Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[XTalk] Re: Shem-Tob's Mt is ancient

Expand Messages
  • Yuri Kuchinsky
    ... Dear Jeffrey. Surely you re not expecting me to prove a negative? Indeed, how can I prove that HMt is not related to Liege Harmony? Elementary logic
    Message 1 of 14 , Dec 29, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:

      > A couple of hasty observations on some items in Yuri's latest salvo
      > against Jack Kilmon.
      >
      > Yuri wrote:
      >
      > > Dear Jack,
      >
      > [snip]
      >
      > > ... you're making many unsupported claims in your post, and I'm asking
      > > you to substantiate your claims.
      >
      > And then in reply to Jack's question
      >
      > > > Are you saying that certain variant readings that are peculiar to Shem
      > > > Tov Matthew and the Middle Dutch Liege Harmony, two documents
      > > > separated by only a century and within a few hundred miles, is not
      > > > relevent?
      >
      > wrote only
      >
      > > No, these reading are not in the least relevant in determining the source
      > > of HMt.
      >
      > I wonder if it strikes anyone else that here Yuri is doing exactly
      > what he upbraided Jack for, namely, making a bald and unsubstantiated
      > claim? To my eyes, the statement above is nothing more than mere
      > assertion. Nothing is stated concerning **why** Yuri has come to this
      > conclusion, let alone on what grounds it should be viewed as
      > reasonable.

      Dear Jeffrey. Surely you're not expecting me to prove a negative? Indeed,
      how can I prove that HMt is not related to Liege Harmony?

      Elementary logic dictates that it is Jack here who should be trying to
      prove that HMt is based on the Liege Harmony. But neither Jack nor his
      mentor Petersen have done so as yet.

      Of course the very idea that a gospel of Mt should be based on a harmony
      is pretty nutty to start with, as I've noted repeatedly. I wonder why
      should anyone take this seriously?

      > Also, I'd like to draw attention to the irony that in castigating Jack
      > for arguing an irrelevant thesis, Yuri does the very same thing.
      > Consider the following claim:
      >
      > > "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 HMt is anything but 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..."
      >
      > The odd thing here is that, contrary to what might be inferred from
      > Yuri's
      >
      > "But HMt is anything but a standard Greek or Latin text",
      >
      > no one has argued that HMt is a standard Greek or Latin text.

      We should be grateful for small blessings, I suppose... Indeed, Hebrew is
      not Latin. Different language families!

      > What has been questioned is whether or not the HMt **has a Vorlage**

      I would like to see some kind of a case made for this.

      > and, if so, what the language was that the Vorlage was in.
      >
      > Moreover, if HMt **is** a translation, then what Yuri declares as
      > "inconceivable", hardly seems so.

      I'd like to be proven wrong. But so far I'm only seeing the most tenuous
      and outlandish speculations and conjectures being accepted uncritically as
      gospel truth. I see science and historical method betrayed in regard to
      this unusual text.

      Yes, I find the whole situation around HMt passing strange. It seems like
      the academic community feels a strong need to dismiss and disregard this
      unusual text. Why?

      Regards,

      Yuri.

      Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku

      If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people?
    • Yuri Kuchinsky
      ... [Jack:] ... You re begging the point, Jack. ... We don t need to use text critical arguments to conclude that HMt is ancient. This is my whole point, Jack.
      Message 2 of 14 , Dec 29, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, Jack Kilmon wrote:
        > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

        [Jack:]
        > > > Are you saying that certain variant readings that are peculiar to Shem
        > > > Tov Matthew and the Middle Dutch Liege Harmony, two documents
        > > > separated by only a century and within a few hundred miles, is not
        > > > relevent?
        > >
        > > No, these reading are not in the least relevant in determining the source
        > > of HMt.
        >
        > It almost sounds like you are saying that a very strong text-critical
        > argument

        You're begging the point, Jack.

        > against the antiquity of HMt can be addressed by eliminating TC.

        We don't need to use text critical arguments to conclude that HMt is
        ancient. This is my whole point, Jack. TC scholars need to know when to
        keep quiet and to listen to historians. Yes, there are times when they
        should be seen and not heard. Obviously in this case they failed miserably
        to establish the age on HMt.

        Let me come back once again to my case about the Coke can in a Roman tomb.
        Ancient Romans were not known to drink Coca-Cola. So the can is obviously
        intrusive. Any textual scholar who will try to prove that on the basis of
        some Latin-sounding words printed on the can the can is ancient will be
        judged insane. See what I mean? There are limits to TC.

        ...

        > > > Actually, I would not be surprised. Some of the readings that are
        > > > unique to the Dutch Harmony and Shem Tov...like the interpolations of
        > > > "the Jews" at Matthew 26:2 is but one indicator that HMt was
        > > > translated and penned by a Hebrew speaking Christian
        > >
        > > How so? Prove it.
        >
        > hl) td(w $)xr $ny ymym yhyh hfsx wbn h)dm ymsr byd hyhwdym lclybh
        >
        > How can anyone read the above and consider it written by a Jew?

        You're engaging in text criticism now. This is not necessary. So while the
        point is debatable, I feel no need to debate it.

        > Why is it irrelevent that this reading is also UNIQUE to Shem Tov and
        > the Liege Harminies?

        Why is it relevant EVEN IF this reading were to be unique to Shem Tov and
        the Liege Harmonies?

        You're still avoiding reality, Jack. It is illogical to suppose that a
        gospel of Mt can be derived from a harmony. This is impossible in the real
        world.

        > > > OR a Hebrew speaking Jewish convert to Christianity.
        > >
        > > Prove it.
        >
        > It is all unprovable

        Thanks for admitting it when you're engaging in unsupported speculations.

        > but common sense can go a long way.
        >
        > Mt. 27:15
        > NA26 KATA DE (EORTHN EIWQEI (O (HGEMWN
        > "According to the festival was accustomed the governor......."
        > HMt wbynm hxg hnkbd $l psx hyh mnhgm $gzbr h(yr hyh......
        > "On the day of the honored feast of Passover, it was their custom for
        > the commander of the city . . . ."
        >
        > Notice it says "it was THEIR" custom?

        So?

        > Is it also irrelevant that the "passover" reading is also unique to
        > Shem Tob and the Liege Harmonies?

        Please explain how HMt could have derived from a harmony. The idea is
        illogical on the face of it.

        In any case, you're engaging in text criticism again. This is not
        necessary. So while the point is debatable, I feel no need to debate it.

        > These readings strongly suggest that Shem Tov HMt was written by a
        > Hebrew speaking Christian.

        So? And how does this help your case?

        ...

        > > Are you suggesting that a _heretical version of Mt_ would have been
        > > "forced" on Jews in medieval Spain? This suggestion is so absurd I don't
        > > even know where to begin answering it. Perhaps you should think this over
        > > before going any further on this rather fantastic tangent?
        >
        > Who said anything about Shem Tov HMt being heretical?

        Have you actually read it, Jack? Or are you just like Petersen trying to
        criticize what you haven't even read?

        If you cannot see that HMt is heretical, Jack, then I think you should
        simply disqualify yourself from trying to deal with this case. You seem to
        lack competence to deal with this subject.

        > I am saying that a GOM, translated into Hebrew, would certainly have
        > been forced on Jews who had been forced into Christian baptism in
        > Medieval Spain.

        Baseless assertion.

        > It is not absurd and it fits the historical and geographical context
        > and offers an alternative hypothesis for the genesis of the HMt used
        > in Evan Bohan.

        Your logic is lacking.

        > > > This could easily have been a GOM ben-Shaprut acquired from a relative
        > > > or friend who had it because "great-grandfather was forced to read it
        > > > in the synagogue."
        > >
        > > Prove it.
        >
        > I don't have to prove the unprovable

        But you have to back up your assertions. If you can't back up your
        assertions, then stop asserting what you cannot prove.

        Do I now have to educate you in the basics of scientific methodology?

        > by offering an hypothesis that fits the evidence and historical
        > context. Just because this aspect has not yet been considered by
        > those debating Shem Tob Matthew does not make it "absurd."

        Let me give you a hint, Jack. Just because this aspect has not yet been
        considered by those debating Shem Tob Matthew, this implies to me strongly
        that you don't have a case. Yes, you're now all alone with your highly
        peculiar theory.

        > I am offering an explanation for Shem Tob's Matthew that fits the
        > culture, context, geography and chronology of its composition rather
        > than projecting it back to the 1st century.

        Your theory lacks any basis. The reality is different. The reality is that
        it is impossible for a heretical gospel to be forced on anyone in the
        middle ages. Face the truth, Jack.

        ...

        > > See above. The idea is unbelievable on the face of it.
        >
        > Just what is unbelievable about a Spanish church that has forced Jews
        > into Christian baptism (under threat) that also forces their favorite
        > Christian gospel on them?

        Your theory is lacking realism. The Spanish church was catholic and not
        heretical. They could not advocate the use of a heretical gospel.

        ...

        > > See above. The idea is preposterous.
        >
        > No, forcing Jews into Christian baptism was preposterous,

        Agreed.

        > Killing them and/or stealing their wealth and property if they did not
        > acquiesce was preposterous.

        Agreed.

        > It is therefore not preposterous to include the preposterous act of
        > forcing a Christian text on them translated to Hebrew.

        Perhaps you should try this exercize. Try to picture in your mind some
        heretical gospels. Then try to picture in your mind some orthodox gospels.
        They are clearly not the same. There's a big difference between them.

        Did this help?

        ...

        > > Yes. My interpretation of your post is that under the deleterious
        > > influence of Petersen you've now abandoned the critical historical method
        > > altogether.
        >
        > I think you will find little of Petersen in my argument

        ???

        To the contrary, you seem totally under his spell.

        > and since when does a paradigm placed in the historical context of the
        > period in which this text was used abandon the critical historical
        > method. Frankly, on this issue, I think it is a return to it.
        >
        >
        > Love your website, BTW.

        Thanks, friend. I think there may be still some hope for you, but
        obviously you'll need to work very hard to bring yourself up to speed on
        this whole question of HMt.

        Best regards,

        Yuri.

        Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

        The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
        equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
      • Jeffrey B. Gibson
        ... Yuri, So far as I can tell, there s nothing in my message above that asked you to prove a negative. To say that I did is (once again) to argue the
        Message 3 of 14 , Dec 29, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

          > On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
          >
          > > A couple of hasty observations on some items in Yuri's latest salvo
          > > against Jack Kilmon.
          > >
          > > Yuri wrote:
          > >
          > > > Dear Jack,
          > >
          > > [snip]
          > >
          > > > ... you're making many unsupported claims in your post, and I'm asking
          > > > you to substantiate your claims.
          > >
          > > And then in reply to Jack's question
          > >
          > > > > Are you saying that certain variant readings that are peculiar to Shem
          > > > > Tov Matthew and the Middle Dutch Liege Harmony, two documents
          > > > > separated by only a century and within a few hundred miles, is not
          > > > > relevent?
          > >
          > > wrote only
          > >
          > > > No, these reading are not in the least relevant in determining the source
          > > > of HMt.
          > >
          > > I wonder if it strikes anyone else that here Yuri is doing exactly
          > > what he upbraided Jack for, namely, making a bald and unsubstantiated
          > > claim? To my eyes, the statement above is nothing more than mere
          > > assertion. Nothing is stated concerning **why** Yuri has come to this
          > > conclusion, let alone on what grounds it should be viewed as
          > > reasonable.
          >
          > Dear Jeffrey. Surely you're not expecting me to prove a negative? Indeed,
          > how can I prove that HMt is not related to Liege Harmony?
          >

          Yuri,

          So far as I can tell, there's nothing in my message above that asked you to prove
          a negative. To say that I did is (once again) to argue the irrelevant thesis.

          What I was asking you for, Yuri, was only that you spell out your rationale for
          **your conclusion** that verbal/textual parallels that appear only in the Shem
          Tov Matthew and the Middle Dutch Liege Harmony are irrelevant in the issue of
          determining whether there is a literary relationship between the two texts and
          therefore do not stand stand as prima facie evidence that one is a copy of the
          other. Surely, to say, as you do, that these parallels are wholly irrelevant is
          tantamount to saying that verbal/textual parallels peculiar to GMark and GLuke
          have no relevance in determining the literary relationship between the two
          Gospels. And yet, as you have indicated in many previous posts, it is precisely
          this kind of evidence that has led you to take up the particular solution to the
          Synoptic problem that you espouse. All I'm asking then is why you reject as
          evidence for a literary relationship in the case of HMt and the Liege Harmony what
          you accept as evidence for such a relationship in the case of GMatt and GLuke.

          > Elementary logic dictates that it is Jack here who should be trying to
          > prove that HMt is based on the Liege Harmony. But neither Jack nor his
          > mentor Petersen have done so as yet.

          What ever elementary logic dictates (and ignoring the ad hominem regarding who
          Jack's mentor is), it seems plain to me that in pointing to the fact of the
          existence of parallel readings that can be found only in HMatt and the Leige
          Harmony, Jack has begun to do the very thing you claim he has not. Isn't this,
          after all, the very thing **you do** when you want to prove the dependence of
          GMatt and GLuke on Q?

          > Of course the very idea that a gospel of Mt should be based on a harmony
          > is pretty nutty to start with, as I've noted repeatedly. I wonder why
          > should anyone take this seriously?

          You've noted it, yes. Whether you've actually shown that you have a case is
          another matter. May we have some argument for this please?

          Yours,

          Jeffrey
          --
          Jeffrey B. Gibson
          7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
          Chicago, Illinois 60626
          e-mail jgibson000@...
        • Yuri Kuchinsky
          Dear Crosstalkers, I ve been getting a distinct sense of unreality in this recent discussion -- some weird feeling that I may have stepped into the Twilight
          Message 4 of 14 , Dec 29, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Crosstalkers,

            I've been getting a distinct sense of unreality in this recent discussion
            -- some weird feeling that I may have stepped into the Twilight Zone.

            Apples come from an apple tree. Plums come from a plum tree. If someone
            told you that he has an apple tree that produces plums, naturally you
            would ask to see some good evidence of this. Extraordinary claims require
            extraordinary proof.

            So Petersen said that he has a gospels harmony that produced a gospel of
            Mt? Isn't this like saying that he has an apple tree that produces plums?
            He definitely needs to produce some extraordinary evidence for this to be
            believed. The least I would like to ask Petersen and Jack is to outline
            some mechanism of how an apple tree can produce plums -- how and in what
            circumstances a gospel can emerge from a harmony?

            On Wed, 29 Dec 1999, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
            > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

            > > Dear Jeffrey. Surely you're not expecting me to prove a negative? Indeed,
            > > how can I prove that HMt is not related to Liege Harmony?
            > >
            >
            > Yuri,
            >
            > So far as I can tell, there's nothing in my message above that asked
            > you to prove a negative. To say that I did is (once again) to argue
            > the irrelevant thesis.
            >
            > What I was asking you for, Yuri, was only that you spell out your
            > rationale for **your conclusion** that verbal/textual parallels that
            > appear only in the Shem Tov Matthew and the Middle Dutch Liege Harmony

            But this is debatable, Jeffrey. Petersen's scholarship has been
            questioned. His claims have been found wanting. Here's an example as
            provided by Howard,

            [quote]

            http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/vol04/Howard1999.html

            31. I offer here six examples (more than half of those Petersen
            singles out) from my lists for you to judge for yourself if the
            Middle Dutch Lige Harmony is truly another "Matthean witness." It
            will be instructive to put Petersen under the gun, so to speak, and
            see if the examples, which he himself approves, actually support his
            contention. Please keep in mind that the operative question is
            whether the Middle Dutch Lige Harmony is another Matthean witness
            that supports Shem-Tob's reading.

            I. Shem-Tob and the Old Latin

            1. 32. Matt 1:12
            + Greek: "And after the deportation to Babylon, Jechonia
            begat Shealtiel"
            + Shem-Tob: "Jeconiah begat Shealtiel" ["After the Babylonian
            exile" pr. mss]
            + Lige Harmony ([29]Plooij 1929-1970: 19): "After that
            Jechoniah begat Shealtiel"
            2. 33. Matt 16:4
            + Greek: "An evil and adulterous generation"
            + Luke 11:29: "This generation is an evil generation."
            + Shem-Tob: "The offspring of evil doers"
            + Lige Harmony ([30]Plooij 1929-1970: 127): "The wicked man
            and the unbelieving"
            3. 34. Matt 18:9
            + Greek: "To be thrown into the Gehenna of Fire"
            + Mark 9:47: "To be thrown into Gehenna"
            + Shem-Tob: "To be given to Gehenna"
            + Lige Harmony ([31]Plooij 1929-1970: 292): "thou shouldst
            fare to hell"

            II. Shem-Tob and the Old Syriac

            4. 35. Matt 8:9
            + Greek: "For I am a man set [mss] under authority"
            + Luke 7:8: "For I am a man set under authority"
            + Shem-Tob: "I am a sinful man and I have authority"
            + Lige Harmony ([32]Plooij 1929-1970: 105): "For I am a man
            who is occupied with the secular power"
            5. 36. Matt 22:35
            + Greek: "one of them, a lawyer"
            + Mark 12:28: "one of the scribes"
            + Luke 10:25: "a certain lawyer"
            + Shem-Tob: "a sage (Mkx)"
            + Lige Harmony ([33]Plooij 1929-1970: 476): "one of the
            scribes, who was a master of the law"
            6. 37. Matt 26:10
            + Greek: "she has done a good work"
            + Mark 14:6: "she has done a good work"
            + Shem-Tob: "she has done a good and marvelous work"
            + Lige Harmony ([34]Plooij 1929-1970: 560): "she has done a
            good work"

            38. Needless to say, these examples do not inspire a great deal of
            confidence. In fact, they are worthless! To argue that the Middle Dutch
            Lige Harmony is another Matthean witness that supports Shem-Tob's Hebrew
            text in these passages is just grasping at straws. Some of the other
            examples are perhaps more convincing, but even here it is often a matter
            of interpretation. And the fact that they almost all occur in the double
            or triple traditions of the synoptic gospels generally nullifies the
            Middle Dutch Lige Harmony from being a "Matthean witness."

            [unquote]

            So what do we see here? Some fraudulent scholarship by Petersen. So why
            should I believe anything Petersen says without doublechecking?

            There's also another matter that needs to be considered here. Even if
            there're some unusual readings that are shared by HMt and the Liege
            Harmony, it still remains questionable that they are unique readings. In
            other words, what about the Gospel of Thomas that HMt also shares readings
            with?

            The only thing that we know so far is that HMt has some unusual primitive
            readings that also show up in some other sources. But this should be the
            proof of HMt's antiquity, and not otherwise.

            > are irrelevant in the issue of determining whether there is a literary
            > relationship between the two texts and therefore do not stand stand as
            > prima facie evidence that one is a copy of the other.

            These supposed parallels are irrelevant until such time as it can be
            explained how a gospel of Mt can derive from a harmony.

            > Surely, to say, as you do, that these parallels are wholly irrelevant

            Perhaps I should have said they are _almost_ wholly irrelevant until such
            a time as it can be explained how a gospel of Mt can derive from a
            harmony.

            > is tantamount to saying that verbal/textual parallels peculiar to
            > GMark and GLuke have no relevance in determining the literary
            > relationship between the two Gospels. And yet, as you have indicated
            > in many previous posts, it is precisely this kind of evidence that has
            > led you to take up the particular solution to the Synoptic problem
            > that you espouse. All I'm asking then is why you reject as evidence
            > for a literary relationship in the case of HMt and the Liege Harmony
            > what you accept as evidence for such a relationship in the case of
            > GMatt and GLuke.

            But there's a difference there, because I have presented a fully adequate
            historical basis for my solution to the Synoptic problem. Jack and
            Petersen have not explained how their theories can work in real life.

            > > Elementary logic dictates that it is Jack here who should be trying to
            > > prove that HMt is based on the Liege Harmony. But neither Jack nor his
            > > mentor Petersen have done so as yet.
            >
            > What ever elementary logic dictates (and ignoring the ad hominem
            > regarding who Jack's mentor is), it seems plain to me that in pointing
            > to the fact of the existence of parallel readings that can be found
            > only in HMatt and the Leige Harmony,

            Maybe, maybe not.

            > Jack has begun to do the very thing you claim he has not. Isn't this,
            > after all, the very thing **you do** when you want to prove the
            > dependence of GMatt and GLuke on Q?

            I have described the difference already.

            > > Of course the very idea that a gospel of Mt should be based on a harmony
            > > is pretty nutty to start with, as I've noted repeatedly. I wonder why
            > > should anyone take this seriously?
            >
            > You've noted it, yes. Whether you've actually shown that you have a
            > case is another matter. May we have some argument for this please?

            Plums cannot come from an apple tree. Extraordinary claims require
            extraordinary proof. I'm still waiting for the proof. I'm not the one
            who's making extraordinary claims, Petersen is.

            Now let me clarify once again. Petersen's claims about the existence of
            parallel readings that can be found only in HMt and the Leige Harmony may
            or may not be true. (Myself, I suspect that they are not.) But even if
            Petersen's claims are true, still they are not enough to show that HMt is
            a medieval translation. Not even close.

            Regards,

            Yuri.

            Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

            The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
            equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
          • Bob Lane
            Yuri, what does begging the point mean? I am astounded by the misuse of the begging the question phrase and its variants on this list. To beg the question
            Message 5 of 14 , Dec 29, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              Yuri, what does "begging the point" mean? I am astounded by the misuse of
              the "begging the question" phrase and its variants on this list. To beg the
              question is not to raise a question or demand a question or anything of the
              like; it is a technical term in logic for the informal fallacy also known as
              "petitio principii" - I have yet to see anyone on the list use the phrase
              correctly! You talk about logic from time to time but talking isn't doing!

              Bob

              Robert D. Lane
              Philosophy and Religious Studies
              Malaspina University-College
              http://www.mala.bc.ca/www/ipp/ipp.htm
            • Jack Kilmon
              ... The limits of TC are the extant texts with which TCers work. When they examine this red-headed foundling of a HMt in the same room as the red-headed
              Message 6 of 14 , Dec 29, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

                > On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, Jack Kilmon wrote:
                > > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
                > >
                > > It almost sounds like you are saying that a very strong text-critical
                > > argument
                >
                > You're begging the point, Jack.
                >
                > > against the antiquity of HMt can be addressed by eliminating TC.
                >
                > We don't need to use text critical arguments to conclude that HMt is
                > ancient. This is my whole point, Jack. TC scholars need to know when to
                > keep quiet and to listen to historians. Yes, there are times when they
                > should be seen and not heard. Obviously in this case they failed miserably
                > to establish the age on HMt.
                >
                > Let me come back once again to my case about the Coke can in a Roman tomb.
                > Ancient Romans were not known to drink Coca-Cola. So the can is obviously
                > intrusive. Any textual scholar who will try to prove that on the basis of
                > some Latin-sounding words printed on the can the can is ancient will be
                > judged insane. See what I mean? There are limits to TC.

                The limits of TC are the extant texts with which TCers work. When they
                examine this red-headed foundling of a HMt in the same room as the
                red-headed Medieval Europeam Harmony (with a grin on his red-headed
                face), it doesn't take a coke can scientist to figure it out.

                > ...
                >
                > > > > Actually, I would not be surprised. Some of the readings that are
                > > > > unique to the Dutch Harmony and Shem Tov...like the interpolations of
                > > > > "the Jews" at Matthew 26:2 is but one indicator that HMt was
                > > > > translated and penned by a Hebrew speaking Christian
                > > >
                > > > How so? Prove it.
                > >
                > > hl) td(w $)xr $ny ymym yhyh hfsx wbn h)dm ymsr byd hyhwdym lclybh
                > >
                > > How can anyone read the above and consider it written by a Jew?
                >
                > You're engaging in text criticism now. This is not necessary. So while the
                > point is debatable, I feel no need to debate it.

                Well, as a molecular biologist, if I discover a new species with a
                gene sequence unique to Rhodesian aardvarks, I can be pretty
                sure I have a subspecies of an aardvark. Textual criticism is
                much like comparitive biology with stemmas, families, text types
                and the DNA code is the vorlage of the text family.

                > > Why is it irrelevent that this reading is also UNIQUE to Shem Tov and
                > > the Liege Harminies?
                >
                > Why is it relevant EVEN IF this reading were to be unique to Shem Tov and
                > the Liege Harmonies?
                >
                > You're still avoiding reality, Jack. It is illogical to suppose that a
                > gospel of Mt can be derived from a harmony. This is impossible in the real
                > world.

                Yuri, this "impossible" thing of which you speak has been going on since
                the Diatessaron.

                > > > > OR a Hebrew speaking Jewish convert to Christianity.
                > > >
                > > > Prove it.
                > >
                > > It is all unprovable
                >
                > Thanks for admitting it when you're engaging in unsupported speculations.
                >
                > > but common sense can go a long way.
                > >
                > > Mt. 27:15
                > > NA26 KATA DE (EORTHN EIWQEI (O (HGEMWN
                > > "According to the festival was accustomed the governor......."
                > > HMt wbynm hxg hnkbd $l psx hyh mnhgm $gzbr h(yr hyh......
                > > "On the day of the honored feast of Passover, it was their custom for
                > > the commander of the city . . . ."
                > >
                > > Notice it says "it was THEIR" custom?
                >
                > So?
                >
                > > Is it also irrelevant that the "passover" reading is also unique to
                > > Shem Tob and the Liege Harmonies?
                >
                > Please explain how HMt could have derived from a harmony. The idea is
                > illogical on the face of it.

                With all this dancing around Hogan's barn, this is the crux of your argument
                yet in the gospel tradition through the centuries, harmonization was the
                name of the game.

                What is illogical is to take a text, in this case a Hebrew translation of
                the Gospel of Matthew, penned in the 14/15th century at a time and
                place where Jews had undergone forced conversion to Christianity
                and call it a "primitive" text of Canonical Matthew somehow preserved
                in Spain from 1st century Palestine....and to claim so because some
                form of magic prevents a translator (either Gentile or Jewish) from
                using a text of Matthew from the Western Harmonized Gospel tradition
                as an exemplar.

