Donald Traxler's Poetry: June 2019

Sunday, June 30, 2019

I Am Black / ᎠᏯ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎬᎾᎨ

I am black
and I am white,
and everything in between.
I am the wind in the pines,
I am Spirit.

ᎠᏯ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎬᎾᎨ
ᎠᎴ ᎠᏯ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎤᏁᎬ,
ᎠᎴ ᎢᎬᏩᏓᎴᎩ ᎠᏰᎵ.
ᎠᏯ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎤᏃᎴ ᏃᏥᏗ ᎭᏫᎾ,
ᎠᏯ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎠᏓᏅᏙ.

We Are One / ᎢᏧᎳ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᏌᏊ

We are one
and we are many,
sisters and brothers
waiting for the dawn.

ᎢᏧᎳ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᏌᏊ
ᎠᎴ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎤᎪᏗᏗ,
ᎤᎸᏗ ᎠᎴ ᎤᏙᏗ,
ᎠᎦᏘᏴ ᎤᎩᏥᏍᎬᏁ.

Both / ᎢᎬᎳ

We are both in there,
mates for life,
for always.

ᎢᏧᎳ ᎢᎬᎳ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎾᎿ ᎭᏫᎾ,
ᎤᎾᎵᎪᎯᏗ ᎥᎴᏂᏙᎲ ᎾᏍᎩᎭᎢ,
ᏂᎪᎯᎸᎢ ᎾᏍᎩᎭᎢ.

Friday, June 28, 2019

If I take my clothes off,
you will tell me
that I am too bold.
If I put them back on,
you will tell me
that I lack courage,
and should stand my ground.
I have no time to listen--
I am already too old.

Thursday, June 27, 2019

Synoptica VI - Hebrew Matthew and the Formation of Canonical Matthew

I would like to briefly mention that canonical Mt. 5:47 is not present in Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew. My NA25 (the only edition of Nestlé-Aland that is currently available to me) informs me that the verse is also not present in k, which is the oldest manuscript of the Old Latin text type, or in Syr-s, which is the oldest manuscript of the Old Syriac text type. The Old Latin and the Old Syriac are the oldest NT text types that we have, and these two mss are the oldest of the old. In the fourteenth century, when Shem-Tob's book Even Bohan was written, one would have been hard pressed to find any copy of k, and Syr-s was unknown. I don't know why the verse is present in canonical Matthew (my Matthew III), but its absence in Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and in other ancient texts seems highly significant.

I would like to move now to Mt. 10:5-6. Here is the translation in the RSV:

"These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, 'Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Here is George Howard's translation of the same verse in Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew:

"These twelve Jesus sent; he commanded them saying: To the lands of the Gentiles do not go and into the cities of the Samaritans do not enter. Go to the sheep who have strayed from the house of Israel."

These two are close enough to be considered the same. Yet the silence from Luke and Mark, whose Gospels were written for the Gentiles, is deafening.

There is a further echo of these verses in Mt. 15:24, the story of the Syro-Phoenician woman:

"He answered, 'I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel'." (RSV)

"Jesus answered them: 'They did not send me except to the lost sheep from the house of Israel'." (Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew)

The presence of this verse in Hebrew Matthew shows that it is original, and not a later insertion. Again, there is silence from Mark, and Luke does not parallel the story at all.

These words of Rabbi Yeshua, older than canonical Matthew, were ignored by Paul and by many others, on what basis I do not know.

(to be continued)

© 2019 by Donald C. Traxler.

Synoptica V - Hebrew Matthew and the Formation of Canonical Matthew

Moving on, we see that there are unnecessary and disruptive (in a continuous Sermon on the Mount) introductory phrases in the Shem Tob text at Mt. 5:25, 27, 31, and 43. George Howard found sixteen of these out-of-place introductory phrases in the Hebrew Matthew (my Mt. IIb) version of the Sermon on the Mount, and he discussed them on pp. 200-201 of his 1995 book, already cited. They were all edited out of canonical, Greek Matthew (my Mt. III). They are vestigial remains of an earlier arrangement of Matthew's Gospel (my Mt. IIa), which is reflected in Luke's arrangement of still-incomplete Sayings material.

Matthew collected the logia and wrote them down in the Hebrew language, just as the early-second-century writer Papias said he did. Thus, the Church's belief for some seventeen centuries that the Gospel of Matthew was the first Gospel is borne out. The others, as Papias said, "translated as best they could."

The First Gospel was originally written in Hebrew. Until recent years we did not know that this was so, although there was abundant discussion concerning a possible "Hebrew/Aramaic substratum." We also did not know that the rabbis had preserved a copy of it, which they used in the Middle Ages for polemical purposes in debates with Christians. Even today, not all of this is admitted by an academic orthodoxy that appears embattled and defensive. I am emboldened to write about these matters, about which I have thought for many years, because I am a poet, not an academic, and I cannot be intimidated or occupationally threatened.

My proposed solution of the Synoptic Problem, which I call the Layered-Matthew Hypothesis, is represented, as it stands today, in the graphic below.

This proposed solution of the Synoptic Problem does not require any hypothetical sources such as "Q," and in view of Luke's borrowing from Matthew, the so-called Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark in the Triple Tradition are no problem. Having dispensed with "Q" as a separate, written document, the only question upon which I am undecided is the proper position of Mark. I'll continue to work on that, hoping to arrive at a conclusion that can be explained and defended.

Now, back to our examination of the Hebrew "Sermon on the Mount" as compared to the Greek one.

Mt. 5:27 in Hebrew contains a variant that is consistent with the oldest and best manuscripts (a frequent situation), but Mt. 5:44 appears in a fuller form in Hebrew than it does in the oldest and best Greek texts, a form that is consistent with later text types, including the Received Version. What is going on here? The following is George Howard's translation of Shem-Tob's Mt. 5:44:

"But I say to you, love your enemies and [do good to the one who hates you and vexes you and] pray for those who persecute you [and oppress you]."

I have marked the additions in the Hebrew with square brackets.

According to my theory, the fuller form of the verse would have been present in Matthew IIb (represented by Shem Tob, though we do not know how faithfully) and probably also in Matthew IIa (represented in parts of Luke). Checking the main parallel, Lk. 6:27-28, we find the following (per the RSV, which I believe is based on the best and oldest mss):

"But I say to you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you."

The NASB and NIV give much the same as the RSV, and they are also based on the best and oldest texts.

By way of comparison, I give the RSV translation of the canonical Mt. 5:44:

"But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."

Canonical, Greek Matthew gives us a sparer, more boiled-down version of this teaching. Luke gives a fuller version, taken from an intermediate, earlier edition of Matthew (my Matthew IIa).

Why, then, does the KJV, which is based on later and inferior manuscripts, give the fuller version in Mt. 5:44? The answer is that those inferior texts contain many harmonistic readings, intended to bring the Gospels into harmony with each other. Some copyist imported the Lukan version into Matthew, believing it to be more complete, and the shorter, Matthaean version to be defective. The best and oldest Greek texts show us, though, that this harmonistic reading does not belong to canonical Matthew, but to canonical Luke.

(to be continued)

Text and graphic © 2019 by Donald C. Traxler.

Wednesday, June 26, 2019

Synoptica IV - Hebrew Matthew and the Formation of Canonical Matthew

Here are the same verses that we have just shown (Mt. 5:17-20), this time from Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew:

בעת ההיא אמר יש''ו לתלמידיו אל תחשבו שבאתי להפר תורה

אלא להשלים׃

באמת אני אומר לכם כי עד שמים וארץ אות אחת ונקודה אחת לא

תבטל מהתורה או מהנביאים שהכל יתקיים׃

ואשר יעבור מאמר אֿ מהמצוות אלו אשר אלמד אחרים בן הבל

יקרא מלכות שמים והמקיים והמלמד גדול יקרא במלכות שמים׃

בעת ההיא אמר יש''ו לתלמידיו באמת אני אומר לכם אם לא תגדל

צדקתכם יותר מהפרושים והחכמים לא תבואו במלכות שמים׃

First of all, we should note that verses 17 and 20 in Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew both begin with the unnecessary and disruptive introductory phrase

בעת ההיא אמר יש''ו לתלמידיו

(At that time Jesus said to his disciples. . . ) These introductory phrases, which do not belong in a continuous Sermon on the Mount, are from an earlier version of Matthew (Mt. IIb), here reflected in Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew. They had already been edited out of Greek, canonical Matthew (Mt. III). Shem-Tob's Hebrew text is thus older than our canonical Gospel of Matthew.

Secondly, we note that the phrase "or the words of the prophets" is new in canonical Matthew (Matthew III). So Jesus' defense of Scripture not only did not go away in the Gospel of Matthew, it was expanded to also include the prophets.

In vs. 20, Shem-Tob has "in truth I say to you," where canonical Matthew simply has "for I say to you."

Shem-Tob has "sages" where canonical Matthew has "scribes."

Other differences are just word choices.

(to be continued)

Synoptica III - Hebrew Matthew and the Formation of Canonical Matthew

Mt. 5:17-20 (The Law)

The unnecessary and inappropriate (in a continuous Sermon on the Mount) introductory phrase indicates that the comments of Jesus on the Law were already present in an earlier, differently-arranged version of the Gospel of Matthew. George Howard found sixteen of these out-of-place introductory phrases in the Shem-Tob Hebrew Matthew (see his pp. 200-201). They were edited out in canonical, Greek Matthew (my Mt. III). The comments of Jesus on the Law are not present in Mark, or in Luke (who probably would have omitted them for demographic reasons, since his Gospel was written for the Gentiles). The omission of Jesus's comments on the Law creates the impression of a greater break with Judaism than was intended. Before there was any Christianity as we know it, Rabbi Yeshua offered the world the first Reform Judaism, and the first Jewish Renewal. The religious leaders of his time didn't go for it. But these comments of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew are so important to religious history that it is worth taking a look at them in their original Hebrew.

