so also this language
and this life,
now united into one
that is stronger
for the many.
Text and image © 2019 by Donald C. Jacobson בן נֹח ꮨᏺꭽꮅ Traxler.
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.
Text and image © 2019 by Donald C. Jacobson בן נֹח ꮨᏺꭽꮅ Traxler.
so also this language
and this life,
now united into one
that is stronger
for the many.
Text and image © 2019 by Donald C. Jacobson בן נֹח ꮨᏺꭽꮅ Traxler.
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.
Text and image © 2019 by Donald C. Jacobson Traxler.
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.
Text and image © 2019 by Donald C. Jacobson Traxler.
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)
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)