Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews/Archive 4

Greek
Is τὸ Ευαγγελιον με τους Εβραίους supposed to be τὸ Ευαγγελιον μετα τους Εβραίους? -- AnonMoos (talk)
 * Presumably yes, me is a typo for meta. It was one of the edits by Ret Prof 11 Sept 2009. It's one of the many things in the article that should be sourced or deleted. meta + accusative pl. can mean "according" but I expect Eusebius etc. use kat' + accusative plural.  In ictu oculi (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A bit harsh, but you are absolutely correct. I confess that the typo is mine as I hang my head in shame and humiliation. The good news is that consensus has been achieved. You may have the honor of editing the Greek in the article. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, but I'm unable to do that as I don't know where the Greek has been sourced from? The second appears to be from Eusebius, where is the first (once corrected to meta) from?
 * As regards consensus. Do we really have consensus that majority modern scholarship should be given equal place with e.g. the Bodleian librarian/Celticist from the 1870s? If so, can you restore this deletion please? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Again do you have any sources that the Biblical scholarship of "the Bodleian librarian/Celticist from the 1870s" is flawed? Your turn of phrase seems bit harsh. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't harsh to describe Nicholson as a Bodleian librarian/Celticist from the 1870s. Orr ISBE 1915 notes that he failed to convince scholars of his day.
 * Good to see progress at Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites. Here next? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You missed the point. It is wrong to refer to a scholar as "the Bodleian librarian/Celticist from the 1870s". It would be wrong to refer to Schneemelcher as "a Nazi who fought for Hitler". Nicholson and Schneemelcher were both respected scholars of their time. Feel free to debate the scholarship but let's drop the slurs. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nicholson (1879) was the Bodleian Librarian and a Celticist; he was not a Biblical scholar. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia 1915 article Gospel of the Hebrews writes "Nicholson has more serious differences to explain, and it cannot be said that his able argument and admirably marshaled learning have carried conviction to the minds of New Testament scholars." And Wilhelm Schneemelcher was not a Nazi, in fact he was dismissed from his job for anti-Nazi views. But I am not interested in carrying on this conversation. You have already 100% got your own way, you have deleted the mainstream sources, and I have not restored them. I do not wish to waste any more time requesting you to explain why you deleted them - the why is evident. Goodbye. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any references citing that Nicholson was not a Biblical scholar? Also the point I was trying to make was that it would be 'wrong' to call Wilhelm Schneemelcher a Nazi because he was a respected scholar. Feel free to debate the scholarship but let's drop the slurs. Now is there any chance that we can put this back and forth behind us? - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you could restore the content you deleted.In ictu oculi (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, it will be after we reach consensus, as will the scholarship of Parker etc Cheers. I have to go now. Chat with you a bit later. Cheers.- Ret.Prof (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Pierson Parker's theory is already in the 4x articles, repeatedly and OVERWEIGHT for 1 writer, but that's okay. The whole point of NPOV is that mainstream scholarship should also be allowed into the article against your POV, that it was NPOV means = NPOV doesn't mean bringing you up the learning curve so you can understand/agree with Schneemelcher Funk etc etc. It goes in spite of you not agreeing. Will you join me and just walk away and let other editors edit? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have considered your proposal and will assume good faith. Therefore I will step back. Starting now we will abstain from editing this topic. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Extant texts not described
Why does this article not include a section devoted to the extant text assigned to the Gospel of the Hebrews? It seems implicit in the article that the full text of this gospel has not survived; that there are many quotes, paraphrases, and references to it amongst the writings of the early Church fathers; and common sense tells us that there must be scraps (at least) of papyri and other ancient documents that embody portions of the text.

When a subject is as contentious as this one seems to be, it is highly relevant to understanding that readers be given a dispassionate account of the available textual material. Otherwise, many of the assertions in this article are (so to speak) free floating without context.

Possibly all that is needed is a reference to a good website on the subject.

Floozybackloves (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added the first 2 of the 7, in response to your request. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Serious breach of Wikipedia Ethics
Ictu and I agreed to stop editing this topic as of Feb 2. We agreed to just walk away and let other editors edit. It appears Ictu has not kept his word. Please explain. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Please see apology below. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

POV and OR tags
RetProf, throwing around charges like Serious breach of Wikipedia Ethics (?) is unneccessary. I didn't agree to walk away away for ever leaving this article overweight/POV, I took a break. You've been editing too, duplicating the POV content here (which is itself largely duplicated) again on new articles you've written Oral tradition and the historical Jesus and Jesus outside the New Testament. In any case this article shouldn't be left as it is without (a) some correction, (b) tagging.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read more closely, I said "You've been editing too, duplicating the POV content here (which is itself largely duplicated) again on new articles you've written Oral tradition and the historical Jesus and Jesus outside the New Testament."

(talk) 00:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also this is now the third time you have removed a POV tag from one of these Jewish-Christian Gospels/Gospel of the Ebionites/Gospel of the Nazarenes pages. The POV tag specifically indicates it is not to be removed. At the very least please restore the tag.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * RetProf
 * Please take the time to read what I said. Have you duplicated content from this page on two new essay-like articles by yourself, yes or no?
 * Regarding this deletion, apart from deleting POV tag, OR tag, 20 or 30 citation needed, the only actual content you've deleted appears to be the only actual citation from (the first 2 of 7 extant quotes) and reference to the actual source text from the standard academic work. Please look at what you have reverted and defend it as a rational revert.
 * I apologise that I have to leave this for the moment and maybe longer. But as you reflect please remember that the pages are again with your reverts on top, your view facing the world. But here on the talk page I am allowed to express my view that the article is POV, am I not? Have a good day. In ictus oculi (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Untrue! I have not edited this article pursuant to our agreement. From Feb 2 until today I have not made any edits while you have been editing at least six times, this along with your other disruptive behavior is unacceptable. Honesty and integrity are important aspects of Wikipedia policy. I do not get upset easily but to see what you have been doing to this article behind my back is wrong. It is not the way for editors solve disagreements among themselves. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Flinging around accusations of bad ethics is a breach of wp:civil or WP:AGF, and not generally helpful. If information is being duplicated then that is bad editing practice and should be replaced by links to some centralised article. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 06:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Michael, you see no problem with Ictu's behavior? I respect your views and therefore will accept this as part of the dynamic of Wikipedia and accept that I was simply out-maneuvered. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In ictu oculi is, it seems to me, objecting to the essay-like character of some of your contributions, not to the actual factual content. It is easy for academics and experts, such as yourself, to slip into essay-mode writing.  Here, however, the "encyclopedic-style" is preferred (not easy to summarise in a nutshell, but a perusal of the wiki-pillars should help).  Also Ictu mentioned the duplication of content across multiple articles - something that is to be avoided, if possible, and is contrary to policy.  I haven't actually looked at the content - deliberately - yet, but these seem quite reasonable objections for Ictu to raise, without having to conclude that Ictu is having a go at you. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 13:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. They are helpful. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, if you find yourself duplicating material within multiple articles that is usually a sign that the material could be hived off into its own article, with links to connect back to the previous locations. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 14:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Duplicate POV material again Nazarene (sect), Canonical Gospels etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Apology to Ictu
Ictu and I had been in a heated debate. It would be fair to say our work on the Gospel of the Hebrews was bogged down in conflict. He then made the following offer: I accepted his offer (see above on this talk page) as follows: I sincerely believed that we had agreed to stop editing the Gospel of the Hebrews. I stopped all editing of this article and moved on with my editing project (see my talk page). When I discovered that Ictu had continued editing I felt I had been played like an old violin (or is that a deck of cards). On March 17, I acted out of anger. I fully and in good faith apologize for my behavior and misunderstanding the nature of our agreement. Let's put this behind us. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Will you join me and just walk away and let other editors edit? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have considered your proposal and will assume good faith. Therefore I will step back. Starting now we will abstain from editing this topic. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Ret Prof. Well I still would like to see other editors edit. In the meantime can you then please restore the deleted POV tag, OR tag and 20-30 deleted citations needed tags.In ictu oculi (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

POV tags, OR tag, citation needed tags restored
I've done an undo on the last revert by Ret Prof. The POV tag specifically says it should not be removed. I personally regard the other tags in the same light. I cannot prevent other individual content being removed. Ret Prof, if you do wish to remove content please do so the normal edit method, do not do so by pressing revert/undo as that will remove again the POV tag. I also request that you do not remove the actual text of the subject of the article: Extant text

The seven fragments which comprise the common extant text of the Gospel of the Hebrews, "GH", are found pp.176-177 in Chapter IV Jewish-Christian Gospels by Philip Vielhauer and George Strecker of the standard edition of the New Testament Apocrypha edited by Wilhelm Schneemelcher.[7] The seven fragments comprise:


 * 1. GH-1 "It is written in the Gospel of the Hebrews: When Christ wished to come upon the earth to men, the good Father summoned a mighty power in heaven, which was called Michael, and entrusted Christ to the care thereof. And the power came into the world and it was called Mary, and Christ was in her womb seven months." (From the Coptic translation of a discourse ascribed to Cyril of Jerusalem ed. EAW Budge, Texts, Coptic p. 60, English p. 637)
 * 2. GH-2. "According to the Gospel written in the Hebrew speech, which the Nazaraeans read, the whole fount of the Holy Spirit shall descend upon him . . . Further in the Gospel which we have just mentioned we find the following written: And it came to pass when the Lord was come up out of the water, the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descended upon him and rested on him and said to him: My Son, in all the prophets was ... my rest; thou art my first-begotten Son that reignest for ever. (Jerome, Comm. on Is. IV on Is. 1 1 :2)[8][9][10][11][12]

and so on. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Disputed
I have added the factual dispute template to the article for the time being while the above issues remain active. I suggest that specific issues be introduced below in order to derive consensus. Eusebeus (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind, of course, that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. Therefore, the validity of that maint. tag is dubious at best, and slap against policy at worst. –  Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  15:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that misreads WP:V in the context of WP:RS, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, but if you prefer, you can change it to WP:POV. Eusebeus (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * . No, Eusebeus, I just meant that as it was worded, it was confusing especially to new editors. It implies that the article is a pack of lies and must be quickly and entirely (when placed at the TOP) either refurbished or deleted as damaging to Wikipedia.  At least, that's how I read it.  I could be wrong. –  Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  16:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
Thought it might be a good idea to add this "Disputed" section (required by the maint. tag) before another editor comes along and removes the maint. tag for lack of discussion. So here it is editors; what exactly is against WP:NPOV and/or WP:UNDUE?

It's possible that too many Citation needed tags have been placed too closely together, and there shouldn't be more than three or four inline citations for a claim. That makes articles more difficult for general readers to follow. Very distracting! Also, is it customary to require a ref. citation for language translations such as the one in the first sentence of the lede? – Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  16:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

True. It is also possible that undue weight is being given to material that falls outside mainstream scholarly consensus (e.g. concerning Marcan priority). Both issues should be addressed below in a way that allows editors to weigh in on the question. Eusebeus (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC) this edit seems to represent passive-aggressive tagspam. Eusebeus (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Please let us reach consensus first, then edit
I have to agree with Paine that editors "are being careless and not looking very hard for sources." I could only find one non referenced piece of material which I fixed. The Tagspam is not justified. Again please outline your concerns on the talk page clearly, one at a time. We will discuss it and if I cannot properly reference it then be assured it will be deleted. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC) - PS - ******Please see main discussion at the Talk:Gospel of Matthew******
 * The Gospel of the Hebrews (το καθ εβραιους ευαγγελιον) See James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2009. p 268.

POV / OR / DUPLICATION tags restored, again
17:56, 19 March 2011 Ret.Prof (talk | contribs) (88,094 bytes) (FACT CHECK COMPLETE - Facts are now reliably sourced. Removed Tags. If you think I have missed anything please point it out on the talk page) (undo)
 * Ret Prof.
 * Question 1: Is this or is this not now the 3rd time you have removed POV tag from article, despite the tag specifically saying not to?
 * Question 2: Of the 20-30 I added how many did you add academic references to?
 * Question 3: Where does James R. Edwards etc. say "the name of my hypothesis is Matthei Authenticum" or anything similar that would encourage the statement "The Authentic Gospel of Matthew (Latin Matthaei Authenticum), is the hypothesis or belief that the Gospel of the Hebrews is the true gospel of Matthew."?
 * Question 4: Why were the actual text of GH, GH.1 and GH.2. removed?

In ictu oculi (talk) 05:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I see no reason why the POV tag and the OR tag, as well as the Disputed tag cannot stay in this article. They indicate that there is a dispute among editors.  What I don't see are any Or tags that denote inline the original research, nor do I see any inline indications of POV.  All I saw were a lot of inline Cn tags that made the article very hard to read.  Editors might want to review the Reference necessary tag, which can more clearly indicate phrases, full sentences and even entire paragraphs, if necessary, that need reliable sourcing.  I can bring little academic help to these articles about the Gospel of Matthew, but I have learned some things about OR, POV and disputes that may help.  For example, if there are mainly two editors, such as In ictu oculi and Ret.Prof, who are in dispute on various points, the first step in dispute resolution would be for one of you to ask for a third opinion from someone who is also knowledgable in these areas. –  Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  13:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article badly needs a WP:3, preferably someone knowledgeable about the subject with whom neither of you has a prior edit history. I have also previously suggested the WP:Mediation Cabal as an informal way to mediate ongoing content disputes.  Stay focused on the content. Ovadyah (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Paine - Inline indications of POV are problematic since if we have, say as here 400 sentences supporting the theory of a lost Hebrew Ur-Matthew being preserved in 4thC Nazarene versions, per Edward Nicholson (librarian) (1874) and Ret Prof, then all 400 sentences would require inline POV tags. At least Where the 20-30 tag was added it was clear that a POV sentence had no ref, before Ret Prof deleted the tags. Yes we are in dispute, but finding an editor on Wikipedia who is willing to "push" (in the sense of "push back" against an installed POV as here) to get included mainstream/critical/majority scholarship views is not an easy task. Those with mainstream/critical/majority scholarship tend to shy away from this, and I don't blame them. It would actually need 4 or 5 editors in favour of SBL type sources being added to the article and the Messianic/Aramaic (?) POV removed to make any headway.

Ovadyah - I actually don't want to do the editing here or be involved, I would much prefer that 2 or 3 mainstream editors came along with a passing knowledge based on general modern/mainstream/critical reference works and did it. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I know. I probably have the background to mediate this content dispute, but I am not the best person to do it.  I have an amicable and productive editing relationship with both parties, and I would like to keep it that way.  Therefore, I might be inclined to be too "nice" when another approach is more appropriate to the situation.  However, I am encouraged to see more involvement on the article talk page. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the core of the dispute revolves around language that seeks to introduce a theory which, while interesting, is well-removed from the academic mainstream regarding the HG. The idea that it correlates to an Ur-Matthew represents the displacement of Marcan priority by other means, and as such any intervention in this article with respect to such a theory must be presented in a way that makes it clear that this view does not correspond to a mainstream academic position. (In an earlier bout of conflict, we encountered essentially the same problem.) Eusebeus (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

New article?
The real problem I think is that there is a conflict here between two different articles. To myself Gospel of the Hebrews is simply what GH means in the ref index of SBL publications: the 7 verses of that name preserved from a 4th Century Nazarene edition of Matthew which Jerome had sent to Chalcis; wheras to Ret Prof it means the "Hebrew Gospel theory" of a lost Hebrew Ur-Matthew theory. An article which could begin "Hebrew Ur-Matthew is the theory that..." and start with the ref Hans-Josef Klauck Apocryphal gospels: an introduction 2003 p78 "... fictitious exchange of letters between two bishops and the church father Jerome which precedes the work in some manuscripts, where it is described as the Hebrew or Aramaic Ur-Matthew, which Jerome himself had translated into Latin." In this Hebrew Ur-Matthew theory article Ret Prof could cut and paste to his heart's desire without generating conflict with what scholarship means by Gospel of the Hebrews in the Schneemelcher NTA. And since its a theory it only has to describe Nicholson/Edwards POV. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. See Hebrew Gospel hypothesis, but on reflection that also needs to be NPOV. Ret Prof should not fill it with the same duplicate content.In ictu oculi (talk)
 * This is very helpful. By Ur-Matthew, most people think of a tradition known to Papias about the Hebrew logia.  We have no idea what that may have looked like.  By contrast, we know the GH was almost the same size as canonical Matthew.  Btw, Jerome did not have a copy of the Nazarene version of Matthew sent to Chalcis.  He went to Chalcis as a humble monk early in his career, and he probably learned about what he was told was a version of Matthew in Hebrew letters from his mentor at the monastery.  The Gospel was most likely written in Aramaic with OT quotations in Hebrew (or so says Skarsaune), and Jerome learned about the contents after he learned to read Aramaic from his tutor.  The only time he refers to the Gospel as Matthew is the first time he publicly mentions it (probably before he could read it).  Afterward, he usually refers to it as the Hebrew Gospel that the Nazoraeans use.  Anyway, splitting this theoretical ur-text away from an actual full-size Gospel is a good idea and will solve a lot of problems cleaning up the GH article. Ovadyah (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There are lots of sources that refer to the Hebrew Gospel (see Google Link) but there is no source that refers to Hebrew Gospel hypothesis (see Google Link) Is this a spoof? Are you messing with me. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have for now restored the spin-off article and undone Ret.Prof's edits to the main article pending the establishment of consensus on this talk page. Please Ret.Prof, set out your recommended changes on the talk page and wait for comments and reflections before implementing sweeping changes. Eusebeus (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Primary Sources

 * As Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was in wide circulation up to the time of Jerome, much has been written about it. Also, the primary text has been quoted and thereby preserved.

List of Secondary Sources

 * 1) ^ Justin, Dialogue,
 * 2) ^ Irenaeus, Against Heresies
 * 3) ^ Tertullian, On Prayer 26
 * 4) ^ Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis
 * 5) ^ Origen,
 * 6) ^ Eusebius, Theophany on Matthew
 * 7) ^ Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History
 * 8) ^ Didymus, Commentary on Psalm
 * 9) ^ Epiphanius, Panarion
 * 10) ^ Jerome, On Psalm 135
 * 11) ^ Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah
 * 12) ^ Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel
 * 13) ^ Jerome, Commentary on Micah
 * 14) ^ Jerome, Commentary on Matthew
 * 15) ^ Jerome’s Letter to Damascus 20 on Matthew 21.9
 * 16) ^ Jerome, Letter 120 to Hedibia
 * 17) ^ Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians
 * 18) ^ Jerome, Against Pelagius
 * 19) ^ Jerome, On Illustrious Men,

There is remarkable agreement among the secondary sources. The following are representative of the early secondary source material.

Among the secondary sources to the time of Jerome, by both Christians and Non-Christians, no writer ever asserts either directly or indirectly that the Hebrew Gospel (aka the Gospel of the Hebrews) was ever composed in Greek. Jerome clarifies this on several different occasions.

