questions about Hebrew Matthew text
Yuri Kuchinsky
Dear Moshe,
Since you seem to be so sure that the Hebrew Gospel of Mattew is merely
a medieval translation by a Rabbi, please explain to me a couple of
things.
First, why does Petersen, who you respect so much, disagree with you
about the authorship? This is what Petersen writes,
"As we will see below, there is evidence--both internal and external (in
the form of another Semitic-language translation made in Spain during
this period)--to suggest that the original translator/compiler of the
Hebrew Matthew contained in the Even Bohan was a Christian who knew
Hebrew (perhaps a Jew who had converted to Christianity?)."
Petersen's article,
http://x31.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=577996134
So Petersen thinks HMt was written by a Christian. Also Niclos, another
highly respected scholar, thinks it was written by a Christian. See J.
V. Niclos, O.P., _L'Evangile en hebreu de Shem Tob Ibn Shaprut: Une
traduction d'origine judo-catalane due a un converti, replacee dans son
*Sitz im Leben*_, in Revue Biblique 106-3 (July 1999, pp. 358-407).
So how come you alone think it was written by a Rabbi? Do you think that
perhaps you may be wrong about this?
Second, please explain to me something very simple about the authorship
of HMt.
Suppose that a medieval Rabbi wanted to prepare a translation of Mt for
the purposes of anti-Christian polemics. Now, which of the following two
courses of action is he likely to follow.
a) He takes a Greek or Latin gospel of Matthew, which are freely
available to him, and he prepares a quickie Hebrew translation in a few
days. Simple job quickly done.
b) He launches on a huge project of comparing and tracking down a dozen
of highly obscure sources from which he borrows a word here and a phrase
there. He must buy and/or copy all kinds of expensive manuscripts in
order to do this.
This is how Petersen thinks the "medieval translator of HMt" proceeded,
[quote]
92. ...
Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew might have acquired some of these readings
from the Western harmonized gospel tradition, some from the Vetus
Latina, some from the Vulgate, and still others from Greek
manuscripts; there is no way to prove from which of these sources
Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew acquired these readings.
...
104. There is no mystery about the genesis of Shem-Tob's Hebrew
Matthew. It is obvious that it incorporates material from a variety
of sources (e.g., from the Toledoth Jeshu, the Vetus Latina, etc.).
But 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.
[unquote]
So here we have the "medieval translator of HMt" launching -- must have
taken him years! -- into a whole orgy of fine textual criticism,
comparisons, and creative harmonisation. Why?
Given the fact that the "translator" of Shem-Tob's HMt must have
believed the Gospel of Matthew was a damnable document, I find it hard
to believe that he prepared a new text of the gospel in which he
selected readings from a great many sources, some of them extremely
obscure, and then told his readers that the only reason he was inserting
the Hebrew Matthew into his treatise, the Even Bohan, was so they could
learn to refute it and crush the Christians.
So which course of action is more logical, Moshe, a) or b)?
Waiting eagerly for your clarifications.
Yours as always,
Yuri.
ps
Anyone who's interested for find out more details about HMt can do so by
visiting the archives of loisy-l. See below.
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm
Open biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - loisy-l,
unmoderated. To post to loisy-l, send email to lo...@egroups.com
The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
dltjxx
Please keep this off-topic discussion off soc.history.ancient and
soc.culture.jewish.
Thank you.
Deborah
In <86q02a$1oob$1...@news.tht.net> Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca>
writes:
Yuri Kuchinsky
Please keep your bigotry and ignorance to yourself. This subject is
fully on topic both in soc.history.ancient and in soc.culture.jewish.
Thanks,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=- Toronto -=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
Sherry [Thomas Sheridan] is dull, naturally dull; but it must have
taken him a great deal of pains to become what we now see him. Such
an excess of stupidity, Sir, is not in Nature -=O=- Samuel Johnson
In alt.bible dltjxx <dlt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: Please keep this off-topic discussion off soc.history.ancient and
: soc.culture.jewish.
: Thank you.
: Deborah
Moshe Shulman
>Dear Moshe,
>Since you seem to be so sure that the Hebrew Gospel of Mattew is merely
>a medieval translation by a Rabbi, please explain to me a couple of
>things.
>First, why does Petersen, who you respect so much, disagree with you
>about the authorship? This is what Petersen writes,
>"As we will see below, there is evidence--both internal and external (in
>the form of another Semitic-language translation made in Spain during
>this period)--to suggest that the original translator/compiler of the
>Hebrew Matthew contained in the Even Bohan was a Christian who knew
>Hebrew (perhaps a Jew who had converted to Christianity?)."
As Howard pointed out, Peterson does not appear to be too familiar with
Rabbinic liturature of that time. He certainly knows Hebrew, but lacks the
background. It is doubtful that a Christian, or Jewish Christian would refer to
Jesus as Y$V
>So Petersen thinks HMt was written by a Christian. Also Niclos, another
>highly respected scholar, thinks it was written by a Christian. See J.
>V. Niclos, O.P., _L'Evangile en hebreu de Shem Tob Ibn Shaprut: Une
>traduction d'origine judo-catalane due a un converti, replacee dans son
>*Sitz im Leben*_, in Revue Biblique 106-3 (July 1999, pp. 358-407).
>So how come you alone think it was written by a Rabbi? Do you think that
>perhaps you may be wrong about this?
It was written by a Jew, because of some of the wording in it would not be
common unless the author was Jewish.
>Second, please explain to me something very simple about the authorship
>of HMt.
>Suppose that a medieval Rabbi wanted to prepare a translation of Mt for
>the purposes of anti-Christian polemics. Now, which of the following two
>courses of action is he likely to follow.
You first error is that you assume that the source from which it was translated
was the book of Matthew, and not some harmony. I think that suggestion by
Peterson is one that makes sense.
>a) He takes a Greek or Latin gospel of Matthew, which are freely
>available to him, and he prepares a quickie Hebrew translation in a few
>days. Simple job quickly done.
>b) He launches on a huge project of comparing and tracking down a dozen
>of highly obscure sources from which he borrows a word here and a phrase
>there. He must buy and/or copy all kinds of expensive manuscripts in
>order to do this.
>This is how Petersen thinks the "medieval translator of HMt" proceeded,
>92. ...
> Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew might have acquired some of these readings
> from the Western harmonized gospel tradition, some from the Vetus
> Latina, some from the Vulgate, and still others from Greek
> manuscripts; there is no way to prove from which of these sources
> Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew acquired these readings.
> 104. There is no mystery about the genesis of Shem-Tob's Hebrew
> Matthew. It is obvious that it incorporates material from a variety
> of sources (e.g., from the Toledoth Jeshu, the Vetus Latina, etc.).
> But 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.
He is saying that teh primary text appears to be a harmony like the Liege. That
it would use things from TY, would not be unusual for a Rabbi translating. (BTW
much of what sees similar to TY would be the language aspects.)
>Given the fact that the "translator" of Shem-Tob's HMt must have
>believed the Gospel of Matthew was a damnable document, I find it hard
>to believe that he prepared a new text of the gospel in which he
>selected readings from a great many sources, some of them extremely
>obscure, and then told his readers that the only reason he was inserting
>the Hebrew Matthew into his treatise, the Even Bohan, was so they could
>learn to refute it and crush the Christians.
I don't think it was from a 'new' document, nor was it from ST. It was by a
Jew, using a Christian text.
moshe shulman mshu...@NOSPAMix.netcom.com 718-436-7705
CHASSIDUS.NET - Yoshav Rosh http://www.chassidus.net
Outreach Judaism http://www.outreachjudaism.org/
ICQ# 52009254
Yuri Kuchinsky
I really think you're simply not capable of dealing with this complex
issue. Once again you failed to understand the simplest questions that
I'm asking you. Obviously you're lacking the academic background that is
necessary for understanding what's going on here in this discussion. You
have your own fixed ideas, and obviously you're incapable of absorbing
any new information because of your clear biases.
