| Revision as of 16:57, 22 March 2011 editIn ictu oculi (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers180,551 edits →James R. Edwards (2009)← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:58, 22 March 2011 edit undoIn ictu oculi (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers180,551 edits →James R. Edwards (2009)Next edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| ===James R. Edwards (2009)=== | ===James R. Edwards (2009)=== | ||
| In the introduction to his book ''The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition'' (2009) Edwards writes that ''"This book is dedicated to exploring the various ramifications of this hypothesis. Indeed, I hope to offer sufficient evidence to transform a hypothesis into a viable theory of the development of the Synoptic tradition."''<ref>Edwards ''The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition'' </ref> Edwards acknowledges that his hypothesis is "controversial".<ref></ref> Edward's primary thesis is that a lost Hebrew Ur-Matthew is the common source of both the ] and material in ]. | In the introduction to his book ''The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition'' (2009) Edwards writes that ''"This book is dedicated to exploring the various ramifications of this hypothesis. Indeed, I hope to offer sufficient evidence to transform a hypothesis into a viable theory of the development of the Synoptic tradition."''<ref>Edwards ''The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition'' </ref> Edwards acknowledges that his hypothesis is "controversial".<ref></ref> Edward's primary thesis is that a lost Hebrew Ur-Matthew is the common source of both the ] and material in ]. | ||
| ==Use of Patristic sources in the hypothesis== | ==Use of Patristic sources in the hypothesis== | ||
Revision as of 16:58, 22 March 2011
The Hebrew Gospel hypothesis is a hypothesis developed by James R. Edwards and earlier authors concerning the relation of the 4th Century Jewish-Christian Gospels mentioned and partially preserved in the writings of Jerome and some other Church Fathers to a possible lost Hebrew Ur-Matthew.
Proponents of the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis
Edward Nicholson (1879)
Bodley's Librarian and a noted Celticist, Edward Nicholson proposed that Matthew wrote two Gospels, the first in Greek, the second in Hebrew. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915) article Gospel of the Hebrews notes that; "E.B. Nicholson, after a full and scholarly examination of the fragments and of the references, puts forward the hypothesis that "Matthew wrote at different times the canonical Gospel and the Gospel according to the Hebrews" but also that "it cannot be said that his able argument and admirably marshaled learning have carried conviction to the minds of New Testament scholars."
James R. Edwards (2009)
In the introduction to his book The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition (2009) Edwards writes that "This book is dedicated to exploring the various ramifications of this hypothesis. Indeed, I hope to offer sufficient evidence to transform a hypothesis into a viable theory of the development of the Synoptic tradition." Edwards acknowledges that his hypothesis is "controversial". Edward's primary thesis is that a lost Hebrew Ur-Matthew is the common source of both the Jewish-Christian Gospels and material in Gospel of Luke.
Use of Patristic sources in the hypothesis
Various patristic sources form part of the basis of the hypothesis.
Papias
A prominent form of this hypothesis is that the logia of Papias formed an entire Hebrew Gospel, originating from Matthew the Evangelist c64-67AD and being translated into Greek by an unknown writer c.90AD.
Jerome
While Jerome was beginning his studies at Chalcis he had sent to him a copy of a Nazarene edition of Matthew in Hebrew. This is to be distinguished from fictitious letters of Jerome found in the preface of some copies of the 6thC Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew noted in the edition of New Testament Apocrypha by Tischendorf.
Criticism of the hypothesis
Richard Lenski (1943) wrote regarding the "hypothesis of an original Hebrew Matthew" that "whatever Matthew wrote in Hebrew was so ephemeral that it disappeared completely at a date so early that even the earliest fathers never obtained sight of the writing" Helmut Köster(2000) casts doubt upon the value of Jerome's evidence for linguistic reasons.
References
- Edwards The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition 2009 p.xxviii
- Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia 1915 article Gospel of the Hebrews; "E.B. Nicholson, after a full and scholarly examination of the fragments and of the references, puts forward the hypothesis that "Matthew wrote at different times the canonical Gospel and the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or, at least, that large part of the latter which runs parallel to the former" (The Gospel according to the Hebrews, 104). The possibility of two editions of the same Gospel-writing coming from the same hand has recently received illustration from Professor. Blass' theory of two recensions of the Acts and of Luke's Gospel to explain the textual peculiarities of these books in Codex Bezae (D). This theory has received the adhesion of eminent scholars, but Nicholson has more serious differences to explain, and it cannot be said that his able argument and admirably marshaled learning have carried conviction to the minds of New Testament scholars."
- Edwards The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition
- Whitworthian.com article on book
- Lenski Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel 1-14 2008 p11
- Pritz Nazarene Christianity
- Hans-Josef Klauck Apocryphal gospels: an introduction 2003 p78 "... fictitious exchange of letters between two bishops and the church father Jerome which precedes the work in some manuscripts, where it is described as the Hebrew or Aramaic Ur-Matthew, which Jerome himself had translated into Latin."
- Lenski Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel 1-14 1894-1936 published posth.1943 reprint 2008 p12-14 section "The Hypothesis of an Original Hebrew - Various forms of this hypothesis have been offered..."
- Introduction to the New Testament: Volume 2 Page 207 "This hypothesis has survived into the modern period; but several critical studies have shown that it is untenable. First of all, the Gospel of Matthew is not a translation from Aramaic but was written in Greek on the basis of two Greek documents (Mark and the Sayings Gospel Q). Moreover, Jerome's claim that he himself saw a gospel in Aramaic that contained all the fragments that he assigned to it is not credible, nor is it believable that he translated the respective passages from Aramaic into Greek (and Latin), as he claims several times. ... It can be demonstrated that some of these quotations could never have existed in a Semitic language."