I mentioned previously that there are notable inconsistencies in the presentation of Jews and Gentiles in Matthew's gospel, something that also becomes apparent when you consider the falsified, polemical genealogy that opens the book. This is not the only example of doctrinal contradictions in the manuscript. You can also consider Matthew's statement on the 'infallible inerrancy' of the scriptures found in the Sermon on the Mount, the statement that the Torah is perfect, infallibly inerrant, right down to the last dot over the last letter i, the very last jot and tittle. It is self evident that the bible is not 'infallibly inerrant' no matter who was alleged to have taught this false doctrine.

      Matthew's sermon on Torah regulations opens with a declaration of infallibility, inclusive of both prophets and the Torah, parts of which the prophets condemned, and which was also condemned by the early church, and the gospels, making this statement incongruous to the least. This is then followed by a number of rejections of Torah ideology expressed in the formula 'you have heard it said (ie. in the Torah) ... but what I say to you is this.' For example you have heard it said (in the Torah) 'an eye for an eye' but 'what I say you is this ... resist not evil ... turn the other cheek.' There are a number of such statements found in Matthew chapter five, and one has to wonder just how the Torah can be both 'infallible' according to the doctrine of inerrancy, and how not one rule can be relaxed, and then what follows is nullifications and rejections which go beyond mere relaxing. These comments on the Torah are made according to the following formula. You have heard it said in the Torah that you should do this, but what I say to you is that you should not do that, but rather you should do this other thing instead. So a good case could be made that the verse extolling Biblical infallibility was a later interpolation recognizable, as such interpolations always are, by the contradictions in doctrine they introduce.

      There are two points of view expressed on the Torah in Matthew's gospel (for Torah reform and a reactionary defiance which declared the 'infallible inerrancy' of the Bible). This reactionary element stood outside the radical stream of tradition found in both the radical Jewish prophets and in the radicalism found in the early church. As just one example of what I mean, you can consider the protest writings of the prophet Jeremiah, who insisted that the Torah regulations were not given to Moses and that the scribes were falsifying the laws of God.

"Thus says YAHWEH of hosts, the God of Israel: "Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices, and eat the flesh yourselves. For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your ancestors or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices ... How can you say, ‘we are wise, for we have the law of Yahweh, when, actually, the lying pen of the scribes has worked falsely?" (Jeremiah chapter 7 verse 21 , chapter 8 verse 8)

      This radicalism was characteristic of the school of thought found in Mark's gospel and also in the letters of Paul, and the radical school of thought that carried on his traditions. For example, in the following passage Paul is discussing the Torah regulations regarding circumcision and insists that to keep that rule means you then must keep every rule. He continues:

"You are cut off from Christ, you who would be justified by the Torah; you have put yourselves outside of God's grace ... the only thing that matters is faith, working through love. You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion did not come from him who calls you. A little yeast raises the whole lump of dough. YAHWEH gives me confidence that you will take no other view than mine, but whoever is troubling you must bear God's judgment. But if I am still preaching circumcision, then why I am being persecuted. To do that would be to remove the offence of the cross. I wish that those who upset you would go all the way and mutilate themselves. For you were called to freedom." (Galatians chapter 5 verse 4)

      Paul's radicalism was characteristic of the stream of radicalism found in both the earlier prophets and in the early church (it was only later that the church became so oppressive and reactionary and left their radical roots behind). Mark's gospel shows that he was in the mainstream as far as this radicalism was concerned, but Matthew's gospel shows that certain elements of the Jewish community were out of step with those churches, and were reactionary and conservative in their point of view, and rejected the radicalism of Jewish prophecy. In the following passage the Matthew gospel insists that not even a single dot over one letter ‘i' could ever be abolished from the Torah, and he also makes the incongruous statement that both the law and the radical prophets who condemned the law would be ‘fulfilled' (an impossible ‘harmonization' if there ever was one, something that Paul certainly recognized.)

"Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew chapter 5 verse 17)

      So you can see here that this element of the Jewish community belonged to the reactionary movement in the early church, and you can also tell how little they thought of Paul (it turns out that this denigrating of Paul's radicalism is also a characteristic they share with Luke, but that is a subject for another page.)

     These inconsistencies in the gospel of Matthew leave one to ask which point of view was original and which was a later addition. It would seem to me to be the best explanation of the gospel to assume that originally the Matthew gospel was 'pro-Gentile' as a way to 'shame' elements of the Jewish community who were not believers, and it also makes sense that the original gospel was for Torah reform and the reactionary elements were added later. This would explain why in Matthew's gospel, Joshua is 'sent to the Jews only' and yet Matthew follows the basic outline of Mark's gospel, by opening Joshua's ministry in northern Gentile territory It would also explain why Matthew follows Mark's attack on the ritual washing laws, and the 'clean and unclean' regulations. If the Torah was 'infallible' in the original Matthew gospel, Matthew's inclusion of Mark's attack on these regulations needs to be explained.

"How right Isaiah was when he prophesied concerning you, saying, 'this people pays me lipservice, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain, for they teach as doctrines thecommandments of men.' You neglect the commandments of God, in order to maintain yourhuman traditions. How clever you are at setting aside the commandment of God in order tomaintain your traditions...In this way by your traditions, handed down among you, you makeGod's word null and void. And you do many other things just like that. After He called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them, "Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear." When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. And He *said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)" (Mark chapter 7 verse 6)

     This doctrine was not unique to Mark's gospel but was also acknowledged by Paul.

"Everything I know about Messiah Joshua convinces me that nothing in itself is unclean(prohibited); but only if someone gets the idea into their heads that a thing is unclean' (prohibited)then for them it becomes unclean." (Romans chapter 14 verse 14)

     So thorough was Paul's rejections of these Torah regulations after he became a believer that looking back on it all he called it 'sheer rubbish'.

"Circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law a Pharisee, as to zeal a persecutor of the church ... I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ..." (Philippians chapter 3 verse 5)

     The reference Mark makes to nullifying prophets is reference to the radical school of prophecy mentioned above. The Matthew gospel repeats Mark's attack on the Torah, (Matthew chapter 15 verse 1) and also makes reference to this radical school which attacked the Torah and joins in the chorus with Mark's gospel in attacking the Torah regulations, and the nullification of the radical stream of prophecy that went with this practice, making one wonder how 'infallible' every last dot over every last 'i' in the Torah could be, and indicating that these verses were later interpolations into the Matthew gospel Sermon on the Mount (and easily recognized as such by the internal inconsistencies such later nullifying redaction always brings with it).