http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol04/Howard1999.

html

A Response to William L. Petersen's Review of Hebrew Gospel of Matthew

George Howard University of Georgia
1. Recently (May 199 ! "#ll#am $. %etersen o& %ennsylvan#a 'tate (n#vers#ty p)*l#shed a rev#ew art#cle o& my 199+ ed#t#on o& 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew (Howard 199+!. %etersen-s art#cle. /'ome 0*servat#ons on a Recent 1d#t#on o& and 2ntrod)ct#on to 'hem, To*-s -He*rew Matthew.-/ #s p)*l#shed #n TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism (%etersen 199 !. 2 apprec#ate TC allow#ng me an opport)n#ty to o&&er th#s response. 2. 2 decl#ned to respond to %etersen-s rev#ew o& the &#rst ed#t#on o& my *oo3 (Howard 19 4! that appeared #n the Journal of Biblical Literature 10 (19 9!: 455,456. and 2 ta3e no pleas)re #n respond#ng to the present rev#ew. 7)t %etersen threatens a th#rd someth#ng (rev#ew8 see %etersen 199 : par. 199! #& 2 do not reply. so 2 have dec#ded to comply w#th h#s w#shes. 3. %etersen-s wr#t#ng #s h#ghly )n)s)al &or academ#a. 2t #s &#lled w#th v#t)perat#on and #nvect#ve (v#rt)ally every word #s w#th a drop o& *lood!. He scolds me. cast#gates me. and acc)ses me o& /ch#canery/ (%etersen 199 : par. 154!. Toward the end o& h#s rev#ew. he preaches a sermon #n wh#ch he po)rs o)t on me h#s r#ghteo)s #nd#gnat#on. To my 3nowledge. 2 have never met %etersen. so why he wr#tes w#th s)ch personal v#r)lence. 2 cannot &athom. 2 re:)est the readers o& th#s re*)ttal to allow me some #nd)lgence to respond #n 3#nd. tho)gh 2 w#ll *e as cons#derate as poss#*le. Th#s #s not my )s)al way o& do#ng th#ngs. *)t the occas#on seems to call &or #t. . 0verall. %etersen-s art#cle #s a per&ect e;ample o& how a rev#ew sho)ld not *e wr#tten. 2 cons#der #t not an e;aggerat#on to wr#te that v#rt)ally every page swarms w#th errors o& om#ss#on. comm#ss#on. and lac3 o& )nderstand#ng. He does not )nderstand my *oo3< he does not )nderstand med#eval =ew#sh l#terat)re< he does not )nderstand the l#terary nat)re o& the He*rew te;t o& 'hem,To*-s Matthew. #ncl)d#ng #ts many p)ns. word connect#ons. and all#terat#on< he does not )nderstand the evol)t#on th#s te;t has )ndergone or where #t *elongs #n #ts long cha#n o& transm#ss#on< he does not )nderstand the heterodo; theolog#cal patterns r)nn#ng thro)gho)t the doc)ment or where these &#t #nto the h#story o& Chr#st#an#ty. !. M)ch o& %etersen-s rev#ew #s ta3en )p w#th the M#ddle >)tch $#?ge Harmony. *)t 2 am not conv#nced that he )nderstands even th#s doc)ment. 2 w#ll come *ac3 to the M#ddle >)tch $#?ge Harmony. *)t 2 m)st &#rst deal w#th %etersen-s &a#l)re to )nderstand the p)rpose o& my *oo3 and h#s #ngen)o)sness #n deal#ng w#th med#eval He*rew lang)age and l#terat)re.

". #$e P%rpose of &y 'oo(

). %etersen never p#c3s )p on the real a#m o& my *oo3. wh#ch #s stated repeatedly thro)gho)t the vol)me. It is to demonstrate that the Hebrew Matthew contained in ShemTob s writin! "redates the fourteenth centur#$ 2n the %re&ace to the second ed#t#on (Howard 199+: v##!. 2 wr#te. /The ma#n thr)st o& th#s second ed#t#on #s to demonstrate that the He*rew Matthew conta#ned #n 'hem,To*-s %&an Bohan predates the &o)rteenth cent)ry./ @t the end o& the vol)me (Howard 199+: 594!. 2 s)m )p my &#nd#ngs: /@ concl)s#on that can *e drawn &rom these compar#sons #s that 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew predates the &o)teenth cent)ry. *e#ng preserved pr#mar#ly *y the =ew#sh comm)n#ty./ 2 do not *el#eve 2 co)ld have made th#s po#nt clearer (see also pp. 1+9. 149,14+. 14 . 511!. *. %etersen-s rev#ew g#ves the #mpress#on that the p)rpose o& my *oo3 #s to prove that 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew dates to c#rca 100 C.1.. "hat 2 have arg)ed #s that a ShemTob t#"e Matthean text (not 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew "er se! has roots #n an early per#od o& Chr#st#an h#story< 2 do not pres)me that 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew goes *ac3 to early t#mes. Th#s #s a te;t that has *een rev#sed repeatedly. has ta3en on m)ch te;t)al *aggage d)r#ng transm#ss#on. and #s pro*a*ly no more that a d#m re&lect#on o& a pr#or trad#t#on. 2 am )ns)re what th#s pr#or trad#t#on amo)nts to. whether a complete gospel or s#mply an )nde&#ned so)rce. 7)t. whatever the case. the po#nt o& th#s *oo3 #s s#mply to demonstrate that the trad#t#on ly#ng *eh#nd 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew predates the &o)rteenth cent)ry. perhaps *y several cent)r#es. Aoth#ng moreB +. 2 set th#s agenda &or my *oo3 *eca)se trad#t#onally 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew has *een held to *e a translat#on o& the $at#n C)lgate made *y 'hem,To* 2*n 'hapr)t h#msel& #n the &o)rteenth cent)ry. Thro)gho)t the last cent)ry. #t was tho)ght that 'hem,To* was the a)thor o& th#s te;t. @s late as 1964. Matthew 7lac3 wrote #n regard to the He*rew vers#on o& d) T#llet. /The a)thor o& the He*rew Matthew was pro*a*ly a certa#n 'hem,To* *en 'hapr)t. a &amo)s =ew#sh polem#cal wr#ter who &lo)r#shed #n 'pa#n #n the &o)rteenth cent)ry/ (7lac3 1964: 59+!. Ro*ert $#ndsey holds a s#m#lar v#ew: he #dent#&#es '. MDnster-s ed#t#on o& the He*rew Matthew as a vers#on o& /2*n 'hapr)t-s translat#on/ E$#ndsey 1969: 64.F ,. @t t#mes %etersen m#s)nderstands the p)rpose o& my d#sc)ss#on and #mp)tes theor#es to me that 2 do not &orm)late. agree w#th. or *el#eve. 2 o&&er here two e;amples.

-.ample 1
1/. 2n a segment called. /$#ng)#st#c Character#st#cs o& the He*rew Te;t./ 2 g#ve a *r#e& descr#pt#on o& the l#ng)#st#c nat)re o& the He*rew te;t o& 'hem,To*-s Matthew. 2 o&&er th#s mater#al (consec)t#ve tenses. non,consec)t#ve tenses. #n&#n#t#ves. prono)ns. and voca*)lary! merely to ac:)a#nt the reader w#th the type o& He*rew employed #n the te;t. 2n no way do 2 )se th#s mater#al to arg)e &or the date o& the He*rew te;t or &or anyth#ng else. 2t #s p)re descr#pt#on.

11. %etersen. apparently not )nderstand#ng th#s mater#al as pro&#le. acc)ses me o& arg)#ng &or an early date o& 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew *y my d#sc)ss#on o& the He*rew waw consec)t#ve. He wr#tes: Howard ela*orates no &)rther. so #t #s not ent#rely clear what h#s po#nt #s. 0ne s)rm#ses. however. that what he w#shes to arg)e #s th#s: 1. 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew conta#ns a &eat)re wh#ch. accord#ng to Howard. #s d#st#nct#ve o& /7#*l#cal He*rew/< and 5. th#s &eat)re &ell &rom )se. accord#ng to Howard. a&ter the decl#ne o& 7#*l#cal He*rew< there&ore. 9. 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew m)st have *een composed #n the per#od when 7#*l#cal He*rew was st#ll #n )se,,#n other words. #n early Chr#st#an ant#:)#ty. E%etersen 199 : par. 1 F. 12. 0nce %etersen has concocted th#s theory and attr#*)ted #t to me. he r#d#c)les me &or *el#ev#ng #t. /Howard never cons#ders the poss#*#l#ty that the waw-consecuti&um m#ght *e an art#&#c#al. -ant#:)e- &eat)re )sed *y the translator to g#ve h#s med#eval He*rew translat#on o& Matthew an -ant#:)e- &lavor/ (%etersen 199 : par. 50!. /Howard seems )naware that there #s emp#r#cal. te;t)al ev#dence that the waw-consecuti&um was )sed long a&ter the decl#ne o& 7#*l#cal He*rew/ (%etersen 199 : par. 51!. He then c#tes some l#ttle 3nown code;. Cat#can)s 95 o& the late s#;teenth or early seventeenth,cent)ry. made *y a certa#n >om#n#c)s o& =er)salem. as emp#r#cal proo& that the waw consec)t#ve s)rv#ved the *#*l#cal per#od. (2 w#ll ret)rn to th#s code; momentar#ly.! 13. 2 m)st con&ess to some *ew#lderment. %etersen creates a theory ex nihilo,,one that 2 do not &orm)late mysel& and w#th wh#ch 2 d#sagree,,then ta3es del#ght #n cr#t#c#G#ng me &or #t. 2& he had H)st read the oppos#te page (same open#ng!. he wo)ld have real#Ged that h#s theory does not re&lect my *el#e&s at all. 2 wr#te. 2& #t were a matter o& an or#g#nal =ew#sh compos#t#on #n the late M#ddle @ges. one wo)ld e;pect 7H E7#*l#cal He*rewF or even archa#c 7H to play a dom#nate role. as #s the case w#th most te;ts wr#tten d)r#ng th#s t#me/ EHoward 199+: 14 F. 2 am &)lly aware that the waw consec)t#ve was )sed #n the late med#eval per#od and clearly state th#s. 2& %etersen had read the conte;t care&)lly. he wo)ld have 3nown th#s.

-.ample 2
1 . @ second e;ample #s %etersen-s treatment o& my sect#on on 'hem,To* and the Iospel o& Thomas. 2 concl)de the sect#on *y wr#t#ng. /2t #s h#ghly )nl#3ely that 'hem,To* had d#rect contact w#th the Iospel o& Thomas. The agreements o& h#s Matthew w#th Thomas. there&ore. m)st *e traced to the early cent)r#es o& the Chr#st#an era/ (Howard 199+: 50+!. "#th these words. 2 attempt to demonstrate that the read#ngs )nder cons#derat#on predate the &o)rteenth cent)ry and there&ore were not created *y 'hem,To*. 2 th#n3 %etersen #s #n

*as#c agreement w#th th#s statement< he H)st w#shes to place some #ntermed#ary gospel te;ts *etween 'hem,To* and Thomas. @nd th#s #s &#ne w#th me. 2t &#ts :)#te well w#th my )nderstand#ng o& the rev#s#onary nat)re o& 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew. 1!. The pro*lem that 2 have w#th %etersen #s that he th#n3s 2 *el#eve that the agreements *etween 'hem,To* and Thomas prove that 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew #s anc#ent. He wr#tes. /Howard-s most #mportant ev#dence &or the ant#:)#ty o& 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew cons#sts o& l#sts o& agreements *etween #t and te;ts 3nown #n anc#ent Chr#st#an#ty/ (%etersen 199 : par. 96!. He then #nvents another theory ex nihilo. #mp)tes #t to me. and acc)ses me o& #t. H#s theory. #n a**rev#ated &orm. #s the &ollow#ng: (1! %arallels e;#st *etween the He*rew Matthew #n 'hem,To*-s %&en Bohan . . . and these early Chr#st#an te;ts whose c#rc)lat#on was #n 1astern Chr#stendom. (5! Aone o& these early Chr#st#an te;ts was 3nown #n or c#rc)lated #n the "est d)r#ng the med#eval per#od when 'hem,To* composed the %&en Bohan$ . . . (9! . . . 0ne #s,,accord#ng to Howard,,dr#ven to concl)de that these common read#ngs m)st *e the res)lt o& th#s He*rew Matthew hav#ng *een composed #n a t#me and #n a place where wor3s s)ch as the 'os"el of Thomas. the Cet)s 'yra. and Code; '#na#t#c)s were #n c#rc)lat#on,,#n other words. #n anc#ent Chr#st#an#ty E%etersen 199 : par. 96F. 1). @ga#n. 2 m)st con&ess to *ew#lderment. 2 do not ma3e th#s arg)ment #n my *oo3 and *el#eve none o& #t. 2 do not 3now when 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew dates or where #t was created. 2 clearly state my pos#t#on: /2t #s h#ghly )nl#3ely that 'hem,To* had d#rect contact w#th the Iospel o& Thomas. The agreements o& h#s Matthew w#th Thomas. there&ore. m)st *e traced to the early cent)r#es o& the Chr#st#an era/ (Howard 199+: 50+!. Jo) w#ll note that 2 wr#te. /the agreements o& h#s Matthew w#th Thomas . . . m)st *e traced to the early cent)r#es o& the Chr#st#an era./ 2 do not wr#te /'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew m)st *e traced to the early cent)r#es o& the Chr#st#an era./ 1*. 7)t %etersen does not recogn#Ge th#s n)ance #n my wr#t#ng. and lashes o)t aga#nst me. apparently th#n3#ng that 2 do not state the #ss)e correctly. /Howard appears con&)sed when he states that -#t #s h#ghly )nl#3ely that 'hem,To* had d#rect contact w#th the Iospel o& Thomas.- &or #t #s clear to everyone,,and Howard h#msel& has arg)ed th#s po#nt . . . that 'hem,To* d#d not translate th#s He*rew Matthew. *)t #ncorporated an already e;#st#ng (and. there&ore. older! He*rew Matthew #nto h#s %&en Bohan/ (%etersen 199 : par. +0!. 2 w#sh to ass)re %etersen that th#s #s not clear to everyone. 2t has never *een clear to everyone. 2n &act. the reason 2 wrote th#s *oo3 #s to prove that 'hem,To* did not create th#s He*rew Matthew.

"". Petersen and &edieval He0rew Lang%age and Literat%re

1+. 0ne wo)ld e;pect that a person who chooses to wr#te a rev#ew o& a *oo3 conta#n#ng a He*rew te;t &rom a med#eval =ew#sh polem#cal treat#se wo)ld *e well ac:)a#nted w#th med#eval He*rew lang)age and l#terat)re. 0therw#se. how co)ld he/she wr#te an #ntell#g#*le

rev#ew8 (nless 2 am *adly m#sta3en. %etersen does not approach med#eval He*rew lang)age and l#terat)re w#th a great deal o& soph#st#cat#on. %lease o*serve the &ollow#ng po#nts.

