Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe

Edited by

Konrad Schmid (Zürich) · Mark S. Smith (Princeton) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen) · Andrew Teeter (Harvard)

118

Philology and Textual CriticismProceedings of the Second International Colloquium

of the Dominique Barthélemy Institute held at Fribourg on 10–11 October, 2013

Edited by

Innocent Himbaza and Jan Joosten

Mohr Siebeck

Innocent Himbaza is Titular Professor of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and Hebrew, Univer-sity of Fribourg, Switzerland.orcid.org/0000-0003-1284-1571

Jan Joosten is Regius Professor of Hebrew, University of Oxford; Student of Christ Church.orcid.org/0000-0002-8553-3994

ISBN 978-3-16-159323-9 / eISBN 978-3-16-159592-9 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-159592-9

ISSN 1611-4914 / eISSN 2568-8367 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe)

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2020 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohrsiebeck.com

This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproduc-tions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems.

The book was typeset by Martin Fischer in Tübingen using Minion typeface, printed on non-aging paper by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen, and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren.

Printed in Germany.

Table of Contents

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Richard D. WeisThe Intersection of Philology and Textual Criticism in Biblia Hebraica Quinta. Background, Theory, and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Abraham TalSome Reflections on the Textual Traditions of the Samaritan Pentateuch . . . 19

Jan JoostenPost-Biblical Hebrew as a Controlling Factor in the Arbitration between Variant Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Viktor GolinetsConsiderations on Questions Philology Cannot Solv e While Reconstructing the Text of the Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Andrés Piquer OteroBetween the Archaic and the Literary. The ‘Narrative’ Infinitive Clause in the Text(s) of the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Adrian SchenkerL’incidence de la critique textuelle sur le lexique hébreu biblique. Les cas de ָׁשֵלם, Gn 33,18; ְוֶהֱחִרים, Is 11,15; 1 ,ֶחְרִמי R 20,42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Noam MizrahiText, Language, and Legal Interpretation. The Case of Exod 12:9 . . . . . . . . 93

Innocent HimbazaTextual Readings and Challenge of Biblical Philology. Some Cases in Isaiah and Leviticus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

Index of Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143Index of Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149Index of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

VI Table of Contents

Abbreviations

ATD Altes Testament DeutschBarb Barberini text of Habakkuk 3 (the BHQ siglum)BCE Before the Common EraBDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon

of the Old TestamentBETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum LovaniensiumBHK R. Kittel, Biblia HebraicaBHK3 R. Kittel and P. Kahle, Biblia Hebraica, 3rd edition (1937)BHQ Biblia Hebraica QuintaBHS Biblia Hebraica StuttgartensiaBJ Bible de JérusalemBWANT Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen TestamentBZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche WissenschaftCAT Commentaire de l’Ancien TestamentCSCO Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum OrientaliumCTAT Dominique Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien TestamentDJD Discoveries in the Judean DesertDSD Dead Sea DiscoveriesELO Elementa Linguarum OrientisFAT Forschungen zum Alten TestamentG Old Greek / Septuagint (the BHQ siglum)GB Septuagint Codex Vaticanus and typologically related manuscriptsGL Lucianic manuscripts of the SeptuagintHALANT Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, 3rd editionHCOT Historical Commentary on the Old TestamentHiehebr A Hebrew text reported in Jerome (the BHQ siglum)HOTTP Hebrew Old Testament Text ProjectHSS Harvard Semitic StudiesHUCA Hebrew Union College AnnualICC International Critical Commentaryindet Indeterminate (i. e., the testimony of the witness cannot be assigned)InfAbs Infinitive AbsoluteJAOS Journal of the American Oriental SocietyJB Jerusalem BibleJBL Journal of Biblical LiteratureJJS Journal of Jewish StudiesJPS Jewish Publication SocietyJSOT.Supp Journal of the Studies of the Old Testament. SupplementsJSS.Supp Journal of Semitic Studies. SupplementsKBL Ludwig Köhler and Walter Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti

Libros

KJV King James VersionLD Lectio DivinaLHB/OT Library of Hebrew Bible / Old TestamentLXX Septuagintm MasculineM Masoretic Text (the BHQ siglum)Mket kətîb (the BHQ siglum)Mm Masora magnaMqere qərêᵓ (the BHQ siglum)ms Manuscriptmss ManuscriptsMT Masoretic TextNAB New American BibleNBS Nouvelle Bible SegondNETS New English Translation of the SeptuagintNRSV New Revised Standard VersionO Hexaplaric Text-type of the SeptuagintOBO Orbis Biblicus et OrientalisOLA Orientalia Lovaniensia AnalectaOTE Old Testament EssaysPart Participlepass PassivePL Patrologia Latinapl Pluralprep Prepositionptc ParticipleRevQ Revue de QumranS Syriac (i. e., the Peshitta; the BHQ siglum)SCSS Septuagint and Cognate Studiessfx Suffixsg SingularSmr Samaritan Pentateuch (the BHQ siglum)SP Samaritan PentateuchST Samaritan TargumSTDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judahsubj SubjectT Targum (the BHQ siglum)T-N Targum NeofitiT-O Targum OnqelosT-PsJ Targum Pseudo-JonathanTB Babylonian TalmudTCT Text Criticism and the TranslatorTOB Traduction Œcuménique de la BibleV Vulgate (the BHQ siglum)vrss versionsVT Vetus TestamentumVT.Supp Vetus Testamentum. SupplementsZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

AbbreviationsVIII

Introduction

The Hebrew Bible is written in an ancient language that is otherwise almost completely unattested, and it has come down to us through a very long and com-plicated history of textual transmission. As a result, many words and phrases are obscure: the meaning of rare words or expressions may have been forgotten early on, and many passages would appear to have suffered textual corruption (as is indeed confirmed when we compare the received Hebrew text to other ancient witnesses). It is not always easy to say which of the two factors – the obsoleteness of the language or the deterioration of the text – cause the obscurity. More often than not, both may come into play.

Textual transmission is a hermeneutical process. To scribes, the text they were copying was not a mere sequence of graphemes to imitate as well as they could, but a meaningful whole handed down by tradition. While reproducing the text in a new manuscript, they would at the same time be aware they were transmitting the word of God, revealed to their ancestors long ago, to their contemporaries. This attitude created a strong tendency among scribes to alter the text in places where its meaning was not clear to them. Hebrew philology and textual criticism should always be practiced in combination, completing one another and chal-lenging one another.

In his book, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (1968), James Barr underscored the interconnectedness of Semitic philology and textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. His work was at once a warning against certain abuses and a road map for best practice in the two fields. Since the days of Barr, textual criticism has made great strides, notably thanks to the publication and exploitation of the Qumran Biblical texts. Hebrew Philology too has continued to develop, and its fruits have been collected in a series of new dictionaries (particularly the Sheffield Hebrew Dictionary and the eighteenth edition of Ge-senius’s Handwörterbuch). At the same time, the connection between these two fields of research has become less and less self-evident. In the orbit of biblical studies, they are practiced by different guilds of scholars. Because they tend to focus upon the same items in the biblical text, philology and textual criticism are at times perceived as competing approaches. An exegetical problem is solved either by finding a different meaning for the attested Hebrew, or by adopting a variant reading. Philologists tut-tut textual critics for venturing to emend a received Hebrew text they manifestly have not fully understood, while textual critics wonder at philologists’ desperate eagerness to make sense of passages that are obviously corrupt.