Finally, it must be stated that among the sources to the time of Jerome there is no mention of a Gospel of the Ebionites or a Gospel of the Nazarenes nor is there any mention of either the Ebionites or the Nazarenes ever composing their own Gospel. The sources are in agreement that these Jewish groups used Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see Use of primary sources in Wikipedia In ictu oculi (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

'''Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.'''
 * Jerome is a primary source.In ictu oculi (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The primary source (ie the gospel) was lost. Please read Use of primary sources in Wikipedia with care. Better yet read No original research Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Gospel of the Nazoraeans is, as they say, a neologism, except that it goes further back than the GE to the middle ages. Btw, don't hesitate to document primary sources on the article talk page.  There is nothing wrong with this, as long as they are subordinated to reliable secondary sources in the article itself.  I found it instructive to look at Skarsaune's book Jewish Believers in Jesus on p. 543 where he lists all of Jerome's mentions of this Gospel by homily and by year.  Looking at the problem chronologically can be very instructive.  Also, see p. 545, where Sarskaune speculates about why Jerome says he translated the Gospel into Greek and Latin but never published it.  He mentions one very important possibility - Jerome's embarrassment at publicly recommending the text, only to find out later, when he could read it, that it contained passages which are incompatible with Nicene orthodoxy.  Skarsaune also mentions Jerome's return to Antioch from Chalcis.  That is where he meets Apollinaris of Laodicea and learns about the Nazoraeans in Beroea.  He probably received the Nazoraean's commentary on Isaiah from Apollinaris at that time. Ovadyah (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem questioning the historical evidence. I would like to hear more. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we please fix the quote of Jerome's Latin?
While we're talking about Jerome, can we at least fix the sentence re. Jerome's Latin description: My suggested text:
 * A major source regarding the Gospel is the testimony of Jerome who received a copy from a Nazarene group while he was at Chalcis between 373 and 376.[4 Schneemelcher] Jerome records that it was regarded by many of the Nazarenes and Ebionites as the original version of Matthew: "In evangelio quo utuntur Nazaraeni et Ebionitae, quod nuper in Graecum de Hebraeo sermone transtulimus, et quod vocatur a plerisque Matthaei authenticum."[5 Klijn]

Ret Prof's preferred text:
 * It is also said to be written by Matthew (Authentic Gospel of Matthew or Latin: Matthaei Authenticum) Google Link


 * I would be interested to see other editors provide alternatives.In ictu oculi (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For purposes of the article, the translation should be copied from a reliable secondary source (there are many good sources). It should not be based on a fresh translation from the original Latin.  In all fairness, I see people doing this all the time.  If the article is never going to be any better than C-Class, it will pass muster for a mediocre article. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully agree, the place for any Latin is in a footnote - if at all - with the whole sentence, and more important a reliable secondary/scholarly translation.In ictu oculi (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Bodiless Demon
Can we please mention that the term 'demon' in the days in which the Hebrew Gospel is said to have been written would not have had the same meaning that it has today. 'Demon,' in the original sense of the word, referred to a spirit or an angel, or a similar presence, not at all necessarily evil, having acquired its characteristic as 'evil' much later. We may wish to include this so that we may clarify that the term 'bodiless demon' would not have been grounds to eject this gospel from the canon, as some may tend to believe, as it is not inconsistent with the term used in the canonical gospels in the same circumstance: 'ghost' or 'spirit' (ie, a spirit does not have flesh and bones, etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.157.235 (talk) 06:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point! See Wikipedia's "Demon" and the Wiktionary entry for more precision.  People usually read such terms from their modern viewpoint, often neglecting the historical differences. –  Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  08:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

=Our Focus= I checked out what you said and you are correct. However, we must keep focused on the two main issues that affect this and a number of other articles.


 * See Matthaei authenticum


 * See Aramaic original

We as editors must work together to blend all the sources into a NPOV article(s). (See Reflections of an Old Geezer at User talk:Ret.Prof and Talk:Gospel of Matthew) - - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Blend" is a dangerous word in this context. NPOV does not mean that the sources are judged, weighed and carefully reasoned view is presented.  NPOV means that all significant views are presented - at the very least all the 3 viewpoints outlined above-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 22:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC).

Category: Christian text (i.e. an article about a book)
Hello. At the risk of stating the obvious, just a note that Therefore the main content of the article should be about the text. Currently this article contains almost no reference to the text and what reference there was has been deleted. Therefore I have attempted to add a brief discription of the text:
 * Gospel of the Hebrews is a text
 * Gospel of Matthew is a text.
 * Pilgrim's Progress is a text.
 * Extant text
 * Since a critical editorial decision is involved regarding which citations of which lost Jewish-Christian Gospels belong to which text editions of the text vary. Hans Waitz (1937)[7] provides a list of the major German scholars who up to that date divide the Jewish-Christian Gospels into different traditions, though Waitz himself argues for only two Gospels.[8] There is general agreement among modern critical scholars that some five to seven quotations from patristic sources are from a distinct text now identified as Gospel of the Hebrews [...

If this is not deleted I will attempt to add back GH1 and GH2 of the GH1-7 from the standard edition. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ret Prof deletions (again)
Ret Prof. Regarding your question "Could you supply a reliable source that "GH1 and GH2 of the GH1-7" are the standard edition?"
 * James McConkey Robinson Nag Hammadi: the first fifty years 1995 p38 "The current edition of Wilhelm Schneemelcher's standard New Testament Apocrypha..."
 * Christopher R. Matthews Philip, Apostle and Evangelist: configurations of a tradition 2002 "But given the high visibility of Schneemelcher's assessment in the standard edition of the New Testament Apocrypha,..."
 * GHeb numbering is not unique to Schneemelcher: Bruce Chilton, Craig A. Evans Studying the historical Jesus: evaluations of the state of current research (NTTS 19; Leiden: Brill, 1994) p215 "Jesus' baptism is also alluded to in GHeb §2, though without an explicit reference to John having performed the ... The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical Gospel Texts (Cambridge: Lutterworth, 1982) 103; E. Hennecke, W. Schneemelcher, "
 * What edition would you use? Lapham? You just deleted Lapham.

Your deletion says "see talk" but on talk you are not answering questions. As before:
 * Question 1: Is this or is this not now the 3rd time you have removed POV tag from article, despite the tag specifically saying not to?
 * Question 2: Of the 20-30 [citation needed] I added how many did you add academic references to?
 * Question 3: Where does James R. Edwards etc. say "the name of my hypothesis is Matthei Authenticum" or anything similar that would encourage the statement "The Authentic Gospel of Matthew (Latin Matthaei Authenticum), is the hypothesis or belief that the Gospel of the Hebrews is the true gospel of Matthew."?
 * Question 4: Why were the actual text of GH, GH.1 and GH.2. removed?

To which I will add:
 * Question 5: Why was the only paragraph about the text removed?
 * Gospel of the Hebrews - extant text
 * Since a critical editorial decision is involved regarding which citations of which lost Jewish-Christian Gospels belong to which text editions of the text vary. Hans Waitz (1937) ref>Waitz “Neue Untersuchungen über die sogen. judenchristlichen Evangelien,” pp61-81 /ref> provides a list of the major German scholars who up to that date divide the Jewish-Christian Gospels into different traditions, though Waitz himself argues for only two Gospels. There is general agreement among modern critical scholars that some five to seven quotations from patristic sources are from a distinct text now identified as Gospel of the Hebrews . ref>F. Lapham An introduction to the New Testament Apocrypha 2003 p159 "There is general agreement that some seven quotations are from the Gospel of the Hebrews — though at least two of these present some ambiguity." /ref>
 * Those who select out Jerome's quotations into a Gospel of the Hebrews include:
 * Cameron (1982) ref>Ron Cameron The Other gospels: non-canonical gospel texts p83 1982 "The Gospel of the Hebrews - The Gospel of the Hebrews (Gos. Heb.) is a syncretistic, Jewish- Christian document, composed in Greek, which presents traditions of Jesus' preexistence and coming into the world, his baptism and temptation, " /ref>

Is there any other article on a text in Wikipedia where the actual subject of article keeps getting deleted? This is how the Mercer Dictionary of the Bible p364 Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard - 1990 starts:

Unfortunately one editor is persistently deleting any material related to the subject of the article The Gospel of the Hebrews as per Mercer Dictionary - in favour of recycling primary testimony of a 4thC writer whom most modern scholars consider from linguistic analysis was mistaken, and did not realise that he was simply translating a sectarian Hebrew translation of Greek Matthew back into Greek. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Mention of GHeb restored
See belowIn ictu oculi (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Again your reference did not check out

 * Your references were out of context and the first two were not even about the numbering of the Gospel of the Hebrews. See Google link
 * Reply: Those 3 references show Schneemelcher is the standard edition, but frankly that isn't the issue the issue is you deleting any edition.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I spent time at the library trying to verify what you say Waitz said and failed. Could you give me a page# and title?
 * If you don't know the title how could you spend any time at the library?
 * The ref was in the section you deleted:
 * Extant text
 * Since a critical editorial decision is involved regarding which citations of which lost Jewish-Christian Gospels belong to which text editions of the text vary. Hans Waitz (1937)[7] provides a list of the major German scholars who up to that date divide the Jewish-Christian Gospels into different traditions, though Waitz himself argues for only two Gospels.[8] There is general agreement among modern critical scholars that some five to seven quotations from patristic sources are from a distinct text now identified as Gospel of the Hebrews [..
 * In ictu oculi (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you supply a reliable source that "GH1 and GH2 of the GH1-7" are the standard edition?
 * Reply, I've now done that four times. Please see above.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I actually came across much material that goes against what you said. The following give a fuller broader view than GH1 and GH2 of the GH1-7:

Paralipomena: Remains of Gospels and Sayings of Christ, by B. Pick
DURING the first and early part of the second centuries of Christian era, there were numerous traditions both oral and written concerning the life, work and sayings of Christ, not found in four gospels of the Bible. Bernard Pick made an exhaustive study of the Paralipomena. Google Link
 * Reply - and his numbering is different from Schneemelcher's, I forget?In ictu oculi (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The Fathers of the Church, from New Advent
This web source has an extensive collection of the Paralipomena. It has the advantage of putting the the Paralipomena in their original context. New Advent.org
 * Reply There is no such word as paralipomena in scholarly use, nor in this New Advent org pageIn ictu oculi (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Gospel Parallels, by Throckmorton
[http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=%22Gospel+according+to+the+hebrews+%28cont.%29%22++to+matt.++19%3A16&btnG=Search+Books  Throckmorton, also has an excellent collection of Hebrew sayings. They are arranged by their relation to the Canonical gospels.]
 * Reply, with respect, so what? What has this got to do with the subject of the article?In ictu oculi (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The Hebrew Gospel, by James Edwards
His collection of the Hebrew Paralipomena can be found on pages 263-291 of the The Hebrew Gospel. [http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&tbs=bks%3A1&q=%22appendix+i%3A+References+to+the+Hebrew+Gospel+in+the+First+Nine+Centuries+263%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= He has both the original text and English translation. Although all the aforementioned translations are good, his are very readable]
 * Question: Does Edwards use the word paralipomena? And again, why does this justify your deletions? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply

 * Question 1: Is this or is this not now the 3rd time you have removed POV tag from article, despite the tag specifically saying not to?
 * Question 2: Of the 20-30 [citation needed] I added how many did you add academic references to?
 * Question 3: Where does James R. Edwards etc. say "the name of my hypothesis is Matthei Authenticum" or anything similar that would encourage the statement "The Authentic Gospel of Matthew (Latin Matthaei Authenticum), is the hypothesis or belief that the Gospel of the Hebrews is the true gospel of Matthew."?
 * Question 4: Why were the actual text of GH, GH.1 and GH.2. removed?

The rest of your questions are addressed in my "reply" at Talk:Gospel of Matthew Please read it more carefully. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear RetProf, I regret I cannot see anywhere on Talk:Gospel of Matthew where you answer 1,2,3,4 relating to this article. Please use this page to answer

In ictu oculi (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. ?
 * 2. ?
 * 3. ?
 * 4. ?

False accusations Re Deleting
It is WP Policy to: When editing warring takes place I temporarily revert the wrongful edit and go to the talk page where I politely remind the person
 * 1) Discuss on the talk page
 * 2) Reach consensus based on reliable sources not POV
 * 3) Then post edit on article.
 * There is no "temporarily revert," please look at your history, you delete other edits, then post chunks of primary source quotes about Jerome etc. Your recent deletions being a case in point.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It is WP Policy to:
 * 1) Discuss on the talk page
 * 2) Reach consensus based on reliable sources not POV
 * 3) Then post edit on article.

Please see "False accusations" and "Waffle" at Reflections of an Old Geezer at User talk:Ret.Prof. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Ret Prof. You are saying that the answer to Q.1 and Q.2 is that you did not delete the tags? Please consult your edit History.
 * Question 1: Is this or is this not now the 3rd time you have removed POV tag from article, despite the tag specifically saying not to?
 * Question 2: Of the 20-30 [citation needed] I added how many did you add academic references to?

Regarding these two:


 * Question 3: Where does James R. Edwards etc. say "the name of my hypothesis is Matthei Authenticum" or anything similar that would encourage the statement "The Authentic Gospel of Matthew (Latin Matthaei Authenticum), is the hypothesis or belief that the Gospel of the Hebrews is the true gospel of Matthew."?
 * Question 4: Why were the actual text of GH, GH.1 and GH.2. removed?
 * 3. ?
 * 4. ?
 * 5. Why was the paragraph about Extant Text deleted?
 * Extant text
 * Since a critical editorial decision is involved regarding which citations of which lost Jewish-Christian Gospels belong to which text editions of the text vary. Hans Waitz (1937)[7] provides a list of the major German scholars who up to that date divide the Jewish-Christian Gospels into different traditions, though Waitz himself argues for only two Gospels.[8] There is general agreement among modern critical scholars that some five to seven quotations from patristic sources are from a distinct text now identified as Gospel of the Hebrews [..

In ictu oculi (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Mention of GHeb restored
I see that another editor has just restored the paragraph on the text:
 * Gospel of the Hebrews - extant text
 * Since a critical editorial decision is involved regarding which citations of which lost Jewish-Christian Gospels belong to which text editions of the text vary. Hans Waitz (1937) ref>Waitz “Neue Untersuchungen über die sogen. judenchristlichen Evangelien,” pp61-81 /ref> provides a list of the major German scholars who up to that date divide the Jewish-Christian Gospels into different traditions, though Waitz himself argues for only two Gospels.[8] There is general agreement among modern critical scholars that some five to seven quotations from patristic sources are from a distinct text now identified as Gospel of the Hebrews . ref>F. Lapham An introduction to the New Testament Apocrypha 2003 p159 "There is general agreement that some seven quotations are from the Gospel of the Hebrews — though at least two of these present some ambiguity." /ref>
 * Those who select out Jerome's quotations into a Gospel of the Hebrews include:
 * Cameron (1982) ref>Ron Cameron The Other gospels: non-canonical gospel texts p83 1982 "The Gospel of the Hebrews - The Gospel of the Hebrews (Gos. Heb.) is a syncretistic, Jewish- Christian document, composed in Greek, which presents traditions of Jesus' preexistence and coming into the world, his baptism and temptation, " /ref>

Please RetProf, before you delete again, give specific reason on a line by line basis challenging the factual accuracy of the paragraph. And please do not cite primary sources (Jerome).In ictu oculi (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks PiCo for editing.

I have added:
 * Critical editions of the Gospel of the Hebrews vary, but there is general agreement among modern scholars that seven quotations from Patristic sources are from a distinct Gospel of the Hebrews, although two of these are ambiguous.[7] Hans Waitz (1937)[8] provides a list of the major German scholars who up to that date divide the Jewish-Christian Gospels into different traditions, though Waitz himself argues for only two Gospels.[9] There is now a tendancy to reduce the traditional division of the Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Nazarenes and Gospel of the Ebionites to two Gospels,[10] though Klauck (2003)[11] notes that against this hypothesis, the material includes "three extra-canonical narratives of the baptism of Jesus which vary to such an extent that they cannot come from one or even two gospels alone."
 * The standard critical edition[12] of the Gospel of the Hebrews is by Philipp Vielhauer, translated by George Ogg, in Hennecke and Schneemelcher's New Testament Apocrypha (1962),[13] also reproduced in Cameron (1982)[14] and Lapham (2003).[15]

RetProf, please explain your deletion of this text above before you delete it.In ictu oculi (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keeping Ictu Honest It is only a temporary revert pending Consenus. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

=Suggest gathering all Patristic and all Scholarly content together=

The Gospel of the Hebrews (το καθ εβραιους ευαγγελιον), commonly shortened from the Gospel according to the Hebrews or simply called the Hebrew Gospel, is a lost gospel preserved in fragments within the writings of the Church Fathers.

This non-canonical gospel gave an account of the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth detailing his story from the events of his Baptism to his Resurrection.

A major source regarding the Gospel is the testimony of Jerome who received a copy from a Nazarene group while he was at Chalcis between 373 and 376. Jerome records that it was regarded by many of the Nazarenes and Ebionites as the original version of Matthew: "In evangelio quo utuntur Nazaraeni et Ebionitae, quod nuper in Graecum de Hebraeo sermone transtulimus, et quod vocatur a plerisque Matthaei authenticum."

Cleaned out booklist from within refs
**Scholarly dispute** This is an area of contention among Biblical scholars. The following is a list of major scholars who support Matthaei Authenticum:


 * Grabe, Johann Ernst - Spicilegium SS. Patrum ut et Haereticorum Seculi Post Christum natum


 * Kitto, John - A cyclopædia of Biblical literature.


 * von Harnack, Adolf - Texte und untersuchungen zur geschichte der altchristlichen literatur


 * Weber, Christian Friedrich - Neue Untersuchung über das Alter und Ansehen des Evangeliums. 


 * Boyce, William Binnington - The higher criticism and the Bible.


 * Archibald Hamilton Charteris, Johannes Kirchhofer - Canonicity: a collection of early testimonies :to the canonical books of the New Testament.


 * Handmann, Rudolf - Das Hebräer-Evangelium.


 * Nicholson, Edward Byron - The Gospel According to the Hebrews.


 * Pierson Parker -  A Proto-Lucan basis for the Gospel according to the Hebrews.


 * Farmer, William - The Synoptic Problem: a Critical Analysis. New York: Macmillan.


 * Walter Richard Cassels - Supernatural Religion.


 * Edwards, J.R. - The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition.

The Catholic Encyclopedia condemns the aforementioned in the strongest possible terms.
 * 'But, as far as can be judged from its fragments which have come down to us, the Gospel of the Hebrews has no right to originality as compared with our first canonical Gospel. At a very early date, too, it was treated as devoid of Apostolic authority, and St. Jerome himself, who states that he had its Aramaic text at his disposal, does not assign it a place side by side with our canonical Gospels: all the authority which he ascribes to it is derived from his persuasion that it was the original text of our First Gospel, and not a distinct Gospel over and above the four universally received from time immemorial in the Catholic Church.' Thus the issue of Matthaei Authenticum is far from being resolved.


 * These are listed anyway In ictu oculi (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There appear to be certain legacy issues affecting this and other pages. See Talk:Gospel of Matthew from Special:Contributions/Poorman and Professor Peter of the Destiny University 2006. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Keeping Ictu honest
Deception plays a major factor in Ictu's editing strategy. (See Reflections on my talk page.) One of his favorite ploys is to "suggest" to a good faith editor that he would be "quite happy to walk far far away and let mainstream editors like PiCo and History2007 get on with a clean up here without obtaining your "consensus". Sound good? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)" or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gospel_of_the_Hebrews&diff=411586650&oldid=411585527 '''Will you join me and just walk away and let other editors edit? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)'''] When the good faith editor agrees to step back from editing the article in question, Ictu sneeks back to the article and continues his POV pushing. I am getting wiser in the ways of our wiki-warrior. At the Gospel of the Hebrews it took me several weeks to call him on his playing the con. At the Gospel of Matthew I caught his deception right away. It again confirms what I have said on my talk page. A wiser Ret.Prof (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a clear violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Your behaviour is becoming increasingly problematic with respect to this and other articles. You need to respect consensus and not attempt to defame other editors in light of your finding yourself promoting a minority viewpoint. Attacking people and accusing them of deceit and deception is unacceptable. If you keep this up you might well find yourself blocked. I strongly urge you to consider your behaviour and to strike all comments that adopt this kind of tone. Eusebeus (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right and I am deleting the second part. This ongoing edit war is getting us nowhere. Therefore as a token of good will I am going to unilaterally step back from this article. Wishing you the best, Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing
Ictu, it is not that you are wrong, it is that you are simply not right. The references you cite are legitimate. . . but only tell half the story. My problem is not with what you have written! Rather, it is that any reference that does not support your theology is cleansed from Wikipedia.

There was a time when Ictu's anti Hebrew Gospel beliefs prevailed. Indeed, most scholars in the last century followed Philipp Vielhauer and Georg Strecker (in Hennecke and Schneemelcher NTApoc), and more recently AFJ Klijn (1992), as Ictu has pointed out. It should be noted that their were always some dissenting voices such as W. R. Schoemaker, Cassels, Parker and Nicholson.

New Consensus
By 1988, cracks cracks started to form. (See Ray A. Pritz.) Then, in 1998 Peter Lebrecht Schmidt, called this near consensus into question. Critically assessing the discussion from Schmidtke to Klijn, Schmidt showed that originally there was only one Jewish gospel, called the "Gospel according to the Hebrews," which was subsequently translated into Greek and Latin. Schmidt's work was powerful, well sourced and thought provoking. By the turn of the century it had become obvious "that the state of the scholarly question had been thrown into the air and there is simply no consensus" (Please read pages 245 - 246, Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries  by Oskar Skarsaune & Reidar Hvalvik Hendrickson Publishers, 2007)

Since then, Schmidt has been joined by such noted scholars as James Edwards, James Tabor and Jeffrey J. Bütz.

Here on Wikipedia, scholars such have as E.B. Nicholson, James Edwards, James Tabor, Peter Lebrecht Schmidt and Jeffrey J. Bütz have had their reputations called into question. These smears against noted scholars are unfounded. In real world they are considered "reliable sources" and are respected.

The main issue is "Did Matthew, follower of the Jewish Rabbi Jesus write a Hebrew Gospel?" As has been pointed out in the references above, the answer is probably yes, as there is a lot of historical data confirming this position. To exclude all these reliable sources is the worst kind of POV pushing. Cheers -  Ret.Prof (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This ongoing edit war is getting us nowhere. Therefore as a token of good will I am going to unilaterally step back from this article. Wishing you the best, Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk)

New "How many J-Gs?" paragraph
I have added this paragraph at the heading of the "scholarship" section expressing both views: --- Number of Jewish-Christian Gospels? Main article: Jewish-Christian Gospels

Since no complete text of any Jewish-Christian Gospel survives, a primary task of scholarship is determining how many distinct Gospels are indicated by the patristic evidence. Hans-Josef Klauck in Apocryphal gospels: an introduction (2003) notes that "it has become almost canonical in twentieth-century scholarship to speak of three Jewish-Christian gospels: a Gospel of the Hebrews (EvHeb), a Gospel of the Nazaraeans (EvNaz) and a Gospel of the Ebionites (EvEb)".[28] This, effectively, is the distinction observed by Hans Waitz, Wilhelm Schneemelcher and Philipp Vielhauer in what is often termed the "standard" edition of the New Testament Apocrypha. A notable supporter of this now traditional division into three is Albertus Klijn (1992) who he writes that "The presence of three Jewish Christian Gospels is an established fact."[29] There are those who differ with this conclusion; for example Paul Foster (2008).[30] Part of the reason for three Gospels is the presence of differences in the surviving fragments, particularly the presence of three separate accounts of Christ's baptism, while another factor was the scepticism towards the reliability of the evidence of Jerome.[31] However, Klauck also notes that "In more recent years (cf. [P. L.] Schmidt) in a pendulum swing away from this scepticism, there has been a tendency to regard Jerome as more trustworthy."[32] With the result that the division of Jerome's testimony into 2: a Gospel of the Hebrews (EvHeb), a Gospel of the Nazaraeans (EvNaz), is less confident.[33] This still leaves however the problem of the multiple accounts of Christ's baptism, which seem to require at least three sources.[34] Craig A. Evans (2005) views that it is probably more safe to divide the material into Origen's Gospel, Jerome's Gospel, Epiphanius' Gospel, etc.[35] -- I propose to go on and turn all primary evidence in this section into bracketed refs (On Illustrious Men 2.2) etc. Then start to trim away duplicate.In ictu oculi (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Reference 104: Trite?
Ref 104 reads in its entirety:

"a b c d e f g Trite"

What does that mean? Is it an author's name? Vandalism? Commentary?

Also, the text that was cut & pasted here--wouldn't it be in the history? It's a little confusing & overwhelming to have all that text here.

Sorry all I can do at the moment is point these things out.

Thanks, --Geekdiva (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The "a b c..." indicates that it's a reference used multiple times, which are all in the section for comparisons between the Gospels. The whole chart is sourced to "Gospel Parallels by B. H. Throckmorton, The five Gospels by R. W. Funk, The Gospel According to the Hebrews by Nicholson (1879) & The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition by J. R. Edwards."  So...  I think maybe each reference for "Trite" should be replaced with one of those books, according to which ones it came from.  Actually, the chart should only be sourced to those.


 * And, found when it was added: 27 Feb 2010 by Ret. Prof, as part of the original chart. I'm guessing he meant that we should examime the material in those books when he put "trite."  I'll contact him about it.  Ian.thomson (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian
 * I expect it's a copy paste error
 * But the whole table is odd. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Editions and translations
Critical editions of the Gospel of the Hebrews vary, but there is general agreement among modern scholars that seven quotations from Patristic sources are from a distinct Gospel of the Hebrews, although two of these are ambiguous. Hans Waitz (1937) provides a list of the major German scholars who up to that date divide the Jewish-Christian Gospels into different traditions, though Waitz himself argues for only two Gospels. There is now a tendency to reduce the traditional division of the Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Nazarenes and Gospel of the Ebionites to two Gospels, though Klauck (2003) notes that against this hypothesis, the material includes "three extra-canonical narratives of the baptism of Jesus which vary to such an extent that they cannot come from one or even two gospels alone."

The standard critical edition of the Gospel of the Hebrews is by Philipp Vielhauer, translated by George Ogg, in Hennecke and Schneemelcher's New Testament Apocrypha (1962), also reproduced in Cameron (1982) and Lapham (2003).

Language
Scholarship generally holds that it was probably composed in Egypt in the 2nd century and originally in Greek, though Jerome considered the copy he obtained to be an original composition in Hebrew (Against Pelagius 3.2).

Historical background
It is the only one of the Jewish-Christian Gospels to be included in the Early Church Catalogs. It is subject to heated and ongoing scholarly debate.

Oral tradition
After the Crucifixion of Jesus, his disciples gathered together in Jerusalem, in an "upper room" perhaps where the Cenacle is today. James, the brother of Jesus, was the early leader in Jerusalem of the Jewish sect that became known as Christianity. This group was located in and about Jerusalem and proclaimed that Jesus was the promised Messiah.

These early Jewish Christians were thought to have been called Nazarenes. The term Nazarene was first applied to Jesus. After his death, it was the term used to identify the Jewish Sect that believed Jesus was the Messiah. The Nazarenes were generally accepted as being the first Christians who were led by James "the Just", until he was martyred c.62 AD.

As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh. This oral tradition interpreted the written law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. It was in this cultural context or Sitz im Leben that the Christian Oral Tradition had its roots, as Jesus and later Christian 'Rabbis' developed the oral "Gospel" to interpret the written Law given to Moses by God.

When the Temple at Jerusalem was destroyed in the year 70, this oral tradition was no longer viable and it became necessary for it to be written down. Scholars are in general agreement that the Jewish Christians up to the destruction of the Temple had no written Gospels being circulated among them.

Hebrew Gospel tradition
Originally, Jewish/Christian scholarship had been oral. Jesus and other rabbis expounded and debated the Torah (the written law expressed in the Hebrew Bible) and discussed the Tanakh without the benefit of written works (other than the Biblical books themselves), though some may have made private notes (megillot setarim)

This situation changed drastically, however, mainly as the result of the destruction of the Jewish commonwealth in the year 70 and the consequent upheaval of Jewish/Christian social and legal norms. Jewish Christians were required to face a new reality&mdash; without a Temple (to serve as the center of teaching and study), the old system of oral scholarship could not be maintained. It is during this period that rabbinic discourse began to be recorded in writing.

The Church Fathers recognized this and said that the first gospels were born out of necessity. Matthew, a Galilean Jew and follower of the rabbi Jesus is said to have written the first gospel. It was written in Hebrew and meant for Hebrew Christians.

As a disciple, Matthew followed Jesus, and would have been an eye witness to the rabbinical midrashic discourse of the "Rabbi from Nazareth". Matthew may have even participated in the development of the Torah Shebeal Peh as the Talmud mentions him as a follower of Jesus the Nazarene. Matthew reduced this Logia into a written form in what would become known to as the first Gospel.

Because of the writings of the Church Fathers we know a great deal about Matthew's gospel. It was composed in Hebrew near Jerusalem for Hebrew Christians and it was translated into Greek, but the Greek copy was lost. The Hebrew original was kept at the Library of Caesarea. The Nazarene Community transcribed a copy for Jerome which he used in his work.

Matthew's Gospel was called the Gospel according to the Hebrews  or sometimes the Gospel of the Apostles     and it was once believed that it was the original to the  Greek Matthew found in the Bible, although this is currently the subject of scholarly debate.

