Book Review: The Textual Basis of English Translations of the Hebrew Bible by S. C. Daley

English translations over the last four centuries have been based more or less on the Masoretic text (MT) of the Hebrew Bible. But which of them more and which less, and have there been changing trends? As Adrian Schenker notes in his foreword (xii), “no translation gives a full and clear account of where it has selected which solutions [to textual difficulties].” This interesting research project looked for the evidence but often found it unclear whether handling a problematic text involved a conscious text-critical decision or an etymological or exegetical solution (123). Carried out at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem under the guidance of Emanuel Tov, it closely explored the textual basis of more than twenty main English-language translations from the King James Version (1611) to the Contemporary English Version (1995) and the New Living Translation (1996). The presentation of data predominates in earlier chapters and discussion in later ones, where we find helpful debates between leading scholars who were often involved in practical translation work as well as more theoretical debate.

Daley comments tartly that “it is not surprising that more has been written on the prescriptive side than on the descriptive; for here, and often, fact-finding is in some respects more demanding than philosophy” (11). To redress the tendency, the larger part of this volume reviews “What text has been translated?” before exploring “What text should be translated?” Two of the ten chapters provide almost half of the content. Chapter 3 occupies 125 pages in its review of four sample Bible chapters from different parts of the canon, and the review of influence from the Qumran Scrolls in chapter 6 devotes 70 pages to 1QIsa^a on Isa 14 and 49 and to 4QSam^a on 1 Sam 1–3. Varied tests on Gen 49, Hab 3, Ps 139, and Prov 14 produce closely overlapping results, leading to the conclusion that we are dealing with differing approaches in three periods. These are reinforced by the comparison of ketiv and qere in the books of the Torah, Former Prophets, and Chronicles, and other paratextual notes within the Masoretic tradition. Daley observes that the traditional text for Jewish readers is not the consonantal Hebrew text (ketiv) but the qere, the text as (vocalised to be) read, which is, “in a way, the main text of M.” The Jewish renderings under review agreed only twice to prefer the ketiv.

The greater openness to exploring varied textual witnesses exhibited in James Moffat’s translation (1924) initiated a fifty-year trend that reached its peak in the New English Bible (1970). The more conservative return in subsequent decades towards the traditional text had been boosted by the publication of scrolls from Qumran. As Daley notes (256, 323), Moshe Goshen-Gottstein dated the rebirth of textual criticism of the Bible to 1950, just as the scrolls were becoming known. The great Isaiah scroll was found early and is almost complete, and its closeness to MT proved reassuring. Two revisions made the conservative trend particularly obvious: from the Jerusalem Bible (1966) to NJB (1985) and from NEB (1970) to REB (1989).

The purpose of the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, led by Jean-Dominique Barthélemy, was to give expert textual evidence to UBS translators. Hardly surprisingly, its influence on Biblia Hebraica Quinta, the project charged with producing a fresh diplomatic edition of (what is still called) the Leningrad Codex, is clear, for BHQ is led by Adrian Schenker, Barthélemy’s colleague and successor in Fribourg (CH). Daley is generous in praise for BHQ; however, fully conscious that different sorts of translators have different needs (419), he wants to “establish a common text reflecting an eclectic consensus” (413), so allowing translators to translate without having first to be amateur text-critics. There is a natural (and proper?) concern of translators to be working from a text as close to the original Hebrew as possible. But what is that text, or at least the best route to finding it? Daley is appreciative of the sample from Jeremiah prepared by Eugene Ulrich for the Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition.

This able report is open to further development in different directions. The quality of the author’s data-gathering is such that we need not call for similar scrutiny of additional biblical chapters. But it would be interesting to broaden the enquiry by exploring translation trends into languages other than English. Importantly, a brief addendum (435–447) updates the results. Daley puts five early twenty-first-century English translations or revisions, from the English Standard Version (2001) to the International Standard Version (2014), through the same tests as their predecessors. In the main, all are found to continue the characteristics of the third period, maintaining higher respect for the traditional Hebrew text than was operative in the middle decades of the twentieth century. The last of this group has, however, chosen to base its rendering of Isaiah not on the MT but the earliest Hebrew text available to us (1QIsa^a), so embarking on a route with more radical implications. “In 1 Samuel, too, the ISV, partly by its notes, indicates a thoroughgoing appreciation of the Scrolls” (436). Enough of 4QSam^a can be read and reconstructed for us to be confident that it belonged to an early family of Samuel manuscripts whose readings survive in synoptic portions of 1 Chronicles and are attested in the Septuagint. These older texts can be described as siblings, while MT is descended from a younger cousin. Basing a translation of Samuel on their joint testimony would allow English readers a closer glimpse of the “original Hebrew,” but it would be a more radical move than using 1QIsa^a for Isaiah.