An international meeting held in Fribourg, Switzerland, on 10 and 11 October 2013 sought at once to document the progress in the two fields and to bring some of their foremost practitioners into dialogue with one another. The colloquium on Philology and Textual Criticism had the objective to put the connection be-tween the two approaches on the agenda one again. Various questions were dis-cussed. How can philological study guide the textual critic? And how does textual criticism come to the aid of the philologist? Are philology and textual criticism necessarily linked, or are the connections between them merely accidental? Can philology justify conjectural emendations, and if so, on what conditions? Do philological hypotheses have a place in a text-critical apparatus or commentary? The contributors discussed theoretical questions and analysed case studies il-lustrating the principles at issue.

In “The Intersection of Philology and Textual Criticism in Biblia Hebraica Quinta: Background, Theory, and Practice,” Richard Weis explores the relation between philology and textual criticism in the principles and practice of the Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ). Discussing a number of issues broached by Barr, he eventually homes in on the question of conjectural emendations. While these were once regarded as a legitimate component of textual criticism – and are still so regarded by some – BHQ tends to exclude them as belonging not to textual criticism but to other branches of historical criticism. Nevertheless, they may be included in the textual commentary, and in a few cases where there is circum-stantial evidence they find their way into the apparatus as well. The discussion is illustrated with well-chosen examples from various books, and gives real insight into the practice of BHQ editors.

Abraham Tal demonstrates his extensive expertise in the Samaritan Penta-teuch in “Some Reflections on the Textual Traditions of the Samaritan Penta-teuch.” After some reflections on textual “tradition” or masorah/masoret, he shows by the help of examples that the Samaritan Pentateuch is not as unified as is often thought. The older state of the text, which is often independently reflected in the MT, was known to the Samaritans, but proved problematic for various reasons. Variant readings, often incorporating a degree of interpretation, were generated and disseminated. The resulting textual variety can sometimes be retrieved by comparing manuscripts of the Samaritan Pentateuch. In other instances, the Samaritan Targums, ancient opinions of Samaritan sages or quo-tations in Samaritan writings need to be exploited to see how the text evolved within the Samaritan tradition.

Philological treatments of biblical Hebrew are often based on distant mem-bers of the Semitic family such as Akkadian and Arabic, both of them languages with an abundant attestation. But Hebrew itself, although attested less richly, has some resources that need to be exploited. Notably the book of Ben Sira, the “non-biblical” Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Mishna and early Midrashim contain many genuine Hebrew expressions that do not depend on the biblical text. In

Introduction2

“Post-biblical Hebrew as a controlling factor in the arbitration between variant readings,” Jan Joosten explores some methodological considerations and illus-trates with a few case studies the various types of help post-biblical Hebrew can bring. In some instances, textual criticism and Hebrew philology seem to point in opposite directions, and a choice must be made. In other cases, however, the two methods reinforce one another, with the former indicating the correct reading and the latter helping to give it a meaning that fits the context.

Viktor Golinets draws attention to several sets of variant forms for which it is hard to determine textual priority. In his contribution “Some Considerations on Questions Philology Cannot Solve While Reconstructing the Text of the Hebrew Bible,” he identifies the problem and provides a wealth of material to establish the phenomenon beyond doubt. Normative grammar as taught in the Handbooks may seem to indicate which forms are genuine and which ones are mistakes. But if the same variation recurs again and again, one starts asking whether perhaps the grammar books are too schematic. The variation itself is genuine, while the rejection of either form would be erroneous.

In “Between the Archaic and the Literary. The ‘Narrative’ Infinitive Clause in the Text(s) of the Bible,” Andrés Piquer Otero evaluates a number of usages involving the “infinitive absolute” in the books of Samuel-Kings. He sagaciously brings in the concept of language evolution. The Hebrew written by the biblical authors represents a chronolect different from the Hebrew of the copyists who penned the earliest manuscripts to which we have access, and from the Hebrew known by the translators of the ancient versions. It is not always possible to deter-mine the earliest available text, nor to interpret the variants, but at least on some points the history of the language can be approximately retraced.

Adrian Schenker, in “L’incidence de la critique textuelle sur le lexique hébreu biblique. Les cas de ָׁשֵלם, Gn 33,18, ְוֶהֱחִרים, Is 11,15; 1 ,ֶחְרִמי R 20,42”, evaluates three passages that have posed problems to exegetes and shows the necessity for both philological information and text-critical acumen. In Gen 33:18, ָׁשֵלם is probably a toponym, but it does not designate Jerusalem. In Isa 11:15, ְוֶהֱחִרים should probably be corrected to ְוֶהֱחִריב with the versions against all Hebrew manuscripts. In 1 Kgs 20:42, ֶחְרִמי may be an adjective, as the Greek evidence in-dicates, and not a substantive followed by a suffix as most exegetes have thought.

Noam Mizrahi focuses on a single minute variation in the Hebrew text of Exod 12:9, where 4Q11, also known as 4QpaleoGen-Exodl, has a conjunctive waw that is absent in the MT. In “Text, Language, and Legal Interpretation: The Case of Exod 12:9,” he combines a diachronic approach of the Hebrew language with a diachronic approach of the halakhic interpretation of the verse in question. He shows how detailed knowledge of the later rabbinic exegesis of the verse illuminates the problems the additional waw may have been intended to solve. The Qumran scribe meant to transmit the biblical text as accurately as possible,

Introduction 3

yet he was also struggling to make sense of the text in its biblical context and in regard to its impact on Jewish worship.

In “Textual readings and challenge of biblical philology. Some cases in Isaiah and Leviticus,” Innocent Himbaza shows how textual criticism and Hebrew phi-lology clash and interact in different ways. Two verses in Isaiah, Isa 14:4 (notably the difficult word מדהבה) and 59:19c, and two verses in Leviticus, Lev 25:31 and 6:20, are analysed at length to illustrate the problem.

We thank the participants in the colloquium for their contributions. We also thank our home institutions, the Dominique Barthélemy Institute of the Univer-sity of Fribourg and the Équipe d’Accueil 4378 Théologie Protestante of the Uni-versity of Strasbourg, as well as the Institut Universitaire de France for financial and logistic support. The publication has suffered some delay, but we believe it was worth the wait.

Innocent HimbazaJan Joosten

Introduction4

The Intersection of Philology and Textual Criticism in Biblia Hebraica Quinta

Background, Theory, and Practice

Richard D. Weis

The colloquium in which this paper originated sought to put the question of the connection between philology and textual criticism in the study of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament on the agenda of scholarship once again.1 The organizers of the colloquium put a series of questions for discussion: How can philologi-cal study guide the textual critic? How does textual criticism come to the aid of the philologist? Are philology and textual criticism necessarily linked, or are connections between them merely accidental? Can philology justify conjectural emendations, and if so, on what conditions? Do philological hypotheses have a place in a text-critical apparatus or commentary?

This essay addresses these questions by examining the editorial principles and practice of the Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ). I contend that BHQ offers significant scope both in principle and in practice for the productive interaction of the fields of textual criticism and philology. Thus, it offers a useful vantage point from which to address the overall theme and the specific questions posed. I will begin by noting some significant points of contact between BHQ and the position of James Barr in his work Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament.2 This will lead to a fuller consideration of certain principles and practices in the published volumes of BHQ, focused in particular on those relat-ing to conjectures. A concluding summary will address the specific questions of the colloquium.

