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

Re: P45 and SHEM-TOB's Hebrew Matthew

Expand Messages
  • george howard
    Re William Petersen s comment on Shedinger and me. It is true that Shem-Tob s Hebrew Matthew has parallels with a number of medieval readings. It is also true
    Message 1 of 9 , Mar 10, 1997
    • 0 Attachment
      Re William Petersen's comment on Shedinger and me. It is true that
      Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew has parallels with a number of medieval
      readings. It is also true that he has unique parallels with such out of
      the way documents as Codex Sinaiticus and the Old Syriac (SyS and SyC).
      He perhaps has more parallels with the Old Syriac than any other textual
      tradition (though I have not counted them). I suppose we can go two ways
      (maybe more). 1. We can say that Shem-Tob was an eclectic scholar who
      prepared a special text of Matthew in his polemic against the church,
      choosing readings from a great many sources. 2. He preserves an ancient
      text whose readings crop up in a multiplicity of ancient and medieval
      documents. Given the fact that Shem-Tob believed the Gospel of Matthew
      was a damnable document, I find it hard to believe that he prepared a
      new text of the gospel in which he selected readings from a great many
      sources, some coming from great antiquity and apparently not available
      to anyone else in the world but him, enhanced the text with puns, word
      connections, and alliteration, added a symbol for the Divine Name 19
      times, inserted a number of subtle theological motifs that go back to
      early Jewish Christianity, and then told his readers that the only
      reason he was inserting the Hebrew Matthew into his treatise, the Even
      Bohan, was so they could learn to refute it and crush the Christians.
      Number 1 is fraught with a great many problems. Number 2 is much more
      reasonable.
    • Alan Repurk
      ... Does anyone have a satisfactory explanation for the inclusion of the tetragrammaton in the S-T, besides the obvious conclusion that he copied it from a
      Message 2 of 9 , Mar 10, 1997
      • 0 Attachment
        george howard wrote:

        > connections, and alliteration, added a symbol for the Divine Name 19
        > times, inserted a number of subtle theological motifs that go back to
        > early Jewish Christianity, and then told his readers that the only
        > reason he was inserting the Hebrew Matthew into his treatise, the Even
        > Bohan, was so they could learn to refute it and crush the Christians.


        Does anyone have a satisfactory explanation for the inclusion of the
        tetragrammaton in the S-T, besides the obvious conclusion that he
        copied it from a Hebrew original ? It would seem to defeat the purpose
        of the S-T as a document which was intended to represent the Christian
        tradition for polemic reasons to add the Divine Name. Would not the
        superstition of this devout Jewish translator impose certain restrictions
        on him with regard to this name ?

        In looking at some of the old posts I happened to file away I found
        some quotations from a book by James Scott Trimm entitled
        "The Good News According to Matthew from an old Hebrew Manuscript",
        a translation and analysis of the 15th Century DuTillet manuscript.
        I have not checked these for accuracy and have not read the book, so
        I hope the original poster did his homework .....

        Sincerely,
        -lars

        -------------------------------------------------------------------------


        Irenaeus (150-170 CE)"Matthew issued a written gospel among the Hebrews
        in their own dialect..." (Against Heresies 3:1)

        Origen (210 CE) "The first is written according to Matthew, the same that
        was once a tax collector, but afterwards an emissary of Yeshua the
        Messiah, who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in
        the Hebrew." (Eusebius E.H. 4:25)

        Pantaenus... penetrated as ar as India, where it is reported that he
        found the gospel according to Matthew, which had been delivered before
        his arrival to some who had the knowledge of Messiah, to whom
        Bartholomew, one of the emissaries, as it is said, had preached, and left
        them that writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters." (Euseb. E. H. 5:10)

        Epiphanius (370 CE) "They (the Nazarenes) have the gospel according to
        Matthew quite complete, in Hebrew, for this gospel is certainly still
        preserved among them as it was first written, in Hegrew letters."
        (Panarion 29:9:4)

        Jerome (382 CE) "Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collector came
        to be an emissary, first of all the evangelists composed a gospel of
        Messiah in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters, for the benefit
        of those of the circumcision who had believed; who translated it into
        Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is
        preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr
        Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes
        who use this volume in the Syrian city of Boroea to copy it. In which is
        to be remarked that, wherever the evangelist...makes use of the
        testimonies of the old Scripture, he does not follow the authority of the
        seventy translators, but that of the Hebrew."
        (Jerome; Of Illustrious Men 3)

        End note to a 5th century Aramaic Matthew (the Peshitta): "Completion of
        the Holy Gospel as published by Matthew; and which he published in
        Hebrew, in the land of the Palestinians."
      • Ulrich Schmid
        ... Maybe counting agreements can not solve all of the problems, but it surely is a strong indicator when it comes to questions of textual relationships. So,
        Message 3 of 9 , Mar 10, 1997
        • 0 Attachment
          On Mon, 10 Mar 1997, George Howard wrote:

          >It is true that Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew has parallels with a number of
          >medieval
          >readings. It is also true that he has unique parallels with such out of
          >the way documents as Codex Sinaiticus and the Old Syriac (SyS and SyC).
          >He perhaps has more parallels with the Old Syriac than any other textual
          >tradition (though I have not counted them).

          Maybe counting agreements can not solve all of the problems, but it surely is a
          strong indicator when it comes to questions of textual relationships. So, why
          not counting them? Maybe, because counting agreements also involves counting
          _disagreements_?
          I am somehow puzzled by the fact that the Latin traditions (Old Latin and
          Vulgate MSS, Harmonies) are not mentioned as possible candidates for testing
          agreements/disagreements in relation to Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew (as Bill
          Petersen already pointed out).

