chapter five
The way in which theGospel of the Hebrewsis introduced in the
Latin translation resembles Origen’s own introductions to a passage from
the “Gospel According to the Hebrews” in the commentary on John
and in the homily on Jeremiah (Comm. Jo. .;Hom. Jer. .)^12 The
introductory note also shows the translator’s acquaintance with Jerome’s
references to theGospel of the Hebrews.^13 Since the Latin translator
seems to imitate both Origen and Jerome, he must have worked after
them.
...Comparison with Parallel PassagesA.F.J. Klijn provides a comparison of the passage with its synoptic paral-
lels and with Diatessaronic traditions. He points out several features that
Origen’s passage shares with the canonical versions of the story, Diatessa-
ronic traditions and variant readings in the manuscripts. In Klijn’s view,
the passage is based on an independent tradition that was also known
to the author of Matthew’s gospel. He also suggests (“we cannot exclude
the possibility.. .”) that similarities between Origen’s passage and the
variant readings are to be understood as a result of the influence of the
same independent tradition on the manuscript tradition.^14 The follow-
ing analysis will make a different case, which—it is to be hoped—gives a
more satisfactory explanation.
In the first two parts, the comparison will concentrate only on the
“original” forms of the synoptic stories as they are reconstructed in
Nestle—Aland.^15 If it can be shown that Origen’s passage contains words
or expressions that were created either by Matthew or Luke when they
edited their writings, I take this as a strong indication of the dependence
of Origen’s passage on the canonical gospels. If the passage depends on
both Matthew and Luke, this makes the case even stronger.
The subsequent parts of the comparison examine the variants in the
manuscripts and Diatessaronic witnesses. Since copyists tended to har-
monize the wordings of parallel synoptic stories, later writers did not nec-
essarily get their “Matthean” or “Lukan” readings from the “originals” but
from the copy (or copies) that they used. The study of the variants in the
solving the origin of the reading through critical signs (obelisks and asterisks) but felt
obliged to set forth his reasons more in detail.
(^12) Already noted by Resch , –.
(^13) Schmidtke , . For instance, Jerome,Vir. ill.;Comm. Matt. .; ..
(^14) Klijn , –.
(^15) Nestle & Aland .