Thoughts on Maurice Casey's new book

[stephan happy huller]

So I think your citation was repeatedly identified as a falsehood. Jerome was accused of (a) making up the claim about the gospel being in Aramaic and (b) this particular passage. How could an Origenist deny the existence of the Gospel according to the Hebrews when Origen repeatedly references the text? Let me correct that - how could someone honestly claim that? The answer is that they were all liars.

[stephan happy huller]

The bottom line is that this reference to an 'Aramaic gospel' was rejected as spurious by most of Jerome's contemporaries. Not the other references to the Gospel according to Hebrews. Just this one.

[stephan happy huller]

And so now we can go back to the original reference by Atticus NOT JEROME:

Atticus: In the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which is written in the Chaldee and Syrian language, but in Hebrew characters, and is used by the Nazarenes to this day (I mean the Gospel according to the Apostles, or, as is generally maintained, the Gospel according to Matthew, a copy of which is in the library at Cæsarea), we find, Behold, the mother of our Lord and His brethren said to Him, John Baptist baptizes for the remission of sins; let us go and be baptized by him. But He said to them, what sin have I committed that I should go and be baptized by him? Unless, haply, the very words which I have said are only ignorance.

The confusion over 'Chaldee and Syriac language' could still mean that Atticus was confused over what language the text was actually written in. Chaldee is used by Philo at least five times to mean 'Hebrew.' Yes it says 'Hebrew letters' but it is unclear to what degree Atticus NOT JEROME understood Semitic languages. The major differences which characterize this description of the Gospel according to the Hebrews as opposed to Jerome's other references might well come down to (a) Atticus's misunderstanding, (b) Jerome's deliberate evasiveness for fear of being identified as an Origenist and (c) the fact that the text was written toward the end of his life. The text has a very uneven style - almost as if parts were unfinished. Look at Book 1:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/30111.htm

This is then followed by Book Two which the editors note "This book can hardly be said to form part of a dialogue. It is rather an argument from Scripture to prove the point of the Augustinian arguer, Atticus. From the fourth chapter onwards it consists, like the last five chapters of Book I., of a chain of Scripture texts, taken from the New Testament and the Prophets, to show the universality of sin, and thus to refute the Pelagian assertion that a man can be without sin if he wills. We shall, therefore, give, as in the previous case, a list of the texts and the first words of them, only giving Jerome's words where he introduces some original remark of his own, or some noteworthy comment."

Then we get to Book Three where the Dialogue resumes. Why did Jerome (or the editor) insert this massive artificial scriptural 'statement of faith' that lasts through the end of book one until the beginning of book three? You can't claim that this was ever said by Atticus. So why did the editor add it?

I think it has something to do with the 'Aramaic gospel' statement that begins Book Three. Let's look at the text of Against the Pelagians to see what I mean.

Origen comes up. He is the topic of discussion and towards the end of Book One the Gospel of Matthew is raised by Critobulus. The massive artificial 'scriptural pastiche' breaks up Book Three's statement about an 'Aramaic gospel' was is identical with the Gospel of Matthew. Not surprisingly I suspect that the 'scriptural pastiche' deliberately obscures the original line of thought, which has to do with the Gospel of Matthew's understanding of sin and sinlessness:

C. Pray have you not read that Matthew 5:28 “He who looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart?” It seems that not only are the look and the allurements to vice reckoned as sin, but whatever it be to which we give assent. For either we can avoid an evil thought, and consequently may be free from sin; or, if we cannot avoid it, that is not reckoned as sin which cannot be avoided.

A. Your argument is ingenious, but you do not see that it goes against Holy Scripture, which declares that even ignorance is not without sin. Hence it was that Job offered sacrifices for his sons, lest, perchance, they had unwittingly sinned in thought. And if, when one is cutting wood, the axe-head flies from the handle and kills a man, the owner is Numbers 35:6 commanded to go to one of the cities of refuge and stay there until the high priest dies; that is to say, until he is redeemed by the Saviour's blood, either in the baptistery, or in penitence which is a copy of the grace of baptism, through the ineffable mercy of the Saviour, who Ezekiel 18:23 would not have any one perish, nor delights in the death of sinners, but would rather that they should be converted and live.

