Recovering Jewish-Christian Sects and Gospels (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae)

introduction 

In this volume, I shall argue for a theory that assumes only two Jewish-

Christian gospels: TheGospel of the Hebrewsand theGospel of the Ebion-

ites. Because this theory also assumes a specific Nazarene collection of

passages from the Gospel of Matthew, it differs from the earlier theories

that have assumed only two Jewish-Christian gospels. Therefore, I shall

call it the New Two Gospel Hypothesis(NGH). Consequently, because I

have not found evidence of the existence of the “Gospel of the Nazarenes,”

the name appears in quotation marks in this volume.

.. TheContentsoftheVolume...................................

This volume focuses onearlyJewish Christians and their gospels. There-
fore, it mainly deals with evidence from the second to the beginning of
the fifth century, the last patristic sources being Epiphanius’ and Jerome’s
writings.^12 The evidence deals with the Nazarenes and the Ebionites, the
gospels they used, and theGospel of the Hebrews.IconcurwithA.F.J.Klijn
who thinks that, after Jerome, Greek and Latin writers usually depend on
earlier sources.^13 In some chapters, I also discuss canonical material but
useitmainlyasapointofcomparison.ThisdoesnotimplythatIfindthe
discussion of Jewish Christianity within the New Testament somehow

assumed between the Gospel of Matthew and the “Gospel of the Nazarenes.” He is

also revising Vielhauer and Strecker’s reconstruction by bracketing the so-called “To

Ioudaikon” fragments from the “Gospel of the Nazarenes.” See, Frey a.

(^12) In addition to patristic references, there are two later translations of Matthew’s
gospel that have sometimes been presented as important sources of early Jewish-Chris-
tian gospel traditions: Shem Tob’s Hebrew Matthew and the Coptic text of Matthew in
the Schøyen Collection. G. Howard (Howard ; the first edition ), published the
text and translation of Shem Tob’s Matthew suggesting an early date for the text. Howard’s
interpretation was opposed—convincingly, in my view—by W.L. Petersen (Petersen ;
). Petersen argues for a later date of the text of the Hebrew Matthew, showing
its connections to Diatessaronic readings and Old Latin translations. Another possible
source for Shem Tob’s Diatessaronic readings is a Catalan version of Matthew. Thus,
Niclós , Joosten , –,  n. . H.M. Schenke published the Coptic text
of Matthew (Schenke ). He tries to show the primitive character of the version,
suggesting that both the Coptic Matthew and the canonical Matthew must depend on
an earlier Hebrew version of Matthew which is also behind the Jewish-Christian gospels.
Schenke clearly overestimates the value of the Coptic version as testifying to an earlier
version of the Gospel of Matthew. Nevertheless, the study of the Coptic Matthew is still
in its infancy and more detailed, text-critical research is needed. For an overview and
further bibliography of Shem Tob’s Matthew and the Coptic Matthew in the Schøyen
Collection, see Evans , –.
(^13) Klijn , .