328._the_philosophy_of_the_biblia_hebrai.pdf

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLIAHEBRAICAQUINTAEDITION Emanuel TOV

1. THE BIBLIAHEBRAICAQUINTA SERIES Adrian Schenker is undoubtedly one of the greatest leaders of our time in the field of textual criticism, not only in his erudite scholarship but also in his quiet leadership of projects, of which the BHQ series is the flagship. The publication of a new volume in this series1 provides an ideal occasion to ponder on the philosophy of the series as a whole. The most widely used and, at this stage, the only complete scholarly Scripture edition is the BibliaHebraica (BH)2 series. The revised version of BH is the BibliaHebraicaStuttgartensia (BHS),3 which was replaced by the BibliaHebraicaQuinta(BHQ) under the general editorship of Adrian Schenker (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004–).4 BHQ improved substantially upon BHS.5 BHQ,richer in data and more judicious and cautious than its predecessors, presents several 1 A. TAL,BibliaHebraicaQuinta,Vol.1,‫בראשית‬Genesis(Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2015). All quotations from the apparatus in this study are from that edition. 2 First edition: R. KITTEL, ed. (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1906); Second edition: KITTEL, ed. (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1909–1913); Third edition: KITTEL and P. KAHLE, eds. (Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1929–1937). 3 W. RUDOLPH and K. ELLIGER (eds.), BibliaHebraicaStuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1967–1977; last printing to date: 1997). 4 The following parts have appeared up to 2011: C. MCCARTHY (ed.), Part 5: Deuteronomy (2007); N. FERNÁNDEZ MARCOS (ed.), Part7:Judges (2011); A. GELSTON (ed.), Part13: TheTwelveMinorProphets (2010); J. DE WAARD (ed.),Part17: Proverbs (2008); P.B. DIRKSEN et al. (eds.), Part 18: General Introduction and Megilloth (2004); D. MARCUS (ed.), Part20:EzraandNehemiah(2006). 5 See the introduction by the editorial committee to: P.B. DIRKSEN et al. (eds.), BibliaHebraicaQuinta, Part18:GeneralIntroductionandMegilloth (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004), VII–XXVI, to be quoted as “BHQ, General Introduction”.

101558_Himbaza_CRB 95_03_Tov.indd 19

7/08/19 10:24

20

EMANUEL TOV

innovations that also feature in the present volume. They have been critically reviewed in my earlier reviews:6 Inclusionofdetailsintheapparatus. The editorial committee chose to include all the details that are “text-critically significant” as well as details that are “potentially significant for translation or exegesis.”7 The new edition thus includes remarks that are solely exegetical without any textual implications (p. XIII). I view in this way the inclusion of details in the apparatus and commentary of Gen 11:1 ‫אָרץ‬ ֶ ‫ל־ה‬ ָ ‫וַ יְ ִהי ָכ‬ ‫שׂ ָפה ֶא ָחת ְוּד ָב ִרים ֲא ָח ִדים‬, ָ “Now the whole earth had one language and the same words” (NRSV). There are no textual implications or complications in MT or the versions, yet the Commentary, 105* explains at length the exegetical traditions of the last phrase in the verse, and the apparatus provides such details. Some examples of the categories of “explic(ation),” “modern(ization),” and “ign(orance)” have been given elsewhere.8 Formulaic explanations. The apparatus contains a long series of formulaic explanations of the background of Hebrew and versional deviations from MT, which are described as secondary Hebrew developments and inner-translational features rather than primary readings or underlying variants. The system of these formulas was expanded greatly beyond the volumes of HOTTP9 in which these formulas were first defined, and beyond the commentaries by Barthélemy et al. in which they were further developed.10 In a similar procedure, BHQ marked 6 E. TOV, “The Biblia Hebraica Quinta: An Important Step Forward,” JNSL 31 (2005) 1–21; E. TOV, “New Editions of the Hebrew Scriptures: A Response,” HeBAI3 (2015) 375–83. 7 BHQ, “General Introduction,” XIII. 8 “BibliaHebraicaQuinta: An Important Step Forward,” 1–21; “A New Volume in the Biblia Hebraica Quinta Series: Genesis, by Abraham Tal,”, in: Festschrift PeterGentry, forthcoming. 9 D. BARTHÉLEMY et al., PreliminaryandInterimReportontheHebrewOldTestamentTextProject, Vols. 1–5, 1st and 2nd eds. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1974, 1979–1980) = HOTTP. 10 D. BARTHÉLEMY, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 1. Josué–Esther, OBO 50/1 (Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982); idem, Critiquetextuelledel’AncienTestament,2.Isaïe,Jérémie,Lamentations, OBO 50/2 (Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986); idem, Critiquetextuelledel’AncienTestament,3.Ézéchiel,Danieletles12Prophètes, OBO 50/3 (Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992); idem, Critiquetextuelledel’AncienTestament,4.Psaumes, OBO 50/4 (Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005); idem, Critiquetextuelledel’AncienTestament,5.Job,Proverbes,QohéletetCantique des Cantiques, OBO 50/5 (Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015).

101558_Himbaza_CRB 95_03_Tov.indd 20

7/08/19 10:24

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLIAHEBRAICAQUINTAEDITION

21

grammatical features of the versions with standard formulas, some of which had been adopted from the HUB.11 The abundance of these formulaic notations is a blessing for scholarly precision, but makes the edition less user-friendly. The philosophy of labeling each and every variation is analyzed below. Textual and literary criticism. BHQ heralds a major change in approach towards textual data that, according to the editors, should be evaluated with lit(erary) rather than textual tools since this data may reflect literary editions or layers of a biblical book that differed from MT. In such cases, BHQmerely mentions the data without adding a textual judgment.12 That system was first utilized in the volumes of Barthélemy, Critiquetextuelledel’AncienTestament. For an analysis, see below, § 2c. 2. FEATURES OF

THE

BHQ EDITIONS

Although I have been an admirer (see n. 8) and user of BHQ from the beginning, I have not given sufficient thought to the nature of its general philosophy. The “General Introduction,” which surprisingly has not been updated since 2004, and also a follow-up study by Adrian Schenker (2013),13 mention that BHQ is the heir of the HOTTP project.14 A detailed analysis of BHS, BHQ, and HOTTP made me aware of the truth of that statement. The apparatus of BHQ should not be regarded as a continuation of BHS but as a sequel to Barthélemy’s editions. In the following pages, I will turn to a few central features of the general philosophy of BHQ.

