The one-method scholar is likely to be led astray at some point. Biblical scholars cannot afford to be ignorant of either linguistics or textual criticism. But this example shows the need for a cooperative dialogue between linguistics and textual criticism. Obviously, in any given situation, only one of these solutions can be correct. Later I noticed that Ron Hendel rejects this reading in favor of the normal form וַיִּהְיוּ with the support of the Samaritan Pentateuch and Septuagint. Robert Longacre also lamented how often grammarians emended וְהָיָה forms to וַיְהִי. I came independently to a similar conclusion in a paper in 2007 based on the pattern-breaking וַיְהִי of Genesis 5:23. Textual critics are given to emending unique or problematic texts to alleviate difficulties, whereas linguists tend to latch on to exactly these unusual texts as some of the most significant.Īs an example, Christo van der Merwe has argued that וַיְהִי can sometimes be used to mark climatic elements in a story. It seems that often the two are pulling in opposite directions. I have noticed a few tensions between linguistics and textual criticism that need to be addressed.
#TEXTUAL TRANSCRIPTION IN BIBLEWORKS 10 FREE#
Provided free of charge to BibleWorks 9 users as they become available. Ongoing (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are now complete), and updates are