Because of the many changes in scholarship, society, and data, it is worthwhile to ask ourselves whether the field of textual criticism has changed in the past half-century (approximately 1970–2020) and, if so, in which ways. I will do this under several headings.1 This is not a topic I have reflected on much before, but I had passing thoughts about several aspects. We must first ask ourselves whether textual criticism is a separate field.
1. Is There a Separate Discipline of Textual Criticism?
The term “discipline” is more professional than “field.” Yes, there exists a separate field, approach, or discipline that comprises one particular aspect of Scripture research and that is guided by rules of its own different from those that guide other approaches. The nature and scope of this discipline may be defined in different ways. I quote my own definition, while realizing that other definitions also exist:
Textual criticism is a discipline applied to the textual traditions of all written sources. Textual critics focus on the various texts of a composition by conducting an analysis of its ancient and medieval manuscripts, as well as its modern printed editions. This analysis is complex in the case of the Hebrew Bible because of its labyrinthine written transmission over the course of at least 2,500 years, and possibly several centuries more. The analysis pertains to an investigation of the Hebrew texts (especially the ones from the Judean Desert, as well as their medieval masoretic sequels) and several ancient translations that were made from Hebrew texts that differed from those known to us: the Septuagint (LXX) in Greek, the Peshitta (S) in Syriac, the targumim (T) in Aramaic, and the Vulgate (V) in Latin. All these are branches of the Bible text … Textual scholars consider it their task to analyze all the known ancient and medieval texts because the exegesis of the Hebrew Bible should be based on the totality of the available texts.2
There is a vast theoretical literature, especially in nineteenth-century Germany, about the different approaches to the Hebrew Bible. Leaving that discussion aside, we realize that there is a separate approach that may be named the “textual approach.” From the earliest days of the theoretical preoccupation with these approaches, it was realized that the Scripture text needs to be established before exegetical activity can take place. That is why textual criticism used to be named “lower criticism,” on which “higher criticism” or “literary criticism” is based. The term “lower criticism” has been abandoned in the meantime because it is unrealistic. Textual criticism is not the only area that needs to be tackled before exegesis can take place; linguistic exegesis is equally significant as a preparatory stage before exegesis. Further, both exegesis and literary criticism are based to some extent on textual criticism.
The terminological issue should not prevent us from designating textual criticism as a separate discipline bound by its own rules. In an ideal world, the same persons deal with the textual criticism, exegesis, and literary criticism of a text. In nineteenth-century Germany, that broad preoccupation was called “philology,” since it is often hard to distinguish between the various layers of text treatment. However, text-critical analysis has become so specialized that often/usually scholars specialize in that area.
Since the text-critical approach deals with texts, one may think that it is regulated by more objective data than exegesis and literary criticism. This is only partially true. Exegesis is fully subjective, although commentators attempt to convince with what they consider to be objective arguments. Linguistic and textual analysis are seemingly objective, but when their methods are defined well, they, too, comprise many subjective elements. The notation of variation between Hebrew textual sources is roughly objective, though not always. The identification of differences between the Masoretic Texts (MT) and the ancient versions is more complex because translations may be understood in different ways. If one takes the task of textual criticism as being merely the indication of the differences between MT and the ancient witnesses, there are many objective aspects to textual criticism as opposed to exegesis.
However, if we expand the task of textual critics to include an evaluation of the variants between MT and the ancient sources, the evaluative part of textual criticism becomes as subjective as exegesis. In my view, textual critics ought to be involved in this process, and the arguments they use during this process render them full participants in biblical exegesis since they need to take the details of the context into consideration.
Ideally, a scholar should master both disciplines, but in practice, it is difficult to expect from a textual scholar dealing with the short text of the Septuagint (LXX) of Job to know all the intricacies of the exegesis of the Hebrew book. By the same token, it is hard to expect from the commentator of the Hebrew book of Job to know the intricacies of the translation technique of the LXX translation of that book. Likewise, in order to use the diverse textual materials in Samuel-Kings, the exegete needs to be up-to-date regarding the theories on kaige-Th.
In short, I believe that textual criticism and exegesis represent two separate disciplines, but those who are involved in them by necessity interact much. In this essay, I deal especially with textual criticism in general.
2. Increased Interaction between Textual Criticism and Exegesis
Has the interaction between textual criticism and exegesis changed in the past half-century? To some extent, yes. Traditionally there has not been much interaction between these disciplines, but there are notable exceptions. Already in 1842, Otto Thenius realized that the exegetical procedure is possible only after serious engagement with text-critical data. Single readings in the LXX cannot be evaluated well without a thorough knowledge of that book’s translation technique. He therefore preceded his commentary on Samuel with an analysis of the LXX.3 Likewise, in 1868, Cornill set the correct example by providing a long introduction to the LXX before embarking on the reconstruction of the original text of that book based on textual evidence mixed with literary judgments.4 Nevertheless, numerous commentaries have been written since that time that do not do justice to the textual evidence.5
A change in the approach to the textual data has been felt in the past half-century. That change was caused by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which brought home the understanding that in the last centuries BCE many different Hebrew texts were extant in ancient Israel. In the minds of many scholars, the prominence of this textual variety undermined the dominance of MT, which otherwise would have overshadowed the commentaries. Furthermore, thanks to the Qumran scrolls that agree occasionally in detail with the LXX, confidence has grown in reconstructing the Hebrew source of that translation. As a result of these developments, if I am not mistaken, a trend is visible to involve more textual evidence in the most recent commentaries, even though no statistics are available. I see this development in the following series:
Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament (KeHAT).
International Critical Commentary (ICC), New Series.
Anchor Bible (AB), New Series.
Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament (HThKAT).
3. A New Wave of Interactions between Textual and Literary Criticism
In the past half-century, a major change has taken place in the interaction between textual and literary criticism. This new wave of activity was influenced directly by the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Literary criticism is an extensive field based on principles that differ from those of textual criticism. Textual criticism is based on manuscript evidence, while literary criticism “seeks to reconstruct the same processes without such empirical evidence.”6 Literary criticism deals with the structure, date, origin, authorship, authenticity, form, poetic structure, relationship to other compositions, development, literary layers, and unity of the composition. The two disciplines are thus remote from each other and do not overlap; they only converge when coincidentally textual sources preserve evidence from an earlier or later developmental stage of the Scripture book that differs from that of MT. In such a case, the data are initially analyzed with textual procedures because they are found in textual sources; subsequently they are evaluated with literary procedures. There is a very practical implication of the evaluation based on the principles of literary criticism, since within the latter discipline one literary layer is not preferred to another, just as the pre-deuteronomistic layer of Joshua is not preferred to the present (MT–LXX) text that had undergone a deuteronomistic revision. In this regard, there are major differences between the individual Scripture books. For example, we witness much literary development in Jeremiah in textual witnesses, and little in Isaiah.
Prior to the discovery of the scrolls, some scholars had recognized that textual and literary criticism occasionally converge when the textual sources coincidentally contain material that throws light on literary developments. Probably the most famous statement is that by Wellhausen in 1871 regarding his findings in Samuel: “… it is difficult to find the border where literary criticism ends and textual criticism starts.”7 Wellhausen referred i.a. to the short version of the LXX in 1 Samuel 16–18. Similar findings were recognized before 1947 regarding the LXX of Jeremiah by Movers who, in 1837, posited two different text recensions in the MT and LXX.8 Likewise, Abraham Kuenen emphasized the differences between the LXX and MT in Exodus 35–40.9 Holmes considered the LXX of Joshua to be more original than MT, but he did not go as far as naming it a different literary edition.10
These voices were not numerous, but the recognition of literary phenomena in the textual witnesses was advanced significantly after the discovery of the scrolls. This new stream in scholarship took place not because such features were recognized in Hebrew Qumran scrolls, but because of the very recognition of deviating Hebrew sources that were not known previously. Scholars thus gained confidence that the Hebrew traditions behind the LXX, in which most of the literary variants were found, may indeed be reconstructed. A first collection of case studies was edited by Jeffrey Tigay, and additional ones were found in collections and studies edited and written by Schenker, Talshir and Amara, Müller, Pakkala and ter Haar Romeny, Müller and Pakkala, Tov, and Rofé.11 This is a veritable new wave of interest.
