Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Steven Avery <stevenavery AT verizon.net>]

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.