7/28/2019 BHQ Ruth

1/16

MECILLOTHli11RUTH

c:r" i "W:i i "tvCANT ICLES? i ~ i r p

QOHELETH;i:f,N

LAME NTAT I O NSi1iCNES THER

I SBN 3-W 38- ()5278- 4

. Jl\J\Jllll\ll l \\__,____ __.____ _ ....._

General lntroduction and

RUTH 111

eA NT; Je LEs o i tOci ,.,triQ O H ELET H ,t;p

LAMENTATIONS i1 "I

ESTHER 'i.1 ON

7/28/2019 BHQ Ruth

2/16

C " ' : : l 1 . ? i ~ 1 C"'N"':Jl i111.?iBIBLIA HEBRAICA

quinta editionecum apparatu critico novis curis elaborato

participantibusR. Althann, P.B. Dirksen, N. Fernndez Marcos , A. Gelston, A. Gianto,L. Greenspoon, l. Himbaza, J. Lust, D. Marcus, C. McCarthy, M. Rose!,

M. Sreb0, R. Schafer, S . Sipila, P. Schwagmeier, A. Tal, Z. Talshirconsultis A. Dotan pro masora,

A. Groves et Soetjianto pro impressione electronica, R. Omanson pro redactione et stylocommuniter ediderunt

A. SCHENKER (praeses), Y.A.P. GOLDMAN, A. VAN DER KOOIJ,G.J. NORTON, S. PISANO, J. DE W AARD, R.D. WEIS

General IntroductionandMEGILLOTH T d i l ~RUTH n iiJ. de Waard

CANTICLES C'i'tzlil i'tziP B. Dirksen

QOHELETH I'l'?ilpY.A.P. Goldman

LAMENTATIONS il:l'NR. Schafer

ESTHER iI'lONM. Sreb0

BBDEUTSCHE BIBELGESELLSCHAFT

7/28/2019 BHQ Ruth

3/16

CONTENTS

General lntroduction .... . . . . . . . .. .. . ....... .. . . .... . .... . .. .Allgemeine Einleitung .. ........... . ...... . . ..... . .... . . . . . .Introduccin General .. .. . . . . . . . ......... . .... .. . . . .. . .. . . . .Figure 1: Sample of an Apparatus Entry lllustrating

the Presentation of the Text Critica] Cases ..... .. . .. .. . . . . . .Figure 2: Sample Page lllu strating the Features of the Layout .. . .Sigla, Symbols and Abbreviations ....... .. ....... . .. .. . . . .Definitions of the Terms Used to Characterize ReadingsGlossary of Common Terms in the Masorah Parva ....... . .. .. .. . . . .Table of Accents . . . ..... . ....... . .. ..... . ...... . .... . . . . . .The Text of the MegillothRuth li1i ............... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vuXXV II

L

LXXIULXXIVLXXVI

LXXXVXCV

XCIX

3Canticles C'i'Wil i'W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1Qoheleth i;,p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Lamentations il:J'N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Esther i1iCN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

lntroductions and Commentaries on the Megilloth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1*Works Cited . ....... . .. . ..... . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .... . . . 151 *

ISBN 3-438-05278-4

Biblia Hebraica Quinta, Fascicle 18: General lntroduct ion and Megilloth 2004 Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart

Printed in GemianyAli rights reserved

www.scholarlv-bibles .com

7/28/2019 BHQ Ruth

4/16

GENERALINTRODUCTIONThe first edition in the modern series of Biblia Hebraica (BHK1) appeared atLeipzig in 1906 as the new century was getting under way. Throughout the centurynew editions of Biblia Hebraica have appeared, each retaining the basic structureof the original edition, but introducing changes as warranted by developments intext critica! study. A second edition (BHK2 ), differing from the first only in minarcorrections, was published in 1913, also at Leipzig. The third edition (BHK3) appeared in 1929-1937 at Stuttgart, and introduced majar changes: a new base text,reproducing the text of the Leningrad Codex rather than the 1524-1525 Bombergedition of Jacob ben I:Iayyim; and an entirely new apparatus. Biblia HebraicaStuttgartensia (BHS, 1967-1977), the fourth edition in the se1ies, followed BHK3in using the Leningrad codex as the base text, but introduced a new presentation ofthe manuscript's Masorah, as well as a new apparatus.

As the old century gives way to a new one, the increased availability ofrecent manuscript discoveries (especially the Dead Sea Scrolls), the developmentsof severa! decades' intensive research in the transmission of the text of the HebrewBible, and the concomitant shifts in our appreciation of the aims and limits oftextual criticism occasion a new edition (the fifth) in the line of Biblia Hebraica,which thus may be known as Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ). Since this is the firstfascicle of the new edition, it i s appropriate that we offer sorne explanation of theedition so as to situate it in relation to its predecessors.

This new edition comes about at the initiative of the United Bible Societies, andwith the sponsorship of the German Bible Society, which has special responsibilityfor the publication of scientific editions, specifically including Biblia Hebraica.The character of Biblia Hebraica Quinta is shaped by two histories, that of theeditions of Biblia Hebraica , and that of the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project ofthe United Bible Societies . "Severa! crucial decisions at stages in the development of the Biblia Hebraicahave given the series a well-known character that continues in this edition. From

the beginning, the editions in this series have been intended as Handausgaben.Also from the beginning, as a result of an explicit choice by Rudolf Kittel , theedition has not presented an eclectic text of the Hebrew Bible, but rather hasprinted the text of single edition or manuscript, and provided a critica) apparatusthat presents a selection of variants and conjectures for emending the text, emphasizing those most significant for exegesis and translation. In the first two editions,the text of the Bomberg edition of Jacob ben I:Iayyim was used as the base text.Starting with the third edition (1937), on the initiative of Paul Kahle, the text ofcodex EBP. I B 19a of the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg (i.e., ML)has been printed as the base text. Kahle also emphasized the importance of printingthe Masorah parva and magna of ML as part of the edition. In the third edition, thisaim was realized only for the Masorah parva. It was only with the fourth in theBiblia Hebraica series, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, that Kahle's aim was attempted so far as the Masorah magna is concemed. As the Dead Sea Scrolls beganto appear in the late 1940's. the seventh i m n r ~ s s i n n nf RH K3 rm thP i n i t i ~ t i " P ,..f

7/28/2019 BHQ Ruth

5/16

IX GENERALINTRODUCTIONeclectic text of the Hebrew Bible must choose to reconstruct that text at a particular point in its development. In the midst of the current lack of consensus aboutthe appropriate stage of the text to aim at in such a reconstruction, it seerns to thecomrnittee that an edition, which will be widely used by students and non-specialists, should not present as its running text a reconstruction based on one of thepositions in the debate. Third, the cornmittee takes the view that an eclectic textought to be based on the presentation of ali variants found in the surviving witnesses. Such a presentation is beyond the limits inherent in a one-volurne edition.

THETEXT

Continuing the practice established with the third edition of 1937, and refined inthe Stuttgartensia edition, this edition offers as its base text a basically diplornaticpresentation of ML. In recent years, studies of ML and its Masorah ha ve indicatedthat in sorne respects it may be less than ideal as the base text of an edition (seethe specific discussion below). Indeed, the cornrnittee gave due consideration toother options for providing a base t ext for the edition. It was decided not to use theAleppo Codex (i.e., MA) chiefly because the rnanuscript is incomplete. Moreover,since the Hebrew University Bible Project employs this rnanuscript as the base textfor its splendid editions, and since it is also the text for the Bar-Ilan Universityedition of the Bible edited by M. Cohen, MA is appearing before the scholarlypublic in edited forrn. T he Editorial Comrnittee also considered ernploying the earliest available ben Asher rnanuscript for each of the three divisions of the canon asthe base text for BHQ. This option was abandoned in favor of the continued use ofML for severa] reasons. First, ML rernains the earliest known rnanuscript of theentire Hebrew Bible. Second, the state of the rnanuscripts that rnet the indicatedcriterion would have led to a patchwork when their gaps had to be supplernentedwith another rnanuscript (e.g., in addition to its well-known !acuna in the Torah,the Aleppo Codex lacks severa! of the W1itings entirely). Third, when it was assurned that the new edition would be typeset by traditional rnethods, the fact thatthe Gerrnan Bible Society had in its possession a typeset text of ML, which alreadyhad undergone severa! rounds of careful correction, was a significant pragrnaticfactor. Then, at the point where it was decided to rnove the project to fully cornputerized processes, it was equally significant that the text of ML was already available in electronic form - the only one of the great Tiberian rnanuscripts then soavailable. While the processes of converting the text to the specific electronic forrnused in making this edition had introduced new errors into the electronic text, it hadalready undergone sorne degree of correction before its use in this project. In thecourse of rnaking this edition, the electronic version of the text is undergoing thorough correction against color transparencies obtained frorn the Ancient BiblicalManuscript Center in Clarernont, California, USA. The transparencies were produced from the new photographs of ML taken in St. Petersburg by the Center's tearnformed by West Sernitic Research of Los Angeles. The clarity and quality of thephotographs are well beyond that which has been readily obtainable otherwise, andwill undoubtedly lead to a nurnber of corrections that were not possible for the textof BHS until the fifth irnpression exclusively (1997). The electronic text of ML willbe checked against these photos independently by the editors of the individual booksanrl hv :--tr.::lciP.mif": n 1 1 ~ h \ r ~ t n r ~ fn Uthnm th P t-:aci\r h'lC' haQ.n ' r - . o . . - . : + . , . . . , . . . J f ~ , , . . . , . ~ , . . . . . . , I

GENERAL INTRODUCTION VIIIOtto Eissfeldt, added apparatuses giving a full report of the variants contained inIQlsa" and 1QpHab. Biblia Hebraica Quinta stands firmly within this tradition atmany points, even as it refines and renews it at others.As was true for its predecessors, this edition of Biblia Hebraica is intended as aHandausgabe for use by scholars, clergy, translators, and students who are notnecessarily specialists in textual criticism. Because our field still lacks an editiocritica maior, specialists in textual criticism should also find the edition of use,even though it is not principally intended for them. At the beginning of its work,the Editorial Committee considered the possibility of producing such an edition,but concluded that it was not practica! at that time, and in any case would not meetthe need to which the Biblia Hebraica responds. The committee hopes that thisnew edition of Biblia Hebraica may serve as a contribution toward the eventualpublication of an editio critica maior.Following the pattem of its predecessors, this edition will appear initially infascicles, of which this fascicle containing the Megilloth is the first. Each fasciclewill present the following items for the biblical books published therein:- an introduction;- lists of sigla, symbols and abbreviations;a glossary of common abbreviations used in the Masorah parva;

the text and full Masorah of ML;- the critica! apparatus reporting the readings of the witnesses to the text's transmission;- a commentary on selected cases from the critica! apparatus, the translation ofthe Masorah magna, and cornments on difficult cases in the Masorah magnaand parva.

This sequence irnplies a preferred order for reading the edition. By reading theintroduction to a book before proceeding to the text and apparatus, a reader gainsimportant perspective on the witnesses for that book. As the reader then proceedsto text and apparatus, the editors assume that the commentary will be consulted aspoints of interest arise in the reading of the text and apparatus.At the end of the publication process, the edition will be published in twovolumes, one containing text, Masorah, and critica! apparatus along with thegeneral introduction, sigla, symbols, and abbreviations (i.e., a single volume on theusual BHK pattem). The second volume will contain the introductions to the individual books, the textual and Masorah commentaries, and the translation of thenotes of the Masorah magna.This new edition of Biblia Hebraica follows the pattem set in 1937, presentingthe text of a single good Masoretic manuscript as a base text and adding a critica!apparatus offering the evidence of the text's transrnission in relation to the point ofreference provided by the base text. This is founded, of course, in Kittel's choiceof such a structure for the 1906 edition, albeit then using the Bomberg text insteadof a single manuscript. The Editorial Committee is well aware of the current discussion of the relative merits of an edition of this type as opposed to an editionpresenting what is properly called an eclectic text. The committee chose to maintain the historie structure of the editions of Biblia Hebraica for three reasons. F1rst,it was judged that, as yet, not enough is known about the history of the development of the text of the Hebrew Bible and its various textual traditions to give a

1 1. __ _ C- ..

7/28/2019 BHQ Ruth

6/16

7/28/2019 BHQ Ruth

7/16

INTRODUCTIONS

RUTH

Hebrew WitnessesThis edition of Ruth in the Biblia Hebraica Quinta is entirely based upon recentphotographs - fi lms and color transparencies - of folios 421 -423r of EBP. I B19a "Leningradensis" of the Russ ian National Library in St. Petersburg, Russ ia(i.e., ML). In addition, two major Tiberian manuscripts have been collated, th eAleppo Codex, and Cambridge, Univ. Libr. Add. Ms. 1753 .

The Masoretic Text of Ruth in ML has been very well preserved. In fact , thereis only one case in which a textual corruption could be defended, namely in 4:4with regard to the reading ? ~ ~ 'The description of th e SiJ!_um _ and p il!_uhOf in the three major Tiberian manuscripts can be extremely brief. ML presents only one pilfuha found between 4: l7and 4: 18 and so do MA and MY.

As to the apparatus, the Qumran evidence from 2Q has been cited according tothe edition of M. Baillet, J.T. Milik, and R. de Vaux, O.P., Les "pe tites gro/ tes" deQumran (DJD III ; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962) , plates XIV and XV, whereasthe 4Q evidence is quoted from E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross, J.A. Fitzmyer, P.W. Flint ,S. Metso, C.M. Murphy, C. Niccum, P.W. Skehan, E. Tov, and J. Trebolle Barrera,Qumran Cave 4. XI Psalms to Chronicles (DJD XVI; Oxford: Clarendon Press,2000), 187-94 and Plate XXIV.

Sometimes, the Qumran evidence is so fragmentary that almost nothing can beconcluded, e.g., in 2:23. Where it can be deciphered, it frequently suppo11s M(1 :14; 2: 14 ; 2:20; 3:7). Occasionally, th e Qumran materials support versional evidence over against M, as 2QRuthh in 3: 14 , and, perhaps, 4QRuth" in the case of1 9. In sorne very rare cases, a plus is found which is not shared by any witness,e.g ., the reading Ctz1 of 2QRuthh in 3: 15 .

Greek WitnessesWith regard to the Greek evidence, use has been made of the Larger Cambridgeedition by A.E. Brooke and N. McLean, Joshua, Judges and Ruth (Vol. 1, pt. 4 ofThe Old Testament in Greek; ed. A.E. Brooke and N. McLean; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press , 1917) 887-97 , of Alfred Rahlfs's manual edition : Septua-ginta (9th ed .; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1979), and especially of AlfredRahlfs's Das Buch Ruth gr iechisch als Pro/Je einer kritischen Handausgabe derSeptuaginta (Stuttgart: Wrttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1922). Rahlfs 's epoch-mak ing Studie ber den griechischen Text des Buches Rulh (Berlin: Weidmann, 1923)has, of course, carefully been consulted, and the recensions he distinguished haveoccasionally been cited in the apparatus. In addition, thanks to the permiss ion giv-en by the Septuagint Committee of the Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gittingen ,it h '1s h P.P.n nn .

