Weird claims on Early Writings' "Nazoreans' Gospel" page

[rakovsky]

The Gospel of the Nazoreans page citing Burton Throckmorton seems to have nonscholarly comments that it looks like Throckmorton (or Peter Kirby) didn't write. This quote is why I think it wasn't written by Throckmorton, a mid 20th c. scholar:

I was unable to locate on the internet a copy of [The Nazarenes' Gospel]; thus, I am providing it from extracts taken from a book in my library.

http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/ ... reans.html

The reason I bring this up is because one of the claims is:

Jerome translated it into the Latin and incorporated it (in his own words, even changing some of them) into the Latin Vulgate from which the English versions (including KJV) are now derived.

...he, by his own admission, translated that original Hebrew gospel into a more "suitable" gospel for the "church". Eusebius, likewise, makes this admission. The evidence is found in the gospel fragments below.
...
(in Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 12:13)--"In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use, which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek,..."
He... tells us here that he translated it from Hebrew to Greek (thus the additions, deletions, etc. that we now have in our New Covenant).

I don't know what to make of that underlined part. Do you agree? The seeming existence of additions and deletions could just be because Jerome was translating from the Greek G.Matthew into Latin, and the Greek version already had changes. The writer seems to think mistakenly that the Vulgate Matthew was Jerome's translation from Hebrew, doesn't he?

Other claims on the page are:

These "gnostics" (any first century Jew writing in the Hebrew language about the concept of "good and evil") were considered heretical. The reason for this is that the latter "church" (from 70 C.E. onward) was steeped in Babylonian mysticism due to so many of its members being former pagans who promulgated the "savior god" or the "man-god" of the Babylonian and Egyptian pantheons.

It is also clear that the earliest list of books written about Yahshua was recorded by Marcion (who was sharply criticized and called a "heretic").

http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/ ... reans.html

Another example:

"For Augustine had written to tell him that the Christian congregation of a nearby town, Tripoli, rioted when Jerome's new translation of the Book of Jonah had been read at the Sunday service!
...
"It was the new translation of Job which in 403 had brought on the riot in Tripoli.

The original text of "Matthew" (whose name was appended to the present gospel) had "for he shall be called a Nazaraean"; Jerome left this out when translating, but makes mention of it later in his own works.

It sounds like the writer is claiming that Matthew's gospel said "he shall be called a Nazorean", and that Jerome left this out from Matthew.
BUT: Maybe there were two Gospels of Matthew, a Greek one and the Gospel of the Nazarenes, a second version, and Jerome just used the first one for the Vulgate, so Jerome didn't really hide its words, he just used a different, Greek, version?

To Matt. 4:5 cf. Gospel of the Nazaraeans: The Jewish Gospel has not to the holy city, but to Jerusalem.
Commentary:

Naturally, the name of the most important city in the world would be stated [in the original gospel]. The phrase "the holy city", depending on who is reading the text, might refer to the Samaritan "holy city" (where the Samaritans were known to have built a copy of the Jewish Temple).

What? I never thought of any other literal Temple Building referred to in the gospels besides the Jerusalem one.

He also writes:

To Matt. 15:5 cf. Gospel of the Nazaraeans: The Jewish Gospel has: Corban is what you should gain from us.
Commentary:

Corban (or korban) is the gift of a child to his parents in their old age, sort of like a pension, by which they are provided for when they are no longer able to work or care for themselves.

Isn't Korban actually just the Hebrew word for "offering"? Isn't the internet commentor using some kind of major "artistic license" when he writes?

To Matt. 16:2 cf. Gospel of the Nazaraeans: What is marked with an asterisk [i.e., from "When it is evening" to the end of v. 3] is not found in other manuscripts, and is not found in the Jewish Gospel.
Commentary: In other words, what we have here is an addition to the text, one that Jerome apparently wanted to elaborate on with another chance to call the Jews "hypocrites".

What? Jerome is not saying that the other manuscripts are hypocrites, so why does the writer think Jerome is implying that about Jews here?

To Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19 cf. Gospel of the Naassenes [perhaps a reference to the Gospel of the Nazaraeans] (in Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, V.7.26)--"Why do you call me good? One there is who is good -- my Father who is in heaven -- who makes his sun to rise on the just and on the unjust, and sense rain on the pure and on sinners." (Cf. Also Matt. 5:45).
...
Commentary:

Special mention must be made of this verse. It is found in all three gospels. Here, Yahshua is making a plain and clear statement: that he is not God and refuses to be called "good", that there is only one God, his Father - Yahvah! Since it is in the Hebrew gospel, the original, we must conclude that Mark and Luke both copied it specifically from that source in the Hebrew that was the original of what has known to have become the book of "Matthew".
...
To Matt. 20:22 cf. Gospel of the Naassenes [believed to be a gloss for Nazaraeans] (in Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, V.8.11)--"But" he says, "even if you drink the cup which I drink, you will not be able to enter where I go."
...
To Matt. 23:27 cf. Gospel of the Naassenes [again, probably a reference to Nazaraeans] (in Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, V.8.23)--"You are whitewashed tombs filled within with dead men's bones," that is, there is not within you the living man.

Isn't the writer confusing the Naassenes with the Nazoreans, and then jumping to conclusions about the "original" g.Matthew based on the Naassenes' version?

Wikipedia suggests about the Naassenes that this word comes from Nahash (snake), not Notzri(Nazarene):

The Naassenes (Greek Naasseni, possibly from Hebrew נָחָשׁ naḥash, snake)[1] were a Christian Gnostic sect from around 100 AD known only through the writings of Hippolytus of Rome.
The Naassenes claimed to have been taught their doctrines by Mariamne, a disciple of James the Just.[2] The retention of the Hebrew form shows that their beliefs may represent the earliest stages of Gnosticism.
...
The Naassenes had one or more books out of which Hippolytus of Rome largely quotes in the Philosophumena, which professed to contain heads of discourses communicated by James, the brother of Jesus, to Mariamne.

The writer (or writers) is possibly Greek. ... he dilates much on the Phrygian rites, and the whole section seems to be a commentary on a hymn to the Phrygian Attis. ... The Naassenes so far agreed with other Ophites that they gave to the first principle the names First Man and Son of Man, calling him in their hymns Adamas:

The First Man (Protanthropos, Adamas); the fundamental being before its differentiation into individuals (cf. Adam Kadmon).
The Son of Man; the same being after it has been individualized into existing things and thus sunk into matter.

Instead, however, of retaining the female principle of the Syrian Ophites, they represented their "Man" as androgynous; and hence one of their hymns runs "From thee, father, through thee, mother, the two immortal names." They declared that "the beginning of Perfection is the gnosis of Man, but the gnosis of God is perfected Perfection."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naassenes

This does not sound like what I imagine Nazarenes to be like.

To Matt. 20:22 cf. Gospel of the Naassenes [believed to be a gloss for Nazaraeans] (in Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, V.8.11)--"But" he says, "even if you drink the cup which I drink, you will not be able to enter where I go."
Commentary:
Yahshua is telling the disciples that even though they might die with him, they would not yet sit at the Father's right hand; that event is for a future time, after Yahshua has "prepared" a place for them.

How do you get Yahshua preparing a place for them out of his saying that they can't enter where he goes?

Interesting note by the writer:

The real power, however, lay in the hands of the "Father of the Court", Annas (Hanan), who was called by Josephus the "ancientest of the priests", and the patriarch of an assimilated family: Boethus, Kimchit, Hanan, and Phiabi (Fabus), who operated the government of Israel from the time of King Herod until the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. The Talmud and Tosefta speak of these families as "serpents"; therefore, it is no wonder that John the Immerser and Yahshua referred to them in those terms (vipers, serpents, etc.).

Maybe there was a gnostic implication in the name of serpents?
Anyway, wasn't Jesus referring to the pharisees in general that way?

Matthew 23:35: "That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zach-a-ri-as son of Bar-a-chi-as, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar."



To Matt. 23:35 cf. Gospel of the Nazaraeans (in Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 23:35)--In the gospel which the Nazarenes use, for "son of Barachiah" we find written, "son of Jehoiada." Cf. Also -- And Zechariah the son of Jehoiada said, "For he was of two names" -- Peter of Laodicea Commentary on Matthew 23:35 ed. Heinrici V.267.

Commentary:

Jehoiada was the father of Zechariah the prophet, a high priest [2 Chronicles 24:20]. There can be no doubt that Jerome replaced this name with "Barachiah", for it was clearly in the Hebrew original as Jehoiada.

Why would Jerome do that? Isn't that just the author's guess?

The "lintel" to which Jerome is here referring was not a lintel over the Sanctuary House of the Temple. It was the lintel over the inner Nicanor Gate, and it was this lintel (held in place by a 60-foot high wall around the Sanctuary) from which hung the first veil. The Holy Place of the Temple was inside the Sanctuary area, not exclusively in the House. It was restricted to all Israelites (per Josephus) by this 60-foot high wall; thus, no one might be able to see into the Court of the Priests nor the altar area. The wall carving at Dura Europa of the Temple clearly shows this Nicanor Gate with its veil hanging in place, and behind we see the smoke from the altar and the blue veil hanging over the Holy of Holies.
http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/ ... reans.html

A diagram would be helpful.

I think it's what he means:


Doesn't his view in the commentary contradict his thesis that the Hebrew gospel of the Nazarenes is the original, not the Vulgate?:

Matthew 27:65: "Pilate said unto them, Ye [i.e. the Sanhedrin of the Temple have their own police force or "watch"] have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can."

To Matt. 27:65 cf. Gospel of the Nazaraeans, as recorded in a marginal note of some mss: The Jewish Gospel has: And he delivered armed men to them, that they might sit opposite the cave and guard it day and night.

Commentary:

Note something here: there were never Roman centurians who guarded the Tomb of Yahshua -- there were only Temple police guards present at the tomb. Thus this is the reason they reported to Caiaphas the events of that morning. Roman guards would never have fallen asleep on the job, lest they be put to death; neither would they have reported to Caiaphas who would have had no control over them. For more evidence on this, see A Book of Evidence at http://members.tripod.com/~nkuehl/index.html -- in the chapter entitled "The Lamp of the World". The "marginal note" is questionable. Pilate clearly told the Sanhedrin to send its own men, and it did.

If Pilate says "You have a watch" like in Jerome's version, I can see how this might mean "You already have a guard patrol".
But if Pilate "delivered armed men to the high priests" like in the "Jewish gospel, doesn't that imply the armed men were Pilate's own soldiers?

[rakovsky]

My personal notes on the Gospel of the Nazoreans, BTW, for those interested:

I thought these quotes were interesting from the Gospel of the Nazarenes, quoted by these writers:

Haimo of Auxerre.
From Haimo, commentary II, On Isaiah 53.12, writing of the words of Jesus on the cross: Father, forgive them (de Santos 40):
As it has it in the gospel of the Nazarenes, at this voice of the Lord many thousands of Jews standing around the cross came to faith.

Petrus de Riga.
In a copy of the Bible known as the Aurora of Petrus de Riga, century XIII, one of the marginal notes says regarding the temple incident:
In the books of the gospels that the Nazarenes use it is read that rays issued from his eyes, by which terrified they were put to flight.

Confer Jerome, commentary on Matthew 21.15:
For a certain fiery and starry [light] radiated from his eyes, and the majesty of divinity shone in his face.

The History of the Passion of the Lord.
Extant in a codex of the fourteenth century.
From the History of the Passion of the Lord, folio 25 verso, concerning the footwashing for the disciples:
And, just as it is said in the gospel of the Nazaraeans, he had kissed the feet of each.

From the History of the Passion of the Lord, folio 35 recto, concerning the Peter and John in the court of the high priest:
In the gospel of the Nazaraeans the reason is given for John having been known to the priest. It was because when he was the son of the poor fisherman Zebedee he often ported fishes to the curias of the priests.

From the History of the Passion of the Lord, folio 55 recto, concerning the words of forgiveness from the cross:
Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do. And note that in the gospel of the Nazaraeans it is read that at this virtuous prayer of Christ eight thousand were afterward converted to the faith. There were to be sure three thousand on the day of Pentecost.

http://www.textexcavation.com/nazoraeangospel.html

Is this saying that later on by being told about these words of Jesus an accumulated 8000 Jews converted to Christianity?

From the History of the Passion of the Lord, folio 65 recto, concerning the signs at the death of the Lord:
Likewise in the gospel of the Nazaraeans it is read that a lintel of the temple of infinite magnitude was broken at the death of Christ. Josephus says the same thing and adds that horrible voices were heard in the air saying: Let us leave these regions.

This last reference comes up in another source:

Peter Comestor (century XII) has: "for in the gospel of the Nazarenes it is read that a lintel of the temple of infinite magnitude was broken and voices were heard in the air: Let us go out from these places".

Josephus has a similar story, but he relates it to a later moment:

Moreover, at that [Jewish] feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the] temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence" (Jewish Wars, VI-V-3).

