Textual criticism: scholarly problems
The situation so far described poses two major scholarly problems. The first involves the history of the Hebrew text, the second deals with attempts to reconstruct its “original” form.
As to when and how a single text type gained hegemony and then displaced all others, it is clear that the early and widespread public reading of the Scriptures in the synagogues of Palestine, Alexandria, and Babylon was bound to lead to a heightened sensitivity of the idea of a “correct” text and to give prestige to the particular text form selected for reading. Also, the natural conservatism of ritual would tend to perpetuate the form of such a text. The Letter of Aristeas, a document derived from the middle of the 2nd century bce that describes the origin of the Septuagint, recognizes the distinction between carelessly copied scrolls of the Pentateuch and an authoritative Temple scroll in the hands of the high priest in Jerusalem. The Rabbinic traditions (see above) about the textual criticism of Temple-based scribes actually reflect a movement towards the final stabilization of the text in the Second Temple period. Josephus, writing not long after 70 ce, boasts of the existence of a long-standing fixed text of the Jewish Scriptures. The loss of national independence and the destruction of the spiritual centre of Jewry in 70, accompanied by an ever-widening Diaspora and the Christian schism within Judaism, all made the exclusive dissemination of a single authoritative text a vitally needed cohesive force. The text type later known as Masoretic is already well represented at pre-Christian Qumrān. Scrolls from Wādī al-Murabbaʿat, Naẖal Ẕeʾelim, and Masada from the 2nd century ce are practically identical with the received text that by then had gained victory over all its rivals.
In regard to an attempt to recover the original text of a biblical passage—especially an unintelligible one—in the light of variants among different versions and manuscripts and known causes of corruption, it should be understood that all reconstruction must necessarily be conjectural and perforce tentative because of the irretrievable loss of the original edition. But not all textual difficulties need presuppose underlying mutilation. The Hebrew Bible represents but a small portion of the literature of ancient Israel and, hence, a limited segment of the language. A textual problem may be the product of present limited knowledge of ancient Hebrew, because scholars might be dealing with dialectic phenomena or foreign loan-words. Comparative Semitic linguistic studies have yielded hitherto unrecognized features of grammar, syntax, and lexicography that have often eliminated the need for emendation. Furthermore, each version, indeed each biblical book within it, has its own history, and the translation techniques and stylistic characteristics must be examined and taken into account. Finally, the number of manuscripts that attest to a certain reading is of less importance than the weight given to a specific manuscript.
None of this means that a Hebrew manuscript, an ancient version, or a conjectural emendation cannot yield a reading superior to that in the received Hebrew text. It does mean, however, that these tools have to be employed with great caution and proper methodology.