MECILLOTH

li11
RUTH
c:r" i "W :i i "tv
CANT I CLES
? i ~ i r p
QOHELETH
;i:f,N
LAME NTAT I O NS
i1iCN
ES THER
I SBN 3-W38- ()5278- 4
. Jfl\J\Jlllll\llllllllii \)\\ ~
.__,_ ___ ___. ____ ._ ......_
General lntroduction and
RUTH 111
e A N T; J e L E s o i tOci ,.,tri
Q O H E L ET H ,t;p
LAMENTATIONS i1 "I
ESTHER 'i.1 ON
C"'N"':Jl i111.?i
BIBLIA HEBRAICA
quinta editione
cum apparatu critico novis curis elaborato
participantibus
R. Althann, P.B. Dirksen, N. Fernndez Marcos, A. Gelston, A. Gianto,
L. Greenspoon, l. Himbaza, J. Lust, D. Marcus, C. McCarthy, M. Rose!,
M. Sreb0, R. Schafer, S. Sipila, P. Schwagmeier, A. Tal, Z. Talshir
consultis A. Dotan pro masora,
A. Groves et Soetjianto pro impressione electronica, R. Omanson pro redactione et stylo
communiter ediderunt
A. SCHENKER (praeses), Y.A.P. GOLDMAN, A. VAN DER KOOIJ,
G.J. NORTON, S. PISANO, J. DE W AARD, R.D. WEIS
General Introduction
and
MEGILLOTH
RUTH nii
J. de Waard
CANTICLES C'i'tzlil i'tzi
P .B. Dirksen
QOHELETH I'l'?ilp
Y.A.P. Goldman
LAMENT ATIONS il:l'N
R. Schafer
ESTHER iI'lON
M. Sreb0
BB
DEUTSCHE BIBELGESELLSCHAFT
CONTENTS
General lntroduction .... ... . ... .. .. . ....... .. . . .... . .... . .. .
Allgemeine Einleitung .. ........... . ...... .. ..... . .... . ... . .
Introduccin General .. .. .. . . ... ......... . .... .. . . . .. . .. . . . .
Figure 1: Sample of an Apparatus Entry lllustrating
the Presentation of the Text Critica] Cases ..... .. . .. .. . . ... .
Figure 2: Sample Page lllustrating the Features of the Layout .. . .
Sigla, Symbols and Abbreviations ....... .. ....... . .. .. ... .
Definitions of the Terms U sed to Characterize Readings
Glossary of Common Terms in the Masorah Parva ....... . .. .. .. ... .
Table of Accents ... ..... . ....... . .. ..... . ...... . .... . ... . .
The Text of the Megilloth
Ruth li1i ............... . . ... . . .. ... . . .... ........ .
vu
XXVII
L
LXXIU
LXXIV
LXXVI
LXXXV
XCV
XCIX
3
Canticles C'i'Wil i'W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1
Qoheleth i;,p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Lamentations il:J'N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Esther i1iCN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
lntroductions and Commentaries on the Megilloth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 *
Works Cited . ....... . .. . ..... . . . .. . .. ... .. ... . . ... . .... . . . 151 *
ISBN 3-438-05278-4
Biblia Hebraica Quinta, Fascicle 18: General lntroduct ion and Megilloth
2004 Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart
Printed in Gemiany
Ali ri ghts reserved
www.scholarlv-bibles.com
GENERALINTRODUCTION
The first edition in the modern series of Biblia Hebraica (BHK
1
) appeared at
Leipzig in 1906 as the new century was getting under way. Throughout the century
new editions of Biblia Hebraica have appeared, each retaining the basic structure
of the original edition, but introducing changes as warranted by developments in
text critica! study. A second edition (BHK
2
), differing from the first only in minar
corrections, was published in 1913, also at Leipzig. The third edition (BHK
3
) ap-
peared in 1929-1937 at Stuttgart, and introduced majar changes: a new base text,
reproducing the text of the Leningrad Codex rather than the 1524-1525 Bomberg
edition of Jacob ben I:Iayyim; and an entirely new apparatus. Biblia Hebraica
Stuttgartensia (BHS, 1967-1977), the fourth edition in the se1ies, followed BHK
3
in using the Leningrad codex as the base text, but introduced a new presentation of
the manuscript's Masorah, as well as a new apparatus.
As the old century gives way to a new one, the increased availability of
recent manuscript discoveries (especially the Dead Sea Scrolls), the developments
of severa! decades' intensive research in the transmission of the text of the Hebrew
Bible, and the concomitant shifts in our appreciation of the aims and limits of
textual criticism occasion a new edition (the fifth) in the line of Biblia Hebraica,
which thus may be known as Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ). Since this is the first
fascicle of the new edition, it is appropriate that we offer sorne explanation of the
edition so as to situate it in relation to its predecessors.
Thi s new edition comes about at the initiative of the United Bible Societies, and
with the sponsorship of the German Bible Society, which has special responsibility
for the publication of scientific editions, specifically including Biblia Hebraica.
The character of Biblia Hebraica Quinta is shaped by two histories, that of the
editions of Biblia Hebraica, and that of the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project of
the United Bible Societies. "
Severa! crucial decisions at stages in the development of the Biblia Hebraica
have given the series a well-known character that continues in this edition. From
the beginning, the editions in this series have been intended as Handausgaben .
Also from the beginning, as a result of an explicit choice by Rudolf Kittel , the
edition has not presented an eclectic text of the Hebrew Bible, but rather has
printed the text of single edition or manuscript, and provided a critica) apparatus
that presents a selection of variants and conjectures for emending the text, empha-
sizing those most significant for exegesis and translation. In the first two editions,
the text of the Bomberg edition of Jacob ben I:Iayyim was used as the base text.
Starting with the third edition (1937), on the initiative of Paul Kahle, the text of
codex EBP. I B 19a of the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg (i.e., ML)
has been printed as the base text. Kahle also emphasized the importance of printing
the Masorah parva and magna of ML as part of the edition. In the third edition, this
aim was realized only for the Masorah parva. It was only with the fourth in the
Biblia Hebraica series, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, that Kahle's aim was at-
tempted so far as the Masorah magna is concemed. As the Dead Sea Scrolls began
to appear in the late 1940's. the seventh nf RHK
3
rm thP ,..f
IX GENERALINTRODUCTION
eclectic text of the Hebrew Bible must choose to reconstruct that text at a particu-
lar point in its development. In the midst of the current lack of consensus about
the appropriate stage of the text to aim at in such a reconstruction, it seerns to the
comrnittee that an edition, which will be widely used by students and non-specia-
lists, should not present as its running text a reconstruction based on one of the
positions in the debate. Third, the cornmittee takes the view that an eclectic text
ought to be based on the presentation of ali variants found in the surviving wit-
nesses. Such a presentation is beyond the limits inherent in a one-volurne edition.
THETEXT
Continuing the practice established with the third edition of 1937, and refined in
the Stuttgartensia edition, this edition offers as its base text a basically diplornatic
presentation of ML. In recent years, studies of ML and its Masorah ha ve indicated
that in sorne respects it may be less than ideal as the base text of an edition (see
the specific discussion below). Indeed, the cornrnittee gave due consideration to
other options for providing a base text for the edition. It was decided not to use the
Aleppo Codex (i.e., MA) chiefly because the rnanuscript is incomplete. Moreover,
since the Hebrew University Bible Project employs this rnanuscript as the base text
for its splendid editions, and since it is also the text for the Bar-Ilan University
edition of the Bible edited by M. Cohen, MA is appearing before the scholarly
public in edited forrn. The Editorial Comrnittee also considered ernploying the ear-
liest available ben Asher rnanuscript for each of the three divisions of the canon as
the base text for BHQ. This option was abandoned in favor of the continued use of
ML for severa] reasons. First, ML rernains the earliest known rnanuscript of the
entire Hebrew Bible. Second, the state of the rnanuscripts that rnet the indicated
criterion would have led to a patchwork when their gaps had to be supplernented
with another rnanuscript (e.g., in addition to its well-known !acuna in the Torah,
the Aleppo Codex lacks severa! of the W1itings entirely). Third, when it was as-
surned that the new edition would be typeset by traditional rnethods, the fact that
the Gerrnan Bible Society had in its possession a typeset text of ML, which already
had undergone severa! rounds of careful correction, was a significant pragrnatic
factor. Then, at the point where it was decided to rnove the project to fully cornpu-
terized processes, it was equally significant that the text of ML was already avail-
able in electronic form - the only one of the great Tiberian rnanuscripts then so
available. While the processes of converting the text to the specific electronic forrn
used in making this edition had introduced new errors into the electronic text, it had
already undergone sorne degree of correction before its use in this project. In the
course of rnaking this edition, the electronic version of the text is undergoing thor-
ough correction against color transparencies obtained frorn the Ancient Biblical
Manuscript Center in Clarernont, California, USA. The transparencies were pro-
duced from the new photographs of ML taken in St. Petersburg by the Center's tearn
formed by West Sernitic Research of Los Angeles. The clarity and quality of the
photographs are well beyond that which has been readily obtainable otherwise, and
will undoubtedly lead to a nurnber of corrections that were not possible for the text
of BHS until the fifth irnpression exclusively (1997). The electronic text of ML will
be checked against these photos independently by the editors of the individual books
anrl hv :--tr.::lciP.mif": fn Uthnm thP t-:aci\r h'lC' haQ.n .... ..... ,..I
GENERAL INTRODUCTION VIII
Otto Eissfeldt, added apparatuses giving a full report of the variants contained in
I Qlsa" and 1 QpHab. Biblia Hebraica Quinta stands firmly within this tradition at
many points, even as it refines and renews it at others.