C. It is surely strange justice to hold me guilty of a sin of error of which my conscience does not accuse itself. I am not aware that I have sinned, and am I to pay the penalty for an offense of which I am ignorant? What more can I do, if I sin voluntarily?

A. Do you expect me to explain the purposes and plans of God? The Book of Wisdom gives an answer to your foolish question: “Look not into things above you, and search not things too mighty for you.” And elsewhere, Ecclesiastes 7:16 “Make not yourself overwise, and argue not more than is fitting.” And in the same place, “In wisdom and simplicity of heart seek God.” You will perhaps deny the authority of this book; listen then to the Apostle blowing the Gospel trumpet: Romans 11:33-34 “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past tracing out! For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counsellor?” Your questions are such as he elsewhere describes: 2 Timothy 2:23 “But foolish and ignorant questioning avoid, knowing that they gender strifes.” And in Ecclesiastes (a book concerning which there can be no doubt) we read, Ecclesiastes 7:24-25 “I said, I will be wise, but it was far from me. That which is exceeding deep, who can find it out?” You ask me to tell you why the potter makes one vessel to honour, another to dishonour, and will not be satisfied with Paul, who replies on behalf of his Lord, Romans 9:20 “O man, who are you that repliest against God?”

At this point the artificial 'scriptural pastiche' is added (undoubtedly now to reassure the reader that 'Atticus' (= Jerome) is orthodox). As the editor notes "The remainder of this book is occupied by a series of quotations from the Old Testament, designed to show that it is not only the outer and conscious act which is reckoned sinful, but the opposition to the Divine will, which is often implicit and half-conscious. Occasionally, also, the speaker shows how the texts quoted enforce the argument which he has before used, that men may be spoken of as righteous in a general sense, yet by no means free from sins of thought or desire, if not of act.") The real discussion picks up again at the beginning of Book Three with Critobulus responding to the lengthy 'scriptural pastiche':

Critob. I am charmed with the exuberance of your eloquence, but at the same time I would remind you that, Proverbs 10:19 “In the multitude of words there wants not transgression.” And how does it bear upon the question before us? You will surely admit that those who have received Christian baptism are without sin. And that being free from sin they are righteous. And that once they are righteous, they can, if they take care, preserve their righteousness, and so through life avoid all sin.

Attic. Do you not blush to follow the opinion of Jovinian, which has been exploded and condemned? For he relies upon just the same proofs and arguments as you do; nay, rather, you are all eagerness for his inventions, and desire to preach in the East what was formerly condemned at Rome, and not long ago in Africa. Read then the reply which was given to him, and you will there find the answer to yourself. For in the discussion of doctrines and disputed points, we must have regard not to persons but to things. And yet let me tell you that baptism condones past offenses, and does not preserve righteousness in the time to come; the keeping of that is dependent on toil and industry, as well as earnestness, and above all on the mercy of God. It is ours to ask, to Him it belongs to bestow what we ask; ours to begin, His it is to finish; ours to offer what we can, His to fulfil what we cannot perform. “For except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it. Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman wakes but in vain.” Wherefore the Apostle 1 Corinthians 9:24 bids us so run that we may attain. All indeed run, but one receives the crown. And in the Psalm it is written, “O Lord, you have crowned us with your favour as with a shield.” For our victory is won and the crown of our victory is gained by His protection and through His shield; and here we run that hereafter we may attain; there he shall receive the crown who in this world has proved the conqueror. And when we have been baptized we are told, John 5:14 “Behold you are made whole; sin no more lest a worse thing happen unto you.” And again, 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 “Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man profane the temple of God, him shall God destroy.” And in another place, 2 Chronicles 15:2 “The Lord is with you so long as you are with Him: if you forsake Him, He will also forsake you.” Where is the man, do you suppose, in whom as in a shrine and sanctuary the purity of Christ is permanent, and in whose case the serenity of the temple is saddened by no cloud of sin? We cannot always have the same countenance, though the philosophers falsely boast that this was the experience of Socrates; how much less can our minds be always the same! As men have many expressions of countenance, so also do the feelings of their hearts vary. If it were possible for us to be always immersed in the waters of baptism, sins would fly over our heads and leave us untouched. The Holy Spirit would protect us. But the enemy assails us, and when conquered does not depart, but is ever lying in ambush, that he may secretly shoot the upright in heart.

In the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which is written in the Chaldee and Syrian language, but in Hebrew characters, and is used by the Nazarenes to this day (I mean the Gospel according to the Apostles, or, as is generally maintained, the Gospel according to Matthew, a copy of which is in the library at Cæsarea), we find, “Behold, the mother of our Lord and His brethren said to Him, John Baptist baptizes for the remission of sins; let us go and be baptized by him. But He said to them, what sin have I committed that I should go and be baptized by him? Unless, haply, the very words which I have said are only ignorance.” And in the same volume, “If your brother sin against you in word, and make amends to you, receive him seven times in a day.” Simon, His disciple, said to Him, “Seven times in a day?” The Lord answered and said to him, “I say unto you until seventy times seven.” Even the prophets, after they were anointed with the Holy Spirit, were guilty of sinful words. Ignatius, an apostolic man and a martyr, boldly writes, “The Lord chose Apostles who were sinners above all men.” It is of their speedy conversion that the Psalmist sings, “Their infirmities were multiplied; afterwards they made haste.” If you do not allow the authority of this evidence, at least admit its antiquity, and see what has been the opinion of all good churchmen. Suppose a person who has been baptized to have been carried off by death either immediately, or on the very day of his baptism, and I will generously concede that he neither thought nor said anything whereby, through error and ignorance, he fell into sin. Does it follow that he will, therefore, be without sin, because he appears not to have overcome, but to have avoided sin? Is not the true reason rather that by the mercy of God he was released from the prison of sins and departed to the Lord? We also say this, that God can do what He wills; and that man of himself and by his own will cannot, as you maintain, be without sin. If he can, it is idle for you now to add the word grace, for, with such a power, he has no need of it. If, however, he cannot avoid sin without the grace of God, it is folly for you to attribute to him an ability which he does not possess. For whatever depends upon another's will, is not in the power of him whose ability you assert, but of him whose aid is clearly indispensable.

C. What do you mean by this perversity, or, rather, senseless contention? Will you not grant me even so much— that when a man leaves the waters of baptism he is free from sin?

A. Either I fail to express my meaning clearly, or you are slow of apprehension.

C. How so?

A. Remember both what you maintained and also what I say. You argued that a man can be free from sin if he chooses. I reply that it is an impossibility; not that we are to think that a man is not free from sin immediately after baptism, but that that time of sinlessness is by no means to be referred to human ability, but to the grace of God. Do not, therefore, claim the power for man, and I will admit the fact. For how can a man be able who is not able of himself? Or what is that sinlessness which is conditioned by the immediate death of the body? Should the man's life be prolonged, he will certainly be liable to sins and to ignorance.

[stephan happy huller]

The way the text is now arranged it would appear that Critobulus brings up Matthew's statement which supposes that indeed it is possible to be sinless:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

That's the position of the monks in Palestine - it is possible for men to attain perfection. Jerome argues the opposite and originally cites from the Gospel according to the Hebrews to disprove this assumption.

