God's Word Omitted: Omissions in the Transmission of the Hebrew Bible 9783666536113, 9783525536117, 9783647536118

Citation preview

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments

Edited by Jan Christian Gertz, Dietrich-Alex Koch, Matthias Köckert, Hermut Löhr, Joachim Schaper, David Andrew Teeter and Christopher Tuckett

Volume 251

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Juha Pakkala

God’s Word Omitted Omissions in the Transmission of the Hebrew Bible

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISBN 978-3-525-53611-7 ISBN 978-3-647-53611-8 (E-book)

Ó 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen/ Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Bristol, CT, U.S.A. www.v-r.de All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Printing and binding: CPI Buch Bücher.de GmbH, Birkach Printed in Germany

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Contents

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

I.

Omissions the Hebrew Bible? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Traditional Conceptions in Biblical Studies . . . . . . . . Earlier Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other Approaches Share the Same Conceptions . . . . . . Implementation of Literary Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . Text-Critical Scholarship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Omissions in the New Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls . . . . . . . . . . . . The Epic of Gilgamesh as a Witness to Editorial Processes Assyrian Annals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Challenges to Literary Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What is Authoritative Scripture? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Claimed and Acknowledged Authority . . . . . . . . . . Types of Authoritativeness of Scripture . . . . . . . . . Geographical, Social and Other Differences . . . . . . . Various Levels of Authoritativeness . . . . . . . . . . . Changed Authoritativeness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Authoritative Texts: Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methodological Clarifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11 16 25 34 37 40 44 46 54 58 63 72 74 79 81 82 84 85 87 88

II.

Conservative Editorial Processes in the Samaritan Pentateuch Expansions in the Samaritan Pentateuch . . . . . . . . . . . . Small Omission, Large Impact—The Location of Sacrifices . The Place of Sacrifice—Gerizim or Ebal? . . . . . . . . . . . An Addition That Resulted in an Omission . . . . . . . . . . An Omission of One Letter—Many Gods Omitted . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

93 94 97 99 101 101 102

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6

Contents

III.

The Conservative Editorial Processes in the Book of Jeremiah Several Additions in the MT of Jer 25:1 – 14 . . . . . . . . . . An Omission in Jer 32:5/Jer 39:5 LXX . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

103 104 112 116

IV.

The Development of Laws in the Pentateuch . . . . . . . Deuteronomy and the Covenant Code . . . . . . . . . . The Use of the Older Laws as Sources for Deuteronomy Violated Virgins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On the Right Conduct in Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion: The Covenant Code and Deuteronomy . . . Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code (Lev 17 – 26) . . . The Festival of Weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Festival of Booths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion: Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code . . . . The Development of the Passover Law . . . . . . . . . . Discussion: The Passover Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

117 118 125 129 131 132 134 139 142 143 145 152

V.

Jubilees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Sixth and the Seventh Day of Creation . . Cain in Jubilees 4:7 – 10 and Genesis 4 . . . . . I Will not Marry a Canaanite . . . . . . . . . . Jubilees as a Witness to the Editorial Processes

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

155 155 159 162 164 165

VI.

The Temple Scroll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Moon of the First Month Festival . . . . . . . . . . . The Passover in the Temple Scroll . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pagan Mourning Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Idol Worshippers in Temple Scroll 55:15 – 21 . . . . . Prophets and Dreamers of Dreams . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Temple Scroll as a Witness to the Editorial Processes

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

167 167 170 172 175 176 177 178

VII. Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Omission of Polytheistic Conceptions in Deut 32:8 – 9 . . . The Omission of Polytheistic Conceptions in Deut 32:43 . . . . Theological Corrections—Can God Be Seen? . . . . . . . . . . An Addition That Created an Omission in Exod 24:9 – 11 . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

183 183 185 187 191 195

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

7

Contents

Shiloh or Shechem in Josh 24:1, 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Omission of a Statue of Yhwh in Josh 24:26 . . . . . . . A Small Omission with a Large Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theological Omissions in the Hanna Story in 1 Sam 1 – 2 . . . The Watering Down of a Water Pouring Ritual . . . . . . . . Gods of the Philistines Changed to Idols in 2 Sam 5:21 . . . . Asherah Omitted in 2 Sam 5:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References to the Temple of Yhwh Omitted in 2 Samuel . . . The Temple of Yhwh in Hebron Omitted in 2 Sam 15:8 . . . . Uzzah is Killed before God in 2 Sam 6:6 – 7 . . . . . . . . . . The Omission of References to the Sun-god . . . . . . . . . . Was a Reference to the Temple of Yhwh in Samaria Omitted? References to a Syncretistic Cult Omitted in 2 Kgs 10:23 . . . Omission of a Reference to the People in the Temple . . . . . Massebah Omitted in 2 Kgs 12:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gods of the Samaritans Omitted in 2 Kgs 18:34 . . . . . . . . A Possible Omission of the Temple of Baal in Jerusalem . . . A Non-theological Omission in Deut 13:10 . . . . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

197 197 199 200 210 211 212 213 221 222 224 231 234 237 239 241 243 245 248

VIII. Chronicles as a Witness to the Editorial Processes . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Large Expansions in the Account on Jehoram’s reign . . Editorial changes in the Account of Jehoiada’s Rebellion Extensive Rewriting of King Joash’s Reign . . . . . . . . Summary and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

253 253 262 269 280 287

IX.

First Esdras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Additions in First Esdras and Ezra-Nehemiah Ideological Omissions in First Esdras . . . . Omission of Repetitions and Tensions . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

295 295 298 301 310 314

X.

Radical Editorial Processes in the Book of Esther . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Substantial Editorial Changes in the Story in Esth 2:17 – 23 Omissions and Rewritings in Esther 7:1 – 5 . . . . . . . . . The Omission of Mordechai in Esther 8:7–11 . . . . . . . . Comprehensive Rewriting in Esther 9:1–6 . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

319 319 322 328 331 337

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

8

Contents

The Feast of Purim Established—Esther 9:29–32 . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

342 346

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Documented Evidence Points in Different Directions . . . . . Dichotomy of Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Textual Development within Paradigms and Paradigm Shifts Gradual or Punctual Evolution? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Literary Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

351 351 360 362 369 372 384

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

387

XII. Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

407

XIII. Index of Ancient Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

411

XI.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

Acknowledgements

Many people have influenced this work. I would particularly like to thank PD Dr. Reinhard Müller (Munich), Prof. Christoph Levin (Munich), Prof. Anneli Aejmelaeus (Helsinki), Prof. Dr. Francis Borchardt (Hong Kong), Dr. Jutta Jokiranta, Dr. Tuukka Kauhanen (Helsinki), Dr. Marko Marttila (Helsinki), Prof. Dr. Martti Nissinen, Dr. Urmas Nþmmik (Tartu), Dr. Mika Pajunen (Helsinki) and Dr. Hanne von Weissenberg (Helsinki). Discussions with them have given me important ideas and insights, for which I am grateful. The joint Helsinki-TartuMunich meetings in Tallinn, Tartu, Riga, Bergvik and Helsinki were especially fruitful in this respect. I thank all who participated in the discussions at these meetings. I am also grateful to Prof. Dr. Jacob L. Wright, who kindly hosted my research period at Candler School of Theology at Emory University in Atlanta in 2010 – 11, to Prof. Dr. Hugh G.M. Williamson for hosting my research stay at Oxford University in 2012, to Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Zwickel for hosting my research periods at the University of Mainz (JGU) in 2011 and 2012, and to Prof. Dr. Christoph Levin for hosting my research periods at the University of Munich (LMU) in 2007 and 2008. For correcting and improving my English, I warmly thank Dr. Robert Whiting. I am grateful to Kaisa Vaittinen for editing the manuscript. I would also like to thank the staff at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies for their kind hospitality. Finally, I would like to express warm thanks to the editors of FRLANT for accepting my manuscript for publication in this series as well as to Christoph Spill (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht) for helping me with the layout. This investigation was made possible by generous EURYI funding from the EuroHORCs (European Heads of Research Councils, predecessor of Science Europe) and the European Science Foundation for 2007 – 2012. Helsinki, January 22, 2013

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Juha Pakkala

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

Deuteronomy 13:1 warns the Israelites that nothing should be added or subtracted from the Law that Yhwh has commanded.1 The existence of such a prohibition implies that in the author’s context changes to the text—additions and omissions—were regarded as a possibility or were perhaps even commonplace. This is corroborated by Deut 13:1 itself, which is probably a late addition to the chapter.2 Deuteronomy is the result of constant editing and because the author of Deut 13:1 was one of the editors or redactors,3 he was well familiar with the editorial techniques of the time. In effect, the scribe4 behind Deut 13:1 is saying, “after me, do not add or subtract anything from it.” The verse is apparently an attempt to make sure that he would be the last one in the long chain of editors and redactors to change the text. His attempt failed, as the book continued to be edited,5 but it reflects the increasing awareness among the scribes of his time that there should be some controls as to how the texts evolved.6 The verse may in fact be one of the earliest conscious or explicit 1

9DBB FL6N 4@9 9=@F GEN.4@ … A?N4 89JB =?D4 LM4 L578.@? N4. A similar prohibition is found in Deut 4:2:

9DBB 9FL6N 4@9 … L578.@F 9HEN 4@. 2 Thus many scholars, such as Timo Veijola, Das 5. Buch Mose: Deuteronomium. Kapitel 1,1 – 16:17 (ATD 8,1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 280, 283 – 284. 3 For a discussion on editors and redactors, see Jean-Louis Ska, The Exegesis of the Pentateuch (FAT 66; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 232 – 245. In the present book, editors and redactors refer to scribes who “intervene to ‘actualize’ the texts” and who should be “distinguished both from ancient ‘authors’ and later ‘editors’” (p. 236). With later editors I refer to modern editors of books, magazines, and newspapers. In biblical studies the term editor is often used in connection with freer editorial activity, while redactor emphasizes the preservation of the older text. In many cases it may be difficult to draw a clear distinction between the two. 4 In this book scribe refers to the copyist, editors, redactors or authors. In some other publications, scribes primarily refer to copyists. 5 Although Deut 13:1 is one of the latest additions to this chapter (see Veijola, Deuteronomium, 280, 283 – 284), younger additions to the book can be found in chapters 4 and 7 – 11, for example (thus Veijola, Deuteronomium, 93 – 121, 193 – 259). 6 It has been very difficult to date the different editors of Deuteronomy, but since even the oldest text of Deuteronomy was probably written after 586 bce—see Juha Pakkala, “The Date of the

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

12

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

attempts to curb the literary development of the Torah and thus be the beginning of the development to standardize the text.7 Critical scholarship largely acknowledges that most, if not all known texts of the Hebrew Bible were edited,8 but traditionally even the most critical literary critics,9 as well as other scholars dealing with the editorial processes, have taken as the basic assumption—consciously or unconsciously—that most if not all editing took place in the form of additions. Intentional omissions would not have taken place, except for some unintentional, exceptional and minor cases.10 References to the growth of the text, snowballs, and rolling corpuses, often regarded as the most radical views on the editorial processes of the Hebrew Bible, highlight the assumption that the texts grew only.11 Although its methodological basis is seldom discussed, the repercussions of this assumption are significant. If the older text was always preserved when a redactor expanded it, all literary stages should still be present in the ‘final’12 versions of the texts. At least theoretically, one should thus be able to reconstruct the older stages of the literary development. As long as the later additions are identified, an able scholar may gradually peel off the text, layer by layer, and reach even the very oldest layers. Since most generations of editors and redactors

7 8 9

10

11

12

Earliest Edition of Deuteronomy,” ZAW 121/3 (2009): 388 – 401—Deut 13:1 should be dated to the 5th century at the earliest. Cf. Bernard M. Levinson, “The human voice in divine revelation: The problem of authority in Biblical law,” in Innovation in Religious Traditions (ed. M. Williams et al.; Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1992), 35 – 71, here p. 35. Additions are evident when we compare the Greek and Hebrew versions of many texts in the Hebrew Bible, and therefore only a very conservative scholar can deny that there have been at least some additions to the books. In the present book I am using the term literary criticism in reference to Literarkritik. In some recent publications, the term ‘source criticism’ has been used for ‘literary criticism,’ but this is unfortunate because traditional source criticism should be distinguished from literary criticism. Because it is based on literary criticism, redaction criticism is directly related. In this investigation I will be investigating intentional changes only. Unintentional omissions, such as ones caused by homoioteleuton, and other changes have been discussed in many books of textual criticism; for example, Adrian Schenker, “The Septuagint in the Text History of 1 – 2 Kings,” in The Book of Kings: Sources, Composition Historiography and Reception (ed. A. Lemaire and B. Halpern; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010), 3 – 17, here esp. pp. 13, 17. The term rolling corpus derives from William McKane, Jeremiah (ICC; Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1996), l–liii. Christoph Levin, The Old Testament: A Brief Introduction (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2005), 27 – 28, notes: “Once it started rolling, the snowball picks up a new layer with every revolution.” Many scholarly publications imply or explicitly refer to the ‘final text.’ This usually means the Masoretic text, but such notions should be avoided, because the transmission of the Hebrew Bible resulted in several standardized texts. At most, one could talk about final texts in reference to the different editions and manuscripts that were preserved, but in order to avoid confusion, one should be careful with this term.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

13

have left their marks on the texts, they should contain material from all stages in the development of Israel’s history, culture, and religion. A successful literarycritical investigation will then provide a sound basis for a reconstruction of the redaction history of the text, which will provide the scholars with significant evidence about most stages of Israel’s past. The assumption that nothing was omitted from the older text not only implies continuity and conservatism but also leads to conceptions that accentuate continuity and conservatism in Israel’s past. The younger texts are assumed to be interpretations of the received older texts.13 Not only has the validity of this general assumption never been shown, it is also unlikely that it is correct as such. Already the author of Deut 13:1 implies that at least some omissions were made, for otherwise the warning not to omit parts of the text would be meaningless. In fact, his warning even puts the additions and omissions on the same level. Recent developments in some fields of biblical scholarship also question the validity of the assumption. The discoveries from Qumran in particular have shown that the editorial processes and techniques of the Hebrew Bible may have been much more radical than what is traditionally assumed in literary-critical investigations. In addition to variant editions of many biblical texts, the discoveries have placed the rewritten and the so-called parabiblical texts at the center of the discussion about the editorial processes. As a consequence, the viewpoint has been gradually widened so that the Hebrew Bible is seen as part of all texts of the Hebrew scriptures, which provide scholarship with additional evidence about the editorial processes.14 Although still largely neglected by wider biblical scholarship, the Septuagint and other text-critical witnesses also provide evidence that substantial theological corrections were made much later than traditionally acknowledged. 13 See Levin, The Old Testament, 26 – 28. 14 Hebrew scriptures is not limited to the Hebrew Bible, but also includes related contemporary Jewish literature. The Dead Sea discoveries have emphasized the importance of not limiting our investigation to the Hebrew Bible, which is a selection of canonical books that developed after the formative development of the books in question. Related contemporary Jewish literature may reveal the same literary processes as the Hebrew Bible, but in many cases books that were left out of the canonical collection provide additional information about the editorial processes of the Hebrew scriptures. In this book the term Hebrew Bible is used when the canonical collection is meant or when referring to other scholars who use the term. Moreover, Molly M. Zahn, “Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology,” in Changes in Scripture (ed. H. von Weissenberg et al., BZAW 419; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2011), 93 – 119, here p. 97, rightly points out that the word Scripture with a capital letter is too easily identified with the Bible so that it should perhaps be avoided in scholarly publications. Similarly George J. Brooke, “Between Authority and Canon: The Significance of Reworking the Bible for Understanding the Canonical Process,” in Reworking the Bible: Apocrypha and Related texts at Qumran (ed. E. Chazon; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005), 85 – 104, here p. 86.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

14

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

Some of these corrections challenge the assumption that nothing was omitted. Although text critics have, of course, been fully aware of the potential that the text-critical variants pose for understanding the development of the Hebrew scriptures, this awareness has only slowly reached other sub-fields of biblical scholarship. In part, this may be understandable because text-critical work is often very slow and arduous, so that only a specialist in the field can master it. On the other hand, it has been shown many times that especially the Greek text should not be left in the shadow of the Masoretic text but should be treated as a significant witness.15 Accordingly, the full potential of the differences between the textual variants has not been utilized in wider study of the Hebrew scriptures. Moreover, the Hebrew scriptures contain many parallel texts where the author has used another text as a source for a new composition. They provide significant evidence that large parts of the older text may not have been preserved in their transmission. The evidence of these parallel texts has obviously been available and known since the beginning of critical research, but it has been neglected in part because of the assumption that the new texts were meant to be read together with their sources. The use of 1 – 2 Kings in Chronicles is perhaps the best-known example. It is very problematic, however, to assume that already during the formation process of the text the authors were looking at a canonical collection where the texts would be available side by side. To some extent, it is understandable that omissions as an editorial technique have not received due attention. Because of their nature, their existence is very difficult to prove, and if they have taken place, the implicit fear is that they would leave the scholar with very little to build his theory on. Theories that assume only expansions are methodologically easier to argue, defend, and disseminate, and they also lead to more concrete conceptions about the past than theories that have to assume that something was omitted. The assumption that parts of the text were omitted would leave the scholar with less tangible evidence about the past and with questions that the texts could not answer. The theories would become much less certain. Nevertheless, these considerations do not make the assumption that omissions did not take place any more probable. In order to build a solid methodological basis for the investigation of the Hebrew scriptures, it is necessary to acknowledge what has happened to the texts and not assume something that would be more practical for the implementation of the methodology. This investigation seeks to show, by analyzing and giving examples from different parts of the Hebrew scriptures, that the editorial processes were in 15 See, for example, Anneli Aejmelaeus, “What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint,” in On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays (CBET 50; Leuven et al.: Peeters, 2007), 71 – 106.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

15

some cases more radical than what the commonly assumed or implied position warrants. I will not attempt to conclusively explain how the Hebrew scriptures and other related ancient texts were transmitted and changed during their transmission, but to focus on omissions. In addition to demonstrating that omissions took place, I will be asking to what extent parts of the older text were omitted in their transmission. I will be approaching the question from many perspectives and directions with the aim of obtaining a general picture of textual omissions in the Hebrew scriptures. Because of the nature of the phenomenon— it is only in some cases that one can show that omissions took place—it is not possible to gain an all-inclusive explanation of omissions, but the multi-angled approach will nonetheless provide pivotal evidence for this neglected phenomenon. At the same time, I will provide a new model that integrates omissions and rewriting with the traditional literary- and redaction-critical approaches. Any conclusions reached in this area of textual transmission also have repercussions on the wider use of the Hebrew scriptures. Many theories and reconstructions of Israel’s earlier history, culture, and religion are largely based on the assumption that nothing was omitted. The wider implications of textual omissions will be discussed in the conclusions.16 The question of omissions is connected to many other issues in the study of the transmission of the Hebrew scriptures. An omission may be regarded as an ultimate change of the older text and may thus reveal the limits of what editors and redactors of the Hebrew scriptures could do to the text. An omission not only breaks the rule of preservation of the ancient textual tradition, assumed by many biblical scholars,17 but it may also be regarded as challenging the authority of the text on some level. Whereas an editor who expanded a text may still be 16 In this investigation, I will primarily look at the literary transmission. The existence of parallel oral transmission of texts should not be excluded, but would not affect the main arguments of this investigation. Nevertheless, if part of the transmission took place as oral tradition, the possibility of omission and re-‘writing’ would perhaps be increased, as the transmitters would have had to rely on their memory in reproducing the tradition. Although the transmitters of the tradition were certainly masters in their field, the possibility of leaving out something of the older oral tradition may be higher than when the tradition was preserved as text. Accordingly, David M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 292, notes that the likelihood of oral transmission “has reinforced my skepticism about text-critical attempts to reconstruct an eclectic ur-text of biblical books fir times preceding the identification of authoritative reference copies against which other texts written in the same tradition could be corrected.” 17 See Jean-Louis Ska, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 169 – 170, who notes: “… if what is ancient has such huge value, then nothing can be eliminated … A law cannot be abolished, even if it is no longer applicable.” He further notes, “Most scholars support this theory, which is reasonable enough.” Nevertheless, he notes that the very earliest transmission may have meant rewriting (pp. 170 – 171).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

16

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

assumed to regard the older text to be highly authoritative (he is merely interpreting it in the addition), an editor who omitted some parts is probably less convinced about its authority.18 The same may perhaps also be said about the divine origins, revelatory nature or holiness of the text. If an author could make radical changes to the older text, it would be fair to assume that he was less convinced about its divine origins than an author who would not be able or willing to omit anything. Additions are by nature an easier and more subtle way to direct a text towards a certain direction than omissions, which actively reject part of the transmitted text. Additions do not challenge the older tradition in the same way because they can be seen as interpreting and explaining what may have been regarded as a holy text.19 In other words, the existence of omissions may imply a different position with respect to the older text than mere additions. The notions of holiness, divine origins, and authoritativeness are thus closely connected with questions about how the texts were changed.

Traditional Conceptions in Biblical Studies According to the traditional conception in biblical studies, the older text was only expanded during its transmission. Omissions would have been almost exclusively scribal lapses (such as homoioteleuton) or caused by other unintentional corruptions.20 Jean-Louis Ska crystallizes a prevalent common view in biblical studies. According to him, critical reading of the Hebrew Bible starts from some known axioms that are rarely spoken of but that are well known and usually implied.21 One of the principles is that “nothing is eliminated; everything is preserved and interpreted.”22 Discussing the role and activity of redactors, he 18 For a more detailed discussion on the authority of the text, see below. 19 This does not mean that additions could not influence the text in a fundamental way. In many cases, an addition can effectively bury the older text and fundamentally change the meaning of the text. 20 Most introductions to textual criticism and exegesis list various reasons for the unintentional omissions, but they need not concern us here. See, for example, Carl Steuernagel, Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament: mit einem Anhang über die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1912), 79 – 81. 21 Ska, Introduction, 165. 22 Ska, Introduction, 169 – 170: “If a tradition is ancient, it must be maintained even if it has been superseded. A law cannot be abolished, even if it is no longer applicable … Indeed, nothing is eliminated; everything is preserved and interpreted … the desire to collect everything that tradition had handed down became particularly strong during the time of the Second Temple.” The other principles Ska lists are (pp. 165 – 183): 1) the law of antiquity or precedence: antiquity has fundamental value for the ancient authors. 2) The law of continuity and updating: interest in the past was tied to present concerns, which meant that the transmitted texts were constantly updated. 3) Only what is necessary should be written:

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Traditional Conceptions in Biblical Studies

17

notes that they “interpret ancient texts through corrective additions, not through suppressions and substitutions.” The main reasons for the preservation of the older text are its sacredness, the conservatism of the ancient society, and the perceived high value of everything ancient.23 Despite this general axiom, Ska does leave the door open for more radical changes “in the first stages of the composition” when “the redactors and editors felt freer to rewrite an ancient text in accordance with their own style and criteria.”24 This primarily refers to the very early compositional phase when ancient traditions and texts were used as resource material for a new composition. As an example, one could mention 1 – 2 Kings, which was originally composed by using the royal annals as a source and resource. It is evident that much of the source was left out in this process, also suggested by the author’s repeated references to the additional material that he did not include in the new composition but that would be available “in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel/Judah” (e. g., 2 Kgs 20:20 and 23:28). In view of these references it would be difficult to deny that parts of the sources were left out. Similarly, many of the stories in the Pentateuch are commonly assumed to have been taken out of traditions—textual or oral—that are not preserved in their entirety.25 Although Ska does not explicitly discuss omissions in the Hebrew Bible, he takes note of omissions that took place in the transmission of the Gilgamesh epic. The differences between Gilgamesh and the Hebrew Bible are not extensively elaborated, but Ska assumes that because the latter was assumed to be sacred, its editorial processes were “more strictly limited, especially in later periods.”26

23 24

25

26

since the writing material was very expensive, the scribes did not write anything superfluous. 4) Extrabiblical parallels provide invaluable information about the transmission processes of the Hebrew Bible. Similarly, Ska, Exegesis, 232 – 233, 236. Ska, Introduction, 169 – 170, 182 – 183. Ska, Introduction, 170. But cf. Ska, Exegesis, 232 – 233, where he, describing the traditional documentary hypothesis, notes that the redactors or editors “rarely interfere with the text and their activity is minimal. This is the reason why it is so easy to identify today the different sources because the ‘redactors’ left them mostly intact and added only here and there a few words in their work of conflation.” For example, Jan Christian Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung: Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch (Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 381 – 382, notes that the beginning of Exodus is missing, Reinhard Achenbach, Vollendung der Tora: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Numeribuch im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 2003), 431, assumes that the beginning of the story in Num 25:6 – 8 is omitted. Even the theory of the Deuteronomistic history has often assumed that the beginning was broken off. See, for example, Konrad Schmid, “Das Deuteronomium innerhalb der „deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke“ in Gen–2 Kön,” in Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (ed. E. Otto and R. Achenbach, Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 193 – 211, here pp. 194 – 195. Ska, Introduction, 181 – 183.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

18

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

Although many questions are left open,27 one receives the impression that the transmission of the biblical texts should be divided into two stages: The early stage when the original composition was written by the original author using older sources as resource material and when radical processes were possible, and the later stage of transmission by redactors when everything was preserved because the texts had become sacred and/or highly authoritative. In the former stage some, perhaps even large, omissions could have been made, while in the latter their possibility is generally rejected. Ska’s view is representative of biblical scholarship, and accordingly, similar notions are found as the implied methodological axioms especially in literary and redaction criticism but in other fields of biblical studies as well. Although the question of omissions is more or less avoided or ignored altogether by most biblical scholars and there is even less scholarly discussion about the methodological basis of this assumption, one does find the occasional but usually short reference to the phenomenon in the traditional biblical exegesis. According to Christoph Levin, the text of the Hebrew Bible was only expanded and omissions did not take place. The older text would have been too holy to be altered or omitted, and therefore additions were the only acceptable method to update the text when changed circumstances so required. Discussing the nature of the transmission processes of the “Scripture,” he writes: “Because it counted as normative, it was strictly unalterable … nothing was taken away. The given text remained unchanged; at least it was not abridged. Nevertheless, it was continually added to, and extensively so.”28 Although he accepts extensive expansions till the end of the Persian period,29 omissions are categorically excluded because the texts were regarded as representing the normative divine Word.30 Not only would they have been considered as Holy Scripture by the later faith communities,31 but already from an earlier period onwards.32 27 It is unfortunate that Ska does not discuss the earlier periods of transmission of the Hebrew Bible more extensively. One is left with the questions of when and why the process of transmission of the Hebrew Bible changed its mode from that similar to that of Gilgamesh to the more conservative processes that he assumes to have been in effect in the ‘later periods’ of biblical transmission. 28 Levin, The Old Testament, 27. 29 Levin evidently implies that after the Persian period additions became increasingly less acceptable, although the question is not explained in detail. 30 Levin, The Old Testament, 26 – 27. 31 For example, Levin, The Old Testament, 22, writes: “The Old Testament is the Holy Scripture of the Jewish community … It is in the form of Holy Scripture that it has come down to us, and in order to understand it in the appropriate way we must know that it has never been anything different. Its character today as Holy Scripture characterizes its origin, as well.” 32 The view of Levin, The Old Testament, 22 – 23, as to when exactly the strict preservation of the text began does not seem to be entirely consistent. He mainly refers to the textual development in “postexilic” Judaism, but then specifically notes that at least in the Torah, nothing

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Traditional Conceptions in Biblical Studies

19

Levin’s seemingly unconditional rejection of omissions is not entirely consistent, however. In other contexts, he implies that some omissions took place in the earliest compositional phase, and here his view is similar to that of Ska.33 In his investigation of the Yahwist, for example, he implies that some parts of the older traditions may have been left out and that the present text only contains fragments of the original sources.34 The same applies to his position with regard to the annals of the Judean and Israelite kings, which would have been only partially preserved in 1 – 2 Kings.35 It is therefore evident that in the development of the texts something at some stage must have been omitted. Levin implies the same divide in the transmission of the texts to have taken place as Ska does: There was an early period of composition when more radical processes were possible, but the later redactors preserved everything faithfully. In fact, Levin implies that the fragmentary preservation of the sources was common in the composition phase.36 Moreover, the fragmentary preservation of the older text is not fully restricted to the composition phase. In discussing the redaction of the J and P sources of the Pentateuch, Levin assumes that some parts of the sources were omitted. He writes: “It was not allowed to maim the sources more than unnecessary. Omissions take place but remain limited and they are balanced by the respective parallel source.”37 What we have here is a middle position between the elastic and free selection of the source material in the creation of the main sources and the strict preservation of everything in the later redactions. Levin

33

34

35

36 37

was taken away “[u]ntil about the end of the Persian era” (p. 27). He also refers to the beginning of the interpretative processes in the sixth century, which preserved everything (p. 24 – 25). In part, this inconsistency is explained by the very different view of the how the earlier composers of new literary works related to their sources. Note that Christoph Levin, Verheißung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt (FRLANT 137; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985), 68 f., has represented this view already in his earlier research and is not dependent on Ska in any way. See Christoph Levin, Der Jahvist (FRLANT 157; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 389, who notes that the Yahwist had used written sources for his own composition. He then took a selection of these texts, but stripped them out of their original context and placed them in their present context in the Yahwistic story. He writes: “… wenigstens Vätergeschichte und Mosegeschichte vom Redaktor nicht unversehrt übernommen, sondern Fragmente sind.” See Christoph Levin, “Die Frömmigkeit der Könige von Israel und Juda,” in Houses Full of All Good Things (ed. J. Pakkala and M. Nissinen; Helsinki and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 129 – 168, here pp. 131 – 138, and “Das synchronistische Exzerpt aus den Annalen der Könige von Israel und Juda,” VT 61 (2011): 616 – 628. He assumes that there was a collection of excerpts from the annals that the author of 1 – 2 Kings used. According to Gwilym H. Jones, Chronicles (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 71, the Deuteronomist or the history writer did not interfere with the older text, but in view of the repeated references to the material that would be available in the royal annals (book of the days, for example, 2 Kgs 23:28), this seems very unlikely. Levin, Jahvist, passim. Christoph Levin, “Die Redaktion RJP in der Urgeschichte,” in Auf dem Weg zur Endgestalt von Genesis bis II Regum (BZAW 370; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2006), 15 – 34, here p. 34.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

20

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

accepts that especially some of the early redactors of the Pentateuch could omit some of the transmitted text.38 The apparent contradiction between the categorical rejection of omissions and their recognition in some parts of the textual transmission highlights the methodological problem. The methodology is, in part, based on the assumption that omissions did not take place, but at the same time literary critics have not been able to resolve all texts based on this assumption. Consequently, omissions have been restricted to the very early phases of the composition, when the text was originally created, and to some early redactions in the Pentateuch. The earliest text is thus assumed to remain outside the main field of investigation by literary critical approaches. This would presumably be the text that remains when all the later additions by redactors have been peeled off. The position of Uwe Becker further illustrates the prevalence of the assumption that nothing was omitted by the redactors. In line with other similar books on methodology, in his book Exegese des Alten Testaments he sets up the principles according to which the texts of the Hebrew Bible should be investigated. Becker assumes that the text of the Hebrew Bible was so holy that nothing was omitted. He writes: “The books of the Old Testament had a special dignity almost from the beginning—that is, already when they were produced— and not just when they had their final ‘canonical’ form. They received a normative character already in statu nascendi so that the traditions could not simply be ‘omitted’ in the redaction process.”39 It is implied that after the original author had written his text, its later redactors would not have been able to take out anything and only expanded the text that was regarded as normative. Accordingly, the criteria for identifying the different literary layers are largely based on the assumption that none of the older text was omitted. According to Becker, the expansions often leave tensions with the older text, which are then used as the main criteria for finding the additions. He mentions, for example, doublets, contradictions, repetitions, tensions, and differences in style as reasons for assuming that the text has been edited, or expanded.40 It is evident that omissions and rewriting would have, at least in part, removed doublets and 38 Levin, “Die Redaktion RJP,” 33, specifically refers to a redaction. He writes: “RJP erweist sich als Redaktion im genaueren Sinn des Begriffs.” 39 Uwe Becker, Exegese des Alten Testaments (UTB 2664; Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 84: “Den alttestamentlichen Büchern kam nicht erst in ihrer ‘kanonischen’ Endgestalt, sondern beinahe von Beginn an—also noch im Vorgang ihres Entstehens—eine besondere Dignität zu. Sie gewannen bereits in statu nascendi normativen Charakter, so dass im Vollzug der redaktionellen Fortschreibung das Vorgegebene, die Tradition, nicht einfach ‘weggelassen’ werden konnte.” The text is found unchanged in the third and revised edition of the book, Exegese des Alten Testaments (3rd ed.; UTB 2664; Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 86. In this book I will refer to the 2005 edition. 40 See Becker, Exegese, 53 – 58.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Traditional Conceptions in Biblical Studies

21

repetitions and thus undermined the attempt to identify later editing. In other words, this methodology provides tools for investigating the literary development of the Hebrew scriptures if the older text was preserved, but where it was not preserved, the methodology is, at least in part, impaired. Similar to those of Ska and Levin, Becker’s position is consistent in the sense it lays a firm basis for the methodological approach of literary criticism, but one has to ask whether the a priori assumption that the text had such a special status from the very beginning and throughout its redaction during several centuries is correct. A similar position is maintained by Odil Hannes Steck. In his book on the methodology of the Hebrew Bible, he contends that the older texts were only expanded. He writes: “The characteristic of this [literary] process is that the younger editions of the literary works do not replace the wording of the older editions, but instead preserve it. However they expand, add, reorganize, and introduce to it other traditions or texts …”41 The methodology of the introduced exegesis is largely constructed on this assumption, the basis of which is not further elaborated. It is noteworthy that the possibility of omission is again categorically and axiomatically rejected without any methodological discussion about its validity. In his discussion about the methodological basis of redaction criticism and redaction history, Reinhard Kratz sees the later additions as interpretations of authoritative texts that were updated to correspond to new contexts and situations. In this process the older text was arranged, expanded, and even corrected, but no omissions were made (“ihn aber nicht verdrängt”). Although he does not explain his position in more detail, it appears that he also implies that the texts were highly authoritative and holy from the beginning after the first composition was concluded. The Fortschreibung or later editing of the texts is seen as an interpretative process of authoritative and holy texts.42 Similar assumptions are apparent in the methodological discussion of literary criticism by Ludwig Schmidt. He refers to omissions when the original authors of 41 Odil Hannes Steck, Exegese des Alten Testaments:Leifaden der Methodik (12th ed.; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989), 46. Cf. with the older edition of the book, Hermann Barth and Odil Hannes Steck, Exegese des Alten Testaments: Leifaden der Methodik (8th ed.; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978), 30 – 31, which is less specific about the preservation of the older text. 42 Reinhard Kratz, “Redaktionsgeschichte/Redaktionskritik I Altes Testament,” in TRE 28: 367 – 378, here p. 370. He notes on the redactions: “… der einen älteren, als autoritativ angesehenen Text in eine neue Situation sprechen läßt, den Text dabei der Situation anpaßt (entsprechend arrangiert, kommentiert, ergänzt und auch korrigiert), ihn aber nicht verdrängt oder gar verfälscht, sondern dem Wortlaut, der Sache und dem autoritativen Anspruch nach mit ihm identisch sein will.” Cf. also his article “The Growth oft he Old Testament,” in The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies (ed. J. Rogerson and J. Lieu; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 459 – 488. Already the name of the article is indicative. Instead of referring to the development or evolution of the text, he refers to the growth.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

22

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

the Pentateuch and Deuteronomistic History used their sources, but when it comes to their later transmission, he only refers to the growth and additions to the text. He apparently makes the same underlying assumptions as Ska, Levin, Becker, and Kratz.43 In their book on exegetical methodology, Helmut Utzschneider and Stefan Ark Nitsche discuss extensively the different possibilities of textual changes. Despite the specifically methodological approach, the possibility of omissions and their repercussions on the methodology are not discussed. In the list of different transmission processes they are not mentioned as possibilities and instead the methodological approach assumes only textual growth.44 Before the text was frozen, the texts of the Hebrew Bible are seen as open to interpretation (“interpretationsoffene Texte”) that could be expanded.45 There is no reference to more radical changes, and instead the text is assumed only to have grown so that the additions are interpretations of the older text, which is implied to be holy and authoritative. Another book on methodology, Proseminar I Altes Testament, presents the basis of literary criticism along similar lines.46 In the chapter on literary criticism, Dieter Vieweger writes: “One not only transmitted the older texts, but also expanded and interpreted them in the later times … They respected the transmitted [text] as a given truth, but added beside it [its] reinterpretation [raising out of their own] time and situation.”47 It is clear that if the redactors regarded the older text as a given truth (“gegebene Wahrheit”), omissions would have been impossible. Although the basis of this assumption is not substantiated and there is also no reference to any literature that would discuss the issue, the implementation of the methodology is presented on the basis of the assumption. Nevertheless, there is a brief reference to possible fragments that were “transmitted only partially because of redactional or other intervention.”48 This may be a reference to the earliest transmission when sources were used (cf. above), but the issue is not explained in detail. In the same volume, Siegfried Kreuzer presents redaction criticism and the same implicit assumption that the text was 43 See Ludwig Schmidt, “Literarkritik I Altes Testament,” TRE 21: 211 – 222. 44 Helmut Utzschneider and Stefan Ark Nitsche, Arbeitsbuch literaturwissenschaftliche Bibelauslegung: Eine Methodenlehre zur Exegese des Alten Testaments (Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser/ Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001), 247 – 263. 45 Utzschneider and Nitsche, Arbeitsbuch, 227 – 228. 46 S. Kreuzer et al., ed., Proseminar I Altes Testament: Ein Arbeitsbuch (Stuttgart et al.: Kohlhammer, 1999). 47 Dieter Vieweger, “4. Literarkritik,” Proseminar I Altes Testament: Ein Arbeitsbuch (ed. S. Kreuzer et al. Stuttgart et al. Kohlhammer, 1999), 55 – 65, here pp. 55 – 56. 48 Vieweger, “Literarkritik,” 63. He also discusses (and compares redaction criticism with) the models of explaining the development of the Pentateuch. In the Pentateuch the tensions may also imply that sources have been used.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Traditional Conceptions in Biblical Studies

23

only expanded is apparent. There are only references to expansions: “The redaction-critical approach explains the tensions … with the model of basic text and expansion or editing.”49 Exegese des Alten Testaments: Einführung in die Methodik by Georg Fohrer (et al.) is also representative. According to this book, there may have been “omissions of … letters, particles, small common words” and “of offensive expressions.”50 Here the door is left open for very small omissions, but in practice there would not have been any consequential omissions. In fact, the reference to the small omission, such as letters and particles, only confirms that larger omissions are implicitly excluded. In the same volume, the methodological considerations as to how to identify the additions are based on the same assumption,51 and an example text of literary-critical analysis implies that the older text was always preserved when it was expanded.52 On the other hand, other studies by Fohrer imply that at least some more substantial omissions must have taken place in the compositional phase when older sources were used for a new composition.53 Here again we may see that omissions have to be assumed at least in the very early stages of the transmission when the original author used his sources. According to Carl Steuernagel some older text elements may have been intentionally omitted, but their role in the transmission of the text was much smaller than that of expansions. As a possible reason for the omission he mentions offensive ideas in the older text,54 but the issue is not discussed in any detail. The literary-critical analyses of Steuernagel apparently do not take omissions as a factual possibility, except in the composition phase of the texts.55 Although the possibility of omissions is generally not discussed in literarycritical approaches, there are some exceptions. It is perhaps not surprising that some of these exceptions are scholars who have investigated the book of Samuel, where the Masoretic and Greek versions differ considerably and thus potentially

49 Siegfried Kreuzer, “8. Redaktionskritik,” in Proseminar I Altes Testament: Ein Arbeitsbuch (ed. S. Kreuzer et al.; Stuttgart et al.; Kohlhammer, 1999), 95 – 102, here p. 96. 50 Georg Fohrer et al., Exegese des Alten Testaments: Einführung in die Methodik (5th ed.; UTB 267; Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1989) p. 42: “Auslassungen … von Buchstaben, Partikeln, kleinen häufigen Wörtern” and “Beseitigung anstößiger Ausdrücke.” 51 Fohrer et al., Exegese, 48 – 57. 52 See Fohrer et al., Exegese, 180 – 185. 53 See, for example, Georg Fohrer, Geschichte Israels (UTB 708; Heidelberg: Quelle & Myers, 1977), 30 – 48, who implies that only fragments of the older stories and legends are preserved in the Hebrew Bible. 54 Carl Steuernagel, Lehrbuch, 81 – 82. 55 Cf. his reconstruction of the literary development of Deuteronomy, for example, in Carl Steuernagel, Das Deuteronomium (Göttinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

24

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

provide considerable empirical evidence56 for the textual transmission. For example, in his book Redaktion, Reinhard Wonneberger includes a chapter that discusses omissions. Although the book specifically intends to investigate the processes of textual editing or Fortschreibung, the chapter on omissions is peculiarly brief and the author is generally reserved about the possibility of omissions. Six lines are invested for the evidence from parallel passages in the Hebrew Bible. As an example he mentions Chronicles but regards the evidence as inconsequential because the Chronicler could have used other sources. Wonneberger also refers to the so-called ‘comprehensive anticipatory redactional joints’ that refer to a text, an event or other feature that is not present in the text. Although such cases could be regarded as fairly evident instances of parts of the text being left out, Wonneberger warns of over interpreting the evidence. It should further be noted that his discussion on omissions also includes the omissions in the compilation process of the texts, which, as we have seen, are commonly accepted in research. The omissions in the ‘comprehensive anticipatory redactional joints’ would primarily fall into this category. There does not seem to be a reflection of omissions and rewriting in the later redaction processes.57 With some differences in nuance, similar positions are found in many other introductions to the Hebrew Bible and methodologies of literary criticism,58 as

56 The term empirical in reference to the evidence from parallel texts derives from Jeffrey H. Tigay, Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985). According to David M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 37, the term may be misleading in the sense that more commonly empirical refers to experiments that can be repeated. 57 See Reinhard Wonneberger, Redaktion: Studien zur Textfortschreibung im Alten Testament, entwickelt am Beispiel der Samuel-Überlieferung (FRLANT 156; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 141 – 143, 160. For example, in discussing the ‘comprehensive anticipatory redactional joints,’ he writes: “Bei der Erschließung von ausgefallenen Stücken ist freilich Skepsis am Platz.” Another scholar who should be mentioned in this context is Otto Eissfeldt, “Der Text von I Sam 3, 21 im Lichte der literarischen Analyse von c. 1 – 7,” AfO VI (1930): 17 – 19, who argues that omissions took place when two stories were combined into one composite text. References to the destruction of the Ark, and other details, were removed in one of the combined stories that underlie 1 Sam 1 – 6 (note especially 1 Sam 2:31; 3:11, 21). 58 See, for example, Gottfried Adam, Otto Kaiser, and Werner Georg Kümmel, Einführung in die exegetischen Methoden (München: Kaiser Verlag, 1975), 23 – 24; Thomas Meurer, Einführung in die Methoden alttestamentlicher Exegese (Theologische Arbeitsbücher ; Münster : Lit Verlag, 1999), 54 – 57; Hans-Alwin Wilcke, Das Arbeiten mit alttestamentlichen Texten: Eine Einführung in die exegetischen Methoden (Essen: Die Blaue Eule, 1985), 22 – 23, 28 – 29. Martin Arneth, “Literarkritik der Bibel,” Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart 5: 389 – 390. The methodology is built on the assumption that nothing or almost nothing was omitted.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

25

Earlier Research

well as other publications of biblical studies,59 especially in continental European scholarship.60 One receives the impression that the phenomenon of omissions receives very little attention when the nature of the textual transmission and the editorial processes of these texts are discussed. It seems to be an axiom that need not be verified and argued on the basis of evidence that the older text was always preserved. Indeed, Ska specifically refers to simple axioms and “well known principles,” one of which is the rejection of omissions.61 This principle is closely connected with the assumption that the text had become holy and authoritative already in its early transmission, so that none of its parts could be replaced.

Earlier Research Although the axioms of later scholarship have a background in the earliest critical research, there are also differences. It is difficult to gain a clear view of the development of conceptions and would certainly warrant a separate investigation, but some of the conceptions represented later can be seen already in the 19th century. Clearly, the idea that the texts were holy and authoritative was widely acknowledged in the early research. It was also assumed that the text has been particularly well preserved. For example, Johann Gottfried Eichhorn assumed that the text was guarded from radical changes because there was a temple copy of all the books. This would have been the background of the Masoretic text, the transmission of which was therefore exceptionally careful since the earliest times. Although Eichhorn acknowledges that some mistakes may have crept in when a new copy was made after the Exile,62 he rejects some of the proposed 59 As an example one should mention William F. Albright, From Stone Age to Christianity (Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1946), 46 – 47. 60 Introductions to the methodology or exegesis of the Hebrew Bible in the Anglo-Saxon realm are much more unspecific in this regard. Although literary and redaction criticism are often discussed, the discussion is usually much less technical and, when it comes to the relationship between the literary strata, less specific. See, for example, John H. Hayes and Carl R. Holladay, Biblical Exegesis: A Beginner’s Handbook (London: SCM Press, 1983), 67 – 76, 94 – 103; John Barton, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study (2nd ed.; London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1996), 20 – 29, 45 – 60. This is certainly due to historical reasons and a certain reservation with the ‘hard-core’ literary and redaction criticism of continental and especially German scholarship. Nevertheless, the reservation often remains on a general level and it rarely engages the discussion very specifically with examples from the texts. Stephen A. Kaufman, “The Temple Scroll and Higher Criticism,” HUCA 53 (1982): 29 – 43, and David Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible, are some of the exceptions in this regard. 61 Ska, Introduction, 165. 62 Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, Introduction to the Study of the Old Testament (A Fragment Translated by G. Gollop, sine loco, 1888; original 1823), 163 (§ 111). On p. 178 he writes: “Little cause as there exists to call into doubt the evidence of Josephus as to the high reverence

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

26

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

intentional omissions in the MT63 and seems to assume that the text was only expanded by the redactors.64 On the other hand, he accepts considerable freedoms if the source text continued to be preserved. This is evident for Chronicles as well as for quotations and allusions he mentions as examples.65 The idea that the source text could be radically revised in a new composition if it continued to be transmitted is frequently met in later conceptions as well. Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette was more radical than Eichhorn. Although he assumed that the Masoretic text had a special status and that it had been clearly less corrected than the other versions, he opens the door for considerable editing in the earlier stages of the textual transmission. He writes: The Hebrew text encountered its most unfortunate fate while the single parts of the books of the Old Testament were in circulation, each as a separate whole, before the collection of the Old Testament had acquired a certain respect and sacredness. The transcribers allowed themselves to proceed with the books before them—which were often anonymous—as if they were their own productions, and so alter the text at their own discretion … Compilers and revisers made arbitrary insertions in the works of earlier writers and frequently introduced what was entirely foreign to the text …66

63 64

65

66

with which the Jews were accustomed to deal with their sacred national books; small as down to his time the alterations they may have ventured on either as to diminutions or additions.” For example, he rejects the possibility that Gerizim could have been omitted in favor of Ebal in Deut 27:4. See Eichhorn, Introduction, 199 (§ 111). Eichhorn, Introduction, 49 (§ 14), writes: “It will be demonstrated in its proper place that the chief foundation of our present ‘Samuel’ and ‘Chronicles’ (particular lives of David and Solomon) attained its actual form by passing through, at least, the hands of two very different editors, of whom each increased and enriched it with his own peculiar additions … Similar subsequent supplements were made to both Moses and Jeremiah.” He accepts some minor alterations (p. 48): “There is no instance of any surviving ancient author, of what nation soever, whose text has not undergone many alterations and interpolations. Sometimes intentional glosses were made, and old words and expressions and geographical names exchanged for new, in order to clear the sense to the modern reader ; sometimes remarks were made on the margin, for the writers or others use, without any intention of their introduction into the text, but which have been subsequently interpolated by the excessive zeal of posterity.” Eichhorn, Introduction, 156: “The Prophets of later times, as Jeremiah and Ezekiel, compiled many prophecies from the works of earlier Prophets. In this, however, they did not proceed like slavish copyists; they made omissions, additions, and exercised a choice as to readings which were more poetical, suitable to their genius or to the immediate occasion.” See ibid., 172. Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette, A Critical and Historical Introduction to the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament (Vol 1; Translated and enlarged Theodore Parker ; 2nd ed.; Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1850), 319 – 320. Cf. the German in de Wette, Lehrbuch der historisch krisitschen Einleitung in die Bibel Alten und Neuen Testaments (7th ed. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1852), 116 – 117 (with slight variation between different editions of the book).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

27

Earlier Research

Although de Wette mainly mentions insertions, the reference to alterations of the transmitters “at their own discretion”67 leaves the door open for more radical changes. It is apparent that he makes a divide between the earlier transmission when the text had not yet become sacred and the later transmission as part of a canonical collection of texts. For the early transmission of the text de Wette may be even more open to editorial changes than many of the more recent scholars.68 De Wette also refers to the fragmentary preservation of the older sources in the Pentateuch, which is again similar to the later conception that omissions were possible when new composition or literary work was created by using older sources. Nevertheless, when he discusses the later transmission of the Hebrew Bible as a sacred text, he assumes a much more careful preservation of the text and especially of the Masoretic version. De Wette does mention corrections of some offensive readings, thus implying omissions, but it is clear that mainly very small ones are meant. A considerable change is thus implied between the early transmission of the texts as non-sacred and their later transmission as part of a canonical collection.69 Julius Wellhausen largely builds on de Wette and shares many of the same conceptions, but he may be more elaborate on the redactions and revisions than de Wette. Although he is still far from the assumption of countless layers by successive redactors, he seems to assume that there had been several. On the redaction of the books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings, he writes: This revision is, as we expect to find, alien to the materials it found to work on, so that it does violence to them. They have been altered in particular by a very one-sided selection, which is determined by certain religious views … It is not meant that the selection is due entirely to the last reviser, though it is thoroughly according to his taste; others had probably worked before him in this direction.70

In other words, there would have been several redactors with a theological perspective to remove those parts that had did not accord with “certain religious views.” Unfortunately his view is not elaborated, but the implicit assumption here seems to be that the later redactors could have omitted those parts of the older texts that did not accord with their own conception. Here Wellhausen seems to court with the possibility of omissions, but he then continues: “But for us it is neither possible not important to distinguish the different steps in the process of sifting through which the tradition of the time of the kings had to 67 De Wette, Lehrbuch, 116 – 117, “nach Gefallen zu ändern.” 68 Note that already the translator (Theodore Parker) regarded de Wette’s view on the older transmission as too radical. He comments: “Perhaps Doctor De Wette states the corruption of the text by transcribers in terms stronger than the case requires.” 69 Cf. Levin, The Old Testament, 22 – 30. 70 Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1885), 280 – 281.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

28

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

pass.”71 There is a marked difference between Wellhausen’s position and the later attribution of each and every word to particular redactors in earlier research, and this apparently goes hand in hand with the different conception about whether the earlier text was always preserved. As noted by John Rogerson, for Wellhausen “[t]he redactor was often an author.”72 In contrast with his skepticism about the redactions in Judges, Samuel, and Kings, in discussing the different sources of the Hexateuch, Wellhausen makes it the goal to determine the relative chronology of the different sources.73 In the Hexateuch he developed elaborate models as to the exact development of the texts. Notably, however, his models were based on the assumption that the authors and early redactors could omit parts of the older text.74 Later research on the Pentateuch seems to be indebted to Wellhausen in this respect, but his conceptions and skepticism about the development of Judges, Samuel, and Kings were not shared by later research. Clearly, it has to be noted that Wellhausen’s main focus of attention was the Hexateuch, but it is apparent that he and other 19th-century scholars considered various possibilities as to how the texts developed. On the other hand, Chronicles received considerable attention in the 19th century discussion about the editorial processes of the Hebrew scriptures.75 Because of its clear parallels with its sources in 1 – 2 Samuel and 1 – 2 Kings, it could potentially reveal how the ancient Jewish scribes edited and changed their sources.76 Basing his research on de Wette’s observations, Wellhausen concluded that Chronicles is not a typical representative of editorial processes, but is instead a Midrash of the Book of Kings.77 The Chronicler’s position and technique would not be unlike that of the scribes or Schriftgelehrten who interpreted older authoritative texts.78 The underlying assumption was that the Chronicler’s

71 Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History, 281. 72 John Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century. England and Germany (London: SPCK, 1984), 264. 73 Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History, 295 – 299. 74 Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History, 295 – 299, assumes that not much violence was done to the older text (p. 296), but in some cases parts of the older text were clearly left out (p. 299). 75 Before Wilhelm M.L. de Wette, Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Vol. I; Halle 1806), 10 – 132, the earliest research assumed that Chronicles and 1 – 2 Kings used a common source and were not directly dependent. After showing the dependency of Chronicles on 1 – 2 Samuel and 1 – 2 Kings, de Wette focused on the historicity of Chronicles, which he largely rejected. See also de Wette, Lehrbuch der historisch krisitschen Einleitung in die Bibel Alten und Neuen Testaments (7th ed. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1852), 251 – 257. 76 Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (3rd ed.; Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1895), 169 – 228. 77 Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 228. 78 Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 227: “… sein Verhältnis zum kanonischen Buch der Könige so

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

29

Earlier Research

sources had already become so holy that radical changes would not have been possible unless Chronicles was meant to be read with its sources as a supplement, as its interpretation or as Midrash. The preconception that the book of Kings was a holy text for the Chronicler dictated Wellhausen’s understanding of the relationship between the two texts. Here one can see similarities with the later axioms. How the relationship between Chronicles and its sources was understood in the early research is significant because it could have provided one of the best parallel texts available at that time. Had Wellhausen and others taken Chronicles as a possible model for how some of the scribes related to their sources, the scholarship of the Hebrew scriptures might have taken different paths than it did.79 This is not to say that early scholarship did not base their methodology on some observations that could be characterized as empirical evidence. The comparison between the Hebrew and Greek versions of some books in the Hebrew scriptures, such as Samuel and Jeremiah, played a role in establishing a basis for literary criticism. Many of the reconstructions of literary criticism were corroborated by observations made in textual criticism. Wellhausen’s book Der Text der Bücher Samuelis made several observations about the differences between the versions that were similar to what was assumed in literary critical studies.80 William Robertson Smith was one of the early scholars who made more elaborate attempts to discuss the methodological basis of the so-called higher criticism on the basis of observations made between the Hebrew and Greek versions.81 The text critical evidence from Samuel and Jeremiah seemed to corroborate the assumption that the texts only developed by expansion. The problem is that only some of the evidence was accepted as providing a model for understanding the editorial processes. Contradictory evidence, such as Chronicles or the text-critical evidence from First Esdras, Daniel or Esther, was erklären, dass es eine apokryphe Aufputzung und Erweiterung desselben ist, nach der Weise der Behandlung der heiligen Geschichte durch die Schriftgelehrten.” 79 This is not to say that there were not attempts to discuss the Chronicler’s use of sources and its relevance for understanding the editorial processes of the Hebrew scriptures. Thus already, for example, Joseph Estlin Carpenter and Georg Harford-Battersby, The Hexateuch according to the Revised Version (London: Longmans, 1900), 11 – 14, but also in later research, for example, Mordechai Cogan, “The Chronicler’s Use of Chronology as Illuminated by Neo-Assyrian Royal Inscriptions,” in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (ed. J. Tigay ; Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 197 – 209; Williams Johnstone, “Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy in Pentateuchal Studies, with Special Reference to the Sinai Pericope in Exodus,” ZAW 99/1(1987): 16 – 37. 80 Julius Wellhausen, Der Text der Bücher Samuelis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1871). Similarly, many others, for example, Samuel R. Driver, Notes of the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913). 81 William Robertson Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church: A Course of Lectures on Biblical Criticism (2nd ed.; London: Adam and Charles Black, 1908), 73 – 112.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

30

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

often treated as forming a different genre or being otherwise not relevant for the discussion, and it was therefore neglected.82 Processes in one set of evidence during one period should not distract us from seeing other kinds of evidence that may speak for omissions. Because of the long period of textual transmission before the texts became unchangeable, several types of processes may have been in operation. If more radical processes can be substantiated in some periods of the transmission, their existence may have to be considered as a possibility in any reconstruction of the textual history of the Hebrew scriptures. A model for the editorial processes has to be formed on the basis of a wider range of witnesses and not merely on the basis of the more conservative processes.83 In concrete terms, if First Esdras bears witness to very radical processes in dealing with the older text, one has to be aware of the possibility that a similar relationship to the older text was possible in those stages of the development from which we do not possess such empirical evidence. For example, the reconstruction of the literary history of Deuteronomy should consider it at least as an option that some of the countless redactors related to his older text in the same way that the redactors of First Esdras related to the older text that they were editing. The problem with the text-critical evidence that has been used as the basis for literary criticism is that it employed only the evidence from some books and neglected or ignored others. A clear line of development from the early research to the later methodological approaches of literary criticism is difficult to establish. What one finds is 82 This does not mean that there have not been discussion about the editorial processes of the Book of Esther, for example. See Michael V. Fox, The Redaction of the Books of Esther (SBL Monographs 40; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1991). The problem is that this evidence has not been integrated to the discussion about the editorial processes assumed in literary criticism. The position of Elias J. Bickerman, “Notes on the Greek Book of Esther,” AAJR 20 (1951): 101 – 133, is typical. After drawing attention to the changes witnessed by the Greek version, he asks (on pp. 113 – 114): “How shall we explain the differences?” He finds the answer from Jerome, according to whom translators could make all kinds of changes. On the other hand, he notes that “The Hebrew Esther being no sacred writing, Lysimachus was free to adapt the original to the needs and requirements of the Greek-speaking world.” This is illustrative because it again shows the underlying assumption that parts of sacred writings could not have been omitted. It is assumed that if there is evidence of more radical editing, the text was not yet considered sacred. For a more detailed discussion on First Esdras and Esther, see chapters IX and X. 83 Some isolated voices, such as Morton Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics That Shaped the Old Testament (New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1971), 3 – 5, have called for taking all the evidence from the Hebrew scriptures into consideration when forming a model as to how the texts developed, but they have not received adequate scholarly attention. Smith writes: “In the differences between the Hebrew and the Septuaginta texts of Jeremiah, Psalms, Proverbs, Esther, Daniel, and 1 Esdras we have objective evidence to show the extent and nature of possible changes.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

31

Earlier Research

an almost categorical rejection of omissions in the introductions to the Hebrew Bible and methodological textbooks that have appeared since the 1970s. It is notable that some of the most unconditional positions in this respect are found in the later research since the 1970s and not in the 19th-century scholarship, as one would perhaps expect. Here the so-called Göttingen School should especially be mentioned. Nevertheless, the axioms of the later research are based on assumptions and conceptions growing out of earlier research. It is not possible to give a detailed review of the influences here,84 but some notes should be made. In addition to the axiom that the texts of the Hebrew Bible have been regarded as authoritative and holy already since their early transmission, the following factors seem to have contributed to the conceptions in literary-critical approaches: 1) The so-called Ergänzungshypothese (supplementary hypothesis), 2) the attempt to identify even the smallest addition, 3) and to place each one of them into a closely defined chronological order on the basis of a certain evolutionary conception, 4) the assumption that all the pieces of the puzzle are present in the available texts, 5) the idea that the texts can be seen as part of the same continuum with the later Jewish and Christian interpretation of their holy texts, 6) and the partial text-critical evidence from some books of the Hebrew Bible. Building on the documentary hypothesis, the so-called Ergänzungshypothese of the Pentateuch attempted to understand the development of the Pentateuch as a result of additions. Although this hypothesis as such may now be outdated, it provided a model for understanding the development of the ancient texts.85 A late representative of the theory, August Knobel writes: The old text of the books of Moses and Joshua makes itself easily identifiable to the critical eye through its clear intention and plan and through its consistent style and language. In my opinion, it can be identified with reasonable certainty, especially since, with the exception of some data, it seems to be completely intact. But more difficult is the task of criticism in the sections that were added to the basic text by the hand of the editor. In those [sections] there is no such unity as we find in the basic text.86

84 See Hans-Joachim Kraus, Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments (3rd ed.; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982), and John Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century : England and Germany (Sheffield: Continuum, 1984). 85 For the history of the so-called Ergänzungshypothese, see Kraus, Geschichte, 157 – 160. The main pioneers of this theory were Wilhelm M.L. de Wette and Heinrich Ewald. 86 See August Knobel, Die Genesis (KHAT; Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1860), v–vi, “Die alte Schrift zwar, welche den Büchern Mosis und Josua’s zum Grunde liegt, macht sich durch ihren festen Zweck und Plan und durch ihre stets gleich bleibende Manier und Sprache dem kritischen Auge leicht kenntlich und lässt sich meines Erachtens mit ziemlicher Sicherheit herausfinden, zumal sie abgesehen von einzelnen Angaben vollständig erhalten zu sein scheint. Aber desto schwieriger ist das Geschäft der Kritik bei den Stücken, welche durch die Hand

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

32

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

The hypothesis in the Pentateuch research then opened the search for similar additions in other books of the Hebrew Bible, and here we can see the beginnings of the quest to identify all the additions and thus literary strata throughout the Hebrew Bible. If the older text is “easily identifiable” and “completely intact,” it only requires time and hard work to reconstruct the full redaction history of a given text. Early research knows many examples of attempts to reconstruct the presumably fully preserved oldest text of the various books of the Hebrew Bible,87 but this tendency was amplified in later research. Observations inside the Pentateuch eventually led to the conclusion that the oldest text cannot have been preserved in full,88 which is then the basis for the common assumption that the original sources were not taken in full, and for the assumption that the transmission history should be divided into two different stages, each with different processes. Since the beginning of critical research, scholars have, and rightly so, attempted to situate the existing texts into a certain chronological order. This is seen, for example, already in the early discussion about the order between the law and the prophets, or in the discussion about the order of the different parts of the Pentateuch, but the same is true of many other issues in the history of critical research. Here the work of Wellhausen was crucial.89 As one gradually identified more and more literary seams between parts of the texts, it was natural to try to determine their exact chronological position in the development. More and more detailed analyses of various books of the Hebrew Bible were presented.90 It was eventually seen as a failure of the critic if he could not place every single word into its correct place in the development. This tendency may be even stronger in the contemporary approaches of literary criticism than in the 19thcentury research. The texts as well as the whole history and religion of ancient Israel were seen to develop in an evolutionary way so that the older texts were adapted to the changed circumstances by additions. One saw a gradual development towards more complicated texts through additions. Indeed, the simultaneous rise of evolutionary theories in natural sciences may not be an accident. Although there may not be a direct link, at least the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the

87

88 89 90

des Bearbeiters der alten Grundschrift hinzugekommen sind. Bei ihnen herrscht keine solche Einheit wie bei den Bestandtheilen der Grundschrift.” The discussion about the earliest text of the Pentateuch eventually led to the idea that the Priestly texts were the youngest part. See, especially Karl Heinrich Graf, “Die sogenannte Grundschrift des Pentateuch,” Archiv für wissenschaftliche Erforschung des Alten Testaments 1 (1869): 466 – 77. See, for example, the conclusions by Levin, Der Jahvist, 389, and many others. Kraus, Geschichte, 255 – 274. Here one should mention especially the detailed analyses of Karl Budde, Die Biblische Urgeschichte (Giessen: J. Ricker’sche Buchhandlung, 1883).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

33

Earlier Research

Origin of Species91 may have facilitated analogous concepts to arise in the study of the Hebrew Bible, or the times were generally favorable to evolutionary concepts. As noted by Rogerson, from the 1870s onwards “developmental or evolutionary ways of thinking made increasingly significant inroads into English intellectual thought … The growth of human culture and institutions [was described] in developmental terms.”92 It is also an apparent assumption in literary- and redaction-critical studies that all pieces of the puzzle are present in the preserved texts. When one investigates a text one only needs to identify the separate units; find their right place, that is, their chronological order; and to profile the author. A cursory look at studies of these methodologies already reveals that even the smallest pieces find their place, with only the exception of the very earliest sources, which, as we have seen, are sometimes assumed to be preserved only fragmentarily. This creates in a sense a closed system because a failure to reach an adequate solution means that not enough effort has been put into the investigation, which leads to even more research on the same text. However, if some essential pieces in the puzzle—i. e., stages or sections of the texts—were missing, it would not be possible to reconstruct the literary development in full. It would mean that the reconstructions could never reach a correct solution. This is apparently not an option in literary and redaction criticism and therefore research continues with the same tools, methods, and presuppositions. By assuming that the editing or Fortschreibung of the texts preserved the older text, the development could be seen as part of the same continuum as the transmission of the Hebrew Bible (or the New Testament) by the later interpreters of the Jewish and Christian traditions, who saw the texts as holy and authoritative.93 It was possible to see essentially similar processes taking place already from the beginning of the transmission.94 The methods of adding to the older tradition would perhaps be different but not the primal perceptions of the older text or tradition. It would be worth a separate investigation to ask to what extent the theological background of the critics influenced their conceptions about the processes of editorial changes. Since the critical study of the Hebrew Bible was not unproblematic, especially in 19th-century research, it certainly cannot have hindered the acceptance and reception of literary-critical methods 91 Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (London: John Murray, 1859). 92 Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism, 280. 93 Of course, in later times it was not possible to update and add the interpretations to the text itself, and instead a vast literature of interpretative works was created. 94 See, for example, Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), especially in chapters 2 and 3, according to whom similar processes of textual transmission can be seen in the early transmission of the Hebrew Bible on the one hand and the later legal and haggadic exegesis on the other.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

34

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

in an essentially Christian (and to a lesser extent Jewish) context if the changes made to the texts were seen as part of the same interpretative processes that the Jewish exegetes and the Church fathers had conducted after the texts had become canonical. To put it differently, if the 19th-century critical scholars had challenged the conception that the text was authoritative and holy, would it have been possible for much of the critical research to be conducted under the auspices of the evangelical faculties of central Europe? It is not possible to provide any conclusive answers here, but it is difficult to see how the religious affiliation of the scholars and university faculties could not have had any influence on the way the editorial development of the texts was conceived. Hugo Gressmann rightly assumed that literary criticism is a sine qua non of the study of the Hebrew Bible, and he also praised its results. However, already in 1924 he wrote that the limits of this methodology may have been reached.95 Conscious of its problems, perhaps because of the increasingly evident lack of consensus in most questions of biblical studies of his time, he called for a book of methodology. He wrote: “we need a [book of] methodology of Old Testament scholarship that not only discusses the advantages and successes of literary criticism, but also objectively discusses its weaknesses and limitations … Who will write us this book?”96 The books of methodology started to appear fifty years later, but they did not investigate the basis of the methodology in great detail or its weaknesses. Instead, their main focus has been the description of the method, with many examples as to how to implement the methodology in practice.97 The books of methodology heralded the most productive period of literary- and redaction-critical investigations, which has continued unabated ever since.

Other Approaches Share the Same Conceptions The assumption that nothing of the older text was omitted is not restricted to literary- and redaction-critical approaches. Only some examples can be given here. Having an entirely different perspective on the transmission of the Hebrew 95 Here one needs to note that Gressmann was very influential in developing the research into more tradition historical questions that emphasized the history of Israel’s religion within its ancient Near Eastern background. 96 Hugo Gressmann, “Die Aufgaben der alttestamentlichen Forschung,” ZAW 42 (1924): 1 – 33, here p. 33. 97 In the same volume as Gressmann’s article, Willy Staerk, “Zur alttestamentlichen Literarkritik. Grundsätzliches und Methodisches,” ZAW 42 (1924): 34 – 74, raised similar concerns and called for more methodological controls in the implementation of literary-critical methods.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Other Approaches Share the Same Conceptions

35

Bible, Michael Fishbane has noted that there are some theological changes that may have altered the older text, but that these changes are “the product of isolated scribes or scribal schools.” He continues: “It is thus rare to find even fairly systematic revisions of these theological trouble-spots, such as one can regularly find even in such so-called ‘vulgar’ or popular textual traditions as the Samaritan.”98 The underlying assumption here seems to be that with some minor exceptions the Masoretic tradition was fairly faithfully preserved throughout the transmission and that evidence for more radical changes, such as those in the Samaritan Pentateuch, took place in less significant or ‘vulgar’ traditions. This implies that if more radical editorial changes than what is commonly accepted took place in a textual tradition, that textual tradition must have been inferior to the Masoretic textual tradition. Fishbane also implies that the scribes regarded the transmitted text to be holy so that the changes were motivated by the attempt “to preserve the religious dignity of these documents according to contemporary theological tastes.”99 He then describes the development of the text as that of interpretation. The motive for editing a text would be to interpret the older text that was regarded as authoritative and holy. Although not a literary critic, Fishbane apparently shares many of the same conceptions. A further study that should be mentioned in this connection is that by Karel van der Toorn. In his recent book, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible, he seeks to give an outline of the scribal culture behind the production of the Hebrew Bible.100 The Hebrew Bible is extensively compared with the broader ancient Near Eastern material. As modes of text production, he lists transcription, invention, compilation, expansion, adaptation, and integration.101 In the production of the texts van der Toorn stresses the veneration of the older tradition. According to him, changes to an older text were mainly expansions that were possible when a new edition of a literary work was produced. On expansions he writes: “scribes were averse to such interventions while copying from a mother text. Expansion is therefore most likely to be explained as an activity in the context of a new edition.” He further notes that “[t]ext expansion is indeed a striking phenomenon because it seems to contrast with the veneration of scribes for the written tradition.” Moreover, “[f]aithful reproduction of the text as received was the scribal norm. The dutiful scribe neither added to nor 98 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 71. Fishbane, 67 – 74, makes note of several theological changes that necessitated omissions and rewriting, but in most cases they are minor and restricted to single words. 99 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 67. 100 Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press, 2007). 101 Van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 109 – 141.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

36

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

removed from his text.”102 In discussing the adaptations,103 van der Toorn further refers to expansions only. Although perhaps slightly more conservative, van der Toorn’s position is similar to the conceptions in literary criticism. Omissions and rewriting are not discussed as a possibility when a new edition of a text was written. A slightly different position can be found in some introductions to textual criticism, although many also seem to represent a similar position to that found in literary criticism. Kyle McCarter, for example, assumes that there may have been some euphemistic substitutions (such as the changes of Ishbaal to Isboshet in 2 Sam 2 – 4) or suppressed readings where a small part of the older text was omitted in order to avoid an error or corruption, but more radical possibilities are not contemplated.104 Omissions are assumed to be only a minor and very infrequent phenomenon. Ralph Klein is somewhat bolder. He writes: “Grammatical, historical, theological and lexical difficulties often were eliminated or modified by the scribes as they copied the manuscripts.”105 He refers to some passages, such as Gen 18:22 and Josh 1:5, 11; 2:5, 9, that may have been intentionally altered in such a way that an omission took place. Although he uses the word ‘often’ in this context, it is clear that he is referring to relatively small omissions, mainly of individual words. In his Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible Emanuel Tov mentions the possibility of various changes including “omissions, additions and changes in content.” According to him, “at the beginning of the biblical text’s transmission, intervention such as reflected in these changes must have been commonly acceptable.”106 He further has a chapter on the “anti-polytheistic alterations,” which imply that some words have been changed. Although the omissions implied in the examples are small, some of them are theologically significant.107 In another context, Tov has provided examples from the Book of Jeremiah where a later editor has reformulated the older text in a way that implies rewriting and omissions of parts of the older text.108 The examples are 102 Van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 126. 103 Van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 133 – 137. By adaptions is meant stages of textual transmission where an older text was adapted to a new context. Here he first and foremost refers to translations but he takes the Assyrian royal annals as a further example. 104 P. Kyle McCarter Jr., Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press), 57 – 61. 105 Ralph W. Klein, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: From the Septuagint to Qumran (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1974), 74. 106 Emanuel Tov, Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1992), 262. 107 Tov, Introduction, 267 – 269. 108 Emanuel Tov, “Some Aspects of the Textual and Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah,” in

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Implementation of Literary Criticism

37

relatively short, but they are clearly more substantial than the omissions acknowledged in the literary-critical approaches. Moreover, they unequivocally break the rule that everything was preserved. More reserved is the position of Ernst Würthwein, who in his book Der Text des Alten Testaments notes that the changes “were made bona fide and [the editors] did not want, according to their own understanding, to introduce anything foreign into the text, but only to establish what was correct … or exclude a wrong reading [of the text].” He consequently refers to expansions and glosses, whereas omissions are mentioned only in the case of some offensive expressions where a word or its vocalization was changed.109 The literary- and redaction-critical reconstructions of Würthwein imply that the literary history of the text, for example in 1 – 2 Kings, can be fully reconstructed without assuming any omissions by the redactors.110 The difference in attitude between Tov and Würthwein may be a result of the fact that Würthwein is also a literary critic. He may implicitly be aware of the methodological problems for source criticism that would be caused if the door were opened for omissions.

Implementation of Literary Criticism In accordance with the above-presented methodological presuppositions, countless commentaries and more detailed literary- and redaction-critical analyses have been published. There is no need to present an extensive review of individual studies, because these approaches and analyses are well known. One should mention here, for example, the literary- and redaction-critical analyses of the Former Prophets, which have resulted in the assumption of successive redactions through centuries. The so-called layer model (Schichtenmodell) of the Göttingen School has been particularly prolific in the last decades in providing a basis for more and more detailed studies on how these books developed. This approach has been applied to other parts of the Hebrew Bible. It suffices to provide one example, and Timo Veijola’s commentary on Deuteronomy is representative.111 As in other commentaries of the Altes Testament Deutsch Le Livre de J¦r¦mie (ed. P.-M. Bogaert; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997), 145 – 167, here pp. 157 – 158. 109 Ernst Würthwein, Der Text des Alten Testaments: Eine Einfürung in die Biblia Hebraica (5th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsch Bibelgesellschaft, 1988), 122 – 124. 110 See Ernst Würthwein, 1.Kön 17 – 2.Kön 25 (ATD 11,2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), and Die Bücher der Könige 1 Kön. 1 – 16 (ATD 11,1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985). For example, he assumes that 2 Kgs 23 consists of countless redactional layers so that none of the redactors omitted parts of the older text (see Würthwein, 1.Kön 17 – 2.Kön 25, 452 – 462). 111 Veijola, Deuteronomium.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

38

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

series,112 the text is divided into different and accurately defined literary layers. Each layer is assumed to function as a complete and understandable text when the later additions are removed. For example, Veijola’s reconstruction of Deut 5:1 – 4 follows this principle very closely. Verses 1a, 2, and 4 form the oldest text and should function fluently if the later additions in v. 1b and 3 are removed: 1

Moses called all Israel, and said to them: Hear, O Israel, the ordinances and judgments that I speak in your ears today ; learn them and observe them in order to do them. 2 Yhwh our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3 Not with our ancestors did Yhwh make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today. 4 Yhwh spoke with you face to face at the mountain, out of the fire.

The validity of these analyses are verified by a control test, or what is often called the Gegenprobe,113 for which it is essential that the older layers form a consistent and flowing text when they are read without the later additions. If the later additions can be removed so that the remaining text is clear or perhaps even clearer than with the additions, the reconstruction is assumed to be corroborated. If the isolation of a later addition does not leave an intact older text, the analysis is assumed to be incorrect. Needless to say, this method is based on the assumption that the texts only grew because the older text could not, in most cases, form a comprehensible and flowing text if parts of it had been omitted. If an omission had taken place, the control test would fail and the critic would conclude that his analysis must be incorrect. He would have to reconsider his analysis. As noted by Odil Hannes Steck, “Analyses based on the assumption of vestiges of tradition, lost earlier components of the traditions and unmotivated additions, by this very fact lose in plausibility.”114 If one looks at the conclusions of literary- and redaction-critical approaches, the reconstructed literary layers follow this principle so that it is very difficult to find reconstructions of the literary development of any text of the Hebrew scriptures where one literary layer is only partially preserved.115 For example, Veijola’s reconstruction of the 112 As other classical examples one should mention the commentaries by Würthwein, 1 Kön 1 – 16 and 1. Kön 17 – 2. Kön 25. 113 See, for example, Schmidt, “Literarkritik,” 211, and Kreuzer et al., Arbeitsbuch, 60. 114 Odil Hannes Steck, “Bewahrheitungen des Prophetenworts. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Skizze zu 1.Könige 22,1 – 38,” in “Wenn nicht jetzt, wann dann?”: Aufsätze für Hans-Joachim Kraus (ed. H.-G. Geyer ; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983), 87 – 96, here p. 96, “Analysen, die auf der Annahme von Überlieferungstorsi, verlorenen Analysen, die auf der Annahme von Überlieferungstorsi, verlorenen älteren Überlieferungsbestandteilen und unmotivierten Zusätzen beruhen, büßen eo ipso an Plausibilität ein.” 115 The main exception to this rule is the oldest literary layer, or the ‘original’ source, which, as seen above, is often assumed to have been used selectively and thus preserved only fragmentarily.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Implementation of Literary Criticism

39

development of Deuteronomy assumes no omissions in any of the analyzed sixteen chapters of the book although he assumes several successive literary layers. In Deut 9 – 10 seven successive layers are assumed so that none of the redactors omitted anything from the preceding text.116 In practice, seven layers implies a literary development of at least two centuries of seven different contexts. Many other examples of the implementation of the method could be taken from publications of biblical exegesis, textual studies,117 and books of methodology,118 but they would not change the picture substantially. On the other hand, the identification of literary strata is essentially based on the inconsistencies of the text. If the text is fluent, no earlier stages are assumed and one would conclude that the fluent text derives from one author and represents a single literary stage, which one would then try to correlate with the other literary stages. The problem is that omissions and rewriting effectively conceal the existence of earlier parts of the text. One would have to incorrectly conclude that the passage without inconsistencies derives from one author. An example from Chronicles suffices to demonstrate how difficult it would be to identify an earlier text, did we not possess the earlier text itself (cf. the discussion of Chronicles in more detail below). It is commonly accepted that the author of 2 Chr 21 used 2 Kgs 8 as the main (or only) source. Probably because of Jehoram’s marriage to Ahab’s daughter (2 Kgs 8:18), the Chronicler wanted to portray the king in a more negative light than the author(s) of 2 Kgs 8 and therefore the Chronicler made several changes to the passage. For example, the death and burial of Jehoram is related in 2 Kgs 8:24 and 2 Chr 21:20. According to the author of 2 Kgs 8:24, the king slept with his fathers and was then buried with them in the city of David. He would have had a decent death and burial where his fathers had been buried (9=N54.AF). Although not explicitly stated, it is clear that the author meant the royal tombs. The Chronicler was not satisfied with such a good ending of an evil king, and he therefore replaced the standard reference to sleeping and going to one’s fathers 116 See Veijola, Deuteronomium, 221 – 241. 117 From among the countless investigations based on these axioms, see, for example, Thilo Alexander Rudnig, Heilig und Profan: Redaktionskritische Studien zu Ez. 40 – 48 (BZAW 287; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2000); Reinhard Müller, Königtum und Gottesherrschaft: Untersuchungen zur alttestamentlichen Monarchiekritik (FAT II 3; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004); Juha Pakkala, Ezra The Scribe: The Development of Ezra 7 – 10 and Neh 8 (BZAW 347; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2004); Jacob L. Wright, Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah Memoir and its Earliest Readers (BZAW 348; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2004); Petri Kasari, Nathan’s Promise in 2 Samuel and Related Texts (PFES 97; Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 2009), and Anja Klein, Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ez 34 – 39 (BZAW, 391; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2008). 118 For example, Meurer, Einführung, 54 – 57; Wilcke, Das Arbeiten mit alttestamentlichen Texten, 22 – 23, 28 – 29.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

40

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

with the idea that he went away (note the laconic ý@=9) without anyone missing him (87B; 4@5). The reference to Jehoram’s burial with his fathers was replaced with an explicit denial that the king had been buried in the royal tombs. In other words, the Chronicler presented exactly the opposite view from the source. Only the idea that he was buried in the city of David was preserved. 2 Kgs 8:24

2 Chr 21:20 9=N54.AF AL9= 5?M=9 797 L=F5 9=N54.AF L5K=9

And Joram slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David

87B ; 4@5 ý@=9 7=97 L=F5 98L5K=9 A=?@B8 N9L5K5 4@9

and he departed with no one’s regret. They buried him in the city of David, but not in the tombs of the kings.

If we did not have the source text itself, 2 Chr 21:20 would not disclose where the Chronicler has taken parts from the source and where he has added his own text. The resulting text is so fluent that the reader has no reason to assume more than one author for the words he finds in the verse.119 The literary-critical methodology would be toothless. One would draw conclusions about the literary strata only in those parts where the later scribe did not omit and rewrite parts of the older text so that inconsistencies remained.

Text-Critical Scholarship Observations between the Greek and Hebrew versions of some books provide some ostensible support for the assumption that the texts were mainly expanded and nothing or almost nothing was omitted. Although there are exceptions, text critics have nevertheless been more open to radical changes in the textual transmission than literary critics. One finds references to omissions and replacements in many studies with a text-critical approach.120 The main difference 119 This passage will be more extensively discussed in chapter VIII. 120 References to small omissions or replacements can be found in many detailed studies of text criticism, see, for example, Julio Trebolle Barrera, Jehffl y Jo‚s : texto y composiciûn literaria de 2 Reyes 9 – 11 (Valencia: Instituciûn San Jerûnimo, 1984); Centena in libros Samuelis et Regum: variantes textuales y composiciûn literaria en los libros de Samuel y Reyes (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cient†ficas, Instituto de Filolog†a, 1989); Adrian Schenker, Anfänge der Textgeschichte des Alten Testaments: Studien zu Entstehung und Verhältnis der frühesten Textformen (BWANT 10/14; Kohlhammer, 2011); Jürg Hutzli, “Mögliche Retuschen am Davidbild in der masoretischen Fassung der Samuelbücher,” in David und Saul im Widerstreit—Diachrone und Synchrone im Wettstreit: Beiträge zur Auslegung des ersten Samuelbuches (ed. W. Dietrich, OBO 206; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 102 – 115, and Die Erzählung von Hanna und Samuel (AThANT 89; Zürich,

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Text-Critical Scholarship

41

between text-critical and literary-critical scholarship in relating to omissions is that in the former they are regularly held as a possibility, while in the latter the possibility is often axiomatically rejected. The difference in conceptions may be due to the fact that text criticism is directly confronted with documented evidence, while literary criticism is more hypothetical in nature. In many books of the Hebrew Bible, the Hebrew and Greek versions differ considerably and it has become evident that this is not due only to the translation process. Minor omissions and shortenings that go back to the Hebrew Vorlagen of the Greek translations have been observed throughout the Hebrew Bible, and they have also been acknowledged since the 19th-century Septuagint scholarship.121 More importantly, however, one may note an increased tendency to recognize more radical intentional interventions in the older text in some recent investigations of textual studies,122 although substantial and/or larger omissions are much more controversial and heavily debated. There appears to be at least some divergence in opinion between scholars of textual criticism and those of literary criticism in this respect. One area where omissions are commonly acknowledged by text critics is recensions.123 They usually corrected a text towards the Masoretic text, and in this process part of what was eventually a more original reading was omitted. For various reasons—and a critical and scientific evaluation of the witnesses was not one of them—a certain text may have become more authoritative than others so that it consequently began to influence the less authoritative textual traditions. Since the more authoritative tradition did not necessarily preserve the most original text, its younger and secondary readings may often have replaced the 2007); Philippe Hugo, “Text and Literary History : The Case of 1 Kgs 19 (MT and LXX),” in Soundings in Kings. Perspective and Methods in Contemporary Scholarship (ed. K.-P. Adam and M. Leuchter ; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 2010), 15 – 34, 156 – 165; Stephen Pisano, Additions or Omissions in the Books of Samuel: The Significant Pluses and Minuses in the Massoretic, LXX and Qumran Texts (OBO 57; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), and others. For example, Zipora Talshir, The Alternative Story : 3 Kingdoms 12:24 A–Z (Jerusalem Biblical Studies; Jerusalem: Simor Ltd., 1993), 158 – 61, assumes that 1 Kgs 14:1 – 18 was omitted when the so-called alternative story in 3Reg 12: 24a–z was added. The alternative story contains no parallel to the story about the sick child. According to Talshir this omission is “undoubtedly secondary.” Examples of intentional content changing omissions have been discussed by, for example, Julio Trebolle Barrera, Anneli Aejmelaeus, Adrian Schenker, Kristin De Troyer, Philippe Hugo, Jürg Hutzli, Zipora Talshir and Michael V. Fox, for example. Some of their examples will be discussed in the analyses. 121 For example, according to Norbert Peters, Beiträge zur Text- und Literarkritik sowie zur Erklärung der Bücher Samuel (Freiburg i.B., 1899), the MTshortens the original LXX text in 1 Sam 1:8, 11, 18; 10:21; 2 Sam 11:22; 14:33; 19:43. 122 See especially, Schenker, Anfänge der Textgeschichte; Hugo, “Text and Literary History ; Hutzli, “Mögliche Retuschen” and Die Erzählung von Hanna und Samuel. 123 For a concise review of the recensions, see, for example, Julio Trebolle Barrera, The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 307 – 318.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

42

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

more original ones in the recensions. For example, in 1 Kgs 22 – 2 Kings 25, the Antiochene or Lucian text, preserved in Greek, contains many readings that predate the Kaige and Hexaplaric recensions of the 1st and 3rd centuries ce, respectively. There are several examples where the oldest text is preserved only in the Antiochene or Lucian text, while the all the other witnesses are secondary. Furthermore, it has also become evident that in some cases the Old Latin preserves the oldest text of Joshua-Judges and 1 – 2 Kings, while all other texts have been revised to correspond with what was considered as a more authoritative and theologically correct version.124 For our endeavor it is important that in some cases secondary readings of what were considered at that time to represent the most authoritative text replaced more original readings. Parts of the older text were omitted in this process.125 The rewritings and omissions in the recensions could be seen as a different method because the scribe who changed the reading may have been convinced that the Masoretic text (or any other text that functioned as the model) represented the more authoritative text, but, in effect, it demonstrates one possible line of development in the transmission of the Hebrew scriptures where a more original text could be omitted. The recensions tried to suppress the readings that were then regarded as incorrect, and it is clear that they were successful on many occasions. The frequency of the recensions means that the Septuagint scholars, and thereby also text critics, were more aware of the possibility that some parts of the original readings could have been replaced in the transmission of the Hebrew scriptures. It should be added that some scholars with a background in text critical and Septuagint studies have characterized the recensions as new editions that intended to replace the older editions.126 Some Septuagint scholars have also argued for intentional theological polishing distinct from the recensions. For example, Anneli Aejmelaeus has suggested that a process of theological ‘polishing’ may have taken place in the Book 124 See, among many others, Adrian Schenker, “The Septuagint in the Text History of 1 – 2 Kings,” 3 – 17. 125 For example, Adrian Schenker, “The Ark as Sign of God’s Absent Presence in Solomon’s Temple: 1 Kings 8:6 – 8 in the Hebrew and Greek Bibles,” in What Is It That Scripture Says? (ed. P. McCosker ; Library of N.T. Studies 316; London, 2006), 1 – 9, and “Altar oder Altarmodell? Textgeschichte von Jos 22,9 – 34,” in Florilegium Lovaniense (ed. H. Ausloos et al., BETL 224; Leuven, 2008), 417 – 425. In both cases Schenker assumes that small but theologically important parts of the oldest text were omitted in all textual traditions except in the Old Latin, which preserves the original. See also Julio Trebolle Barrera, “The Text Critical Value of the Old Latin and Antiochean Greek Texts in the Books of Judges and Joshua,” in Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in honour of Johan Lust (ed. F. Garc†a Mart†nez and M. Vervenne; BETL 192; Leuven, 2005), 401 – 413. 126 For example, Schenker, Anfänge der Textgeschichte, 13. Accordingly, many text critics have called for more methodological communication between textual and literary criticism. In addition to Schenker, thus also Trebolle Barrera, “The Text Critical Value,” 413.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Text-Critical Scholarship

43

of Samuel in the last century bce or even later. According to her, this may have been done in order to make the text more acceptable for inclusion in the collection of holy texts that later became the Hebrew Canon. In this process the most offensive parts of the older text had to be omitted and/or replaced by more acceptable readings. By an accident of history the evidence was preserved in some Greek manuscripts and Old Latin witnesses, but the principle that relatively late transmitters of the text could omit parts of the older text is significant because on its basis similar changes may have to be taken into consideration in the other texts as well. The significance of her observation is increased by the fact that the changes were made in the Masoretic tradition at a very late stage.127 By comparing the Greek and Hebrew texts of 1 – 2 Kings, Adrian Schenker has argued that the Masoretic text of this version of the book contains several theological changes in relation to the Septuagint. Albeit usually small, some of the changes imply omissions of parts of the older text. The more original text was preserved in the Greek version, while the Masoretic text would be a theologically corrected new edition of the book. Rejecting the possibility of gradual changes by copyists, he argues that the changes were made by an official instance or authority. He further suggests that only the temple priests of Jerusalem would have been in such a high authoritative position to authorize new editions of the authoritative books. This revision would have happened as late as the last two centuries bce. He notes that “[t]he editorial intervention presupposes authority over the transmitted text.”128 Although the extent of the interventions is not discussed in further detail, the idea that the temple priests would have authority over the older text opens various possibilities for revision that are not in accordance with the conventional conception that the older text was the highest authority. In effect, in this model the temple priests would place themselves above the transmitted text so that they would be in a position to evaluate what is theologically acceptable and what is not. Many of the changes Schenker draws attention to are theological corrections that also included omissions.129 Especially on behalf of text critics there have been some attempts to reflect text-critical observations onto literary and redaction criticism. Although their main focus may not have been omissions as such, but the general question of whether it would be possible to reconstruct the older stages without the help of textual evidence, these approaches are closely related to our endeavor. For ex127 Some of the cases that may be part of this theological polishing of the book of Samuel are discussed in chapter VII. 128 Schenker, “The Septuagint in the Text History of 1 – 2 Kings,” 17 129 See Adrian Schenker, Älteste Textgeschichte der Königsbücher : Die hebräische Vorlage der ursprünglichen Septuaginta als älteste Textform der Königsbücher (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 171 – 194, and “The Septuagint in the Text History of 1 – 2 Kings,” 13, 16 – 17.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

44

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

ample, in his detailed study on the relationship between the MTand A-text of the book of Esther, Michael V. Fox first analyzed the relationship between the two texts and raised the question of whether literary critical methods would be able to reconstruct the prehistory of the A-text without using the LXX or MT text.130 He has concluded that one could easily identify some of the additions (such as additions A, B, and E) and that it would be possible to identify “most, though not all, of the redactional blocks in the AT.” By the same token, he notes that “some redactional changes in the receptor text could never … have been identified without the existence of the donor text.”131 Some of the cases that could not be identified are due to the fact that the A-text has omitted parts of the older texts, whereas in other cases the changes are integrated into the older text in such a way that it would be very difficult to identify them without textual evidence. He succinctly concludes that the “tools of [literary criticism] are effective but not powerful.”132

Omissions in the New Testament Omissions in the New Testament have received more attention than in the Hebrew scriptures. This may, in part, be due to the existence of more documented evidence about the very early transmission of the text. The earliest manuscript evidence of the New Testament derives from a time closer to the original creation of the texts than what we have for most of the books of the Hebrew Bible. For example, the Pentateuch probably developed in the 7th to 4th centuries bce, but the earliest textual witnesses derive from the 3rd to 2nd centuries bce. This early evidence of the New Testament shows unmistakable cases of intentional ideological omission. They were already acknowledged by the 19th-century scholarship.133 For example, John William Burgon wrote that in order to preserve the purity of the ‘orthodox’ faith, the editors evidently did not think it at all wrong to tamper with the inspired Text. If any expression seemed to them to have a dangerous tendency, they altered it, or transplanted it, or removed it bodily from the sacred page. About the uncritical nature of what they did, 130 Of other scholars who have sought to discuss literary criticism on the basis of observations made from text-critical evidence, one should additionally mention, for example, Adrian Schenker, especially in Älteste Textgeschichte der Königsbücher, as well as Hugo, “Text and Literary History,” 15 – 34, 156 – 165. 131 See Fox, Redaction, 134 – 141. 132 On omissions in the A-text of Esther, see Fox, Redaction, 62 – 65. Several omissions are found, for example, in Esth 9 of the A-text. 133 For example, John William Burgon, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (London: George Bell and Sons, 1896), 128 – 156, 164 – 165, 211 – 231.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Omissions in the New Testament

45

they entertained no suspicion: about the immorality of the proceeding, they evidently did not trouble themselves at all. On the contrary, the piety of the motive seems to have been held to constitute a sufficient excuse for any amount of licence. The copies which had undergone this process of castigation were even styled ‘corrected,’—and doubtless were popularly looked upon as “the correct copies”134

The theological purging of the New Testament has been extensively discussed by Bart D. Ehrman in his several publications. He has demonstrated how the different theological controversies within the early Church occasioned repeated alterations of the more original text. In many cases, the original reading was replaced by a theologically more acceptable one but it could also be omitted without a replacement. Ehrman writes: While these christological issues were under debate, before any one group had established itself as dominant and before the proto-orthodox party had refined its christological views with the nuance that would obtain in the fourth century, the books of the emerging Christian Scriptures were circulating in manuscript form. The texts of these books were by no means inviolable; to the contrary, they were altered with relative ease and alarming frequency. Most of the changes were accidental, the result of scribal ineptitude, carelessness, or fatigue. Others were intentional, and reflect the controversial milieux within which they were produced.135

Ehrman further notes that there would be no evidence of “sheer malice or utter disregard” on behalf of the scribes when such radical changes were made.136 The reason for the changes would be that the scribes “knew exactly what the texts said, or at least they thought they knew … the changes they made functioned to make these certain meanings all the more certain.”137 This is probably the case for those changes where the omitted section was replaced by a new text that could be seen to put the older text “in other words.” In the New Testament this type of correction is overwhelmingly more common than a sheer omission. Although the editor’s or censor’s attitude towards the text in such cases may be different, the effective omission of a section of the text prevents the reader from arriving at certain interpretations of the text. As noted by Ehrman, “[t]he reality … is that once they altered their texts, the words of the texts quite literally became different words, and these altered words necessarily affected the interpretation of the words by later readers.”138 For the later scholar who tries to 134 Burgon, Causes of the Corruption, 211. 135 Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption Of Scripture: The Effect Of Early Christological Controversies On The Text Of The New Testament (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 275. 136 Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption, 280. 137 Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption, 280. 138 Bart D. Ehrman, Whose Word is It? The Story Behind Who Changed the New Testament and Why (London and New York: Continuum, 2006), 175.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

46

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

reconstruct the prehistory of the text, the result is similar. After parts of the older text have been replaced by an editor, he can only deal with the new text. Omissions in the New Testament were not restricted to replacements or rewritings, although they are considerably more common than outright omissions. Text-critical observations have shown cases where an offensive or theologically ‘incorrect’ conception was omitted from the older text without any replacement.139 There is no reason to assume that the editorial processes of the Hebrew scriptures were fundamentally different than those of the New Testament. As already noted, the New Testament material could be seen to present an earlier stage of the development than most of the evidence from the Hebrew scriptures. On the other hand, there is comparable documented evidence in the Hebrew scriptures, as we will see in the course of this investigation. It is more probable that this documented evidence has not influenced the method of literary criticism of the Hebrew scriptures. Although the New Testament material cannot provide a direct model for understanding the development of the Hebrew scriptures, it does show that texts that later came to be regarded as highly authoritative and divine revelation could have been purged of offensive and heretic conceptions in their early development. It is also significant that many of the censors of the New Testament were prone to replace the offensive section rather than merely to omit it without any replacement. A sheer omission seems to be a more severe intervention and challenge of the older text than when the offensive section is described by a new account. For the technical transmission of the older text the result is the same: The older text was left out.

The Evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls Another prominent challenge to the assumption that no omissions took place comes from the Qumran scholarship and the Dead Sea scrolls. Following their full publication since the 1990s140 the scrolls have brought to light increasing empirical evidence of the editorial techniques and processes of Hebrew scriptures. Although the tremors may still be ignored by many biblical scholars, the evidence has shaken many conventional presuppositions and views, and the challenge is posed on several levels. The Dead Sea scrolls have shown that the questions of canon and authoritative texts are more complicated than traditionally assumed. The community behind 139 Burgon, The Causes of the Corruption, 128 – 156, 164 – 165, 211 – 231. 140 Although some of the scrolls were published already before the 1990s, only in the last two decades has wider biblical scholarship been given access to the whole material.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

The Evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls

47

the scrolls141 apparently had a different conception as to which texts were authoritative and normative from what was assumed by the Masoretic tradition. Many of the books of the Hebrew Bible may not have had a distinguished position for the community,142 while other books, not in the Hebrew Bible, were highly regarded.143 If some of the texts of the Hebrew Bible were not particularly authoritative in a late Second Temple Jewish context, it is difficult to assume that these texts in general were regarded to be authoritative, normative or even of divine origin since their early transmission. One has to assume a long and complicated process of these texts gaining an authoritative, revelatory, or sacred status. On the other hand, the Dead Sea scrolls also show that there were various contemporary conceptions as to which texts are particularly valued. The Masoretic tradition represents one (late) tradition in this respect, while the community of the scrolls another (which is perhaps not younger than the Masoretic one).144 Similar differences as to which texts were regarded as normative should be assumed for the rest of the Second Temple period as well. The idea of a consistent and unchangeable attitude towards the status of texts during the Second Temple period is therefore unlikely. This undermines the assumption that the texts were highly authoritative, normative, holy, and therefore unchangeable already from the beginning, or in statu nascendi, as formulated by Becker and assumed by many others.145 On the basis of the scrolls, therefore, one would have to show for each book when and for whom it became so normative and holy so that nothing could be omitted. This has direct bearing on our question since the early authoritativeness of the texts has been seen as a central reason for why parts of the older text allegedly could not be omitted. The evidence from Qumran also calls into question the implicit or explicit assumption that the composition and redaction phases could be clearly separated so that different processes were in operation in each of them. By using the evidence from Qumran, Eugene Ulrich has shown examples where “composition, redaction, textual transmission, and reception” overlap so that they cannot be “neatly distinguished.”146 According to him, “redaction … is one of the 141 Because of the controversy concerning the connection between the scrolls and the habitants of Khirbet Qumran, one should perhaps refrain from referring to the Qumran community. 142 This is suggested by the fact that many books of the Hebrew Bible are very poorly represented among the finds from Qumran, for example, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. Not a single fragment of Esther was found in the Qumran caves. 143 As an example, one should mention the Community Rule. 144 Clearly, this question is connected with the controversial issue of the origins of the scrolls. If the scrolls are not connected to the settlement at Khirbet Qumran but derived, for example, from Jerusalem, the issue may be even more complicated. 145 Becker, Exegese, 84. 146 Ulrich, Evolutionary Production, 48 – 49 (quotations), 50 – 62.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

48

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

modes, one of the many stages of composition.” For example, instead of making a fundamental difference between the composition phase of Exodus and its later redactions, Ulrich distinguishes twelve different editions of the book so that the composition and redaction phases overlap.147 Although the exact processes of these editions are not discussed, it is certainly the right direction to see composition and redaction in the same continuum without assuming that after the original composition was concluded, different processes of redaction were in operation. If the textual transmission cannot be divided into two clearly separable different stages, their different editorial processes, as assumed by literary critics, would also have to be reevaluated. The evidence from the Dead Sea scrolls also challenges the artificial distinction between the Hebrew Bible and other contemporary Jewish texts. When the ‘extrabiblical’ material is taken into consideration, we gain significant additional evidence about the birth and development of the Hebrew scriptures. For example, the different manuscripts of the Qumran Community Rule (1QS, 4QSa–j, and 5QS) provide access to the editorial processes of the Hebrew scriptures we would not have were we to restrict our view to the Hebrew Bible. The Community Rule was evidently authoritative and normative for the community behind the scrolls, and therefore it should not be discarded as irrelevant. One may imagine a development where the Community Rule was included in a canon, had the community behind the scrolls become a significant and permanent strand of Judaism. The Community Rule should, therefore, be regarded as a witness to the editorial processes of Jewish authoritative texts in the Second Temple period. The differences between the manuscripts of the Community Rule have been extensively discussed by Sarianna Metso.148 She has shown that the manuscripts that reflect a later literary stage are often more extensive than those that reflect an earlier stage.149 In general she portrays a development of expansions that gradually inflated the text. However, she has also shown that there is evidence for more radical interventions in the older text. Although less frequent than expansions, parts of the older text were rewritten and omitted in the editing process, and some of the omissions and rewritings are consequential and extensive.150 In other words, the evidence of the Community Rule contradicts the

147 Ulrich, Evolutionary Production, 53 – 56. 148 Sarianna Metso, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule (STDJ XXI; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 107 – 145. 149 Note that the dating of the manuscript does not necessarily correspond to the dating of the textual tradition of the manuscript. 150 See Metso, Textual Development, 121 – 122 (small replacements), 123 (small replacements), 132 (more extensive omissions/replacements), 140 (omissions), 143 – 144 (a larger omis-

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

The Evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls

49

assumption that the older text, although regarded as authoritative and normative, was always preserved.151 This empirical evidence from a relatively late period—the editorial processes of the Community Rule are often assumed to have taken place in the last two centuries bce152—should be taken into account when the editorial processes of other texts of the Hebrew scriptures are determined. There is no reason to assume a fundamental difference in the editorial processes and techniques between the Community Rule and Deuteronomy, for example. If such a difference is assumed, it would have to be substantiated and shown why Deuteronomy should be considered as a special case and why the Community Rule is not relevant in this discussion. The Dead Sea scrolls have also brought the so-called rewritten153 texts (or rewritten scripture), as well as the parabiblical texts, into the focus of discussion. As examples of such texts one should mention the Genesis Apocryphon, Jubilees, 4QRP/rewritten Pentateuch, and the Temple Scroll.154 They were composed by using another, usually an important or authoritative text as a source and a literary model for the new composition. Their abundance among the Qumran finds and beyond (also in the Hebrew Bible: Chronicles) implies that rewritten texts were rather common in the Second Temple period.155

151

152

153

154

155

sion/replacement, where a section, 4QOtot, that was no longer relevant was replaced by another text, 1QS IX, 26b–XI, 22). It should be noted that Metso, Textual Development, 154 – 155, considers her results as confirming the methodology of literary criticism. To a certain extent her assessment is correct in the sense that she has been able to show extensive editing. Many of the changes she draws attention to are very similar to those that have been traditionally assumed in literary criticism. However, she does not discuss the significance of replacements, rewriting and omission, witnessed by the Community Rule, for these methodologies. According to Metso, Textual Development, 154, “… the major changes in the process of redaction had already taken place in c. 100 B.C.” Philip S. Alexander, “The Redaction History of Serech ha-Yahad: A Proposal,” RevQ 17 (1996): 437 – 457, dates the redaction to the first century bce. The term ‘rewritten text’ or ‘rewritten Bible’ should be used only with caution as it is used in many different ways to denote different things. Here the term is merely used to refer to the general group of texts that represent new compositions written on the basis of another literary work. In effect, this category includes very many different genres and relationships between the donor text and the new composition. Although the general term may not be very precise, the fact that more attention is drawn to these texts that revise older texts is very welcome for understanding the editorial processes of the Hebrew scriptures. Many investigations on these texts have been published recently. See, for example, Sidnie White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008); Hindy Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism (JSJS 77; Leiden: Brill, 2003); Daniel K. Falk, The Parabiblical Texts: Strategies for Extending the Scriptures among the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York, N.J.: T& T Clark, 2007); Michael Segal, The Book of Jubilees Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology (JSJS 117; Leiden: Brill, 2007). In addition to the well-known works, several rewritten texts, paraphrases, and related works were among the Qumran finds.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

50

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

Although omissions have not received particular attention in their own right in the discussion of the rewritten texts, for the purposes of the present investigation these texts are significant because they bear witness to a method and a potential stage of textual transmission. The rewritten texts show that a textual tradition could also proceed by means of rewriting and other radical methods of editing, and the resulting text could itself become authoritative and the object of further transmission. Consequently, the possibility that similar literary stages took place in the tradition of the other books should also be taken into consideration. In concrete terms, on the basis of the prevalence of the rewritten texts, one may not exclude the possibility that books such as Deuteronomy could also have, at least potentially, experienced stages of transmission where the technique of rewriting was applied. For example, Jubilees is commonly characterized as a rewritten version of Genesis and Exodus.156 When we look at the literary development of Jubilees and examine its earlier literary phases including those in Genesis and Exodus, one receives the following picture: After being collected from various sources (J, E and P) its text was transmitted in Genesis and Exodus by successive redactors, who made repeated additions and other changes. After centuries of transmission in this way, the text, now regarded as authoritative and divine revelation, was comprehensively rewritten by the author of Jubilees and then possibly further edited by redactors as Jubilees until it came to be regarded as divine revelation as well, at least in some traditions. Taking all this textual transmission of Jubilees into consideration, it has gone through various kinds of phases where the techniques of transmission differed. Notably, the transmission included at least one phase of comprehensive rewriting, including omissions, after it had been edited through what are assumed to be more conventional techniques. If one were to investigate the development of a passage in Jubilees, a correct reconstruction of its history would, in most cases, have to assume omissions and a phase of rewriting. Because the sources are known, this is evident and commonly accepted, but one may also imagine a situation where the sources were not preserved. It has to be asked, would one still reach the conclusion that its transmission entailed phases of radical editing that included omissions and rewriting. Would one still assume that no part of Jubilees could be omitted from the beginning, and what exactly is meant with the beginning of the transmission of the text in this case? The conclusion that no omissions and rewriting took place would lead to an incorrect analysis in many passages. Jubilees thus illustrates a further problem with the assumption that no omissions were made after the original composition. One could object to this picture by maintaining that Jubilees forms a different 156 For a more detailed discussion on Jubilees, see chapter V.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

The Evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls

51

genre from the texts of the Hebrew Bible and therefore should not be regarded as relevant evidence. The rewritten texts in general have been neglected in the discussion of textual transmission on the basis of the assumption that they were formed as a supplement to another, more authoritative text, with which they should be read (cf. Wellhausen’s view on Chronicles, discussed above). According to Charles C. Torrey, for example, “[a]bridgement was of course always permissible, while the unabridged original was still existent.”157 This seems to have been a general assumption in scholarship throughout the critical study of the Hebrew Bible: If there are omissions in a text in relation to an older text, it is only because the longer version was available. It is implied that when a literary work is a not a rewritten text, omissions did not taken place. This consideration may be understandable for some rewritten texts, but it is justified only in part. Although the author of Jubilees may have meant his text to be understood and read with Genesis and Exodus in view, he could not influence the future development of how the texts were perceived and transmitted in different traditions. A development where Genesis and Exodus would fall out of use so that a tradition is only familiar with Jubilees is certainly possible. We would then be left with an authoritative text, the transmission of which contained a stage with omissions and rewriting.158 Torrey’s comment pertains to his observation that omissions have taken place in the Book of Esther when we compare the three different versions.159 His assumption implies that the scribe who made the omissions assumed that the older versions of the same composition were thereafter always transmitted with the new version. In effect, the assumption is that the scribe would be able to control future developments, but here we are already beyond probabilities. Moreover, there are examples of rewritten texts that were not meant to be read with their sources. As an example from Qumran, one should mention the Temple Scroll, which was probably written in order to compete with or even replace its source(s).160 There have been sporadic attempts to draw attention to this evi-

157 Charles C. Torrey, “The Older Book of Esther,” HTR 37/1 (1944): 1 – 40, here p. 34. 158 It is possible that some books of the Hebrew scriptures were written with another, now lost literary work in view. Although this is speculative, the assumption that this is not the case is also speculative. Consequently, one cannot take it for granted that Jubilees forms a separate genre that is not relevant for the discussion about the editorial processes of the Hebrew scriptures. 159 For further discussion on the book of Esther, see chapter X. 160 Thus many, for example, Simone Paganini, »Nich darfst du zu diesen Wörtern etwas hinzufügen« Die Rezeption des Deuteronomiums in der Tempelrolle: Sprache, Autoren, Hermeneutik (BZAR 11; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009), 240 – 255, 298 – 299. According to him, the authors of the Temple Scroll intended to write an “anti-Deuteronomy.” For a more detailed discussion of the Temple Scroll, see chapter VI.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

52

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

dence from the perspective of editorial processes,161 and here one should mention Stephen A. Kaufman, who has noted that the Temple Scroll is “almost a perfect parallel to the composition of the Pentateuch as envisaged by higher criticism.”162 Although omissions as such were not the main focus of his investigation, his observations include examples where the source text was omitted and rewritten. On the basis of these observations he seeks to investigate the applicability of what he calls higher criticism. His conclusion about higher criticism is rather gloomy : “But to accurately reconstruct or even generally identify the sources for these conflate texts is next to impossible …” He further writes that “the reconstruction of redaction history on the basis of such inconsistencies and comparisons promises to be nothing more than so much wasted effort.”163 Although it is doubtful that one could reject all ‘higher criticism’ on the basis of the Temple Scroll, it is clear that the evidence from this document should be taken much more seriously in literary- and redaction-critical methodologies and it should be integrated into the same model to understand how our texts developed. The implicit reason for neglecting the Temple Scroll may be the assumption that it was meant to be a supplement and interpretation of the source text or that it written by a sectarian group whose attitudes would not be relevant for understanding the editorial processes of the Hebrew Bible.164 Although the Dead Sea scrolls have reignited the discussion, the full potential of the evidence from such parallel texts, many of which have been known since the beginning of research, is still largely unused in the discussion about how the texts of the Hebrew Bible developed. They often show similar processes taking place as the evidence from the Dead Sea scrolls and Septuagint, and, in any case, the evidence from these different areas should enlighten each other. It should further be added that the characterization of the rewritten texts as a distinct genre is problematical. As noted by many scholars, especially those with a background in the study of the Qumran scrolls, it has become increasingly difficult to make a distinction between variant literary editions and rewritten scriptural texts. Variant editions are usually assumed to be the result of successive changes by redactors, while the rewritten texts are assumed to be new compositions that should not be connected to the discussion about redactors and the textual development of the Hebrew scriptures. Instead of excluding a text from this discussion on the basis that it allegedly belongs to the genre of rewritten texts, one should discuss the nature of each text and its relation to its 161 Already since early research; see, for example, Charles C. Torrey, “The Chronicler as Editor and as Independent Narrator,” AJSL 25/3 (1909): 188 – 217. 162 Kaufman, “The Temple Scroll,” 29. 163 Kaufman, “The Temple Scroll,” 42 – 43. 164 Cf. the position towards the evidence from Chronicles.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

The Evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls

53

possible sources separately. As noted by Hans Debel, one should allow “the distinction between ‘variant literary editions’ and ‘rewritten Scripture’ to dissolve into a ‘sliding scale’ or a ‘spectrum.’”165 Their differentiation is artificial. Chronicles in relation to its sources illustrates the difficulty of the categorization. Although it is frequently assumed to be a rewritten text, it contains many passages that are almost identical to the source text. In other passages, the Chronicler’s account is generally expansive so that it corresponds to the common conception of a redactor who only made expansions. Then there are also passages that are completely rewritten. In view of these differences, it would not do justice to Chronicles to categorize it as a rewritten text if one thereby means that it should be excluded from the discussion about the development of the Hebrew scriptures. In fact, if Chronicles, Deuteronomy, Jubilees, and the Temple Scroll in relation to their sources are rejected from the discussion about editorial processes, one may, in effect, be (unconsciously) arguing in circles. The line of thinking may be summarized as follows: Since Chronicles, for example, omitted so many sections of its sources, it must have been meant to be read with them and thus belong to another genre. It therefore should be disregarded in the discussion about the redactional transmission of the Hebrew scriptures, because the redactors only made expansions. Since the redactors did not make more radical interventions in the text, Chronicles is apparently a different genre. It is evident that this circle of reasoning is dependent on the axiom that the texts were so holy and authoritative that nothing could be omitted. Consequently, one cannot exclude the possibility that some stages in the textual development of the Hebrew scriptures took the form of rewriting, either of the whole work or only parts of it. This would shake the conception or presupposition that the processes of transmission were constant from the beginning. It would mean that one has to take into consideration the possibility of omissions and rewriting at any stage in the transmission of Hebrew scriptures. This would have considerable impact on the methodological approach to the texts being investigated.

165 Thus Hans Debel, Rewritten Bible, 84, in his reference to similar proposals by George Brooke and Sidnie White Crawford. Cf. George J. Brooke, “The Rewritten Law, Prophets and Psalms: Issues for Understanding the Text of the Bible,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (ed. E. Herbert and E. Tov; London: British Library, 2002), 31 – 40, pp. 31 – 32, and Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 1 – 13.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

54

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

The Epic of Gilgamesh as a Witness to Editorial Processes The Epic of Gilgamesh may be the best-documented external literary work relevant to the discussion about the development of the Hebrew scriptures. Because the epic or its parts have been preserved in many versions from different times, scholarship is in a position to trace its long-term textual development better than perhaps that of any other ancient Near Eastern document. Mainly preserved in Old Babylonian copies, the Sumerian stories about Gilgamesh originated in the 3rd millennium bce, while the latest fragments of the epic can be dated to the last centuries bce.166 Its development in the 2nd millennium bce in particular contains similarities with some books of the Hebrew scriptures. The authoritative nature and status of the epic since the beginning of this millennium makes it a significant parallel text for investigating the development of the Hebrew scriptures. The importance of the Gilgamesh epic as parallel evidence for the Hebrew scriptures is further increased by its partially theological nature. Like many texts of the Hebrew scriptures, it deals with questions concerning the position of man in the world, death, life after death, and man’s relationship with god(s). The textual development of the epic has received considerable scholarly attention. Jeffrey Tigay in particular has depicted various kinds of editorial phases in its evolution. The Sumerian stories about Gilgamesh were probably independent and it was not before the Old Babylonian period that these stories were collected into a grand epic, written in Akkadian. The use of the originally independent sources was rather free. They were taken out of their original context and placed as part of the new plot that tied the stories together as a unified narrative and new composition. In this process, the older stories were extensively reshaped, reorganized, and rewritten. Although they were obviously the main source of inspiration for the epic, the sources were used as resource material that could be used freely to suit their new contexts in the epic.167 Sections that had no function or could not be fitted in the epic were omitted.168 The composition phase of the Gilgamesh Epic has thus many similarities with how many literary works in the Hebrew scriptures are assumed to have been composed out of older sources. During the second millennium the Akkadian epic was revised by successive 166 For details on the different versions, see Jeffrey H. Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982), 10 – 13, 241–242, 251, and Andrew R. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 3 – 70. 167 For details of this process, see Tigay, Evolution, 242 – 244. 168 The use of the Atrahasis story in the Gilgamesh version of the flood story is illustrative of how freely the sources were used. See, Tigay, Evolution, 218 – 229.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

The Epic of Gilgamesh as a Witness to Editorial Processes

55

scribes probably in different contexts. The text went through extensive changes such as expansions, reorganizations, relocations, rewritings, and omissions. During this process of redaction the changes were noticeably less extensive than when the epic was created out of the sources, but many radical processes seem to have been common. Although textual growth by expansions was clearly much more common than abridgement, the latter was apparently not avoided by the scribes or redactors who edited and transmitted the text. Often the omitted section was replaced with a new text,169 but not necessarily. An example of a substantial omission without a replacement is found in the passage that describes Enkidu’s arrival in Uruk. In comparison with the late version, the Old Babylonian account is nearly double in size (46 lines vs. ca. 25 lines).170 Of the older text, only those elements were left in the new version that had a function in its wider context, which was also substantially revised in other ways.171 On the other hand, some of the most important theological omissions are small in the number of words. As shown by Tigay, there seem to have been shifts in the roles and positions of deities to the extent that deities (Anu, Ishtar/Inanna, and Shamash) mentioned in the older versions were omitted and/or replaced by other divinities in the later versions.172 This was done in order to update the text to accord with current and changed conceptions of the divine. All in all, Tigay notes that “the late version displays considerable divergence from the Old Babylonian. Lines are reworded in degrees varying from negligible to complete, with some lines being dropped and many more added.”173 During the time of redaction in the second millennium bce the epic also grew in importance and became what can be regarded as an authoritative text that was widely known around the Near East. Copies of the epic have been found from different parts of Mesopotamia as well as from Asia Minor and Palestine. Its translation into Hittite and Hurrian attest to its position as an important and distinguished text. Hence, considerable changes continued to be made even

169 See the examples in Tigay, Evolution, 63 – 64. 170 Only 16 lines are exactly parallel. The late version may preserve a parallel to the last five lines, but the tablet here is fragmentary. Moreover, 3 – 4 lines of the older version are found at the beginning of the late version, so that in total about 25 lines of the late version are paralleled to the old version. 171 See the discussion and the parallel texts of the passage in Tigay, Evolution, 90 – 93. It should be added here that Tigay regards the kind of abridgement that is found in Enkidu’s arrival in Uruk as “an exception to the general rule.” (p. 93, note 45). 172 See the discussion in Tigay, Evolution, 68 – 71, 76 – 81, 108 – 109. 173 Tigay, Evolution, 244. Carr, Formation, 42 – 43, 46 – 47, has recently drawn attention to other examples where parts of the older version were omitted (such as the barmaid’s second speech). He points out that in the Standard Babylonian versions some sections of the older text were omitted. Some of the omissions were made because the older text contradicted the theological conceptions or other aims of a later reviser.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

56

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

when the text had already become widespread in the Ancient Near East and attained a position of some authority. Towards the end of the second millennium bce the text gradually came to be standardized so that it was increasingly more difficult to make changes.174 As noted by Tigay, one may discern “a pattern of decreasing freedom of revision” so that by the first millennium bce “scribes were no longer able or willing to modify it in any substantial way.”175 Many of the changes during this period can be interpreted as homogenizations or recensions with the aim of standardizing the text.176 This process is reminiscent of what is assumed to have taken place in the books of the Hebrew scriptures. An authoritative text gradually received such a status that a certain form of the text became the standard version and deviations from it were less acceptable. For our investigation it is important to note that the redactors of Gilgamesh seem to have made more radical changes than what is commonly assumed to have taken place in the Hebrew scriptures. Parts of the texts were rewritten or omitted even after the text had already become widely known and authoritative. The collection of sources into a unified composition by the original author of the epic did not halt the radical editorial techniques. There is no sudden change from the radical editing of the composition phase to more conservative editing by the redactors, but instead the change seems to be gradual. In this respect, there is thus an evident difference from what is assumed by many biblical scholars to have taken place in the Hebrew scriptures. In view of the evolution of the Gilgamesh epic, one has to question the axiomatic assumption that immediately after the original composition was created the redactors of the Hebrew scriptures always preserved the older text and only made expansions. The epic suggests that more radical techniques continued to be part of the redactors’ toolbox at least for quite some time. It should be added, however, that according to Tigay the empirical evidence drawn from the Gilgamesh epic corroborates the main tenets of literary criticism of the Hebrew Bible. He notes that “the processes of literary development which critics inferred from clues within biblical literature are real phenomena, attested in the history of literature from ancient times down to our own.”177 This is certainly true when it comes to the general assumption of literary criticism, but some refinements have to be made. The Gilgamesh Epic suggests that ancient texts that obtained an important and authoritative position could be and often were heavily revised in their transmission. The formation of the Old Babylonian 174 175 176 177

Tigay, Evolution, 241 – 250. Similarly, George, Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 39 – 47. Tigay, Evolution, 246. See also George, Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 39 – 47. Tigay, Empirical Models, 239.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

The Epic of Gilgamesh as a Witness to Editorial Processes

57

version also accords with a common conception about the creation of new compositions in the Hebrew scriptures. The biblical authors used their sources rather freely to form a new composition. For example, there seems to be no essential difference in the way that the pentateuchal J related to his sources on the one hand and the creation of the Old Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic out of its older sources on the other. Similarities are evident also in the later transmission. Most of the changes to the epic are expansions and this certainly corroborates the general assumption that the texts of the Hebrew scriptures were expanded. The main difference is that the epic shows unequivocal omissions even in its later transmission, whereas they are commonly excluded as a possibility in the transmission of the Hebrew scriptures. David Carr has further drawn attention to the tendency in the later versions of “harmonization of the different parts of the Gilgamesh epic with each other.”178 Similar tendencies have been observed in the Hebrew Bible, but it has been generally assumed that such internal harmonization was accomplished by expansions only. The Gilgamesh epic suggests that elimination was also possible for this goal. Tigay sees a certain difference between Gilgamesh and the Hebrew Bible.179 According to him, the extensive revision of Gilgamesh “explains why it contains so few inconsistencies in comparison with the Torah.” Because the Torah on the other hand contains so many inconsistencies, Tigay assumes that the older text was not extensively reformulated and harmonized.180 As the older text was mostly preserved, the contradictions would have accumulated. At the background may be the assumption that the editorial processes of the Hebrew Bible were more conservative, and that the editorial methods in the Gilgamesh Epic were one step more radical. The problem with this assumption is that the present version of the Pentateuch is probably a late composition where many originally independent documents, not meant to be transmitted together, were later combined to form a single composition. A compromise between different textual and perhaps also ideological/theological traditions may be the cause of many of the larger contradictions. For example, there are not many theological inconsistencies within Deuteronomy, despite the fact that it was heavily edited, but if we compare it with the Covenant Code or the priestly texts, inconsistencies and contradictions become evident. The priestly texts also appear to be relatively consistent. In comparison with the Gilgamesh epic, the Pentateuch may be more a composite 178 Carr, Formation, 47. See also ibid., 90 – 98. 179 Tigay is not alone. Most scholars, such as Ska, Introduction, 181 – 183, who have discussed the evidence from the epic and its significance for understanding the transmission of the Hebrew scriptures have assumed differences in nature. 180 See Jeffery Tigay, “The Evolution of the Pentateuchal Narratives in the Light of the Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic,” in Empirical Models, 21 – 52, here p. 51.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

58

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

document, for it consists of several originally independent documents that many later editors and/or redactors attempted to harmonize with varying degrees of success. The situation would be similar if the Gilgamesh Epic had been combined with two or three other ancient epics, such as Etana and Atrahasis for example, several legal texts, such as the Code of Hammurabi, and some purity regulations. It is highly unlikely that the resulting composition would have been as consistent and harmonious as the Gilgamesh Epic now is. It is unlikely that even centuries of heavy editing would have been able to harmonize texts that were originally independent compositions and different genres unless the text was thoroughly rewritten. One can also see the issue from a further perspective: Many parts of the Pentateuch, and other books of the Hebrew scriptures, certainly contain sections that are consistent and do not contain many contradictions. In view of the evidence from the Gilgamesh Epic, would this mean that these sections are particularly heavily edited because they are so consistent? Following Tigay, one would perhaps have to conclude so, but we simply do not know. It is quite possible that some of the most consistent sections of the Pentateuch, for example, were revised in a similar way as the Gilgamesh Epic. The problem is that we do not possess similar empirical evidence for the early editorial processes of the Hebrew scriptures. Most of its parallel passages come from a relatively late stage in the formation of the Hebrew scriptures, while the Gilgamesh Epic provides evidence from a very early stage of transmission till its later transmission. Although one has to acknowledge the difference in culture and partly also in genre, the Gilgamesh Epic is an important witness to the editorial processes of an authoritative text in the ancient Near East. It challenges and undermines the assumption that immediately after the original composition nothing was omitted from the older text.

Assyrian Annals Hans Jürgen Tertel has evaluated literary critical approaches of the Hebrew Bible by comparing them with Akkadian sources.181 He has analyzed the development of Akkadian documents and compared the results with the assumptions of conventional literary critical investigations of the Hebrew Bible. The transmission of 1 – 2 Kings receives particular attention in his book. Although his approach contains some weaknesses,182 the limited scholarly attention183 to his 181 Hans Jürgen Tertel, Text and Transmission: An Empirical Model for the Literary Development of Old Testament Narratives (BZAW 221; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1994). 182 Note, for example, the criticism by Sara J. Milstein, “Reworking Ancient Texts: Revision

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

59

Assyrian Annals

investigation is unjustified in view of the methodological implications the observations would have. Of the Akkadian material, Tertel has taken into consideration those epics and Assyrian royal annals that are preserved in successive literary stages. However, he concludes that the use of the epics is severely hampered because of the poor preservation of parallel sections of the epics from different periods and the time gaps between the preserved versions. He writes: The conditions … are far from ideal. Of the stories about Anzu and Atrahası¯s only two ˘ main versions are extant. Although of the Gilgamesˇ epic more than two versions have been preserved, only two of them are eligible for an investigation according to our purpose and conditions set out above. Thus the consistency of redactorial treatment cannot be analyzed. Only of the Etana epic three main versions have been preserved … Thus a basic condition for the possibility of assessing the consistency of redactorial treatment is fulfilled, but for only one, possibly two, passages all three versions are extant. Furthermore, … the textual dependencies are obscure … The time gaps between the extant versions of all four epics would allow for several intermediate versions. Thus detailed research for any one of the four epics is rendered impossible.184

He additionally notes that there are “fundamental structural differences” between the epics and the Hebrew Bible and therefore the epics have only limited relevance for the discussion about the textual development of the Hebrew Bible.185 The epics would only provide very general evidence for the redactional processes and their main contribution would be in providing analogies with the composition stages of the Hebrew scriptures. It is certainly true that the epics do not provide much micro level evidence that Tertel is seeking because the different witnesses come from such different periods and the parallels are not very extensive. Nevertheless, he may be too skeptical about the Gilgamesh Epic, which provides considerable evidence, at least for determining what kinds of changes were made. Although there may not be many parallel texts that provide

through Introduction in Biblical and Mesopotamian Literature” (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 2010), 22. She comments on Tertel’s approach: “In fact, the annals may constitute a special case, where the repeated accommodation of new material necessitated the abbreviation of older content. It is further unclear how the presence of complex elements in the annals entails that the presence of the same in the biblical narratives proves their early provenance.” See also below. 183 Note the review by Herbert H. Klement, “Text-Recycling assyrisch und biblisch: Zur fälligen Kritik der Literarkritik,” Jahrbuch für Evangelikale Theologie 9 (1995): 7 – 20. Otherwise one finds only brief references to his work; for example, in David Carr, Oral Tradition, 25/1 (2010): 17 – 40, here p. 31, and Gordon McConville, “Faces of Exile in Old Testament Historiography,” in Israel’s Past in Present Research: Essays on Ancient Israelite Historiography (ed. V.P. Long; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 519 – 34, here p. 523. 184 Tertel, Text and Transmission, 20 – 22. 185 Tertel, Text and Transmission, 232.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

60

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

evidence for the exact editorial techniques, the Gilgamesh Epic does show that omissions and rewriting, for example, took place. In view of the problems he sees with the epics, Tertel assumes that the Assyrian royal annals are “better suited to provide an analogy to the kind of literary development that may have occurred in the transmission of Old Testament narratives.”186 According to him, “the decisive advantage … lies in the fact that the late versions of Assyrian annals and Old Testament narratives do not exhibit significant differences in structure.”187 Investigating the different versions of the annals, and especially the military campaigns of various kings described therein, Tertel draws attention to the diachronic changes that the scribes made to the annals when new versions were written on the basis of the older ones. The narratives in the Assyrian royal annals provide evidence of a variety of changes, many of which are commonly not assumed to have taken place in the Hebrew Bible. In addition to expansions, Tertel finds evidence of restructuring, omissions (in various categories), contractions, abbreviations, and replacements. He notes that there are repeated examples of omissions where “no replacement is given for the omitted text.”188 As possibilities of omission, Tertel mentions “information that … was not thought to be important enough for retention and … information that was important, but already contained in the context or was regarded as being selfevident.”189 He also emphasizes “the redactor’s personal preferences” in changing the texts, for he finds many examples where a redactor has made changes against general tendencies.190 Tertel concludes that in view of the Assyrian material, omissions and other alterations of the older text may not be a priori excluded in the investigation of the Hebrew Bible.191 He notes that “[t]he assumption of universal progressive expansion or growth of Old Testament narratives with all its implications, if it cannot be supported by further evidence, should be abandoned.”192 Tertel’s investigation is significant and his observations as well as conclusions should certainly be taken into consideration in the discussion about the textual development of ancient Near Eastern texts. Nevertheless, it contains some weaknesses that decrease its direct applicability to the Hebrew scriptures.193 Tertel’s division of the parallels into early and late stages is somewhat ambig186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193

Tertel, Text and Transmission, 67. Tertel, Text and Transmission, 67 – 68. Tertel, Text and Transmission, 171. Tertel, Text and Transmission, 171. Tertel, Text and Transmission, 172. Tertel, Text and Transmission, 232. Tertel, Text and Transmission, 234. Milstein, “Reworking Ancient Texts,” 22.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

61

Assyrian Annals

uous. He contends that the Assyrian royal annals and the analyzed passages in 1 – 2 Kings are both in the early stages of their literary development and therefore suitable for comparison. By the same token, he rejects the epics as suitable evidence because they are in the late stage of their literary development. Instead of the somewhat arbitrary or confusing division of the literary development into the early and later stages, one would expect a more comprehensive discussion about the composition and redaction phases, assumed or implied by many biblical and other scholars as being decisive. For example, in the case of the pentateuchal narratives and the Gilgamesh Epic the composition phase and the redaction phase can be and are usually distinguished. Here one has to remember that many scholars with a literary critical perspective have assumed that in the composition phase the older text may have been reshaped and parts of it could have been omitted.194 A comprehensive discussion about the differences in genre is also lacking in Tertel’s study. While the annals were transmitted primarily as political and royal documents, the Hebrew scriptures may have had a different context of transmission and wider scope of application. Most of the editorial changes to the Hebrew scriptures were made by scribes with a religious or other ideological interest, while the royal annals were edited at the royal court and were used for political propaganda. The political interests of the Assyrian monarch in power had priority over the preservation of the older version of the text.195 As noted by Tertel, “the narrative was edited with its outcome in view.”196 The preservation of the exact text of the older version was not the goal when a new version was written. In comparison, many biblical texts at least claim to be divine revelation and some passages even explicitly state that the older texts should be preserved (for example, Deut 4:2 and 13:1). Accordingly many biblical scholars have assumed that the preservation of the older text had fundamental value. This difference should have been discussed in detail in Tertel’s study.197 From this per194 Cf. Klement, “Text-Recycling,” 7 – 20, who on the basis of Tertel’s study criticizes the research of the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch is, however, a special case because much of the research has been based on the identification of the sources, which are variable and assumed to have been preserved only in part. 195 Although the main sources for 1 – 2 Kings were annals and it therefore is seemingly a very close parallel to the Assyrian royal annals, the textual transmission of the Judean and Israelite annals before they were used as sources for 1 – 2 Kings is rarely investigated in literary critical studies. The textual changes of the text took place as 1 – 2 Kings, which is a religious document purporting to explain the theological reasons for the catastrophe of 586 bce. Consequently, the Assyrian royal annals cannot be regarded as an ideal parallel, as assumed by Tertel. This does not mean, however, that the Assyrian annals could not be a significant witness for our question. 196 Tertel, Text and Transmission, 95. 197 Cf. Klement, “Text-Recycling,” 7 – 20, whose review is generally positive and fails to draw attention to the problems in Tertel’s approach. Although Klement notes that the Assyrian

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

62

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

spective the Gilgamesh epic may be a closer parallel to the Hebrew scriptures than the Assyrian annals. This does not exclude the possibility that the annals could still be relevant for the transmission processes of some texts of the Hebrew scriptures. The closest relevance would obviously be the revision of the Judean and Israelite royal annals during monarchical times and the use of the royal annals for the history writer’s version of 1 – 2 Kings. However, biblical scholars commonly accept that the history writer only included excerpts from the annals.198 Omissions and abbreviations are not rejected in what can be described as the composition phase of 1 – 2 Kings (cf. the discussion above), which means that Tertel’s observations of radical editing in the Assyrian annals accord well with the editorial processes assumed by biblical scholars to have taken place in the early and composition phase of 1 – 2 Kings. In other words, the composition stage of transmission in 1 – 2 Kings and the changes in the Assyrian royal annals are in many ways similar, and here lies their main contribution for understanding the transmission of the Hebrew scriptures. The applicability of Tertel’s observations for the redactional stage of transmission of the Hebrew scriptures, including 1 – 2 Kings, may be more limited. On the basis of the Assyrian royal annals alone, it may be difficult to argue that the entire transmission by redactors would have been similarly radical so that it included constant omissions and other related changes. One could argue that the Assyrian annals provide evidence for the composition stage of 1 – 2 Kings and perhaps of other texts, while it would not be directly relevant for the redactional stages of these texts. Nevertheless, the Assyrian annals do provide a model of a possible stage of editorial development that needs to be taken into consideration in the discussion about textual transmission. As Tertel points out, literarycritical analyses of the Hebrew Bible are based on a conjectural methodological basis,199 and against this background any contemporary evidence from the Ancient Near East is always important. In general, a broader perspective may be required than what is portrayed by Tertel. In view of the limitations mentioned above, a general view on the material cannot be used slavishly to evaluate the development of the Hebrew scriptures, he assumes that the Assyrian material is probably closer to the actual development that is assumed in literary criticism. On p. 20 he writes: “Auch wenn die Ergebnisse nicht starr auf die Situation in den biblischen Büchern zu übertragen sind, so kommen sie den Verhältnissen bei der Verfassung der biblischen Bücher mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit näher als die in der Tradition alttestamentlicher Literarkritik angenommenen Wachstumsprozesse.” Klement’s review should be seen in the light of his general skepticism on the possibility that literary critical approaches could provide viable scientific results. His review is preceded by an introduction to what he calls the crisis of literary criticism (Krise in der Literarkritik) and the reconstruction of hypothetical worlds. 198 Among many others, see Levin, “Frömmigkeit der Könige,” 129 – 168. 199 Tertel, Text and Transmission, 1 – 9.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Challenges to Literary Criticism

63

transmission of the Hebrew scriptures requires more empirical evidence from the Hebrew scriptures themselves, while the Assyrian evidence can function as supplemental material. Evidence from one period and/or type of literature cannot be directly applied to other periods and genres.

Challenges to Literary Criticism John Van Seters has questioned the whole idea of editors and redactors and thus poses a challenge to literary criticism. After a review of the history of biblical scholarship he finds “nothing but confusion and contradiction” in how these terms have been used. He writes: On the one hand, the editor or redactor is said to be completely faithful to his source or author, preserving and transmitting the ancient text and adding nothing of his own. On the other hand, the redactor is portrayed as so completely in control of his material, reshaping it and adding so much of his own content and perspective, that he has become indistinguishable from the author and has largely supplanted him.200

In particular he accuses “the new science of German biblical scholarship” of maintaining that “the redactor or editor has virtually replaced the author of all literary works within the Hebrew Bible.”201 He seeks to show that editors and redactors, in the sense assumed in biblical studies, never existed. He writes: The notion of the ancient editor was created out of an obvious anachronism and then developed in the interest of literary and text-critical theories, with the result that it has become devoid of all contact with reality.202

He then concludes that “all talk of ‘redactors’ and ‘redactions’ should be scrupulously avoided in biblical studies” and that “it is time to rid biblical scholarship of this great fantasy …” For the future study of the development of the Hebrew scriptures Van Seters assumes that “ancient historiography is the fundamental key to form and interpretation.”203 On the basis of the material he discusses, with ancient historiography he primarily refers to the Greek, Hellenistic, and Roman realms as well as to the transmission of the Hebrew Bible by the Sopherim and the Church fathers. Van Seters is certainly right that the definitions have been used in many different ways during the history of biblical scholarship, but his criticism of the concept of editors and redactors in literary and redaction criticism as “nothing 200 John Van Seters, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 391. 201 Van Seters, The Edited Bible, 297. 202 Van Seters, The Edited Bible, 400. 203 Van Seters, The Edited Bible, 398 – 401.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

64

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

but confusion” is a gross exaggeration. One may see a general understanding in these methodologies that the compilers of the original compositions—regardless of whether they are called original authors, editors, redactors or something else—are generally assumed to have used the sources rather freely, while the editors and redactors who made further changes are assumed to have preserved the older text faithfully, only making additions. This dichotomy is apparent when one looks at the books of methodology and introductions to the Hebrew Bible, whereas Van Seters apparently fails to distinguish between these two stages.204 Instead, he attacks the imprecise use of the terms, but it is difficult to see how the two centuries of critical scholarship of the Hebrew scriptures in various traditions would have able to use exactly the same terms and definitions. Moreover, different conceptions about the methods and techniques of the scribes have emerged on the basis of which parts of the Hebrew scriptures were investigated. It should also be noted that the quest for understanding the emergence of the Hebrew scriptures is complicated and has necessarily meant various scholarly conceptions. Instead of trying to point out anachronisms and contradictions in the history of biblical research and the use of terms, one should try to understand how the texts were changed, and here the parallel texts of the Hebrew scriptures themselves should be the main source, and certainly more important than the classical historiography that Van Seters proposes instead. Although Van Seters’ book provides a considerable amount of parallel material, it is puzzling why he neglects the parallel material from the Ancient Near East, such as Gilgamesh, and perhaps more importantly, the parallel texts from the Hebrew scriptures.205 Many of the parallel texts and the different versions of Gilgamesh unequivocally show that these texts at least were constantly and successively edited by redactors. It would not do justice to the transmission of the Community Rule or Gilgamesh, for example (cf. above), to assume that each different version is an entirely new literary work by an author. The changes seen between the different versions cannot be explained as mere small additions and interpolations, but to see the different versions as entirely new products by 204 For example, Van Seters, The Edited Bible, 395, writes: “It was only a matter of time until scholars traveling down this road eliminated the authors J and Dtr altogether, and we are left with the ludicrous scenario of editors editing the work of editors, with no original authors at all.” His view does not do justice to the scholarship of the Enneateuch. Many original authors have been and are assumed. This does not mean that many of the original authors would not have used some of the same editorial techniques in using their sources as some of the assumed redactors or editors. 205 Van Seters, The Edited Bible, does not discuss the possibility that the parallel texts in the Hebrew scriptures, for example, could provide a model for understanding the transmission of these texts. Although he discusses Wellhausen’s understanding of how Chronicles used its sources, Van Seters apparently does not consider it as a possibility that Chronicles and other similar texts could be used to enhance our understanding of the editorial processes.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Challenges to Literary Criticism

65

authors would also fail to grasp the development. Chronicles in relation to 1 – 2 Kings is another example. Several redactional motifs were introduced, which developed the text in a new direction. Clearly, Chronicles could be, and often is, seen as the work of an author, but it contains the elements of redaction as well. The three versions of the book of Esther as well as First Esdras can also be seen as the result of redaction. It is certainly possible to characterize First Esdras as an entirely new literary work by an author, but one would also have to ask whether the close relationship between First Esdras and the Masoretic Ezra-Nehemiah could not better be understood as witnessing redaction, not much unlike what has been assumed in the history of literary criticism. It is another question—and the main goal of the present investigation—to ask whether it is possible to see the redactors as always being so conservative that nothing was omitted, but this is not one of the questions of Van Seters, who wants to eradicate the redactors altogether. Another difference with classical and other historiography is that most of their literary works did not become holy and authoritative writings that were transmitted by faith communities. In contrast, there is ample evidence that all books of the Hebrew Bible became the object of intense scribal interpretation because they gradually gained a status of authoritative and, in the end, holy texts that were normative for the transmitting communities. At the same time, the communities’ contexts continued to change, which meant that there was a constant need to update the older texts; otherwise they would have inevitably become irrelevant. The gradually rising authoritativeness and religious aspect should be taken into consideration when we attempt to understand the editorial processes of the Hebrew scriptures. Ancient historiography may provide some additional evidence, but the differences in genre cannot be ignored. Consequently, Gilgamesh, Chronicles, and the Community Rule may provide more related models for understanding the editorial processes of Hebrew scriptures than classical and other ancient historiography. Although Van Seters accuses biblical scholarship of eliminating the author altogether, he himself goes to the other extreme by wanting to eliminate the redactor altogether. It is more probable that a clear distinction cannot be made between authors and editors/redactors. Chronicles is a case in point. The chronicler’s work in relation to the source could be characterized as that of a redactor, but he is also the author of a new literary work. We have a sliding scale where each scribe who made changes to the older text has to be put somewhere on this scale. Some scribes were more redactors than authors, while some were primarily authors, but perhaps still used some techniques of redactors. Ultimately, definitions are not the core of the issue. More important is understanding what the ancient scribes did to the texts they were transmitting. It is my contention in this investigation to show that each redactor was a potential au-

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

66

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

thor—using Van Seters’ terminology here, but not accepting his elimination of the redactor—in the sense that they may have changed the older texts more than by mere additions.206 The history of scholarship knows many other examples of scholars or scholarly traditions that have rejected literary-critical approaches, but not many of them can be said to have posed a fundamental methodological challenge based on observations. The challenges have remained conjectural. Several Scandinavian scholars rejected literary criticism altogether by assuming that it is based on an incorrect view of the development of the Hebrew Bible. Apparently frustrated with the lack of consensus over many questions, Ivan Engnell wrote “that the break with the literary-critical method must be radical; no compromise is possible. The old method must be replaced with a new one.” What he proposes as a replacement for the “anachronistic bookish mode of view” of literary criticism is the Scandinavian traditio-historical method, which emphasized the oral tradition.207 Contrary to the assumption of traditio-historical method, however, there more than enough evidence to assume that the texts were transmitted textually and that most of the changes can be explained as textual changes. Here again, one must refer to empirical evidence from the Gilgamesh Epic, Chronicles, Esther, the Community Rule, and many other books of Hebrew scriptures where considerably different versions have been preserved. Another proposed alternative to literary- and redaction-critical methods is to investigate the final products of the texts. Acknowledging that the texts were probably edited in many stages, Ehud Ben Zvi, for example, approaches the final texts as books.208 The lack of attempt to identify the different literary stages—the existence of which Ben Zvi does not deny—implies a certain skepticism that one could reach any reliable results with literary- and redaction-critical methods. A somewhat similar skepticism can be found in the studies by Thomas Thomson and Niels Peter Lemche.209 Although they assume that the texts were perhaps edited in many stages and contain some older material, the texts are primarily assumed to bear witness to the Hellenistic or Roman periods.210 According to Lemche, the dating of the earliest manuscripts determines which 206 Here Van Seters, The Edited Bible, 296, would possibly call the radical redactor an author, but this would also be confusing. 207 Ivan Engnell, “Methodological Aspects of Old Testament Study,” Congress Volume: Oxford 1959 (VTS; Leiden: Brill, 1960), 13 – 30, here p. 21. 208 Already in Ehud Ben Zvi, A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Zephania (BZAW 198; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1991), but more clearly in his A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Obadiah (BZAW 242; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1996). 209 See, in particular, Niels Peter Lemche, The Old Testament between Theology and History (Louisville, Ky. and London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008), 29 – 60. 210 A concise self-presentation of the so-called Copenhagen school, see Lemche, The Old Testament, 379 – 392.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Challenges to Literary Criticism

67

period the texts primarily bear witness to.211 Although the skepticism may seem justified in view of the two centuries of intense textual study by thousands of scholars with perhaps relatively limited results, the date of the earliest manuscripts seems quite accidental. Following the same logic, if the earliest biblical manuscripts happened to be from the Middle Ages, one would then have to assume that the Hebrew Bible mainly bears witness to this period. It should be evident that the Hebrew Bible could not be used to say much about the Middle Ages. We cannot avoid trying to situate the texts to the period when they were originally produced, while the dating of the earliest fragment of manuscript is a haphazard starting point. One also cannot deny the observations made in many of the parallel texts as well as literary- and redaction-critical analyses that the final products are the result of many hands in very many different contexts. We could abandon the task of trying to separate the different stages from each other, but the result would be that in most cases we do not have a source at all in the Hebrew scriptures, and this may in fact be the actual implication of the Copenhagen school. With all its older sections, the Hebrew scriptures would remain deficient sources or would not provide adequate evidence for any period. The archaeological and other ancient Near Eastern evidence, propagated by the Copenhagen school, is certainly welcome, but we would lose many significant sources if we completely abandon the quest for identifying their earlier development. After all, much of the evidence is still present and undiscovered in them. Although it may be in a form that is extremely difficult to decode, a better source for many issues dealt with in the Hebrew scriptures may never become available. This is not to deny the importance of archaeology and other textual sources, but in many cases, the Hebrew scriptures may provide information that cannot be gained from other sources.212 In his recent monograph, Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction, David M. Carr provides evidence that appears to challenge many 211 Lemche, The Old Testament, 385, writes: “When we start discussing the dates of biblical books, the point of departure must therefore be the second and first centuries bce. If there is no reason to go further back and it is not possible to find traces of this literature in earlier contexts … any argument in favor of an early date is baseless and useless.” 212 To be sure, the most ardent criticism of Lemche, The Old Testament, 110 – 112, is against the attempt to solve the historical issues by using the Hebrew Bible alone. He emphasizes the importance of using external sources such as archaeological evidence. Archaeological evidence certainly provides much more information about the material culture, but it can provide information about the development of religious conceptions only indirectly and on a surface level. For example, the Pentateuch contains very detailed information about various conceptions concerning sacrifices, rules, and regulations. It would be difficult to gain access to this information by archaeological evidence. The only exception would be a major text archive of the Iron Age or Persian period from Israel/Palestine.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

68

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

conventional conceptions of literary criticism. He rightly deplores the lack of consensus and contends that the “more complicated reconstructions of textual prehistory have not stood and will not stand the test of time.”213 According to him, the result of the textual growth would not preserve enough evidence “to reconstruct each and every stage of that growth.”214 He draws attention to the so-called memory variants that would have caused many small differences, thus making the reconstruction of the literary history more difficult. He calls for abandoning the dichotomy between orality/memorization and writing/literacy.215 More interesting for our endeavor are the examples of textual transmission that show radical processes taking place in the textual transmission. He discusses in more detail the evidence from the Gilgamesh Epic and the Temple Scroll, both of which show a variety of editorial techniques much more radical than what are commonly assumed in literarycritical studies. Additional examples are taken from other literary works in the Hebrew scriptures such as Chronicles and the Community Rule.216 Carr specifically discusses omissions (or abridgements as he regularly calls them) and, on the basis of the documented evidence, concludes that omissions took place in the transmission of the Hebrew scriptures. He justly criticizes scholars who assume that the older text was always preserved, although his discussion here is centered on the pentateuchal documentary hypothesis.217 Carr does not discuss the fact that many, if not most, literary-critical scholars distinguish between the composition and redaction phases, as we have seen. The authors of new literary works are commonly assumed to have abridged the older texts that were used as sources, and this applies to the Pentateuch as well. Many scholars working with the pentateuchal sources acknowledge that the older sources may not have been preserved in full or only preserved fragmentarily.218 Nevertheless, Carr’s criticism of the assumption that everything was always preserved is certainly warranted and a step in the right direction. Although Carr accepts that omissions took place, he notes that the scribes had a general tendency to expand rather than abridge.219 This tendency is found in 213 Carr, Formation, 4. 214 Carr, Formation, 4. 215 As far as the variants are minor changes of words or word order, the possible memory variant have, in my opinion, little bearing on literary-critical approaches. 216 Carr, Formation, 37 – 101. 217 Carr, Formation, 111 – 117. On p. 112 he writes: “These sorts of dynamics then raise questions about both older and newer transmission-historical arguments that orient themselves around the presuppositions that prior sources are completely, or virtually completely, preserved in present Biblical books.” 218 For example, Levin, Der Jahvist, 389. 219 According to Carr, Formation, 65, there are some texts “exclusively focused on the need not to subtract from a given text.” He specifically mentions three texts that would have been directed

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Challenges to Literary Criticism

69

Mesopotamian literature as well as in the Hebrew scriptures. The Hebrew scriptures contain several examples where the younger version is longer, implying that the text has been expanded: the Samaritan Pentateuch (vs. the MT), 4QRewritten Pentateuch, the Greek version of Esther (vs. the MT), First Esdras, etc.220 He further adds that in some late versions, such as the late version of the Etana Epic, this general tendency may be broken. Carr thus justly emphasized that the tendency to expand is a trend rather than a law.221 As counterexamples to this trend he also mentions the Assyrian annals and Chronicles, which show many examples of abridgement.222 On the basis of his observations from documented cases of editorial changes, Carr evaluates literary-critical analyses and the documentary hypothesis of the Pentateuch in particular. He rightly criticizes the extreme forms of pentateuchal source division, or what he calls the neo-Documentarians, who assign every sentence to a particular source with precision.223 He goes even further, however, and notes that “[a] return to the clarity and simplicity of the documentary hypothesis is no longer possible.” The identification of J or E sources has been “proven multiply flawed,” and only the identification of P may be possible because a consensus has been established.224 Although the documentary hypothesis has been discussed in more detail, Carr’s criticism relates to all literarycritical investigations of the Hebrew Bible. He concludes that a “broader structure of much of the recent transmission-historical scholarship on the Hebrew Bible, particularly the Pentateuch, must be … rebuilt.”225 Carr suggests “a middle way”—what he defines as a “methodologically modest form of transmission history.” He writes:

220 221 222 223

224 225

against omissions: Deut 13:1; Prov 30:6 and Jer 26:2. It appears that these texts have been read in haste. Deut 13:1 deals with both additions and omissions (9DBB FL6N 4@9 9=@F GEN.4@). Prov 30:6 is also a clear mistake, because the text reads “do not add to his words, or else he will rebuke you, and you will be found a liar,” thus dealing with expansions only. The third verse, Jer 26:2 is not relevant for textual transmission, because it refers to Yhwh’s oral revelation to Jeremiah that he should say to the cities of Judah: “come to worship in the house of Yhwh; speak to them all the words that I command you; do not hold back a word.” Carr, Formation, 65 – 72. Carr, Formation, 71. Carr, Formation, 72 – 78. Carr, Formation, 114 – 115, 118 – 124. Contra Baruch Schwartz, “What Really Happened at Mount Sinai? Four Biblical Answers to One Question,” BR 13/5 (1997): 20 – 30, 46, and Joel Baden, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch (FAT 68; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), in particular. A further target of criticism is Theodore Nöldeke, Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alten Testaments (Kiel: Schwers’sche Buchhandlung, 1869), 2, who argued that Deut 1:19 – 46 contains some P-elements that, however, are missing in the LXX version. Carr, Formation, 124 – 125. Carr, Formation, 144.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

70

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

It would focus on modes of change that are well attested in documented cases of transmission history : for example, the addition of introductory material, harmonizing, coordination, conflation, addition of appendices, resumptive repetition, etc. And it will be sensitive to the different levels of plausibility of transmission-historical arguments and the relative uncertainty of any transmission-historical argument based exclusively on isolated linguistic/terminological indicators in a later text.226

The irony in Carr’s suggestion is that it could well be a quotation from a “hard core” German introduction to the methodology of Literarkritik. These introductions emphasize that the methodology must be based on established rules and many of the methods that Carr suggests are commonly acknowledged. Hardly any would argue for editorial techniques that have not been documented. Conclusions based on linguistic and terminological considerations are generally frowned upon by literary critics unless they are supported by additional arguments (such as grammatical or thematic inconsistencies etc.). Harmonizations, which Carr assumes to be particularly harmful for reconstructing the prehistory of the texts, are often accepted and taken into consideration by literary critics.227 It is perhaps not surprising that Carr’s bibliography fails to include any books on methodology.228 To be sure, if Carr’s main criticism is directed against the poor implementation of the methodology, then one can only agree, but this may not be his intention. What follows in the ensuing chapters of his book does not appear to be a literary- and redaction-critically-driven reconstruction of the development of the Hebrew scriptures. The general skepticism about the possibilities of this method to reach viable results has led him to reconstruct the history in more general terms. He draws a profile of each main period based on what he assumes to be “more datable documents to identify other texts from a given period.”229 226 Carr, Formation, 147 – 148. He specifically excludes from the reconstruction what he calls micro-additions of new material, which would be difficult to identify without documentation. 227 See, for example, Veijola, Deuteronomium, 221 – 241, who assumes that Deut 9 was harmonized with Exod 32. It is commonly acknowledged that Exod 32 and Deut 9, for example, were harmonized with each other. Carr takes the treatment of Exod 32 by Baden, Redaction of the Pentateuch, 162, as an example where the harmonization has not been fully considered. It is unfortunate if Baden fails to recognize the shorter text of the LXX, but it would be unfair to assume that harmonization is not usually taken into consideration in literarycritical investigations. On the basis of Nöldeke’s analysis of Deut 1:19 – 46 (Untersuchungen, 2) and Baden’s analysis of Exod 32, Carr writes: “These two cases are instances where we have documentation of a probable earlier textual stage that undermines certain literarycritical arguments.” Instead of a rather misrepresentative selection of pentateuchal studies, perhaps a discussion of literary-critical analyses that do take harmonizations into consideration would have been reasonable in this context. 228 Such as Steck, Exegese; Fohrer et al., Exegese; Utzschneider and Nitsche, Arbeitsbuch; Kreuzer, Proseminar I Altes Testament; Becker, Exegese. 229 Carr, Formation, 347. He writes (p. 149): “… using criteria appropriate to each period to

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Challenges to Literary Criticism

71

For example, Hosea, Deuteronomy, Amos, Micah, and Isaiah are assumed, to a certain extent, to be documents of the Neo-Assyrian period.230 In view of the conclusions, one has to ask whether Carr’s methodology is standing on any more solid basis than what he criticizes. It has proven to be extremely difficult to date any passage in the Hebrew Bible with precision, let alone entire books. Although Carr evidently accepts that the texts were partly heavily edited, he often treats them as forming considerably large blocks, the profile and general dating of which could be determined. To me it seems that Carr introduces a methodology that is rather vague and arbitrary. The background of being able to assign the books and their affinities to a specific period may be Carr’s conviction that “most texts seem to have undergone at most two to three major stages of growth, with the remainder of revision happening in the form of minor glosses, harmonizations, and the like.”231 This appears to contain an implicit criticism of the prevalent view in literary-critical studies of a rolling corpus or snowball, where the text developed through repeated additions and revisions for centuries by numerous successive hands. This assumption also allows Carr to treat the books or larger blocks in them as witnesses to a specific period. If the exact origin of every sentence, for instance, had to be determined separately, it would be very difficult to discuss the profile and dating of larger blocks of text, but if only limited editing took place, Carr’s treatment of the texts could be justified. It is unlikely that Carr is correct in restricting the stages of growth to three at most because it runs counter to documented evidence, which Carr himself regards as imperative for reconstructing a model of textual growth. For example, the festival legislation of the Pentateuch (including the Temple Scroll) seems to have undergone more than three stages of comprehensive revision, set out as the upper limit by Carr. The Covenant Code is probably a revision of an older monarchical document (or the Code of Hammurabi, as assumed by some). Its versions of the festival laws in Exod 23:14 – 19 was later used by the author of the Urdeuteronomium to form a new legislation for the festivals. At a later stage the author of the Holiness Code used Deuteronomy (and perhaps also the Covenant Code) for a more sacrifice-oriented festival legislation. A further author behind Num 28 – 29 used the Holiness code for yet another document that regulated the festivals. At a later stage still the author of the Temple Scroll created a further legislation on the basis of Num 28 – 29. Accordingly, the festival legislation of the build a profile of a given set of texts and then build outward from that profile to identify other texts that might date from that period as well.” It is difficult to see what the difference between this goal and the goal of conventional redaction criticism is, except that Carr skips much of the painstaking literary-critical analyses. 230 Carr, Formation, 336 – 339. 231 Carr, Formation, 145.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

72

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

Temple Scroll, for instance, has undergone at least five different major editions in its transmission.232 Num 28 – 29 would be the result of four stages. These are only the documented cases, for we do not know how many versions and stages of the development were not preserved. Moreover, most scholars assume that at least the Covenant Code, Deuteronomy, and the Holiness Code legislations concerning the festivals were further edited by later editors. The picture that emerges is constant editing in very many different contexts and times, rather than two or three major revisions at most. This severely undermines Carr’s treatment of the books and their parts as larger blocks. If constant editing through repeated revisions over centuries took place, Carr’s approach would not be viable. One would only have two alternatives. Either one should abandon the text as a historical source, which Carr is clearly reluctant to do, or to try to analyze the texts through painstaking and methodologically controlled means. Despite these critical considerations, Carr’s approach is to be commended because he put on the table the neglected question of radical editing, and reflects it onto the literary-critical method, which generally assumes much more stable editorial processes. Carr’s notes on the omissions or abridgements are significant for the present enterprise, but more could be extracted.233 One receives the impression that he treats all evidence as being on the same level. The distinction between the use of sources when creating a new composition and later redaction of a text as the same composition would have been important since most scholars assume that omissions were possible in the former case. The existence of clearly different genres and their impact on the discussion could have been more prominently acknowledged. The editor’s perception of the older text—whether he regarded it as authoritative and/or holy—also goes hand in hand with the discussion about radical editing, as we have seen.

What is Authoritative Scripture? The authoritativeness of scripture is often connected with the discussion about the textual transmission of the Hebrew Bible.234 It is often implied that authoritativeness of certain texts was a preliminary stage before they became canonical. Most authors, editors, and redactors of the Hebrew Bible are seen to have regarded the older texts as authoritative, which is then variably assumed to mean 232 For details and examples of how the festival legislation developed, see chapter IV. 233 Here one has to acknowledge that omissions or abridgements are not the main focus of Carr’s investigation. 234 Cf. the development of scripture from authoritative to canonical in Brooke, “Between Authority and Canon: The Significance of Reworking the Bible for Understanding the Canonical Process,” 85 – 104.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

What is Authoritative Scripture?

73

that the texts were regarded as holy, divine, and particularly well preserved in their transmission235 Many scholars assume a connection between the authoritativeness of a text and the willingness of later editors to make changes. Some scholars assume that the texts of the Hebrew scriptures were regarded as authoritative from the very beginning.236 This authority would have been seen as divine or otherwise be such that it protected the texts from radical changes already from the beginning. In other words, the assumption that the texts were regarded as authoritative is used to justify particular notions about how the texts were transmitted. Although it is not possible to provide a general theory here, the question merits a discussion. It is my contention that the concept authoritative should be defined and used more cautiously in connection with the transmission of the Hebrew scriptures because in practice many different things can be meant. One should start from the general meaning of the word authoritative, which denotes something that has authority. Although authority can be defined in many different ways depending on the context,237 it is commonly used to refer to something that has the power to influence, convince, determine, and/or command. It also refers to a source of information, influence or power that is accepted, recognized, and/or regarded as reliable. Authoritative texts would thus be recognized textual sources that have the power to influence and determine the conduct and beliefs of a faith community.238 This already suggests that the ancient texts can hardly be seen as merely authoritative or non-authoritative.239 Prior to the canonization of a particular set 235 Thus many, for example, Levin, The Old Testament, 26 – 28, who assumes that the texts were authoritative and holy and therefore they were not changed in their transmission. According to him, the transmission proceeded only through interpretative additions. 236 Thus Levin, The Old Testament, 26 – 28, and Becker, Exegese, 84, and many others. 237 For example, according to Merriam-Webster, online version (accessed 08/02/2012), http:// www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authority, authority means: “1) a (1) : a citation (as from a book or file) used in defense or support (2) : the source from which the citation is drawn b (1) : a conclusive statement or set of statements (as an official decision of a court) (2) : a decision taken as a precedent (3) : testimony c : an individual cited or appealed to as an expert 2 a : power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior b : freedom granted by one in authority : right 3 a : persons in command; specifically : government b : a governmental agency or corporation to administer a revenue-producing public enterprise 4 a : grounds, warrant b : convincing force .” 238 Similarly, Eugene Ulrich, “The Notion and Definition of Canon,” in The Canon Debate (ed. L.M. McDonald and J.A. Sanders; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002), 21 – 35, here p. 29, although he further adds the idea that they are “of a higher order than can be overridden by the power or will of the group or any member.” There are many examples where texts that were regarded as authoritative were overridden in some ways by the community or even by one of its members (a scribe in particular). 239 This position is reflected even in many of the articles in the recently edited volume by

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

74

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

of texts, the authors, editors, and readers of ancient Jewish texts hardly would have seen the text in such a bipolar way. Rather than reflecting ancient realities, the on-off attitude is more probably influenced by a later canonical perspective that divides all texts into either canonical or non-canonical ones.240 The texts that became canonical certainly were authoritative before, but this can hardly be extended to the very beginning when they were originally written. To the same problematical bipolar division belong the attempts to see the early transmission of the texts as either sacred or non-sacred. This conception is similarly dependent on the later development of a particular set of books into the Jewish and Christian canons.241 Instead of a one-dimensional approach, more categories are needed to discuss the authoritativeness of Hebrew scriptures during the Second Temple period. Although categories may be a modern way to approach an issue and thus may not reflect the thinking of ancient authors accurately, they may still be a useful tool for us to discuss and understand the ancient mind. In the following, I will discuss some categories and types that may be useful in talking about the authoritativeness of Hebrew scriptures.

Claimed and Acknowledged Authority It is necessary to distinguish between claimed authority and acknowledged authority. By being presented as divine speech many texts of the Hebrew scriptures claim to possess authority or be authoritative. For example, Deuteronomy, the Decalogue, and the Covenant Code were formulated as divine revelations, which by form require the reader and the receiving community to acknowledge their authoritativeness. It forces the reader to take a position by confronting him/her to either accept or reject the claim.242 Such texts may be acknowledged as authoritative by a community, as the examples from the Pentateuch show, but they may also be rejected. The Temple Scroll is an example of the latter. It is not only presented as a revelation but as a Mladen Popovic´, Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010). 240 Several scholars have voiced their concern about the late canon influencing the investigation of Hebrew scriptures before the canonization process. Thus, for example, Ulrich, “Evolutionary Production,” 48 – 49. 241 The word ‘sacred’ could be used in connection with the early transmission of the Hebrew scriptures if it loosely and generally refers to something that is connected to religion. In this sense most of the literature of the Ancient Near East is sacred, which renders the word useless in this context. Nevertheless, if one uses the word as denoting something that cannot be changed because of its sanctity, it is unlikely that these texts were regarded as sacred. 242 Many books of the prophets also contain texts that claim to derive from Yhwh.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

What is Authoritative Scripture?

75

direct divine speech in the first person. It may thus be an implicit attempt to claim even higher authority than the Pentateuch, which mostly refers to Yhwh in the third person since Moses is presented as the mediator. Despite the possible attempt to surpass the Pentateuch, the Temple Scroll’s claim to be authoritative seems to have been rejected, or at least it never received the same authoritative status as the Pentateuch. With the possible exception of the Qumran community, it generally remained less authoritative than all the books of the Hebrew Bible, despite the fact that most of them do not claim divine authority. The Dead Sea scrolls contain further examples of texts that had only limited success for their claim—implicit or explicit—of having divine authority.243 In other words, the self-proclaimed authoritativeness may be accepted by later readers and communities, but it may also be rejected. It should be added that despite some possible failures, such as the Temple Scroll, the technique of claiming authority seems to have been successful. The oldest and most central parts of the Hebrew Bible, namely the Covenant Code and Deuteronomy, form the core of the Pentateuch, and they subsequently attracted successive additions that were also presented as divine revelations or otherwise imitated the form of the Covenant Code and Deuteronomy (for example, the Decalogue) so that most of the Pentateuch is presented in this form. It is perhaps not a coincidence that those texts that most explicitly claim to be authoritative also became authoritative at an earlier stage than other books of the Hebrew Bible and they have been regarded in Judaism as its most authoritative part. It implies that writing a text as Yhwh’s revelation or word facilitated or speeded up its development in obtaining an authoritative position. Many other parts of the Hebrew Bible contain as old or even older sections than the Pentateuch, but they still never surpassed the Pentateuch in authoritativeness. For example, 1 – 2 Kings contains excerpts from the annals dated to the monarchic period, but these books never gained the same level of authoritativeness as the Pentateuch, parts of which are clearly later than the monarchic period. Moreover, their process to become authoritative was also much longer.244 Besides divine origin as the basis for a claimed authority, the authority of a text could be based on its royal, priestly or prophetic origin. Those in a leadership position would have authority because of their status and this could be used to grant authority to a certain text. Peculiarly, there are not many texts in the Hebrew Bible that use royal or priestly origins as a method of claiming authority. Most of the texts in the Hebrew Bible draw their authority either from 243 For example, Pentateuch Apocryphon/4Q368, 4Q370, Apocryphon of Joseph/4Q371 – 373, Apocryphon of Moses/4Q375 – 376, 4QPseudo-Moses, Reworked Pentateuch, Jubilees, 4Q252, and 4QMMT. 244 If it is any sign of how authoritative they were regarded, the number of Pentateuch manuscripts from Qumran is manifold in comparison with those of 1 – 2 Kings.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

76

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

a direct divine revelation (to Moses) or from a prophetic revelation, which is also based on divine revelation. There is a contrast with many other parts of the Ancient Near East, where many authoritative documents are closely connected with the king and, perhaps to a lesser extent, with priests. For example, all known law codes in Mesopotamia are authorized by the king (who then receives his authority from the gods).245 It is probable that the lack of authoritative texts based on the authority of the king is caused by the lateness of the Hebrew scriptures. Most of the texts were written after the collapse of the monarchy in 586 bce. The lack of priests in many books may have a similar cause: They were written during a time when there was no temple in the 6th–5th centuries bce. Some exceptions are met, but they mainly confirm the rule. The motif of increasing the authority of a text by royal authority is particularly evident in the book of Ezra, which refers to several royal documents (Ezra 1:2 – 4; 4:17 – 22; 6:3 – 5, 6 – 12; 7:12 – 26). They not only authorize the building of the temple (Ezra 1:2 – 4) or the mission of Ezra (Ezra 7:12 – 26) in the story, but also try to increase the credibility and thereby the authority of the text itself. Because it is unlikely that these documents are authentic,246 the motive for their inclusion must have been to increase the authority of the composition. Nevertheless, these passages do not use the authority of the Israelite or Judean kings, but those of Persia, which highlights the fact that similar documents of the Israelite or Judean kings are completely missing in the Hebrew scriptures. Their existence shows that the king was also a natural source of authority for the authors of the Hebrew scriptures and that they are not different from other authors of the Ancient Near East in this respect. The royal authority would have been extensively used were the texts written during the monarchic period. Several psalms are said to have been composed by King David (for example, Ps 51 – 65) and the Proverbs are said to have been written by King Solomon (Prov 1:1), evidently in order to increase their authority. In both cases we are dealing with late attempts to increase their authority by ascribing them to these ancient kings. It is unlikely that any of the psalms or proverbs were originally claimed to 245 For example, the Codices of Hammurabi, Lipit-Ishtar, Ur-Nammu, and Eshnunna. This is especially clear in the prologues. See the laws in Martha T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (2nd ed. SBL Writings from the Ancient World 6, 1997). 246 Dirk Schwiderski, Handbuch des nordwestsemitischen Briefformulars: Ein Beitrag zur Echtheitsfrage der aramäischen Briefe des Esrabuches (BZAW 295; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2000), has compared the Aramaic letters in the book of Ezra with letters of the Persian period and concluded that none of the letters in Ezra correspond to the literary conventions of the Persian period. Because of lack of evidence, Ezra 7:12 – 26 is left undetermined in the investigation; others are Hellenistic. Nevertheless, Ezra 7:12 – 26 has a thoroughly Jewish perspective, which one would not expect from the Achaemenid authorities. Moreover, Ezra 7:12 – 26 and probably most of the other documents were added later, which further undermines their authenticity. See Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 46 – 49.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

What is Authoritative Scripture?

77

have been written by these kings. In these examples the authority may not be so much based on the royal authority of these kings but on the fact that they have become authoritative figures. A further technique for claiming authority was to write a new work in the name of a famous character or otherwise imply that new works were written by him. This character may have received an authoritative status through an older authoritative text by being its perceived author (Moses) or its important figure (for example, Ezra, Enoch, Joseph, and Joshua). The Covenant Code and Deuteronomy gave Moses such status that other texts were also presented as revelations to Moses. Some of these texts were eventually included in the Pentateuch (for example, the Holiness Code in Lev 17 – 26247), but some were not (such as Jubilees, Apocryphon of Moses/4Q375 – 376, 4QPseudo-Moses). The indirect claim of authority, although widely used,248 was variably successful, as these examples show. The other side of the coin is acknowledged authoritativeness. A text may not self-assert authority but some faith communities may later acknowledged its authority. Most texts of the Hebrew Bible would fall into this category in the sense that they were not written with the intention of having divine authority, but they were assumed to have such by the later Jewish and Christian traditions. The exact process of how the books of the Hebrew Bible received this status is very complex and has to be determined separately for each book. Nevertheless, some possible lines of development can be depicted. A text gains in authority over time because ancient texts were generally highly respected in antiquity.249 That antiquity had certain authoritativeness is seen, for example, in 1 – 2 Kings, which repeatedly refers to the old annals of the Judean and Israelite kings (e. g., 2 Kgs 16:19; 21:25; 23:28). It is evident that the author of 1 – 2 Kings attempted to increase the authoritativeness of his own work by implying that the annals were used as a source. A similar motive may be seen in many parts of the Pentateuch. Most scholars acknowledge that the Torah was written sometime in the 7th–5th centuries bce, but the events are situated in the premonarchic period. Although there are certainly other motives as well, an 247 The Holiness Code was probably written as a competitor or challenge to Deuteronomy, but they were eventually combined into the same composition. The same is probably the case with Deuteronomy in relation to its source, the Covenant Code. 248 See, for example, the different Books of Ezra (First Esdras, 4 Ezra/Apocalypse of Ezra, 5 Ezra, 6 Ezra, the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra, Questions of Ezra, Revelation of Ezra, and Visions of Ezra), Testaments of the Patriarchs, Books of Enoch, Book of Noah (1Q19), and Genesis Apocryphon. 249 Thus many, for example, Ska, Introduction, who notes “antiquity was a fundamental value in the milieu in which the Bible was written.” Similarly, Arie van der Kooij, “Authoritative Scriptures and Scribal Culture,” in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (ed. Mladen Popovic´ ; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010), 55 – 71, here pp. 55 – 57, 70.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

78

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

ancient context for the giving of the Law certainly increased its authoritativeness. The same is true the for the cult legends of Genesis. By connecting the foundation of cult sites with the patriarchs they attempt to show that the origins of the cult sites are ancient (and connected with otherwise recognized authorities such as Jacob).250 The book of Daniel was written in the second century bce, but in order to increase its authority, its author used an imaginary context in the sixth century bce to increase its credibility and thus authority. The transmission process itself could also increase the authority of a text. When a text became an object of intense interpretation by a later tradition, it increased its authority. For example, Florentino Garc†a Mart†nez has suggested that the Teacher of Righteousness and his interpretative activity were important for the Qumran community in conferring authority on certain writings.251 The interpretation is regarded as a revelatory exegesis, which therefore places the interpretation as part of “the continuous tradition of divine revelation.”252 This technique could be paralleled with the claimed authority of the Pentateuch. On the other hand, the process of updating and interpreting ancient texts keeps the source text and the interpretation relevant for the transmitting community (regardless of whether they end up in the same composition or not) and may thereby further increase their authority. Undoubtedly, a text already has some authority if it is being edited in the first place, but this process seems to increase it further because it is updated. Many of the most authoritative and central parts of the Hebrew Bible are often also its most edited and interpreted parts (for example, the Sinai Pericope and Deuteronomy).253 Many scholars have also pointed out that people in authoritative positions could confer authority on the transmitted texts.254 The priestly and scribal community of Jerusalem, for example, would have been in a position to determine which texts are authoritative to a wider community. The Teacher of Righteousness may also be mentioned as an example.

250 Thus also Ska, Introduction, 166. For example, the origins of Bethel are described in Gen 28:10 – 22 and 35:7; those of Penuel are described in Gen 32:23 – 33. 251 Florentino Garc†a Mart†nez, “Rethinking the Bible: Sixty Tears of Dead Sea Scrolls Research and Beyond,” in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (ed. Mladen Popovic´ ; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010), 19 – 36, here pp. 28 – 36, and “Beyond the Sectarian Divide: The Voice of the ‘Teacher’ as an Authority-Conferring Strategy in Some Qumran Texts,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts (ed. Sarianna Metso et al.: Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010), 227 – 244, who discusses the importance of the Teacher of Righteousness in conferring authority on certain writings. 252 Garc†a Mart†nez, “Beyond the Sectarian Divide,” 240 – 241. 253 To a lesser extent one can see the same phenomenon in 1 – 2 Kings, where the theological turning points and the most influential texts have been particularly heavily edited, such as 2 Kgs 17 and 23. 254 Garc†a Mart†nez, “Beyond the Sectarian Divide,” 227 – 244.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

What is Authoritative Scripture?

79

Types of Authoritativeness of Scripture Perhaps the most complex area in the discussion about the authoritativeness of texts is the type of authority. Much of the scholarly discussion implies that authoritativeness inevitably denotes some kind of divine authority, but there are many examples in the Hebrew Bible that show that different types were originally meant, assumed or distinguished. Although all books and texts of the Hebrew Bible were eventually regarded as having divine authority in the Jewish and Christian traditions, the authoritativeness of many books was originally based on other considerations. There are certainly some texts that were regarded as drawing their authority from a divine revelation or Yhwh’s speech, such as Deuteronomy, the Covenant Code, and prophetic sayings, but there are also other types. The narrative sections of Genesis contain ancient legends such as stories about the ancestors. Although these legends and stories were probably highly regarded since antiquity, it is unlikely that they originally possessed revelatory authority comparable to Deuteronomy, for example. Many of them are ancient traditions that have been transmitted from generation to generation and their authority rested more on their antiquity (cf. above) than on divine origins. In some cases an ancient legend, such as a story describing the establishment of a cult site, may refer to an encounter with the divinity or divine (e. g., Gen 32:23 – 33) that may function as an additional source of authority. Nevertheless, the authority of most of the stories in Genesis is not based on a divine revelation. It was ascribed to them later with their inclusion in the Pentateuch. The Book of Kings was probably assumed to possess considerable authority on Israel’s monarchical history. It would have been an authoritative account for the history of this period, but its religious authority is not self-evident, especially in its earlier stages of transmission. Although it does provide a theological interpretation of the past,255 it does not claim to have been a divine revelation or otherwise be of divine origin. There is also no evidence to assume that it was regarded as having divine authority until the late Second Temple period. For example, the author of Chronicles evidently regarded 1 – 2 Kings as an authoritative account about the history of the monarchy. For the description of the kings’ reigns the Chronicler adopted large sections of the source almost verbatim (e. g., 2 Kgs 8:17 – 22 and 14:11 – 14), which implies that he assumed it to be authoritative to a great extent in matters concerning the reigns of kings. On the other hand, there are many passages where the Chronicler disagreed with the 255 Its theological profile in the earlier stages of transmission is relatively low and increased with the later nomistic expansions that were made with a strongly theological program in view.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

80

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

theological conceptions of 1 – 2 Kings, and in these cases he has often made substantial additions or other changes to portray a particular event or reign of a king in a very different way than in the source. In some cases, the Chronicler rewrote the entire text so that the parallel accounts are contradictory in many issues.256 Since the main reasons for deviating from the source are theological, it would be difficult to maintain that the Chronicler assumed 1 – 2 Kings to possess divine authority. Although it is evident that 1 – 2 Kings had some, perhaps even considerable theological authority for the Chronicler,257 his own theological conceptions repeatedly override those of the source when they contradict one another. It appears that in neutral or non-theological historical issues the Chronicler is mostly content with the account in 1 – 2 Kings, but in theological issues his own conceptions have the ascendancy. It is fair to conclude that the Chronicler assumed 1 – 2 Kings to have considerable historical authority whereas its theological authority is clearly lower.258 It is doubtful that 1 – 2 Kings had any divine authority for the Chronicler. The comparison not only shows various types of authoritativeness, but also suggests that different levels were implied (see below). The Ezra story in Ezra 7 – 10 and Neh 8 provides another example of a historically authoritative account. The interest that the story received from several later editors implies that it was regarded as an authoritative account for the history of how the Torah was reinstituted in Judah/Yehud after the Exile, but there is no reason to assume that the later editors ascribed any divine authority to it. The text does not claim such, and the extensive theological and ideological changes that the later editors make, and particularly in the tradition of First Esdras in relation to the Masoretic text, imply that at a relatively late stage even its theological authority was questioned. On the other hand, the authority of the text rested, at least in part, on the authority of the person of Ezra, who had gradually become an important figure because he had reinstituted the Torah in Jerusalem. Later authors who wanted to make their voices heard used the authority of Ezra for this purpose. Ezra’s authority was later increased by the idea that he was a priest (or high priest in First Esdras). This may have been necessary in order to gain authoritativeness for the book in priestly circles. On the other hand, the royal documents, discussed above, also gave a certain authority to the text. The book of Ezra is an example of a text that may possess considerable authority on some 256 An illustrative example is in 2 Chr 24; cf. parallels in 2 Kgs 12. See chapter VIII for details. 257 For example, the general conception that Israel’s fate was dependent on the actions of the kings and people was adopted from 1 – 2 Kings. Many theological conceptions in Chronicles are dependent on 1 – 2 Kings. 258 This example also shows that there are various levels of authority that the texts were assumed to possess.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

What is Authoritative Scripture?

81

issues or in some respects, but less authority on other issues. It demonstrates that that the Hebrew scriptures may have had various sources of authority and that these sources may change or develop in the transmission of the text. It therefore stresses the complexities of how the authoritativeness of a text may develop and the importance of investigating each text separately.

Geographical, Social and Other Differences Some texts were authoritative for one community but were rejected by another. Since this is fairly evident, only a few examples should suffice. The best-documented cases are from the various Christian communities that acknowledged different books as canonical. There were several disputes about which books should be included in the New Testament. Among the disputed books were, for example, Shepherd of Hermas, Revelations, Didachee, and the Epistle of James. Although the largest churches could eventually agree on the same canon (but not on the Apocrypha), the Ethiopian Orthodox church provides some exceptions by accepting the Book of Enoch and the Jubilees as authoritative and canonical. It would be audacious to assume that there were no divisions in this respect during the Second Temple period. The Jewish world was divided among several geographically separate areas with large Jewish communities, such as the ones in Egypt, Judea, and Mesopotamia. Each one of them, possibly further divided among several factions and further geographical areas, could have a different understanding of the authority of each text. Possibilities are many and the history is poorly known, but it would be very surprising if all these areas, with their different religious parties, had been able to agree on and uphold the same view on which texts were authoritative and in which way. Since we are in a period when the Hebrew scriptures were still being produced, it is very likely that divisions were common in this respect.259 The community behind the Qumran texts may be the best-known case. The texts that were found at Qumran imply that the community behind them did not have the same set of authoritative texts as the community that is behind the canonical Hebrew collection of texts. Although many of the texts seem to have been shared, there are differences. For example, the Community Rule certainly 259 For example, a newly produced text could gain an authoritative position within the community where it was produced relatively quickly because it reflected its needs and concerns, but it would need a much longer time to gain a similar position in other communities. The development of the Christian canon shows that in the centuries during and after the production of the texts, there were considerable differences on which texts were accepted as authoritative. It took a long development and several church councils to agree on the books, and those who did not agree soon found that they were branded as heretics.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

82

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

had considerable authority for the community behind the Qumran texts whereas there is no evidence that Esther, Chronicles or Ezra-Nehemiah were important.260 The Community Rule, on the other hand, probably did not exert much authority within the wider Jewish community, or at least there is not much evidence for it. The Qumran texts also quote or allude to several texts, such as the Damascus Document and Apocryphon of Joshua, that are not part of the Hebrew Bible.261 The quotations and allusions implied that these texts were assumed to possess religious authority. The Samaritan community provides another example of diverging views of the authoritativeness of texts in the Second Temple period. The community accepted only the Torah as authoritative and generally rejected the rest of the Hebrew Bible, not least because most of the other texts were written much more clearly from the perspective of Jerusalem.262 It should be added that a community may accept one version of a book while another community accepts a clearly different version. As examples one should mention the different versions of the book of Esther, Jeremiah (the LXX and MT books are, in effect, different versions of the book),263 Ezra and First Esdras,264 and the Pentateuch (the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Masoretic version).

Various Levels of Authoritativeness It is unlikely that the different books of the Hebrew scriptures were either authoritative or non-authoritative. It is more probable that some texts were regarded as more authoritative than others and that there were varying levels of authoritativeness. Although this might seem evident—for example, it is easy to assume that the Pentateuch generally had more authority than the other books of the Hebrew Bible during the Second Temple period—it is difficult to demon260 For a discussion on Chronicles for the community behind the Qumran texts, see George J. Brooke, “The Books of Chronicles and the Scrolls from Qumran,” in Reflection and Refraction (ed. R. Rezetko et al., VTS 113; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 35 – 48. 261 See Armin Lange, “The Status of Biblical Texts in the Qumran Corpus and the Canonical Process,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judean Desert Discoveries (ed. E. Herbert and E. Tov ; London: British Library and Oak Knoll Press, 2002), 21 – 30, here pp. 22 – 24. 262 The Pentateuch is much less oriented to Jerusalem than 1 – 2 Kings or 1 – 2 Chronicles, for example, although some changes had to be made in this respect as the differences between the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Masoretic text show. 263 As many early Christian churches accepted the LXX as their canonical version and the Jewish communities regarded the MT as authoritative, the two communities effectively regarded entirely different versions as authoritative. 264 For example, many early authors, Josephus, and some Church fathers implied that First Esdras was part of the authoritative scriptures.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

What is Authoritative Scripture?

83

strate and it is even more difficult to establish any categories. Nevertheless, there are some indications that exclude an on-off position in this regard. It is probable that Deuteronomy had more authority than other parts of the Pentateuch in several Jewish circles during the Second Temple period. This is suggested by its wide use in the late Second Temple Jewish literature265 while the use of other parts of the Pentateuch is less apparent. The use of the Pentateuch in Ezra-Nehemiah is an example of this. In the earlier stages of its transmission, its authors and editors were primarily, perhaps exclusively, using Deuteronomy as the main scriptural authority.266 In order to justify certain conduct in the narrative, Deuteronomy was quoted and alluded to. Besides direct influence, Deuteronomy was the main source of inspiration throughout the Ezra narrative in Ezra 7 – 10 and Neh 8. In the earliest stages of its transmission, there is no evidence that other parts of the Pentateuch had any influence on its authors and editors. In its later editorial stages, however, the interest shifted away from Deuteronomy to the priestly sections of the Pentateuch, which then begun to exert strong influence on the narrative in Ezra-Nehemiah. These sections are quoted and alluded to. It seems fair to assume that the shift away from Deuteronomy to the priestly sections of the Pentateuch reflects a change in how authoritative the different parts of the Pentateuch were regarded. This shift may be connected with the general development from the Law to the temple when we compare its earlier literary stages with the later ones. Ezra-Nehemiah is merely one example of how there were differences as to which parts had more and which parts less authority for the later authors and editors, but similar differences should be expected from other parts of the Hebrew scriptures as well. Another example of the levels of authority is provided by the Chronicler when he uses 1 – 2 Kings. He certainly assumed that 1 – 2 Kings is authoritative to a certain point, as we have seen, for otherwise its use would not be comprehensible. At the same time, the extensive changes indicate that 1 – 2 Kings was not exceedingly authoritative for the Chronicler, especially in theological matters, and instead, he seems to use the Pentateuch as the main authority on theological issues. This is implied by the theological corrections away from 1 – 2 Kings and by the frequent references—quotations and allusions—to the Pentateuch.267 265 See, for example, the contributions by Pancratius C. Beentjes, Francis Borchardt, Marko Marttila, Mika S. Pajunen, Anssi Voitila, and Stuart Weeks in Changes in Scripture (ed. H. von Weissenberg et al., BZAW 419; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2011). 266 See Juha Pakkala, “The Quotations and References of the Pentateuchal Laws in Ezra-Nehemiah,” in Changes in Scripture (ed. H. von Weissenberg et al., BZAW 419; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2011), 193 – 221. For the editorial development, see Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 225 – 77. 267 For the references to the Pentateuchal laws in Chronicles, see Judson R. Shaver, Torah and

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

84

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

Changed Authoritativeness Many of the previous examples imply that the authoritativeness of a text may change. Most books of the Hebrew Bible did not originally have any divine authority, but they received such a status in the Jewish and Christian traditions. Because of the respect for antiquity many texts also became more authoritative with time. On the other hand, the authoritativeness of a text could decrease if it becomes less relevant because of developments in the society or for other reasons. The entire Hebrew Bible in the Christian tradition is an example of this, as it was in practice sidelined by the New Testament. The nomistically oriented texts of the Hebrew Bible, such as Deuteronomy and 1 – 2 Kings, are clearly more centered on the Law than the temple. They or at least their nomistic expansions were written for a situation where the temple had only a limited role. Their importance probably decreased after the temple was rebuilt, at least in the circles close to the temple, because of their partial disregard of the Temple. This is seen, for example, in the later stages in the development of Ezra-Nehemiah, as seen above. On the other hand, they gained in authority after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 ce. Without the Temple, the importance of the Law grew again, while texts mainly centered on the Temple decreased in relevance. Ultimately, the authoritativeness of a text may fluctuate from generation to generation based on the fluctuation of the relevancy of related issues.268 There are also examples of conscious attempts to negate the authority of a text. The comparison between Deuteronomy and the Covenant Code provides an example of how the author of the Urdeuteronomium wanted to replace the Covenant Code as the authoritative law revealed by Yhwh. Regardless of the intentional challenge, the author of the Urdeuteronomium implies that the Covenant Code possessed some authority in the community he was writing in. This is seen in the way he formulated parts of his own document with the older document in view.269 The Covenant Code may have possessed some authority in the context in which the author of the Urdeuteronomium wrote so that it had to be taken into consideration. The attempt was largely successful, for Deuteronomy effectively replaced the Covenant Code as the most authoritative law code. the Chronicler’s history work: an inquiry into the Chronicler’s references to laws, festivals, and cultic institutions in relationship to Pentateuchal legislation (BJS 196; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1989). 268 Eibert Tigchelaar, “Aramaic Texts from Qumran and the Authoritativeness of Hebrew Scriptures: Preliminary Observations,” Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (ed. Mladen Popovic´ ; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010), 155 – 171, here p. 162, has also noted that “the authority of texts may … shift over time.” 269 Thus many, for example Bernard M. Levinson, Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press, 1997), 31 – 43.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

What is Authoritative Scripture?

85

This is therefore also an example of how the authoritativeness of a book decreased because of the creation of another book.270

Authoritative Texts: Discussion There is no single category ‘authoritative texts’271 when we investigate the Hebrew scriptures before they were canonized in the Common Era. There are so many possibilities that it would be problematical to talk about authoritative texts without specifying what exactly is meant. Several levels, aspects, contexts, and changes have to be taken into consideration, depending on the perspective and the text in question. Very many combinations in all these respects are possible and each text of the Hebrew scriptures may have a different history of authoritativeness.272 If we push this line further, each author, editor, and reader has his/ her own conception of the authoritativeness of each text. The Chronicler’s use of 1 – 2 Kings shows that in some cases the authoritativeness of each passage may have be seen differently. Some passages were fully accepted as providing an authoritative and reliable account of the events whereas others were generally rejected and replaced with an entirely new version. It is very difficult to demonstrate general rules in this respect, and in the end, one has to be very specific each time this concept is used, and each text may have to be investigated separately for each context and time.273 270 There any many other examples of how the authoritativeness of some texts was disputed. The canonization process of the New Testament contains cases that are better known (for example, Revelations, Letter of Jacob, Didachee, and Hermas), but in the Hebrew Bible some texts were also in dispute, such as the Song of Songs and the book of Esther. 271 Mladen Popovic´, “Introducing Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism,” in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (ed. Mladen Popovic´ ; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010) 1 – 17, here pp. 2 – 3, has recently pointed out that the question of authoritative scripture should not be reduced to texts alone. To some extent and in some cases, the tradition and not a particular text may have been regarded authoritative. On the other hand, the scribes who transmitted the texts also had some authority (assumed or effective) on the tradition (cf. also above). For example, the fact that repeated changes were allowed in most parts of the Hebrew scriptures during the Second Temple period implies that, at least to some extent, the tradition rather than an exact text form was regarded as authoritative. This is also suggested by the pluriformity of texts that were accepted as authoritative during this period. 272 For example, it is theoretically possible that a text enjoyed wide authority in historical matters, but not otherwise. Later its authority in historical matters was questioned because of changed historical circumstances. On the other hand, because of its antiquity and transmission, it may have been seen to have theological and even divine authority. This development could take place in one tradition, while in another tradition it could have retained its historical authority but not gain any other authority. 273 Cf. Garc†a Mart†nez, “Beyond the Sectarian Divide,” 244, who, discussing the ‘Qumran

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

86

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

It is probable that the authoritativeness of texts has some correlation with the changes made to them. However, this correlation cannot be assumed to inevitably mean that authoritative equals unchangeable—whether this means additions, rewriting or omissions. It is possible that in some stages of its transmission a text remained authoritative precisely because it was changed. Updating may enable a text to remain relevant in changed circumstances.274 If a text is not updated it may become irrelevant and eventually lose authority. Theological changes may be necessary for a text to remain acceptable in a certain theological context.275 Here again, one should not apply a late and anachronistic canonical perspective to the investigation of the editorial processes when the texts were still being produced and edited. Each period should be investigated differently, and different kinds of processes may have been at work at different times. Conceptions and processes of a later situation when some texts had become canonical should not be used to understand pre-canonical conceptions and processes. Although notable changes would have inevitably meant the rejection of a textual form in the late Roman period when the texts had already become canonized and standardized, this may not be the case during the Persian and Hellenistic periods. If one uses the connection between the alleged authoritativeness of a text and its unchangeability, it has to be carefully shown and argued for each text. Before that it is not possible to appeal to the authoritativeness of any part of the Hebrew scriptures and use it as an argument to assume that their editorial processes were restricted in a particular way. What is said in this chapter about the authoritativeness of the texts partly applies to the conception that the texts were holy or normative. If one is to use the alleged holiness of a text as an argument for its unchangeability, it would have to be argued for each text and its stages of transmission before it could be used as a justification to assume that the texts were not radically edited. The perceived holiness of a text does not inevitably mean that the text could not have been changed or that it could have been changed only in a particular way.

Bible’, notes that “we should decide in each case the authority each single book may have had for the group that put the collection together.” 274 Cf. Hans Debel, “Rewritten Bible, Variant Literary Editions and Original Text(s),” in Changes in Scripture (ed. H. von Weissenberg et al.; BZAW 419; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2011), 65 – 91, here p. 83, who notes that the “adaptability of the tradition granted its overall stability … Similarly, the adaptability, or openness to changes may have enabled the tradition to remain authoritative, at least in some stages of its development.” 275 See, for example, Aejmelaeus, “David’s Three Choices,” 137 – 151, who has suggested that some theological changes made to the Masoretic text of 1 – 2 Samuel (and “probably the Deuteronomistic History in general”) may have been “necessary … for their preparation for inclusion in the collection of the Prophets and thus in the ‘canon’ of sacred Scripture.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Methodological Clarifications

87

Methodological Clarifications In this investigation I will primarily be looking for unequivocal intentional omissions where parts of the older text were left out of the textual transmission. Unintentional omissions, scribal lapses or omissions due to corruptions are therefore excluded from this investigation. Controversial and insignificant cases as well as stylistic omissions will also receive only secondary attention. The focus will be on ideological and theological omissions where one can establish a clear reason why part of a text was omitted. Omission will refer to cases where parts of the older text were omitted without any substitute in the new text as well as to cases where the omitted part was replaced by a new text. The latter case could be characterized as rewriting or replacement. Although these may seem a slightly different technique, in both cases the result is the omission of parts of the older text. Clearly, there may be a difference in attitude towards full omissions without a replacement and an omission that is replaced by a new text. This potential difference will be discussed in more detail in the conclusions after the analyses. It should further be pointed out that the lack of a textual element in one tradition does not necessarily denote an omission even if an apparently older text were to contain the text element. Because several parallel texts may have been in circulation at the same time in different contexts, they may have been separately edited, which means a text element could have been added to one tradition after the traditions diverged. There are many well-known cases where parallel accounts of the same story developed through successive redactions independently of each other.276 In such cases, it would be difficult to argue for possible omission. As an example, one should mention 1 Kgs 11 – 12 and 14, where the Greek and Hebrew version clearly offer a different account, and it would be difficult—although perhaps not impossible—to demonstrate possible omissions. Consequently, it is necessary to understand each case separately and understand the reasons why parts of the older text may have been omitted.277 Observations that are solely based on textual differences usually do not provide 276 For example, both the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Masoretic text of the Pentateuch continued to be edited after the two traditions diverged. 277 For instance, in the examples shown by Schenker, Älteste Textgeschichte, 174 – 175, the revisions in the Masoretic text in relation to the LXX are mostly direct so that one does not need to assume a more complicated relationship between the versions. He notes on the two versions of 1 – 2 Kings: “Nicht zwei parallel laufende Textformen, die auf einer gemeinsamer Quelle entsprangen und sich im Laufe der Überlieferungsgeschichte mehr und mehr voneinander unterscheiden, sondern eine einzige alte Textgestalt, die dann an einem bestimmten Punkt literarisch umgearbeitet wurde und an die Stelle der alten, ursprünglichen Textgestalt treten und diese Ersetzen sollte: das ist das Bild der ältesten Textgeschichte der Königsbücher.” Nevertheless, each case has to be discussed separately.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

88

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

the full picture, and instead one needs to understand the different motives, tendencies, and intentions behind the editorial changes. As for terminology, omissions and additions refer to the later editorial changes that were made to a text. An omission is the removal of part of the older text by a later editor, whereas an addition is its later expansion by a later editor. When one refers to omissions or additions, it is already the result of a decision as to how the text developed. They should be distinguished from plusses and minuses, which merely refer to the current state of the texts in any particular witnesses in relation to the other witnesses. A plus is the additional part of the text that is lacking from one or many other witnesses, and a minus is the lacking of a part of the text that is included in other witnesses. A reference to a plus or minus is not based on any decision as to how the text developed. Although this terminology is certainly self-evident to most readers, in some of the scholarly literature the terminology has been confused so that an omission, for example, is occasionally used synonymously with the term minus. In this book I will not make a clear distinction between the terms editor and redactor. The former could be more connected to the early creators of compositions that used sources and would thus be closer to authors. Following this terminology, the authors of the pentateuchal sources could be termed as editors. A redactor, on the other hand, often emphasizes the later editing of a given text that essentially remains the same composition. Here one could mention the redactors of the historical books, 1 – 2 Samuel or 1 – 2 Kings, for example. The use of this terminology is, in part, not consistent and, in part, connected to the conjectured distinction between the early stage of composition by editors and the late stage by redactors.

Summary Before proceeding with the analyses it is necessary to briefly recap the observations. Many biblical scholars and especially literary critics assume or imply that the editing processes of the Hebrew Bible may be divided between two distinguishable phases. In the composition phase the original authors could have omitted, rewritten, and reorganized much of their sources, which were primarily used as resource material.278 After this stage, the texts would have been

278 This idea is found in many studies on various books of the Hebrew Bible; thus, for example, Martin Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (Halle: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1943), 137 – 142 [95 – 100]. According to him the original author of the Deuteronomistic History selected older traditions according to the purpose of the composition. This position has been assumed by most scholars investigating these books. Nevertheless, it is assumed that

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

89

Summary

transmitted by editors or redactors, who almost exclusively expanded the received text. The text had become so holy, normative, and/or authoritative almost immediately after it was composed that nothing could be left out. Expansions were possible, because they were primarily meant to explain or elucidate the older text, but they did not attempt to challenge its authority or replace it.279 The division of the textual transmission into these two distinguishable stages can be seen especially in literary- and redaction-critical approaches. At least in part, the methodological basis of literary and redaction criticism, and thereby much of the critical use of the Hebrew Bible as a historical source, seems to be dependent on the axiomatic assumption that nothing was omitted when the texts were transmitted further by means of redactions. Countless literary- and redaction-critical analyses have been conducted based on this assumption as the methodological premise. It is therefore not surprising that the most vehement rejection of omissions during the textual transmission has been voiced by scholars, such as Christoph Levin and Uwe Becker, whose approaches are fundamentally based on literary- and redaction-critical analyses. One may discern several axioms in literary- and redaction-critical investigations. Firstly, it is assumed that the development of the texts can be divided into two different phases, both with very different processes. In the composition phase omissions would have been possible, while the later redactors would have consistently avoided omitting anything. Secondly, the texts are assumed to have become holy, normative, and authoritative after they had been written as compositions that can be seen as the early versions of the present books in the Hebrew Bible (concretely, 1 – 2 Kings would have became holy when it was created, but the annals were not yet regarded holy). Thirdly, the holiness and authoritativeness of the texts is assumed to be directly connected to its changeability. After a text was regarded as holy and authoritative, it necessarily meant that nothing could be taken out. Fourthly, it is assumed that every scribe or redactor in the transmission of the texts had the same conception of the changeability of the texts until the texts were canonized and frozen so that not even additions were allowed. This despite the considerable variety of theological, social, and geographical contexts during the first millennium bce when the Hebrew scriptures were transmitted. On the other hand, many scholars have assumed that the Masoretic text was particularly well preserved, which would allegedly preclude the possibility of different conceptions about the text. Fifthly, it is assumed that the development of the texts was linear in the sense that the the later additions to this work, not elaborated by Noth, faithfully preserved all that they found in the older text. 279 It should be noted, however, that additions may also subvert the older text, although the technique may be more subtle. See Levinson, “The human voice,” 35 – 71.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

90

Omissions the Hebrew Bible?

transmission always became more conservative.280 These axioms are not only not proven—and regularly not discussed—but also contradicted by observations from several texts of the Hebrew scriptures and beyond. Especially the Qumran and Septuagint scholarship, but also the research of the Gilgamesh epic, have provided evidence that has the potential to challenge the axioms; but considering the methodological importance of the issue, they have received less than adequate attention in the literary- and redaction-critical scholarship. Some of the challenges to the literary-critical methodology contain limitations of their own. In particular, it would be problematic to abandon the Hebrew scriptures as a historical source for all pre-Hellenistic periods, as implied by the Copenhagen school for example. Despite the immense problems due to heavy editing, the Hebrew scriptures may be the only source we have for many issues dealing with the emergence of Judaism and early Israel. The core observations of literary criticism that the texts developed by way of considerable scribal changes over centuries may still be valid. They have been confirmed by several investigations concentrating on empirical evidence.281 The main problem with the conventional approach may not be with its main tenets, but with its almost categorical rejection of omissions, which has considerable consequences for the implementation of the methodology. It may be indisputable that under many, perhaps even under most circumstances the texts mainly developed by way of expansions, for certain conservatism towards older texts is apparent throughout the ancient Near East. An addition is by nature less problematic than an omission because the latter consciously challenges the older tradition. This general tendency can be observed in many texts that are preserved in more than one different edition. Nevertheless, there are several indications that omissions and rewriting also took place, and therefore one needs to reconsider the almost categorical rejection of omissions in the redaction and consequently build a new model of textual transmission on that basis. Instead of rejecting literary criticism as an essential methodological approach of the Hebrew scriptures, it is necessary to integrate into these methods the evidence that shows that omissions and rewriting took place in some stages of textual transmission and under some conditions. 280 Although this may be accurate in general, there are exceptions that are directly relevant for the discussion about omissions. Cf. Debel, “Rewritten Bible,” 70, who writes: “Although for each scriptural book the attested editions are undeniably genealogically related to one another, their relationship may take a more complex form than the linear succession postulated by Ulrich, and in many cases, we undoubtedly lack sufficient evidence to reconstruct the chain in detail.” 281 Here one should mention, for example, the publications by J. Tigay, for example, Empirical Models, 239 – 241.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

91

Summary

I will proceed by investigating more closely the empirical evidence from various parts of the Hebrew scriptures that show that the transmission of these texts was much more complicated than generally assumed and that linear transmission with only expansions by redactors cannot be taken as the only mode of transmission. Although we cannot be certain that the empirical evidence from one text is applicable to other texts, by drawing attention to different kinds of evidence, we can establish a base for the modes of editing considered as possibilities by the ancient scribes and editors who transmitted the Hebrew scriptures. Obviously, it is not possible to investigate more than a fraction of the material available in the Hebrew scriptures,282 but by taking various examples from different parts of the Hebrew scriptures one will nevertheless gain a broad picture of the editorial processes.

282 Because of the immense amount of material, an overview necessarily means that one overlooks something. One can easily write a thick monograph about the textual development of a short text. See, for example, Jong-Hoon Kim, Die hebräischen und griechischen Textformed der Samuel- und Königbücher. Studien zu Textgeschichte ausgehend von 2Sam 15,1 – 19,9 (BZAW 394; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2009). Kim’s helpful illustrations show how complicated the history of the text can be (p. 414).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Conservative Editorial Processes in the Samaritan Pentateuch

The Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) provides evidence that is in accordance with the assumption in literary criticism that most of the editorial changes were additions. There are only some exceptions, but their number is very small in comparison with the repeated additions. Because of the special theological conceptions of the Samaritan tradition, the Samaritan Pentateuch underwent theological changes after it diverged from a textual tradition close to the other main witnesses. Even a cursory comparison of the SP with the MT shows that there are repeated differences between the two versions.1 Besides minor stylistic and linguistic variants met throughout the text, there are several substantial plusses in the SP. It is commonly accepted that most of these plusses were caused by expansions and not by omissions in the MT. In the vast number of cases the large expansions were influenced by parallel passages from other parts of the Pentateuch—for example, Deuteronomy influencing Exodus and Numbers. Passages dealing with the same subjects or events in different parts of the Pentateuch were harmonized in the SP.2 There are many cases were an added passage was adopted from another location word for word,3 but there are also expansions that have no parallel in the other parts of the Pentateuch.4 Rearrangement and transposition of passages seems to have taken

1 The comparison between the two versions is substantially facilitated by the publication of Mark E. Shoulson, The Torah: Jewish and Samaritan versions compared (Cathair na Mart/ Westport: Evertype, 2008). 2 For instructive examples of the SP harmonizing between two passages, see Jeffrey H. Tigay, “An Empirical Basis for the Documentary Hypothesis,” JBL 94 (1975): 329 – 342. 3 Examples of such expansions can be found in Gen 30:36 (influenced by Gen 31:11 – 13) and Num 12:15 (influenced by Deut 1:20 – 23). In accordance with the theological tendency of the Samaritans, Deut 27:2 – 7, dealing with the altar on mount Gerizim (or Ebal according to the MT) was duplicated in two passages, namely Exod 20:17 and Deut 5:18. 4 For example, the SP version of Gen 11 is generally more expansive with small additions throughout the chapter. Num 21 is an example of a chapter where the additions in the SP are more substantial. Exod 20 also bears witness to particularly extensive editing.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

94

Conservative Editorial Processes in the Samaritan Pentateuch

place as well.5 In the following text, I will first illustrate some of the typical changes made in the SP, and I will then continue with cases of omission.

Expansions in the Samaritan Pentateuch A comparison of the MTand SP versions of Num 14:40 – 45, which describes how the Israelites disobey Yhwh’s order and its consequences, illustrates the expansive nature of the SP. In this example, the expansions were influenced by Deut 1:42 – 45, with several sentences adopted word for word. The two descriptions of the same event in Numbers and Deuteronomy were harmonized in the Samaritan textual tradition.6 Num 14:40 – 45 MT

40

Num 14:40 – 45 SP

41

=H.N4 A=L5F AN4 8: 8B@ 8MB LB4=9 42 898= C=4 =? 9@FN.@4 ;@JN 4@ 4989 898= A?=5=4 =DH@ 9H6DN 4@9 A?5LK5 43 AN@HD9 A?=DH@ AM =DFD?89 =K@BF8 =? 8=8=.4@9 898= =L;4B AN5M C?.@F.=? 5L;5 44 L88 M4L.@4 N9@F@ 9@HF=9 A?BF 898= 898=.N=L5 C9L49 8D;B8 5LKB 9MB.4@ 8MB9 45 4988 L85 5M=8 =DFD?89 =K@BF8 7L=9

8BL;8 7F A9N?=9 A9?=9

40

And they rose early in the morning, and went up to the heights of the hills, saying, “See, we will go up to the place which Yhwh has promised; for we have sinned.”

40

L88.M4L.@4 9@F=9 LK55 9B?M=9 A9KB8.@4 9D=@F9 9DD8 LB4@ 9D4ü; =? 898= LB4.LM4 A8@ LB4 8MB @4 898= LB4=9 9B ;@N 4@9 9@FN 4@ A ?=5=4 =DH@ 9H6DN 4@9 A ?5LK5 =DD=4 =? 41 =H.N4 A=L5F AN4 8: 8B@ 8MB LB4=9 42 898= C=4 =? 9@FN.@4 ;=@JN 4@ 4=89 898= A?=5=4 =DH@ 9H6DN 4@9 A?5LK5 43 AN@HD9 A?=DH@ AM =DFD?89 =K@BF8 =? 898= 8=8=.4@9 898= =L;4B AN5M C?.@F.=? 5L;5 44 L88 M4L.@4 N9@F@ 9@HF=9 A?BF 898=.N=L5 C9L49 8D;B8 5LKB 9MB.4@ 8MB9 45 4988 L85 5M=8 =DFD?89 =K@BF8 7L=9 AN4 9H7L=9 AN4LK@ A=L578 8D=MFN LM4 ? 8BL; 7F A9N?=9 A9?=9 8D ;B8 @4 95M=9

L88.M4L.@4 9@F=9 LK55 9B?M=9 A9KB8.@4 9D=@F9 9DD8 LB4@ 9D4ü; =? 898= LB4.LM4

40

And they rose early in the morning, and went up to the heights of the hills, saying, “See, we will go up to the place which Yhwh has promised; for we have sinned.” And Yhwh said to Moses, tell them Do not go up and do not fight, for I will not be among you; lest you be smitten before your enemies.

5 For a concise review of the various differences between the MTand the SP, see Bruce K. Waltke, “Samaritan Pentateuch,” ABD 5 (1992): 932 – 940, here esp. pp. 936 – 938. 6 Deut 1:42 – 45 was not copied word for word, but several sentences from parts of the passage were adopted.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

95

Expansions in the Samaritan Pentateuch

Continued Num 14:40 – 45 MT 41 But Moses said, “Why now are you transgressing the command of Yhwh, for that will not succeed? 42 Do not go up lest you be struck down before your enemies, for Yhwh is not among you. 43 For there the Amalekites and the Canaanites are before you, and you shall fall by the sword; because you have turned back from following Yhwh, Yhwh will not be with you.” 44 But they presumed to go up to the heights of the hill country, although neither the ark of the covenant of Yhwh, nor Moses, departed out of the camp. 45 Then the Amalekites and the Canaanites who dwelt in that hill country came down, and defeated them and pursued them, even to the Hormah.

Num 14:40 – 45 SP But Moses said, “Why now are you transgressing the command of Yhwh, for that will not succeed? 42 Do not go up lest you be struck down before your enemies, for Yhwh is not among you. 43 For there the Amalekites and the Canaanites are before you, and you shall fall by the sword; because you have turned back from following Yhwh, Yhwh will not be with you.” 44 But they presumed to go up to the heights of the hill country, although neither the ark of the covenant of Yhwh, nor Moses, departed out of the camp. 45 Then the Amalekites and the Canaanites who dwelt in that hill country came down, against you, and chased you like bees, and defeated them and pursued them, even to Hormah. And so they returned to the camp 41

An example of an expansion that was not adopted from a passage in another part of the Pentateuch is found in Lev 17:1 – 4. Whereas the MTonly generally refers to a sacrifice that one must bring to the tent of meeting when one slaughters an animal outside the camp, the SP makes an expansion that specified what kind of sacrifices it should be. Lev 17:1 – 4 MT

2

1

Lev 17:1 – 4 SP

A7 898= C?MB =DH@ 898=@ C5LK 5=LK8@ NL?D9 ýHM A7 4988 M=4@ 5M;= 9=BF 5LKB 4988 M=48 1

1

2

2

Yhwh spoke to Moses: Speak to Aaron and his sons and to all the people of Israel and say to them: This is

2

1

CL84.@4 L57 LB4@ 8MB.@4 898= L57=9 8: A8=@4 NLB49 @4LM= =D5.@? @49 9=D5.@49 3 N=5B M=4 M=4 LB4@ 898= 89J.LM4 L578 :F.94 5M?.94 L9M ü;M= LM4 @4LM= 8D;B@ I9;B ü;M= LM4 94 8D;B5 4 94=58 4@ 7F9B @84 ;NH.@49 A ?D9JL@ 898=@ A=B@M 94 8@F 9N4 N9MF@ I9 ;5 98ü;M=9 ; ;=D ;=L@ 7F9B @84 ;NH @49 94=58 4@ A7 898= C?MB =DH@ 898=@ C5LK 95=LK8@ NL?D9 ýHM A7 4988 M=4@ 5M;= 9=BF 5LKB 4988 M=48

CL84.@4 L57 LB4@ 8MB.@4 898= L57=9 8: A8=@4 NLB49 @4LM= =D5.@? @49 9=D5.@49 3 N=5B M=4 M=4 LB4@ 898= 89J.LM4 L578 :F.94 5M?.94 L9M ü;M= LM4 @4LM= 8D;B@ I9;B ü;M= LM4 94 8D;B5 4 94=58 4@ 7F9B @84 ;NH.@49

Yhwh spoke to Moses: Speak to Aaron and his sons and to all the people of Israel and say to them:

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

96

Conservative Editorial Processes in the Samaritan Pentateuch

Continued Lev 17:1 – 4 MT what Yhwh has commanded. 3 If anyone of the house of Israel slaughters an ox or a lamb or a goat in the camp, or slaughters it outside the camp, 4 and does not bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting,

to present it as an offering to Yhwh before the tabernacle of Yhwh, he shall be held guilty of bloodshed; he has shed blood, and he shall be cut off from the people.

Lev 17:1 – 4 SP This is what Yhwh has commanded. 3 If anyone of the house of Israel slaughters an ox or a lamb or a goat in the camp, or slaughters it outside the camp, 4 and does not bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting, to make it a burnt offering or a peace offering to Yhwh, at your own will, for a sweet-smelling savor, and who slaughters it outside, and does not bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to present it as an offering to Yhwh before the tabernacle of Yhwh, he shall be held guilty of bloodshed; he has shed blood, and he shall be cut off from the people.

These examples are typical of the changes made in the SP. They suggest that in the Samaritan textual tradition of the last centuries bce, and perhaps beyond, expansions were not an uncommon technique to change the text. Similarly, substantial cases but where part of the text might have been omitted cannot be found at all between the MT and SP. The omissions are much smaller, mainly restricted to one or two words only, as we will see. It is therefore clear that omissions in the SP in relation to the other witnesses are overwhelmingly less common than additions, duplications, and rearrangements of the textual material. In comparison with the frequent plusses, it is laborious to find clear intentional omissions—in either the MT or the SP—that would have had significant impact on the message of the text.7 The SP is a fruitful object of investigation because it is relatively close to the MT8 and the reasons for the divergences can, in most cases, be found in the theological conceptions or idiosyncrasies of the Samaritan tradition.9 In many cases the SP shares the theological corrections with the MT against the other main witnesses, which, among many other considerations, implies that the textual tradition of the SP diverged from that of the MT relatively late,10 perhaps 7 Exodus 7 – 11 is an illustrative example in this respect. 8 There are also many cases where the SP agrees with the LXX against the MT, but it can be said to be generally closer to the MT than the LXX. 9 Clearly, some of the changes were not caused by the theological differences between the two traditions. For example, there are many euphemistic omissions where an embarrassing, improper or obscene passage was changed, for example, in Gen 50:23; Deut 25:11; 28:30. 10 For example, in Deut 32:8 – 9 and 43, the Vorlage of the LXX, translated in the 3rd century bce, is still unfamiliar with the theological changes that are present in the SP and MT. Since the SP and MT share the theological correction, it is probable that the divergence took place after

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

97

Small Omission, Large Impact—The Location of Sacrifices

as late as the last century bce.11 Since the SP contains additional theological corrections and omissions not shared by the MT, one has to assume that they were made after the divergence of the traditions and that the Samaritan textual tradition allowed omissions still in the last two centuries bce, possibly even later. As in many other examples throughout the Hebrew scriptures, most of the intentional omissions are related to theological problems in the older text. The SP thus bears witness to a relatively late context where a highly authoritative text that was regarded as divine revelation was altered by means that occasionally included omissions. I will proceed by drawing attention to some of the cases that imply an omission in the SP or in the MT.

Small Omission, Large Impact—The Location of Sacrifices The location of sacrifice was a constant issue of dispute between Jerusalem and Samaria in the late Second Temple period. This is reflected in the MT and SP versions of the Pentateuch. The Samaritan tradition had divergent theological conceptions concerning the location of the sacrifice, and the SP in general has a more consistent attitude towards the centralization of the cult than the MT. It is probable that some of the passages that allow sacrifices in more than one cultic center have been corrected in the SP. A comparison of the SP version of Exod 20:24 with the MT and LXX reveals a theological correction: The Samaritan version of Exod 20:24 has omitted a small section of the text:12 Exod 20:24 MT

Exod 20:24 SP [email protected] 8B74 ;5:B ý[email protected] 9=@F N;5:9 ýLK5.N49 ýD4J.N4 ý[email protected] =BM.N4 L=?:4 LM4 A9KB8.@?5 ý=N?L59 ý=@4 4954

[email protected] 8B74 ;5:B ý[email protected] 9=@F N;5:9 ýLK5B9 ýD4JB ý[email protected] =BM.N4 =NL?: LM4 A9KB5 ý=N?L59 ý=@4 4954 8BM

Make an altar of earth for me, and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings,

Make an altar of earth for me, and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings,

the translations. Of course, one cannot exclude the possibility of harmonization between the SP and MT, or an earlier correction in the MT that was independent of the LXX Vorlage. 11 Julio Trebolle-Barrera, The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History of the Bible (trans. Wilfred G. Watson; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans 1998), 297, notes that the changes in the SP are “probably not earlier than the Hasmonean period (2nd cent. bce).” According to Waltke, “Samaritan Pentateuch,” 932 – 940, here p. 934, the Samaritan Pentateuch “as a sectarian recension” was created ca. 100 bce. 12 The LXX follows the MTclosely : … ja· to»r lºswour rl_m 1m pamt· tºp\, ox 1±m 1pomol²sy t¹ emol² lou 1je?, ja· Fny pq¹r s³ ja· eqkoc¶sy se.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

98

Conservative Editorial Processes in the Samaritan Pentateuch

Continued Exod 20:24 MT your sheep and your oxen; in every place where I record my name I will come to you and bless you.

Exod 20:24 SP your sheep and your oxen; in the place where I have recorded my name there I will come to you and bless you.

In addition to the minor differences,13 the SP contains a theological omission, the MT, LXX, and other main witnesses preserving the more original text. Instead of a commandment to sacrifice in every place (A9KB8.@?5) where Yhwh has set his name to be remembered in, as read in the other witnesses, the SP refers to one place only (A9KB5). It is very likely that the SP is secondary here because the idea of many cult sites, implied in many older texts,14 was later rejected because the idea of cult centralization was able to establish itself as the norm. Deuteronomy and its ideals began to influence the other books as well so that there is a general development towards centralization.15 The Masoretic and Greek versions of Exod 20:24 preserve conceptions that later became problematic and the SP has made an omission to remove the offense. Although small in the number of letters, it altered the main rationale of the verse, which was to say that many places of sacrifice were allowed.16 In effect, it reverses the whole meaning of the text and says exactly the opposite from what is said in the MT. Because the general trend in the Second Temple period was towards becoming stricter towards centralization, it is likely that the omission is intentional. An omission to the same effect has been made to the SP version of Lev 26:31, which is part of a list of disasters that Israel will face if they do not obey Yhwh. 13 Minor differences are the regular variation in the impf. vs. perf., prepositions, and the additional 8BM in the SP (here the SP is probably original, whereas the word was probably accidentally omitted in the MT/LXX traditions due to its similarity with the preceding word =BM). 14 For example, Sichem in Josh 24:26, Oprah in Judg 6:24, Bethel in Judg 21:1 – 4, Shiloh in 1 Sam 1:3, Ramah in 1 Sam 7:17, Gibeon in 2 Sam 21:6 – 9 and 1 Kings 3:4, Gibeah in 1 Sam 10:5, Bethlehem in 1 Sam 16:1 – 13 and 20:6, and Nob in 1 Sam 21:1 – 10. 15 Lev 19:30 illustrates the direction of development. The LXX preserves the plural (!p¹ t_m "c¸ym lou vobgh¶seshe), while the Masoretic vocalization assumes a singular (9, 4L)=N%, =M%17,)K!B%). It is probable that in Lev 19:30 the plural is original, the Masoretic vocalization being a later theological correction. It is therefore probable that there was a general late tendency to omit references to more than one legitimate cult site, which corroborates the assumption that we are dealing with omissions in the SP of Exod 20:24 and Lev 26:31. 16 Some scholars have argued that Exod 20:24 is a reaction and criticism of the centralization, and would therefore be later that the original idea of cult centralization in Deuteronomy ; thus Christoph Levin, “Das Deuteronomium und der Jahwist,” in Fortschreibungen. Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (BZAW 316; Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2003), 96 – 110, here p. 99 – 100. This is possible, perhaps even likely, but would not change the fact that the idea of many cult sites later came to be regarded by many as offensive.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

The Place of Sacrifice—Gerizim or Ebal?

99

According to the MT, Yhwh will destroy the cities and sanctuaries (A?=M7KB) of Israel, whereas the SP refers to your cities and sanctuary (A?M7KB).17 The reading in the SP is evidently a theological correction consistent with its more dogmatic perception of cult centralization. Although an omission of one letter only, the impact on the meaning is again considerable. These cases demonstrate that in some cases even tiny omissions could have a fundamental impact on the meaning of the text.

The Place of Sacrifice—Gerizim or Ebal? Deutereonomy 27:4 contains a significant difference between the MT and SP. In the MT the Israelites are ordered to erect an altar on Mount Ebal, whereas the SP refers to Mount Gerizim instead. As already noted, the SP is not only more dogmatic about cult centralization, but it also makes it clear that Gerizim is the only place where the Israelites were allowed to sacrifice. For example, the SP contains a large expansion after both Decalogues in Exod 20:17 and Deut 5:18, strongly influenced by Deut 11:29 – 30 and 27:2 – 7, both passages that emphasize this issue. Because of such changes in other parts of the Pentateuch, many scholars have assumed that the SP intentionally changed Ebal to Gerizim in Deut 27:4 as well.18 Although the SP is clearly secondary in Exod 20:17 and Deut 5:18, the priority of readings in Deut 27:4 is much more difficult to determine and the case may not be as clear as traditionally assumed.19 The Masoretic text can be seen as illogical because it suggests that the altar was built on the mountain of curses whereas in the SP the altar is built on the mountain of blessings (cf. Deut 27:12 – 13). Axel Knauf has noted that the building of the altar on Mount Ebal in Josh 8:30 – 35 must be a later addition that criticizes or tries to undermine the legitimacy of the cult site on Mount Gerizim.20 It could thus be possible that the textual tradition of the MT might have changed the text in Deut 27:4 in order to avoid any justification for the existing Samaritan cult site on Gerizim, a hotly debated issue between the Samaritan and Jerusalemite communities in the last centuries bce. 17 The Peshitta similarly refers to one cult site only. 18 Thus already Samuel Rolles Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1895), 297; Alfred Bertholet, Deuteronomium (KHC 5; Freiburg: Mohr (Siebeck), 1899), 83, and Carl Steuernagel, Deuteronomium und Josua (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1900), 97, but also in recent scholarship, for example, Richard D. Nelson, Deuteronomy (OTL; Louisville, Ken, Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 314. 19 The common assumption is challenged by, for example, Robert T. Anderson, “Samaritans,” in ABD 5: 940 – 947, here p. 946. 20 Ernst Axel Knauf, Josua (ZBKAT 6; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2008), 87.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

100

Conservative Editorial Processes in the Samaritan Pentateuch

Moreover, the reading in the SP is supported by Codex Lugdunensis which reads here in monte Garizin.21 It is also peculiar that other Old Latin manuscripts leave out the location altogether. For example, Hesychius reads: Et erit quacunque die transgressi fueritis Jordanis terram, quam Dominus Deus tuum dabit, statues lapides grandes, et linies eos pulvere.22 The omissions may preserve early attempts to avoid the embarrassment that the Pentateuch would seem to legitimize the Samaritan place of sacrifice on Mount Gerizim. Since these readings are evidently independent of the Masoretic Ebal, one could argue that there was a problem with the original reading and that more than one editor tried to erase the problem by changing the text. It would be difficult to explain the emergence of the Old Latin readings out of the MT, while the SP would provide a reason for the variants. Consequently, the Old Latin witnesses show that the Masoretic tradition was not unequivocally established and that the Samaritan reading is not an isolated Samaritan idiosyncrasy. When the conflict over the right place of sacrifice heated up, Gerizim was probably changed to Ebal in the Masoretic tradition (thus also adopted in the LXX) and perhaps omitted altogether in other textual traditions, preserved by some Latin manuscripts.23 The expansions of Exod 20:17 and Deut 5:18 in the SP would be separate attempts, now in the SP tradition, to defend the Samaritan position in the dispute.24 Because of the theological importance of the issue, several independent corrections to the text were made in order to justify a certain position. The problem was caused by the older version of the Pentateuch, which did not take an explicit position in this regard. Even if one were still to assume that the MT preserves the more original text in Deut 27:4—which now seems improbable—one would then have to conclude that the original location was omitted in the SP. In either case, the example shows that theologically central and debated issues could cause the omission and/or replacement of offensive ideas from the older text. The omissions in the Latin manuscripts imply that this was done by more than one editor. Since the MT rewrote the word after diverging from the Samaritan tradition, the case witnesses to an omission in the last two centuries bce or perhaps even later. 21 See Ulysses Robert, Heptateuchi partis posterioris versio latina antiquissima e codice Lugdunensi (Lyon: A. Rey et cie, 1900). 22 Reference to the location is also omitted in Missale Mozarabicum. 23 For the purposes of this volume, it would not be crucial to determine which reading is original. In either case, the word was changed in one of the versions for theological reasons. The location of sacrifice, and the conflict between the Samaritan and the Jerusalemite community became so acute that the text of the Torah was rewritten, and the original location was omitted. 24 Archaeological excavations have provided evidence to assume that there was a cult site at both Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal. See Adam Zertal, “Mount Ebal,” NEAEHL 2:375 – 377, and Itzhaq Magen, “Mount Gerizim,” NEAEHL 3:484 – 492.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

An Omission of One Letter—Many Gods Omitted

101

An Addition That Resulted in an Omission The SP is known to avoid anthropomorphic representations of God,25 and accordingly, it occasionally replaces God’s appearances on earth with an angel of God.26 For example, according to the MT of Num 22:20, God visited Balaam at night to give him a message: 9@ LB4=9 8@=@ AF@5.@4 A=8@4 45=9. The SP follows the MT closely in the verse but has changed the subject A=8@4 to A=8@4 ý4@B. An identical change is found, for example, in Num 23:5 and 16. Although these changes were achieved by additions, the result is the omission of an anthropomorphic presentation of God, because it removes God from being the subject of the sentence and thus omits God altogether as an actor of the passage.27 These examples imply that the editors may have been hesitant to omit parts of the text if the theological correction or the omissions of the offensive conception could have been achieved by an addition of textual elements. The same tendency can be seen in many other changes that were made relatively late. It is also well in accordance with the observations that the overwhelming majority of differences between the MTand the SP are additions, whereas omissions, in either version in comparison with the other, are difficult to find.

An Omission of One Letter—Many Gods Omitted Another example of a very small omission—of one letter only—that resulted in a significant change can be found in Gen 31:53. The originally plural reference to God, preserved in the MT, was changed to singular in the SP and the LXX. The MT uses the plural to refer to the god(s) of Abraham and god(s) of Nahor : 9D=D=5 9üHM= L9;D =8@49 A8L54 =8@4. The fact that the gods of Abraham and Nahor are listed as separate genitives suggests that the plural is original and that many gods were probably meant. Whether the plural is a reference to several gods that both of them had or two gods only—one of Abraham, the other of Nahor—cannot be determined. If one divinity was meant, one would expect the text to read 28 L9;D9 A8L54 =8@4. The SP and LXX have changed the plural verb to singular, üHM= 25 This tendency is commonly acknowledged and there are several similar cases. See Waltke, “Samaritan Pentateuch,” 937 – 938. 26 Note that the SP was not systematically revised in this respect. For example in Gen 18, where Yhwh visits Abraham and is presented as a human, the SP follows the MTclosely (see vv. 1 – 2, 13, 17, 20, and 22). 27 Cf. a similar technique in the LXX of Exod 24:9 – 11; see below. 28 Cf. 1 Kgs 18:36: @4LM=9 K;J= A8L54 =8@4. Other passages, such as Gen 28:13, separate the gods of Abraham and Isaac, but here the intention may have been to convey that Yhwh is what was previously known as separate gods: K;J= =8@49 ý=54 A8L54 =8@4 898= =D4.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

102

Conservative Editorial Processes in the Samaritan Pentateuch

and jqime? respectively. It is very likely that the SP and LXX are secondary here, because a tendency to remove the polytheistic elements would be expected from many later authors, while the opposite direction of development would be difficult to explain. Similar changes are made, for example, in Gen 20:13 and 35:7. The plural reference, in these cases preserved in the MT, is probably original.

Summary In comparison with the repeated expansions, only a few omissions can be found by comparing the SP and MT versions of the Pentateuch. A review of a considerable amount of textual material has revealed only scattered cases of unequivocal intentional omissions. Those that can be identified are mainly very small, although the effect on the meaning of the passage may, in some cases, be significant. The comparison suggests that the editors and scribes of the Pentateuch in the last two centuries bce seem to have been reluctant to make omissions if the same effect could be achieved by an addition. At least in the textual transmission of the MT and SP during these centuries omissions may have been only the last resort when the intended correction could not be achieved by other means. Nevertheless, there are some examples where omissions were made, which denotes that the preservation of the older text could be challenged if it contained something theologically problematic or offensive. The omissions seem to have been made mainly if the older text contained erroneous conceptions in theologically crucial issues, such as the location of sacrifice or the nature of the divinity. In other words, the principle of always preserving the older text could be overridden in some cases, but it was only the last resort and the omissions are restricted to one or two words only. It is far more common to make additions to alter the meaning of the text. This evidence from the Samaritan Pentateuch thus seems to accord with the conventional conception in literary criticism that the text almost exclusively developed through additions. During in the last centuries bce, when the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Masoretic text developed separately, omissions were a rare editorial technique in these textual traditions of the Pentateuch.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

The Conservative Editorial Processes in the Book of Jeremiah

Documented evidence from the book of Jeremiah corresponds with the assumption in literary criticism that the texts almost exclusively developed through expansions. This has been largely confirmed by several investigations comparing the two parallel versions preserved in Hebrew and Greek. William McKane has rightly concluded that the longer Masoretic text is generally younger than the substantially shorter text of the Septuagint. Not axiomatically excluding the possibility of omissions,1 he is able to demonstrate that most of the plusses in the Masoretic text can be explained as later additions.2 It is difficult to show an unequivocal large or substantial omission when we compare the parallel passages. Because the evidence in the book of Jeremiah is based on two texts that preserve two different literary stages in the development of the text, scholarship stands on relatively firm ground with this evidence. Nevertheless, some scholars have assumed that the Greek version of Jeremiah may also contain some evidence for occasional intentional and ideological omissions,3 which would be of considerable interest for our enterprise. However, it is difficult to find support for this. For the purposes of this investigation several passages in the book were surveyed with the specific aim of identifying possible omissions in either of the 1 William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah: Commentary on Jeremiah 1 – 25 (ICC; T & T Clark: Edinburgh, 1986), xvii. 2 See McKane, Jeremiah, xv–lxii. Similarly many others, for example, Emanuel Tov, “The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of Its Textual History,” in Empirical Models (ed. J. Tigay ; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 213 – 237. Anneli Aejmelaeus, “‘Nebuchadnezzar, My Servant’ Redaction History and Textual Development in Jer 27,” in Interpreting Translation. Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust (ed. G. Martinez and M. Vervenne; BETL 192; Leuven, 2005), 1 – 18. 3 Thus, for example, Wilhelm Rudolph, Jeremia (HAT 12; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1968), in several passages, including Jer 25:1 – 14, discussed here. He may have overestimated the number of intentional omissions in the LXX. In Jer 25:1 – 14 he assumes several intentional omissions or abridgements in the LXX, but it is more likely that the plus in the MT is an additions in the MT, as we will see. Rudolph’s implicit assumption is that the MT is more reliable and original than the LXX.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

104

The Conservative Editorial Processes in the Book of Jeremiah

versions.4 Although abridgements in the LXX are probable in some cases, they appear to be mostly stylistic polishing, omissions of a confusing Hebrew Vorlage, omissions of apparent repetitions (e. g., Jer 17:1 – 4) or very controversial cases. It is difficult to pinpoint intentional omissions where parts of the older text were omitted because it contained something that was theologically, ideologically, politically, or otherwise unacceptable. Although there are some exceptions, as we will see, the overwhelming number of differences between the Hebrew and Greek texts can be explained as expansions (mainly) in the Masoretic text.5 Because the evidence has been extensively discussed in many detailed investigations, only a short example suffices to demonstrate the direction of the textual development in the book. A passage that contains particularly many differences has been selected for discussion, followed by an example of a passage where significant information of the older text was omitted in the Septuagint.

Several Additions in the MT of Jer 25:1 – 14 Jeremiah 25:1 – 14 describes how Jeremiah received Yhwh’s word that condemned Judah’s sins and prophesied the upcoming captivity in Babylonia. This passage contains repeated plusses in the MT in relation to the LXX.6 Our interest lies in the fact that nearly all of these plusses can, with some certainly, be regarded as expansions in the MT, while it would be difficult to argue for omissions in the LXX. One can build up a theory that explains the emergence of the plusses in the MT, while their omissions would be less probable. Nevertheless, all of the differences have occasioned scholarly discussion with various proposals. According to J. Gerald Janzen and McKane, for example, most of the differences in this passage are additions in the MT,7 whereas Wilhelm Rudolph, among others, has suggested omissions in the LXX. The latter position cannot be 4 The following chapters were investigated with the aim of identifying omissions: Jer 24 – 26; 28; 29; 32 – 45. 5 Thus many since early research, for example, Carl Steuernagel, Lehrbuch der Einleitung (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [P. Siebeck], 1912), 533. Clearly, the development of the book was not necessarily linear ; there may have been several parallel versions that developed simultaneously. Thus already Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jeremia (KHCAT; Tübingen and Leipzig: J.C.B. Mohr, 1901), XXII. Because my intention here is not to explain the development of the traditions in detail, but only to determine the existence or non-existence of omissions, very controversial cases have to be left out of the discussion. 6 The passage is poorly preserved at Qumran. Although only some words of Jer 25:7 – 8 are preserved in 4QJerc, the fragment clearly shows that it follows the MT. The parallel is missing in the LXX. 7 J. Gerald Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah (HSM 6; Cambridge, Mass: 1973), Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah. A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 489 – 496, and McKane, Jeremiah 1 – 25, 618 – 633.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

105

Several Additions in the MT of Jer 25:1 – 14

substantiated with any certainly in this passage and the proposed intentional omissions are controversial. The assumption that the LXX preserves an earlier stage of the text’s development provides a better explanation. Only the substantial and evidently intentional textual changes will be discussed here, but all main differences are marked in the synoptic columns:8 Jer 25:1 – 14 MT

1

AF.@?.@F 98=BL=.@F 8=8.LM4 L578 98=M4=.C5 A=K=98=@ N=F5L8 8DM5 8798= 8798= ý@B @55 ý@B LJ4L7 ?95D@ N=DM4L8 8DM8 4=8 2 8798= AF.@?.@F 4=5D8 98=BL= L57 LM4 LB4@ A@M9L= =5M=.@ @? @49 3

C9B4.C5 98=M4=@ 8DM 8LMF [email protected] 8:8 A9=8 7F9 8798= ý@B 8DM A=LMF9 M@M 8: =@4 898=.L57 8=8 L579 A=?M4 A?=@4 L5749 ANFBM 4@9 4 9=75F.@ @?.N4 A?=@4 898= ;@M9 ;@M9 A?M8 A=45D8 ANFBM 4@9 FBM@ A?D:4.N4 AN=ü8.4@9 5 M=4 4D.959M LB4@ 8FL8 9?L7B A?=@@FB FLB9 8B748.@F 95M9 A?=N954@9 A?@ 898= CND LM4 [email protected] [email protected]@ 6 A=L;4 A=8@4 =L;4 9?@N.@49 A8@ N9;NM8@9 A75F@ 8MFB5 =N94 9E=F?N.4@9 A?@ FL4 4@9 A?=7= 7 =@4 ANFBM.4@9 =DE=F ?8 CFB@ 898=.A4D A ?@ FL@ A ?=7= 8MFB5 8 N945J 898= LB4 8? C?@ =L57.N4 ANFBM.4@ LM4 CF= 9 =N;K@9 ;@M =DD8 898=.A4D C9HJ N9 ;HMB.@ @?.N4 =75F @55.ý@B LJ4L7 ?95D.@49 N4:8 IL48.@F A=N4589 8=5M=.@F9 5=5E 8@48 A=968.@? @F9

Jer 25:1 – 12 + 32:13 LXX j kºcor b cemºlemor pq¹r Ieqeliam 1p· p²mta t¹m ka¹m Iouda 1m t` 5tei t` tet²qt\ toO Iyajil uRoO Iysia basik´yr Iouda, 1

2

dm 1k²kgsem pq¹r p²mta t¹m ka¹m Iouda ja· pq¹r to»r jatoijoOmtar Ieqousakgl k´cym 3 1m tqisjaidej²t\ 5tei Iysia uRoO Alyr basik´yr Iouda ja· 6yr t/r Bl´qar ta¼tgr eUjosi ja· tq¸a 5tg ja· 1k²kgsa pq¹r rl÷r aqhq¸fym ja· k´cym 4 ja· !p´stekkom pq¹r rl÷r to»r do¼kour lou to»r pqov¶tar eqhqou !post´kkym, ja· oqj eQsgjo¼sate ja· oq pqos´swete to?r ¡s·m rl_m, 5 k´cym )postq²vgte 6jastor !p¹ t/r bdoO aqtoO t/r pomgq÷r ja· !p¹ t_m pomgq_m 1pitgdeul²tym rl_m, ja· jatoij¶sete 1p· t/r c/r, Hr 5dyja rl?m ja· to?r patq²sim rl_m !pû aQ_mor ja· 6yr aQ_mor· 6 lµ poqe¼eshe ap¸sy he_m !kkotq¸ym toO douke¼eim aqto?r ja· toO pqosjume?m aqto?r, fpyr lµ paqoqc¸fgt´ le 1m to?r 5qcoir t_m weiq_m rl_m toO jaj_sai rl÷r. 7 ja· oqj Ajo¼sat´ lou.

8

di± toOto t²de k´cei j¼qior 9peidµ oqj 1piste¼sate to?r kºcoir lou, 9 Qdo» 1c½ !post´kky ja· k¶lxolai tµm patqi±m !p¹ boqq÷ ja· %ny aqto»r 1p· tµm c/m ta¼tgm ja· 1p· to»r jatoijoOmtar aqtµm ja· 1p· p²mta t± 5hmg t± j¼jk\ aqt/r

8 The additions in one version are written in bold. Cases where the versions provide a slightly different reading without an evident addition or omission in one of the witnesses are written in italics. For omissions strikethrough is used.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

106

The Conservative Editorial Processes in the Book of Jeremiah A=NBM9 A=NBL;89 8KLM@9 8BM@ A@9F N95L;@9 10 C9MM @9K A8B =N75489 CN; @9K 8;BM @9K9 LD L949 A=;L @9K 8@? @9K9 11 8BM@ 85L;@ N4:8 IL48.@? 8N=89 @55 ý@B.N4 8@48 A=968 975F9 8DM A=F5M 12 8DM A=F5M N94@B? 8=89 4988 =968.@F99 @55.ý@B.@F 7KH4 A=7M ? IL4.@F9 AD9F.N4 898=.A4D A@9F N9BBM@ 9N4 =NBM9 13 =L57.@?.N4 4=88 IL48.@F =N=4589 8 :8 LHE5 59N ?8.@? N4 8=@F =NL57.LM4 98=BL= 45D.LM4 A=968.@?.@F 14 A=?@B9 A=5L A=96 8B8.A6 A5.975F =? A8=7= 8MFB ?9 A@FH ? A8@ =NB@M9 A=@976

1

The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah, in the fourth year of King Jehoiakim son of Josiah of Judah —it was the first year of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon— 2 which the prophet Jeremiah spoke to all the people of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: 3 For twenty-three years, from the thirteenth year of King Josiah son of Amon of Judah, to this day, the word of Yhwh has come to me, and I have spoken early to you, and he spoke/spoken? but you have not listened. 4 And Yhwh sent you all his servants the prophets early, and sending you have not listened, and not inclined your ears to hear 5 when they said, “Turn now, everyone of you, from your evil way and wicked doings, and you will remain upon the land that Yhwh has given to you and your ancestors forever; 6 do not go after other gods to serve and worship them, and do not provoke me to anger with the work of your hands. Then I will do you no harm.”

ja· 1neqgl¾sy aqto»r ja· d¾sy aqto»r eQr !vamisl¹m ja· eQr suqicl¹m ja· eQr ameidisl¹m aQ¾miom· 10 ja· !pok_ !pû aqt_m vymµm waq÷r ja· vymµm eqvqos¼mgr, vymµm mulv¸ou ja· vymµm m¼lvgr, aslµm l¼qou ja· v_r k¼wmou. 11 ja· 5stai p÷sa B c/ eQr !vamislºm, ja· douke¼sousim 1m to?r 5hmesim 2bdol¶jomta 5tg. 12 ja· 1m t` pkgqyh/mai t± 2bdol¶jomta 5tg 1jdij¶sy t¹ 5hmor 1je?mo, vgs·m j¼qior, ja· h¶solai aqto»r eQr !vamisl¹m aQ¾miom· …

32:13

nsa 1pqov¶teusem Ieqeliar 1p· p²mta t± 5hmg.

1

The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah, in the fourth year of King Jehoiakim son of Josiah of Judah 2

which he spoke to all the people of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: 3 For twenty-three years, from the thirteenth year of King Josiah son of Amon of Judah, to this day I have spoken early to you and saying. 4

And though I sent you my sending them early, you have not listened, and not inclined your ears 5

when I said, “Turn now, everyone of you, from your evil way and wicked doings, and you will remain upon the land that I have given to you and your ancestors forever ; 6 do not go after other gods to serve and worship them, and do not provoke me to anger with the work of your hands to do you no harm.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

107

Several Additions in the MT of Jer 25:1 – 14 7

Yet you did not listen to me, the word of Yhwh, and so you have provoked me to anger with the work of your hands to your own harm. 8 Therefore thus says Yhwh Sabaoth: Because you have not obeyed my words, 9 I am going to send and take all the tribes of the north, the word of Yhwh, and the King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and its inhabitants, and against all these nations around; I will utterly destroy them, and make them an object of horror and of hissing, and an everlasting disgrace. 10 And I will banish from them the sound of mirth and the sound of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the sound of the millstones and the light of the lamp. 11 This whole land shall become a ruin, a waste, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. 12 Then after seventy years are completed, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, says Yhwh, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity putting it to destruction forever. 13 I will bring upon that land all the words that I have uttered against it, everything written in this book, which Jeremiah prophesied against all the nations. 14 For many nations and great kings shall make slaves of them also; and I will repay them according to their deeds and the work of their hands.

7

Yet you did not listen to me.

8

Therefore thus says Yhwh: Because you have not obeyed my words, 9 I am going to send and take a tribe of the north,

I will bring them against this land and its inhabitants, and against all nations around it; I will utterly destroy them, and make them an object of horror and of hissing, and an everlasting disgrace. 10 And I will banish from them the sound of mirth and the sound of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the fragrance of perfume and the light of the lamp. 11 This whole land shall become a ruin, and they shall serve among the nations seventy years. 12 Then after seventy years are completed, I will punish that nation, says Yhwh, putting them to destruction forever

…

32:13

which Jeremiah prophesied against all the nations.

According to the MT of v. 1b, the fourth year of Jehoiakim was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, while the whole reference is missing in the LXX. According to Wilhelm Rudolph, the date may have been omitted in the LXX because of

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

108

The Conservative Editorial Processes in the Book of Jeremiah

“animosity towards Babylon.”9 Jeremiah 25:1b is not an isolated case, but part of a wider difference between the MT and the LXX. Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians are repeatedly found in the MT plusses of Jeremiah but are lacking in the Greek version. This tendency is met, for instance, in Jer 25:1b, 9, 11 and 12. At first glance, it would appear that some of the references to Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar in particular are very positive. According to the MTof Jer 25:9, Nebuchadnezzar was a servant of Yhwh. One could then argue that this conflicts with several passages in the Hebrew Bible where Nebuchadnezzar is portrayed as the destroyer of the Temple and the kingdom (e. g., 2 Kgs 25). It would therefore be understandable that an editor omitted such references to the evil Babylonians and their king. This line of reasoning would be rather convincing, were it not that the negative references to the Babylonians are also missing in the LXX. If one were to assume that the textual tradition of the LXX was particularly hostile to the Babylonians, as assumed by Rudolph, one would expect the negative references to be highlighted and certainly not omitted. Verse 12 is a case in point. In the MT of this verse, Yhwh proclaims that after the seventy years are concluded, he will punish or take vengeance on the king of Babylon and the land of the Chaldeans because of their iniquity. The Chaldeans evidently refer to the Babylonians. In the Greek version, however, Yhwh will take vengeance only on that nation, which, on the basis of v. 9, is an unnamed tribe of the north. According to v. 12, he will put them (aqto»r, but cf. 9N4 in the MT) to destruction forever, which seems to refer to all the nations where the Judahites have been for seventy years. If one is to argue with Rudolph for a particular animosity towards the Babylonians in the LXX tradition, one would have to explain why the references to their iniquities, punishment, and eternal destruction were omitted. This line of reasoning does not seem to make sense. In contrast, it would correspond to a common development in the Hebrew Bible that a reference to the punishment of an unnamed tribe of the north would later be expanded by a reference that specified that the tribe of the Chaldeans was meant. But how does one explain the particularly positive reference to Nebuchadnezzar as “my servant” in the MTof Jer 25:9? The same additional reference to “Nebuchadnezzar, my servant,” is also found in the MT of 27:6 and 43:10, which excludes a misunderstanding or textual corruption. According to Anneli Aejmelaeus, all three references are later additions and part of what she calls the Palestinian edition, a late stage of redaction preserved in the Masoretic version. The LXX would, in these cases, represent an earlier edition of the book. She has argued that it would not have been possible to refer to Nebuchadnezzar the servant of Yhwh “until the bitterness of memories about him had faded away,” 9 Rudolph, Jeremia, 137.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Several Additions in the MT of Jer 25:1 – 14

109

which suggests that it was a rather later addition.10 She also notes that there is a line of development where Nebuchadnezzar is increasingly seen in a positive light so that in the book of Daniel he is even said to have worshipped Yhwh (e. g., Dan 4:34 and 37).11 Aejmelaeus additionally explains the emergence of the reading in the MTof Jer 27:6 as a consequence of earlier editing, which resulted in textual confusion.12 Accordingly, it is probable that the LXX preserves an earlier stage of redaction than the MT as far as the references to the Babylonians are concerned. The MT may contain a redactional stage in which an editor has attempted to connect the events described in the book with the Babylonians, their chronology, and Nebuchadnezzar.13 Because enough time had passed, Nebuchadnezzar’s actions were seen in a broader historical perspective so that he was regarded as one of the servants who executed Yhwh’s general plan to teach Israel that sin would result in destruction. While the older stage of the book made unspecific references to the historical situation, the editor may have sought to be more specific on when Jeremiah was active and how his activity relates to the wider historical context. The references to the Babylonians and Nebuchadnezzar may also be part of an attempt to connect the narrative in Jeremiah with 1 – 2 Kings, which was an important source of influence for the book of Jeremiah.14 In contrast, it would be very difficult to find a motivation for systematically omitting references to Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar almost throughout the composition, especially since both negative and positive references are missing in the LXX. Moreover, many of the references to the Babylonians and Nebuchadnezzar are otherwise poorly connected to their contexts, a fact that further suggests that we are dealing with later additions in the MTand not omissions in the LXX. Jeremiah 25:1b and the reference to Nebuchadnezzar my servant in v. 9 are prime examples of this. Verses 2 – 6 contain repeated differences between the MTand the LXX. Most of the differences seem to be connected and one can see a clear tendency. The LXX presents the warnings and condemnation of the Judahites as a first person speech by Yhwh, while the MT primarily refers to the divinity in the third person so that Jeremiah would be speaking with the people. There is evident confusion and repetition in both versions of v. 3, while v. 6b of the MT peculiarly refers to 10 Aejmelaeus, “Nebuchadnezzar, My Servant,” 10 – 18. 11 Aejmelaeus, “Nebuchadnezzar, My Servant,” 13 – 14. Moreover, the idea that the great Babylonian king is a servant of Yhwh would be well in line with many late texts that portrayed the gentile kings as subservient to Yhwh (1 Esd 8:4) or as his servants (cf. the discussion about possible references to “Cyrus, my servant” in Isa 40 – 55). 12 Aejmelaeus, “Nebuchadnezzar, My Servant,” 16 – 17. 13 Similarly, but with some differences in nuance, Duhm, Jeremia, 200 – 201, McKane, Jeremiah 1 – 25, 619 – 622, 624 – 627, Carroll, Jeremiah, 490 – 491, and others. 14 It would be worth a more detailed investigation to understand what the specific aims and features of this redaction are.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

110

The Conservative Editorial Processes in the Book of Jeremiah

Yhwh in the first person, which conflicts with the preceding third person in this version. It is probable that the MT is secondary in relation to the LXX in these verses. Two reasons may have contributed to the changes in the MT. The MT presents Jeremiah as a prophet who receives divine messages.15 This is suggested by the addition of Jeremiah’s title and the emphasis on Jeremiah receiving the word of Yhwh in v. 3. It would be difficult to see why the LXX had omitted the title while its addition in the MT follows a common tendency in the Hebrew Bible to add titles and professions.16 The change of the first person speech by Yhwh to Jeremiah’s speech where Yhwh is referred to in the third person could be seen to highlight the prophetic role of Jeremiah. He is presented as the mediator of what he has heard from Yhwh, while in the LXX his role is less prominent and the focus is more on Yhwh, who speaks directly to the people. The changes in the MT would form a consistent tendency in this respect, while it would be difficult to explain why the LXX had stripped Jeremiah of his prominent role and sidelined him intentionally.17 As the book was gradually developing into a collection of prophetic revelations mediated by Jeremiah, it would be understandable that later editors tried to highlight his prophetic role. That the MT is secondary is further suggested by v. 6b where the third person reference to Yhwh breaks down. Obviously, Jeremiah cannot be speaking in this verse because it refers to the punishment to the people by the speaker. The speaker must be Yhwh. One could then suggest that the original first person speech by Yhwh shines through the MT and that the revision in the MT has not been entirely consistent. The following text, which is spoken by Yhwh in both versions, could be a reason why v. 6b was left untouched. Verses 7 – 8 in particular would have necessitated more extensive interventions into the older text were 15 Thus also Carroll, Jeremiah, 490 – 491. 16 Cf., for example, the titles of Ezra, many of which were added later. There was a tendency by later editors to ascribe more titles to him. In the oldest text he may have been called a scribe, but this title was later added to some passages where the title was missing. Later editors with a more priestly perspective additionally called him a priest, adding the title in several passages. Some of this development is documented. The MT of Ezra 10:10 refers to Ezra the priest, while a parallel in First Esdras is lacking the title. On the other hand, First Esdras has also added titles. In 1 Esd 9:39, 40, 49 Ezra is also called the high priest, while the parallels in the MT lack this title. 17 According to Winfried Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1 – 25 (WMANT 41; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973), 265 – 266, the LXX tried to present the text as a direct word of Yhwh. He assumes that the relationship between the LXX and the MT is more complicated and that the MT is also original in some cases, but as a whole his view on the passage is confusing and not convincing. As noted by McKane, Jeremiah, 621, “Thiel reads too much into the absence of any representation of 4=5D8 98=BL= (v. 2) in Sept.” Because the titles are often added, one should not build a conception of a passage based on it. For other arguments against Thiel’s view, see further McKane, Jeremiah, 621.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Several Additions in the MT of Jer 25:1 – 14

111

one to continue with the first person speech by Yhwh. Without a more comprehensive revision of the text, one would have had to stop changing the first person to third person at some point. In addition to the attempt to increase Jeremiah’s prophetic role, the change in the MT may also be due to a confusion, originally caused by the addition of vv. 2*–3a,18 that refers to the whole period of Jeremiah’s activity. The addition may be an early attempt, preserved in both versions, to unify the passage with the wider chronological framework of the book. That v. 2* is a later addition is suggested by the repetition between v. 1a and 2a, and by the additional information in v. 2a that the word was also meant for the inhabitants of Jerusalem. That something was added here is also suggested by the confusing v. 3b (ANFBM 4@9 L579 A=?M4 A?=@4 L5749), which leaves the reader puzzled as to who is speaking in L574 and L57. After the addition of vv. 2*–3a, which referred to Jeremiah, the original subject of v. 3b, Yhwh, became buried and the subject of the verse would now grammatically be Jeremiah. Because the ensuing text still implies that Yhwh is speaking, the text became confused. Subsequently, an attempt was made in the MT to harmonize the ensuing text to accord with the changed subject in v. 3. At some point, however, the editor noticed that the change would require much more than merely changing subjects and the harmonization had to be abandoned after v. 6a. The LXX, however, may preserve the more original readings in this respect, but it provides a rather confusing text of v. 3. The added L579 in v. 3b, rendered in both versions, may be a separate but a rather unsuccessful attempt to clarify the speaker19 and thus be a consequence of the addition in vv. 2*–3a as well.20 When we read the text without vv. 1b–3a,21 the result is a flowing and consistent text where the speaker is evident. Consequently, the original text of v. 1 – 4 probably read as follows: ;@M9 A=?M4 A?=@4 L5749 LB4@ 8798= AF.@?.@F 98=BL=.@F 8=8.LM4 L578 … =75F.@?.N4 A?=@4 .22 Jeremiah is said to have received Yhwh’s word and the ensuing text contains the word in the first person spoken by Yhwh. The plusses in the MT continue in v. 7. Here we may have two separate additions, the expression 898=.A4D in v. 7a and a further addition in v. 7b. The addition of 898=.A4D follows the tendency to emphasize Jeremiah’s role as the recipient of prophetic messages; the same plus in the MT is also found in v. 9. Verse 7b of the MTseems to be a duplicate of an almost identical sentence in v. 6. 18 Note that the word LB4@ was probably part of the older text, as vv. 2* and 3a were added separately. 19 It may attempt to provide a transition from L574, where Jeremiah speaks, to L57, which refers to Yhwh. 20 The MT also adds ANFBM 4@9, which is very probably secondary and influenced by v. 4. 21 As argued above, v. 1b is a later addition in the MT and is missing in the LXX. 22 The verb ;@M may have originally been understood as an infinitivus constructus, but the MT vocalizes it as a perfect.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

112

The Conservative Editorial Processes in the Book of Jeremiah

It is unlikely that the repetition is original. Here one cannot completely exclude the possibility that the LXX has omitted the disturbing and unnecessary repetition, caused by earlier editing,23 but it may be more probable that the LXX preserves an earlier literary stage of the text’s development. The text continues in vv. 13 – 14 with even more extensive plusses in the MT, but here the case is further complicated by the fact that a parallel to the rest of Jer 25 is found in an entirely different location in the LXX (Jer 32 LXX). One sentence of Jer 25:13 MT is identical with one in Jer 32:13 LXX, but the rest of the text finds no exact parallel. It appears that in Jer 25:13 – 14 the text was extensively revised and passages were relocated in the process. The complications of these verses will have to be left outside this investigation, but most scholars have assumed that the MT is generally expansive and secondary in these verses.24 Consequently, despite several minuses, not a single uncontroversial intentional omission can be shown to have taken place in the LXX version of Jer 25:1 – 14. This passage is rather typical and only one of the many reviewed for this investigation. It is apparent that in view of the repeated plusses, the omissions are only an insignificant phenomenon in this text. And this applies to most other passages in Jeremiah as well. Although the entire book of Jeremiah was not investigated, it is unlikely that the picture would be considerably different in any other part of the book as far as the evidence from the preserved parallel versions in the MT and LXX are concerned. Omissions are restricted to exceptions.

An Omission in Jer 32:5/Jer 39:5 LXX Although the comparison between the MT and LXX versions of Jeremiah mostly bear witness to expansion (in the MT), there are some rare exceptions. One of the most substantial cases may be found in the Greek version of Jer 32:5 (LXX Jer 39:5). The MT seems to preserve the more original text, while a politically problematic part of the text was omitted in the LXX. It has to be noted however, that even if this may be one of the clearest cases in Jeremiah, the argumentation requires some acrobatics, and it cannot be said to be bulletproof. This underlines that during the period witnessed by the two preserved versions the text mainly developed through additions. Jeremiah 32:3bb–5 refers to Jeremiah’s prophecy about the fate of Judah and

23 Omissions of evidently unnecessary repetitions are often assumed to have been made in the LXX of Jeremiah, but they are not of interest for the purposes of the present investigation. 24 Rudolph, Jeremia, 136 – 137. It is a different question as to which version represents the more original text in the location of the passages within the narrative.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

113

An Omission in Jer 32:5/Jer 39:5 LXX

King Zedekiah. The LXX follows the MT almost word for word, except v. 32abb, which is missing in the LXX:25 Jer 32:3b–5 MT

3

898= LB4 8? … 7=5 N4:8 L=F8.N4 CND =DD8 87?@9 @55.ý@B 4 7=B ü@B= 4@ 8798= ý@B 98=K7J9 CND= CND8 =? A=7M?8 @55.ý@B 7=5 9=H.AF 9=H.L579 9(=)D=F.N4 9=D=F9 8D=4LN 5 98=K7J.N4 ý@9= @559 8=8= AM9 898=.A4D 9N4 =7KH.7F 9;=@JN 4@ A=7M?8.N4 9B;@N =?

3

… Thus says Yhwh: “I will give this city into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he will take it; 4 Zedekiah King of Judah will not escape out of the hands of the Chaldeans, but will surely be given into the hands of the king of Babylon, and will speak with him mouth to mouth and his eyes will see his eye(s); 5 and he will take Zedekiah to Babylon, and there he will remain until I attend to him, word of Yhwh; although you fight against the Chaldeans, you will not succeed.”

Jer 39:3b–5 LXX 3 … Ovtyr eWpem j¼qior Ydo» 1c½ d¸dyli tµm pºkim ta¼tgm 1m weqs·m basik´yr Babuk_mor, ja· k¶lxetai aqt¶m, 4 ja· Sedejiar oq lµ syh0 1j weiq¹r t_m Wakda¸ym, fti paqadºsei paqadoh¶setai eQr we?qar basik´yr Babuk_mor, ja· kak¶sei stºla aqtoO pq¹r stºla aqtoO, ja· oR avhaklo· aqtoO to»r avhaklo»r aqtoO exomtai, 5 ja· eQseke¼setai Sedejiar eQr Babuk_ma ja· 1je? jahie?tai.

3

… Thus says Yhwh: “I will give this city into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he will take it; 4 Zedekiah will not escape out of the hands of the Chaldeans, but will surely be given into the hands of the king of Babylon, and shall speak with him mouth to mouth and his eyes will see his eyes; 5 and he will take Zedekiah to Babylon, and there he will remain.”

As for its general content, one is immediately struck by the contradiction between this passage and 2 Kgs 24:18 – 25:7. According to 2 Kgs 25:7, Zedekiah’s sons were killed in front of his eyes, after which he was blinded and sent to Babylon in shackles. His later whereabouts are not mentioned in 2 Kings, but it is implied that he was left imprisoned and forgotten. Jeremiah 32:4 – 5 gives a much more positive impression about the fate of the last king of Judah. Although it also deals with Zedekiah’s fate, there is no reference to his sons being killed and the imprisonment in shackles is also not mentioned. The lack of reference to the blinding is highlighted by the explicit reference to Zedekiah seeing the king of 25 These verses are not preserved in the manuscripts found at Qumran.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

114

The Conservative Editorial Processes in the Book of Jeremiah

Babylonia eye to eye. It appears that the author of Jer 32:3bb–5 was unfamiliar with 2 Kgs 24:18 – 25:7 or he intentionally contradicted this passage.26 In a separate article,27 I have argued that there were two claims to the dynastic succession in the time immediately following the collapse of the monarchy in 586 bce, one favoring the line of Jehoiachin and the other that of Zedekiah. The reason for the existence of two lines was the displacement of Jehoiachin by Nebuchadnezzar and the ensuing installment of his uncle Zedekiah (Mattaniah) as king (2 Kgs 24:12 – 17). Since both are said to have survived after the destruction of Judah, both could have been regarded as representing the legitimate dynastic line. Second Kings 24:18 – 25:7 and Jer 32:3bb–5 would both be vestiges of the sixth century bce dispute between the dynastic lines, the former trying to show that Zedekiah’s line was a dead end, the latter preserving a tradition that implies that Zedekiah’s line continued to be viable even after the collapse of the monarchy.28 With its conclusion in 2 Kgs 25:27 – 30, 1 – 2 Kings would be a document from Jehoiachin’s camp. This background is important for understanding what is taking place between the MT and LXX of Jer 32:3 – 5. Our interest culminates in Jer 32:5 (LXX 39:5) and in its phrase 9N4 =7KH.7F.29 It is not immediately clear what is meant by 7KH. The word is used in various meanings, but there are basically two alternatives. It could refer to a punishment: “and he will take Zedekiah to Babylon and there he will remain until I punish him,” or, alternatively, it refers to the reversal of Zedekiah’s fate: “and he will take Zedekiah to Babylon and there he will remain until I attend to him.”30 Although semantically possible, the first alternative is improbable in this context because the loss of kingship and expulsion to Babylon is already a very severe 26 The contradiction between 2 Kgs 24:18–25:7 and Jer 32:4 has been generally neglected. William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2. A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 26–52 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), 213, notes that Jer 32:4 must be ironic, but it is difficult to find any support for this view in the context. Arnold B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel. Textkritisches, Sprachliches und Sachliches, IV Jesaja, Jeremia (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1912), 324, suggested that in Jer 32:4 a negation was accidentally dropped, the original text reading “you will not see the king eye to eye.” 27 Juha Pakkala, “Zedekiah’s Fate and the Dynastic Succession,” JBL 125 (2006): 443–452. See there for further discussion and literature. 28 It is very unlikely that Jer 32:3bb–5 could have been written before the collapse of the monarchy as a prophecy. The author seems to be aware that Zedekiah was caught, had to face the Babylonian king and was imprisoned in Babylon. 29 It is very probable that 9N4 refers to Zedekiah. Theoretically, the suffix could also refer to the Babylonian king, as noted by Rudolph, Jeremia, 175, but this is unlikely. The whole passage deals with Zedekiah’s fate, and grammatically Zedekiah is also the subject of the preceding verb. Moreover, it would be peculiar if the fate of Nebuchadnezzar were contingent on Zedekiah’s staying in Babylon. 30 For the different meanings of the word, see Ludwig Koehler & Walter Baumgartner, Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament (New York and Köln: Brill, 1967/ 1974/1983/1996), 7KH.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

An Omission in Jer 32:5/Jer 39:5 LXX

115

punishment, perhaps the ultimate punishment for a king. A reference to an upcoming punishment would make little sense here, especially since no further punishment is mentioned. 9N4 =7KH.7F is comprehensible only if it refers to the opposite of what has been described in the previous text, to the reversal of Zedekiah’s fate. The misery of imprisonment and shame as described in Jer 32:5aa would continue in Babylon until Yhwh attends to him, implying that Zedekiah’s fate would be reversed.31 This interpretation is well in line with other passages in Jeremiah, which imply that Zedekiah’s fate was more positive that what is described in 2 Kgs 25:7.32 A reference to the reversal of Zedekiah’s fate was the main problem with Jer 32:5. The influence of 1 – 2 Kings (and Deuteronomistic conceptions in general) is evident in many passages of Jeremiah.33 When the book of Jeremiah was later harmonized with the conceptions rising out of 1 – 2 Kings, the contradiction between 2 Kgs 25:7 and Jer 32:5 became evident. This is probably the main reason for the omission in the LXX tradition. The conceptions about what happened to Zedekiah were harmonized and this necessitated an omission in Jer 32:5. There appears to be a general development in the LXX version of Jeremiah to make Zedekiah a more evil king, as shown by Hermann Josef Stipp,34 which further suggests that the LXX is secondary in Jer 32:5. In comparison, the late addition of a reference to the reversal of Zedekiah’s fate in the MT would make little sense, because on the basis of 2 Kgs 25 Jehoiachin’s line gradually came to be regarded as the only legitimate one, and this interpretation is also represented in later literature.35 Consequently, the reference to the reversal of Zedekiah’s fate in the MT probably derives from a period when there was at least some hope that Zedekiah’s dynastic line could continue and when there still were supporters of 31 According to Winfried Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26 – 45 (WMANT 52; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 30, the phrase was intended as a threat to Zedekiah. Rudolph, Jeremia, 175, suggests that the phrase could refer to his death, but then one would have to ask why it was expressed with such a verb. Rudolph considers it as a possibility that Nebuchadnezzar could also have been meant, but this is unlikely, as already noted. According to Douglas R. Jones, Jeremiah (The New Century Bible Commentary ; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 407–408, the author may have been intentionally imprecise. Nevertheless, Carroll, Jeremiah, 619, notes that in the other passages where the word is used in Jeremiah (in 15:15; 27:22; 29:10), the meaning is positive, which would seem to suggest that this is the case in Jer 32:5 as well. For example, in Jer 27:22 the word 7KH denotes the reversal of the fate of the temple vessels. 32 For example, according to Jer 34:5, Zedekiah will die in peace. Discussing Zedekiah’s fate, Jer 38:17 – 18 does not mention any of the brutalities mentioned in 2 Kgs 25:7. 33 See, for example, Thiel: Jeremia 1 – 25, and Jeremia 26 – 45. 34 Hermann-Josef Stipp, “Zedekiah in the Book of Jeremiah: On the Formation of a Biblical Character,” CBQ 58 (1996): 632 – 638. 35 For example, according to 1 Chr 3:17, Shealtiel was son of Jehoiachin (Jeconiah). Through him the line would have continued to Zerubbabel. The same conception is also found in Matt 1:12 – 13.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

116

The Conservative Editorial Processes in the Book of Jeremiah

his dynastic line. The shorter LXX would then have to be seen as a later development where the conceptions of 1 – 2 Kings have established themselves and Jehoiachin’s dynastic line is seen as the only legitimate one.

Summary After the textual traditions of the MTand LXX of Jeremiah diverged, most of the editorial changes were additions whereas intentional omissions and replacements were notably rare. This evidence thus corresponds with the traditional conception in literary-critical approaches that the older text was almost always preserved in its transmission and that it was almost exclusively expanded. If the more expansionary MT were investigated with literary-critical methods without access to the earlier stage of the text’s development preserved by the LXX, one could, at least potentially, still fully reach the older text of the LXX.36 Because almost nothing was omitted, the earlier stage of textual development would still be almost fully preserved. Assuming that one could identify and isolate the additions, the reconstructed older text would then represent an earlier stage of the redaction history. It must be added, however, that the MT and LXX mainly bear witness to a rather late stage of transmission of this literary work. Whereas the beginnings of the text are probably in the early 6th century, the text-critical evidence from the MT and LXX primarily, albeit not necessarily completely, reflects editorial changes that were made in the last centuries bce after the book was translated into Greek.

36 It is another question to what extent it is possible to identify the additions, but this lies beyond the scope of this investigation. This would certainly be worth a separate investigation.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

The Development of Laws in the Pentateuch

The Hebrew scriptures contain many examples where an older composition or text was used as source material for a new literary work. In some cases both the source and the new work were preserved, which is significant for understanding the birth processes of such texts in more detail. The law codes of the Pentateuch in particular provide much documented evidence for tracing the long-term development of some texts. In some cases, three or four different stages of a law may have been preserved in the Pentateuch, but there are also cases where a text that became part of the Hebrew Bible was used as a source for a text that did not become part of the Hebrew Canon. Here one may mention, for example, the Temple Scroll, which was created by using parts of the Pentateuch as the main source. Although each relationship between the source and the new text must be discussed separately, they all provide evidence for how new texts were technically produced by using a source. Our aims here are mainly tied to the questions of how and to what extent the authors of the new compositions were able and disposed to omit and rewrite parts of their sources. What lies behind such radical changes to the source text, and how did the author of the new text relate to the older text? Various examples will be taken in order to gain a more comprehensive view of omissions when a new composition was created out of an older one. It should be stressed that omissions and other radical changes are commonly acknowledged to have taken place when an older text was used as a source for a new composition. Nevertheless, since the pentateuchal laws contain documented evidence of the development of some laws through several editors, they provide unique examples of what the long-term prehistory of some texts looks like. In some cases, there is evidence of five different stages in the development of a law. Because literary-critical investigations often assume that the prehistory of a given text may consist of several editorial stages, the evidence from the Pentateuch should be included in our model for investigating those texts where documented evidence is lacking.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

118

The Development of Laws in the Pentateuch

Deuteronomy and the Covenant Code The use of the Covenant Code as a source of Deuteronomy illustrates how extensively source texts could be revised in the new literary work. Although the changes are evident and commonly acknowledged, it is necessary to look at the extent of the changes and discuss the reasons why they were made. Before proceeding, a few notes about the complicated relationship between Deuteronomy and the Covenant Code are necessary. The relationship between Deuteronomy and the Covenant Code has been extensively discussed in scholarship.1 Because of several parallel laws, it is very likely that the two works are literarily related,2 but the exact nature of this relationship has remained unclear. It has traditionally been assumed that the Covenant Code was a direct source for Deuteronomy.3 It is not possible to discuss the complexities of this issue in great detail here, but mounting evidence from Qumran and the related discussion suggest that the editorial processes and the transmission of Hebrew scriptures may have been more complex than what has been traditionally assumed. Therefore, it is not evident that the relationship between the two law codices, although being very probably literary on some level, is direct.4 For instance, the relationship between the codices may have been between different versions than the versions that are preserved in the Hebrew Bible.5 1 For a concise review of the scholarly discussion, see Bernard M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 6 – 13. 2 As noted by Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics, 7 – 8, correspondences are so extensive that one must assume literary dependence. 3 Thus already Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der Historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (Berlin: Reimer, 1899), 204, and many others, for example, Antti F. Puukko, Das Deuteronomium: eine literarkritische Untersuchung (BWAT 5; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1910), 262; Samuel R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (3rded. ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973), viii–x. Nevertheless, some scholars, such as Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), 205, have suggested that there is no direct literary connection between the Covenant Code and Deuteronomy, but they have clearly been in the minority. 4 The possibility that the link is not necessarily direct is commonly accepted. See, for example, Gerhard von Rad, Deuteronomy: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press, 1966), 13 – 14. On the other hand, many scholars are confident that the author of the Urdeuteronomium was familiar with the Covenant Code. Thus, for example, Georg Braulik, Deuteronomium: Kap.1 – 16, 17 (Die Neue Echter Bibel; Würzburg, Echter Verlag, 1986), 1 – 16, 17, 10. 5 It is commonly acknowledged in scholarship that Exod 21 – 23 was heavily edited by several later hands. We do not know which edition of these chapters the author of the Urdeuteronomium used. It is also unclear whether the Covenant Code had already been placed within the Sinai Pericope.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Deuteronomy and the Covenant Code

119

Moreover, the similarities and parallels between the Covenant Code and Deuteronomy may not be as close as some of the scholarly discussion might imply. It is unclear whether the potentially complicated relationship between the Covenant Code and Deuteronomy can be comprehensively solved by comparing the documents that are preserved in the Pentateuch. As we will see below, even those laws that have the most extensive parallels contain considerable differences. Despite these reservations, it is probable that the author of the Urdeuteronomium used as a source a document that was literarily related to the Covenant Code or that was a version of the Covenant Code.6 In many cases the parallel law in Deuteronomy differs from or even contradicts its corresponding law in the Covenant Code so that one has to question the assumption that the author of the Urdeuteronomium intended his work to be part of the same collection. There does not seem to be any attempt in Deuteronomy to explain away the differences, which implies that the author was not burdened by any great weight of the Covenant Code’s authority. Had the Covenant Code been of great authority that Deuteronomy tried to supplement, interpret, and expand, one would expect Deuteronomy to contain attempts to explain what the relationship between the two documents is and what the need for a new law code is. In contrast, there is no reference to the use of any source or older law code in Deuteronomy. Without trying to justify the new document in relation to its predecessors, the author of the Urdeuteronomium confidently presented an entirely new version of the laws in question. It is probable that the author of the Urdeuteronomium composed the new laws by using the Covenant Code or another related law collection as a source or resource material. He then presented his own code as the relevant code and intended it to be the true revelation of Yhwh.7 It is probable that Deuteronomy was written to replace all other possible documents that claimed to be Yhwh’s revelation.8 6 Thus since early research, for example, Driver, Deuteronomy, viii–x, and Carl Steuernagel, Deuteronomium und Josua: und allgemeine Einleitung in den Hexateuch (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900), xxvii–xxviii. This also does not exclude the possibility that some verses of Exod 20:22 – 23:33 may be dependent on a parallel verse in Deuteronomy. As both law codes were later edited, Deuteronomy also began to influence the originally older law code. Some laws of Exod 23 in particular were influenced by Deuteronomy. Christoph Levin, Fortschreibungen: Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (BZAW 316; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 97 – 101, suggests that Exod 20:24b is younger than Deut 12. The addition may have been made as a reaction to Deut 12. 7 Because the original setting of the Covenant Code may be missing, it is unclear whether it was originally presented as Yhwh’s revelation or as something else. Nevertheless, it is probable that an ancient Near Eastern law code would have had at least some divine legitimation and backing. 8 Many scholars, for example, Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics, 144 – 157, have emphasized the authoritative position of the Covenant Code that Deuteronomy attempted to subvert. To some extent this is a matter of emphasis and a definition of what is defined as an

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

120

The Development of Laws in the Pentateuch

The Covenant Code is commonly assumed to be a monarchic document. However, it is unclear how much of the original Covenant Code is preserved in Exod 20:22 – 23:33,9 or, to put it differently, how much of the original document that Exod 20:22 – 23:33 was originally part of is preserved in these chapters. For example, it is reasonable to assume that any monarchic law code would have contained references to the king, the state, and the temple, but they are completely missing in Exod 20:22 – 23:33, which implies that the present version has been thoroughly revised and that the original monarchic literary context is missing. One would expect the original monarchic document to have contained a prologue and an epilogue that connected the law code to the monarchic structures of society and thus gave it legitimacy. The implementation of a law code by the central authority would have had to be legitimized by appealing, for example, to divine favor for the king to represent the divine order on earth.10 The present version lacks all references to the central authority and its judicial structures, but this can hardly be original. They may have been left out as irrelevant or even disturbing after the collapse of the monarchy because the present context of the document in Exodus views a situation that is already independent of a monarchic setting.11 Nevertheless, it is probable that the core of Exod 20:22 – 23:33, its oldest lists of laws, derive from a monarchic background.12 authoritative document, but it remains to be proven that the Covenant Code had retained a significant position after 586 bce, even if its older form would have had such during the monarchic period. The monarchic Covenant Code may have become irrelevant in the context of the author of the Urdeuteronomium. 9 The beginning and the end of the Covenant Code are widely debated. It is possible that Exod 20:22 – 26 is a later addition, because Exod 21:1 was evidently written as an introduction of a collection of laws. Exod 23 is often assumed to have been heavily edited. At least some parts of this chapter were probably written in view of Deuteronomy. For example, Ludger Schwienhorst-Schönberger, Das Bundesbuch: Ex 20, 22 – 23, 33 (BZAW 188; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), 379 – 388, 393, 400, 405 – 406, has found a deuteronomistic redaction in the Covenant Code. 10 There is a clear difference between the present Covenant Code and other laws of the Ancient Near East. The Codex Hammurabi, for example, begins with an introduction where the king is authorized by the gods to establish and uphold the law code. This is further emphasized in the epilogue which lists the king’s accomplishments. They are a sign of divine favor, which then implicitly legitimizes his position. The king similarly plays a central role in the prologues of other known law codes of the Ancient Near East (see also, for example, the prologues to the laws of Lipit-Ishtar, Ur-Nammu, and Eshnunna). See various laws in Martha T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (2nd ed. SBL Writings from the Ancient World 6; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1997). She notes (p. 5 – 6) that the king was always involved in the justice system and “was always its guardian, for the application of justice was the highest trust given by the gods to a legitimate king.” Seen against the Near Eastern background, the lack of any reference to the king in the Covenant Code is striking, and suggests that the king was omitted when the document was revised after the collapse of the monarchy. 11 Because the monarchic law code would probably have tied the relevance of the law to the king, after the collapse of the monarchy it would have been necessary to remove these

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Deuteronomy and the Covenant Code

121

In contrast with the Covenant Code, the oldest version of Deuteronomy is already a post-586 bce document.13 Although Exod 20:22 – 23:33 was probably extensively edited after 586 bce as well, Deuteronomy was originally written for a post-monarchic context. Because much of the original Covenant Code had become irrelevant after 586 bce, its use and continued relevance in the new situation would have necessitated comprehensive updating in any case. It is therefore not clear that the question of the relationship between Deuteronomy and the Covenant Code was central or relevant for the author of the Urdeuteronomium because the situation had changed dramatically. In other words, in the context of the author of Deuteronomy, the Covenant Code may no longer have been a central and highly authoritative document because it had lost its original relevance.14 Nevertheless, the question of whether Deuteronomy tried to replace or supplement the Covenant Code has received considerable attention in scholarship.15 Hindy Najman assumes that the use of language from the Covenant Code in Deuteronomy implies that Deuteronomy did not intend to replace the older document,16 but it is difficult to see the rationale of her argument. If a new text tries to react to and replace an older text, it is quite probable that some of the language of the older text would be used as well.17 Her argument would logically

12 13 14

15

16 17

elements from the law code. Replacing the king with a pre-monarchic hero, Moses, would have made the law code independent of the existence of the monarchy. Some scholars, for example, Schwienhorst-Schönberger, Das Bundesbuch, 416, date some of the laws of the Covenant Code to the pre-monarchic period. See Juha Pakkala, “The Date of the Earliest Edition of Deuteronomy,” ZAW 121/3 (2009): 388 – 401. Many scholars, for example, Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics, 9 – 10, assume that the earliest edition of Deuteronomy should be dated to the time of King Josiah. Here one has to emphasize that the present form of the Covenant Code with its current literary context and frame is clearly a post-586 bce document, but the oldest literary links are between the oldest version of Deuteronomy and the laws of the Covenant Code, which is what is relevant in the current comparison of the documents. It is probable that the Covenant Code was then also updated in order to accommodate the changed circumstances of the post-586 bce period. This question has been discussed in scholarship since the early research. See, for example, Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1889), 204, who assumed that Deuteronomy tried to replace the older law codes. Similarly, Jeffrey Stackert, Rewriting the Torah: literary revision in Deuteronomy and the holiness legislation (FAT 52; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 211 – 214. The opposing view also has many advocates. For example, Jean-Louis Ska, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 52, notes that the older law “was of divine origin, and its validity was therefore ‘permanent’: it could not be abrogated. Consequently the ‘new law’ was considered to be a form of an old law.” Nevertheless, Ska adds that “in practical terms, only a new, ‘updated’ formulation was valid.” Hindy Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism (JSJS 77; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003), 22 – 26. Najman, Seconding Sinai, 22 – 23, writes: “why should one exert so much effort to incorporate and preserve its wording? Why should one constantly remind the reader of the earlier

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

122

The Development of Laws in the Pentateuch

mean that if any two documents are literarily related, the author of the younger one could never attempt to replace the older text. As noted by many scholars, the Covenant Code contains several parallels with the laws of the Code of Hammurabi,18 but it is unlikely that the author was concerned about the question of whether he is supplementing or replacing it. The context of the new document was entirely different. That a text is influenced by another text does not necessarily mean that the author has to be deeply concerned about the relationship of the new work with the source. The fact that Deuteronomy and the Covenant Code ended up in the same composition of the Pentateuch may distract us into assuming that the exact relationship between its different parts was a central question for the ancient authors. The Pentateuch is a relatively late composition, and its various parts circulated independently and were initially not written to be part of the same composition. It would be anachronistic to try to resolve the relationships between various parts of the Hebrew Bible by assuming that the authors were viewing the same collection of books as modern scholars.19 The fact that Deuteronomy does not repeat or revise all the laws of the Covenant Code is often seen as a further argument that the older text was expected to be still available for the readers of the new document,20 but this line of argument is problematic. Its premise is that the Covenant Code was so authoritative to the author of the Urdeuteronomium that none of its parts could be left out, and that if there is no parallel in Deuteronomy, the original law must have been available in the source.21 There is no reason to assume that the Covenant Code possessed such authority in the eyes of the author of the Urdeuteronomium, or at least it would have to be shown by examples and arguments why Deuteronomy assumes its precedent to possess the same authority. This cannot be taken as the starting point, especially since Deuteronomy makes no reference

18 19 20

21

text, already accepted as authoritative …” (p. 22). In view of the extensive differences between all parallel laws (with the exception of the short Exod 23:19b and Deut 14:21), her questions are incomprehensible and misleading. See, for example, David P. Wright, Inventing God’s Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 9. See criticism of Najman’s views also in Stackert, Rewriting the Torah, 211 – 214. Thus, among other, von Rad, Deuteronomy, 13 – 14 and Najman, Seconding Sinai, 24 – 25. For example, Richard D. Nelson, Deuteronomy: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 12, notes: “Because not all the laws of that earlier code are reformulated, it seems probable that Deuteronomy was not intended to supercede the Covenant Code completely or abrogate it.” Similarly Steuernagel, Deuteronomium und Josua, xxviii: “Das Dtn kann darum auch kein Ersatz des Bundesbuches … sein; denn dann müsste das Dtn den Inhalt des Bundesbuches … vollständig wiedergeben.” This would mean that to replace or challenge any older document, the new document would have to reproduce or provide a parallel to every story and law in the source. This line of argument is represented especially by Najman, Seconding Sinai, 22 – 25, 47.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Deuteronomy and the Covenant Code

123

to its source (cf. Jubilees, which clearly refers to the ‘first law’ and thus gives it a certain priority).22 Against the assumption that the author of the Urdeuteronomium regarded the Covenant Code as a highly authoritative document speaks the fact that in cases where a law in Deuteronomy was composed using a law in the Covenant Code (or in a related document) as a source, the source could be extensively revised, rewritten, and even contradicted in Deuteronomy. As we will see, any part of the older law could be omitted if it did not suit the goals of the new document.23 If any part of the source law could be omitted in the new law, it is reasonable to assume that entire laws could also have been omitted in the new law collection. As noted by Bernard M. Levinson, “the Covenant Code did not constitute a textual source to which the authors of Deuteronomy were bound in language, scope, or substantive legal content. Instead, the authors of Deuteronomy used the Covenant Code as a textual resource in order to pursue their own very different religious and legal agenda.”24 On the other hand, Levinson emphasizes the challenge posed by Deuteronomy to the previously authoritative texts, especially the Covenant Code.25 The use of the Covenant Code or a similar document certainly implies that the law code had some importance and authority or that it was widely known, but at the same time it is very likely that a monarchic law code had become more or less irrelevant after 586 bce, as already noted. At least to the extent that it was dependent on monarchic structures—the state and the king—it would have had to be revised. Other parts of Deuteronomy were also created by using old documents that had lost their original purpose after 586 bce. For example, some parts of Deuteronomy were strongly influenced by vassal treaties, but there is no reason to assume that they were particularly authoritative for the authors of Deut 13 or 28.26 They functioned as resource material and perhaps as a model of conceptualizing the relationship between Yhwh and Israel as between an overlord 22 Jubilees is generally assumed to be a supplement to Genesis and Exodus. In comparison, the Temple Scroll, like Deuteronomy, makes no reference to its sources, and it is often assumed to have competed with its source. See chapter VI for further discussion. 23 Thus contra Najman, Seconding Sinai, 22 – 23, and many others. 24 Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics, 149. 25 Thus Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics, 5 – 6, 149 – 150. 26 The connections between these chapters and the vassal treaties have been extensively discussed in scholarship. On the relationship between Deut 28 and the vassal treaties, see Hans Ulrich Steymans, Deuteronomium 28 und die AdÞ zur Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons: Segen und Fluch im Alten Orient und Israel (OBO 145; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996). For a recent publication and review of the issue, see Christoph Koch, Vertrag, Treueid und Bund: Studien zur Rezeption des altorientolischen Vertrgsrechts im Deuteronomium und zur Ausbildung der Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (BZAW 383; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2008), especially pp. 106 – 247 (on Deut 13 and 28).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

124

The Development of Laws in the Pentateuch

and dependant, but their original context and purpose had probably become irrelevant for the author of these chapters in Deuteronomy. One may even argue that the treaties could be used as a source and a model to describe the relationship between Yhwh and Israel only after they had lost their original function to define the relationship between political rulers, whether between the kings of Assyria and Judah or Babylon and Judah. The same applies to 1 – 2 Kings, the author of which used the royal annals for a religious document. It is hardly possible that the annals could have been used to portray most kings in a negative light during the monarchic period, but after the collapse of the monarchy, they could be used as resource material for a composition that had an entirely different perspective from the annals.27 Consequently, the status of the Covenant Code for the author of the Urdeuteronomium is not unequivocally that of a highly authoritative text that had to be taken into consideration more than as resource material. This would seem to suggest that the question of whether he tried to replace or supplement the Covenant Code may have been irrelevant for the author of the Urdeuteronomium. Many of the laws of the Covenant Code that have no parallel in Deuteronomy (for example, Exod 21:18 – 22, 25 – 36; 22:1 – 14) deal with very detailed cases of theft, restitution, and violence that go beyond the main interests of Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy primarily takes interest in cultic and religious issues and evidently does not intend to provide a comprehensive law code to regulate the lives of the Israelites. The post-586 bce context of Deuteronomy made a civil law code unnecessary, because the community had been dispersed to different parts of the Near East where they were under different civil laws. Instead, a significant number of the laws in Deuteronomy are directly or indirectly connected to the cult centralization and the prohibition of illegitimate gods and cultic practices, which had the function of regulating the religious identity of the Jewish community that had spread to different parts of the Near East. Many of the other laws deal with other aspects of preserving Jewish identity. One receives the impression that the author of the Urdeuteronomium used those laws of the Covenant Code that were useful for his own purposes and left out those that were not. There is no reason to assume that the author of the Urdeuteronomium would have accepted as valid those laws that were left out of his own collection. Consequently, the lack of a parallel to laws of the Covenant Code in Deuteronomy

27 Whereas the royal annals listed the most important deeds of the kings in order to elevate their status and thus justify their position, 1 – 2 Kings concentrates on showing how bad the kings were, which then functions as an explanation for the destruction that came about in 586 bce. The perspective has completely changed, although the author of 1 – 2 Kings has incorporated many passages from the annals.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

The Use of the Older Laws as Sources for Deuteronomy

125

cannot be used as an argument for the idea that Deuteronomy merely wanted to supplement the Covenant Code.28 It is probable that much of the discussion on the relationship between the Covenant Code and Deuteronomy has been confused by the common assumption that both were monarchic documents.29 It is very likely that a law code such as the Covenant Code would have been highly authoritative during the time of the monarchy, and it would have been very difficult to replace it. During this time the author of the Urdeuteronomium would have had to give some precedence to the Covenant Code. However, if we assume that the author of the Urdeuteronomium used the Covenant Code or a related old monarchic document after 586 bce, the relationship has to been seen in a different light. We would have a law code that had lost its original context, purpose, and authority (like the Assyrian vassal treaties), whereas Deuteronomy was created as a new vision for an entirely new situation.30

The Use of the Older Laws as Sources for Deuteronomy In order to understand how Deuteronomy was created and how the author used his source, main emphasis should be on those parallel laws where it is relatively certain that the Covenant Code functioned as the source for Deuteronomy. In such cases the comparison provides evidence for the creation and early transmission of the laws of Deuteronomy. The main problem is that there are not many laws where we can be certain that the Covenant Code was the source. In addition to several laws that have no parallel in Deuteronomy (Exod 21:8 – 11, 18 – 22, 25 – 36; 22:1 – 14, 17 – 19, 31; 23:10 – 13), there are several laws where Deuteronomy and the Covenant Code only share the theme and perhaps some individual words, but where there is not 28 Thus against Najman, Seconding Sinai, 20 – 29, and others. 29 Thus most scholars, with some dissenting voices, since the early 20th century ; for example, Robert Hatch Kennett, “The Date of Deuteronomy,” JTS 7 (1906): 481 – 500; Gustav Hölscher, “Komposition und Ursprung des Deuteronomiums,” ZAW 40 (1922): 161 – 255; George Ricker Berry, “The Code Found in the Temple,” JBL 39 (1920): 44 – 51; “The Date of Deuteronomy,” JBL 59 (1940): 133 – 139; Otto Kaiser, Grundriss der Einleitung: in die kanonischen und deuterokanonischen Schriften des Alten Testament: Band I: Die erzählenden Werke (München: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1992), 90 – 99; Reinhard Gregor Kratz, Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments: Grundwissen der Bibelkritik (UTB 2157; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 137 – 138. 30 For further discussion on the dating of Deuteronomy, see Juha Pakkala, “The Date of the Earliest Edition of Deuteronomy,” 388 – 401; See also criticism of this theory by Nathan MacDonald, “Issues in the Dating of Deuteronomy : A Response to Juha Pakkala,” in ZAW 122/3 (2010): 431 – 435, and my response to his response in Juha Pakkala, “The Dating of Deuteronomy : A Response to Nathan MacDonald,” in ZAW 123/3 (2011): 431 – 436.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

126

The Development of Laws in the Pentateuch

enough evidence to assume a literary connection (thus, for example, Exod 21:2 – 7, 12 – 17; 22:20 – 26, 28 – 29, 30b; 23:1 – 6, 9). The individual shared words can be explained against the backdrop of the same theme, which would necessitate the use of certain standard vocabulary. For example, Exod 22:24 and Deut 23:20 – 21 both regulate the interest on loans, but, besides some common words such as 4@, they have only one word in common, interest (ýMD): Exod 22:24

Deut 23:20 – 21 ýBF =DF8.N4 =BF.N4 89@N GE?.A4 ýMD 9=@F C9B=MN.4@ 8MD? 9@ 8=8N.4@

If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be to him as a creditor, and you shall not exact interest from him.

20

GE? ýMD ý=;4@ ý=MN.4@ 21 ýM= LM4 L57.@? ýMD @?4 ýMD 898= ý?L5= CFB@ ý=MN 4@ ý=;4@9 ý=MN =L?D@ 8N4.LM4 IL48.@F ý7= ;@MB @?5 ý=8@4 8NML@ 8BM.45 20 To a foreigner you may lend upon interest, but to your brother you shall not lend upon interest; that Yhwh your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land which you are entering to take possession of it. 21 When you make a vow to Yhwh your God, you shall not be slack to pay it; for Yhwh your God will surely require it of you, and it would be sin in you.

This may be too little to assume dependence between the laws, although both laws convey the same idea that one should not charge interest to an Israelite. Nevertheless, many scholars have assumed that the author of Deut 23:20 – 21 used Exod 22:24 to create the new law.31 More shared vocabulary is found in the laws on strangers, widows, and orphans, but even here one must be cautious about the exact relationship:32 Exod 22:20 – 23

20

A=L6.=? 9DJ;@N 4@9 8D9N.4@ L69 A=LJB IL45 AN==8 22 21 8DF.A4 C9DFN 4@ A9N=9 8DB@4.@? FBM =@4 KFJ= KFJ.A4 =? 9N4 8DFN 23 =N6L89 =H4 8L;9 9NKFJ FBM4 A?=D59 N9DB@4 A?=MD 9=89 5L;5 A?N4 A=BN=

Deut 24:17 – 22

17

8DB@4 765 @5;N 4@9 A9N= L6 üHMB 8üN 4@ 18 ý=8@4 898= ý7H=9 A=LJB5 N==8 75F =? NL?:9 8:8 L578.N4 N9MF@ ý9JB =?D4 C?.@F AMB 19 4@ 87M5 LBF N;?M9 ý7M5 ýL=JK LJKN =? ý?L5= CFB@ 8=8= 8DB@4@9 A9N=@ L6@ 9N;K@ 59MN ý=7= 8MFB @?5 ý=8@4 898= 20 A9N=@ L6@ ý=L;4 L4HN 4@ ýN=: ü5;N =? 21 ý=L;4 @@9FN 4@ ýBL? LJ5N =? 8=8= 8DB@4@9 22 N==8 75F.=? NL?:9 8=8= 8DB@4@9 A9N=@( L6@ L578.N4 N9MF@ ý9JB =?D4 C?.@F A=LJB IL45 8:8

31 Thus, for example, Puukko, Deuteronomium, 261; Andrew D.H. Mayes, Deuteronomy (NCBC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1981), 282, and Ska, Introduction, 40, 45 – 46. 32 In this chapter the underlined words mark the parallels between the laws.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

The Use of the Older Laws as Sources for Deuteronomy

127

Continued Exod 22:20 – 23

Deut 24:17 – 22

20 (21)

17

You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. 21 (22) You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. 22 (23) If you do afflict them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry ; 23 (24) and my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless.

You shall not pervert the justice due to the sojourner or to the fatherless, or take a widow’s garment in pledge; 18 but you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt and Yhwh your God redeemed you from there; therefore I command you to do this. 19 When you reap your harvest in your field, and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow; that Yhwh your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. 20 When you beat your olive trees, you shall not go over the boughs again; it shall be for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow. 21When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, you shall not glean it afterward; it shall be for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow. 22 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt; therefore I command you to do this.

Both laws refer to the same socially weak groups that the law intends to protect, and there is a further reference to Israel being in Egypt. Beside these connections, there are no similarities in language or phraseology, and the contents differ as well. The three socially weak groups are met also elsewhere (Deut 10:18; 14:29; 16:11, 14; 26:12 – 13) so that they could be a commonly known triad that is often mentioned together in contexts about the socially weak. At least the authors of Deuteronomy have taken considerable interest in protecting these groups. Perhaps the strongest indication that Exod 22:20 – 23 and Deut 24:17 – 19 are literarily related is that both give the same reason for protecting them: that the Israelites were in Egypt where they were vulnerable like the socially weak groups. On the other hand, one cannot completely exclude the possibility that the reference to Egypt is a later addition and a harmonization towards the other law. If there is a literary dependence, it is on a general level so that the author of the Urdeuteronomium used the source as a resource that could be fully rewritten and some sections could be left out altogether. For example, instead of the threats against those who would disobey the law (Exod 22:22 – 23), Deuteronomy contains instructions on which part of the harvest should be left to the strangers, widows, and orphans. The connection between the laws of talion is closer than in the previous example, but there are also differences.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

128

The Development of Laws in the Pentateuch

Exod 21:23 – 24

23

Deut 19:21

8NND9 8=8= C9E4.A49 MHD N;N MHD 24 C=F( N;N C=F( CM N;N CM 7= N;N 7= @6L N;N @6L 23

If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life,24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

ýD=F E9;N 4@9 MHD5 MHD C=F(5 C=F( CM5 CM 7=5 7= @6L5 @6L

Your eye shall not pity ; it shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Although this part of the talion list is identical, the prepositions are different and the contexts differ. Exodus 21:23 – 24 is subordinated to the laws on violence in vv. 18 – 22, whereas Deut 19:21 is located after the law concerning witnesses in vv. 16 – 20. Such a list could have been common knowledge or widely known and a literary connection therefore cannot be proven.33 It should further be added that the talion list of Exod 21 continues in v. 25 (8L95; N;N 8L95; FJH N;N FJH 8=9? N;N 8=9? ), but this lacks a parallel in Deuteronomy. On the other hand, the length of the parallels and the same order of the body parts could suggest a closer connection because a parallel in Lev 24:20 preserves only two of the list and adds a reference to fractures (CM N;N CM C=F N;N C=F L5M N;N L5M). Exodus 21:25 could have been left out because the principle becomes evident already, and further references to burnings, wounds, and strikings would provide no further information. The preposition may have been changed in order to update the language. The preposition N;N usually refers to something that is under, but its use in Exod 21:23 – 24 as referring to “something for something” is exceptional, possibly archaic. It may therefore have been replaced in Deut 19:21 with the more common 5-preposition, the instrumental use of which fits well in the present context (e. g., a tooth should be paid with a tooth). The above-presented cases are representative of many of the parallel laws: A connection is possible, but there are considerable uncertainties to such an extent that it often remains controversial whether it is a literary connection or something else. If there is a literary connection, it would mean that the author of Deuteronomy could use the older laws rather freely. In the case of the interest law, one would have to assume that the author of Deut 23:20 – 21 merely took the principle from Exod 22:24, but rewrote the entire law. 33 The expression ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ is commonly known even in modern times, even if the law has lost its original function.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

129

The Use of the Older Laws as Sources for Deuteronomy

We stand on more solid ground in parallel laws where a literary connection is very likely : Exod 22:15 – 16 (Deut 22:28 – 29); 23:4 – 5 (Deut 22:1 – 4); 23:6 – 8 (Deut 16:18 – 19); 23:14 – 17 (Deut 16:1 – 7); 23:19 (v. 19a in Deut 26:1 – 2 and v. 19b in Deut 14:21). These cases reveal the extent and techniques of the changes the author of Urdeuteronomium made in relation to his source.

Violated Virgins The laws concerning violated virgins contain so many parallel words in the same order that a close literary connection has to be assumed:34 Exod 22:15 – 16

15

Deut 22:28 – 29

28

8@9N5 M=4 8NH=.=?9 8BF 5?M9 8ML4.4@ LM4 8M4@ 9@ 8DL8B= L8B 16 GE? 9@ 8NN@ 8=54 C4B= C4B.A4 N@9N58 L8B? @KM=

8@9N5 (8)LFD M=4 4JB=.=? 94JBD9 8BF 5?M9 8MHN9 8ML4.4@ LM4 (8)LFD8 =54@ 8BF 5?M8 M=48 CND9 29 8DF LM4 N;N 8M4@ 8=8N.9@9 GE? A=MB; 9=B=.@? 8;@M @?9=.4@

If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall give the marriage present for her, and make her his wife. 16 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equivalent to the marriage present for virgins.

28 If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her ; he may not put her away all his days.

15

The descriptions of the case are very similar, except that Exod 22:15 refers to a case where the man deceived (8NH) the virgin to sleep with him, while Deut 22:28 implies that the virgin was taken against her will (MHN and 8DF LM4 N;N). This is probably an intentional change with the aim of taking away all responsibility from the virgin. Although only the man was punished in Exod 22:15 – 16, it still implies that the virgin was willing, but in Deut 22:28 – 29 the man alone is made responsible for the act35 and, accordingly, he is the only one to be punished.36 The change in Deut 22:28 – 29 may be seen as an attempt to balance the punishment 34 The connection has been acknowledged since early research, for example, Puukko, Deuteronomium, 268. 35 Thus already Alfred Bertholet, Deuteronomium (KHAT V; Freiburg/Leipzig/Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1899), 71. 36 Although Mayes, Deuteronomy, 273, points out that the use of the verb 4JB “might suggest some responsibility on her part,” he assumes that forcible rape was probably intended. Thus also many others, for example, von Rad, Deuteronomy, 142 – 143.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

130

The Development of Laws in the Pentateuch

with the responsibility and remove the idea that the woman was responsible. The two preceding laws in Deut 22:23 – 27 show that the author of these verses has thought about the responsibility of the woman in such cases. For example, v. 27 implies that if the crime took place in the field, the girl must have cried for help but there was nobody to help her. Mentioning the exact amount of the fine (50 shekels), Deut 22:29 is more detailed on the punishment than Exod 22:15, which only generally refers to a payment equivalent to the bride-money (8DL8B= L8B). Exodus 22:16 further mentions the possibility that the virgin’s father refuses to give his daughter to the man, but Deut 22:28 – 29 has left this out and instead adds that the man may never divorce her. This change may have been made to protect the violated woman from becoming an outcast, a concrete possibility for victims of rape in the (ancient) Near East. In effect, Deuteronomy makes the law into a case of rape, as also implied by its placement after Deut 22:25 – 27 which describes the rape of a betrothed woman. The use of the verb 8NH (to persuade, seduce, convince)37 shows that this was not the intention of Exod 22:15. Although one cannot exclude the possibility of a more complicated relationship between the passages, the changes made in Deut 22:28 – 29 in comparison with Exod 22:15 – 16 are logical. Deuteronomy 22:28 – 29 has consistently developed the law into a rape law where only the man is responsible, while Exod 22:15 – 16 implies at least some shared responsibility. In Deut 22:28 – 29 his punishment is more specific and the woman is more protected than in Exod 22:15 – 16. It is fair to assume that Exod 22:15 – 16, or a very similar law, was the source for Deut 22:28 – 29. The assumption of a further source would not provide any heuristic advantage here because one would still have to assume that the author of the Urdeuteronomium made similar changes in relation to his source. The comparison of the two laws shows how radically the author of the Urdeuteronomium was able to change his source text. He adopted the basic description of the case from Exod 22:15 – 16 but took considerable freedoms in changing the nature of the law from a case of seduction to that of a rape. Its placement after a law of rape enhanced this interpretation. In order to attain the transformation, unnecessary elements were omitted without any counterpart in the new law and new elements were added when necessary. One receives the impression that Exod 22:15 – 16 mainly functioned as material that was used to the extent it was useful for the new law. Perhaps it also provided the impetus for writing on this subject in the first place, but there is no reason to assume that the author of Deut 22:28 – 29 was restricted by the text of the source in any particular way. There is also nothing to suggest that he was obliged to preserve any part of the older law if it did not suit his compositional, ideological, and other purposes. 37 See Koehler-Baumgartner, 8NH.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

131

The Use of the Older Laws as Sources for Deuteronomy

On the Right Conduct in Court The laws on the right conduct in court in Exod 23:6 – 8 and Deut 16:18 – 19 contain so many parallels sentences that a literary connection is evident.38 Exod 23:6 – 8

Deut 16:18 – 19

18

ý=LFM.@?5 ý@.CNN A=LüM9 A=üHM ý=ü5M@ ý@ CND ý=8@4 898= LM4 K7J.üHMB AF8.N4 9üHM9 19 üHMB 8üN(.4@ A=DH L=?N 4@

6

95=L5 ýD=54 üHMB 8üN( 4@ 7 K;LN LKM.L57B =KD9 FML K=7J4.4@ =? 6L8N.@4 K=7J9 8 A=;KH L9F(= 7;(M8( =? ;KN 4@ 7;(M9

L9F(= 7;(M8( =? 7;(M ;KN.4@9 A=B?; =D=F AK=7J( =L57 G@E(=9

A=K=7J( =L57 G@E(=9 18

6 You shall not pervert the justice due to your poor in his suit. 7 Keep far from a false charge, and do not slay the innocent and righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked. 8 And you shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds the officials, and subverts the cause of the righteous.

You shall appoint judges and officers in all your towns which Yhwh your God gives you, according to your tribes; and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. 19 You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality ;

and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous.

The main idea of Exod 23:6 – 8 is preserved in Deut 16:19. Both warn about discriminatory judgments and taking bribes. The main difference in substance is the addition of an order to instate the judges and officers in Deut 16:18a, after which the following instructions in v. 18b–19 are much more clearly addressed to judges. Exodus 23:1 – 8 contains various instructions many of which could concern judges and witnesses, but the context does not specify who exactly was meant. Deuteronomy 16:18 was added on the basis of the broader context of Deuteronomy : When the Israelites have entered the land, they should instate judges and officers in the cities that Yhwh will give them. This change is characteristic as the laws of Deuteronomy generally contain more references to the narrative context. In the actual parallel sections, Deut 16:19 makes the reference to the judgment of the poor into a general warning about discriminatory judgments 38 Thus many, for example, Jan Christian Gertz, Die Gerichtsorganization Israels im deuteronomischen Gesetz (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), 37.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

132

The Development of Laws in the Pentateuch

(95=L5 ýD=54 üHMB > üHMB). The warnings about giving a false charge and killing the innocent in Exod 23:7 are rendered in Deut 16:19 with a general note that one should not favor anyone (A=DH L=?N 4@). While Exod 23:7 relates to the witnesses and plaintiffs, Deut 16:18b–19 is exclusively addressed to the judges.39 In fact, the main motive for the changes in Deut 16:18 – 19 in relation to its source may have been to create a law for the judges. This is probably the main reason for omitting Exod 23:7 and replacing it with A=DH L=?N 4@, which addresses the judges. There is only a minor change in the section concerning the bribes: Instead of referring to the blinding effect of the bribes on the seeing ones (A=;KH), Deut 16:19 refers to the eyes of the wise.40 The wise (A=B?;) is often connected with the court and refers to judges.41 The extensive parallels in Exod 23:6 – 8 and Deut 16:19 confirm that the laws are literarily connected. Although the changes are rather small in comparison with other suggested parallel sections of the law codes, the changes again show that the author of Deut 16:19 could omit and rewrite any section of the source text to suit his purposes and vision. As in the previous example, the nature of the law was changed. According to Gertz, the author of Deut 16:19 adopted from the source in Exod 23:1 – 8 only those sections that related to the judges and officers.42 His aim was to create a law regulating the judges’ conduct in legal cases, while the warnings to the witnesses about false charges and about thus killing an innocent person were omitted because they were not directly related to this theme.

Discussion: The Covenant Code and Deuteronomy These examples suffice to gain a picture of the way Deuteronomy relates to one of its main sources. Assuming that the author of the Urdeuteronomium was familiar with the entire Covenant Code similar to the one that was preserved and used it as a source, one may characterize his relationship with its different laws in the following categories: 1) A law in the Covenant Code was completely omitted (Exod 21:18 – 22, 25 – 36; 22:1 – 14). 2) A law in Deuteronomy has no parallel in 39 According to Mayes, Deuteronomy, 218, Deut 16:19 addresses ‘the whole citizenry,’ but this is unlikely when we consider v. 18 and the changes that the author of these verses has made in relation to Exod 23:6 – 8. Many scholars assume that Deut 16:18 – 19 addresses the judges, thus, for example, von Rad, Deuteronomy, 114 – 115. 40 According to Bertholet, Deuteronomium, 54, Deut 16:19 is merely an explanation of Exod 23:8. 41 Thus many scholars, for example, Magne Sæbo, “A?;,” in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament: 418 – 424, here p. 421. 42 Gertz, Gerichtsorganization, 37.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Discussion: The Covenant Code and Deuteronomy

133

the Covenant Code, but is largely a new creation. This is especially the case with laws that are most closely related to the primary motives of the Urdeuteronomium, and especially the cult centralization (for example, Deut 12 and other related sections). 3) Both law codes contain laws that deal with the same subject, but there does not seem to be any direct connection. The occasional shared words may be coincidental and the result of the shared theme (Exod 21:2 – 7, 12 – 17; 22:20 – 26, 28 – 29, 30b; 23:1 – 6, 9), or the author of Urdeuteronomium rewrote the entire law merely using the older law as a source of inspiration to write on that theme. In the latter case, he would not seem to have been bound by the source at all. 4) The laws are possibly literarily related, but one cannot exclude a more complicated relationship. If the author of the Urdeuteronomium used the Covenant Code in these cases, it mainly functioned as resource material, as the parallel laws appear in extensively changed form. 5) The laws are literarily related, but there are extensive changes (for example, the laws on strangers, widows, and orphans, and the laws on the right conduct in court). In view of the last category, where there is a literary connection but where the source text was still extensively changed, one may assume that the author of Urdeuteronomium was also familiar with many or most of the other laws of the Covenant Code where the connection is uncertain. The lack of parallels to them would have been caused by the exceptionally free attitude of the author of the Urdeuteronomium towards his source. Since any part of an individual law could be rewritten or omitted, there is no reason to assume that the author of the Urdeuteronomium would have a different attitude towards omitting entire laws of the Covenant Code. The author of the Urdeuteronomium used the Covenant Code or a related document mainly as resource material. Its text was followed in some passages, but any of its parts could be omitted or rewritten if it did not suit the purposes of the new work. Levinson is certainly right in noting that “inner biblical exegesis does not provide a satisfactory model to describe the achievements of the authors of Deuteronomy.” Deuteronomy did not try to “explicate the older texts but to transform them.”43 The transformation is more fundamental and radical than what many biblical scholars have assumed about the attitude of biblical authors in relation to their sources.44 In some cases, the source functioned as a practical starting point that had to be revised only slightly, but in some cases the

43 Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics, 15. 44 Similar conclusions have been reached in recent research. For example, investigating the seventh year and manumission laws in the Covenant Code and Deuteronomy, Stackert, Rewriting the Torah, 113 – 164, 209 – 210, has concluded that Deuteronomy represents a radical revision of the older laws.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

134

The Development of Laws in the Pentateuch

transformation was so comprehensive that the source text was rejected altogether or rewritten beyond recognition. The essential reason for the comprehensive rewriting of the Covenant Code in Deuteronomy should be sought in the fundamentally changed circumstances that the destruction of 586 bce caused. The source text—a version of the Covenant Code or a related document—had been an important and probably authoritative document during monarchic times, but it had lost its function and authority after the collapse of the monarchy and destruction of the temple. A new social paradigm had set in, which necessitated new authoritative texts that would justify its precepts. In other words, at least in the case of the prehistory of Deuteronomy, the fundamental change in the circumstances meant that the old authoritative law code became outdated and it had to be replaced by a new one that was better suited to the new situation.45 With the possible exception of the law of the talion, none of the here-investigated laws of the Covenant Code that have a parallel in Deuteronomy could be reconstructed on the basis of Deuteronomy. The changes are so thorough that the source is only preserved in vestiges. Moreover, it would be extremely difficult to distinguish between the vestiges and the new material, had we not access to the source itself.

Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code (Lev 17 – 26) The comparison between Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code (Lev 17 – 26) further illustrates what kind of changes took place when an older text was used as a source for a new text. The changes are, if possible, even more comprehensive than the changes seen between the Covenant Code and Deuteronomy. Moreover, the exact relationship between the two law codes is also more controversial. There are many thematic correspondences and other similarities between the legal corpora of Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code in Lev 17 – 26. Since Bruno Baentsch, many have assumed that Deuteronomy was the source of the Holiness Code,46 but the opposite direction of influence has found advocates as well.47 The 45 The situation is not essentially different from any similar comprehensive reorientation of a society. The French and Russian revolutions, for instance, meant an entirely new paradigm for the whole society, which also meant the creation of law codes. In France the Napoleonic Code (Code civil des franÅais) was established in the wake of the revolution in 1804, which effectively replaced the older customs and charters that had earlier functioned as laws. In the Soviet Union the so-called Law of the Soviet Union replaced all older laws that had been in use before the revolution. 46 Bruno Baentsch, Das Heiligkeits-Gesetz Lev XVII – XXVI: (Erfurt: Hugo Günther, 1893), 76 – 80. This was more comprehensively argued and shown by Alfred Cholewinski, Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium: Eine verleichende Studie (AnBib 66; Pontificio Istituto Biblico:

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code (Lev 17 – 26)

135

former theory is based on a more solid analysis of the parallel texts. Although the dependence may often be only very general, it is more probable than not that the Holiness Code is dependent on Deuteronomy. On the other hand, the thematic parallels and the similar form preclude the assumption that there would be no connection at all. It is probable that the Holiness Code is younger than Deuteronomy. For example, Klaus Grünwaldt has shown that the Holiness Code is also dependent on other parts of the Pentateuch as well as on some psalms and several books of the prophets,48 which already implies a relatively late context where the author was viewing a wider collection of books that are preserved in the Hebrew Bible. Moreover, a comparison of the festival laws in Lev 23 and Deut 16 also shows that the Holiness Code generally reflects a much more developed stage of the festival legislation. Deuteronomy 16 is only familiar with the feasts of the Passover, Weeks, and Tabernacles, whereas Lev 23 contains legislation that regulates the feasts of the Passover, First Fruits, Weeks, Trumpets, and Booths Day as well as the Day of Atonement. The Sabbath is also an integral part of Lev 23, while it is often assumed to be a latecomer in Deuteronomy, found only in the Decalogue, possibly as a later addition.49 It would be difficult to see how the festival laws of Deuteronomy developed from Lev 23 because then one would have to assume the dramatic reduction and omission of festival legislation at a later stage (for an example development, see below on the laws on the festivals of the Weeks and Booths).50 This would run counter to the general development, which increased

47

48 49

50

Rome, 1976). Similarly also Klaus Grünwaldt, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17 – 26: Ursprüngliche Gestalt, Tradition und Theologie (BZAW 271; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1999), 376; Christophe Nihan, “The Holiness Code between D and P: Some Comments on the Function and Significance of Leviticus 17 – 26 in the Composition of the Pentateuch,” in Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (ed. E. Otto and R. Achenbach; FRLANT 206; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 81 – 122, here pp. 82 – 98; Jeffrey Stackert, Rewriting the Torah, 209 – 210. Thus, for example, Georg Braulik, “Weitere Beobachtungen zur Beziehung zwischen dem Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronominium 19 – 25,” in Das Deuteronomium und seine Querbeziehungen (ed. Timo Veijola; PFES 62; Helsinki and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprech, 1996), 23 – 55, especially pp. 50 – 52. According to Henning Reventlow, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz formgeschichtlich untersucht (WMANT 6; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961), the Holiness Code preserves ancient laws that, in part, predate Deuteronomy. Grünwaldt, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 375 – 379. Thus many, for example, Christoph Levin, Verheissung des neuen Bundes: In ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zuzammenhang ausgelegt (FRLANT 137; Göttingen: Vandenhoech & Ruprecht, 1985), 165 – 167, 172 – 174, and Timo Veijola, “Die Propheten und das Alter des Sabbathgebots,” in Moses Erben: Studien zum Dekalog, zum Deuteronismus und zum Schriftgelehrtentum (BWANT 149; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000), 61 – 75, especially p. 62. It is certainly possible, even certain, that Lev 23 was heavily edited so that some of the legislation may have been added later. Nevertheless, the fact that Deut 16 was not similarly updated suggests that it generally reflects an older stage in the development of the legislation.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

136

The Development of Laws in the Pentateuch

feasts and provided more details in regulating how they should be celebrated, and therefore it is improbable. That Deuteronomy is generally older than the Holiness Code does not exclude the possibility that both were later edited and harmonized in view of the other so that in some passages Deuteronomy could be dependent on a passage in Lev 17 – 26. The same is probable when considering the relationship between the Covenant Code and Deuteronomy, as we have seen. Since both Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code contain later additions, it would be necessary to discuss each passage separately and argue the exact direction of development and method of revision.51 Nevertheless, it is not the intention of this investigation to solve the complicated relationship between Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code in detail, and therefore only examples where we can be fairly certain about the relationship will be discussed here. The main focus will remain on the extent and technique of editorial changes that the later author has made in relation to the source text. In many ways the relationship between Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code is analogous to the relationship between the Covenant Code and Deuteronomy. The younger code was written as a revision of the older one, which it intended to replace.52 This is suggested by the following considerations: The new composition often disagrees with or even contradicts the source, which already suggests that the two codes compete with rather than complement each other. There are no attempts in the Holiness Code to explain away the evident differences between the parallel laws, and it is presented as the actual and authentic law. Moreover, the existence of several parallel laws, or laws that cover the same situation or case but giving different instruction, suggests that the Holiness Code was intended as a replacement. If the Holiness Code had merely been meant as a supplement and interpretation of Deuteronomy, there would have to be good reasons for the countless parallels and one would expect to find references to the older law code.53 All references to Deuteronomy or to any other set of older laws 51 For example, some scholars have suggested that Deut 16:8 contains priestly influence; see e. g., Puukko, Das Deuteronomium, 249, and Timo Veijola, Das 5. Buch Mose: Deuteronomium. Kapitel 1,1 – 16:17 (ATD 8,1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 336 (see pp. 327 – 342 for the complicated history of the chapter). On the other hand, Gertz, “Die Passa-Massot-Ordnung,” in Das Deuteronomium und seine Querbeziehungen (PFES 62; ed. T. Veijola; Helsinki and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 73 – 75, 80, argues that there is no priestly influence. In any case, this verse already shows the complications of the comparison between Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code. The parallel laws in Lev 23 have similarly been edited by several successive hands; see, for example, Cholewin´ski, Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium, 82 – 94. 52 Thus with, for example, Stackert, Rewriting the Torah, 218 – 224, who notes that the revisions of laws “cannot logically co-exist” with the older law. The laws in effect contradict each other. 53 Cf. Jubilees and its references to the ‘first law.’

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code (Lev 17 – 26)

137

are missing in the Holiness Code. The Holiness Code also gives no reason to assume that Deuteronomy was a highly authoritative document that was seen as the starting point that the Holiness Code tried to interpret, expand, or supplement. Instead, we find a self-confident new presentation where many laws are given an entirely new version.54 One should also reject the idea that the Holiness Code is part of a pentateuchal redaction that tried to harmonize the different law collections of the Pentateuch.55 With several overlaps and apparent corrections of the older laws, one hardly receives the impression that the Holiness Code tries to create a synthesis and conciliate between Deuteronomy and the priestly material.56 54 Thus contra many scholarly views. For example, Nihan, “The Holiness Code,”105 – 115, notes (on p. 106) that “a large number of laws in D have no equivalent in H, and some H instructions, such as Lev 19:20 – 22, were apparently conceived as supplements to the D legislation.” However, the lack of inclusion of a certain law in the Holiness Code does not necessarily mean that the author of H accepted the older law code, and it is difficult to see how this would prove that the Holiness Code merely tried to supplement the older law code. It would mean that if a later author wanted to replace any older law code, he would have to provide an equivalent to every single one of its laws. It is difficult to see the rationale of this argument, but we have seen the same line of argument in the discussion about the relationship between the Covenant Code and Deuteronomy (see above). The more compelling argument concerns Lev 19:19, 20 – 22 and Deut 22:9 – 11. Nihan rightly notes (on pp. 95 – 96) that Lev 19:19, 20 – 22 is dependent on the sequence of the laws in Deut 22:9 – 29. He further notes (on p. 96) that Lev 19:20 – 22 “envisions a sophisticated case unforeseen by the deuteronomic law.” It is true that Lev 19:20 – 22 seems to merely provide a case concerning sexual relations that is not covered by Deut 22. It would thus be logical to assume that the other cases are available in Deuteronomy. On the other hand, many of the laws in Deuteronomy are repeated in the Holiness Code (also in 19:19; cf. 22:11), which runs counter to the examples where the Holiness Code may seem to supplement a law in Deuteronomy. Laws where the Holiness Code may seem to provide a supplement to those of Deuteronomy are far more uncommon than laws that compete with one another by discussing the same case. 55 Nihan, “The Holiness Code,” 105 – 115, has argued that the Holiness Code “was conceived both as a complement to earlier laws and as a legal synthesis of a sort at the time of the compilation of these laws.” He connects the Holiness Code with a pentateuchal redaction, from which he logically infers that the Holiness Code did not try to replace Deuteronomy (or any law collection of the Pentateuch), but to supplement it. If this were the case, one would have to ask why Deuteronomy itself was untouched by these revisions and why this harmonizing mainly takes place in the Holiness Code. 56 In comparison, the editorial history of Deuteronomy is much more harmonious. The later editors of Deuteronomy relate to the older Deuteronomy as an authoritative text that is not contradicted. If one sees the Holiness Code as part of a later pentateuchal redaction and part of the same composition as Deuteronomy, one would have to explain why the authors and editors of the Holiness Code have a fundamentally different attitude towards Deuteronomy than the editors of Deuteronomy. If the idea was that they were created to be part of the same composition, one would not expect that the authors and editors behind the Holiness Code relate to Deuteronomy in a way different from the later editors of Deuteronomy. From this it follows that the author of the Holiness Code did not plan the composition as part of the same composition. The theory that the law codes were originally independent and were only later combined into the same composition provides a better explanation for the differences than

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

138

The Development of Laws in the Pentateuch

The relationship between Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code has similarities with the relationship between the Covenant Code and Deuteronomy. The author of the Urdeuteronomium may not have been very concerned about replacing the Covenant Code because it may have lost its importance in any case due to the changed circumstances caused by the collapse of the monarchy. Similarly the question about replacement or supplementation may not have been crucial for the author of the Holiness Code. Written for a situation in the aftermath of the collapse of the temple, Deuteronomy is notably non-priestly in its interests.57 The Holiness Code (as well as the wider Holiness Legislation) on the other hand has a much more priestly perspective, which suggests that it was written in a context where the temple had already been rebuilt and where the priestly class had regained a position of power. In such a situation, Deuteronomy, with its strongly law-oriented approach (especially after the comprehensive nomistic revision), would have been less relevant or not up to date with the current reality of the priestly class in Jerusalem. Therefore, a new law code that took the priests, sacrifices, and the temple more into consideration would have been needed for their purposes.58 Given this background, it is not self-evident that the authors of the Holiness Code were greatly burdened by any heavy authority of Deuteronomy.59 In addition to the changed circumstances that may undermine the authority of old texts, a text may be authoritative for a certain group or party, whereas another group may not share the same perception about its authoritativeness. Before a text has reached a canonical status as a holy and unchangeable text, it may be authoritative for a group if it corresponds to its perceptions and concerns. It is the assumption of linear accumulation into the same composition from the beginning. The Pentateuch certainly contains many cases where a law was written in order to supplement an older one. This is especially evident in the inner development of Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code, both of which contain successive additions that intended to supplement the older text. After the law codes were combined into the same composition, the Fortschreibung continued within these units and in the other parts of the Pentateuch. For example, Deuteronomy contains some late additions that are influenced by the priestly ideology and thereby harmonize the composition towards the priestly parts of the Pentateuch. 57 Some later additions, such as Deut 14:3 – 21a (see Veijola, Deuteronomium, 295 – 300), gradually add to the priestly flavor of Deuteronomy, but most of the additions are focused on the importance of the law. For example, the temple plays no role in the long introduction in Deut 4 – 11, which is the result of countless editorial layers. 58 This does not mean that Deuteronomy would have become irrelevant in other Jewish circles. At least in part, the emergence of the late Second Temple Jewish parties is already in the making in the different attitudes towards the temple and the law in the different parts of the Pentateuch. 59 Towards the late Second Temple period, Deuteronomy certainly had a significant position throughout Judaism. After the destruction of the Second Temple, the importance of Deuteronomy was further highlighted because of its emphasis on the law that then became the main focus of the whole religion.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

139

Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code (Lev 17 – 26)

unlikely that the Covenant Code, Deuteronomy, and the Holiness Code had a generally accepted status as holy texts during their early transmission.60 They were created by a group and their authoritative status grew only gradually and later within the wider Jewish community. One could see a situation during the late Persian and Hellenistic periods when Deuteronomy was authoritative for some Jewish circles and unacceptable for those that were close to the temple. The technical comparison of the actual laws between Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code may be even more difficult than the comparison between the Covenant Code and Deuteronomy. This is because the parallels in vocabulary are limited. Despite a considerable number of parallel laws that deal with the same subject, in many cases the laws share only some individual words and this may also be a result of the related themes in the parallel laws rather than direct literary dependency. If there is a direct literary relationship in these cases, the revision of the source in Deuteronomy has been comprehensive.61 I will discuss two laws where the two codes contain a parallel and where a literary connection is probable.

The Festival of Weeks The correspondences between the two laws on the festival of Weeks are meager, but the beginnings of the laws strongly suggest that the connection cannot be accidental. The idea of calculating the time of the festival is expressed with the same construction: Lev 23:15 – 21

15

A?4=58 A9=B N5M8 NL;BB A?@ ANLHE9 8D==8N NB=BN N9N5M F5M 8H9DN8 LBF.N4 16 A=MB; 9LHEN NF=5M8 N5M8 NL;BB 7F 898=@ 8M7; 8;DB AN5LK89 A9= 17 =DM A=NM 8H9DN A;@ 94=5N A?=N5M9BB A=L9?5 8D=H4N IB; 8D==8N N@E A=DLMF 18 A=M5? NF5M A;@8.@F AN5LK89 898=@ A=DM A@=49 7;4 LK5.C5 LH9 8DM =D5 AB=BN .;=L 8M4 A8=?ED9 AN;DB9 898=@ 8@F 9=8= 19 N4ü;@ 7;4 A=:F.L=FM AN=MF9 898=@ ;;=D 20 C8?8 G=D89 A=B@M ;5:@ 8DM =D5 A=M5? =DM9

Deut 16:9 – 12

9

MBL; @;8B ý@.LHEN NF5M 8F5M N9F5M 8F5M LHE@ @;N 8BK5 10 NEB ý=8@4 898=@ N9F5M 6; N=MF9 898= ý?L5= LM4? CNN LM4 ý7= N57D 11 8N4 ý=8@4 898= =DH@ N;BM9 ý=8@4 LM4 =9@89 ýNB49 ý75F9 ýN59 ýD59 LM4 8DB@489 A9N=89 L689 ý=LFM5 ý=8@4 898= L;5= LM4 A9KB5 ý5LK5 12 N==8 75F.=? NL?:9 AM 9BM C?M@ 8@48 A=K;8.N4 N=MF9 NLBM9 A=LJB5

60 Contrary to the common perception by several scholars such as Ska, Introduction, 169 – 170, 182 – 183. See chapter I. 61 For example, some scholars, such as Grünwaldt, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 231 – 232, 376, assume that Lev 19:9 is dependent on Deut 24:19 – 21, but the parallels are limited to words that would be used in connection with any text dealing with this subject (L=JK and LJK). If there is a direct connection between these two laws, the author of Lev 19:9 apparently rephrased the law without any consideration for the exact text of the source.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

140

The Development of Laws in the Pentateuch

Continued Lev 23:15 – 21

Deut 16:9 – 12

=DM.@F 898= =DH@ 8H9DN A=L9?58 A;@ @F AN4 21 AJF5 AN4LK9 C8?@ 898=@ 9=8= M7K A=M5? N?4@B.@? A?@ 8=8= M7K.4LKB 8:8 A9=8 A?=N5M9B.@?5 A@9F NK; 9MFN 4@ 875F A?=NL7@ 15 And you shall count from the morrow after the Sabbath, from the day that you brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven full weeks shall they be, 16 counting fifty days to the morrow after the seventh Sabbath; then you shall present a cereal offering of new grain to Yhwh. 17 You shall bring from your dwellings two loaves of bread to be waved, made of two tenths of an ephah; they shall be of fine flour, they shall be baked with leaven, as first fruits to Yhwh. 18 And you shall present with the bread seven lambs a year old without blemish, and one young bull, and two rams; they shall be a burnt offering to Yhwh, with their cereal offering and their drink offerings, an offering by fire, a pleasing odor to Yhwh. 19 And you shall offer one male goat for a sin offering, and two male lambs a year old as a sacrifice of peace offerings. 20 And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the first fruits as a wave offering before Yhwh, with the two lambs; they shall be holy to Yhwh for the priest. 21 And you shall make proclamation on the same day ; you shall hold a holy convocation; you shall do no laborious work: it is a statute forever in all your dwellings throughout your generations.

9

You shall count seven weeks; begin to count the seven weeks from the time you first put the sickle to the standing grain. 10 Then you shall keep the feast of weeks to Yhwh your God with the tribute of a freewill offering from your hand, which you shall give as Yhwh your God blesses you; 11 and you shall rejoice before Yhwh your God, you and your son and your daughter, your manservant and your maidservant, the Levite who is within your towns, the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow who are among you, at the place which Yhwh your God will choose, to make his name dwell there. 12 You shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt; and you shall be careful to observe these statutes.

In the rest of the two laws it is difficult to find parallel phraseology that would necessitate a literary connection, but many of the themes correspond to the extent that one should assume the author of Lev 23:15 – 21 to have used Deut 16:9 – 12. Nevertheless, the changes are considerable. According to Deut 16:9 the date of the festival should be counted from the day when the first fruit was harvested whereas Lev 23:15 specifies starting the counting from the first Sabbath when the first fruit was presented as an offering.62 Lev 23:15 – 62 In the background is the festival of the First Fruit in Lev 23:9 – 14, according to which the Israelites should bring the first fruit of the harvest to the priests, who will then give them as

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code (Lev 17 – 26)

141

21 generally makes the festival much more sacrifice oriented. Whereas Deut 16:10 orders the Israelites to bring freewill offerings according to how much they have received as harvest, Lev 23:16 – 20 contains detailed instructions on various offerings that should be brought to Yhwh for the festival. The idea that the Israelites should rejoice during the festival in Deut 16:11 is omitted and replaced with a strict prohibition against doing any work in Lev 23:21. Although already Deut 16:11 implies that the day is free from work, Lev 23:21 makes it an explicit prohibition to do work. On the other hand, Deut 16:11 refers to a general day of joyous celebration of the whole family, whereas Lev 23 makes the festival a sacrifice-oriented priestly occasion. This is highlighted by the number of sacrificial animals, which probably refers to the total number of sacrifices and not to the number of sacrifices that each individual should bring.63 Instead of calling the festival N9F5M 6; as in Deut 16:9, Lev 23:21 refers to a holy convocation (M7K.4LKB). Although the author of Lev 23:15 – 21 used Deut 16:9 – 12 as a source, he apparently could rewrite any part of the source text,64 even omit the name of the festival. The basic idea that it was a festival of harvest was retained, but Lev 23:15 – 21 made several changes to alter its nature. Deuteronomy 16:9 – 12 has the whole community and family in view, while Lev 23:15 – 21 sees the occasion from the perspective of the priests. It is apparent that the author of Lev 23:15 – 21 was not only free to change the text of the source but could also change the nature of the law and thereby the nature of the festival extensively. The comparison of these parallel laws gives no reason to assume that the author of Lev 23:15 – 21 was bound by the source to any extent. It was used as resource material that was followed only as far it was useful for his purposes and accorded with his conceptions.65 The intentional changes also imply that the author of Lev 23:15 – 21 regarded Deut 16:9 – 12 as an outdated law that had to be corrected and, in effect, replaced by a new one.

an offering to Yhwh on the following Sabbath. Deut 26:1 – 11 contains a parallel legislation about bringing the first fruit to the priests, but in Deuteronomy it does not seem to be connected to the festivals as in Lev 23. 63 Although Lev 23:17 – 18 could be read as an order to each Israelite, the number of animals in vv. 18 – 19 is too large to be realistic for an individual to bring to the priest every year. Similarly Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Leviticus: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville and London: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 346. 64 Similarly also Grünwaldt, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 290, according to whom the law in Lev 23:15 – 21 primarily derives from the pen of the author of the Holiness Code. 65 This general conclusion is not mitigated by the possibility that parts of Lev 23:34 – 36 could derive from a later editor. On the other hand, Cholewin´ski, Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium, 82 – 94, has argued that these verses derive from the same author.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

142

The Development of Laws in the Pentateuch

The Festival of Booths Most scholars assume that the festival of Booths in Deut 16:13 – 16 and Lev 23:34 – 36 are literarily connected and that Deut 16:13 – 16 was the source for Lev 23:34 – 36.66 Nevertheless, a comparison of the laws shows that the author of Lev 23:34 – 36 used the source very freely so that it is difficult to find any parallel words beyond the name of the festival and its duration. The clearest parallel is restricted to the name of the feast and its duration: Lev 23:34 – 36

34

Deut 16:13 – 16

@4LM= =D5.@4 L57 8:8 =F=5M8 M7;@ A9= LMF 8MB;5 LB4@ 898=@ A=B= NF5M N9?E8 6; 35 M7K.4LKB C9M4L8 A9=5 9MFN 4@ 875F N?4@B.@? 36 A9=5 898=@ 8M4 95=LKN A=B= NF5M AN5LK89 A?@ 8=8= M7K.4LKB =D=BM8 4@ 875F N?4@B.@? 498 NLJF 898=@ 8M4 9MFN 34 Say to the people of Israel, On the fifteenth day of this seventh month and for seven days is the feast of booths to Yhwh. 35 On the first day shall be a holy convocation; you shall do no laborious work. 36 Seven days you shall present offerings by fire to Yhwh; on the eighth day you shall hold a holy convocation and present an offering by fire to Yhwh; it is a solemn assembly ; you shall do no laborious work.

13

ýHE45 A=B= NF5M ý@ 8MFN N?E8 6; 14 ýD59 8N4 ý6;5 N;BM9 ý5K=B9 ýDL6B A9N=89 L689 =9@89 ýNB49 ý75F9 ýN59 ý=LFM5 LM4 8DB@489 15 A9KB5 ý=8@4 898=@ 6;N A=B= NF5M @?5 ý=8@4 898= ý?L5= =? 898= L;5=.LM4 ;BM ý4 N==89 ý=7= 8MFB @?59 ýN495N

13

You shall keep the feast of booths seven days, when you make your ingathering from your threshing floor and your wine press; 14you shall rejoice in your feast, you and your son and your daughter, your manservant and your maidservant, the Levite, the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow who are within your towns. 15 For seven days you shall keep the feast to Yhwh your God at the place which Yhwh will choose; because Yhwh your God will bless you in all your produce and in all the work of your hands, so that you will be altogether joyful. 16 Three times a year all your males shall appear before Yhwh your God at the place which he will choose: at the feast of unleavened bread, at the feast of weeks, and at the feast of booths. They shall not appear before Yhwh empty-handed;

The idea of Deut 16:14 that the people should rejoice as well as the reference to the cult centralization in Deut 16:15 have been dropped altogether in Lev 23:34 – 66 Thus, e. g., Cholewin´ski, Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium, 202 – 215, and Grünwaldt, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 293 – 294.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Discussion: Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code

143

36. Instead, the author of Lev 23:35 – 36 has added that there should be a holy convocation on the first and eighth day of the festival. Although Deut 16:14 already implies that the day is free from work, Lev 23:35 specifically prohibits work during this day (cf. Lev 23:21 above). Moreover, Lev 23:34 specifies the exact day of the festival (the fifteenth of the seventh month), while according to Deut 16:13 the festival should take place at an unspecified date during the harvest season. The author of Lev 23:34 – 36 thereby disconnected the date of the festival from agricultural considerations and made it purely dependent on the calendar. All other references to the agricultural background of the festival were omitted as well, and instead, Lev 23:34 – 36 has transformed it into a sacrificeoriented festival week. While Deut 16:16 generally refers to offerings that the people should bring for each festival, Lev 23:36 makes it into a regular fireoffering for every day of the week. Leviticus 23:34 – 36 changes the entire nature of the festival, and the changes are comprehensive in substance and phraseology. It is evident that the author of Lev 23:34 – 36 relates to his source as resource material that could be rewritten completely to fit his own context and theological conceptions. There is no indication that he was obliged to preserve any part of the source text. Quite the opposite, Lev 23:34 – 36 may have intentionally attempted to undermine the agricultural aspect of the festival and thus subvert Deut 16:13 – 16. The many general correspondences imply that he was probably writing in view of the source or as a reaction to it, but the considerable differences suggest that he was trying to write a more appropriate and updated version of the law.67 In effect, the differences between the parallel laws are so extensive that it would be difficult to assume that they were meant to be read together and be part of the same collection of laws and of the same divine revelation. It would be impossible to follow both of the laws simultaneously and celebrate the same festival. Although the name of the festival is identical, the outcome is in practice two entirely different festivals.

Discussion: Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code The comparison of parallel laws in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code provides examples of the radical birth processes of some pentateuchal texts. More examples from other parallel laws of these law codes could be given, but they would hardly change the general picture. As far as the author of the Holiness 67 Here again one should not exclude the possibility that Lev 23:34 – 36 contains later additions, but for example, Cholewin´ski, Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium, 82 – 94, has argued that the verses derive from the same editor.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

144

The Development of Laws in the Pentateuch

Code used Deuteronomy, it was used as resource material rather than as a highly authoritative text,68 and although Deuteronomy may have functioned as a source of inspiration and as a text that was reacted to, there is no reason to assume that he was bound by it to any extent, if at all. When and if a law in the source was used, any of its part could be rewritten, changed and omitted with the consequence that the nature of the whole law would be different in the Holiness Code. In some cases the general nature of the law may have been preserved, but there are many examples where the changes are more extensive. Moreover, any law could be left out completely if it did not suit the purposes of the new composition, and new laws could be created without any parallel in the source text.69 For example, many of the laws on purity (e. g., Lev 18 – 19), priests (Lev 21) and sacrifices (Lev 22) are new creations in relation to Deuteronomy. There is also no reason to assume that the Holiness Code was created as an expansion or supplement to the source or that it was meant to be read with it.70 These observations on the relationship between Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code are significant because Deuteronomy, unlike many other parts of the Hebrew Bible, is presented as a divine revelation that is proclaimed to contain Yhwh’s commandments to the Israelites.71 According to Deut 4:2 and 13:1, one should not add or subtract from the commandments, but such warnings did not hinder the author of the Holiness Code from creating an entirely new revelation that was intended to override many of the laws of Deuteronomy. Already the existence of the Holiness Code contradicts Deut 4:2 and 13:1 and thus challenges Deuteronomy, for it questions Deuteronomy’s claim of being the unchangeable revelation. Many of the authors and editors of the Hebrew Bible seem not to have been bound by the precepts of the texts they are indebted to and which they seek to imitate. 68 This does not mean that the author would have completely disregarded Deuteronomy as an authoritative text, for in that case he would not have used it at all. Deuteronomy had probable gained enough authority for it to be completely disregarded in the context where the Holiness Code was written. See the discussion on the authoritativeness of Scripture in the introduction. 69 One should not exclude the possibility that some of the laws in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code could have been created on the basis of other now lost sources, but it is evident that there are laws that are new creations of the authors in question. 70 This does not mean that there would not be many laws in the Pentateuch that were written as a supplement to older laws. After the Covenant Code, Deuteronomy, and the Holiness Code had been combined into the same composition, the editorial processes continued with the creation of yet new laws, but then it was increasingly more difficult to contradict the older laws and we see more attempts to harmonize and conform to the older text, which is interpreted in a certain direction but which is not contradicted in such a manifest way as is the case with the three law codes. 71 For example, the relationship between Chronicles and 1 – 2 Kings is, in part, similar, but 1 – 2 Kings nowhere claims to be a revelation. See the discussion in chapter VIII.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

The Development of the Passover Law

145

For our quest it is important to see how the laws in the Holiness Code were created. Although at least some of the laws of the Holiness Code have a literary precedent in Deuteronomy, practically nothing of the precedent may be preserved in the new law or it is so well integrated into the new law that it would be nearly impossible to identify if we possessed only the Holiness Code. The Holiness Code thus illustrates cases where, without the source itself, it would be next to impossible to penetrate into the prehistory of the text or even know that a document such as Deuteronomy was its literary precedent.

The Development of the Passover Law In some cases the three law codes of the Pentateuch each contain a different version of the same law. The Covenant Code usually contains the oldest law, which was later used by the author of Deuteronomy to form his own version of the same law. In a yet later stage the author of the Holiness Code again rewrote the law, so that these law codes preserve three different stages in the literary development of the same law. Because the three law codes were preserved in the Pentateuch, we may investigate the long-term literary development of several laws therein. One of the most fruitful areas of investigating the long-term development of laws is the legislation concerning the festivals because other parts of the Pentateuch contain further parallel laws. An illustrative example is the law on the Passover festival, which is preserved in five different versions in the Hebrew Bible: Exod 23:15(18);72 Exod 34:18, 25; Deut 16:1 – 8; Lev 23:5 – 8 and Num 28:16 – 25. A sixth version is found in the Temple Scroll (T 17:6 – 16), and will be discussed separately in chapter VI. Exodus 23:15(18) may be the oldest preserved version. Exodus 34:18, 25 is the shortest version of the Passover law, but it is probably dependent on Exod 23:15 (18). The Deuteronomistic elements in Exod 34:11 – 26, as well as the double name of the feast in Exod 34:18, 25 suggest that Exod 34:18 does not preserve the oldest form of the law, although this has been argued by some scholars.73 The parallels are extensive and Exod 34:18, 25 renders the law rather faithfully : 72 Although Exod 23:18 is not part of the actual Passover law, the author of Deut 16 evidently used this verse as well when creating his own version of the Passover law. 73 Jörn Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes: Ex 34, 10 – 26: Gestalt und Wesen, Herkunft und Wirken in vordeuteronomischer Zeit (FRLANT 114; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 447 – 449, has suggested that Exod 34:18 is older than Exod 23:14 – 18, but this is unlikely because Exod 34:11 – 26 contains more detail than Exod 23. Similarly also, for example, Cornelis Houtman, Exodus (HCOT; Leuven: Peeters, 1996), 262 – 263. Some scholars, e. g., Paul Heinisch, Das Buch Exodus (Die heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments I/2, Hanstein,

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

146

The Development of Laws in the Pentateuch

Exod 34:18, 25

18

Exod 23:15, 18

@?4N A=B= NF5M LBMN N9JB8 6;.N4 =? 5=548 M7; 7F9B@ ýN=9J LM4 N9JB A=LJBB N4J= 5=548 M7;5 [AK=L =DH 94L=.4@9 20]… 25 =;5:.A7 IB;.@F ü;MN.4@ ;EH8 6; ;5: LK5@ C=@=.4@9 18

The feast of unleavened bread you shall keep. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, as I commanded you, at the time appointed in the month Abib; for in the month Abib you came out from Egypt. 25 You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the Passover be left until the morning.

15

@?4N A=B= NF5M LBMN N9JB8 6;.N4 95.=? 5=548 M7; 7F9B@ ýN=9J LM4? N9JB A=LJBB N4J= AK=L =DH 94L=.4@9 18 =;5:.A7 IB;.@F ;5:N.4@ LK5.7F =6;.5@; C=@=.4@9 15

You shall keep the feast of unleavened bread; as I commanded you, you shall eat unleavened bread for seven days at the appointed time in the month of Abib, for in it you came out of Egypt. None shall appear before me empty-handed. 18 You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread, or let the fat of my feast remain until the morning.

The only substantial difference between the two laws is the additional name for the feast. Exodus 23:15, 18 only refers to the feast of unleavened bread (N9JB8 6;), whereas Exod 34:25 additionally refers to the feast of the Passover (;EH8 6;). The additional name may have been an attempt to harmonize the names of the feast, because Deut 16:1 – 8 also refers to ;EH8 6;. The author of Exod 34:18, 25 has rendered the full text of Exod 23:15 and only made an addition (cf. the relationship between Lev 23:5 – 8 and Num 28:16 – 25 below). The fat of my feast (=6;.5@;) was rendered with sacrifice of the feast of Passover (;EH8 6; ;5:), but the idea remains the same (what has been sacrificed or its fat should not remain till morning). It appears that the author of Exod 34:18, 25 largely regarded his source as reliable and authoritative so that almost no changes were necessary. The author of Deut 16:1 – 8 probably used Exod 23:15(18), or its earlier version, as the main source.74 At a later stage the author of Lev 23:5 – 8 used both Exod 23:15(18) and Deut 16:1 – 8 (or their earlier versions) as sources to create yet another law regulating the Passover. A comparison of these three laws illustrates what kind of changes took place between the Covenant Code, Deuteronomy, and the Holiness Code. Although all three of the laws may have been 1934), 242 – 243, and Georg Beer and Kurt Galling, Exodus (HAT I/3 Tübingen: Mohr & Siebeck 1939) have suggested that Exod 34 is older than the Decalogue, but other scholars suggest that the chapter is a Deuteronomistic creation; thus, for example, Lothar Perlitt, Die Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (WMANT 36; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969), 216 – 228; Reinhard Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot: Literarkritische Untersuchungen zu Deuteronomium 5 – 11 (EHS.T 422; Franfurt am Main et al.: P. Lang, 1991), 275 – 283; and Matthias Köckert, “Von einem zum einzigen Gott,” BTZ 15/2 (1998): 167 – 168. 74 This is shown by Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics, 53 – 97. Thus also many others, for example, Veijola, Deuteronomium, 328 – 329, and Nelson, Deuteronomy, 203 – 209

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

147

The Development of the Passover Law

edited after they were used to form the later version, which thus complicates the comparison,75 the freedom with which the early authors related to their sources nevertheless becomes evident. If we assume that Exod 23:15(18) represents the oldest preserved stage of the laws on Passover, and compare it with the youngest, Lev 23:5 – 8, it is apparent that the development of the law has been very radical.76 Lev 23:5 – 8

5

8F5L45 C9M4L8 M7;5 A=5LF8 C=5 M7;@ LMF 6 8MB;59 898=@ ;EH 6; 8:8 M7;@ A9= LMF A=B= NF5M 898=@ N9JB8 9@?4N N9JB 7 C9M4L8 A9=5 A?@ 8=8= M7K.4LKB 4@ 875F N?4@B.@? 9MFN 8 898=@ 8M4 AN5LK89 =F=5M8 A9=5 A=B= NF5M N?4@B.@? M7K.4LKB 9MFN 4@ 875F

Deut 16:1 – 8

1

N=MF9 5=548 M7;.N4 L9BM ý=8@4 898=@ ;EH 898= ý4=J98 5=548 M7;5 =? 2 ;EH N;5:9 8@=@ A=LJBB ý=8@4 A9KB5 LK59 C4J ý=8@4 898=@ AM 9BM C?M@ 898= L;5=.LM4 3 A=B= NF5M IB; 9=@F @?4N.4@ =? =DF A;@ N9JB 9=@F.@?4N CFB@ A=LJB IL4B N4J= C9:H;5 A=LJB IL4B ýN4J A9=.N4 L?:N 4 L4M ý@ 84L=.4@9 ý==; =B= @? C=@=.4@9 A=B= NF5M ý@56.@?5 A9=5 5LF5 ;5:N LM4 LM58.CB 5 ;5:@ @?9N 4@ LK5@ C9M4L8 898=.LM4 ý=LFM 7;45 ;EH8.N4 6 [email protected] =? ý@ CND ý=8@4 9BM C?M@ ý=8@4 898= L;5=.LM4 495? 5LF5 ;EH8.N4 ;5:N AM A=LJBB ýN4J 7F9B MBM8 7 L;5= LM4 A9KB5 N@?49 N@M59 N?@89 LK55 N=DH9 95 ý=8@4 898= 8 N9JB @?4N A=B= NMM ý=@84@ ý=8@4 898=@ NLJF =F=5M8 A9=59 8?4@B 8MFN 4@

Exod 23:15 – 18

15

LBMN N9JB8 6;.N4 N9JB @?4N A=B= NF5M M7; 7F9B@ ýN=9J LM4? N4J= 95.=? 5=548 =DH 94L=.4@9 A=LJBB 16 =L9?5 L=JK8 6;9 AK=L 87M5 FL:N LM4 ý=MFB 8DM8 N4J5 GE48 6;9 ý=MFB.N4 ýHE45 17 A=BFH M@M 87M8.CB ýL9?:.@? 84L= 8DM5 898= C748 =DH.@4 18 IB;.@F ;5:N.4@ =6;.5@; C=@=.4@9 =;5:.A7 LK5.7F

75 Editing may have been especially heavy in Deut 16:1 – 8; see, for example, Veijola, Deuteronomium, 327 – 338. Exod 23:15 – 18 was also edited; see Heinrich Holzinger, Exodus (KHAT 2 Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1900), 96 – 97. Many scholars assume that Lev 23:5 – 8 may derive from the same pen and contain no or only very small additions. Thus, for example, Cholewin´ski, Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium, 82 – 94, and Grünwaldt, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 282 – 283. 76 The parallels between the Covenant Code and Deuteronomy are underlined, and the parallels between the Covenant Code and the Holiness Code as well as the parallels between Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code are written in italics.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

148

The Development of Laws in the Pentateuch

Continued Lev 23:5 – 8 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month in the evening, is Yhwh’s Passover. 6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread to Yhwh; seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. 7 On the first day you shall have a holy convocation; you shall do no laborious work. 8 But you shall present an offering by fire to Yhwh seven days; on the seventh day is a holy convocation; you shall do no laborious work. 5

Deut 16:1 – 8 Observe the month of Abib, and keep the Passover to Yhwh your God; for in the month of Abib Yhwh your God brought you out of Egypt by night. 2 And you shall offer the Passover sacrifice to Yhwh your God, from the flock or the herd, at the place which Yhwh will choose, to make his name dwell there. 3 You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat it with unleavened bread, the bread of affliction—for you came out of the land of Egypt in hurried flight—that all the days of your life you may remember the day when you came out of the land of Egypt. 4 No leaven shall be seen with you in all your territory for seven days; nor shall any of the flesh which you sacrifice on the evening of the first day remain all night until morning. 5 You may not offer the Passover sacrifice within any of your towns which Yhwh your God gives you; 6 but at the place which Yhwh your God will choose, to make his name dwell in it, there you shall offer the Passover sacrifice, in the evening at the going down of the sun, at the time you came out of Egypt. 7 And you shall boil it and eat it at the place which Yhwh your God will choose; and in the morning you shall turn and go to your tents. 8 For six days you shall eat unleavened bread; and on the seventh day there shall be a solemn assembly to Yhwh your God; you shall do no work on it. 1

Exod 23:15 – 18 15 You shall keep the feast of unleavened bread; as I commanded you, you shall eat unleavened bread for seven days at the appointed time in the month of Abib, for in it you came out of Egypt. None shall appear before me emptyhanded. 16 You shall keep the feast of harvest, of the first fruits of your labor, of what you sow in the field. You shall keep the feast of ingathering at the end of the year, when you gather in from the field the fruit of your labor. 17 Three times in the year shall all your males appear before the Lord Yhwh. 18 You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread, or let the fat of my feast remain until the morning.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

The Development of the Passover Law

149

The extensive parallels in vocabulary leave no doubt about the close literary connection between Exod 23:15, 18 and Deut 16:1 – 8. Nevertheless, the author of Deut 16:1 – 877 emphasized the importance of centralizing the feast to the central cult site, and this is the main motif for the substantial changes throughout the law.78 He also changed the name of the festival from that of the unleavened bread (N9JB8 6;)79 to that of the Passover of Yhwh (898=@ ;EH). The older and more original name of the festival was omitted in Deut 16:1 – 8 and replaced with a name that originally may have referred to another festival.80 The author of Lev 23:5 – 8 may have used both Exod 23:15, 18 and Deut 16:1 – 8, because he is familiar with both names for the feast: 898=@ ;EH and N9JB8 6;. Nevertheless, he distinguishes between the two occasions, calling the fourteenth day the Passover and the fifteenth the festival of the unleavened bread. It is apparent that this distinction is a new idea, because the Passover festival of Deut 16:1 – 8 is equivalent to the feast of unleavened bread of Exod 23:15, 18. The older laws are also unfamiliar with an exact date of the festival, and only generally refer to the month of Aviv, when the Israelites are said to have left Egypt. Like the law concerning the festival of booths in Lev 23:34 – 36, the author of Lev 23:5 – 8 emphasized the importance of the holy convocation (M7K.4LKB) on the seventh day.81 The author of Lev 23:5 – 8 partly harmonized the older laws but the result cannot be characterized as a harmonizing version, for it goes much beyond both of the older laws. Although the author of Lev 23:5 – 8 was clearly dependent on them, he had relatively free hands to form the new law. The older laws were mainly used as resource material. Numbers 28:16 – 25 is very closely related to Lev 23:5 – 8, but it develops the festival even more towards a temple-oriented sacrificial occasion led by the priests. Numbers 28:16 – 25 should therefore be seen as the youngest stage in the development of the laws in question.82 77 To be more specific, the author of the original text of Deut 16:1 – 8, for the passage contains many additions. According to Veijola, Deuteronomium, 327 – 338, the oldest text is mainly found in v. 1 – 2 and 5 – 6a. For convenience I will here refer to the author of Deut 16:1 – 8 although only the author who used the source is meant. 78 For further details and discussion on the changes that the author of Deut 16:1 – 8 made in relation to his source, see, for example, Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics, 53 – 97. 79 The name N9JB8 6; is found in Deut 16:16, but this is one of the latest additions to the chapter, see Veijola, Deuteronomium, 342. 80 The original meaning and purpose of the Passover festival is unclear, but the author of Deut 16:1 – 8 took this name and connected it with the originally unrelated festival of the unleavened bread. This is assumed by many scholars, for example, Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics, 65, and Veijola, Deuteronomium, 336 – 337. 81 The idea of a convocation or assembly is already present in Deut 16:8, which is probably a priestly addition to Deut 16; thus Veijola, Deuteronomium, 330 – 331. 82 Many scholars since early research have assumed that Num 28 – 29 represents an expansion

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

150

The Development of Laws in the Pentateuch

Num 28:16 – 25

16

Lev 23:5 – 8

;EH M7;@ A9= LMF 8F5L45 C9M4L8 M7;59 17 A9= LMF 8MB;59 898=@ 8:8 M7;@ @?4= N9JB A=B= NF5M 6; 18 M7K.4LKB C9M4L8 A9=5 9MFN 4@ 875F N?4@B.@? 19 898=@ 8@F 8M4 AN5LK89 A=M5? 8F5M9 7;4 @=49 A=DM LK5.=D5 A=LH 20 N@E AN;DB9 A?@ 9=8= AB=BN 8DM =D5 =DM9 LH@ A=DLMF 8M@M CBM5 8@9@5 21 8MFN C9LMF C9LMF 9MFN @=4@ A=DLMF 22 L=FM9 A=M5?8 NF5M@ 7;48 M5?@ 23 LK58 N@F 75@B A?=@F LH?@ 7;4 N4ü; 24 8@4? [email protected] 9MFN 7=BN8 N@F@ LM4 ;;=D.;=L 8M4 A;@ A=B= NF5M A9=@ 9MFN 9?ED9 8MF= 7=BN8 N@9F.@F 898=@ 25 A?@ 8=8= M7K.4LKB =F=5M8 A9=59 9MFN 4@ 875F N?4@B.@? 16

On the fourteenth day of the first month is Yhwh’s Passover. 17 And on the fifteenth day of this month is a feast; seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten.

18

On the first day there shall be a holy convocation: you shall do no laborious work, 19 but offer an offering by fire, a burnt offering to Yhwh: two young bulls, one ram, and seven male lambs a year old; see that they are without blemish; 20 also their cereal offering of fine flour mixed with oil; three tenths of an ephah shall you offer for a bull, and two tenths for a ram; 21 a tenth shall you offer for each of the seven lambs; 22 also one male goat for a sin offering, to make atonement for you. 23 You shall offer these besides the burnt offering of the morning, which is for a continual burnt offering. 24 In the same way you shall offer daily, for seven days, the food of an offering by fire, a pleasing odor to Yhwh; it shall be offered besides the continual burnt offering and its drink offering.

5

C=5 M7;@ LMF 8F5L45 C9M4L8 M7;5 6 M7;@ A9= LMF 8MB;59 898=@ ;EH A=5LF8 898=@ N9JB8 6; 8:8 9@?4N N9JB A=B= NF5M 7 .@? A?@ 8=8= M7K.4LKB C9M4L8 A9=5 9MFN 4@ 875F N?4@B 8 898=@ 8M4 AN5LK89

A=B= NF5M M7K.4LKB =F=5M8 A9=5 9MFN 4@ 875F N?4@B.@? 5

In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month in the evening, is Yhwh’s Passover. 6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread to Yhwh; seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. 7 On the first day you shall have a holy convocation; you shall do no laborious work. 8 But you shall present an offering by fire to Yhwh

seven days;

to the festival calendar in Lev 23. Thus, for example, Bruno Baentsch, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri (HKAT 1.2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903), 640; Heinrich Holzinger, Numeri (KHAT 4; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck] 1903), 140 – 141, 143, and Carl Steuernagel, Lehrbuch der einleitung in das Alte Testament: mit einem anhang über die apokryphen und pseudepigraphen (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1912), 168 – 169.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

151

The Development of the Passover Law 25

And on the seventh day you shall have a holy convocation; you shall do no laborious work.

on the seventh day is a holy convocation; you shall do no laborious work.

The author of Num 28:16 – 25 used nearly all the words of Lev 23:5 – 8 but made a major expansion in v. 19 – 24 that finds no parallel in the source. The expansion mostly contains additional instructions on the sacrifices that should be offered during the Passover. This change accords with the gradually growing interest in the sacrificial cult that may be observed in many parts of the Hebrew Bible, especially in later sections of the Pentateuch.83 The tendency of Lev 23:5 – 8 thus takes a further step in Num 28:16 – 25. The author of Num 28:16 – 25 apparently avoided the exact name of the festival (N9JB8 6;). Although he was obviously familiar with the name 898=@ N9JB8 6;, found in Lev 23:6, the author of Num 28:17 merely used the word 6;. This change is certainly intentional, for the name of the festival seems to differ in each one of the parallel laws. The background of the difference may have been a disagreement about the name of the festival. For the purposes of the present investigation, the comparison between Lev 23:5 – 8 and Num 28:16 – 25 is significant because the author of Num 28:16 – 25 evidently had a different attitude towards his source than the authors of Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code towards their sources. The source text was not freely shaped as in these laws codes but rather faithfully rendered in Num 28:16 – 25 and the changes are largely expansions. With the exception of some words (such as N9JB8 6;), the source was fully used in the new text. This suggests that the author of Num 28:16 – 25 was not free to omit parts of the source; he had a very high regard for Lev 23:5 – 8 as an authoritative text that could not be changed freely. In this respect the relationship is similar to the relationship between Exod 23:15, 18 and Exod 34:18, 25. They are both examples of what is conventionally assumed of later editors’ technique towards the older text, but they also underline that the authors of Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code had a fundamentally different relationship to their sources. The reason for the two very fundamentally different attitudes towards the source may have been the traditions or ideological paradigms where the new texts were composed. Leviticus 23:5 – 8 and Num 28:16 – 25 are ideologically closely related. Both laws focus on the sacrifices and were probably created and transmitted in priestly circles close to the temple. Leviticus 23:5 – 8 had become 83 A similar tendency is seen in other parts of the Hebrew scriptures as well. For example, in Ezra-Nehemiah the later editors emphasize the temple, priests and sacrifices, whereas the older editions of the text pay much less, if any, attention to these themes. For details and the redaction history of these books, see Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe: the Development of Ezra 7 – 10 and Nehemiah 8 (BZAW 347; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 267 – 274.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

152

The Development of Laws in the Pentateuch

an authoritative text within this tradition, as suggested by the younger text Num 28:16 – 25, the author of which copied the source almost completely and made only expansions. Within the same tradition a certain conservatism sets in because its transmitters have an interest in preserving the paradigm.

Discussion: The Passover Law The Passover law developed in various contexts and was accordingly edited by several authors and editors. New versions were made according to the needs and changes of the societies where it was transmitted. Although there may have been more versions than what have been preserved,84 the Passover law is exceptional because five versions were included in the Hebrew Bible and a further one in the Temple Scroll.85 When we look at the prehistory of the laws from the perspective of its late versions, for example Num 28:16 – 25 or T 17:6 – 16, the older versions unequivocally show that the whole transmission necessitated several major revisions.86 Only one of these revisions accords with the conceptions of conventional literary criticism. Leviticus 23:5 – 8 was almost fully used in Num 28:16 – 25 and the changes were only expansions, whereas the other revisions were more radical so that the older text was comprehensively revised. Omissions and rewritings were frequent. Although the development of the Passover law confirms the common assumption in literary criticism that the prehistory of some texts consisted of repeated editorial stages, it also shows how complicated the transmission could be and how radically the law was changed in the course of its editorial development. This chart illustrates the different stages in the law’s development:

84 This is suggested by the fact that most of the versions that were preserved have been subsequently edited in their current contexts. 85 The Passover law of the Temple Scroll is discussed in chapter VI. 86 This evidence contradicts the conception of David M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 145, who has suggested that “[M]ost texts seem to have undergone at most two to three major stages of growth, with the remainder of revision happening in the form of minor glosses, harmonizations, and the like.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

153

Discussion: The Passover Law

Exod 23:15, 18

Exod 34:18, 25

Deut 16:1–8

Lev 23:5–8

Num 28:16–25

T 17:6–16

The radical changes in the texts took place when the tradition of the new text was fundamentally different from that of the source text. When Exod 23:15, 18 was used by the authors of Deut 16:1 – 8 and of Lev 23:5 – 8, the text was revised comprehensively because the authors of the new texts were writing under a different ideological and/or social paradigm. For example, the author of Deut 16:1 – 8 was a “Deuteronomist”87 whose main interest was the cult centralization after the collapse of the monarchy and the law was formulated with this interest in view. Exodus 23:15, 18 (or its earlier form) was probably originally written during the monarchic period, during an entirely different paradigm when cult centralization was not an issue. Leviticus 23:5 – 8 represents yet another ideological and social paradigm. The products of the older paradigms do not represent highly authoritative texts for the proponents of this paradigm, and therefore they were used more freely as resource material or were even rejected. In other words, the comparison of the five parallel texts on the Passover festival shows a picture of the long-term textual transmission where traditional and

87 The whole concept of “Deuteronomism” has come under considerable criticism in recent scholarship, and perhaps justly so. “Deuteronomistic” texts can be found in late literary works that lie much beyond the traditionally assumed period of Deuteronomistic activity. See, for example, the contributions by Pancratius C. Beentjes, Francis Borchardt, Marko Marttila, Mika S. Pajunen, Anssi Voitila and Stuart Weeks in Changes in Scripture (ed. H. von Weissenberg et al., BZAW 419; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2011).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

154

The Development of Laws in the Pentateuch

more conservative editorial processes are at work within the same ideological tradition or paradigm, while much more radical editorial processes have set in when the older text was used in an entirely different social or ideological paradigm. If we speculate that only Num 28 or T 17:6 – 16 had been preserved, the correct reconstruction of the literary development of the Passover law could not assume that the text was only expanded and that no omissions were made. Here we have five documented stages preserved and only in one case did the author of the younger version preserve nearly everything of the older stage. In concrete terms, how do we know that the prehistory of Deut 9 – 10, often assumed to consist of five or more literary stages, was not similar to T 17 or Num 28? At the least it would be hazardous to take it as an axiom that there was a fundamental difference and that texts such as Deut 9 – 10 preserve everything from the oldest redactional stage. A prehistory similar to that of T 17 or Num 28 has to be taken as a real possibility for those texts of the Hebrew scriptures where the prehistory of the text is not documented.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Jubilees

Introduction The same processes of creating new laws on the basis of older laws continued outside the Pentateuch although the assumed authority of the Pentateuch usually adds a new aspect to the scholarly discussion. In the late Second Temple period the Pentateuch had very probably reached a significant and authoritative position within Judaism, and this is justly taken into consideration in discussing later texts that used the Pentateuch as a source. Especially interesting are Jubilees and the Temple Scroll,1 which both use a relatively late version of the Pentateuch2 as a source in a late Second Temple context.3 Their use of the Pentateuch could be compared with the use of law codes by the authors of other law codes inside the Pentateuch, such as Deuteronomy using the Covenant Code. The changes that the authors of Jubilees and the Temple Scroll make in comparison with their sources contain extensive parallels with their predecessors’ relationship to their 1 Other Second Temple Jewish documents, such as the Genesis Apocryphon and Reworked Pentateuch, could also be taken as examples, but I will concentrate here on the most illustrative examples. 2 This is seen in the way both Jubilees and the Temple Scroll are dependent on late additions to the Pentateuch. Some minor additions such as the ones in Deut 17:3, 5 (see below) may have been added later to the Pentateuch so that the Temple Scroll may have used an earlier version of the law, but this is mainly restricted to small additions and glosses that are commonly assumed to be late and that are also partly missing in other textual witnesses. 3 The dating of these books is debated and various dates have been proposed, but Jubilees is now generally dated to the second century bce whereas at least parts of the Temple Scroll may be older. According to James C. VanderKam, “Book of Jubilees,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000): 434 – 438, here p. 434, Jubilees is from the mid-second century bce. Florentino Garcia Martinez, “Temple Scroll,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000): 927 – 933, here pp. 931 – 932, assumes that the main redaction of the Temple Scroll was done in the mid-second century bce as well. Since the oldest manuscript of the Temple Scroll from Qumran (4Q524) can be dated to ca. 150 – 125 bce, and it is probably a copy, the original text must be at least some decades older.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

156

Jubilees

sources, which underlines the continuity between these “extrabiblical” texts and the Pentateuch, but perhaps some differences can also be detected. The basic underlying reason behind all of the new versions of the law codes and new versions of the pentateuchal texts is the need to update the older texts. Some of the new versions are more radical than others, but the intention seems to have been to create a text that would be suitable for a changed context or even a new tradition and paradigm. Without the need to substantially change, add, improve, and/or clarify, there is no reason for writing an entirely new version of a law code or other document.4 This is underlined by the fact that the creation of a new literary work was not a daily and private undertaking. Writing material was expensive so the creation of a new edition of a document probably needed at least some kind of institutional or societal support. Despite the same need to update and improve, there are differences in the way the authors saw the relationship of the new text to the pentateuchal source. This becomes evident when we compare Jubilees and the Temple Scroll. The latter seems to relate to its sources in the same way as the law codes of the Pentateuch to their sources, while Jubilees could be regarded as a different genre in this respect. On the other hand, the editorial techniques may not be substantially different when we look at the micro-level changes that have been made in relation to the source text. The Book of Jubilees5 overlaps with the time described in Genesis and much of Exodus. Although the events described in Jubilees seem to repeat many of the same events and phases in the history of Israel, it clearly recognizes the authority and position of the Pentateuch as a divine revelation. This is suggested by the explicit reference to the ‘First law’ or ‘First Torah’ (8D9ML8 8L9N8) (Jub 2:24) and to the ‘Book of the First law’ (Jub 6:22),6 evidently a version of the Pentateuch that the author(s)7 used as the main source. Accordingly, many scholars have recognized that Jubilees was meant to be a supplement to the Pentateuch that 4 This does not mean that some individual laws might not remain unchanged or almost unchanged. For example, Deut 17:2 – 5 is rendered almost word for word in T 55:15 – 21, but other passages in the Temple Scroll show that the author had considerable need to provide an updated version of the laws. 5 For a review of scholarly discussion on Jubilees, see Michael Segal, The Book of Jubilees (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007), 11 – 21. 6 There are also other references to a collection of laws. For example, instead of repeating the commandments concerning the Sabbath, Jub 50:6 notes: “the commandment regarding the Sabbaths—I have written (them) down for thee—and all the judgments of its laws.” 7 As argued by Segal, Jubilees, 317 – 319, the book is probably not a unified composition but was written by more than one hand. He has shown that a later redactor “adopted written sources, usually rewritten stories” and “integrated them within the framework of a new literary composition.” According to Segal, the redactor made changes to the sources that he used. Because of my general approach here, I will nevertheless refer to one author, although the composition history of the book is probably much more complicated.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

157

Introduction

provided additional information about the events described in Genesis-Exodus.8 Despite considerably expanded and altered stories, evident throughout the text, there does not seem to be any attempt to suppress or replace the Pentateuch, and instead the author readily grants the source an authoritative position.9 Jubilees could be characterized as a companion to the Pentateuch (or to Genesis-Exodus).10 It is expansive in the sense that it adds many entirely new scenes and passages that have no parallel in Genesis-Exodus, but there does not seem to be any deliberate attempt to compete with the source text and its narrative.11 The narrative in Jubilees is generally connected to the sequence and content of Genesis-Exodus but it does not necessarily provide parallel versions to the same events so that the new account in Jubilees would directly compete with the one in Genesis-Exodus. Instead Jubilees often provides a different perspective that emphasizes a particular and perhaps a new aspect of the events. Jubilees has a tendency to take a part of the source’s story or its topic into focus and expand it considerably by introducing an entirely new theme. In many cases the source may only briefly refer to a topic or an event that then is developed into a major or dominant theme of the narrative in Jubilees. For example, in the source text the Sabbath is mentioned in connection with the seventh day of creation (Gen 2:2 – 3), but it is not the main focus of the story, whereas in Jubilees the Sabbath has become a dominant theme that receives more attention and space than the rest of the creation account (Jub 2:17 – 32). At the same time, the author of Jubilees may have left out substantial parts of the source that did not draw his interest or were not crucial for his compositional purposes. The resulting text is often fundamentally different from the source, and one could even receive the impression that the author of Jubilees had full 8 Thus, for example, Sidnie W. Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008), 62 and James C. VanderKam, “Moses Trumping Moses: Making the Book of Jubilees,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts (STDJ 92; ed. S. Metso et alii; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010), 27 – 44. 9 This does not mean that the author might not have represented views that differed from those in Genesis and Exodus. In some cases the author of Jubilees may even contradict his source. To some extent any rewritten text that attempts to add to or explain an older text relates paradoxically towards the source. See for example, Segal, Jubilees, 4 – 5. For a further review of Jubilees in relation to Genesis and Exodus, see James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 93 – 120. 10 Many scholars have also characterized Jubilees as a rewritten text. Thus Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 62, and many others. To a great extent, this is a question of definition, but if we use this term to characterize Jubilees and other similar documents, it would be necessary to distinguish between rewritten texts that were meant to replace the source (such as Chronicles and Deuteronomy) and rewritten texts that were written as a supplement or companion to the source. In the current discussion, this term is often rather vaguely used. 11 On the other hand, there are examples where the resulting text may effectively contradict the source—at least from a modern and logical point of view—although this may not have been the author’s intention.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

158

Jubilees

freedom to rewrite the text. Although this may be technically true when we compare many of the parallel passages (which are often only loosely parallel), he was still largely writing on the basis of the source and followed its events. This technique of being able to make substantial changes is understandable against the backdrop of the author’s intention of creating a supplement to the Pentateuch. He did not intend to offer a competing version to the already described events. That the author of Jubilees assumed the ‘First Torah’ to be available to his readers gave him the freedom to relate very freely to the texts that he used as sources.12 The author of Jubilees seems to have had a fundamentally different attitude towards his source than the authors of Deuteronomy, the Holiness Code, or the Temple Scroll, which all provide new and competing versions to many of the same laws that were already included in the sources.13 Their authors often openly contradicted the source, whereas Jubilees rarely contradicts its source, at least deliberately or openly. Nevertheless, in all cases the resulting new text appears considerably different from the source. On the other hand, there are examples where Jubilees follows the source text rather faithfully, while such examples are rare in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code in relation to their sources.14 For example, it is difficult to show extensive parallel sentences between Deuteronomy and the Covenant Code to such an extent that the relationship between these documents has been controversial.15 In contrast, it lies beyond dispute that the author of Jubilees used Genesis-Exodus as the main source. The relationship of Jubilees to its source therefore corroborates the assumption that Deuteronomy probably tried to replace its source, the Covenant Code. If it had been intended as a supplement, one would expect it to relate to its source in a similar way as Jubilees does, making references to the source document and offering additional information concerning the same event.16 Although the author of Jubilees accepted the primacy of the Pentateuch, he used its authoritative status to claim divine authority for his own composition as 12 Many scholars since Robert H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 7, have assumed that the author of Jubilees had the same Midrashic attitude towards its sources as the author of Chronicles towards 1 – 2 Samuel and 1 – 2 Kings, but this is probably incorrect. Chronicles mostly provides a competing version of the same events as the source, while Jubilees mainly provides additional events and tries to avoid competing with the source. 13 The new versions of the Passover law are an example of this. See above. 14 On the other hand, they are common in the Temple Scroll, see below. 15 See the discussion in chapter IV. 16 For example, there is no reference to an earlier or different law code in Deuteronomy or in the Holiness Code. At the same time, the evidently competing versions of the same laws preclude the possibility that the law codes were intended to be included in the same collection of texts, let alone the same law code.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

The Sixth and the Seventh Day of Creation

159

well. The reference to the ‘First Torah’ suggests that the author wanted to insinuate that his own work is the ‘Second Torah’ or a supplement to the ‘First Torah.’ Otherwise he could have simply referred to the Torah.17 Moreover, the setting of the revelation on Mount Sinai was taken from Exodus. Exodus 24:15 – 18 was used as the model to form the beginning of the story (cf. Jub 1:1 – 4) so that the whole text was effectively presented as God’s revelation to Moses. The text purports to be what God had told an angel of the presence to write to Moses (1:27) or what was written by Moses as dictated by the angel (2:1). In this sense Jubilees goes even beyond Genesis-Exodus, which is not presented as a revelation before the Sinai pericope.18 This does not mean that the author of Jubilees would have wanted to replace or suppress Genesis-Exodus. Instead, he attempted to gain divine authority for his own work by imitating the historical fiction of the Pentateuch.19 One receives the impression that the author was writing in a context where the authoritativeness of the Pentateuch was selfevident or commonly accepted, but since he found that some issues in the Pentateuch needed to be explained, clarified or highlighted, he claimed that his own text would be part of the same revelation as the Torah.20 The technical relationship between the source text and Jubilees will be illustrated in the following examples, with a particular emphasis on omissions and rewritings. In order to facilitate the comparison, passages that are at least in part preserved in Hebrew will be used.21

The Sixth and the Seventh Day of Creation Although it lies beyond question that Gen 1 – 2 was the main source for Jub 2, the differences between the two versions are extensive. The parallels in Jub 2:13 – 24 (2Q216 VII)22 illustrate how the author of Jubilees related to his source text:23

17 In other books of the Hebrew scriptures there are many references to the Pentateuch. For example the authors and editors of Ezra-Nehemiah refer to ‘the Torah,’ (Ezra 3:2; 10:3; Neh 8:13), because for these authors there is only one Torah. If an author intended to insinuate that there may be more than one Torah, he needed to make references like the ‘First Torah.’ 18 On the other hand, Jubilees does not reproduce the rest of the Sinai pericope and the giving of the law. 19 Although it is unlikely that all of its authors intended to write a divine revelation, the whole Pentateuch was assumed to be a divine revelation during the time when Jubilees was written. 20 As noted by Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 62: “Jubilees was meant to stand beside that First Law …” 21 The Ethiopic text is commonly used to reconstruct the Hebrew of those sections that are missing. For the edited text and the translation, see James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (CSCO 511, Scriptores Aethiopici 88; Leuven: Peeters, 1989). 22 With the exception of some minor changes, the reconstructed Hebrew text has been adopted

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

160

Jubilees

2Q216 VII (Jub 2:13 – 24)

Gen 1 – 2

1 N]=; @? N4 =MM8 A[9=59 8MF …] [8B748 MBL @? N49 8B858 N49 IL48

A748 N4 8MF

2

… 85]KD9 L?: [A=BM8 G9F59 A=B=59 IL48.@?5 3 IL48.@F MB9L]8 MBL8 @?59 8=;59 [… [… =MM8 A9=]5 8MF 8@48 A=DB8 4 6

5

N5M LM4 N5M8 IL459 A=BM5 LM4 […]A=B= NMM A=9MF 7 [… 9]5 9 8 A=D=B8 [… =F=5]M8 A9=5 8N95MD9 10 =BBF ý99N5 AF [… L]M4 8@48 [… @? ]5 59KF= FL:5 L;59 11 [… 9N5M]9 [… =F=5M]8 A9=8 N49 7F9 A@9F@ 12 [… ]7;= N9=8@9 A=968 @?B 13 15 14 9=@4 7F A74B […] A=B=8 @? [… =D=]B A=LMF9 A=(D)M9 […] M7K@ 7;= 9MFD 8: AF 8:9 M7K9 16 [… 8D9]ML8 8L9N89 879FN8 N4:9 17

24

8B85 8D=B@ 8=; MHD IL48 4J9N A=8@4 LB4=9 C?.=8=9 8D=B@ IL4.9N=;9 MBL9 25 8B858.N49 8D=B@ IL48 N=;.N4 A=8@4 MF=9 A=8@4 4L=9 98D=B@ 8B748 MBL.@? N49 8D=B@ 26 9DB@J5 A74 8MFD A=8@4 LB4=9 59ü.=? 8B8559 A=BM8 G9F59 A=8 N675 97L=9 9DN9B7? IL48.@F MBL8 MBL8.@?59 IL48.@?59 27 A748.N4 A=8@4 4L5=9 9N4 4L5 A=8@4 A@J5 9B@J5 28 LB4=9 A=8@4 AN4 ýL5=9 AN4 4L5 85KD9 L?: 97L9 8M5?9 IL48.N4 94@B9 95L9 9LH A=8@4 A8@ NMBL8 8=;.@?59 A=BM8 G9F59 A=8 N675 29 A?@ =NND 8D8 A=8@4 LB4=9 IL48.@F IL48.@? =DH.@F LM4 FL: FL: 5MF.@?.N4 8=8= A?@ FL: FL: IF.=LH 95.LM4 IF8.@?.N49 30 @?@9 A=BM8 G9F.@?@9 IL48 N=;.@?@9 8@?4@ KL=.@?.N4 8=; MHD 95.LM4 IL48.@F MB9L 31 LM4.@?.N4 A=8@4 4L=9 C?.=8=9 8@?4@ 5MF =MM8 A9= LK5.=8=9 5LF.=8=9 74B 59ü.8D89 8MF 2 1 A=8@4 @?=9 A45J.@?9 IL489 A=BM8 9@?=9 A9=5 N5M=9 8MF LM4 9N?4@B =F=5M8 A9=5 3 A=8@4 ýL5=9 8MF LM4 9N?4@B.@?B =F=5M8 N5M 95 =? 9N4 M7K=9 =F=5M8 A9=.N4 N9MF@ A=8@4 4L5.LM4 9N?4@B.@?B

Jubilees 2:13 – 24 generally follows the structure of the source. Some sentences of Gen 2 have been adopted in Jub 2:13 – 24 and the order of events is generally kept, but the author of Jubilees was not bound by the exact text of the source. As noted by Jacques Van Ruiten,24 “[a]t a macrostructural level the entire account has been taken over.” Since the author of Jubilees assumed that the reader has access to Genesis, he could take considerable liberties in forming his own account of creation and use a variety of exegetical strategies to form his own text.25 The source functioned as the basis for the new version, but the author could omit large sections and make expansions that emphasized issues that had no parallel in the source. Even central themes could be omitted. For example, despite its theological significance, the idea that man was made in the image of God in Gen from James C. VanderKam and Jûzef T. Milik, “Jubilees,” in Qumran Cave 4:VIII Parabiblical Texts, Part I (DJD 13; Oxford, 1994), 1 – 185. 23 Numbers in the Hebrew text refer to the lines of manuscript 2Q216 column VII. 24 Jacques Van Ruiten, Primaeval History Interpreted: The Rewriting of Genesis 1 – 11 in the Book of Jubilees (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2000), 66. 25 For different strategies, see George J. Brooke, “Exegetical Strategies in Jubilees 1 – 2,” in Studies in the Book of Jubilees (ed. M. Albani et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 39 – 57.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

The Sixth and the Seventh Day of Creation

161

1:26 – 27 finds no parallel in the creation account of Jubilees.26 Similarly, the giving of the green plants for food in Gen 1:30 is left unmentioned in Jubilees. The author probably did not need to reproduce these topics because he did not have anything to add and the reader would find them in their original form in Genesis, which was assumed to be readily available. If the author of Jubilees had written a competing version of the creation, it is probable that more attention would have been paid to including at least the central themes in the new version. On the other hand, there are some details in the source that may have been left out or corrected intentionally for theological reasons. Genesis 2:2 implies that God had finished his creation on the seventh day (9N?4@B =F=5M8 A9=5 A=8@4 @?=9), but Jub 2:16 emphasizes that the work was done in six days (A=B= NMM A=9MF). The reason for the correction is that Gen 2:2 could be read to suggest that some work was still done on the seventh day, contradicting the conception that no work should be done on this day. Since the Sabbath was a central theme for the author of Jubilees, the correction is probably intentional. There seems to be at least an implicit challenge of the source on this issue. The importance of the Sabbath is seen particularly well in the large expansion in Jub 2:17 – 33, which reflects on and exhorts the Israelites to keep this day of rest. This section finds no parallel in Gen 1 – 2, except for the short reference to the Sabbath in Gen 2:2 – 3, which functioned like a Midrashic hook or impetus for the author of Jubilees to expand it into a central theme of the whole creation narrative. The importance of the theme is underlined by its length, which equals the rest of the whole creation story. In addition to revealing a central interest of the author of Jubilees, it illustrates the relationship of Jubilees to its source. The author generally acknowledged the main course of events in the source, adopting some sentences from there that tied the new text to the original story, but he did not try to deny or challenge the basic course of the events in Genesis-Exodus.27 He could omit issues that were not in his main interest, and expand greatly those issues that he felt had not been treated adequately. This passage illustrates the nature of Jubilees as a companion and supplement, and shows that it was not meant as an alternative version of the same events. In effect, the assumption that the original story of creation was available to the readers gave the author of Jubilees the freedom to use the source text as resource material that could be rewritten, reorganized and changed to a great extent. 26 The idea that man was created in the image of God is mentioned in Jub 6:8. The omission of the idea in the Jubilees account of creation implies that the author did not intend to provide a comprehensive account of creation. He mainly concentrated on the themes that were important for his compositional purposes. The omission of a reference to the idea therefore corroborates the assumption that Jubilees did not intend to replace its source. See also the discussion on this omission in Van Ruiten, Primaeval History, 45. 27 See VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, 28.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

162

Jubilees

Cain in Jubilees 4:7 – 10 and Genesis 4 Jubilees 4:7 – 10 describes the events after Cain had murdered Abel. The passage is clearly dependent on Gen 4, as seen by the exact parallels, but there are several differences as well:28 11Q12 (Jub 4:7 – 10) … @58 @F] 4 [A=@54]NB 9NM49 A74[ 9=89 [=M=B] ;8 F95M@ 8F5L45[9 … N9F954 F5L4 [9NM4 N4 N=DM/79F A74 F7=9 9;BM] 5 NM 9]BM N4 4LK=9 C5 9@ 7@N9 [IL4]5 FL: 898= 9D@ NM LB4 4=? 6 7 =MM8 F95M5 C=K] 96L8 4=? @58 N;N L;4 [9]N9;4 N4 C=K ;K=9 9N5 8L[9:4 N4 7=@98 8 @[59=8 IK5 ý9D; N4 9@ 7@N9 8M4@ 9@ C94] 9 @59=@ C9M4=L8 F95M@ N;4 NDM59] =F=5L8 [I]L45 A=N58 9D5D =M[=B;8 10 9B? 8BM N4 4LK=9 L=F C=K C5=9] [A]749 vacat ý9D; 9D[5 AM

Gen 4:25, 17 25

9NM4.N4 79F A74 F7=9 NM 9BM.N4 4LKN9 C5 7@N9 FL: A=8@4 [email protected] =? C=K 96L8 =? @58 N;N L;4 ý9D;.N4 7@N9 L8N9 9NM4.N4 C=K F7=9

17

ý9D; 9D5 AM? L=F8 AM 4LK=9 L=F 8D5 =8=9

The author of Jub 4:7 – 10 has adopted some sentences from Gen 4 almost word for word but also taken the liberty of rearranging the text, omitting parts and making extensive expansions. The chronological framework of the events and the occurrence of the years of the jubilee were central and this is seen in the numerous additions in this passage. Although the general story in Gen 4 was the starting point for Jub 4:7 – 10, the author created an entirely new story which is only thinly connected to the source text. The new story does not contradict the source, but generally tries to provide additional information. In some cases the basis for the additional information may be implicitly present in the source. For example, Cain is said to have built a city and called it Enoch in Gen 4:17. Jubilees adopted this information almost verbatim (v. 10) but it also added as background information that the (first) houses had been built in the fifth jubilee (v. 9). From the idea in Gen 4:17 that Cain built the first city, the author of Jubilees deduced that this must also be the beginning of the building of houses. He then further added the exact date when this began (Jub 4:9), which is a typical addition in Jubilees. That the author of Jubilees drew on the implicit information of the source is seen in the way he introduced the wives of Cain and Seth as their sisters (Awan and Azura, respectively).29 Gen 4 leaves open where their wives came from, but it would have been logical to assume that Cain and Seth married their sisters 28 The numbers in the Hebrew text refer to the lines of manuscript 11Q12. 29 That Seth married his sister Azura is found in Jub 4:12, which is not preserved in Hebrew.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Cain in Jubilees 4:7 – 10 and Genesis 4

163

because the only couple was Adam and Eve.30 The source was not contradicted or challenged, only new information was added that one could have—with some imagination—deduced from the source. The building of the city is also an example of how the author took the liberty of reorganizing parts of the text. In the source text the building of the first city was spoken of before the birth of Seth, but the author of Jubilees relocated this after his birth. The relocation may be part of the author’s broader motif of reducing Cain’s role because Cain’s genealogy has also been omitted (Gen 4:18 – 24).31 One may further see the addition of the reference to the houses as an attempt to diminish Cain’s importance: In Jubilees, Cain’s building of the city may be seen as a consequence of the general building of houses (note A=N58 9D5D), whereas Gen 4:17 gives the impression that Cain introduced urban life and civilization more strongly. In Genesis he may be seen as a pioneer and hero of urban civilization, whereas Jubilees portrays him as following the general trend in building houses, merely taking a further step.32 Since the source text was ambiguous in this respect, describing him as a murderer and a builder, the degrading of Cain was attained by omitting those sections that could be interpreted as portraying him in a positive light. It is a typical development in the Hebrew Bible that good people are gradually seen in an even more positive light, whereas those who have done something evil in an early text become more and more evil in the later traditions.33 This example shows a case where the author of Jubilees may have disagreed with Cain’s partly positive role in the source text. Cain was not completely degraded, but the changes give the impression that Jubilees undermines the portrayal of Cain in Gen 4. Instead of openly chal30 The names were probably invented. The name of Cain’s wife Awan (C94) means ‘strength,’ but also ‘sin’ or ‘disaster.’ The selection of this name is well in line with the general degrading of Cain in Jubilees. 31 As noted by Van Ruiten, Primaeval History, 157, Seth was relocated before Cain “so that the pure line was established before the impure line of Cain had the opportunity to establish itself.” 32 The addition of the houses in Jubilees also serves the purpose of describing how Cain was killed. According to Jub 4:31, his house collapsed on him and he was killed by its stones (cf. he killed Abel with a stone). 33 For example Zedekiah was portrayed in a negative light in 2 Kgs 24 – 25. This tendency is strengthened in the later additions to Jeremiah that are dependent on 2 Kgs 24 – 25, as shown by Hermann-Josef Stipp, “Zedekiah in the Book of Jeremiah: On the Formation of a Biblical Character,” CBQ 58 (1996): 632 – 638. In the Alexandrian textual tradition of the LXX, Zedekiah is then portrayed as the source of evil. As noted by Stipp, “Zedekiah in the Book of Jeremiah,” 640, “the Alexandrian textual tradition was adapted to a stance violently hostile to the last Judean king.” A positive development is seen in Josiah. In the oldest text he was portrayed as the restorer of the temple, and perhaps the one who removed the Assyrian religious symbols from the temple. Gradually more and more reform measures are ascribed to him so that in the final text of 2 Kgs 22 – 23 he is depicted as the most pious king, who reformed the entire religion and purified it of foreign elements.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

164

Jubilees

lenging the source text, the author of Jubilees subtly reduced Cain’s role and undermined his positive achievements.

I Will not Marry a Canaanite Jubilees 25:1 – 10 is a good example of the expansive nature of Jubilees. The passage contains a discussion between Jacob and his mother Rebecca. The main topic of the passage is marriage with the Canaanites. Rebecca warns Jacob about taking a Canaanite wife, followed by Jacob’s solemn promise not to do so. The Hebrew text is party preserved in 4Q222 (verses 8 – 12):34 2

1

=4L=N @4 9MF =;4[ 8MF] [CFD? N9D5B … 8M4 ;K4 ]4@ {4}=; =B=[ @9? ] 4 3 8=H ;NHN9 48=7[=] [… 8]4MD 4: A@9F@ =?L7 N=;M4 4[@9] […]=B@;89 =B4 [… A=]89@4 898= ý9L5 LB4{9}N9 8@8N9 N97[9N] 5 […] C9=@F @4{F} N4 ýL5N9 [… 8] ?@M9 8[498] 7 [… 59K]F= N[4] =@ CND LM4 A=B@[9F] 6

Although the whole scene is missing in Genesis, the text was written in view of and on the basis of Genesis. Two passages in particular have influenced Jub 25:1 – 10, namely Gen 24:1 – 9 and Gen 28:1. In Gen 28:1 Isaac warns Jacob against marrying a Canaanite, while in Gen 24:1 – 9 Abraham makes his servant swear that he will not take a Canaanite wife for his son Isaac. Genesis 28:1 thus provides the background for the idea that Jacob should not marry a Canaanite while Gen 24:1 – 9 may have been the model for the promise. Jubilees 25:8 – 9 also refers to Esau’s marriages, which is an allusion to Gen 26:34, where Esau is said to have married two Hittite women. Jubilees is generally dependent on the common theme in the Hebrew Bible that the Israelites should not marry foreigners, but here the theme receives much more attention than in the source texts in Genesis (but cf. Ezra 9 – 10 and Neh 13).35 Despite the evident connections between Jub 25:1 – 10 and Genesis, Jub 25:1 – 10 does not quote or include the exact text of any 34 The numbers here refer to the lines of the manuscript. The Ethiopic text in Jub 25:8 – 12 reads (translation by James C. VanderKam): “8 Despite everything he ordered me, my brother has been quarreling with me for the last 22 years and has often said to me: ‘My brother, marry one of the sisters of my two wives’. But I have not been willing to do as he did. 9 I swear in your presence, mother, that during my entire lifetime I will not marry any of the descendants of Canaan’s daughters nor will I do what is wrong as my brother has done. 10 Do not be afraid, mother. Be assured that I will do as you wish. I will behave rightly and will never conduct myself corruptly. 11 Then she lifted her face to heaven, extended her fingers, and opened her mouth. She blessed the most high God who had created the heavens and the earth and gave him thanks and praise. 12 She said: May God be blessed, and may his name be blessed forever and ever …” 35 It appears that this theme received particular attention in the younger texts of the Hebrew scriptures, although the oldest text to raise the issue of mixed marriages may be Deut 7:3.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Jubilees as a Witness to the Editorial Processes

165

passage in Genesis. Jubilees 25:1 – 10 was freely formed with only some shared words with its source texts. The ensuing prayer or blessing by Rebecca in Jub 25:11 – 22 has no parallel in Genesis. That the source described Rebecca as an advocate of Jacob was probably the reason why the author of Jubilees assumed that Rebecca was a pious woman. This aspect was then developed further in Jubilees. Rebecca’s prayer demonstrates how implicit ideas or an interpretation of the source text could spark the creation of an extensive passage in Jubilees. Jubilees 25:1 – 22 illustrates how various ideas and passages in the source text inspired the author of Jubilees. Genesis provided the thematic background on the basis of which the passage in Jubilees was created. Despite evident thematic connections and dependence, the whole chapter Jub 25 has no parallel in the source text. The new text does not compete with its source, but draws on its themes and develops them further. This illustrates a fundamental difference between Jubilees on the one hand, and Deuteronomy, the Holiness Code, and the Temple Scroll on the other.

Jubilees as a Witness to the Editorial Processes Jubilees is clearly dependent on the Pentateuch and the author did not attempt to hide this. He readily gave primacy to the source, but this did not hinder him from making radical changes when the source text was used. Some of the changes are as radical as in those literary works that attempted to replace the source. The acknowledged primacy of the ‘First Torah’ also gave the author the justification to omit important themes or passages. In some cases one may discern a subtle challenge of the source, but overt and direct contradictions with Genesis-Exodus are rare. Although the author assumed that the source would continue to be available to the readers, Jubilees would be perfectly understandable without the source. It had all the potential to become a completely independent document that could also be transmitted without the Pentateuch.36 Jubilees provides a different type of relationship with the sources than Deuteronomy or the Temple Scroll, but the effects as far as omissions and radical changes are concerned are not substantially different. The author of Jubilees omitted many passages that were not significant for his compositional purposes, but there are also cases where the omission was made because the source text was theologically unsatisfactory. Such instance would be the omission of the idea that God finished his work on the seventh day (Gen 2:2 vs. Jub 2:16). Moreover, 36 That the Ethiopian Orthodox Church regards Jubilees as a canonical text illustrates this point.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

166

Jubilees

in some instances contradictions and doublets were omitted.37 When we look at the macro-level changes, it would be nearly impossible to penetrate the present text of Jubilees to reach its prehistory, unless we were to possess the source texts, Genesis and Exodus, for comparison. The historical background for writing Jubilees may have been the challenges to Judaism posed by the second century bce situation. Hellenistic conceptions and ideals began to have considerable impact on Jewish communities with many Jews assimilating with others and abandoning the ideals of the Torah. This caused a counter reaction, of which Jubilees is an outcome. Jubilees provides a reconfirmation of those regulations of the Torah that emphasized the uniqueness of Judaism. For example, the Sabbath, Jewish festivals, and circumcision receive much more attention in Jubilees than they receive in Genesis and Exodus. The author may also have wanted to stress that these regulations were in force already since the creation, while Genesis-Exodus describe the period before the giving of the law on Mount Sinai.38 Jubilees could thus be characterized as a product of changed circumstances. It does not reflect a fundamental change in the tradition and paradigm, but instead is a confirmation, deepening, and development of a certain paradigm. This may explain why Jubilees did not attempt to replace its source like Deuteronomy or the Holiness Code did.

37 See Van Ruiten, Primaeval History, 368 – 369. 38 James C. VanderKam, “The Origins and Purposes of the Book of Jubilees,” in Studies in the Book of Jubilees (ed. M. Albani et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 3 – 24, here pp. 19 – 22. From Genesis one could receive the impression that before the revelation at Sinai these regulations were not practiced, which could thus give justification for some Jews to argue that they would not be valid in every historical situation. According to Eberhard Schwarz, Identität durch Abgrenzung: Abgrenzungsprozesse in Israel im 2. vorchristlichen Jahrhundert und ihre traditionsgeschichtlichen Voraussetzungen – Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Erforschung des Jubiläenbuches (Europäische Hochschulschriften 23, vol. 162; Frankfurt and Bern: Peter Lang, 1982), 100, the author of Jubilees opposed those Jews who wanted to make an alliance with the other nations. First Maccabees 1:11 would be a witness to this situation.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

The Temple Scroll

Introduction Using the Pentateuch as a source and model, the Temple Scroll was written as a revelation that Yhwh had spoken on Mount Sinai. Although its exact origins are debated, its source texts and general dating1 are recognized. The Temple Scroll is a significant witness to the compositional processes and techniques of Hebrew scriptures taking place in the second century bce.2 According to Stephen Kaufman: The compositional techniques used by the author of the Temple Scroll constitute an almost perfect parallel to the composition of the Pentateuch as envisaged by higher criticism—a parallel, moreover, from the same literary tradition. This provides us the opportunity to test the methods of higher criticism empirically …3

The Temple Scroll relates to its sources differently than Jubilees. Unlike in Jubilees, there is no evidence to assume that the author of the Temple Scroll wanted to give priority to the Pentateuch. In fact, the Temple Scroll may be a bold attempt to suppress or overrule the Pentateuch, at least on some level.4 For 1 Many scholars date the book to the second century bce. Thus, for example, Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll (3 vols; Jerusalem: Israel Exporation Society, 1983), 1:386 – 390; Simone Paganini, »Nichts darfst Du zu diesen Wörtern etwas hinzufügen«: Die Rezeption des Deuteronomiums in der Tempelrolle: Sprache, Autoren, Hermeneutik (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009), 265 – 271; Crawford, The Temple Scroll, 24 – 26. 2 For a discussion about various compositional techniques, see Stephen A. Kaufman, “The Temple Scroll and Higher Criticism,” HUCA 53 (1982): 29 – 43. 3 Kaufman, “The Temple Scroll,” 29. 4 Thus against many, for example, Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 1:390 – 392 and Hartmut Stegemann, “The Literary Composition of the Temple Scroll,” in Temple Scroll Studies (ed. G. Brooke; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 123 – 148, here p. 127, George J. Brooke, “The Temple Scroll: A Law Unto Itself ?,” in Law and Religion: Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity (ed. B. Lindars, Cambridge: James Clarke, 1988), 36 – 40, here pp. 41 – 42 and Molly M. Zahn, “New Voices, Ancient Words: The Temple Scroll’s Reuse of the Bible,” in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel (ed. J. Day ; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2005),

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

168

The Temple Scroll

example, Simone Paganini has recently argued that the Temple Scroll was written as an “anti-Deuteronomy.” The Temple Scroll would have been an attempt to correct Deuteronomy and the rest of the Pentateuch.5 Whereas the Pentateuch implies that Moses was the writer and mediator of the Law, the Temple Scroll is presented as Yhwh’s direct speech to Israel. The change is clearly intentional and certainly not without purpose. Thereby the author probably tried to assert higher authority than what the Pentateuch had because the use of the first person speech in the Temple Scroll removes the mediator from between Yhwh and Israel. This implicitly challenges any version that claims to be a revelation given through Moses. In other words, the Pentateuch presents what Moses later wrote down on the basis of what he heard, while the Temple Scroll purports to be the exact text that God spoke. The implication may be that the Temple Scroll is more authentic than a version in which Moses was a mediator. That we are not dealing with a mere supplement to the Pentateuch is further suggested by the fact that much of the Temple Scroll overlaps laws in the Pentateuch so that some of the laws are almost identical (especially in T 51:11 – 66, which overlaps in content with much of Deuteronomy) or, more often, improved and/or corrected versions of the source text.6 The author’s confidence of writing a more authentic text than the Pentateuch is the background for the daring corrections and changes he made in relation to the pentateuchal parallels.7 Although the author(s)8 of the Temple Scroll may have wanted to provide a more authentic version of the Law or of the revelation, he still probably regarded the Pentateuch as an authoritative text, at least on some level. The fact that the

5 6

7 8

436 – 458, here p. 452. On the other hand, Ben Zion Wacholder, The Dawn of Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and the Teacher of Righteousness (Cincinnati, Ohio: Hebrew Union College Press, 1983), 1 – 32, has suggested that the Temple Scroll was intended “as a copy of Torah which God had ordained to Moses on Mount Sinai” (p. 33). Simone Pagagini, “Nichts darfst Du”, 298 – 301. Many scholars, such as Stegemann, The Temple Scroll, 127, have concluded that the Temple scroll was meant as a supplement (“sixth book of the Torah”), but the number of overlaps precludes this theory. In comparison the parallels between the Pentateuch and Jubilees do not overlap or compete in the same way, and instead Jubilees primarily attempts to provide supplementary information. There are exact parallels in Jubilees, but they were made to the extent that was necessary in order to retain the main structure and narrative of the story. For example, much of the creation story of Gen 1 – 2 is reproduced in Jubilees, but it would have been difficult to omit all of the parallels because the supplements alone would not have formed a narrative or would have remained incomprehensible without their context. Many scholars assume that the Temple Scroll was intended as an authoritative revelation or a new Torah. Thus, for example, Zahn, “New Voices,” 452 – 453, but it is much more controversial as to whether it tried to replace the Torah. It is generally accepted that the Temple Scroll was not written by one author. For example, many of the laws concerning the festivals may have been taken from a separate source. Thus many, see, for example, Andrew M. Wilson and Lawrence Wills, “Literary Sources of the Temple Scroll,” HTR 75 (1982): 275 – 88, and Garcia Martinez, “Temple Scroll,” 927 – 933, here pp. 929 – 930.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

169

Introduction

Pentateuch was used as the main source already implies that it was considered as an important authority that could form the basis of the new divine revelation. The use of many pentateuchal laws almost verbatim suggests that the author regarded many parts of the source as generally reliable and highly authoritative. The Temple Scroll’s position towards the Pentateuch is in many ways similar to what we find in Chronicles. The Temple Scroll thus again demonstrates that the question of authoritativeness cannot be reduced to a simple on-off alternative.9 A source may be regarded as authoritative on a certain level and to a certain extent, whereas one should be careful about referring to the general authoritativeness of a text. Although the Pentateuch was assumed to possess considerable authority, the author of the Temple Scroll did not regard it as infallible and unchangeable. This is suggested by the repeated corrections when the pentateuchal text was used in the new composition. The author was bold enough to challenge Deut 13:1 (par 4:2), the text that warns about making any additions or omissions to the words that Yhwh has given. The verse was reproduced in his own version of the law: T 54:5 – 7

Deut 13:1 8?N94

A9=8 8?9JB =?9D4 LM4 A=L578 @? N9MF@ LBMN 8B8B FL6N 49@9 8B8=@F G=E9N.49@

9N4 A?N4 89JB =?D4 LM4 L578 @? N4 N9MF@ 9LBMN 9DBB FL6N 4@9 9=@F GEN.4@

By using Deut 13:1 in his own composition the author of the Temple Scroll implicitly challenged Deuteronomy as an unchangeable text, because his own version is a violation of the law itself. However, he wanted to hinder any further changes to his version of the law,10 which was now presented as the final and unchangeable revelation. That his bold attempt to suppress the Pentateuch was not exceedingly successful shows that the question of authoritativeness ultimately lies with the readers and communities rather than with the intentions of the author.11 9 Note the discussion on different levels of authoritativeness in chapter I. 10 It is ironic that in both cases the authors challenged the older text, gave a warning for future scribes, who again ignored the warnings. The Temple Scroll continued to be edited after the warning in T 54:5 – 7. 11 The reason why the Temple Scroll found so little following may be that the author of the Temple Scroll challenged the Pentateuch too directly in a late context when many had already recognized the authority of the Pentateuch. Although possibly younger than the Temple Scroll, the technique of Jubilees seems to have been more successful. Instead of openly challenging the Pentateuch, it recognized the authority of the Pentateuch, and therefore it may have been easier to accept that it is part of the divine revelation. Jubilees is regarded as a holy text in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and has been highly regarded by several early Christian churches, while the Temple Scroll was considered authoritative only by the community behind the Qumran scrolls.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

170

The Temple Scroll

The Temple Scroll is a composite text where originally independent sources were combined and incorporated into one composition by a redactor. Although the exact number and extent of the sources is debated,12 it is very likely that the Pentateuch was not the only source. An originally independent source is probable in the so-called festival calendar in T 13:8 – 30:2, although this document was, in a way or another, based on the Pentateuch as well.13 Because of the different histories of the different sections in the Temple Scroll, various types of exegetical traditions may be contained in the composition. Some passages differ considerably from their source in the Pentateuch and others are almost identical to the source, but they both ended up in the same composition. On the other hand, the same author seems to have related differently to different sources. It is evident, for example, that passages in Deuteronomy were followed more closely than the other parts of the Pentateuch. It may be difficult to determine which editorial changes were already made earlier by the authors of the independent sources, its early editors, the main editor of the Temple Scroll, or even by a later editor. For the purposes of the present analysis, however, it is not crucial to determine who is behind the editorial changes as long as we are able to determine the type of the change and understand why it was made.14 Despite the possibility of a very complicated transmission process and considerable differences between the sections, the parallel texts provide evidence of how the pentateuchal texts were changed in the course of their earlier transmission. With these considerations in mind, we will now turn to some of the parallels between the Pentateuch and the Temple Scroll.

New Moon of the First Month Festival Part of the festival calendar of the Temple Scroll, T 14:9 – 15:2 shows the creation of an entirely new law on the basis of several pentateuchal passages. The New Moon of the First Month Festival of T 14:9 – 15:2 finds no exact parallel in the 12 See, for example, Wilson and Wills, “Literary Sources of the Temple Scroll,” 275 – 288, and Michael Wise, A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11 (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 49; Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1990), 110. 13 Thus many, for example, Wilson and Wills, “Literary Sources of the Temple Scroll,” 275 – 88; Sidnie White Crawford, The Temple Scroll and Related Texts (Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 49 – 50. The festival calendar is a revision of the pentateuchal festival legislation. The author of the calendar used at least Lev 23 and Num 28 – 29 as sources. 14 In other words, since the main focus of this investigation is not the nature of the festival calendar or the redaction of the Temple Scroll, the complications in trying to distinguish between the different editorial stages in the transmission and creation of the composition will be avoided.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

171

New Moon of the First Month Festival

Pentateuch, but the text is, in part, based on Num 29:1 – 6, which describes the Festival of the Trumpets that is to be celebrated on the first of the seventh month.15 T 14:9 – 15:2

[…]8 M7;@ 7;459 9 […] [… 8795]F N?4@B @9? 8DM8 10 […]8B?@ 8MF= 498 75@ 11 12 N4ü[;@ … 8DM =]D5 A=M5? 7;4 @=4 13 8@9@[5…] M79;8 N@9F 75@B […]ýED@ C==9 CBM C=88 N=J;B5 14 15 ý[ED@ … 8@9]@5 8;DB N@9E A=D9LMF 16 C9LMF [… 7;4]8 @=4@ C=88 N[=M=]@M […] CBM C=88 F5[L5 8]@9@[5 8] ;DB […] 17 [… L=]FM@9 A=M5? […] 7;48 […] 18 [A=M5? 7;4 LK5 C5 LH ]A9=9 A9= @[9?5] 15:1 [8B?ED9 8BN;DB@9 N4ü;@ A=:F L=]FM9 8F5M 8DM 2

Num 29:1 – 6

1

M7K.4LKB M7;@ 7;45 =F=5M8 M7;59 A9= 9MFN 4@ 875F N?4@B.@? A?@ 8=8= 2 ;;=D ;=L@ 8@F AN=MF9 A?@ 8=8= 8F9LN .=D5 A=M5? 7;4 @=4 7;4 LK5.C5 LH 898=@ 3 8@9@5 N@E AN;DB9 AB=BN 8F5M 8DM @=4@ A=DLMF =DM LH@ A=DLMF 8M@M CBM5 4 A=M5?8 NF5M@ 7;48 M5?@ 7;4 C9LMF9 5 A?=@F LH?@ N4ü; 7;4 A=:F.L=FM9 6 7=BN8 N@F9 8N;DB9 M7;8 N@F 75@B 8M4 ;;=D ;=L@ AüHMB? A8=?ED9 8N;DB9 898=@

Several sentences were adopted from Num 29:1 – 6, but their application is rather free. The source functioned as raw material that provided models as to how to formulate a new law that would follow the same structure and phraseology as the older laws regulating the festivals. In addition to Num 29:1 – 6, the author of T 14:9 – 15:2 was probably familiar with Num 14 – 15 and 28 – 29, but no passage in these chapters was followed extensively and the connection is limited to themes, some phrases and technical vocabulary (especially, Num 15:4 – 7: CBM C=88, ýED@ C==9 ; Num 14:10, Num 28:9 – 13: 8@9@5 8;DB N@9E A=DLMF and Num 28:14: @=4@ C=88 N=M=@M). Although the festival may have been recognized already in the festival calendar that was used as the main source and thus be older than the main composition of the Temple Scroll, it is clearly a new invention in relation to the Pentateuch.16 When we compare the festivals of the Covenant Code, Deuteronomy, the Holiness Code, and Num 28 – 29, one may see the constant increase of festivals, and the same development continues in T 14:9 – 15:2. From the text-technical point of view, the author of T 14:9 – 15:2 has taken considerable liberties in using his sources to create an entirely new law.17 The source texts were used as resource material that could be used to the extent that they were necessary for the new context. 15 As noted by Dwight D. Swanson, The Temple Scroll and the Bible (STDJ 14; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 1994), 228 – 235, the author of the Temple Scroll usually had one base text in the Pentateuch, which could be supplemented by additional texts from other parts of the Pentateuch. 16 As noted by Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 1:90, this festival finds it closest parallel in Jub 7:2 – 5. 17 This does not exclude the possibility that the festival itself may have a different background from the Pentateuch. By comparing the law in the Temple Scroll with its pentateuchal source, we may only see its creation as a literary unit. The exact historical origin of this law lies beyond the scope of this investigation.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

172

The Temple Scroll

The Passover in the Temple Scroll The legislation concerning the Passover (and the Festival of Unleavened Bread) is found in T 17:6 – 16, which, like the previous example, is part of the festival calendar. The passage may be dependent on several passages in the Pentateuch, but the main source text or the base text was probably Num 28:16 – 25, as shown by its extensive parallels with T 17:6 – 16:18 T 17:6 – 16

…] C9M4L8 M79;5 LMF 8[F5L45 …6 7

5LF8 N;DB =DH@ 9;5:9 898=@ ;EH 8 8DM [A]=LMF C5B […]9;5:= 9 N9LJ;5 [8@=@5]989@?49 9MF= 8@FB9 […]9@894@ M=4 9?@89 9B=?M89 M79K[8] 10 8:8 M79;@ LMF 8MB;59 [M7]9K 4LKB 11 95 9MFN 49@ 8795F N?4@B @9? 12 898=@ A=B= NF5M N9JB8 6; A=B=8 NF5M@ A9=9 A9= @9?5 8BN5LK89 13 @=49 A=DM A=LH 898=@ 8@9F [8@]48 14 L=FM9 A=B=BN NF5M 8DM =D5 A=M5?9 8?ED9 8BN;DB9 N4ü;@ 7;4 A=:F 15 N=M[5?]@9 A=@4@9 A=LH@ üH[MB? ] 16 @9? 89[8=]@ [NLJF] =F=5M8 A9=59 L=FM@9 95 9MFN 4@ 875F N?4@B

Num 28:16 – 25

16

M7;@ A9= LMF 8F5L45 C9M4L8 M7;59 898=@ ;EH

17

8:8 M7;@ A9= LMF 8MB;59 @?4= N9JB A=B= NF5M 6; 18 M7K.4LKB C9M4L8 A9=5 9MFN 4@ 875F N?4@B.@? 19 LK5.=D5 A=LH 898=@ 8@F 8M4 AN5LK89 8DM =D5 A=M5? 8F5M9 7;4 @=49 A=DM 20 8@9@5 N@E AN;DB9 A?@ 9=8= AB=BN @=4@ A=DLMF =DM9 LH@ A=DLMF 8M@M CBM5 21 7;48 M5?@ 8MFN C9LMF C9LMF 9MFN 22 LH?@ 7;4 N4ü; L=FM9 A=M5?8 NF5M@ 23 N@F@ LM4 LK58 N@F 75@B A?=@F 24 A9=@ 9MFN 8@4? [email protected] 9MFN 7=BN8 .@F 898=@ ;;=D.;=L 8M4 A;@ A=B= NF5M 9?ED9 8MF= 7=BN8 N@9F 25 .@? A?@ 8=8= M7K.4LKB =F=5M8 A9=59 9MFN 4@ 875F N?4@B

Although the nature of the festival or the course of celebration is preserved,19 T 17:6 – 16 does not follow the exact text of Num 28:16 – 25 very faithfully and

18 Molly M. Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts (STDJ 95; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2011), 198 – 204, compares T 17:6 – 16 first and foremost with Lev 23:5 – 8. As we have seen, Num 28:16 – 25 is a further development of Lev 23:5 – 8 which, in addition to adopting almost every word of Lev 23:5 – 8, includes a large expansion in Num 28:19 – 24. Since T 17:6 – 16 also follows, in part, this large addition, it is probable that the author of the Temple Scroll primarily had Num 28:16 – 25 in view. This does not exclude the possibility that he could not have used Lev 23:5 – 8 as well, but this passage does not contain any additional text over against Num 28:16 – 25. According to Zahn, the author of the Temple Scroll turned to Num 28 “for the enumeration of the sacrifices,” but he could have followed Num 28 already from verse 16 onwards. 19 For example, the main sacrifices are the same in both passages (2 bulls, 1 ram, and 7 lambs).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

The Passover in the Temple Scroll

173

instead there are repeated small changes. Temple Scroll 17:6 – 9 contains additional instructions, some of which find no clear parallel in the Pentateuch, while some seem to paraphrase other passages in the Pentateuch (Exod 12:8 and Deut 16:7).20 In some cases the law has been shortened. Numbers 28:20 – 21 lists the exact grain offerings that should be made with the main offerings, but T 17:14 only generally refers to the grain offerings.21 Whereas Num 28:24 notes that the same offerings should be made every day of the festival and during the holy convocation, the Temple Scroll omits this unnecessary repetition (possibly caused by earlier editing) and refers to the every day sacrifices only, which logically also covers the holy convocation. Here the author of T 17:6 – 16 did not omit information but mainly created a more congruous law than the source. The author of T 17:6 – 16 made slight changes to the names of the festival.22 The name of the fourteenth of the month is not preserved in the manuscript, but the space would allow that this day could have been called the Passover as in Num 28:16. The fifteenth of the month is preserved (v. 10) and is called the holy convocation (M7K.4LKB). Leviticus 23:5 – 8 calls the fifteenth the festival of unleavened bread (N9JB8 6;), while Num 28:17 merely calls it the festival (6;). On the other hand, Num 28:18 calls for a holy convocation on the first and seventh days of the week. As the first of the week is the fifteenth of the month, it is probable that the author of T 17:6 – 16 took the name of the feast celebrated on the fifteenth day from Num 28:18. In this process he omitted the second holy convocation, thus effectively making the holy convocation the name of the feast of the fifteenth day, which was apparently not meant in Num 28:18. It is evident that T 17:6 – 16 represents a later development as it deduces its information from Num 28:16 – 25 but develops it further. In addition to the already differing names for the festival in the different Passover laws of the Pentateuch, the Temple Scroll represents a yet another tradition. Other passages in the Pentateuch may have influenced T 17:6 – 16 as well. The term for the evening sacrifice (5LF8 N;DB) in v. 6 does not have an exact parallel in any pentateuchal law,23 but the idea of an evening sacrifice is met, for example, in Exod 29:38 – 42 and Num 28:3 – 9. Num 28:23 – 24 only refers to the morning (LK58 N@F) and daily sacrifices (7=BN8 N@9F). Besides Num 28:16 – 25, the most substantial other source for T 17:6 – 16 was Deut 16, which emphasizes the idea that the festival celebration should take place 20 Thus Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture, 199 – 200. 21 Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture, 202 – 203, notes that the Temple Scroll “always differs from the festival calendar in Numbers 28 – 29 in the same ways as it does here … Formally, we could regard this as a condensing paraphrase of Num 28:20 – 23.” 22 Note that there seem to be several different conceptions on what to call the festival(s). 23 However, it is met in other parts of the Hebrew Bible: 2 Kgs 16:15; Ps 141:2; Dan 9:21, and Ezra 9:4 – 5.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

174

The Temple Scroll

in the central sanctuary. Whereas Deut 16 stresses the importance of having a centralized celebration, the other pentateuchal laws concerning the Passover disregard or ignore this idea. Therefore, it is likely that the author of T 17:6 – 16 had specifically Deut 16 in mind when he added the idea to his law. The general idea that all Israelite men should come to the temple was probably influenced by Deut 16:16. The explicit reference to the consummation of the sacrifices in the courtyards of the sanctuary stresses this point further, and was probably influenced by Deut 16:7, but here again the influence is only general and no sentences were adopted (9@894@ M=4 9?@89 9B=?M89 cf. ý=@84@ N?@89 LK55). The age specification was taken from outside Deuteronomy, possibly from Exod 30:14, according to which only men over twenty years should sacrifice.24 The phrase 8@FB9 8DM A=LMF C5B is missing in Deuteronomy but is found several times in other parts of the Pentateuch.25 These examples show that laws in the Temple Scroll also have a tendency to combine information from different parts of the Pentateuch and harmonize between different passages.26 When we compare T 17:6 – 16 with the Passover laws of the Pentateuch, T 17:6 – 16 sets itself in the same continuum in the development of the law. The relationship of T 17:6 – 16 to Num 28:16 – 25 is similar to the other relationships where a younger version was created on the basis of an older version. From the technical point of view, however, the changes are more radical than what can be seen in Num 28:16 – 25 in relation to its source and less radical than what can be seen in Deut 16:1 – 8 and Lev 23:5 – 8 in relation to their sources. Except for Num 28:16 – 25, the new laws were written by using the older versions rather freely. Since the older laws were not quoted or referred to and since each new version changed many issues and was presented as part of a divine revelation, it is probable that each of the new versions was meant to be the most updated and modern law that regulated the Passover festival. Temple Scroll 17:6 – 16 is part of the same literary tradition of the pentateuchal legislature with the exception that it is preserved only outside the Hebrew Bible.

24 According to Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture, 199 – 200, this prescription is “not spelled out in the pentateuchal legislation.” This is partially true, because Exod 30:14 does not deal with the Passover sacrifice and is technically not part of the legislature of the Pentateuch. 25 Especially often it is met in Num 1 (census of the Israelites), but it is also used in Exod 38:26 and Num 14:19; 26:2, 4; 32:11. 26 The same observation has been made in other passages in the Temple Scroll as well. Thus, for example, Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 94, 102.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

175

Pagan Mourning Practices

Pagan Mourning Practices Temple Scroll 48:7 – 11 warns the Israelites about pagan mourning practices. The passage is an example of the amalgamation of different pentateuchal laws into one. The use of Deut 14:1 and Lev 19:28 is evident as suggested by the exact parallels:27 T 48:7 – 11

8

7

8B?=8@4 898=@ 8BN4 A=D5 … 8;L9K 9B=MN 49@9 9776NN 49@ 9 NB@ 8B?=D=F C=5 8B?LM55 9DNN 49@ MHD @F NüLM9 10 8B?5 959N?N 49@ FKFK N5N?9 8B8?=89@4 898=@ AN4 M97K AF =? … 8B?JL4 11 N4 94BüN 49@9

Deut 14:1 – 2 and Lev 19:28

14.1

A?=8@4 898=@ AN4 A=D5 8;LK 9B=MN.4@9 9776NN 4@ NB@ A?=D=F C=5 19.28 A?LM55 9DNN 4@ MHD@ üLM9 898= =D4 A?5 9DNN 4@ FKFK N5N?9 14.2 ý=8@4 898=@ 8N4 M97K AF =? @?B 8@6E AF@ 9@ N9=8@ 898= L;5 ý59 8B748 =DH.@F LM4 A=BF8

The author of T 48:7 – 11 combined two passages from different parts of the Pentateuch, inserting Lev 19:28 between Deut 14:1 and 2.28 Both sources were used almost word-for-word, with only some minor and orthographical changes. The text then continues with a warning not to defile the land, which finds no exact parallel in the Pentateuch,29 and with other issues in T 48:11 – 17 that also have no exact parallels. The passage is a good example of the harmonizing tendency of the Temple Scroll but also shows how the source texts could be split up and rearranged in the new context. As the omission of Deut 14:2b shows, the sources functioned as resource material so that parts could be left out if they were unnecessary in the new context in the Temple Scroll. The author of T 48:7 – 11 was not obliged to follow the source in full.

27 Some scholars, such as Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 1:341 – 342, and Johann Maier, The Temple Scroll (JSOTS 34; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 119, have suggested that Lev 21:5 was also used here, but besides a related theme, there seems to be no exact parallel: 8;LK (9)8;LK=.4@ ALM559 9;@6= 4@ ADK: N4H9 AM4L5 NüLM 9üLM= 4@. 28 As noted by Swanson, The Temple Scroll, 176 – 177, Deuteronomy functioned as the base text for the author of the Temple Scroll into which other passages were then incorporated. He even ignored the first person speech by Yhwh in Lev 19:28 and followed the third person of Deut 14:1 – 2, although his general tendency is to present the book as a direct speech by Yhwh. 29 The theme is common in the Hebrew scriptures. The clearest parallel in the Hebrew Bible may be Jos 22:19: 898= C?MB AM.C?M LM4 898= N:;4 IL4.@4 A?@ 9L5F A?N:;4 IL4 84Bü.A4 ý49.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

176

The Temple Scroll

The Idol Worshippers in Temple Scroll 55:15 – 21 The Temple Scroll contains several passages that render the source text in the Pentateuch very faithfully. In some cases, the new text is almost identical to its source. Several examples can be found especially in the section that contains parallels with Deuteronomy (51:11 – 66).30 A good example of such a relationship is T 55:15 – 21, which follows Deut 17:2 – 5 very closely and may, in part, even preserve an older stage of the law than the MT: T 55:15 – 21

15

LM4 8?=LFM 7;45 8?5LK5 4JB= A4 16 8MF= LM4 8M=4.94 M=4 8?@ CN9D =?9D4 17 =N=L5 L5F@ =D=F5 FL8 N4 8B8@ 9;NM=9 A=L;4 A=89@4 75F9 ý@89 18 A=BM8 45J @9?@ 94 ;L=@ 94 MBM@ 94 19 8:8 L578 N4 8NFBM9 9=@F 8?@ 97=689 5ü=8 8NLK;9 8NML79 20 85F9N8 8NMFD L578 C9?D NB4 8D89 21 4988 M=48 N4 8N4J989 @4LM=5 N49:8 4=88 8M48 N4 94

A=D545 8BN@KE9

Deut 17:2 – 5

2

898=.LM4 ý=LFM 7;45 ý5LK5 4JB=.=? 8MF= LM4 8M4.94 M=4 ý@ CND ý=8@4 9N=L5 L5F@ ý[email protected]= =D=F5 FL8.N4 3 A8@ 9;NM=9 A=L;4 A=8@4 75F=9 ý@=9 LM4 A=BM8 45J.@?@ 94 ;L=@ 94 MBM@9 4 NFBM9 ý@.7689 =N=9J.4@ 5ü=8 NML79 85F9N8 8NMFD L578 C9?D NB4 8D89 5 94 4988 M=48.N4 N4J989 @4LM=5 N4:8 4988 8M48.N4 ý=LFM.@4 8:8 FL8 L578.N4 9MF LM4 8M48.N4 94 M=48.N4 9NB9 A=D545 AN@KE9

The most substantial difference versus Deut 17:5 is the lack of a parallel to 8M48.N4 94 M=48.N4 ý=LFM.@4 8:8 FL8 L578.N4 9MF LM4, but here the Temple Scroll shares the reading with the LXX. It is probable that the MTcontains an addition and that the LXX and the Temple Scroll preserve the more original reading although the possibility of an accidental omission in the LXX and the Temple Scroll, caused by the repetition of 8M48.N4 94 M=48.N4, cannot be completely excluded. However, since the plus is repetitive, it adds no essential information and its removal would not disturb the passage, we are more probably dealing with an addition or a gloss in the MT than with an accidental omission.31 Many of the other changes are related to the systematic change in the Temple Scroll: the third person reference to Yhwh was changed to the first person. Peculiarly, the only sentence in Deut 17:2 – 5 that refers to Yhwh in the first person (=N=9J.4@ LM4 in v. 3) is missing in the Temple Scroll. Because its first person fits poorly with its present context in Deut 17, it may be a later addition in the 30 Some scholars refer to this section as the Deuteronomic paraphrase. Thus, for example, Lawrence H. Schiffman, “The Deuteronomic Paraphrase of the Temple Scroll,” RevQ 15 (1992): 543 – 568. 31 Many scholars, such as Maier, The Temple Scroll, 3, have noted that the Temple Scroll is more closely related to the textual tradition of the LXX than to that of the MT.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

177

Prophets and Dreamers of Dreams

MT, the Temple Scroll thus possibly preserving the more original reading. The other differences are orthographical and mainly minor changes. This passage illustrates how faithfully the author of the Temple Scroll could follow his source if he agreed with its information. It implies that he regarded his source as having considerable authority. On the other hand, the existence of such passages that reproduce the source almost verbatim imply that the new text was not meant to be read with the source as a supplement, but as a self-sufficient Torah.32

Prophets and Dreamers of Dreams Deuteronomy 13:2 – 6 warns the Israelites about prophets and dreamers of dreams who may lure the Israelites to follow other gods by making signs and wonders. Temple Scroll 54:8 – 18 follows the passage very closely but there is a stylistic improvement and the typical change of the third person reference to Yhwh to the first person: T 54:8 – 18

8

CND9 A9@; A@9; 94 4=5D 8?5LK5 A9K= A4 9 N948 8?=@4 459 NH9B 94 N94 8?=@4 4 L9B4@ 8?=@4 L57 LM4 NH9B89 10 49@ LM4 A=L;4 A=89@4 8795FD9 8?@D 11 4988 4=5D8 L57 @4 FBMN 49@ 8BNF7= 12 =?9D4 8MDB =? 84988 A9@;8 A@9;@ 94 898= N4 A=5894 A?M=8 NF7@ 8B?N4 13 @9?59 A?55@ @9?5 8B?=N954 =8@4 14 C9?@N 8B?=89@4 898= =L;4 8B?MHD C9FBMN 9@9K59 94L=N 9N949 C9795FN 9N949 15 A9@;8 A@9; 94 4988 4=5D89 C9K57N 959 16 8B?=89@4 898= @F 8LE L57 =? NB9= 8?=N=7H9 A=LJB IL4B 8?4=J98 LM4 17 LM4 ýL78 CB 8?;=78@ A=75F N=5B 8?5LKB FL8 NLF59 85 N?@@ 8?N=9J

Deut 13:2 – 6

2

CND9 A9@; A@; 94 4=5D ý5LK5 A9K=.=? 3 NH9B89 N948 459 NH9B 94 N94 ý=@4 LB4@ ý=@4 L57.LM4 ANF7=.4@ LM4 A=L;4 A=8@4 =L;4 8?@D 4 4988 4=5D8 =L57.@4 FBMN 4@ A75FD9 898= 8EDB =? 4988 A9@;8 A@9;.@4 94 A=584 A?M=8 NF7@ A?N4 A?=8@4 A?MHD.@?59 A?55@.@?5 A?=8@4 898=.N4 5 94L=N 9N49 9?@N A?=8@4 898= =L;4 9N49 9FBMN 9@K59 9LBMN 9=N9JB.N49 6 A@; 94 4988 4=5D89 C9K57N 959 975FN 898=.@F 8LE.L57 =? NB9= 4988 A9@;8 ý7H89 A=LJB IL4B A?N4 4=J9B8 A?=8@4 ý9J LM4 ýL78.CB ý;=78@ A=75F N=5B ý5LKB FL8 NLF59 85 N?@@ ý=8@4 898=

32 In comparison, in Jubilees the exact parallels were made mainly in order to provide background information for a new passage, a supplement. Because Jubilees assumed the ‘First Law’ to be available for the readers, the author did not need to reproduce the texts unless they were necessary for the new passages. This is not the case in the Temple Scroll. For example, T 55:15 – 21 reproduces the entire passage in the source, Deut 17:2 – 5, and it does not provide any background information for another passage. It was evidently reproduced because the Temple Scroll was meant to be read alone and understood without the Pentateuch. For this reason many of the laws in Deuteronomy were changed only slightly.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

178

The Temple Scroll

In Deut 13:3 A75FD9 is awkwardly connected to the preceding sentence. The author of T 54:8 – 18 made a stylistic correction by integrating A75FD9 better with the main sentence. This change then caused the omission of =L;4 in T 54:10 because the verb 75F does not require the preposition. The problem may have been caused by a later addition in Deut 13:3. The correction shows that the author of the Temple Scroll also deviated from the source text for stylistic reasons. The order of the various exhortations to follow Yhwh differs slightly and 9LBMN 9=N9JB.N49 of Deut 13:5 is missing in T 54:8 – 18. The plus in Deut 13:5 may be a later addition because such exhortations to keep the law are common in Deuteronomy. In this case, the TS would preserve the more original reading. This passage illustrates that the author of the Temple Scroll was not consistent with its first person speech. Verbs in the third person and references to Yhwh show how the third person reference of the source text shines through. In part it would have been difficult to use the first person consistently because it would have necessitated a scrupulous revision of the second part of the law. On the other hand, T 54:8 – 18 demonstrates that the irregular reference to Yhwh was not caused by any literary-critical problems in the text, but by the inconsistency of the author of the Temple Scroll. It is usually assumed that the authors of the Hebrew scriptures (and other ancient authors) were consistent in their texts, but this example shows that this is not necessarily the case, especially if there is a source or a base text was used.

The Temple Scroll as a Witness to the Editorial Processes Many passages in the Temple Scroll were created by omitting, expanding, shortening, rewriting, rearranging, harmonizing, and combining source texts in the Pentateuch and other sources.33 Although only a few examples were discussed here, the evidence from other parts of the Temple Scroll, discussed in other studies, shows a similar picture. The production of the Temple Scroll shows editorial processes that go much beyond what is usually assumed to have taken place in the redaction of the Hebrew scriptures. The evidence from the Temple Scroll is particularly significant because its author regarded the Pentateuch as an authoritative text and because there is reason to assume that the Temple Scroll sets itself in the same continuum with the authoritative law codes of the Pentateuch. The author of the Temple Scroll audaciously copied the idea of the Pentateuch of a divine revelation and presented his own version as such. The evidence from the Temple Scroll is thus directly 33 These processes should be evident and are also widely recognized in scholarship.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

The Temple Scroll as a Witness to the Editorial Processes

179

relevant for understanding the production of the Pentateuch.34 It is also probable that the author of the Temple Scroll was closely connected with the literary tradition of the Pentateuch. This is suggested by the fact that he (and his instituting community) had direct access to the written Torah, was trained in its scribal tradition, was thoroughly familiar with its issues, and was innovative in developing many of the laws further. In other words, he must have been an insider, who may even have (earlier) been responsible for copying and perhaps editing the pentateuchal texts. This insider could challenge the unchangeability of the divine revelation to such an extent that he could write an entirely new version of the Torah. This runs counter to the common assumption that when the biblical texts came to be regarded as holy or normative nothing of the older text could be omitted.35 In fact, what we can see in the Temple Scroll goes even beyond that. That the Temple Scroll was not included in the Jewish and Christian canons does not essentially diminish its value as evidence. It became an authoritative document in the community behind the Qumran scrolls.36 The main reason its authoritative status remained limited is probably that it was written at a relatively late stage,37 but there is no reason to assume that the editorial processes of legal texts also presented as divine revelations were much different some centuries earlier.38 34 Crawford, The Temple Scroll, 77, notes that the Temple Scroll is so similar to the Torah that “similarities to any other documents pale by comparison.” 35 Uwe Becker, Exegese des Alten Testaments (UTB 2664; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 84. See the discussion in chapter I. 36 Many scholars have assumed that the Temple Scroll had an authoritative position within the community behind the Qumran scrolls. Thus, for example, Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 1:390 – 392, and Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 87 – 88. One could well imagine a development where the Temple Scroll became central in a community and gradually began to be regarded as the most authoritative version of the divine revelation replacing even the Pentateuch, which would remain just an older version of the text. Perhaps the Pentateuch would even disappear, but at least the main literary development would take place in the Temple Scroll. Although this did not materialize, it is certainly a feasible development. 37 Some books of the Hebrew Bible may be younger than the Temple Scroll (Daniel, for example), but since the Temple Scroll purports to be the Law revealed on Mt. Sinai and thus competes with the Torah itself, it would have had to be written much earlier to have had a better chance of becoming a widely accepted authoritative text. The Torah had become authoritative much earlier than other parts of the Hebrew Bible and therefore its imitations, like the Temple Scroll, would have been easily interpreted as forgeries. The Book of Daniel, on the other hand, represented a new genre and had very little competition among the books that had been recognizes as authoritative. 38 As noted by George J. Brooke, “The Rewritten Law, Prophets and Psalms,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judean Desert Discoveries (ed. E. Herbert and E. Tov ; London: British Library & Oak Knoll Press, 2002), 31 – 40, here p. 38, “the rewritten scriptural texts need to become much more explicitly part of the arsenal of the text critic, playing their full part in the description of the fluid transmission of the texts of the various scriptural books in the late Second Temple period.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

180

The Temple Scroll

If an insider could make such extensive changes in relation to the pentateuchal texts and even write an entirely new law that should replace the Torah, it would be difficult to maintain that none of the countless scribes who edited the Pentateuch itself resorted to methods of a similar nature. At least such an assumption would have to be substantiated by solid evidence that would show why the editorial processes of the Temple Scroll in relation to its prehistory were essentially different from what took place in the transmission of the Pentateuch. For example, it would be difficult to assume that the relationship between Deuteronomy and the Covenant Code would have been fundamentally different from how the Temple Scroll relates to Deuteronomy. Perhaps the main technical difference is that the law codes of the Pentateuch show even more freedom in relation to their sources than the Temple Scroll towards its sources. The reason behind this difference may be that the Pentateuch had a higher position in the second century bce than what the Covenant Code and Deuteronomy had in the much earlier context when they were used by the authors of Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code, respectively. The authors of the latter two used their sources as raw material that could be shaped extensively and that had only limited authority, while the author of the Temple Scroll was convinced about the general authenticity and much of the information of the Pentateuch. Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code seem to represent much more fundamental breaks with the earlier tradition than the Temple Scroll. By continuing the same form and historical fiction as the Pentateuch, the Temple Scroll, despite the challenge, represents the same tradition as the Pentateuch. If Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code are seen as representing a comprehensive reorientation with the past or a paradigm shift, the Temple Scroll goes only half way. Its author was more tied with the pentateuchal tradition than the author of Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code with their predecessors. The Temple Scroll contains examples of a variety of different techniques as to how the source text was changed. In some passages the source text was taken almost verbatim (such as in T 55:15 – 21), while other passages imply that there were almost no limits to the changes that the author could make when he used a source text. The Temple Scroll thus shows that each passage has to be investigated separately, and it is difficult to make any general rules as to the technical relationship between the new passage and the source text. Partly the difference is caused by the use of different sources, which may have been viewed in a variety of ways,39 but it also appears that the same author could change his mode as to how 39 The Deuteronomic paraphrase (col. 51 – 66) in particular contains many laws that are very similar to their sources in Deuteronomy, while other sections of the book contain more differences from their source texts in the Pentateuch. The issue is complicated by the likelihood that the Temple Scroll was not written by one author and that it may also have been

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

The Temple Scroll as a Witness to the Editorial Processes

181

the source text was used from passage to passage depending on his theological interests. In this respect the Temple Scroll is similar to Chronicles in relation to 1 – 2 Kings.40

later edited. The different authors and editors of the Temple Scroll may have related variably to the different documents of the Pentateuch. 40 In some passages the Chronicler could adopt the source text almost word-for-word, while in other passages he may have rewritten the entire passage so that only vestiges of the source text were preserved in the Chronicler’s version.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

Introduction This chapter discusses omissions as a result of ideological or theological censoring. The examples are mainly witnessed by what would be characterized as text-critical evidence, and thereby they largely bear witness to the textual transmission of the last centuries bce and, in some cases, of the first century ce. Because of the successive attempts to harmonize the textual traditions by recension, it is unlikely that very many of the older textual changes have been preserved in this evidence. The recensions have purged the preserved textual traditions of the most significant and early variant readings. In many cases, only vestiges of earlier variant readings and relatively late evidence have been preserved. Consequently, finding intentional omissions in a late stage of the texts implies that omissions could have been, at least potentially, more common in the earlier stages of their transmission when the text had not yet received a highly authoritative status. Evidence for small and infrequent omissions at a late time may suggest that omissions had been more common and perhaps more substantial in the earlier stages of textual transmission. If the rule of preservation could have been broken at a late time when the text was already in an advanced stage of having authority, the more one should assume that omissions took place in its earlier transmission as well. It should also be noted that the late transmission of the texts is further obscured by the emergence of dominant or authoritative textual traditions, the MT in particular, which gradually came to replace and influence other traditions through recensions. Whereas some of the examples discussed in this chapter are evident and commonly acknowledged in textual criticism, many of the omissions can only be discovered through a meticulous investigation of the evidence. In some cases, especially in 1 – 2 Kings, the oldest reading may only be preserved in the Old Greek, which has to be, in part, reconstructed on the basis of the Old Latin witnesses, which may also differ from one another. Because of the obvious complexities and uncertainties of the reconstruction process, much of the evi-

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

184

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

dence is still to be discovered. It has become evident, however, that the textual evidence of the Lucianic (Antiochene) text and the Old Latin should be an integral part in reconstructing the oldest preserved text of many books of the Hebrew Bible, especially of 1 – 2 Samuel and 1 – 2 Kings if these books are used for historical and scientific purposes. Although this evidence has long been overlooked, awareness of its importance has grown significantly in the last decade.1 Besides being important for the wider scientific use of these books, they also have considerable impact on the present investigation. In the following chapters, examples from different parts of the Hebrew scriptures will be given that seek to challenge the axiom that no editing intentionally removed anything of the older text. This investigation does not seek to be systematic or comprehensive, for an exhaustive text-critical investigation of even small sections of this material would require a separate study. My sole intention is merely to provide enough evidence to raise sufficient doubt to challenge the axiom that nothing was omitted. Even in the examples that are discussed, a more comprehensive look at the whole textual development would certainly be welcome, but this has not been possible within this volume. My approach is merely focused on demonstrating that intentional ideological or theological censoring in the form of omissions and rewritings took place. Some of the clearest examples in this respect will be included here. Many of the examples are short, omissions often consisting of some words only, but their impact on the final text may still be significant, because they omit a crucial detail in the older text that would have considerable effect on the reader’s understanding of the text. Nevertheless, some sizeable omissions could also be substantiated. The text-critical evidence complements our picture of the editorial processes. 1 The scholarship has been made more aware of this evidence by the publications of Julio Trebolle Barrera, Adrian Schenker, Anneli Aejmelaeus, Philippe Hugo and Jürg Hutzli. Regrettably, however, most of the discussion has been published in languages other than English and has therefore not gained the attention it should have. One needs to add, however, that early research, and especially that of the late 19th century and early 20th century, paid considerable attention to this evidence. Here one should mention scholars such as August Klostermann, Immanuel Benzinger, Karl Budde and Henry Smith. They not only paid attention to this material but also used it as an integral part of literary criticism. This is not to say that other scholars might not have used this evidence, but in my view its importance has not been recognized. In part, the use of this material is obstructed by the lack of a critical edition of 1 – 2 Samuel and 1 – 2 Kings. It is in these books in particular that some of the most interesting textual variants can be found. Moreover, see the methodological discussion about the importance of the Lucianic text in Siegfried Kreutzer, “Towards the Old Greek: New Criteria for the Analysis of the Recensions of the Septuagint (Especially the Antiochene/Lucianic Text and Kaige Recension),” in XIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Ljubljana, 2007 (ed. Melvin K.H. Peters; SBLSCS 55; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008), 243 – 257.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

The Omission of Polytheistic Conceptions in Deut 32:8 – 9

185

In some cases it implies the activity of editors who intentionally censored the older text from the viewpoint of certain theological conceptions. Most of the examples given here are omissions where the older text contained theologically offensive or unorthodox conceptions that were taken out by a later censor or editor. Although some of the changes may be casual or part of a wider redaction, in some cases the purging from the text of the illegitimate conceptions may have been the main goal of the editor. This would be a different technique than what we find in more conventional redactions where the whole text has been revised from an ideological or other perspective. Clearly, it is difficult to draw an exact line between censors or censor editors and conventional editors, but for the purposes of understanding what happened to the texts it seems reasonable to emphasize the aspect of censoring in some cases.

The Omission of Polytheistic Conceptions in Deut 32:8 – 9 Deuteronomy 32:8 – 9 may be one of the best-known cases of ideological censoring in the Hebrew Bible, especially since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls provided the final confirmation that the MT/SP2 version of the text was intentionally changed. The MT and the main LXX witnesses differ considerably in these verses, and prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls it was unclear which one of these witnesses represented the most original reading. The Greek and Hebrew texts differ in significant theological details: Deut 32:8 – 9 MT 8

@4LM= =D5 LHEB@ A=BF N@56 5J= A74 =D5 97=LH85 A=96 C9=@F @;D85 9N@;D @5; 5KF= 9BF 898= K@; =?

8 9

LXX fte diel´qifem b vxistor 5hmg, ¢r di´speiqem uRo»r Adal, 5stgsem (ABFM) fqia 1hm_m jat± !qihl¹m uR_m heoO, 9 ja· 1cem¶hg leq·r juq¸ou ka¹r aqtoO Iajyb, swo¸misla jkgqomol¸ar aqtoO Isqagk.

According to the Masoretic text, “When El Elyon gave each nation its heritage, and when he divided the sons of man, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.” In most Greek witnesses (ABFM etc.) the boundaries of the people are said to be fixed according to the sons of God. It (uR_m heoO) probably goes back to the Hebrew Vorlage A=8@4 =D5 (or @4 =D5).3 On the other hand, some Greek manuscripts (e. g., V) read !cc´kym heoO or 2 With the exception of an orthographic difference, the Samaritan Pentateuch is identical to the MT. 3 Although the assumed Vorlage of uR_m heoO could also be @4 =D5, with 4QDeutj A=8@4 may be more likely.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

186

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

!cc´kom heoO instead of uR_m heoO. Some manuscripts (106c, 426) also read uR_m Isqagk, but they are very probably harmonized after the MT. The primacy of the different readings was disputed4 until the discovery of the Qumran manuscript 4QDeutj, which reads (in Col. XII):5 [ 12 D=5 @]=;D85 14 A=89@4 =D5[ 13

Although 4QDeutj is poorly preserved here, it is commonly recognized that the fragment contains words from Deut 32:7 – 8. Recent scholarship has nearly unanimously accepted the reading in 4QDeutj A=89@4 =D5 (or @4 =D5), shared by the assumed Vorlage of the main Greek witnesses, as the most original.6 The MT, the minority Greek readings and other witnesses7 should therefore be seen as attempts to avoid the theological problem in the older text, which preserved polytheistic conceptions: El Elyon, presumably the supreme God, divided up the nations according to the number of the sons of God. The passage implies that Yhwh was not only a different god from El Elyon, but it also shows that he would be just one of the many sons of God or El. This is implied by the idea that out of the many nations Yhwh received Jacob (Israel) as his lot (v. 9).8 It is evident that such a text would have been highly problematic in a later Jewish setting where monotheism was established as the only accepted form of 4 For example, Alfred Bertholet, Deuteronomium (Freiburg, Leipzig, and Tübingen: KHC, 1899), 96, assumed that the LXX reading is a translation of @4 =D5 and refers to angels. He connects the reading with the late conception that each nation had its own angel. Similarly Samuel Rolles Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1895), 356: “in anticipation of the later doctrine of the guardian angels.” Most of the pre-Qumran and some of the post-Qumran translations of the verse preferred to follow the MT, for example, KJV, NKJV and NIV. 5 For the text edition, see Julie Ann Duncan, “4QDeutj (Pl. XX – XXII)” in Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (ed. Ulrich et al. DJD 14; Leiden & Boston: Brill, 1995), 75 – 92, here p. 90. 6 For example, Andrew D.H. Mayes, Deuteronomy (NCBC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1981), 384; Richard D. Nelson, Deuteronomy: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 367. A notable exception is Jan Joosten, “A Note on the Text of Deuteronomy xxxii 8*,” VT 57 (2007): 548 – 555, who has argued that 4QDeutj is a further development and does not represent the original reading. He assumes that the original text read @4 LM =D5, “sons of Bull El,” but this reading is conjectural. Although the misreading of @4 LM =D5 as @4LM= =D5 could easily take place, the idea that El was seen as a bull does not find any textual support in the Hebrew Bible. According to Joosten, Hos 8:6 may have been similarly corrected. The Ugaritic texts, however, refer to Bull El. 7 For example, the Vulgate follows the MT (filiorum Israel), while the Old Latin reads either filiorum Israel or angelorum Dei, thus following either the LXX or the MT. The other witnesses were also derived from one of these two witnesses. 8 In Job 1:6 and 2:1 the Hebrew preserves A=8@4 =D5, while the Greek renders oR %ccekoi toO heoO. Similarly in Job 38:7, where the Greek renders A=8@4 =D5 as %ccekoi lou (God speaking).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

The Omission of Polytheistic Conceptions in Deut 32:43

187

theism, and therefore it was censored in the MT and some Greek witnesses. The different variant readings of the MT (the sons of Israel) and Greek (angels of God) show that at least two independent censors in different scribal contexts omitted the original reading. It implies that the censoring of theologically offensive ideas was not an isolated phenomenon, but could be done in diverse contexts and times. In both cases, the omitted section was replaced with a new text. It appears that it was easier to provide a replacement than to omit the offensive section without any alternative reading. This is a tendency that can be seen in many other cases as well. Since 4QDeutj still preserves the original reading, two independent late attempts to avoid the offense implies that the omission of offensive theological conceptions was not uncommon close to the turn of the eras. It would hardly be possible to date the omissions in the MT much before the first century ce, but in view of the late dating of 4QDeutj (ca. 50 ce)9 one cannot exclude the possibility of an even later omission.10 This is significant especially since the omissions were made in the Pentateuch, which very probably had considerable authority and was regarded as a divine revelation in the last centuries bce. The example therefore suggests that not even the Pentateuch was spared from intentional theological omissions, if the text contained theologically offensive conceptions.11

The Omission of Polytheistic Conceptions in Deut 32:43 Another well-known but perhaps more complicated case where the witnesses differ considerably from each other is Deut 32:43. There are three clearly different versions of this verse. With the exception of minor variants, the MTand SP are almost identical. However, 4QDeutq differs considerably from the MT,12 whereas the LXX provides the longest text and contains parallels to all sections not shared by 4QDeutq and the MT.13 9 For the dating of the manuscript, see Duncan in Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, 77. 10 Although the theological corrections can certainly be older that 4QDeutj, it would be difficult to assume that the correction was made centuries before this manuscript was written. 11 Of course one can reverse the question and ask whether it would have been possible to regard the text as a divine revelation if it contained clearly offensive ideas, but this does not negate the fact that the transmission of the text necessitated omissions. 12 For the text edition of 4QDeutq, see Patrick W. Skehan and Eugene Ulrich “4QDeutq,” in Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, 137 – 142. 13 For various solutions to the text-critical problems in this verse, see P.M. Bogaert, “Les trios r¦dactions conserv¦s et la forme originale de l’envoi du Cantique du Mose (Dt 32,43),” in Das Deuteronomium (ed. N. Lohfink; BETL; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1985), 329 – 340; Arie van der Kooij, “The Ending of the Song of Moses: On the Pre-Masoretic Version of Deut. 32:43,” in Studies in Deuteronomy (ed. Garc†a Mart†nez et al.; VTSupp 53; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 93 – 100, and Nelson, Deuteronomy, 379 – 380.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

188 MT/SP 9BF A=96 9D=DL8 A9K= 9=75F.A7 =? 9=LJ@ 5=M= AKD9 9BF 9NB74 LH?9

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

4QDeutq

LXX eqvq²mhgte, oqqamo¸, ûla aqt`, ja· pqosjumgs²tysam aqt` p²mter uRo· heoO eqvq²mhgte, 5hmg, let± toO kaoO aqtoO, ja· 1miswus²tysam aqt` p²mter %ccekoi heoO fti t¹ aXla t_m uR_m aqtoO 1jdije?tai, ja· 1jdij¶sei ja· !mtapod¾sei d¸jgm to?r 1whqo?r ja· to?r lisoOsim !mtapod¾sei, ja· 1jjahaqie? j¼qior tµm c/m toO kaoO aqtoO.

Give a ringing cry, O nations, with him/ to his people,

for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and take revenge on his adversaries, cleanse his people’s land

Praise, O heavens, with him, let all the sons of god bow to him. Praise, O nations, with his people, Let all gods angels strengthen themselves in him, for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and take revenge and recompense justice on his adversaries, he will repay those who hate him, cleanse his people’s land.

9BF A=BM 9D=DL8 A=8@4 @? 9@ 99;NM89

A9K= 9=D5.A7 =? A@M= 9=4DMB@9 9BF NB74 LH?9

Give a ringing cry, O heavens, with him/ to his people, let all the sons of god bow to him,

for he will avenge the blood of his sons,

he will repay those who hate him, cleanse his people’s land.

It is probable that the reading in the MT/SP is the result of a theological correction that included the omission of disturbing polytheistic elements. This is especially the case in the A=8@4 @? 9@ 99;NM89 of 4QDeutq and the equivalent ja· pqosjumgs²tysam aqt` p²mter uRo· heoO of the Greek, which lack a parallel in the MT/SP. That this part was omitted is suggested by two other theological corrections in the MT/SP. In the first sentence of the verse the word A=BM appears to have been changed to A=96. This change was probably done in order to avoid the idea that A=BM refers to animate gods residing in heaven. That gods are in fact meant is implied by its poetical parallel A=8@4 @? in 4QDeutq and in the assumed Vorlage of the Greek uRo· heoO. Moreover, 9=75F.A7 (blood of his servants) of the MT is probably a correction of 9=D5.A7, which implies that Yhwh had sons. All three differences occur in instances where 4QDeutq and the parallel in the LXX seem to preserve polytheistic conceptions, while they are missing in the MT/SP. It would be highly unlikely that the polytheistic conceptions had been secondarily added to the LXX and 4QDeutq, whereas their omission in the textual

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

The Omission of Polytheistic Conceptions in Deut 32:43

189

tradition of the MT/SP would be comprehensible.14 That we are dealing with theological corrections is further suggested by a similar correction in Deut 32:8 – 9, as we have seen. It is possible that theologically offensive ideas were more systematically censored from the song. Poetical texts often have a tendency to preserve ancient conceptions better than prose texts, but in this case there have been later attempts to remove them. The fact that the LXX contains additional plusses in relation to 4QDeutq was probably caused by a later attempt to harmonize a text tradition close to the MT with the more original tradition that is better reflected in 4QDeutq.15 The LXX apparently preserves a double reading for the first lines, the first parallel being related to the reading in 4QDeutq, while the second parallel accords, in part, with the MT reading. The sentence ja· 1miswus²tysam aqt` p²mter %ccekoi heoO is missing a parallel in both the MTand 4QDeutq, but this may have been an earlier and separate attempt in the MT to avoid the theological problem: A=8@4 @? would have been changed to A=8@4 =?4@B @? (… p²mter %ccekoi heoO). The parallel may then have been later omitted in the MT.16 This would explain why the LXX contains plusses in relation to both MT and 4QDeutq. If this is correct, there would have been at least two different attempts to censor the text in the Masoretic tradition, both of which necessitated the omission of parts of the older text.17 The LXX also has a parallel to both 9=LJ@ 5=M= AKD9 of the MT and A@M= 9=4DMB@9 of 4QDeutq. It is possible that the LXX is harmonizing here as well, although v. 41 could indicate that these two sentences were meant to form a logical poetic parallelism.18 One possibility would be to assume that the LXX is original, so that both 4QDeutq and the MT preserve only a part of the parallelism. On the other hand, A9K= 9=D5.A7 =? and 9BF NB74 LH?9 also seem to form a parallelism,19 now interrupted by A9K= 9=D5.A7 =? or 9BF NB74 LH?9. This suggests that both 9=LJ@ 5=M= AKD9 and A@M= 9=4DMB@9 are later intrusions in this context, possibly influenced by v. 41. In this case the oldest text of v. 43 would have read:20 14 Most scholars assume that the MT may be secondary in this verse, but most also fail to recognize systematic editing. See, for example, Mayes, Deuteronomy, 393, who notes: “Material has probably been lost from the MT” and adds that “MT has probably also suffered corruption of the text which it has preserved.” 15 Skehan and Ulrich “4QDeutq,” 141. 16 In other words, first the A=8@4 @? was changed to A=8@4 =?4@B @? and later the whole sentence was omitted. On the other hand, one cannot exclude the possibility that the reference to the angels was created in the translation process. 17 Cf. Bogaert, “Les trois redactions,” 329 – 340; 18 Cf. v. 41: A@M4 =4DMB@9 =LJ@ AKD 5=M4 =7= üHMB5 :;4N9 =5L; KL5 =N9DM.A4. 19 Note that the SP reads with 4QDeutq 9BF NB74 LH?9, whereas the MT has an additional suffix: 9BF 9NB74 LH?9. 20 For a different reconstruction of the text, see Patrick W. Skehan, “A Fragment of the ‘Song of Moses’ (Deut 32) From Qumran,” in BASOR 136 (1954): 12 – 15.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

190

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

Give a ringing cry, (you) heavens, with him, worship him, (you) all gods, for he will avenge the blood of his sons, he will purge the land of his people.

9BF A=BM 9D=DL8 A=8@4 @? 9@ 99;NM89 A9K= 9=D5.A7 =? 9BF NB74 LH?9

The verse would consist of two bicola, both of which have a well-functioning parallelism. The parallelism would have been later disturbed in the MT and 4QDeutq by expansions influenced by v. 41. Although the reason for this editing is not entirely clear, a similar theme, Yhwh’s reprisal against his opponents, may have caused the additions. Here one should not exclude an unintentional corruption or confusion. In relation to the LXX and 4QDeutq, the MT/SP version represents a substantially revised tradition where the mythological and theologically offensive elements have been intentionally removed. The revision included the complete omission of A=8@4 @? 9@ 99;NM89, whereas A=BM and 9=D5 were omitted and replaced with theologically more neutral components. The revision not only blurred the original meaning and intent of the text, but it also disturbed its poetical structure. The LXX, in part, preserves the original text, but the reading has been confused by a later attempt to harmonize it with the revised version similar to that of the MT/SP.21 The MT/SP preserves a reading where three separate elements were omitted, which suggests that the revision of older texts may have been substantial in passages that contained old mythological elements that had become theologically offensive during the Second Temple period. Because the theologically offensive ideas are preserved in the LXX translation, dated to the third century bce,22 and in 4QDeutq, dated to “the second half of the first century bce or perhaps the beginning of the first century ce,”23 the revisions were made at a very late stage, possibly by the same editor(s) who removed similarly offensive conceptions from Deut 32:8 – 9. It should further be added that since the LXX preserves a separate reading that is the result of another revision (p²mter %ccekoi heoO pro A=8@4 @? ), the verse suggests that the theological revisions were far from 21 Similarly Julio Trebolle-Barrera, The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 1997), 377 – 378. On the other hand, before the Dead Sea discoveries, many scholars assumed that the LXX contains secondary expansions; thus, for example, Bertholet, Deuteronomium, 100 – 101. Driver, Deuteronomy, 380 – 381 and Steuernagel, Deuteronomium und Josua und allgemeine einleitung in den Hexateuch (GHAT 1/3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900), 121, ignore the LXX reading. 22 For the dating of the translation, see, for example, Trebolle-Barrera, The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible, 302 – 303, and Adrian Schenker, Anfänge der Textgeschichte des Alten Testaments: Studien zu Entstehung und Verhältnis der frühesten Textformen (BWANT 10, 14; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2011), 12. 23 Thus Skehan and Ulrich “4QDeutq,” 138.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Theological Corrections—Can God Be Seen?

191

isolated occurrences but were made by several successive editors or censors. This example shows that the omitted elements were often replaced by new ones, but the omission of A=8@4 @? 9@ 99;NM89 without any replacement shows that this was not always the case.

Theological Corrections—Can God Be Seen? The Hebrew Bible is inconsistent in its position towards seeing Yhwh’s face (or that of another Israelite divinity). Some passages explicitly deny the possibility that man could look at the face of the divinity without being killed,24 whereas other passages imply that it was possible at least on some special occasions (e. g., Gen 32:31 and Exod 24:9 – 11) or for some people such as Moses (e. g., Num 12:7 – 8). In addition to these special cases, there may be vestiges of a regular ritual or event where one saw the face of the divinity in the holy of holies of the temple. In post 586 bce contexts, when Yhwh was not assumed to have a form or image, the practice became theologically problematic, because it was dependent on the ancient (or pre 586 bce) conception that the divinity had a physical presence in the temple of Jerusalem as well as in other temples. Our interest here lies in the later attempts to eradicate the traces of the old and positive references to seeing Yhwh’s face. An illustrative vestige of the ancient practice is the law regulating the festivals in Exod 23:17; Exod 34:21 – 24 and Deut 16:16.25 The oldest form of the law probably ordered all Israelite men to come to see the face of Yhwh three times a year for the major festivals. They were not allowed to see the face of the divinity or the representation of the divinity empty-handed, but were required to bring offerings: AK=L 898= =DH.N4 84L= 4@9. The SP and the consonantal text of the MT in Deut 16:16 seem to preserve the original text, but the Masoretic vocalization of the main verb (nif‘al: 84ûL)=ú ) is probably an attempt to avoid the embarrassment: A9KB5 ý=8@4 898= =DH.N4 ýL9?:.@? 84ûL)=ú 8DM5 A=BFH M9@M AK=L 898= =DH.N4 84L= 4@9 N9?E8 6;59 N9F5M8 6;59 N9JB8 6;5 L;5= LM4

Three times a year all your males shall appear before Yhwh your God at the place that he will choose: at the festival of unleavened bread, at the festival of weeks and at the festival of booths. They shall not appear before Yhwh empty-handed.

24 Thus especially in Exod 33:20 – 23 and Deut 4:15 – 16; 5:23 – 27; 18:16. In some passages even the hearing of the voice of Yhwh is described as dangerous to humans. 25 A reference to the same occasions is met in Deut 31:11.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

192

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

Most translations follow the Masoretic vocalization,26 but the vocalization contradicts the consonantal text. If the nif‘al form were original, the object marker in ý=8@4 898= =DH.N4 would not only be superfluous but grammatically incorrect. The object marker implies a direct object that cannot be used with a passive verb. If the nif‘al were original, the object marker would be difficult to explain, and consequently, it is more likely that the verb was originally meant to be a qal after which the object marker would be expected.27 Without the vocalization, however, it is unlikely that one would read the verb as a nif‘al. That there was a grammatical problem with the verb and the object marker is corroborated by the parallel passage in Exod 23:17, where the object marker has been changed to @4 in the MT: 898= C748 =DH.@4 ýL9?:.@? 84ûL)=ú 8DM5 A=BFH M@M

Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord Yhwh.

This is in line with several passages where the nif‘al of 84L is met with the preposition @4 to indicate to whom the subject is appearing.28 However, it is unlikely that the MT reading in Exod 23:17 is original. In addition to the parallel passage in Deut 16:16, the SP of Exod 23:17 also retains the object marker. On the other hand, the SP avoids the problem because it refers to the ark, C9L4. This word effectively replaces Yhwh as the object: 898= C9L4 =DH.N4 ýL9?:.@? 84L=. Of course, the result may be theologically peculiar : the Israelites were commanded to see the front or face of the ark three times a year. Perhaps this was regarded as less offensive than the idea that one could see Yhwh’s face, but the reference to the ark made it possible to retain the object marker. The most probable explanation for the difference between the SP and the MT of Exod 23:17 is that the original text contained the object marker in reference to Yhwh and that both are separate attempts to avoid the idea of the original text. The same correction appears to have been made to the SP of Exod 34:23 as well. Whereas the MT refers to the appearing before Yhwh three times a year (@4LM= =8@4 898= C748 =DH.N4 ýL9?:.@? 84L=), the SP refers to the Ark of Yhwh (@4LM= =8@4 898= CL48 =DH.N4 ýL9?:.@? 84L=). The ark of the SP avoids the idea that they saw Yhwh himself, while the MT solves the problem with the incorrect vocalization that conflicts with the object marker. In 26 NRSV/RSV: “Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord”; New American Bible: “Three times a year every male among you shall appear before the Lord”; English Standard Version: Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord. However, the German Einheitsübersetzung reads: “Dreimal im Jahr sollen alle deine Männer hingehen, um das Angesicht des Herrn, deines Gottes, an der Stätte, die er auswählt, zu schauen.” 27 This problem has already been noted since early research; see, for example, Bertholet, Deuteronomium, 52; Driver, Deuteronomy, 198, and many others. The BHS apparatus of Deut 16:16 also suggests that the original text probably had a qal. 28 Such as Gen 12:7; 17:1; 35:9; Exod 4:5; Lev 9:4.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Theological Corrections—Can God Be Seen?

193

view of the parallel in Deut 16:16, it is unlikely that the SP readings in Exod 23:17 and 34:23 are original, and instead they are probably separate attempts to avoid the theological problem of the older text that Yhwh should be seen. A further complication is that C74 in the MT in Exod 23:17 and 34:23 may not be older than C9L4. This is suggested by the lack of a parallel to these words, either C74 or C9L4, in the Greek versions. In both Exod 23:17 and 34:23 the Greek reads 1m~piom juq¸ou toO heoO sou. The Greek was able to retain the original object here because it has avoided the problem by rendering the verb in the passive (avh^setai) in all three parallel passages Exod 23:17; 34:21 – 24 and Deut 16:16.29 That C748 is not original is suggested by the peculiar construction 898= C748, which is met only in Exod 23:17 and 34:23 and Isaiah.30 The most likely explanation for the differences is that the word C9L4 is not a secondary rendering of C74 but it was independently added in order to avoid any reference to seeing Yhwh. A later editor in the textual tradition of the MT then corrected the peculiar reference to the ark, perhaps assuming that C9L4 must be a mistake for C74.31 This may have been done when the verb 84L= was already understood in the passive sense so that the offense was avoided. The Greek renderings thus imply that the passages were understood in a passive sense much before the Masoretic vocalization was written down. Moreover, the parallel passage in Deut 16:16 would certainly have guided the editor to assume that Yhwh must have been meant and not the ark. The same tendency to avoid the idea that Yhwh’s face was seen is found in other passages. A parallel to the instruction in Deut 16:16b not to see Yhwh empty-handed in Exod 23:15b omits the object marker altogether, which enables one to read the verb as a nif‘al: AK=L =D( H) 9, 4L)=ú .4@9. This further indicates that the direction of the development was away from giving any impression that Yhwh could be seen. In other words, we can see multiple attempts in different textual traditions to avoid the problem in the original text. The following development seems to have taken place. The original texts in all of the discussed verses originally read that the Israelite men should come three times a year to see the face of Yhwh: 898= =DH.N4 ýL9?:.@? 84L=. The Hebrew text used the verb 84L in the qal impf. This consonantal reading is preserved only in Deut 16:16. The original conception was increasingly embarrassing in post 586 bce contexts and therefore several evidently independent attempts emerged to avoid the problem. The verb of Deut 29 Deut 16:16: tqe?r jaiqo»r toO 1miautoO avh¶setai p÷m !qsemijºm sou 1mamt¸om juq¸ou toO heoO sou 1m t` tºp\, è 1±m 1jk´ngtai aqt¹m j¼qior, 1m t0 2oqt0 t_m !f¼lym ja· 1m t0 2oqt0 t_m 2bdol²dym ja· 1m t0 2oqt0 t/r sjgmopgc¸ar. oqj avh¶s, 1m¾piom juq¸ou toO heoO sou jemºr; Exod 23:15b: oqj avh¶s, 1m¾piºm lou jemºr; 23:17: tqe?r jaiqo»r toO 1miautoO avh¶setai p÷m !qsemijºm sou 1m¾piom juq¸ou toO heoO sou. 30 Isa 1:24; 3:1; 10:16, 33; 19:4; 51:22. 31 Note that both can be written plene or defective.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

194

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

16:16 was vocalized as a nif‘al. In the SP and MT traditions of Exod 23:17 and 34:23 the embarrassment was initially corrected by an addition of the ark: the Israelites should see the ark three times a year, which avoided the idea that Yhwh could be seen.32 Later this idea also became problematic and the verb was read as a nif‘al in a passive sense, which would have removed the offense with the original object, Yhwh. As the ark had now become superfluous, the C9L4 was changed to C748 in the MT. The LXX tradition of all three passages adopted the passive readings, shared by the nif‘al of the MT, but is original in lacking a parallel to C74/C9L4.33 Later biblical authors who referred to the festivals avoided quoting the sentence altogether and, at most, referred to sacrifices that should take place three times a year (for example in 1 Kgs 9:25 and 2 Chr 8:13). The full conclusions about the passages in question have generally not been drawn. Some scholars have suggested that the object marker and the verb form are irrelevant,34 but this is certainly a mistake. Most scholars acknowledge that the qal is probably original, but they also appeal to passages that use the qal with the direct object (such as 2 Sam 3:13; 14:28, 32; 2 Kgs 25:19; Esth 1:14) and where seeing the face of a king would be a standard expression to refer to the appearance in his presence.35 However, this should not distract us from seeing that more than an abstract or metaphorical appearance in the presence of the divinity was meant in passages that refer to the seeing of the face of Yhwh. Seeing of the face of the king was a special honor, especially in the case of the great kings of Assyria and Persia, as implied by 2 Kgs 25:19 and Esth 1:14. These two passages refer to the closest associates who had the honor to see the king’s face regularly. For others it was possible to see the face of the king only as a special honor or on special occasions. In other words, these passages also imply that the concrete act of seeing the king’s face was meant, and therefore they provide no justification for reading the passages with a reference to seeing the face of Yhwh in an abstract way. In addition to passages such as Gen 32:31, the explicit and forceful denials in several passages that it was possible to see Yhwh’s face36 and 32 The ark seems to have been used as a substitute for the statue of the divinity more often. For example, the ark narratives in 1 Sam 4 – 6 imply that the divinity was present, but the passage only refers to the ark. In 1 Sam 4:7, when the ark enters the camp, the Philistines cry that God has entered the camp. 33 Exodus 23:17 adds toO heoO sou, possibly secondarily. 34 For example, according to Heinrich Holzinger, Exodus: Erklart (KHAT 2; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1900), 97, it is “nebensächlich” whether there was an object marker or not, or whether the verb was a qal or nif‘al. At the same time, he vehemently rejects the correction to qal and denies the concrete interpretation of Exod 23:15, 17. The metaphorical interpretation is more extensively discussed by Friedrich Nötscher, „Das Angesicht Gottes Schauen“ nach biblischer und babylonischer Auffassung (2nd edition; Darmstadt: WBG, 1969). 35 Thus, for example, Bertholet, Deuteronomium, 52; Driver, Deuteronomy, 198. 36 Exod 33:20 – 23; Deut 4:15 – 16; 5:23 – 27; 18:16.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

An Addition That Created an Omission in Exod 24:9 – 11

195

the numerous textual corrections we have seen show that a concrete act of seeing the divinity was originally meant.37 The development described here implies several attempts to change the original texts in Exod 23:17; 34:21 – 24 and Deut 16:16. Some of the corrections necessitated the omission of the object marker (in the MT and probably in the Hebrew Vorlage of the Greek translation as well). The object marker was also dropped when Deut 16:16 was used as a model for Exod 23:15b and 34:20 (AK=L =DH 84L= 4@9 for the older AK=L 898= =DH.N4 84L= 4@9).38 In all these cases the omission is tiny, but its impact is crucial for understanding the passage. It changes the core reason why the Israelites were ordered to come to the temple during the festivals. These passages thus corroborate the idea that the texts of the Hebrew scriptures were theologically corrected in different contexts by several independent editors who could resort to omissions, rewritings and other radical interventions in the older text if it contained theologically offensive conceptions.

An Addition That Created an Omission in Exod 24:9 – 11 Exodus 24:9 – 11 provides another illustrative example of how later editors regarded the idea of seeing Yhwh as theologically offensive. Here the correction was made by an addition, which de facto created an omission, although no section of the older text was omitted. According to the Masoretic version of Exod 24:9 – 11,39 Moses, Aaron and the elders of Israel went up (to the mountain of Sinai), where they saw the God of Israel. Unlike in many other passages, which refer to God’s glory or fire being seen, this text refers to God himself being seen. It is also implied that they see his feet under which there was a pavement made of sapphire, pure like heaven. The reference to the feet implies an anthropomorphic form. The LXX translation, however, contains two small additions that in effect omit the idea that God could be seen:

37 What was actually seen is a different discussion. Perhaps the most convincing theory is that the passages refer to the seeing of Yhwh’s cult image. Thus especially Herbert Niehr, “In Search of YHWH’s Cult Image in the First Temple,” in The Image and the Book: Iconic cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East (ed. K. van der Toorn; CEBT; Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 73 – 95. 38 Note that the passages in Exodus also render the parallel in the first person. 39 With the exception of some additional names in v. 9, the SP follows the MT closely in these verses.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

196

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

Exod 24:9 – 11 MT

9

498=549 57D CL849 8MB @F=9 @4LM= =DK:B A=F5M9 94L=9

10

@4LM= =8@4 N4 ND5@ 8MFB? 9=@6L N;N9 AJF?9 L=HE8 L8ü@ A=BM8 11 @4LM= =D5 =@=J4.@49 97= ;@M 4@ [email protected] 9:;=9 9NM=9 9@?4=9 9 Moses and Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, 10 and they saw

the God of Israel; and there was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness. 11 And he did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; they beheld God, and ate and drank

Exod 24:9 – 11 LXX 9 Ja· !m´bg Lyus/r ja· Aaqym ja· Madab ja· Abioud ja· 2bdol¶jomta t/r ceqous¸ar Isqagk 10 ja· eWdom t¹m tºpom, ox eRst¶jei 1je? b he¹r toO Isqagk· ja· t± rp¹ to»r pºdar aqtoO ¢se· 5qcom pk¸mhou sapve¸qou ja· ¦speq eWdor steqe¾lator toO oqqamoO t0 jahaqiºtgti. 11 ja· t_m 1pik´jtym toO Isqagk oq diev¾mgsem oqd³ eXr· ja· ¥vhgsam 1m t` tºp\ toO heoO ja· 5vacom ja· 5piom. 9

Moses and Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, 10 and they saw the place where stood the God of Israel; and there was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness. 11 And of the chosen ones of Israel there was not even one missing they beheld in the place of God, and ate and drank

The Greek version adds a reference to the place where God stood (v. 10) and a place of God (v. 11) immediately after the verb so that the original object was replaced by the addition. As a consequence, the original object, God, now only defines what the place is that is seen (! place where God stood). Because the plus in the LXX occurs twice in a similar context having a similar effect in the text, the possibility of an accidental omission in the MT/SP can be excluded. The Greek version is a secondary attempt to avoid the idea that God could be seen. However, the Greek text was not systematically edited in this respect because it preserves a reference to the feet of God. The additions show that the editor (or translator) who made the addition had a high regard for the text and was unwilling or not allowed to make substantial changes to it. The older text was preserved if the correction in content could be made with an addition, a tendency that we have also seen elsewhere. For the editor it was evidently easier to accept an addition than an omission if the result was similar. The example also shows that the omission of a theologically offensive idea could be achieved by an expansion that effectively avoided the original meaning of the sentence.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

The Omission of a Statue of Yhwh in Josh 24:26

197

Shiloh or Shechem in Josh 24:1, 25 According to the MT of Josh 24, the Israelites were gathered to Shechem for the renewal of the covenant (vv. 1, 25). The MT is followed by some Greek manuscripts (abcxz: suwel), some Old Latin witnesses and the Vulgate. However, most Greek manuscripts read here Shiloh instead, a reading shared by some Old Latin witnesses.40 The MT may be original here, because the relationship with the Samaritans had worsened in the third to first centuries bce, which would have resulted in the change of Shechem to Shiloh in order to avoid the idea that a center of the Samaritan community had such an important role.41 The change could have occurred in the translation process, but perhaps more probably it already took place in the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX. The conflict with the Samaritans was more a Palestinian issue and would not have been crucial in Egypt where the Greek translation was made. In any case, this example corroborates the impression that crucial parts of the older text could be omitted and/or replaced in issues that had become theologically significant. We have seen a similar case in Deut 27:4 where Gerizim was probably corrected in favor of Ebal in the Masoretic tradition. In Josh 24:1, 25 the omitted location of Yhwh’s presence was replaced by one that was closer to Jerusalem and thus perhaps theologically more acceptable. Since it would have been difficult to have the event take place in Jerusalem before Jerusalem was part of Israel, Shiloh was a logical alternative. It had been the cult site where Samuel was brought up.

