The Original (Hebrew) 'Matthew' ?

[ABenShema]

The Gospel of the Ebionites (early Jewish disciples of Jesus).

The Gospel of the Ebionites is known only by the quotations from Epiphanius in these passages of his Panarion: 30.13.1-8, 30.14.5, 30.16.4-5, and 30.22.4.
The following selection is excerpted from Montague Rhode James in The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1924), pp. 8-10.

All our knowledge of this is derived from Epiphanius, and he uses very confusing language about it (as about many other things). The passages are as follows:
And they (the Ebionites) receive the Gospel according to Matthew. For this they too, like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus, use to the exclusion of others. And they call it according to the Hebrews, as the truth is, that Matthew alone of New Testament writers made his exposition and preaching of the Gospel in Hebrew and in Hebrew letters.
Epiphanius goes on to say that he had heard of Hebrew versions of John and Acts kept privately in the treasuries (Geniza?) at Tiberias, and continues:
In the Gospel they have, called according to Matthew, but not wholly complete, but falsified [?] and mutilated[?] (they call it the Hebrew Gospel), it is contained that 'There was a certain man named Jesus, and he was about thirty years old, who chose us. And coming unto Capernaum he entered into the house of Simon who was surnamed Peter, and opened his mouth and said: As I passed by the lake of Tiberias, I chose John and James the sons of Zebedee, and Simon and Andrew and Bartholomew, James the son of Alphaeus and Thomas> Thaddaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the Iscariot: and thee, Matthew, as thou satest as the receipt of custom I called, and thou followedst me. You therefore I will to be twelve apostles for a testimony unto (of) Israel.
And:
John was baptizing, and there went out unto him Pharisees and were baptized, and all Jerusalem. And John had raiment of camel's hair and a leathern girdle about his loins: and his meat (it saith) was wild honey, whereof the taste is the taste of manna, as a cake dipped in oil. That, forsooth, they may pervert the word of truth into a lie and for locusts put a cake dipped in honey (sic).
[These Ebionites were vegetarians and objected to the idea of eating locusts. A locust in Greek is akris, and the word they used for cake is enkris, so the change is slight. We shall meet with this tendency again.]
And the beginning of their Gospel says that: It came to pass in the days of Herod the king of Judaea that there came John, baptizing with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan, who was said to be of the lineage of Aaron the priest, child of Zecharias and Elisabeth, and all went out unto him.
And after a good deal more it continues that:
After the people were baptized, Jesus also came and was baptized by John; and as he came up from the water, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Ghost in the likeness of a dove that descended and entered into him: and a voice from heaven saying: Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased: and again: This day have I begotten thee. And straightway there shone about the place a great light. Which when John saw (it saith) he saith unto him: Who art thou, Lord? and again there was a voice from heaven saying unto him: This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. And then (it saith) John fell down before him and said: I beseech thee, Lord, baptize thou me. But he prevented him saying: Suffer it (or let it go): for thus it behoveth that all things should be fulfilled. And on this account they say that Jesus was begotten of the seed of a man, and was chosen; and so by the choice of God he was called the Son of God from the Christ that came into him from above in the likeness of a dove. And they deny that he was begotten of God the Father, but say that he was created as one of the archangels, yet greater, and that he is Lord of the angels and of all things made by the Almighty, and that he came and taught, as the Gospel (so called) current among them contains, that, 'I came to destroy the sacrifices, and if ye cease not from sacrificing, the wrath of God will not cease from you'. (With reference to the Passover and the evasion of the idea that Jesus partook of flesh) They[?] have changed the saying, as is plain to all from the combination of phrases, and have made the disciples say: Where wilt thou that we make ready for thee to eat the Passover? and him, forsooth, say Have I desired with desire to eat this flesh of the Passover with you?

Thus the Ebionite's 'Hebrew' Gospel (of Matthew) told a very different story about certain aspects and occurrences than the orthodox version we have today. Now it must be asked: Which was the (or more) original? Who actually made the changes, and to which version of Matthew were changes made? Was this Ebionite (Hebrew) Gospel the original (or 'nearer to' the original), or was it the translated 'orthodox' (canonical) Greek version?

What do you think?

PLU

 

[daveleau]

Eusebius quotes Papias regarding a possible Hebrew writing by Matthew. It was likely not the precursor of Matthew's Gospel, as Matthew's Greek shows no real signs of being translated from another tongue.

I find it interesting that this book contradicts the other Synoptic Gospel writers, and is not referenced by any of the other early church writers. Luke gives us a clue in his prologue to Theophilus (Luke's Gospel Ch1) that there were heretical writings already surfacing, and resulted in him writing his gospel.

There are several reasons why I distrust this writing:

- This writing contradicts Luke, Matthew, Paul, and Mark. There is no evidence that this writing truly originated from Matthew/Levi the apostle.
- I do not believe God would leave us in the dark for nearly 2000 years regarding this. Jesus has been considered as a member of the Trinity since well before Nicea.
- This writing, as far as we can see as it is only found in a late 4th century writing, first rears its head as the Arian controversy was at its height, and supports the Arian position. It is highly possible that this writings sole purpose was the support of Arianism.
-The Ebionites were a non-orthodox group of Judaizers that wanted to reinstate the Law Jesus fulfilled. This is another motive for their writing.

I do not believe this was written by Matthew.

In Him,
Dave

 

[Tarmaq]

I think there's a lot of validity to the writing. You have only to look at how Jesus disrupted the sacrifices in the temple with such vengeance not once, but twice, to realize how he felt about sacrifice. He told his followers "Go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'" Matt 9:13 In saying this he was quoting the latter prophet Hosea, who came strongly against sacrifice with the voice of God, saying "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." Hosea 6:6

I believe that lots of writings that did not totally agree with TPTB of the day got suppressed or destroyed. The church leaders of the day were not going to endorse as "inspired" something that they did not want the people to know or agree with. That kind of cover-up and suppression still goes on in the world - look at how the Chinese government tries to suppress portions of the internet for its citizens.

The Bible canon has been changed quite a few times by man; even as late as Luther in the Reformation when he threw out the Apocrypha which had been considered "inspired" (and still is by many) for many centuries. Who gave him that right? Was the canon more or less right after he made that change?

We have to ask ourselves, at what point was the Bible canon the "most" inspired? If the "yardstick" keeps changing, how can we tell what is really the one truth?

 

[daveleau]

One interesting note is that the Ebionites were greatly opposed to cessation of Jewish sacrifices, which is in direct contrast to what the quoted section in the OP says.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=22&letter=E

 

[ABenShema]

One interesting note is that the Ebionites were greatly opposed to cessation of Jewish sacrifices, which is in direct contrast to what the quoted section in the OP says.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=22&letter=E

What are you talking about? The Ebionites were opposed to Jewish blood sacrifices - and they were also vegetarian!

PLU

 

[beamishboy]

I think there's a lot of validity to the writing. You have only to look at how Jesus disrupted the sacrifices in the temple with such vengeance not once, but twice, to realize how he felt about sacrifice. He told his followers "Go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'" Matt 9:13 In saying this he was quoting the latter prophet Hosea, who came strongly against sacrifice with the voice of God, saying "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." Hosea 6:6

I believe that lots of writings that did not totally agree with TPTB of the day got suppressed or destroyed. The church leaders of the day were not going to endorse as "inspired" something that they did not want the people to know or agree with. That kind of cover-up and suppression still goes on in the world - look at how the Chinese government tries to suppress portions of the internet for its citizens.

The Bible canon has been changed quite a few times by man; even as late as Luther in the Reformation when he threw out the Apocrypha which had been considered "inspired" (and still is by many) for many centuries. Who gave him that right? Was the canon more or less right after he made that change?

We have to ask ourselves, at what point was the Bible canon the "most" inspired? If the "yardstick" keeps changing, how can we tell what is really the one truth?

This is not the only book that the heretics had. In Metzger's book on the canon of the N.T., he gave examples of other such books.

One common feature of these books is that they usually date from a few hundred years after the four-fold gospels had been accepted together with at least the Pauline Corpus. The MISTAKE a lot of people make is that they WRONGLY ASSOCIATE these books with the original gospel of Matthew which Papias said was written in a Hebrew tongue. I believe there is no connection for this reason - it is typical of many heretical books to try to connect themselves with older books mentioned by Papias or one of the early Church Fathers.

I can think of a few examples but one immediately springs to my mind:

In Col 4, Paul tells the Colossians to read his epistle to the Laodiceans and to exchange his Col epistle with them. Also about the 4th century AD, there were fake Epistles to the Laodiceans which were purportedly written by Paul but upon close examination by church leaders, were dismissed as fake.

