Matthew 23:1-3 Yeshua Acknowledges Pharisees as Torah Authorities
One of the most difficult passages for many to reconcile with the anti-Pharisaic sentiment they learned is Matthew 23, specifically the first 3 verses. Ironically, this is also one of the anti-Pharisees' favorite chapters to reference because it contains what has come to be known as “the 7 woes,” in which Yeshua makes 7 statements exclaiming “Woe to the scribes and Pharisees!”
Some may contend that it is actually 8 woes and that translations that only list 7 have removed verse 14 from the text. For the sake of argument, verse 14 will still be addressed but as a point of clarification. There are no translations of the Bible that remove verse 14. Different translations of the Bible use different manuscripts, and not every ancient manuscript has verse 14 in its contents. For those who might argue that those manuscripts in which it is absent must have also removed it, those manuscripts are actually older than the manuscripts that include verse 14; therefore, it is far more likely that verse 14 is an addition to the text rather than having been part of the original content of this chapter. For this reason, older translations that came about before the discovery of older manuscripts include verse 14, and translations that came about after the discovery of older manuscripts do not include verse 14.
Given what has already been discussed in other articles regarding the Pharisaic movement and its diversity of thought and practice, it is utterly inappropriate to presume Yeshua is addressing the Pharisees broadly as a monolith, as it can be historically confirmed that these woes do not apply to all leaders of the Pharisaic movement.
It is far more likely that Yeshua’s words are directed at the specific Pharisees present to hear him speak or those from the school of thought that constituted the majority in the particular community he was speaking to.
This, however, will not stop the anti-Pharisees from broadly applying this passage to the entire movement.
Generally speaking, those who presume to employ this passage in opposition to the idea of a Pharisaic Yeshua will characterize it as either broadly rebuking Pharisaic doctrine and Torah observance altogether (as is the case of the anti-Torah Christian), or, as in the case of the Torah Observant Hebrew roots movement at large, rebuking the Pharisees for their "unlawful additions to the Torah" (a backhanded reference to the Talmud and other rabbinic literature). However, a careful examination of this passage reveals that neither of these characterizations can be supported by the text of this passage, and in fact quite the opposite sentiment is established.
The Reason For The Woe's
The first noteworthy mistake in the employment of this passage will typically be obvious. Most will cut the exclamation of woe short by a single word, and the reason for this is equally obvious. The inclusion of this word makes the primary focus of this rebuke from Yeshua all too clear and leaves no room to insert alternative intent.
The full statement of woe uttered by Yeshua 6 out of the 7 times it appears in the passage is “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!”
Yeshua makes it clear that his contention with these particular Pharisees is their hypocrisy, their lack of follow-through. In fact, throughout the entirety of this chapter, not one single rebuke of Pharisaic doctrine or tradition can be found. Quite the opposite actually, as will be explained presently.
The first woe appears in verse 13 and addresses the subject of Pharisees forbidding others to enter the kingdom and therefore not entering themselves. Many regard this as a reference to the conversion ritual by which a Gentile can convert to Judaism. The flaw in this presupposition is that the current conversion ritual wasn’t established until the 2nd century(Click here to read more on this dispute).
Prior to its establishment, there was diversity of thought among Pharisees on what makes a true convert, and thus once more it must be stated that this rebuke can only be applicable to a very niche group of Pharisees and not broadly to the movement as a whole.
The second woe in verse 14 of certain translations points out the “devouring of widows' houses” while also piously praying at length for show—a blatant display of appearing holy publicly while behaving the opposite. No reference to Pharisaic doctrine or tradition in observance to be found.
The third woe in verse 15 again addresses the subject of conversion, which again clues the reader in on the fact that this is only applicable to certain Pharisees. He points out the hypocrisy of traveling over land and sea to make a convert and, in the process or by its completion, having made them a hypocrite just like themselves.
