The gospel of the Hebrews.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6494
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

The gospel of the Hebrews.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Sep 24, 2015 5:55 pm

Gospel of the Hebrews
Information

Sources: Patristic quotations.
The gospel of the Hebrews is one of several known Jewish-Christian gospels. The texts identified here are those attributed to the gospel of the Hebrews by A. F. J. Klijn in Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition. It should be noted that the extracts identified in the text and translation section below are sometimes subject to my own modest, conservative efforts at reconstruction (turning indirect dialogue into direct, combining quotations of what is apparently the same source text, and so forth). The full quotations in their original state (as rendered in standard texts) are given in the context and textual parallels section further down the page. Dubious or spurious extracts are listed in the attestation section.
Index to other gospel texts.

Text and Translation

Patristic Quotations in Greek or Latin
Patristic Quotations in English
1 [Dicitur:] «Descendet super eum omnis fons spiritus sancti». .... Factum est autem cum ascendisset dominus de aqua descendit fons omnis spiritus sancti, et requievit super eum, et dixit illi: «Fili mi, in omnibus prophetis exspectabam te, ut venires et requiescerem in te. tu es enim requies mea. tu es filius meus primogenitus, qui regnas in sempiternum». ....1 [It is said,] "The whole fountain of the Holy Spirit shall descend over him." .... Moreover, it happened that, when the Lord ascended from the water, the whole fountain of the Holy Spirit descended and rested over him, and said to him, "My son, in all the prophets I was expecting you, that you should come and I might rest in you. You indeed are my rest. You are my firstborn son, who reigns in eternity." ....
2 [Αὐτὸς ὁ σωτήρ ἔφη·] «Ἄρτι ἔλαβέ με ἡ μήτηρ μου, τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, ἐν μιᾷ τῶν τριχῶν μου καὶ ἀπήνεγκέ με εἰς τὸ ὄρος τὸ μέγα Θαβώρ». ....2 [The savior himself said,] "Just now my mother, the Holy Spirit, took me by one of my hairs and bore me up to Tabor, the great mountain." ....
3 [Οὔχ ὁ Μαθθαῖος ἀλλὰ] Μαθθίας [καὶ ὁ̣ Λ̣ε̣υ̣ὶς εἷς διώνυμοί εἰσιν.] ....3 [Not Matthew but rather] Matthias [and Levi are one person with a double name.] ....
4 [Ἔφη·] «ὁ θαυμάσας βασιλεύσει καὶ ὁ βασιλεύσας ἀναπαήσεται». ....4 [He said,] "The one who marveled shall reign, and the one who reigned shall rest." ....
5 [Dominus ad discipulos locutus est:] «Nunquam laeti sitis nisi cum fratrem vestrum videritis in charitate». ....5 [The Lord said to the disciples,] "Never be content except when you look upon your brother in charity." ....
6 [Dixit:] «Inter maxima ponitur crimina qui fratris sui spiritum contristaverit». ....6 [He said,] "Among the maximal crimes is placed one who caused sorrow to the spirit of his brother. ....
7 Dominus autem cum dedisset sindonem servo sacerdotis, ivit ad Iacobum et apparuit ei. iuraverat enim Iacobus se non comesturum panem ab illa hora quia biberat calicem Domini donec videret eum resurgentem a dormientibus. .... «Afferte», ait Dominus, «mensam et panem». Tulit panem et benedixit, ac fregit, et dedit Iacobo Iusto, et dixit ei: «Frater mi, comede panem tuum, quia resurrexit Filius Hominis a dormientibus». ....7 The Lord, however, when he had given the shroud to the servant of the priest, went to James and appeared to him. James indeed had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour when he had drunk the chalice of the Lord until he saw him risen from among those who sleep. .... "Bear forth," said the Lord, "a table and bread." He bore bread and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to James the Just, and said to him, "My brother, eat your bread, because the Son of Man has resurrected from among those who sleep." ....

Notes and Quotes

Context and Textual Parallels

1. Jerome, On Isaiah 4, commentary on 11.2: Sed iuxta evangelium quod Hebrao sermone conscriptum legunt Nazaraei: «Descendet super eum omnis fons spiritus sancti». .... porro in evangelio cuius supra fecimus mentionem haec scripta reperimus: «Factum est autem cum ascendisset dominus de aqua descendit fons omnis spiritus sancti, et requievit super eum, et dixit illi: Fili mi, in omnibus prophetis exspectabam te, ut venires et requiescerem in te. tu es enim requies mea. tu es filius meus primogenitus, qui regnas in sempiternum». / But according to the gospel which the Nazaraeans read, written up in Hebrew speech: "The whole fount of the Holy Spirit shall descend over him." .... Further on in the gospel of which we made mention above we find these things written: "But it happened that, when the Lord ascended from the water, the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descended and rested over him, and said to him: 'My son, in all the prophets I was expecting you, that you should come, and I might rest in you. You indeed are my rest. You are my firstborn son, who reigns in eternity.'"
Isaiah 11.2: וְנָחָ֥ה עָלָ֖יו ר֣וּחַ יְהוָ֑ה ר֧וּחַ חָכְמָ֣ה וּבִינָ֗ה ר֤וּחַ עֵצָה֙ וּגְבוּרָ֔ה ר֥וּחַ דַּ֖עַת וְיִרְאַ֥ת יְהוָֽה׃ / καὶ ἀναπαύσεται ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ πνεῦμα σοφίας καὶ συνέσεως πνεῦμα βουλῆς καὶ ἰσχύος πνεῦμα γνώσεως καὶ εὐσεβείας. / The Spirit of the Lord will rest on Him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and strength, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord.
Wisdom of Sirach 24.7: μετὰ τούτων πάντων ἀνάπαυσιν ἐζήτησα καὶ ἐν κληρονομίᾳ τίνος αὐλισθήσομαι. / Among all these I [Wisdom] sought a resting place; I sought in whose territory I might lodge.
Luke 1.33 (reigning in eternity).
Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho 87.1-6 (relating Isaiah 11.2 to Christ).
Tertullian, Against the Jews 8.14: ...ex quo signata est visio et prophetia id est statuta, et merito evangelista: Lex et prophetae usque ad Iohannem baptizatorem. Baptizato enim Christo id est sanctificante aquas in suo baptismate omnis plenitudo spiritalium retro charismatum in Christo cesserunt signante visiones et prophetias omnes quas adventu suo adimplevit. / ...since which event "sealed is vision and prophecy," that is, confirmed. And justly does the evangelist write, "The law and the prophets (were) until John" the Baptist. For, on Christ's being baptized, that is, on His sanctifying the waters in His own baptism, all the plenitude of bygone spiritual grace-gifts ceased in Christ, sealing as He did all vision and prophecies, which by His advent He fulfilled.
Jerome, Against the Pelagians 3.2 ((baptism of Jesus in the gospel according to the Nazoraeans).
Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13.7-8 (baptism of Jesus in the gospel according to the Ebionites).
Ephrem, Commentary on the Diatessaron: The Spirit which rested upon him during his baptism.... Many were baptized that day, but the Spirit descended and rested upon only one....
Hugo of Saint Cher, On the Book of Isaiah: In evangelio Nazaraeorum, quod Hebraice scriptum est, ita habetur: Factum est cum ascendisset dominus de aqua descendit fons omnis spiritus et requievit super eum et dixit ei: Expectabam te, fili, in omnibus prophetis, ut venires et requiescerem in te. tu enim es requies mea. tu es filius meus primogenitus, qui regnas in sempiternum. / In the gospel of the Nazaraeans, which was written in Hebraic, it is held thus: But it happened that, when the Lord ascended from the water, the whole fount of the holy spirit descended and rested over him, and said to him: My son, in all the prophets I was expecting you, that you should come, and I might rest in you. You indeed are my rest. You are my firstborn son, who reigns in eternity.

2a. Origen, On John 2.12, commentary on John 1.3: Ἐὰν δὲ προσιῆται τις τὸ καθ' Ἑβραίους εὐαγγέλιον, ἔνθα αὐτὸς ὁ σωτήρ φησιν· «Ἄρτι ἔλαβέ με ἡ μήτηρ μου, τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, ἐν μιᾷ τῶν τριχῶν μου καὶ ἀπήνεγκέ με εἰς τὸ ὄρος τὸ μέγα Θαβώρ», ἐπαπορήσει, πῶς «μήτηρ» Χριστοῦ τὸ διὰ τοῦ λόγου γεγενημένον «πνεῦμα ἅγιον» εἶναι δύναται. / But if any should admit the gospel according to the Hebrews, where the savior himself says: "Just now my mother, the Holy Spirit, took me by one of my hairs and carried me to Tabor, the great mountain," he will be confused as to how the holy spirit can be the mother of Christ, born through the word.
2b. Origen, On Jeremiah 15.4: εἰ δέ τις παραδέχεται τὸ «ἄρτι ἔλαβέ με ἡ μήτηρ μου τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ ἀνήνεγκέ με εἰς τὸ ὄρος τὸ μέγα τὸ Θαβὼρ» καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς, δύναται αὐτοῦ ἰδεῖν τὴν μητέρα. / And if any accepts this: "Just now my mother, the Holy Spirit, took me to Tabor, the great mountain," and what follows, he can see his mother.
2c. Jerome, On Micah 2, commentary on 7.6: Sed qui legerit canticum canticorum et sponsum animae dei sermonum intellexerit, credideritque evangelio quod secundum Hebraeos editum nuper transtulimus, in quo ex persona salvatoris dicitur: «Modo tulit me mater mea, sanctus spiritus, in uno capillorum meorum», non dubitabit dicere sermonem dei ortum esse de spiritu, et animam, quae sponsa sermonis est, habere socrum sanctum spiritum, qui apud Hebraeos genere dicitur feminino rua (רוח). / But he who reads the Song of Songs and understands the spouse of the soul to be the speech of God, and believes the gospel which we recently translated, that published as according to the Hebrews, in which from the person of the savior it is said: "Just now my mother, the Holy Spirit, bore me by one of my hairs," will not doubt to say that the speech of God springs from the spirit, and that the soul, which is the spouse of the speech, has the holy spirit as a mother-in-law, which among the Hebrews is said by the female gender, rua (רוח).
2d. Jerome On Isaiah 11, commentary on 40.9: Sed et in evangelio quod iuxta Hebraeos scriptum Nazaraei lectitant, dominus loquitur: «Modo me tulit mater mea, spiritus sanctus». / But also in the gospel which the Nazaraeans read, written according to the Hebrews, the Lord says: "Just now my mother, the Holy Spirit, bore me away."
2e. Jerome, On Ezekiel, commentary on 16.13: In evangelio quoque Hebraeorum, quod lectitant Nazaraei, salvator inducitur loquens: «Modo me arripuit mater mea, spiritus sanctus». / In the gospel of the Hebrews also, which the Nazaraeans read, the Savior is introduced saying: "Just now my mother, the holy spirit, snatched me away."
Matthew 4.8 = Luke 4.5 (the mountain in the temptation, called Tabor in Christian tradition).
Matthew 17.1 = Mark 9.2 = Luke 9.28 (the mountain in the transfiguration, also called Tabor in Christian tradition).
A. F. J. Klijn comments: In N.T. Ms. 1424 it is said in a marginal gloss to Matth. 28,16 that Jesus appeared to his disciples after the resurrection εἰς τὸ Θαβώρ.
Ezekiel 8.3 LXX (the spirit picking one up by the hair).
Daniel 14.35 Vulgate = Bel and the Dragon 1.36 (an angel picking one up by the crown of the head).
Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch 6.3; Acts 8.39-40 (being carried away by the Holy Spirit).
Kölner Mani Kodex 55.16-23 [...] ἐξα[ί]φνης ἥρπ[ασὲν] με π[νεῦμα τὸ] ζῶν καὶ ἀν[ήνεγκεν βί]αι μεγίστη[ι καὶ με κατέ]στησεν κα[τὰ τὸ ἄκρον] ὄρους ὑψη[λοτάτου.] / [...] sudd[e]nly [the] living s[pirit] sna[tched] me and with grea[t fo]rce [bore me] up [and] se[t me] do[wn on the peak] of a [very] high mountain.

3. Didymus the Blind, On the Psalms 184.9-10, commentary on Psalm 34.1 (33.1 LXX): τὸν Μαθθαῖον δοκεῖ ἐν τῷ κατὰ Λουκᾶν Λευὶν ὀνομάζειν. οὔκ ἐστιν δὲ αὐτός, ἀλλὰ ὁ κατασταθεὶς ἀντὶ τοῦ Ἰούδα ὁ Μαθθίας καὶ ὁ̣ Λ̣ε̣υ̣ὶς εἷς διώνυμο<ί> εἰσιν. ἐν τῷ καθ' Ἑβραίους εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦτο φαίνεται. / It seems that in the one according to Luke Matthew is named Levi, but it is not the same person, but rather the Matthias who was installed instead of Judas and Levi are one person with a double name. This appears in the gospel according to the Hebrews.
Matthew 9.9 = Mark 2.13-14 = Luke 5.27-28 (call of Matthew or Levi).
Matthew 10.2-4 = Mark 3.16-19 = Luke 6.13-16; Acts 1.12; Epistula Apostolorum 2 (names of the twelve apostles).
Acts 1.23 (Matthias).
A. F. J. Klijn comments: Both the name Matthew and Matthias are translations of the Hebrew מתתיה. However, this name is also rendered in Greek by words like ματθαθίας, ματθίας, ματταθίας, ματταθία, μαθθίας, μαθθαθίας, μαθθανίας and ματθιας. From this it appears that the name Matthias was known among Greek-speaking Jews. If Hebrew- or Aramaic-speaking Jewish-Christian circles knew an apostle by the name מתתיה, it is easy to explain how that this name was translated as Matthias by some Greek-speaking Christians and as Matthew by others. The occurrence of two or even more different renderings of the same Hebrew name is quite normal. The result of all this is that Matthias in this context seems to be no one other than Matthew.

4. Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 2.9 (45.5): ᾗ κἀν τῷ καθ' Ἑβραίους εὐαγγελίῳ «ὁ θαυμάσας βασιλεύσει» γέγραπται «καὶ ὁ βασιλεύσας ἀναπαήσεται». / Which also is written in the gospel according to the Hebrews: "He who marveled shall reign, and he who reigned shall rest."
Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 5.14 (96.3).
Matthew 7.7 = Luke 11.9 (he who seeks shall find).
Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 654, lines 5-9.
Thomas 2: Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]"
Acts of Thomas 136: καὶ οἱ ἀξίως μεταλαμβάνοντες τῶν ἐκεῖ ἀγαθῶν ἀναπαύονται καὶ ἀναπαυόμενοι βασιλεύουσιν. / They which worthily partake of the good things that are therein do rest, and resting do reign.
Eusebius, History of the Church 2.13.7 (a similar saying amongst the Simonians).

5. Jerome, On Ephesians 3, commentary on Ephesians 5.4: Ut in Hebraico quoque evangelio legimus, dominus ad discipulos loquentem: «Nunquam», inquit, «laeti sitis nisi cum fratrem vestrum videritis in charitate». / As we read also in the Hebraic gospel, the Lord, speaking to the disciples, says: "Never be content except when you look upon your brother in charity."
Matthew 5.24 (be reconciled to your brother; but this is not a very close parallel).
Mark 10.21 (Jesus looked at him and loved him).
Liège Diatessaron: Doe sach ihs lieflec op hem. / Then Jesus looked upon him lovingly.

6. Jerome, On Ezekiel 6, commentary on 18.7: Et in evangelio quod iuxta Hebraeos Nazaraei legere consueverunt, inter maxima ponitur crimina qui fratris sui spiritum contristaverit. / And in the gospel which the Nazaraeans are accustomed to read, according to the Hebrews, it places among the maximal crimes one who has caused sorrow to the spirit of his brother.
1 Thessalonians 5.19 (do not quench the Spirit).
Ephesians 4.30 (do not grieve the Spirit).
Shephard of Hermas, Mandate 10.2.5: μὴ θλῖβε τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον τὸ ἐν σοὶ κατοικοῦν. / Do not crush the holy spirit that dwells in you.
Shephard of Hermas, Mandate 10.3.2: ὁ δὲ λυπηρὸς ἀνὴρ πάντοτε πονηρεύεται· πρῶτον μὲν πονηρεύεται, ὅτι λυπεῖ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον τὸ δοθὲν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἱλαρὸν· δεύτερον δὲ λυπῶν τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἀνομίαν ἐργάζεται, μὴ ἐντυγχάνων μηδὲ ἐξομολογούμενος τῷ κυρίῳ. / The one who is filled with grief, on the other hand, always does what is evil. First, he does evil because he grieves the cheerful holy spirit that has been given him; second, he grieves the holy spirit by behaving lawlessly, neither praying nor making confession to the Lord.
Cyprian, On Gamblers 3: Monet Dominus et dicit: «Nolite contristare spiritum sanctum qui in vobis est et nolite extinguere lumen quod in vobis effulsit». / The Lord warns and says: Do not cause sorrow to the Holy Spirit who is in you and do not extinguish the light which has shone in you.

7. Jerome, On Famous Men 2: Evangelium quoque quod appellatur secundum Hebraeos, et a me nuper in Graecum Latinumque sermonem translatum est, quo et Origenes saepe utitur, post resurrectionem salvatoris refert: «Dominus autem cum dedisset sindonem servo sacerdotis, ivit ad Iacobum et apparuit ei. iuraverat enim Iacobus se non comesturum panem ab illa hora quia biberat calicem domini donec videret eum resurgentem a dormientibus». Rursusque post paululum: «Afferte, ait dominus, mensam et panem». statimque additur: «Tulit panem et benedixit, ac fregit, et dedit Iacobo iusto, et dixit ei: Frater mi, comede panem tuum, quia resurrexit filius hominis a dormientibus». / Also the gospel which is named according to the Hebrews, and which was recently translated by me into Greek and Latin, which also Origen often used, refers after the resurrection of the savior: "But the Lord, when he had given the shroud to the servant of the priest, went to James and appeared to him. James indeed had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour when he had drunk the chalice of the Lord until he saw him risen from among those who sleep." And again after a little bit: "Bear forth, said the Lord, a table and bread." And immediately is added: "He bore bread and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to James the just, and said to him: My brother, eat your bread, because the son of man has resurrected from among those who sleep."
1 Corinthians 15.7 (resurrection appearance to James).
Mark 16.14; Luke 24.36-49; John 21.1-17 (resurrection appearance involving a meal).
Matthew 20.22 = Mark 10.38; Matthew 26.39 = Mark 14.36 = Luke 22.42; John 18.11 (drinking the cup).
Acts of Thomas 49: ἐκέλευσεν δὲ ὁ ἀπόστολος τῷ διακόνῳ αὐτοῦ παραθεῖναι τράπεζαν· παρέθηκαν δὲ συμψέλλιον ὃ εὗρον ἐκεῖ, καὶ ἁπλώσας σινδόνα ἐπ' αὐτὸ ἐπέθηκεν ἄρτον τῆς εὐλογίας. / And the apostle bade his minister (deacon) to set forth a table; and he set forth a stool which they found there, and spread a linen cloth upon it and set on the bread of blessing.
Pseudo-Abdias, Apostolic Histories 6.1: Quorum minor natu Iacobus Christo salvatore in primis semper dilectus tanto rursus desiderio in magistrum flagrabat ut crucifixo eo cibum capere noluerit, priusquam a mortuis resurgentem videret, quod meminerit sibi et fratribus a Christo agente in vivis fuisse praedictum. quare ei primum omnium ut et Mariae Magdalenae et Petro apparere voluit ut discipulum in fide confirmaret et ne diutinum ieiunium toleraret, favo mellis oblato ad comedendum insuper Iacobum invitavit. / Of those James the lesser by birth was always first beloved by Christ the savior and in turn burned with such desire for the master that after he was crucified he wished not to take food until he saw him rising from the dead, which he and his brothers remembered was predicted while he was active among the living. Therefore, he wished first of all to appear to him and to both Mary Magdalene and Peter to confirm the disciple in faith and not to allow him to suffer from fasting any longer, and he offered him a honeycomb and invited James to eat.
Gregory of Tours, Book of Ten Histories 1.22: Fertur Iacobus apostolus, cum domino iam mortuum vidisset in cruce, detestasse atque iurasse numquam se comisurum panem nisi dominum cerneret resurgentem. tertia denum die rediens dominus, spoliato Tartaro cum triumpho, Iacobo se ostendens ait: Surge, Iacobe, comede, quia iam a mortuis resurrexi. hic est Iacobus iustus, quem fratrem domini nuncupant, pro eo quod Ioseph fuerit filius ex alia uxore progenitus. / It is said that James the apostle, when he had seen the Lord already dead on the cross, cursed and sword never to eat bread unless he should discern the Lord rising. When on the third day the Lord returned, having despoiled Tartarus with his triumph, he showed himself to James and said: Rise, James; eat, because I have already resurrected from the dead. This is James the just, whom they call the brother of the Lord, since he was the son of Joseph born from another wife.
Sedulius Scotus, Pauline Collection at 1 Corinthians 15.7: Deinde Iacobo, Alphaei filio, qui se testatus est a coena domini non cemesurum panem usquequo videret Christum resurgentem, sicut in evangelio secundum Hebraeos legimus. / Next, James the son of Alphaeus, who testified that he would not eat bread from the table of the Lord until he saw Christ rising, just as we read in the gospel according to the Hebrews.
Jacobus a Voragine, Legenda Aurea 67: In parasceue autem, mortuo domino, sicut dicit Iosephus et Hieronymus in libro de viris illustribus, Iacobus votum vovit se non comesurum donec videret dominum a mortuis surrexisse. in ipsa autem die resurrectionis, cum usque ad diem illam Iacobus non gustasset cibum, eidem dominus apparuit ac eis qui cum eo erant; dixit: Ponite mensam et panem. deinde panem accipiens benedixit et dedit Iacobo iusto, dicens: Surge, frater mi; comede, quia filius hominis a mortuis resurrexit. / On the Preparation [Friday], however, when the Lord died, just as Josephus and Jerome say in the Book of Illustrious Men, James took an oath not to eat until he saw the Lord rise from the dead. On that same day of the resurrection, however, since right up until that day James had not enjoyed food, the Lord appeared to him and to those who were with him; he said: Put up a table and bread. Next he accepted bread and blessed it and gave it to James the just, saying: Rise, my brother; eat, because the son of man has risen from the dead.
Irish reference Bible: De eo testatur euangelium eius secundum Ebreos et a me nuper in Graecum et Latinum translatum, quod et Ori{g}enes uti{tur} post resurrectionem domini refert: Dominus cum dedisset sindonem servo sacerdoti ibit ad Iacobum et apparuit ei. iuraverit enim Iacobus se non commessurum panem ab illa hora qua biberet calicem dominus donec videret eius resurrectionem a mortuis. inde dominus post benedixit panem et fregit et dedit Iacobo, dicens ei: Frater mi, comede panem tuum, quia surrexit filius hominis. / About this his gospel according to the Hebrews testifies, and it has been translated by me into Greek and Latin, which also Origen used when it says after the resurrection of the Lord: The Lord when he had given a shroud to the servant of the priest went to James and appeared to him. For James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which the Lord drank the cup until he saw his resurrection from the dead. Then after this the Lord blessed the bread and broke it and gave it to James, saying to him: My brother, eat your bread, because the son of man has arisen.

Attestation and Dubious Texts

Eusebius, History of the Church 3.25.5: ἤδη δ' ἐν τούτοις τινὲς καὶ τὸ καθ' Ἑβραίους εὐαγγέλιον κατέλεξαν, ᾧ μάλιστα Ἑβραίων οἱ τὸν Χριστὸν παραδεξάμενοι χαίρουσιν. / And some indeed catalogue also the gospel according to the Hebrews among these [illegitimate scriptures], in which those of the Hebrews who have accepted Christ especially rejoice.
Eusebius, History of the Church 3.27.4: οὗτοι δὲ τοῦ μὲν ἀποστόλου πάμπαν τὰς ἐπιστολὰς ἀρνητέας ἡγοῦντο εἶναι δεῖν, ἀποστάτην ἀποκαλοῦντες αὐτὸν τοῦ νόμου, εὐαγγελίῳ δὲ μόνῳ τῷ καθ' Ἑβραίους λεγομένῳ χρώμενοι, τῶν λοιπῶν σμικρὸν ἐποιοῦντο λόγον. / And these [Ebionites] reckoned that all the epistles of the apostle ought to be denied, calling him an apostate from the law, and, using only the gospel called according to the Hebrews, they make little of the word of the rest.
Eusebius, History of the Church 3.39.17: κέχρηται δ' ὁ αὐτὸς μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰωάννου προτέρας ἐπιστολῆς καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς Πέτρου ὁμοίως, ἐκτέθειται δὲ καὶ ἄλλην ἱστορίαν περὶ γυναικὸς ἐπὶ πολλαῖς ἁμαρτίαις διαβληθείσης ἐπὶ τοῦ κυρίου, ἣν τὸ καθ' Ἑβραίους εὐαγγέλιον περιέχει. καὶ ταῦτα δ' ἡμῖν ἀναγκαίως πρὸς τοῖς ἐκτεθεῖσιν ἐπιτετηρήσθω. / And [Papias] himself used testimonies from the first epistle of John and similarly from that of Peter, and set out also another record about a woman who was charged for many sins before the Lord, which the gospel according to the Hebrews has. And let these things also be necessarily observed by us on top of the things that have been set out.
Eusebius, History of the Church 4.22.8: ἔκ τε τοῦ καθ' Ἑβραίους εὐαγγελίου καὶ τοῦ Συριακοῦ καὶ ἰδίως ἐκ τῆς Ἑβραΐδος διαλέκτου τινὰ τίθησιν, ἐμφαίνων ἐξ Ἑβραίων ἑαυτὸν πεπιστευκέναι, καὶ ἄλλα δὲ ὡς ἐξ Ἰουδαϊκῆς ἀγράφου παραδόσεως μνημονεύει. οὐ μόνος δὲ οὗτος, καὶ Εἰρηναῖος δὲ καὶ ὁ πᾶς τῶν ἀρχαίων χορὸς πανάρετον Σοφίαν τὰς Σολομῶνος Παροιμίας ἐκάλουν. / [Hegesippus] sets out something from the gospel according to the Hebrews and from the Syriac, and likewise from the Hebrew dialect, making apparent that he himself had come to faith out of the Hebrews. And other things also he records, as if from the unwritten Jewish tradition. And not only this man, but also Irenaeus and all the chorus of the ancients, called the proverbs the all-virtuous wisdom of Solomon.
Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem, Discourse on Mary Theotokos 12a: [El monje dice:] «Está escrito en [el evangelio] según los Hebreos que, deseando Cristo venir a la tierra para efectuar la redención, el buen padre llamó a una fuerza celestial por nombre Miguel, recomendándole el cuidado de Cristo en esta empresa. Y vino la fuerza al mundo, y se llamaba María, y estuvo siete meses en su seno. Después le dió a luz, y creció en estatura y escogió los apóstoles..., fue crucificado y asumido por el padre». Cirilo le dice: «¿En qué lugar de los cuatro evangelios se dice que la santa virgen María, madre de Dios, es una fuerza?» El monje responde: «En el evangelio de los Hebreos». «Entonces», dice Cirilo, «¿son cinco los evangelios? ¿Cuál es el quinto?» El monje responde: «Es el evangelio que fue escrito para los Hebreos». / "It is written in [the gospel] according to the Hebrews that, when Christ desired to come to earth to effect redemption, the good father called forth the celestial power, Michael by name, commending the care of Christ to him in this enterprise. And the power came down to the world, and it was called Mary, and he was in her womb for seven months. Afterward she brought him to light, and he grew in stature and chose the apostles {who preached him everywhere. He fulfilled the appointed time that was decreed for him. The Jews grew envious of him and came to hate him. They changed the custom of their law, and they rose up against him, and laid a trap, and caught him. They turned him over to the governor, who gave him back to them to crucify, [and he]} was crucified and assumed by the father." Cyril says to him: "In which part of the four gospels is it said that the holy virgin Mary, mother of God, is a force?" The monk responds: "In the gospel of the Hebrews." "Then," says Cyril, "are there five gospels? Which is the fifth?" The monk responds: "It is the gospel that was written for the Hebrews. [The text in braces {} comes from The Complete Gospels and fills in a lacuna left by Aurelio de Santos Otero.]
Epiphanius, Panarion 46.1: λέγεται δὲ τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων εὐαγγέλιον ὑπ' αὐτοῦ γεγενῆσθαι, ὅπερ κατὰ Ἑβραίους τινὲς καλοῦσι. / And it is said that the Diatessaron gospel, which some call according to the Hebrews, was made by [Tatian].
Jerome, On Famous Men 16: ...et proprie ad Polycarpum, commendans illi Antiochensem ecclesiam, in qua et de evangelio quod nupe a me translatum est super persona Christi ponit testimonium dicens: «Ego vero et post resurrectionem in carne eum vidi, et credo quai sit. et, quando venit ad Petrum et ad eos qui cum Petro erant, dixit eis: Ecce, palpate me, et videte quia non sum daemonium incorporale». et statim tetigerunt eum et crediderunt. / ...and properly [Ignatius wrote] to Polycarp, commending the Antiochene church to him, in which he put testimony also of the gospel which was recently translated by me about the person of Christ, saying, "I also truly saw him in the flesh after the resurrection, and believe that he is. And, when he came to Peter and to those who were with Peter, he said to them: Behold, handle me and see that I am not an incorporeal daemon." And immediately they touched him and believed. Refer also to Jerome, On Isaiah, preface to book 18: Cum enim apostoli eum putarent spiritum, vel iuxta evangelium quod Hebraeorum lectitant Nazaraei incorporale daemonium, dixit eis: «Quid turbati estis, et cogitationes ascendunt in corda vestra? videte manus meas et pedes, quia ipse ego sum. palpate et cernite, quia spiritus carnem et ossa non habet sicut me videtis habere». et cum hoc dixisset, ostendit eis manus et pedes. / Since indeed the apostles supposed him a spirit, or according to the gospel which the Nazaraeans read of the Hebrews an incorporeal daemon, he says to them, "Why are you troubled, and cogitations ascend in your hearts? See my hands and feet, that it is I myself. Handle and discern, because a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." And, when he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. Refer also to Origen, On First Things 1, preface 8: Si vero quis velit nobis proferre ex illo libello qui Petri doctrina appellatur, ubi salvator videtur ad discipulos dicere: «Non sum daemonium incorporeum», primo respondendum est ei quoniam liber ipse inter libros ecclesiasticos non habetur, et ostendendum quia neque Petri est ipsa scriptura neque alterius cuiusdam qui spiritu dei fuerit inspiratus. / If someone truly wishes to recite to us from that little book which is called the teaching of Peter, where the savior is seen to say to the disciples, "I am not an incorporeal daemon," it must first be responded to that person that this book is not held among the ecclesiastical books, and [then] demonstrated that it was written neither by Peter nor by any other one who was inspired by the spirit of God.
Jerome to Damasus, epistle 20: Denique Matthaeus, qui evangelium Hebraeo sermone conscripsit, ita posuit: «Osanna barrama», id est: «Osanna in excelsis». / At last Matthew, who wrote the gospel in Hebrew speech, puts it thus: "Hosanna barrama," that is, "Hosanna in the highest." Refer also to Paschasius Radbertus: Secundum quod Matheus, qui hoc evangelium hebreo sermone scripsit, hoc verbum in fine proposuit, «osanna rama», quod est secundo dicere, «salus in excelsis». / Therefore Matthew, who wrote this gospel in Hebrew speech, put this word at the end, "osanna rama," which is to say a second time, "salvation in the highest."
Jerome, On Matthew 1, commentary on Matthew 2.5: «In Bethleem Iudaeae»: Llbrariorum hic error est; putamus enim ab evangelista primum editum sicut in ipso Hebraico legimus, «Iudae», non «Iudaeae». / "In Bethlehem of Judea:" this is an error of the scribes; we suppose indeed that it was first published from the evangelist as we read in the Hebraic [gospel], "of Judah," not "of Judea." Refer also to Paschasius Radbertus: Nam in Hebraeo sic habet: «Et tu, Bethleem Efrata, parvus es in milibus Iuda». / For in the Hebrew is has thus: "And you, Bethlehem Ephratha, are small among the thousands of Judah." Refer also to Sedulius Scotus: Librariorum error est; putamus enim ab evangelista primum editum sicut in ipso Ebraico legimus, «Iudae», non «Iudeae». / It is an error of the scribes; we suppose indeed that it was first published from the evangelist as we read in the Hebraic, "of Judah," not "of Judea."
Philip Sidetes: τὸ δὲ καθ' Ἑβραῖους ἐυαγγέλιον καὶ τὸ λεγόμενον Πέτρου καὶ Θωμᾶ τελείως ἀπέβαλλον, αἱρετικῶν ταῦτα συγγράμματα λέγοντες. / But the ancients completely cast out the gospel according to the Hebrews and that called of Peter and of Thomas, saying that these were the writings of heretics.
Chronology of Nicephorus: Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ἑβραίους, στίχοι ͵βσʹ. / The gospel according to the Hebrews, 2200 lines.
Sedulius Scotus, Commentary on Matthew: Ita nanque refert evangelium quod secundum Ebraos praetitulatur: «Intuitus Ioseph oculis vidit turbam viatorum comitantium venientium ad speluncam et dixit: Surgam et procedam foras inobviam eis. cum autem processisset, dixit ad Simonem Ioseph: Sic mihi videnture isti qui veniunt augures esse. ecce enim omni momento respiciunt in caelum et inter se disputant. sed et peregrini videntur esse, quoniam et habitus eorum differt ab habitu nostro. nam vestis eorum amplissima est, et color fuscus est eorum densius, et pilea habent in capitibus suis et molles mihi videntur vestes eorum et in pedibus eorum sunt saraballae. et ecce steterunt et intendunt in me, et ecce iterum coeperunt huc venientes ambulare.» Quibus verbis liquide ostenditur non tres tantum viros sed turbam viatorum venisse ad dominum, quamvis iuxta quosdam eiusdem turbae praecipui magistri certis nominibus Melchus, Caspar, Phadizarda nuncupentur. / For thus the gospel which is entitled according to the Hebrews reports: "When Joseph looked out with his eyes, he saw a crowd of pilgrims who were coming in company to the cave, and he said: I will arise and go out to meet them. And, when Joseph went out, he said to Simon: 'It seems to me as if those coming were soothsayers, for lo, every moment they look up to heaven and confer with one another. But they seem also to be strangers, for their appearance differs from ours; for their dress is very rich and their complexion quite dark; they have caps on their heads and their garments seem to me to be silky, and they have breeches on their legs. And lo, they have halted and are looking at me, and lo, they have again set themselves in motion and are coming here.'" From these words it is clear that not merely three men but a crowd of pilgrims came to the Lord, even if according to some the foremost leaders of this crowd were named with the definite names Melchus, Caspar, and Phadizarda. Refer also to Maelbrigte: Legitur in evangelio secundum Ebreos quod venit Ioseph foras ex diversorio ante quam intrarent domum et, admirans eos, dixit Semeon filium suum quod perigrini essent cognoscens ab habitu / It is read in the gospel according to the Hebrews that Joseph came outside from the inn before they entered the house and, admiring them, said [to] Simeon his son that they were pilgrims, knowing this from their attire.
Historical Investigation of the Gospel According to Luke, folio 56 recto, on Luke 10.13: Bezaida, in qua sanavit paraliticum cata Iohannem. in his civitatibus multae virtutes facte sunt, quae evangelium secundum Hebraos quinquaginta ter virtutes in his factas enumerat. / Bethsaida, in which he healed the paralytic according to John. In these cities many miracles were done, which the gospel according to the Hebrews ennumerates as fifty-three three miracles done in them.
Vaticanus Latinus 49: Item isti VIII dies pascae in quo resur{rexit} Christus filius dei significant VIII dies post remi{ssionem} pascae in quo iudicabitur totum semen Adae, ut nuntiatur in evangelio Ebreorum, et ideo putant sapientes diem iudicii in tempore pascae, eo quod in illo die resur{rexit} Christus ut in illo iterum resurgant sancti. / Likewise these eight days of Passover in which Christ the son of God resurrected signify eight days after the remission of Passover in which the entire seed of Adam will be judged, as is announced in the gospel of the Hebrews, and therefore wise men suppose that the day of judgment is at the time of the Passover, since on that day Christ resurrected so that on that same day the saints might rise up again.
Book of Uí Máine in the Royal Irish Academy: Inn-aidchi geini Críst cain seacht n-inganta dég domain is áibind indister dùibh 'san [s]oiscéla nEabhroibh. / The night of the birth of Christ the fair there were seventeen miracles of the world. Delightfully are they related to you in the gospel of the Hebrews. Refer also to the Yellow Book of Lacan in Trinity College, Dublin: An n-aidchi geni Crist chain Secht n-inganta déc demain Is aibind innister daib Isan t-soiscel iar n-Ebraib.
Leabhar Breac, concerning the donkey and colt appropriated for the triumphal entry: Ructha imorro focetoir o'n t-shlaníccid na hech-si for cúla di-a tigernaib, amal demnigter is-in soscela iar n-ébraidib. / Haec autem animalia a salvatore retro ducta sunt dominis suis, ut in evangelio secundum Ebraeos legitur. / These animals, however, were led back by the savior to their owners, as it is read in the gospel according to the Hebrews.