The early church leaders did their best to examine the books and they were VERY honest. For example, when they realised that Hebrews was not written by Paul, they removed it from the Pauline Corpus of 14 epistles then and put it separately.

I have no doubt that gospel is a heretical work. The four-fold gospels had very early acceptance. Scholars say that they were accepted even before the Pauline Corpus. I mean the four-fold gospels together with the Lukean Acts.

Hehe, This is my new trade mark (a pity they only allow no more than 5 smilies):

 

[BigNorsk]

The Bible canon has been changed quite a few times by man; even as late as Luther in the Reformation when he threw out the Apocrypha which had been considered "inspired" (and still is by many) for many centuries. Who gave him that right? Was the canon more or less right after he made that change?

We have to ask ourselves, at what point was the Bible canon the "most" inspired? If the "yardstick" keeps changing, how can we tell what is really the one truth?

Luther did not inovate, though it's sometimes hard to tell with all the people who want to teach he did.

If you want to see Luther's perfect agreement with the historical church, you need but two things. A copy of Luther's bible. Which has the scriptural books of the Old and New Testament, and the Apochryphal books labeled as not being scripture but being useful to read.

Any edition will work for they were always the same. he did move the order of two New Testament books. And he did in his prefaces give his opinions, but he never removed anything.

As for the Apochryphal books and the proof that Luther followed the historical beliefs. All you need to do is read the prefaces of Jerome in the Latin Vulgate. Luther exactly followed Jerome.

So you end up with the Roman Catholic Church claiming to follow Jerome yet conflicting with him, and the man they condemn for inovating, he followed Jerome.

Jerome's introduction to Kings clearly lays it out.

And thus there are likewise twenty-two books in the Old (Testament), that is five of Moses, eight of the Prophets, nine of the Hagiographa. Although some may write Ruth and Cinoth among the Hagiographa, and think of counting these books among their number, and then by this to have twenty-four books of the Old Law, which the Apoclypse of John introduces with the number of twenty-four elders worshipping the Lamb and offering their crowns, prostrated on their faces, and crying out with unwearying voice: “Holy, holy, holy Lord God almighty, Who was and Who is, and Who will be.”
This prologue to the Scriptures may be appropriate as a helmeted introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so we may be able to know whatever is outside of these is set aside among the apocrypha. Therefore, Wisdom, which is commonly ascribed to Solomon, and the book of Jesus son of Sirach, and Judith and Tobias, and The Shepherd are not in the canon. I have found the First Book of the Maccabees (is) Hebrew, the Second is Greek, which may also be proven by their styles.

Note that even the term Apocrypha which is often complained about by Catholics is used by Jerome.

It appears that the setting of the canon for Roman Catholics in the end was motivated by politics not knowledge. And the only authority they appealed to was Jerome and the Vulgate saying that any book normally found in the Vulgate was scripture. That adds one more little twist, they said anything normally found in the Vulgate was scripture but when they listed the books they missed three, so you see the Protestant Apocrypha has three more books than the Catholic canon, just as the Vulgate did.

Marv

 

[ABenShema]

What are you talking about? The Ebionites were opposed to Jewish blood sacrifices - and they were also vegetarian!

PLU

Still waiting for your reply!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

One interesting note is that the Ebionites were greatly opposed to cessation of Jewish sacrifices, which is in direct contrast to what the quoted section in the OP says.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=22&letter=E

There was a large discussion on the Messianic Judaism board on that but my link is outdated for that thread. Here are a few sites on them though:

http://ebionite.com/

The Ebionites are the Genuine People of the New Covenant
Unless you are an Ebionite You Cannot be a Disciple of Yeshua/Jesus

http://www.ebionite.org/

The Ebionite Community is the living continuation of the Jewish religious movement of Jesus. Christianity is the religion of Paul and others, and not part of the biblical faith and revelation of the God of Israel nor is it of Jesus. (Please note that we have used "Jesus" to clarify for our Christian readers. We call him Yeshua or Yahshua, and will use Yeshua from this point on in the site.)
We declare the man Paul of Tarsus, the false teacher against the mark of Covenant and God's Torah, to be outside of the Way taught by Yeshua, the anointed, son of Maria and Yosef. The Ebionite Community is the only real "mission to the gentiles."