Matthew's Gospel according to the Hebrews was widely circulated among early Hebrew Christians. These groups included the Nazarenes, Ebionites etc. It was generally believed that they added their own oral traditions  or midrash to the  "Hebrew Gospel" giving rise to what are now known as the Jewish Gospels. Almost all critics are agreed, that the Gospel according to Nazarenes, the Gospel according to Ebionites, etc. are just modified editions of Matthew's Gospel according to the Hebrews but were essentially the same gospel and are important to understanding the gospel tradition of early Christianity. From Egypt, to as far away as India, in various editions, the Gospel according to the Hebrews   remained one of the most important primary Christian writings     until the Jewish Christianity was replaced by the modern Christianity of today.

Patristic sources and testimony
There was a strong tradition in the early church, mentioned for by Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome, that Matthew had written a gospel in the Hebrew language. Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and Jerome identify the Gospel of the Hebrews with this Hebrew gospel of Matthew.

By the time of Jerome, many commentators believed that the Gospel of the Hebrews was the original Gospel of Matthew. Epiphanius of Salamis in the Panarion wrote that, "They [Jewish Christians] too accept Matthew's gospel and like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus, they use it alone. They call it the Gospel of the Hebrews, for in truth, Matthew alone of the New Covenant writers expounded and declared the gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script."

Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor during the first half of the 2nd century, writes that Matthew composed the logia in the Hebrew tongue and each one interpreted them as he was able. He also notes that the story of the Sinful Woman was originally from the Gospel of the Hebrews. Apart from Papias' comment, we do not hear about the author of the Gospel until Irenaeus around 185 who remarks that Matthew issued a written  Gospel of the Hebrews. Pantaenus, Origen and other Church Fathers also believed Matthew wrote the Gospel of the Hebrews. Also, none of the Church Fathers asserted that Matthew wrote the Greek Gospel found in the Bible.

Traditionally within orthodox Christianity, the Gospel of Matthew was believed to have been composed by Matthew with some believing it to be the first gospel written. This view is not widely held within contemporary Biblical studies. Most scholars believe that the author of the Gospel of Matthew made use of the Gospel of Mark and another source known as Q. This solution to the origin is known as the Two-source hypothesis. For this and other reasons, the Gospel of Matthew was composed in Greek and not Hebrew as suggested by Papias.

Irenaeus believed Matthew issued a written Gospel of the Hebrews in their own language while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the Church (Against Heresies 3:1). According to Eusebius Hegesippus said Matthew's Gospel was written in Syriac (Ecclesiastical History 3:22-24) a view Eusebius shared (Theophania 4:12). This is repeated in the Stichometry of Nicephorus (c.810). Epiphanius wrote that the Ebionites used only the Gospel of the Hebrews, which was expounded and declared Hebrew using Hebrew script.

Jerome makes frequent reference to the Nazarene Gospel of the Hebrews being composed in Hebrew in his commentaries (Commentary on Isaiah 4, Commentary on Ezekiel 16:3, Commentary on Isaiah 40:9,  Commentary on Micah 7:6) Jerome considered that the Gospel of the Hebrews, was written in the Chaldee and Syriac(Aramaic) language but in Hebrew script. Jerome claimed to have translated the whole into Greek (Against Pelagius 3:2) but this is doubted by many scholars since Jerome also made this claim about the Old Testament before he had actually done so. Jerome claimed that a Hebrew original of the Nazarene text was preserved in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus of Caesarea had gathered.(Illustrious Men 2"). In recent years some modern scholars have given more credence to Jerome's testimony.

Jerome identifies the readers of this gospel as observant Jews, distinct from the culturally assimilated and Hellenized Jews, for whom the Greek Septuagint had been translated from Hebrew. It was used extensively by the followers of Hegesippus, Merinthus and Cerinthus as well as by the Ebionites and the Nazarenes.

According to Pantaenus, it was also in circulation in India, having been brought there by Bartholomew. Pantaenus became head of the School in Alexandria and was responsible for much of the Library in Caesarea. In this library was preserved a copy of the Gospel of the Hebrews. The Nazarenes of Beroea gave a copy to Jerome.

The title "The Gospel of the Hebrews" designates merely the class of readers among whom it circulated. They were Jewish Christians (or a particular sect of such) who still spoke the Aramaic language.

List of names

 * Gospel of the Hebrews
 * Gospel of the Apostles
 * Gospel of the Twelve Apostles
 * The Hebrew Gospel
 * Aramic M (Modern Hypothetical title not found in the Early Church)
 * Gospel of the Nazarenes (Modern Hypothetical title not found in the Early Church)

Many early Christian writers came to believe that there was only one Hebrew gospel in circulation in the early church. In the Catalog of Eusebius, only one Hebrew gospel is listed: "And among these some have placed also the Gospel of the Hebrews with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted."

Epiphanius too claims that there was only one Hebrew gospel: "They call it the Gospel of the Hebrews for, in truth, Matthew alone in the New Covenant expounded and declared the Gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script."

Modern Scholarship
The topic of the Gospel according to the Hebrews continues to be one of ongoing and heated debate. Scholars do agree that the title, Gospel according to the Hebrews is not a scholarly neologism, nor is it simply a "hypothetical" gospel. They agree that its title was used in the Early Church as well as in the early church catalogs.

The three main areas of disagreement are Matthaei Authenticum, language of composition and the relationship of the Gospel of the Hebrews to both the Canonical and non Canonical gospels

Hebrew Gospel hypotheses
There are various hypotheses concerning the relation of the material preserved by Jerome to the New Testament. The Hebrew Gospel hypothesis of Nicholson (1879) claims two versions of Matthew, Greek and Hebrew, while that of James R. Edwards (2009) is that the Jewish Christian Gospels preserve some of the source material of Gospel of Luke. These hypotheses are contested by scholars such as Hans-Josef Klauck (2002) who writes, "the Gospel of the Hebrews is not to be equated with an Ur-Matthew."

Traditionally, although the Gospel is technically anonymous, it was believed that the Gospel of Matthew was the work of Saint Matthew, and scholars believed that it was a eyewitness account of the life of Jesus Christ. This is still the 'official' position of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Evangelical Churches. Indeed, Craig Blomberg, F. F. Bruce and Gregory Boyd maintain that the apostle Matthew did write 'his' gospel.They support their position  by arguing that, as a former tax collector, Matthew would not have been an ideal person to falsify a gospel.

Nevertheless, most critical scholars still reject Matthean authorship of the first Gospel. Some argue that an apostle and eyewitness of Jesus' ministry would not have used a secondary source, yet the first Gospel relies on Mark for much of its material.Others claim that the perspectives of the book show a fuller development of traditional material and of relations with the Jews than one might expect in an "early Gospel".

The two-source hypothesis is the most commonly accepted solution to the synoptic problem. It argues that Matthew borrowed from two Greek sources, the Gospel of Mark and a hypothetical sayings collection, known by scholars as Q. Therefore Canonical Matthew was composed in Greek at a later time than the Gospel of Mark. More importantly, it was probably not written by Matthew. According to Jerome, the "authentic" or "true" gospel of Matthew (ie Matthaei Authenticum), was the Gospel of the Hebrews used by the Nazarenes and the Ebionites.

Scholars of the Tübingen School such as Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (d.1827), Christian Friedrich Weber (1806), thought that the Gospel of the Hebrews may indeed be an authentic eyewitness account written by the Apostle Matthew himself. If this is the case, the Gospel of the Hebrews clearly has important data to contribute toward the solution of the synoptic problem. A study of the external evidence regarding this gospel shows that among the Nazarenes and Ebionites existed a gospel commonly called the Gospel of the Hebrews. It was written in Aramaic with Hebrew letters. Its authorship was attributed to St. Matthew. While Jerome regarded his Gospel of the Hebrews was with respect, the Jewish-Christian Gospels were generally regarded as heretical and corrupted texts. Nevertheless the ascription of the source of a Hebrew Gospel to the apostle Matthew was widespread and no Church Father attributes a Hebrew Gospel to anyone other than Matthew. Even Epiphanius, in criticizing the Gospel of the Ebionites recognises the tradition that Matthew wrote a Gospel in in Hebrew.

Needless to say, this position has been widely contested. Rudolf Handmann (1888) regarded the Gospel of the Ebionites as a pasticcio which belongs with the dregs of the gospel tradition. **Scholarly dispute** This is an area of contention among Biblical scholars. The following is a list of major scholars who support Matthaei Authenticum:


 * Grabe, Johann Ernst - Spicilegium SS. Patrum ut et Haereticorum Seculi Post Christum natum


 * Kitto, John - A cyclopædia of Biblical literature.


 * von Harnack, Adolf - Texte und untersuchungen zur geschichte der altchristlichen literatur


 * Weber, Christian Friedrich - Neue Untersuchung über das Alter und Ansehen des Evangeliums. 


 * Boyce, William Binnington - The higher criticism and the Bible.


 * Archibald Hamilton Charteris, Johannes Kirchhofer - Canonicity: a collection of early testimonies :to the canonical books of the New Testament.


 * Handmann, Rudolf - Das Hebräer-Evangelium.


 * Nicholson, Edward Byron - The Gospel According to the Hebrews.


 * Pierson Parker -  A Proto-Lucan basis for the Gospel according to the Hebrews.


 * Farmer, William - The Synoptic Problem: a Critical Analysis. New York: Macmillan.


 * Walter Richard Cassels - Supernatural Religion.


 * Edwards, J.R. - The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition.

The Catholic Encyclopedia condemns the aforementioned in the strongest possible terms.
 * 'But, as far as can be judged from its fragments which have come down to us, the Gospel of the Hebrews has no right to originality as compared with our first canonical Gospel. At a very early date, too, it was treated as devoid of Apostolic authority, and St. Jerome himself, who states that he had its Aramaic text at his disposal, does not assign it a place side by side with our canonical Gospels: all the authority which he ascribes to it is derived from his persuasion that it was the original text of our First Gospel, and not a distinct Gospel over and above the four universally received from time immemorial in the Catholic Church.' Thus the issue of Matthaei Authenticum is far from being resolved.