Works Consulted and Links

A. F. J. Klijn, Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition.
M. J. Lagrange, L'évangele selon les Hébreux, from Revue Biblique 1922.
Montague Rhodes James, The Apocryphal New Testament.
Kurt Aland, Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, appendix IV.
Aurelio de Santos Otero, Los evangelios apócrifos.
Bart Ehrman and Zlatko Plese, The Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations.
Early Christian Writings: The Gospel of the Hebrews.
TextExcavation: The Gospel of the Hebrews.
Biblical Criticism & History Forum: Other Gospel Texts.

Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Sun Jan 07, 2018 4:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

John2
Posts: 2746
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The gospel of the Hebrews.

Post by John2 » Mon Sep 28, 2015 8:30 am

Hey Ben,

I've made it to part two of MacDonald's Two Shipwrecked Gospels, and while I've taken some good things from the first part, he's starting to lose me in the second part (again due to my aversion to speculation about hypothetical sources). I've always been on board with Markan priority, and I think MacDonald has made a good case that Luke knew Papias' Exposition and Matthew (placing Papias chronologically between Matthew and Luke). Thus I don't see a need for Q if Luke knew Matthew (though I realize that Q is a complicated issue). But I agree with MacDonald that Papias' statement means that there was at least one other Greek Matthew besides the canonical one that was translated/interpreted from an original Hebrew version. But I'm not yet on board with the idea that is Q or a now lost Matthew-like gospel when there is a Jewish Christian gospel(s) which the Church fathers say was in Greek and resembled Matthew (i.e., the Gospel of the Hebrews).

Who was "each person" that translated/interpreted an original Hebrew Matthew (according to Papias) if not the canonical Matthew and the Matthew-like Jewish Christian gospel(s)? Why posit a lost source when we have the latter? But I will see what MacDonald says in part two.
Show me something built to last.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6494
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The gospel of the Hebrews.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Sep 28, 2015 7:32 pm

