Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

tc-list Peterson on Howard's Shem Tob

Expand Messages
  • James Trimm
    All, I have been reading the Peterson paper on Howard s Shem-Tob Hebrew Matthew research. Peterson contends that The Shem-Tob text descends from Dutch gospels
    Message 1 of 10 , Jun 29, 1998
      All,

      I have been reading the Peterson paper on Howard's Shem-Tob Hebrew
      Matthew research. Peterson contends that The Shem-Tob text descends from
      Dutch gospels versions which existed prior to Shem-Tob's day. His paper is
      found at:

      http://shemesh.scholar.emory.edu/scripts/TC/vol03/Petersen1998a.html

      Some points I would like to make in rebutal to the Peterson article:

      1. Peterson points to several cases where Shem-Tob = Thomas = Dutch
      In one case Peterson points to 11 cases of ST=Thom=Dutch out of 20 cases of
      ST=Thom<> Greek Mt.

      However: Shem-Tob Matthew may have been a primary vehicle that brought
      these Thomas eadings into the middle ages.

      Of course similar things can be said regarding many of Peterson's arguments.

      I note that Peterson does not deal with the many readings in which Shem-Tob
      Matthew and DuTillet Matthew (and often Munster Matthew as well) agree
      against all other versions in unique readings.

      Peterson will need to deal with the close connection that Shem-Tob has to
      these other Hebrew versions of Matthew. And many cases where one or both
      of these agree with the Old Syriac against all other versions.

      Peterson's arguments against Shem-Tob are not coclucive. He may only have
      shown that certain Dutch manuscripts were influenced by the Hebrew Matthew
      tradition.



      James Trimm
      ==============================================
      He who seeks will not cease until he finds,
      and having found he will be amazed,
      and having been amazed he will reign,
      and having reigned he will rest.
      - The Goodnews according to the Hebrews
      ==============================================
      The Society for the Advancement of Nazarene Judaism:
      http://www.nazarene.net
      ==============================================
      E-mail discusion groups: Nazarene Judaism; Messianic Judaism;
      Yahwism; Lost Tribes; Book of Enoch; Semitic Origin of the
      New Testament; Prophecy & b-Aramaic. Subscribe at:
      http://www.nazarene.net
      ==============================================
      Epigraphy Forum (discusion of epigraphy, precolumbian
      transoceanic contact & cultural diffusion) subscribe at:
      http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/6726/index.html
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... Trimm s summary characterizes (incorrectly) Petersen s views that the Shem-Tob text is a descendent of Dutch gospels versions, rather than being related to
      Message 2 of 10 , Jun 30, 1998
        At 06:42 6/30/98 -0500, Jack Kilmon wrote:
        >If we have the archetype of the Middle Dutch Tradition dating between 1200-1250
        >and ben Shaprut writing
        >Evan Bohan over a hundred years later, on what basis do you say:
        >
        >PETERSEN did not contend "that The Shem-Tob text descends from
        >Dutch gospels versions which existed prior to Shem-Tob's day."
        >
        >Am I missing some nuance of Dr. Trimm's summary that you see as innacurate or
        >perhaps some
        >qualifier in Dr. Petersen's review?

        Trimm's summary characterizes (incorrectly) Petersen's views that the
        Shem-Tob text is a descendent of Dutch gospels versions, rather than
        being related to the Vorlage of some Middle Dutch harmonies. To me,
        there is a good deal of difference between the two statements that
        goes beyond a mere nuance.

        Stephen Carlson
        --
        Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations,
        scarlson@... : and songs chant the words.
        http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35
      • U. Schmid
        ... Whatever Mr. Trimm may have read it was certainly not the paper he refers to, for PETERSEN did not contend that The Shem-Tob text descends from Dutch
        Message 3 of 10 , Jun 30, 1998
          On Mon, 29 Jun 1998, James Trimm wrote (in part):

          >All,
          >
          > I have been reading the Peterson paper on Howard's Shem-Tob Hebrew
          >Matthew research. Peterson contends that The Shem-Tob text descends from
          >Dutch gospels versions which existed prior to Shem-Tob's day. His paper is
          >found at:
          >
          >http://shemesh.scholar.emory.edu/scripts/TC/vol03/Petersen1998a.html

          Whatever Mr. Trimm may have read it was certainly not the paper he refers
          to, for PETERSEN did not contend "that The Shem-Tob text descends from
          Dutch gospels versions which existed prior to Shem-Tob's day."

          Or is there another publication on the same topic I might have missed,
          eventually by space-ship-Peterson?

          Internet and e-mail utterances have one great advantage: They require but a
          modem.

          Ulrich Schmid



          -------------------------------------------------
          Dr. Ulrich Schmid E-mail: schmiul@...

