Jesus' appearances to Peter and James

[Ben C. Smith]

Well, it would not be our canonical version of the temptation, just as it is obviously not our canonical version of the transfiguration. Again, I have no firm opinion on this, but I find your explanation quite overcertain in this case.

It seems pretty natural that it would be the transfiguration, not temptation, even if it is a made up version of the canonical story.

In the later traditions, the transfiguration was on the Mount Tabor.

But the devil, not the spirit would be performing the temptations. As a matter of simple logic, even if the story in gHebrews was wrong, it would not be the Holy Spirit leading Jesus along to be tempted, probably.

Again... no strong opinion on this. I just think that you are overcertain of yours. That is all.

[rakovsky]

; nor have you explained the connection between it being gnostic and it being a reworking of Matthew (instead, you have simply restated your main point that the fathers assumed it was a reworking of Matthew)....

Well, I quite agree that the Ebionite gospel is a modification of other gospels. What I dispute is that it is the same as the gospel of the Hebrews. It is pretty clearly not.

Do you also think that Tatian's Diatessaron is the gospel of the Hebrews? After all, Epiphanius says it was called that, too.

Ben.

Like i said, I don't have a strong opinion on whether gHebrews is another version of gEbionites.

I just think that gHebrews is a later reworking of earlier gospel stories like gMatthew.

Take for example the 2nd century phrase "James the Just" or the belief that the spirit brought Jesus to Tabor, when in the 1st century materials Jesus' brother is just called James and when in the gospels themselves the transfiguration is apparently on Mt. Hermon, but later on in church tradition it came to be thought that it was on Tabor.

Based on the gospels, James started out a skeptic, but later became a believer, probably some time after the resurrection. By the second century, James was already well established as a central Christian leader. But int he earlier period it was remembered that it took some time for James to believe. Paul's sequence in which Peter sees Jesus, then the apostles do, and finally James is more in keeping with the previously held situation where Peter had major belief before James.

[rakovsky]

Well, it would not be our canonical version of the temptation, just as it is obviously not our canonical version of the transfiguration. Again, I have no firm opinion on this, but I find your explanation quite overcertain in this case.

It seems pretty natural that it would be the transfiguration, not temptation, even if it is a made up version of the canonical story.

In the later traditions, the transfiguration was on the Mount Tabor.

But the devil, not the spirit would be performing the temptations. As a matter of simple logic, even if the story in gHebrews was wrong, it would not be the Holy Spirit leading Jesus along to be tempted, probably.

Again... no strong opinion on this. I just think that you are overcertain of yours. That is all.

In the Bible, when the Holy Spirit takes someone someplace, it is for some good purpose, rather than to tempt the person to do something bad.

Apocryphal gospels may be at times strange, but a more sensible reading is still more likely than a counterintiutive one.

Anyway, Origen introduces the statement by saying "If any one should lend credence to the Gospel according to the Hebrews".
It sounds like by Origen's time in the mid second century this document was uncertain in authenticity.

[Ben C. Smith]

; nor have you explained the connection between it being gnostic and it being a reworking of Matthew (instead, you have simply restated your main point that the fathers assumed it was a reworking of Matthew)....

Well, I quite agree that the Ebionite gospel is a modification of other gospels. What I dispute is that it is the same as the gospel of the Hebrews. It is pretty clearly not.

Do you also think that Tatian's Diatessaron is the gospel of the Hebrews? After all, Epiphanius says it was called that, too.

Ben.

Like i said, I don't have a strong opinion on whether gHebrews is another version of gEbionites.

I just think that gHebrews is a later reworking of earlier gospel stories like gMatthew.

Take for example the 2nd century phrase "James the Just" or the belief that the spirit brought Jesus to Tabor, when in the 1st century materials Jesus' brother is just called James and when in the gospels themselves the transfiguration is apparently on Mt. Hermon, but later on in church tradition it came to be thought that it was on Tabor.

Based on the gospels, James started out a skeptic, but later became a believer, probably some time after the resurrection. By the second century, James was already well established as a central Christian leader. But int he earlier period it was remembered that it took some time for James to believe. Paul's sequence in which Peter sees Jesus, then the apostles do, and finally James is more in keeping with the previously held situation where Peter had major belief before James.

Observations worthy of consideration (well, except for the Tabor/Hermon thing, since the canonical gospels do not actually name the mountain, so we have no way of knowing which one, if any, they had in mind). The thing is, however... I am not certain that the final redactions of the canonical gospels are first century. I used to think so, but have come to reevaluate that position. I see late touches in them, as well. But that is another topic.

I see that you have apparently softened your claim that the gospel of the Hebrews is a revision specifically of Matthew; here you say that it is a reworking of gospel stories like Matthew, a looser claim, and one that I will not argue against at this time.

I PMed you. Thanks.

Ben.

[rakovsky]

In gHebrewss, Jesus asks: "Wherein (what) have I sinned, that I should go and be baptized of him? unless perhaps this very thing that I have said is a sin of ignorance...."
That is a reference to the idea of sacred saving knowledge, the gnosis that must be received.
In this verse, the lack of knowledge, ignorance, is considered a potential sin. At Jesus' time before the baptism, he may not have received the sacred gnosis or knowledge and in that sense he questioned whether he was sinful of ignorance.

[Ben C. Smith]

In gHebrewss, Jesus asks: "Wherein (what) have I sinned, that I should go and be baptized of him? unless perhaps this very thing that I have said is a sin of ignorance...."
That is a reference to the idea of sacred saving knowledge, the gnosis that must be received.
In this verse, the lack of knowledge, ignorance, is considered a potential sin. At Jesus' time before the baptism, he may not have received the sacred gnosis or knowledge and in that sense he questioned whether he was sinful of ignorance.

