Shalom Chaverim,
These last few days I have had my head buried in the scrolls. As you may know, last week I received in the mail, a thumb drive containing about thirty Hebrew manuscripts of “New Testament” books, which I had not previously examined. The first of these is The Harley Hebrew manuscript of Matthew (British Library; Harley 7637) an 18th Century Hebrew manuscript of Matthew . As I opened this PDF facsimile of the manuscript, I immediately recognized the title page, which is virtually identical to that of the Iohannes Quinquarboreus Aurilacensis printed edition published in Paris in 1551, a facsimile of which is in my personal library. The formatting, line breaks, relative sizes of letters, etc. of the two title pages are virtually identical in the two documents.
My English translation of the title pages “The Torah of the Messiah, the Renewed Torah of Elohim and Goodnews of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah according to Matti the Evangelist.”
The Aurilecensis 1551 Paris edition, is a reprinting, with very slight variations, of the text of the 1537 Munster edition of Hebrew text of Matthew, published by Sebastian Munster. However, unlike the Munster edition, this 1551 edition, includes many marginal notes offering “corrections” (חסר) and alternate readings.
The text of Harley is almost identical to the text of the this 1551 edition, following it, rather than the 1537 edition, where they (the 1537 and 1551 editions) differ.
in 2020 Joseph Gebhardt-Klein Published a paper titled A New Intermediate Text of Rabinical-Hebrew Matthew: The Harley Manuscript. Gebhardt-Klein came to the conclusion that the Harley manuscript was an independent version of Hebrew Matthew (not dependent on Munster) intermediate between Munster and the texts of DuTillet and Shem Tob. Unfortunately he does not seem to have consulted the 1551 edition, skewing the results of his study.
When the Harley manuscript departs from the text of the 1551 edition, it is almost always to incorporate variant readings and corrections offered in the margin of the 1551 edition. Another class of differences is that Harley often spells words which appear “defectively” in the 1537 and 1551 editions with a vav or yud, and in doing so tends to agree with the DuTillet Hebrew Text (this more likely a tendency of the scribe, not any dependence an a manuscript agreeing with DuTillet). Also, wherever the 1537 and 1551 editions contain the sacred name of YHWH the Harley manuscript has either three yuds arranged in a triangle, similar to that of the DuTillet text, or two yuds, as common in traditional Rabbinic texts (the vowel pointing makes it difficult to me certain).
It appears that the Harley manuscript, is simply the work of an unknown scribe, copying from the 1551 edition, but following his preference of spelling words with a vav or yud rather than defectively, replacing the Sacred Name of YHWH with two or three yuds, and frequently incorporating corrections and alternate readings from the margins of the 1551 edition.
Of course one might take the Harley ms as a copy made from one of the sources for the 1551 edition, but this seems unlikely because of the near exact match of the formatting of the title page. Moreover, the Harley ms. even copies some of the marginal notes from the 1552 edition. If Harley was truly independent of the 1551 edition, we would expect to see some evidence of that.
That said, the study done by Gebhardt-Klein for his paper is still of great value, it must simply be applied to the 1552 edition source, rather than the Harley edition. This study shows sixty places where the Harley manuscript departs from the 1537 text in agreement with either the DuTillet or Shem Tob Hebrew versions. In 46 of the 60 cases, these are actually readings drawn from the alternate readings offered in the margin of the 1552 edition. In seven of the 60, the variance if a variance between the 1551 edition and the 1537 edition. In at least on case (Matthew 24:12) Gebhardt-Klein appears to have misread the 1537 text.
When we apply Gebhardt-Klein’s research to the 1551 edition, we find evidence that the marginal notes offering alternate readings and corrections in the 1551 edition, are actually offering alternate readings form other Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew which were in the possession of Aurilecensis in 1551. This makes these marginal notes a much more important resource.
This finding is further supported by the marginal note to Matthew 1:13 which suggests “Av’ner” (אבנר) as an alternate reading to the name “Avichud” (אביהוד)
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” (ד) and “r” (ר) 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.
The Hebrew versions of Matthew that have come down to us may be categorized into two basic text versions. The readings we find in the DuTillet, Munster texts exhibit a great deal of agreement with each other, with only minor variations from text to text. We will call this the “Traditional” Hebrew text. On the other hand, the Shem Tob text, while having a direct relationship with the Traditional Hebrew text, is a very different Hebrew text with many layers of corruption.
Some time back I noticed that this 1551 edition gives a marginal note to אביהוד (Abihud) which reads נא אבנר. נא is a Hebrew abbreviation meaning “in another version” and אבנר is the name “Abner”. This reading also makes it clear that these are alternate readings from other Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew. This is because this reading is a key variance in the DuTillet Hebrew version of Matthew.
So while the Harley manuscripts is just a late 18th century copying of material from the 1551 edition, the study by Joseph Gebhardt-Klein solidifies the fact that the marginal notes in the 1551 edition do testify of authentic alternate readings from other copies of Hebrew Matthew, then in the possession Iohannes Quinquarboreus Aurilacensis .
I still have about 29 more “new” manuscripts on the thumb drive to analyze.
We need your financial support now more than ever!
In regards to my health issues, I am having a lot of tests run, and I have referrals to two different specialists, all of these have co-pays. The day before yesterday I got MRI of my brain. They asked if I had any metal in my body. “Yes, I said, Iron, magnesium and zinc.” They asked if I had any head imaging done before? “Yes” I said, “In fact we had portraits done in school every year.”
In all seriousness though, we definitely do need your financial support now more than ever.
As you know we have been digging ourselves out of a budget shortfall. As I have said to you many times, I look on this work as a co-operative one with me, and all of you combining our resources together in order to get the job done of helping to teach this great truth to all in the world who will listen. Thank you so much from the bottom of my heart for your continued support, you are the ones who make it all possible by your contributions and your prayers for our work. I truly appreciate your help in every way.
If you can make a one time donation of $500 or $1,000 dollars to support this work.
I so wish I could financially support your very important work. Unfortunately, I’m just coming out of bankruptcy and have no extra funds. But I prayerfully support you.
Consider this, if the Joseph in Mathew chapter 1 verse 16 was the Father of Mary not her betrothed. She would be the thirteenth of the flesh of the line and since God created seed in her, then Jesus would be the 14th of the line of flesh. Since Hebrews 2:14 indicates Jesus took part not all. As a child doesn’t share the blood of the mother, and the life is in the seed of the father, Jesus’s pure sinless blood could not come from Adam’s line as all other men are decents of that tainted bloodline. (Something to consider since it does fit into the requirements of Matthew 1:17) Just saying ?