chapter five
dung, dying from hunger and your house is full of many good things, and
nothing at all comes out of it for them.” He turned and said to Simon, his
disciple that was sitting by him: “Simon, Son of Jonah, it is easier for a
camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the
kingdom of heaven.”Scholars generally agree that the passage was not a part of the original
commentary but was added by the Latin translator.^5 The translator and
the exact time of the translation are unknown. We only have a very
general dating between the fifth and ninth centuries.^6
According to the quotation, the text is from the “Gospel According to
the Hebrews.” However, the passage is usually regarded either as a part
of the “Gospel of the Nazarenes” or theGospel of the Hebrews,depending
on how the number and content of the ancient Jewish-Christian gospels
is reconstructed.
The following literary- and source-critical analysis will also show—in
contrast to Klijn’s view—that the passage added to the Latin translation is
clearly later than the canonical Gospel of Matthew. It also draws on Lukan
tradition to the extent that it can hardly be taken as a Nazarene edition of
Matthew’s gospel or of pre-Matthean traditions. Thus, it does not reflect
an independent pre-canonical tradition closely resembling the Gospel of
Matthew and originating from a small group offratres.^7 Instead, a con-
cluding discussion ofindicators of a Jewish-Christian profile^8 will show
that the quotation testifies to a continuous reinterpretation and rewriting
of gospel traditions within a Syriac-speaking, Jewish-Christian commu-
nity. Although the community uses the Christian gospel tradition, it also
presumes the knowledge of Jewish law, lives as a part of the larger Jewish
community, and still has a clearly Jewish self-understanding. Therefore,
in the framework of the NGH that has been developed above, the most
text of the later edition should also read on line ten: “Et dixit.. .” (pro “Et dicit.. .”). There
is also a very unfortunate error in the last paragraph of p. where the Greek citations
from Matthew and Mark/Luke have traded places. Due to this error, the citations appear
to support Klijn’s conclusion that the passage in Origen’s commentary cannot depend on
Matthew.
(^5) Schmidtke , –. The passage is also regarded as a later addition by Klijn
, , and Klijn , . However, H.J. Vogt includes the passage in his translation,
assuming that it is original. See, Vogt , –, n. .
(^6) Schmidtke , ; Klijn , ; Klijn , .
(^7) Klijn , –. See, however, also Klijn , –, where he is inclined
to think that theGospel of the Hebrewswas based on the Gospel of Matthew, and the
Diatessaronon theGospel of the Hebrews.
(^8) For the outline of the approach, see Chapter ..