, the Gospel of the Hebrews clearly has important data to contribute toward the solution of the synoptic problem. [119] A study of the external evidence regarding this gospel shows that among the Nazarenes and Ebionites existed a gospel commonly called the Gospel of the Hebrews. It was written in Aramaic with Hebrew letters. Its authorship was attributed to St. Matthew. [120] While Jerome regarded his Gospel of the Hebrews was with respect, the Jewish-Christian Gospels were generally regarded as heretical and corrupted texts. Nevertheless the ascription of the source of a Hebrew Gospel to the apostle Matthew was widespread and no Church Father attributes a Hebrew Gospel to anyone other than Matthew. Even Epiphanius, in criticizing the Gospel of the Ebionites recognises the tradition that Matthew wrote a Gospel in in Hebrew. [121]
Needless to say, this position has been widely contested. Rudolf Handmann (1888) regarded the Gospel of the Ebionites as a pasticcio which belongs with the dregs of the gospel tradition. [122] [123] [124] [125] Thus the issue of Matthaei Authenticum is far from being resolved.
Modern scholars, however, have called this into question. After explaining in great detail why the Church Fathers such as Epiphanius and Jerome were in error, Wilhelm Schneemelcher argues that there are three distinct Jewish Gospels:
Others have assumed, together with early Christian authors, that there was only one Hebrew Gospel. The title Gospel of the Nazarenes is a scholarly neologism, that does, however, harken back to a single use in the 13th century. Both the titles used to refer to the gospel(s), and how the fragments should be assigned have generated a great deal of confusion.
The position of Parker (1940) [126] and his followers who? is that there is only one Hebrew gospel, the Gospel of the Hebrews but that there were several editions of this one gospel in the Early Church.
Although there is still ongoing debate about the Jewish Christian Gospels and "only the very daring, nowadays, venture on speculations in regard to the Gospel of the Hebrews ", [5] most scholars agree with Schneemelcher when he says, "Thus the number of Jewish Gospels -- whether there be one, two or three such gospels -- is uncertain, the identification of the several fragments is also uncertain and, finally the character and the relationship to one another of the several Jewish gospels is uncertain." [127]
B. H. Streeter argued that a third source, referred to as M, and also hypothetical, lies behind the material in Matthew that has no parallel in Mark or Luke. [128] Through the remainder of the 20th century there were various challenges and refinements of Streeter's hypothesis. In 1953, Parker posited an early version of Matthew (Aramaic M) as a primary source. The Church Fathers also wrote of such a source, [129] called the Gospel of the Hebrews [130]
Scholars agree that there is a connection between the Gospel of the Hebrews and Matthew, but critical scholars generally consider that the extant Gospel of the Hebrews to be translated from a Greek source text into Hebrew and back into Greek. [131] One of the reasons for this view is the opinion that the 4th Century might offer more favourable circumstances for the circulation and perhaps the making of a Hebrew Gospel among Jews than the 1st or 2nd Century. [132]
Although, as Hans-Josef Klauck writes, "the Gospel of the Hebrews is not to be equated with an Ur-Matthew." [133] A study of the external evidence regarding this gospel shows that among the Nazarenes and Ebionites existed a gospel commonly called the Gospel of the Hebrews. It was written in Aramaic with Hebrew letters. Its authorship was attributed to St. Matthew. [134] While the Gospel of the Hebrews was still being circulated and read, the Church Fathers referred to it always with respect, often with reverence. They accepted it as being the work of Matthew. [135]
Although scholarly consensus still holds to Markan priority, some modern scholars believe that the Gospel of the Hebrews was the second source used in the Gospel of Luke [136] and helped form the basis [137] [138] for the Synoptic Tradition. [139] They point out that in the first section of De Viris Illustribus (Jerome), we find the Gospel of Mark listed as the first gospel written, and thus the basis of later gospels. [140] Following it should be Q. However, such a source document (quelle means "source") is absent from Jerome's list, nor is one mentioned by Jerome in his writings. [140] Rather, the first seminal document is not Q but the Gospel of the Hebrews. [141] In "the place of honor" that should be given "the phantom Q" we find a Hebrew usurper. [142]
Scholarly consensus remains overwhelmingly citation needed in favor of Markan priority, and this consensus has not been seriously challenged by speculations surrounding the origins of the Hebrew Gospel. That no copy of either Q or the Hebrew Gospel exists makes the determination of their early role in the development of the Synoptic gospels highly conjectural. Nonetheless, arguments in favor of Q as a primary source for Matthew and Luke remain compelling. [143]
Early Jewish Christians were thought to have been called Nazarenes (Nazoreans). According to the synoptic Gospel of Mathew, the term Nazarene was first applied to Jesus due to his living in a town named Nazareth. [144] Controversy over the existence of such a town, and whether it was founded by Nazarenes, continues. A town of Nazareth may have been founded as a place of gathering of nazarites from the Nazarene sect. The term " nazirite" comes from the Hebrew word nazir meaning "consecrated" or "separated", exemplified by the story of Samson, Samuel, and David. The relationship between consecrated, anointed, messiah, baptized, and christened would indicate that "Jesus the Nazarite" and "Jesus the Christ" were the same person. A Nazarene warrior cult may have existed prior to Jesus, and may go back to the time of Judas Maccabeus. After his death, it was the term used to identify the Jewish Sect that believed Jesus was the Messiah. When this group grew into the Gentile world, they became known as Christians. By the 4th century, Nazarenes were considered orthodox Christians who embraced the Jewish Law, but rejected Hebrew Heresies.
