Recherche – Detailansicht
quently than in BUK what the LXX, for instance, actually
says instead of merely being given the Hebrew text that
has been thought to underlie it. As a result of setting out
the evidence more fully, some notes are longer than those
in BHK; but Space is saved by pruning unnecessary infor-
mation: for example, in the first two chapters of Jeremiah,
BHK has 99 notes on the text whereas BHS has only 75,
and BHK refers to the Old Latin in 22 places, in most of
which it merely Supports the LXX, but the superfluous
references have been removed in BHS, where it is men-
tioned only once.
The editors' attempt to present the evidence as cau-
tiously and objectively as possible is welcome, and it is
unlikely that they will be charged with misinterpreting the
versions as often as the editors of BHK. Further, it is good
that the readers, many of whom will be students, are
encouraged to exercise their own powers of judgement.
Thus, to give a relatively unimportant example, in Gen 49, 4,
where the last word in the MT is a verb in the third
person, the note in BHS records the LXX rendering as a
verb in the second person and implies that the Peshitt i
and the Targums of Onkelos and Pseudo-Jonathan agree
with it, but BHS does not follow BHK in giving the Hebrew
that has been thought to lie behind their translations; the
reader must decide for himself whether these versions
imply a different Hebrew text, as well as whether the MT
is in need of emendation. Nevertheless, in spite of the
generally greater objectivity and pedagogical value of the
methods adopted in BHS, the reaction against some aspects
of BHK has perhaps been carried too far, and there arc
places where it would probably have been better to offer
the reader more help in evaluating the evidence, even at
the cost of increasing the length of the notes. The reader
might have been helped by more advice of such a kind in
facing the complicated problems of, for example, Ps. 95, 7
(where, incidentally, BHS is more accurate than BHK in its
description of a variant reading, and the editor has cb
viously taken care to check the evidence). While the cau-
tious and laconic character of BHS's notes is often praise
worthy, fuller explanation and advice would sometimes
have been welcome.
Another question involves only a very small number of
passages: ought the notes of BHS, which is an edition of
the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, to deal with matters
outside the field of textual criticism? It is interesting
to observe that Rudolph, who recorded in BHK the thesry
that lb qmy in Jer 51,1 and the Targum's rendering of
ssk in Jer 51, 41 are to be explained as 'athbash eiphers,
no longer does so in BHS. It is improbable that he now
rejects the theory (which he still aeeepts in the 1968 edition
of his commentary on Jeremiah), and the reason why he
omits a reference to it from BHS is presumably that he
regards it as inappropriate in a textual work. There are,
however, some notes in BHS that arc not purely textual in
character. The note on Ps 80, 5, for example, records the
Suggestion (of G. R. Driver) that the verb 'snt should be
understood in a sense that is found in the Aramaic cognate.
The Suggestion may well be correct, and yet it is doubtful
whether BHS is the right place in which to record lexico-
graphical theories. If it were, then many more notes would
be needed. Another example is found in the notes on
Gen 14, where BHS records some of the ways in which
names of people and places are rendered in the versions
and in the Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran. It is legiti-
mate on grounds of textual criticism to record that Symma-
chus and the Genesis Apocryphon understand verse 5,
where the MT speaks of the Zuzim, to refer to the Zam-
zummim, for it is conceivable that they may be dependent
on a Hebrew text that read 'Zamzummim'; but it is less
easy to justify other information that is given, such as the
identification by the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan of Shinar
in verse 1 with Pontus and by the Genesis Apocryphon
with Babylon, or the identification by Symmachus of Ellasar
with Pontus and of Elam with the Scyfhians in the samc
verse. Such information is interesting, but it is not con-
cerned directly with textual criticism. Further, if it is to be
given in Gen 14, should not similar information be given
elsewhere? Should there not be a note on Hiddekcl in
Gen 2,14 to say that the LXX identifies it with the Tigris V
If interpretations in the Genesis Apocryphon are to b?
recorded, should we not also be told in a note on Hab 1, 6
that the Habakkuk Commentary identifies the Chaldeans
with the Kittim? It is difficult to see where the recording
of ancient interpretations would end, and it is surely better
to be consistent in keeping such information out of textual
notes, no matter how interesting it may be.
