The Text of the Bible and Catholic Biblical Scholarship (original) (raw)
Related papers
1 Background Traditionally, text-critical analysis of Hebrew Scripture started with mt and sp, and since 1947 it also covers the Judean Desert texts. The picture must be completed by also consulting the ancient translations, even though the Hebrew texts behind those translations must be reconstructed first, and this procedure often involves an almost impossible enterprise. It is an accepted view that the Hebrew parent text of the lxx needs to be taken into consideration in the textual praxis, but we hear little about the other versions, t s v,1 because v and t almost always agree with mt. They are less significant for textual analysis, but remain important for understanding the biblical exegesis in antiquity. Specialists find more variants in s, but they often state that s, also, differs very little from mt. In this study, we will make some general remarks on these three versions, in an attempt to place them in their right position in the textual praxis. These three versions ought to be recorded in the critical editions of the Hebrew Bible, but in my view their status in the textual descriptions is in need of some refinement.2 We wish to reiterate that v and t, as well as kaige-Th, Aquila, and Symmachus are virtually identical to mt, and to a great extent this also pertains to s. At the beginning of the critical inquiry into Hebrew Scripture and its translations , scholars described the wealth of available evidence for the early text of the Bible as sources for an analysis. However, they did not necessarily have the critical insight to realize the different types of contribution made by these sources to our understanding of the ancient Hebrew text. A good example is the 1 The following abbreviations are used: t = Targum(im), s(yriac) = Peshitta, v = Vulgate. The earliest written evidence for these versions is available for the fragments of the Targumim from Qumran. 2 In this analysis, we exclude the Arabic translation of Saadia (882-942 ce) and the secondary translations made from the lxx: Latin (the Vetus Latina), Syriac (the Syro-Palestinian trans
One is led to believe that two distinct types of modern translation of the Hebrew Bible exist: scholarly translations included in critical commentaries, and translations prepared for believing communities, Christian and Jewish. In practice, however, the two types of translation are now rather similar in outlook and their features need to be scrutinized. Scholarly translations included in most critical commentaries are eclectic, that is, their point of departure is MT, but they also draw much on all other textual sources and include emendations when the known textual sources do not yield a satisfactory reading. In a way, these translations present critical editions of the Hebrew Bible, since they reflect the critical selection process of the available textual evidence. These translations claim to reflect the Urtext of the biblical books, even if this term is usually not used explicitly in the description of the translation. The only difference between these translations and a critical edition of the texts in the original languages is that they are worded in a modern language and usually lack a critical apparatus defending the text-critical choices. The publication of these eclectic scholarly translations reflects a remarkable development. While there is virtually no existing reconstruction of the Urtext of the complete Bible in Hebrew (although the original text of several individual books and chapters has been reconstructed), 1 such reconstructions do exist in translation. These 1 The following studies (arranged chronologically) present a partial or complete reconstruction of (parts of) biblical books: J. Meinhold, Die Jesajaerzählungen Jesaja 36–39
the textual history of the bible (thb) -introduction of the translation technique of the Vulgate. It is furthermore, the very first tool that devotes significant attention to the secondary translations. While the study of the Hebrew sources and the primary translations are usually based on editions, the secondary translations are usually studied from manuscripts. THB is a good starting point for text-critical analysis of all biblical versions and books because it offers the reader information about all the textual evidence for a specific biblical book and all the evidence for a specific textual source in one reference work.
