SeekGod.ca Discussion Forum

Shem Tov or Shem Tob Matthew--The Hebrew Matthew--propping up the poor scholarship of many within HR is the belief that the Greek New Testament is deliberately mistranslated, or some other 'theory' and that the New Testament had to be written in Hebrew, even though some will also state there are no original Hebrew manuscripts --which is the actual truth in this matter.

That said, the belief of a Hebrew New Testament is promoted by the claim that the Shem Tov or Shem Tob is "THE" proof of a Hebrew Matthew, and by extension, a complete Hebrew New Testament.

The reality---it was written as a polemic by a practicing Jew to try and bring Jews back to Judaism who had proclaimed Christ.

The Shem Tob Matthew or "Hebrew" text of Matthew in the New Testament> origin of this supposed original reveals it was a 1400's copy of a Latin text which was changed to promote an anti Christian bias. In other words a polemic against Christ and Christians. In this "version" of Matthew, it is taught that preaching the gospel to the gentiles is of the anti-christ.
It reads: Matt 24:14-15: "And this gospel will be preached in all the earth for a witness concerning me to all the nations and then the end will come. This is the Anti-Christ and this is the abomination which desolates which was spoken of by Daniel as standing in the holy place. Let the one who reads understand." This "translation" also denies the divinity of Jesus, because it never identifies Him as the Christ; Matthew 1:1 "these are the generations of Jesus..."; 1:18 "The birth of Jesus was in this way . . ." John the Baptist is given an exalted role: Matt 11:11 "Truly, I say to you, among all those born of women men has risen greater than John the Baptizer.", while the rest of the passage "notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he" has been eliminated

The supposed Hebrew Matthews or Shem Tob Matthew used by many in HR are from the 1400-1500 range CE. Precisely, ShemTob is dated 1380, while DuTillet and Muenster are about 1550. Together they make up the "Middle Ages Matthews" but, they are very different, and are in disagreement with each other in various places, and that is one of the ironies.

The "corrupt" Shem Tob Matthew was used in the ISR "translation" used by many within HR: http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Scriptures/SISR.htm

Many linguists and historians now attest that the Evangels, the Acts, and the Book of Revelation were composed in Hebrew. Early "church fathers" validate that the Book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (see Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 3:39; Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3:1; Epiphanius' Panarion 20:9:4; Jerome's Lives of Illustrious Men 3 and De Vir. 3:36)

Following is a listing of some linguistic and Biblical authorities who maintain or support a belief in a Hebrew origin of the New Testament:
Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, third edition, entirety.
D. Bivin and R. B. Blizzard, Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, entirety.
E. W. Bullinger, The Companion Bible, Appendix 95.
Dr. F. C. Burkitt, The Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus, pp. 25, 29.
Prof. C. F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, entirety.
Epiphanius, Panarion 29:9:4 on Matthew.
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, III 24:6 and 39:18; V8:2; VI 25:4.
Edward Gibbon, History of Christianity, two footnotes on p. 185.
Dr. Frederick C. Grant, Roman Hellenism and the New Testament, p. 14.
Dr. George Howard, The Tetragram and the New Testament in Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 96/1 (1977), 63-83. Also, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, entirety.
Dr. George Lamsa, The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts, Introduction, pp. IX-XII.
Dr. Alfred F. Loisy, The Birth of the Christian Religion and the Origin of the New Testament, pp. 66, 68.
Dr. Isaac Rabinowitz, Ephphata...in Journal of Semitic Studies vol. XVI (1971), pp. 151-156.
Ernest Renan, The Life of Jesus, pp. 90, 92.
Hugh J. Schonfield, An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's Gospel, (1927) p. 7.
Dr. Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, p. 275.
R. B. Y. Scott, The Original Language of the Apocalypse, entirety.
Prof. Charles C. Torrey, Documents of the Primitive Church, entirety. Also, Our Translated Gospels, entirety.
Dr. James Scott Trimm, The semitic Origin of the New Testament, entirety.
Max Wiolcox, The Semitism of Acts (1965), entirety.
F. Zimmerman, The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels, entirety.

