SUPPLEMENTS TO
VIGILIAE CHRISTIANAE Formerly Philosophia Patrum T E X T S A N D STUDIES O F EARLY C H R I S T I A N LI...
55 downloads
1093 Views
4MB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
SUPPLEMENTS TO
VIGILIAE CHRISTIANAE Formerly Philosophia Patrum T E X T S A N D STUDIES O F EARLY C H R I S T I A N LIFE AND LANGUAGE
EDITORS J . D E N B O E F T — R. V A N D E N B R O E K — A . F . J . K L I J N G. Q U I S P E L — J . C . M . V A N W I N D E N
VOLUME XVII
JEWISH-CHRISTIAN GOSPEL TRADITION
A. F.J. KLIJN
E.J. BRILL LEIDEN • NEW YORK • K0BENHAVN • KOLN 1992
T h e paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources.
ISSN ISBN
0920-623X 90 04 09453 9
© Copyright 1992 by E.J. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any other means without written permission from the publisher Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by E.J. Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 27 Congress Street, SALEM MA 01970, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS
CONTENTS
Preface
VII
PART ONE 1. T h e Evidence for Jewish Christiaa-Gospels Introduction 3 Irenaeus 4 Clement of Alexandria 4 Origen 6 Didymus the Blind 8 Eusebius 8 Epiphanius 14 Jerome 16 G r e e k and Latin Writers after Jerome 20 Toloudmkon 25 Conclusion 26 2. T h e Jewish-Christian Gospels Introduction 27 Number, language, date, place of origin and names of the Jewish-Christian Gospels .. : 27 T h e Contents of the Jewish-Christian Gospels 30 T h e History of the Jewish-Christian Gospels 32 Sources 36 Christology 39 Epilogue 41 PART TWO Text and Commentary
47
ABBREVIATIONS
147
BIBLIOGRAPHY
148
PREFACE
Christian authors from the second century up till the fourteenth century have written about the existence of Jewish-Christian Gospels and some of them have even q u o t e d from t h e m . Many p e o p l e have s u p p o s e d t h a t they p r o v i d e information about Jesus which is not available in the canonical Gospels, but others have rejected t h e m because of their heretical or absurd character. Gradually they fell into oblivion which meant that their contents were no longer known and the information about them became more and more unreliable. Modern scholarship has again become interested in the contents of these apocryphal Gospels and has begun to collect the various references to them in early Christian authors. Isolated quotations have been frequently published in o r d e r t o give an impression of the original text of these Jewish-Christian Gospels. The reason why early Christian authors quoted them was usually not elaborated in these studies. Chapter I of Part One tries to fill in a gap in our knowledge of the value given to these Jewish-Christian Gospels by early Christian writers. The latter do not a d o p t a very critical attitude towards t h e m but their interest in these Gospels is surprisingly great. C h a p t e r II of Part O n e goes into t h e n u m b e r , date, place of origin, contents, sources and theology of Jewish-Christian Gospels. The results of this chapter are frequently based upon the Commentaries to the various Texts which are given in Part Two. In the course of the preparation of this work, it became clear that many problems had to be solved. I am grateful that many friends and collaegues were prepared to help in various ways of whom we like to mention Professor Dr. B. Bischoff, Professor Dr. R. van den Broek, Dr. A. Hilhorst, Professor Dr. G. P. Luttikhuizen, Dr. G. J. R e i n i n k , Professor Dr. J. C. M. van W i n d e n and Professor Dr. J. Z a n d e e T. In spite of their valuable and indispensable help a few questions still await a definitive answer. Dr. F.Garcia Martinez and Dr. H. E. Gaylord helped me to give this work its final shape. I am extremely grateful to both. This is the last work on Jewish-Christianity in a series of books and articles which I have written in the course of the last twenty years. It has b e e n work based upon second-hand sources which d e m a n d a critical approach. I hope there will still be many others prepared to approach the subject in the same way and willing to continue this work.
PART ONE
CHAPTER ONE
T H E E V I D E N C E F O R JEWISH-CHRISTIAN GOSPELS Introduction Almost from the beginning of Christianity reference has b e e n made to the existence of Jewish-Christian Gospels. None of these Gospels is known to us today. For their contents we must depend solely on quotations or purported q u o t a t i o n s found in C h r i s t i a n writers. T h e s e quotations a r e s o m e t i m e s provided in order to demonstrate the deviant views of Jewish-Christians. But often they have b e e n assumed to provide information about Jesus unknown from other sources and, especially, from the canonical Gospels. This means that they have been approached both with a sense of abhorrence because of their h e r e t i c a l n a t u r e b u t also often with curiosity because of their supposed antiquity. 1
Some of these quotations from Jewish-Christian Gospels were extracted from the original sources but other ones were copied from even earlier writers or are of dubious origin. It is clear that various Jewish-Christian Gospels have been mixed up. Some references were held to have been taken from the original Aramaic or Hebrew Gospel of Matthew or to be at least related to that Gospel. In addition to this, mediaeval writers began to ascribe without any clear basis interesting historical information of unknown origin to a Jewish-Christian Gospel. In this survey we have to account for these and similar possibilities. However, this chapter has not been primarily written to go into these questions, although they may come up in the discussion but to show how Christian authors have dealt with Jewish-Christian Gospels. The oldest known authors who spoke about Jewish-Christian Gospels or used them were Papias and Hegesippus. But since their testimony is to be found
1
S e e Th. Zahn, Gesch. des neut. Kanons II 2, 642-742; E . Preuschen, Antilegomena (Giessen 1 9 0 5 ) 3 - 1 2 ; M . R . J a m e s , The Apocryphal New Testament ( O x f o r d 1 9 2 4 , 1 9 6 8 ) 1-10; E . Klostermann, Apocrypha II, Evangelien (Berlin 1929 ) 4-15; A . de Santos Otero, Los Evangelios Apocrifos (Madrid 1946) 32-57; W. Michaelis, Die apokryphen Schriften zum Neuen Testament ( B r e m e n 1956, 1 9 5 8 , 1 9 6 2 ) 1 1 2 - 1 3 1 ; E . H e n n e c k e - W . S c h n e e m e l c h e r , Neutestamentliche Apokryphen I ( T u b i n g e n 1 9 5 9 ) 7 5 - 1 0 8 ( P . V i e l h a n e r ) ; L. M o r a l d i , Apocrifi del Nuovo Testamento I (Torino 1971) 355-361 and 371-385; M . Erbetta, Gli Apocrifi del Nuovo Testamento, Vangeli... ( M a r i e t t a 1975) 111-136; Apokryfy Nowego Testamentu. P o d redakcja K s . Marka S t a r o w i e y s k i e g o , T o m . I : Ewangelie Apokryficzne (Lublin 1986) 67-79; W . S c h n e e m e l c h e r , Neutestamentliche Apokryphen I (Tubingen 1 9 8 7 ) 114-147 (P. Vielhauer t u. G. Strecker) and also Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, ed. K. Aland (Stuttgart 1963 etc.) Index; R. M c L Wilson, Apokryphen II, TRE 111, 316-362, esp. 327-330; G. Howard, T h e Gospel of the mAomX.es, ANRW 2 5 , 5 ( B e r l i n - N e w Y o r k 1 9 8 8 ) 4 0 3 4 - 4 0 5 3 , a n d A . F . J. K l i j n , D a s H e b r a e r - u n d d a s Nazoraerevangeiium,yiA/KW'25,5 (Berlin-New York 1988) 3997-4033. 9
3
2
3
3
5
4
THE EVIDENCE
in the work of Eusebius we prefer to begin with the oldest first-hand evidence given by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Origen. Irenaeus Irenaeus who wrote his adversus haereses about 190, defends a four-book Gospel "neither more nor less" (III I I 8 ) . H e writes that the problem with the heretics is not that they have more Gospels or different Gospels, but that they admit only one of these four. This m e a n s t h a t t h e E b i o n i t e s use only the G o s p e l of Matthew, Marcion the Gospel of Luke, those who distinguish between Jesus and Christ the Gospel of Mark and the Valentinians the Gospel of John ( D I 1 1 7)H e also remarks that originally each of these four Gospels was written for a particular Christian group. The Gospel of Matthew was especially intended for the "Hebrews" and was, therefore, written in the Hebrew language (DI 1 1 ) . Apart from these general remarks Irenaeus devotes a special chapter to the Jewish-Christian sect of the Ebionites. H e writes that they used one Gospel alone, that of Matthew, to the exclusion of the other three (I 26 1). Elsewhere he writes that the Ebionites had already been refuted by their own Gospel: this is an obvious reference to the story of the virgin birth in Matthew (cf. 1,23), a doctrine which was rejected by the Ebionites (HI 1 1 7 ) . Irenaeus' information is scanty and not very trustworthy. It seems that his conclusions are based upon two suppositions. In the first place he supposed that the Gospel according to Matthew was written in Hebrew for Hebrew Christians, which was a widely held idea, as we shall s e e , and in the second place he believed that all heretical sects used one Gospel only. H e concluded from this that the Jewish-Christian Ebionites must have used the Gospel of Matthew. But whatever the historical value of Irenaeus' account may be, we can say that he was apparently unacquainted with a particular Jewish-Christian Gospel. T h e Ebionites used the Gospel of Matthew, according to Irenaeus. To this we can add that TertulKan, Hippolytus and Ps.-Tertullian largely depend on Irenaeus in their accounts of Jewish-Christian sects and never speak about a particular Jewish-Christian Gospel. 2
3
4
Clement of Alexandria C l e m e n t also r e c o g n i s e s a c a n o n of four G o s p e l s (strom. I l l 13 93, cf. Hypotyposes, acc. to Eusebius, hist, eccles. V I 1 4 5-7), but he also quotes from a Gospel according to the Egyptians and a Gospel according to the Hebrews. 5
2
S e e Klijn-Reinink 19-20. S e e a l s o A . F. J. Klijn, P a t r i s t i c E v i d e n c e for J e w i s h - C h r i s t i a n a n d A r a m a i c G o s p e l Tradition, Text and Interpretation, Studies in the N e w Testament presented to M . Black, edited by E. Best and R. McL.Wilson (Cambridge 1979) 169-177. S e e Klijn-Reinink 21-23,107-111 and 111-125. See Schneemelcher I , 1 7 4 - 1 7 9 (W. Schneemelcher). 3
4
s
5
THE EVIDENCE
5
T h e latter arouses our interest because we assume that it was read by Jewish Christians. In strom. I I I X 45 5, he quotes from this Gospel and in strom. V XIV 96 3, he gives the same passage but now without giving his source ( I ) . T h e first quotation is part of a short but rather complicated passage ( I I I X 45) in which it is said that one virtue follows u p o n the other. This, however, does not apply to cro<J>ia because it is divine by nature. Clement concludes that, therefore, wisdom that teaches truth is a power of God (8t6 m l t| crcxjiia owajiic; Geovi fi 8i6a£ao-a xf\i/ aXr|0eiav, 45 2). Next he introduces the philosopher who loves truth. This brings him to Plato, Theaetetus 155 , where it is said that TO Gocujodcrai, astonishment, is the beginning of philosophy. After this he immediately quotes from the Traditions which he ascribes to Matthias who said that one has to admire the present things "presuming that this is the first step to knowledge which lies behind it". Finally Clement writes: "As it is also written in the Gospel according to the H e b r e w s : ' H e who has b e c o m e astonished will b e c o m e king and who has b e c o m e king will r e s t " . His final conclusion is that the " u n l e a r n e d man" (afidGric;) can never be a philosopher. It is not necessary to go into details. W e limit ourselves to the passage in which Clement speaks about "astonishment". It is supposed to be the beginning of philosophy, a well known idea at his time. H e seems to choose his supporting evidence at random but the last testimony gives some additional information and together they represent various writings over a long space of time. T h e second time that Clement refers to the same passage he does so without mentioning its source (XIV 96 1-3). H e writes that "every good person is like (another) good person". From this he concludes that he who is like God will be a friend of all good men and also of God himself. H e goes on to say that also according to Plato, Timaeus 9 0 , understanding is the same as that which is understood and if one continues in this way, fulfillment will be reached. H e ends this passage with the words: "For similar to those (icroi/ y a p TOUTOIQ) the following is possible: ' H e who seeks will not cease until he finds and having found he will marvel and having marvelled he will b e c o m e king and having become king he will rest ". 6
b
d
1
T h e words in the second passage differ slightly from those in the first one, but this discrepancy will be dealt with in the commentary. For the time being we may say that the passage must have been known to Clement's readers, since otherwise it could not have been seen to have any bearing on the subject From this we may draw the following conclusion. There is sufficient reason to assume that the present passage was part of the Gospel according to the H e b r e w s . Clement wished to quote from it, knowing that it was a witness in 7
8
6
1 , II e t c indicates the number of the quotation in P A R T T W O : Text and Commentary. S e e I. O . Hofius, D a s Koptische Thomasevangelium und die Oxyrhynchus-Papyri Nr. 1, 654 und 655, Evangelische Theologie 20 (1960) 21-42 and 182-192, esp. 29, rejects the idea that C l e m e n t q u o t e d the G o s p e l a c c t o the H e b r e w s b e c a u s e it only h a p p e n e d o n c e , but this is hardly a sufficient reason for this conclusion. 7
8
THE EVIDENCE
6
defence of his case. O n the other hand we can assume that the passage was also part of a general Christian tradition. This is not only because it was quoted without i n t r o d u c t i o n in the second passage, but also because it is found in other writings. F r o m these conclusions, it is impossible to derive a clear picture of Clement's ideas about the Gospel according to the Hebrews. It happened to serve his purpose to use it in conjunction with a passage from one of Plato's writings and a work ascribed to Matthias. 9
Origen 10
Origen also is aware of a canon of four Gospels. In this connection he devotes a passage to Luke 1,1-2 in one of his homilies on Luke. Luke said" that many have tried to write a Gospel (cf. Luke 1,1). According to Origen, some of them were inspired by the Holy Spirit, for example Matthew, Mark, John and Luke. H e continues with the following words: T o u-evroi emyeypajijiei/oi/ Kara Alytmrioug evayyeXioi/ m l TO e m y e y p a u j i e v o i / TGV Aci>8em euayyeXiov ol cruyypdi|jaiaeg enexeipricrai/. "H8ri 8e eroXurio-e Kal BacrtXetSricj ypdi|jai Kara Bao-iXeiSr|v eixryyeXiov. HoXXol jiei/ o w enexeipticrai/- epeTai y a p m l TO Kara Swjjfii/ euayy£Xioi/ m l TO Kara MarGiai/ m l aXXa nXeiova. Origen speaks of a Gospel according to the Egyptians, a Gospel of the Twelve Apostles and of a Gospel according to Basilides, Thomas, Matthias and "some more". The Gospel according to the Egyptians is known from some quotations in Clement's Stromateis and is certainly not held to be Jewish-Christian. The Gospel of the Twelve is sometimes identified with the Gospel of the Ebionites mentioned by Epiphanius. If this were true, the Gospel could be called JewishChristian, but this identification is a matter of d i s p u t e . The Gospel according to Basilides must have b e e n n a m e d after the famous Gnostic l e a d e r . The G o s p e l according to T h o m a s can be identified with one of the writings discovered among the Nag H a m m a d i scriptures and is at least of an encratitic n a t u r e . Nothing is known about the Gospel according to Matthias if it is not to 11
12
13
14
15
'Seel. S e e Eusebius, hist. eccles.Vl 25, according to w h o m Origen wrote about the four canonical • Gospels in his Explanation of the Psalms (1 and 3) and assumed that of the four Gospels Matthew is the oldest and must b e e n written in H e b r e w letters (3-4). 1 0
Die Homilien zu Lukas in der Obersetzung des Hieronymus und die griechischen Reste der Homilie des Lukas-Kommentars, e d . M . R a u e r , GCS, O r i g e n e s I X ( B e r l i n 1 9 5 9 ) 4 - 5 , cf. Hieronymus, Comm. in Matthaeum 1: Praefatio 1-10. This is also found in an interesting passage in Beda's Commentary on Luke, s e e p. 23. See Schneemelcher I , 174-179 (W. Schneemelcher). Seep.28. S e e Schneemelcher I , 317-318 ( H . C . Puech t and B. Blatz). See Schneemelcher I , 93-113 (B. Blatz). 1 1
2
1 2
s
1 3
1 4
s
1 5
s
THE EVIDENCE
7 16
be identified with the Traditions of the same Apostle quoted by C l e m e n t ; nothing can be said, however, about a possible Jewish-Christian background. Now we come to a passage in which the Gospel according to the Hebrews is quoted by Origen. In his Commentary on John II 12, written before 228, Origen discusses the idea that all things have been made by the Word (cf. John 1,3). This would mean that all that has been made by the Word is inferior to it. This m e a n s again t h a t t h e Spirit is inferior to the W o r d . H e c o n t i n u e s immediately: "If somebody accepts the Gospel according to the Hebrews, where the Saviour himself says: 'A moment ago my Mother, the Holy Spirit, took me by one of my hairs and brought me to the great hill, the Thabor'(H), he will question how the Holy Spirit which is made by the Word (TO 8id TOU Xoyou yeyevryaei/oi/ ni/evfia ayioi/) can be Mother of Christ". Origen tries to solve this difficulty by introducing Matth. 12,50, where it is said that all those who do the will of the Father are the brothers, sisters and Mother of Jesus. According to Origen this also applies to the divine world. This means that in the Gospel according to the Hebrews the Spirit is called Mother, because, according to Origen, she has done the will of the Father. A second passage quotes the same words but without mentioning their source. In his Horn, on Jer. X V 4, written about 244, he wants to explain Jer. 15,10 which reads: "Woe to me, my mother, that you have given birth to me". Origen applies this word to Jesus but he wonders whether the word "Mother" is supposed to stand for the soul or for Mary. Drawing on Micah 7,1 (LXX): "Woe to me, my soul, because the pious one has been exterminated from the earth", he concluded that it is the soul that is spoken of. In this connection he writes: "If somebody accepts (the following): ' A moment ago my Mother, the Holy Spirit, took me and brought me to the great hill, the Thabor(II) and so on', he will be able to see his Mother". In both passages the quotation of the reference to the Gospel according to the Hebrews is remarkable, because it contradicts Origen's own conclusions. In the first passage he even uses an exegetical trick to give the quotation an acceptable meaning It is clear t h a t he only deals with this q u o t a t i o n at all because the possibility existed that somebody " a c c e p t s " the Gospel or the story about Jesus' Mother. Obviously Origen knows such Christians and he is forced to take them seriously. H e undoubtedly has in mind those Christians among his readers, 17
1 6
s
S e e p. 5, and Schneemelcher I , 306-309 ( H . C . Puech t and B. Blatz). Origen used similar expressions writing about, for example, the Pastor Hermae, cf. Homilien mm Hexateuch in Rufins Obersetzung II, e d . W A Baehrens, GCS, Origenes VII (Leipzig 1921) 5 1 , in Num. Horn. V I I I 1 : ...Sed et in libello Pastoris si cui tamen scriptura ilia recipienaa videtur, Origenes, MatthduserklSrung II, edJE. B e n z - E . Klostermann, GCS, Origenes X I (Leipzig 1937) 119, in Mattheum ser. 53:... si cui placeat etiam ilium legem librum...; Origenes, Selecta in Psalmos, Horn. I I in Ps. XXXVTI, Migne, PG 1 2 , 1 3 7 2 B : ... si cui tamen libelhis tile recipiendus videtur..., and O r i g e n e s , Homilia in Ezechielem, Horn, 13, Migne, PG 13, 764A: Potestis quippe legere si vultis... 1 7
THE EVIDENCE
8
who may have read the Gospel according to the Hebrews or who were in any event acquainted with this particular p a s s a g e . F r o m this we may conclude that Origen himself was n o t particularly impressed by this G o s p e l , b u t that he was dealing with p e o p l e who know something of its contents. Does that m e a n that they were acquainted with the entire contents of the Gospel or only with one or more characteristic stories? T h e second possibility cannot be merely dismissed, because he cites this story, once with an introduction, but a second time without. We cannot exclude the possibility that the story belonged to the Egyptian tradition and happened by chance to become part of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. This would m e a n that t h e situation was n o t very different from that which we m e t in Clement's StromateisP 18
Didymus Didymus is the third Egyptian writer who refers to a passage from the Gospel according to the Hebrews in an Explanation of Ps. 34,1 (LXX 33,1), written at the end of the fourth century (XEH). The heading of the Psalm refers to king Achis to whom David had fled. This contradicts 1 Sam. 21,11-16 which speaks of king Abimelech. Didymus solves the problem by saying that many people in the Bible have two names. Moses' father-in-law is called both Jethro and Reguel, the apostle Thomas is also called Didymus, but, he continues, although Matthew is called Levi in the Gospel of Luke; it is not Matthew and Levi which are two names for the same person but Matthias and Levi according to the Gospel of the Hebrews. This passage is again r e m a r k a b l e . F o r his purpose it would have b e e n sufficient to give some examples of double names. But why would he have made it for himself difficult to introduce the Gospel according to the Hebrews using an unfamiliar and difficult identification of Matthias and Levi? The reference to this Gospel is just as unexpected here as it was with Clement and Origen. And, therefore, we again may wonder whether he spoke about this Gospel because it or in any case this passage, was known to some of his readers. Eusebius Eusebius is well acquainted with the idea that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. In his historia ecclesiastical he regularly draws upon his predecessors 1 8
O r i g e n n e v e r s p e a k s of a specific Jewish-Christian G o s p e l , a l t h o u g h h e m e n t i o n s the Ebionites several times, s e e Klijn-Reinink 123-125. A r e f e r e n c e t o t h e G o s p e l a c c t o t h e H e b r e w s in O r i g e n ' s Latin t r a n s l a t i o n of his C o m m e n t a r y on M a t t h e w (III) will b e dealt with on p. 24, b e c a u s e it is thought t o have b e e n added by the Latin translator. T h e History e n d s in the year 324 but E u s e b i u s had already begun at the e n d of the third century, s e e R. M. Grant, Eusebius as Church Historian (Oxford 1980) 10-21, and T. D . Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, Mass. and London 1981) 126-147. 1 9
2 0
THE EVIDENCE
9
in this respect. In V 8 2 he quotes Irenaeus III 1 I, in VI 25 3-4 he refers to Origen's "First Book on Matthew" and in HI 39 16 he quotes a passage taken from Papias to whom we must return later. Finally in V 10 3 he tells a. story about Pantaenus who went to India where he was supposed to have found the Gospel of Matthew among the local Christians. It was said to have been left to them by the Apostle Bartholomew in the Hebrew language. This m e a n s that the i d e a of an original H e b r e w M a t t h e w was a very commonly accepted idea in the earliest period of the Christian C h u r c h . Eusebius speaks of the Gospel according to the Hebrews four times. In his hist eccles. U I 2 5 3 he writes about this Gospel in a survey of those books which had not been accepted by the Church. In III 27 4 he states that the book was used by a particular sect of Ebionites. T h e n he mentions that a story known to Papias was also present in the Gospel according to the Hebrews (III 39 7) and finally he relates that it was known to the Palestinian writer Hegesippus (IV 2 28). Each of these statements requires some evaluation. Having devoted a chapter to the order of the Gospels (UI 24), he thinks it necessary to give a list of the books of. the New Testament (UI 25). They are divided into various groups and even sub-groups. Some of them are generally a c c e p t e d (ei/ ofioXoyoujiei/oiq), but o t h e r o n e s are d i s p u t e d (ei/ avriXeyoiievoic;). Among those are the Epistles of James, Jude, 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John. To the same group belong some texts which are called spurious (ei/ i/oGoic;), for example the Acts of Paul, the Pastor Hermae, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Letter of Barnabas and the Doctrine of the Apostles. To this list of spurious but nevertheless disputed books the Apocalypse of John also belongs. This is to be understood, according to Eusebius, because this work has been accepted by some and rejected by o t h e r s . H e immediately continues with the r e m a r k that "some" assign to this same group the Gospel according to the Hebrews which is especially used by those Hebrews who have accepted Christ (3). 21
22
23
2 1
In his Demonstratio Evangelica DC 15 6, e d . I. A . Heikel, GCS, Eusebius VI (Leipzig 1913) 436, w e read: SwSev euc6Tto Klijn-Reinink 268.