A.
1,. %etersen tells )s that He*rew Matthews have *een 3nown and )sed &or cent)r#es. He ment#ons those p)*l#shed *y 'e*ast#an MDnster and =ean d) T#llet. He cont#n)es. /However. #n add#t#on to these two. at least &#ve other He*rew Matthews (mostly &ragmentary! are 3nown: (1! the 7oo3 o& Aestor. (5! the M#lhamot Ha'hem. (9! the 'epher =oseph Hame3ane. (4! the A#GGahon Cet)s. and. now. (+! the wor3 ed#ted *y Howard/ (%etersen 199 : par. 9!. 2/. Th#s statement #s reveal#ng. The 7oo3 o& Aestor. the M#lhamot Ha'hem. the 'epher =oseph Hame3ane. and the A#GGahon Cet)s are not He*rew Matthews. They are med#eval ant#,Chr#st#an polem#cal treat#ses wr#tten #n He*rew. Moreover. 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew. the only He*rew Matthew #n the lot. #s not &ragmentary< #t #ncl)des the ent#re Iospel o& Matthew. %etersen-s 3nowledge o& med#eval =ew#sh wr#t#ngs #s clearly &a)lty on th#s po#nt.

'.
21. To ret)rn now to %etersen-s code; Cat#can)s 95 (c&. a*ove. par. 15!. he wr#tes. /Howard seems )naware that there #s emp#r#cal. te;t)al ev#dence that the waw-consecuti&um was )sed long a&ter the decl#ne o& 7#*l#cal He*rew./ He then c#tes code; Cat#can)s 95 o& the late s#;teenth or early seventeenth,cent)ry. made *y >om#n#c)s o& =er)salem. as emp#r#cal proo& that the waw consec)t#ve s)rv#ved the *#*l#cal per#od. 22. 2 agree w#th %etersen that the doc)ment he o&&ers prov#des the emp#r#cal ev#dence he #s loo3#ng &or. 7)t why re&er to th#s doc)ment8 2t #s l#3e go#ng #nto a l#*rary. chec3#ng o)t a *oo3 #naccess#*le to most readers. &#nd#ng a p#ct)re o& an a)tomo*#le on one o& the streets o& @mer#ca. and then anno)nc#ng to the world that th#s #s emp#r#cal proo& that a)tomo*#les have *een dr#ven #n @mer#ca. Iranted yo) have proven yo)r po#nt. 7)t wo)ld #t not *e eas#er s#mply to wal3 o)ts#de and o*serve the tra&&#c8 %etersen #s apparently )naware that there #s a whole corp)s o& med#eval He*rew l#terat)re o)t there that #s wr#tten pr#mar#ly #n *#*l#cal He*rewB

1.
23. %etersen-s assessment o& my translat#on tells )s a whole lot more a*o)t %etersen than a*o)t my translat#on. He descr#*es my 1ngl#sh translat#on as /not ent#rely acc)rate./ "hat d#st)r*s h#m. among other th#ngs. #s the way 2 render the waw consec)t#ve. (He seems to have d#&&#c)lty gett#ng *eyond the He*rew conH)nct#on.! He wr#tes. /2t #s very odd. then. that Howard-s translat#on o&ten &a#ls to render th#s &eat)re. wh#ch he cons#ders to *e a 3ey p#ece o& ev#dence &or the ant#:)#ty o& th#s He*rew Matthew./ He then c#tes Matt 5:11 and wr#tes. /The waw-consecuti&um act)ally occ)rs s#; t#mes #n th#s sentence. *)t &#ve o& them

are om#tted *y Howard-s translat#on./ Ae;t. he arg)es that my translat#on somet#mes /does not acc)rately re&lect the word order o& the He*rew./ He c#tes Matt 9:9 where the He*rew reads l#terally. /Kather,o)r @*raham./ and wr#tes. /Howard translates th#s as -@*raham #s o)r &ather.- #nstead o& -0)r &ather #s @*raham./ He then spea3s o& these /s)*tle moves away &rom a l#teral translat#on/ (%etersen 199 : pars. 19,1+!. 2 . 2 am aware that some people &eel the need &or an #nterl#near translat#on o& the 7#*le. *)t these are )s)ally people to whom *#*l#cal lang)ages are *as#cally a mystery. "#tho)t a word,&or,word translat#on o& the or#g#nal lang)age. they are lost #n that lang)age. 7)t. once one gets *eyond the #n#t#al stages o& the alpha*et and *as#c grammar. one )s)ally no longer &eels the need &or a word,&or,word. woodenly l#teral rend#t#on o& the te;t. "h#le there may *e d#sagreement on how the &#n#shed prod)ct sho)ld read. there #s l#ttle or no d#sagreement that a translator #s perm#tted to have some &reedom #n ma3#ng a reada*le vers#on. %etersen #s apparently one o& those who needs an @:)#la,type translat#on. th#n3#ng that anyth#ng less #s /not ent#rely acc)rate./

2.
2!. Kor some reason. %etersen #gnores the sect#on #n my *oo3 that deals w#th med#eval He*rew doc)ments. e.g.. pp. 1++,149. 2n &act. )nless 2 am overloo3#ng the o*v#o)s. he avo#ds almost everyth#ng that re:)#res a 3nowledge o& med#eval He*rew lang)age and l#terat)re that #s *eyond the most elementary level. @s demonstrated a*ove. h#s one s3#rm#sh #nto He*rew grammar. that regard#ng the waw consec)t#ve. #s pedestr#an. %erhaps %etersen sho)ld have rec)sed h#msel& &rom wr#t#ng a rev#ew o& my *oo3 on the gro)nds that he #s )nac:)a#nted w#th the area.

""". Petersen and t$e &iddle 2%t3$ Li4ge Harmony

2). 2 w#ll *eg#n *y congrat)lat#ng %etersen &or po#nt#ng o)t that some o& 'hem,To*-s read#ngs agree w#th the M#ddle >)tch $#?ge Harmony. H#s d#scovery con&#rms what 2 have arg)ed all along a*o)t 'hem,To*-s He*rew gospel te;t. namely. that #t )nderwent a s#gn#&#cant per#od o& transm#ss#on and development d)r#ng wh#ch #t acc)m)lated cons#dera*le te;t)al *aggage. 2 had already po#nted o)t n)mero)s agreements *etween 'hem,To*-s te;t and other doc)ments and te;t &orms. Aow %etersen adds the M#ddle >)tch $#?ge Harmony. He reports on a long l#st o& parallels he has &o)nd *etween 'hem,To* and the M#ddle >)tch $#?ge Harmony. 7)t. g#ven h#s way o& co)nt#ng parallels (see *elow!. 2 s)spect there w#ll *e some d#sagreement a*o)t the act)al length o& th#s l#st. %etersen #s o*v#o)sly very &ond o& (o*sessed w#th8! the M#ddle >)tch $#?ge Harmony. H#s appl#cat#on o& th#s doc)ment #n arg)#ng &or the or#g#n and nat)re o& 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew. however. leaves a great deal to *e des#red. $et me e;pla#n.

A.
2*. %etersen d#sp)tes my cla#m that the 0ld $at#n and the 0ld 'yr#ac somet#mes agree w#th 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew aga#nst all other Matthean w#tnesses. He arg)es that many o& these read#ngs are also to *e &o)nd #n the M#ddle >)tch $#?ge Harmony. He wr#tes.

