Readers Reply

006

Go for the Gold George

As if it needed to, Bible Review gave testimony to its own worth when it published George Howard’s “Was the Gospel of Matthew Originally Written In Hebrew?” BR 02:04. For those of us who have longed for a “Q” document, George’s findings in the Even Bohan are a clear signal that the door to discovery has been opened.

No matter what it costs in time and funding I feel that George Howard should be subsidized by all concerned parties and organizations in his hot pursuit of the Hebrew Matthew. Now, for the first time, biblical scholars have been given an opportunity with which to get around the Greek language exclusivity on the New Testament. Seeing that George has managed to do his detective work so well, it should be his commission to continue on seeking to lay eye and hand on the original Hebrew Matthew.

Too many times as an adult Sunday school teacher have I had to stand in front of a group of students who really have very little idea of what has been undertaken in the composition of the New Testament. Little do they realize that along with the Greek interpretation came early Church politics, editorializing and dissociaton between the early Church followers of the Baptist and the Nazarene; the schism between the early Church and the Gnostics. George Howard’s efforts, should they prove successful, will at last reveal to the world a clearer reporting, and enhanced understanding of the teachings of Jesus.

I believe Matthew’s Hebrew version of the Gospel to have been written prior to the other Synoptics. This opinion is based on the logic that being an obedient disciple, Matthew would have done as he was instructed to do: take first the message to the Jews. (Ideally in their own language, as Matthew was addressing his efforts towards the Palestinian Jews.) Secondly, I am convinced that Matthew was, in fact, “secretary” within Jesus’ followers. Being a former tax collector, Matthew surely would have been aware of keeping accurate logs, notes, commentaries—a day-to-day diary. Tax collectors, as we know, keep very accurate records. Also, as a tax collector, Matthew would have had to keep his collection logs in Hebrew and Greek to facilitate Jewish and Roman readership.

I also feel that prior to Matthew’s formalized Hebrew gospel, there was extant a portfolio of sketches—a dossier of notable events—penned by the former tax collector. Mark, whose gospel was the first out to the public in what could be called a complete manuscript, I believe, had access to Matthew’s “sketch book.” And adapting his efforts to his audience, Mark took what he needed from Matthew’s source in addition to transcribed recollections from other sources of witness and recall. Initially, and unfortunately, Mark failed to include the witnessing of the risen Christ at the end of his gospel testimony.

To correct this omission, Matthew then composed his Greek version of the Gospel in order to present to the non-Hebrew speaking world the full legitimacy of Christ’s calling from Holy Scripture and, most importantly, the witnessing of the Resurrection. And, I have to agree with others in saying by the time Matthew wrote his Greek version, the influence of the Baptist had to be recognized, as did early divisive factions arising within the newly formed Church. However, I do not feel that Matthew, himself, resorted to playing politics with his Greek version—this I feel came from within the early Church.

So, let us all encourage and support George Howard’s efforts. I look upon such a revelation truly as a gift from God; where because of higher levels of scholarship, technology and burning interest on the part of all the “Scriptural detectives,” we today will have the unprecedented opportunity to bridge over 2,000 years and draw much closer to the historical Christ. Thank God for all the biblical detectives and archaeologists. Thank God, also, for Bible Review; for now we are able to proceed closer to the true word of God in real time, versus having to wait years and years for factual enlightenment.

Go for the gold, George!

Difficulty with Rabbinic Script

I was fascinated with Professor Howard’s article on the Hebrew origins of the Book 007of Matthew (see “Was the Gospel of Matthew Originally Written In Hebrew?” BR 02:04). As a Christian who is reading the Tanakh in Hebrew, I was disappointed to find that I couldn’t make heads or tails of the rabbinic script demonstrated in the article.

I will be waiting anxiously for the book that Professor Howard is publishing and I hope the information on where and when it will be available will be in Bible Review.

I have enjoyed Bible Review but this article is the best yet! Congratulations to Professor Howard on a major addition to Biblical literature.

George Howard replies:

The rabbinic script is difficult to read. You can find a chart of various Hebrew scripts in the beginning of Gesenius Hebrew Grammar (ed. Cowley, 1910) that may be of some help.

My book entitled The Gospels According to a Primitive Hebrew Text is scheduled to appear sometime in 1987, published by Mercer University Press. It will include the Hebrew text (printed in the usual script), an English translation and a lengthy analysis of the text.

Remains Unconvinced

Professor Howard says that he has found an original Hebrew copy of the Gospel of Matthew buried in a medieval manuscript written by Rabbi Shem-Tob. In spite of the evidence he presents to prove this, I still think that this is a translation from either the Latin Vulgate or the original Greek.

His main argument is based on “literary elements” that could only “work” in Hebrew, such as puns, word-connections and alliterations. This really doesn’t prove anything, for translators can often supply literary embellishments that are lacking in the original. Consider for example the alliteration in the King James Version of Galatians 1:23 “… he which persecutest us in times past now preacheth the faith …” or Ephesians 5:2 “… a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour” or Matthew 23:4 “For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be bourne.… ” In Matthew 5:40, the words coat and cloak work very well together in English “If any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also,” The King James Version is recognized as a literary work in its own right. Likewise Shem-Tob’s version of Matthew may simply be the composition of a translator who is clever in the use of his words.