Admit it, you're in this discussion only because of your religious
agenda, and you couldn't care less about objective study of history.
Please consider how obvious your total confusion is below, especially
in reply to my second question.
In alt.bible Moshe Shulman <Moshe...@chassidus.net> wrote:
: On 27 Jan 2000 17:42:34 GMT, Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca> wrote:
:>Dear Moshe,
:>Since you seem to be so sure that the Hebrew Gospel of Mattew is merely
:>a medieval translation by a Rabbi, please explain to me a couple of
:>things.
:>First, why does Petersen, who you respect so much, disagree with you
:>about the authorship? This is what Petersen writes,
:>"As we will see below, there is evidence--both internal and external (in
:>the form of another Semitic-language translation made in Spain during
:>this period)--to suggest that the original translator/compiler of the
:>Hebrew Matthew contained in the Even Bohan was a Christian who knew
:>Hebrew (perhaps a Jew who had converted to Christianity?)."
: As Howard pointed out, Peterson does not appear to be too familiar with
: Rabbinic liturature of that time. He certainly knows Hebrew, but lacks the
: background. It is doubtful that a Christian, or Jewish Christian would refer to
: Jesus as Y$V
This is your view. The problem is that no other scholar agrees with you.
:>So Petersen thinks HMt was written by a Christian. Also Niclos, another
:>highly respected scholar, thinks it was written by a Christian. See J.
:>V. Niclos, O.P., _L'Evangile en hebreu de Shem Tob Ibn Shaprut: Une
:>traduction d'origine judo-catalane due a un converti, replacee dans son
:>*Sitz im Leben*_, in Revue Biblique 106-3 (July 1999, pp. 358-407).
:>So how come you alone think it was written by a Rabbi? Do you think that
:>perhaps you may be wrong about this?
: It was written by a Jew, because of some of the wording in it would not be
: common unless the author was Jewish.
But why no other scholar agrees with you?
:>Second, please explain to me something very simple about the authorship
:>of HMt.
:>Suppose that a medieval Rabbi wanted to prepare a translation of Mt for
:>the purposes of anti-Christian polemics. Now, which of the following two
:>courses of action is he likely to follow.
: You first error is that you assume that the source from which it was translated
: was the book of Matthew, and not some harmony.
I have made no error. I made no assumption. I merely asked you a
question.
: I think that suggestion by Peterson is one that makes sense.
What suggestion?
:>a) He takes a Greek or Latin gospel of Matthew, which are freely
:>available to him, and he prepares a quickie Hebrew translation in a few
:>days. Simple job quickly done.
:>b) He launches on a huge project of comparing and tracking down a dozen
:>of highly obscure sources from which he borrows a word here and a phrase
:>there. He must buy and/or copy all kinds of expensive manuscripts in
:>order to do this.
:>This is how Petersen thinks the "medieval translator of HMt" proceeded,
:>92. ...
:> Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew might have acquired some of these readings
:> from the Western harmonized gospel tradition, some from the Vetus
:> Latina, some from the Vulgate, and still others from Greek
:> manuscripts; there is no way to prove from which of these sources
:> Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew acquired these readings.
:> 104. There is no mystery about the genesis of Shem-Tob's Hebrew
:> Matthew. It is obvious that it incorporates material from a variety
:> of sources (e.g., from the Toledoth Jeshu, the Vetus Latina, etc.).
:> But 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.
: He is saying that teh primary text appears to be a harmony like the Liege. That
: it would use things from TY, would not be unusual for a Rabbi translating. (BTW
: much of what sees similar to TY would be the language aspects.)
You failed to answer my question.
:>Given the fact that the "translator" of Shem-Tob's HMt must have
:>believed the Gospel of Matthew was a damnable document, I find it hard
:>to believe that he prepared a new text of the gospel in which he
:>selected readings from a great many sources, some of them extremely
:>obscure, and then told his readers that the only reason he was inserting
:>the Hebrew Matthew into his treatise, the Even Bohan, was so they could
:>learn to refute it and crush the Christians.
: I don't think it was from a 'new' document, nor was it from ST. It was by a
: Jew, using a Christian text.
You're totally confused and bewildered. I'm asking you once again, which
course of action is more logical, a or b?
What else can I do to help you understand this elementary matter?
Please try to understand that this whole discussion is simply beyond
your level of competence.
Best wishes,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - unmoderated
"Genuine ignorance is ... profitable because it is likely to be
accompanied by humility, curiosity, and open mindedness; whereas ability
to repeat catch-phrases, cant terms, familiar propositions, gives the
conceit of learning, and coats the mind with varnish water-proof to new
ideas" -- John Dewey
Stephen Bayzik
>Since you seem to be so sure that the Hebrew Gospel of Mattew is merely
>a medieval translation by a Rabbi, please explain to me a couple of
>things.
My friend, there is no extant copy of text from a Hebrew/Aramaic Gospel
attributed to "Matthew". Indeed Irenaeus describes "such a Gospel" as
originally composed in "Hebrew", nonetheless we have no such manuscript in
existence - period. Also one Papias wrote of a collection of the "sayings of
the Christ" supposedly transcribed in "Hebrew" - but not a "Gospel", the
term "Logia" (a Greek word) is applied to this assumed collection. Even here
the closest we have to such an object is not an original, rather a
collection of twelve fragments discovered in 1897 and 1903 by Grenfell and
Hunt in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt; the said fragmentary papryi dating no earlier
than the third century CE and only very loosely corresponding to the
collection of extant Greek manuscripts of the "Gospel of Matthew".
Yuri Kuchinsky
:>On 27 Jan 2000 17:42:34 GMT, Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca> wrote:
:>Since you seem to be so sure that the Hebrew Gospel of Mattew is merely
:>a medieval translation by a Rabbi, please explain to me a couple of
:>things.
: My friend, there is no extant copy of text from a Hebrew/Aramaic Gospel
: attributed to "Matthew". Indeed Irenaeus describes "such a Gospel" as
: originally composed in "Hebrew", nonetheless we have no such manuscript in
: existence - period.
You're wrong, Stephen. The simple truth is that Shem-Tob's Hebrew Mt
appears to be it.
You seem to have come late into this discussion, but I assure you that
this subject has been discussed intensively both here and elsewhere on
academic biblical mailing lists for more than a month already. I'm not
aware on any valid arguments why HMt is not ancient. Here's some useful
background for you,
http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy
: Also one Papias wrote of a collection of the "sayings of
: the Christ" supposedly transcribed in "Hebrew" - but not a "Gospel", the
: term "Logia" (a Greek word) is applied to this assumed collection. Even here
: the closest we have to such an object is not an original, rather a
: collection of twelve fragments discovered in 1897 and 1903 by Grenfell and
: Hunt in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt; the said fragmentary papryi dating no earlier
: than the third century CE and only very loosely corresponding to the
: collection of extant Greek manuscripts of the "Gospel of Matthew".
You seem to be referring to the Gospel of Thomas now. Yes, GOT seems to
be quite relevant to the discussion of HMt, since it has some 22
unusual parallels to HMt.
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm
Open biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - loisy-l,
Moshe Shulman
>In alt.bible Stephen Bayzik <sba...@idirect.com> wrote:
>:>On 27 Jan 2000 17:42:34 GMT, Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca> wrote:
>:>Since you seem to be so sure that the Hebrew Gospel of Mattew is merely
>:>a medieval translation by a Rabbi, please explain to me a couple of
>:>things.
>: My friend, there is no extant copy of text from a Hebrew/Aramaic Gospel
>: attributed to "Matthew". Indeed Irenaeus describes "such a Gospel" as
>: originally composed in "Hebrew", nonetheless we have no such manuscript in
>: existence - period.
Steve, it seems you are about to bruish up against one of the resident fools of
the internet.
>You're wrong, Stephen. The simple truth is that Shem-Tob's Hebrew Mt
>appears to be it.
ROTFL. Howard himself denies that. He says that there is a substratum that goes
back. It is inane to make such a supposition siunce the language of ST is
consistant with Rabbinic works of the middle ages period. Something which is
noted by Howard and Petersen, but which you seem to lack the skills to
recognize. That it should use Rabbinic lingusitic forms that are post talmudic,
and to which I have no evidence of them appearing before the period of Rashi
kills the argument. (What I refer to is the use of the Hebrew acronym 'laz'
meaning loshon zar - in a foreign language followed by words in Greek or Latin.
The use there is exactly as Rashi does when he is taking a word in Hebrew and
explaining it according to the gentile language. I have not seen this in
post-talmudic liturature until Rashi. Afterwhich it is more common.)
>You seem to have come late into this discussion, but I assure you that
>this subject has been discussed intensively both here and elsewhere on
>academic biblical mailing lists for more than a month already. I'm not
>aware on any valid arguments why HMt is not ancient. Here's some useful
>background for you,
After he reads the above, he will know enough.
Stephen Bayzik
>In alt.bible Stephen Bayzik <sba...@idirect.com> wrote:
>:>On 27 Jan 2000 17:42:34 GMT, Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca> wrote:
>:>Since you seem to be so sure that the Hebrew Gospel of Mattew is merely
>:>a medieval translation by a Rabbi, please explain to me a couple of
>:>things.
>: My friend, there is no extant copy of text from a Hebrew/Aramaic Gospel
>: attributed to "Matthew". Indeed Irenaeus describes "such a Gospel" as
>: originally composed in "Hebrew", nonetheless we have no such manuscript
in
>: existence - period.
>You're wrong, Stephen. The simple truth is that Shem-Tob's Hebrew Mt
>appears to be it.
Oh really? And what prestigious Anthropological or Historical Journal was
such a discovery published in?
>You seem to have come late into this discussion, but I assure you that
>this subject has been discussed intensively both here and elsewhere on
>academic biblical mailing lists for more than a month already. I'm not
>aware on any valid arguments why HMt is not ancient. Here's some useful
>background for you,
My apologies for being tardy; there are so many Evangelical crackpots on
this newgroup that at times there is not enough time to expose them all.
>http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy
Come now; I'm not a fool to take an Evangelical Mailing List portending to
find the historical Christ as anything other than a joke. I looked at it and
had one big laugh.
>: Also one Papias wrote of a collection of the "sayings of
>: the Christ" supposedly transcribed in "Hebrew" - but not a "Gospel", the
>: term "Logia" (a Greek word) is applied to this assumed collection. Even
here
>: the closest we have to such an object is not an original, rather a
>: collection of twelve fragments discovered in 1897 and 1903 by Grenfell
and
>: Hunt in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt; the said fragmentary papryi dating no
earlier
>: than the third century CE and only very loosely corresponding to the
>: collection of extant Greek manuscripts of the "Gospel of Matthew".
>You seem to be referring to the Gospel of Thomas now. Yes, GOT seems to
>be quite relevant to the discussion of HMt, since it has some 22
>unusual parallels to HMt.
Oh, so you have read the contents of the Nag Hammadi texts (ie. the Gospel
of Thomas) eh?
The included writings, many of which are fragmentary, are:
The Prayer of the Apostle Paul The Prayer of
Thanksgiving
The Apocryphon of James and Scribal Note
The Gospel of Truth
Asclepius 21-29
The Treatise on the Resurrection The Paraphrase of
Shem
The Tripartite Tractate The
Second Treatise of the Great Seth
The Apocalypse of John The
Apocalypse of Peter
The Gospel of Thomas Marsanes
The Gospel of Philip The
Teachings of Silvanus
The Hypostasis of the Archons The Three Steles
of Seth
On the Origin of the World Sostrianos
The Exegesis on the Soul The Letter of
Peter to Philip
The Book of Thomas the Contender Melchizedek
The Gospel of the Egyptians The Thought of
Norea
Eugnostos the Blessed and The The Testimony of Truth
Sophia of Jesus Christ
The Dialogue of the Savior The
Interpretation of knowledge
The Apocalypse of Paul A Valentinian
Exposition, with
The (First) Apocalypse of James On the Anointing, On
Baptism
The (Second) Apocalypse of James A and B, and On the
Eucharist
The Apocalypse of Adam A and B
The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles
Allogenes
Hypsiphrone
The Thunder, Perfect Mind Fragments The Sentences of Sextus
Authoritative Teaching Fragments
The Concept of Our Great Power Trimorphic Protennoia
Plato, Republic 588A-589B The Gospel of Mary
The Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth The Acts of
Peter
Now where oh where is your "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew"
Now your not going to say its in the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Perhaps you better ask Monthy Python, he may find it on the way to the Holy
Grail. :-)
PS I noted on your "Great Website" a comment about Jewish Christianity. May
I suggest it's bad enough to play scholar with constructed Evangelical
URL's, but I would be careful in not associating with J4J's or Messianic
Jews - bad company. :-)
There is no extant copy of a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew unless it's one
constructed by some Messianic/J4J disgusting apostate Jews.
Yuri Kuchinsky
:>In alt.bible Stephen Bayzik <sba...@idirect.com> wrote:
:>:>On 27 Jan 2000 17:42:34 GMT, Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca> wrote:
:>:>Since you seem to be so sure that the Hebrew Gospel of Mattew is merely
:>:>a medieval translation by a Rabbi, please explain to me a couple of
:>:>things.
:>: My friend, there is no extant copy of text from a Hebrew/Aramaic Gospel
:>: attributed to "Matthew". Indeed Irenaeus describes "such a Gospel" as
:>: originally composed in "Hebrew", nonetheless we have no such manuscript
:>: in existence - period.
:>You're wrong, Stephen. The simple truth is that Shem-Tob's Hebrew Mt
:>appears to be it.
: Oh really? And what prestigious Anthropological or Historical Journal was
: such a discovery published in?
Here we go, Stephen. I hope these will prove to be satisfactory,
Howard, George:
"Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and Early Jewish
Christianity." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 70: 3-20,
1998.
"A Note on the Short Ending of Matthew." Harvard Theological Review
81 (1988): 117-20.
"The Textual Nature of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew." Journal of
Biblical Literature 108 (1989): 239-257.
"A Note on Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and the Gospel of John."Journal
for the Study of the New Testament 47 (1992): 117-26.
"The Pseudo-Clementine Writings and Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew." New
Testament Studies 40 (1994): 622-28.
:>You seem to have come late into this discussion, but I assure you that
:>this subject has been discussed intensively both here and elsewhere on
:>academic biblical mailing lists for more than a month already. I'm not
:>aware on any valid arguments why HMt is not ancient. Here's some useful
:>background for you,
: My apologies for being tardy; there are so many Evangelical crackpots on
: this newgroup that at times there is not enough time to expose them all.
But I'm certainly not Evangelical, my friend.
:>http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy
: Come now; I'm not a fool to take an Evangelical Mailing List portending to
: find the historical Christ as anything other than a joke. I looked at it and
: had one big laugh.
If you think this is an Evangelical Mailing List, then you need some
remedial reading classes in a hurry!