As was true for its predecessors, this edition of Biblia Hebraica is intended as a
Handausgabe for use by scholars, clergy, translators, and students who are not
necessarily specialists in textual criticism. Because our field still lacks an editio
critica maior, specialists in textual criticism should also find the edition of use,
even though it is not principally intended for them. At the beginning of its work,
the Editorial Committee considered the possibility of producing such an edition,
but concluded that it was not practica! at that time, and in any case would not meet
the need to which the Biblia Hebraica responds. The committee hopes that this
new edition of Biblia Hebraica may serve as a contribution toward the eventual
publication of an editio critica maior.
Following the pattem of its predecessors, this edition will appear initially in
fascicles, of which this fascicle containing the Megilloth is the first. Each fascicle
will present the following items for the biblical books published therein:
- an introduction;
- lists of sigla, symbols and abbreviations;
a glossary of common abbreviations used in the Masorah parva;
the text and full Masorah of ML;
- the critica! apparatus reporting the readings of the witnesses to the text's trans-
mission;
- a commentary on selected cases from the critica! apparatus, the translation of
the Masorah magna, and cornments on difficult cases in the Masorah magna
and parva.
This sequence irnplies a preferred order for reading the edition. By reading the
introduction to a book before proceeding to the text and apparatus, a reader gains
important perspective on the witnesses for that book. As the reader then proceeds
to text and apparatus, the editors assume that the commentary will be consulted as
points of interest arise in the reading of the text and apparatus.
At the end of the publication process, the edition will be published in two
volumes, one containing text, Masorah, and critica! apparatus along with the
general introduction, sigla, symbols, and abbreviations (i.e., a single volume on the
usual BHK pattem). The second volume will contain the introductions to the indi-
vidual books, the textual and Masorah commentaries, and the translation of the
notes of the Masorah magna.
This new edition of Biblia Hebraica follows the pattem set in 1937, presenting
the text of a single good Masoretic manuscript as a base text and adding a critica!
apparatus offering the evidence of the text's transrnission in relation to the point of
reference provided by the base text. This is founded, of course, in Kittel's choice
of such a structure for the 1906 edition, albeit then using the Bomberg text instead
of a single manuscript. The Editorial Committee is well aware of the current dis-
cussion of the relative merits of an edition of this type as opposed to an edition
presenting what is properly called an eclectic text. The committee chose to main-
tain the historie structure of the editions of Biblia Hebraica for three reasons. F1rst,
it was judged that, as yet, not enough is known about the history of the develop-
ment of the text of the Hebrew Bible and its various textual traditions to give a
1 1 . __ _ C- ..
XI GENERAL INTRODUCTION
In the event, that aim was realized only for the Masorah parva in the 1937 edition.
BHS was intended to realize Kahle's aim of publishing both the Masorah parva
and magna. The edition of ML's Masorah produced for BHS by Grard E. Wei l
was intended as a fully corrected and normalized realization of the Masorah of
ML, rather than a diplomatic representation of what was actually written in the
manuscript. For this new edition, the Editorial Committee determined to reproduce
both the Masorah parva and magna of ML in an essentially diplomatic representa-
tion. Since the Masorah is part of the text of ML that constitutes the base text of
the edition, and the basic principie of its representation is diplomatic, it seemed to
the committee inconsistent to present the Masorah in any other fashion. It is true
that the Masorah magna and parva of ML have their deficiencies, and they most
certainly do not represent the totality of the data contained in the tradition of the
Masorah. However, an edition that would address these matters would require the
collation of the Masorah in other manuscripts, and would need more space than
can reasonably be granted such matters in a one-volume edition.
This meaos that where the Masorah of ML is not consistent with the text in the
manuscript, it will not be corrected, as was the practice in BHK
3
and especially
BHS. Such cases instead will be explained in a note in the commentary section of
the edition. A glossary of common abbreviations used in the Masorah parva is
included in this edition to aid readers in understanding those notes. Notes from
the Masorah parva that cannot be translated reliably using the glossary will be
translated in the commentary section, as will every note in the Masorah magna.
Masorah notes that involve too much implicit information to be reasonably under-
stood even from a translation will be discussed in the commentary section.
The edition will depart in two formal aspects from a diplomatic presentation of
the Masorah magna in order to make it easier for readers to follow the text of the
Masorah. At the beginning of each note, the numbers of the chapter and verse to
which the note is judged to refer will be inserted. Masorah magna notes containing
sfmanfm will appear with a point inserted between each sfman.
On more than one occasion ML inserts a circellus in its text without a corre-
sponding note in the Masorah parva. Likewise, notes occur in the Masorah parva
without circelli indicating the words or phrases to which they refer, and notes oc-
cur in the Masorah magna that have no connection with the matter displayed on
the pages of ML on which they occur. So far as possible, BHQ attempts to repre-
sent this situation reliably. Circelli will be inserted in the text even when they do
not have a corresponding note. Notes in the Masorah parva without a correspond-
ing circellus will be associated with the word or phrase to which the editor judges
they relate, but without the insertion of a circellus. Thus the note will occur in
proximity to its probable referent, but a false certainty about that referent will not
be conveyed. Notes in the Masorah magna that cannot be related to textual matter
on the same or neighboring pages, will be associated with the first word on the
manuscript page on which they occur, ensuring a location in the edition that ap-
proximates the note's location in the manuscript. In both Masorah magna and par-
va, numerals that lack the usual supralinear dot in ML will have that dot supplied
for the sake of clarity.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION X
As with BHS, the text printed in BHQ will be the text of ML, even when this
shows obvious errors. The corrections will be noted in the apparatus on the basis
of the other Tiberian manuscripts collated. On the other hand, the new photographs
of ML have revealed a small number of instances where damage to the manuscript
has rendered sorne element of a word illegible (usually a vowel sign or accent). In
such instances the edition will show a reconstructed reading in the base text, and
will use an apparatus entry to report what can actually be discemed in M\ as well
as the readings of the other Tiberian witnesses that form the basis of the recon-
struction. In still other cases, ML displays a variation between the reading of the
first hand, and a reading provided by a second hand (e.g., through errors in the
course of re-inking accidentally damaged portions of the manuscript [see the dis-
cussion below]). In these cases the editor will include in the base text the reading
judged to represent the valid reading of the manuscript, and will report the relevant
data in an apparatus entry.
As far as the layout of the base text is concemed, BHQ follows its predecessors
by departing from a fully diplomatic representation of ML's page layout in that
texts judged by the editor to be prose are set in a single column, and texts judged
to be poetry are set stichographically. However, the criteria for determining the
stichography have been altered from those used in previous editions. For poetic
passages in prose texts that ML presents stichographically in a traditional page lay-
out, the text of this edition will follow the stichography of ML. Otherwise, the
stichography in this edition is based on the Masoretic accents. Stichoi are always
defined by the primary disjunctive accents, except in cases where a different syn-
tactic division from the one expressed in those accents is judged to be the preferred
reading of the text. In such cases the preferred reading will determine the division
of the stichoi. The grouping of stichoi into bi- and tri-cola is determined so far as
possible by the hierarchy of precedence among those accents. Only where the re-
sult produces a line that would run over the edge of the page, or that would disrupt
an obvious parallelismus membrorum is the grouping of the stichoi into bi- and tri-
cola altered.
There are also a number of lists among the prose texts of ML (e.g., Ezra 2:43-
57) that, although there is no fixed tradition conceming their presentation, are ar-
ranged on the pages of ML in a way that distinguishes them from the surrounding
prose. In this edition they will be presented in a way that, so far as possible, repli-
cates their presentation in the manuscript.
The various other phenomena associated with Masoretic manuscripts (e.g., en-
larged letters, suspended letters, signals for reading sections, inverted nnfm) are
printed as they appear in ML, as has been the practice since the 1937 In
particular, the nn- or zayin-like sign found in the Masorah parva of ML ( J) will
be shown in a form that follows the manuscript as closely as possible. However,
s<Jfumf and p<J{uht are not indicated by the manner of spacing lines, but by the
interposition of O and D, as has been the practice from the beginning of the Biblia
Hebraica series.
THEMASORAH
In his contribution to the foreword of the third edition, Kahle, pointing out that the
text of ML "vollstandig wird ... erst durch die ihm Masora" (BHK
3
,
INTRODUCTIONS
RUTH
Hebrew Witnesses
This edition of Ruth in the Biblia Hebraica Quinta is entirely based upon recent
photographs - fi lms and color transparencies - of folios 421 -423r of EBP. I B
19a "Leningradensis" of the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg, Russia
(i.e., ML). In addition, two maj or Tiberian manuscripts have been collated, the
Aleppo Codex, and Cambridge, Univ. Libr. Add. Ms. 1753.
The Masoretic Text of Ruth in ML has been very well preserved. In fact , there
is only one case in which a textual corruption could be defended, namely in 4:4
with regard to the reading ? ~ ~ '
The description of the SiJ!_um!_ and pil!_uhOf in the three major Tiberian manu-
scripts can be extremely brief. ML presents only one pilfuha found between 4: l 7
and 4: 18 and so do MA and MY.
As to the apparatus, the Qumran evidence from 2Q has been cited according to
the edition of M. Baillet, J.T. Mili k, and R. de Vaux, O.P., Les "petites gro/tes" de
Qumran (DJD III ; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), plates XIV and XV, whereas
the 4Q evidence is quoted from E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross, J.A. Fitzmyer, P.W. Flint ,
S. Metso, C. M. Murphy, C. Niccum, P.W. Skehan, E. Tov, and J. Trebolle Barrera,
Qumran Cave 4. XI Psalms to Chronicles (DJD XVI; Oxford: Clarendon Press,
2000), 187-94 and Plate XXIV.
Sometimes, the Qumran evidence is so fragmentary that almost nothing can be
concluded, e.g., in 2:23. Where it can be deciphered, it frequentl y suppo11s M
(1 : 14; 2: 14; 2:20; 3:7). Occasionally, the Qumran material s support versional evi-
dence over against M, as 2QRuthh in 3: 14, and, perhaps, 4QRuth" in the case of
1 :9. In sorne very rare cases, a plus is found which is not shared by any witness,
e.g., the reading Ctz1 of 2QRuthh in 3: 15.
Greek Witnesses
With regard to the Greek evidence, use has been made of the Larger Cambridge
edition by A.E. Brooke and N. McLean, Joshua, Judges and Ruth (Vol. 1, pt. 4 of
The Old Testament in Greek; ed. A.E. Brooke and N. McLean; Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1917) 887-97, of Alfred Rahlfs's manual edition: Septua-
ginta (9th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1979), and especi ally of Alfred
Rahlfs's Das Buch Ruth griechisch als Pro/Je einer kritischen Handausgabe der
Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Wrttembergi sche Bibelanstalt, 1922). Rahlfs 's epoch-mak-
ing Studie ber den griechischen Text des Buches Rulh (Berlin: Weidmann, 1923)
has, of course, carefully been consulted, and the recensions he distingui shed have
occasionally been cited in the apparatus. In addition, thanks to the permi ssion giv-
en by the Septuagint Committee of the Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gittingen,
it h '1s h P.P. n nn.<.<ihl P. tn rnn'11lt fin '1 1 rnl htinn< '1 nrl thP i o<t <t '10P rP<P'1rrh rlnnP in
6* INTRODUCTIONS
the Gittinger Septuaginta-Unternehmen. The sigla used in thi s edition are those of
Gtittingen, and the sigla of the larger Cambridge edition have been converted ac-
cording to the conversion tables published in Sidney Jellicoe, The Septuagint and
Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), 362-69.
With the possible exception of 2:7, G must have used a Vorlage very close to
M. Most differences can be easily explained by the desi re of the translator to pro-
duce a receptor language text which could be well understood. Towards that aim,
ce1tain information has been made explicit (e.g., in 1: 14; 4:7, 8) whereas other
information has been left implicit because of a certain redundancy (e.g., in 1 :2 and
4: 16). Out of the same concern, the chronological order of the base text has some-
times been changed (e.g., in 1 :5), or a contextual assimilation (2: 19) or harmoniza-
tion ( 4: 14) has taken place. As far as figura ti ve speech is con cerned, the use of
euphemi sm (1:1 2) and synecdoche (4:10) can be observed.
Finally, for the Hexaplaric evidence, the edition of F. Field, Origenis Hexaplo-
rum quae supersunt (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1875; repr., Hildesheim:
Georg Olms, 1964) has been used and a comparison with the edition of Bernardus
de Montfaucon, Hexaplorum Origenis quae supersunt (Paris: Ludovicus Guerin,
1713) has been made. In fact , the available materi al is extremely limited: one case
of a' in chapter 3, two cases of a' and three of o' in chapter 4.
Latin Witnesses
As to the Latn sources, for the Old Latin, use has been made of the only manu-
script of Ruth (Madrid, Bibl. Univ. 31, fol. 80v-81 v; severely damaged during the
Spanish civil war) according to the publications of S. Berger, "Notice sur quelques
textes latins indits de l' Ancien Testament ," Notices et extraits des manuscrits de
la Bibliotheque Nationale et autres bibliotheques, XXXIV/2 (Pari s: lnstitut na-
ti onal de France, 1893) 122-26 and J. Cantera 01tiz de Urbina, Vetus Latina -
Rut: studio crtico de la version Latina prejeronomiana de Libro de Rut (Textos y
estudi os del Seminario Filologico Cardenal Cisneros 4; Madrid and Barcelona:
Seminario Filologico Cardenal Cisneros, 1965). In view of severa! shortcomings of
the editions, it has been very helpful to consult the critica! review of Cantera's
edition by W. Baars ("Vetus Latina") , as well as the evaluation made by Rahlfs
(Studie, 124-34).
The Old Latin sometimes has an independent reading, as can be seen in 1 :3 and
2:23. It remarkably supports M without aligning with any known Greek evidence
in at least four cases (2:14; 3:7; 4:8, 11). In these cases it always agrees with T,
and in two cases with either V or S.
For the Vulgate, the edition of the Benedictine fathers of S. Girolamo in Rome,
F.A. Gasquet, et al., eds., Libri Iosue Judicum Ruth (vol. 4 of Biblia Sacra iuxta
Latin.am Vulgatam Versionem; Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1939) has been
the textual base, and the fourth edition of R. Weber, Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam
Versionem (2 vol s.; 4th rev. ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesell schaft, 1994) has
been consulted.
V normally is a most reli able witness of M, and its deviations can frequently be
explained by translational reasons. The lack of certain precise grammatical distinc-
tions in Latin is at the base of the occasional use of the characterization "indeter-
minate" (e.g., in 2:6 and 4:4). In many cases in which V deviates from M, it is
. .- . ... -----
RUTH 7*
Syriac and Aramaic Witnesses
In the absence of a critica! edition of Ruth by the Peshitta Institute in Leiden, the
Syriac base for thi s edition has been the Codex Ambrosianus, which is quoted ac-
cording to the photolithographi c edition of A.M. Ceriani, Translatio Syra Pescitto
Veteris Testamenti (Milan: J.B. Pogliani, 1883) 213-214r. The editions of the Do-
minicans of Mosul, Biblia Sacra iuxta Versionem Simplicem quae di citur Pschitta
(3 vols.; Mosul : Typis Fratrum Praedicatorum, 1887), and of the Syriac Bible of S.
Lee (1826; repr., London: United Bible Societies, 1979) have also been used.
Although an important number of coi ncidences between readings of G and S
occur, the translator of S apparently did not use G in any consistent way. There
are many instances in which S stands alone in providing a syntactic facilitation
(e.g., 1: 1), a cultural assi milation (e.g., 1 :8) or in leavi ng sorne information in the
base text implicit (e.g., 1: 1 ). For more detai ls concerning the specific character of
S, see Gerleman, Ruth!Hohelied (BKAT, 18/1 ; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener,
1965), 3-4.
For the Syro-Hexapla, P. de Lagarde' s edition in Bibliothecae Syriacae (Gtittin-
gen: Horstmann, 1892) 186-90 has been consulted. However, the Syro-Hexapla
has been of special importance for the reconstruction of the history of the text of
G, since it is a very literal translation of the Hexaplaric G-text by Paul of Tella,
which in addition has preserved the Aristarchian signs.
Regarding the Targum, speci al use has been made of manuscript Urbinas Ebr. 1
of the Vati can Library, dated 1294. The editions of A. Sperber, The Hagiographa
(vol. IVA of The Bible in Aramaic; Leiden: Brill, 1968), P. de Lagarde, Hagiogra-
pha Chaldaice (Leipzig: Teubner, 1873), and E. Levine, The Aranwic Version of
Ruth (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1973), have also been consulted.
Whatever the time of origin of T may have been, its underlying Hebrew text is
clearly that which is known to us from M. It is further characterized by much addi-
tional materi al which makes it twice as long as M. The additional material can
sometimes be characterized as explicit information (3: 11 , 14; 4:7) and sometimes
as a midrash (1 :9).
Concluding Remarks
I would like to express my special thanks to Dr. U. Quast, the editor of Ruth in the
Gottingen Septuagint, for ali the valuable information he has provided, to Prof.
Yohanan Goldman for hi s thorough revi sion of earlier drafts of thi s text, and to the
other members of the editorial committee for their inspiring team contribution. I
am also greatly indebted to Prof. A. Dotan for his improvements of the Masorah
and to Prof. Peter W. Flint for having made available to me the final text of
4QRuth and 4QRuthb before the appearance of the editio prnceps.
COMMENTARIES ON THE CRITICAL APPARATUS
RUTH
1: l t:J'6!:li1J:i Campbell (Ruth, 50) is no doubt right in his judgment that
of versions considered the syntactical combinations of M as
redundant. S and O solved this redundancy each in their own way. A vocaliza-
tion could be the base of T 1iJ4, found in the Polyglots of Antwerp and
Pars and in the Urbinas Ebr. 1. It could also explain the reading iudicis in La
and the reading (unius) iudicis in V. Rahlfs (Studie, 130) supposes that the read-
ing of La has been taken from V and that iudicis iudicum in La combines the
readings ofVand O.
2 -1':1'1 T has been taken here as support for M since it maintains the verb. The
unique specifi cation "they became royal adjutants" probably reflects an attempt
to round out the Hebrew phrase "and they were there".
It seems likel y that both S and V give a coITect translation of the component of
meaning of :1':1 in thi s context; therefore no dependency of S and V upon
4QRuth was constructed, although elsewhere :J!Zl' is rendered by the same Syr-
iac verb. S has an identical rendering of the two Hebrew verbs in vv. 2 and 4,
but V prefers stylistic variation: morabantur and manseruntque. 4QRuth looks
like an assimilation to 1 :4, especially since O clearly supports the lectio diffici-
lior of M. A question mark seems nevertheless necessary.
5 :1'11?' The chronological order of events has been restored by O
order ofM should be preferred. It is confirmed by 4QRuth.
7 TJ'J:;i Verse 7b is lacking as a whole in sorne editions of T, whereas it is present
in Urbinas Ebr. l and in ali other manuscripts. The absence in sorne editions
may be due to homoioteleuton, the scribe's eye having moved from the final :i
in to the final :i of :111:1' (so Campbell, Ruth, 60).
9 '...\ccording to edition: t:J'1?tZ1 ilN. Urbinas Ebr. 1 reads ilN
t:J'1?tZ1 , "a good, full reward." The whole sentence reads: "full reward for the
kindness you have done me. (And in that reward ... )." Levine (Aramaic Ver-
sion, 51) correctly considers this information as a "significant midrashic addi-
tion." Therefore the evaluation of T differs from that of S and OL. The Lucianic
character of the reading is clear since it is attested by 54, 75, 82, 106, 134, 344
314, and 93. The reading of l 06 has been provided here on the authority of Rahlfs
(Studie, 80, note 1).
V is the only version which explicitly says that only the two young women
are weeping, not ali three of them. The same statement could be present in
4QRuth if the t:J- suffix reflects an old feminine dual (Campbell, Ruth, 65, 66).
The Hebrew syntax, especially in the beginning of verse 10, is certainly in favor
of such an interpretation. Because of the speculative character of the dual pre-
supposition, the reading of 4QRuth has not been preferred.
12 ,:;i?. Because of the defective writing of the imperative (without final :1), sorne
Oreek manuscripts vocalized the consonantal text as p7. S has a tendency to
1,,.,.., ., ,,. ;...,J=",..... , .......,nf"; ,........, ;......,....., ) ;,...;,. 'T'h o """"rlot:,-. .,,-1,..l;t;,...,., r.f o ""''"' "rl ' 1.orh r.-f
52* COMMENTARIES ON THE CRITICAL APPARATUS
movement is certainly original, since the two verbs occur in 8 and 12 in a chias-
tic order.
h1?,7:i The Hebrew base for was already noted by J.O. Schar-
, (Animadversiones, 87) in 1781. Although unattested, the Oreek reading
could be due to 8' (Thornhill, "Oreek Text," 239). out..f..a0E:v in o' can hardly
be based upon :i1?,1?n and it seems to render the Hebrew idiom as such. It may
have influenced V: (hac nocte) concipere.
14 According to Houbigant, M abbreviated the original text since ali the
versions agree regarding the same extra information. This is, however, not the
case. The apparatus clearly shows that the versions glossed in different ways.
For T the gloss in the Antwerp polyglot and in the different manuscripts used
by Levine has been provided in the apparatus (there is no gloss in the London
polyglot nor in the Masoretic Bibles) . The differences between the versions
make it abundantly clear that each version wanted to make explicit in its own
way what the "kissi ng of the mother-in-law" meant. They easily found the clues
in the immediate context as Buxtorf (Anticritica, 691) already suspected. For ali
these reasons, CTAT(l:l30) considers Mas the earliest attainable text which is,
moreover, supported by 4QRuthb.
15 ':J1W o has the extra information oT KOL o. The fact that O'f is lacking in 0
75
. not be stressed. The group to which this manuscript belongs has O'f.
Moreover, 0
75
has many scribal en-ors (Rahlfs, Studie, 66, note 2). The absence
of o'it from La and other ancient versions such as Ethiopic, A1menian, and Sahi-
dic should not be underlined either. For it may have been ve1y difficult for
translators to render a particle like O'f into the receptor language (Rahlfs, Studie,
56, note 5). CTAT (1:130) also notes that V respects the austerity of M, the
manuscript Laudianus with its addition et tu after vade being the only exception.
T does the same at this point, but it presents the extra information Tli1?n11?1
m\ "to your people and to your gods," at the end ofthe verse.
19 The general interpretational tendency of the versions makes it tempting to
evaluate O with Oerleman (Ruth/Hohelied, 17) likewise as interpretational. On
the other hand, lexicographical considerations make the shift of root as pro-
posed by Ehrlich (Randglossen, 7:22) and Joon (Ruth, 43) attractive. This is a
borderline case which could be eliminated if O also is considered as interpreta-
tional. Are we the victims of our modem lexicography?
21 :-Tl'.11 The immediate context is certainly not unfavorable to the piel meaning "af-
"fiict" of the root :ill.1
11
, and the selection of such a meaning by O V and S is
therefore not surprising. :ill.1
11
, however, as has been stated in recent research
(CTAT, 1:131; Sasson, Ruth, 35; Campbell , Ruth, 77; Hubbard, Ruth, 126f. ; de
Waard/Nida, Handbook, 83), is always constructed with the accusative of the
afflicted and never with the preposition :;i , as is the case with the qal meaning
"testify" of :ill.1
1
. E ven though a divine agent never figures as "testifier" (Myers,
Literary Fonn, 22), the vocalization of M should nevertheless be retained. The
construction with the preposition :;i seems to express contrary evidence, whereas
the construction with? would present favorable evidence.
2:7 :ii;i:\1 See commentary. on i'lJ;l:;iW :-TJ.
i1p:;iw :i,t,. The precise meaning of M will probably never be known. If one
does not want to consider f.v 1(\l ayp(\l of O as a rendering of li':J.:1 in the sense
of Akkadian bltu or Arabic bayt as suggested by Weippert ("Kommentar zu
RUTH 12 53*
out n:::i; or that the translator considered it to be a dittography. G made explicit
what it considered to be the right location. It is important to note that, apart
from the transposition of EV t\> ayp(\> and L!Cpv in the Lucianic recension
(Rahlfs, Studie, 81), there is no evidence of any variant reading in any Greek
manuscript. According to its exegesis of the source text, G also provided preci-
sion with regard to time by replacing with !Cal ! wc; a:n:pac;. Rahlfs's
R group has here !wc; vuv toilto (Rahlfs, Studie, 109), which is not surprising
since one of the main characteristics of this recension is its frequent agreement
with M. In addition, G has vocalized ;m:::itv as ilJ;l:;itti and has performed a nega-
tive transformation. Although V shares with G this negative transformation, it
renders n:::iit, and it seems to have read il:;itti reversa est. The diversity of the
text traditions probably only shows different attempts to make sense out of a
difficult text (CTAT, 1 :131).