Consider also how the word “Lord” in Psalm 110:1 and Matthew 22:44 takes on tremendous theological significance in most English translations along with the Greek Septuagint: “The Lord (Yahweh or perhaps ha-shem in the Hebrew Matthew) said unto my lord (adonai), Sit thou on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” This frequently quoted verse in the New Testament would lose a lot of its profound meaning if Matthew wrote in Hebrew instead of Greek.

But let us suppose that the Hebrew version is a genuine composition from antiquity. The big question that needs to be answered is, How did it come down through the centuries of the Dark Ages to wind up in the hands of Rabbi Shem-Tob? Was this gospel preserved by the Jewish community? Given the hostility between Jews and Christians, it is hard to believe that Jewish people would pass down from 043generation to generation a heretical document such as this. Did the Christian Church preserve this gospel? This is also doubtful, considering the fact that Hebrew scholarship among Christians was practically non-existent during the Middle Ages. Professor Howard mentions “Jewish Christians” who might have known this version. Does he mean Jews who were converted to Christianity? If so, I don’t see how the Gospel of Matthew, in any language, would mean anything to them until the point of their conversion. And if that’s the case, they could hardly be the transmitters of the Hebrew Matthew. Or does “Jewish Christians” mean a sect of Jews who accepted Jesus as their Messiah but continued to practice Jewish laws and customs, including the use of the Hebrew language as a literary medium? To my knowledge, there is no evidence that such a group of people existed during the Middle Ages.

The consensus of scholars in the past is that Shem-Tob’s Matthew is a translation from the Greek or Latin. After evaluating Professor Howard’s arguments, I see no reason why scholars of today should depart from that consensus.

Regretfully I must object to your decision to ignore the minimum standards of scholarship and publish George Howard’s article (see “Was the Gospel of Matthew Originally Written In Hebrew?” BR 02:04) claiming to “linguistically excavate,” i.e., “recover” the text of an original Hebrew Matthew from Shem-Tob ben Shaprut’s Even Bohan. I hope this is not followed by the reprinting of excerpts from the works of Hugh J. Schonfield (An Old Hebrew Text of Matthew’s Gospel, 1927) and George Lamsa (New Testament Origin, 1947), Howard’s predecessors in pseudo-scholarship.

Like Howard, Schonfield “demonstrated,” with Hebrew puns, word-plays, alliterations and readings shared with the Old Syriac text, that the medieval du Tillet text is the text of the original Hebrew Matthew.

Similarly, Lamsa “proved,” with Syriac (or “Aramaic” as he described it) puns, wordplays and alliterations, that the Peshitta text of the canonical gospels is their original text, of which the Greek text is a mere and sometimes inaccurate translation.

Will future issues of BR feature articles by Ian Wilson on the Holy Shroud of Turin, or R. Lisle-Lindsay and W. Stegner “disproving” the priority of Mark? Or, perhaps, M. Smith on the latest fragment of the “Secret Gospel of Mark,” or J. Massingberd-Ford “proving” that Hebrews was written by Mary the mother of Jesus?

Advertising policy is obviously influencing editorial policy.

George Howard states “… the Old Testament … was written in Hebrew.…” John Allegro and others have written that the first Old Testament was written in Greek—thus translating and recording for the first time the early Hebrew tales and folklore.

Which was it? Hebrew, Greek, or is it still uncertain? Please point me to the briefest primer on the subject.

George Howard replies:

The Old Testament, to the best of our knowledge, was originally written in Hebrew with a few chapters in Ezra and Daniel in a sister language called Aramaic. It was gradually translated into Greek beginning sometime probably during the 3rd century B.C.

For a quick reference you may look under “Hebrew Language” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible or any other standard Bible dictionary.

The Pharaoh of the Oppression and the Pharaoh of the Exodus

In your Winter 1986 edition, under “Illuminations;&rd you state: “Pharaoh who ordered Hebrew boys to be drowned was himself drowned.” Again you state, “Pharaoh had ordered all Hebrew baby boys to be drowned. In the end, it was he himself who was drowned. Water, the agent Pharaoh tried to use to destroy the Hebrew people, became the agent of his own destruction.” You base these statements on Nahum Sarna’s book, Exploring Exodus, page 26.

I have not, at this time, read Mr Sarna’s book. My question to you is, have you misquoted Mr. Sarna or misinterpreted him? Or is Mr. Sarna actually stating that the same Pharaoh in Exodus 1:22, who ordered the drowning, is the same Pharaoh in Exodus 14:23–28, who died in the Reed Sea?

044

Sir, if the above statement is an accurate assessment of your article, may I say, in my opinion, you are in error. It is true, in Exodus 1:22, Pharaoh ordered the drowning; yet this Pharaoh died before Moses re-entered Egypt. In Exodus 2:15, Pharaoh tried to kill Moses but Moses escaped. In Exodus 4:19, Moses is told by God, “Go back to Egypt, for all the men who wanted to kill you are dead.”

