For example, in (canonical, Greek) Matthew 3:11 we have: ". . . and I am not fit to carry his sandals."
But the parallel in Mark 1:7 is ". . . and I am not fit to stoop down and untie the thong of his sandals."
While the parallel in Luke ". . . and I am not fit to untie the thong of his sandals."
Knowing (as we are beginning to) that Mark used a very early version of Matthew (Matthew I), and Luke used an intermediate version of Matthew (Matthew IIa), this is perplexing UNLESS we have the Hebrew to work from. Shem Tob's Hebrew Matthew, whose survival within the Jewish community is almost miraculous, represents a stage of the Gospel of Matthew intermediate between the one that Luke used and canonical, Greek Matthew (Matthew III). I have called this intermediate stage Matthew IIb,
Here is the relevant passage of Hebrew Matthew, in George Howard's translation: "the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to unfasten."
Why, then, is Greek Matthew different from the others? The answer is simple: The person who translated the Hebrew into Greek, who evidently was more familiar with Greek than Hebrew, misread "unfasten," התיר as "carry," הסיע, a word similar in appearance but much more common. In other words, "carry" is a translation variant.
This, of course, is further evidence that canonical, Greek Matthew is a translation from a Hebrew original, just as Papias told us in the second century.
Being in possession of an authentic Hebrew text of Matthew, one that is not simply a translation from Greek, we no longer need be perplexed by the difference described above. Not only that. We are now able to solve the Synoptic Problem, which I believe I have done with my Layered Matthew Hypothesis.
But there is yet another interesting reading in this verse, and it was already mentioned by George Howard, on p. 232 of his 1995 book, as follows:
Greek He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
Hebrew: He will baptize you with the fire of the Holy Spirit.
The parallel in Mark 1:8 does not mention fire at all. The parallel in Luke 3:16 says ". . . in the Holy Spirit and fire."
If we retro-translate Greek Matthew into Hebrew, as Delitzsch did, we get:
ברוח הקדש ובאש
But Shem-Tob's Hebrew reads:
באש רוח הקדוש
The Hebrew does not present us with an obvious reason for the difference. I would hazard a guess that the very early version of Matthew used by Mark (Matthew I) did not yet include the word "fire,"
and the intermediate version of Matthew (Matthew IIa) did include it, either in the form that we have in Luke or in the form that we see in Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew (Matthew IIb). The form that we have in Greek Matthew (Matthew III) may be a mistranslation, or it may be a harmonistic reading influenced by Luke. I prefer the form in Hebrew Matthew, which calls to mind the descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of tongues of fire (Acts 2:3).(to be continued)
Text © 2019 by Donald C. Traxler.