:>You seem to be referring to the Gospel of Thomas now. Yes, GOT seems to
:>be quite relevant to the discussion of HMt, since it has some 22
:>unusual parallels to HMt.
: Oh, so you have read the contents of the Nag Hammadi texts (ie. the Gospel
: of Thomas) eh?
That's right!
: Now where oh where is your "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew"
In the bookstore!
: PS I noted on your "Great Website" a comment about Jewish Christianity. May
: I suggest it's bad enough to play scholar with constructed Evangelical
: URL's, but I would be careful in not associating with J4J's or Messianic
: Jews - bad company. :-)
I have no idea what you're ranting about now. But bigotry is not nice.
Just like Moshe, you appear to be prejudiced against
Jewish-Christianity.
: There is no extant copy of a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew unless it's one
: constructed by some Messianic/J4J disgusting apostate Jews.
Please try to moderate your paranoia, and to get yourself informed.
Ignorance is not bliss!
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people?
Yuri Kuchinsky
:>In alt.bible Stephen Bayzik <sba...@idirect.com> wrote:
:>:>On 27 Jan 2000 17:42:34 GMT, Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca> wrote:
:>:>Since you seem to be so sure that the Hebrew Gospel of Mattew is merely
:>:>a medieval translation by a Rabbi, please explain to me a couple of
:>:>things.
:>: My friend, there is no extant copy of text from a Hebrew/Aramaic Gospel
:>: attributed to "Matthew". Indeed Irenaeus describes "such a Gospel" as
:>: originally composed in "Hebrew", nonetheless we have no such manuscript in
:>: existence - period.
: Steve, it seems you are about to bruish up against one of the resident fools of
: the internet.
Is this the best you can do, Moshe? Most people tend to get wiser as
time goes by, but you seem to be increasingly reverting to childhood
name-calling!
:>You're wrong, Stephen. The simple truth is that Shem-Tob's Hebrew Mt
:>appears to be it.
: ROTFL. Howard himself denies that. He says that there is a substratum that goes
: back.
You don't need to explain to me what Howard thinks, since I happen to be
in regular email contact with him.
: It is inane to make such a supposition siunce the language of ST is
: consistant with Rabbinic works of the middle ages period. Something which is
: noted by Howard and Petersen, but which you seem to lack the skills to
: recognize. That it should use Rabbinic lingusitic forms that are post talmudic,
: and to which I have no evidence of them appearing before the period of Rashi
: kills the argument. (What I refer to is the use of the Hebrew acronym 'laz'
: meaning loshon zar - in a foreign language followed by words in Greek or Latin.
: The use there is exactly as Rashi does when he is taking a word in Hebrew and
: explaining it according to the gentile language. I have not seen this in
: post-talmudic liturature until Rashi. Afterwhich it is more common.)
We've been throught this before. Any judgement based merely on literary
style is bound to be subjective. And judging by your past record,
certainly I won't take **your word** for anything...
:>You seem to have come late into this discussion, but I assure you that
:>this subject has been discussed intensively both here and elsewhere on
:>academic biblical mailing lists for more than a month already. I'm not
:>aware on any valid arguments why HMt is not ancient. Here's some useful
:>background for you,
: After he reads the above, he will know enough.
How about answering a couple of questions I've asked you? You think I've
forgotten about this?
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
"Genuine ignorance is ... profitable because it is likely to be
Stephen Bayzik
>In alt.bible Moshe Shulman <Moshe...@chassidus.net> wrote:
>: On 30 Jan 2000 19:30:34 GMT, Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca> wrote:
>:>In alt.bible Stephen Bayzik <sba...@idirect.com> wrote:
>:>:>On 27 Jan 2000 17:42:34 GMT, Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca>
wrote:
>:>:>Since you seem to be so sure that the Hebrew Gospel of Mattew is merely
>:>:>a medieval translation by a Rabbi, please explain to me a couple of
>:>:>things.
>:>: My friend, there is no extant copy of text from a Hebrew/Aramaic Gospel
>:>: attributed to "Matthew". Indeed Irenaeus describes "such a Gospel" as
>:>: originally composed in "Hebrew", nonetheless we have no such manuscript
in
>:>: existence - period.
>: Steve, it seems you are about to bruish up against one of the resident
>: fools of the internet.
>Is this the best you can do, Moshe? Most people tend to get wiser as
>time goes by, but you seem to be increasingly reverting to childhood
>name-calling!
He's being polite in comparison to my thoughts Yuri.
Yuri, what an imbecile you are; any historian will tell you that Shelomoh
ben Yitzhak lived between 1040-1105 CE. This "French" gentleman studied in
the Jewish academies of Worms, Speyer; and Mainz the latter location being
founded by Rabbi Gershom - where the major task was in the editing and
"clarifying" Talmudic text. Good Lord man, where did you study history,
Coney Island?
>:>You seem to have come late into this discussion, but I assure you that
>:>this subject has been discussed intensively both here and elsewhere on
>:>academic biblical mailing lists for more than a month already. I'm not
>:>aware on any valid arguments why HMt is not ancient. Here's some useful
>:>background for you,
>: After he reads the above, he will know enough.
>How about answering a couple of questions I've asked you? You think I've
>forgotten about this?
What so you can "collect" the Reb's comments and your "so called rebuttal"
on your Mailing List?
How about you answering one simple question Yuri:-
Are you a "Christian Jew" or are you associated with the said?
===============================================
If you are, you'll soon find out my reserved thoughts concerning these
apostate; and I assure you it will be far less polite than Moshe's.
Stephen Bayzik
>In alt.bible Stephen Bayzik <sba...@idirect.com> wrote:
>: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <8723gq$22fn$1...@news.tht.net>...
>:>In alt.bible Stephen Bayzik <sba...@idirect.com> wrote:
>:>:>On 27 Jan 2000 17:42:34 GMT, Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca>
wrote:
>:>:>Since you seem to be so sure that the Hebrew Gospel of Mattew is merely
>:>:>a medieval translation by a Rabbi, please explain to me a couple of
>:>:>things.
>:>: My friend, there is no extant copy of text from a Hebrew/Aramaic Gospel
>:>: attributed to "Matthew". Indeed Irenaeus describes "such a Gospel" as
>:>: originally composed in "Hebrew", nonetheless we have no such manuscript
>:>: in existence - period.
>:>You're wrong, Stephen. The simple truth is that Shem-Tob's Hebrew Mt
>:>appears to be it.
>: Oh really? And what prestigious Anthropological or Historical Journal was
>: such a discovery published in?
>Here we go, Stephen. I hope these will prove to be satisfactory,
> Howard, George:
> "Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and Early Jewish
> Christianity." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 70: 3-20,
> 1998.
> "A Note on the Short Ending of Matthew." Harvard Theological Review
> 81 (1988): 117-20.
> "The Textual Nature of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew." Journal of
> Biblical Literature 108 (1989): 239-257.
> "A Note on Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and the Gospel of John."Journal
> for the Study of the New Testament 47 (1992): 117-26.
> "The Pseudo-Clementine Writings and Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew." New
> Testament Studies 40 (1994): 622-28.
They are not satisfactory Anthropological and or Historical Journals -
period.
>:>You seem to have come late into this discussion, but I assure you that
>:>this subject has been discussed intensively both here and elsewhere on
>:>academic biblical mailing lists for more than a month already. I'm not
>:>aware on any valid arguments why HMt is not ancient. Here's some useful
>:>background for you,
>: My apologies for being tardy; there are so many Evangelical crackpots on
>: this newgroup that at times there is not enough time to expose them all.
>But I'm certainly not Evangelical, my friend.
