Sun
2
Jan

Subject: arguments for the antiquity of HMt
From: Yuri Kuchinsky


Dear Crosstalkers,

For convenience, I'm including here a slightly updated version of my
arguments for the antiquity of HMt. This post combines the long post of
Sun, 26 Dec 1999 with a part of my post of Dec 22 to produce 4 detailed
arguments for the antiquity of HMt.

I'll be grateful for all valid criticisms of these arguments. Thanks in
advance.

Best wishes,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- [20]http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

"No theory is too false, no fable too absurd, no superstition too
degrading for acceptance when it has become imbedded in common belief" --
Henry George

-------------------


FOUR ARGUMENTS FOR THE ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW MATTHEW

Crosstalkers,

When trying to solve a big historical puzzle, logically, one solves the
easy parts first before going on to more difficult matters. And the easy
part in this case is that HMt is clearly an ancient text. Not only that,
but parts of it may actually go back to the earliest Christian times.

So let me try again to show conclusively that HMt is an ancient text.

First of all, let me stress one thing here. In my view, in this particular
case, in determining the age of HMt purely textual arguments may be not of
primary relevance anyway. This is because for solving this puzzle better
arguments are available from elsewhere.

Even if in this case the textual arguments were to be inconclusive,
non-textual arguments are quite sufficient to demonstrate that this text
is ancient. So I will just tell Petersen that his critiques are
superfluous and beside the point. The arguments that he makes, besides
appearing forced and off-base, are also largely irrelevant. Why, for
example is he bringing up continuously Middle Dutch Liege Harmony? In fact
his whole critique can be considered as one big instance of the logical
fallacy of special pleading, since a single gospel cannot derive from a
harmony. Never in the history of the world has a gospel of Matthew derived
from a harmony, so this seems like a case of special pleading for sure.

If the contents of this document are such that it simply could not have
been authored in the middle ages, then it was not authored in the middle
ages. As simple as that -- any textual arguments notwithstanding.

It's like finding an empty Coke can in some ancient Roman tomb, and then
trying to make an argument that this can is ancient because some of the
words printed on it seem to have Latin forms. This is what Petersen does,
essentially -- irrelevance.


1 -- HMT TEXT PREPARED BY A CHRISTIAN BELIEVER

I already gave one strong argument for the antiquity of HMt. This text was
clearly prepared by a Christian believer. I have seen no objections to
this so far from anyone. So let me repeat this argument here.

We can assume our Hebrew text was prepared by a religious Jew. It was
prepared either by a Jewish Christian, or by an orthodox Jewish apologist
seeking to make a critique of Christian religion. So what's the answer
here? On this account, our evidence indicates quite clearly that the text
was prepared by a Christian believer. This evidence is plentiful and
includes both stylistic and theological elements. Here's about the
literary style of HM,

"Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew is characterized by literary
devices such as puns, word connections, and alliteration.
These are numerous -- the text is saturated with them, far
beyond what appears in the Greek -- and belong to the very
structure of the Hebrew Text. .. The text's literary niceties
appear to come from the hand of a believer, not a hostile
polemist." (Howard, 1995:184)

Also, highly significantly, there's the use of the Divine Name (pp.
229-232). An orthodox Jew would have never included them, as Howard
explains.

If an orthodox Jew would have wanted to make up a Hebrew translation of Mt
in the middle ages, the logical course of action would have been to
translate from the standard Greek or Latin text that would have been
readily available. But the contents of HMt is very far indeed from a
standard Greek or Latin text, of course. So it is inconceivable that the
kind of a text our HMt is would have been prepared in the middle ages by
an orthodox Jew. This point is so self-evident that it almost seems like a
waste of time to belabour it.

On the other hand no Jewish Christian believers embracing beliefs as
reflected in our HMt have been known in medieval Europe. They didn't exist
there, so they couldn't have prepared such a translation.

And here are three more non-textual arguments that are quite conclusive in
and of themselves.

Howard writes the following in his article _A Response to William L.
Petersen's Review of Hebrew Gospel of Matthew_,

[21]http://www.jv-site.org/scripts/TC/vol04/Howard1999-x.html

Re: pages 212-223 of his book,

"72. This section of the book is entitled, "Theological Motifs
in Shem-Tob's Matthew." The motifs are made up of various
themes such as divorce, swearing, the Gentiles, the Christ, and
John the Baptist. In each instance the Hebrew text of Shem-Tob
treats these subjects differently than they are treated in
orthodox Christian writings. The Middle Dutch Liege
Harmony does not explain the origin of the theological
patterns contained in these motifs. Three examples follow."

Why have Petersen and all other critics of HMt been neglecting all this
solid evidence? Doesn't this represent a betrayal of the historical
scientific method on their part?


2 -- JESUS IS NOT CHRIST

Let's start with what Howard writes about the Christ,

"74. Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew has the peculiar
characteristic of not referring to Jesus as the Messiah/Christ
until ch. 16. Before this, the Hebrew text never calls Jesus the
Messiah. In the canonical text of Matthew, Jesus is called the
Christ from the very beginning. A comparison of the Greek
and Hebrew texts suggests that these two text forms have
different theological agendas."

So what's going on here in this text? Here we have a clear case of the
Hebrew text separating Jesus and Christ. A serious scholar of early
Christianity will not fail to see the importance of this in the context of
early Jesus movement. Indeed, this seems to be a clear marker of these
texts going back to the very early period of Christian movement. There's a
lot on my webpage about this, for example in my review of Goulder,

[22]http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/8gou.htm

where I quote Goulder as follows,

"This at once suggests that both authors [i.e. Ignatius, as well as the
author of the Pastorals] are facing the same threat, a christology which
separates Christ from Jesus, and they are alike insisting on his unity by
constantly combining the two names."

