I would like to briefly mention that canonical Mt. 5:47 is not present in Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew. My NA25 (the only edition of Nestlé-Aland that is currently available to me) informs me that the verse is also not present in k, which is the oldest manuscript of the Old Latin text type, or in Syr-s, which is the oldest manuscript of the Old Syriac text type. The Old Latin and the Old Syriac are the oldest NT text types that we have, and these two mss are the oldest of the old. In the fourteenth century, when Shem-Tob's book Even Bohan was written, one would have been hard pressed to find any copy of k, and Syr-s was unknown. I don't know why the verse is present in canonical Matthew (my Matthew III), but its absence in Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and in other ancient texts seems highly significant.
I would like to move now to Mt. 10:5-6. Here is the translation in the RSV:
"These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, 'Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Here is George Howard's translation of the same verse in Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew:
"These twelve Jesus sent; he commanded them saying: To the lands of the Gentiles do not go and into the cities of the Samaritans do not enter. Go to the sheep who have strayed from the house of Israel."
These two are close enough to be considered the same. Yet the silence from Luke and Mark, whose Gospels were written for the Gentiles, is deafening.
There is a further echo of these verses in Mt. 15:24, the story of the Syro-Phoenician woman:
"He answered, 'I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel'." (RSV)
"Jesus answered them: 'They did not send me except to the lost sheep from the house of Israel'." (Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew)
The presence of this verse in Hebrew Matthew shows that it is original, and not a later insertion. Again, there is silence from Mark, and Luke does not parallel the story at all.
These words of Rabbi Yeshua, older than canonical Matthew, were ignored by Paul and by many others, on what basis I do not know.
(to be continued)
© 2019 by Donald C. Traxler.
Thursday, June 27, 2019
Synoptica V - Hebrew Matthew and the Formation of Canonical Matthew
Moving on, we see that there are unnecessary and disruptive (in a continuous Sermon on the Mount) introductory phrases in the Shem Tob text at Mt. 5:25, 27, 31, and 43. George Howard found sixteen of these out-of-place introductory phrases in the Hebrew Matthew (my Mt. IIb) version of the Sermon on the Mount, and he discussed them on pp. 200-201 of his 1995 book, already cited. They were all edited out of canonical, Greek Matthew (my Mt. III). They are vestigial remains of an earlier arrangement of Matthew's Gospel (my Mt. IIa), which is reflected in Luke's arrangement of still-incomplete Sayings material.
Matthew collected the logia and wrote them down in the Hebrew language, just as the early-second-century writer Papias said he did. Thus, the Church's belief for some seventeen centuries that the Gospel of Matthew was the first Gospel is borne out. The others, as Papias said, "translated as best they could."
The First Gospel was originally written in Hebrew. Until recent years we did not know that this was so, although there was abundant discussion concerning a possible "Hebrew/Aramaic substratum." We also did not know that the rabbis had preserved a copy of it, which they used in the Middle Ages for polemical purposes in debates with Christians. Even today, not all of this is admitted by an academic orthodoxy that appears embattled and defensive. I am emboldened to write about these matters, about which I have thought for many years, because I am a poet, not an academic, and I cannot be intimidated or occupationally threatened.
My proposed solution of the Synoptic Problem, which I call the Layered-Matthew Hypothesis, is represented, as it stands today, in the graphic below.
This proposed solution of the Synoptic Problem does not require any hypothetical sources such as "Q," and in view of Luke's borrowing from Matthew, the so-called Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark in the Triple Tradition are no problem. Having dispensed with "Q" as a separate, written document, the only question upon which I am undecided is the proper position of Mark. I'll continue to work on that, hoping to arrive at a conclusion that can be explained and defended.
Now, back to our examination of the Hebrew "Sermon on the Mount" as compared to the Greek one.
Mt. 5:27 in Hebrew contains a variant that is consistent with the oldest and best manuscripts (a frequent situation), but Mt. 5:44 appears in a fuller form in Hebrew than it does in the oldest and best Greek texts, a form that is consistent with later text types, including the Received Version. What is going on here? The following is George Howard's translation of Shem-Tob's Mt. 5:44:
"But I say to you, love your enemies and [do good to the one who hates you and vexes you and] pray for those who persecute you [and oppress you]."
I have marked the additions in the Hebrew with square brackets.
