Yuri Kuchinsky

Greetings, all,

I was quite surprised that during our previous discussion (now locked) nobody seemed to have any hard evidence about the theories, as expressed previously in NT scholarship, that the gospel of Matthew originally lacked its first two chapters.

I guess in the current conservative climate in NT studies such theories are not very popular, and so past studies dealing with this subject seem to be swept under the rug.

No, my dear friends, such theories are really not all that new... They've been expressed before by many scholars, but I guess nobody bothered to write it all up, and to systematise all this evidence.

So perhaps this thread will be of help in this area.

We can begin with the following webpage,

BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT: THE GOSPELS
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb1.htm

"Some theologians believe that Matthew did not originally include a nativity story. They suggest that the first two chapters of Matthew were written later by a forger, and joined as a prefix to the autograph copy of Matthew, or an early copy, which contained only chapters 3 to 28. [21]

Note 21:
http://www.updated.org/matthew.shtml

And here's a study that has been sitting here all along at Infidels.org!

THE VIRGIN BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD MYSTERIES OF JESUS, by James Still.

The Virgin Birth and Childhood Mysteries of Jesus
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...gin_birth.html

According to Still,

"The Gospel of Mark begins with the Baptist in the
River Jordan and the baptism of Jesus there. Early
versions of Matthew and Luke, which were
circulated among Greek Christians, began with the
Baptist as well."

And then he quotes the following from Dr. Martin A. Larson, _The Essene-Christian Faith_,

"The first two chapters of Matthew and the
first three chapters of Luke were added in
the second century by Hellenizers who
would accept only a divinely born
savior-god like those of the pagan
mystery-cults. . . ."[11]

As Still continues his analysis,

"By the close of the first century it became necessary
to codify the origins of Jesus so as to defend him
from the pagan critics who hesitated at following a
new god when their current ones, like Herakles and
Perseus, were well known to have been born by the
union of a god and a virgin mother. Writing
independently of each other, the authors or
interpolators of Matthew and Luke proceeded to
elevate Jesus to the status of the Greek savior-gods
by inserting at the front of their gospels, the birth
narrative of Jesus."

"At the time of Matthew and Luke's interpolation,
Christianity deeply rooted itself in the
Graeco-Roman world and had completely separated
itself from its mother religion Judaism. Former
pagans were converting en masse and brought their
religious beliefs with them to the new religion."

And here's something from "The Jesus Seminar", a group of 'liberal' NT scholars that also considered these issues. I found the following on the WWW,

"...some early editions of Matthew and Luke may have existed without those tales of Jesus' conception. (The Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus, p. 39)"

In fact, I believe that the Jesus Seminar members have voted precisely on this issue, and the majority vote was that the first two chapters of Matthew were indeed added up at some later date.

And here's yet another quote I found on the Web regarding this subject,

"Both Matthew and Luke added birth narratives to their revisions of Mark, basing them on legends quite irreconcilable with each other" (Randal Helms, _Gospel Fictions_, p. 41)

So what historical evidence do we have for these theories?

As per the Jesus Seminar quote above, indeed, some early editions of Matthew did seem to exist that lacked those tales of Jesus' conception. In particular, these were the copies of the "Ebionite gospel".

According to Epiphanius,

"In that gospel which they (the Ebionites) have called the gospel according to Matthew... They have taken away the genealogy from Matthew, and accordingly begin their gospel with these words: "It came to pass, in the days of Herod, King of Judaea."

Of course, it's open to dispute if the Ebionites didn't have as their gospel something that was much closer to the earliest Mt, as opposed to our canonical version.

And this is what is found in the following book, to clarify further such patristic testimonies,

SHAKEN CREEDS THE VIRGIN BIRTH DOCTRINE, by Jocelyn Rhys.

"Justin, in the middle of the second century, and other early Fathers of the Catholic Church, continually refer to those Christians who deny the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, who believed that Jesus was a man and not a god, who use versions of Matthew which state that "Joseph begat Jesus," and who repudiate the Virgin Birth story as an after-thought of the Gospel editors."

As Jocelyn Rhys adds further,

"The first two chapters of Matthew are an addition to a story which would be complete without them, and which is inconsistent with them."

And here's something quite interesting,

<quote>

http://members.cox.net/thomasahobbs/yea_17.htm

Please take notice of this quote from the 1968
Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic publication.
Really, there isn’t too much I need to add to
this quote to make my point. The point should
be obvious.

"An anonymous editor, Matthew Greek,
decided to rewrite the first Aramaic gospel,
which was known to him in one of its Greek
translations. This he filled out and made more
detailed, using for his narrative parts of the
work of Mark his predecessor, to which he
added only one thing of importance, i.e. the
two chapters of the Infancy Narrative."
"http://www.flash.net/~jfra/jerusalem.jpg"

[...]

It is important to note that in subsequent versions of
the Jerusalem Bible, the Catholics omitted this
information. It is only present in versions prior
to 1968. Please review the photograph of this
page at the above link.

<unquote>

And there's a lot more that can be found on the Net in regard to all these matters...

Many other arguments have also been made in this area, such as the different style in which the first two chapters of Mt are written, compared to the rest of the gospel. There's clearly a sort of a disconnect there between these first two chapters, and the rest of the gospel -- in more ways than one.

