ebook img

the aramaic, syriac, and latin translations of hebrew - Emanuel Tov PDF

13 Pages·2011·0.12 MB·English
by  
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview the aramaic, syriac, and latin translations of hebrew - Emanuel Tov

THEARAMAIC,SYRIAC,ANDLATINTRANSLATIONS OFHEBREWSCRIPTURE VIS-(cid:127)-VISTHEMASORETICTEXT EmanuelTov Background Traditionally, text-critical analysis of Hebrew Scripture started with MT,andsince1947italsocoverstheJudeanDeserttexts.Thepicturemust be completed by also consulting the ancient translations, even though the Hebrewtextsbehindthosetranslationsmustbereconstructedfirst,andthis procedureofteninvolvesanalmostimpossibleenterprise.Itisanaccepted viewthattheHebrewparenttextoftheLXXneedstobetakenintoconsid- erationinthetextualpraxis,butwehearlittleabouttheotherversions,TS V,1 because V and T almost always agree with MT. They are less signif- icant for the textual analysis, but remain important for understanding the biblicalexegesisinantiquity.SpecialistsfindmorevariantsinS,butthey oftenstatethatS,also,differsverylittlefromMT. In this brief paper, we will make some general remarks on these three versions, in an attempt to place them in their right position in the textual praxis.Thesethreeversionsoughttoberecordedinthecriticaleditionsof theHebrewBible,butinmyviewtheirstatusinthetextualdescriptionsis inneedofsomerefinement.2WewishtoreiteratethatVandT,aswellas kaige-Th, av, and sV are identical to MT, and to a great extent this also pertainstoS. At the beginning of the critical inquiry into Hebrew Scripture and its translations, scholars described the wealth of available evidence for the early text of the Bible as sources for the analysis. However, they did not 1.TheearliestwrittenevidenceisavailableforthefragmentsoftheTargumimfrom Q umran.HencethesequenceTSV. 2.Inthisanalysis,weexcludetheArabictranslationofSaadia(882–942CE)andthe secondarytranslationsmadefromG:Latin(theVetusLatina),Syriac(theSyro-Pales- tiniantranslations),Armenian,Coptic(Sahidic,Bohairic,Akhmimic),Georgian,Old Slavic,Ethiopic,Gothic,andArabic. 173 PSW32-INSERT GRAPHIQUES-C5.04.03-P5.04.00-7/1/2011 11H40--L:/TRAVAUX2/CERF/EUKARPA/TEXTE.223-PAGE173 (P03 ,NOIR) EMANUELTOV necessarilyhavethecriticalinsighttorealizethedifferenttypesofcontri- butionmadebythesesourcestoourunderstandingoftheancientHebrew text.AgoodexampleistheinfluentialEinleitungofEichhorn(1780-1823) that devotes 107 pages to the Syriac translations, 98 pages to the Arabic translations, 123 pages to the Targumim, and a “mere” 73 pages to the LXX.3Manyscholarsstillfollowthisegalitarianapproachtoday,although the proportions differ, and the Arabic translations are given very little attention.Anegalitarianapproachisjustifiableingeneralintroductionsto Hebrew Scripture since they also discuss the contributions of these versions to biblical exegesis, but their coverage needs to be limited in introductionstotextualcriticism. A century ago, a great scholar like Driver realized the correct proportionsbyfocusingontheLXXandpayinglittleattentiontotheother translations of Samuel in his textual introduction to that book.4 He was able to follow the intuition of a giant like Wellhausen who, in the intro- duction to his commentary to Samuel, devoted 33 pages to the LXX, and noneatalltotheotherversionsasexplainedbyhimintheintroductionto thatmonograph.5 In the following pages, we will deal separately with T S V and will returntotheminacombinedanalysis. 3.J. G. EICHHORN, Einleitung in das A lte Testament (Leipzig : Weidmanns, 1780–1783;2nded.: Leipzig: Weidmanns,1787andReutlingen: Gr zinger,1790; 3rded.: Leipzig: Weidmanns,1803;4thed.: G ttingen: Rosenbusch,1823).Inthe 4thedition,theTargumimarediscussedinII.1–123,thetranslationsfromHebrewand GreekintoSyriac,ibid.,123–230,varioustypesofArabictranslations,ibid.,231–329. SeefurthertheanalysisofthetranslationsintoArmenian(329–49),Ethiopic(349–54), “Egyptian” (355–75), Persian (376–83), Slavonic (383–4), Georgian (385–8), and Latin(398–437).ThesectionontheLXXiscontainedinI.447–520. 4.S. R. DRIVER, N otes on the H ebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel, w ith an Introduction on H ebrew P alaeography and the A ncient V ersions (2nded.;Oxford:Clarendon,1913).Driverdedicated24pagestotheLXX(xxxix–li, lv–lxviii) and only 3 pp. to the Targum (li, lxix–lxx), 6 pp. to the Peshitta (li–lii, lxxi–lxxvi),and5pp.totheVulgate(liii–liv,lxxx–lxxxiii).Thesameproportionsare followedinB.J.ROBERTS,TheO ld TestamentTextand V ersions–TheH ebrew Textin Transmissionand theH istory of theA ncient V ersions (Cardiff: UniversityofWales Press, 1951) : G 86 pp., T 16 pp., S 15 pp. and V 19 pp. and in my own Textual C riticismof theH ebrew Bible(2ndrev.ed.;MinneapolisandAssen: FortressPress/ RoyalVanGorcum,2001),henceforthTC H B:G15pp.,T3pp.,S1p.andV1p. 5.J. WELLHAUSEN, D er Text der B cher Samuelis (G ttingen : Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1871)31:“…derBehandlungderPeshito,desTargumsundderVulgata. IchhabediesesowohldurchihrenTextalsihreHermeneutikinengeremZ usammen- hangestehendenVersionenmehrbenutzt,umanihnendieLXXzupr!fen,dennals selbst"ndige Z eugen. Als solche sind sie nur nach genauen Einzelstudien zu gebrauchen,welcheichdeshalbnichtgemachthabe,weilichdenGewinnf!rnichtso bedeutenderachtete,dassesnichtgerathenware,hinsichtlichderbeidenersterenauf bessereTextezuwarten.» 174 PSW32-INSERT GRAPHIQUES-C5.04.03-P5.04.00-7/1/2011 11H40--L:/TRAVAUX2/CERF/EUKARPA/TEXTE.223-PAGE174 (P03 ,NOIR) TRANSLATIONSOFHEBREWSCRIPTURE T argum im The Hebrew text reflected in all the Targumim is identical to the medieval shape of MT. They reflect a few differences from codex L, but the underlying Hebrew texts of the Targumim differ no more from the medieval Hebrew manuscripts than these manuscripts differ from one another.6Atthesametime,theJobTargumfromQ umrandeviatesslightly fromallothertextualwitnesses.7SincetheQ umranfragmentsprovidethe earliest evidence of the Targumim, it is possible that the other Targumim oncedeviatedmorefromMT,butweresubsequentlyadaptedtowardsthat text.8 TheanalysesofthecharacteroftheTargumimfocusmoreonexegetical changes than on possible variants, as exemplified among others by Sperber.9Sperbernotedsome650veryminordifferencesbetweenMTand TO (in the Torah).10 However, these supposed variants are culled from differentmanuscriptsofT,andmanyofthemreflectcontextualharmoni- zations and changes,11 and therefore the number of supposed variants is smaller than surmised by Sperber.12 For TJ in the Prophets, Sperber providedevenfewerexamples.13 SeveralscholarsindicatedtheclosenessofthevariousTargumimtoMT, usually formulated as “the value < of T> with reference to M is not importanttothetextualcriticism”.14 6.BelowwerefertothestatisticalaspectsofthedeviationsfromMTinT. 