The JewishBible and the Christian BibleJulio Trebolle BarreraThe Jewish Bibleand the Christian BibleAN I NTRODUCTIONTOTHEHISTORYOFTHEBIBLETranslated f rom the Spanish byWilfred G.E. WatsonBRILLLeidenNew YorkKnlnEERDMANSGrand Rapids, MichiganCambridge,U . K.This book hasbeentranslated with thefinancial assistance of theDireccion General delLibro y Bibliorecas of theMinisterio deCultura, Madrid, Spain.Original title: La BibliajudEa y fa Biblia cristiana, Copyright 1993 byEditorial TrottaSA, Madrid, Spain.English edition Copyright 1998 byKoninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, TheNetherlands.Published jointly1998 byBrillAcademic PublishersP.O. Box9000, 2300PALeiden, TheNetherlands, andWm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company255 Jefferson Ave. S.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503Allrights reserved . No part ofthispublication maybe reproduced, translated, stored in aretrieval system, or transmittedin anyform or by anymeans, electronic, mechanical, pho-tocopying, recording orotherwise, without prior writtenpermission fromthepublisher.Authorization tophotocopy items for internalor personal uscis grantedbyBrillprovid-ed that the appropriate fees arc paid directlyto The Copyright ClearanceCenter, 222Rosewood Drive, Suite910, DanversMA01923, USA. feesarc subject tochange.Printed intheUnited Statesof AmericaBrill ISDN90 0410888 2 (cloth)Brill ISBN90 0410889 0 (paperback)EerdmansISBNC 8028 3830 8 (cloth)Eerdrnans ISBNC8028 4473I (paperback)Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataTrebolle Barrera, Julio C.[La Bibliajudiay la Biblia cristiana, English]The Jewish BibleandtheChristianBible: an introduction tothehistory of theBible / by Julio Trebolle Barrera; tr anslatedbyWilfr edG.E. Watson.p. em.Includes bibliographical references andindex.Brill ISBN 90 04108882 (cloth: alk. paper)Brill ISBN 90 0410889 0 (pbk. : alk. paper)EerdmansISBN 0802838308 (cloth:alk. paper)EerdrnansISBN 8028 44731 (pbk. : alk. paper)1. Bible-History. I. Title.BS445T6813 1997220'.09-dc21 97-23769CIPDie Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-EinheitsaufnahmeTrebolle Barrera, Julio:The Jewish BibleandtheChristianBible : anintroductiontothehistory of theBible/ by Julio Trcbolle Barrera. Trans!' byWilfredG.E. Watson. - Lcidcn ; New York;Koln : Brill, 1997Einheitssacht.: La Bibliajudia y la Bibliacristiana ISBN 9-4-10888-2Design: Bert Arts IlNOContentsNo te to the Revised English editionTranslator's No te 5For eword 7Int roduction: 27Topical Questions and Approaches 29Chapter I:Bible and Bookin the Ancient\Iorld 531. The Languages of the Bible 582 . Writi ng in the Ancient World and in the Bible 803.Writtenand Oral Transmission 944. Schools and Scribes 10 95. Translation in the Ancient Worldandthe Translation of the Bible 1216. The Sacred Book 1287. The Schoolof Alexandriaand its Philology 137Chapter II:Collections of Biblical Books. Canonical and Non-Ca nonical Books 1471. TheLiterary Hi story of the Canon of Biblical Books 1482 . The Social History of the Biblical Canon 2083. EarlyChristian Literatur e: Collections of Canonical andApocryphalBooks 236Chapt er III :History of theText and Versions of the Old and Ne wTestament 2591. Int roduction 2642. The Hebrew Text of the Old Testament 2683. The Gr eek Septuagint Version 30T4. Arama ic Versions of theOl d Testament. The Targumim3245. The Greek Text of the New Testament 3336. Ancient Versions of the Bible: Old and New Testaments 3483Chapter IV:Textual Criticism of theOld and NewTestament 3671. Textual Criticism of theOld Testament 3702. Textual Criticism of theNew Testament 4053. Canonical Criticism. TheText andtheCanon 416Chapter V:Hermeneutics. Text andInterpretation 4231. Introduction 4282. The Old Testament Interprets Itself 4303. TheInterpretation of the Old Testament in theGreek Septuagint Version 4364. The Interpretationof the OldTestament in the AramaicVersions or Tar-gumlm4395. TheInterpretation of the Old Testament in Apocryphical Literature. TheEx-egeticalCharacter of Apocalyptic Literature 4446. TheInterpretation of theOld Testament in theQumran Writings 4527. The Interpretationof the OldTestament inHellenisticJewishLiterature.Philo of Alexandria andFlavius Josephus 4608. Rabbinic Hermeneutics 4689. Christian Hermeneutics 49010. Modern Hermeneutics 545Abbreviations 565Subject Index 567NoteEachchapter in thisbook is preceded byits own detailed tableof contents.4 ContentsNoteto the Revised English EditionThis translationincludesarevisedandupdatedversionofthe text for thesections with the headings The DeadSea Scrollsand Developmentsofthecanonoutsidethecanon: Parabiblical litcrarure. I wouldliketothankProfessor Florentino GardaMartinez (Groningen) for the text he madeavailabletome earlier, now publishedas Literatura exegeticaandLiter-atura parabiblicainLiteraturajudiaintertestamentaria, eds., G. ArandaPerez - F. Garda Martinez - M. Perez Fernandez, Estella1996,87-192.JULIOTREBOLLEBARRERATranslator's NoteThis project hastakentwoyears tocompleteandincludesa considerableamount of new and corrected material supplied by the author. I now wish tothank Brill fortheir friendlycooperation over thisperiod andin particular,Professor Julio Trebolle, who invitedme toMadridfor a week of intensivetranslationwork, whichwas interpersedwithmoreleisurelyactivities in-cluding a memorable visitto Toledo.WI LFRED G. E. WATSONForewordAfter writing almost exclusively researchstudieswithonly a very restrictedreadership, I have felt theneedandaboveall have hadthegreat pleasure towritea book whichattempts tobe in thenature of a textbook or refer-ence boob, and also in large measurea book withwide circulation, intend-ed for a moregeneral public. This work arises fromthat research whichsug-gested manyramifications that are developedhere.I ignoredtheadviceofa friendandcolleaguewhowarnedme: Don'twritea book like this, least of all forstudents. In recent years, especially inthe universities of the United States, university teaching and large circulationhave been sacrificed onthe altar of pure research, which gives the professormoreprestigeandallows himgreateraccess tothe fundsrequired tosecureacademic work. From this perspective, writing books for students or for thegeneral public is time wastedor at least time stolen fromresearch .The professor has often ceased to be a professor. Hebecomes a researcherwho at mostimparts to his doctoral students themethods and resultsof hisresearch. If,at thebehest of theadministration, he is required to give moregeneralcourses, he focuseshis attention onveryspecific topics, leaving thestudent to acquirefor himself the general information to be found in currentIntr oductions andin themonographs available. As a result this has grad-ually led tothe basic formation of theuniversity student at the intermediatelevel beingabandoned. Some Americanuniversitieshavebecomeaware ofthis mistakeand now attempt toremedy it, reinstating therole of the teach-ing professor.Theview which theresearchscholar has of the Bible and of biblical textscanbeextremelyincomplete. Professor Goshen-GottsteinoftheHebrewUniversity of Jeru salem, who died in1991, has left in writing harsh criticismofthepresent situationofbiblicalstudies , inwhatwashis first publicap-pearance, a few years afterhaving surviveda deep comaforseveral months.Goshen-Gottsteincriticised thecurrent fragmentation of biblical studies,separated into several disciplinesor specialties, withno communication pos-sible orforeseen among the specialists and among the associations or publi-cationsof each specialised field: Masoretic text, Greek version, ancient ver-Foreword 7sions, apocryphal or pseudepigraphical books, textsfromQumran,Targu-mic texts,inscriptions, Ugaritic texts, etc.' Study of thebiblicalbooks, bothOTandNT, alsoproceedsalongverydifferent andunconnectedpaths, de-pending onmethodandanalyticalapproach: textualcriticism, source criti-cism, tradition criticism, redaction criticism, comparative philology andlit-erature, historical and sociological study, history of religionandof exegesis,biblical theology, etc. The verytrend s which claim torepresent a globalandholistic approach, focusing, forexample,on stylistic and structural analy-sis of thebiblical booksoronstudy of theBible intermsof thecanon as awhole, endupcreat ingnewschoolsandspecialisations under the guidanceofnewauthorities. Teachingexperienceshows, however, that itis difficultforthe student andreader to gain a systematic and global visionof themanyaspects offered by study of biblical literature.Thisbook attemptstobuildbridgesbetween fieldsof studywhich usedtobe connected at thebeginning of modern criticismbut which thedemandsof specialisation have increasingly separated.It will comeas a great surprisethat a single book discussesin thesame breath themorepractical matters oftextual criticismand the approaches of highly theoretical hermeneutics.StudyoftheBiblerequiresthecooperationof epigraphersandpalaeogra-phers at oneextreme and of historians of biblical religionand of Jewish andChristian thought at theother. Today therearemanyproblems whichneedinterdisciplinarydiscussion.Throughout the whole of this book and for the sake of objectivity, all per-sonal opinionconcerningfacts, arguments andconclusionsof current re-search is avoided. However, the overall approach of the book andthe choiceof materialpresented as well as the opinions discussed, consistently matchapersonal visionofallthequestionsdiscussed andtheserious intentionofproviding a newvisionof the study of Biblical Literature. ThisForewordand the Introduction are suitabl e places for showing the author's preferencesandthe perspective forproblems debated throughout thebook.1. Inthe field of linguistics, thetrilingualBiblerequiresa newdialoguein-steadoftheoldremotenessamongscholarsofHebrew, GreekandLatin.TheHebrew-Aramaic-Arabictrilingualisminwhich the Jewishmasoretes,grammarians andexegetes of the Arabian Eastandof Muslim Spain operat-edshouldnotforget theassistanceofArabicfor understandingthegram-matical and exegetical tradition accompanyingthe transmission of the bibli-cal Hebrew text. Thediscovery in modern timesof theSemitic languages oftheancient Near East has given rise to a new form of trilingualism madeupof thelanguage trioHebrew/Aramaic-Ugaritic-Akkadian, whichhelps toexplainmanyquestionseitherbadlyposedor inaccuratelyresolvedinthepast withthesoleaidoftextualcriticismor thewitness oftheversions. It1. M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, The Hebrew Bible in the Light of the Qumran Scrolls and the He-brew UniversityBible, Congress Volume-Jerusalem 1985, Leiden1988,42-53.8 Forewordalsoallowsbiblical literatur e andreligiontobeset inthecultural cont extfromwhich it originated.2 . Withinliterarystudies, the present booktries especiallytoconnect twofieldswhichmodernbiblical criticismhas increasingly separated: the studyof the literary and redactional formationof the biblical books and the studyoft he transmission and interpretationof thetextof these books. Literar y-historical criticism has reserved the first field foritself, by preference devot-ingatte ntiontostudyoftheorigins ofthe traditions andofthe bibl icaltexts in terms of the archaeology, histor y, literatures and religionsof the an-cient Near East. The secondfield remainedthe province of sciences consid-eredtobeauxiliary, suchastextual criticismorthe historyof JewishandChristian interpretation of the Bible, wi th a special bias towards thehistoryof theology.This book gives parti cular importance to an area bord ering on both thosefields: the area represented by the histor y of the transmissionof the text andthe textual crit icism of the0'1' andNT. The lengthy process of the formationof theBible and of thereligion of Israel crystallisedinthe different texts ofthe OT, which produced a process ofinterpretation Thi s, in turn, crystallisedinto the new texts of the Christian religion, theNT, and of the j ewish religion,the Mishnah andthe Talmud.The first ofthese twoprocesses, the liter ary formation oftheBible, re-mainsoutside thepu rviewof thisbook.Studyof thesources, traditi ons,redactions, literary forms, etc., ofthe various biblical books is the favourit esubject cons ideredinthemanybookswiththetitleIntroductiontotheBible. They are also stud ied in the series of exegetical commentaries on thedifferent biblical books. These matters will continue todete rmine thepro-grammeof Biblical Literature coursesand will alsocont inuetorequi re avery considerablepart ofresearch ontheBible. Thisbook, however, de-mands much mor e space for discussion of ano ther set of probl ems, some vir-tually forgotten and others apparentlymarginal orclearly marginalised.This requires giving a new focus on the course as a whole, a focus also re-quired for a new direction in biblical studies in general. The view of the Bibleprovidedinthe standardIntroductions totheBible, which come chieflyfromGermany and are usually used for teaching in Faculti es, is to a large ex-tent incompl ete. Thi s is because it leaves out ortr eats veryperfunctoril y as-pects whichfrumeverypoint of view areindispens ablefor underst andingtheBibleandcannot beconsideredaspurelyintroductorymattersor asmerepos t- biblical development s. Thi sistheimmenseareaof everythingconnected wi th the canons, texts, versions andinterpretations orhermeneu-tics (all these terms are inthe plural) bothof the HebrewBible andof theChristianBible, andboth for ming an integralpartof the social and intellec-tual context in which Judaism wasbornin thePersian and Hel lenistic peri-ods, in whichthere thenaroseChristianit yinthe Romanperiod. The con-rent of rhis book, therefore, becomesa true history ofthe Bible, fromthe pe-riodinwhichthecollections of 0'1' bookswerefor meduntil theperiodForeword 9when, both in Judaism andin Christianity, thecanon, thetext, theversionsandthe mainlines of bibli cal interpretation became crystallised.Inthisperiod, JewishandChristianintellectualshadtocompletethreebasictasks whichtheclassical philology of the Alexandrianshadachievedonlyshortlybefore inrespect of Greekliterature: toestablishacanonofworks fromtheclassics, fix their text andint erprettheir cont ent accord-ing to principles and methods suited to the literary formof each work. Usin gthework programmeof Alexandrian philology as a model, thi s book is di-vided intothree mainsections devotedtoliterary, textual andhermeneutictasks. Here, theAlexandrian connection servesateverymoment as a re-mindernot toforget theneedtomaintaintheconnectionbetweenclassicaland Semitic studies which produced theTrilingual Colleges>, of theRenais-sance andthefertilestudyof theBible until 19th century philology.3. Inrespect of history, particular