OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 25, 2014, 04:52:37 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Authenticity of the Shem Tov Version of Matthew's Gospel.  (Read 4723 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,165



WWW
« on: March 29, 2011, 06:12:28 PM »

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?
« Last Edit: March 29, 2011, 06:21:32 PM by rakovsky » Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,165



WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 29, 2011, 07:16:37 PM »

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?
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,165



WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 29, 2011, 08:43:54 PM »

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"
« Last Edit: March 29, 2011, 09:12:54 PM by rakovsky » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,269


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 30, 2011, 02:27:01 PM »

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

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,165



WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 13, 2012, 08:37:37 PM »

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:
Quote
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:
Quote
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.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2012, 08:40:22 PM by rakovsky » Logged
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #5 on: May 05, 2013, 10:11:24 PM »

Quote from: Papias of Hierapolis
"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...


Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,165



WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 08, 2013, 12:25:23 AM »

Quote from: Papias of Hierapolis
"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?
« Last Edit: May 08, 2013, 12:25:47 AM by rakovsky » Logged
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,250


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #7 on: May 08, 2013, 03:26:45 AM »

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

Logged

Silly Stars
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #8 on: May 29, 2013, 12:15:05 AM »

Quote from: Papias of Hierapolis
"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?
I honestly don't know, I remembered hearing that they predate most of the Greek texts, but I can't remember where I heard this.
Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #9 on: May 29, 2013, 12:38:21 AM »

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


Interesting and well-put response.  However I am not convinced.

It is likely that Shem Tov's St. Matthew's Gospel was translated from a Greek version, however the questions still begs as to why there aren't Greek word puns all over the Greek versions of St. Matthew's Gospels, yet every extent Hebrew version of St. Matthew's Gospels that I know of has Hebrew word puns all over it.

Both Hebrew and Greek texts contain "Hebraisms" (expressions which mean something in Hebrew but have no meaning in other cultures, an example of an "Englishism" would be something like "pushing on daisies").

It is also important to note that St. Matthew's early Gospels (including the canonical one) were addressed to a Hebrew Christian audience.  It is probably more likely to have been written in a language they can better understand before being translated when it became more popular among the "Gentile Church." 

IIRC, some Church Fathers mentioned Hebrew versions of St. Matthew's Gospels being used by Early Church Judaizers (Ebionites, Nazerenes, Elkasaites, etc.), I'll try doing a long google search tomorrow and see if I can find them.
Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,250


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #10 on: May 29, 2013, 03:08:28 AM »

the questions still begs as to why there aren't Greek word puns all over the Greek versions of St. Matthew's Gospels, yet every extent Hebrew version of St. Matthew's Gospels that I know of has Hebrew word puns all over it.
The original discourses were probably in Aramaic, so that question is absolutely not begged. Yet such Aramaisms are stronger in the Gospel of Mark than Matthew[1] which is one of the main arguments for the priority of Mark (that Matthew used Mark, in Greek, as a source http://bible.org/article/synoptic-problem  ). So Aramaisms as they stand in the all the Synoptic Gospels, not just Matthew, actually count even further against such a view to the point that it is more of a problematic than a proof for canonical Matthew not in Greek. Not only that, but the passages found in Matthew from the Old Testament are also often from the Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, rather than being from a Matthean translation from a Hebrew text of the OT. Beyond all that we still know for a fact that Shem Tov is translated from Greek, not Hebrew (see above), and we know why (Roman Catholics demanded Shem Tov defend Judaism on pain of death, after which he hastily prepared his Hebrew translation of Matthew from Greek) and we know all major contemporary scholars reject an "authentic Shem Tov," so while everyone on the internet will seldom be convinced of anything under the sun it really seems to me like game over.

Both Hebrew and Greek texts contain "Hebraisms" (expressions which mean something in Hebrew but have no meaning in other cultures, an example of an "Englishism" would be something like "pushing on daisies").
See above.

were addressed to a Hebrew Christian audience.  It is probably more likely to have been written in a language they can better understand before being translated when it became more popular among the "Gentile Church."
Matthew's contemporaries did not generally speak or understand Hebrew, which was a dead language that had evolved by that time into Aramaic. But Greek was the lingua franca and well known, so there's not really a problem per se with a Greek Matthew any more than there was a Greek Septuagint.

IIRC, some Church Fathers mentioned Hebrew versions of St. Matthew's Gospels being used by Early Church Judaizers (Ebionites, Nazerenes, Elkasaites, etc.), I'll try doing a long google search tomorrow and see if I can find them.
Sure, but that's a *very* well-worn path in all the relevant literature which proves nothing about the canonical Matthew we know of since (A) all the passages which are dependent upon Papias and therefore are exegeted primarily from his account as the primary source can be understood as meaning something different from the composition of canonical Matthew (e.g. some have postulated a Hebrew original Q source, though that is also controversial, and there are other possible understandings as well, but the notion that this helps support an "authentic Shem Tov" is just not self-evident, to put it as nicely as one can) and (B) the nature of Synoptic criticism of Matthew in and of itself is the primary rather than secondary issue with which one must contend (i.e. one cannot just say something like "Shem Tov is authentic" without also overturning the major consensus regarding the relationship of the Synoptic Gospels to one another with word for word dependance in Greek).

