Re: [GTh] Fire in GTh and in the New Testament
>I sent the link later, yesterday.
> > [Jack:]
> >> It is important,however, that the Hebrew translation of Matthew used by
> >> Ibn
> >> Shaprut in the Evan Bohan is NOT an ancient manuscript but a Medieval
> >> one.
> >> This review of Howard's book is salient:
> >> http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol03/Petersen1998a.html
> >> Jack Kilmon
> > Howard responded to Petersons review (attack), also in TC, pretty much
> > destroying Peterson's credibility, at least where this "review" is
> > concerned. I've attached Howard's response as a text file. Peterson might
> > have done a better job if he had read the whole book.
> > --Don Traxler
> I snipped that because the link would have been much better.
> AlthoughI think I'll reserve judgment on that until I've read the book.
> Petersen's tone shows frustration...I'm guilty of that sometimes
> also...Howard has an agenda in claiming Hebrew Matthew is ancient...
> but itWell, I don't know about "never," and neither do you, but I don't believe that there was a pre-Synoptic Hebrew Matthew. I had flirted with that concept even recently, but I'm now convinced for linguistic reasons that there was never any such document.
> is ridiculous, not to mention that the Gospel of Matthew was never written
> in Hebrew.
> Petersen's credibility is very much intact and his critiqueNot to me.
> overwhemingly compelling.
> >Hi Jack,
> > Hi again, Don ....
> > .... both Jack's reference and your own as quoted are well known to
> > adept users of Howard's book. Having said this, and despite
> > Peterson's irresponsible criticism and review of the book (or half
> > of it), I can just tell that you will draw many rewards from your
> > $35 investment as indeed I have over the years.
> > Cheers !
> > Maurice Cormier
> I agree with this. I have Howard's book because the Hebrew Translation used
> in Evan Bohan is a fascinating witness to how it was translated about some
> 50 years before Shem Tov used it.
I'm just curious to know how you came up with the limit of "50 years." I haven't seen the translation yet, but it seems that it could have been lying around in a geniza for a long time, or kept to use for rhetorical purposes against the Christians.
> What were the Rabbis attempting to do?These all seem to be possibilities. Maybe a thorough study of the variant readings would betray some intent or agenda--and maybe not.
> Did they translate Matthew into Hebrew touse it for polemical purposes? Was
> it a translation by Conversos to convince Spanish authorities that
> "Marannos" were doing their catechism to avoid the inquisition?
Some variants seem to have arisen (through scribal error or intentionally) while the document was in the Hebrew stage of its transmission. An example is in Mt 7:6, where the canonical text has "Do not give that which is holy to dogs," and the Shem Tov/Howard text has "Do not give holy flesh to the dogs." It seems pretty obvious that this arose because of the similarity between "asher" and "bashar."