Brendan Moar Heb 3 MTC 2007

A Summary and Notes on;

Old Testament Textual Criticism: A Practical Introduction

by Ellis R. Brotzman

A Summary and Notes on; .................................................................................................. 1

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 1: Writing in the Ancient Near East .................................................................. 2
Chapter 2: Transmission of the Old Testament in Hebrew............................................ 3
Textual Transmission Prior to 300B.C........................................................................ 3
Textual Transmission from 300B.C. to A.D. 135 ....................................................... 4
Textual Transmission from A.D. 135 to 1000 ............................................................ 5
Textual Transmission from A.D. 1000 to 1450 .......................................................... 7
Textual Transmission from A.D. 1450 to the Present................................................. 7
Time Line of Hebrew Transmission of the Old Testament......................................... 8
Chapter 3: Ancient Versions of the Old Testament ........................................................ 9
The Samaritan Pentateuch........................................................................................... 9
The Targums ............................................................................................................... 9
Greek Versions............................................................................................................ 9
Other Important Ancient Versions ............................................................................ 10
Chapter 4: The Dead Sea Scrolls................................................................................... 10
Chapter 5: Introduction to BHS .................................................................................... 11
Chapter 6: Scribal Errors............................................................................................... 11
Unintentional Errors.................................................................................................. 11
Intentional Errors....................................................................................................... 11
Chapter 7: Principles and Practice of Textual Criticism ............................................... 12
Chapter 8: Textual Commentary on the Book of Ruth ................................................. 13
Ruth 1:1..................................................................................................................... 13
Ruth 1:8..................................................................................................................... 13
Ruth 1:14................................................................................................................... 13
Ruth 1:19................................................................................................................... 13
Ruth 1:20................................................................................................................... 14
Ruth 1:21................................................................................................................... 14
Conclusion..................................................................................................................... 15

Introduction

The situation for extant OT manuscripts is very different from that of the NT.
While the NT has many copies of the text with a wide variety of variants, the OT has less
but better quality texts, with fewer variants.
Brendan Moar Heb 3 MTC 2007

We need to avoid extremes when we approach the OT Texts and the need for
textual criticism. The texts are carefully copied and so we can ascribe to them a degree of
confidence and credibility. At the same time there are errors in the text which require
attention, so we can't be naieve and dismiss textual criticism questions. There is a need
for textual criticism. On the other hand, the overall integrity of the texts and the
transmission process means that errors are few and not crucial, so there is hope of
attaining a viable (if not original) text.

Things to understand;

Ancient writing styles, techniques and practices.

Transmission of OT Text; Hebrew and other ancient versions.

How Scribes copied and the kinds of errors they might make.

How do we adjudge a reading to be the better and more acceptable reading of a
variant?

Inspiration of Scripture means that the original autographs—now inaccessible—were

written by God and the original author. Their message is honest and true. Any errors in
spelling or grammar etc. do not change the truth and integrity of that original inspired
message; it still bears the authority and trustworthiness of the one who wrote it.

Chapter 1: Writing in the Ancient Near East

Key developments in the history of ANE writing;

Sumerian; 3100 B.C. Not Semtic. Either invented or improved and developed
writing. Used pictographic (pictograms) writing.
Developed representations for syllables and sounds (eg ME was
the plural indicator) called syllabograms. Also used ideograms to
refer to related ideas and concepts.
Weaknesses were huge number of signs (complexity) and
polyphones and homophones. Developed determinatives (to
specify class) and phonetic complements (to specify phonetic
value) to ease this problem.

Akkadian; Circa 2500 B.C. Semtic. Adopted non-semitic Sumerian script to

express their language.
Used more Syllabograms. Not purely syllabographic though.
Had 600-700 signs.

Egyptian; 3000 B.C. Hieroglyphic writing. Began as largely pictopgraphic

and remained largely so, while other Mesopotamian languages
deceloped. Even the cursive forms still represented pictures, where
other Mesopotamian cursive forms grew less like the pictrogaph
from which they developed.
Another distinctive is the absence of vowels in the script. This is
shared with Biblical Hebrew.
Brendan Moar Heb 3 MTC 2007

Alphabetic; Uses individual letters to represent single sounds of speech.

