Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

John2 wrote:Howard notes that the divorce issue (like the issue of swearing) is pro-Torah in the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew:

https://books.google.com/books?id=4tdEB ... rd&f=false

As for whether or not Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew is relevant to the first century CE, I think Howard makes a good case that it at least predates Shem Tov (e.g., given his comments throughout the text) and that it can exhibit superior readings, e.g., Mt. 23:2-3: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them"; a variant of the Hebrew version says to do all that "he" (i.e., Moses) says and not to follow the Pharisees, as discussed in the following link and in detail by Gordon in his book The Hebrew Yeshua vs. The Greek Jesus.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/nichols357923.shtml

Ross K. Nichols in his article on Matthew 23:2-3 quotes George Howard, “the evidence suggests that the Matthew text predates the fourteenth century.” To which he adds the following note “In both editions of George Howard’s work, he argues that the text predates the fourteenth century and that Shem Tob received his text from earlier Jewish scribes, but beyond this, he does not attempt to date the text.” This is very problematic, before the Shem Tob can be accepted as providing a more primitive version of Matthew’s gospel someone has to investigate and provide evidence to date it by. Also I looked at some of the issues Howard raises with regard to Shem Tob and I would be interested if anyone has compared the Hebrew with what the sayings could be in Aramaic to see if the Hebrew text often just produces those features behind the Greek in the original Aramaic.

Michael BG,

I understand and share your concern with the provenance of the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew. Howard notes that it "reflects contamination by Jewish scribes during the Middle Ages" (pg. 178) and its
"many revisions were designed to bring the Hebrew into harmony with the Greek and Latin texts of the Middle Ages" and "to improve the style of the Hebrew" etc. (pg. 182). But he still argues that
"Considerable parts of the original, however, appear to remain" (pg. 178) and I think he makes a good case for this all in all.

Regarding the Shem Tov Matthew and the Old Syriac, Howard says "many readings shared by Shem-Tob and the Old Syriac ... strongly suggest a relationship, whose roots go back to the early centuries of the Christian era" since "the Old Syriac perished in early antiquity" (pg. 196). He gives examples of these here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=4tdEB ... ac&f=false

He also mentions a 1960 study by Baarda showing that the Gospel of Thomas has five textual agreements with the du Tillet Hebrew Matthew, and that says that "I demonstrated above that du Tillet's Hebrew Matthew represents an extensive revision of the Shem-Tob type text, including both stylistic and substantive modification. The latter changes were especially designed to bring the Hebrew into agreement with the canonical Greek and Latin texts. If Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew is inserted into Baarda's chart, as replacement for the text of du Tillet, the agreements between Thomas and the Hebrew Matthew rise significantly. Instead of five agreements, Thomas now agrees with the Hebrew 22 times" (pg. 204).

He therefore argues that "Shem- Tob's relationship with Thomas is similar to his relationship with Codex Sinaiticus, the Old Syriac, and Q. Each of these works was lost in antiquity only to be discovered in modern times. It is highly unlikely that Shem-Tob had direct contact with the Gospel of Thomas. The agreements ... therefore, must be traced to the early centuries of the Christian era" (pg. 205).

Howard and Petersen have had an interesting back and forth regarding the provenance of the Shem Tov Matthew that I think Howard ultimately "won":

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v04/Howard1999.html

Regarding the question of "he" vs. "they" in Mt. 23, Garza argues for the Greek being a mistranslation of Hebrew:

https://books.google.com/books?id=DCR7C ... ew&f=false

In my view, this issue alone supports the tradition that Matthew was written in Hebrew and translated into Greek, whether or not (or to whatever extent) the Shem Tov version is a pure witness to it.

John2 wrote:Michael BG,

I understand and share your concern with the provenance of the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew. Howard notes that it "reflects contamination by Jewish scribes during the Middle Ages" (pg. 178) and its
"many revisions were designed to bring the Hebrew into harmony with the Greek and Latin texts of the Middle Ages" and "to improve the style of the Hebrew" etc. (pg. 182). But he still argues that
"Considerable parts of the original, however, appear to remain" (pg. 178) and I think he makes a good case for this all in all.