11 Thus R.D. WEIS, “BibliaHebraicaQuinta and the Making of Critical Editions of the Hebrew Bible,” TC 7 (2002): § 16. http://purl.org/TC. The following volumes of the Hebrew University Bible have been published to date: M.H. GOSHEN-GOTTSTEIN, TheHebrew UniversityBible:TheBookofIsaiah (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1995); C. RABIN, S. TALMON, and E. TOV, TheHebrew UniversityBible:TheBookofJeremiah (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1997); M.H. GOSHEN-GOTTSTEIN and S. TALMON, The Hebrew University Bible:TheBookofEzekiel (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2004). 12 For an example, see R.D. WEIS, “The Textual Situation in the Book of Jeremiah,” in: Y.A.P. GOLDMAN et al. (ed.), SôferMahîr:EssaysinHonourofAdrianSchenker OfferedbytheEditorsofBibliaHebraicaQuinta (VTSup 110, Leiden / Boston: Brill, 2006), 269–93 (274). 13 A. SCHENKER, “The Edition Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ),” HeBAI 2 (2013) 6–16 (9). 14 BHQ, “General Introduction,” XII.

101558_Himbaza_CRB 95_03_Tov.indd 21

7/08/19 10:24

22

EMANUEL TOV

2.1. Preferences of Readings The critical edition is composed of the text (Codex L[eningrad] B19A), a critical apparatus, and a textual commentary. For most users, the critical apparatus in the edition is the most important component. In construing the critical editions, the search for an exact representation of a single source (in this case: a Ben-Asher codexunicus) often went together with the presentation of a critical apparatus containing inner-Masoretic and other variant readings. These critical apparatuses became the nucleus of the scholarly editions since the choice of the variants was meant to represent the most important variants known to date. This is true for all three editions,HUB, BHQ, and HBCE15, all of which present good – and, in some areas, exhaustive – collections of the known variants. A critical apparatus provides a choice of variant readings that, together with the main text, should enable the reader to make maximum use of the textual data. Naturally, the critical apparatus provides only a selection of readings and, if this selection was made judiciously, it provides a good tool for textual analysis. The selection of variants in BHandBHSleaves much to be desired, while that in BHQ is good. The selected variants may be accompanied by a text-critical judgment, and one of the reasons students and scholars alike use the volumes of the BH series is that they want to be guided by its judgment. From the early days of the BH series, many variants have been submitted to such textual evaluations as l(ege), “read!”; dl(delendum),“delete!”; ins(ere), “insert!”; and pr(aemitte), “place before!” By means of terms like these, editors indicate that MT ought to be changed in a certain direction. A constant complaint against the BH and BHS editions is that their judgment is not sound enough. It is especially claimed that too often they use the ancient versions to reconstruct Hebrew readings that never existed, and that frequently they prefer non-Masoretic readings when MT makes good sense. It is also argued that many conjectural emendations in these editions are unnecessary when MT makes good sense. BHQ is much more careful than the previous editions in the BH series. 15 HebrewBible:ACriticalEdition[HBCE]. The only published volume to date is M.V. FOX, Proverbs:AnEclecticEditionwithIntroductionandTextualCommentary (SBL, The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition 1, Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015).

101558_Himbaza_CRB 95_03_Tov.indd 22

7/08/19 10:24

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLIAHEBRAICAQUINTAEDITION

23

As in the previous editions, BH and BHS, the apparatus of BHQ expresses preference for non-Masoretic readings, but there are far fewer such instances and it also uses a different procedure. BH and BHS use a variety of terms such as “dl,” “om,” “ins,” in combination with question marks and notes such as “frt” (fortasse, perhaps). However, they do not use a term or sign that pertains to all the non-Masoretic preferences. On the other hand, BHQ uses a single term (“pref”) for all the readings that are preferred to MT.16 In this way, the reader is guided easily by the transparent layout of the apparatus. However while, in principle, BHQ is open to non-MT readings, in virtually all instances the Genesis edition prefers the reading of MT, often joined by other sources, and only very rarely is a non-MT reading preferred. When the preferences of BHQ are compared to those of BHS, the results are striking. The BHQ edition of Genesis is many times more cautious and conservative than bothBHS in Genesis and the BHQ editions of the other Scripture books. I base these remarks on an analysis of the apparatuses of BHS and BHQ in chapters 31 (extensive differences between MT and the LXX), 36 (parallel passages in other chapters), and 49 (the poetic unit of Jacob’s blessing that contains many difficult words). In these chapters, BHS suggests a sizeable number of preferences phrased as l(ege), ins(ere), dl (delendum), etc, while BHQ hardly suggests any “pref(erred)” readings. I add similar figures for Deuteronomy 32, containing a poem that is comparable to Genesis 49. Table 1: Preferred Readings of BHS and BHQ BHS

BHQ

Gen 31

16

0

Gen 36

10

217

Gen 49

23

1

Deut 32

24

7

I noticed the same type of cautious approach in Canticles, where BHS prefers thirty-two variants to MT, whileBHQ makes only three such suggestions (phrased as “pref”) in Cant 4:12; 7:7, 10. This applies 16 The preference is phrased very cautiously: “… to be preferred as the earliest attested text” (BHQ, “General Introduction,” XVI). 17 The changes in vv. 3 and 14 are identical.

101558_Himbaza_CRB 95_03_Tov.indd 23

7/08/19 10:24

24

EMANUEL TOV

also to Ruth and Lamentations. On the other hand, in the song in Deuteronomy 32 there are seven preferred readings in BHQ (vv. 8, 27, 35, 43 [4×]) as opposed to twenty-four in BHS. Similar findings have been reported by Richard D. Weis for several books in the BHQ series.18 In his comparative chart of the use of “pref” in the published volumes of BHQ, Weis showed that the highest percentage of alternative readings preferred in the apparatus is in Qohelet (one in an average of every 3.04 verses), while the lowest percentage is in Proverbs (one in 228.75 verses) followed by Genesis (one in 127.83 verses). In absolute numbers, in the long book of Genesis there are only twelve preferred readings in BHQ,19 while in the much smaller book of Qohelet there are seventy-three such preferences.20 The beauty of textual criticism is that everyone is entitled to his or her own view. There is no right or wrong in this area, and we should accept the editorial decisions of Tal who apparently strives to maintain MT under virtually all circumstances. The fact that Deuteronomy, though textually similar in nature to Genesis, differs greatly from other books presented in the BHQ series21 shows that personal inclinations count more than the character of the book. For a detailed analysis, see my detailed review of the Genesis edition.22 2.2. Avoidance of Retroversions from the Ancient Versions The inclination towards MT reflected in the preference of only twelve variants in Genesis (see § a) underlies also the policy analyzed in this paragraph. BHQ states that one of the pillars of its policy is not 18 R.D. WEIS, “BibliaHebraicaQuinta among the Editions, as Seen in the New Genesis Fascicle,” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, 21 November 2015. I am grateful to Prof. Weis for allowing me to quote the charts in this paper. Weis suggested that the discrepancies in the percentages resulted from a combination of the different qualities of the books and the personalities of the editors. 19 1:11; 8:17; 12:3; 24:30; 26:7; 36:2, 3, 14; 37:36; 43:28; 46:13; 49:4. Actually there are only eleven preferences, since the cases in 36:3 and 36:14 are identical. The analysis is based on a PDF file of the Genesis edition that was kindly provided by Dr. Rolf Schäfer of Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft in Stuttgart. 20 WEIS records similar figures for conjectures. There are no conjectures in Genesis, while there are seven in Qohelet and ten in Judges. 21 75 preferred readings in 955 verses in Deuteronomy, or one such reading in every 12.73 verses. 22 TOV, “A New Volume in the BibliaHebraicaQuintaSeries: Genesis.”

