2016014 [THB] 001-Section-1-1-proof-03 [date 1606011218 : version 1603111200] page 1 1 Overview Articles ∵ 2016014 [THB] 001-Section-1-1-proof-03 [date 1606011218 : version 1603111200] page 2 2016014 [THB] 001-Section-1-1-proof-03 [date 1606011218 : version 1603111200] page 3 1.1 Introduction 1.1.1 Textual History of the Hebrew Bible transmission process at times overlapped, and be- cause it is through textual criticism that many lit- This introductory section deals with various gen- erary developments are discovered. Both groups eral areas that introduce the discipline of tex- acknowledge that the difficulty in differentiating tual criticism and that are not treated in the Tex- readings of the two types complicates the textual tual History of the Bible, which focuses on texts: evaluation to such an extent that some scholars the nature of textual criticism (→ 1.1.1.1), textual tend to avoid textual evaluation altogether. Text- theories, among which the search for an origi- critical analysis is not restricted only to the tradi- nal text (→ 1.1.1.2), the nature of the textual evi- tional text of Hebrew–Aramaic Scripture, the so- dence (→ 1.1.1.3), the development of the biblical called mt, but rather includes all forms of Scrip- text (→ 1.1.1.4), the scribal transmission of the bib- ture. lical text (→ 1.1.1.5), and the evaluation of textual The Judean Desert scrolls (→ 1.2.2) contain evidence (→ 1.1.1.6). more than 200 biblical manuscripts dated to ca. 250 b.c.e.–135 c.e., and they show that most of the 1.1.1.1 Nature of Textual Criticism books had reached near-final forms recognizable The Textual History of the Bible requires some dis- from our current Bibles, though they would still de- cussion of the nature of text-critical analysis. Tex- velop. For scholars who separate literary from tex- tual criticism of the Hebrew Bible deals with the tual criticism, the aims of textual criticism have not nature, origin, and development of all the wit- changed with this discovery of important new ev- nesses of a composition or book. This analysis idence in the Judean Desert, though the quantity often involves an attempt to discover the origi- and nature of the new evidence aids us in better un- nal form of details in a composition, or even of derstanding the sources known before 1947 as well large stretches of text, although what exactly con- as the cross-fertilization between textual criticism, stitutes an “original text” is subject to much de- literary criticism, and exegesis. For others, however, bate (→ 1.1.1.2). In the course of such an inquiry, at- since the scrolls show that the text of the Hebrew tempts are made to describe how the texts were Bible was pluriform and developing diachronically, copied, changed, and transmitted from one gen- the aims of textual criticism have expanded to in- eration to the next. Those scholars who express a clude literary criticism, which is necessarily inter- view on the originality of readings do so through twined. evaluation of their comparative value. This com- One of the practical results of the analysis of parison – the center of textual praxis – assesses textual data is that it creates tools for the exegesis the value of the readings included in the tex- of Hebrew–Aramaic Scripture. Exegetical activity tual witnesses. In the view of several scholars, is based on a text or texts and can only proceed not all differences should be subjected to textual if the nature of that text has been determined. By evaluation. They stress that (groups of) readings the same token, all other disciplines, such as the that were produced at the literary growth stage historical, geographical, and linguistic analysis of of the biblical books (literary or editorial vari- Scripture, also operate from a text base. In each ants) should not be subjected to textual evalu- case, the scholar has to define the text base for ation, since they were not produced during the his exegesis, and by necessity this involves the course of the transmission of the texts (→ 1.1.1.6). analysis of all textual data. Too often, however, In contrast, others think that both types should these disciplines are based mainly on mt because be evaluated, since different literary forms coex- the extant text editions and commentaries focus on isted side by side and the literary growth and the that version. 2016014 [THB] 001-Section-1-1-proof-03 [date 1606011218 : version 1603111200] page 4 4 1.1 textual history of the hebrew bible The aims and procedures of the textual criti- mt, go back to different medieval manuscripts of cism of Hebrew–Aramaic Scripture are defined in that tradition, or combinations thereof, and there- various monographs (see bibliography below; Tov, fore the editions also necessarily differ from one *tchb, 1 and Ulrich, *dss, 114–15). Some of them another. Moreover, these editions reflect not only stress that involvement in textual criticism is im- the various medieval manuscripts, but also the per- perative. But, since many scholars focus on mt sonal views of their editors. Furthermore, several alone, examination of the full spectrum of sources editions contain a certain number of printing er- for textual variants is now more than ever impera- rors (Tov, *tchb, 8–9). Therefore, there is no sin- tive. gle edition in existence that agrees in all its details with another one, except for photographically re- Differences between the textual witnesses. The bib- produced editions or editions presenting the same lical text has been transmitted in many ancient electronic (computer-encoded) text. Most editions and medieval sources that are known to us from even differ from one another in their subsequent modern editions in different languages: We possess printings, without informing the readers. It should fragments of leather and papyrus scrolls that are be remembered that the number of differences be- at least two thousand years old in Hebrew, Greek, tween the various editions is very small. Moreover, and Aramaic, as well as manuscripts in Hebrew all of them concern minimal, or even minute, de- and other languages from the Middle Ages. These tails in the text, and most affect the meaning of the sources shed light on and witness to the biblical text in only a very limited way. The following are text, hence their name: “textual witnesses.” These examples of the differences between the most fre- textual witnesses all differ from one another to a quently used editions of mt: sequence of the books, greater or lesser extent. Since no textual source chapter division, layout of the text, verse division, contains what could be called the biblical text, a differences in letters, words, vocalization, and ac- serious involvement in biblical studies necessitates centuation, and notes of the Masorah. the study of all sources, which necessarily involves study of the differences between them. The analy- mt and the original Scripture text. One of the pos- sis of these textual differences thus holds a central tulates of biblical research is that many details in place in textual criticism. the text preserved in the various representatives It is not only the differences among the various (manuscripts, editions) of what is commonly called textual witnesses that require involvement in tex- mt, do not reflect the “original text” of the bibli- tual criticism. Textual differences of a similar na- cal books.1 Even though the concept of an “origi- ture are reflected in the various attestations of a sin- nal text” necessarily remains vague (→ 1.1.1.2), dif- gle textual tradition of Hebrew–Aramaic Scripture, ferences between mt and the other textual wit- namely mt, often described as the main textual tra- nesses will continue to be recognized. Scholars will dition of Scripture. Such differences are visible in constantly hesitate regarding the originality of the all attestations of mt, ancient and medieval, and readings of either mt or one of the other sources. even in its printed editions and modern transla- However, one thing is clear, it should not be pos- tions since they are based on different sources. tulated that mt better or more frequently reflects Perhaps one would not have expected differ- the original text of the biblical books than any ences between the printed editions of Hebrew– other text. Furthermore, even were we to surmise Aramaic Scripture, for if a fully unified textual tra- that mt reflects the “original” form of Scripture, we dition had been possible at any one given period, it would certainly seem to have been after the 1 This perception goes back to Cappellus, *Critica Sacra, invention of the printing press. However, such is 384–85. Also Eichhorn, *Einleitung, 1:278–83 described in de- not the case since all printed editions of Hebrew– tail why the “oldest manuscripts were not without mistakes” Aramaic Scripture, which actually are editions of (title of the section). 2016014 [THB] 001-Section-1-1-proof-03 [date 1606011218 : version 1603111200] page 5 1.1.1 Textual History of the Hebrew Bible 5 would still have to decide which form of mt reflects the research before 1947 was based on Hebrew– this “original text,” since mt itself is represented by Aramaic texts that had been copied 1,200 years or many witnesses that differ in small details (→ 1.2.2). more after the composition of the biblical books. At the same time, scholars also relied on manuscripts Parallel versions within mt and the other textual and early papyrus fragments of the ancient trans- sources. The textual witnesses of the biblical books, lations, especially of lxx and the Vulgate, which including mt, contain several parallel versions of brought them much closer to the time of the com- the same unit.