Criteria for Evaluating Textual Readings: The Limitations of Textual Rules

HTR 75:4

429-48

(1982)

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING TEXTUAL READINGS: THE LIMITATIONS OF TEXTUAL RULES Tov

Emanuel The Hebrew

Old Testament (such "on the

as "on the

textual

of

University

criticism

on variant

focuses

in the

seventh

Jerusalem

MT of

day" in the Samaritan

readings as opposed to and in the LXX and

Gen 2:2

sixth Pentateuch day" and these must be evaluated Peshitta) carefully. readings the seventeenth abstract rules have been forEver since century, These abstract of textual for the evaluation mulated readings. and each of OT scholars rules are of different types generation the

has

a different

a few such

rules

to them. approach were suggested,

In the but

seventeenth

after

that

of for and employment a growing appreciation one discovers a frequent the present century a blind in-textual belief rules. often Several when textual formulated This textual

questions variants

are are

and employed? paper reflects rules in current

poet and textual reacted studies), against his paper "The Application Housman,

posed here: evaluated?

Are they a reaction

at

Which all

of

In

rules.

reliance

on-

and

are

used

criteria these

criteria

been

and useful? practical use of the frequent

OT scholarship, just critic (specializing earlier

century only one notices

textual

How have

against

time

in

as

generations. Thought to Textual

in

1922, classical

A. E.

Housman entitled Criticism,"2

a

list for the To the best of my knowledge, the earliest of rules suggested in OT sources is that of B. Walton, Biblia of readings Polyglotta, comparison in F. Wrangham's edi(London: Roycroft, 1657) 1. 36-37 (reprinted Prolegomena Other rules for textual tion of the Prolegomena 1828] 332-36). [Cambridge, for the "correction" of MT evaluation are included ("emendation") among rules Critica such as suggested or for the "detection of errors," by L. Cappellus, Sacra (Paris, 1650; G. I. L. Vogel and I. O. Scharfenberg, eds., Halae, 1775-86) Ars Critica J. Le Clerc (Clericus), (Amsterdam: Gallet, 1697) VI.VIII.17-20; in universos VT libros Notae criticae (Frankfurt: chap. XVI; C. F. Houbigant, et Wenner, 1777) CXVI-CXXIV. With regard to the employment of texVarrentrap followed the lead of other disciplines, OT scholars tual rules, especially studies and the study of the NT. For example, Cappellus, classical though not of textual but certainly the author of the first fullthe father criticism, critical of the text and versions scale of the OT, quoted extensively analysis Cicerfrom H. Estienne's In Marci Tulii textual treatment of Cicero: (VI.XII) locos castigationes onis quamplurimos (Paris: 1577). Stephanus, Proceedings Selected Prose,

of the Classical Association 18 (1922) 67-84; ed. J. Carter (Cambridge: Cambridge University,

in reprinted 1961) 131-50.

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL

430

which

title not

first

nesses

seems

sight without

considerations

or stemmatic textual

was established, of the relative

regard one followed had applied Karl Lachmann,3who texts as well as to classical the

assessing the "cult not

are

to

of

have

value

was not

position as it then,

needs

to

on

heavily decision the

between

textual

often

witon

evaluated stemma.

In

an authority than to medieval German and

theories

It

New Testament.

was Housman's

of avenues, namely, His struggle against that even the "best" MSS

readings.

showed manuscript" late sources and that also

That

reiterated

no less

best

flawless

readings.

of

paper

MSS in the

those

alternative

stressed

intrinsic the

his the

was

of

MSS were

of

criti-

Housman's their

stemma

of

position the lead

this

virtue

in

readings

how can textual relied

in

Once the

readings.

basis

great

for

absurd,

thought? However, when scholars 1920s,

in the

superfluous

genealogical different the

at

be practiced

cism

REVIEW

contain

new in

it

1922, yet be repeated now for

"original" needed to the

be

Old Testa-

ment. Before some of

we must define to the issue under investigation, used in textual and terminology followed procedures connected to textual rules is closely for one's approach a of the as the whole. of task discipline perception we turn

the

criticism, with his

sources:

Textual named textual from the

All

sources,

Judean

Desert,

sources

namely, and the

the

witnessing MT, Samaritan ancient

text

of

Pentateuch, versions.

the

OT are

scrolls

in the text are named readAll elements (variant) readings: from a given in that differ details MSS all and similarly ings, which are that variant are called readings readings, is, yardstick In the case of the OT, MT is with the basd text. at variance which so that all details taken as the base for all comparisons, called

from MT are

differ omissions

variant

differences

(minuses),

additions

readings(substitutions),

(pluses), and transposi-

tions.4 The

procedure

on two

levels.

nation

of

the

of

textual

Textual

criticism:

textual

The first

level

readings

is

that

from both

of

the

Hebrew

criticism

collation

operates

or exami-

and non-Hebrew

on the writings of Karl Lachmann (1793-1851), details For bibliographical Criticism of New Testament Textual see B. M. Metzger, Chapters in the History (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963) 143 n. 4. witnesses of the OT with MT in the textual of details The comparison no value judgment; rather than another source (such as a Qumranscroll) implies in to their inferior are not intrinsically that is, "variants" counterparts rethat text is the textus MT. MT has been chosen as the base text because accessible. and easily and as such it is complete ceptus,

EMANUELTOV sources

(for reconstruction

the

second

these

ancient

of

the

this

versions

Hebrew

text

used

431

the

implies by the

are

stage readings evaluated, value is assessed with the express parative the "better" or "original" from the reading This is a presumptuous and complex procedure, to its details, but also with regard to the

that

conjectural At a

translators). their is,

intention

com-

to

select

transmitted not

readings. only with regard essence of the

very Some questions come to mind. For example, immediately is it at all correct to presuppose an original text of the Bible? If there existed such an original which criteria, if any, text, have been established for reconstructing In the present that text? we cannot even list all the problems connected with context, evaluation.

determining let alone

and reconstructing the nature I shall them. therefore

of

discuss

statements

programmatic

before

analyzing

the

presumed

limit the

myself

procedure

to of

urtext, a few evalu-

ating. At a certain cal

books

in time, the literary point growth of the bibliat least for those who accepted the necessarily ended, canonical form of the books as final. The date of this

present moment cannot but

book, to assume

be determined

and it

these

difficulties

despite that at that

easily, and other6

differed it

from book is

to

reasonable

time the actual textual transmission began. scribes the biblical point merely copied books, onwards, in the course and although of that process were many elements

From this

and omitted, in the first altered, added, certainly generations, were these limited to mere At the beginning details. of changes the textual we thus one which transmission, posit copy incorporated the final and this text may, for the sake literary product, of

convenience,

An exception

be called

the

Urtext

of

the

biblical

books.

