| Revision as of 01:36, 26 March 2011 editIn ictu oculi (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers180,551 edits →Parker, Edwards← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:49, 27 March 2011 edit undoIn ictu oculi (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers180,551 edits →Criticism of the hypothesisNext edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| ==Criticism of the hypothesis== | ==Criticism of the hypothesis== | ||
| Carl August Credner (1832)<ref>''Beitrage zur Einleitung in die biblischen Schriften'' Halle, 1832</ref> identified three ]; Jerome's ], the Greek ] cited by Epiphanius in his ''Panarion'', and a third. In the 20th Century the majority school of critical scholarship, such as ], Philip Vielhauer and Albertus Klijn, proposed a tripartite distinction between Epiphanius' Greek Jewish Gospel, an Jerome's Hebrew (or Aramaic) Gospel, and a Gospel of the |
Carl August Credner (1832)<ref>''Beitrage zur Einleitung in die biblischen Schriften'' Halle, 1832</ref> identified three ]; Jerome's ], the Greek ] cited by Epiphanius in his ''Panarion'', and a third cited by ]. In the 20th Century the majority school of critical scholarship, such as ], Philip Vielhauer and Albertus Klijn, proposed a tripartite distinction between Epiphanius' Greek Jewish Gospel, an Jerome's Hebrew (or Aramaic) Gospel, and a ], which like the canonical ] was Hebrew only in nationality not language, and produced by Jewish Christians in Egypt. The exact identification of which Jewish Gospel in the references of Jerome, Origen and Epiphanius was which, and whether each church father had one or more Jewish Gospels in mind, is a problematic area.<ref>Vielhauer, cf. Craig A. Evans, cf. Klauck</ref> However the presence in patristic testimony concering three different Jewish Gospels with three different traditions regarding the ] suggests multiple traditions.<ref>Vielhauer intro section to JG in Schneemelcher NTA Vol.1.</ref> | ||
| The traditional Lutheran commentator ] (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> | The traditional Lutheran commentator ] (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> | ||
Revision as of 11:49, 27 March 2011
The Hebrew Gospel hypotheses are hypotheses 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 a Hebrew Gospel hypothesis
The first generations of hypotheses concerning a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew were primarily based on Patristic testimony, not higher criticism of textual sources. For example Grotius (1641) was a notable advocate of a simple approach that assumed that Matthew was simply translated.
Lessing, Olshausen
Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1778) posited a lost Hebrew Gospel as a common source used freely for the 3 Greek Synoptic Gospels. Hermann Olshausen (1832) suggested a lost Hebrew Matthew was the common source of Greek Matthew and the Jewish-Christian Gospels mentioned by Epiphanius, Jerome and others.
Nicholson, Handmann
Bodley's Librarian and a noted Celticist, Edward Nicholson (1879) proposed that Matthew wrote two Gospels, the first in Greek, the second in Hebrew. The Westminster Review of 1880 noted "Mr. Nicholson's hypothesis is that Matthew wrote at different times the Canonical Gospel and the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or that part of it which runs parallel to the former." 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."
Rudolf Handmann (1888) proposed an Aramaic Gospel of the Hebrews but reasoned that Gospel of the Hebrews was not the Hebrew Matthew and there never was a Hebrew Ur-Matthew, but argued that this Aramaic document was a second source of a proto-Mark.
Parker, Edwards
Pierson Parker (1940) proposed the hypothesis of a Hebrew Ur-Matthew as a solution to the Synoptic Problem.
James R. Edwards (2009) suggests that the unique elements of Gospel of Luke ("Special Luke", see graphic in Misplaced Pages articleSynoptic Gospels) can be explained by Luke having used a Hebrew source, identified as a lost Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. 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. A review of Edwards' book, including the reproduction of a diagram of Edwards' proposed relationship, was published by the Society of Biblical Literature's Review of Biblical Literature in March 2010.
Use of Patristic sources in the hypothesis
Various patristic sources form part of the basic hypothesis of an original Hebrew proto-Matthew.
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 on Euboea 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
Carl August Credner (1832) identified three Jewish-Christian Gospels; Jerome's Gospel of the Nazarenes, the Greek Gospel of the Ebionites cited by Epiphanius in his Panarion, and a third cited by Origen. In the 20th Century the majority school of critical scholarship, such as Hans Waitz, Philip Vielhauer and Albertus Klijn, proposed a tripartite distinction between Epiphanius' Greek Jewish Gospel, an Jerome's Hebrew (or Aramaic) Gospel, and a Gospel of the Hebrews, which like the canonical Epistle to the Hebrews was Hebrew only in nationality not language, and produced by Jewish Christians in Egypt. The exact identification of which Jewish Gospel in the references of Jerome, Origen and Epiphanius was which, and whether each church father had one or more Jewish Gospels in mind, is a problematic area. However the presence in patristic testimony concering three different Jewish Gospels with three different traditions regarding the baptism of Christ suggests multiple traditions.
The traditional Lutheran commentator 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
- William Horbury Herodian Judaism and New Testament study 2006 "... however, to Hugo Grotius's view (itself a development of earlier concern with the Semitic-language setting of the gospels)5 that Hebrew or Aramaic here lay beneath New Testament Greek and was used by Christ, whose gospel (in Hebrew, "
- Neue Hypothese über die Evangelisten als bloss menschliche Geschichtsschreiber 1778 - New hypothesis on the Evangelists as merely human historians 1778
- Nachweis..
- Edwards The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition 2009 p.xxvii
- Westminster Review 1880
- 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."
- R. Handmann Das Hebräer-Evangelium Texte und Untersuchungen 3 Leipzig 1888 p48
- The Athenæum 1889 "It is difficult to share the confidence of Dr. Handmann in supposing that the Gospel of the Hebrews was not the Hebrew Matthew; or that a Hebrew Matthew had no existence. Nor is his conjecture that the Gospel of the Hebrews gave rise to the tradition, which was itself an inference from the Greek Matthew up to an Aramaean source worked into the latter, at all probable."
- Philip Schaff A select library of Nicene and post-Nicene fathers 1904 "Handmann makes the Gospel according to the Hebrews a second independent source of the Synoptic Gospels, alongside of the "Ur-Marcus," (a theory which, if accepted, would go far to establish its identity with the Hebrew Matthew),"
- P. Parker, “A Proto-Lukan Basis for the Gospel According to the Hebrews,” in JBL 59 (1940) pp471 -478
- Jay M. Harrington The Lukan passion narrative: the Markan Material in Luke 2000 "Pierson Parker (1940) argued that the Gospel according to the Hebrews had some connection to the Proto-Lk described by Streeter, though Parker apparently did not completely accept the theory as Streeter proposed it."
- Edwards The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition
- Whitworthian.com article on book
- RBL Review by Timothy A. Friedrichsen (pdf), published 7/3/2010
- 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."
- Beitrage zur Einleitung in die biblischen Schriften Halle, 1832
- Vielhauer, cf. Craig A. Evans, cf. Klauck
- Vielhauer intro section to JG in Schneemelcher NTA Vol.1.
- 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."