Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

GH: The Synoptic Solution

Expand Messages
  • James Trimm
    The Gospel according to the Hebrews The Synoptic Solution The Synoptic Problem Mattityahu, Mark and Luke are the synoptic gospels. In many cases these three
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 24, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      The Gospel according to the Hebrews
      The Synoptic Solution

      The Synoptic Problem

      Mattityahu, Mark and Luke are the synoptic gospels. In many cases
      these three gospels even use identical phrasing. As a result they are
      known as the "synoptic gospels." The Synoptic Problem is the problem
      of explaining these similarities and their interrelationships. This
      problem was first addressed in the fifth century by the Christian
      "Church Father" Augustine.


      The Semitic Source Document`

      Many synoptic variances point to an underlying Semitic text as the
      common synoptic source document. For example:

      Mt. 4:19 = Lk. 5:10 "fisher's of men"/"catch men" = TZAYADA (Aram.)

      Mt. 11:8 = Lk. 7:7:25 "In King's Houses"/"Among Kings" = B'BAYET
      M'LAKIM (Heb.)
      or B'BEIT MAL'KE (Aram.)

      Mt. 11:27 = Lk. 10:22 "and no one knows the Son"/"and no one knows who
      the son is" = V'LO 'NASHA YIDA L'B'RA (Aram.)

      Mt. 12:50 = Mk. 3:35 & Lk. 8:21 "my brother"/"brother of me" = AKHI
      (Hebrew or Aramaic)

      Mt. 16:26 & Mk. 8:36 = Lk. 9:25 "his soul"/"himself" = NAF'SHO (Heb.)
      or NAFSHEH (Aram.)

      Mt. 27:15 = Lk. 23:17 "accustomed"/"necessary" = M'AD (Aram.)


      The Gospel according to the Hebrews
      (http://www.netzarimpublishing.com)

      The Gospel according to the Hebrews was a Gospel which was once used
      by the Nazarenes and Ebionites. Eusebius said that GH was "the
      especial delight of those of the Hebrews who have accepted Messiah"
      (Eccl. Hist. 3:25:5). When speaking of the Ebionites, Epiphanius
      calls GH "their Gospel" (Pan. 30:16:4-5) and Jerome refers to GH as
      "the Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use" (On Mat. 12:13).
      The actual document has been lost to history, but about 50 quotations
      and citations of this document are preserved in quotations and
      citations from the so-called "Church Fathers" and other commentators
      even into the middle ages.

      It is unlikely that the Hebrews themselves called their own Gospel
      "according to the Hebrews". This is likely a title given the book by
      Gentile Christians. GH was also called "the Gospel according to the
      Apostles"; "the Gospel according to the Twelve"; and "the Gospel
      according to Matthew" and one of these may have been its name among
      the Hebrews who used it.

      Even the most conservative of scholars have given a very early date to
      the composition of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. In his book
      Evidence that Demands a Verdict Josh McDowell (p. 38) assigns GH a
      date of A.D. 65-100. The book certainly had to have existed before
      the time of Hegesippus (c. 180 C.E.) who Eusebius tells us made use of
      GH in his writings (Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 4:22:8). Ignatious (98
      C.E.) quotes from GH in his letter to the Smyraneans (3:1-2 (1:9-12
      some editions)). Although Ignatious does not identify his quote as
      coming from GH, Jerome (4th Century) does later cite GH as the source
      (Of Illustrious Men 16). GH (in differing versions) was used by both
      Nazarenes and Ebionites. Since neither group would have been likely
      to adopt the other's book after they split from each other around 70
      C.E., it appears that GH in its original form must have originated
      prior to that time.

