We have seen evidence suggesting that the Hebrew Matthew contained in Shem-Tob ben-Isaac ben-Shaprut's fourteenth-century polemical work Even Bohan is likely to be based on a very old Hebrew Matthew, older than the canonical Matthew of the Greek textual tradition. This is astounding news, since it had long been assumed that no such text had survived, if indeed it had ever existed.
Much work remains to be done, and I am sure that many, in addition to Professor George Howard, have begun the work already, although I am not yet in contact with any of them. I will focus my own study on the "Sermon on the Mount," contained in canonical Matthew, chapters V-VII. I will look at canonical Matthew, canonical Luke, the Shaprut Hebrew Matthew, and probably also the Gospel of Thomas. So far as possible, I will follow the Deuteronomic principle that two witnesses are required to establish a truth, only departing from this when suggested by internal linguistic evidence or known socio-political factors. I will not be guided by any preconceived theology, or any religious or institutional loyalties.
We can say at the outset that the "Sermon on the Mount" is a creation of Matthew, on the basis of sayings and parables that he had earlier collected. The evidence of this is plain to see in the Shaprut Hebrew Matthew, where introductory phrases such as "At that time Jesus said to his disciples" (e.g. Mt. V:13) are often still present, though by the time of canonical Matthew (Matthew III in my scenario) they had been edited out in order to present a smoother, continuous "sermon." This extraordinary evidence for the antiquity of the Shaprut Hebrew Matthew was dealt with by George Howard on pages 200 and 201 of Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.
Howard found sixteen of these introductory phrases in chapters V-VII of the Shaprut Hebrew Matthew, at these locations:
V:13-16
V:17-19
V:20-24
V:25-26
V:27-30
V:31-42
V:43-VI:1
VI:2-4
VI:5-15
VI:16-18
VI:19-23
VI:24-VII:5
VII:6-12
VII:13-14
VII:15-23
7:24-29
Howard says, on p. 200, "When the sayings in Luke are placed alongside their parallels in the Hebrew text of Matthew 5-7, a pattern emerges. Every time the Hebrew is interrupted by the words "Jesus said to his disciples" or "He said to them," Luke, without exception, jumps to a different place in his Gospel, or has a void." In the Shaprut Hebrew Matthew we actually get a glimpse of Matthew's redaction process.
Luke used a version of Matthew in which these sayings and parables had not yet been collected into "the Sermon on the Mount," and the list of Beatitudes was minimal (possibly what I have labelled as Matthew I). But the Shaprut Hebrew Matthew is based on a version of Matthew in which this material HAD been collected into a continuous sermon, and the telltale introductory formulas are still there. Furthermore, the list of Beatitudes in the text on which the Shaprut Hebrew Matthew was based is only slightly fuller than the list reflected in Luke, but still far from the complete list in canonical Matthew, so possibly fits my label "Matthew II." The text of Matthew used by Luke and the one on which the Shaprut Hebrew Matthew is based were not the same, but both of these forms of Matthew were older than canonical Matthew.
(to be continued)
Friday, November 16, 2018
Thursday, November 15, 2018
The Layers of Matthew - IV
It will make things easier if I again give the list, from the last blog post, of Luke's omissions in the Beatitudes:
1. He omits "in spirit" from "poor in spirit." Note that in the Lukan form, the two halves of the verse rhyme in Hebrew, while the form in Matthew III (canonical Matthew), with "in spirit," prevents the rhyme.
2. He omits "Blessed are the meek," verse 5 in canonical Matthew.
3. He omits "Blessed are the merciful" (Matthew verse 7) from his list of the Beatitudes. but does include an echo of it in his verse 36.
4. He omits "Blessed are the pure in heart" (Matthew verse 8).
5. He omits "Blessed are the peacemakers" (Matthew verse 9). This extremely important and revealing omission was discussed in the previous blog post.
6. He omits "Blessed are they which are persecuted" (Matthew verse 10).
7. He includes only a sort of paraphrase of "Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you" (Matthew verse 11). The Lukan paraphrase has lost the catchword connection that should link it to earlier verses and to the succeeding verse.
With all of the above Lukan omissions in mind, I decided to compare them to the oldest Hebrew Matthew that we have. What I found out was shocking.
In 1987 George Howard, Hebraist and professor of religion at the University of Georgia, published a book entitled The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text. Unfortunately I don't own that first edition, which unleashed a firestorm of criticism and resistance among academics. But for years I've had the revised, 1995 edition, and it is a masterwork.
I am a poet and a lover of truth, with a bent toward languages. not an academic. I have neither career nor tenure to protect, and I will tell you the truth as I see it, for whatever that is worth
There are many manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew. Some are older than others, and some are less accommodated to the standard Greek textual tradition. George Howard compared many of them, and determined the text of Matthew contained in a fourteenth-century polemical work, Even Bohan, by Shem Tob Ibn Shaprut to be the most interesting and significant, and the least accommodated to the Received Text. Professor Howard examined nine manuscripts of this text, and included seven of them in his critical apparatus. Since that time, nineteen more manuscripts have been found, in libraries and museums all over the world, so the text has survived in twenty-eight manuscripts.
Professor Howard has done excellent analysis to determine to which text family the Shaprut Hebrew Matthew should be assigned. I have done my best, with the more limited tools available to me, to duplicate some of his research, and possibly add to it.
The conclusion I had reached, as recently as two weeks ago, was that the Shaprut Matthew was translated, either from a text of the Old Syriac type, or from one of the Old Latin type. These two text types are closely related, and probably had their origin in Antioch, at an early date. I had determined that, within the Syro-Latin text type, the Shaprut Hebrew Matthew was always closest to the very oldest surviving texts, Syr-s and Bobiensis (k). I did not expect the Shaprut Hebrew Matthew to be older than the mentioned manuscripts (fourth century and fourth/fifth century, respectively), or to be anything other than a translation from Syriac or Latin. Apparently, I was wrong.
When I compared Luke's omissions in the Beatitudes to the omissions in the Shaprut Hebrew Matthew, I found that they were very similar. Referring again to the list above:
1. The Shaprut Matthew does have "in spirit," but it may have been added later to conform to the canonical texts.
2. "Blessed are the meek" (verse 5 in canonical Matthew) is missing from all but one of the seven manuscripts of the Shaprut Matthew that Howard included in his apparatus.
3. "Blessed are the merciful" (canonical Matthew verse 7) is omitted from all seven manuscripts of the Shaprut Matthew in Howard's apparatus.
4. "Blessed are the pure in heart" (canonical Matthew verse 8) is omitted from Shaprut ms G.
5. "Blessed are the peacemakers (canonical Matthew verse 9) is included in the Shaprut Matthew, although Luke omitted it. Not only is it included, but it is given in the correct form ("those who pursue peace") to form a catchword with the succeeding verses. In Hebrew, "peacemakers" are called "peace-pursuers." Since the same verb, רדפ, is used in Hebrew for both "pursue" and "persecute," a catchword link is formed with verses 10, 11, and 12. This catchword works in Hebrew, but not in Greek, where the phrase is "peace-doers," or in Latin, where they are called "pacifici." The Hebrew phrase could not have been derived from either of those other languages.
6. Luke omits "Blessed are they which are persecuted (canonical Matthew verse 10), but it is present in the Shaprut Matthew.
7. Luke includes only a paraphrase of "Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you" (canonical Matthew verse 11), and in Luke's paraphrase the catchword is lost.
The implications of the omissions and inclusions in the Shaprut Hebrew Matthew's Beatitudes when compared to canonical Matthew and canonical Luke are amazing. They show that an earlier form of Matthew (which I have called Matthew I) did indeed exist in Hebrew. Luke made use of either this Matthew I or Matthew II (which may have already been translated into Greek) for his list of Beatitudes, and probably for much of the Sayings material in his gospel. Furthermore, the Shaprut Hebrew Matthew appears to be based on a Hebrew Matthew that antedates canonical Matthew and represents a hitherto unknown text type that is older than the Greek textual tradition.
These conclusions will be disturbing to some. There will be those who claim that some very devious person or persons mutilated a copy of canonical Matthew in complex ways to give the impression of a very ancient text. But Occam's Razor tells us that the simplest answer, namely that the Shaprut Hebrew Matthew is based on a very ancient text, is likely to be the correct one.
(to be continued)
1. He omits "in spirit" from "poor in spirit." Note that in the Lukan form, the two halves of the verse rhyme in Hebrew, while the form in Matthew III (canonical Matthew), with "in spirit," prevents the rhyme.
2. He omits "Blessed are the meek," verse 5 in canonical Matthew.
3. He omits "Blessed are the merciful" (Matthew verse 7) from his list of the Beatitudes. but does include an echo of it in his verse 36.