A possible interpretation of M would seem to be the one given by Zimolong
("Ruth 2.7," 158) who retouches the Hebrew accentuation by taking il! with the
preceding and who takes n::m .z;i:;iW as an apposition of itJ. would
then refer to the small quantity Ruth as an inexperienced gleaner had gathered.
He has taken up again the millenary exegesis of Yefet ben Eli, probably without
knowing this (CTAT, 1 :132). As a result, M could be paraphrased as follows:
"She has come and stayed since this moming. And until now, the time far her
to sit down at home, it is little she has gathered."
14 nf.17 Because of the stronger disjunctive accent on i,;iN:;t, M takes as the
time setting of Boaz' s utterance (Joon, Ruth, 57-58), and it ascribes these
words to the narrator. Only such a division does justice to the time lapse be-
tween verses 13 and 14 and to the staging of the story (Campbell, Ruth, 102).
G, however, provides a different syntactical division of the Hebrew text by
making c'ipa TD'l q>aye:v part of the speech of Boaz. The different render-
ings of La (hora manducandi ... ) and of V (quando hora ... fuerit) also
testify to such a syntactical division of the text. As to Greek text traditions,
sorne manuscripts belonging to Rahlfs's R group read c'ipq. and others,
mainly Lucianic, c'ipq., adopting therefore the syntactical division ofM.
The hapax legomenon of M is now clearly supported by 2QRuth.
The question marks following the evaluation are only meant to warn against the
drawing of hasty conclusions. The typical Septuagint verb and neologism (Lust,
Lexicon, 83b) Bouvltw, "to heap up," is further only used by G in Ruth 2:16
far the rendering of BcBouvwvwv. Did the translator ignore the
meaning of both hapax legomena and did he link them with forms of as
the most similar tem in his lexical stock (CTAT, 1:132)? Or did the translator
(a) consider lJ and n as alternate spellings; (b) analogous to Ugaritic
"tongs," understand the Hebrew verb to mean "he took with tongs far her,"
generically understood as "passing over," (c) translationally mark quantity (to
heap up) because of the grammatical object iA.lj>LTOV and because of the fact
that Ruth was entirely satisfied? The first presupposition is certainly easier, but
nothing is more complex than translational processes. Although the rendering of
V congessit polentam sibi, "she heaped up barley far herself (!)" causes further
complications, it is not to be excluded that the translation congessit stems
fromG.
18 N'Jf:)l Two manuscripts of M (Kenn. 18 and 109) read i:qr:ll, providing a
54* COMMENTARIES ON THE CRITICAL APPARATUS
Iaw" the first of a double accusative. The same textual understanding is found
in V and S. The two manuscripts are Ashkenazi type, dating from late thiiteenth
to early fourteenth century, and they have a weak authority (CTAT, 1:133).
Moreover, the preservation of the same grammatical subject of the two preced-
ing verbs Nif'l')l and Ni::l?;11 is certainly syntactically facilitating. On the other
hand, in M the sign of the direct object only figures befare "what she had
gleaned" taking "mother-in-law" as the grammatical subject of the verb under
discussion. M further has the support of G and T. The vocalization of M should
therefore be preferred (Joon, Ruth, 62; Campbell, Ruth, 104-5).
19 i?b;,i n15 In 2QRuth there is a !acuna between itntvY and Ctv but the
space is sufficient for
21 On the photographs of 2QRuth (fragment IV, 5 of plate XIV in DJD
III), only the left part of the upper vertical stroke of the it of is visible.
Not only this textual support, but also the use of the literary device of the so-
called "inclusio of identity" (Gow, Ruth, 124), is in favor of the reading of M.
The extra information :n:poc; mv8epav m'niic; in G is not based upon a Vor-
lage (Joon, Ruth, 65), but it is the result of the application of a
translation technique of making participants explicit. S either shows dependence
u pon G, or has independently used the same technique.
23 tJii,i, is the primitive reading of 2QRuth. To the left of the incomplete
waw, a trace of an added p may be visible, a correction which would produce
the infinitive qal reading tJipi,i, with the same meaning as the infinitive piel
reading of M.
:::iip,:n 2QRuth has only been cited here in arder to point out to the user of
the apparatus that sorne fragmentary text exists. So fragmentary, that only the
upper stroke of the initial i of :::itvni can be detected on the photographs (frag-
ment VI, 5 of plate XIV in DJD III). Even in the (theoretical) case of more
completeness, the text would have remained indecisive with regard to the voca-
Iization of the verb. Only the use of the preposition would ha ve been decisive.
Two manuscripts de Rossi (379 and the first hand of 495) have the reading
:Jttiz;11, which seems to have been followed by V, (postquam autem) reversa est.
The characterization "shift of meaning" has been used to characterize these sec-
ondary readings. They certainly intend to create smoother transitions. The sen-
tence in M could be taken as sequential to the preceding one (Campbell, Ruth,
108-9) oras contemporaneous with it (Sasson, Ruth, 62).
3: 12 CN '?. For syntactic and semantic reasons, CN '::l has to be considered as an
accidental dittography of the preceding ':l.
14 11;;ii:f1 The two preceding verbs have Ruth as the agent to obtain a more logical
sequence. S also made Ruth the grammatical subject of the utterance with the
implication of further shifts: "she said to him, 'Nobody should know that I carne
to you on the threshing floor.'" S therefore made a syntactical assimilation.
There can be no doubt that the subject is Boaz as it has been explicitly stated in
G V. It is more difficult to know to whom the utterance in Mis addressed. In T
Boaz is speaking "to his servant" and in the midrash Ruth Rab. II, 1 "to his
foreman." A number of manuscripts of the Hexaplaric (!) family (Rahlfs, Studie,
67-71) have Boaz addressing Ruth: rnl dmv (19, 108, 426), !Cal Eimv
Boc; (376), 1Cal dmv Boc; (58). V has Boaz implicitly addressing
Ruth with implied further shifts: et dixit Booz, cave ne quis noverit quod huc
. .
RUTH2H 55*
may it be your will that it not be known that the woman carne to the threshing
floor." Ali these different interpretations clearly show that M is the oldest at-
tainable text and that the utterance should most probably be understood as a
monologue: "he thought to himself."
15 The reading of M with Boaz as grammatical subject is found in MA, MY,
and ML, as well as in the editions of Ben I:Iayyim and Minhat Shay. On the
other hand, more than forty manuscripts of M have the reading with the femi-
nine preformative N:lJ;ll, making Ruth the implied subject.
The reading of G Kal doj/,,8Ev is grammatically, of course, indeterminate with
regard to the agent. However, the fact that G staits the discourse immediately
following with Kal 'Poue doj/,,8Ev shows that the intended subject of the verb
is here the same as that of the preceding aorists, namely Boaz, as it has been
explicitly stated in 3:4. Only a part of the Lucianic recension makes Ruth expli-
cit in the text. V and S by their feminine forms express the same reading.
4:4 Question marks following the evaluations express continued uncertainties.
As observed in CTAT (1:134), the reading of Mis witnessed by its best repre-
sentatives: MA, ML, and the editions of Ben I:Iayyim and Shay. It is also
protected by a Mp of manuscript Pars BN Hbreu 3, which refers for this se-
quence to Lev 27:20 and which protects this sequence against the nifal reading
found three times (Lev 25:30, 54; Lev 27:27).
In contrast with two Arabic Jewish versions of Ruth, published by M. Peritz,
which read Saadya in his commentary on Ps 4:4 quotes in the first in-
stance Ruth 4:4 as an authority for his thesis that Hebrew can use the third
person for the first and the second and vice versa. As additional proof he cites
Mic 7:19 and Ps 81:17. Ibn Ezra (par. 120), on the other hand, retaining the
third person, interprets: "if no redeemer redeems it," supported in this by Yefet
ben Eli who states that Boaz addresses himself to the elders. This interpretation
which is also found in Midrash Rabbah, has recently been taken up again by
Sasson: "But, should he decide not to redeem it (added Boaz as he addressed
the elders before turning back to the redeemer) ... "(Ruth, 103 and 118).
Although one may not want to take away the vestiges of a vivid impression, the
weight of more than fifty manuscripts of M followed by at least two versions in
favor of the reading is, of course, impressive. One can therefore under-
stand the text correction proposed in CTAT (1:134). It remains nevertheless im-
possible to explain the origin of M. As Rudolph (Ruth/Hohes Lied/Klagelieder,
59) has already stated, it is difficult to explain M as a scribal error. Moreover, it
is not impossible that V tibi displicet (hoc) and T 1rm1 deal in a
similar way with the difficulty of M.
5 Severa! proposals with regard to this issue have been made. It has been
suggested to maintain M and to consider the as enclitic. On the other hand, it
has been proposed to simply delete the read, following V, con-
sidering therefore the 1 of M as an error for the l. A variant of the sugges-
tion is the proposed reading en which entirely harmonizes with the read-
ing found in 4: 1 O. The last two proposals are facilitating assimilations.
Without going into ali the details of this crux interpretum, the ambiguity of
certain textual witnesses should be noted. Although G through its rendering Kal
nap confirms the reading of M, it also confirms through its double trans-
lation Kal aui:'v the interpretation of V. The same applies to T. In spite of the
equalization 1'11i1 N1' N1' T also states: "you must acquire her by
COMMENTARIES ON THE CRITICAL APPARATUS
levirate marriage," a significant midrashic addition which to a high degree con-
firms the same interpretation.
lt seems therefore that the problems are largely interpretational. As remarked in
CTAT (1:135), one wonders whether the use of distinct prepositions in M,
and does not reflect the distinct relations both women have with regard to
the transaction. Through the purchase, the patrimony no longer is in the hands
of Naomi, but it does not enter into the possession of the buyer. In pursuance of
levirate rights, the purchase takes place on behalf of Ruth and in her name. It
may therefore well be that V, in spite of its translational treatment, has correctly
understood M as already Buxtorf (Anlicrilica, 760) suspected. And the same
could apply to ali the versions.
11 G reads Kal E'litooav (dnav) 6 ol f,v itA1:J Mp-
Kal ol npwBnpot e'lnooav (Elnav) .... In other words, it gives dif-
ferent functions to the two different groups. It has ali the people in the gate per-
form as witnesses, and it has only the elders pronounce the blessing.
For Joon (Ruth, 89) G is based upon an original Hebrew text which could have
run as follows: C'lplin Cl'1:11 i:ll!D:l i!DN c:ii:i-?::i M would be a
condensed text. His major argument is that it is very difficult to understand how
ordinary people could fo1mulate such poetic wishes and such sophisticated allu-
sions.
It is, however, exactly such a reasoning which could have led to the Greek
translator's interpretation of M. Mainly two arguments favor M: (1) in the three
instances in this chapter (4:9 and 11) in which the people and the elders inter-
fere, they act together; (2) the arder of the two groups in verse 9 has been re-
versed in verse 11, and severa! other examples could be given of an intentional
chiastic mTangement of pa1ticipants.
By its inversion, S assimilates the order of paiticipants to that of verse 9. In
addition, S amplifies M by providing, like G, each group with a verb of saying.
Unlike G, however, S has the two groups act in conce1t.
CANTICLES
1 :3 p:::nn 11?.W piin as a verbal fo1m is a feminine impe1fect hofal of P'i, "(which)
is emptied/poured out." The feminine form is, however, not congruent with the
masculine subject. Many exegetes, therefore, emend the text to the participle
which seems to be presupposed in G, (a'), (e'), V (v. 2), and T. The read-
ing of S could have been occasioned by this Hebrew f01m, or otherwise is a
guess. In 6QCant there is no instead of it only the letter is certain, a i is
probable. On the basis of available space, Baillet (DJD III, 113) has conjectu-
rally reconstructed the text as "an aromatic mixture poured
out," a reading which does not help to explain the text of M. A conjectural
emendation is "cosmetic treatment" (Esth 2:3, 9, 12); so Rudolph
(Ruth/Hohes Lied/Klagelieder, 122) and F. Horst (apparatus BHS) . It has al so
been suggested that piin may not be a verb form at ali, but has a meaning
which can no longer be established, so that we should translate "Turaq-oil."
4 In the accentuation of M, TilN is connecred with the following: "draw
me, we will hurry after you." Since this would refer to a third person besides
LXXIV
FIGURE 2
Sample Page lllustrating the Features of the Layou/
(l) Diplomatic presentation of the text of ML (except for the insertion of
verse numbers, the marking of poetic lines according to the Masoretic
accents, and the omission of raie).
(2) Diplomatic presentation of the Masorah parva of ML.
(3) Diplomatic presentation of the Masorah magna of ML (except for verse
numbers and reference separators); a translation is provided in the com-
mentary section of the edition.
(4) Text critica! apparatus with the evidence of witnesses to the Hebrew text
for cases material to exegesis andlor translation; occasional expanded dis-
cussions in the commentary section of the edition.
( 1) Diplomatische Wiedergabe des Bibeltextes aus ML ( abweichend van der
Handschrift wurden Kapitel- und Verszijfern hinzugefgt und poetische Pas-
sagen den masoretischen Akzemen folgend stichographisch angeordner;
auj3erdem wird rape im Druck nicht wiedergegeben).
(2) Diplomatische Wiedergabe der Masora parva van ML.
(3) Diplomatische Wiedergabe der Masora magna van ML (abweich.end van der
Handsch.rift wurden Verszijfem sowie Trennzeichen zwischen den einzelnen
Verweisen hinzugefgt); im Kommentarteil findet sich dazu jeweils eine ber-
setzung.
(4) Textkritischer Apparat mit dem Befund der antiken Textzeugen des Heb-
raischen Textes in denjenigen Fallen, die fr Exegese undloder bersetzung
moglicherweise bedeutsam sind; gelegentlich finden sich dazu weitere Erliiu-
terungen im Kommentarteil.
(1) Presentacin diplomtica del texto de ML (excepto en la insercin de los n-
meros de versculo, la indicacin de las lneas poticas segn los acentos ma-
sorticos y la omisin del rape).
(2) Presentacin diplomtica de la masora parva de ML.
(3) Presentacin diplomtica de la masora magna de ML (excepto en los nmeros
de versculo y los separadores de referencia); la traduccin en la seccin del
comentario.
(4) Aparato crtico del texto con los datos de los testimonios del texto hebreo
para el material de los casos que afectan a la exgesis y/o la traduccin; oca-
sionalmente discusiones ms extensas en la seccin del comentario.
LXXIII
FIGURE 1
Sample of an Apparatus Entry (Jer 23: 17)
Jllustrating the Presentation of the Text Critical Cases

iliil' i:ii V T (assim-Num 14:11-12, 23) 1 i:o:<_; mw8ouvoL<_; i:ov
CS) 1 abiciunt verbum meum Hiecomm (assim-Jer 13:10, G) 11
pref il1il' see cb
(1) Lemma from M\ the reference text
(2) Sigla for witnesses agreeing with the reference text
(3) Characterization of the reading from the reference text
(4) Separator Iine
(5) First reading differing from the reference text
(6) Sigla of witnesses attesting the reading
(7) Second reading differing from the reference text
(8) Separator line for the case conclusion
(9) Reading to be preferred over the reading in the reference text (the lemma)
(1 O) Sigla for witnesses supporting the preferred reading
( 11) Symbol indicating that the commentary section has a discussion of this case
( 1) Lemma aus ML, dem Ref erenztext
(2) Sigla der Textzeugen, die mit dem Referenztext bereinstimmen
(3) Charakterisierung fr die Lesart des Referenztextes
(4) Trennlinie
(5) Erste vom Referenztext abweichende Lesart
(6) Sigla der Textzeugen, in denen diese Lesart berliefert ist
(7) Zweite vom Referenztext abweichende Lesart
(8) Trennlinie vor der Schlussfolgerung zu diesem Fall
(9) Lesart, die gegenberder Lesart des Referenztextes (Lemma) den Vorzug verdient
(10) Sigla der Textzeugen fr die bevorzugte Lesart
(11) Hinweis darauf, dass der Kommentarteil weitere Erliiuterungen w di esem
Fall enthiilt
(1) Lema de ML, texto de referencia
(2) Siglas de los testimonios que coinciden con el texto de referencia
(3) Caracterizacin de la lectura con relacin al texto de referencia
(4) Lnea de separacin
(5) Primera lectura que difiere del texto de referencia
(6) Siglas de los testimonios que atestiguan la lectura
(7) Segunda lectura que difiere del texto de referencia
(8) Lnea de separacin para la conclusin de un caso
(9) Lectura preferida frente a la lectura del texto de referencia (lema)
(10) Siglas de los testimonios que apoyan la lectura preferida
(11) Smbolo indicativo de que la seccin del comentario tiene una discusin sobre
- 1 -- - -
LXXV
2
RUTH 1'\1i
en ini cry?, ';J;1 1
' tV'Ni1 CtV1 :1'l:l
0
'ltVi
0
i1'ltVN1 Nii1 ,,. :!! 1.m7 i1iii1' 2
.J ' T .J' ' l ITT /"': \ ' / T .r T T ;
1 cw.1 i
:cw-1':T1 i1Jm; 3
" ctli ni
0
:JNb btiil cii7 iNW"1 :il'l:i 'ltVi N'i1 iNwm tV'N 4
cni? ('' ' -: 1 'T '," T .J : - T r:T I ": \ ' 1'' T ' - A' T: T .J
' :C'ltV iiznb ctli i:itlii mi T1'lWi1 ctlii hnNi1 ;
/ T- I' T ' ." r : ; \T ; r- A \' ' ' - ,.. ' T ; T - - IT
' 0'17: \.1l$1{!l"l1 i:7:;i1
'? :io/m op?:;i1 Cj?P1
6
c::7 np7 ;,F 1j?-'f-'?. 1
