The Gospel According To The Hebrews

  • Thread starter Thread starter WJL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

WJL

Guest
I was browsing Wikipedia and I came across a couple of articles:

Wikipedia - The Gospel according to the Hebrews
Wikipedia - Gospel of the Ebionites
Wikipedia - Gospel of the Nazoraeans
Wikipedia - Jewish-Christian Gospels
Wikipedia - Authentic Gospel of Matthew

In these articles it is claimed that a lost gospel known as “The Gospel according to the Hebrews” or “The Gospel of the Hebrews” is the ‘real’ or ‘authentic’ Gospel of Matthew:

“Matthean authenticity has been seriously challenged by many present day scholars. It was also an issue for the Early Church. It was believed by Jerome that the Gospel of the Hebrews was the true Gospel of Matthew (or Matthaei Authenticum).”

“Also, Epiphanius in his Panarion, in which he discusses the gospel used by the followers of Cerinthus, Merinthus and the Ebionites, writes: ‘They 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.’”

“The first reference to the Hebrew text written by the disciple Matthew comes from Papias. Papias starts by discussing the origin of the Gospel of Mark, and then further remarks that “Matthew composed the logia in the Hebrew tongue and each one interpreted them as he was able”. According to Ehrman this is not a reference to the canonical gospel, since the canonical Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek and not Hebrew.”

"Apart from Papias’ comment, we do not hear about the author of the Gospel until Irenaeus around 185 who remarks that Matthew also 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.

Pantaenus, Origen and other Early Church Fathers also believed Matthew wrote the Gospel of the Hebrews. Finally, the Church Fathers never asserted that Matthew wrote the Greek Gospel found in the Bible."

“Modern scholars such as E. Byron Nicholson affirm that in the time of Jerome time most people believed that the Gospel of the Hebrews was the Authentic Gospel of Matthew The study of the external evidence regarding this gospel shows that there existed among the Nazarenes and Ebionites one gospel commonly called the Gospel of the Hebrews. It was written in Aramaic with Hebrew letters. Its authorship was attributed to St. Matthew. Indeed the Fathers of the Church, while the Gospel of the Hebrews was still being circulated and read, referred to it always with respect, often with reverence: they accepted it as being the work of Matthew. This applies tenfold to Jerome.”

“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.’”

“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.”

"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”"
 
Further, they claim that the Gospel of Matthew found in our modern Bibles was not really written by the apostle Matthew:
“Although several Fathers say Matthew wrote the Gospel of the Hebrews they are silent about Greek Matthew found in the Bible. Modern scholars are in agreement that Matthew did not write Greek Matthews which is 300 lines longer than the Hebrew Gospel.”

“Many scholars today believe that canonical Matt was originally written in Greek by a non eyewitness whose name is unknown to us and who depended on sources like Mark and Q.”

“Today, most critical scholarship agrees that Matthew did not write the Gospel which bears his name, preferring instead to describe the author as an anonymous Jewish Christian, writing towards the end of the first century. They also believe that the Gospel was originally composed in Greek(see Greek primacy) rather than being a translation from an Aramaic Matthew or the Hebrew Gospel.”

"Perhaps the most extensive published study every undertaken on this topic was by Edward B. Nicholson, Trinity College, Oxford during the 19th century. His conclusions were as follows:


  1. *]“We find that there existed among the Nazarenes and Ebionites a Gospel commonly called the Gospel according to the Hebrews, written in Aramaic, but with Hebrew characters. Its authorship was attributed by some to the Apostles in general, but by very many or most — including clearly the Nazarenes and Ebionites themselves — to Matthew.”
    *]“The Fathers of the Church, while the Gospel according to the Hebrews was yet extant in its entirety, referred to it always with respect, often with reverence: some of them unhesitatingly accepted it as being what tradition affirmed it to be — the work of Matthew — and even those who have not put on record their expression of this opinion have not questioned it. Is such an attitude consistent with the supposition that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was a work of heretical tendencies? This applies with tenfold force to Jerome. After copying it, would he, if he had seen heresy in it, have translated it for public dissemination into both Greek and Latin, and have continued to favor the tradition of its Matthaean authorship? And Jerome, be it observed, not only quotes all three of these passages without disapprobation; he actually quotes two of them (Fr. 6 and Fr. 8) with approval.”

