[JSNT 47 (1992) 117-126]

A NOTE ON SHEM-TOB'S HEBREW MATTHEW AND THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

George Howard

Department of Religion, University of Georgia, Peabody Hall Athens, GA 30602, USA

I

A critical issue in New Testament studies is the relationship between John and the Synoptic Gospels. Until World War II, John was generally believed to be literarily dependent on the Synoptics.1 This position is still held today,2 but no longer with a consensus of opinion. At present the strongest contender for this view is Frans Neirynck who believes that John knew and used all three Synoptics.3

1. B.W. Bacon, The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate (New York: Moffat, Yard & Co., 1910), pp. 366-68. Bacon argued that John quoted Mark and was influenced by Luke, but basically ignored Matthew. B.H. Streeter, The Four Gospels (London: Macmillan, 1924), pp. 395-417. Streeter argued for John's dependence on Mark and Luke, but not Matthew.

2. CK. Barrett, The Gospel according to St John (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 2nd edn, 1978 [1962]), p. 14 and passim. Barrett argues that the Fourth Evangelist was dependent certainly on Mark, probably on Luke, and possibly on Matthew.

3. F. Neirynck, with the collaboration of J. Delobel, T. Snoy, G. van Belle, F. van Segbroeck, Jean et les Synoptiques: Examen critique de l'exgse de M.-E. Boismard (BETL, 39; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979). F. Neirynck, 'John and the Synoptics', in M. de Jonge (ed.), L'vangile de Jean: Sources, rdaction, thologie (BETL, 44; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1977), pp. 73-106; F. Neirynck, 'John and the Synoptics: The Empty Tomb Stories', NTS 30 (1984), pp. 161-87. See also J.A. Bailey, The Traditions Common to the Gospels of Luke and John (Leiden: Brill, 1963). Bailey argues that John used Luke in some passages; in others he used only related traditions. J. Blinzler, Johannes und

118 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 47 (1992)

In 1938 Percival Gardner-Smith challenged the view of dependence and argued that the similarities between John and the Synoptics could be explained on the basis of oral tradition.4 In the years that followed the view of John's dependence on the Synoptics eroded until in 1968 A.M. Hunter said that John's independence from the Synoptics could almost be said to represent critical orthodoxy.5 C.H. Dodd was particularly influential in bringing about the new position by his vigorous arguments in his 1963 study, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel.6

Between the two extremes (John is dependent on/independent of the Synoptics) a mediating position has emerged. This position is that John may have used some of the same sources the Synoptists used, or may have used parallel and/or overlapping sources to them. He may have even known one or more of the Synoptics at the time he wrote, but he did not use the Synoptics directly.

Schnackenburg writes, 'All this suggests that behind John there is an older tradition, going back to "synoptic" or "pre-synoptic" times, with many contacts with the synoptic tradition, but still an independent one'.

7 Again he writes, direct literary dependence of John on the

Synoptics is improbable. The occasional verbal agreements with Mark could suggest knowledge of this Gospel, but they may perhaps be explained by oral tradition.'8

D. Moody Smith also articulated the median position:

The Fourth Gospel would not have had any of the synoptics as its source(s), but neither did it take shape in complete isolation from them. Since it was composed with matters other than those which concerned the synoptics primarily in view, it does not reflect them in any consistent and

die Synoptiker (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1965), p. 59. Blinzler argues that John knew Mark (and perhaps Luke) and reproduced parts of it 'by memory and in a more or less transformed shape worked into his representation'.

4. P. Gardner-Smith, Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938).

5. A.M. Hunter, According to John (London: SCM Press, 1968), p. 14. 6. C.H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1963). For others who have argued for independence, see E.R. Goodenough, 'John a Primitive Gospel', JBL 64 (1945), pp. 145-82; E. Haenchen, 'Johanneische Probleme', ZTK 56 (1959), pp. 19-54.

7. R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John (New York: Seabury, 1980), I, p. 38.

8. Schnackenburg, St John, I, pp. 41-42.

HOWARD Matthew and the Gospel of John 119 coherent way, as Matthew and Luke can be perceived as embodying and reflecting Mark. But neither can it be said that John wrote to polemize against or to displace other gospels.9

II

I would like to argue for John's literary dependence on the Synoptics (primarily on the Gospel of Matthew) and against the second and third positions stated above, by drawing the reader's attention to the Hebrew text of Matthew I published in 1987.10 In my judgment there is reason to believe that the author of the Fourth Gospel used a text like the Hebrew Matthew and that he then polemized against it. I will say a few words about the Hebrew Matthew and then present the evi-dence for my view.

I extracted the Hebrew Matthew from a fourteenth-century Jewish polemical treatise, entitled Even Bohan, written by the Spanish author, Shem-Tob ben-Isaac ben-Shaprut. In the treatise Shem-Tob quotes the entire Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew and occasionally makes dis-paraging remarks against it. For my edition, I reproduced Shem-Tob's Gospel text, supplied it with an English translation, and offered some critical analysis. Since its publication, I have been engaged in more extensive study of this text and have made periodic updates to my conclusions.11

9. D. Moody Smith, 'John and the Synoptics: Some Dimensions of the Problem', NTS 26 (1980), p. 444. See also D. Moody Smith, 'John and the Synoptics', Bib 63 (1982), pp. 102-13; idem, Johannine Christianity (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1984), pp. 97-172. Cf. R.E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (AB, 29; New York: Doubleday, 1966), I, p. xlvii. Brown argues that by and large the 'evidence does not favor Johannine dependence on the Synoptics or their sources. John drew on an independent source of tradition about Jesus, similar to the sources that underlie the Synoptics.' Bent Noack argues that a cross-fertilization between Johannine and Synoptic traditions took place during a pre-literary oral tradition period. See B. Noack, Zur johanneischen Tradition: Beitrge zur Kritik an der literarkritischen Analyse des vierten Evangeliums (Copenhagen: Rosenkilde, 1954).

10. G. Howard, The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1987).

11. G. Howard, 'The Textual Nature of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew', JBL 108 (1989), pp. 239-57; Note on the Short Ending of Matthew', HTR 81 (1988), pp. 117-20; Primitive Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and the Tol'doth Yeshu', NTS 34 (1988), pp. 60-70; Note on Codex Sinaiticus and Shem-Tob's Hebrew

120 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 47 (1992)

Without any hesitation, I can say that Shem-Tob's Matthew is the most unusual text of the First Gospel extant. It contains a plethora of readings which are not to be found in any of the Christian codices of the Greek Gospel. These readings may be explained by the fact that this text underwent a different process of transmission, since it was preserved by Jews, independent from the Christian community.

Recently it came to my attention that Shem-Tob's text has numerous agreements with the Fourth Gospel in places where there is no agreement between the Greek Matthew and John. These agreements suggest that a literary relationship between John and Shem-Tob's Matthew is much easier to prove than between John and the Greek Matthew. This is especially true when the polemic in the Fourth Gospel, regarding John the Baptist, is considered. This polemic appears to be directed specifically against a Shem-Tob-type Matthaean text.

In the remainder of this paper I will attempt to document these observations. I will proceed by listing 18, mostly unique, agreements between John and Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew. Then I will present the evidence that the polemic in the Fourth Gospel regarding John the Baptist is directed against a description of the Baptist as is found in the Hebrew Matthew.

John's Agreements with the Hebrew Matthew

1. Jn 1.27 (pars. Mt. 3.11; Mk 1.7; Lk. 3.16; Acts 13.25) 'worthy' = Shem-Tob nm Acts.

2. Jn 1.27 'sandal' (sing.) = Shem-Tob ftitt Acts. 3. Jn 1.32 (cf. 1.33) (pars. Mt. 3.16; Mk 1.10; Lk. 3.22)

'remained' = Shem-Tob nrnttfi.12

4. Jn 2.14 (pars. Mt. 21.12; Mk 11.15; Lk. 19.45) 'found' = Shem-Tob xxm.

5. Jn 4.46 (pars. Mt. 8.6; Lk. 7.2) 'son' = Shem-Tob a 6. Jn 6.10 (pars. Mt. 14.21; Mk 6.44; Lk. 9.14)

'the number' = Shem-Tob .