Petersen writes, “because of the high number of agreements with the Liège Harmony, many of them unique, the tradition behind the Liège Harmony--which we know to be a Latin gospel harmony--must also be the principal element responsible for the textual complexion of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew:”

And Howard responded by quoting himself, "The main thrust of this second edition is to demonstrate that the Hebrew Matthew contained in Shem-Tob's Evan Bohan predates the fourteenth century."

Therefore both agree that there is an older tradition behind the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew, but Howard wants to take it a lot further back than Petersen who states that the tradition cannot be earlier than 900 CE.

John2 wrote:Regarding the Shem Tov Matthew and the Old Syriac, Howard says "many readings shared by Shem-Tob and the Old Syriac ... strongly suggest a relationship, whose roots go back to the early centuries of the Christian era" since "the Old Syriac perished in early antiquity" (pg. 196). He gives examples of these here:

Unfortunately I failed to find the examples. The page you linked to was blank.

However when considering the Vetus Syra or Old Syriac Shem-Tob agreements, Petersen finds 4 or maybe 5 of the 12 in the Leige Harmony (c. 13th century) and states that some of them are because of similarity between the languages used in these documents (I assume Hebrew and Aramaic).

John2 wrote:He also mentions a 1960 study by Baarda showing that the Gospel of Thomas has five textual agreements with the du Tillet Hebrew Matthew, and that says that "I demonstrated above that du Tillet's Hebrew Matthew represents an extensive revision of the Shem-Tob type text, including both stylistic and substantive modification. The latter changes were especially designed to bring the Hebrew into agreement with the canonical Greek and Latin texts. If Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew is inserted into Baarda's chart, as replacement for the text of du Tillet, the agreements between Thomas and the Hebrew Matthew rise significantly. Instead of five agreements, Thomas now agrees with the Hebrew 22 times" (pg. 204).

He therefore argues that "Shem- Tob's relationship with Thomas is similar to his relationship with Codex Sinaiticus, the Old Syriac, and Q. Each of these works was lost in antiquity only to be discovered in modern times. It is highly unlikely that Shem-Tob had direct contact with the Gospel of Thomas. The agreements ... therefore, must be traced to the early centuries of the Christian era" (pg. 205).

Of the Codex Sinaiticus agreement Petersen states 4 are omissions but only 1 an agreement on redaction.

When considering the Thomas Shem-Tob redactional agreements Petersen writes, “There is only one thing which Howard's list of parallels with Thomas demonstrates: the closeness of the text of this Hebrew Matthew to the Western medieval harmonized gospel tradition, especially as represented in the Middle Dutch Liège Harmony.”

John2 wrote:Howard and Petersen have had an interesting back and forth regarding the provenance of the Shem Tov Matthew that I think Howard ultimately "won":

I think Howard got off to a bad start saying he didn’t want to write his rebuttal and attacking the language of Petersen, however Petersen has shown that lots of these agreements with older texts also appear in the Western medieval harmonized gospel tradition. Howard has not addressed these issues by presenting the same verses that Petersen presented. In fact Howard gave me the impression he didn’t want to consider medieval harmonisations at all.

John2 wrote: Regarding the question of "he" vs. "they" in Mt. 23, Garza argues for the Greek being a mistranslation of Hebrew:

It is also possible that the copyist of the Shem Tov has added a letter to a good Hebrew translation of the Greek to change “they” the Pharisees to “he” Moses.

John2 wrote:In my view, this issue alone supports the tradition that Matthew was written in Hebrew and translated into Greek, whether or not (or to whatever extent) the Shem Tov version is a pure witness to it.

If you study the Greek of Matthew and Luke in many places they are identical. This is seen by many as when they both were copying Q unchanged or with only a word or two changed. Also Matthew often uses the same Greek words as Mark. I think he does this more often than Luke, but that is only my opinion and I haven’t read anyone else saying this. It is these agreements in Greek where Matthew is using Mark or Q that are seen as good evidence that he wrote his gospel in Greek.

Michael BG,

I appreciate your response and you bring up some good issues. I could use a refresher on the subject of the Hebrew Matthews, and I'm not going to get into the Petersen vs. Howard thing (though I could use a refresher on that too).