attention is paidher e tothePersian, Hel-lenistic and Roman periods, nowbetter known thanksespeciallytothedis-coveriesfromtheDead Sea. This is when thevariouscollectionsoftheOTbooks took shapeandtheprocessof transmission, tran slation andinterpre-tation of theOT began, until the time whenon the one handthe ChristianNTwas formed, andon the other the corpus of rabbinic literature was formed.Theorigins of Christianity shouldnot be sought in theHellenistic paganworldof myster yreligionsandGnosticismsomuchasinits Jewish, OldTestament andintertestamental roots, without for getting, however, that theJudaism of that peri odwas alreadyvery Hellenised.Judaism andHellenism should not be perceived so much as two oppositepoles: it is preferableto speak of a HellenisticJudaism, whichincorporat-ed many element s from Gr eek culture int o Jewish tradi tion, with out neces-sarily giving in to pagan syncretism.No r shouldtheJudai smof the Hellenistic peri od beseenthroughthepri sm of the normativeJudaism of the Mishnaie and Talmudic period. Stillless shouldit be seenwiththeprejudices whichturnedthe JudaismofthePersian andHellenistic periodintoa late, decadent andlegalistic phenome-non compared withtheearlier religion of the biblical prophets or laterChristianity. Onthecontrary, theJudaismof thecent uri esbeforethede-struction of Jerusalem is marked by a great variety of movements and socialgroups andthevitalityofits ideas andbeliefs. These cannot be lumped to-gether under theadjective sectarian, for as yet there was noagreednormandtherefore nonormati ve Judaism.TheHellenistic period, whichwas post-classical and post-biblical, distin-guishedbythemeetingof cultures fromtheEast andtheWest, causedlan-guages, literarytraditi onsandreligious beliefs tocomeintocontact. Thi smeeting occurred more often in count ries of transit and in frontier zones likethoseof thegeographyofIsrael. HellenisticJudaismwas afirst att empt,fruitful andpainful at the same time, at what shortlyafter was developed inChristianity: thesymbiosis betweenGreekcultureand biblical traditionbymeans of accept ing some clements andrejecting others fromeach.10 Foreword4. The forma tion of canonical and non-canonical collections. IntherSthand19th centuri es, classical work s andperiods were studied for preference, withthe neglect of the ancient period, cri ticised as primitive, and of the post-clas-sicalperiod, disregarded likethe Hellenistic, assyncretistic, baroqueanddecadent. Studyofthe Biblealsohas usuallybeenredu cedtostudyoftheclassical books ofJudaismand Christianity, the respectivecollections ofcanonical books,ignor ingor despisingthe remainingliterature, especiallyapocryphal works. On the other hand , confessional study of the Bible as car-ried out both by Jews and by Ch ristians didnot cease to stress studyof thecanonical books, totheexclusion, in practice, oftheapocryphal books. InJudaism and Christianity, studyhas largely been cent red ontheir respectiveort hodoxiesandcent ral movement s, represented bythe rabbini smof theSynagogue and by theGre at Church.Study of the Hebrew Bible must be carriedout, instead, within the widercontext of Jewishliterature of thePersianandHellenistic period, withspe-cial attention to study of the apocryphal literatureorpseud epigrapha, whichimitates anddevelops canonical literature. Studyofthiskindcomplementsand also stabilisesthe confessional direction of biblical studies, concentratedalmost exclusivelyonthe booksof thecanon.Before considering the Bibl e from a theological perspective as a collectionof canonical books to theexclusion of the apocrypha, it is necessary to con-sider the Bible fromtheliterary and historic al perspective, as a collectionofbooks of different genres (legal, hist orical, prophetic, wisdom and apocalyp-tic). Th is was togive rise toa range of imitativeliterat ure, mimicking whatwasalreadyconsideredtobeclassical, as well as a wholecorpusof trad i-tiona l int erpretation collectedtogetherinrabb inicliteratureand, suitablyChristianiscd, in theNT. In cont rastLa the various classifications possible forthe apocryphal books - by genre, language, origin, background, content, the-ological aut hority, etc. - thepr esent book classestheapocryph aand thepseudepigraphical books in terms of their relation to the canonical books inall the aspects just mentioned.On the other hand, the textual andliterar y history of canonical and apo-cryphal literatur e, both JewishandChristian, hastobe consideredin rela-tiontothesocial andintellectual history of theperiod. Thecollectionofcanoni cal and apocryphal books, their text,andaboveall theint erpretationof thei r contents, acquire very different perspectives depending onwhetherreference ismadetoSamaritans, Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Hellenists,Jewish-Christians, ex-paganChristians, Gnostic Jews, Gnostic Christians,etc.It is not possible tocontinue speaking of theexistenceof an AlexandrianGreek canon, which was absorbedbyChristianity, nor even of a closure ofthe canon at the synod of Yabnehtowa rds theend of the rst cent. CEoSomeauthors tendto suppose that the Hebrew canon of theOT was already virtu-allyformedinthemid-andcent . Be E. It cannot be said, however, thatthi spathleads toa satisfactoryexplanation of theorigin of the Ch ristian canonof theOT fromits Jewish precur sors amongthe Essenes or among the JewsForeword I IoftheGreek diaspora, which supposedthe existence ofa canonwhichwasstillopen or, atleast, not completely closed.Inthisbook, a history of thecanon of theHebrewBible will be attempt-ed which runs parallel with the history of the Temple. Defining thelimits ofthesacred area of the Temple anddefining thelimits of thetextual area of thecanonical Scripturesrunin parallel andhavea matching development. Fourperiods canbe distinguished in therestorationandprogressive expansion oftheTempleandof the sacredBook: thecanonof theRestorationafter theExile, the canonof the Maccabaeanrestorationafterthe Hellenisticcrisis,thecanon corresponding to theexpansion of the Temple in theHerodian pe-riod (expansion of Scripture orally among thePharisees orin writing amongthe Essenes andHellenists), and, lastly, the canon of thePharisee Restorationafter thedisaster of 70CEoCritical study of theBible, guided bythespirit of theEnlightenment, haspreferred to be concerned with the analysis of literary sources andof the his-torical origins of the biblical tradition andverylittlewith theknowledge oflater developments of actual biblical tradition. However, theBible, the Bookof Life, like the Tree of Life of paradise, demands to be known andexplainedas muchor more byits fruitsas byits roots.Biblicalscholarsuseeditionsofthe Hebrewtext of the OT books (BIlS)andeditionsof the Greektext ofthe NT. However, theHebrewBiblewasnever publishedor readas a separate andcompletelyunrelatedbookinthewayit is published andreadbymodern critics. TheHebrew Bible wasneverseparated from other textscompiled andreadtogether with thebiblical text.It is enough tolook at a rabbinicedition oftheBibletorealisethatthe Jewdoesnot haveonly thebiblical text beforehiseyes . Thetext is printed cen-trepage, as if it were a quotation or text reference, surrounded by other textsprinted in parallel columns andin the upper andlower parts of thesame page(the Aramaic versions or Targumimand rabbinic commentaries). AJewreads theBible within