7/28/2019 BHQ Ruth

8/16

6 * INTRODUCTIONSthe Gittinger Septuaginta-Unternehmen. The sigla used in thi s edition are those ofGtittingen, and the sigla of the larger Cambridge edition have been converted according to the conversion tables published in Sidney Jellicoe, Th e Septuagint andModern Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), 362-69.

With the poss ible exception of 2:7, G must have used a Vorlage ve ry close toM. Most differences can be easily explained by th e desi re of the translator to produce a receptor language text which could be well understood. Towards that aim,ce1tain information has been made explicit (e.g ., in 1:14; 4:7, 8) whereas otherinformation has been left implicit because of a certain redundancy (e.g., in 1 2 and4: 16). Out of the same concern , the chronological order of the base text has sometimes been changed (e.g., in 1 5), or a contextual assimilation (2: 19) or harmonization (4:14) has taken place. As far as figura i ve speech is con cerned, the use ofeuphemism (1:1 2) and synecdoche (4:10) can be observed.

Finally, for the Hexaplaric evidence, the edition of F. Field, Origenis Hexaplo-rum quae supersunt (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1875; repr., Hildesheim :Georg Olms, 1964) has been used and a comparison with the edition of Bernardusde Montfaucon, Hexaplorum Origenis quae supersunt (Paris: Ludovicus Guerin,1713) has been made. In fact , the available materi al is extremely limited: one caseof a' in chapter 3, two cases of a' and three of o' in chapter 4.

Latin WitnessesAs to the Latn sources, for the Old Latin, use has been made of the only manuscript of Ruth (Madrid, Bibl. Univ. 31, fol. 80v-81 v; severely damaged during theSpanish civil war) according to the publications of S. Berger, "Notice sur quelquestextes latins indits de l' Ancien Te stament," Notices et extraits des manuscrits dela Bibliotheque Nationale et autres bibliotheques, XXXIV/2 (Pa ri s: lnstitut national de France, 1893) 122 -2 6 and J. Cantera 01tiz de Urbina, Vetus Latina -Rut: s tudio crtico de la version Latina prejeronomiana de Libro de Rut (Textos yestudios del Seminario Filologico Cardenal Cisneros 4; Madrid and Barcelona:Seminario Filologico Cardenal Cisneros, 1965) . In view of severa! shortcomings ofthe edition s, it has been very helpful to consult the critica! review of Cantera'sedition by W. Baars ("Vetus Latina") , as well as the evaluation made by Rahlfs(Studie, 124-34).

The Old Latin sometimes has an independent reading, as can be seen in 1 3 and2:23. It remarkably supports M without aligning with any known Greek evidencein at least four cases (2:14; 3:7; 4:8, 11). In these cases it always agrees with T,and in two cases with either V or S.

For the Vulgate, the edition of the Benedictine fathers of S. Girolamo in Rome,F.A. Gasquet, et al., eds., Libri Iosue Judicum Ruth (vol. 4 of Biblia Sacra iuxtaLatin.am Vulgatam Versionem; Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1939) has beenthe textual base, and the fourth edition of R. Weber, Biblia Sacra iuxta VulgatamVersionem (2 vols.; 4th rev. ed .; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgese llschaft, 1994) hasbeen consulted.

V normally is a most reliable witness of M, and its deviations can frequently beexplained by translational reasons. The lack of certain precise grammatical distinctions in Latin is at the base of the occasional use of the characterization "indeterminate" (e.g., in 2:6 and 4:4). In many cases in which V deviates from M, it is. .- . . -----

RUTH 7*

Syriac and Aramaic WitnessesIn the absence of a critica! edition of Ruth by the Peshitta Institute in Leiden , theSyriac base for this edition has been the Codex Ambrosianus, which is quoted according to the photolithographic edition of A.M. Ceriani, Translatio Syra PescittoVeteris Testamenti (Milan: J.B. Pogliani, 1883) 213-214r. The editions of the Dominicans of Mosul, Biblia Sacra iuxta Versionem Simplicem quae dicitur Pschitta(3 vols.; Mosul : Typis Fratrum Praedicatorum, 1887), and of the Syriac Bible of S.Lee (1826; repr., London: United Bible Societies, 1979) have also been used.Although an important number of coincidences between readings of G and Soccur, the translator of S apparently did not use G in any consistent way. Thereare many in stances in which S stands alone in providing a syntactic facilit ation(e.g., 1:1), a cultural assi milation (e.g., 1 8) or in leaving sorne information in thebase text implicit (e.g., 1:1 . For more detai ls concerning the specific character ofS, see Gerleman, Ruth!Hohelied (BKAT, 18/1 ; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener,1965), 3-4.

For the Syro-Hexapla, P. de Lagarde's edition in Bibliothecae Syriacae (Gtittingen: Horstmann , 1892) 186-90 has been consulted. However, the Syro-Hexaplahas been of special importance for the reconstruction of the history of the text ofG, since it is a very literal translation of the Hexaplaric G-text by Paul of Tella,which in addition has preserved the Aristarchian signs.

Regarding the Targum , special use has been made of manuscript Urbinas Ebr. 1of the Vatican Library, dated 1294. The edition s of A. Sperber, The Hagiographa(vol. IVA of The Bible in Aramaic; Leiden: Brill, 1968), P. de Lagarde, Hagiogra-pha Chaldaice (Leipzig: Teubner, 1873), and E. Levine, Th e Aranwic Version ofRuth (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1973), have also been consu lted.Whatever the time of origin of T may have been, its underlying Hebrew text isclearly that which is known to us from M. It is further characterized by much additional materi al which makes it twice as long as M. The additional material cansometimes be characterized as explicit information (3: 11 , 14; 4:7) and sometimesas a midrash (1 :9).

Co ncluding RemarksI would like to express my special thanks to Dr. U. Quast, the editor of Ruth in th eGottingen Septuagint, for ali the valuable information he has provided, to Prof.Yohanan Goldman for hi s thorough revision of earlier drafts of this text, and to theother members of the editorial committee for their inspiring team contribution. Iam also greatly indebted to Prof. A. Dotan for his improvements of the Masorahand to Prof. Peter W . Flint for having made available to me the final text of4QRuth and 4QRuthb before the appearance of the editio prnceps.

7/28/2019 BHQ Ruth

9/16

COMMENTARIES ON THE CRITICAL APPARATUSRUTH

1: l t:J'6!:li1J:i ~ b t V \ ~ , : ; Campbell (Ruth , 50) is no doubt right in his judgment that s ~ m ~ of ~ ~ c i e n t versions considered the syntactical combinations of M asredundant. S and O solved this redundancy each in their own way. A vocalization ~ ! ; i i V could be the base of T 1iJ4, found in the Polyglots of Antwerp andPars and in the Urbinas Ebr. 1. It could also explain the reading iudicis in Laand the reading (unius) iudicis in V. Rahlfs (Studie, 130) supposes that the reading of La has been taken from V and that iudicis iudicum in La combines thereadings ofVand O.

2 -1':1'1 T has been taken here as support for M since it maintains the verb. Theunique spec ifi cation "they became royal adjutants" probably reflects an attemptto round out the Hebrew phrase "and they were there".It seems likely that both S and V give a coITect translation of the component ofmeaning of :1':1 in this context; therefore no dependency of S and V upon4QRuth was constructed, although elsewhere :J!Zl' is rendered by the same Syriac verb. S has an identical rendering of the two Hebrew verbs in vv. 2 and 4,but V prefers stylistic variation: morabantur and manseruntque. 4QRuth lookslike an assimilation to 1 4, especially since O clearly supports the lectio diffici-lior of M. A question mark seems nevertheless necessary.5 : i ' l t V ' N ~ 1 :1'11?' ' l W ~ The chronological order of events has been restored by O

~ n d S . T l ; ~ h i ~ ~ t c order of M should be preferred. It is confirmed by 4QRuth.7 TJ'J:;i Verse 7b is lacking as a whole in sorne editions of T, whereas it is present

in Urbinas Ebr. l and in ali other manuscripts. The absence in sorne editionsmay be due to homoioteleuton, the scribe's eye having moved from the final :iin i ' l ~ l J to the final :i of :111:1' (so Campbell, Ruth, 60).