The Nazarenes are generally accepted as being the first Christians who were led by James the Just, who was said to be the brother of Jesus. He led the Church from Jerusalem and had a special experience of the Risen Lord. [145]
The Fathers of the Church believed the Nazarenes used the Gospel of the Hebrews. [146] [147]
Irenaeus wrote that they used only Matthew's Gospel. [148] But, Eusebius wrote that the Ebionites used only the Gospel of the Hebrews. [149] This confusion is clarified by Epiphanius who explained that the Ebionites used the Gospel of the Hebrews written by Matthew. Although the Ebionites may have "edited it" according to their Oral tradition, they never composed a gospel of their own. [150]
The origin of the name Ebionite (or Ebionaean) [151] is debated. Tertullian, Irenaeus, Hippolytus of Rome, Epiphanius, and Jerome ascribed the movement to a heretic named Ebion or Hebion. [152] Others claim the name Ebionite means "poor one" and is derived from Matthew 5:3, for they rejected material wealth. [153] Conflict grew between them and other Christians when the Ebionites failed to embrace the developing Church doctrines of the Virgin birth and Jesus' divinity. They believed Jesus was begotten of God at his baptism.
Conflict also grew over the issue of the Mosaic law, which the Ebionites believed remained in full force. [154] They are said to have rejected Paul's teachings and used only one Gospel, the Gospel of the Hebrews. [155]
One of the ongoing debates is why the Gospel of the Hebrews was left out of the Canon when the Church Fathers wrote that it was composed by Matthew. Origen and Eusebius classed it among the "disputed writings" which some reject, but which others class with the accepted books: 'And among these some have also placed the Gospel according to the Hebrews , with which those Hebrews who accept Christ are especially delighted.' [156] Hence there must have been a large body of Jewish Christians who regarded it as their authority regarding the life, work, and teaching of Jesus. Jerome often cites it as though it were a trustworthy source. Beyond this we know very little of its status. [157]
It has been claimed that the rivalry between Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians brought about the intentional destruction of Hebrew texts. The doctrinal reason centered on Adoptionism. This theology was a minority Hebrew Christian belief that Jesus was merely human, being born of a physical union between Joseph and Mary. [158] He only became divine, by adoption at his baptism, being chosen because of his sinless devotion to the will of God. [159] The Adoptionist view may date back almost to the time of Jesus reconciling the claims that Jesus was the Son of God with the radical monotheism of Judaism. [160] page needed Both the primary gospels i.e. (the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of Mark) had similar adoptionist views of the incarnation, but the Gospel of the Hebrews was the most radical. Jesus was seen to be "adopted" at his baptism when the voice from heaven declared: "You are my beloved Son, this day have I begotten you" [161]
By the end of the 2nd century, Adoptionism was declared a heresy and it was formally rejected by the First Council of Nicaea (325), which wrote the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and identified Jesus as eternally begotten of God. The Roman Emperor Constantine, [162] fostered the faith as an imperial religion.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)The presentation in the Gospel of the Hebrews is simple, thoughtful, lifelike; for the most part it shows its primitive character by the absence of the marvelous and fantastic which adorn the apocryphal gospels. The gospel does not bear the marks of having been constructed to inculcate any particular theological tenets, with the exception its Jewish view as to the origin and nature of Christ. It is, in the main, a simple historical narrative whose purpose seems to have been to preserve the living, evangelical tradition for present and future use. [89] Although the Gospel of the Hebrews was not identical to the Greek Gospel of Matthew found in the Bible, they were similar. [6]
The Gospel of the Hebrews was 2200 lines, just 300 lines shorter than Greek Matthew. [7] Scholars have been able to study much of the theological structure because of the Fathers of the Early Church.
