tc-list Shem-Tob & Qumran
>Mailing-List: contact email@example.comJames Trimm
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32)
>Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 21:03:14 -0500
>To: firstname.lastname@example.org, roots@...
>From: "James D. Tabor" <jdtabor@...>
>Subject: [roots] Re: Shem-Tob & Qumran
>Good post James Trimm,
>I too was sorry to see this issue of VJ bulletin and how he was playing so
>fast and loose with the facts. I would add one IMPORTANT point...Even
>Bohan and Even BoCHan are NOT even the same words in Hebrew...
>One is a place name from Joshua 15:6, and is the Stone of BOCHAN (spelled
>with a Chet) the name of a person, son of Reuben, but also meaning
>THUMB...and that marker indeed looks like a thumb sticking up, just north
>of Qumran...Maybe the guy was tall and called "the thumb" as a knickname,
>and the rock got his name.
>The other word is Even Bohan (spelled with a Hey), the Smooth Stone or
>touchstone (used in Isa 28:16), an entirely different word.
>To confuse the two is like maintaining that the words "car"and "cat" are
>the same in English...after all, only one letter difference!!
>You are welcome to post this where ever you like...
>At 01:09 AM 12/8/98 -0600, James Trimm wrote:
>> An old rumor about the Shem-Tob Hebrew text of Matthew seems to be
>>circulating again, and it seems I am destined to set things straight.
>> The rumor is that a Hebrew version of Matthew has been found at Qumran.
>>The full-blown version of the rumor claims that the Shem-Tob Hebrew version
>>of Matthew originally came from Evan Bohan at Qumran.
>> The source of the rumor is an article that appeared in Vendyl Jones'
>>Institute of Judaic-Christian RESEARCHER newsletter Dec. 1991:
>> FROM PAGE 10:
>> Now comes the question of an ancient manuscript of the
>> book of Matthew called the Even Bohan Text. It is also
>> called the Shem-Tov text. George Howard, Professor of
>> Religion at the University of Georgia, published a book
>> on this text by Mercer University press in 1987. There
>> are several copies of this text around, but gaining access
>> to the original text of Evan Bohan without revision is
>> impossible. Paleographic specialists have dated the
>> original in the last quarter of the first century C.E.
>> The letter styles are the same as the Qumran so-called
>> secular scrolls. Modern scholarship, however, attempting
>> to attribute the scroll to Ben-Tov himself who was
>> active between 1350 and 1400 C.E....
>> ...Why would Ben-Tov use a paleographic style of
>> the Qumran period to write a text in the middle ages?
>> Why is that original not available? Why do all the editors
>> say that there are numerous mistakes that they had
>> to correct? Why do the editors not just publish the
>> text and let the public see the original? Why must
>> they "doctor it up" and add entire sections? For example,
>> the Evan Bohan text does not contain the first two
>> chapters of Matthew. Does this not perhaps relate
>> to Jerome's statement concerning the Ebionites who
>> follow only Matthew's gospel and reject Paul's writings
>> altogether? Is that original Even Bohan text perhaps
>> the Ebionite document of Matthew which Jerome said
>> was without the first two chapters?...
>> ...why is the Ben-Tov gospel of Matthew called the
>> Even Bohan text? Is it not logical to assume that it
>> was found at Even Bohan?...
>> FROM PAGE 15
>> ...Now, let's look back to the Even Bohan text of Matthew.
>> To summarize, the first observation is that the Ben-Tov/Even
>> Bohan text did not contain the first two chapters of Matthew.
>> Like Mark, it opens with the ministry of John the Baptist,
>> or Yochanan Ben-Zachai. That means that the classic
>> marginal notation, "Omitted by more ancient authorities."
>> really means, "This passage was added later by the monks."
>> That is to say that the monks monkeyed with the text.
>> All the revised forms of the Even Bohan/Ben-Tov texts
>> are admittedly filled in by the editors because so much
>> was missing that is in "our" Matthew....
>>OK now let me set the story straight. To begin with I have nothing against
>>Vendyl Jones personally. In fact I have known Vendyl for over ten years.
>>However in this case I have to disagree with some things Vendyl has said.
>>1. No published paleographic analysis of any Shem-Tob manuscript has
>>concluded that the text is written in any Qumran type script. I have
>>examined a photograph of at least one manuscript page of a Shem Tob
>>manuscript and it is written in the same script as the DuTillet Hebrew
>>manuscript of Matthew (which I have a complete facsimile of), a script
>>common to the middleages. Vendyl asks why Shem-Tob would use a Qumran
>>script. No one knows what scrpt Shem-Tob himself used because his original
>>manuscript is lost to history, only copies of it remain to us.
>>2. Shem-Tob's Matthew manuscript was not called "Evan Bohan." Shem-Tob
>>wrote a polemic treaty against Christianity (or perhaps the Nazarenes) in
>>one part of this book he transcribed the entire text of Hebrew Matthew, in
>>sections, each section followed by a polemic against it. The term "Evan
>>Bohan" was the title of the entire Polemic book and not just of the text of
>>Matthew which Shem-Tobe transcribed in sections in just one part of that
>>3. I am unaware of any extant Shem Tob text which lacks the first two
>>chapters of Matthew. George Howard did not add them. If a later editor
>>altered Shem Tob's original work in this way, then he also mangaed to alter
>>it so early on that not one manuscript exists which was coppied from a text
>>which lacked the first two chapters of Matthew. I can only conclude that
>>Vendyl believes that the text Shem Tob held was the original of Matthew and
>>that Vendyl also believes that Matthew originally lacked the first two
>>chapters, so Vendyl has perhaps assumed that the Hebrew copy Shem Tob had
>>must have lacked them as well. However there is no evidence that the
>>Hebrew Shem Tob text at any stage lacked the first two chapters of Matthew.
>>3. Jerome did not say that the original Hebrew Matthew used by the
>>Ebionites lacked the first two chapters. Jerome did mention having a
>>Hebrew Matthew which he often identified with the Goodnews according to the
>>Hebrews, but he claimed to have obtained it from the Nazarenes, not the
>>Ebionites, and he in fact quoted from its first two chapters. Vendyl must
>>be thinking of Epiphanius who quotes from an Ebionite text of the Gospel
>>according to the Hebrews also identified with the original of Matthew.
>>Epiphanius does quote this text as beginning with the ministry of Yochanan
>>(John the Baptist) however he also says that this Ebionite text "is not
>>altogether complete, but adultrated and mutilated" However of the Nazarene
>>Hebrew version of Mathew he says that they have it "quite complete in the
>>4. There are no editors that admit altering or adding to the Shem-Tob text
>>(although Munster admits doing this with the Munster Hebrew Matthew text in
>>places where his copy was damaged, but that was not a Shem-Tob text).
>>George Howard did not add anything. The only editors before this were
>>scribes in the middle ages, and if they added two chapters there is no
>>record of it.
>>5. Vendyl asks "Why is the original not available?" - The original of
>>what? The Original of Shem-Tob's book Evan Bohan was lost centuries ago.
>>There was no effort by Shem-Tob to preserve his Hebrew manuscript of
>>Matthew except by copying it into his book. The original is unavailable
>>because it has been lost for centuries.
>>While I think Vendyl is mistaken about some of these things let me add:
>>1. I would love for him to be right, at least about a Qumran origin for
>>Shem Tob's Matthew.
>>2. I have nothing against Vendyl. In this case I just think he got some
>>facts wrong and presented some of his theories as if they were established
>>3. I continue to believe that Shem Tob is an important Hebrew text
>>representing a descendant from the original Hebrew and would be interested
>>in any data supporting Vendyl's claims that may be forthcoming.
>>He who seeks will not cease until he finds,
>>and having found he will be amazed,
>>and having been amazed he will reign,
>>and having reigned he will rest.
>> - The Goodnews according to the Hebrews
>>The Society for the Advancement of Nazarene Judaism:
>>PO Box 471; Hurst, TX 76053; USA
>>A nonprofit organization supported by freewill offerings
>>E-mail discusion groups: Nazarene Judaism; Messianic Judaism;
>>Yahwism; Lost Tribes; Book of Enoch; Semitic Origin of the
>>New Testament; Prophecy, Sabbatarian & b-Aramaic.
>>Subscribe at: http://www.nazarene.net
>>Essene Forum: Essene website, listserver & links:
>>Don't lose your email when you move, change jobs, or switch ISP's.
>>Click here to get free and permanent email from NET@DDRESS!
>>Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com
>Don't lose your email when you move, change jobs, or switch ISP's.
>Click here to get free and permanent email from NET@DDRESS!
>Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com
He who seeks will not cease until he finds,
and having found he will be amazed,
and having been amazed he will reign,
and having reigned he will rest.
- The Goodnews according to the Hebrews
The Society for the Advancement of Nazarene Judaism:
PO Box 471; Hurst, TX 76053; USA
A nonprofit organization supported by freewill offerings
E-mail discusion groups: Nazarene Judaism; Messianic Judaism;
Yahwism; Lost Tribes; Book of Enoch; Semitic Origin of the
New Testament; Prophecy, Sabbatarian & b-Aramaic.
Subscribe at: http://www.nazarene.net
Essene Forum: Essene website, listserver & links: