Textual History of the Bible (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
THE ARAMAIC, SYRIAC, AND LATIN TRANSLATIONS OF HEBREW SCRIPTURE VIS-À-VIS THE MASORETIC TEXT
Traditionally, text-critical analysis of Hebrew Scripture started with MT, 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 the 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.
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