Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews/Archive 1

Archived 24 Aug 2005

For best discussion see Authentic Matthew!

Melissa

I have read "Vandal's" editing and would like to know why Wetman takes issue with it. Indeed, it seems to be simply expanding on what Wetman himself says.

The Gospel of the Hebrews, probably identical to the Gospel of the Ebionites, is a lost harmonic gospel that is only preserved in a few quotations in the Panarion of Epiphanius, a church writer who lived at the end of the 4th century C.E.. The work was earlier than that, however: Irenaeus attested to a Matthew already used by Ebionites late in the 2nd century.ry on Matthew 1)

but Jerome says

"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. . ." (Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 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). . ."

(Jerome, Against Pelagius 3.2)

"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."

(Jerome, On Illustrious Men 3)

Is it possible that Matthew wrote the Gospel of the Hebrews and that the Nazarenes and the Ebionites merely used it?

I can't find an edit by "Vandal" in the edit history: was I being speciously critical? I hope my recasting improved the text at that point. Here I am again, removing the following:

Unfortunately, the name Gospel of the Hebrews appears to have also been ascribed as a generic term for Judaeo-Christian gospels, and has lead to some confusion with the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and the Gospel of the Ebionites. Unhelpfully, both of these seem, to some extent, derived or connected to it, and may in fact simply be variations of the same work, making seperation of these three, to determine the answer to this question, extremely difficult.

I've used this as a basis for a new subsection: "About titles" that could be repeated at each of these articles, when it's good enough. Wouldn't that make sense? Did I omit good factual material in revising it? Any further ideas on titling issues for this paragraph in the article? Edit them in.--Wetman 23:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

and the following:

Such harmonies are fairly easy to construct, for the Synoptic Gospels are remarkably similar, many theorising that the main body is based on one text (now considered to be Mark - see Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem), and as such it is difficult to seperate arguments that it is a harmony from arguments that it is a source.

I mentioned and linked to Diatessaron instead. I've made a redirect Harmonic gospel => Diatessaron. Should there be a subsection on harmonized gospel in general there? --Wetman 23:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

a script all but identical to Hebrew: will this do? the point is essential in this article

That could work. These are my only points: There is an Old Hebrew alphabet, it was used in the first temple period, roughly 1000-586bce. In the period before the second temple, the Aramaic alphabet was adopted [Aramaic was the dominate and more or less universal language of the region] to record the Hebrew language. It's not as big as a leap as it sounds, the languages are very closely related and both alphabets are phonetic with similar language sounds. There is some Aramaic in the Jewish Bible - I might be mistaken but I think it's the proclamation to rebuild the temple, it's recorded in Aramaic and Hebrew - in the same alphabet/script - which is the square letters which are commonly called Hebrew but are actually the Aramaic alphabet which was adopted by the Jews in exile. So, my apologies for getting in your way, which is not my intention, at least here (lol) - actually my only interest is in getting the facts down correctly, and in this article the stuff I just wrote is probably just a source of confusion and not necessarily that important. So I'll let you take it from here. 64.169.2.158 7 July 2005 04:40 (UTC)

Work your points that need to be made into the article. It's generally best if you're reporting facts, and for interpretations you have some published sources (with which you agree) that you can quote. But obvious logical inferences and plain mainstream opinions don't need backing up at each stage, naturally. --Wetman 7 July 2005 04:50 (UTC)

What would you think of this: Aramaic, written in the same "square script" used to record Hebrew 64.169.2.158 7 July 2005 05:41 (UTC)

I assume the point you're trying to make is that only someone who knew Hebrew or Aramaic could tell them apart, which is correct, whereas pretty much anyone can tell Latin from Greek from Aramaic/Hebrew because the alphabets are very different. An A is different from an Alpha is different from an Aleph ... though you can see there is a Phoenician connection. 64.169.2.158 7 July 2005 07:29 (UTC)

Confusions?

This article seems to be in danger of confusing:

1. Patristic references to a 'Gospel of the Hebrews' - which probably means used by the early Jewish Christians, and the extant quotations from are all in Greek. According to Klijn this may be independent from canonical Matthew.

No confusion at all about this being independent of canonical Greek Matthew and that it was used by early Jewish Christians, "probably" being unnecessary. Klijn need not be singled out where the agreement is general. Is it confusing that in a Greek context the quotations are rendered in Greek? Not likely, when it is the sense that is being quoted: where do quotations left in Aramaic appear in any Greek text that is not directly concerned with the vocabulary or grammar of the Aramaic language?

1. A certain contested reading of Papius (as quoted by Eusebius) which states that Matthew wrote in 'dialect of the Hebrews'. Which may mean Aramaic or Hebrew language (although may also simply mean Hebrew rhetorical style). --Doc (?) 00:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Who has suggested that there ever was a Hebrew Matthew? Is not Aramaic the plainest reading of "a dialect of the Hebrews"? Was not the Aramaic script essentially using Hebrew letterforms? If there a real danger of authentic confusions here, let us be precise over what they may entail. The usage "a certain..." when "an unidentified..." is intended, often serves to induce confusion, however. But to be blunt, what is the agenda of these contortions? Let us address it and eliminate unnecessary "confusions" while we clarify in the article what needs clarifying. --Wetman 01:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment from afield: I honestly think this is a valid topic for an article--but because the various works on the subject mesh so poorly, it requires a bit of synthesis to write something even mildly worth reading on the subject. Doing so draws us dangerously close to the prohibition against original research. I don't mind original research so much as some others do, but in this case, it would behoove us to be mindful of what does and doesn't constitute OR, so we don't step too far outside the lines. To make a decent article, a bit of synthesis will ultimately be required, so I foresee some heated debates in the future, but there's a lot that can be written before trying to tie the whole thing together. Ultimately, I think that if we all commit to concentrating on hashing out differences of opinion here on the TALK page instead of blindly fighting each other via edit summaries, this article can eventually reach Featured Article status. Tomer ^TALK 03:41, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for those comments, Tomer, which are encouraging. I will redouble my efforts on a new draft for this page and report back when I have something worth your review. --Peter Kirby 04:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Careful editing

Hey, all, please be careful editing here. The very first sentence now ends "who goes on to say that." - which of course is completely nonsensical. I'm not going to fix this, because I'm going to keep an eye on the article, and protect it if an edit war breaks out, and I don't want any mindless Wiki-lawyering whining about how "you edited the article"; so, someone else will have to fix it. Noel (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)