User:Peter Kirby/Gospel of the Hebrews

''Work in progress. All these full quotes are so that other editors can see what I'm working with. I will be processing this into an actual article. Comments invited.

Allusions
Many patristic citations are thought to refer to the Gospel of the Hebrews, in various degrees of definitiveness. Some quite clearly refer to a "Gospel of the Hebrews" by name, whether accurately or not, while other attributions are by inference from a connection to a Hebrew version of Matthew, and still others entirely conjectural. It is a matter of debate whether references to the "Gospel of the Hebrews" were to the Gospel of the Nazoreans, whether references to the "Gospel of the Nazoreans" were to the Gospel of the Hebrews, or whether these were indeed just one Gospel named variously. A more definite consensus distinguishes both the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Nazoreans from the Gospel of the Ebionites.

Papias

 * See Wikisource for the text.

Ron Cameron writes: "Although Eusebius (early in the 4th century) reports that Papias of Hierapolis (ca. 100-150 c.e.) expounded a story contained in Gos. Heb. (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.17), the absence of any citations of Gos. Heb. in the extant writings of Papias does not permit this reference to be used as a witness to the existence of the text." (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, art. "Gospel of the Hebrews")

Philip Vielhauer writes: "The statement of the place where this story was found clearly comes not from Papias but from Eusebius (Schmidtke, Fragmente, pp. 149ff.; Waitz, 'Evangelien', p. 11; id. 'Untersuchungen', p. 68). What story is meant is uncertain.  As it cannot be identical with Lk. 7:36-50&mdash;otherwise Eusebius would not have assigned it to the apocryphal GH&mdash;it has since Rufinus ben readily equated with the pericope adulterae (Jn. 7:53-8:11), which originally did not belong to Jn. and is found there for the first time in codex D; but it is already attested earlier by the Syriac Didascalia (Achelis-Flemming, TU 25, 2, 1904, 38f.), and here the woman is not called an adulteress but a sinner, as in Jn. 8:3 D (cf. W. Bauer, Das Johannesevangelium, 1933, pp. 115ff.; U. becker, Jesus und die Ehebrecherin. Untersuchungen zur Text- und &Uuml;berlieferungsgeschichte von Joh 7, 53 - 8, 11'', BZNW 28, 1963). But this evidence does not suffice either for the identification of the story adduced by Papias with the pseudo-Johannine pericope in the version of cod. D or for conclusions as to the literary character of the apocryphal gospel. That the story adduced by Papias lies before us in Jn. 7:53ff. is merely a possible hypothesis; if Eusebius localises it in the GH, he must have found it there; and nothing justifies our assigning it to the GN and fixing its original position between Mt. 22:22 and 23 (against Waitz, 'Evangelien', pp. 11f., 18)." (New Testament Apocrypha, 138)

Irenaeus

 * See Wikisource for the text.

Philip Vielhauer writes: "Irenaeus gives the earliest testimony&mdash;it is admittedly indirect&mdash;to the existince of a JG [Jewish Gospel]. He reports that the Jewish-Christian sect of the Ebionites used only one gospel, that of Matthew (Adv. Haer. I 26.2; III 11.7).  But when in other places he says that they had eliminated the virgin birth (III 21.1; V 1.3), it is clear that the gospel used by them cannot have been the canonical Mt., and that Irenaeus had not himself seen this book; otherwise he would not have been able to identify it with Mt.  This JG had apparently no special title." (New Testament Apocrypha, 1.136)

Clement of Alexandria

 * See Wikisource for the text.

Philip Vielhauer writes: "Clement of Alexandria on the other hand mentions a 'Gospel according to the Hebrews' and quotes from it an apocryphal saying of Jesus (Strom. II 9.45). He adduces this saying once again in Strom. V 14.96 in a longer version, but without stating where he found it.  That this version gives the full text is clear from POx. 654, in which the logion in question in its longer version occurs as the second of six sayings of the Lord.  Waitz ('Evangelien', pp. 49-52) has assigned the complete text of the papyrus to the GH.  But he has done so wrongly, for this text is found in its entirety in the same sequence in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas discovered at Nag Hammadi.  This discovery makes it doubtful if the saying quoted by Clement should be assigned to the GH.  It is, however, quite possible that it stood in both gospels.  If in this state of affairs conclusions as to the character of the GH in respect of its form and content must be reserved, Clement testifies nevertheless to the existence of a 'Gospel according to the Hebrews' that was well known in Egypt." (New Testament Apocrypha, 1.136)

Ron Cameron writes: "The accounts of Jesus' preexistence and coming (Cyr. H. Discourse on Mary Theotokos 12a), baptism (Jerome Comm. in Isa. 4), and temptation (Origen Jo. 2.12.87) 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 (Sir 24:7; Wis 7:27). If it is proper to correlate those narratives with the most prominent saying in Gos. Heb. (Clem. str. 2.9.45.5; 5.14.96.3), then this gospel announces that Wisdom?s ?rest? can be found in Jesus and attained by those who seek her (Sir 6:28; 51:27; Wis 8:16). The fact that a variant of this saying is also preserved in the Gospel of Thomas (saying 2) indicates that it was a tradition at home in Egypt as well as in Syria. The other two sayings ascribed to Gos. Heb. (Jerome Comm. in Eph. 3; Comm. in Ezek. 6) permit the suggestion that a majority of the sayings in this gospel had the same parenetic character as those in the synoptic gospels." (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, art. "Gospel of the Hebrews")

Origen

 * See Wikisource for the text.

Philip Vielhauer writes: "he also quotes the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews' (in Joh. vol. II, 12) and indeed a saying of Jesus about his being carried away: his mother, the Holy Spirit, took him by one of his hairs and carried him to the high mountain Tabor. This account is adduced once again by Origen but without any statement as to where he found it (in Jer. vol XV, 4).  In this quotation we have to do with a variant of the story not of the transfiguration but of the temptation (Mt. 4:1-11 and pars.; cf. Walter Bauer, Das Leben Jesu, pp. 143ff.; Waitz, 'Evangelien' 13).  The deviations from the anonical account are very considerable; out of the report given by the Evangelist has come an account given by Jesus himself of his experience, the devil is replaced by the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is identified with the mother of Jesus.  This last trait presupposes the semitic conception of the Spirit, since in the semitic tongues the Spirit is femini generis, but it does not imply that the GH was originally written in Hebrew or in Aramaic (Waitz, p. 52; for further particulars see Bauer, ''loc. cit). The mytholgical conception of the Holy Spirit as the mother of Jesus separates the GH from the canonical nativity narratives and also from the conception of Joseph as the father of Jesus that obtained among the Ebionites of whose gospel Irenaeus speaks; the GH cannot have been identical with that gospel." (New Testament Apocryypha'', 1.136-137)

Of the reference to the spirit as the mother of Jesus, Ben C. Smith writes: "Origen goes on to explain that, since whoever does the will of God is the brother or sister or mother of the Lord (Matthew 12.50 = Mark 3.35 = Luke 8.21), it makes sense to call the holy spirit, who of course does the will of God, his mother. The next text from Origen is clearly of the same statement from the Hebrew gospel. Jerome cites this same statement from the Hebrew gospel."

Philip Vielhauer writes: "A further quotation from the GH occurs in the Latin reverision of Origen's commentary on Matthew (in Mt., vol. XV, p. 389 Benz-Klostermann), a fictional development of Mt. 19:16-24. Schmidtke (Fragmente, pp. 90-94) has with reason made itprobable that this quotation was inserted in the commentary not by Origen himself but by the later reviser and also that it does not come from the GH used by Origen (otherwise Bardy, 'J&eacute;r&ocirc;me', p. 29).  Certain indications, such as the singling out of Simon (dixit Simoni discipulo suo) connect this pericope with the gospel fragment in Jerome, adv. Pelag. (dixit illi Simon discipulus elus), whilst the address Simon, fili Jonae (not: Simon, son of John; so Waitz, 'Evangelien', p. 13) points rather to Mt. 16:17 than to the scholium of the Judaikon, which in this place gives 'son of Jhn' (Cod. Ev. 566)." (New Testament Apocrypha, p. 137)

Ben C. Smith writes, "Aurelio de Santos Otero, while not numbering this text with either the Hebrew or the Ebionite gospel extracts, comments on pages 47-49 on the possibility that the gospel according to the twelve is along the same lines as the gospel according to the apostles that Jerome mentions in Against the Pelagians 3.2. He himself thinks that these are two different works, as Origen regards the Hebrew gospel as orthodox but this gospel of the twelve as heterodox. But the titles of all of the Jewish gospels were evidently confused throughout the patristic period, so I do think it likely that this gospel according to the twelve belongs in the category of the Jewish gospels, and may well be the heterodox Ebionite gospel."

Eusebius

 * See Wikisource for the text.

Philip Vielhauer writes: "The readers of the GH were above all Jewish Christians; the designation 'Hebrews' indicates where they belonged as a people, but not their tongue; according to the context these Jewish Christians in the time of Eusebius used the GH side by side with the four canonical Gospels. It was otherwise with a special school of thought among the Ebionites: the members of this school, in contrast to the ordinary Ebionites, recognized the virgin birth of Jesus although they called his pre-existence in question (H.E. III 27. 1-3).  Since two fragments of the GH assume the pre-existence of Jesus, this Ebionite group either did not dispute it or did not read the GH.  But apart from this question, this note shows that for Eusebius the GH was not identical with the gospel which according to Irenaeus was used by the ordinary Ebionites." (New Testament Apocrypha, 1.137-138)

Philip Vielhauer writes of the reference to Hegesippus: "The attempts frequently undertaken to equate the GH and the 'Syriac Ospel' with one another are abortive; because of the Greek syntax Eusebius' sentence can only be understood as meaning that Hegesippus quoted two different gospels, the GH and a Syriac one, i.e. one written in Aramaic, and that Eusebius distinguishes these. The 'Hebrew tongue' is, as elsewhere in Eusebius, the Aramaic, the 'mother-tongue of the 'Hebrews'; the quotations 'in the Hebrew tongue' come therefore not from the GH but from the 'Syriac Gospel'.  That Eusebius designated this as 'Syriac', contrary to his usage elsewhere, may be put down to Hegesippus' account (Schmidtke, Fragmente, pp. 51 ff.).  Although Eusebius speaks frequently elsewhere of the 'Hebrew' proto-Matthew (III 24.6; 39.16; V 8.2; VI 25.4), he nowhere identifies it with the 'Syriac' Gospel known to Hegesippus; this identification therefore ought not to be ascribed to him (against Schmidtke, ''loc. cit.); the early Church historian was more sparing of such hypotheses than the moderns. From the fact that in the H.E. he gives no quotations from either of the two JG it ought not to be concluded that at the time he wrote the H.E. he did not know them (against Schmidtke and Waitz): he at least knew the GH if he identified the Papias story of the woman that was a sinner, and of the Syriac Gospel he knew at any rate the quotations in the Memoirs of Hegesippus." (New Testament Apocrypha'', 1.138-139)

Cyril of Jerusalem

 * See Wikisource for the text.

Philip Vielhauer writes, "in the Coptic transtion of a discourse of Cyril of Jerusalem he (Cyril) puts a citation from the GH into the mouth of a heretical monk from 'the neighbourhood of Maioma near Gaza' (ed. by Budge, Texts,Coptic, p. 60, English, p. 637). We are concerned here with a fragment of the story of the birth of Jesus: When Jesus wished to come into the world, God the Father entreusted Him to a mighty power which was called Michael; this came into the world and was named Mary.  In the Greek writings of Cyril this discourse is not preserved; V. Burch ('The Gospel according to the Hebrews: Some new matter chiefly from Coptic sources', JTS 21, 1920, 310-315) regards it as a sort of excursus on the twelfth Catechesis.  But it is questionable whether it actually goes back to Cyril, and above all whether the citation really comes from the GH.  This question forces itself upon us in view of the different conceptions of the mother of Jesus in the GH fragment on the carrying away of Jesus (Origen and Jerome) and in the present passage. Whilst there the mother is designated the Holy Spirit, here she passes as the incarnation of a 'mighty power' which in its pre-existence is called Michael; our hesitations are strengthened if Burch's thesis is correct, that the 'mighty power' denotes a star and that Michael is to be understood as a star angel. But we know the GH too little to be able to deny this fragment to it; we are possibly concerned here with a corrupted fragment of the GH or with a fragment of a corrupted GH." (New Testament Apocrypha, 150)

Epiphanius

 * See Wikisource for the text.

Ron Cameron writes: "Although it is extremely difficult to identify with confidence which patristic quotations may belong to which gospel, it is not possible to assign all of the extant quotations to only one text. In fact there can be no doubt that another, completely different Jewish-Christian gospel was in circulation in the early Church, for Epiphanius (late in the 4th century) has preserved a few quotations of the so-called Gospel of the Ebionites, a harmony, composed in Greek, of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (and, probably, the Gospel of Mark as well). Therefore, the testimony of Jerome notwithstanding, there were at least two and most likely three Jewish-Christian narrative gospels in antiquity, one of which was composed in Greek and entitled Gos. Heb." (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, art. "Gospel of the Hebrews")

Ben C. Smith writes, "Note that this Nazoraean gospel Epiphanius calls very complete, with the possible exception of the genealogies. When it comes to the Ebionite gospel in 30.13, however, he calls it not all very complete, which must indicate that the Nazoraean and the Ebionite gospels were two different texts, despite their both being called according to the Hebrews, and despite the fact that Jerome appears to confuse the two. A. de Santos Otero accordingly lists this present passage from chapter 29 with the gospel according to the Hebrews, but all passages from chapter 30 with the gospel of the Ebionites."

Ben C. Smith writes, "Compare and contrast this baptismal scene with that in the commentary On Isaiah 11.2 by Jerome, and also with the scene leading up to the baptism in Jerome, Against the Pelagians 3.2. The great light illuminating the place would seem to parallel the fire in Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 88.3: '...when Jesus went down into the water even a fire was lit in the Jordan...'  A similar detail also appears to have figured into the Diatessaron that Tatian composed, and is even a textual variant from the Latin tradition." Bruce Metzger writes of the same, "This phenomenon, mentioned by Tatian's teacher, Justin Martyr, and included, according to Epiphanius, in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, is referred to by Ephraem in his Commentary and is preserved in the Pepysian Harmony, as it is also in two Old Latin manuscripts at Matt. iii. 15, Vercellensis (MS. a: 'lumen ingens') and Sangermanensis (MS. g1: 'lumen magnum')." (The Early Versions of the New Testament, 35-36)

Ben C. Smith writes, "While the title Diatessaron means through four, the title Diapente of course means through five. Some scholars, therefore, are tempted to suppose that the fifth was the gospel according to the Hebrews. We have already noted that Ephraem mentioned the fire at the Jordan in his commentary on the Diatessaron. On pages 28-29 Metzger lists Grotius, Mill, Baumstark, Peters, and Quispel as scholars who think that Tatian used the gospel according to the Hebrews as a fifth source for his gospel harmony. Metzger himself does not appear to agree."

Philip Vielhauer writes, "Since he can impute to it nothing heretical or non-Matthaean, the Gospel of the Nazoraeans must have been an Aramaic version of Mt. (and was possibly identical with the Syriac Ospel known to Hegisippus). It is to be underlined that Epiphanius as little as Eusebius designates this 'Hebrew', i.e. Aramaic JG as GH [Gospel of the Hebrews]." (New Testament Apocrypha, 1.140)

Philip Vielhauer writes, "The statement of Epiphanius regarding the Gospel of the Ebionites agree with those of Irenaeus in this, that the Ebionites use only a single gospel and that this is a Gospel of Matthew; further in this, that this sect denies the virgin birth. That the gospel in question cannot then have been the canonical Mt., Irenaeus does not indeed say, but Epiphanius does so all the more cleary.  New in Epiphanius as compared with Irenaeus is the communication of the title, the Gospel of the Hebrews or the Hebrew Gospel, and the aetiology of the Church Father for this title.  That the Ebionites themselves gave it that name is, however, more than doubtful.  For on the one hand the earlier ecclesiastical writers never associate the GH with Mt.  On the other hand Epiphanius bestows this title (GH) even on Tatian's Gospel Harmony which was rejected by the great Church.  On the motive of this identification see Schmidtke, Fragmente, pp. 172f. This assuredly false statement casts suspicion on the entitling also of the Gospel of the Ebionites; itcertailny does not rest on trustworthy tradition, but is a combination madeby Epiphanius. He may have been inspired to associate the two documents by the comment of Eusebius (H.E. III 27. 4) that a special school of thought among the Ebionites used only the GH; a further link in the equation is his own aetiological explanation of the title." (New Testament Apocrypha, 141)

Jerome

 * See Wikisource for the text.

Ron Cameron writes: "Jerome has preserved the most numerous references to and apparent quotations of Gos. Heb. In a series of writings that date from 386?415 c.e., he repeatedly maintained the view that there was only one Jewish-Christian gospel in existence, assigning all quotations known to him to this one document. When referring to this document Jerome regularly used variants of the title Gos. Heb., which he regarded as the original ?Hebrew? or Aramaic Gospel of Matthew. However, critical scholarship has determined that Jerome almost certainly never saw an actual copy of this document but most likely knew of its existence from citations he had taken from other early Christian writers. Moreover, it is quite certain that Jerome never translated such a gospel into Greek and Latin, as he avers, for he misquotes certain texts that he allegedly had translated and assigns to this gospel several pericopes whose wording and construction are manifestly impossible in a Semitic language. Thus, in spite of himself, Jerome attests to the existence both of a Greek Gos. Heb. and another Jewish-Christian gospel, one which appears to be closely related to or identical with an expanded version of Matthew?s Gospel that was translated from Greek into Aramaic or Syriac. This expanded version of Matthew is customarily referred to today as the Gospel of the Nazoreans, a document whose original title is unknown but which seems to have been used since the 2d century c.e. by the Nazoreans, a group of Jewish Christians in W Syria." (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, art. "Gospel of the Hebrews")

Ron Cameron writes: "The report of a resurrection appearance of Jesus to his brother, James the Just (Jerome De vir. inl. 2), indicates the position of authority assigned to James in Gos. Heb. James was regarded as a leading figure of the Jewish-Christian church in Jerusalem (Gal 1:19; 2:9, 12; Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18), one of those named in Paul?s list of persons accredited for having seen a vision of the risen Jesus (1 Cor 15:7). According to the account in Gos. Heb., James was the first witness of the resurrection and thus its principal guarantor. He is so distinguished that he is said even to have taken part in the Last Supper of Jesus. The esteem in which James is held in this gospel may be used to locate the authority and secure the identity of the tradition of those communities which appealed to him as their leader." (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, art. "Gospel of the Hebrews")

Compare Matthew 23.35; Zechariah 1.1; 2 Chronicles 24.20-22. Ben C. Smith writes, "The Hebrew gospel thus solves a longstanding difficulty (the confusion between Zechariah the classical prophet and the Zechariah who was stoned in the temple)."

Ben C. Smith writes, "Jerome is evidently quoting Ignatius from memory, however. First of all, it is not in the Ignatian epistle to Polycarp but rather in that to the Smyrnaeans (of which Polycarp was bishop) that this text is found. Second, Jerome misquotes Ignatius somewhat. In 3.1 Ignatius says that he knows that Jesus was in the flesh even after his resurrection, while Jerome quotes him as saying that he saw Jesus in the flesh after his resurrection, a very different concept indeed!"

Philip Vielhauer writes, "Origen cites this passage of GH twice without giving any hint that the GH was not composed originally in Greek, and it cannot be understood why Jerome should have translated a book that already for a long time had been available in Greek." (New Testament Apocrypha, 142)

Philip Vielhauer writes, "Jerome can hardly have seen the Hebrew original of Mt. in the library at Caesarea, for Eusebius never says anything about such a treasure in his library and never identifies an unknown JG with the Hebrew original of Matthew. What we are concerned with here must be an Aramaic gospel&mdash;the one from which come the citations in the Theophania&mdash;and this Jerome equates with the original Matthew.  Whether he knew the Caesarean exemplar from having himselfseen it, is open to question.  At all events he does not imply that he derives his information from it.  For he notes&mdash;in order of course to show his familiarty with this work&mdash;that this gospel was used by the Nazareans in Beroea and that he had copied it with their permission.  Since in his citations from JG he again and again refers to the Nazaraeans (or Nazarenes), he obviously implies that he obtained his information amongst them. The Coelesyrian Beroea near Aleppo was in fact a centre of the Nazoreans, i.e. of the Syrian Jewish-Christians (Epiphanius, Haer. 29.7.7; 30.2.7; Bardy, 'J&eacute;r&ocirc;me', p. 11). Jerome can have had contact with them only during his stay ithe desert of Chalcis, i.e. between 373 and 376 (Bardy, p. 11); but then it is altogether inconceivable that he kept the Gospel of the NAzaraeans so long to himself and was silent about it, and cited it for the first time in 386. It is equally inconceivable that the differences betwen the Gospel of th Nazaraeans and the canonical Matthew can have struck him so little that he could consider the latter to be the translation of the former. The conclusion is inevitable that it was not the Nazaraeans who communicated to him his knowledge of this gospel." (New Testament Apocrypha, 143)

Philip Vielhauer writes: "The statement of the Church Father that the passage stood in the Gospel of the Nazaraeans which he had translated is wrecked on the fact that the decisive notion 'bodiless dmon' cannot be the translation of a semitic original. That eliminates an Aramaic gospel as source; a Greek text, perhaps the GH as such, is at most what can be considered.  Moreover it hslong been recognized and acknowledged that when writing the 'de viris inlustribus Jerome had before him neither the text of the apocryphal gspel nor that of the epistles of Ignatius, but the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius who (III 36.11) adduces Ign. Smyrn.'' 3.1f.; Jerome cites the text only as far as Eusebius gives it; his assigning of it to the epistle to Polycarp finds its explanation in cursory reading, and his misunderstanding the first sentence in the fact that he did not take in the context of the Ignatian expositions." (New Testament Apocrypha, 144)

Philip Vielhauer writes: "The following statements of Jerome are, however, open to question: first that he got to know the Gospel of the Nazaraeans among the Nazaraeans of the Syrian Beroea, secondly that he copied it there and thirdly that he translated i 'recently', i.e. between 386 and 390. As has already been said, the chronology tells against the first two of these assertions.  He must have got to know the book at another time and in another way; Bardy even thinks that he did not actually know the Nazaraeans, for he speaks of them almost in stereotyped phrases and what he records about them he could have read in Epiphanius (so Schmidtke also).  Several arguments tell against the third assertion.  No one has seen or mentioned the translation, and Jerome himself mentions it only between 390 and 397 and thereafter no more.  It is true that the different statements regarding the original tonge (Hebrew, Chaldaean, Syriac) do not prove that he was not quite certain about that; the fact, however, tht in 392-393 he speaks of a translation into Greek and Latin but in 397 only of a translation into Greek, is puzzling. The fact that in texts which he demonstrably came upon in Grek and assuredly did not translate out of Aramaic he speaks of a translation, must intensify to scepticism our doubt as to his statements. It is therefore widely recognized that Jerome did not translate the Gospel of the Nazaraeans. He had obviously only purposed to translate it; and although unable to carry out this purpose, he spoke of it as an accomplished fact (Bardy, J&eacute;r&ocirc;me', pp. 32f.)." (New Testament Apocrypha, 146-147)

Theodoretus

 * See Wikisource for the text.

Ben C. Smith writes, "It is difficult to credit this last statement [that the Nazoreans used only the gospel of Peter]. No one else claims that the Nazoraeans used the gospel according to Peter, and in fact Theodoretus himself (in the first excerpt above) says that the Nazoraeans accepted only the gospel according to the Hebrews, or that of Matthew (in the second excerpt)."

Marginal glosses

 * See Wikisource for the text.

Ben C. Smith writes, "Aurelio de Santos Otero writes in a note on page 46 of Los evangélios apócrifos: These are found added on as variants in certain cursive Greek codices of Saint Matthew.... It is supposed that they are the work of an editor connected to the patriarchate of Antioch between 370 and 500."

Analysis
The Catholic Encyclopedia notes, "Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, and St. Epiphanius speak of a 'Gospel according to the Hebrews' which was the sole one in use among the Palestinian Judeo-Christians, otherwise known as the Nazarenes. Jerome translated it from the Aramaic into Greek. It was evidently very ancient, and several of the above mentioned writers associate it with St. Matthew's Gospel, which it seems to have replaced in the Jewish-Christian community at an early date. The relation between the Gospel according to the Hebrews and our canonical Matthew Gospel is a matter of controversy. The surviving fragments prove that there were close literal resemblances. Harnack asserts that the Hebrew Gospel was entirely independent, the tradition it contained being parallel to that of Matthew. Zahn, while excluding any dependence on our Greek canonical Matthew, maintains one on the primitive Matthew, according to which its general contents were derived from the latter. This Gospel seems to have been read as canonical in some non-Palestinian churches; the Fathers who are acquainted with it refer to it with a certain amount of respect. Twenty-four fragments have been preserved by ecclesiastical writers. These indicate that it had a number of sections in common with the Synoptics, but also various narratives and sayings of Jesus, not found in the canonical Gospels. The surviving specimens lack the simplicity and dignity of the inspired writings; some even savour of the grotesque. We are warranted in saying that while this extra-canonical material probably has as its starting-point primitive tradition, it has been disfigured in the interests of a Judaizing Church."