Generally (although not inconclusively) attributed to the
Phoenicians from the general Palestine area, back as far as 16th or
15th C B.C. Albright suggests 17th C Egypt.

Supposing Moses wrote the earliest books of the OT (circa 1500 B.C.), we see that a
3000BC date for earliest writing, along with Moses' life in literate Egypt (both
hieroglyphics and Akkadian) along with his own Hebrew fits well with this. The
alphabetic script would have made availability and accessibility of the early OT books
much more feasible, as well as proving invaluable for the recording of divine revelation
in written form.

Useful terms;

Pictographic writing: Uses pictures to represent objects and call them to mind.
Limited by what is able to be represented and the ambiguity
resulting from multiple uses for a single sign.

Syllabographic writing: Symbols which represent phonetic values.

Ideographic writing: Symbols which represent concepts.

Polyphone: A symbol which represents more than one phonetic value.

Homophone: A phonetic value represented by two or more symbols.

Chapter 2: Transmission of the Old Testament in Hebrew

The first printed Hebrew text was produced in A.D. 1488 (Soncino, Italy). That
means that from the writings of Moses (Circa 1500 B.C.) up until that time, 3000 years of
hand written copying was done. This fact alone highlights the importance of
understanding the process of hand-copying.

The history of transmission can be broken into five distinct eras;

Textual Transmission Prior to 300B.C.

Key points;

This period saw lots of updating.

Old archaic forms (Phoenician) were updated into square (Aramaic) script.

Individual OT books were copied on scrolls.

Spelling was updated with the introduction of vowel letters (matres lectionis)
(Circa 9th C B.C.).
Brendan Moar Heb 3 MTC 2007

The crowding (not scriptio continua, see note) of some texts created confusion
and saw the incorrect division of words during copying in this period. (Note
that word division was the rule, continuous was the exception).

The grammar of some early books was revised from 1350 B.C. standards to
standards appropriate for the period. This revision did not affect the meaning
of the text. This conclusion comes from the Israelites' approach to the
transmission and to the scriptures;

Deuteronomy 4:2 2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep
the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

Deuteronomy 13:1-5 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and
announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has
spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let
us worship them," 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD
your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your
soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his
commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be
put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out
of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the
LORD your God commanded you to follow.

Textual Transmission from 300B.C. to A.D. 135

Key Points;

This period is pivotal to the history of the transmission of the OT. We have clear
manuscripts from this period.

Local text types/families. There are three families for Pentateuch and Former
prophets and two for Latter Prophets. The process is outlined here;
Brendan Moar Heb 3 MTC 2007

ca. 400 B.C. Palestine Babylon

ca. 300 B.C.

Egypt Palestine

Pentateuch
+ Former
200-100 Septuagint Prophets
Samaritan
B.C. Pentateuch
Latter
Prophets
t
Early C 1st
B.C. / A.D Proto-
Masoretic

The key manuscript evidence is the Qumran manuscripts. They date between the
third and first centuries B.C., the majority coming from the second to first
centuries. All OT books are represented except Esther.

Prior to 1947, there were no manuscripts from the period represented by Qumran.

The Qumran scrolls give witness to a number of text families.

The Wadi Murabba'at scrolls date from around A.D. 135 and attest to the
emergence of a single authoritative text type. This was not a new text, but the stamp
of approval on an already existing text over and against other existing versions (see
the diagram above).

There is a clear movement in this period from a plurality of text types to a
single authoritative version.

Textual Transmission from A.D. 135 to 1000

There is a focus in this period on the transmission of the single text type.

Two periods in this era;
A.D. 135-500
A.D. 500-1000
Brendan Moar Heb 3 MTC 2007

A.D. 135-500

The main changes in this period were external, mostly aids for reading, understanding
and liturgical directions.

Age of the Talmud.

Verse, paragraph—open or closed—liturgical (but not chapter) divisions probably
arose in this period. These were not uniform across the various schools.

Textual criticism began to take place. Questionable readings were marked with a large
black dot, and paseq was introduced—although no-one knows what it actually means.
There are suspended and inverted nuns. There are large gaps in twenty eight verses
thought to indicate that text is missing. Some texts were altered to make for more
acceptable pronunciations of the names of pagan deities—vowels were substituted to
avoid pronouncing the name.

A.D. 500-1000

This is the period of Masoretic activity.

Christianity in Palestine saw many Jews emigrate to Babylon in 2nd C A.D. Between
the third and tenth C A.D. intense study of the biblical Hebrew produced two systems
of vocalisation; a simple (early) and a complicated (later) system. Neither were
accepted in the long term.

The work of the Tiberian Masoretes on the western shore of Galilee A.D. 638. Their
work was reflected in subsequent transmissions.

They transmitted a consonantal text from the talmudic rabbis.

Their most important work was their system for correct understanding of the text and
it transmission;
o Graphically represented vowel traditions (previously only transmitted
orally).
Evidence for the conservation of an existing tradition, and not the creation of
a tradition is seen in comparisons with Aquila's revision of the Septuagint and
Jerome's work on the Latin Vulgate. The Talmud clearly indicates that the
Masoretes learned the consonantal and vocalic traditions from their teachers.
o Written symbols to indicate accents. They help identify the stressed syllable
of a word and assist reading and understanding. There are two systems; the
"twenty one" and the "poetic" (Psalms, Job and Proverbs).
o System of notes that accompany the text;
Masorah parva; indicates word occurrence statistics and kethib-qere. Written
in the margins.
Masorah magna; extensive lists compiled to aid in the correct transmission
of the text. Originally located at the top and bottom of the page. In BHS only
the small register—which references the magna—is printed.
Masorah finalis; Found at the end of a book. Records the number of words,
middle letter etc.

The Masoretes also produced volumes of lists to aid the preservation of the text, eg
Ochlah we-Ochlah.

Last Masoretes of the two Tiberian traditions are Aaron ben Asher and Moses be
Naphtali. The work of ben Asher is the closest to the Hebrew text of today. The main
Brendan Moar Heb 3 MTC 2007

point of difference is in the accentual system, as well as some minor differences in

spelling, word division, vocalisation, use of dagesh, shewa and vowel length.

Kethib-Qere system is important. The use of Adonai for Yahweh was the earliest
tradition. The second early tradition was the promotion of 'clean speech'. Third
tradition is the preservation of plene vowels.

tiqqune sopherim; emendations of the scribes (eg, changes made because of
theological objections).

itture sopherim; scribal ommissions.

Textual Transmission from A.D. 1000 to 1450

Manuscripts before A.D. 1100

Name Siglum Date Contents Type/Comments

Aleppo Codex A 925 all of OT, but most of pointed (+ accents and Masorah)
Torah lost by ben Asher
basis for Heb. Uni Bible Project
Leningrad Codex L 1008 all of OT close to ben Asher tradition, but
not as close as A
basis for BHK 3rd ed. and BHS
British Museum B 925 most of Torah not as close to ben Asher as A or L
4445
Cairo Codex C 896 Former and Latter closer to ben Naphtali than ben
Prophets Asher tradition
Sassoon 507 S 10th C most of Torah mixed text (Asher and Naphtali)
Sassoon 1053 S1 10th C most of OT least carefully written of the group
Petersburg Codex P 916 Latter Prophets written with Babylonian vowel
signs, but reflects the Tiberian
vowel tradition
table taken from page 56

Manuscripts after A.D. 1100

The work of the Masoretes finished around A.D. 1000. After this, the work of
scribes was primarily to carefully transmit the tradition handed on to them.

Around 3000 of these 'medieval' manuscripts exist. They reflect the Tiberian
tradition.

Well copied in this period.

Textual Transmission from A.D. 1450 to the Present

First printed Hebrew Bible in late 15th C.

By 16th C printed Bibles replaced manuscripts throughout Europe. Hand writing
continued in places like Yemen.

The printing of the Rabbinic Bible (1516-17), and then the Second Rabbinic Bible
(1524-25 [also known as the Bomberg edition]) was a key development. The 2nd
version became the 'Received Edition' and became the basis for succeeding
editions. It contained pointed and accented text, Masorah and commentaries by
respected Rabbis.

Kittel's Text was based on the Bomberg Edition. The third ed. replaced this with L.
Brendan Moar Heb 3 MTC 2007

Time Line of Hebrew Transmission of the Old Testament

300 B.C. – A.D. 135 A.D 1000-1450

Development of Transmission of
text types. the Masoretic Text
Adoption of proto- (with only minor
Masoretic Text changes)

300 B.C. A.D. 135 A.D. 1000 A.D. 1450 TODAY

Prior to 300 B.C.

Individual books written and A.D 135- 1000
copied on scrolls. Talmudic Period: A.D 1450- Present
Revision of Heb. grammar Book form for private copies; scrolls for synagogues. Invention of the
(>1350 B.C.). Verse, paragraph and liturgical divisions. printing press.
Some vowel letters introduced Avoidance of indelicate expressions. Printed editions.
(spelling changes). Masoertic Period: Modern critical
Crowding sometimes mars Written vowel system editions.
word division. Accent system
Change from archaic script to Masoretic notes
square script. Kethib-Qere finalised
Separate Masoretic treatises
tiqqune sopherim finalised (?)
Brendan Moar Heb 3 MTC 2007

Chapter 3: Ancient Versions of the Old Testament

The Samaritan Pentateuch

The Pentateuch was the only book with canonical status and therefore the only one
preserved and transmitted.

Transmitted in ancient script, mostly consonantal.

Discovered in 1600's, but value not recognised until Qumran.

There are six thousand differences between the SP and the MT (Pent.).
Differences are due to:

Scribal Error

Differences is grammar

Modernisation of archaisms

Removal of grammatical difficulties

Additions for clarification

Attempts at historical consistency

Changes to interpret or clarify text

Samaritan Theology

The S.P. is not that important, but it is not of no worth.

The Targums

Aramaic translations—usually paraphrastic, rather than literal—of portions or
books of the OT.

Flows out of the oral tradition of translating the Hebrew reading in the synagogue.

Specific (Authorised)Versions:
o Onqelos. 2nd C A.D. (based on pre-Christian tradition). Official Targum of
the Pentateuch. Close paraphrase.
o Jonathan. Prophetic books. More paraphrastic than Onqelos.
o Cairo Geniza. Evidence of a highly esteemed Palestinian Targum.

Other unofficial Targums (Palestinian) exist. Great variety in their style, ranging
from literalistic to highly paraphrastic.

Value is more in Jewish homoletical practice rather than Text Crit.

Greek Versions

Septuagint is the most important non-Semitic version.
o Initial translation 3rd-2nd Cs B.C.
o Many Mss, some very old.
o Entire OT is translated.
o Reflects more important variants than all other textual witnesses
combined.

Over time, rival versions of the Gk were produced, based on religious affiliations
etc. The variants between the versions was bewildering.

At the end of the 2nd C A.D. Origen set about reconciling the variants. Produced the
Hexapla, a six columned parallel version (including the contemporary Heb.
version).
Brendan Moar Heb 3 MTC 2007

The most helpful for us is a Syriac translation of Origen's revised Septuagint (with
critical notes).

The nature of the Uncial Mss is varied, therefore it is hard to recover the original.

Use in Textual Crit.:
o First a Greek text must be established (difficult to do).
o Is the Greek a correct rendition of the Hebrew?
o What vowel tradition is reflected?
o Possible suggestions for the variants.

As a result, the Greek Old Testament has limited value for Text Crit. The value is to
be determined on a case by case basis.

Other Important Ancient Versions

Peshitta. Syriac translation of the OT. Origin and history unknown. Revisions
influenced by the Septuagint.

Old Latin (Itala). 2nd C A.D. Made from the Septuagint, not the Heb. Value: Allows
access to an early form of the Septuagint (pre-Origen et. al.).

Latin Vulgate. A.D. 382-405. Jerome. Not accepted by critics until around 7th C A.D.,
becoming the official version of the Roman Catholic Church at Trent in 1546.

Chapter 4: The Dead Sea Scrolls

Discovered in 1947.
Cave 1

Of particular importance were the 2 Isaiah scrolls.
o 1: St Mark's Isaiah Scroll 1QIsaa. Full text of the book.
o 2: 1QIsab Partial text of the book. Poorly preserved.