THE EVIDENCE
23
Petrus de Riga, 12th cent., oculi radii fXLVI) Hist. Pass. Dom., 14th cent, osculatus (LJJ) Luke 22 (LEI) John 18 (LTV) flagellandum (LV) Hugo of St.Cher, 13th cent., in Matth. 1,35, faciem (XLVII) 27,53, sancti viri (XLVIII) 27,57, Joseph (XLIX) in Joh. 19,43, Joseph (XLIX) in I Cor. 15,5, apparuit beatae virgine (L) It is improbable that any of these references were t a k e n directly from Jewish-Christian Gospels. However, they are interesting as an indication of how these Gospels were regarded. T h e list shows that the various writers and writings can be divided into those who speak of the Gospel according to the Hebrews and those who speak of the Gospel according to the Nazoraeans. At the same time we see that the English and Irish sources use the title "according to the Hebrews" and the continental ones the title "according to the Nazoraeans". W e have h e r e two different branches of the Jewish-Christian Gospel t r a d i t i o n . T h e t r a d i t i o n of E n g l a n d and I r e l a n d is r e p r e s e n t e d by B e d a Venerabilis. After relating the famous passage about the various apocryphal Gospels which is found in O r i g e n and J e r o m e , he continues: Inter quae notandum quod dicitur evangelium iuxta Hebraeos non inter apocriphas sed inter ecclesiasticas numerandum historias. Nam et ipsi sacrae scripturae interpreti Hieronymus pleraque ex eo testimonia usurpare et ipsum in Latinum Graecumque uisum est transferre sermones. 61
6 2
63
T h e continent is represented by two writers each of whom maintains the identity between the name of the early Christians (cf. Acts 24,5) and that of the Jewish-Christian Gospel. Petrus Comestor writes in the 12th century: Primi' itaque discipuli Christi Nazaraei dicebantur, qui Evangelium scripserunt, sed Ecclesia quatuor tantum recipl Cumque ita primo vocarentur Nazaraei, postea vocati sunt sequentes Christum discipuli, postea instituente Petro, a Christo, Christiani, and Hugo of St.Cher: Fuerunt autem illi Nazaraei, illi primi fideles, ad opus quorum fecerunt apostoli collectas in Jerusalem, quibus erat cor unum et anima una (Acts 4,32), qui de gestis domini evangelium scripserunt, verissimum, sed propter sacramentum nostrum non receptum cum aliis. 64
65
6 1
Herr Professor B . Bischoff w r o t e t o m e ( N o v e m b e r 5th 1988) with regard to Hist. Pass. Dom.: "Nach d e n ganz w e n i g e n eingestreuten deutschen Wortern ... muss ich an oberdeutsche Herkunft denken". S e e p. 6. 6 2
6 3
B e d a Venerabilis, Opera, Pars II: Opera Exegettca 3 , In Lucae Evangelium Exposido ad 1,14, ed. D . Hurst, CCSL C X X (Turnholti 1960) 19-20. Petrus Comestor, Historia Scholastica in Evangelio, cap. C X X X V , Migne, PL 198,1609A. H u g o of St.Cher, in librum Isaiae , torn. I V (Venetiis 1732) 30a. 6 4
6 5
THE EVIDENCE
24
This shows that even after J e r o m e Latin writers were still interested in Jewish-Christian Gospels, because they held t h e m to be ancient sources of information about the Life of Jesus. T h e group of Latin writers after J e r o m e may also be taken to include the unknown translator of Origen's Commentary on Matthew, who is assumed to have lived some time between the fifth and the ninth c e n t u r i e s . It is also commonly assumed that he is responsible for inserting into the commentary the p a s s a g e in which t h e " G o s p e l a c c o r d i n g t o t h e H e b r e w s " is q u o t e d . Nevertheless, we shall see that the reference itself may be an authentic passage which has b e e n taken from a Jewish-Christian Gospel. This was probably not that of the Hebrews but that of the N a z o r a e a n s . H e r e , however, we shall e x a m i n e why this q u o t a t i o n was a d d e d to t h e text of Origen in the Latin translation. 66
6 7
68
In his commentary on Matthew X V 14 Origen deals with the story of the Rich Young Man (Matth. 19,16-22). H e is of the opinion that the remark about "loving one's neighbour as oneself" in Matth. 19,19 does not fit into the context of the story. H e assumed that it was added to the text, especially because the same words are also omitted in the parallel passages of Matth. 10,19 and Luke 18,20. In this connection he tells his readers that something similar exists in the Septuagint which also sometimes differs from the Hebrew text. In such cases it was Origen's practice to obelise words in the Greek version that were not found in the Hebrew text and he put between asterisks words that were added from the Hebrew text because they were missing in the Greek. Immediately he adds that in this way everyone who so wishes can reject such passages and whoever wishes to preserve them can do so. The same can be done in Origen's view with the passage in Matthew. H e does not wish to argue with those who reject these words but for those who wish to keep them he will give an interpretation. T h e Latin translation gives a faithful rendering of the passage u p till Origen's remark about the G r e e k version, but the translator omits the words about the possibility of rejecting or accepting the passage under consideration. On the contrary the Latin text emphatically states that the same can not be done with the New Testament. The translator returns to the words about loving one's neighbour and begins to quote the Gospel according to the Hebrews. It appears that in this Gospel the instruction to love one's neighbour is present. The meaning of the Latin text is perfectly clear. It is obviously a correction of t h e original G r e e k text. T h e translator did not like the superficial way in which the G r e e k text implied that a passage in the New Testament might be omitted. H e thus referred to the Gospel according to the Hebrews to show that the injunction was also present in this document. This can only m e a n that the
6 6
6 7
S e e J. Quasten, Patmlogy II ( U t r e c h t / A n t w e r p 1953) 48 S e e Schmidtke, N e u e Fragmente 90-94, and Lagrange, L'Evangile selon les HSbreux 335-
336. 6 8
See p. 3 1 .
THE EVIDENCE
25
Latin translator attached some importance to this Gospel. It may be because it was a Gospel according to the Hebrews and could, therefore, be held to reflect the original Hebrew version of Matthew. But, whatever his motivation, we have again a case in which a Jewish-Christian Gospel is used as a welcome aid to solve difficult exegetical questions. To
Ioudaikon
Five manuscripts containing Gospel Texts which were written between the 9th a n d t h e 13th c e n t u r i e s c o n t a i n a l t o g e t h e r 13 m a r g i n a l references to To Ioudaikon. The marginalia apply to words, phrases or to whole passages. W e shall examine t h e n u m e r o u s p r o b l e m s raised by these references elsewhere but we can already say that there are several reasons for assuming that what is referred to is a Jewish-Christian Gospel. In the first place this can be concluded from the name. Next it appears that the Greek references have b e e n translated from a Semitic original and finally that one of the references seems to agree with a passage mentioned by Jerome which was taken from the Gospel according to the Nazoraeans (XXIV). We shall first look at the question of why the marginal notes were added. We can divide them into the following groups: A Information about an existing textual difficulty: ad Matth. 5,22 (XXVI) and
16,2-3 (XXXm). B. Alternative readings: ad Matth. 4,5 (XXV); 10,16 (XXVTJ.I); 11,12 (XXIX); 11,25 (XXX); 12,40 (XXXJJ); 16,17 (XXXIV) and 26,74 (XXXV). C Additions of some length: ad Matth. 7,5 (XXVII); 18,22 = Jerome, adv. Pel m 2 (XXIV) and 27,65 (XXXVI). References to Jewish-Christian Gospels like these are not unknown. Some of them can be compared with those in Jerome's Commentary on Matthew. It is, therefore, not impossible that the references were taken from a commentary on t h e G o s p e l of M a t t h e w b e c a u s e t h e occasional notes show n o systematic comparison of a Jewish-Christian Gospel with the Gospel of Matthew. Since elsewhere we shall discuss a n u m b e r x)f other questions regarding these references (such as to their source and original language) we can conclude t h a t t h e u s e of t h e s e m a r g i n a l n o t e s fits into a p a t t e r n which we have encountered in other writers. They are meant to clarify a particular passage or word or to give some interesting addition to the text. 69
6 9
S e e for r e f e r e n c e s t o variant r e a d i n g s in t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t B . M . M e t z g e r , Explicit References in the Works of Origen to Variant Readings in N e w Testament Manuscripts, Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of R.P. Casey, e d i t e d by J . N . Birdsall and R . W . T h o m s o n (Freiburg im Br. 1963) 78-95.
26
THE EVIDENCE
Conclusion
We must conclude our survey of t h e way in which Jewish-Christian Gospels were used and regarded in early and later Christian authors and writings. We note that in the early period knowledge of these Gospels was obviously so widespread in some regions that it was impossible for non-Jewish-Christian writers to ignore their existence. This was the situation in Egypt and is reflected in the works of Clement, Origen and even Didymus the Blind. However, JewishChristian Gospel tradition gradually fell into oblivion in this region. A second r e a s o n for the interest in Jewish-Christian Gospels was the generally accepted idea that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic and that this Gospel had its roots in an ancient Jewish-Christian, Hebrew speaking community. Knowledge of the existence of a G o s p e l in H e b r e w or A r a m a i c , as in the cases of E u s e b i u s and J e r o m e , increased such interest. Eusebius writes that Hegesippus and Papias h a d already searched for ancient Aramaic oral traditions to supplement the traditions available in the canonical G o s p e l s . This historical interest returns with Eusebius and Jerome, the latter of w h o m often tried to solve exegetical problems by recourse to J e w i s h - C h r i s t i a n s o u r c e s . J e r o m e in his t u r n i n f l u e n c e d his m e d i a e v a l successors, especially in I r e l a n d . We can wonder whether they always showed sufficient critical insight. On the other hand, we may state that Epiphanius who himself discovered a Jewish-Christian G o s p e l was very disappointed in its contents and decided to reject it altogether. But as a general conclusion it is fair to say that Christian authors from the earliest period and even up to the present d a y have asssumed that JewishChristian G o s p e l traditions can p r o v i d e information about Jesus and the Apostolic Church. However, for this very reason it is necessary to take a critical approach to whatever information has been provided to us down the years. 70
71
7 2
7 0
7 1
S e e Eusebius, hist, eccles. I l l 39 3 and I V 2 2 8-9.
S e e M . McNaraara, The Apocrypha in the Irish Church (Dublin 1973). G. Quispel in particular has succeeded in discovering an extra-canonical Gospel tradition in Jewish-Chnstian and early Christian sources.
CHAPTER TWO
T H E JEWISH-CHRISTIAN GOSPELS
Introduction In spite of the many references to Jewish-Christian Gospels in ancient and mediaeval literature much remains unclear with regard to, for example, their number, the names by which they were originally known and the language in which they were written. Many Christian writers quoted from these Gospels even though they had never seen any of them. This has been the cause of errors, misunderstandings and unjustified ideas about their contents now a n d in the past. This also means that we have to go into some critical questions. Latin sources after Jerome, apart from the Latin translation of Origen's Commentary on Matthew, will be dealt with separately. Number, language, date, place of origin and names of the Jewish-Christian Gospels Before anything can be said about the various references to Jewish-Christian Gospels, we have to know the Gospel to which they belonged and the language in which it was written. It a p p e a r s that J e r o m e and the authors after him supposed that only one Jewish-Christian Gospel existed, that this had originally been written in Aramaic and that it must have gone back to the original Hebrew text of the Gospel of Matthew. This view would have b e e n stimulated by the knowledge that a Jewish-Christian Gospel in Aramaic existed; by the tradition about a Jewish-Christian sect of the Nazoraeans that bore the same name as the early Christians in J e r u s a l e m and by the awareness of a Gospel said to be "according to the Hebrews" that was quoted by Clement and Origen. Even Epiphanius, who discovered a Jewish-Christian Gospel which widely differed from the Gospel of Matthew, did his best to show the difference between this Gospel and that of Matthew in order to demonstrate that the Jewish-Christians had falsified its text. However, we have to reckon with at least two different Gospels because we m e e t two different versions of t h e B a p t i s m of Jesus, one referred to by Epiphanius, Panarion 30 13 7-8 (IX) and another one by Jerome, in Es. 11,1-3 (XXI). At present it is generally assumed that Epiphanius quoted from a Gospel that was known to him only. It has its own particularly theological character but it is also of a typically harmonistic kind. This second element is absent from quotations found in other a u t h o r s . 73
7 3
A . Schmidtke, N e u e Fragmente 424, and A.Schmidtke, Hebraerevangelium, ZNW (1936) 24-44, esp. 36, has always d e f e n d e d the identity of the G o s p e l acc. to the Ebionites, q u o t e d by Epiphanius, with the Gospel acc. to the Nazoraeans, especially against H . Waitz, D a s Evangelium
T H E GOSPELS
28
We intend first to discuss the G o s p e l used by Epiphanius. Its original language must have b e e n G r e e k , because its n u m e r o u s parallels with the canonical Gospels can only be explained if we assume that the author of this work used a Greek text of the New Testament. Epiphanius writes about the n a m e of this Gospel: "The Gospel which is called with them according to Matthew which is not complete but falsified and distorted, they call (it) the Hebrew Gospel... " (Panarion 30 13 2). This remark repeats the traditonal view of a Jewish-Christian Gospel and should, therefore, not be taken at face value. It is for this reason that another name has b e e n proposed, taken from the contents of one of the references which reads (VI): "There was a m a n called Jesus ... who chose us" and "(Jesus) opened his mouth and said: I chose J o h n and J a m e s , the son of Z e b e d e e , and Simon and A n d r e w and T h a d a e u s and S i m o n the Z e a l o t and J u d a s Iscariot and you Matthew". At the beginning of this quotation there is mention of us, viz. the twelve apostles, who also seem to be responsible for the contents of this Gospel. This would m e a n that the Gospel could be called "Gospel of the Twelve", which is the name of a Gospel mentioned in a passage in O r i g e n . O n the other hand, however, it is clear that at the end of the quotation it is Matthew who is being a d d r e s s e d in particular. This m e a n s t h a t the n a m e "Gospel according to Matthew" can also be d e f e n d e d . This last name cannot be easily dismissed because it can explain why Epiphanius wrote "The Gospel which is called with them according to Matthew" and why he was so indignant about its contents. 74
75
If the title of this work had b e e n "Gospel of the Twelve", the place of origin could have b e e n Egypt because this n a m e is known to Origen only. However, the relation of this work to the contents of the Periodoi Petrou and Anabathmoi Iakobou seems to show that the work belongs to the region east of the river Jordan. 76
der Zwolf Apostel (Ebionitenevangelium), ZNW13 (1912) 338-348 and 14 (1913) 38-64 and 1171 3 2 , s e e e s p . 14 ( 1 9 1 3 ) 40ff, a n d H . W a i t z , N e u e U n t e r s u c h u n g e n u b e r d i e s o g e n . judenchristlichen Evangelien, ZNW16 (1937) 60-81. S e e p. 6. T h o s e in favour o f t h e n a m e " G o s p e l a c c o r d i n g t o t h e T w e l v e ( A p o s t l e s ) " are R. H a n d m a n n , D a s H e b r a e r - E v a n g e l i u m , Texte u. Unters. V 3 (Leipzig 1888) 4 5 and HOff; Zahn, Gesch. des neutest. Kanons 1 1 / 2 ,724-745; Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Lit. I / I 205-206; A . Meyer, Ebionitenevangelium (Evangelium der 12 A p o s t e l ) , Handbuch m den neutestamentlichen Apopkryphen, herausgeg. v. E . H e n n e c k e ( T u b i n g e n 1904) 43-47; Waitz, D a s Evangelium der Zwolf Apostel; Lagrange, L'Evangile selon les H £ b r e u x 170; A . d e Santos Otero, Los EvangeUos Apocrifos (Madrid 1946) 51-57; cf. O. CuUmann, Ebionitenevangelium, Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart II (Tubingen 1958 ) 298: "Aus d e n zwolf Apostel, die zu Beginn des E.s gesamthaft als Erzahler der Geschichte Jesu erscheinen, ragt als eigentlicher Gewahrsman Matthaus hervor ". T h e i d e a h a s b e e n r e j e c t e d by A . S c h m t d t k e , N e u e F r a g m e n t e 170-175 and 2 4 2 and Z u m H e b r a e r e v a n g e l i u m .... 3 2 , but s e e a l s o M . D . A . Bertrand, L'Evangile d e s E b i o n i t e s : u n e Harmonie 6vangiKque anteneure au Diatessaron, NTS 26 (1980) 548-563, esp. 561. 7 4
7 5
3
7 6
S e e p. 15 and Knjn-Reinink 3 1 .
