Re: [Synoptic-L] assumptions about Shem-Tob's Hebrew Mt
> From: Moshe Shulman <mshulman@...>text
> To: Synoptic-L@...
> Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] assumptions about Shem-Tob's Hebrew Mt
> Date: Monday, February 28, 2000 9:49 PM
> At 01:52 PM 02/24/2000 -0500, you wrote:
> >> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> >"113 .. It is apparently from this harmony-influenced separate gospel
> >that both Velasquez's Arabic translation and Shem-Tob's Hebrewtranslation
> >of Matthew derive."No, Moshe, actually Petersen appears to be saying:
> >I take this to say two things, viz. that (1) HMt was translated from a
> >separate text of Matthew, and also (2) that this version of Mt was
> >influenced by a gospel harmony of some sort.
> Yuri be seems to be saying:
> Harmony Text -> Gospel Text -> ST
Gospel Text + Harmony Text -> Gospel Text -> ST
Petersen is speaking about a "harmony-influenced separate gospel text", but
he's not speaking about a "harmony-based separate gospel text".
> Now it appears that he is thinking that there was a gospel text of sometext
> sort, which was first modified by the Harmony Texts. (I woudl assume we
> would then have to call this new text a harmony text also.)
> >> has NO evidence to support it. Moshe's argument not only makes sense
> >> historically but also doesn't destroy what can be gleaned from the
> >But I'm not making any conclusion, Larry, so how can there be any holes
> >it? What I'm saying is that I don't know the full history of HMt.in
> But you are missing the point. Your theory MUST include this history. You
> have to be able to explain how the text on which ST is based came into
> existance, and that requires a history. Petersen (to which I have argued
> agreement) says that we need to look at the many texts that existed inthe
> 14th and 13th century, which were so varied as to give us a basis for aWell, in my previous long post, I certainly did look in some detail at one
> theory of this text on which ST was based.
text "that existed in the 14th and 13th century" -- the Liege DT. And
Petersen's hypothesis was not confirmed.
> >At the same time, I suggest that the following version is notimpossible.
> >According to separate and numerous accounts of Church fathers (Papias,of
> >Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerome, etc.) a Hebrew version
> >Mt existed among Jewish-Christians well into the 5th century. Someaccounts
> >indicate that it was "heretical" (e.g. according to Epiphanius, he knewof
> >a version of Hebrew Mt that was "incomplete, corrupt, and mutilated" --version
> >Panarion 30.13.2). So what I'm saying is that it is possible that a
> >of Hebrew Mt was transmitted past 5th century and into the middle agesby a
> >group of Jewish-Christians. This is what Shem-Tob received and includedSo perhaps HMT should be seen as evidence that there were Jewish Christians
> >into his Eben Bohan.
> The problem is that there were no Jewish Christians to pass it on. The
> church was not kind to heretics. This mythical group does nto help when
> historical fact argues against it.
to pass it on. And I believe Jewish-Christians were known in the east well
past 5th c. Can you claim with assurance that there were no
Jewish-Christians anywhere in the world past 5th c?
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm
Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - unmoderated
The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian