Re: [textualcriticism] New Posting of Chicago Manuscripts at CSNTM
- Yes, there are places where Jerome quotes directly from GH. He states in comparing the Greek to the Hebrew of Matthew 6:11 that in GH, it says "machar", which is Hebrew for tomorrow, but is not Aramaic. He transliterates the word into Latin letters. So obviously, his copy of GH had Matthew 6:11 in Hebrew, not in Aramaic. He does the same in his commenting on Matt 21:9, saying this..."Finally Matthew, who wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew language,put it the following way, "Osianna barrama," which means"Hosanna in the highest." (Letter 20.5)"Hoshianu" has been transliterated into Greek but "barama" hasn't. Those are just two places I can think of from the top of my head. There's also places where he quotes from it in ways that don't preserve the original words from the text, but rather translates instead, but he does quote from it directly.Even without quoting exactly from it, there's also other places where Jerome makes arguments for a Hebrew origin to Matthew in which he obviously does NOT mean "Aramaic" or simply some Jewish version. Another point that Jerome uses to try and prove that Matthew was written in Hebrew is he cites mention of the word "nazwraioV" in Matt 2:23 in chapter 3 of Lives of Illustrious Men. Of course "נצר" is Hebrew for "branch", but it is not Aramaic, so his logic only works for Hebrew, but does not work for Aramaic or for that matter, any other language. Jerome is alluding to the fact that the writer is appealing to one's understanding of Isa 11:1, where the word "נצר" is used.My personal theory is that the "Gospel According to the Hebrews" may have had both Hebrew and Aramaic parts, or it may have had a Hebrew Mattew and other Aramaic writings. For example, the "Prayer of James" may have been part of the canon referred to by the term "Gospel According to the Hebrews". The "Prayer of James" is cited as a work accepted by Nazarenes. There may have been other works included in what was called "GH" we don't know about. At least some of these may have been in Aramaic. Take a good look at how Jerome words what he says in Lives...chapter 2 and I wonder if the "Prayer of James" wasn't published along with GH as part of the same work. In fact I wonder if the "Acts of the Apostles" was part of GH , or GH was part of "Acts of the Apostles" or what. I wish we had a copy of it.Joe----- Original Message -----From: Jack KilmonSent: Friday, April 02, 2010 3:11 PMSubject: Re: [textualcriticism] New Posting of Chicago Manuscripts at CSNTM"Although Eusebius does mention GH by name, it is a moot point whether he actually saw the gospel. "6. He never directly quotes from it, but see the Syriac theophania 4, 12 (GCS 11, 183: cited by K-R, 148, and James, op. cit. p. 2). The HE III 39, 16 references may only ne from Papias. There is a mention in Klostermann' s edition of the theophania (not in Gressmann's GCS edition) of a "gospel in Hebrew letters which has come to us" to eis hmas hkon (James, 3; H-S GN 18; PG 24, 685f), Jerome indicates that GH was to be found in the Caesarea library (de vir. ill. 3) where Eusebius would certainly have seen it. Some have argued, however, that has Eusebius been in possession of such a treasure he would have said so.Pritz, R. A. Nazarene Jewish Christianity. Ch 6 "The Gospel According to the Hebrews" p. 84.JackJack Kilmon
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@operamail. com>
To: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com
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
- Forgive the long delay in response. Real life has intervened, but I thought this an interesting and important enough topic not to just let go and die:
Hebrew. Nor is it a far stretch to posit it as Aramaic, and so far
as I know, the ancient authors don't differentiate these languages
yet...perhaps by the time of Jerome, but not earlier. Nor is it a
far stretch to posit it as "in Jewish dialect." Hence, the problem.
Nor can be automatically assumed that each author uses the term in
the same way, so for Jerome it may be Hebrew, but for Papias,
>>> There may have been some ancient authors who didn't know enoughMaybe, and he may in some contexts simply be reporting tradition.
>>> about hte difference between Hebrew and Aramaic to tell them
>>> apart when they see it. But I think it's safe to say that
>>> Jerome would have known the difference.<<
More importantly, the message of yours to which I was responding
claimed that we could assume that IOUDAIKW indicated Hebrew, even
in mss. We simply can not make that assumption, but have to assess
each case as it is encountered.
Sure, except that Jerome when referring to the Nazarenes and
Ebionites doesn't mention Rome in connection with them, but rather
modern Aleppo and the East....and so far as I recall (always open
to correction) none of his contemporaries mention these groups
being in Rome either. They could have been there in the fourth
century, but unless there's some evidence we're missing, there
doesn't seem to be much support for maintaining that Jerome
encountered them there.
>> There's almost always SOME small representation of almost anybelief system nearly everywhere in the world.<<
Sure, but that's like assuming that every citizen of the US knows
something and has contact with Shinto priests.
In Evangelio quae utuntur Nazareni et Ebionitae quod nuper in
Graecam de Hebraeo sermone transtulimus et quod vocatur a plerisque
I. E. he does say he translated it into GREEK. ....He also doesn't
say that the translation made it into Latin.
>> In chapter 2 of LIVES OF ILLUSTRIOUS MEN", Jerome said hetranslated it into BOTH Greek and Latin.<
Yes, but of course that is the reference that began this discussion
and is problematic. So now we've come full circle.
>> In order to use it for comparaetive purposes, I would think it would be difficult unless ne wrote out each version side-by-side similar to the Hexapla or something. Of course, in order for him to have translated it from Hebrew into Greek and Latin, he would have had to have had his own personal copy of it. Your theory about translating for comparing might explain why no copy has survived. But to me, I'd rather compare the Hebrew directly with what I'm comparing it to. But maybe he did see some point in it.<<
How do you know he didn't? Origen, an influence on Jerome, for
example created the Hexapla. And he needn't have a personal
copy....but simply go to the library at Caesarea...which he seems
to have done. As for your last point, do remember that where
Hebrew names and words typically appear in fourth and fifth century
Greek and Latin Christian writers, the Hebrew appears in
transliteration at best, and usually Graecized or Latinized. Even
the Hexapla had the Hebrew in Greek letters to compare to the LXX
etc. I suggest that Jerome probably had a similar working method,
if we assume that Hebrew Matthew was really in Hebrew: a copy of
the Hebrew, a transliteration, his translation, comparison to Greek
Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com