thecontext of a complete traditionwhich moulds Ju-daism; hereads the written Torah in thelight oftheoral Torah. Inthesameway, theChristian Bibleends withthebooksof the NT, sothata Christianreads thecompleteBible intheperspectiveof itsendingand of the bookswhich gather together the tradition that gave rise toChristianity.Thetypeof study advocatedherecomplementsand balancesthecriticaldirectionof biblical studies and tries tore-evaluateafieldof studytradi-tionally left in the hands of those studying rabbinism or the history of Chris-tiantheology. This fieldis thehistory ofbiblical interpretationwhich startsfromthe exegesispractisedwithintheBibleitselfuptotheexegesisdevel -oped in Jewish and Christian, rabbinic and patristic literature, passingthrough theexegesiscontained in all intertestarnental andapocryphallitera-ture. Study of JewishandChristian exegesisalsodemandsreflectiononthekind of hermeneutics sustaining themboth.When the preparation of thisbook waswell under wayI hadthesatisfac-tionof readinganarticlebyProfessor J. L. Kugel of HarvardUniversitywith thetitleTheBiblein theUniversity (1990). First he criticises current12 ForewordteachingoftheBible, whichmixesapproachesderived fromhistorical andliterary disciplinewith certain positionsofa confessionalcharacter, mostlyProtestant.Thenhe notesthat biblical studies havetohaveas their subjectthehistory ofhowtheBible wasformedandhow it wastransmitted, readandinterpreted, fromtheformation of thebiblicalcollections upto the pe-riods when these collections became the Miqra' or Tanak of the Jews and theBible of Christians.'Critical exegesis, even what appearsto be the most secular, has not ceasedto be very influenced by the Protestant distinction between the Word of Godcontained in Scripture and themerely human words contained in later inter-pretationsandinthedogmasoftheChristian Churchor the JewishSyna-goguerespectively. Inthisperspective,critical exegesis grants moreimpor-tance totheoracles attributedtotheprophet Isaiahthantootherswhichseemtohavebeenaddedinthebook bearing his name. However, exegesishas toforegogiving preference to thebefore orafterof biblical texts, espe-cially if the criteriaof choice are foreignto the texts and tobiblical tradition.Kugel describesveryclearlytheintention which should direct study of theBibleas envisagedbythisbook: totracethegrowthoftheBible fromitsearliest originsinthelife andthought-world ofancient Israel to its institu-tionalization in thelife andthought-world of early Judaism andChristiani-ty(Kugel, 163).Kugelprepares forthefieldof theHebrew Bible andof Jewish exegesis.He does not explainthefieldof thehistoryandcriticismof thetext, butfromtimetotimecan provide datafor a historyofexegesis. Biblical tradi-tion, however, is primarily the transmission of theactualtextof the Bible inmaterial form: the meaningof Scriptureiscontainedinthe lettersof thescript.5. The field of textual criticism is the preferred terrain of the spirit of the Re-naissanceand oftheEnlightenment.To thisis dedicated thecentral sectionof thisbook which is, nodoubt, themost cautious. It relatesthehistory ofthe biblical text bygoing backthroughhistory. Modernresearchhadtorecreatethe textual history of the Bible starting from modern editions of theBible andreachingback(throughmediaevalmanuscripts, recensionsof theByzantineperiod, Jewishversions and the newlydiscoveredmanuscriptsfromQumran) tothestage of themost ancient texts preserved, and as far aspossible, to reconstruct the text closest to the original of the biblical authors.Inprinciple, textualcriticismofthecanonical textsis nodifferentfromthat of classical texts.The final aim is totryandreconstruct thetext of theworks of the biblical authors exactly as they came from their hands. The pos-sibledifferences between textual criticism of classical textsandof thebibli-cal Scriptures are duetothe extreme complexity of thetransmission ofbib-lical texts, made worse especiallybythe existenceof many versions andan-2. J. L. Kugel, The Bible in the Universit y, The HebrewBible and It s Interpreters, eds. W.H.Propp -B. Halpern-D.N. Freedman, WinonaLake, IN 1990, 143-165 (160-16r).Foreword 13cient recensions. Ontheotherhand, religious texts tookonnewvalueineach andeveryoneofthestages oftheir longtextual transmissionnor arethey only valid in the formwhichcan be considered original or oldest. Bib-lical criticismhas to decide between keepingto the original and ancienttextswhich maybringus closertothetimesof Mosesandof JesusofNazareth,and faithfulness, on the other hand, to later tradition whichformed Judaismand Christianity. Thefirst of these concerns, thereturn to the original wordof the great founders, which is the basis of the inspired character of Scripturecorresponds to the scientific concern to unearth the oldest text fromthe col-lectionof texts preserved fromantiquity. Strangely, thisis a concern which,fromdifferent perspectives, fundamentalists and critics share. Thesecondconcernaffectswhat is undeniablefor a Jewishor Christianreader oftheBible: the preservation andappreciation of theTraditionof the Jewish'al2.ot(Fathers) and of the Fathers of theChurch, forthis Tradition determines theextent of the biblical canonandthe canonical interpretationofScripture.Thisconcernis foreigntoscientificcriticismwhich places that traditioninparentheses or despises it, consideringit to be adogmatic developmentwhichdetracts fromthe originaltexts.Inthisfield oftextual crit icism, soconspicuously positivistic, thisbooktriesto provide not only theresultsof modern researchbut also to presentas wellthepaths, sometimesunsuccessful andalmost alwaystortuous, bywhichmodern researchhas gone forward andgoes forward. It provides thecooked dish and the kitchen recipe, so that the student and the reader can ac-tuallysharethe secrets of thebrew which is modern researchand know theingredientsusedbyresearchers in their mixtures, andthusbe initiated intothemyst eries of investigativereason.Inpreviousstudies onthetext ofthe historical books ofthe OTIhavedrawnattentionto anextreme examplewhich, while not very common,comprises thebest exampleof howthe Bible is trilingual, not onlyin inter-pretation but also in text - and howthis trilingual character allows a path tobe traced of approaching theancient forms of thebiblical text. It is a matterof those cases in which theOldLatintext (the VetusLatina) translates theGreek text of the LXXversionwhichinturn translateda differentHebrewtext fromthe traditional or masoretic text. These texts in Greek and Hebrewwere lost, displaced by the official texts then current, and have only survivedas variantsin theOld Latintext. Thiscan be expressedconciselyas FromtheOld Latinthrough theOld Greek tothe Old Hebrew".)To counter the surprise this couldprovoke, an important example can beremembered here of how similar events can happen in modern times as well.A few yearsago, thetext of theaddresswhich Albert Einstein would havegiven had he been present at the official session when he received the NobelPrizeforphysicsin Stockholm in1921was published inGermany. At thattimeEinstein wasintheUniversityofKyotowherehe gave anaddressin3. J.Trebolle, From the 'Old Latin' throughthe ' Old Greek' to the 'Old Hebrew' (2 Kgs 10,23-25>, Textus XI (jerusalem, The Hebrew University,1984), 17-36.14 ForewordGerman of which heleft nowritten record. One of Einstein's Japanese