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

From: James Trimm <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 18:06:14 -0500

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

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 08:59:30 -0400 (EDT)

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 Lige Harmony. Because we
find not just identical readings, but also evidence of identical
harmonization in the separate gospels both in Velasquez/Lige and in
Shem-Tob/Lige, it is clear that this Latin harmonized gospel tradition
influenced not just vernacular harmonies (such as the Lige 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 <--------------------

---

From: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 10:29:44 -0700

James R. Adair wrote:

> 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
[email-masked]

---

From: James Trimm <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 13:36:34 -0500

>wrong before...I think back in 1948 (g).

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