There were Jewish Christians, according to Justin (Dial. 88) who maintained that Jesus was born in the ordinary way. Whether all the JeAvish Christians whom Justin knew held this position,
* There is a monograph by R. Beinsch on Die Pseudo-Evan- gelien von Jesu und Marias Eindhcit in der romanischen und germanischen Literatitr, Halle, 1879.
t The varying directions of criticism are traced by Handmann (cf. Moffatt," LNT2, Edinburgh, 1912, pp. 259-261). Of the earlier studies, one of the most acute is in chs. vii.-viii. of R. Simon's HU- toire critique du texte du Nouieau Testament, Rotterdam, 1689.
J A later Svriac Church-compilation with this title has been edited by J. Rendel Harris : The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, together with the Apocalypses of each one of them, Cambridge, 1900. Whether the Coptic fragments edited by Revillout (Pat- rolog. Orient., ii. 2, Paris, 1903-05, p. 123 f.) belong to this, or to some allied Gospel of the Twelve, is a moot point (cf. Haase, p. 30 f.). It also seems doubtful whether this Syriac TG can be shown to rest on a source akin to the EG of Epiphanius.
§ Occasionally in the sense that EG is no more than an Ebionitio copy or edition of the original catholic HG.
490 GOSPELS (UNCAis^ONICAL)
GOSPELS (UNCAXO^^ICAL)
or whether it was only some of them, is not quite clear ; all he asserts is that the majority of Chris- tians in his day prefen'ed to believe in the virgin- birth. The real dividing line among Jewish Christians was drawn by their view of the Law {Dial. 47) ; the stricter party sought to enforce the Law upon Gentile Christians, while the more tolerant were content with obeying it themselves. It was over this question of practice, not over a Christological issue, that diflerences arose. With Irenoeus the situation is different. Writing in the West, he is not acquainted with the varieties of Jewish Christians in Palestine and Syria ; to him they are all ' Ebionites,' who believe Jesus was the son of Joseph, reject St. Paul as an apostate from the Law, and use no Gospel but that of Matthew (ffce>'. i. 26. 2, iii. IL 7). Origen is better informed (Cels. V. 61). He recognizes the two-fold classifica- tion of the Ebionites or Jewish Christians, and holds that both rejected St. Paul (v. 65), but says nothing about any special Gospel used by those who re- jected the virgin-birth. The difficulty presented by the statement of Irenaeus remains, viz. how could any party in the Church adhere strictly and specially to the Gospel of Matthew, if they believed (iii. 21. 1) in the natural birth of Jesus? Must they not have omitted all or part of the first two chapters ? Yet Irenaeus seems to imply that they did not alter or abbreviate Matthew's Gospel,* for he contrasts them favourably with Marcion. ' The Ebionites, who use only that Gospel which is according to Matthew, are convicted out of that Gospel itself of holding wrong views about the Lord ; whereas Marcion, Avho mutilates the Gospel according to Luke, is shown by the parts that sur- vive in his edition to be a blasphemer against the only living God' (iii. IL 7; cf. iii. 21. 1). The loose statement of Irenftus is corrected or ex- plained by Eusebius of Ctesarea {HE iii. 27. 4) ; he declares that the Ebionite Christians, who took so low and ' poor ' a view of Christ's person as to believe that He was born naturally, and who re- jected St. Paul as an apostate from the Law, used the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews, and attached little value to the other Gospels. But this HG was not the special possession of these Ebionite Christians. It was the particular delight of Christian Jews (iii. 25. 5 : y ixdXLaTa'E^paluv 0^x61' Xpiffrbv Trapaoe^d/Jievoi x'^'-P°^o'^)- More than that : the last-named passage from Eusebius proves that HG was ranked by the Church among the scrip- tures which 'though not within the canon but dis- puted are nevertheless recognized by the majority of the orthodox (rrapa trXeiaTois rwv iKK\7i<Tia(riKwu yi.yvcjaKOfji.evas}.' This class of scriptures includes the Apocalypse of John {el tpaveirj, Eusebius puts in). ' And nowadays {■fjdr)) some have also included the Gospel according to the Hebrews.' By ' some ' Eusebius plainly means orthodox Christians, as distinguished from the Christian Jews whose en- thusiasm for this Gospel was natural and taken for granted. He implies that this tendency to disparage the Gospel was comparatively recent.
Here we begin to suspect confusion. What Eusebius calls the Gospel Kad' 'E^paiovs was at once the sole t Gospel of the Ebionites, who denied the virgin-birth as well as the authority of St. Paul, and the favourite Gospel of Christian Jews. It was even regarded by some of the strictly orthodox as only second to the four canonical Gospels and dis-
* Their Gospel must have been, apparently, EG ; NG contained Sit 1-2, and HG could not be called a Matthacan Gospel.
t At the same time, strict Jewish Christians who held the OT to be the revealed truth, and Cliristianity a consummation of the Jewish religrion, would not necessarily attach the same canonical value to a Gospel as other Christians (cf. Handniann, p. 108 f.). This consideration may also serve to account for the tarffumistic features of KG and "the freedom with which the text is treated in EG.