We have seen evidence (and there is more) that the sayings portion of Matthew was originally written in a Semitic language (Hebrew or Aramaic). The evidence that we looked at suggests that this earliest layer of Matthew (Matthew I) was written in Hebrew, and probably Biblical Hebrew. Literary devices such as alliteration are more easily observable in Delitzsch's Hebrew translation of the New Testament than they are in the mixed Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew of Shaprut's Hebrew Matthew.
So what, then is Shaprut's Hebrew Matthew? It is not some kind of original Matthew or Ur Matthew. It is a translation into Hebrew from either the Old Syriac or the Old Latin. We can say this with near-certainty because it omits the same verses as some of the texts in these two (closely allied) textual streams. In other words, Shaprut's Hebrew Matthew is based on a text of the Western type. Within this textual type, it seems to be closest to the oldest Old Latin texts, such as Bobiensis (k). This much we can say, but we don't know when it was translated, or how much modification it may have undergone for polemical purposes. Readings that have no support in any modern critical apparatus must be viewed with suspicion, but it would be a mistake to reject them all out-of-hand without considering whether they commend themselves for some inherent reason.
As to the other translation I've used, that of Salkinson, it has the advantage of being based on a great Greek text, that of Codex Sinaiticus (א), but its more periphrastic style often obscures literary devices that were probably part of the original Matthew I.
In general, I find Delitzsch's Hebrew translation to be of the most use, and it is the one I always start with.
No comments:
Post a Comment