Prof. E. Tov, The Hebrew University[i]
 |
| Prof. E. Tov |
Since the
last quarter of the 20th century, the study of textual criticism has been
aided greatly by computer-assisted tools and research. Such tools consist of
flexible, interactive databases and programs that aid the researcher in
obtaining and analyzing data, while computer-assisted research presents in
print non-flexible[ii]
results of investigations that were compiled with the aid of machine-readable
data. The latter type of research will not be referred to in this chapter. It
is probably true to say that involvement in textual criticism is virtually
impossible in the 21st century without the aid of electronic tools.
An ever-increasing number of Bible computer modules and databases are becoming
available and the possibilities for using them profitably within existing
programs are expanding. This increasing availability enables several types of
data retrieval, and allows scholars to access data and formulate conclusions
that would not have been possible with the conventional research methods. The
present chapter briefly describes the available data, but it should be
remembered that due to ongoing developments some statements may be in need of
updating.
a. Available
Tools
The great
majority of the text modules also include a morphological analysis.[iii] This analysis allows for
searches of all the words, combinations of words, and
grammatical categories, and also enables the creation of concordances.[iv]
At this stage, the searches can be applied to the following texts:
MT (according to codices L or A, without medieval variants), allowing
for searches of words or meaningful parts of them, vocalization patterns, open and closed sections, Ketib–Qere forms, accents, and the MM and MP.[v]
Sam. Pent.
(edition of Tal, Shekhem 1994, without variants). Accordance enables the automatic
indication of all divergences from MT, and searches of all words and grammatical categories
in the Sam. Pent.
Biblical Dead
Sea scrolls, or any group of them such as the pre-Samaritan texts, with
indication of the divergences from MT,[vi]
enabling searches of all words and grammatical categories.
LXX (editions
of Rahlfs, Septuaginta, 1935; Rahlfs–Hanhart, Septuaginta, 2006; Göttingen editions).[vii]
In addition, the CATSS module of LXX indicates divergences
from MT, reconstructs details in the Vorlage of LXX, and marks select features in categories in translation technique.[viii]
The LXX module allows for inner-translational searches, while the CATSS module also allows for searches of
the LXX – MT equivalents.
T S V (usually
without variants, while V in SESB includes
variants), allowing for inner-translational searches.
Apparatus of BHS: fully
searchable.
Since the wish to retrieve readily available information is
constantly growing, it should be stressed that in 2013 the data available in
machine-readable format are limited, only allowing for some types of
computer-assisted research. Most research requires combinations of electronic
and manual study of the data, depending on the topic. The machine-readable form
of the BHS apparatus is
unsatisfactory for text-critical analysis since it provides far too little
information and is much too subjective. The equivalent tool for BHQ, when available in full, is more
helpful, since that edition encompasses more data. However, both tools contain
merely a selection of textual data, and therefore are not substitutes for other
types of research, among them manual research. A machine-readable form of the HUB apparatus, if and when available,
would come closer to the needs of the researcher, but that edition also
provides too little information.
As a result, there is no substitute for the manual use of the
data in the source languages, with the supplement and aid of machine-readable
modules. In 2013, only two of these modules include variant readings (for the
LXX, see n. 6), making the manual use of the editions
of the versions a necessary supplement to electronic searches.
Furthermore, use of the modules would be more efficient if they included a reconstruction,
however tentative, of the Vorlage of the ancient versions when they
supposedly differ from MT,
providing the researcher with additional research possibilities. In 2013, such
facilities are available (partially) only for the CATSS module of LXX.[ix]
Subjectivity and Caution. Machine-readable modules
should be used cautiously, which applies as well to the use of any printed
source. Since modules are compiled manually, we must remember that a
machine-readable text, having been encoded by humans, may contain mistakes.[x]
The evaluation
of variant readings may be based partially on data that are collected
electronically, but ultimately the evaluating process of these variants remains
subjective. Use of electronic data does
not replace judgment.[xi]
b. Select
Categories of Information
Textual criticism involves the
comparison of all details in the texts and therefore necessarily deals with all
types of information that may be extracted from them. This includes
the areas of language, theology, geography, history, chronology, mythology, and
all literary genres (wisdom, psalmody, prophecy, laments, narratives, etc.),
and all other categories of information contained in texts. Variants in all
these areas may be equally as relevant for these disciplines as the central
text (for example, the LXX).
Not all types of information can be retrieved using electronic
tools; in fact, in the long list of areas mentioned in the previous paragraph,
only a very small percentage of the variants can be researched en bloc. For example, the reason that
variants in the areas of history, geography, or prophecy cannot be researched
is because the details have not been marked as “historical,” “geographical,”
etc. in the databases. Users can indicate historical books and sections as
their “search range,” but their content is not necessarily “historical.” In
order to search for historical details, they first need to be indicated
manually.
As a result, most, but not all, information that we wish to
retrieve from the computer modules needs first to be encoded. However, also the
computer programs can help us in retrieving some information that has not been
expressly indicated. Thus, we can find vocabulary differences between witnesses
in the same language, enabling the user to focus on the differences between MT,
the Sam. Pent.,
and the Judean Desert scrolls, the various Greek translations, modern
translations of MT and
the LXX,[xii] the
various Targumim, etc. Other types of information that have not been inserted
are the number of letters, words, and verses, the distribution of words, and
word combinations in Hebrew Scripture as a whole, in a book, or chapter. Among
other things, the computer can determine the most frequent or infrequent words
or Greek-Hebrew equivalents in a unit, patterns in the use of the divine names,
etc.
With the exception of the types of information mentioned in the
previous paragraph, the user cannot retrieve information from computer modules
that has not been encoded.[xiii] An
indication of any type of detail (“predetermined information”) would
significantly expand the search and research facilities in the post-modern
world. In my view, commentators on all biblical books are unable to obtain the
necessary data in the textual witnesses in many areas, making predetermined
information a desideratum for the writing of commentaries.
c. Predetermined
Information
In the future, hopefully the biblical
modules will include several types of predetermined information. In 2013, the
major sets of analysis that have been pre-determined are limited, covering only
the morphological and syntactical analysis of the main texts and some features
of LXX:
a. Morphological and syntactic analysis of MT;[xiv]
b. Morphological analysis of the Sam. Pent., the Judean Desert
scrolls, LXX, T, S, V;
c. Indication of some features of the translation technique of
the LXX and the
relation between the LXX
and MT in
the CATSS module.
It would be advantageous for the development of research if
many additional sets of information such as those
mentioned in section b were
to be incorporated into the existing databases. For example, historical data
may be added to extant databases such as CATSS
or may be included in a new database based on MT,[xv]
enabling their automatic retrieval. By the same token, it would be advantageous
if all possible theological variations between
textual sources were to be encoded. Undoubtedly, the very recording of such
variations is subjective, but it could inspire continued research. For example,
MT probably contains more examples of theological changes in Samuel than in
other books, but this impression needs to be substantiated statistically.
Two areas are singled out for special
attention:
• Textual analysis. In the area of textual
criticism, merely a beginning has been made in computer-assisted research.
Future databases should include textual variations and some categories of notes
on the translation technique of the ancient versions similar to the notations
in CATSS, as well as textual
phenomena, such as harmonizations, pluses and minuses, exclusive inner-translational agreements, and
several types of information such as described in
section b.
The computer-assisted analysis of the interchanges of
consonants between MT and the LXX shows some distribution patterns in
the Scripture books. It also shows the letters that are most frequently
interchanged.
• Linguistic analysis. The area that is
best covered in the computer modules is that of morphological analysis. This
analysis enables the search for all words on the basis of the headword of each
text word.
[i] This
introduction to the list of computerized tools updates chapter 10 of my book Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3rd
ed., revised and expanded; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012).
[ii] This
term refers to the results of research that was performed with the aid of
computers, while the computer files or computer applications are not accessible
to the researcher, and as a result the user cannot work with the data
themselves.
[iii] The key to the effective use of any software program
of Scripture texts is the availability in the
background of lemmatization and morphological
analyses (grammatical tagging) of all the text words. For example, the “lemmas”
or “headwords” of rmayw
are w (particle, conjunction) and rmay (verb, Qal, waw consecutive, 3rd person
masc. sing.). The morphological analysis is mentioned in parenthesis.
[iv] In
the example listed in n. 3, each of the
morphological features is searchable within the text module, such as all Qal forms of this verb or all other
verbs in the Torah, all the 3rd person masc. sing. forms of all hiph‘il verbs in 2 Kings,
etc. In this way, all the types of nouns,
verbs, prepositions and conjunctions are searchable in any search range (the
Bible, a certain book, or part of a book).
[v] These
features are not all searchable in the same program.
[vi] This feature is available only in Accordance.
[vii] The module of the Rahlfs–Hanhart edition in SESB includes the variants of that
edition (“Handausgabe”), while the Göttingen edition in the Accordance and Logos programs includes the full
apparatus of the complete edition (“editio maior”).
[viii]
For example, differences between the LXX and MT in number, person, addition/omission of lk. It also includes notes on
transliterations and doublets in ©, interchanges of consonants between MT and the LXX, and the
relation between the LXX and Ketib–Qere.
[ix] In
the world of tomorrow, we hope to see sophisticated modules of all the ancient
versions and an improved version of CATSS.
Further, we would like to see interconnected modules of Hebrew manuscripts and
the ancient versions. However, even then the researcher would need to resort to
several printed sources as supplements to the computer modules. In future
research, the most efficient first step would be the use of electronic data,
allowing the researcher to access more data than was previously available.
After all, in the study of textual criticism we need access to a multitude of
details, and while judgment remains the major component in the study of texts,
we can only hope to ever access all the data with the aid of electronic
databases.
[x] Furthermore,
text modules involve editorial judgment in the choice of, for example, a
printed edition or manuscript, recording of Ketib–Qere,
and the indication of verses, etc.
This subjective element comes to light especially in the recording and analysis
of the Judean Desert scrolls because of their fragmentary nature. The
morphological analysis of all the texts and the determining of the “headwords”
are also subjective and may be incorrect. As a result, incorrect decisions
limit the usefulness of searches. For example, a search for all the participles
in a text module will be defective if a certain participle is parsed as a noun
or vice versa. Likewise, the recording of the reconstructed parent text of ©
in col. b of the CATSS module is
subjective, and an examination of a Hebrew word will provide incomplete results
if a researcher expects to find a certain reconstruction in that column that
has not been accepted by the editors of CATSS.
[xi] Evaluations
are based on the raw material such as that included in concordances,
dictionaries, and electronic tools. Other evaluations are based on processed
data provided by electronic tools, such as reconstructed readings, which
contain a greater percentage of subjective information than the readings of the
ancient sources themselves.
[xii]
L.L. Brenton, The Septuagint Version of
the Old Testament with an English Translation (London: Samuel Bagster and
Sons, 1879); NETS.
[xiii] Thus,
the computer will not list, for example, the names of the kings of Israel and
Judah, the number of such kings, the names of the sons of Jacob, the cities in
the tribal area of Asher, a list of the prophets and false prophets, a
comparison of the prophecies against the foreign nations by Isaiah, Jeremiah,
and Ezekiel, etc.
[xiv] The
morphological analyses are listed in the attached list; for syntactic analyses,
see SESB and the Andersen–Forbes database (both available in Logos).
[xv] For
example, the recording of geographical variations would involve the many
variations between the sources in the tribal lists in Joshua 15–19.
The recording would necessarily involve forming judgment
on the data. For example, one would have to decide which of the many Greek
variants should be included and excluded. One would also have to decide on
categories of notes on matters of content, for example, alternative forms of
the same names (Timnath-Heres in Judg 2:9
and Timnath-Serah in Josh 19:50, 24:30). One should also decide on a
special notation for place names listed in one source as belonging to one tribe
and in another source as belonging to a different
tribe. E.g. Jerusalem is connected with both the tribe of Benjamin (Judg 1:21) and the tribe of Judah (Josh 15:63; Judg 1:8). An important type of notation pertains to
variations in place names, such as 1 Sam 9:4, where “the district
of Shaalim” is reflected in LXXLuc as “Gaddi of the town
Segaleim (= Shaalim).”
See: Electronic Tools for the Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible - The List
See: Electronic Tools for the Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible - The List
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה
תגובתך תפורסם אחרי אישורה. סבלנות, ותודה על התגובה.