>:>http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy
>: Come now; I'm not a fool to take an Evangelical Mailing List portending
to
>: find the historical Christ as anything other than a joke. I looked at it
and
>: had one big laugh.
>If you think this is an Evangelical Mailing List, then you need some
>remedial reading classes in a hurry!
>:>You seem to be referring to the Gospel of Thomas now. Yes, GOT seems to
>:>be quite relevant to the discussion of HMt, since it has some 22
>:>unusual parallels to HMt.
>: Oh, so you have read the contents of the Nag Hammadi texts (ie. the
Gospel
>: of Thomas) eh?
>That's right!
>: Now where oh where is your "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew"
>In the bookstore!
Sure as hell not in the Nag Hammadi texts twit.
What Bookstore?
=============
>: PS I noted on your "Great Website" a comment about Jewish Christianity.
May
>: I suggest it's bad enough to play scholar with constructed Evangelical
>: URL's, but I would be careful in not associating with J4J's or Messianic
>: Jews - bad company. :-)
>I have no idea what you're ranting about now. But bigotry is not nice.
>Just like Moshe, you appear to be prejudiced against
>Jewish-Christianity.
No Pre Judgment, but a "careful analysis" of the psyche of these people.
Indeed my judment is quite strong. I dislike these uncouth, fraudulent
people who piss on their own heritage with their actions and words.
>: There is no extant copy of a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew unless it's one
>: constructed by some Messianic/J4J disgusting apostate Jews.
>Please try to moderate your paranoia, and to get yourself informed.
>Ignorance is not bliss!
Informed? What Bible school/Seminary in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area)
supports your sources?
It's not paranoia, I strongly dislike these frauds. You should remember the
full page ad that appeared some two years ago, just before the Channuka, in
the Toronto Star and sponsored by the Messianic Jews. Their actions were and
are
despicable.
>Yuri.
>Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
>If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people?
The question is, why are there so many gullible people - ignorance.
Yuri Kuchinsky
:>Here we go, Stephen. I hope these will prove to be satisfactory,
:> Howard, George:
:> "Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and Early Jewish
:> Christianity." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 70: 3-20,
:> 1998.
:> "A Note on the Short Ending of Matthew." Harvard Theological Review
:> 81 (1988): 117-20.
:> "The Textual Nature of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew." Journal of
:> Biblical Literature 108 (1989): 239-257.
:> "A Note on Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and the Gospel of John."Journal
:> for the Study of the New Testament 47 (1992): 117-26.
:> "The Pseudo-Clementine Writings and Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew." New
:> Testament Studies 40 (1994): 622-28.
: They are not satisfactory Anthropological and or Historical Journals -
: period.
These are peer-reviewed academic journals dealing with early
Christianity. So they are not good enough for you? Fancy that...
...
:>: Now where oh where is your "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew"
:>In the bookstore!
: What Bookstore?
Amazon.com, Inc.
Hebrew Gospel of Matthew
by George Howard (Editor), Shem Tov Ibn Shaprut,
Our Price: $30.00
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0865544700/qid=949596855/sr=1-1/104-2146861-6958011
...
:>I have no idea what you're ranting about now. But bigotry is not nice.
:>Just like Moshe, you appear to be prejudiced against
:>Jewish-Christianity.
: No Pre Judgment, but a "careful analysis" of the psyche of these people.
: Indeed my judment is quite strong. I dislike these uncouth, fraudulent
: people who piss on their own heritage with their actions and words.
Religious beliefs are irrelevant to scientific study of history. My
personal beliefs are irrelevant to the subject of this discussion, but
if you insist, I'm Catholic.
I have no religious prejudice against anyone. You sound like you're
ready to launch into some kind of a religious crusade. These things are
better left in the middle ages where they belong.
Yours,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm
Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - unmoderated
Stephen Bayzik
>In alt.bible Stephen Bayzik <sba...@idirect.com> wrote:
>: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <874pvl$2365$1...@news.tht.net>...
>:>Here we go, Stephen. I hope these will prove to be satisfactory,
>:> Howard, George:
>:> "Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and Early Jewish
>:> Christianity." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 70: 3-20,
>:> 1998.
>:> "A Note on the Short Ending of Matthew." Harvard Theological Review
>:> 81 (1988): 117-20.
>:> "The Textual Nature of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew." Journal of
>:> Biblical Literature 108 (1989): 239-257.
>:> "A Note on Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and the Gospel of John."Journal
>:> for the Study of the New Testament 47 (1992): 117-26.
>:> "The Pseudo-Clementine Writings and Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew." New
>:> Testament Studies 40 (1994): 622-28.
>: They are not satisfactory Anthropological and or Historical Journals -
>: period.
>These are peer-reviewed academic journals dealing with early
>Christianity. So they are not good enough for you? Fancy that...
Fair enough Yuri. Then please for each of the above
1. Howard, George - Editor; a brief synopsis of his background.
2. Publisher of the "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew".
3. Publisher of "The Journal of Biblical Literature and the background of
the author of the article "The Textual Nature of Shem-Tob's Hebrew
Matthew"
4. Publisher of, Journal in which contained, as well as author of "A Note on
Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and Gospel of John".
5. Publisher and author of article re "Study of the New Testament"
(Journal?)
Your 'Note on the Short Ending of Matthew" re "The Harvard Theological
Review" is the only "academically satisfactory" quoted source.
>:>: Now where oh where is your "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew"
>:>In the bookstore!
>: What Bookstore?
>Amazon.com, Inc.
A $30.00 popular publication marketed to the general public does not
constitute a standard for scholarly works, though there may be, and have
been, exceptions. Could you also give me a general synopsis of Robert
perkin's background?
>Hebrew Gospel of Matthew
> by George Howard (Editor), Shem Tov Ibn Shaprut,
> Our Price: $30.00
>:>I have no idea what you're ranting about now. But bigotry is not nice.
>:>Just like Moshe, you appear to be prejudiced against
>:>Jewish-Christianity.
>: No Pre Judgment, but a "careful analysis" of the psyche of these people.
>: Indeed my judment is quite strong. I dislike these uncouth, fraudulent
>: people who piss on their own heritage with their actions and words.
>Religious beliefs are irrelevant to scientific study of history.
Here the use of a popular Bible Study cliche, ie. "scientific study of
history" is somewhat suspect - but I'll let it go for now.
>My personal beliefs are irrelevant to the subject of this discussion, but
>if you insist, I'm Catholic.
Personal beliefs do influence one's approach to a "religious/theological"
subject (myself included) - to think otherwise is to be less than honest.
"Catholic", Roman, Orthodox or Coptic? Not that there are not differing
beliefs between and within those communions of the Historical Church. But
unless perceived otherwise I'll take your word for it
>I have no religious prejudice against anyone. You sound like you're
>ready to launch into some kind of a religious crusade. These things are
>better left in the middle ages where they belong.
No, no Crusade, Lord knows we've killed one another and others in the name
of Gawd - but my personal judgment regarding Christian Jews who like
ex-patriots tend to continue to disparage their forsaken heritage, remains
the same.
In reserved personal judgment,
Steve
Yuri Kuchinsky
:>:> Howard, George:
:>:> "Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and Early Jewish
:>:> Christianity." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 70: 3-20,
:>:> 1998.
:>:> "A Note on the Short Ending of Matthew." Harvard Theological Review
:>:> 81 (1988): 117-20.
:>:> "The Textual Nature of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew." Journal of
:>:> Biblical Literature 108 (1989): 239-257.
:>:> "A Note on Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and the Gospel of John."Journal
:>:> for the Study of the New Testament 47 (1992): 117-26.
:>:> "The Pseudo-Clementine Writings and Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew." New
:>:> Testament Studies 40 (1994): 622-28.
:>: They are not satisfactory Anthropological and or Historical Journals -
:>: period.
:>These are peer-reviewed academic journals dealing with early
:>Christianity. So they are not good enough for you? Fancy that...
: Fair enough Yuri. Then please for each of the above
: 1. Howard, George - Editor; a brief synopsis of his background.
Prof. Howard is not Editor. He's the author of these publications.
: 2. Publisher of the "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew".
University of Georgia Press.
: 3. Publisher of "The Journal of Biblical Literature and the background of
: the author of the article "The Textual Nature of Shem-Tob's Hebrew
: Matthew"
: 4. Publisher of, Journal in which contained, as well as author of "A Note on
: Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and Gospel of John".
: 5. Publisher and author of article re "Study of the New Testament"
: (Journal?)
These are highly prestigious academic journals. Please consult your
local librarian about such questions.
: A $30.00 popular publication marketed to the general public does not
: constitute a standard for scholarly works, though there may be, and have
: been, exceptions. Could you also give me a general synopsis of Robert
: perkin's background?
This is not "popular publication".
:>Hebrew Gospel of Matthew
:> by George Howard (Editor), Shem Tov Ibn Shaprut,
:> Our Price: $30.00
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm
Open biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - loisy-l,
unmoderated. To post to loisy-l, send email to lo...@egroups.com
The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
Schlau
Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca> wrote:
> Dear Deborah,
>
> Please keep your bigotry and ignorance to yourself. This subject is
> fully on topic both in soc.history.ancient and in soc.culture.jewish.
Technically it's not on topic to soc.history.ancient actually as
the texts your are refering to were written in the middle ages and
so you should post in soc.history.medieval.
I wouldn't know about soc.culture.jewish as I'm not a regular reader or
poster to that group.
--Oscar Schlaf--
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Yuri Kuchinsky
: In article <86qosn$2iid$3...@news.tht.net>,
: Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca> wrote:
:> Dear Deborah,
:>
:> Please keep your bigotry and ignorance to yourself. This subject is
:> fully on topic both in soc.history.ancient and in soc.culture.jewish.
: Technically it's not on topic to soc.history.ancient actually as
: the texts your are refering to were written in the middle ages and
: so you should post in soc.history.medieval.
: I wouldn't know about soc.culture.jewish as I'm not a regular reader or
: poster to that group.
No, technically it _is_ on topic to soc.history.ancient as the Hebrew
Matthew was not written in the middle ages. It was written in ancient
times.
In fact I don't know of a single valid argument to indicate that it was
written in the middle ages.
Yet another thing you know nothing about, Schlaf...
Yuri Kuchinsky
: Yo, Yuri!
: How about your taking YOUR obnoxiousness AND your discussion of the
: Christian book Matthew OUT of soc.culture.JEWISH? This is a place in which
: we have no use for Matthew or the religion it's part of.
Dear Yaakov,
What you're saying seems to contradict Moshe Shulman, since he thinks
HMt was produced by a medieval rabbi expressly so that Christians can be
refuted!
So what is the truth here? If Moshe is right then this subject is
on-topic in soc.culture.jewish. If you're right, then Moshe is wrong.
Any idea how this dispute is to be settled?
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Albert Reingewirtz
<yu...@clio.trends.ca> wrote:
> Yaakov Kayman <yaa...@monet.bestweb.net> wrote:
>
> : Yo, Yuri!
>
> : How about your taking YOUR obnoxiousness AND your discussion of the
> : Christian book Matthew OUT of soc.culture.JEWISH? This is a place in which
> : we have no use for Matthew or the religion it's part of.
>
> Dear Yaakov,
>
> What you're saying seems to contradict Moshe Shulman, since he thinks
> HMt was produced by a medieval rabbi expressly so that Christians can be
> refuted!
>
> So what is the truth here? If Moshe is right then this subject is
> on-topic in soc.culture.jewish. If you're right, then Moshe is wrong.
>
> Any idea how this dispute is to be settled?
>
> Regards,
Yes! By kissing all of our Jewish asses and saying politely good bye
and thank you. Then never coming into a Jewish group to offend us
again.
Moshe Shulman
>Yaakov Kayman <yaa...@monet.bestweb.net> wrote:
>What you're saying seems to contradict Moshe Shulman, since he thinks
>HMt was produced by a medieval rabbi expressly so that Christians can be
>refuted!
>So what is the truth here? If Moshe is right then this subject is
>on-topic in soc.culture.jewish. If you're right, then Moshe is wrong.
Do you see me posting this on scj?
>Any idea how this dispute is to be settled?
Simpe, stop posting it to scj.
Polichinello
"Stephen Bayzik" <sba...@idirect.com> wrote:
> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <87cccl$jiu$1...@news.tht.net>...
>
> >In alt.bible Stephen Bayzik <sba...@idirect.com> wrote:
>
>
> >:>Here we go, Stephen. I hope these will prove to be satisfactory,
>
>
> >:> "Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and Early Jewish
> >:> Christianity." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 70:
3-20,
> >:> 1998.
>
> >:> "A Note on the Short Ending of Matthew." Harvard Theological
Review
> >:> 81 (1988): 117-20.
>
> >:> "The Textual Nature of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew." Journal of
> >:> Biblical Literature 108 (1989): 239-257.
>
> >:> "A Note on Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and the Gospel of
John."Journal
> >:> for the Study of the New Testament 47 (1992): 117-26.
>
> >:> "The Pseudo-Clementine Writings and Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew."
New
> >:> Testament Studies 40 (1994): 622-28.
>
> >: They are not satisfactory Anthropological and or Historical
Journals -
> >: period.
>
> >These are peer-reviewed academic journals dealing with early
> >Christianity. So they are not good enough for you? Fancy that...
>
> Fair enough Yuri. Then please for each of the above
>
> 1. Howard, George - Editor; a brief synopsis of his background.
>
>
background of
> the author of the article "The Textual Nature of Shem-Tob's Hebrew
> Matthew"
>
> 4. Publisher of, Journal in which contained, as well as author of "A
Note on
> Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and Gospel of John".
>
> 5. Publisher and author of article re "Study of the New Testament"
> (Journal?)
>
Theological
> Review" is the only "academically satisfactory" quoted source.
>
> >:>: Now where oh where is your "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew"
>
> >:>In the bookstore!
>
> >: What Bookstore?
>
> >Amazon.com, Inc.
>
> constitute a standard for scholarly works, though there may be, and
have
> been, exceptions. Could you also give me a general synopsis of Robert
> perkin's background?
Steve,
For what it's worth, I've read the book. It's actually the translation
of Ibn Shaprut's version of Matthew. I've also read one article on it
in the "Journal of New Testament Studies."
At the end Professor Howard, gives a small dissertation of his view on
the theologies and the implications. He tends believe that he does have
an original from Matthew in Hebrew, but does acknowledge that his point
isn't proven. The Journal article (from what I remember) stated that
the Howard had proven that Shaprut's gospel predated the 14th century
and possible went back to the 6th century, but past that the author was
skeptical.
The reason that it is most likely a *Christian* Hebrew original, he
claims, is that it uses a number of wordplays that are favorable to the
story. It is rather unlikely that Shaprut would do Matthew this favor.
Some of it is rather unfriendly to gentile Christianity in that the
mission to the gentiles (what little there was in the Greek) is
seriously underplayed or missing. The story of the centurion is
present, but the story of the Syro-phonecian woman takes a harder cast.
Also Mt 28:19 is missing entirely. (The problem with this particular
instance is that it provides for a strange lacuna. It reads something
like "Go...and teach them." [Who's "them?"])