Modern scholars, however, have called this into question. After explaining in great detail why the Church Fathers such as Epiphanius and Jerome were in error, Wilhelm Schneemelcher argues that there are three distinct Jewish Gospels:
 * 1) The Gospel of the Nazarenes, which was read in Semitic speech and used among the Nazarenes and was similar to canonical Matthew.
 * 2) The Gospel of the Ebionites, which was used by heretical Jewish Christians.
 * 3) The Gospel of the Hebrews,  which has  no special relationship to any one of the canonical gospels, but contains  syncretistic elements, and shows  the heretical character of the Jewish Christian.

Others have assumed, together with early Christian authors, that there was only one Hebrew Gospel. The title Gospel of the Nazarenes is a scholarly neologism, that does, however, harken back to a single use in the 13th century. Both the titles used to refer to the gospel(s), and how the fragments should be assigned have generated a great deal of confusion.

The position of Parker (1940) and his followers is that there is only one Hebrew gospel, the Gospel of the Hebrews but that there were several editions of this one gospel in the Early Church.

Although there is still ongoing debate about the Jewish Christian Gospels and "only the very daring, nowadays, venture on speculations in regard to the Gospel of the Hebrews ",  most scholars agree with Schneemelcher when he says, "Thus the number of Jewish Gospels -- whether there be one, two or three such gospels -- is uncertain, the identification of the several fragments is also uncertain and, finally the character and the relationship to one another of the several Jewish gospels is uncertain."

B. H. Streeter argued that a third source, referred to as M, and also hypothetical, lies behind the material in Matthew that has no parallel in Mark or Luke. Through the remainder of the 20th century there were various challenges and refinements of Streeter's hypothesis. In 1953, Parker posited an early version of Matthew (Aramaic M) as a primary source. The Church Fathers also wrote of such a source, called the Gospel of the Hebrews

Scholars agree that there is a connection between the Gospel of the Hebrews and Matthew, but critical scholars generally consider that the extant Gospel of the Hebrews to be translated from a Greek source text into Hebrew and back into Greek. One of the reasons for this view is the opinion that the 4th Century might offer more favourable circumstances for the circulation and perhaps the making of a Hebrew Gospel among Jews than the 1st or 2nd Century.

Although, as Hans-Josef Klauck writes, "the Gospel of the Hebrews is not to be equated with an Ur-Matthew." A study of the external evidence regarding this gospel shows that among the Nazarenes and Ebionites existed a gospel commonly called the Gospel of the Hebrews. It was written in Aramaic with Hebrew letters. Its authorship was attributed to St. Matthew. While the Gospel of the Hebrews was still being circulated and read, the Church Fathers referred to it always with respect, often with reverence. They accepted it as being the work of Matthew.

Although scholarly consensus still holds to Markan priority, some modern scholars believe that the Gospel of the Hebrews was the second source used in the Gospel of Luke and helped form the basis for the Synoptic Tradition. They point out that in the first section of De Viris Illustribus (Jerome), we find the Gospel of Mark listed as the first gospel written, and thus the basis of later gospels. Following it should be Q. However, such a source document (quelle means "source") is absent from Jerome's list, nor is one mentioned by Jerome in his writings. Rather, the first seminal document is not Q but the Gospel of the Hebrews. In "the place of honor" that should be given "the phantom Q" we find a Hebrew usurper.

Scholarly consensus remains overwhelmingly in favor of Markan priority, and this consensus has not been seriously challenged by speculations surrounding the origins of the Hebrew Gospel. That no copy of either Q or the Hebrew Gospel exists makes the determination of their early role in the development of the Synoptic gospels highly conjectural. Nonetheless, arguments in favor of Q as a primary source for Matthew and Luke remain compelling.

Nazarene communities
Early Jewish Christians were thought to have been called Nazarenes (Nazoreans). According to the synoptic Gospel of Mathew, the term Nazarene was first applied to Jesus due to his living in a town named Nazareth. Controversy over the existence of such a town, and whether it was founded by Nazarenes, continues. A town of Nazareth may have been founded as a place of gathering of nazarites from the Nazarene sect. The term "nazirite" comes from the Hebrew word nazir meaning "consecrated" or "separated", exemplified by the story of Samson, Samuel, and David. The relationship between consecrated, anointed, messiah, baptized, and christened would indicate that "Jesus the Nazarite" and "Jesus the Christ" were the same person. A Nazarene warrior cult may have existed prior to Jesus, and may go back to the time of Judas Maccabeus. After his death, it was the term used to identify the Jewish Sect that believed Jesus was the Messiah. When this group grew into the Gentile world, they became known as Christians. By the 4th century, Nazarenes were considered orthodox Christians who embraced the Jewish Law, but rejected Hebrew Heresies.

The Nazarenes are generally accepted as being the first Christians who were led by James the Just, who was said to be the brother of Jesus. He led the Church from Jerusalem and had a special experience of the Risen Lord.

The Fathers of the Church believed the Nazarenes used the Gospel of the Hebrews.

Ebionite communities
Irenaeus wrote that they used only Matthew's Gospel. But, Eusebius wrote that the Ebionites used only the Gospel of the Hebrews. This confusion is clarified by Epiphanius who explained that the Ebionites used the Gospel of the Hebrews written by Matthew. Although the Ebionites may have "edited it" according to their Oral tradition, they never composed a gospel of their own.

The origin of the name Ebionite (or Ebionaean) is debated. Tertullian, Irenaeus, Hippolytus of Rome, Epiphanius, and Jerome ascribed the movement to a heretic named Ebion or Hebion. Others claim the name Ebionite means "poor one" and is derived from Matthew 5:3, for they rejected material wealth. Conflict grew between them and other Christians when the Ebionites failed to embrace the developing Church doctrines of the Virgin birth and Jesus' divinity. They believed Jesus was begotten of God at his baptism.

Conflict also grew over the issue of the Mosaic law, which the Ebionites believed remained in full force. They are said to have rejected Paul's teachings and used only one Gospel, the Gospel of the Hebrews.

2. Patristic Testimony Non-canonical status
One of the ongoing debates is why the Gospel of the Hebrews was left out of the Canon when the Church Fathers wrote that it was composed by Matthew. Origen and Eusebius classed it among the "disputed writings" which some reject, but which others class with the accepted books: 'And among these some have also placed the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those Hebrews who accept Christ are especially delighted.' Hence there must have been a large body of Jewish Christians who regarded it as their authority regarding  the life, work, and teaching of Jesus. Jerome often cites it as though it were a trustworthy source. Beyond this we know very little of its status.

3. Allegations of deliberate suppression of the Hebrew Gospel
It has been claimed that the rivalry between Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians brought about the intentional destruction of Hebrew texts. The doctrinal reason centered on Adoptionism. This theology was a minority Hebrew Christian belief that Jesus was merely human, being born of a physical union between Joseph and Mary. He only became divine, by adoption at his baptism, being chosen because of his sinless devotion to the will of God. The Adoptionist view may date back almost to the time of Jesus reconciling the claims that Jesus was the Son of God with the radical monotheism of Judaism. Both the primary gospels i.e. (the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of Mark) had similar adoptionist views of the incarnation, but the Gospel of the Hebrews was the most radical. Jesus was seen to be "adopted" at his baptism when the voice from heaven declared: "You are my beloved Son, this day have I begotten you"

By the end of the 2nd century, Adoptionism was declared a heresy and it was formally rejected by the First Council of Nicaea (325), which wrote the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and identified Jesus as eternally begotten of God. The Roman Emperor Constantine, fostered the faith as an imperial religion.

4. Content

 * See also:

The presentation in the Gospel of the Hebrews is simple, thoughtful, lifelike; for the most part it shows its primitive character by the absence of the marvelous and fantastic which adorn the apocryphal gospels. The gospel does not bear the marks of having been constructed to inculcate any particular theological tenets, with the exception its Jewish view as to the origin and nature of Christ. It is, in the main, a simple historical narrative whose purpose seems to have been to preserve the living, evangelical tradition for present and future use. Although the Gospel of the Hebrews was not identical to the Greek Gospel of Matthew found in the Bible, they were similar. 

The Gospel of the Hebrews was 2200 lines, just 300 lines shorter than Greek Matthew.  Scholars have been able to study much of the theological structure because of the Fathers of the Early Church.

Matthew and Levi
Didymus the Blind held a source he calls "the Gospel of the Hebrews" to be informative when he explains that there are many people with two names, that scripture calls Matthew “Levi” in the Gospel of Luke, but they are not the same person (Psalm Commentary 3)

Holy Spirit
Within Judaism, the Shekinah (or "visible" cloud of the Presence) is a feminine word, thought to be Yahvah's feminine aspect; therefore, they called the Spirit the "mother". Thus in the Gospel of the Hebrews we should not be surprised, that after the temptation of Jesus it says, “Even so did my Mother, the Holy Spirit, took me by one of my hairs, and carried me to the great mountain Tabor." It should also be noted that “Spirit” in Hebrew is feminine, while in Latin it is masculine and in Greek it is neuter.

Brotherly love
This is an important theme among Hebrew Christians. In the Gospel of the Hebrews one of the greatest sins is, "To grieve the spirit of one's brother" and we also read that the Lord spoke to his disciples saying, "And never be joyful except when you look on your brother with love."