T H E GOSPELS
29
T h e d a t e of t h e work is difficult to establish. It seems to have b e e n composed with help of the three synoptic Gospels but without John. Because the three synoptic Gospels appear to have been known by the composer, a date before 100 is impossible, but since J o h n has not b e e n used, a date after 150 seems to be out of the question. Now we shall look at references outside Epiphanius' works. The problems are complicated, since J e r o m e mixed up various sources as we have seen. H e obviously borrowed some references from Crigen but he also was acquainted with a Gospel which he received from the Nazoraeans. This "Gospel according to the N a z o r a e a n s " which was quoted by J e r o m e u n d e r various names was written in Aramaic. O n the other hand we have reasons to assume that Clement and Origen did not quote from an A r a m a i c Gospel or even from a Gospel which had b e e n translated from that language. W e , therefore, come to the conclusion that we are dealing with two Gospels, viz. one in Greek and one in Aramaic. This agrees both with Hegesippus who, according to Eusebius, used the G o s p e l according to t h e H e b r e w s and an A r a m a i c G o s p e l , a n d with Eusebius himself who referred to the Gospel according to the Hebrews in his historia ecclesiastica and quoted from a Gospel in ^Hebrew characters" in his Theophaneia. 7 7
78
19
80
T h e reason to suppose that these witnesses are speaking about the same Aramaic Gospel is that they can all be located in the same area. Eusebius lived in Caesarea, Hegesippus in Palestine and the Nazoraeans have to be situated in the neighbourhood of Beroia. T h e r e is sufficient reason to assume that the Gospel in Aramaic was written by t h e N a z o r a e a n s , a Jewish-Christian sect whose m e m b e r s spoke Aramaic, according to E p i p h a n i u s . It is referred to as the Gospel in Hebrew 81
7 7
S e e Zafan, Gesch. des neutesl. Kanons 11/2,733: "Vorstehende U b e r s i c h t beweist, dass dieses Ev. eine sehr kunstliche Compilation war, zu welcher die kanonischen E w . weitaus das M e i s t e beigetragen h a b e n ... D a r u b e r ob Jo. B e i t r a g e hat liefern m u s s e n e r g e b e n die w e n i g e n Fragmente kerne vollige Sicherkeit "; Lagrange, L'Evangile selon les H£breux 169: "Zahn hesite quant a des emprunts a Jo., mais il lui parait certain que l'evangile s'est servi d e M c . Cela est d'autant moins probable que tout s'explique suffisament par des reminiscences de L a et de ML"; Bertrand, art.cit., 563: "L'EE constdere les trois synoptiques"; M . - E . B o i s m a r d , Evangile des Ebionites et le P r o b l e m e synoptique ( M c 1,2-6 et par.), Rev. Bibl 63 (1966) 321-252, supposes that the G o s p e l is a representative of a G o s p e l text which is a very complicated development of the "tradition primitive" into the direction of an "Mc-primitif" and a H e b r e w Matthew. W e draw attention to the well-balanced article written by G. Howard, T h e Gospel of the Ebionites, ANRW 252 ( B e r l i n - N e w Y o r k 1988) 4034-4053. Finally F. Neirynck, The Apocryphal Gospels and the Gospel of Mark, J.-M. Sevrin, T h e N e w Testament in Early Christianity, BibL Ephem. TheoL Lov. L X X X V I (Leuven 1989) 123-175, esp.157-160, again goes into the question of the presence of Mark with the conclusion "The dependence o n M a t t h e w . . . can b e combined with dependence o n Mark". (
7 8
S e e p. 11-12. S e e p. 9-10. .so S e e p. 12-13. Epiphanius, Panarion 7 9
8 1
29 9 4, ed. Holl 332.
30
T H E GOSPELS
l e t t e r s o r as t h e G o s p e l a c c o r d i n g to t h e N a z o r a e a n s which s e e m s to demonstrate that the Gospel did not possess a special name. Its date is difficult to establish because' this more or less depends on the sources from which the Gospel was composed. As we shall see, it seems that the author of this work knew of no other Gospel than that of Matthew or one of its sources. Since the Gospel was probably known to Hegesippus we would suggest a date of origin between 100 and 150. This leaves us with the third Gospel, viz. that according to the Hebrews, as it is called by Clement, Origen and Didymus. We assume that this is the same G o s p e l said to have b e e n known to Hegesippus. We must assume t h a t this Gospel was written in Egypt. It was obviously named after those who used the work but we doubt whether this was its official title and must assume that this Gospel too was originally published without a name. The author used ancient Christian traditions which seems to indicate an early date of origin. Because it was already known to Clement we can suggest a date about the year 150. Our conclusion is that from the various references in Christian authors three Jewish-Christian Gospels can be traced. They belong to three individual Jewish-Christian circles. One group lived East of the river J o r d a n and may be related to those responsible for traditions present in the Pseudo-Clementines. A second was used by Jewish-Christians living in the neighbourhood of Beroia who w e r e commonly called N a z o r a e a n s . T h e third was used by Egyptian Christians of Jewish descent. 82
The Contents of the Jewish-Christian Gospels We came to the conclusion that the G o s p e l according to the Ebionites was known to Epiphanius only. H e gives the following quotations from this Gospel: - 1 have chosen John (VI) - wild honey (VII) - in the days of Herod (VIII) - baptism of Jesus (IX) - who is my mother (X) - abolishment of sacrifices (XI) - eating of meat (XII).
8 2
A m o n g the m o d e r n editions of the Apocryphal Gospels D e Santos Otero, Los Evangelios Apocrifos 32-53; M o r a l d i ^ j p o c n / i I 355-361 and 371-385; Erbetta, Gli Apocrifi..., Vangeli 114-136 and Apokryfy Nowego Testamento... 67-79, still distinguish between two Jewish-Christian Gospels. H o w e v e r , t h o s e w h o accept three G o s p e l s are not always unanimous about the question as t o which references have t o b e attributed t o e a c h individual Gospel. B . M . Mstzger, 77i« Canon of the New Testament ( O x f o r d 1987) 169-170, s e e m s t o a s s u m e that only o n e Jewish-Christian G o s p e l existed, viz. the G o s p e l according t o the H e b r e w s , translated into Greek and Latin by J e r o m e , of whhich w e have today several q u o t a t i o n s m a d e by C l e m e n t of Alexandria, Origen, Jerome and Cyril of Jerusalem.
T H E GOSPELS
31
The quotations in Clement, Origen and Didymus have been taken from the Egyptian Gospel according to the Hebrews. We may, however, assume that Jerome gave some other quotations which he took from Origen or from some other writer unknown to us who also quoted from this Gospel. We already know that Jerome three times gave a quotation about the mother of Jesus (II) which he took from Origen. We also came to the conclusion that J e r o m e could not have known the Gospel according to the Nazoraeans before 392 which means that references in writings before that date could also have b e e n taken from O r i g e n . This conclusion has been corroborated by the introductions to these passages in which nothing is said about a Gospel of the "Nazoraeans". This brings us to t h e following passages that apparently belong to the G o s p e l according to the Hebrews: 83
- Clement, ou Ttocuaexai (I) - Origen and Jerome, "Apxi eXafie (TJ) - Didymus the Blind, Levi/Matthias (XIII) - Jerome, nunquam laeti sitis (XTV) Jacobus (XV) in omnibus prophetis (XXI) fratris sui spiritus contristaverit ( X X I I ) . Finally we must consider the contents of the G o s p e l according to the Nazoraeans. We start from the assumption that all quotations in Jerome that do not belong to the Gospel according to the Hebrews were taken from the Gospel according to the Nazoraeans. However, a few doubtful references remain. In the commentary it will become clear that the quotations in de viris illustribus XVI ( X X X I X ) , in epistula 20 5 ( X X X V I I I ) and in Matthaeum 2,5 (XL) do not belong to that group of passages which were taken from an apocryphal GospeL 84
The passages taken from this Gospel may also be reckoned to include the two references in Eusebius, Theophaneia (IV and V). The Latin translator of Origen's Commentary on Matthew refers to the Gospel according to the Hebrews (HI). We have, however, no reason to assume that this Gospel was ever used outside Egypt. In addition to this we see that the contents of this reference show a close resemblance to a passage in the Gospel of M a t t h e w . F r o m this we may draw t h e conclusion that the passage was originally part of the Gospel according to the Nazoraeans. O n e of the references in To Ioudaikon is also found in Jerome's adv. Pelagianum HI 2, where the Gospel according to the Nazoraeans appears to have b e e n quoted (XXIV). This, together with the fact that all references can be compared with passages in the G o s p e l of Matthew, shows that they also
8 3
S e e p. 18. T h e opinion that J e r o m e depends o n Origen is well established, especially since Lagrange, L'Evangile selon les H e h r e u x 3 4 3 , and G. Bardy, Saint J e r o m e et l'Evangile selon les Hehreux, Melanges de Science Religieuse III ( 1 9 4 6 ) 5-36, esp. 31. S c h n e e m e l c h e r I , 146-147 (Strecker), ascribed the same four passages in J e r o m e to the Gospel acc. to the Hebrews. 8 4
s
32
T H E GOSPELS
b e l o n g to t h e G o s p e l according to the N a z o r a e a n s . This brings us to the following list. - Eusebius, the talents (IV) the good ones (V) -Jerome, maar(XVI) caementarius (XVII) Berachiah (XVEQ) Barabbas (XIX) supeiiiminare (XX) ignorantia est (XXJU) with To Ioudaikon, sermo peccati (XXTV) - To Ioudaikon, dcyiocv rtoXiv (XXV) t o ebcri (XXVI) ev T S KoXitoj jnou (XXVII) vmep (xjieig (XXVHI) SiopTtdCexai (XXIX) euxopicrtu) ere (XXX) Tpetcj fuaepctQ (XXXI) Kopflav (XXXH) Matth. 16,2-3 u'Ce ' l a x x w o u ( X X I V ) Kal fipufiCTCcto (XXXV) avopaq evtmXouc; (XXXVD - Origen, Commenton Matthew, The Rich Young Man (HI). The History of the Jewish-Christian Gospels We came to the conclusion that the three Jewish-Christian Gospels were written in three different places but a l H n J h ^ e A o n d ^ n h i r y . We arrived at this view, however, with the help of sources of a much later date. This raises the question as to what happened to these three Gospels after the time of their composition. The Gospel according to the Ebionites is only known from Epiphanius who quoted from this Gospel about two centuries after its origin. Epiphanius gives the impression that he knew this Gospel in its entirety. H e does not say where he discovered it or whether it was still used in his own time. This means that the whole history of Gospel must remain a mystery. T h e Gospel according to the Hebrews which was written in the second century was used by Clement about fifty years after its composition, by Origen less than a century later and by Didymus the Blind more than two hundred years after its date of origin. We came to the conclusion that its contents were generally known in the time of Clement, Origen and even Didymus a m o n g Egyptian Christians in general. It is, however, difficult to say whether Clement and Origen were in the possession of the entire text. We cannot exclude the
T H E GOSPELS
33
possibility that they were aware of some better-known passages only because they happened to be part of the Egyptian Christian tradition. But this does not m e a n to say that the Gospel was not widely used at some time and that its contents were not generally known. W e also c a m e to t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t J e r o m e a d d e d a n u m b e r of quotations to those known from Egyptian writers although he himself did not possess direct knowledge of this G o s p e l . H e depends o n Origen but other sources cannot be excluded. His statements about the translation of this Gospel a r e p u r e fantasy. H e assumed that he was dealing with a Gospel that was originally written in Hebrew. H e , therefore, tells his readers that he himself is responsible for the translation of this work into Greek and Latin. We can say that his work was confined to the t r a n s l a t i o n into Latin of an occasional quotation which he found in Origen's Greek writings. This means that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was known in Egypt only. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that this Gospel was translated from the original Greek. T h e Gospel according to the Nazoraeans apparently found its way into the Library of Caesarea where it was probably used by Eusebius and where it was still present in the time of J e r o m e . It may have b e e n used by the sect of the Nazoraeans in the fourth century. W e also have to consider the question whether the text was translated by Jerome. It is remarkable that of Jerome's seven references to this Gospel only one (in Matth. 12,13, XVII) is said to have been translated from Hebrew into Greek. W e wonder why it was necessary to speak of a translation into Greek. If applied to the Gospel according to the Hebrews such a statement would have b e e n appropriate because J e r o m e took his quotations from a G r e e k author. H e r e , however, he was working with a Gospel known to him in Aramaic. W e could assume that the text of the G o s p e l according to the Nazoraeans was present in the Library of Caesarea in a Greek translation. But it is also possible that the present introduction to the passage in Matth. 12,13 was inspired by the introductions Jerome used in connection with passages taken from O r i g e n . 85
The text of this Gospel was, however, not only known to Jerome. Passages were also found in the Latin translation of Origen's Commentary on Matthew and in marginal notes in some New Testament manuscripts. Both ask for our consideration. The author of the translation of Origen's commentary wrote in Latin but we wonder w h e t h e r he took t h e reference to the Gospel according to t h e Nazoraeans from an Aramaic, a Greek or a Latin text.
8 5
T h i s c o n c l u s i o n is c o r r o b o r a t e d by J e r o m e ' s p r o c e d u r e i n c o n n e c t i o n with his Latin Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos. H e used already existing Jewish Greek translations of the H e b r e w text although he suggests that h e has translated it from the hebraica Veritas, s e e C. Estin, Les Psautiers d e J e r o m e a la lumiere d e s traductions juives a n t e n e u r e s , Collectanea Biblica Latina 15 ( S a n Girolamo, R o m a 1984).
34
T H E GOSPELS
It is unlikely that the translator took it from an original Aramaic text. It is, however, difficult to decide whether he used a Greek or a Latin text. The many variant readings which can b e found in this quotation have points of similarity with Greek manuscripts of the New Testament which seems to indicate that a G r e e k text has b e e n used. But this n e e d not m e a n that the translator was in possession of the entire text of this G o s p e l in G r e e k . H e might also have d e p e n d e d o n some earlier source in which this q u o t a t i o n h a p p e n e d to be present. The references to To Ioudaikon demand our special attention. They are in Greek which again raises the question of whether this Gospel has was known in a Greek version. The references were discovered in the following manuscripts of the New Testament: - 4 Paris, BibL Nat. Gr. 84, 13th cent., at Matth. 26,74.8° - 273 Paris, BibL Nat. Gr. 79, 13th cent., also at Matth. 26,74, but now part of the text itself. The manuscripts 4 and 273 are "sisters". - 566 Leningrad 54, 9/10th cent., first part of a minuscule of which the second part (called A) is written in majuscules, at Matth. 4,5; 16,17 and 18.22. - 899 Uppsala, Univ. 4 Sparfvenfeld 45, 11th cent, at Matth. 12,40 and 26,74. - 1424 Maywood III, TheoL Seminary of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, MS 102, 11th cent., at Matth. 5,22; 7,5; 10,16; 11,12 and 25; 15,5; 16,2-3; 26,74 and 87
88
89
27,65.90
An important question is whether these manuscripts are related to o n e another. If this is the case, it should b e possible to discover the source of these references. Schmidtke devoted a study to this p r o b l e m and h e came to t h e conclusion that they can be called "Zion-Manuscripts" because they have a colophon in which it is said that the text has been compared with manuscripts which were present on Mount Z i o n . However, of the five manuscripts mentioned above only two, viz. 566 and 899, have this colophon. This makes it almost impossible to reduce them all to this common denominator. Two of these manuscripts were written in Southern Italy, viz. 4 and 273, which might be an indication that their text is of Eastern origin and even related to that of J e r u s a l e m , but the others have a different 91
92
93
S e e C. R. Gregory, Textkritik des Neuen Testaments I (Leipzig 1900) 128-129. Gregory, o.c, 174. Gregory, o.c, 203-204, and K. Treu, D i e griechischen Handschriften des N e u e n Testaments in der U d S S R , Texte u. Unters. 91 (Berlin 1966) 48-50. Gregory, o . c , 231. S e e K. W. Clark, A descriptive Catalogue of Greek New Testament Manuscripts in America (Chicago 1937) Plate X X I V . Schmidtke, N e u e Fragmente 1-31. T h e colophon reads eypo^ri KCO. dvrefiWi&n ex xwv kv 'IepuotAuLtou; 7iaXauoi/ co/Tiypafcov tffly kv tip ayuu 6pei inoKeiLiiuwu. 8 6
8 7
8 8
8 9
9 0
9 1
9 2
9 3
A number of manuscripts which w e r e written in Southern Italy like 20 157 164 262 300 376 and 543 have s o m e striking additions to the text, s e e J. Rendel Harris, 77ie Origin of the Leicester Codex of the New Testament ( L o n d o n 1887) 62-66, w h i c h w o u l d s e e m t o d e m o n s t r a t e their Eastern origin. For example in many of these manuscripts the patriarchates are given in the order J e r u s a l e m , R o m e , C o n s t a n t i n o p l e , A l e x a n d r i a and A n t i o c h . O f J e r u s a l e m it is said: npffiTOc.
35
T H E GOSPELS
origin. We do not see any common feature of these manuscripts which would help us to solve the question about the source of these marginal notes. They are only part of a great n u m b e r of similar references in manuscripts of the New Testament, both textual and exegetical. It is not impossible that they were taken from some commentary on M a t t h e w unknown to u s . If this is true, these references do not say that a Greek version of the entire text existed. We may be dealing with incidental translations from some Aramaic original. 9 4
It is still r e m a r k a b l e that the word To Ioudaikon has b e e n chosen to indicate the source of these references. It seems to show that the author who referred to this text was no longer a w a r e of a r e l a t i o n of this text to t h e Nazoraeans. T h e following conclusions can be drawn. T h e Gospel according to the Nazoraeans must have b e e n known to more authors than just Eusebius and J e r o m e . It appears that it was also known to G r e e k authors. T h e isolated passages on which this conclusion is based do not prove that the entire text must have been present in Greek. We shall continue to describe the history of the Jewish Christian Gospels with help of a group of Latin writers after Jerome. We leave aside those who clearly d e p e n d on J e r o m e . W e shall only give their names: Pseudo-Abdias (XV), Gregory of Tours (XV), Sedulius Scottus (XI.XV and XVI), Jacob a Voragine (XV), Rabanus Maurus (XVII), Zacharias Chrysopolitanus (XIX), Petrus Comestor (XVII and XX), Paschasius Radbertus (XVII, XVIII, XIX, XXVIII and X L ) , Christian of Stavelot (XCX), H u g o of St. Cher (XX and XXI), Historia Passionis Domini (XX) and the Irish Reference Bible (XV). 95
Next, we know of a few passages which can be explained on the basis of stories in Jerome's writings like the account of the conversion of the Jews in Haimo Halberstensis, Hugo of St. Cher and Historia Passionis Domini (XLVI) and that about Jesus' radiant eyes in Petrus de Riga (XLVI). To these we may also reckon the story about the four soldiers in Historia Passionis Domini (LV). All these references are not important for our knowledge of the history of the Jewish-Christian Gospels.