stu-dentstranslated it forthose attending theconference andtook very detailednotes, which he publishedtwoyearslater in Japanese. This text wastrans-latedintoEnglish in 1982 (Physics Today 8,1982). A German translation wasmade of this English version, and published in 1983. One has to ask whether,afterall thesetranslations(from German to Japanese, then into English andtheninto German), Einstein would have recognised as his own the textnowpublished in its original language. Evidently, theinitial formulationhas un-dergone many changes, but the content of the publication is importantenough to merit the attention of scientists. In a similar way, readings of a lostHebrewtext cansometimes bereconstructedon the basisof aLatin textwhichfaithfullytranslatesthepartially lost text ofthe LXXversion, itself afaithful translation of that Hebrew text. Thefact that somemanuscripts fromQumran represent that lost textual tradition confirms thecorrectness of thehypothesis even in those cases where thereis noevidence among theQum-ranmanuscripts.Study of themanuscripts from Qumran Cave 4 has reassessedthe witnessof theancient versionsas a meansof approaching lost forms of theHebrewtext nowreappearingpiecemeal amongthe fragments fromQumran. Ac-cordingly, a special sectionis devotedtoa newphenomenonwithrichre-wards: quitea fewOTbooks underwent successive editionsandweretrans-mitted in different textual formswhich circulated freelyinthevariousgeo-graphic centres of Judaism andamong the various Jewish groups of thepre-rabbinicandpre -Christian period. Thebiblical manuscriptsfromQumranpublished most recentlyhavebrought newtextstolight whichmust be de-scribed as borderline, forthey lie halfway between thebiblical text, prop-erlyspeakinganda paraphrasetext, whichcanretainoldelementsor addnewones. The literary andtextual diversity of the biblical books corre-sponds to thediversity of Jewish society in thePersian andHellenistic peri-ods, as mentioned already.It will be stressed repeatedly that it is not possible to solve adequately theproblems relating to the literary formation of the biblicalbooks (source crit -icism, traditioncriticism, redaction criticism) without atthesametimetak-ing into account thefacts and criteria of the history andcriticism of thetext.Literary theory makesa crystal cleardistinctionbetween theprocessof theliterary formationof abookandthetransmissionandinterpretationof itstext . In practice, analysisshows that thesethree fieldsconstantly touch andoverlap so that it is not possible to reacha satisfactory solution to theprob-lemsexcept throughaninterdisciplinary dialogueamong,scholars studyingliterarycriticism, textual criticism and the history ofinterpretation. Theprin-ciplesandmethods oftextual criticism donot change, but their applicationvariesdependingonwhetherthehistoryofthebiblical text is viewedas asinglestraight lineof transmission or as bundlesof linescoming fromverydifferent sources and intersectingeachother agreat deal. Thehistoryofmodernbiblical criticismhasknownseveral movementsandtrends. Someare more favourable to literary criticism (sources, traditions, redactions) andForeword 15others more unwiJling toaccept the need for it, tending to keeptextual crit-icism andliterarycriticismwell apart. Some aremoreinclinedtotherecon-struction of texts andoriginal literary forms, othersmore sceptical inthisregardwith a greater tendency to stressthe soundness ofthe textual andlit-erary tradition; some more inclined to follow theMasoretic Hebrew text andothersmore prepared to correct itspossible mistakes and accept thevalidityof alternativetextual traditions. Somemoreconvincedof the possibilityofthecritical useofthe versions, evenas a historical source, andothers no lessconvincedofthetargumic andexegetical nature of itsvariants, etc.\'Vhat is certain is that, atthe time ofreconstructing history, since they arebooks whichpresent twodifferent forms of thetext whichcorrespondtotwo differenteditions, it is not wise torely on passagesincludedinthetextof thesecondeditionof thebook. Thisisthe caseof the longer versionofthebook of Jeremiah transmittedbytheMT and togive one example, such isthecase of Jer 39:4- I 3. Comparison between the short text (LXX) and the longtext(1\1'1') will showupthe characteristics of the secondcorrected andaug-mentededitionandat the same timemake itpossibletoengage simultane-ously ina holistic, horizontalandgenetic exegesisonthe two formsoftext.6. Interpretationandhermeneutics. Oncethe text isknowninits variousforms, times and places andalsointhe most original form possible, it is timeto pay attentionto the wide fieldof biblical interpretation. It is nottheaimofthis book or evenofbiblical studiesas such to writea history of therab-binicandChristian exegesisof the Bible. The words of JaroslavPelikanapply hereevenmorethaninhisownclassic work: The history of biblicalinterpretationandthe developmentof hermeneuticsdeserve studyontheirownmerits and arenot our direct concern here.' Study ofbiblical literaturemust alwaysandaboveall bea readingand re-reading (Mishnah = repeti-tion)of the actual biblical texts. The aimof thisbook,however, cannot betocarry out exegesis orto present the conclusions of Jewish or Christian ex-egesis .Inthesection dealing withChristianhermeneutics, attentionis paidinaspecialwaytothe problemwhich the twofold legacy, Jewishand pagan, theOT andGreek philosophy, posed forChristianity.Itis alsoa matter of find -ingthepathswhichtheGreatChurchand othermarginal ormarginalisedmovementsof Christianity followedwiththe aimof incorporating,purify-ing or rejecting different aspects of that double praeparatio evangelica. Inthecontext ofthedispute about the historical primacyoforthodoxy or hetero-doxyandof thevarious Christianmovements whichstartedbut stoppedmidway or veeredaway fromthecentral movement, here special attention ispaidto Jewish-Christianityas a catalystinthe shift from JewishexegesistoChristian exegesisandto the peculiar exegesisof Old Testament and Jewishpassages and motifs practised by Gnosticism.4. J. Pelikan,The Chri stian Tradition. A History of the Development of Doctrine, I. TheEmer-gence of theCatholic Tradit ion (100-600), Chicago-London1971,6.16 ForewordTheway Jewish andChristian hermeneutic is presented herefollowlikea guidingthreadthedichotomybetweena literal andhistoricalinterpreta-tionand an allegorical and spiritual interpretation (between pefa! and deras).Thisdialectic between letter andmeaningset in motion mediaeval exegesis,both Jewish and Christian. The same dialectic also drives modern hermeneu-tic, whichoscillates betweentwo poles. Oneishistorical andphilologicalanalysis, more positivist and an heir to enlightenment hermeneutic. Theotheris theneedtogivemeaningandrelevancefor ourtimetothegreatmyths, legends, traditions andtextsof the classics, according totheideal ofromantic and post-critical hermeneutic.Thisamountstonomore thanhintingat fundamental questionsfor thehistoryandunderstandingoftheBible: thehermeneutical assumptions andthe methods of interpretationdeveloped within the biblicalbooks andin theJewish and Christian literature of that period or immediately after; theglob-al butdetailedvisionwhich theTanakandthewholeoftheOT andNTto-getheracquiredin JudaismandChristianityrespectively; themainlinesofJewishandChristianinterpretation; theinclusionor rejectionofelementsfromthe philosophy, religionandliterature of the Persianworld at first andthenof theGreekandRoman world, etc.The formation of the New Testament texts andtheir interpretation of the0'1' is onlyintelligibleiftheproceduresandexegeticaltraditionsof Jewishhermeneutic arc known. However, Jewish exegesis should not be studied interms ofabetterunderstandingof Christiansources. jewishhermeneutic,both halakhic and haggadic, is a realityin its own right. It comprises the veryheart of Judaism, definedasthe religionof thedoubleTorah, thewrittenTorah, comprising theTanakandtheoralTorah, included inthecorpusofauthorised interpretations of the Tanak(the Mishnah andthe Talmud).Similarly, studyof Christianhermeneutic consistsininvestigatingthor-oughly the very essence of Christianity as the religion of the newCovenant founded on the old: the Christian Bible is simultaneouslyOld " andNewTestament (1'1' 20:2; 25:2; 28:5.6.10. 