First, to better familiarize ourselves with the unpointed words of Shem-Tob's text, we'll look at these verses in a couple of standard New Testament translations into Biblical Hebrew. These are, of course, only retro-translations of canonical, Greek Matthew (my Mt. III).

Delitzsch (10th ed.):

אַל־תַּחְשְׁבוּ כִּי בָאתִי לְהָפֵר אֶת־הַתּוֹרָה אוֹ אֶת־דִבְרֵי הַנְּבִיאִים לאׁ בָאתִי לְהָפֵר כִּי אִם־לְמַלּאׁת׃ כִּי אָמֵן אֹמֵר אֲנִי לָכֶם עַד כִּי־יַעַבְרוּ הַשָׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ לאׁ תַעֲבֹר יוֹד אַחַת אוֹ־קוֹץ אֶחָד

מִן־הַתּוֹרָה עַד אֲשֶׁר יֵעָשֶׂה הַכֹּל׃ לָכֵן מִי אֲשֶׁר יָפֵר אַחַת מִן־הַמִצְוֹת

הַקְּטַנּוֹת הָאֵלֶּה וְכֵן יְלַמֵד אֶת־בּנֵי הָאָדָם קָטוֹן יִקָּרֵא בְּמַלְכוּת הַשָׁמָיִם

וַאֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה וִילַמֵד אוֹתָן הוּא גָדוֹל יִקָּרֵא בְּמַלְכוּת הַשָׁמָיִם׃

כִּי אֲנִי אֹמֵר לָכֶם אִם לאׁ־תִרְבֶּה צִדְקַתְכֶם מִצִּדְקַת הַסּוֹפְרִים

וְהַפְּרוּשִׁים לאׁ תָבֹאוּ אֶל־מַלְכוּת הַשָׁמָיִם׃

[The inconsistent line spacing is due to a data-entry problem.]

Here are the same verses in the Salkinson-Ginsburg translation:

אַל־תְּדַמּוּ כִּי בָאתִי לְהָפֵר אֶת־הַתּוֹרָה אוֹ אֶת־דִּבְרֵי הַנְּבִיאִים לׂא בָאתִי לְהָפֵר כִּי אִם־לְמַלּאת׃	יז	17	Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.
כִּי אָמֵן אׂמֵר אֲנִי לָכֶם עַד כִּי־יַעַבְרוּ הַשָׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ לׂא תַּעֲבֹר יוֹד אַחַת אוֹ־קוֹץ אֶחָד מִן־הַתּוֹרָה עַד אֲשֶׁר יְקֻיַּם הַכּׂל׃	יח	18	For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.
לָכֵן הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יָפֵר אַחַת מִן־הַמִּצְוֹת הַקְּטַנּוֹת הָאֵלֶּה וִילַמֵּד אֶת־בְּנֵי הָאָדָם לַעֲשׂוֹת כָּמוֹהוּ קָטוֹן יִקָּרֵא לוֹ בְּמַלְכוּת הַשָׁמָיִם וַאֲשֶׁר יַעָשֶׂה וִילַמֵּד אוֹתָן לָזֶה גָּדוֹל יִקָּרֵא בְּמַלְכוּת הַשָׁמָיִם׃	יט	19	Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
כִּי אֲנִי אׂמֵר לָכֶם אִם לׂא־תִהְיֶה צִדְקַתְכֶם מְרֻבָּה מִצִּדְקַת הַסּוֹפְרִים וְהַפְּרוּשִׁים לׂא תָבֹאוּ בְּמַלְכוּת הַשָׁמָיִם׃	כ	20	For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.
(to be continued)

Tuesday, June 25, 2019

Synoptica II - Hebrew Matthew and the Formation of Canonical Matthew

Now comes the tricky part.

Mt. 5:13 "At that time Jesus said to his disciples"

Mt. 5:17 "At that time Jesus said to his disciples"

These introductory phrases, inappropriate in a single, continuous Sermon on the Mount, were clearly edited out of the final, canonical, Greek version of the Gospel of Matthew (which I have called Matthew III). But they are still in the text at the level of Matthew IIb (reflected in the Shem Tob Hebrew Gospel of Matthew). This is extremely revealing of "Matthew's" methods in forming the First Gospel.

George Howard (see his Page 200) found sixteen of these unnecessary and disruptive introductory phrases in the Hebrew text of the Sermon on the Mount. He did an interesting analysis, presented in a table on pp. 200-201, in which he shows that every time one of these unnecessary introductory phrases occurs, Luke jumps to another place in his Gospel, or has a void.

What is going on here? Is Matthew copying from Luke to form his Sermon on the Mount? No. He is rewriting his own earlier edition (my Matthew IIa), reflected in Luke, to form a later, but also intermediate edition (my Matthew IIb), which would later be further revised and translated into Greek to form canonical Matthew (my Matthew III).

A further, interesting point is that the verses in Mt. 5:13-17 are all connected by catchwords, some of which can only be seen in the Hebrew. Catchwords are a memory aid usually associated with the oral-transmission stage. As we shall see, there are many more of them.

There is no need to posit a hypothetical "Q Document." Matthew collected the logia of Jesus from oral transmission. Then he wrote them down in Hebrew, just as Papias told us in the early second century. There is close, but not exact, agreement between Matthew and Luke in this Sayings material because Luke got it from an early, intermediate version of Matthew (my Matthew IIa).

The (mostly Sayings) material that some scholars refer to as "Q," which stands for the German "Quelle," meaning "source," was evidently unknown to Mark. This may be because Mark wrote his Gospel before Matthew began his ("Markan priority"), or it may be because Mark took most of his content from an early version of the Gospel of Matthew (my Mt. I), one that still lacked the Sayings material shared by Matthew and Luke. I still don't know which of these scenarios is correct, so I don't yet know whether Markan priority can be dispensed with.

(to be continued)

Monday, June 24, 2019

E Pluribus Unum

This house is one of many,
so also this language
and this life,
now united into one
that is stronger
for the many.

Fractured

Fractured,
into planes of
time and space,
and place,
a hundred lands
and tongues,
born into a hundred clans,
and we
are all alive.

We are all
alive.

Synoptica I - Semitisms in Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew

To begin, let's review a bit:

The above graphic represents my Layered-Matthew Hypothesis, as it currently exists.

Matthew I (lacking Q entirely) is reflected in Mark.

Matthew IIa (containing most of the Q material in an earlier form, but still incomplete) is reflected in Luke.

Matthew IIb (containing the Q material in an intermediate, but still incomplete form) is reflected in Shem-Tob ben Isaac ben Shaprut's Hebrew Matthew, which has survived to our time in twenty-eight manuscripts, of which George Howard examined nine. Other, related texts of Hebrew Matthew (such as Münster and DuTillet) have, as Howard pointed out, been brought into closer conformity to canonical Matthew.

Matthew III (containing full Q material in revised, Matthaean form and translated into Greek) is reflected in canonical Matthew.

There are, thus, no hypothetical sources with the exception of Q, whose existence as a separate, written document is uncertain.. Q may simply represent the stage of oral transmission. The evidence does not support Markan priority.

We shall now move ahead by examining the Semitisms in Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew. We are using HEBREW GOSPEL OF MATTHEW by George Howard (1995 Macon, Georgia USA, published by Mercer University Press ISBN 0-86554-989-3) as our text.

Mt. 1:18 "it came to pass" [not in canonical Mt.]

Mt. 1:21 "you will call his name" = canonical Mt.

Mt. 2:1 "it came to pass" [not in canonical Mt.]

"behold" = canonical Mt.

Mt. 2:6 "behold" [not in canonical Mt.]

Mt. 3:2 "turn" in repentance [not in canonical Mt.]

Mt. 3:4 "behold" [not in canonical Mt.]

Mt. 4:11 "behold" = canonical Mt.

Mt. 4:12 "it came to pass" [not in canonical Mt.]

Mt. 5:1 "it came to pass"[not in canonical Mt., but it IS in Lk 6:12]

Mt. 5:2 "he opened his mouth and spoke to them, saying" = canonical Mt.

Excursus: The Beatitudes

Mt. 5:3 "blessed are the poor [in spirit]" (Only one manuscript, of the nine that George Howard examined, has this verse at all.) Lk does have it, but without "in spirit."

Mt. 5:4 "blessed are they who wait, for they shall be conforted" canonical = "they that mourn" No parallel in Luke.

Mt. 5:5 "blessed are the meek" (Only one ms out of the nine examined has this verse; there is no parallel in Luke.)

(Verses 5:6 and 5:7 are not present in Shem Tob's Hebrew Matthew. The first of them is present in an earlier form in Luke; the second is not present in Luke.)

Mt. 5:8 "innocent of heart" is sim. to canonical Mt. No parallel in Luke.

Mt. 5:9 "who pursue peace" is sim.to the "peacemakers" of canonical Mt.No parallel in Lk. Note that "pursue peace" forms a wordplay with the following verse, which only works in Hebrew. The Hebrew root "rdf" רדף means both "to pursue" and "to persecute." "Peace pursuers" is the normal way to say "peacemakers" in Hebrew. The four verses Mt. 5:9-12 are also linked together by this "rdf" רדף catchword. The "persecute" part of the catchword connection can also be seen in Greek or English, but the catchword only links 5:9 to the others in Hebrew. The "rdf" רדף connection between all four verses can be seen in every Hebrew translation that I checked (Delitzsch 10th ed., Salkinson-Ginsburg, Delitzsch-Dalman 1901, and New World Translation). The connection with Mt. 5:9 cannot be seen in any Greek, Latin, or English that I have available.

