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

13 Pages·2011·0.12 MB·English

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)