The Gospel of the Ebionites

The Gospel of the Hebrews?

There are several accounts of a number of early gospels that did not contain an infancy narrative, with various conflicting accounts as to both their content and the language(s) in which they were written. According to Waite:

The first two chapters of Luke were wanting in the gospels of the first century. They were also wanting in the Gospel of the Hebrews, or Nazarenes, about A. D. 125, as well as in the Gospel of Marcion, A. D. 145.

Waite refers to “the Gospel of the Hebrews, or Nazarenes,” and it is not clear whether he is referring to different gospels or not. According to wikivisually.com 

The Gospel of the Hebrews is classified as one of the three Jewish–Christian gospels by modern scholars, along with the Gospel of the Nazarenes and the Gospel of the Ebionites. All are known today only from fragments preserved in quotations by the early Church Fathers. The relationship between the Jewish–Christian gospels and a hypothetical original Hebrew Gospel remains a speculation.

The history of all three gospels is unclear, even as to the language in which they were written, whether Hebrew, Aramaic, a combination of the two such as Hebrew written using the Aramaic alphabet, or even Greek. It is not even clear whether these were in fact three distinct gospels, or perhaps slightly different versions of one. In De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men) Jerome writes (c. 392-93) about the Gospel of the Hebrews and an original Hebrew version of Mathew, and clearly considered the two to be different gospels:

The Gospel also which is called the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and which I have recently translated into Greek and Latin and which also Origen often makes use of, after the account of the resurrection of the Saviour says, … (Ch 2)

Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek, though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Cæsarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Berœa, a city of Syria, who use it. (Ch 3)

Wikipedia states that:

The Gospel of the Nazarenes (also Nazareans, Nazaraeans, Nazoreans, or Nazoraeans) is the traditional but hypothetical name given by some scholars to distinguish some of the references to, or citations of, non-canonical Jewish-Christian Gospels extant in patristic writings from other citations believed to derive from different Gospels.

The earliest information about any gospel written in either Hebrew or Aramaic comes from Eusebius, who records Papias as in the early 2nd century having stated: 

Matthew organized the oracles [the logia] (of Jesus) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as he was able.

Papias does not give a name to this composition, and while it has been suggested that he was referring to a collection of sayings of Jesus, other references to ‘the logia’ suggest that it was a single body of work, such as a gospel (See the Overview of an elegant solution to the Synoptic Problem by Ron Price). Even apart from the different spellings, the confusion over these gospels continues, as indicated by Fred Lapham in ‘An Introduction to the New Testament Apocrypha:’

That a Gospel written in either the Aramaic or Hebrew language was in use by Christians living in the region of Coele-Syria is attested by several early writers; and many are convinced that it was closely linked with the Gospel of Matthew, being either a version of Matthew, or perhaps even its original form. According to Papias, Matthew had written his Gospel in ‘the Hebrew tongue’; and if this may be assumed to have been the case, it is difficult to determine whether the Nazaraean Gospel was an edition of this original Matthaean Gospel, an Aramaic or Hebrew translation of a later Greek version of Matthew, or, indeed, the original itself. What cannot be disputed is that many of the passages quoted or cited from the Gospel of the Nazaeaeans (sometimes confusedly referred to as the Hebrew or Jewish Gospel) are indeed closely paralleled in Matthew’s Gospel.

Lapham then quotes: “From Jerome’s Commentary on Matthew; cf. Mt. 12.13”:

In the gospel which the Nazaraeans and Ebionites use, which we have recently translated out of Hebrew into Greek, and which is called by most people the authentic (Gospel) of Matthew, the man who had the withered hand is described as a mason who pleaded for help in the following words: I was a mason, and earned my living with my hands; I beseech thee, Jesus, to restore to me my health that I may not with ignominy have to beg for my bread.

Exactly which gospel Jerome is referring to in his quotes is not clear, nor is it clear whether he is referring to what he elsewhere refers to as the Gospel according to the Hebrews. In The Apocryphal New Testament,  Montague Rhodes James begins his analysis of what he also calls ‘The Gospel According to the Hebrews’ as follows:

This is on a different level from all the other books we have to deal with. It was a divergent yet not heretical form of our Gospel according to St. Matthew. Even to sketch the controversies which have raged about it is impracticable here. What may be regarded as established is that it existed in either Hebrew or Aramaic, and was used by a Jewish Christian sect who were known as Nazaraeans (Nazarenes), and that it resembled our Matthew closely enough to have been regarded as the original Hebrew of that Gospel. I believe few, if any, would now contend that it was that original. It is generally, and I believe rightly, looked upon as a secondary document. What was the extent of the additions to or omissions from Matthew we do not know: but two considerations must be mentioned bearing on this: (1) The Stichometry of Nicephorus assigns it 2,200 lines, 300 less than Matthew. This figure, if correct, means that a good deal was left out. (2) If the Oxyrhynchus Sayings … are really, as competent scholars think, extracts from it, we must suppose a large quantity of additional matter: for we have but two rather brief fragments of that collection of sayings, and eight out of thirteen sayings are either not represented in the canonical text, or differ widely therefrom.

Jerome, who is our chief source of knowledge about this Gospel, says that he had made a Greek and a Latin version of it. The statement is wholly rejected by some, and by others thought to be an exaggeration. It is very difficult to accept it as it stands. Perhaps, as Lagrange suggests, the truth may be that Jerome took notes of the text in Greek and Latin. Schmidtke, it should be added, has tried to show that all Jerome's quotations are borrowed from an earlier writer, Apollonaris; but there is no positive evidence for this.

If the Oxyrhynchus Sayings do come from Hebrews, they seem to imply the existence of a Greek version before Jerome's time. This is also implied by the entry in the Stichometry.

It should be obvious that if the Gospel referred to above by James in fact preceded what we know of Matthew then the 300 lines referenced above would be additions. In addition, the comment that "competent scholars" think that the "Oxyrhynchus Sayings" are extracts from this gospel must be regarded as a biased remark, as it implies that no "competent scholar" would believe otherwise, and in fact the "Oxyrhynchus Sayings" are now known to come from the Gospel of Thomas.

James then continues by providing translations of the fragments of ‘Hebrews’ by Rev. Pere Lagrange in the Revue Biblique, 1922. These translations are shown below in the Appendix, except where translations have already been given above, or in the case of Epiphanius in his Panarion, immediately below.

Panarion 29, Against Nazoraeans

In Against Nazoraeans - 1,2, Epiphanius describes a group of Christians he calls the Nazoraeans:

For these people did not give themselves the name of Christ2 or Jesus’ own name, but that of “Nazoraeans.” But at that time all Christians alike were called Nazoraeans. They also came to be called “Jessaeans”3 for a short while, before the disciples began to be called Christians at Antioch. But they were called Jessaeans because of Jesse, I suppose, since David was descended from Jesse and Mary was a lineal descendant of David.

(Footnotes 2 and 3 read:

2 Eusebius, at H. E. 2.17.4 says that the first Christians were not everywhere known as such.

3 Epiphanius bases this on his memory of the term Ἐσσαῖοι, which Philo uses at Vita Contemplativa 1 for the group Eusebius calls Therapeutae. On the subject see Pourkier p. 113.)

Epiphanius agrees with Jerome that the Nazoraeans (and also the Ebionites) used a Hebrew version of Matthew, and in Against Nazoraeans - 9,4 he comments:

They have the Gospel according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew.48 For it is clear that they still preserve this as it was originally written, in the Hebrew alphabet. But I do not know whether they have also excised the genealogies from Abraham till Christ.

(Footnote 48 reads: Cf. Eus. H. E. 3.24.6; 39.16; 5.10.3; Theophania 4.12; Jer. Vir. Ill. 3; C. Pelag. 3.2. The Ebionites are said to use the Gospel according to Matthew and none other at Iren. 1.26.2; Eus. H. E. 3.27.4.)

Epiphanius suggests that the gospel used by the Nazoraeans was a Hebrew version of the whole of Matthew (which may or may not have been either of the gospels described above by Jerome), but even so he is uncertain of the status of Mt 1:1-17. This suggests that he had not actually seen a copy, especially as he does not quote from any part of this Hebrew gospel.

Panarion 30, Against Ebionites 3:7

Although Epiphanius does not quote from the gospel used by the Nazoraeans, in Against Ebionites, section 3,7 he does quote from what he states is the same gospel, but as used by the Ebionites:

They too accept the Gospel according to Matthew. Like the Cerinthians and Merinthians, they too use it alone. They call it, “According to the Hebrews,” and it is true to say that only Matthew expounded and preached the Gospel in the Hebrew language and alphabet16 in the New Testament.

(Footnote 16 reads: Cf. Iren. 1.26.2; 3.11.7; Eus. H. E. 3.27.4; Jer. C. Pelag 3.2; Vir. Ill. 3 (Richardson p. 8).)

Panarion 30, Against Ebionites 13:1, 6-8, and 15

In Against Ebionites, section 13,1 Epiphanius refers to the gospel they used, in common with (as he states) the Nazoraeans: 

Now in what they call a Gospel according to Matthew, though it is not the entire Gospel but is corrupt and mutilated — and they call this thing “Hebrew”! …

From the comments above Epiphanius seems to not be certain as to whether the gospel used by the Ebionites was called “Gospel according to Matthew,” or “According to the Hebrews.” It has been suggested that the last statement above from Epiphanius is indicating that the name of this gospel is actually “Hebrew,” but it is conceivable that it was a parenthetical remark from him while dictating to a scribe, and commenting on the poor quality of the Hebrew text. However, in the rest of the current discussion this gospel will be referred to simply as ‘Ebionites’ (c.f. Mark, Matthew, and Luke). 

Slightly later, in section 13,6-8, Epiphanius quotes from the beginning of Ebionites (some commentators include the words <in angle brackets>): 

But the beginning of their Gospel is, “It came to pass in the days of Herod, king of Judaea, <in the high-priesthood of Caiaphas>, that <a certain> man, John <by name>, came baptizing with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan, and he was said to be of the lineage of Aaron the priest, the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth, and all went out unto him.”26 …

(Footnote 26 reads: Cf. Luke 1:5; Mark 1:4-5)

This suggests that Ebionites did not contain any text equivalent to the first two chapters of both Matthew and Luke, and this is confirmed by Epiphanius in section 14,3 (below). Although not the same text as we see in Mark, Matthew, or Luke (the synoptic gospels, or synoptics), there are obvious parallels in all three to what Epiphanius quotes, as shown in this table:

Note: In the synoptic tables used here discontinuities in the texts of Mark, Matthew, and Luke are marked by thicker lines between table rows or columns. 

While the beginning of Ebionites does have parallels in Mark, Matthew, and Luke that appear to be close enough to suggest a literary relationship, there are two particular points of note:

1.     Ebionites does not include any quotation from Esaias (Isaiah) or any other prophet, but instead contains references to John’s parents, Zacharias and Elizabeth. Neither are named in Mark or Matthew chapters 1-2, while both are named eight times each in Luke chapters 1-2, and Zacharias is named in Lk 3:2 (above). If Ebionites was seen by aMark and aMatthew (respectively the authors of Mark and Matthew) then it is interesting that both omitted the names of John’s parents, while instead if aLuke (the author of Luke) saw both the names in Ebionites and the quotes from Esaias in Mark or Matthew, then it would be reasonable for him to include both a reference to Zacharias in Lk 3:2 and quotes from Esaias.

2.     Mk 1:2-3 and 1:4 are reversed compared with the parallels in all three other gospels, perhaps suggesting here that Mark precedes Ebionites, or that aMark did not know it.

Directly following the quotations given above Epiphanius writes: 

… And after saying a good deal it adds, “When the people had been baptized Jesus came also and was baptized of John. And as he came up out of the water the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove which descended and entered into him. And (there came) a voice from heaven saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased, and again, This day have I begotten thee.28 And straightway a great light shone round about the place. Seeing this,” it says, “John said unto him, Who art thou, Lord? And again (there came) a voice to him from heaven, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And then,” it says, “John fell down before him and said, I pray thee, Lord, do thou baptize me. But he forbade him saying, Let it alone, for thus it is meet that all be fulfilled.”

(Footnote 28 reads: “Heb. 1:5; Ps 2:7; Gospel according to the Hebrews H-S I p. 169 which, however, is a quoted [sic] from Epiph. There is no other source for the quotation.”)

Again, the quoted text from Ebionites has close parallels in Mark, Matthew, and Luke, but here Epiphanius states that he had passed over “a good deal” of text before continuing with parallels to Mk 1:9-11, Mt 3:13-17, and Lk 3:21b-22. However, in Panarion 30 section 13:15 he writes:

And, “John came baptizing, and there went out unto him Pharisees and were baptized, and all Jerusalem. And John had a garment of camel’s hair, and a girdle of skin about his loins. And his meat,” it says, “was wild honey, whose taste was the taste of manna, as a cake in oil.” This, if you please, to turn the account of the truth into falsehood, and substitute “a cake in honey” for “locusts”!

