The Text of Genesis 1-11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition.

• Author: LEVIN, SAUL
• Position: Review

The Text of Genesis 1-11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition. By RONALD S. HENDEL. New York: OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1998. Pp. xv + 168. $29.95.

This book is presented as a sample of what should go into a critical edition of the Hebrew Scriptures. Using mainly the extant Masoretic and Samaritan texts along with the Greek translation, Hendel--unlike any predecessor--has attempted to come up with an archetype from which the preserved texts were derived. He deserves our admiration, gratitude, and encouragement to continue, while the shortcomings of his work point to the need for collaboration with another scholar or two who could guide him wherever he is less expert.

That at some unrecorded time in the past there was such an archetype, one definite text, is not a matter of fact but a theoretical postulate. In any case, the effort to reconstitute it is worthwhile, in that it draws attention to many complex problems that emerge from the actual ancient texts of Genesis (or any other Scripture). Hendel's last chapter, "Critical Text and Apparatuses," illustrates what he would like to recapture: his Hebrew archetype is identical with the Masoretic text for the most part, but modified here and there to conform to the posited Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint. Underneath is a small critical apparatus of "Masoretic Variants," which has very little relevance to the archetype, especially since "Masoretic accents are not included in the critical text because of the technical limitations of my computer software..." (p.115) [1] On the facing pages he places an ample apparatus of "Significant Textual Variants"; most of these, however, are slight differences in wording and scarcely affe ct the Biblical message that readers, in any language, should come away with.

To be sure, in Genesis 5 and 11 the chronological discrepancies between the Masoretic and either the Samaritan or the Greek are substantial, and Hendel examines them at length (pp. 61-80). His specific conclusion, in all but a few instances, maintains the Masoretic reading. But we are left with an eyeopening paradox: that the chronology of the patriarchs in the archetype, had the numbers been added up, would have shown Noah's great-grandfather Jared, his grandfather Methuselah, and his father Lamech all surviving the Flood!

Apart from that, to me the most interesting discrepancy is in 2:2, where the Masoretic has "and God finished on the seventh day [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] the work that he did/had done." The Samaritan has [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] "the sixth," which is corroborated by the Greek [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCINBLE IN ASCII]. Hendel (pp. 32-34) judges [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] to be a mere scribal blunder. While aware of previous scholars who upheld it "as the lectio difficilior," he is unwilling "to give preference to a...