Matthew', NovT 34 (1992), pp. 46-47; 'Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and the Pseudo-Clementine Writings' (Forthcoming).

12. The Old Syriac of Matthew reads 'abode'. Mark tt (W) 33 pc lat boP1 Aeth read . According to Jerome, In Isaia 11.2 (PL, XXIV, p. 145), the Gospel according to the Hebrews reads: 'it came to rest upon him' (requievit super eum).

HOWARD Matthew and the Gospel of John 121 7. Jn 6.13 (pars. Mt. 14.20; Mk 6.43; Lk. 9.17)

'filled' (verb) = Shem-Tob unen. 8. Jn 6.42 (pars. Mt. 13.55-56; Mk 6.3) 'know' =

Shem-Tob tanin*. 9. Jn 12.25 (pars. Mt. 10.39; 16.25; Mk 8.35; Lk. 9.24; 17.33)

'he who loves his life' = Shem-Tob (10.39) lete] m aman.

10. Jn 12.25 'in this world for eternal life' -> Shem-Tob (16.25) 3"nm nb.. ."nm 'in this world.. .for the life of the world to come'.

11. Jn 13.16 (pars. Mt. 10.24; Lk. 6.40) 'greater' = Shem-Tob bm.

12. Jn 13.28 (pars. Mt. 26.23; Mk 14.20; Lk. 22.21) 'no one knew this' - Shem-Tob rrnon *b 'they did not recognize him'.

13. Jn 18.10 (pars. Mt. 26.51; Mk 14.47; Lk. 22.50) 'cut off = Shem-Tob nron.

14. Jn 18.11 (par. Mt. 26.52) 'sheath' = Shem-Tob nm. 15. Jn 18.16, 25 (pars. Mt. 26.69; Mk 14.66; Lk. 22.56)

/ 'stood/standing' = Shem-Tob now. 16. Jn 18.39 (pars. Mt. 27.15; Mk 15.6; Lk. 23.17)

'we have a custom' Shem-Tob tamo 'it was their custom'.

17. Jn 18.39 'Passover' = Shem-Tob nos. 18. Jn 19.19 (pars. Mt. 27.37; Mk 15.26; Lk. 23.38)

'Nazarene' = Shem-Tob rntw.

The following are three possibilities for the origin of these readings: (1) Shem-Tob ferreted them out from the Gospel of John in the fourteenth century and inserted them into his Hebrew Matthew; (2) the author of the Gospel of John borrowed them from a Shem-Tob-type Matthaean text and inserted them into his Gospel; (3) both the Gospel of John and Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew are dependent on a common source which contained them.

I find point 1 to be very unlikely. There is no apparent reason for a fourteenth-century Jewish polemist to lift eighteen readings from the Gospel of John and insert them into his text of Matthew. So far as I can tell, he would have derived no polemical value from them. They do not enhance his arguments against Christianity, nor do they present the First Gospel in a more unfavorable light.

122 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 47 (1992)

Number 3 is possible. The Gospel of John and Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew could be dependent on a common source. But, since this source is no longer extant, if it ever existed, it lies beyond the possibility of examination.

This brings us to number 2. It is both possible and open to examination. In my judgment, a case can be made that the author of the Fourth Gospel borrowed the above readings, and perhaps much more, from a Shem-Tob-type Matthaean text when he wrote his Gospel. This, of course, is contingent upon a Shem-Tob-type Matthaean text being extant in early times.

In a number of studies I have attempted to show that this is the case. I have found abundant evidence for the existence of this type of text in the following writings: the Old Syriac Gospels, the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, the Pseudo-Clementines, the ToVdoth Yeshu, and a number of mediaeval Jewish polemical writings.13 Although much more needs to be explored with regard to the date of the Shem-Tob-type Matthaean text, the evidence supports a contention that a Matthaean text like Shem-Tob's was available at least by the second century.

Finally, as we will see below, the Fourth Evangelist polemizes against John the Baptist precisely as he is depicted in Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew. This suggests the possibility that the author of the Fourth Gospel had access to a Shem-Tob-type Matthaean text when he wrote his Gospel.

