THE BOOK OF EZEKIEL Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein Shemaryahu ...

III. Apparatus I: The Versions
mentioned in the previous section, are recorded in the apparatus with qualifying remarks,
if any, in the notes (see below). 27 Two important points must be born in mind: (1) retroversion
of a translation variant is always conjectural; (2) the presumed existence of a variant in
a version does not imply that it is preferable over the MT. 28
37. (c) Differences between x and a version that can be attributed to the exegetical nature
of a translation. Although this may be the most likely explanation, the editors do not refrain
from recording variants that may reflect a reading for which a suitable retroversion into
Hebrew cannot easily be suggested.
38. Notations in apparatuses I–IV are non-verbal (cf. below §53), and pertain only to data
that reflect or may reflect variants. They are distinguished from the explanatory notes (cf.
below, §55), which contain all verbalized reflections and suggestions, intended to present
pertinent facts, at times to discount the possibility that a retroversion reflects an actual
variant reading, or present considerations which may account for the variation.
39. Symbols such as > (minus), or differences of a grammatical nature, especially those
marked ‘pers’, ‘num’, ‘pron’, etc., are self-explanatory. Occasionally, however, such differences
are dealt with in an explanatory note (for example, 8:14, n. 2; 21:24, n. 1).
40. Retroversions suggested in the explanatory notes are recorded in order of probability.
Unequivocal retroversions are recorded without any comments. ‘Perhaps’ (p) suggests a
possible variant or editorial explanation, with a degree of doubt; ‘hardly’ indicates that there
is practically no basis for the proposed variant; ‘not’ negates proposed variants. 29 The notes
also characterize variants as items in the ‘index of phenomena’, namely, types of recurring
textual variants, indicated by mostly self-explanatory abbreviations such as ‘exeg’, ‘struct’,
‘etym’, etc. 30 Syntactic or other difficulties in the Hebrew text which may have posed
difficulties for translators are marked in the notes by the word “note problem x” (cf., for
example, 3:6; 6:11; 39:11). Notes are given in apparatuses II–IV or the Masora notations
only when necessary.
41. Readings from the versions are quoted according to the sequence of the MT, as are
readings from sources in the other apparatuses. A lemma is separated from the previous one
by the marker (, except at the beginning of a verse, and separated from the translational
reading by a square bracket, for example, ux`d]. Verse numbers are indicated in bold Arabic
numerals. 31 References pertaining to two or more verses or to a string of words precede
references to a single verse or to a smaller stretch of words; strings of words continuing
Bible, The Hebrew University, 1982] 188; E. Tov, TCHB, 333–334. A useful tool for the evaluation
of minus readings in LXX is F. Polak and G. Marquis, A Classified Index of the Minuses of the
Septuagint (CATSS Basic Tools 4; Stellenbosch: Print24.com, 2002).
27 Different types of textual phenomena that may underlie an apparent textual variance are often not
specified, such as similarity of sound and form (including letters in the ancient Hebrew script),
ligatures, scriptio continua, enclitic mem etc.
28 For a detailed discussion of the issue of retroversion cf. Tov, TCU, 57–89.
29 At times more than one counter-proposal may be adduced (e.g., 16:54, n. 1; 20:40, n. 4); cf. also
below §52.
30 See the table of abbreviations below, §55.
31 Abbreviations of titles of biblical books follow SBL conventions. Differences in the numbering of
verses between this edition and others are negligible.
xix