Mt. 5:10 "who are persecuted" play on words, based on "rdf," רדף only works in Hebrew. No parallel in Lk.

Mt. 5:11-12 (parallel to Lk. 6:22-23, but very different wording). The very divergent wording seems to militate against the existence of "Q" as a separate, written source. For now, I'll consider this an open question.

We have only begun our study of the Semitisms in Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew. As we will see, many Semitisms were edited out of canonical Matthew, possibly at the time of translation into Greek. Thus, Shem-Tob's text appears to be older than canonical Matthew. Canonical Luke appears to reflect an even earlier stage of the Matthaean text than does Shem-Tob.

We must also take into account the Shem-Tob text's agreement in some cases with very ancient text types, such as the Old Syriac, that were unknown in the fourteenth century, only being discovered in the nineteenth. The Shem-Tob textual type is most similar to the Old Syriac and Old Latin, the oldest text types to have survived (just barely, the former in only two mss) in the Church. There are also similarities to some of the logia in the Gospel of Thomas, which was unknown in the fourteenth century, only being rediscovered in 1946.

We are far from exhausting the evidence in this research, but already it is clear to me that there are really only two possibilities: Either Shem-Tob's Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is a forgery that was somehow able to take advantage of texts that were not yet known, or it is older than canonical Matthew. If the former, then the forgers must have had a truly wonderful crystal ball.

(to be continued)

Sunday, June 23, 2019

Life, Raw and Unplanned

Life, raw and unplanned,
mocks the boundaries
of civilization,
sprouting everywhere,
and laughing
at death.

Text and image © 2019 by Donald C. Jacobson Traxler.

ᎤᏰᏣᏍᎦᏁᏖ ᎠᏲᎱᎯᏍᏗ ᎾᎿᎢ

Saturday, June 22, 2019

I Have You in my Mind / ᎠᏯ ᎤᎭᏎ ᏂᎯᏁ ᎠᏆ ᎣᏓᏅᏛ ᎭᏫᎾ

I have you in my mind,
though you left without a trace.
I have you in my mind,
and it's our best embrace.

ᎠᏯ ᎤᎭᏎ ᏂᎯᏁ ᎠᏆ ᎣᏓᏅᏛ ᎭᏫᎾ,
ᎤᏁᎳᎩ ᏂᎯ ᎠᏓᏅᏍᏗᏎ ᎠᏍᏓᏩᏛᏍᏙ ᏄᏠᏯᏍᏛᎾ.
ᎠᏯ ᎤᎭᏎ ᏂᎯᏁ ᎠᏆ ᎣᏓᏅᏛ ᎭᏫᎾ,
ᎠᎴ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎠᏆᏤᎵ ᎣᎯᏍᏗ ᏗᏓᏂᏴᏙ.

Friday, June 21, 2019

ᎤᏁᎬ ᏅᏃᎯ ᏙᎯᏱ ᎥᎿᎢ / The White Path of Peace / השביל הלבן של השלום

ᎤᏁᎬ ᏅᏃᎯ ᏙᎯᏱ ᎥᎿᎢ
ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎾᏍᎩ Ꮎ ᎢᏧᎳ ᎠᏎ
ᎠᏓᏠᎯᏍᏗ.
ᎢᏧᎳ ᎠᏎ ᎠᏁᏍᎬᏗ ᎾᏍᎩᏁ ᎣᎬᏌ,
ᎪᏍᏚ ᏓᏄᏩ ᏂᏛᎴᏅᏓ.

The white path of peace
is something that we
must earn.
We must build it ourselves,
from the ashes
of war.

השביל הלבן של השלום
הוא משהו שאנחנו
חייב להרוויח.
אנחנו חייבים לבנות את זה בעצמנו,
מן האפר
של מלחמה.

shabbat shalom

Thursday, June 20, 2019

New Testament Translations into Hebrew

Many years ago, I wanted to read the words of Jesus in a Semitic language (since I suspected that there would be wordplay, which proved to be the case). There was no Internet at the time, nor any abebooks dot com. I had to be patient for a few years, but eventually a very nice hardcover New Testament in Hebrew came into my hands. It was the masterful, if somewhat stiff translation of Franz Delitzsch, which is still my favorite. A few years later, another Hebrew New Testament came into my hands, that of Salkinson and Ginsburg. Unfortunately, I let that one slip out of my hands in the recent move from one continent to another, and I regret it.

At this point, let me give you a link that will tell you more than I can tell you, though not in as personal a manner:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_into_Hebrew#New_Testament

There have been quite a few partial or complete NT translations into Hebrew since the seventeenth century. Some older texts, especially of the Gospel of Matthew, were published by the rabbis for polemical purposes, but I don't want to get into that here.

