The Layers of Matthew - IX

We go next to Matthew VI:9, which is parallel to Luke XI:2, The Our Father/Pater Noster/Avinu. This is not the first time I've written about this prayer. Here's what I wrote four years ago, before I had come to my "Layered Matthew Hypothesis," and therefore also before I really understood the textual relationship between Matthew and Luke:

Some claim that the Pater Noster is taken from the third, fifth, sixth, ninth, and fifteenth blessings of the Amidah, or Shemoneh Esrei, the central prayer of the synagogue liturgy, which is recited by observant Jews three times a day. Certainly there are similarities. I have seen it claimed that Rabbi Yeshua was not the only itinerant Rabbi who taught a "boiled-down" version of the Amidah at that time. I'll take no position on these claims, since I haven't had time to research them. What I will say is that the Pater Noster (let's start calling it the Avinu) is very, very striking in Hebrew.

Avinu shebashamayim yitkadash shmecha

"Yitkadash shmecha." Let Your name be made holy. Because from this blessing all the others will flow. A world in which the Name is revered and respected, will be a world in which all Life is revered and respected, and in which we respect each other. It is a path to a better world.

Tavo malchutecha

May your kingdom come. (Replacing the rule of unethical imposters and usurpers who poison our existence because of their greed and lust for power.)

Yeaseh ritzoncha kmo bashamayim ken baaretz

May your will be done as in the heavens, so also on the earth.

Et-lechem chuqenu ten-lanu hayom

Give us this day our daily bread

Us'lach-lanu et-chovotenu kaasher salachnu gam-anachnu l'chayavenu

Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors

V'al-t'viyenu liydey nisayon kiy im-chaltzenu min-hara'

And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil,

[Kiy l'cha hamamlakhah v'hag'vurah v'hatipheret l'ol'mey olamiym] amen

[for Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever.] Amen.

That is well and good, but we are now in a position to determine the original form of the prayer, as taught by Rabbi Yeshua.

As George Howard points out on p. 202 of Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, the Shaprut Hebrew Matthew and the oldest and best manuscripts of Luke agree that "who art in heaven" was not originally part of the prayer, According to my hypothesis, Luke used an early form of Matthew (Matthew I), which was probably written in Hebrew, for the sayings portion of his Gospel. Thus, although Matthew I has not survived, it is reflected in Luke. The Shaprut Hebrew Matthew reflects Matthew II, an intermediate form of Matthew. So, if we want to see the original form of the Lord's Prayer, or Avinu, the best that we can do is to go to Luke XI:2. In the RSV, it goes like this:

Father, hallowed be thy name.

Thy kingdom come.

Give us each day our daily bread;

and forgive us our sins,

for we ourselves forgive everyone

who is indebted to us.

and lead us not into temptation.

Here is how it sounds in Hebrew, in the Salkinson translation:

avinu yitkadash shmecha

tavo malchutecha

ten-lanu lechem chukenu yom b'yomo.

us'lach lanu et-ashmoteynu 

ki gam-anachnu solchim l'kol-asher

asham lanu

v'al-t'viyenu liy'dey nisayon.

And here's how it looks in Hebrew, in the form given in the Shaprut Hebrew Matthew, reflecting Matthew II, which is still older than canonical Matthew (Matthew III): 

אבינו יתקדש שמך ויתברך מלכותך רצונך יהיה עשוי בשמיםובארץ ׃

ותתן לחמנו תמידית ׃

ומחול לנו חטאתינו כאשר אנחנו מוחלים לחוטאים לנו

ואל תביאנו לידי נסיון ושמרינו מכל רע אמן ׃

The best texts of Luke just say "Father," but here we are back to "Our Father," which is also how Salkinson translated the Luke. Other than that, the main difference between this and Luke is that it says "may your name be sanctified; may your kingdom be blessed." This makes for a more beautiful parallelism. I prefer it for this reason, and also because, as we are told in the Gospel of Thomas, the kingdom of heaven is already among us.

(to be continued)

The Layers of Matthew - VIII

Now we are getting into dangerous territory. I can proceed, with trepidation, or I can let the matter drop. I could go either way, but earlier I described myself as a lover of truth, which lays a certain burden on me. I elect to proceed, but with caution.

We have just seen how, in Matthew VII:6, the manuscripts of the Greek textual tradition read "that which is holy," where the newfound Hebrew textual tradition has "holy flesh." This was explained as being either a translation variant (Hebrew "asher kodesh" instead of the similar-appearing "bashar kodesh"), or a copyists error in transmission. There is no support that I know of in the Greek textual tradition for the reading "holy flesh." George Howard only included seven manuscripts in his apparatus, having examined nine, and we now know that the Shaprut Hebrew Matthew has survived in at least twenty-eight manuscripts. There is a lot more work to be done, but based only on Howard's apparatus, I can say that there is no support in the Hebrew textual tradition for the reading "that which." Since those seven manuscripts are not very closely allied, I would have to venture that "bashar" (flesh) is original and not a copyist's error. There is also a principle in textual criticism by which the "more difficult" reading is likely to be the correct one. I would say that "flesh" is the more difficult reading of the two. Also, dogs/pigs forms a parallelism, so important in Semitic literature, and the parallelism is more balanced and more perfect if both members reference something concrete rather than an abstraction such as "that which."

Does it matter? I think it does, and greatly. What could "do not give holy flesh to the dogs" mean? To a Jew of Rabbi Yeshua's time, it could easily be a statement against mixed marriage. We already know, from the episode of the Canaanite Woman" (Mt. XV:22-28) that at that time it was a commonplace to call the Gentiles "dogs," and it was a usage that even the Canaanite woman understood, and she replied in kind.

But wouldn't it be racism for the Jews of that time to consider themselves "holy flesh?" Not necessarily. They would have considered themselves holy if they kept the religious law, the Torah, and honored the Covenant they had made with God.

Similarly the pearls/swine part could be a warning against efforts to convert the Gentiles, because they might "turn against you and rend you." Is this not, in fact, what actually happened? Rabbi Yeshua was prescient.

The deeper we go into our study of Hebrew Matthew, the more we realize that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written for the Jews. But Paul, who had other ambitions, needed to make it more palatable to the Gentiles, which is where Luke came in.

In light of the foregoing, the claim that the Gospels were originally written in Greek and that there was no Hebrew substratum seems disingenuous, to say the least.

(to be continued)