Subject: Re: Heb TC

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 23:53:12 -0400 (EDT)

Larry Hurtado suggested reading Gerard Norton's article, "Changing
Paradigms in the Study of the History of the Biblical Text," _Hermathena_
154 (1993).  (I may be showing my ignorance here, but I had never heard of
the journal _Hermathena_ before--thanks, Larry, for bringing it to my
attention.)  Having read the article, I have a number of comments.

(1) Identity of the Original Text. First, on p. 19, in the second
paragraph, Norton raises the spectre of the "original text," which we have
frequently discussed on this list, but never dealing exclusively with the
text of the OT.  He asks about the goal of textual criticism of the OT,
whether text critics are supposed to furnish the Hebrew text as it was
when canonized (although canonization was a process), or perhaps as it
existed at the beginnings of Christianity (although the early church was
more interested in the Greek translation, plus, as he mentions later,
Qumran demonstrates the diversity of Hebrew texts in existence in the
first century).  After noting that the question of authorship of OT books
is more complex than identifying a single author, on p. 28 he asks, "Which
text is the critic to identify/reconstruct/conjecture?  The text of the
first author?  The text of the last major revisor?  The text of the
community that accepted it? The community that decided to adopt one of
several simultaneously existing forms and passed it on?"  On the
complexity of the question of authorship, interested people might want to
look at Michael Fishbane, _Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel_. 
Fishbane says that the scribes who transmitted the Hebrew text were not
mere copyists, but were also editors with few compunctions (at least early
on) about modifying the text before them in the interest of clarifying the
meaning.  In a situation like that, what is the "original text"? 

(2) The Consonantal Text and the Vowel Points.  Norton discusses the
history of the textual criticism of the OT, noting that many Christian
scholars after the invention of the printing press questioned the value of
the vowel points since they were of relatively recent origin, preferring
instead to vocalize the texts in a manner most favorable to Christian
interpretation.  Norton says, "The editor who disregards the traditional
vocalization may interpret the consonantal text at will, but there are few
criteria by which the resultant interpretations may be evaluated as
ancient" (p. 21).  It could have been noted that some of the evidence from
Qumran supports many of the traditional Masoretic vocalizations, not by
means of vowel points but rather by vowel letters (matres lectiones). 
However, by no means are all of the traditional vocalizations supported. 
And even if they were, the Qumran material is still two or more centuries
removed from the date of composition of most of the biblical books, so,
though relatively ancient, how far back do the the traditions of
interpretation represented by the vowel points really date?  The vowel
points are clearly important for a study of the history of interpretation
of the biblical text, but do they have text-critical value as well?

(3) Original Text or History of the Text?  Only recently, Norton says,
have scholars begun the systematic collation of ancient versions and begun
to study the work of individual translators (i.e., the translation
technique) (p. 26).  In regard to the varying texts of Jeremiah, he says,
"It is _inappropriate_ [emphasis mine] to try to reduce them to a single
text.  Only now are we beginning to study each form in its own right, to
appreciate the theologies found there.  It is surely anachronistic to
_value_ [emphasis mine] one more than the other because of a later
decision that included one form in the Hebrew canon rather than the
other!...  We now wish to write a history of the transmission of the text
rather than to reconstruct originals" (p. 29).  But why can't we do both? 
Norton is clearly right that the history of transmission is a valid arena
of study, but is it really _inappropriate_ to try to construct earlier
forms of the text?  It may not always be _possible_, but _inappropriate_
is a word that reflects a value judgment.  Textual criticism does not deal
with the value of texts but with the texts themselves.  In other words, TC
deals with facts (or data), not truth.  Norton is right that one form of
the text should not be _valued_ over another as a result of later
decisions (at least, textual criticism has nothing to say about the value
of one text over another, although theology or dogma might).  I think that
the quest for earlier forms of the text, though difficult, is a worthy
goal, as is reconstructing the history of the transmission of the text, as
is studying one particular textual tradition (or even one particular text) 
as a whole.  Norton points to the problematic nature of Emanuel Tov's
statement in _The Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible_ that "in our view
it is the task of textual (and literary) analysis to aim at that literary
composition which has been accepted as binding (authoritative) by Jewish
tradition, since these disciplines are concerned with the literary
compositions contained in the traditional Hebrew Bible" (Tov:317,
Norton:33-34).  I have noted elsewhere that Tov's statement here is
predicated upon a particular theological stance, not textual criticism
per se (those who are interested in a critique of Tov's book can see it
online at
http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/extras/Adair-SBL1992.html).

(4) A New Edition of the Hebrew Bible (BHQ).  Finally, Norton describes
the forthcoming edition of the Hebrew Bible on whose editorial board he
serves, _Biblia Hebraica Quinta_ (scheduled for publication late 2002!). 
Like its predecessor BHS, BHQ will be a diplomatic edition (!) based on
the Leningrad Codex.  Among the improvements over BHS are the inclusion of
all the Masoretic notes in L, a complete collation of Qumran material in
the apparatus (as well as collations of a few "high quality" Tiberian
mss), and fresh collations of the versions (along with helpful
introductions to the versions).  Rather than attempting to reconstruct a
hypothetical original text, the critical apparatus aims rather at the
earliest attested text (a la the Hebrew OT Text Project).  "The approach
will be more text-historical than text-critical," Norton says (p. 35).  He
laments the lack of a true larger critical edition of the Hebrew Bible,
and he suggests the utility of something akin to the old polyglot Bibles,
where versions were presented in their entirety in parallel columns.  This
is certainly an intriguing idea, and a new polyglot Bible would be
welcome, but is there really no place for a true, critical (in NT terms,
eclectic) text of the Hebrew Bible?  If we have a critical text of the LXX
(the Goettingen edition), why not for the Hebrew Bible as well? 

I hope these observations about Gerard Norton's interesting and
informative article will spur some comments from some on the list,
especially the dormant OT text critics among us.

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------

---

From: Matthew Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 20:25:32 -0700 (PDT)

On Mon, 12 May 1997, James R. Adair wrote:

> Larry Hurtado suggested reading Gerard Norton's article, 

[snipped]

You asked:

> "...We now wish to write a history of the transmission of the text

But you answered this yourself a little before with your question:
>    In a situation like that, what is the "original text"? 

So I would say the reason we cannot do both, at least at this point in time,
is that until we can write a fairly detailed history of the transmission of
the text, any reconstruction of the originals will be speculative and
tentative.  For some reason, this upsets people in Biblical Textual
Criticism far more than in the TC of (for example) Virgil.

Matthew Johnson
Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our 
great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13).

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 10:23:29 -0400 (EDT)

> Criticism far more than in the TC of (for example) Virgil.

I was quoting Norton, who referred to the "original text," and I obviously
didn't state my position as clearly as I could have.  I agree
wholeheartedly that a fairly detailed history of the transmission of the
text, including an in-depth study of the transmission technique of the
various versions--book by book!--is a necessary prelude to reconstructing
earlier phases of the text.  Quite a bit of work has already been done of
the LXX (though more is needed), and a little has been done on the other
versions.  I would avoid the term "original text" as problematic, and say
instead that TC can concentrate on reconstructing "earlier forms" of the
text.  My point was that there are some who seem to suggest that the
search for these earlier forms of the text is unnecessary and/or
impossible.  I disagree with that viewpoint. 

Jimmy Adair