My wife and I read an interesting note about the tiqqune sopherim ("emendations of the scribes") in my wife's archaeological study Bible today, and they mentioned that often scribes changed the names of individuals to remove the name of a pagan deity (for instance Ish-Baal "man of Baal" becomes Ish-Boshet "man of shame," and likewise Merib-Baal becomes Mephi-Boshet). Irony of ironies, in my personal reading tonight I was in 1 Chronicles 9 and came across exactly this genealogy of Saul. I noted a textual problem beyond the question of what the article in the study Bible mentioned, however, in the name of Merib-Baal.
1 Chronicles 9:40 gives the name of Jonathan's son Meri(b)-Baal twice:
"And the son of Jonathan was Merib-Baal (מריב בעל), and Meri-Baal (מרי בעל) begot Michah."
In 1 Chronicles 8:34, an identical verse, both instances are spelled Merib-Baal מריב בעל, strongly arguing that this is the correct spelling. It is interesting though, that the LXX (according to Rahlfs) has in all cases Μεριβααλ without two betas, which may mean that מרי בעל was read. HALOT mentions that an ostracon was found with the name מרבעל. Holladay actually argues that מריב בעל "antagonist of Baal" may even have been "reconceived" from מרי בעל. In the end, it is clear that one of these two spellings put side by side is textually corrupt, either by haplography or dittography of the additional ב beth.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Friday, May 13, 2011
The Vocalization of Proverbs 31:21 and the Rule "Lectio Difficilior Potior"
My wife and I have a family tradition of reading Proverbs 31 at dinner on Friday nights. Today I read from the New English Bible for the first time and was alerted to an exegetical issue in Proverbs 31:21 that I had not seen before. This issue is a question of vocalization from a like consonantal text, so it is not properly text-critical in my view, but a note in the NET Bible seemed to me to make it so.
MT vocalizes Proverbs 31:21 as:
לֹא־תִירָ֣א לְבֵיתָ֣הּ מִשָּׁ֑לֶג כִּ֥י כָל־בֵּ֜יתָ֗הּ לָבֻ֥שׁ שָׁנִֽים׃
"She is not afraid of snow for her house, because all of her house is clothed in scarlet."
"Scarlet" here is שָׁנִים shanim.
But the LXX and Vulgate understand the same consonants differently.
The LXX reads it as the number "two" שְׁנַיִם shnayim and attaches it to the "coverings" at the beginning of the next verse: δισσὰς χλαίνας ἐποίησεν "she makes two coverings."
The Vulgate also reads it as the number "two" שְׁנַיִם shnayim, but it includes it at the end of verse 21: omnes enim domestici eius vestiti duplicibus "for her whole house is doubly clothed." The NEB and NLT agree with the Vulgate in reading "two garments" or "warm clothes."
The difference between the readings is one of interpretation of the same consonantal text, but the reason I bring it up is that the note in the NET Bible that tries to use a text-critical principle to resolve an exegetical problem. The NET Bible note says that the reading of the numeral "two" is the "easier reading and therefore suspect." The note is alluding to the often-abused text-critical canon of lectio difficilior potior, or "the more difficult reading is superior." While there is nothing wrong with the principle in general, wrongly applied it can lead scholars in the wrong direction. In particular, the NET Bible is using the principle to determine the correct vocalization of an ambiguous consonantal text. But the question of vocalization is not properly a text-critical decision, and it is questionable whether the text-critical principle preferring the more difficult reading can be made to apply in these situations.
MT vocalizes Proverbs 31:21 as:
לֹא־תִירָ֣א לְבֵיתָ֣הּ מִשָּׁ֑לֶג כִּ֥י כָל־בֵּ֜יתָ֗הּ לָבֻ֥שׁ שָׁנִֽים׃
"She is not afraid of snow for her house, because all of her house is clothed in scarlet."
"Scarlet" here is שָׁנִים shanim.
But the LXX and Vulgate understand the same consonants differently.
The LXX reads it as the number "two" שְׁנַיִם shnayim and attaches it to the "coverings" at the beginning of the next verse: δισσὰς χλαίνας ἐποίησεν "she makes two coverings."
