The Textual Criticism of Sumerian Literature. By Paul Delnero. The Journal of Cuneiform Studies Supplemental Series, vol. 3. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2012. Pp. viii + 230. $89.95. [Distributed by ISD, Bristol, Conn.].

The presidential address of 2000, in which the author suggests emendations and/or explanations of seven proper names in the Koran, which have not been satisfactorily identified. These are: Ṭuwan, al-Jibt, Āzar, Idrīs, ʿUzayr, al-Rass, and ʿĪsā.

The Dead Sea Scrolls have demonstrated the fluidity of biblical and early Jewish texts in antiquity. How did early Jewish scribes understand the nature of their pluriform literature? How should modern textual critics deal with these fluid texts? Centered on the Serekh ha-Yaḥad - or Community Rule - from Qumran as a test case, this volume tracks the development of its textual tradition in multiple trajectories, and suggests that it was not understood as a single, unified composition even (...) in antiquity. Attending to material, textual, and literary factors, the book argues that ancient claims for textual identity ought to be given priority in discussions among textual critics about the ontology of biblical books. (shrink)

Textual criticism (examination) seeks to generate the most accurate version of an author's manuscript based on available copies. Textual criticism became prominent in the contemporary sense during the 19th and 20th centuries. Textual criticism studies, which were conducted extensively first in the West and then in the Islamic world, resulted in the development of several approaches aiming to identify the best version of the text under examination. Among the most prominent examples of these are (...) the genealogical (stemmatic) method in the West and the best text method in the Islamic world. In the best text method, which is known as the most widespread examination method in textual criticism activities, which gained momentum from the mid-19th century in the Islamic world, the examiner identifies a master copy which he thinks is the closest to the text of the author and exhibits the most solid text by taking certain criteria into consideration. Apart from obvious mistakes, the examiner does not make any changes in the master (umm) copy he selects, and does not include other copies in the text, only referring to different variants of the text. The principle of "adherence to the master copy" adopted in the method aims to limit interference in the text and prevent unnecessary and erroneous processes by the examiner. (shrink)

The present "philological commentary" is directed at those who have decided to take time for reading the original text, at least in an English translation. The first volume "Textual Criticism" is intended to meet the difficulties caused by the fact that our text editions are based on manuscripts separated from the original by more than a millennium.

In spite of the objections of a few scholars, the common opinion considers the reconstruction of the original text of the New Testament as the primary task of textual criticism. In pursuing this goal, there is a certain antagonism between two methods, radical vs. reasoned eclecticism. These two ways of approaching the problem sharply differ from one another in view of a different emphasis on external and internal criticism. Radical or rigorous eclecticism hardly attributes a meaningful role (...) to external criticism in the decision-making process, whereas reasoned eclecticism, the so-called “local-genealogical method”, runs the risk of over-emphasising the weight of the external evidence. At a closer look, however, the Achilles heel common to both methods is situated on a deeper level, namely, the problem of the text in the second century. The virtual absence of significant direct evidence of the Greek text dating from the second century, opens the door to fantasy as well as to scepticism. What is needed for a balanced approach is a good portion of “historical-critical imagination” which sticks as closely as possible to the available data. A careful analysis of the textual trajectories which are clearly identifiable in the third century and maybe traceable before 200. A.D., allows us to formulate a valuable hypothesis concerning the earliest textual history to overcome undue fatalism concerning the achievement of the primary task of textual criticism. (shrink)

The Vessantara J?taka is not only the most popular of all the Buddhist J?taka tales, but is important in the tradition as a whole, generally considered by the Therav?din tradition to display the epitome of the Bodhisatta’s perfection of giving. While most studies have focused on philological approaches, numerous questions as to the text’s structure and how to interpret individual parts within that structure have remained unresolved. My study shall employ the theory of ‘chiasmus’ to shed new light on both (...) the key message of the story and also the sub-themes within it. In terms of textual criticism, I shall first elucidate the chiastic structure of the text and discuss how this structure can provide insights on text-critical readings. In terms of interpretation, I shall then see how the structure clearly demarcates the text’s scope through its prologue and conclusion with surrounding framework, its paired parallel sub-themes, and its central climax point, all in the light of its chiastic structure. Finally, considering broader implications, on comparison with other recently discovered Buddhist textual chiasmi I shall present a tentative hypothesis as to the origins of such structures in the ‘bodhisatta’ literary genre. (shrink)

Abstract This paper is a close textual criticism of Theodosius Dobzhansky's Genetics and the Origin of Species. It argues that the book succeeds as interdisciplinary communication by promoting polysemy. The professional goals of two scientific communities are embedded in the text in such a way that each audience reads the call for co?operative action as implicit support for their own methods.

The article presents an edition of the previously unpublished letter from A. E. Housman to Grigory E. Saenger, written in Latin and dated 28 May, 1909, as well as a commentary on this text. The letter contains a criticism of Saenger’s 1909 edition of Statius’ Siluae. Housman evaluates the general approach of the edition and pronounces his judgement on two particular decisions made by the editor. The commentary treats both the general context of the letter and particular statements made (...) by Housman. The approach recommended by Housman is compared to those adopted in the major post-Saengerian editions of the Siluae; it is suggested that, while in certain respects some of the modern editions come close to what Housman endorsed, in other ways there is nothing among them to compare with it. (shrink)