The Authenticity of the Shem Tov Version of Matthew's Gospel.

[rakovsky]

On the Thread "Jesus and the Pharisees"
(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29935.0.html),
Marc1152 posted a movie called "The Hebrew Yeshua v. The Greek Jesus"
(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2662031810327980639#).

The movie is academic and fun to watch. (Thanks for posting it, Marc.)

The presenter, Nehemiah Gordon, takes the view that the 14th century "Shem Tov" version of Matthew's gospel has some unique, authentic parts of Matthew's Gospel, which he concludes would have been written in Hebrew.

One of Nehemiah Gordon's most persuasive points is that a Hebrew pun appears with the Hebrew word "vayet" (meaning stretched out / turned) in the Shem Tov version of Matthew 12:13-15.

In fact, the poetic aspects of the passage appears to go beyond a simple word pun, and include a chiastic structure, that is, verses with symmetrical meaning. Matthew 12:13-15 can be lined up  to show the passage's symmetry, with verse 14 acting as a mirror between 13 and 15:

13 Then He said to the man,   [transitive act]
“Stretch out your hand.”         [verbal command to perform "vayet"]
And he vayet, [stretched it out],
and it was restored as whole as the other. [something the hand itself does]

14 Then the Pharisees went out and plotted against Him, how they might destroy Him.

15 But when Jesus knew it,  [something Jesus Himself does]
He vayet [withdrew] from there.
And great multitudes followed Him,     [following by performing "vayet"]
and He healed them all.     [transitive act]


At first glance, the only way that the Shev Tov matches the chiasm closer than a simple Hebrew translation of the Greek would is that the Shem Tov has the word "And" in the second part of verse 15. But on closer inspection, putting the word "And" there would contradict the poetry, because there also appears to be a symmetry where the 3rd and 4th lines of verses 13 and 15 begin with "And", and the 1st and 2nd lines of both verses don't begin with "And."

One question is whether the verbs withdraw and stretch out are the same in Aramaic too, which would leave open the question of whether the passage was written first in Aramaic or Hebrew. A line by line Aramaic- English translation doesn't appear to show that the same word is used in Aramaic:
http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/Peshittainterlinear/1_Matthew/Mattich12.pdf
On the other hand, the Hebrew translation of the normal Greek Matthew doesn't seem to use the same word either:
http://dvar-adonai.org/hnt/He_htm/Matthew011-015.htm
This suggests that the use of "vayet" in its exact form is unique to the Shem Tov, which would in turn at first suggest that the Shem Tov was uniquely original, because the words stretched out and withdrew appear to be poetically connected in the verse

But on the other hand, maybe the word "vayet" here in the Shem Tov actually would be out of place in the chiasm, because (a) the rest of the chiasm appears to have very few words that exactly match on the other side of the "mirror", despite the fact that there are similar ideas on either sider, and (b) "vayet" is used in line 3 of verse 13 and line 2 of verse 15, but maybe the correct symmetry would be between line 2 and line 2, and between line 3 and line 3.


So it sounds like Gordon is on to something with a Hebrew language connection between "stretching out" and "withdrawing." This suggests that the person who wrote this part of Matthew was thinking in terms of Hebrew or Aramaic poetry.

The Shem Tov version makes the words' connection clear, suggesting in favor of Shem Tov having an original selection. So it seems like the only counterarguments would be if:
(a) The original Hebrew version of the passage was independent of the Shem Tov, but the original Hebrew version still translated the passage this way. This would make sense, for example, if the Shem Tov simply translated from Greek into Hebrew in a way that appealed to Shem Tov's translator, and if "vayet" was a likely translation of the Greek; or
(b) The original version of this passage was not Hebrew but Aramaic, and if a similar word connection between "stretched out" and "withdrew" existed in Aramaic too, since it's also a Semitic language.

Offhand, possibility (b) about Aramaic appears doubtful based on the English-Aramaic lineup in: http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/Peshittainterlinear/1_Matthew/Mattich12.pdf

But then again, this could simply be a re-translation back from the Greek, in which the original word connection was lost during the process of translating into Greek and back again.

What do you think?

[rakovsky]

A Parable about "Shalem" (Paying) Debts and Forgiving Them with a "Shalem" (Complete) Heart

Then, Gordon points to Matthew 18:23-35, a parable where a king is owed a debt by his servant, so the servant goes to his own servants to get the money. Gordon points out that the parable uses the word "shalem", meaning "to pay," five times in the Shem Tov version. Then the parable concludes: "So shall my heavenly Father do if you do not forgive each man his brother with a 'shalem' [ie complete] heart."

By comparison, the KJV has the verb "pay" 5 or 6 times, and concludes: "So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses."

The Shem Tov version sounds like it has a good Hebrew word pun. Counterarguments could exist:
(a) if Shem Tov had more than one version of the gospel and chose the one with the word pun for his translation
(b) that perhaps he inserted or made up the word pun because it sounded good.
On the other hand, I don't know whether other versions of the gospels have this pun, since Gordon doesn't say here if the Shem Tov is the only version that does.

Gordon says that the word-pun, here "shalem," is interwoven into the parable, and that "without recognizing the Hebrew word pun, you're missing something."

It's true that the word "shalem" is woven throughout the parable, but I'm confused what I would be missing if I missed the word pun. That is, what is the relation between shalem (paying) a debt and forgiving with a shalem (complete) heart? It could just be a point of emphasis, that the word "shalem" is repeated so many times, that the repetition adds strength when the word shalem is repeated in the conclusion sentence. In other words, it's important that forgiveness be with a very very complete heart. OK, this has some meaning, but I think it would be unnecessary to do this kind of interweaving just to make a point of emphasis.

Another possible meaning from the wordplay is that just as someone "shalem" (pays/fulfills) debts, they must forgive others with a "shalem" (paying/fulfilled) heart. Here, someone's sins against you are a kind of spiritual debt for which they must pay you off, and to avoid paying God for your own sins, you must discharge other people's debts with a "paying" heart. So maybe here it means: they spiritually owe you spiritual money, but instead you must forgive them with a spiritual heart.

I feel like there can be some deeper meaning in this verse from the Shem Tov version of the verse, but I am confused what it would be.

What do you think about the counterarguments (a and b), and the meaning of the possible word-play?

[rakovsky]

A Greek or Hebrew Pun on Building the Church on Peter, the Rock?
Next, Gordon points to a pun that exists in Greek Matthew 16:18: "You are Petros, and upon this petrai [Greek for rock] I will build my Church." Gordon says that some scholars find this to be definitive proof that matthew wrote the gospel in Greek. I'm not sure that it's definitive, since it seems that Jesus might just have spoken Greek and used the pun in naming Peter, and then the event could have been recorded in Hebrew. Gordon says that there is only one word pun in the entire Greek text, by which he should mean one Greek word pun, since it seems like if the Greek gospel was written first in Hebrew like Gordon proposes, then translating it back into Hebrew would reveal more Hebrew puns.

Gordon then points to Shem Tov's Matthew 16:18: "You are an "even" (stone) and I "evneh" (will build) my house of prayer(church) upon you." Well, that sounds like a good word play. It runs pretty close to the Greek, except that the Greek version would translate into Hebrew as: "You are "even" (stone) and on this "even" (stone) I will evneh (build) my house of prayer(church)."

First, this phrase exists in the Greek, so if the Greek was translated from Hebrew, I assume the same word play would exist, so it doesn't mean that the Shem Tov must be the original of the Hebrew version.
Second, there already exists a word-pun on Peter's name even/rock/petros, because he is being nicknamed for his role in building the church, so a second word-play would seem unnecessary.
Third, the word play of even-evneh could be a coincidence inherent in the words used. That is, it could simply be that Jesus wanted to say that he would build His church on Peter (or his statement of faith), and the words Peter (stone) and (build) were the most natural ones to use. And the word "build" naturally has in its meaning the word stone, since building was often done with stones in that time. So it could be a coincidence.

I have some doubt that since the same word pun exists in Hebrew as in Greek, this makes the Greek pun fall away so that it doesn't show the gospel was written first in Greek. Peter could have been a name for ministering to gentiles, like Paul got his name when he ministered to them, even though their Jewish names were Simon and Saul. In that case, it seems like it could suggest that the double Greek word play of Peter/petrai was more in Jesus' mind than calling him "Even"/evneh, which phonetically I don't remember hearing Peter called outside of the possible Hebrew gospel(s).
To make it clearer, if that "Peter" like "Paul" was a gentile-oriented name, this would mean that Jesus was using a Greek orientation in choosing the name, and that when He explained the name it was still in keeping with the Greek orientation.  Still, it seems like weak evidence that this passage was written in Greek.

I'm not sure what to make of the word "build" (evneh) here, since I'm not sure what it adds beyond besides alliteration.

For example, if I say that I will call you "Calculator" because I will use you to solve match problems, then there is a joke. But if I say I will call you Calculator because I will use you to "calculate" math problems, then it isn't clear to me that the joke has any extra meaning: the technological word "Calculator" itself is a pun on the word "calculate", just like in Hebrew the word "build" is itself a pun on the word "stone."

By comparison, it isn't clear to me which of the two styles sounds better:
Greek style: "I call you Calculator, and on this calculator I will solve math problems"
Shem Tov style: "I call you "Calculator" and I will calculate math problems on you"

[minasoliman]

What about the word "Cephas?"  Doesn't that mean "Rock" also?  Wouldn't the Aramaic talk about "Cephas" rather than "Petros"?

[rakovsky]

Dear minasoliman,

You asked:

What about the word "Cephas?"  Doesn't that mean "Rock" also?

Cephas was also a name for Peter. It was the Aramaic name, and means "Rock" too, as John 1:42 says:
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
The footnote in the NIV is: "Both Cephas (Aramaic) and Peter (Greek) mean rock."

You asked:

Wouldn't the Aramaic talk about "Cephas" rather than "Petros"?

I am not sure of the answer to this.