/Howard-s cla#m that these read#ngs Eagreements *etween 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew and the 0ld $at#nF are -aga#nst all other Matthean w#tnesses- #s s#mply not tr)e. 0& h#s twelve read#ngs. six,,once aga#n. half o& Howard-s l#st,,are &o)nd #n H)st a s#ngle so)rce. namely the M#ddle >)tch $#?ge Harmony (#& the compar#son were e;panded to #ncl)de all the "estern gospel harmon#es. the n)m*er wo)ld #ncrease!/ (%etersen 199 : par. +4. #tal#cs h#s!. 2+. 2 &#nd th#s to *e a very strange statement. >oes %etersen act)ally *el#eve that the M#ddle >)tch $#?ge Harmony #s a /Matthean w#tness8/ 2t str#3es me as #nappropr#ate to descr#*e a gospel harmony as a /Matthean w#tness./ (s)ally. we reserve th#s la*el &or s)ch doc)ments as Code; Cat#can)s and Code; '#na#t#c)s. 7)t %etersen w#shes to e;tend #t to #ncl)de the M#ddle >)tch $#?ge Harmony. 2 rev#ewed my l#st o& read#ngs and &o)nd that almost all o& them *elong to the do)*le or tr#ple trad#t#ons o& the synopt#c gospels. =)st how the M#ddle >)tch $#?ge Harmony can *e a Matthean w#tness #n the do)*le and tr#ple trad#t#ons. where words and phrases o& the synopt#c gospels are #ntertw#ned and overlapped. #s )nclear. 2,. 2n regard to my l#st o& agreements *etween 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew and the 0ld 'yr#ac aga#nst all other Matthean w#tnesses. %etersen aga#n wr#tes. /ETh#sF #s s#mply &alse. A)mero)s read#ngs are parallel #n "estern harmon#Ged gospel te;ts< #ndeed. s#ngl#ng o)t H)st one s)ch te;t. four o& h#s twelve read#ngs are &o)nd #n the $#?ge Harmony. and a &#&th appro;#mates #ts read#ng/ (%etersen 199 : par. +9. #tal#cs h#s!. 3/. He th)s recon&#rms h#s *el#e& that the M#ddle >)tch $#?ge Harmony #s a Matthean w#tness. 2& th#s had happened only once. one m#ght d#scard #t as a ver*al sl#p. 7)t tw#ce8 (@ct)ally he does #t a th#rd t#me #n %etersen 199 : par. 49.! @ga#n. 2 rev#ewed my l#st and &o)nd that almost all o& the read#ngs *elong to the do)*le or tr#ple trad#t#ons o& the synopt#c gospels. 31. 2 o&&er here s#; e;amples (more than hal& o& those %etersen s#ngles o)t! &rom my l#sts &or yo) to H)dge &or yo)rsel& #& the M#ddle >)tch $#?ge Harmony #s tr)ly another /Matthean w#tness./ 2t w#ll *e #nstr)ct#ve to p)t %etersen )nder the g)n. so to spea3. and see #& the e;amples. wh#ch he h#msel& approves. act)ally s)pport h#s content#on. %lease 3eep #n m#nd that the operat#ve :)est#on #s whether the M#ddle >)tch $#?ge Harmony #s another Matthean w#tness that s)pports 'hem,To*-s read#ng. ". 5$em6#o0 and t$e 7ld Latin 1. 32. Matt 1:15 o Iree3: /@nd a&ter the deportat#on to 7a*ylon. =echon#a *egat 'healt#el/ o 'hem,To*: /=econ#ah *egat 'healt#el/ E/@&ter the 7a*ylon#an e;#le/ pr. mssF o $#?ge Harmony (%loo#H 1959,1940: 19!: /@&ter that =echon#ah *egat 'healt#el/ 5. 33. Matt 16:4
o o

Iree3: /@n ev#l and ad)ltero)s generat#on/ $)3e 11:59: /Th#s generat#on #s an ev#l generat#on./

'hem,To*: /The o&&spr#ng o& ev#l doers/ $#?ge Harmony (%loo#H 1959,1940: 154!: /The w#c3ed man and the )n*el#ev#ng/ 9. 3 . Matt 1 :9
o o o o o o

Iree3: /To *e thrown #nto the Iehenna o& K#re/ Mar3 9:44: /To *e thrown #nto Iehenna/ 'hem,To*: /To *e g#ven to Iehenna/ $#?ge Harmony (%loo#H 1959,1940: 595!: /tho) sho)ldst &are to hell/

"". 5$em6#o0 and t$e 7ld 5yria3 4. 3!. Matt :9 o Iree3: /Kor 2 am a man set EmssF )nder a)thor#ty/ o $)3e 4: : /Kor 2 am a man set )nder a)thor#ty/ o 'hem,To*: /2 am a s#n&)l man and 2 have a)thor#ty/ o $#?ge Harmony (%loo#H 1959,1940: 10+!: /Kor 2 am a man who #s occ)p#ed w#th the sec)lar power/ +. 3). Matt 55:9+ Iree3: /one o& them. a lawyer/ Mar3 15:5 : /one o& the scr#*es/ $)3e 10:5+: /a certa#n lawyer/ 'hem,To*: /a sage (M3;!/ $#?ge Harmony (%loo#H 1959,1940: 446!: /one o& the scr#*es. who was a master o& the law/ 6. 3*. Matt 56:10
o o o o o o o o o

Iree3: /she has done a good wor3/ Mar3 14:6: /she has done a good wor3/ 'hem,To*: /she has done a good and marvelo)s wor3/ $#?ge Harmony (%loo#H 1959,1940: +60!: /she has done a good wor3/

3+. Aeedless to say. these e;amples do not #nsp#re a great deal o& con&#dence. 2n &act. they are worthlessB To arg)e that the M#ddle >)tch $#?ge Harmony #s another Matthean w#tness that s)pports 'hem,To*-s He*rew te;t #n these passages #s H)st grasp#ng at straws. 'ome o& the other e;amples are perhaps more conv#nc#ng. *)t even here #t #s o&ten a matter o& #nterpretat#on. @nd the &act that they almost all occ)r #n the do)*le or tr#ple trad#t#ons o& the synopt#c gospels generally n)ll#&#es the M#ddle >)tch $#?ge Harmony &rom *e#ng a /Matthean w#tness./

'.
3,. %etersen )nderstands the agreements *etween 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew and the M#ddle >)tch $#?ge Harmony as a 3ey to the or#g#n o& the He*rew Matthew. "#th con&#dence. he #n&orms )s that he 3nows the or#g#n o& th#s te;t. /There #s no mystery./ he

