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 the
synoptics; 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 of
Edwards' 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 Christian
Hebrew 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), he
summarizes 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 his
multiple 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 ανθ ων becomes
ςανθ ων on page 159.
 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 require

the 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 the
implications 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 for Q's existence and never mentioning 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 in
secondary 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.
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.