11.12.15; 29:1.2(;1, etc .), This fact is significant forthehis-to ryof prop hecy(Auld, Vawter). Baruchplays animportantpart in th e fir st edition(d.2 Baruch) wher eas inth e second, Jer emiah is moreprominent (Bog acrt),The sequence of thechapters is also different in the MTand th eLXX. The collectionofO racles against the nati on s occurs in differ ent context s in each. The literary ma-terial given bytheLXX in25:14-20; 26-32 cor responds to 46-51; 25:15-38 inMT. IntheGreek text thecoll ection of O racles againstthe nations comes aft er 25:r - r 3, a sum-mary of the first part ofthe book. Inthe MT, inst ead, the O racles against thenations Textual Criticism of the OldTestament 395come after the fourt h sectio nMT: 46- 51) andt he orde r ofthe oraclesis alsodi fferent .Inthis way the ~ 1 T breaks th e con nectionbet weenthe firstpart of the boo k (oraclesof disapp roval against Judah) andthe second(or acles ofdisapproval against thena-tions) . Inspite of this itis sti ll possible toident ify in the MT the existence of anearl i-er linkbetweenbothparts. After t hesummaryofthe first part theMTaddsarefer -encetoa magica l act ionagainst the nationsplusa list of th ose nations (xrr 25:15-38).The referencetoevery thing writt eninthis book in25:13, suggests tha t theOra-cles against the nations formeda separatecolle ctionand itsori ginal positionisat-testedin theLXX.Af terthepoems andtheappe ndi xtothefirstpart , t he orderreflected byth eLXXis in thr ee par ts: judgment against Judah - judgment against thenat ions - conditionalsalvatio n of Judah. One edi tion is not tobe corrected bythe other; the twoforms ofth e text should be respected and interpreted ind ependentl y of each other(ja nzc n, Tov,Bogaert ). A. RofC's opinionshouldbe note d: he thinks thatthe general ar rangementoftheLXX, likeothe rdatasuch as t he use of the divine title ~ e !zi'o{andthe additio nof39:4- 13 in the MT, indica te that the features characteristi c of the LXX aresecondar yinrespect ofth eMT.The twoediti on s belong toa dcutcronorni sricschool of thought . The dcutcrono-misticrevision of thebookof Jeremiah is muchmore co mp lex t hanis generally sup-posed (Tov). Th e deut er onomistic redact ion al level ofthis book (deno tedbythe let -ter CbyMowinckel) is the productof a comparab le develop mentwhich gave rise tothe editorial stages representedby Dt andthedcu teronornis tic reda ct ionof JosandKgs.Three fragment s of Jeremi ahfoundinCave4 (4QJer"", d . p. 288) andonefromCave 2 (zQJer) th rownewlight onthe textual andliterar yhistory of the book of Je-remi ah. The fact that text s of the shorter type (as reflec tedbytheGreek versi on) andof thelonger (transmitte dbythe MT) haveturnedup inQumran, showsthat thesetwo textualt rad itions of the book ofJ eremiah developed in parallel from the5th cent.tothezndcent .Be E. Both forms of thetextcould co-exist inthe same sett ing andinthe samepl ace. 4QJerbreproducesthe shorter ('accordingtoLk II:2-4withthe longer text knownfromMt 6:9-13. Fre-quently, quotations fromthe OTareextendedor correctedtomake themmore faithful totheSeptuagint text.c. Additionof extra items. Theoldest formof the text of Gal 6:I 7pre-servedin P'" B A etc., I bear themarkof Jesusonmybodyis expanded invariouswaysinmanymanuscripts: (rhemark)of theLord Jesus , ... ofJesus theChrist, or ... of our Lord Jesus Christd. Historical andgeographical explanations (examples inMk 1:2; 8:31;Hcb 9:4, etc.) .e. Merged Readings. This is typical of late texts such as theByzantine text.Manymanuscripts juxtapose two alternative readingsin Lk24: 53 blessingorpraising.In Acts20:28, the two alternative readings church of the Lordandchurch ofGodarccombined inthereadingchurchoftheLord andGod.f Glosses. In .In 5:34 theexplanation of the movement of thewater in thepool of Bethesda is surely duetolater interpolation (d. v. 7).g. Changes for doctrinal reasons. The Church Fathersaccusedheretics ofchanging thetextof theNTin order to make it fit their own doctrinesbetter.This criticismis unfounded except in thecase ofMarcion andtoa lesser de-greeTatian, Marcioneliminatedfromthetext ofLukeanyreferencetotheJewish origin of Jesus and'Iatian's Diatess aronis influenced byvery extrem-ist Encratic tendencies. It is also true that theorthodoxy of the Great Churchtended toremove oralter such expressions which foranyreason proved un -acceptable, andtoinsert instead, inthetext newclementswiththepurposeofsupporting a particular doctrine, a liturgicalpractice ora moral custom.The best representatives of theAlexandrian, Western andCaesarean textspreserve theclause(Mt 24:3611 Mk13:32)About that dayandhour rio-oneknows, neither the angelsinheavennor the Son...; most of themanuscripts,instead (including those with a Byzantine text) suppressthewordsneitherthe Son, giventhedoctrinal difficultywhichthis expressionentails. InLk23:32 most of themanuscripts t ry to avoidthe possibility of Jesus being con-sidered like oneof thecriminals who accompanied himonthecrossas couldbeimplied fromtheoldest text attestedbyP" ~ B, ctc.: Alsoother crimi-nals,twowith him, wereled(out) tobe crucified. With a simple change inthewordorderthosemanuscriptsread: Alsotwoothers, criminals, wereled... ;II. CRITERIAANDMETHODS I'ORCHOOSINGREADINGSThesourceswhichhavetransmittedtousthetext oftheNT havebeende-scribed (papyri, uncial and minuscule manuscripts, ancient versions andquotations fromtheFathers) andthehistory ofthetransmissionof thetextandthehistory ofresearchonit in modern times is known. Now, thetheo-Textu al Criticismof theNe wTestament 407ries andmethodstobe applied in thestudy ofthose sources andinmoderncritical editions of theNT text have tobe studied.Newmanuscript material iscontinuallybeingdiscovered. Thetheoriesandmethodsalsocontinuetobedevelopedandrefined. Thediscoveryofnew sources often requires established theories to be re-thought and give risetonewanalytical methodsmore suited tothetype ofmaterial discovered.Itis alsonecessarytostudy afreshmaterial known alread y for centuries to re-solveoldproblems andtoface others which continually arise.Critical method studies thecriteria to be usedin theselection (selectia)of the readingwhich, amongthe different ones that exist, isclosertotheoriginal. Thisselection is made by following two types of criteria. Some refertoexternal factorsandothers tointernal factorsso we speak of external andinternal criticism ofthebiblical text.I. External CriticismThc following external factors affect the evaluation of a reading: I) thegreater or lesserantiquity ofthemanuscript inwhichtheparticular readingis found, 2) thesmaller or large number ofmanuscripts whichreplicate thisreading, 3) thebetter or worse qualityofthemanuscriptshown inthecareand troubletakenincopying, 4) the extent of geographical spreadof themanuscript, and 5) the documentationwhichismoreor less precise con-cerning the date, origin, character andespecially genealogy of the manuscriptor whether it belongs to a particular group of manuscripts ortoa particulartype of text.One trend ofmodern criticismhas showna greater tendency togive pri -macy toexternal criticism, confident that the reconstructionof the initialphasesof thehistory of thetext makesit possible toidentify thebest manu -script orthetype with thebesttextThis reconstructionassumes previous classificationof the manuscriptsinto different groups andtheidentification of theoldest recensionstotrace,then, thelinesof development andto identify theprimitive formof thetext.This kindofstudy wasbegunby J. A. Bengel anddevelopedbyWestcott-Hort and VonSoden, and has crystallisedintothe separationof the fourtypesof text mentionedabove: Alexandrian, Western, ByzantineandCae-sarean (thelastonly forthegospels).The critical period whichneeds to be the subject of special research, compris-es the first, twocenturies of the textual history of theNT. Study of the papyri,especially of P",P", po, and P", has opened suchresearch to new possibilities.In similar circumstances in principle more valuemust be given tothe wit-nessof a typeof text of betterqualitythantoanother of inferiorquality.Similarly, a reading supported bytwo or more groups is better than onesup -ported by only one. Sometimes, however, onewillhaveto opt fora readingrepresentedbyasinglegroupof betterqualityagainst anotherreadingat -testedbyseveral groups of lesserquality.408 Textual Criticism of theOld and NewTestaments2 . Internal CriticismOther criteria of NT textualcriticism concern internal aspects. They includethefollowing: 1) when a reading fits in better with thestyle and theologicalbias of theauthor and his work, 2) when a reading conformsto koine Greekrather thanto Attic Greek(giventheatticist movement whichwasimposedlater),3) suitability toSemitic expressions, and4) toa lesserextent, suitabili-tytothecontextor harmonisation withparallel passages of theNTor withquotationsandpassages fromthe 01'. Other considerationshavealsotobetakenintoaccount such asthechronologicalpriority of Mark'sgospel, theAramaic substratein thecase of thelogia of Jesusor thepossibleinfluenceof theprimitive community in theformulation andtransmission of a partic-ularpassage.The three classic andmore important criteria forinternal criticism of textsareas follows (d. p. 379):a. The readingwhichaccounts forthe others is preferable. Inthestory of therich young man, Mk 10:17-18 and Lk 18:18-19 bothuse the expressiongood masteras well as inthereplyby Jesus: Why do youcall me good?No-oneisgood except God. In the parallel passage, Mt 19:16-17, somemanuscriptsagreewithMk andLk, whilein othersthetext ofthequestionis Master, what goodthinghastobedone...?" andtheanswer is Why doyouaskme about what is good? Only oneis good". Tothequestionaboutwhich of thevariants is theoriginal, thereply will be that thereading agree-ing withtheparallels fromMkandMt certainly derivesfromthem,where-as thereading which differs fromthem is probably original.Mt19:16-17- Mastcr,what good thingmustbe done... ?"- Whydoyouaskmeabout whatis good?Only oneis good"Mk IO:17f.1Lk18:18f- Good Master,whatmust be done...?- Why doyoucall megood?No -one is goodexcept God"InMk6:47 theboat was saidtobe in themiddle of thelake. Inthe par-allel(Mt 12:24) the manuscriptsaredivided, readinginthe middleof thelake andseveral stadiafrom land ". If Mt hadwritten a text likeMk, thereis noreason for thechange made. If,instead, theoriginalreading in Mt wasdifferent from Mk, a copyist could have tried toharmonise it withMk. Thefirst reading has more probability ofbeingoriginal.Such cases of harmonisationare commonin the synopticgospels, butthey also occur in other texts. Anexampleis Eph1:7 andCol 1: 14. The ex-pressioninwhomwehaveredemptionthroughhisblood, forgiveness ofsins ofEph has a verycloseparallel intheexpression from Col attested byTextualCriticism of the Ne wTestament 409most of the manuscr ipts: Inwho mwehave rede mp tion, forgivcness ofsins " . Some manuscr ipt s of Col insert the expressionthroughhisbloodwhichis pecu liar to Eph,b.The more diff icult reading is preferable (lectio difficilior). Thereadingwhichat firs t seems tobemoredifficul t tounderstand, alt ho ughmakinggoodsense in t he context, is more probabl ethan another readi ng whi ehmakes thet exteasieror trit e. In J nr:r 8 many goo d qu alitymanuscripts havet he variant O nlybornGod"inst eadof Only born son" . This reading, re-ferri ng to Christ, is an easier reading and coul d atthe sametimebetheresul tof harmonising with In3: r 6. r 8 andr In 4:9. Thediscovery of papyri pM. andP" provides external support for the moredifficult reading O nly bornGod". However, ther e is alwa ys the doubt whet her the aut ho r of thefourt hgosp el actuall y wrote O nly born God " . It can be assumed that in th eAlexandrian traditiont here was confusion bet ween theabbreviat ions forGodandson"(HC / YC).c. The shorter reading ispref erable(leetio breuior), Acop yi st tends toaddwords or explanatory phrases, whereas deliberate omi ssion of part of thet extisrare . Thus, inprincipl e t heshorter readingis pref erabl e toa longer read-ing. Inthe parable ofth e prodigal son inLkr 5:18- 19, some goo dqu alit ymanuscripts (XB D700, etc.) haveth e reading treatmeas one ofyour daylabourers,whichisnot int heother manuscr ipts. Thisclauseiscerta inlytakenfro mv. r 9. It atte mp tstomake the actu al fulfilmentbythe so nmatchall tha t hehadthou ght to say tohisfat her. Theaddi tio nof thi sclau seinsomemanu script s can beexplained bette r t hanitsomissionfromothe rs.However, this does notmeanthat the shorter readingis always andinpri n-cipletheoriginal. Areading canbe shorterthananothert hroughhaplogra-phy (d .r In 2:23).Th esecriteriaare not all app licableat t hesametimeandinever ycasewhere there is a var iant . Infact, so mear e mu tually exclusive. A short read-ingcouldbeonewhich does notma tchtheauthor's sty le sowel l. Avar iantin a bette rma nuscript couldbe the result of later harmonisation. These dif-ficultiesin formi ng safe and certa in critica l judg ment oftenmake textual crit-icism an art rat her thanan aseptic scientific operat ion.3- EclecticismInapply ing textual criti cism some tension bet ween externa l and internal crit-icismis inevitable. Fo rexample, codexB is con sideredthe best manuscriptand itsAlexandriantext thebest text type. CodexDis consi der edtobe in-fer ior, but it preser ves read ings from th e West erntext whichwas verywide-spreadinearl yChris ti anityand, inthe light of intern al cr itic ism, canocca-sio nallybe older t han the Alcxan drian textattes tedbyB.The combi nation of the two analyt ical models - external andinternal cri t-icism- can giverise to four differ ent suppositions:41 0 Textual Criticism ofthe Old and NewTestamentsa. Areadingattested bythebest manuscriptsis also endorsed byinternalcriticism.This appliestothereading of Mt5:4T Donot thegcntiles doas much?attested