|
Journal of Hebrew Scriptures - Volume 8 (2008) - Review Korpel, Marjo C. A.; Oesch, and Method in Unit Delimitation incorporates eight papers from
various meetings of the “Pericope”
research group—published as the Volume 6 in the eponymous series (now
by Brill, not by Van Gorcum as before). The main
goal of the “Pericope”group is to
analyze, evaluate and, if necessary, revise the division of textual units in
primarily the biblical books, with some emphasis on the Old Testament.
Generally speaking, the means to that end are inquiries in the diverse
traditions of delimiting textual units throughout history; however, the
methodologies in face vary widely—point that becomes apparent in the
present volume in the wide range of features concerning scribal
characteristics as well as the traditional background of the manuscripts
treated. In their contribution “Paragraphing in
a Tibero-Palestinian Manuscript of the Prophets and
Writings” J. C. de Moor and M. C. A. Korpel
focus on the “study codex” B.N. hébreu
80 (BN) from the collection of the National Library of France.” This
manuscript likely dates to the 13th or 14th century and
contains features of both the Ben Naftali/Palestinian
and the Ben Asher/Tiberian family. After describing
the manuscript the authors address the textual layout by accurately listing
(and later explaining the origin of) the pluses and minuses in paragraphing (Petuhah / Setumah) of BN
compared to the K. De Troyer analyzes two substantially older
manuscripts, MS 2648 and MS 2649 in her article “The Leviticus and
Joshua Codex from the Schøyen Collection: A Closer
Look at the Text Divisions.” These papyri were originally part of a
second–third century CE codex and display some similarities to the In the sole New Testament contribution of the
volume, “The Influence of Unit Delimitation on In “The Accents: Hierarchy and
Meaning,” E. J. Revell concentrates on the
dividing accents, the מפסיקים, and their semantic usage within the structure of the verses.
He describes his task as explaining “how the accents guide the
interpretation of the text” (65). Quoting a number of examples from all
over the Tanakh, he convincingly argues that
disjunctive accents—which Revell classifies
in major (silluq, atnah,
zaqef, segolta,
šalšelet and, likewise, capitals
in manuscripts) and minor disjunctives (the rest)—can bring new and
elucidating insights to exegesis as their hermeneutical function is not to be
confused with the European syntactical punctuation. Rather, it represents an
interpretational framework with a value of its own beyond syntax and the
textual plain sense of the verses, sometimes even in contrast to them.
Specifically, by analyzing the various disjunctives—in their hierarchy,
their number, their correlation to each other and to the pausal
forms as well—one can discover the nuances of the Masoretic
exegesis and at times even establish a deeper understanding of a verse. Admittedly, the portrayal of the accentuation
system in its hierarchy and meaning and their correlation to the pausal forms is not always as compelling as desired; Revell himself concedes that the principles of the latter
are not yet understood fully and even that “a rigid consistency [in the
accentuation] is not to be expected” (70). In any case, the numerous
illuminative examples provide ample evidence that one can gain fundamental
insights by deliberating on the Masoretic
accentuation—particularly in respect to its origin: the chanting of the
verses which establishes in its melody and mode of presentation a semantic of
its own. In his contribution “Graphic Devices
Used by the Editors of Ancient and Medieval Manuscripts to Mark Verse-Lines
in Classical Hebrew Poetry” S. Tatu outlines
the development in the practices of arranging the layout and the usage of
markers and graphemes in poetic texts. Tatu surveys
the larger sections of poetry as Ps, Cant, and Lam, and also lyrical passages
embedded in prose (e.g. the ‘Song of the Sea’ Ex 15:1b–19,
for other cf. p. 93) throughout an extraordinarily wide scope of manuscripts.
He concludes that the earliest textual witnesses set off poetic texts from
prose graphically almost only in the lyrical books—and even then it occurs seldomly. Before the Masoretes standardized the arrangement of lyrical
poetical texts (though still not too consistent and without perceivable
logic), only the Greek transmission tradition came to regularly mark poetry.
This essay contains a huge amount of data describing various manuscripts,
which makes it very informative and impressive, though this fact renders
reading a sometimes tiring exercise. Concentrating on fewer manuscripts and
elucidating the arguments with tables and/or figures might have been more
profitable. In a somewhat more historic account, J. H. A.
van Banning, SJ presents his “Reflections upon the Chapter Divisions of
Stephan Langton.” Instead of deliberating on particular textual
features, he discusses the historic process of partitioning of Tanakh in chapters which is—according to his
description—in many ways entwined with the issuing of the
‘Exemplar Parisiensis.’ This edition of
the Bible from “around the year 1224” (146), which long served as
the standard scholar-edition at the newly founded Sorbonne, already displays
Langton’s chapter division. Van Banning proposes that this
partitioning, which had in fact been introduced by Langton less then two
decades earlier, became popular through this edition and through the
important commentary of Hugh of St. Cher, which is based on this edition. The
author explains the given variations between the Presumably in response to calls for a
stronger emphasis on hermeneutical aspects (cf. review of Pericope
volume 4, http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/reviews/review163.htm),
W. G. E. Watson was asked to write “Unit Delimitation in the Old
Testament: An Appraisal.” By and large, his assessment of Delimitation
Criticism is mainly positive, if somewhat cautious. He commends the impulse
Delimitation Criticism has given to biblical research—that markers of any
manuscript, accents and the like (paragraphing and other layout features he
does not mention) should be taken into consideration in biblical
interpretation. He
also honours the effort undertaken to collect and analyze relevant data.
Nonetheless, he puts his finger on some weaknesses of this enterprise: the
“inconsistency in the Delimitation Criticism approach” (167) for
example, or that “there are no overall conclusions for markers in
ancient texts” (168). Thus he concludes “that there is still a
great deal of work to do” and that “many of the conclusions
reached so far are provisional.” Something he considers to be quite
understandable given the ‘youthfulness’ of the approach. In the
second part Watson applies delimitation critical methods (as he understands
them) to Cant 1:15–17, concentrating on the usage of the accents in
order to demonstrate that “data from manuscripts and codices cannot be
ignored” (175) and that Delimitation Criticism “is not only valid
and justified but also indispensable” (175). The last contribution of the volume
(Diverging Traditions: Jeremiah 27–29 (M, S, V) / 34–36 (G): A
Proposal for a New Text Edition) by R. de Hoop functions as a call for a multilingual
edition of the four main Old Testament groups of witnesses (MT, LXX, Vulgata, and Peshitta)
containing important data on variants in paragraphing and marking from
various manuscripts. The author weighs various arguments and options for this
edition, concluding that at first the project should be confined to a printed
edition and that MT should be used as the leading reference manuscript in the
role of a “primus inter pares” in respect to text order,
etc. On the last pages of the volume a sample of the aspired edition is
presented (on http://www.pericope.net
the whole sample is to be published in a downloadable file). This represents
a very desirable project, even though some points should be reconsidered, e.g.
the proposed neglect of textual critical data on grounds of workload
arguments as well as some details in the critical apparatus (for example at
the moment there is a doubled system of marking omissions, via apparatus and
via underlining, of which the latter seems confusing in respect to four
other textual witnesses). And finally the limitation to a printed edition is
questionable: the only argument in its favour being the alleged custom and
preference of researchers to use paper editions, something that is changing
as supported by the electronic format of this review. But, on the whole, one
is inclined to wonder why a project like that has not been undertaken
earlier. Altogether, Method in Unit
Delimitation represents another very interesting volume in the Pericope series. Nonetheless I agree with G. Martin (http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/reviews/review163.htm)
that more emphasis should be placed on hermeneutics, and also with Additionally one wonders why exactly the
present title was chosen: none of the contributions deliberates on the
methodology of Delimitation Criticism and none of the articles seem
specifically to justify this label by their content or approach. This absence
is further heightened by the difficulty encountered when searching for the
consistent exegetical tool proposed by the Pericope
board. The methodological approaches are too diverse, ranging from more or
less text critical deliberations on paragraphing in antique manuscripts to
aspects of syntax or accentuation to rather hermeneutical questions. However, this is understandable given the
youthfulness of the field. In spite of and sometimes even because of this
diversity, the contributions in this volume present many important if not
punctually remarkable insights that advance the understanding of biblical
texts in their historical setting. Matthias Hopf, Augustana Theologische Hochschule Neuendettelsau, |