The fourth woe takes place between verses 16 and 22 and concerns what binds an oath to a person who swears it. The dispute concerns what a man swears his oath on. These Pharisees Yeshua is addressing believed that if an oath is sworn by the temple, the man swearing it is not obligated to it, but if he had sworn the oath by the gold in the temple, he was now obligated to keep this oath. Yeshua's own argument that the sanctity of the gold within the temple is by proxy of it being in the temple, thereby legitimizing the supremacy of the temple itself. He likewise makes the same case of Oaths made by the Alter over Oaths made only by the gift being offered on the Altar. What's interesting here is Yeshua's legitimizing oaths sworn by the Temple and Altar at all if he truly rejected the Oral Law or the Authority of the Pharisees. Swearing an oath by the temple and/or altar isn't something the written Torah gives explanation or exposition on. Yet here, Yeshua never once argues that it should not be done, that it is additional, or that it is otherwise unnecessary. He dignifies it's occurrence by arguing for what he understands to be the appropriate way to do so. And in fact, his position again falls directly in line with what is found in rabbinic literature.
[If he says:] "By the Temple, I will eat from your [property]," "The Temple, I will eat from your [property]," or "No Temple, I will eat from your [property]," [the vow is effective, and] it is forbidden. "The Temple, I will not eat from your [property]," "Like the Temple, I will not eat from your [property]," or "No Temple, I will not eat from your [property]," he is permitted. For this is like taking an oath by the Temple, that he will not eat from his [property]. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.-Mishneh Torah, Vows 1:22
Here, Mishneh Torah gives a few examples of how an oath sworn by the temple can be stated and that in each such case it is binding. The exact same position Yeshua takes a firm stance on.
But what of the gold of the temple or the offering on the altar? Yeshua seems to think those should not be sworn on.
Rabbinic writings confirm this position as well.
About the following one does not swear: slaves, and documents, and real estate, and gifts to the Temple. Not about double restitution, nor quadruple or quintuple; the unpaid trustee does not swear, the paid trustee does not pay. Rebbi Simeon says, one swears about things for which he is responsible if they be alienated, but does not swear if he is not responsible if they be alienated. Rebbi Meїr says, there are things which are like real estate and they are not like real estate but the Sages do not agree with him. How is this? “Ten bearing vines did I hand over to you,” but the other says, “they are only five.” Rebbi Meїr declares liable for an oath but the Sages say, anything connected to the ground is like ground.-Talmud Yerushalmi, Shevuot 6:6:1
It seems the Jerusalem Talmud is also in agreement with Yeshua that "Gifts to the temple"(encompassing both those offered on the altar as well as Gold) are not things one swears on or about.
This fourth woe as with the previous and future woes, stands as an example of where Yeshua is in alignment with the Oral Torah and the Pharisees which he dignified as having Moses authority. Which only further serves to isolate these particular Pharisees he is addressing in this specific example from the whole of the Pharisaic movement at large.
The fifth woe found in verse 23 is one of the most condemning to the argument that these woes are intended as a rebuke for maintaining rabbinic practice because in this verse Yeshua not only doesn’t issue any such rebuke, he actually insists upon the rabbinic practice mentioned and states that it should be observed. The hypocrisy he points out is that these Pharisees tithe from their spices (specifically mint, dill, and cumin) but neglect what he calls the weightier matters of the Torah, listing justice, mercy, and faithfulness as those things which carry more weight. The hypocrisy here is that so much attention was being paid to minuscule matters such as tithing on spices, and in focusing so much effort on such small things, attention to those things which affect our relationship not just with Hashem but also with our fellow man, was being heavily neglected.
Most will agree that this idea of tithing spices is not specified in the written Torah and therefore must be a reference to Talmudic addition. The irony, though, is that most won't be able to tell you where in Talmudic literature this mandate can be found.
For those who are curious, the topic of tithing spices is addressed in the Mishnah:
They said a general principle concerning tithes: whatever is food, and is looked after, and grows from the land, is liable for tithes. And they have further stated another general principle [concerning tithes]: whatever is considered food both at the beginning and at the conclusion [of its growth] even though he holds on to it in order to increase the quantity of food, is liable [to tithe] whether [it is harvested] in its earlier or later stages. But whatever is not considered food in the earlier stages [of its growth] but only in its later stages, is not liable [to tithe] until it can be considered food. (Mishnah, Maasrot 1:1)
Furthermore, after pointing out this hypocrisy, Yeshua did not say that attention needed to be diverted from tithing spices to those weightier matters. Rather, he says of justice, mercy, and faithfulness: “It is necessary to do these things without neglecting the others.”
In other words, Yeshua insists that the weightier things be focused on without neglecting to tithe spices.
This is one of the examples of Yeshua’s blatant regard and support for Pharisaic practice.
The sixth woe of verse 25 again draws attention to the paradox of meticulous outward observance and perfection while in the mind and heart there is no change effected. Comparing to a dish, he says the outside is washed (likely a reference to mikveh washings) while the inside remains stained by greed and uncontrolled desire. This is not a rebuke of their outward observance. Rather, it is a rebuke of the absence of internal change in spite of outward observance.
The seventh woe found in verse 27 is somewhat redundant and follows the theme of the sixth woe, pointing out that these Pharisees are like tombs that have been washed on the outside to look clean but inside are filled with bones of the dead and the uncleanness of corpse contamination.
The eighth and final woe from verse 29 is another crucial point where context must carefully be examined. The accusation of hypocrisy here is that these Pharisees who have built tombs for the prophets and decorate monuments of righteous men of a time past, bemoan the generations of those times, claiming they would have taken no part in the bloodshed of the prophets which that previous generation took part in. Yeshua’s response in telling them that their fathers murdered the prophets tends to be an odd linchpin to rely on yet somehow many think this is their ace in the hole for proving how much Yeshua hated the Pharisees. This likely is due to what at first seems a logical assumption on who the prophets Yeshua is talking about are.
Many presume this reference to the prophets to be a reference to the major and minor prophets of the Tanakh. There are a few problems with this presupposition. Namely that Scripture doesn’t mention the martyrdom of any of the prophets of Tanakh; therefore, one would need to refer to extra-biblical texts accepted by Pharisees which speak on the matter of the deaths of the prophets to make this case. Furthermore, the Pharisees alone and especially this specific group of Pharisees Yeshua is addressing would not be solely culpable in the martyrdom of the prophets. The majority of the community of Israel and possibly even Yeshua himself would be direct descendants of the generation that killed any of the prophets who were executed, making this rebuke more broadly applicable to all Jews of the time rather than a woe specific to the Pharisees. Therefore it is poor reasoning for Yeshua to specifically single out these Pharisees as such descendants. Rather, it seems Yeshua is referring to something more specific in which these Pharisees in particular are direct descendants of those who were culpable for the crime.
Who were the prophets & why were they killed?
If Yeshua wasn’t referring to the major and minor prophets in the accusation against the Pharisees he was addressing, then who was he calling the prophets?
One common understanding is that he could very possibly have been referring to the students of Hillel as prophets and thus the “fathers” of these particular Pharisees who he says killed the prophets would be students of Shammai.
It’s believed and understood that the students of Hillel were called prophets by the people. The Talmud supports this idea by way of comparing the students of Hillel to Moses (the greatest of prophets) and his pupil Joshua.
The Gemara continues to praise the Sages. The Sages taught: Hillel the Elder had eighty students. Thirty of them were sufficiently worthy that the Divine Presence should rest upon them as it did upon Moses our teacher, and thirty of them were sufficiently worthy that the sun should stand still for them as it did for Joshua bin Nun, and twenty were on an intermediate level between the other two. The greatest of all the students was Yonatan ben Uzziel, and the youngest of them was Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai. (Talmud Bavli, Sukkah 28a:5. See also Bava Batra 134a:6)
The mention of the Divine Presence not just resting on these men but resting on them in the same way as it rested on Moses carries the weight of labeling these men as prophets. But were any students of Hillel really killed by students of Shammai? Sadly, such an event is recorded in more than one rabbinic source.
To summarize how the events transpired: Shammai and Hillel were in a dispute over matters of purity regarding harvesting grapes. Hillel gave support for his position by way of comparing the harvest of grapes to the harvest of olives and to be sure this comparison was a solid argument in favor of Hillel's opinion. Shammai took it as provocation and proclaimed that he’d decree the same impurity regarding olives for the sake of being correct about grapes and make this comparison more or less pointless as an argument. This is where the source informs us that the dispute became so heated that the threat of violence in the Beit Midrash became an imminent reality.