1 Consideration of the relations between the two disciplines and the development of con-crete results from their interaction has been enjoying a renaissance of late. See, for example, the essays by Joosten, Schorch, Talshir and Talshir, and Yuditsky in the volume by J. Joosten and J.-S. Rey, Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period (STDJ, 73; Leiden: Brill, 2008). An even more recent example is the study by R. D. Holmstedt, “The Nexus between Textual Criticism and Linguistics: A Case Study from Leviticus,” JBL 132 (2013): 473–494.

2 J. Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Winona Lake, IN: Eisen-brauns, 1987; orig. pub.: Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968).

1. Barr and BHQ – Points of contact

It has been observed that “James Barr showed the interconnectedness of Semitic philology and textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. His work is at once a warn-ing against certain abuses and a road map for best practice in the two fields.”3 Thus it seems appropriate to orient ourselves by observing some points of con-tact between the positions of BHQ and of Barr on the subject of the interconnect-edness of philology and textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. There are five to which I call attention: the need for significant restraint in the use of conjectural emendations or their philological equivalents, the undoubted capacity of philol-ogy to explain difficult forms in the extant witnesses, the importance of historical philology alongside comparative philology, the value of the vowels and accents in the Masoretic Text, and the definition of a text critical case. On the first four of these, BHQ and Barr may be said to agree. On the last, the definition of a text critical case, they disagree.

Conjecture, the extrapolation from existing evidence, whether textual or phil-ological, back to a form for which there is not otherwise external evidence in the Hebrew text of a particular passage, has been a significant practice in so-called “lower criticism” from the nineteenth century well into the twentieth. Indeed, some would even say that it is a necessary practice because in both textual criticism and philology we are working with incomplete data, in the one case for the reading of the Biblical text, in the other for the Hebrew language in the Biblical era. Although Barr and BHQ differ in the degree of caution they would impose and in the reasons for that caution, both are suspicious of past practices of conjectural emendation of the text. The scholarly tradition that finds its roots particularly in the work of Wellhausen and Cornill started from the reality that the extant witnesses to the text did not reach back to its presumed original. That goal could only be reached by conjectural extrapolation back beyond the external evidence for the text. That extrapolation might be disciplined and grounded by multiple sets of criteria, some exegetical and stylistic, some based on knowledge of the processes and vicissitudes of copying texts, and some based on philological insight, especially from comparative Semitic philology.4 Barr does not rule out conjecture in principle, but would be far more cautious in its practice.5 BHQ, on the other hand, rules out conjecture in principle, but then in practice makes allowance for its use in very restricted ways in its apparatus.

3 The prospectus for the colloquium.4 R. D. Weis, “‘Lower Criticism’: Studies in the Masoretic Text and the Ancient Versions of the

Old Testament as a Means of Textual Criticism,” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. III/1 (edited by M. Sæbø; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 363–367; M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, “The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: Rise, Decline, Rebirth,” JBL 102 (1983): 373, 378.

5 Barr, Comparative Philology, 3, 301–304.

Richard D. Weis6

The eighth chapter of Barr’s work criticizes the previous practice, often in-voked in conjecture, of regarding only the consonantal text of the MT as ancient, and disregarding the vowels and accents encoded in the Masoretic points as a late medieval phenomenon.6 BHQ specifically regards the vowels and accents as reflective of ancient reading traditions that, even though only encoded in written form much later, are demonstrably as old as the consonantal text found in our earliest surviving Hebrew manuscripts.7

Barr and BHQ share a confidence in the capacity of philology to explain satisfactorily difficult readings in the Hebrew Bible, readings that previously might have been assumed to represent a corrupted text, and thus to be in need of emendation. In the case of BHQ, this is very much a part of its inheritance from the earlier Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, and especially the work of Dominique Barthélemy.8 For explaining extant readings seen as “difficult,” Barr calls attention not only to the possibilities offered by comparison with cognate Semitic languages, but also and especially by comparison with forms from later periods of Hebrew.9 If anything, this latter emphasis on historical comparison is more characteristic of BHQ and its predecessor project (HOTTP) than com-parison with Semitic cognates. The BHQ volume on Genesis offers numerous examples of this particular form of interaction of textual criticism and philology.10 Outside of the scope of the BHQ project, the recent study by Jan Joosten on Jer-emiah 39 offers another excellent example of the interaction of textual criticism and historical philology.11

On one major point BHQ and Barr disagree, namely, on what constitutes a text critical case. For Biblia Hebraica Quinta, a text critical case is constituted only by a divergence among the extant witnesses for how a text reads at a particular

 6 Barr, Comparative Philology, 188–222, at 219–222. 7 See R. D. Weis, Gerard J. Norton, and Adrian Schenker, eds., Guidelines for Contributors

(Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003), 20, BHQ guideline III.1.2 “Criterion for Inclusion in Apparatus: Text-Critical Significance: In order for a case to be included in the apparatus, one or more of its variants must be text-critically significant, that is, the variant arguably, but not necessarily (nor even in the editor’s final judgment), witnesses a Hebrew text that differs from the lemma. This embraces variations in vocalization and syntax as well as in consonants. When a variant in the reading of a version is deemed to have a variant Hebrew text behind it, then that variant to the versional reading will be reported in addition to the version’s main reading.”

 8 D. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, vol. 1 (OBO, 50/1; Fribourg: Édi-tions universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), xiii–xv [= D. Barthélemy, Studies in the Text of the Old Testament (TCT, 3; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 591–594].

 9 Barr, Comparative Philology, 223–228, 237.10 A. Tal, Genesis (Biblia Hebraica Quinta, vol. 1; ed. A. Schenker, et al.; Stuttgart: Deutsche

Bibelgesellschaft, 2015).11 J. Joosten, “L’excédent massorétique du livre de Jérémie et l’hébreu post-classique,” in

Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period (STDJ, 73; ed. J. Joosten and J.-S. Rey; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 93–108.

The Intersection of Philology and Textual Criticism in Biblia Hebraica Quinta 7

point.12 Barr acknowledges that this is the ordinary definition of a text critical case, but argues that when the text is uniform, one must generate text critical cases in another way, namely, by identifying a perceived “difficulty” with the text.13 In this difference, we see how Barr is still using the definition of a text critical case that characterized the nineteenth and twentieth century schools that made so much use of the patterns of conjecture that he has criticized. For a work published in 1969, this is not surprising; this definition was still operant in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, which was being edited in the same era. It is only with the work of the Hebrew University Bible Project, the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, and others – whose publications mostly came after Barr’s book – that we see the conceptual shift in the field of textual criticism that is reflected in the principles of BHQ. This shift came about in part because the diversity of the text visible in the Dead Sea Scrolls undermined the assumption about the uniformity of the text that made the older approach seem necessary.

2. Defining cases and making conjectures in BHQ

This difference in the definition of what constitutes a textual case, taken together with the edition’s goal of establishing “the earliest attainable text” rather than a putative original, is the root of the specific stance toward conjectural emendation seen in BHQ. More explicit attention to the guiding principles of the edition, and some examples of their implementation, will allow us to approach answers to the more specific questions about the relation of philology and textual criticism.

An obvious consequence of BHQ’s definition of a textual case is this guideline for the edition:

III.4.4 Decisions Limited to the Textual Forms Attested by the Extant WitnessesPRINCIPLE: In general, decisions concerning textual cases should confine themselves to working with the textual forms attested by the existing witnesses. Since the apparatus is concerned with the presentation and evaluation of the available evidence of the text’s transmission, indirectly attested forms and hypothetical forms have a place in the appara-tus only as they are needed to explain the surviving evidence.14

As a result of this definition of a text critical case, many cases that in previous editions were included in the apparatus as text critical either do not appear at all in the apparatus of BHQ, or appear only as a lemma followed by a reference to the commentary. In the commentary, the remarks on such cases follow a com-mon pattern. After recounting substantial prior discussion of the case as in some

12 A. Schenker, et al., “General Introduction,” in Biblia Hebraica Quinta, vol. 18, General Introduction and Megilloth (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004), xii–xiii.

13 Barr, Comparative Philology, 3.14 Weis, Norton, and Schenker, Guidelines, 32.

Richard D. Weis8

way “difficult” and reporting conjectural emendations proposed to resolve the “difficulty,” the editor observes that all of the extant witnesses agree on the same reading so that there is no text critical case. Thus philological proposals in the form of conjectural emendations without external textual evidence are excluded from the textual apparatus at the same time that their role in previous discussion is acknowledged.

Examples of such treatment may be found in every one of the published fas-cicles of BHQ, but the case of ֲאדִֹני ֶבֶזק in Judg 1:5 may serve as an illustration of the class. In BHQ the apparatus for Judg 1:5 ֲאדִֹני ֶבֶזק contains only the lemma, and reference to the commentary where this text is found:

Many scholars hold that Adoni-bezek is a corruption of Adoni-zedek (cf. BHK), the name of the king of Jerusalem in Josh 10:1, but the connection with Adoni-zedek is probably too speculative and irrelevant (cf. Lindars, Judges 1–5, 15–16 and 18, and Soggin, Juges, 25). All the extant witnesses support M.15

My own work in Jeremiah provides another example in ָרָאם Jer 39:4. Here there is no disagreement among the extant witnesses. The apparatus of the BHQ edi-tion will contain only the lemma and a reference to the commentary, where this comment will be found:

A number of commentators, translations and editions (BH3; BHS; JB; Carroll, Jeremiah, 691; Bright, Jeremiah, 242; Volz, Text des Jeremia, 272; Rudolph, Jeremia, 245) propose to read ָרָאּה instead of M’s ָרָאם. As McKane (Jeremiah, 978) points out, this is without support among the extant witnesses. Indeed, all those collated for this edition support the reading of M. McKane is correct in pointing out that this is not a text critical case, but a question of scholars’ assumptions about how the story should unfold.

The same formal treatment – an apparatus entry consisting only of the lemma and a reference to the commentary for discussion – is accorded another class of cases which in substance are the opposite of the examples just considered. These are cases where readings of the extant witnesses diverge, but analysis shows that the divergence is only apparent, being due purely to linguistic fac-tors, not actual textual divergence. In other words, the best explanation of the evidence of the textual witnesses is philological rather than textual. By contrast then with conjectural emendations, where philological proposals are excluded in the circumstance of agreement among the witnesses, BHQ actually includes philological proposals in the edition to exclude another class of false textual cases characterized by apparent disagreement among the witnesses.16

15 N. Fernández Marcos, Judges (Biblia Hebraica Quinta, vol. 7; ed. A. Schenker, et al.; Stutt-gart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011), 3, 41*.

16 See Weis, Norton and Schenker, Guidelines, 24, BHQ guideline III.2.1 “Purely Linguistic Cases That Have Received Attention as Text Critical: PRINCIPLE: According to guidelines III.1.2 and III.1.4 above, purely linguistic problems would not be taken up as cases in the appa-ratus unless they have been treated extensively as a text critical problem in editions, translations and commentaries. In the event that an editor concludes that such a case should be taken up,

The Intersection of Philology and Textual Criticism in Biblia Hebraica Quinta 9

The case of ִנחּוָמי at Hos 11:8 offers an example of this treatment. Once again, only the lemma and a reference to the commentary are found in the apparatus. In the commentary, the editor, Anthony Gelston, in response to a scholarly tradition of positing a variant Hebrew Vorlage for some of the versions, has this to say:

All the vrss. render M in the sense of either “compassion” or “change of mind,” and there is no need to postulate a different Vorlage רחמי to account for the former sense, for which, compare Isa 57:18; Zech 1:13.17

Although from these examples one might expect otherwise, this definition of a text critical case, as implemented in BHQ, actually allows some room for the inclusion of conjectures in the edition’s apparatus. The concluding sentence of the guideline quoted previously is, “Since the apparatus is concerned with the presentation and evaluation of the available evidence of the text’s transmission, indirectly attested forms and hypothetical forms have a place in the apparatus only as they are needed to explain the surviving evidence.” This allows for two types of extrapolated readings, one described as indirectly attested, and the other as conjectures. I argue that in principle both types are conjectures, in the sense that the proposed reading is extrapolated from the available evidence, rather than being one of the options already available within that evidence.

Although the type referred to as an “indirectly attested” reading should be regarded as a conjecture because it extrapolates beyond the extant textual data, it is a very conservative type of conjecture in that it can clearly be inferred from the existing readings.18 In BHQ’s apparatus such a proposed reading can be offered as a “preferred” reading in a case, i. e., it is put on a similar footing to a directly attested reading. This is because it is based on textual evidence, i. e., external evidence for how the particular text reads, rather than internal evidence only or external evidence from outside the text whose relevance to the text is therefore less clear. However, such an indirectly attested reading must be labeled “origin,” as representing the origin of the existing readings, alerting the reader to its con-jectural character. The case of ִמָּידֹו לֹו in Hab 3:4 is a simple and straightforward example of this type of modest textual conjecture in BHQ.

For ִמָּידֹו לֹו in Hab 3:4 the apparatus of BHQ reports that Jerome and the Bar-berini text support the reading of M encountered in the lemma ִמָּידֹו לֹו. V and S support G’s reading of ἐν χερσὶν αὐτοῦ. The reading of the Targum cannot be assigned and that of the Murabba’at Minor Prophets is too damaged to be useful.

s/he should handle it in one of five ways.” The guideline then goes on to lay out the five options an editor has for representing such cases, one of which takes the form seen in the example given.

17 A. Gelston, The Twelve Minor Prophets (Biblia Hebraica Quinta, vol. 13; ed. A. Schenker, et al.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010), 22, 69*.

18 See Weis, Norton and Schenker, Guidelines, 32, guideline III.4.5 “Proposal of Forms At-tested Only Indirectly by the Extant Witnesses: PRINCIPLE: Proposing a form that is only indirectly attested in textual terms (that is, a form that best explains the attested forms) as a correction to the base text is acceptable, providing there is weighty justification.”

Richard D. Weis10

Index of Sources

Genesis1:3 191:9 643:7 61, 6310:4 2113:7 5413:8 5415:16 2617:13 2617:23 2618:16 2621:20 5423:8 2626:20 5429:26 4130:30 4132:11 5133:18 335:19 2636:35 6144:5 10044:15 10046:32 5746:34 54, 5747:3 6347:21 2847:23–25 2850:24 10050:25 100

Exodus2:19 103, 1043:16 10410:23 4712:1–11 95, 96, 9712:9 3, 93–98, 104, 105,

107–112, 11518:18 10421:19 10327:11 4928:41 50

29:9 5029:29 5029: 33 5029: 35 5032:19 11, 5032:29 50

Leviticus6:18 132, 1356:19–20 1356:20 4, 132–136, 1376:21 1368:33 509:22 5011: 28 2613:58 13315:17 13416:21 5016:32 5021:10 5025:23–28 13225:28 13125:29–30 13225:30 13125:31 4, 128–132, 13725:33 13125:54 13126:36 5427:21 131

Numbers3:3 505:26 266:19 104, 10911:28 5121:20 6124:3–4 22

Deuteronomy1:13 1102:33 52, 53

3: 24 514:28 554:32 615:10 547:9 47, 497:10 487:15 558:2 4711:7 5911:24 1214:7 6216:7 9816:15 5524:19 5527:15 5528:60 6331:29 5533:2 2533:9 52, 5327:10 4727:19 5528:60 55

Joshua8:18 338:26 339:4 11010:1 918:14 5418:24 54

Judges1:5 91:31 142:7 593:23 128:11 1217:5 5017:12 5020:13 1220:38 1220:39 100

1 Samuel1:28–29 412:12–17 402:13 992:15 104

2:23–24 652:29 40–426:12 778:3 499:13 4117:4 3417:6 3317:8 4017:23 3417:45 3318:7 49, 5018:14 47, 4918:22 48, 4921:12 5029:5 49, 50

2 Samuel1:11 492:23 472:23–24 653:12 477:16 3913:21 36, 3713:39 12315:1 3715:30 77–7816:8 4716:10 5419:3 3721:21 5423:18 54

1 Kings1:6 35–381:36 383:16 368:26 399:20 110–11213:33 5016:7 5520:42 3

2 Kings4:34 809:15 279:24 5012:12 5813:16 52, 53

Index of Sources144

19:18 5519:29 8022:5 5822:17 55, 5923:21 9823:21–24 98

Isaiah2:8 553:5 120, 1215:12 556:20 411:15 314:4 4, 117–124, 13617:8 5519:25 5521:13 2124:2 9324:7 9324:15 9329:23 5537:11 87, 9137:19 55, 6037:20 87, 9138:12 6353.4 11057:18 1059:19 4, 124–127, 13660:21 55, 6063:7 51, 5263:15 5164:4 5865:22 55

Jeremiah1:16 56, 606:23 3310:3 5515:11 3917:10 4922:4 48, 4923:17 10025:6–7 5525:14 5532:30 5537:19 11, 5439:4 944:8 56, 60

46:12 4746:21 4748:7 4749:3 4750:42 33

Ezekiel20:37 1927:15 2138:12 5842:14 13543:11 4943:26 5047:11 49

Hosea11:8 1012:1 3914:4 55

Amos1:6 841:9 84

Obadiah19–20 94, 115

Micha3:11 573:12 575:12 55, 60, 636:16 56, 63

Habakkuk3:4 10

Haggai2:14 552:17 55

Zechariah1:13 106:12 4711:5 64

Malachi3:5 54, 553:19 58, 63

145Index of Sources

Psalms1:5 648:4 568:7 5610:5 4819:2 55, 5619:7 6120:7 5122:17 6525:6 5128:4–5 5543:19 8651:3 5162:4 1969:17 5171:6 5176:3 8478:8 3989:2 5190:17 5592:5 56102:26 55106:2 51106:3 58106:45 51, 52107:23 58107:24 56111:2 56111:7 56115:4 55118:17 56119:98 46132:6 61135:15 55138:8 56, 60138:18 86143:5 55145:4 51145:12 51150:2 51

Job1:10 555:18 509:13 4714:15 5515:34 6526:14 50, 51

27:15 4934:19 5538:41 4939:23 3340:17 5041:20 3341:21 33

Proverbs6:3 486:13 536:27 1357:18 5110:18 62, 6312:22 6223:6 6130:24 102

Ruth1:1 611:2 611:6 61, 631:22 612:6 614:3 61

Canticles/Song of Songs2:14 127:12 55

Qohelet/Ecclesiastes5:5 5510:15 1211:9 54

Lamentations3:32 51, 523:64 55, 59, 60, 634:2 55, 59, 60, 63

Daniel2:38 12111:20 51

Ezra3:9 58, 63

Index of Sources146

Nehemiah2:16 58, 6311:12 5813:22 51

1 Chronicles1:7 211:46 615:18 588:8 6112:34 5812:37 5823:24 5829:5 50

2 Chronicles1:9 398:7 11013:9 5024:12 5826:11 5826:13 5829:31 5032:19 5534:10 5834:25 56, 5935:1–19 9835:4 9835:12 9835:13 98, 99

Ben Sira14:1 37, 3814:2 3830:21 3730:23 3737:2 3738:18 3746:2 33

Dead Sea Scrolls1QIsaa 21, 54, 58, 110, 111,

117–126, 1361QHodayota/1QHa 1181QM 33, 34, 541QS 414QBarkc 39

4QDeutj 594QDeutkl 594QGenhl 644QHodayota 1184QInstruction 118, 119, 1204QIsac 934QpaleoGen-Exodl/4Q11 3, 95, 96, 97, 108–1134QPhilj 544QSama/4Q51 37, 40, 41, 77–79, 1234QSamb /4Q52 758QMez 5911QLevb 128, 13111Qpaleo-Leva 131, 132, 137Damascus Document/CD-A 119–121War Scroll 33, 34

Flavius JosephusAntiq 7:346 35–36

MishnaKelim XI 8 33Sheqalim VI 1 20

TosephtaSanhedrin 13:5 21Pesahim 4:7 107Maccot 4: 1 107Terumot 1:4 38

Babylonian TalmudSanhedrin 98a 126Sotah 42b 34

MidrashBereshit (Genesis) Rabba 79,1–5 86 Rabba 37 21Sifra Ṣow 6:5 135

Manuscripts

Ben Sira msSira: Ms A 36

Greek mssLucianic/L 35, 39, 76, 77, 79, 80Ms A 80

147Index of Sources

Ms B 75, 77, 79, 80Ms N 80

Hebrew mssAdd 1573 48Aleppo/A 20, 47, 48–51, 54–56,

60, 61Babylonian Codex of Petrograd (BCP) 50, 55, 60Berlin Ms 61Cairo/C 47, 48, 49, 50, 54, 55,

60Cod. Berlin Or. Qu. 680/CB 49Damascus Pentateuch/DP 47, 48, 49, 50Leningrad B19/L 20, 47, 48, 49, 50,

54–56, 59, 60Munich Cod Hebr 2 61Or 2463 86Or 2464 86Or 4445 (B) 48, 50Reuchlinianus (R) 50, 54, 55

Samaritan mssMs 6 of Shechem 24–27Ms A 28Ms B 28Ms C 28Ms E 28Ms J 28Ms K 29Ms M 28Ms S 29Ms V 28Vat Cod Barberini 24

Samaritan Targum msMs J 106

Syro-Hexaplaric msMidyat ms 86

Targumic mssMs AA 105Ms V 105

Targumic LiteratureOnkelos/Onqelos 22, 25, 60, 61, 83,

100–103, 107, 118, 120, 125, 128–131, 133, 134

Neofiti/Neophyti 58, 60, 61, 83, 104, 105, 108, 129–131, 133, 134

Pseudo-Jonathan 83, 106, 107, 129–131, 133, 134

Fragment(ary) Targum 60, 61, 105Jonathan 34, 100Palestinian Targum(s) 96, 104, 105–107,

111

Biblical TranslationsASV 120Bible de Genève 126BJ 120, 126, 129, 134Bible Liturgique 129Chouraqui 126, 129Douai 120Einheitsübersetzung 120ERV 120ESV 120Geneva Bible 120, 121, 126, 134JB 9JPS 120, 126KJV 27, 35, 100, 102, 110,

117, 120, 121, 126, 134

Luther 120, 121, 126, 129, 134

Matthew’s Bible 126, 134NAB 120, 126, 134NBS 126, 134NRSV 96, 102, 110, 111, 117,

120, 126Olivétan 120, 126, 134Rabbinat 126Robert Estienne 120Segond 120, 126, 129, 134TOB 120, 126, 129, 134Webster’s Bible 120Züricher Bibel 120, 134

Index of Sources148

Index of Names

Abravanel 121Albright, W. F. 64, 66Andersen, F. I. 46, 67Aquila 56, 119, 122

Baker, D. W. 109–113Barkay, G. 46, 66Barr, J. 1, 2, 5–8, 12, 17, 32, 43, 94, 113,

121, 137Barthélemy, D. 4,7, 17, 35, 43, 88–90, 118,

131, 135, 137, 138Bauer, H. 46, 66Baumgarten, J. 118, 137Baumgartner, W. 87, 135Beit-Arié, M. 47, 66ben Abraham David 86, 90Ben Asher 19, 20, 30Ben Iehuda Hierosolimitano, E. 20, 30Ben-Ḥayyim, Y (J). 20, 57, 59, 68Ben-Ḥayyim, Z. 23, 25, 26, 29, 30, 57,

60, 100, 101, 106, 113, 114, 133, 134, 146

Ben-Zvi, E. 99, 114Bergsträsser, G. 46, 66Berlejung, A. 46, 66Berthelot, K. 97, 114Betser, Z. 19, 30Blenkisopp, J. 123, 137Blum, E. 98, 116Bokser, B. M. 98, 114Bredenkamp, C. J. 126, 137Brenner-Idan, A. 95, 116Buhl, F. 61, 67Burney, C. F. 12, 13, 39, 43

Caquot, A. 86, 90Carasik, M. 136, 137Carmignac, J. 33, 34, 43Caspi Yosef 121, 126Chazon, E. 119, 137Clarke, E. G. 106, 114

Clines, D. J. A. 87, 88, 90, 125, 137Cohen, C. 99, 114Cohen, M. 102, 114Cohen, O. 100, 102, 114Cross, F. M. 46, 67

Dalman, G. 100, 114Davies, G. I. 12, 17de Lagarde, P. 63, 67de Rossi, G. B. 56, 61De Troyer, K. 130, 131, 137de Waard, J. 48, 67Delitzsch, F. 87, 90, 121, 122, 126, 138Díez Macho, A. 104, 114Dillmann, A. 121, 127, 138Donzé-Michau, M.-C. 23, 30Dotan, A. 20, 30Douglas Olson, S. 104, 114Drazin, I. 101, 114Drechsler, M. 121, 138Driver, G. R. 35, 36, 43Driver, S. R. 37, 43Duhm, B. 121, 127, 138

Ehrlich, A. B. 85, 90, 102, 114Elliger, K. 48, 67Elwolde, J. F. 33, 43, 74, 82Epstein, J. N. 108, 114Eskhult, M. 74, 75, 82

Feldmann, F. 121, 127, 148Fernández Marcos, N. 9, 12–14, 17Field, F. 104, 114Fischer, J. 127, 138Fishbane, M. A. 99, 114Flint, P. W. 119, 140Florentin, M 133, 134, 140Forbes, A. D. 46, 67Fox, M. 25, 30Freedman, D. N. 46, 47, 64, 67

García Martínez, F. 118, 138Gehman, H. S. 35, 37, 39, 43Geiger, A. 83, 91, 111, 114Geiger, G. 54, 67, 100Geller, M. J. 102, 117Gelston, A. 10, 11, 17, 48, 67Gemeinhardt, P. 93, 115Gerstenberger, E. S. 128, 138Gesenius, W. 19, 20, 61Gesundheit, S. 96, 114Ginsburg, C. D. 19, 30, 54, 56, 60, 61, 67Giron Blanc, L.-F. 54, 67Gispen, W. H. 130, 135, 138Gogel, S. L. 73, 82Goldman, Y. A. P. 48, 67, 134, 138Golinets, V. 3, 45, 53, 67Goshen-Gottstein, M. 6, 17, 47, 57, 59,

68Gottstein, M. H. 53, 63, 68Greenfield, J. C. 102, 116Grossfeld, B. 101, 114Gulick, C. B. 104, 114

Haas, P. J. 99, 114Harrington, D. J. 119, 140Hartley, J. E. 130, 136, 138Hayward, R. 105, 115Heintz, J.-G. 125, 126, 138Heller, C. 101, 115Heller, R. L. 78, 82Hendel, R. S. 98, 115Hieke, T. 132, 138Himbaza, I 4, 117, 134, 135, 138Hirsch, J. 122, 126, 138Hitzig, F. 121, 138Holladay, W. L. 15, 17Holmstedt, R. D. 5, 17, 72, 82Houtman, C. 98, 115

Ibn Ezra 86, 102, 121, 126, 134

Jacob, B. 85, 90, 91, 102, 115Jastrow, M. 39, 43Jerome 10, 21–23, 25, 27, 76, 103, 122,

138Joosten, J. 3, 5, 7, 17, 31, 33, 39, 43, 100,

115, 130, 135, 138, 139Joüon, P. 71, 82

Kabiersch, J. 124, 139Kalimi, I. 99, 114Karrer, M. 125, 139Kennicott, B. 56, 60, 61, 68Khan, G. 109, 113Kimḥi David/Radaq/Radak 19, 86, 121,

126Kissane, E. J. 121, 139Kister, M. 33, 34, 40, 41, 43Klein, M. L. 105, 115Kloppenborg, J. S. 130, 137Knauf, E. A. 46, 68Koenen, K. 124, 139Kohler, L. 87, 135Koster, M. D. 101, 115Krahmalkov, C. R. 74, 80, 82Kraus, M. A. 107, 115Kraus, W. 125, 139Krauss, S. 64, 68Kropat, A. 110, 116Kruger, H. A. J. 124, 127Kugler, R. A. 123, 139Kutscher, E. Y. 110, 115Kyle McCarter, P. 34, 43

Lange, A. 95, 115Le Boulluec, A. 104, 115, 118, 124,

139Le Moigne, P. 118, 124, 139Leander, P. 46, 66Lefebvre, J.-F. 130, 139Legrand, Th. 97, 114Lestienne, M. 40, 43Levine, B. A. 128, 139Levine, É. 60, 68Levinson, B. M. 99, 115Levita, E. 19, 30Lewis, T. 20, 21, 30Lieberman, S. 107, 115Lipiński, E. 72, 73, 82Loewinger, D.S 47, 68Longacre, R. 78, 82Lundberg, M. J. 46, 66Luzzatto, S. D. 122, 139

Maher, M. 104, 106, 114Maimonides 18Marcus, D. 48, 67

Index of Names150

Marx, A. 128, 130, 139McCarthy, C. 48, 66McNamara, M. 105, 115Metso, S. 123, 124, 139Meyer, R. 71, 72, 73, 82Michaelis, J. D. 119, 121, 122, 139Milgrom, J. 130, 135, 139Mizrahi, N. 3, 93, 94, 96, 115, 118, 120,

122, 139Montgomery, J. A. 35, 39, 43Morag, S. 100, 115Moreshet, M. 108, 115Moshavi, A. 96, 115Muraoka, T. 33, 43, 71, 74, 82, 100,

115

Neusner, J. 107, 116Newman, J. H. 130, 137Newsom, C. 119, 140Norton, G. J. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, 18,

48, 67Notarius, T. 96, 115

O’Connor, M. 73, 74, 82Origen 119Orlinsky, H. M. 46, 68, 122, 139Ottley, R. R. 126, 139

Paul, S. M. 51, 68Piquer Otero, A. 3, 71, 72, 79, 82Pisano, S. 48, 67Polzin, R 71, 74, 75, 82Procksch, O. 121, 139

Qaro Yosef 121Qimron, E. 32, 43, 54, 68, 102, 116Quast, U. 104, 116

Ramban 86Rashi 86, 120, 121, 126, 134Rendtorff, R. 123, 136, 139Renz, J. 46, 52Rey, J.-S. 5, 7, 17Rezetko, R. 74, 75, 82Rofé, A. 125, 140Rubinstein, A. 74, 82Rudolph, W. 48, 67

Saadia Gaon 86Sæbø, M. 6, 18, 83, 91Sanderson, J. E. 95, 96, 97, 116Sandevoir, P. 104, 115Sarfatti, G. B. 46, 68Schade, A. 72, 82Schenker, A. 3, 7, 8–11, 13, 16–18, 48, 67,

83, 87, 88, 91, 134, 138Schorch, S. 133, 134, 140Schüller, E. 118, 140Seeligmann, I. L. 99, 116Segal, J. B. 99, 116Shehadeh, H. 23, 30, 86, 91Shemesh, A. 98, 116Shinan, A. 107, 116Shmuel ben Meir 86Skehan, P. W. 95, 96, 97, 116Skoss, S. L. 86, 90Slotki, I. W. 120, 121, 140Sokoloff, M. 107, 116Sollamo, R. 103, 116Sperber, A. 50, 53, 68, 101, 116Stamm, J. J. 51, 69Stegemann, H. 119, 140Steiner, R. C. 25, 94, 109, 116Strack, H. L. 50, 69Strugnell, J. 119, 140Symmachus 56, 83, 86, 119

Tal, A. 2, 7, 17, 19, 24, 30, 48, 66, 101, 106, 116, 133, 134, 140

Talmon, S. 65, 69Teeter, D. A. 93, 100, 113, 116Theodotion 119Tigchelaar, E. J. C. 119, 138Tov, E. 65, 69, 95, 116Tropper, J. 73, 82Troxel, R. L. 119, 140

Ulrich, E. 64, 69,95, 96, 97, 116, 119, 123, 139, 140

van der Kooij, A. 48, 67, 134, 138Vaughn, A. G. 46, 66Vermeylen, J. 125, 140Vitringa, C. 120, 140von Gall, A. F. 22, 26, 30, 101, 116Vööbus, A. 86, 91

151Index of Names

Wacholder, B. Z. 119, 140Waltke, B. 73, 82Watson, W. G. E. 56, 69Watts, J. D. W. 127, 140Watts, J. W. 136, 140Weil, G. E. 48, 69Weis, R. 2, 5, 6–11, 13, 16, 18, 83, 91, 134,

138Weitzman, M. P. 102, 116Wellhausen, J. 123, 140Werman, C. 98, 116Wernberg-Moller, P. 50, 69, 118, 140

Westermann, C. 127, 140Wevers, J. W. 86, 91, 104, 116, 130, 140Wilk, F. 93, 115

Yedidia of Norzi 19Yefet ben Eli 86Yeivin, I. 49, 67Young, C. D. 104, 116Young, I. 74, 75, 82

Ziegler, J. 119, 121, 140Zuckerman, B. 46, 66

Index of Names152

Index of Subjects

Accents 6, 7, 19, 103, 124, 127, 136Akkadian 2, 32, 71, 99Amarna letters/corpus 71, 81Apparatus 2, 5–16, 22, 26, 27, 29, 57, 96,Arabic 2, 23–26, 28, 32, 38, 85–87, 106Aramaic 11, 13, 24, 27, 29, 30, 100, 101,

106–108, 121, 123, 125, 134Aramaism 39, 121

Biblia Hebraica Kittel 9, 12Biblia Hebraica Quinta 2, 5–17, 48, 49,

53–55, 57, 58, 60, 62–64Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia 8, 9, 12, 39,

48, 56

Classical-Biblical Hebrew 32, 71, 81, 110, 111

Codex/Codices 20, 46, 47, 56, 59, 61, 77, 80

Commentary 2, 5, 8–12, 15, 16, 19, 57, 66, 94, 119, 121, 122, 126–128

Conjecture 5–16, 105, 109, 119, 121, 122, 124

Consonantal text 7, 47, 50, 51, 99, 100, 102, 103, 105, 108, 124, 126, 133, 134–137Consonants 7, 76Context 3, 4, 11, 20, 22, 28, 34–39, 41,

47–61, 64, 65, 72, 84, 85, 87–89, 93, 97, 100, 108, 109, 112, 113, 119–121, 127, 136

Correction(s) 10, 16, 85, 106, 132, 134, 136, 137

Corruption/corrupted 1, 7, 9, 38, 87, 88, 90

Dead Sea Scrolls 2, 8, 31, 33, 74, 75, 97, 100, 117–119, 122, 123, 133, 136

Defective 22, 45–49, 51–53, 65

Edition(s) 1, 8–12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 29, 52, 57, 66, 79, 96, 104

Emendation(s) 2, 5–9, 12, 16, 35, 39, 40, 117, 137

Equivalence/Equivalent 6, 22, 30, 36, 38, 72, 74, 103, 106, 108, 122

Error/erroneous 3, 14, 52, 60, 62, 64, 65, 117, 123, 135–137

Ethiopic/Ethiopian 73, 75, 80Evidence 2, 3, 6, 8–16, 24, 28, 29, 31, 32,

37, 39, 40, 46, 65, 71, 72, 75, 77, 78, 79, 81, 94–96, 104, 107

Exegesis/exegetical 1, 3, 6, 12, 16, 25, 34, 35, 52, 60, 95, 97–99, 103, 106–109, 111, 112, 120

Extrapolation 6, 14, 15, 16, 17

Fragment(s)/ary 25, 41, 59, 69, 95–97, 131

Grammar 3, 45, 72Grammarians 63, 121, 123Greek 3, 31, 33, 34, 36, 39–42, 74–77, 79,

100, 103, 104, 119, 122, 123

Hebraism 100Hebrew (language) 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11,

13–15, 19, 21, 26, 29, 30–34, 36–38, 41, 42, 45, 47, 52, 53, 61, 63–65, 71, 72, 74, 76, 77, 81, 93, 94, 100–104,106, 107, 110, 118, 119, 123, 127, 130

Hebrew Bible 1, 3, 5, 6, 13, 19, 20, 31, 32, 34, 42, 45, 50, 51, 64, 66, 72–74, 78, 95

Hexapla, Hexaplaric 77, 86, 87, 104Hiphil 39, 40, 41, 87–90, 122Hitpael 133, 134Hophal 87

Infinitive absolute 3, 71–81, 99–103Inscriptions 46, 74, 80Interpretation(s) 2, 3, 16, 23, 24, 34–36,

38, 40, 41, 48, 51, 58, 62, 80, 81, 84, 88, 89, 93, 94, 102, 105–107, 109, 110–112, 118–120, 122, 123, 126

Judgment 7, 16, 52, 62, 63

Ketiv/Kethib 11, 47, 49, 50, 53, 54, 59

Language(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 13–16, 31, 32, 39, 42, 71–74, 93, 98, 100, 102, 107, 113, 118, 123

Lemma 7, 8–10, 12, 119–123, 132, 133Lexical 32, 55, 65, 66, 105, 108, 112

Manuscript(s) 1, 3, 7, 20, 22, 24–30, 34, 37,42, 45, 46, 48–50, 52–64, 76, 78, 80, 93, 97, 100, 104, 123

Masora(h) 2, 19, 25, 55Masora magna 47, 48, 54–56Masora parva 47, 48, 49, 54, 55, 60Masoretic Text/MT/TM/M 2, 3, 6, 7,

12–14, 19, 20, 21–29, 31, 36, 37, 39–42, 50–56, 58, 62–65, 72, 75–79, 81, 87–89, 95, 96, 99, 101–105, 108–111, 117–125, 128, 130–137

Mater lectionis 102Morphology 45, 52, 66Morphological 20, 49, 52, 57, 59, 65, 66,

99–101, 128

Niphal 29, 36, 41, 76, 133, 134

Orthography 27, 29, 40, 45–49, 51–54, 63, 64

Palaeo-Hebrew 36, 95Paronomastic 72–76, 78Peshitta/P/Syriac/S 21, 22, 25, 34, 36 40,

55–58, 60–62, 83, 101, 107, 118–121, 124–127, 129–131, 133, 134

Philology 1–8, 12, 14–17, 31, 35, 36, 38, 42, 45, 66, 93, 94, 112, 117, 122–124, 136

Phoenician 71–74, 79, 80Piel 38, 39, 132, 134Plene 29, 34, 36, 45–48, 53Post-biblical Hebrew 3, 13, 31, 32, 34, 35,

37–39, 42Pre-Samaritan text 95Proto-massorétic text 75–77, 95, 104, 109Pseudo-classicism 33Pual 133, 134, 136

Qal 23, 26, 29, 72Qere 11, 47–51, 53Qumran 1, 3, 21, 31–35, 37, 41, 42,

52–54, 59, 63–65, 71, 77, 79, 81, 93, 95, 97, 101, 118, 123

Qumran Scrolls 32, 42, 53, 95

Rabbinic 3, 31, 71, 98, 107, 108, 111, 112Rule Scroll 42

Sahidic 80Samaritan Pentateuch/SP/Smr 2, 19,

21–30, 53–55, 57, 61, 83, 85, 90, 101, 106, 107, 111, 128, 131–137

Samaritan Midrash 29Samaritan Targum 2, 22, 106Samaritan Text 27, 28Samaritans 2, 26Scribe(s) 1, 3, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 60,

66, 87, 90, 93, 97, 99, 100, 104, 109, 110, 112, 113, 119, 130, 132, 134

Scroll(s) 95–97, 110Semantic 21, 31, 36, 48, 52, 57, 62, 73, 94,

98, 99, 105, 109Semitic 1, 2, 6, 7, 12, 23, 31, 32, 36, 38,

71–74Septuagint (LXX, G) 21, 22, 31, 33–37,

39, 41, 53, 56–65, 74–80, 83, 84, 86–89, 95, 98, 103, 104, 107, 110, 118–121, 124–134, 136

Source(s) 23, 24, 27, 28, 37, 77, 93, 96, 98, 101, 107, 109, 110–112, 118, 123

Synonym(us) 50, 61, 64–66, 104Syntagm 55, 59, 100–102Syntax 7, 27, 55, 62, 74, 76, 94, 100, 109,

124, 130, 132, 135Syriac, cf. PeshittaSyro-Hexapla 80, 83, 86

Targum(s) 10, 12, 24, 25, 27, 33, 36, 39–41, 55–61, 96, 100, 104–107, 111, 120, 126, 127, 134

Text critical 2, 3, 5–16, 31, 36, 38, 45, 65, 93–97

Textual Criticism 1–8, 14–17, 31, 35, 38, 42, 72, 83, 84, 88–90, 93, 94, 112, 117, 123, 131, 132

Index of Subjects154

Tradition 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 19, 20, 22–25, 27, 42, 50, 52, 65, 66, 71, 73, 76–79, 81, 84, 100–108, 111, 112, 119, 124–127, 132, 135

Translation(s) 9, 19, 23–25, 27, 28, 31, 37, 57, 58, 60, 62, 64, 74, 75, 77, 80, 86, 89, 95, 97, 101, 103–107, 118, 120–122, 124–127, 129, 134

Transmission 1, 8, 10, 16, 20, 22, 27, 45, 71, 72, 93, 94, 96, 113

Ugaritik 32, 71, 73, 80

Variant(s) 1–3, 7, 10, 20, 22, 25–27, 29–32, 36, 40, 45, 52, 64, 65, 83, 93–97, 106, 108, 111, 112, 126

Version(s) 3, 6, 7, 14, 15, 23–25, 28, 29, 32–34, 36, 38, 39, 41, 52, 54, 56–63,

65, 72, 74, 76, 81, 86, 93, 96, 99, 101, 103–107, 112, 113, 118–121, 129, 133, 134, 136

Vocabulary 45, 58, 83, 88Vocalization(s) 7, 19, 26, 29, 33, 37, 71,

72, 99, 100, 102, 105, 108, 127, 132, 135–137

Vorlage(n) 10, 26, 27, 30, 31, 39, 57, 59, 62, 64, 65, 75, 76, 87, 89, 94, 95, 101, 103, 104, 118, 125, 130, 135

Vowels 6, 7, 26, 33, 63Vulgate (V) 21–33, 34, 55, 56, 57, 59–62,

76, 80, 83, 103, 118, 120, 125–127, 129, 130, 133, 134

Witness(es) 1, 6–11, 13–15, 31, 35, 45, 48, 52, 59, 77, 94–97, 103, 105, 107, 109–111, 117, 119, 123–126, 128–137

155Index of Subjects

CoverTitelTable of ContentsAbbreviations��������������������Introduction�������������������Richard D. Weis — The Intersection of Philology and Textual Criticism in Biblia Hebraica Quinta. Background, Theory, and Practice����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������Index of Sources�����������������������Index of Names���������������������Index of Subjects������������������������