John2 wrote:I've made it to part two of MacDonald's Two Shipwrecked Gospels, and while I've taken some good things from the first part, he's starting to lose me in the second part (again due to my aversion to speculation about hypothetical sources). I've always been on board with Markan priority, and I think MacDonald has made a good case that Luke knew Papias' Exposition and Matthew (placing Papias chronologically between Matthew and Luke).
Yes, I agree that he is pretty good on that point overall.
Thus I don't see a need for Q if Luke knew Matthew (though I realize that Q is a complicated issue).
I used to feel the same way, and basically embraced the Farrer theory (though with a lot of reserve). However, I have come to suspect that, even if Luke did know Matthew, there is other material in between the two gospels that Luke is drawing on directly instead of on Matthew. This conclusion certainly does not come from an overview of the situation; rather, it comes from close textual examination of individual pericopae and such. I do feel the need, so to speak, for some kind of intermediate document(s), though I remain skeptical about any specific reconstruction of it (or them), and that includes MacDonald's.
But I agree with MacDonald that Papias' statement means that there was at least one other Greek Matthew besides the canonical one that was translated/interpreted from an original Hebrew version. But I'm not yet on board with the idea that is Q or a now lost Matthew-like gospel when there is a Jewish Christian gospel(s) which the Church fathers say was in Greek and resembled Matthew (i.e., the Gospel of the Hebrews).
I agree with Klijn that there were at least three such texts. However, none of the three that we know about can fill the gap left by Q, and I feel certain that is why MacDonald does not cleanly identify his "Logoi" with one of the texts we already know about:
  1. The text with the sole designation "gospel according to the Hebrews" (from this thread) may not have looked much like Matthew at all. Look at the baptism account and the appearance to James, and how very different they are from Matthew... and that is where the fragments actually overlap Matthew. I think this gospel is an Egyptian product, and it may have been called "of the Hebrews" to distinguish it from another Egyptian gospel used by gentiles and called "of the Egyptians." It may also have nothing to do with our canonical Matthew, or any of the other canonical gospels, for that matter.
  2. The text called "gospel of the Nazoraeans" appears to be very closely related to Matthew... so close that it probably is a recension of our canonical Matthew, but with clarifications and alterations made in order to fix problems, so to speak. (An example of this is the change from "Zechariah, son of Berechiah" to "Zechariah, son of Jehoiada" in Matthew 23.35, in order to correctly line up with 2 Chronicles 24.20-21.)
  3. The text called "gospel of the Ebionites" appears to be related both to Matthew and to Luke. It, too, bears marks of being pretty late in the procession of gospels. For example, it speaks in the name of the 12 disciples, in the first-person plural (which may mean either that this gospel is the one known from an Origenic list as the gospel or the twelve, but more likely means that it is supposed to be Matthew, who is singled out for special treatment in the same passage, speaking in the first-person plural to cover both himself and the other eleven).
Who was "each person" that translated/interpreted an original Hebrew Matthew (according to Papias) if not the canonical Matthew and the Matthew-like Jewish Christian gospel(s)? Why posit a lost source when we have the latter? But I will see what MacDonald says in part two.
I imagine he simply does not see any of the Jewish-Christian gospels that we know about as a good candidate to replace Q. But I think he would identify his Logia as a (lost) Jewish-Christian gospel, right? (I do not have the book in front of me right this minute.)

Ben.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Wed May 17, 2017 3:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6494
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The gospel of the Hebrews.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Sep 28, 2015 7:38 pm

On a separate matter, I think MacDonald gets himself into a logical quandary that I have not found him solving. He (correctly, I think) claims that Papias (relying on his elder) regards the Greek translations of Matthew's original Logia as having garbled their original order, and he (correctly, I think) identifies our canonical Matthew (or something very much like it) as one of the documents which Papias regarded as a Greek translation... yet he has Papias slavishly following the Greek Matthean order throughout his five books. But why would Papias, who apparently has a thing for order, follow an order he himself regards as inaccurate? In short, I do not think that Papias was ordering his work according to our canonical Matthew.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1734
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: The gospel of the Hebrews.

Post by andrewcriddle » Tue Sep 29, 2015 10:36 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:On a separate matter, I think MacDonald gets himself into a logical quandary that I have not found him solving. He (correctly, I think) claims that Papias (relying on his elder) regards the Greek translations of Matthew's original Logia as having garbled their original order, and he (correctly, I think) identifies our canonical Matthew (or something very much like it) as one of the documents which Papias regarded as a Greek translation... yet he has Papias slavishly following the Greek Matthean order throughout his five books. But why would Papias, who apparently has a thing for order, follow an order he himself regards as inaccurate? In short, I do not think that Papias was ordering his work according to our canonical Matthew.
I may be wrong here but IMHO Papias regards the Greek form of Matthew as garbled in sense (mistranslated) not garbled in order.

Andrew Criddle

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6494
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The gospel of the Hebrews.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue Sep 29, 2015 10:44 am

andrewcriddle wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:On a separate matter, I think MacDonald gets himself into a logical quandary that I have not found him solving. He (correctly, I think) claims that Papias (relying on his elder) regards the Greek translations of Matthew's original Logia as having garbled their original order, and he (correctly, I think) identifies our canonical Matthew (or something very much like it) as one of the documents which Papias regarded as a Greek translation... yet he has Papias slavishly following the Greek Matthean order throughout his five books. But why would Papias, who apparently has a thing for order, follow an order he himself regards as inaccurate? In short, I do not think that Papias was ordering his work according to our canonical Matthew.
I may be wrong here but IMHO Papias regards the Greek form of Matthew as garbled in sense (mistranslated) not garbled in order.
That is very possible, but that is certainly not how MacDonald takes it; hence the logical quandary.

(I do, however, suspect that Papias was explaining order as a function of eyewitness participation, and this would cast doubt on those who translated Matthew "as best they could.")

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2726
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: The gospel of the Hebrews.

Post by DCHindley » Tue Sep 29, 2015 2:16 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
andrewcriddle wrote:I may be wrong here but IMHO Papias regards the Greek form of Matthew as garbled in sense (mistranslated) not garbled in order.
That is very possible, but that is certainly not how MacDonald takes it; hence the logical quandary.

(I do, however, suspect that Papias was explaining order as a function of eyewitness participation, and this would cast doubt on those who translated Matthew "as best they could.")
Should we take Philostratus at face value and believe that Apollonius of Tyana uncharacteristically drank large quantities of intoxicating beverage while visiting the Brahmin in India, because, he says, Apollonius' servant Damis said so in a travelogue he left for posterity? Eusebius would stand in for Philostratus, Papias for Damis, and Matthew (as an author) for Apollonius. I am hesitant to put too much faith in what Eusebius says Papias says about a Matthean collection of Hebrew/Aramaic logia said.

It is almost as if someone toggled a switch, and instantly Christians became self-aware. Problem is, they had absolutely no idea what their prior history was. Faced with the obvious concern to "explain" why they revere a man who was executed as an enemy of Rome, they tried, unsuccessfully, to reverse engineer this trajectory from what they had been using for liturgty, the NT books. However, they were nothing but pious guesses.

DCH (oh look, I'm signing posts again!)

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6494
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The gospel of the Hebrews.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue Sep 29, 2015 3:27 pm

DCHindley wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:
andrewcriddle wrote:I may be wrong here but IMHO Papias regards the Greek form of Matthew as garbled in sense (mistranslated) not garbled in order.
That is very possible, but that is certainly not how MacDonald takes it; hence the logical quandary.

(I do, however, suspect that Papias was explaining order as a function of eyewitness participation, and this would cast doubt on those who translated Matthew "as best they could.")
Should we take Philostratus at face value and believe that Apollonius of Tyana uncharacteristically drank large quantities of intoxicating beverage while visiting the Brahmin in India, because, he says, Apollonius' servant Damis said so in a travelogue he left for posterity? Eusebius would stand in for Philostratus, Papias for Damis, and Matthew (as an author) for Apollonius. I am hesitant to put too much faith in what Eusebius says Papias says about a Matthean collection of Hebrew/Aramaic logia said.
My problem with that concept is that, where Eusebius can be checked, he usually quotes pretty exactly. There are exceptions, of course, but there are far more examples of exact quotes than botched quotes. It seems most likely to me, then, that he is quoting something that someone named Papias said, at some point during the approximate time frame at which Eusebius places him in the History of the Church. Confirmation comes in the form of the same basic information (Matthew wrote in Hebrew, Mark heard Peter, and so forth) being passed on by people whom we already know or suspect on other grounds to have had access to Papias (Irenaeus, Victorinus, and others).

Also, the final "said" in your chain above should be "what the elder John said" about the logia; Eusebius does not actually quote Papias quoting the logia. This elder John is the middleman.

I completely agree that, once we reach Papias, we are dealing with information (about the origins and provenance of texts) passed on orally. But Eusebius claims to be quoting a Papian text in 3.39, and it is hard to disbelieve him on that point.
It is almost as if someone toggled a switch, and instantly Christians became self-aware. Problem is, they had absolutely no idea what their prior history was. Faced with the obvious concern to "explain" why they revere a man who was executed as an enemy of Rome, they tried, unsuccessfully, to reverse engineer this trajectory from what they had been using for liturgty, the NT books. However, they were nothing but pious guesses.
I, on the other hand, think that the process was painfully slow and gradual. But I am willing to be shown otherwise.

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1164
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The gospel of the Hebrews.

Post by rakovsky » Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:11 pm

THE FOLLOWING IS FROM: The Gospel According to the Hebrews: Its Fragments Translated and Annotated By Edward Williams Byron Nicholson
  • CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA writes
    As Matthias in the Traditions, exhorting us, says, " Marvel at what is before thee," supposing this the first step to ulterior knowledge ;just as in the Gospel according to the Hebrews it is written " He that hath marveled shall reign, and he that hath reigned shall rest."

    The formula "it is written" is, as the writer of Supernatural Religion says ( Walter R. Cassels - 4th ed. i. 236), generally understood to indicate a quotation from Holy Scripture. The Traditions of Matthias would seem to be the same as the Gospel attributed to that Apostle.

    It may be remarked that both Clement and Origen had traveled in Palestine, and that Eusebius was bishop of Caesarea, in the library of which city (collected by his friend Pamphilus) there was a copy of this Gospel, as Jerome tells us. We may therefor reasonably suppose that their quotations are not merely second-hand, and that, had it been on the face of it an apocryphal production, they would have designated it as such.


    H. PROBABLE OR POSSIBLE FRAGMENTS OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE HEBREWS.


    I have here included all such evangelic quotations in early writers as seem to me referable with more or less probability to our lost Gospel.

    But, if all the rest of the evangelic quotations in the SecondClementine Epistle correspond to passages in the canonical Gospels,why have I given them here ? I have been led to do so by thephaenomena which the quotation numbered Fr. 43 presents. It ismost certainly not taken from any of our Gospels ; at. the same timeit partly answers to passages in Matthew and Luke, and has certainlikenesses to each ; and lastly the correspondence is very far nearerto Matthew than to Luke, because the two passages which bothevangelists have in common with it are combined by Matthew intothe same discourse of Jesus while Luke separates them into differentdiscourses. In other words, we find in this quotation the threestriking features of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, (1) closeaffinity with Matthew, (2) less close but still marked affinity withLuke, (3) decided independence of both.

    Two other of these quotations exhibit unquestionable independence of our canonical Gospels Fr. 41 and Fr. 57, the latter ofwhich is also found in Irenaeus, who regarded the Gospel accordingto the Hebrews as Matthew s, but did not accept, and consequentlywould not quote, any other Gospel outside of our four though hemay have quoted from tradition.

    f43. Matt. x. 16, 28. Luke x. 3, xii. 4.
    (1) + Ye shall be as lambkins in midst of wolves .
    (2) And Peter answered him and saith If then the wolves rend the lambkins asunder ?
    (3) Jesus said to Peter Let not the lambkins after they are dead fear the wolves.
    And do ye not fear them that kill you and can do nought unto you.
    (4) But fear him who after ye are dead hath authority over soul and body to cast into Gehenna of fire.


    FRAGMENT SOURCE: Second Epistle of Clement, iii.
    Matt. x. 16, Behold I send you forth as sheep in midst of wolves
    Luke x. 3 the same except that for sheep we have lambs (apvas).

    Matt. x. 28, (3) And fear not at them that kill the body but cannot kill the soul. (4) But fear rather him who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna
    Luke xii. 4, (3) And I say to you my friends, fear not at them that kill the body and after that have not anything left to do. (4) But I will show you whom ye may fear fear him who after having killed hath authority to cast in into the Gehenna

    'And can do nought unto you', 'after ye are dead', 'hath authority', and 'cast into' are nearer to Luke: But 'fear him who, over soul and body', to Matthew.

    Matthew uses the Gehenna of the fire twice, and Mark once. He uses the Gehenna once, Mark twice, Luke once. He also uses Gehenna without thearticle 3 times the others not at all.

    SOURCE: https://archive.org/stream/thegospelacc ... t_djvu.txt

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com

User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1164
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The gospel of the Hebrews.

Post by rakovsky » Tue Dec 27, 2016 12:27 am

Eusebius reports in his ecclesiastical history that Hegesippus used a Syriac (Aramaic) gospel as a source for his Hypomneumata ...
Eusebius cites an unnamed Aramaic gospel written in Hebrew letters as a source for his Theophaneia. pp. 60–5 – He quotes a saying of Jesus ('I choose for myself the good ones, the good ones whom my Father in heaven has given me') to expound on the reasons for divisions within the Church (Theophaneia 4.12), and he comments on a variant version of the Parable of the Talents in Mt. 25.14–30...
Jerome is our major source of knowledge about the content of an Aramaic gospel. He quoted from an unnamed gospel in Hebrew script as a source for several commentaries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Hebrews
Eusebius reports: He quotes from the Gospel according to the Hebrews and from the Syriac (Gospel) and in particular some words in the Hebrew tongue, showing that he was a convert from the Hebrews”, 3.24.6, 3.39.16, 5.8.2, 6.24.4, Theophania 4.12, 5.10.3), Jerome (Note by Schneemelcher “Jerome thus reluctantly confirms the existence of two Jewish Gospels, the Gospel according to the Hebrews and an Aramaic gospel. That the latter was at hand in the library in Caesareas is not to be disputed; it is at any rate likely on the ground of the citations of Eusebius in his Theophany. It will likewise be correct that the Nazaraeans used such an Aramaic gospel, since Epiphanius also testifies to this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Gospel_hypothesis

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com

Post Reply