The Vulgate also reads it as the number "two" שְׁנַיִם shnayim, but it includes it at the end of verse 21: omnes enim domestici eius vestiti duplicibus "for her whole house is doubly clothed." The NEB and NLT agree with the Vulgate in reading "two garments" or "warm clothes."
The difference between the readings is one of interpretation of the same consonantal text, but the reason I bring it up is that the note in the NET Bible that tries to use a text-critical principle to resolve an exegetical problem. The NET Bible note says that the reading of the numeral "two" is the "easier reading and therefore suspect." The note is alluding to the often-abused text-critical canon of lectio difficilior potior, or "the more difficult reading is superior." While there is nothing wrong with the principle in general, wrongly applied it can lead scholars in the wrong direction. In particular, the NET Bible is using the principle to determine the correct vocalization of an ambiguous consonantal text. But the question of vocalization is not properly a text-critical decision, and it is questionable whether the text-critical principle preferring the more difficult reading can be made to apply in these situations.
The vocalization of the Hebrew text was not indicated in the original texts of Scripture (with the possible exception of original vowel letters). This means that many passages of Scripture, even when the consonantal text is agreed upon, are ambiguous and allow for multiple readings. The readings one chooses, then, are actually exegetical decisions rather than textual ones. In exegesis, I question whether the lectio difficilior canon is applicable. What it is essentially saying is that the most difficult interpretation is likely correct. Thus, the numeral "two" cannot be correct, because it fits too neatly into the context and practically begs to be read. But in exegesis, contextual suitability is the primary canon. What exegete in his right mind would look for the most unlikely, hard-to-understand, stretched, contextually unsuitable interpretation? Vocalizations should be chosen based on which reading best fits in the context, not based on which one makes the least sense! This kind of thinking only makes sense if the vocalization of MT is assumed to be original and authoritative and alternative readings are seen as secondary corruptions of the MT. This is a methodologically flawed approach. In reality, the consonantal text is vocalically ambiguous and requires independent interpretive disambiguation by the reader.
So when determining which reading to read for שנים, we need to look at which fits the context best. In favor of the reading "two," we have the immediate context of the verse and common sense, which says doubling up garments is more fitting for keeping warm in snow than putting on extravagant scarlet garments. In favor of the reading "scarlet," we have in the next verse a reference to the extravagance of the woman's fine linen and purple clothes and the possibility of a somewhat stretched metaphor of scarlet clothing = richness and abundance of clothing = warmth. At first glance, it seems to me like the numeral "two" may actually be the better interpretation, but either way, the point is that the exegetical question must be resolved by appeal to the best fit in context, not the worst fit.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Benjamin Kennicott
I just found an old series of blog posts that are quite interesting about Benjamin Kennicott and his collation of Hebrew variants here. There were also a number of links to digitized works that I included in my collection of online Hebrew editions here, including the collations of Kennicott and De Rossi.
Messiah: Stripe or Stripes?
I was recently helping a friend of mine translate Isaiah 53:5, and came across the phrase וּבַחֲבֻרָתוֹ נִרְפָּא־לָנוּ "and by his stripe we are healed." He mentioned that another friend of his had made a significant theological point on the MT reading of חֲבֻרָתוֹ "his stripe" being singular. I pointed out, however, that the consonants could also be easily emended to the plural חֲבֻרֹתָיו "his stripes."
Though in most cases (as far as I can tell, all cases) the plural would have an extra י as in חברתיו, the two forms could easily have interchanged in the tradition. Ironically, in my reading in Ezekiel immediately thereafter, exactly such an interchange presented itself repeatedly. In Ezekiel 43:11, MT twice reads the singular phrase צורתו "its plan" as the Kethiv and the plural צורתיו "its plans" as the Qere. Furthermore, in both Ezekiel 43:11 and 44:5 MT has תורתו "its law" as the Kethiv and תורתיו "its laws" as the Qere. The same phenomenon can be found in Exod 28:28; 37:8; 39:4; Deut 5:10; 7:9; 8:2; 27:10; Josh 16:3; Ruth 3:14; 1 Sam 10:21; 26:7, 11, 16; 2 Sam 12:20; 1 Kings 16:19; Ezek 31:5; 33:13, 16; 40:6, 22, 26; 47:11; Amos 9:6. It is interesting that only once that I found, in 1 Kings 16:26, is the situation reversed with the plural in the Kethiv and singular in the Qere, showing a definite trend towards the plural in the Qere. This may show an understanding that haplography in such examples was more common than dittography. Perhaps noteworthy, however, is that this phenomenon apparently never occurs in the book of Isaiah.
After examining these other occurrences of the interchange between the תו and תיו endings, I was even more suspicious of the theological point based off of the singular חֲבֻרָתוֹ in Isaiah 53:5. Brief consideration of the LXX showed the singular reading τῷ μώλωπι αὐτοῦ "by his bruise," which slightly alleviated my fears. I decided to check the Great Isaiah Scroll 1QIsa(a) for curiosity's sake, and much to my surprise, it reads the plural חבורתיו! My suspicions (viz., my diagnostic conjectural emendation) were correct! The plural was indeed an ancient Hebrew variant that did not make its way into the Masorah of MT. 1QIsa(b), normally much closer to MT, had the singular חברתו.
All this to say, the singular "stripe" in Isa 53:5 may not be as significant as we make it out to be, or it may not even have been original. Perhaps we were healed by Messiah's "stripes" after all? One would be hard pressed to overthrow the singular reading with the single Qumran scroll, but I think this example proves that my cautious skepticism about basing significant theological points on textually dubitable minutiae is indeed warranted. It is the nature of language and exegesis that often important information must be drawn from the most precise of details, but this just goes to show that the exegete cannot naively assume the Leningrad Codex as his text without critically evaluating its readings for the given passage. Criticism of the text must precede exegesis of its theology, and any given theological induction from a text is at least as dubitable as its text.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Online Biblical Manuscripts and Editions
NB (update 27 April 2016): For the most updated form of this list, see:
http://www.oldtestamenttextualcriticism.blogspot.fi/p/online-digital-images.html
The following is a collection most of the Hebrew biblical manuscripts I have found that are available online in digitized form. Following that are a number of Bible editions available online. I have also included some sites with information on how to obtain microfilms of manuscripts as well as a number of sites worthy of further consideration for occasional publication of biblical manuscripts. This catalogue should be viewed as a work in progress, and I will likely continue to update it when I find new manuscripts and editions. I have not been able to exhaust even the websites that I have found to date, but hopefully this list will be of service for those who want to do original research on primary sources online. Please post any additional sources you may be aware of in the comments, and I will probably incorporate them into the main catalogue.
Last updated 7 November 2013.
Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts
Aleppo Codex: The oldest complete manuscript of the entire Hebrew Bible, now with most of the Pentateuch and some other passages missing.
Berlin Codex:
Cairo Codex:
Eretz Israel Pentateuch (10th century):
Lisbon Bible (1482):
Spanish Bible or "Damascus Keter" (1260)::
Spanish Bible (1341):
Xanten Bible (1294):
Samaritan Pentateuch Cambridge Add.1846
Dead Sea Scrolls
Cairo Geniza Fragments:
Nash Papyrus
The British Library is digitizing their collection of Hebrew manuscripts
The University of Madrid has a digitized Book of Joshua.
Greek Manuscripts
Codex M
Chester Beatty LXX papyri (Rahlfs 961-968, 2149, 2150)
Codex Sinaiticus
Codex Vaticanus
Editions
Rabbinic Bible:
Biblia Hebraica:
Ginsburg Hebrew Bible:
Early Critical Editions
Mechon Mamre:
Samaritan Pentateuch
Septuagint
Audio:
Microfilmed Manuscripts
(this section has not been organized, but hopefully contains some helpful links and citations)
Department of Manuscripts & The Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts at the Jewish National and University Library: http://jnul.huji.ac.il/imhm/index.html#reproduction
Sassoon manuscripts collection - full text of 1,281 manuscripts. Or.Mic. 2738-2893
List of manuscript collections to further consider: http://www-sul.stanford.edu/depts/hasrg/jewish/libraries.html#manuscripts
Other Potential Sources of Information
(some of these sources have additional manuscripts or other significant information, but I have not had time to exhaust and organize them all)
http://www.archive.org/
Consider St. Petersburg/Moscow/Firkowitch collection as well
Sharon Horowitz of the Library of Congress noted the following:
"Other digitized Hebrew Bibles include the Lisbon Bible (1700), Aleppo Codex, Prague Bible, Leningrad Codex, Spanish Bible 1260, Spanish Bible (1341), Xanten Bible.
