The Jewish-Christian Gospels, pt. 1: Ebionites and Nazaraeans

I've been promising this for a long time, so I better finally deliver :)

To explain the identification of Q with GEbi, and of both GEbi and GNaz (and perhaps GPet) with "GHeb", we'll need to sort out the evidence regarding these gospels and their relationships with not only GMt but also GLk-Ac. This will take several posts. I largely draw on Ben Smith's extremely helpful pages on the Jewish-Christian Gospels (helpfully indexed here), but augment this occasionally with material from elsewhere. I do not really rely on any one study of these gospels (such as Klijn or Luomanen) because I think that so far, no one has sorted out these gospels quite right. I believe that the HSH will help us see the true relationships.

I generally use Ben Smith's translations, but rely on Frank Williams' translation of Epiphanius. I copy the Greek from Ben Smith as well, who does not use diacritical marks. When translating the phrase "according to the Hebrews", I place it in quotation marks: otherwise when referring to it I use acc. Heb.

(ETA: fixed the translations from Jerome--I had accidentally deleted an intermediary block.)

So, let's begin with our first observation:

1. The gospel of the Ebionites, and that of the Nazareans, were different texts, as nearly all scholars now recognize.



Most scholars agree Epiphanius is likely the only witness to the Ebionites gospel. He quotes the gospel that the Ebionites called "according to the Hebrews" and "the Hebraic" as follows (from the Greek):

And as he came up out of the water the heavens opened, and he saw the holy spirit of God in the image of a dove coming down and coming onto him. And there was a voice from heaven saying: You are my beloved son. With you I am pleased. And again: Today I have begotten you. And immediately a great light illuminated the place. When John saw this, it says, he said to him: Who are you Lord? And again there was a voice from heaven to him: This is my beloved son, with whom I am pleased. And then, it says, John walked to him and said: I request you, Lord, You baptize me. (Panarion 30.13.7-8)

Whereas Jerome, around the same time, quotes "the gospel which the Nazaraeans read" as follows (from the Latin):

When the Lord ascended from the water, the whole fount of the holy spirit descended, and rested over him, and said to him: My son, in all the prophets I was expecting you, that you should come and I might rest in you. You indeed are my rest. You are my first-born son, who reigns in eternity. (On Isaiah 4)

Even taking into account the different languages of translation, these are clearly different gospels (and different from any canonical accounts). The second says nothing of the (Markan) saying, "You are my beloved son. With you I am pleased." It has no reminiscence of Is 42.1 at all; instead, it presents a highly theological account of the "rest" of God in Jesus, and of Jesus' prophesied coming and eternal reign. The Ebionite gospel contained none of this.

We will eventually discuss the relationship of the baptism passage in GEbi with the Synoptic versions, showing that it has been misinterpreted as a conflation, rather than an intermediary as the HSH proposes. For now, we can simply accept that GEbi and GNaz were different gospels.

2. Although the Ebionite gospel was called "Hebrew" or "according to the Hebrews", it was written in Greek.

This is a consensus judgment by scholars. We first hear of the Ebionites in Irenaeus in the late second century, and then repeatedly throughout the Late Antique period. Epiphanius states at Pan. 30.3.7 that the Ebionites used a "Gospel according to Matthew" but called it "According to the Hebrews" (κατα Εβραιους). He then states that "It is true to say that only Matthew put the setting forth and the preaching of the Gospel into the New Testament in the Hebrew language and alphabet". But this is not to say that the Ebionite gospel was written in Hebrew, any more than it is to say that Matthew was written in Hebrew. The wordplay described at Pan. 30.15.5 (ακρις vs. ενκρις) also indicates the Ebionite gospel was a Greek gospel, and Pan. 30.22.3-4 explains in detail that the Ebionites added Μη to Lk 22:15, so as to read Μη επιθυμια επεθυμησα, a Greek addition to a Greek text.

At Pan. 30.13.2, Epiphanius clarifies that the Ebionite's gospel resembled Matthew's gospel, but was "not entirely complete, but is corrupt and mutilated". He also states "they call this thing 'Hebrew'!" (Εβραικον δε τουτο καλουσιν) but that is only to describe what the Ebionites called it; it is not to describe its actual language. The differences between the Ebionite gospel and Matthew's gospel are not attributed to a different language: rather, they are attributed to corruption and mutilation.

Thus the Ebionites had a "not entirely complete" and "corrupt and mutilated" version of Matthew's gospel--a Greek gospel--that they called "Hebrew" or "Hebraic" (Εβραικον) or "according to the Hebrews" (κατα Εβραιους). That term may describe its contents or its cultural association, but it does not describe its language.

