These are my notes on the surviving excerpts available from the so-called Gospel of the Nazoreans:
– The Gospel of the Nazoreans does not exist, except as excerpts from the writings Jerome and Eusebius.
– It appears to be an alternative form or expansion on the Gospel of Matthew. Most of Jerome comments discuss textual variations between the First Gospels and this Gospel. Some of the variants are larger, such as the story of the “Rich Young Ruler” and the Parable of the Prodigal Son.
– Interestingly, this Gospel seems to address the question of “Why was Jesus baptized?” Jesus says, “Wherein have I sinned that I should go and be baptized by him [John]?”
– According to Jerome, some said this Gospel was translated from Hebrew, and that it was the “authentic” Gospel of Matthew.
the archives near Emmaus 
Interesting. I was unaware of these remnants within the writings of Jerome. Did he reference them in order to refute them? or use them as reference?
I could be wrong, but it seems neither. It seems like he is comparing a few variations bt this Gospel and that of Matthew, but none of them seem terribly significant.
Actually he at first accepted it as the original of Matthew but under pressure of the church who insisted a greek canon he backed off. Was AKA The gospel of Hebrews
This statement speaks for itself
“Matthew, who is also Levi … composed a gospel … in the Hebrew language and characters…. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesurae which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected.”
Do you have a source to which you can send me or is this your own deduction?
I’m wondering if he connects it in any way with the Ebionites? I believe I’ve heard from various sources (maybe you as one) that Nazorean was another name for apparently the same group also called Ebionites.
I believe it has been confused with the Gospel of the Hebrews. These two Gospels and the Gospel of the Ebionites are “Jewish Gospels” so-called (not that Matthew, Mark, and John aren’t, but rather these Gospels seem to have represented Jewish-Christian sects that maintained the need for Jewish identity markers).
Brian of course mine is of an opinion, but a very research induced opinion
“I could be wrong, but it seems neither. It seems like he is comparing a few variations bt this Gospel and that of Matthew, but none of them seem terribly significant.”
As is this only an opinion along with most of your post here which most of the time I find is also a research induced opinion
No reason to be defensive. All I was asking is whether this is something you are proposing based on an initial reading (like my notes) or if you have interacted with scholarship on the document that have informed your opinion.
… and if Brian didn’t ask I would have.
I’m specifically interested in Greek influence in early Christian assemblies so I’m naturally interested in pursuing your comment “Actually he at first accepted it as the original of Matthew but under pressure of the church who insisted a greek canon he backed off” {since two philosophical and linguistic traditions seem evident in early Christianity, and I’m more interested in Hebrew faith, than Greek philosophy}
Maybe I was hasty
I can not point you to any scholarly source . My opinion comes from an overall understanding of the importance of the accepting a set canon during the 4th century. The Roman church had already built doctrines upon the greek text and would not have been wise for Jerome to continue in his belief when many around the regions were being persecuted for not accepting Rome as the greatest authority on christianity .
But my only pupose was to dispute Brian’s opinion it was not significant to Jerome
Where do you get your information about persecution stemming from not accepting the Roman Church as the greatest? There were many things being debated in the 4th century, but the primacy of Rome seems to be one that didn’t experience escalation until later. Also, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that the canon was a central topic in the fourth century, like the relationship to Father-Son, then Father to Son and Spirit and Son to Spirit. In the 5th century the Council of Chalcedon is debating the dual nature of Christ. I don’t see any major councils on the canon.
FWIW, Michal Krugor has done a helpful series on misconceptions circulating around the formation of the canon that may be worth browsing: http://michaeljkruger.com/the-complete-series-10-misconceptions-about-the-nt-canon/
Regarding the precedence of Rome, remember, the Great Schism didn’t occur until the 11th century. While there was much debate over whether Rome was the “greatest among equals” with cities like Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem being important as well. This is not to deny that Rome claimed primacy, but persecuted people, while Constantinople and other cities maintained strong bishoprics? I’ve never seen anything on that.
Brian
From the late 2nd century the acceptance of a single christian canon was an issue.
Are you trying to say that the issues over authenticity was not heavily pressured by Rome in the late 3rd ,4th and 5h centuries.
You really think highly of Michael dont you.
Robert
Let’s avoid silly rhetoric like, “You really think highly of Michael don’t you.” I know you’d like to distract from the point being made, but try to maintain focus, ok? I haven’t delved into much of his material, actually. What I do “think highly” of is research. I respect someone who attempts to back up their assertions with data, rather than merely making assertions. If his data is flawed, then we can move from there. If not, then we have to consider the points being made. I recommend his series because it jives with most authors I have read on early Christianity (not the “shock jock” authors either).
I am not denying that there was a desire to have a uniform canon. I am denying that it was uniform, simple, and that one powerful group was able to “persecute” and coerce the others. There isn’t any data to suggest this. It is simple as that.
Does Rome matter? Sure. Should we read anachronistically so that Rome is some super power Church that dominates and bullies the others? Nope.
You come up with some silly accusations of my motive to see where you are coming from.
I can promise you I have done my research but I dont need for anyone to belief to have a discussion with them.I am very selfish and my only motive is the views that come from great discussion by which I test my beliefs. You belief is your own responsibility .
The questions at hand is
Was Jerome under any pressure to abandon such a bold statement he made in his first work?
Could his belief effect his commission to create a latin version of the accepted christian canon?
…and returning to the question I asked before you became defensive: Where do we find evidence of this? Does Jerome say something about this? Has there been any peer reviewed literature advocating this argument that is worth considering? Is there any books that make this point that aren’t Dan Brown The Da Vinci Code hyperbole with a misunderstanding of the first four centuries?
You wrote, “…he at first accepted it as the original of Matthew but under pressure of the church who insisted a greek canon he backed off.” Where do you get that? You cite that he mentions Matthew composing a Gospel in Hebrew, but that isn’t news, Papias argued that long before Jerome. Papias didn’t need to deny a Hebrew version of Matthew because of the Church in Rome. Papias didn’t have any problem with it.
Likewise, this Gospel doesn’t seem to be juxtaposed with Matthew’s doctrinally all that much. Rather, Jerome notes textual variations between the two. It seems that most think the Gospel of the Nazoreans is an adaption of Matthew that was superfluous, so it died out, but that is hardly the dramatic controversy you are proposing here.
I’d answer by saying ‘without some evidence, the answer would be ‘No’ by default. (That isn’t a guaranteed catagorical ‘No’ either – nor is it even a ‘probably not’). It is a ‘In the absence of evidence there is insufficient evidence to warrant a ‘Yes’.’ (Standard methodology here)
Brian’s position is reasonable and rational. However, without warrant, logic built up from a hypothetical assertion of truth is dubious at best. (I’m not saying I don’t believe he was pressured, I’m saying assigning a truth value to that proposition is no more than speculation).
Evidence, even scant evidence, opens up the debate.
The quote I provided you shows that Jerome BELIEVED that Matthew first wrote in Hebrew and at the time it existed in original form in the library . He also states that the Nazoreans use this gospel even at his time.
i also mentioned that my opinion was research induced and also mentioned the reason I research.
I am interested in hearing your views not a scholars ,you dont need to provide references for me nor will I provide them. all both need to do is discuss topic at hand.
You have been taught to take notes so you can teach but I am not here to teach.
Brian – about your comment asking if peered review literature exists, that is a prejudice I sincerely hope you’ll break. Your otherwise insightful logic is diminished by this fallacy.
Consensus does not produce truth. It has no effect on truth. If we were living in 850 AD and submitted a paper arguing ‘The world is round’, the experts would agree – it isn’t. The idea would be laughed out of academia. Similarly if we lived in Coprenicus’ day, and supported Heliocentrism, the assertion might get us killed. Modern consensus is no different – time doesn’t change this …
With respect to truth, a non-peer reviewed donkey could assert the truth [Num 22:28-30].
I agree with Andrew but even go farther to say we rely way to much on scholars.When will common sense make its way back into discussions. What are the refernces for the references we site,
Robert
I don’t think I have enough data to make a bold statement on this. It is simple as that. I have been asking what data informs your opinion. Jerome’s belief that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew, and that the Gospel of the Nazoreans was being used in his day, does not tell me anything about his personal views on this Gospel. As to whether or not I will ignore scholarship on these matters? Absolutely not. Why ignore people who have poured their time, energy, and resources into research?
Andrew
As I said to Robert, it makes no sense to ignore scholarship. Why ignore people who have poured their time, energy, and resources into research? Can scholars be wrong? Of course, this is why scholars write, and why scholars publish, and why there is a peer review system in placed, and why some earlier views can be overturned by later generations. Should I ignore those who give themselves to the task of research because they might be wrong? That doesn’t make any sense at all. Everyone has the potential to be wrong, but I respect someone who has done the work far more than those who postulate opinions out of thin air, or who are dogmatic and unable to think in community because they feel threatened by what others may say about their research.
