Mt 27:52-3, the Tomb Burial, and primitive Mt

Dear friends,

The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew as preserved by Shem-Tob (HMt) has been
discussed on various mailing lists recently. Some scholars (after Howard)
believe that it may be substantially an ancient text. And yet others
(after Petersen) argue that it was a medieval translation into Hebrew. It
is not the purpose of this article to take sides on this issue, or to
argue for antiquity of HMt. To the contrary, what I will be trying to do
here is bring peace to this controversy. In fact, I will attempt to find
some kind of a middle ground between these two points of view, and to work
on this basis.

Both George Howard and William Petersen are distinguished and highly
respected scholars. Both have done a huge amount of research in this area.
So I will try to make only the arguments that may find common ground
between their positions re HMt.

Let me remind that Petersen argues that HMt is a medieval translation
based on some lost and otherwise unattested, possibly Old Latin, gospel
circulating in medieval Europe. He finds support for this theory primarily
in the numerous parallels that he tries to identify between HMt and
various medieval diatessaronic witnesses such as the Liege Harmony.

It is reasonably well agreed upon that the Liege Harmony was based on a
Latin gospel harmony of some sort. Or perhaps on a harmonistic Latin
gospel of some sort. PETERSEN writes in his article for TC Electronic
Journal,

"But because of the high number of agreements with the Liege Harmony, many
of them unique, the tradition behind the Liege Harmony--which we know to
be a Latin gospel harmony must also be the principal element responsible
for the textual complexion of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew: it explains the
Vetus Syra readings, it explains the Vetus Latina readings, it explains
the Thomas readings, it explains the harmonizations, it explains the
Johannine fragments, it explains the many parallels with the rest of the
Western medieval harmonized gospel tradition (with, e.g., the Venetian
Harmony, Codex Cassellanus, etc.)."

So Petersen thinks that a Latin textual tradition behind the Liege Harmony
may account for the origins of HMt. And further on, Petersen suggests that
an unusual Latin gospel of Matthew (similar perhaps to the medieval
Velasquez's Arabic Mt) may have existed in medieval Spain, and featured
harmonistic readings similar to Diatessaron, and that it may have served
as a basis for HMt.

All this is very interesting. If, indeed, HMt is the only surviving
textual witness to some otherwise unknown medieval Latin gospel of Mt
featuring many highly interesting and possibly quite ancient readings, as
also reflected in Diatessaron, then we should be very grateful to Prof.
Howard for translating and publishing this text.

And also some other evidence to this effect is now available in the
article by J. V. Niclos, O.P., _L'Evangile en hebreu de Shem Tob Ibn
Shaprut: Une traduction d'origine judo-catalane due a un converti,
replacee dans son *Sitz im Leben*_, in Revue Biblique 106-3 (July 1999,
pp. 358-407).

According to Niclos, a medieval Catalan gospel exists that parallels some
highly unusual pericope divisions and introductory formulas found in HMt
version of the Sermon on the Mount. Until now these pericope divisions and
introductory formulas were thought to have been unique (cf. Howard,
1995:200).

To explain, Howard demonstrates in his book in some detail that,

"When the sayings in Luke are placed alongside their parallels in the
Hebrew text of Mt 5-7, a pattern emerges. Every time the Hebrew is
interrupted by words "Jesus said to his disciples" or "He said to them",
Luke, without exception, jumps to a different place in his gospel, or has
a void." 200

So now this unusual feature is also attested in a presumably Latin based
medieval gospel. Surely this is an important finding, the full explanation
of which may cast considerable light on the Q hypothesis, and on the
editorial activities, strategies, and sources of the author of Luke.

What we may conclude from all the above so far is that a very interesting
and possibly ancient textual tradition existed in medieval Europe that was
reflected both in various Latin based gospel harmonies, and in some sort
of a separate Matthean textual tradition. Also it seems like HMt is a
valuable witness to this otherwise lost tradition. If this unusual textual
Matthean tradition is indeed ancient, surely this will be very important
new evidence for the solution to the Synoptic problem.

Now, it may be appropriate at this point to consider the background and
nature of Diatessaron. William Petersen is of course one of the leading
scholars in this field. According to him, Diatessaron often preserves very
ancient readings that may clarify the history of composition of the
Synoptics.

Tatian's Diatessaron is a gospels harmony that was composed, as generally
believed, ca 172. It seems to contain readings from all 4 canonical
gospels, and to harmonise them. But was Diatessaron created by Tatian ex
nihilo? It doesn't seem to be this way.

Let's not forget that Tatian (ca 120-180?) was a disciple of Justin Martyr
(100-165), and that it is generally agreed that Justin already possessed
some sort of a harmony text. It is important to note that Diatessaron
evidences some unique parallels with the texts as found in Justin Martyr's
gospel citations, and with variant readings in other very early gospel
citations. So a harmonistic gospel of some sort is very early indeed, much
earlier than Diatessaron.