While we some 1900 years after the fact can't know for sure, it surely isn't out of the realm of possibility to believe that Matthew did compose in Hebrew.

(12-28-2008 09:57 PM)carl37 Wrote: [ -> ]...
Following is a listing of some linguistic and Biblical authorities who maintain or support a belief in a Hebrew origin of the New Testament:
Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, third edition, entirety.
D. Bivin and R. B. Blizzard, Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, entirety.
E. W. Bullinger, The Companion Bible, Appendix 95.
Dr. F. C. Burkitt, The Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus, pp. 25, 29.
Prof. C. F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, entirety.
Epiphanius, Panarion 29:9:4 on Matthew.
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, III 24:6 and 39:18; V8:2; VI 25:4.
Edward Gibbon, History of Christianity, two footnotes on p. 185.
Dr. Frederick C. Grant, Roman Hellenism and the New Testament, p. 14.
Dr. George Howard, The Tetragram and the New Testament in Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 96/1 (1977), 63-83. Also, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, entirety.
Dr. George Lamsa, The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts, Introduction, pp. IX-XII.
Dr. Alfred F. Loisy, The Birth of the Christian Religion and the Origin of the New Testament, pp. 66, 68.
Dr. Isaac Rabinowitz, Ephphata...in Journal of Semitic Studies vol. XVI (1971), pp. 151-156.
Ernest Renan, The Life of Jesus, pp. 90, 92.
Hugh J. Schonfield, An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's Gospel, (1927) p. 7.
Dr. Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, p. 275.
R. B. Y. Scott, The Original Language of the Apocalypse, entirety.
Prof. Charles C. Torrey, Documents of the Primitive Church, entirety. Also, Our Translated Gospels, entirety.
Dr. James Scott Trimm, The semitic Origin of the New Testament, entirety.
Max Wiolcox, The Semitism of Acts (1965), entirety.
F. Zimmerman, The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels, entirety.
...

Carl, about your list of scholars

Let me look again

Sorry, let me see, scholar, James Trimm.

Sorry...I'll try to be serious...let me read that again..Dr. James Scott Trimm .

I will try one more time...to be serious...

Sorry, just can't do it...

I promise, tomorrow I will give a serious answer...



Will definitely have to sleep on it...

Too funny!

I would kindly request that when replying to one of my posts that you refrain from using the emoticons. While some may think it cute, I find it condescending and unnecessary and even childish. In case you don't realize let me put it is simple terms for you. Every time someone posts something that is disagreed with by mainly the administrators, they use the emoticons to try and belittle the poster and try to make them feel inferior. It is unnecessary and really shows that the love of Yehushua is sorely lacking. Now to the more serious business of the day. Can you say without a shadow of a doubt that there was no Hebrew Matthew? No you can't. If you claim otherwise you are lying. You were not there and cannot know 100%. We have today a New Testament that is at best somewhat accurate. Do you deny that Eusebius and Irenaeus quoted that Matthew transcribed the gospel in the native Hebrew tongue? Since my list is all false let's see who else we can find. The third century church father Origen complained "The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others: they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please." Celsus a known pagan in the second century maligned the copyists for the same thing "some believers, as though from a drinking bout, go so far as to oppose themselves and alter the original text of the gospel three or four or several times over, and they change its character to enable them to deny difficulties in face of criticism." Dionysius complained "When my fellow-christians invited me to write letters to them I did so. These the devil's apostles have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others. For them the woe is reserved. Small wonder then if some have dared to tamper even with the word of the lord himself, when they have conspired to mutilate my own humble efforts." It is widely know that the New Testament today is composed of fragments of many thousands of manuscript. It is widely known that up until the invention of the printing press that only the rich could afford to have a book as they had to hire a professional scribe and it was a painstaking and long process. Now what happened if just one letter or word was omitted and the book was copied again and a different letter or word was omitted? Or rather someone was translating from one language to another and tried to apply a thought in one language into an entirely different language? People really need to stop and think. It is entirely foolish to think that the scriptures have absolutely no errors. The Almighty gave the word and we know that it is truth. But as history proves time and time again, anytime man gets involved there are bound to be problems.

