Toto

The Gospel of the Hebrews is a lost gospel, which is only known because later commentators quoted a few phrases here and there from it.

But I am not sure how "born of a woman" is consistent with Jesus as born from the Holy Spirit, which in Hellenistic Judaism and Christianity is considered to be male rather than female in any case.

Ben's page on GH is here, and quotes Origen as saying: It would take a *brave* scholar to pin any particular conclusions on this fragment.

Could you please name these scholars? I have never read anyone who thinks that the Law referred to here is the 613 mitzvot of the Jewish law of the Torah, not the few commands in Genesis.

No one else "knows" that Elohim is plural, since it takes a singular form of the verb.


Instead of lecturing Earl on how he should write, perhaps you should put forth your own theory? I would be interested to see what you can do with the fragments of GH.

Ben C Smith

Same way Tertullian knew. Tertullian possessed two versions of the gospel. So did Marcion. Tertullian claimed that his own preferred version was the original, and that his opponent had altered it. So did Marcion.

Which one, if any, was correct?

Ben.

Adonael

Depends on what you mean by prove. this article by lowder helps:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/ipnegep.html

FathomFFI

The description of the Holy Spirit as "my mother" is due to the fact that the Hebrew word for "spirit" is of the feminine gender. Also, the fact that Gen 1.26 speaks of a plural of gods, also Gen 1.27 shows mankind being created as both male and female (masculine and feminine) as an image of these gods, then it is only reasonable to conclude that these gods are maculine and feminine.

It doesn't much matter to me personally, but we can't deny what the text says. How do we deny that God is masculine and feminine, when mankind was created in this god's image as being masculine and feminine? How do we deny the plural ascribed to God in Gen 1.26? What do we do with this evidence?



I'm not referring to any scholars in regards to the law, but only that many believe that the 7 days of creation represent a spiritual/metaphorical creation. The scholars who consider this are numerous, but we can actually extend back to Augustine of Hippo who discusses this at length in his works We can move up a few centuries and see Nasir Khusraw of the 11th century speaking in depth about it also in his works entitled Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow. Then we can again move forward to so many scholars that I could sit here all day mentioning names. But here's a few: Meredith G. Kline; Henri Blocher; Gordon J. Glover. You can go here for more. You can even search for more; the list seems endless.

It certainly does take a singular form of the verb, but nobody I know denies the plural suffix.

I have already presented a rough "theory."

Regards

Team FFI

FathomFFI

Since they were near contemporaries, and since we know that Marcion was branded a heretic during his time by the early church, and subsequently excommunicated, what we are left to conclude is that a consensus was decidedly against Marcion.

Why?

The Church Fathers wrote that Marcion edited his texts to suit his own theology. It is also likely because Luke's gospel was believed to be complete by Marcion's time. In it, he eliminated the first two chapters concerning the nativity and beginning at Capernaum and made modifications of the remainder suitable to Marcionism.

I am aware of the argument of Marcion's gospel predating Luke, however, with Luke resembling so much we find in the earlier Matt and Mark, and with Marcion editing out the supposed birth of Jesus, I cannot accept this argument at all, since Tertullian also talks about the Nativity mentioned in Matthew in his On the Flesh of Christ work.

Ben C Smith

This sounds like an argument to me.

Do you agree that Marcion has to be at least considered in order to reasonably conclude that the extant text is basically the original text?

IOW, let us assume that you are correct and Marcion is the mutilater, nobody else. Do you agree that you should have to mount an argument, as you appear to be doing at this point, in order to be reasonably certain that you are correct?

Ben.

FathomFFI

Sure, I could mount an argument. For example, providing some evidence that Luke existed before Marcion's gospel?

Try this:

Now compare to Luke:

After examining all Gospels, the only one that comes close to what Clement quoted is from Luke, and this is several years before Marcion.

I don't know what you think of that, but ... :huh:

Ben C Smith

I was actually asking you whether it was a situation that deserved an argument.

I have a study on it on one of my web pages. Caveat: It is an older page of mine, and I have not reviewed its contents for a while.

Ben.

FathomFFI

It could use an argument if someone complained.

Oh there's tons of comparisons Ben. Look at this one:

Luke is the only gospel with all the elements.

One look at your page, and it was instantly added to my favs.

Ben C Smith

This is what I was driving at. Doherty complained. His first argument in favor of interpolation was the Marcionite text. But you seemed to be implying that he had offered no evidence at all. Marcion is evidence. It may not be enough to convince you, or anyone, but I think it merits a look.

I have that one listed, but not analyzed.

Thanks. Glad to be of service.

Ben.