Is new translation of Hebrew Gospel of Mathew sound?

[Gary]

Is the new translation of; The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew - by George Howard, in your opinion a good sound and accurate literal translation to trust?

I've just found the following web-site at this link: http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/matthew-proof.html.
There are other links in this article at bottom that web page, to other Bible scholars textual critique and findings about the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

My questions are:
1. With the discovery of this Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and the research done to translate this English version of it; does this really come any closer to proving that likely, the gospels and much of the N.T canon books, were first written in Hebrew, or the Hebrew/Aramaic language of the common people of the period say...between 10BCE and 110 CE? (I have felt pretty certain they were all written in Hebrew/Hebrew Aramaic of this era first, and copied over into Greek and other languages, years later. I've no real proof yet, just call it a spiritual solid hunch &/or gut feeling).

2. Is the only version or manuscript we have of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, a recent find? Or, is it just another translation from, if I'm not mistaken, what is called the Shem Tov?

3.What's all this about the Matthew 28:19 trinity addition fraud? What versions of the Bible have margin notes that say Matt. 28:19 was never worded like we have in todays bibles; in the earliest mss we have extant? I don't have any bibles with notes that say this, but when we have noted and distinguished bible scholars saying that the earliest fragments and mss of Matt. 28:19 actually say "in my name" only, have no trinitarian baptism commands from Jesus; that starts me searching for places I can find copies of those early text fragments and mss, to see for myself whats-up with all this!

Which leads me directly to my next question:

4. For a student like me, whom is already learning to read and write biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Aramaic; what bible study software program, no matter the cost, has all the known mss and text fragments found, in whatever languages they were copied or written in, available for us to study and learn from? Hebrew language lexicons and Hebrew to English Lexicons and Greek to English and Latin to English, all those special reference bible study works we trust most?Such as: Strongs, BDB maybe, or Jay P Green?
I've heard great things about the latest version of Bible Works 7 with many mss and fragment copies, as add-on plug-ins available.
I think someone here long ago, pointed me to Logos software once. I would want the most complete, latest version of the Logos Scholars Version Gold, I think? What say any of you?
What I want to do, is get deep down to as close to the original mss copies we have extant and study the words in whatever language they are written in, and start putting what I feel are more accurate literal translations together, of those mss and texts we have.

5. This, unless of course, I don't have to re-invent the wheel and you folks might be able to point me to good bible reference books, works or multi-volume book sets, (whatever it takes), or software written by open minded people who want the purest, closest literal translation of whatever text, canonical, non-canonical or not, they are working through. Accuracy to whatever the text fragments or mss say...is most important to me.
So, what software programs or bible reference books by what authors, would you recommend? I'll take-on anything OT or NT, that has the original copies of the earliest mss and texts/text fragments we know of, whether canonical or not. Specifically targeting the time period between, lets say 300 BCE to 325 CE?

I need and ask your help in opinion, or list of fav references here; because I'm fed-up wasting my time reading what turns-out to be some supposed bible scholars commentary on say, the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and then finding out the dude completely missed the point, and completely mis-translated a bunch of stuff in whatever texts he has written on! I'm learning enough Biblical Hebrew, and Greek that...after a few passes or more through a certain verse or chapter of text, of whatever text is still extant, I can catch some of the authors mistakes. I find it amazing that someone that says they are a bible scholar and open minded, only worried about accuracy of the texts they translate; that they still have to add-in their own denomination doctrinal slant! That is totally unprofessional in my mind and flat-out ticks me off!

I'm seeking truth and accuracy and trying to find out what N.T. books or epistles were more than likely written by the original apostles, or dictated by same; whether they made the final cut into NT canon, or not! Show me what texts or mss those were, let me read copies we have, in the language they were written in and sort out the truth about proper, accurate literal translations, for myself!

So, would any of you care to try to answer some of my questions here? Any of you Bible scholars willing to tell me the titles of the texts you trust most and where I could find copies of those books or what the names of that software and version is, so I can find and purchase those books &/or programs?

If there is a bible software platform that has the most of these texts or fragments, whether of Gnostic, Nag Hammadi, Dead sea Scrolls, apocrypha, or whatever, I would be genuinely interested to know what you trust in software programs! Cost is not that relevant to me, accuracy is!

I just am running out of sources to find copies of these old mss and texts, in whatever languages they were written!

Thank you so much!

Gary

[S.C.Carlson]

According to William L. Petersen's review in TC, it is not:

The result of these subtle moves away from a literal translation is that a knowledge of Hebrew remains requisite for accurate use of this document, for the English translation neither gives all of the words found in the Hebrew, nor presents them in the order in which they occur in Hebrew--even when the Hebrew word order could have been carried over, without awkwardness, into English.

Stephen

[Chris Weimer]

Hey Gary,

Thanks to Stephen, I removed what I had to say about George Howard. He's been at the fore of Hebrew Matthew for a number of years, but I never suspected he would translate the work poorly.

As for your questions:

1. Unless he changed his opinion recently, Howard argued for an early, but not original Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew. I can't remember the dates off-hand that he put forward, but I do remember him rebutting in his article "The Textual Nature of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew" JBL 108.2 (1989): pp. 239-257 the idea that this was original Matthew, but rather instead an inherited version of translation made in antiquity (i.e. it wasn't produced in 14th century Spain).