Epiphanius here appears to paraphrase what he had previously quoted about John baptizing (the quote marks shown above are not in Epiphanius' original Greek), and he then continues with a parallel to Mk 1:5b-6 and Mt 3:4-6 (Luke has no parallel here). Combining the two quotations adds significantly to what we know of the early part of Ebionites, as shown below:

On the reasonable assumption that the “good deal” of text in Ebionites contained at least some parallels to text in the synoptics, then it may have included parallels to Mk 1:7-8, Mt 3:11a-12, and Lk 3:16b-17, but parallels to just these verses would not constitute “a good deal” of text. Even if the parallels to Mt 3:7-10 and Lk 3:7-9 were part of the “good deal” this is only (at most) equivalent to six verses of Matthew. However, the text that Epiphanius skips over might also have included parallels to some or all of the unique (in the synoptics) Lukan verses vv. 3:10-16a and 18-20, and this possibility is supported by the fact that Epiphanius next quotes a parallel to Lk 3:21a, which is also unique  to Luke: 

As before, this section of the text of Ebionites has parallels in Mark, Matthew, and Luke, but again there are some interesting points, the first of which is the difference in order between Mt 3:4-6 and the parallels in both Ebionites and Mark (Luke has no parallel here). It is not in any way obvious why aMatthew would move this detail regarding John (assuming he saw it in either Ebionites or Mark) rather than just omitting it, as aLuke did.  Then, Epiphanius above refers to John’s food not including locusts as if this were a deliberate change in Ebionites (compared to Mk 1:6 / Mt 3:4) to make John not eat meat. On this point Sebastian Brock writes:

Various other slants might be given to John’s supposed vegetarian diet: it represented the food of primitive humanity, it was an indication of his humility, and so on. Vegetarian concerns, however, were by no means the only ones to be found. Two of the earliest interpretations that arose could both be described as ‘mythical’ (in the good sense), since they each sought to link John with some aspect of salvation history.

According to what are admittedly rather late sources, the text of the lost second century harmony of the Gospels known as the Diatessaron, instead of ‘locusts and wild honey’, had the reading ‘honey and milk of the mountain’: milk and honey were frequently seen as a source of heavenly sustenance, which was why, in some parts of the early Church, it was given to the newly baptized. This interpretation also sometimes became associated with the tradition of John’s flight to the desert with his mother, and in this context the ‘milk of the mountain’ was sometimes corrupted (by a misreading easy in Syriac) into ‘milk of gazelles’.

The other interpretation of a ‘mythical’ character is to be found in the Ebionite Gospel, one of the non-canonical Gospels known only from a few quotations. By a slight change in the Greek word, the ‘locusts’ (akrides) became egkrides, little cakes made with oil and honey. According to the Septuagint at Exodus 16:31, this is what manna tasted like; thus once again John was accorded a heavenly diet.

As indicated by Brock this could be a simple mis-reading of a single word, making it unlikely that this is a deliberate change, and potentially the wording in Ebionites could have been the original reading. 

Although there are no parallels to Mt 3:14-15 in either Mark or Luke, Ebionites does have parallels to these verses. However, in Ebionites these parallels are located at the end of the above passage, after the “voice from heaven” has spoken. This location in Ebionites makes complete sense since it is only then that John would have known that Jesus was the son of God, and for this reason it would seem that the order in Matthew is a mistake, and cannot be the original reading. 

In Ebionites and all three synoptic gospels there is a “voice from heaven” that announces Jesus as his son. Although the English wording in the KJV is slightly different, the Greek text of Mark 1:11b and Lk 3:22c is identical, with God speaking directly to Jesus, saying Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. God makes a similar comment regarding Jesus' identity in Mt 3:14, but in this case he is introducing Jesus to John, by saying This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Ebionites has both forms, with God first addressing Jesus (as in Mark and Luke), and then, after John asks God who he is, he introduces Jesus to John.

This use of both forms of address in Ebionites has led to suggestions that it is a conflation of what we see in the synoptics, so indicating that Ebionites is later than Matthew and either (or both) of Mark and Luke. However, in Ebionites, in addition to both the above forms of address, the voice from heaven follows in thee I am well pleased with This day have I begotten thee, which is a direct quote from Ps 2:7, and is also quoted in Heb 1:5. Although this phrase does not appear in Mark or Matthew, it is a known ‘Western’ variant of Lk 3:22 in mss D, it(a, b, c, d, ff2, l, r1), and was referred to by various fathers, including Augustine in the 4th century, who states: 

But once more, with respect to that rendering which is contained in some codices of the Gospel according to Luke, and which bears that the words heard in the heavenly voice were those that are written in the Psalm, You are my Son, this day have I begotten You; although it is said not to be found in the more ancient Greek codices, yet if it can be established by any copies worthy of credit, what results but that we suppose both voices to have been heard from heaven, in one or other verbal order?

Although D is the only extant Greek ms containing this reading, we can trace it back into the middle of the 2nd century, as in his Dialogue with Trypho Justin Martyr (100 – c. 165) also refers to God having begotten Jesus. It is clear he is referring to a gospel account and not just quoting from Ps 2:7, and as he refers to Jesus being “the son of Joseph the carpenter” (a combination of details only found in Matthew) he may not be quoting from Luke here: 

And when Jesus came to the Jordan, He was considered to be the son of Joseph the carpenter; and He appeared without comeliness, as the Scriptures declared; and He was deemed a carpenter (for He was in the habit of working as a carpenter when among men, making ploughs and yokes; by which He taught the symbols of righteousness and an active life); but then the Holy Ghost, and for man's sake, as I formerly stated, lighted on Him in the form of a dove, and there came at the same instant from the heavens a voice, which was uttered also by David when he spoke, personating Christ, what the Father would say to Him: 'Thou art My Son: this day have I begotten Thee;' [the Father] saying that His generation would take place for men, at the time when they would become acquainted with Him: 'Thou art My Son; this day have I begotten thee.'