I expect the answer is "Yes" and that an Aramaic translation would translate each word into Aramaic, at least because it would preserve the word pun "You are ______, and upon this _____", where the words in the blanks shared the same root in the same language. After all, if the Greek name Petros was kept, then the Aramaic would not clearly show the word-sound-pun connecting the name "Peter" to the "Rock", since the would be in two different languages.

Plus, as I mentioned above, John 1 actually gives Peter's name as Cephas, the Aramaic translation, and only puts the Greek name as an explanation of it. So it makes sense to propose that Peter's main name was Cephas and only Peter as a Greek translation.

Still, the reason I said I was not sure is because after all, Greek was a common langauge too and Peter's name could have been given in Greek too, perhaps in other contexts, and the writer of Matthew 16:18, assuming it was first written in Greek, may have had in mind in fact the name Greek name "Petros", and in that case it would make sense to keep the Greek name, rather than translate it into its meaning, just as say "Mashiach" is written in English as Messiah, even though it means "Anointed one", apparently referring to an anointed king.

In fact, there is an ancient Aramaic version of the Gospel of Matthew. This version keeps the Aramaic version of "Peter":
16:18 I also say to thee, that thou art Kepha, the Stone, and on this stone I will build my Church, and the doors of Sheol shall not overpower it.
(http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku/bbl/aramat3.htm)

However, it isn't clear whether this version is older or later than the Greek version:

The Old Syriac Aramaic versions of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John exist at this time in two ancient manuscripts -- the manuscripts that date to about the same time as our best Greek-language manuscripts of the gospels, on which most of the Bibles published today are based.

1. Old Syriac Codex Sinaiticus, dated to the mid- or late-fourth century.
2. Old Syriac Codex Curetonianus, dated to the early fifth century.

Both of these manuscripts were first discovered in the 19th century...

At this time, there are many disputes among the specialists about how these ancient Aramaic gospels are related to the Greek gospel texts. Although the majority of NT scholars today prefer to think that these Aramaic texts had originally been based on the Greek manuscripts (i.e. presumably on some Greek manuscripts that would have been even earlier than these Old Syriac ones), this opinion is not universal. Some scholars also claim that the Aramaic text is more original than the Greek -- or that at least some of these Aramaic texts are more original than their Greek counterparts.
http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku/bbl/aramgosp.htm

Peace Be to You, Minasoliman.

[pmpn8rGPT]

"For Matthew composed the logia [sayings] in Hebrew style; but each recorded them as he was able"

The British Library has a few Hebrew Gospels which match Shem Tov's almost perfectly.  Just another reason why more Orthodox should learn Hebrew.

And, before I forget...

[rakovsky]

"For Matthew composed the logia [sayings] in Hebrew style; but each recorded them as he was able"

The British Library has a few Hebrew Gospels which match Shem Tov's almost perfectly.  Just another reason why more Orthodox should learn Hebrew.

Would you happen to know when and by whom those in the British Library were composed?

[xariskai]

Old thread; here's 2 cents...

Most scholars consider all the rabbinical Hebrew versions of Matthew's Gospel (Shem-Tob's Matthew, the later Du Tillet Matthew, and the Münster Matthew) to be translated from medieval Greek or Latin mss of the canonical Matthew, for the purpose of Jewish apologetics (cf. Raymond Brown, Introduction to the New Testament (1997), p. 210: "There are medieval Hebrew forms of Matt that most scholars think of as retroversions from the Greek of canonical Matt, often made to serve in arguments between Christians and Jews. However, some claim that these texts are a guide to the original Hebrew of Matt (French scholars like J. Carmignac and M. Dubarle have contributed to this thesis). Still other scholars think they can reconstruct the original Hebrew or Aramaic underlying the whole or parts of the Greek text of canonical Matt. on the assumption that the original was in Semitic... The vast majority of scholars, however, contend that the Gospel we know as Matt. was composed originally in Greek and is not a translation of a Semitic original...).

Cf. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3410392
"Responding to assertions and evidence in a 1997 New Testament Studies article by R. F. Shedinger (and to George Howard, the editor of the text in question), this article demonstrates with fourteen textual examples and circumstantial evidence (Isaac Velasquez's Arabic gospel translation) that the Hebrew Matthew contained in Shem-Tob's Even Bohan (1) is part of the western harmonized gospel tradition, (2) is especially, often uniquely, related to the traditions which lie behind the Middle Dutch Liège Harmony, and (3) is translated from a medieval Latin Vorlage. In no way is it (pace Shedinger) related to or (pace Howard) pre-Johannine."
Cf. additional text here: http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol03/Petersen1998a.html#par133

George Howard in reply affirms "the point of this book is simply to demonstrate that the tradition lying behind Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew predates the fourteenth century, perhaps by several centuries. Nothing more!"

Jehovah's Witnesses have been appealing to Shem Tob since before their New World Translation came out selectively using it to insert "Jehovah" in the NT text -except where what Shem Tob has would suggest a reading supporting the deity of Christ, in which case it is left out (cherry-picking).

Cf. also informally http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Gospel_hypothesis

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Foreign Language Forums > Foreign Languages Forum > Other Languages > Topic: The Authenticity of the Shem Tov Version of Matthew's Gospel.