chapter three
century),whichisthesolewitnessforeightofthesevariants(toMatt:;
:; :; :; :; :; :–; :; in addition shares aτ.
/υδαϊκ!νin : with , and in : with and ).^21 Jerome
provides a connecting link between the variants and the “Gospel of the
Nazarenes” inPelag..whereheassignstothe“GospeloftheNazarenes”
a passage that is found among theτ. /υδαϊκ!νvariants as well.
It is clear that the references to a “Jewish gospel” were not produced
by a systematic comparison of the Greek Gospel of Matthew with a Jew-
ish gospel. Schmidtke himself already concluded that the readings were
collected from a lost Greek commentary on the Gospel of Matthew.
Although Schmidtke’s assumption about a commentary of Apollinaris of
Laodicea as the source of the notes is generally discarded as too specu-
lative,^22 it is reasonable to assume that the notes were based on second-
hand information, presumably derived from a commentary/commen-
taries on the Gospel of Matthew.^23 If this is correct, how can one know
that the source of the marginal notes must have been a gospel closely
resembling the Gospel of Matthew? It is clear that the writers of the com-
mentaries on the Gospel of Matthew were by no means bound to cite only
texts that were closely related to Matthew. It must have been enough for
them that the passage in a “Jewish gospel” was somehow connected to
the theme they were dealing with in their exposition. Because Matthew’s
gospel was considered relatively early on to have been written in Hebrew,
it is understandable that a copyist who came across these comments
about the variants in a “Jewish gospel” was likely to consider it especially
important for Matthew and therefore noted it in the margins. Thus, the
mere fact that a variant was added in the margins of Matthew does not
say very much about the character of its source. All conclusions about
the nature of the original source ofτ. /υδαϊκ!νvariants must be drawn
from the variant readings themselves and solved case by case.^24 To argue
on the basis ofτ./υδαϊκ!νvariants that the “Gospel of Nazarenes” must
have been particularly closely connected to the Gospel of Matthew is to
take a hypothesis for evidence.^25
(^21) Schmidtke , –.
(^22) Schmidtke , , –. For the criticism of Schmidtke’s position, see Frey
a, .
(^23) Klijn , .
(^24) Cf. below Chapter .. whereτ. /υδαϊκ!νto Matt : is discussed.
(^25) See Vielhauer & Strecker (^2) ( (^1) ), : “in content and compass the GN was
closely related to Mt. That is shown first and foremost by the readings of the Judaikon,
but also by the other fragments that have been preserved.”