    Nicholson’s position that The Gospel of the Hebrews was the true Gospel of Matthew is still the subject of heated debate. However most scholars now agree that the Gospel of Matthew found in the Bible was not written by Matthew, but composed posthumous to him."

    “It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus. As quoted by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. 3.39, Papias states: “Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.” In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church.” We know that Irenaeus had read Papias, and it is most likely that Irenaeus was guided by the statement he found there. That statement in Papias itself is considered to be unfounded because the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and relied largely upon Mark, not the author’s first-hand experience.”

    Herman N. Ridderbos writes (Matthew, p. 7): “This means, however, that we can no longer accept the traditional view of Matthew’s authorship. At least two things forbid us to do so. First, the tradition maintains that Matthew authored an Aramaic writing, while the standpoint I have adopted does not allow us to regard our Greek text as a translation of an Aramaic original. Second, it is extremely doubtful that an eyewitness like the apostle Matthew would have made such extensive use of material as a comparison of the two Gospels indicates. Mark, after all, did not even belong to the circle of the apostles. Indeed Matthew’s Gospel surpasses those of the other synoptic writers neither in vividness of presentation nor in detail, as we would expect in an eyewitness report, yet neither Mark nor Luke had been among those who had followed Jesus from the beginning of His public ministry.”

    J. C. Fenton argues (The Gospel of Saint Matthew, p. 12): “It is usually thought that Mark’s Gospel was written about A.D. 65 and that the author of it was neither one of the apostles nor an eyewitness of the majority of the events recorded in his Gospel. Matthew was therefore dependent on the writing of such a man for the production of his book. What Matthew has done, in fact, is to produce a second and enlarged edition of Mark. Moreover, the changes which he makes in Mark’s way of telling the story are not those corrections which an eyewitness might make in the account of one who was not an eyewitness. Thus, whereas in Mark’s Gospel we may be only one remove from eyewitnesses, in Matthew’s Gospel we are at one remove further still.”

    Francis Write Beare notes (The Gospel according to Matthew, p. 7): “But the dependence of the book upon documentary sources is so great as to forbid us to look upon it as the work of any immediate disciple of Jesus. Apart from that, there are clear indications that it is a product of the second or third Christian generation. The traditional name of Matthew is retained in modern discussion only for convenience.”
 
Is anyone here familiar with these claims? How can they be answered?

I’d really appreciate any help with clarification on this issue.

Thanks.
 
I believe it was written by Matthew. This text was referenced by the Didache as early as 80 to 100 AD.

If it was known then as “the gospel according to matthew”, then why should we doubt today.

I would add, modern “scholarly” efforts are mounting a relentless campaign aimed at injecting doubt and proposing sensational scenarios that reduce credibility of the gospel texts.

Nice try!
 
The Catholic Church decided in the first centuries after Christ which were the inspired books of the Bible. Many of the books of the Bible had already been universally known as inspired by then. Some of the ancient books such as the Gospel of Thomas were already known to be just human constructs. However, were was some uncertainty about a few books now in our Bible. So the Church considered what books were inspired at council and, using its authority given by God, decided which were legitimately considered to be the books of the Bible. If there is room to doubt which person wrote a book, the fact remains that the Church has already declared that he was inspired by God, and so that it is the word of God like other books of the Bible.
So I would not be concerned what men say about such matters, but as Catholics we should believe that the validity of books not in our Bible, or sometimes the lack of it, has already been passed on.
God gave the Catholic Church the power to teach rightly in such things. If God had not given the Church such authority, look at what would happen now. We would be unsure what the Bible itself is. If we were unsure that were the inspired books of the Bible, how could we even be sure what Christ said? We as Christians could be in sorry shape…
 
Apocryphal writings contain a mixture of good and bad. That is why they are apocryphal. It requires a great deal of discernment and knowledge of the Bible to be able to read them for what is good in them. And, when it is all boiled down to essentials, the good parts are also present in the Bible.

Yes, I agree that the Hebrews Gospel and Matthew are very closely related. Why study the first in depth when we have the second, which is more complete?
 
Well, I guess my question is did Matthew actually write this “Gospel according to the Hebrews” which several Church Fathers and saints seem to confirm? Did he write the Gospel which bears his name in our Bibles today?

From what I’ve read, this gospel is very different from both the canonical Gospel of Matthew and the other Gospels. For example; in the Gospel according to the Hebrews it is said that the lintel of the temple fell instead of the veil of the temple being rent, that Jesus’ burial shroud was given to the high priest, and that the first appearance of Christ after His Resurrection was witnessed by James the Just (who it also says was present at the Last Supper):

Jerome, On Matt. xxvii.51: “In the Gospel I so often mention we read, ‘A lintel of the Temple of immense size was broken and divided.’”

Jerome, Letter to Hedibia (ep. 120) 8: “In the Gospel written in Hebrew script we read not that the curtain of the temple was torn, but that the astonishingly large lintel of the temple collapsed.”

Jerome, De Viris Illustribus, 2: “The Gospel called according to the Hebrews which was recently translated by me into Greek and Latin, which Origen frequently uses, records after the resurrection of the Savior: ‘And when the Lord had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest, he 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 cup of the Lord until he should see Him risen from the dead.’ And shortly thereafter the Lord said: ‘Bring a table and bread!’ And immediately it 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 the dead.’’”

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.

Continued…
 
Continued…

There are also other things reported in this gospel which are not found in the canonical ones:

Cyril of Jerusalem, Discourse on Mary Theotokos 12a: “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.’”

Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah 4 [on Isaiah 11:2]: “In the Gospel written in the Hebrew script that the Nazarenes read, he whole fount of the Holy Spirit descends upon Him, for God is Spirit and where the Spirit resides, there is freedom. Further in the Gospel which we have just mentioned we find the following written: 'When the Lord came up out of the water the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descended upon Him and rested on Him saying, ‘My Son, in all the prophets was I waiting for You that You should come and I might rest in You. For You are My rest. You are My first begotten Son that prevails forever.’”

Jerome, Against Pelagius 3.2: “In the Gospel of the Hebrews, written in the Chaldee and Syriac language but in Hebrew script, and used by the Nazarenes to this day (I mean the Gospel of the Apostles, or, as it is generally maintained, the Gospel of Matthew, a copy of which is in the library at Caesarea), we find, 'Behold the mother of the Lord and his brothers said to him, ‘John the Baptist baptizes for the forgiveness of sins. Let us go and be baptized by him.’ But Jesus said to them, ‘in what way have I sinned that I should go and be baptized by him? Unless perhaps, what I have just said is a sin of ignorance.’”

Jerome, De Viris Illustribus, 3: “Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek (and the Greek has been lost) though by what author uncertain. The Hebrew original has been preserved to this present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it. It should be noted that wherever the Evangelist (whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord and Saviour) quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the language of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Therefore these two forms exist, ‘Out of Egypt have I called my Son,’ and, ‘For He will be called a Nazarene.’”

Origen, Commentary on John 2.12 & Homily on Jeremiah 15.4: “And if any accept the Gospel of the Hebrews, in which the Savior says: ‘Even so did my mother, the Holy Spirit, take me by one of my hairs, and carry me to the great mountain Tabor.’”

Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13.2: “In the Gospel called of Matthew which they call the Hebrew Gospel is written the following: ‘There was a certain man named Jesus, about thirty years old, who chose us. Coming to Capernaum, He entered the house of Simon, who is called Peter, and said, ‘As I passed by the Sea of Galilee, I chose John and James, sons of Zebedee, and Simon, and Andrew, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, Judas Iscariot; and you Matthew, sitting at the tax office, I called and you followed me. You therefore, I want to be the Twelve, to symbolize Israel.’ And “It so happened that John came baptizing, and Pharisees and all Jerusalem came out to him to get baptized. And John wore clothing made of camel hair and had a leather belt about his waist. His food,’ it continues, ‘consisted of wild honey that tasted like manna, like sweet cake cooked in oil.’”

Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 2: “In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call The Authentic Gospel of Matthew, the man who had the withered hand is described as a mason who begged for help in the following words: ‘I was a mason, earning a living with my hands. I beg you, Jesus, restore my health to me, so that I need not beg for my food in shame.’”

Didymus the Blind, Psalm Commentary 3: “Scripture seems to call Matthew ‘Levi’ in the Gospel of Luke. Yet it is not a question of one and the same person. Rather Matthias, who was installed as apostle in place of Judas, and Levi are the same person with a double name. This is clear from the Gospel of the Hebrews.”

Continued…
 
Continued…

Eusebius, Church History 3.39.16: "But concerning Matthew he [Papias] writes as follows: ‘So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.’ And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.

It also departs from orthodox Catholic doctrine in that it appears to teach Adoptionism, i.e. Jesus was seen to be merely human, being born of a physical union between Joseph and Mary and “adopted” at his baptism being chosen because of his sinless devotion to the will of God when the voice from heaven declared: “You are my beloved Son, this day have I begotten you”

Justin, Dialogue, 103: “The voice spoke to him, saying, ‘You are My Son, today I have begotten You”. This is recorded in the Gospel of the Apostles.’”

Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13.7: “After saying many things, this Gospel continues: 'After the people were baptized, Jesus also came and was baptized by John. And as Jesus came up from the water, Heaven was opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit descend in the form of a dove and enter into Him. And a voice from Heaven said, 'You are my beloved Son; with You I am well pleased.” And again, ‘Today I have begotten You. My Son, in all the prophets was I waiting for You that You should come and I might rest in You. For You are My rest. You are My first begotten Son that prevails forever’ Immediately a great light shone around the place; and John, seeing it, said to him, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And again a voice from Heaven said, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.’ Then John, falling down before him, said, ‘I beseech You, Lord, baptize me!’ But He forbade him saying, ‘Let it be so; for thus it is fitting that all things be fulfilled.’"

Moreover, it says that the Church Fathers wrote that this “Gospel according to the Hebrews” or “Gospel of the Hebrews” was composed by St. Matthew the Apostle. Epiphanius (315-403 AD) says that "They [the Nazarenes] have the Gospel according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this, in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written." (Panarion 29.9.4). Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies 3.1.1 also says, “Matthew also 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.” Wikipedia claims, “Pantaenus, Origen and other Church Fathers also believed Matthew wrote the Gospel of the Hebrews” citing Eusebius, Church History 5.10.3 & 6.25.4, and that “the Church Fathers never asserted that Matthew wrote the Greek Gospel found in the Bible.”

EarlyChristianWritings.com claims:
“The Gospel of the Nazaraeans (‘observers’) in Hebrew is believed to have been the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and the source for the present gospel (which was composed in Greek). There are reliable witnesses that this gospel was both used and circulated among the earliest followers of Yahshua in the diaspora. Some believe it originated in Egypt, and that the latest possible date it might have been written was during the first half of the second century; however, there are other opinions that it was composed in the middle of the first century, when ‘Jesus’ traditions were first being produced and collected. An earlier date is more likely than a later one. Jerome, Eusebius, and Hegesippus (the latter two not quoting it) make mention of it as do Origen, Clement (both Alexandrians). It is believed to have been known to Papias who died about 130 C.E. and may have quoted it in his lost ‘Exegesis of the Sayings of the Lord’ (which is now ‘lost’). It is significant to note that Nicephorus, when drawing up his list of canonical and apocryphal books, stated that the Gospel of the Hebrews contained only 2200 lines, 300 fewer than Matthew. It has been suggested that these three hundred lines are the birth narratives of the first and second chapters of our canonical Matthew.”
Click to expand...
The earliest followers of Yahshua believed that Yahshua was empowered by the Holy Spirit at his immersion, not at his birth (thus they did not include the later birth narratives in their gospel). The important point in using the word “rest” above is that it refers to the Jewish belief that the Messiah’s name will be called “Menachem”, or “rest”. You will also notice that while our present Matthew does not include the idea of the “firstborn” son (implying that there will be others), they use also the second phrase as quoted in Psalm 2:7 as well: “this day have I begotten thee”. You will note that John 1:14 is translated as the “only begotten”, but the word “only” there is an addition to the text. It should read “the begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He (the Father) hath declared.” The word “begotten” here implies only that he was in the Father’s bosom before the creation of the world. In the Hebrew, as used in Zechariah 12:10, the word for “only” is yachid meaning “beloved” and implying the “firstborn” son, and as the book of Hebrews states, that Yahvah would use Yahshua, His Firstborn, for “bringing many sons to glory” [Hebrews 2:10] as an “elder brother”. Please note that this gospel was written first in Hebrew by the testimony of several of the “church fathers.”
Click to expand...
 