The Omission of a Statue of Yhwh in Josh 24:26 Because of its unorthodox theological conceptions, it is not surprising to find considerable differences between the various versions of Josh 24:26.42 According to the MT Joshua placed a large stone—presumably this refers to a Massebah although the word 85JB is not used here—under the (holy) tree (or oak) that was located in Yhwh’s sanctuary (898= M7KB5). In the Greek text, however, Joshua is said to have placed the stone under the tree that was in front of or before Yhwh 40 Pseudo-Philo and Codex Lugdunensis. 41 Thus also Ernst Axel Knauf, Joshua (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2008), 195. Josh 24:32 may also provide some support for the assumption that Shechem is original here: The bones of Joseph were buried in Shechem. The bones would have been brought to the place where the renewal had taken place. The LXX and Old Latin witnesses read Shechem in this verse. 42 The verse contradicts several passages in Deuteronomy, which prohibit or criticize the erection of holy stones and trees (e. g., Deut 7:5; 12:2 – 7; 16:21).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

198

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

(!p´mamti juq¸ou).43 Both the LXX and MT readings conflict with various conceptions of many parts of the Hebrew scriptures. Holy trees and stones are explicitly condemned in several passages in Deuteronomy and 1 – 2 Kings, whereas Josh 24:26 is written with the implication that holy trees and stones inside Yhwh’s sanctuary or in front of Yhwh were part of Yhwh’s legitimate cult. Although it is surprising that such conceptions have been preserved in some form in all of the main witnesses, the Greek text preserves the most offensive idea by suggesting that Yhwh was represented by a statue or other physical object. Because of its manifest conflict with many passages, such as the Decalogue in Exod 20:4 and Deut 5:8, it is very probable that the LXX reading is original and that this idea was omitted in the MT. Josh 24:26 MT 8@48 A=L578.N4 FM98= 5N?=9 A=8@4 NL9N LHE5 8@976 C54 ;K=9 AM 8B=K=9 8@48 N;N 898= M7KB5 LM4

Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God; and he took a large stone, and set it up there under the oak, which is in the sanctuary of Yhwh

Josh 24:26 LXX ja· 5cqaxem t± N¶lata taOta eQr bibk¸om, mºlom toO heoO· ja· 5kabem k¸hom l´cam ja· 5stgsem aqt¹m YgsoOr rp¹ tµm teq´limhom !p´mamti juq¸ou. And he wrote these words in the book, in the law of God; and Joshua took a big stone, and set it up under the oak (or terebinth) before Yhwh

Although !p´mamti is not the most common rendering of the semipreposition 44 =DH@, it is met at least 26 times as its translation. It is probable that the Vorlage of the LXX thus read 898= =DH@, because an equivalent phrase !p´mamti toO heoO is found in Josh 24:1 where the MT reads A=8@4 [email protected] It is unlikely that the 898= M7KB of the MT is original, because the sanctuary plays no role in the passage and the word M7KB is otherwise never used in Joshua, or in any other book of the Former Prophets. Moreover, since Josh 24:1 implies that the statue or image of the divinity was standing in the open and that the leaders of the community could stand in front of it, the existence of a sanctuary in v. 26 would be surprising. 43 The Vulgate follows the MT (in sanctuario Domini), while the Old Latin witnesses read ante Dominum (e. g., Codex Lugdunensis) or contra Dominum (e. g., Iulius Firmicus), supporting the LXX reading. Some Latin witnesses omit the tree altogether, but this is probably a late theological correction. 44 See Raija Sollamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint (AASF Diss. Hum. Lit 19; Helsinki, 1979), 28. Apparently, she does not count the present verse. 45 Note that some Greek mss. read !p´mamti toO heoO instead of !p´mamti juq¸ou, but this is probably a later harmonization with Josh 24:1.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

A Small Omission with a Large Impact

199

The purpose of the omission of 898= =DH@ was to avoid the idea that there was a statue of Yhwh that the Israelites had worshipped beside a holy tree and a Massebah. Its replacement by the sanctuary may have been an attempt to avoid the idea that the Israelites were worshipping Yhwh in an open area, which could be identified as a high place, which was also deemed illegitimate in many passages. Joshua 24:1 may have been accidentally left out of the theological polishing of the text—perhaps suggesting that the theological polishing was not very systematic here—or the verse could have been understood in an abstract way : The community was standing in the presence of God. However, it would have been much more difficult to read Josh 24:26 in an abstract way because in this verse Joshua places the law to a specific physical location that is in front of Yhwh. The offensive idea was therefore omitted.

A Small Omission with a Large Impact Judges 9:6 describes how the people of Shechem made Abimelech the king. The MTreads: A?M5 LM4 5J,)B+ C9*@4ú.AF ý@B@ ý@B=54.N4 9?=@B=9. It is probable that in the oldest text the inauguration took place by the holy tree46 of the Massebah. Instead of 5JB of the MT the text originally read 85JB8. The suggestion that the verse refers to a Massebah is already made in the BHS apparatus and this is also accepted by many scholars.47 Later editors tried to avoid the idea that a Massebah was meant because they were prohibited as illegitimate cult objects in many parts of the Hebrew Bible. The Masoretic text vocalizes the word 5J,)B+ as a hoph. participle of the verb 5JD, but the sentence is thereby rendered obscure. If the participle had referred to the word C9@4, one would expect both words to contain the definite article. In fact, the word C9@4 must be definite in the present context, for the author refers to a specific object that was in Shechem. Since the word does not contain the article, it must 46 Most scholars and translations assume that the word C9*@4ú refers to a tree, whereas the common word for oak is C9*@,4(. The vocalization C9*@4ú is related to the Ugaritic ila¯nu, “god,” and Akkadian ila¯nu, “little god.” See Josef Tropper, Kleines Wörterbuch des Ugaritischen (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2008), 10, and CAD (vol 7, I–J), 70. The word C9*@4ú is exclusively used in cultic contexts, which would make perfect sense in this verse. God of the Massebah would also be more logical than the tree of the Massebah. If this interpretation is correct, the verse would be a unique reference in the Hebrew scriptures to a divinity that was connected, tied or residing in a Massebah. This would thus also be a small case of omission by vocalization. The Greek translations also assume that the verse refers to a tree. 47 For example, George F. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1901), 243 – 244; Jacob P. Myers, The Book of Judges (Interpreter’s Bible vol. II; New York and Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1953), 752; J. Alberto Soggin, Judges (OTL; Westminster John Knox Press: Louisville, Ky., 1981), 168.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

200

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

have formed a genitive construct with the following word.48 This is corroborated by the LXX versions, which imply that their Vorlage contained a noun and not a participle, and that there was a genitive construction. The parallel to the word 5J,)B+ is rendered in the genitive: LXXA ja· 1bas¸keusam t¹m Abilekew eQr basik´a pq¹r t0 bak²m\ t/r st²seyr 1m Sijiloir LXXB ja· 1bas¸keusam t¹m Abilekew pq¹r t0 bak²m\ t0 erqet0 t/r st²seyr t/r 1m Sijiloir

However, it is unlikely that the LXX st²seyr (< st²sir = standing) is a faithful rendering of the Hebrew Vorlage. Codex Alexandrinus refers to an oak of standing, while Codex Vaticanus contains a confusing genitive structure t0 erqet0 t/r st²seyr t/r 1m Sijiloir. The reason for this structure is probably an attempt to preserve as much as possible from the original text, but since the sentence was understood differently, the resulting text is confusing and would imply a Vorlage with a disturbing double relative sentence.49 These considerations imply that none of the current texts are original. They are more probably diverse attempts to avoid the embarrassment of the people anointing the king by the holy tree or god of the Massebah that was in Shechem. The original text would have read A?M5 LM4 85JB8 [email protected]. Although the omission here is very small—two letters only in the MT—it was again theologically very significant because it removes the Massebah altogether. The original text implies that there was an important Massebah and a holy tree or god in Shechem where kings were anointed. It is peculiar that some commentators take no notice of the textual problem, but follow the MT.50

Theological Omissions in the Hanna Story in 1 Sam 1 – 2 The textual problems of 1 – 2 Samuel are considerable, but these books potentially provide very significant evidence about the editorial processes of the late Second Temple period.51 Some of the changes made to these books show that late redactors made more radical interventions in the text than what is conventionally assumed in literary criticism. First Samuel 1 – 2 are particularly fruitful 48 As noted by Moore, Judges, 244, the Masoretic reading is “perilously near nonsense.” 49 The first relative sentence would be an asyndetic one, the second having the word LM4. 50 For example, Manfred Görg, Richter (Neue Echter-Bibel AT 3; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1993), 51. 51 The earliest systematic investigation of the differences between the different versions was made by Julius Wellhausen, Der Text der Bücher Samuelis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1871), and many of his observations are still valid and significant. For a review of the problems and literature, see Tuukka Kauhanen, The Proto-Lucianic Problem in 1 Samuel (PhD Dissertation at the University of Helsinki; Helsinki, 2011), 1 – 24.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Theological Omissions in the Hanna Story in 1 Sam 1 – 2

201

chapters as they provide several examples of radical interventions in the text.52 Early research has already shown that the MT is often secondary,53 but Jürg Hutzli has recently brought these chapters into focus and illustrated the complexities of their textual history. Although it appears that the LXX often preserves the oldest text in the cases discussed here, all three main witnesses, the LXX, MT and 4QSama, may have been later revised, which means that each individual case has to be determined separately.54 Without trying a new reconstruction of the text history of these chapters, I will here mainly draw attention to examples of theological revisions where parts of the older text were probably omitted. It seems likely that the older text contained conceptions that later became theologically offensive.55 Many of the problems deal with Hanna’s presence before Yhwh. It appears that the MT has systematically omitted references that imply that Hanna entered Yhwh’s temple at Shiloh and stood before the divinity. The reason for the omissions is obvious. In addition to the idea that a woman entered Yhwh’s temple, the original text seems to imply that Hanna was in front of a statue of Yhwh or of another object that represented Yhwh’s physical presence. According to the LXX of 1 Sam 1:9, Hanna stood up and went to pray before Yhwh in the temple. The following text also implies that she was in front of Yhwh in the temple. Eli the priest was sitting on the seat by the doorpost of the temple and observed Hanna’s prayer. Seeing that Hanna’s mouth was moving, Eli believed that she was drunk and therefore he asked her to leave from before Yhwh (v. 14). That Eli was sitting by the threshold of the temple and asked her to leave implies that she was inside the temple or just by the threshold where she could be located before Yhwh. Verse 24, which describes Hanna bringing her son Samuel to the temple, would also seem to imply that it was not problematic for her to

52 I am very grateful to Anneli Aejmelaeus for pointing out that these chapters could be productive for my endeavor. 53 Thus especially August Klostermann, Die Bücher Samuelis und der Könige (Nördlingen: C.H. Beck‘sche Buchhandlung, 1887) and Karl Budde, Die Bücher Samuel (KHKAT 8; Tübingen and Leipzig: J.C.B. Mohr, 1902). 54 Jürg Hutzli, Die Erzählung von Hanna und Samuel (ATHANT 89; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2007), 141. Some investigations of these chapters have surprisingly neglected the LXX readings completely. Thus for example, Peter Mommer, Samuel: Geschichte und Überlieferung (WMANT 65; Neukirchen: Neukirchner Verlag, 1991), 5 – 31. For further editorial changes in 1 – 2 Samuel, some of which are omissions and rewritings, see Jürg Hutzli “Mögliche Retuschen am Davidbild in der masoretischen Fassung der Samuelbücher,” in David und Saul im Widerstreit (ed. W. Dietrich; OBO 206; Fribourg and Göttingen: Fribourg University Press and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 102 – 115. 55 Hutzli, Die Erzählung von Hanna und Samuel, 141 – 145, has prepared a very useful chart that summarizes the most relevant differences between the main witnesses.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

202

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

enter the temple itself.56 A comparison of verses 9 and 14 shows that the references to Hanna being in front of Yhwh have been omitted in the MT:57 1 Sam 1:9, 14 MT

9

8@M5 8@?4 =L;4 8D; AKN9 8NM =L ;49 4E?8.@F 5M= C8?8 =@F9 898= @?=8 N:9:B.@F

… 14

=@F 8=@4 LB4=9 C=L?NMN =NB.7F ý=@FB ýD==.N4 =L=E8

9 After they had eaten and drunk in Shiloh, Hannah rose.

Eli the priest was sitting on the seat beside the doorpost of the temple of Yhwh. … 14 And Eli said to her, “How long will you be drunken? Put away your wine from you.”

1 Sam 1:9, 14 LXX ja· !m´stg Amma let± t¹ vace?m aqto»r 1m Sgky ja· jat´stg 1m¾piom juq¸ou, ja· Gki b Reqe»r 1j²hgto 1p· toO d¸vqou 1p· t_m vki_m maoO juq¸ou. … 9

14

ja· eWpem aqt0 t¹ paid²qiom Gki þyr pºte lehush¶s,. peqiekoO t¹m oWmºm sou ja· poqe¼ou 1j pqos¾pou juq¸ou.

9

After they had eaten in Shiloh, Hannah rose and stood before Yhwh. Eli the priest was sitting on the seat beside the doorpost of the temple of Yhwh. … 14 And Eli said to her, “How long will you be drunken? Put away your wine from you and go away from the presence of Yhwh.”

The MTreading of 1 Sam 1:9 is evidently secondary when it omits a parallel to the Greek ja· jat´stg 1m¾piom juq¸ou.58 Hanna is said to have stood up (AKN9), but 56 The Greek text is clear here (… ja· eQs/khem eQr oWjom juq¸ou 1m Sgkyl), but the MT also preserves the idea: 9@M 898=.N=5 9845N9. 57 It is surprising that Stephen Pisano, Additions or Omissions in the Books of Samuel: the Significant Pluses and Minuses in the Massoretic, LXX and Qumran Texts (OBO 57; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), does not discuss 1 Sam 1:9 and 14 in his book although both verses would have been central for his investigation. He concludes (on pp. 66 – 67) that in the cases where the difference was caused by an intentional editorial change, the LXX is nearly always secondary in relation to the MT. The here-analyzed verses challenge this conclusion. The main problem throughout his investigation is his heavy reliance on the principle lectio difficilior potior, which seems to go before all other considerations. As noted by Hutzli, “Mögliche Retuschen,” 102 – 103, this principle is not always applicable. 58 Thus many scholars since early research; see, for example, Klostermann, Bücher Samuelis; Budde, Die Bücher Samuel, 7; and Samuel Rolles Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 12. Nevertheless, some scholars, such as David Toshio Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007), 115 – 116, read with the MT and reject the reading in the LXX. Tsumura also follows the MT in most other variants of these chapters, thus often ignoring significant variant readings in the LXX (see pp. 120, 151 etc.). Dominique Barth¦lemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancient Testament (OBO 50/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Theological Omissions in the Hanna Story in 1 Sam 1 – 2

203

the MT provides no reason why. It anticipates the following sentence to say where she went or what she did, but it is missing in the MT. The following sentence refers to Eli sitting on his chair (5M= C8?8 =@F9 … 8D; AKN9), which implies that Hanna’s original action is missing from the text. In comparison, the LXX version of the action sequence is consistent. She stands up in order to go to the temple, followed by a reference to Eli sitting on the chair. In accordance with its version of v. 9, the LXX of v. 14 describes Hanna leaving from the presence of Yhwh (ja· poqe¼ou 1j pqos¾pou juq¸ou). Since the MT has omitted the idea that Hanna went before the divinity, it is logical that the sentence that describes that she left has also been omitted in v. 14 of the MTversion. It is very unlikely that the LXX readings in 1:9 or 1:14 could be the result of a secondary expansion, because the idea of a non-priest, or even a woman, coming to pray inside the temple would have been theologically very difficult to accept, let alone secondarily add to the text, in the Second Temple period. The text also appears to imply that Yhwh or his statue was present in Shiloh, and that it was a regular practice to come to pray in his presence or in front of his statue. Henry Smith has suggested that the changes in the MTwere made in order to avoid the idea that Yhwh was identified with the Ark.59 The idea that Yhwh would be the Ark is peculiar ; it is more probable that Yhwh was located inside the Ark. In any case, there is no reference to the Ark in this passage, and therefore Smith’s assumption is unnecessary. Regardless of the exact form of Yhwh’s representation, many scholars have argued that the LXX provides the more original text in these verses.60 In v. 14 it is also supported by an Old Latin witness, which contains a parallel to the Greek and reads et discede a facie Domine.61 Consequently, it is probable that the LXX readings in 1:9 and 1:14 are based on a Hebrew Vorlage that preserves the oldest text of these verses, the MT representing a secondary theological correction that was achieved by the omission of an entire sentence in both verses. The correction removed the offensive idea that Hanna had been standing in front of the divinity. The MTof v. 9 may additionally preserve a poor attempt to replace the omission. The idea that she stood up after 1982), 139, also assumes that the MT may be original because it represents the rougher reading: “Mais la rudesse de *M a plus de chances d’Þtre primitive.” However, he fails to recognize a similar correction in 1 Sam 1:14. It seems that Barth¦lemy, like Pisano, places too much emphasis on the principle lectio difficilior potior. 59 Thus Henry P. Smith, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Books of Samuel (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1902), 11. On the other hand, it is very probable that Yhwh or his cult image was located or carried inside the ark on special occasions when Yhwh left the temple. 60 For example, Wellhausen, Text der Bücher Samuelis, 38 – 39; Smith, The Books of Samuel, 11; Alfons Schultz, Die Bücher Samuel übersetz und erklärt (EHAT 8; Münster : Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1919), 13; Hutzli, Die Erzählung von Hanna und Samuel, 60 – 62, 68. 61 This reading is found in Codex Gothicus Legionensis and Codex Vindobona (palimpsest).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

204

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

drinking (8NM =L;49) is awkwardly located in the sentence and is probably a secondary addition. First Samuel 1:24 – 25 describes the dedication of Samuel to Yhwh by Hanna. The MT and LXX differ considerably in these verses. Although both versions seem to have been expanded after the divergence of the traditions, the most interesting variant is the major plus in the LXX of v. 25.62 1 Sam 1:24 – 25 MT

24

9N@B6 LM4 ? 8BF 98@FN9 8M@M A=LH5 C== @5D9 ;BK N;4 8H=49 9@M 898=.N=5 9845N9 LFD LFD89

25

LH8.N4 9ü;M=9 94=5=9 =@F.@4 LFD8.N4

24 When she had weaned him, she took him up with her, with a three-year-old bull, an ephah of flour and a jar of wine. And she brought him to the temple of Yhwh at Shiloh; and the child was young.

25

Then they slaughtered the bull, and they brought the child to Eli.

1 Sam 1:24 – 25 LXX* 24 ja· !m´bg letû aqtoO eQr Sgkyl 1m lºsw\ tqiet¸fomti ja· %qtoir ja· oivi selid²keyr ja· mebek oUmou ja· eQs/khem eQr oWjom juq¸ou 1m Sgkyl, ja· t¹ paid²qiom letû aqtgr (aqt_m). 25 ja· pqos¶cacem (-om) 1m¾piom juq¸ou, ja· 5svanem b patµq aqtoO tµm hus¸am, Dm 1po¸ei 1n Bleq_m eQr Bl´qar t` juq¸\, ja· pqos¶cacem (-om) t¹ paid²qiom ja· 5svanem/am t¹m lºswom. ja· pqos¶cacem Amma B l¶tgq toO paidaq¸ou pq¹r Gki 24

And she went up with him to Selom with a three-year-old bull, loaves, an ephah of fine flour and a jar of wine. And she entered into the temple (house) of Yhwh in Selom, and the child (was) with her. 25 And she (they) brought him before Yhwh; and his father slew his offering which he offered from year to year to Yhwh; and they/he/she brought near the child, and he/she slaughtered the bull; and Anna the mother of the child brought him to Heli.

It is probable that the plus in the LXX is more original than the MT. The MT is the result of a theological correction, because the original text suggested that a woman could enter the temple, perform a cultic ritual to dedicate a child and to sacrifice there without any involvement of the priests.63 The MT has generalized and thereby blurred the references: The child is only brought to the temple and

62 Note that there is variation in the verbs of the large plus between the different Greek manuscripts. Nevertheless, all main Greek witnesses contain the plus. 63 Similarly already Budde, Die Bücher Samuel, 12; Smith, The Books of Samuel, 14. Nevertheless, Hutzli, Die Erzählung von Hanna und Samuel, 83 – 85, assumes that the MT is older.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Theological Omissions in the Hanna Story in 1 Sam 1 – 2

205

the bull is sacrificed by the unspecified “them” in an unspecified location. Most Greek manuscripts follow the MT in the plural 9ü;M=9, but this is probable secondary. The original aqtgr is only preserved in Greek manuscripts 247 and 376. Several considerations suggest that the MT is largely secondary. The content implies several conceptions that would not have been in accordance with those that emerged and were prevalent in Second Temple Judaism. For example, the idea that a woman might enter the temple, sacrifice and perform a cultic dedication ritual in the temple would have been regarded as blasphemous because only the High Priest was allowed to enter the holy of holies (Lev 16). This would make it very difficult to suggest that the plus is a secondary expansion, especially because one would then also have to assume that the expansion is very late, made after the divergence of the LXX tradition from the MT. Moreover, the LFD LFD89 of the MT is very peculiar because the word LFD8 per definitionem already means young: “the young was young.” The reason for the obscure sentence is that the original text referred to the child being with her, which has a function here only if they both entered the temple. If Hanna just brought him to the temple, as the MT reads, the reference to him being with her is out of place. In other words, in the corrected MT the original 8BF (… letû aqtgr), preserved in the LXX, lost its function. Instead, the MT introduced the suffix in 9845N9 and rendered the verb as a hif ’il.64 It is possible that the word LFD was added in this process as a substitute for 8BF, although one should not exclude the possibility of an accidental dublication. Some Old Latin witnesses65 and 4QSama seem to be familiar with a plus here, although not necessarily identical to the one in the LXX. Because of its poor preservation, the exact readings of 4QSama cannot be recovered. Nevertheless, since two words that correspond to the plus in the LXX have been preserved, it is probable that 4QSama contained a text similar to that we find in the Greek witnesses. The broken reading LM4[ ? ] ;5:8[ of line 9 (col II) would seem to correspond to tµm hus¸am Dm of the Greek. Moreover, the unattested space also implies a lengthy text that would approximately match the expansion in Greek.66 Although it is probable that the LXX preserves an older stage of the text than the MT, this may still be the result of an earlier expansion. The father was probably secondarily introduced into the scene. This is suggested by the repetition of pqos¶cacem. One should also note that according to v. 22, Hanna plans to bring the child by herself to the temple in Shiloh to introduce him to the 64 It should further be noted that despite the lack of a parallel to the plus of the LXX, the MTmay still be familiar with it. Note that the MT refers to them making the sacrifice, but this cannot refer to Hanna alone. It is also unlikely that it would refer to Hanna and the boy. 65 Pseudo-Philo, Codex Vindobona and Codex Gothicus Legionensis. 66 Budde, Die Bücher Samuel, 12, already made most of the significant observations and came to the correct conclusion before the discovery of 4QSama.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

206

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

divinity, which makes the sudden appearance of the father in the scene seem peculiar. The beginning of v. 24 also makes no reference to Elkanah coming with Hanna and the boy to Shiloh. In accordance with her plan, she is said to have gone alone with the boy. It is also peculiar that Elkanah’s name is not mentioned in v. 25; the text only refers to the father of the boy. All these considerations suggest that part of the plus in Greek contains an earlier expansion that sought to correct the offense that a woman would have sacrificed.67 Consequently, the text probably developed as follows: In the original text Hanna went alone with the boy to Shiloh to introduce him to the divinity. A suggested reconstruction of the original text is: 24

8BF 98@FN9 8M@M A=LH5 C== @5D9 ;BK N;4 8H=49 9@M 898=.N=5 45N9 8BF LFD89 25 898= =DH@ 9845N9 LH8.N4 ü;MN9 =@F.@4 LFD8.N4 94=5N9

24 She took him up with her, with a three-year-old bull, an ephah of flour, and a jar of wine. And she entered the temple of Yhwh at Shiloh; and the child was with her. 25 She brought him before Yhwh, slaughtered the bull and brought the child to Eli.

Because it was regarded as unsuitable for a woman to offer sacrifices, a later editor introduced the father as the one who actually sacrificed. This redactional stage is preserved in the Greek. Originally Hanna was the only subject throughout these verses, but the expansion confused the original subject and the original intent, so that number in the verbs exhibits considerable variation. A later editor or censor omitted the whole scene inside the temple because it implied the presence of nonpriests sacrificing there to Yhwh. This stage is preserved in the MT text. Consequently, the passage shows that theological reasons could occasion expansions larger than merely one or two words.68 These verses have occasioned several theological corrections in different textual traditions. Similar omissions in the MT continue in 1 Sam 2.69 While the Greek version

67 Budde, Die Bücher Samuel, 12. 68 On the basis of the illogical reference to the father in the plus, Hutzli, Die Erzählung von Hanna und Samuel, 83 – 85, assumes that the MT is older. His reasoning is correct as to the secondary character of the reference to the father, but he fails to consider the possibility that the whole plus was not created by one author. 69 For a discussion of the other differences in the chapter, see Hutzli, Die Erzählung von Hanna und Samuel, 90 – 127, 141 – 145, and Anneli Aejmelaeus, “Hannah’s Psalm: Text, Composition, and Redaction,” in Houses Full of All Good Things: Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola (ed. J. Pakkala and M. Nissinen; PFES 95; Helsinki and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 354 – 376.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Theological Omissions in the Hanna Story in 1 Sam 1 – 2

207

again refers to the possibility that non-priests could be before or in front of Yhwh, such references have been taken out in the MT. As in the previous cases, it would be very difficult to explain why they were added in the LXX version, while their omission from the MTwould be understandable during the Second Temple period when such conceptions and practice had become unacceptable. According to the LXX version of 1 Sam 2:11 (10 – 11), Hanna left her son before Yhwh, where he ministered in front of the divinity, perhaps even worshipping his face. The MT has omitted and partly rephrased these theologically problematic conceptions.70 1 Sam 2:11 MT 9N=5.@F 8NBL8 8DK@4 ý@=9 898=.N4 NLMB 8=8 LFD89 C8?8 =@F =DH.N4

And Elkanah went to Ramah, to his home, and the boy ministered to Yhwh, in the presence of the priest Eli

1 Sam 2:(10–)11 LXX* Ja· jat´kipem aqt¹m 1je? 1m¾piom juq¸ou 1je· ja· pqosej¼mgsam tâ juq¸\ ja· !p/khem eQr Aqlahail, ja· t¹ paid²qiom Gm keitouqc_m t` pqos¾p\ juq¸ou 1m¾piom Gki toO Req´yr. And she left him there before Yhwh and they bowed down to worship Yhwh; and she went away to Armathaim and the boy ministered to the presence/face of Yhwh before Heli the priest.

The MT of this verse contains several secondary changes.71 According to most LXX witnesses, Hanna left her son in front of Yhwh (Ja· jat´kipem aqt¹m 1je? 1m¾piom juq¸ou),72 but the Lucianic text further adds that they also bowed down to worship Yhwh there (1je· ja· pqosej¼mgsam tâ juq¸\), presumably referring to Hanna and her son. The pqosej¼mgsam tâ juq¸\ probably goes back to the Hebrew Vorlage 898=@ 9;NM=9.73 Both plusses are missing in the MT. It is probable 70 Julio Trebolle-Barrera, “Textual Criticism and the Composition History of Samuel: Connections between Pericopes in 1 Samuel 1 – 4,” in Archaeology of the Books of Samuel: The Entangling of the Textual and Literary History (ed. P. Hugo and A. Schenker; VTsup 132; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010), 261– 285, here pp. 264– 268, has shown the further complication of this verse and its relationship with 1 Sam 1:28. See also Driver, Notes, 22– 23, 28 – 29. 71 Contra Pisano, Additions or Omissions, 26 – 28, who appeals to the principle lectio difficilior potior and assumes that the MT is original throughout the verse. Pisano’s argumentation is generally flawed here because he elevates the principle lectio difficilior potior above other considerations. He does not acknowledge that the LXX often contains theologically offensive conceptions. His theory does not explain why such conceptions were added to the LXX text. 72 LXXL reads here ja· jat´kipom aqt¹m 1m¾piom juq¸ou and makes a further secondary addition. The plural is probably a secondary correction and harmonization between the original LXX and the MT. Similarly, for the LXXB !p/khem, LXXL reads !p/khom, which makes both Elkanah and Hanna go to Rama. 73 The MT is assumed to be secondary by Budde, Die Bücher Samuel, 17, but he fails to note the additional plus in the Lucianic text; Similarly, Driver, Notes, 28; Schultz, Die Bücher Samuel,

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

208

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

that the MT has been intentionally abridged because the shared Greek text may be read to imply that Yhwh had a physical presence in the temple. Such an interpretation is even more evident on the basis of the Lucianic text. Samuel was left in front of the divinity, whom he also bowed down to in order to worship him. Moreover, the Lucianic text also implies that Hanna remained in the temple worshipping, which is an idea that has been omitted in the MTof 1 Sam 1 as well, as we have seen. Moreover, instead of Hanna going to Rama, as the Greek reads,74 in the MT the one who goes to Rama is Elkanah. The MT is probably secondary here as well, because Elkanah otherwise plays no role in the passage. We have also seen in 1 Sam 1 that Elkanah was secondarily introduced into some scenes. This is probably an attempt to diminish Hanna’s prominent role, a secondary tendency that is also found in other parts of the MT of 1 Sam 1 – 2. Another significant variant is found in v. 11b. The original LXX appears to contain the very unorthodox idea that Samuel ministered or served the presence or face of Yhwh (keitouqc_m t` pqos¾p\ juq¸ou). The MT has avoided the idea by saying that he served Yhwh in the presence (in front) of Eli the priest (=@F =DH.N4). The MT is grammatically confusing as it appears to contain two objects not separated by a conjunction (=DH.N4 898=.N4). Because its meaning is also ambiguous, it is probably a secondary correction of an original reading that contained a theological problem. The LXX in contrast is grammatically relatively clear and probably goes back to the following Vorlage: C8?8 =@F =DH@ 898= =DH.N4 NLMB 8=8 LFD89. Although many have assumed that the LXX otherwise contains the more original readings in this verse as well as in its wider context, it is surprising that many have argued that the MT is correct in 898=.N4 NLMB and fail to recognize that the reading in the LXX can hardly be a later correction because it introduces a very peculiar and unorthodox theological conception.75 The text would suggest that Samuel did a special temple service for Yhwh’s face or statue before (under the protection of) Eli, which is why many late revisers would have tried to correct the text. Many passages prohibit the making of an image of Yhwh (e. g., Deut 5:8), let alone the worship of his face. A similar correction may be found in 1 Sam 3:1, where only Greek manuscript 55 seems to have preserved the idea that Yhwh’s face was 34. Partly following 4QSama, Hutzli, Die Erzählung von Hanna und Samuel, 87 – 89, reconstructs the older MT as 8BL8 ý@N9 898=@ 9;NMN9 898= =DH@ AM 985:FN9, but in the rest of the verse he follows the LXX (with some reservations). Cf. however, the even more complicated earlier history of the verse and the passage as argued by Trebolle, “Textual Criticism,” 264 – 268. In contrast, Pisano, Additions or Omissions, 26 – 28, assumes that the MT is original here because it represents the more difficult text. He fails to acknowledge the recurring attempt in the MT to diminish Hanna’s role in the events. 74 Although the Greek does not distinguish the gender in the verb, it is obvious that Hanna was meant. 75 Thus for example, Smith, The Books of Samuel, 17; Schultz, Die Bücher Samuel, 17, 33.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Theological Omissions in the Hanna Story in 1 Sam 1 – 2

209

served. The MT has preserved this idea only in 1 Sam 2:18 (898= =DH.N4 NLMB), a vestige that corroborates the suspicion that the reading is original in 1 Sam 2:11 and 3:1 as well. Consequently, the older text would therefore seem to imply that the face of the divinity had a special role in the cult (cf. Penuel, the face of El, in Gen 32:30).76 This is well in accordance with the other theological corrections in other parts of the Hebrew scriptures where later editors have sought to eradicate references to Yhwh’s face.77 According to the MTof 1 Sam 2:36, the descendants of Eli will ask the house of the faithful priestly lineage (v. 35) to be accepted for priesthood so that they may eat a piece of bread: A;@.NH @?4@ N9D8?8 N;4.@4 4D =D;HE LB49 (“please put me in one of the priest’s places, that I may eat a morsel of bread”). While most Greek manuscripts follow the MT,78 the Lucianic text and some other Greek manuscripts read %qtom juqiou instead of %qtom, and this reading is supported by an Old Latin witness (Codex Gothicus Legionensis), which reads panem Domini.79 It is unlikely that the reference to Yhwh’s bread is a secondary addition, because its addition would run counter to the later conception that only the Aaronide priests were allowed to eat the bread of God (A=8@4 A;@).80 It is therefore probable that the main witnesses contain a theological omission.81 The older text implied that all who had a priestly function were allowed to eat divine bread. In this section I have sought to draw attention to some clear examples of intentional omissions in 1 Sam 1 – 2, but these chapters contain several further textual variants between the Greek and Hebrew witnesses. Many of them have been discussed since 19th century scholarship, but they would certainly warrant a more systematic investigation from the perspective of the history of Israel’s religion. The Greek witnesses may have preserved vestiges of older conceptions that later became unacceptable in emerging Judaism. In many cases the MT is the result of a theological censoring that eradicated older conceptions. That such a short passage yields so many examples of theologically significant omissions in the MT was unanticipated, but perhaps even more surprising is the fact that the 2nd-century Greek translation still contained so many ancient conceptions that would have conflicted with conceptions of the emerging Judaism. The evidence 76 Penuel was probably a cult site where one would be able to see the face of El. Gen 32:30 may be a vestige of a cult legend that told the story of its foundation. 77 Cf. the discussion above, especially on Deut 16:16 and related passages. 78 K´cym Paq²qixºm le 1p· l¸am t_m Reqatei_m sou vace?m %qtom. 79 Especially Codex Goth. Legionensis. Other Old Latin manuscripts have avoided the idea. 80 Thus Lev 21:6, 8, 17, 21, 22; 22:25. 81 Similarly, Hutzli, Die Erzählung von Hanna und Samuel, 129. However, several scholars follow the MT. For example, Budde, Die Bücher Samuel, 25, has argued that the construction 898= A;@.NH is improbable and therefore the LXX reading should be rejected. Nevertheless, he fails to explain why one would later add the idea that an ousted priestly line would possibly have access to the bread that only the Aaronide priests were allowed to eat.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

210

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

in these chapters implies that radical changes and omissions may have been common when the older text contained theologically offensive conceptions.

The Watering Down of a Water Pouring Ritual First Samuel 7:6 preserves vestiges of an ancient propitiation ritual at Mizpah.82 Before confessing their sins, the Israelites pour water in front of the deity. Although both the MT and LXX versions contain conceptions that became unorthodox in later Judaism, the MT may contain an omission, the purpose of which was to dilute the offense. According to the LXX version, the Israelites poured the water onto the ground, while the MT omits the reference to the ground. 1 Sam 7:6 MT 8NHJB8 9J5K=9 A=B.954M=9 898= =DH@ 9?HM=9 4988 A9=5 9B9J=9 898=@ 9D4ü; AM 9LB4=9 @49BM üHM=9 8HJB5 @4LM= =D5.N4

So they gathered at Mizpah, and drew water and poured it out before Yhwh, and fasted on that day, and said there, “We have sinned against Yhwh.” Then Samuel judged the people of Israel at Mizpah.

1 Sam 7:6 LXX ja· sum¶whgsam eQr Lassgvah ja· rdqe¼omtai vdyq ja· 1n´weam 1m¾piom juq¸ou 1p· tµm c/m ja· 1m¶steusam 1m t0 Bl´qô 1je¸m, ja· eWpam Jlaqt¶jalem 1m¾piom juq¸ou· ja· 1d¸jafem Salougk to»r uRo»r Isqagk eQr Lassgvah. So they gathered at Mizpah, and drew water and poured it out on the earth before Yhwh, and fasted on that day, and said there, “We have sinned against Yhwh.” And Samuel judged the people of Israel at Mizpah.

The omission in the MT may have been made in order to avoid an explicit connection with a water pouring ritual.83 Another reason for the omission may 82 Thus since early research; see, for example, Budde, Die Bücher Samuel, 49. On the other hand, some scholars have been more skeptical; thus for example, Smith, The Books of Samuel, 53; According to Driver, Notes, 64, the verse probably does not refer to a libation but to a symbolic act. 83 Cf. KTU 1.12. II ii l. 57 – 61. According to Johannes Cornelis de Moor, An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit (Nisaba 16; Leiden: Brill Archive, 1987), 134, “[t]he pouring down of water was a well known rain charm.” Similarly, John Gibson, “The Mythological Texts,” in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (ed. N. Wyatt; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 1999), 195 – 202, here p. 200.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

211

Gods of the Philistines Changed to Idols in 2 Sam 5:21

have been to avoid the clear implication that Yhwh was standing at a certain spot. While the LXX implies a concrete location where the divinity was located, the MT can be read in an abstract way so as to assume that he was not actually physically present. The minus in the MT is thus probably a theological omission.

Gods of the Philistines Changed to Idols in 2 Sam 5:21 After having defeated the Philistines in battle, the MT of 2 Sam 5:21 describes how David and his men took the idols that the Philistines had left at Baalperazim. According to the Greek text, the Philistines left their gods (to»r heo»r aqt_m) there, whereas the MT refers to the idols that were left (A8=5JF). The LXX reading is partly shared by 1 Chr 14:12, which also refers to the gods (A8=8@4): 1 Chr 14:12

2 Sam 5:21 MT

AM.95:F=9 [email protected] M45 9HLM=9 7=97 LB4=9

AM.95:F=9 A8=5JF.N4 A4M=9 9=MD49 797

They left their gods there, and David commanded them to be burned.

They left their idols there, and David and his men took them.

2 Sam 5:21 LXX ja· jatakilp²mousim 1je? to»r heo»r aqt_m, ja· 1k²bosam aqto»r Dauid ja· oR %mdqer oR letû aqtoO. They left their gods there, and David and the men with him took them.

It is probable that the LXX version of 2 Sam 5:21 represents the oldest reading,84 while both the MTof this verse and 1 Chr 14:12 are later corrections. The original text was problematic for the conceptions of later Judaism because David took the gods of foreign nations with him. It would contradict several passages in the Pentateuch according to which foreign gods would have to be destroyed (e. g., Deut 12:3). On the other hand, the LXX accords with the common practice in the ancient Near Eastern that the winner of a battle takes the statues of the gods of the enemy and brings them to his state temple (cf. 1 Sam 4 – 5). This corroborates the suspicion that the LXX preserves the more original reading. The Chronicler has changed the text to accord with the pentateuchal conceptions by omitting the idea that the gods were taken and adding instead an order by David to his men to burn them. The MT has solved the problem by replacing the word A8=8@4 with A8=5JF, referring to idols, which would thus clearly 84 Thus already Wellhausen, Text der Bücher Samuelis, 166; Budde, Die Bücher Samuel, 225; Driver, Notes, 264; Smith, The Books of Samuel, 290 – 291, as well as recently, Jürg Hutzli, “Theologische Textänderungen im masoretischen Text und in der Septuaginta von 1 – 2 Sam,” in Archaeology of the Books of Samuel, 223 – 224.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

212

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

categorize them as items without power. The implication is that David is not going to bring the items to his temple. The correction in the MT is small but shows again that separate words could be replaced for theological purposes.

Asherah Omitted in 2 Sam 5:24 Jürg Hutzli has recently brought attention to a neglected but significant variant in 2 Sam 5:24.85 The MT contains an intentional omission in the MT, while the LXX probably preserves the original text. Verses 22 – 25 describe the battle between David and the Philistines in the valley of the Rephaim. David asks Yhwh how to deal with the Philistines. The divinity instructs David to outflank them so that he will be behind them (v. 23), and this is followed by instructions on when exactly to attack (v. 24): 2 Sam 5:24 MT @9K.N4 ýFBM5/? =8=9 87FJ A=4?58 =M4L5 IL;N :4 ý=DH@ 898= 4J= :4 =? A=NM@H 8D;B5 N9?8@

When you hear the sound of marching in the tops of the weeping (trees), then act; for then Yhwh goes before you to smite the camp of the Philistines.

2 Sam 5:24 LXX* ja· 5stai 1m t` !joOsa¸ se tµm vymµm toO sumseisloO (87FE) toO %ksour/t_m !ks_m toO jkauhl_mor, tºte jatab¶sei pq¹r aqto¼r /eeQr t¹m pºkelom, fti tºte 1neke¼setai j¼qior 5lpqosh´m sou jºpteim 1m t` pok´l\ t_m !kkov¼kym. When you hear the sound of commotion of Asherah of the weeping (trees)/of Bokim, then go down to them, for then Yhwh goes forth before you to make havoc in the battle against the foreigners.

Hutzli has rightly argued that the Greek toO %ksour/t_m !ks_m toO jkauhl_mor is to be preferred over the A=4?58 =M4L5 of the MT. In the LXX, the Greek word %ksor is nearly always the translation of the Hebrew Vorlage 8LM4 ; here the Vorlage would have read A=4?58 8LM4 87FE86 and would refer to the commotion 85 Hutzli, “Theologische Textänderungen,” 224 – 230. Cf. Kyle P. McCarter, II Samuel (AB 9; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1984), 152, who is somewhat more reserved about the importance of the variants. 86 There is also notable variance between 87FJ, toO sumseisloO and sucjkeislor. Here sumseislor (LXXLMN + several other mss. , Armenian etc.), meaning “earthquake” or “commotion of earth or air,” is to be preferred over sucjkeislor (LXXAB), which refers to “confinement,” “closeness,” and “conclusion.” For possible translations, see Henry G. Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon. The word sucjkeislor seems to provide no meaning in this context, as noted by McCarter, II Samuel, 152, and Hutzli, “Theologische Textänderungen,”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

References to the Temple of Yhwh Omitted in 2 Samuel

213

caused by the Asherah of Bokim, a divinity known to be present at a place called Bokim.87 This would make perfect sense here and it would be very difficult to explain how the LXX translation came about if it did not represent the original text. The MT, however, is easily explained as a theological correction, because the text seems to suggest that Yhwh and Asherah were closely connected divinities, an idea also corroborated by the ostraca from Kuntillet Ajrud and Khirbet elQom. The LXX reading suggests that Asherah, perhaps in the form of a tree, indicated the beginning of the action by Yhwh, which implies that these two divinities worked together to destroy the Philistine army. Although the possibility of an accidental corruption is evoked by McCarter, one should reject it and follow Hutzli’s suggestion instead.88 The original text would thus refer to the commotion caused by Asherah of Bokim or of weeping (trees). That Bokim was the name of the place is suggested by v. 23 (A=4?5 @9BB A8@ N459 ; note that in v. 24 the Hebrew additionally includes the article: A=4?58). For our purposes it is significant that the MT contains an intentional theological omission where a reference to the close connection between Yhwh and Asherah was omitted by replacing the word Asherah with a word that contains many of the same letters but that changes the meaning completely (=M4L5 ~ 8LM4). The MT implies that only Yhwh is acting and that his form is somehow marching on top of the trees, while the LXX suggests that Asherah was also an active participant in the events.

References to the Temple of Yhwh Omitted in 2 Samuel According to 1 Kgs 5 – 8, Solomon built Yhwh’s temple. David was not allowed to build it because he had been too busy with his military campaigns (1 Kgs 5:3) or had shed too much blood (1 Chr 17:4; 28:3). These conceptions have been influential in the Hebrew scriptures and have also influenced our understanding of the early history of Israel. Many scholars assume that historically Solomon built the temple. However, some vestiges in 2 Samuel suggest that there was already a temple of Yhwh in Jerusalem during the time of David. This idea is found in all main versions of 2 Sam 12:20.89 Whereas this is the only passage in 225 – 227. While one cannot exclude the possibility that the difference between 87FJ and 87FE was accidentally caused, an intentional change is more probable. Hutzli has noted that the MT may be an attempt to imply that there was a natural phenomenon, a breeze in the trees, that was a sign of Yhwh’s activity. On the other hand, the word 87FJ can also refer to marching or stepping so that the editor would have wanted to imply that Yhwh was walking on the trees. 87 LXXB also adds apo before toO %ksour, but this is probably a further attempt to avoid the idea that the Asherah was an active actor in the scene. 88 Hutzli, “Theologische Textänderungen,” 226. 89 MT: … 9N=5.@4 45=9 9;NM=9 898=.N=5 45=9 9=N@BM 9N@BM G@;=9 ýE=9 I;L=9 IL48B 797 AK=9 (David rose from the

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

214

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

the MT that implies the existence of a temple during the time of David, other witnesses have preserved further vestiges that undermine the conception rising out of 1 Kgs 5 – 8 that there was no temple before Solomon. It appears that the MT has been corrected to conform to 1 Kings 5 – 8 so that references to the temple, direct or indirect, have been secondarily omitted. The original readings are only preserved in the Old Greek that is variably preserved in some Greek manuscripts and the Old Latin. Although the readings have been known since earlier research, the discussion of these passages has recently been rekindled by Philippe Hugo, who has convincingly shown that the original LXX is to be preferred in all these cases over the MT.90 For our enterprise it is important that some of the readings in the MTare the result of intentional theological omissions. All the arguments in favor of the MT need not be repeated in detail here. A review of the textual differences suffices to illustrate what is taking place. The significant differences are found in 2 Sam 5:8; 7:11 and 15:25, but 2 Sam 7:15 – 16 is also closely related to the issue. In the MT version of 2 Sam 5:8 the reference to the temple of Yhwh was avoided by omitting the word Yhwh. The more original reading is found in the LXX:91 2 Sam 5:8 MT 4988 A9=5 797 LB4=9 A=;EH8.N49 L9DJ5 F6=9 =E5= 8?B.@? A=L9F8.N49 797 MHD =4DM 94DM L9F 9LB4= C?.@F 495= 4@ ;EH9 N=58.@4

And David said on that day, “Whoever would smite the Jebusite(s), let him get up the water shaft to attack the lame and the blind, those who are hated by David’s soul.” Therefore it is said, “The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.”

2 Sam 5:8 LXX ja· eWpem Dauid t0 Bl´qô 1je¸m, P÷r t¼ptym Iebousa?om "pt´shy 1m paqaniv¸di ja· to»r wyko»r ja· to»r tuvko»r ja· to»r lisoOmtar tµm xuwµm Dauid· di± toOto 1qoOsim Tuvko· ja· wyko· oqj eQseke¼somtai eQr oWjom juq¸ou. And David said on that day, “Whoever smites the/a Jebusite, let him attack with the dagger the lame and the blind, and those who hate the soul of David.” Therefore they say, “The lame and the blind shall not enter into the house of Yhwh.”

ground, washed, anointed himself and changed his clothes. Then he went into the temple of Yhwh, and worshiped). 90 Philippe Hugo, “The Jerusalem Temple seen in Second Samuel according to the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint,” XIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Ljubljana, 2007, 187 – 200. 91 Note that the two versions of the verse contain other differences as well. These were partly caused by the ambiguous content, but this need not concern us here.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

References to the Temple of Yhwh Omitted in 2 Samuel

215

In addition to the LXX, an Old Latin witness also refers to the temple of Yhwh (Codex Vindobona: in domum dmi). The Vulgate partly follows the MT by omitting a reference to Yhwh, but it nevertheless refers to the temple (… et claudus non intrabunt templum). It is very probable that the LXX is more original than the MT. The MT is puzzling as it does not say which house was meant. It cannot be the citadel, as the word N=5 usually does not refer to a citadel (cf. 2 Sam 5:9, where the citadel is referred to as 87JB). It can hardly be a reference to the palace either, because no such is mentioned in this context. The content of what David actually says also suggests that the temple was meant. It prohibits entrance for those who have physical defects. A related idea is met in Deut 23:1, according to which “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of Yhwh.” We are dealing with an idea of purity of the temple, whereas such a prohibition concerning the palace or any other house would be difficult to explain. The translation of the Vulgate also suggests that regardless of the missing reference to Yhwh, it would have been difficult to understand the text in any other way than as a reference to the temple. Nathan’s prophecy (2 Sam 7:5 – 16) contains several textual differences between the witnesses, some of which are related to the existence of the temple. According to the MT of 2 Sam 7:11b, Yhwh promised to make David a house, which would seem to be a reference to the Davidic dynasty. This would be logical as David is commonly regarded as the founder of the Judean dynasty. However, the LXX differs essentially from this understanding in v. 11bb: 2 Sam 7:11b MT 898= ý@ 7=689 898= ý@.8MF= N=5.=?

Yhwh lets you know that Yhwh will make you a house.

2 Sam 7:11b LXX ja· !pacceke? soi j¼qior fti oWjom oQjodol¶seir aqt`. Yhwh lets you know that you will build him a house

In contrast with the MT, the LXX can only be understood as a reference to a temple, because it refers to a house that David will build for him, which can only be a reference to Yhwh. Moreover, the verb used in the LXX is oQjodol]y, which appears not to go back to the verb 8MF, as in the MT, but to the verb 8D5. This is corroborated by the parallel in 1 Chr 17:10, which reads 898= ý@.8D5= N=5.92 The verb 8D5 refers more concretely to a building and not a dynasty, for which the verb 8MF is more suitable. A further indication that the original text contained a problem is the Lucianic text (and other Greek mss.), which instead of oQjodol¶seir (2nd 92 1 Chr 17:10 thus follows the interpretation of the MTof 2 Sam 7:11, but preserves the original verb, which fits poorly in reference to the dynasty. The verb 8MF fits much better with the dynastic interpretation.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

216

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

person sg.) renders the verb as oQjodol¶sei (3rd person sg.), making Yhwh the only possible subject of the sentence. This reading is connected with another change in the Lucianic text, as the word aqt` is rendered as eaqt` with the effect that the text refers to the future building of the temple by Yhwh himself. In other words, the MT and the Lucianic text both seem to be separate attempts to avoid the idea that David had built Yhwh’s temple, which would have contradicted 1 Kgs 5 – 8. This suggests that more than one later editor was disturbed by the older text. The repetition of Yhwh as a subject in the MT version is also peculiar. There would be no need to repeat Yhwh, unless there was a problem in the text. It discloses the editor’s attempt to emphasize that Yhwh is the subject here and not David.93 Consequently, the LXX is probably original in referring to the building of Yhwh’s temple in Jerusalem. It conflicts with the conventional conception and explains the emergence of the two secondary attempts to avoid the problem. How the original reading is correlated with 1 – 2 Kings lies beyond the scope of this investigation. It is probably a vestige of an entirely different conception about the origins of the Jerusalemite cult than what most texts of the Hebrew scriptures and later Judaism represent. For our purposes it is important that the original reading, probably to be retroverted in Hebrew as 9@ 8D5N N=5.=?, was mutilated in the MTwith the omission of the verb 8D5N, the change of the suffix in 9@ to ý@ and the addition of the subject 898=. Another smaller correction with a similar effect may be found in 2 Sam 7:15. Verse 12 introduces a prophecy about David’s descendant and follower to the throne. The MT and LXX contain two small differences. 2 Sam 7:15 MT 9DBB L9E=.4@ =7E;9 @94M AFB =NLE8 LM4? ý=DH@B =NLE8 LM4

I will not remove my favor from him, as I removed it from Saul, whom I put away from before you.

2 Sam 7:15 LXX t¹ d³ 5keºr lou oqj !post¶sy !pû aqtoO, jah½r !p´stgsa !vû ¨m !p´stgsa 1j pqos¾pou lou. I will not remove my favor from him, as I removed it from those, whom I removed from before me.

Whereas the MT refers to Saul who was removed from being king in order to make room for David, the LXX makes a general reference to David’s predecessors (plural in ¨m) who had been removed from being in front of the deity. It is probable that the LXX preserves the more original text here.94 The LXX is 93 Budde, Die Bücher Samuel, 235, and Smith, The Books of Samuel, 30, assume that the text has been corrupted, but there is no need to assume a corruption of consonants here because the LXX makes perfect sense (although it is not in accordance with many conceptions). 94 Thus many, for example, Budde, Die Bücher Samuel, 235, who assumes that the “MT ist lediglich Auslegung.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

References to the Temple of Yhwh Omitted in 2 Samuel

217

partially supported by the parallel verse in 1 Chr 17:13, which in the MT reads ý=DH@ 8=8 LM4B =N9L=E8 LM4? 9BFB L=E4.4@. It lacks the reference to Saul but contains the verb 8=8 in the singular. The LXX of 1 Chr 17:13 also preserves the original plural and has !p¹ t_m emtym for 8=8 LM4B. It is probable that the MT of 1 Chr 17:13 and the MT of 2 Sam 7:15 are separate attempts to avoid the problem in the original text, which probably read =DH@ 9=8 LM4B =NLE8. Without the inclusion of the verb, the plurals in the LXX versions would be incomprehensible, as ý=DH@ LM4B =N9L=E8 would be perfectly comprehensible but would not give any reason to introduce the ideologically more problematic plural in Greek. It is understandable why the plural has been omitted and Saul added in the MT of 2 Sam 7:15. The general narrative only acknowledges the existence of one king before David, which conflicts with the plural. The omission of the plural and its replacement by Saul would thus be a later harmonization with the broader narrative. Of course, some other passages do imply the existence of Israelite kings before Saul (Judg 9:6), but they are only vestiges that have been accidentally spared from the harmonization. The conception that later established itself was based on 1 Sam 8, according to which the Israelites did not have a king before Saul. It is only then that they requested one against Yhwh’s advice. Theologically interesting is also the change of the first person suffix at the end of the verse to the second person. This effectively removes the idea that the kings had been in some way before the divinity. Although it could also be understood metaphorically, the reference to the king as son of God in 2 Sam 7:14 should not be underestimated. Combined with the repeated but often modified or mutilated references to the cultic presence in front of the face of Yhwh95 it is more probable than not that the original text of 2 Sam 7:15 contained a reference to the presence of the kings in front of the divinity as some form of cultic ritual or as a cultic position that gave a divine legitimacy to the king to rule his people. Because we are dealing with accidentally preserved minor vestiges, it is not possible to be more specific without a more comprehensive investigation and comparison with the conceptions in the rest of the ancient Near East. In any case, that there was a problem with the original reference to the predecessors of David being in front of the divinity is suggested by the fact that the MT of 2 Sam 7:15 and both versions of 2 Chr 17:13 have changed the suffix. If the sentence had been understood only metaphorically, it would be difficult to explain why it was changed. The correction in 2 Sam 7:11b occasioned another correction at the end of Nathan’s prophecy in 2 Sam 7:16. The MT exclusively refers to the addresses in the second person, which in this context would be David, whereas the LXX refers

95 Cf. the discussion on the question of whether Yhwh can be seen above (e. g., Gen 32:31; Exod 23:17; 24:9 – 11; 34:21 – 24 and Deut 16:16).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

218

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

to an unnamed person in the third person. The first person reference to Yhwh in the LXX (1loO) is also rendered with the second person in the MT: 2 Sam 7:16 MT ýN?@BB9 ýN=5 CB4D9 ý=DH@ [email protected] [email protected] C9?D 8=8= ý4E?

Your house and your kingdom will be before you forever. Your throne will remain firm forever

2 Sam 7:16 LXX ja· pistyh¶setai b oWjor aqtoO ja· B basike¸a aqtoO 6yr aQ_mor 1m¾piom 1loO, ja· b hqºmor aqtoO 5stai !myqhyl´mor eQr t¹m aQ_ma. His house and his kingdom will be before me forever. His throne will remain firm forever.

In accordance with the preceding text that discusses Solomon’s role, the unnamed person in the LXX can only be Solomon.96 It is probable that the LXX represents the more original text in this verse.97 This is suggested by the parallel verse in 1 Chr 17:14, which follows the LXX in the third person singular suffixes: [email protected] C9?D 8=8= 94E?9 [email protected] =N9?@B59 =N=55 98=N7BF89. First Chronicles 17:14 has avoided the problem in the original text by other corrections.98 The reason for the changes in the MTof 2 Sam 7:16 is the necessary switching of roles between David and Solomon. The original text referred to David as the builder of the temple (v. 11) and Solomon as the founder of the dynasty (v. 16), but in accordance with the general narrative of the combined stories in 1 – 2 Samuel and 1 – 2 Kings, the roles would have to be reversed. In accordance with 1 Kgs 5 – 8, Solomon was made the builder of the temple, which naturally made it impossible for David to build it. Stripped of his role as the builder, it was necessary to give David at least some part to play and therefore he was ascribed the role of the founder of the dynasty. Now, it is unclear what this means for the “original” relationship between these two kings, but it appears to have been very different from what is commonly assumed in the Hebrew scriptures and in scholarship. It would certainly warrant a more comprehensive investigation to determine the development of the relationship between these two kings. In any case, the MTof 2 Sam 7:16 contains a secondary correction that harmonizes their relationship with the broader narrative in 1 – 2 Samuel and 1 – 2 Kings.99 96 Although technically Saul would be the last person mentioned in v. 15, it is probably a later addition as we have seen and it would nonetheless make little sense that Saul was meant here. 97 Thus also Budde, Die Bücher Samuel, 235; Smith, Samuel, 302; Hugo, “The Jerusalem Temple,” 188 – 190. 98 In 1 Chr 17:13 Solomon is said to be established in Yhwh’s house and in his own kingdom for ever. 99 The primacy of the readings in 2 Sam 7:16 has been discussed by several scholars with the priority of both versions finding supporters. Barth¦lemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

References to the Temple of Yhwh Omitted in 2 Samuel

219

The reference to the presence of the descendant before David (ý=DH@ [email protected]) in the MT makes little sense, while the LXX is clear : 1m¾piom 1loO. This difference should be seen in the light of a similar correction in the MT of 2 Sam 7:15 where the idea of the king being in front of the divinity was removed. That the same idea was corrected twice in adjacent verses corroborates the suspicion that the original text was regarded as theologically problematic.100 The lack of parallel to the whole word ý=DH@/=DH@ (1m¾piom 1loO) in 1 Chr 17:14 further suggests that the idea was theologically sensitive and had to be dropped out. Like the other corrections in the MT 2 Sam 7:16, the correction was achieved by replacing the original suffix and person with new ones. David’s flight from Jerusalem after Absalom had seized power is described in 2 Sam 15:13 – 31. Zadok was apparently planning to take the Ark with the fleeing David (v. 24), but David tells him to return it to the city (v. 25). The MT, Codex Vaticanus and many other Greek witnesses are unspecific with regard to the particular place that the Ark should be brought back to, while Codex Alexandrinus, the Lucianic text and other Greek manuscripts contain a significant plus here. There is also a small but significant difference at the very end of the verse. 2 Sam 15:25 MT (+ LXXB) K97J@ ý@B8 LB4=9 L=F8 A=8@48 C9L4.N4 5M8 898= =D=F5 C; 4JB4.A4 =D4L89 =D5M89 989D.N49 9N4

The king said to Zadok, “Return the Ark of God to the city. If I find favor in Yhwh’s eyes, he will bring me back, and show it to me and its abode.”

2 Sam 15:25 LXXAL ja· eWpem b basike»r t` Sadyj )pºstqexom tµm jibyt¹m toO heoO eQr tµm pºkim. jai jahisaty eir tom topom autgr 1±m evqy w²qim 1m avhaklo?r juq¸ou, ja· 1pistq´xei le ja· de¸nei loi aqtµm ja· tµm eqpq´peiam aqt/r· The king said to Sadoc, “Return the Ark of God into the city. and be placed in its place if I find favor in Yhwh’s eyes, he will bring me back, and show it to me and its beauty.”

Testament 1, 246 – 47, and many following him, assume that the LXX is a secondary messianization of the verse. William M. Schniedewind, “Notes and Observations Textual Criticism and Theological Interpretation: The Pro-Temple Tendenz in the Greek Text of Samuel-Kings,” HTR 87 (1994): 107 – 116, here pp. 112 – 113, sees the LXX as generally secondary in the here discussed cases of 2 Sam 7 and assumes that the LXX “reflects a protemple theology.” He fails to recognize the fundamental contradiction between the LXX and the conventional conceptions, which is already a strong argument in favor of the LXX and against the MT. 100 According to Schniedewind, “Notes and Observations,” 113, the difference between ý=DH@ and (1m¾piom 1loO) =DH@ is a “simple case of dittography” in the LXX, but this is hardly correct, because a very similar correction was made in v. 15.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

220

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

Several scholars since early research have assumed that the large minus in the MT is secondary and that the plus in LXXAL represents the original reading.101 As noted by Hugo, the plus in Greek finds an easy correspondence in Hebrew (9B9KB5 5M=9), which suggests that the plus was already included in the Hebrew Vorlage.102 The word A9KB reveals the problem that the plus would have. It is often used to refer to the place of the ark inside the temple. According to 1 Kgs 8:6, the Ark was placed in its place (9B9KB.@4) in the holy of holies of the temple.103 In later Judaism this connotation of the word became even stronger. The plus implies that the Ark already had a fixed place where it was located, which implies the existence of Yhwh’s temple in Jerusalem. That the plus is original is corroborated by the final word of the verse, 89û D) , which refers to the abode of the Ark. This can hardly be anything than the temple. Peculiarly, all Greek witnesses have corrected this word and translated 989D.N4 as tµm eqpq´peiam aqt/r. The word 89û D) being similar to 89û 4D) (occasionally rendered as 89) D) ), the Greek is probably an attempt to avoid the even more explicit reference to the temple by opting for an alternative word. This only corroborates the suspicion that the original text was theologically problematic and that the minus in the MT and eqpq´peia in Greek are secondary attempts to avoid the problem.104 These passages show that older references to Yhwh’s temple in Jerusalem were omitted in the MTof 2 Samuel. Additional cases may be found,105 which may 101 Klostermann, Die Bücher Samuelis, 273– 274; Hugo, “The Jerusalem Temple,” 188 – 190, follows Budde. However, Smith, The Books of Samuel, 345, notes that the plus in LXXAL “is not necessary to the sense, and insertion is more likely than omission.” Similarly, Wilhelm Nowack, Richter, Ruth und Bücher Samuelis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902), 212. 102 Hugo, “The Jerusalem Temple,” 192. 103 1 Kgs 8:6: N=58 L=57.@4 9B9KB.@4 898=.N=L5 C9L4.N4 A=D8?8 945=9. 104 For further considerations to the same effect, see Hugo, “The Jerusalem Temple,” 191 – 193. 105 Additional related cases have been shown in 2 Sam 5:8 – 9 and 24:25 by Hugo, “The Jerusalem Temple,” 194 – 194, and “L’arch¦ologie textuelle du Temple de J¦rusalem: Êtude textuelle et litt¦raire du motif th¦ologique du Temple en 2 Samuel,” in Archaeology of the Books of Samuel: The Entangling of the Textual and Literary History, 161 – 212, here pp. 165 – 176, 200 – 208. The MT of 2 Sam 5:8 seems to have secondarily omitted the word 898=, which would mean that the original text referred to the temple of Yhwh in Jerusalem. Nevertheless, v. 5b seems to be a later gloss (thus Budde, Die Bücher Samuel, 220 – 221) and does not explicitly refer to a temple during the time of David but to the general existence of a saying. Therefore, the verse cannot be used as proof for the existence of a tradition that assumed that there was a temple during the time of David. This does not reduce the probability that the MT may contain an omission. In 2 Sam 24:25 the LXX may have preserved the older reading in the large plus that is missing in the MT (ja· pqos´hgjem Sakylym 1p· t¹ husiast¶qiom 1pû 1sw²t\, fti lijq¹m Gm 1m pq¾toir). The plus refers to the altar of the temple that would have been only small during the time of David and that was expanded by Solomon. Since the plus is “theologically very problematical,” as noted by Hugo, “Jerusalem Temple,” 196, it may have been omitted in the MT. Nevertheless, the plus has the air of a later addition, because it breaks the narrative sequence, suddenly takes a more historical perspective, unexpectedly introduces Solomon and seeks to combine David

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

The Temple of Yhwh in Hebron Omitted in 2 Sam 15:8

221

then lead to a better understanding about the relationship between David and the temple, but this lies beyond the focus of the present investigation. These cases nonetheless show that some editors could have omitted words or even sentences (2 Sam 15:25) if they did not accord with their theological conceptions or with the conceptions of the broader narrative. In the cases discussed here one may see a tendency to harmonize the text to accord with the broader narrative that emerged with the combination of the stories behind 1 – 2 Samuel with 1 – 2 Kings. Because the corrections are preserved in text-critical evidence, it seems probable that they were made relatively late, which implies that the harmonization of 1 – 2 Samuel with 1 – 2 Kings cannot have been made very early. This undermines the assumption that 1 – 2 Samuel with 1 – 2 Kings were already combined as part of the same unified story in the 6th century bce, as is assumed by the theory of the Deuteronomistic History proposed by Martin Noth.106 The Deuteronomization of 1 – 2 Samuel would appear to be a much later phenomenon so that it is witnessed in the text-critical evidence. It also appears that the Deuteronomization could even be achieved by omitting those parts of the text that conflicted with Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic ideals.

The Temple of Yhwh in Hebron Omitted in 2 Sam 15:8 The Lucianic text may preserve an ancient reference to the temple of Yhwh in Hebron, while the reading has been omitted in the MT. The other Greek witnesses seem to have been harmonized after the MT: 2 Sam 15:8b MT ý75F L7D L7D.=? LB4@ AL45 L9M65 =N5M5 898= =D5=M= 59M= 5=M=.A4 A@M9L= 898=.N4 =N75F9

For your servant vowed a vow while I dwelt at Geshur in Aram, saying, “If Yhwh brings me back to Jerusalem, I will offer worship to Yhwh”

2 Sam 15:8b LXXL fti eqwµm gunato b doOkºr sou fte 1jah¶lgm 1m (eir) Cesseiq 1m Suq¸ô k´cym 9±m 1pistq´vym 1pistq´x, le j¼qior eQr Ieqousakgl, ja· katqe¼sy t` juq¸\ em webqym. For your servant vowed a vow while I dwelt at Geshur in Syria, saying, “If Yhwh brings me back to Jerusalem, I will offer worship to Yhwh in Hebron”

and Solomon. In other words, there are two possibilities, the MT preserves an earlier redactional stage or the LXX is more original than the MT. In the latter case, one would thus have to assume that the sentence was added by an earlier editor with the goal of combining David’s actions with those of Solomon, but that a later editor removed the same sentence because of theological considerations. Occam’s razor would suggest the former alternative 106 Martin Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (Halle: Niemeyer, 1943).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

222

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

The difference between the Lucianic text and the other witnesses has been discussed since early research, but Philippe Hugo has recently raised the issue and argued that the Lucianic text is probably original.107 This view was already represented by Karl Budde and Henry P. Smith,108 while other scholars have assumed that the Lucianic text is a later addition.109 The primacy of the Lucianic reading is suggested by its incongruity with several theologically important passages in the Hebrew Bible. It suggests that there was a temple of Yhwh before Solomon thus conflicting with the idea that no such temple existed (cf. 1 Kgs 5 – 8; 1 Kgs 5:3 and 1 Chr 28:3).110 It also conflicts with the idea of cult centralization, which according to 1 – 2 Kings was one of the main criteria for evaluating Israelite and Judean kings. Moreover, the passage seems to imply that Yhwh’s temple in Hebron was the main Yahwistic sanctuary of the royal dynasty. That Absalom vows to go there if he may return to Jerusalem underlines the primacy of this temple, because Aram or Geshur, regardless of where exactly it was originally located, was north of Jerusalem. Returning from there one would have to pass Jerusalem in order to reach Hebron. This would undermine the role of Jerusalem as the main cult site. In contrast, the opposite direction of development, the secondary addition of Hebron in the Lucianic text, would be very difficult to explain because it runs counter to the increasing influence of Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic conceptions throughout the Hebrew Bible. It would be difficult to see the addition of a reference to a main cult site in Hebron, harbored by King David. Accordingly, the omission of Hebron should be seen as part of the Deuteronomization of 1 – 2 Samuel by later editors. Although the Deuteronomization usually was achieved by the addition of Deuteronomistic phrases and conceptions, in this passage an explicitly anti-Deuteronomistic conception, the existence of Yhwh’s main cult site in Hebron, had to be omitted.

Uzzah is Killed before God in 2 Sam 6:6 – 7 Second Samuel 6:6 – 7 describes how Uzzah was killed after he had touched the ark of God. The witnesses describe the location of his death differently. According to the MT of 2 Sam 6:7 he was killed “there beside the ark of God,” whereas according to the parallel Greek verse he was killed “there beside the ark in front of God.” The passage is made even more complicated by the parallel 107 108 109 110

Hugo, “The Jerusalem Temple,” 196 – 198. Budde, Die Bücher Samuel, 270; Smith, The Books of Samuel, 341 – 342. For example, Barth¦lemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament 1, 272. Although the passage does not explicitly refer to a temple, it implies that Yhwh or his cult image was present or located in Hebron, which then also implies his temple.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

223

Uzzah is Killed before God in 2 Sam 6:6 – 7

version of the passage in 1 Chr 13:10 which reads that he was killed “there in front of God.”111 2 Sam 6:6 – 7

6

C9?D CL6.7F 945=9 A=8@48 C9L4.@4 4:F ;@M=9 LK58 9üBM =? 95 :;4=9 7 8:F5 898= G4.L;=9 @M8.@F A=8@48 AM 98?=9 A=8@48 C9L4 AF AM NB=9

… ja· !p´hamem 1je? paq± tµm jibyt¹m toO juq¸ou 1m¾piom toO heoO.

1 Chr 13:9 – 10

9

C7=? CL6.7F 945=9 C9L48.N4 :;4@ 97=.N4 4:F ;@M=9 LK58 9üBM =? 10 4:F5 898= G4.L;=9 C9L48.@F 97= ;@M.LM4 @F 98?=9 A=8@4 =DH@ AM NB=9

… ja· !p´hamem 1je? !p´mamti toO heoO.

It is probable that the MT of 2 Sam 6:7 is a theological correction that tries to avoid the idea that God was physically present, which would imply the existence of a statue or other representation of the divinity.112 We have seen several other corrections that tried to conceal this ancient idea. The oldest reading is probably preserved in 1 Chr 13:10 because it suggests that death occurred in God’s physical presence.113 This is corroborated by the support of most Greek witnesses of 2 Sam 6:7, which also refer to the death in front of God.114 That the Greek text also follows the MT is probably the result of a recension that tried to harmonize the text with the MT.115 In effect then, the Greek text contains both the original reading and the later correction of the MT. As in many of the previous examples, the MT reading is a theological correction that necessitated the omission of an offending idea that was replaced with a more acceptable one.116 111 These verses contain many other variant readings, but our interest lies in the location of the killing. 112 Wellhausen, Text der Bücher Samuelis, 168, already assumed that the MT preserves a secondary reading in this verse. Robert Rezetko, Source and Revision in the Narratives of David’s Transfer of the Ark: Text, Language, and Story in 2 Samuel 6 and 1 Chronicles 13, 15 – 16 (Library of Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament Studies 470; New York and London: T & T Clark, 2007), 141 – 142, has suggested that the MTversion “reflects a conflated and reworked version of several traditions.” It is more probable that the LXX of the verse preserves two different textual traditions and that the MT is a secondary attempt to remove the offense of the original reading. 113 As shown by Rezetko, Source and Revision, 298 – 299, 1 Chr 13, 15 – 16 often preserves a literary stage of 2 Sam 6 that predates many of the later additions to 2 Sam 6. This has proven to be the case in our example text as well. 114 Some Sahidic witnesses have omitted the idea of the death taking place in front of God. The Latin witnesses follow the MT. 115 Thus Eugene Ulrich, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (HSM 19; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1978), 197 – 202. 116 Julio Trebolle Barrera, “Light from 4QJudga and 4QKgs on the Text of Judges and Kings,” in Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (ed. D. Dimant and U. Rappaport; STDJ 10; Leiden:

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

224

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

The Omission of References to the Sun-god117 First Kings 8 describes the dedication of the temple in Jerusalem, followed by Solomon’s speech, prayer, blessing and sacrifices. The chapter has undergone heavy editing by successive editors.118 In part the editing is reflected in the textual evidence,119 so that the chapter is a prime example of a text where literary- and text-critical considerations overlap. Our interest lies in verses 12 – 13 of the MT, which may preserve vestiges of an ancient text that was part of the chapter’s oldest textual layer.120 Verses 12 – 13 contain several problems so that even their main intention has remained controversial. Does the word N=5 refer to a temple or palace?121 Who is speaking to whom and in which part of the verses? It is also unclear which words belong to which sentences and which ones form a sentence. The problems are highlighted by the difference between the Hebrew and Greek versions. Not only is the Greek parallel to the Masoretic vv. 12 – 13 found after v. 53 (labelled v. 53a), it also preserves a much different and longer text from the MT.122 The textual problems have brought about several reconstructions of the original text,123 with most reconstructions essentially following the Greek. Al-

117 118 119 120 121 122

123

Brill, 1992), 315 – 324, implies that 2 Sam 6:7b contains a similar double reading as in 2 Sam 6:3 – 4, but this must be a misunderstanding. The variant readings in the MT of 2 Sam 6:7 and 1 Chr 13:10 are probably unrelated to the repetition, caused by dittography, of how the ark was carried out of the house of Aminadab in 2 Sam 6:3 – 4. 1 Chr 13:10 does not refer to the ark at all, and thereby the verse does not preserve a vestige of the second tradition. Trebolle Barrera’s view is followed by Rezetko, Source and Revision, 141 – 142. These verses are discussed in more detail in Juha Pakkala, “Yhwh, the Sun-god, Wants a New Temple: Theological Corrections in 1 Kgs 8:12 – 13/3Reg 8:53a,” in FS Anneli Aejmelaeus (ed. M. Law and M. Liljeström and K. De Troyer; Leuven: Peeters; forthcoming in 2013 – 14). See, e. g., Ernst Würthwein, Die Bücher der Könige 1.Könige 1 – 16 (ATD 11, 1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 84 – 103, and Petri Kasari, Nathan’s Promise in 2 Samuel 7 and Related Texts (PFES 97; Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 2009), 110 – 173. See Julio Trebolle-Barrera, “Authoritative Scripture as Reflected in the Textual Transmission of the Biblical Books: The Case of 1 Kings 3 – 10,” in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (ed. Mladen Popovic´ ; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010), 93 – 116, here 105 – 115. Thus many, for example, Immanuel Benzinger, Bücher der Könige (KHC IX; Freiburg i.B.: J.C.B. Mohr, 1899), 59; John Gray, I & II Kings (OTL; London: SCM Press, 1964), 196 – 197; Gwylum H. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings (NCBC; vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 196 – 197. The Greek version seems to refer to both the temple and palace. Several scholars, such as Gray, I & II Kings, 196 – 197, suggest that the Hebrew also refers to the palace and the temple. There are no major differences between the Greek witnesses. The most important difference can be found in the Antiochene text (mss. bioxc2e2), which reads ja· eWpe where other Greek witnesses read eWpem. This seems to be a secondary attempt to make sense out of a confusing text. In place of 1cm¾qisem the Antiochene text has 5stgsem, but this is also a later improvement to explain the confusing sentence. The correction “The Lord placed the Sun in the heaven,” accords with Gen 1. See Martin Rösel, “Salomo und die Sonne: Zur Rekonstruktion des Tempelweihspruchs 1

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

225

The Omission of References to the Sun-god

though the Greek may preserve parts of the older text that were omitted in the MT, the textual history of these verses may be even more complicated. It is probable that neither the MT nor the LXX preserves the oldest text in full. Each part of the verses has to be discussed separately and an Old Latin witness is, in part, essential in this reconstruction.124 The reason for the textual variants is the oldest text itself, which contained theological conceptions that later became unacceptable and were therefore corrected in different contexts by many scribes. We will have to start from the main witnesses, the MT and the LXX: 1 Kgs 8:12 – 13 MT 12 Then Solomon said: “Yhwh said that he would live in darkness 13 I have truly built you an exalted house A place for you to live forever.” 1 Kgs 8:53a LXX Tºte 1k²kgsem Sakylym rp³q toO oUjou ¢r sumet´kesem toO oQjodol/sai aqtºm GGkiom 1cm¾qisem 1m oqqam` j¼qior eWpem toO jatoije?m 1m cmºv\ OQjodºlgsom oWjºm lou, oWjom 1jpqep/ saut` toO jatoije?m 1p· jaimºtgtor. oqj Qdo» avtg c´cqaptai 1m bibk¸\ t/r ád/r.

12

8B@M LB4 :4 @HLF5 C?M@ LB4 898= 13 ý@ @5: N=5 =N=D5 8D5 A=B@9F ýN5M@ C9?B

Then Solomon said regarding the house, when he had finished building it: “The Lord let the Sun know in the heaven He said that he would live in darkness: Build my house, exalted house for yourself to dwell in anew Behold, is this not written in the Book of the Song/Righteous?”125

Although substantially longer, it is probable that the Greek version contains several readings that are older than the MT. This is suggested by the content of the plusses in the Greek text, which contradicts mainstream theological conceptions of the Hebrew Bible. For example, the Greek text implies that the Sun was an animate being, because Yhwh was able to address him. Since Judaism developed towards stricter monotheistic conceptions, it would be difficult to comprehend the addition of partially polytheistic ideas in a later context. It should also be noted that the Masoretic text is clearer than the Greek, which speaks for the general originality of the latter (lectio difficilior potior). AcReg 8, 12 f.,” ZAW 121/3 (2009): 402 – 417, for a recent review and discussion of the reconstructions. 124 The other preserved witnesses, the Vulgate, Targum Jonathan and 2 Chr 6:1 – 2 (both MT and LXX) are directly dependent on the MT. 125 Several scholars, such as, for example, Benzinger, Könige, 59 and Carl Steuernagel, Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1912), 357, have suggested that L=M8 and LM=8 were mixed up. Josh 10:13 and 2 Sam 1:18 also mention the Book of the Righteous.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

226

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

cordingly, most scholars assume that the MT is secondary and follow the Greek in reconstructing the oldest text.126 Othmar Keel has proposed the most radical reconstruction of the verses. According to him, the Greek text preserves vestiges of an ancient text where the Sun, as a divinity, invited Yhwh to live in the darkness of the temple.127 Not only would the text imply that the Sun-god was one of the Israelite divinities, but it would also suggest that he was superior in rank to Yhwh. Although Keel’s reconstruction is certainly a step in the right direction, he may have missed some details. Keel has rightly argued that because GGkiom 1cm¾qisem 1m oqqam` j¼qior would imply an unlikely word order in Hebrew (object ! verb ! prepositional expression ! subject) the sentence constituents have to be rearranged.128 The Greek uses the accusative for the Sun (GGkiom), but this is an interpretation of the Hebrew MBM(8), which does not disclose the case that the original author meant. Instead of the accusative, whereby it would be the object, MBM was more probably the original subject. This would imply that the Sun was divine. Because of his late context, however, the Greek translator would very probably reject such a reading 126 Thus Gray, I & II Kings, 196 – 197; Würthwein, Könige, 88 – 89; Jürgen Werlitz, Die Bücher der Könige (NSK AT; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002), 94; Adrian Schenker, Septante et texte massor¦tique dans l’histoire la plus ancienne du texte de 1Rois 2 – 14 (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 48; Paris: J. Cabalda et Cie Êditeurs, 2000), 131, 134, and others. However, Marvin Sweeney, I & II Kings (OTL; Louisville, Ky. and London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007), assumes that the MT is more original. He reads the plusses of the LXX as corrections of the MT reading, which he assumes to be confusing. Sweeney’s suggestion is very improbable because the plusses in the LXX preserve unorthodox theological conceptions. Friedhelm Hartenstein, “Sonnengott und Wettergott,” in “Mein Haus wird ein Bethaus für alle Völker genannt werden” (Jes 56,7) (ed. J. Männchen and T. Reiprich; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2007), 53 – 69, here 65 – 69, has argued that the Greek text contains Hellenistic conceptions of creation, which would suggest that it is secondary. Martin Arneth, “Sonne der Gerechtigkeit” Studien zur Solarisierung der JahweReligion im Lichte von Ps 72 (BZAR 1; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000), 201, and Berndt Janowski, “JHWH und der Sonnengott: Aspekte der Solarisierung JHWHs in vorexilischer Zeit,” in Die rettende Gerechtigkeit (BTAT 2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999), 203, have suggested that the sun is subordinated to Yhwh in the Greek text, but this is improbable, because so many later editors have tried to correct the text, which implies that the oldest text contained theologically offensive conceptions. 127 Othmar Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems (Orte und Landschaften der Bibel; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 267 – 271; “Der Salomonische Tempelweihspruch: Beobachtungen zum religionsgeschichtlichen Kontext des Ersten Jerusalemer Tempels,” in Gottesstadt und Gottesgarten (QD 191; ed. O. Keel and E. Zenger; Freiburg i. Br., 2002), 269 – 306; and “Sturmgott—Sonnengott—Einziger : Ein neuer Versuch, die Entstehung des judäischen Monotheismus historisch zu verstehen,” in Bibel und Kirche 49/1 (1994): 82 – 92, here p. 86. Similarly, Juliane Kutter, nu¯r ilı¯. Die Sonnengottheiten in den nordwestsemitischen Religionen von der Spätbronzezeit bis zur vorrömischen Zeit (AOAT 346; Münster : Ugarit Verlag, 2008), 359 – 363. 128 Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems, 268 – 269.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

227

The Omission of References to the Sun-god

and assume that the Sun must be the object and Yhwh the subject (i. e., “The Lord let the Sun know in the heaven”). If we assume that the Sun was indeed the original subject, and follow the typical word order in Hebrew, 898= (j¼qior) would be redundant in this sentence. This would mean that 898= was the first word of the following sentence, functioning as its subject. A subject at the beginning of a sentence is much more common than at the end. This would additionally clarify the sentences because the subject of the verb eWpem (… LB4) is otherwise ambiguous. Following this reconstruction, there are two sentences, both beginning with the subject, followed by a verb. According to Keel, the second sentence would be a citation from the Sun-god. The Sun-god let it be known from the heavens: “Yhwh has said that he wants to live in the darkness.” As a result, Solomon would quote the Book of Righteousness, which quotes the Sun-god, who quotes Yhwh.129 One has to ask how probable such a confusing triple quotation is. The change of speaker from the Sun-god to Yhwh is not indicated at all, so that it would be left to the reader to understand that the speaker has changed. This reconstruction also leaves it open as to who is speaking to whom in “oQjodºlgsom oWjºm lou …” Here one must depart from Keel’s reconstruction. It seems that most scholars have failed to appreciate the poetic form of the text, which may be essential for its correct reconstruction and understanding. Like other ancient Hebrew poetical texts, it was probably expressed by parallelisms between the cola, many of which were bicola.130 In addition to the parallel elements, the non-parallel elements complement each other so that only the reading of both cola forms a meaningful text. In other words, there is an evident parallelism between F7= hi. and LB4. When the subjects, the Sun and Yhwh, are also paralleled, the following structure emerges: The Sun-god Yhwh

made it known proclaimed

in the heavens

that he would live in darkness

That the subjects are parallel and thus identical is suggested by the text that follows this bicolon. Verse 13 does not (re)identify the subject, which implies that the subject is unambiguous. The reader would not be able to determine which one, the Sun or Yhwh, is the subject. It is therefore probable that they are 129 Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems, 267 – 271. 130 As shown by Oswald Loretz, Die Psalmen II. Beitrag der Ugarit-Texte zum Verständnis von Kolometrie und Textologie der Psalmen: Psalem 90 – 150 (AOAT 207/2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979) and Oswald Loretz and Ingo Kottsieper, Colometry in Ugaritic and Biblical Poetry : Introduction, Illustrations and Topical Bibliography (UBL 5; Altenberge: CIS-Verlag, 1987), parallelism was an essential part of ancient Israelite poetic texts.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

228

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

indistinguishable. From this it follows that the Sun-god and Yhwh refer to the same divinity. Instead of following Keel, who assumes that the Sun-god let it be known in the heavens that Yhwh wants to live in the temple, it is more probable that the Sun-god, who is also called Yhwh, proclaimed that he wants to live in the darkness of a temple. It is evident that such a conception would have been highly problematic after the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 bce, and it would provide a good explanation for why this section of the text was omitted in the MT. The Greek version is more original here, but in this version the theological problem was avoided by partially demythologizing the Sun by making it an object. This blurred the original meaning of the sentence, but the main theological offense was avoided. It is possible that the Greek translator did not even understand the Hebrew text correctly because he may have been detached from the rules of ancient Hebrew poetry and the idea that Yhwh was identified with the Sun may have been inconceivable to him. The following text also contains significant variation between the witnesses. Whereas the MTreads =N=D5 8D5, an equivalent in the Greek has OQjodºlgsom oWjºm lou. The infinitive of the MT has been regarded as a secondary reading since early research and it is commonly assumed that the original text read =N=5 8D5.131 The text would thus read ý@ @5: N=5 =N=5 8D5. The crucial question is what the word N=5 refers to. Since Yhwh the Sun-god is the speaker, =N=5 must refer to the temple, but the suffix of ý@ would imply that N=5 refers to Solomon’s palace, as he is addressed here. It is very unlikely that Solomon spoke about both the temple and the palace. First Kings 8 deals with the inauguration of the temple, whereas the palace is not mentioned in this chapter. Because the beginning of 3 Reg 8:53a notes that Solomon speaks about the temple (rp³q toO oUjou ¢r sumet´kesem toO oQjodol/sai aqtºm),132 a sudden reference to the palace would be surprising. These considerations suggest that the Greek oWjom 1jpqep/ saut` and the Hebrew 133 ý@ @5: N=5 cannot represent the original reading here. This is corroborated by an Old Latin witness, which occasionally retain original readings lost in all other witnesses.134 131 Thus already Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1899), 271. 132 The Masoretic text lacks a parallel to this sentence. It was probably omitted after the verse was understood as referring to the palace as well. 133 One could see some parallelism in the sentence, but changing the meaning of the subject and the person for whom the subject would be built is problematic. 134 See, in particular, Julio Trebolle Barrera, Salomûn y Jeroboan: Historia de la recensiûn y redaccciûn de 1 Reyes, 2 – 12, 14 (Bibl. Salamanticensis, Dissertationes no. 3; Salamanca: Universidad Pontificia, 1980) and Natalio Fern‚ndez Marcos, Scribes & Translators: Sep-

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

229

The Omission of References to the Sun-god

In much of the verse the Codex Legionensis seems to follow the Greek,135 but it suggests that the original text was only about the temple. For the Greek and Hebrew oWjom 1jpqep/ saut` toO jatoije?m 1p· jaimºtgtor (M7;@ ýN5M@ ý@ @5: N=5), the Codex Legionensis reads aedifica mihi domum pulcherrimam in habitare in novitiate,136 which implies a first person suffix in the original Hebrew text.137 Moreover, the suffix in ýN5M@ also finds no parallel in this Old Latin witness. Without the second person suffixes there is nothing in the text to suggest that the palace was meant, and the =@ @5: N=5 is obviously a reference to the temple. The Codex Legionensis thus fits well with the introduction that only refers to the temple. Furthermore, the Old Latin reading restores a parallelism and a bicolon, which accords with the preceding bicolon: Build my house, an exalted house for me

=N=5 8D5 =@ @5: N=5

It is apparent why this part of the verse was also edited. The following text of the Greek version (in toO jatoije?m 1p· jaimºtgtor, which probably goes back to M7;@ N5M@ or to A=M7; @F N5M@) suggests that Solomon had to build a new temple. Although some passages suggest that there was a temple before Solomon in Jerusalem,138 here the contradiction with 2 Sam 7, which emphasizes that there had been no temple before him, would have been explicit. The correction made the new temple into a new house of the king, which would have been theologically unproblematic. The Masoretic text removes the problem by changing the word M7; to A@9F, but this only confirms the suspicion that the older text was indeed problematic. The word C9?B, preserved only in the MT, illustrates how complicated the textual development of the passage was. The word finds no parallel in the other witnesses, but it is probable that here the MT is original. The main problem with the MT is that in this verse the word refers to the palace. However, in other parts

135

136

137 138

tuagint & Old Latin in the Books of Kings (VTSup 54; Leiden et al.: Brill, 1994), 84 – 87 and Schenker, Septante, 131. For example, it follows the LXX and renders Yhwh as the subject and the Sun as the object: Tunc loquutus est Salomon pro domo, quam consummavit aedificans: Solem statuit in caelo Dominus; et dixit commorare in dedicationem domus: aedifica mihi domum pulcherrimam in habitare in novitiate. Nonne haec scripta sunt in libro Cantici? This reading is preserved in Codex Legionensis; see Carolus Vercellone, Variae Lectiones Vulgatae Latinae Bibliorum Editionis, vol. II (Rome, 1864), 489. This reading deviates from the LXX and the Antiochene reading. For additional discussion, see Fern‚ndez Marcos, Scribes & Translators, 41 – 52. Although Wellhausen, Composition, 271, assumed that the suffix in ý@ must be incorrect, there was still no awareness that the Old Latin may preserve old readings. 2 Sam 12:20 and 22:7. These are probably vestiges, whereas most ancient texts in the Hebrew Bible that referred to an older temple would have been edited to avoid the inconsistency with the conventional conception that Solomon was the first to build a temple.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

230

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

of the chapter, in 1 Kgs 8:39, 43 and 49, C9?B (in N5M8 C9?B), it clearly refers to the temple and not to the palace. This interpretation finds support in other parts of the Hebrew Bible where the expression N5M8 C9?B exclusively refers to Yhwh’s temple or place of habitation (heavenly or sanctuary).139 Moreover, the word C9?B alone also refers to Yhwh’s temple or abode.140 Only once, when used in the plural, does the word refer to something else (in Ps 104:5).141 Consequently, it is very probable that the word C9?B in 1 Kgs 8:13 originally referred to the temple. This further confirms that the original text did not refer to a palace at all. Because none of the witnesses preserves the original text in full, its parts have to be reconstructed by using the Hebrew, Greek and Old Latin versions. Each one of them has preserved a component of the oldest text, not preserved in the other witnesses, so that the original text has to be recovered piece by piece. The original text of 1 Kgs 8:12 – 13 (3 Reg 8:53a) probably read: Then Solomon said regarding the temple, when he had finished building it: “The Sun(-god) made (it) known in the heavens, Yhwh declared (he wants) to live in darkness Build my temple, an exalted house for me, a new place to live in”

N=58 @F 8B@M LB4 :4 9N4 N9D5@ N9@?? A=BM5 F=798 MBM @HLF5 C?M@ LB4 898= =N=5 8D5 =@ @5: N=5 M7;@ N5M@ C9?B

After the prose introduction (in 9N4 … :4), the text consisted of a bicolon and tricolon, which accords well with the rules of ancient Hebrew poetry.142 That the text only deals with the temple is well in line with the chapter’s general content and with the prose introduction. The reconstructed text is also clear and fluent, while all of the preserved witnesses are partly ambiguous in content and confusing in grammar. The reasons for the editorial changes are evident. The text identified Yhwh with the Sun-god143 and implied that there was a temple in Jerusalem before Solomon. These theologically offensive conceptions were blurred or omitted by several editors in various contexts so that the original meaning is not preserved 139 140 141 142 143

See Exod 15:17; 2 Chr 6:30, 33, 39 (2 Chr 6:2 follows 1 Kgs 8:13); Ps 33:14. Ps 89:15; 97:2; Isa 4:5; 18:4; Ezra 2:68; 3:3 Dan 8:11. Ps 104:5 refers to the foundations of the earth. See Loretz and Kottsieper, Colometry. Thus contrary to the suggestion of Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems, 268 – 270, that Yhwh and the Sun-god were two separate gods. On the other hand, on the basis of archaeological and other considerations, many scholars have concluded that Yhwh was associated with the Sun. Solar imagery was common in late monarchic Judah, as shown by Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998), 248 – 281. Juliane Kutter, nu¯r ilı¯, 355 – 417, has discussed passages in the Hebrew Bible where Yhwh is identified with the Sun.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

231

Was a Reference to the Temple of Yhwh in Samaria Omitted?

in any one of the witnesses alone. There were several independent attempts to censor and alter the original meaning. For our endeavor it is significant that omissions were used as an editorial technique in several different textual traditions. It implies that omissions were included in the editors’ toolbox in revising 1 – 2 Kings, especially when the older text contained theologically offensive conceptions. First Kings 8:12 – 13 (3 Reg 8:53a) also suggests that at least 1 – 2 Kings was revised several times at a very late stage, after the textual traditions behind the LXX and the MT had diverged, in order to purge the text of what had become unacceptable theological conceptions.

Was a Reference to the Temple of Yhwh in Samaria Omitted? According to the MT of 1 Kgs 16:32, Ahab built an altar to Baal in the temple of Baal, which he had built in Samaria. However, a reference to the altar of Baal seems superfluous after a reference to the temple of Baal that he is also said to have built. If he already built a temple for Baal, an altar would be a minor sin. However, in the MT the altar is mentioned as the primary sin that is mentioned first, while the temple of Baal is merely mentioned as the location of the altar. One would expect that the building of the temple for Baal had been the main sin. The repetition of Baal is also peculiar. All these considerations raise the suspicion that the MT may not preserve the oldest text here. A textual problem is implied by the variant reading in the LXX, which, being somewhat more logical, reads “the house of his abominations,” leaving out any reference to Baal’s temple. The Greek reading would seem to imply that the Vorlage had the word 144 IKM in the plural: 1 Kgs 16:32 MT @F5@ ;5:B AK=9 @F58 N=5 C9LBM5 8D5 LM4

He erected an altar to Baal in the house of Baal, which he built in Samaria.

1 Kgs 16:32 LXX ja· 5stgsem husiast¶qiom t` Baak 1m oUj\ t_m pqosowhisl²tym aqtoO, dm ájodºlgsem 1m Salaqe¸ô

LXX Vorlage @F5@ ;5:B AK=9 9=JKM N=5 C9LBM5 8D5 LM4

He erected an altar to Baal, in the house of his abominations, which he built in Samaria.

