| Revision as of 09:06, 24 March 2011 editEusebeus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,666 edits Undid revision 420437053 by Ret.Prof (talk) rv per WP:BRD - let's keep the discussion at the main Hebrew Gospel page← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:39, 24 March 2011 edit undoRet.Prof (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers15,357 edits Merged POV Fork into Gospel of the HebrewsNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| The '''Hebrew Gospel hypothesis''' is a hypothesis developed by ] and earlier authors concerning the relation of the 4th Century ] mentioned and partially preserved in the writings of ] and some other ] to a possible lost Hebrew Ur-Matthew. | |||
| ==Proponents of the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis== | |||
| ===Edward Nicholson (1879)=== | |||
| ] and a noted ], ] proposed that Matthew wrote two Gospels, the first in Greek, the second in Hebrew.<ref>Edwards ''The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition'' 2009 p.xxviii</ref> 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."<ref>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."</ref> | |||
| ===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 ]. | |||
| ==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 ] formed an entire Hebrew Gospel, originating from ] c64-67AD and being translated into Greek by an unknown writer c.90AD.<ref>Lenski Richard C. H. ''The Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel 1-14 2008 p11</ref> | |||
| ===Jerome=== | |||
| While Jerome was beginning his studies at Chalcis he had sent to him a copy of a Nazarene edition of Matthew in Hebrew.<ref>Pritz ''Nazarene Christianity''</ref> This is to be distinguished from fictitious letters of Jerome found in the preface of some copies of the 6thC ] noted in the edition of ] by ].<ref>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."</ref> | |||
| ==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"<ref>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..."</ref> ] (2000) casts doubt upon the value of Jerome's evidence for linguistic reasons.<ref>''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."</ref> | |||
| ==References== | |||
| {{reflist}} | |||
| ] | |||
Revision as of 17:39, 24 March 2011
Redirect to: