Gilyonim

The Jewish Christians of Palestine had a Gospel of their own, the so-called Hebrew Gospel, from which still later Church Fathers quote.[1] Matthew was, likewise, often thought to have been originally written in Hebrew (that is, Aramaic); if so, many copies must, therefore, have been in circulation, and doubts must naturally have arisen concerning the manner in which they were to be disposed of, since they contained mention of the divine name. Indeed, the correct reading in this passage has gilyon in the singular; the gnostic writings (which were sometimes called gilyonim also), however, were many; and had reference to these been intended here the plural would have been used.

However, the 3rd century Aramaic writings of the religion of Manichaeism, did have a single book called evangelion, written in Aramaic, the Gospel of Mani, which was one of their seven sacred writings. Mani was a contemporary of Rav, and from the same area of Babylonia. The central doctrine of Manichaeism was a belief in two powers (a good god versus an evil god), and in Aramaic they were called Maninaya, which in Hebrew would have been Manim.

Regarding the Tosefta passage, Moritz Friedlander[2] argued that attempts to identify these books with Christian gospels in which divine names do not occur are strained. Even R. T. Herford[3] identified the word gilyon as "the unwritten portion of a [heretical] book, the margin ... used for annotations; and it is reasonable to suppose that these annotations would include texts of scripture, quoted as illustrations." Birger Pearson[4] cites Herford as an example of flawed attempts after Friedlander to interpret all occurrences of gilyonim and gilyon as references to Jewish Christianity.

Rabbinic discussion of gilyonim does not always rely on identifying it with Christians or any other heretics in particular.[5] Nonetheless Friedlander[6] (following Krochmal and Grätz) set out a thesis that those labelled as minim by the Rabbis were Gnostics who originated in Jewish circles pre-dating Christianity, and that gilyonim were 'tablets' bearing a gnostic "Ophite diagram" as described by Celsus and Origen. This would explain the opposition from Rabbi Tarfon. However, this thesis has not found wide acceptance, as noted in the Jewish Encyclopedia (1901–1906). Pearson claims that Gnostics and something like the Ophite diagram were known to the Rabbis, and that M. Joel had made this point before Friedlander. Pearson dates this evidence to the early second century, and possibly earlier, in the anti-heretical polemics in the Talmud and Midrash. Daniel Boyarin[7] lists a number of problems with that thesis, citing Karen King’s argument that Gnostic influences in Judaism are entwined with Christian influences. Boyarin is no more prepared to identify minim with Christians than with Gnostics.

Amongst the following scholars, there is a consensus that gilyonim cannot be too readily identified with gospels. William David Davies and Louis Finkelstein[8] consider that gilyonim would not necessarily be Jewish-Christian ‘gospels’. Davies [9] and James Paget[10] cite Karl Georg Kuhn (‘Judentum Urchristentum Kirche’, 1964), and also Maier (1982) to this effect. Kuhn argues that:

• the Talmud passage (Shabbat 116a) is clearly later than the passages from the Tosefta, and too late to be used as a source for the Jamnian period;
• in the Tosefta passages citing Rabbi Tarfon, sifrei minim should be understood not as gospels but as Old Testament texts belonging to heterodox Jewish groups such as those at Qumran as well as to Jewish Christians; and gilyonim should be understood not as gospels but as Marginalia cut off from Biblical texts;
• Rabbi Tarfon is unlikely to have made a pun on books being called ‘gospels’ earlier than Christians were known to have called their books ‘gospels’;
• Rabbi Tarfon is unlikely to have punned gilyonim on merely the second half of the word ‘euangelion’, and there are other grammatical problems making it unlikely that a pun on ‘euangelion’ is in play.

Daniel Boyarin,[7] in line with Kuhn, understands the books to which Rabbi Tarfon referred to be Torah scrolls. Marvin R. Wilson[11] takes the term 'minim' in the Talmud as originally denoting all “dissidents, apostates and traitors” rather than Christians in particular.

Margaret Barker[12] notes that Rabbi Tarfon’s gilyonim referred to “an empty space or a margin” and suggests Tarfon punned on galah meaning "reveal" and hence ‘revelation’, rather than on ‘euangelion’. Barker nonetheless has Christian revelation in view rather than gnosticism.

Barker applies her thesis to Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Meir’s aven gilyon and avon gilyon, interpreting them as “worthless revelation” and “iniquitous revelation” respectively. FF Bruce translates the same as 'Sin of the Writing tablet' and 'Iniquity of the Margin'.[13] Barker and Bruce are however agreed on identifying them as puns on euangelion (Christian gospels), whereas Daniel Boyarin[7] has other Jewish heretics in view. Boyarin interprets Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Meir’s aven gilyon and avon gilyon as “gilyon of wretchedness” and “gilyon of sin” and identifies them with Jewish ‘apocalypses’, i.e. revelations, such as Enoch.

• Tetragrammaton in the New Testament

 This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Singer, Isidore; et al., eds. (1901–1906). "Gilyonim". The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.

• Discussion of gilyonim