bythebest manuscripts (XB D, etc.) andbythetext types Alexan-drian, Western andCaesarean (the latter only in part). On the other hand, thevariant Do not thepublicans doas much?occurs in late manuscripts (K LW, etc.) andin theByzantine type text;it is also theresult of an obvious har-monisation with an identical expression in thepreceding verse(v-46).b. Areading attested bythebest manuscript tradition is notconfirmed byarguments of internal criticism.The reading he is like ...of Mt7:24 is found in theAlexandrian texttypeandin most of theCaesarean and\X!esternmanuscripts (X B8, etc.). The al-ternative reading, I will likenit to ... has only thesupport of theByzantinetext (CK L W, etc.).Internal criticism has noargumcnts in favour of one ortheother, for the meaninghardlychanges at all ineithercase. Themanu-script tradition,however, favoursthefirst reading.c) Areadingtransmitted bymanuscripts of inferior quality has, however,solid arguments frominternal criticism in its favour.Inthercadinganddonot look for glory fromGod alone, (jn 5=44) thewordGod is not foundinancientmanuscriptsoftheAlexandrian group( pl,l.P"B, ctc .), However, thecontext seemstorequire theinclusionof thisword which could have disappeared in those manuscripts through haplogra-phy oftheabbreviation 8Y in TOYMONOY8Y.d. A reading is uncertain when neither internal nor external criticism pro-vide enoughdata and proofs for making a decisivejudgment fororagainst.In Mt 15:38, the readings women and children or children andwomen have documentarysupport of equal weight, perhaps the secondmore flimsy; thisis very oddandtherefore couldhave caused thesecond tobereplacedbythefirst . However, itseems morecautioustoinclinetotheformer.The tensionbetween externalandinternalcriticismmakes it difficult OIlmany occasions tomakea definitive decision in favour of onereading oran-other. The cases which aremost difficulttosolvearethosewhereX andBhave different readings. However, more precise knowledge ofthehistory oftheNT text is necessaryandmore perfection inthemethods andcriteria forselecting variants.Inagreement withBurkit, against Horst, a modern movement connectedespeciallywiththe name of G. D. Kilpatrick, grants graterimportancetostylistic and linguistic factors andto factorsrelatedto work bycopyists thantohistoryandexternal documentarycriticism. Withinthis perspectiveitismorerelevantwhen a reading is attestedbya manuscript, ancient or recent,or belongstoa primitiveorlatetext type. What is decisiveis thejudgmentabout thevalue of thereadings, a judgment which always has tobe madeinconnection withthecharacteristics of theauthor andhis work.When the conclusion is reached that theoriginal textcould have beenlostthelast resort which thetextcritic can use is conjecture, a resort marc fre-Textual Criticismof theNewTestament 41 Iquent andnecessar yintheedi tionof ancient classical textsbut verymu chscornedinOldandNewTestament cri ticism(Black). Ifint ernalcriticismcannot avoi da certainmeasur e of subjectivit y, theda ngeris worse incon-jectura l criticism. Thi s type can on lylegiti mately be usedin cases of provennecessityandwhenthe propose dconjecture"accountsnot onlyforitselfbut also forall the false or secondaryreadings whi ch have originated fromit.In the last fifty years the prevailing critical approachhas shown a tenden-cyto a moderate eclecticism with general preferenceforthe Alexandrian typ easis evident inthe manualsbyNestle-Aland,Mcr kandBover andinTheGreek Ne wTestament edi tio n.Inthefut ureitis necessary torefine and perfect t he cri teriafor selectingtextual variants. Th emethodsfor classifyinggroups of manu script shaveseen improvementsover the lastfewyears, but a definitive andwell-found-edtheory ofthehisto ry of the textis stillmissing. The manuscr iptsdiscov-eredinrecent yearshaveenr ichedthe profusion of dataavailablebut ad-vancesinestablishing analytical modelsandmethods havenot beendevel -oped tot he same exten t.Studyofthe relati onship s amongmanu scripts has sufferedonmanyoc-casionsa certa inlackint hedatabaseused, or inaccuracyinthecont rol ofsuch dat a andas a result, relative uncertaint y inthe results. The ideal, unat-tainable in pr act ice, wou ld be to compare each manuscript and all its variantswith the ot her manuscript s and their variantsto determine the exact place ofeach manu scr ipt wit hin t he whole manu script t radi tion. However, it is pos-sible and alsonecessar y to establish at least compariso ns among a sufficien t-lywideandrepresentativenumberof manu scripts, not just inconnectionwith a specific text. These should always take int o accountthe total number ofvariant s, agreementsand differences among t he manuscripts un der analysis.Co mputer programs for analysi ngmanuscriptsarcbeingdevelopedforthis purposeinClaremont(USA) andMu nster (Germany). Oncegroups ofmanuscriptsandthet ypeof text theyrepresent havebeenidentifie d, thequalityofthe textofeach type is determin ed. The best text will be the onewhich most often offers the best reading. By inspection (of acompletegospel, lette rorthe who leNT) a sufficient numberof readingsareselectedfro m which are shown by inte rnalevidence tocor respondtothe oldest andmost original readin g. Next, in each case t he t ype or types oftext thi s read-ing provides is checked. The result of thi s analysis shows that, generally, theAlexandriantypetext isthemost reliable, foll owedbytheCaesarean, theByzantine andthe Western (at least apart fromActs).However, it istobehop edthat infutu reNTtextual criticismwill paymore att ention to ancient vari ants, wherevertheycome from (forexample,fro mthe Westerntext)andthat thiswill bereflectedint hemanuals. Al -t hough the ancient variants may not be pri mitive or original (which is not al-ways or evenoften t he case) by their veryexistenceandcontent they com-pr ise an important wit ness for learn ing about the Chr istian communities ofthe first th ree centur ies.On the ot herhand, to try to forma received text which is also original, is412 Textual Criticism of theOld andNewTestamentsto reconcile incompatibl e objectives. To tr y to create a received text remain ssomewhat arro gant and to findthe original in disputed cases is utopian. Onesolution is to determine the existence ofa majority textin a particular peri-od (as did the Nestle editi onbefore its revision) and to note in the app aratusthe(selected) variant s whi ch are earlier than300CE (Epp) .H ere foll owvarious examplesof eclectic, intern al andext ernal cr iti cism .I. Mt 6:13 . Afte r theLord's Pr ayerthelitu rgy added the doxologyfor yo urs is thekingdom, t he poweran d t he glory for ever. T he Byzantine t ext, part ofth e Caesare-antext and Alexandrianmanuscr ipts havethis vers ion of th e do xology in Mt 6: I 3. Inth iscaseth erear cnot enou ghwitnesses of exte rnalcriticism; int ern alcr itici sm, in-stead , cons ide rs t hi s ph raseto have been insertedhere no doubt th rough t he infl uenceof th e liturgy.2 .Mk1:1. Inthe expressionwhich beginsth is gospel, Beginning ofthegospel ofJ esus Christ, Sonof GmJ", CodexAl exa nd rinu s ~ andpart of theCaesareantradi-ti on omitSon of God. It mi ght be th ou gh t th at thi s omissi on ha s heretical implica-ti ons. It ismo relikely, inst ead, t hat it istheres ult of acopyingerrorcausedbythesi mi lari ty between the twofin al abb revi ati ons ofth e sacr ed names IY XYYYflY(