I didn't say it was the "first thing," and I'm not postulating a reading that might be. What I'm doing is trying to account for the presence of an anomalous reading. You've based your identification of this bit of text on the impression that it is anomalous.
No, there is a difference between "anomalous" and not matthean. This difference is obvious to anyone having studied the NT in any significant detail. Matthew inherited various traditions (at least Q and Mark, and probably more). To some of these traditions, he added what is clearly his own views. In other words, he redacted some of his materials. Other parts he did not. What I argued was that the material in Mattew "eunuch" logion was "un-matthean" not that it was anomalous.
You insist it must have existed prior to Matthew.
So does lots of matthew's material. Some of it looks redacted, other parts don't. To say that it doesn't look like Matthew added his own touches is hardly to say that it is likely an interpolation.
Given the later history of asceticism and celibacy in early Christianity
Which we have with Paul. The earliest "christian" author we have texts for (paul) was a celibate and he promoted celibacy.
and the lack of any reference to an earlier tradition in any other text (Paul's writings predate Matthew and he spoke of celibacy, but no mention of this tradition)
And Paul seldom references Jesus' tradition.
that the text is an interpolation is much more likely
And you are simply wrong. The basis for your argument is flawed, because you are not correct in saying that the logion is anomalous. The problem is how you are approaching gospel textual criticism (which I address below).
Your theory is text-critically weaker than mine. Don't presume to lecture me about textual criticism.
Why not? When it comes to textual criticism of a passage which is attested to in all manuscripts, what is important is to know the tradition the text is representing. I am clearly more familiar with the Jesus tradition and with Jesus scholarship than you are. If we were talking about other texts in your field, certainly I would defer to you. But this is not such a case. Gospel texts are treated differently because of the nature of the texts.
A devout Jew calling Jesus the messiah?
If we are talking about the shorter passage, he doesn't. He states specifically that Jesus was "the one called the messiah." No christian would have said this. About the longer passage, it is clearly altered because it would basically make Josephus a christian however, as many others have shown (see especially Vermes on this), much of the passage contains typical Josephan vocabulary.
Atypical vocabulary is primarily a sign of interpolation and only rarely a sign of priority. You need a reason to place the text chronologically earlier than the author to assert priority rather than interpolation (eg. archaic grammar/spelling, parallels in earlier literature, allusions to earlier traditions). Authors tend to harmonize their sources far more than interpolators the texts into which they interpolate. I've pointed out more than a few errors in your logic regarding textual criticism that you've ignored. Don't pretend to start lecturing me about textual criticism.
The errors you pointed out all show a mistaken conception ot NT textual criticism. Unlike with texts such as Josephus, which are clearly Josephan throughout (and therefore an aberrant passage would be reason to posit interpolation or alteration) THIS IS NOT THE CASE WITH THE GOSPELS! Mark, Matthew, and Luke at least all tried to incorporate oral traditions (mainly already probably recorded in written form) into an over all narrative. As such, your approach to textual criticism when it comes to the NT is almost EXACTLY the opposite of what it should be. The more "matthean" a particular passage sounds, the more likely it is that he has redacted or even created that tradition. The less "matthean" the less likely he has. These authors were working with an oral tradition of aphorisms, parables, short narratives, longer narratives, etc. Much of Mark is simply this material awkwardly juxtaposed. Luke and Matthew show more skill, but often enough there is still parts which show less redaction. By your (very bad) approach to textual criticism each passage which shows less redaction (which NT textual critics like) would be an argument for interpolation. This is a very bad approach to NT textual criticism.
You're not considering the facts that I've already pointed out. The Dead Sea Scrolls provide no indication of an ideology of celibacy. Your only source for that is Josephus and Philo, which I have already explained tendentiously read Graeco-Roman ideologies into their subjects. As I pointed out, Josephus cites Greek teachings repeatedly in his explanation of Essene standards. You scoffed at the idea of Greek influence in the Essenes and now you take the obviously Greek eisegesis of Josephus and Philo and assert that it defines Essene practice! On top of that you refused to respond to my discussion of Josephus' biases. You're not paying attention to the argument at all, so you can drop this silly attempt to talk down at me as if I'm the amateur here.
I believe you when you say you know more than enough about Qumran and Philo and Josephus, and we will get into that soon enough. However, your arguments on Textual Criticism, combined with other comments, clearly show you lack certain familiarity with NT scholarship.
And yet Paul makes no mention of this tradition. If it truly predated Matthew then it would have been contemporary with Paul, and since marriage is so frequently mentioned, why not this tradition?
Paul seldom mentions Jesus traditions. It is clear from his letters that he was acquainted to it, yet only in a few areas does he expressly cite it. Often, however, passages very similar to Jesus traditions are found within Paul yet are not said to come from Jesus (likely because the communities he was writing to already were familiar with the oral Jesus tradition). And Paul DOES allude to this teaching in 1 Cor. 7:8. Like most allusions to the Jesus tradition, he does not specifically mention Jesus as the source, but this is the norm for paul, and exceptions like that of 1 Cor 7:10 are unusual.
In the late first and early second centuries CE many Christian groups only used the gospels
Not true. For example, even a heretic like Marcion made up the majority of his "canon" with Paul's letters.
Inserting a reference to castration makes perfect sense against the backdrop of prominent Christian groups trying to justify their incorporation of castration into Christian practice.
Hardly. First, you are incorrect about the use of Paul in the second century. Second, the passage doesn't actually recommend literal castration, but metaphorical. The logion distinguishes between those who from birth have defects, those who actually castrate themselves, and the last group (the group Jesus approves of) are only metaphorically castrating themselves. So interpolation would do the reverse of justifying "their incorporation of castration into Christian practice." Finally, it isn't even a sweeping command for celibacy, but a sort of "do it if you can" recommendation for celibacy.
That a prominent early Christian is said to have castrated himself around this time period only further supports that reading. Nothing supports the priority of the tradition save your assertion that it "sounds like Jesus."
See above.
Please describe these mnemonic devices and the manner in which the form testifies to an oral transmission.
Repition, and ABC formula. In other words, some are X because of A, some are X because of B, and some are X because of C. Do C. Easy to remember, common in orality.
I disagree, but I'll be happy to let you support this rather than repeatedly just assert it. Somehow, however, I don't think that support will be forthcoming.
Please explain why it is an odd place for an interpolation, but not for the insertion of a prior oral tradition.
I will get to all this, at the latest by thurs. or friday, when I have a good deal of free time.
) come BACK.. well, Life is abundant in the Land as we can see today. It, the Land comes BACK to Life.. gorgeous really. Without the People though, the Land is not any good...