Among the more recent translations, the two nineteenth-century ones that I mentioned are by far the best known. That of Delitzsch comes in two forms: His Tenth Edition, of 1889, was the last that he revised himself. Beginning in 1892, we have editions of Delitzsch as revised by Gustaf Dalman, which are based on older and better NT manuscripts. Delitzsch's first edition, of 1877, had been based on the Sinaïticus, a wonderful ms that had only been discovered twenty-some years earlier. But the British and Foreign Bible Society refused to publish his translation unless he made it conform to the Received Text. But Delitzsch, although the English on the facing pages conforms to the Received Text, allowed some of the superior readings to remain in the Hebrew. This is so, at least, in my copy, which is consistent with his Tenth Edition, of 1889. Delitzsch no doubt knew that the gentlemen of the Society were unlikely to take the trouble of reading his Hebrew. Thus, some very interesting readings that strongly suggest that the original language of the Gospel of Matthew was Hebrew, were preserved in his translation.

I have not used the Delitzsch-Dalman version enough to know how those interesting readings fared under Dalman's hand, but supposedly his revisions were based on earlier and better texts than the Received Text. This is fortunate, because most printed editions of Delitzsch's translation now reflect Dalman's revisions.

Anyway, to make a long story a bit shorter, I have now found online and pdf versions of the Salkinson-Ginsburg translation at the hebrewnet website, another online version of Salkinson-Ginsburg, which is very clear and easy on the eyes, at the Sar Shalom website, Delitzsch-Dalman (1937) online at the website of iclnet dot org, and Delitzsch-Dalman (1901) in pdf form at archive dot org.

One of the nice things about the Wikipedia article that I linked at the beginning of this blog post is a table of comparison in section 3.4, which compares twelve translations by giving their versions of John 3:16. That table allowed me to quickly identify the Sar Shalom text, which was otherwise unidentified.

The table in the article ends with a couple of translations into Modern Hebrew, which are quite nice, especially that of the Bible Society in Israel (1977). A more recent revision (but not the most recent) of that translation is available online.

I also found and downloaded a pdf version of the New World Translation into Hebrew (Jehovah's Witnesses), which I found to be somewhat periphrastic and divergent from the others.

Please feel free to comment directly on this blog post, or to communicate with me by email (exolinguist at gmail dot com).

You May Have / ᏂᎯ ᏰᎵᏆᏎ ᎤᎯ

You may have big houses,
with many rooms,
but the world
that we all live in
is falling apart.

ᏂᎯ ᏰᎵᏆᏎ ᎤᎯ ᎡᏆ ᎦᎵᏦᏗᏁ,
ᎤᎪᏗᏗ kᏅᏑᎸ ᎬᏙᏗ,
ᎠᏎᏃ ᎡᏆ-ᎡᎶᎯ
Ꮎ ᎭᏫᎾ ᏂᎦᏛ ᎢᏧᎳ ᎠᎴᏂᏙᎭᏎ
ᎠᏲᎱᎯᏍᏓᏎ.

The Sons of Obstruction / ᎤᏪᏥᏗ ᎢᎬᏯᏗᏠ

The sons of obstruction
are rude and uncouth,
but let us be offspring
of beauty and truth.

ᎤᏪᏥᏗ ᎢᎬᏯᏗᏠ
ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎬᏍᎦᏍᏓᎩ ᎠᎴ ᎤᏲᎢ-ᏂᏚᏍᏛᎢᎯ,
ᎠᏎᏃ ᎢᏧᎳ ᎨᏒᎤ ᎠᏲᏟᏗ
ᎤᏬᏚ ᎠᎴ ᏚᏳᎪᏛ.

Tuesday, June 18, 2019

This Body / ᎯᎠ ᎠᏰᎸ

This body is a car that carries the spirit.
It need not be more.

ᎯᎠ ᎠᏰᎸ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎠᏦᏚᏗ Ꮎ ᎠᏫᏛᏓᏎ ᎠᏓᏅᏙᏁ.
Ꮭ ᎤᏚᎳᏓᏎ ᎨᏒᎢ ᎤᎪᏕᏍᏗ.

Monday, June 17, 2019

We Are Light, and That Is All / ᎢᏧᎳ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎤᎸᏌᏓ, ᎠᎴ Ꮎ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᏂᎦᏛ

We are light, and that is all,
neither short, nor fat, nor tall.
The sun by day,
and the moon by night,
we are only light.

ᎢᏧᎳ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎤᎸᏌᏓ, ᎠᎴ Ꮎ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᏂᎦᏛ,
Ꮭ ᏍᏆᎳᎯ, Ꮭ ᎦᎵᏦᎯᏓ, Ꮭ ᎢᏅ-ᎢᎦᏘ.
ᏅᏙᎢᎦᎡᎯ ᎠᎴ ᏅᏓ ᏑᏃᏱ,
ᎢᏧᎳ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎤᏩᏌ ᎤᎸᏌᏓ.

Layered-Matthew Hypothesis (Revised)

Matthew I (lacking Q entirely) is reflected in Mark.

Matthew IIa (containing most of the Q material in an earlier form, but still incomplete) is reflected in Luke.

Matthew IIb (containing the Q material in an intermediate, but still incomplete form) is reflected in Shem-Tob ben Isaac ben Shaprut's Hebrew Matthew, which has survived to our time in twenty-eight manuscripts, of which George Howard examined nine. Other, related texts of Hebrew Matthew (such as Munster and DuTillet) have, as Howard pointed out, been brought into closer conformity to canonical Matthew.

Matthew III (containing full Q material in revised, Matthaean form) is reflected in canonical Matthew.

There are, thus, no hypothetical sources with the exception of Q, whose existence as a separate, written document is strongly supported by the evidence. That evidence does not support Markan priority.

This, the current state of my Layered-Matthew Hypothesis for solution of the Synoptic Problem, is illustrated in the graphic below:

Sunday, June 16, 2019

Notes on the Synoptic Problem and the Antiquity of Hebrew Matthew

In 1987 George Howard, a professor at the University of Georgia, published a book entitled The Gospel of Matthew according to a primitive Hebrew text. The book unleashed a firestorm of opposition and criticism from his academic peers. He was apparently pressured to walk back some of his claims, which he did in a second edition, with the title Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (published in 1995). I am convinced that Howard was absolutely right the first time. I, being a mere poet, have neither tenure nor position to protect, and cannot be intimidated. Some of my conclusions follow.

First, the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, which we know from a fourteenth-century Jewish polemical work with the title of Even Bohan (The Touchstone), is actually older than canonical Matthew. There is, in fact a great deal of evidence to support this conclusion.

Secondly, in the portions of the NT known as "Q," Hebrew Matthew (HebMt) is closer to Luke Q than to Matthew Q.

It is clear to me, based on the so-called Minor Agreements (many of which are Major Agreements) in the so-called Triple Tradition, that either Luke knew Matthew's work, or vice-versa.

Further, I believe that the "Markan priority," which has long been academic dogma, is incorrect. I believe the Gospel of Mark to be dependent on early Matthew and/or Luke, before the incorporation of the "Q" material. Only 3% of the Markan material is unique to Mark, and I do not believe that his contribution to the work of the other two synoptists was significant.

A correct resolution of the "Synoptic Problem," therefore, requires a correct understanding of the literary dependencies of Matthew and Luke.

It is clear to me that Luke represents, in the "Q" material, an earlier stage of either "Q" or Matthew.

It is also clear to me that HebMt is closer to Lukan Q than to Matthaean Q, as George Howard demonstrated. (Howard., 1995 op. cit.,, p. 201-202.)

There is extraordinary evidence (Howard 1995, p. 200) for Matthew's editorial method for utilizing "Q" material. This evidence also shows that he was working from "Q," and not from Luke.

The "Q" Hypothesis is confirmed by the evidence, but Markan Priority is not. Mark's contribution to the Synoptic Tradition was basically insignificant. Mark is dependent upon an early stage of Matthew and Luke that still lacked incorporation of the "Q" material. At the time of the formation of the NT canon, the Gospel of Mark was held in low regard, and was almost not admitted. It was defective and obsolete, because it lacked the "Q" content.

Neither Matthew nor Luke sprang full-feathered from the egg, but rather grew and developed over time. What is clear is that the Gospel of Matthew was written, originally in Hebrew, for the Jews. The Gospel of Luke was written for the Gentiles, translating from Hebrew to Greek. Word play, Semitisms, and editorial changes make this abundantly clear.

The Hebrew Matthew that we have is older than canonical Matthew, as evidenced by editorial changes in Q material that had not yet been made but later would be, but it is not the oldest form, which would have lacked the "Q" material and from which Mark worked.

All of these assertions can be supported by illustrative examples, if there is sufficient interest.

Comments are very welcome.

Donald C. Traxler
exolinguist@gmail.com

Text © 2019 by Donald C. Traxler.

Saturday, June 15, 2019

The Primitive Is Always With Us / ᎯᎸᎯᏳᎢ ᏂᎪᎯᎸᎢ ᎢᏧᎸ ᎬᏙᏗ

The primitive is always with us,
for better or worse.
From whence comes this power?
The clock shows no hour.

ᎯᎸᎯᏳᎢ ᏂᎪᎯᎸᎢ ᎢᏧᎸ ᎬᏙᏗ,
ᎤᏟ-ᎢᏲᏍᏛ ᎠᎴ ᎡᏍᎦᎢᏴ ᎾᏍᎩᎭᎢ.
ᎭᏢ ᏂᏛᎴᏅᏓ ᏅᎳ ᎯᎠ ᎤᎳᏂᎬᎬ?
ᏩᏥ ᎤᎾᏛᏁᎸᏓᏎ ᏝᎯ ᏑᏟᎶᏛᏁ.

