H.G.M. Williamson, «Do We Need A New Bible? Reflections on the Proposed Oxford Hebrew Bible» biblica, Vol. 90 (2009) 153-175 page 174

Vol 90 (2009)

H.G.M. Williamson, «Do We Need A New Bible? Reflections on the Proposed Oxford Hebrew Bible», Vol. 90 (2009) 153-175

The launch of the Oxford Hebrew Bible has recently been formally announced and examples of its work published. Unlike nearly all current scholarly editions of the Hebrew Bible, it aims to provide an eclectic rather than a diplomatic text. There are many aspects of the underlying reasons for this which should be approved. Nevertheless, as a project it has certain inherent weaknesses. It completely overlooks the different linguistic levels which are amalgamated in the Masoretic Text, so that its policy of maintaining the current spelling and vocalization are misguided. It also fails in its stated objective of providing a textual archetype in those cases where different editions of the text may be thought to have circulated in antiquity. And many of the most crucial decisions at the text-critical level are not included in the apparatus at all but in the commentary; indeed, in view of the unique textual nature of the MT as well as the variety of scholarly opinion about its textual history it is commentary rather than a new edition which would best serve the needs of the prospective readership.

TAGS

Page 174/175
«
‹
174
175
›

174 H.G.M. Williamson genre. This does not detract from their value for textual criticism, but it raises important questions about how they should be used in that work. And thirdly, I have already mentioned previously the difficulty in particular of discerning the status of modest-sized fragments with specific variations from the MT, such as harmonization, added material and changes of order; were these ever regarded as scriptural, or should some be differently evaluated? I should not for a moment wish to be misunderstood: the importance of the Scrolls for textual criticism is paramount and I do not want to deflect attention from that. But what I should insist on is that precisely that use demands a careful consideration of other factors than the solely textual, so that again it is commentary rather than a new textual edition which seems to me to be the first requirement (35). * ** In conclusion, the announcement of the forthcoming publication of the Oxford Hebrew Bible draws our attention once again to the ongoing debate about how best to publish the Hebrew text. The new work will be of great interest and value, and the quality of the scholarly team ensures that we shall learn a great deal of value from it. I for one will certainly scour it in the greatest detail in order to learn from those whom I respect highly in this field. Nonetheless, as I have sought to indicate here, it raises problems for me as a project which lead me to regret its adoption as a purported Bible text from a publishing house which commands respect. It shows a sorry lack of understanding about the fact that our text is a linguistic hybrid which makes this enterprise flawed from the start. Its form of presentation only aggravates that problem, since against its stated objectives it will not present anything remotely resembling an eclectic edition of a supposed archetype. And finally it fails to take into account the ways in which the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible inevitably differs from that of most other texts, leading, I fear, to further confusion on the part of those who are not already well versed in the subject. In the present state of knowledge, as well as in the light of the (35) I should make clear that appreciation of the complexities of the textual evidence at our disposal does not necessarily rule out the possibility (to which I adhere) of an Urtext, however difficult that may be to reconstruct in practice. The issues are helpfully presented and discussed by TOV, Textual Criticism (2nd edn) 164-80.