² NTS 43 (1997) 58–71.Google Scholar

³ Howard, G., ed., The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text (Macon [Georgial]/Louvain, 1987).Google Scholar

⁴ In the second, retitled edition, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (Macon, 1995)Google Scholar (hereafter cited as ‘Howard ²’) 160–75.

⁵ So Howard², 160–1 (with bibliography).

⁶ Ibid., 160–4; 165–73.

⁷ Ibid., xii.

⁸ See supra, n. 3.

⁹ Howard²,160.

¹⁰ Ibid., 178; cf. also infra, n. 53.

¹¹ Ibid., 179.

¹² Zuntz, G., ‘A Piece of Early Christian Rhetoric in the New Testament Manuscript 1739’, JTS 47 (1946) 69–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, ‘Melito-Syriac?’, VC 6 (1952) 193–201.

¹³ Howard²,191–2, italics added.

¹⁴ Petersen, W. L., review of Howard's first edition, JBL 108 (1989) 723.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Howard², 195.

¹⁶ Numbering Howard's unnumbered readings, nos. 1, 2, 6, 7,10,11 are in Liège (Plooij, D. et al. , ed., The Liège Diatessaron [VNAW 31; Amsterdam, 1935–1970] 19, 115–16, 252, 127, 282, 292)Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Howard², 204; Howard presents 22 readings, but one (no. 9) is a non liquet, and has therefore been eliminated.

¹⁸ Ibid., 205, italics added.

¹⁹ Numbering Howard's unnumbered readings, nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7,13,17, 20, 21, 22 are in the Liège Harmony (Plooij, 353,180–1, 181, 83, 67, 67, 125–6, 169, 110, 110, 111); Howard's nos. 5 and 16 are very similar to Liège (Plooij, 67, 177); Howard's no. 10 is found in the Middle Dutch Stuttgart Harmony, a close relative of the Liège Harmony (on Stuttgart, see infra, n. 36).

²⁰ Howard², 195–6, italics added.

²¹ Ibid., 194.

²² Numbering Howard's unnumbered readings, nos. 10, 11, 13, 14^pt are in the Liège Harmony (Plooij, 217, 217, 476, 560); no. 5 is very similar (Plooij, 105).

²³ Howard², 199.

²⁴ Howard's nos. 1, 2, 3, 7,13,14,15,16,17 are found in the Liège Harmony (Plooij, 45, 45, 46,196, 691, 691, 699, 723, 723).

²⁵ ‘A characteristic feature of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew is its harmonistic readings’(Howard², 196); ‘There are many more readings in Shem-Tob's Matthew that agree with Mark and Luke than with John’ (ibid., 199).

²⁶ Baumstark, A., ‘Markus Kap. 2 in der arabischen Übersetzung des Isaak Velasquez. Veröffentlicht und unter dem Gesichtspunkt des Zusammenhangs mit dem Diatessaron gewürdigt’, OrChr 31 [III.9] (1934) 226–39Google Scholar. His apparatus gives about one parallel per verse (cf. Metzger, B., The Early Versions of the New Testament [Oxford, 1977] 21, 260)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Velasquez's translation remains unedited, precluding comparison with Shem-Tob's Matthew.

²⁷ Petersen, W. L., Tatian' Diatessaron. Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance, and History in Scholarship (VC.S 25; Leiden, 1994) 144–7, 170–95.Google Scholar

²⁸ This (1) is explicitly stated in the prefatio of the Liège Harmony, (2) conforms with the known practice of the period, and (3) is demonstrated by textual parallels with the Latin tradition.

²⁹ The Pepysian Harmony, ed. M. Goates, EETS O.S. 157 (London, 1922) xv–xviii.Google Scholar

³⁰ First deduced by Bishop Victor of Capua in 546, and confirmed by numerous scholars since (cf. Metzger, , Early Versions, 20–30Google Scholar, or Petersen, , Tatian's, 92–356)Google Scholar.

³¹ Petersen, W. L., ‘Textual Evidence of Tatian's Dependence upon Justin's A∏OMNHMONEYMATA, NTS 36 (1990) 512–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³² Among the many studies: Quispel, G., ‘Some Remarks on the Gospel of Thomas’, NTS 5 (1958/1959) 276–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, ‘L'Évangile selon Thomas et les Clémentines’, VC 12 (1958) 181–96; idem, ‘L'Éangile selon Thomas et le Diatessaron’, VC 13 (1959) 87–117, esp., idem, Tatian and the Gospel of Thomas (Leiden, 1975) 175–90, where over 150 parallels are given. While debate has raged over the relationship of these readings to the synoptics (independent or dependent), their existence is simply a fact: see Tuckett, C., ‘Thomas and the Synoptics’, NovT 30 (1988) 132–57, esp. 157, n. 99.Google Scholar

³³ For the editions consulted, see the ‘Catalogue of Manuscripts’ in Petersen, , Tatian's, 458Google Scholar (for Ephrem), 448 (Arabic), 457 (Persian), 464 (Fuldensis), 465 (Sangallensis), 485 (Venetian and Tuscan), 481 (Zürich), 481 (Pepys).

³⁴ Echoes of this gloss resonate in other members of the Western harmonized gospel tradition, two of which speak not of ‘eunuchs’ (as do both Shem-Tob and the Liège Harmony), but only of ‘the pure’ or ‘the chaste’: cf. the Middle Dutch Stuttgart Harmony, copied in 1332 (Bergsma, J., ed., De Levens van Jezus [Leiden, 1895–1898], 138Google Scholar), and the Middle English Pepysian Harmony, copied c. 1400 (Pepysian, 67).

³⁵ Zacharias Chrysopolitanus, In unum ex quatuor, Migne, PL 186, 214A-B, cf. 85B; Bede, , In Lucae Evangelium Expositio, in Bedae Venerabilis Opera, Pars II.3 (CChr.SL 120; Tvrnholti, 1960) 220Google Scholar (also in PL 92, 466C).

³⁶ Bergsma, 124.

³⁷ Cf. Koehler, L. & Baumgartner, W., ed., Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden, 1958) 842Google Scholar, s.v. .

³⁸ Gerhardt, C., ed., Diatessaron Theodiscum (CSSN 1.4; Leiden, 1970) 51.Google Scholar

³⁹ Ibid., 38: ‘do das gesahen die da waren do wurden sv bevangen mit grossem wunder vnd sprachen vnder ein ander …’

⁴⁰ The use in the Liège Harmony of parataxis where in Hebrew the waw-consecutivum is used is ubiquitous: Matt 3.3_legacy5 (cited in the 1989 review); 22.7; Luke 10.33–4; John 4.7; 4.16;4.17, etc.

⁴¹ The sole difference is the order of terms in Jesus' direct speech: ‘weep-go’ in the harmonies, ‘go-weep’ in Shem-Tob.

⁴² Diatessaron Theodiscum, 91.

⁴³ Messina, G., ed., Diatessaron Persiano (BibOr 14; Roma, 1951) 227Google Scholar. I thank Dr. Peter Joosse of Frankfurt for translating the Persian.

⁴⁴ Petersen, , JBL 108 (1989) 725Google Scholar. Note that the mere presence of a reading in Shem-Tob and an ancient source is not sufficient to make such a claim; only if the reading were absent from other intervening sources can such an argument be mounted. (This is, of course, the one of the major flaws in Howard's – and, as we will presently see, Shedinger's – work.) In the case of the Diatessaron, very precise criteria exist for gauging what is likely to be a Diatessaronic reading and what is not. Developed over eighty years of research, these criteria have three requirements: (1) the reading must be in both the Eastern and Western harmonized traditions (Readings 1–8 fail this test); (2) the reading must not be found in sources unrelated to the harmonized tradition (e.g., the Greek MS tradition or Fathers), from which members of the harmonized tradition might have acquired it; and (3) the genre of all the sources with the reading should be a gospel harmony or show evidence of contact with the harmonized tradition. Reading 10 satisfies these criteria. (For the history of the development of the criteria, a fuller explanation, and examples of their application, see Petersen, , Tatian's, 164, 222, 253–4, 319, 327, 342, 358–425.Google Scholar) It must be cautioned that finding the occasional ‘ancient’ Diatessaronic reading here and there in a document does not make the document itself ‘ancient’ – as Howard (and Shedinger) is wont to do. For example, Readings 1–8 are found only in Western members of the harmonized tradition; indeed, many occur only in the Middle Dutch tradition. These particular readings are neither ‘ancient’ nor Diatessaronic, despite the fact that they stand in the Liège Harmony, a document which elsewhere contains genuine Diatessaronic readings. And even when a Diatessaronic reading is found in the Liège harmony, it must be remembered that the reading comes only from Liège's Latin Vorlage – which, in turn, only stands at the end of a long chain of transmission extending back to the second-century Diatessaron. The same applies to Shem-Tob: its text is only ‘ancient’ where Diatessaronic readings can be documented – and even then it must be remembered that they have entered Shem-Tob from no more exotic a source than the medieval Latin manuscript from which the translator of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew worked.

⁴⁵ Shedinger, 58.

⁴⁶ Cf. Parker, D. C., Codex Bezae (Cambridge, 1992) 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁷ Shedinger, 58, n. 4.

⁴⁸ Vogels, H. J., Beiträge zur Geschichte des Diatessaron im Abendland (NTS 8.1; Münster, 1919)Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Shedinger, 67.

⁵⁰ Legg, S. C. E., ed., Nouum Testamentum Graece … Euangelium secundum Matthaeum (Oxonii, 1940)Google Scholarad loc.

⁵¹ Shedinger, 67.

⁵² Ibid., 68.

⁵³ Howard², 178; cf. the quotation, supra, n. 10.

⁵⁴ Shedinger, 67.

⁵⁵ Cf. supra, n. 26.

⁵⁶ This solution not only accounts for the parallels with the Liege Harmony, but also explains many of Shem-Tob's distinctive features: the harmonizations, ‘Semitisms’, and parallels with the Gospel of Thomas, the Pseudo-Clementines, and the Vetus Syra. All of these features are common to the entire Western harmonized gospel tradition, and have been noted in the literature for decades. The facility with which our solution – in a single stroke – explains all these distinctive features confirms the conclusion already reached on the basis of the parallels with the Liège Harmony.

⁵⁷ Horbury, W., in an Appendix entitled ‘The Hebrew Text of Matthew in Shem Tob ibn Shaprut's Eben Bohan’, in Davies, W. C. and Allison, D. C., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew 3, Commentary on Matthew XIX-XXVIII (ICC; Edinburgh, 1997) 729–38Google Scholar, examines seven readings which Howard used to show the evolution of the Hebrew Matthew tradition. Horbury's conclusions – reached independently, with different readings, and with different evidence (most notably Horbury's mastery of medieval Hebrew literature) – are in agreement with our own, to wit: ‘… their [the deviating readings in the Hebrew Matthews] origin seems likely to lie in the Latin textual tradition’ (p. 731), and ‘Much in [Shem-Tob's] Hebrew Matthew … points to medieval origin’ (p. 738). (The author is indebted to the journal's anonymous reader of this article and Prof. H. J. de Jonge of Leiden who independently called his attention to Horbury's study.)