#textualcriticism — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #textualcriticism, aggregated by home.social.
-
In 2 Samuel 20:25, OG testifies to a form with a second ש, as in 1 Kings 4:3 for every witness *except* the OG. MT 2 Samuel suggests some w/y confusion, as well as the loss of the second ש in every non-Greek version. Pesh's ܪܝ might be an intra-Syriac confusion from ܘ (w). OG's Σαβὰ in 1 Kings 4:3 is weird.
-
In 2 Samuel 20:25, OG testifies to a form with a second ש, as in 1 Kings 4:3 for every witness *except* the OG. MT 2 Samuel suggests some w/y confusion, as well as the loss of the second ש in every non-Greek version. Pesh's ܪܝ might be an intra-Syriac confusion from ܘ (w). OG's Σαβὰ in 1 Kings 4:3 is weird.
-
In 2 Samuel 20:25, OG testifies to a form with a second ש, as in 1 Kings 4:3 for every witness *except* the OG. MT 2 Samuel suggests some w/y confusion, as well as the loss of the second ש in every non-Greek version. Pesh's ܪܝ might be an intra-Syriac confusion from ܘ (w). OG's Σαβὰ in 1 Kings 4:3 is weird.
-
I was delighted to come across the suggestion that Sheshbazzar in #Ezra and 5 is Jeconiah's son Shenazzar in 1 #Chronicles 3:18. Collins' Introduction mentions it in passing, but says they are two different names. But are they? Or is one just a scribal error?
The difference is two letters: ששבצר vs. שנאצר.
LXX 1 Esdras has a mixed form Σαναβάσσαρος (=שנבצר) in 2:11, 14; 6:17, 19.
-
I was delighted to come across the suggestion that Sheshbazzar in #Ezra and 5 is Jeconiah's son Shenazzar in 1 #Chronicles 3:18. Collins' Introduction mentions it in passing, but says they are two different names. But are they? Or is one just a scribal error?
The difference is two letters: ששבצר vs. שנאצר.
LXX 1 Esdras has a mixed form Σαναβάσσαρος (=שנבצר) in 2:11, 14; 6:17, 19.
-
I was delighted to come across the suggestion that Sheshbazzar in #Ezra and 5 is Jeconiah's son Shenazzar in 1 #Chronicles 3:18. Collins' Introduction mentions it in passing, but says they are two different names. But are they? Or is one just a scribal error?
The difference is two letters: ששבצר vs. שנאצר.
LXX 1 Esdras has a mixed form Σαναβάσσαρος (=שנבצר) in 2:11, 14; 6:17, 19.
-
#Jeremiah 38:6a seems to me ungrammatical in the MT:
וַיִּקְח֣וּ אֶֽת־יִרְמְיָ֗הוּ וַיַּשְׁלִ֨כוּ אֹת֜וֹ אֶל־הַבּ֣וֹר׀ מַלְכִּיָּ֣הוּ בֶן־הַמֶּ֗לֶךְ
"They took Jeremiah and they threw him into the pit - Malkiyahu the king's son."It cannot be "the pit of Malkiyahu" because הבור has a definite article.
Indeed, the Masoretes seemed to want to help readers exclude reading it as "the pit of" by adding a vertical line after "the pit."
-
#Jeremiah 38:6a seems to me ungrammatical in the MT:
וַיִּקְח֣וּ אֶֽת־יִרְמְיָ֗הוּ וַיַּשְׁלִ֨כוּ אֹת֜וֹ אֶל־הַבּ֣וֹר׀ מַלְכִּיָּ֣הוּ בֶן־הַמֶּ֗לֶךְ
"They took Jeremiah and they threw him into the pit - Malkiyahu the king's son."It cannot be "the pit of Malkiyahu" because הבור has a definite article.
Indeed, the Masoretes seemed to want to help readers exclude reading it as "the pit of" by adding a vertical line after "the pit."
-
#Jeremiah 38:6a seems to me ungrammatical in the MT:
וַיִּקְח֣וּ אֶֽת־יִרְמְיָ֗הוּ וַיַּשְׁלִ֨כוּ אֹת֜וֹ אֶל־הַבּ֣וֹר׀ מַלְכִּיָּ֣הוּ בֶן־הַמֶּ֗לֶךְ
"They took Jeremiah and they threw him into the pit - Malkiyahu the king's son."It cannot be "the pit of Malkiyahu" because הבור has a definite article.
Indeed, the Masoretes seemed to want to help readers exclude reading it as "the pit of" by adding a vertical line after "the pit."
-
Perhaps compare #Genesis 22:14:
MT: בְּהַ֥ר יְהוָ֖ה יֵרָאֶֽה
LXX: ἐν τῷ ὄρει Κύριος ὤφθη
Pesh: ܒܛܘܪܐ ܗܢܐ ܡܪܝܐ ܢܚܙܐ
Vulg: In monte Dominus videbitIn LXX, God was seen, whereas in MT/Pesh/Vulg, God will see.
(It's unclear to me whether LXX Gen 22:14 presumes reading perfect נראה or yiqtol יֵרָאֶ֖ה)
-
Perhaps compare #Genesis 22:14:
MT: בְּהַ֥ר יְהוָ֖ה יֵרָאֶֽה
LXX: ἐν τῷ ὄρει Κύριος ὤφθη
Pesh: ܒܛܘܪܐ ܗܢܐ ܡܪܝܐ ܢܚܙܐ
Vulg: In monte Dominus videbitIn LXX, God was seen, whereas in MT/Pesh/Vulg, God will see.
(It's unclear to me whether LXX Gen 22:14 presumes reading perfect נראה or yiqtol יֵרָאֶ֖ה)
-
Perhaps compare #Genesis 22:14:
MT: בְּהַ֥ר יְהוָ֖ה יֵרָאֶֽה
LXX: ἐν τῷ ὄρει Κύριος ὤφθη
Pesh: ܒܛܘܪܐ ܗܢܐ ܡܪܝܐ ܢܚܙܐ
Vulg: In monte Dominus videbitIn LXX, God was seen, whereas in MT/Pesh/Vulg, God will see.
(It's unclear to me whether LXX Gen 22:14 presumes reading perfect נראה or yiqtol יֵרָאֶ֖ה)
-
I don't see other places where אל אלהים means "God of gods" except possibly Joshua 22:22 (interpreted thus by Pesh, not MT, LXX, or Vulg).
On the other hand, if MT's vowels are right, who is the subject? How do we get from a plural verb in the first half of the verse to a singular here?
LXX commonly interprets words as referring to God, while the Masoretes may have been uncomfortable about God "appearing" if they could avoid it.
-
I don't see other places where אל אלהים means "God of gods" except possibly Joshua 22:22 (interpreted thus by Pesh, not MT, LXX, or Vulg).
On the other hand, if MT's vowels are right, who is the subject? How do we get from a plural verb in the first half of the verse to a singular here?
LXX commonly interprets words as referring to God, while the Masoretes may have been uncomfortable about God "appearing" if they could avoid it.
-
I don't see other places where אל אלהים means "God of gods" except possibly Joshua 22:22 (interpreted thus by Pesh, not MT, LXX, or Vulg).
On the other hand, if MT's vowels are right, who is the subject? How do we get from a plural verb in the first half of the verse to a singular here?
LXX commonly interprets words as referring to God, while the Masoretes may have been uncomfortable about God "appearing" if they could avoid it.
-
A fun little variant was pointed out to me by a friend:
MT Ps 84:8: יֵרָאֶ֖ה אֶל־אֱלֹהִ֣ים בְּצִיּֽוֹן
LXX: ὀφθήσεται ὁ Θεὸς τῶν θεῶν ἐν Σιών
Pesh: ܢܬܚܙܐ ܐܠܗ ܐ̈ܠܗܝܢ ܒܨܗܝܘܢ (= LXX)
Vulg: parebunt apud Deum in SionThe only difference is the vowel in אל. The vowel in אל determines whether it is a noun (construct "God of") or a preposition ("to"), and thus whether the next word אלהים is "gods" or "God."
-
A fun little variant was pointed out to me by a friend:
MT Ps 84:8: יֵרָאֶ֖ה אֶל־אֱלֹהִ֣ים בְּצִיּֽוֹן
LXX: ὀφθήσεται ὁ Θεὸς τῶν θεῶν ἐν Σιών
Pesh: ܢܬܚܙܐ ܐܠܗ ܐ̈ܠܗܝܢ ܒܨܗܝܘܢ (= LXX)
Vulg: parebunt apud Deum in SionThe only difference is the vowel in אל. The vowel in אל determines whether it is a noun (construct "God of") or a preposition ("to"), and thus whether the next word אלהים is "gods" or "God."