This line of research became known especially through the work of Eugene Ulrich, who named the deviating traditions “variant literary editions.”12 The number of such variant editions identified in recent research may be smaller than suggested,13 but they were there, although the unit named “edition” is usually much smaller than that of a Scripture book.14 At the same time, in Jeremiah, we are faced with a book-length shorter edition embodied in the LXX and 4QJerb,d, discussed much in modern research.15 Also the shorter edition of LXX-Ezek pertains to the complete book.16 According to Ulrich, followed by several colleagues,17 this phenomenon reflects a widespread phenomenon.18
The literary processes visible in several text units may have existed also in other sources now lost. Through these studies, modern textual criticism has elevated the textual inquiry to a higher level by involving literary evidence. By doing so, the modern branch of textual criticism differs much from the textual criticism of half a century ago.
In the writing of some, this wave of interest also has feasible implications. The practical results of the analysis of literary variants are a component of the evaluation process of all the variants, textual and literary. In the past, literary variants were analyzed as any other variant, that is, they were compared with the readings of MT and an opinion was expressed on them.19
However, there is a trend in modern research to acknowledge that literary and textual criticism work with different sets of rules. While textual critics often prefer certain readings to others in their search for the best (original) reading, literary critics analyze such differences without preferring one stage to another. This notion is most clearly visible in the systems used in the Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ). The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) edition still expressed preference for literary variants,20 while the later BHQ edition is open to a notation “lit,” meaning that a literary variant so indicated will not be evaluated with textual tools.21 In my own writings I expressed the same view as BHQ.22
4. New Players in the Field
The principles of textual criticism have not changed in the period under review, but many new players have appeared in the field and have made an enormous difference. The largest corpus of such sources was found in the Judean Desert between 1947 and 1956. These texts were discovered more than half a century ago, but they were only made available later and their importance for scholarship was realized only within the period under review.
LXX scholars look with satisfaction at small fragments of the Greek Torah from Qumran that some regard as representatives of the Old Greek as opposed to the presumably revised text of the large uncials.23 They also learned much from the Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXII gr) that embodies an early revision of the LXX, which brought about a real revolution in LXX research.24 Targum specialists were pleased to find at Qumran the earliest fragments of that literature.25
But the greatest revolution of all in conceptions was brought about by the discovery of a few hundred specimens of Hebrew Scripture at Qumran and other places in the Judean Desert. A place of honor was taken by individual texts and groups of texts, the likes of which were unknown in the research of earlier decades and centuries. Deserving of special mention are a group of nonsectarian Jewish texts that share all the characteristic features of the medieval text of SP (named pre-Samaritan texts in research), a group of texts written with an extremely full orthography and peculiar morphology, and several texts that include a great amount of content exegesis (4QRP). Even the proto-Masoretic texts from the Judean Desert that are almost identical to the medieval codices are remarkable. All these texts were added to the text-critical analysis, were integrated in the text editions of the Hebrew Bible and included in a changed perception of the text-critical Weltanschauung.
5. Textual Variety
The discovery of new documents in the Judean Desert brought about a new understanding of the textual situation in the last two centuries BCE and the first century CE.26 This situation may be described as textual plurality within the Qumran community and ancient Israel as a whole.
We have become so accustomed to the concept of textual variety that we sometimes forget that this concept was only born after the discovery of the Judean Desert scrolls. It could not have existed previously since insufficient texts were known at the time. Before 1947 the world of scholarship was limited to MT, SP, and the LXX in the Torah, and to the MT and the LXX in the other books.
These data almost necessarily led towards the dominance of MT in the perception of scholars because of the devastating judgment of SP by Wilhelm Gesenius in 1815,27 and because the LXX often did not deviate much from MT in the Prophets and Writings or because some scholars did not hold that translation in high esteem. The earlier textual outlook was accompanied by wrong principles. If you have very little evidence, unconsciously you try to create an illusion of more evidence. In that way, the evidence of the Peshitta, the targumim, and the Vulgate was upgraded in the textual apparatuses and introductions, even though they do not have much to offer beyond MT. The medieval manuscripts of MT were also upgraded as individual witnesses in textual editions and commentaries even though their deviations from the Leningrad and Aleppo Codices are mainly products of the Middle Ages.28 Likewise, the secondary translations made from the Septuagint and the Peshitta were upgraded as if they were independent sources, but except for some evidence from the Old Latin,29 they have little to offer as independent witnesses beyond the primary translations. Therefore, most of the joint references to the Old Latin and the LXX in BH 1, 2, and BHS are irrelevant. In short, before 1947, there simply was no evidence for textual variety. Scholars knew three texts, not even “text types” since that term is a misnomer of scholarship.30
The textual reality was changed fundamentally with the first finds of the scrolls in 1947, but it took a long time for scholars to realize that a change had taken place and to understand what kind of change it was. It started to dawn slowly that textual variety was the new name of the game. When the scrolls were published, at first scholars lived in denial regarding the new situation, assigning the scrolls to the so-called “text types” that were surmised before the discovery of the scrolls.31 Later it was realized that Qumran displays a veritable multitude of texts beyond MT.
In my view, the textual variety of Qumran could not have been created at Qumran itself, but was formed in other places in ancient Israel, then imported into Qumran, where additional new texts were created. Admittedly, this view reflects my own interpretation,32 but the multitude of text branches at Qumran is a fact.
What are the practical implications? Certain aspects of the textual Weltanschauung had been changed, but other aspects remained the same. We still need to decide whether to prefer a model of a single original text à la Paul de Lagarde or that of several parallel pristine texts à la Paul Kahle. For that purpose, it does not matter whether we see in front of us two, three, or an endless number of texts. The Editionstechnik relating to the type of edition has not changed either. What has changed is that we no longer ought to think in terms of a straitjacket of three traditions or text types, but rather of a plethora of texts (and possibly readings) in any given verse, and an even greater number of texts that have been lost.
6. Changed Approach to the Textual Sources
The approach to the textual sources has changed in the past half-century, mainly resulting from the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The approach to the ensemble of the textual sources has changed, since scholars are now aware of the textual variety existing in the last two centuries BCE and the first century CE, and towards individual sources.
6.1 Septuagint
The reliability of the reconstruction of the Hebrew source of the ancient translations, especially the LXX, is supported much by the Qumran Scrolls since details in several Hebrew texts are identical to the text of the LXX, especially in Samuel and Jeremiah. This confidence supported the reconstruction of the Hebrew sources not only in these two Greek translations, but in all the Scripture translations, as long as the translation technique of these books may be regarded as relatively faithful to the translators’ sources. The LXX thus received an upgrade in the eyes of many scholars. It is remarkable that in the period under review in which commentators lean heavily on MT in writing their commentaries, four scholars give equal chances to the LXX in their commentaries: John Collins in Daniel 4–6, Hermann-Josef Stipp and Michael B. Shepherd in Jeremiah, and Francis I. Andersen and David N. Freedman in Micah. These scholars systematically translate the text of the LXX alongside or within the translation from MT and also exegete both texts.33 This is a remarkable sign of progress.
6.2 Samaritan Pentateuch
The evaluation of SP also underwent a change, this time in the wake of Qumran scrolls very close to the medieval text of SP (pre-Samaritan texts). The novel aspect of these scrolls is that the Qumran texts share all the major and minor features with SP, while not carrying a sectarian Samaritan character. These texts, confirming the ancient character of SP, are Jewish documents from which presumably SP was created in the second century BCE by accepting and very slightly rewriting one of them. The nonsectarian character of most elements in SP becomes increasingly clear,34 and all these changes necessitated a major change in the evaluation of SP.
6.3 Masoretic Text
As in the case of SP, the ancient character of MT has been confirmed by the discoveries in the Judean Desert. Before 1947 it was known that the medieval codices of MT were based on ancient texts. All the targumim, kaige-Th, and Aquila, were translated around the turn of the era or in the first two centuries CE from sources almost identical to MT,35 and this pertains also to the Vulgate that was translated in 400 CE.36 At the same time, the antiquity of the Hebrew form of MT was a mere assumption until the consonantal base of that text was found in nineteen fragmentary manuscripts at sites in the Judean Desert,37 but not at Qumran.38 Early on in research, this was recognized by Dominique Barthélemy, who named them pre-Masoretic.39 These texts, including two tefillin, now named proto-Masoretic, are virtually identical to the consonantal framework of the medieval MT.
One could say that these finds are insignificant, as they do not add new variants, but their agreement with the medieval text signifies their importance. They confirm the antiquity of the medieval MT. They also show us which groups possessed this text and quoted from it and, further, it can be shown that this text was not used by reworked Bible compositions that quoted mainly from the shared LXX-SP tradition.40
6.4 Evaluation of Textual Sources
The evaluation of the textual sources has shifted in the period under review and also beforehand. The best method of reviewing the changing opinions is by examining the systems used in the critical text editions since some of the best textual critics are involved in preparing them. Now, when examining these editions, I discovered some surprising facts regarding the changing views during the last century. All of them point in the same direction of an increasing acceptance of MT.
When studying the trend regarding recording deviations from MT starting with the edition of Cornill, Ezechiel (1868), one notes some remarkable phenomena. When the amount of deviation from MT is analyzed in sample chapters, it is recognized that what started as a hurricane-force breakaway from MT in 1886 (Cornill, Ezechiel) ended as a light breeze in the twenty-first century. From around 1900 onwards, we see a regression in risk-taking in textual judgment and in the reconstruction of the earliest texts. In other words, we witness a steady and conservative move towards MT.
Influenced by Hitzig’s eclectic translation,41 Cornill changed as much as 25 or 30 percent of the words in MT in certain segments in Ezekiel;42 this percentage was reduced to between 5 and 15 percent in the samples from other books in Haupt’s series.43 A decade later, the percentage is similar in the BH 1 edition, 5–15 percent at the high end and 2–5 percent at the low end. The BHS edition presents a lower percentage, usually 2–5 percent at the low end and 3–10 percent at the high end. Emendations appear frequently in all these editions, sometimes more so than readings supported by the versions. The fewest deviations from MT are recorded in the editions produced most recently, BHQ and HBCE (The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition, previously known as the “Oxford Bible”). BHQ prefers variants in no more than 1 percent of the instances. The same pertains to the only published edition of HBCE (0–2 percent).44 This trend is also visible in the projects of Dominique Barthélemy45 and his textual commentaries.46 While Barthélemy’s volumes take the evidence of all textual sources into consideration, in practice they almost always decide in favor of MT.47
In short, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, we may well be entering a new stage in textual criticism in which textual judgment is limited to errors and the recognition of scribal tendencies, such as theological variants. This new trend in textual criticism should be considered both cautious and conservative, and results in an increased adherence to MT. These results, clear as they may be, cannot be representative for the field as a whole since we also reported an increased openness toward textual criticism among commentators including four commentaries that comment in an egalitarian way on the text of MT and the LXX (§§ 2, 6.1).
7. New Printed and Digital Editions of Hebrew Scripture
While some less successful critical editions were published in the nineteenth century, the twentieth century was the century of the critical editions, in particular in the second half.48 The critical editions, differing in text base and concept and all accompanied by a critical apparatus, are used as the basis for further textual and exegetical analysis. Their precision, thoroughness, and the width of their scope determine the success of that enterprise. In 2024, the older edition, BHS, is the most frequently used among the editions since it is the only complete one. The more recent form of the Biblia Hebraica series, BHQ, is used for the eight Scripture books that have been published in the meantime.49 A single volume has been published of the HBCE.50 The volumes of the HUB (Hebrew University Bible) are used for the Latter Prophets; no further volumes have been published in 2023.51
Digital text editions followed the publication of the printed text editions. These editions have great advantages over the printed editions due to the availability of versatile search programs and statistical packages,52 but there are also drawbacks.53 The digital editions copy the text of printed editions or manuscripts and do not introduce novel editorial concepts.
8. The Age of Specialization
Specialization is the hallmark of our times, and it has not skipped our area. Scholars know increasingly more about an increasingly smaller area. Literary critics no longer say that they study Scripture, but often describe their area as the Torah, the Prophets, or wisdom literature. Before the 1970s (this is not an exact date, but it is half a century ago), there were not so many scholars who would say that they spend most of their research time on textual criticism, but in the past half-century there definitely is a growing number of such creatures. I am one of them. Some of them would publish mainly on text-critical topics, while others would additionally write on other issues.
Within textual studies, there are natural specializations. Gone are the days of Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, Einleitung in das AlteTestament, who produced competent and thorough introductions to all the texts and versions of Scripture (in addition to the literary aspects)54; of Paul A. de Lagarde who produced a text edition of the Antiochian text of the LXX,55 and further edited texts in Syriac, Aramaic, Arabic, Coptic, Armenian, and Persian; of Paul Kahle who showed the many aspects of his knowledge relating to the Aramaic targumim, Peshitta, Genizah fragments, Septuagint, Diatessaron, Samaritan Hebrew, masoretic Hebrew, and wrote a programmatic study on the text history of the Torah.56 Scholars now know fewer languages, but they are often more knowledgeable in their area of specialization. As a result, textual scholars now cover smaller areas. For example, some scholars are interested in all areas of LXX studies, while others specialize in the LXX as a reflection of early Hebrew texts, LXX language, the Hellenistic background of the LXX, the translation technique of the LXX, or the Hexaplaric revisions of the LXX. Likewise, some scholars focus on the dating of the targumim, the differences between them, their vocabulary, their interactions, relations with rabbinic sources, etc., while other targumic specialists are interested in all these topics.
Other specializations are the Hebrew scrolls from the Judean Desert, medieval biblical manuscripts, the Masorah, Peshitta, Vulgate, and each of the secondary translations made from the LXX and Peshitta, and the computerized study of these texts.57
Specialization is beneficial for scholarship, as long as the results of that activity are shared with non-specialists.58 Textual studies published in general journals such as Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft (ZAW), Journal of Biblical Literature (JBL), and Vetus Testamentum (VT) may reach a wider public than if they were published in journals specializing in textual criticism.
9. Instituting of Projects
Specialization, as described above, always existed at a small scale, but in the past five decades it has proliferated exponentially. This increase coincided with the expansion of existing projects and the creation of new ones. Projects need specialized contributors, students or scholars, and one is either such a specialist before one joins a project or becomes one while working on the project.
Some such projects existed already fifty years ago (the Göttingen Septuaginta Unternehmen,59 the Leiden Peshitta Institute (now in Amsterdam), the Biblia Hebraica series, the HUBP), while others rose from the ground with the expansion of universities, or with funds made available by universities or national or international funding agencies. I am certainly not aware of all the projects that exist today or have existed in the past half-century, but I will do my best.
9.1 Text Editions and Websites
Pride of place goes to the classical text editions, Göttingen Septuaginta Unternehmen, the Leiden Peshitta Institute, Biblia Hebraica series, HUBP, Vetus Latina (Beuron), Edición políglota sinóptica de 1 Reyes 1–11 (Julio Trebolle, Pablo Antonio Torijano Morales, and Andrés Piquer Otero). New text editions are undertaken by these projects: HBCE (Hebrew Bible Critical Edition); Hexapla Project; CATSS (Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint Studies, Philadelphia – Jerusalem); Biblical Online Synopsis (Helsinki); Daughter versions of Esther, Text of Joshua, Salzburg University; THEOT (Textual History of the Ethiopic Old Testament); Targum Institute (targumm.nl); CAL–The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon; Eep Talstra Center for Bible and Computer, Amsterdam; the J. Alan Groves Center for Advanced Biblical Research, Pennsylvania. Websites include the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library60; Israel Museum61; and numerous websites on sources of the LXX62; numerous websites on Hebrew sources63.
9.2 Translations and Commentaries, Research Centers and Projects
Bible d’Alexandrie, Septuaginta Deutsch, Septuagint Commentary Series (Leiden: Brill: 2005–), ed. M. V. Spottorno and N. Fernández Marcos, La Biblia Griega – Septuaginta. Traducción española I–IV, forthcoming.
Research centers and projects include The Centre for Septuagint and Textual Criticism, Leuven; The Dominique Barthélemy Institute for the History of the Text and Old Testament Exegesis, Fribourg; Centre for the Study of the Bible, Oriel College, Oxford; The Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, Macquarie University, Sydney (NT parallels for the LXX); Targums WordMap, Bar-Ilan University.
10. Explosion of Organizations, Conferences, and Publications
Together with the explosion of projects, major sociological changes took place when specialized scholars organized themselves in professional organizations. I have witnessed this trend myself since 1969 when I joined the IOSCS (International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies). This organization has existed since December 1968 and it holds annual meetings in conjunction with the SBL (Society of Biblical Literature) and triennially with the IOSOT (International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament). It publishes information, bibliography, a monograph series (SCS), and an annual Bulletin (BIOSCS),64 which in due course became a journal, the Journal of Septuagint and Cognate Studies (JSCS).65
Similar organizations are: The International Organization for Targumic Studies (IOTS), that holds international meetings for research on Targum- related topics.66 Unrelated to the IOTS, Brill publishes the journal Aramaic Studies (volumes 1–20; 2003–2022), formerly Journal for the Aramaic Bible (1999–2002), published by Sheffield Academic Press. Both journals contain many studies on Targum-related subjects. The International Organization for Masoretic Studies (IOMS), established in 1972, organizes meetings in conjunction with the SBL and IOSOT.
Each of these organizations holds annual, biennial, or triennial conferences at which papers are read. In addition, papers on textual matters are read within larger frameworks and at the many conferences dedicated to general and textual studies, such as the numerous conferences dedicated to the Dead Sea Scrolls and biennial conferences organized by Septuaginta Deutsch in Wuppertal, Germany.67
The many publications on textual matters were mentioned in the previous paragraphs. This abundance of publications exceeds many times the numbers of publications preceding the 1970s.
While the regular journals such as VT, JBL, ZAW, DSD continued to publish text-critical studies, two journals were established that are earmarked for textual criticism (in addition to journals dedicated to the LXX, the targumim, and the Dead Sea Scrolls): Textus, A Journal on Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, was founded by the HUBP and published by Magnes Press for vols. 1–26 (1960–2016) and by Brill from there onwards (vols. 27–33; 2018–2024); and TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, an online journal, vols. 1–28 (1996–2023).
The establishing of professional organizations, the abundance of projects, and the manifold professional meetings advanced textual scholarship. The more organizations there were, the more meetings were held, resulting in more papers being produced. This vicious circle of organizations and papers put pressure on scholars, young and old, to initiate new investigations and to prepare new research papers. All this did not exist before the 1970s. It was a boon for scholarship, although some colleagues complain that the proliferation of meetings and the urge to present papers at these meetings necessarily resulted in some immature or hastily written papers.
11. Trends and Fashions
Before the 1970s there were fewer trends and fashions in the research. Scholars followed their interests when writing their research papers, but they did of course react to each other’s writings, especially in nineteenth-century Germany and in the United States. The generation of scholars with whom I studied in Israel, all born in Europe, spoke much about their practice of “philology,” the all-encompassing treatment of the text, a term I have not heard much in the last fifty years. I try to be a philologist myself, that is, someone who derives from the text everything that’s found in it.
In contrast to what came before, in the decennia since the 1970s one sees the development of trends and fashions in the topics to which scholars turn and on which they write. In a sense, the world has become one global scene, and scholarly developments in one country have influence internationally. Scholars cooperate easily via conferences, email, and by Zoom, and seminars that used to be given in Israel in Hebrew are now followed around the world in English (e.g., the Orion seminars). In this climate of global cooperation, it is easily understandable that new trends and fashions in research topics developed, for example, about:
New discoveries. Obviously, a new discovery such as that of the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic Scripture texts from the Judean Desert has attracted an unceasing flow of hundreds of publications. The same pertains to the Greek papyrus fragments from Egypt.
New research options. Already in 1970, in the third issue of the BIOSCS, Kent L. Smith wrote about the great possibilities of the computer for LXX studies.68 Soon thereafter, data entry of the LXX was started and several research projects were initiated, among them CATSS, co-directed by Robert A. Kraft and myself.69 This new tool is used as a new search engine that is more effective than the existing printed concordance; the resulting series of computer-assisted studies based on these data in the field of the study of translation technique and interchanges between MT and the LXX are equally important.70 In the field of Hebrew studies, clusters of studies were carried out on matters of orthography and vocabulary.
Kaige-Theodotion. After the discovery of the Greek Minor Prophets scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXII gr) that embodies an early revision of the LXX, Barthélemy suggested in 1963 that segments of the “LXX canon” also belonged to that revision. Ever since, many books have been written on this topic, conferences have been devoted to it, and this revision has become a major area of research.
Translation technique of the LXX. While some studies had been written in earlier decennia, in recent decades much work has been done in this area, especially by the Finnish school of research.71 Study of translation technique was recognized as an important area in its own right, but especially so as a first step in the recognition of the text-critical evaluation of the LXX.
Variant Literary Editions. Many segments in textual witnesses that attest to literary stages in the development of the Scripture books different from those of MT have been dubbed “variant literary editions.”
Translation Model. The theoretical translation model created by Gideon Toury72 has inspired many a LXX scholar, especially Albert Pietersma.
12. The Advent of the Computer
The computer brought unparalleled advantages to textual studies, probably more than to other areas of investigation of the Hebrew and translated Bible, and thereby changed its character in many ways, though the basic task of textual criticism was not changed. It was realized at an early stage that computer projects could prepare digital versions of all the texts and that the availability of these texts, combined with dedicated lexicons and collections of variants, would create new options for textual studies.73
13. In Conclusion, A Better World for Textual Studies?
Yes, a better world. Thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls, we possess many more data regarding the textual conditions in the last centuries BCE and the first century CE. This does not necessarily mean that we have more information regarding what the original texts of the Scripture books looked like. In my view, “the more we know, the less we know” since we now realize how complex the development of the Scripture books was between the time of their composition and the third–first centuries BCE. As in the past, scholars remain interested in the “original” text of Hebrew Scripture, and I do not think that this goal has changed. In my view, the lack of knowledge should call for more restraint and caution, but this is not always the case.
Looking back at the status of textual scholarship half a century ago, it is a better world now. Some concepts have changed. We know more, but we would be well-advised to emphasize what is still unknown. I do not know whether there are more persons involved, and not all of them come with the same linguistic training as in the past. However, we possess much more data, many more tools, we use computers, and there are meaningful projects.
Bibliography
Albright, William F. “New Light on Early Recensions of the Hebrew Bible.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 140 (1955): 27–33.
Allen, Leslie C. “Some Types of Textual Adaptation in Ezekiel.” Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses 71 (1995): 5–29.
Baillet, Maurice, J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux. Les ‘petites grottes’ de Qumrân. DJD III. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962.
Barthélemy, Dominique, et al. Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project. 5 vols. New York, N.Y.: United Bible Societies, 1974, 1979–1980.
Barthélemy, Dominique, et al. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2. Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamentations. Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986.
Barthélemy, Dominique, et al. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 3. Ézéchiel, Daniel et les 12 Prophètes. Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992.
Barthélemy, Dominique, et al. Studies in the Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012.
Barthélemy, Dominique, et al. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 5. Job, Proverbes, Qohélet et Cantique des Cantiques. Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015.
Brooke, George J. “What is a Variant Edition? Perspectives from the Qumran Scrolls.” In In the Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes: Studies in the Biblical Text in Honour of Anneli Aejmelaeus, edited by Kristin De Troyer et al., 607–622. Leuven: Peeters, 2014.
Cornill, Carl H. Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1886.
Cross, Frank M. “A New Qumran Fragment Related to the Original Hebrew Underlying the Septuagint.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 132 (1953): 15–26.
Cross, Frank M. “The Oldest Manuscripts from Qumran.” Journal of Biblical Literature 74 (1955): 147–172.
Cross, Frank M. The Ancient Library of Qumrân and Modern Biblical Studies. London: Duckworth, 1958.
Crawford, Sidnie White. “The Jewish and Samaritan Pentateuchs: Reflections on the Difference (?) between Textual Criticism and Literary Criticism.” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 9 (2020): 320–333.
Debel, Hans. “‘Greek Variant Editions’ to the Hebrew Bible?” Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010): 161–190.
Dijkstra, Meindert. “The Glosses in Ezekiel Reconsidered: Aspects of Textual Transmission in Ezekiel 10.” In Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation, edited by Johan Lust, 55–77. Leuven: University Press, 1986.
Ego, Beate. “1.3.3 Targumim.” In Textual History of the Bible, The Hebrew Bible. Vol. 1A: Overview Articles, edited by Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov, 239–262. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
Eichhorn, Johann Gottfried. Einleitung in das Alte Testement. 3 volumes. Leipzig: Weidmann, 1780–1783.
Elgvin, Torleif. The Literary Growth of the Song of Songs during the Hasmonean and Early-Herodian Periods. Leuven: Peeters, 2018.
Finsterbusch, Karin. “Traditional Textual Criticism Reconsidered: MT (codex L)-Ezek 35, LXX (papyrus 967)-Ezek 35 and Its Hebrew Vorlage as Variant Editions and the Implications for the Search for the ‘Original’ Text.” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 9 (2020): 334–345.
Fohrer, Georg. “Die Glossen im Buche Ezechiel.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 63 (1951): 33–53; Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 (1967): 204–21.
Fox, Michael V. Proverbs: An Eclectic Edition with Introduction and Textual Commentary. Atlanta, GA: The Society of Biblical Literature, 2015.
Gentry, Peter J. “Pre-Hexaplaric Translations, Hexapla, Post-Hexaplaric Translations.” In Textual History of the Bible, The Hebrew Bible. Vol. 1A: Overview Articles, edited by Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov, 211–235. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
Gesenius, Wilhelm. De Pentateuchi Samaritani origine indole et auctoritate commentatio philologico-critica. Halle: Bibliotheca Rengeriana, 1815.
Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H. “Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts: Their History and Their Place in the HUBP Edition.” Biblica 48, no. 2 (1967): 243–290.
Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H. The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Isaiah: Sample Edition with Introduction. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1965.
Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H., and Shemaryahu Talmon. The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Ezekiel. Jerusalem: Magnes, 2004.
Graves, Michael. “1.3.5 Vulgate.” In Textual History of the Bible, The Hebrew Bible. Vol. 1A: Overview Articles, edited by Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov, 278–289. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
Hausspie, Katrin. “Ezekiel.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint, edited by Alison G. Salvesen and Timothy M. Law, 275–289. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021.
Hendel, Ronald S. “The Oxford Hebrew Bible: Prologue to a New Critical Edition.” Vetus Testamentum 58 (2008): 324–351.
Hendel, Ronald S. Steps to a New Edition of the Hebrew Bible. Atlanta, GA: The Society of Biblical Literature, 2016.
Herrmann, J. “Stichwortglossen im Buche Ezechiel.” Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 11 (1908): 280–282.
Herrmann, J. “Stichwortglossen im Alten Testament.” Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 14 (1911): 200–204.
Hitzig, Ferdinand. Die Prophetischen Bücher des Alten Testaments. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1854.
Holmes, Samuel. Joshua: The Hebrew and Greek Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914.
Kahle, Paul E. “Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Pentateuchtextes.” Theologische Studien und Kritiken 88 (1915): 399–439. Reprinted in Paul E. Kahle, Opera Minora, 3–37. Leiden: Brill, 1956.
van der Kooij, Arie. “De tekst van Samuel en het tekstkritisch onderzoek.” Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 36 (1982): 177–204.
Kuenen, Abraham. An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch. London: Macmillan, 1886.
De Lagarde, Paul A. Librorum Veteris Testamenti Canonicorum, pars prior, graece. Göttingen: Dieterich, 1883.
Lange, Armin. “The Textual Plurality of Jewish Scriptures in the Second Temple Period in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In Qumran and the Bible: Studying the Jewish and Christian Scriptures in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by Nora Dávid and Armin Lange, 43–96. Leuven: Peeters, 2010.
Lilly, Ingrid E. Two Books of Ezekiel: Papyrus 967 and the Masoretic Text as Variant Literary Editions. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
Lofgren, Oscar. “Zur Charakteristik des ‘vormasoretischen’ Jesajatextes.” In Donum natalicium H.S. Nyberg oblatum, 171–184. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1955.
Longacre, Drew. “Developmental Stage, Scribal Lapse, or Physical Defect? 1QIsaa’s Damaged Exemplar for Isaiah Chapters 34–66.” Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013): 17–50.
Movers, Franz C. De utriusque recensionis vaticiniorum Ieremiae graecae alexandrinae et hebraicae masoreticae indole et origine commentatio critica. Hamburg: Fredericus Partner, 1837.
Müller, Reinhard, Juha Pakkala, and Bas ter Haar Romeny. Evidence of Editing: Growth and Change of Texts in the Hebrew Bible. Atlanta, GA: The Society of Biblical Literature, 2013.
Müller, Reinhard, and Juha Pakkala, eds. Insights into Editing in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East: What Does Documented Evidence Tell Us about the Transmission of Authoritative Texts? Leuven: Peeters, 2017.
Rabin, Chaim, Shemaryahu Talmon, and Emanuel Tov. The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Jeremiah. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1997.
Rofé, Alexander. The Religion of Israel and the Text of the Hebrew Bible: Corrections in the Biblical Texts in the Light of the History of the Religion of Israel. Jerusalem: Carmel, 2018. [In Hebrew.]
Rost, P. “Miszellen, I. Ein Schreibgebrauch bei den Sopherim und seine Bedeutung für die alttestamentliche Textkritik.” Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 6 (1903): 403–407, 443–446. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 7 (1904): 390–93, 479–83.
Schenker, Adrian, ed. The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 2003.
Shepherd, Michael B. “A Study in Variant Literary Editions.” In Textuality and the Bible, 61–77. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2016.
Smith, K. L. “Data Processing the Bible: A Consideration of the Potential Use of the Computer in Biblical Studies.” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 3 (1970): 12–14.
Thenius, Otto. Die Bücher Samuels erklärt, edited by M. Löhr. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1898.
Tigay, Jeffrey H., ed. Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Philadelphia, PA: University of Philadelphia, 1985.
Talshir, Zipora, and Dalia Amara, eds. On the Border Line: Textual Meets Literary Criticism. Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2005. [In Hebrew.]
Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. “Editing the Hebrew Bible: An Overview of Some Problems.” In Editing the Bible: Assessing the Task Past and Present, edited by John S. Kloppenborg and Judith H. Newman, 41–65. Atlanta, GA: The Society of Biblical Literature, 2012.
Toury, Gideon. Descriptive Translation Studies—and Beyond. Revised edition. Amsterdam: Benjamins Translations Library, 2012.
Tov, Emanuel. “Achievements and Trends in Computer-Assisted Biblical Studies.” In Proceedings of the Second International Colloquium. Bible and Computer: Methods, Tools, Results, Jérusalem, 9–13 juin 1988, edited by C. Muller, 33–60. Paris: Champion; Geneva: Sladkine, 1989.
Tov, Emanuel. “The Background and Origin of the Qumran Corpus of Scripture Texts.” In Sacred Texts and Disparate Interpretations: Qumran Manuscripts Seventy Years Later: Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, 24–26 October 2017, edited by Henryk Drawnel, 50–65. Leiden: Brill, 2020.
Tov, Emanuel. “Computer Assisted Research of the Greek and Hebrew Bible.” In Computer Assisted Analysis of Biblical Texts: Papers Read at the Workshop on the Occasion of the Tenth Anniversary of the “Werkgroep Informatika,” Faculty of Theology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, November 5–6, 1987, edited by Eep Talstra, 87–99. Amsterdam: Free University Press, 1989.
Tov, Emanuel. “Eclectic Text Editions of Hebrew Scripture.” In Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint: Collected Essays, Volume 3, 121–131. Leiden: Brill, 2015.