Didymus the Blind held a source he calls "the Gospel of the Hebrews" to be informative when he explains that there are many people with two names, that scripture calls Matthew “Levi” in the Gospel of Luke, but they are not the same person (Psalm Commentary 3) [163]
Within Judaism, the Shekinah (or "visible" cloud of the Presence) is a feminine word, thought to be Yahvah's feminine aspect; therefore, they called the Spirit the "mother". Thus in the Gospel of the Hebrews we should not be surprised, that after the temptation of Jesus it says, “Even so did my Mother, the Holy Spirit, took me by one of my hairs, and carried me to the great mountain Tabor." It should also be noted that “Spirit” in Hebrew is feminine, while in Latin it is masculine and in Greek it is neuter. [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169]
This is an important theme among Hebrew Christians. In the Gospel of the Hebrews one of the greatest sins is, "To grieve the spirit of one's brother" and we also read that the Lord spoke to his disciples saying, "And never be joyful except when you look on your brother with love." [170] [171] [172]
In the Gospel of the Hebrews:
Papias tells us that the Gospel of the Hebrews also gives story of a woman accused of many sins before the Lord. Scholars have noted the connection to the sinful woman in John's Gospel. [94] There has been much debate but some believe this narrative is historical [8]
This Gospel puts a particular emphasis on James the Just, as head of the Jerusalem church, and especially concentrates on arguing for obedience to Jewish law. The gospel contains an independent legend that the first resurrection appearance was witnessed by James. The gospel also recounts that James was present at the Last Supper. [174] The stories are in contradiction to the canonical gospels which recount that James and his brothers were not followers of Jesus prior to the Resurrection with John 7:5 mentions such unbelief explicitly. At the Feast of Weeks, however, Judas the brother of James, is at least listed among the group of believers. [175] Jude, in his own epistle, claims that he is the same "brother of James". [176] Paul would seem to provide the evidence that Jesus did, in fact, visit James after the resurrection [177] but after Cephas and the twelve, then more than five hundred "brethren" who were still alive at the time of Paul's writing: "After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles". During the beginning of Jesus's ministry, James did not believe Jesus was the Messiah; however, there was some great catalyst that changed his mind, for he became the leader of the Nazaraean community in Jerusalem and produced the Epistle of James written before 61 C.E. When he was stoned by the Sanhedrin under the authority of Ananus, the son or grandson of Annas who had been responsible for bringing Jesus to trial. [178]
Eusebius quotes Hegesippus, who states: "This apostle was consecrated from his mother's womb. He drank neither wine nor fermented liquors, and abstained from animal food. A razor never came upon his head, he never anointed with oil, and never used a bath. He alone was allowed to enter the sanctuary. He never wore woolen, but linen garments [i.e. as the priests did]...And indeed, on account of his exceeding great piety, he was called the Just, and Oblias (or Zaddick and Ozleam) which signifies justice and protection of the people. Some of the seven sects [of Judaism], therefore, of the people, mentioned by me above in my Commentaries, asked him what was the door to Jesus? And he answered, 'that he was the Saviour.'. From which, some believed that Jesus is the Christ...". [179] In the Gospel of the Hebrews it is written as follows:
The gospel quotation found in the letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans may be one of the oldest recorded sayings of Jesus. citation needed An Exegesis of the Sayings of the Lord by means of an in-depth analysis of the available Patristic evidence as well as a comparison with the Hebrew Gospel tradition, leads to this conclusion. [180]
The Gospel of the Hebrews states that when the Risen Lord came to those with Peter, Jesus said to them, “Take hold of me, handle me, and see that I am not a bodiless demon.” [180] [181] Jerome also points out that the Apostles thought Jesus to be a spirit, for in the Gospel of the Hebrews Jesus says that he is not a “A bodiless demon” [182] [183]
The material in the Comparison Chart of the major gospels is from the Gospel Parallels by B. H. Throckmorton, The five Gospels by R. W. Funk, The Gospel According to the Hebrews by Nicholson (1879) & The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition by J. R. Edwards. [184]
Item | Matthew, Mark, Luke | John | Thomas | Gospel of the Hebrews | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