According to my theory, the fuller form of the verse would have been present in Matthew IIb (represented by Shem Tob, though we do not know how faithfully) and probably also in Matthew IIa (represented in parts of Luke). Checking the main parallel, Lk. 6:27-28, we find the following (per the RSV, which I believe is based on the best and oldest mss):
"But I say to you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you."
The NASB and NIV give much the same as the RSV, and they are also based on the best and oldest texts.
By way of comparison, I give the RSV translation of the canonical Mt. 5:44:
"But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."
Canonical, Greek Matthew gives us a sparer, more boiled-down version of this teaching. Luke gives a fuller version, taken from an intermediate, earlier edition of Matthew (my Matthew IIa).
Why, then, does the KJV, which is based on later and inferior manuscripts, give the fuller version in Mt. 5:44? The answer is that those inferior texts contain many harmonistic readings, intended to bring the Gospels into harmony with each other. Some copyist imported the Lukan version into Matthew, believing it to be more complete, and the shorter, Matthaean version to be defective. The best and oldest Greek texts show us, though, that this harmonistic reading does not belong to canonical Matthew, but to canonical Luke.
(to be continued)
Text and graphic © 2019 by Donald C. Traxler.
Matthew collected the logia and wrote them down in the Hebrew language, just as the early-second-century writer Papias said he did. Thus, the Church's belief for some seventeen centuries that the Gospel of Matthew was the first Gospel is borne out. The others, as Papias said, "translated as best they could."
The First Gospel was originally written in Hebrew. Until recent years we did not know that this was so, although there was abundant discussion concerning a possible "Hebrew/Aramaic substratum." We also did not know that the rabbis had preserved a copy of it, which they used in the Middle Ages for polemical purposes in debates with Christians. Even today, not all of this is admitted by an academic orthodoxy that appears embattled and defensive. I am emboldened to write about these matters, about which I have thought for many years, because I am a poet, not an academic, and I cannot be intimidated or occupationally threatened.
My proposed solution of the Synoptic Problem, which I call the Layered-Matthew Hypothesis, is represented, as it stands today, in the graphic below.
This proposed solution of the Synoptic Problem does not require any hypothetical sources such as "Q," and in view of Luke's borrowing from Matthew, the so-called Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark in the Triple Tradition are no problem. Having dispensed with "Q" as a separate, written document, the only question upon which I am undecided is the proper position of Mark. I'll continue to work on that, hoping to arrive at a conclusion that can be explained and defended.
Now, back to our examination of the Hebrew "Sermon on the Mount" as compared to the Greek one.
Mt. 5:27 in Hebrew contains a variant that is consistent with the oldest and best manuscripts (a frequent situation), but Mt. 5:44 appears in a fuller form in Hebrew than it does in the oldest and best Greek texts, a form that is consistent with later text types, including the Received Version. What is going on here? The following is George Howard's translation of Shem-Tob's Mt. 5:44:
"But I say to you, love your enemies and [do good to the one who hates you and vexes you and] pray for those who persecute you [and oppress you]."
I have marked the additions in the Hebrew with square brackets.
According to my theory, the fuller form of the verse would have been present in Matthew IIb (represented by Shem Tob, though we do not know how faithfully) and probably also in Matthew IIa (represented in parts of Luke). Checking the main parallel, Lk. 6:27-28, we find the following (per the RSV, which I believe is based on the best and oldest mss):
"But I say to you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you."
The NASB and NIV give much the same as the RSV, and they are also based on the best and oldest texts.
By way of comparison, I give the RSV translation of the canonical Mt. 5:44:
"But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."
Canonical, Greek Matthew gives us a sparer, more boiled-down version of this teaching. Luke gives a fuller version, taken from an intermediate, earlier edition of Matthew (my Matthew IIa).
Why, then, does the KJV, which is based on later and inferior manuscripts, give the fuller version in Mt. 5:44? The answer is that those inferior texts contain many harmonistic readings, intended to bring the Gospels into harmony with each other. Some copyist imported the Lukan version into Matthew, believing it to be more complete, and the shorter, Matthaean version to be defective. The best and oldest Greek texts show us, though, that this harmonistic reading does not belong to canonical Matthew, but to canonical Luke.
(to be continued)
Text and graphic © 2019 by Donald C. Traxler.