-
A fun little variant was pointed out to me by a friend:
MT Ps 84:8: יֵרָאֶ֖ה אֶל־אֱלֹהִ֣ים בְּצִיּֽוֹן
LXX: ὀφθήσεται ὁ Θεὸς τῶν θεῶν ἐν Σιών
Pesh: ܢܬܚܙܐ ܐܠܗ ܐ̈ܠܗܝܢ ܒܨܗܝܘܢ (= LXX)
Vulg: parebunt apud Deum in SionThe only difference is the vowel in אל. The vowel in אל determines whether it is a noun (construct "God of") or a preposition ("to"), and thus whether the next word אלהים is "gods" or "God."
-
As a mark of my amateur status, TIL about TC: a journal of biblical textual criticism!
https://scholarlypublishingcollective.org/sblpress/tc/issue/volume/30And even cooler, they are entirely open access, so you can read the articles even if you are not at a theological research library!
-
As a mark of my amateur status, TIL about TC: a journal of biblical textual criticism!
https://scholarlypublishingcollective.org/sblpress/tc/issue/volume/30And even cooler, they are entirely open access, so you can read the articles even if you are not at a theological research library!
-
As a mark of my amateur status, TIL about TC: a journal of biblical textual criticism!
https://scholarlypublishingcollective.org/sblpress/tc/issue/volume/30And even cooler, they are entirely open access, so you can read the articles even if you are not at a theological research library!
-
I read a chapter about #HebrewBible #TextualCriticism in the 19th C, and now I better understand the background between the separation of textual criticism starting where literary criticism ends, which I see in the work e.g. of Tov, but I still think the division is artificial and misleading.
-
I read a chapter about #HebrewBible #TextualCriticism in the 19th C, and now I better understand the background between the separation of textual criticism starting where literary criticism ends, which I see in the work e.g. of Tov, but I still think the division is artificial and misleading.
-
I read a chapter about #HebrewBible #TextualCriticism in the 19th C, and now I better understand the background between the separation of textual criticism starting where literary criticism ends, which I see in the work e.g. of Tov, but I still think the division is artificial and misleading.
-
Actually it turns out that he vs. heth is the most common letter confusion in #Samaritan #Genesis. That surprises me, but I've found twenty such confusions among proper names. I suspect the lack of pronunciation difference helps.
3/2
#HebrewBible #TextualCriticism #SamaritanPentateuch -
Actually it turns out that he vs. heth is the most common letter confusion in #Samaritan #Genesis. That surprises me, but I've found twenty such confusions among proper names. I suspect the lack of pronunciation difference helps.
3/2
#HebrewBible #TextualCriticism #SamaritanPentateuch -
Actually it turns out that he vs. heth is the most common letter confusion in #Samaritan #Genesis. That surprises me, but I've found twenty such confusions among proper names. I suspect the lack of pronunciation difference helps.
3/2
#HebrewBible #TextualCriticism #SamaritanPentateuch -
I wonder if especially the yods are in the right place, or have moved, & if they represent vowels different from the #MasoreticText.
The final letter being he or heth is also a very easy confusion in Hebrew square script, but much harder in Samaritan or Paleo-Hebrew. I don't have an idea what that difference might indicate.
2/2
#HebrewBiible #TextualCriticism -
I wonder if especially the yods are in the right place, or have moved, & if they represent vowels different from the #MasoreticText.
The final letter being he or heth is also a very easy confusion in Hebrew square script, but much harder in Samaritan or Paleo-Hebrew. I don't have an idea what that difference might indicate.
2/2
#HebrewBiible #TextualCriticism -
I wonder if especially the yods are in the right place, or have moved, & if they represent vowels different from the #MasoreticText.
The final letter being he or heth is also a very easy confusion in Hebrew square script, but much harder in Samaritan or Paleo-Hebrew. I don't have an idea what that difference might indicate.
2/2
#HebrewBiible #TextualCriticism -
Is it a bad sign when Baden's very first example of a contradiction that requires a document source difference (the name of Moses's father-in-law) I think is more probably resolved by challenging a few Masoretic dots? I'm not opposed to a documentary hypothesis! But the text is ancient, so first establish the text with #TextualCriticism.
-
Is it a bad sign when Baden's very first example of a contradiction that requires a document source difference (the name of Moses's father-in-law) I think is more probably resolved by challenging a few Masoretic dots? I'm not opposed to a documentary hypothesis! But the text is ancient, so first establish the text with #TextualCriticism.
-
Is it a bad sign when Baden's very first example of a contradiction that requires a document source difference (the name of Moses's father-in-law) I think is more probably resolved by challenging a few Masoretic dots? I'm not opposed to a documentary hypothesis! But the text is ancient, so first establish the text with #TextualCriticism.
