Limitations of Selective Apparatuses

In teaching through Luke 21 this week, I came across a significant textual problem that brings to mind an important methodological point.

In Luke 21:36, the "Western" witnesses say "that you might be counted worthy to escape" the traumatic events preceding the coming of Christ. The "Alexandrian" witnesses say "that you might have strength to escape." The "Byzantine" witnesses are sharply divided over these two readings. The former reading stresses the divine prerogative in escaping, whereas the latter reading stresses the human responsibility for endurance as requisite for escaping. This is a relatively significant and meaningful difference with strong support for both readings.

But what was most surprising to me was that this variant was not cited in the fourth edition of the United Bible Society's Greek New Testament! For an edition designed to minimize the clutter and emphasize the most meaningful variants for translation, they clearly dropped the ball on this one and cut down the apparatus too far. This is a good reminder that nearly every printed apparatus is necessarily selective, and when editors have to make such choices, inevitably they will make some errors, either including non-essential information or excluding essential information. The moral of the story (apart from standing firm in the faith, looking for the coming of Christ...) is that you have to be careful cutting corners by only considering the variants listed in selective critical apparatuses, because you may very well miss something important.

Geza Vermes Has Passed Away

Jim Davila has posted on PaleoJudaica that Geza Vermes has passed away, due to a recurring bout with cancer. He is survived by his wife Margaret. Vermes was from a Jewish family, turned Catholic priest, who later left the priesthood. He was best known as a Dead Sea Scrolls scholar and historian of Christian origins with at times decidedly unorthodox views. His translation of the non-biblical scrolls from Qumran has been one of the most well-known books relating to the Dead Sea Scrolls. There can be no doubt that Vermes has left a lasting impression on Biblical Studies.

Bill Barrick's Hebrew Grammar Lectures Online

Bill Barrick at The Master's Seminary in Southern California has kindly put up his video lectures for beginning and intermediate Hebrew, along with his freely-downloadable grammar and workbook. I had the pleasure of taking a number of classes and seminars with him (including my intro to OTTC!), and he is highly competent in dealing with the Hebrew text. For those who want to brush up on their Hebrew or learn it from scratch, consider checking out his free lectures!

Hebrew Grammar I

Hebrew Grammar II

IOQS Munich Schedule

Eibert Tigchelaar has posted the schedule for the IOQS conference in Munich this summer here, along with abstracts. I will be presenting a paper on Tuesday afternoon at 15:30, for those who might be interested.
 
"Scribal Treatment of Defective Exemplars: Not Just a Modern Dilemma"
Drew Longacre (University of Birmingham)

The tasks of ancient copyists and modern editors are normally worlds apart, but when handling physically defective exemplars, these two worlds converge to a large degree. Modern scholars are accustomed to dealing with manuscripts ravaged by time, but it is easy to forget that manuscripts were also often damaged in antiquity. When ancient copyists encountered lacunose or illegible texts in their exemplars, they were forced to take on an essentially editorial role. By looking at selected examples from "biblical" and "non-biblical" Qumran scrolls (with particular reference to 1QIsaa and 4Q252), I intend to illustrate three methodologies scribes utilized in these situations. First, they could insert blank space in the new copies corresponding to the defective text and leave the resulting text untouched. Second, they could insert blank space in the new copies corresponding to the defective text and then attempt a full or partial reconstruction of the missing text based on whatever text remained legible in the exemplar, memory, and/or contextual clues. And third, they could attempt a full or partial reconstruction of the defective text without inserting corresponding blank space before proceeding. Acknowledgement of these scribal practices has the potential to illuminate numerous difficult textual problems in Dead Sea Scrolls studies.

Developmental Stage, Scribal Lapse, or Physical Defect? 1QIsa-a’s Damaged Exemplar for Isaiah Chapters 34–66

My article on the Isaiah scroll is now out in the latest volume of Dead Sea Discoveries, for those who might be interested.

Longacre, Drew. "Developmental Stage, Scribal Lapse, or Physical Defect? 1QIsaa’s Damaged Exemplar for Isaiah Chapters 34–66." Dead Sea Discoveries 20, no. 1 (2013): 17-50.