9 t : J ~ 1 i '...\ccording to S p e r b ~ r ' ~ edition: t:J1?tZ1 il N . Urbinas Ebr. 1 reads il N t:J1?tZ1 , "a good, full reward ." The whole sentence reads: "full reward for thekindness you have done me. (And in that reward .. . )." Levine (Aramaic Ver-sion, 51) correctly considers this information as a "significant midrashic addition." Therefore the evaluation of T differs from that of S and OL. The Lucianiccharacter of the reading is clear since it is attested by 54, 75, 82, 106, 134, 344314, and 93. The reading of l06 has been provided here on the authority of Rahlfs(Studie, 80, note 1).

~ i p V is the only version which explicitly says that only the two young womenare weeping, not ali three of them. The same statement cou ld be present in4QRuth if the t:J- suffix reflects an old feminine dual (Campbell, Ruth, 65, 66).The Hebrew syntax, especially in the beginning of verse 10, is certainly in favorof such an interpretation . Because of the speculative character of the dual presupposition, the reading of 4QRuth has not been preferred.12 ,:;i?. Because of the defective writing of the imperative (without final :1), sorneOreek manuscripts vocalized the consonantal text a s p7. S has a tendency to1, ., ,,. t ' . > . ; J=" ..... , ......,nf"; , ; ) ;,...;,. 'T'h o """"rlot:,-. .,,-1,..l;t;,...,., r. f o ""''"' "rl ' 1.orh r. -f

52* COMMENTARIES ON THE CRITICAL APPARATUSmovement is certainly original, since the two verbs occur in 8 and 12 in a chiastic order.h1?,7:i The Hebrew base for f . . E f . . a ~ K r n v l ] v was already noted by J.O. Schar-

, f ~ ~ b e r g (Animadversiones, 87) in 1781. Although unattested, the Oreek readingcould be due to 8' (Thornhill, "Oreek Text," 239). out..f..a0E:v in o' can hardlybe based upon :i1?,1?n and it seems to render the Hebrew idiom as such. It mayhave influenced V: (hac nocte) concipere.

14 i ' l ~ i ~ Q ~ According to Houbigant , M abbreviated the original text since ali theversions agree regarding the same extra information. This is, however, not thecase. The apparatus clearly shows that the versions glossed in different ways.For T the gloss in the Antwerp polyglot and in the different manuscripts us edby Levine has been provided in the apparatus (there is no gloss in the Londonpolyglot nor in the Masoretic Bibles) . The differences between the versionsmake it abundantly clear that each version wanted to make explicit in its ownway what the "k issi ng of th e mother-in-law" meant. They easily found the cluesin the immediate context as Buxtorf (Anticritica, 691) already suspected. For alithese reasons, CTAT(l:l30) considers Ma s the earliest attainable text which is,moreover, supported by 4QRuthb.

15 ':J1W o has the extra information oT KOL o. The fact that O'f is lacking in 0 75. h o u l d not be stressed. The group to which this manuscript belongs has O'f.Moreover, 0 75 has many scribal en-ors (Rahlfs, Studie, 66, note 2) . The absenceof o'it from La and other ancient versions such as Ethiopic, A1menian, and Sahidic should not be underlined either. For it may have been ve1y difficult fortranslators to render a particle like O'f into the receptor language (Rahlfs, Studie,56, note 5). CTAT (1:130) also notes that V respects the austerity of M, themanuscript Laudianus with its addition et tu after vade being the only exception.T does the same at this point, but it presents the extra information Tli1?n11?1

T ~ l i l m\ "to your people and to your gods," at the end ofthe verse.19 t : l ~ l J l The general interpretational tendency of the versions makes it tempting to

evaluate O with Oerleman (Ruth/Hohelied, 17) likewise as interpretational. Onthe other hand, lexicographical considerations make the shift of root as proposed by Ehrlich (Randglossen, 7:22) and Joon (Ruth, 43) attractive. This is aborderline case which could be eliminated if O also is considered as interpretational. Are we the victims of our modem lexicography?

21 :-Tl'.11 The immediate context is certainly not unfavorable to the piel meaning "af-"fiict" of the root :ill.111, and the selection of such a meaning by O V and S istherefore not surprising. :ill.1 11 , however, as has been stated in recent research

(CTAT, 1:131; Sasson, Ruth, 35; Campbell , Ruth, 77; Hubbard, Ruth, 126f. ; deWaard/Nida, Handbook, 83), is always constructed with the accusative of theafflicted and never with the preposition :;i , as is the case with the qal meaning"testify" of :ill.11. E ven though a divine agent never figures as "testifier" (Myers,Literary Fonn, 22), the vocalization of M should nevertheless be retained. Theconstruction with the preposition :;i seems to express contrary evidence, whereasthe construction with? would present favorable evidence.2:7 :ii;i:\1 See commentary. on l i ' ~ i J i'lJ;l:;iW :-TJ.

l i ' ~ i J i1p:;iw :i,t,. The precise meaning of M will probably never be known. If onedoes not want to consider f.v 1(\l ayp(\l of O as a rendering of li':J.:1 in the senseof Akkadian bltu or Arabic bayt as suggested by Weippert ("Kommentar zu

7/28/2019 BHQ Ruth

10/16

RUTH 12 53*out n:::i; or that the translator considered it to be a dittography . G made explicitwhat it considered to be the right location. It is important to note that, apartfrom the transposition of EV t\> ayp(\> and L!Cpv in the Lucianic recension(Rahlfs, Studie, 81), there is no evidence of any variant reading in any Greekmanuscript. According to its exegesis of the source text, G also provided precision with regard to time by replacing i t ? ; 1 ~ - i ~ 1 with !Cal !wc; a:n:pac;. Rahlfs'sR group has here !wc; vuv toilto (Rahlfs, Studie, 109), which is not surprisingsince one of the main characteristics of this recension is its frequent agreementwith M. In addition, G ha s vocalized ;m:::itv as ilJ;l:;itti and has performed a negative transformation. Although V shares with G this negative transformation, itrenders n:::iit, and it seems to have read il:;itti reversa est. The diversity of thetext traditions probably only shows different attempts to make sense out of adifficult text (CTAT, 1 131).A possible interpretation of M would seem to be the one given by Zimolong("Ruth 2.7," 158) who retouches the Hebrew accentuation by taking il! with thepreceding i t ? ; 1 ~ and who takes n::m .z;i:;iW as an apposition of itJ. ! J ~ 7 ? wouldthen refer to the small quantity Ruth as an inexperienced gleaner had gathered.He has taken up again the millenary exegesis of Yefet ben Eli, probably withoutknowing this (CTAT, 1 132). As a result, M could be paraphrased as follows:"She has come and stayed since this moming. And until now, the time far herto sit down at home, it is little she has gathered."14 nf.17 Because of the stronger disjunctive accent on i,;iN:;t, M takes as thetime setting of Boaz' s utterance (Joon, Ruth, 57-58), and it ascribes thesewords to the narrator. Only such a division does justice to the time lapse between verses 13 and 14 and to the staging of the story (Campbell, Ruth, 102).G, however, provides a different syntactical division of the Hebrew text bymaking ~ 6 r c'ipa TD'l q>aye:v part of the speech of Boaz. The different renderings of La (hora manducandi ... ) and of V (quando hora .. . fuerit) alsotestify to such a syntactical division of the text. As to Greek text traditions,sorne manuscripts belonging to Rahlfs's R group read c'ipq. and others,mainly Lucianic, c'ipq., adopting therefore the syntactical division ofM.

- , : ; i ~ ' l The hapax legomenon ! J f . ~ ' l of M is now clearly supported by 2QRuth.The question marks following the evaluation are only meant to warn against thedrawing of hasty conclusions. The typical Septuagint verb and neologism (Lust,Lexicon, 83b) Bouvltw, "to heap up," is further only used by G in Ruth 2:16far the rendering of C ' D : ; i ~ ; : t BcBouvwvwv. Did the translator ignore themeaning of both hapax legomena and did he link them with forms of i : : : i ~ asthe most similar tem in his lexical stock (CTAT, 1:132)? Or did the translator(a) consider lJ and n as alternate spellings; (b) analogous to Ugaritic ~ b o n ,"tongs," understand the Hebrew verb to mean "he took with tongs far her,"generically understood as "passing over," (c) translationally mark quantity (toheap up) because of the grammatical object iA.lj>LTOV and because of the factthat Ruth was entirely satisfied? The first presupposition is certainly easier, butnothing is more complex than translational processes. Although the rendering ofV congessit polentam sibi, "she heaped up barley far herself (!)" causes furthercomplications, it is not to be excluded that the translation congessit stemsfromG.18 N'Jf:)l Two manuscripts of M (Kenn. 18 and 109) read i:qr:ll, providing a

54* COMMENTARIES ON THE CRITICAL APPARATUSIaw" the first of a double accusative. The same textual understanding is foundin V and S. The two manuscripts are Ashkenazi type, dating from late thiiteenthto early fourteenth century, and they have a weak authority (CTAT, 1:133).Moreover, the preservation of the same grammatical subject of the two preceding verbs Nif'l')l and Ni::l?;11 is certainly syntactically facilitating. On the otherhand, in M the sign of the direct object only figures befare "what she hadgleaned" taking "mother-in-law" as the grammatical subject of the verb underdiscussion. M further has the support of G and T. The vocalization of M shouldtherefore be preferred (Joon, Ruth, 62; Campbell, Ruth, 104-5).

19 i?b;,i h i ; i i f ' ~ - , W ~ n15 In 2QRuth there is a !acuna between itntvY and Ctv but thespace is sufficient for i ~ N n i i ~ Y .21 i l ! : ; l ~ i ~ ; : t On the photographs of 2QRuth (fragment IV, 5 of plate XIV in DJDIII), only the left part of the upper vertical stroke of the it of i t ' : : l N i ~ ; is visible.Not only this textual support, but also the use of the literary device of the socalled "inclusio of identity" (Gow, Ruth, 124), is in favor of the reading of M.The extra information :n:poc; mv8epav m'niic; in G is not based upon a Vor-lage i - ! J ; l i ~ 1 : - i , ~ (Joon, Ruth, 65), but it is the result of the application of atranslation technique of making participants explicit. S either shows dependenceu pon G, or has independently used the same technique .23 t J ~ 7 7 tJii,i, is the primitive reading of 2QRuth. To the left of the incompletewaw, a trace of an added p may be visible, a correction which would producethe infinitive qal reading tJipi,i, with the same meaning as the infinitive pielreading of M.

:::iip,:n 2QRuth has only been cited here in arder to point out to the user ofthe apparatus that sorne fragmentary text exists. So fragmentary, that only theupper stroke of the initial i of :::itvni can be detected on the photographs (fragment VI, 5 of plate XIV in DJD III). Even in the (theoretical) case of morecompleteness, the text would have remained indecisive with regard to the vocaIization of the verb. Only the use of the preposition would have been decisive.Two manuscripts de Rossi (379 and the first hand of 495) have the reading:Jttiz;11, which seems to have been followed by V, (postquam autem) reversa est.The characterization "shift of meaning" has been used to characterize these secondary readings. They certainly intend to create smoother transitions. The sentence in M could be taken as sequential to the preceding one (Campbell, Ruth,108-9) oras contemporaneous with it (Sasson, Ruth, 62).3: 12 CN '?. For syntactic and semantic reasons, CN '::l has to be considered as anaccidental dittography of the preceding ( C l ) ~ N ':l.14 11;;ii:f1 The two preceding verbs have Ruth as the agent to obtain a more logical

sequence. S also made Ruth the grammatical subject of the utterance with theimplication of further shifts: "she said to him, 'Nobody should know that I carneto you on the threshing floor.'" S therefore made a syntactical assimilation.There can be no doubt that the subject is Boaz as it has been explicitly stated inG V. It is more difficult to know to whom the utterance in Mi s addressed. In TBoaz is speaking "to his servant" and in the midrash Ruth Rab. II, 1 "to hisforeman." A number of manuscripts of the Hexaplaric (!) family (Rahlfs, Studie,67-71) have Boaz addressing Ruth: rn l dm v m ' n ~ (19, 108, 426), !Cal EimvBoc; a u t ~ (376), 1Cal dmv a u t ~ Boc; (58). V has Boaz implicitly addressingRuth with implied further shifts: et dixit Booz, cave ne quis noverit quod huc. .

7/28/2019 BHQ Ruth

11/16

RUTH2H 55*may it be your will that it not be known that the woman carne to the threshingfloor." Ali these different interpretations clearly show that M is the oldest attainable text and that the utterance should most probably be understood as amonologue: "he thought to himself."

15 N ? ~ l The reading of M with Boaz as grammatical subject is found in MA, MY,and ML, as well as in the editions of Ben I:Iayyim and Minhat Shay. On theother hand, more than forty manuscripts of M have the reading with the feminine preformative N:lJ;ll, making Ruth the implied subject.The reading of G Kal doj/,,8Ev is grammatically, of course, indeterminate withregard to the agent. However, the fact that G staits the discourse immediatelyfollowing with Kal 'Poue doj/,,8Ev shows that the intended subject of the verbis here the same as that of the preceding aorists, namely Boaz, as it has beenexplicitly stated in 3:4. Only a part of the Lucianic recension makes Ruth explicit in the text. V and S by their feminine forms express the same reading.4:4 7 ~ f ' Question marks following the evaluations express continued uncertainties.As observed in CTAT (1:134), the reading of Mis witnessed by its best representatives: MA, ML, and the editions of Ben I:Iayyim and M i n ~ a t Shay. It is alsoprotected by a Mp of manuscript Pars BN Hbreu 3, which refers for this sequence to Lev 27:20 and which protects this sequence against the nifal reading