This is about voluntary and involuntary sins (as in Numbers 15.27, 30), not about sacred knowledge.

And the Latin does not have "sin of ignorance". It simply has "ignorance".

[rakovsky]

Observations worthy of consideration (well, except for the Tabor/Hermon thing, since the canonical gospels do not actually name the mountain, so we have no way of knowing which one, if any, they had in mind).

Yes, in Mark 9 we can almost know that the Transfiguration was originally set away from Mt Tabor, as it says that at the bottom of the Mt Jesus healed people who gathered there:
30 And they departed thence, and passed through Galilee; and he would not that any man should know it.
31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.
32 But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him.
33 And he came to Capernaum

So Jesus let the site of the Transfiguration and left the base of the mountain and THEN went to Galilee.
Mt Tabor is in Galilee, so the Transfiguration was not on Mt Tabor.
Later in Church tradition they started to think that the Transfiguration was there.

The thing is, however... I am not certain that the final redactions of the canonical gospels are first century. I used to think so, but have come to reevaluate that position. I see late touches in them, as well. But that is another topic.

Sure, maybe there were some later retouches. In any case, James is the name from the earlier period, while James the Just like in gHebrews is from the later period, 2nd century. Paul's letters tend probably to be in the earlier period, eg. 45-70 AD.

I see that you have apparently softened your claim that the gospel of the Hebrews is a revision specifically of Matthew; here you say that it is a reworking of gospel stories like Matthew, a looser claim, and one that I will not argue against at this time.

I PMed you. Thanks.

Ben.

In the Gospel according to the Hebrews which is indeed in the Chaldaean and Syrian speech but is written in Hebrew letters, which the Nazarenes use to this day, called 'according to the apostles', or, as most term it, 'according to Matthew', which also is to be seen in the library of Caesarea,

Jerome, http://www.ebionim.org/Gospel_of_the_Hebrews.html

So if it is called according to Matthew and is apparently more likely from the second century, then it's likely a reworking of Matthew. I don't have a definite opinion, it would be interesting to uncover early gospels, but I want to be realistic.

Thanks for the PM!

[Ben C. Smith]

Observations worthy of consideration (well, except for the Tabor/Hermon thing, since the canonical gospels do not actually name the mountain, so we have no way of knowing which one, if any, they had in mind).

Yes, in Mark 9 we can almost know that the Transfiguration was originally set away from Mt Tabor, as it says that at the bottom of the Mt Jesus healed people who gathered there:
30 And they departed thence, and passed through Galilee; and he would not that any man should know it.
31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.
32 But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him.
33 And he came to Capernaum

So Jesus let the site of the Transfiguration and left the base of the mountain and THEN went to Galilee.
Mt Tabor is in Galilee, so the Transfiguration was not on Mt Tabor.
Later in Church tradition they started to think that the Transfiguration was there.

The geography of the gospels is not always very accurate, however.

In the Gospel according to the Hebrews which is indeed in the Chaldaean and Syrian speech but is written in Hebrew letters, which the Nazarenes use to this day, called 'according to the apostles', or, as most term it, 'according to Matthew', which also is to be seen in the library of Caesarea,

Jerome, http://www.ebionim.org/Gospel_of_the_Hebrews.html

So if it is called according to Matthew and is apparently more likely from the second century, then it's likely a reworking of Matthew. I don't have a definite opinion, it would be interesting to uncover early gospels, but I want to be realistic.

I am pretty certain the Nazoraean gospel is indeed a version of canonical Matthew with some changes made and additions inserted. I am pretty certain the Ebionite gospel is a combination of Matthean and Lucan materials with tendentious additions and changes. What I am not at all certain about is that the gospel known in Egypt as the gospel of the Hebrews is the same as either of these. Remember, just because the fathers used the same name for two texts does not mean that those two texts are the same text. The Diatessaron, whatever it was, was most certainly not the same thing as any of these gospels called "according to the Hebrews," despite Epiphanius telling us that it was called that by some.

[rakovsky]

In gHebrewss, Jesus asks: "Wherein (what) have I sinned, that I should go and be baptized of him? unless perhaps this very thing that I have said is a sin of ignorance...."

This is about voluntary and involuntary sins (as in Numbers 15.27, 30), not about sacred knowledge.

So why does it pick out ignorance as the only involuntary sin mentioned, as opposed to involuntary sins in general?

[rakovsky]

I am pretty certain the Nazoraean gospel is indeed a version of canonical Matthew with some changes made and additions inserted. I am pretty certain the Ebionite gospel is a combination of Matthean and Lucan materials with tendentious additions and changes. What I am not at all certain about is that the gospel known in Egypt as the gospel of the Hebrews is the same as either of these. Remember, just because the fathers used the same name for two texts does not mean that those two texts are the same text. The Diatessaron, whatever it was, was most certainly not the same thing as any of these gospels called "according to the Hebrews," despite Epiphanius telling us that it was called that by some.

Sure, maybe they were each different writings, and not the same gospel of the Hebrews.
I tend to think that even so, they were later reworkings of the gospel of the Hebrews. It's true that the canonical stories have mystical and miraculous elements, but I tend to think that the later apocryphal writings had even more strange or fantastic ideas.

Take this reference in the gHebrews:

Yea, I say unto thee, unto seventy times seven times. For in the prophets also, after they were anointed by the Holy Spirit, the word of sin was found.

This does not sound like a real teaching of Jesus or something we would find in the canonical gospels.

Likewise, gHebrews says: If thy brother (saith he) have sinned by a word and made thee amends, seven times in a day receive thou him.

This is a more limited forgiveness than the one we find in the canonical gospels.

Maybe gHebrews has real elements of the earliest stories of Jesus, but I find it hard to tell for sure how much that is true and how many statements in it are early.