Notes on the Synoptic Problem and the Antiquity of Hebrew Matthew

In 1987 George Howard, a professor at the University of Georgia, published a book entitled The Gospel of Matthew according to a primitive Hebrew text. The book unleashed a firestorm of opposition and criticism from his academic peers. He was apparently pressured to walk back some of his claims, which he did in a second edition, with the title Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (published in 1995). I am convinced that Howard was absolutely right the first time. I, being a mere poet, have neither tenure nor position to protect, and cannot be intimidated. Some of my conclusions follow.

First, the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, which we know from a fourteenth-century Jewish polemical work with the title of Even Bohan (The Touchstone), is actually older than canonical Matthew. There is, in fact a great deal of evidence to support this conclusion.

Secondly, in the portions of the NT known as "Q," Hebrew Matthew (HebMt) is closer to Luke Q than to Matthew Q.

It is clear to me, based on the so-called Minor Agreements (many of which are Major Agreements) in the so-called Triple Tradition, that either Luke knew Matthew's work, or vice-versa.

Further, I believe that the "Markan priority," which has long been academic dogma, is incorrect. I believe the Gospel of Mark to be dependent on early Matthew and/or Luke, before the incorporation of the "Q" material. Only 3% of the Markan material is unique to Mark, and I do not believe that his contribution to the work of the other two synoptists was significant.

A correct resolution of the "Synoptic Problem," therefore, requires a correct understanding of the literary dependencies of Matthew and Luke.

It is clear to me that Luke represents, in the "Q" material, an earlier stage of either "Q" or Matthew.

It is also clear to me that HebMt is closer to Lukan Q than to Matthaean Q, as George Howard demonstrated. (Howard., 1995 op. cit.,, p. 201-202.)

There is extraordinary evidence (Howard 1995, p. 200) for Matthew's editorial method for utilizing "Q" material. This evidence also shows that he was working from "Q," and not from Luke.

 The "Q" Hypothesis is confirmed by the evidence, but Markan Priority is not. Mark's contribution to the Synoptic Tradition was basically insignificant. Mark is dependent upon an early stage of Matthew and Luke that still lacked incorporation of the "Q" material. At the time of the formation of the NT canon, the Gospel of Mark was held in low regard, and was almost not admitted. It was defective and obsolete, because it lacked the "Q" content.

Neither Matthew nor Luke sprang full-feathered from the egg, but rather grew and developed over time. What is clear is that the Gospel of Matthew was written, originally in Hebrew, for the Jews. The Gospel of Luke was written for the Gentiles, translating from Hebrew to Greek. Word play, Semitisms, and editorial changes make this abundantly clear.

The Hebrew Matthew that we have is older than canonical Matthew, as evidenced by editorial changes in Q material that had not yet been made but later would be, but it is not the oldest form, which would have lacked the "Q" material and from which Mark worked.

All of these assertions can be supported by illustrative examples, if there is sufficient interest.

Comments are very welcome.

Donald C. Traxler
exolinguist@gmail.com

Text © 2019 by Donald C. Traxler.