8p6voc; xai npartri n a t p i o p x i a 'IepocruXuLtcou 'Icoaofiou T O U aoeA^oOeou xai anoaroXou ... (the text of Leicester Codex 69). Professor J. W. Wevers, Toronto, informed m e (20th of August 1986) that the references to t o l o u 6 ' in the Greek text of the O l d T e s t a m e n t ( G e n . 40,9 and 43,11 in M S . 56, G e n . 47,31 in 1 * and Ex. 16,31 in F * ) are of unknown origin. Schmidtke, N e u e F r a g m e n t e , s u p p o s e d that the marginal n o t e s have b e e n taken from a Commentary on M a t t h e w written by Apollinaris. Since J. R e u s s , Matthaus-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche, Texte u. Unters. 61 (Leipzig 1957), was able to reconstruct part of this work the hypothesis has b e c o m e improbable, s e e p. X X V I . S e e Gutbrod, s.v. 'IopctfjX etc., TheoL Worterb. z. N.T. in, 356-394. T h e word d o e s not say anything about the language but only that s o m e t h i n g or s o m e p e r s o n is related to the Jewish p e o p l e , cf. P h i l o , Legatio ad Gaium 170 a n d 245, ed. L. C o h n - P . W e n d l a n d , e d . minor V I (Berolini 1915) 1 5 2 and 166; Letter ofAristeas 22, 24, 28, 121 and 176, e d A . Pelletier, Sourc. Chr&L 89 (Paris 1962) 1 1 4 , 1 1 6 , 1 1 8 , 1 6 4 and 184; Titus 1,14 and ConstH. Apost V 12 5; V I 6 1; 27 1; 30 1; VIH 1 1 0 and 3 2 14, ed. Funk 269, 3 1 3 , 3 6 9 , 3 8 1 , 4 6 4 and 536. 1
9 4
9 5
T H E GOSPELS
36
Next there are a number of stories which can be explained from the use of Infancy or Passion Narratives like the story about the Three Kings in Sedulius Scottus and the Gospel of Maelbrigte (XLI), the face of Mary in Hugo of St. Cher (XLVin), the resurrection of two men in Hugo of S t Cher (XLVUI) and J o s e p h in prison in H u g o of St. Cher ( X L I X ) . Finally we know two purely legendary stories ascribed to a Jewish-Christian Gospel, viz. that about the miracles in Bezaida (XLIV) and the Seventeen Miracles during Jesus' birth (LVI). Of u n k n o w n origin a r e t h e following: VII dies pascae ( X L I I I ) , t h e appearance to Mary (L), the washing of the feet (LII), about Luke 22 ( O i l ) , about John (LTV) and about the donkeys (LVI). Three of these may be interesting, namely the story about the appearance to Mary, which is an ancient tradition already present in the Diatessaron, the VII dies pascae which is in an obviously Jewish-Christian tradition and the story about the donkeys which shows a Jewish custom. W e can n o t exclude t h e possibility t h a t they h a v e b e e n p a r t of s o m e Jewish-Christian G o s p e l or tradition. However, this does not say that the a u t h o r of these passages must have been acquainted with the contents of this Gospel. They may be explained on the basis of ancient Christian exegetical traditions. T h e above may corroborate the conclusion already reached earlier that the Gospel according to the Nazoraeans may have been known and used by s o m e u n k n o w n G r e e k c o m m e n t a t o r . W h e t h e r h e d i s c o v e r e d t h e text in A r a m a i c or G r e e k is u n k n o w n . But w e may say that knowledge about its contents must have faded away at a very early date after J e r o m e . 96
Sources T h e t h r e e Jewish-Christian G o s p e l s w e r e c o m p o s e d with h e l p of various sources. The Gospel according to the Hebrews is known from seven quotations (I, EL, XIEL, XIV, XV, XXI and XXII). These passages display no immediate parallels with passages in the New Testament. This means that, as far as we know, this Gospel was composed without the help of canonical traditions. On the other hand we assume that the general structure of this Gospel did not differ much 9 6
B. Bischoff, Wendepunkte in der Geschichte der lateinischen E x e g e s e im Fruhmittelalter, Mittelalterische Studieru Ausgewahlte Aufsatze zur Schriftkunde und Literaturgeschichte (Stuttgart 1966) 205-273 (also in: Sacris Erudiri 6 (1954) 189-279, esp. 215-216), states that J e r o m e translated the G o s p e l of the H e b r e w s and supposes that it "offenbar bei den Iren wenigstens bis z u m EX. Jahrhundert g a n z oder in b e t r a c h t l i c h e n T e i l e n v o r h a n d e n g e w e s e n ". M . M c N a m a r a , The Apocrypha in the Irish Church (Dublin 1975) 42: "The Gospel according to the Hebrews known to the Irish s e e m s t o have c o n t a i n e d b o t h an Infancy narrative and a narrative covering Christ's public life; e v e n , it w o u l d a p p e a r , his p o s t - r e s u r r e c t i o n a p p e a r a n c e s " . It s e e m s n o w t o b e sufficiently clear that t h e G o s p e l a c c o r d i n g to t h e N a z o r a e a n s , not t o m e n t i o n t h e G o s p e l according t o the H e b r e w s , was never in Ireland and that nothing can b e said about its contents based upon references in Irish writers or in Irish theological works.
T H E GOSPELS
37
from that of the canonical ones.. T h e contents obviously consisted of a life of J e s u s which s p o k e of his b a p t i s m ( X X I ) , his r e s u r r e c t i o n ( X V ) a n d his temptation in the desert or his transfiguration (II). Catechetical material must also have been part of it (I, XTV and XXII). T h e tradition which was used in this Gospel must have been circulating in the Christian community because it is known from other sources as well (cf. I). A characteristic of this material must have been the influence of traditions which had been taken from the LXX (cf. I and H).but also from other Greek translations of the Old Testament (cf. XXII). Sometimes an underlying Semitic substratum of these traditions is still discernable (cf. n, XJJJ and XTV). T h e r e is a striking agreement to be found in ancient Christian literature (cf. XXI). T h e same applies to the use of various ancient Christian expressions (cf.XV).. T h e Gospel reflects material which was current during a pre-canonical period. Events taken from the life of Jesus have b e e n interpreted in a very special way with help of Jewish ideas which w e r e p r e s e n t in a Hellenistic environment. Some of these ideas were quite widely known and can be found in Justin Martyr, Tertullian (XXI) or the Diatessaron (XTV). Some must have been of a more local character. All this means that this Gospel is very important for our knowledge of the origin of the Gospels in general. W e may assume that some rudimentary idea existed of the life of Jesus into whose framework various events have b e e n inserted. This material already shows a particular theological development and reflection. It appears that this material was shared with other Christians but that part of it was also confined to various isolated communities. T h e Gospel according to the Nazoraeans must also have consisted of a "life of Jesus". Jesus' baptism (XXIII), his suffering (XIX and XXXV) and his death (XX and XXIV) must have been part of this work. Now, as in the past, its contents are continuously compared to those of the Gospel of Matthew. This, however, does not mean to say that the author of the Gospel according to the Nazoraeans depended upon Matthew. T h e Story of the Rich Young M a n (III) and the Parable of the Talents (IV) are different from the parallel passages in Matthew. T h e Gospel according to the Nazoraeans shows occasional (XVH, X X X V ) or substantial additions (V, XXIII, XXIV, XXVII, XXXIV) when compared to Matthew. Other passages make clear that this Gospel was aware of particular traditions with regard to material also present in Matthew (the name Barabbas in XIX and superiiminare in XX). T h e only explanation for all this is that this Gospel originated in an environment in which traditions used by the G o s p e l of M a t t h e w w e r e k n o w n b u t that such traditions had a different development. 97
9 7
T h e problem with regard to the origin of the Gospel of Matthew cannot b e adequately dealt with here. However, one b e c o m e s m o r e and m o r e aware that Matthew is the product of a gradual d e v e l o p m e n t having as its final redactor a Gentile-Christian, s e e for example E L A b e l , W h o wrote Matthew ?, NTS 17 (1971) 138-152, and M . L o w e and D . Flusser, Evidence corroborating a m o d i f i e d P r o t o - M a t t h e w Synoptic T h e o r y , NTS 29 (1983) 25-47. G. H o w a r d , The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text (Macon, Georgia 1987), tried to reconstruct a very
T H E GOSPELS
38
We see that here too some of the ideas in this Gospel were widely known among early. Christian authors. T h e n a m e "good ones" is also found in the Pseudo-Clementine writings (V). In the story about the superliminare elements are present which can b e found in G r e e k commentators (XX). T h e i d e a of m o u r n i n g t h e Holy Spirit is p r e s e n t in Pastor Hermae ( X X I I ) , and t h e explanation of Matthew 15,5 with regard to the Pharisees can be found in the Diatessaron (XXXII). We know that the Gospel was written in Aramaic but we wonder what language its source was composed in. The word play around the name Barabbas seems to presuppose a Semitic environment (XIX), but the explanation of the difficult Greek word e m o w i o c ; seems to demand a Greek-speaking community (XVI). The most plausible explanation is that the "Matthean" sources originated in a bilingual environment. We are at the border line between Aramaic- and Greek-speaking Christians. Finally the sources found their way into the Gospel of Matthew which was written in Greek, and into the Gospel according to the Nazoraeans, which was written in Hebrew/Aramaic. W e may c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e origins of t h e G o s p e l according to t h e Nazoraeans are not much different from those of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Both were composed with help of the available tradition about the life of Jesus. However, one originated in a Greek-speaking and the other in an A r a m a i c speaking e n v i r o n m e n t , each with its own cultural and religious background. The Gospel according to the Ebionites was composed with the help of the three synoptic Gospels. It has already been said that this harmonising tendency was not restricted to the Diatessaron but must have been a feature of a certain environment and period in time. After the appearance of the Gospels there clearly existed a general effort to combine their contents into one book. All this is to be explained on the basis of a general need to bring together oral and written Christian traditions into one document. This continued until the time that the four Gospels finally became "canonical". In spite of the presence of many parallel passages the text itself differed from that offered in the synoptic Gospels. This appears from the beginning of this Gospel (VI) and the account 98
early H e b r e w text of Matthew which is held to display primitive elements, s e e also G. Howard, A Primitive G o s p e l of M a t t h e w and the T o l ' d o t h Y e s h u , NTS 34 (1988) 60-70. H o w e v e r , G. E . H o w a r d , S h e m - T o b ' s H e b r e w M a t t h e w , Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, D i v i s i o n A . T h e P e r i o d of t h e B i b l e ( J e r u s a l e m 1 9 8 6 ) 2 2 3 - 2 3 0 , h a s t o admit: " A comparison of S h e m - T o b ' s M a t t h e w with quotations of Matthew in earlier Christian and Jewish documents produced another surprising result. First a comparison of this text with quotations of the so-called H e b r e w / A r a m a i c Matthew or of apocryphal H e b r e w / A r a m a i c Gospels, referred t o or quoted in Irenaeus (sic), Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius and especially J e r o m e s h o w e d that n o relationship exists between them". This has b e e n confirmed by my own observations. 9 8
S e e a g a i n M . D . A . B e r t r a n d , L ' E v a n g i l e des E b i o n i t e s . U n e h a r m o n i e e v a n g e l i q u e anterieure au Diatessaron, NTS 26 (1980) 548-563; G. Strecker, E i n e E v a n g e l i e n h a r m o m e bei Justin und Pseudoklemens ? NTS 24 (1978) 297-316.
T H E GOSPELS
39
of Jesus' baptism (IX). The author of this Gospel freely added traditions to the text in order to show his ideas about a vegetarian life (VU and XHI) and about sacrifices (XI). The origins of this Gospel differ from those of the other two. The other were composed in a situation in which the Gospels were still in the making. Their origins are p a r t of a general effort to compose "Lives of Jesus". T h e Gospel according to the Ebionites is a kind of reaction to the results of this development. Some Christians could n o t find their particular ideas in the available Gospel texts and added therefore their own ideas. O u r final conclusion must be t h a t t h e origin of the Jewish-Christian Gospels have been insufficiently considered in studies about the background of the so-called canonical Gospels. W e have seen that Jewish-Christian Gospels share a common background with the Gospel texts of the New Testament. Christology Finally we shall look at the christological ideas of the three Jewish-Christian Gospels. Our remarks remain tentative because they are perforce based upon a limited number of passages. The six quotations from the Gospel according to the Hebrews (I, n, XJJJ, IV, XV, XXI and XXII) show that we are dealing with a life of Jesus which gives accounts of his baptism and his resurrection. Although they are small in number, we, nevertheless meet a consistent group of theological ideas. It seems hardly necessary to repeat that the theological conception of this G o s p e l is d o m i n a t e d by J e w i s h - C h r i s t i a n W i s d o m Theology. Wisdom is represented in this Gospel by the Holy Spirit who is called "Mother". Various features of this W i s d o m / M o t h e r can be found. H e r activity is encountered in the realm of prophecy. She inspires and gives insight, but she also calls the prophet and appoints the place where the prophet has to do his work. The Holy Spirit takes Jesus by his hair and brings him to Mount Thabor. It is a wellknown idea which is found in connection with Habbakuk, Ezechiel, Mani and with the Apostle Paul in Acts (II). The Spirit descends upon man but according to this Gospel it is Jesus in particular who is looked for. Anybody who possesses the Spirit may be called Son but Jesus is the Son with a very special mission. One of the characteristics of the Spirit is that man starts a new life during which he gradually comes nearer to his destination. To reach the final stage is to reign and rest. In this situation m a n has arrived at a point at which he is invulnerable to evil forces which are now subjected to him. After his baptism Jesus is said to reign into eternity. The course of events around Jesus' resurrection must have deviated from that in the canonical Gospels. Here James the brother of Jesus obviously played a p r o m i n e n t p a r t , b u t in all o t h e r respects we see t h a t t h e n a t u r e of t h e appearance of Jesus does not differ very much from that in New Testament passages.
40
T H E GOSPELS
We may conclude that the group within which this Gospel originated was p r o b a b l y small and clearly s e p a r a t e d from t h e world in which it lived. It consisted of people who were held to possess the Spirit This was a source of joy and had to be cherished (XIV and XXII). T h e persons who belonged to the group were known to one another. They probably came together in order to "break bread" according to an established custom (XV). This does n o t say that Christianity in Egypt, the place of origin of this Gospel, was represented by a small group oifratres only. The group which was r e s p o n s i b l e for this G o s p e l was m e r e l y o n e of m a n y s i m i l a r C h r i s t i a n communities. We came to the conclusion that parts of this Gospel were widely known. This means that these Christian traditions were widespread. However, Christianity in Egypt was typically experienced within small groups. In other words, the Gospel according to the Hebrews is a product of one of the early Egyptian Wisdom Schools." T h e G o s p e l according to t h e N a z o r a e a n s is known from twenty-two passsages (III-V, XVI-XX, XXIII-XXXVI) but many of these do not say very much about the theological contents of this Gospel. It is not usually quoted for any theological aim b u t to clarify some passage or words in the G o s p e l of Matthew. Nevertheless, we are able to draw some conclusions. This Gospel is preoccupied with the Jewish Law and the Jewish people. Although the Rich Young Man is supposed to have followed the Law, he is not able to fulfil the commandment to love his neighbour which, in this case, means that he does not want to divide his possessions among "his brothers, the sons of Abraham" (III). T h e Parable of the Talents is directed against those who live extravagantly. Nobody seems to be absolutely free of sin. Jesus could have committed a sin in ignorantia (XXHI) and the prophets could have committed a sermo peccati (XXIV). Those who do not do the will of the Father will be cast away from him. T h e Jewish l e a d e r s a r e t h o s e w h o use t h e w o r d KopfJSv (XXXII). T h e destruction of the lintel of the temple is a sign of the corning destruction of the whole building ( X X ) . J e r u s a l e m is not called "holy city" ( X X V ) . Barabbas is the son of "his father", which probably means the devil (XIX). The entire Gospel breathes the spirit of Judaism with which it seems to be in constant debate. For the author of this Gospel the Jews are the children of Abraham who are not following and are unable to follow the Law. His anger is especially directed against the leaders of the Jews and, so it seems, Jewish institutions like the temple.
9 9
S e e for the early Christian Church in Egypt M . Hornschuh, DieAnfSnge des Christentums in Agypten, Inaugural D i s s . , Friedrich-Wilhelrn-Universitat ( B o n n 1 9 5 9 ) ; C. D e t l e f G. Muller, Geschichte der orientalischen NaQonalkirchen, Die JSrche in ihrer Geschichte 2 (Gottingen 1981) 321, and C.H. Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt (London 1979) 49. M y own ideas are set out in A . F. J. Wijn, Jewish-Christianity in E g y p t 77>e Roots of Egyptian Christianity, ed. by B. A . Pearson and J. E . Goehring (Philadelphia 1986) 161-175.
T H E GOSPELS
41
T h e community within which the Gospel originated must again have been a small one. H e r e also the members feel themselves to have been chosen by G o d (V) and expect to live with each o t h e r as brothers (III). T h e brothers apparently lived in poor conditions which sometimes obliged them to beg for aims (XVII). It is impossible to say anything about its christological ideas by lack of specific references.We can only say that the Gospel contained a life of Jesus in which there must have been some account of his baptism (XXIIJ.) and his death (XIX, XX, XXV and X X X V I ) . ^ T h e Gospel according to the Ebionites was quoted by Epiphanius to show its absurdities. T h e selection of t h e references is, therefore, arbitrary and probably does not indicate t h e real c o n t e n t s of t h e Gospel. Nothing was seemingly said about Jesus' birth. During his baptism Jesus is chosen as God's son. At that moment God generated him (IX). This means that there is a total absence of ideas about Wisdom or an assumption that Jesus is a prophet. H e is the Chosen One and at the moment that this becomes evident a light radiates. H e is held to fulfil everything. His twelve apostles have b e e n elected to be a testimony to Israel. Nothing is known of Jesus' death and resurrection. The last supper is eaten but Epiphanius emphasizes that Jesus does not eat meat (XXI). J o h n t h e Baptist was also a vegetarian (VII). This, and the abolishment of sacrifices, is especially emphasized by Epiphanius. 1
This Gospel obviously represents the ideas of some of the many JewishChristian groups which lived east of the river Jordan. Our knowledge of them is limited. W e mainly depend on what is said in the so-called Pseudo-Clementine Writings with which it shares a rejection of meat and sacrifices. 101
Epilogue T h e presence of three Jewish Christian Gospels is an established f a c t .
102
They
1 0 0
T h e most important source for our knowledge of the Nazoraeans is provided by a number of quotations from their interpretation of Isaiah quoted by Jerome, s e e A . F . J. Klijn, Jerome's Q u o t a t i o n s f r o m a N a z o r a e a n I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of I s a i a h , Judto-Christianisme, Recherches historiques et theologiques offertes e n h o m m a g e au Cardinal Jean D a m e l o u , Rech. de Science Religieuse 60 ( 1 9 7 2 ) 241-255, s e e also R. A . Pritz, N a z a r e n e Jewish Christianity, Studia PostBiblica 37 (Leiden 1988) 57-70. This book has to b e read with a critical eye as far as it deals with the Jewish-Christian Gospels. 1 0 1
T h e b e s t b o o k about the P s e u d o - C l e m e n t i n e s is still G. Strecker, D a s Judenchristentum der Pseudoklementinen, Texte i*. Unters. 70 (Berlin 1959). For the sake of completeness w e should look at a number of references and contributions which have b e e n left out of consideration. Bischoff, art. cit, 253, quotes from a manuscript in Wurzburg, M.p.th. f.61, 8 / 9 t h cent.: idest Mariosa nomine ( s e e Matth. 9,20); Regina, idest Meroe, austrio idest Aethiopiae ( s e e Matth. 12,42) and Homo Malchus nomine et caementarius fuit ( s e e Matth. 12,10), but this information is not said to have b e e n taken from a Jewish-Christian G o s p e l W e m i g h t a d d that the n a m e M e r o e h a s b e e n o b v i o u s l y d e r i v e d f r o m aiiioppoucra, s e e J. Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims. Before the Crusaders (Warminster 1977) 6 3 . Nicephorus, Quae Scriptwae Canonicae, M i g n e , PG 100, 1050A: Euayy^Xioi/ Kara 'EfJpaiouc. o r i x o i jic.' (2200). H e reckons the G o s p e l a m o n g the a v T t X e y o i i e u a S e e also Philip de Side quoted with C d e B o o r , N e u e F r a g m e n t e d e s Papias,- H e g e s i p p u s und Pierius...aus der Kirchengeschichte des 1 0 2
T H E GOSPELS
42
are the respresentatives of three Jewish-Christian groups which can be clearly distinguished. One should be located in Egypt, the second in the region around Beroia and the third somewhere east of the river Jordan. The Gospel according to the Hebrews is an authentic product of Egyptian Christianity. T h e Gospel a c c o r d i n g to t h e N a z o r a e a n s a n d t h a t a c c o r d i n g to t h e E b i o n i t e s w e r e composed within small groups; the group responsible for the Gospel according to the Ebionites is difficult to define. T h e Nazoraeans spoke Aramaic. Their Gospel was obviously present in the library of Caesarea and became the best known and the most influential of the three. The contents of these Gospels reflect ideas which are also found elsewhere, but each of them represents a special branch of Jewish-Christianity which was a far from homogeneous whole. In this light t h e c o n t e n t s of t h e G o s p e l s c o n t r i b u t e to a b e t t e r understanding of what is commonly called Jewish-Christianity, but which could just as easily be called the earliest form of Christianity. We have seen that many ideas present in these Gospels can also, b e found in the generality of early Christian writers. These Gospels have also made an important contribution to the field of the development of what may be called Gospel tradition. The Gospel according to the Hebrews and that according to the Nazoraeans were composed according to the same principles as the canonical Gospels. We have further concluded that the origin of the Gospel of Matthew cannot be disassociated from that of the G o s p e l a c c o r d i n g t o t h e N a z o r a e a n s . T h e y r e p r e s e n t two s e p a r a t e developments of the same basic community. T h e G o s p e l according to the Ebionites is a representative of a wide-spread attempt in early Christianity to harmonise Gospel traditions on the basis of existing G o s p e l s . 103
T h e names "apocryphal" and "Jewish-Christian" Gospels have tended to isolate the contents of these works, as far as they are still known. In m o d e r n studies the Gospel traditions of Jewish-Christian origin have been put into the same category as other Christian literary products, which have been considered
S i d c t e s , Texte u. Unters. V 2 (Leipzig 1888) 169: e i a i 8 e x a i aXXa eiioryyeXia i^euon, T 6 xort' AiyujtTiouc., xai K a r a TOUC. S i S e x a , xai K a r a BasileiJrny, s e e Origen p. 6. T h e o d o r e t of Cyr, Comp. Haer. Fab. II, M i g n e , PG 83, 388C (about the Ebionites): M 6 i / o u 8 £ T 6 rata 'Eppaiouc. eiiayyeXiov Sexoiron. T h e manuscript B. L. add. 17 215 does not refer to the Gospel according to the H e b r e w s as has b e e n suggested by Harnack, Gesch. der altchristi. Lit 1/1,10. T h e text reads: "And h e confirmed the b o o k ( G o s p e l ) of Matthew, that was with the Hebrews showing that the M e s s i a h w a s b o r n of D a v i d and A b r a h a m . . . " T h e f o l l o w i n g publications are useless for our purpose: J.R. Harris, 77>e Gospel of the Twelve Apostles together with the Apocalypse of each of them. Edited from t h e Syriac M S with a Translation and Introduction ( C a m b r i d g e 1900); A . Jacoby, Ein neues Evangelienfragment (Strassburg 1900), and E . R e v i l l o n t , L e s A p o c r y p h e s Coptes. Publics et Traduits I: Les evangiles des D o u z e A p o t r e s et d e Saint Barthelemy, PatroL Orient H (Paris 1907) 123-184. 1 0 3
S e e T . Baarda, A I A G Q N I A - 2YMQNIA. Factors in the Harmonisation of the Gospels. E s p e c i a l l y in t h e D i a t e s s a r o n of Tatian, Gospel Traditions in the Second Century, e d . W. L. Petersen ( N o t r e D a m e / L o n d o n 1989) 133-156.