Such questions as I have raised concern details, and
they do not alter the fact that BHS is a valuable tool for
the Hebrew scholar and is, in most places, superior to
BHK. Readers who use the fascicles reviewed here will
find them most helpful and will have reason to be grateful
for the thoroughness and care of all the editors.
Cambridge J. A. Eraertoii
Brueggemann, Walter: The Kerygma of the Priestly Writers
(ZAW 84, 1972 S. 397-413).
Dahood, M.: Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography X (Bibl 53,
1972 S. 386-403).
Donner, Herbert: „Wilde Exegese". Ein Argument zum Problem
der Scheinmodernität des Alten Testaments (Wege
zum Menschen 23, 1971 S. 417-424).
Fishbane, Michael: Additional Remarks on Rhmyw (Arnos
1 :11) (JBL 91, 1972 S. 391-393).
— Varia Deuteronomica (ZAW 84, 1972 S. 349-352).
Fitzgerald, Aloysius: The Mythological Background for the
Presentation of Jerusalem as a Queen and False Worship
as Adultery in the OT (CBQ XXXIV, 1972 S. 403-416).
Habel, Norman C: "He Who Stretches out the Heaven"
(CBQ XXXTV, 1972 S. 417-430).
— "Yahweh, Maker of Heaven and Earth" (JBL 91, 1972
Holladay, William L.: The Convenant with the Patriarchs
Overturned: Jeremiah's Intention in "Terror on Every
Side" (Jer 20 :1-6) (JBL 91, 1972 S. 305-320).
Jirku, Anton: Leviticus 11,29-33 im Lichte der Ugarit-For-
schung (ZAW 84, 1972 S. 348).
Keel, Othmar: Erwägungen zum Sitz im Leben des vormosaischen
Pascha und zur Etymologie von psh (ZAW 84,
1972 S. 414-434).
Koch, Klaus: Die Stellung des Kyros im Geschichtsbild
Deuterojesajas und ihre überlieferungsgeschichtlkhe Verankerung
(ZAW 84, 1972 S. 352- 356).
Long, Burke O.: Prophetic Call Traditions and Reports of
Visions (ZAW 84, 1972 S. 494-500).
McKay, J. W.: The Date of Passover and its Significance
(ZAW 84, 1972 S. 435-446).
May, Harry S.: The Daimonic in Jewish history (or, The
Garden of Eden Revisited) (ZRGG 23, 1971 S. 205-219).
Miller. J. Maxwell: In the „Image" and „Likeness" of God
(JBL 91, 1972 S. 289-304).
Pfeifer, Gerhard: Entwöhnung und Entwöhnungsfest im
Alten Testament: der Schlüssel zu Jesaja 28,7-13? (ZAW
84, 1972 S. 341-.347).
Ruppert, Lothar: Psalm 25 und die Grenze der kultorientierten
Psalmenexegese (ZAW 84, 1972 S. 576-582).
Ruprecht, Eberhard: Die Frage nach den vorliterarischen
Überlieferungen in der Genesisforschung des ausgehenden
18. Jh. (ZAW 84, 1972 S. 293-313).
Schwarz, Günther: „ .. . sieht er ... wird er satt . . ."? Eine
Emendation (ZAW 84, 1972 S. 356-358).
Sehmsdorf, Eberhard: Studien zur Redaktionsqeschichte von
Jesaja 56-66 (ZAW 84, 1972 S. 517-575).
Talkenberger, Wolf-Dietrich: Trösten und Helfen. Gedanken
zum Trost im Alten Testament (Glaube und Gewissen 18,
1972 S. 208-209).
Tsevat, Matitiahu: The Basic Meaning of the Biblical
Sabbath (ZAW 84, 1972 S. 447-459).
Theologische Literaturzeitung 98. Jahrgang 1973 Nr. 7