A Simpler HSH: The Core of my Argument

I'm not quite done talking about the Gospel(s) of the Hebrews, but before I finish, I wanted to make another adjustment to the HSH, based on my most recent thinking.

While carefully examining the fragmentary information I had assigned to the Nazaraean gospel, I realized that GNaz might just as easily have post-dated GLuke. If it did, then it seemed we might as well remove it from the HSH, since it serves no role as a source for the canonical gospels, and the purpose of the HSH is to explain the canonical gospels' composition. That would simplify the HSH considerably.

But then I realized that Coptic GTh had no role in the HSH either, since it is a kind of late offshoot of the earlier Greek GTh, and only Greek GTh influenced the canonical gospels. So we could remove GTh from our diagram as well.

And now that I have reversed the placement of GPet with GEbi, I began to question GPet's placement within the HSH as well. Might not it also post-date GMatt and GLuke as well?

I relalized that removing these documents from the HSH diagram also had a didactic purpose; it simplified the HSH to its essential arguments, making it easier to present to others. So, I began systematically removing them and their links from the HSH diagram, to see how it might look.



I removed the Barn./2Ways/Did. traingle as well, since its contributions to the HSH are somewhat minor. Thus we can present the most important features of the HSH, while leaving open the possibility that there were other sources at every step of the way. (For example, I haven't addressed Luke's use of Josephus at all.) I also removed the influence of Paul's letters on the Markan tradition, even though that influence seems blatantly obvious to me, because I have to admit that strictly speaking, the Synoptic Problem is about the relationships among the Synoptic gospels--not about their individual sources.

Following this logic, I decided to remove the Thomasine elements of the HSH as well. I continue to argue that Greek GTh is a source for the Matthean tradition, but this is not important--I agree in principle with Francis Watson's portrayal of a "Sayings Collection" or SC source that various gospel authors drew upon at various times. I've previously shown that this occurred in two primary stages: a Markan stage, and a Q stage. I can leave the remaining details aside for now. I will continue, however, to refer to the non-Markan source shared between the Matthean and Marcionite/Lukan traditions as "Q"--that is, GEbi is Q. The term "Q" should not be strictly reserved for a sayings tradition, since the Q material already includes parables and narrative material in addition to sayings.

And I also removed the Johannine elements of the HSH, too. While I am convinced that John drew on both a Signs source and Secret Mark, this lies outside the Synoptic Problem. That left me with the question of whether to leave in the Signs source. While I am also convinced that the author of Secret Mark also used the Signs source, I realized it might not be needed to explain certain elemens of Q/GEbi after all, despite my previous thinking.

Thus we end up with the following diagram:

(Here I have labled GEbi "GHeb1" to distinguish it from other texts called the "Gospel of the Hebrews".)

This is the core of the HSH--its most essential argument. I believe it is the solution to the Synoptic Problem, strictly speaking. It is the minimum claim I wish to make. I hope that in this form, it can more easily be evaluated in comparison with other solutions.

We'll continue exploring the Gospel of the Hebrews in my next post. We'll find more evidence for the difference between GEbi and GNaz, and make a surprising discovery.