3 main traditions have been preserved historically for the Pentateuch: the Masoretic Text (MT), the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), & the Septuagint (LXX). But for the rest of the OT, there are really only 2 main traditions that have been preserved historically, those being the MT & the LXX. For the New Testament (NT), traditional scholarship has identified 5 main text-types. These can further be divided really down to 3 main text-types, those being the Alexandrian, the Western, & the Byzantine (the Majority Text). Defenders of each of these text-types of the NT & manuscript traditions of the OT will ardently defend their preferred text as the sole supreme or superior text or version of that portion of the Scriptures. However, with the discovery of many new & rare ancient manuscripts, the truth behind the matter has been proven to be much more complicated than most scholars were willing to admit, especially with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). The DSS offered new & unique readings preserved nowhere else, but which suggest that the original text in many places was quite different from all other manuscripts preserved outside of the DSS. For the NT, many rare & ancient manuscripts have been discovered from diverse regions of the ancient world, so many, that we have strong evidence that the Byzantine text-type, which constitutes the majority of all manuscripts of the NT, is the latest in date & is the least faithful in regards to the original text. In addition to the OT & NT textual traditions, we have an increasing amount of manuscript evidence for various extra-biblical books. In modern centuries, these amazing manuscript discoveries have led to a complete reassessment of all the evidence & a reconsideration of conclusions that were formerly regarded as settled. High profile critical editions of the Biblical & extra-biblical texts have been being worked on in these modern times, & continue to be produced with an ever increasing level of quality & authority. For any comprehensive critical edition of the Bible, these new critical editions that are being produced absolutely must be taken into consideration when available & their readings must be included. The question comes to us: if all these other critical editions are being produced, why does my critical edition need to be produced? I will explain the aspects that my critical edition will feature which differ from the other critical editions to such an extent that make it highly worthwhile & desirable to make my critical edition. First & foremost, a large portion of the main critical editions of the Biblical & extra-biblical texts are written in languages other than English. A comprehensive critical edition is needed which translates the information for a lay audience that can only read in English. This is a tedious task, & has never been attempted to any satisfactory degree. My Bible project would be the first to produce such. Furthermore, most critical editions feature a reconstruction of their respect text-traditions. The critical editions of the OT & NT are woefully inadequate, placing undue emphasis on only 1 textual tradition primarily (such as only the MT, or only the LXX, or only the Peshitta, etc). My critical edition will be the first edition to incorporate comprehensively all the main textual traditions, & will give a much more balanced consideration for all their various readings. Another thing that separates my critical edition from most critical editions is the high level of textual emendation that I intend to incorporate into the actual main text of the edition. The reason for this decision is based on a high degree of evidence of major corruption in both the OT & NT books. Using the DSS & LXX, we can see that there is a large amount of evidence that many books of the OT have been radically altered from their original text forms. This reflects the best scholarship currently available. My critical edition will incorporate the emendations that I believe reflect the original text, & will reflect my unique theories about each of the Biblical books. Also unique to my critical edition will be a highly literal English translation which will allow for a much deeper & fuller understanding of the original Hebrew text that can be reconstructed. It is also my hope that this Bible project can also be translated into other languages such as Mandarin Chinese, but if this was ever to happen, it would be much farther down the line.
In several Scripture books, the Masoretic Text (MT) displays a substantial number of major differences when compared with the LXX and, to a lesser degree, with several Qumran scrolls and the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP). The other ancient versions were translated from Hebrew texts close to MT. The present analysis is limited to variations bearing on literary analysis, usually found in groups of variants. A difference involving one or two words, and sometimes an isolated case of a single verse, is considered a small difference, while a discrepancy involving a whole section or chapter indicates a substantial difference, often relevant to literary criticism. However, a group of seemingly unrelated small differences might also display a common pattern, pointing to a more extensive phenomenon. This pertains to many small theological changes in the MT of Samuel, short renderings in the LXX translation of Ezekiel, etc. Who created these various types of differences between ancient texts? In very broad terms, authors and editors who were involved in the composition of the texts, inserted changes that we characterize today as large differences often bearing on literary criticism. At a later stage, scribes who copied the completed compositions inserted many smaller changes and also made mistakes while copying. However, the distinction between these two levels is unclear at both ends, since early copyists considered themselves petty collaborators in the creation process of Scripture, while authors and editors were also copyists. While readings found in ancient Hebrew manuscripts provide stable evidence, there are many problems on the slippery road of evaluating the ancient versions, especially the LXX. One of these is that what appears to one scholar to be a safely reconstructed Hebrew variant text is for another one a specimen of a translator's tendentious rendering. Literary analysis of the Hebrew Bible is only interested in evidence of the first type, since it sheds light on the background of the different Hebrew texts that were once circulating. The translator's tendentious changes are also interesting, but at a different level, that of Scripture exegesis. Since a specific rendering either represents a greatly deviating Hebrew text or it displays the translator's exegesis, one wonders how are we to differentiate between the two. For almost every variation in the LXX, one finds opposite views expressed, and there are only very few objective criteria for evaluating these variations. Probably the best criteria relate to external Hebrew evidence supporting the