chapter three
GH) “shows the intersection of the prophetic and sapiental traditions
which have their roots in the Old Testament.”^111 For A.F.J. Klijn, it “seems
hardly necessary to repeat that the theological conception of this Gospel
is dominated by Jewish-Christian Wisdom Theology.”^112 Philipp Viel-
hauerandGeorgStreckeremphasizethecloseaffinityoftheGospel of
the Hebrewswith gnostic speculations. According to them, the Jewish
Christianity of theGospel of the Hebrewscontains “syncretistic-gnostic
elements,” and the baptism pericope of theGospel of the Hebrewsbelongs
to “the circle of such gnostic speculations” that can also be found in
Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon andPseudo-Clementines.^113 Today, when
scholars have become more aware of the problems with defining Gnosti-
cism,onewouldprobablybemorehesitanttolabelthefragments“Gnos-
tic.”^114 However, Vielhauer and Strecker’s characterization becomes more
understandable when viewed in its historical context and in conjunc-
tion with the arguments that were used when the GH was originally
framed.^115
Since theGospel of the Hebrewsis so closely tied with sapiental tradi-
tions even in the GH, one may wonder why there has not been more
discussion about the relationship between theGospel of the Hebrewsand
Q. There are probably several reasons for this. First of all, the study of
early Jewish-Christian gospels has partly been a playground for alterna-
tive solutions to the synoptic problem. For instance, A.F.J. Klijn, in his
monograph, often suggests in the context of his detailed analyses of
fragments, that the fragments may go back to pre-synoptic sources. Klijn
does not explicitly deal with the synoptic problem or develop any clear
alternative theory, but his comments seem to support a sort of proto-
Matthew theory.^116
Several theories which involved an Aramaic “Urgospel” were pre-
sented before the Two Document Hypothesis received its present pres-
tige. Ferdinand Christian Baur, for example, assumed that an Aramaic
Gospel of the Hebrewspreceded the present canonical Matthew.^117 If the
(^111) Klauck , .
(^112) Klijn , .
(^113) Vielhauer & Strecker (^2) ( (^1) ), –.
(^114) For an overview of the discussion, see Marjanen a.
(^115) See above Chapter ..
(^116) Klijn , , –.
(^117) For an overview of the theories, see Kloppenborg Verbin , –. Baur, of
course, was not referring to theGospel of the HebrewsoftheGHsincetheGHwas
developed much later. See Chapter ..