          >I suppose we can go two ways (maybe more). 1. We can say that Shem-Tob was an
          >eclectic scholar who prepared a special text of Matthew in his polemic against
          >the church, choosing readings from a great many sources.

          Again, a closer look at the Latin tradition presumably would have prevented this
          type of carricature. Virtually every single Vulgate MS displays at least some
          Old Latin readings. When dealing only with the Latin harmony tradition(s) - not
          to mention the other vernacular harmonies - we find therein a considerable
          degree of "mixed" textual situation, i.e. generally "vulgatized" harmonies
          nevertheless display sometimes unique agreements with various parts of textual
          transmission. It would simply be hazardous to label each and every
          scribe/producer of textually "mixed" MSS an "eclectic scholar..., choosing
          readings from a great many sources".

          >2. He preserves an ancient
          >text whose readings crop up in a multiplicity of ancient and medieval
          >documents.

          As Bill Petersen already pointed out: Each and every copy of the Gospel of
          Matthew in each and every language preserves a lot of ancient readings, and,
          therefore, a somehow ancient text. In the case of Shem Tob or any other medieval
          source it is essential to establish a reasonably _distinct_ text which may or
          may not be "ancient", depending on the level of agreement (and disagreement) of
          this distinct text with other witnesses. As long as only parts of the textual
          tradition (predominantly old ones as, e.g., the Old Syriac or P 45) are sought
          through, and as long as agreements and disagreements are not counted, I simply
          remain unconviced of the distinct "ancient text" preseved in Shem-Tob's Hebrew
          Matthew. It may well be another amalgam of medieval (Latin or vernacular) Gospel
          traditions.

          snip

          >Number 1 is fraught with a great many problems. Number 2 is much more
          >reasonable.

          In my own judgment the alternative is simply mistaken.

          Ulrich Schmid, Muenster
        • Stephen C. Carlson
          ... My thanks to this list for pointing out both Shedinger s and Petersen s articles. My biggest problem with Shedinger s article is his use of P45 s readings
          Message 4 of 9 , Mar 18, 1997
          • 0 Attachment
            At 05:18 3/7/97 -0500, William L. Petersen wrote:
            >The article mentioned is by R.F. Shedinger; it has some errors in fact as
            >well as in its presuppositions. Additionally, it (inexplicably?) fails to
            >address points I raised in my review (in JBL 108 [1989], pp. 722-726) of the
            >first edition of Howard's book (which was titled *The Gospel of Matthew
            >according to a Primitive Hebrew Text* [1988]; the second, revised edition
            >is more modestly titled, *Hebrew Gospel of Matthew* [1995]). The remarks in
            >my review are self-explanatory, and supported by textual evidence; I am
            >preparing a critique of Shedinger's article for publication.

            My thanks to this list for pointing out both Shedinger's and Petersen's
            articles. My biggest problem with Shedinger's article is his use of
            P45's readings in Luke and Mark. For example, Lk11:13 is understood
            to be from Greek Q, not a Hebrew Matthew. So how does a Hebrew Matthew
            fit in?

            Petersen, p. 723, criticized Howard's first edition for presenting 21
            variants explanable on the presumption that Greek Mt is based on a
            Hebrew text. (Howard's second edition, which I have, handles this
            point better.) Petersen pointed out that requires the following assump-
            tions: (a) Greek Matthew depends on a Hebrew Matthew and (b) Shem-Tob's
            Hebrew Matthew is faithful to original Hebrew text of Mt. In my view,
            Shedinger's article requires the additional assumptions: that (c) Luke
            [and Mark!] too depends on Hebrew Matthew and (d) P45 is more faithful
            to Lk's Greek text.

            Stephen Carlson
            --
            Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations,
            scarlson@... : and songs chant the words.
            http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35
          • Michael Collins
            Message 5 of 9 , Mar 19, 1997
            • 0 Attachment
              You do know the work of Bill Farmer (William R.) et al.? They posit
              Matthean priority in a form that includes Mark and Q and M material.
              They would love more grist for their mill! But it just won't work for a
              large number of reasons. Cheers! -- John Hurd

              >
              > At 05:18 3/7/97 -0500, William L. Petersen wrote:
              > >The article mentioned is by R.F. Shedinger; it has some errors in fact as
              > >well as in its presuppositions. Additionally, it (inexplicably?) fails to
              > >address points I raised in my review (in JBL 108 [1989], pp. 722-726) of the
              > >first edition of Howard's book (which was titled *The Gospel of Matthew
              > >according to a Primitive Hebrew Text* [1988]; the second, revised edition
              > >is more modestly titled, *Hebrew Gospel of Matthew* [1995]). The remarks in
              > >my review are self-explanatory, and supported by textual evidence; I am
              > >preparing a critique of Shedinger's article for publication.
              >
              > My thanks to this list for pointing out both Shedinger's and Petersen's
              > articles. My biggest problem with Shedinger's article is his use of
              > P45's readings in Luke and Mark. For example, Lk11:13 is understood
              > to be from Greek Q, not a Hebrew Matthew. So how does a Hebrew Matthew
              > fit in?
              >
              > Petersen, p. 723, criticized Howard's first edition for presenting 21
              > variants explanable on the presumption that Greek Mt is based on a
              > Hebrew text. (Howard's second edition, which I have, handles this
              > point better.) Petersen pointed out that requires the following assump-
              > tions: (a) Greek Matthew depends on a Hebrew Matthew and (b) Shem-Tob's
              > Hebrew Matthew is faithful to original Hebrew text of Mt. In my view,
              > Shedinger's article requires the additional assumptions: that (c) Luke
              > [and Mark!] too depends on Hebrew Matthew and (d) P45 is more faithful
              > to Lk's Greek text.
              >
              > Stephen Carlson
              > --
              > Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations,
              > scarlson@... : and songs chant the words.
              > http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35
              >
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.