101558_Himbaza_CRB 95_03_Tov.indd 24

7/08/19 10:24

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLIAHEBRAICAQUINTAEDITION

25

to reconstruct a variant from one of the versions if it is not preferable to MT: “Retroversion will be used only for a reading proposed as preferable to that found in the base text.” 23 This is a very questionable principle, according to which BHQ knows what the preferable readings are. In cases of doubt no readings are reconstructed from the versions, and in Genesis almost none at all, since Tal prefers only twelve readings to MT. This is a general principle of BHQ for which Tal should not be criticized. I cannot easily give examples of words that have not been reconstructed into Hebrew, because the reconstruction and non-reconstruction processes are very subjective. Nevertheless, these examples probably demonstrate the approach of the edition: 13:14 ‫אַתּה‬ ָ Smr S T | prec νῦν G V (explic)

The apparatus and Commentary, 110* do not take into consideration the possibility that νῦν reflects ‫עתה‬. However, the interchange of the readings ‫אַתּה‬ ָ and ‫ עתה‬occurs often elsewhere (see n. 15 above). Some of these instances involve doublets: 2 Sam 7:20, 20:6; 1 Kgs 12:10 (in all these cases, G contains a doublet). This is probably also the case here. However, instead of assuming a textual solution, the added word is regarded in the apparatus as an explanation by the translator. However, in my view the LXX does not reflect an explanation, but a Hebrew doublet or a translational doublet, but these possibilities are not mentioned in the apparatus. 49:24 ‫ וַ ֵתּ ֶשׁב‬Smr (V) TNF | καὶ συνετρίβη G (lib) | ‫ והפכת‬S TO (differvocal)

Συντρίβω is the standard equivalent in the LXX of the root ‫ שבר‬and there is no doubt in my mind that the LXX reflects a variant ‫ותשבר‬ for MT ‫( ותשב‬thus BHS), especially since the phrase ‫ותשבר … קשתם‬ is meaningful in the context. I do not know what kind of “freedom” (thus BHQ) made the translator render ‫ וַ ֵתּ ֶשׁב‬as “was broken.” In these and similar cases, BHQ avoids retroversions and finds explanations that are, in my view, artificial. The position of the edition regarding not reconstructing variants is clear, but I hasten to add that there are two exceptions to this procedure. In these cases, BHQ does reconstruct from the versions; it only does not call these cases “reconstructions.” 23

BHQ, “General Introduction,” XIII.

101558_Himbaza_CRB 95_03_Tov.indd 25

7/08/19 10:24

26

EMANUEL TOV

i. AtranslationisquotedtogetherwithaHebrewsource. In such cases, the translation is actually retroverted into a Hebrew text that is identical to the Hebrew source. In all these cases, BHQ is actually more daring than BHS, but I usually agree with BHQ. The procedure involves an element of speculation24 and the text of the translation that is not provided in these cases ought to appear in the edition: 1:9 ‫ל־מקוֹם‬ ָ ‫ ֶא‬Smr 4QGenb γ‘ V S T | ]‫ [מקוה‬4QGenh1 G (assim-v 10) 11:12 ‫ ָשׁנָ ה‬V S T | foll ‫ ומאת שנה‬Smr G (differ) 46:13 ‫ וְ יוֹב‬V T | ‫ וישוב‬Smr G | ‫ ואיוב‬S (ign-lex) 49:5 ‫ ְכּ ֵלי ָח ָמס‬α εβρ V (S) (TJNF) | ‫( כלו חמס‬kalluāmẹs) Smr G (differgram) 49:17 ‫ ְשׁ ִפיפֹן‬V S | ‫ שפפון‬Smr G (lib-synt)25 49:26 ‫אָביָך‬ ִ V S T | foll ‫ ואמך‬Smr G (harm-ctxt)

ii. Via.BHQ innovated a notation “via” pointing to exegesis based on a root or word different from MT, although the translator did not necessarily have another Vorlage in front of him,26 for example: 8:21 ‫ ַבּ ֲעבוּר‬Smr V S TN | διὰ τὰ ἔργα G (TOJ) (via ‫)בעבוד‬

The Commentary, 99* does not consider this a regular reconstruction, but a “word play,” similar to the LXX of 3:17 ‫בוּרָך‬ ֶ ‫ – ַבּ ֲע‬ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις σου. 49:6 ‫( ֵתּ ַחד‬α ) TJ |‫ יחר‬Smr (GMss) (harm-ctext) | ἐρείσαι G (via ‫ | )יחד‬sit V (lib) | ‫ נחתת‬S TO (exeg)27

However, in my view, most Hebrew forms that are listed in BHQ after the term “via” are regular reconstructions of different readings. As a result, in spite of its claim, BHQ does reconstruct words from the ancient translations, albeit with a different term, as in the next examples: 24

See the example from 49:17. According to TAL, Commentary, 200*, the LXX (ἐγκαθήμενος) and the Smr (based on the Samaritan Targum) agree in their etymological exegesis of the Hebrew based on Mishnaic ‫שפף‬. The analysis of the LXX is probably correct, but the difference between MT and Smr is orthographic, and the opposition suggested by BHQ is unsound. Therefore, the reconstruction of the LXX as being equal to Smr may be incorrect. 26 “This term indicates the Hebrew form that is judged to have served as the stimulus for a particular extant reading. In so marking a form, no position is taken as to whether the reading was an actual Vorlage (written in a manuscript) or a virtual Vorlage (in the mind of a translator or copyist), or even whether one could properly label the form a Vorlage.” BHQ, “General Introduction,” XCIV. 27 This particular derivation may actually be based on ‫ יחר‬or on the first two of the three root letters ‫חרה‬, as in Jer 12:5 ‫תּ ַת ֲח ֶרה‬. ְ 25

101558_Himbaza_CRB 95_03_Tov.indd 26

7/08/19 10:24

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLIAHEBRAICAQUINTAEDITION

27

Consonants 4:7 ‫שׁוּקתוֹ‬ ָ ‫ ְתּ‬Smr 4QGenb σ V (T) | ἡ ἀποστροφὴ αὐτοῦ G θ (via ‫)תשובתו‬ 14:7 ‫ ְשׂ ֵדה‬Smr V TOJ (TN) | τοὺς ἄρχοντας G S (via ‫)שׂ ֵרי‬ ָ 36:35 ‫ ֲעוִ ית‬Smr V (S) T | Γεθθαίμ G (via ‫)ע ַתּיִם‬ ִ

Vowels 26:12 ‫ ֵמאָה ְשׁ ָע ִרים‬Smr α V TOJ | ἑκατοστεύουσαν κριθήν G S (via ‫)שׂע ִֹרים‬ ְ 49:6 ‫ ְכּב ִֹדי‬Smr α V TJNF | τὰ ἥπατά μου G (via ‫)כּ ֵב ִדי‬ ְ 49:9 ‫ ִמ ֶטּ ֶרף‬Smr α σ V S | ἐκ βλαστοῦ G (via ‫)מ ָטּ ָרף‬ ִ

In my view, all these are regular cases of reconstructed Vorlagen that do not fit the definition of “via.” Incidentally, BHQ uses two similar notations, “via” and “differvocal,” even in the same verse, 49:6. The difference between these two terms is that “differ-vocal” refers to cases in which BHQ does not reconstruct the details of the vocalization, while in the case of “via” it does so. However, I sometimes do not understand the reluctance to spell out the details of the vocalization since they are often provided out in the Commentary. 49:6 ‫ שׁוֹר‬Smr G (TF) | τεῖχος α-σ V S TOJN (differ-vocal)

The Commentary, 196*–97* explicitly mentions “wall” (‫)רוּשׁ‬. 49:21 ‫ אַיָּ ָלה ְשׁ ֻל ָחה‬Smr α V | στέλεχος ἀνειμένον G (differ-vocal)

The Commentary, 202* points explicitly to ‫( ֵא ָלה‬cf. Gen 35:4) as G’s probable Vorlage. 49:24 ‫ וַ ֵתּ ֶשׁב‬Smr (V) TNF | καὶ συνετρίβη G (lib) | ‫ והפכת‬S TO (differ-vocal)

The Commentary, 204* mentions ‫ וַ ָתּ ָשׁב‬as the Vorlage of S TO. 49:24 ‫ ִמ ָשּׁם‬Smr G V TJ (TNF) | ‫ ומן שם‬S TO (differ-vocal)

The Commentary, 204* reconstructs S as ‫מ ֵשּׁם‬. ִ In short, although BHQ announced that it does not include reconstructions from the ancient translations when not superior to MT, they enter through the back door, so to speak, and in great numbers in certain books, as with the notation of “via” in Proverbs.28 28

Proverbs has a complicated textual history, and the Vorlage of the LXX probably differed much from MT. At the same time, among the volumes published in the BHQ series prior to 2017, it is the single most conservative book in which the smallest number of details have been preferred to MT, even fewer than those in Genesis; see § 2a above. At the same time, I note an excessively large number of deviations of the LXX from MT denoted as “via” (for example, six times in 30:1–2 for G and V).

101558_Himbaza_CRB 95_03_Tov.indd 27

7/08/19 10:24

28

EMANUEL TOV

2.3. Lack of Notations of “lit” in the BHQ Editions The separation of textual and literary elements in BHQis a distinct improvement within the BH series, as noted above. Deviations from MT that are of a literary nature are indicated as “lit,” but this innovation loses its force when we realize that it was not used in the canonical material in the BHQ volumes published prior to 2017. It seems to me that the definition of the editorial committee is sufficiently clear,29 but much depends on the editors’ understanding of the individual cases that are described as “a discrete literary tradition.” In the definition, the intention is clear since the instruction refers to the story of David and Goliath and the text of Jeremiah, both of which are known in a long edition in MT and a short edition in the LXX, in the latter case also in two Qumran scrolls.30 In a later publication, Adrian Schenker expands the definition by including two additional Scripture books: “Examples include the books of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Kings.”31 Since Schenker was a leading force in drawing up the introduction to BHQ, he probably would have expanded this definition to include even more Scripture books that he listed in a monograph he edited that is devoted to literary differences between the textual witnesses.32 On the basis of that monograph, these additional books would have been Judges, 1 Kings, Ezra–Nehemiah, Daniel, and more and I expressed my agreement with this approach.33 I probably have a rather maximal understanding of what is included in the term “literary edition,” and I think that this understanding is not far from that of Adrian Schenker, although we may disagree regarding individual instances. Similarly, the individual editors of the BHQ series may accept the principle of “lit,” but they may differ in individual cases. However, in the present case, the 29 “This term indicates that a reading represents a discrete literary tradition (i.e., one of two or more surviving editions for a book) that should not itself be used to correct another text coming from a different literary tradition (i.e., another edition) represented in the reading of another witness. Samuel and Jeremiah, for example, each offer a number of such cases.” (BHQ, “General Introduction,” XCII). However, some confusion is introduced when the “General Introduction,” XIII itself refers to cases like these and names them “differ-txt” (see the analysis below). 30 See my discussion in TextualCriticismoftheHebrewBible, 3rd ed., rev. and exp. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 286–94, 301–03. 31 SCHENKER, “The Edition Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ).” 32 A. SCHENKER (ed.), TheEarliestTextoftheHebrewBible:TheRelationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered (SBLSCS 52, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2003). 33 See my TextualCriticism, 283–326.

101558_Himbaza_CRB 95_03_Tov.indd 28

7/08/19 10:24

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLIAHEBRAICAQUINTAEDITION

29

disagreement is rather striking, since the new term “lit” is not used at all in the canonical text in the first seven volumes of BHQ.34 Within the BH series, the use of “lit” is an innovation; the term has been transferred from the volumes of Barthélemy, Critiquetextuelle, which are the source of many of the procedures that are utilized in BHQ. It is therefore all the more striking that this term is used more in the volumes of Barthélemy35 than in BHQ, as far as we can judge from the volumes published until 2017. The upshot of this comparison is therefore doubly surprising: (1) the spiritual forerunner of BHQ uses “lit” rather frequently as opposed to its nonuse in BHQ; (2) In the few cases in which “lit” has been used in BHQ, it refers to the apocryphal books with reference to Esther36 and Ezra–Nehemiah.37 This situation was not expected when the editorial introduction to BHQ was written because otherwise the restriction of “lit” to the apocryphal books would have been mentioned. It should be emphasized strongly that for the “General Introduction” of BHQ and Schenker’s follow-up study, the use of “lit” takes a very prominent position.38 The nonuse of “lit” with reference to the textual witnesses of the Hebrew and translated Bible is striking, and in my view this phenomenon is symptomatic of the lack of recognition in BHQ of Hebrew traditions that are parallel to MT. In those Scripture books in which I would have expected “lit” or some form of acknowledgment of the existence of parallel Hebrew traditions, I actually notice the avoidance of such a recognition. I see that literary variants are systematically replaced by several alternative terms, especially “syst,” “om” (both in Genesis), and “differ-txt.” The analysis of this issue is of course subjective, since what looks like a literary feature to one scholar is explained differently by another one. However, when the “lit” option is completely ignored in the first seven published volumes of BHQ, I cannot but suspect a tendency. I may be wrong, but this may well be a conservative tendency of not recognizing Hebrew traditions that 34