The University of Madrid has a digitized Book of Joshua.
"You might also research Hebrew Bible fragments in the Cairo Geniza, much of which is being digitized in Cambridge, England.
(See the article:"Hebrew Bible Manuscripts in the Cairo Geniza"
Journal of Semitic Studies, 2005. (50:2))"http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/ttp/lisbon/accessible/introduction.html
Madrid University Library: http://cisne.sim.ucm.es/search~S1*spi?/tBiblia.+A.T.+Hebreo/tbiblia+a+t+hebreo/-3%2C-1%2C0%2CB/exact&FF=tbiblia+a+t+hebreo&1%2C27%2C
Seforim Online reports:
"I have contacted the library and they informed that they have high-resolution images of all of their manuscripts and they will mail them on CD to anyone who requests them for a particular manuscript, as far as I understood, for free. However they are not putting them on the web. The contacts for this at the library are:
Pilar Moreno:
Email: pmoreno@buc.ucm.es
Tel. 34 91 394 6642
Fax. 34 91 394 6599
and
Marta Torres – Library Director:
Email: mtorres@buc.ucm.es"
French National Library in Paris: http://gallica.bnf.fr/Search?ArianeWireIndex=index&lang=EN&q=hebreu&p=1&f_typedoc=manuscrit
Laurent HERICHER, Conservateur, Chef du service des manuscrits orientaux, said,"The BNF is in the process of digitizing its collections of manuscripts. As for Hebrew manuscripts, 65 have been digitized from microfilms. It is the very begining. The whole collection will be digitized mainly from the microfilms. Some manuscript will be digitized from the original. As for now, only 4 or five have been digitized from the original and can be consulted online. Precious,rare and important manuscript will be digitized from the original. That should not exceed thirty to fourty items.
"You can consult these manuscripts on Gallica BNF's Virtual library : http://gallica.bnf.fr/
Select "manuscrits" in the research options and type the shelf mark : Hébreu 1333 (here is the permanent link to the document : http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b60005435)
Manuscripts bearing the shelf mark Hebreu 1 to 65 plus Hébreu 1333, Hébreu 1388, Hébreu 113, Hébreu 1137, can be consulted so far on Gallica"
Search of blog posts on online manuscripts: http://www.seforimonline.org/blog/?category_name=hebrew-manuscripts
Munich Digitization Center (MDZ)
http://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/index.html?c=kurzauswahl&l=de&adr=daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/ausgaben/gesamt_ausgabe.html?projekt=1157527575&ordnung=sig&recherche=ja
PDFs of Hebrew MSS, most not biblical: http://www.hebrewmanuscripts.org/
List of MSS databases: http://www.hebrewmanuscript.com/hebrew-fragments-databases.htm
Austrian Library: http://www.hebraica.at/_scripts/php/hbf_lists.php
Historical Archive of Girona: http://manuscritshebreus.cultura.gencat.cat/index.php?ln=en
Catalogue of Hebrew manuscripts in the Vatican Library: http://nli.org.il/imhm/vaticanhebmss.pdf
http://www.oldtestamenttextualcriticism.blogspot.fi/p/online-digital-images.html
The following is a collection most of the Hebrew biblical manuscripts I have found that are available online in digitized form. Following that are a number of Bible editions available online. I have also included some sites with information on how to obtain microfilms of manuscripts as well as a number of sites worthy of further consideration for occasional publication of biblical manuscripts. This catalogue should be viewed as a work in progress, and I will likely continue to update it when I find new manuscripts and editions. I have not been able to exhaust even the websites that I have found to date, but hopefully this list will be of service for those who want to do original research on primary sources online. Please post any additional sources you may be aware of in the comments, and I will probably incorporate them into the main catalogue.
Last updated 7 November 2013.
Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts
Aleppo Codex: The oldest complete manuscript of the entire Hebrew Bible, now with most of the Pentateuch and some other passages missing.