wr#tes. /a*o)t the genes#s o& 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew/ (%etersen 199 : par. 104!. He goes on to e;pla#n the doc)ment-s or#g#n: /The trad#t#on *eh#nd the $#?ge Harmony,,wh#ch we 3now to *e a $at#n gospel harmony,,m)st also *e the pr#nc#pal element respons#*le &or the te;t)al comple;#on o& 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew/ (%etersen 199 : par. 104!. @ga#n he wr#tes. /The He*rew Matthew #n 'hem,To* clearly #ncorporates older trad#t#ons. *)t these are merely der#ved &rom #ts $at#n (orla!e. a (orla!e wh#ch was closely related to EtheF $at#n (orla!e o& the M#ddle >)tch $#?ge Harmony/ (%etersen 199 : par. 11 !. He dates the $at#n (orla!e o& the $#?ge Harmony to *e appro;#mately 1100. or the m#d,po#nt. L/, 500 years. *etween 900 and 1900. the o)ts#de l#m#ts &or the (orla!e-s date (%etersen 199 : par. 109!. /. 2 have two maHor pro*lems w#th %etersen-s )nderstand#ng o& the or#g#n o& 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew. 1. 819 0ne pro*lem #s the wea3ness o& %etersen-s ev#dence that 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew as a whole goes *ac3 to a $at#n (orla!e$ He *el#eves that the M#ddle >)tch $#?ge Harmony goes *ac3 to a $at#n (orla!e. and s#nce there are agreements *etween 'hem, To*-s He*rew Matthew and the M#ddle >)tch $#?ge Harmony (some o& wh#ch apparently s)ggest a $at#n *ase!. he *el#eves that 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew as a whole also goes *ac3 to a $at#n (orla!e$ 2. 7)t what %etersen does not tell yo) #s that he #s #gnor#ng all the ev#dence that demonstrates that the *ase te;t o& m)ch o& 'hem,To*-s Matthew #s He*rew. not $at#n. 7y ma3#ng a care&)l select#on o& read#ngs that appear to have a $at#n *ase. and *e#ng s#lent a*o)t those that do not. he proposes that the whole comes &rom a $at#n *ase. 7)t )nt#l he e;pla#ns the He*rew p)ns. word connect#ons. all#terat#on. and the other ev#dence po#nt#ng to a He*rew *ase. h#s ev#dence &or a $at#n (orla!e #s nonpro*at#ve. 3. 829 @ second pro*lem #s that %etersen apparently *el#eves that a gospel harmony can e;pla#n the or#g#n o& a s#ngle gospel. 7)t %etersen does not tell )s how th#s can *e. @ gospel harmony can #n&l)ence the compos#t#on and scr#*al transm#ss#on o& a s#ngle gospel. *)t #t #s very )nl#3ely that #t can e;pla#n a s#ngle gospel-s )lt#mate or#g#n. 1v#dence that %etersen #s am*#valent on th#s po#nt #s how he changes term#nology. 0ne t#me he wr#tes. /common (orla!e./ (%etersen 199 : par. 10+!< then he wr#tes. /harmony,#n&l)enced separate gospel te;t/ (%etersen 199 : par. 119!. =)st what a common (orla!e wo)ld *e &or the M#ddle >)tch $#?ge Harmony and 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew #s *eyond my comprehens#on. . %erhaps the analogy o& the >#atessaron o& Tat#an and the 1vangel#on da,Mepharreshe (separate gospels! w#ll help %etersen sort th#s o)t. Two e;tant man)scr#pts o& the 1vangel#on da,Mepharreshe. the C)reton#an and the '#na#t#c 'yr#ac. conta#n a great many harmon#st#c read#ngs that appear to come &rom the >#atessaron. @ longstand#ng de*ate concerns wh#ch one o& these te;t &orms came &#rst. the 1vangel#on da,Mepharreshe or the >#atessaron. Ienerally #t #s *el#eved that the >#atessaron was the earl#est &orm o& the gospel #n 'yr#ac and that the translator(s! o& the 1vangel#on da,Mepharreshe. #mmersed #n the word#ng o& the >#atessaron. employed m)ch o& the >#atessaron-s phraseology. 2n add#t#on. the 1vangel#on da,Mepharreshe ac:)#red new read#ngs &rom the >#atessaron as #t was transm#tted. Aevertheless. #n sp#te o& th#s. #n the &#nal analys#s the 1vangel#on da,

Mepharreshe #s a translat#on o& some &orm o& the separated gospels (perhaps Iree3!. not the >#atessaron. K. C. 7)r3#tt e;pla#ns as &ollows: The 1vangel#on da,Mepharreshe #s a translat#on &rom the Iree3. 1ven #& the translator 3new the >#atessaron #n 'yr#ac and was greatly #n&l)enced *y #t. #t #s nevertheless o*v#o)s that a te;t o& the Ko)r Iospels cannot *e evolved &rom the >#atessaron alone. . . . @ccord#ng to the v#ew here s)ggested. the 1vangel#on da,Mepharreshe #n #ts or#g#nal &orm g#ves #n essent#als a &a#th&)l representat#on o& the te;t o& the Ko)r Iospels as rece#ved at @nt#och a*o)t 500 @>. The word#ng o& the translat#on has *een o&ten #n&l)enced *y the render#ngs &o)nd #n the 'yr#ac translat#on o& Tat#an-s >#atessaron. a wor3 &am#l#ar to the translator o& the 1vangel#on da,Mepharreshe< to th#s ca)se also we may p)t down the many #nstances o& m#nor harmon#st#c read#ngs. so &ar as they have not *een *ro)ght #nto o)r M'' *y a s#m#lar tendency on the part o& 'yr#ac scr#*es E7)r3#tt 1904: 191. 509,510F. !. Kollow#ng th#s analogy. #& 'hem,To*-s Matthew rece#ved an #np)t o& read#ngs &rom the M#ddle >)tch $#?ge Harmony trad#t#on or #ts (orla!e somet#me aro)nd or a&ter 1100 C1 (2 concede th#s &or the sa3e o& the analogy only!. th#s does not e;pla#n the or#g#n o& the *ase te;t o& the separated Iospel o& Matthew that was already #n e;#stence when the #np)t was rece#ved. %etersen-s con&)s#on over the nat)re o& a gospel harmony has apparently led h#m to ass#gn more #mportance to the M#ddle >)tch $#?ge Harmony #n regard to the or#g#n o& 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew than #s appropr#ate. ). 2t #s th#s *ase te;t o& 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew. or #ts s)*strat)m. that %etersen-s theory does not e;pla#n. 2t #s th#s s)*strat)m to wh#ch 2 g#ve m)ch attent#on #n my *oo3. (n&ort)nately. %etersen pays no attent#on to th#s. #gnor#ng large sect#ons o& my *oo3 that descr#*e #t. 2t #s a s)*strat)m that *elongs to a stage #n the process o& a te;t)al evol)t#on that *egan #n earl#er t#mes and c)lm#nated #n d) T#llet #n the s#;teenth cent)ry. or poss#*ly even later. 2t #s a s)*strat)m &#lled w#th He*rew p)ns. word connect#ons. and all#terat#on that cannot *e e;pla#ned *y the M#ddle >)tch $#?ge Harmony or *y #ts $at#n (orla!e$ 2t #s a s)*strat)m w#th #ts own theology. d#&&erent &rom the theology o& canon#cal Matthew or the M#ddle >)tch $#?ge Harmony.

":. 2id Petersen Read t$e -ntire 'oo(;

*. 2t appears that %etersen read only a small port#on o& my *oo3. =)dg#ng &rom the part o& the *oo3 he act)ally comments on. 2 conHect)re that he read *etween 10 and 15 pages o& the analys#s. or appro;#mately 1+M o& 1 pages. @dd to th#s an occas#onal re&erence to the te;t o& Matthew and yo) get 1+ pages at the o)ts#de. 0ne m#ght arg)e that %etersen read all the *oo3. and only commented on a &ew pages. 2 th#n3 th#s #s not the case. 'ome o& h#s m#sta3es are )nderstanda*le only #& he d#d not read the whole *oo3. Kor e;ample. he wr#tes. /C#rt)ally all o& the arg)ments and ev#dence employed #n that &#rst ed#t#on are a*sent &rom th#s second ed#t#on/ (%etersen 199 : par. 14!. Th#s #s )ntr)e. 2& %etersen had read the whole *oo3. he wo)ld have 3nown that almost all the ev#dence employed #n the &#rst ed#t#on (Howard 19 4! #s present #n the second ed#t#on. %etersen also states that 2 never ret)rn to

the #ss)e o& 'hem,To* and the Iospel o& =ohn and never /present any add#t#onal arg)mentat#on or ev#dence/ (%etersen 199 : par. 41!. Th#s also #s )ntr)e. He o*v#o)sly d#d not read pages 550,551 o& my *oo3. Kor more on th#s. see *elow #n the @ppend#;. +. 2n the @ppend#;. 2 rev#ew the mater#al that %etersen #gnores. #ncl)d#ng the development o& the He*rew te;t. #ts l#terary character#st#cs. and #ts theology. 2 w#ll let yo) *e the H)dge whether th#s mater#al has anyth#ng to o&&er concern#ng the or#g#n and nat)re o& the *ase te;t o& 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew.

Appendi.
Pages 1)/61*3
,. 2n th#s sect#on. 2 show that 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew *elongs to a process o& te;t)al evol)t#on w#th#n a =ew#sh He*rew m#l#e) that *egan #n earl#er t#mes and c)lm#nated #n d) T#llet #n the s#;teenth cent)ry. or poss#*ly later #& other te;t &orms are to *e ta3en #nto cons#derat#on. The wor3s 2 #ncl)de #n th#s e;am#nat#on are the He*rew polem#cal wr#t#ngs o& the 7oo3 o& Aestor (dat#ng perhaps *etween the s#;th and n#nth cent)r#es!. the M#lhamot Ha'hem *y =aco* *en Re)*en (1140!. 'epher =oseph Hame3ane *y Ra**# =oseph *en Aathan 0&&#c#al (th#rteenth cent)ry!. the A#GGahon Cet)s (latter part o& the th#rteenth cent)ry!. and the He*rew vers#ons o& Matthew p)*l#shed *y 'e*ast#an MDnster and d) T#llet. The s#m#lar#ty o& 'hem,To*-s te;t o& Matthew w#th the :)otat#ons o& Matthew #n the earl#er He*rew polem#cal wor3s shows that 'hem,To*-s te;t preserves an already e;#st#ng He*rew Matthean trad#t#on that had *een #n the process o& evol)t#on &or an )n3nown per#od o& t#me. !/. %etersen does not comment on th#s part o& my *oo3 e;cept to ment#on the 7oo3 o& Aestor. the M#lhamot Ha'hem. 'epher =oseph Hame3ane. and the A#GGahon Cet)s. and to call them &o)r He*rew Matthews (see a*ove. pars. 19,50!.

Pages 1+261+3
!1. Th#s sect#on. ent#tled: /Rev#s#on and Mod#&#cat#on o& the He*rew Te;t./ shows that the He*rew te;t o& 'hem,To*-s Matthew has )ndergone e;tens#ve rev#s#on thro)gho)t #ts transm#ss#on h#story. The rev#s#on #ncl)des alterat#on des#gned to *r#ng the He*rew #nto l#ne w#th the Iree3 and $at#n te;ts )sed d)r#ng the M#ddle @ges. to #mprove the style o& the He*rew. and to #ntrod)ce var#o)s e;traneo)s mater#al #nto the narrat#ve. !2. %etersen does not d#sc)ss th#s part o& my *oo3.

Pages 1+ 61,/
!3. 2n th#s sect#on 2 show that 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew #s character#Ged *y l#terary dev#ces s)ch as p)ns. word connect#ons. and all#terat#on. These are n)mero)s,,some parts o& the te;t are v#rt)ally sat)rated w#th them,,and they *elong to the very str)ct)re o& the

He*rew. The#r or#g#n cannot *e e;pla#ned *y the M#ddle >)tch $#?ge Harmony. 2 o&&er here some e;amples. P%ns ! . Matt 4:6: />o not throw yo)r pearls *e&ore sw#ne. lest they trample them )nder &oot and t)rn to attac3 yo)./ /'w#ne/ (ryG;! and /t)rn/ (rG;y! are s#m#lar #n He*rew. *oth #n so)nd and appearance. and &orm a wordplay #n the te;t. !!. Matt 16:1 : 2nstead o& the &amo)s Iree3 p)n. %e/troH/pe/traN. the He*rew reads. /Jo) are a stone. and )pon yo) 2 w#ll *)#ld my ho)se o& prayer./ The p)n cons#sts o& the word A*! /stone/ and hn*! /2 w#ll *)#ld./ !). Matt 59:54,5 : /Kor yo) are l#3e wh#tewashed tom*s. wh#ch o)twardly appear *ea)t#&)l. *)t w#th#n they are &)ll o& dead men-s *ones and all )ncleanness. 'o yo) also o)twardly appear r#ghteo)s to men. *)t w#th#n yo) are &)ll o& hypocr#sy and #n#:)#ty./ The p)n #nvolves the root r*: /tom*/ and *r: /w#th#n./ Word 1onne3tions !*. "ord connect#ons are l#n3s made *y the repet#t#on o& the same or s#m#lar words des#gned to t#e separate say#ngs and per#copes together. !+. Matt 4:51,59: /He t)rned &rom there and saw two other *rothers. =ames and =ohn. *rothers who were sons o& Oe*edeel El!yd*G &rom yd*G /g#&ts/ and l! /Iod./ perhaps mean#ng /g#&ts o& Iod/F . . . . Then =es)s went aro)nd the land o& Ial#lee teach#ng the#r assem*l#es and preach#ng to them the good g#&t (d*G! . . . o& the 3#ngdom o& Heaven./ The repet#t#on o& d*G /g#&t/ t#es the per#cope o& the call o& the d#sc#ples to the per#cope o& =es)s&#rst preach#ng to)r #n Ial#lee. !,. Matt +:9,10: /7lessed are those who p)rs)e EypdwrF peace . . . 7lessed are those who are persec)ted EMypdrnhF &or r#ghteo)sness/ E%dr P to p)rs)e/to persec)teF. )/. Matt :5 . 91: There met h#m Ew* w(gpywF two demon,possessed men. . . . Then the demons entreated h#m Ew* w(gpywF/ E(gp P to meet/to entreatF. )1. Matt 14:9+,96: /They *ro)ght to h#m all those who were s#c3 EMylw;hF w#th var#o)s 3#nds o& d#seases. They #mplored Ewl;wF h#m/ Ehl; P to *e s#c3/to #mploreF. )2. Matt 1+:94,94: /They answered. seven Eh(*QF and a &ew &#sh. 'o =es)s commanded the people to s#t )pon the grass. Then he too3 the seven Eh(*QhF loaves . . . . @ll o& them ate and were sat#s&#ed Ew(*QywF and &rom that wh#ch was rema#n#ng they &#lled seven Eh(*QhF seahs Eh(*Q P seven< (*Q P to *e sat#s&#edF. )3. Matt 1 :59,9+: Th#s para*le #s held together *y the catch,word MlQ. &#rst mean#ng /to repay./ then /per&ect./

