Non-Markan Matthews
Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 11:12 am
I've been on board with the idea that Papias refers to the gospel of Matthew and that it was thus originally written in Hebrew and then translated multiple times into Greek. In my view one of these translations became the canonical Matthew, which I'm thinking was combined with Mark only in that particular translation (and which took steps to "correct" Mark, like Luke later does). I've thus been wondering what canonical Matthew would look like without all the Markan verses, which isn't as easy to do as I was hoping, though Ben has suggested in would more or less be similar to what people propose to be "Q."
I've also been wondering if there are any Markan verses in the citations of the Jewish Christian gospels cited by church fathers, since I've never looked at them with that purpose in mind before. So there's another project I've set out for myself. In the meantime, I recall something that Jerome says about the (in my view original) Hebrew Matthew that I think supports the idea that it did not contain any Markan verses:
1. Matthew was originally written in Hebrew sometime prior to Papias (who I date c. 110 CE, as per Matthews) and did not have any Markan verses
2. It was translated multiple times into Greek prior to Papias
3. One of these translations was combined with (and "corrected") Mark and became the one in the NT (with orthodox Christian additions, such as the Trinity)
4. Other translations became the Greek Jewish Christian gospels cited by church fathers (which I'm suspecting were not combined with Mark and perhaps had Jewish Christian additions)
5. What Jerome says above appears to support the idea that the original Hebrew version was non-Markan
6. Perhaps the lack of Markan verses is (at least partly) why church fathers say that the Hebrew Matthew used by Jewish Christians seemed to be "mutilated"
7. Perhaps Luke used a non-Markan translation of Matthew (as per the Farrer hypothesis) and not the NT version (which would then in essence be the elusive "Q," like Ben had said).
I've also been wondering if there are any Markan verses in the citations of the Jewish Christian gospels cited by church fathers, since I've never looked at them with that purpose in mind before. So there's another project I've set out for myself. In the meantime, I recall something that Jerome says about the (in my view original) Hebrew Matthew that I think supports the idea that it did not contain any Markan verses:
So here is what I'm thinking before I see how it all shakes out.But in the gospel which is written with Hebraic letters we read, not that the veil of the temple was rent, but that the lintel of the temple, of marvelous magnitude, fell.
1. Matthew was originally written in Hebrew sometime prior to Papias (who I date c. 110 CE, as per Matthews) and did not have any Markan verses
2. It was translated multiple times into Greek prior to Papias
3. One of these translations was combined with (and "corrected") Mark and became the one in the NT (with orthodox Christian additions, such as the Trinity)
4. Other translations became the Greek Jewish Christian gospels cited by church fathers (which I'm suspecting were not combined with Mark and perhaps had Jewish Christian additions)
5. What Jerome says above appears to support the idea that the original Hebrew version was non-Markan
6. Perhaps the lack of Markan verses is (at least partly) why church fathers say that the Hebrew Matthew used by Jewish Christians seemed to be "mutilated"
7. Perhaps Luke used a non-Markan translation of Matthew (as per the Farrer hypothesis) and not the NT version (which would then in essence be the elusive "Q," like Ben had said).