-
Pesh nearly agrees, only rounding up Lamech's age at procreation to a round 200 (why?). But SamP and LXX are more interesting. Until Lamech they are always 100 years apart, with the LXX having more years. MT(=Pesh=Vulg) agrees with SamP except for Jared, when it agrees with LXX, and Methuselah, where it disagrees with both. Because LXX and SamP are exacty 100 years apart on Methuselah, that suggests MT is secondary.
2/
#HebrewBible #TextualCriticism -
Pesh nearly agrees, only rounding up Lamech's age at procreation to a round 200 (why?). But SamP and LXX are more interesting. Until Lamech they are always 100 years apart, with the LXX having more years. MT(=Pesh=Vulg) agrees with SamP except for Jared, when it agrees with LXX, and Methuselah, where it disagrees with both. Because LXX and SamP are exacty 100 years apart on Methuselah, that suggests MT is secondary.
2/
#HebrewBible #TextualCriticism -
Pesh nearly agrees, only rounding up Lamech's age at procreation to a round 200 (why?). But SamP and LXX are more interesting. Until Lamech they are always 100 years apart, with the LXX having more years. MT(=Pesh=Vulg) agrees with SamP except for Jared, when it agrees with LXX, and Methuselah, where it disagrees with both. Because LXX and SamP are exacty 100 years apart on Methuselah, that suggests MT is secondary.
2/
#HebrewBible #TextualCriticism -
I think it is very odd that in Psalm 51:14b (MT) = OG Psalm 50:14b = English Psalm 51:12b, the spirit is described as:
MT נְדִיבָ֣ה ("willing")
OG ἡγεμονικῷ ("masterly")
Pesh ܡܫܒܚܬܐ ("glorified")
Vulg potenti ("powerful")No idea why...
-
I think it is very odd that in Psalm 51:14b (MT) = OG Psalm 50:14b = English Psalm 51:12b, the spirit is described as:
MT נְדִיבָ֣ה ("willing")
OG ἡγεμονικῷ ("masterly")
Pesh ܡܫܒܚܬܐ ("glorified")
Vulg potenti ("powerful")No idea why...
-
I think it is very odd that in Psalm 51:14b (MT) = OG Psalm 50:14b = English Psalm 51:12b, the spirit is described as:
MT נְדִיבָ֣ה ("willing")
OG ἡγεμονικῷ ("masterly")
Pesh ܡܫܒܚܬܐ ("glorified")
Vulg potenti ("powerful")No idea why...
-
Once you understand @INTF_MS’s system, you can call up any manuscript in the database. https://www.jdavidstark.com/what-you-need-to-know-to-use-intfs-document-id-system/ #textualcriticism @Bibel_Aktuell @eerdmansbooks
-
A modern Greek New Testament's critical apparatus holds a wealth of information. But when you're uncertain what it means, consult the MSS. https://www.jdavidstark.com/what-do-you-do-when-your-critical-apparatus-is-confusing/ @INTF_MS #textualcriticism @CSLewis @eerdmansbooks
-
Is #textualcriticism important for #spiritualformation? Irenaeus thought so, e.g., in his treatment of the variation between 616 and 666 in Rev 13. https://www.jdavidstark.com/irenaeus-on-666-and-616/
-
.@CSLewis wasn’t talking about #textualcriticism. But his thoughts on the value of reading old books definitely apply. https://www.jdavidstark.com/what-do-you-do-when-your-critical-apparatus-is-confusing/ @INTF_MS @eerdmansbooks
-
For each Greek New Testament MS, @INTF_MS’s document ID uses 5 digits. This ID can help you searching the database for a particular MS. https://www.jdavidstark.com/what-you-need-to-know-to-use-intfs-document-id-system/ #textualcriticism @Bibel_Aktuell @eerdmansbooks
-
Some objections to Rom 15–16 as part of the letter’s initial text. https://www.jdavidstark.com/the-textual-originality-of-romans-15-16-objections/ #textualcriticism @oxunipress @bakeracademic @wjkbooks
-
And in the Samaritan Pentateuch, it isn't an anachronism for God to have already chosen Mt. Gerizim, because in SamP's Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:17b), the tenth commandment is worship on Mt. Gerizim, in an addition not preserved in any other witness.
So I think we can explain the perfect tense verbs in "the place which God chose" to reflect Samaritan ideological revision to emphasize Mt. Gerizim, rather than SamP's textual priority here.