- http://www.aleppocodex.org/newsite/index.html
- Seforim Online (high resolution)
- Seforim Online (low resolution)
Berlin Codex:
Cairo Codex:
Eretz Israel Pentateuch (10th century):
Lisbon Bible (1482):
- http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/sacredtexts/lisbonbib.html
- http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/ttp/lisbon/accessible/introduction.html
Spanish Bible or "Damascus Keter" (1260)::
Spanish Bible (1341):
Xanten Bible (1294):
- Select illuminated pages: http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgkeysearchresult.cfm?word=xanten&c=172&sScope=Collection+Guide&sLabel=Illuminated%2520Hebrew%2520Manuscripts
Samaritan Pentateuch Cambridge Add.1846
Dead Sea Scrolls
Cairo Geniza Fragments:
- These are being digitized in Cambridge, England.
- Genizah Research Unit
- Genizah Search
Nash Papyrus
The British Library is digitizing their collection of Hebrew manuscripts
The University of Madrid has a digitized Book of Joshua.
Greek Manuscripts
Codex M
Chester Beatty LXX papyri (Rahlfs 961-968, 2149, 2150)
Codex Sinaiticus
Codex Vaticanus
Editions
Rabbinic Bible:
- First Rabbinic Bible (1518) (will require download of a document viewer)
- Second Rabbinic Bible (will require download of a document viewer)
- http://www.archive.org/ also has a low quality version.
- Walton's Polyglot (search for Walton on the page; multi-volume).
Biblia Hebraica:
Ginsburg Hebrew Bible:
Early Critical Editions
Mechon Mamre:
Samaritan Pentateuch
Septuagint
Audio:
Microfilmed Manuscripts
(this section has not been organized, but hopefully contains some helpful links and citations)
Department of Manuscripts & The Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts at the Jewish National and University Library: http://jnul.huji.ac.il/imhm/index.html#reproduction
MIcrofiche Manuscript Collections:
Collective catalogue of Hebrew manuscripts - bibliographic records of all Hebrew MSS held in public and private collections around the world. Asian & African Studies Reading Room OIC 011.31
Collective catalogue of Hebrew manuscripts - bibliographic records of all Hebrew MSS held in public and private collections around the world. Asian & African Studies Reading Room OIC 011.31
The Dead Sea Scrolls on microfiche. Leiden, 1993. ORB 40/260
The Allegro Qumran Collection - supplement to the above. OR Fiche 458
The Guenzburg manuscript collections - full text of 1,913 MSS from the Russian State Library, Moscow. OR.Mic.14119
The Allegro Qumran Collection - supplement to the above. OR Fiche 458
The Guenzburg manuscript collections - full text of 1,913 MSS from the Russian State Library, Moscow. OR.Mic.14119
- Described in the List of the Guenzburg Manuscript Collection. Printout of the ALEPH catalogue records supplied by the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts, JNUL. Jerusalem, 2000. 4 vols.
JTS manuscript collections - full text of manuscripts and rare books held at the Jewish Theological Seminary, New York - Or.Mic.11693 (Adler collection); Or.Mic.13922 (Mishneh Torah); Or.Mic.11692 (Rare books); Or.Mic.11669 (Incunabula); Or. 13923 (Hebrew and Judeo-Arabic MSS), etc.
- Described in JTS Hebrew manuscripts - brief descriptions of fourteen microfilm collections arranged in two volumes.
- Described in Sassoon, D. S. & Ohel David. Descriptive catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan manuscripts in the Sassoon Library. Oxford, 1932, 2 vols.
List of manuscript collections to further consider: http://www-sul.stanford.edu/depts/hasrg/jewish/libraries.html#manuscripts
Other Potential Sources of Information
(some of these sources have additional manuscripts or other significant information, but I have not had time to exhaust and organize them all)
http://www.archive.org/
Consider St. Petersburg/Moscow/Firkowitch collection as well
Sharon Horowitz of the Library of Congress noted the following:
"Other digitized Hebrew Bibles include the Lisbon Bible (1700), Aleppo Codex, Prague Bible, Leningrad Codex, Spanish Bible 1260, Spanish Bible (1341), Xanten Bible.
The University of Madrid has a digitized Book of Joshua.
"You might also research Hebrew Bible fragments in the Cairo Geniza, much of which is being digitized in Cambridge, England.
