Munster: Textual Criticism 300 Years Ahead of its Time?
Quinquarboreus writes in his preface to his 1551 edition of Hebrew Matthew:
Si tamen Musterus quae in eo restituit vel de suo addidit, afte risco vel signo quouis alio notasset, multo certe melius nobis cosuluisset, nam ita co gnosceremus antiqui autho ris stilum & phrafes, meliusque de ipso authore iudiacaretur.
Refined translation:
If, however, Munster restored by himself or on his own which he added, after an astrisk or any other sign het noted them, much better for us to cosuluisset at least, for the author so I shall devote themselves to the ancient style and and know the phraseology of the author judgement better of him.
Using the earlier translation I had puzzled over this and assumed he was speaking of Munster's own 1537 publication of the text, but this RARELY had such notes (I think there is ONE). So it appears Quinquarboreus is publishing material he inherited from his old teacher Munster which includes these notes that were never published in Munster's own editions. More or less we may have the raw notes here of Munster's work.
Remember there has been debate about Munster's own preface in 1537 in which he wrote:
"Matthaei evangeluium in nativa sua,
hoc est Hebraica lingua, non qualiter
apud Hebraeorum vulgus lacerum inveni,
sed a me redintegratum et in unum
corpus redactum emittemus"
Literally in English:
"The Gospel of Matthew in the original, the actual Hebrew
language, is not as it is among the people in the Hebrew. I came
upon it lacerated (cut), but I reintegrated it, and published a
rendering of it in one body."
Most of the academic literature on Munster Hebrew Matthew over the last 126 years
indicated that the Munster text is of limited value, because Munster had supplemented
missing portions of his text, with his own reconstructions without marking them.
For example George Howard writes:
"In the letter of dedication, Munster reported that he had
received the Hebrew Matthew from the Jews in
defective form with many lacunae, and had from
necessity restored what was lacking in the manuscript.
His work today is of limited value, because he
failed to mark the passages he had restored."
(Hebrew Gospel of Matthew; George Howard; 1995 p. 161)
Now the Shem Tob Hebrew version of Matthew, was transcribed by Shem Tob into
114 sections into his book The Touchstone; each section was followed by a rebuttal.
Shem Tob even writes:
I adjure by the life of the world, that every copyist that he not
copy the books of the gospel unless, he writes in every place
the objections that I have written, just as I have arranged them
and written them.
The DuTillet manuscript was all written together, but was followed by a series of
rebuttals, and may once have also been spliced into such sections.
Munster's statement seems to indicate that he obtained Hebrew Matthew "lacerated"
or "cut up in sections" and that he reintegrated these sections and published the
Hebrew text in one body.
Unfortunately Adolf Herbst misunderstood Munster, and in 1879 paraphrased him in
German as saying:
"Die hebraeische Übersetzung habe er, berichtet
Munster in der Zuschrift an Heinrich VIII.,
von den Juden mangelhaft und mit vielen Lücken
empfangen, daher habe er sich genöthigt gesehen,
solche Lücken zu erganzen"
Literally in English:
"The Hebrew Translation Munster reports
in his dedication letter to Heinrich VIII--
he received it from the Jews, mangled/defective,
and with many spaces. Seeing this, he took
upon himself to supplement such spaces."
This led Hugh Schonfield to report in English in 1927:
"Munster states in his dedication to Henry VIII,
that he received the Hebrew translation from
the Jews in a defective condition, and with
many lacunae, which he took upon himself to fill in."
(An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's Gospel; 1927; pp. 11-12)
So the problems began when Herbst translated "lacerum inveni" (it was found
lacerated) as "mangelhaft und mit vielen Lücken empfangen" (mangled/defective, and
with many spaces), and which Schonfield took in English to mean "in a defective
condition, and with many lacunae".
Then the next phrase "mangled" is Munster's Latin "sed a me redintegratum et in
unum corpus redactum emittemus" (but reintegrated it and published a rendering of it
in one body. But which Herbst translated in German to mean "daher habe er sich
genöthigt gesehen, solche Lücken zu erganzen" (seeing this, took upon himself to
supplement such spaces) which Schonfield rendered in English as "which he took
upon himself to fill in."
Thus the interpretation was born that, as Howard reported:
"In the letter of dedication, Munster reported that
he had received the Hebrew Matthew from the Jews
in defective form with many lacunae, and had from
necessity, restored what was lacking in the manuscript.
His work today is of limited value because he
failed to mark the passages he had restored."
(Hebrew Gospel of Matthew; George Howard; 1995 p. 161)
In fact Munster's Hebrew Matthew is of much greater value than previously believed,
and should not be dismissed based on this false report that it was defective and full of
holes.
Could this all be related and indicate that Munster found the "original" readings as he presents them in his text "lacerum" (lacerated) and dispersed in multiple manuscripts and edited them depending on his own knowledge of the "...ancient style and and ... the phraseology of the author" "judgement better of him" and "reintegrated" the "original" readings. Was he engaging in Textual Criticism 300 years before anyone else?
Thank you for stimulating this train of thought, it could revolutionize the study of Hebrew Matthew!
Si tamen Musterus quae in eo restituit vel de suo addidit, afte risco vel signo quouis alio notasset, multo certe melius nobis cosuluisset, nam ita co gnosceremus antiqui autho ris stilum & phrafes, meliusque de ipso authore iudiacaretur.
Refined translation:
If, however, Munster restored by himself or on his own which he added, after an astrisk or any other sign het noted them, much better for us to cosuluisset at least, for the author so I shall devote themselves to the ancient style and and know the phraseology of the author judgement better of him.
Using the earlier translation I had puzzled over this and assumed he was speaking of Munster's own 1537 publication of the text, but this RARELY had such notes (I think there is ONE). So it appears Quinquarboreus is publishing material he inherited from his old teacher Munster which includes these notes that were never published in Munster's own editions. More or less we may have the raw notes here of Munster's work.
Remember there has been debate about Munster's own preface in 1537 in which he wrote:
"Matthaei evangeluium in nativa sua,
hoc est Hebraica lingua, non qualiter
apud Hebraeorum vulgus lacerum inveni,
sed a me redintegratum et in unum
corpus redactum emittemus"
Literally in English:
"The Gospel of Matthew in the original, the actual Hebrew
language, is not as it is among the people in the Hebrew. I came
upon it lacerated (cut), but I reintegrated it, and published a
rendering of it in one body."
Most of the academic literature on Munster Hebrew Matthew over the last 126 years
indicated that the Munster text is of limited value, because Munster had supplemented
missing portions of his text, with his own reconstructions without marking them.
For example George Howard writes:
"In the letter of dedication, Munster reported that he had
received the Hebrew Matthew from the Jews in
defective form with many lacunae, and had from
necessity restored what was lacking in the manuscript.
His work today is of limited value, because he
failed to mark the passages he had restored."
(Hebrew Gospel of Matthew; George Howard; 1995 p. 161)
Now the Shem Tob Hebrew version of Matthew, was transcribed by Shem Tob into
114 sections into his book The Touchstone; each section was followed by a rebuttal.
Shem Tob even writes:
I adjure by the life of the world, that every copyist that he not
copy the books of the gospel unless, he writes in every place
the objections that I have written, just as I have arranged them
and written them.
The DuTillet manuscript was all written together, but was followed by a series of
rebuttals, and may once have also been spliced into such sections.
Munster's statement seems to indicate that he obtained Hebrew Matthew "lacerated"
or "cut up in sections" and that he reintegrated these sections and published the
Hebrew text in one body.
Unfortunately Adolf Herbst misunderstood Munster, and in 1879 paraphrased him in
German as saying:
"Die hebraeische Übersetzung habe er, berichtet
Munster in der Zuschrift an Heinrich VIII.,
von den Juden mangelhaft und mit vielen Lücken
empfangen, daher habe er sich genöthigt gesehen,
solche Lücken zu erganzen"
Literally in English:
"The Hebrew Translation Munster reports
in his dedication letter to Heinrich VIII--
he received it from the Jews, mangled/defective,
and with many spaces. Seeing this, he took
upon himself to supplement such spaces."
This led Hugh Schonfield to report in English in 1927:
"Munster states in his dedication to Henry VIII,
that he received the Hebrew translation from
the Jews in a defective condition, and with
many lacunae, which he took upon himself to fill in."
(An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's Gospel; 1927; pp. 11-12)
So the problems began when Herbst translated "lacerum inveni" (it was found
lacerated) as "mangelhaft und mit vielen Lücken empfangen" (mangled/defective, and
with many spaces), and which Schonfield took in English to mean "in a defective
condition, and with many lacunae".
Then the next phrase "mangled" is Munster's Latin "sed a me redintegratum et in
unum corpus redactum emittemus" (but reintegrated it and published a rendering of it
in one body. But which Herbst translated in German to mean "daher habe er sich
genöthigt gesehen, solche Lücken zu erganzen" (seeing this, took upon himself to
supplement such spaces) which Schonfield rendered in English as "which he took
upon himself to fill in."
Thus the interpretation was born that, as Howard reported:
"In the letter of dedication, Munster reported that
he had received the Hebrew Matthew from the Jews
in defective form with many lacunae, and had from
necessity, restored what was lacking in the manuscript.
His work today is of limited value because he
failed to mark the passages he had restored."
(Hebrew Gospel of Matthew; George Howard; 1995 p. 161)
In fact Munster's Hebrew Matthew is of much greater value than previously believed,
and should not be dismissed based on this false report that it was defective and full of
holes.
Could this all be related and indicate that Munster found the "original" readings as he presents them in his text "lacerum" (lacerated) and dispersed in multiple manuscripts and edited them depending on his own knowledge of the "...ancient style and and ... the phraseology of the author" "judgement better of him" and "reintegrated" the "original" readings. Was he engaging in Textual Criticism 300 years before anyone else?
Thank you for stimulating this train of thought, it could revolutionize the study of Hebrew Matthew!
Comments
Post a Comment