T H E GOSPELS
43
"apocryphal" in some way or another. It is now time to give the Jewish-Christian Gospel tradition equal treatment to the so-called canonical G o s p e l s . 104
See also A . F. J. Klijn, T h e Study of Jewish Christianity, NTS 20 ( 1 9 7 3 / 4 ) 419-431.
PART TWO
TEXT AND COMMENTARY
I Clement of Alexandria, stromata I I I X 45 5 ed. 0 . Stahlin, GCS, Clemens Alexandrinus II (Leipzig 1906) 137 202/215 Source: Gospel according to the Hebrews
fi KOLV xt3 KOC6 ' 'EPpociouc; euayyeX'ui) 6 Gauixacrotc; fkxcrtXeucrei yeypairrai teal 6 PacriXeucrac, ai/cmancrexat. As it is also written in t h e G o s p e l according to t h e H e b r e w s : H e w h o has become astonished will become king and he who has become king will rest. Parallel Texts 1. Clement of Alexandria, stromata V XIV 96 3 ed. O. Stahlin. GCS, Clemens Alexandrinus II (Leipzig 1906) 389 202/215
laov yap xotrcou; bcelva Swaxav ou TtctucreTai 6 ^rrcSf, eax; Sf euprj- euptbf 8e 6a|ip>i6fio-eToci, 6a|af3ri9elc; 8e ftacriXeiJo-ei, fiao-tXewaq o e eiTawmario-eToct. For similar to these the following is possible: H e who seeks will not cease until he finds and having found he will marvel and having marvelled he will become king and having become king, he will rest. 2. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 654,5-9 e d . B . P . G r e n f e l l a n d A . S . H u n t , The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part I V ( L o n d o n 1 9 0 4 ) 4 . R e c o n s t r u c t i o n according to J \ A . Fitzmyer, T h e Oxyrhynchus Logoi of J e s u s and the Coptic Gospel according to Thomas, Theological Studies 2 0 (1959) 505-560, esp. 516-518, and O. Hofius, D a s Koptische Thomasevangelium und die Oxyrhynchus-Papyri nr. 1, 654 und 655, Evangelische Theologie 2 0 (1960) 21-42 and 182-192, esp. 27-29 end 3rd cent.
IATI TtcciicroccrGe 6 ^rrc[t3i/ xoO ^TrceXf etoc; civ ] eupxi KOCI 6 x w eupri [9afiflri9T\o-eTai teal Gocix-]
48
TEXT A N D COMMENTARY
PriGelc; Poco-iXevo-et, KOC[1 Poco-iXeuo-ctr; dvocixa-] TicreraL
Let him who seeks not cease seeking until he finds and when he has found he will marvel and having marvelled he will become king and having become king he will rest. 3. Gospel of Thomas 2 80,14-19 ed. A . Guillaumont a . c , The Gospel according to Thomas (Leiden-London 1959) 2-3 beg. 2nd cent.
AHTpeq'
\o
"Si
e q u j A r t s m e <J«* ujrtHp«
ATUI
qrt&p
TOT'gme
J9 P" P * t
T
eq'igme aIArtTeq s i « i m u ,
T U >
T0
T
eq.o-n/ xod X o y o u rrjv Kara TOO jj.n5ei/ epyacrajaevou r\ eir\z e 7 t i X e y o j j . e i T | aneiXfi ou n e p l aiiToO, aXXa n e p l TOO Ttporepov Kore'eTtava\r|v()iv XeXeicrai TOU eo-Siovroc; Kal mvovroc; j j e r a xQv HeSuovran/. Since the Gospel which has come to us in Hebrew letters directs its threat not against the one who has hidden (his talent) but against the one who lived in extravagance (for he possessed three slaves, one who spend the fortune of his master with harlots and flute-girls, the second who multiplied his trade and the third who hid his talent; next the first was accepted, the second rebuked only,
3 1
S e e B . M. Metzger, T h e Caesarean Text of the Gospels, Chapters m the History of the N e w Testament Textual Criticism, New Testament Tools and Studies TV (Leiden 1963) 42-72.
TEXT AND COMMENTARY
61
the third, however, was thrown into prison) I wonder whether the threat in Matthew which, according to the letter was spoken against the one who did nothing, applies not to him but to the first one who was eating and drinking with those who were drunken, by way of resumption. Commentary Eusebius does not give a literal quotation from the Gospel "in Hebrew letters". H e simply compares the text of the Parable of the Talents in Matth. 25,14-30 with t h e text found in the G o s p e l he has discovered a n d h e comes to the conclusion that some differences existThe most important of these is that it was not he who hid the talent who was threatened but he who lived in dissipation. After this he sums up what the three slaves have done. One spent the fortune of his master on harlots and flute-players, the second multiplied his trade and the third hid his t a l e n t This is the order given by Eusebius because he wanted to show the emphasis which has been laid upon the slave living in prodigality. At the end of the present passage he seems to present the original order of the p a r a b l e . H e r e it is said that the first was accepted. This must have b e e n the slave who multiplied his trade. The second one was merely rebuked. This must have b e e n the slave who hid his t a l e n t T h e third one was thrown into prison and this must have been the one who squandered his money. 32
Some parts of the Matthew parable can still be recognized. In both parables there is mention of somebody who multiplied the talents of his master and someone else who hid his talent. Matthew, however, speaks of two slaves who multiplied their talents. Therefore, Eusebius is likely to have read a similar parable in which there was talk of somebody who frittered away his master's money. It is the introduction of this idea which makes the parable different from that in Matthew. T h e Matthew parable deals with Jesus' second coming after which Christians will be asked what they d o n e with what they have b e e n entrusted with. The worst crime is that somebody should hide his talent which means that he has done nothing with it. In other words "talents" may not be hidden. In the parable cited by Eusebius we notice what is called by Jeremias "eine moralisierende V e r g r o b e r u n g " . A Christian is n o longer primarily expected to be active but he has to live a decent life. In this way the sociological background of this Parable would seem to reveal a small group of introspective Christians who are avoiding being contaminated by the outside world instead of going to reveal their "talents". 33
It is difficult to decide whether the author of the Jewish-Christian Gospel was acquainted with Matthew. It seems that the present version of the parable is secondary compared to the Matthew version or to the source of this Gospel.
S
S e e for "whores and flute-players " W. Bauer, Wdrterbuch z. N.T. , 241. S e e J. Jeremias, Die Gleichnisse Jem (Gottingen 1954 ) 56. 3
TEXT A N D COMMENTARY
62
We wonder whether the sentence zbv jtev Kaxacry6vTa zf\v unap£u/ t o u 5ecrn6rou u,exa n o p v S v Kal auXTrcpiouv does not show the influence of Luke 15,30, where it is said : 6 KtrtarJwytiJuCTOUxbv fiiov u,exa nopvaiv. If this were so the author of the Gospel might also be held to be dependent upon Luke. But it is also possible that the expression used in this case is a common place. 34
Eusebius, Theophania syriaca TV 12 ed. Samuel L e e , Eusebius, Bishop of Ceasarea on the Theophania or Divine Manifestation of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ A Syriac V e r s i o n . Edited from an Ancient Manuscript recenUy discovered (London 1842) after 323 Source: Gospel according t o the Nazoraeans
-
^ • •—' n o n
^V
1
rt'iw
~* ^." 7" "* i ^ a l s A
«*\ n i> A i i
d
1
-> - -*
in\ rf
i^aSn.
Then he taught about the divisions of the souls which will come about in the houses, as we have found somewhere in the Gospel which exists among the Jews in the Hebrew language, in which it is said: I choose for myself the good ones, the good ones whom my Father in heaven has given to me. Commentary Eusebius is obviously giving a literal quotation after a short introduction. A few lines later he comes back to the reference in the following way: ^ rta\rf - i ..a* ^ M . a _o_im rf'i • f!«, fd'A . t>. . The text is the same apart from the word i A which is missing. This may be a denominative pronoun but can also be used to translate the G r e e k a r t i c l e . This means that the omission has no relevance for the meaning of the passage. 35
3 4
11 1
In syP^P ' the word Piou of Luke 15,12 and 30 has been rendered by w i • i n which in ov turn is a translation of the word t a \mapx *ecriv djuapTiuv have b e e n left out after jaeTavoiaq, cf. M a r k 1,4/Matth. 3,3. Nothing is said a b o u t "the desert" in which J o h n the Baptist preached according to the canonical Gospel, cf. Matth. 3,1/Mark 1,4/Luke 3,2. W e wonder whether these elements were deliberately omitted by the author of the present Gospel or whether Epiphanius was merely summarising its text. IX Epiphanius, Panarion 30 13 7-8 ed. K. Holl, Ancoratus..., 350,12-351,6 ca.37S Source: Gospel according to the Ebionites
K a i jaexa TO e l n e t v noXXa enufiepei 5TI TOO Xaou PearticrSevroc; r|X9ev Kai 'Incrouc; Kai kfkmxkfQr] into TOU 'Icoavvou. Kai ibq dvfiX9ev a n d TOU u&aroc;, rivoiyncrav ol o u p a v o l Kai eI5ev TO nveujaa TO a y i o v e v effiei n e p i o r e p S q , KareX0oiicniec;, OTI oijTtoq e o r i n p e n o v nXr|pto9fivai jtavra. And after much is said in the Gospel it continues: After the people has b e e n baptized Jesus also came and was baptized by John. And when h e ascended from the water the heavens opened and he saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove descending and coming to him. And a voice from heaven said: Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased, and next: This day I have generated thee. And suddenly a great light shone about that place. When John saw it, they say, he said to him: W h o art thou Lord ? And again a voice came from heaven which said to him: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. After this, it says, John fell down before him and said: I pray thee, Lord, baptize thou me. But h e withstood him and said: Let it be, since so it is necessary that everything will be fulfilled. Commentary T h e words j a e T a TO e i n e i v noXXd are not clear. Epiphanius quotes a passage which must have b e e n part of the beginning of the "Gospel according to the Ebionites". But we wonder what was said before the story of Jesus' baptism. In
TEXT A N D COMMENTARY
71
the Gospels of Matthew and Luke something is said about the preaching of J o h n the Baptist but this is no more than a short story, cf. Matth. 3 , 7 - 1 2 / L u k e 3 , 7 - 2 0 . W e can only conclude that the introduction must remain a mystery. The following can be said about the contents of the quotation. xou Xctou PctTtxtaGevxoc;, cf. Luke 3 , 2 1 . f]X9ov Kai 'Incrouc;, cf. Mark 1,9 Kai ePanTicrSri u n o TOU ' Itodvvou, cf. M a r k 1,9 but: Kal eyeveTO e v eKe'ivau; Taiq njaepaiq T|X9OV 'Incrouc; and N a ^ a p e x xf]c; TaXiXaiaq Kal efJaxkrGn. etc, T6V ' Iopoavriv into ' Iaxivvou. Kal tix;...u5caoc;, cf. Mark 1,10/Matth. 3 , 1 6 , but: eu9uc; dvePn. dno... n v o i y n c r a v ol o u p a v o l , cf. M a t t h . 3 , 1 6 / L u k e 3 , 2 1 , b u t M a r k 1 , 1 0 : ...crxi^Ojuevou;... Kal eI5ev, cf. Matth. 3 , 1 6 / M a r k 1,10. TO nveujaa...nepiCTTepaq, cf. M a t t h . 3 , 1 6 / M a r k 1 , 1 0 / L u k e 3 , 2 2 , but Matthew : ...TOU 9eou...d)crel; Mark: T6 nveujoa tlx;... and Luke: ...aajuxtxiKw effiei tlx;..., cf. Matth. 3 , 1 6 in syP:. and Luke 3 , 2 2 in sy : k avayyeXfivai aurffi 8TI L8ou n jj.rrcnp crou Kai ol aoeXifjoi crou e£ai ecrcfiKacriv, 8TI TIC; JJOU ecrci jJ.rvcnp Kai a5eX4oi; Kai eictetvac; TTIV xe\pa enl TOVIC; jjaGriTac; etyr\- o u r o t elcriv ol a8eXoi (MS. M a8eXal) JJOU Kai r\ jjrfjcrp Kai a5eXol in place of Kal Tivec, e l m v ol &8eXol jxou, but om. T t v e q elcriv (cf. Mark/Luke) in 2 b c g ff sy and om. jxou B . xeipa in place of x&pa aircou, but om. aircou X* D etc. e m Touq jxaGrrcac; in place of ...aircou, but om. A vg. e<j>ri in place of elnev with 517 1675 etc. ouxoi eUrlv...a8eX4al in place of iSou r\ jirrrrip uou Kal ol a8eX<j>oi jxou. ol noiouvTec, xa GeXfmaTa TOU naTpoq jzou in place of Seme, y a p ccv noificrri TO GeXruia TOU narp6c; ixou TOU e v oupavolq aircoc, jaou aSeXijiocj Kal a5eX(j)f\ Kal ^rrrrip ecrclv. It a p p e a r s t h a t t h e r e a r e n u m e r o u s differences b e t w e e n t h e text of Epiphanius and the text which is commonly used today. O n the other hand we cannot say that the text of Epiphanius follows any other given type of text. W e can conclude that Epiphanius was quoting from memory. It was sufficient to show that according to this passage Jesus calls G o d his Father. Even if t h e passage occurred in this form in the Gospel according to the Ebionites it seems to have been in a free form 2
s
x
XI Epiphanius, Panarion 30 14 5 ed. K. Holl, Ancoratus..., 354,6-8 ca.375 Source: Gospel according t o the Ebionites
' Qc, TO n a p ' aircoic, euayyeXiov KaXouizevov nepiexet, 8 r i rjXGov KaraXucrai Taq Gucfiacj, Kai e a v ji.fi naucrnoree TOU Gueiv, ou naucrerai a' UJLUUV opyfi. As their Gospel mentioned above shows: I Have come to abolish sacrifices and if you do not stop sacrificing the wrath will not cease from you. Commentary Epiphanius quoted the text in the context of a passage in which h e was trying to say that the Ebionites accept that Jesus is like one of the archangels. H e was able to abolish part of the Law because he was a heavenly being. H e r e it is said that the temple and the sacrifices have been rejected. T h e rejection of sacrifices is widely known in Jewish-Christian circles and can b e found in Ps. Clement, Horn. HI 56 4 and Recogn. I 37 and 39. Epiphanius writes that the Nazoraeans rejected this practice also, cf. Panarion 28 1 4, as did the Elkesaites, cf. Panarion 19 3 6 . 55
H.-J. Schoeps, Theologie und Geschichte
des Judentums
(Tubingen 1949) 219-242.
76
TEXT AND COMMENTARY
U n l i k e t h e o t h e r r e f e r e n c e s this o n e h a s no p a r a l l e l s in t h e N e w Testament.
XII Epiphanius, Panarion 30 22 4 ed. K. Holl, Ancoratus..., 363,1-6 ca.375 Source: Gospel according to the Ebionites
A u r o l 8e afyaviaavxeq, da}i' e a u r w v TT|V rffe a\r|9eiac; dKoXou9iav nXXa^av TO prycov, drcep ecrul nSou fyavepbv eK xQv ovve^evypevwv XeCeuiv, Kai enoiricrav TOUC; jia9r|Tdjj.ev a o i TO TJotCTxa (jiayeiv, Kai OUTOV SfjGev Xeyovxa- jin em9u)j.ta ejte9inartcra Kpeaq TOUTO TO TJdcrxa fyayeiv jj.e9' UJASV. TJ69ev 8e ou 4>u>pa9fVreTai r| auxffiv pa8toupyia, TTJC; aKoXou9iaq Kpa£ouoT|c; 8TI TO JIU Kai TO n r d e c m rtpocrGexa; ' A v x l TOU y a p e i n e i v e n i 9 u i i . t a ene9u)j.T|aa a u x o l n p o c r e 9 e v T o TO jxri e n i p p r y i a Aired? 8e dXrt9ioc; eXeyev em0uu.ta eire9u>iTicra TOOTO TO TTdaxa (jwtyeiv u.e9' UJUSV.
They, however, destroyed the true order and changed the passage; that is clear to everyone because o f the words that belong to each other and they make the disciples say: Where d o you wish that we prepare the Passover to eat for you? And they m a d e him answer: I do not earnestly desire to eat meat with you this Passover. How then will this deceit not b e brought to light, since, the order of the words is clear, the mu and the eta have been added? For instead of saying: I earnestly desired, they added the word not. Actually he said: I earnestly desired to e a t this P a s s o v e r with you. They, however, a d d e d m e a t and deceived themselves recklessly speaking the words: I did not desire earnestly to eat meat with you this Passover. Commentary Epiphanius quotes Luke 22,15 and next h e gives the same passage according to a Jewish-Christian Gospel. T h e disciples ask Jesus where they should eat the Passover. This can be compared to Matth. 26,17/Mark 14,12. Jesus' answer begins with the word \xr\. This differs from the text of t h e synoptic Gospels where after the question Jesus sends his disciples away to make the necessary preparations.
TEXT A N D COMMENTARY
77
T h e reference can b e compared to Luke 22,15 where Jesus speaks to his disciples during t h e meal. Luke's text runs as follows: em6u)i.la eneGuiirtcra TOUTO TO n a a x a ijxxyetv (J.e6' ujiSv npo TOU )i.e nwGetv. Epiphanius rightly says that the word fir\ has b e e n added to the t e x t A few other differences occur of which the word TO Kpeotq in place of TO ndcrxa is the most i m p o r t a n t E p i p h a n i u s has given t h e correct m e a n i n g of t h e text of t h e JewishChristian Gospel. Jesus does not want to p a r t a k e of the Passover because h e does not wish to eat meat, It is also for this reason that the word Passover has been changed into m e a t This is the second reference to the Gospel according to the Ebionites in which the eating of meat is emphatically rejected (see also VII). 5 6
xm Didymus the Blind, Comment, in Psabnos ed. M . Gronewald, Psalmenkommentar UI, Papyr. Texte undAbhandL
8 ( B o n n 1969) 184,9-10
398 Source: Gospel according to the H e b r e w s
TOV MaGGaiov 8otcei e v TOJ Katie AOUKSV A e u l v 6voji.a£etv,ouK e c r u v 8 e auTOc;, aXXa 6 KcaacrcaGeu; c u m TOU ' I o u 8 a 6 MaGGiac, Kai 6 A e u i q eic, 8ui)vuiiot elouv. e v TS5 KaG' ' Eftpaiouc, euccyyeXiu TOUTO (fwciverat It seems that Matthew is named Levi in the Gospel according to Luke. But they are not the same, but Matthias who replaced Judas and Levi are the same with a double name. This appears from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Commentary According to the various lists given in the New Testament (cf. Mark 3,18/Matth. 10,3/Luke 6,15/Acts 1,13) M a t t h e w is one of t h e apostles. H e is otherwise never m e n t i o n e d in t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t a p a r t from in M a t t h . 9,9, where, however, the parallel passages in Mark 2,14 and Luke 5,27-29 speak of a m a n called L e v i . It is on the basis of this identification in Matthew that it is almost generally accepted in the early Church that Matthew was also called Levi and that h e was a tax-collector. 57
58
5 6
S e e also J. Jeremias, Abendmahlsworte Jesu (Gottingen 1960) 201-203. S e e R . P e s c h , L e v i - M a t t h a u s ( M c 2 , 1 4 / M t 9 , 9 ) . E i n B e i t r a g zur L o s u n g e i n e s altes P r o b l e m s , ZNW 5 9 ( 1 9 6 8 ) 4 0 - 5 6 , a n d D . L n h r m a n n , D a s B r u c h s t u c k a u s d e m Hebraerevangelium bei Didymus von Alexandrien, Nov. Test. 29 (1987) 265-279. S e e R . A . L i p s i u s , Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden II/2 (Braunschweig 1887) 258-269. 5 7
5 8
TEXT A N D
78
COMMENTARY
Matthias is mentioned in Acts 1,23 in the New Testament only. H e took the place of Judas. In Ps. Clement, Recogn. 160 5, he is identified with Barnabas (cf. Acts 4,36) and with Zaccheus (cf. Luke 19,2) in Clement, Strom. TV 6 35. In Aphraates, Dem. IV 6, and in the Syriac translation of Eusebius, hist, eccles. 112 3; H 11; m 25 6; 29 4 and 39 10, Matthias is called >-^nJ< .61 But all this is of no help in explaining the identification of Levi and Matthias. T h e following suggestion m i g h t solve t h e p r o b l e m . Both t h e n a m e Matthew and Matthias are translations of the Hebrew iTTHlD. However, this name is also rendered in Greek by words like iicctGaGiaq, (icaGiaq, jiatxaGiaq, ( i c a r a e i a , ) A a 0 0 1 a c ; , (j.a99a0iac;, (AaOOaviac; a n d (i.orc0iac;. F r o m this it appears that the name Matthias was known among Greek-speaking Jews. If Hebrew- or Aramaic-speaking Jewish-Christian circles knew an apostle by the name rPWlD, it is easy to explain how that this n a m e was translated as Matthias by some Greek-speaking Christians and as Matthew by others. T h e occurrence of two or even more different renderings of the same Hebrew name is quite normal. T h e result of all this is that Matthias in this context seems to b e no one other than M a t t h e w . 59
60
62
63
64
XTV Jerome, in Ephes. 5,4 ed. Migne, PL 2 6 , 5 5 2 C / D 386/7 Source: G o s p e l according t o the H e b r e w s
...ut in Hebraico quoque Evangelio legimus, Dominion ad discipulos loquentem: Et nunquam, inquit, laetisitis, nisi cum fratrem vestrum videritis in charitate
5 9
ed. B . R e h m - F . Faschke, D i e Pseudoklementinen U, Rekognitionen, GCS 51 (Berlin 1965)
42^1. 6 0
C l e m e n s Alexandrinus, Strom. TV V I 3 5 1, ed. O . Stahlin, GCS, Clemens II (Leipzig 1906)
265. 6 1
e d . I. Parisot, Patrol. Syr. 1 / 1 (Parisiis 1894) 149 and e d . W . Wright and N . M c L e a n ( C a m b r i d g e 1898) 4 9 , 60, 156, 161. S e e a l s o K . L a k e and H . J. Cadbury, T h e B e g i n n i n g s o f Christianity Pt. I: 77ie Acts of the Apostles I V (London 1933) 14-15, and especially S. Brock, A new Testimonium of the ' G o s p e l according t o the Hebrews', NTS 18 ( 1 9 7 1 / 2 ) 220-222. 6 2
Or i r P J i n n and less probable i V J n r J o r i n ^ n D
6 3
See E . Hatch and H . A . Redpath.^4 Concordance of the Septuagint II (Oxford 1897) 109 of the S u p p l e m e n t and B . R e i c k e , s.v. Matthanja, Bibi-Hist Handwdrterbuch II (GOttingen 1964) 1171. 6 4
This is not the place t o look at the problem related to Acts 1,12-26, but w e wonder whether this story and the identification o f Levi and M a t t h e w in the G o s p e l o f M a t t h e w are not t w o independent efforts t o legitimize a certain "Matthew" who w a s only known from the traditional lists of the apostles.
TEXT A N D COMMENTARY
79
...as we read in the H e b r e w G o s p e l that the Lord said to the disciples: And never rejoice, he said, unless when you look at your brother in love. Commentary T h e quotation has no exact parallel in the New Testament. W e might compare Matth. 5,24 about the necessity of making peace with "your brother" but the relationship is not close. T h e i d e a that o n e has to be joyful is present in the New Testament, cf. Matth. 5,12; Philipp. 2,18; 3,1 and 4,4 and also L u k e 10,20. T h e expression fratrem vestrum can also b e found in Matth. 5,24 to which we have already referred above. T h e expression videritis in charitate asks for some comment. T h e word videritis has to be understood in the sense of "to pay attention to" which is the meaning of the Hebrew PRO in, for example Ps. 9,14; 25,18 and 31,8, where the Latin translation uses the word videre and the L X X iSe, but in Ps. 31 (30),8 enei8ec,. In all t h e s e passages G o d is the subject of this verb. In t h e N e w Testament we meet iSe with the same meaning in John 11,34 and 12,19, where the Latin again reads vide in 11,34 andecce in 12,19. T h e word in charitate has to be taken with videritis. In the New Testament we find a passage stating that Jesus looks at somebody and loves him which is phrased in the following way: 6 8e 'rncfoxic, euf)Xei|/ac; ainQ rryairncrev (Mark 10,21). This could hardly be of any importance for a better understanding of the present passage, w e r e it not for t h e fact that sy ( ) and Aphraates read oop -i.ii ^ t \ j _ . I U T J I ^ XUOJ 6 5 and E p h r e m in his commentary on t h e Diatessaron: i -,„ In the Liege Diatessaron we find s
c
the following version: "Doe sach ihs lieflec op hem" (Then Jesus looked u p o n h i m l o v i n g l y ) . In charitate is exactly the word which is supposed to b e a translation of • 8 e zbv 'Iajfiae (v./. ' I u 8 o v e ) Xeyei- Suivuum; y a p fju. S e e Lagrange, L'Evangile selon les Hfibreux 328-329; G. Bardy, Saint Jerome et l'Evangile selon les Hibreux, Milanges de Science religieuse III (1946) 5-36, p.19, and Resch, Agrapha 243. 8 4
92
TEXT A N D COMMENTARY
Parallel Texts 1. Paschasius Radbertus, Expositio in Matthaeo ed. B e d a Paulus,
CCSL LVIB
LibriXII
(Tumholti 1984) 1355
middle 9th cent.
Habebant autem tunc uinctum insignem, qui dicebatur Barrabas... Quern vultis dimittam uobis Barraban an Jesum qui dicitur Christus? Barrabas autem filius magistri eorum interpretatur... But they had at that moment a notorious prisoner who was called Barrabas... W h o do you want that I (sciL Pilate) h a n d over to you: Barrabas or Jesus... Barabbas, however, is interpreted as son of their master... 2. Zacharias Chrysopolitani, In unum ex quatuor liber secundus Migne, .PZ.186,570C beg. 12th cent.
Quia Barrabas in Evangelio Hebraico filius magistri eorum interpretatur. Because Barrabas is interpreted in the Hebrew Gospel as son of their master. Commentary Both Paschasius Radbertus and Zacharias Chrysopolitanus depend on Jerome. We need, therefore, only consider Jerome's remark. Jerome seems to be saying that the n a m e Barabbas, X2X ~Q which means son of the or his f a t h e r , was followed by an interpretation which read "son of their master". This, however, is improbable in an Aramaic or Hebrew Gospel inwhich any interpretation of a Semitic name would have been superfluous. Thus we have to assume that J e r o m e wanted to say that in the Hebrew Gospel the name Barabbas was read in such a way that its meaning became "son of their master". A nzmt filius magistri eorum, however, is rather curious. T h e solution of this problem may be found in a remark in Origen who spoke of the name filius magistri nostril Whoever this "master" may be, the n a m e itself is acceptable. 85
86
8 5
S e e H . Strack u. P. BiUerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud u. Midrasch I (Munchen 1926) 1031, saying that "son of (his) father" is "haufiger Personenname" in Hebrew, s e e a l s o J e r o m e , Liber interpret, hebr. nom. 6 6 , 1 3 , e d . P. d e L a g a r d e , Onomastica Sacra (Gottingen 1 8 8 7 ) 99: Barabbas filius patris. S e e I ^grange, L'Evangile selon les H6breux 329, which has b e e n taken over by Bardy, art. cit.,20: "II va sans dire que interpretatur n e signifie pas que l'Evangile semitique a traduit le n o m , mais qu'il a employ^ une forme que suggere tel sens ". S e e Supplem. ad Originis Exegetica, Scholia ad Matthaeum, Migne, PG 17, 308A: IlaXmou; 5 e noa/u dtmypojjwic, eircuxcui/, dSpou Kai ocOx&v x 6 u pctpaPpav ' I T I O O O U Xey6u,evov (this can b e found, for example, in 9 f.l 2 2 (in vs. 17 only) 229 1582 sy* P" arm g e o in Matth. 20,16 and 17, 2
8 6
8 7
1
2
TEXT A N D COMMENTARY
93
O n the other hand we can understand that outsiders who did not accept this particular "master" changed the name into "their master". T h e name is supposed to have been read in a Gospel which was written in a Semitic language. The following possibilities exist: Hebrew and Aramaic: I D 1 , Palestinian Aramaic: ]T1 ID, and Syriac: \j . T h e name in Aramaic and Syriac in particular shows a relation to the Greek of the synoptic Gospels where it is generally found in t h e accusative fjapocflfJSv (cf. Matth. 27,16.17.20; Mark 15,11 and Luke 23,18). T h e double -pp- is characteristic of the meaning "master" instead of the meaning "father". But this spelling is also not unknown in the Greek manuscript tradition of the New T e s t a m e n t W e may conclude that Jerome was right when he wrote elsewhere Barabban filhtm magistri eorum (but in some manuscripts nostri!), syrum est non hebreum.® 8 8
9
F r o m this we may conclude t h a t t h e n a m e originated in an Aramaicspeaking environment. T h e relation between the name in the New Testament and the n a m e offered here is more difficult to establish. We do not exclude the possibility that we should seek its origin in a G r e e k text which offers various spellings of the name.
XX Jerome, in Matthaeum
27,51
e d . D . Hurst-M. Adriaen, 275 398 Source: G o s p e l according to the Nazoraeans
Velum templi scissum est et omnia legis sacramenta quae prius tegebantur prodita sunt atque ad gentilem populum transierunt. In euangelio cuius saepe facimus mentionem superliminare templi infinitae magnitudinis fractum esse atque diuuisum legimus. Iosephus quoque refert uirtutes angelicae praesides quondam templi tunc pariter conclamasse: Transeamus ex his sedibus. T h e veil of the temple has b e e n rent and all mysteries of the law which were formerly covered have been made public and have come over to the people of the gentiles. In the Gospel which we have already often mentioned we read that
but this d o e s not s e e m to have any connection with the present question), but after this follows: (be. y a p eouee naxpeovujiia 1y/ xoO XnoToG 6 0apaf3f3cs;, 8 n e p £pjini/eOerai SiSaaxaXou ui6q. Z u u r i Q e j i e v o u ouu T O TOG ftapafipSt/ Si/ojia cruxou/ei uidc, T O G SiSaoicaXou fyici>i». T h e s a m e words can b e found in Petrus v o n L a o d i c e a , Erklirung des Matthausevangelium, ed. C . E . G. Heinrici, Beitr. z. Gesch. u. Erkl des N.T. (Leipzig 1908) 323, cf. also Zahn, Gesch. des neutest. Kan. 1 / 2 , 6 9 9 . 8 8
8 9
8
S e e C . Tischendorf, Nov. Test Graece (Leipzig 1 8 9 6 ) 195-196. Jerome, Liber interpret hebr. nom. 60,2Z-T9, ed. P. de Lagarde...., 93.
94
TEXT A N D COMMENTARY
a lintel of an enormous size was broken and split. Josephus also tells that the angelic p o w e r s , o n c e t h e o v e r s e e r s of t h e t e m p l e , a t t h e s a m e m o m e n t proclaimed: Let us go away from these places. Parallel Texts 1. Jerome, epist. 120.8 ed. I. Hilberg H, CSEL LV, 490 407
In euangelio autem, quod Hebraicis Utteris scriptum est, legimus non velum templi scissum, sed superliminare templi mirae magnitudinis conruisse. But in the Gospel which is written in Hebrew letters, we read not that the veil of the temple was rent but that a lintel of wonderful size of the temple collapsed 2. Christiani Druthmari Corbeiensis Monachi (Christian of Stavelot), Expositio in Matthaeum Evangelistam Migne, P i . 1 0 6 , 1 4 9 3 9th cent.
Refert Josephus, superliminare, quod infinitum magnitudinis erat fractum esse atque divisum, etiam angelicas virtutes tunc in ipso tempore clamasse: Transeamus ex his sedibus. Josephus says that a lintel which was of immeasurable size was broken and split up and also that the angelic forces at that time cried: Let us go away from these places. 3. Petrus Comestor, Historia Scholastica in Evangelia CLXXVJJJ Migne, P i . 1 9 8 , 1 6 3 3 B middle 12th c e n t
Nam et in Evangelio Nazareorum superliminare templi infinitae magnitudinis fractum esse legitur auditasque voces in aere: Transeamuus ex his sedibus. Because also in the Gospel of the N a z o r a e a n s it is said t h a t a lintel of t h e temple of an immeasurable size was broken and that voices were heard in the air: Let us go away from these places. 4. Hugo of St. Cher, in librum Isaiae
TEXT A N D COMMENTARY
95
torn. I V (Venetiis 1732) 17a middle 13th cent.
A voce clamantis, idest, propter vocem multitudinis Angelorum clamantium laudes Deo. Vel clamantium, transeamus ab his sedibus imminente eversione Romanorum, ut legitur in Evangelio Nazaraeorum. With a voice crying, that is, because of the voice of a multitude of angels crying the praises of God or crying: Let us go away from these places, because of the c o m i n g d e s t r u c t i o n by t h e R o m a n s , as it is said in t h e G o s p e l of t h e Nazoraeans. 5. Historia Passionis
Domini
f.65r 14th cent.
Item in ewangelio Nazareorum legitur superliminare templi infinitae magnitudmis in morte Christi scissum. Idem dicit Josephus et addit quod audit: sunt voces horribiles in aere dicentes: Transeamus ab his sedibus. Also in the Gospel of the Nazaoraeans it is read that a lintel of the temple of an i m m e a s u r a b l e size was b r o k e n at t h e m o m e n t of the death of Jesus. Also Josephus says and adds that horrible voices were heard in the air saying: Let us go away from these places. Commentary Jerome referred twice to the tradition about the lintel of the temple in a JewishChristian G o s p e l . T h e following major differences exist b e t w e e n the two references. In his Commentary on Matthew he writes infinitae magnitudmis and fractum and in the second mirae magnitudmis and scissum. Only in the first is the name of Josephus mentioned. Later authors depend solely on the passage in the Commentary. Jerome is not writing about this event for the first time in his Commentary on Matthew. In his Episde to Damasus of 378/80, he had already written: Et seraphim stabant in circuitu eius: sex alae uni et sex alae alteri, quidam Graecorum, uir in scripturis adprime eruditus, seraphim uirtutes quasdam in caelis esse exposuit, quae ante tribunal dei adsistentes laudent eum et in diversa ministeria mittantur maximeque ad eos qui purgatione indigent et ob pristina 90
9 0
epist X V U I , ed. I. Hilberg I, CSEL 54 (1910) 86. S e e also A . F. J. Klijn, Jerome, Isaie 6 et l'Evangile des Nazoreens, Vig. Christ. 40 (1986) 245-250.
96
TEXT AND COMMENTARY
peccata aliaque ex parte suppliciis. 'quod autem sublatum est', inquit,' superliminare et domus inpleta est fumo, signum templi Iudaici destruendi et incendii universae Hierusalem'. Nonnulli vera in superioribus consentientes in extra parte dissentiunt, nam superliminare sublatum illo tempore praedicant, quando uelum templi scissum est et universa domus Israhel erroris nube confusa, quando Iosephus refert sacerdotes ex adytis templi uirtutem caelestium audisse vocem: 'transeamus ex his sedibus'. This passage is older than the t w o which speak o f the Jewish-Christian Gospel. In this passage he quotes Is. 6,2 and he gives an interpretation of it which has been taken from a Greek scholar. This could have been Gregory of Nazianzus with whom J e r o m e read the scriptures in about 380 or perhaps his former teacher Apollinaris of Laodicea. T h e first p a r t of the text in Isaiah presents no difficulties to J e r o m e . H e writes that the Seraphs a r e angels of service which is not uncommon in Judaism and Christianity. They help people who are in need of grace. This can be deduced from the rest of the passage in Isaiah where it is said that Isaiah's Hps are touched by burning coals so that his sins are taken away (see Is. 6,6-7). Next Jerome quotes the Greek scholar and writes: quod autem sublatum est superliminare et domus inpleta est fumo, signum est templi Iudaici destruendi et incendii universae Hierusalem. H e r e Is. 6,4 is quoted in a different version to that o f the Latin V u l g a t e which r e a d s : et commota sunt superliminaria cardinum a voce clamantis et domus impleta est fumo. This last translation agrees with the Hebrew original and is also known to J e r o m e who as we shall see later, quotes these words in his Commentary on Isaiah. O n the other hand the text of the present passage reads in the Greek version: Kai eTtfipSri TO imepGupov a n 6 i f f e (jxovfk; rjc, eKeKpayoi/, Kai 6 o k o c ; ertXfiCTGri Kam/ou. This version is in striking in agreement with the Latin text of J e r o m e . This confirms his remark that he is following a Greek interpretation. The main point of this interpretation is that according to Is. 6 the Temple will be d e s t r o y e d . This interpretation is not the usual one in Jerome's view. H e and nonnulli assume that the reference here is to the moment at which the veil of t h e T e m p l e will b e rent et universa domus Israhel erroris nube confusa. Josephus had already foretold that at that moment the angels would leave the temple. 91
92
9 1
This agrees with most Greek commentators, cf. Chrysostomos, in Is.Vl 4, M i g n e , PG 5 6 , 7 2 ; Cyril of Jerusalem, in Is. I, Oral. IV, Migne, PG 7 0 , 1 7 6 D ; Procopius of Gaza, in Is^ Migne, PG 87 H, 1933D-1936A; T h e o d o r e t of Cyr, in Is. V I 4, 2 0 9 , M i g n e , PG 81, 2 6 6 C , and D e s Petrus v o n Laodicea Erklarung des Matthiusevangefiums, ed. G. Heinrici, Beitr. z. Gesch. u. ErkL des N.T. V (Leipzig 1908) 336. S e e J o s e p h u s , de Bello ludaico V I 2 9 9 , e d . O . M i c h e l u. O . B a u e r n f e i n d B a n d 11,2 (Darmstadt 1969) 52. H e r e the voice is heard during the feast of Whitsun. S e e also Eusebius, D i e Chronik d e s H i e r o n y m u s , Eusebius Werke VII, e d . R . H e l m , GCS ( L e i p z i g 1926) 514, w h o appears t o date the event t o the fifteenth year of the emperor Tiberius. J e r o m e also refers to it in epist. X L V I 4 , ed. Hilberg 1,333, and in in Es. L I I 4 - 5 , ed. M . Adriaen, CCSL L X X D I A (Turnholti 1963) 579, in the context of the rending of the veil, and in in Es. L X V I 6, in the context o f the destruction of the T e m p l e . 9 2
97
TEXT A N D COMMENTARY
This means that Jerome knew of two interpretations of Is. 6, viz. one about the destruction of the Temple and another about the rending of the veil at the moment of Jesus' death. In 408/10 Jerome writes in his Commentary on Isaiah: Et commota sunt superliminaria cardinum a uoce clamantis; et domus impleta est fumo. Clamantibus Seraphim et in tota terra Trinitatis mysterium praedicatibus, quando passionem Domini Saluatoris terra universa cognouit, statim commotum est, siue sublatum liminare templi, et omnes illius cardines conciderunt, impleta Saluatoris comminatione, dicentis: Relinquetur uobis domus uestra deserta. Et quam pulcher ordo uerborum. Postquam terra repleta est gloria Domini Sabaoth, Iudaeorum templum impletum est ignorantiae tenebris et caligine et fumo, qui noxius est oculis. Vel certe perfumum templi monstratur incendium. Prius enim euangelium Saluatoris in toto orbe praedicatum est, et post quadraginta duos annos dominicae passionis, capta Hierusalem templumque succensum est, Iudaei putant templum impletum fumo thymiana significare, id est incensum, et per hoc aduentum diuinae maiestatis. 93
T h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n d e a l s with t h e d e s t r u c t i o n of t h e t e m p l e . This explanation is not according to Jerome, the common one, as we noticed above. However, if we look at the passage more closely we see that first the text of the Vulgate is followed but that after the word siue we read sublatum liminare templi which are the words of the G r e e k version of this passage as we noted earlier. T h e explanation of this is that J e r o m e is quoting one of the G r e e k c o m m e n t a t o r s who he m e n t i o n e d in t h e P r o l o g u e of his C o m m e n t a r y on Isaiah. We finally come to Jerome's remark about the Jewish-Christian Gospel. H e states that according to this Gospel the lintel of the temple was broken at the moment of Jesus' death. This deviates from the canonical Gospels because it speaks of the rending of the veil of the Temple. In his Letter to Damasus J e r o m e connects these two traditions. However, originally t h e r e were two different traditions. The tradition mthsupertiminare has been connected with Is. 6 on the one hand and with the coming destruction of the Temple on the other. This was known among Greek-speaking commentators. But the same tradition appears to have been known among Jewish-Christians. They spoke of a lintel mirae or infinitae magnitudmis. T h e tradition found its way into a JewishChristian Gospel. This means that it must have been not only very old but also well k n o w n . 94
95
9 3
ed. M . Adriaen, in Es. HI I V 4, CCSL LXXIJI (Turnholti 1963) 87. According t o the Prologue Jerome consulted Eusebius, Didymus and Apolliniaris. It is not necessary that Is. 6 b e the only source of the tradition of the lintel. Other passages in the Old T e s t a m e n t are also conceivable, cf. A m o s 9,1 ( L X X and Vulgate), Soph. 2,14 ( L X X and Vulgate) and Zach. 12,2, where the word "lintel " is mentioned. T h e s e passages have b e e n linked by Greek commentators t o the coming destruction of the Temple. 9 4
9 5
98
TEXT A N D COMMENTARY
XXI Jerome, in Esaiarn 11,1-3 ed. M . Adriaen, Commentarium 408/10
in Esaiarn Lttml-XL
CCSL LXXJH (Turnholti 1963) 147-148
Source: Gospel according t o the Hebrews
sed iuxta euangelium quod Hebraeo sermone conscriptum legunt Nazaraei: Descendet super eum omnisfons Spritus SanctL Dominus autem spiritus est, et ubi spiritus Domini, ubi libertas... Porro in euangelio cuius supra fecimus mentionem, haec scripta reperimus: Factum est autem cum ascendisset Dominus de aqua, descendit fons omnis Spiritus Sancti, et requieuit super eum, et dixit MvfUi mi, in omnibus prophetis expectabam te, ut uenires, et requiescerem in te. Tu enim es requies mea, tu es filius meus primogenitus, qui regnas in sempiternum. ...but according to the Gospel which was written in the Hebrew language and read by the Nazoraeans: The whole fountain of the Holy Spirit came upon him. T h e Lord is the Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom... Further in the Gospel which we mentioned above we find that the following is written: It h a p p e n e d then when the Lord ascended from the water, that the whole fountain of the Holy Spirit descended and rested upon him and said to him: My son, I expected you among all the prophets that you should come and that I should rest upon you. For you are my rest, you are my first-born son, who shall reign in eternity. Parallel Text Hugo of St. Cher, in Librum
Isaiae
torn. I V (Venetiis 1732) 30a middle 13th cent.
In Evangelio Nazaraeorum, quod Hebraice scriptum est, ita habetur: Factum est, cum ascendisset Dominus de aqua, descendit fons omnis spiritus et requievit super eum, et dixit ei: Expectabam te, fili, in omnibus prophetis, ut venires et requiescerem in te: tu enim es requies mea, tu es filius meus, primogenitus, qui regnas in sempiternum. In the Gospel of the Nazoraeans, which was written in Hebrew, it is put in this way: It h a p p e n e d when the Lord ascended from the water, that the whole fountain of the Spirit descended and rested upon him and said to him: Son, I expected you among all the prophets and I would rest upon you. For you are my rest, you are my first-born Son, who shall reign in eternity.
TEXT A N D COMMENTARY
99
Commentary J e r o m e wants to say that Is. 11,2 has b e e n fulfilled at the m o m e n t of Jesus' b a p t i s m . H e refers to a passage in a Jewish-Christian G o s p e l in o r d e r to corroborate his point. H e especially emphasizes the words Descendet super eum omnis fons Spiritus Sancti. T h e p r e s e n t p a s s a g e c a n b e c o m p a r e d to M a t t h . 3 , 1 6 - 1 7 / M a r k 1,1011/Luke 3,21-22/John 1,32-34. The event is recounted by the author himself in the N a z o r a e a n Gospel, as it is in the synoptic Gospels, whereas in J o h n it is John the Baptist who speaks about it to his followers. T h e beginning of the passage can be compared to Mark and Matthew: ...dvef)r| ( M a r k : dvccfJccu/wv) drto xou ijoocroq. The canonical Gospels say that at t h a t m o m e n t t h e heavens w e r e o p e n e d and that a dove a p p e a r e d . This is missing in this Gospel where we read: Descendit fons omnis Spiritus Sancti, et requievit super eum. This might be compared to John 1,32: Kai iievov e n ' ocircov, but the words are more in agreement with Is. 11,2: Kai dvartauCTerai e n ' auxov nveujia TOU Geou... W e also see that here and in the canonical Gospels there is mention of a voice but in the New Testament it looks like a bath kol, whereas in the present passage it is the Spirit who is speaking. T h e w o r d s Fili mi can be found both in the canonical Gospels and in the quotation. But from here on the traditions differ considerably. T h e Jewish-Christian G o s p e l goes its own way although t h e general structure of the passage is the same as in the canonical Gospels. Next we shall look at some aspects of detail. T h e expression fons omnis Spiritus Sancti requires our attention. The word fons Spiritus can be compared to expressions such as "source of life", fons vitae and jrnyfi Cuffo cf. Ps. 36,10; Jer. 2,13; 17,13; J o h n 4,14 and Rev. 21,6, or "source of wisdom", fons sapientiae, nTyyri TTTC; aoX1 which was translated in the L X X by ou jafi KaraSwacrceucrri, in A q u i l a by GXIIJJTI, in Theodotion by KotKcocrn and in Symmachus with bhx>vrfTr\. The last translation is of some importance because here we again meet the word corttristauerit of the present logion. 102
Taufe Jesu nach den Synoptikern, Frankf. Theol. Stud. 4 (Frankfurt am Main 1970) 187-191, and R. Pesch, D a s Markus-Evangelium, Herders Theol. Kommentar I I 1 (Freiburg 1976) 92-94. See for the final prophet or final redeemer of Israel as God's "Only Son" Ex. 4,22; Jer. 31,9 and Ps. 132,13-14. S e e H . J. Schoeps, Symmachusstudien. A . Spuren ebionitischer Theologoumena in seiner Ubersetzung, Aus fruhchristlicher Zeit (Tubingen 1950) 82-89, but also Lagrange, L'Evangile selon les H e b r e u x 332. 1 0 2
TEXT A N D COMMENTARY
102
With regard to the meaning of the passage there are two possibilities. The first is that the word spiritus means "soul" and the second that the word has to be taken as meaning Holy Spirit or the human spirit For the first possibility we can refer to an expression like nepiXunoq eoriw T\ IJJUXTI GOV in M a t t h . 2 6 , 3 8 / M a r k 14,34 which has b e e n derived from Ps. 42,6.12 and 43,5. A similar warning is found in Rom. 14,15: ei yap. Side ApS^a 6 a5eX46q crou Xuneirau.. O n the other hand the idea of mourning the Holy Spirit is not uncommon in early Christian literature. We may refer to Eph. 4,30: Kai jari XuneurQai TO nveujia TO aytow. The words of 1 Thessal. 5,19: TO ni/eujaa jari ofievwre are related to the same idea. A few other passages show that mourning the Holy Spirit is particularly objectionable. We may refer to H e n n a s , mand X 2 5: jar) 8AifJe T6 nveOjia TO a y t o v TO ev aoi, and X 3 2 : 6 8e Xurrnpoc; avhp ndvxoxe n o v n p e u e r a i - npQxov jaew rcovripeveTai 6xi \\mei T6 nweufia TO ixyvov TO 8o8e v xB avSpdmu IXapov Sevrcepow oe \\rmv TO nveufia TO a y i o v cWojaiaw epydCerau.., and also to Cyprian, de aleat. 3: Monet Dominus et dicit: Nolite contristare spiritum sanctum qui in vobis est et nolite extinguere lumen quod in vobis effulsit. 103
From this it appears that the second possibility has to be p r e f e r r e d .
104
XXIII Jerome, adv.Pelagianos III 2 ed. Migne, PL 2 3 , 5 9 7 B - 5 9 8 A 415 Source: Gospel according t o the Nazoraeans
In Evangelio juxta Hebraeos, quod Chaldaico quidem Syroque sermone sed Habraicis litteris scriptum est, quo utuntur usque hodie Nazareni, secundum Apostolos, sive ut plerique autumnant, juxta Matthaeum, quod et in Caesariensi habetur bibliotheca, narrat historia: Ecce, mater Domini et fratres ejus dicebant ei: Joannes Baptisma baptizat in remissionem peccatorum: eamus et baptizemur ab eo. Dixit autem eis: Quid peccavi, ut vadem et baptizer ab eo? Nisi forte hoc ipsum quod dixi, ignorantia est In the Gospel according to the Hebrews which was written in the Chaldaic and Syriac language but with Hebrew letters, and is used up to the present day by 1 0 3
W e wonder whether w e can speak of a proper parallel passage since in H e n n a s , mand. X, the subject deals with sadness in general which is a vice that has t o b e rejected and is the cause of all kinds of unfortunate consequences. S e e also A . Harnack, tJber einige W o r t e Jesu, die nicht in d e n kanonischen Evangelien stehen, Sitz. ber. der konigl. Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin 1903) 170-208, esp.173-174. 1 0 4
TEXT A N D COMMENTARY
103
the Nazoraeans, I m e a n that according to the Apostles, or, as many maintain, according to M a t t h e w , which G o s p e l is also a v a i l a b l e in t h e L i b r a r y of Caesarea, the story runs: See, the mother of the Lord and his brothers said to him: John the Baptist baptizes for the remission of sins, let us go to be baptized by h i m H e said to them, however: What sin have I committed that I should go and be baptized by him ? Unless perhaps something which I said in ignorance. Commentary J e r o m e quotes a passage from a Jewish-Christian Gospel in a passage about t h e sinlessness of Jesus. H e thought that this Gospel assumed that Jesus was without sin and that, for this reason, it was not necessary for him to be baptized by John. Jesus himself is supposed to have maintained this conviction even in t h e face of his m o t h e r and his b r o t h e r s . W e shall discuss t h e text of t h e quotation presently. F i r s t w e s h a l l l o o k a t a text a s c r i b e d to C y p r i a n with t h e t i t l e de Rebaptismate i n which we find a similar story. T h e text reads as follows: Est autem adulterini hums immo intemecini baptismatis si qui alius auctor, turn etiam quidam ab eisdem ipsis haereticis propter nunc eundem errorem conflictus liber qui inscribitur Pauli Praedicatio, in quo liber contra omnes scripturas et de peccato proprio confitentem invenies Christum, qui solus omnino nihil deliquit et ad accipendum Ioannis baptisma paene invitum a matre sua Maria esse compulsum, item cum baptizaretur ignem super aquam esse visum, quod in evangelio nulla est scriptum, et post tanta tempora Petrum et Paulum post conlationem evangelii in Hierusalem et mutuant cogitationem altercationem et rerum agendarum dispositionem postremo in urbe quasi tunc primum invicem sibi esse cognitos, et quaedam alia huiscemodi absurde ac turpiter conficta, quae omnia in ilium libmm invenies congesta. 105
106
1 0 7
T h e author of this p i e c e wants to show three absurdities which can be found in Pauli Praedicatio. In the first place it is said that Mary urged Jesus to have Himself baptized by John, although H e was without sin. In the second place it is said that fire appeared at the moment of Jesus' baptism and in the third place it is said that Paul and Peter did not meet earlier than in Rome. The first statement can be compared with the present passage, the second has already been dealt with in connection with IX. T h e third remark does not
1 0 5
Julianus Eclani, quoted by Augustine, Opus imperf. c. Julianum I V 88, Migne, PL 4 5 , 1 3 8 9 , reproaches Jerome for having used the "fifth Gospel" which, according to him, shows that Jesus sinned even willfully. S e e also G o s p e l a c c to T h o m a s 1.104: "...which then is the sin that I have committed." e d . G. R a u s c h e n , Pseudo-Cyprian, De Rebaptismate 17, Florilegium Patristicum XI (Bonnae 1906) 71. l o s
1 0 7
According to Harnack, Gesch. der aitchr. Lit I 2, 718-719, the author of this work lived in the third century, also in Bardenhewer, Gesch. der aitkirchL Lit. U, 499-502, who wrote that it w a s written in Mauretania.
104
TEXT A N D COMMENTARY
agree with Gal. 1,18 and 2,9, where it is said that Paul had already met Peter in Jerusalem at a very early date. This would mean that this idea originated within a group that did not know the Pauline Epistles. It a p p e a r s t h a t t h e t h r e e r e m a r k s c a n b e explained o n the basis of knowledge of Jewish-Christian traditions. It is clear that the passage quoted by •Jerome does not depend o n t h e text of Pauli Praedicatio because it is much longer. W e can also assume that the text of this passage is more complicated. Pauli Praedicatio seems to say that Jesus was thought to have sinned. This is according to the author of de Baptismate an absurdity and it is, for this reason, that he refers to this story. It seems, however, that J e r o m e quoted the passage because he thought that it showed,.on the contrary, that Jesus was without sin even according to a Jewish-Christian Gospel. W e now have to determine which of the two is correct T h e passage starts with t h e r e m a r k that t h e m o t h e r of Jesus and his brothers invited Jesus to go with them to John the Baptist so that they could be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. The canonical Gospels do not say anything about such an invitation. Jesus' answer seems to be evident: It is not necessary for m e to be baptized because I have committed no sin. The answer seems to be perfectly clear and is in agreement with t h e orthodox view. But the Nazoraean Gospel adds a restriction: nisi forte hoc ipsum ignorantia est. The meaning of these words depends on t h e words nisi forte. L a g r a n g e assumed that we a r e dealing with "une interrogation qui comportait u n e reponse n e g a t i v e " This would m e a n that Jesus did not sin even in ignorantia. However, we assume t h a t t h e words do n o t exclude all possibility of Jesus sinning. Sinning in ignorantia is possible, although it implies "putting forward an absurd or far fetched i d e a " T h e passage is trying to say that sins in ignorantia may have been committed, but that this was not likely. 108
109
1 1 0
W h a t is s p o k e n of h e r e a r e v o l u n t a r y and u n v o l u n t a r y sins. T h e involuntary sins can b e f o r g i v e n . T h e p r e s e n t passage says that Jesus is certainly free of voluntary sins but the presence of unvoluntary sins cannot b e entirely excluded. T h e conclusion is that according to this passage it was not necessary for Jesus to b e baptized. However, it also says that nobody knows whether Jesus could not have committed sin in ignorantia. This is a restriction which was overlooked by the author of de Rebaptismate. It was ignored by Jerome. 111
See See See See
Langrange, L'Evangile selon les H i b r e u x 333. G. Quispet, L'Evangile selon Thomas, Vig. ChristVi (1959) 87-117, esp. 104. Oxford Latin Diet, s.v. nisi, 1179. G. F. M o o r e , Judaism I (Cambridge 1927) 463-469, s e e also Lev. 4,2 and 5,18b.
TEXT A N D COMMENTARY
105
xxrv Jerome, adv. Pelagianos LTJ 2 The text continues after XXIII Source: G o s p e l according to the Nazoraeans
Et in eodem volumine: Si peccaverit, inquit, frater tuus in verbo, et satis tibifecerit, septies in die suscipe eum. Dixit illi Simon discipulus ejus: Septies in die ? Respondit Dominus et dixit et Edam ego dico tibi usque septuagies septies. Etenim in prophetis quoque postquam uncti sunt Spiritu Sancto, inventus est sermo peccati. And in the same volume: If your brother, h e said, sinned to you with a word and makes amends to you, accept h i m seven times a day. Simon his disciple said to him: Seven times a day? T h e Lord answered and said to him : And I say to you u n t i l seventy t i m e s seven. F o r even a m o n g t h e p r o p h e t s after they w e r e anointed with the Holy Spirit there was found a word of sin. Parallel Text Codex Novi Testamenti 566 Leningrad, Public Library, Gr. 5 4
9th/10th c e n t
Codex Novi Testamenti 899 Uppsala, Univ. 4, Sparfvenfeld 45 11th cent.
ad Matth. 18,22: T o 'IouoatKov e^ffe exei Hero, TO efioonnKOvtaKicj eircct' Kal y a p e v xovc; Ttpo<j>fyr.au; u-exa x 6 xpi°"9iivai a u x o u q e v Ttveujj.axi a y u p eup'toKero e v auToTe; Xoyoc; auapTiac;. The Jewish (Gospel) reads further after seventy seven: For among the prophets after they were anointed with the Holy Spirit there was found a word of sin. Commentary T h e logion can b e compared to the passages in Matth. 18, 21-22 and Luke 17,34 which read as follows: M a t t h e w T o x e itpoaeX8tuv 6 TTexpoq e l n e v aura)Kvipie, noa&Kiq ctjaapxriaei e l ? e u e 6 aSeX(|>6cj jaou Kal ar)CTu) a u x S ; etoq eTtxaKiq; X e y e i auxtS 6 'Iricrouc/ ou Xeyto c o t etoq entaKtcj, aXXa etoq efioonriKOVTaKic; eirra. Luke ' E a v auapxavri 6 dSeXcjxx; crou eniriurto-ov a u x S Kal e a v iiexawjficrri cajiecj, auxS. K a l e a v eitxaKu; xrk; ruaepac; djuapxficrri e l q ere Kal eitxaKic; enicrcpe|ri node; ere Xeytuv- uexavow, ca|>n.o-eu; aircS.
TEXT A N D COMMENTARY
106
T h e passage in J e r o m e consists of t h r e e parts. T h e first part is a logion about forgiving o n e ' s b r o t h e r seven times a day. T h e second p a r t recounts Simon's question a b o u t t h e word septies.The answer is that one has to b e prepared to forgive seventy times seven. T h e third part gives the reason for this statement: Even the prophets were sinners. Part one and two can b e compared to the passages in Matthew and Luke. T h e third part reveals an independent Gospel tradition and is referred to in the manuscripts 566 and 899. T h e reference seems to be a composite of Luke and Matthew. T h e first part agrees with Luke in its introduction ' Edv djiaprdvn 6 dSeXifwc; and also to the words errcdKic; Tfk; fpepocc,. T h e second part agrees with Matthew as far the introduction of Simon (Peter) and the r e m a r k about forgiving seventy times seven are concerned. T h e question of Peter in Matthew, Sax; errtdKifi receives a plausible reason in the logion according to Luke. T h e third part becomes an argument a minore ad maius. T h e passage is not harmonistic in the proper sense of t h e word like its parallel in t h e D i a t e s s a r o n . W e a s s u m e that t h e a u t h o r had used both Matthew and Luke. Since the text of Luke is supposed to be t h e same as the underlying source of both G o s p e l s we cannot exclude the possibility that this source was u s e d . T h e following can be said about the passage. T h e words in verbo cannot be found in Luke and serve to introduce the phrase in the final sentence: sermo peccati. It is evident that what the passage is referring to a r e the "sins of t h e tongue". This is typically Jewish and Jewish-Christian as is apparent in James 3,1-12 and passages such as Sir. 19,16: "...whose tongue is always free from guilt"; 25,8: "Happy...the man whose tongue never betrays him", and Aboth 117: "R.Simon: And everyone who speaks many words, is open to s i n " . 1 1 2
113
114
115
T h e word "brother" is also present in Luke but the idea that this warning is especially meant for the writer's group is also characteristic of other references to Jewish-Christian Gospels (see HI, XIV and XXTI). Matthew speaks of Peter but here talk is of Simon, which is the name that can be found often in these references (see III, XXXTV and XLH). Finally, the prophets are examples of those who sin even though they have been anointed with t h e Holy Spirit. This does not m e a n to say that they have
1 1 2
This applies to the various editions of the Diatessaron, s e e Plooy, T h e Liege Diatessaron 309-310. H e r e w e find the text of Matthew into which s o m e elements taken from Luke has b e e n added, like the words in die. S e e S. Schulz, Q. Die SpruchqueUe der Evangelisten (Zurich 1972) 320-322, esp. 321: "Der Dialog zwischen Petrus und Jesus in 18,21f ist deutlich sek(undar) und v o n Mt gestaltet". S e e J. J e r e m i a s , Unbekannte Jesusworte ( G u t e r s l o h 1 9 8 3 ) 9 0 , n. 166: " D a s s d a s Lukasevangelium selbst benutzt ist, ist ganz unwahrscheinlich", although this is stated without any argument. 1 1 3
1 1 4
1 1 5
2
S e e Jeremias. o.c, 90, n.167, and F. Mussner, D e r Jakobusbrief, Herders Theol. Komm. z N.T. XTJ.11 (Freiburg 1975) 157-168: "Wanning vor Lehrsucht w e g e n der D a m o n e der Zunge ".
TEXT A N D COMMENTARY
107
116
been rejected. On the contrary they have received the same gift that has been given to Christians. However, one cannot say that they have never committed a sermopeccati which means the same as iTXDn n ^ D . The expression can be explained in three ways. It may be "the word of sin", "a sinful word" or "a sinful deed". T h e choice lies b e t w e e n the last two possibilities. We prefer the translation "a sinful word", because of the phrase in the introduction in v e r b o . 1 1 7
118
XXV Codex Novi Testamenti 5 6 6 Leningrad, Public Library, Gr. 54 9 t h / 1 0 t h cent. Source: Gospel of the Nazoraeans
ad M a t t h . 4 , 5 T o 'IOU5OCXK6V OUK e x e f elq zr\v ocyiocv noXiv, aXX' e v 'IepouCTaXfijj. The Jewish (Gospel) has not the holy city, but to (or: in) Jerusalem. Commentary 119
The variant r e a d i n g can be compared to the text of the Liege Diatessaron which reads : "Doe namene die euelgheest en uurdene in de stat van ihrl'm" (Then the evil spirit took him and carried him into the city of J e r u s a l e m ) . Both readings avoid speaking of the "holy city" which is explicable on the basis of anti-Judaic attitudes. However, whether the two readings are immediately related is difficult to decide since the agreement is not e x a c t 120
1 2 1
l l s
C o n t r a r y to S c h o e p s , Theologie 159-169, esp.167, and the same, Review Jeremias Unbekannte..., Deutsche Literatim. 7 2 (1956) 289-291, esp. 290-291. S e e Z a c k 7,12; N u m . 24,2; 2 S a m . 23,2; J e s . 6,1; Joel 2,18 etc., s e e W . B a c h e r , Die exegetische Terminologie der jtldischen Traditionsliteratur (Leipzig 1905, Darmstadt 1965) n, 202206. J. B. Bauer, Sermo Peccati. Hieronymus und das Nazaraerevangelium. BibL Zeitschr. n.F. 4 (1960) 122-126, prefers "sinful deed also Lagrange, L'Evangile selon les rKbreux 334 and 339, contrary to Jeremias, Unbekannte..., 90, a l 6 7 : "siindige Rede". 1 1 7
1 1 8
1 1 9
T h e marginal n o t e adds the following words ci)[c,] K[CU] 6 X' >|)[aXfi6q], s e e also Zahn, Gesch. des neutest Kanons II, 648, n.l, and Schmidtke, N e u e Fragmente 165, n.1, which applies to Ps. 30,22: kv noXei n e p i o x j k . S e e D . Plooy, A further Study of the Liege Diatessaron (Leyden 1925) 84-85, and also G. J. Reinink, N e u e Fragmente z u m Diatessaronkommentar des Ephraemschuler Aba, Orient Lovan. Periodica 11 (1980) 117-133, esp. 132-133. A similar tendency w e notice in D a n . 9,24, where the words "for your H o l y City " have b e e n translated in the LXX: erti rf\v n6Xu/ Zvau, in Theodotion: erti rf\u n6Xu/ rf\v o y i o u CTOU, cf. also 2 M a c e 2,14 in the L X X : Tf\i> fiev cryiau n6Xiv, but in the Vulgate: et civitatem. S e e also P. W . L. Walker, Holy City, Holy Places? (Oxford 1990) 325-330: H o l y Jerusalem, and 358-368: 1 2 0
1 2 1
TEXT A N D COMMENTARY
108
XXVI Codex Novi Testamenti 1424 Maywood, Illinois, Theol. Seminary of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, M S . 152 9 t h / l 0 t h cent. Source: Gospel according to the Nazoraeans
ad Matth. 5,22 To eucft e v TUTU/ avtiypoabou; oil Keixai ouoe e v T£> ' I o u o a M i T h e (word) without reason is not present in some manuscripts and also not in the Jewish (Gospel) Commentary In Codex 1424 the word eiKf) is present in Matth. 5,22 which agrees with the Manuscripts of the Byzantine Text. T h e word is also present in the Manuscripts X D W 0 f.l and f.13, it sy'sa bo Ir OrP< Cypr. J e r o m e read a text without t h e word in his Commentary on Matthew but writes Quibusdam codicibus additur sine causa. 2
122
XXVTJ Codex Novi Testamenti 1424 Source: Gospel of the Nazoraeans
ad Matth. 7,5 T6 'IOU&XXKOV evrau8ct ourax; e x e r e a v fjre e v T 3 KOXTKI) uou Kai TO GeXrifia TOU rorcpocj JIOU TOO e v oupavotc; jaft Ttotfjre.eK TOU KOXJTOU UOU crnopp'upu) ujLiac; T h e Jewish (Gospel) has the following there: If you are in my bosom and you do not the will of my Father in heaven I shall throw you away from my bosom. Commentary In the manuscript the reference seems to be to Matth. 7,5 but this is not a very appropriate parallel. For this reason some scholars assume that reference is to
Jerusalem, A Holy City? S e e e d . D . Hurst-M. Adriaen, CCSL L X X V U (Turnholti 1969) 27-28. 1 2 2
TEXT AND COMMENTARY
109
M a t t h . 7 , 2 3 . But this is also difficult to assume. W e can only say that t h e reference must have been present in a Jewish-Christian Gospel but that the parallel text in Matthew is u n k n o w n . A similar logion is known from 2 Clement 4 , 5 which reads: 'Eocv T J r e u.ex' ejxou cruvrryiievoi e v r S KOATKI) JJOU KOI jari noifjre roc; evxoXdq JJOU, anoflaAS vijiSc;. T h e following can b e said about the two passages. T h e phrase rp:e j i e r ' ejxou o w n y j o e v o i in 2 Clement does not differ much from the simple ffte. In 2 Clement we read roc; evroAag u-ou, but in our logion: r 6 SeXryoa roO ncccpbc; jxou. This means that 2 Clement is referring to the commandments of Jesus and our quotation to those of the Father. T h e expression roc; evroAdr; u-ou can only be found in John 14,15; 1 5 , 1 0 and 1 2 and z6 QiXrpxx TOO nocrpoc, in Matth. 7 , 1 2 ; 1 2 , 5 0 ; 2 1 , 3 1 , cf. J o h n 6 , 4 0 . If the word K6Xnoq is t o b e J o h a n n i n e as some scholars a s s u m e we might say that the text of 2 Clement is the original and that our quotation shows Matthaean influence. T h e final words read in 2 Clement arcofJaAS tyiSc; and in our quotation ccTtoppiuju ujxoq. N e i t h e r anofJaXXS, cf. M a r k 1 0 , 5 0 and H e b r . 1 0 , 3 5 , n o r o n o p p t i r c c D , cf. Acts 1 7 , 4 3 , is found frequently in the New Testament. In the L X X the word onoppinxu is sometimes used but then followed by eK rcpocramou JJOO. T h e word anopaXXti) is, on the contrary, rarely used in the L X X A n interdependence of the passage in 2 Clement and our quotation is not a p p a r e n t . W e must assume that t h e logion which has a general c h a r a c t e r circulated in various forms and that this might be due to the availability of different translations of an originally Aramaic t e x t 123
1 2 4
125
1 2 6
1 2 7
xxvm Codex Novi Testamenti 1 4 2 4 Source: Gospel according to the Nazoraeans
ad Matth. 1 0 , 1 6 To 'Iou&riKov ujtep &|>eu; The Jewish (Gospel): more than serpents
1 2 3
S e e Schmidtke, N e u e F r a g m e n t e 3 9 , but also R . Bultmann, Geschichte
Tradition
der
synoptischen
6
(Gottingen 1 9 6 4 ) 9 8 and 1 2 2 - 1 2 3 .
1 2 4
S e e R. Meyer, s.v. KoXjtoc^ TheoL Wdrterb. z. N.T. m , 8 2 4 - 8 2 6 ; Lagrange, L'Evangile selon les Htebreux 3 3 7 , and Vielhauer, in: Hennecke-Schneemelcher I , 9 4 . S e e K. P. Donfried, T h e Setting of S e c o n d Clement in early Christianity, Supplem. to Nov. Test. X X X W I (Leiden 1 9 7 4 ) 6 6 . S e e Ps. 7 0 ( 7 1 ) , 9 , in place of coroppiimo in the other Greek translations. S e e Lagrange, L'Evangile selon les H i b r e u x 3 3 7 . 3
1 2 5
1 2 6
1 2 7
TEXT A N D COMMENTARY
110
Commentary T h e text of M a t t h . 10,16 reads': apwaloi e r d cqaapxta yuvaiKa in place of ...eni fioixeia... T h e Syriac Didascalia speak of "a woman who s i n n e d " . Two mediaeval versions of the Diatessaron say that a wife was "caught in unchaste a c t s " . This means that some of the introductions 149
150
151
1 4 6
T h e words "another story" refers to t h e stories m e n t i o n e d earlier in this chapter, s e e U . Becker, Jesus und die Ehebrecherin. Untersuchungen zur Text- und Uberlieferungsgeschichte v o n Joh. 7,53-8,3, Beihefte zur ZNW2S (Berlin 1963) 92, contrary to M.-J. Lagrange, Evangile selon Saint Jean (Paris 1 9 4 8 ) 225: "Outre l'histoire bien connu de la pecheresse, Papias e n raconte u n e autre qui est dans l'Evangile selon l e s HSbreux". This is rejected by U . H. J. Kortner, Papias v o n Hierapolis. E i n Beitrag zur Geschichte d e s fruhen Christentums, FRLANT113 (Gottingen 1983) 302, n 3 Z s
1 4 7
S e e Becker, o . c , 98. T h e evidence for the presence or the absence o f this passage in John h a s b e e n brought together by Becker, o . c , 9-43. T h e Latin translation of Eusebius, hist, eccles. by Rufinus reads h o w e v e r simul et historiam quondam subiungit de muliere adtUtera, quae accusata est a Judeis apud dominum. Habetur autem in evangelia,quod dicitur secundum Hebraeos, scripta parabola, s e e Becker, o.c, 9 3 . It is out of the question that Rufinus is thought to have a better knowledge of this passage. 1 4 8
1 4 9
1 3 0
S e e t h e Didascalia in English f. 2 6 b , ed. M . D u n l o p Gibson, Home Semi&cae TJ. (London 1 9 0 3 ) 3 9 : "...that w o m a n w h o had s i n n e d , h e r w h o m t h e e l d e r s p l a c e d b e f o r e him...", cf. Constitutiones Apostolorum, e d . F . X . Funk, v o l J (Paderborn 1905) I I 2 4 6,93: kzipav 6 e xivot fyiapTTiKuua/ &rtnoroi/ o l npecfKrcepoi efxnpooOev tniroO. W e have reason to suppose that these texts immediately depend upon a text like that of John. 1 5 1
In the Diatessaron of Stuttgart and the Hague: "die bevinden was in onkuscheden", s e e T h e Liege Diatessaron, ed. Plooy, 429-430.
TEXT A N D
118
COMMENTARY
to the story spoke of a "sin" and some o f even more than one. New evidence has come to light in a Commentary o n Ecclesiasticus written by Didymus the B l i n d . T h e text reads as follows: <j>epojj.ev o u v e v Ttcrtv euayyeXiotcj- ywf\, fyryriv, KaxeKpiGTi und x S v 'Iouoauuv e n l a j i a p x i a Kal ccnecrxeXXaxo XtGoftoXriGrivai eic, TOV TOTTOV onou ekbGet yivecrGat. 6 aurcfip, tycyjiv, eaipaKuq auxfiv Kal 9eu>pf|crac; oxt e t o i u o i eiatv itpoc; TO XiGofioXrioai auxrtv, xoic; iieXXoucrtv auxny KaxapaXelv XiGouq e l n e i v 6c; OUK TTjaapxev, aipexai XlGov Kal ftaXexu) auxov. e'{ TU; cruvoioev e a u x S x o yx\ fuaapxryeevai, Xafldiv XtGov TiatCTaxu) auxf|v. Kai ouSeU; exoXiiTiaev- enurrncravxec; eauxolc; Kal y v o v x e c ; , o x i Kai a u x o i u n e u G u v o t e l a t v xicriv, OUK exoXixriaav Kaxanxaicrat eKetvr|v. T h e following translation can b e given : " W e find i n certain Gospels: A woman, it says, was condemned by the Jews for a sin and was being sent to b e stoned in a place where that was customary to happen. The Saviour, it says, when h e saw her and observed that they were ready to stone her said to those who were about to cast stones: H e who has not sinned let him take a stone and cast it. If anyone is c o n s c i o u s i n himself of not having sinned, let him take a stone and smite her. A n d n o one dared. Since they they know i n themselves and perceived that they themselves were guilty in some things, they did not dare t o strike her". 152
W e shall look at this passage i n as far a s it is necessary t o our present purpose. It is said that the story is found "in certain Gospels". This does not mean to say that it is found "in certain manuscripts" of the G o s p e l s . But if it was known by Didymus because it was present in his Gospel o f John,which is highly improbable, it must have also b e e n present i n other, i.e. apocryphal G o s p e l s . I n the s e c o n d place w e s e e a number of deviations from the story in the G o s p e l o f J o h n . Nothing is said about the n a t u r e of the sin which was committed by the woman and secondly w e note that Jesus was not involved i n her judgment but in h e r execution only. It is impossible t o conclude that the story is a s u m m a r y of the passage known from John. This is a different version. This means that the question of whether E u s e b i u s knew John 7,53-8,11 or not is inappropriate. It appears that more than one version of a woman accused of a sin or sins was circulating. This means that w e have n o r e a s o n to reject the conclusion that Papias 153
1 5 4
155
1 5 2
S e e J. Kramer u. B. Krebber, Didymus der Blinde. Kommentar zum Ecclesiastes IV, 223,713, Payrologische Tate und Abhandlungen 16 ( B o n n 1972) 88. T h e emendations of this edition have been followed. 1 5 3
S e e Kramer u. Krebber, o . c , 89: "Wir finden Z.B. in einigen Handschriften der Evangelien die folgende Geschichte...". This is rejected b y B. D . Ehrman, Jesus and the Adulteress, NTS 3 4 (1988) 24-44, esp. 26, and D . Luhrmann, D i e Geschichte von eiser Sunderin und andere Apokryphe Jesusuberlieferungen bei Dydimus von Alexandrien, Nov. Test 3 7 (1990) 2 8 9 - 3 1 6 , 2 9 1 . 1 5 4
TOGTO 1 5 5
T h e manuscript 1006 of the N e w T e s t a m e n t adds to the text of J o h n 7,53: x 6 (sciL 7,53-9,11) t o u K O T O Q O J U S U evmyyeXiou icrzx, s e e Becker, o . c , 11. S e e Luhrmann, art. cit, 297.
Ke^aXamv
TEXT AND COMMENTARY
119
1 5 6
was a c q u a i n t e d with s o m e version or o t h e r of this s t o r y . However, the contents of this version remain unknown to us. T h e second question is how Eusebius was able to say that the story was also present in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. It is generally asssumed that this information was not given by Papias himself. But from his historia ecclesiastica we may draw the conclusion that Eusebius did not know the contents of this G o s p e l . But on the other hand, we should not assume that Eusebius deliberately gave false information. H e might have happened to know of the origin of this particular passage from another source. Since the story obviously circulated among Jewish-Christians it is also possible that Eusebius attributed it to some Jewish-Christian Gospel known to him by name only. 157
158
159
Didymus also appears to have been acquainted with some version of this story. It m i g h t be the case that one of the "Gospels" in which it was found according to him, was the Gospel according to the Hebrews from which he also quoted in other places (see X I I I ) . Thus, although we cannot reach a definite conclusion, there are reasons to assume that this story was present in some Jewish-Christian Gospel or other, maybe the Gospel of the Hebrews. It is, however, impossible to decide which Gospel version it was. 160
1 5 6
For those who accept or reject this idea s e e Becker, o . c , 92-93. Becker himself assumed that Papias has known the story as it is found in John, but after him w e still find various opinions about this question, s e e Kortner, o . c , 303, n. 39; Vielhauer, in: Hennecke-Schneemelcher I , 78: "eine mogliche Hypothese"; R. E . Brown, T h e Gospel according to John I-XII, The Anchor Bible ( G a r d e n City, N e w Y o r k 1 9 6 6 ) 335: "...but w e c a n not b e certain that our story is the o n e meant...". 3
1 5 7
Cf. Vielhauer, o . c , 78; Becker, o . c , 99, and Kortner, o . c , 149. Cf. Becker, o . c , 100-101, and Kortner, o . c , 149, s e e also p. 11. Cf. Becker, o . c , 150-160. L u h r m a n n , art. cit., 3 2 1 , gives the f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n only: "Unabhangig von alien S p e z i a l p r o b l e m e n und g e g e n die Erstinterpretation, hoffentlich durch sie nicht verstellt, ist festzustellen, dass D i d y m u s in E c c l T IV 223, 6-13 eine Geschichte wiedergibt, die weder eine in Handschriften des Johannesevangelium uberlieferte Fassung von Joh. 8: 3-11 noch e i n e blosse Anspielung darauf ist, sondern e i n e ursprunglichere Form der Perikope von der Ehebrecherin, ein neuer Text apokrypher Jesusuberlieferung, der alter ist als die Fassung. die spater in das Johannesevangelium aufgenommen worden ist". 1 5 8
1 5 9
1 6 0
120
TEXT A N D COMMENTARY
xxxvni Jerome, Epistula 20.5 e d . 1 . Hilberg, Epistulae L CSEL 54,110 383
Denique Mattheus qui euangelium hebraeo sermone conscripsit ita posuit barrama" id est "osanna (var. L ossanna) in excelsis""...
"osianna
Finally Matthew, who wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew language, put it in the following way "osianna barrama" which means "ossanna in excelsis"... Parallel Text Paschasius Radbertus, Expositio in Matthaeo
LibriXII
e d B e d a Paulus, CCSL LVTB (Turaholti 1984) 1020 middle 9th c e n t
Secundum quod Matheus qui hoc Euangelium Hebreo sermone scripsit hoc verbum in fine proposuit osanna rama quod est secundo dicere: salus in excelsis. For this reason Matthew, who wrote this Gospel in Hebrew wrote this word at the e n d osanna rama, which m e a n s to say a second time "salvation in t h e highest" Commentary It seems as if t h e r e f e r e n c e is only m e a n t to give the original H e b r e w or Aramaic of the words osanna in excelsis in Matth. 21,9 and Mark 11,9-10, cf. Greek: (baavva e v TOU; VK|UCTTOU;. This might be true for osianna, but whatever the meaning of barrama may be, it is in the singular, unlike in excelsis. We have to conclude that the translation is not literal but offers a different version of these words. In Matth. 21,9 we r e a d lixravva T£5 ulffi Aauu5...(i)aon/va It is evident that J e r o m e is speaking of t h e second part of this verse only. T h e only variant reading of any relevance to our theme occurs in sy ^) and reads io-i^o* «3>o\3*= . In Mark 11,9-10 we read