'in :i :i1o/7 111;i i1PJJJ1 O'b':;i '!:Jo/i
nio T1'?.7 O'ply:;i 'Po/7 i??NJ;\1 :i1']ii1;
8
llJ' i9ry i1Ji1; 9
:, 1;)7 PWl"l1 T1'f.! i1Dil1? h1;i;
0- :o: IZl'N ,,,, . Oi:JN ,.,,, i10:i :l fiN:l : ';J'1 ;m n71 pn'IJ ?100 )'i n [ I: l J
1:1 ti\:>o/ 'o':!! 4QRuth" GM" (Y) (T) 1 v ni) Kplvm wc; Kpn c; G 1
,.;_;, .,,,;;.... S (facil-synt) + :1'J? '.lo/1 4QRuth" 4QRuth" GM" Y T J Kl ol ulol
Ctto G S (iniplic) 2 OJli1
1
4QRuth" G S T 1 Ojtl1 4QRuthh 1 ipse vocab11111 r Y
(transl) GM" y s T 1 'A[lLlh;< G G T 1 1:ltl1'1 4QRuth"
(nssim- 1:4?)1 rnoraba11111r Y (transl) 1 S (transl) + 3 '9!/l lV'J:I G Y S
T 1 vir ei11s La S :riW'l:t1J1 ;i''J'?'. :<o/IJ 4QRuth" V T 1 .rr rnfi .v6pc; ati1<;
rnl .m\ tiv bo ulcov G S (hann-chron) .. 6 ;;i'p';i:;>1T 1 prcc o G (Y)
S 7 G Y (T) 1 > La S + 8 'J')o/ M" T 1 > G S 1 Y (indet) rifN G
T 1 toii na rpc; GM" (assim-cultur) 1 111 ris vestrae La Y (assim-ctext) 1
patris vestri (assim-cultur+ assim-ctex.t) 1 r< S (assim-cultur + assim-
ctext) ;Jivl,7; 1 ;J!ll.'' M'" 1 V!,7' M""' 1 G Y S T (i1 t) 9 o:?'? G Y 1 foil
ilAEOV G' S (nmpl) 1 foil ... 0'7ll1 Jti ilN T (rn idr) +
4
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
The first edition in the modern series of Biblia Hebraica (BHK
1
) appeared at
Leipzig in 1906 as the new century was getting under way. Throughout the century
new editions of Biblia Hebraica have appeared, each retaining the basic structure
of the original edition, but introducing changes as warranted by developments in
text critica! study. A second edition (BHK
2
), differing from the first only in minor
corrections, was published in 1913, also at Leipzig. The third edition (BHK
3
) ap-
peared in 1929- 1937 at Stuttgart, and introduced major changes: a new base text,
reproducing the text of the Leningrad Codex rather than the 1524-1525 Bomberg
edition of Jacob ben I:Iayyim; and an entirely new apparatus. Biblia Hebraica
Stuttgartensia (BHS, 1967- 1977), the fourth edition in the series, followed BH K
3
in using the Leningrad codex as the base text, but introduced a new presentation of
the manuscript's Masorah, as well as a new apparatus.
As the old century gives way to a new one, the increased availability of
recent manuscript discoveries (especially the Dead Sea Scrolls), the developments
of severa! decades' intensive research in the transmission of the text of the Hebrew
Bible, and the concomitant shifts in our appreciation of the aims and limits of
textual criticism occasion a new edition (the fifth) in the line of Biblia Hebraica,
which thus may be known as Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ). Since this is the first
fascicle of the new edition, it is appropriate that we offer sorne explanation of the
edition so as to situate it in relation to its predecessors.
This new edition comes about at the initiative of the United Bible Societies, and
with the sponsorship of the German Bible Society, which has special responsibility
for the publication of scientific editions, specifically including Biblia Hebraica.
The character of Biblia Hebraica Quinta is shaped by two histories, that of the
editions of Biblia Hebraica, and that of the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project of
the United Bible Societies.
Severa! crucial decisions at stages in the development of the Biblia Hebraica
have given the series a well-known character that continues in this edition. From
the beginning, the editions in this series have been intended as Han.dausgaben.
Also from the beginning, as a result of an explicit choice by Rudolf Kittel, the
edition has not presented an eclectic text of the Hebrew Bible, but rather has
printed the text of single edition or manuscript, and provided a critica! apparatus
that presents a selection of variants and conjectures for emending the text, empha-
sizing those most significant for exegesis and translation. In the first two editions,
the text of the Bomberg edition of Jacob ben Hayyim was used as the base text.
Starting with the third edition (1937), on the initiative of Paul Kahle, the text of
codex EBP. I B 19a of the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg (i.e., ML)
has been printed as the base text. Kahle also emphasized the importance of printing
the Masorah parva and magna of ML as part of the edition. In the third edition, this
airo was realized only for the Masorah parva. It was only with the fourth in the
Biblia Hebraica series, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, that Kahle's airo was at-
tempted so far as the Masorah magna is concerned. As the Dead Sea Scrolls began
to appear in the late 1940's, the seventh imoression of RHK
3
. nn thP. initiMivP nf
IX GENERAL INTRODUCTION
eclectic text of the Hebrew Bible must choose to reconstruct that text at a particu-
lar point in its development. In the midst of the current lack of consensus about
the appropriate stage of the text to aim at in such a reconstruction, it seems to the
committee that an edition, which will be widely used by students and non-specia-
li sts, should not present as its running text a reconstruction based on one of the
positions in the debate. Third, the committee takes the view that an eclectic text
ought to be based on the presentation of ali variants found in the surviving wit-
nesses. Such a presentation is beyond the limits inherent in a one-volume edition.
THETEXT
Continuing the practice established with the third edition of 1937, and refi ned in
the Stuttgartensia edition, this edition offers as its base text a basically diplomatic
presentation of ML. In recent years, studies of ML and its Masorah have indicated
that in sorne respects it may be less than ideal as the base text of an edition (see
the specific discussion below). Indeed, the committee gave due consideration to
other options for providing a base text for the edition. It was decided not to use the
Aleppo Codex (i.e., MA) chiefly because the manuscript is incomplete. Moreover,
since the Hebrew University Bible Project employs this manusclipt as the base text
for its splendid editions, and since it is also the text for the Bar-Ilan University
edition of the Bible edited by M. Cohen, MA is appearing befare the scholarly
public in edited form. The Editorial Committee also considered employing the ear-
liest available ben Asher manuscript for each of the three divisions of the canon as
the base text for BHQ. This option was abandoned in favor of the continued use of
ML for several reasons. First, ML remains the earliest known manuscript of the
entire Hebrew Bible. Second, the state of the manuscripts that met the indicated
criterion would have led to a patchwork when their gaps had to be supplemented
with another manuscript (e.g., in addition to its well-known !acuna in the Torah,
the Aleppo Codex lacks severa! of the Writings entirely). Third, when it was as-
sumed that the new edition would be typeset by traditional methods, the fact that
the German Bible Society had in its possession a typeset text of ML, which already
had undergone severa! rounds of careful correction, was a significant pragmatic
factor. Then, at the point where it was decided to move the project to fully compu-
terized processes, it was equally significant that the text of ML was already avail-
able in electronic form - the only one of the great Tiberian manuscripts then so
available. While the processes of converting the text to the specific electronic form
used in making this edition had introduced new errors into the electronic text, it had
already undergone sorne degree of correction befare its use in thi s project. In the
course of making this edition, the electronic version of the text is undergoing thor-
ough correction against color transparencies obtained from the Ancient Biblical
Manuscript Center in Claremont, California, USA. The transparencies were pro-
duced from the new photographs of ML taken in St. Petersburg by the Center's team
formed by West Semitic Research of Los Angeles. The clarity and quality of the
photographs are well beyond that which has been readily obtainable otherwise, and
will undoubtedly lead to a number of corrections that were not possible for the text
of BHS until the fifth impression exclusively (1997). The electronic text of ML will
be checked against these photos independently by the editors of the individual books
h\I rnll<:iihnr'ltrt.rc- t ..... tuhnm th..,. t .... r l; h .... ,. h.o,.,...-. ,.. ..,.,... .... :+.,.. ... 11 ...... ..... :.-- .... ..l
GENERAL INTRODUCTION vm
Otto Eissfeldt, added apparatuses giving a fu]] report of the variants contained in
1 Qisa" and 1 QpHab. Biblia Hebraica Quinta stands firmly within this tradition at
many points, even as it refines and renews it at others.