I'll just end on the same note by which I began with: the proposed view of an "original Shem Tov" is rejected by all major contemporary scholarship.

If someone wants to argue something like Aramaic primacy one still has a huge uphill battle with only fringe proponents like Lamsa on one's team, but that is enough of a different topic to warrant *a different thread* than a defense of an "authentic Shem Tov," which is, frankly not a topic I personally even consider worth "debating." And even with regard to a lesser claim of Aramaic primacy one must in great detail interact with the absolute settled fact -not opinion- of interdependence among the Synoptic Gospels *in Greek* http://bible.org/article/synoptic-problem  

If someone was to publish an article that shifted the tide of contemporary scholarship in a peer reviewed journal on this particular topic of "authentic Shem Tov" I might be inclined to something more than a *yawn* and an "I'll pass" -no disrespect intended to others who are attracted to this fringe view regarding an "authentic Shem Tov," which is for the most part the likes of Jehovah's Witnesses, former Way International "Messianic" proponent Michael Rood (who is also still an Arian) and etc. But the stream of "arguments" on this sort of thing is endless these days.

__________
[1] "But when the word usage of Matthew and Luke is compared with Mark, it is apparent either that Matthew and Luke have in large measure changed the colloquial or Semitic text of Mark into better Greek, and have done so in the same or similar ways, or that only Matthew or Luke has affected any such alteration: cf. the replacement of κραβαττος (Mk. 2:4) by κλινη (Matthew) or κλινιδιον (Luke), or the change of the difficult construction τι ουτος ουτως λαλει; βλασφημει (Mk. 2:7) in different ways by Matthew and Luke" (Kummel, Introduction to the NT, p. 58).

« Last Edit: May 29, 2013, 03:39:01 AM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,250


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #11 on: May 29, 2013, 04:22:44 AM »

Quote
Quote
Would you happen to know when and by whom those in the British Library were composed?
I honestly don't know, I remembered hearing that they predate most of the Greek texts, but I can't remember where I heard this.
That is absolutely wrong.

Extant Greek mss. http://www.biblequery.org/mtmss.htm

The extant Heb. translations are late medieval, and *clearly derived from medieval Greek and/or Latin texts*, e.g.
1385 Shem Tov  
1537 Munster
1555 Jean du Tillet  
1750 Rahabi Ezekiel  
1869 Elias Soloweyczyk


« Last Edit: May 29, 2013, 04:28:42 AM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #12 on: May 29, 2013, 02:23:16 PM »

Quote
Quote
Would you happen to know when and by whom those in the British Library were composed?
I honestly don't know, I remembered hearing that they predate most of the Greek texts, but I can't remember where I heard this.
That is absolutely wrong.

Extant Greek mss. http://www.biblequery.org/mtmss.htm

The extant Heb. translations are late medieval, and *clearly derived from medieval Greek and/or Latin texts*, e.g.
1385 Shem Tov  
1537 Munster
1555 Jean du Tillet  
1750 Rahabi Ezekiel  
1869 Elias Soloweyczyk



Yes and no.  There are many many more Hebrew Matthews than those, however most of them are unpublished, there are many published and unpublished works in the British Library and in Jerusalem (most of the ones in Jerusalem were taken from St. Petersburg).  There are also a few in Prague from a museum which is the largest collection of Judaica in the world.
Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #13 on: May 29, 2013, 03:50:18 PM »

The original discourses were probably in Aramaic, so that question is absolutely not begged.
If someone decides to write a biography of someone who spoke English for a Chinese audience, they are a lot less likely to use an expression like "dead as a door-nail" (as Nehemiah Gordon mentioned in the video linked, I just watched it on YouTube).  An example of this is that one of the main arguments against the Hebraism argument is Greek Matthew 16:18* which would be a feasible argument because if Matthew wrote it in Greek it would be easier for people who spoke Greek to understand the phrase (not sure if that last part makes sense, my brain is starting to go numb from all of the linguistic discussions).

Not only that, but the passages found in Matthew from the Old Testament are also often from the Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, rather than being from a Matthean translation from a Hebrew text of the OT.
In my opinion this is probably the biggest argument against Hebrew Matthew.  While Matthew was the second earliest Gospel to be written, it is very likely that the Jews were already beginning to corrupt the Hebrew OT Scriptures and that St. Matthew would have quoted based off of the Septuagint.  Keep in mind that I cannot read or speak Greek, nor have I ever been able to get my hands on the Dead Sea Scrolls, however I have heard that the DSS matches the Septuagint more than the Masoretic Text, so if that is true than it may also be possible that St. Matthew was actually quoting texts that matched or were similar to the DSS.  

that Matthew used Mark, in Greek, as a source
All of the Evangelists used many different sources, nothing new here (also assuming that the two-gospel theory or the Q theory is incorrect, I honestly don't know enough about these theories to accurately comment but it should be looked into).


Matthew's contemporaries did not generally speak or understand Hebrew, which was a dead language that had evolved by that time into Aramaic. But Greek was the lingua franca and well known, so there's not really a problem per se with a Greek Matthew any more than there was a Greek Septuagint.
His early ministry was in Judea.  IIRC, some scholars said that even placing his Gospel fifteen years after the Resurrection is a bit late.  


I'll just end on the same note by which I began with: the proposed view of an "original Shem Tov" is rejected by all major contemporary scholarship.

If someone wants to argue something like Aramaic primacy one still has a huge uphill battle with only fringe proponents like Lamsa on one's team, but that is enough of a different topic to warrant *a different thread* than a defense of an "authentic Shem Tov," which is, frankly not a topic I personally even consider worth "debating." And even with regard to a lesser claim of Aramaic primacy one must in great detail interact with the absolute settled fact -not opinion- of interdependence among the Synoptic Gospels *in Greek* http://bible.org/article/synoptic-problem  

If someone was to publish an article that shifted the tide of contemporary scholarship in a peer reviewed journal on this particular topic of "authentic Shem Tov" I might be inclined to something more than a *yawn* and an "I'll pass" -no disrespect intended to others who are attracted to this fringe view regarding an "authentic Shem Tov," which is for the most part the likes of Jehovah's Witnesses, former Way International "Messianic" proponent Michael Rood (who is also still an Arian) and etc. But the stream of "arguments" on this sort of thing is endless these days.
It depends on what your view of "authentic" is.  If you are denying that Shem Tov had a version of the Gospel of St. Matthew, then I suppose I'll just have to pass Tongue.

All joking aside, you mentioned that Shem Tov rushed in his translation of a Hebrew Matthew just so he could stay Jewish (they did not threaten to kill him unless he lost a debate and did not convert), so why would he have cared so much about putting in Hebrew Word Puns and Hebraisms rather than a word-for-word translation?  You can go on Google Translate and type in many of the words commonly given as examples and find that there are many different words he could have used.  Some of them would have actually been more common.  

I suppose that suggesting Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew is the original is a bit ridiculous, it is not ridiculous that he may have had some fragments and/or oral knowledge and pieced them together, in fact, that would probably be more likely because it makes more sense to use something that the rest of the Jews would have had some knowledge of.

As far as Michael Rood and the JWs go, this doesn't really change anything.  The Evangelicals accept The Book of Revelation, just because they believe in the rapture nonsense does not diminish the authority of Revelation.

*Of course, there is also a Hebrew Word Pun here in the Hebrew versions of St. Matthew's Gospel, go figure.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2013, 03:53:34 PM by pmpn8rGPT » Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,250


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #14 on: May 29, 2013, 03:50:55 PM »

Quote
Quote
Would you happen to know when and by whom those in the British Library were composed?
I honestly don't know, I remembered hearing that they predate most of the Greek texts, but I can't remember where I heard this.
That is absolutely wrong.

Extant Greek mss. http://www.biblequery.org/mtmss.htm

The extant Heb. translations are late medieval, and *clearly derived from medieval Greek and/or Latin texts*, e.g.
1385 Shem Tov  
1537 Munster
1555 Jean du Tillet  
1750 Rahabi Ezekiel  
1869 Elias Soloweyczyk



Yes and no.  There are many many more Hebrew Matthews
Again there are no Hebrew versions of Matthew which predate the earliest Greek mss.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2013, 03:57:31 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #15 on: May 29, 2013, 03:55:14 PM »

Again, there are no Hebrew versions of Matthew which predate the earliest Greek mss.
Again, I cannot remember where I heard that there were, so forgive my ignorance.
Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #16 on: May 29, 2013, 03:58:18 PM »

Everyone pause.











Google translate was just cited as a source in a philological discussion.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,165



WWW
« Reply #17 on: May 30, 2013, 01:04:34 PM »

pmpn8rGPT and xariskai,
Again, there are no Hebrew versions of Matthew which predate the earliest Greek mss.
Again, I cannot remember where I heard that there were, so forgive my ignorance.
A few Church writers, I believe eg. Papias and St Jerome, wrote that Matthew's first step was to record stories about or sayings by Jesus in the "dialektus of the Hebrews."

1. These sayings may not have been in classical Biblical Hebrew
2. Scholars generally do not think that those sayings by Matthew survived in Hebrew until today. So we do not have surviving Hebrew versions that predate the greek ones.
3. Scholars mostly think the Shem Tov versions were medieval rabbinical re-writes of medieval Christian texts.

Pmp commented:
Quote
I suppose that suggesting Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew is the original is a bit ridiculous, it is not ridiculous that he may have had some fragments and/or oral knowledge and pieced them together, in fact, that would probably be more likely because it makes more sense to use something that the rest of the Jews would have had some knowledge of.
The rabbinical community officially rejected Christian writings already in the 1st-2nd centuries. (I vaguely remember that their writings were banned or burned by the rabbinical community.) You would have to propose that the rabbinical community somehow preserved those rejected Hebrew Christian writings for about 1400 years before Shem Tov made his version, but that the Church community did not preserve them. This scenario seems unlikely.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2013, 01:32:34 PM by rakovsky » Logged
Tags: shem Tov 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.126 seconds with 46 queries.