The book is being sold on the popular market, but it is a serious work,
and might be in a library near you. It's worth a read.
Best Regards,
Derek Copold
Kamal Southall
This thread is silly beyond belief.
--
"Censorship is yet another tool in the dumbing-down of America by a power structure
that relies on a populace too lazy or ignorant to think independently." -Vanessa McGrady
=-) sout...@email.uc.edu - pgp key avail. on req. | http://oz.uc.edu/~southakj/ (-=
"There is no safety for honest men but by believing all possible evil of evil men." Edmund Burke
Stephen Bayzik
>In alt.bible Stephen Bayzik <sba...@idirect.com> wrote:
>: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <87cccl$jiu$1...@news.tht.net>...
>:>:> Howard, George:
>:>:> "Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and Early Jewish
>:>:> Christianity." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 70: 3-20,
>:>:> 1998.
>:>:> "A Note on the Short Ending of Matthew." Harvard Theological Review
>:>:> 81 (1988): 117-20.
>:>:> "The Textual Nature of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew." Journal of
>:>:> Biblical Literature 108 (1989): 239-257.
>:>:> "A Note on Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and the Gospel of John."Journal
>:>:> for the Study of the New Testament 47 (1992): 117-26.
>:>:> "The Pseudo-Clementine Writings and Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew." New
>:>:> Testament Studies 40 (1994): 622-28.
>:>: They are not satisfactory Anthropological and or Historical Journals -
>:>: period.
>:>These are peer-reviewed academic journals dealing with early
>:>Christianity. So they are not good enough for you? Fancy that...
>: Fair enough Yuri. Then please for each of the above
>: 1. Howard, George - Editor; a brief synopsis of his background.
>Prof. Howard is not Editor. He's the author of these publications.
But you haven't completed answering my question Yuri; ie :-
A brief synopsis of "Prof. Howard's background; had I not asked the said
Yuri?
>: 2. Publisher of the "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew".
>University of Georgia Press.
So, the University of Georga Press published this book means nothing; The
University of Georgia is a post seconday public school (ie. state
University) and certainly not a elitiest University.
>: 3. Publisher of "The Journal of Biblical Literature and the background
of
>: the author of the article "The Textual Nature of Shem-Tob's Hebrew
>: Matthew"
Answer? Synopsis of authors please.
=============================
>: 4. Publisher of, Journal in which contained, as well as author of "A Note
on
>: Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and Gospel of John".
Publisher; University of Georga Press or what?
====================================
>: 5. Publisher and author of article re "Study of the New Testament"
>: (Journal?)
>These are highly prestigious academic journals. Please consult your
>local librarian about such questions.
>: A $30.00 popular publication marketed to the general public does not
>: constitute a standard for scholarly works, though there may be, and have
>: been, exceptions. Could you also give me a general synopsis of Robert
>: perkin's background?
>This is not "popular publication".
>:>Hebrew Gospel of Matthew
>:> by George Howard (Editor), Shem Tov Ibn Shaprut,
>:> Our Price: $30.00
Again Yuri you have not answered my questions regarding a synopsis of the
author's/edititor's
=======================================================================
backgrounds.
==========
Moshe Shulman
wrote:
>For what it's worth, I've read the book. It's actually the translation
>of Ibn Shaprut's version of Matthew. I've also read one article on it
>in the "Journal of New Testament Studies."
True
>At the end Professor Howard, gives a small dissertation of his view on
>the theologies and the implications. He tends believe that he does have
>an original from Matthew in Hebrew, but does acknowledge that his point
>isn't proven. The Journal article (from what I remember) stated that
>the Howard had proven that Shaprut's gospel predated the 14th century
>and possible went back to the 6th century, but past that the author was
>skeptical.
He doesn' claim it goes back that far. He only is certain that ST didn't author
it. I have not found anyone who thinks ST did. The predating is on weak
grounds. The 6th century is based on a sefer Nestor (Which I now have in
Hebrew.) It's date of origin is unknown, but it cannot be too early (has a
date reference that makes it late.)
>The reason that it is most likely a *Christian* Hebrew original, he
>claims, is that it uses a number of wordplays that are favorable to the
>story. It is rather unlikely that Shaprut would do Matthew this favor.
Many of these 'word plays' are not, and a little knowledge of Hebrew and what
real word plays would be shows that.
>Some of it is rather unfriendly to gentile Christianity in that the
>mission to the gentiles (what little there was in the Greek) is
>seriously underplayed or missing. The story of the centurion is
>present, but the story of the Syro-phonecian woman takes a harder cast.
>Also Mt 28:19 is missing entirely. (The problem with this particular
>instance is that it provides for a strange lacuna. It reads something
>like "Go...and teach them." [Who's "them?"])
The strongest theological point is on Mt 28:19, but the verse seems to have
been defective. The grammer is strange and difficult. Considering the rest of
the manuscript and the language there, it is out of place. It is possible that
this was lost or not transcribed correctly.
>The book is being sold on the popular market, but it is a serious work,
>and might be in a library near you. It's worth a read.
It is interesting, that is true.
Moshe Shulman
>>: 2. Publisher of the "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew".
>>University of Georgia Press.
>So, the University of Georga Press published this book means nothing; The
>University of Georgia is a post seconday public school (ie. state
>University) and certainly not a elitiest University.
Stephen, I have the text it is interesting. Maybe he wants to bring up Howard's
argumants here, so I can give a better perspective.
Polichinello
In that Howard doesn't make the positive claim of ancient authorship,
you're correct. However, he certainly flirts with it by running through
Papias and Hegesippus.
The 6th century position is only theoretical, but NT JOURNAL author
(I'll try to get the article with his name) was extremely confident that
Howard had made a case that the book was not medieval.
> >The reason that it is most likely a *Christian* Hebrew original, he
> >claims, is that it uses a number of wordplays that are favorable to
the
> >story. It is rather unlikely that Shaprut would do Matthew this
favor.
>
> Many of these 'word plays' are not, and a little knowledge of Hebrew
> and what
> real word plays would be shows that.
This may be true. I'm not an expert myself. I'm just restating the
position to that Howard gave, and that's based on memory.
best of my memory.
[...]
Schlau
> : Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca> wrote:
> :> Dear Deborah,
> :>
> :> Please keep your bigotry and ignorance to yourself. This subject is
> :> fully on topic both in soc.history.ancient and in
soc.culture.jewish.
>
> : Technically it's not on topic to soc.history.ancient actually as
> : the texts your are refering to were written in the middle ages and
> : so you should post in soc.history.medieval.
> : I wouldn't know about soc.culture.jewish as I'm not a regular
> : reader or poster to that group.
>
> No, technically it _is_ on topic to soc.history.ancient as the Hebrew
> Matthew was not written in the middle ages. It was written in ancient
> times.
>
> In fact I don't know of a single valid argument to indicate that it
> was written in the middle ages.
>
> Yet another thing you know nothing about, Schlaf...
Yuri, never one to pass up an opportunity to insult. I'll leave you
to your "academic" debates there Kuchinsky...
--Oscar Schlaf--
"Honor concerns itself with what we are in the world, with pride and
dignity, status and reputaion, all that is external, like a mask;
integrity concerns itself with the inner man, his ease of being and
his ease of conscience"
- William Faulkner
Stephen Bayzik
>Some of it is rather unfriendly to gentile Christianity in that the
>mission to the gentiles (what little there was in the Greek) is
>seriously underplayed or missing. The story of the centurion is
>present, but the story of the Syro-phonecian woman takes a harder cast.
>Also Mt 28:19 is missing entirely. (The problem with this particular
>instance is that it provides for a strange lacuna. It reads something
>like "Go...and teach them." [Who's "them?"])