7.See R.WEISS,“RecensionalVariations betweenthe AramaicTranslationtoJob fromQ umranCave11andtheMassoreticText”,Shnaton1(Heb.withEng.summ.; Jerusalem:IsraelBibleCompany[M.NewmanPublishingHouse],1975) 123–7;ID., TheA ramaic TargumofJob (Heb.withEng.summ.;TelAviv:TelAvivUniversity, 1979) 27–30,XI;J.GRAY,“TheMassoreticTextoftheBookofJob,theTargumand the Septuagint Version in the Light of the Q umran Targum (11Q targJob)”, ZA W 86 (1974)331–50. 8.Alternatively, the milieu that created the Q umran Targumim (not the Q umran community) followeddifferentapproachesfromthosetakeninthemilieuinwhichthe otherTargumimwerecreated. 9.A.SPERBER,“TheTargumOnkelosinItsRelationtotheMasoreticHebrewText”, P A A JR 6(1935)309–51;ID.,TheBibleinA ramaic,IV B:TheTargumand theH ebrew Bible(Leiden:Brill,1973)265–375. 10.SPERBER,Bible,IV B,265–93. 11.Forthiscriticism,seeY.KOMLOSH,TheBibleintheLightoftheA ramaic Trans- lations (Heb.; Ramat Gan/Tel Aviv : Bar-Ilan University/Dvir Publishing House, 1973)121–3. 12.Evenifalltheexampleswerecorrect,thesevariantswouldpertaintonomore than0.5percentofthewordsofMTintheTorah. 13.SPERBER,Bible,IV B,293–350. 14.ThusP.A.H.DEBOER,R esearch intotheTextof1 SamuelI–X V I,A C ontribution tothe Study of the Books of Samuel(Amsterdam: H. J.PARIS: 1938) 21.Likewise, 175 PSW32-INSERT GRAPHIQUES-C5.04.03-P5.04.00-7/1/2011 11H40--L:/TRAVAUX2/CERF/EUKARPA/TEXTE.223-PAGE175 (P03 ,NOIR) EMANUELTOV P esh itta The Hebrew source of S is close to MT, containing far fewer variants thantheLXX,butmorethantheTargumimandV.15Probablyitsgreatest deviations from MT are in Chronicles,16 where clusters of verses are lacking in S, e.g., 1 Chr 2:47-49; 4:16-18, 34-37; 7:34-38; 8:17-22. This translation also contains a few substantial additions and differences (e.g., after 1 Chr 12:1 [doublet?]; 29:18). In several ancient (Jacobite) manu- scripts,JobfollowstheTorah.17 IndetailedstudiesofbiblicalbooksinS,scholarsnoticetheclosenessof S to MT,18 and in the case of a difference between the two, Maori would firstassumeexegesisinSandonlysecondarilyconsiderthepossibilityof Wellhausen,B cher Samuelis (above,n.4);DRIVER,Samuel,lxix“Thetextdeviates but rarely from MT.” Komlosh, Bible, 121 : “Even though this list <Sperber’s, as quotedinn.9> isveryhelpful,itdoesnotprovideabasisforprovingthatTOusedatext different from our MT. A great part of the changes is based on phenomena that are characteristicoftheexegesisofTO.” 15.M. GOSHEN-GOTTSTEIN, “Syriac Translations”, EncBibl 8 (Heb.; Jerusalem : BialikInstitute,1982)848statesthatSisclosetothelatebiblicalmanuscriptsfromthe JudeanDesertandthetranslationofAquila.SeefurtherM.J.MULDER,“TheUseofthe Peshittain Textual Criticism”, in La Septuaginta en la investigaci!n contempor"nea (ed. N. FERN#NDEZ MARCOS; Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 34; Madrid : Consejo Superior de Investigaci$nes Cient%ficas, 1985) 37–53 (44–45); Y. MAORI, “MethodologicalCriteriaforDistinguishingbetweenVariantV orlageandExegesisin the Peshitta Pentateuch”, in The P eshitta as a Translation (ed. P. B. DIRKSEN and A. VANDERKOOIJ; Leiden/New York : Brill, 1995) 103–28 (103–4) : “… several studies…thattheHebrewtextuponwhichPisbasedgenerallyreflectsthestateofthe HebrewtextinthefirstcenturyCE,atextwhichdiffersfromtheMTonlywithrespect to minor details.» B. ALBREKTSON, Studies in the Text and Theology of the Book of Lamentations w ith a C ritical Edition of the P eshitta Text (Studia Theologica Lundensia,21;Lund:Gleerup,1963)210stressestheclosenessofStoMT. 16.ThusM.P.WEITZMAN,“FromJudaismtoChristianity:TheSyriacVersionofthe HebrewBible”,inTheJew s amongP agans and C hristians intheR omanEmpire(ed. J.Lieuetal.;London/NewYork:Routledge,1992) 147–73;ID.,TheSyriac V ersion oftheO ld Testament:A nIntroduction(UniversityofCambridgeOrientalPublications 56;Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1999)111–21. 17.Forthedata,seeR.BECKWITH,TheO ld TestamentC anonoftheN ew Testament C hurch and Its Background inEarly Judaism(GrandRapids,MI: Eerdmans,1985) 196. 18.ThefollowingscholarsfindmerelyoccasionalvariantsinS: DRIVER,Samuel, lxxi:“TheHebrewtextpresupposedbythePeshittadeviateslessfromtheMassoretic textthanthatwhichunderliestheLXX,thoughitdoesnotapproachitsocloselyasthat onwhichtheTargumsarebased”;DEBOER,Samuel,42:“Thereisinourpartofthe worknoreasontothinkofanother‘Vorlage’,thanthatwhichMoffersastext,neither was this the case with Tg.” M. P. WEITZMAN, “The Peshitta Psalter and Its Hebrew V orlage”, V T 35 (1985) 341–54; ID., Introduction (1999) 52–62; A. GELSTON, The P eshittaoftheTw elveP rophets (Oxford:Clarendon,1987)111–30;C.E.MORRISON, TheC haracter of theSyriac V ersionof theF irst Bookof Samuel(MPIL11;Leiden/ Boston/K ln:Brill,2001) 1–3;G.GREENBERG,TranslationTechniqueintheP eshitta 176 PSW32-INSERT GRAPHIQUES-C5.04.03-P5.04.00-7/1/2011 11H40--L:/TRAVAUX2/CERF/EUKARPA/TEXTE.223-PAGE176 (P03 ,NOIR) TRANSLATIONSOFHEBREWSCRIPTURE a variant.19 Carbajosa notes 41 cases of extra-Masoretic agreement of S togetherwithotherwitnessesinPsalms90–150,andonlyasingleinstance ofavariantofSnotsupportedbyanyothersource.20Sdoesreflectsome variants in other books, but the relation of S to G and T complicates any discussionofitstext-criticalvalue,sincethewordingofSmayhavebeen influencedbyTorG.21Indeed,somescholarsbelievethatsomedistinctive agreementsbetweenSandoneoftheTargumimpointtotherelianceofS onawrittenversionofT.22Inotherbooks,thewordingofSisclosetoGin exclusivelycommonelements,butthebackgroundoftheseagreementsis not clear. In Isaiah, the two translations may reflect common exegetical traditions,23whileinPsalmsandProverbstheSyriactranslationmayhave been based on G.24 Some scholars believe that S often relied on G as a sourceoflexicalinformationandexegesis.25 toJeremiah (MPIL13;Leiden/Boston/K ln:Brill,2002) 18–20;I.CARBAJOSA,The C haracter oftheSyriac V ersionofP salms.A Study ofP salms 90–150 intheP eshitta (MPIL17;Leiden:Brill,2008)303–52;H.F.VANROOY,“AgreementbetweenLXX and Peshitta versus MT in Ezekiel : Some Important Examples”, in Translating a Translation: TheLXXand Its M odernTranslations intheC ontextofEarly Judaism (ed.H.Ausloosetal.;BETL213;Leuven:Peeters,2008)213–27. 19.MAORI,“MethodologicalCriteria”,andTheP eshittaV ersionof theP entateuch and Early Jew ish Exegesis (Heb.;Jerusalem:Magnes,1995)319–24. 