the Shem-Tob Hebrew Matthew used for Sinaiticus?

Steven Avery

Administrator
My understanding is that there are about 20 known mss. of the Shem Tob Matthew. This is considering the possibility that one was used by Benedict on Mt. Athos. And thus helped supply oddball readings into Sinaiticus. The point of Peterson about omissions being a common error is sound, up to a point.

Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (1995)
By George Howard
https://books.google.com/books?id=4tdEBdVXg3AC&pg=PA191
internet text
http://www.onediscipletoanother.org/id6.html


I. Shem-Tob and Codex Sinaiticus25 I have isolated five readings in Shem-Tob’s Matthew that are found elsewhere only in Codex Sinaiticus ( = Codex 01). An additional four are found in Codex Sinaiticus plus one or more of the Egyptian versions and a few minor witnesses. I list them here, using NA27 as a basis for the collation.

Codex 01 and Heb Matt
7:27 (Grk) omit 01* Heb Matt
13:44 (Grk) omit 01* Heb Matt
21:17 (Grk) omit 01* Heb Matt 25
23:4 (Grk) 01; + (Heb) Heb Matt
24:35

Codex 01, Egyptian Versions, and Heb Matt
5:30
6:16
9:10
9:24


The agreement between Codex Sinaiticus and Shem-Tob’s text is significant. Codex Sinaiticus was discovered in the middle of the nineteenth century by Constantine von Tischendorf at the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. Originally dating to the fourth century, a group of correctors, working perhaps at Caesarea, revised the text in the sixth or seventh century. The history of the manuscript after that time is unknown. The type of text it represents, Alexandrian with a strain of “Western” type readings, fell out of general use during the Middle Ages and was replaced by the Byzantine text. Codex Sinaiticus somehow came to St. Catherine’s monastery during the medieval period and remained virtually unknown to all but the monastery’s monks until the nineteenth century.29 The disparity in time and geography between Shem-Tob and Codex Sinaiticus strongly suggests that the polemist had no direct knowledge of or contact with this biblical manuscript. The roots for their agreement, therefore, must go back to the early centuries of the Christian era.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Here was how William L. Peterson responded (not putting in the Alephs yet).

Some Observations on a Recent Edition of and Introduction to Shem-Tob's "Hebrew Matthew" (1999)
William L. Petersen
The Pennsylvania State University
Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v03/Petersen1998a.html


2.2.4.1 Parallels with Codex Sinaiticus (), 01)


63. Another of Howard's lists consists of five parallels with Greek Codex Sinaiticus (), 01). To Howard, these five parallels are "significant" (Howard 1995: 192), for they once again link Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew with a text of Christian antiquity. Howard writes:

The type of text [Codex Sinaiticus] represents, Alexandrian with a strain of "Western" type readings, fell out of general use during the Middle Ages and was replaced by the Byzantine text. . . . The disparity in time and geography between Shem-Tob and Codex Sinaiticus strongly suggests that [Shem-Tob] had no direct knowledge of or contact with this biblical manuscript. The roots for their agreement, therefore, must go back to the early centuries of the Christian era (ibid.: 192, italics added).

Howard also states that these five readings are "found elsewhere only in Codex Sinaiticus" (ibid.: 191); in other words, they are unique to Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and Codex Sinaiticus.
2.2.4.2 Critique of the Parallels with Codex Sinaiticus

64. None of these five readings shows up in the Liège Harmony, and your author has not invested the time necessary to check them against the twenty or so harmonies and other texts and editions necessary to test Howard's assertion. The possibility exists, however, that--as in the two other cases where Howard claimed uniqueness for his parallels--upon examination these readings will also appear in other documents. But leaving that speculation aside, a new problem bedevils this list. No less than four of these five readings are omissions (Howard's other lists also contain omissions: his list of parallels with the Vetus Syra contains three, his list of Vetus Latina parallels has four, his Thomas list has five omissions, etc.). Including omissions in such lists ignores two elementary canons of textual criticism.

65. First, it ignores the dictum that arguments from omissions are intrinsically weak. This is because omissions can arise from any number of reasons other than an omission in the exemplar: from fatigue, parablepsis, lacunae, homoioarcton, homoioteleuton, shortage of materials, etc.; none of these requires an omission in the archetype. In short, an omission marks a lack of evidence. (On when and with what restrictions omissions might be used in textual arguments, see Petersen 1985: 108-109.)