3. The Nazaraean gospel was also called "Hebrew" or "according to the Hebrews", but was written in Aramaic or Syriac. 

We don't read about "Nazoraeans" (Ναζωραιοι) until Epiphanius; these are called "Nazaraeans" (Nazaraeni) or "Nazarenes" (Nazareni) in Jerome. As Jerome explains:

In the gospel according to the Hebrews, which indeed is written in Chaldean and Syrian speech, but with Hebraic letters, which the Nazarenes use until this day, according to the apostles, or as most term it according to Matthew (Against the Pelagians 3.2)

In evangelio iuxta Hebraeos, quod Chaldaico quidem Syroque sermone sed Hebraicis litteris scriptum est, quod utuntur usque hodie Nazareni, secundum apostolos, sive ut plerique autumant iuxta Matthaeum

Jerome says he translated this gospel:

...[T]he gospel which the Nazaraeans and Ebionites use, which we recently translated from Hebrew speech into Greek, and which is called by many the authentic [gospel] of Matthew (Commentary on Matthew 2)

...evangelio quo utuntur Nazaraeni et Ebionitae, quod nuper in Graecum de Hebraeo sermone transtulimus, et quod vocatur a plerisque Matthaei authenticum

And he states this more than once:

...[T]he gospel which is named according to the Hebrews, and which was recently translated by me into Greek and Latin (On Famous Men 2)

Evangelium...quod appellatur secundum Hebraeos, et a me nuper in Graecum Latinumque sermonem translatum est

...the gospel which we recently translated, that published as according to the Hebrews (On Micah 2) 

evangelio quod secundum Hebraeos editum nuper transtulimus  

There's no reason to suspect that these passages do not all refer to the same text: a gospel written in Aramaic and translated into Greek and Latin, that the Nazaraeans used. Jerome also calls this gospel acc. Heb. at On Isaiah 11: "the gospel which the Nazaraeans read, written according to the Hebrews" (iuxta Hebraeos scriptum). So, wherever Jerome refers to the "Hebraic" (Hebraico) gospel, or the gospel named or written "according to the Hebrews" (secundum/iuxta Hebraeos), he seems to be referring to this same gospel, i.e. the Nazaraean gospel.

Some scholars doubt he really translated the entire gospel, and I share those doubts, but he must have translated some of it, at least. Klijn, for example, Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition, calls Jerome's claims "pure fantasy", but this incredible. Jerome is so insistent that he translated this gospel that it must be true in some sense, even if it was not complete and even if he had assistance. Luomanen calls this gospel a "slightly altered version of the canonical Matthew" [Recovering Jewish-Christian Sects and Gospels, p. 173]. Whether that is accurate or not--personally I feel it was more of a reworking of Matthew's gospel--even Luomanen agrees that Jerome translated some portion of it, however slight. It seems Jerome's translations must also be the sources for the medieval references to a gospel acc. Heb., for their fantastic nature seems rather far removed from the Ebionite gospel. A copy or some other transcription (and perhaps two) of whatever fragments Jerome translated seems to have made its way to France, and possibly also Ireland.

Despite Jerome's claim that this gospel was used by both the Nazaraeans and the Ebionites, this Nazaraean gospel is clearly to be distinguished from the Ebionite gospel. This is true, even if (as some claim) there was never really a "Nazaraean" sect per se, just a group of Jewish Christians with a somewhat distinctive version of GMt. And Jerome never quotes from the Ebionite gospel; he only ever quotes the Aramaic Nazaraean one. Perhaps the Ebionites could have used more than one gospel, but Jerome may simply be mistaken here: in the passage from Pelagians above, he also identifies the Nazaraean gospel with a gospel he calls "according to the apostles" (secundum apostolos), but Schneemelcher and Wilson note that "the majority of critics are inclined to identify [the gospel according to the (twelve) apostles] with the Gospel of the Ebionites" (New Testament Apocrypha 2003, 374). So Jerome seems prone to confusing his Aramaic Nazaraean gospel with the Ebionite one. All he really knew of both was that they were each called "Hebrew" or acc. Heb.

We leave aside for now the question of whether Jerome's citations of this gospel may occasionally refer to a third gospel acc. Heb., in Greek. In fact, I will argue that he does, when influenced by other authors such as Origen. But first we must explore the possibilities for that gospel by exploring the references to a gospel acc. Heb. in the works of the Alexandrian school. ETA: I don't think they do, but I will discuss one other text besides the Ebionite and Nazaraean gospels, that was also called a gospel acc. Heb. First, however, we must examine the references to the gospel acc. Heb. in the writings of the early Alexandrian theologians.