20.CARBAJOSA,P salms,303–52. 21.WEITZMAN, Introduction, 129 summarizes as follows : “So far as LXX is concerned, polygenesis and common tradition do not suffice to explain the parallels withP.SomeliterarydependenceofPonLXXmustbeposited,thoughnotinallbooks andneversystematically.” 22.See,amongothers,S.ISENBERG,Studies intheJew ish A ramaic Translations of theP entateuch,Ph.D.diss.,HarvardUniversity,Cambridge1968;ID.,“OntheJewish- PalestinianOriginsofthePeshittatothePentateuch”,JBL 90(1971) 69–81.Seealso the detailed analysis of P. B. DIRKSEN, “The Old Testament Peshitta”, in M ikra, C ompendia R erum Iudaicarum ad N ovum Testamentum, Section Two (ed. M. J. MULDER; Assen–Maastricht and Philadelphia : Fortress Press/Van Gorcum, 1988) I.255–97(262–96) andthestudiesincludedinTargumStudies,II.Targumand P eshitta(ed.P.V.M.FLESHER;SouthFloridaStudiesintheHistoryofJudaism165; Atlanta,GA:ScholarsPress,1992).CARBAJOSA,P salms,272–303doesnotacceptthe assumptionoftheinfluenceofTonSinthecaseofPsalms. 23.Cf. especially L. DELEKAT, “Die Peschitta zu Jesaja zwischen Targum und Septuaginta”, Bib 38 (1957) 185–99, 321–35; ID., “Ein Septuagintatargum”, V T 8 (1958) 225–52; J. A. LUND, The Influence of the Septuagint on the P eshitta–A R e-evaluationofC riteriainLightofC omparativeStudy oftheV ersions in G enesis and P salms,Ph.D.diss.,HebrewUniversity,Jerusalem,1988. 24.SeeespeciallyA.J.BAUMGARTNER,#tudecritiquesur l’$tatdutextedulivredes P roverbes d’apr%s les principales traductions anciennes (Leipzig: Drugulin,1890); CARBAJOSA,P salms,3–19,187–272foranupdatedsurveyoftheviewsexpressedand a detailed description of his own views. Similar dependence of the Peshitta on Th-DanielwasnoticedbyR.A.TAYLOR,TheP eshittaofD aniel(MPIL7;Leiden/New York/K ln:Brill,1994)311–13. 25.For example, P. F. FRANKL, “Studien !ber die Septuaginta und Peschito zu Jeremia”, M G W J I 21 (1872) 444–56, 497–509, 545–57; GREENBERG, Translation 177 PSW32-INSERT GRAPHIQUES-C5.04.03-P5.04.00-7/1/2011 11H40--L:/TRAVAUX2/CERF/EUKARPA/TEXTE.223-PAGE177 (P03 ,NOIR) EMANUELTOV V ulgate V is important for the history of the exegesis of the Bible, especially when compared with Jerome’s commentaries on the Minor Prophets, Isaiah,andJeremiah,writtenbetween406and420CE.Inthesecommen- taries,Jeromeoftenallowedhimselftodeviatefromhisearliertranslation. When he wrote the commentaries, Jerome sometimes wondered why his earliertranslationintheVulgatedifferedfromtheHebrewmanuscriptthat wasathisdisposalyearslater.26 The commentaries,as wellas thetranslation, show thatJeromedidnot basehimselfexclusivelyonMT,butoftenwasguidedbyG,Symmachus, Aquila,andkaige-Th(inthisorder).27Therefore,whenVdiffersfromMT, the translation does not necessarily provide independent text-critical evidence(atsuchalateperiod,variationfromMTwouldnotbeexpected anyway).However,whenVdeviatesfromthesesourcesandfromMT,we may suspect variant readings, but such instances are extremely rare.28 Several detailed studies of biblical books note that V deviates only rarely fromMT.29 Technique,22,143–68.Clifford,“Observations”(n.7):“ApartfromOG,eachversion translatedMTwiththehelpofanotherversion.SusedLXXandTusedS”(61).He furthernotesthatJeromeusedG,Symmachus,OL,andS. 26.B.KEDAR-KOPFSTEIN,“DivergentHebrewReadingsinJerome’sIsaiah”,Textus 4(1964) 176–210(209) suggestedthatJeromeusedaslightlydifferentmanuscriptfor theearlierenterprise. 27.ThusF.STUMMER,Einf hrungindielateinischeBibel(Paderborn:Sch ningh, 1928) 123; J. H. MARKS, D er textkritische W ert des P salterium H ieronymi Juxta H ebraeos (Winterthur:P.G.KELLER,1956) 24–7providesdetailedproofofJerome’s reliance on the various Greek versions in Psalms. J. A. MONTGOMERY, The Book of D aniel(ICC;NewYork:CharlesScribner’sSons,1927) 56:“Itisfatuoustolayany stressuponVasevidence,whereitagreeswithoneorotheroftheprecedingVSS”; W. MCKANE, A C ritical and Exegetical C ommentary on Jeremiah, vols. I–II (ICC; Edinburgh : T & T Clark, 1986–1996) 1.xxxi–xxxiii. See further R. J. CLIFFORD, “Observations on the Text and Versions of Proverbs”, in W isdom, You A re M y Sister–Studies inH onor ofR oland E.M urphy,O .C arm.,ontheO ccasionofH is Eigh- tieth Birthday (ed.M.L.BARR&,S.S.;CBQ MS29(1997)47–61. 28.See B. KEDAR-KOPFSTEIN, The V ulgate as a Translation, Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1968; ID., “The Latin Translations”, in Mulder, M ikra, 299–338.W.NOWACK,D ieBedeutungdes H ieronymus f r diealttestamentlicheText- kritik(G ttingen:Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht,1875) 25–50givesalistofdeviationsof VfromMT. 29.B.JACOB,“Beitr"gezueinerEinleitungindiePsalmen”,ZA W 16(1896)129–81 (156);Stummer,Einf hrung,123;Marks,textkritischeW ert,144:“…Haufeinem Text beruht, der unserem MT im grossen und ganzen gleich war.» B. KEDAR- KOPFSTEIN,“Isaiah”;ID.,“TextualGleaningsfromtheVulgatetoJeremiah”,Textus 7 (1969) 36–58; ID., “The Hebrew Text of Joel as Reflected in the Vulgate”, ibid. 9 (1981)16–35.SeefurthertheremarksbyWellhausenquotedinn.4.Onthebasisofhis experience of preparing the edition of the Minor Prophets in the HUB Project, 178 PSW32-INSERT GRAPHIQUES-C5.04.03-P5.04.00-7/1/2011 11H40--L:/TRAVAUX2/CERF/EUKARPA/TEXTE.223-PAGE178 (P03 ,NOIR) TRANSLATIONSOFHEBREWSCRIPTURE A nalysis IthasoftenbeenclaimedthatTSVreflectatextclosetoMT,andthe presentstudyfocusesonthequestionofhowclosethatrelationis.Recent studies by myself have focused on the closeness of the various Hebrew texts from the Judean Desert to the medieval text,30 making it necessary to expand these studies to the non-Hebrew sources that are close to MT. In our view, the Judean Desert texts from sites other than Q umran represent exactly the same tradition as the medieval texts, with the texts fromQ umranbeingsomewhatdifferent.31 I suggest that T and V reflect the same text as MT and need to be seen as part of that tradition or family (S needs to be treated separately). They differfromthemedievalmanuscriptsofMTasmuchasthesedifferfrom one another. This view was already voiced by Jacob in 1918.32 Such a claim is based on the above-mentioned analyses by specialists, as well as onmyownfindingsandthestatisticaldataculledfromthecriticaleditions. WebaseourremarksonthereferencestotheseversionsintheBH series andtheH U B.Theanalysisshowsthatthesethreeversionsarementioned very infrequently in the apparatuses, and almost always in conjunction with other translations. On the other hand, G is often mentioned with no other sources at its side. The Three (Aquila, Symmachus, kaige-Theo- dotion) arealsotabulatedbelow. a. The H U