66. Second, and even more to the point, Howard appears oblivious to the fact that Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew is, by and large, an abbreviating text. He never comments upon this distinctive and patently obvious feature of its text (see supra, sec. 1.2.2). Even under the best of circumstances, arguments from an omission are highly suspect; in a case such as this, where the document itself is (generally speaking) an abbreviating text, venturing an argument from an omission is absurd.
George Howard:

A Response to William L. Petersen’s Review of Hebrew Gospel of Matthew
George Howard
University of Georgia
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol04/Howard1999.html

28. I find this to be a very strange statement. Does Petersen actually believe that the Middle Dutch Liège Harmony is a "Matthean witness?" It strikes me as inappropriate to describe a gospel harmony as a "Matthean witness." Usually, we reserve this label for such documents as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. But Petersen wishes to extend it to include the Middle Dutch Liège Harmony. I reviewed my list of readings and found that almost all of them belong to the double or triple traditions of the synoptic gospels. Just how the Middle Dutch Liège Harmony can be a Matthean witness in the double and triple traditions, where words and phrases of the synoptic gospels are intertwined and overlapped, is unclear.
Also the consideration of rope and camel, a favorite of Simonides, is often discussed in the semitic languages. Afaik, George Howard, however, does not go into discussion of this from the Hebrew Matthew.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Nerdy Theology Majors
https://www.facebook.com/groups/Ner...3316687881757930/?comment_id=3316956541731064

Zsolt Salontai
Hi All,
Is anybody here familiar with the scholarship of Nehemiah Gordon? It was suggested to me by a friend that this particular scholar has evidence of a Hebrew Matthew, even going as far as to state that there are 28 extant manuscript copies of a Hebrew translation of Matthew dating back to the medieval period where they were transcribed by copyists and preserved unto today.
I am quite incredulous concerning the claim. He seems like a conspiracy theorist/fringe scholar. Nevertheless, this particular friend takes his work seriously. I am familiar with the early citations from Fathers such as Origen about a possible Hebrew origin for Matthew and the evidence for an Aramaic/Hebrew oral history regarding the gospel sayings that have been preserved for us today in Greek, Coptic, Georgian, and Latin. However, I haven't come into contact with any serious scholarly evidence for an extant Hebrew Gospel.
Nehemiah Gordon's thesis is outlined in this particular book.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18921867-the-naming-of-jesus-in-hebrew-matthew
Would be happy to receive some further insight on this matter.
Thanks in advance!

Steven Avery
Nehemia Gordon's OT scholarship is generally very good. He is a major source of information on the Tetragram issues, supporting Yehovah, and considering Yahweh as non-Hebrew and even the equivalent of Jupiter.

He writes well on issues like the Elohim plurality question, the Talmudic extra burdens (seethe a kid in its mother's milk.) and similar Rabbinic-Karaite issues, although usually informally.

When it comes to the New Testament, it is a bit different. The 23 mas. are all the Shem-Tob Hebrew, from c. 1380. The text was included in the anti-missionary polemic Even Bohan (The Touchstone) by Shem Tob Ibn Shaprut (This text has many variant corruptions that its Christian evangelical supporters generally do not know about, or do not discuss.) The general scholarship, other than George Eulan Howard (1935-2018), has been that the work is simply a translation from Medieval Latin. William Horbury (b. 1942) and William Petersen (1950-2006) wrote contra the George Howard theory, Petersen being the more hostile. To be fair, a 1999 paper by Robert Frederick Shedinger,(b. 1959) tries to bolster the theory of an ancient Hebrew substratum behind the Shem-Tob mss in at least two papers. He looks at textual readings that lack any expected Byzantine or Vulgate base. And Shedinger also mentions a generally favorable review of the work of Howard by Daniel J. Harrington (1940-2014). There is also a 1988 review by Shaye J. D. Cohen - (b. 1948) and also Hebrew Matthew and Matthean Communities by Debra Fay Scoggins.

Okay, I did not expect to write so much on the Shem-Tob.

That book mentioned from Nehemia is a short book, 16 pages, and is available in Kindle for $3.

Personally, I do not see the Shem-Tob Matthew as a corrector for the canonical Greek Matthew. Nehemia may be a bit sensationalist as to the import of this Hebrew Matthew.

His support of Yehovah (or Jehovah) remains extremely strong.