(12-29-2008 11:31 AM)carl37 Wrote: [ -> ]I would kindly request that when replying to one of my posts that you refrain from using the emoticons. While some may think it cute, I find it condescending and unnecessary and even childish. In case you don't realize let me put it is simple terms for you. Every time someone posts something that is disagreed with by mainly the administrators, they use the emoticons to try and belittle the poster and try to make them feel inferior. It is unnecessary and really shows that the love of Yehushua is sorely lacking. Now to the more serious business of the day. Can you say without a shadow of a doubt that there was no Hebrew Matthew? ...

Carl, that you are offended is showing you lack understanding of the posts. Further, when you get your own forum, you can tell the admins and other posters what they can and cannot say or do. OK?

For information concerning why the use of smilies, please go here >
http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.php?tid=42

Now that that is out of the way, allow me to apologise for offending you. You need to understand that I and the others have a sense of humor...and you might want to lighten up or you are likely going to get offended again. This is a discussion forum and there are topics where people are going to be passionate and I would recommend you learn to use the smilies to offset your intensity and passion or you may come across as miserable and unapproachable. You may think it's childish, but the smilies are there to help people put across their meaning. Like it or not, they stay.

Now, I said to you in my post I would respond to your "list" and I will. I do research Carl, and I don't just dump out unchecked facts just to appease someone's ego. Nor do I make comment before I am ready.

Rose asked you where you obtained the list, and since you're into protocol and correct forum behavior, perhaps you could reply to that question.

Not to worry though, Carl, I already have the research on that.
Further, the "List" of Hebrew Primacists is loaded with Aramaic primacists--apparently your source doesn't know the difference. Do you?

Could there have been a Hebrew version of Matthew along with the Greek--that's really a no brainer. Of course there could, but since there are no original transcripts it becomes a moot point. Further, if there were such, there is no reason to believe they wouldn't be as "mistranslated" as the Greek, according to some.

And again, regarding the "list", you need to read my site regarding James Trimm and there's a few more on the list that have been written about with regard to the Hebrew Matthew/shem tob, etc

http://www.seekgod.ca/topichrministries.htm#james

Incidentally, I didn't update my information on James Trimm when he publicly announced that he had been committing adultery for years-believe that was announced in fall of 2007... Unclean hands....

Carl,

It's a shame that you have issue with the smileys.I haven’t witnessed any belittling done through them.Like the admins have said ,we use them to lighten up the mood and express emotions that have no equivalent with written text.

I am not too sure what your issue is here, since the thread was to discuss the shem tov matthew.
We do not have a reliable hebrew copy and that is fact. We do have 5,656 manuscripts in greek however, and thanks to that we can see clearly ,on the table,so to speak what these contain.
We also have 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other early manuscripts in other maguages.
Are there minor variants? Yes. Are they significant in that they would seriously change any thing taught in NT.? No.
You said

Quote:Or rather someone was translating from one language to another and tried to apply a thought in one language into an entirely different language?

That happens all the time when translating and some translators are more faithful to the text than others.So not sure what you meant by that.
Some of the scholars you gave aren’t scholars .
Mr Trimm I have encountered personally in an internet chatroom and he couldn’t even translate for me a sentence of a famous psalm into Hebrew. In fact when I asked if he could at least point out to me where it was from he red dotted me and I wasn't allowed to speak.

Quote:We have today a New Testament that is at best somewhat accurate.

That is really weird, you defend dubious "scholars" yet you don’t defend the NT. So what is your point? Are you trying to tell us that because we don’t have the gospels written in Hebrew that they are inaccurate? Are the thousands of greek manuscripts all wrong? I believe you are and if so I ask you ,if you think these are so wrong ,what do you base your faith on? Do you think God could not preserve the words of the witnesses to what happened when Jesus walked the earth?.
No-one here seems to be saying that there could not have been written any hebrew manuscripts at all,but regardless of however much scholars or laymen theorise the fact remains that noone can produce as much as a fragment of one.So while its plausible that there was once there may have been Hebrew copiees or versions of any of the gospels,the fact remains we don’t possess them.

I really don’t understand the big deal and defensiveness of your post.
You gave a list heading it with " Early "church fathers" validate that the Book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew"
However no scholar worth his salt is going to validate that because he cannot unless he produces those hebrew manuscripts.It is a theory and nothing is validated.

ps note I refrained from smileys (sticking tongue out smiley should go here )

(12-28-2008 09:57 PM)carl37 Wrote: [ -> ]Many linguists and historians now attest that the Evangels, the Acts, and the Book of Revelation were composed in Hebrew. Early "church fathers" validate that the Book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (see Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 3:39; Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3:1; Epiphanius' Panarion 20:9:4; Jerome's Lives of Illustrious Men 3 and De Vir. 3:36)

Following is a listing of some linguistic and Biblical authorities who maintain or support a belief in a Hebrew origin of the New Testament:
...

As I stated previously Carl, I would answer your "list" of scholars supposedly maintaining a belief in a Hebrew origin of the NT. As I noted in my prior post---many in the list are actually Aramaic primacists, not Hebrew primacists. That said, lets take a brief look at the scholars your source mentions:

Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, third edition, entirety. ***note the title is not a Hebrew approach but Aramaic.

MA, BD, DLitt(Glas), DrPhil(Bonn), DD(Glas, Cantab, Kingston, Ont),
DTheol(Münster), LLD(StAnd), FBA

He was elected to the Chair of Biblical Criticism and Biblical Antiquities in the University of Edinburgh in 1952 and he came to St Andrews in 1954 as Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism and Principal of St Mary's College. He had a long and influential tenure and became Emeritus in 1978...

Black's principal quarrel with Dalman (also with Torrey and Burney)was that he had not been sufficiently discriminating in his use of Aramaic, that he had employed Targumic Aramaic and had not identified the Palestinian Aramaic dialect which would have elucidated correctly the Aramaic background of the Gospels. Black's approach was both linguistic and textual. The latter betrayed his abiding interest in the Greek manuscripts on which a critical edition of the New Testament is founded and which are the source of its textual criticism. His book has had a considerable influence on the subsequent course of New Testament Studies and is an illustration of the advantages enjoyed by a New Testament scholar who has both classical learning and a knowledge of the Semitic languages

The 'Son of Man' topic appears in Black's published articles as early as 1948 and the centre of interest is the one which prevails throughout his 'Son of Man' studies: he focuses attention on the 'Similitudes of Enoch' (1 Enoch 37-71) which he holds is a pre-Christian and Jewish Apocalypse and for which he claims an Aramaic or Hebrew original. In 1970 he published a Greek text of Enoch (Apocalypsis Henochi Graeca) and in 1976 he collaborated with J T Milik in the publication of The Books of Enoch:Fragments of Qumran Cave 4. The circumstance that no Aramaic fragments of the Similitudes of Enoch were recovered from Cave 4 was a disappointment to Black, but in 1976 he reiterated his view that the Similitudes were the foundation of the 'Son of Man' christology in the New Testament. Finally he published The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch in 1985...
http://www.ma.hw.ac.uk/RSE/fellowship/ob...atthew.pdf

D. Bivin and R. B. Blizzard, Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, entirety

A book published in 1984 by David Bivin, Director of the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research or JSSR and Roy Blizzard that has formed the basis of much Hebrew Roots' doctrine.

The following excerpts from Understanding The Difficult Words Of Jesus represent the JSSR viewpoint on the lack of originality of the Greek New Testament: 
"...Our reasons for writing this book are not only to show that the original gospel was communicated in the Hebrew language; but to show that the entire New Testament can only be understood from a Hebrew perspective.

2. "It cannot be overemphasised, that the key to an understanding of the New Testament is a fluent knowledge of Hebrew and an intimate acquaintance with Jewish history, culture, and Rabbinic Literature."
 
Jesus Christ is identified by the JSSR as being "like other Jewish sages of that time".

E. W. Bullinger, The Companion Bible, Appendix 95.

“while the language is Greek, the thoughts and idioms are Hebrew.” ****does not mean it was written in Hebrew-says in fact it is Greek.

The Way International began with Victor Paul Wierwille who developed many of his theological ideas by plagiarizing from such writers as E.W. Bullinger, George Lamsa, Kenyon and several others. The Way International teachings include: Jesus Christ is not God, denial of the three persons of the Godhead, i.e. no Father, Son and Holy Spirit, 4 Mary was not the mother of God come in the flesh, but the mother of a man, the Old and New Testaments were originally written in Aramaic, pro-abortion, bad seed theology, mass weddings, stockpiling of weapons, American holocaust and invasion, them or us mentality and much more. 5

Responding to the widespread Zodiac ‘Gospel’ in the BDM aricle, “Gospel in the Stars,” the authors state: 
“This theory was popular in the late 1800s. Some of the books published then have lately been brought back into print, among them E.W. Bullinger's The Witness of the Stars (1893) and Joseph A. Seiss's The Gospel in the Stars (1884), both republished by Kregel. It is asserted that the signs of the Zodiac were originally designed by God to communicate the "gospel;" that this "Gospel in the Stars" was known to those living before the Flood; that it was later corrupted into astrology; and that the alleged recovery of the "gospel interpretation" of the Zodiac is a great "witness" to God and His Word.”

Dr. F. C. Burkitt, The Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus, pp. 25, 29

The Quest of the Historical Jesus By F. C. Burkitt & Albert Schweitzer

Burkitt and Schweitzer published The Quest of the Historical Jesus in 1906 and Schweitzer concluded (a) The quest has been a dismal failure. (b) There is no history of Jesus that can be discovered. © He said about his own book: "In the last resort this book can only express the misgivings about the historical Jesus as depicted by modern theology. There is nothing more negative than the results of the critical study of the life of Jesus."

The Quest of The Historical Jesus" will confirm, regardless of which side of the debate you are on, the following points:

1) The belief on Jesus Christ is a matter of Faith.
2) The Gospels stripped of miracles and the divinity of Christ become nonsense and incoherent.
3) The Christ of Schweitzer, who is merely a philosophical ideal of the early church rather than the God/Man in history, is no threat to the spirit of any age and does not get in the way of man being "the measure of all things."

Prof. C. F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, entirety.

Following the suggestions of J.B. Lightfoot in 'Biblical Essays', Burney conducts a close examination of the language of the Fourth Gospel. He concludes that the book is based upon an Aramaic original.
http://wipfandstock.com/store/The_Aramai...rth_Gospel

..."he put forward the possibility that in the future a Semitic scholar might arise who, examining the language of the Fourth Gospel in detail, would prove beyond the range of reasonable doubt that it was based upon an Aramaic original..."
http://www.archive.org/stream/aramaicori...h_djvu.txt


Epiphanius, Panarion 29:9:4 on Matthew.

"where the sect of the Nazarenes is discussed at some length together with their Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew." History of Scholarship By Christopher Ligota, Jean-Louis Quantin pg 205 Neander's Edition of Luther's Catechism

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, III 24:6 and 39:18; V8:2; VI 25:4. .
Not researched

Edward Gibbon, History of Christianity, two footnotes on p. 185.

Known as a prolific writer, and historian, he was also a Freemason, was known as very harsh against Christianity and some of his writing brought accusations of anti-semitism.

Dr. Frederick C. Grant, Roman Hellenism and the New Testament, p. 14.

Frederick C. Grant was Edwin Robinson Professor Emeritus of Biblical Theology at Union Theological Seminary, New York, and President of Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, Evanstaon Ill. He was a member of the Revision Committee for the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. Published by Abingdon Press, New York and Nashville, 1943.

RSV uses the Alexandrian mss for the NT

More to come!

Response to Carl continued Re" list of Scholars

Dr. George Howard, The Tetragram and the New Testament in Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 96/1 (1977), 63-83. Also, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, entirety.

Dr. George Howard in his article, ‘The Tetragram and the New Testament’ in the Journal of Biblical Literature 1977, shows that the HeavenlyFather’s Name was written in the Pre-Christian Greek Bible (Septuagint) in Aramaic or in Palaeo-Hebrew letters or was transliterated into Greek letters...As long as it was retained in the Greek Old Testament (LXX), the Tetragram was incorporated into the New Testament text when it quoted from the O.T.. However when it was removed from the Greek O.T., it was also removed from the quotations of the O.T. in the N.T. Thus somewhere around the beginning of the 2nd century the use of surrogates crowded out the Tetragram in both Testaments. Before long the Divine Name was lost to the Gentile Church altogether except where it was occasionally remembered by scholars! "
http://www.olivetreeoutreach.org/TheName...t-Name.htm

"Howard's Hebrew Gospel of Matthew." a book by George Howard titled Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (1995) that contains a medieval Hebrew text of the Gospel of Matthew called Shem Tov, or Shem Tob. Howard translated it from the Hebrew into English in a parallel version of Hebrew and English. He also adds his copious notes to explain the details and findings of the Shem Tov (Shem Tob) Hebrew manuscript. "
From http://www.seekgod.ca/restorationscriptures.htm

The Shem Tov Matthew or any Hebrew Matthews, originated in Europe between 1300-1500. Precisely, Shem Tov or Shem Tob is dated 1380, while DuTillet and Muenster are about 1550. Together they make up the "Middle Ages Matthews" but, they are very different, and as one stated, that is one of the ironies.

Shem Tov's "Matthew", or Shem Tob's Matthew as some call it, which textual critics will tell you, is nothing more than an altered medieval text,
which is a corrupt copy of the Latin text, which was originally copied from the Greek by those who didn't believe in Christ. Most legitimate textualcritics have all but ignored this middle age manuscript.

The truth is that uninformed believers are being led by unbelievers to accept an altered anti-Christian version of Matthew that was included in the writing titled "Even Bohan" or "The Touchstone." This document was authored by Shem Tov, an unbelieving anti-Christian Jewish writer who some have referred to as a theologian, who resided in Spain during the fourteenth century. His copy of Hebrew Matthew has anti-Christian polemical commentary by him throughout the text.

The Jewish Encyclopedia states this about the author of the Even Bohan:

"...As a Talmudic scholar he carried on a correspondence with Sheshet. At Tarazona he completed his "Eben Bohan" (May, 1380 or 1385), a polemical work against baptized Jews..." [IBN SHAPRUT (SHAFRUT, By : Richard Gottheil ; Meyer Kayserling
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.j...em%20tov%2",,-1,0,,,,]

The Shem Tov Matthew "translation" never identifies Jesus as the Messiah, gives John the Baptist an exalted role, Jesus' role in forgiving sins is omitted, and Jesus' ability to save all His people from their sins is also eliminated. It is also written in this "translation" that preaching the Gospel to the gentiles is of the anti-christ.

For a comparison of Shem Tob Matthew verses to the KJB see Michael Rood of A Rood Awakening and Nehemia Gordon, US Speaking Tour January 2005 Raiders of Nothing of Value > http://www.seekgod.ca/roodnewsflash.htm

Just a brief comparison of phrases from the Shem Tov to the KJB, reveals these anti-Christian alterations to Scriptural Truth. The Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew quotes are from George Howard's 'Hebrew Gospel of Matthew', published by Mercer University Press (1995).

"...Dr. William L. Petersen, The Genesis of Shem Tob Matthew: "104. There is no mystery about the genesis of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew. It is obvious that it incorporates material from a variety of sources (e.g., from the Toledoth Jeshu, the Vetus Latina, etc.). But because of the high number of agreements with the Liège Harmony, many of them unique, the tradition behind the Liège Harmony--which we know to be a Latin gospel harmony--must also be the principal element responsible for the textual complexion of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew:"
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol03/Pete...tml#par133 " http://www.seekgod.ca/roodnewsflash.htm

Dr. George Lamsa, The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts, Introduction, pp. IX-XII.

George Lamsa's translation of the Peshitta New Testament from Syriac into English brought the Aramaic Primacy issue to the West. However, his
translation is poorly regarded by most scholars in the field.[1]

Lamsa developed his own cultlike following over the years. He founded the Aramaic Bible Society in 1943 to propagate his work. ...the Aramaic
Bible Distribution Society desires to carry on the "Lamsa work" and place a Lamsa Bible "on every pulpit and in every home." It considers Lamsa's life miraculous and singularly qualified to bring "Truth" to the world. Society brochures state, "We believe that long ago, God formulated a Plan — and when the time was right, He brought Lamsa into the world to begin the fulfillment of that Plan." George M. Lamsa: Christian Scholar or Cultic Torchbearer?, by John P. Juedes

Dr. Alfred F. Loisy, The Birth of the Christian Religion and the Origin of the New Testament, pp. 66, 68.

Loisy was a Roman Catholic scholar who took a modernist view of Scripture, theology and church history and believed the need of an authoritativechurch tradition aka the Roman Catholic church

"Alfred Loisy, for example, in The Birth of the Christian Religion, argues that Iesous Nazarene meant not Jesus "from Nazareth", but rather that his title was "Nazarene" ...Though some scholars attempt to link "Nazarene" to "Nazirite" (a person who had taken a vow of holiness and thus was 'separated out' from the masses), the Gospel portrait of Jesus is hardly that of the ascetic Jewish Nazirite who abstains from alcohol and avoids corpses."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth

Dr. Isaac Rabinowitz, Ephphata...in Journal of Semitic Studies vol. XVI (1971), pp. 151-156.

An orthodox Jews who died in 1984; became deputy editor-in-chief of the Encyclopaedia Judaica in Israel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Isaac_Rabinowitz

More to Come!

Continuing Response to Carl Re; List of Scholars

Ernest Renan, The Life of Jesus, pp. 90, 92.

Ernest Renan (1823-1892). His Life of Jesus appeared in 1863 and his life of Jesus followed the unhistorical gospel of John which prompted Albert Schweitzer to comment "There is scarcely any other work on the subject which so abounds in lapses of bad taste . . . It is Christian art in the worst sense of the term . . . There is insincerity in the book from beginning to end."
http://www.infidels.org/library/historic...jesus.html

"...According to Renan, the raising of Lazarus was a trick, planned by the subject of the pretended miracle with the aid of Martha and Mary...The story of his resurrection a day or two later was started by the hallucinations of a frenzied devotee, Mary of Magdala. A woman's love and folly had given to the world a risen God!.."

".... Jesus was ignorant of the very name of Buddha, of Zoroaster, and of Plato; he had read no Greek book, no Buddhist Sudra, nevertheless there was in him more than one element, which, without his suspecting it, came from Buddhism, Parseeism, or from the Greek wisdom. All this was done through secret channels and by that kind of sympathy which exists among the various portions of humanity. .... To show that the religion founded by Jesus was the natural consequence of that which had gone before ....

...Is it more just to say that Jesus owes all to Judaism, and that his greatness is only that of the Jewish people? No one is more disposed than myself to place high this unique people, whose particular gift seems to have been to contain in its midst the extremes of good and evil. No doubt, Jesus proceeded from Judaism; but he proceeded from it as Socrates proceeded from the schools of the Sophists, . ... ...

...IT is well known that the appearance of 'The Life of Jesus' was the signal for an outburst of orthodox indignation against the man who dared to reduce Jesus from a Divinity to a human being...

"...That which Renan regarded as certain in the life of Jesus may be stated in a few lines. He existed. His home was Nazareth in Galilee. His preaching had a powerful charm for the multitude. His aphorisms made a deep impression on his followers. Peter and John were his principal disciples. He excited the hatred of the orthodox Jews, who arraigned him before Pontius Pilate, then Procurator of Judoed, under whom he was crucified. It was believed that, after two or three days, he had risen from the dead. Beyond this all is doubtful. .... Little reliance can be placed on the Gospel statements on these points,...

Hugh J. Schonfield, An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's Gospel, (1927) p. 7.

During the 1960’s, Hugh J. Schonfield created quite a stir when he published a best-selling book entitled The Passover Plot. The cover of the book briefly explains that the book is a “new interpretation of the life and death of Jesus.”[1] In reality, The Passover Plot is a bold denial of much of Jesus’ life and the circumstances of His death, burial, and resurrection. Naturally, many Christians protested the book while atheists and skeptics praised it.

Schonfield identified himself as a Jew on the first page of the book.[2] So it should come as no surprise to the reader that he would deny the New Testament and its teachings concerning Jesus Christ.

Dr. Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, p. 275.

Schweitzer concluded that Jesus died a deluded prophet of a supernatural Kingdom of God that never broke into history.

Schweitzer identified Paul as the one who solved the dilemma created for Christians by the death of Jesus and the non-appearance of the Kingdom of God that he proclaimed by means of a Christ mysticism that became central to Christian belief and experience. http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/schweitzer.htm

Schweitzer denied Christ http://www.mcmaster.ca/mjtm/2-51.htm

R. B. Y. Scott, The Original Language of the Apocalypse, entirety.

Scott was part of the neo orthodoxy movement; was on the faculty of Princeton as was Metzger.

That concept >The Bible is said to contain within it an inspired witness, but it is a mistake to directly identify Scripture as the Word of God; Jesus, the person, is the Word of God. The Bible can become the Word of God only when God chooses to use it to reveal himself. Therefore, the actual text and words of Scripture are not identified as the Word of God. Rather, it is an instrument to communicate and witness to the true Word, Jesus. Neo-Orthodoxy accepts higher criticism of the Scriptures but believes exegesis must move beyond mere historical inquiries.

Prof. Charles C. Torrey, Documents of the Primitive Church, entirety. Also, Our Translated Gospels, entirety.

"Torrey’s Islāmic studies are represented by The Mohammedan Conquest of Egypt and North Africa (1901), based on the Arabic work of Ibn ʿAbd
al-Hakam, of which he subsequently published an edition (1922), and by The Jewish Foundation of Islam (1933). ... In The Translations Made from the Original Aramaic Gospels (1912), The Four Gospels: A New Translation (1933), and Our Translated Gospels (1936), Torrey held that the four Gospels were Greek translations from Aramaic originals. The posthumous Apocalypse of John (1958) argues that Revelation was a translation of an Aramaic original written in ad 68..."

**** Revelation was written about 95 ad.

Torrey studied at Bowdoin (Maine) College and Andover (Mass.) Theological Seminary and in Europe. He taught Semitic languages at Andover (1892–1900) and Yale (1900–32), and was founder and first director (1900–01) of the American School of Archaeology (later renamed the American School of Oriental Research) at Jerusalem."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Cutler_Torrey
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...ler-Torrey

9 In his Documents of the Primitive Church (1941), pp. 149-144, C. C. Torrey has a chapter on “The Language and Date of the Apocalypse”, in which he gives a detailed argument that the Greek of the Apocalypse is a most literal translation of an Aramaic original.

Torrey promoted Islam as an influence of Israel's theology.http://books.google.com/books?id=_ScS1MjUzdYC&pg=PA75&lpg=PA74&ots=TIedtah2ef&dq=Charles+Cutler+Torrey+biography&ie=ISO-8859-1&output=html

Dr. James Scott Trimm, The semitic Origin of the New Testament, entirety.

http://www.seekgod.ca/topichrministries.htm#james

and for his statements concerning adultery etc >

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_...sage/14317

Max Wiolcox, The Semitism of Acts (1965), entirety.

***Spelled wrong----http://www.jstor.org/pss/543415 [b]should be Max Wilcox

uses the mishneh and explores the seminitisms in the NT; he is used to promote a semitic NT

F. Zimmerman, The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels, entirety.

***as the name of his book implies--he's an aramaic primacist, not Hebrew.