Subject: Re: P45 and SHEM-TOB's Hebrew Matthew

From: "William L. Petersen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 17:18:56 -0500

The article mentioned is by R.F. Shedinger;  it  has some errors in fact as
well as in its presuppositions.  Additionally, it (inexplicably?) fails to
address points I raised in my review (in JBL 108 [1989], pp. 722-726) of the
first edition of Howard's book (which was titled *The Gospel of Matthew
according to a Primitive Hebrew Text* [1988];  the second, revised edition
is more modestly titled, *Hebrew Gospel of Matthew* [1995]).  The remarks in
my review are self-explanatory, and supported by textual evidence;  I am
preparing a critique of Shedinger's article for publication.

While Howard's revised edition has more substantive evidence, both his study
and Shedinger are defecting for failing to examine links between Shem-Tob
(who dates c. 1400) and the medieval Matthew traditions;  rather, they jump
from S-T back to the first five Xtian centuries--which is an error of
method, especially when there are distinctive, unique textual links between
S-T and MSS copied about 1300 (in Latin, Middle Dutch, etc.).  Shedinger's
assertion (p. 58) that "the only Greek manuscripts available to him [S-T]
would have likely contianed a Byzantine Imperial type of text, also known as
Nestle-Aland's Majority Text" is empirically wrong.  The medieval world was
full of "wild" texts (Codex Bezae itself is often presumed to have been
taken to the Council of Trent [1546], and in the 9th cent. Ado, writing
in/near Lyons, used a similar text for his quotations from Acts [see A
Souter, *The Text and Canon of the NT* (1913), pp. 25-26]).  Need one say
it?  The text of Codex Bezae is hardly that of "the Byzantine Imperial
type."  In the same period, Vetus Latina MSS were also being copied:  c
(12/13th cent.) g1 (8/9th), etc.  Additionally, the tradition which has
(apparently) the closest links with S-T, namely, the Diatessaron, has Latin
copies being made throughout the medieval period, as well as vernacular
copies in Old and Middle High German, Middle Dutch, Middle Italian, etc.

Howard's text is very interesting, and here and there may have very ancient
features, but these can only be verified by finding other ancient documents
(as he does in some places in his new, revised edition) with the identical
reading--*and no other documents between the time of that ancient document
and S-T with the same reading.*  That Howard and Schedinger (usually) do not
do.  Furthermore, they ignore utterly the sources which are both
*geographically* and *chronologically* closest to Shem-Tob, namely copies of
Matthew/Matthew quotations/gospel harmonies executed between, say, 1000 and
1400 C.E.

As a methodological point, note that *if* you limit your sights to S-T and,
say, P45, it appears there is dependence;  but if you are familiar with more
sources, the links become very dubious.  Two examples:  Shedinger's first
example, Matt 7.11, read "good spirit" (S-T & P45) for "good things" (Mt) or
"Holy Spirit" (Lk. 11.13).  Shedinger observes in note 13 (p. 60) that
"spiritum bonum" is found in the Vulgate and some Vetus Latina MSS.  Well,
why argue that the reading comes from P45???  The Vulgate and the Vetus
Latina were certainly in circulation in medieval Spain!  A final example:
Shedinger's agreement between Matt 17.1 (pp. 64-66 in his article), in which
Shem-Tob harmonizes Matt with Luke and then Mark, is paralleled in the
Middle Dutch Liege Harmony (ed. C.C. de Bruin, p. 125), copied about 1280
C.E., roughly a century before Shem-Tob.  Which is more likely:  That S-T is
preserving a tradition from P45, or that S-T is privy to the same (Latin)
medieval tradition from which the Middle Dutch harmony was copied?  (And
that medieval Latin tradition demonstrably goes back to a Syriac tradition,
even in the West [the Middle Dutch Liege Harmony has "Semitisms" and unique
textual agreements with the Vetus Syra], etc....)  It is not surprising that
there are links between S-T and the Liege Harmony in the readings Shedinger
adduces:  nearly a decade ago in my JBL review, I pointed out and gave
numerous examples of these links...now we find another one...