                > In any case, you're engaging in text criticism again. This is not
                > necessary. So while the point is debatable, I feel no need to debate it.

                I find this dismissal of textual criticism as a tool to study HMt as amazing
                as telling a surgeon not to rely on anatomy.

                > > These readings strongly suggest that Shem Tov HMt was written by a
                > > Hebrew speaking Christian.
                >
                > So? And how does this help your case?

                These could be "fingerprints" of a text translated by a Hebrew
                speaking Christian for use by Jews forcibly converted to Christianity.

                > ...
                >
                > > > Are you suggesting that a _heretical version of Mt_ would have been
                > > > "forced" on Jews in medieval Spain? This suggestion is so absurd I don't
                > > > even know where to begin answering it. Perhaps you should think this over
                > > > before going any further on this rather fantastic tangent?
                > >
                > > Who said anything about Shem Tov HMt being heretical?
                >
                > Have you actually read it, Jack? Or are you just like Petersen trying to
                > criticize what you haven't even read?

                Of course I have read it..in Hebrew and in translation. Do you think I would
                be so amazed at the notion this was an ancient text if I hadn't? Or that I would
                even venture an opinion?

                > If you cannot see that HMt is heretical, Jack, then I think you should
                > simply disqualify yourself from trying to deal with this case. You seem to
                > lack competence to deal with this subject.

                These "heretical" insinuations to which you refer are consistent with what
                Jews think about Jesus. In that these variants are imbedded in an otherwise
                very Pauline and Christian Gospel of Matthew is merely evidence that
                the text was directed to Jews...rather by a Christian translator softening the
                text or by a Jewish translator attempting to preserve in the text something
                of Jewish sensibilities.

                In short, in Medieval Spain, this text has an audience (rather or not willing).
                In 1st century Palestine...or Asia Minor, this "Hebrew Matthew" has no
                extensive audience.

                > > I am saying that a GOM, translated into Hebrew, would certainly have
                > > been forced on Jews who had been forced into Christian baptism in
                > > Medieval Spain.
                >
                > Baseless assertion.

                Why? I may very well pursue this further by researching the praxis of
                forced conversion on Jews in Spain between the 7th and 15th centuries
                but the idea of conversion to Christianity (forced or otherwise) without
                a text (particularly Matthew) for the liturgies that would be required
                by Catholics of those baptised is downright silly. Over 30,000 of these
                people were charbroiled alive because they were caught practicing
                Judaism at home.

                > > It is not absurd and it fits the historical and geographical context
                > > and offers an alternative hypothesis for the genesis of the HMt used
                > > in Evan Bohan.
                >
                > Your logic is lacking.

                Then tell me how an historical context for this Hebrew translation of
                the *main* Gospel in Medieval Spain, rather than 1st century Palestine,
                is illogical. Here is my logic:

                Catholic Christians were required to go to mass.
                Catholic Christians were required to hear the Gospel.
                Medieval Spanish Jews were forced to convert to Christianity
                Jewish converts were required to go to mass
                Jewish converts were required to hear the Gospel.
                Medieval Sephardim spoke Hebrew
                A Hebrew Matthew was required.

                Where does the logic break down?

                > > > > This could easily have been a GOM ben-Shaprut acquired from a relative
                > > > > or friend who had it because "great-grandfather was forced to read it
                > > > > in the synagogue."
                > > >
                > > > Prove it.
                > >
                > > I don't have to prove the unprovable
                >
                > But you have to back up your assertions. If you can't back up your
                > assertions, then stop asserting what you cannot prove.

                I said it COULD have been simply because it is more LIKELY than
                his finding it on the street. It is very UNLIKELY that European
                Jews faithfully and protectively preserved an "ancient" Christian
                gospel that accuses them of killing the son of God.

                > Do I now have to educate you in the basics of scientific methodology?

                No...as a scientist, my methodologies begin with common sense.

                > > by offering an hypothesis that fits the evidence and historical
                > > context. Just because this aspect has not yet been considered by
                > > those debating Shem Tob Matthew does not make it "absurd."
                >
                > Let me give you a hint, Jack. Just because this aspect has not yet been
                > considered by those debating Shem Tob Matthew, this implies to me strongly
                > that you don't have a case. Yes, you're now all alone with your highly
                > peculiar theory.

                Now THAT makes a lot of sense. Every new thesis is automatically rejected
                because it hasn't been thought of before...right? Is this one of the basics of
                scientific methodology you were going to teach me?

                > > I am offering an explanation for Shem Tob's Matthew that fits the
                > > culture, context, geography and chronology of its composition rather
                > > than projecting it back to the 1st century.
                >
                > Your theory lacks any basis. The reality is different. The reality is that
                > it is impossible for a heretical gospel to be forced on anyone in the
                > middle ages. Face the truth, Jack.

                You do not appear to know a great deal about the Church of
                Medieval Spain nor the history of Judaism in Medieval Spain.
                There are a number of explanations for these so-called "heresies"
                that do not require a Medieval text to have been composed in
                1st century Palestine...or Antioch.

                > ...
                >
                > > > See above. The idea is unbelievable on the face of it.
                > >
                > > Just what is unbelievable about a Spanish church that has forced Jews
                > > into Christian baptism (under threat) that also forces their favorite
                > > Christian gospel on them?
                >
                > Your theory is lacking realism. The Spanish church was catholic and not
                > heretical. They could not advocate the use of a heretical gospel.