Based upon this evidence, I would say the Pharaoh who ordered the drowning and the Pharaoh who drowned were not the same person. If I have misunderstood your statement, please notify me of your meaning.

Technically, Reader Hensley is correct, as Professor Sarna conceded when we asked him. (We accurately quoted him.) However, on a deeper level—no water pun intended—it seems clear that, says Professor Sarna—and we quote—the Bible presents the narrative events as if the second Pharaoh were a continuation of the first. That is why the Pharaoh is not named, but is called simply Pharaoh, as the embodiment of Egypt. The irony remains.—Ed.

Did Pharaoh Drown?

The idea that Pharaoh drowned in the Reed Sea while pursuing the Israelites is common enough, but it is not substantiated by the biblical text. In fact, neither the prose account of the dramatic encounter (Exodus 14) nor the poetic version, known as “The Song of the Sea” (Exodus 15), specifically refer to the drowning of the Pharaoh himself.

Thus, in the prose version, the Egyptians, their chariots and their horsemen (Exodus 14:26), collectively termed the “host of Pharaoh” (Exodus 14:28), were all covered over. In the poetic account, Pharaoh’s chariots and his host, and his chosen captains (Exodus 15:14), or, the horse of Pharaoh, his chariots and his horsemen (Exodus 15:19), were all drowned.

Nowhere, in either account, does it state that Pharaoh himself went under. The assumption that the Egyptian commander-in-chief died with his army in this encounter remains a conjecture.

What Controlling Water Meant Pharaoh’s World

The “Illuminations” in the Winter 1986 issue are a fascinating and welcome addition to your magazine. The coincidences in the King James translation and the water in the Exodus are even more significant than realized:

•The classic question of identity in Western civilization was posed by Shakespeare—“To be or not to be, that is the question (Hamlet, Act III, Scene 1). The answer is found in Exodus 3:14: “I am that I am.” Is it simply coincidence that at the very time Shakespeare asked the question, the name of God was translated as the answer? Shakespeare’s involvement with King James Version may be more than is realized.

•The importance of water to Egypt and Pharaoh cannot be overstated. Egypt was the gift of the Nile (Herodotus). The very 045validity of Pharaoh’s right to rule was in his ability to maintain and ensure good times, i.e., that the river flooded when and where it was supposed to. The miracle of the Israelite crossing of the Red Sea was not some timely change in tides or wind, volcanic aftereffect, or insignificant event later glorified. Instead it was the delivery of the message in history that God is Yahweh, in the only terms people in an Egyptian environment could understand—He controlled the waters of Egypt. They flooded at the command of Moses not Ramses; Pharaoh did not control the waters; the Egyptian religion was invalid. Through acts in history, a new religion would be created.

Thank you for this thought-provoking addition to your magazine.

Religious Tragedies—Jamestown or Jonestown?

Though grateful for being an Episcopalian, I don’t necessarily think it shameful that not everyone is an Episcopalian. But I wonder if that is sufficient justification for Jacob Neusner’s including the founding of Jamestown in his listing of religious tragedies (My View, BR 02:04). Could he have meant Jonestown, instead?

Yes. —Ed.

Bible Review Is for All Who Are Devoted to the Bible

I was surprised and disappointed to learn from Elinor Auld’s letter (Readers Reply, BR 02:04) that Bible Review is by and for liberals only. I am certainly not a fundamentalist, but neither am I a liberal; I am a thoroughly orthodox evangelical. I believe that when we approach the Bible we approach the Holy Word of God. I have seen evidence in your pages that many of your contributors believe the same; I have learned from their scholarship, and also from that of your contributors who hold a different view of Scripture. I greet the (all-too-infrequent) arrival of Bible Review with anticipatory delight, and I have yet to be disappointed. In fact, yours is the only periodical I read (you should pardon the expression!) religiously, from cover to cover. Now Auld tells me I’m an outsider.

I was genuinely surprised and disappointed to encounter such blatant bigotry as Auld’s coming from her end of the spectrum, particularly in these latter days of ecumenism. I serve a Christ who came “to create in himself one new man out of the two” (Ephesians 2:15), and who continues to work in this world by his Spirit to accomplish that purpose.

As for advertisers in Bible Review, I favor your current liberal policy. I’m willing to put up with a certain amount of nonsense if that will make it possible for me to continue to receive all the good stuff—your editorial content.

Israel as the Holy Land

Is it asking too much of your publication to refer to Israel as Israel and not as the Holy Land (See contest title: “Win a Free Trip to the Holy Land,” BR 02:04. It seems a small dignity to pay a country—using the name chosen for it by its citizens!

After all, we refer to ourselves as the United States and would not take kindly to being referred to as The Colonies.

A Forum of Ideas

While I do not agree with the conclusions of every article, I have enjoyed your magazine. I hold to a high view of inspiration, but I also enjoy those articles that reflect other viewpoints. Your magazine has been and should be a forum of ideas, not a monolith of “assured results.”

You Can Learn Even If You Disagree

I do love your magazine very much, and learn a lot; I may not agree with every article, but I learn from it. But, my dears, it is so hard to read on the shiny paper you use. What are these poor tired eyes to do? Please can something be done, so we can read without reflections?

Go for the Gold George