The problem with going against orthodoxy is orthodoxy has controlled what has survived. Sometimes by destroying the writings against it..
We have way more info available today then most of the scholars you quote . You do realize that greater minds never become scholars and even what scholars write is an opinion they pulled out of thin air.or they just quoted another opinion
That is an interesting perspective Robert.
Brian, I agree, it makes no sense to ignore scholarship.
It also makes no sense to ignore the ‘talking donkeys’ of the world. Scholar or donkey, if their propositions are warranted, and their logic sound, their conclusions should be weighed on the merits of the evidence, which is why I supported your request for more evidence.
Far too often we credit, so-called experts with the benefit if the doubt when in fact their positions are false and unwarranted. What you should do then, is recognize and test their presuppositions and the soundness of their logic, and then make up your mind. If they happen to be scholars, happy happenstance.
My first post was in response to the statement the gospel composed by Matthew in hebrew was not significant to Jerome was false because from the quote I provided he believed it as orginal.
My opinion as to why he forsaked that later was the roman church may have put pressure on him to keep only a greek canon.There are many reasons for this,one being the hatred of anything jewish. During this time sabbath keeping christians were being persecuted and exiled by rome and rome was trying to create a universal church with only their doctrines.
I am sorry for becoming defensive but so many times people know there is no reference or witness and use that as an argument against instead of really examining for themselves .
whats really bad is if there had been a writing stating what I said by a scholar it more than likely would have been accepted as a possibility .
“I’m specifically interested in Greek influence in early Christian assemblies so I’m naturally interested in pursuing your comment “Actually he at first accepted it as the original of Matthew but under pressure of the church who insisted a greek canon he backed off” {since two philosophical and linguistic traditions seem evident in early Christianity, and I’m more interested in Hebrew faith, than Greek philosophy}”
Andrew
Maybe some of this issues Jerome encountered while creating the Latin bible has given the impression he was under duress when he upheld authority of the hebrew over the LXX. I have read conflicting reports that the version he was commissioned to create was pressured by the Pope to follow the LXX and against his own feelings he did. I have also read he also translated the hebrew to latin many years later on his own. So it gives to reason that his early belief that Matthew first wrote his account in hebrew might have been influence by the same duress. Just the quote in hebrew Matthew from Isaiah 7 not following the greek or not even existing in it would have brought much anger from Rome which had formed creeds around the virgin birth which was also an issue Rome had with the hebrew Isaiah.
Jerome stated every quote followed the hebrew not the greek text.
Btw I do find profit in many scholars works ,I just dont exalt them
I assume your talking about [Matt 1:23]’s use of [Isa 7:14]? I’m not convinced עַלְמָה didn’t mean virgin. Look at its use in [Songs 1:3; 6:8]. It likely also meant ‘virgins’ in [Psa 68:25] etc.
About that controversy specifically, I’ve come to realize post-Christian rabbinic scholarship has imposed an anti-Christian filter on many things. From Michael Rydelnik’s book Messianic Hope, it’s removed much of the Messianic flavour of the OT. From Michael Heiser (who Brian introduced me to) I see now how our view of what ‘monotheism’ tolerated (vis-a-vis the trinity) is a post-anti-Christian construct of Rabbinic Judaism stemming from the 4th Century.
None of this addresses your point though, that Matthew might have been written in Hebrew. At most, I think we might infer that from its content and character. Even the earliest 3rd century manuscript of Matthew P1, seems to suggest this. I’d like nothing better than for someone to find a Hebrew copy, making it so, but beyond that won’t declare it so, for that would be over-stating the evidence. I know I’m sometimes accused of crazy ideas, but I do try to be honest with the evidence and my logic.
With respect to the Vulgate, I’ve not read it, so can’t speak to it. However, with respect to the LXX, my estimation of it has greatly increased because of the Dead Sea Scolls. They’ve found readings at Qumran that more closely match the LXX reading in Greek, than the Hebrew in the Mesoretic text. Admittedly, I formerly though very little of the LXX. Another reason I very much like the LXX is because it exposes false Christian translation of the NT. There are words in the NT that also exist in the LXX that are imparted unique meaning in NT translation only. These meanings stray not only from secular Greek, but also the LXX biblical meaning. The LXX is useful for exposing the intended meanings.
Andrew
The word used in Isaiah is of little importance because both are used to descibe young women. The issue I have is the hebrew uses past tense for conceived and the context of the whole story ,its setting and the reason this sign was given does not provide for a dual prophesy. Even if I could accept the duality I would have to get past it would require the first use to have been a miraculous conception making the conception of Jesus secondary and not unique .