And let us also not forget the gospel of Luke, and its own first two chapters, where very similar arguments will also apply.

If someone has something more to add in this area, please do so.

I suspect that the number of mainstream scholars who rejected the authenticity of the first two chapters of Mt is much greater than what has been mentioned so far. In fact, I'm aware of quite a few others but -- surprise, surprise! -- most of them were working 100 years ago or even earlier...

Alas, it sure seems like our modern NT scholars have decided to firmly plant their heads in the sand, in regard to this very important matter.

All the best,

Yuri.

Julian

We still have no hard evidence. We have always known that the Ebionites had some form of Matthew. It would seem that it didn't have the first chapter although Epiphanius is vague on this point. I would be fine with dumping the first chapter of Matthew but I would need a lot more than a patristic say-so.

Even if the Ebionites didn't have the first chapter that doesn't mean that it was originally so. They might have chopped it for all we know.

It sounds to me like the modern NT scholars are being cautious and rightfully so.

Julian

Ben C Smith

In Panarion 30.13 Ephiphanius notes:

Η δε αρχη του παρ αυτοις ευαγγελιου εχει οτι Εγενετο εν ταις ημεραις Ηρωδου του βασιλεως της Ιουδαιας ηλθεν Ιωαννης βαπτιζων βαπτισμα μετανοιας εν τω Ιορδανη ποταμω, ος ελεγετο ειναι εκ γενους Ααρων του ιερεως, παις Ζαχαριου και Ελισαβετ, και εξηρχοντο προς αυτον παντες.

And the beginning of the gospel among them has: It happened in the days of Herod the king of Judea that John came baptizing a baptism of repentance in the Jordan river, who was said to be from the line of Aaron the priest, the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth, and all were going out to him.

A few observations:

1. If the Ebionite gospel began with John the baptist, it would not seem to leave much room for the infancy narratives of Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2.

2. Calling John the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth may presuppose knowledge of some form of the story that we find in Luke 1. (Or did canonical Luke just integrate this genealogical detail when its first two chapters got added to the rest of the text? The arguments here are somewhat reversible.)

3. The fragments of the Ebionite gospel that we get from Epiphanius actually seem to me to have about as much in common with Luke as with Matthew.

There is much to puzzle over when one decides to analyze the Jewish-Christian gospels. I have far more questions than answers.

Ben.

andrewcriddle

IMO the Ebionite Gospel is based originally on a harmony of Matthew and Luke (and possibly Mark) similasr to that probably used by Justin Martyr and by the author of the Pseudo-Clementine material.

It appears to have been subsequently modified in the interests of specific Ebionite interests and preoccupations.

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith

Agreed. Like turning locusts into honey-cakes and wishing to eat the Passover into not wishing to eat it. The problem with using the Ebionite gospel as evidence for an original Matthew or Luke sans infancy narratives, IMHO, is that such an omission would also seem to fit in with Ebionite doctrine.

Ben.

Yuri Kuchinsky

That's for sure, Ben!

Yes, both of these scenarios are plausible enough.

Are you aware of a recent study by James R. Edwards?

If not, you'll be happy to hear that he agrees with you...

James R. Edwards, THE GOSPEL OF THE EBIONITES AND THE GOSPEL OF LUKE, New Testament Studies (2002), 48: 568-586

ABSTRACT:
Scholarly consensus generally assumes that the Gospel of the Ebionites as preserved by Epiphanius is either a harmony of the Synoptic Gospels or excerpted mainly from Matthew. A synopsis of the texts, however, demonstrates that the Epiphanius quotations show stronger affinity with Luke than with Matthew or Mark. Indeed, the evidence suggests that Epiphanius's references to the Gospel of the Ebionites are not excerpted from Luke, but rather from a Greek translation of the elusive Hebrew Gospel attested by a number of church fathers, and thus one of the sources of Luke mentioned in the prologue of his Gospel.

Of course all this adds further to my thesis that Lk was the earliest gospel.

Cheers,

Yuri.

Julian

Could you explain to me how we can assume the contents of the harmony of Justin? I ask this in light of Tatian's Diatessaron which would have all four gospels in it. Wouldn't it stand to reason that if Tatian had four then Justin would as well?

Julian

Julian

Hmm, I might have been a little confused by the mention of Herod. Herod is mentioned in the beginning of Matt. 2 and JtB in Matt. 3. So it really does seem like they took some heavy scissors to the gospels.

Julian

andrewcriddle

Given the extreme paucity of allusions to the Gospel of John in Justin Martyr's works (to thee extent that some have doubted whether he knew of John's Gospel at all). I don't see how he could have been using a harmony which mixed up John with the Synoptics.

Surely if he was using such a harmony it would have been almost inevitable that he would frequently have refered to Johannine material.

Some scholars have suggested that Tatian's contribution was largely the incorporation of John into a pre-existing Synoptic harmony.

Andrew Criddle

Yuri Kuchinsky

And I suggest that Tatian had nothing to do with any of it.

Tatian did not write the Diatessaron...
http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/tatian.htm

Cheers,

Yuri.