In short, the better acquainted you are with the textual environment (e.g.,
the medieval world) in which Shem-Tob worked, the less likely a direct link
with antiquity (e.g., P45) becomes.  That there is a link is not in dispute,
just as "Good News for Modern Man" has links with P45.  But the "link" is
*not* *directly* between P45 and GNfMM:  it is between GNfMM and the RSV,
KJV, etc., which go back to the Vulgate, which goes back to, etc., etc.  And
in the case of S-T, the intermediary is clear:  medieval textual traditions,
including gospel harmonies, which circulated in Latin, and which rest upon a
Syriac archetype (even in the West).

--Petersen, Penn State Univ.

At 12:25 PM 3/7/97 -0800, you wrote:
>There is an interesting article in "New Testament Studies", vol. 43,
>1997, pp58-71 entitled "The textual relationship between P45 and
>Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew" by Robert F. Shedinger.
>
>He makes a comparison which lends support to the conclusions of
>George Howard that Shem-Tob's Matthew represents an original
>composition of Matthew's gospel in Hebrew.
>
>Is this the concensus among all experts in this field, and if
>so, will this lead to the addition of this resource as a tool
>for translation of the Greek version of Matthew's gospel ?
>
>Sincerely,
>-lars
>
>

---

From: Alan Repurk <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 15:46:28 -0800

William L. Petersen wrote:

> I am preparing a critique of Shedinger's article for publication.

I look forward to reading it.
  
> method

I would suppose that all of those sources will eventually be compared.
  
> The Vulgate and the Vetus Latina were certainly in circulation in medieval Spain! 

A footnote in the article apparently addresses that Howard has evidence that
the S-T is not from the Vg, apparently published in JBL.

I do have one question. Considering the purpose of the S-T, as a polemic, would
we guess that great effort would have been made to translate a text from
numerous sources or would it all have been derived from one source ?   

-lars

---

From: george howard <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 97 08:38:04 EST

Re William Petersen's comment on Shedinger and me. It is true that
Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew has parallels with a number of medieval
readings. It is also true that he has unique parallels with such out of
the way documents as Codex Sinaiticus and the Old Syriac (SyS and SyC).
He perhaps has more parallels with the Old Syriac than any other textual
tradition (though I have not counted them). I suppose we can go two ways
(maybe more). 1. We can say that Shem-Tob was an  eclectic scholar who
prepared a special text of Matthew in his polemic against the church,
choosing readings from a great many sources. 2. He preserves an ancient
text whose readings crop up in a multiplicity of ancient and medieval
documents. Given the fact that Shem-Tob believed the Gospel of Matthew
was a damnable document, I find it hard to believe that he prepared a
new text of the gospel in which he selected readings from a great many
sources, some coming from great antiquity and apparently not available
to anyone else in the world but him, enhanced the text with puns, word
connections, and alliteration, added a symbol for the Divine Name 19
times, inserted a number of subtle  theological motifs that go back to
early Jewish Christianity, and then told his readers that the only
reason he was inserting the Hebrew Matthew into his treatise, the Even
Bohan, was so they could learn to refute it and crush the Christians.
Number 1 is fraught with a great many problems. Number 2 is much more
reasonable.

---

From: [email-masked] (Ulrich Schmid)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 97 18:49:55 +0100

On Mon, 10 Mar 1997, George Howard wrote:

>It is true that Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew has parallels with a number of 
>medieval
>tradition (though I have not counted them). 

Maybe counting agreements can not solve all of the problems, but it surely is a 
strong indicator when it comes to questions of textual relationships. So, why 
not counting them? Maybe, because counting agreements also involves counting 
_disagreements_?
I am somehow puzzled by the fact that the Latin traditions (Old Latin and 
Vulgate MSS, Harmonies) are not mentioned as possible candidates for testing 
agreements/disagreements in relation to Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew (as Bill 
Petersen already pointed out).

>I suppose we can go two ways (maybe more). 1. We can say that Shem-Tob was an  
>eclectic scholar who prepared a special text of Matthew in his polemic against 
>the church, choosing readings from a great many sources.

Again, a closer look at the Latin tradition presumably would have prevented this 
type of carricature. Virtually every single Vulgate MS displays at least some 
Old Latin readings. When dealing only with the Latin harmony tradition(s) - not 
to mention the other vernacular harmonies - we find therein a considerable 
degree of "mixed" textual situation, i.e. generally "vulgatized" harmonies 
nevertheless display sometimes unique agreements with various parts of textual 
transmission. It would simply be hazardous to label each and every 
scribe/producer of textually "mixed" MSS an "eclectic scholar..., choosing 
readings from a great many sources". 

>2. He preserves an ancient
>documents. 

As Bill Petersen already pointed out: Each and every copy of the Gospel of 
Matthew in each and every language preserves a lot of ancient readings, and, 
therefore, a somehow ancient text. In the case of Shem Tob or any other medieval 
source it is essential to establish a reasonably _distinct_ text which may or 
may not be "ancient", depending on the level of agreement (and disagreement) of 
this distinct text with other witnesses. As long as only parts of the textual 
tradition (predominantly old ones as, e.g., the Old Syriac or P 45) are sought 
through, and as long as agreements and disagreements are not counted, I simply 
remain unconviced of the distinct "ancient text" preseved in Shem-Tob's Hebrew 
Matthew. It may well be another amalgam of medieval (Latin or vernacular) Gospel 
traditions.

snip

>Number 1 is fraught with a great many problems. Number 2 is much more

In my own judgment the alternative is simply mistaken.

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

---

From: Alan Repurk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 09:43:17 -0800

> Bohan, was so they could learn to refute it and crush the Christians.

Does anyone have a satisfactory explanation for the inclusion of the
tetragrammaton in the S-T, besides the obvious conclusion that he
copied it from a Hebrew original ?  It would seem to defeat the purpose
of the S-T as a document which was intended to represent the Christian
tradition for polemic reasons to add the Divine Name.  Would not the
superstition of this devout Jewish translator impose certain restrictions
on him with regard to this name ?

In looking at some of the old posts I happened to file away I found
some quotations from a book by James Scott Trimm entitled
"The Good News According to Matthew from an old Hebrew Manuscript",
a translation and analysis of the 15th Century DuTillet manuscript.
I have not checked these for accuracy and have not read the book, so
I hope the original poster did his homework .....

Sincerely,
-lars

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Irenaeus (150-170 CE)"Matthew issued a written gospel among the Hebrews
in their own dialect..."  (Against Heresies 3:1)

Origen (210 CE) "The first is written according to Matthew, the same that
was once a tax collector, but afterwards an emissary of Yeshua the
Messiah, who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in
the Hebrew." (Eusebius E.H. 4:25)

Pantaenus... penetrated as ar as India, where it is reported that he
found the gospel according to Matthew, which had been delivered before
his arrival to some who had the knowledge of Messiah, to whom
Bartholomew, one of the emissaries, as it is said, had preached, and left
them that writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters." (Euseb. E. H. 5:10)

Epiphanius (370 CE) "They (the Nazarenes) have the gospel according to
Matthew quite complete, in Hebrew, for this gospel is certainly still
preserved among them as it was first written, in Hegrew letters."
(Panarion 29:9:4)

Jerome (382 CE) "Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collector came
to be an emissary, first of all the evangelists composed a gospel of
Messiah in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters, for the benefit
of those of the circumcision who had believed; who translated it into
Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is
preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr
Pamphilus so diligently collected.  I also was allowed by the Nazarenes
who use this volume in the Syrian city of Boroea to copy it.  In which is
to be remarked that, wherever the evangelist...makes use of the
testimonies of the old Scripture, he does not follow the authority of the
seventy translators, but that of the Hebrew."
(Jerome; Of Illustrious Men 3)

End note to a 5th century Aramaic Matthew (the Peshitta): "Completion of
the Holy Gospel as published by Matthew; and which he published in
Hebrew, in the land of the Palestinians."