Articles on Five New Editions of the Hebrew Bible

I recently learned two things I didn’t know: there are five editions of the Hebrew Bible in various stages of production and there is a new Hebrew Bible journal with a number of good articles on these editions.

The journal is called Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel (HeBAI), published by Mohr Siebeck apparently as a counterpart to Early Christianity. The 2nd and 3rd volumes have issues dedicated to these new editions. I was only aware of two of these, so I was glad to have essays gathered together on all five.

I’ll share the table of contents for the two volumes along with a short description of the five editions I culled from the introductory essay. I should also point out that Ron Hendel’s essay is especially good and is available free online.

The Five Editions

1. Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ) directed by A. Schenker. The successor to Biblia Hebraica series. Now with a half dozen fascicles available. The fascicles have lots of text critical comments and I understand the hope is to publish these separately once the OT is complete.
2. Biblia Qumranica (BQ) directed by A. Lange. This is essentially an edition of all the Biblical material from Qumran. So far there is one volume available on the Minor Prophets (Brill, 2005). 
3. Hebrew University Bible Project (HUB) directed by M. Segal. So far three volumes have been published with extensive introductions according to E. Tov. These cover Isaiah (1965), Jeremiah (1995), and Ezekiel (2004), all published by Magnes. I understand this is a diplomatic edition like BHQ.
4. Hebrew Bible: Critical Edition (HBCE) directed by Ron Hendel. Formerly the Oxford Hebrew Bible (OHB), this edition is now to be published by SBL. Samples, introductory material, and a list of participants are online here. Randall Buth has questioned the need for such an edition on the blog in the past.
5. Der Samaritanische Pentateuch (SP) directed by S. Schorch. An introduction to this edition from Schorch is available here.

Essays on the Five Editions

HeBAI, vol. 2, no. 1 (2013)

• Evaluating New Editions of the Hebrew Scriptures (pp. 1-5)
  Knoppers, Gary N.
• The Edition Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ) (pp. 6-16)
  Schenker, Adrian
• The Biblia Qumranica as a Synoptic Edition of the Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls (pp. 17-37)
  Lange, Armin
• The Hebrew University Bible Project (pp. 38-62)
  Segal, Michael
• The Oxford Hebrew Bible: Its Aims and a Response to Criticisms (pp. 63-99)
  Hendel, Ronald
• A Critical editio maior of the Samaritan Pentateuch: State of Research, Principles, and Problems (pp. 100-120)
  Schorch, Stefan

HeBAI, vol. 3, no. 4 (2014)

• The Theory and Practice of Textual Criticism (pp. 355-362)
  Knoppers, Gary N.
• Scribal Practices and Approaches Revisited (pp. 363-374)
  Tov, Emanuel
• New Editions of the Hebrew Scriptures: A Response (pp. 375-383) [This a response to the essays in volume 2]
  Tov, Emanuel
• Comments on New Editions of the Hebrew Scriptures (pp. 384-391) [This a response to the essays in volume 2]
  Williamson, H.G.M.
• The Idea of a Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible: A Genealogy (pp. 392-423) [online here]
  Hendel, Ronald
• The Question of the So-Called Qumran Orthography, the Severus Scroll, and the Masoretic Text (pp. 424-475)
  Lange, Armin
• The Rationale for the Society of Biblical Literature Commentary on the Septuagint (pp. 476-490)
  Hiebert, Robert J.V.

Concept Video of HBCE/OHB Electronic Edition

Text and Canon, or, Do we really want an eclectic Hebrew Bible?

Shalom Hevre, χαιρειν
שלום חברה
This is a first post to the ETC and hopefully will appear in full if I don’t push the wrong buttons along the way.

There is a theoretical textual question that might be nice to discuss with this group. It is visible with the Hebrew Bible. Most Bible translations and many a commentary assume an unpublished, eclectic Hebrew text (whether they realize it or not) when translating/explaining the Hebrew Bible.

Do we want a new, 21st century eclectic text for the Hebrew Bible?

As a Bible translator I had assumed that a translator’s job included establishing a Hebrew text. It’s what everyone does and what most training directs and presupposes. It is the practice of every published Bible if there are footnotes along the lines of “according to LXX, Hebrew unclear”, or “according to different vocalization, Hebrew reads ‘xxxxx’”.

Some time ago [OK, 15 years already :-) ] I came to the conclusion that we don’t have enough background to produce a definitive pre-massoretic text of the Hebrew Bible. This is not a counsel of despair, but a recognition that the MT is in many respects a very conservative eclectic text with roots to the first century CE. If we accept it as a canon, we can translate it, and footnote our speculations and comparisons with other traditions. (Or, conversely, someone might use an LXX as their canon, and footnote MT differences and speculations outside the text.) Again, without realizing it, this is scholarly practice, where Leningrad is published in the BHS and everything else is footnoted.

Why don’t we acknowledge this and produce translations accordingly? It would mean defining the canon as the MT (or perhaps an LXX for some groups) and relegating all textual questions to “extra-canonical” footnotes.

I’ll give an example in another post on Is53 5 uvaHavurato ובחברתו.

blessings
Randall