Tov, Emanuel. “Electronic Tools for Biblical Study at Home, at the University, and in the Classroom.” In Computer Assisted Research on the Bible in the 21st Century, ed. Luis Vegas Montaner et al., 45–60. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2010.
Tov, Emanuel. “The Greek Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert.” In Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran: Collected Essays, 339–364. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
Tov, Emanuel. “The Last Stage of the Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Book of Jeremiah, edited by Edward Silver and Louis Stulman, 129–147. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2021.
Tov, Emanuel. “Modern Editions of the Hebrew Bible.” In Textual Developments, Collected Essays, Volume 4, 77–96. Leiden: Brill, 2019.
Tov, Emanuel. “A New Generation of Biblical Research.” In Proceedings of the First International Colloquium. Bible and Computer: The Text, Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgique) 2–3–4 septembre 1985, 413–443. Paris: Champion; Geneva: Sladkine, 1986.
Tov, Emanuel. “A New Volume in the Biblia Hebraica Quinta Series: Genesis, by Abraham Tal.” In Like Nails Firmly Fixed (Qoh 12:11): Essays on the Text and Language of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures Presented to Peter J. Gentry on the Occasion of His Retirement, edited by Phillip S. Marshall, John D. Meade, and J. Kiel, 15–35. Leuven: Peeters, 2022.
Tov, Emanuel. “The Philosophy of the Biblia Hebraica Quinta Edition.” In La Bible en face. Études textuelles et littéraires offertes en homage à Adrian Schenker, à l’occasion de ses quatre-vingts ans, edited by Innocent Himbaza and Clemens. Locher. Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 95 (2020): 19–39.
Tov, Emanuel. “‘Proto-Masoretic,’ ‘Pre-Masoretic,’ ‘Semi-Masoretic,’ and ‘Masoretic’: A Study in Terminology and Textual Theory.” In Textual Developments, Collected Essays, Volume 4, 195–213. Leiden: Brill, 2019.
Tov, Emanuel. “Recensional Differences between the MT and LXX of Ezekiel.” In The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint, 397–410. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Tov, Emanuel. “The Search for an Original Text Form of the Hebrew Bible: Theory and Praxis.” Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology. Leuven: Peeters, forthcoming.
Tov, Emanuel. Studies in Textual Criticism, Collected Essays, Volume 5, 403–424. Leiden: Brill, 2024.
Tov, Emanuel. “The Textual Base of the Biblical Quotations in Second Temple Compositions.” In Textual Developments, Collected Essays, Volume 4, 3–20. Leiden: Brill, 2019.
Tov, Emanuel. “Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible in the Digital Age: Advantages and Disadvantages of the Use of Digital Tools.” Biblicum Jassyense, Romanian Journal for Biblical Philology and Hermeneutics 8 (2021): 5–14.
Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 4th edition, revised and enlarged. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2022.
Tov, Emanuel. “The Use of Computers in Biblical Research.” In Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran: Collected Essays, 228–246. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
Tov, Emanuel. “The Use of the Septuagint in Critical Commentaries.” In New Avenues in Biblical Exegesis in Light of the Septuagint. Vol. 1. of The Septuagint in Its Ancient Context, Philological, Historical and Theological Approaches, edited by Leonardo Pessoa da Silva Pinto and Daniela Scialabba, 41–58. Turnhout: Brepols, 2022.
Tov, Emanuel, and F. H. Polak. The Parallel Aligned Text of the Greek and Hebrew Bible. Division of the CATSS database, codirected by Robert A. Kraft and Emanuel Tov. Module in the Accordance and Logos computer programs, 2005; with updates, 2006–.
Ulrich, Eugene C. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible. Leiden: Brill, 2015.
Wellhausen, Julius. Der Text der Bücher Samuelis. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1871.
Wiener, Harold M. “The Recensional Criticism of the Pentateuch.” Biblical Studies 70 (1913): 278–290.
Williamson, H. G. M. “Do We Need A New Bible? Reflections on the Proposed Oxford Hebrew Bible.” Biblica 90 (2009): 153–175.
Williamson, H. G. M. “Scribe and Scroll: Revisiting the Great Isaiah Scroll from Qumran.” In Making a Difference: Essays on the Bible and Judaism in Honor of Tamara Cohn Eskenazi, edited by David J. A. Clines et al., 329–342. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2012.
An earlier version of this survey appears in my Studies in Textual Criticism, Collected Essays, Volume 5 ((Leiden: Brill, 2024), 403–24.).
E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (4th ed., Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2022), 1–2.
O. Thenius, Die Bücher Samuels erklärt, ed. M. Löhr (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1898), XXIV–XXIX.
C. H. Cornill, Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1886), 13–109.
See the analysis of the textual treatment of commentaries in my earlier study “The Use of the Septuagint in Critical Commentaries,” in New Avenues in Biblical Exegesis in Light of the Septuagint, ed. L. Pessoa da Silva Pinto and D. Scialabba (Turnhout: Brepols, 2022), 41–58.
Cf. R. Müller, J. Pakkala, and B. ter Haar Romeny, Evidence of Editing: Growth and Change of Texts in the Hebrew Bible (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2013), 225.
J. Wellhausen, Der Text der Bücher Samuelis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1871), xi: “… und es ist schwierig die Grenze zu finden, wo die Literarkritik aufhört und die Textkritik beginnt.” For a summary of Wellhausen’s views, see A. van der Kooij, “De tekst van Samuel en het tekstkritisch onderzoek,” NedTT 36 (1982): 177–204.
F. Movers, De utriusque recensionis vaticiniorum Ieremiae graecae alexandrinae et hebraicae masoreticae indole et origine commentatio critica (Hamburg: Fredericus Partner, 1837).
A. Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch (London: Macmillan, 1886), 76–80.
S. Holmes, Joshua: The Hebrew and Greek Texts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914).
J. H. Tigay, ed., Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia, PA: University of Philadelphia, 1985); A. Schenker, ed., The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 2003); Z. Talshir and D. Amara, eds., On the Border Line: Textual Meets Literary Criticism (Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2005) [in Hebrew]; Müller, Pakkala, and ter Haar Romeny, Evidence of Editing; R. Müller and J. Pakkala, eds., Insights into Editing in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East: What Does Documented Evidence Tell Us about the Transmission of Authoritative Texts? (Leuven: Peeters, 2017); Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 323–34; A. Rofé, The Religion of Israel and the Text of the Hebrew Bible: Corrections in the Biblical Texts in the Light of the History of the Religion of Israel (Jerusalem: Carmel, 2018) [in Hebrew].
E. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 2015). Ulrich discusses text samples in the following units: the Torah (with examples from pre-Samaritan scrolls 4QpaleoExodm, 4QExod-Levf, 4QNumb), Joshua (with examples from 4QJosha), Judges (based on 4QJudga), Samuel (with examples from 1QSam and 4QSama), Jeremiah (with examples from 4QJera,b), Isaiah (with examples from 1QIsaa and 1QIsab), and Canticles (4QCanta,b).
For some criticisms regarding Isaiah, see D. Longacre, “Developmental Stage, Scribal Lapse, or Physical Defect? 1QIsaa’s Damaged Exemplar for Isaiah Chapters 34–66,” DSD 20 (2013): 17–50, and H. G. M. Williamson, “Scribe and Scroll: Revisiting the Great Isaiah Scroll from Qumran,” in Making a Difference: Essays on the Bible and Judaism in Honor of Tamara Cohn Eskenazi, ed. D. J. A. Clines et al. (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2012), 329–42. The additions in 1QIsaa do not attest to content pluses in MT, but to scribal phenomena when in most cases scribe B left spaces that were filled in subsequently by other scribes, sometimes with petite letters: Isa 34:17b–35:2 (col. XXVIII 19, space left); 37:4 end–7 (col. XXX 11, space left); 38:19–22 (col. XXXII 12b, 13, 14, space left); 40:7b–8 (parablepsis = LXX); 40:14b–16 (col. XXXIII 14b, 15, 16, space left).
G. J. Brooke, “What is a Variant Edition? Perspectives from the Qumran Scrolls,” in In the Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes: Studies in the Biblical Text in Honour of Anneli Aejmelaeus, ed. K. De Troyer et al. (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 607–22.
