See William L. Petersen's review article in TC 3 (1998).
A Response to William L. Petersen's Review of Hebrew Gospel of Matthew
George Howard
University of Georgia
1. Recently (May 1998) William L. Petersen of Pennsylvania State University
published a review article of my 1995 edition of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew
(Howard 1995). Petersen's article, "Some Observations on a Recent Edition of
and Introduction to Shem-Tob's 'Hebrew Matthew,'" is published in TC: A
Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism (Petersen 1998). I appreciate TC
allowing me an opportunity to offer this response.
2. I declined to respond to Petersen's review of the first edition of my
book (Howard 1987) that appeared in the Journal of Biblical Literature 108
(1989): 722-726, and I take no pleasure in responding to the present review.
But Petersen threatens a third something (review? see Petersen 1998: par.
133) if I do not reply, so I have decided to comply with his wishes.
3. Petersen's writing is highly unusual for academia. It is filled with
vituperation and invective (virtually every word is with a drop of blood).
He scolds me, castigates me, and accuses me of "chicanery" (Petersen 1998:
par. 124). Toward the end of his review, he preaches a sermon in which he
pours out on me his righteous indignation. To my knowledge, I have never met
Petersen, so why he writes with such personal virulence, I cannot fathom. I
request the readers of this rebuttal to allow me some indulgence to respond
in kind, though I will be as considerate as possible. This is not my usual
way of doing things, but the occasion seems to call for it.
4. Overall, Petersen's article is a perfect example of how a review should
not be written. I consider it not an exaggeration to write that virtually
every page swarms with errors of omission, commission, and lack of
understanding. He does not understand my book; he does not understand
medieval Jewish literature; he does not understand the literary nature of
the Hebrew text of Shem-Tob's Matthew, including its many puns, word
connections, and alliteration; he does not understand the evolution this
text has undergone or where it belongs in its long chain of transmission; he
does not understand the heterodox theological patterns running throughout
the document or where these fit into the history of Christianity.
5. Much of Petersen's review is taken up with the Middle Dutch Liège
Harmony, but I am not convinced that he understands even this document. I
will come back to the Middle Dutch Liège Harmony, but I must first deal with
Petersen's failure to understand the purpose of my book and his
ingenuousness in dealing with medieval Hebrew language and literature.
I. The Purpose of My Book
6. Petersen never picks up on the real aim of my book, which is stated
repeatedly throughout the volume. It is to demonstrate that the Hebrew
Matthew contained in Shem-Tob's writing predates the fourteenth century. In
the Preface to the second edition (Howard 1995: vii), I write, "The main
thrust of this second edition is to demonstrate that the Hebrew Matthew
contained in Shem-Tob's Evan Bohan predates the fourteenth century." At the
end of the volume (Howard 1995: 234), I sum up my findings: "A conclusion
that can be drawn from these comparisons is that Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew
predates the fouteenth century, being preserved primarily by the Jewish
community." I do not believe I could have made this point clearer (see also
pp. 153, 173-175, 178, 211).
7. Petersen's review gives the impression that the purpose of my book is to
prove that Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew dates to circa 100 C.E.. What I have
argued is that a Shem-Tob type Matthean text (not Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew
per se) has roots in an early period of Christian history; I do not presume
that Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew goes back to early times. This is a text that
has been revised repeatedly, has taken on much textual baggage during
transmission, and is probably no more that a dim reflection of a prior
tradition. I am unsure what this prior tradition amounts to, whether a
complete gospel or simply an undefined source. But, whatever the case, the
point of this book is simply to demonstrate that the tradition lying behind
Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew predates the fourteenth century, perhaps by
several centuries. Nothing more!
8. I set this agenda for my book because traditionally Shem-Tob's Hebrew
Matthew has been held to be a translation of the Latin Vulgate made by
Shem-Tob Ibn Shaprut himself in the fourteenth century. Throughout the last
century, it was thought that Shem-Tob was the author of this text. As late
as 1967, Matthew Black wrote in regard to the Hebrew version of du Tillet,
"The author of the Hebrew Matthew was probably a certain Shem-Tob ben
Shaprut, a famous Jewish polemical writer who flourished in Spain in the
fourteenth century" (Black 1967: 295). Robert Lindsey holds a similar view:
he identifies S. Münster's edition of the Hebrew Matthew as a version of
"Ibn Shaprut's translation" [Lindsey 1969: 67.]
9. At times Petersen misunderstands the purpose of my discussion and imputes
theories to me that I do not formulate, agree with, or believe. I offer here
two examples.
Example 1
10. In a segment called, "Linguistic Characteristics of the Hebrew Text," I
give a brief description of the linguistic nature of the Hebrew text of
Shem-Tob's Matthew. I offer this material (consecutive tenses,
non-consecutive tenses, infinitives, pronouns, and vocabulary) merely to
acquaint the reader with the type of Hebrew employed in the text. In no way
do I use this material to argue for the date of the Hebrew text or for
anything else. It is pure description.