See n. 6. The notation “lit” is often employed by BARTHÉLEMY in 1–2 Samuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, infrequently in 1 Kings, Daniel, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Zechariah, Malachi, and once in Esth 3:7 in a long plus. No statistics are available for the books of Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Qohelet, and Canticles wherein the term also may have been used. 36 The so-called Expansions to Esther; see the apparatus to Esth 1:1, 13; 4:17; 5:1; 8:12; 10:3. 37 1 Esdras as quoted in Ezra 1:16, 19, 25, 31, 47; Neh 8:6. 38 SCHENKER, “The Edition Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ),” 10–11. 35

101558_Himbaza_CRB 95_03_Tov.indd 29

7/08/19 10:24

30

EMANUEL TOV

could serve as possible alternatives to MT. This tendency is also visible in other features in BHQ, especially in the almost exclusive acceptance of MT, as described in § a. In my view, “lit” could or should have been used in Genesis 31. For an analysis of Genesis 31, see my analysis elsewhere.39 See further: Esther. All the literary differences between MT and the LXX40 have been explained as textual differences for which various explanatory terms have been used. For the pluses: mainly “ampl”; for the minuses: “abbr”; for the differences mainly: “facil-styl,” “lib-seman,” “interp,” “explic,” as well as “substit,” “theological,” “assim-styl,” “err-hist.” According to my analysis, many if not most of the deviations of the LXX are based on a Hebrew source text.41 In my view, this is an ideal case for assuming a different literary edition/composition, denoted as “lit” in the system of BHQ. Following another approach, the editor of Esther could have left the pluses and minuses without commentary. However, it is not conducive to scholarship to denote all the pluses, minuses, and changes with ineffective terms such as those mentioned above without making a connection between them. On the other hand, Barthélemy marked the long plus of Esth 3:7 in the LXX as “lit.”42 Proverbs. The LXX version of this book differs from all other textual traditions to such an extent that Tov and Fox describe it as a recensional tradition that differs from the other texts.43 Many of the discrepancies between the LXX and MT have been recorded somehow in BHQ but others have been disregarded, and no attempt has been made at an overall treatment of the character of the LXX in the Commentary. As a result, the reader does not realize that the LXX presents a picture that is sui generis, and since the first step in the 39

TOV, “A New Volume in the BibliaHebraicaQuintaSeries: Genesis.” For a brief discussion and literature, see my TextualCriticism, 317–18. 41 This text adds clarifying details, omits phrases that may have been considered verbose or less important (e.g., 3:12, 13; 5:6), and changes many small details as well as complete verses. It also adds six large sections, traditionally named Expansions A–F, but since Jerome placed them at the end of the book, they are usually – and misleadingly – discussed separately. However, these long pluses are an integral part of the Greek translation, and are therefore better described as Narrative Expansions A–F. 42 BARTHÉLEMY, Critiquetextuelle 1982, 578. 43 For a brief discussion and literature, see my TextualCriticism, 304; M.V. FOX, “Editing Proverbs: The Challenge of the Oxford Hebrew Bible,” JNSL 32 (2006) 1–22 (4); FOX, Proverbs, 240, 364. 40

101558_Himbaza_CRB 95_03_Tov.indd 30

7/08/19 10:24

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLIAHEBRAICAQUINTAEDITION

31

direction of a solution has not been taken, the fragmentary information about similar data is lost in the apparatus. For one thing, the option of a different Hebrew Vorlage is not presented.44 The problems in the application of the term “lit” are visible already in the verbalization of the principles with regard to another term, “differ-txt.” That term45 is described in the same way as “lit”: “lengthy readings that are judged to stand in a literature relation to the text represented in the base text (e.g., a parallel text) will be signaled (usually with the abbreviation “differ-txt”), but not be given in full.” Thus, “lit” and “differ-txt” refer to similar situations, although the examples given for each of them differ (Samuel and Jeremiah for “lit” and parallel texts for “differ-txt”). Possibly the lack of clarity in the definition resulted in the lack of use not only of “lit” but also of “differ-txt.” The latter term46 is used rarely in BHQ, and when it appears it is used with a different meaning (Deut 32:43; Ezra 4:6, 14; 7:10; 10:35; Neh 7:69, all referring to external sources, a Qumran scroll or 1 Esdras). 2.4. Reticence to Recognize Parallel Hebrew Traditions If I am not mistaken, BHQ does not state that it does not recognize Hebrew traditions that are parallel to MT, but it seems that such a presupposition underlies the logic of the apparatus. I consider any Hebrew word, phrase, verse, or paragraph that runs parallel to MT to be a parallel Hebrew tradition. The assumption of a parallel Hebrew tradition does not necessarily involve the taking of a position with regard to the question of an original text as many options are open after the parallel status of Hebrew readings is recognized. The following 44 Many additional stichs and verses in the LXX are listed with only occasional explanations, e.g., 2:17 (lib), 19 (dbl); 3:15 (dbl), 16 (no remark), 22 (dbl 3:8), 28 (see the Commentary, 33* [the possibility of a different Hebrew Vorlage is not excluded]); 4:10; 6:8 (ampl); 22:14 (exeg). The omission of verses is rarely remarked upon: 4:7 (theol); in other cases, no explanation is given: 8:33; 15:31; 16:1, 3; 18:23–24; 19:1; 20:14–19. The change of position of several verses has not been recorded in BHQ: the transposition of several verses in chapter 16 of MT to the end of ch. 15 in LXX (MT 16:6 = LXX 15:27a; MT 16:7 = LXX 15:28a; MT 16:8–9 = LXX 15:29a–b) and the change of position of 16:4 to 16:9. Also, the sequence of the verses in chapters 17 and 20 in LXX differs much from MT, with minimal or no attention given to these features in the apparatus. 45 BHQ, “General Introduction,” XIII. 46 As opposed to “differ” in other combinations, such as “differ-gram,” “differchron.”