The opponents of Origen (Theodore, Julian) remember the citation differently than what we have preserved for us in Against the Pelagians. In other words the reading has been changed! It's certain that the original statement has been transformed. Let's look at how Photius reports Theodore's source remembers what Jerome said:

I cannot say with certainty whether the name of Aram which he gives to their chief is a name or nickname 2. This person, the author says, fashioned a fifth gospel which he feigns that he found in the libraries of Eusebius of Palestine ... [which says that] Christ himself, our God, because he put on a nature soiled by sin, was not himself free from sin. However, in other places in their impious writings, as the author says, it can be seen that they apply the Incarnation to Christ not in truth and in nature, but only in appearance.

Julian puts it this way:

idem decebat venustate composuit, etiam "quinti Evangelii", quod a se translatum dicit, testimonio nitatur ostendere, Christum non solum naturale, verum etiam voluntarium habuisse peccatum, propter quod se cognoverit Johannis baptismate diluendum.

But interestingly - as Beatrice also notices - the actual citation of the gospel in Against the Pelagians no longer says that Jesus was a sinner:

“Behold, the mother of our Lord and His brethren said to Him, John Baptist baptizes for the remission of sins; let us go and be baptized by him. But He said to them, what sin have I committed that I should go and be baptized by him? Unless, haply, the very words which I have said are only ignorance.” And in the same volume, “If your brother sin against you in word, and make amends to you, receive him seven times in a day.”

In other words, someone altered either the gospel or what Jerome said or both. To this end, the claim about the text being an Aramaic version of Matthew likely also was another falsification given what Theodore says about Jerome - ridiculing him as 'Aram' the author of a gospel he claimed to find in the library of Caesarea.

Clearly the Pelagians as Origenists from Palestine knew what the text said, knew that it was preserved in Latin rather than Aramaic and that it wasn't 'according to Matthew.' How do we know this? Because, as another Spanish scholar notes, the contents of the gospel are preserved in a third sources long before the debate with Jerome. The Anonymous Treatise on Baptism cites a text which it calls the 'Preaching of Paul' which has the text as it was known to the Pelagians:

which is inscribed The Preaching of Paul; in which book, contrary to all Scriptures, you will find both Christ confessing His own sin— although He alone did no sin at all— and almost compelled by His mother Mary unwillingly to receive John's baptism.

Compare that reference to what appears again in Jerome:

Behold, the mother of our Lord and His brethren said to Him, John Baptist baptizes for the remission of sins; let us go and be baptized by him. But He said to them, what sin have I committed that I should go and be baptized by him? Unless, haply, the very words which I have said are only ignorance.” And in the same volume, “If your brother sin against you in word, and make amends to you, receive him seven times in a day

The point here is that Jerome composed Against the Pelagians in every way to shield himself from the charge of being an Origenist. There was a debate where the Gospel according to the Hebrews came up and he must have argued that Jesus was also sinful. This is repeated in Critobulus and Julian's testimony. The way the text reads now doesn't make sense.

Either he lied about the contents of the Gospel according to the Hebrews and the Origenists of Palestine knew what the text actually said and called him out on it or he cited the text correctly and then lied about the contents in Against the Pelagians. Either way what Jerome said at the debate was called out by the Origenists on two counts - (a) the claim about an Aramaic copy of Matthew at the library at Caesarea and (b) Jesus having sin - were identified as out and out lies:

In the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which is written in the Chaldee and Syrian language, but in Hebrew characters, and is used by the Nazarenes to this day (I mean the Gospel according to the Apostles, or, as is generally maintained, the Gospel according to Matthew, a copy of which is in the library at Cæsarea), we find, “Behold, the mother of our Lord and His brethren said to Him, John Baptist baptizes for the remission of sins; let us go and be baptized by him. But He said to them, what sin have I committed that I should go and be baptized by him? Unless, haply, the very words which I have said are only ignorance.”

Jerome was trying to establish that everyone who was born of the flesh had sin. The citation was called out as a lie and we should acknowledge it as that.

[stephan happy huller]

So we're back to, the Gospel according to the Hebrews was written in Hebrew and no proto-Aramaic gospel is ever attested before the Pelagian controversies at the end of Jerome's life and text was ridiculed by Jerome's opponents (who called him 'the Aramaean') saying that he falsified the reading he claimed to translate for them during the debate.