11. Petersen, apparently not understanding this material as profile, accuses
me of arguing for an early date of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew by my
discussion of the Hebrew waw consecutive. He writes:
Howard elaborates no further, so it is not entirely clear what his
point is. One surmises, however, that what he wishes to argue is
this:
1. Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew contains a feature which, according
to Howard, is distinctive of "Biblical Hebrew"; and
2. this feature fell from use, according to Howard, after the
decline of Biblical Hebrew; therefore,
3. Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew must have been composed in the
period when Biblical Hebrew was still in use--in other words,
in early Christian antiquity. [Petersen 1998: par. 18].
12. Once Petersen has concocted this theory and attributed it to me, he
ridicules me for believing it. "Howard never considers the possibility that
the waw-consecutivum might be an artificial, 'antique' feature used by the
translator to give his medieval Hebrew translation of Matthew an 'antique'
flavor" (Petersen 1998: par. 20). "Howard seems unaware that there is
empirical, textual evidence that the waw-consecutivum was used long after
the decline of Biblical Hebrew" (Petersen 1998: par. 21). He then cites some
little known codex, Vaticanus 32 of the late sixteenth or early
seventeenth-century, made by a certain Dominicus of Jerusalem, as empirical
proof that the waw consecutive survived the biblical period. (I will return
to this codex momentarily.)
13. I must confess to some bewilderment. Petersen creates a theory ex
nihilo--one that I do not formulate myself and with which I disagree--then
takes delight in criticizing me for it. If he had just read the opposite
page (same opening), he would have realized that his theory does not reflect
my beliefs at all. I write,
If it were a matter of an original Jewish composition in the late
Middle Ages, one would expect BH [Biblical Hebrew] or even archaic
BH to play a dominate role, as is the case with most texts written
during this time" [Howard 1995: 178].
I am fully aware that the waw consecutive was used in the late medieval
period and clearly state this. If Petersen had read the context carefully,
he would have known this.
Example 2
14. A second example is Petersen's treatment of my section on Shem-Tob and
the Gospel of Thomas. I conclude the section by writing, "It is highly
unlikely that Shem-Tob had direct contact with the Gospel of Thomas. The
agreements of his Matthew with Thomas, therefore, must be traced to the
early centuries of the Christian era" (Howard 1995: 205). With these words,
I attempt to demonstrate that the readings under consideration predate the
fourteenth century and therefore were not created by Shem-Tob. I think
Petersen is in basic agreement with this statement; he just wishes to place
some intermediary gospel texts between Shem-Tob and Thomas. And this is fine
with me. It fits quite well with my understanding of the revisionary nature
of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew.
15. The problem that I have with Petersen is that he thinks I believe that
the agreements between Shem-Tob and Thomas prove that Shem-Tob's Hebrew
Matthew is ancient. He writes, "Howard's most important evidence for the
antiquity of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew consists of lists of agreements
between it and texts known in ancient Christianity" (Petersen 1998: par.
36). He then invents another theory ex nihilo, imputes it to me, and accuses
me of it. His theory, in abbreviated form, is the following:
(1) Parallels exist between the Hebrew Matthew in Shem-Tob's Even
Bohan . . . and these early Christian texts whose circulation was
in Eastern Christendom. (2) None of these early Christian texts
was known in or circulated in the West during the medieval period
when Shem-Tob composed the Even Bohan. . . . (3) . . . One
is--according to Howard--driven to conclude that these common
readings must be the result of this Hebrew Matthew having been
composed in a time and in a place where works such as the Gospel
of Thomas, the Vetus Syra, and Codex Sinaiticus were in
circulation--in other words, in ancient Christianity [Petersen
1998: par. 36].
16. Again, I must confess to bewilderment. I do not make this argument in my
book and believe none of it. I do not know when Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew
dates or where it was created. I clearly state my position: "It is highly
unlikely that Shem-Tob had direct contact with the Gospel of Thomas. The
agreements of his Matthew with Thomas, therefore, must be traced to the
early centuries of the Christian era" (Howard 1995: 205). You will note that
I write, "the agreements of his Matthew with Thomas . . . must be traced to
the early centuries of the Christian era." I do not write "Shem-Tob's Hebrew
Matthew must be traced to the early centuries of the Christian era."
17. But Petersen does not recognize this nuance in my writing, and lashes
out against me, apparently thinking that I do not state the issue correctly.
"Howard appears confused when he states that 'it is highly unlikely that
Shem-Tob had direct contact with the Gospel of Thomas,' for it is clear to
everyone--and Howard himself has argued this point . . . that Shem-Tob did
not translate this Hebrew Matthew, but incorporated an already existing
(and, therefore, older) Hebrew Matthew into his Even Bohan" (Petersen 1998:
par. 50). I wish to assure Petersen that this is not clear to everyone. It
has never been clear to everyone. In fact, the reason I wrote this book is
to prove that Shem-Tob did not create this Hebrew Matthew.
II. Petersen and Medieval Hebrew Language and Literature
18. One would expect that a person who chooses to write a review of a book
containing a Hebrew text from a medieval Jewish polemical treatise would be
well acquainted with medieval Hebrew language and literature. Otherwise, how
could he/she write an intelligible review? Unless I am badly mistaken,
Petersen does not approach medieval Hebrew language and literature with a
great deal of sophistication. Please observe the following points.
A.
