Reading Matthew in Hebrew - III

We can pick up the thread from this point:

But we can also consider the possibility that Shaprut's reading with "lands/cities" may be more original than the Greek textual tradition, just on the basis of the likelihood of the reading. Did the Samaritans have more than one city? No doubt. What is "the road" of the Gentiles? Is not "the lands" of the Gentiles more likely? Was there any historical, political, or social reason to suppress such a reading?

The answer, for me, is "yes, there was such a reason." While it is far from certain what "road of the Gentiles" means in this context, "Do not go to the lands of the Gentiles" sounds natural and is very clear. It is also exactly what Paul and his followers did, in spite of these words of Rabbi Yeshua. It may, therefore, be taken as an indictment of Pauline Christianity. If later generations read it that way, they would surely have suppressed it.

While I was studying this passage, I took a look at another passage that also talks about "the lost sheep of the house of Israel," namely Mt. 15:24, the episode of the Canaanite Woman. Here's how it reads in the RSV:

"Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon." But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, "Send her away, for she is crying after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

This passage has always presented a problem, because Jesus' answer is a non-answer. but the problem is resolved in Shaprut's Hebrew Matthew, which reads:

"Master, Son of David, have mercy on me because my daughter is possessed by demons." Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples approached him and said to him, "Our master, why do you abandon this woman who is crying out after us?" Jesus answered them: "They did not send me except to the lost sheep from the house of Israel."

So, while all other texts are problematic in this passage, the old Hebrew Matthew presented by Shaprut resolves the problem and makes perfect sense. It certainly seems to me to be more original.

(to be continued)

Reading Matthew in Hebrew - II

Delitzsch:

אֶל־דֶּרֵךְ הַגּוֹיִם אַל־תֵּלֵכוּ וְאֶל־עִיר הַשֹׁמְוֹנִים אַל־תָּבֹאוּ ׃

כִּי אִם־לְכוּ אֶל־הַצֹּאן הָאֹבְדוֹת לבֵית יִשְׂרָאֵל ׃

Salkinson:

אַל־תָּשִׂימוּ לְדֶרֶךְ הַגּוֹיִם פַּעֲמֵיכֶם וְאֶל־עָרֵי הַשֹׁמְרֹנִים אַל־תָּבֹאוּ ׃

כִּי אִם־לְצֹאן אֹבְדוֹת מִבֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל תֵּלֵכוּ ׃‎

Shaprut:

בארצות הגוים אל תלכו ובערי השמרונים אל תבואו ׃

לכו לצעאן אשר נדחו מבית ישראל ׃

Please refer to my previous blog post for more background information.

We can pick up the thread here:

Shaprut [lived in Spain in the fourteenth century, but his text is of a type that is much older than that, pre-Vulgate (ca. 400) and pre-Peshitta (ca. 500), and probably even older]:

"Do not go to the lands of the Gentiles, and into the cities of the Samaritans do not enter. Go to the sheep that have strayed from the house of Israel."

First of all, outside of Hebrew Matthew, the verb "strayed" is found only in the Syriac texts (Old Syriac and Peshitta). Both Delitzsch and Salkinson followed the Greek texts in using "lost."

Secondly, it is worth noting that the combination "lands/cities" forms a parallelism, one of the most characteristic features of all Semitic literature. Such parallelisms, along with frequent puns and other wordplay that only work in a Semitic language, have led many to believe that there is a Semitic substratum in parts of the New Testament, notably the Gospel of Matthew, especially in the "sayings" portions. For a parallelism to be stylistically perfect, both of its members should have the same number (singular or plural). That is true here, and they are both plural: "lands/cities." Now "cities" (plural) is quite rare in this passage among all extant textual witnesses. Every Greek text has "road/city" (singular). But the plural "cities" is supported by the Old Syriac (only two manuscripts have survived), the Peshitta (the newer, standard Syriac version), some of the Old Latin manuscripts, and the Vulgate. No recent translation reads "cities," because they have all been made to agree with the Greek texts. As to "lands," I haven't yet found support for that reading, but the parallelism requires a plural.

What is the significance of this situation? In this case, at least, it opens up the possibility that Shaprut's Hebrew Matthew may be very old. If agreement with the Old Syriac and Old Latin is frequent (it is, and is in fact the most frequent among supported variant readings), then we have a text of a very old type.

But we can also consider the possibility that Shaprut's reading with "lands/cities" may be more original than the Greek textual tradition, just on the basis of the likelihood of the reading. Did the Samaritans have more than one city? No doubt. What is "the road" of the Gentiles? Is not "the lands" of the Gentiles more likely? Was there any historical, political, or social reason to suppress such a reading?

(to be continued)