The transmission of the Gospel of Matthew from Hebrew to Greek did not only involve interpolations; it also involved omissions, and there were many.
עוד אמר להם אל תתנו בשר קדש לכלבים ואל תשימו פניכם לפני חזיר פן יכרסמנו אותה לעיניכם ויחזרו אותה לקרוע אתכם׃ 6
The above is Matthew chapter seven verse six in Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew. It was translated by George Howard as follows:
Again he said to them: Do not give holy flesh to dogs nor place your (pearls) before swine lest (they) chew (them) before you and turn to rend you.
The canonical (Greek) version of Mt. 7:6 reads as follows:
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.
This verse is worthy of comment for many reasons. First of all, striking as the saying is, it does not appear in either Luke or Mark. It is easy to see why. In Rabbi Yeshua's time, it was common to use "dogs" as a code word for "Gentiles." Even the Gentiles understood this, as we see in the story of the Canaanite/Syro-Phoenician Woman (Mt. 15:21-28 || Mk. 7:24-30).
We also notice some differences in the Hebrew: "Holy flesh" instead of "what is holy" is a translation variant, as pointed out by Professor Howard. It is due to the similarity between בשר (flesh) and אשר (that which). The rules of textual criticism tell us that we should accept the "more difficult" reading, in this case "flesh," as the more original one. This translation variant, like many others, is strong evidence that Greek Matthew was translated from Hebrew Matthew.
The Hebrew also differs from the Greek in saying "chew them in front of you (literally: in your eyes) instead of "trample them underfoot" as in the Greek. This may be yet another translation variant, due to the similarity in appearance of the Hebrew verbs רמס (trample) and כסס (chew). If so, it is further evidence (as if we needed more) that the Greek was translated from the Hebrew.
This cautionary verse has several possible meanings, all of them offensive (along with the code word "dogs") to Gentiles. If we accept the word "flesh" as original, the first part could either mean do not give holy food (your holy books and therefore your culture) to the Gentiles, or do not give your daughters in marriage to the Gentiles. The second part of the parallelism (which is, of course, typical of Semitic literary style) reinforces the first, with the added caution that "they may turn and rend/attack you."
Is this not precisely what happened? The verse, unfortunately, turned out to be prophetic. Mohammed was inspired by the monotheistic teachings of the "People of the Book," and his followers later persecuted them and forced conversions to Islam. The medieval European persecutions, as well as the Holocaust of the twentieth century, were carried out by people who called themselves "Christians." The expulsion from Spain was the work of Ferdinand and Isabela, "los reyes católicos."
Saul/Paul either forgot or ignored these words of Rabbi Yeshua:
"To the lands of the Gentiles do go and into the cities of the Samaritans do not enter. Go to the sheep who have strayed from the house of Israel." (Mt. 10:5-6)
Rabbi Yeshua even repeated these words during the incident of the Canaanite/Syro-Phoenician Woman:
"They did not send me except to the lost sheep from the house of Israel." (Mt. 15:24)
The above saying was not included in either Luke or Mark.
The solution of the so-called Synoptic Problem is not just a harmless avocation for idle old men; it is as important as anything in New Testament studies. It is, in fact, necessary for the correct interpretation of the Synoptic Gospels and an understanding of the audiences for which they were written. I have written about it elsewhere and given my proposed solution (the Layered Matthew Hypothesis). Here I would only like to say that proposed solutions involving either Markan or Lukan priority not only fly in the face of 1,800 years of church belief and the statements of Papias (second century) and others, but they ignore important evidence and, in effect, stand history on its head. It is not surprising to me that the main popularizer of Markan priority in the last century, B. H. Streeter, attended the "Nazi Olympics" in Berlin in 1936, though he had no reason to be there.
It is clear from the Gospel of Matthew, whether in Hebrew or in Greek, that Rabbi Yeshua did not intend to start a new religion, but only to reform the existing religion, much like the Reform Judaism of today. To my knowledge, he did not call himself a Messiah or Christ ("anointed"). So far as I know, he did not tell anyone that he was the Son of God in a sense other than that in which we are all children of God. To a Jew, this would have been blasphemy, and he would have recoiled in horror from it. In short, he did not deify himself. Only Paul's followers did that, to the detriment of his own (and Paul's) people. There is a reason why Jews traditionally do not proselytize.
Culture appropriated is not flattery; it is culture stolen and weaponized against its original owners. Culture appropriation, when combined with negative stereotyping and assimilation, is genocide. Only a very strong and brave people could have survived, even regaining their language in the process. If you want miracles, that is one.
Text © 2020 by Donald C. Traxler aka Donald Jacobson Traxler.
