Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
10-13-2005, 05:41 AM | #11 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: home
Posts: 265
|
Does anyone know anything about Shem-Tob's Hebrew Gospel of Matthew? I wanted to look into it, but presently know little about it. All I know so far is that it was written in Hebrew. Found in the 14th century in the body of a treatise; Evan bohan? The best manuscript is in the British Library in london. This copy has Matthew 28:18-20
Quote:
|
|
10-13-2005, 06:02 AM | #12 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,307
|
For more information about the Shem-Tov Hebrew Matthew, you may wish to read: William L. Peterson, Some Observations on a Recent Edition of and Introduction to Shem-Tob's "Hebrew Matthew" and George Howard's Response to William L. Petersen's Review of Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.
|
10-13-2005, 09:27 AM | #13 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: home
Posts: 265
|
Quote:
cass |
|
11-06-2005, 04:54 PM | #14 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
|
Bringing this back for a minute - Eusebius apparently cites Matthew 28.19 without the trinitarian formula.
|
11-07-2005, 06:34 AM | #15 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
|
Quote:
Quick question. Is there some known academic reason for the condescending tone struck by Petersen against Howard in that first link? Howard might be exaggerating a bit when he calls it personal virulence, but it certainly bangs against the ear. Ben. |
|
11-07-2005, 07:19 AM | #16 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
|
Matthew was the most heavily cited of the Gospels in antiquity. If Eusebius' manuscript did not have this, there must be others....here's all the citations from E-Catena
Vorkosigan |
11-07-2005, 07:22 AM | #17 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,307
|
Quote:
(This leads me to suspect that the mention of Shedinger in P's review of Howard is in no way gratuitous but a clue to what P believes the stakes to be.) Stephen |
|
11-07-2005, 07:22 AM | #18 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
|
Thanks for the links Steve. The Gospel of Thomas stuff was especially interesting.
Michael |
11-07-2005, 07:56 AM | #19 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
|
Quote:
One could go on. Everyone has lapses of judgment; everyone makes mistakes—even Homer nodded. But that is not the issue. Here the errors are so frequent and so fundamental that this volume can contribute nothing to scholarship. What it says that is true has already been said elsewhere, with greater clarity and perspective. What it says that is new is almost always wrong, plagued—as we have shown above—with philological, logical, and methodological errors, and a gross insensitivity to things historical (both within the discipline, as well as the transmission-history of texts). Reading this book fills one with dismay and despair. It is shocking that a work which does not rise to the level of a master's thesis should be approved as a doctoral dissertation; how it found its way into print is unfathomable. One shudders to think of the damage it will do when, in the future, it is cited by the ignorant and the unsuspecting as "demonstrating" what it has not.Gross insensitivity. Dismay and despair. Shocking. One shudders. I rather liked Petersen in his appendix to Koester, ACG. Guess he had nobody to throw spears at there. (As a total aside, I note a Vorkosigan favorite in that paragraph: Homer nods. I am no longer able to read those words without hearing the distant echo, but Mark never sleeps.) Ben. |
|
11-07-2005, 07:44 PM | #20 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|