#textualcriticism — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #textualcriticism, aggregated by home.social.
-
Recovering Hidden Witnesses in the Kurzgefasste Liste: The Possibilities of MSI [multispectral imaging]
https://criticaltexts.com/recovering-hidden-witnesses-in-the-liste-the-possibilities-of-msi/
#textualcriticism -
Recovering Hidden Witnesses in the Kurzgefasste Liste: The Possibilities of MSI [multispectral imaging]
https://criticaltexts.com/recovering-hidden-witnesses-in-the-liste-the-possibilities-of-msi/
#textualcriticism -
Recovering Hidden Witnesses in the Kurzgefasste Liste: The Possibilities of MSI [multispectral imaging]
https://criticaltexts.com/recovering-hidden-witnesses-in-the-liste-the-possibilities-of-msi/
#textualcriticism -
Recovering Hidden Witnesses in the Kurzgefasste Liste: The Possibilities of MSI [multispectral imaging]
https://criticaltexts.com/recovering-hidden-witnesses-in-the-liste-the-possibilities-of-msi/
#textualcriticism -
Recovering Hidden Witnesses in the Kurzgefasste Liste: The Possibilities of MSI [multispectral imaging]
https://criticaltexts.com/recovering-hidden-witnesses-in-the-liste-the-possibilities-of-msi/
#textualcriticism -
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
What does this mean?
We might be tempted to regard SamP as original (reflecting a composition date after "the choice" of Jerusalem) and MT as a correction to remedy the anachronism of Moses saying that God choosing Jerusalem was already a done deal.
But anachronism seems to have weighed much less heavily on ancient readers than modern ones.
And in the Samaritan understanding of the text, Jerusalem was not the place which God chose, but Mt. Gerizim!
-
What does this mean?
We might be tempted to regard SamP as original (reflecting a composition date after "the choice" of Jerusalem) and MT as a correction to remedy the anachronism of Moses saying that God choosing Jerusalem was already a done deal.
But anachronism seems to have weighed much less heavily on ancient readers than modern ones.
And in the Samaritan understanding of the text, Jerusalem was not the place which God chose, but Mt. Gerizim!
-
What does this mean?
We might be tempted to regard SamP as original (reflecting a composition date after "the choice" of Jerusalem) and MT as a correction to remedy the anachronism of Moses saying that God choosing Jerusalem was already a done deal.
But anachronism seems to have weighed much less heavily on ancient readers than modern ones.
And in the Samaritan understanding of the text, Jerusalem was not the place which God chose, but Mt. Gerizim!
-
#Deuteronomy 12 famously refers to a place YHWH will choose for his cult, which scholars often take as referring to Josiah's reforms (2 Kings 23). But in Deuteronomy the verbs are future tense (יבחר).
Or are they? SamP thinks otherwise.
All 21 times where the text refers to the place which God will choose (Deut 12:5, 11, 14, 18, 21, 26; 14:23-25; 15:20; 16:2, 6-7, 11, 15-16; 17:8, 10; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11), MT imperfect יבחר corresponds to SamP perfect בחר.
-
#Deuteronomy 12 famously refers to a place YHWH will choose for his cult, which scholars often take as referring to Josiah's reforms (2 Kings 23). But in Deuteronomy the verbs are future tense (יבחר).
Or are they? SamP thinks otherwise.
All 21 times where the text refers to the place which God will choose (Deut 12:5, 11, 14, 18, 21, 26; 14:23-25; 15:20; 16:2, 6-7, 11, 15-16; 17:8, 10; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11), MT imperfect יבחר corresponds to SamP perfect בחר.
-
#Deuteronomy 12 famously refers to a place YHWH will choose for his cult, which scholars often take as referring to Josiah's reforms (2 Kings 23). But in Deuteronomy the verbs are future tense (יבחר).
Or are they? SamP thinks otherwise.
All 21 times where the text refers to the place which God will choose (Deut 12:5, 11, 14, 18, 21, 26; 14:23-25; 15:20; 16:2, 6-7, 11, 15-16; 17:8, 10; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11), MT imperfect יבחר corresponds to SamP perfect בחר.
-
Okay, a rabbit trail may have revealed a funny point about the NRSV's textual history.
#Genesis 10:14 = #1Chronicles 1:12 lists the peoples of Pathros, Kasluh, & Kaphtor, mentioning in passing that the Philistines came from Kasluhites.
Oddly, #Jeremiah 47:4 and #Amos 9:7 identify the Philistines as coming from Kaphtor, not Kasluh.
What's going on here? Dunno. Perhaps a marginal addition was incorporated into the main text in the wrong spot in Genesis.
1/?
-
Okay, a rabbit trail may have revealed a funny point about the NRSV's textual history.
#Genesis 10:14 = #1Chronicles 1:12 lists the peoples of Pathros, Kasluh, & Kaphtor, mentioning in passing that the Philistines came from Kasluhites.
Oddly, #Jeremiah 47:4 and #Amos 9:7 identify the Philistines as coming from Kaphtor, not Kasluh.
What's going on here? Dunno. Perhaps a marginal addition was incorporated into the main text in the wrong spot in Genesis.
1/?
-
Okay, a rabbit trail may have revealed a funny point about the NRSV's textual history.
#Genesis 10:14 = #1Chronicles 1:12 lists the peoples of Pathros, Kasluh, & Kaphtor, mentioning in passing that the Philistines came from Kasluhites.
Oddly, #Jeremiah 47:4 and #Amos 9:7 identify the Philistines as coming from Kaphtor, not Kasluh.
What's going on here? Dunno. Perhaps a marginal addition was incorporated into the main text in the wrong spot in Genesis.
1/?
-
I know that the presence or absence of matres lectionis (vocalic waw or yod) isn't meaningful, semantically or textually.
Yet often a verse differs in SamP and MT in that SamP has a mater lectionis in one word where MT lacks it, and MT has one where SamP lacks it.
E.g. #Numbers 22:1:
SamP: ויסעו בני ישראל ויחנו בערבת מואב מעבר לירדן יריחוMT: וַיִּסְע֖וּ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וַֽיַּחֲנוּ֙ בְּעַֽרְב֣וֹת מוֹאָ֔ב מֵעֵ֖בֶר לְיַרְדֵּ֥ן יְרֵחֽוֹ׃
1/?