Oh, What a Difference It Makes!
Go Matthew 28:19 (the Shem Tov Hebrew gospel of Matthew)
Go – Well, you won’t find this in any English Bible. Nor will you find it in any Greek New Testament. George Howard caused quite a stir when he published his work, The Gospel of Matthew According to a Primitive Hebrew Text in 1987, the “Shem Tov Matthew gospel.” Since then there have been many arguments about the authenticity of this Hebrew gospel. One summary of those arguments can be found in the writing of David Fish. Fish questions the historical accuracy of the text based on its apparent reliance on other later texts. Scholarship is divided on this issue. But Fish’s real objection stems from theological not historical grounds. His comment is telling:
“However, the scholarly evidence is not the most important to the Christian. The most important thing for the Christian is to understand that the Shem Tov tradition can absolutely not be an accurate representation of Jesus of Nazareth. If it is, our entire faith is useless and we really don’t know who Jesus of Nazareth was . . . The Shem Tov lacks any reference to the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the universality of the Gospel, or Jesus’ crucifixion.”[1]
Fish clearly thinks that without the Christian doctrines of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the universal gospel and the crucifixion, one cannot be Christian; and since this Hebrew record does not include these doctrines, it must therefore be wrong. In other words, history be damned. If it doesn’t fit the dogma, it can’t be accurate. This is the equivalent of Ahmadinejad denying the historical fact of the holocaust because it doesn’t fit his view of Islam. Fish is correct. One cannot be Christian without these doctrines. These doctrines define what it means to be Christian. But that isn’t the issue. The issue is what the text says. I do not fit the text to the doctrine (hopefully); I fit the doctrine to the text. If Shem TOv doesn’t speak about the Trinity, then it doesn’t speak about the Trinity, but that does not necessarily make it inaccurate and heretical. After all, as far as I can tell there are no references to the Trinity as a doctrine in the Tanakh either. Do we throw it out because it doesn’t fit our theology? (Be careful how to answer that)
I find this line of reasoning incredibly insightful. I am concerned about the historical accuracy of the Shem Tov text. I do want to investigate its origins and dating. I need to know if it stems from an original Hebrew Matthew. But none of these questions are determined by its theological claims. If the Shem Tov gospel is an accurate rendition of the original Matthew text, then it doesn’t matter if it doesn’t contain treasured Christian doctrine. In fact, if it doesn’t contain the doctrines Fish calls essential for the Christian, I am all the more interested because that tells me that someone added those doctrinal passages later. I cannot dismiss the text simply because it doesn’t say what I want it to say. I can only dismiss the text if I show that it isn’t a true copy of Matthew’s original. What I have today is a Greek text of Matthew. But Eusebius notes that there was a text of Matthew written in his native tongue. That wasn’t Greek. So if there was such a gospel, someone translated it into Greek. And it seems just as likely to me that the translator added passages to make the gospel “Christian” as it is likely that the Shem Tov text removed passages to make it Jewish.
The earliest copies of the New Testament come from the second half of the first century. Most of the texts come from much later. The earliest fragments (designated p64) are of Matthew. Thiede suggests they were part of a book, not a scroll.[2] If Thiede’s claims are true, then Matthew may be been translated into Greek within one generation of the actual events. This makes it seem unlikely that vital texts were added later. But as Thiede himself notes, scholars have been wrong before. The work of Biven and Blizzard certainly suggests that Matthew’s work was written in Hebrew.[3]
We aren’t going to solve this problem. We may never know the exact history of Matthew’s work. But we must recognize that theology is not grounds for rejecting history. Whether the theological filter is applied to Matthew or to the entire Old Testament as in supersessionism, the premise that what I believe determines what I consider as facts must be rejected. My faith doesn’t depend on what the Church teaches me. It depends on what happened. And it is subject to revision whenever my historical information is shown to be inaccurate.
Now, is it “Go,” or is it “As you are going, make disciples . . .”?
Topical Index: Matthew 28:19, Shem Tov, go
Hi Skip,
Quote: ‘Papias (c. 60-130 CE): “Church Father” who lived in Asia Minor. He studied under John who wrote the Gospel of John. Papias reports matter-of-factly that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew and that the translations of this book into other languages were known to be bad translations.’
For further details: see ‘the Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus’ – Nehemia Gordon (a Karaite Jew)
This doesn’t mean that the Shem-Tov is reliable, because it is written / copied for more than 1300 years after the original text. But in this matter I tend to giving more weight to a Hebrew manuscript than to a known bad translation – especially when there is no real objection to it in objective terms.
The way Fish is reading the the (Greek) text is one big anachronism.
Kees, I concur with you.
I have heard Nehemia Gordon lecture a few times on Matthew’s Gospel having Hebrew origins. It does not take very long for him to show that the structure, patterns and idioms of Matthew ooze of Hebrew origins!
I also concur with the lady who commented that the Trinity is not found in the Scriptures. It takes some serious assumptions along with using some questionable additions to late texts to make it happen! Its a messy piece of theology that reflects poorly on credibility and sincerity of many theologians
Hey Kees:
I do hope you have read my article in its entirety on my blog as the context of an article is always lost in translation (somewhat like the Gospel of Matthew, eh?). You’re response however is flawed in that you assume that the Greek texts we have today are translations: they are not. Yes, certain scholars believe in a Hebrew original of Matthew. Even I would grant that there could have been Hebrew documents that provided source material for Matthew. However, the Greek copies of Matthew that we possess today were WRITTEN in Greek. They were not translated from Hebrew. Those who believe in a Hebrew original accept this as well, simply claiming that the originals are lost (or that the EB represents some form of an original). Also, claiming that Matthew was written in Hebrew is also problematic due to its conflict with what we currently know regarding the synoptic problem. If Mark was written first (in Greek) and Matthew was written next (in Hebrew), how can we resolve the synoptic problems in the Gospels? Mark’s text is significantly different than the Shem Tov Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. Significantly different. How then can we understand the origins of the synoptic sources? Could Matthew have actually been the LAST gospel written since we have no Hebrew manuscripts? What about Q and other source theories? In any sense, to “give more weight” to a 13th-14th century Hebrew manuscript copy over reliable second and third century Greek manuscripts is a stretch to put it mildly. I would suggest reading someone other than Nehemia Gordon on this subject 🙂 Thanks for your response.
Some later ‘adjustments’ in the Hebrew versions are known to be made because the Greek text were considered more reliable. So when no adjusment is made in this text, this makes it the more reliable.
Skip,
There is more than one issue here – all problematical in one way or another. Any text, Hebrew or Greek, is going to be considered “authoritative” or not. That is, canonical, or not.
Now what are the selection criteria for canonicity? This is the Achilles Heel of anyone who accepts the 27 books of the New Testament as canonical. One of the selection criteria is Orthodoxy. But orthodox to what in particular? General Acceptance might be nice, but can hardly be a criterion for canonicity. Apostolic authorship is important, but by itself does not – and did not – qualify any document for inclusion in the generally accepted canon.
But if ultimately everything is tied to Torah – which is should be – and Torah provides the election criteria for the canon, then Torah also provides the interpretive rules for the canon. What determines the canon interprets the canon. I don’t think those two issues can be separated without opening up a whole world of speculation.
This being the case, once the Torah is in place, then the “authority” of any text is determined theologically – not historically – as the uniformity of the Tanakh itself indicates.
The trinity is mans concept anyway. We always want to put God in a box so we can figure Him out but he also appeared as an angel. He can manifest any way He pleases. http://search.blossom.com/query/Xp3/462/type0/get1/compact2?key=Trinity+doctrine
Dear Skip: I have been doing a fairly intensive personal study of the book of Acts. I approached the book wanting to know what the actual content of the “gospel” was that was preached to Jews and Gentiles. What I found amazed me…both in terms of what was there but even more so in terms of what was NOT there. Let me explain. In some 27 interchanges studied so far I found the overwhelming theme is that Mashiach has come, that He is a man who died and was raised up again by God, thus validating His authority to judge and power to rule. People are called to repentance (Acts 3:20) so that God may send Yeshua the Mashiach back to them. All of this of course ties in with the single last question that the disciples posed on the Mount of Olives (Acts 1:6) “Will you now restore the kingdom to Israel?” This is the one major item left unfulfilled in Yeshua’s ministry, and with great insight they confront it. Yeshua’s answer concerns the timing of the restoration, not its relevance. All of the above is clearly within the range of Jewish debate in the first century…who is the Mashiach and what does he do.
Now let me share a few items of things I have not found. In Acts 14:9-17 there is the account of the healing of the lame man in Lystra. The response of the people (pagan Greeks) is that “The gods have become like men and have come down to us”, thinking that Zeus and Hermes his spokesman had arrived in town. The Greeks have no problem believing in divine incarnation!! In fact in Acts 12:22 the people of Tyre/Sidon exclaim about Herod “the voice of a god, not a man”. Herod enjoys the accolade and is then struck down by an angel. Here is my point… that divinity dwelling as men is a pagan concept well accepted in the Greek world but foreign to Jews. Interesting that Paul does NOT say to the Greeks that they have the right idea but wrong name…that YHWH God of Israel has come in the flesh, instead of Zeus.
Isaac Newton wrote extensively about his faith in God and Jesus. He never could subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity (which he personally thought was the greatest apostasy foisted on the church). Maybe at some point in time the Jewish nation will recognize and embrace their true Mashiach. Everyone will be surprised…the Jews because He is none other than Yeshua the
Isaac Newton wrote extensively about his faith in God and Jesus. He never could subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity (which he personally thought was the greatest apostasy foisted on the church).
Hmmm
With all due respect to Issac Newton, I think the trinity is fairly compatible with Hebrew Logic
We have God the Father and the Son of God and we need to make the two things one
If we want to enter the kingdom
So we have a thesis (Father) an antithesis (Son) and a synthesis (Holy Spirit)
Sort of like the “Old Moor,” Karl Marx, who taught us the Materialist Dialectic
Feudalism > Capitalism > Communism
Community with class society > Individualism > Community without classes
What is more important to Jews than community Spirit?
In my view, Luke was advocating a form of pure communism (DeMocracy)
Thumbs up!
“Oh, What a Difference It Makes!”
Sometimes just the topic of Today’s Word is all that i need to share some good information! Oh Happy Day! You might enjoy this site. I highly recommend it, as I’ve tried it myself.
http://www.bachflower.com/original-bach-flower-remedies/
Shalom!
Some time ago I read a book called “From Sabbath to Sunday” ; ‘A Historical Investigation of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity’ By Samuele Bacchiocchi.
This dear man was the first non-catholic ever to graduate from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome where he was allowed access to treasured documents for the purpose of a thorough investigation into the origin of Sunday worship vs. The Sabbath day.
Here’s a quote from famed theologian Don Carson who’s review of the book is printed for all to see in the back pages.
“Dr. Bacchiocchi’s well researched and well written treatise combines erudition, devotion and irenic spirit. He argues that the understanding of Sunday as the Christians Sabbath finds it’s roots, not at all in the New Testament, but in complex historical and ideological pressures in the patristic period. If this contention of Dr Bacchiocchi’s is correct — and I think it is — then either one must go all the way with him and support a continuing (seventh day) Sabbath, or one must study afresh the primary documents to develop some other synthesis. I am personally inclined toward the latter; but either way, the implications are staggering, not only because of the Sabbath/Sunday question itself, but also because of the larger question of the relations between the old and New Testament.”
It was the first time I was faced with the FACT that scholars really do study with an agenda to promote their personal theology and think nothing of it. “study afresh the primary documents to develop some other synthesis.” I was stunned! Not that I didn’t believe it occurrs, but that it’s quite contrived and they think nothing of it. I still don’t know what to say about it except that it makes me feel ill.
So when I’m left with a choice between clinging to what I’ve been taught by these guys or considering something that they scream at me about but has potential validity, I am now much more flexible than I have been in the past proceeding with caution but proceeding just the same.
This is yet another reason I so appreciate the rare bird that you are Skip. And all of you in this community. Thank you for your fellowship in my pursuit of the one true Elohim for who He really is.
In 1999, I read an article on the Internet in which a Jewish fellow made the following argument
Jews in the time of Jesus took astrology more seriously than most of us do today
And that some groups believed that the Sun was more sacred than Saturn
The Jews who worshiped the Sun were aligned with the angel Raphael and held Sunday sacred
The Jews who worshiped Saturn were aligned with the angel Michael and held Saturday sacred
I don’t think there is any evidence in the New Testament that the Sabbath is Sunday
But apparently the Jews believed Monday was moon day
My theology may change, but my faith is unshaken. ;0)
This was great, Skip! I have read this translation and noted that Shem Tov changed many sections – esp. where he has ‘Hashem’ in the Hebrew and also, ‘Of blessed memory’ which clearly is Jewish influence. I read it line by line compared to another English translation from the Greek, and it is quite different in places – quite different. Anyway, according to Nehemia Gordon at the time George Howard wrote his book, there were 9 manuscripts of Hebrew Matthew. Now there are 28 known manuscripts. So, I guess, more and more interesting facts will come out. Shalom
Hey Skip:
Thanks for responding to my article and my statements on the Shem Tov Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. I must start off by saying that perhaps you misunderstood the initial premise of my article on this subject. I was initially responding to CHRISTIANS who claimed that the Shem Tov Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was consistent with the New Testament we have today and could be integrated into present, orthodox Christianity. This is not the case, and I proved this by drawing pastoral conclusions from historical data. This is tricky and perhaps my thesis was clouded in the midst of this rhetorical dichotomy.
However, if you read my article thoroughly, you would see that I DID discuss the objective historical facts regarding this document with all personal theological trends aside and (I believe) made a strong case against its historicity. I pointed out three main objections:
1. The Evan Bohan was used as a polemical tool against Christians, as is evidenced by Ibn Sharput’s vehement attacks against Christians that are interspersed throughout the text.
2. The EB is dated at the earliest from the 12th-13th centuries. No textual scholar can provide meaningful links from a manuscript copy to it’s original if no hypothesis regarding the dating and provenance of the exemplar can be provided. This is a well-known fact of textual criticism.
3. The EB relies not only on Greek and Latin texts of Matthew, but also integrates post-Christian Jewish polemical sources into the text (as I showed with the usage of the TY)
Also, my theological objections—framed in a pastoral light as they were—are also immensely relevant to the historicity and authenticity of the EB. For example I provided a textual analysis of the Critical Text in comparison to the EB and pointed out theological differences between the two. This is where, yes, you could argue that my interests diverged from purely intellectual ones to practical issues of orthodoxy. However, I also used these theological points to argue that Ibn Sharput is acting as a theologically motivated translator (or scribe, if you wish).
Yes, I pointed out that Christians could not INTEGRATE the EB into their present understanding of orthodoxy because it violates the very core of Christian teaching. From an intellectual point of view, that’s fine as long as it’s the original, right? Sure. However, from an intellectual standpoint it would also make sense that Ibn Shaprut KNEW of the Trinitarian formulation in Matthew 28:19 and interpolated an alternate reading in order to engage Christians on this passage. In that specific example (Matt. 28:19), I asked this question: “Would it not make sense that a Jewish Rabbi engaged in fierce debate with Christians would remove a clearly Trinitarian statement from the Gospel of Matthew?” When one views modern textual-critical scholarship, it becomes clear that much of the interest of scholars in this field (such as myself) has been studying the transmission of manuscripts in relationship to the theological tendencies of the scribes who copied and translated them (this follows the work of Ehrman, Wasserman, Epp, Fee, etc.)
I also asked a SECOND question regarding this text: “Would not also make sense that a Jewish rabbi would omit the reference of the Great Commission being to “all the nations” (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη)? This is again related to pointing out that it would make perfect sense that these were theologically motivated textual ommissions and interpolations by Ibn Sharput.
So, while I did make a historical case, much of my thesis was devoted to showing Christians that if they believe the EB is authentic, they cannot harmonize its renderings with the rest of the New Testament and indeed the history of orthodox Christianity. This is in no way determines its historicity, but rather clarifies to certain Christians the doctrinal variations introduced by the EB that are otherwise unknown in the Greek New Testament.
Thanks, David.