Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

Mark,

On Thursday 23 September 2004 08:04, Mark Wessner wrote:
> Thanks for the insight, Dave.  Does he provide any rationale for his change
> of opinion?

Not that I could see.  It appears that he just became enamored with form 
criticism, but that's nothing more than a semi-educated guess on my part.

The other major changes he listed in the intro are mainly examinations of a 
handful of DSS that weren't available to him in the first edition, but I 
didn't really find them worth the price of buying a new edition.

> PS.  What do you think of Broztman's view of the same topic (Old Testament
> Textual Criticism, 1994)?  He does not go to the same depth as Tov, but he
> is more readable (and he deals with a slightly longer timeframe).

I haven't had a chance to read that one.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Dave Washburn
> Sent: September 23, 2004 5:28 AM
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Tov's Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible
>
> On Wednesday 22 September 2004 22:26, C. Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
> > On 9/22/04 9:15 PM, "Mark Wessner" <wessner AT telus.net> wrote:
> > > I have a copy of Tov's Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible
> > > published in 1992.  Is the revised 2001 edition significantly
> > > better, in terms of its analysis of the development of the
> > > consonantal text (i.e., pages 29 and following of the 1992 edition)?
> >
> > Mark,
> >
> > I don't have either edition on hand but have used the both. I wasn't
> > overwhelmed by the changes in the 2nd edition. Don't think you need to
> > purchase the new edition but would be open to correction if someone
> > else wants to contradict.
>
> I didn't use the older edition, but the intro to the second edition
> explains
>
> just what the major changes were, and the biggest one is his change of
> viewpoint on precisely this topic.  In the newer edition, he bows down to
> form and source criticism in a big way, something he apparently didn't do
> in
>
> the first one.  I'm reviewing the second edition for the online TC journal,
> and I found this change of viewpoint to be a big stumbling block.  I
> frankly
>
> wish he hadn't done it, but it's a little late for that.  To answer Mark's
> question, no, I don't think it's significantly better.  I think it's
> significantly worse.

-- 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"No good.  Hit on head."   -Gronk