Reviewed by: The Gospel according to the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Ebionites ed. by Andrew Gregory Matthew Goldstone andrew gregory (ed.), The Gospel according to the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Ebionites (Oxford Early Christian Gospel Texts; New York: Oxford University Press, 2017). Pp. xvi + 344. $170. As part of a series devoted to noncanonical Gospel texts, this work provides a thorough, cautious, and well-balanced assessment of the evidence for two no longer extant works: the Gospel according to the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Ebionites (the latter title reflecting modern nomenclature). Grounded in previous scholarship and presented in a well-organized fashion, this work offers the reader an accessible and comprehensive overview of the relevant data for understanding each of these lost Gospels. Gregory is wary of the numerous pitfalls that plague such a project and masterfully reminds the reader that the available evidence is ambiguous and open to alternative interpretation. G. truly succeeds in the series' goals of providing a clear presentation of the available textual evidence and an up-to-date survey of the pertinent scholarship. The first part of the book is devoted to fleshing out the many issues involved in approaching the difficult project of analyzing brief excerpts from these lost Gospels recorded in the works of the early Church Fathers. G. draws a clear line between literary issues, the primary focus of the project, and theological and historical issues. Previous scholarship often jumped to hasty conclusions about the communities these texts reflect, and G. admirably relegates such discussions to brief and tentative sections at the conclusion [End Page 730] of his discussion of each Gospel and in an appendix. Overall, G.'s introduction sets up a critical and qualified statement about what we can and cannot say about these two Gospels. The two central parts of the work engage in an in-depth textual analysis of the available evidence for the Gospel according to the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Ebionites, respectively. In each part, G. opens with a presentation of the available witnesses and the literary issues involved in approaching the texts before turning to the texts themselves. These sections summarize many of the crucial points and prime the reader for the evidence that follows. For the Gospel according to the Hebrews, G. creates two distinct sections in order to distinguish between probable and doubtful testimony. He also includes an appendix for those sources he considers to be spurious patristic witnesses. G.'s decision regarding the reliability of each piece of evidence is regularly clarified and supported within his discussion of the text. For each passage, G. provides the original Greek or Latin (although not Syriac), an English translation, a discussion of the context, and his commentary. Some texts also include observations regarding the attribution, that is to say, the way the patristic author refers to the Gospel. Some pericopae are accompanied by mention of parallels either in the Synoptic Gospels, for which a synopsis is typically provided, or in later works. The volume concludes with several appendixes that contain tangentially related materials as well as a discussion of the broader historical question of the groups or sects whose names are associated with these Jewish-Christian Gospels. The work is replete with qualifications of G.'s interpretations and conclusions. Although some may perhaps find this redundant, the constant reminder of the tentative nature of the assumptions upon which particular readings lie, and the regular presentation of multiple ways of understanding the evidence, force the reader to confront the implications of our paucity of evidence. While this work is firmly grounded in strong philological and linguistic analysis of Greek and Latin texts, some readers may find the engagement with Hebrew elements somewhat lacking. For example, G. (p. 142) reproduces the typographical error of tav (as opposed to ṭav), for "good ones," which originally appeared in the work of A. F. J. Klijn (Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition [VCSup 17; Leiden: Brill, 1992] 64). In discussing Jerome's translation of the term barrama, G. notes, "Both the Latin and Greek are in the plural, whereas the word that Jerome quotes appears to be a singular form, and it is difficult...