Also see,

[23]http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/acan.htm

Where I quote Irenaeus re the same subject as follows,

"Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ
remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the
Gospel by Mark..." (HERESIES, Book 3, 11, 7)

And also this is relevant,

[24]http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/acan1.htm

Where I quote 1 John as follows,

"Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the
antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son." (1 John, 2:22)

All these quotes indicate very clearly that these early (proto)orthodox
authors are all fighting the same heresy, the heresy that is in fact found
in our HMt. My estimate is that this is a very early theological motif
that clearly goes back to before 70 ce.

The appearance of this motif in a medieval translation is totally
impossible. This theological element definitely goes back to the earliest
times of the Jesus movement.


3 -- GOSPEL NOT TO BE PREACHED TO THE GENTILES?

And now let's see what Howard writes about the Gentiles,

"73. Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew envisions the incorporation
of masses of the Gentiles into the Kingdom of God not in this
present age but only after this present age ends (Matt 25:31
-46). Its theology thus corresponds to the Hebrew Bible and
later Jewish thought (including some forms of Jewish
Christian thought), in which the entrance of the Gentiles is
anticipated in the golden age to come. In the canonical texts of
the Church, the Gospel of Matthew ends with the Great
Commission (Matt 28:19), mandating the disciples to "Go
therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in
the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
This ending clearly opens the doors to the Gentiles for the
present time. But this ending does not occur in the Hebrew
text. It reads instead, "Go and teach them to carry out all the
things which I have commanded you forever." This is said
apparently only in reference to the Jews, and nothing is said
about teaching or baptizing the Gentile nations."

Interesting, isn't it? Here we have a clear case of the Hebrew text
outlining a whole different scheme of salvation, compared to the Greek.
Again, this seems to be a clear marker of this texts going back to a very
early period of Christian movement.

My estimate is that this motif may go back to around 60-80 ce. Indeed, at
that time, starting from around the martyrdom of Paul in Rome that was
brought about through a conflict precisely in this area, the historical
context sounds just about right. Additionally, when Jerusalem was
destroyed in 70 ce, this created the historical background when
proselytising among the Gentiles would have really started to accelerate.
So the original Jewish community would have shown their opposition to new
ideas in this area by coming up with such texts as these.

The appearance of this motif in a medieval translation is totally
impossible. This theological element goes back to a very early time in the
life of the Jesus movement.


4 -- SALVIFIC ROLE FOR JOHN THE BAPTIST

And now let's see how John the Baptist is portrayed in HMt. The portrayal
of JB in this Hebrew text seems quite valuable and is highly unusual
indeed. In fact it seems to shine the light on some very early and
otherwise sparsely attested doctrines within the Jesus movement.

This is what Howard writes about John the Baptist,

"75. Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew exalts John the Baptist
above the role he plays in the canonical Matthew; cf. Matt
11:11, 13; 17:11. In summary, these passages assert that none
is greater than John the Baptist, the prophets and the law
spoke concerning John, and John came to save all the world.
Traditional Christianity uses this language only in regard
to Jesus. Its appearance in the Hebrew Matthew to describe
John elevates the Baptist to a salvific role."

And Howard continues,

"This clearly flies in the face of the orthodox interpretation of
John [the Baptist]."

This is remarkable indeed. The full implications of this should be hard to
miss for any serious scholar of early Christianity. All this seems to
indicate that the community preserving our HMt, at some stage, had been a
baptising community of Jewish Christians that had a very "unorthodox"
agenda. They thought of Jesus primarily as a man among men, and they even
thought JB superior to him in some respects. These are some early
theological motifs indeed.

The full signifance of all this still has not been appreciated by the wide
academic community. This chapter in Howard, where he, among other things,
adduces some valuable relevant evidence from the Pseudo-Clementines, is
great, and a lot more may be said on the subject.

Also, in this section of his book, in a segment called "John the Baptist:
The Fourth Gospel and Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew" (Howard 1995: 220-221),
Howard deals with the subject of the Gospel of John and how it may relate
to HMt. Here Howard discusses the polemic against John the Baptist in the
Gospel of John, and he comes to the conclusion that this polemic is in
fact directed against a community that _precisely_ fits the theological
views as reflected by HMt.

"I demonstrate that Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew depicts the
Baptist in the exalted terms the Fourth Gospel polemizes
against. "If the Fourth Gospel was directed against the
followers of John the Baptist," I write, "one could hardly
conceive of a more appropriate document to represent this
community than a Shem-Tob type Matthew" (Howard 1995:221)."

To reiterate, the theological views as expressed in our HMt are precisely
the views that the Fourth Gospel speaks against. A coincidence? I don't
think so.

The appearance of such motifs in a medieval translation is quite
impossible. These theological elements go back to a very early time in the
life of early Christian movement. The Middle Dutch Liege Harmony certainly
does not explain in any way the origin of the theological patterns
contained in these motifs. Hence the Middle Dutch Liege Harmony seems to
be a complete irrelevancy and even a red herring in this context. Any
hypothesised but otherwise unknown medieval Latin gospels also seem like
red herrings in this context. Yes, I think these are just smoke-screens
designed to obscure the really important issues about this ancient Hebrew
text -- to obscure the full significance of this text for the scientific
study of early Christianity. I think Petersen failed to do justice to the
scientific method with his hasty dismissals of HMt.

If the contents of this document are such that it simply could not have
been authored in the middle ages, then it was not authored in the middle
ages. Once we understand this, then further discussion can begin about
various compositional layers that were probably added to the earliest
strata of HMt over the centuries of its transmission.

Best wishes,

Yuri.