          NIAS - Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study
          Meijboomlaan 1
          2242 PR Wassenaar
          The Netherlands
          http://www.knaw.nl/nias/
        • Jack Kilmon
          ... Petersen: In no way is Shem-Tob s Hebrew Matthew a relic from early Christianity, or even directly related to texts from early Christianity. Rather,
          Message 4 of 10 , Jun 30, 1998
            U. Schmid wrote:

            > On Mon, 29 Jun 1998, James Trimm wrote (in part):
            >
            > >All,
            > >
            > > I have been reading the Peterson paper on Howard's Shem-Tob Hebrew
            > >Matthew research. Peterson contends that The Shem-Tob text descends from
            > >Dutch gospels versions which existed prior to Shem-Tob's day. His paper is
            > >found at:
            > >
            > >http://shemesh.scholar.emory.edu/scripts/TC/vol03/Petersen1998a.html
            >
            > Whatever Mr. Trimm may have read it was certainly not the paper he refers
            > to, for PETERSEN did not contend "that The Shem-Tob text descends from
            > Dutch gospels versions which existed prior to Shem-Tob's day."
            >

            Petersen:

            In no way is Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew a relic from early Christianity, or even
            directly
            related to texts from early Christianity. Rather, many--perhaps even most--of
            the singular readings in Shem-Tob are
            distinguished by their presence in other medieval texts related to the
            harmonized gospel tradition, especially in those texts related
            to the Vorlage of the Middle Dutch harmonized gospel tradition.

            Petersen outlines 62 readings of Shem Tob in agreement with the Middle Dutch
            Liege Harmony, 14 which
            are unique.

            Petersen goes on:

            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).

            Petersen:

            . The Even Bohan was composed in Spain (presumably in Aragon) by a
            Castilian-born Jew named Shem-Tob ben-Isaac
            ben-Shaprut in 1380 (ibid.: xi). He revised his work at least three times: in
            1385, around 1400, and once again, still later (ibid.).

            If we have the archetype of the Middle Dutch Tradition dating between 1200-1250
            and ben Shaprut writing
            Evan Bohan over a hundred years later, on what basis do you say:

            PETERSEN did not contend "that The Shem-Tob text descends from
            Dutch gospels versions which existed prior to Shem-Tob's day."

            Am I missing some nuance of Dr. Trimm's summary that you see as innacurate or
            perhaps some
            qualifier in Dr. Petersen's review?

            I find Petersen's evidence that the Shem Tob manuscript as a medieval work
            related to the
            Middle Dutch Liege Harmony and not an Early Christian tradition compelling and
            his
            criticism of Dr. Howard for making the leap between Shem Tob and antiquity
            without
            first appealing to similar and sympatric test types as also compelling.

            In my opinion, however, the most compelling evidence that Shem Tob is not a
            "pre-Greek"
            Hebrew version of Matthew is the Gospel of Matthew itself in what is to me
            obvious
            compositional Greek and reliance on Greek source materials.

            Jack
            jkilmon@...
          • James R. Adair
            Petersen does not argue that Shem Tob is a direct descendant of the Middle Dutch Gospel harmonies, but rather that ST and the Dutch harmonies share a recent
            Message 5 of 10 , Jun 30, 1998
              Petersen does not argue that Shem Tob is a direct descendant of the Middle
              Dutch Gospel harmonies, but rather that ST and the Dutch harmonies share a
              recent common _Latin_ ancestor, which also explains ST's close association
              with Middle Italian gospel harmonies and an Arabic translation of the
              separate gospels _from Spain_ (the provenance of ST). For example, he
              says, "Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew is once again sharing a unique reading
              with a Western medieval harmonized gospel text (this time, the Middle
              Italian Tuscan Harmony) and Thomas. This example once again demonstrates
              the dependence of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew upon the Western medieval
              Latin harmonized gospel tradition" (par. 136). Again, "Since these
              agreements cannot stem from Arabic-to-Dutch or Dutch-to-Arabic influence,
              we are compelled to conclude that the common denominator was, from
              Velasquez's side, the Latin exemplar of the separate gospels from which he
              worked, a Latin exemplar which had been profoundly influenced by a Latin
              gospel harmony akin to the Latin Vorlage of the Lige Harmony. Because we
              find not just identical readings, but also evidence of identical
              harmonization in the separate gospels both in Velasquez/Lige and in
              Shem-Tob/Lige, it is clear that this Latin harmonized gospel tradition
              influenced not just vernacular harmonies (such as the Lige Harmony), but
              also a Latin edition of the separate gospels. It is apparently from this
              harmony-influenced separate gospel text that both Velasquez's Arabic
              translation and Shem-Tob's Hebrew translation of Matthew derive" (par.
              113).