Shammai said to him: If you provoke me and insist that there is no difference between gathering olives and grapes, then, in order not to contradict this, I will decree impurity on the gathering of olives as well. They related that since the dispute was so intense, they stuck a sword in the study hall, and they said: One who seeks to enter the study hall, let him enter, and one who seeks to leave may not leave, so that all of the Sages will be assembled to determine the halakha. That day Hillel was bowed and was sitting before Shammai like one of the students. The Gemara said: And that day was as difficult for Israel as the day the Golden Calf was made, as Hillel, who was the Nasi, was forced to sit in submission before Shammai, and the opinion of Beit Shammai prevailed in the vote conducted that day. And Shammai and Hillel issued the decree, and the people did not accept it from them. And their students came and issued the decree, and the people accepted it from them. (Talmud Bavli, Shabbat 17a:6)
The Babylonian Talmud speaks generally on this. It’s unclear who put the sword in the middle of the Beit Midrash or who said that those entering could enter but no one could leave. But the general idea seems to be that Shammai and his students were the perpetrators of this threat to violence.
The Jerusalem Talmud is a bit more direct when recounting this event.
Rebbi Joshua from Ono stated: The students of the House of Shammai were standing downstairs and killing the students of the House of Hillel. It was stated, six of them went up; the rest were standing around them with swords and lances. (Talmud Yerushalmi, Shabbat 1:4:3)
This murder of the students of Hillel who were themselves known as prophets is very likely what Yeshua was referring to when he said “your fathers killed the prophets.” Given his own staunch agreement with Hillel's teachings and the hostility that he seems to be directing at this particular group of Pharisees, it is very likely he is speaking to students of Shammai.
Taking this into consideration, this 8th and final woe can no longer be applied to the Pharisees broadly and rather is applicable only to some. Furthermore, this is a rebuke one could certainly imagine one Pharisee of Beit Hillel directing at Pharisees from Beit Shammai.
Precedence of Verses 1-3
Understanding now that these woes to the scribes and Pharisees do not once address doctrinal teaching or traditional practice but rather, in some instances, demonstrate active support for traditional Pharisaic practice, it seems appropriate to address the primary flaw of reasoning in the typical application of these woes.
It should be obvious by this point, but in case it isn’t, the application of later statements as a filter through which the prior is to be understood is utterly inappropriate when it comes to biblical exegesis. Most who employ the “woe unto” statements do so in response to the invocation of the first 3 verses of this chapter. As though somehow these woes against a particular school of Pharisees' hypocrisy and lack of follow-through in observing their own standards of obedience negate or alter the plain meaning of these first three verses. As though the first three should be read in light of the woes, which is ultimately little more than an excuse to ignore the first 3 verses.
For many, this is the approach they take in interpreting the entire Bible. Many believe you cannot properly comprehend the Tanakh apart from the New Testament. This is a common position for the antinomian Christian to hold, but most disciples of Yeshua in the pro-Torah movement would agree that this is backwards. Yet somehow the backward nature of reading the beginning of Matthew 23 through the filter of the woes that follow escapes many.
Matthew begins this chapter as follows:
“Then Yeshua spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying, “The Torah scholars and Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses. So whatever they tell you, do and observe. But don’t do what they do; for what they say, they do not do.” -Matthew 23:1-3
This immediately informs the reader of three things about Yeshua's thoughts regarding the Pharisees.
The first thing it reveals is that Yeshua understood, acknowledged, and respected the position of religious authority held by the Pharisees. The degree to which he respected it is only amplified by his instruction for his own followers to also respect their position by obeying them. This fact draws attention to the second aspect of Yeshua’s position on Pharisees. He clearly believed they were to be obeyed and their teachings heeded even by his own disciples, which sheds light on the third and final clause of his statement. The part that informs the reader of the frame of mind in which the woes should be read and comprehended. He observed and noted that these Pharisees did not even do as they instructed others to do. With this, the precedence for understanding each woe to address only hypocrisy and not Pharisaic doctrine or instruction is cemented and firmly established.