As far as the "he" vs. "they" issue in Mt. 23 goes, regardless of the provenance of the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew I think the passage at least makes more sense as "he" (i.e., Moses) and can see how vav and yod in Hebrew could have been easily confused by a translator.

http://www.jerusalemperspective.com/9459/

Consider also this passage from Josephus (discussed here concerning the larger issue of Aramaic vs. Hebrew primacy):

"Josephus (War 5:269-272) points out that Jewish soldiers used a play on words that only makes sense in Hebrew. In 272, whenever a stone was on its way (being thrown from ballistea), the watchmen would shout "in their native language, 'The Son Cometh!'" While translators are confused by the Greek text, the answer makes sense in Hebrew. The translator even admits how the words could be confused in Hebrew but not Aramaic. The watchmen would have shouted, in Hebrew, Ha-even ba’ah ("the stone is coming!"). However, because of urgency, the words would be clipped to ben ba ("son comes!"). They reduced the syllables due to time constraints. This pun is known in Hebrew and even appears in the NT (Matthew 3:9 and Luke 3:8) "God is able from these avanim [stones] to raise up banim [sons] to Abraham."

http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q ... primacy-of

This pun is in the Shem Tov Matthew and missing in the Greek, and these kinds of puns give me a better appreciation for Jesus' sayings (whether or not they are purely represented by the present Hebrew Matthews).

This book also mentions the son/stone pun in Josephus and compares it with Mt. 3:9:

https://books.google.com/books?id=QPKsB ... ES&f=false

This webpage (http://www.datingthenewtestament.com/Matthew.htm) discusses the weaknesses of the Shem Tov Matthew and concludes:

"I believe these weaknesses render the Shem Tov Matthew essentially useless for any religious purpose, and it also should not be trusted as a primary source in any textual criticism study of Matthew."

It then mentions some strengths that stand out to me as well from my reading of Howard:

"However, there are two things about the book that seem instructive:

• The Shem Tov Matthew has many examples of puns, alliteration and word connections, far more than in the Greek text of Matthew or even modern Hebrew texts that were translated from the Greek. These types of literary devices are common in Biblical Hebrew, but it is unlikely that Shem Tov created them, as he was opposed to the Christian message and would not want to make the text more literary than it really was. It is also unlikely that this text was translated from Greek, as modern Hebrew translations of Matthew do not have many of these literary devices. The literary nature of the book indicates that its ancestral text, its original, may not have been a translation at all, but rather may have been originally written in Hebrew. In one example of word-play, the Hebrew of Matt 10:36 says the “enemies” (oyevim) are to be “loved ones” (ohuvim). There are too many such examples to list. There is one very prominent play on words in the Greek text of Matthew, and it occurs in 16:18, where Jesus says to Peter, “you are Peter (Petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church.” Interestingly, the Hebrew text of that verse contains a different play on words. Jesus says, “You are a stone (Eben), and upon you I will build (Ebenah) my house of prayer.”

• In the canonical New Testament, the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7 is a single long message spoken by Jesus, without any narrative interruption. However, in the Shem Tov Matthew, the Sermon on the Mount is interrupted 16 times by the introductory phrase “Again Jesus said to His disciples”, or something similar. These interruptions occur in Matt 5:13, 5:17, 5:20, 5:25, 5:27, 5:31, 5:43, 6:2, 6:5, 6:16, 6:19, 6:24, 7:6, 7:13, 7:15 and 7:24. The location of the interruptions is significant when placed in parallel with Luke’s usage of the same verses. Every time the Hebrew has an interruption, Luke either jumps to a different place in his gospel, or Luke does not have those verses. This curious fact may suggest that a common source or sources for the sayings of Jesus stand behind both Matthew and Luke. In a way, these interruptions could be considered fingerprints of the famous Q source. But if so, it would point to a Hebrew language Q. A similar thing happens in the Olivet discourse of Matthew 24-25. The Shem Tov version of Matt 24:27 interrupts Jesus' talk with the narrative “Again Jesus said to His disciples.” This ends a section that appears also in Mark, while the following passage (Matt 24:27) does not appear in Mark. Interruptions also in Matt 24:37 (Luke diff spot, Mark doesn’t have it), 24:42 (Mark has it, diff spot, Luke does not), 25:1 (not in Mark or Luke), 25:14, 25:31 (not in Mark or Luke).

Bases on the testimony of the Early Church Fathers, the characteristics of the Shem Tov Matthew, and the internal evidence of Matthew itself, I would conclude that the earliest version of the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew. Furthermore, the differences between the Shem Tov Matthew and the canonical Matthew give evidence that various significantly different renditions of Matthew once existed. Our canonical Greek Matthew would necessarily be the final, most polished rendition."

Another interesting pun is the naming of Jesus in Mt. 1:21. Ben-Chorin notes that "This wordplay is understandable only in Hebrew":

https://books.google.com/books?id=nER1T ... ew&f=false

As does Garza:

https://books.google.com/books?id=DCR7C ... ew&f=false

John2 wrote:
As far as the "he" vs. "they" issue in Mt. 23 goes, regardless of the provenance of the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew I think the passage at least makes more sense as "he" (i.e., Moses) and can see how vav and yod in Hebrew could have been easily confused by a translator.

I agree he (Moses) does make more sense, but I would also like to see it considered from an Aramaic prospective.

John2 wrote: This pun is in the Shem Tov Matthew and missing in the Greek, and these kinds of puns give me a better appreciation for Jesus' sayings (whether or not they are purely represented by the present Hebrew Matthews).

Again I would like to know if the puns worked in Aramaic and whether they are mistranslations for the Aramaic.

Also I haven’t looked at the nature of the Matthew text to see if these puns are in the Q material, or the M material or the Marcan tradition. If they are in the Marcan tradition can they be explained by the Greek Matthew text being translated by a Christian with excellent Hebrew skills?

John2 wrote:This webpage (http://www.datingthenewtestament.com/Matthew.htm) discusses the weaknesses of the Shem Tov Matthew and concludes:

"I believe these weaknesses render the Shem Tov Matthew essentially useless for any religious purpose, and it also should not be trusted as a primary source in any textual criticism study of Matthew."

It then mentions some strengths that stand out to me as well from my reading of Howard:

However, there are two things about the book that seem instructive:

• The Shem Tov Matthew has many examples of puns, ..

• In the canonical New Testament, the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7 … The Shem Tov version of Matt 24:27 interrupts Jesus' talk with the narrative “Again Jesus said to His disciples.” This ends a section that appears also in Mark, while the following passage (Matt 24:27) does not appear in Mark. Interruptions also in Matt 24:37 (Luke diff spot, Mark doesn’t have it), 24:42 (Mark has it, diff spot, Luke does not), 25:1 (not in Mark or Luke), 25:14, 25:31 (not in Mark or Luke).

Bases on the testimony of the Early Church Fathers, the characteristics of the Shem Tov Matthew, and the internal evidence of Matthew itself, I would conclude that the earliest version of the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew. Furthermore, the differences between the Shem Tov Matthew and the canonical Matthew give evidence that various significantly different renditions of Matthew once existed. Our canonical Greek Matthew would necessarily be the final, most polished rendition."

I couldn’t see anything about the person you are quoting (I have included everything in the second longer quote from that webpage in quotes within your quote to make clear all of it is from that website).

Here he is just using Howard as his evidence.

Later on he uses Mt 17:24-27 for a pre-70 CE date based on the idea that the discussion is based on the idea that the “two-drachma” tax was paid to the Temple as per Exodus 30:13, but after 70 CE there was the Fiscus Judaicus which was imposed on all Jews at two-drachma. In verse 27 there is the word στατηρα which can be translated as “a four-drachma coin” rather than “shekel” as the word really means a coin – the Liddell only translates it as “standard coin”. If Matthew was written for Jewish Christians then this whole saying could be a creation of that group to give authority to the paying of the Fiscus Judaicus after 70 CE.

John2 wrote:Another interesting pun is the naming of Jesus in Mt. 1:21. Ben-Chorin notes that "This wordplay is understandable only in Hebrew":

https://books.google.com/books?id=nER1T ... ew&f=false

As does Garza:

https://books.google.com/books?id=DCR7C ... ew&f=false

I couldn’t find enough information on Schalom Ben-Chorin to give an opinion on his views. He is described as a journalist. I am not sure how critically he treats the gospel accounts, from what little I read – not critically at all. His methodology appears to be “Intuitive interpretation” (p 5).