The Western reading in Luke is referred to as Adoptionist (because God is ‘adopting’ Jesus following his baptism), as mentioned in Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel and the Gospel of the Hebrews: 

Klauck explains the Gnostic perspective, which this addition implies,

“The dynamite in this version of the baptism narrative is the fact that the heavenly voice is not content to quote only the first half of the verse from Ps.2 ("You are My Son"), but employs a transitional formula to add the second half: ‘This day I have begotten you.’ This edition [sic], ‘Today I have begotten you,’ makes possible an adoptionist or even a docetic interpretation of the baptismal scene. The former would say that it is only at his baptism that God adopts and publicly acclaims the man Jesus of Nazareth as his Son; the docetic reading would emphasize the fusion with the Spirit and say that it is only at his baptism that a heavenly spiritual being enters the man Jesus.” 

At TVU 44 in his textual commentary on Luke Wieland Willker notes: 

The reading [“begotten”] seems to have been widespread and early. Internally it is clearly to be favored: It is the harder reading and the txt reading is possibly a harmonization to Matthew/Mark. Acts 13:33 shows that Ps 2:7 is clearly connected with Jesus from early on. Where did the author of Hebrews get his quote? Did he know Lk in this form? 

He then also writes: 

Harnack (Sprüche Jesu, Exkurs II, p. 216-9) argues in favor of the D reading: For Luke this reading is unconvenient [sic], considering ch. 1-2. He could have simply followed Mark here. This means that he followed Q, which he considered superior. He also follows Q before and after this. This then means that a report of the baptism was in Q and that it read the words from heaven as given in D and the Old Latin. 

The references to ‘Q’ must not be taken to just mean the entity defined by the IQP (International Q Project), but simply as meaning another source for Matthew / Luke. Willker states that Burkitt disagrees with this, and that he: “notes that it is not certain whether Q had any account of the Baptism of Jesus.” He then quotes Burkitt: 

The true deduction is, therefore, that the Western reading in Lk. 3:22, whatever its origin, seemed to those who used it more and not less orthodox than its rival. And that, as a matter of fact, is how it is quoted. Justin Martyr is no Adoptionist; he knew the Gospel of Matthew, but he prefers to cite a text in which the Voice agrees with the Psalm, not that Jesus then in reality became Son of God, but to shew that He fulfilled the prophecy which He aforetime had inspired, meaning that His nativity would come to men from the time when the knowledge of Him came to pass. 

Further, it would be quite in the manner of Luke to substitute a Psalm-passage for a Saying that appeared difficult or shocking, as he substituted 'Into Thy hands I commend my spirit' (Ps. 31:5) for ' Why hast Thou forsaken me?'." 

Willker then comments that: "The version in the Gospel of the Ebionites is clearly a conflation, but of what? Of Mt and Lk? Or of two versions of Lk?" 

While Ebionites certainly does contain two different readings, the Greek support for the Western ‘Adoptionist’ reading from Luke is both very slim, and late (D, from the 5th century). As D is more likely to depend on the Old Latin than on an earlier Greek ms (see The Western Text), the author of Ebionites is unlikely to have known this reading from another source. In addition, later scribes copying the text were unlikely to have added it to Ebionites before Epiphanius saw it in the 4th century, as Adoptionism was declared a heresy at the end of the 2nd century. Rather than Ebionites conflating other sources, it is more likely that Ebionites itself is the source of the Adoptionist reading in the Old Latin copies of Luke, and this possibility is supported by the fact that in Ebionites the Holy Spirit (in the form of a dove) actually entered Jesus, while the synoptics (Mk 1:10c, Mt 3:16d, and Lk 3:22) the dove form just lands on him.

Panarion 30, Against Ebionites: 13:1-5 

In section 13,1-5 Epiphanius states that “the following passage is found” in Ebionites: 

There was a certain man named Jesus, and he was about thirty years of age,20 who chose us. And coming to Capernaum he entered into the house of Simon surnamed Peter, and opened his mouth and said, Passing beside the Sea of Tiberias I chose John and James, the sons of Zebedee,21 and Simon and Andrew and <Philip and Bartholomew, James the son of Alphaeus and Thomas>, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot.22 Thee too, Matthew, seated at the receipt of custom, did I call, and thou didst follow me.23 I will, then, that ye be twelve apostles24 for a testimony to Israel.

(The footnotes read:

20 Cf. Lk 3:23

21 Cf. Matt 4:18. What precedes is a combination of the Gospel passages Mark 1:21; 29; Matt 5:2; Matt 4:18.

22 Cf. Matt 10:2-4; Luke 6:14-16. The list given here, however, is not identical with either.

23 Cf. Matt 9:9.

24 Cf. Clem. Rec. 1.40.4; Clem. Alex. Strom. 6.418.2)

Unlike the previous quotes, at first sight this does appear to be a harmonization of several small parts of all three synoptic gospels. However, none of this text from Ebionites depends on a detail found only in Mark, and everything could instead have been derived from either Matthew or Luke. Also, if Ebionites is a harmonization then the author omitted a great deal of text from all the synoptic gospels. Instead, it is easier to see Ebionites as an early account that later formed the basis of (or contributed to) the more detailed passages in the gospels that we know. 

One particular point of note is that in Ebionites Jesus is recounting to people in Peter’s house how he chose his apostles, whereas in all the synoptic gospels the choosing of the apostles is instead described in a number of narrative sequences. This is particularly the case for James and John, who in all the synoptics have a narrative sequence of their own, while in Ebionites they are simply the first two names in a list. Matthew also has his own parallel narrative sequences in Mark, Matthew, and Luke, and while these all come before the rest of the twelve are named, the parallel in Ebionites (in which Matthew is singled out) occurs last. 

If Ebionites was a harmonization of the synoptics then that would have required the three separate narrative sequences in each synoptic gospel to have been gathered together, reordered, combined, and turned into the beginning of a speech from Jesus. In addition, the original narrative sequences would have also been removed, all of which seems very unlikely. Instead, the narrative sequences appear to have a different origin, with the earliest known form appearing in one of the synoptics (e.g. Mark), and the other two using that as a source, with some details perhaps added from Ebionites.

Panarion 30, Against Ebionites: 14

In section 14, 1-3 Epiphanius does not quote from Ebionites, but does provide clarification that it did not contain a genealogy: 

See how their utterly false teaching is all lame, crooked, and not right anywhere! For by supposedly using their same < so-called Gospel according to Matthew > Cerinthus and Carpocrates want to prove from the beginning of Matthew, by the genealogy, that Christ is the product of Joseph’s seed and Mary. But these people have something else in mind. They falsify the genealogical tables in Matthew’s Gospel and make its opening, as I said, “It came to pass in the days of Herod, king of Judaea, in the high-priesthood of Caiaphas, that a certain man, John by name, came baptizing with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan” and so on.

In section 14, 5 Epiphanius quotes from a passage that has parallels in all three synoptic gospels: 

But again they deny that he is a man, supposedly on the basis of the words the Savior spoke when he was told, “Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without,” “Who are my mother and my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples and said, These are my brethren and mother and sisters, these that do the will of my Father.”

From what Epiphanius writes the text of Ebionites here appears to be closest to that in Matthew 12:47-50, but with no parallel to Mt 12:46. It may simply be that Epiphanius did not feel any need to quote the parallel, but it is also possible that in Ebionites there was no parallel to this verse, as was also the case in Marcion’s Gospel of the Lord. In Panarion 42, Against Marcionites, Scholion 12 Epiphanius writes as follows regarding a change to the version of this Lukan passage in Marcion’s gospel:

He did not have, “His mother and his brethren,” but simply, ”Thy mother and thy brethren.” (Scholion 12)

He follows this with:

Even though you falsify the Gospel’s wording earlier, Marcion, to keep the evangelist from agreeing with the words which some had said, “thy mother and thy brethren,” you cannot get round the truth. (Elenchus 12, a)

This seems to suggest an improbable change to Lk 8:19, which would then read: 

Then came to him thy mother and thy brethren, and could not come at him for the press,

Instead, given what we know of Epiphanius way of expressing himself, it is clear that he is referring to the sentences that contain these phrases, not just the phrases themselves. In other words he is indicating that the whole of what we know as Lk 8:19 was not present in Marcion’s Gospel, but that Lk 8:20 was. This is reinforced by Tertullian, who refers to Lk 8:20, but not Lk 8:19, and by Thomas 99, which reads: 

The disciples said to him: Your brothers and your mother are standing outside. [c.f. Lk 8:20]  He said to them: Those here who do the will of my Father, these are my brothers and my mother; they are the ones who will enter into the kingdom of my Father. [c.f. Lk 8:21]

From the above it appears that Ebionites did not contain any parallel to Mk 3:31 / Mt 12:46 / Lk 8:19, in common with both Marcion’s Gospel of the Lord and the Gospel of Thomas. It is very unlikely that the authors of all three of these gospels independently made the same change to what we see in Mark, Matthew, and Luke, so indicating either a common earlier source that did not contain this text, or that one of the three (Ebionites, Marcion’s gospel, or Thomas) was a source for the other two. As the text in Mk 3:31 / Mt 12:46 / Lk 8:19 is simply 'scene setting,' and adds nothing significant to this passage, it is likely that it is an addition to a shorter original.

Panarion 30, Against Ebionites: 16

In Section 16, 4-5, Epiphanius quotes a verse from Ebionites that has no obvious parallel in the Bible: 

But they say that he is not begotten of God the Father but created as one of the archangels, and that he is ruler both of angels and of all creatures of < the > Almighty; and that he came and instructed us < to abolish the sacrifices >. As their so-called Gospel says, “I came to abolish the sacrifices, and if ye cease not from sacrifice, wrath will not cease from you.”37 Both these and certain things of the kind are guileful inventions which are current among them.

(Footnote 37 reads: Cf. Clem. Hom. 2.44.2; 3.26.3; 3.45.1-2; 56.4, and Rec. 1.37 1.39.12. Mandaean literature deprecates the sacrifices, e.g. at Ginza 9,83; 33,2; 43,8-10.)

The closest this saying comes to any verse in the canonical gospels is Matthew 9:13: 

As stated above, in all three synoptics Jesus tells the disciples to find a man who will direct them to “the upper room.” The versions in Mark and Luke are close parallels, with the text being identical in several places, but that in Matthew omits much of the details of Jesus’ instructions to the disciples. On the assumption of Markan priority there is no obvious reason for aMatthew to have shortened Jesus’ words in this way, unless he also had another source in which some or all or these words were not present, as appears to have been the case with Ebionites. As we know that aLuke was at least aware of (and may have used) “many” sources, and also appears to have used Mark in preference to Matthew, it is quite likely that he would have preferred the fuller version in Mark to that in Matthew, even if he also knew Ebionites. Alternatively, if Ebionites is a later harmony of the synoptic gospels then there is no obvious reason why it would not include a passage that has parallels in all three. 

The Last Supper and the Betrayal

As Epiphanius does not refer to anything in Ebionites following the above response from Jesus we do not know whether it contained the words Jesus spoke at the last supper, and if so, whether they were in the form we see in Mark and Matthew (with Jesus’ prediction of his betrayal preceding his bread/cup text) or that in Luke, where Jesus’ prediction of his betrayal follows the (cup)/bread/cup text. We might assume that because Epiphanius did not comment Ebionites probably contained one or the other, but that is conjecture.

Conclusions

Whether this gospel was the Gospel of the Hebrews, or the Nazoraeans, or an early version of Matthew, and whether originally written in Greek or Hebrew, is not clear. However, from Epiphanius’ statements it does seem that it had a close affinity to the synoptic gospels, but omitted the infancy narrative, so beginning with John the Baptist. As to whether the text of Ebionities was closest to that of Mark, Matthew, or Luke, the usual presumption is that it was closest to Matthew. However, the analysis of the quotations from Epiphanius shows that for these portions of Ebionites at least, this is not the case. In ‘The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition’ James R. Edwards writes: 

When these quotations are compared with the Synoptic Gospels they exhibit a decidedly stronger correspondence with the Gospel of Luke, and particularly with those portions of Luke that are not shared with Matthew and/or Mark, than with either Matthew or Mark.

… As the foregoing analysis reveals, The Hebrew Gospel sited by Epiphanius is not, as is often assumed, a general harmony of the Synoptic Gospels. Nor again are Epiphanius’ citations of the Hebrew Gospel default reproductions of Matthew, nor do they favor Matthew. A synopsis of the above evidence, divided between passages in the Gospel of the Ebionites that are either clearly or possibly related to the various Synoptic Gospels, reveals [that] the … Epiphanius citations show clear and repeated similarities to material unique to Luke.

This somewhat surprising result can be easily seem in the synopses above, where in several places the text of Ebionites is close to that in Luke, and in some places is an obvious parallel to text unique to Luke (Lk 1:5a, 3:2a, 3:21a, 3:23a, 6:15c, 22:15b). On the other hand there is nothing in what we know of Ebionites that parallels text that is unique to Mark. 