B is a good source for such an analysis since it does not provide evaluations of the text-critical value of readings. In my sample examinations of Jeremiah 1–3 and Ezekiel 1–3 in that edition,33 we excludeseveralnotationsfromtheexaminationinordertoobtainasgood apictureaspossibleofthetextualstatusoftheversions: 1. Deviations from MT in translation technique phenomena, described M.SEGAL,“TheTextoftheHebrewBibleinLightoftheDeadSeaScrolls”,M ateria giudaicaXII(2007)5–20(6,n.4)notesthatV“almostneverdivergesfromtheMT.” 30.“TheTextoftheHebrew/AramaicandGreekBibleUsedintheAncientSyna- gogues”, in H ebrew Bible, G reek Bible, and Q umran–C ollected Essays (TSAJ 121; T!bingen : Mohr Siebeck, 2008) 171–88; “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Textual HistoryoftheMasoreticBible”,SBL C ongress,2009,forthcoming. 31.Seethestudiesquotedinn.30. 32.B.Jacob,“Beitr"ge”,156:“DennvonAquilaab(ihneingeschlossen)habenwir schlechterdings nichts mehr zu erwarten, was f!r die bibl. Textkritik von irgend welchemBelangware.” 33.TheH ebrew U niversity Bible,TheBookofJeremiah (ed.C.Rabin,S.Talmon, andE.Tov;Jerusalem:MagnesPress,1997);TheH ebrew U niversity Bible,TheBook ofEzekiel(ed.M.H.GOSHEN-GOTTSTEINandS.TALMON;Jerusalem:MagnesPress, 2004). 179 PSW32-INSERT GRAPHIQUES-C5.04.03-P5.04.00-7/1/2011 11H40--L:/TRAVAUX2/CERF/EUKARPA/TEXTE.223-PAGE179 (P03 ,NOIR) EMANUELTOV as “recurrent deviations” in the H U B,34 relating to differences in person, number,prepositions,etc.35 2. All variants mentioned in the apparatuses of the editions quoted in theH U B,diplomaticinthecaseofSandT,andeclecticinthecaseofV.36 3. Supposed differences in vocalization and sense divisions between MTandtheancienttranslations. 4. AgreementofthetranslationwitheitherK etivorQ ere. 5. All instances of extra-Masoretic agreements between V = G or the three;S= GbecauseofthegreatlikelihoodthatVandSwereinfluenced by these versions (see above).37 Agreements between T and the others wereincluded,buttherewerenorelevantinstances. 6. AllinstancesthataccordingtoH U Bareexegetical,includingetymo- logicalexegesisbasedontheconsonantalframeworkofMT. When all these details are disregarded in our subjective reading of the apparatus, few notes are left in H U B that require our attention, mainly singularreadingsofV,T,andSandtheThree,listedinTable1. 34.TheH ebrew U niversity Bible,Jeremiah,xvi.SeealsoTov,TheText-C riticalU se of theSeptuagint inBiblicalR esearch (SecondEdition,RevisedandEnlarged;Jeru- salemBiblicalStudies8;Jerusalem:Simor,1997)154–62. 35.The H U B assumes that scholars are unable to express a solid judgment on the text-criticalvalueofthesedeviationsbecauseinmostcasesthepossibilityofavariant cannotbeexcludedasshownbysimilarchangesin1Q Isaa.Inspiteofthesecompli- cations the H U B believes that most of these instances reflect inner-translational changesvoidoftext-criticalvalue. 36.Whenbasingourselvesonthetext-criticalchoicesoftheeditionsoftheancient translations we make a choice, and it would be presumptuous to go against the specialists’viewsontheseversionsinspiteoftheimperfectionsoftheseeditions.For the imperfections of the editions of Sperber (diplomatic editions of several manus- cripts), see L. D(EZ MERINO, “Targum Manuscripts and Critical Editions”, in The A ramaic Bible–Targums in Their H istorical C ontext (ed. D. R. G. BEATTIE and M. J. MCNAMARA; JSOTSup 166; Sheffield : JSOT Press, 1994) 51–91 (68–75). Besides, only rarely are manuscripts recorded in the critical editions as the sole witnessesforanassumedvariantagainstthemaintextoftheeditionitself. 