========================

The Naming of Jesus in Hebrew Matthew
Nehemia Gordon
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18921867-the-naming-of-jesus-in-hebrew-matthew

A Further Consideration of the Textual Nature of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew (1999)
Robert F. Shedinger

Hebrew Matthew and Matthean Communities
Debra Fay Scoggins

A Hebrew Gospel of Matthew: Even Bohan
James Tabor

Some Observations on a Recent Edition of and Introduction to Shem-Tob's "Hebrew Matthew" (1998)
William L. Petersen
The Pennsylvania State University
Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v03/Petersen1998a.html

A Response to William L. Petersen's Review of Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (1999)
George Howard
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol04/Howard1999.html

A Note On Codex Sinaiticus and Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew (1992)
George Howard
https://brill.com/view/journals/nt/34/1/article-p46_3.xml

"The Textual Relationship Between p45 and Shem Tobs Hebrew Matthew," New Testament Studies 43 (1997): 58-71.
https://ixtheo.de/Record/831583894
(text may not be easily available)

Hebrew Gospel of Mathew - Part One.pdf
by George Howard
posted by Antonio Sorbera
https://www.academia.edu/32013676/Hebrew_Gospel_of_MATTHEW_by_George_Howard_Part_One_pdf

Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (2005)
George Howard
https://books.google.com/books?id=4tdEBdVXg3AC
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
James Tabor

Bibliographic Notes on Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew
Howard, George. The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press; Louvain: Peeters, 1988.
Reviewed by William L Petersen (then at UND) JBL 108:4 (1989): 722-726. Peterson argues that the Dutch Liége Harmony (copied ca. 1280), contains many parallesl to ST, thus showing it is not so “primitive” after all in its unique readings. ST is derived from medieval traditions allied with the Vetus Latina, Vetus Syra, and Diatessaron.
__________. Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. 2nd edition. GA: Mercer University Press, 1995.
Petersen, William. “The Vorlage of Shem-Tob’s ‘Hebrew Matthew.” NTS 44 (1998): 490-512.
Howard, George. “A Primitive Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and the Tol’doth Yeshu,” NTS 34 (1988): 60-70.
__________. “A Note on the Short Ending of Matthew,” Harvard Theologial Review 81 (1988): 117-20.
__________.A Note on Codex Sinaiticus and Shem-Tob’s Hebrew Matthew.” Novum Testamentum 34 (1992): 46-47.
__________. “A Note on Shem-Tob’s Hebrew Matthew and the Gospel of John.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 47 (1992): 117-26.
__________. “The Pseudo-Clementine Writings and Shem-Tob’s Hebrew Matthew.” NTS 40 (1994): 622-28.
__________. “Shem-Tob’s Hebrew Matthew and Early Jewish Christianity.” JSNT 70 (1998): 3-20.
Horbury, William. “The Hebrew Text of Matthew in Shem Tob Ibn Shaprut’s Even Bohan,” in W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary of the Gospels according to St. Matthew. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988), pp. 729-38.
Shedinger, R. F. “The Textual Relationship between P45 and Shem-Tob’s Hebrew Matthew.” NTS 43 (1997): 58-71.

Notes on Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew
The 14th century polemical treatise Even Bochan [Isaiah 28:16] written by Shem-Tob ben-Isaac ben-Shaprut Ibn Shaprut], a Castilian Jewish physician, living later in Aragon. 12th/ 13th book contains a Hebrew version of the complete text of Matthew. EB completed in 1380 CE, revised in 1385 & 1400. This is not to be confused with the Sebastian Münster (1537; dedicated to Henry VIII under title The Torah of the Messiah); or Jean du Tillet (1555) versions of Hebrew Matthew. In 1690 Richard Simon mistakenly identified Shem-Tob’s Matthew with the versions of Münster and du Tillet.
Howard’s edition based on nine manuscripts of ST dating from 15th to 17th centuries; namely British Library Add no. 26964 for chapters 1:1-23:22; and JTS Ms. 2426 for 23:23-end.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
The Name of God - Nehemia Gordon (Open Door Series 3) - NehemiasWall.com

There is a section here on the Shem Tob Matthew.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Hebrew Gospel of Matthew
by George Howard
https://books.google.com/books?id=4tdEBdVXg3AC&pg=PA191


1671819712516.png


1671819803888.png

1671819870554.png


1671819978219.png

by
 

Attachments

  • 1671819787465.png
    1671819787465.png
    28.6 KB · Views: 122

Steven Avery

Administrator
LaParola

=======================================

Matthew 7:27
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=47&rif2=7:27
(does not show Sinaiticus omission)

Matthew 7:27 (AV)
And the rain descended,
and the floods came,
and the winds blew,
and beat upon that house; and it fell:
and great was the fall of it.

Omission -

=======================================

Matthew 13:44
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=47&rif2=13:44

Matthew 13:44 (AV)
Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.

=======================================

Matthew 21:17
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=47&rif2=21:17

Matthew 21:17 (KJV)
And he left them,
and went out of the city into Bethany;
and he lodged there.

=======================================

Matthew 23:4
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=47&rif2=23:4
NA-28 Sinaiticus singular

φορτία + μεγαλα
burdens great (instead of back-breaking)

Matthew 23:4 (AV)
For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne,
and lay them on men's shoulders;
but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

https://www.google.com/search?q="φο...IBAzQuMpgBAKABAcgBCMABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

=======================================

Matthew 24:35
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=47&rif2=23:45

Matthew 24:35 (AV)
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

=======================================

Egyptians

=======================================

Matthew 5:30
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=47&rif2=5:30

Matthew 5:30 (AV)
And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off,
and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish,
and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Greek:

=======================================

Matthew 6:16
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=47&rif2=6:16

Matthew 6:16 (KJV)
Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance:
for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast.
Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

Minor - adds and - skip it

=======================================

Matthew 9:10
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=47&rif2=9:10

Matthew 9:10 (AV)
And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house,
behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.

Omission in both - coming ones

=======================================

Matthew 9:24
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=47&rif2=9:24

Matthew 9:24 (AV)
He said unto them, Give place:
for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth.
And they laughed him to scorn.

=======================================
 

Attachments

  • 1671892174300.png
    1671892174300.png
    7.4 KB · Views: 98
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Benedict history - corroboration of the Simonides account and the David W. Daniels research
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...ccount-and-the-david-w-daniels-research.3213/
historian - Nikolos Farmakidis - Νικολού Φαρμακίδη
Εβραϊκά
Evraïká
Εβραίοι·

===========================

The Greek Revolution in the Age of Revolutions (1776-1848): Reappraisals and Comparisons
Hebrew p.220
https://books.google.com/books?id=NGA4EAAAQBAJ&pg=PT156

https://ebin.pub/the-greek-revoluti...780367471835-9781032053660-9781003033981.html

Rocco Martuscelli
Chair of Hebrew language at the University of Naples

Economy and politics in the correspondence of the Neapolitan consuls in Greece *
by Anna Maria Rao

p 220

Anna Maria Rao
https://radicaltranslations.org/about/team/advisory-board/professor-anna-maria-rao/
https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Anna-Maria-Rao-2084497430
https://www.facebook.com/anna.rao.9/


He attributed to the “provident hand of God” the restitution to the country of its ancient freedom. Always thanks to God, merit could triumph against the whims “of a malignantly imbecile court” and everyone could contribute to the common good. Only the law now directed their steps, assuring freedom and equality; only the love of justice was the basis of republican government. These principles were to inspire their action, in the name of brotherhood.28 After the fall of the Republic, he was condemned to exile; in a list of Neapolitans who landed in Marseille on 29 January 1800, he was 39 years old and was said to be teaching Latin in France.29 Already a widower, in exile he married Silvia Ternoire, with whom he had Rocco in 1802. Returned to Naples, he collaborated until December 1814 to the drafting of Biographies of illustrious men, great publishing enterprise started in 1813 and ended in 1830. His introduction, addressed “to the lovers of patriotic glory”, was a sort of summa of the key ideas of the political culture fed by the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. The differences between nations, he asserted quoting Helvétius, depended not on climate or other physical causes, but on education. For this reason, all nations were proud of their past and of the virtues of their ancestors. Italy could boast of merits in the sciences and the arts, which were also recognized by the Encyclopédie. Neapolitan culture, in particular, had distinguished itself in the fields of philosophy, of arts and fine letters since the time of Magna Graecia. Even in the general decadence of science that occurred in the Middle Ages, southern Italy had kept alive the sciences, thanks to the contribution of the Arabs. From the mid-15th century, then, a fundamental contribution had come from the “many distinguished Greeks”, fleeing from Constantinople occupied by the Turks, who had taken refuge in Naples, where many of them taught.30 After becoming a judge of the Grand Criminal Court, Domenico Martuscelli continued to cultivate his interests in history; in 1817, he published in six volumes the French translation of Rudiments de l’histoire by Louis Domairon (Paris 1801), former professor of Napoleon Bonaparte at the École Militaire, and since 1802 Inspector General of Public Education. The Rudiments of history, extensive reconstruction of universal history from antiquity to the end of the eighteenth century, was adopted by ministerial decree as textbooks in high schools and military colleges in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, and had numerous editions and reprints.31 With a French mother and a father patriot, jurist, historian, and man of letters, Rocco Martuscelli had a cosmopolitan education, entrusted first to the Bishop of Pozzuoli Monsignor Rosini, a great scholar and connoisseur of antiquity, with whom he studied Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and philosophy. He then studied law and learned modern languages, French, English, Spanish, and German. At the age of only 23 years, in 1825, he had the chair of Hebrew language at the University of Naples, which he left to move to a diplomatic career. So his biographer narrated his activities as a consul in Greece:
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
reddit
Does Shem Tob Matthew preserve a Hebrew gospel?