4. He omits "Blessed are the pure in heart" (Matthew verse 8).
5. He omits "Blessed are the peacemakers" (Matthew verse 9). This extremely important and revealing omission was discussed in the previous blog post.
6. He omits "Blessed are they which are persecuted" (Matthew verse 10).
7. He includes only a sort of paraphrase of "Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you" (Matthew verse 11). The Lukan paraphrase has lost the catchword connection that should link it to earlier verses and to the succeeding verse.
With all of the above Lukan omissions in mind, I decided to compare them to the oldest Hebrew Matthew that we have. What I found out was shocking.
In 1987 George Howard, Hebraist and professor of religion at the University of Georgia, published a book entitled The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text. Unfortunately I don't own that first edition, which unleashed a firestorm of criticism and resistance among academics. But for years I've had the revised, 1995 edition, and it is a masterwork.
I am a poet and a lover of truth, with a bent toward languages. not an academic. I have neither career nor tenure to protect, and I will tell you the truth as I see it, for whatever that is worth
There are many manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew. Some are older than others, and some are less accommodated to the standard Greek textual tradition. George Howard compared many of them, and determined the text of Matthew contained in a fourteenth-century polemical work, Even Bohan, by Shem Tob Ibn Shaprut to be the most interesting and significant, and the least accommodated to the Received Text. Professor Howard examined nine manuscripts of this text, and included seven of them in his critical apparatus. Since that time, nineteen more manuscripts have been found, in libraries and museums all over the world, so the text has survived in twenty-eight manuscripts.
Professor Howard has done excellent analysis to determine to which text family the Shaprut Hebrew Matthew should be assigned. I have done my best, with the more limited tools available to me, to duplicate some of his research, and possibly add to it.
The conclusion I had reached, as recently as two weeks ago, was that the Shaprut Matthew was translated, either from a text of the Old Syriac type, or from one of the Old Latin type. These two text types are closely related, and probably had their origin in Antioch, at an early date. I had determined that, within the Syro-Latin text type, the Shaprut Hebrew Matthew was always closest to the very oldest surviving texts, Syr-s and Bobiensis (k). I did not expect the Shaprut Hebrew Matthew to be older than the mentioned manuscripts (fourth century and fourth/fifth century, respectively), or to be anything other than a translation from Syriac or Latin. Apparently, I was wrong.
When I compared Luke's omissions in the Beatitudes to the omissions in the Shaprut Hebrew Matthew, I found that they were very similar. Referring again to the list above:
1. The Shaprut Matthew does have "in spirit," but it may have been added later to conform to the canonical texts.
2. "Blessed are the meek" (verse 5 in canonical Matthew) is missing from all but one of the seven manuscripts of the Shaprut Matthew that Howard included in his apparatus.
3. "Blessed are the merciful" (canonical Matthew verse 7) is omitted from all seven manuscripts of the Shaprut Matthew in Howard's apparatus.
4. "Blessed are the pure in heart" (canonical Matthew verse 8) is omitted from Shaprut ms G.
5. "Blessed are the peacemakers (canonical Matthew verse 9) is included in the Shaprut Matthew, although Luke omitted it. Not only is it included, but it is given in the correct form ("those who pursue peace") to form a catchword with the succeeding verses. In Hebrew, "peacemakers" are called "peace-pursuers." Since the same verb, רדפ, is used in Hebrew for both "pursue" and "persecute," a catchword link is formed with verses 10, 11, and 12. This catchword works in Hebrew, but not in Greek, where the phrase is "peace-doers," or in Latin, where they are called "pacifici." The Hebrew phrase could not have been derived from either of those other languages.
6. Luke omits "Blessed are they which are persecuted (canonical Matthew verse 10), but it is present in the Shaprut Matthew.
7. Luke includes only a paraphrase of "Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you" (canonical Matthew verse 11), and in Luke's paraphrase the catchword is lost.
The implications of the omissions and inclusions in the Shaprut Hebrew Matthew's Beatitudes when compared to canonical Matthew and canonical Luke are amazing. They show that an earlier form of Matthew (which I have called Matthew I) did indeed exist in Hebrew. Luke made use of either this Matthew I or Matthew II (which may have already been translated into Greek) for his list of Beatitudes, and probably for much of the Sayings material in his gospel. Furthermore, the Shaprut Hebrew Matthew appears to be based on a Hebrew Matthew that antedates canonical Matthew and represents a hitherto unknown text type that is older than the Greek textual tradition.