To put it in layman's terms, Yeshua supported and agreed with Pharisaic teaching so much that he believed even the Pharisees should live by it.
Seat of Moses
When faced with the undeniable reality of verses 1-3, many anti-Pharisees attempt to circumvent the obvious implications of the passage by trying to force the words to mean something else. An attempt is made to manhandle an implication of the written Torah alone into the interpretation of these verses rather than allowing for the clear reference to Pharisaic teaching.
This circumvention is often attempted in one of two ways.
The first of these is an appeal to the “seat of Moses” portion of Yeshua’s statement.
Many appeal to the work of teachers like Michael Rood, Nehemia Gordon, and a handful of others concerning what the “seat of Moses” actually is.
These teachers posit a hypothesis that the seat of Moses was a specific bench/chair in a synagogue from which only the written Torah (aka Moses) could be read with no addition or elucidation of man added.
Thus they attempt to interpret the passage to mean that only what the Pharisees said while sitting in the seat of Moses was to be obeyed. Thus only the written Torah is to be obeyed and not the extra teachings of the Pharisees. Seems a rather long and confusing way to say something rather simple and contrary to how the passage reads organically. Be that as it may, is there evidence for this?
Given that the written Torah itself never mentions this seat of Moses, it would seem this tradition in and of itself is additional to the written Torah and would likely have been a tradition preserved by Pharisees if it was true. So at best, Yeshua is ultimately still speaking in support of an extra-biblical tradition of the Pharisees. As it stands though, there is little to no evidence of such a tradition among Pharisees or within first-century Judaism broadly speaking. The Talmud never mentions such a seat and therefore never clarifies that “only the written Torah could be read from this seat.”
Many will object that evidence of this tradition was discovered at an ancient synagogue in Chorazin.
This synagogue dating to the late 3rd century has been a particular point of interest for those seeking to find a way around yielding to Pharisaic teaching. It was destroyed in the 4th century and wouldn’t be rebuilt until the 6th century. In 1926, an excavation at this site revealed the discovery of a stone bench which many now believe to be this seat of Moses referred to in Matthew 23.
That’s pretty much it. There is no evidence that this bench was the seat of Moses. It’s not labeled in any way. There isn’t really any evidence that it’s anything more than just a bench that was in the synagogue. Furthermore, this synagogue postdates Yeshua by about 200 years. In addition to that, this bench seems to be the only one of its kind. There is no evidence that benches like this one at Chorazin existed in any other synagogues. Especially older synagogues. Excavations into the Modi’in Synagogue (2nd century BCE), the Gamla Synagogue (1st century BCE), the Migdal Synagogue (1st Century CE), and the Nabratein Synagogue (2nd Century CE) among many others much older than the Chorazin excavation have yielded no such evidence of such a seat in their construction. Chorazin is unique in this aspect, and given its late construction date in comparison to others which would have been built and/or in use during Yeshua’s time, it cannot be reasonably concluded that this is the seat which Yeshua is referring to.
More to the point, the notion that one sits down to read scripture in a synagogue directly contradicts the model exhibited in the text of the Bible. Examining an example of Yeshua reading the scriptures in the synagogue, the sequence of events flies in the face of any idea that while sitting in some special seat only the written text of scripture could be read with no additional elucidation.
“And He came to Natzeret, where He had been raised. As was His custom, He went into the synagogue on Shabbat, and He got up to read.”-Luke 4:16
Luke is pretty clear that Yeshua stood to read the scriptures. If that’s not enough to dispel this notion of sitting in a special seat to read scripture, Luke's gospel actually continues to further establish the order of operations between reading and elucidating in the first-century synagogue system.
“He closed the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. All eyes in the synagogue were focused on Him. Then He began to tell them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your ears.”-Luke 4:20-21
Luke made sure to inform his audience that first Yeshua stood up to read the scripture and then after he had read, he sat down to give elucidation on what he had read.
From this example alone, it is easily understood that EVEN IF there was such a physical seat of Moses in every synagogue of the first century, it was most certainly NOT the case that only the scriptures could be read from that seat with no elucidation. The narrative in Luke’s gospel exhibits quite the opposite.
In addition to giving elucidation on scripture, sitting down is also heavily associated with rendering judgment in scripture. Exodus 18:13, Proverbs 31:23, 2 Samuel 19:8, and Job 29:7-10 all mention sitting down in association with rendering judgment. Exodus 18:13 in particular clarifies that Moses himself sat down to judge the people. If nothing else, this establishes an association of judgment and authority with the seat of Moses.
When referring to the seat of Moses, Yeshua was not referring to some bench that scripture never makes mention of, where only the written text could be read with no elucidation. As stated previously, this in and of itself would be an additional tradition even if it were true, but it isn’t. The seat of Moses was a position of authority—the authority to make judgments.
In fact, It is far more likely that this is a reference to the Great Sanhedrin, since the Sanhedrin is supreme court of religious Judaism. Referring to the Sanhedrin as the "seat of Moses" is likely sourced from the Torah, which established the Sanhedrin made up of 70 elders appointed originally by Moses, who's spirit was passed to the elders so that they carry his authority. (See Numbers 11:16-25) That authority has been passed down to each member of the Sanhedrin ever since and up until Yeshua's time. This unbroken line of passing on authority known as "Smicha" (lit. "laying on of hands") would continue up until it would finally be officially broken during the days of Rabbi Akiva in the second century. This is relevant because that would mean that the Sanhedrin is still the "seat of Moses" having received its authority in an unbroken line directly from Moses during the time Yeshua uttered these words of instruction.
In saying “The scribes and Pharisees sit in the seat of Moses,” Yeshua is acknowledging the Pharisees' position as the rightful judges of Israel. He is acknowledging the position of authority held by the Pharisees, not in man's eyes or strictly legally (the Sadducees held more legal authority under Roman rulership, yet here it is noteworthy that he dismissed their legitimacy entirely by excluding them in his statement of authorities). No, Yeshua was acknowledging the position of authority held by the Pharisees in HaShem's eyes. He cemented this acknowledgment by instructing his own followers to honor and obey that position of authority, regardless of whether or not the Pharisees themselves adhere to their own rulings.
What who says?
One of the last contentions with the heavily pro-Pharisaic implications of Yeshua’s words in this passage is an attempt at textual criticism and appeals to a 14th-century medieval document called Eben Bohan (lit. “touchstone”) in which a Hebrew version of Matthew's Gospel is found. This objection is most often employed by adherents to fringe sects of the pro-Torah movement who rely very heavily on the instruction of such teachers as Nehemiah Gordon, who is a Karaite Jew (modern-day Sadducee) and not a follower of Yeshua, as well as the late Michael Rood.
First, to address one of these teachers and the appeals to his content before diving too deep into the document and the problems with the objections which employ it: There is reason to bring up Gordon's lack of faith in Yeshua. One of the biggest arguments, made by those who appeal to Gordon, against keeping the rabbinic Halakha is the objection "The Rabbis rejected Yeshua." They will declare this in one breath and in the next they will appeal to the teachings of a Jew who rejects Yeshua, albeit from a different sect who also rejects orthodoxy and rabbinic tradition.
It seems the rejection of Yeshua by orthodox rabbis isn’t really their true concern; rather, it’s merely an impetus for them to continue to reject oral tradition, which is really their goal. For no other reason than that they cling to the anti-Pharisaic sentiment they learned from the church and refuse to recognize its lack of biblical precedence or how inherently Catholic it is in spite of their bitterness towards Catholicism.
What makes their support for Nehemia Gordon all the more ironic is that it demonstrates the inconsistency of their vitriol towards Jewish sects which Yeshua at times had strife with. For sure, there were times he had harsh words for Pharisees, but he had equally harsh, if not even harsher words with Sadducees. At least with Pharisees he also had some agreement that can be observed. However, he wrote off the Sadducees entirely. The reason this is relevant is that Karaite Jews (the sect Nehemia Gordon belongs to) are essentially a modern resurgence of the Sadducees. So the word of a modern Sadducee against modern Pharisees is what the anti-Pharisaic followers of Yeshua default to. The irony is staggering.
Moving on to address the document Eben Bohan itself and the arguments that rely on it:
It has been established that Yeshua says “the scribes and Pharisees sit in the seat of Moses” in the passage, and that he instructs his followers saying "So whatever they tell you, do and observe.” This statement in verse 3 is the primary focus of the objection. A claim is made that the ancient Hebrew text of Matthew says “Whatever he tells you, that do and observe.”
The argument is that rather than instructing his followers to do as they command (they being the Pharisees who sit on Moses' seat), Yeshua is instructing his followers to do as 'he' commands (he being Moses whom the seat upon which the Pharisees sit is named for).
In this subtle difference of wording, it is suggested that Yeshua is still only granting support to the written text of the Torah alone and not the oral traditions taught by the Pharisees.
If this is true and Yeshua did say these words, it would present a decent defense for the anti-Pharisaic position.
Granting, for the sake of argument, that this is true and the text actually does read this way, calling the document ancient is more than just a bit of a stretch. While there is no unanimous agreement on when the word ancient is applicable to history, it is broadly accepted among scholars of the West that the period of ancient history ended with the fall of Rome in 476 AD. In fact, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines antiquity as:
Ancient times - Especially: those before the Middle Ages.
According to these definitions, for something to be considered ancient, it should date back to at least 1500 years ago. The 14th century being only 700 years ago presents a big problem for the assertion that this Shem Tov Gospel of Matthew is in any way ancient.
The reason for this mischaracterization appears to be an effort to grant Eben Bohan an appearance of being older (and therefore more authoritative) than it actually is.
Being such a late document, and likely an independent translation from contemporary manuscripts, very little authority if any at all can be attributed to the Shem Tov Matthew.
Some might draw attention to statements by multiple early church historians of antiquity asserting that Matthew's Gospel was originally written in Hebrew, with the intent of leading to the conclusion that the Shem Tov Matthew is this very same Hebrew Matthew spoken of by men of the early church.
Click here to read more on the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew
However, this ancient Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew did not survive antiquity and was lost to history by the time early church historians wrote about it. Most had never even seen it and were citing the works of other earlier historians who had (namely Papias) while it was still in existence.
Furthermore, while the Shem Tov Matthew does have some differences from the Greek manuscripts which our modern versions are translated from, and from what we learn from the statements of early church historians, so does the ancient Hebrew Matthew. It does not appear that they share the same differences. The Shem Tov Matthew appears to be absent the Trinitarian implications in the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19 (Shem Tov simply says “Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever,” omitting the impetus to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). This is not a difference that is ever noted by early church historians between the Hebrew Gospel and their own manuscripts. If such a variance existed, it would have undoubtedly been mentioned and railed against by the Trinitarian historians of the early church.
However, one of the most noteworthy differences between the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and the contemporary Greek manuscripts mentioned by early church historians is the absence of a virgin birth narrative, whereas the Shem Tov Matthew appears to maintain the same birth narrative in modern Bibles. As such, there is little to no reason to even speculate that the Shem Tov Matthew in Eben Bohan is this same Hebrew Gospel of antiquity which was somehow preserved throughout time by Rabbinic Judaism. Especially if even the church historians of antiquity who wrote about it never had occasion to see it themselves. Though this is what some proponents of this Shem Tov argument will try to claim. In fact, Michael Rood has made this exact argument in spite of the evidence against it.
Now to address the content and wording of the Shem Tov Matthew in Chapter 23 which up to this point has been granted for the sake of argument.
Still granting that for the moment, what many who submit this document as evidence against the claim that Yeshua is pro-Pharisee won't divulge is that the word they translate as the singular “he” in contrast to the plural “they” found in the Greek text, can also be translated as “it.”
Thus the passage might just as easily be rendered:
“Therefore, whatever it says, that do and observe.”
The “it” in question is the seat of Moses itself, which is the position of authority held by the Pharisees. In this context, the seat of Moses being referred to as “it” becomes analogous to the authority of the Pharisees in which the passage still supports oral Torah.
However, the question remains. Does the Shem Tov Matthew actually read as Nehemia Gordon and Michael Rood insist it does? The answer to this question is a very complex “mostly no.”
