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

[Synoptic-L] Fwd: My message got lost?

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    ... From: Peter Kirby Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 23:51:21 -0700 Subject: My message got lost? To: synoptic-l-owner@bham.ac.uk I submitted
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 31, 2004
      ---------- Forwarded message ----------
      From: Peter Kirby <kirby@...>
      Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 23:51:21 -0700
      Subject: My message got lost?
      To: synoptic-l-owner@...



      I submitted this message yesterday but didn't see it on the list:



      On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 13:42:25 +0100, Ron Price wrote:

      > In: "On dispensing with Q?: Goodacre on the relation of Luke to

      > Matthew" - NTS 49 (2003) p. 215, Kloppenborg wrote:

      > "Luke's supposed dependence on Mark is not any less hypothetical

      > than Luke's dependence on Q, merely because we have third-century

      > manuscripts of Mark."

      >

      > Is he inferring that the existence of Q is as assured as the

      > existence of an archetype for Mark? If so, why do no scholars (as

      > far as I know) deny the existence of the latter, whereas some

      > reputable scholars (albeit a few) firmly deny the existence of the

      > former?



      Maybe not. He refers to the "dependence on Mark" and not the
      "existence of Mark." I think he might be saying that the Farrer
      Hypothesis and Two Source Hypothesis are both hypotheses (as are
      Farmer's and Boismard's).



      But it is not clear what "less hypothetical" means; is it the same as
      "more certain"? I don't think it is. He may be implying that a
      statement is either hypothetical or isn't (without degree).



      --

      Peter Kirby (Student at Fullerton College, CA)

      Web Site: http://www.peterkirby.com/


      --
      Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
      Dept of Theology
      University of Birmingham
      Elmfield House, Selly Oak tel.+44 121 414 7512
      Birmingham B29 6LQ UK fax: +44 121 415 8376

      http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
      http://NTGateway.com

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • James Trimm
      The Gospel according to the Hebrews: The Synoptic Solution By James Scott Trimm http://www.hebraicrootsversion.com The Synoptic Problem Mattityahu, Mark and
      Message 2 of 3 , Sep 1, 2004
        The Gospel according to the Hebrews:
        The Synoptic Solution

        By
        James Scott Trimm
        http://www.hebraicrootsversion.com


        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

        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: 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

        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 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 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.

        James Trimm
        http://www.hebraicrootsversion.com




        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Horace Jeffery Hodges
        Dear Listserve Members, Robert Bellah, one of my old doctoral advisors at ... I am sending the beginning of my axial chapters, the Introduction just before
        Message 3 of 3 , Sep 17, 2004
          Dear Listserve Members,

          Robert Bellah, one of my old doctoral advisors at
          Berkeley, sent me the following request:

          -------------------------------------------------------
          I am sending the beginning of my axial chapters, the
          Introduction just before describing ancient Israel
          .... [D]o you have any books or authors whom you
          especially admire who work primarily on the Hebrew
          scriptures? I am trying to understand how Israel
          became different from the older societies, without
          simple dichotomies, because I know almost every
          element is shared with others. There must be
          something in how they put it all together. I feel it
          has to do with the Moses narrative, even if there
          wasn't any historical Moses, which there probably
          wasn't. But a leader and lawgiver at the heart of the
          Pentateuch who is clearly not a divine king is surely
          a strong statement. So if you know any work that
          illuminates the origin and development of the Moses
          narrative that would be especially helpful.
          -------------------------------------------------------

          I posed the query on Ioudaios a couple of days ago,
          and some of the replies made me realize that some
          people don't know who Bellah is. He's an emeritus
          professor of sociology who has written extensively in
          the sociology of religion and is very erudite. So, he
          doesn't need general or introductory level suggestions
          (though he appreciates the responses that he did
          receive from people on Ioudaios).

          I wish to emphasize that he's especially looking for
          are suggestions on how the Moses narrative might have
          originated and developed. This is the crux of his
          request.

          If anyone has any suggetions, please send them to me
          privately (jefferyhodges@...), and I'll see that
          he receives them.

          Best Regards,

          Jeffery Hodges

          =====
          University Degrees:

          Ph.D., History, U.C. Berkeley
          (Doctoral Thesis: "Food as Synecdoche in John's Gospel and Gnostic Texts")
          M.A., History of Science, U.C. Berkeley
          B.A., English Language and Literature, Baylor University

          Email Address:

          jefferyhodges@...

          Office Address:

          Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
          Department of English Language and Literature
          Korea University
          136-701 Anam-dong, Seongbuk-gu
          Seoul
          South Korea

          Home Address:

          Sun-Ae Hwang and Horace Jeffery Hodges
          Seo-Dong 125-2
          Shin-Dong-A, Apt. 102-709
          447-710 Kyunggido, Osan-City
          South Korea

          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.