7 ~ ~ : found three times (Lev 25:30, 54; Lev 27 :27).In contrast with two Arabic Jewish versions of Ruth, published by M. Peritz,which read 7 ~ f l ' \ , Saadya in his commentary on Ps 4:4 quotes in the first instance Ruth 4:4 as an authority for his thesis that Hebrew can use the thirdperson for the first and the second and vice versa. As additional proof he citesMic 7:19 and Ps 81:17. Ibn Ezra (par. 120), on the other hand, retaining thethird person, interprets: "if no redeemer redeems it," supported in this by Yefetben Eli who states that Boaz addresses himself to the elders. This interpretationwhich is also found in Midrash Rabbah, has recently been taken up again bySasson: "But, should he decide not to redeem it (added Boaz as he addressedthe elders before turning back to the redeemer) .. . "(Ruth, 103 and 118).Although one may not want to take away the vestiges of a vivid impression, theweight of more than fifty manuscripts of M followed by at least two versions infavor of the reading 7 ~ 1 ' \ is, of course, impressive. One can therefore understand the text correction proposed in CTAT (1:134). It remains nevertheless impossible to explain the origin of M. As Rudolph (Ruth/Hohes Lied/Klagelieder,59) has already stated, it is difficult to explain M as a scribal error. Moreover, itis not impossible that V tibi displicet (hoc) and T ( p 1 i ! : l ~ 7 ) 1rm1 deal in asimilar way with the difficulty of M.5 1 ' 1 ~ 7 ; ? ' Severa! proposals with regard to this issue have been made. It has beensuggested to maintain M and to consider the as enclitic. On the other hand, ithas been proposed to simply delete the ~ o r t o read, following V, considering therefore the 1 of M as an error for the l. A variant of the l a ~ t suggestion is the proposed reading en which entirely harmonizes with the reading found in 4: 1O. The last two proposals are facilitating assimilations.Without going into ali the details of this crux interpretum, the ambiguity ofcertain textual witnesses should be noted. Although G through its rendering Kalnap confirms the reading 1 ' 1 ~ 7 ; ? ~ of M, it also confirms through its double translation Kal aui:'v the interpretation of V. The same applies to T. In spite of theequalization 1'11i1 N1' ' ~ : l l l 1 N1 ' T also states: "you must acquire her by

COMMENTARIES ON THE CRITICAL APPARATUSlevirate marriage," a significant midrashic addition which to a high degree confirms the same interpretation.lt seems therefore that the problems are largely interpretational. As remarked inCTAT (1:135), one wonders whether the use of distinct prepositions in M, 1 ~ 7 ; ?and 1 ' 1 ~ 7 ; ? , does not reflect the distinct relations both women have with regard tothe transaction . Through the purchase, the patrimony no longer is in the handsof Naomi, but it does not enter into the possession of the buyer. In pursuance oflevirate rights, the purchase takes place on behalf of Ruth and in her name. Itmay therefore well be that V, in spite of its translational treatment, has correctlyunderstood M as already Buxtorf (Anlicrilica, 760) suspected. And the samecould apply to ali the versions.

11 C ' J ~ C ' ~ j ? . ] t l l G reads Kal Elitooav (dnav) n i i ~ 6 / , , a ~ ol f,v itA1:J Mpi : u p E ~ . Kal ol npwBnpot e'lnooav (Elnav) .... In other words, it gives different functions to the two different groups. It has ali the people in the gate perform as witnesses, and it has only the elders pronounce the blessing.For Joon (Ruth, 89) G is based upon an original Hebrew text which could haverun as follows: 1 i ~ N C'lplin Cl'1:11 i:ll!D:l i!DN c:ii:i-?::i i ~ N ' l M would be acondensed text. His major argument is that it is very difficult to understand howordinary people could fo1mulate such poetic wishes and such sophisticated allusions.It is, however, exactly such a reasoning which could have led to the Greektranslator's interpretation of M. Mainly two arguments favor M: (1) in the threeinstances in this chapter (4:9 and 11) in which the people and the elders interfere, they act together; (2) the arder of the two groups in verse 9 has been reversed in verse 11, and severa! other examples could be given of an intentionalchiastic mTangement of pa1ticipants.By its inversion, S assimilates the order of paiticipants to that of verse 9. Inaddition, S amplifies M by providing, like G, each group with a verb of saying.Unlike G, however, S has the two groups act in conce1t.

CANTICLES1 3 p:::nn 11?.W piin as a verbal fo1m is a feminine impe1fect hofal of P'i, "(which)

is emptied/poured out." The feminine form is, however, not congruent with themasculine subject. Many exegetes, therefore, emend the text to the participlep i i ~ which seems to be presupposed in G, (a'), (e'), V (v. 2), and T. The reading of S could have been occasioned by this Hebrew f01m , or otherwise is aguess. In 6QCant there is no l ~ ~ ; instead of it only the letter is certain, a i isprobable. On the basis of available space, Baillet (DJD III, 113) has conjecturally reconstructed the text as : i p i 1 ~ n n p ] i ~ "an aromatic mixture pouredout," a reading which does not help to explain the text of M. A conjecturalemendation is p i i ~ n , "cosmetic treatment" (Esth 2:3, 9, 12); so Rudolph(Ruth/Hohes Lied/Klagelieder , 122) and F. Horst (apparatus BHS) . It has al sobeen suggested that piin may not be a verb form at ali, but has a meaningwhich can no longer be established, so that we should translate "Turaq-oil."4 ' ; ' J Q ~ In the accentuation of M, TilN is connecred with the following: "drawme, we will hurry after you." Since this would refer to a third person besides

7/28/2019 BHQ Ruth

12/16

LXXIVFIGURE 2Sample Page lllustrating the Features of the Layou/

(l ) Diplomatic presentation of the text of ML (except for the insertion ofverse numbers, the marking of poetic lines according to the Masoreticaccents, and the omission of raie).(2) Diplomatic presentation of the Masorah parva of ML.(3) Diplomatic presentation of the Masorah magna of ML (except for versenumbers and reference separators); a translation is provided in the commentary section of the edition.(4) Text critica! apparatus with the evidence of witnesses to the Hebrew textfor cases material to exegesis andlor translation; occasional expanded discussions in the commentary section of the edition.(1) Diplomatische Wiedergabe des Bibeltextes aus ML ( abweichend van derHandschrift wurden Kapitel- und Verszijfern hinzugefgt und poetische Passagen den masoretischen Akzemen folgend stichographisch angeordner;auj3erdem wird rape im Druck nicht wiedergegeben).(2) Diplomatische Wi edergabe der Masora parva van ML.(3) Diplomatische Wiedergabe der Masora magna van ML (abweich.end van derHandsch.rift wurden Verszijfem sowie Trennzeichen zwischen den einzelnenVerweisen hinzuge fgt); im Kommentarteil findet sich dazu jeweils eine bersetzung.(4) Textkritischer Apparat mit dem Befund der antiken Textzeugen des Hebraischen Textes in denjenigen Fallen, die fr Exegese undloder bersetzungmoglicherweise bedeutsam sind; gelegentlich finden sich dazu weitere Erliiuterungen im Kommentarteil.(1) Presentacin diplomtica del texto de ML (excepto en la insercin de los nmeros de versculo, la indicacin de las lneas poticas segn los acentos masorticos y la omisin del rape).(2) Presentacin diplomtica de la masora parva de ML.(3) Presentacin diplomtica de la masora magna de ML (excepto en los nmeros

de versculo y los separadores de referencia); la traduccin en la seccin delcomentario.(4) Aparato crtico del texto con los datos de los testimonios del texto hebreo

para el material de los casos que afectan a la exgesis y/o la traduccin; ocasionalmente discusiones ms extensas en la seccin del comentario.

