In the discipline of text criticism of the Hebrew Bible, one is usually alerted to the possibility of textual corruption either by a reading that poses significant logical or syntactic difficulties in its immediate context, or by the presence of significant variants in ancient manuscripts and translations of that text. In this article, however, it will be argued that occasionally, even when a reading seems to enjoy unanimous support from ancient manuscripts and versions and poses no significant difficulty in context, there remains the possibility of textual corruption. Using Judg 15:3 as a test case, this article will show that when even seemingly trivial lexical-syntactic irregularities such as the use of the notoriously fluid
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 285 | 36 | 3 |
Full Text Views | 4 | 0 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 27 | 2 | 0 |
In the discipline of text criticism of the Hebrew Bible, one is usually alerted to the possibility of textual corruption either by a reading that poses significant logical or syntactic difficulties in its immediate context, or by the presence of significant variants in ancient manuscripts and translations of that text. In this article, however, it will be argued that occasionally, even when a reading seems to enjoy unanimous support from ancient manuscripts and versions and poses no significant difficulty in context, there remains the possibility of textual corruption. Using Judg 15:3 as a test case, this article will show that when even seemingly trivial lexical-syntactic irregularities such as the use of the notoriously fluid
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 285 | 36 | 3 |
Full Text Views | 4 | 0 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 27 | 2 | 0 |