WJL said:
Could anyone assist me with analyzing and addressing these claims?
Click to expand...
I think this has been addressed.

The Church has addressed this a long time ago when it developed the canon of Holy Scripture.

I also find it interesting that it is said that this “Gospel” denies the Virgin Birth and other teachings of the Church.

IMHO I don’t think anything else needs to be said.
 
Serious Christians should not waste time on the Apocrypha. Those great Church Fathers 1700 years closer to the actual events of Jesus and the Nazarenes decided these books were fraudulent and worthless. They were ordered destroyed. Who are we to say that the Church Fathers were wrong?!

This reminds me of the assertions that all of Shakespeare’s play were written by someone else- the main candidates being Francis Bacon and the Earl of Oxford. But, in fact, no one seriously questioned the plays’ authorship for some 150-200 years after Shakespeare’s death. It was only centuries later when these “conspiracy” theories began to arise- when it would be difficult to impossible to disprove them.
 
WJL said:
I was browsing Wikipedia and I came across a couple of articles:

Wikipedia - The Gospel according to the Hebrews
Wikipedia - Gospel of the Ebionites
Wikipedia - Gospel of the Nazoraeans
Wikipedia - Jewish-Christian Gospels
Wikipedia - Authentic Gospel of Matthew

In these articles it is claimed that a lost gospel known as “The Gospel according to the Hebrews” or “The Gospel of the Hebrews” is the ‘real’ or ‘authentic’ Gospel of Matthew:

“Matthean authenticity has been seriously challenged by many present day scholars. It was also an issue for the Early Church. It was believed by Jerome that the Gospel of the Hebrews was the true Gospel of Matthew (or Matthaei Authenticum).”

“Also, Epiphanius in his Panarion, in which he discusses the gospel used by the followers of Cerinthus, Merinthus and the Ebionites, writes: ‘They 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.’”

“The first reference to the Hebrew text written by the disciple Matthew comes from Papias. Papias starts by discussing the origin of the Gospel of Mark, and then further remarks that “Matthew composed the logia in the Hebrew tongue and each one interpreted them as he was able”. According to Ehrman this is not a reference to the canonical gospel, since the canonical Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek and not Hebrew.”

"Apart from Papias’ comment, we do not hear about the author of the Gospel until Irenaeus around 185 who remarks that Matthew also 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.

Pantaenus, Origen and other Early Church Fathers also believed Matthew wrote the Gospel of the Hebrews. Finally, the Church Fathers never asserted that Matthew wrote the Greek Gospel found in the Bible."

“Modern scholars such as E. Byron Nicholson affirm that in the time of Jerome time most people believed that the Gospel of the Hebrews was the Authentic Gospel of Matthew The study of the external evidence regarding this gospel shows that there existed among the Nazarenes and Ebionites one gospel commonly called the Gospel of the Hebrews. It was written in Aramaic with Hebrew letters. Its authorship was attributed to St. Matthew. Indeed the Fathers of the Church, while the Gospel of the Hebrews was still being circulated and read, referred to it always with respect, often with reverence: they accepted it as being the work of Matthew. This applies tenfold to Jerome.”

“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.’”

“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.”

"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”"
Click to expand...
The Gospel of the Hebrews dates to around mid second century. That’s well after all the Apostles were dead.
 
thistle said:
The Gospel of the Hebrews dates to around mid second century. That’s well after all the Apostles were dead.
Click to expand...
I have it on good authority that it was written by Paul. It is the same authority that says Peter asked John to write Revelation.

Now that we have asserted different facts based on different authorities, we can go on believing what we did before. 😉

Whoever wrote it did a most excellent job of imitating Paul. The minor stylistic differences that have been noted by others are easily explained by the fact that he was writing as a scholar to his own in Hebrews and in the other letters he was relating to gentiles and could drop the Jewish formal style of reasoning. It is the difference between a letter and a doctoral thesis.
 
rcjones said:
I have it on good authority that it was written by Paul. It is the same authority that says Peter asked John to write Revelation.

Now that we have asserted different facts based on different authorities, we can go on believing what we did before. 😉

Whoever wrote it did a most excellent job of imitating Paul. The minor stylistic differences that have been noted by others are easily explained by the fact that he was writing as a scholar to his own in Hebrews and in the other letters he was relating to gentiles and could drop the Jewish formal style of reasoning. It is the difference between a letter and a doctoral thesis.
Click to expand...
Gospel of the Hebrews (Egypt, mid 2nd century CE)

All that survives to us from the ‘Gospel of the Hebrews’ are several quotations made by Clement, Origen, Jerome, and Cyril of Jerusalem. Jerome took a lively interest in this book, an Aramaic copy of which he found in the famous library at Caesarea in Palestine. More than once he tells us (and with great pride) that he made translations of it into Greek and Latin. Unfortunately, these translations have been lost. According to the Stichometry of Nicephorus, it comprised 2200 lines, which is only 300 fewer than the length of the Gospel according to Matthew.

The time and place of origin are disputed, but since Clement used it in the last quarter of the 2nd century, it is usually dated to about the middle of that century. Egypt is indicated as its place of origin by the fact that its principal witnesses are the Alexandrians Clement and Origen, by the religio-historical character of two of the fragments, and by the conception of Jesus as the Son of the Holy Spirit, which is documented for Egypt by the Coptic Epistle of James. The original language of the gospel suggests that it was drawn up for Hebrew and Aramaic-speaking Jewish Christians in Palestine and Syria.
 
Isn’t the Gospel according to the hebrews AKA “Hebrew Matthew” and don’t most of the people on this board believe that it predates the Matthew we have in the Bible today?
 
rcjones said:
I have it on good authority that it was written by Paul. It is the same authority that says Peter asked John to write Revelation.

Now that we have asserted different facts based on different authorities, we can go on believing what we did before. 😉

Whoever wrote it did a most excellent job of imitating Paul. The minor stylistic differences that have been noted by others are easily explained by the fact that he was writing as a scholar to his own in Hebrews and in the other letters he was relating to gentiles and could drop the Jewish formal style of reasoning. It is the difference between a letter and a doctoral thesis.
Click to expand...
This thread is talking about the Gospel to the Hebrews, not the Epistle to the Hebrews that is found within the canon of Holy Scripture.
 
yes, here has been a confusion with the epistle

@thistle, I’m not sure how you conlcude it’s from middle second century. The fact people from 2nd century mentions it, doesn’t mean it’s from 2nd century, aonly means it’s from 2nd century OR EARLIER. Also the fact coptic gnostics have similarities with it doesn’t mean much, especially cos we don’t know much about the gospel of.
Smatter of fact, from the few thing we know about it, it seems it was very similar to the canonical Mattew gospel, which contradicts a little the fact it has gnostic influences.

@steve53 I might agree regarding most apocripha, but I don’t know if this text should be included among the usual apocripha. (By the way, church fathers were human (and not necessarily precise historians), so they were as fallible as everyone, but that can be another discussion).

Because of the similarities of the text, early church fathers could have confused texts and authors (canonical Matthew can be just a translation of the Gospel of the hebrews, with some addenda and “corrections”, but I cannot be sure of that, (I’ve read somewhere, for instance, that it includes the history of the adulterer woman we can find in John), Of course, catholic church will deny that the gospel of the hebrews was writen by Matthew, but I can find easy explanations for that, and for me, with all respect, that doesn’t mean much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top