Gospel of the Nazoraeans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gospel of the Nazoraeans is a book of the New Testament Apocrypha. It may or may not be the same as, or derived from, the Gospel of the Hebrews. Due to the fragmentary nature of both works, there is little certainty regarding their relationship, although there is a strong affinity between the two. Whatever the origin, and similarity of the text, this version of the text was the one used by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria (Aleppo).

The book itself has completely disappeared; all that survives comes to us in the form of quotations by Clement, Origen, Jerome, and Cyril of Jerusalem, which contain twenty or more fragments. It has, however, been the subject of many critical surmises and discussions in the course of the last century, and recent discussions in a growing body of literature have thrown considerable light upon the problems connected with this Gospel.

Contents

[edit] Background

Early Jewish Christians were thought to have favoured the Gospel of Matthew as it emphasizes the importance of conforming to every jot of the Jewish Law (Matt 5:17-20), and the Jewishness of Jesus.[1] As per a number of early sources, a group of Jewish Christians, called the Nazareans, wrote their own edition of Matthew in Aramaic.[2] The Gospel of the Nazareans eventually lost its favour with most Christians, as few could read Aramaic, and because of its Jewish overtones. "As a result, the Gospel came to be lost," as Bart D. Ehrman says.[3] Quotations by church fathers of it reveal that it contained accounts of Jesus' baptism, ministry, death and resurrection. The first two chapters of Matthew, however, were not included as the Jewish Christians stressed Jesus' humanity and refused his miraculous birth.[3] Some scholars today refuse church fathers' statements that this Gospel was an Aramaic version of Matthew and argue that it may have been an original book based on widely circulating oral traditions.[3]

[edit] Different readings

Listed below are some of the important variant readings this Gospel offers in comparison to Matthew's.[3]

  1. Matt 12:40 "three days and three nights" is absent.
  2. After "seventy times seven" in Matt 18:22 GoN adds: "For even among the prophets, after they were anointed by the Holy Spirit, a word of sin was found."
  3. Instead of "son of Barachia," GoN says, "son of Jooiada." [4]
  4. GoN adds to Matt 26:74 "And he made a denial, and swore, and cursed."

[edit] Quote

"Behold, the mother of the Lord and his brothers were saying to him, 'John the Baptist is baptizing for the remission of sins. Let us go and be baptized by him.' But he replied to them, 'What sin have I committed that I should go to be baptized by him? Unless possibly what I just said was spoken in ignorance.'"[5]

[edit] Authorship

Concerning its origin, many historical writers believe that it was written by Matthew the Evangelist. Jerome in his work On Illustrious Men explains that Matthew, also called Levi, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script.

Epiphanius is of the same opinion; he states in the Panarion that without the aid of others, Matthew, in the New Testament expounded and declared the Gospel in Hebrew, while using Hebrew script. Origen adds to this by stating that the very first account was written and composed in Hebrew script by Matthew, once a tax collector but later an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the converts who had forsaken Judaism.

Jerome's Commentary on Matthew refers to the Gospel of the Ebionites and Gospel of the Hebrews by the same title, treating them as one text, which most modern academics feel is inappropriate.

[edit] Modern positions

Based on known fragments, higher criticism argues that the text is an embellishment on the canonical version of Matthew, making minor clarifications. For example, it replaces "daily bread" with "bread for tomorrow" in the Lord's Prayer, states that the man whose hand was withered (Matthew 12:10-13) was a stonemason, and splits the rich male youth (of Matthew 19:16-22) into two separate people. Since the gospel adds clarifications, it is likely based on the canonical text (instead of vice versa) due to the argument of unlikelihood that a scribe creating a canonical version of the Gospel of Matthew would intentionally obscure the text.

The time and place of origin are disputed, but since Clement used the book in the last quarter of the second century, it is certainly dated before the middle of that era. Alexandrian Egypt is most often indicated as its place of origin by the fact that its principal witnesses are the Alexandrians - Clement and Origen - and by the idea of Jesus as the Son of the Holy Spirit, which is documented for Egypt by the Coptic Epistle of James. The original language of the gospel suggests that it was drawn up for Hebrew and Aramaic-speaking Jewish Christians in Palestine and Syria.

Since the text was so similar to the canonical form, the Gospel of the Nazarenes was considered orthodox, but because it was effectively redundant, it passed out of use.

[edit] References

  1. ^ *Ehrman, Bart (2003). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 0-19-515462-2. 
  2. ^ *Ehrman, Bart (2003). The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 0-19-514183-0. 
  3. ^ a b c d *Ehrman, Bart (2003). Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 0-19-514182-2. 
  4. ^ Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 27
  5. ^ Ehrman, Bart (2003). Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament. Oxford University Press, USA.

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

Online translations of the Gospel of Matthew: