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

Re: P45 and SHEM-TOB's Hebrew Matthew

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.