introduction a collection of anti-rabbinic testimonies that Jerome acquired from the
Nazarenes. This collection was prepared by making minor adjustments
to the wording of an Aramaic translation of the canonical Matthew.^15
Consequently, in this reconstruction, the contents and the character of
theGospel of the Hebrewsbecomes different from what has been previ-
ously assumed in the twofold or in the threefold distinction. Five anti-
rabbinic passages, transmitted by Jerome, are excluded from the apoc-
ryphal Jewish-Christian gospels, but all the rest—excluding the ones that
are presented by Epiphanius and commonly attributed to theGospel of the
Ebionites—are assumed to be from theGospel of the Hebrews. According
to the new reconstruction, theGospelof the Hebrewswould have included
passages that attest to the influence of Wisdom speculations combined
with features familiar from the synoptic gospels. Since these features also
characterize Q, Chapter includes a discussion of Q’s possible connec-
tions with Jewish-Christian gospel fragments.
Chapter deals with passion and resurrection stories, a theme that
has not received much attention in the study of Jewish-Christian gospels.
The evidence is fragmentary but upon closer examination it reveals some
interesting features characteristic of early Jewish-Christian interpreta-
tions of Jesus’ death and resurrection.
Chapter deals with two topics that have been central to the discus-
sion about early Jewish-Christian gospel traditions: the fragments’ rela-
tion to theDiatessaronand to theGospel of Thomas.Theanalysisshows,
in contrast to A.F.J. Klijn’s interpretation, that the passage in the Latin
translation of Origen’s Matthew commentary is post-synoptic. Second, a
comparison with Old Syriac translations shows a connection to Diates-
saronic traditions but locates the points of contact to a pre-Diatessaronic
level. April de Conick has revived Gilles Quispel’s old hypothesis about
a Jewish-Christian gospel as a kernel of traditions evolving in theGospel
of Thomas. My analysis shows some points of contact between Jewish-
Christian fragments and theGospel of Thomasbut the common denom-
inators are all too meager to justify an assumption about a Jewish-
Christian kernel of theGospel of Thomas. Furthermore, the most natural
explanation for the common features is that the Jewish-Christian gospel
fragments and theGospel of Thomasboth draw on related, post-synoptic,
harmonizing gospel traditions.
(^15) In the Three Gospel Hypothesis, these passages are usually attributed to the “Gospel
of the Nazarenes.”