>The book is being sold on the popular market, but it is a serious work,
>and might be in a library near you. It's worth a read.
Thanks Derek for the information you presented; I will take the time to get
a copy of the said book (my wife is a librarian) a give it a quick read.
Pax/Shalom
Stephen Bayzik
>Stephen, I have the text it is interesting. Maybe he wants to bring up
Howard's
>argumants here, so I can give a better perspective.
It sure would, as I cannot quite fathom Howard's agenda. To the best of my
knowledge the Palestinian Talmud was wrapped up in the fifth century while
Babylonian dates to the sixth century. Now why would Howard attempt to date
(as a lower limit) the alleged "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew" to the sixth
century?
Anyway, I'm going to get a copy of this book and see if I can ascertain his
agenda.
Moshe Shulman
Get it and we can have a good discussion of it on line.
Polichinello
"Stephen Bayzik" <sba...@idirect.com> wrote:
> Moshe Shulman wrote in message
<38a40c82...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>
> >Stephen, I have the text it is interesting. Maybe he wants to bring
up
> Howard's
> >argumants here, so I can give a better perspective.
>
> It sure would, as I cannot quite fathom Howard's agenda. To the best
of my
> knowledge the Palestinian Talmud was wrapped up in the fifth century
while
> Babylonian dates to the sixth century. Now why would Howard attempt
to date
> (as a lower limit) the alleged "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew" to the sixth
> century?
>
> Anyway, I'm going to get a copy of this book and see if I can
> ascertain his agenda.
Steve,
I found the copy of the article I had been discussing:
Robert F. Shedinger, "The Textual Relationship Between P45 and Shem-
Tob's Hebrew Matthew," _The Journal of New Testament Studies_, vol 43,
1997, Cambridge University Press, pp58-71.
From the Introductory paragraph:
"In 1987, George Howard published the text of a Hebrew Gospel of
Matthew contained in a fourteenth-century Jewish polemical treatise
entitled *i*Evan Bohan*i* authored by Shem-Tob ben Isaa[c] ben-Shaprut.
(fn 1) In his analysis of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew Howard
demonstrates convincingly that the Shem-Tob text should not be
considered a fourteenth-century back-translation fro[m] Greek or Latin
traditions, but concludes that within the Shem-To[b] text of Matthew is
contained an ancient Hebrew of Matthew's Gospel (fn 2)" p58
footnote one was a bibliographical reference to Howards book, that Yuri
has provided.
footnote two, calls out p 225 of Howard's work.
Shedinger goes on and compares some papyrus scraps, work done by
Giovanni Battista Iona (1668), Thomas Yeats (1805), William Greenfield
(1831) and Franz Delitzsch (1889) on Hebrew versions of the gospels.
He admits that much of his case is "circumstantial"[p. 70] and finally
concludes:
"Finally it must be asked: if synoptic source material does survive in
the Shem-Tob text, does it pose a challenge to the priority of Mark and
suggest that Matthew was the first Gospel written and in Semitic form?
The complexity of this issue will not yield to easy answers, but in
light of the Shem-Tob text, this issue must remain open.
"While the implications of the present investigation for issues of
syoptic textual and source criticism are tentative, we may be more
forthright in stating that Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew is a document of
great value for Gospel research. Wheter it does contain synoptic
source material or only represents a Hebrew Matthew originally created
in the fourth to sixth cnetury, it becomes an important witness to the
history of the transmission of the text of the Gospel of Matthew. Only
if the Shem-Tob text is a fresh creation of the fourteenth century does
its value to NT research become dubious, and as we have seen, the
po9ssiblity can be vitually ruled out. many avenues of fruitful study,
therefore, continue to await exploration, and it can be stated
unequivocally that the effort necessary to reveal the nature and
history of this important document will not go unrewarded."[70-1]
This summary, of course, does not do justice to the article itself, and
I would urge you to look at it as well.
Best Regards,
Derek Copold
Tom
Stephen Bayzik <sba...@idirect.com> wrote in message
news:5Rjq4.106051$B6.6...@quark.idirect.com...
> Polichinello wrote in message <887bna$df9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
> Thanks again Derek for your follow up on this subject.
>
> >I found the copy of the article I had been discussing:
>
> >Robert F. Shedinger, "The Textual Relationship Between P45 and Shem-
> >Tob's Hebrew Matthew," _The Journal of New Testament Studies_, vol 43,
> >1997, Cambridge University Press, pp58-71.
>
> >From the Introductory paragraph:
>
> >"In 1987, George Howard published the text of a Hebrew Gospel of
> >Matthew contained in a fourteenth-century Jewish polemical treatise
> >entitled *i*Evan Bohan*i* authored by Shem-Tob ben Isaa[c] ben-Shaprut.
> >(fn 1) In his analysis of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew Howard
> >demonstrates convincingly that the Shem-Tob text should not be
> >considered a fourteenth-century back-translation fro[m] Greek or Latin
> >traditions, but concludes that within the Shem-To[b] text of Matthew is
> >contained an ancient Hebrew of Matthew's Gospel (fn 2)" p58
>
> material in a polemical treatise authored by a Jewish source in the
> fourteenth century, and on the bases of that extracted material postulates
> that the said extracted text is contained in an ancient Hebrew Matthewian
> Gospel - presumably attempting to identify the said extracted material
with
> the historically known reference to a "Hebrew" Gospel mentioned by
Irenaesus
> and Papias?
>
> >footnote one was a bibliographical reference to Howards book, that Yuri
> >has provided.
>
> >footnote two, calls out p 225 of Howard's work.
>
> >Shedinger goes on and compares some papyrus scraps, work done by
> >Giovanni Battista Iona (1668), Thomas Yeats (1805), William Greenfield
> >(1831) and Franz Delitzsch (1889) on Hebrew versions of the gospels.
> >He admits that much of his case is "circumstantial"[p. 70] and finally
> >concludes:
>
> >"Finally it must be asked: if synoptic source material does survive in
> >the Shem-Tob text, does it pose a challenge to the priority of Mark and
> >suggest that Matthew was the first Gospel written and in Semitic form?
> >The complexity of this issue will not yield to easy answers, but in
> >light of the Shem-Tob text, this issue must remain open.
>
> "synoptic source material" (ie. a logia so to speak used by the author of
> Mark) - the actual existence of the said logia being a hypothisis and not
an
> established fact - and that the said "extracted text" fits the contextual
> pattern of this assumed logia.
>
> >"While the implications of the present investigation for issues of
> >syoptic textual and source criticism are tentative,
>
> than the evidence provides.
>
> > we may be more
> >forthright in stating that Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew is a document of
> >great value for Gospel research.
>
> find some Biblical" Holy Grail"; they have been conjuring up like Gospel
> scenerios since the Reformation.
>
> >Wheter it does contain synoptic
> >source material or only represents a Hebrew Matthew originally created
> >in the fourth to sixth cnetury, it becomes an important witness to the
> >history of the transmission of the text of the Gospel of Matthew.
>
>
> >Only if the Shem-Tob text is a fresh creation of the fourteenth century
> does
> >its value to NT research become dubious,
>
research"
> is but a house of cards with no intrinsic value.
>
> >and as we have seen, the
> >therefore, continue to await exploration, and it can be stated
> >unequivocally that the effort necessary to reveal the nature and
> >history of this important document will not go unrewarded."[70-1]
>
> thought in some respectable department of anthropology.
>
> >This summary, of course, does not do justice to the article itself, and
> >I would urge you to look at it as well.
>
> admit, from what you have related to me, that this Howard is but another
> Monthy Python of the Bible Study world.
>
> Again, many thanks for you comments Derek.
>
>
>
>