But this is a very emotional topic which never goes well in discussion..
Robert,
Hebrew doesn’t have tenses. (Only Greek had tenses) [Isa 7:14] can just as easily be read (in Hebrew) as past, present, or future tense. If you are seeing tense either in [Matthew 1:23] or [Isa 7:14] it was not there in the Hebrew, most likely an artifact of translation into the Greek.
This is also interesting because it poses interesting ways of reading the name of God in [Exo 3:14] as ‘I was that I am’, ‘I am that I will be’. It works very nicely with the idea God was, God is, God will be.
Jewish commentators point out that the verb harah (“be with child”) is in the perfect tense and should be rendered “she has conceived” or “is with child.” And the verb qara’t (“call”) is also perfect. Thus, they say, Isaiah’s message concerns his wife, not some future messianic figure, as Yeshua.
Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord!
Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son.
Let her name him Immanuel [with us is God].
[Tanakh, Jewish Publicaton Society, 1985]
Andrew
No language can be without past,present and future tenses if its purpose was to communicate .
That would make it also impossible to translate.
It may not show up in the written hebrew as we are used to but it is there .
I didn’t say it wasn’t in the perfect tense, but simply being in the perfect tense isn’t the same as being ‘past tense’. It simply means a complete action. Biblical Hebrew was an ‘aspectual’ language.
There are many uses of the perfect verbs to represent a future event are evident in the bible, as there are of imperfect verbs to represent past actions. For example, one common obvious clue to such an example is the use of the so-called “vav-consecutive” making imperfective verbs references to the past. Perfect vs imperfect verbs in and of themselves did not determine tense, and long has this been recognized.
Use of the perfect tense in prophecy was particularly common because it emphasized ‘what God spoke was as good as done’ yet few would reject prophecy as intended to refer to future events. To simply view perfect vs imperfect verb usage as evidence of tense is to have too simple a view of the language.
Other examples of the profect perfect tense, complete actions yet to take place include:
[Isa 5:13] referencing the yet future Assyria captivity
[Isa10:28-32] referencing the yet future march of Sennacherib’s army on Jerusalem
[Jer 23:2] referencing the yet future events to befall the House of Israel in Assyria causing them to be sifted through nations [Amos 9:9]
[Amos 5:2] – clearly at the time of this prophecy Israel had not yet fallen though the perfect tense was used. I’m sure you wouldn’t argue this verse was a thing of the past …would you?
I’m not liking the autocorrect on my iPad. That should have read “prophetic perfect tense” …
Andrew
I understand prophesy is given to the prophet as a reality but the context sets the time as future as does the context sets the present and past. The hebrew language has ways of determinig tenses or it would be ineffective as a form of communication. I would say in the 3rd and 4th centuries when this was a hot topic the hebrews understood their language better than greeks. No one actually knows who translated the Isaiah that was included into the LXX but its peers rejected it as an not accurate translation of the hebrew text of Isaiah.
But There are many reasons why I reject the virgin birth accounts
Yes, and demonstably in the third and fourth century there was anti-Christian sentiment in the Jewish community involved with translation which gave rise to a revisionism that robbed many OT passages of their pro-Christian interpretations ( as already noted ).
The point is that people don’t argue about the use of perfect tense to represent the future in verses such as [Gen 17:20][Gen 30:13][Num 17:27] and [Num 24:17], rather they selectively deny it only on ‘Messianic’ verses such as [Isa 7:14] and [Isa 8:23-9:1].
If his peers rejected this translation they did so out of rabbinic prejudice. It is a perfectly valid translation ( and consistent with the translation of other prophecy) given the Hebrew.
Andrew
They dont deny it could mean future as it does in a few verses ,they deny it on context of whole passages and a better understanding of their language..
Justin was probably the source of both birth narratives . They were both lacking in the earliest mentions plus he seems to be the first to mention any idea about it .
Plus such a miraculous event is not mentioned once outside the narratives .
plus the bible states Jesus would be of the seed of David and NT confirms it.
plus the NT says Joseph was his father
Plus the oldest account of Luke has God stating today I have begotten you.
Plus the Son of God is a term given to kings, priest and prophets all which were anointed ones(christ).
So we have come to a point where either we both keep claiming or we agree to disagree
About [Isa 7:14], yes of course, we can agree to disagree, but your last argument is not strictly about [Isa 7:14]. It goes further and questions the divinity of Yahshua.
Do you believe Yashua was Israel’s promised Messiah?
absolutely