101558_Himbaza_CRB 95_03_Tov.indd 31

7/08/19 10:24

32

EMANUEL TOV

procedures indicate that, as a rule, the possibility of parallel Hebrew readings is not enable by BHQ. i. The remarks after the lemma (quoted from MT) are divided in a binary way, recording the variant(s) and (in rare cases) the preferred reading as discussed in § 2a above. In these rare cases (twelve in the book of Genesis), a non-MT reading is preferred to MT, and that information is presented after two parallel lines as in Gen 49:4:47 49:4 BHQ ‫( ַפּ ַחז‬crrp) | ‫ פחזת‬Smr G α σ θ συρ V S (TO) (harm-ctext) || pref ‫ ָפּ ַחזְ ָתּ‬Smr G V

There is no third possibility, and therefore the scholar usually is not presented with two readings of equal value or two readings between which the editor cannot decide. Obviously the published volumes of BHQ record many parallel readings in different books of MT,48 but they merely record them in the apparatus without textual evaluations and they do not demonstrate the editor’s belief in parallel traditions. ii. The main indications of parallel Hebrew traditions may be hidden in certain types of notations. The term “lit” refers to the existence of such traditions, but it is not used in BHQ (see § 2c), and this seems to be the major indication of the possibility of a parallel tradition in addition to “differ,” for which see below. iii. In § 2b we analyzed BHQ’s practice that was expressed as “Retroversion will be used only for a reading proposed as preferable to that found in the base text” (BHQ, “General Introduction,” XIII). The implication of this policy statement is that BHQ greatly reduced the possibility of parallel Hebrew traditions. That possibility is not ruled out completely, since evidence from the scrolls is still recorded. iv. Differ. On the other hand, the term “differ” (used alone or in combination with other words, but not “differ-txt,” on which see above) seemingly indicates parallel Hebrew traditions, but it is not employed much for Hebrew readings and in my view it is not explained well.49 This term is used with differing frequencies in the various 47 I do not know why only G and V are quoted to the right of the parallel lines without α σ θ συρ S (TO). 4Q252 iv 4 (known to the Commentary, 195*) also could have been mentioned as support for the reading, but it is against BHQ policy to mention quotations in nonbiblical writings. 48 For example, the editor of the parallel lists of names in Ezra 2 // Neh 7:6–72 in BHQ simply records the differences in the apparatus without textual remarks. 49 “This characterization makes no attempt to suggest anything about the origin of a witness’s reading. It simply calls attention to the existence of a difference between readings” (BHQ, “General Introduction,” LXXXIX).

101558_Himbaza_CRB 95_03_Tov.indd 32

7/08/19 10:24

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLIAHEBRAICAQUINTAEDITION

33

books, especially frequently in Genesis, showing uncertainty about the status of possible variants.50 It is used mainly for differences between MT and the versions as a noncommittal, descriptive term, such as “differgram”: 35:29 ‫ל־ע ָמּיו‬ ַ ‫ ֶא‬Smr | τὸ γένος αὐτοῦ G V S T (differ-gram)

This remark designates that the difference between the sources was created by their different grammatical structure. “Differ” does not refer to a parallel Hebrew reading when applied to translations, and usually neither so when applied to Hebrew texts: 1:22 ‫ יִ ֶרב‬4QGenb | ‫ ירבה‬Smr 4QGeng (differ-gram) 7:11 ‫שׁ־מאוֹת‬ ֵ ‫ ֵשׁ‬S T | ‫ השש מאות‬Smr G (differ-gram) | V (indet).51

BHQ does not inform the reader that these readings are equally valid. Since no notation of “pref” is used, the editor is implying that he considers them secondary without saying so explicitly. In the following cases, BHQ does not state explicitly that the parallel reading is equally as valid as MT, but a parallel status is not impossible within the BHQ system. 10:4 ‫ישׁה‬ ָ ‫ ֱא ִל‬G V S TON | ‫ אליש‬Smr (differ) | ‫ אלס‬TJ (differ) 5:10 ‫וּשׁמֹנֶ ה ֵמאוֹת ָשׁנָ ה‬ ְ ‫ ֲח ֵמשׁ ֶע ְשׂ ֵרה ָשׁנָ ה‬Smr V S T | ἔτη ἑπτακόσια καὶ δέκα πέντε G (differ-chron) 11:12 ‫ ָשׁנָ ה‬V S T | foll ‫ ומאת שנה‬Smr G (differ) 7:11 ‫ ַבּיּוֹם ַהזֶּ ה‬Smr G S T | > La V (differ)

In chapter 5, there are seventeen notes referring to a different chronology of the LXX (“differ-chron”), and seven notes referring to a different chronology of the Smr. One could consider this a different chronological system, but Tal does not do so in the Commentary in chapter 5.52 Likewise, the different chronology in chapter 11 is not 50 Genesis: 220; Deuteronomy: 39; Judges: 0; Minor Prophets: 1; Proverbs: 79; Ruth: 3; Canticles: 14; Ecclesiastes: 5; Lamentations: 34; Esther: 19; Ezra: 16; Nehemiah: 4. 51 See Commentary, 95*. 52 My own study appeared too late to be taken into consideration: “The Genealogical Lists in Genesis 5 and 11 in Three Different Versions,” in: C. WERMAN (ed.), FromAuthortoCopyist:EssaysontheComposition,Redaction,andTransmissionof theHebrewBibleinHonorofZipiTalshir (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 37– 52. Revised version: TOV, TextualCriticismoftheHebrewBible,Qumran,Septuagint: Collected Essays (Vol. 3, VTSup 167, Leiden: Brill, 2015), 221–38. However, the earlier study of Hendel, which was known to the author, deals extensively with this matter: R. HENDEL, TheTextofGenesis1–11:TextualStudiesandCriticalEdition (New York / Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).

101558_Himbaza_CRB 95_03_Tov.indd 33

7/08/19 10:24

34

EMANUEL TOV

discussed in the Commentary, but the apparatus contains a mix of notes for the LXX (3× “differ”; 7× “harm-chron”) and Smr (2× “differ”; 9× “harm-chron”).53 When summarizing this paragraph, I realize that the possibility of explaining certain evidence as a parallel Hebrew tradition to MT does exist in the BHQ system, but it has hardly ever been activated. When used with another qualifier such as “gramm” or “chron,” “differ” may refer to a parallel Hebrew reading, but the options have not been spelled out. “Differ” alone probably refers to a parallel Hebrew reading. Even if the term “lit” were to be activated in Samuel and Jeremiah or other books, the impression cannot be avoided that BHQ does not favor the option of parallel Hebrew evidence. This is probably not the personal view of Adrian Schenker, who strongly emphasized this option, but the exclusive tendency of BHQ. 3. STEREOTYPED EXPLANATIONS IN

THE

APPARATUS

In the apparatus, the lemma (= MT) is followed by the deviating text that either reflects a variant or an exegetical version of MT. The nature of this deviating text is always explained with a brief comment, when both the procedure followed and the details themselves adhere to the structure of Barthélemy’s Critiquetextuelle, with some differences (see below). The possibilities are limited in the BHQ system. Although in theory all the options are open,54 in practice the reading of MT is almost always preferred. In addition: a. The use of question marks is extremely limited; b. There are no retroversions from the versions unless they are preferred to MT, an almost impossible condition (see above); c. In the volumes published until 2017, possibly parallel Hebrew readings have been recorded in a very minimal way (above, § 2d), and “lit” has not been used at all for the canonical books. Standard explanations in the apparatus. The system of standard explanations of all the details appearing to the right of the lemma sign in BHQ is, to the best of my knowledge, unique in textual apparatuses; it is new in the history of the BH series. It requires the rather unusual 53 I do not understand why different notations are used in these two chapters since it seems that exactly the same forces are operative in them. 54 BHQ, “General Introduction,” XV.