Friday, June 14, 2019

My Father

Sometimes I see
my father's face in mine,
though he never wore a beard,
or let anyone see his dick.
We are two very
different people.
After sixty years
in California,
he still had
a Midwestern mind.
When I think of his father,
Grandpa,
I realize
that my mind
is a farmer's mind,
and I'm a little
Midwestern, too.

Workstation

From here I survey the world,
and communicate with it.
My desk lamp is a UFO,
its light a tractor beam,
pulling me to new dimensions.
Or else it is a diving bell,
carrying me deep
to otherwhere.
I struggle to bring
the loveliness outside
inside.

Thursday, June 13, 2019

Thunder Outside / ᎠᏴᏓᏆᎶᏍᎬ ᏙᏰᎯ

Thunder outside,
dogs at feet,
all is well.

ᎠᏴᏓᏆᎶᏍᎬ ᏙᏰᎯ,
ᎩᎵᏗ ᎤᎳᏏᏕᎾᏗ ᎾᎿᎢ,
ᏂᎦᏛ ᎣᏍᏛ.

Tuesday, June 11, 2019

Human and Machine / ᏴᏫ ᎠᎴ ᎪᏢᏅᏙᏗ

Human and machine
are now a single unit,
and they cannot be separated.
What will happen next?

ᏴᏫ ᎠᎴ ᎪᏢᏅᏙᏗ
ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᏃᏊ ᏌᏊ ᏌᏊᎭ,
ᎠᎴ ᎾᏍᎩᏛ Ꮭ ᏰᎵᏆᏎ ᎨᏒᎢ ᏧᏓᎴᏂᎩᏔ.
ᎦᏙᎤᏍᏗ ᏄᎵᏍᏔᏃᏎ ᏐᎢ?

Sunday, June 9, 2019

Our Speech Is still Sprinkled with Spanish

Our speech is still sprinkled with Spanish,
I still drink ma-te every day,
but we are here,
and this is home.

A Gentle Rain Is Falling / ᎤᏓᏅᏘ ᎠᎦᏍᎬ ᎤᎶᏒᎦᏎ

A gentle rain is falling,
birds hop in tree branches,
expecting worms.

ᎤᏓᏅᏘ ᎠᎦᏍᎬ ᎤᎶᏒᎦᏎ,
ᏥᏍᏆᏗ ᎠᏓᎾᏫᏗᏍᎦᏎ ᎤᏍᏗ-ᎤᏩᏂᎦᎸᏗ ᎾᎿ,
ᎤᏚᎩ-ᎬᏓᏁᏖ ᏥᏍᎪᏯᏗᏁ.

Bride Cart

I'll push no more the militant bride-cart,
because I simply don't think it right
to seek my name with high abandon
in stony paths that know no peace.

Saturday, June 8, 2019

ᏌᎪᏂᎨ ᎦᎸᎶᎢᏗ / Blue Skies

ᏌᎪᏂᎨ ᎦᎸᎶᎢᏗ,
ᎥᏝᎪᎱᏍᏗ ᎠᎴᎾᏍᎩ
ᎠᏴ ᎦᏚ.

Blue skies,
nothing else
over me.

62,000 Visits

This morning we passed the milestone of 62,000 visits to this blog since its inception in October of 2016. Over the past month, most of the visits have come from (in descending order) the United States, Russia, Germany, France, Israel, an Unknown Region (I believe it to be associated with Russia, but I'm not sure), a small Middle Eastern country, Portugal, Greece, and South Korea. These are the top ten, but there have been visits from many other countries as well.

As to the popularity of individual posts, I see that The Beatitudes, a Trajectory through Time, a prose piece from 31 May, related to New Testament studies and my proposed solution to the so-called Synoptic Problem (which is really a puzzle rather than a problem) has attracted 35 visits. The only post garnering more visits was The Light, a small, minimalist poem published on 25 May, at 38 visits. All types of posts are reflected in the top ten positions.

I'm afraid I must cut this entry short, as the thunder outside is becoming worrisome.

Thanks to all of you for your continued interest in this blog.

Friday, June 7, 2019

Nature and machine / ᎬᏩᎣ ᎠᎴ ᎪᏢᏅᏙᏗ

Nature and machine
must work together
for either
to survive.

ᎬᏩᎣ ᎠᎴ ᎪᏢᏅᏙᏗ
ᎠᏎ ᏗᎦᎸᏫᏍᏓᏁᏗ ᎢᏧᎴ
ᎢᏳᏍᏗᏉ ᎬᎵᏱᎵᏏ
ᎠᎴᏂᏙᎢ.

Wednesday, June 5, 2019

Man, Machine / ᎠᏍᎦᏯ, ᎪᏢᏅᏙᏗ

Man, machine,
and the power
of word
and image . . .

ᎠᏍᎦᏯ, ᎪᏢᏅᏙᏗ,
ᎠᎴ ᎤᎳᏂᎬᎬ
ᎧᏁᎢᏍᏗ ᎠᎴ
ᏗᏟᎶᏍᏔᏅ ᎥᎿᎢ . . .