No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
45 and Shem-Tob's Hebrew MatthewPublished online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
In 1987, George Howard published the text of a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew contained in a fourteenth-century Jewish polemical treatise entitled Evan Bohan authored by Shem-Tob ben-Isaac ben-Shaprut. In his analysis of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew, Howard demonstrates convincingly that the Shem-Tob text should not be considered a fourteenth-century back-translation from Greek or Latin traditions, but concludes that within the Shem-Tob text of Matthew is contained an ancient Hebrew substratum which dates back to early times, and indeed, represents an original composition in Hebrew of Matthew's Gospel. In a subsequent study, Howard compared the text of Shem-Tob against that of Codex Sinaiticus, finding five readings that Shem-Tob shares with only Sinaiticus and four more that are shared with Sinaiticus and a few other minor witnesses, strongly suggesting that Shem-Tob does indeed contain ancient readings. Using a similar methodology, this article will explore the textual relationship between Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and the third-century papyrus 
45.
1 See Howard, George, The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text (Macon: Mercer, 1987; rev. ed. 1995)Google Scholar; see also Howard, , ‘The Textual Nature of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew’, JBL 108 (1989) 239–57.Google Scholar
2 This conclusion is stated on p. 225 of Howard, , The Gospel of Matthew. See also p. 161Google Scholar where Howard discusses the textual link between the Shem-Tob text and quotes of Matthew in Hebrew that occur in Jewish polemical writings of the sixth to thirteenth centuries.
3 See Howard, , ‘A Note on Codex Sinaiticus and Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew’, NovT 34 (1992) 46–7.Google Scholar
4 While Shem-Tob probably had access to the Latin Vg also, Howard has already shown that the Shem-Tob text is not a translation from the Vg. See Howard, , JBL 108, 240 n. 6.Google Scholar
5 The text of ,
45 used was that published by Kenyon, F. G., The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri: Fasciculus II, Text (London: Emery Walker, 1933).Google Scholar
6 45 is a witness in the following synoptic passages: Matt 20.24–32; 21.13–19; 25.41–26.3; 26.6–10,19–33. Mark 4.36–40; 5.15–26; 5.38–6.3; 6.16–25, 36–50; 7.3–15; 7.25–8.1; 8.10–26; 8.34–9.8; 9.18–31; 11.27–33; 12.1, 5–8,13–19, 24–8.Luke 6.31–41; 6.45–7.17; 9.26–41; 9.45–10.1; 10.6–22; 10.26–11.1; 11.6–25, 28–46; 11.50–12.12; 12.18–37; 12.42–13.1; 13.6–24; 13.29–14.10; 14.17–33.
7 The source for these Gospels, Hebrew is Traductions Hebraïques des Évangiles (4 vols.; Turnhout: Brepols, 1982–4).Google Scholar These four will serve as a baseline for comparing the form of translation Hebrew and will hereafter be referred to as Iona, Yeates, Greenfield, and Delitzsch.
8 As is argued in Plummer, A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1981) 300.Google Scholar
9 
with 
occurs in Ps 142.10 and Neh 9.20, the only two places where the construction ‘good spirit’ occurs in the Saenz-Badillos, O. T. Angel, in his book A History of the Hebrew Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1993),CrossRefGoogle Scholar discusses how writers of Rabbinic and mediaeval Hebrew sometimes engaged in changing the gender of nouns. See especially pp. 196–7, 218–19, 238, 253. This, however, is unlikely to be the case in Shem-Tob's reading 
as it is difficult to account for Shem-Tob's introducing ‘good spirit’ into the Matthean account.
10 For this use of 
, see Jastrow, M., Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature (New York: Judaica, 1992) 1457.Google Scholar
11 Delitzsch and Greenfield here translate 
‘the spirit of the holy one’ while Iona interestingly reads 
, which is probably influenced by the Vg reading spiritum bonum.
12 See Metzger, B., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (United Bible Society, 1983) 158.Google Scholar
13 One ms. of the Vg at Matt 7.11 reads spiritum bonum, not a complete surprise given that the reading φνενμα άλαθν in 45 in Luke is supported by several OL witnesses and the Vg.
14 The reading φνεμα ἅλιóν occurs as early as the third-century papyrus 75. That many textual critics would date 75 earlier than 45 should not be taken as proof that 75 necessarily has the more original reading. There is no need to assume that the scribe of 45 created the reading φνεμα λαθν. It is equally possible that he copied it from an exemplar that predates 75 but that has not, as yet, been discovered.
15 For a discussion, see Howard, , The Gospel of Matthew, 220Google Scholar. It should also be noted that in Delitzsch's, FriedrichDie Lese- und Schreibfehler im Alten Testament (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1920) 120–1Google Scholar, there are no examples given of confusion between 
and 
.
16 Sperber, A., The Bible in Aramaic 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1962) 64Google Scholar does not list 
as a textual variant in the Targum of Isa 32.15, but Jastrow, p. 1457 does attest its use in this verse.
17 See also Sir 11.12; 39.25–7, 33 for more examples of λαθ used in reference to God's provisions for the needy.
18 For example, Catchpole, D., ‘Q and the “Friend at Midnight” (Luke xi 5–8/9)’, JTS 34 (1983) 415CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Harnack, A., The Sayings of Jesus (New York: Putnam, 1908) 10.Google Scholar
19 Compare Shem-Tob with the Greek at Matt 6.14; 15.13; 18.35; 23.9.
20 þ45 reads with only 579 1424 it11185 Cyril.
21 Metzger implies this translation of έξ οὐρανο. See Metzger, 156.
22 Howard has already noted the affinity of 45 and Shem-Tob in this verse. See Howard, , JBL 108, 253.Google Scholar
23 45 in Luke reads with D 472 1009 1241 ite, d, 1 geo1.
24 Shem-Tob's reading of ‘Sodom’ rather than ‘Sidon’ is a likely assimilation to Matt 11.24 where a similar judgment is pronounced on Sodom.
25 The phrase ‘under a basket’ is also included in logion 33 of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas.
26 45 reads with 75 L г Ξ 0124 f1 700 1241 2148 syr3 copsa arm geo. It might be argued that since 2148 is a fourteenth-century ms., Shem-Tob may have had access to it. But 2148 omits the phrase ‘…but upon the lampstand’ which Shem-Tob includes.
27 Howard, , JBL 108, 250Google Scholar. See also Howard, , ‘Harmonistic Readings in the Old Syriac Gospels’, HTR 73 (1980) 463–71.Google Scholar
28 Although this verse has been traditionally ascribed to the Markan source, Mark's turning of the saying into a rhetorical question appears to be a later development. If Mark was a common source, it is difficult to account for the fact that Matthew and Luke are so similar syntactically, yet both are so different from Mark.
29 45 reads with W Θ f13 28 472 543 565.
30 The plate considered is from Kenyon, F. G., The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri: Fasciculus II, Plates (London: Emery Walker, 1933) f.7.r.Google Scholar
31 This reconstruction is also supported by the textual apparatus of NA26.
32 C. S. Mann has suggested that some mss. of Mark add the infinitive ‘to pray’ by assimilation to Luke. As the above reconstruction from the plates of 45 shows, it is not the infinitive of purpose, ‘to pray’, that is added, but the temporal infinitive, ‘while they were praying’. While other mss. may add the infinitive of purpose, 45 does not state that Jesus and his disciples ascended the mountain for the purpose of praying. The reference to prayer is merely incidental to ascending the mountain. See Mann, , Mark (AB; Garden City: Doubleday, 1986) 360.Google Scholar
33 Howard poínts out that the harmonization of Matt 17.1–5 in Shem-Tob is very close to that in the Arabic Diatessaron and suggests that readings from the Diatessaron may have been interpolated into the Hebrew text of Matthew early to provide a foundation for debate for Jews who lived in the areas where the Diatessaron was used. See Howard, , The Gospel of Matthew, 193–4Google Scholar. An evaluation of Howard's position is beyond the scope of this paper, but the possible relationship between the Shem-Tob text and the Diatessaron is an area that deserves further study.
34 Fitzmyer, J. A., The Gospel according to Luke (I–IX) (AB; Garden City: Doubleday, 1981) 798.Google Scholar
35 Gould, E. P., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Mark (ICC; New York: Scribner's, 1896) 160.Google Scholar
36 As 45 is quite fragmentary here, the decision to include it in the apparatus of NA26 as a witness to the omission is based on a reconstruction, not on direct evidence. It is, however, a likely reconstruction.
37 Saldarini, A. J., ‘Sanhedrin’, The Anchor Bible Dictionary 5 (New York: Doubleday, 1992) 980.Google Scholar
38 For example, Deut 28.66, 67; Isa 19.16,17; 44.11; Jer 33.9; 36.16.
39 In the Lukan passage, Iona opts for 
.
40 The two places are Luke 21.9; 24.37.
41 See Metzger, 151 for a discussion.
42 Additionally, Yeates, Greenfield, and Delitzsch all use Hofal forms. Iona, on the other hand, reads the Qal in both Matthew and Luke. Iona may have been influenced by the Vg. which supports Кαταβαωσῃ in Matthew.
43 Davies, W. D. & Allison, D. C., The Gospel according to Saint Matthew 2 (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T.Clark, 1991) 269.Google Scholar
44 It occurs in syrp(1ms.)copsa eth geoB.
45 Colwell, E. C., Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969) 117.Google Scholar
46 Epp, E. J. & Fee, G. D., Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 272.Google Scholar