Atticus_Finch

A new theory on the synoptic problem occured to me yesterday which I would like to throw out for discussion. And now, before I begin, the disclaimers. First, I call it a "new theory" because I have not seen it in the writings which I have read. However, I am not so presumptuous as to think that it is a totally original thought, only that it is original to my conscious mind. Second, I am not a greek or biblical scholar and I am unable, at present, to analyze this issue on such a level. However, I know that there are many who frequent this site who have an incredible amount of knowledge on the subject. I have not spent a great deal of time investigating this but I am eager to get comments on it. I reserve the right to debunk my own idea upon further reflection. My hope is that you will help me analyze my idea and either say "Hmmm, interesting" or "doesn't work because...."

I will not review the synoptic problem but assume you know what I am talking about.

I think the popular consensus these days is that Mark was the first gospel and that Matt and Luke used Mark as a source for their canonical gospels. The canonical Gospel of Matthew is in greek and contains portions of Mark verbatim (as does Luke).

However, some of the earliest sources (Papias quoting Eusebius and Ireneaus) refer to a "gospel" of Matthew written in either hebrew or aramaic. See <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm" target="_blank">http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm</a>

Here is my idea. Is it possible that Matthew wrote a proto gospel in hebrew or aramaic which was then translated into greek and became the canonical gospel of Mark. It is conceivable that Mark may have added some material, especially extra details from or about Peter.

Then Matthew later decided to expand on his proto gospel, and to do so in greek to reach a larger audience. In this theory, Matthew used Mark's translation as his starting document. Matthew then added to Mark and made some changes where he didn't like the translation or additional material added by Mark.

Luke then may have used canonical Mark and proto Matthew to write his gospel.

It appears to me that this theory would solve a lot of the problems surrounding the interrelation between the synoptics which present problems for both conservative and critical scholars.

I look forward to the comments of those more knowledgeable than I on this issue.

Regards,

Finch

Clutch

AF, what evidence supports that? As opposed, say, to there being more than one Matthew (heck, I know a few myself), or that the attribution of such references is just a botch? There were a few gospels floating around, moreover; and furthermore Eusebius notoriously reports as history pretty much everything that he hears from the friend of a cousin who knew a guy who roomed with another guy who used to have a copy of this gospel, except it got lost.

So basing a theory on a mention of something in Eusebius is to leave it wanting motivation, in my view.

Atticus_Finch

I recommend that you review the link I posted. In addition to Eusebius there is at least a reference by Ireneaus. The earliest church traditions refer to Matthew the apostle being the author of the canonical Matthew but also have these references to a Hebrew or Aramaic gospel by the apostle Matthew. My theory merely attempts to harmonize these differing references.

As an aside, the apostle Matthew was a publican, tax collector, for the Romans. It is most likely that such a person would be conversant in greek, hebrew and aramaic.

Regards,

Finch

CX

First of all you have your sources confused. Eusebius for sure and possibly Irenaeus are quoting Papias regarding Matthew. Second of all Papias says nothing about a Gospel per se but mentions only that a church elder told him that Matthew wrote down the "words of the lord" in a semitic language and that others interpreted them. This does not point to anything like the full narratives we have in the Canonical Gospels. It is difficult to say what it means. Not only that but Papias is a somewhat unreliable source of information even according to the early church fathers.


That being said, there have been various theories bounced around pertaining to a proto-Matthew or a proto-Mark which ultimately failed to resolve the synoptic problem. The biggest problem is that it has an additional hypothetical text and layer of complexity to the problem without answering any more questions than simpler theories.
We presume that Canonical Matthew was originally written in Greek because it doesn't have the earmarks of a translational work. I guess my question would be if Matthew wrote a proto-Gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic, why would he rework and expand it not from his original but from Mark's Greek translation? Further why would he quote the OT from the LXX instead of from the Hebrew? Why would AMt fix things with AMk's version, which presumably he "broke" in AMt's original rather than simply using his original version to begin with?

These are only a few of the problems I see off the top of my head. Ultimately I think the idea raises mroe questions than it answers and adds an unecessary level of complexity for the sole purpose of explaining an enigmatic off hand comment made decades later based entirely on hearsay and accomodating the a priori assumption that the Apostle Matthew was the author of GMt. If we look solely at the texts in question, some variation of the 2 source hypothesis accomdates the evidence better than other theories advanced so far including this one.

Clutch

Yes, Finch, I did read the website and, astonishingly, asked about the evidence for your thesis anyhow. Imagine!

The bulk of the evidence adduced there for a Hebrew gospel of Matthew traces back to Eusebius; hence I mention his great unreliability as a second- or third-hand reporter of such things. As for Irenaeus, the site says: Affirms? Does that mean, asserts? What is the force of the evidence here? All the other "testimony of the other ecclesiastical writers" comes through Eusebius, or is so much later as to be simply following his doctrine.

Again, the translation connections seem, to scholarly opinion, to run from Mark to Matthew, and not vice-versa. Evidence might outweigh that, of course. My question, again, is: What is the full weight of the evidence you see supporting your revision of the received view?

Skeptical

AF, check out this link, it covers the many different theories regarding the SP:

<a href="http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/" target="_blank">http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/</a>

I believe it also covers the theory you posit.

To me, one of the main problems with believing that Mark was not primary is that it is very hard to explain why Mark would have left out the "appearances" found in Mat. and Luke. Under the pMat. theory, pMat. would have had to not contain any "appearances" in the "first edition", which it is hard to explain away since this seems like a pretty big detail to leave out.

Also, the simplest explanation of the nature of the agreement and disagreements between Mark, Mat and Luke seems to be that Mark is primary. I don't know the ratios, but Mat and Luke rarely agree against Mark, which seems a little odd if there was a pMat. that was prime that both Mark and Luke used. There are theories with pMat. that posit Mark using both pMat. _and_ Luke, but IMO it's unconvincing and unecessarily complicated.