Your position Andrew is absolutely untenable. Jerome did falsify his citation from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. The Pelagians were undoubtedly correct about that as they were in ridiculing his new claim that the text was an Aramaic version of Matthew. He never said this before the debate and the reasons for changing this (in the mouth of Atticus) was clear. It strengthened the claim of his opponents that he never stopped being an Origenist/using 'Origenist' sources.

[andrewcriddle]

I want the reader to pay close attention to the citation from the Gospel according to the Hebrews:

“Behold, the mother of our Lord and His brethren said to Him, John Baptist baptizes for the remission of sins; let us go and be baptized by him. But He said to them, what sin have I committed that I should go and be baptized by him? Unless, haply, the very words which I have said are only ignorance.”

How could Jerome have been so stupid as to maintain that this "is generally maintained, the Gospel according to Matthew, a copy of which is in the library at Cæsarea." The explicit testimony to Jerome continuing to use an 'Origenist' gospel has been deliberately reworked and softened into an Aramaic translation of Matthew. Does anyone doubt this honestly?

This passage does seem to be related to Matthew chapter 3 vs 13-15

Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented.

It expands on the issue raised by Matthew of why Jesus needed to undergo a baptism for the remission of sins.

Andrew Criddle

[stephan happy huller]

Sure and Jerome's original citation from the Gospel according to the Hebrews that Jesus was originally sinful functions the same way. Origen's citation of the material from the same text in the Commentary on Matthew. Still Origen never says anything like this. Nor does Jerome before this debate with the Pelagians. I think most people might have difficulty accepting that this text was 'according to Matthew.' The author of the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism thought it different enough that he called it 'the Preaching of Paul.' By that logic any expansion of any text should be welcomed as one and the same with that text.

That Jerome changed his original allusion to the Gospel and then put it under the name of Atticus demonstrates how faithful the whole citation is. Jerome was scared.

[andrewcriddle]

So we're back to, the Gospel according to the Hebrews was written in Hebrew and no proto-Aramaic gospel is ever attested before the Pelagian controversies at the end of Jerome's life and text was ridiculed by Jerome's opponents (who called him 'the Aramaean') saying that he falsified the reading he claimed to translate for them during the debate.

Your position Andrew is absolutely untenable. Jerome did falsify his citation from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. The Pelagians were undoubtedly correct about that as they were in ridiculing his new claim that the text was an Aramaic version of Matthew. He never said this before the debate and the reasons for changing this (in the mouth of Atticus) was clear. It strengthened the claim of his opponents that he never stopped being an Origenist/using 'Origenist' sources.

I agree that there is a very real question as to whether Jerome is a reliable witness. The problem is that it is not only Jerome's claims in his very late works that are open to question. And if we start doubting everything Jerome says about the Hebrew gospel we may be left with very little reliable information about this gospel. (This may be the real position and if so we should accept it.)

Andrew Criddle

[stephan happy huller]

Wilhelm Schneemelcher negative assessment (rejection) of Jerome's claim that the Aramaic gospel of the Nazarenes was one and the same with the Gospel according to the Hebrews:

http://books.google.com/books?id=TDW0Pe ... 22&f=false

I am not citing Schneemelcher as support for all of my ideas, only to reinforce the unreliability of Jerome's testimony. I still say that if you read the overview in S the logical inference is that:

1. the Gospel according to the Hebrews was originally written in Hebrew
2. Jerome only changed his story later regarding the Aramaic gospel (S says the first time that 'fact' is mentioned is 415)

In short, the logical place to draw the line is that Jerome learned from Origen that the text was written in Hebrew. Whether or not the text was actually in Caesarea is debatable.

[stevencarrwork]

Why are we all discussing this book?

Bart Ehrman claimed on the 12th of March 2014 that the book is not out yet and thinks it amazing that anybody can have written a review of it before it is out.

And we all know the quality of Bart's research....