LXXIIIFIGURE 1Sample of an Apparatus Entry (Jer 23: 17)Jllustrating the Presentation of the Text Critical Ca ses

~ ~ ~ ~ ~iliil' i : i i ' ~ N l ~ ' : i V T (assim-Num 14:11-12, 23) 1 :o:

7/28/2019 BHQ Ruth

13/16

LXXV

2

RUTH 1'\1ien ini cry?, r r , : ; ~ t V ' ~ 1 7 ~ 1 f l ~ ; t : i ~ l ';J;1 C ' ~ ! ? W t t ~ : ; ' ~ ; 1 1' tV'Ni1 CtV1 :1'l:l0 'ltVi0 i1'ltVN1 Nii1 : I N i ~ ,, . :!! 1.m7 i1iii1' 2.J ' T .J' ' l ITT /"': \ ' / T .r T T ;

C ' D l ! ? ~ J i ' 1 ? : ; > 1 1 i 7 r y ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ - ' } . o / cw.1 - ~ ~ ~ i b w 1 1 7 ~ - 7 ~1 7 ~ ' 7 ! 5 :cw-1':T1 : i l $ ; ~ - - 1 ~ i N ~ ~ 1 i1Jm; c r y ~ n ; ; ~ 3 " ctli ni0:JNb btiil cii7 iNW"1 :il'l:i 'ltVi N'i1 iNwm - ~ ~ 7 l tV'N 4cni? ('' ' -: 1 'T ' T .J : - T r:T I": \ ' 1' ' T ' - A' T: T .J' i m ~ i :C'ltV iiznb ctli i:itlii mi T1'lWi1 ctlii ; i ! \ i i ~ hnNi1 ;T- I' T ' . r : ; \T ; r - A \' ' ' - ,.. ' T ; T - - IT' : : i w l : \ ~ i 0'17: ~ ~ ~ ~ i l ~ ~ : i \.1l$1{!l"l1 i:7:;i1 l i ? r y ~ c r . : n o / - c ~

, n n ~ : i ~ i ~ i 1 J ~ : ; i h ~ l ? W '? : i ~ i ~ ' J i f ' ~ :io/m op?:;i1 Cj?P1 6b i p i p ; : i - 1 ~ N ~ l } 1 : C l ) ~ c::7 np7 i i b r n ~ ; ,F 1j?-'f-'?. 1'in i n ~ - 7 ~ :i1o/7 111;i i1PJJJ1 : i ~ ~ O'b':;i '!:Jo/i i 1 i p ~ ; i ~ ; o

nio ; : ~ ~ T1'?.7 i 1 f # ~ i l ~ ~ i / j i 1 ~ ~ ~ O'ply:;i 'Po/7 - ~ ~ ~ i??NJ;\1 :i1']ii1; 8llJ' : ' 7 1 ? ~ 1 C ' p ~ ; : t C J ) ' W ~ i p ~ : ; ; i i9ry C : ; ? l p ~ i1Ji1; i 1 W ~ ; 9:, i 1 ~ N W J " l 1 1;)7 PWl"l1 : i w ~ T1'f.! i 1 f # ~ i1Dil1? , 1 N ~ 1 ? h1;i;0- :o: IZlN ,,,, Oi:JN , . , , , i10:i :l fiN:l : ';J'1 ;m n71 pn ' I J ?100 )' i n [ : l J

1:1 O ' ~ ; > Y ; : i ti\:>o/ 'o':!! 4QRuth" GM" (Y) (T) 1 v ni) Kp lvm wc; Kpn c; G 1,.;_;, .,,,;;.... S (facil-synt) + :1'J? '.lo/1 4QRu th" 4QRuth" GM " YT J Kl ol ulolCtto G S (iniplic) 2 OJli11 4QRuth" G S T 1 Ojtl1 4QRuthh 1 pse vocab11111r Y(transl) 1 7 ~ 7 GM" y s T 1 'A [lLlh;< G - 1 ' \ 1 G T 1 1:ltl1'1 4QRu th"(nssim- 1:4?)1 rnoraba11111r Y (trans l) 1 S (trans l) + 3 '9!/l lVJ:I G Y ST 1 vir ei11s La S :riW'l:t1J1 ;i''J'?'. : G S 1 Y (indet) rifN GT 1 toii n a rpc; m i t ~ c ; GM" (assim-cultur) 1 111 ris vestrae La Y (assim-ctex t) 1patris ves tri (assim -cu ltur+ assim -ctex.t) 1 r< S (assim-cultur+ass imctex t) ;Jivl,7; 1 ;J!ll.'' M " 1 V!,7 M""' 1 G Y S T (i1 t) 9 o:?'? G Y 1 fo ililAEOV G' S (nmpl) 1 oil ... 0' 7 l1 Jti ilN T (rn idr) + 4

7/28/2019 BHQ Ruth

14/16

GENERAL INTRODUCTIONThe first edition in the modern series of Biblia Hebraica (BHK1) appeared atLeipzig in 1906 as the new century was getting under way. Throughout the centurynew editions of Biblia Hebraica have appeared, each retaining the basic structureof the original edition, but introducing changes as warranted by developments intext critica! study. A second edition (BHK2 ), differing from the first only in minorcorrections, was published in 1913, also at Leipzig. The third edition (BHK3) appeared in 1929- 1937 at Stuttgart, and introduced major changes : a new base text,reproducing the text of the Leningrad Codex rather than the 1524-1525 Bombergedition of Jacob ben I:Iayyim; and an entirely new apparatus. Biblia HebraicaStuttgartensia (BHS, 1967- 1977), the fourth edition in the series, followed BHK3in using the Leningrad codex as the base text, but introduced a new presentation ofthe manuscript's Masorah, as well as a new apparatus.As the old century gives way to a new one, the increased availability ofrecent manuscript discoveries (especially the Dead Sea Scrolls) , the developmentsof severa! decades' intensive research in the transmission of the text of the HebrewBible, and the concomitant shifts in our appreciation of the aims and limits oftextual criticism occasion a new edition (the fifth) in the line of Biblia Hebraica ,which thus may be known as Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ). Since this is the firstfascicle of the new edition, it is appropriate that we offer sorne explanation of theedition so as to situate it in relation to its predecessors.This new edition comes about at the initiative of the United Bible Societies, andwith the sponsorship of the German Bible Society, which has special responsibilityfor the publication of scientific editions, specifically including Biblia Hebraica.The character of Biblia Hebraica Quinta is shaped by two histories, that of theeditions of Biblia Hebraica, and that of the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project ofthe United Bible Societies.

Severa! crucial decisions at stages in the development of the Biblia Hebraicahave given the series a well-known character that continues in this edition. Fromthe beginning, the editions in this series have been intended as Han.dausgaben.Also from the beginning, as a result of an explicit choice by Rudolf Kittel, theedition has not presented an eclectic text of the Hebrew Bible, but rather hasprinted the text of single edition or manuscript, and provided a critica! apparatusthat presents a selection of variants and conjectures for emending the text, emphasizing those most significant for exegesis and translation. In the first two editions,the text of the Bomberg edition of Jacob ben Hayyim was used as the base text.Starting with the third edition (1937), on the initiative of Paul Kahle, the text ofcodex EBP. I B 19a of the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg (i.e., ML)has been printed as the base text. Kahle also emphasized the importance of printingthe Masorah parva and magna of ML as part of the edition. In the third edition, thisairo was realized only for the Masorah parva. It was only with the fourth in theBiblia Hebraica series, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia , that Kahle's airo was attempted so far as the Masorah magna is concerned. As the Dead Sea Scrolls beganto appear in the late 1940's, the seventh imoression of RHK3. nn thP. initiMivP nf

7/28/2019 BHQ Ruth

15/16

IX GENERAL INTRODUCTIONeclectic text of the Hebrew Bible must choose to reconstruct that text at a particular point in its development. In the midst of the current lack of consensus aboutthe appropriate stage of the text to aim at in such a reconstruction, it seems to thecommittee that an edition, which will be widely used by students and non-specialists, should not present as its running text a reconstruction based on one of thepositions in the debate. Third, the committee takes the view that an eclectic textought to be based on the presentation of ali variants found in the surviving witnesses. Such a presentation is beyond the limits inherent in a one-volume edition.

