8/14/2019 The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition

1/3

The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition

by James R. Edwards

reviewed by Jim West

Edwards amasses a huge amount of data in his attempt to persuade his readers that a

putative 'Hebrew gospel' is the source for Luke's 'special' material (what we older folk call 'L').

He firstly describes all the references to a Hebrew gospel in the early Christian writings (the

Church Fathers)(chapter 1). Secondly, he cites quotations of this Hebrew source in the Church

Fathers (chapter 2). Thirdly, he informs his readers that a) the Hebrew gospel was widely

known in early Christianity; b) it had unusual authority; c) it was not a compilation of thesynoptics; d) it was most likely a source of Luke; and e) it had some relationship to other

'Jewish Christian' gospels (chapter 3).

The next segment of the volume (chapter 4) is devoted to scrutiny of the supposed

'semitisms' in Luke. Chapter 5 is, in my opinion, the core of the book and the center ofEdwards' argument. Here E. discusses the 'Septuagint' hypothesis, the 'Aramaic' hypothesis,

the use of Aramaic and Hebrew in first century Palestine, and the probability that a ChristianHebrew gospel did in fact exist. The chapter ends with a look at Luke's 'use' of a Hebrew

source.

Chapter 6 is the weakest link in Edwards' argumentative chain. Here he essentially

argues that the Hebrew gospel came to be neglected because of 'resistance' to a 'Hebrew

ancestor in the family'. In chapter 7 he bids adieu to Q (with never so much as a glance at or

reference to Mark Goodacre's work in the same area- a fact I find utterly remarkable). In the 8th

chapter E. takes a look at the Hebrew gospel and the Gospel of Matthew.

The volume concludes with a summary of 23 theses which E. has demonstrated (to his

own satisfaction at least) in the preceding pages, an Appendix where references to the Hebrew

gospel in the first nine centuries of the Church are listed, and an appendix displaying the

semitisms in the Gospel of Luke.

Specifically returning now to the core of Edwards' argument (in chapter 5), hesummarizes what he has done to that point in these words:

The first four chapter have marshaled evidence and developed a

chain of argumentation dedicated to establishing the thesis that the

Hebrew Gospel was the primary source for Special Lukan material1.

And to be completely honest, Edwards' case is more than impressive. No one reading hismultiple layers of evidence can quickly or easily dismiss his thesis. So he moves forward in

the 5th chapter to debunk the notion that Luke simply adopted a 'Septuagintal' style.2 He also

argues that

1 p. 154.

2 It is in this section that the only typographical error I discovered is found. A Greek text intended to be becomes

on page 159.

8/14/2019 The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition

2/3

The hypothesis that Lukan Semitisms are the result of an Aramaic

Vorlage finds even less support than does the Septuagint hypothesis3.

He continues

I have no desire to deny that Aramaic played a significant linguistic

role in first century Palestine. It was apparently in wide use,especially in oral communication. What I wish to deny is that it had

eclipsed Hebrew, which remained in use as a written language, and

particularly in the writing of sacred texts4.

So, since Luke didn't 'septuagintize' or 'aramaicize', the only conclusion left is that he utilized a

Hebrew source.

But why has this source suffered such neglect? According to Edwards,

A Hebrew ancestor in the Synoptic family of Gospels would requirethe Church to acknowledge the contribution of the Hebraic

speech and conceptual world to the NT, and to what eventually

became a Hellenic understanding of Gentile Christianity. As a

further consequence, it would require a reconception of the mutual

existence of Jews and Christians no longer in terms of divorce but

rather in terms of a positive indebtedness to the Hebraic origins of

the Gospels that remain in the Christian canon to this day5.

The Church, it seems, rejected such a connection from very early times but also and especially

from the Enlightenment to the Holocaust. That is, German scholarship is to blame. Or so theimplications of Edwards' argument appear to suggest.

Since Luke used a Hebrew source, so the argument continues, there's no further need of

the supposed early source called Q. So Edwards bids it adieu. But it's a long goodbye,

stretching for more than 40 pages. And among all those pages, as I suggested above, Edwards

mentions the work of Mark Goodacre not a single time. Again, I find this utterly remarkable.

It is akin to arguing forQ's existence and nevermentioning the work of John Kloppenborg. It

is an inexplicable omission which leaves me simply baffled.But at the end of the day readers have to decide if they think Edwards has proven his

case. Frankly, I think he overstates his notion that the Hebrew gospel was somehow

marginalized because of inate anti-semitism in Christianity. I also find myself troubled by one

simple fact- the Hebrew Gospel which he sees behind the Gospel of Luke is hypothetical (since

we don't have a copy of it). To be sure, loads of Church Fathers talked about a Hebrew gospel.

But they also talked about other things which simply do not exist. The mention of a Gospel insecondary sources doesn't prove the existence of that Gospel any more than the mention of Q in

3 p. 163.

4 p. 167.

5 p. 208.

8/14/2019 The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition

3/3

numerous, yeah countless, books and essays proves its existence. In other words Edwards'

anti-Q sentiments cut both ways. If Q can't be proven to have existed just because lots of

people talk about it as though it did, neither can the Hebrew gospel.

Nevertheless, again, Edwards' argument is fascinating, well organized, and the two

observations above do not negate it. His book is worthy of serious pondering.