Wed Jun 19 22:46:56 1996
From owner-tc-list Wed Jun 19 22:46:56 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id WAA08267; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 22:45:27 -0400
Message-Id: <199606200242.WAA17979@erebus.rutgers.edu>
Comments: Authenticated sender is
From: rweis@rci.rutgers.edu
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 22:45:17 +0000
Subject: Re: OT Quantitative Analysis
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.22)
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 3570
> On Wed, 19 Jun 1996 Sigrid Peterson wrote:
> I dimly recall reading *of* work done by Moshe Goshen-Gottstein, in
> surveying about a thousand medieval mss of the Hebrew-Aramaic text of
> Jewish Scriptures. I don't have access to my books this week,so I can't
> check this out myself, but I'd look first in Cross and Talmon's
> Qumran and the Biblical Text , and then in Yeivin's
> Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah , if not found in the
> former source.
The two crucial articles by Moshe Goshen-Gottstein are:
"Die Jesaiah-Rolle und das Problem der hebraeischen
Bibelhandschriften." _Biblica_ 35(1954) 429-442.
"The Rise of the Tiberian Bible Text." In _Biblical and Other
Studies_, 79-122. Edited by A. Altmann. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University, 1963.
In addition one might note Hartmut Gese's article:
"Die hebraeischen Bibelhandschriften zum Dodekapropheton nach der
Variantensammlung des Kennicott." _ZAW_ 69(1957) 55-69.
For a discussion of such work by these two and others, one might
profitably consult pages xix-xxvii of:
D. Barthelemy. _Critique textuelle de l'Ancien Testament_. Volume
3, Ezechiel, Daniel et les 12 Prophetes. CTAT, 50/3. Fribourg:
Editions universitaires; Goettingen: Vandehoeck & Ruprecht, 1992.
I think it is fair to say that Goshen-Gottstein's work persuaded a
good many scholars that the vast bulk of variants found among the
medieval Hebrew manuscripts were to to scribal activity *after* the
establishment of the great Tiberian manuscripts, especially Aleppo.
In the HUBP Sample Volume, and introduction to Isaiah,
Goshen-Gottstein identifies a series of manuscripts containing
variants that have a chance leading to a text form before the
finalization of the Tiberian MT. Barthelemy, in the work cited
above, identifies a similar list. Both lists are a very tiny
minority out of the many available (e.g., in Kennicott and de
Rossi). As a result quantitative analysis of the medieval
manuscripts does not play a major role in current textual criticism
of the Hebrew Bible.
In the case of the DSS I have no leads on studies and projects
beyond those already indicated (by James Adair, I think). It does
occur to me that quantitative analysis of these materials might be a
particularly difficult task, however, even for books such as Isaiah
and Psalms where we have (relatively speaking) a lot of materials.
The mss are so fragmentary that there is often little or no shared
text among several mss of the same book, making quantitative analysis
among Qumran mss all but impossible.
On the other hand, there frequently has been quantitative analysis
of alignments between DSS mss and MT, LXX and the Samaritan
Pentateuch. These sometimes appear in editions of the mss. The
early studies tended to use MT, LXX and SamPent as a kind of
procrustean bed. Beginning with Emanuel Tov's article "A Modern
Textual Outlook Based on the Qumran Scrolls," _HUCA_ 53(1982) 11-27,
this has changed. Some of the relevant literature is mentioned in
Tov's _Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible_.
Hope too much of this wasn't carrying coals to Newcastle.
Richard Weis
*******************************************************************************
Richard D. Weis rweis@rci.rutgers.edu
New Brunswick Theological Seminary phone: 1-908-246-5591
17 Seminary Place FAX: 1-908-937-8185
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1196 USA
*******************************************************************************
Back