What do you think?
Rate this book
Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible
Professor McCarter here offers an introduction to the art and science of textual criticism for students of the Hebrew Bible. His emphasis is on the work involved in the critical evaluation of a given portion of text. His explanations of critical principles are illustrated with carefully selected examples of the textual phenomena discussed-in Hebrew, with English translations. The book concludes with unique appendices on several kinds of essential but hard-to-find information.
94 pages, Paperback
First published September 5, 2000
2 people are currently reading
19 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
May 21, 2022
Although published in 1986 as art of the “Guides to Biblical Scholarship” series by Fortress Press, Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible is still relevant, accessible, and intensely useful. If I were teaching today, it would still be required reading in my classes. Why? Because it is: a) useful in delineating the basics of what textual criticism is, b) prolific in providing examples illustrative of the decisions to be made by textual critics, c) concise in presenting the “how-to” of textual criticism, and d) fair in providing warnings of potential abuses and mistakes of the discipline.
First, let me indicate that my denomination’s traditional dismissal of text criticism as an arrogant, subjective exercise has led me to use different phraseology than that of P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., the author of this volume and a scholar I truly admire. I tend to use the term “textual differences” as opposed to “textual errors” and “textual modification” as opposed to “textual corruption.” Dr. McCarter would probably dispute my euphemisms, but there is method to my madness. My purpose is not to cast any aspersions toward the reliability of the message of Scripture. To some, the idea of “error” or “corruption” in a given text, no matter how well-reasoned, would be tantamount to destroying the entire message. Yes, I subscribe to McCarter’s methodology for the most part, but I choose and explain my choices with what are for me, less loaded words.
This idea of how much modification or adaptation affects the overall message of a text is cleverly introduced in Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible with examples from the work of a Shakespeare scholar. McCarter sums up his point by writing: “…how many unsound readings can be tolerated in a text of a play by Shakespeare—or a portion of the Bible—before the ‘essential values’ are affected and before scholarly hypotheses are vitiated.” (p. 16) In other words, it’s bad business to gloss over what may, at first glance, appear to be minimal differences.
The discussion is to be congratulated for deflating the common dismissals of textual criticism as being far too much effort for the resulting emendations such that they are not cost effective and for demythologizing the typical conception that the MT reading is usually the right one. Of course, one might get the suspicion in reading this particular volume that the LXX reading is usually the right one and that would be equally dangerous. I notice some comments I wrote in the margins suggesting that McCarter’s preference for the LXX may have missed some stylistic value in repetition or symbolic value in the MT reading but I generally agreed with his assessments in the generous sample of examples provided in this book.
Of course, most valuable for the beginning student was McCarter’s walk-through of methodology. He noted that the classical elements of text criticism would be: Rescensio (p. 62) to which he prefers “gathering of materials” (p. 63), Examinatio (p. 62) to which he prefers “choosing of readings” (p. 63), and Emendatio (p.62) which he keeps as “emendation” (p. 63) with the caveat that simply adopting a transmitted reading is not actually “emendation” but a choice (p. 75).
After “gathering the materials,” he explains the evaluative criteria for weighing the different readings. The first is “Independence” to assure that a text is not derivative of a given tradition or language group (p. 64). However, one cannot simply say that the Targums dependence upon the Masoretic Text automatically disqualifies them for: “When witness B is known to be dependent upon witness A, the value of B is discounted when it agrees with A. The corollary, however, is this: When B disagrees with A, it may reflect an independent and authentic reading.” (p. 65).
The second is authenticity. When an ancient translation disagrees with MT, that should automatically encourage the critic to test that reading against the MT and attempt to determine which is most likely original (p. 65). One uses internal criteria here in attempting to consider: 1) Which reading is most likely to have been changed into the other, 2) which reading is the more difficult reading (since later copyists may have tried to smooth out something not entirely clear—p. 73), and 3) which reading is shorter (considering that it is more likely something was expanded than cut—p. 73). Of course, as McCarter noted: “The more difficult reading is not to be preferred when it is garbage.” (p. 73)
The third principle is retrovertibility (p. 66). Does it make sense to convert the alternate reading into Hebrew? If it doesn’t, it may be likely that the alternate reading is interpretation or interpolation. I particularly enjoyed his suggestions on using the equivalences in Hatch and Redpath (classic concordance on the LXX) to evaluate potential retrovertibility (pp. 69-70).
