Mitchell

Intro to Textual criticism

What is Textual Criticism?

Textual criticism is a branch of textual scholarship, philology, and of literary criticism that is concerned with the identification of textual variants, or different versions, of either manuscripts or of printed books…The objective of the textual critic’s work is to provide a better understanding of the creation and historical transmission of the text and its variants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism

What does Textual Criticism look like in real life? Or, what is a simple example of Textual Criticism?

If you happen to have two or more editions of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) take a look at 1 Chronicles 10:1. How does it read? Do you find two consecutive Ethnachta accents as in the first example below or do you see an Ethnachta אֶתְנַחְתָּא followed by a mehuppach מְהֻפָּ֤ךְ as in the second example (the accents are in red)?

Here are 11 common printed editions of the Hebrew Bible worth checking out:

Letteris Hebrew Bible / OT (London 1852) pg. 1290
Ginsburg Hebrew Bible/OT (London 1894 /1998 ) pg. 1698
Snaith Hebrew Bible/OT (London 1958) pg. 1274
KorenTanakh ( Jerusalem 1966)
Biblia Hebraica Kittel (1937)
The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart 1982)
Breuer Tanach ( Jerusalem 1989)
Art Scroll Tanach (Brooklyn 1996) pg. 1898
Aron Doton, Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia (Peabody, Massachusetts 2001) pg. 1146
JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh 2nd edition ( Philadelphia 2004 ) pg. 1911
Jerusalem Crown (Jerusalem 2004) pg. 8

A check of the above eleven editions reveals that three of the above-mentioned text have the repetitive Ethnachta in 1 Chronicles 10:1. Namely, The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), Hendrickson Publishers Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia (BHL) edited by Aron Doton, and the Jewish publication Societies Hebrew-English Tanakh 2nd edition. Because both three above additions (BHS, BHL, and the JPS) are based on the Leningrad Codex if one has access to a facsimile of Leningrad Codex or to digital images of the Codex one should check it out to see if the BHS, BHL, and JPS actually reflect its reading at this point.

image from Accordance Bible Software’s Leningrad Codex photo collection database

Surprisingly a quick check of the image of the Leningrad Codex reveals that the 3 editions mentioned above actually have departed from the reading found in the Leningrad Codex! This means that the alternative reading found in some printed Hebrew Bibles is probably not a true textual variant found in the Leningrad Codex but rather is a modern typo or error that seems to have been introduced when the BHS was being prepared. The BHK the edition before the BHS reads with an Ethnachta אֶתְנַחְתָּא followed by a mehuppach מְהֻפָּ֤ךְ

Okay, this very brief example of a very simple issue demonstrates in part what Textual Criticism is.

Quote of the Week

“The real New Testament is the Greek New Testament. The English is simply a translation of the New Testament, not the actual New Testament. It is good that the New Testament has been translated into so many languages. The fact that it was written in the koiné, the universal language of the time, rather than in one of the earlier Greek dialects, makes it easier to render into modern tongues. But there is much that cannot be translated. It is not possible to reproduce the delicate turns of thought, the nuances of language, in translation.”

A.T. Robertson (The Minister’s Use of His Greek New Testament 1923)

What is meant in the BHS Critical Apparatus of Genesis 38:9, 16, 18?

I highly recommend acquiring the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia If you have an interest in the philology of the Hebrew Bible, and let’s be honest who doesn’t? Then you need to aquire a Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS)! Why you ask? Good question! Well, one of the many interesting features of the BHS is its apparatus. For example, if you turn to Genesis 38:9 in the BHS (or page 62) you and you look at the apparatus on the bottom of the page you will find the following: Gen 38:9^a sic L, mlt Mss Edd לאֹ

Okay so let’s parse the shorthand notes above:

sic L =(underscores the reading in the Leningrad codex)
mlt ＝multi / many　　　Mss＝Manuscripts 　　Edd ＝Editions

So what? What does that mean?

First of all, this means that Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia diplomatically perseveres the textual reading found in the Leningrad Codex. In other words, לאֹ is present in many Hebrew Bible manuscripts and modern editions of the Hebrew Bible but, the Leningrad Codex has a different reading namely: לֹּ֥א. The nikuddot (vowel points) as wells the ta`amei (accents) in the Leningrad Codes apparently differ from the vast majority of manuscripts. And, it is up to the reader to decide if the Leningrad’s reading represents an alternative tradition, an original reading, a scribal mistake, or a correction. The Leningrad’s reading is similar to one found early in Gen 19:2 but this neither proves nor disproves anything it simply shows that the scribe used this form.

Gen 38:16^a sic L, mlt Mss Edd ל sine dageš
Notice, the BHS and L have לִּ֔י
but, many manuscripts and edition have the lamed ‘sine'(without) the Dagesh
Gen 38:18^a ut 16^a || ^b ut 16^aut= as verse 16

(this probably means that the issue in verse 16 in regards to the Lamed and dagesh is similar to the issue in verse 18)

Genesis 18:22 (phenomenon)

Not everything found in Codices of Hebrew Bible nor in the printed editions of the Hebrew Bible is translated in Christian editions of the OT.

There are numerous notes, lists, and pages left by the Masoretes that are rarely if ever translated into English or any other modern language.

Common examples of this include the Masorah Ketanah, Masorah Gedolah, keri uchetiv (Qere) readings, data list at the end of each book, mikra Soferim, ittur Soferim, and the Tiqqune Soferim.

In the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (page 25 print) Genesis 18:22 is notated with two lowercase ‘a’ one before (and Avraham) ‬וְאַ֨בְרָהָ֔ם and one attached to יְהוָֽה (YHWH /usually translated as LORD)

a‬וְאַ֨בְרָהָ֔ם עֹודֶ֥נּוּ עֹמֵ֖ד לִפְנֵ֥י יְהוָֽהa‬

(a) but, Avraham still stood before YHWH (a) (Genesis 18:22)

the (a)s direct us to the apparatus or footnotes:

22 a–a Tiq soph, lect orig אברהם … ויהוה

‘Tiq soph’ tells us that we are encountering what is known as a Tiqqūn sōferīm

‘lect’ is short for ‘lectio’ (reading)

‘Orig’ is short for originalis (original)

What, the abbreviated notes from the BHS’ textual apparatus are telling us is that originally the text may have ‘theoretically’ read:”but, YHWH still stood before Avraham“. This text is one of the 18 tiqqūnēy sōferīm texts that were alleged (according to tradition) changed by the ancient scribes for theological reasons.

This begs the question: “what was the theological reason that the text was supposedly changed for”?

Some claim that this text put YHWH is less role by having YHWH stand before Avraham rather than the other around, but it, in my opinion, is more likely that the alleged Scribes were worried if read that way it would paint an anthropomorphic picture of YHWH by directly stating that YHWH was actually standing in front of Avraham. The Masoretes themselves did not make the Tiqquney Soferim changes but only noted changes they believed had happened.

However, If the Masoretes were Karaite Jews (as some claim) rather than Rabbinic Jews and they would have outright rejected the early Midrashic/oral interpretations that claimed that YHWH would either manifest himself personally as the Memra and or Metatron or that these were mediators or conduits with which to speak to mankind. I have no doubt that would not have not also have found the later text found in Christian canon John 8:56-58 problematic too none the less they wanted to make sure that any changes or textual phenomenon were noted.

Sources Cited:
(1) Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: SESB Version. electronic ed. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2003. Print.
(2) Weil, Gérard E., K. Elliger, and W. Rudolph, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 5. Aufl., rev. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997. Print.

Genesis 18:1

One of the aspects of the Biblical literature that I am very fond of is that is both familiar and unfamiliar at the very same time. If you have grown up in a community that values Biblical literature you have probably at some point read stories from the book of Genesis. You may even at least have some knowledge of some of the more famous stories and characters in Genesis like Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, and so on. Here below is one example of how a close reading of a familiar text, might actually reveal an unfamiliar one.

Gen 18:1 states that God appeared to Abraham, who immediately looked up and saw three men approaching. The first difficulty centers on the precise relationship between these four characters; was God one of the three, symbolized by all three, or a fourth visitor?
The answer to this question will affect how one understands the use of singular and plural verbs and pronouns throughout the chapter.
Thus verses 3-4, ‘im na’ masa’ti hen be-‘eneka, ‘al na’ ta’abor me-‘al ‘abdeka, “ I have found favor in your [sing.] sight, do not pass [sing.] your [sing.] servant by,” which is addressed to one individual, differs from the plural usages in the subsequent yuqqah na’ me’at mayim we-rahasu raglekem, “Let some water be brought and wash [pl] your [pl.] feet.”
Also, one must establish the relationship between God’s appearance in verse 1, the anonymous comment in verse 10, God’s speaking in verse 13, and the ambiguous use of ‘dny, traditional vocalized as a divine name but equally readable as a reference to the three guests, even in some masoretic traditions. These concerns run through Genesis 18 and 19, and their resolution has a profound impact on how one interprets the entire narrative, even on how parts of it are vocalized.

Levy, B, Barry, FIXING GOD’S TORAH; the Accuracy of the Hebrew Bible Text in Jewish Law Oxford University press pg.82