With this in mind, it doesn't prove or even come close to proving anything about the original languages of the New Testament, nor do I think they were written in Hebrew or even a Semitic language to begin with. The "gut feeling" usually comes from the fact that the first Christians were obviously Semitic speaking people. Jesus most likely knew Aramaic first, Greek perhaps secondary. If James headed the Jerusalem church, he most likely knew Hebrew, too. Yet the New Testament shows little sign of being originally Semitic, whether Hebrew or Aramaic.

2. Shem-Tov (or Shem-Tob) in particular is a medieval manuscript of Hebrew Matthew. It's been know for a while. George Howard really pioneered much of the work on it in the recent decades.

3. Though Shem-Tov and a Eusebian citation lack the Trinitarian ending in Matthew, it's numerously cited by far earlier sources, so I seriously doubt that it was an interpolation. It's a nice theory for a Jewish Matthew, but doesn't fit with other models. There are other reasons to think it's original apart from early and multiple citations.

4. I use Bibleworks 7 - it's a great program. However, it doesn't have every manuscript. But I don't know any software which has that. Logos and Accordance certainly have more features and a larger library though they are more expensive. If you're very, very serious and have money to spend, I'd probably say Accordance, if you have a Mac. Accordance has more to offer, if I recall. But Logos is also very good. One good thing about Bibleworks 7 is that users can compile and edit their own modules, and there's a large collection of free user-created modules which contain many especially Classics texts. That with the price make it very attractive.

5. You also might want to consider buying the UBS 4 Greek reader. It's the Greek New Testament with the apparatus criticus and vocabulary running at the bottom to help you out. For more references on what you should acquire, try Danker's Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study.

Hope this helps! Any further questions please don't refrain to ask.

Chris

[Gary]

Chris!
Thank you for your help!

I do have a few quick questions about one of the answers you gave in your reply to my inquiry. I will post your answer in reply, en-quote, as follows:

3. Though Shem-Tov and a Eusebian citation lack the Trinitarian ending in Matthew, it's numerously cited by far earlier sources, so I seriously doubt that it was an interpolation. It's a nice theory for a Jewish Matthew, but doesn't fit with other models. There are other reasons to think it's original apart from early and multiple citations.

What other numerous, far earlier sources, do you refer to above?
If the theory of a Jewish Matthew doesn't fit other models, what other models are you referencing?
What do you mean by your last sentence in the quote above, since it seems to head a different direction than the rest of your quote?
Do you mean the Shem Tov is original because of other earlier proofs? IF so, what proofs do you mean, what multiple citations? Can you give me a reference or two help
here?

Not that I doubt your answers at all! Just that I don't quite "get" what you meant!

This is a new study for me and as I said in my first posting this new topic, I am clean out of good sources of info to research in the region where I live!

I will be buying the Bible Works software full program with many add-ons, soon! Thank you for your thoughts on those bible software programs Chris!


Stephen, thank you as well, for the short but very informative quote you sent through- about the haphazard way Mr. Howard seems to have done his translation of the Shem Tov text! I will see if I can get that manuscript in the Bible Works program, or as an add-on, in the Hebrew language it seems to have come down to us, written in! Do my own literal translation of it, myself.

Anyway, that's all I wanted to ask and say for now!

Thanks again you-all! 
Gary

[Chris Weimer]

What other numerous, far earlier sources, do you refer to above?

E-catena lists on EarlyChristianWritings, which is down right now, lists numerous authors before Eusebius who cite Matthew with the Trinitarian formula. InternetArchive is also slow right now, though.

If the theory of a Jewish Matthew doesn't fit other models, what other models are you referencing?

Well, reread what I wrote, but I was referring to the idea that Matthew was not Jewish. There's a big debate in Matthean studies whether the author was fully Jewish, Jewish-Christian, post-Jewish Christian, or Gentile Christian.

What do you mean by your last sentence in the quote above, since it seems to head a different direction than the rest of your quote?

Eh, I'm still developing the idea. I'll have to get back to you on that later when the paper is finished. (When ever it will be finished? No idea.)

Do you mean the Shem Tov is original because of other earlier proofs? IF so, what proofs do you mean, what multiple citations? Can you give me a reference or two help here?

No, Shem Tov is certainly not original. I was referring to the Trinitarian ending in Matthew.

[Gary]

Thank you Chris!

I'll find out what the E-catena lists are, you mentioned in your last reply to me here!

I will start deep research on who and what I think Matthew really was, (IE:fully Jewish, Jewish-Christian, post-Jewish Christian, or Gentile Christian). That sounds like a fun and interesting rabbit trail to follow, when I get bogged-down deep in my other Bible studies and find myself a bit bored, restless, or simply weary of current subject matter!

Chris, once you finish and print the paper you're working on, you mentioned in your last reply to me here, you gonna send me/us a link to read your paper so we can learn from all your hard work and research??   I've put what you said in the quote below:

Eh, I'm still developing the idea. I'll have to get back to you on that later when the paper is finished. (When ever it will be finished? No idea.)

Thank you again for all your help Chris!

Gary