Finally, I appreciated the author’s words of caution regarding typical Old School assumptions in text criticism. One cannot simply tabulate the number of preferred readings in a given manuscript or tradition and assume this will be the best reading for a given passage or phrase. “Manuscripts are to be weighed, not counted.” (p. 71). Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible is a tremendously valuable volume, perhaps the best in the series. I regret that I hadn’t purchased my copy until recently finding this used copy in a bookstore. Perhaps, it needs a new edition to make this helpful insight available to students throughout universities and seminaries today.
First, let me indicate that my denomination’s traditional dismissal of text criticism as an arrogant, subjective exercise has led me to use different phraseology than that of P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., the author of this volume and a scholar I truly admire. I tend to use the term “textual differences” as opposed to “textual errors” and “textual modification” as opposed to “textual corruption.” Dr. McCarter would probably dispute my euphemisms, but there is method to my madness. My purpose is not to cast any aspersions toward the reliability of the message of Scripture. To some, the idea of “error” or “corruption” in a given text, no matter how well-reasoned, would be tantamount to destroying the entire message. Yes, I subscribe to McCarter’s methodology for the most part, but I choose and explain my choices with what are for me, less loaded words.
This idea of how much modification or adaptation affects the overall message of a text is cleverly introduced in Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible with examples from the work of a Shakespeare scholar. McCarter sums up his point by writing: “…how many unsound readings can be tolerated in a text of a play by Shakespeare—or a portion of the Bible—before the ‘essential values’ are affected and before scholarly hypotheses are vitiated.” (p. 16) In other words, it’s bad business to gloss over what may, at first glance, appear to be minimal differences.
The discussion is to be congratulated for deflating the common dismissals of textual criticism as being far too much effort for the resulting emendations such that they are not cost effective and for demythologizing the typical conception that the MT reading is usually the right one. Of course, one might get the suspicion in reading this particular volume that the LXX reading is usually the right one and that would be equally dangerous. I notice some comments I wrote in the margins suggesting that McCarter’s preference for the LXX may have missed some stylistic value in repetition or symbolic value in the MT reading but I generally agreed with his assessments in the generous sample of examples provided in this book.
Of course, most valuable for the beginning student was McCarter’s walk-through of methodology. He noted that the classical elements of text criticism would be: Rescensio (p. 62) to which he prefers “gathering of materials” (p. 63), Examinatio (p. 62) to which he prefers “choosing of readings” (p. 63), and Emendatio (p.62) which he keeps as “emendation” (p. 63) with the caveat that simply adopting a transmitted reading is not actually “emendation” but a choice (p. 75).
After “gathering the materials,” he explains the evaluative criteria for weighing the different readings. The first is “Independence” to assure that a text is not derivative of a given tradition or language group (p. 64). However, one cannot simply say that the Targums dependence upon the Masoretic Text automatically disqualifies them for: “When witness B is known to be dependent upon witness A, the value of B is discounted when it agrees with A. The corollary, however, is this: When B disagrees with A, it may reflect an independent and authentic reading.” (p. 65).
The second is authenticity. When an ancient translation disagrees with MT, that should automatically encourage the critic to test that reading against the MT and attempt to determine which is most likely original (p. 65). One uses internal criteria here in attempting to consider: 1) Which reading is most likely to have been changed into the other, 2) which reading is the more difficult reading (since later copyists may have tried to smooth out something not entirely clear—p. 73), and 3) which reading is shorter (considering that it is more likely something was expanded than cut—p. 73). Of course, as McCarter noted: “The more difficult reading is not to be preferred when it is garbage.” (p. 73)
The third principle is retrovertibility (p. 66). Does it make sense to convert the alternate reading into Hebrew? If it doesn’t, it may be likely that the alternate reading is interpretation or interpolation. I particularly enjoyed his suggestions on using the equivalences in Hatch and Redpath (classic concordance on the LXX) to evaluate potential retrovertibility (pp. 69-70).
Finally, I appreciated the author’s words of caution regarding typical Old School assumptions in text criticism. One cannot simply tabulate the number of preferred readings in a given manuscript or tradition and assume this will be the best reading for a given passage or phrase. “Manuscripts are to be weighed, not counted.” (p. 71). Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible is a tremendously valuable volume, perhaps the best in the series. I regret that I hadn’t purchased my copy until recently finding this used copy in a bookstore. Perhaps, it needs a new edition to make this helpful insight available to students throughout universities and seminaries today.
January 19, 2024
Super interesting and essential for Bible nerds!
March 15, 2017
I think I should have read this when I was still taking Biblical Hebrew courses.
June 1, 2017
Essential practical steps for doing OT textual criticism.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews