Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - RE: [b-hebrew] Re: Emendations, was: Deut 32:5 SHiCHeT

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Trevor Peterson <06PETERSON AT cua.edu>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] Re: Emendations, was: Deut 32:5 SHiCHeT
  • Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:40:45 -0500

Shai wrote:
>
> I have the feeling that you decide whether a text is corrupt
> based on your u
> nderstanding of it. If so, this is methodologically wrong.

On whose understanding should I decide? :-)

> A text can be
> corrupt but perfectly understandable, and a text can be totally
> ununderstandable, but genuine.

True. I hope I haven't given the indication that I disagree with this idea.

> You must rely firstly on *evidence* (just like in court), otherwise - your
> opinion (or mine) isn't worth more than my 5-years-old brother's guesses.

I suppose the effect of that remark depends on how well your 5-year-old
brother knows BH. But I'm not disagreeing with the need for evidence.
Perhaps,
however, we're not following the same rules for admitting evidence.
>
> For example:
> The idea that the text in Dt. 32:5 is corrupt is based on the *facts* that
> many good and old witnesses display different versions: the
> samaritan hebrew
> version, some aramaic translations and the LXX (See BHS). But when there
> are less witnesses for another version, the case for corruption weakens (I
> remind you our little discussion about Hosea 13:14).

But just having other readings doesn't necessarily show a text to be corrupt.
Those other versions may be struggling to explain what is a naturally awkward
passage. I haven't been trying to give a full explanation of how I think
textual criticism ought to work. I was simply trying to make a very specific
methodological point, that there's no use trying to show how a passage makes
sense as it stands, when you've already judged it to be corrupt. Of course,
variant readings need to be examined. But their mere existence doesn't prove
that a text is corrupt any more than their absence proves that the text is
intact. In addition to variants, especially with something like the Hebrew
Bible, where none of our witnesses are as early or as useful (i.e., in
Hebrew,
rather than some other language that introduces a new set of problems) as we
might like, we have to work with critical models. Variant readings do nothing
for me, if I don't have a definable method of evaluating them. But why admit
only one type of evidence? By this standard, I should go back and re-read
Davies's book by trying to make sense of everything it says exactly as it
says
it. I don't have a variant copy to compare, and I don't know how willingly he
would give me a copy of the original manuscript (which probably had all the
same mistakes anyway). But somehow I don't think that ever stops any of us
from doing our own textual criticism on everything we read (or hear).
>
> Understanding relies on grammar and lexicon; but both grammar and lexicon
> were made based on understanding! It's a vecious circle. You must have an
> "archimedian point", an outside testimony, to decide whether a text is
> corrupt, you cannot use intterpretation - at least not if you want your
> articles published in good periodicles :)

Which periodicals do you read? And who are the second-rate scholars that edit
BHS? This is not a new or unusual method by any means, but for all that, I
would hope that by now we've grown in our realization that evidence is always
filtered through a model. I hope we're not too far off-topic for B-Hebrew,
BTW. I really think these issues are particularly relevant for TC in the
Hebrew Bible especially, but I don't know that we should go on discussing
them
at length. This started with a response to a rather specific textual issue
that we seem to have finished discussing.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics



  • RE: [b-hebrew] Re: Emendations, was: Deut 32:5 SHiCHeT, Trevor Peterson, 01/29/2003

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page