The rich young man
In the Gospel of the Hebrews:
 * The second rich youth said to him, “Rabbi, what good thing can I do and live?” Jesus replied, “Fulfill the law and the prophets.” “I have,” was the response Jesus said, “Go, sell all that you have and distribute to the poor; and come, follow me.” The youth began to fidget, for it did not please him. And the Lord said, “How can you say, I have fulfilled the law and the prophets, when it is written in the law: You shall love your neighbor as yourself and many of your brothers, sons of Abraham, are covered with filth, dying of hunger, and your house is full of many good things, none of which goes out to them?” And he turned and said to Simon, his disciple, who was sitting by Him, “Simon, son of Jonah, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for the rich to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”

The sinful women
Papias tells us that the Gospel of the Hebrews also gives story of a woman accused of many sins before the Lord. Scholars have noted the connection to the sinful woman in John's Gospel. There has been much debate but some believe this narrative is historical 

James
This Gospel puts a particular emphasis on James the Just, as head of the Jerusalem church, and especially concentrates on arguing for obedience to Jewish law. The gospel contains an independent legend that the first resurrection appearance was witnessed by James. The gospel also recounts that James was present at the Last Supper. The stories are in contradiction to the canonical gospels which recount that James and his brothers were not followers of Jesus prior to the Resurrection with John 7:5 mentions such unbelief explicitly. At the Feast of Weeks, however, Judas the brother of James, is at least listed among the group of believers. Jude, in his own epistle, claims that he is the same "brother of James". Paul would seem to provide the evidence that Jesus did, in fact, visit James after the resurrection but after Cephas and the twelve, then more than five hundred "brethren" who were still alive at the time of Paul's writing: "After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles". During the beginning of Jesus's ministry, James did not believe Jesus was the Messiah; however, there was some great catalyst that changed his mind, for he became the leader of the Nazaraean community in Jerusalem and produced the Epistle of James written before 61 C.E. When he was stoned by the Sanhedrin under the authority of Ananus, the son or grandson of Annas who had been responsible for bringing Jesus to trial.

Eusebius quotes Hegesippus, who states: "This apostle was consecrated from his mother's womb. He drank neither wine nor fermented liquors, and abstained from animal food. A razor never came upon his head, he never anointed with oil, and never used a bath. He alone was allowed to enter the sanctuary. He never wore woolen, but linen garments [i.e. as the priests did]...And indeed, on account of his exceeding great piety, he was called the Just, and Oblias (or Zaddick and Ozleam) which signifies justice and protection of the people. Some of the seven sects [of Judaism], therefore, of the people, mentioned by me above in my Commentaries, asked him what was the door to Jesus? And he answered, 'that he was the Saviour.'. From which, some believed that Jesus is the Christ...". In the Gospel of the Hebrews it is written as follows:
 * Now the Lord, when he had given the linen cloth 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 he had drunk the Lord's cup until he should see him risen from among them that sleep. And Lord says, "Bring a table and bread." And it is added, "He took bread and blessed and broke and gave it to James the Just and said to him, "My brother, eat your bread, for the Son of man is risen from among them that sleep."

"A bodiless demon"
The gospel quotation found in the letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans may be one of the oldest recorded sayings of Jesus. An Exegesis of the Sayings of the Lord by means of an in-depth analysis of the available Patristic evidence as well as a comparison with the Hebrew Gospel tradition, leads to this conclusion.

The Gospel of the Hebrews states that when the Risen Lord came to those with Peter, Jesus said to them, “Take hold of me, handle me, and see that I am not a bodiless demon.” Jerome also points out that the Apostles thought Jesus to be a spirit, for in the Gospel of the Hebrews Jesus says that he is not a “A bodiless demon”

Comparison chart
The material in the Comparison Chart of the major gospels is from the Gospel Parallels by B. H. Throckmorton, The five Gospels by R. W. Funk, The Gospel According to the Hebrews by Nicholson (1879) &   The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition by J. R. Edwards.

Historical background
It is the only one of the Jewish-Christian Gospels to be included in the Early Church Catalogs. It is subject to heated and ongoing scholarly debate.

Oral tradition
After the Crucifixion of Jesus, his disciples gathered together in Jerusalem, in an "upper room" perhaps where the Cenacle is today. James, the brother of Jesus, was the early leader in Jerusalem of the Jewish sect that became known as Christianity. This group was located in and about Jerusalem and proclaimed that Jesus was the promised Messiah.

These early Jewish Christians were thought to have been called Nazarenes. The term Nazarene was first applied to Jesus. After his death, it was the term used to identify the Jewish Sect that believed Jesus was the Messiah. The Nazarenes were generally accepted as being the first Christians who were led by James "the Just", until he was martyred c.62 AD.

As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh. This oral tradition interpreted the written law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. It was in this cultural context or Sitz im Leben that the Christian Oral Tradition had its roots, as Jesus and later Christian 'Rabbis' developed the oral "Gospel" to interpret the written Law given to Moses by God.

When the Temple at Jerusalem was destroyed in the year 70, this oral tradition was no longer viable and it became necessary for it to be written down. Scholars are in general agreement that the Jewish Christians up to the destruction of the Temple had no written Gospels being circulated among them.

Hebrew Gospel tradition
Originally, Jewish/Christian scholarship had been oral. Jesus and other rabbis expounded and debated the Torah (the written law expressed in the Hebrew Bible) and discussed the Tanakh without the benefit of written works (other than the Biblical books themselves), though some may have made private notes (megillot setarim)

This situation changed drastically, however, mainly as the result of the destruction of the Jewish commonwealth in the year 70 and the consequent upheaval of Jewish/Christian social and legal norms. Jewish Christians were required to face a new reality&mdash; without a Temple (to serve as the center of teaching and study), the old system of oral scholarship could not be maintained. It is during this period that rabbinic discourse began to be recorded in writing.

The Church Fathers recognized this and said that the first gospels were born out of necessity. Matthew, a Galilean Jew and follower of the rabbi Jesus is said to have written the first gospel. It was written in Hebrew and meant for Hebrew Christians.

As a disciple, Matthew followed Jesus, and would have been an eye witness to the rabbinical midrashic discourse of the "Rabbi from Nazareth". Matthew may have even participated in the development of the Torah Shebeal Peh as the Talmud mentions him as a follower of Jesus the Nazarene. Matthew reduced this Logia into a written form in what would become known to as the first Gospel.

Because of the writings of the Church Fathers we know a great deal about Matthew's gospel. It was composed in Hebrew near Jerusalem for Hebrew Christians and it was translated into Greek, but the Greek copy was lost. The Hebrew original was kept at the Library of Caesarea. The Nazarene Community transcribed a copy for Jerome which he used in his work.

Matthew's Gospel was called the Gospel according to the Hebrews  or sometimes the Gospel of the Apostles     and it was once believed that it was the original to the  Greek Matthew found in the Bible, although this is currently the subject of scholarly debate.

Matthew's Gospel according to the Hebrews was widely circulated among early Hebrew Christians. These groups included the Nazarenes, Ebionites etc. It was generally believed that they added their own oral traditions  or midrash to the  "Hebrew Gospel" giving rise to what are now known as the Jewish Gospels. Almost all critics are agreed, that the Gospel according to Nazarenes, the Gospel according to Ebionites, etc. are just modified editions of Matthew's Gospel according to the Hebrews but were essentially the same gospel and are important to understanding the gospel tradition of early Christianity. From Egypt, to as far away as India, in various editions, the Gospel according to the Hebrews   remained one of the most important primary Christian writings     until the Jewish Christianity was replaced by the modern Christianity of today.

In ictu oculi (talk)

Specifically...
This article seems to have been suffering duplicate POV edits from Authentic Gospel of Matthew since 2005. For example: In ictu oculi (talk)
 * Special:Contributions/72.254.43.91 by Professor Peter of the University of Destiny
 * Special:Contributions/207.81.154.64
 * Special:Contributions/207.194.164.93
 * Special:Contributions/96.22.215.70
 * Gospel of the Hebrews addition to James the Just

Merge Proposal
Someone recently added a proposal to merge template to the article without creating a discussion section, so I am doing that here. This discussion has already been beaten to death on this and related talk pages, so I'm going to hold off on commenting for now and give others a chance. Ignocrates (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussion participants should be aware that there was a similar, though not identical, article entitled Authentic Gospel of Matthew, which was deleted with a redirect to Jewish Christian Gospels. Here is the link to the article talk page Talk:Authentic_Gospel_of_Matthew.  I'm letting people know about this to provide some context, not to prejudge a proposal to merge. Ignocrates (talk) 05:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It is generally agreed that Matthew's Hebrew Gospel (which was sometimes referred to as the Gospel of the Hebrews) is not the same as the Syncretistic Gospel of the Hebrews. First the syncretistic gospel was composed in Greek. Futhermore it presents traditions of Jesus' preexistence, his coming into the world, a mighty Power in Heaven named Michael and the Power which came into the world called Mary (which had Christ in it's womb for only seven months). These accounts of Jesus' preexistence etc. are abbreviated mythological narratives. They presuppose a myth of the descent of divine Wisdom, embodying herself definitively in a representative of the human race for the revelation and redemption of humankind. Such a myth was widespread in the Greco-Roman world and and underlies many of the earliest christological formulations of believers in Jesus.


 * The title seems to indicate it was the gospel of predominately Greek-speaking Jewish Christians as opposed to Hebrew Christians. The Syncretistic Gospel of the Hebrews has no connection with other Jewish-Christian gospels and displays no kinship with Matthew. It is instructive to note that most of the extant fragments come from quotations in the writings of persons who lived in Alexandria, Egypt as opposed to Jerusalem. Finally it was composed long after the time of Matthew. (See the Syncretistic Gospel of the Hebrews) - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think it's reasonable to begin the process by requesting that the editor who proposed a merge state why they think the Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel article should be merged here. Otherwise, why are going through this again? Ignocrates (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: The editor who proposed a merge was not familiar with the background (ie the edit war). Many scholars believe there was a Hebrew Gospel behind the the Synoptic gospels (while others disagree) but none suggest that Hebrew Gospel could be the Syncretistic Gospel of the Hebrews (which was composed in Greek not Hebrew). - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are probably right, but let's wait a week or so to allow the requester to state her/his reasons. If we don't hear any compelling new arguments by then we can close this discussion. Ignocrates (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

This proposal to merge went just as I expected, i.e. nowhere. I'm going to wait a few more days for comments. If there are none, I will close this discussion and remove the merge template. Ignocrates (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)