THETEXT

Continuing the practice established with the third edition of 1937, and refined inthe Stuttgartensia edition, this edition offers as its base text a basically diplomaticpresentation of ML. In recent years, studies of ML and its Masorah have indicatedthat in sorne respects it may be less than ideal as the base text of an edition (seethe specific discussion below). Indeed, the committee gave due consideration toother options for providing a base text for the edition. It was decided not to use theAleppo Codex (i.e., MA) chiefly because the manuscript is incomplete. Moreover,since the Hebrew University Bible Project employs this manusclipt as the base textfor its splendid editions, and since it is also the text for the Bar-Ilan Universityedition of the Bible edited by M. Cohen, MA is appearing befare the scholarlypublic in edited form. The Editorial Committee also considered employing the earliest available ben Asher manuscript for each of the three divisions of the canon asthe base text for BHQ . This option was abandoned in favor of the continued use ofML for several reasons. First, ML remains the earliest known manuscript of theentire Hebrew Bible. Second, the state of the manuscripts that met the indicatedcriterion would have led to a patchwork when their gaps had to be supplementedwith another manuscript (e.g., in addition to its well-known !acuna in the Torah,the Aleppo Codex lacks severa! of the Writings entirely). Third, when it was assumed that the new edition would be typeset by traditional methods, the fact thatthe German Bible Society had in its possession a typeset text of ML, which alreadyhad undergone severa! rounds of careful correction, was a significant pragmaticfactor. Then, at the point where it was decided to move the project to fully computerized processes, it was equally significant that the text of ML was already availab le in electronic form - the only one of the great Tiberian manuscripts then soavailable. While the processes of converting the text to the specific electronic formused in making this edition had introduced new errors into the electronic text, it hadalready undergone sorne degree of correction befare its use in this project. In thecourse of making this edition, the electronic version of the text is undergoing thorough correction against color transparencies obtained from the Ancient BiblicalManuscript Center in Claremont, California, USA. The transparencies were produced from the new photographs of ML taken in St. Petersburg by the Center's teamformed by West Semitic Research of Los Angeles. The clarity and quality of thephotographs are well beyond that which has been readily obtainable otherwise, andwill undoubtedly lead to a number of corrections that were not possible for the textof BHS until the fifth impression exclusively (1997). The electronic text of ML willbe checked against these photos independently by the editors of the individual books

~ n r l h\ I ! : l f " ~ r f P . m rnll

7/28/2019 BHQ Ruth

16/16

XI GENERAL INTRODUCTIONIn the event, that airo was realized only for the Masorah parva in the 1937 edition.BHS was intended to realize Kahle's airo of publishing both the Masorah parvaand magna. The edition of ML's Masorah produced for BHS by Grard E. Weilwas intended as a fully corrected and norrnalized realization of the Masorah ofML, rather than a diplomatic representation of what was actually written in themanuscript. For this new edition, the Editorial Committee determined to reproduceboth the Masorah parva and magna of ML in an essentially diplomatic representation. Since the Masorah is part of the text of ML that constitutes the base text ofthe edition, and the basic principie of its representation is diplomatic, it seemed tothe committee inconsistent to present the Masorah in any other fashion. It is truethat the Masorah magna and parva of ML have their deficiencies, and they mostcertainly do not represent the totality of the data contained in the tradition of theMasorah. However, an edition that would address these matters would require thecollation of the Masorah in other manuscripts, and would need more space thancan reasonably be granted such matters in a one-volume edition.

This means that where the Masorah of ML is not consistent with the text in themanuscript, it will not be corrected, as was the practice in BHK3 and especiallyBHS. Such cases instead will be explained in a note in the commentary section ofthe edition. A glossary of common abbreviations used in the Masorah parva isincluded in this edition to aid readers in understanding those notes. Notes fromthe Masorah parva that cannot be translated reliably using the glossary will betranslated in the commentary section, as will every note in the Masorah magna.Masorah notes that involve too much implicit information to be reasonably understood even from a translation will be discussed in the commentary section.The edition will depart in two formal aspects from a diplomatic presentation ofthe Masorah magna in order to make it easier for readers to follow the text of theMasorah. At the beginning of each note, the numbers of the chapter and verse towhich the note is judged to refer will be inserted. Masorah magna notes containingsmanm will appear with a point inserted between each sman.

On more than one occasion ML inse1ts a circellus in its text without a c01Te-sponding note in the Masorah parva. Likewise, notes occur in the Masorah parvawithout circelli indicating the words or phrases to which they refer, and notes occur in the Masorah magna that have no connection with the matter displayed onthe pages of ML on which they occur. So far as possible, BHQ attempts to represent this situation reliably . Circelli will be inserted in the text even when they donot have a corresponding note. Notes in the Masorah parva without a corresponding circellus will be associated with the word or phrase to which the editor judgesthey relate, but without the insertion of a circellus. Thus the note will occur inproximity to its probable referent, but a false certainty about that referent will notbe conveyed. Notes in the Masorah magna that cannot be related to textual matteron the same or neighboring pages, will be associated with the first word on themanuscript page on which they occur, ensuring a location in the edition that approximates the note's location in the manuscript. In both Masorah magna and parva, numerals that lack the usual supralinear dot in ML will have that dot suppliedfor the sake of clarity.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION XAs with BHS , the text printed in BHQ will be the text of ML, even when thisshows obvious errors. The corrections will be noted in the apparatus on the basis

of the other Tiberian manuscripts collated. On the other hand, the new photographsof ML have revealed a small number of instances where damage to the manuscripthas rendered sorne element of a word illegible (usually a vowel sign or accent). Insuch instances the edition will show a reconstructed reading in the base text, andwill use an apparatus entry to report what can actually be discemed in ML, as wellas the readings of the other Tiberian witnesses that forro the basis of the reconstruction. In still other cases, ML displays a variation between the reading of thefirst hand, and a reading provided by a second hand (e.g., through errors in thecourse of re-inking accidentally damaged portions of the manuscript [see the discussion below]). In these cases the editor will include in the base text the readingjudged to represent the valid reading of the manuscript, and will report the relevantdata in an apparatus entry.As far as the layout of the base text is concemed, BHQ follows its predecessorsby departing from a fully diplomatic representation of ML's page layout in thattexts judged by the editor to be prose are set in a single column, and texts judgedto be poetry are set stichographically. However, the criteria for determining thestichography have been altered from those used in previous editions. For poeticpassages in prose texts that ML presents stichographically in a traditional page layout , the text of this edition will follow the stichography of ML. Otherwise, thestichography in this edition is based on the Masoretic accents. Stichoi are alwaysdefined by the primary disjunctive accents, except in cases where a different syntactic division from the one expressed in those accents is judged to be the preferredreading of the text. In such cases the preferred reading will determine the divisionof the stichoi. The grouping of stichoi into bi- and tri-cola is determined so far aspossible by the hierarchy of precedence among rhose accents. Only where the result produces a line that would run over the edge of the page, or that would disruptan obvious parallelismus membrorum is the grouping of the stichoi into bi- and tricola altered.There are also a number of lists among the prose texts of ML (e.g., Ezra 2:43-57) that, although there is no fixed tradition conceming their presentation, are arranged on the pages of ML in a way that distinguishes them from the surroundingprose. In this edition they will be presented in a way that, so far as possible, replicates their presentation in the manuscript.The various other phenomena associated with Masoretic manuscripts (e.g., enlarged letters, suspended letters, signals for reading sections, inverted nunm) areprinted as they appear in ML, as has been the practice since the 1937 edit\on. Inparticular, the nun- or zayin-Iike sign found in the Masorah parva of ML en willbe shown in a forrn that follows the manuscript as closely as possible. However,sa[um[ and pa[uhI are not indicated by the manner of spacing lines, but by theinterposition of O and El, as has been the practice from the beginning of the BibliaHebraica series.

THEMASORAH

In his contribution to the foreword of the third edition, Kahle, pointing out that thetext of ML "vollstandig wird . . . erst durch die ihm b e i g e g e ~ e n e Masora" (BHK3 ,