![]() I consider it not an exaggeration to write that virtually every page swarms with errors of omission, commission, and lack of understanding. Overall, Petersen's article is a perfect example of how a review should not be written. ![]() This is not my usual way of doing things, but the occasion seems to call for it.Ĥ. I request the readers of this rebuttal to allow me some indulgence to respond in kind, though I will be as considerate as possible. To my knowledge, I have never met Petersen, so why he writes with such personal virulence, I cannot fathom. Toward the end of his review, he preaches a sermon in which he pours out on me his righteous indignation. ![]() He scolds me, castigates me, and accuses me of "chicanery" ( Petersen 1998: par. It is filled with vituperation and invective (virtually every word is with a drop of blood). Petersen's writing is highly unusual for academia. 133) if I do not reply, so I have decided to comply with his wishes.ģ. But Petersen threatens a third something (review? see Petersen 1998: par. I declined to respond to Petersen's review of the first edition of my book ( Howard 1987) that appeared in the Journal of Biblical Literature 108 (1989): 722-726, and I take no pleasure in responding to the present review. I appreciate TC allowing me an opportunity to offer this response.Ģ. Petersen's article, "Some Observations on a Recent Edition of and Introduction to Shem-Tob's 'Hebrew Matthew,'" is published in TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism ( Petersen 1998). Petersen of Pennsylvania State University published a review article of my 1995 edition of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew ( Howard 1995). Petersen's Review of Hebrew Gospel of Matthew George Howardġ. ![]() Petersen's review article in TC 3 (1998). This article is also available in transliteration and text-only formats. Petersen's Review of Hebrew Gospel of Matthew ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |