What was the Gospel of the Hebrews?

[Peter Kirby]

You can see some notes on the Gospel of the Hebrews here:

Work in progress on the Gospel of the Hebrews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_Kirby/Gospel_of_the_Hebrews)

And the primary source material here:

Wikisource: Gospel of the Hebrews (http://wikisource.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Hebrews)

Now, after reading that, I'd like to get your feedback:

1. How many of these "Jewish gospels" (Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Nazoraeans, Gospel of the Ebionites, Gospel of the Apostles, Syriac Gospel, etc.) were there? One, two, three, more?

2. What material belongs to what we identify as "Gospel of the Hebrews," and what material to other Gospels?

3. What was the original language of the "Gospel of the Hebrews"?

4. What was the extent and genre of the "Gospel of the Hebrews"? What do you imagine was contained in parts not quoted?

5. What are the sources of the "Gospel of the Hebrews"? In particular, what is the relationship to the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, and/or Thomas?

Thank you for taking time to consider this difficult problem.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

[Amazing Rando]

Honestly? The preserved fragments are too few and far between to make any sorts of conclusive judgments.

[Adam]

Honestly? The preserved fragments are too few and far between to make any sorts of conclusive judgments.
It's a tough one.
My studies of Mark show that there never was a complete original of it in Aramaic, and Matthew is so closely related that the same would apply to it also. To speak of an Aramaic original for Matthew is to speak of a Aramaic source, though probably a long one.
Of course, the Greek portions of the original Matthew could have been translated quite early into Aramaic..
One or the other of the above is probably the Gospel of the Ebionites, most likely the latter.
The strange pericopes described by the early fathers reveal a gospel that is neither of the above. Thus the Gospel of the Hebrews is not equivalent to Matthew. It may well be the same as the Gospel of the Nazarenes.
Adam

[Amazing Rando]

It's a tough one.
My studies of Mark show that there never was a complete original of it in Aramaic, and Matthew is so closely related that the same would apply to it also. To speak of an Aramaic original for Matthew is to speak of a Aramaic source, though probably a long one.

I'm partial to the theory that there was an Aramaic source for Matthew, particularly the Q material. Where I differ from many is that I believe the apostle Matthew wrote what we know as Q. :teeth:

[Adam]

I'm partial to the theory that there was an Aramaic source for Matthew, particularly the Q material. Where I differ from many is that I believe the apostle Matthew wrote what we know as Q. :teeth:
I agree that Matthew wrote Q in Aramaic.
The portions of Q that entered into Mark had already been translated into Greek, however. Only Ur-Marcus was in Aramaic when it was incorporated into Mark.
Little of Q is in Mark, of course, and most of Q in Matthew was still in Aramaic when it was incorporated. Thus there may or may not have been an intermediate stage of Matthew that was primarily in Aramaic. In any case, anything reasonably close to what we know of as Matthew was in Greek, because part of what most people erroneously call Q was really copied in from Luke, that was always in Greek. See Matthew 23:23-24:51--refer to Benoit or Boismard for the scholarship.
Adam