Talk:Hebrew Gospel

Redirect to Aramaic Primacy

The earliest and arguably most notable use of the term "Hebrew Gospel" appears to be per Eerdmans commentary on the Bible ed. James D. G. Dunn, John William Rogerson 2003 p180 "Irenaeus of Lyons (180) speaks of Matthew as the author of a Hebrew Gospel which Irenaeus views as a source of the Greek Gospel According to Matthew, which he possessed. No Hebrew or Aramaic collection of Jesus' sayings has survived, so its existence must remain hypothetical." On the conflation of Hebrew/Aramaic the same is found in texts by advocates as opponents of Aramaic Primacy e.g.The Words of Jesus in the Original Aramaic Stephen Andrew Missick - 2006 p316 "So we know that although it is called the "Hebrew" Gospel, Aramaic is meant." On this basis then a redirect to Aramaic Primacy

The alternative would be a redirect to Jewish-Christian Gospels, including Gospel of the Nazarenes, Gospel of the Ebionites, Gospel of the Hebrews etc. but these are what the umbrella terms says, Gospels related to specific groups, not related to the broader idea of Aramaic primacy

A redirect to Gospel of the Hebrews alone, which is 7 quotes in Jerome would probably be the least useful redirect. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry, however I do not see how a REDIRECT titled "Hebrew Gospel" could be better equated with any other title than "Gospel of the Hebrews". Is not the Gospel of the Hebrews the very same thing as the Hebrew Gospel? It appears that targeting any other article would only serve to confuse readers. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 05:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paine No, they aren't the same thing:

"the Hebrew Gospel" is a phrase from Irenaeus which, in as far as it is used today (which isn't often) refers to the belief in an Aramaic Ur-Matthew. The Words of Jesus in the Original Aramaic p197 Stephen Andrew Missick - 2006 "So we know that although it is called the "Hebrew" Gospel, Aramaic is meant."
The Gospel of the Hebrews is an academic name, used by Schneemelcher's standard edition, to refer to the Greek fragments of one of 3 known Jewish-Christian Gospels, composed in Greek (just as Epistle to the Hebrews is in Greek to Jewish-Christians). The Other gospels: non-canonical gospel texts p83 Ron Cameron - 1982 "The Gospel of the Hebrews (Gos. Heb.) is a syncretistic, Jewish- Christian document, composed in Greek, which presents traditions of Jesus' preexistence and coming into the world, his baptism and temptation, ..."

So which of these two do you intend the redirect to go to? Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 06:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have noted in my edit summary in the Gospel of the Hebrews article, it was St. Jerome who referred to this gospel as the "Hebrew Gospel". And I cited it for you. Therefore, I must still maintain that the REDIRECT is routed properly to the Gospel of the Hebrews article. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 06:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paine. Yes. But what makes you think that every time the phrase "Hebrew Gospel is used it refers to the Greek Gospel of the Hebrews and cannot refer to any other of the several Jewish-Christian Gospels or an Aramaic Gospel? We know how Jerome used the phrase. By the same logic English Bible must be redirected to Tyndale Bible, or dog must redirect to Cocker Spaniel? Redirects are supposed to go to the widest part of the umbrella.In ictu oculi (talk) 07:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration as noted on my Talk page. Since I continue to feel that rerouting this REDIRECT to any but its present target would serve only to confuse readers, I am again grateful for your assent to keep it this way. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 13:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem is with this current routing that articles mentioning the phrase "Hebrew Gospel" are being directed to a text which was composed in Greek. Ideally when doing/updating a REDIRECT a check should be made to see if the context of the way the redirect is used in articles supports the change, and where a minority of articles do not, edit a better redirect in the article.In ictu oculi (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked out the references (see Google Link)and they support Paine - Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew not Greek

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

List of Secondary Sources

^ Justin, Dialogue,
^ Irenaeus, Against Heresies
^ Tertullian, On Prayer 26
^ Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis
^ Origen,
^ Eusebius, Theophany on Matthew
^ Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History
^ Didymus, Commentary on Psalm
^ Epiphanius, Panarion
^ Jerome, On Psalm 135
^ Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah
^ Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel
^ Jerome, Commentary on Micah
^ Jerome, Commentary on Matthew
^ Jerome’s Letter to Damascus 20 on Matthew 21.9
^ Jerome, Letter 120 to Hedibia
^ Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians
^ Jerome, Against Pelagius
^ Jerome, On Illustrious Men,

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

Summary by Epiphanius:
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 expounded and declared the Gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script. - Epiphanius, Panarion 30.3.7

Summary by Jerome:
"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, Matthew's Gospel, a copy of which is in the library at Caesarea), we find . . ." - Jerome, Against Pelagius 3.2

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

Clarification by Jerome:
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 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. - Jerome, On Illustrious Men 3

Clarification by Jerome:
In this last he bore witness to the Gospel which I have recently translated . - Jerome, On Illustrious Men

Language clarification by Jerome:
The Gospel called of the Hebrews, recently translated by me into Greek and Latin, which Origen often uses, states ... - Jerome, On Illustrious Men, 2

Clarification by Jerome:
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 (or " Matthaei Authenticum " ) the . . . - Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 2

Clarification by Jerome:
And whoever accepts the Gospel circulating under the title "Gospel of the Hebrews", which we most recently translated, in which it is said by the Saviour, “Even now my mother, the Holy Spirit, carried me away by one of my hairs,” will not hesitate to say that the Word of God proceeds from the Spirit, and that the soul, which is the bride of the Word, has the Holy Spirit (which in " Hebrew " is feminine in gender, RUA). - Jerome, Commentary on Micah 7.6

Finally, it must be stated that among the sources to the time of Jerome there is no mention of a Gospel of the Ebionites or a Gospel of the Nazarenes nor is there any mention of either the Ebionites or the Nazarenes ever composing their own Gospel. The sources are in agreement that these Jewish groups used Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion

There seems to be a lot of debate here about where this should redirect to. To cut the Gordian knot, as it were, can I suggest this page would serve better as a disambiguation page between the various uses of the term, rather than trying to thrash out which particular document is the "real" Hebrew Gospel. I've put a draft here; if there are no objections I will post it to this page in a couple of days. Moonraker12 (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great suggestion; it will eliminate a lot of confusion. In addition to the deleted Proto-Matthew article (which I did not know about), you should be aware of several other deleted articles: Authentic Matthew, Authentic Gospel of Matthew, Aramaic Matthew, and Hebrew Gospel (Aramaic), (and Aramaic Gospel hypothesis which is a legitimate disambiguation), which all currently direct to Hebrew Gospel hypothesis. As you pointed out, the Proto-Matthew article should point there as well. These deleted articles were all pointed toward older articles such as Aramaic New Testament, Jewish-Christian Gospels, or Gospel of the Hebrews as redirects so that the more recent Hebrew Gospel hypothesis could not be deleted as a WP:POV-fork. Tricky Dick would be proud. Ignocrates (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to consider making a redirect for Aramaic Ur-Matthew, mentioned above, as well. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moonraker, hi thanks it's possible that a disamb might serve some purpose. Provided the terms used in it are using the terms as used by mainstream academic sources, but that means Hebrew Gospel hypothesis and rabbinical translations of Matthew which is a WP:TWODAB. The rest of the create-delete-create-delete-create-delete litany of dead articles and redirects are simply the WP:FRINGE "Aramaic primacy" (sic) and "lost Gospel" theories reoccuring every 6 months, as now pasted, yet again, into Hebrew Gospel hypothesis. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've grasped the nettle and gone ahead with it. I'm aware that the terms I've chosen may not be the soundest, academically, so if anyone has anything better that fits the bill I'm open to suggestions. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]