Also;
o 3: 1QpHab Commentary on Habbakkuk.
o Other non-Biblical scrolls.
Other 200Caves

11 contained manuscripts.
o Apochrypha, deuterocanonical works, pseudopigrapha, sectarian literature
(including rules, hymns, prayers and commentaries).
o Fragments of about 600 books. ¼ of these are Biblical Mss, written in square
script. All books with the exception of Esther are represented.

No uniform text type is represented at Qumran. Conversely, a multiplicity of text types

are present.
o Texts that reflect Masoretic: Proto-Masoretic. 60%
o Close to Samaritan Pentateuch: Pre-Samaritan.
Vorlage type texts. These 2 account for 5%
o Mixed type and Qumran types.

The significance of the DSS is;

Take us 1000yrs earlier than previously available.

Late Masoretic texts have a significant degree of agreement with the earlier Mss found
at Qumran.
Brendan Moar Heb 3 MTC 2007

Show that 2nd and 1st C B.C. and 1st C A.D. have a multiplicity of texts types.

Chapter 5: Introduction to BHS

Last years Hebrew stuff.
Key is the table of symbols on page 104-05.

Chapter 6: Scribal Errors

3 Classes of Error.
o Physical defects in the copyist's scroll.
o Unintentional Errors.
o Intentional Errors: less frequent.

Unintentional Errors

Classes of unintentional errors;
o Influenced by the copyist's text.

Confusion of similar letters.

Wrong word division.

Wrong use of vowels (poor understanding of the vowel tradition).

Abbreviations are misunderstood (if they exist).

Homoeoteleuton: words with a similar ending. Eye skips from word 1
to word 2 and omits anything in between.

Homoeoarkton: words with a similar beginning. Less common than
homoeoteleuton.
o Carelessness or tiredness.

Haplography: Failing to write the second occurrence of a letter or
word that occurs twice.

Dittography: Incorrectly repeating a word or letter.

Transposition/metathesis: Accidental reversing of the consonants in a
word during copying.
o Errors of dictation/hearing.

Easy to confuse homophones

Easy to confuse sibilants
o Errors originating in the scribe's mind.

When parallel accounts exist, the scribe could mistakenly conflate,
transpose or insert one account into another.

A marginal note is inserted into the text.

Intentional Errors

Classes of Intentional Errors
o Emendations of the Scribes

Tiqqune Sopherim: Scribes emended a text they found offensive. E.g.
Hab 1:12.

These changes are not numerous

This type of scribal action is exceptional, rather than commonplace
o Omissions of the Scribes

Itture Sopherim: Mentioned in the Talmud. Words are omitted.
Brendan Moar Heb 3 MTC 2007

Cases are few.

o Explanatory Glosses

Highly subjective category. What is a gloss for some scholars is
original for others. In fact, a gloss may indeed be original, if the aim of
the writer is to communicate clearly to his hearers.
o Euphemisms

Indelicate readings are replaced with less offensive ones.

Chapter 7: Principles and Practice of Textual Criticism

The task of text criticism is to make sense of textual difficulties and approach the original
reading.

The process:
1) Gather all the relevant information for the perceived difficulty; esp. all known variants.
 See BHS apparatus
 translate all variants. This highlights the extent to which the variant
impacts exegesis.
2) Group an evaluate variants, based on internal and external evidence.
 TC is both an art and a science: not all the necessary data needed for a purely
objective investigation exists, so some subjective hypothesizing must occur.
 Evaluate external evidence. MT is the most reliable witness, but not
exclusively so.
 Evaluate internal evidence.
o Determine the reading which most plausibly accounts for the others.
Consider scribal tendencies and common errors.
o The harder reading is generally preferred. Scribes usually
simplify/clarify, rather than obscure meaning.
o The shorter reading is usually preferred. Normal scribal tendency is to
add words to smooth out an awkward reading or clarify a text.
3) Select the best reading; i.e. the one with the strongest claim.
 Follows directly from the previous step.
 If a reading is clearly the best it is accepted. A full defense for the position
adopted and for the rejection of the other variants should be supplied.
 The exegetical significance for the accepted text and the variants should be
noted.
4) There may be no clear reading. Conjectural emendation must be made.
 If point 3 remains ambiguous then the process becomes highly subjective at
this point.
 Brotzman avoids emending at this point, others emend on the basis of
considered conjecture.
o In some rare cases however, the text is so corrupt that the existing
form is incomprehensible. Emendation is necessary, but any exegesis
must be cautionary. Interpretation must rest on the non-corrupted texts
in the immediate context.
Brendan Moar Heb 3 MTC 2007

Chapter 8: Textual Commentary on the Book of Ruth

Ruth 1:1
Variant 1: a-a
MT: Now it happened in the days of the judging of the judges.
LXX*: Now it happened when the judges judged. The * means original LXX.
Syriac: Now it happened in the days of the judges.

MT reads badly: harder reading. Other two are plausibly smoothing out this reading
(scribe or translator). Hard to see how you go the other way. Prefer the MT. The meaning
does not change whichever we accept.

Variant 2: b
MT: He and his wife and his two sons.
Septuagint (and Syriac): Omits 2. The parethesis mean that only this element is in
agreement.

It is possible that scribe added "two" to harmonise with the following verses. It is also
possible that the "two" dropped out or was deemed redundant in the light of the
clarification in verse 2.

The result is ambiguous. The variant is insignificant exegetically, as the unit conveys the
same meaning with or without "two" here.

Ruth 1:8
A Kethiv Qere variant.

Ruth 1:14
MT: Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth embraced her
LXX: Orpah kissed her mother-in-law and returned to her people, but Ruth followed her.

The LXX may be original: MT has dropped the phrase due to homoeoteleuton (the last
letter of both phrases in consideration here end with H)
It is also possible that LXX is an addition, making explicit what MT only implies: MT is
the shorter reading.

Either reading won't have a major impact on exegesis.

Ruth 1:19
Variant 1: a
MT: Masculine suffix
mlt Mss: Feminine suffix
Brendan Moar Heb 3 MTC 2007

Both are acceptable forms of Heb. grammar, although the Feminine is more correct. It is
most likely that the MT is original and that a scribal correction has occurred. An
emendation from the Feminine to the Masculine is highly unlikely. There is no
significance to exegesis: both variants give the same translation.

Variant 2: b-b
This phrase is absent from the Septuagint*.

It is highly likely that this is a case of homoeoteleuton. Both phrases under consideration
here end with ~xl. The MT seems to repeat itself and may be a case of dittography, but
the phrase is not identical so it is unlikely.

The LXX is shorter, but the MT is the more difficult. Perhaps the repetition in the MT is
for emphasis, leaning the balance in the favour of the MT as the best reading.

Variant 3: c
MT: Plural feminine suffix "them". The city was stirred up over the arrival of the women
LXX: single pronoun "her". The city was stirred up over Naomi's arrival

The wider context seems to indicate that the stirring is related to Naomi: "Could this be
Naomi?" However, it is both women in the preceding text who enter Bethlehem.

Did the Septuagint adopt the pronoun as a correction to the MT? Did the MT adopt the
3fp to harmonise with the preceding references?

Note that it is the whole city who are stirred, and that it is the women who comment on
Naomi.

There is significant exegetical impact here. Is the focus purely on Naomi, or on Ruth and
Naomi?

Ruth 1:20
MT: arm More consistent with Aramaic than Heb. This is the difficult reading.
mlt Mss: hrm Typical Heb. for this word.

It is more likely that an Aramaic reading was corrected than a Heb. reading changed to
Aramaic.

Ruth 1:21
MT: The Lord has testified against me
LXX (Syriac and Vulgate): The Lord has humbled me

Both reflect the same Heb. root hnc, but different vocalizations: hn"c' v. hN"ci
Brendan Moar Heb 3 MTC 2007

MT should be preferred:
1) Word play (paronomasia): ybi hn"c' and ymic\n"
2) Septuagint translators' understanding of vowel trad. not as good as Jewish scibes.
3) More likely that a rare usage of a word was changed to a more common usage than
vice-versa.

Conclusion
The Hebrew text was transmitted with great care. When the fact that mss were hand
copied with limited and simple resources it is amazing that we have any OT, let alone
such an excellent version as the MT.

Most textual variants do not impact significantly on exegesis.

Intermediate criticism can be successfully carried out with the aid of a commentary.
Advanced/ independent criticism requires a grasp of Hebrew (including unpointed),
Greek, Aramaic, Syriac and Latin.