240. “Post-Modern Textual Criticism?” in Greek Scripture and the Rabbis (eds. T. Michael Law & Alison Salvesen; Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA: Peeters, 2012), 1–18. (original) (raw)
Related papers
When utilizing ancient sources in the textual criticism of Hebrew Scripture, we use different types of materials, not only those that pertain directly to Hebrew Scripture, but also those that are included in Scripture-like compositions. The latter group, consisting of a few subgroups, contains compositions that have the appearance of Scripture, but were not meant to be such. In this definition, Scripture refers to a collection of authoritative scrolls that one could study, from which one could quote and read in religious gatherings, and that formed the basis for religious practice. The procedure of textual criticism involves the collecting of differences between the textual sources, named variant readings or variants.1 In our system, as in that of most scholars, all details in manuscripts are considered readings, while readings differing from mt are named variants. These variants are found in many types of sources, and the present study focuses on variants found in Scripture-like compositions and commentaries. The analysis starts with compositions that can easily be confused with Scripture , that is: (1) liturgical texts, and (2) rewritten Scripture compositions. A third group is usually not confused with Scripture, viz., commentaries (3), although in fact fragments of such commentaries have sometimes been confused with Scripture. Liturgical texts (1) have the appearance of Scripture texts, and they even carry names of biblical books, such as 11QPsa, 4QPsa, etc. In my view, these names are misleading, but others think they are appropriate (see below). Rewritten Scripture compositions (2) are a little further removed from Scripture , but in the publication history of these texts, the two categories were sometimes confused. For example, some fragments of the Temple Scroll were initially identified as biblical texts: 11qtb xi 21-24 was first described as 11QDeut (Deut 13:7-11) by van der Ploeg,2 but later identified as part of 11qtb by van der 1 Some scholars use the term "variants" in the same neutral way that we use the term "readings."
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
371..The Notion of Textual Comparison between the Judean Desert Biblical Texts Textus
. “The Notion of Textual Comparison between the Judean Desert Biblical Texts and of Variant Readings,” , 2024
Were there any so-called “variants” in the scrolls? The assumption of contact between any two scrolls has been inferred from corrective additions and deletions. It has usu- ally been claimed that corrections were based on mt. I divide the scrolls into different groups because in each group there could have been a different incentive for correction towards an external source. The strength of the argument depends on this division. In an analysis of the evidence (see the Appendix) in each of the groups, a different correction pattern was detected, and often the corrections were revised towards a text different from mt. In all these cases, the corrections were not made towards external sources, but the source of the scrolls. Strengthened by theoretical arguments, we suggest that the scrolls contain no notations of variants, that is, elements that were copied as variants from other scrolls or were corrected according to external sources.
The texts of the Hebrew Bible: Perspectives in the Textual Criticism
Religio, 2001
The text gives a basic overview of existing and forthcoming critical and other editions of the Hebrew Bible. Before introducing them, it goes through the basic issues of the Urtext and continuous textual transmission. The editions that are reviewed include the BHS and BHQ, as well as The Hebrew Bible University Project, The Oxford Hebrew Bible, The Qumran Bible, and The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. The study concludes with questions reaching beyond textual criticism and related perspectives on textual criticism itself.