Textual Criticism Transformed – Variants, Variances, and Variety

I began my MA Thesis, “Incorporating Syntax in Theories of Textual Criticism: Preliminary Studies on the Judaean Desert Isaiah Scrolls,” with a quote from Shemaryahu Talmon. The quote begins as follows:

A collation of variants extant, based on the synoptic study of the material available, either by a comparison of parallel passages within one Version, or of the major Versions with each other, results in the conclusion that the ancient authors, compilers, tradents and scribes enjoyed what may be termed a controlled freedom of textual variation.1

Talmon’s statement focuses the reader’s attention on the process of textual comparison with the result that “controlled freedom” best explains textual variants. What did Talmon have in mind by “controlled freedom”? What controls are at play when an ancient Jewish scribe or tradent made or copied a manuscript? Were diachronic linguistics at stake? Were lexical semantics? What about syntactical ambiguities? Were social issues of legal, political, or theological importance a factor? What about ideals of textuality, media, and knowledge? Yes. So how do we go about understanding this “controlled freedom.”

Talmon continues,

The exact limits of this “variation-scope,” though, cannot be accurately established intuitively, nor can they be gauged from mere sample collations. An investigation into this matter, based on a thorough and comprehensive synopsis of all types of variants, glosses, intentional modifications, etc., which can be ascertained in our sources is an urgent desideratum.2

Talmon’s thought here is rather complex and merits unpacking. First, Talmon intimated that a thick description of textual variants cannot appeal to intuitions of the philologist. Finer methods of textual and philological study, therefore, are required. But there is a huge problem here. Critical editions have arranged and presented textual data in way to align and promote its overall theory of textuality. In other words, the presentation of variants truncates the ability to advance methodological concerns, textual analysis, and our understanding Second Temple Judaism. I will return to this point in more detail in the next post. The second point to note is that Talmon wanted a thorough analysis of textual variants of all types. Talmon’s call for a thorough analysis of textual variants, therefore, should proceed on the grounds of greater methodological clarity, as implied in the previous point.

In my Master’s thesis, I took Talmon’s ideas to heart. In fact, I considered his comments foundational to methodological issues of textual criticism. Every edition of the Hebrew Bible is only a partial edition, from the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (and its predecessors), Biblia Hebraica Quinta, The Hebrew Bible Critical Edition, and, yes, even the editio critica Maior, The Hebrew University Bible Project. These are partial editions because textual variants are serialised apropos each edition’s editorial methodology. That is, each edition records a limited set of textual variants. Since a collocation of textual variants in each of these editions are incomplete, it is impossible to take a full account of textual variation. What is more, these editions are not cheap. Thus, it is necessary to purchase or consult every one of the editions while researching the Hebrew Bible. More practically, we are creating an environment where we need rather deep pockets to conduct responsible research, for these volumes are expensive.

So how do we go about analysing and getting a handle of the controlling factors of textual transmission? And how can we improve our methodological study of ancient manuscripts and Second Temple Judaism? We need to advance the field by adopting more sophisticated methods of textual analysis.

For my MA Thesis, I began to address Talmon’s call by creating a database of all the Judaean Desert Isaiah scrolls. At the time, I created a module in Accordance that provided a synoptic edition of the Isaiah scrolls:

DSS Isaiah Synoptic Module in Accordance (c) 2014-2021 James M. Tucker

In the lower half of the above window, the DSS Isaiah Synoptic Module parallels all the Isaiah scrolls. The benefit to have the text in a parallel format was to facilitate a quick collation of the manuscripts. What is more, since I could run [MERGE] searches in Accordance, I could run various morphological searches on any specified column so as to facilitate a linguistic analysis of textual variants. While writing the thesis, I began to sharpen my arguments that textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible reified “text” without consideration of language and cognition. That is to say, thinking about issues of language and syntax provides an important methodological corrective, as a thorough analysis results in linguistic variances not textual variants. But this is only the Hebrew. What about the ancient versions? The Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, Latin, Coptic, Ethiopic translations of the Hebrew? What role do they play? How do we manage the variety of the ancient versions?

For the thesis, I did not have to directly address the issue of the ancient versions, but they were on my radar. I began to create a master parallel tool:

Master Ancient Parallel Module in Accordance (c) 2014-2021 James M. Tucker

There are still many shortcomings in the presentation above, but I was thinking that the critical texts of each respective edition could link to the critical apparatus module. That is, the blue hyperlink sigla above each column would open the critical apparatus module for each respective text. This was a prototype and I quickly learned of its benefits—it is far superior to any print version. But, it is still a very limited resource and would cost too much. What is more, Accordance was not interested in the development of the resource.

In the past couple of weeks, I have had some extra time in the evenings. I have used this time to return to my MA thesis. I have long wanted to return to my Master’s thesis, to sharpen its arguments and refine my views. More importantly, I want to see Talmon’s desideratum a reality. In the next post, I will describe how I converted the Göttingen critical apparatuses into a database, so that each manuscript recorded in its apparatus can exist as a diplomatic transcription. This is the first step towards a revolution in the field of textual criticism.

  1. Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Textual Study of the Bible — A New Outlook,” in The Textual Study of the Bible — A New Outlook (ed. F.M. Cross; Cambridge: Hardvard University Press, 1975), 326.
  2. Ibid.

6 thoughts on “Textual Criticism Transformed – Variants, Variances, and Variety”

  1. Respected Sir, Mr. Tucker
    due to a hint of a resercher I found your website and read today especially this blog. Since 2013 I am working on a comparison of totaly seven versions of the Book of Covenant in Ex 20,22 – 23,33. I.e. the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible, the Vulgata, LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch end the three Targums Onkelos, Neofiti and Pseudo Jonathan. I do this at the University of Zurich under Prof. Thomas Krüger. My main interests are the categories and numbers of differences to the Masoretic Text of the parallel versions. And what they can tell us on the relationship between them and possibly the reasons behind them. This all in short.
    In case you may be interested, I would be glad to open a discussion with you.

  2. I do not have specific questions – I only wanted to find out more about your MA thesis and your doctoral thesis. Are they already published or available online? My field of research is the comparison of ancient versions as alredy stated. My method for finding differences to the Hebrew Bible was setting up a synopsis of all seven versions as mentioned in my previous comment. For finding the differences I translated all texts into German following mainly the syntax of the original and not trying to find a “good” German formulation as to be found in so many editions like the German Septuaginta or the German Vulgata. Rereading your blog I think that your focus of research is the Second Temple Judaism and how it can be better understood by a methodological study of ancient manuscripts. My focus was more on the side of what can be deducted from the comparison of number of deviations – cathegorized by some properties of the deviations – e.g. on dependencies of one version from another or the situation and theology of the translator or editor.
    You are referring to a further post which I am looking forward to read.

    1. Thanks for the further explanation. I have not published my MA thesis because it needs to be updated and revised. I hope to finish the revisions this year. As for my doctoral thesis, this will be published soon.

      Your research sounds interesting and I wish you all the best.

  3. Hi James,
    In Madrid, we have a similar project for 1-2 Kings. It started as tool for our Greek edition in 2010 . At is present state, is a mySQL databases with parallel texts and color encoding. We began this in Word, and transferred it to the web. Now, we are implementing some changes, since the edition online is quite cumbersome. As soon as it is again up, if you are interested I will send you a link. We did present indirectly the idea in a paper by Julio Trebolle, Andrés Piquer and myself that was published in Translating a Translation. The LXX and Its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism.
    I do think that the printed critical edition must be superseded. On the other hand, our current digital supports tend to the obsolescence. It is a conundrum that we must tackle some how. I would rather work on LaTeX than in InDesign but we are forced to work in the latter. Go figure…

    1. Dear Pablo,

      Thank you for pointing me to your article. I don’t have physical access to the volume, nor am I able to access a digital copy through the University of Toronto library. Would you happen to have a PDF to share? I would greatly appreciate it.

      The fields of Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Qumran studies are in a peculiar spot. Our tools have rapidly failed to keep up with the advances of technology. What is more, our methodological frameworks are largely shaped and framed by the tools we use. We could find many examples, but on my mind presently is how Masoretic Text (𝔐) is itself a category of a textual family that is represented by at most two medieval codices: Ms. B19A and Ms. Aleppo. There are scores of very interesting variants in the thousands of other medieval Hebrew Manuscripts. These variants have a direct and significant impact on the methodological issues of diachronic dating, etc. But we have largely ignored these manuscripts, which I suspect is due to Goshen-Gottstein’s views of dialectology. These views are based on impressions of what MT should be, rather than a detailed computational analysis of cross-variable textual analysis.

      What is even more important is that we have to move into a collaboration that is structured around proper ethical practices for digital humanities. The current model to seek for millions of euros to fund a project only creates more problems than it does to bring our academic disciplines in accordance with best practices of digital humanities and ethical practices of the humanities.

      I am open to collaborate and create a new ethos in the academic disciplines of Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Qumran. To better and advance the fields is one of the reasons why I spend the time blogging here—as a scratch pad for ideas I am currently thinking about and to reach a broader audience. So, thank you very much for engaging and leaving a comment. If you would like to talk further, please email me at j.tucker@mail.utoronto.ca. Perhaps we could talk through Skype about our mutual interests.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *