Talk:Gospel according to the Hebrews

Stub Class

This article is stub-class. It contains original research, few sources and no footnotes. Please help me upgrade this article. 129.97.58.107 (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

The primary references IE (The Gospel according to the Hebrews) have been lost or destroyed. There we must use secondary or tertiary material. Unfortunately these sources have a strong and often contradictory point of view. Therefore, I suggest we edit this article slowly, with scholarly debate. We must work hard to follow Wikipedia policy. 129.97.58.107 (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added several references to the article. 129.97.58.107 (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most widely known of the non canonical gospels

Added and referenced material 129.97.58.107 (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship, time and place of origin are disputed but Gospel according to the Hebrews shows no dependence on New Testament writings.

Material based on Ron Cameron's The Other Gospels: Non-canonical Gospel Texts. 129.97.58.107 (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation of the Gospel according to the Hebrews: deleted original research and added material from Nicholson

Nicholson's The Gospel according to the Hebrews is the most extensive and verifiable source avaiable. [1]

129.97.58.107 (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Church Fathers & The Number of Hebrew Gospels

The Church Fathers believed that there was only one Hebrew Gospel 129.97.58.107 (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note for this edit and the following I am relying to a large degree on: Schopp, Ludwig (Founding Ed.) The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, The Catholic University of America Press Inc., SQ 1948-2008 (Volumes 1-117) but often verify with Early Church Fathers [2] which is more readily available.

There are several Church Fathers who write of there being only one Gospel. The two I cite are:

Church History, Eusebius, (III xxv 5) http://www.bible.ca/history/fathers/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-08.htm#P1923_887432

The only Hebrew gospel listed is as follows, "And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books."

Panarion, Epiphanius, (XXX iii 7) [3]

And they call it according to the Hebrews, to tell the truth because Matthew alone in the New Covenant set both the exposition and preaching of the Gospel in Hebrew speech and Hebrew characters.

129.97.58.107 (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship

The following show the full text in context:

Did Matthew ever write a gospel in Hebrew?

But concerning Matthew he 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.." C.H. III xxxix [[4]]

I now speak of the New Testament, which is undoubtedly Greek, except the Apostle Matthew, who had first set forth the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters in Judea. (Jerome's Letter to Pope Damasus) [[5]]

Was Matthew's Hebrew gospel the Gospel according to the Hebrews?

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

http://www.bible.ca/history/fathers/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-17.htm#P7757_2507136

And they too receive the Gospel according to Matthew and like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus, they use it alone. But They call it the Gospel according to the Hebrews, to speak truthfully, Matthew alone of the New Testament writers presents and proclaims and declared the gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script. (Panarion of Epiphanius, XXX iii 7)

[[6]]

129.97.58.107 (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of section "The Church Fathers"

I removed the below for the reasons cited;

The Church Fathers
Although the majority of modern Biblical scholars view the writings of the Church Fathers with disdain and argue that their works are totally unreliable, these writings must be studied, as they are the only source of information on the Gospel according to the Hebrews. The following is a brief summary of their understanding as found in the Early Church Fathers http://www.bible.ca/history/fathers/ and the Gospel according to the Hebrews by Nicholson.

The "majority of modern Biblical scholars" claim is unreferenced and while a request for citation tag could have been applied, I personally believe the claim to be so overstated that no supporting citation is likely to be provided. In any case, what matters is not the general attitude to the Church Fathers, but the question of reliability of specific sources relevant to Gos. Heb.
The remark about "following is a brief summary" doesn't actually seem to refer to anything. If it does, then it should be noted that a brief summary of primary works such as Schaff's Early Church Fathers can come very close to a breach of the Wikipedia OR guidelines - "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source."

I don't think the article suffers from removal of this small amount of material but would invite people to comment nevertheless. -- Muzhogg (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I've added an NPOV tag, mostly because of the sections headed "The Number of Hebrew Gospels: One" and "Authorship". The former assigns one sentence to the view that there were multiple such gospels, and doesn't even explain the bases for that view. The rest of the section is an argument for why there was just one such — even going so far as to bold the phrase "only one". The latter doesn't even mention the view that the gospel might have been written by anyone besides Matthew: the reader is left to infer it from the author's obvious vehemence in espousing the contrary view.

The irony is that the article's author may well be right, and (s)he may well be able to make a convincing case for his/her viewpoint; but I (a completely uninformed reader) can't help but notice the unsubtle and unskilled silencing of other viewpoints, so I come out of the article very doubtful of the author's claims. The author is just so vehement about his/her views, that I get a "methinks the lady doth protest too much" sensation.

—Ruakh_TALK 00:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. This article has NPOV problem IE "The Number of Hebrew Gospels: One" and "Authorship". The difficulty is that the primary source has been lost. Therefore we are stuck with the Church Fathers as our only source of material for this gospel. The Church Fathers were confused at best and dishonest at worst... 207.164.192.116 (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

The " Gospel according to the Hebrews" is the more common title96.22.215.70 (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]