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

5678Re: [textualcriticism] New Posting of Chicago Manuscripts at CSNTM

Expand Messages
  • Jovial
    Apr 1, 2010
      There are places where some MSS read "in the IOUDAIKW" it says...., and Jerome makes a similar comment but says "In the Hebrew it says..."  So it is not exactly a big stretch of conclusion to ascertain that the "IOUDAIKW" was the Hebrew version, not a Jewish Greek or Aramaic version.  I can't remember exact ones off the top of my head, but I have come across that comparison before.
      As for Jerome's level of personal contact, I don't think any of us know how many Jewish believers lived in Rome or how many he interactived with on any kind of regular basis.  That's totally conjecture.  But we do know that he had some contact with at least one Jewish believer because Jerome sent for a man from Tiberias to help him translate the meaning of various Hebrew names who happened to be a Jew.
      Jerome had said in his commentary on Matt. 12:13 that he had translated the Gospel according to the Hebrew into Latin.  But that was a separate publication from the Vulgate, and one we no longer have any copies of.  It's pretty much conjecture to assess whether he did anything "in person", but  the simple fact is, what does it matter?
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 1:29 PM
      Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] New Posting of Chicago Manuscripts at CSNTM


      I rather agree with Pritz' thrust, but don't think he goes quite far enough.

      First, though, let me say that Jerome's latter years were spent outside Bethlehem, and unlike later monastic practice, he was in no way inhibited from travel.  Caesarea is not a far journey from Bethlehem and *if* he had knowledge of the sect, it could just as easily derived from then as well.  In 385, he went back to Antioch and with friends traveled in Palestine visiting holy sites and then to Alexandria.  From 388 onwards, he lived outside Bethlehem.  De Viris if I recall was written in the early 390s.

      Pritz I think correct in saying that Jerome probably had no direct contact himself but went through intermediaries.  But it is his assumption, and that of his contemporaries, that the Nazarenes text was actually the same as that that supposedly resided in Caesarea, and that both were in fact the original of Matthew...based in part on what Papias said about Matthew in the second century.

      Jerome says he was given opportunity to copy it, but I don't know of anywhere where he claims or states that he translated it into Latin....his Gospels in the Vulgate had already been done, so the Vulgate Matthew is *NOT* a translation of the Hebrew Matthew.

      The "IOUDAIKW" problem is similar to that in Papias: does it refer to Hebrew? Aramaic? Jewish dialect of Greek?  Or as heterodoxus below seems to suggest, and as George Kennedy argued for Papias, does it refer to a "in a Jewish fashion" referring to the antithesis method of rhetoric?  Those are the possibilities, and everyone will no doubt have an opinion, but so far as I know, the evidence doesn't allow a firm conclusion.

      Larry Swain
      Independent Scholar

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "George F Somsel"
      To: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com
      Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] New Posting of Chicago Manuscripts at CSNTM
      Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 08:42:30 -0700 (PDT)


      Jerome seems to have claimed to have translated the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" (or was it a Hebrew version of Matthew which was somewhat different?).  It may be that he only translated a part of it.  

      There is only one place where Jerome is usually seen to be claiming that he had personal contact with members of the Nazarene sect. In de viris illustribus 3 we read: "The Hebrew itself [of the original Gospel of Matthew] has been preserved until the present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilius the martyr so diligently collected. From the Nazarenes who use this book in Beroea, a city in Syria, I also received the opportunity to copy it." For the moment let us deal only with the matter of his personal contact with the sect. If Jerome did make such contact, the only possible time, as noted above, could have been during the years 372–380, when he was in Antioch and in the desert near Beroea (375–377 being the most likely time). But Jerome, in this unique passage, does not specifically say that he had had intercourse with the Nazarene sect. That, indeed, may have been the impression he wanted to give, but all he in fact says is that they made it possible for him to copy their Hebrew gospel. We know that he later was in the habit of borrowing Hebrew manuscripts from synagogues, and that he did this indirectly, not actually taking or returning them in person." For a man committed to live the ascetic life in the desert, it must be considered likely that a loaned copy of the Hebrew gospel was brought to him and not borrowed personally. This passage, then, should not be taken alone as proof that Jerome was personally acquainted with the Nazarenes as a sect. But no other notice corroborates the supposition.


      Pritz, Ray A. Nazarene Jewish Christianity : From the End of the New Testament Period Until Its Disappearance in the Fourth Century. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1992.




      … search for truth, hear truth,
      learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
      defend the truth till death.

      - Jan Hus

      From: Heterodoxus <heterodoxus@ yahoo.com>
      To: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com
      Sent: Thu, April 1, 2010 8:19:32 AM
      Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] New Posting of Chicago Manuscripts at CSNTM


      In re Matt. 5:22, Wieland wrote: "We don't know what "Ioudaikon" refers to, probably a Gospel similar to Matthew in Aramaic."
      Or perhaps it's a general reference to the "Antithesis" to Jewish laws cited in Matt. 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-34, 38-39, 43-44? Just a thought.

      From: Wieland Willker <wie@uni-bremen. de>
      To: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com
      Sent: Thu, April 1, 2010 3:27:47 AM
      Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] New Posting of Chicago Manuscripts at CSNTM


      > [1424:]On folio 12a there is a note on EIKH (Mat 5:22).

      Ok, I looked at this. It reads:

      We don't know what "Ioudaikon" refers to, probably a Gospel
      similar to Matthew in Aramaic.
      There are more of these marginal comments referring to "the
      Ioudaikon". E.g. at 16:2-3, the verses about observing the
      weather, the following note appears:


      Best wishes
      ------------ --------- --------- --------- ---------
      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      http://www.uni- bremen.de/ %7Ewie
      Textcritical Commentary:
      http://www.uni- bremen.de/ %7Ewie/TCG/ index.html


      ____________ _________ _________ _________ ________
      Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
      Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera. com

      Powered by Outblaze

    • Show all 16 messages in this topic