Critical Text and Apparatuses

Abstract

Abstract The first systematic attempt to construct a textual history of the Hebrew Bible, that of J. G. Eichhorn, states the nature of the task succinctly: A complete history of the Hebrew text would enumerate, with reference to causes and consequences, all the essential and accidental changes, whether for good or evil, which it has undergone in the process of thousands of years and in its passage through men’s hands, from the time of its first composition down to the latest periods. (1888: 114 = German 3d ed., 1803) If a textual history maps “all the essential and accidental changes” through time, then what we require first is a collection and analysis of the secondary readings. In this formulation, textual history is (to oversimplify only slightly) a history of error. Modern methods for constructing textual histories have refined this view but generally affirm the significance of textual error in historical inquiry. In this area, “error” is used as a shorthand for “readings of secondary origin,” including intentional changes as well as accidental (West 1973: 32). One difference between the procedures of textual history (historia textus) and textual criticism per se (critica textus) is that in the former errors are of primary importance and in the latter they are to be removed (see Chiesa 1992a: 264-67).