Abstract

The Great Isaiah Scroll from Qumran (1QIsa^a) does not generally reflect a text form earlier than the Masoretic text. Instead, the convergence in 1QIsa^a of patterns of spacing irregularities, literary and textual problems, and secondary supplementations, as well as a consistent pattern of distribution, are best explained on the basis of the hypothesis of an exemplar for chapters 34-66 with a damaged bottom edge. Upon reaching the defective edge in each column of his exemplar, the scribe dealt with any lacunose or illegible text in one of two ways before continuing with the unaffected text at the top of the subsequent exemplar column. Sometimes he left blank spaces in his new copy to be filled in with the correct text from other manuscripts at a later time. At other times he attempted full or partial reconstructions of the text based on whatever text remained legible in the damaged exemplar, memory, and contextual clues.

I previously blogged about this here.

Random Copyist Omissions

When dealing with manuscripts, the phenomenon of parablepsis is commonly recognized. Copyists often left out words, phrases, and even longer strings of text when their eyes accidentally skipped from one word or phrase to another with a similar sequence of letters, inadvertently omitting the intervening text. Anyone who has read standard handbooks on textual criticism in any field will be familiar with the terms parablepsis, homoioarcheton, and homoioteleuton, which are used to describe this. These errors are relatively frequent and easy to spot.

But one thing I do not recall ever reading about is the apparently random omission of words or phrases. Not all accidental omissions are obviated by clear visual triggers. Sometimes words were just missed without any apparent cause. My recent work with 4QExod-c has yielded a few good examples to look at.

5 31 (Ex 8:8)

ויצא משה ואהרן מעם̇ ^{פ̇ר̇ע֯ה} ו̇יצעק משה֯ אל יהוה^̇
 And Moses and Aaron exited from before {Pharaoh}. And Moses cried out to the LORD.

Here the scribe accidentally omitted the word Pharaoh, which was secondarily added (apparently by a second hand, according to Sanderson). There is no obvious visual cause for the omission, but the shorter text is nonsensical (the meaning "people" would not be appropriate here). The scribe simply missed the word.

32 i 7 (Ex 12:37)

ויסעו בני ישראל מרעמסס סכתה כש̇ש {א֗} מאו̇ת אלף ר̇גלי ה̇גברים  
 And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six {thou-} hundred thousand footmen.

Here the scribe accidentally skipped the word hundred, and began to write the following word thousand, which would put the number of Israelite footmen at 6000, rather than 600,000! This would have provided a convenient text-critical explanation of the large numbers of Exodus, except that the scribe realized his mistake and erased the א, replacing it with the correct text. If he had not done so, textual critics would have had a very hard time explaining this reading, since there are no obvious triggers for parablepsis.

37 2 (Ex ?:?)

ויבא משה ^{ואהרן אל} פרעה ולא שמע 
 So entered Moses {and Aaron to} Pharaoh, but he did not listen.

This example is difficult, because it is hard to figure out what is going on. Sanderson reconstructs the text as above, but she cannot place the fragment in any known text of Exodus. Alternatively, perhaps the first verb was וידבר he spoke? If either of these verbs is reconstructed, the primary text is left non-sensical, since it lacks not only Moses' collaborator, but also the preposition connecting Moses to Pharaoh. A secondary correction (possibly the original scribe, according to Sanderson) added both Aaron and the requisite preposition. Whatever the context of this fragment, the preserved text of the main line seems to be impossible, and yet it has no obvious visual trigger.

This is a very select group of examples, but it does prove the point that such apparently random omissions do occur. In fact, in 4QExod-c, they are nearly as common as omissions with clear visual triggers. Another possible fruitful avenue to consider could be transpositions, which are often thought to have occurred largely when a copyist accidentally skipped the first word or phrase and inserted it later. The main point to draw from this discussion is this: not every shorter reading should be preferred, even if there is no obvious visual trigger for parablepsis. Scribes sometimes made mistakes that leave no clear evidence of their cause, and we must be careful not to adopt these readings in our critical texts.

3rd University of Birmingham Biblical Studies Postgraduate Day Conference Call for Papers

On behalf of the organizing committee, I am proud to announce that we will be hosting the 3rd University of Birmingham Biblical Studies Postgraduate Day Conference on 3 July 2013 in Birmingham, UK. This conference is aimed at postgraduate researchers from across the UK. Our theme this year will be "Unity and Diversity in Text and Tradition," which promises to spark many lively discussions. We are now accepting paper proposals of no more than 300 words. Please e-mail me your paper proposals no later than 15 April 2013.