In his article TATIAN'S DIATESSARON (pp. 403-430 in H Koester, ANCIENT
CHRISTIAN GOSPELS, 1990), Petersen writes,

".. Tatian used not just the four canonical Gospels, but at least one
extracanonical source. .. Tatian appears to have used a redaction of the
canonical Gospels that is very old -- sometimes, perhaps, revealing a
textual tradition that was _more_ ancient than our present canonical text
.. and which had a Jewish-Christian flavour." 428

Also, Petersen makes the following points in his article,

1. Original language of composition of the Diatessaron was probably
Syriac (a form of Aramaic).
2. Diatessaron preserves many short readings, as well as omits
genealogies and some other large blocks of text (a possible sign of its
primitive quality).
3. Tatian probably based his text on an earlier harmony by Justin.
"..Tatian knew and used Justins harmonized gospel" 427
4. Mt "appears to be the skeleton upon which Tatian placed his harmony"
430
5. Theres a possibility of two Diatessarons, one Semitic and one Latin.
"..the possibility of two Diatessarons, one Roman in origin, and one
Syrian in origin, would go some way towards accounting for the early
presence of Diatessaronic influence in both the East and the West.." 429

It seems to be clear from all this that Diatessaron may be an important
witness of an ancient Jewish-Christian textual tradition. Also, any way
you look at it, HMt also seems to be an important witness of an ancient
Jewish-Christian textual tradition. Indeed it appears to be so whether or
not one sees HMt as dependent on Diatessaron-type of text or not, since
even if HMt does depend on some Diatessaron-type of text of Mt, still it
is a valuable witness to such a hypothetical and now lost text.

And now, let us look at a couple of very unusual readings of Mt that are
attested both by Diatessaron and by HMt.

I have argued previously elsewhere that the Tomb Burial was not the
original part of Mt, and that the earliest form the Resurrection of Jesus
took in both proto-Mk and proto-Mt was a Spiritual Resurrection at the
moment of his death on the Cross. So the Tomb Burial would have been added
later as a result of secondary expansion. Quite a lot of textual evidence
exists for this already, but now I have found additional support for this
view in both Diatessaron and HMt.

As soon as Jesus died on the Cross, according to the standard Greek of Mt
27:51-3,

51
And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two,
from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the rocks
were split;
52
the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the
saints (hagion) who had fallen asleep were raised,
53
and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection
(meta ten hegersin) they went into the holy city and
appeared to many.

Since the resurrection of Jesus does not occur for three more days
according to the standard Mt, one is permitted to wonder here why the
saints being raised is mentioned in this passage at all? So, logically,
"after his resurrection" would seem to be a later addition here. (Also of
course one also wonders about the words "saints" possibly being
interpolated as well.) But a standard textual apparatus for Mt does not
show any variant readings at this point.

Well, Im pleased to report that a shorter reading for this passage has now
been found. As Petersen writes in the above cited article, according to
Diatessaron Mt 27:52-3 probably read,

"And with that, the veil that hung in the temple before the high
altar burst in two pieces, the earth quaked, and the stones burst,
and the dead men arose out of their graves. And entering the holy
city, they appeared to many." 425

This reading comes from the Pepysian Harmony, and, according to Petersen,
is supported by numerous other Diatessaronic witnesses.

Moreover, theres now one additional item of evidence for a shorter reading
of this passage. Because in HMt 27:52-3 we find,

"The graves were opened and many of those asleep in the dust arose.
They came out of their graves and after (this) they entered the
holy city and were revealed to many."

It is quite immaterial, of course, if HMt in this case depends on some
Diatessaron-type text (although it doesnt look this way to me on the
surface of it). Still this passage in HMt appears to be an additional
valuable witness to the theory that the Tomb Burial for Jesus was not a
feature of the earliest version of Mt.

And here is another very interesting passage from Diatessaron. In passage
parallel to Mt 8:4, Diatessaron reads,

"Go, show yourself to the priest(s) and fulfil the Law" 424.

According to Petersen, this reading is supported by no fewer than 6
Diatessaronic texts, both in the East and in the West. It is clear that
this Diatessaron witness preserves a reading that is somewhat more
congenial to Jewish-Christians than the canonical version that goes as
follows,

Matthew 8:4 (NIV)

Then Jesus said to him, "See that you don't tell anyone. But go,
show yourself to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded,
as a testimony to them."

And here again, HMt has a very interesting reading that also appears to be
more nomistic than the Greek version,

"Be careful lest you tell any man, but go to the priest to offer
your gifts as Moses commanded in your law."

Again, it doesnt really seem like HMt depends on Diatessaron here, but
whatever is the case dependence-wise, this is some additional evidence of
the harmonistic tradition being in tune with the more traditionalist
Jewish understanding of the teachings of Jesus.

So whether or not HMt merely represents a medieval translation of some
otherwise unknown Jewish-Christian influenced Latin text of Mt, or indeed
if HMt directly preserves an ancient Hebrew textual tradition of Mt, still
the great many, possibly hundreds of highly unusual divergent readings it
supplies are likely to cast much further light on the Synoptic gospels
relationships, as well as on the history of early Christianity more
generally.

Best wishes,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - unmoderated

The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian