Jesus' appearances to Peter and James

[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...."

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?

It does not do that at all. A sin committed in ignorance is an involuntary sin. They are the same class. One is not a species of the other.

[Ben C. Smith]

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.

What are you basing this judgment on? What does it take to sound like a "real" teaching of Jesus?

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.

Why must it be that a more limited forgiveness is later than a more generous forgiveness? Why can Jesus not have been remembered or imagined as nicer and nicer over time, and not the other way around? What are you basing all of this on?

Ben.

[rakovsky]

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

It does not do that at all. A sin committed in ignorance is an involuntary sin. They are the same class. One is not a species of the other.[/quote]
What about a sin that the person is aware of but does not have a real choice in?

[Ben C. Smith]

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

It does not do that at all. A sin committed in ignorance is an involuntary sin. They are the same class. One is not a species of the other.

What about a sin that the person is aware of but does not have a real choice in?

I am not sure what you are asking. This sounds like a theological question.

[rakovsky]

Dating the Gospel of the Hebrews:

There is one statement that has scholarly consensus, which is that the Gospel of the Hebrews was NOT the original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in a pure form. However, many some scholars agree that it is likely a severely corrupted version of that text as Epiphanius so testifies.

M.R. James writes about the Gospel of the Hebrews,
“What may be regarded as established is that ... it resembled our Matthew closely enough to have been regarded as the original Hebrew of that gospel. I believe, few if any, would now contend that it was that original.”3

Johann Michaelis summarizes the views of some scholars toward the Gospel of the Hebrews,
“We must likewise distinguish the Gospel of the Nazarenes in the state, in which it was known to the Fathers of the third and fourth centuries, from the original state of this Gospel: for in its original state it may have been the work of St. Matthew, and yet have been afterwards so interpolated and corrupted, as to be no longer the same Gospel.”4

Irenaeus, who wrote in the latter part of the second century, is the first writer to mention the Ebionites. Their origin coincides in time with the origin of the Gospel of the Hebrews, which is consistent with the proposition that the Ebionites created the Gospel of the Hebrews.

Philip Schaff explains why Irenaeus may not have mentioned the use of the Gospel of the Hebrews by the Ebionites and how that fits into the history of the Gospel of the Hebrews when he writes,
“Eusebius is the first to tell us that the Ebionites used the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Irenaeus says that they used the Gospel of Matthew, and the fact that he mentions no difference between it and the canonical Matthew shows that, so far as he knew, they were the same. But according to Eusebius, Jerome, and Epiphanius the Gospel according to the Hebrews was used by the Ebionites, and…this Gospel cannot have been identical with the canonical Matthew. Either, therefore, the Gospel used by the Ebionites in the time of Irenaeus, and called by him simply the Gospel of Matthew, was something different from the canonical Matthew, or else the Ebionites had given up the Gospel of Matthew for another and a different gospel...

Jerome Lives Illustrious Men, 2
“The Gospel also which is called the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and which I have recently translated into Greek and Latin and which also Origen often makes use of, after the account of the resurrection of the Saviour says, ‘but the Lord, after he had given his grave clothes to the servant of the priest, appeared to James (for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he drank the cup of the Lord until he should see him rising again from among those that sleep)’ and again, a little later, it says ‘Bring a table and bread,’ said the Lord.’ And immediately it is added, ‘He brought bread and blessed and brake and gave to James the Just and said to him, ‘my brother eat thy bread, for the son of man is risen from among those that sleep.’”

Grant, Freedman, and Scheodel, shares the age of this epithet,
“In this story, the author of Hebrews has managed to include several highly biased notions. First, he has made James the Just (a second century title for the Lord’s brother) a guest at the Lord’s Supper.”23

James however was not really a believer in Jesus' lifetime until the resurrection appearances, correct? Yet in this passage James is already a believer at the last supper.

Some of this stuff is hard to figure out what the original story and actual set of events were. It must have been hard enough figuring out probably in 300 AD.
http://hebrewgospel.com/Gospel%20of%20Hebrews.php

[Ben C. Smith]

James however was not really a believer in Jesus' lifetime until the resurrection appearances, correct?

That depends on what you mean by "believer" and how much credence you give to the canonical gospel accounts.

Some of this stuff is hard to figure out what the original story and actual set of events were.

Or even whether there was an original story or set of events behind the ministry of Jesus.

[John2]

Rakovsky,

You wrote:

"James is the name from the earlier period, while James the Just like in gHebrews is from the later period, 2nd century."

The Gospel of Thomas 12 calls James "the Just":

"Jesus said to them, 'No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.'"

Maybe this is from the first century CE, maybe it isn't. Some date it early, some date it later, and the world goes around.

And Hegesippus says:

"He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day" (EH 2.23).

For the record, I like Hegesippus. What he says is in general accordance with the Letter of James and other Jewish Christian writings, and his sources, written and oral, are mentioned and must pre-date him: "And from the Syriac Gospel according to the Hebrews he quotes some passages in the Hebrew tongue, showing that he was a convert from the Hebrews, and he mentions other matters as taken from the unwritten tradition of the Jews" (EH 4.22).

Thus I think he's not only a great source for second century CE Jewish Christian thinking, we know he had access to earlier Jewish Christian writings and oral traditions.