@t that t#me =es)s sa#d to h#s d#sc#ples: the 3#ngdom o& heaven #s l#3e a certa#n 3#ng who sat to ma3e a rec3on#ng w#th h#s servants and m#n#sters. @s he *egan to rec3on. one came who owed a*o)t ten tho)sand p#eces o& gold. 7)t he had noth#ng to g#ve and h#s master commanded to sell h#m and h#s ch#ldren and all that was h#s to repay EMlQlF the val)e. The servant &ell *e&ore h#s master and #mplored h#m to have p#ty on h#m and to *e pat#ent w#th h#m *eca)se he wo)ld repay EMlQyF everyth#ng. Then h#s master had p#ty on h#m and &orgave h#m everyth#ng. 7)t that servant went o)t and &o)nd one o& h#s comrades who owed h#m a h)ndred p#eces o& money and he grasped h#m and str)c3 h#m say#ng . . . Tr)st me and *e pat#ent w#th me and 2 w#ll repay EMlQ!F everyth#ng. 7)t he was not w#ll#ng to l#sten to h#m< so they *ro)ght h#m to the pr#son )nt#l he repa#d EMlQF h#m everyth#ng. The servants o& the 3#ng saw that wh#ch he d#d and were very angry and went and told the#r master. Then h#s master called h#m and sa#d to h#m: C)rsed servant. d#d 2 not &org#ve yo) all yo)r de*t when yo) placated me8 'o why d#d yo) not &org#ve yo)r servant when he s)ppl#cated yo) as 2 &orgave yo)8 H#s master was angry w#th h#m and commanded to a&&l#ct h#m )nt#l he sho)ld repay EMlQyF h#m all the de*t. Th)s w#ll my Kather who #s #n heaven do to yo) #& yo) do not &org#ve each man h#s *rother w#th a per&ect EMlQF heart. ) . Matt 19:9,19: He who ta3es her who has *een d#vorced EhQwrghF comm#ts ad)ltery. . . . Then they *ro)ght ch#ldren to h#m . . . *)t h#s d#sc#ples were dr#v#ng EMyQrgmF them away EQrg P to d#vorce/to dr#ve awayF. )!. Matt 56:5 . 94,96: /Th#s #s my *lood o& the new covenant wh#ch w#ll *e po)red o)t &or many &or the atonement (trp3l! o& s#ns. . . . . =es)s sa#d. Tr)ly 2 say to yo). th#s n#ght *e&ore the coc3,crow yo) w#ll deny (rwp3t! me three t#mes. %eter sa#d to h#m. 2& #t #s poss#*le &or me to d#e w#th yo). 2 w#ll not deny (rwp3!! yo) . . . . Then =es)s came w#th them to the v#llage (rp3l! o& Ieshemon#m./ Th#s e;tended word connect#on #s made )p o& the words hrp3. mean#ng /atonement./ and rp3. mean#ng e#ther /to deny/ or /v#llage./ Alliteration )). There are many passages #n 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew that are str)ct)red aro)nd all#terat#on. #ncl)d#ng paronomas#a and rhymes o& var#o)s sorts.

Matt 4:15: /=ohn had *een del#vered )p #nto pr#son (rs!m* . . . rsmn!./ Matt 4:51: /two other *rothers (Myr;! My;!!./ Matt 9: : /The crowds saw and &eared (w!ryw . . . w!ryw !./ Matt 11:6: /7lesses #s the one who (rQ! yrQ!w!./ Matt 11:59: /Ta3e my yo3e )pon yo) (M3yl( ylw(! . . . and 3now that 2 am mee3 (yn! yn(!./ Matt 14:95: /The w#nd settled down (;wrh ;n!./

)*. %etersen does not d#sc)ss th#s part o& my *oo3.

Pages 1,261,
)+. 2n th#s sect#on 2 cons#der the short end#ng o& Matthew #n 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew and a s#m#lar short end#ng that K. C. Cony*eare o*served #n some man)scr#pts o& 1)se*#)s. Cony*eare s)ggested that the short end#ng #n 1)se*#)s. lac3#ng the Tr#n#tar#an *apt#smal &orm)la. was re&lected #n =)st#n Martyr ()ial$ 99. +9! and Hermas (Sim$ 9.54.4! (see Cony*eare 1901!. 0thers have added new ev#dence &or a short end#ng o& Matthew. and th#s ev#dence #s d#sc)ssed as well. ),. %etersen does not d#sc)ss th#s part o& my *oo3.

Pages 2/!6212
*/. 2n these pages 2 cons#der several anc#ent wr#t#ngs that have var#ant read#ngs #n agreement w#th 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew. These #ncl)de the %se)do,Clement#ne "r#t#ngs. The Tol!doth *eshu. and the +rote&an!elium of James$ The %se)do,Clement#ne "r#t#ngs. made )p pr#mar#ly o& the ,eco!nitions and Homilies (*)t also the %"itomes!. go *ac3 to an early th#rd cent)ry 'rundschrift. wh#ch #s #tsel& a comp#lat#on o& var#o)s wor3s. the oldest o& wh#ch #s the -er#!mata +etrou. or the +reachin! of +eter$ The Tol!doth *eshu #s a med#eval =ew#sh ant#gospel wh#ch e;#sts #n var#o)s &orms. 2t dates somewhere *etween the *eg#nn#ng o& the s#;th and the tenth cent)r#es. 2t draws on early trad#t#ons re&lected #n the Talm)d and 0r#gen-s Contra Celsum$ The +rote&an!elium of James dates perhaps #n the second cent)ry. *1. %etersen does not d#sc)ss th#s part o& my *oo3.

Pages 2126223
*2. Th#s sect#on o& the *oo3 #s ent#tled. /Theolog#cal Mot#&s #n 'hem,To*-s Matthew./ The mot#&s are made )p o& var#o)s themes s)ch as d#vorce. swear#ng. the Ient#les. the Chr#st. and =ohn the 7apt#st. 2n each #nstance the He*rew te;t o& 'hem,To* treats these s)*Hects d#&&erently than they are treated #n orthodo; Chr#st#an wr#t#ngs. The M#ddle >)tch $#?ge Harmony does not e;pla#n the or#g#n o& the theolog#cal patterns conta#ned #n these mot#&s. Three e;amples &ollow. #$e Gentiles *3. 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew env#s#ons the #ncorporat#on o& masses o& the Ient#les #nto the R#ngdom o& Iod not #n th#s present age *)t only a&ter th#s present age ends (Matt 5+:91,46!. 2ts theology th)s corresponds to the He*rew 7#*le and later =ew#sh tho)ght (#ncl)d#ng some &orms o& =ew#sh Chr#st#an tho)ght!. #n wh#ch the entrance o& the Ient#les #s ant#c#pated #n the golden age to come. 2n the canon#cal te;ts o& the Ch)rch. the Iospel o& Matthew ends w#th the Ireat Comm#ss#on (Matt 5 :19!. mandat#ng the d#sc#ples to /Io there&ore and ma3e d#sc#ples o& all nat#ons. *apt#G#ng them #n the name o& the Kather and o& the 'on and o& the Holy 'p#r#t./ Th#s end#ng clearly opens the doors to the Ient#les &or the present t#me. 7)t th#s end#ng does not occ)r #n the He*rew te;t. 2t reads #nstead. /Io and

teach them to carry o)t all the th#ngs wh#ch 2 have commanded yo) &orever./ Th#s #s sa#d apparently only #n re&erence to the =ews. and noth#ng #s sa#d a*o)t teach#ng or *apt#G#ng the Ient#le nat#ons. #$e 1$rist * . 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew has the pec)l#ar character#st#c o& not re&err#ng to =es)s as the Mess#ah/Chr#st )nt#l ch. 16. 7e&ore th#s. the He*rew te;t never calls =es)s the Mess#ah. 2n the canon#cal te;t o& Matthew. =es)s #s called the Chr#st &rom the very *eg#nn#ng. @ compar#son o& the Iree3 and He*rew te;ts s)ggests that these two te;t &orms have d#&&erent theolog#cal agendas. <o$n t$e 'aptist *!. 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew e;alts =ohn the 7apt#st a*ove the role he plays #n the canon#cal Matthew< c&. Matt 11:11. 19< 14:11. 2n s)mmary. these passages assert that none #s greater than =ohn the 7apt#st. the prophets and the law spo3e concern#ng =ohn. and =ohn came to save all the world. Trad#t#onal Chr#st#an#ty )ses th#s lang)age only #n regard to =es)s. 2ts appearance #n the He*rew Matthew to descr#*e =ohn elevates the 7apt#st to a salv#&#c role. Th#s clearly &l#es #n the &ace o& the orthodo; #nterpretat#on o& =ohn. *). 2n th#s sect#on. 2 ret)rn to the s)*Hect o& the Iospel o& =ohn #n a segment called /=ohn the 7apt#st: The Ko)rth Iospel and 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew/ (Howard 199+: 550, 551!. 2n #t 2 d#sc)ss the polem#c aga#nst =ohn the 7apt#st #n the Iospel o& =ohn. 2 demonstrate that 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew dep#cts the 7apt#st #n the e;alted terms the Ko)rth Iospel polem#Ges aga#nst. /2& the Ko)rth Iospel was d#rected aga#nst the &ollowers o& =ohn the 7apt#st./ 2 wr#te. /one co)ld hardly conce#ve o& a more appropr#ate doc)ment to represent th#s comm)n#ty than a 'hem,To* type Matthew/ (Howard 199+: 551!. **. "hen cr#t#c#G#ng my earl#er treatment o& 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew and the Iospel o& =ohn. %etersen cla#ms that 2 do not p)rs)e the matter &)rther. He wr#tes. /Howard does not p)rs)e #ts #mpl#cat#ons E%etersen 199 : par. 69F . . . . Howard ne#ther answers #t. nor does he present any add#t#onal arg)mentat#on or ev#dence< one #s s#mply le&t w#th h#s assert#on that these =ohann#ne sn#ppets s)ggest that -the a)thor o& the Ko)rth Iospel 3new a 'hem,To* type o& te;t o& Matthew and )sed E#tF when he wrote h#s gospel E%etersen 199 : par. 41F.-/ %etersen o*v#o)sly d#d not read pages 550,551 o& my *oo3. *+. 2n a recent art#cle (Howard 199 ! 2 d#sc)ss more &)lly the s#gn#&#cance o& the theolog#cal patterns r)nn#ng thro)gho)t the He*rew te;t o& 'hem,To*-s Matthew. 2 show that these patterns re&lect a heterodo; &orm o& =ew#sh Chr#st#an#ty. *,. %etersen does not d#sc)ss any part o& th#s sect#on.

Pages 223622,

+/. 2n th#s port#on o& the *oo3. 2 d#sc)ss passages #n 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew that rece#ve a d#&&erent mean#ng than they rece#ve #n the canon#cal vers#on. +1. Matt 19:55: The Iree3 reads. /"hen the yo)ng man heard th#s he went away sorrow&)l. &or he had great possess#ons./ The He*rew reads. /2t came to pass when the yo)ng man heard he went away angry *eca)se he d#d not have m)ch property./ +2. Matt 56:19: The Iree3 reads. /Tr)ly. 2 say to yo). wherever th#s gospel #s preached #n the whole world. what she has done w#ll *e told #n memory o& her./ The He*rew reads. /Tr)ly. 2 say to yo). everywhere th#s gospel . . . #s procla#med #n all the world. that wh#ch th#s one has done w#ll *e sa#d #n re&erence to my memory./ +3. Matt 5 :6: The Iree3 reads. /Come. see the place where he lay./ The He*rew reads. /Come. there&ore. and see the place where the $ord arose./ + . 2n some #nstances. d#&&erences *etween the Iree3 and He*rew te;ts can *e traced to poss#*le var#at#ons #n the He*rew trad#t#on. +!. Matt 4:6 #n the canon#cal te;t reads. />o not g#ve that wh#ch #s holy to the dogs./ The He*rew te;t reads. />o not g#ve holy &lesh to the dogs./ The d#&&erence #n He*rew #s: that wh#ch #s holy P Qd: rQ!< holy &lesh P Qd: rQ*. +). Matt 4:59 #n the canon#cal te;t reads. /Kor he was teach#ng them as one hav#ng a)thor#ty and not as the#r scr#*es./ The He*rew te;t reads. /Kor he was preach#ng to them w#th great power. not as the rest o& the sages./ The d#&&erence #n He*rew #s: as P rQ!3< as the rest P r!Q3. +*. Matt :56 #n the canon#cal te;t reads. /"hy are yo) &ear&)l8/ The He*rew te;t reads. /"hy do yo) loo3 at one another8/ The d#&&erence #n He*rew #s: are yo) &ear&)l P w!rt< do yo) loo3 at one another P w!rtt. ++. Matt 19:4 #n the canon#cal te;t reads. /"hen #t was &)ll. they drew #t )p on the shore./ The He*rew te;t reads. /"hen #t #s &)ll they draw #t o)t./ The d#&&erence #n He*rew #s: on the shore P %w;l< o)t P Cw;l. +,. Matt 59:94 #n the canon#cal te;t reads. /=er)salem. =er)salem. who 3#lls the prophets and stones those sent to her./ The He*rew te;t reads. /=er)salem. who 3#lls the prophets and removes those who are sent./ The d#&&erence #n He*rew #s: stones P tl:smw< removes P t:lsmw. ,/. Matt 56:59 #n the canon#cal te;t reads. /He who has d#pped h#s hand #n the d#sh w#th me w#ll *etray me./ The He*rew te;t reads. /He who d#ps h#s hand w#th me #n the d#sh w#ll sell me./ The d#&&erence #n He*rew #s: w#ll *etray me P ynrsmy< w#ll sell me P ynr3my. ,1. Many other e;amples are l#sted. %etersen does not d#sc)ss th#s part o& my *oo3.

Pages 22,6232
,2. 2n th#s segment. 2 d#sc)ss the )se o& the d#v#ne name #n 'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew. The He*rew employs the sym*ol Sh &or the >#v#ne Aame. wh#ch 2 s)ggest #s an a**rev#at#on &or MQh. /the Aame./ Th#s sym*ol occ)rs 19 t#mes #n the te;t. one t#me wr#tten o)t #n &)ll (5 :9!. (s)ally the >#v#ne Aame appears where the Iree3 reads 3)/r#oH. *)t tw#ce (51:15 mss. 55:91! the Iree3 reads :eo/H. and three t#mes the >#v#ne Aame has no correspondent #n the Iree3 (55:95< 54:9< 5 :9!. ,3. %etersen does not d#sc)ss th#s sect#on o& my *oo3.
= TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism > 1,,,.

'i0liograp$y
7lac3. Matthew 1964. An Aramaic A""roach to the 'os"els and Acts$ 9rd ed. 0;&ord: Clarendon. 7)r3#tt. K. Craw&ord 1904. %&an!elion )a-Me"harreshe$ Col. 5: Introduction and .otes$ Cam*r#dge: Cam*r#dge (n#vers#ty %ress. Cony*eare. K. C. 1901. /The 1)se*#an Korm o& the Te;t Matth. 5 . 19./ /eitschrift f0r die neutestamentliche 1issenschaft 5: 54+,5 . Howard. Ieorge 19 4. The 'os"el of Matthew accordin! to a +rimiti&e Hebrew Text$ Macon. I@: Mercer (n#vers#ty %ress< $o)va#n: %eeters. Howard. Ieorge 199+. Hebrew 'os"el of Matthew$ Macon. I@: Mercer (n#vers#ty %ress. Howard. Ieorge 199 . /'hem,To*-s He*rew Matthew and 1arly =ew#sh Chr#st#an#ty./ Journal for the Stud# of the .ew Testament 40: 9,50. $#ndsey. Ro*ert $. 1969. A Hebrew Translation of the 'os"el of Mar2$ =er)salem: >)g#th %)*l#shers. %etersen. "#ll#am $. 199 . /'ome 0*servat#ons on a Recent 1d#t#on o& and 2ntrod)ct#on to 'hem,To*-s -He*rew Matthew.-/ TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 9. %loo#H. >an#Tl 1959,1940. The Li3!e )iatessaron$ Cerhandel#ngen der 3on#n3l#H3e Aederlandse @3adem#e van "etenschappen. @&del#ng $etter3)nde. vol. 91. @msterdam: Ron#n3l#H3e @3adem#e "etenschappen te @msterdam.