      There has been much debate about the original language of the Gospel
      according to the Hebrews. Eusebius refers to GH as "the Gospel that
      is spread abroad among the Jews in the Hebrew tongue" (Theophina 4:12
      on Mt. 10:34-36) and "the Gospel [written] in Hebrew letters" (ibid on
      Mt. 25:14f). Jerome refers to GH as "written in the Chaldee and
      Syrian language but in Hebrew letters" (Against Pelagius III.2) but
      seems to refer to the same document in another passage as "in the
      Hebrew language and letters" (Of Illustrious Men 3). In context
      however Jerome seems to say that GH was originally written in "the
      Hebrew language and letters" but that the copy in the library at
      Caesarea is "written in the Chaldee and Syrian language but in Hebrew
      letters" (i.e. Aramaic). Thus Schonfield is correct in writing:

      The original language of the Gospel was Hebrew.
      It has generally been assumed on insufficient grounds
      that this Hebrew was in fact Aramaic (commonly called
      Hebrew).
      (According to the Hebrews p. 241)

      Many misconceptions have circulated concerning the Gospel according to
      the Hebrews. For example many scholars have attempted to make GH into
      several documents. These refer to the Gospel according to the
      Hebrews, the Gospel of the Nazarenes and the Gospel of the Ebionites
      as three different documents. However nowhere do the "Church Fathers"
      refer to a "Gospel of the Ebionites". Epiphanius says that the
      Ebionites used the Gospel according to the Hebrews" and never refers
      to a document titled "Gospel of the Ebionites". The term "Gospel of
      the Nazarenes" is never used by the "Church Fathers" either and only
      appears in the middle ages where it is clearly a euphemism for the
      Gospel according to the Hebrews. The presumption that there were
      three documents called GH has taken root in scholarship. Part of the
      basis for this assumption is that Clement of Alexander (who did not
      know Hebrew or Aramaic) quotes GH in Greek before Jerome translated GH
      into Greek. However it is quite possible that Clement obtained his
      quotation from a secondary source who did know Hebrew and that had
      quoted GH in ad hoc Greek, a secondary source which is now unknown.
      The fact that Clement of Alexander quotes the book in Greek prior to
      Jerome's translation is far to little evidence from which to conclude
      multiple documents.

      Another misconception is the presumption that thirteen readings in
      marginal notes found in certain manuscripts of Greek Matthew and which
      refer to alternate readings taken form "the Judaikon" (i.e. the
      "Jewish version) refer to the Gospel according to the Hebrews. While
      one of these readings (a note to 18:22) agrees with the reading of GH
      as given by Jerome (Against Pelag. III 2) that in itself is not enough
      evidence to jump to the far reaching conclusion that the "Judaikon" is
      the same as GH. The "Judaikon" readings may also be readings from a
      Jewish (Hebrew or Aramaic?) version of canonical Matthew and not to GH
      at all.

      While there is no reason to presume that there were three different
      Gospels called the Gospel according to the Hebrews, it is certainly
      clear that Nazarenes and Ebionites used different versions of GH.
      Epiphanius describes the version of GH used by the Ebionites as
      "called `according to Matthew', which however is not wholly complete
      but falsified and mutilated" (Pan. 30:13:2) however in speaking of the
      Nazarenes he refer to the "Gospel of Matthew quite complete in Hebrew…
      preserved… as it was first written, in Hebrew letters" (Pan. 29:9:4).
      So it would appear that the Ebionite version of GH was "now wholly
      complete but falsified and mutilated" while the Nazarene version was
      "quite complete… preserved… as it was first written.". This explains
      why the Ebionite version omitted the birth narrative and opened with
      the ministry of Yochanan (Pan. 30:13:6) while the Nazarene version is
      known to have included material parallel to the first two chapters of
      Matthew.

      There are also some important parallels between the Gospel according
      to the Hebrews and our Hebrew and Aramaic versions of the Synoptic
      Gospels. To begin with Jerome indicates that GH tended to agree with
      the Hebrew Tanak against the Greek LXX in its quotations from the
      Tanak (Of Illustrious Men 3).

      In the account of the immersion of Yeshua GH as quoted by Epiphanius
      says that the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) descended "in the form of a
      dove". This reading not only agrees with Luke (3:22) against Matthew
      (3:16) it also agrees with DuTillet Hebrew Matthew and the Siniatic
      Old Syriac text of Matthew 3:16. GH as quoted by Jerome also says
      that the Ruch HaKodesh "rested" upon Yeshua at this event. This
      agrees with the Old Syriac reading of Matthew 3:16 against Greek
      Matthew. The Shem Tob Hebrew Matthew similarly has that the Rucah
      HaKodesh "dwelt" upon Yeshua in Mt. 3:16.

      There may also be a tendency of GH to agree with the Greek Western
      type text of the canonical Gospels. For example the immersion event
      GH (as recorded by Epiphanius) has the voice say (in part) "I have
      this day begotten you" which is also found in the Greek Western type
      text of Codex D in Luke 3:22 (compare Ps. 2:7; Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5;
      5:5). Moreover GH as cited by Jerome has the voice at the immersion
      of Yeshua speak "to him" as does the Greek Western type text of Codex
      D in Mt. 3:17. This is important because as I have shown elsewhere
      the Greek Western type text is the oldest most Semitic type of Greek
      text.


      The Gospel according to the Hebrews:
      (http://www.netzarimpublishing.com)
      a Synoptic Source Document?

      Many scholars have seen within GH possible answers to questions about
      synoptic origins.

      A. S. Barnes proposed an identification between GH and the Logia
      document which many scholars closely associate with "Q". Barnes writes:

      Is it possible seriously to maintain that there were two separate
      documents, each of them written at Jerusalem during the Apostolic
      age and in the Hebrew tounge, each of them assigned to the Apostle
      Matthew, and each of them dealing in some way with the Gospel
      story?
      Or are we not rather forced to the conclusion that these two
      documents,
      whose descriptions are so strangely similar, must really be
      identical,...
      (A. S. Barnes; The Gospel according to the Hebrews;
      Journal of Theological Studies 6 (1905) p. 361)

      Pierson Parker concluded:

      ...the presence in this gospel of Lukan qualities and parallels,
      the absence from it of difinitive... Markan elements... all point
      to one conclusion, viz., that the source of the Gospel according
      to the Hebrews... was most closely related to sources underlying
      the non-Markan parts of Luke, that is, Proto-Luke.
      (Pierson Parker; A Proto-Lukan Basis for the Gospel according
      to the Hebrews;
      Journal of Biblical Literature 59 (1940) p. 478)

      And Hugh Schonfield concluded of GH:

      ...it may be argued that there has been dependence not of
      'Hebrews'
      on the Synoptics but vice versa-- that 'Hebrews' was one of
      the sources
      on which one or more of them drew.
      (Hugh Schonfield; According to the Hebrews; 13-18)

      As this article will demonstrate, the Gospel according to the Hebrews
      does indeed lie at the root of all four of our canonical Gospels.


      Mark: A Secondary Gospel

      The original documentary theory claimed that Mattitiyahu and Luke were
      dependent on a collection of sayings known as the Logia or as "Q". "Q"
      is from the German word "Quelle" meaning "source" and a narrative
      document usually identified as Mark. This may be illustrated as follows.

      Streeter developed this theory further. He realized that Luke and
      Mattitiyahu contained narratives in common which could not be found in
      Mark. He attributed these to a third document, which he called
      "Proto-Luke". Proto-Luke was said to have had incorporated into it
      "Q", the non-Markan portions of Luke and the narrative material which
      Luke and Matthew held in common.

      The late Dr. Robert Lindsey made further observations. Lindsey points
      out that the phrase "and immediately" occurs in Mark over 40 times.
      Luke contains this phrase only once and then in a portion with no
      parallel in Mark. Lindsey pointed out that it is unimaginable that
      Luke systematically purged the phrase "and immediately" from every
      portion of Mark which he used, especially since he uses the phrase
      himself elsewhere. This means that Luke could not have copied from
      Mark and that Mark therefore copied from Luke. If we eliminate all of
      the Lukan passages from Mark then almost everything else can be found
      in Mattitiyahu. In fact only 31 verses of Mark cannot be found in
      either Luke or Mattitiyahu. It is clear as a result that Mark was
      compiled using Luke and Mattitiyahu. The following three facts also
      support this conclusion:

      1. When Mark and Matthew differ in chronology Luke agrees with Mark.

      2. When Mark and Luke differ in Chronology, Matthew agrees with Mark.

      3. Matthew and Luke never agree in chronology against Mark.

      Mark therefore is secondary, compiled from Matthew and Luke with only
      31 lines of original material. It plays no part in synoptic origins.


      Matthew: An Abridgement of
      the Gospel according to the Hebrews
      (http://www.netzarimpublishing.com)

      The so-called "Church Fathers" do not hesitate in hinting to us that
      Matthew's source document was the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
      Jerome writes of GH:

      In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use
      which I have lately translated into Greek from the Hebrew
      and which is called by many people the original of Matthew…
      (Jerome; On Matt. 12:13)

      Jerome is not the only "Church Father" to identify GH with Matthew.
      Irenaeus says that the Ebionites used only the Gospel of Matthew
      (Heresies 1:26:2), Eusebius says they "used only the Gospel called
      according to the Hebrews" (Eccl. Hist. 3:27:4) while Epiphanius says
      that the Ebionite "Gospel" "…is called "Gospel according to Matthew,
      or Gospel according to the Hebrews" (Panarion 30:16:4-5). Moreover
      Jerome seems to refer to the original Hebrew of Matthew and GH
      interchangeably.

      This led Hugh Schonfield to conclude:

      My own opinion is that the canonical Gospel [of Matthew]

      is an abridged edition of a larger work, of which fragments
      still survive,… I believe that this Protevangel was written in
      Hebrew, not in Aramaic,… Whatever may have been its
      original title, we have early allusions to it under the name
      of "the Gospel" "the Gospel of the Lord," "the Gospel of
      the Twelve, or of the Apostles," "the Gospel of the Hebrews"
      and "the Hebrew Matthew."
      - Hugh J. Schonfield
      (An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's Gospel; 1927 p. viii)

      However ten years later Schonfield writes:

      The only difficulty in fact that stands in the way
      of accepting the Greek [of Matthew] as really
      translated from the Hebrew [of Matthew], instead
      of vice versa, is undoubtedly the irrefutable evidence
      that Greek Matthew has largely used Mark.
      - Hugh J. Schonfield
      (According to the Hebrews; 1937; p.248)

      Schonfield finally comes to the conclusion of…

      …the strong probability that Hebrews was one
      of the sources of canonical Matthew.
      (ibid p. 254)

      The pseudo-fact that Matthew used Mark as one of his sources (a theory
      Lindsey has since disproven) is the only thing which held Schonfield
      back from concluding that Greek Matthew is a translation of Hebrew
      Matthew and that Hebrew Matthew was an abridgement of the Gospel
      according to the Hebrews. With the barrier of presumed Markan
      priority being removed we may now adopt the logical conclusion that
      Schonfield hesitated from.


      The Gospel according to the Hebrews
      (http://www.netzarimpublishing.com)
      as Luke's Source

      Now having explained the origin of Mark as secondary we need not look
      to Mark as a primary Gospel source for Luke either. Instead we need
      concern ourselves only with Proto-Luke (and perhaps "Q"). Proto-Luke
      or the Proto-Narrative would be the common source behind Matthew and
      Luke, explaining their common material.

      Now we may easily conclude that the Gospel according to the Hebrews is
      the Proto-Luke or Proto-Narrative which served as the common source
      for both Luke and Matthew.

      To begin with Luke admits to having had source documents when writing
      his gospel (Luke 1:1-4).

      Secondly we have already established that the Gospel according to the
      Hebrews served as the source for canonical Matthew. If Matthew and
      Luke had a common source (which is clearly the case) then that source
      was almost certainly the Gospel according to the Hebrews.