New Covenant | The central theme of the Gospels – Love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself [185] | The central theme – Love is the New Commandment given by Jesus [186] | Secret knowledge, love your friends [187] | The central theme – Love one another (Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians) [188] | |
Forgiveness | Very important - particularly in Matthew and Luke [189] | Assumed [190] | Not mentioned | Very important - Forgiveness is a central theme and this gospel goes into the greatest detail (Jerome, Against Pelagius 3.2) [191] | |
The Lord's Prayer | In Matthew & Luke but not Mark [192] | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Important - “mahar” or "tomorrow" [193] [194] | |
Love & the poor | Very Important - The rich young man [195] | Assumed [196] | Important [197] | Very important - The rich young man (Origen, Commentary on Matthew 15:14) [198] | |
Jesus starts his ministry | Jesus meets John the Baptist and is baptized [199] | Jesus meets John the Baptist [200] | Only speaks of John the Baptist [201] | Jesus meets John the Baptist and is baptized. This gospel goes into the greatest detail [202] | |
Disciples-number | Twelve [203] | Twelve [204] | not mentioned [205] | Twelve [206] | |
Disciples-inner circle | Peter, Andrew, James & John [203] | Peter, Andrew, James & the Beloved Disciple [204] | Peter [205] | Peter, Andrew James & John [202] | |
Disciples-others |
Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James, Simon the Zealot, Jude Thaddaeus, & Judas [204] |
Philip, Nathanael, Matthew, Thomas, James, Simon the Zealot, Jude Thaddaeus & Judas [204] |
Matthew, Thomas, James the Just (Brother of Jesus) [207] |
Matthew, James the Just (Brother of Jesus), Simon the Zealot, Thaddaeus, Judas [208] | |
Possible Authors | Unknown; [209] Mark the Evangelist & Luke the Evangelist | The Beloved Disciple [210] | Thomas [211] | Matthew the Evangelist [212] | |
Virgin birth account | In Matthew & Luke, but not Mark [213] | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | |
Jesus' baptism | Described [192] | Not Mentioned [192] | N/A | Described great detail [214] | |
Preaching style | Brief one-liners; parables [192] | Essay format, Midrash [192] | Sayings, parables [215] | Brief one-liners; parables [192] | |
Storytelling | Parables [216] | Figurative language & Metaphor [217] | Gnostic, hidden, parables [218] | Parables [219] | |
Jesus' theology | 1st Century liberal Judaism. [220] | Critical of Jewish Authorities [221] | Gnostic [192] | 1st Century Judaism [220] | |
Miracles | Many miracles | Seven Signs | N/A | Fewer but more credible miracles [222] | |
Duration of ministry | 1 year [223] | 3 years (Multiple Passovers) | N/A | 1 year [223] | |
Location of ministry | Mainly Galilee | Mainly Judea, near Jerusalem | N/A | Mainly Galilee | |
Passover meal | Body & Blood = Bread and wine | Interrupts meal for foot washing | N/A | Hebrew Passover is celebrated but details are N/A Epiphanius [224] | |
Burial shroud | A single piece of cloth | Multiple pieces of cloth [225] | N/A | Given to the High Priest [146] | |
Resurrection | Mary and the Women are the first to learn Jesus has arisen [226] | John adds detailed account of Mary's experience of the Resurrection [227] | Not Applicable as Gospel of Thomas is a collection of the "sayings" of Jesus, not the events of his life | In the Gospel of the Hebrews is the unique account of Jesus appearing to his brother, James the Just. [228] |
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help); Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help); Check date values in: |year=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help){{
cite journal}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help); Check date values in: |year=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help) Pacific School of Religion Pub.{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)It is the only one of the Jewish-Christian Gospels to be included in the Early Church Catalogs. citation needed It is subject to heated and ongoing scholarly debate. [1] [2] [3] [4]
After the Crucifixion of Jesus, his disciples gathered together in Jerusalem, in an "upper room" perhaps where the Cenacle is today. James, [5] the brother of Jesus, was the early leader in Jerusalem of the Jewish sect that became known as Christianity. This group was located in and about Jerusalem and proclaimed that Jesus was the promised Messiah. [6] [7] [8]
These early Jewish Christians were thought to have been called Nazarenes. [9] The term Nazarene was first applied to Jesus. [10] After his death, it was the term used to identify the Jewish Sect that believed Jesus was the Messiah. [9] [11] The Nazarenes were generally accepted as being the first Christians who were led by [12] James "the Just", until he was martyred c.62 AD. [13] [14]