As was true for its predecessors, this edition of Biblia Hebraica is intended as a
Handausgabe for use by scholars, clergy, translators, and students who are not
necessarily speciali sts in textual criticism. Because our field still lacks an editio
critica maior, specialists in textual criticism should also find the edition of use,
even though it is not principally intended for them. At the beginning of its work,
the Editorial Committee considered the possi bility of producing such an edition,
but concluded that it was not practica! at that time, and in any case would not meet
the need to which the Biblia Hebrai ca responds. The committee hopes that this
new edition of Biblia Hebraica may serve as a contribution toward the eventual
publication of an editio critica maior.
Following the pattern of its predecessors, this edition will appear initially in
fascicles, of which this fascicle contai ning the Megilloth is the first. Each fascicle
will present the following items for the biblical books published therein:
- an introduction;
- lists of sigla, symbol s and abbreviations;
- a glossary of common abbreviations used in the Masorah parva;
- the text and full Masorah of ML;
- the critica! apparatus reporting the readings of the witnesses to the text's trans-
mission;
- a commentary on selected cases from the critica! apparatus, the translation of
the Masorah magna, and comments on difficult cases in the Masorah magna
and parva.
This sequence implies a preferred arder for reading the edition. By reading the
introduction to a book befare proceeding to the text and apparatus, a reader gains
important perspective on the witnesses for that book. As the reader then proceeds
to text and apparatus, the editors assume that the commentary will be consulted as
points of interest arise in the reading of the text and apparatus.
At the end of the publication process, the edition will be published in two
volumes, one containing text, Masorah, and critica! apparatus along with the
general introduction, sigla, symbols, and abbreviations (i.e., a single volume on the
usual BHK pattern). The second volume will contain the introductions to the indi-
vidual books, the textual and Masorah commentaries, and the translation of the
notes of the Masorah magna.
This new edition of Biblia Hebraica follows the pattern set in 1937, presenting
the text of a single good Masoretic manuscript as a base text and adding a critica!
apparatus offering the evidence of the text' s transmission in relation to the point of
reference provided by the base text. This is founded, of course, in Kittel's choice
of such a structure for the 1906 edition, albeit then using the Bomberg text instead
of a si ngle manuscri pt. The Editorial Committee is well aware of the current dis-
cussion of the relative merits of an edition of this type as opposed to an edition
presenting what is properly called an eclectic text. The committee chose to main-
tain the historie structure of the editions of Biblia Hebraica for three reasons. First,
it was judged that, as yet, not enough is known about the hi story of the develop-
ment of the text of the Hebrew Bible and its various textual traditions to give a
XI GENERAL INTRODUCTION
In the event, that airo was realized only for the Masorah parva in the 1937 edition.
BHS was intended to realize Kahle's airo of publishing both the Masorah parva
and magna. The edition of ML's Masorah produced for BHS by Grard E. Weil
was intended as a fully corrected and norrnalized realization of the Masorah of
ML, rather than a diplomatic representation of what was actually written in the
manuscript. For this new edition, the Editorial Committee determined to reproduce
both the Masorah parva and magna of ML in an essentially diplomatic representa-
tion. Since the Masorah is part of the text of ML that constitutes the base text of
the edition, and the basic principie of its representation is diplomatic, it seemed to
the committee inconsistent to present the Masorah in any other fashion. It is true
that the Masorah magna and parva of ML have their deficiencies, and they most
certainly do not represent the totality of the data contained in the tradition of the
Masorah. However, an edition that would address these matters would require the
collation of the Masorah in other manuscripts, and would need more space than
can reasonably be granted such matters in a one-volume edition.
This means that where the Masorah of ML is not consistent with the text in the
manuscript, it will not be corrected, as was the practice in BHK
3
and especially
BHS. Such cases instead will be explained in a note in the commentary section of
the edition. A glossary of common abbreviations used in the Masorah parva is
included in this edition to aid readers in understanding those notes. Notes from
the Masorah parva that cannot be translated reliably using the glossary will be
translated in the commentary section, as will every note in the Masorah magna.
Masorah notes that involve too much implicit information to be reasonably under-
stood even from a translation will be discussed in the commentary section.
The edition will depart in two formal aspects from a diplomatic presentation of
the Masorah magna in order to make it easier for readers to follow the text of the
Masorah. At the beginning of each note, the numbers of the chapter and verse to
which the note is judged to refer will be inserted. Masorah magna notes containing
smanm will appear with a point inserted between each sman.
On more than one occasion ML inse1ts a circellus in its text without a c01Te-
sponding note in the Masorah parva. Likewise, notes occur in the Masorah parva
without circelli indicating the words or phrases to which they refer, and notes oc-
cur in the Masorah magna that have no connection with the matter displayed on
the pages of ML on which they occur. So far as possible, BHQ attempts to repre-
sent this situation reliably. Circelli will be inserted in the text even when they do
not have a corresponding note. Notes in the Masorah parva without a correspond-
ing circellus will be associated with the word or phrase to which the editor judges
they relate, but without the insertion of a circellus. Thus the note will occur in
proximity to its probable referent, but a false certainty about that referent will not
be conveyed. Notes in the Masorah magna that cannot be related to textual matter
on the same or neighboring pages, will be associated with the first word on the
manuscript page on which they occur, ensuring a location in the edition that ap-
proximates the note's location in the manuscript. In both Masorah magna and par-
va, numerals that lack the usual supralinear dot in ML will have that dot supplied
for the sake of clarity.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION X
As with BHS, the text printed in BHQ will be the text of ML, even when this
shows obvious errors. The corrections will be noted in the apparatus on the basis
of the other Tiberian manuscripts collated. On the other hand, the new photographs
of ML have revealed a small number of instances where damage to the manuscript
has rendered sorne element of a word illegible (usually a vowel sign or accent). In
such instances the edition will show a reconstructed reading in the base text, and
will use an apparatus entry to report what can actually be discemed in ML, as well
as the readings of the other Tiberian witnesses that forro the basis of the recon-
struction. In still other cases, ML displays a variation between the reading of the
first hand, and a reading provided by a second hand (e.g., through errors in the
course of re-inking accidentally damaged portions of the manuscript [see the dis-
cussion below ]). In these cases the editor will include in the base text the reading
judged to represent the valid reading of the manuscript, and will report the relevant
data in an apparatus entry.
As far as the layout of the base text is concemed, BHQ follows its predecessors
by departing from a fully diplomatic representation of ML's page layout in that
texts judged by the editor to be prose are set in a single column, and texts judged
to be poetry are set stichographically. However, the criteria for determining the
stichography have been altered from those used in previous editions. For poetic
passages in prose texts that ML presents stichographically in a traditional page lay-
out, the text of this edition will follow the stichography of ML. Otherwise, the
stichography in this edition is based on the Masoretic accents. Stichoi are always
defined by the primary disjunctive accents, except in cases where a different syn-
tactic division from the one expressed in those accents is judged to be the preferred
reading of the text. In such cases the preferred reading will determine the division
of the stichoi. The grouping of stichoi into bi- and tri-cola is determined so far as
possible by the hierarchy of precedence among rhose accents. Only where the re-
sult produces a line that would run over the edge of the page, or that would disrupt
an obvious parallelismus membrorum is the grouping of the stichoi into bi- and tri-
cola altered.
There are also a number of lists among the prose texts of ML (e.g., Ezra 2:43-
57) that, although there is no fixed tradition conceming their presentation, are ar-
ranged on the pages of ML in a way that distinguishes them from the surrounding
prose. In this edition they will be presented in a way that, so far as possible, repli-
cates their presentation in the manuscript.
The various other phenomena associated with Masoretic manuscripts (e.g., en-
larged letters, suspended letters, signals for reading sections, inverted nunm) are
printed as they appear in ML, as has been the practice since the 1937 edit\on. In
particular, the nun- or zayin-Iike sign found in the Masorah parva of ML en will
be shown in a forrn that follows the manuscript as closely as possible. However,
sa[um[ and pa[uhI are not indicated by the manner of spacing lines, but by the
interposition of O and El, as has been the practice from the beginning of the Biblia
Hebraica series.
THEMASORAH
In his contribution to the foreword of the third edition, Kahle, pointing out that the
text of ML "vollstandig wird ... erst durch die ihm b e i g e g e ~ e n e Masora" (BHK
3
,