Subject: [tc-list] Re: bringing peace to the dispute re: HMt
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 17:34:18 +0100
From: U.B.Schmid@... (U.B.Schmid)

I readily acknowledge Yuri's recent attempt to do more justice to Bill
Petersen's position when critisizing Howard. In my view Petersen
conclusively
demonstrated Howard's big lapsus in that he completely ignored the
medieval
setting of HMt. I take it as a valid rule in historical research to seek
for
explanation first within the immediate cultural, geographical, and
chronological
setting of a given source. However, in his analysis of 14th c. "Spanish"
HMt
Howard choose to concentrate on comparison with remote textual witnesses
such as
Codex Sinaiticus, Old Syriac, Coptic Gospel of Thomas. The result is an
anachronistic analysis of a medieval text that suffers from poor
screening
against the background of contemporary medieval Gospel text witnesses.
Unfortunately Yuri is trapped within the same anachronistic view,
although he
tries to integrate recent research on HMt (Niclos). The following is a
perfect
example:

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

[...]
> And also some other evidence to this effect is now available in the
> article by J. V. Niclos, O.P., _L'Evangile en hebreu de Shem Tob Ibn
> Shaprut: Une traduction d'origine judo-catalane due a un converti,
> replacee dans son *Sitz im Leben*_, in Revue Biblique 106-3 (July 1999,
> pp. 358-407).
>
> According to Niclos, a medieval Catalan gospel exists that parallels some
> of the highly unusual pericope divisions or introductory formulas found
> in HMt version of the Sermon on the Mount. Until now these pericope
> divisions and introductory formulas were thought to have been unique (cf.
> Howard, 1995:200).

According to Niclos two French (provencal) manuscripts exist that even
parallel
the entire 115 chapter division found in HMT. And the reason is that,
according
to Niclos, the Latin Gospel text editions in 9-13th century France
display the
same features. Not only HMt's chapter divisions, but also its
introductory
formulas found in the sermon on the mount are almost completely
parallelled from
one of the provencal manuscripts as well.

> (These pericope divisions/introductory formulas in the Catalan text are as
> follows, according to Niclos, 5:1, 13, 17, 20, 25, 31, 43; 6:2, 5.
>
> In the Hebrew text they are as follows, 5:2, 13, 17, 20, 25, 27, 31, 43;
> 6:2, 5, 16, 19, 24; 7:6, 13, 15, 24.)
>
> To explain, Howard demonstrates in his book in some detail that,
>
> "When the sayings in Luke are placed alongside their parallels in the
> Hebrew text of Mt 5-7, a pattern emerges. Every time the Hebrew is
> interrupted by words "Jesus said to his disciples" or "He said to them",
> Luke, without exception, jumps to a different place in his gospel, or has
> a void." 200
>
> So now this unusual feature is also partly attested in a presumably Latin
> based medieval gospel. Surely this is an important finding, the full
> explanation of which may cast considerable light on the Q hypothesis, and
> on the editorial activities, strategies, and sources of the author of
> Luke.

Whatever ideas might cross the mind of a modern interpreter (including a
flirt
with Q), in the light of the evidence Niclos presents, we have to
conclude that
HMt's features of chapter divisions and introductory formulas (sermon on
the
mount) are first of all features found in medieval Latin and vernacular
Gospel
manuscripts and/or editions pre-dating HMt. If somebody is interested in
interpreting those features, he or she has to examine their proper
medieval
context (delineation, distribution, etc.) *first*, before presenting
short-cut
comparisons with source critical theories of modern times.

In all likelyhood Howard simply didn't know that medieval parallels of
the
features under discussion existed. But, Yuri, now that you know, you
have to
account for them. You simply can't maintain the same anachronistic
perspective.
------------------------------------------
Dr. Ulrich Schmid
U.B.Schmid@...