tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7929925658996324223.post5428544509061989353..comments2024-03-24T20:54:32.756-07:00Comments on OTTC: A Blog for Old Testament Textual Criticism: A Reply to Robert Holmstedt on EclecticismDrew Longacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17654439701997039055noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7929925658996324223.post-51098962854205725692018-06-06T05:43:20.416-07:002018-06-06T05:43:20.416-07:00The textual situation in the HB is very different ...The textual situation in the HB is very different from the GNT. Many of its books show evidence of long development and many editorial hands (e.g. the Torah and Jeremiah). The question then becomes "At what point in the history of the text's transmission are we trying to reconstruct its 'autograph'?" <br />For instance, in Jeremiah, are we trying for the original scroll that was burned by Jehoiakim (Jer. 36:23)? Or the expanded scroll Jeremiah dictated to replace it (36:32)? What about the historical material added still later to provide context (Jer 52 par 2 Kgs 24 and 2 Chr 36)? The introduction to the book with Jeremiah's biographical material (Jer 1:1-3)? Should we include the duplicated prophecies (as does the MT)? Or is the single version (in the LXX) to be preferred?<br />I do wish for an eclectic HB, but think Holmstedt's concerns should be taken serious. I also think SBL's critical edition of the HB's "middle road" is a good compromise. I look forward to seeing more of the project completedDr. Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11757663267267551504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7929925658996324223.post-80376690029300138972018-06-06T00:12:13.373-07:002018-06-06T00:12:13.373-07:00Just to clarify, in case the post gives the wrong ...<br />Just to clarify, in case the post gives the wrong impression... I have long enjoyed reading Robert Holmstedt's linguistic work and respect it very much. I also think he has valid point in not building linguistic systems on a platform of modern conjectures and the need for collaborative work. I am just arguing that the implications he draws from this take things too far.Drew Longacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654439701997039055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7929925658996324223.post-26432440335103571542018-06-05T18:04:28.385-07:002018-06-05T18:04:28.385-07:00Drew,
I can sympathize with Holmstedt, one of the ...Drew,<br />I can sympathize with Holmstedt, one of the things I liked about the Hebrew edition was that it was based on an actual, tangible manuscript! Yet, if there are any truths we have learned about Textual transmission, one is ALL copies contain and introduce errors. A second reality, that text exist apart from the manuscripts that contain them, especially late manuscripts. So in spite of the romantic concept in my head, the reality is an eclectic text is much more likely to represent the ausgangstext than any single manuscript. <br />I will admit, that utilizing an actual manuscript, particularly one that is early and appears to be a ‘good’ copy as the basis from which an electric HT is formed remains in my mind a possible middle position.<br /><br />I continue to find your posts both educational and well written.😎<br /><br />TimTimothy Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06641788186736340533noreply@blogger.com