# Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews

I agree with In Ictu Oculi that we should avoid "fringe theories" about this topic. The fact that the Gospel of the Hebrews was syncretistic and composed in Greek many years after the time of the Disciples makes it unlikely there is any connection with the Hypothetical Hebrew Gospel. Indeed the GHeb traditions of Jesus' pre-existence, his coming into the world, a mighty Power in Heaven named Michael and the Power which came into the world called Mary (which had Christ in it's womb for only seven months) etc etc pretty much precludes this possibility. I would suggest we remove "Unbalanced tag" and do as Ignocrates suggested. I have little to add. All in all good work on a difficult topic! Happy New Year!  Ret.Prof (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

There are no "fringe theories" in this article I am aware of, per WP:FRINGE; however, WP:WEIGHT is always subject to interpretation. I welcome any suggestions for ways to further refine and improve the article content. Ignocrates (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
@Ret.Prof:Although I am no believer in Jesus of Nazareth as Israel's Messiah, since, according to Jewish understanding, the true Messiah will bring peace into our troubled world, I still wish to respond to your comment here, where you said: "the Gospel of the Hebrews was syncretistic and composed in Greek many years after the time of the Disciples." I think that you should reconsider the words of Jerome who wrote (de. vir. ill. III): "Matthew, also called Levi, an apostle after having been a publican, was the first to compose a gospel of the Messiah in Judea in Hebrew letters and words for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed…" Now if the Jews who believed in Jesus (i.e. the Ebionites and the Nazoraeans) read from the Aramaic gospel of Matthew, is it then conceivable to think that they would have abandoned Matthew's original work for a mere Aramaic translation of the Greek Evangelion which is also a translation? This is nonsense, my friend! Moreover, when Jerome says in another place that "a good many" call it the authentic text of Matthew, he was simply telling us in his own words that there was an oral tradition in his day regarding the book's authorship and authenticity, saying that it was widely known to be the original text of Matthew's gospel.Davidbena (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks David, your position is as always well thought out...and I tend to agree. I am also glad we are able to our religious views aside and focus on the historical evidence in an objective fashion. I am preparing some draft edits in my sandbox and would be honored if in a couple of weeks you could review them! השלום יהיה איתך - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

An old, 2016 version of the Wikipedia entry said: "There is ancient citation evidence from historians who have stated that the original Gospel of the Hebrews did not have the virgin birth narrative which was interpolated between the 2nd and 4th centuries by Greek pre Catholic priests.[citation needed]" I am curious where the editor got this idea from. It's worth noting this quote: "The night of the birth of Christ the fair there were seventeen miracles of the world. Delightfully are they related to you in the gospel of the Hebrews."(SOURCE: Book of Uí Máine in the Royal Irish Academy). I suspect Wikipedia might have been just imposing the Ebionites' beliefs in their redacted Gospel of the Ebionites into the earlier Gospel of the Hebrews, because Epiphanius said the Ebionites took out the virgin birth story from G.Matthew.Rakovsky (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Is that a misspelling in the original of the quoted section that we faithfully copy (Number 7 in Contents), or do we seriously have "brake" instead of "break" in the context of breaking bread. I just wanted to make sure I'm not missing something, like an archaic form of "break".Heiro 07:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Heironymous Rowe, "Brake" is the old past tense of "break" (instead of "broke"). It's like "spake" instead of "spoke". Cf. the episcopal Book of Common Prayer, [1] p. 334, "For in the night in which he was betrayed, he took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it...".--Ermenrich (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Gotcha. Suspected the possibility, wanted to confirm that before "fixing" it. Heiro 16:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Newimpartial:, While the source does, indeed, say that Jesus called the Holy Spirit "his Mother," the word "Shekhina" is NOT used in that source at all. Therefore, the redirect / link is misleading. I have left the wording stand as it is, without redirecting it to "Shekhina", which, as noted, in Hebrew sources has the more distinct translation of "Divine Presence."Davidbena (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, but would also be happy to see others weigh in. Newimpartial (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
By the way, anyone who knows Hebrew can tell you that there is a difference between "Holy Spirit" (רוח הקודש‎) = ruach ha-qodesh, and the word "Shekhina" (שכינה‎), which latter is found in our Talmud (Baba Bathra 25a) and means simply "Divine Presence." We say, "The Divine Presence is everywhere." Meaning, there is a little of God's presence to be seen everywhere. However, the "Holy Spirit" is a more specific thing, and found with the prophets of God who can prophesy about futurities.Davidbena (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand the initial description of this text as a "Jewish Christian" gospel. Is it not the case that the four canonical gospels are "Jewish Christian"? Or some portion of them?OriMTL (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

- see the article Jewish–Christian gospels - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)