Munster Hebrew Matthew - Authentic or Mangled/Defective Hebrew Witness?

A manuscript of high interest is the Munster Hebrew Matthew text.  It has previously been disregarded by many because it was believed to have been edited or supplemented, but let's take a closer look at this text and find out the truth.

Sebastian Munster was a popular Hebrew teacher who published many books for Hebrew and Aramaic language students.  In his books on Hebrew, he often gave examples coming from a Hebrew copy of Matthew that he received from the Jews.  

The Munster text of Matthew could be considered an important Hebrew textual witness as it agrees very closely with another prominent Hebrew manuscript of Matthew - the DuTillet Hebrew Matthew.  The Munster Hebrew Text of Matthew was published in 1537 and again in 1557.  Most of the academic literature on Munster Hebrew Matthew over the last 126 years suggested that the Munster text was of limited value because Munster had "supplemented" missing portions of his text, with his "own reconstructions" without even marking them. 

A well-respected and prominent Hebrew scholar, George Howard, wrote: 

"In the letter of dedication, Munster reported that he had received the Hebrew Matthew from the Jews in defective form with many lacunae, and had from necessity restored what was lacking in the manuscript.  His work today is of limited value, because he failed to mark the passages he had restored." (Hebrew Gospel of Matthew; George Howard; 1995 p. 161) 

Where did George Howard's claim, that many following scholars adopted, actually come from? 

Munster had written these words in Latin: 

"Matthaei evangeluium in nativa sua,  hoc est Hebraica lingua, non qualiter  apud Hebraeorum vulgus lacerum inveni,  sed a me redintegratum et in unum  corpus redactum emittemus" 

 

Literally in English it translates as: 

"The Gospel of Matthew in the original, the actual Hebrew language, is not as it is among the people in the Hebrew.  I came upon it lacerated (cut), but I reintegrated it, and published a rendering of it in one body." 

The brings up the question of what Munster meant by "cut "or "lacerated"?               

We'll begin by looking at two other similar Hebrew texts of Matthew: the Shem Tob and DuTillet texts.  George Howard initially concluded that the DuTillet text was a translation from Greek, (JBL 105/1 (1986) p. 53, 62) but later Howard concluded that DuTillet comes from "an earlier Hebrew Matthew" related to the Shem Tob version (JBL 105/1 (1986) p. 63 n..34).  Howard elsewhere states his belief that the Shem Tob text is a descendant of a Hebrew text, which served as a model for our present Greek text.  Now the Shem Tob Hebrew version of Matthew, was transcribed by Shem Tob split into 114 sections into his book The Touchstone; each section was followed by a rebuttal.  

Shem Tob writes: 

"I adjure by the life of the world, that every copyist that he not copy the books of the gospel unless, he writes in every place the objections that I have written, just as I have arranged them and written them."

The DuTillet manuscript, however, was all written together, but was followed by a series of rebuttals, and may once have also been spliced into such sections.  Munster's statement seems to indicate that he obtained Hebrew Matthew "lacerated" or "cut up in sections" and that he reintegrated these sections and published the Hebrew text in one body. 

It appears the confusion started with Adolf Herbst who misunderstood Munster, and in 1879 paraphrased Munster in German as saying: 

"Die hebraeische Übersetzung habe er, berichtet  Munster in der Zuschrift an Heinrich VIII., von den Juden mangelhaft und mit vielen Lücken empfangen, daher habe er sich genöthigt gesehen, solche Lücken zu erganzen" 

Which translates literally in English as: 

"The Hebrew Translation Munster reports in his dedication letter to Heinrich VIII-- he received it from the Jews, mangled/defective, and with many spaces. Seeing this, he took upon himself to supplement such spaces." 

This led Hugh Schonfield to report in English in 1927: 

"Munster states in his dedication to Henry VIII, that he received the Hebrew translation from the Jews in a defective condition, and with many lacunae, which he took upon himself to fill in." (An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's Gospel; 1927; pp. 11-12) 

Created the defective Munster text myth:

A major issue was that Herbst translated "lacerum inveni (it was found lacerated)" as "mangelhaft und mit vielen Lücken empfangen (mangled/defective, and with many spaces)", and which Schonfield took in English to mean "in a defective condition, and with many lacunae."  The next phrase "mangled" in Munster's Latin "sed a me redintegratum et in unum corpus redactum emittemus (but reintegrated it and published a rendering of it in one body)" was translated by Herbst into German to mean "daher habe er sich genöthigt gesehen, solche Lücken zu erganzen (seeing this, took upon himself to supplement such spaces)" which Schonfield further rendered in English as "which he took upon himself to fill in." 

Thus the myth was born, as Howard inaccurately reported: 

"In the letter of dedication, Munster reported that he had received the Hebrew Matthew from the Jews in defective form with many lacunae, and had from necessity, restored what was lacking in the manuscript.  His work today is of limited value because he failed to mark the passages he had restored." (Hebrew Gospel of Matthew; George Howard; 1995 p. 161) 

Conclusion:

The evidence shows that Munster's Hebrew Matthew is of much greater value than previously believed and should not be dismissed based on a false report that it was defective and full of holes.  There are other Hebrew manuscripts that are closely in agreement with the Munster Hebrew text that also deserve due respect that we will look more into.  Does this necessarily prove the Hebrew Munster text is authentic?  Not necessarily, but it could be, and it deserves a second look.