Although the Greek reading removes the disturbing repetition of Baal, it is still surprising that the focus of attention is not on the temple but on the altar. Moreover, one has to ask, why does the LXX contain the variant reading? The Latin translations may provide some additional information. The Vulgate fol144 For rendering the word IKM as pqosºwhisla, see Deut 7:26; 2 Kgs 23:13, 24.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

232

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

lows the MT closely (et posuit aram Baal in templo Baal quod aedificaverat in Samaria) and is of little help, but the Old Latin witnesses differ from the Vulgate as well as from the Greek and Hebrew readings.145 Several traditions have been preserved in the Old Latin witnesses. Lucifer of Cagliari reads: et statuit sacrarium Baali in domo religionum suarum, quad aedificaverat in Samaria.146 Lucifer’s reading could go back to 9=JKM N=5 via 1m oUj\ t_m pqosowhisl²tym aqtoO, but this is not clear at all. On the other hand, Eucherius reads: et servivit Baal in templo, quod aedificaverat in Samaria, et plantavit illic lucum, thus having no references as to whose temple it was and there also seems to be no condemnation of this temple (the reference to the grove is already a rendering of v. 33 and is probably secondary).147 Two other Latin witnesses provide yet further readings. In a reference to the passage, Sulpius Severus reads Bahali idolo aram lucosque constituit.148 This text seems to skip over the temple altogether, while the reference to the idol may be dependent on a text that corresponds to IKM/pqosºwhisla, but this is unclear because the singular instead of the plural of the Greek is used and the pronoun is also lacking. In a general reference to the period, Ambrosius similarly omits the temple, and refers to an altar and idol constructed by Ahab: cum a rege Achab altare esset e idolo constitutum.149 In view of the rather clear MT, the diversity of readings is puzzling: the temple of Baal, temple of his religions, temple of his abominations, a temple without any condemnation and no temple. The current reading of the Hebrew does not explain why the various readings differ so extensively. Usually the variety of readings implies that the original text contained something theologically or otherwise offensive, or what had become offensive in later Judaism. Consequently, it is unlikely that the MT represents the original reading. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that the other preserved witnesses contain the original reading. The Greek and Hebrew readings seem to imply that the original text made a reference to whose temple it was. This makes the Old Latin reading witnessed by Eucherius that omits the reference to the temple’s divinity an unlikely candidate for the oldest reading. In other words, an original reading such as C9LBM5 8D5 LM4 N=55 @F5@ ;5:B AK=9 would not explain the variety of attempts to 145 As noted by Julio Trebolle Barrera, The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible, 352 – 353, the Old Latin has considerable critical value because it “translates a Greek text of the 2nd cent., earlier than the Origen recension.” The high value of the Old Latin translations in 1 – 2 Kings has been shown over and over again, as it preserves a proto-Lucianic text. 146 Lucifer Calaritanus, De regibus apostaticis, 50. See Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum vol. 14, ed. W. Hartel, 1886. 147 See J.P. Migne, Patrologiae Latine Cursus Completus 50 (Patrologiae Latinae Tomus L; Paris, 1865), 1164D. 148 Sulpius Severus, Chronicorum 1,43,1. 149 Ambrosius, De Helia et ieiunio in Corpus Ecclesia Latinorum vol XXXII, part II (ed. C. Schenkl; Wien: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1897), 412, line 16.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Was a Reference to the Temple of Yhwh in Samaria Omitted?

233

specify the temple.150 It is also unlikely that either the Greek or the Hebrew reading could be derived from the other reading, because in neither case would it be necessary to make the change. It is more likely that both preserve a secondary reading. In fact, one receives the impression that all witnesses are attempts to avoid the original reading and render this part of the text with something else or omit the offense altogether.151 It is probable that the oldest text referred to the temple of Yhwh built by Ahab in Samaria. This would explain why the MT, LXX and the Old Latin witnesses have so many different readings that do not seem to be directly related or that cannot be reasonably derived from one another. It would also explain Eucherius’ reading as an attempt to avoid the original text by omitting a reference to the divinity completely. A temple of Yhwh in Samaria would be historically plausible, for Omri’s dynasty was probably the harbinger of Yhwh worship in Israel.152 Most kings after Ahab have a Yahwistic theophoric element in their names, which implies that Yhwh was the god of the royal dynasty. Moreover, one would certainly expect Samaria to have had a temple of Yhwh because it lies beyond question that during the monarchic period Yhwh was worshipped as one of the main gods or the main god of the kingdom. Although one should distinguish historical reconstructions from text-critical considerations, it is fair to assume that the building of Yhwh’s temple in Samaria was recorded in the royal annals of Israel, which the history writer had access to (directly or indirectly). In consequence, the original offense of 1 Kgs 16:32 would have been that Ahab set up an altar of Baal in Yhwh’s temple. That Ahab and all other kings of Israel transgressed against the cult centralization is evident (v. 31),153 and the building of a temple of Yhwh in Samaria would have been a further transgression against this commandment. Since Jeroboam, the Israelite kings had been worshipping Yhwh in temples around the country. For the later editors, however, the idea that there was a temple of Yhwh in Samaria would have been too sensitive because during 150 This reading could be understood to refer to a general temple or to a temple of Yhwh. 151 Cf. 1 Kgs 8:12 – 13, discussed above. A similar case is found in Deut 13:10. See the discussion in Karl Budde, “Dtn 13 10, und was daran hängt,” ZAW 36 (1916): 187 – 197; Paul Dion, “Deuteronomy 13: The Suppression of Alien Religious Propaganda in Israel during the Late Monarchical Era,” in Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel (ed. B. Halpern and D.W. Hobson; JSOTS 124; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 147 – 206, and Anneli Aejmelaeus, “License to Kill? Deut 13:10 and the Prerequisites of Textual Criticism,” in Verbum et Calamus: Semitic and Related Studies in Honour of the Sixtieth Birthday of Professor Tapani Harviainen (ed. H. Juusola, J. Laulainen and H. Palva; Studia Orientalia 99; Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society, 2004), 1 – 22. 152 That the text originally referred to a temple of Yhwh would fit well with what one would assume of Samaria. 153 Note that in the history writer’s text Jeroboam’s sin was the setting up of temples at the high places around the country. See Juha Pakkala “Jeroboam without Bulls,” ZAW 120 (2008): 501 – 525.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

234

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

the Second Temple period the conflict with the Samaritans became acute and was partly connected with the question about the location of the temple. Any references to the existence of Yhwh’s temple in the north could have been understood to undermine the exclusivity of Jerusalem to host Yhwh’s temple. Ahab went even further than most other kings of Israel. He initiated a syncretistic cult where Baal was worshipped in Yhwh’s temple.154 The reference to Yhwh’s temple in Samaria in the original text would have been an offense against the cult centralization, but syncretism would have been even more severe. This further increased the offense that many later editors would have wanted to eradicate. References to a syncretistic religion where Yhwh was worshipped alongside other divinities have been removed in other passages as well (e. g., 2 Kgs 10:23 discussed below). The reference in 1 Kgs 16:32 was therefore omitted completely or replaced with a temple of Baal, of Ahab’s abominations or of his religions. To sum up, 1 Kgs 16:32 bears witness to omissions and replacements of the original text in several different textual traditions, which shows that many later editors were prone to omit theologically offensive conceptions and references. All known manuscripts preserve a reading of 1 Kgs 16:32 that is an attempt to avoid the theological disgrace and offense of the original reading. In most cases the omission is of one word only (Yhwh), but its implications for reconstructing the text as well as for understanding the history and religion of Samaria are considerable.

References to a Syncretistic Cult Omitted in 2 Kgs 10:23 Second Kings 10:18 – 28 describes the destruction of Baal’s temple by Jehu. Our interest lies in v. 23, which may contain an omission in the Masoretic text. According to this verse, Jehu and Jehonadab went to Baal’s temple to ask the worshippers of Baal whether there were worshippers of Yhwh inside it. The idea was to make sure that none would be inside when the killing began (described in v. 25). The following text is confusing in the MT. According to v. 24a, “they” went to offer sacrifices and burnt offerings, but it is unclear who exactly went. Grammatically it would refer to the worshippers of Baal, the last plural subject of the previous sentence, but this makes little sense. It is also surprising that the text provides no explanation for why Jehu and Jehonadab went to the temple. Their 154 Cf. 2 Kgs 23:4, which also refers to the worship of Baal in Yhwh’s temple. The verse would also be in line with the original reading of 2 Kgs 10:23, as we will see. As in 1 Kgs 16:32, censors have omitted the original reading of 2 Kgs 10:23, but it was preserved in some Old Latin readings and in some Greek manuscripts.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

References to a Syncretistic Cult Omitted in 2 Kgs 10:23

235

action is concluded with Jehu saying to the worshippers of Baal that they should “Search and see that there are no worshiper of Yhwh” in the temple, but there is no continuance to this action. The MT is also grammatically awkward because the A4 =? seems to have no function in the present text. The main Greek witnesses provide no help because they mainly follow the MT. However, Julio Trebolle Barrera has shown that in 2 Kgs 9 – 11 the original LXX translation may be preserved in some Greek manuscripts only and that it may also have to be recovered from the Old Latin witnesses.155 Second Kings 10:23 contains a large plus in some Greek manuscripts (hijnuvxz156). The Lucianic text in this passage seems to be a hybrid that attempts to harmonize between this plus and the MT.157 An Old Latin witness (Codex Vindobona) follows the plus of the Greek manuscripts and suggests that the plus reflects the original LXX translation. It is necessary to compare the MT with the large plus in the Old Latin and the Greek manuscripts hijnuvxz to see what is taking place in 2 Kgs 10:23 – 24:

155 For a more comprehensive look at the witnesses and argumentation, see Julio Trebolle Barrera, Jehffl y Jo‚s: Texto y composiciûn literaria de 2 Reyes 9 – 11 (Instituciûn San Jerûnimo 17; Valencia: 1984), 147 – 157, 222 – 223. Older scholarship assumed that the Old Latin is secondarily expansive, thus Benziger, Könige, 154, and James Alan Montgomery, The Book of Kings (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951), 415, but more often the witness has been ignored altogether, thus J Gray, I & II Kings, 503 – 504; Werlitz, Könige, 246 – 247; Jones, Kings, 470; Provan, Kings, 214 – 215. 156 The sigla of the manuscripts are from Alan E. Brooke, Norman McLean and Henry St John Thackeray, 1 – 2 Kings: The Old Testament in Greek according to the Text of Codex Vaticanus (2/2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1930). 157 Thus also Schenker, Älteste Textgeschichte, 167. The Lucianic text in 2 Kgs 10:23 – 24 reads as follows: 23 ja· eQs/khem Yo» ja· Iymad±b uR¹r Qgwab eQr oWjom toO Baak ja· eWpem Yo» to?r do¼koir toO Baak 9qeum¶sate ja· Udete eQ 5stim lehû rl_m t_m do¼kym Juq¸ou, ja· 1naposte¸kate aqto¼r. ja· eWpom Oqj eQs·m !kkû C oR doOkoi toO Baak lom¾tatoi. 24 ja· Yo» 5tanem 2aut` tqiswik¸our %mdqar 1m t` jqhpt` ja· eWpem )m¶q, dr 1±m diasyh0 !p¹ t_m !mdq_m, ¨m 1c½ eQs²cy 1p· we?qar rl_m, B xuwµ aqtoO !mt· t/r xuw/r aqtoO.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

236

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

MT

23

498= 45=9 5?L.C5 57D98=9 @F58 N=5 @F58 =75F@ LB4=9 94L9 9MH; A?BF 8H.M=.CH 898= =75FB

=75F.A4 =? A75@ @F58 24 N9MF@ 945=9 … N9@F9 A=;5:

23 And Jehu entered the temple of Baal with Jehonadab son of Rechab; And he said to the worshipers of Baal, “Search and see that there are no worshippers of Yhwh with you,

but only worshipers of Baal.” 24 And they went to offer sacrifices and burnt offerings …

LXX* ja· eQs/khem Eiou ja· Iymadab uR¹r Qgwab eQr oWjom toO Baak ja· eWpem to?r do¼koir toO Baak 9qeum¶sate ja· Udete eQ 5stim lehû rl_m t_m do¼kym juq¸ou, a· enaposte¸kate t²mtar toOr do¼kour juq¸ou toOr erqisjol´mour 1je? ja? 1c´meto jah( ¢r 1k²kgsem (IoO fti oqj wm 1jei t_m do¼kym juq¸ou fti !kkû C oR doOkoi toO Baak lom¾tatoi. 24 ja· eQs/khem toO poi/sai t± h¼lata ja· t± bkojaut¾lata.

Codex Vindobona Et intrauit ieu rex israel et ionadab filius recab in templum bahal et dixit ieu ad seruos bahal scrutinate et uidetene sit uobiscum ex seruis domini et eicite omnes seruos domini qui inuenti fuerint in templum bahal. Et factum est sicut locutus est ieu rex et cum nemo fuisset ibi de seruis domini nisi soli bahal. Et introierunt eu faceret sacrificia et holocausta …

And Jehu and Jonadab the son of Recab entered the temple of Baal And Jehu and said to the worshippers of Baal, “Search and see that there are no worshippers of Yhwh with you

And Jehu the king of Israel and Jonadab the son of Recab entered the temple of Baal And Jehu and said to the worshippers of Baal, “Search and see that there are no worshippers of Yhwh with you

and bring out all worshippers of Yhwh who have been found in the temple of Baal. And it came to pass as Jehu the king had spoken, and there were no (more) of the worshippers of Yhwh, but only worshippers of Baal.” 24 And they went to offer sacrifices and burnt offerings …

and bring out all worshippers of Yhwh who have been found in the temple of Baal. And it came to pass as Jehu the king had spoken, and there were no (more) of the worshippers of Yhwh, but only worshippers of Baal.” 24 And they went to offer sacrifices and burnt offerings …

24

The plus provides a more consistent text than the MT. The Old Latin witness and the original LXX explain why Jehu and Jehonadab went to the temple: They brought Yhwh’s worshippers from the temple, while in the MT their going to the temple has no purpose. Moreover, the A4 =? that appears to have no function in the

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Omission of a Reference to the People in the Temple

237

MTwould fit very well after the previous sentence of the original Greek translation. A retroversion would probably yield a sentence: 898= =75FB A?BF 8H.C=4 =? 498= L57? =8=9 continued by A4 =?: “… there were no worshippers of Yhwh (any more) but (A4 =? ) only worshippers of Baal.” The puzzling plural in v. 24 further supports the assumption that the MT is missing a section. Its plural would logically refer to the worshippers of Yhwh who had just left the temple of Baal and went to sacrifice outside Baal’s temple.158 Consequently, it is probable that the MT is secondary in relation to the original Greek translation and the Old Latin witness. Although one could make a case for an accidental omission by haplography and point out that the omitted section fits between the two uses of 898= =75FB A?BF 8H.C=4, it is more likely that the omission is intentional. The missing part contains the theologically offensive idea that the worshippers of Yhwh were worshipping alongside the worshippers of Baal in Baal’s temple. It would imply a syncretistic religion where Yhwh and Baal used the same temple and had, in part, the same cult. Its omission in a later context would certainly be comprehensible. The Lucianic text also supports this conclusion because it was clearly familiar with the longer text, as it adopted parts of it, but still tried to omit the idea that Yhwh’s worshippers were inside Baal’s temple.159 In other words, there were at least two attempts to eradicate the theological offense. In conclusion, 2 Kgs 10:23 bears witness to a large theological omission in the MT and the main Greek witnesses.

Omission of a Reference to the People in the Temple Second Kings 11 describes Jehoiada’s rebellion against Athaliah’s rule.160 After the rebellion had been carefully planned in verses 2 – 11, the action begins in v. 12 by Jehoiada introducing Joash, the son of Ahaziah, who had been hiding in the temple. The MT and the main Greek witnesses imply that only the soldiers were present to clap hands and cheer the new king. Verses 10 – 11 of the MTrefer to the military and nobody else is introduced in v. 12. However, v. 13 implies that at least some other people were present, because Athaliah is said to have gone to the people in Yhwh’s temple. The main witnesses do not say when these people had arrived in the temple and what they were doing there. 158 Trebolle Barrera, Jehffl y Jo‚s, 152 – 155. 159 It should further be pointed out that the Old Latin differs considerably from the MTand the main Greek witnesses in 2 Kgs 10:24 – 25 as well. It would seem probable that the Old Latin preserves the more original text in these verses, although in this case it provides the shorter text. This would imply that the MTand LXX contain a later addition here. For a discussion of these verses, see Trebolle Barrera, Jehffl y Jo‚s, 149 – 155 160 See also chapter 8 for the development of the story in Chronicles.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

238

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

12

ý@B8.C5.N4 4J9=9 N97F8.N49 L:D8.N4 9=@F CN=9 98;MB=9 9N4 9?@B=9 G?.9?=9 ý@B8 =;= 9LB4=9 13 8=@NF FBMN9 AF8 C=JL8 @9K.N4 898= N=5 AF8.@4 45N9

2 Kgs 11:12 – 13 12 Then he brought out the king’s son, put the crown on him, and gave him the covenant; they proclaimed him king, and anointed him; they clapped their hands and shouted, “Long live the king!” 13 When Athaliah heard the noise of the guard (and) of the people, she went to the people in Yhwh’s temple.

It is probable that something is missing in the main witnesses, but the Antiochene text may preserve the more original text.161 At the very beginning of verse 12 it adds over against other witnesses a sentence that makes the text more logical: jai enejjkesiasem iydae o ieqeur pamta tom kaom tgr cgr eir oijom juqiou (“And Jehoiada the priest gathered all the people of the land to Yhwh’s temple.”)162 The people were invited to join the rebellion against Athaliah. After this sentence, it makes perfect sense that Athaliah finds them in the temple. She went to see the people where they had been gathered in an attempt to revoke the coup against her. It would also be logical that the new king is celebrated by “all the people” and not just by the soldiers. Although one cannot completely exclude the possibility that this sentence was accidentally omitted in the main witnesses,163 it is probably not a coincidence that the omitted part is a logical unit and that it contains information that would have been theologically problematic at a later stage. It suggests that all the people of the land (IL48 AF8 @? ) could enter Yhwh’s temple, whereas during the Second Temple period only the priests were allowed to do so.164 A comparison of the parallel accounts in 2 Kgs 11 and 2 Chr 23 shows that in the Chronicler’s later context it was necessary to remove all references to the people having being inside the temple (cf. especially 2 Kgs 11:4 and 6 – 8 with 2 Chr 23:1 – 2 and 6 – 7). Consequently, the MT and other main witnesses of 2 Kgs 11:12 bear witness to a

161 Manuscripts bgorc2e2. 162 This text is represented by manuscripts bgorc2e2. A suggested Hebrew Vorlage would be 898= N=5 @4 IL48 AF8 @? N4 C8?8 F7=98= @8K=9. 163 One could suggest that the 898= N=5 at the end of the missing sentence and the end of v. 10 caused an accidental omission (homoioteleuton). 164 It should be added that all witnesses of v. 13 still refer to the people being in the temple, but it would have been impossible to remove this references as well, because the following story in v. 14 also implies that the people of the land were present. The editor who omitted the reference in v. 12 evidently had to leave his revision half done because of the domino effect that would have affected the whole story had he removed the idea completely. Perhaps the main problem was that Jehoiada himself summoned the people to the temple.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

239

Massebah Omitted in 2 Kgs 12:10

probable intentional omission of a theologically sensitive idea. The oldest text was preserved only in some Greek manuscripts.165

Massebah Omitted in 2 Kgs 12:10 According to 2 Kgs 12:10 a chest for collecting money for the restoration of the temple was placed by the entrance to Yhwh’s temple. The textual witnesses differ as to the exact location of the chest. According to the MT, the chest was placed beside an altar on the right hand side of the entrance, whereas the Greek witnesses are ambiguous, many using a word that has no meaning in Greek. The Lucianic group (mss. borc2e2) and the Vulgate follow the Masoretic text. A parallel verse in 2 Chr 24:8 omits the entire reference: MT

9N@75 L; 5K=9 7;4 C9L4 C8?8 F7=98= ;K=9 898= N=5 M=4.4955 C=B=B /C=B=5 ;5:B8 @J4 9N4 CN=9

And Jehoiada the priest took a chest and bored a hole in its lid, and placed it beside the altar on the right when one enters the temple of Yhwh. LXXB

ja· 5kabem Iydae b Reqe»r jibyt¹m l¸am ja· 5tqgsem tq¾ckgm 1p· t/r sam¸dor aqt/r ja· 5dyjem aqtµm paq± ialeibeim 1m t` oUj\ !mdq¹r oUjou juq¸ou And Jodae the priest took a chest, and bored a hole in the lid of it, and set it by ialeibeim in the house of a man of the house of the Lord …

LXXborc2e2

paq± t| ¢usiast¶qiom 1m de¸nia eQspoqehºlemom eQr oUjom Juq¸ou

Vulgate

et posuit illud iuxta altare ad dexteram ingredientium domum Domini

2 Chr 24:8

8J9; 898=.N=5 LFM5 98DN=9

… ja· teh¶ty 1m p¼k, oUjou juq¸ou 5ny …

Although the MT is grammatically clear, the altar is usually said to be located in the courtyard and not by the gate.166 It is also peculiar why the Greek witnesses contain so many different variants, why they differ from the MT and why they provide words that are meaningless in Greek. Where the MT reads C=B%=,)B%/C=B%=,)5,( ;5:B8 @J4, the Greek versions read as follows: 165 The plus in the Antiochene text is often ignored in commentaries; see for example, Montgomery, The Books of Kings, 425. However, Benzinger, Bücher der Könige, 158, assumes that the Antiochene text preserves vestiges of a second or parallel story of the rebellion, but this is unlikely, as the plus fits very well into the present text of the MTand explains the presence of the people in v. 13. 166 Although altars by the gate have been found in archaeological excavations (for example at Bethsaida/et-Tell or Tel Dan), the Hebrew Bible usually refers to an altar in the courtyard.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

240 mss. A B V/N ms. 71 zaf j f e x

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

Greek allasbg ialeibeim allafeibg lafibi allafeeibi allafeeibg allafegbi alafeibi allafibim

A conjectural Hebrew Vorlage 85EB8 /85JB8 C=5=B= 85=:B8 85:B 85=:B8 85=:B8 85=:B8 85=:B8 9=5:B8

Because of the great number of variant readings in Greek, it is probable that there was a problem in the Hebrew Vorlage. Beside the Lucianic group, the other Greek witnesses are unlikely to go directly back to a Hebrew that would correspond to the MT ;5:B8, because there would be no reason to render the word meaningless and it is also very unlikely that one would not have understood the word. Moreover, the final letter ; would be left without a counterpart in the Greek versions.167 Instead, most of the versions contain a word that concludes with the letters i or g, which correspond to the Hebrew letter 8. The ending of ialeibeim and allafibim could contain a vestige from C=B%=,)B%/C=B%=,)5,(, which is also missing a parallel in the Greek, but this word as such cannot be behind the Greek. What one therefore finds in most of the Greek witnesses is confusion. It is probable that Codex Alexandrinus preserves a reflection of the original word in Hebrew. It provides the only word that is meaningful in Hebrew, although the Hebrew word is transliterated in Greek letters. Its reading allasbg would correspond to 85JB8 or 85EB8.168 While the latter is meaningless, 85JB8, a Massebah, would be perfectly logical in the present context. It would also explain the other readings. The reason for avoiding the translation is obvious, because the older text would then seem to suggest that there was a forbidden Massebah by the entrance to the temple. The other Greek witnesses contain various conflated forms where the Hebrew words 85JB8, ;5:B8, and C=B=B may have been amalgamated. They may also be unsuccessful attempts to harmonize between the different readings, or they may also be attempts to render the embarrassing word meaningless in Greek.169 It is probable that the same embarrassment is also the reason why the MT was changed.170

167 In most cases, the Hebrew letter ; is rendered with a w. Cf. :;4 vs. Awaf, etc. 168 While f usually corresponds to the Hebrew :, the letter I is often rendered with r in Greek. On the other hand, the Hebrew E could also be rendered as r in Greek. 169 Note that some manuscripts (71) omit the letter a at the beginning (lafibi instead of alafibi), which shows that the translator did not render the word mechanically but was familiar with the word. He just omitted the Hebrew article. 170 Thus many since early research, for example, Montgomery, The Book of Kings, 429.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Gods of the Samaritans Omitted in 2 Kgs 18:34

241

Although the Massebot are often mentioned in 1 – 2 Kings, the problem in this passage is that a good king, such as Joash, who otherwise repaired the temple, does not appear to remove it.171 The text thus conflicts with one of the main theological aims and ideas of 1 – 2 Kings: Good kings fight against the illicit cults and bad kings harbor them. However, a correlation of the conjectured reading with what is known about the religious situation of monarchic times confirms the conclusion that Codex Alexandrinus reflects the original Hebrew. Archaeological excavations, for example at Tel Dan and Bethsaida, have shown that the Massebot were indeed often located by the gate and mainly on the right-hand side of the entrance. This validates the suggestion that the text originally read 898= N=5 M=4.4955 C=B=5 85JB8 @J4. The condemnation of the Massebot is a postmonarchic conception introduced by the later editors of 1 – 2 Kings and Deuteronomy. The passage shows that a theologically embarrassing detail could cause an omission. In this case, the Masoretic text simply replaced the original word with another one that was more acceptable, whereas the Greek versions preserved a vestige of the word but transliterated so that it became meaningless. Theological considerations were a powerful motif for changing the older text. Although this example is small, it is a significant piece in the puzzle of understanding how the texts were edited. It again shows that if the older text contained something that was theologically embarrassing, various textual traditions and various scribes or editors could resort to omissions even in later periods of the textual transmission.

Gods of the Samaritans Omitted in 2 Kgs 18:34 Second Kings 18:34 is part of Rabshake’s speech to the inhabitants of the besieged Jerusalem (vv. 29 – 35). The Assyrian high official Rabshake seeks to discourage the people from defending the city, because they would have no chance against the mighty Assyrian army. He refers to the other small nations that had to surrender to the Assyrians and whose gods did not save them. An 171 The original reason for the contradiction was that the history writer probably did not attack the Massebot. Their criticism was later introduced by the nomists. The history writer’s evaluation was based on other theological consideration mainly the centralization of the cult and care for the temple. King Joash was regarded as a good king because he repaired the temple. The evaluations of the kings derive from the history writer, but his theology is different from that of the nomists. Many of the later readers adopted the nomistic conceptions and the criticism of the Massebot was one of them. Accordingly, later editors and translators found an inconsistency in the current passage and tried to avoid the embarrassment that a good king harbored a Massebah.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

242

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

original reading may have been omitted in the MTand the main Greek witnesses, whereas the oldest text of the verse may be found in the Lucianic text and an Old Latin witness.172 MT 7HL49 NB; =8@4 8=4 A=9LHE =8@4 8=4

89F9 FD8 C9LBM.N4 9@=J8.=? =7=B

Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad? Where are the gods of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivvah? Have they delivered Samaria out of my hand?

LXXL poO 1stim b he¹r Ailah ja· Aqvad. poO 1stim b he¹r Sepvaqouaim. ja· poO 1stim oR heo· t/r w~qar Salaqe_ar

Codex Legionensis

ubi sunt dii terrae Samariae

lµ 1ne¸kamto tµm Sal²qeiam 1j weiqºr lou Where is the god of Hamath and Arpad? Where is the god of Sepharvaim, Where are the gods of the country of Samaria?

Where are the gods of the country of Samaria?

Have they delivered Samaria out of my hand?

The MT is illogical because the final sentence asks whether they saved Samaria, but the preceding sentence refers to the gods of Hamath, Arpad and Sepharvaim. Why would the gods of these foreign nations save Samaria? The present text of the MT can therefore hardly represent the original text. In contrast, the plus in the LXXL and Codex Legionensis forms a fully understandable sequence that explains the final sentence: The gods of Samaria were unable to save Samaria. As noted by Burney, “the insertion [of the Lucianic text] is indispensable, the subject presupposed by 9@=J8 being obviously the ‘gods of Samaria.’”173 The reason for the omission in the MT is evident. The older reading seems to suggest that Samaria had its own gods, one of which had certainly been Yhwh. The text would thus imply that Yhwh would not have been able to save Samaria from the Assyria army. Although the text is merely in the speech of a foreign general, it is understandable that a later author would have wanted to omit a 172 Thus Julio Trebolle Barrera, Centena in Libros Samuelis et Regum: Variantes textuales y composiciûn literaria en los libros de Samuel y Reyes (Madrid: Consejo superior de investigaciones cient†ficas instituto de fililog†a, 1989), 196 – 198. 173 Charles F. Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903), 342. Similarly many others, for example, Francolino J. GonÅalves, L’expÀdition de Sennach¦rib en Palestine dans la litt¦rature h¦braque ancienne (Êb 7; Paris: Gabalda, 1986), 374.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

A Possible Omission of the Temple of Baal in Jerusalem

243

reference to such an idea. Moreover, the text also implies that Samaria had several ancient gods inherent to the land, which easily leads to the conception that Yhwh was part of a wider pantheon. The book of Kings generally seeks to be very silent about Yhwh of Samaria, his temple and its cult, but, for example, the theophoric names of the royal dynasty, especially after Ahab, imply that Yhwh had been the main god of the state cult or of the royal house (Jehoram, Ahaziah, Jehu, Jehoahaz, etc.). Later editors tried to emphasize that at least after the destruction of the state the religion practiced in Samaria derived from Mesopotamia and was thus of mixed origin (2 Kgs 17:24 and 30 – 32).174 That there had been an ancient separate Yhwh of Samaria was a considerable problem for the Yhwh religion that was centered on Jerusalem. We have seen that a reference to the temple of Yhwh in Samaria may have been omitted in 1 Kgs 16:32.

A Possible Omission of the Temple of Baal in Jerusalem Second Kings 23 may be one of the most heavily edited chapters in the Hebrew Bible. Successive editors commented on Josiah’s reform because it was regarded as a significant turning point in the religion of ancient Israel. Some of the editing is reflected in text-critical evidence. Although the MT and the main Greek manuscripts agree on most issues, some Greek and Latin witnesses contain substantial variants,175 a fact that indicates that heavy editing continued at a relatively late stage.176 Our attention here has to be restricted to 2 Kgs 23:11, which has been a crucial verse in the discussion about the possible historicity of Josiah’s reform. Many scholars have assumed that the verse may contain an ancient and historical reference from the time of King Josiah.177 Because the MT and main Greek witnesses of the verse do not contain significant differences, there has been little

174 See the further discussion in Trebolle Barrera, Centena, 196 – 198, who suggests that the whole verse may be a later addition. The correction in the MT would thus be an even later editorial intervention. The reference to the exact names of Sepharvaim are probably a late gloss or a poor attempt to replace the omitted text. 175 A brief look at the apparatus of Brooke, McLean and Thackeray, 1 – 2 Kings, already reveals substantial differences between the main witnesses and some of the Greek witnesses (cf., for example, vv. 7, 10, 11, 12). 176 The chapter could thus provide significant evidence for the discussion about the nature of editorial changes in 1 – 2 Kings. 177 See the discussion in Juha Pakkala, “Why the Cult Reforms In Judah Probably Did Not Happen,” One God—One Cult—One Nation: Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives (ed. R. Kratz & H. Spieckermann; BZAW 405; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2010), 201 – 236.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

244

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

discussion about the text-critical evidence. However, the Lucianic text has a large plus at the end of the verse, which certainly warrants a discussion:178 MT MBM8 N95?LB.N49… M45 GLM

… and he burnt the wagons of the Sun in the fire

LXX … ja· t¹ ûqla toO Bk¸ou jat´jausem puq¸.

boc2e2 … jai to aqla tou gkiou jatejausem em puqi em ty oijy ym upodolgsam basikeir isqagk uxgkom ty baak jai pasg tg stqatia tou ouqamou

… and he burnt the wagons of the Sun in the fire

… and he burnt the wagons of the Sun in the fire in the house which the kings of Israel built in honor of Baal and all the host of Heaven.

The Lucianic reading is supported by an Old Latin witness. Lucifer renders the plus as follows: … in igne in domo domus, quam aedificauerunt reges Israel excelso illi Baal et omni militiae caeli,179 which seems to correspond to the Lucianic reading. Although the plus is peculiar with its reference to the kings of Israel, one should not exclude the possibility that it is part of an older stage of the text that was omitted in the other witnesses. Many if not most of the authors in 2 Kings have already lost contact with the historical situation in the monarchic period, and therefore an anachronistic or illogical reference cannot be used as an argument to exclude a reading as automatically secondary in relation to the other textual witnesses. The following considerations would seem to suggest that the Lucianic reading represents a more original text than that of the main witnesses: The location of destruction of the other objects is usually reported in other verses of the chapter (cf. vv. 4, 6, 12), while it is missing here. The plus contains a theologically problematic reference to a temple of Baal and the Host of Heaven, which are implicitly said to be in Jerusalem, built by the kings of Israel. It would be difficult to explain the addition of an embarrassing reference to a temple of Baal in Jerusalem that the Israelite kings built, whereas its omission would be understandable. One could even evoke the small possibility that the text preserves ancient information about the building of such a temple by the kings of 178 The variant is regularly ignored in commentaries and other investigations. See, for example, Benzinger, Könige, 193; Montgomery, The Book of Kings, 539 – 540; Gray, Kings, 731, 736 – 737. 179 Lucifer, De non parcendo VII, 11, in Corpus Christianorum Series Latina VIII (ed. G.F. Diercks, Brebols, 1978), 208.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

A Non-theological Omission in Deut 13:10

245

Israel. Since Judah may have been a vassal of Israel, this would be historically plausible, although the later origin of the plus may be more probable than that it preserves historical information. The Lucianic text is known to preserve some later expansions in relation to the MT, but they are usually theologically more correct than the MT. Its addition in the Lucianic tradition would thus run counter to the typical trend and it would be difficult to see the addition of this reading in a very late context. On the other hand, the Lucianic text is also known to preserve some ancient readings, lacking in other witnesses, that are theologically sensitive. Because of these considerations, but with some reservations, it may be concluded that the Lucianic reading is probably more original than the MT and other Greek witnesses that are dependent on the MT. Although it may have been added at some point in the redaction history of the chapter, the MT does not represent an earlier stage of the redaction than the Lucianic text. Because it contained theologically problematic information, it was secondarily omitted.

A Non-theological Omission in Deut 13:10 Although most of the omissions that can be demonstrated through text-critical evidence are theological in nature, there are some cases where the older text contained an otherwise embarrassing idea that was omitted in some or many of the witnesses. A case in point is Deut 13:10 (9), a well-known but complicated and debated problem of textual criticism.180 It is probable that the oldest text is preserved in the MT/SP,181 whereas most other witnesses represent attempts to avoid the implications of the original text, which can be interpreted as allowing one to kill based on one’s own judgment without the involvement of any authorities or witnesses. These attempts necessitated independent omissions or replacements in various textual traditions. Although many of the changes are small in the number of letters, some of them effectively avoided the problem of the older text. Deuteronomy 13 describes three different cases of incitement to worship the other gods. The text provides instructions as to what should be done in each case. Deut 13:7 – 12 (6 – 11) deals with incitement to apostasy by a family member, and verses 10 – 11 (9 – 10) provide the solution. According to the Greek text, one should report the inciter, while the MT instructs one to kill him im180 This verse has been more extensively discussed by Bernard M. Levinson, “‘But You Shall Surely Kill Him!’ The Text-Critical and Neo-Assyrian Evidence for MT Deuteronomy 13:10,” in Bundesdokument und Gesetz, (ed. G. Braulik; HBS 4 Freiburg, 1995), 37 – 63, and Aejmelaeus, “Licence to Kill? Deut 13:10 and the Prerequisites of Textual Criticism,” 1 – 22. 181 In this verse the SP follows the MT closely.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

246

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

mediately. The MTseems to imply a lynch law, because it does not require one to consult the authorities before killing the suspect, while the LXX orders the people to report the case first. Because the verb is in the singular in the MT no other people need to be present for the execution. The Greek text would appear to fit into this verse better than the MT reading because a commandment to kill the inciters is met twice in the ensuing text. According to v. 10aab one should raise his own hand to kill him (9N=B8@), followed in v. 11 by a further order to stone the inciter to death (NB9 A=D545 9N@KE9). With its three separate orders, the MT would appear to be repetitive. The reading in the LXX would also seem to fit very well with what is said in v. 9: The order not to conceal the inciter (9=@F 8E?N.4@9) would seem to be naturally followed by an order to report him. A further consideration that would seem to favor the LXX is that parallels in the vassal treaties—it is commonly assumed that the chapter was modeled after an ancient vassal treaty—refer to an obligation of the vassal to report treason to the lord of the treaty.182 Because of these apparently very persuasive reasons, most scholars have conventionally assumed that the LXX must be original and that the MTcontains a secondary reading.183 The confusion would have been caused by the transposition of two consonants and the mistaken rendering of L as 7 and = as 8 : MT

Conjectural LXX Vorlage

9D6L8N 6L8

Kill him

9D7=6N 768

LXX !macc´kkym !macceke?r peq· aqtou

Report him

Despite the apparently convincing case, the Masoretic text may still be original. The priority of the MT has been extensively argued by Bernard Levinson.184 He approaches the issue from many perspectives and includes an extensive discussion about the vassal treaties. The present case would be paralleled with cases of rebellion against the lord; these cases suggest that one should in fact kill the person who incites to rebellion immediately and that there would be no necessity

182 See Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths (S. Parpola and K. Watanabe; SAA 2; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press), 33 – 34, 63 – 64. 183 This view was first elaborated by Karl Budde, “Dtn 13 10, und was daran hängt,” ZAW 36 (1916): 187 – 197, thereafter supported by most scholars, such as Gottfried Seitz, Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Deuteronomium (BWANT 93; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1971), 151. Budde’s suggestion was also accepted to the BHS apparatus. For renewed evidence for the view, see Dion, “Deuteronomy 13: The Suppression of Alien Religious Propaganda in Israel during the Late Monarchical Era,” 153 – 155. The priority of the LXX has been perhaps most extensively discussed by Anneli Aejmelaeus, “License to Kill,” 1 – 22. 184 Levinson, “‘But You Shall Surely Kill Him!’,” 37 – 63.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

247

A Non-theological Omission in Deut 13:10

(or time) to make a report about the case first.185 Perhaps the most convincing argument against the LXX is that although many other witnesses deviate from the MT reading,186 they do not seem to agree with each other and instead one finds several competing readings. The Peshitta changes the singular to plural, thus making the killing a more communal event, and similar changes are met in the Targums. Instead of changing the addressee to the plural, other kinds of changes have been made to the Vulgate text, which, however, work to the same effect: Deut 13:10 – 11 MT

10

9D6L8N 6L8 =? 8D9M4L5 95.8=8N >7= 9N=B8@ 8DL;45 AF8.@? 7=9 11 NB9 A=D545 9N@KE9

But you shall kill him; your hand should be first upon him to kill him and afterwards the hand of all the people. Stone him to death with stones

Deut 13:10 – 11 Vulgate sed statim interficies sit primum manus tua super eum et post te omnis populus mittat manum. lapidibus obrutus necabitur But you shall kill (him); your hand should be first upon him, and after you the hand of all the people should put forth (their) hands he should be killed by stoning

By omitting a parallel to 9N=B8@ the Vulgate subtly changes the intent of the text so that the final execution is done by the community. The reader receives the impression that the offender’s death is the result of the execution by the whole community, while in the MT the death is caused by the one who throws the first stone. What is important, however, the changes in the Vulgate, Peshitta and Targums differ from one another. It would be difficult to explain how all these variant readings emerged out of the LXX, while it would be easy to see the motivation to make changes to the MT reading. By allowing a person to kill immediately anyone who was suspected of inciting apostasy, the law could be easily misused for personal vendettas and other similar reasons. The LXX would be an attempt to introduce a stage in the process where one has to consult the authorities, while most of the other variant readings introduce the presence of others in the execution process, thus making the execution a community affair, which cir-

185 Levinson, “‘But You Shall Surely Kill Him!’,” 184 – 190. This is clearly shown in the Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon §12, for example. 186 The Vulgate and some Old Latin witnesses seem to follow the MT, but, as argued by Levinson, “‘But You Shall Surely Kill Him!’,” 173 – 174, the Vulgate has made other significant changes that omit the problem of the older text.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

248

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

cumvents the possibility of an execution without any witnesses.187 According to Levinson, the LXX translation should be seen in the light of “normative Second Temple halakah.”188 He provides several examples of later Jewish exegesis that similarly introduce the presence of witnesses. Consequently, it is probable that the LXX provides a case where a small editorial change occasioned a significant omission in meaning. The Vulgate made a larger omission, and in a different part of the verse. The case shows that some editors could resort to radical corrections if the older text was assumed to contain a conception that had become unacceptable and that was harmonized with other passages in Deuteronomy, especially Deut 17:6 and 19:15.

Discussion Although only a fragment of the evidence in the Hebrew scriptures could be reviewed for this chapter, it has become evident that sections of the older text were censored in the textual transmission of the last centuries bce. Only parts of these books were investigated, but it is unlikely that the picture would be fundamentally different in the other parts of these books. More, and perhaps even more substantial, cases can certainly be found in other passages. Additional omissions and rewritings in 1 – 2 Samuel and 1 – 2 Kings have been observed and discussed by August Klostermann, Karl Budde, Julio Trebolle Barrera, Adrian Schenker, Philippe Hugo, Jürg Hutzli and others.189 The most substantial omissions are ideological or theological in nature,190 but stylistic and other

187 Cf. also Deut 17:6 and 19:15, according to which more than one witnesse is required. 188 Levinson, “‘But You Shall Surely Kill Him!’,” 180 – 181. 189 Klostermann, Die Bücher Samuelis; Budde, Die Bücher Samuel; Trebolle Barrera, Centena; Solomon y Jeroboan; Jehffl y Jo‚s; Schenker, Älteste Textgeschichte; Philippe Hugo, Les deux visages d’Êlie: Texte massor¦tique et Septante dans l’histoire la plus ancienne de 1 Rois 17 – 18 (OBO 217; Fribourg and Göttingen: Academic Press and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006); “L’arch¦ologie textuelle du Temple de J¦rusalem: Êtude textuelle et litt¦raire du motif th¦ologique du Temple en 2 Samuel,” in Archaeology of the Books of Samuel: The Entangling of the Textual and Literary History, 161 – 212; “Text and Literary History : The Case of 1 Kgs 19 (MT and LXX),” in Soundings in Kings: Perspective and Methods in Contemporary Scholarship (ed. K.-P. Adam and M. Leuchter ; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 2010), 15 – 34, 156 – 165; Hutzli, “Theologische Textänderungen,” 213 – 236. 190 For example, several theological corrections that included omissions and rewritings can be found in 1 Kgs 17 – 18. As shown by Hugo, Les deux visages d’Êlie, 216 – 249, 324 – 330, the MT is mostly secondary in relation to the Old Greek. Editors in the textual tradition of the MT made omissions and rewritings, some of which are substantial in content. See, for example, 1 Kgs 18:38 – 39, where the MT develops the text to be more in harmony with Deuteronomistic ideals; see Hugo, Les deux visages d’Êlie, 240 – 242. Similar differences between the Greek and Hebrew are also found in 1 Kgs 18:30 – 35. In most cases, the MT is

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

249

Discussion

omissions can be found as well. Similar cases have also been documented in other parts of the Hebrew scriptures;191 the transmission of some books may have been even more radical than in the investigated texts.192 In this chapter special emphasis was put on the most authoritative and oldest parts of the Hebrew Bible such as the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets. It is feasible that other parts of the Hebrew scriptures could provide more evidence for omissions because the most authoritative and oldest literary works were probably locked for changes earlier than those that were originally composed later. This is suggested by the fact that somewhat larger omissions, in some cases entire sentences, could be established in 1 – 2 Samuel and 1 – 2 Kings, whereas in the Pentateuch the omissions were mainly restricted to individual words or letters. The comparison between the MT and the SP versions of the Pentateuch produce a similar result: the text-critical evidence of this material contains only very small omissions, although in some cases the effect may still be substantial. By providing many examples from the most authoritative and oldest texts of the Hebrew scriptures, one can also exclude the possibility of the investigation being slanted towards favoring omissions. This means that these examples may be just the tip of the iceberg, evidence from a relatively late period when the books in question were already at an advanced stage in the process of becoming highly authoritative and sacred Scripture that could be changed only in special circumstances. They would bear witness to the last centuries of theological revisions and censoring before the text became too holy and authoritative to be altered at all. This would imply much more freedom in omitting parts of the older text in their earlier transmission. It has become evident that the censors or censor editors did not turn away from omissions if the older text contained something that was assumed to be clearly erroneous or theologically offensive. That the older text was not regarded as untouchable by some of the late scribes who transmitted the texts challenges the axiomatic conception that nothing could be intentionally omitted after the initial creation of a text in the Hebrew scriptures. Since there have been several cases where an embarrassing or allegedly incorrect conception was independently changed in more than one literary tradition, it is evident that theological corrections by omission were not an isolated phenomenon restricted to one period or one textual tradition. They can be found in the Masoretic text secondary and its reading implies that parts of the older text were left out in the transmission. See Hugo, Les deux visages d’Êlie, 228 – 237. 191 One out of the myriad cases is found in the Book of Job. It appears that a reference to the sons of God was omitted and replaced with the angels in the LXX version of Job 1:6; 2:1 and 38:7. Whereas the Hebrew refers to A=8@4 =D5, the Greek renders the parallel as oR %ccekoi toO heoO or %ccekoi lou (God speaking). 192 For the textual transmission of the books of Jeremiah, Ezra and Esther, see the discussion in chapters 3, 9, and 10.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

250

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

and the mainline LXX textual traditions, which are generally regarded as the most faithful textual traditions. In parts of 1 – 2 Kings the oldest readings can often be found in a small group of Greek manuscripts or Old Latin witnesses,193 while the allegedly more faithful traditions contain secondary corrections. In other words, omission as an editorial technique was included in the toolbox of editors in the MT and LXX traditions as well. This undermines the still often made implicit assumption that the transmission of the MT was particularly conservative, special or different from others. A similar conclusion results from the comparison of the Greek and Hebrew texts of Jeremiah, as we have seen. This stresses that the MT cannot be taken as the starting point. All main witnesses have to be taken into consideration194 and none may function as the preconceived more original text that has to be proven secondary before it is abandoned.195 We have also seen that most of the omissions are small in the amount of text material that was omitted. In many cases, only one or two words were omitted and/or replaced by other words. The editors attempted to make primarily minor omissions if the correction could thus be accomplished. A small omission could also have significant impact on the resulting text so that a larger omission may not have been required. On the basis of the material reviewed, larger omissions seem not to have been very frequent in the textual transmission of the last centuries bce of the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets, but some could still be identified (such as 1 Sam 1:25; 2:11; 2 Kgs 10:23). This suggests that omission was not a technique that would be used lightly or on flimsy grounds, which implies a considerable respect for the preservation of the older text. Several examples suggest that an expansion was preferred over an omission if the same effect could be achieved by adding to the text. The LXX text of Exod 24:9 – 11 is a prime example of this technique. The effect of the addition is the factual omission of an embarrassing theological conception of the older text, but it was achieved by an expansion. This suggests that for many editors an omission was only the last resort, which further corroborates the assumption that omissions were much less common than additions and that these editorial techniques

193 As assumed by Adrian Schenker, The Septuagint in the Text History of 1 – 2 Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography and Reception (VTSup 129; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 15 – 16. 194 For example in 1 – 2 Kings this would necessarily include the MT, the Lucianic text, the other Greek readings and the Old Latin witnesses. 195 This point has been emphasized by many text critics, such as Anneli Aejmelaeus, “What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint,” in On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays (CBET 50; Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 106. This means that the starting point of the investigation should not be the MTso that the burden of proof would lie on those who try to challenge this reading. Instead, the reconstruction of each text has to start from looking at all the evidence on an equal basis.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

251

Discussion

were not assumed to be of the same caliber. An omission was evidently regarded as a much more serious intervention to the older text. The fact that most of the omissions are theological in nature also suggests that the older text was not lightly dispensed with. Although mainly theological omissions have been discussed here, the text material was reviewed in view of other omissions as well. There are some stylistic omissions (many of which omit a duplication caused by earlier editing) and omissions of unclear or obscure sentences.196 Theological concerns nearly always lie behind intentional nonstylistic omissions, while it has been difficult to pinpoint other reasons for omitting some legible information from the older text. Deuteronomy 13:10 is an exception that confirms the rule. Although non-theological in nature, the older text of Deut 13:10 contained an embarrassing detail that could have had problematic consequences if the law was implemented in practice. For the most part, very hefty reasons or a blatant contradiction with what was believed to be right and wrong could cause an omission in the textual transmission of the last centuries bce. Other omissions mainly seek to clarify the text, such as in the case of omitting obscurities or unnecessary repetitions. The systematic and similar theological corrections in some parts of the evidence also suggest that there were later editors who intentionally corrected the text to be theologically more acceptable. This would seem to be a different technique from that of the conventionally assumed editors and redactors. At least some of the examples discussed in this chapter imply that the main intention of some of the editors was to take out certain offensive details from the older text. This is particularly evident in 1 Sam 1 – 2. Similar tendencies have been detected in the New Testament as its books were purged of heretical and other unacceptable theological conceptions.197 Consequently, literary criticism of the Hebrew scriptures has to include in its model such editorial phases that may not form a conventional redactional stratum but that systematically purge

196 Trebolle Barrera, Centena, has discussed several cases of doublets in one of the witnesses (e. g., 2 Sam 2:31; 3:8; 6:4; 18:20). It is often difficult to determine whether the doublet preserved in some of the textual witnesses is the more original reading or whether the shorter text is more original. In the former case, the text would have been edited in an earlier stage so that a doublet emerged, but a later editor then removed the doublet. Such cases are particularly common in the book of Esther. 197 See John William Burgon, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (London: George Bell and Sons, 1896), 128 – 156, 164 – 165, 211 – 231; Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption Of Scripture: The Effect Of Early Christological Controversies On The Text Of The New Testament (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993) and Whose Word is It? The Story Behind Who Changed the New Testament and Why (London and New York: Continuum, 2006). See also the discussion in chapter I of the present volume.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

252

Omission as a Means of Ideological or Theological Censorship

the older text of details and conceptions that were regarded as theologically or ideologically incorrect. One may see certain tendencies as to what kind of material was omitted.198 In many cases the older text contained conceptions implying that the ancient religion of Israel was closer to the conceptions of the rest of the Southern Levant and the Near East. There are also many apparent vestiges of conceptions that scholarship rarely has access to. For example, the original text of some passages seem to imply that there had been an image of Yhwh in the temple(s) and that his/its face was particularly important in his cult. Later censors sought to bring the text to be more in line with the later conceptions of emerging Judaism. Because Yhwh lived in heaven and only his name in the temple, references to his images and faces had to be deleted. Since the editorial activity implied by the text-critical evidence may largely be rather late, it is reasonable to assume that the purging of ancient Israelite conceptions from the texts had been going on for quite some time. The destruction of the temple and monarchy in the early 6th century bce represents a turning point that initiated the decline of the ancient Israelite religion. Because some of the early conceptions have nonetheless survived perhaps centuries of censoring into the Hebrew canon, it would be reasonable to assume that such conceptions had been common in the earliest transmission and that the process of purging the texts of them lasted for centuries. In other words, the preservation of vestiges of ancient Israelite conceptions in some witnesses even into the Common Era suggests that such conceptions were abundant in the sixth century bce documents that lie at the beginning of the textual transmission of the Hebrew scriptures.

198 That the intentional changes form a tendency throughout a book or even beyond individual books provides further corroboration for the analyses. As noted by Adrian Schenker, “Textverderbnis und literarische Umgestaltung,” in Archaeology of the Books of Samuel: The Entangling of the Textual and Literary History, 237 – 260, here p. 239, one should not only look at separate variant readings, but also look at the broader picture of whether the changes form a general tendency that can be seen in different parts of the book. This would certainly be a very welcome development as it would bring text criticism on the one hand and literary and redaction criticism on the other methodologically closer to each other. This development is seen in many of the recent text-critical approaches to the book of Samuel. See especially the contributions in Archaeology of the Books of Samuel: The Entangling of the Textual and Literary History, one of the aims of which was to bring these methodologies closer. See Philippe Hugo, “The History of the Books of Samuel: An Assessment of the Recent Research,” 1 – 19, in that volume.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Chronicles as a Witness to the Editorial Processes

Introduction Chronicles is a significant witness in the discussion about how the older texts were edited, because many of its sources are known and preserved in the Hebrew Bible. In this regard the relationship between Chronicles and its sources was extensively discussed in the early research, especially by Wilhelm M.L. de Wette and Julius Wellhausen,1 but later scholars’ interest in the editorial processes witnessed by Chronicles ebbed. The reason for the lack of interest may be Wellhausen’s influential position. He considered the possibility whether Chronicles could reveal something about the revisions and editorial processes that took place in the Hebrew Bible. He concluded, however, that Chronicles is a Midrash of the book of Kings,2 which effectively meant that it was disregarded in the discussion about the editorial processes. In the wake of Wellhausen’s position most scholars neglected Chronicles in trying to understand the editorial processes of the Hebrew scriptures. Instead, different methods of editing were assumed to have taken place in the Enneateuch, for which there was no comparable empirical evidence. It was assumed that Chronicles was merely a supplement to its sources and was always meant to be read with them, which the Chronicler assumed to be available to future readers. In this chapter, I will discuss the Chronicler’s relationship with his sources with a focus on its implications for the editorial processes. Although Chronicles may not be a model for the editorial processes of all texts of the Hebrew scriptures, I will contend that 1 Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette, Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die Bibel Alten und Neuen Testaments (7thed.; Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1852), 237 – 257, and Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (3d ed.; Berlin: Georg Reimer, 18953), 169 – 228. 2 Wellhausen Prolegomena, 228, writes: “It does not matter whether we call it Chronicles or Midrash of the Book of Kings.” Similarly, Immanuel Benzinger, Bücher der Chronik, X – XV (KHAT 20; Tübingen: Mohr, 1901); Karl Budde, Geschichte Der Althebräischen Litteratur (Leipzig: Amelangs Verlag, 1909), 221 – 229; and many others.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

254

Chronicles as a Witness to the Editorial Processes

the evidence from Chronicles has to be taken into account in building a model for understanding how the Hebrew scriptures developed.3 The Chronicler’s position towards his textual sources is complicated. It provides evidence for a variety of techniques, which range from what would appear as almost complete freedom with regard to the source text to following it slavishly.4 In some passages he used the sources freely to form the new composition. In such sections his methods may not be much different from those of the authors of Genesis or the history writer of 1 – 2 Kings, who used older sources as resource material that could be changed, rewritten or omitted as the author thought would best fit the new composition. Then there are many passages where the Chronicler’s position towards the source text does not differ much from what is conventionally assumed in literary-critical investigations. In these sections the source text was generally followed, but new themes and perspectives were added in the form of additional words, sentences, verses or even entire passages. Finally, there are many sections where the Chronicler followed his source text so closely that if one were to compare only these parallels, one could come to the conclusion that they are manuscripts of the same literary work. The Chronicler could adopt the text of 1 – 2 Kings verbatim (for example in 2 Chr 21:5 – 10a and 23:7 – 18) to the extent that his method does not much differ from the technique of copyist-editors who made an occasional stylistic or other minor change but who took almost every word from the source text. Several examples of this are found in sections that have a parallel in 1 – 2 Kings.5 The different positions towards the older text may be found intermingled in the same passage. This methodological variety in relation to the exact text of the source has made it possible to understand the Chronicler’s relationship with the source in a variety of ways. Different views could be justified depending on which types of passages one has emphasized. Instead of emphasizing one type of position to3 That Chronicles has been neglected and continues to be neglected is also noted by Ehud Ben Zvi, History, Literature and Theology in the Book of Chronicles (London and Oakville: Equinox, 2006), 20, 79: “the book is considered more often than not as, at best, of peripheral importance from historical, literary or theological perspectives. The book is often described as being boring, inferior to other biblical narrative works …” (p. 20). The same attitude is apparent where its value for the editorial processes is concerned. 4 Note that although there may be considerable freedom from a technical perspective as to the extent of the changes, this does not mean that the Chronicler was ideologically or theologically free. It is evident that the Chronicler was theologically dependent on the source in many respects, as we will see. 5 In order to get a grip on something that holds, the relationship between Chronicles and 1 – 2 Kings will only be discussed in this investigation. Although it is probable that the Chronicler’s relationship with the Pentateuch, parts of which were also rendered in Chronicles, was different from his relationship with 1 – 2 Kings, it is unlikely that the basic conclusions of this investigation would be essentially different if more text material from 1 – 2 Samuel, for example, were to be considered.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

255

Introduction

wards the source, the variety has to be taken into considerations in determining what the author’s general position was towards the whole source text as a literary work. That many passages were adopted without major changes shows that the Chronicler had a very high regard for his source. The book of Kings was assumed to provide an authoritative presentation of Israel’s history in the monarchic period, for otherwise the extensive use and faithful rendering of the source would be incomprehensible. The basis and starting point of the Chronicler’s text was 1 – 2 Kings, and it was not deviated from without an evident reason.6 On the other hand, there are many examples where the Chronicler could change the source text, which suggests that he did not regard 1 – 2 Kings as infallible or unchangeable divine revelation. The resulting text could, in some passages, unequivocally contradict the source and the most offensive sections or conceptions were left out. The reason for writing a new version of Judah’s history in the first place was that 1 – 2 Kings had to be updated and corrected theologically. This necessitated many extensive and radical changes. We will see examples of passages where the source text was rewritten and where parts of the source were omitted, mostly for theological reasons, and in fact theological motives appear to be behind most of the intentional and substantial changes. Although the resulting text in Chronicles may be seen as a reflection of or reaction to the text in 1 – 2 Kings, the examples will show that the Chronicler’s own theological conceptions regularly took precedence over the conceptions of 1 – 2 Kings and thereby its text could also be rejected.7 What we see then is considerable respect for the source text as an authoritative account of the past on the one hand, and freedom to change any issue if it did not accord with the Chronicler’s own conceptions on the other. Some scholars have tried to understand and define Chronicles as an interpretation of older authoritative texts,8 but such an approach stretches the defi-

6 Some scholars, for example, Peter R. Ackroyd, I & II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah (Torah Bible Paperbacks; London: SCM Press, 1973), 155, imply that many deviations were caused by the Chronicler’s disuse of 1 – 2 Kings, but this would be a misleading conception. Even in cases where the Chronicler’s account differs completely from the parallel in 1 – 2 Kings, the reasons are theological. In additions to the close parallels the differences also imply that the Chronicler read his source very carefully and spent considerable time contemplating its theological meaning. The changes are mainly theological corrections that were not made lightly. 7 Thus also Kai Peltonen, “Function, Explanation and Literary Phenomena: Aspects of Source Criticism as Theory and Method in the History of Chronicles Research,” The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture (ed. Matt Patrick Graham & Steven L. McKenzie; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 18 – 69, here p. 66. He notes that for the Chronicler “history was subservient to theology.” 8 Especially Thomas Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung: Untersuchung zur literarischen Gestaltung der historischen Überlieferung Israels (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), 53 –

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

256

Chronicles as a Witness to the Editorial Processes

nition and eventually becomes meaningless.9 Although the definition of interpretation, as Auslegung or Midrash, is flexible and entangled with many complicated issues, it would be problematic to define unequivocal and intentional contradictions of details of the source text, found in multitude throughout the text, as interpretations.10 If Chronicles is to be understood as an interpretation or Midrash of the source, one would expect the interpreter to try to explain events, issues or details in the source text so that the reader would understand them in a way meant by the author of Chronicles. In cases where the source text contradicts the Chronicler’s own conception one would expect to find scrupulous attempts to explain away the embarrassing and problematic sections. It is difficult to find such passages, and instead, the author of Chronicles has often taken the liberty of rewriting or simply omitting those sections of the source that were against his own views or conceptions. That the Chronicler had no qualms about omitting and rewriting fits very poorly with the idea of interpretation. Moreover, when there are expansions in the Chronicler’s account in relation to 1 – 2 Kings, they usually add an aspect or theme without any particular attempt to explain the older text. In other words, although the terms Auslegung and Midrash are often elastically used in scholarly literature, using them is not a productive approach to understanding the Chronicler’s use of 1 – 2 Kings, and in the worst case they are misleading.11 Some scholars have argued that Chronicles attempted to replace the Deu69, but also many other scholars since early research, for example Carl Friedrich Keil, Chronik, Esra, Nehemia, Esther (BK, Leipzig: Dörffling u. Franke, 1870), 5 – 13. 9 Clearly, if one understands interpretation of a text in a very broad sense, any use of any text can be seen as an interpretation of another text. Even a complete rejection of an older text could be defined as interpretation, but it is questionable whether such a use of the word would have any meaning. In this book I use the word interpretation when the author writing the interpretation tries to explain some details or sections of the older text to his readers. 10 For various definitions of Midrash, see Günter Mayer, “Midrasch/Midraschim,” TRE XXII: 734 – 744; Gary Porton, “Midrash,” ABD IV: 818 – 822. As noted by Porton, p. 818, “… anything might be Midrash if we do not require a clear connection between the comment and the verse …” Isaac Kalimi, An Ancient Israelite Historian: Studies in the Chronicler, His Time, Place and Writing (SSN 46; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005), p 22, notes that there are midrashic elements in Chronicles, but it is not Midrash. 11 As also noted by Pancratius C. Beentjes, Tradition and Transformation in the Book of Chronicles (SSN 52; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008), 4, the word Midrash has been used “rather unspecifically.” According to Simon De Vries, 1 and 2 Chronicles (FOTL XI; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans,1989), 55, the method of Midrash as known from the rabbinic literature may be utilized “in isolated passages.” Steven L. McKenzie, 1 – 2 Chronicles (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 2004), 33 – 34, has also criticized the definition of Chronicles as Midrash. He then proposes that the term ‘rewritten Bible’ would be more satisfactory. Chronicles could certainly be defined as an example of ‘rewritten Bible’ in the sense that it is rewriting another text that is preserved in the Hebrew Bible. However, this term is also becoming rather too vague to be of use because Deuteronomy, Jubilees, the Temple Scroll, First Esdras, the Greek versions of Esther etc. would also fall under this category, and yet they contain many differences in their relationship to the source text.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

257

Introduction

teronomistic History (Verdrängungstheorie),12 whereas others have suggested that it was merely meant to supplement and interpret it (Ergänzungstheorie).13 There are various positions between these two straightforward views. Although this old debate cannot be discussed thoroughly here, the examples strongly suggest that the Chronicler wanted to provide a theologically more correct account of Israel’s past and thereby replace at least 1 – 2 Kings as the current and most authoritative account. In view of the here-investigated passages, it would be difficult to maintain that the Chronicler merely tried to interpret and supplement his source because in many points his version competes with his source. One receives the impression that defenders of the supplementary theory have downplayed the omissions and rewriting in Chronicles. For example, Thomas Willi, when listing the main types of omission, does not mention theological and ideological omissions at all, which in the presently discussed chapters seem to be the most consequential type of omission. He mainly draws attention to stylistic and other omissions, which, in his view, did not have considerable impact on the general message of the passage.14 For ex12 E.g., Carl Steuernagel, Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1912), 389, “… dass der Chronist mit seinem Werk einen Ersatz für sie schaffen wollte, der ihre völlige Verdrängung zum Zweck hatte, weil sie den Bedürfnissen des Judentums nicht zu entsprechen schienen.” Similarly also Kalimi, Ancient Israelite Historian, 39. According to Ben Zvi, History, Literature and Theology, 27 – 28, the Chronicler did not intend to challenge the traditional authority of his sources (the books of Kings and Samuel) directly. Rather, he subtly co-opted it by working in parallel with it and at the same time undermining his sources’ sole authority over the past among his readership. 13 Thus many, for example, Wellhausen Prolegomena, 228; Edward L. Curtis, Books of Chronicles (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), 9; Martin Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien I (Tübingen: Niemayer, 1957), 171; Willi, Chronik als Auslegung, 49 – 52; Georg Steins, Die Bücher der Chronik: Einleitung in das Alte Testament (ed. Erich Zenger et alii, 5th ed.; Kohlhammer: Stuttgart, 2004), 249 – 262, here p. 258. 14 Although the main focus of Willi’s investigation Chronik als Auslegung is on the relationship between Chronicles and its sources, he fails to discuss intentional omissions, which are apparent in all parts of the book. He lists only the following possibilities of omission: 1) Wörter und Satzteile die er Überflüssig empfand 2) Selbstverständlichkeiten 3) Stilistische Kürzungen 4) Thematisch bedingte Kürzungen 5) Kürzungen von geographischen Angaben 6) Kürzungen von chronologischen Daten 7) Auslassungen von Maßangaben 8) Verallgemeinerung 9) Grund nicht ersichtlich. It is indicative that he calls the omissions kleinere Auslassungen und Kürzungen. His list of categories completely neglects the largest and most theologically significant omissions. There is no reflection on the question of how the author of Chronicles saw the source text when parts of it were omitted. That parts of the sources were left out of Chronicles could be explained by assuming with Willi that Chronicles was meant to be read together with its sources, but such an assumption avoids the problem because primarily the theologically embarrassing and problematic events, stories, and details are omitted in Chronicles. A discussion on the omissions in Chronicles should be imperative in any investigation of Chronicles. Cf., however, Isaac Kalimi, Zur Geschichtsschreibung des Chronisten (BZAW 226; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995), 80 – 91, who additionally refers to theological omissions.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

258

Chronicles as a Witness to the Editorial Processes

ample, he explains away one of the clearest omissions of 2 Chr 23:1 – 2 in relation to 2 Kgs 11:4, the omission of the soldiers and guards, by assuming that the Chronicler did not understand what was meant (and incidentally replaced the soldiers with priests and Levites!).15 Pancratius C. Beentjes has argued against the replacement theory that it would be difficult “to understand why the Chronicler … adopted so many texts from the corpus he wanted to interpret or even to replace with his own composition.”16 In fact, it is exactly the verbatim adoption of so many passages from 1 – 2 Kings that speaks for the replacement theory. If the Chronicler merely wanted to supplement the source, there would be no need to reproduce entire passages word for word.17 Moreover, one should not describe the Chronicler’s stance as an either/or position so that he would either reject the information of the older text completely or assume it to be an irreplaceable account. The Chronicler was evidently convinced that several sections of the older text were reliable. He could adopt large sections of the source without changes because he did not find any theological problems in them. In matters concerning Judah’s political history 1 – 2 Kings was probably even regarded as having considerable authority. Nevertheless, as soon as 1 – 2 Kings presented something theologically problematical, the Chronicler corrected it to accord with his own conceptions. In other words, for the Chronicler, 1 – 2 Kings contained much authoritative information, but as a literary work it was not infallible and unchangeable. As a whole it contained too much that was theologically incorrect to be left unchanged. Because of the fundamental theological changes that often contradict the source text in 1 – 2 Kings, it is probable that he regarded his own account to be more correct and more authoritative than 1 – 2 Kings.18 The supplementary theory finds many advocates in the early research as well. 15 Willi’s (Chronik als Auslegung, 118 – 119) general position should be seen from the perspective of his assumption that the Chronicler regarded the Deuteronomistic History as having canonical authority in the sense that it contained prophetic information about the past. He also notes that the Chronicler’s own work was meant to be seen as a subordinate work that could not be understood without the Deuteronomistic History (see pp. 54 – 59). It is not possible to deal with his view in more detail in this context, but many of the observations and examples in 2 Chr 21 – 24 below will strongly suggest that Willi’s observations and basic assumptions are misleading and that his conclusions are very unlikely. He seems to ignore part of the evidence. 16 Beentjes, Tradition and Transformation, 6. 17 Cf. Jubilees, which often provides additional stories rather than duplicating the older text word for word. 18 It is evident, however, that the wider Jewish readership would not have necessarily accepted the Chronicler’s version as having more authority. Quite the contrary, for already since the Second Temple period 1 – 2 Kings had been considered as more authoritative than Chronicles. In the end, it is the later contexts that define the authority of a text and not the wishes of the authors. See Ben Zvi, History, Literature and Theology, 243 – 268.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

259

Introduction

According to Carl Friedrich Keil, the Chronicler rendered his sources very carefully and the deviations are due to the Chronicler’s attempt to explain the text in more detail and from a different perspective. Other differences would be purely formal or linguistic.19 Karl Steuernagel notes that the Chronicler made only small changes to his sources.20 Similarly, Martin Noth also emphasized the faithfulness of the Chronicler towards his source and maintained that the changes are primarily inconsequential.21 According to Charles Cutler Torrey, theological abridgements were not extensive, and where there are large abridgements the reason is that the Chronicler was in agreement with the older composition. Torrey is also “certain that he [the Chronicler] did not mean to supplant the books of Samuel and Kings; he intended rather to supplement them.”22 In view of the differences between the parallel texts investigated here, such positions are unconvincing or even difficult to comprehend, especially when represented by scholars who have been very consistent and critical in other areas of biblical scholarship. Many scholars have downplayed the fundamental differences and even contradictions between Chronicles and its sources, and this has, in my view, resulted in theories that assume Chronicles to be merely an interpretation or supplementation of its sources. Although discussing specifically the Chronicler’s relationship with his sources, some scholars have avoided the issue of omissions or reduced it to minor and technical omissions.23 One receives the impression that much more information about the Chronicler could be gained by looking at exactly what was omitted and how it was omitted. Isaac Kalimi may be one of the most consistent 19 Carl F. Keil, Biblischer Commentar über die nachexilischen Gesichtsbücher : Chronik, Esra, Nehemia, Esther (Leipzig: Doerffling und Franke, 1870), 26: “Die Sorgfalt, mit welcher der Chronist seine Quellen benutzt hat, ersieht man bei der Vergleichung der der Chronik mit den Büchern Samuels und der Könige gemeinsamen Erzählungen, und zwar nicht blos daraus, dab in diesen parallelen Abschnitten die Relation der Chronik mit den Berichten jener Bücher in allen wesentlichen Punkten übereinstimmt, sondern auch aus den darin uns entgegentretenden Abweichungen, indem diese in sachlicher Beziehung vielfach genauere und vollständigere Nachrichten liefern und in jeder anderen Beziehung rein formeller Art sind, zum gröberen Teile nur Sprache und Ausdrucksweise betreffen oder mit dem paränetisch-didactischen Zwecke der Geschichtserzählung zusammenhängen.” According to Keil, the Chronicler omitted some parts because they were “Nebenumstände” (see p. 7). It is logical that the next step would be to understand Chronicles as a Midrash, but it hardly does justice to the changes that the Chronicler has made in relation to his sources, as we will see in the examples below. 20 Steuernagel, Lehrbuch, 408. 21 Martin Noth, The Chronicler’s History (JSOTS 50; Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield, 1987), 89 – 95. 22 Charles Cutler Torrey, Ezra Studies (KTAV Publishing House: New York, 1970), 213 – 214. His view is somewhat ambivalent because he also emphasizes the Chronicler’s attempt to correct the erroneous conceptions of the sources (cf. pp. 218 – 223). 23 Thus especially Willi, Chronik als Auslegung, 92 – 111, but also many others.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

260

Chronicles as a Witness to the Editorial Processes

scholars to investigate the Chronicler’s relationship to his sources. Although he discusses omission separately, much of the discussion centers on minor omissions.24 There are many passages that would give reason to perceive the Chronicler as a redactor or editor, similar to the ones that are assumed to have edited the Deuteronomistic History or other books of the Hebrew scriptures.25 If we only possessed Chronicles, it is probable that there would be many investigations that would seek to understand the literary development of Chronicles. Traces of earlier sources and tensions are met in various parts of the composition and the Chronicler also refers to his sources (e. g., 2 Chr 32:32 and 35:26 – 27), which would encourage literary-critical investigations. However, now that we are familiar with his source text, there appears to be a considerable difference from the traditionally assumed redactors. In some passages the Chronicler is much more radical than what one usually assumes from the later editors of 1 – 2 Kings (or other books). As noted by Wilhelm Rudolph, “While the author of the Deuteronomistic History normally transmitted his sources unchanged … the Chronicler intervened more strongly in the text, when it was necessary …”26 The Chronicler’s position towards the source is thus somewhere between what is assumed of a classical redactor who made mainly expansions and an author of a new literary work. Chronicles suggests that one cannot make a clear distinction between the author of new compositions and redactors, who edited an older literary work. For our endeavor this is significant because one has accepted the possibility of omissions of parts of the sources when a new literary work was created and rejected this possibility when the older text was edited by redactors. Accordingly, the possibility of a middle position, such as what is found in Chronicles, has to be integrated into the model of how the transmission of Hebrew scriptures is seen. Although Chronicles is only one example of how the older texts could have been edited in their transmission, it should certainly not be ignored. Not all editors used similar techniques, but in investigating any texts in the Hebrew Bible, one should take into consideration the possibility that

24 Kalimi, Zur Geschichtsschreibung des Chronisten, 80 – 91. Although his perspective is much on the redactional techniques, perhaps more could have been squeezed out of the omissions that the Chronicler makes in relation to the source text. See also, Isaac Kalimi, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles (Winona Lakes, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 85 – 98. 25 Many scholars have characterized the Chronicler as a redactor ; see for example, Steuernagel, Lehrbuch, 408; Steven L. McKenzie, “Chronicler as Redactor,” The Chronicler as Author (ed. Matt Patrick Graham & Steven L. McKenzie; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 70 – 90, and Kalimi, Zur Geschichtsschreibung des Chronisten. As noted by McKenzie (p. 90), the Chronicler as redactor, in effect, means the same thing as author, because “the term ‘redaction’ … describes the entire creative process in which he was engaged.” 26 Wilhelm Rudoph, Chronikbücher (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1955), XIII.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

261

Introduction

some of the editors in the transmission of any biblical text may have used similar techniques as the Chronicler. I will proceed by providing examples of parallel sections of 2 Chr 21 – 25 and 2 Kgs 8 – 12. These chapters are fruitful for the investigation because it is relatively certain that here the Chronicler used 1 – 2 Kings as the underlying source. They also provide clear reasons why and when the Chronicler deviated from the source text. Most of the omissions in these chapters are apparent to any reader who compares the parallel accounts, but it is still necessary to have a closer look at them in order to understand better the reasons for the omissions. Although it is probable that the Chronicler used 1 – 2 Kings, or a text relatively close to the MT,27 one cannot completely exclude the possibility that in some cases the original author of Chronicles followed the source closely but that a later editor of Chronicles omitted a section that was theologically problematic.28 This is rather improbable in the chapters investigated here, but even if it were the case, it would still have little impact on the main conclusions.29 Moreover, in some cases Chronicles may lack a section because it was added to 1 – 2 Kings only after the Chronicler had used it as a source. The relationship between the texts can be very complicated, but for us it is important to concentrate on texts where we can be fairly certain that the Chronicler was familiar with a text of 1 – 2 Kings similar to the versions that we possess. In each case, the relationship between the texts should be discussed separately so that the reasons for the changes can be understood. The Greek texts and other textual witnesses have been taken into consideration, although the focus of this study limits the possibility of solving the problems concerning the complex relationship between the Greek versions and the Masoretic text. The evidence is here considered only as far as is necessary and relevant for the purposes of this investigation. 27 There are many passages where the text history is very complicated and the two parallels accounts may have been harmonized in view of one another, or where one of the accounts may have been later revised, but they do not have any impact on the main focus of this investigation. 28 Many scholars since early research, for example, Wilhelm Martin Leberecht De Wette, Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Schimmelpfennig: Halle, 1806), 61; Steuernagel, Lehrbuch, 408 – 409; Rudolph, Chronikbücher, VIII, 4, and Kurt Galling, Die Bücher der Chronik (ATD 12; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954), have assumed that Chronicles may have been edited by at least one major redactor. It should be noted, however, that editing in the chapters investigated here is traditionally assumed to be very limited. For example, Rudolph, Chronikbücher, VIII, 4, who assumes a considerable number of later expansions to Chronicler, has suggested only one small addition in the chapters investigated here, namely in 2 Chr 23:10. In any case, Steins, Chronik, 415 – 439, has recently shown that the redaction history of Chronicles may be much more complicated than what is traditionally assumed. 29 In this case the omission or rewriting would occur in another editorial phase, but would still show what kind of editorial processes took place in the text.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

262

Chronicles as a Witness to the Editorial Processes

Large Expansions in the Account on Jehoram’s reign Jehoram’s reign is described in 1 Kgs 22:51 and 2 Kgs 8:16 – 24,30 and the parallel account is found in 2 Chr 21:1 – 20. It is very likely that the Chronicler used 1 – 2 Kings for his own account of Jehoram’s reign in 2 Chr 21 and not any other source because those parts that are parallel with 2 Kgs 8:17 – 22 are almost identical and were evidently copied word for word for 2 Chr 21. Nevertheless, the accounts contain several differences, and although our focus is on the omissions, the other changes will also be discussed because they show that many of the Chronicler’s editorial techniques are similar to what is often assumed of editors and redactors of the Hebrew Bible.31 In this passage the Chronicler was mainly expansive in relation to the source. Second Chronicles 21 contains two extensive plusses in verses 2 – 4 and 10ab*–19, but there are also some omissions: 1 Kgs 22:51 and 2 Kgs 8:16 – 24

22.51

L5K=9 9=N54.AF üHM98= 5?M=9 ý@B=9 9=54 797 L=F5 9=N54.AF 9=N;N 9D5 AL98= 8.16 ý@B 54;4.C5 AL9=@ MB; NDM59 8798= ý@B üHM98=9 @4LM= 8798= ý@B üHM98=.C5 AL98= ý@B

17

9?@B5 8=8 8DM A=NM9 [email protected] A@M9L=5 ý@B A=DM 8DM 8DBM9 18 N=5 9MF LM4? @4LM= =?@B ýL75 ý@=9

2 Chr 21:1 – 20

1

L5K=9 9=N54.AF üHM98= 5?M=9 ý@B=9 7=97 L=F5 9=N54.AF 9=N;N 9D5 AL98=

2

98=L ?:9 @4=;=9 8=L :F üHM98= =D5 A=;4.9@9 üHM98= =D5 8@4.@? 98=üHM9 @4 ?=B9 98=L :F9 3 N9DNB A8=54 A8@ CN=9 @4LM=. ?@B N9LJB =LF.AF N9D76B@9 58 :@9 GE ?@ N95L L9 ?58 498.=? AL98=@ CND 8 [email protected] 8798=5 4 6L8=9 K :;N=9 9=54 N ?@BB.@F AL98= AK=9 @4Lb= =LbB A69 5L ;5 9=;4.@?.N4 5 9?@B5 AL98= 8DM A=NM9 [email protected] A@M9L=5 ý@B A=DM 8D9BM9 6 54;4 N=5 9MF LM4? @4LM= =?@B ýL75 ý@=9

30 Note that the Antiochene text omits 1 Kgs 22:40 – 51, but the corresponding text is found in 1 Kgs 16:28. Most other Greek manuscripts contain a doublet of 1 Kgs 22:40 – 51 (or part of the passage) in 1 Kgs 16:28. 31 There are no major differences between the MT and LXX versions in these chapters, but in some cases the LXX of 2 Chr shares a reading with MT/LXX of 2 Kgs against MTof 2 Chr (e. g., 2 Chr 21:8, 9). The LXX of 2 Chr 21:9 adds ja· 5vucem b ka¹r eQr t± sjgm¾lata aqt_m over against MT, but the sentence is found in the MT of 2 Kgs 8:20 (9=@84@ AF8 ED=9). Most of the differences between the Hebrew and Greek versions are minor additions or omissions. Although the later harmonizing recensions may blur the view, there is no evidence that the Chronicler had a significantly different Hebrew Vorlage for the passage from the MT. Only one sentence, missing in the MT of 2 Chr 21:9 but preserved in its Greek version and in the MT of 2 Kgs 8:21 (9=@84@ AF8 ED=9 / ja· 5vucem b ka¹r eQr t± sjgm¾lata aqt_m), leaves some space for the assumption that here 2 Kgs 8:21 may have been expanded later and that the Chronicler may have used an earlier version of the verse. The Greek of 2 Chr 21:9 would then have been later influenced by 2 Kgs 8:21.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

263

Large Expansions in the Account on Jehoram’s reign

Continued 1 Kgs 22:51 and 2 Kgs 8:16 – 24

2 Chr 21:1 – 20 8M4 9@ 8N=8 54;4.N5 =? 898= =D=F5 FL8 MF=9 7 N=;M8@ 898= 854.4@9 7=97@ @ NL ? LM4 N=L58 CFB@ 7=97 N=5.N4 A=B=8.@? 9=D5@9 L=D 9@ NN@ LB4 LM4?99 8 8798=.7= N;NB A974 FMH 9=B=5 ý@B A8=@F 9?=@B=,9 9 9=LM.AF AL98 8= L5F=9 8@=@ AK =8=9 9BF 5?L8.@?9 5?L8 =LM N49 9=@4 559E8 A974.N4 ý=9

8M4@ [email protected]=8 54;4.N5 =? 54;4 898= =D=F5 FL8 MF=9 19 N=;M8@ 898= 854.4@9 975F 797 CFB@ 8798=.N4 A=B=8.@? 9=D5@ L=D 9@ NN@ [email protected] LM4? 20 8798=.7= N;NB A974 FMH 9=B=5 ý@B A8=@F 9?@B=9 21 8L=FJ AL9= L5F=9 8@=@ AK 498.=8=9 9BF 5?L8.@?9 5?L8 =LM N49 9=@4 5=5E8 A974.N4 8?=9 9=@84@ AF8 ED=9 22 8798=.7= N;NB A974 FMH=9 4=88 NF5 8D5@ FMHN :4 8:8 A9=8 7F

10

87)98=.7= N;NB A974 FMH=9 4=88 NF5 8D5@ FMHN :4 8:8 A9=8 7F 9=N54 =8@4 898=.N4 5 :F =? 97= N ;NB 11 =5M=.N4 C :=,9 8798= =L85 N9B5.8F 498.A6 8798=.N4 ;7=9 A@M9L= 12 8 ? LB4@ 4=5D8 98=@4B 5N ?B 9=@4 45=9 N [email protected]@ LM4 N ;N ý=54 7=97 =8@4 898= LB4 8798=.ý@B 4E4 =?L759 ý=54 üHM98= =?L75 13 8798=.N4 8D :N9 @4LM= =?@B ýL75 ý@N9 A69 54 ;4 N=5 N9D :8 ? A@M9L= =5M=.N49 N6L8 ýBB A=59ü8 ý=54.N=5 ý=;4.N4 14 8H6B G6D 898= 8D8 ýM9 ?L.@?59 ý=MD59 ý=D559 ýBF5 8@976 15 94J=.7F ý=FB 8@;B5 A=5L A=@;5 8N49 16 898= LF=9 A=B=.@F A=B= =@;8.CB ý=FB A=5LF89 A=NM@H8 ;9L N4 AL98=.@F 17 89FK5=9 8798=5 9@F=9 A=M9 ? 7=.@F LM4 ý@B8.N=5@ 4JBD8 M9 ?L8.@? N4 95M9 C5 [email protected] 4@9 9=MD9 9=D5.A69 9=D5 CüK :;498=.A4 =? 18 898= 9H6D N4 :.@? =L ;49 4HLB C=4@ =@;@ 9=FB5 19 A=DM A=B=@ IK8 N4J NF ?9 A=B=B A=B=@ =8=9 A=FL A=4@;N5 NB=9 9=@;.AF 9=FB 94J= 9=N54 NHLM ? 8HLM 9BF 9@ 9MF.4@9 20 9?@B5 8=8 A=NM9 [email protected] A@M9L=5 ý@B A=DM 8D9BM9 7B ; 4@5 ý@=9

[9?@B5 8=8 8DM A=NM9 [email protected] 8.17 A@M9L=5 ý@B 8DM 8DBM9] 8798= =?@B@ A=B=8 =L57 LHE.@F A=59N? A8.49@8 8MF 23 LM4.@?9 AL9= =L57 LN=9 24 9=N54.AF AL9= 5?M=9 797 L=F5 9=N54.AF L5K=9 22:51 Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father; and Jehoram his son reigned in his stead. 16 In the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab,

A=?@B8 N9L5K5 4@9 7=97 L=F5 98L5K=9 1

Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David; and Jehoram his son reigned in his stead. 2 He had brothers, the sons of Jehoshaphat:

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

264

Chronicles as a Witness to the Editorial Processes

Continued 1 Kgs 22:51 and 2 Kgs 8:16 – 24 king of Israel, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, began to reign.

17 He was thirty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem. 18 And he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, as the house of Ahab had done, for the daughter of Ahab was his wife. And he did what was evil in the sight of Yhwh. 19 Yet Yhwh would not destroy Judah, because of David his servant, since he promised to give a lamp to him and to his sons forever. 20 In his days Edom revolted from the rule of Judah, and set up a king of their own. 21 Then Joram passed over to Zair with all his chariots, and rose by night, and he and his chariot commanders smote the Edomites who had surrounded him and his chariot commanders; but his army fled home. 22 So Edom revolted from the rule of Judah to this day. Then Libnah revolted at the same time. 23 Now the rest of the acts of Joram, and all that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah?

2 Chr 21:1 – 20 Azariah, Jehiel, Zechariah, Azariah, Michael, and Shephatiah; all these were the sons of Jehoshaphat king of Judah. 3 Their father gave them great gifts, of silver, gold, and valuable possessions, together with fortified cities in Judah; but he gave the kingdom to Jehoram, because he was the first-born. 4 When Jehoram had ascended the throne of his father and was established, he slew all his brothers with the sword, and also some of the princes of Israel. 5 Jehoram was thirty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem. 6 And he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, as the house of Ahab had done; for the daughter of Ahab was his wife. And he did what was evil in the sight of Yhwh. 7 Yet Yhwh would not destroy the house of David, because of the covenant which he had made with David, and since he had promised to give a lamp to him and to his sons for ever. 8 In his days Edom revolted from the rule of Judah, and set up a king of their own. 9 Then Jehoram passed over with his commanders and all his chariots, and he rose by night and smote the Edomites who had surrounded him and his chariot commanders. 10

So Edom revolted from the rule of Judah to this day. At that time Libnah also revolted from his rule, because he had forsaken Yhwh, the God of his fathers. 11 Moreover he made high places in the hill country of Judah, and led the inhabitants of Jerusalem into unfaithfulness, and made Judah go astray. 12 And a letter came to him from Elijah the prophet, saying, ”Thus says Yhwh, the God of David your father, ‘Because you have not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat your father, or in the ways of Asa king of Judah, 13 but have walked in the way of the kings of Israel, and have led Judah and the

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Large Expansions in the Account on Jehoram’s reign

265

Continued 1 Kgs 22:51 and 2 Kgs 8:16 – 24

He was thirty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem. 24 Joram slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David.

2 Chr 21:1 – 20 inhabitants of Jerusalem into unfaithfulness, as the house of Ahab led Israel into unfaithfulness, and also you have killed your brothers, of your father’s house, who were better than yourself; 14 behold, Yhwh will bring a great plague on your people, your children, your wives, and all your possessions, 15 and you yourself will have a severe sickness with a disease of your bowels, until your bowels come out because of the disease, day by day. 16 And Yhwh stirred up against Jehoram the anger of the Philistines and of the Arabs who are near the Ethiopians; 17 and they came up against Judah, and invaded it, and carried away all the possessions they found that belonged to the king’s house, and also his sons and his wives, so that no son was left to him except Jehoahaz, his youngest son. 18 And after all this Yhwh smote him in his bowels with an incurable disease. 19 In course of time, at the end of two years, his bowels came out because of the disease, and he died in great agony. His people made no fire in his honor, like the fires made for his fathers. 20 He was thirty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem; and he departed with no one’s regret. They buried him in the city of David, but not in the tombs of the kings.

The extensive plusses and other changes correspond well with the assumed theology of the Chronicler. They develop the text towards conceptions that are common in many other parts of Chronicles that are assumed to derive from the Chronicler. The assumption of an unknown source would not provide any heuristic advantage in this passage. If one were to assume that the Chronicler used a source other than 1 – 2 Kings, as suggested by many scholars, such as Japhet,32 one would have to assume that this source had already developed the 32 Thus many, for example, Rudolph, Chronikbücher, 266 – 267, who assumes an external literary source. According to Sara Japhet, I & II Chronicles (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993), 806, an external source “provides a better starting point for understanding the passages.” Jacob M. Myers, II Chronicles (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965), 120,

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

266

Chronicles as a Witness to the Editorial Processes

text towards Chronistic conceptions. Accordingly, Japhet also acknowledges that 2 Chr 21 accords very well with what one knows about the Chronicler’s theology.33 Rather than assuming an external unknown source that viewed the past in a way very similar to the Chronicler, it is more probable that the Chronicler is behind the changes and additions that developed the text closer to his own theology (Occam’s razor). Most of the changes do not contain any information that one would not be able to deduce from 2 Kgs 8 or that would not be a logical consequence of how the Chronicler viewed the past. The additional material largely consists of rather stereotypical references to common sins and some of the most terrible punishments that can be imagined.34 Second Chronicles 21 is in fact a good example of the amalgamation of the text in 1 – 2 Kings and the Chronicler’s theology. One single detail in the source text, Jehoram’s connection with the house of Omri, may have been the cause for most of the changes that the Chronicler made. According to 2 Kgs 8:18, Jehoram was married to Ahab’s daughter and therefore followed Ahab’s sins. Since Ahab was regarded as one of the most sinful kings of the generally sinful Northern Kingdom, such a connection would, in the Chronicler’s view, have necessarily meant that Jehoram was also a very evil king. That Edom and Libnah were said to have revolted against Judah was a further indication for the Chronicler that the king must have done something to cause Yhwh’s punishment. Accordingly, in the Chronicler’s account Jehoram was systematically made a more evil and ill-fated king than what he is in 2 Kgs 8. Although already 2 Kgs 8 regards Jehoram as a sinner, his actions are not described as particularly sinful and there is no evident punishment. This would notes that v. 2 – 4 “was doubtless taken from the historical records from which the writer drew his material.” Steuernagel, Lehrbuch, 404, assumes that the additions were taken from the now lost Midrash of Kings. 33 Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 806, notes that 2 Chr 21 “reflects the almost iron-bound theological system of the Chronicler’s most basic convictions” It is not fully clear whether Japhet implies that the additional material taken from external sources would already contain Chronistic features or whether these features derive from the Chronicler himself. 34 The only exception may be 2 Chr 21:2 – 3, which refers to Jehoram’s brothers and their gifts, but even in these verses one should be cautious. Most scholars assume that they contain information that was taken from another source. According to Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 807, “virtually all scholars” concede “the authenticity of these actions,” but one should not underestimate the creative mind of the Chronicler especially when the whole passage was strongly shaped towards his own theology. In the present form, the main focus of vv. 2 – 4 is the murder of Jehoram’s brothers, which was against the kingdom of his father (9=54 N?@BB.@F AL98= AK=9), and therefore it serves the Chronicler’s main idea in the passage, which was to show how evil Jehoram was. Although there may not be very strong Chronistic features in vv. 2 – 4, they in fact fit well with the Chronicler’s motives. For example, Rudolph, Chronikbücher, 265, notes that since 2 Chr 21:2 – 4 does not contain any Chronistic features, there is no reason to doubt their information. He fails to see that the Chronicler intentionally made Jehoram a more evil king and this is the reason for the addition of vv. 2 – 4.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

267

Large Expansions in the Account on Jehoram’s reign

have been against the convictions and theology of the Chronicler and the text had to be changed accordingly. Jehoram was eventually made one of the most evil kings, under whose reign Judah faced many misfortunes. Jehoram was made a murderer of his own family (2 Chr 21:4) as well as an inciter of the whole of Judah to the sins of Israel and of Ahab (21:11). As a punishment, Jehoram and his family were struck with a terrible and incurable disease (21:14), which caused his bowels to fall out (21:15, 18 – 19). Amplifying the idea of the rebellion of Edom and Libnah in 2 Kgs 8, the Chronicler tells us that Judah was attacked by other nations, who took everything in the king’s palace, including Jehoram’s wives and sons (21:17). His final fate is described as particularly grim. The king died of the disease, without being buried in the royal tombs (21:19 – 20).35 Most of these changes were occasioned by additions, but there are also illuminating omissions especially at the end of the passage where the king’s burial is described, in 2 Chr 21:20: 2 Kgs 8:23 – 24

23

8798= =?@B@ A=B=8 =L57 LHE.@F A=59N? A8.49@8 8MF LM4.@?9 AL9= =L57 LN=9 24 9=N54.AF AL9= 5?M=9 797 L=F5 9=N54.AF L5K=9

2 Chr 21:20 87B ; 4@5 ý@=9 A=?@B8 N9L5K5 4@9 7=97 L=F5 98L5K=9

23

Now the rest of the acts of Joram, and all that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah? 24 So Joram slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David;

20 and he departed with no one’s regret. And they buried him in the city of David, but not in the tombs of the kings.

35 Some of the changes are not connected to Ahab. For example, in 2 Chr 21:7 the Chronicler wanted to avoid the impression that Judah was spared because of David, and the resulting text refers to the covenant Yhwh made with David: 2 Kgs 8:10

2 Chr 21:7

8798=.N4 N=;M8@ 898= 854.4@9

7=97 N=5.N4 N=;M8@ 898= 854.4@9

975F 797 CFB@

7=97@ @ NL ? LM4 N=L58 CFB@

A=B=8.@? 9=D5@ L=D 9@ NN@ [email protected] LM4?