John the Baptist: The Fourth Gospel and Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew It is well known that the Fourth Gospel includes several remarks regarding John the Baptist. The Baptist is said to be a witness to the light, but is not himself the light (Jn 1.7-8). The Baptist says of Jesus, 'He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me' (Jn 1.15, 30). Of himself he says, am not the Christ' (Jn 1.20; 3.28). When asked if he is Elijah or the prophet, he answers, 'No' (Jn 1.21-22). Again of Jesus he says, 'Among you stands one whom you do not know, even he who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie' (Jn 1.26-27). He says, 'He [Christ] must increase, but I must decrease' (Jn 3.30). Finally, it is reported that 'John did no sign' (Jn 10.41), while Jesus did many (Jn 20.30).

13. Cf. the references in nn. 10 and 11 above.

HOWARD Matthew and the Gospel of John 123 Such remarks have led scholars to speculate that the author of the

Fourth Gospel was polemizing against the followers of John the Baptist, who exalted their master above Jesus. At the end of the last century Baldensperger argued for this position.14

Bultmann held a similar view. He also argued that the Prologue to John was originally a hymn of the Baptist community, which the Evangelist, a former member of this community, had changed to refer to Jesus.15

Others accept the polemic against John the Baptist in the Fourth Gospel, but argue that this is not a major concern in John,16 or that the evidence for a rival Baptist community, against which the author of John could polemize, is too scanty to be conclusive.

Brown, for instance, lists as the evidence for a Baptist community the following: (1) Acts 18.25. Apollos is said to have known only the baptism of John; (2) Acts 19.1-7. reference is made to twelve Ephesian disciples who had received John's baptism; and (3) the third-century (perhaps based on second-century sources) Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.54, 60 (PG, I, cols. 1237-38 and 1240) where it is said that the disciples of John declared their master to be the messiah. Brown concludes that this evidence is too scanty to argue that a rival Baptist group in the first century claimed that John was the messiah.17

One might add the evidence of the Synoptic Gospels. They report that some of the contemporaries of John and Jesus confused their identities (Mk 6.14; 8.28); others wondered whether John might be the Christ (Lk. 3.15). Also considerable attention has been given to the first chapter of Luke, some scholars arguing that John receives an exalted position in his birth account, and that this account is based on ancient Baptist sources.18

Nevertheless, it is difficult to identify clear-cut evidence for a Baptist community in the first century, which elevated John the

14. W. Baldensperger, Der Prolog des vierten Evangeliums, sein polemisch-apologetischer Zweck (Tbingen: Mohr, 1898).

15. R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971), pp. 17-18.

16. Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John, pp. 167-69. 17. Brown, The Gospel according to John, p. lxviii. 18. D. Vlter, 'Die Apokalypse des Zacharias im Evangeliums des Lucas',

Theologisch&Tijdschrift 30 (1896), pp. 244-69; M. Goguel, Au seuil de l'vangile: Jean Baptiste (Paris: Payot, 1927), p. 74.

124 Journal for the Study of the New Testament Al (1992) Baptist to messianic status, and with whom the Gospel of John was in conflict.

John A.T. Robinson says, The sole direct evidence that there was such a group at any time is in fact confined to two passages in the Clementine Recognitions (1.54 and 60), which are notoriously unreliable as history and cannot at best take us back beyond the second and third centuries AD.19

Earlier Robinson wrote, That there were elements of John's following which did not find their way into the Church is indeed very probable; that these elements constituted a rival group to Christianity in the first century, with a competing Christology, is, I believe, without any foundation whatever.20

When I first examined Shem-Tob's text of Matthew, I was immedi-ately struck by its treatment of John the Baptist. It, in fact, depicts the Baptist in messianic terms. If the polemic in the Fourth Gospel was directed against the followers of John the Baptist, one could hardly think of a more appropriate document to represent this community than Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew. In order to demonstrate this point, I direct the reader to the following passages.

Matthew 11.11. 'Truly I say to you, among all those born of women none has risen greater than John the Baptizer.' The familiar phrase that follows in the Greek text, 'yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he', is absent in the Hebrew. Shem-Tob's text leaves John's premier greatness unmodified.

There is further evidence that this type of text circulated in the ancient world. In the Lukan parallel (Lk. 7.28) MSS 5, 475* and 1080* omit all qualification to the Baptist's greatness, in agreement with Shem-Tob's reading.

This reading can also be inferred from the Pseudo-Clementine writings. In Recognitions 1.60.1-3, it is reported that one of the dis-ciples of John argued from the words of Jesus that John, not Jesus, is the Christ. The Clementine text reads as follows:

19. J.A.T. Robinson, The Priority of John (London: SCM Press, 1985), p. 172.

20. J.A.T. Robinson, 'Elijah, John and Jesus: An Essay in Detection', NTS 3-4 (1956-58), p. 279 n. 2.

HOWARD Matthew and the Gospel of John 125 Jesus himself declared that John was greater than all men and all prophets. 'If, then', said he, 'he be greater than all, he must be held to be greater than Moses, and than Jesus himself. But if he be the greatest of all, then must he be the Christ.'21

Clearly this argument has validity only if based on a Shem-Tob-type text.

Matthew 11.13. Tor all the prophets and the law spoke concerning (?v) John.' This is to be contrasted to the Greek which reads: Tor all the prophets and the law prophesied until () John'.22

Matthew 17.11. 'He answered them and said: Indeed Elijah will come and will save (iPBfm) all the world.' This is to be contrasted to the Greek which reads: 'He replied, "Elijah does come, and he is to restore () all things'".

Matthew 21.32. 'Because John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him. But violent men and harlots believed him and you saw it and did not turn in repentance. Also afterward you did not repent to believe him.' The Greek reads in basic agreement with this text, but, in the canonical Matthew, the words are spoken to the chief priests and the elders of the people (v. 23). In the Hebrew they are spoken to Jesus' own disciples (v. 28) and the following comment, absent in the Greek, appears: 'He who has ears to hear let him hear in disgrace'.

In summary, this series of readings asserts that none is greater than John, the prophets and the law spoke concerning John, John (Elijah) is to save all the world, and Jesus' own disciples are disgraced for not having believed John.

This is clearly a description of John the Baptist which traditional Christianity, including the Fourth Gospel, reserved for Jesus. One can assume, I think, that if the author of the Fourth Gospel had had access

21. et ecce unus ex discipulis Iohannis adfirmabat, Christum Iohannem fuisse, et non Iesum; in tantum, inquit, ut et ipse Iesus omnibus hominibus et prophetis maiorem esse pronuntiaverit Iohannem. si ergo, inquit, maior est omnibus, sine dubio et Moyseo et ipso Iesu maior habendus est. quod si omnium maior est, ipse est Christus.

22. The Greek reflects the Hebrew , a strikingly similar form to Shem-Tob' s bv.

126 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 47 (1992) to a Shem-Tob-type Matthaean text, he would have regarded it as heresy. And if he had polemized against this text, he would probably have done so precisely as his polemic against the Baptist now reads.

Conclusions

It seems to me that the above discussion has something to say regard-ing the relationship of the Fourth Gospel to the Synoptics. As a bare minimum, the following should be stated:

1. The Gospel of John is dependent on the Gospel of Matthew. This dependence, however, can be established with more certainty on a Shem-Tob-type Matthaean text than on the canonical Greek.

2. A Shem-Tob-type Matthaean text provides a basis for explaining the polemic against John the Baptist in the Fourth Gospel. It also shows that the relationship between the Fourth Evangelist and Matthew was, to some extent, one of hostility.

ABSTRACT

There is reason to argue that the Gospel of John is dependent upon a Shem-Tob-type text of Matthew. There are eighteen readings in the Hebrew Matthew in agreement with the Fourth Gospel where there is no agreement between the Greek Matthew and John. The origin of these agreements may be due to the author of the Fourth Gospel borrowing from a Shem-Tob-type Matthaean text. The Hebrew Matthew elevates John the Baptist virtually to messianic status. The polemic in the Fourth Gospel against John the Baptist may be directed toward a Shem-Tob-type Matthaean text.

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.