(Pictured above, a page from the DuTillet Hebrew Matthew)

Hebrew Matthew:

The DuTillet and Shem Tob Texts Compared
By
James Scott Trimm

 

There has been a lot of talk in the movement in recent years about Hebrew Matthew, and having studied the various Hebrew texts of Matthew for a quarter of a century, I thought I would set the story straight about the various versions.

One person came to me recently saying that they had been taught that the Shem Tob Hebrew Matthew resolves the problem of a missing name in the list of three sets of fourteen generations in Matthew’s genealogy of Yeshua. In fact (as shown below) this is the DuTillet Hebrew Matthew rather than the Shem Tob text.

Also some have placed a lot of emphasis on the Shem Tob Hebrew Matthew while often neglecting our other sources. This, I believe is a mistake. The reason for this has been that some manuscripts of the Shem Tob Hebrew version have a reading of “all that he says to you, observe and do.” (Matt. 23:3) rather than “all that they say to you, observe and do.”, which makes the Shem Tob version highly attractive to Karaites. Of course we could debate whether this Shem Tob reading preserves the original reading (I do follow this reading in the HRV). This reading itself does not lead to Karaitism, and the fact that Shem Tob may preserve an original reading in a single passage, does not make it the best overall source for Hebrew Matthew.

Some confusion has also been created by the fact that in the 19th Century Adolf Herbst wrongly published a printed edition of the DuTillet text (with the Munster Text in footnotes) as an example of the Shem Tob text.

 

Fourteen Generations

There is a well known mistake in the Greek text of this passage. While the text itself claims to give three lists of fourteen names (Mt. 1:17), the Greek text contains only 13 names in the last list:

14 names from Abraham to David:

1. Abraham
2. Isaac
3. Jacob
4. Judas
5. Phares
6. Esrom
7. Aram
8. Aminadab
9. Naasson
10. Salmon
11. Boaz
12. Obed
13. Jesse
14. David

14 names from David to the carrying away to Babylon

1. Solomon
2. Roboam
3. Abia
4. Asa
5. Jehosaphat
6. Joram
7. Ozias
8. Joatham
9. Achaz
10. Ezekias
11. Manases
12 Amon
13. Josias
14. Jehonias (carrying away to Babylon)

13 names from carrying away to Babylon to Messiah

1. Salathiel
2. Zorobabel
3. Abiud
4. Eliakim
5. Azur
6. Sadoc
7. Achim
8. Eliud
9. Eleazar
10. Matthan
11. Jacob
12. Joseph
13. Yeshua/Jesus

Now the DuTillet Hebrew manuscript of Matthew contains the missing Name “Abner” which occurs between Abiud and Eliakim in the DuTillet Hebrew text of Mt. 1:13. In Hebrew and Aramaic “d” and “r” look very much alike and are often misread for each other. In this case a scribe must have looked back up to his source manuscript and picked back up with the wrong name, thus omitting “Abner” from the list. The Greek text must have come from a Hebrew or Aramaic copy which lacked the name “Abner.” There is amazingly clear evidence for this. The Old Syriac Aramaic version of Matthew was lost from the fourth century until its rediscovery in the 19th century. This ancient Aramaic text has “Aviur” where the Greek has “Aviud” thus catching the error in a sort of “freeze frame” and demonstrating the reliability of the reading in the Hebrew.

 

Shem Tob and DuTillet

Are the Shem Tob and DuTillet Hebrew versions of Matthew closely related?

The clear answer is yes. The following is a list of unique or almost unique readings between ShemTob and DuTillet.
Mt. 1:1

Shem Tob: These are the generations of Yeshu ben David ben Avraham
DuTillet: These are the generations of Yeshu ben David ben Avraham
Mt. 1:19

Shem Tob: …or to bind her over to death..
DuTillet: …or to deliver her up to death…
(there is a likely scribal error between
DuTillet למסור (to deliver up)
and ShemTob אוסרה (do bind her over)
Mt. 2:12

ST… by the angel
DT… the angel
Mt. 2:22

ST … to the land of Gilgal
Dt … to the land of Galil
Mt. 2:23

Shem Tob: …he shall be called “Nazareth”.
DuTillet : …he shall be called “Nazareth”.
Mt. 3:11

ST: …fire of the Holy Spirit
DT:… fire of the Holy Spirit
Mt. 6:16

ST …they have already recieved their reward…
DT … they have already recieved their reward…
Mt. 8:21

ST One of his disciples…
DT One of his disciples…
Mt. 10:2-3

ST Philip and Bartholomew… James and John
DT Philip and Bartholomew… James and John
Mt. 10:5

ST …cities of the Samaritans
DT …cities of the Samaritans
Mt. 14:21

ST …the number of those who ate…
DT …the number of those who ate…

 

Evidence of Corruption in Shem Tob’s Matthew

The Shem Tob text shows several layers of revision and corruption, making it far less valuable to us than the DuTillet/Munster texts.

First of all we cannot know how many scribal hands Shem Tob’s text passed through before becoming transcribed into the EVEN BOHAN. We cannot easily identify those that revised the text. It is also not always possible to identify their motives, since sometimes their motive is simply that they are supplying missing material to a defective manuscript which they are copying from. However in general terms I think that ShemTob underwent revision by the following:

A. A “heretical” Jewish-Christian of some kind, perhaps an Ebionite. This revision took place very early (100-400 C.E.?)
(I realize that some would argue that revision A never took place and that the so called “heretical” readings are the original condition of Matthew, but I do not agree)
B. Another reviser (or revisers) seemed to have it in mind to bring the text into conformity with Greek and Latin versions.

C. Another reviser adds several “in another language” interpolations.

Example: Matt. 2:11

“They… brought to him… myrrh, in another language, mira”

(other examples: 3:7; 4:10; 4:13; 4:21; 4:23; 5:31; 6:2; 6:28; 6:30; 8:6; 8:28; 9:2; 9:9; 11:21; 12:4; 12:42; 13:25; 16:13; 16:16; 17:1; 23:5; 24:14; 26:13; 27:33)

None of these “in another language” interpolations occur in DuTillet/Munster.

D. Another hand of revision modified many proper nouns in ShemTob to more European forms.

For example:

Greek: …and he shall be called a Nazarene.

ShemTob …and he shall be called “Nazareth” (nun-alef-zayin-resh-tav)

DuTillet …and he shall be called “Nazareth” (nun-tzadhe-resh-tav)

Note that the reading “Nazareth” rather than “Nazarene” is unique to the Hebrew tradition, but the spelling of ShemTob’s “Nazareth” has been Europeanized.

E. Another reviser I believe revised some of the vocabulary to later Hebrew dialects such as Mishnaic Hebrew.

Example: Mt. 4:17:

Greek … repent…

Shem Tob … turn you (KHAZARU) in repentance…

DuTillet …turn you (SHUVU) in repentance…

Note that the phrase “turn you in repentance” is unique to the Hebrew tradition, but the Shem Tob text has revised SHUV to Mishnaic Hebrew

KHAZAR (in fact throughout Matthew Shem Tob revises SHUV to KHAZAR). Thus establishing a revision toward more Mishnaic vocabulary in Shem Tob.
Now it is unlikely that revision B could have occurred before Revision A and it also seems unlikely (but not impossible) that reviser B would not have “fixed” the “heretical” passages of reviser A. Thus it could be that at some point in the history of this text two manuscripts were merged, one which had undergone revision A and another which had undergone revision B.

Perhaps a scribe had two damaged manuscripts and so drew his material from each of them. Or perhaps a manuscript containing revision A came into a scribe’s hands but was damaged, so he repaired it (perhaps from memory) by translating from a Greek and/or Latin version. This process of repair may have occured more than once. (This is similar to Erasmus who filled in holes in his Greek Revelation (the Textus Receptus) by translating into Greek from the Latin Vulgate.)

Click here to sign up for our free email updates.

This information is provided free.  It is paid for by those who support the WNAE with their tithes and offerings. Donations can be made via the Pay Pal box in the upper right hand corner, or mailed to Nazarene Judaism; PO Box 471; Hurst, TX 76053; USA.