19. Petersen tells us that Hebrew Matthews have been known and used for
centuries. He mentions those published by Sebastian Münster and Jean du
Tillet. He continues, "However, in addition to these two, at least five
other Hebrew Matthews (mostly fragmentary) are known: (1) the Book of
Nestor, (2) the Milhamot HaShem, (3) the Sepher Joseph Hamekane, (4) the
Nizzahon Vetus, and, now, (5) the work edited by Howard" (Petersen 1998:
par. 3).
20. This statement is revealing. The Book of Nestor, the Milhamot HaShem,
the Sepher Joseph Hamekane, and the Nizzahon Vetus are not Hebrew Matthews.
They are medieval anti-Christian polemical treatises written in Hebrew.
Moreover, Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew, the only Hebrew Matthew in the lot, is
not fragmentary; it includes the entire Gospel of Matthew. Petersen's
knowledge of medieval Jewish writings is clearly faulty on this point.
B.
21. To return now to Petersen's codex Vaticanus 32 (cf. above, par. 12), he
writes, "Howard seems unaware that there is empirical, textual evidence that
the waw-consecutivum was used long after the decline of Biblical Hebrew." He
then cites codex Vaticanus 32 of the late sixteenth or early
seventeenth-century, made by Dominicus of Jerusalem, as empirical proof that
the waw consecutive survived the biblical period.
22. I agree with Petersen that the document he offers provides the empirical
evidence he is looking for. But why refer to this document? It is like going
into a library, checking out a book inaccessible to most readers, finding a
picture of an automobile on one of the streets of America, and then
announcing to the world that this is empirical proof that automobiles have
been driven in America. Granted you have proven your point. But would it not
be easier simply to walk outside and observe the traffic? Petersen is
apparently unaware that there is a whole corpus of medieval Hebrew
literature out there that is written primarily in biblical Hebrew!
C.
23. Petersen's assessment of my translation tells us a whole lot more about
Petersen than about my translation. He describes my English translation as
"not entirely accurate." What disturbs him, among other things, is the way I
render the waw consecutive. (He seems to have difficulty getting beyond the
Hebrew conjunction.) He writes, "It is very odd, then, that Howard's
translation often fails to render this feature, which he considers to be a
key piece of evidence for the antiquity of this Hebrew Matthew." He then
cites Matt 2:11 and writes, "The waw-consecutivum actually occurs six times
in this sentence, but five of them are omitted by Howard's translation."
Next, he argues that my translation sometimes "does not accurately reflect
the word order of the Hebrew." He cites Matt 3:9 where the Hebrew reads
literally, "Father-our Abraham," and writes, "Howard translates this as
'Abraham is our father,' instead of 'Our father is Abraham." He then speaks
of these "subtle moves away from a literal translation" (Petersen 1998:
pars. 13-15).
24. I am aware that some people feel the need for an interlinear translation
of the Bible, but these are usually people to whom biblical languages are
basically a mystery. Without a word-for-word translation of the original
language, they are lost in that language. But, once one gets beyond the
initial stages of the alphabet and basic grammar, one usually no longer
feels the need for a word-for-word, woodenly literal rendition of the text.
While there may be disagreement on how the finished product should read,
there is little or no disagreement that a translator is permitted to have
some freedom in making a readable version. Petersen is apparently one of
those who needs an Aquila-type translation, thinking that anything less is
"not entirely accurate."
D.
25. For some reason, Petersen ignores the section in my book that deals with
medieval Hebrew documents, e.g., pp. 155-173. In fact, unless I am
overlooking the obvious, he avoids almost everything that requires a
knowledge of medieval Hebrew language and literature that is beyond the most
elementary level. As demonstrated above, his one skirmish into Hebrew
grammar, that regarding the waw consecutive, is pedestrian. Perhaps Petersen
should have recused himself from writing a review of my book on the grounds
that he is unacquainted with the area.
III. Petersen and the Middle Dutch Liège Harmony
26. I will begin by congratulating Petersen for pointing out that some of
Shem-Tob's readings agree with the Middle Dutch Liège Harmony. His discovery
confirms what I have argued all along about Shem-Tob's Hebrew gospel text,
namely, that it underwent a significant period of transmission and
development during which it accumulated considerable textual baggage. I had
already pointed out numerous agreements between Shem-Tob's text and other
documents and text forms. Now Petersen adds the Middle Dutch Liège Harmony.
He reports on a long list of parallels he has found between Shem-Tob and the
Middle Dutch Liège Harmony. But, given his way of counting parallels (see
below), I suspect there will be some disagreement about the actual length of
this list. Petersen is obviously very fond of (obsessed with?) the Middle
Dutch Liège Harmony. His application of this document in arguing for the
origin and nature of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew, however, leaves a great deal
to be desired. Let me explain.
A.
27. Petersen disputes my claim that the Old Latin and the Old Syriac
sometimes agree with Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew against all other Matthean
witnesses. He argues that many of these readings are also to be found in the
Middle Dutch Liège Harmony. He writes, "Howard's claim that these readings
[agreements between Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and the Old Latin] are
'against all other Matthean witnesses' is simply not true. Of his twelve
readings, six--once again, half of Howard's list--are found in just a single
source, namely the Middle Dutch Liège Harmony (if the comparison were
expanded to include all the Western gospel harmonies, the number would
increase)" (Petersen 1998: par. 57, italics his).