For the latest studies, see The Oxford Handbook of the Book of Jeremiah, ed. E. Silver and L. Stulman (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2021), including my own study “The Last Stage of the Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah,” 129–47.
E. Tov, “Recensional Differences between the MT and LXX of Ezekiel,” in The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 397–410.
H. Debel, “‘Greek Variant Editions’ to the Hebrew Bible?” JSJ 41 (2010): 161–90; I. E. Lilly, Two Books of Ezekiel: Papyrus 967 and the Masoretic Text as Variant Literary Editions (Leiden: Brill, 2012); M. B. Shepherd, Textuality and the Bible (Eugene, Or.: Wipf & Stock, 2016), 61–77; K. Finsterbusch, “Traditional Textual Criticism Reconsidered: MT (codex L)-Ezek 35, LXX (papyrus 967)-Ezek 35 and Its Hebrew Vorlage as Variant Editions and the Implications for the Search for the ‘Original’ Text,” HBAI 9 (2020): 334–45; T. Elgvin, The Literary Growth of the Song of Songs during the Hasmonean and Early-Herodian Periods (Leuven: Peeters, 2018); K. Hausspie, “Ezekiel,” in Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint, ed. A. G. Salvesen and T. M. Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021), 275–89.
In their case studies, Müller, Pakkala and ter Haar Romeny, provided valuable examples of editorial processes that created literary differences without implying that they represent a universal phenomenon, cf. Müller, Pakkala and ter Haar Romeny, Evidence of Editing. For a discussion of the variant literary editions, see H. Debel, “‘Greek Variant Editions’;” and Lange, “The Textual Plurality of Jewish Scriptures in the Second Temple Period in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Qumran and the Bible: Studying the Jewish and Christian Scriptures in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. N. Dávid and A. Lange (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 43–96.
Thus, details in the short edition of LXX-Ezek were often preferred to their counterparts in the long edition of MT in that book. These and many similar minuses in the LXX (3:18, 5:14, 5:15, 6:6, 8:3, 16:13, 20:28, etc.) were often preferred to MT, while described as frequent glosses or interpolations in MT-Ezek. See P. Rost, “Miszellen, I. Ein Schreibgebrauch bei den Sopherim und seine Bedeutung für die alttestamentliche Textkritik,” OLZ 6 (1903): 403–7, 443–46; 7 (1904): 390–93, 479–83; J. Herrmann, “Stichwortglossen im Buche Ezechiel,” OLZ 11 (1908): 280–82; idem, “Stichwortglossen im Alten Testament,” OLZ 14 (1911): 200–204; G. Fohrer, “Die Glossen im Buche Ezechiel,” ZAW 63 (1951): 33–53 = BZAW 99 (1967): 204–21; M. Dijkstra, “The Glosses in Ezekiel Reconsidered: Aspects of Textual Transmission in Ezekiel 10,” in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation, ed. J. Lust (Leuven: University Press, 1986), 55–77; L. C. Allen, “Some Types of Textual Adaptation in Ezekiel,” ETL 71 (1995): 5–29.
For example, in the apparatus of Jer 27:19, 22; Ezek 1:27; 7:6–7.
The notation heralds much progress. However, the first eight volumes of BHQ published until 2021 do not use this term for the canonical books. See E. Tov, “A New Volume in the Biblia Hebraica Quinta Series: Genesis, by Abraham Tal,” in Like Nails Firmly Fixed (Qoh 12:11): Essays on the Text and Language of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures Presented to Peter J. Gentry on the Occasion of His Retirement, ed. Ph. S. Marshall, J. D. Meade, and J. Kiel (Leuven: Peeters, 2022), 15–35.
Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 331.
E. Tov, “The Greek Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert,” in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran: Collected Essays (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 339–64.
P. J. Gentry, “Pre-Hexaplaric Translations, Hexapla, Post-Hexaplaric Translations,” Textual History of the Bible, Vol. 1A, 211–35.
B. Ego, “1.3.3. Targumim,” in Overview Articles, vol. 1A of Textual History of the Bible, The Hebrew Bible, ed. A. Lange and E. Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 239–62.
Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 119–21.
W. Gesenius, De Pentateuchi Samaritani origine indole et auctoritate commentatio philologico-critica (Halle: Bibliotheca Rengeriana, 1815).
See the verdict of M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, “Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts: Their History and Their Place in the HUBP Edition,” Biblica 48 (1967): 243–90.
Mainly in Exodus, Kings, Jeremiah, and Esther.
It is unclear when the term was introduced into the scholarly jargon. H. M. Wiener, “The Recensional Criticism of the Pentateuch,” Biblical Studies 70 (1913): 278–90, uses both the terms ‘text types’ and ‘recensions.’ In discussions of the ancient Scripture texts, it is often assumed that within the textual variety some ‘text types’ may be recognized, but the recognition of a text type is problematic. In my view, except for the editorial changes of the SP group, it is difficult to identify typological features in the other texts known before and after 1948.
The assigning of individual Qumran texts to a specific ‘text type’ is reflected in the literature from the first volumes of the DJD series onwards, when most of the new scrolls were described as belonging to the ‘type’ of MT, while some scrolls were assigned to the ‘type’ of the LXX or SP. For example, 2QDeutc was described as reflecting a textual tradition close to the LXX and V in DJD III, 61. According to J. T. Milik, 5QDeut was systematically revised according to the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX (DJD III, 170). Milik similarly described 5QKings as reflecting a mediating position between the recension of MT and that of the LXX (DJD III, 172). While these three short texts did not display a convincing level of agreement with the LXX, other texts showed surprising proximity to the LXX. The first such scroll to be considered close to the LXX was the rather well-preserved 4QSama. The approach to this scroll, which was soon to be accepted in scholarship, was indicated by the name of an early study by F. M. Cross, “A New Qumran Fragment Related to the Original Hebrew Underlying the Septuagint,” BASOR 132 (1953): 15–26. Similar claims were made afterwards by Cross regarding 4QSamb in “The Oldest Manuscripts from Qumran,” JBL 74 (1955): 147–72. In ALQ1, 133–40, Cross had remarkably good insights into the scrolls that he considered to be close to the LXX and that were eventually accepted as such. The argumentation was completed when additional (‘pre-Samaritan’) texts that belonged to the SP ‘type’ were discovered at Qumran: 4QpaleoExodm and 4QNumb.
“The Background and Origin of the Qumran Corpus of Scripture Texts,” in Sacred Texts and Disparate Interpretations: Qumran Manuscripts Seventy Years Later: Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, 24–26 October 2017, ed. H. Drawnel (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 50–65.
For the full details, see Tov, “The Use of the Septuagint in Critical Commentaries.” Note further several commentary series on the LXX mentioned there. These commentaries react to the text of the LXX, and only some of them (especially Septuaginta Deutsch) comment on the relation between the Hebrew and the Greek. None of them relate to the LXX and MT as equal partners as do the four commentaries mentioned here.
See the summary of S. White Crawford, “The Jewish and Samaritan Pentateuchs: Reflections on the Difference (?) between Textual Criticism and Literary Criticism,” HBAI 9 (2020): 320–33.
Ego, “1.3.3 Targumim,” 239–62.
M. Graves, “1.3.5 Vulgate,” in Overview Articles, vol. 1A of Textual History of the Bible, The Hebrew Bible, ed. A. Lange and E. Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 278–89.
Initially there was some confusion regarding which ancient texts could be named the precursors of the medieval text. The confusion started with W. F. Albright, “New Light on Early Recensions of the Hebrew Bible,” BASOR 140 (1955): 28–29, probably the first scholar to use the term ‘proto-Masoretic,’ as he applied that term even to 1QIsaa describing it as a text “belonging to the proto-Massoretic type, though it has a much fuller vocalization.” In the same year, O. Lofgren wrote his “Zur Charakteristik des ‘vormasoretischen’ Jesajatextes,” in Donum natalicium H.S. Nyberg oblatum (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1955), 171–84.
Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 37–40.
Critique textuelle 1992, xcviii–cxvi; idem, Studies, 383–409 (389). See E. Tov, “‘Proto-Masoretic,’ ‘Pre-Masoretic,’ ‘Semi-Masoretic,’ and ‘Masoretic’: A Study in Terminology and Textual Theory,” in Textual Developments: Collected Essays (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 4: 195–213.
E. Tov, “The Textual Base of the Biblical Quotations in Second Temple Compositions,” in Textual Developments: Collected Essays (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 4: 3–20.
F. Hitzig, Die Prophetischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1854).
Cornill’s far-reaching reconstructions follow the rules set up in his theoretical introduction. Thus, in the reconstruction of Ezek 1:1–13 (160 words; v. 1 was excluded by Cornill as an editorial addition), twenty-four words differ from MT based on the LXX (= 15%) and seventeen words were emended (= 11%), creating a text that differed from MT in 26 percent. In 7:1–14 (182 words), forty-eight words (26%) were corrected with the LXX, and thirteen words were emended (7%), together 33 percent. The changes in the latter case are more pervasive than indicated by the percentages since Cornill also followed the sequence of the verses of the LXX in vv. 2–9. Cornill’s reconstructions reflect a very bold approach. For further details, see E. Tov, “The Search for an Original Text Form of the Hebrew Bible: Theory and Praxis,” Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology (Leuven: Peeters, forthcoming).
In Cornill’s edition of Jeremiah in the Haupt series, the level of deviation from MT was not as massive as in his own Ezekiel edition, but the sequence changes need to be added to these small changes. In chapter 27 (419 words), Cornill changed (mainly omitted) fifty-two words with the LXX (12 percent) and emended fourteen words (3 percent) together 15 percent. However, the level of deviation is greater since the sequence of the chapters was changed as well. In 1 Samuel 1 (414 words), Budde changed MT in twenty-two words following the LXX (5 percent) and emended the text in twenty-eight words (7 percent), together 12 percent. I mention these percentages in order to contrast them with modern editions.
In comparison with Cornill, Wellhausen’s edition of Psalms in the Haupt series is characterized by modest intervention, mainly by way of emendation. For example, in Psalm 68, Wellhausen corrected sixteen details in MT, two words (0.5%) with the versions and fourteen emendations = 4.5 percent (together 5 percent of the text words). For further details, see Tov, “Search for an Original Text Form.”
M. V. Fox, Proverbs: An Eclectic Edition with Introduction and Textual Commentary (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2015).
D. Barthélemy et al., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, 5 vols. (New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1974, 1979–1980).
Idem, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 3 vols. (Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986, 1992, 2005.
No changes from MT are recorded in the volumes of the HUB, but they do witness the trend that is described here, since from the very first volume (M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Isaiah: Sample Edition with Introduction [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1965]) they have abstained from any judgment concerning differences between MT and the versions.
E. Tov, “Modern Editions of the Hebrew Bible,” in Textual Developments: Collected Essays (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 4: 77–96.
For a critical analysis of BHQ, see Tov, “The Philosophy of the Biblia Hebraica Quinta Edition,” in La Bible en face. Études textuelles et littéraires offertes en homage à Adrian Schenker, à l’occasion de ses quatre-vingts ans, ed. I. Himbaza and C. Locher, Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 95 (2020): 19–39; and idem, “A New Volume in the Biblia Hebraica Quinta Series: Genesis, by Abraham Tal,” in Like Nails Firmly Fixed (Qoh 12:11): Essays on the Text and Language of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures Presented to Peter J. Gentry on the Occasion of His Retirement, ed. P. S. Marshall, J. D. Meade, and J. Kiel (Leuven: Peeters, 2022), 15–35.
Fox, Proverbs. The system is outlined by R. S. Hendel, “The Oxford Hebrew Bible: Prologue to a New Critical Edition,” VT 58 (2008): 324–51; idem., Steps to a New Edition of the Hebrew Bible (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2016). For an analysis, see E. Tov, “Eclectic Text Editions of Hebrew Scripture,” in Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint: Collected Essays (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 3: 121–31; H. G. M. Williamson, “Do We Need A New Bible? Reflections on the Proposed Oxford Hebrew Bible,” Biblica 90 (2009): 153–75; E. J. C. Tigchelaar, “Editing the Hebrew Bible: An Overview of Some Problems,” in Editing the Bible: Assessing the Task Past and Present, ed. J. S. Kloppenborg and J. H. Newman (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2012), 41–65.
Goshen-Gottstein, HUB: Isaiah; C. Rabin, Sh. Talmon, and E. Tov, The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Jeremiah (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1997); M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, and Sh. Talmon, The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Ezekiel (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2004).
Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 407–10.
E. Tov, “Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible in the Digital Age: Advantages and Disadvantages of the Use of Digital Tools,” in Biblicum Jassyense, Romanian Journal for Biblical Philology and Hermeneutics 8 (2021): 5–14.
J. G. Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Alte Testement, 3 vols. (Leipzig: Weidmann, 1780–1783).
P. A. de Lagarde, Librorum Veteris Testamenti Canonicorum, pars prior, graece (Göttingen: Dieterich, 1883).
P. E. Kahle, “Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Pentateuchtextes,” Theologische Studien und Kritiken 88 (1915): 399–439. Reprinted in Paul E. Kahle, Opera Minora (Leiden: Brill, 1956), 3–37.
On the computerized Scripture study alone, many monographs have been written and conferences have been held.
A good example is the encyclopedic handbook THB (Textual History of the Bible) that is used by specialists and nonspecialists alike.
Discontinued, but continued partly as a Psalter edition project, funded by the Academy at Göttingen, and the Robert Hanhart-Stiftung zur Förderung der Septuaginta-Forschung.
https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/, last accessed October 25, 2023.
https://www.imj.org.il/en/wings/shrine-book/dead-sea-scrolls, last accessed October 25, 2023.
See Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, ch. 8.11, http://oldtestamenttextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2011/, last accessed October 25, 2023.
See Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, ch. 3.10; 5.7, http://oldtestamenttextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2011/, last accessed October 25, 2023.
Volumes 1–43, 1968–2010.
To date, volumes 44–56, 2011–2023.
http://targum.info, last accessed October 25, 2023.
Published in Die Septuaginta–Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten: Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20.–23. Juli 2006, ed. M. Karrer and W. Kraus, WUNT 219 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008) and subsequent volumes.
K. L. Smith, “Data Processing the Bible: A Consideration of the Potential Use of the Computer in Biblical Studies,” BIOSCS 3 (1970): 12–14.
E. Tov and F. H. Polak, The Parallel Aligned Text of the Greek and Hebrew Bible (division of the CATSS database, codirected by R. A. Kraft and E. Tov); module in the Accordance and Logos computer programs, 2005 (with updates, 2006–).
E. Tov, “Achievements and Trends in Computer-Assisted Biblical Studies,” in Proceedings of the Second International Colloquium. Bible and Computer: Methods, Tools, Results, Jérusalem, 9–13 juin 1988, ed. C. Muller, Travaux de linguistique quantitative 43 (Paris: Champion; Geneva: Sladkine, 1989), 33–60.
I. Soisalon-Soininen, A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo.
G. Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond, revised edition (Amsterdam: Benjamins Translations Library, 2012).
See some of my earlier studies: “A New Generation of Biblical Research,” in Proceedings of the First International Colloquium. Bible and Computer: The Text, Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgique) 2–3–4 septembre 1985 (Paris: Champion; Geneva: Sladkine, 1986), 413–43; “Computer Assisted Research of the Greek and Hebrew Bible,” in Computer Assisted Analysis of Biblical Texts: Papers Read at the Workshop on the Occasion of the Tenth Anniversary of the “Werkgroep Informatika,” Faculty of Theology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, November 5–6, 1987, ed. E. Talstra (Amsterdam: Free University Press, 1989), 87–99; “The Use of Computers in Biblical Research,” in Tov, Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran, 228–46; “Electronic Tools for Biblical Study at Home, at the University, and in the Classroom,” in Computer Assisted Research on the Bible in the 21st Century, ed. L. Vegas Montaner et al., Bible in Technology 8 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2010), 45–60. For some of the disadvantages of the use of computers, see Tov, “Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible in the Digital Age.”