      Finally several of the surviving readings from the Gospel according to
      the Hebrews parallel Luke only and not Matthew. For example only Luke
      gives Yeshua's age as being 30 (Lk. 3:23); only Luke includes the
      account of Yeshua being comforted by an angel (Lk. 22:43); only Luke
      includes the discussion about eating the Passover as described in Luke
      22:45 and only Luke includes Yeshua's words at the crucifixion "father
      forgive them…" (Lk. 23:34). There are also Lukan elements even in the
      material that also parallels Matthew. As shown earlier the immersion
      account as cited by Epiphanius also included the words "in the form of
      [a dove]" (as in Luke's account) and the phrase "I have this day
      begotten you" (as in Luke's account in the Greek Western type text of
      Codex D). In fact we should expect that the Proto-Narrative would
      have readings which parallel Matthew only, readings which parallel
      only Luke and readings which are common to Matthew and Luke (and
      sometimes Mark) but should not expect readings which parallel only
      Mark. This is exactly the case with the Gospel according to the Hebrews.


      The Gospel according to the Hebrews
      (http://www.netzarimpublishing.com)
      and John

      The Gospel of Yochanan (John) also seems to have made some use of the
      Gospel according to the Hebrews but on a much smaller scale. The GH
      account that Yeshua "kissed the feet of each one of them" recalls the
      foot washing of Jn. 13:5. The account that one of the talmidim were
      known to the High Priest also found in GH is found in John only (Jn.
      18:15) and the crucifixion as described in John 19 was said to
      parallel somewhat that of GH. Thus it appears that even the
      non-synoptic Gospel of John made some use of the Gospel according to
      the Hebrews.


      The Five Fold Gospel

      While the Gospel according to the Hebrews is at the root of the four
      canonical gospels, this in no way reduces the value of the four
      Gospels. While the Gospel according to the Hebrews was the original
      Gospel used by the Nazarenes (and in a variant form by Ebionites)
      other gospels were fashioned to meet various needs. I believe the
      four canonical Gospels were composed to present the Gospel story to
      four specific non-Nazarene groups.

      I believe that Matthew was an abridgement of the GH designed to
      present Yeshua as the Messiah to the Pharisee audience. This is
      evidenced by: 1) The many parallels with the wisdom sayings in the
      Mishna, Talmud, Midrashim etc. 2) The frequent citations of the Tanak
      (128 quotations) aimed at establishing the Messiahship of Yeshua. 3)
      The defense of Nazarene Halachic authority (16:18-19; 18:18; 21:20-21,
      23-27 & 23:1-34) 4) More discussion of halachic issues than any other
      Gospel (5:21-7:12; 9:14-17; 12:1-14; 15:1-6; 17:24-27; 19:3-9;
      22:15-22; 23:1-34).

      I believe that Luke used GH as a source document in writing a Gospel
      account aimed at Sadducees. The book of Luke was written originally
      to Theophilus, who served as High Priest from 37 to 42 C.E..
      Theophilus was both a priest and a Sadducee. It would appear that the
      Gospel was intended to be used by others as well and was likely
      targeted at Sadducee readers. Theophilus was the son of Annas and the
      brother-in-law of Caiaphas, as a result he grew up in the Temple. This
      explains many features of Luke. Luke begins the story with an account
      of Zechariah the righteous priest who had a vision of an angel at the
      Temple (1:5-25) he quickly moves on to an account of Miriam's
      purification and Yeshua's redemption rituals at the Temple (2:21-39)
      and then to the event of Yeshua teaching at the Temple at the age of
      twelve (2:46). Luke makes no mention of Caiaphas' role in Yeshua's
      crucifixion and emphasizes Yeshua's literal resurrection (24:39)
      (Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead).

      I believe that Mark used elements of Matthew and Luke to compile a
      shortened simplified Gospel account for the Gentiles. He probably
      wrote the book for use by Aramaic speaking Syrians and Assyrians he
      encountered while in Babylon with Kefa (1Kefa 5:13). Since Mark was
      addressing Gentiles he did not include Yeshua's genealogy, the Semon
      on the Mount, makes fewer quotations from the Tanak and makes less
      mention of Jewish customs that the other Gospels.

      I believe that John made some use of GH in composing a Gospel account
      aimed at the Essenes. This is evidenced by the fact that only
      Yochanan reveals the fact that Yochanan the immerser had an (Essene)
      community of talmidim living with him in the wilderness (Yochanan 1).
      This is further evidenced by the mystical nature of Yochanan's
      account. (The Essenes were mystics and in fact many scholars see the
      roots of what we now call "Kabbalah" as stemming from the Essenes.).

      The result was four Gospels which covered all four levels of
      understanding of the original Gospel according to the Hebrews. The
      Hebrew/Aramaic word PARDES is spelled in Hebrew and Aramaic without
      vowels as PRDS. PaRDeS refers to a park or garden, esp. the Garden of
      Eden. The word PRDS is also an acronym (called in Judaism
      "notarikon") for:

      [P]ashat (Heb. "simple") The plain, simple, literal level of
      understanding.
      [R]emez (Heb. "hint") The implied level of understanding.
      [D]rash (Heb. "search") The allegorical, typological or
      homiletically level of understanding.
      [S]od (Heb. "hidden") The hidden, secret or mystical level of
      understanding.

      These are the four levels of understanding. The Four Gospels each
      express one of these four levels of understanding of The Gospel
      according to the Hebrews. Each also expresses a different aspect of
      the Messiah and corresponds to each of the four faces of the living
      beings in Ezekiel 1.

      The Pashat Gospel is Mark. Mark presents the Messiah as the servant
      (the servant who purifies the Goyim in Is. 52:13, 15) the "my servant
      the Branch" of Zech.3:8 who is symbolized by the face of the Ox in
      Ezekiel 1 (the Ox being a servant, a beast of burden). Mark does not
      begin with an account of the birth of Messiah as do Matthew and Luke
      because, unlike the birth of a King, the birth of a servant is
      unimportant, all that is important is his work as a servant which
      begins with his immersion by Yochanan. Thus Mark's simplified account
      omits any account of Yeshua's birth or preexistence and centers on his
      work as a servant who purifies the Goyim.

      The Remez Gospel is Luke. Luke wrote a more detailed account for the
      High Priest Theophilus (a Sadducee). The Sadducees were rationalists
      and sticklers for details. Luke presents Yeshua as the "Son of Man"
      and as "the man whose name is the Branch" (Zech
      6:12) who is presented as a High Priest and is symbolized by the face
      of the man in Ezekiel 1. Luke wants to remind by remez (by
      implication) the High Priest Theophilus about the redemption of the
      filthy High Priest Joshua (Zech. 6) and its prophetic foreshadowing of
      a "man" who is a Messianic "Priest" and who can purify even a
      High Priest.

      The Drash Gospel is Matthew. Matthew presents his account of Yeshua's
      life as a Midrash to the Pharisees, as a continuing story tied to
      various passages from the Tanak (for example Mt. 2:13-15 presents an
      allegorical understanding of Hosea 11:1).. As a drash level account
      Matthew also includes a number of parables in his account. Matthew
      presents Messiah as the King Messiah, the Branch of David (Jer. 23:5-6
      & Is. 11:1f) symbolized by the face of the lion in Ezekiel 1.

      The Sod Gospel is Yochanan (John). Yochanan addresses the Mystical
      Essene sect and concerns himself with mystical topics like light,
      life, truth, the way and the Word. Yochanan includes many Sod
      interpretations in his account. For example Yochanan 1:1 presents a
      Sod understanding of Gen. 1:1. Yochanan 3:14; 8:28 & 12:32 present a
      Sod understanding of Num. 21:9 etc.).


      Conclusion

      The Gospel according to the Hebrews which was the "especial delight of
      those of the Hebrews who have accepted Messiah" was a primary source
      document either directly or indirectly for all four of our canonical
      Gospels. The Gospel of Matthew was an abridgement of that Gospel made
      originally to bring the message of Yeshua to the Pharisees. The
      Gospel of Luke was drawn largely from GH and was composed to present
      the message of Yeshua to the Sadducees. The Gospel of Mark was
      compiled from Matthew and Luke in order to present a shorter, simpler
      account to the Gentiles. And the Gospel of John made some use of GH
      in composing a Gospel account aimed at the Essene community. The
      resulting four Gospels covered all of the levels of understanding
      (PaRDeS) of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Mark gives us the
      pashat, Luke the remez, Matthew the drash and John the Sod. Thus the
      four canonical Gospels provide us with a complete understanding of the
      Gospel according to the Hebrews which lies at the root of all of them.

      Now the B'sorah HaEvrim (The Gospel according to the Hebrews) the
      lost Nazarene Gospel has finally been reconstructed from ancient
      source documents.

      B'sorah HaEvrim
      The Goodnews according to the Hebrews

      I wanted to take a moment to tell you about a very important
      document for the Hebraic Roots Movement:


      B'SORAH HA-EVRIM: The Goodnews according to the Hebrews
      ( http://www.netzarimpublishing.com )

      The Gospel according to the Hebrews is an apocryphal Gospel which
      was used by the ancient Nazarenes and Ebionites. Scholars have long
      recognized the profound importance of this document. It has been
      lost for centuries, but has finally been reconstructed from ancient
      source documents.

      Eusebius wrote of this Gospel in the fourth century:

      "[It is] the especial delight of those of the Hebrews
      who have accepted Messiah"
      (Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:25:5)

      And Jerome referred (again in the fourth century) to it as:

      "the Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use"
      (Jerome; On Mat. 12:13)

      Barnes wrote:

      …the Gospel according to the Hebrews by its very title claims
      an authority equal to, if not actually greater than, that of the
      four which eventually received the approval of the Church.
      (A. S. Barnes; The Gospel according to the Hebrews;
      Journal of Theological Studies 6 (1905) p. 361)

      And Schonfield writes:

      The Gospel according to the Hebrews is a literary outlaw with a
      price on its head; but in spite of the scholarly hue and cry it
      still evades capture. Neither monastic libraries nor Egyptian
      rubbish heaps have so far yielded up a single leaf of this important
      document....

      For behind Hebrews lies the unknown potentialities of the Nazarene
      tradition, which may confirm or contradict some of the most
      cherished beliefs of Orthodox Christianity. It is useless for
      certain theologians to designate Hebrews as "secondary" on the
      evidence of the present fragmentary remains preserved in
      quotation. ...

      Judged by ancient testimony alone it is indisputable that Hebrews
      has the best right of any Gospel to be considered a genuine
      apostolic production;...

      Here is obviously a most valuable witness, perhaps the most valuable
      witness to the truth about [Yeshua] whom even a jury composed
      entirely of orthodox Christians could not despise, and who ought to
      be brought into court. But the witness is missing, and all that we
      have is a few reported statements of his taken long ago...
      (Hugh Schonfield; According to the Hebrews; 1937; pp. 13-18)

      The appearance to Ya'akov (James), ...is not mentioned elsewhere in
      the New Testament but is reported in one of the apocryphal books,
      the Gospel according to the Hebrews...
      (Jewish New Testament Commentary by David Stern 1Cor. 15:7)

      * Several pages of introductory material including evidence that
      B'sorah HaEvrim is the original source behind Matthew, Mark, Luke
      and even John.

      * A complete flowing text, 29 chapters including many events absent
      from our four canonical gospels.

      * An appendix with all of the primary citations by "Church Fathers"
      listed out and cited in English and in most cases also giving those
      citations in either the Greek or Latin in which the given "Church
      Father" wrote.

      * A Nazarene commentary on the B'sorah Ha'Evrim.

      * 197 pages

      B'sorah HaEvrim
      The Goodnews according to the Hebrews
      Available on the internet at: http://www.netzarimpublishing.com
    • Mark Goodacre
      Dear Jim, Thanks for your recent post to Synoptic-L. I would like to take this opportunity to remind you of the first of our protocols, which asks for you to
      Message 2 of 2 , Apr 24, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Jim,

        Thanks for your recent post to Synoptic-L. I would like to take this
        opportunity to remind you of the first of our protocols, which asks
        for you to "keep messages as concise and as relevant as possible". We
        discourage posters from submitting entire essays to the list without
        first consulting with the coordinators. We appreciate your
        understanding on this.

        With best wishes
        Mark
        --
        Mark Goodacre Goodacre@...
        Associate Professor
        Duke University
        Department of Religion
        118 Gray Building / Box 90964
        Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
        Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530

        http://NTGateway.com/goodacre
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.