As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh. This oral tradition interpreted the written law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. [15] [16] It was in this cultural context or Sitz im Leben that the Christian Oral Tradition had its roots, as Jesus and later Christian 'Rabbis' developed the oral "Gospel" to interpret the written Law given to Moses by God. [17] [18]
When the Temple at Jerusalem was destroyed in the year 70, this oral tradition was no longer viable and it became necessary for it to be written down. Scholars are in general agreement that the Jewish Christians up to the destruction of the Temple had no written Gospels being circulated among them. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]
Originally, Jewish/Christian scholarship had been oral. Jesus and other rabbis expounded and debated the Torah (the written law expressed in the Hebrew Bible) and discussed the Tanakh without the benefit of written works (other than the Biblical books themselves), though some may have made private notes (megillot setarim)
This situation changed drastically, however, mainly as the result of the destruction of the Jewish commonwealth in the year 70 and the consequent upheaval of Jewish/Christian social and legal norms. Jewish Christians were required to face a new reality— without a Temple (to serve as the center of teaching and study), the old system of oral scholarship could not be maintained. It is during this period that rabbinic discourse began to be recorded in writing. [24] [25]
The Church Fathers recognized this and said that the first gospels were born out of necessity. [26] Matthew, a Galilean Jew and follower of the rabbi Jesus is said to have written the first gospel. [27] It was written in Hebrew and meant for Hebrew Christians. [28] [29]
As a disciple, Matthew followed Jesus, and would have been an eye witness to the rabbinical midrashic discourse of the "Rabbi from Nazareth". Matthew may have even participated in the development of the Torah Shebeal Peh as the Talmud mentions him as a follower of Jesus the Nazarene. [30] [31] [32] Matthew reduced this Logia into a written form in what would become known to as the first Gospel. [33] [34] [35]
Because of the writings of the Church Fathers we know a great deal about Matthew's gospel. It was composed in Hebrew near Jerusalem for Hebrew Christians and it was translated into Greek, but the Greek copy was lost. The Hebrew original was kept at the Library of Caesarea. The Nazarene Community transcribed a copy for Jerome which he used in his work. [36] [37] [38]
Matthew's Gospel was called the Gospel according to the Hebrews [39] [40] or sometimes the Gospel of the Apostles [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] and it was once believed that it was the original to the Greek Matthew found in the Bible, although this is currently the subject of scholarly debate. [46]
Matthew's Gospel according to the Hebrews was widely circulated among early Hebrew Christians. [47] [48] These groups included the Nazarenes, Ebionites etc. It was generally believed that they added their own oral traditions or midrash to the "Hebrew Gospel" giving rise to what are now known as the Jewish Gospels. [49] Almost all critics are agreed, that the Gospel according to Nazarenes, the Gospel according to Ebionites, etc. are just modified editions of Matthew's Gospel according to the Hebrews but were essentially the same gospel and are important to understanding the gospel tradition of early Christianity. [50] [51] From Egypt, to as far away as India, [52] in various editions, [53] the Gospel according to the Hebrews [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] remained one of the most important primary Christian writings [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] until the Jewish Christianity was replaced by the modern Christianity of today. [57] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69]
EpiphaniusP3037
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
This article seems to have been suffering duplicate POV edits from Authentic Gospel of Matthew since 2005. For example:
Someone recently added a proposal to merge template to the article without creating a discussion section, so I am doing that here. This discussion has already been beaten to death on this and related talk pages, so I'm going to hold off on commenting for now and give others a chance. Ignocrates ( talk) 02:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
This proposal to merge went just as I expected, i.e. nowhere. I'm going to wait a few more days for comments. If there are none, I will close this discussion and remove the merge template. Ignocrates ( talk) 16:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)