---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 15:11:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@...>
Reply-To: TC-List <tc-list@...>
To: TC-List <tc-list@...>
Subject: [tc-list] Re: context of HMt


Dear listmembers,

Moshe Shulman has called our attention to some indications, as already
pointed out by Howard, that a textual relationship exists between
Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew (HMt) and the Tol'doth Yeshu anti-gospel. This,
of course, is an important indicator that Shem-Tob's HMt is not based
merely on some fully orthodox Latin or Catalan Vorlage, but that its
history is far more complex.

And also, on Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Moshe Shulman wrote:

> It would not be far fetched that a translation by Rabbis would have
> such things, since we know of other examples of this.

So Moshe is now inclined to think that HMt is a translation by Rabbis? But
then there's a problem,

> For example in Howard p. 229 he points out that for the divine name
> there is a letter 'heh' as was (and still is) common in Rabbinic works
> from the middle ages on.

Because this seems like a contradiction. As Howard points out, Rabbis
would have never included the divine name in a translation of a heretical,
from their point of view, work.

So perhaps Moshe should clarify his point of view. Who "translated" HMt?
This could have been done either by (1) a Christian, or by (2) an orthodox
Jewish apologist seeking to make a critique of Christian religion. It is
important that the critics of HMt should make up their minds about this
matter. Because to suppose that this "translation" was done both by (1)
and (2) is not logical.

Indeed, the most striking thing, to me, about the critics of HMt is the
utter confusion that seems to mark their various claims. It seems like
every critic of HMt has his own theory about who may have "translated"
HMt, besides all of them also seeming to be quite free to postulate a
plethora of otherwise unattested hypothetical sources for HMt.

Here, for general reference, is one more critic of HMt,

William Horbury, _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.

According to Horbury, HMt was "translated" by an orthodox Jewish polemist.
He writes,

"Much in Ibn Shaprut's Hebrew Mt .. points to medieval origin,
and his text was perhaps one of those developed for use among
the polemists of southern France and Spain." 738

Also, Horbury accepts that there was some influence from Jewish sources on
HMt.

So let's see,

Moshe Shulman (as well as Jack Kilmon?): Vorlage: "includes some Jewish
sources"; Author: "a Rabbi"

Horbury: Vorlage: "includes some Jewish sources"; Author: "orthodox Jewish
polemist?"

Dr. Lapide (as described by Niclos): Vorlage: "Latin or Greek"; Author: ?

Petersen: Vorlage: "Old Latin"; Author: ?

Niclos: Vorlage: "Catalan"; Author: "a Christian convert (a Dominican?)"

So we have quite a lively gallery of suspects here and, obviously, all of
our critics cannot be right. Perhaps the only general conclusion that can
be drawn from the above is that no clear general conclusion can be drawn
from the above. We have a mystery on our hands!

Now, Jeffrey asked about the highly unusual, for the middle ages,
theological tendencies as found in HMt,

On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:

> First, with respect to claim #1 -- could you please give a short list
> of what your examination of Shem Tob's HMt reveals are its "highly
> unusual" theological tendencies.

Well, I'm always willing to assist the sincere seekers.

As I wrote previously, HMt seems to omit such major Christian doctrines as

1. The Trinity (Trinitarian formula omitted in HMt 28:19)
2. The Virgin Birth (in HMt 1:23 "virgin" replaced with "young woman")
3. The Church as an institution (in HMt 16:18 "Church" replaced with
"house of prayer").

Also, as I wrote previously in some detail, the following major themes are
also prominent in HMt,

4. Jesus is not Christ
5. Gospel should not be preached to Gentiles?
6. Special salvific role for JB (JB greater than Jesus?)

I think all of these theological tendencies are highly unusual for the
middle ages. Now, in reply to Jeffrey and Ulrich, of course I have not
"combed **all** of the relevant literature of this period for these
tendencies." I have combed only some of the relevant literature, and have
not discovered any such tendencies. And it is entirely possible that
Ulrich, for example, has combed more of the relevant literature. So I'm
waiting and eager to be corrected by my betters. If there exists some
relevant medieval Christian literature with the above mentioned
theological tendencies that I missed, please let me know.

And remember, the translator could have been either Jewish or Christian,
but not both. So let us avoid the logical fallacy of special pleading in
our theorising. If, for example, our "medieval translator" was a
Dominican, why on earth would he have included some highly unusual
elements found only in the orthodox Jewish anti-gospel Tol'doth Yeshu,
with its highly negative portrayal of Jesus? I would like to remind our
critics of HMt once again that their historical reconstructions are
supposed to be realistic.

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