If Ebionites was a harmony of the synoptic gospels then it was a very strange one, omitting significant portions of the Triple Tradition text (i.e. text with parallels in all three synoptic gospels), and (at least in the areas of Epiphanius’ quotations) containing nothing unique to Mark. Nevertheless, there are clear literary connections between Ebionites and at least Matthew and Luke, but (as with the synoptic gospels themselves) these connections on their own tell us nothing about the direction of the connection. Most scholars take the view that Ebionites is later than the synoptics, and draws upon them, but from what we can tell from the quotes from Epiphanius (who also believed that Ebionites was an edited version of Matthew and/or Luke), there was nothing in the text itself that points in that direction.

Instead, the clear impression is that the text of both Ebionites and Mark were sources for Matthew and Luke, while there is no evidence that either the text of Ebionites depended on Mark, or Mark depended on the text of the Ebionites. In other words, the portions of the text of Ebionites as described by Epiphanius suggest it was another source for Matthew and Luke, independent of Mark, and of course if Marcion's Gospel of the Lord (Mcg) is earlier than Luke, then Ebionites could also be a source for Mcg, as suggested in Is Marcion's Gospel Based on Mark?

Appendix – Translations of Fragments of Hebrews, by James

"I will translate the fragments as they appear in the most recent study on the subject, that of the Rev. Pere Lagrange in the Revue Biblique, 1922. He begins by giving the fragments quoted by Epiphanius from what is properly called the Gospel of the Ebionites. Then he gives those of our Gospel, arranging them in the chronological order of the writers and the works in which they are found. This entails some little repetition, but is otherwise historically interesting, and sound." [The translations as shown below have been re-formatted to aid readability]

IRENAEUS Against Heresies

i.26.2. But the Ebionites use only that Gospel which is according to Matthew, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, calling him an apostate from the Law.

iii.11.7. For the Ebionites, who use only that Gospel which is according to Matthew, are convicted out of that very book as not holding right views about the Lord.

The Ebionites mentioned here are a more primitive sect than those of whom Epiphanius speaks. See below.

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (Stromateis),

i. 9. 45. Even (or also, in the Gospel according to the Hebrews is written the saying, 'he that wondereth shall reign, and he that reigneth shall rest'.

id. (Strom.) v.14.96. For those words have the same force as these: He shall not cease from seeking until he find, and having found, he will be amazed, and having been amazed will reign, and having reigned will rest.

This is identical with one of the Sayings from Oxyrhynchus: see below.

ORIGEN

on John, ii. 12. And if any accept the Gospel according to the Hebrews, where the Saviour himself saith, 'Even now did my mother the Holy Spirit take me by one of mine hairs, and carried me away unto the great mountain Thabor', he will be perplexed, &c…

On Jeremiah, homily xv.4. And if anyone receive that saying, 'Even now my mother the Holy Spirit took me and carried me up unto the great mountain Thabor', and the rest…

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. The saying, it is generally thought, refers to the Temptation. 

EUSEBIUS,

Eccl. Hist. iii.39.17, speaking of the early writer Papias, says: He has also set forth (or expounded) another story, about a woman accused of many sins before the Lord, which the Gospel according to the Hebrews also contains.

It is the obvious, and general, view that this story was that of the woman taken in adultery, which, as is well known, forms no part of the true text of St. John's Gospel, though it is inserted by most manuscripts at the beginning of the eighth chapter. A few manuscripts place it in St. Luke's Gospel. The description suggests that Papias's story, with its mention of many sins, differed from ours in detail.

id. iv.22.8. Hegesippus made use in his Memoirs of the Gospel according to the Hebrews.

id. iii.25.5 (in his list of antilegomena, writings whose canonicity was disputed): And among them some have placed the Gospel according to the Hebrews which is the especial delight of those of the Hebrews who have accepted Christ.

iii.27.4. (The Ebionites repudiated Paul) and used only the Gospel according to the Hebrews, making but slight account of the others.

Theophany, iv.12 (preserved in Syriac). As we have found somewhere in the Gospel which the Jews have in the Hebrew tongue, where it is said: I choose for myself them that are good (or well pleasing): the good are they whom my Father which in heaven giveth (or hath given) me.

ibid. (A passage preserved in Greek also.) But since the Gospel written in Hebrew characters which has reached our hands turns the threat not against the man who hid the talent, but against him who had lived riotously (for it told of three servants, one who devoured his master's substance with harlots and flute-girls, another who multiplied it by trading, and another who hid the talent; and made the one to be accepted, another only rebuked, and another to be shut up in prison), the question occurs to me whether in Matthew, after the conclusion of the speech against the man who did nothing, the threat that follows may refer, not to him, but by epanalepsis (i.e. taking up a former subject again) be said of the first, who ate and drank with the drunken.

EPIPHANIUS,

Heresy xxix.9.4 (Nazoraeans). They have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete, in Hebrew: for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written in Hebrew letters. I do not know if they have even removed the genealogy from Abraham to Christ.

Their Gospel was 'quite complete' as distinguished from the Ebionite-Gospel, which was mutilated.

STICHOMETRY OF NICEPHORUS

(of uncertain date, but much older than the ninth-century chronicle to which it is attached).

Antilegomena of the New Testament:

Apocalpyse of John, Apocalpyse of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, and

Gospel accrding to the Hebrews, 2,200 lines (300 lines less than the canonical Matthew).

JEROME. He is our principal authority in this matter.

On Ephesians, v. 4. As also we read in the Hebrew Gospel: 'And never, saith he, by ye joyful, save when ye behold your brother with love.'

On Micah vii.6. (The quotation about the Holy Spirit given above under Origen. Jerome quotes it again several times, not always in full.

Of illustrious men, 2 (on James the Lord's brother).

Also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, lately translated by me into Greek and Latin speech, which Origen often uses, tells, after the resurrection of the Saviour: 'Now the Lord, when he had given the linen cloth unto the servant of the priest, went unto James and appeared to him (for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour wherein he had drunk the Lord's cup until he should see him risen again from among them that sleep)', and again after a little, 'Bring ye, saith the Lord, a table and bread', and immediately it is added, 'He took bread and blessed and brake and gave it unto James the Just and said unto him: My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of Man is risen from among them that sleep'.

This is a famous passage. One interesting clause is apt to escape notice, about the giving of the shroud to the servant of the (high) priest, which implies that priests must have been apprised of the resurrection as soon as the apostles. Was the servant of the priest Malchus? Presumably the servant was at the sepulchre: if so, it was being guarded by the Jews as well as the Roman soldiers (as in the Gospel of Peter).

ibid. 3. Further, the Hebrew itself (or original) is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea which was collected with such care by the martyr Pamphilus. I also had an opportunity of copying it afforded me by the Nazarenes who use the book, at Beroea, a city of Syria.

This Boroea is Aleppo. In later years Jerome ceased to regard the Hebrew Gospel as the original Matthew.

ibid. 16. Of the Epistle of Ignatius 'to Polycarp' (really to Smyrna). In it he also inserts a testimony about the person of Christ, from the Gospel which was lately translated by me; his words are: But I both saw him (this is wrongly quoted) in the flesh after the resurrection, and believe that he is in the flesh: and when he came to Peter and those who were with Peter, he said to them: Lo, feel me and see that I am not a bodiless spirit (demon). And forthwith they touched him and believed.

Ignatius, to the Smyrnaeans, iii., 1, really says: For I know, and I believe that he is in the flesh even after his resurrection.

Another citation of these words of Christ is given by Origen as from the Doctrine of Peter: see p. 18.

On Matt. ii. Bethlehem of Judaea. This is a mistake of the scribes: for I think it was originally expressed by the Evangelist as we read in the Hebrew, 'of Judah', not Judaea.

On Matt vi.11 (the Lord's Prayer). In the Gospel according to the Hebrews for 'super-substantial' bread I found mahar, which means 'of the morrow', so that the sense is: Our bread of the morrow, that is, of the future, give us this day.

The word supersubstantial is meant to render literally the difficult word epiousios which we translate 'daily'.

On Ps. cxxxv. In the Hebrew Gospel according to Matthew it is thus: Our bread of the morrow give us this day; that is, 'the bread which thou wilt give us in thy kingdom, give us this day'.

On Matt. xii. 13. In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use (which I have lately translated into Greek from the Hebrew, and which is called by many (or most) people the original of Matthew), this man who had the withered hand is described as a mason, who prays for help in such words as this: 'I was a mason seeking a livelihood with my hands: I pray thee, Jesu, to restore me mine health, that I may not beg meanly for my food.'

The mention of the Ebionites here is gratuitous. Jerome nowhere speaks of them as using the Gospel, and everything goes to show that, in his time, they did not.

Letter to Damascus (20) on Matt. xxi. 9. Matthew, who wrote his gospel in the Hebrew speech, put it thus: Osanna barrama, i.e. Osanna in the highest.

On Matt. xxiii. 35. In the Gospel which the Nazarenes use, for 'son of Barachias' I find 'of Joiada' written.

This reading avoids an historical difficulty, and is doubtless secondary.

On Matt. xxvii. 16. This Barabbas, in the Gospel entitled (wrtten) according to the Hebrews, is interpreted 'son of their master' (teacher).

By 'interpreted, says Lagrange, it is not meant that the Gospel translated the name, but that it used a form of it which suggested the meaning -- Bar-rabban.

On Matt. xxvii.51. In the Gospel I so often mention we read that a lintel of the temple of immense size was broken and divided.

Letter to Hedibia (ep. 120) 8. But in the Gospel that is written in Hebrew letters we read, not that the veil of the temple was rent, but that the lintel of the temple of wondrous size fell.

This was probably a change made under the influence of Isa. vi. 4, 'the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried'.

On Isa. xi.2. (The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him) not partially as in the case of other holy men: but, according to the Gospel written in the Hebrew speech, which the Nazarenes read, 'There shall descend upon him the whole fount of the Holy Spirit'… In the Gospel I mentioned above, I find this written: And it came to pass when the Lord was come up out of the water, the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descended and rested upon him, and said unto him: My son, in all the prophets was I waiting for thee that thou shouldst come, and I might rest in thee. For thou art my rest, and thou art my first begotten son, that reignest for ever.

On Isa. xi. 9, My mother the Holy Spirit.

On Isa., preface to bk. xviii. For when the Apostles thought him to be a spirit, or, in the words of the Gospel which is of the Hebrews, which the Nazarenes are wont to read, 'a bodiless demon', he said to them (Luke xxiv. 38).

On Ezek. xvi.13. My mother, the Holy Spirit.

On Ezek. xviii.7. And in the Gospel according to the Hebrews which the Nazarenes are accustomed to read, it is placed among the greatest sins 'if a man have grieved the spirit of his brother'.

Dialogue against Pelagius, iii.2. In the Gospel according to the Hebrews which is indeed in the Chaldaean and Syrian speech but is written in Hebrew letters, which the Nazarenes use to this day, called 'according to the apostles', or, as most term it, 'according to Matthew', which also is to be seen in the library of Caesarea, the story tells: Behold, the mother of the Lord and his brethren said unto him: John Baptist baptizeth unto the remission of sins; let us go and be baptized of him. But he said unto them: Wherein (what) have I sinned, that I should go and be baptized of him? unless peradventure this very thing that I have said is a sin of ignorance.

ibid. And in the same book: “If thy brother (saith he) have sinned by a word and made thee amends, seven times in a day receive thou him. Simon his disciple said unto him: Seven times in a day? The Lord answered and said unto him: Yea, I say unto thee, unto seventy times seven times. For in the prophets also, after they were anointed by the Holy Spirit, the word of sin was found.”

'Word of sin' is Hebraistic for 'somewhat of sin': similarly 'sinned by a word' means 'sinned in anything'.

Latin version of Origen on Matthew (now called Pseudo-Origen).

It is written in a certain Gospel which is called according to the Hebrews (if at least any one care to accept it, not as authoritative, but to throw light on the question before us):

“The second of the rich men (it saith) said unto him: Master, what good thing can I do and live? He said unto him: O man, fulfil (do) the law and the prophets.

He answered him: I have kept them. He said unto him: Go, sell al that thou ownest, and distribute it unto the poor, and come, follow me. But the rich man began to scratch his head, and it pleased him not. And the Lord said unto him: How sayest though: I have kept the law and the prophets? For it is written in the law: Though shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, and lo, many of thy brethren, sons of Abraham, are clad in filth, dying for hunger, and thine house is full of many good things, and nought at all goeth out of it unto them.

And he turned and said unto Simon his disciple who was sitting by him: Simon, son of Joanna, it is easier for a camel to enter in by a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

It is probable that this extract was found by the translator of Origen's commentary in some work of Jerome. It seems to be agreed that it was not in Origen's own commentary.

Some manuscripts of the Gospels have marginal notes recording readings of 'the Jewish' Gospel, by which our Gospel is evidently meant. Some of these were published by Tischendorf, others more recently by Schmidtke. According to the latter these notes were originally made between 370 and 500 by some one who did his work at Jerusalem.

Matt. iv. 5. The Jewish copy has not ‘unto the holy city' but 'in Jerusalem'.

Matt. v. 22. The word 'without cause' is not inserted in some copies, nor in the Jewish.

Matt. vii. 5. The Jewish has here: ‘If ye be in my bosom and do not the will of my Father which is in heaven, out of my bosom will I cast you away.’ (The 'Second Epistle of Clement', iv. 5, has: ‘The Lord said: If ye be with me gathered together in my bosom and do not my commandments, I will cast you away and say unto you: Depart from me; I know you not whence ye are, ye workers of wickedness.’)

Matt. x. 16. The Jewish has '(wise) more than serpents' instead of 'as serpents'.

Matt. xi. 12. (The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence.) The Jewish has: 'is ravished (or plundered).'

Matt. xi. 25. (I thank thee (lit. confess unto thee), O Father.) The Jewish: 'I give thee thanks.'

Matt. xii. 40b. The Jewish has not: ‘three days and three nights (in the heart of the earth).’

Matt. xv. 5. The Jewish: ‘Corban by which ye shall be profited by us.’ Probably it is meant that the verse ran: But ye say to your father and mother: Corban, &c.

Matt. xvi. 2, 3. Omitted by 'the Jewish' (as by many extant manuscripts).

Matt. xvi. 17. The Jewish: (Simon) son of John.

Matt. xviii. 22. The Jewish has, immediately after the seventy times seven: ‘For in the prophets, after they were anointed with the Holy Spirit, there was found in them a word (matter) of sin.’ This shows the identity of 'the Jewish' with Jerome's gospel.

Matt. xxvi. 74. The Jewish: ‘and he denied and swore and cursed.’

Matt. xxvii. 65. The Jewish: ‘And he delivered unto them armed men, that they might sit over against the cave and keep it day and night.’

A commentary on Isaiah (liii.12) by Haimo of Auxerre (c. 850) has this apropos of the word 'Father forgive them':

For, as is contained in the Gospel of the Nazarenes, at this word of the Lord many thousands of Jews that stood round about the Cross believed.

A marginal note (thirteenth century) on a copy of the versified Bible called the Aurora (by Petrus de Riga), in a manuscript at the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (one of a number of remarkable notes) is:

At the cleansing of the Temple: In the books of the Gospels which the Nazarenes use it is read that rays issued from his eyes whereby they were terrified and put to flight.

Jerome on Matt. xxi. 12 says that the people whom Jesus drove out did not resist him: 'For a certain fiery and starry light shone (radiated) from his eyes and the majesty of the Godhead gleamed in his face.'

When I published the note, I took it that it was a reminiscence of Jerome's words: ray and radiate occur in both. But Dr. Zahn was of opinion that it might really represent something in the old Gospel: so I include it, though with hesitation.

One other mention of this Gospel has to be added.

In Budge's Miscellaneous Coptic Texts is a Discourse on Mary by Cyril of Jerusalem. Cyril (Pseudo-Cyril) relates that he had to send for a monk of Maioma of Gaza who was teaching false doctrine. Called on for an account of his belief the monk (p. 637, Eng. trans.) said: It is written in the Gospel to the Hebrews that when Christ wished to come upon the earth to men, the good Father called a mighty power in the heavens which was called Michael, and committed Christ to the care thereof. And the power came down into the world and it was called Mary, and Christ was in her womb seven months. Afterwards she gave birth to him, and he increased in stature, and he chose the apostles, … 'was crucified, and taken up by the Father'.

Cyril asked: Where in the Four Gospels is it said that the holy Virgin Mary the mother of god is a force? The monk said: In the Gospel to the Hebrews.

Then, said Cyril, there are five Gospels? Where is the fifth? The monk said: It is the Gospel that was written to the Hebrews.

(Cyril convinced him of his error and burned the books. No more is told of the Gospel, which, whatever it may have been, was certainly not the book we have been dealing with, but a writing of pronouncedly heretical (Docetic?) views. The last sentence of the monk's account of Christ, which I did not quote in full just now, is perhaps worth recording.)

'After they had raised him up on the cross, the Father took him up into heaven unto himself.' This, with its omission of all mention of the resurrection, might be construed as heretical: on the other hand, it may be merely a case of extreme compression of the narrative.

References

Augustine: The Harmony of the Gospels, Book II, Chapter 14 

Brock, Sebastian: St John the Baptist’s diet - according to some early Eastern Christian sources (Greek and Syriac) – Summary, St. John’s College, Oxford 

Clement of Alexandria: The Paedagogus (The Instructor), Book 1 

Early Christian Writings: Gospel of the Ebionites 

Edwards, James R: The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, 2009

Ehrman, Bart D: Did Luke Originally Have Chapters 1-2?, The Bart Ehrman Blog, 2013

Ellicott, Charles John (Ed): A Bible commentary for English readers

Epiphanius: Panarion 29 (Against Nazoraeans - 9,4), and Panarion 30 (Against Ebionites, section 3,7) 

Exell, Rev. Joseph S. and Spence-Jones, Henry Donald Maurice (Ed): The Pulpit Commentary

Gregory, Andrew: The Gospel of the Ebionites

Jesus’ Words Only: Baptismal Account in Hebrew Matthew 

James, Montague Rhodes: The Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford university Press, 1924

Jones, Ron (Rev.): Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel and the Gospel of the Hebrews 

Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter LXXXVIII (88) 

Lapham, Fred: An Introduction to the New Testament Apocrypha, 2003

Marlowe, Michael D: The Semitic Style of the New Testament at bible-researcher.com

New World Encyclopedia: Adoptionism 

Price, Ron: Behind the Pages of the New Testament

Streeter, B.H: The Four Gospels, 1924 

textexcavation.com: The Gospel of the Ebionites 

Waite, Charles Burlingame:  History of the Christian Religion: To the Year Two Hundred, 1881 

Wikipedia:  Gospel of the Ebionites,  Gospel of the Hebrews, and  Gospel of the Nazarenes 

Willker, Wieland: A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels Vol. 3 Luke