However Al Garza (who seems to be a specialist in Hebrew) wrote regarding Mt 1:21

“It provides strong evidence in favour of the theory that there was a Hebrew or Aramaic oral or written tradition behind the extant Greek manuscripts, for only in Hebrew or Aramaic does the explanation here of Yeshua’s name make any sense …”

However he points out that Jesus (Yeshu) as used by Galilean Jews was shortened from Joshua (Y’hoshua).

Al Garza seems to also believe that Matthew was written in Hebrew first!

I don’t know enough about Hebrew and Aramaic to accept that behind some of the text of Matthew there is a Hebrew version (oral or written) rather than an Aramaic one. I would be very interested in reading an expert on Aramaic considering Howard’s view on the puns, alliteration and word connections.

Michael BG wrote: ... I don’t know enough about Hebrew and Aramaic to accept that behind some of the text of Matthew there is a Hebrew version (oral or written) rather than an Aramaic one. I would be very interested in reading an expert on Aramaic considering Howard’s view on the puns, alliteration and word connections.

I found out about Shem Tov Hebrew language Gospel of Matthew from Hugh Schonfield's books (I encountered them in the mid to late 1970s), and did make an attempt to figure out whether the author of the Shem Tov Matthew translated it into Hebrew from the canonical Greek (I think he did, although paraphrased), or whether he also had access to already existent Hebrew language notes that bore relation to canonical Matthew, which influenced the translation (I am not convinced he did, although I have an open mind - yes, if anyone cares to make this assumption, that means I must have a hole in my head, ha ha ).

I believe that Howard's ideas have been discussed on Crosstalk2 (XTalk), Synoptic-l (not sure if it was in the old one or the current one, which is just plain "Synoptic"), both forums part of Google Groups, and the IOUDAIOS e-lists. Howard, while a bit, well, weird, he knows his Aramaic. He was (maybe still is) a moderator and owner of an e-list that, I believe, had the name Aramaic-l. He is also a (self) published author.

Probably it would help to type the name "Jack Kilmon" into your search engine, as he is proficient in Aramaic, having been taught it, and Biblical Hebrew, informally by family friend William Albright starting when Jack was 8 years old (about 1948). As a side note to Stephan H: I'm pretty sure that if Albright had a boat, Jack has been on it. Jack, like Howard, is also a colorful figure (e.g., used to milk venomous snakes for a living, was a co-owner of a reptile zoo/lab in MD at age 29, and later operating a private research lab, filing several patents related to extraction/purification/concentration of snake venom). Jack has published articles on the subject, and I am sure he participated in the discussions, but to be honest my recollection is vague.

DCH

Michael BG,

Ben-Chorin is "considered one of the great thinkers of Judaism in German" and founded the first Reform synagogue in Israel and his son Tovia is a rabbi:

http://www.hagalil.com/ben-chorin/shalom.htm

Craig Davis is a Christian and wrote a book I haven't read called Dating the Old Testament:

http://www.datingtheoldtestament.com/author.htm

Garza is a Messianic Jew (among other things):

http://www.askdral.org/about

They are just some disparate sources who come to the same conclusion about Mt. 1:21.

I've taken different sides (and no side) on the issue the provenance and relevancy of the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew over the years and share the same concerns and reservations about it that you have and you ask good questions. What's made me reconsider its value these days is Nehemia Gordon's book the Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus:

http://www.hilkiahpress.com/hebrew_yeshua_book.html

This link on the page will give you a taste of Gordon's general approach:

http://www.hilkiahpress.com/was_yeshua_a_pharisee.html

Gordon is a Karaite Jew and provides a unique perspective on this issue in general in the above book and specifically on Mt. 1:21 here (which I haven't read yet):

http://www.amazon.com/The-Naming-Jesus- ... 0976263734

I was fortunate to be able to talk with Gordon on a discussion group about fifteen years ago when I was considering becoming a Karaite and remain very impressed with his knowledge.

As far as Mt. 23 goes, the Aramaic Matthews say "they say," as a critic of Gordon notes here:

http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArt ... Gordon.pdf