37.ThusalreadyC.STEUERNAGEL,Lehrbuch der Einleitungindas A lteTestament mit einem A nhang ber die A pokryphen und P seudepigraphen (T!bingen : Mohr [Siebeck],1912)72:“WodieinTextzeugendenAndernbeinflussthat(z.B.LXXund Peschito),darfihrZ eugnisnichtalseindoppeltesgewertetwerden.” 180 PSW32-INSERT GRAPHIQUES-C5.04.03-P5.04.00-7/1/2011 11H40--L:/TRAVAUX2/CERF/EUKARPA/TEXTE.223-PAGE180 (P03 ,NOIR) TRANSLATIONSOFHEBREWSCRIPTURE T able 1: R eferences topossible variants inT S V andthe T hree inthe HUBapparatus Jer Smallplus Small Difference Inversion Percentageof 1–3 minus possible variants compared withtotal numberof words(1188) V 2:15 1:27; 2:2438 0.42 2:9,20 T 0 S 1:15,18;3:11, 1:17,20; 2:12, 32; 3:4, 2:27;3:16 1.17 22 3:17 20,21 aV 2:6? 3:3 0.17 sV 0 qV 0 G39 1:1, 4 (2x), 7, 1:3,6,8, 1:2,3,7,8,11, 1:4,24;3:21 4.12 26;2:7;3:6,9, 9,11,12, 23; 2:1, 3, 6 18,23 16,17, (2x);3:1,2,3, 22,24 15(2x) (2x),25, 26,27; 2:3(2x), 4,5;3:1, 2,13,14, 18 Ezek Smallplus Small Difference40 Inversion Percentageof 1–3 minus possible variants compared withtotal numberof words(949) V 2:9;3:1 1:18;2:3 0.42 38.htnat–amoris sui,possiblyreadashtwt. 39.Thestatisticsalsoincludetwolargeminuses(1:14,15). 40.SeveralofthepossiblevariantreadingsinVandSinEzekielpertaintoformulaic expressionsthatwereeasilyinterchangedinHebrewandinthetranslationandhence theirstatusasvariantsisquestionable.SeeTheH ebrew U niversity Bible,TheBookof Ezekiel,xvii(§31). 181 PSW32-INSERT GRAPHIQUES-C5.04.03-P5.04.00-7/1/2011 11H40--L:/TRAVAUX2/CERF/EUKARPA/TEXTE.223-PAGE181 (P03 ,NOIR) EMANUELTOV T 0 S 3:4,22 3:4 1:8,19 2:26 0.63 aV 2:10 0.10 sV 1:14 3:18 0.20 qV 0 G41 1:9, 14, 15, 1:3,4,10 1:1,2,4;2:12, 1:1, 4, 16, 19; 7.06 18; 2:2, 19, (2x),11 16,17,19,21, 2:14, 19, 27, 28, 29, 31; (2x),13, 26, 31; 3:4, 30, 31; 3:2, 9, 3:3,8,17,18 15,17, 15,19,22 16 18(3x); 2:1,2,7, 8,17,19, 22,34; 3:1,7,8 (2x),10 (2x),11, 17(2x) b. The examination of the total number of remarks in BH S is relatively precise since it is based on the machine-readable apparatus of that edition,42althoughtheanalysisitselfissubjective.Themainitemanalyzed is the number of references to the witnesses in the apparatus. In this way strikingdifferencescometolight,butitisrealizedthattheverylistingand itsanalysisdependontheviewsoftheeditorsintheBH S series.Thelisting includes both meaningful and less meaningful references, such as “cf. V” or“Vnum.”43 41.Thestatisticsalsoincludetwolargepluses(1:17;2:28) andonelargeminus (2:1-2a). 42.ModuleintheA ccordancecomputerprogram. 43.The listing for BH S thus includes many references that are irrelevant, and the figuresarethereforemuchinflated(seeTable3). 182 PSW32-INSERT GRAPHIQUES-C5.04.03-P5.04.00-7/1/2011 11H40--L:/TRAVAUX2/CERF/EUKARPA/TEXTE.223-PAGE182 (P03 ,NOIR)

Description:
that devotes 107 pages to the Syriac translations, 98 pages to the Arabic .. the detailed analysis of P. B. DIRKSEN, “The Old Testament Peshitta”, in M ikra,.
See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.