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBi...es_shem_tob_matthew_preserve_a_hebrew_gospel/

YouTube -
How Does Hebrew Matthew Compare with Greek Matthew in the New Testament?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_ps5e8PECc

https://jamestabor.com/was-jesus-a-...n-ancient-hebrew-matthew-offers-new-evidence/


In this lecture, Dr. James Tabor argues that Shem Tob's Hebrew Gospel of Matthew preserves an earlier Hebrew gospel that predates the Greek Matthew. In part he bases this on verses that are closer to the Codex Sinaiticus than our current Greek Matthew. (This is a 14th century Hebrew text of Matthew that was used in Jewish counter-apologetics, Tabor argues that it is based on a much, much older text that was passed down.)

Tabor has a blog post which touches on this here, where he writes

Shem-Tov’s text is basically Biblical Hebrew (Vav Consecutive predominates) with a mixture of Mishnaic Hebrew and later rabbinic vocabulary and idiom. In addition the text reflects considerable revision to make it conform more closely to the standard Greek and Latin Gospel texts. The underlying text, however, reflects its original Hebrew composition, and it is the most unusual text of Matthew extant in that it contains a plethora of readings not found in any other codices of Matthew. It appears to have been preserved by the Jews, independent from the Christian community.
It sometimes agrees in odd ways with Codex Sinaiticus. It contains some striking readings in common with the Gospel of John, but in disagreement with the other Gospels. It is very likely that the author of John polemized against the portrait of John the Baptizer that he found in as text such as ST’ Hebrew Matthew. He might well have then known a Shem-Tov type Matthean text. ST also often agrees with the Lukan version of Q. ST also contains 22 agreements with the Gospel of Thomas.
I am far from qualified to adjudicate this textually. But I do find the claim totally implausible. We have so many Midrashic texts referenced in Rabbinic literature that are now lost. I can't imagine why this text would be transcribed through the centuries by Jews and not those. It seems far more plausible to me that Ibn Shaprut just translated Matthew himself.

Very curious to hear thoughts from this very educated forum. More broadly, what are people's thoughts on Tabor. He seems eccentric to say the least, but interesting.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
reddit continues

DCHindley
· 1 yr. ago
I can only offer thoughts on this subject. I posted my opinion on Crosstalk2, IOUDIOS list and Synoptic-L/Synoptic YahooGroups, but those were years ago and most of the lists are inactive or deleted by Google.
As I summarized my understanding on the BC&H discussion board in 2014:
>I found out about Shem Tov Hebrew language Gospel of Matthew from Hugh Schonfield's books (I encountered them in the mid to late 1970s), and did make an attempt to figure out whether the author of the Shem Tov Matthew translated it into Hebrew from the canonical Greek (I think he did, although paraphrased), or whether he also had access to already existent Hebrew language notes that bore relation to canonical Matthew, which influenced the translation (I am not convinced he did, although I have an open mind ...).
>I believe that Howard's ideas have been discussed on Crosstalk2 (XTalk), Synoptic-l (not sure if it was in the old one or the current one, which is just plain "Synoptic"), both forums part of Google Groups, and the IOUDAIOS e-lists. Howard, while a bit, well, weird, he knows his Aramaic. He was (maybe still is) a moderator and owner of an e-list that, I believe, had the name Aramaic-l. He is also a (self) published author.
There is a brief discussion on the now defunct FRDB.
Peter Kirby provides links to search the archives of IIDB (Internet Infidels DB), FRDB (Free Ration DB), and his own BC&H (Biblical Criticism & History) discussion board, here (just type in "Shem Tov" in the query box for the DB you are interested in):
https://bcharchive.org/
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
metroidcomposite
· 1 yr. ago
I saw that same lecture was trying to figure that out too, and found this after a bit of google searching:
https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/4067/
Specifically scroll down to the comments section and the comment by "JP Staff Writer"
I am not familiar with greek or hebrew, so I can't verify any of this, but the arguments look pretty strong.
We would expect a Hebrew Gospel composed in the first century to reflect first-century Hebrew idiom, but frequently Even Bohan shows signs of late Hebrew. For instance, in early rabbinic sources “to repent” is expressed as לעשות תשובה (“to do repentance”) whereas in late rabbinic and medieval Hebrew sources “to repent” is expressed as לחזור בתשובה (“to return in repentance”). Even Bohan‘s Matthew uses the latter expression (cf., e.g., Matt. 12:41).

Matthew 5:18 offers an excellent test case because it contains both highly Hebraic features and signs of Greek editing. In Greek the verse reads:
ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑμῖν ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται
Amen / for / I say / to you / until / ever / might pass away / the / heaven / and / the / earth / iota / one / or / pen stroke / one / no / not / might pass away / from / the / law / until / ever / all / happens.
Hebraic features in this verse include “Amen,” “heaven and earth,” and “iota and pen stroke” (probably a reference to a yod and its qotz, see David N. Bivin and Joshua N. Tilton, “The Significance of Jesus’ Words ‘Not One Jot or One Tittle Will Pass from the Law’ (Matt. 5:18)”; and David N. Bivin, “Matthew 5:17: ‘Destroy’ the Law”).
Greek interference is probably found in the γάρ (“for”) and in the final phrase ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται (“until everything comes to pass”; cf. Matt. 24:34 and par., where the same formula appears, and cf. Luke 16:17 where the formula is absent).
A Hebrew retroversion of Matt. 5:18 after the elimination of Greek interference might read:
אמן אני אומר לכם עד שיבטלו שמים וארץ לא יבטל יוד אחד ולא קוץ אחד מן התורה
Amen! / I / say / to you / until / that are annulled / heaven / and earth / not / will be annulled / yod / one / and not / qotz / one / from / the Torah.
But compare this idiomatic reconstruction to Even Bohan‘s version of Matt. 5:18:
באמת אני אומר לכם כי עד שמים וארץ אות אחת ונקודה אחת לא תבטל מהתורה או מהנביאים שהכל יתקיים
In truth / I / say / to you / that / until / heaven / and earth / letter / one / and dot / one / not / will be annulled / from the Torah / or / the prophets / because everything / will be fulfilled.
Even Bohan‘s version of Matt. 5:18 not only preserves all the Greek interference (כי = γάρ; שהכל יתקיים = ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται), but it reflects an inferior text that included καὶ τῶν προφητῶν (“and the prophets”), which Christian copyists imported from Matt. 5:17.
Moreover, Even Bohan‘s version of Matt. 5:18 cannot explain the Hebraic elements in the Greek text. In place of Matthew’s “Amen” Even Bohan‘s version has “truly,” or “verily.” How did Greek Matthew end up with the Hebrew word ἀμήν if the original had read באמת (“truly”)? Neither can “letter or dot” explain the choice of “iota or pen stroke” in the Greek text (why iota and not some other Greek letter?). Indeed, “letter or dot” is a glaring anachronism, referring to pointed Hebrew texts that did not come into existence until hundreds of years after the time of Jesus. Note, too, that Even Bohan’s version of Matt. 5:18 is just terrible Hebrew. It’s syntax is poor and its vocabulary is somewhat bizarre.
And then they link another article with a bunch more criticisms like
The reading of Matt. 12:42 in the medieval Hebrew version of Matthew’s Gospel preserved in Shem Tov’s Even Bohan is extremely telling. According to Howard’s critical edition, Shem Tov’s text reads מלכת שבא (“Queen of Sheba” [ed. Howard, 58]). Since no Greek translator would have rendered מלכת שבא as βασίλισσα νότου (“Queen of [the] South”)
So like...these seem like pretty rock solid arguments that this is not 1st century hebrew, and the greek gospel did not translate this particular text from hebrew.
Some of James Tabor's other points do make this text sound interesting, however--that it seems to have a better version of the Q-source than gets quoted in actual Matthew, that it puts more emphasis on John the Baptist, and seems to preserve some elements of other books that were lost in antiquity.
This may in fact be an interesting manuscript representing a different tradition.
But none of the things he points out requires this to be an original hebrew text from which the greek version was translated and elaborated. Near as I can tell (as a non-scholar who knows no greek or hebrew) both things could be true--this could be a middle ages translation into hebrew of a variant text that came from a different (possibly middle eastern?) version of Christianity.
 
Top