chapter three
.. Reconstructing theGospel of the Hebrews.....................
In the previous chapter, it was argued that there never existed a sepa-
rate “Gospel of the Nazarenes;” Jerome had only received a collection of
anti-rabbinic passages from Syriac speaking Christians who were called
Nazarenes in their native tongue. This solution to Jerome’s problem-
atic quotations does not yet solve the whole riddle of Jewish-Christian
gospels since we do not yet know how to classify the remaining frag-
ments. Should the rest of Jerome’s fragments still be attributed to two
different “real” Jewish-Christian gospels or is it more likely that they
were derived only from one Jewish-Christian gospel? In my view, the
latter option is better grounded and I shall support it in detail in the
latter part of this chapter. Before that, it is helpful to take a look at
Eusebius’ understanding of theGospel of the Hebrewssince after Jerome
(and Origen), he is the third important witness to theGospel of the
Hebrews.
...Eusebius’ Testimony:
TheGospel of the Hebrewson the Fringes of CanonEusebius’ Canon
Eusebius introduces theGospel of the Hebrewsin the list of canonical
and non-canonical writings in the third book of hisEcclesiastical History
(Hist. eccl. .). Eusebius has three main categories:
. Generally accepted books (μλγ$μενα) that are “true, genuine,
and accepted in the tradition of the church:”^79 The four Gospels, Paul’s
epistles, John and Peter.
. Disputed (ντιλεγ!μενα) writings that are not canonical but familiar
to most church writers: The epistles of James, Jude, Peter, and John.
The books that Eusebius characterizes as disputed (ν!α)alsobelong
to this same category: theActs of Paul,theShepherd[of Hermas], the
Revelation of Peter,theEpistle of Barnabas,theTeachings of the Apostles
[Didache], and the Revelation of John. In addition, theGospel of the
Hebrewsis also placed in this category:
(^79) The English translations fromthe Ecclesiastical Historypresented in this chapter
draw on Maier .