This

should be made for the major changes in the "proto-Samaritan"

texts and the Sam. Pent., whose idiosyncracies were (4QpaleoExm, 4QNumb, etc.) added to the proto-Masoretic base text. The same applies to the accretions to Daniel and Esther in the parent text of the LXX. A major difficulty is created that in some books the by the situation transmission textual started before the final form of the actually literary was produced. Earlier "drafts" or editions of these books preceded composition the final and although as much as the final products, they were not circulated in a written in principle, still product itself, they existed form, and could, be attested textual This happened in the book of Jerewitness. by an ancient edition is now attested in 4QJerb and the LXX. See E. miah, where an earlier of the Textual and Literary of the Book of Jeremiah," Tov, "Some Aspects History in P.-M. Bogaert, de Jer6mie (BETL 54; Leuven: Peeters, 1981) ed., Le livre For further 145-67. see E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuaexamples, in Biblical Research Biblical Studies gint (Jerusalem 3; Jerusalem: Simor,

1981) 293-306.

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

432

is then, criticism

urtext, Textual

of

the

ultimate

the

does

not

biblical

goal of our text-critical aim at one of the stages which

books

created

forms the were

the

after

any given

as

a deuterono-

aim at one

of

the

that is, one of urtext, textual traditions which the

after

period

underwent

devel-

such

the

of completion as the various

(such

hyparchetypes in vogue in

urtext

that

preceded opment form of a book that the pre-deuteronomistic Nor does textual criticism mistic revision.

analysis. the

of

of

creation

the

ur-

text).7

The reconstruction

of

as in

criticism, We shall

but, not be able

to

cal book, but it is elements struct of selected

from the

is

readings,

original reading, such as synonymous any other pair of

possible, that text,

that

of

uation

for

for

8

or

long

exist

the

of

override

other

From the for

is

the

or

questionable

subjective reading, constituent of

nature

of

the

as

it

the used

criteria

in

in the evalin other words, reading, is us in particular What interests evalfor this fixed or criteria any objective the procedure as a whole remains subjective.

just

one

lectio

evaluative seventeenth

OT textual

that

the

literature

creates

the

impression the use of textual through consider the emmany scholars

can be obtained

objectivity

To give

a whole

and necessary

here

though for example,

ployment

are equally readings good, or versus short readings, these on matters of doubts

original variants.

even

rules.

readings, reconstructed

when two

example,

readings

the

textual

there

uation, One notes, that such

individual

is,

or sometimes

a legitimate

remains

search

whether

textual

be achieved.

cannot life, the urtext of any given bibliand certainly to reconlegitimate,

transmitted

comparison. The issue discussed

this

aim of

reconstruct

readings. However, as render the procedure The search for the original

incorrect. may be, textual

the

it

do not

detail

thus

in

evidence, or archethese When selecting original in a presumptuous and precarious we are involved for deciding Often we simply lack criteria upon the

undertaking.

listed

ideals

emendation.

by conjectural typal

urtext

this

all

example,

difficilior

an

objective

which

criterion

may

considerations. century criticism,

canons onward, textual Walton for example, by

have

been

in the

the for Interpreting Pace M. Greenberg ("The Use of the Ancient Versions of who reckons with the possibility Hebrew Text,"VTSup 29 [1978] 131-48), different readings. hyparchetypal tions

in the see S. Talmon, "Synonymous Readings For examples, 8 (1961) of the Old Testament," Hierosolymitana Scripta

Textual 335-85.

Tradi-

EMANUELTOV his

to

Prolegomena

9

Polyglot, de Wette,

Davidson, Porter, the twentieth century

in the

Loisy,

433

nineteenth

Kennedy,

by Steuernagel,

but

we are

often cal

Payne,

aware

that

the

from

other

"imported"

textual the

study of the realized

textual

rules.

Davidson,

for

only with discussed

of

areas

and the

philology Some scholars

criteria

of

OT research, below were classi-

especially

research, NT.

limitations

Wiirthwein,

Deist,

Klein,

by de Rossi, and in Noth,

Bentzen,

Coppens,

Thompson, Barth-Steck, and several others.l Barth6lemy, Hayes, is concerned The present investigation Archer,

century and Smith,l

the

of

employment

wrote:

example,

Many writers have tried to frame general rules, by which an accurate judgment may be formed concerning various readings. that such rules as we have seen propounded But we are satisfied if any use. No one is guided by them in practice. are of little Nor can they secure an accurate judgment in all cases.1 Davidson However, Other scholars

9

himself believe

a very long provided that the employment

list

of such

of

intrinsically

rules.3

See n. 1 above.

Introduzione alla Sacra Scritture B. de Rossi, (Parma: Stamperia ducale, Criticism with their Apof Textual J. Scott Porter, Principles 1817) 99-100; to Old and New Testament (London: Simms and MacIntyre, 1848); S. plication View of a Systematic on Biblical A Treatise Criticism, Exhibiting Davidson, Gold and Lincoln, That Science 1853) 382-87; W. M. L. de Wette, Lehr(Boston: und apokryphischen in die kanonischen buch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung BUcher des Alten Testaments (8th ed.; Berlin: Reimer, 1869) 233-40; A. Loisy, de la Bible et des versions du texte (Amiens: Imprimerie Histoire critique J. Kennedy, An Aid to the Textual 1892) 1. 239ff.; Rousseau-Leroy, generale H. P. Smith, Amendment of the Old Testament Clark, 1928) 189-231; (Edinburgh:

Samuel (ICC; New York: Scribner, C. Steuernagel,

Lehrbuch

1899) 395-402. der Einleitung

Mohr, 1912) 72-73; J. Coppens, "La critique ment," hagen:

Bib 25 (1944) 9-49; A. Bentzen, Gads, 1948) 1. 94-98; M. Noth,

in das Alte

Testament

(Tubingen:

du texte hebreu de 1'Ancien Testa-

to the Old Testament (CopenIntroduction V. I. The Old Testament World (trans.

