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

From: [email-masked] (U. Schmid)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 10:39:06 +0100

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: [email-masked]

NIAS - Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study
Meijboomlaan 1
2242 PR Wassenaar
The Netherlands
http://www.knaw.nl/nias/

---

From: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 06:42:34 -0500

> 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
[email-masked]

---

From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 08:45:49

>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,
[email-masked]              : and songs chant the words.
http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ :               -- Shujing 2.35

---

From: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 10:50:16 -0700

> 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
[email-masked]