              Jimmy Adair
              General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism
              -------------------> http://purl.org/TC <--------------------
            • U. Schmid
              ... Jack, Bill Petersen is talking about the *Vorlage* of the Dutch Harmony tradition. This *Vorlage*, of course, is a LATIN one (cf. the first two citations
              Message 6 of 10 , Jun 30, 1998
                J. Kilmon wrote (in part):

                >U. Schmid wrote:
                >
                >> On Mon, 29 Jun 1998, James Trimm wrote (in part):
                >>
                >> >All,
                >> >
                >> > I have been reading the Peterson paper on Howard's Shem-Tob Hebrew
                >> >Matthew research. Peterson contends that The Shem-Tob text descends from
                >> >Dutch gospels versions which existed prior to Shem-Tob's day. His paper is
                >> >found at:
                >> >
                >> >http://shemesh.scholar.emory.edu/scripts/TC/vol03/Petersen1998a.html
                >>
                >> Whatever Mr. Trimm may have read it was certainly not the paper he refers
                >> to, for PETERSEN did not contend "that The Shem-Tob text descends from
                >> Dutch gospels versions which existed prior to Shem-Tob's day."
                >>
                >
                >Petersen:
                >
                > In no way is Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew a relic from early Christianity,
                >or even
                >directly
                >related to texts from early Christianity. Rather, many--perhaps even most--of
                >the singular readings in Shem-Tob are
                >distinguished by their presence in other medieval texts related to the
                >harmonized gospel tradition, especially in those texts related
                >to the Vorlage of the Middle Dutch harmonized gospel tradition.
                >
                >Petersen outlines 62 readings of Shem Tob in agreement with the Middle Dutch
                >Liege Harmony, 14 which
                >are unique.
                >
                >Petersen goes on:
                >
                >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).
                >
                >Petersen:
                >
                >. The Even Bohan was composed in Spain (presumably in Aragon) by a
                >Castilian-born Jew named Shem-Tob ben-Isaac
                >ben-Shaprut in 1380 (ibid.: xi). He revised his work at least three times: in
                >1385, around 1400, and once again, still later (ibid.).
                >
                >If we have the archetype of the Middle Dutch Tradition dating between 1200-1250
                >and ben Shaprut writing
                >Evan Bohan over a hundred years later, on what basis do you say:
                >
                >PETERSEN did not contend "that The Shem-Tob text descends from
                >Dutch gospels versions which existed prior to Shem-Tob's day."

                Jack,

                Bill Petersen is talking about the *Vorlage* of the Dutch Harmony
                tradition. This *Vorlage*, of course, is a LATIN one (cf. the first two
                citations you gave). Shem Tob's Mt, therefore, is related to Latin sources.
                Of course, Dutch Bible translations "existed prior to Shem-Tob's day." But
                that does not imply that he used them. Besides, why after all should a late
                medieval writer in Spain having used a Dutch source?
                Again, where does Petersen contend "that The Shem-Tob text descends from
                Dutch gospels versions which existed prior to Shem-Tob's day?

                Ulrich Schmid

                -------------------------------------------------
                Dr. Ulrich Schmid E-mail: schmiul@...

                NIAS - Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study
                Meijboomlaan 1
                2242 PR Wassenaar
                The Netherlands
                http://www.knaw.nl/nias/
              • Jack Kilmon
                ... OK..this makes sense, the descendency from the Dutch Harmony is more rhetorical that accurate. The issue, which we have been discussing on textcrit, is
                Message 7 of 10 , Jun 30, 1998
                  James R. Adair wrote:

                  > Petersen does not argue that Shem Tob is a direct descendant of the Middle
                  > Dutch Gospel harmonies, but rather that ST and the Dutch harmonies share a
                  > recent common _Latin_ ancestor, which also explains ST's close association
                  > with Middle Italian gospel harmonies and an Arabic translation of the
                  > separate gospels _from Spain_ (the provenance of ST). For example, he
                  > says, "Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew is once again sharing a unique reading
                  > with a Western medieval harmonized gospel text (this time, the Middle
                  > Italian Tuscan Harmony) and Thomas.

                  OK..this makes sense, the "descendency" from the Dutch Harmony is
                  more rhetorical that accurate.

                  The issue, which we have been discussing on textcrit, is my position that

                  characteristics of the Shem-Tob Matthew cannot be considered to have been
                  characteristics of a putative Hebrew Matthew that pre-dates the Greek
                  canonical version. I cannot speak about the characteristics of Du Tillet
                  and Munster since I have not read exemplars and will hold back my
                  strong impulse to declare that the canonical Gospel of Matthew never
                  had a Hebrew "original." From a form and source critical standpoint, I
                  just cant see it...but I have been surprised before and I even have been
                  wrong before...I think back in 1948 (g).

                  Jack
                  jkilmon@...
                • Jack Kilmon
                  ... Now it makes sense. As Jimmy Adair has also explained, I compeletely overlooked the descendency issue. Jack jkilmon@historian.net
                  Message 8 of 10 , Jun 30, 1998
                    U. Schmid wrote:

                    > Jack,
                    >
                    > Bill Petersen is talking about the *Vorlage* of the Dutch Harmony
                    > tradition. This *Vorlage*, of course, is a LATIN one (cf. the first two
                    > citations you gave). Shem Tob's Mt, therefore, is related to Latin sources.
                    > Of course, Dutch Bible translations "existed prior to Shem-Tob's day." But
                    > that does not imply that he used them. Besides, why after all should a late
                    > medieval writer in Spain having used a Dutch source?
                    > Again, where does Petersen contend "that The Shem-Tob text descends from
                    > Dutch gospels versions which existed prior to Shem-Tob's day?

                    Now it makes sense. As Jimmy Adair has also explained, I compeletely
                    overlooked the "descendency" issue.

                    Jack
                    jkilmon@...
                  • Jack Kilmon
                    ... Yes, you are correct, of course. It is a technical correction that does not interfere with my position that this MSS in NOT a witness to a Hebrew
                    Message 9 of 10 , Jun 30, 1998
                      Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

                      > Trimm's summary characterizes (incorrectly) Petersen's views that the
                      > Shem-Tob text is a descendent of Dutch gospels versions, rather than
                      > being related to the Vorlage of some Middle Dutch harmonies. To me,
                      > there is a good deal of difference between the two statements that
                      > goes beyond a mere nuance.

                      Yes, you are correct, of course. It is a technical correction that does
                      not interfere with my position that this MSS in NOT a witness to
                      a Hebrew "precursor" of canonical Matthew. In order not to get
                      too far afield on this technical correction, I would like to hear
                      comments on the Howard vs Petersen positions on Shem-Tob.



                      Jack
                      jkilmon@...
                    • James Trimm
                      ... that ... I am sorry for my error in my summary of Peterson s arguments. If I understand correctly then Peterson is pointing to a Latin text behind both
                      Message 10 of 10 , Jun 30, 1998
                        At 10:29 AM 6/30/98 -0700, you wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        >James R. Adair wrote:
                        >
                        >> Petersen does not argue that Shem Tob is a direct descendant of the Middle
                        >> Dutch Gospel harmonies, but rather that ST and the Dutch harmonies share a
                        >> recent common _Latin_ ancestor, which also explains ST's close association
                        >> with Middle Italian gospel harmonies and an Arabic translation of the
                        >> separate gospels _from Spain_ (the provenance of ST). For example, he
                        >> says, "Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew is once again sharing a unique reading
                        >> with a Western medieval harmonized gospel text (this time, the Middle
                        >> Italian Tuscan Harmony) and Thomas.
                        >
                        >OK..this makes sense, the "descendency" from the Dutch Harmony is
                        >more rhetorical that accurate.
                        >
                        > The issue, which we have been discussing on textcrit, is my position
                        that
                        >
                        >characteristics of the Shem-Tob Matthew cannot be considered to have been
                        >characteristics of a putative Hebrew Matthew that pre-dates the Greek
                        >canonical version. I cannot speak about the characteristics of Du Tillet
                        >and Munster since I have not read exemplars and will hold back my
                        >strong impulse to declare that the canonical Gospel of Matthew never
                        >had a Hebrew "original." From a form and source critical standpoint, I
                        >just cant see it...but I have been surprised before and I even have been
                        >wrong before...I think back in 1948 (g).
                        >
                        >Jack
                        >jkilmon@...
                        >
                        >

                        I am sorry for my error in my summary of Peterson's arguments.
                        If I understand correctly then Peterson is pointing to a Latin text behind
                        both Shem-Tob and the Dutch text. Is this an extant Latin text or just a
                        theoretical underlying text? Could the Latin text of which Peterson speaks
                        of have been affected by an older text which was closely related to
                        Shem-Tob? If the core of the Shem-Tob text is as ancient as Howard
                        believes, should we be surprised to see readings from Shem-Tob appear in
                        later versions? I am not sure that I see how any of this would disprove
                        Howard's theory.


                        James Trimm
                        ==============================================
                        He who seeks will not cease until he finds,
                        and having found he will be amazed,
                        and having been amazed he will reign,
                        and having reigned he will rest.
                        - The Goodnews according to the Hebrews
                        ==============================================
                        The Society for the Advancement of Nazarene Judaism:
                        http://www.nazarene.net
                        ==============================================
                        E-mail discusion groups: Nazarene Judaism; Messianic Judaism;
                        Yahwism; Lost Tribes; Book of Enoch; Semitic Origin of the
                        New Testament; Prophecy & b-Aramaic. Subscribe at:
                        http://www.nazarene.net
                        ==============================================
                        Epigraphy Forum (discusion of epigraphy, precolumbian
                        transoceanic contact & cultural diffusion) subscribe at:
                        http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/6726/index.html
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.