Fortress, 1966) 358-63; G. L. Archer, A Survey of Old Gruhn; Philadelphia: Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 1964) 50-53; D. F. Payne, "Old Testa-

25 and Practice," Its Principles Criticism: ment Textual Tyndale Bulletin of the Old Testament Criticism Textual (PhiladelR. W. Klein, (1974) 99-112; OT," IDBSup, 1974) 69-75; J. A. Thompson, "Textual Criticism, phia: Fortress, der Leitfaden H. Barth and 0. H. Steck, Exegese des Alten Testaments, 888-91; 1976) 20-26; F. E. Deist, Methodik (2d ed.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, Pretoria: D. R. W. K. Winckler; (trans. Towards the Text of the Old Testament The Text of the Old Testament E. Wurthwein, Church Booksellers, 1978) 243-47; D. BarthelE. F. Rhodes; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) 116-17; (4th ed.; trans. and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Preliminary emy et al., New York: United Bible Societies, 1979) V-XXXII; J. H. Hayes, Report (4 vols.; 1979) 80-81. to Old Testament Study (Nashville: An Introduction Abingdon, 12 383. on Biblical Treatise Criticism, Davidson, 382-87. 13Ibid., 80. Testament Study,

For similar

remarks,

see

Hayes,

Introduction

to Old

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL

434

correct

rules

forms

the

to

key

REVIEW

an objective

evaluation.

For ex-

Volz:

ample,

Ein Ziel solchen Arbeit, einer solchen Arbeitsgemeinschaft und musste sein, das ein Regelbuch zur Textkritik Arbeitsverteilung des ATgeschrieben werden und jedem Mitarbeiter auf diesem Gebiet Noch wichtiger als der Inhalt ausgehandigt werden konnte. ... des Regelbuches ware die Tatsache, das ATliche Textkritik etwas Methodisches ist und nach Regeln zu verlaufen hat.14 such

Indeed, on

the

a Regelbuch and

Preliminary

has Interim

One further so abstract, understandable.

should point that illustrations

now been

written

p. 443

(see

below

Report).

be noticed. could

are necessarily made them more easily withusually presented Rules

have

these are rules However, and this situation that any illustrations,5 may indicate scholars did not want to commit themselves, knowing that most means. examples may be explained by alternative out

We now turn I.

External

and internal criteria

found, variant

while

the

criteria

in

suggested

literature.

is

often

criteria

made in

the

(considerations) to the document

refer internal

criteria

bear

literature relating in which

on the

between to the

external Ex-

variants. variant

intrinsic

value

is of

the

The frequent to external reference considerations from NT textual where these criteria were used criticism, itself.

derives as textual lowing tion of

the

criteria

A distinction ternal

to

from the seventeenth guides century have been brought external criteria to readings

in the

textual

criticism

of

onward.6 bear the

on the

The folevalua-

OT:1

14

P. Volz, "Ein Arbeitsplan fur die Textkritik des Alten Testaments," ZAW 54 (1936) 107. An exception should be made for Payne, "Old Testament Textual Criticism." see E. J. Epp, "The Eclectic Method in New Testament Textual 1For details, Criticism: Solution or Symptom?"HTR69 (1976) 211-56; idem, "Textual Criticism, These criteria have been summarized by Epp ("Eclectic NT," IDBSup, 891-95. Method," 243) as follows: 1. A variant's manuscripts, or by manuscripts support by the earliest texts. assuredly preserving the earliest 2. A variant's support by the "best quality" manuscripts [this criterion see in fact, both internal and external considerations, represents, below p. 436 ]. 3. A variant's support by manuscripts with the widest geographical distri4.

bution. A variant's

by one or more established

support

recognized antiquity, nized "best quality." The first

scholar

groups

character, and perhaps location, (Italics my own.)

to use external

criteria

extensively

of manuscripts

that is,

of

of recog-

was probably

EMANUELTOV status

A. Unequal

In Klein's

of

textual

435

sources

words:

the Samaritan a variant that occurs in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Pentateuch, or LXXwill probably be given more attention than if it appears in a Targum or in one of the daughter translations of the LXX.18 By similar Samaritan contain ments

reasoning, Pentateuch

in some Qumran scrolls because these

variants are

often

and in the

scorned

many secondary readings. based on an unequal status

However, of textual

sources

in my view, all argusources are questionto all variants pertains

this criticism able. Among other things, retroverted for these variants from the ancient versions, as Hebrew variants, if indeed valid are retroverted they no distinction Likewise, ancient versions. Thus, more significant variants individual

variants than

worthy verted

should while than

be made between

all

reliably, same token, readings such as the Qumran scrolls, less attention because given By the

the

from have

in the

other

an equal Samaritan

Isaiah complete these sources

been

Once retro-

versions. claim

to

Pentateuch

is

as

follows

by P.

A. de Lagarde

for

not

be

many secondary some statisti-

to of

a "conservative" textual My view reflects not influenced considerations by stemmatic

formulated

originality. and some

should

scroll, contain

when compared with MT. There certainly readings to the preference cal validity of given documents not this should influence the evaluation judgment readings. which is

reliably. different

the

LXX reflects, on the whole, other versions together, from the LXX are not more trust-

all

retroverted variants

as

the

retroverted

variants

are

but others, individual approach and which

MSS of

has

the

LXX:19 keine hds der LXXso gut ist, dass sie nicht ich glaube. ..dass oft genug schlechte lesarten, keine so schlecht dass sie nicht mitunter ein gutes kSrnchen bote.20

Davidson (Treatise on Biblical Criticism). However, some of these criteria were used already before him; see, e.g., Walton, Biblia Polyglotta. 18 19

Klein,

Textual

Criticism,

P. A. de Lagarde,

74.

Anmerkungen

zur griechischen

Ubersetzung

der Proverbien

(Leipzig: n.p., 1863) 3. 2The main exception to this view refers to medieval Hebrew MSS, since most of the variants contained in them developed at a late stage, sometimes in the Middle Ages themselves. See M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, "Hebrew Biblical ManuTheir History and Their Place in the HUBPEdition," Bib 48 (1967) 243scripts: one should allow himself some form of prejudice with regard 90. As a result, to these MSS.

HARVARDTHEOLOGICALREVIEW

436 B.

Preference

MT

for

make statements

Many scholars the reading equal, tion

implies of a variant

of

such

unequal

nature

the

previous

rule).

"all

other

things being this be preferred" formula(since it presents of textual witnesses, For example, WUrthwein:21

MT should

the

as

As a general rule M is to be preferred over all other traditions or for its whenever it cannot be faulted either linguistically material content, unless in particular instances there is good reason for favoring another tradition.22 the

Indeed,

of MT deserve, on the whole, more respect readings found in other sources, but this statistical infordecisions in individual not influence instances,

than

readings mation should

the exceptions to this situation because are involved, When judgments statistical it certainly influences although relevant, MT is

Furthermore, in scrolls

not

book.

every

more trustworthy This situation

and at the

more difficult

less

scholars

unconsciously. LXX or Qumran even generalizations

than

the

makes

may create generalizations of a different for the LXX or 4QSama type (such as the preference in Samuel, or for the LXX or 4QJerb in Jeremiah), but these genunfounded. equally be noted that considerations

should

reflecting ingly external criteria. given source, to induction then

Broad

It

21

A and B, although seemand combine internal actually criteria, in a An initial for many elements preference on internal leads by way of considerations,

external

based

a general an external

yields instances by way of

C.

time

are

eralizations It

same

are not predictable.23 information becomes

preference criterion

that

for which

That

source.

is

preference individual

in

used

deduction.

attestation

is

often

WUrthwein,

claimed

Text of

the

that

the

better

Old Testament,

a variant

attested

is,

the

114.

0. Thenius, Die BUcher Samuels (ed. M. L8hr; KeHAT; 3d ed.;

2Likewise Leipzig: precedee

de Samuel, La version 1898) XCI; J. Meritan, Hirzel, grecque des livres sur la critique d'une introduction textuelle 1898) 58; Noth, (Paris,

Exegese,

23.

Old Testament World, 359; Thompson, "Textual Criticism," Thus also

J. Wellhausen,

Der Text

W. Davies

and D. Daube,

eds.,

Samuelis

der Bucher

hoeck, 1871) passim; P. Katz, "Septuagintal The Background

Vanden-

(Gottingen:

in the Mid-Century," in W.

Studies of

888; Barth and Steck,

the

New Testament

and Its

Es-

1956) 199; Smith, Samuel, 399, chatology (Cambridge: Cambridge University, reacting against Lohr (n. 22): "Where G and H show variant readings, both being grammatically

intelligible,

and the decision ity."

they

have prima

facie

equal

claims

to attention,

between them must be made on the ground of internal

probabil-

EMANUEL TOV

24 is.24 Sometimes

more trustworthy it is stressed.25 Often

the

is

the

phrased

distribution

geographical negatively,

for

as,

ex-

and others:

by Barth6lemy

ample,

rule

437

If a form of the text occurs in only one tradition, for example, the Targum, Syriac, or Vulgate, one is less inclined to regard it as original than if it occurs in more than one such tradition.26 the same author(s) However, mines and, in fact, cancels

the argument which underprovide(s) the aforementioned consideration:

In certain instances a variant form of the text may appear to have a broad base, in that it is represented in a number of different textual traditions, but a closer examination of the situation may reveal that these traditions have all followed the same interpretive tendency.2 on a broad

attestation

of

textual evidence is never neither in the case of Hebrew MSS nor in that of the profitable, ancient for that broad attestation could have been versions, created coincidence. by a historical Long ago it had been recogRelying

nized

that

this

dictum

most

MSSof

manuscripta

non

ponderantur,

is

usually applied Kennicott are derived

to

In

numerantur.

indicate

that

OT research

sometimes

all

or

from

one particular reading, in value to a reading transmitted equal by only a single MS. The same argument may be used with regard to the ancient Several versions. versions such as the may be interdependent, and the Peshitta in certain and LXX, Vulgate, possibly books,

which

is

hence

a broad

verted their

intrinsic

often

preferred

D.

Age

of

Older because

attestation

variants

should

value, to well-attested

textual

older

variants.

witnesses

witnesses "the

Hebrew and retromay be misleading. therefore be judged of only on the basis and consequently are minority readings

are one

often is

likely

to

preferred to

have

more

been

recent less

ones,8

exposed

28 to

24

to make this claim was probably Walton (Biblia The first 37; Polyglotta, cum pluribus et melioris notae p. 334 in Wrangham's edition): "Quae lectio codicibus est ei, quae paucioribus vel non ita accurate congruit praeferenda codicibus nititur." scriptis Archer, 26

Survey,

52.

and Interim IX. Preliminary Report, However, the Report "On the other hand, in treating textual one must not evidence, one must weigh them." ditions, 27 "factor 2." Ibid., 28

hastens to add: count text tra-

2Walton (Biblia was probably 37; p. 334 in Wrangham's edition) Polyglotta, the first to make this claim: "Quae ex codicibus elicitur antiquioribus lectio, 'ceteris debet ei quae recentioribus paribus', praeferri colligitur."

HARVARDTHEOLOGICALREVIEW

438 textual

than

corruption disliked sometimes

the

one."9

younger

as "die

29

For this

reason

und schlechteste

jungste

MT is

Form des

"30

Bibeltextes. Reliance cause

the

more

likely

on age of documents closer the document is it

is

that

it

in principle the time of

to

bedesirable, the autograph, the

the wording of that autoin practice of logic does not hold, graph. However, since different of transmission have created too many exceptypes to that rule. For example, a conservative tions community such as who transmitted the people the MT have left the biblical text preserved this type

for hundreds while in anof years, unchanged already the Qumran scribes modernized and inserted often changes of the Bible. Thus the Isaiah scroll from the copies

virtually tiquity in their

B.C.E. is further century MS written in a Masoretic

first than

The fallacy showed Semler3

of

this

in the

NT contain

the

has

is

their

the

recent

research,

century was recognized J. S. long ago. that some "late" MSS of eighteenth century which are closer to the original than

attacked strongly non deteriores."32 In addition geographical terion for

and accordingly he reckoned In of codices. antiquity

on the

reliance

too,

in

by Pasquali the

to

originality,

age

of

above-mentioned

titled

external is

with

connection

been

"recentiores the

criteria, used as

sometimes

in

has

documents

an analysis

of readings 33 but usually

provenance

Isaiah

C.E.

rule

sources, and "external"

"internal"

of

urtext

ninth

readings in "old" counterparts

with

from the

removed the

a criother

ones. Internal

II.

If

external with

are

left

the

intrinsic 29

Criteria

Deist,

criteria internal value

Towards

the

are

not

Text of

valid that

criteria, and content

of

the

the

in the is,

case

criteria

of

the

bearing

OT, we on

readings.34

Old Testament,

232.

H. S. Nyberg, "Das textkritische Problem des Alten Testaments am Hoseabuche demonstriert," ZAW52 (1934) 242. 31 J. S. Semler, Hermeneutische 1765) 3/1. 88. Vorbereitung (Halle, G. Pasquali,

Storia

della

tradizione

e critica

del

testo

(2d ed.;

Firenze:

Felice

le Monnier, 1952) chap. 4. 3Especially by those scholars who adhere to a theory of local texts (refor references, see Klein, Textual Criticism. censions); 34 In the textual criticism of the is made between NT, usually a distinction two types of internal criteria recently formulated as fol("probabilities"), lows by B. M. Metzger

don, 1968] 208-11):

(The Text

of

the New Testament

(A) Transcriptional

probabilities,

[2d ed.;

Oxford:

Claren-

such as the lectio

EMANUELTOV are

criteria

internal

The following

439 in OT textual

recognized

criticism: A.

difficilior

Lectio

more

("the

difficult

reading")

praeferenda/

This

("is to be preferred").35 For example:

praevalet/praestat in different ways.

rule

is

phrased

there was a tendency for When a text was particularly difficult, to simplify the text by employing ancient scribes and translators contextually more fitting lexical, grammatical, and stylistic are often spoken of as "facilitating"). forms (these modifications Hence, when textual is sometimes dubbed as the

one(s) reflects

the

"easy" original

variation as the

is

one of the readings encountered, and the other "difficult" reading, with

is logical, as some "difficult" 37 scribes with easier ones. placed by the basic However, validity although it is at the same time problematic denied,

this

that

the implication From a theoretical

one(s), text.

rule

the

former

of view, point were indeed readings

of

this

rule

rebe

cannot

and impractical. First the evidence itself does not present all, enough controllable cases of the replacement of "difficult" ones by "easier" readings as to warrant a general this rule does More importantly, rule. not take into consideration scribal as has been errors, simple of

by

recognized scribal

error

38

scholars.

many creates

a lectio

After difficilior.

all,

by definition, 39 If there

every had

been

a

lectio such as the style and (B) Intrinsic brevior; difficilior, probabilities, the book, the immediate context, of the author throughout and harvocabulary For the distinction, see already mony with the usage of the author elsewhere. Greek (LonB. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original In the textual 2. 19-30. don: Macmillan, criticism of the OT, this 1881-82) not made. distinction is usually I do not know research of the NT, ardua") in praestat Schramm, (Tubingen: from Epp, "Eclectic

when this rule was introduced into OT scholarship. In the it has been used since J. A. Bengel ("proclivi lectioni the "Prodromus" (1725 [1734]) to his Gnomon Novi Testamenti The "Prodromus" was not accessible to me; I quote 1742). Method," 220.

and Interim Report, IX (factor For similar 4). Preliminary 3Barthelemy, see Bentzen, Introduction to the Old Testament, Texformulations, 97; Klein, Towards the Text of the Old Testament, tual Criticism, 244-45. 75; and Deist, of this rule are questionable; 37All illustrations its yet they illustrate In Gen 2:2, "on the seventh in background. day" of MT was probably replaced the Sam. Pent. or in their parent text) (and also in the LXX and Peshitta by "on the sixth it was not conceivable to some ancients that God day," because His work on the seventh finished that He also worked on that day. day, implying the reading of MT is original. In another a to this logic, case, According word and a hapax legomenon, difficult sobel in IQIsaa by (MT), was replaced (Isa 47:2). ?Qlayik 38 Introduction to the Old Testament, Bentzen, E.g., 97; and Steuernagel, 97. Lehrbuch, 39eScribal

errors

are found

in all

textual

witnesses, witnesses,

but

opinions opinions

differ

440

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL

consensus rule

with

could

whether

or not

of

rule

regard to the be practical,

still

the

REVIEW

recognition but since

a given variant difficilior

was

lectio

of

scribal

it

is

the by scribal error, be applied profitably. rule is so subjective that it

created

cannot

the application Moreover, be called a textual can hardly or contextually a linguistically

of

is

not

are

Furthermore, others equally

or two equally difficult, the more difficult locate or easier

to

well?40 b.

to

difficult

See

Lectio

also

another

the

The logic

preferred").41

the

rule

or canon.

difficult

For what

looks

like

to one scholar, reading often two readings Do we have easy.

one.

in

reading

cases

such

as

(p. 448).

postscript

brevior/brevis

the errors, not clear

often

potior

("the

behind

this

shorter

is

rule

is

reading

to

be

well

formulated

by

with regard to their recognition. Rdm ,n nK in the MTof Jer 23:33 is difficult since its use of nR is unprecedented. It reflects a lectio difficilior compared with

the

contextually

of the LXX. Most scholars

appropriate

Kbnnl QIK (6uieTS

OTc

agree that the reading of MTreflects

as

T6 A.Lua)

a scribal

while the LXX reflects error (incorrect the original word-division), reading. views on this or other variations, as is shown However, there are no accepted written in defense of MT: N. Walker, "The Masoretic of by an article Pointing Jeremiah's rP3 in Jer 41:9 indiN1i 1iI511 Pun," VT 7 (1957) 413. Likewise,

in my view, a contextually

cates,

nal reading (RM15f 9cCYLV). Here, too, Lexicography Ugaritic in mentioned readings difficilior does not 40 A case in point

11 a)

is

unexplainable

some scholars

I," Bib 44 (1963) 302-3. MT resulted from scribal apply to them. is

scribal

LXX (48:9:

ppCap

while the origiiLyca

ToOT6

M. J. Dahood, "Hebrew

the If, as I believe, the rule of the error,

aforelectio

1 Sam 1:23:

111t nD (1nin, T6

error,

defend MT. See, e.g.,

MT 4QSama LXX

in the

reflected

ix

eEesX6v

p7 1IN)

I D1 NY tl, aou TOo aT6uaTr6

or internal in favor of or In our view, there are no external considerations MT or 4QSama= LXX. Both readings are possible, against or, in other words, Elkanah speaks of Hannah's oath (vs 11), which in easy. they are equally to explicitly, but in MT the oath is presented as God's 4QSama= LXX is referred text word. can reflect the original (cf. p. 432), Only one of these two readings and an equal claim can be made for a change of the reading of MT to that of The following too, are 4QSama= LXX and for the reverse change. readings, "easy": equally 1 Sam 1:24

MT 4QSama LXX xacL &avtln

;nDy In5yl 11N 5Yynl uEc- au-CoO

derived from lnK, which was understood as either The LXX and 4QSama are probably or Joto. 0itto of equally "difficult" is admittedly The recognition very subjecreadings In our view, nninn tive. n1lY 13 of MT in 1 Sam 20:30 ("the son of a perverse, rebellious as the reading of 4QSamb: n1nin n'y3 1I = woman") is as difficult The reading LXX Yt~ a6ToloXoTovTwv maidens"). ("son of deserting xopaoolcov of because while that of 4QSamb is difficult of MT is linguistically difficult, its contextual (or a third one) reimplications. Only one of these readings the original flects text. 41 do not know when this rule was first applied to the OT. I

do not

know

when

this

rule

was

first

applied

to

the

OT.