101558_Himbaza_CRB 95_03_Tov.indd 34

7/08/19 10:24

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLIAHEBRAICAQUINTAEDITION

35

presupposition that there is an explanation for every variant, a view that I do not share. The logic of the BHQ apparatus is unique because in virtually all instances the readings occurring to the right of the lemma sign are secondary and presumably it is easier to find an explanation for secondary readings than for other ones. However, the issue is more complex and the impression is created that too many readings are characterized in BHQ as secondary. Stereotypedexplanationsofvariants. The system of the stereotyped explanations of variants was devised in the volumes of Barthélemy, Critiquetextuelle,55 while the initial stage of the system had been developed in the volumes of the HOTTP. The system used by BHQ thus goes back to the 1970s. The line of development is very clear, from a very small number of “factors” explaining the variants in HOTTP, via a medium-sized number in Barthélemy’s Critique textuelle, to a very large number in BHQ. The idea behind this is the assumption that more precise descriptions of the readings that deviate from MT are facilitated by the increased number and greater detail of the explanations. But is this correct? In HOTTP, there were only six so-called “factors of modification”: simplification, assimilation, translational adjustment, interpretive modification, misunderstanding of linguistic data, misunderstanding of historical data (factors 4–9).56 These six base explanations continued to be used in Critiquetextuelle, but the system had been changed since, instead of referring to the factors by number, that publication now subdivided the factors into a more detailed network resulting in nineteen different explanations (for example, “facil” is subdivided into “facil-synt,” “facil-seman,” etc). The system was brought to perfection in BHQ with no less than forty-seven terms explaining the variations together with five factors of textual phenomena. Although BHQ continued Critique textuelle’s system, there are differences: a. BHQ provides the variant readings after the lemma (MT) together with a single explanation for each variant. On the other hand, the volumes of HOTTP and Barthélemy, Critiquetextuelle used multiple explanations (factors). 55 These volumes also carry the names of A.R. HULST, N. LOHFINK, W.D. MCHARDY, H.P. RÜGER, and J.A. SANDERS. 56 Additional factors are conjectures (factor 14) and inexplicable text (15). There are also four factors pertaining to scribal development and three factors pertaining to the general philosophy of textual transmission. Altogether, there are fifteen factors of explanations of which the main ones are factors 4–9.

101558_Himbaza_CRB 95_03_Tov.indd 35

7/08/19 10:24

36

EMANUEL TOV

b. BHQ does not evaluate the readings, while the volumes of Barthélemy, Critiquetextuelle do so using capital letters A–D, as in the editions of the New Testament (the highest degree of certainty given to a reading is A). c. BHQ does not attach any question marks to the evaluations and does not show any doubts, while the volumes of Barthélemy, Critique textuelle use question marks, as well as the word vel (“or”). d. BHQ applied this system to all the words for which textual variation is recorded, while HOTTP andBarthélemy, Critiquetextuelle used this system only in a limited number of lemmata. HOTTP focused on differences between the modern translations, most of which go back to ancient evidence, while the volumes of Critique textuelle analyzed the complete evidence. The discussion in these volumes is extremely thorough, while BHQ covers more cases of textual variation. Summarizing these differences, we note that BHQ is less flexible than the original system. The possibility of multiple explanations created by BarthélemyinCritiquetextuelle is much closer to reality than the stringent system of BHQ. Also, the ability to express uncertainty is preferable to the impression of certainty in BHQ. The need to explain every variant. In its wish to explain the background of every variant, BHQ differs from HUB,57 HBCE,58 and the earlier volumes in the BH series.59 The innovation in BHQ was carried over from the volumes of Barthélemy, Critiquetextuelle. However, those volumes do not contain critical editions but textual commentaries on select verses that serve a practical purpose for translators. In its new environment, in BHQ, the procedure has a different logic and therefore we should ask ourselves whether each variant indeed needs to be explained. These explanations are often no more than learned guesses and since only a single factor is mentioned, that remark creates the impression of a definitive answer to an often difficult issue. In my view, many of the explanations that are given are vague60 or 57 The HUB employs standard explanations for grammatical differences, while the other textual variations are explained only occasionally. 58 Judging from the sole volume of the HBCE published to date (FOX, Proverbs), the apparatus of that edition includes a pleasant mix of standard abbreviations and textual remarks that are not accompanied by explanations. 59 The volumes in the BH series did not explain the variants. 60 As a rule, we do not know what the editor had in mind, because the Commentary does not refer to these matters. I note that the Commentary in BARTHÉLEMY, Critique

101558_Himbaza_CRB 95_03_Tov.indd 36

7/08/19 10:24

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLIAHEBRAICAQUINTAEDITION

37

noncommittal. I also find that the editors are often guided by changing fashions in different parts of the book. For example, note the different explanations given for exactly the same rendering of ‫ יהוה‬in the LXX: 7:1 ‫ יְ הוָ ה‬V T | ‫ אלהים‬Smr S (differ) | κύριος ὁ θεός G (differ)

The explanation is repeated in the same chapter in v. 16; however, in 4:6, 26 this rendering is explained as “assim-usu,” in 4:15 as “lib,” in 5:29; 6:3; 7:5; 8:21 as “ampl”. This equivalent is not recorded at all in 6:5, 8; 11:9. Thus, altogether, five different procedures have been followed. Increasednumberofexplanations. I wonder whether it was a blessing to enlarge the number of explanations from nineteen in Critique textuelle to forty-seven in BHQ.61 The extensive choice of explanatory terms complicates the editors’ decision-making process and renders the edition less user-friendly. I also note that the editors found it difficult to decide between similar terms. For example, it is not easy to distinguish between “harm”62 and “assim”63, and therefore these frequently occurring terms are often used in identical circumstances in the Deuteronomy volume64 and again in the Genesis textuelle and also in HBCE (FOX, Proverbs) explains the apparatus, while that in BHQ usually is a textual commentary on the problems of the verse, and not of the apparatus. 61 The number of terms used is actually smaller, since in practice only a limited number of them have been applied. In a sample analysis of Genesis 31, 36, and 49, I found that the most frequent explanation in chapter 31 is “assim” (10×), followed by “facil-syntax” (8×), and “harm” (7×); likewise in chapter 36 it is “assim” (13×), followed by “harm” (6x), and “differ-phonol” (6x); in the poem in chapter 49 it is “exeg” (28×), followed at a long distance by “lib-seman” (14×), “harm-ctext” (13×), and “assim-ctext” (10×). 62 “This term suggests that a particular force in the generation of the reading of a witness appears to have been an impulse to make the text read in a way that is consistent with some external frame of reference…” (BHQ, “General Introduction,” XC). 63 “This characterization suggests that a particular force in generating the reading of a witness in the case has been an impulse to create or increase a degree of similarity with a text or contextual element with which a certain degree of similarity may already exist...” (BHQ, “General Introduction,” LXXXIX). 64 The apparatus of Deuteronomy includes 166 instances of “harm” (17.33 instances per 100 verses) and 523 instances of “assim” (53.55 instances per 100 verses or an average of one instance in every two verses). In the first ten chapters of the book, in which singular and plural forms of verbs and nouns interchange in MT, harmonizing changes in the other sources recorded in BHQ are usually named “harm”: 1:8, 21; 2:4, 37; 3:21, 22; 4:1, 5, 10, 23, 25, 29, 32, 34; 5:2, 3, 32; 6:2, 3, 16, 17, 20; 7:4, 10, 25; 8:1; 9:7. However, often the same phenomenon is named “assim-ctext”: 1:16, 28; 2:9, 19, 30; 4:33. Furthermore, there is also a different type of inconsistency in Deuteronomy, in which the most frequent term “harm-ctext” alternates with “harmsyntax” in the same conditions: 4:25, 29, 34; 6:2, 3, 20; 7:4.

101558_Himbaza_CRB 95_03_Tov.indd 37

7/08/19 10:24

38

EMANUEL TOV

volume.65 This problem existed already in the volumes of Barthélemy, Critiquetextuelle, where both terms were also used. This mixture of “harm”66 and “assim” is illustrated by the following examples: 1:28 ‫ ַחיָּ ה‬α θ V | ‫ החיה‬Smr σ S TONF (assim-ctext) | τῶν ἑρπετῶν G (assim-v 26) | ἑρπετῶν GMss (harm-v 26) | prec ‫ ריחשא‬TJ (harm-v 24)

In the apparatus of this verse, influence from the context is named both “assim” and “harm” to v. 26. Frankly, I do not understand the difference between harm-ctext and assim-ctext, and the differentiation between these two terms seems at times to be arbitrary. 49:28 ‫ ִשׁ ְב ֵטי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬Smr V S T | υἱοὶ Ἰακώβ G (assim-v 2) 50:5 ‫יענִ י‬ ַ ‫ ִה ְשׁ ִבּ‬G V S T | foll ‫ לפני מותו‬Smr (harm-v 16)

Three examples follow of the excessive use of “assim”: 1:5 ‫ ֶא ָחד‬Smr 4QGeng G V S TOJ | πρώτη α TNF (assim-ctext) ‫“( ֶא ָחד‬first”) is rendered by a stereotyped translation μία (“one”) in the LXX, and surprisingly by a natural Greek rendering “first” in Aquila and TNF. The latter rendering has been dubbed “assim-ctext,” while “transl” would have been appropriate. 11:28 ‫ ְבּאוּר‬Smr V S TO | ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ G (assim-ctext) | ‫באתון נורא‬ TJN (midr) 11:31 ‫ ֵמאוּר‬Smr V S TOJ | ἐκ τῆς χώρας G (assim-ctext) | ‫מן אתון נורהון‬ TN (midr) || ➝ v 28

In my view, these two renderings reflect content exegesis (“exeg” or “explic”), possibly influenced by the auditory resemblance between ‫ אוּר‬and χώρα. The explanation “assim-ctext” is not supported by the evidence, and it would be unusual for the identical equivalent χώρα to reflect “assimilation to the context” in different verses with identical results. 65 The apparatus of Genesis includes 703 cases of “assim” in 1533 verses (one instance in an average of every 2.18 verses, resembling that in Deuteronomy) and 344 cases of “harm” (one instance in every 4.4563 verses). On the other hand, the use of “harm” is rather fixed as most instances refer to the adjacent context, and sometimes a remote context, with the indication of the verse to which the text is harmonized. It is hard to discern a difference in meaning between “harm” and “assim” because there are also many references to “assim-ctext” and “assim” + a specific verse. 66 On the whole, the term “harmonization” has been overused in the apparatus of Genesis. True, the LXX and Smr often harmonize in this book, as elsewhere in the Torah, but when both a change of a person and an interchange of the similar letters daleth/resh are involved it is unlikely that harmonization took place.

101558_Himbaza_CRB 95_03_Tov.indd 38

7/08/19 10:24

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLIAHEBRAICAQUINTAEDITION

39

4. AFTERTHOUGHTS Scholars use the BH series more than other critical editions. Adrian Schenker fulfills the task of editor-in-chief of the most recent edition in this series, BHQ, with laudable skill, erudition, and diplomacy. BHQ should not be viewed, as I have done until now, as the continuation of BHS, but instead as the continuation of the various projects of Barthélemy et al. This is indeed stated in the “General Introduction” (p. XII), but in my view the reader should have been told in detail how the basic concept of the apparatus developed from HOTTP and Barthélemy, Critiquetextuelle, because presently one is insufficiently aware of the real nature of the edition. As with HOTTP and Barthélemy, Critiquetextuelle, the readership of BHQ is no longer merely the community of textual scholars and translators but now includes the wider community of Bible exegetes.67 BHQ includes remarks that are often irrelevant for textual critics, because they provide information on the exegesis of the texts by early translators. This is explained in the “General Introduction,” XIII and activated in the Commentary. BHQ thus is much wider in scope than BHS. In this study, I have described and questioned some of the principles of BHQ while maintaining my admiration for this enterprise. The criticisms of BHQ do not always pertain to the personal views of Adrian Schenker since, in my view, his inclinations sometimes differ from those of BHQ, at least in the case of “lit,” discussed above. All of us are indebted to Adrian’s scholarship and BHQ remains a stronghold of textual erudition.

67

See the analysis in § 1.

101558_Himbaza_CRB 95_03_Tov.indd 39

7/08/19 10:24

101558_Himbaza_CRB 95_03_Tov.indd 40

7/08/19 10:24