                IF what you said was true...and the Spanish Church did what the heck it
                pleased regardless of Rome.....than the simplest explanation is that the
                Church officials did not KNOW about the "heretical" passages. This
                makes much more sense than projecting this HMt back to a 1st century Jewish
                community where the whole darn thing would have been heretical.

                > ...
                >
                > > > See above. The idea is preposterous.
                > >
                > > No, forcing Jews into Christian baptism was preposterous,
                >
                > Agreed.
                >
                > > Killing them and/or stealing their wealth and property if they did not
                > > acquiesce was preposterous.
                >
                > Agreed.
                >
                > > It is therefore not preposterous to include the preposterous act of
                > > forcing a Christian text on them translated to Hebrew.
                >
                > Perhaps you should try this exercize. Try to picture in your mind some
                > heretical gospels. Then try to picture in your mind some orthodox gospels.
                > They are clearly not the same. There's a big difference between them.
                >
                > Did this help?
                >
                > ...
                >
                > > > Yes. My interpretation of your post is that under the deleterious
                > > > influence of Petersen you've now abandoned the critical historical method
                > > > altogether.
                > >
                > > I think you will find little of Petersen in my argument
                >
                > ???
                >
                > To the contrary, you seem totally under his spell.
                >
                > > and since when does a paradigm placed in the historical context of the
                > > period in which this text was used abandon the critical historical
                > > method. Frankly, on this issue, I think it is a return to it.
                > >
                > >
                > > Love your website, BTW.
                >
                > Thanks, friend. I think there may be still some hope for you, but
                > obviously you'll need to work very hard to bring yourself up to speed on
                > this whole question of HMt.

                Yuri, like everyone else interested and fascinated by the study of Christian
                origins, I would dearly love to see a text arise from the Semitic roots of the
                original Jesus movement that will tell us the REAL story...but so far
                it just aint happened. Just as O'Callaghan sees Luke in 7Q5 annd
                Eisenman sees James in the TR, you see
                an ancient Matthew in Shem Tob. It's wishful thinking...on your part and
                on Dr. Howard's part.

                The only way I see this discussion continuing is if you come up with
                something more substantive than "you are dreaming," or "it lacks
                logic" or any of the other one line rebuttals.

                Tell me WHEN HMt was authored, by whom, where and what is it's
                relationship to Canonical matthew which most of its verbiage it
                duplicates in Hebrew translation. Tell me to whom it was directed.

                Tell me what it is that would make you believe this text was meant for
                1st century Jews rather than 14th century Spanish Jews.

                Logic tells us that it is a Medieval Gospel written in Medieval Hebrew (despite
                the
                poetic use of waw consecutivum) meant to be read..or read to..Medieval Jews
                who understood Hebrew in Medieval Spain and was included in a Medieval
                treatise by a Midieval Jewish polemicist.

                The ONLY reason for a Medieval Gospel written in Medieval Hebrew
                to be read to Medieval Jews was for Medieval Jews forced into Christian
                conversion by the Medieval Spanish Church.

                Jack

                --
                ______________________________________________

                taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

                Jack Kilmon
                jkilmon@...

                http://www.historian.net

                sharing a meal for free.
                http://www.thehungersite.com/
              • Mike MacDonell
                ... Actually, as a *competent* molecular biologist, the first thing you consider is the possibility that you had just disproved the unique-ness of the gene
                Message 7 of 14 , Dec 29, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  Jack Kilmon wrote:
                  >
                  >Well, as a molecular biologist, if I discover a new species with a
                  >gene sequence unique to Rhodesian aardvarks, I can be pretty
                  >sure I have a subspecies of an aardvark.

                  Actually, as a *competent* molecular biologist, the first thing you
                  consider is the possibility that you had just disproved the unique-ness of
                  the gene sequence to Rhodesian aardvarks (Popper, again). You certainly
                  would have demonstrated the existence of a philogenetic relationship with
                  the Rhodesian aardvark. Depending upon the results of a heck of a lot of
                  other data, you would eventually begin to sort out what that philogenetic
                  relationship meant in terms of genus, species, subspecies, etc.

                  Now, the trick is to apply *this* understanding to the Shem-Tob problem at
                  hand. While the example is applicable to the problem, I don't think it
                  will take you as far as you had hoped.

                  Best Regards,
                  Mike
                • Yuri Kuchinsky
                  ... I meant begging the question , Bob. ... I know begging the question when I see one. [quote] Description of Begging the Question Begging the Question is a
                  Message 8 of 14 , Dec 30, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Wed, 29 Dec 1999, Bob Lane wrote:

                    > Yuri, what does "begging the point" mean?

                    I meant "begging the question", Bob.

                    > I am astounded by the misuse of the "begging the question" phrase and
                    > its variants on this list. To beg the question is not to raise a
                    > question or demand a question or anything of the like; it is a
                    > technical term in logic for the informal fallacy also known as
                    > "petitio principii" - I have yet to see anyone on the list use the
                    > phrase correctly! You talk about logic from time to time but talking
                    > isn't doing!

                    I know begging the question when I see one.

                    [quote]

                    Description of Begging the Question

                    Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the
                    claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume
                    that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has
                    the following form.
                    1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the
                    truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or
                    indirectly).

                    http://www3.ca.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

                    [end quote]

                    Yours,

                    Yuri.

                    Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

                    Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority,
                    it is time to reform -=O=- Mark Twain
                  • Yuri Kuchinsky
                    Crosstalkers, Our discussion with Jack is not being very productive of late, I m afraid. Perhaps it is my fault. Perhaps I lost patience with him at some
                    Message 9 of 14 , Dec 30, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Crosstalkers,

                      Our discussion with Jack is not being very productive of late, I'm afraid.
                      Perhaps it is my fault. Perhaps I lost patience with him at some point,
                      and made some flippant comments where I should have explained things more
                      clearly. So I will now try to explain my position more clearly.

                      My purpose in this discussion is to point out that scientific method is
                      being betrayed in the case of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Mt. Yes, I accuse the
                      whole academe, and especially the text critical scholars, of failing to
                      appreciate the true significance of this text. So the problems with Jack's
                      views are certainly not unique. He represents the views of many others.

                      Also I'm disappointed that so few other Crosstalk members seem to be
                      interested in this discussion. Although certainly it's not too surprising
                      considering the above (but perhaps it's also the holidays time?). It is
                      the failure of so many professionals in this regard that is being exposed
                      here. Nobody likes to be confronted with failure. Apparently, as I've been
                      informed privately by the moderator, there are quite a few on Crosstalk
                      who would not like me to say things that I'm saying now. They like the
                      current dogma to remain what it is -- life is easier this way. But I will
                      still speak up in defence of science, and I will expose pseudo-science.

                      So when I complain about a lack of scientific approach, Jack is merely a
                      representative of many other critics of HMt. Yes, I believe, there's a
                      distinct lack of scientific approach on their part. Like a number of
                      others, clearly Jack has some strong opinions about HMt, but he seems to
                      feel no need to demonstrate any basis for them. Instead he employs huge
                      amounts of special pleading, repetitive question-begging, and proliferates
                      ad hoc hypotheses to shore up his beliefs.

                      There are two big problems in what Jack says. First, it's his confusion of
                      cause and effect. Harmonies are prepared on the basis of gospels. Not the
                      other way around. Jack's problem with comprehending this rather elementary
                      matter is apparent below.

                      On Wed, 29 Dec 1999, Jack Kilmon wrote:
                      > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

                      > > You're still avoiding reality, Jack. It is illogical to suppose that a
                      > > gospel of Mt can be derived from a harmony. This is impossible in the real
                      > > world.
                      >
                      > Yuri, this "impossible" thing of which you speak has been going on
                      > since the Diatessaron.

                      This comment is entirely meaningless and betrays a lack of understanding
                      of the original question. Confusion of cause and effect.

                      ...

                      > > Please explain how HMt could have derived from a harmony. The idea is
                      > > illogical on the face of it.
                      >
                      > With all this dancing around Hogan's barn, this is the crux of your
                      > argument yet in the gospel tradition through the centuries,
                      > harmonization was the name of the game.

                      There's a logical disconnection between what I said and what Jack replies.
                      I've asked him to explain how HMt could have derived from a harmony. He
                      failed to do so.

                      > What is illogical is to take a text, in this case a Hebrew translation
                      > of the Gospel of Matthew, penned in the 14/15th century at a time

                      Question-begging.

                      > and place where Jews had undergone forced conversion to Christianity
                      > and call it a "primitive" text of Canonical Matthew somehow preserved
                      > in Spain from 1st century Palestine....and to claim so because some
                      > form of magic prevents a translator (either Gentile or Jewish) from
                      > using a text of Matthew from the Western Harmonized Gospel tradition
                      > as an exemplar.

                      I would like to quote this blooper of Jack's once again:

                      "a text of Matthew from the Western Harmonized Gospel tradition".

                      Obviously, this betrays Jack's confusion about what a gospel harmony is. A
                      harmony is not the same as a single gospel. I said this many times
                      already, but this doesn't seem to get through to Jack.

                      I'm really at a loss here to explain this thing further in some simple
                      terms that Jack will understand. The only thing I can think of is to bring
                      up the horse and cart analogy. The horse comes before the cart. Horse
                      cannot pull a cart if the cart is in front of it. The same thing is with
                      gospels and harmonies. Gospels cannot derive from harmonies. In the
                      history of the world there has not been a single case of a gospel deriving
                      from a harmony. So this is ad hoc hypotheses generation.

                      Jack's second big problem is his basic misunderstanding of medieval Church
                      history. Heretical gospels could not be forced upon anyone. But at least
                      in this case Jack, himself, admits that his views on this are not shared
                      by anyone else in the world. His idea that the Catholic Church will make
                      up a heretical gospel so that they could convert the Jews with it is
                      extremely strange, and seems like a typical example of ad hoc theorizing.

                      As a minimum, Jack needs to do the following if he wants his theories to
                      be taken more seriously,

                      1. Outline some mechanism of how and in what circumstances a gospel can
                      emerge from a harmony or, in other words, of how a cart can come before
                      the horse. I remind him here that extraordinary claims require
                      extraordinary proof.

                      2. He needs to produce some evidence that in the middle ages the Catholic
                      Church was producing heretical gospels and forcing people to accept them.

                      Yes, it seems like I'm defending science itself in this debate with Jack.
                      If the above illogicalities and non-sequiturs of his are allowed to remain
                      uncorrected, then Crosstalk will no longer really deserve to be called a
                      list dedicated to academic discussion.

                      Best wishes,

                      Yuri.

                      Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

                      Oh, what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to believe
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.