---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:46:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@...>
Reply-To: TC-List <tc-list@...>
To: TC-List <tc-list@...>
Subject: [tc-list] context of HMt


Dear friends,

I don't necessarily agree with Dr. Trimm on many of the claims he makes.
Most people, including myself, for example, don't think Paul wrote the
Epistle to the Hebrews either in Hebrew or in the Greek.

Also I doubt that all the gospels were originally written in a Semitic
tongue, although they may have been based on some Semitic sources. Greek
was clearly used from the earliest times in gospels composition.

But at the same time, I'm persuaded that Shem Tob's Hebrew Mt (HMt) is
_for the most part_ an ancient text (some later additions to it are
probable). I have done a study of this issue recently, including the
Howard/Petersen controversy, and I have concluded that it is close to
impossible that HMt could have been a medieval translation. Also this
issue has been discussed recently on Crosstalk list, where I have outlined
my reasons for HMt antiquity as follows. Since HMt could not have been a
medieval translation, and since no serious objections to HMt having been
composed in ancient times exist, therefore the balance of probabilities
points to HMt being ancient. I have seen no serious objections to my
arguments so far.

I have demonstrated that HMt could not have been a medieval translation
here,

http://www.egroups.com/group/crosstalk2/3407.html?

My argument is based on the highly unusual theological tendencies of HMt
that did not exist in medieval Europe. Therefore the Sitz im Leben of HMt
could not have been in medieval Europe.

How and in what circumstances a clearly "heretical" text like HMt could
have been created in medieval Europe? Who could have been its
"translator"? Indeed, it is incumbent on those who wish to claim that HMt
is late to outline how it could have had its Sitz im Leben in medieval
Europe. As far as I know, nobody has been able to do this as yet. (Indeed,
every critic of HMt I have read so far has **totally ignored** HMt's
theology!) Until this is done with some degree of realism, IMHO any claim
that HMt is a medieval translation is founded in quicksand.

I would like to accept the challenge of Ulrich Schmid and I will
investigate 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, 1999.
But so far his thesis certainly does not inspire confidence. Judging from
the title, it seems like Niclos thinks HMt was a translation by a convert.
But it seems incredible that a medieval convert could produce a
translation that omits such major Christian doctrines as the Trinity
(Trinitarian formula omitted in HMt 28:19), the Virgin Birth (in HMt 1:23
"virgin" replaced with "young woman"), and the Church as an institution
(in HMt 16:18 "Church" replaced with "house of prayer"). And these are
only very few of the "unorthodox" motifs found in HMt -- just the
starters!

In closing, perhaps some more general comments on the role of Text
Criticism in determining the history of this text are appropriate. First
of all, I would like to ask, Why is this the problem for TC at all? Are TC
scholars the best qualified to judge about the antiquity of HMt? This
doesn't appear to be so.

All too often I see TC scholars like William L. Petersen, or William
Horbury, another critic of HMt ("The Hebrew Text of Matthew in Shem Tob
ibn Shaprut's Eben Bohan", 729-738, in Davies, W. C., and Allison, D. C.
1997, _A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to
Saint Matthew_, Vol. 3, International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. &
T. Clark.), display what is known in political circles as "an instinct for
the capillary". They will spend pages analysing one word or a phrase
inconclusively, and will totally ignore much more important and persuasive
evidence staring them in the face. In other words, they strain out gnats
while swallowing the camel.

To illustrate this, let me give you an example. Suppose an empty Coke can
was found in an ancient Roman tomb. Surely the last thing archaeologists
would do is to analyse the text printed on the can in order to determine
if the ancient Romans may have been drinking Coca-Cola? Will they call in
the TC scholars? No, the can will be judged an intrusion and discarded. So
in the same way, HMt is an obvious intrusion in the context of the middle
ages. So let's go for the jugular instead of for the capillary.

So, in general, unfortunately, I suspect that this whole discussion may
perhaps be off topic on TC-list. The question of starting another mailing
list to discuss HMt and its historical/social context has already been
raised on Crosstalk, and some people think it may be a good idea. So if
you're interested in this subject, please contact me privately.

Best wishes.

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

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