(See the article:"Hebrew Bible Manuscripts in the Cairo Geniza"
Journal of Semitic Studies, 2005. (50:2))"http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/ttp/lisbon/accessible/introduction.html
(Lisbon Bible)
(Prague Bible)
(Center for Online Judaic Studies; helpful links)
(links to Lenningrad Codex, aleppo codex)
(catalog of digitized manuscripts)
(a listing, mosly non-Bible)
(a catalog, not the actual digitized manuscripts)
(good info on Manuscripts and manuscript catalogs)
Madrid University Library: http://cisne.sim.ucm.es/search~S1*spi?/tBiblia.+A.T.+Hebreo/tbiblia+a+t+hebreo/-3%2C-1%2C0%2CB/exact&FF=tbiblia+a+t+hebreo&1%2C27%2C
Seforim Online reports:
"I have contacted the library and they informed that they have high-resolution images of all of their manuscripts and they will mail them on CD to anyone who requests them for a particular manuscript, as far as I understood, for free. However they are not putting them on the web. The contacts for this at the library are:
Pilar Moreno:
Email: pmoreno@buc.ucm.es
Tel. 34 91 394 6642
Fax. 34 91 394 6599
and
Marta Torres – Library Director:
Email: mtorres@buc.ucm.es"
French National Library in Paris: http://gallica.bnf.fr/Search?ArianeWireIndex=index&lang=EN&q=hebreu&p=1&f_typedoc=manuscrit
Laurent HERICHER, Conservateur, Chef du service des manuscrits orientaux, said,"The BNF is in the process of digitizing its collections of manuscripts. As for Hebrew manuscripts, 65 have been digitized from microfilms. It is the very begining. The whole collection will be digitized mainly from the microfilms. Some manuscript will be digitized from the original. As for now, only 4 or five have been digitized from the original and can be consulted online. Precious,rare and important manuscript will be digitized from the original. That should not exceed thirty to fourty items.
"You can consult these manuscripts on Gallica BNF's Virtual library : http://gallica.bnf.fr/
Select "manuscrits" in the research options and type the shelf mark : Hébreu 1333 (here is the permanent link to the document : http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b60005435)
Manuscripts bearing the shelf mark Hebreu 1 to 65 plus Hébreu 1333, Hébreu 1388, Hébreu 113, Hébreu 1137, can be consulted so far on Gallica"
Search of blog posts on online manuscripts: http://www.seforimonline.org/blog/?category_name=hebrew-manuscripts
Munich Digitization Center (MDZ)
http://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/index.html?c=kurzauswahl&l=de&adr=daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/ausgaben/gesamt_ausgabe.html?projekt=1157527575&ordnung=sig&recherche=ja
PDFs of Hebrew MSS, most not biblical: http://www.hebrewmanuscripts.org/
List of MSS databases: http://www.hebrewmanuscript.com/hebrew-fragments-databases.htm
Austrian Library: http://www.hebraica.at/_scripts/php/hbf_lists.php
Historical Archive of Girona: http://manuscritshebreus.cultura.gencat.cat/index.php?ln=en
Catalogue of Hebrew manuscripts in the Vatican Library: http://nli.org.il/imhm/vaticanhebmss.pdf
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Tendentious Paleographical Exegesis?
I have been reading Emanuel Tov's classic The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (1981) and came across an interesting discussion he has on proposed tendentious paleographical exegesis in the Septuagint. The theory is that at times translators made paleographical decisions on how to read graphically similar letters based on exegetical concerns. Tov is rightly skeptical of such proposals. Two examples he uses will serve to illustrate the phenomenon:
Ps. 9:6
MT: אבדת רשע "you destroyed the wicked"
LXX: απωλετο ο ασεβης = אבד הרשע "the wicked perished"
Explanation: It has been proposed that the translator of the LXX of Psalms chose to read the text in this way because he wanted to avoid making God himself actively destroy the wicked. The graphic similarity of the letters ת/ה gave the freedom for the translator to divide the words differently and read the letter of his preferred reading. But elsewhere the LXX of Psalms has no problem with the idea of God personally destroying the wicked (Ps 5:6-7; 143[142]:12), so Tov rightly concludes that it is much more likely that this variant was extant in the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX, or at least was an honest misreading by the translator, rather than an intentional rereading of the text for theological reasons.