This is echoed by Epiphanius (who was also aware of Jewish Christian writings):

"Thus they no longer called him by his name; his name was 'the Just.'"

https://books.google.com/books?id=0_wkO ... me&f=false

[John2]

Not coincidently, as I tend to think, the Teacher of Righteousness is arguably called "the Just" in the Damascus Document (which I tend to think of as the first Jewish Christian "gospel"):

"They banded together against the life of the righteous ..." (zaddik, or "Just"). While this is a citation of Psalm 94:21 and does not refer to a specific individual, the DSS sect typically applies verses like this with the word zaddik (or words that share its root) in them to the Teacher of Righteousness regardless of the biblical context. And in the context of the Damascus Document the Teacher is introduced in the same column only a few lines before this, and we know from the Habakkuk Pesher that the Teacher had ultimately been pursued after and killed.

Eisenman points out that a similar technique of applying verses with the word "just" in them to a revered leader is also used by Hegesippus in reference to James:

"He was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek, ‘Bulwark of the people’ and ‘Justice,’ in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him ... And they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah, ‘Let us take away the just man, because he is troublesome to us: therefore they shall eat the fruit of their doings.’ So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to each other, ‘Let us stone James the Just'" (EH 2.23).

[rakovsky]

The similar unusual issue about the feminine mother force of the Spirit in both the Ebionites' gospel and the Hebrews' gospel:

This is about the Ebionites' gospel:

2.4.5 St. Cyril of Jerusalem

In his Discourse on Mary Theotokos, St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-386) mentions an episode in his life involving "a certain monk who lived in the neighborhood of Maioma of Gaza, who had received instruction in the heresy of Bion and of Harpocratius his master…" "Bion" and "Harpocratius" are the heresiarchs commonly known as Ebion (a Judaizer, of questionable historical existence) and Carpocrates (a Gnostic). This monk had kept the books of his master and spread false teachings from them. St. Cyril, as bishop, ordered for the monk and his books to be brought before him to answer the charges.

And that monk replied, 'It is written in the [Gospel] to the Hebrews that when Christ wished to come upon the earth to men the Good Father called a mighty "power" in the heavens which was called "Michael", and committed Christ to the care thereof. And the "power" came down into the world, and it was called Mary and [Christ] was in her womb for seven months. Afterwards she gave birth to Him, and he increased in stature, and He chose the Apostles, who preached Him in every place. He fulfilled the appointed time that was decreed for Him. And the Jews became envious of Him, they hated Him, they changed the custom of their Law, and they rose up against Him and laid a trap and caught Him, and they delivered Him to the governor, and he gave Him to them to crucify Him. And after they had raised Him up on the Cross the Father took Him up into heaven unto Himself.'

This gospel "to the Hebrews" seems to contain anti-incarnational theology, making Christ begotten of some heavenly power that took the form of his mother Mary, and omitting mention of his bodily resurrection. The monk's version of this Hebrew gospel evidently incorporates Gnostic teachings of Carpocrates. The monk adds that he is sent by Christ to proclaim this gospel, quoting Matthew 28:19-20.

And the archbishop answered and said, 'Where in the Four Gospels is it said that the holy Virgin Mary, the mother of God, is a "force"?' And the monk answered and said, 'In the [Gospel] to the Hebrews.' And Apa Cyril answered and said, 'Then, according to thy words, there are Five Gospels?' And that monk replied, 'Yea, there are.' And Apa Cyril answered and said, 'What is the name of the fifth Gospel? for I should like to from whence this doctrine concerning Christ is derived, and to understand it. The Four Gospels have written above them: "[The Gospel] according to Matthew"; "[The Gospel] according to Mark"; "[The Gospel according to Luke"; "[The Gospel] according to John." Whose is the fifth Gospel?' And that monk said unto him, 'It is [the Gospel] that was written to the Hebrews.'

This brings to mind the place in the Gospel of the Hebrews where it says that the Spirit, Jesus' mother, took him by a hair to Mt Tabor.

[rakovsky]

And then there is this:

The Errors in the Gospel of the Hebrews

Epiphanius 30.13.6
“But their Gospel begins: ‘It came to pass in the days of Herod, king of Judaea, in the high priesthood of Caiaphas, that a certain man, John by name, came baptizing with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan, and he was said to be of the lineage of Aaron the priest, the son of Zacharias and Elisabeth; and all went out to him.’”

Johann Michaelis points out this historical error,
“This strange historical blunder, which makes John the Baptist preach in the time of Herod king of Judaea, who had been dead nearly thirty years, when John began to preach, is a very sufficient proof that St. Matthew was not the author of this passage: for no man who was a contemporary with John could have imagined that Herod was then king of Judaea.”18

This demonstrates that the author(s) of Gospel of the Hebrews was far removed from the time of the actual events of Jesus and the apostles.

http://hebrewgospel.com/Gospel%20of%20Hebrews.php

It is interesting to think that a group of torah-keeping Jewish Christians around James kept the original story and that it was lost, only to be found in forms like references to the Gospel of the Hebrews in Church Fathers like St Cyril (mentioned earlier). Perhaps it is the case, I just tend to think that it wasn't. John's and Matthews' gospels are said to have an Aramaic foundation, so I think that they come from the Jewish Christian community of the apostles' times. I also think it would be unlikely for Paul, who knew the apostles directly, to give one narrative of Jesus' life and then for Christians who visited James, the Christians' leader, to get a very different or contradictory one.

Another case was gospel of Peter. For a bit I thought it might have some early Christian ideas uniquely preserved. But at this point I have trouble figuring out which parts of the story were the "original" one beyond what we find in common in all four canonical gospels.

The fact that some gospels were circulating among some Jewish Christians in Hebrew only in the time of Origen or Clement in the mid-2nd century does not necessarily mean that those writings were correct or were the original story. I try to keep an open mind about these things.