5687Re: [textualcriticism] New Posting of Chicago Manuscripts at CSNTM
- Apr 2 12:18 PM
Here's another quotation from Pritz
Among ancient writers the only Church Father specifically to connect the Nazarene sect to GH is Jerome. This he does in eight places: de vir. ill. 3; in Matt. 12:13; 23:35; in Is. 40:9–11 (= in Ez. 16:13); prol. 65; in Ez. 18:5–9; and adv. Pelag. III 2. One other passage, in Is. 11:2, mentions a "gospel written in Hebrew which the Nazarenes read"; this we will take to be the same work. The passage in Matt. 12:13 is one of the three which support Epiphanius in calling this gospel by Matthew’s name (also the de vir. ill. and adv. Pelag. passages). In another respect this passage is unique when it says that both Nazarenes and Ebionites use this gospel. Although it is most likely that Jerome is simply making a generalization based on Epiphanius, if there is any factual basis to what he says, it can only support our hypothesis that both sects made use of gospels which were commonly thought to be the same work and which were in fact of the same family.
I seem to recall that Pritz stated somewhere that there were some quotations from the GH in Eusebius though I may be wrong.george
gfsomsel… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus
From: Larry Swain <theswain@...>
Sent: Fri, April 2, 2010 11:19:28 AM
Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] New Posting of Chicago Manuscripts at CSNTM
George wrote, quoting Pritz:
>>While Jerome makes no explicit claim to have known the Nazarene sect personally, he does, however, make two other claims which have frequently been called into question: he copied the Gospel according to the Hebrews (GH), "which is read by the Nazarenes," and he translated it into both Greek and Latin. The parameters of this complicated problem and the limitations of any possible solutions have been well laid down by Vielhauer.19 His general conclusions were, first, that Jerome was thinking of only one work when he spoke of GH and its various other designations; that this gospel was to be found in Caesarea and was probably the same as the one used by the Nazarenes; and lastly, that Jerome never translated all the gospel. To Vielhauerâ€™s article we would add some observations and suggestions.
Pritz, Ray A. Nazarene Jewish Christianity : From the End of the New Testament Period Until Its Disappearance in the Fourth Century, p 51.Â Â Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1992.<<
Thanks George. I appreciate the additional quotation. Minor quibble: I do wonder where the idea that Jerome translated the Gospel of the Hebrews into Latin came from. In response to Jovial's email I did take a look at all the places I could find in Jerome's works where he mentions the GH, and I found the one that Jovial referred us to in the commentary on Matthew chap. 12:13, which says that he translated into Greek. Does Pritz give any additional insight? Anyone else know?
____________ _________ _________ _________ ________
Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera. com
Powered by Outblaze
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>