Didn't one scholar say that these portents and the voices were said by Josephus to have occurred decades after Jesus' death? I don't remember who.

Tacitus, a Roman historian, also says, "There were many prodigies presignifying their ruin which was not averted by all the sacrifices and vows of that people. Armies were seen fighting in the air with brandished weapons. A fire fell upon the Temple from the clouds. The doors of the Temple were suddenly opened. At the same time there was a loud voice saying that the gods were removing, which was accompanied with a sound as of a multitude going out. All which things were supposed, by some to portend great calamities."
http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyAr ... louds.html

Here is a difference in texts from G.Matthew:

Matthew 7:5: Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

To Matt. 7:5 cf. Gospel of the Nazaraeans: The Jewish Gospel reads here: "If you be in my bosom and do not the will of my Father who is in heaven, I will cast you away from my bosom."

It sounds to me like a later interpolation. Matthew 7 doesn't have Jesus mentioning himself in his discourse directly until 15 verses later. Instead, v. 5 seems to be part of a long list of sayings about what to do or not to do, not a reference to what He will do based on those actions.

Interesting mention by Jerome:

To Matt. 12:10 cf. Gospel of the Nazaraeans (in Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 12:13)--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, the man who had the withered hand is described as a mason

To Matt. 18:21-22 (Luke 17:3-4) cf. Gospel of the Nazaraeans (in Jerome, Against Pelagius, III.2)--He says, "If your brother has sinned by a word, and repented, receive him seven times a day." Simon, his disciple, said to him, "Seven times a day?" The Lord answered, "Yes, I tell you, as much as seventy times seven times! For in the prophets also, after they were anointed by the Holy Spirit, a word of sin was found."

This is an interesting issue. I highly doubt Jesus was implying that some of the prophets' words in the Bible were sinful though. I assume he means they sinned sometimes in their personal lives.

Matthew 27:65: "Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can."

To Matt. 27:65 cf. Gospel of the Nazaraeans, as recorded in a marginal note of some mss: The Jewish Gospel has: And he delivered armed men to them, that they might sit opposite the cave and guard it day and night.

If Pilate says "You have a watch" like in Jerome's version, I can see how this might mean either "You already have a guard patrol, your temple soldiers", or else "Here, you have this Roman guard patrol that I am giving you". It seems to create some ambiguity about who owned the guards.
But if Pilate "delivered armed men to the high priests" like in the "Jewish gospel", doesn't that mean the armed men were Pilate's own soldiers?
In the Gospel of Peter, a different gospel, it seems that there were both Roman guards and Temple staff at the tomb.

Eusebius writes:

He (Christ) himself taught the reason for the separations of souls that take place in houses, as we have found somewhere in the Gospel that is spread abroad among the Jews in the Hebrew tongue, in which it is said: "I choose for myself the most worthy: the most worthy are those whom my Father in heaven has given me."
(Eusebius, Theophania 4.12 [on Matthew 10:34-36])

Eusebius was writing in the context of a commentary on Matthew 10:34-36, which says:

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

[Peter Kirby]

The Gospel of the Nazoreans page citing Burton Throckmorton seems to have nonscholarly comments that it looks like Throckmorton (or Peter Kirby) didn't write. This quote is why I think it wasn't written by Throckmorton, a mid 20th c. scholar:

The attribution is at the top of the page.

This web page was originally found here: http://home.talkcity.com/ParadiseDr/nku ... aeans.html

This (like many of the sites originally linked on Early Christian Writings) has not survived the past 16 years of internet history. It may not have been a good source, it may not have been a scholarly source, it may not even have been one to use with one's nose held... but, it existed. Stuff that existed online is preferred over stuff that doesn't exist online, unless other better stuff exists.

It could be attributed better.

My personal notes on the Gospel of the Nazoreans, BTW, for those interested:

On my computer, this quote of your notes gets a very small font, so that it's not very readable (in case you wanted people to be able to read it).

[rakovsky]

Peter,
Do you feel a need to quote the whole page or could you just excerpt the reasonable parts? I think a lot of writers are with people just quoting passages by them.

[rakovsky]

Alternately, if you find the writer's views reasonable, I would be interested in people's views of what I wrote.

[Peter Kirby]

Peter,
Do you feel a need to quote the whole page or could you just excerpt the reasonable parts? I think a lot of writers are with people just quoting passages by them.

The page could be improved. I don't have time to do it myself anytime soon.