These conclusions will be disturbing to some. There will be those who claim that some very devious person or persons mutilated a copy of canonical Matthew in complex ways to give the impression of a very ancient text. But Occam's Razor tells us that the simplest answer, namely that the Shaprut Hebrew Matthew is based on a very ancient text, is likely to be the correct one.
(to be continued)
The Years Have Taken Their Toll
The years have taken
their toll,
but we are still
here.
Yes, we--
all the races,
all the generations,
all the known
and the unknown
lives.
What is time?
What is space?
They cannot
obstruct
spirit.
their toll,
but we are still
here.
Yes, we--
all the races,
all the generations,
all the known
and the unknown
lives.
What is time?
What is space?
They cannot
obstruct
spirit.
The Layers of Matthew - III
Before reading this blog post, I suggest that you read its predecessors, The Layers of Matthew - I, published in this blog on 31 October 2018, and The Layers of Matthew - II, posted to the blog on 15 November 2018. if you have not already done so.
As mentioned in the previous blog entry, the Beatitudes, as listed in Mt. V:3-11 and Lk. VI:20-22, provide strong evidence that Luke used an earlier version of Matthew (Matthew I, in Hebrew, or Matthew II, in Greek) for the Sayings material in his gospel. The Beatitudes also provide evidence that Matthew I was written in Hebrew,
We have already spoken about Luke's omission of the "peacemakers" from his list of the Beatitudes, although it is important and clearly quite old (even containing a catchword connection that only works in Hebrew. But Luke's omissions do not stop there:
1. He omits "in spirit" from "poor in spirit." Note that in the Lukan form, the two halves of the verse rhyme in Hebrew, while the form in Matthew III (canonical Matthew), with "in spirit," prevents the rhyme.
2. He omits "Blessed are the meek," verse 5 in canonical Matthew.
3. He omits "Blessed are the merciful" (Matthew verse 7) from his list of the Beatitudes. but does include an echo of it in his verse 36.
4. He omits "Blessed are the pure in heart" (Matthew verse 8).
5. He omits "Blessed are the peacemakers" (Matthew verse 9). This extremely important and revealing omission was discussed in the previous blog post.
6. He omits "Blessed are they which are persecuted" (Matthew verse 10).
7. He includes only a sort of paraphrase of "Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you" (Matthew verse 11). The Lukan paraphrase has lost the catchword connection that should link it to earlier verses and to the succeeding verse.
The two lists are quite different. How do we even know that they are based on the same original list, or are intended to be the same list? We know this for two reasons: a) the order of the items that are present in both lists; and b) both lists finish with a version of the "rejoice" statement (Mt. V:12=Lk. VI:23). There is, clearly, a literary relationship, and it is a perplexing one.
With all of the above Lukan omissions in mind, I decided to compare them to the oldest Hebrew Matthew that we have. What I found out was shocking.
(to be continued)
As mentioned in the previous blog entry, the Beatitudes, as listed in Mt. V:3-11 and Lk. VI:20-22, provide strong evidence that Luke used an earlier version of Matthew (Matthew I, in Hebrew, or Matthew II, in Greek) for the Sayings material in his gospel. The Beatitudes also provide evidence that Matthew I was written in Hebrew,
We have already spoken about Luke's omission of the "peacemakers" from his list of the Beatitudes, although it is important and clearly quite old (even containing a catchword connection that only works in Hebrew. But Luke's omissions do not stop there:
1. He omits "in spirit" from "poor in spirit." Note that in the Lukan form, the two halves of the verse rhyme in Hebrew, while the form in Matthew III (canonical Matthew), with "in spirit," prevents the rhyme.
2. He omits "Blessed are the meek," verse 5 in canonical Matthew.
3. He omits "Blessed are the merciful" (Matthew verse 7) from his list of the Beatitudes. but does include an echo of it in his verse 36.
4. He omits "Blessed are the pure in heart" (Matthew verse 8).
5. He omits "Blessed are the peacemakers" (Matthew verse 9). This extremely important and revealing omission was discussed in the previous blog post.
6. He omits "Blessed are they which are persecuted" (Matthew verse 10).
7. He includes only a sort of paraphrase of "Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you" (Matthew verse 11). The Lukan paraphrase has lost the catchword connection that should link it to earlier verses and to the succeeding verse.
The two lists are quite different. How do we even know that they are based on the same original list, or are intended to be the same list? We know this for two reasons: a) the order of the items that are present in both lists; and b) both lists finish with a version of the "rejoice" statement (Mt. V:12=Lk. VI:23). There is, clearly, a literary relationship, and it is a perplexing one.
With all of the above Lukan omissions in mind, I decided to compare them to the oldest Hebrew Matthew that we have. What I found out was shocking.
(to be continued)
The Layers of Matthew - II
Before reading this blog post, I suggest that you read its predecessor, The Layers of Matthew - I, published in this blog on 31 October 2018, if you have not already done so. Here is a link to that earlier blog post;
https://donaldtraxlerpoetry.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-layers-of-matthew-i.html
A very strong piece of evidence for my version of the Two Gospel Hypothesis (not to be confused with the Two Document Hypothesis) can be found in the Beatitudes, as listed in Mt. V:3-11 and Lk. VI:20-22.
How is it that Matthew needed nine verses to list the Beatitudes, while Luke was able to dispense with them in only three? The answer, of course, is that Matthew lists many more Beatitudes, at least in the canonical version of his gospel that has come down to us, which I call Matthew III.
Why would Luke leave out some Beatitudes, such as "peacemakers," Mt. V:9, which we would consider to be very important. This particular Beatitude, by the way is part of a catchword series that unites verse 9 with verses 10 and 11, and the occurrence of the catchword in verse 9 WORKS ONLY IN HEBREW. Catchwords (linking words), by the way, are a mnemonic device considered to be characteristic of the oral tradition that predated the written gospels.
So again, why would Luke omit this very important, and almost certainly original, Beatitude from his list? The answer is simple: he omitted it because he had never seen it.
Luke was, according to my version of the Two Gospel Hypothesis, taking the Sayings material from an early version of Matthew, either Matthew I (in Hebrew), or Matthew II (in Greek). The canonical Matthew with which we are familiar, Matthew III, was still under construction.
(to be continued)
https://donaldtraxlerpoetry.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-layers-of-matthew-i.html
A very strong piece of evidence for my version of the Two Gospel Hypothesis (not to be confused with the Two Document Hypothesis) can be found in the Beatitudes, as listed in Mt. V:3-11 and Lk. VI:20-22.
How is it that Matthew needed nine verses to list the Beatitudes, while Luke was able to dispense with them in only three? The answer, of course, is that Matthew lists many more Beatitudes, at least in the canonical version of his gospel that has come down to us, which I call Matthew III.
Why would Luke leave out some Beatitudes, such as "peacemakers," Mt. V:9, which we would consider to be very important. This particular Beatitude, by the way is part of a catchword series that unites verse 9 with verses 10 and 11, and the occurrence of the catchword in verse 9 WORKS ONLY IN HEBREW. Catchwords (linking words), by the way, are a mnemonic device considered to be characteristic of the oral tradition that predated the written gospels.
So again, why would Luke omit this very important, and almost certainly original, Beatitude from his list? The answer is simple: he omitted it because he had never seen it.
Luke was, according to my version of the Two Gospel Hypothesis, taking the Sayings material from an early version of Matthew, either Matthew I (in Hebrew), or Matthew II (in Greek). The canonical Matthew with which we are familiar, Matthew III, was still under construction.
(to be continued)
Wednesday, November 14, 2018
Millennia
In me are raised up
and laid down
black, white,
red, and brown,
all clamoring
for the light,
speaking
a hundred
languages
but making
no sound,
in dream
after dream.
and laid down
black, white,
red, and brown,
all clamoring
for the light,
speaking
a hundred
languages
but making
no sound,
in dream
after dream.
Tuesday, November 13, 2018
Neniam Plu / לעולם לא
I do not understand
how they can lift the hand
and with fingers straight
salute the cruelest fate.
Donald Jacobson Traxler
November 10 2018 was the eightieth
anniversary of Kristallnacht.
Today, November 13 2018, is the birthday of
my late friend, poet L. G. Corey, aka
Yakov Leib Ha-Kohain (Yalhak).
He would have been 84 years old today.
May his memory be a blessing.
how they can lift the hand
and with fingers straight
salute the cruelest fate.
Donald Jacobson Traxler
November 10 2018 was the eightieth
anniversary of Kristallnacht.
Today, November 13 2018, is the birthday of
my late friend, poet L. G. Corey, aka
Yakov Leib Ha-Kohain (Yalhak).
He would have been 84 years old today.
May his memory be a blessing.