The version of the Shem Tov Matthew from which Gordon and Rood argue is by no means the only manuscript of Eben Bohan, let alone the only Hebrew manuscript of Matthew known to history within the time frame of Eben Bohan.
Other contemporary Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew's Gospel include the Munster 1537 and the du Tillet 1555 manuscripts, which both read as “whatever they tell you.” Other honorable mentions in the way of Hebrew manuscripts include the Book of Nestor (10th century), the Milhamot HaShem of Jacob Ben Reuben (12th century), the Sepher Joseph Hamekane (13th century), and the Nizzahon Vetus (13th century). Though these examples for the most part only contain fragments of Matthew, none of which are the passage at hand. Furthermore, of the extant “Old Syriac” and Peshitta manuscripts which contain Matthew 23, all of them maintain the plural “whatever they tell you.”
Most of what is currently known about the Shem Tov Matthew is derived from a book titled Hebrew Gospel of Matthew by author and Hebraist George Howard. It is a revision of his 1987 publication The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text.
In his book, Howard notes that Eben Bohan was authored in 1380 by Rabbi Shem-Tob ben-Isaac ben-Shaprut, who revised his work once in 1385, and again in 1400.
The manuscripts which Howard's work is sourced from are 9 manuscripts which date from the 15th century to the 17th century. Of these 9 manuscripts, 6 read in accordance with the other contemporary Hebrew Matthews and therefore in accordance with modern Bible translations. Only 3 appear to read “whatever he says” the way Gordon and Rood insist.
Gordon actually concedes this in his 2005 publication The Hebrew Yeshua vs The Greek Jesus yet maintains his position that the singular “he” is a more correct rendering.
He also makes the claim that he has discovered 2 other manuscripts (MS Livorno Talmud-Tora 53 and MS Roma-Biblioteca Casanatense 3099) which confirm his rendering of the passage, though provenance and dates for these manuscripts he neglects to give indication on.
Gordon also attempts to support his assertion on the proper rendering of this passage by appealing to Codex Corbeiensis II (ff2), one of the Vetus Latina manuscripts which renders the passage in accordance with the singular verb, but he neglects to mention that of the witnesses to the Old Latin, this is the only one that confirms his rendering and that every single other one of the Vetus Latina manuscripts containing this passage renders it in accordance with how it reads in modern versions of the Bible.
Instances of manuscript evidence where the text of Matthew 23:3 reads in a way which would indicate “whatever Moses says” rather than “whatever the Pharisees say” constitute a minority so minuscule that it is far more likely that these are the outliers diverting from what the original book authored by Matthew said rather than representing the preserved original intention of the author. No student of textual criticism would accept the alternate translation.
It is likewise more likely that these instances might even be mistakes that were made in the process of literary transmission. The overwhelming majority of manuscript evidence regarding this passage not only suggests but insists that the way modern Bibles read today has always been the proper rendering of this passage. Yeshua is very clearly acknowledging the position of authority held by the Pharisees as well as instructing his followers to heed their instruction.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Matthew 23 in its entirety is intended to be read with the beginning statements from Yeshua as the precedence through which the later statements are understood. While there are objections to the inherent implications of the way Yeshua’s initial statements in this passage are worded in modern Bibles, there is scant evidence to support those objections. In the wake of the overwhelming precedence of manuscript tradition and archaeological discovery, there is no reason to suspect that there was ever a physical seat of Moses from which only the written Torah could be read. Additionally, there is hardly enough evidence to grant the notion of alternative readings of Matthew 23:3 any real considerable weight.
The proclamations of woe to the Pharisees predominantly target only hypocrisy rather than doctrinal teaching or traditional practice and, therefore, do not negate the prior directive from Yeshua to heed the instruction of the Pharisees. Quite the opposite, as the woes suggest Yeshua agreed with Pharisaic teaching so much that he believed that, in addition to his own followers, even the Pharisees ought to live in accordance with such instruction.
Yeshua taught his disciples not to live in a spirit of rebellion, but rather a spirit of obedience. Obedience in such great measure, in fact, that it should outshine the obedience of the Pharisees themselves.
Kommentarer