The Christian canon knows and recognises four gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These were not, by any means, the only documents known as gospels, but most of these other claimants have only tenuous basis for being called so. In most cases, there are written late (second century onwards) by sects seeking to support their own heterodox views. It is common for historians to treat references to the “Gospel according to the Hebrews”, “Gospel of the Nazarenes”, “Gospel of the Ebionites”, in the same way, as a later and derivative document used to by one or more Judaizing sect. In this book James Edwards promotes a different proposal, that the Hebrew Gospel was the earliest gospel to be written and is one of the primary sources behind Luke’s gospel.
The first three chapters of the book begin to lay out the case for this gospel, recounting all the early Christian references to this gospel and quotations from it. From this information Edwards determines that the Hebrew Gospel was widely known by early Christians and treated as an authority. Furthermore, he argues, the quotations from the gospel do not appear to be derived from one or more of the canonical gospels but do bear some similarity to Luke’s gospel. This latter point leads to a second component of Edward’s thesis, the observation of a high concentration of Semitisms in Luke’s gospel, especially in the material unique to Luke (Special Luke). In chapter 4 he presents this evidence and argues that the explanation for these Semitisms is that Luke depends on a Semitic (Hebrew) source for this material.
In chapter 5, Edwards begins to deal with some potential objections or alternatives to his thesis, such as that the Semitisms in Luke’s gospel may be due to his dependence on the Septuagint. Chapter 6 addresses the more fundamental question of why the Hebrew Gospel has not survived and did not receive canonical status. Edwards worries about anti-Semitism in the early church.
The proposal of an early Hebrew gospel has important implications for our understanding of the development of the gospel tradition. Broadly, scholars have concluded that Mark was the earliest gospel and was a source for both Matthew and Luke. The material shared by Matthew and Luke that is not present in Mark is supposed to be based on another early gospel, Q, which is otherwise unattested. Edwards challenges the Q thesis in chapter 7, with familiar criticisms of the overstated claims often made on behalf of Q. Yet, whilst the criticisms themselves are valid, they are somewhat unconnected to Edwards’ own thesis, which would not explain the origin of the material shared by Matthew and Luke but of the material unique to Luke. Whilst Edwards thinks we should dispense with the Q thesis, he does still recognise the need for some shared source for the double tradition.
His final chapter deals with the common association made between the Hebrew Gospel and Matthew. It has sometimes been theorised that there must have been an Aramaic or Hebrew original behind Matthew’s gospel because of the commonly repeated claim that Matthew wrote in Hebrew (when the canonical Matthew is in Greek). Edwards has a different proposal, that Matthew wrote the Hebrew Gospel and his name was later attributed to a Greek gospel, which he was not responsible for. This thesis may have some merit. It has always seemed an oddity that the apostle Matthew (if that is who is intended) should base his gospel on Mark’s – surely he was an eyewitness in his own right. From what we know of the Hebrew Gospel it is difficult to see it as an earlier version of Greek Matthew. Yet this does require the hypothesis that the early Christians either intentionally, or mistakenly, misattributed a Greek gospel and that may be difficult to swallow.
There are plenty of limitations to Edwards’ proposal. He does not attempt to sketch out the contents of the Hebrew Gospel, or even answer whether significant events (e.g. virgin birth, resurrection) were included. Given his thesis that a high concentration of Semitisms in Luke is indicative of a dependence on the Hebrew Gospel, one would think that he could venture an opinion. For example, based on his own analysis it would seem that Luke’s account of the virgin birth should be dependent on the Hebrew Gospel. He also does not attempt to date the Hebrew Gospel, though if it was written by the apostle Matthew, and a source for Luke’s gospel, then it must be early. But generally the greatest disappointment with the book is that a Hebrew Gospel is no longer extant and so opportunities for substantiating Edward’s thesis and extending it are going to be limited. Nevertheless, this is an intriguing proposal and one that adds to our understanding of the development of the gospel tradition.
Review of “The Early Earth” by John Whitcomb (1972)