28. I find this to be a very strange statement. Does Petersen actually
believe that the Middle Dutch Liège Harmony is a "Matthean witness?" It
strikes me as inappropriate to describe a gospel harmony as a "Matthean
witness." Usually, we reserve this label for such documents as Codex
Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. But Petersen wishes to extend it to include
the Middle Dutch Liège Harmony. I reviewed my list of readings and found
that almost all of them belong to the double or triple traditions of the
synoptic gospels. Just how the Middle Dutch Liège Harmony can be a Matthean
witness in the double and triple traditions, where words and phrases of the
synoptic gospels are intertwined and overlapped, is unclear.
29. In regard to my list of agreements between Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and
the Old Syriac against all other Matthean witnesses, Petersen again writes,
"[This] is simply false. Numerous readings are parallel in Western
harmonized gospel texts; indeed, singling out just one such text, four of
his twelve readings are found in the Liège Harmony, and a fifth approximates
its reading" (Petersen 1998: par. 59, italics his).
30. He thus reconfirms his belief that the Middle Dutch Liège Harmony is a
Matthean witness. If this had happened only once, one might discard it as a
verbal slip. But twice? (Actually he does it a third time in Petersen 1998:
par. 79.) Again, I reviewed my list and found that almost all of the
readings belong to the double or triple traditions of the synoptic gospels.
31. I offer here six examples (more than half of those Petersen singles out)
from my lists for you to judge for yourself if the Middle Dutch Liège
Harmony is truly another "Matthean witness." It will be instructive to put
Petersen under the gun, so to speak, and see if the examples, which he
himself approves, actually support his contention. Please keep in mind that
the operative question is whether the Middle Dutch Liège Harmony is another
Matthean witness that supports Shem-Tob's reading.
I. Shem-Tob and the Old Latin
1. 32. Matt 1:12
o Greek: "And after the deportation to Babylon, Jechonia begat
Shealtiel"
o Shem-Tob: "Jeconiah begat Shealtiel" ["After the Babylonian exile"
pr. mss]
o Liège Harmony (Plooij 1929-1970: 19): "After that Jechoniah begat
Shealtiel"
2. 33. Matt 16:4
o Greek: "An evil and adulterous generation"
o Luke 11:29: "This generation is an evil generation."
o Shem-Tob: "The offspring of evil doers"
o Liège Harmony (Plooij 1929-1970: 127): "The wicked man and the
unbelieving"
3. 34. Matt 18:9
o Greek: "To be thrown into the Gehenna of Fire"
o Mark 9:47: "To be thrown into Gehenna"
o Shem-Tob: "To be given to Gehenna"
o Liège Harmony (Plooij 1929-1970: 292): "thou shouldst fare to
hell"
II. Shem-Tob and the Old Syriac
4. 35. Matt 8:9
o Greek: "For I am a man set [mss] under authority"
o Luke 7:8: "For I am a man set under authority"
o Shem-Tob: "I am a sinful man and I have authority"
o Liège Harmony (Plooij 1929-1970: 105): "For I am a man who is
occupied with the secular power"
5. 36. Matt 22:35
o Greek: "one of them, a lawyer"
o Mark 12:28: "one of the scribes"
o Luke 10:25: "a certain lawyer"
o Shem-Tob: "a sage (xkm)"
o Liège Harmony (Plooij 1929-1970: 476): "one of the scribes, who
was a master of the law"
6. 37. Matt 26:10
o Greek: "she has done a good work"
o Mark 14:6: "she has done a good work"
o Shem-Tob: "she has done a good and marvelous work"
o Liège Harmony (Plooij 1929-1970: 560): "she has done a good work"
38. Needless to say, these examples do not inspire a great deal of
confidence. In fact, they are worthless! To argue that the Middle Dutch
Liège Harmony is another Matthean witness that supports Shem-Tob's Hebrew
text in these passages is just grasping at straws. Some of the other
examples are perhaps more convincing, but even here it is often a matter of
interpretation. And the fact that they almost all occur in the double or
triple traditions of the synoptic gospels generally nullifies the Middle
Dutch Liège Harmony from being a "Matthean witness."
B.
39. Petersen understands the agreements between Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew
and the Middle Dutch Liège Harmony as a key to the origin of the Hebrew
Matthew. With confidence, he informs us that he knows the origin of this
text. "There is no mystery," he writes, "about the genesis of Shem-Tob's
Hebrew Matthew" (Petersen 1998: par. 104). He goes on to explain the
document's origin: "The tradition behind the Liège Harmony--which we know to
be a Latin gospel harmony--must also be the principal element responsible
for the textual complexion of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew" (Petersen 1998:
par. 104). Again he writes, "The Hebrew Matthew in Shem-Tob clearly
incorporates older traditions, but these are merely derived from its Latin
Vorlage, a Vorlage which was closely related to [the] Latin Vorlage of the
Middle Dutch Liège Harmony" (Petersen 1998: par. 118). He dates the Latin
Vorlage of the Liège Harmony to be approximately 1100, or the mid-point, +/-
200 years, between 900 and 1300, the outside limits for the Vorlage's date
(Petersen 1998: par. 109).
40. I have two major problems with Petersen's understanding of the origin of
Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew.
41. (1) One problem is the weakness of Petersen's evidence that Shem-Tob's
Hebrew Matthew as a whole goes back to a Latin Vorlage. He believes that the
Middle Dutch Liège Harmony goes back to a Latin Vorlage, and since there are
agreements between Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and the Middle Dutch Liège
Harmony (some of which apparently suggest a Latin base), he believes that
Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew as a whole also goes back to a Latin Vorlage.
42. But what Petersen does not tell you is that he is ignoring all the
evidence that demonstrates that the base text of much of Shem-Tob's Matthew
is Hebrew, not Latin. By making a careful selection of readings that appear
to have a Latin base, and being silent about those that do not, he proposes
that the whole comes from a Latin base. But until he explains the Hebrew
puns, word connections, alliteration, and the other evidence pointing to a
Hebrew base, his evidence for a Latin Vorlage is nonprobative.
43. (2) A second problem is that Petersen apparently believes that a gospel
harmony can explain the origin of a single gospel. But Petersen does not
tell us how this can be. A gospel harmony can influence the composition and
scribal transmission of a single gospel, but it is very unlikely that it can
explain a single gospel's ultimate origin. Evidence that Petersen is
ambivalent on this point is how he changes terminology. One time he writes,
"common Vorlage," (Petersen 1998: par. 105); then he writes,
"harmony-influenced separate gospel text" (Petersen 1998: par. 113). Just
what a common Vorlage would be for the Middle Dutch Liège Harmony and
Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew is beyond my comprehension.
44. Perhaps the analogy of the Diatessaron of Tatian and the Evangelion
da-Mepharreshe (separate gospels) will help Petersen sort this out. Two
extant manuscripts of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, the Curetonian and the
Sinaitic Syriac, contain a great many harmonistic readings that appear to
come from the Diatessaron. A longstanding debate concerns which one of these
text forms came first, the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe or the Diatessaron.
Generally it is believed that the Diatessaron was the earliest form of the
gospel in Syriac and that the translator(s) of the Evangelion
da-Mepharreshe, immersed in the wording of the Diatessaron, employed much of
the Diatessaron's phraseology. In addition, the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe
acquired new readings from the Diatessaron as it was transmitted.
Nevertheless, in spite of this, in the final analysis the Evangelion
da-Mepharreshe is a translation of some form of the separated gospels
(perhaps Greek), not the Diatessaron. F. C. Burkitt explains as follows:
The Evangelion da-Mepharreshe is a translation from the Greek.
Even if the translator knew the Diatessaron in Syriac and was
greatly influenced by it, it is nevertheless obvious that a text
of the Four Gospels cannot be evolved from the Diatessaron alone.
. . . According to the view here suggested, the Evangelion
da-Mepharreshe in its original form gives in essentials a faithful
representation of the text of the Four Gospels as received at
Antioch about 200 AD. The wording of the translation has been
often influenced by the renderings found in the Syriac translation
of Tatian's Diatessaron, a work familiar to the translator of the
Evangelion da-Mepharreshe; to this cause also we may put down the
many instances of minor harmonistic readings, so far as they have
not been brought into our MSS by a similar tendency on the part of
Syriac scribes [Burkitt 1904: 191, 209-210].
45. Following this analogy, if Shem-Tob's Matthew received an input of
readings from the Middle Dutch Liège Harmony tradition or its Vorlage
sometime around or after 1100 CE (I concede this for the sake of the analogy
only), this does not explain the origin of the base text of the separated
Gospel of Matthew that was already in existence when the input was received.
Petersen's confusion over the nature of a gospel harmony has apparently led
him to assign more importance to the Middle Dutch Liège Harmony in regard to
the origin of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew than is appropriate.
46. It is this base text of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew, or its substratum,
that Petersen's theory does not explain. It is this substratum to which I
give much attention in my book. Unfortunately, Petersen pays no attention to
this, ignoring large sections of my book that describe it. It is a
substratum that belongs to a stage in the process of a textual evolution
that began in earlier times and culminated in du Tillet in the sixteenth
century, or possibly even later. It is a substratum filled with Hebrew puns,
word connections, and alliteration that cannot be explained by the Middle
Dutch Liège Harmony or by its Latin Vorlage. It is a substratum with its own
theology, different from the theology of canonical Matthew or the Middle
Dutch Liège Harmony.
IV. Did Petersen Read the Entire Book?
47. It appears that Petersen read only a small portion of my book. Judging
from the part of the book he actually comments on, I conjecture that he read
between 10 and 12 pages of the analysis, or approximately 15% of 81 pages.
Add to this an occasional reference to the text of Matthew and you get 15
pages at the outside. One might argue that Petersen read all the book, and
only commented on a few pages. I think this is not the case. Some of his
mistakes are understandable only if he did not read the whole book. For
example, he writes, "Virtually all of the arguments and evidence employed in
that first edition are absent from this second edition" (Petersen 1998: par.
17). This is untrue. If Petersen had read the whole book, he would have
known that almost all the evidence employed in the first edition (Howard
1987) is present in the second edition. Petersen also states that I never
return to the issue of Shem-Tob and the Gospel of John and never "present
any additional argumentation or evidence" (Petersen 1998: par. 71). This
also is untrue. He obviously did not read pages 220-221 of my book. For more
on this, see below in the Appendix.
48. In the Appendix, I review the material that Petersen ignores, including
the development of the Hebrew text, its literary characteristics, and its
theology. I will let you be the judge whether this material has anything to
offer concerning the origin and nature of the base text of Shem-Tob's Hebrew
Matthew.
Appendix
Pages 160-173
49. In this section, I show that Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew belongs to a
process of textual evolution within a Jewish Hebrew milieu that began in
earlier times and culminated in du Tillet in the sixteenth century, or
possibly later if other text forms are to be taken into consideration. The
works I include in this examination are the Hebrew polemical writings of the
Book of Nestor (dating perhaps between the sixth and ninth centuries), the
Milhamot HaShem by Jacob ben Reuben (1170), Sepher Joseph Hamekane by Rabbi
Joseph ben Nathan Official (thirteenth century), the Nizzahon Vetus (latter
part of the thirteenth century), and the Hebrew versions of Matthew
published by Sebastian Münster and du Tillet. The similarity of Shem-Tob's
text of Matthew with the quotations of Matthew in the earlier Hebrew
polemical works shows that Shem-Tob's text preserves an already existing
Hebrew Matthean tradition that had been in the process of evolution for an
unknown period of time.
50. Petersen does not comment on this part of my book except to mention the
Book of Nestor, the Milhamot HaShem, Sepher Joseph Hamekane, and the
Nizzahon Vetus, and to call them four Hebrew Matthews (see above, pars.
19-20).
Pages 182-183
51. This section, entitled: "Revision and Modification of the Hebrew Text,"
shows that the Hebrew text of Shem-Tob's Matthew has undergone extensive
revision throughout its transmission history. The revision includes
alteration designed to bring the Hebrew into line with the Greek and Latin
texts used during the Middle Ages, to improve the style of the Hebrew, and
to introduce various extraneous material into the narrative.
52. Petersen does not discuss this part of my book.
Pages 184-190
53. In this section I show that Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew is characterized
by literary devices such as puns, word connections, and alliteration. These
are numerous--some parts of the text are virtually saturated with them--and
they belong to the very structure of the Hebrew. Their origin cannot be
explained by the Middle Dutch Liège Harmony. I offer here some examples.
Puns
54. Matt 7:6: "Do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them
under foot and turn to attack you." "Swine" (xzyr) and "turn"
(yxzr) are similar in Hebrew, both in sound and appearance, and
form a wordplay in the text.
55. Matt 16:18: Instead of the famous Greek pun,
Pe/tros/pe/tra|, the Hebrew reads, "You are a stone,
and upon you I will build my house of prayer." The pun consists of the word
)bn "stone" and )bnh "I will build."
56. Matt 23:27-28: "For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly
appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men's bones and all
uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you
are full of hypocrisy and iniquity." The pun involves the root
qbr "tomb" and qrb "within."
Word Connections
57. Word connections are links made by the repetition of the same or similar
words designed to tie separate sayings and pericopes together.
58. Matt 4:21-23: "He turned from there and saw two other brothers, James
and John, brothers who were sons of Zebedeel [zbdy)l from
zbdy "gifts" and )l "God," perhaps meaning "gifts of
God"] . . . . Then Jesus went around the land of Galilee teaching their
assemblies and preaching to them the good gift (zbd) . . . of the
kingdom of Heaven." The repetition of zbd "gift" ties the
pericope of the call of the disciples to the pericope of Jesus' first
preaching tour in Galilee.
59. Matt 5:9-10: "Blessed are those who pursue [rwdpy] peace . .
. Blessed are those who are persecuted [hnrdpym] for
righteousness" [rdp = to pursue/to persecute].
60. Matt 8:28, 31: There met him [wypg(w bw] two demon-possessed
men. . . . Then the demons entreated him [wypg(w bw]"
[pg( = to meet/to entreat].
61. Matt 14:35-36: "They brought to him all those who were sick
[hxwlym] with various kinds of diseases. They implored
[wxlw] him" [xlh = to be sick/to implore].
62. Matt 15:34-37: "They answered, seven [#b(h] and a few fish.
So Jesus commanded the people to sit upon the grass. Then he took the seven
[h#b(h] loaves . . . . All of them ate and were satisfied
[wy#b(w] and from that which was remaining they filled seven
[h#b(h] seahs [#b(h = seven; #b( = to be
satisfied].
63. Matt 18:23-35: This parable is held together by the catch-word
#lm, first meaning "to repay," then "perfect."
At that time Jesus said to his disciples: the kingdom of heaven is
like a certain king who sat to make a reckoning with his servants
and ministers. As he began to reckon, one came who owed about ten
thousand pieces of gold. But he had nothing to give and his master
commanded to sell him and his children and all that was his to
repay [l#lm] the value. The servant fell before his
master and implored him to have pity on him and to be patient with
him because he would repay [y#lm] everything. Then his
master had pity on him and forgave him everything. But that
servant went out and found one of his comrades who owed him a
hundred pieces of money and he grasped him and struck him saying .
. . Trust me and be patient with me and I will repay
[)#lm] everything. But he was not willing to listen to
him; so they brought him to the prison until he repaid
[#lm] him everything. The servants of the king saw that
which he did and were very angry and went and told their master.
Then his master called him and said to him: Cursed servant, did I
not forgive you all your debt when you placated me? So why did you
not forgive your servant when he supplicated you as I forgave you?
His master was angry with him and commanded to afflict him until
he should repay [y#lm] him all the debt. Thus will my
Father who is in heaven do to you if you do not forgive each man
his brother with a perfect [#lm] heart.
64. Matt 19:9-13: He who takes her who has been divorced [hgrw#h]
commits adultery. . . . Then they brought children to him . . . but his
disciples were driving [mgr#ym] them away [gr# = to
divorce/to drive away].
65. Matt 26:28, 34-36: "This is my blood of the new covenant which will be
poured out for many for the atonement (lkprt) of sins. . . . .
Jesus said, Truly I say to you, this night before the cock-crow you will
deny (tkpwr) me three times. Peter said to him, If it is possible
for me to die with you, I will not deny ()kpwr) you . . . . Then
Jesus came with them to the village (lkpr) of Geshemonim." This
extended word connection is made up of the words kprh, meaning
"atonement," and kpr, meaning either "to deny" or "village."
Alliteration
66. There are many passages in Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew that are structured
around alliteration, including paronomasia and rhymes of various sorts.
* Matt 4:12: "John had been delivered up into prison (nmsr . .
. bm)sr)."
* Matt 4:21: "two other brothers ()xym )xrym)."
* Matt 9:8: "The crowds saw and feared (wyr)w . . .
wyr)w)."
* Matt 11:6: "Blesses is the one who (w)#ry )#r)."
* Matt 11:29: "Take my yoke upon you ((wly (lykm) . . . and
know that I am meek ((ny )ny)."
* Matt 14:32: "The wind settled down (nx hrwx)."
67. Petersen does not discuss this part of my book.
Pages 192-194
68. In this section I consider the short ending of Matthew in Shem-Tob's
Hebrew Matthew and a similar short ending that F. C. Conybeare observed in
some manuscripts of Eusebius. Conybeare suggested that the short ending in
Eusebius, lacking the Trinitarian baptismal formula, was reflected in Justin
Martyr (Dial. 39, 53) and Hermas (Sim. 9.27.4) (see Conybeare 1901). Others
have added new evidence for a short ending of Matthew, and this evidence is
discussed as well.
69. Petersen does not discuss this part of my book.
Pages 205-212
70. In these pages I consider several ancient writings that have variant
readings in agreement with Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew. These include the
Pseudo-Clementine Writings, The Tol[Image]doth Yeshu, and the Protevangelium
of James. The Pseudo-Clementine Writings, made up primarily of the
Recognitions and Homilies (but also the Epitomes), go back to an early third
century Grundschrift, which is itself a compilation of various works, the
oldest of which is the Kerygmata Petrou, or the Preaching of Peter. The Tol
[Image]doth Yeshu is a medieval Jewish antigospel which exists in various
forms. It dates somewhere between the beginning of the sixth and the tenth
centuries. It draws on early traditions reflected in the Talmud and Origen's
Contra Celsum. The Protevangelium of James dates perhaps in the second
century.
71. Petersen does not discuss this part of my book.
Pages 212-223
72. This section of the book is entitled, "Theological Motifs in Shem-Tob's
Matthew." The motifs are made up of various themes such as divorce,
swearing, the Gentiles, the Christ, and John the Baptist. In each instance
the Hebrew text of Shem-Tob treats these subjects differently than they are
treated in orthodox Christian writings. The Middle Dutch Liège Harmony does
not explain the origin of the theological patterns contained in these
motifs. Three examples follow.
The Gentiles
73. Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew envisions the incorporation of masses of the
Gentiles into the Kingdom of God not in this present age but only after this
present age ends (Matt 25:31-46). Its theology thus corresponds to the
Hebrew Bible and later Jewish thought (including some forms of Jewish
Christian thought), in which the entrance of the Gentiles is anticipated in
the golden age to come. In the canonical texts of the Church, the Gospel of
Matthew ends with the Great Commission (Matt 28:19), mandating the disciples
to "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." This ending
clearly opens the doors to the Gentiles for the present time. But this
ending does not occur in the Hebrew text. It reads instead, "Go and teach
them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever." This
is said apparently only in reference to the Jews, and nothing is said about
teaching or baptizing the Gentile nations.
The Christ
74. Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew has the peculiar characteristic of not
referring to Jesus as the Messiah/Christ until ch. 16. Before this, the
Hebrew text never calls Jesus the Messiah. In the canonical text of Matthew,
Jesus is called the Christ from the very beginning. A comparison of the
Greek and Hebrew texts suggests that these two text forms have different
theological agendas.
John the Baptist
75. Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew exalts John the Baptist above the role he
plays in the canonical Matthew; cf. Matt 11:11, 13; 17:11. In summary, these
passages assert that none is greater than John the Baptist, the prophets and
the law spoke concerning John, and John came to save all the world.
Traditional Christianity uses this language only in regard to Jesus. Its
appearance in the Hebrew Matthew to describe John elevates the Baptist to a
salvific role. This clearly flies in the face of the orthodox interpretation
of John.
76. In this section, I return to the subject of the Gospel of John in a
segment called "John the Baptist: The Fourth Gospel and Shem-Tob's Hebrew
Matthew" (Howard 1995: 220-221). In it I discuss the polemic against John
the Baptist in the Gospel of John. I demonstrate that Shem-Tob's Hebrew
Matthew depicts the Baptist in the exalted terms the Fourth Gospel polemizes
against. "If the Fourth Gospel was directed against the followers of John
the Baptist," I write, "one could hardly conceive of a more appropriate
document to represent this community than a Shem-Tob type Matthew" (Howard
1995: 221).
77. When criticizing my earlier treatment of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and
the Gospel of John, Petersen claims that I do not pursue the matter further.
He writes, "Howard does not pursue its implications [Petersen 1998: par. 69]
. . . . Howard neither answers it, nor does he present any additional
argumentation or evidence; one is simply left with his assertion that these
Johannine snippets suggest that 'the author of the Fourth Gospel knew a
Shem-Tob type of text of Matthew and used [it] when he wrote his gospel
[Petersen 1998: par. 71].'" Petersen obviously did not read pages 220-221 of
my book.
78. In a recent article (Howard 1998) I discuss more fully the significance
of the theological patterns running throughout the Hebrew text of Shem-Tob's
Matthew. I show that these patterns reflect a heterodox form of Jewish
Christianity.
79. Petersen does not discuss any part of this section.
Pages 223-229
80. In this portion of the book, I discuss passages in Shem-Tob's Hebrew
Matthew that receive a different meaning than they receive in the canonical
version.
81. Matt 19:22: The Greek reads, "When the young man heard this he went away
sorrowful, for he had great possessions." The Hebrew reads, "It came to pass
when the young man heard he went away angry because he did not have much
property."
82. Matt 26:13: The Greek reads, "Truly, I say to you, wherever this gospel
is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of
her." The Hebrew reads, "Truly, I say to you, everywhere this gospel . . .
is proclaimed in all the world, that which this one has done will be said in
reference to my memory."
83. Matt 28:6: The Greek reads, "Come, see the place where he lay." The
Hebrew reads, "Come, therefore, and see the place where the Lord arose."
84. In some instances, differences between the Greek and Hebrew texts can be
traced to possible variations in the Hebrew tradition.
85. Matt 7:6 in the canonical text reads, "Do not give that which is holy to
the dogs." The Hebrew text reads, "Do not give holy flesh to the dogs." The
difference in Hebrew is: that which is holy = )#r qd#; holy flesh
= b#r qd#.
86. Matt 7:29 in the canonical text reads, "For he was teaching them as one
having authority and not as their scribes." The Hebrew text reads, "For he
was preaching to them with great power, not as the rest of the sages." The
difference in Hebrew is: as = k)#r; as the rest =
k#)r.
87. Matt 8:26 in the canonical text reads, "Why are you fearful?" The Hebrew
text reads, "Why do you look at one another?" The difference in Hebrew is:
are you fearful = tr)w; do you look at one another =
ttr)w.
88. Matt 13:48 in the canonical text reads, "When it was full, they drew it
up on the shore." The Hebrew text reads, "When it is full they draw it out."
The difference in Hebrew is: on the shore = lxwp; out =
lxwc.
89. Matt 23:37 in the canonical text reads, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills
the prophets and stones those sent to her." The Hebrew text reads,
"Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and removes those who are sent." The
difference in Hebrew is: stones = wmsqlt; removes =
wmslqt.
90. Matt 26:23 in the canonical text reads, "He who has dipped his hand in
the dish with me will betray me." The Hebrew text reads, "He who dips his
hand with me in the dish will sell me." The difference in Hebrew is: will
betray me = ymsrny; will sell me = ymkrny.
91. Many other examples are listed. Petersen does not discuss this part of
my book.
Pages 229-232
92. In this segment, I discuss the use of the divine name in Shem-Tob's
Hebrew Matthew. The Hebrew employs the symbol h= for the Divine
Name, which I suggest is an abbreviation for h#m, "the Name."
This symbol occurs 19 times in the text, one time written out in full
(28:9). Usually the Divine Name appears where the Greek reads
ku/rios, but twice (21:12 mss, 22:31) the Greek reads
qeo/s, and three times the Divine Name has no correspondent in
the Greek (22:32; 27:9; 28:9).
93. Petersen does not discuss this section of my book.
© TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, 1999.
Bibliography
Black, Matthew 1967. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. 3rd ed.
Oxford: Clarendon.
Burkitt, F. Crawford 1904. Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe. Vol. 2: Introduction
and Notes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Conybeare, F. C. 1901. "The Eusebian Form of the Text Matth. 28, 19."
Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 2: 275-288.
Howard, George 1987. The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew
Text. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press; Louvain: Peeters.
Howard, George 1995. Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. Macon, GA: Mercer University
Press.
Howard, George 1998. "Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and Early Jewish
Christianity." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 70: 3-20.
Lindsey, Robert L. 1969. A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark.
Jerusalem: Dugith Publishers.
Petersen, William L. 1998. "Some Observations on a Recent Edition of and
Introduction to Shem-Tob's 'Hebrew Matthew.'" TC: A Journal of Biblical
Textual Criticism 3.
Plooij, Daniël 1929-1970. The Liège Diatessaron. Verhandelingen der
koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeling Letterkunde,
vol. 31. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Akademie Wetenschappen te Amsterdam.