We have seen evidence (and there is more) that the sayings portion of Matthew was originally written in a Semitic language (Hebrew or Aramaic). The evidence that we looked at suggests that this earliest layer of Matthew (Matthew I) was written in Hebrew, and probably Biblical Hebrew. Literary devices such as alliteration are more easily observable in Delitzsch's Hebrew translation of the New Testament than they are in the mixed Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew of Shaprut's Hebrew Matthew.
So what, then is Shaprut's Hebrew Matthew? It is not some kind of original Matthew or Ur Matthew. It is a translation into Hebrew from either the Old Syriac or the Old Latin. We can say this with near-certainty because it omits the same verses as some of the texts in these two (closely allied) textual streams. In other words, Shaprut's Hebrew Matthew is based on a text of the Western type. Within this textual type, it seems to be closest to the oldest Old Latin texts, such as Bobiensis (k). This much we can say, but we don't know when it was translated, or how much modification it may have undergone for polemical purposes. Readings that have no support in any modern critical apparatus must be viewed with suspicion, but it would be a mistake to reject them all out-of-hand without considering whether they commend themselves for some inherent reason.
As to the other translation I've used, that of Salkinson, it has the advantage of being based on a great Greek text, that of Codex Sinaiticus (א), but its more periphrastic style often obscures literary devices that were probably part of the original Matthew I.
In general, I find Delitzsch's Hebrew translation to be of the most use, and it is the one I always start with.
Wednesday, October 31, 2018
The Layers of Matthew - I
There is no separate "Q Document."
The only sources we need to solve the "Synoptic Problem" are Matthew and Mark.
The substratum of the sayings portion of Matthew was in Hebrew (Matthew I).
At some point it became necessary to translate Matthew I into Greek (Matthew II).
This Mathew II, although in Greek, was still too "Jewish" for Paul's purposes, so editorial changes were made, giving us Luke I, still essentially a sayings gospel, but more acceptable to the Gentiles.
Peter's public speeches were recorded by Mark. They were probably not intended to be a separate gospel, but they provided the narrative portions of Matthew and Luke.
Along with the Markan narrative, further sayings material (e.g. the Beatitudes not included in the Lukan list) was added to Matthew II, giving us Matthew III. The evangelist of the Gospel of Luke may never have seen this expanded Matthew.
The Markan narrative was also added to Luke I, giving us Luke II.
At this point, there was no longer a need for a separate Gospel of Mark, but it was included in the Canon because Peter was the leader of the apostles and an eyewitness.
This theory can explain everything that we observe, including the Minor Agreements.
The only sources we need to solve the "Synoptic Problem" are Matthew and Mark.
The substratum of the sayings portion of Matthew was in Hebrew (Matthew I).
At some point it became necessary to translate Matthew I into Greek (Matthew II).
This Mathew II, although in Greek, was still too "Jewish" for Paul's purposes, so editorial changes were made, giving us Luke I, still essentially a sayings gospel, but more acceptable to the Gentiles.
Peter's public speeches were recorded by Mark. They were probably not intended to be a separate gospel, but they provided the narrative portions of Matthew and Luke.
Along with the Markan narrative, further sayings material (e.g. the Beatitudes not included in the Lukan list) was added to Matthew II, giving us Matthew III. The evangelist of the Gospel of Luke may never have seen this expanded Matthew.
The Markan narrative was also added to Luke I, giving us Luke II.
At this point, there was no longer a need for a separate Gospel of Mark, but it was included in the Canon because Peter was the leader of the apostles and an eyewitness.
This theory can explain everything that we observe, including the Minor Agreements.
