Donald Traxler's Poetry

Thursday, March 30, 2023

Synoptica XXXVI - About Luke

My own research, along with generally accepted rules of textual criticism, has convinced that the most primitive texts we have in the Synoptic Gospels are in the Gospel of Luke. See, especially, my previous writings on the Beatitudes and the "Our Father." My own research, along with that of Professor George Howard, has convinced me that Matthew knew and used Luke. Almost everyone, these days, is agreed that Matthew knew Mark. Should I go all-in and opt for Lukan priority? Some of those who have done so, including Lockton in the 1920s and Lindsey some fifty years later, have offered very compelling evidence that Mark knew and used Luke. If this is so, and Matthew knew both Mark and Luke, then Streeter's so-called "minor agreements" (which are really not minor at all, and remain the major impediment to Streeter's Two-document Hypothesis) can be easily explained.

So far, so good. And yet I hang back. Why? Because of this question: If Mark knew and used Luke, and Luke's Gospel included the so-called "Q" material, then why did Mark not include the all-important "Q" material in his Gospel? How could Mark leave out the "Sermon on the Plain," which, in the hands of Matthew, became part of the Sermon on the Mount? The question, as it stands, is unanswerable. Either Mark's Gospel is prior to that of Luke, in which case the question does not arise, or it is secondary to Luke, as strongly suggested (to say the least) by the stylistic considerations brought forth by Lindsey (and also, apparently, by Lockton, though I've not yet read him). We cannot have it both ways. The only way out of this impasse, it seems to me, is to posit an Ur-Luke that did not yet include most of the "Q" material missing in Mark.

I have been using the long-familiar term "Q material," but that does not necessarily mean that I believe that there was a written "Q document." In fact, if Matthew knew and used Luke, there is no need of one. To explain the absence of this material in Mark, though, we would still need for there to have been an earlier, Q-less edition of Luke.

Luke's Gospel appears to have had a number of sources, and there is strong evidence that they were Hebraic, or at least composed in a Semitic language. Lindsey said that he found it very easy to translate Luke back into Hebrew, but found the same task to be extremely difficult when he tried it with Mark.

(to be continued)

Tuesday, March 28, 2023

Synoptica XXXV - The Changing Hypothesis

First of all, I would like to correct a misstatement in Synoptica XXXIV: In the example I was thinking of (Mark 7:2-4), it was Mark, not Luke, who found it necessary to explain Jewish customs to his audience, while Matthew did not. The passage, on hand-washing, is not in Luke at all, so we don't know whether he would have needed to explain it.

I ended Synoptica XXXIV this way:

"The easiest way out of this mess is to assume that the Gospel of Luke was written before, not after, that of Matthew, and even before Hebrew Matthew. In this view of things, the Gospel of Matthew would have been written for the Jews, as a corrective to trends that the Jewish community of followers of Rabbi Yeshua saw developing in Pauline Christianity, trends with which they did not, and could not, agree. A parting of the ways for the two communities was inevitable."

The "corrective" mentioned above would have been the Gospel of Matthew in its Hebrew version, which does not assume Divine status for Rabbi Yeshua, nor does it make any claim that he is a messaiah (which, in Judaism, would mean a powerful king and military leader).

Jesus (Rabbi Yeshua) was a Jew. On that fact, all who believe in his existence are agreed. No Jew would claim to be God, as that would be blasphemy of the worst sort, and (rightly, I believe, in light of later historical events), punishable by death. Such a claim would also bring disgrace to the person's family and friends. It would be an unfortunate start for a new church.

It is notable that, while the Gospel of Matthew talks about the Jewish Jesus, the Epistles of Paul talk about an abstract and Gentilized Christ (the Anointed One is the meaning in Greek). To the pre-Christian followers of Rabbi Yeshua, Pauline "Christianity," Paul's invention, would have been untenable and blasphemous. It would also have resulted in an inevitable parting of the ways for the two communities.

Rabbi Yeshua was leading a revivalist movement within Judaism. He had no wider goal, ambition, or focus (and in that he was the exact opposite of Paul). How do we know this? Mt. 10:5-6: "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Also, Mt. 15:24: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." It is interesting that these sayings of Jesus are given to us only in the "corrective" Gospel of Matthew.

Consider also Jesus' defense of the Law, Mt. 5:17: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law, or the prophets. I have come not to abolish, but to fulfill." These words, too, appear only in the "corrective" Gospel of Matthew.

Criticism of the wider aspirations of Paul and his followers: Mt. 7:6: "Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you." It is not surprising to me that these words, often not understood, appear only in the "corrective" Gospel of Matthew.

(to be continued)

Synoptica XXXIV - The End of the Layered Matthew Hypothesis

To pick up the thread of our thought, here is the end of Synoptica XXXIII:

"Again, we will have plenty to say, but I would like to start by taking a look at The Cleansing of the Temple (Mk 11:15-19 || Lk 19:45-48 || Mt 21:12-13).

The thing that stands out for me here is the phrase "for all the nations" in Mk 11:17 is ABSENT from both Luke and canonical Matthew. It is, however, present in Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew, where the original scriptural reference (Isaiah 56:7) is correctly completed as לכל העמים (for all peoples). This inclusion in Hebrew Matthew (and Mark), corresponding to an omission in Luke and Greek Mathew, is worth thinking about."

Yes, it is very much worth thinking about. I am increasingly uncomfortable with hypothetical documents as sources. The overall impression I got from Shem Tob's Hebrew Matthew (especially in, for example, the Beatitudes), was that Luke provides us with a text that is older than Greek Matthew. The evidence is also strong (consider the introductory phrases such as "At that time. . . " in the Hebrew version of the Sermon on the Mount, always coinciding to shifts or voids in the Lukan narrative, no longer necessary in Matthew's grouping of the sayings, and subsequently edited out of Greek Matthew) for primacy of Luke with regard to Matthew,

Historically, this latter view does not make sense, given that the first followers of Rabbi Yeshua were Jews, while it is clear that the Gospel of Matthew was written for the Jews, and that of Luke for the non-Jewish "Nations" (the goyim). If anyone doubts this, consider Luke's explanations of Jewish customs for his Gentile audience, which Matthew did not need to explain for his audience of Jews. Consider also Matthew's respectful phrase "Kingdom of Heaven," where Luke pretty much invariably has "Kingdom of God." Jew's do not bandy the divine name about unnecessarily.

This clear difference of intended audiences may have led to the impression that the Gospel of Matthew was older than the Gospel of Luke. Internal textual differences, even in the respective canonical (Greek) versions, however, do not bear this out.

Going back to the Cleansing of the Temple, with which we ended the last Synoptica entry and began this one, it does not make sense that Luke should have omitted "for all peoples" from the citation of Isaiah 56:7, given the Pauline vision of a worldwide ministry. If Luke had been copying from Mark (or Hebrew Matthew), he would have had the correct citation. Was the author of Luke unfamiliar with the Hebrew Bible? Not at all, on the contrary, as we can see from the scriptural references in the Magnificat.

The easiest way out of this mess is to assume that the Gospel of Luke was written before, not after, that of Matthew, and even before Hebrew Matthew. In this view of things, the Gospel of Matthew would have been written for the Jews, as a corrective to trends that the Jewish community of followers of Rabbi Yeshua saw developing in Pauline Christianity, trends with which they did not, and could not, agree. A parting of the ways for the two communities was inevitable.

(to be continued)