Gen. 8:21 (and 3:17)
MT: בעבור האדם "because of man"
LXX: δια τα εργα των ανθρωπων = בעבוד(ת) האדם "because of the works of man"
Explanation: According to Tov, G. Bertram in TDNT argues that "the negative attitude of Hellen. Judaism to work decisively affects the text" in that the LXX deliberately read a ד instead of a ר to add an anti-work polemic into the text. Thus, the translator's background and exegesis influenced his choice on a difficult paleographical question to depart from his Vorlage. Tov again rightly rejects this proposal, insisting that it is far more likely to be an error in a Hebrew manuscript, or at worst an accidental misreading by the translator, possibly influenced by the context of the tilling of the ground and man's evil works before the Flood (both of which share the same root as the LXX here).
I would agree with Tov on both accounts. While I cannot completely rule out the possibility that the LXX translators would engage in some sort of intentional midrashic rereading of the text, I will remain skeptical of such proposals unless supported with strong circumstantial evidence. My experience with the LXX of Genesis has left me suspicious of suggestions that the LXX would engage in such an uncharacteristic method, especially when simpler explanations are readily available. More consistent patterns would have to be established to substantiate such theories, and though perhaps these can be discerned in other books, I find little evidence of it in Genesis. At this point, I would be inclined to say that theories of tendentious paleographical exegesis are the least likely of the three possibilities. Slightly more probable is the possibility that the translators may have accidentally misread their texts, though the meticulous care apparent in the versions and the likely necessity of double-checking one's translation still leaves this unlikely. I am inclined rather in the main to attribute variants easily explained on the basis of Hebrew paleography to variant Hebrew manuscripts.
Ps. 9:6
MT: אבדת רשע "you destroyed the wicked"
LXX: απωλετο ο ασεβης = אבד הרשע "the wicked perished"
Explanation: It has been proposed that the translator of the LXX of Psalms chose to read the text in this way because he wanted to avoid making God himself actively destroy the wicked. The graphic similarity of the letters ת/ה gave the freedom for the translator to divide the words differently and read the letter of his preferred reading. But elsewhere the LXX of Psalms has no problem with the idea of God personally destroying the wicked (Ps 5:6-7; 143[142]:12), so Tov rightly concludes that it is much more likely that this variant was extant in the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX, or at least was an honest misreading by the translator, rather than an intentional rereading of the text for theological reasons.
Gen. 8:21 (and 3:17)
MT: בעבור האדם "because of man"
LXX: δια τα εργα των ανθρωπων = בעבוד(ת) האדם "because of the works of man"
Explanation: According to Tov, G. Bertram in TDNT argues that "the negative attitude of Hellen. Judaism to work decisively affects the text" in that the LXX deliberately read a ד instead of a ר to add an anti-work polemic into the text. Thus, the translator's background and exegesis influenced his choice on a difficult paleographical question to depart from his Vorlage. Tov again rightly rejects this proposal, insisting that it is far more likely to be an error in a Hebrew manuscript, or at worst an accidental misreading by the translator, possibly influenced by the context of the tilling of the ground and man's evil works before the Flood (both of which share the same root as the LXX here).
I would agree with Tov on both accounts. While I cannot completely rule out the possibility that the LXX translators would engage in some sort of intentional midrashic rereading of the text, I will remain skeptical of such proposals unless supported with strong circumstantial evidence. My experience with the LXX of Genesis has left me suspicious of suggestions that the LXX would engage in such an uncharacteristic method, especially when simpler explanations are readily available. More consistent patterns would have to be established to substantiate such theories, and though perhaps these can be discerned in other books, I find little evidence of it in Genesis. At this point, I would be inclined to say that theories of tendentious paleographical exegesis are the least likely of the three possibilities. Slightly more probable is the possibility that the translators may have accidentally misread their texts, though the meticulous care apparent in the versions and the likely necessity of double-checking one's translation still leaves this unlikely. I am inclined rather in the main to attribute variants easily explained on the basis of Hebrew paleography to variant Hebrew manuscripts.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Leviticus 1:17 and the Intersection between Textual Criticism and Linguistics
Robert Holmstedt has an interesting discussion on the blog Ancient Hebrew Grammar on the intersection between textual criticism and linguistics here. In particular, he argues that linguistic study of the use of demonstrative pronouns as non-verbal copulas in Hebrew may explain a textual variant in Leviticus 1:17.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)