EMANUELTOV

441

Klein: Unless there is clear evidence for homoeoteleuton or some other The form of haplography, a shorter text is probably better. people who copied manuscripts expanded the text in several ways: whereas they made subjects and objects of sentences explicit they were often only implicit in the original text; they added words or ideas; and glosses or comments to explain difficult when faced with alternate readings in two or more manuscripts they were copying, they would include both of them (conflation) While some scribes in a serious attempt to preserve the original. may have abbreviated from time to time, we believe that the inof a shorter reading as abbreviation should only be terpretation chosen as a last resort.42 This lectio

seems

rule

perfectly

this

logic to add details in the

case

scholars.44

rule

than of

its

yet

difficilior,

behind

to

is

raison

omit

Also, that

but

few such

sources

to add details tendency the would not justify scribal

difficulties,

are (parablepsis) hard to distinguish

the

addition/omission,

Survey

known

more prone not true certainly

this

is

demonstrated

however, of this

for

a clear example, even this knowledge rule.

Beyond

these

homoioteleuton/homoioarcton

by this a scribal

75.

of Old Testament

The

were

been

(note,

and

rule,

it

and since

is

often

and a content

phenomenon is not practical.45

rule

suggested

Textual Criticism,

Klein, Archer, 43

are

covered

the

attacked.

by several OT, it cannot be decided is original. It would be reading tend to add or omit desources

in IQIsaa); automatic use

between

often

the

of

haplography

not

is

scribes

them, but as has

the shorter automatically to know whether certain helpful tails,

more so than

even

d'etre

ancient

that

NT scribes, in the case

all

43

logical,

Similarly

L6hr (see n. 22 above) XLI; 52.

Introduction,

4For example, in the following instances it is more likely was added as an explanation than dropped as superfluous: 1 Sam 2:21 MT (5K1sni) y;1 (5t' 1) = LXX

that an element

4QSama

1 Sam 2:22

MT 4QSama]nt

1 Sam 1:24 44

MT 4QSama

(rKn IpT )5YI) = LXX t07yyn 1

(

,,

)

(C;iw D019) 6i51 (ViJ5n n1p:4[)= LXX

See the recent discussion by J. R. Royse, "Scribal Habits mission of New Testament Texts," in W. Doniger O'Flaherty, ed., Study of Sacred Texts (Berkeley Religious Studies 2; Berkeley: logical Union, 1979) 139-61 (including references to the earlier A. C. Clark and E. C. Colwell). 3 MT 5E.g., 1 Chr 11:31: 135 LXX e- BouvoO BEVLcOLLV nyVn) (1n3 The shorter dittography lography.

in the TransThe Critical Graduate Theostudies of ny3an

1 Sam 13:15; (cf. 14:16) with reading of the LXX could be original in MT, or secondary created (for MT, cf. 2 Sam 23:29), by hapIn that case, the differences would have been created by a scribal

442

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL

The

rules

aforementioned

c.

to

Assimilation

This

parallel

has

criterion

difficilior

brevior

and

the

main

additional

rules

which readings rules in mentioned have

been

suggested:

(harmonization)

passages

been

of

percentage they are the

Yet, a few

and only

handbooks,

lectio

a small

to only can be applied need to be evaluated. the

the

of

REVIEW

formulated

as

follows:

Some variant forms of a text arose because ancient editors, assimilated the text of one passage scribes, or translators, to that of a similar or proximate passage, usually with the apparent purpose of attaining greater consistency.46 This

criterion

can be taken the

for

difficilior, the other

the

reading

a sub-category of the lectio is the "easier" reading one, and more "difficult" This criterion is one.

and its correct, when in two Thus, parallel text other MSS of b, while basically

are

of

suspect

d.

having

as

assimilated

been

is

application texts some

not

MSS of

too

text

a differ

from b, the assimilated to b.4

complicated. a agree with former MSS of a

modification

Interpretive

In some instances a particular form of the text may appear to be essentially That is to say, certain ancient interpretive. scribes or translators editors, may have thought that the underlying text should be changed or amplified to conform to Or they may have wished certain views, primarily theological. the text to state explicitly a meaning which was not completely Such variant forms of the text which would have arisen clear. in later phases of textual development cannot be regarded as valid alternatives.48 This

rule, that

subjective cepted

can be taken

too, Needless

difficilior.

rule.4

it

to

becomes

say,

very

as the

a sub-category application

as

impractical

of of

this

the rule

a generally

lectio is

so

ac-

49

phenomenon. However, it is also possible that '3n was omitted or added because of contextual reasons. Likewise: some scholars ascribe most or all of the minuses of the LXX in Jeremiah to its shorter Hebrew Vorlage, but in some instances a case can be made for omission by a scribal phenomenon (homoioteleu01KIl nK n5a:i. 27(34):5 27(34):20 Y-,;(yNMI...) nlSa--22 minus in 39(46):4-13 is ascribed by some to homoioteleuton; W. Rudolph, Jeremia (2d ed.; HAT; Tubingen: Mohr, 1958). ton): large

46

Preliminary

and Interim

Report,

XI (factor

5).

This phenomenon occurs frequently in similar verses context and in adjacent chapters) and to a lesser extent and Isaiah 36-39 //2 counts in Samuel-Kings //Chronicles Preliminary

49yIn the

and

Preliminary

Interim

Report,

and Interim and Interim

XI

(factor

Report Report

this this

Even the see, e.g.,

(both in the immediate in the parallel acKgs 18:13-20:19.

7).

rule rule

is is

not not

used used

very very

ofen often.

443

EMANUELTOV

eral

Having issues.

the

reviewed

in the

research.

on the

other

the

Preliminary

rules

by Barthelemy Interim

seems

to

wrong

light,

Report,

in

variants

the

although

a given textual gument often cannot be condensed A similar who

outlook

claims

that

"the

the

not

evidence" Payne but his

(that then

is, sets

In this listed

in

analysis they In each passage is prereadings

OT.

which

rules

New

an article Bible:

English

much valuable

some of

be used

the

rules

as the

sole

of

arguments rules.

by D. F. Payne The

ar-

such

preference? Moreover, into any narrow scheme

Old

(see

n.

Testament

50 do companion5 to Payne, criteria."51 According heeded the principles of the lectio

sufficiently lectio

Since

how can they

underlies the

research, n. 14) has

textual

the

of

notes.

1970) University, proper text-critical the

difficilior,

ings).

the

Oxford

NEB has

amples,

of

books

are

rules

status

recent

of textual procedures volumes themselves contain

in especially are questionable,

for

the

textual

course all

in

work, it in the criticism

the

present

me,

information, themselves

the

the

and this

by Volz (see (see n. 11).

and others

but, the

The hand-

objective. status, as

variation one of the occurs, a rating of A to D) on the basis of the The four volumes to by number. of this

(with referred

(Oxford: not use

analysis an official

with

textual

ferred

11),

they were used intuitively, created that was constantly

one hand,

and in the

introduction, to applied

are

we now turn to some gendetail, rules has never been clear

as outspoken and prescriptive such as intended a Regelbuch

and

in which

textual

On the

For example, now been prepared

are

in

of

hand, the impression the rules renders the

very use of books provided has never been

the

rules

The status

brevior,

the

and its

and

the

textual

"importance

of

weighing

NEB has

readill-attested accepted out to prove his point exby selected can be are not unequivocal.5 Readings In textual critisometimes ways. opposed,

examples in different, explained can have the same cism, two diametrically opposed explanations claim for correctness, so that no single be accused should system

The Hebrew Text of the Old Testament-The L. H. Brockington, Readings Bible of the New English (Oxford: Oxford University, Adopted by the Translators 1973).

104. 5Ibid., 52 in the LXXof Gen 31:13 reflect E.g, why does the addition of O56peCc a lectio facilior (thus Payne) and not the translator's exegesis? If the latter were correct, the LXXwould not reflect a different possibility reading, and its Vorlage (= MT)does not need to be evaluated on a text-critical level. Likebetween the are there any solid the differences for evaluating criteria wise, MT and LXX in Gen 48:15? Does the plus of the LXX in Gen 48:15 indeed reflect in MT, and could it not reflect omission in scribal addition an interpretive the LXX or its Hebrew parent text?

HARVARDTHEOLOGICALREVIEW

444

of

being

does

not

ance

of

incorrect.

methodologically that

imply them

Neither

one's that

imply the

conclusions are

they

are

rules

nor

correct,

does

avoid-

incorrect.

and

Preliminary

on textual

Relying

Interim

nor

Report

article

Payne's

be singled out for criticism, since they merely represent the traditional to the textual is rules which also reapproach in other works. flected we find the following faults To summarize, should

in the

traditional The logic

1.

behind

lectio

cilior,

approach: is

some rules

diffi-

(lectio

questionable

brevior).

of abstract The application rules does not make the proceThe evaluation of remains the most objective. readings of textual the subjective part procedure. 2.

dure

The textual

3. the

no valid

rules

which

readings 4. Textual

rules

external

These

are rules

criticisms

to for

Within

much use

example,

limited (except

do not

be abandoned.

must

can be applied to be evaluated.

need

is

made of

more, to the

must

be realized the

rules,

very

MSS of

the

rules

criticism

selection

of

is if

whole

are

of

conclusion the

evaluation. since

the

tive,

evaluation

is

fact,

very

therefore, attention

little

very

the

or

Hebrew

For the

very there

are

Bible, Hebrew OT, Further-

limited.

objective aspects a particular rule remains can be characterized as reading

conclusions, thus renders

or an in-

error,

interpretations and the subjectivity the

as

procedure

the

some general reflections Since some of the

they do not cover selection of the

highly

external

analyze to the use

The quintessence

to

leads

textual

questionable, and since

ated,

incorrect

a

subjective. This

ture

exist

the NT, for and the same

etc.

For example, a given subjective. either a lectio a transcriptional difficilior, of one of these the choice terpretive gloss; to different leads necessarily in the selection of this rule

There

of

criteria," of witnesses

even

of

MT).

are

"external

that

fraction

evidence.

medieval

imply that the textual

a small

only

internal

to that of the individual applies such as the text of the LXX, Peshitta, the rules of these though, employment it

to

in

guidance

of

textual

of

textual

of

this

this

rules scholar

evaluation.

with

evaluation,

rules. evaluation

to

cases

textual

and the

subjective,

nature

all

on the textual

is

to

select

na-

rules

be evaluis

subjecin has, Let

us,

special from the

EMANUELTOV different

transmitted

appropriate of concept

in

the one which is the readings reading In the course of this context. selection,

the

the

445

"context"

is

in

taken

most the

a wide

to sense, referring the immediate context and

and content of both language, style, This procedure in which the reading the literary unit is found. at the same the allows scholar much necessarily liberty and, him with responsibility when he has to find his way burdens time, the "conSince of data and considerations. a labyrinth through

the of

text"

is

ments

bearing

in

taken

a wide

he has

sense,

on different

the language disciplines: as of individual as well

literary

and books, chapters, unit or book, including In short, one has and geography.

ual

verses, a given

of

trum of these,

It

is

areas to

must

sometimes which

of that

said in

refer

hence

to

and argudifferent

to

the

most

the

types

one must natural

data

Bible

as

a whole

of

exegesis content general

individ-

as biblical

history

the

such

with

reckon

by biblical be aware of the

in particular transmission, of that transmission. course "original" the others,

units, and the

covered

disciplines the scholar

to

of the text, aspects and vocabulary of the

the

philology. intricacies of choose

that

way explains

or from which

whole

specIn addition to of

errors

and ideas

the

made in

textual the

as reading of the origin This formulation

all others developed.54 a guidance can be considered for the correct, hardly criticas it has been presentedtextual for it is so general it is almost to mention that it. Among other superfluous things, but

is

refers

it

to

the

glosses, to unusual

errors, refers

it

choice

of

original

tendentious yet

original

ones and, conversely, to corrupt as opposed ones. The upshot of this analysis, corrected

readings

alterations,

as opposed and omissions.

forms linguistic to linguistically

to

scribal It

also

as opposed to correct forms

is that textual evaluation then, It is an art in the full rules. by any fixed of the word. It is a habit sense which can be developed. It is based on much experience. It is the art of guided by intuition the problems, of finding for and against the arguments defining cannot

be bound

originality evaluation often

deals

of textual the quintessence readings. Indeed, the formulation and weighing of these One arguments. with arguments which cannot be compared at all, such of

is

53See p. 432 and n. 7. 54 buch,

Treatise Davidson, E.g., Introduction 73; Bentzen,

Ancient Versions,"

148.

on Biblical Criticism, to the Old Testament,

385; Steuernagel, 1. 97; Greenberg,

Lehr"Use of

HARVARDTHEOLOGICALREVIEW

446 as the

the morpholoof a given its unit, style literary language, and smooth flow of a given of biblical the or logical gy Hebrew, is Within this there room for more text. subjective evaluation, That view which presents than one view. the most convincing arguthe best one. no decision is ments is probably Often, however, between between synonymous as, for example, readings, possible, texts two equally These or between good readings. long and short for do not render the whole procedure difficulties questionable, is

such

the

nature

of

solutions often suggest on the previous suggested In deciding upon the one tries

to

Needless

the

undertaking. which differ

completely

one will

to

say, from the

ones

day.

most appropriate contextually reading, and inner as much as possible to the language When unit under consideration. doing so, literary

adhere

of the dynamics is one influenced

by his

for own feeling for consistency.

and his own feeling logic to remember the words of Westcott

that

and Hort

his

language, It is wise,

own

therefore, criticism:

on NT textual

There is much literature, ancient no less than modern, in which it is needful to remember that authors are not always grammatical, or felicitous; so that not seldom an oror clear, or consistent, dinary reader finds it easy to replace a feeble or half-appropriate word or phrase by an effective and thus the best words substitute; to express an author's meaning need not in all cases be those which he actually employed.55 Because to

of

be covered

claimed should

that be

the

wide

in the

and disciplines range of aspects it is of that evaluation, course lies

evaluation

left

beyond

textual

that

have

sometimes it

and that

critics,

to

etc. historians, Indeed, exegetes, linguists, discicritics know too little about the biblical many textual and but at the same time many exegetes mentioned plines above, know too little of the about the textual transmission linguists so that it is Bible, in textual evaluation.

hard

to

of

is the main task of reading as subjective as subjective guide,

and not

abstract

B. F. Westcott

A. Hort,

1881-82)

This

This is

Common sense is

not

to

The New Testament

say in

involved

should

most

contextually textual critic.

can be.

be

actually evaluation

the

the

rules.

and F. J.

(Cambridge/London: Macmillan,

who should textual

Ideally,

procedure. the choice

interdisciplinary To conclude,

say

be an

appropriate procedure his main that

the

the Original

is rules Greek

2. 21.

on textual In a modern treatise L. Bieler criticism, quoted the sevenet res ipsa centum "Nobis et ratio scholar as follows: teenth-century Bentley I should like to add et centum regulis." See The Gramcodicibus sunt. potiores Studies An Introduction to Textual Criticism marian's Craft: (Classical Folia, Classical of the Classics; New York: Catholic in the Christian Perpetuation

EMANUEL TOV

must

be

nize

their

abandoned.

rather

argument turies.

which

to

the

admit

On the

was

in

subjective create objectivity In the wake of these

Cappellus'

in the

vogue

hand, in nature

other

to

hopes

be

always

but

used,

one

must

recog-

When stressing the common sense of the than anything I reflect a line of else,

limitations.

critic

textual

will

They

447

of

times

textual

by resorting it is remarks,

of

description

seventeenth

modern

the

textual

one

and eighteenth cenis often afraid and one

evaluation, to abstract in

order

rules.

to

from

quote

evaluation:

sed intrinseca quaerenda nempe sunt argumenta non extrinsecus assumta, et insita. et plane Herculeum, petitum Atque hoc unum est invictum ex sensu quem utriusque Codicis lectio ex se fundit. Ea nempe lectio melior est, in se indubitato atque praeferenda, quae sensum parit veriorem, planiorem, aptiorem, concinniorem, commodiorem, consequentibus et antecedentibus menti et scopo scriptoris magis cohaerentem, ac totius analogiae magis propiorem atque congruentiorem, scripturae in quocunque tandem Codice illa lectio conformem concordemque, 7 occurrat. in

Likewise, stand

the

nineteenth

century

the

careful

remarks

of

deWette

out: Die streitenden Aussagen der Zeugen konnen weder nach der Menge, noch nach dem Alter, sondern allein nach dem kritischen Charakter derselben beurtheilt FUr den kritischen der Zeugen aber gilt werden. Charakter kein Vorurtheil welches sich auf kritische als dasjenige, Beurtheilung der Lesarten im Ganzen grundet, deren Grundsatze nun entwickelt werden sollen.58

evaluated

it seems spirit, also in the present

Association

of Greater

In this

Critica 58

New York,

to

me, ought textual era of scholarship.5

n.d.)

readings

edition).

For the modern period, see Housman's paper (n. Criticism and Common Sense," Romance Philology bibliography).

59

be

45.

Sacra, book VI, chap. XVI (p. 719 in Scharfenberg's

233-34. 5Lehrbuch, and E. B. Ham, "Textual 198-215 (with (1958/59)

to

59

note on the relation 5Additional between and the NT: If the above analysis is correct, in the textual different criticism approaches

2 above) 12

the textual of the OT criticism should probably scholars employ In of the Old and New Testament.

is not surprising, since each literature should be principle this situation approached according to the inner dynamics of its own textual transmission. textual rules are frequently used in the textual criticism of Traditionally, the NT, and if these rules are used prudently and critically, their employment in the NT than in the OT. Differences is more appropriate in approach to the of textual in the OT and NT derive evaluation from the following: readings of the NT are much closer sources in time to their 1) Textual supposed original

text

than those of the OT.

as a result of this situation, the extent of textual is variation 2) Probably much smaller for the witnesses of the NT than of the OT. of the NT reckons with literally thousands of documents, 3) The text criticism is often legitimate for which the use of external criteria and certainly necesIn the case of the OT, a much smaller number is involved-individual MSS sary. of the ancient versions and medieval Hebrew MSS may be excluded for this evaluFor further on the evaluation ation. details of readings in the textual

448

HARVARDTHEOLOGICALREVIEW

Postscript: son's recent Textual

At the

of proofreading stage Lectio "Difficilior

article, and Its Criticism

5-18. (1981) value of the

Use

Albrektson's lectio

difficilior

I received

B. Albrekt-

Probabilior--A in Old Testament Studies,"

conclusions are

with similar

Rule

of

OTS 21

regard to the limited to my own (p. 440).

of Epp cited in n. 16 above, the criticism of the NT, see the two articles bibliography quoted by Epp, and G. Fee, "Criteria for Evaluating Textual Readings in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament," an as yet unpublished paper read in a symposium sponsored by the Hudson-Delaware chapter of the SBL That symposium, at which also the present paper was read, was (May 1981). devoted to the evaluation of readings in the textual criticism of both the Old and the New Testament.