Ron Comeron writes: "Although the existence of Gos. Heb. is not in question, identifying its fragments and appraising its character remains difficult. In quoting the sources of this gospel, early Church writers repeatedly cited those texts incorrectly, attributed quotations to the wrong gospels, and interpreted what they did record in a biased manner. Jerome, for example, only exacerbates the confusion when he introduces a quotation that he alone has preserved as follows: 'In the Gospel which the Nazoreans and Ebionites use, which we have recently translated from Hebrew into Greek, and which is called by most people the original (Gospel) of Matthew . . .' (Comm. in Matt. 2). Mistakes such as this have led to countless difficulties in our attempts to isolate and verify the gospel(s) in which these fragments belong. Nevertheless, if one distinguishes the fragments on the basis of their original language of composition, their form and content, their relationship to the gospels of the NT, and the groups said to have used a particular gospel, one can reconstruct a number of sayings and stories which may plausibly be ascribed to Gos. Heb. The discussion that follows is based on such a reconstruction, though it must remain tentative pending the discovery of new manuscripts." (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, art. "Gospel of the Hebrews")

Ron Cameron writes: "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, some of his sayings, and a resurrection appearance to his brother, James the Just. This is the Jewish-Christian gospel most frequently mentioned by name in the early Church; it is also the only one whose original title has been transmitted from antiquity. The title seems to indicate the identity of the group who used this gospel, and suggests that this was the gospel of predominantly Greek-speaking Jewish Christians. Gos. Heb. appears to have no connection with the so-called Gospel of the Nazoreans or Gospel of the Ebionites, for it displays no kinship with the Gospel of Matthew. It is instructive to note that the earliest and most important witnesses to the text of Gos. Heb. come from quotations in the writings of persons who lived in Alexandria, Egypt." (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, art. "Gospel of the Hebrews")

Ron Cameron writes: "The extant fragments of Gos. Heb. display no dependence on the NT or other early Christian literature. Unfortunately there is no way to determine the (in)dependent status of those portions of the text that are no longer preserved. The earliest possible date of the composition of Gos. Heb. would be in the middle of the 1st century, when sayings of and stories about Jesus began to be produced and collected in written form. The latest possible date would be the middle of the 2d century, shortly before the first recorded reference to this gospel by Hegesippus and attested quotations of it by Clement and Origen. Based on the parallels in the morphology of the tradition, an earlier date of composition seems more likely than a later one. Identifying the provenance of Gos. Heb. is difficult, though external attestations make Egypt an attractive option." (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, art. "Gospel of the Hebrews")

J. Quasten writes, "The Ebionite Gospel is most probably identical with the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles which Origen mentions (Hom. in Luc. 1). If that is the case, it most likely dates from the beginning of the third century.  Jerome, however, is evidently mistaken in identifying it with the Gospel According to the Hebrews'', although A. Schmidtke supports this opinion." (Patrology, 1.113-114)

J. Questen writes, "All our knowledge regarding the Gospel of the Ebionites is derived from Epiphanius (Adv. Haer. 30, 13-16, 22), who gives fragments of it. To judge from these fragments it was written in the interests of some sect of Christians opposed to sacrifices.  Thus, Jesus is represented as saying: 'I come to put an end to sacrifice, and unless you cease from sacrificing, anger will not cease from you' (30, 16)." (Patrology, 1.114)

Bart Ehrman writes, "Regrettably, the book as whole has been lost; but we are fortunate to have some quotations of it in the writings of an opponent of the Ebionites, the fourth-century heresy-hunter, Epiphanius of Salamis. These quotations give us a good idea of what the entire Gospel must have looked like.  It was written in Greek, and represented a kind of harmony of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.  This can be seen most clearly in the account of the voice at Jesus' baptis.  In the three canonical accounts, the voice says slightly different things.  These differences are harmonized, however, in the Gospel according to the Ebionites, where the voice comes from heaven three times, saying something slightly different on each occasion, corresponding to the words found in each of the three earlier Gospels." (Lost Scriptures, 12)

J. Quasten writes, "The Gospel According to the Hebrews, from which St. Jerome quotes this interesting passage [about an appearance of Jesus to James], was originally written in the Aramaic language, but in Hebrew letters. The original text was, in Jerome's time, in a library at Caesarea, in Palestine.  Both the Ebionites and the Nazarenes used this Gospel, and it was from them that Jerome obtained a copy for his Greek and Latin translations. The fact that it was in use by Palestinian Christians who spokeHebrew (Aramaic) explains the name 'According to the Hebrews'.  It explains also why James 'the brother of the Lord', the representative of strict Jewish Christianity, comes here into the center of the Easter narrative, contrary to the canonical records.  At Jerome's time, most people egarded this apocryphal gospel as the Hebrew original of the canonical Gospel of Matthew which Papias mentioned (Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 3, 39, 16; 6, 25, 4; Irenaeus 1, 1). In fact, the few fragmentswhich are preserved indicate a close relationship to Matthew. The safest conclusion is, probably, that this Gospel According to the Hebrews was some sort of reworking and extension of the Hebrew original of the canonical Gospel of Matthew. . . . The time of composition of this apocryphal gospel must be in the second century, because Clement of Alexandria used it in his Stromata (2, 9, 45) in the last quarter of this century." (Patrology, 1.111-112)

Bart Ehrman writes, "The Gospel according to the Hebrews is quoted by a umber of church fathers connected with the city of Alexandria, Egypt&mdash;Clement, Origen, Didymus the Blind, and Jerome (who studied with Didymus in Alexandria); for this reason, scholars assume that it was used, and possibly written, there, probably during the first half of the second century. Regrettably, the book no longer survives intact, but only in the scattered references to it in these other authors' writing.  Its name probably derives from the circumstance that it was used principally by Jewish-Christians in that large and thriving metropolis&mdash;i.e., it was called this by outsiders of that community, not to those who actually used it." (Lost Scriptures, 15)

Helmut Koester writes, "A number of fragments of the Jewish-Christian gospels should be assigned to a gospel which was used in Alexandria and known under the name of the Gospel of the Hebrews. While the Jewish-Christian gospels discussed above, namely, the Gospel of the Nazoreans and the Gospel of the Ebionites, were closely related to the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of the Hebrews, to judge from the few extant fragments, must have had a different character.  There are, to be sure, elements which can be called Jewish-Christian, but this gospel was composed in Greek.  Nevertheless, the Spirit is called 'the other of Jesus'; thisd fit a Semitic language, where the word spirit' is a feminine noune.   Mary is introduced as the earthly appearance of a  heavenly power (Michael).  In baptism the 'whole fount of the Holy Spirit' descends upon Jesus and rests pon him, saying: 'My Son, in all the prophets I was waiting for you, that you should come and I might rest in you. For you are my rest; you are my first-begotten Son who reigns forever.' This concept is derived from the Jewish wisdom myth; the Spirit in this gospel speaks like personified Wisdom, who comes into the world repeatedly, appearing in prophets and divine messengers, seeking its rest (Wis 7:27; Sir 24:7). The Gospel of the Hebrews therefore uses a motif from Jewish theology, but no special relationship to the Jewish-Christian theology of the Kerygmata Petrou is discernable." (Introduction to the New Testament, 2.223-224)

John S. Kloppenborg writes, "The Gospel of the Hebrews has a distinctive christology. Christ and his mother both existed before their appearance on earth in human form (GHeb 1).  At his baptism, Jesus is addressed as son, not by God, but by the spirit, which turns out to be his mother (GHeb 3, 4).  Jesus is not merely led by the spirit (as in Luke's gospel).  He is completely united with her: 'the whole fountain of the holy spirit came down and rested on him' (GHeb 3).

"The gospel's depiction of the holy spirit as female is striking. GHeb 4c, 4d, and 4e explain that the Semitic word for 'spirit' is feminine in gener, but this way of portraying the spirit is due to more than a peculiarity of Hebrew grammar.  This distinctive depiction of the spirit is rooted in Jewish speculation about divine Wisdom, a female personification of one of God's attributes who was believed to dwell with 'holy souls' (see the note to GHeb 3).

The 'seek-find' and 'rule-rest' language of GHeb 6 also comes from the wisdom tradition. This saying describes the stages on the way to salvation ('rest') and encourages the believer to imitate heavenly Wisdom and thus to share in her qualities.

"The Gospel of the Hebrews gives prominence to James the Just by making him the first believer to see the risen Lord (GHeb 9). This James was not an apostle, but was known as the brother of the Lord in GHeb 9 and in the New Testament (Mark 6:3, Gal 1:19).  Christian tradition remembered him as the leader of the Christian community in Jerusalem and a formidable advocate of Law-observant Christianity.  However, the remains of the Gospel of the Hebrews give no indication that it advocated strict Torah observance." (The Complete Gospels, 428)

John S. Kloppenborg writes, "The surviving fragments of the Gospel of the Hebrews do not give a clear indication of its genre, except that it contained narrative. We cannot tell whether GHeb 1 is a quotation or a summary, but if it is a quotation, it shows that its author worked extensive theological commentary into the narratives, which would make the Gospel of the Hebrews more like the Gospel of John than they synoptics.  GHeb 4 takes the form of a first person report by Jesus himself, giving the reader a privileged insight into Jesus in much the same way as John does in presenting Jesus' final discourse (John 17)." (The Complete Gospels, 427)