Response discusses critique and misunderstandings in review of Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, highlighting key arguments.
William L. Petersen’s review article in TC 3 (1998) offers a sharp critique of George Howard’s Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. Howard responds by reaffirming certain aspects of his argument and by pointing out numerous instances in which he believes Petersen has misunderstood or misrepresented his case.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
George Howard (1999) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: