Anybody go and listen to Nehemia Gordon?

[Mikhail]

Hi All,
I was wondering if anybody went to hear Nehemia Gordon?
Care to share what it was like and some of what he spoke about?
Shalom,
Mikhail ben Gino

[Devasha]

I did, but I think you knew that ;) .

Sadly, it was not a very big crowd in Las Vegas. Sounded like they had significantly larger crowds in previous cities, so that was embarrassing. For me personally it was great to get to fellowship with those I had met at previous gatherings in Las Vegas.

The teaching lasted from 7 pm to 12:30 am, so there was much to chew on, especially for any to whom the things presented were new. Most of Michael's presentation I was already familiar with, but as always, he is a great speaker and doesn't hold back.

Nehemia's teaching was similar to that found in his book The Hebrew Yeshua vs. The Greek Jesus. I had already read the book, but it was a good review for me.

In addition to covering several key teachings of Oral Law according to Orthodox Judaism (many of these can be found in the "Oral Torah Online?" thread here on the forum), he pointed out some specific translation problems in Matthew that helped to clarify some inconsistencies. He makes a very convincing case for the conclusions he came to, and since he approached it from a linguistic perspective, he doesn't really have any doctrinal agenda to advance. One of his conclusions was that it is most likely that Matthew was written originally in Hebrew, then translated into Aramaic and from there into Greek. Sorry I didn't take notes so as to give a better report with more specifics.

Nehemia himself was easy to talk to one on one, and he was very helpful to me in answering some specific questions I had. I figured since he is an expert in Biblical Hebrew and has had access to the oldest manuscripts, that picking his brain was the best I could do short of learning Biblical Hebrew and studying the manuscripts for myself.

[Steve Petersen]

Tim Hegg has really shown Gordon's lack of scholarship. See his articles at www.torahresource.com.

[Devasha]

Tim Hegg has really shown Gordon's lack of scholarship. See his articles at www.torahresource.com. (http://www.torahresource.com.)

TorahResource.com will be back up on-line following havadalah, PST

I'm pretty certain that both Nehemia's and Tim's scholarship exceeds mine, however. :D

I'm all about the learning, but obviously Tim is not available today. I appreciate Nehemia making himself available to me as he did.

[Higher Truth]

Tim Hegg has really shown Gordon's lack of scholarship. See his articles at www.torahresource.com (http://www.torahresource.com).

Yes, the Shem Tov Matthew is such a mess. It is too bad that Nehemiah doesn't stick with his other stuff (TeNaKh), and leave the Hebrew NT alone. Many of the textual critics have commented that the Shem Tov is only a copy of a latin text with some rabbinic alterations. I looked at it a while back, and it really is a non entity manuscript.

[Higher Truth]

The Shem Tov is not some "ancient" manuscript that has been "secreted" away. Here is what one textual critic has to say:




4.0 The Genesis of Shem-Tob's Hebrew 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: it explains the Vetus Syra readings, it explains the Vetus Latina readings, it explains the Thomas readings, it explains the harmonizations, it explains the Johannine fragments, it explains the many parallels with the rest of the Western medieval harmonized gospel tradition (with, e.g., the Venetian Harmony, Codex Cassellanus, etc.).

105. Turning to the matter of the date of this common Vorlage, our textual researches, especially the unique parallels and the character of some of them (viz. obviously medieval glosses), set the boundaries.

106. All the Western vernacular harmonies derive from a Latin base. As one might expect in such a case, the further back one goes (the earlier the date), the more wide-spread a reading is within the tradition. However, the later one goes in the tradition (the more recent the date), the more singular and localized the variants become.

107. Since Middle Dutch literature begins only at about 1200 (at the earliest), we can be certain that the archetype of the Middle Dutch tradition was not translated from its Latin Vorlage before 1200. And it cannot be later than 1250 or so, for the Liège Harmony (copied about 1280) is at least a first-generation copy of that Middle Dutch archetype (recall the common error which the Liège Harmony shares with van Maerlant's Rijmbijbel). We can be certain, then, that the Latin Vorlage from which the Middle Dutch tradition derives was in circulation between about 1200 and 1250 in Belgium (the provenance is dictated by the Zuid Limburgs dialect in which the Liège Harmony is written).

108. How old might this particular Latin Vorlage, which circulated in Belgium between 1200 and 1250, have been? Could it, for example, date from the fifth century? No, it could not, for if it were that early, then many of the other vernacular harmonies (the Middle Italian, the Old High German, etc.) would also share these "unique" readings with Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and the Liège Harmony. But they do not. Rather, the quality (unique to Shem-Tob and the Liège Harmony) and character (some being obviously medieval glosses, one even found in an interlinear position in the Liège Harmony) of these unique readings mean that this Latin Vorlage which circulated between 1200 and 1250 must have been fairly far out on (near the tip of) a specific branch of the Latin harmony tradition.

109. If one arbitrarily stipulates the date of the translation of the Middle Dutch archetype from this Latin Vorlage as 1200, and if one arbitrarily attributes to this same Latin Vorlage a century of life before it spawned the Middle Dutch tradition, then one arrives at a date of about 1100 as the date of copying of this Latin manuscript, which carried the distinctive readings it later bequeathed to the Middle Dutch tradition. If one takes that date (1100) as the mid-point, then one might presume that this specific Latin sub-family (i.e., distinguished by these unique glosses and variants) of the larger Latin harmonized gospel tradition evolved in and saw circulation in the period between approximately 900 and 1300 (i.e., our mid-point, 1100, +/- 200 years).

110. Earlier than 900 is unlikely, because of the uniqueness of many of the readings (which are restricted to Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and the Liège Harmony), and their high-medieval character (the glosses). (Put differently: if this Latin Vorlage were much earlier, then these distinctive readings would be much more widespread within the Western harmony tradition.) Later than 1300 is unlikely, for we know that this Latin tradition must have been in existence by the date of the copying of the Liège Harmony (ca. 1280).

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol03/Petersen1998a.html#par103

[baraqemet]

Devasha wrote:
Sadly, it was not a very big crowd in Las Vegas. Sounded like they had significantly larger crowds in previous cities, so that was embarrassing.

Baraqemet:
Just curious, does anyone know how many were there? And were the Hebrew manuscripts on display?

[Devasha]

:wave: Hi baraqemet,

I'm terrible at estimating such things, but my guess is that attendees numbered less than 100.

There was a 300-year-old Torah scroll there, which had been smuggled out of Iraq, which we were able to look at.

As far as the manuscript of Matthew in Hebrew, we were able to see some slides of that on the big screen only.