Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] How Codex Leningradensis B 19A was constituted: diplomatically or eclectically?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Steven Avery <stevenavery AT verizon.net>
  • To: "b-hebrew-lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] How Codex Leningradensis B 19A was constituted: diplomatically or eclectically?
  • Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 00:28:03 -0400

Hi,

With the differences of all Masoretic Text manuscripts being so small, I see difficulties in any definition of any Masoretic Text manuscript as an "eclectic text".

It seems that this would stretch the definition of an "eclectic text" way beyond normative usage. The very term "eclectic text" has more to do with the general textual background than the particular manuscript.

=============

Some examples of definitional difficulties:

e.g. With the Greek OT, there are "Septuagint" editions that are largely Vaticanus, with a little help from other manuscripts, especially where Vaticanus has no text. On the other hand there is an ecclesiastical text that represents the mass of Greek Old Testament manuscripts, that is quite different. The term eclectic would be hard to apply to either of these. As would diplomatic.

With the New Testament, the Westcott-Hort recension text could be considered an eclectic text at the time of its formation, although it could also be considered as a Vaticanus-primacy edition, with certain tweaks. The later Critical Text editions have been largely warmed-over Westcott and Hort. Thus, again, diplomatic and eclectic hardly explain the manuscript field.

The Received Text was truly an eclectic text since it drew from divergent sources, the traditional fountainhead Greek texts, and the historic Latin lines, and the ECW and internal considerations. This process took place in approximately a century of development. Thus the Complutensian and the Erasmus 1st edition could properly be called eclectic texts. And if you do not mind that there was a development process, the same inherited eclecticism could be applied to the other editions, like the Stephanus and Bezae and AV editions of the TR.

The Byzantine edition of Robinson-Pierpont represents a functionally defunct 500 year-old ecclesiastical text (i.e. rejected in important points by the ecclesia) which, however, becomes eclectic in a limited sense in tie-break mode. The Peshitta Text is a similar ecclesiastical text, albeit still in limited Syriac church use. Similar could be said about editions like the Clementine Vulgate. It seems to me that none of these should be called diplomatic or eclectic, whether you are talking individual manuscripts or printed editions.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Bayside, NY

Jerry Shepherd
Hi Bruryah, A diplomatic text is one that has been copied from only a single manuscript. Sometimes this is also referred to as a dedicated text. An eclectic text is one that has been produced taking any number of manuscripts into account. Philip's question was whether the Leningrad Codex was a diplomatic (dedicated) text or an eclectic one. George responded that it was his understanding that it was a diplomatic text.
I think George is partially correct. A colophon at the end of the Leningrad Codex indicates that the scribe who produced the codex did so from several manuscripts of Aaron ben Moses ben Asher. What is not clear is whether these prior manuscripts were of individual biblical books, or entire codices. I think it is most likely that it is the latter. In any case, I think probably we should understand that the Leningrad Codex is a semi-diplomatic text. It was produced, taking several manuscripts into account, but all those manuscripts are from the ben Asher tradition.
Further to this, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, is a dedicated or diplomatic text. It faithfully reproduces the text of the Leningrad Codex, but of course makes notes in its text-critical apparatus about variants in other manuscripts.

Yodan
What does "diplomatic text" mean and what do the terms "diplomatically" and "eclectically" mean when describing the Biblical text in the Leningrad Codex? I never heard these terms before. Thanks, Bruryah Tashah

George Athas
Philip, my understanding is that it is a diplomatic text.

Philip Engmann
> I am ignorant of how the Codex Leningradensis B 19A was constituted: whether diplomatically from a 'single' source or eclectically from several manuscripts. In either case, i would be most happy to have the sources.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page