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

Re: tc-list Peterson on Howard's Shem Tob

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 10 , Jun 30, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 10 , Jun 30, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        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/
      • 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 3 of 10 , Jun 30, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          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
        • 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 4 of 10 , Jun 30, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 10 , Jun 30, 1998
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 10 , Jun 30, 1998
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 10 , Jun 30, 1998
                • 0 Attachment
                  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.