A=B=8.@? 9=D5@9 L=D 9@ NN@ LB4 LM4?99

The emphasis is changed from David’s deeds to Yhwh’s. Some scholars, for example, Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 809, assume that Chronicles may preserve a more original reading. The problem is the peculiar reference to Judah and not to the house of David. Her argument is based on the assumption that the Chronicler’s view is historically and linguistically more probable. Here we are on thin ice, however, since it would be very difficult to determine what is historically more probable. Similar rather small theological changes can be found throughout Chronicles. As in other parts of Chronicles, a reference to the relative chronology of the Northern Kingdom in 2 Kgs 8:16 was omitted, which is a systematic omission. Moreover, in the Chronicler’s account, a parallel to 2 Kgs 8:17 is found twice so that the reference to Jehoram’s age and length of reign is met in 2 Chr 21:5 and 20. The repetition may have been necessary in order to return to the original text after the large expansion in vv. 10 – 19. Other differences are minor orthographical (AL9= > AL98=) and grammatical changes (omission of 8=8 in 8:17) as well as misunderstandings of names (8L=FJ > 9=Lb.AF).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

268

Chronicles as a Witness to the Editorial Processes

According to 2 Kgs 8:24, the king was buried with his fathers in the City of David, but such an honorable end to the evil king would have been against the Chronicler’s theological conceptions. Although some words were adopted from 2 Kgs 8:24, the text was effectively rewritten in 2 Chr 21:20. The typical reference to the peaceful death of a king, “slept with his fathers,” was changed to a more negative wording: “he went away without anyone missing him.” The basic information that the king died was preserved, but the tone in now very different. Moreover, the Chronicler adopted from the source text the idea that the king was buried in the city of David, but he wanted to emphasize that he was not buried in the tombs of the kings. This change necessitated the omission of 9=N54.AF and the addition of A=?@B8 N9L5K5 4@9, which would have contradicted each other. The typical reference to the source text where further details can be found in 2 Kgs 8:23 was also omitted, possibly because the Chronicler’s account contradicted the source so clearly.36 The changes made in these verses correspond well with the other changes made to the passage by the Chronicler. Without the omissions in the burial account, the verse would have undermined and even contradicted the Chronicler’s two large expansions, which make King Jehoram more evil than in the source. Although many scholars have suggested that the Chronicler used a different source for 2 Chr 21:20,37 this is improbable because the parallels clearly show that he was well familiar with 2 Kgs 8. That he still refers to the burial in the City of David implies that he was writing in view of 2 Kgs 8:24. In other parts of the passage the Chronicler was able to solve the problems by adding details that made Jehoram more evil, but here an omission was necessary because the source made an unconditional statement about the king’s positive and honorable burial. It seems likely therefore that the Chronicler consciously altered the fate of Jehoram, with the consequence that his account contradicts and even says the opposite of what is said in the source. The ‘facts’ or the past events were simply changed to what the Chronicler regarded as theologically more correct. In this verse we are dealing with relatively small omissions, but the implications of such omissions, similar to which can be found in many other parts of Chronicles, are considerable for understanding the editorial methods of the Chronicler in using 1 – 2 Kings. An unmistakable contradiction with the source text precludes the assumption that the Chronicler regarded the content of the older text in 1 – 2 Kings as infallible or unchangeable. Second Chronicles 21 is an 36 A similar reference is omitted in two other passages in Chronicles as well, and there the king is also assumed to have been particularly evil (Amaziah and Amon). That these three kings were among the most evil may have been the reason for the omission of a reference to the source. The Chronicler may not have wanted to refer to anything positive about these kings that could be found in 1 – 2 Kings. 37 Thus, for example, already Keil, Chronik, 301.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Editorial changes in the Account of Jehoiada’s Rebellion

269

example of a text where he could alter the history if it contradicted his own theology. If his theological views conflicted with something in the older text, he did not refrain from omissions. On the other hand, most of the changes are expansions. It is possible to see the same tendency throughout Chronicles—that he is somewhat more prone to make additions than omissions or rewritings. If we only possessed the Chronicler’s account of Jehoram’s reign, it would be very difficult to reconstruct the omitted parts of the older text. It would perhaps be possible to identify the large expansions because they develop the text in a new direction, but scholarship would run into difficulties with the omissions. We could perhaps speculate about why the standard formula about the king’s death (9=N54.AF AL9= 5?M=9) is missing and why the king was not buried in the royal tombs. One could even argue that since the theological judgment of the king is late, the idea that the king was not buried in the royal tombs could also be a late correction, and thus one could even come to the conclusion that the older source or the royal annals originally contained a similar comment about the king’s death and burial as in other passages of 2 Chronicles. Nevertheless, this would, at best, remain highly speculative and there would certainly be various disputed theories and no consensus.

Editorial changes in the Account of Jehoiada’s Rebellion The differences between the two accounts of Jehoiada’s rebellion are much more extensive than in the previous example on Jehoram’s reign. It is generally accepted that 2 Kgs 11 was the main source behind 2 Chr 22:10 – 23:21,38 and a late version of 2 Kgs 11 was evidently used because the Chronicler’s version shows familiarity with the later additions to 2 Kgs 11.39 Despite a number of differences between the two versions, there is no reason to assume that the author of 2 Chr 22:10 – 23:21 also had a source other than 2 Kgs 11 at his disposal.40 Almost every 38 Thus, for example, Hugh G.M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982), 312 – 31, and Myers, II Chronicles, 131. According to Ackroyd, I & II Chronicles, 155, 2 Kgs 11 was “hardly used by the Chronicler … the differences of treatment are due very largely to the Chronicler’s particular emphases.” However, it would be misleading to assume that the Chronicler did not use 2 Kgs 11. In fact, he used it very thoroughly, since his own account follows its development very carefully and has used practically every verse in it. The deviations are caused by the Chronicler’s theological conceptions. 39 For the redaction history of 2 Kgs 11, see, for example, Christoph Levin, Der Sturz der Konigin Atalja (SBS 105; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk,1982). There is no evidence for significant expansions in 2 Kgs 11 after the author of 2 Chr 22:10 – 23:21 had used it as a source. 40 Many since early research, for example, Keil, Chronik, 305 – 307, have assumed that other sources were used. According to Keil, the versions differ so much that there must have been

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

270

Chronicles as a Witness to the Editorial Processes

verse of 2 Kgs 11 is used in some form in 2 Chronicles and they are used in exactly the same order. If other sources had been used for 2 Chr 22:10 – 23:21 one would expect to find different themes and, at least in some parts, more variation in the order of events from those of 2 Kgs 11. The differences between the two texts can best be understood as reactions of the Chronicler to the text of 2 Kgs 11 because most of the changes are well in line with the Chronicler’s theology.41 There are some notable differences between the Hebrew and Greek versions of the passages, but they are limited in comparison with the much more substantial changes taking place between 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles.42 Although the focus here is on the omissions, other changes will also be investigated in order to gain a better view of the overall editorial processes and understand when the Chronicler resorted to omissions. Although the accounts of Joash being hidden from Athaliah are mostly very similar, there are some important differences: 2 Kgs 11:2

2 Chr 22:11 ý@B8.N5 F5M98= ;KN9 98=:;4 N9;4 AL9=. 9N4 5D6N9 8=:;4.C5 M49=.N4 A=NN9BB8 ý@B8.=D5 ý9NB 9N4 9LNE=9 N9üB8 L7;5 9NKD=B.N49 9N4

NB98 4@9 98=@NF =DHB

Jehosheba, the daughter of King Joram, sister of Ahaziah, took Joash the son of Ahaziah, and stole him away from among the king’s sons who were about to be slain, and she put him and his nurse in a bedchamber.

ý@B8.N5 NF5M98= ;KN9 9N4 5D6N9 98=:;4.C5 M49=.N4 A=NB9B8 ý@B8.=D5 ý9NB N9üB8 L7;5 9NKD=B.N49 9N4 CNN9 NM4 AL98= ý@B8.N5 NF5M98= 98L=NEN9 C8 ?8 F7=98= 98=:;4 N9;4 8N=8 4=8 =? 98NN=B8 4@9 98=@NF =DHB

Jehoshabeath, the daughter of the king, took Joash the son of Ahaziah, and stole him away from among the king’s sons who were about to be slain, and she put him and his nurse in a bedchamber.

another source. It is evident that Keil’s position is circular reasoning because his observations on the differences between 1 – 2 Kings and 1 – 2 Chronicles lead him to the conclusion that the Chronicler rendered his sources very faithfully (see pp. 7 – 8, 26 – 27). Steuernagel, Lehrbuch, 404, assumes that many of the plusses were taken from the now lost Midrash of Kings. Thus also Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 828 – 837, who suggests that other sources may have been used. 41 As Curtis, Books of Chronicles, 423, rightly notes about 2 Chr 23 – 24, “Nowhere else does the Chronicler’s method of interpreting history and introducing notions of his own time as controlling factors in the earlier history more clearly appear.” Similarly also Rudolph, Chronikbücher, 271 – 272. 42 The most significant of the differences between the LXX and MT is the plus ja· !m´stgsem t±r 1vgleq¸ar t_m Req´ym ja· t_m Keuit_m in the LXX of 2 Chr 23:18. Other differences are a plus in the LXX in 2 Chr 23:12 (ja· 1nolokocoul´mym) and a plus in the MTof 2 Kgs 11:1 (AKN9) and 11:6 (;EB). In 2 Chr 23:3 the MT has ý@B8.C5 8D8 A8@ LB4=9, while the LXX contains ja· 5deinem aqto?r t¹m uR¹m toO basik´yr ja· eWpem aqto?r Ydo» b uR¹r toO basik´yr.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Editorial changes in the Account of Jehoiada’s Rebellion

271

Continued 2 Kgs 11:2

Thus she hid him from Athaliah, so that he was not slain.

2 Chr 22:11 Thus Jehoshabeath, the daughter of King Jehoram and wife of Jehoiada the priest, because she was a sister of Ahaziah, hid him from Athaliah, so that she did not slay him.

The most important difference here is the expansion in 2 Chr 22:1, which explains the family relationships of Jehoshebat43 in more detail than in the source text. At the beginning of 2 Kgs 11:2, Jehoshebat is described as the daughter of King Jehoram and sister of Ahaziah. The Chronistic account preserves this information but has relocated and incorporated it into its larger expansion later in the verse. The author of 2 Chr 22:11 added that Jehoshebat was the wife of Jehoiada the priest. This idea is probably an invention of the Chronicler who tried to increase the influence and involvement of Jehoiada throughout 2 Chr 22 – 24. Since the expansion was made in a verse where the Chronicler otherwise follows 2 Kgs 11:2 word for word and since it partly overlaps with the relocated information about her being the daughter of King Jehoram and sister of Ahaziah, it is not probable that the expansion derives from a different source as some scholars have suggested.44 The expansion is met exactly where the author of 2 Chr 22:11 rearranged the text. If the author of 2 Chr 22:11 had used another source, one would expect to have other traces of it as well. The assumption that there was an isolated piece of tradition reporting that Jehoshebat was the wife of Jehoiada the priest seems unlikely. Consequently, it is probable that the Chronicler invented the idea that Jehoshebat was the wife of Jehoiada the priest. The change was sparked by 2 Kgs 11, which implied that a lay person was able to move freely or even live in the temple area. This would have been inconceivable in the Chronicler’s own context in the Second Temple period, and an explanation and justification for her presence there was needed. Although the whole idea that non-priests were able to enter the temple area is bound to have disturbed the Chronicler,45 it would have been difficult for him to omit altogether the idea that Joash was hidden in the temple because many details in the ensuing story were dependent on his hiding place. The temple was the hub of the rebellion. When Jehoshebat was made the wife of Jehoiada, her presence in the 43 Note that the name is slightly differently written in the two versions: F5M98= vs. NF5M98=. For consistency I will only use the English Jehoshebat. 44 For example, Japhet, I & II Chronicles, has suggested that here the Chronicler may have had authentic information not preserved by the author of 2 Kgs 11. 45 2 Chr 23:6 – 7 in fact makes it explicit that this issue was important for the Chronicler.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

272

Chronicles as a Witness to the Editorial Processes

temple area would have been justified. The change of 8N4 in 2 Kgs 11:3 to AN4 in 2 Chr 22:12 developed the text in the same direction, reducing the tension of a non-priest being in the temple. In the older text, Joash is reported to have been hiding with Jehoshebat alone, whereas in the Chronicler’s account Joash stays with them, referring to both Jehoshebat and her husband Jehoiada the priest. These changes are illustrative of the Chronicler’s method in using the source. He found a detail in the source text that did not correspond to his own understanding of who was allowed to enter the temple. Because it was difficult to omit the problematic reference altogether, an explanation was invented to reduce the disturbance. The reference to Joash having been instructed by Jehoiada the priest in 2 Kgs 12:3 certainly influenced the expansion as well. It would be logical that Joash had been close to the priest in this childhood. The result was the priest’s increased influence in the entire story. In other words, a theologically disturbing detail forced a reaction from the Chronicler. Although the source text was silent, it was evident to him that Jehoshebat must have had a closer connection with the temple. The two accounts of the main participants and supporters of Jehoiada’s rebellion in 2 Kgs 11:4 and 2 Chr 23:1 – 2 differ considerably : 2 Kgs 11:4

2 Chr 23:1 – 2

898= N=5 9=@4 AN4 45=9

But in the seventh year Jehoiada sent and brought the commanders of hundreds the captains of the Carites and of the guards, and had them come to him in the house of Yhwh; and he made a covenant with them and put them under oath in the house of Yhwh

1

;K=9 F7=98= K:;N8 N=F5M8 8DM59 N94B8 =LM.N4 N=L55 9BF =L ?:.C5 ü[email protected] 98=7F.C5 98=MFB.N49 759F.C5 98=L :F@9 CD ;98=.C5 @4FBM=@9 A ;L=.C5 98=L :F@ @4LM=@ N9548 =M4L9 8798= =LF.@?B [email protected] 9J5K=9 2 8798=5 95E=9 A@ML=.@4 945=9

;K=9 F7=98= ;@M N=F=5M8 8DM59 N94B8 =LM.N4 A=JL@9 =L?@

1

But in the seventh year Jehoiada took courage, and entered into a compact with the commanders of hundreds, Azariah the son of Jeroham, Ishmael the son of Jehohanan, Azariah the son of Obed, Ma-aseiah the son of Adaiah, and Elishaphat the son of Zichri. 2 And they went about through Judah and gathered the Levites from all the cities of Judah, and the heads of fathers’ houses of Israel, and they came to Jerusalem.

In 2 Kgs 11:4 Jehoiada is said to have been supported by the leaders (captains of the hundreds) of the royal guards (A=JL) and of the Carians (A=L? ), which was a

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Editorial changes in the Account of Jehoiada’s Rebellion

273

group of foreign mercenaries.46 Although in the original story they were the backbone of the rebellion, both groups were systematically omitted in 2 Chr 23 (vv. 12, 20, cf. 2 Kgs 11:11, 19, see below).47 Instead of the soldiers, 2 Chr 23:1 provides a list of names, whose professions are not mentioned, but who, with the exception of Elishaphat, are otherwise found in other parts of Chronicles, where they are regarded as priestly or Levitical names.48 Other changes in the Chronicler’s account confirm that priests and Levites were meant (see below). The change is understandable because the rebellion began in the temple, and it would certainly have disturbed the Chronicler to have foreign mercenaries enter an area where not even lay Judeans were allowed (cf. Jehoshebat above and 2 Chr 23:6 – 7). Some scholars have suggested that the list of priests may derive from a different source that contained a parallel version of the rebellion,49 but this is unlikely. The change is logical and even necessary in view of the Chronicler’s theological conceptions.50 The Chronicler’s expansions and changes concerning the beginnings of the rebellion continue in 2 Chr 23:2, which adds that before starting the rebellion, the rebels had to go to all Judean cities and gather the Levites and the chief fathers (N9548 =M4L) of Israel to join the rebellion. The idea that the Levites as a group are part of the rebellion against the evil queen Athaliah is again an expected addition.51 It further changes the nature of the rebellion from a military

46 On the Carians as foreign mercenaries, see, for example, Carl S. Ehrlich, “Carites,” ABD I: 872. 47 Willi, Chronik als Auslegung, 118 – 119, has suggested that the Chronicler did not understand many of the old institutions and actors of the older text, for example A=L? and A=JL, and he therefore replaced them with other actors. This is a very unlikely explanation, because the changes are systematically made towards certain theological conceptions. His view ignores the general development in the whole chapter and the tendency of changes that the Chronicler made in relation to his source. Willi (p. 119) similarly explains many of the changes in locations as a consequence of unfamiliarity with the old locations of monarchic times. 48 Rudolph, Chronikbücher, 271. 49 For example, Steven L. McKenzie, The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History (HSM 33; Scholars Press: Atlanta, Ga., 1984). 50 The incomprehensible construction 98=L:F@ N94B8 =Lb.N4 may suggest that 2 Chr 23:1 was edited. 2 Kgs 11:4 uses the preposition @ to express a genitive, but this makes little sense in 2 Chr 23:1, because then one would have to conclude that Jehoiada was supported by the leaders of Azariah the son of Jeroham, of Ishmael the son of Jehohanan and of Azariah the son of Oded. If one follows most modern and ancient translations (such as the LXX) and assumes that @ introduces the object, one would have to explain why the author first used N4 to introduce the object and then switched to @ in the middle of the list of objects and then again returned to the original N4. Consequently, the list of persons in 2 Chr 23:1 may contain traces of further editing, or the Chronicler preserved the @ preposition from the original text only partly, but having difficulties in incorporating it into the new text, he then switched to the N4 preposition in the middle of the list. 51 One should not rule out the possibility that here the reference to all Levites and the chief

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

274

Chronicles as a Witness to the Editorial Processes

coup d’¦tat led by soldiers to a general religious uprising with the aim of reestablishing a nation that follows Yhwh’s will. The role of the chief fathers is also typically added in Chronicles, although their role remains less significant than that of the priests and Levites.52 The final change in these verses deals with the location where the rebels met. Yhwh’s temple as the meeting place was changed to Jerusalem. As other changes in the passage also indicate, the temple had, in the Chronicler’s context in the Second Temple period, become a place meant to be mainly entered by priests, while 1 – 2 Kings implies that the rules had not been so strict in earlier times. A meeting of rebels in the temple, especially when non-priests were also involved, would not have been possible for the Chronicler. Although many of the events in the following verses still do take place in the temple, the Chronicler found it necessary to stress that non-priests were not allowed to enter the temple itself and that the Levites would kill anyone who did (2 Chr 23:6 – 7). 2 Chr 23:1 – 2 shows that the Chronicler took large liberties in rewriting his source text whenever it conflicted with his theological conceptions.53 Several changes were made to show that the sanctity of the temple was preserved during the rebellion. The main idea of the passage was taken from the source, but many of the details were radically changed and the resulting text in 2 Chr 23:1 – 2 is also notably expanded. Actors and locations were changed, without the author even seeking to justify the change or to explain the relationship of the new text to the source. For example, instead of trying to keep the older text and specify that the rebels met outside the temple but did not enter it, the Chronicler found it easier to omit the temple altogether in this context and just refer to Jerusalem. In addition, he did not regard it necessary to give the royal guard and the Carian soldiers even a small role in the rebellion, but instead he could drop them altogether and replace them with other actors who could move freely inside the temple. Moreover, he did not want to give any opportunity for the reader to think that military power, and especially paid foreign soldiers, had to be used to oust the evil queen. Although a very interesting and possibly a historical detail, the foreign soldiers were a disturbing factor for the Chronicler’s view of the past. They would have defiled Yhwh’s temple and therefore could not have been the backbone of a successful rebellion to reinstate the Davidic dynasty. Because Israel’s past was dependent on Yhwh’s will, which Israel could influence by fathers is a later addition to the Chronicler’s account, but the constant involvement of the Levites in the ensuing verses speaks against this assumption. 52 The term is never met in 1 – 2 Kings whereas it is fairly common in Chronicles and other late books, such as Numbers, Ezra, and Nehemiah (68 times in all these books, and outside them only three times). Its additions seem to follow a general tendency in Chronicles. 53 As noted by Torrey, Ezra Studies, 218, “the story of the coronation of the boy-king … is here rewritten in order to make it correspond to the recognized usage of the third century B.C.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

275

Editorial changes in the Account of Jehoiada’s Rebellion

keeping his commandments, the sanctity of the temple as well as the role of the priests and Levites was much more crucial. The differences between the accounts continue after the rebels have met. 2 Kgs 11:4

2 Chr 23:3 N=L5 A8@ NL?=9 … AN4 F5M=9 898= N=55 ý@B8.C5.N4 AN4 4L=9

… and he made a treaty/covenant with them and put them under oath in the house of Yhwh, and he showed them the king’s son.

N=L5 @8K8.@? NL?=9 ý@B8.AF A=8@48 N=55 ý@B8.C5 8D8 A8@ LB4=9 7=97 =D5.@F 898= L57 LM4 ? ý@B=

And all the assembly made a covenant with the king in the house of God. And Jehoiada said to them, “Behold, the king’s son! Let him reign, as Yhwh spoke concerning the sons of David.”

In 2 Kgs 11:4 Jehoiada makes a treaty with the soldiers and has them take an oath of loyalty to support him in the rebellion. Only after the oath does Jehoiada show them Joash the son of the dead king Ahaziah and the rebellion can begin. All this happens in the temple, where Joash had been hiding. Although the general development of the events is similar, the Chronistic account differs in many details. Instead of a treaty between the soldiers and Jehoiada, the Chronist makes it into a covenant between the entire community (@8K8.@? )54 and the king.55 The fact that the same word N=L5 is used in both meanings facilitated the change. It is a common feature in 1 – 2 Chronicles to emphasize the involvement of the entire community and the people in various events. The idea that the people make a covenant with the king is also met in 2 Kgs 11:17, but this occurs only after the coup has been successful. Although it is 54 Note that the Chronicler’s account contradicts his own conceptions about who was allowed in the temple. According to 2 Chr 23:6 – 7 it was strictly prohibited for non-priests, whereas v. 3 could insinuate that the entire community came to the temple. The idea that the covenant was made in the temple was evidently adopted from 2 Kgs 11:4, but the change the Chronicler made introduced an implied contradiction with his own conceptions and the text in Chronicles. The Chronicler evidently had difficulties in harmonizing the main plot of the older text with his theological conceptions. In most cases his theological conceptions prevailed, but this verse shows that this could not always be achieved. 55 Sara Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Though (revised edition; BEATAJ 9; P. Lang: Frankfurt am Main et alii, 1997), 101, notes that “although the narrative describing the events is different, their significance remains the same.” It is necessary to disagree with her view. She also assumes that in the Chronicler’s account the first covenant (in 23:3) was “between Jehoiada and the commanders,” but this must be a misunderstanding.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

276

Chronicles as a Witness to the Editorial Processes

certainly illogical that the whole community made a covenant with King Joash before he was made king and in the initial stages of the rebellion when everything still had to be kept secret—also shown by the secrecy concerning the hiding place and existence of an heir to the throne—the Chronicler regarded it more important to adhere to his ideals and include the whole community rather than to consider the rationale of the account.56 The oath (F5M=9) was also omitted in 2 Chr 23:3 because it had become irrelevant after the treaty had been changed into a general covenant. In 2 Kgs 11:4 the N=L5 functions as a promise of loyalty for the rebellion, further stressed by the oath, whereas in 2 Chr 23:3 it defines the general relationship between the people and the Davidic king.57 Second Chronicles 23:3 is an example of radical changes in relation to the source. Preserving five words from 2 Kgs, the Chronicler took the liberty of changing the main actors (leaders of the soldiers to the whole of Israel and the king),58 omit the oath of loyalty, make a linguistic improvement without changing the message and adding a comment that he considered theologically relevant (7=97 =D5.@F 898= L57 LM4? ý@B=). In this verse the author took ideas and themes from the source, but was not bound by them to a great extent, and it is clear that we are not dealing with just an interpretation of the older text. The Chronicler consciously changed the meaning of the text, without his having any source to support the presented interpretation of the past events. Similarly extensive changes continue in the following verses, where Jehoiada gives orders to the rebels on how to execute the rebellion:

56 As noted by Japhet (I & II Chronicles, 830) of the account in 2 Kgs 11: “a sense of authenticity pervades the entire course of the narrative.” This can hardly be said of 2 Chr 23, although the authenticity of 2 Kgs 11 should also not be taken for granted. 57 The addition of Yhwh’s promise to preserve David’s dynastic line by the Chronicler is understandable because it emphasizes what is at stake here and whom the people are declaring allegiance to. There is no reason to see any other source for this comment than Yhwh’s promise of eternal dynasty to David in 2 Sam 7. The Chronicler wanted to remind the reader about the broader theological meaning of the whole event, which he did not find appropriately represented in the older text. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 315 – 317, has also suggested that the Chronicler probably attempted to show that the rise to power by Joash had similarities with David’s rise to power. 58 Second Kings 11:3 implies that the leaders of the soldiers are the subject. They are not repeated, but it is evident after v. 2 that they were meant.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

277

Editorial changes in the Account of Jehoiada’s Rebellion

2 Kgs 11:5 – 8

5

2 Chr 23:4 – 7

LB4@ A9J=9 N=M@M8 C9MFN LM4 L578 8: N5M8 =45 A?B

4

N=M@M8 9MFN LM4 L578 8: N5M8 =45 A?B A=HE8 =LFM@ A=9@@9 A=D8 ?@ 5 ý@B8 N=55 N=M@M89

ý@B8 N=5 NLBMB =LBM9 6 L9E LFM5 N=M@M89 ;EB N=58 NLBMB.N4 ANLBM9 A=JL8 L;4 LFM5 N=M@M89 7 N5M8 =4J= @? A?5 N97=8 =NM9 ý@B8.@4 898=.N=5 NLBMB.N4 9LBM9

79E=8 LFM5 N=M@M89 898= N=5 N9LJ ;5 AF8.@?9 8B8 M7K.=? 945= 8B8 A=9@@ A=NLMB89 A=D8 ?8.A4 =? 6 898=.N=5 495=.@49 898= NLBMB 9LBM= AF8.@?9 7 5=5E ý@B8.N4 A=9@8 9H=K89 97=5 9=@?9 M=4 NB9= N=58.@4 4589 9N4J59 9455 ý@B8.N4 9=89

8

5=5E ý@B8.@F ANHK89 97=5 9=@?9 M=4 NB9= N9L7M.@4 4589 94559 9N4J5 ý@B8.N4 9=89 5

And he commanded them, “This is the thing that you shall do:

one third of you, those who come off duty on the sabbath and guard the king’s house 6 and one third at the Sur gate and a third at the gate behind the guards, They shall guard the palace; 7 and the two divisions of you, which come on duty in force on the sabbath and guard the house of Yhwh, 8 They shall surround the king, each with his weapons in his hand; and whoever approaches the ranks shall be slain. Be with the king when he goes out and when he comes in.”

4

“This is the thing that you shall do: Of you priests and Levites who come off duty on the sabbath, one third shall be gatekeepers, 5 and one third shall be at the king’s house and one third at the Gate of the Foundation; and all the people shall be in the courts of the house of Yhwh. 6 Let no one enter the house of Yhwh except the priests and ministering Levites; they may enter, for they are holy, but all the people shall keep the charge of Yhwh 7 The Levites shall surround the king, each with his weapons in his hand; and whoever enters the house shall be slain. Be with the king when he comes in, and when he goes out.”

In 2 Kgs 11:5 – 6 the Carian soldiers and guards are divided into three main groups, guarding three strategic locations when the rebellion begins: The king’s palace, Sur gate (L9E LFM) and the gate behind where the guards were located (A=JL8 L;4 LFM). They are also told to guard the temple, each in turn, although the meaning of this part of the verse (;EB N=58 NLBMB.N4 ANLBM9) is debated and possibly corrupted.59 Moreover, two smaller divisions are told to guard the part of the temple where the king is (ý@B8.@4 898=.N=5). They are ordered to surround the king and to kill anyone who tries to break their ranks. 59 For example, Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 316, suggests that both 2 Kgs 11 and 2 Chr may be partly corrupted in these verses.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

278

Chronicles as a Witness to the Editorial Processes

In accordance with the other changes, the Chronicler made an addition that specifies the three different groups as Levites and priests. Moreover, the people are now asked to go to the courts of Yhwh’s temple (898= N=5 N9LJ;5), as 2 Chr 23:6 explicitly emphasizes that non-priests and non-Levites may not enter the temple building itself, because only the priests and the Levites are holy enough.60 Although some scholars have suggested that this verse may be a later addition to Chronicles, at least v. 6b is clearly influenced by 2 Kgs 11:7b, which could indicate that instead of being an addition at least this part of the verse is a poorly constructed vestige from the original text of 2 Kgs. Since v. 6 is otherwise well in line with the other changes that the Chronicler made in relation to his source text, it seems unnecessary to assume a later addition. Several details in these verses are informative of the Chronicler’s tendencies and methods of using the source. Again the holiness of the temple and the primacy of the priestly class were more important than preserving the integrity and rationale of the original account. He omitted the soldiers and guards and replaced them with priests, although it would have been much more logical for soldiers to guard the king. He also added that the whole nation took part in the rebellion and went to the courts of the temple (v. 6), although the whole event was originally described as a secret and sensitive operation that should surprise queen Athaliah and her entourage. It is illogical that the whole nation would have taken part in the rebellion and the queen did not even hear about it before v. 11. Nevertheless, the addition is well in accordance with 2 Chr 23:3 where the entire community is said to have taken part in the covenant. The idea that the guards should kill anyone who tries to break their ranks when they surround the king was replaced with the idea that the Levites, in addition to protecting the king, should kill anyone who tries to enter the temple (2 Chr 23:7). This change again illustrates how priestly interests overruled realism in the Chronicler’s account of the rebellion. Protection of the king’s life in the sensitive phase of the rebellion was clearly a relevant feature of the older text, but the Chronicler regarded it even more important for the success of the rebellion to preserve the temple’s sanctity. Practical and military considerations were replaced by theological considerations, and in fact, the Chronicler probably even wanted to avert the impression that military considerations were crucial for the success of the coup.

60 Thus also, for example, Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 831.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

279

Editorial changes in the Account of Jehoiada’s Rebellion

The tendency to increase the role of the Levites continues in 2 Chr 23:8: 2 Kgs 11:9

2 Chr 23:8 N94B8 =LM 9MF=9 C8?8 F7=98= 89J.LM4 @?? N5M8 =45 9=MD4.N4 M=4 9;K=9 N5M8 =4J= AF C8?8 F7=98=.@4 945=9

8798=.@?9 A=9@8 9MF=9 C8?8 F7=8= 89J.LM4 @?? N5M8 =45 9=MD4.N4 M=4 9;K=9 N5M8 =4J9= AF N9K@;B8.N4 C8?8 F7=98= LüH 4@ =?

The captains did according to all that Jehoiada the priest commanded, and each brought his men who were to go off duty on the Sabbath, with those who were to come on duty on the Sabbath, and came to Jehoiada the priest.

The Levites and all Judah did according to all that Jehoiada the priest commanded, and each brought his men, who were to go off duty on the Sabbath, with those who were to come on duty on the Sabbath; for Jehoiada the priest did not dismiss the divisions.

Whereas 2 Kgs 11:9 refers to the leaders of the hundreds—evidently of the Carian soldiers and guards of 2 Kgs 11:4—as the main pillars of the rebellion, the Chronicler replaced them with the Levites, followed by the whole of Judah. Using some words of the source, the Chronicler further formed a short comment about the priestly divisions. The verse is yet another example of how the Chronicler could change the original actors with his own, without even trying to explain or leave a trace of the original ones. The short reference to Jehoiada appointing people to oversee the temple 2 Kgs 11:18 was substantially expanded in 2 Chr 23:18.61 2 Kgs 11:18 898= N=5.@F N97KH C8?8 AM=9

…

…And the priest posted watchmen over the house of Yhwh.

2 Chr 23:18 898= N=5 N7KH F7=98= AM=9 A=9@8 A=D8 ?8 7=5N=5.@F 7=97 K@; LM4 7=97 =7= @F L=M59 8 ;BM5 8MB NL9N5 59N ?? 898= N9@F N9@F8@ 898=

And Jehoiada posted watchmen for the house of Yhwh under the direction of the Levitical priests and the Levites whom David had organized to be in charge of the house of Yhwh, to offer burnt offerings to Yhwh, as it is written in the law of Moses, with rejoicing and with singing, according to the order of David.

61 The longer reading in the LXX of 2 Chr 23:18 should be preferred as original. The MT is missing an equivalent of ja· !m´stgsem t±r 1vgleq¸ar t_m Req´ym ja· t_m Keuit_m, probably caused by homoioteleuton, as assumed by many, for example, Rudolph, Chronikbücher, 272.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

280

Chronicles as a Witness to the Editorial Processes

It is not surprising that the Chronicler reacted to this reference by expanding it into a more detailed instruction on tasks relating to the temple, with the priests and Levites playing a major role. Similar expansions are common in many other parts of Chronicles as well, and in fact, this is a typical expansion of the older text that one commonly assumes to have taken place in the transmission of the Hebrew scriptures. It expands on something that the older text describes as having taken place, but that was not explained any further. The idea of 2 Kgs 11:18 that the priest posted people to oversee the temple of Yhwh was expanded into a more detailed description as to who these people were and what their exact tasks were.

Extensive Rewriting of King Joash’s Reign King Joash’s reign is described in 2 Kgs 12:1 – 22. The Chronicler’s account is radically different from that of 2 Kgs 12 to the extent that it is reasonable to ask whether 2 Kgs 12 was the basis for the Chronicler’s account. 2 Kgs 12

1

9?@B5 M498= A=DM F5M.C5 2 M498= ý@B 498=@ F5M.NDM5 9B4 AM9 A@M9L=5 ý@B 8DM A=F5L49 3 =D=F5 LM=8 M498= MF=9 F5M L45B 8=5J C8?8 F7=98= 98L98 LM4 9=B=.@? 898= 4 A=;5:B AF8 79F 9LE.4@ N9B58 KL 5 A=D8?8.@4 M498= LB4=9 N9B55 A=Lü,KB9 GE? @? L59F GE? 898=.N=5 459=.LM4 A=M7K8 @F 8@F= LM4 GE?.@? 9?LF N9MHD GE? M=4 6 A=D8?8 A8@ 9;K= 898= N=5 4=58@ M=4.5@ N=58 K75.N4 9K:;= A89 9L?B N4B M=4 7 A=LMF NDM5 =8=9 K75 AM 4JB=.LM4 @?@ A=D8?8 9K:! ;.4@ M498= ý@B@ 8DM M@M9 N=58 K75.N4 8 C8?8 F7=98=@ M498= ý@B8 4LK=9 A=D8?@9 F97B A8@4 LB4=9 .@4 8NF9 N=58 K75.N4 A=K% :, ;B A?D=4 N=58 K75@.=? A?=L?B N4BGE?.9;KN 9 N4B GE?.N;K =N@5@ A=D8?8 9N4=9 98DNN N=58 K75.N4 K:; =N@5@9 AF8 10

L; 5K=9 7;4 C9L4 C8?8 F7=98= ;K=9 M=4.4955 C=B=5 ;5:B8 @J4 9N4 CN=9 9N@75 .N4 GE8 =LBM A=D8?8 8BM.9DND9 898= N=5 898=.N=5 459B8 GE?8.@?

2 Chr 24

1

9?@B5 M4= A=DM F5M.C5

9B4 AM9 A@M9L=5 ý@B 8DM A=F5L49 2 =D=F5 LM=8 M49= MF=9 F5M L45B 8=5J C8?8 F7=98= =B=.@? 898= 3 A=D5 7@9=9 A=NM A=MD F7=98= [email protected]=9 4 [email protected] 8=8 C ?=L ;4 =8=9 N9D59 898= N=5.N4 M7;@ M49= 5 A8@ LB4=9 A=9@89 A=D8 ?8.N4 I5K=9= K:;@ GE ? @4LM=.@?B 9J5K9 8798= LF@ 94J 9L8BN AN49 8DM5 8DM =7B A ?=8@4 N=5.N4 A=9@8 9L8B 4@9 L57@ 6 M4L8 F7=98=@ ý@B8 4LK=9 F97B 9@ LB4=9 8798=B 4=58@ A=9@8.@F NML7.4@ @8K89 898=.75F 8MB N4MB.N4 A@M9L=B9 7 NFMLB8 98=@NF =? N97F8 @84@ @4LM=@ .N=5 =M7K.@? A69 A=8@48 N=5.N4 9JLH 8=D5 A=@F5@ 9MF 898= 8 98DN=9 7;4 C9L4 9MF=9 ý@B8 LB4=9 9 8798=5 @9K.9DN=9 8J9 ; 898=.N=5 LFM5 .75F 8MB N4MB 898=@ 4=58@ A@M9L=59 A=LM8.@? 9 ;BM=9 L57B5 @4LM=.@F A=8@48 AF8.@?9 10 8@[email protected] C9L4@ 9 ?=@M=9 94=5=9

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

281

Extensive Rewriting of King Joash’s Reign

Continued 2 Kgs 12

11

C9L45 GE?8 5L.=? AN94L? =8=9 @9768 C8?89 ý@B8 LHE @F=9 898=.N=5 4JBD8 GE?8.N4 9DB=9 9LJ=9 12 C?NB8 GE?8.N4 9DND9 N=5 A=7KH[B]8 8?4@B8 =MF [=]7=.@F IF8 =ML;@ 984=J9=9 898= 898= N=5 A=MF8 A=D5@9 13 A=JF N9DK@9 C548 =5J;@9 A=L76@9 5J;B =D549 4J=.LM4 @?@9 898=.N=5 K75.N4 K:;@ 8K:;@ N=58.@F 14 GE? N9HE 898= N=5 8MF= 4@ ý4 .=@?9 58: =@?.@? N9LJJ; N9KL:B N9LB:B 898=.N=5 459B8 GE?8.CB GE? 15 .N4 95.9K:;9 98DN= 8?4@B8 =MF@.=? 898= N=5 16 .N4 9DN= LM4 A=MD48.N4 95M1;= 4@9 8DB45 =? 8?4@B8 =MF@ NN@ A7=.@F GE?8 17 459= 4@ N94ü; GE?9 A4 GE? A=MF A8 9=8= A=D8?@ 898= N=5 18 AL4 ý@B @4:; 8@F= :4 9=DH @4:; AM=9 87?@=9 N6.@F A;@=9 A@M9L=.@F N9@F@ 19 8798=.?@B M498= ;K=9 üHM198= 9M=7K8.LM4 A=M7K8.@? N4 .N49 8798= =?@B 9=N54 98=:;49 AL98=9 .N=5 N9LJ45 4JBD8 58:8.@? N49 9=M7K @F=9 AL4 ý@B @4:;@ ;@M=9 ý@B8 N=59 898= 20 M49= =L57 LN=9 A@M9L= @FB A8.49@8 8MF LM4.@?9 8798= =?@B@ A=B=8 =L57 LHE.@F A=59N?

21

M49=.N4 9?=9 LMK.9LMK=9 9=75F 9BK=9 4@E 7L9=8 4@B N=5 [22 797 L=F5 9=N54.AF 9N4 9L5K=9]

2 Chr 24

11

N7KH.@4 C9L48 8.N4 4=5= NF5 =8=9 GE?8 5L.=? AN94L ?9 A=9@8 7=5 ý@B8 9LF=9 M4L8 C8? 7=KH9 ý@B8 LH9E 459 9MF 8 ? 9BKB.@4 985=M=9 984M=9 C9L48.N4 5L@ GE?..9HE4=9 A9=5 A9=@ 12 N?4@B 8M9F..@4 F7=98=9 ý@B8 98DN=9 A=L ?M 9=8=9 898=.N=5 N795F A=ML;99 A=5J; NM ;D9 @:L5 =ML ;@ A69 898= N=5 M7;@ 13 8 ?4@B8 =MF 9MF=9 898= N=5.N4 K:;@ N=5.N4 97=BF=9 A7=5 8 ?4@B@ 8 ?9L4 @FN9 14 AN9@??9 98JB4=9 9ND ?NB.@F A=8@48 GE ?8 L4M.N4 F7=98=9 ý@B8 =DH@ 94=58 N9@F89 NLM =@? 898=.N=5@ A=@? 98MF=9 .N=55 N9@F A=@FB 9=8=9 GE?9 58: =@?99 N9H ?9 F7=98= =B= @? 7=BN 898= 15 84B.C5 NB=9 A=B= F5M=9 F7=98= CK :=9 16 .AF 7=97.L=F5 98L5K=9 9N9B5 8DM A=M@M9 A=?@B8 9N=59 A=8@48 AF9 @4LM=5 859ü 8MF.=? 17 8798= =LM 945 F7=98= N9B =L ;49 A8=@4 ý@B8 FBM :4 ý@B@ 99 ;NM=9 18 898= N=5.N4 95 :F=9 .N49 A=LM48.N4 975F=9 A8=N954 =8@4 8798=.@F GJK.=8=9 A=5JF8 N4 : ANBM45 A@M9L=9 19 898=.@4 A5=M8@ A=45D A85 ;@M=9 20 8M5@ A=8@4 ;9L9 9D=:48 4@9 A5 97=F=9 AF@ @FB 7BF=9 C8 ?8 F7=98=.C5 8=L ?:.N4 A=L5F AN4 8B@ A=8@48 LB4 8 ? A8@ LB4=9 .N4 AN5 :F.=? 9 ;=@JN 4@9 898= N9JB.N4 21 C54 98B6L=9 9=@F 9LMK=9 A ?N4 5 :F=9 898= 898= N=5 LJ ;5 ý@B8 N9JB5 22 8MF LM4 7E ;8 ý@B8 M49= L ?:.4@9 LB4 9N9B ?9 9D5.N4 6L8=9 9BF 9=54 F7=98= 23 8@F 8DM8 NH9KN@ =8=9 ML7=9 898= 4L= 8798=.@4 945=9 AL4 @=; 9=@F AFB AF8 =LM.@?.N4 9N=;M=9 A@M9L=9 24 LFJB5 =? KMBL7 ý@B@ 9 ;@M A@@M.@?9 AL4 @=; 945 A=MD4 .N4 95 :F =? 74B 5L@ @=; A7=5 CND 898=9 A=üHM 9MF M49=.N49 A8=N954 =8@4 898= 25 A==@;B5 9N4 9, 5 :F.=? 9DBB AN ?@59 9=75F 9=@F 9LMKN8 A=5L 9NüB.@F 986L8=9 C8 ?8 F7=98= =D5 =B75 7=97 L=F5 98L5K=9 NB=9 A=?@B8 N9L5K5 98L5K 4@9 26 9=@F A=LMKNB8 8@49 N=LBM.C5 75:98=9 N=D9BF8 NFBM.C5 75:

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

282

Chronicles as a Witness to the Editorial Processes

Continued 2 Kgs 12

2 Chr 24

See 2 Kgs 12:20 above

N=549B8 27 9=@F 4MB8 5L=/9 9=D59 A=8@48 N=5 79E=9 A=?@B8 8 LHE ML7B.@F A=59N? AD8 9=N;N 9D5 98=JB4 ý@B=9

Different solutions have been offered for the relationship of these passages. Some scholars assume that all the additional material in 2 Chr 24 is the result of the Chronicler’s own reasoning,62 whereas others assume that he may also have used other sources.63 Because of the differences, one could suggest that the source was an entirely different version of the story. That the Chronicler untypically refers to a Midrash of the book of the kings (A=?@B8 LHE ML7B) in 24:27 could also be used as an indication that the source here was indeed different.64 Although an unknown source cannot be completely excluded, several considerations suggest that, despite the differences, the Chronicler used 2 Kgs 12 as the main source. The beginning of the story was taken word for word from 2 Kgs 12, which shows that the Chronicler was familiar with at least the beginning of this chapter. Although similarly extensive parallels are missing in the rest of the passage, shared vocabulary is found in the same order in both texts. Despite the almost completely different text, shared words crop up peculiarly often in parts of the passages. Moreover, when one looks at the themes of both passages, the similarities are even more apparent, and in fact, all themes of 2 Kgs 12 find a parallel in 2 Chr 24, although in an almost completely altered form. It is significant that the themes of 2 Chr 24 are found in the same order as in 2 Kgs 12. Because of the correspondence of themes, it would seem that 2 Chr 24 is a reaction to what is said in 2 Kgs 12. It appears to correct what was, in the Chronicler’s view, incorrectly described in the source. Because the source text was almost completely abandoned here, the resulting text in 2 Chr 24 may be one of the purest examples of the Chronicler’s theology, where his own conceptions come to the fore.65 Assuming an unknown and lost source would not provide any heuristic key to understanding the text because one would still have to assume that the 62 Curtis, Chronicles, 423 – 424, 433 – 440; Torrey, Ezra Studies, 218; Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 318. Myers, II Chronicles, 136 – 137, notes that the Chronicler’s account is a theological interpretation of its source, which may be 2 Kgs 12 or a parallel source. 63 Steuernagel, Lehrbuch, 404; Rudolph, Chronikbücher, 273 – 274; McKenzie, The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History, 110. 64 Thus, for example, Steuernagel, Lehrbuch, 404; Rudolph, Chronikbücher, 273 – 274; and McKenzie, Chronicler’s Use of Deuteronomistic History, 110. 65 Thus also Curtis, Books of Chronicles, 423.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Extensive Rewriting of King Joash’s Reign

283

Chronicler is behind much of the text’s evidently Chronistic features. There is no indication of clearly external influence or motifs. If other sources had been used, one would expect at least some new themes and excursions that digress from the themes of 2 Kgs 12, but this is not the case. In other words, since the changes in 2 Chr 24 develop the text strongly towards the theology of the Chronicler, it is unnecessary to assume another source than 2 Kgs 12 (Occam’s razor). If one were to assume a different source, the close parallels and connections throughout the passage would still imply that there is a literary dependency between the passages. Assuming a middle stage in the process of the text’s transmission would only mean that the changes took place in a different stage. Because of the evident contradictions between the passages and the literary connection, it would be difficult to explain the connection between the texts without assuming substantial changes and omissions at some stage in the textual transmission. In other words, even if the Chronicler had used an unknown source, one would still have to assume that the text was thoroughly rewritten at some point in the transmission of the passage. Taking all these considerations together, it is very likely that the passage 2 Chr 24 was composed in view of 2 Kgs 12, but because of theological reasons, the Chronicler found it impossible to follow the source and he had to rewrite much of the passage. Many details in 2 Kgs 12 were against the Chronicler’s theological and other conceptions, but especially its basic development of the events would have been impossible for him to accept.66 According to 2 Kgs 12, Joash was a good king, because Jehoiada, the priest, had taught him, and consequently Joash took interest in the temple and restored it. Except for the high places, which, until King Hezekiah, were a recurrent sin of all good and evil kings of Judah alike, King Joash is not said to have done anything wrong in 2 Kgs 12. At the end of his reign, however, he had to give all the holy things from the temple as well as the gold of the temple and of the palace to Hazael, the Aramean king. This was done in order to save Jerusalem from an imminent attack by the Arameans. The author of 2 Kgs 12 does not appear to blame the king at all, and the event is described rather neutrally as an unfortunate but necessary action to save Jerusalem from possible destruction. The temple was the center of the Chronicler’s theology and giving its holy items and treasures to the Arameans would have been a total catastrophe and sign of Yhwh’s anger and punishment. In view of the Chronicler’s concepts of divine justice and just retribution, there was a plain contradiction between the goodness of Joash and the robbing of the temple. This is probably the main 66 As Torrey, Ezra Studies, 218, rightly notes “II Kings 12:5 – 17, in the most essential features runs directly contrary to the views and customs of the Chronicler’s say, in a very disturbing manner … the impression given by the book of Kings really needed to be ‘corrected.’”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

284

Chronicles as a Witness to the Editorial Processes

reason why the entire passage had to be thoroughly rewritten. Because the contradiction was so severe, small changes, like we find in many other passages of Chronicles, would not have solved the problem that a good king brought about a total catastrophe for the temple. The differences between the passages are so extensive that it is possible to draw attention only to some of the most illustrative cases. The beginning of Joash’s reign as described in 2 Kgs 12 is followed rather closely in 2 Chr 24. The reference to the relative chronology with Israel (2 Kgs 12:2aa) is typically omitted, but a more interesting and crucial change deals with the role of Jehoiada. According to 2 Kgs 12:3, Joash was a good king all the days his life (9=B=.@? ), because Jehoiada had taught him. The Chronicler omitted only a small part of this sentence, but it changed its whole idea. According to the Chronicler, Joash was a good king all the days of Jehoiada the priest (C8?8 F7=98= =B=.@? ). 2 Kgs 12:3

2 Chr 24:2 898= =D=F5 LM=8 M498= MF=9 C8?8 F7=98= 98L98 LM4 9=B=.@?

898= =D=F5 LM=8 M49= MF=9 C8?8 F7=98= =B=.@?

And Jehoash did what was right in the eyes of Yhwh all his days, because Jehoiada the priest instructed him.

And Joash did what was right in the eyes of Yhwh all the days of Jehoiada the priest.

This small omission was necessary for rewriting much of the rest of the passage. When Jehoiada’s goodness was restricted to the time that Jehoiada lived, the Chronicler could make other changes that explained the contradiction between the restoration of the temple on the one hand and the catastrophe that befell the temple on the other. Without this omission, he would have had considerable difficulties in imprinting his own theological conceptions on the description of the events. In the Chronicler’s account, Joash’s reign is divided between two different periods, separated by Jehoiada’s death. The temple is restored during the time that Jehoiada lived, whereas the time after his death is characterized by sin and punishment. The idea of Jehoiada’s death was accordingly added into the Chronicler’s account (vv. 15 – 16),67 followed by several other insertions: Immediately after Jehoiada died, Joash is said to have listened to the leaders of Judah (v. 17), which then leads to the abandonment of the temple and the worship of the Asherim and idols (v. 18). The prophets sent by Yhwh (vv. 19 – 20) are ignored and finally Joash orders Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada, to be stoned 67 As noted by McKenzie, 1 – 2 Chronicles, 317, the description of Jehoiada’s burial “may also indicate that the Chronicler thought of Jehoiada as a ruler and the more important element of the partnership with Joash.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Extensive Rewriting of King Joash’s Reign

285

to death (vv. 21 – 22). These verses show that the Chronicler wanted to make it as clear as possible that the king turned his back on Jehoiada and his instructions. The words of the dying Zechariah function as the bridge from the sins that are described to the ensuing catastrophe: “May Yhwh see and avenge” (v. 22). The attack of the Arameans is described in the following verse. The additional material in verses 15 – 22 thus serves the Chronicler’s broader conception that a catastrophe is always a punishment for sins. These verses explain how the goodness was turned into evil, and they are imperative in the Chronicler’s attempt to transform the story to correspond with his theological conceptions. Although it is probable that most or all of the insertions in verses 15 – 22 were more or less invented by the Chronicler, he appears not entirely free to create the whole story. The Chronicler’s position is an interesting mix of constraints set by the source text and freedom to create new material based on his own conceptions of what must have happened, but it is not easy to comprehend the core of his position fully. He evidently could not deny some of the events described in 2 Kgs 12. For example, the easiest solution to harmonize the text to conform to his own conceptions would have been to accept that Joash was a good king and omit the reference to the plundering of Jerusalem altogether. This would have saved him from all the massive changes that he undertook. That he instead resorted to much more substantial changes implies that he believed the plundering of Jerusalem to have taken place. The Chronicler therefore assumed that 2 Kgs 12 contained at least some reliable information on this event, because it was the source for all the changes in the other parts of the passage. The complexity of his positions is accentuated by the fact that the actual reference to the plundering of the temple was omitted and replaced with a vague reference to the plundering of Jerusalem (cf. 2 Kgs 12:19 and 2 Chr 24:23). The event may have been so embarrassing that he wanted to make only a brief and ambiguous note that the booty was taken to the king of Damascus. In other words, the Chronicler took the plundering of the temple as described in 2 Kgs 12:19 as the starting point of his own position, thus assuming it as a reliable event, but rejected much of the rest of what was said in the source text. We may, in part, be dealing with ‘facts’ generally acknowledged by the Chronicler’s community that could not be changed without endangering the credibility of the new text,68 but this does not explain the whole picture. The changes are, after all, so substantial throughout the text that the Chronicler was not bound by the source text only because of external or societal pressure. The 68 See Ehud Ben Zvi, “Shifting the Gaze: Historiographic Constraints in Chronicles and Their Implications,” The Land that I Will Show You: Essays on the History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honor of J. Maxwell Miller (ed. P. Graham and A. Dearman; JSOTSup 343: Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 38 – 60.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

286

Chronicles as a Witness to the Editorial Processes

message of the resulting text differs so completely from 2 Kgs 12 that the Chronicler did in fact change many of the ‘facts’. We may never fully understand the psychology of the Chronicler’s attitude toward the source text and the reasons for selecting a certain part of the source as reliable and others as unreliable. In particular, why was the plundering of the temple regarded as the most reliable part of the source and why was much of the rest of the passage rejected? Other details of the Aramean incident contain similarly substantial changes. In 2 Kgs 12:18 – 19, King Joash pays tribute to the Arameans in order to save Jerusalem. The conquest of the powerful Gat in v. 17a gives the impression that the Arameans have a mighty army against which Jerusalem could not stand. The king is portrayed as a prisoner of the events, who was forced to empty the entire treasury and the temple, but it saved Jerusalem because the Arameans did not attack Jerusalem. In the Chronicler’s version the Arameans attack Joash, Jerusalem is conquered, all the leaders are killed and the booty is taken to Damascus (24:23). The reference to the conquest of Gat is omitted, and instead, the Chronicler wanted to stress that the Aramean army consisted of only a couple of men (A=MD4 LFJB5). It prevailed over the huge Judean army (74B 5L@ @=;), because Yhwh wanted to punish the Judeans. The whole setting is reversed. King Joash is wounded in the attack, and after the Arameans had left, Joash’s servants conspire against the weakened king and kill him (24:25). The idea of this conspiracy was taken from 2 Kgs 12:20, but was rendered in a radically rewritten form. As a final punishment, the king is said not to have been buried in the tombs of the kings (A=?@B8 N9L5K5 98L5K 4@9). Here the Chronicler explicitly contradicts his source, according to which he was buried with his fathers (9=N54.AF). The restoration of the temple is also described in a rewritten form in 2 Chr 24. Although the general idea of 2 Kgs 12 is preserved, practically all details and the course of the events were changed in 2 Chr 24. According to 2 Kgs 12:5 – 6, the money for the restoration should be collected from the people in order to repair the breaches of the temple. One receives the impression that it is a one-time event. The Chronicler’s version, however, implies that there should have been an annual payment or even a tax for the repairs (8DM5 8DM =7B) and that Moses had ordered such a payment (8MB N4MB).69 The restoration is assumed to have been a much bigger issue in the Chronicler’s version. In 2 Kgs 12 only the breaches had to be repaired (N=58 K75.N4 9K:;= A89), but by omitting the reference to the breaches the Chronicler implied that the whole temple had to be repaired (A?=8@4 N=5.N4 K:;@, vv. 5, 12) or 69 It is not clear which passage in the Pentateuch, if any, is meant in 2 Chr 24:9. Exod 32:5 – 29 refers to the gifts that the Israelites gave for the construction of the tabernacle, but they are clearly voluntary gifts and it is implied to be a one-time event. According to Curtis, Chronicles, 435, the tax accorded with Exod 30:11 – 16 and 38:25, but these passages refer to atonement money the Israelites paid in connection with a census. These passages do not refer to a regular payment.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Summary and Discussion

287

even renewed (898= N=5 M7;@, v. 12). The Chronicler changed the description of reparation of breaches in 2 Kgs 12:5 – 8 into an implicit message that the temple should be renewed every year and that Moses had ordered the Israelites to pay for it.70

Summary and Discussion The three passages of Chronicles investigated here bear witness to various positions towards the source text, which most likely was a version relatively close to the MTof 1 – 2 Kings. The investigated passages are representative of the Chronicler’s relationship with 1 – 2 Kings, as similar evidence can be found in other parts of the book as well. One gains a picture of how the source text was changed when it was used as a basis for the text in Chronicles. Although biblical scholarship has devoted considerable attention to reconstructing the earlier sources of various compositions, the evidence of Chronicles for understanding the editorial processes of the Hebrew scriptures has largely been neglected in literary criticism. In relation to the source text, most of the changes in the Chronistic account on Jehoram’s reign in 2 Chr 21:1 – 20 are expansions and thus correspond to what is traditionally assumed of editorial changes and development of the Hebrew Bible. The other changes in this chapter are small in number and significance, but there is a noteworthy omission concerning the death of the king in 2 Chr 21:20. The Chronicler omitted the reference to Jehoram’s honorable burial and replaced it with an account that intends to give an impression that the king’s final fate was humiliating and shameful. The change is small in the number of words, but it had a fundamental impact on the reader’s understanding of the fate of King Jehoram. Although it is fairly certain that the author of 2 Chr 22:10 – 23:21 used 2 Kgs 11 as the main source, the parallel accounts differ considerably. Most of the differences are consistent with the theological conceptions and ideals of the Chronicler, known from other parts of Chronicles. As in many other passages, the Chronicler increased the role of the priests and Levites as well as of the temple. Many of the additions in relation to 2 Kgs 11 are not extensive but they still had substantial impact on the text and fundamentally changed the message of the passage. Some of the additions did not have any notable kernel in the source text, but were added because of the Chronicler’s conviction that something essential was missing. In particular, the priests and Levites were added 70 For other differences and contradiction between 2 Kgs 12 and 2 Chr 24, see the commentaries, for example, Curtis, Chronicles, 433 – 440, who notes (on p. 436) that there is “a direct contradiction” between 2 Kgs 12:13 and 2 Chr 24:14 on whether vessels for Yhwh’s temple were made or not.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

288

Chronicles as a Witness to the Editorial Processes

because the Chronicler assumed that they must have had a role in the events and he also needed actors who were able to move about the temple freely. In addition to the expansions, 2 Chr 22:10 – 23:21 provides examples of much more radical interventions into the text: Parts of 2 Kgs 11 were omitted and/or rewritten in the Chronicler’s account. The rewritings range from small changes of individual words (e. g., 898= N=5 to A=8@48 N=5) to larger rewritings of details, actors, and events to the extent that the entire message of the source text was changed. The Chronicler replaced some of the omitted sections with an entirely new version of the events, but there are also examples of omission without any substitute in the Chronicler’s text. The Chronicler apparently did not feel obliged to render everything in the source, and since the omissions mainly occur where the source contracts the Chronicler’s theological conceptions, it is evident that he did not omit because he agreed with the source. Second Chronicles 24 is a prime example radical editing. It bears witness to repeated and extensive omissions and rewriting of the source text. The reasons for the changes can be seen in the conceptions of the source text: They contain several contradictions with the Chronicler’s theology. The Chronicler assumed that the source preserves some reliable information, such as the plundering of the temple, but at the same time he was convinced that nearly everything must have occurred in another way from what the source says. He did not invent the past freely, but the result is, in practice, a free invention of many events and most of the details in the events. From the technical perspective, the older text was effectively replaced. The passage is an example of editing that literary criticism has generally not assumed to have taken place in the textual transmission of the Hebrew scriptures it investigates, but is similar in technique to what we find in some rewritten texts.71 This review of three passages suggests that although the Chronicler had a high regard for his source, he could rewrite or omit any of its parts if they did not correspond to his own views of the past or if they conflicted with his theological conceptions.72 Contradictions and perceived errors were simply omitted and, if applicable, replaced with an entirely new account of the event. There are several cases where correcting, revising, and changing would much better describe his attitude than interpreting. It is evident that the Chronicler was much more prone to make omissions than what we have seen in the text-critical evidence of the Pentateuch, 1 – 2 Samuel 71 A comparable example would be the Temple Scroll in relation to some of its sources. 72 This does not mean that 1 – 2 Kings would not have had considerable theological influence on the Chronicler. Quite the contrary, his own conceptions are anchored on many of the conceptions of 1 – 2 Kings. See Willi, Chronik als Auslegung, 55. On the other hand, the Chronicler often goes far beyond the theology of 1 – 2 Kings and introduces many new themes and conceptions that may contradict what is said in 1 – 2 Kings.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Summary and Discussion

289

and 1 – 2 Kings. There is a clearly different attitude towards the preservation of the older text. Although the Chronicler also had considerable respect for the source, as shown by the adoption of several passages almost verbatim, in other passages he could resort to omissions and considerable rewriting rather easily. In fact, comparable evidence of omission cannot be found in any of the analyzed text-critical evidence. Even the least faithful renderings of the Hebrew Esther in the LXX version are much more faithful than Chronicles in relation to its sources. In other words, the principle of preservation seems to have been repeatedly challenged in Chronicles, while the text-critical evidence of the Pentateuch, 1 – 2 Sam, and 1 – 2 Kings shows only isolated instances of such cases and they are much more limited in the number of words that are omitted. The Chronicler’s different attitude towards changes is usually explained as the consequence of an entirely different position towards the source text. The Chronicler would have been creating a new literary work, while the redactors are seen as editing an older composition. Here we are at the core of the division discussed in the introduction. Literary-critical studies assume that redactors would not tamper with the older text, while the authors of new literary works would have had much more freedom. If correct, this assumption would render the observations in Chronicles irrelevant for the redactional processes of the Hebrew scriptures. Although it seems evident that the Chronicler was writing a new composition,73 this issue may not be as uncomplicated as implied by the common rejection of Chronicles as evidence for the editorial processes. A clear-cut division between the redactors and the authors of new compositions is artificial and hazardous.74 The difficulty lies in how we understand the redactors. There seems to be a strong conviction that all the redactors were editing the same literary work and not creating a new composition. However, we do not know how all of the different redactors responsible for the literary transmission of any given text related to the older text. In many cases the redactors are very poorly known, and the reconstructions only provide us with glimpses of their theological conceptions. In many cases, only some sentences of a redaction are preserved and they only relate to the content of the text that has been edited. The redactors’ conceptions about the relationship of the resulting text with the source are conjectural at best. It would seem risky to assume that none of the successive redactors in the texts that have been reconstructed would ever have thought of the resulting text as a new literary work in relation to the source. Moreover, it is not clear at all that the question of whether the new text

73 Thus most scholars, for example, Gwilym H. Jones, Chronicles (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 71. 74 Similarly Kalimi, Zur Geschichtsschreibung, passim, and McKenzie, “Chronicler as Author,” 87 – 90.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

290

Chronicles as a Witness to the Editorial Processes

was merely a new edition of the older literary work or an entirely new literary work was evidently in the mind of all of the scribes who edited the texts. For example, literary-critical investigations often assume that the literary transmission of Deuteronomy consists of half a dozen to a dozen literary stages.75 Since we know very little about each of these editorial stages and about the redactors behind them, it is not clear how each one of them related to their source. The a priori assumption that none of them, after the creation of the Urdeuteronomium, related to their source like the Chronicler would seem rather audacious, especially if the reconstruction of 5 – 10 literary layers is based on this assumption. Because of its consequences for the whole reconstruction, such an assumption would at least have to be thoroughly argued and substantiated by evidence. In view of the Chronicler’s use of his sources, the axiomatic assumption that none of them related to the older text like the Chronicler seems untenable. The long-term transmission of Chronicles illustrates this point. The creation of Chronicles is merely one stage in the long transmission of this textual tradition, which consisted of different stages. If we look at its development, its source 1 – 2 Kings was created by using the annals, and was then edited by successive editors before the Chronicler used it as a source for his composition. Later, Chronicles itself continued to be edited by several later redactors.76 If we merely look at the transmission of Chronicles, we have the creation of 1 – 2 Kings out of older sources,77 a series of later editors of 1 – 2 Kings,78 then a very radical transformation by the Chronicler and then again successive redactors:

75 See Timo Veijola, Das 5. Buch Mose/Deuteronomium (ATD 8,1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), for example. 76 The complicated redaction history of Chronicles has been shown by Georg Steins, Die Chronik als kanonisches Abschlussphänomen: Studien zur Entstehung and Theologie von 1 / 2 Chronik (Bonner biblische Beiträge 93, Beltz: Athenäum Verlag, 1995), and others. 77 According to Jones, Chronicles, 71, unlike the Chronicler, the Deuteronomist did not interfere with his sources. If he refers to the use of the royal annals, it is very unlikely that the Deuteronomist or the history writer would have adopted all of the information. 78 The complicated redaction history of 1 – 2 Kings has been shown by several scholars, such as Ernst Würthwein, Das erste Buch der Könige, 1. Kön. 1 – 16 (ATD 11,1; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen, 19852) and Die Bücher der Könige 1. Kön. 17 – 2. Kön. 25(ATD 11,2; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen,1984).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

291

Summary and Discussion

Annals

History writer’s 1–2 Kings

RedacLon

RedacLon

An early version of 1–2 Kings

RedacLon

Chronicler

1–2 Kings

RedacLon

Chronicles

We know that this development took place because two of the stages in this transmission are documented as 1 – 2 Kings and Chronicles, but we could have a situation where Chronicles alone would have been preserved. The correct transmission of this textual tradition would mean that one would have to assume at least two radical revisions of the older text, one by the Chronicler and one by the history writer behind the original version of 1 – 2 Kings. The assumption that the older text was always preserved and nothing was omitted would lead to fundamentally incorrect literary-critical analyzes of Chronicles. If this type of development took place in some documented textual traditions, it would be fair to assume that similar revisions may have taken place in the transmission of other books and literary stages that are not documented. In

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

292

Chronicles as a Witness to the Editorial Processes

concrete terms, on the basis of Chronicles, the possibility is that some redactional stage in the long transmission of Deuteronomy could have been similar to that of Chronicles. A hypothetical possibility would be, for example: Covenant Code ! conventional redaction ! Urdeuteronomium ! conventional redaction ! radical but unknown editing ! conventional redaction ! conventional redaction ! the Temple Scroll. Of this sequence, two stages of radical editing, Urdeuteronomium and the Temple Scroll, are known because these stages were preserved, but we do not know how many other such stages were not preserved. As a consequence, the type of changes that the Chronicler makes in relation to his source should be regarded as a possible editorial stage when trying to understand the literary development of any given book in the Hebrew scriptures. It should be part of the model of the transmission of the Hebrew scriptures. Essential questions would also be: why are the changes in Chronicles occasionally so radical and why did the Chronicler break the principle of preservation? The answer may be found in the changes that the Chronicler makes. When the older text did not contain something that conflicted with the Chronicler’s theology, it was mainly preserved,79 which implies that he did not make changes lightly. He generally followed the principle of preservation of the older text. The most radical changes took place in issues and passages where the older text contradicted the theological conceptions of the Chronicler. One can see similar changes throughout the text so that one can establish a clear trend. The changes are very often connected to the temple and the position of the temple priests and Levites.80 The most radical changes are met where the conceptions implied in 79 Nevertheless, it is clear that not all omissions in Chronicles were caused by theological problems or the Chronicler’s disagreement with something in the source. According to Ben Zvi, History, Literature and Theology, 92, “It has been shown again and again that these supposed ‘lacks’ should not be construed as evidence for a denial or for an implied request to dismiss or devaluate the periods that are not mentioned, nor their main figures.” This certainly applies to many passages (or figures like Moses, as pointed out by Ben Zvi). One should certainly not make it a general rule that if something is missing in Chronicles in relation to his sources, it must have been against the Chronicler’s convictions. However, when we can establish a parallel where the source text evidently contradicts the Chronicler’s conceptions that can be reconstructed on the basis of his work and when the Chronicler is clearly using the text but leaves out details or replaces them with something that explicitly contradicts the source, it is fair to assume that the Chronicler was not in agreement with the source. The passages investigated here are such where we can assume that the Chronicler did not agree with the source. In the end, each passage has to be investigated separately to understand what the Chronicler’s position with regard to his source was in that case. Moreover, it is probable that the Chronicler’s position towards the Pentateuch was essentially different from his position towards 1 – 2 Kings. The former was regarded as the divine revelation, while the latter was a significant source for Israel’s history, which was being replaced by the Chronicler’s own version. 80 In addition to the temple and the priests, the concept of Israel and just retribution as well as

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Summary and Discussion

293

1 – 2 Kings contradicted those of the Chronicler. It is regarding issues relating to the temple and the priests that the Chronicler’s theology differed extensively from the source text. The Chronicler’s conceptions of the temple and the priests could be said to represent a different theological paradigm from the source text. A change of paradigm largely explains the need, but also the justification for omitting parts of the older text. It is probable that 1 – 2 Kings was mainly written after the destruction of the temple in 586 bce and it also continued to be edited during the templeless time. Its conceptions had developed towards a position where the temple had no essential role in the society. The temple was often portrayed as the place of sin, which was purified by some kings (but notably not by priests). Accordingly, the priests play only a small role in the whole composition, although it is probable that they had had a very significant role in the cult, religion, and politics during the monarchy.81 The Book of Kings also seems to give no positive outlook for the reestablishment of the temple, as its vessels are taken as booty to Babylon. The later redactors have increasingly built the future prospects of Israel on the idea of following the law, while the role of the temple is mainly the place of more sins that broke the law. In effect, the law had begun to replace the temple as the center of the religion in 1 – 2 Kings. Most of the authors and redactors of 1 – 2 Kings were apparently distant from the temple and its priests. Chronicles was written during the time when the temple had been rebuilt and when the priests had begun to regain their position in the society.82 Without the reestablishment of the monarchy the Second Temple period, the position of the priests was even more powerful than what it had been during the monarchy. With the reestablishment of the temple a paradigm shift had taken place in the the first kings, Solomon and David, were important topics for the Chronicler, where he was prone to make changes in relation to the source text. For the theological conceptions of the Chronicler, see Rudolph Mosis, Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes (FTS 92; Freiburg: Herder, 1973), and Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 24 – 33. 81 Clearly, some vestiges of this are preserved in 1 – 2 Kings, such as 2 Kgs 12. 82 The dating of Chronicles is notoriously controversial, with suggestions ranging from the 6th to 2nd century bce. For a concise review of various proposals, see Ralph W. Klein, 1 Chronicles (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2006), 13 – 16. The question is intertwined with the literary history of the book, for some scholars assume that the book was not heavily edited while others, such as Steins, Chronik, 491 – 499, assume that the book continued to be edited by successive redactors. If the latter is the case, which is very probable, one would have to consider whether we are talking about the creation of the original composition or the latest redactions. In any case, I am primarily referring here to the first version of Chronicles and its dating. Because the Chronicler was familiar with most of the late additions to 1 – 2 Kings, very early dating, such as 6th to 5th centuries bce, has to be excluded. On the other hand, one has to allow considerable time for the later redactions, which excludes a very late dating for the original composition. Consequently, the 4th or 3rd centuries bce would probably offer the most realistic alternative. In any case, the creation of Chronicles before the reestablishment of the temple would be improbable.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

294

Chronicles as a Witness to the Editorial Processes

society so that the power structures were fundamentally changed from the templeless time. The temple and its power structures were again an integral part of the society. This change in circumstances, and eventually a paradigm, occasioned a new history of Israel that would have to take the temple and the elevated position of the temple priests and Levites better into account. It is unlikely that Chronicles would have been authored without the reestablishment of the temple.83 The Book of Kings provided an adequate account of Israel’s history for the templeless time. The evidence from Chronicles suggests that paradigm shifts in the society may cause a paradigm shift in the texts. Before the texts were frozen as canonical and unchangeable Holy Scriptures, it is probable that the texts had to change with the changes in the society. If the changes in the society were not reflected in a particular text, it would have soon become outdated, irrelevant, and thus be forgotten. The transmission within a paradigm or a tradition that evolved in a stable continuum would have been edited as well, but because the society changed slowly, the changes arose out of the same paradigm and were thus smaller. Within the same paradigm it would have been difficult to challenge the older text, because the redactor would have, in most cases, challenged the foundations of his own conceptions. The stability of an authoritative text would guarantee the stability of the existing order. In contrast, a fundamental change in the society, or a social paradigm shift, would much more easily cause or allow the older text to be challenged in a more fundamental way. Chronicles may be an example of the latter, brought about by the reestablishment of the temple. It should be stressed that Chronicles cannot be used slavishly as a model in the sense that each fundamental change in the society would necessarily cause radical changes in all of the texts. It provides an example that fundamental changes have to be considered as a possibility in the transmission of the Hebrew scriptures, especially in those situations where the fundaments of the society were shaken.84 Chronicles should thus be included in the construction of a model for the transmission of the Hebrew scriptures and should certainly not be neglected as irrelevant. 83 The changed context is commonly assumed as the main reason for creating a new history of Israel in the first place. Thus already, Samuel R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (9th ed. 1913, Edinburgh: T & T Clark), 532 – 534; W.A.L. Elmslie, “The First and Second Books of Chronicles” The Interpreter’s Bible vol III (New York and Nashville: Abington Press, 1954), 339 – 548, here pp. 344 – 345; and many others. 84 Fundamental changes in the society, such as the destruction of 586 bce, the reestablishment of the temple, the defilement of the temple in 167 bce and the destruction of the temple in 70 ce would be occasions that could cause the challenge of the old paradigm. It is perhaps not a coincidence that, for example, after 70 ce a Jewish sect produced a myriad number of new literary works, part of which formed the New Testament, which challenged the conceptions of the Hebrew Bible.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

First Esdras

Introduction In addition to the Masoretic text, Ezra-Nehemiah is preserved in two Greek translations. Esdras b is a fairly faithful translation that largely follows the MT and is of limited interest for the present investigation. The second Greek translation, the so-called First Esdras (or Esdras a) differs considerably from Ezra-Nehemiah and Esdras b and is therefore significant. The comparison of First Esdras with Ezra-Nehemiah provides important information about the literary development of these textual traditions during the last centuries bce, and perhaps beyond, when these literary traditions developed independently.1 After the two textual traditions diverged, First Esdras seems to have been edited more extensively than Ezra-Nehemiah. Editorial changes were made to both Ezra-Nehemiah and First Esdras, but the development of the former was more limited than that of First Esdras. This is especially clear in the major differences between Ezra-Nehemiah and First Esdras, namely the large additions (e. g., 1 Esd 3:1 – 4:63) and omissions (e. g., Nehemiah memoir) in the latter. Although some scholars have argued that First Esdras generally reflects an older redactional stage than Ezra-Nehemiah,2 this now seems very unlikely and is rejected by most scholars.3 In most cases where Ezra-Nehemiah and First Esdras provide a significantly different reading, the assumption that Ezra-Nehemiah is 1 Note that harmonizations between First Esdras and the MT should not be completely excluded, but at present there is no reason to assume that they would have had a crucial impact on the evidence. 2 This position has been represented especially by Dieter Böhler, Die Heilige Stadt in Esdras a und Esra-Nehemia: Zwei Konzeptionen zur Wiederherstellung Israels (OBO 158; Freiburg and Göttingen: Universitätsverlag and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), and Adrian Schenker, “The Relationship between Ezra-Nehemiah and 1 Esdras,” in Was 1 Esdras First? (ed. L. Fried; SBLAIL 7; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 45 – 58. 3 For a recent discussion on the relationship of First Esdras and the MT, see contributions in Lisbeth S. Fried, ed., Was 1 Esdras First? (SBLAIL 7; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

296

First Esdras

older offers a more probable explanation.4 Nevertheless, this does not mean that First Esdras does not preserve earlier readings. Especially in the smaller differences between Ezra-Nehemiah and First Esdras, the development has been similar and the MT also contains many secondary readings, especially additions.5 Although some changes may indicate that “1 Esd was treated more loosely than the MT,” typical editorial processes of the Hebrew scriptures were at work in both textual traditions.6 The importance of First Esdras is highlighted by the high probability that the Hebrew/Aramaic Vorlage of First Esdras already differed considerably from the MT of Ezra-Nehemiah. The translation was made only after the major changes had been made to a Hebrew/Aramaic text, which was also subsequently, and thus independent of the large changes, edited before it was translated. In other words, First Esdras is not the translation of an early stage of development of the MT, but the translation of a Hebrew/Aramaic Vorlage that had continued to develop after it diverged from the MT. As convincingly shown by Zipora Talshir, the Vorlage of the translator already differed from the MT in more than just details.7 The comparison between First Esdras and Ezra-Nehemiah is facilitated by a fairly faithful translation of First Esdras. Although the translation is less literal than that of Esdras b, it is also clearly more faithful than the LXX translation of Esther, for example.8 It is mostly unproblematic to find parallel words or linguistic units between First Esdras and Ezra-Nehemiah in those sections where the texts contain a parallel passage. Unless there were ideological reasons or the Hebrew Vorlage was ambiguous, First Esdras often follows Ezra-Nehemiah almost word for word or otherwise replaces linguistic elements with a faithful 4 This is particularly evident in Ezra 4:6 – 8/1 Esd 2:15 and Ezra 3:9/1 Esd 5:56. For discussion on these passages and additional examples, see Juha Pakkala, “Why First Esdras is Probably not an Early Version of the Ezra-Nehemiah Tradition,” in Was 1 Esdras First?, 93 – 107. For further considerations to the same effect, see Zipora Talshir, “Ezra-Nehemiah and First Esdras: Diagnosis of a Relationship between Two Recensions,” Biblica 81 (2000): 565 – 573. 5 Here one should especially refer to the examples discussed by Zipora Talshir, I Esdras: From Origin to Translation (SBLSCS 47; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1999), 133 – 179. Note her important methodological discussion on pages 133 – 142 with Ralph W. Klein, Studies in the Greek Texts of the Chronicler (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966). 6 Thus Talshir, I Esdras: From Origin to Translation, 178. 7 Thus many, for example, Talshir, I Esdras: From Origin to Translation, 113 – 179. The idea that all the changes were made by the translator is rarely represented; but thus W.J. Moulton, “Über die Überlieferung und den Textkritischen Werth des dritten Esrabuchs,” ZAW 19 (1899): 209 – 258. On the other hand, quite as many scholars have assumed that nearly all of the differences were already created in the Hebrew/Aramaic Vorlage before the translation of First Esdras; thus, among others, Wilhelm Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia (HAT 20; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1949). Because of the evidently complicated development, each difference should be discussed separately in detail. 8 For further discussion on the nature of the translation, see Talshir, I Esdras: From Origin to Translation, 183 – 185, 268, with many examples on pages 185 – 267.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

297

Introduction

translation.9 Stylistic changes have also been made in the translation process, but they are less common than in the LXX of Esther, for example. The translator of First Esdras abridged the Vorlage if it would render a confusing text in Greek (e. g., Ezra 10:16 vs. 1 Esd 9:15) or if he did not fully understand the text (this may be the case in Ezra 7:17 and Neh 8:8), but such cases are not frequent.10 In general, most of the intentional changes are not related to the translation process, but were already made earlier in the transmission of the Hebrew/Aramaic Vorlage of First Esdras. Our main interest lies in the ideological changes, most of which already took place before the translation.11 Although First Esdras provides some of the same types of editorial changes that we have seen in the LXX of Esther, there are clear differences. It is evident that the tendency to abridge on the sentence level was much more restricted in First Esdras than in LXX Esther. While LXX Esther resorts to shortening the older text relatively easily and throughout the book, First Esdras generally provides a parallel text unless the Hebrew contains evident problems or disturbing repetitions. It seems reasonable to assume that many of the repetitions were removed when the text was translated into Greek because the translator rendered linguistic equivalents of Hebrew by a shortened unit in Greek. The translator would probably be tempted to omit a clear repetition or contradiction rather than trying to reproduce it in Greek. The most substantial textual changes in First Esdras are related to broader compositional changes and new conceptions about the role of the main actors of the plot. To this effect, First Esdras contains the addition of entirely new scenes, adoption of new material from other literary works and the omission of almost half of the text of Ezra-Nehemiah. On the sentence level, there are several additions and omissions of one or two words. Many of the changes that have had substantial influence on the meaning of the text are connected to the broader compositional change where the Story of the Youth in 1 Esd 3:1 – 4:63 was added and the Nehemiah memoir was omitted. In most cases where parts of the older text were omitted in First Esdras, a replacement was added. Since the replacement often contained entirely new information, the effect was the omission of parts of the older text. It is noteworthy that middle-sized (such as entire sentences) additions, rewritings, and omissions are relatively infrequent in First Esdras. For example, the addition of explicative sentences, found repeatedly in the LXX and MTof Esther or the MTof 9 Nevertheless, there are also many examples of linguistic equivalents of Hebrew/Aramaic being replaced by shortened units in Greek. See Talshir, I Esdras: From Origin to Translation, 233 – 238. 10 In Neh 8:8 @?M A9M9 MLHB and in Ezra 7:17 8DLHM4 8D7 @5K.@? may have been dropped out because they were not fully understood by the translator. 11 Thus Talshir, I Esdras: From Origin to Translation, 106 – 109, 174 – 179.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

298

First Esdras

Jeremiah, are relatively rare in the comparative material of First Esdras or EzraNehemiah. At the same time, there are several short additions and omissions (one or two words) as well as very large additions and omissions (of entire passages). The textual differences between First Esdras and Ezra-Nehemiah have been extensively and most convincingly discussed by Talshir.12 There is no reason to reinvent the wheel here, but simply to refer to her observations on many passages. Nevertheless, some examples will be necessary to gain a view of the textual development from the perspective of omissions. In the following, I will primarily discuss cases of intentional editorial changes that had an impact on the meaning of the text.13

Additions in First Esdras and Ezra-Nehemiah In order to understand the nature and effectual frequency of omissions and replacements in First Esdras and Ezra-Nehemiah, it is necessary to draw attention to the additions first. Ezra-Nehemiah contains many plusses in relation to First Esdras and it is very likely that some of these plusses are intentional additions that arose after First Esdras was translated, which shows that both versions continued to be edited at a relatively late time. Because the additions in Ezra-Nehemiah are small and the intentional changes that had substantial impact on the meaning of the text are mostly restricted to additions, it seems that Ezra-Nehemiah was not extensively edited after First Esdras diverged from this textual tradition. The contrast with the MTof Jeremiah or MTand LXX of Esther, for example, is evident. There is no sign of a major redaction, and instead, one finds mainly isolated short glosses, clarifications, and specifications. For example, there are additional family affiliations (=LLB =D5B in Ezra 8:19) and added titles (Ezra’s priestly title was added in Ezra 10:10; Yhwh was later specified as 9D=N954 =8@4 in Ezra 7:27). Some of the additions specify what is already said in the older text, which is also a common later development in Hebrew scriptures. According to Ezra 3:4 and 1 Esd 5:50, the Israelites should offer daily offerings, but a later editor in the tradition of Ezra 3:4 added that the specific offerings of each day should be 12 See particularly, Zipora Talshir, I Esdras: A Text Critical Commentary (SBLSCS 50; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001) and I Esdras: From Origin to Translation. 13 For the different types of non-ideological additions, see Talshir, I Esdras: From Origin to Translation. Note that in her study Talshir has been hesitant to separate ideological changes as a distinct category. Her approach looks at the whole data, including all the technical, minor, stylistic, and unintentional changes.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Additions in First Esdras and Ezra-Nehemiah

299

offered (9B9=5 A9=.L57).14 Both Ezra 8:22 and 1 Esd 8:52 say that the hand of God will be on those who seek him, but a warning was added to Ezra 8:22 that his power and anger would be against those who forsake him (9=5:F.@? @F 9H49 9:F9).15 In other words, the promise was later accompanied by a threat. Ezra 9:11 refers to the abomination (85F9N) of the people of the land which has filled it from end to end with their uncleanness, whereas the parallel verse in 1 Esd 8:80 lacks a reference to the uncleanness from one end to the other (parallel to AN4Bü5 8H.@4 8HB is lacking).16 The addition sharpens the criticism of the other nations. In Ezra 10:3 and 1 Esd 8:90 Shecaniah instructs Ezra to establish a covenant, but Ezra 10:3 secondarily adds at the end of the verse that this should be done according to the law (8MF= 8L9N?9). The addition implies that the law should be more central in guiding the conduct of the society. Such small additions that add detail or information can be found throughout Ezra-Nehemiah.17 The relative frequency of the small additions should be mirrored by the difficulty of finding unambiguous ideological omissions that could not be the result of an unintentional scribal lapse or corruption. Ideological omissions seem to be exceedingly rare in the MT of Ezra-Nehemiah, at least during the period that this textual tradition developed separately from that of First Esdras.18 Small isolated additions are also found in First Esdras, and there does not seem to be a fundamental quantitative or qualitative difference between First Esdras and Ezra-Nehemiah in this respect. For example, First Esdras has the tendency to add a reference to the Torah (e. g., 1 Esd 5:50; 9:42, 45, 46). In these 14 Talshir, I Esdras: AText Critical Commentary, 300, notes the added element “is pleonastic to a certain extent,” but she also assumes that the plus was already in the Hebrew Vorlage of First Esdras. 15 That this plus in the MT is secondary has also been assumed by Talshir, I Esdras: A Text Critical Commentary, 426. 16 As noted by Talshir, I Esdras: AText Critical Commentary, 452, the structure of the sentences is different in First Esdras, especially because of the added conjunction and the lack of a relative pronoun. 17 For additional examples, see Talshir, I Esdras: From Origin to Translation, 133 – 179. 18 There are some minor omissions and in some cases it is difficult to determine how ideological and intentional the change was. In any case, their number is limited and they remain ambiguous cases, often connected to the broader decision of whether First Esdras represents an earlier redactional stage or not. Nevertheless, if one were to assume that First Esdras is more original than Ezra-Nehemiah, there would be several ideological omissions, especially related to the gates and other locations in Jerusalem. One such case is Ezra 5:8, which lacks a parallel to ja· 1khºmter eQr Ieqousakgl tµm pºkim jatek²bolem t/r aQwlakys¸ar to»r pqesbut´qour t_m Iouda¸ym 1m Ieqousakgl t0 pºkei of 1 Esd 5:8. Böhler, Die Heilige Stadt, 154 – 158, has suggested that this verse is an example of a tendentious omission in the MT, but if Ezra-Nehemiah is more original then this is an addition in First Esdras. According to Talshir, I Esdras: AText Critical Commentary, 344, “there is no straightforward explanation as to how these words were omitted.” See also Talshir, I Esdras: From Origin to Translation, 168 – 170, for other potential cases of intentional omissions, most of which are ambiguous and may be unintentional lapses.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

300

First Esdras

cases Ezra-Nehemiah also implies that the book of the Torah was meant, but an editor wanted to be more specific. Similarly, Neh 8:7 refers to the law (8L9N), whereas the parallel in 1 Esd 9:48 refers to the law of the Lord (m|lor juq_ou). The title of God was added in 1 Esd 9:46. The older text, here represented by Neh 8:6, refers to Ezra praising Yhwh the great God (A=8@48 898=.N4 4L:F ýL5=9), while First Esdras refers to Yhwh the great God, the God Sabaoth (eqk|cgsem =sdqar t` juq_\ he` rx_st\ he` saba½h pamtojq\toqi). Ezra 3:5 lists the different regular offerings that the Israelites should offer, whereas the parallel verse in 1 Esd 5:51 adds the Sabbath sacrifices to the list. These sacrifices were probably added after the Sabbath had risen in importance so that the older text had to be updated. As with Ezra-Nehemiah, ideological additions are not exceedingly common in First Esdras and quantitatively most of the additions do not extend beyond separate words or very short sentences. For example, there are relatively few middle-sized additions of entire sentences that would have been inserted as explanations within the text or that gradually introduced new ideas into the text. Some of the clearest exceptions are longer lists of added names (for example, 1 Esd 5:34, 38) and events (the laying down of the temple foundation in 1 Esd 5:57), but in the latter case the added element is a duplication of sentences that are found only once in the MT.19 Some of the apparent additions are merely relocated sentences (such as the date in 1 Esd 6:1). The contrast with the textual development of the LXX and MTof Esther or the MTof Jeremiah, is apparent. For example, Esth 2:17 – 23 LXX alone contains several middle-sized ideological additions, while the same number of similar additions would be difficult to find in the entire First Esdras (or Ezra-Nehemiah). The main exceptions here are those changes that are related to the major revision that separated the textual tradition of First Esdras from Ezra-Nehemiah. First Esdras contains very large additions and relocations of entire passages or scenes. Missing in Ezra-Nehemiah, most scholars agree that First Esdras is secondary in all of the major differences. The addition of the so-called Story of the Youth in 1 Esd 3:1 – 4:63—taken from an unknown context or written for the present context—had a major impact on the whole composition. The whole new composition of First Esdras may have been written in connection with or in view of this addition.20 Without the addition of this story and the other changes connected with it, First Esdras would be merely a different version of Ezra-

19 See the discussion in Talshir, I Esdras: A Text Critical Commentary, 305 – 306. 20 According to some scholars, the Story of the Youth was the main reason for writing First Esdras as a new composition separate from Ezra-Nehemiah. Thus, for example, Talshir, I Esdras: From Origin to Translation, 106 – 109, and idem, “Ancient Composition Patterns Mirrored in 1 Esdras and the Priority of the Canonical Composition Type,” in Was 1 Esdras First?, 109 – 143.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Ideological Omissions in First Esdras

301

Nehemiah that contained some differences but not exceedingly many that might have been caused by ideological reasons.21 Immediately after the Story of the Youth follows another larger expansion (1 Esd 5:1 – 6) that contains additional information about the return to Jerusalem, such as names and details of travel. Like the Story of the Youth, the function of this addition was probably to elevate Zerubbabel, which may have been one of the main motifs for writing the composition of First Esdras separate from EzraNehemiah.22 The beginning of the book (1 Esd 1:1 – 55) already contains a large expansion in the form of an excerpt from 2 Chr 35:1 – 36:21. The passage from Chronicles serves as background information for the story in First Esdras. While 2 Chr 35:1 – 36:21 describes how Jerusalem and Judah were destroyed, First Esdras tells the story about their restoration. All of these major additions seem to be connected and serve the purpose of sharpening the profile of the composition as a story of the restoration of Jerusalem. The adjoining rearrangement of passages23 and omission of much of the book of Nehemiah are connected to the same motives and were probably done in connection with the additions. These broader compositional changes also occasioned several minor omissions in First Esdras.

Ideological Omissions in First Esdras First Esdras provides significant examples of ideological omissions, most of which are related to the addition of the Story of the Youth. In most of the minor cases on the sentence level the omitted part was replaced with new information, but there are also examples where the omitted section was not replaced by a new text. When First Esdras provides a parallel passage, it generally does not omit or rewrite extensively on the sentence level, which accords with the tendency that we have observed with the additions. There are some omissions and rewritings of individual words, but they generally do not extend to entire sentences such as the ones seen in the LXX of Esther. In this respect, the transmission of First Esdras was fairly faithful after it diverged from Ezra-Nehemiah. Perhaps the most striking difference between Ezra-Nehemiah and First 21 It is probable that without the addition of the Story of the Youth the whole textual tradition of First Esdras would not have been preserved. 22 Cf. James C. VanderKam, “Literary Questions between Ezra, Nehemiah, and 1 Esdras,” in Was 1 Esdras First?, 131 – 143. 23 Ezra 4:1 – 24, which describes the opposition to the building of the temple, was split up in First Esdras so that part of it (1 Esd 2:16 – 30) was relocated before the addition of the Story of the Youth and part of it (1 Esd 5:66 – 73) was placed after the list of the returnees and the construction of the altar.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

302

First Esdras

Esdras is the lack of the Nehemiah memoir in the latter. With the additional omission of all of Neh 8:13 – 13:31, nearly half of Ezra-Nehemiah is missing in First Esdras. It is probable that these are intentional omissions and that the author of First Esdras was familiar with both of the missing sections. Since this issue has been extensively discussed in many publications, there is no need to repeat the arguments in favor of the priority of Ezra-Nehemiah here.24 The reason for the omission of the Nehemiah memoir is probably connected with the large additions and with the changed conceptions about the role of Zerubbabel in the restoration of Judah/Yehud. After his role was elevated in First Esdras, especially with the addition of 1 Esd 3:1 – 5:6, the reader receives the impression that Zerubbabel was the non-priestly restorer of the society and builder of the city. This is explicitly stated in 1 Esd 4:53, 63. Because this role is emphatically given to Nehemiah in Ezra-Nehemiah, there would have been a contradiction between these characters. In fact, First Esdras portrays Zerubbabel as a character similar to Nehemiah so that it would have been difficult to include Zerubbabel and Nehemiah in the same composition, both as builders and non-priestly restorers of the society. It would therefore seem likely that the addition of 1 Esd 3:1 – 5:6 went hand in hand with the omission of the Nehemiah memoir, both changes elevating the role of Zerubbabel as the builder of Jerusalem, and replacing Nehemiah in this role.25 It should further be noted that Zerubbabel was assumed to represent the Davidic royal line,26 while Nehemiah was of unknown descent, which could have been a reason to favor Zerubbabel at the expense of Nehemiah.27 The restoration of Jerusalem by a descendant of David would emphasize continuity with Israel’s past and give hope of a restoration of the monarchy much more than a story where the city was restored by Nehemiah the son of an unknown Hacaliah. An additional reason for the omission of the Nehemiah memoir may have been the strongly pro-priestly 24 See the discussion and bibliography in the contributions in Fried (ed.), Was 1 Esdras First?. In particular, one should emphasize technical considerations in 1 Esd 9:37 (Neh 7:72) and 9:55 (Neh 8:13), verses where the omission of the Nehemiah memoir ends and the omission of Neh 8:13 – 13:31 begins. Both these verses show traces of familiarity with the omitted sections. See the discussion in Zipora Talshir, “Ezra-Nehemiah and First Esdras: Diagnosis of a Relationship between Two Recensions,” Biblica 81 (2000): 565 – 573, and Juha Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe: The Development of Ezra 7 – 10 and Neh 8 (BZAW 347; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2004), 18 – 20. 25 VanderKam, “Literary Questions,” 137 – 139, 143. Similarly already Talshir, 1 Esdras: From Origin to Translation, 49 – 57. 26 He is said to be the son of Shealtiel (Ezra 3:2, 8; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hag 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 23), who was the son of Jehoiachin. Although the factual or biological connection may not be without problems, he was nonetheless later perceived as representing the Davidic line. 27 Cf. the other restorers of Ezra-Nehemiah: Ezra, the restorer of the law, was said to descend from Aaron, while Jeshua was of the high priestly lineage. Nehemiah could have been seen as an outsider without any connection with Israel’s past.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Ideological Omissions in First Esdras

303

character of First Esdras. As argued by Jacob L. Wright, the inclusion of the memoir would have been very problematic for the priestly circles behind First Esdras.28 The role of the priests is ominously small throughout the memoir, especially in comparison with the rest of Ezra-Nehemiah.29 The omission of the Nehemiah memoir thus shows a case where broader compositional aims necessitated the omission of entire stories. The omission of Neh 8:13 – 13:31 may be more difficult to explain than the omission of the Nehemiah memoir, especially because some of the omitted section (especially in Neh 11 – 12) discusses priestly issues, which were important for the author of First Esdras. Nevertheless, the reasons can be found in the content and makeup of the section that was omitted. Nehemiah is the implied speaker in Neh 13, and he is also mentioned in Neh 10:1 and 12:26 and 47, which could have contributed to the omission as his memoir was also omitted. It would have been difficult to include Neh 13 once the Nehemiah memoir was omitted, or otherwise one would have had to change the (implied) speaker of this chapter. Another significant reason for the omissions may have been the aim of First Esdras to portray the restoration of the society. Much of Neh 8:13 – 13:31 consists of issues unrelated to this aim. Nehemiah 13 consists of several only loosely related reforms that were introduced by Nehemiah. Nehemiah 11 – 12 largely consists of lists of names and tasks of the temple personnel as well as a short narrative about the dedication of Nehemiah’s wall. Although the dedication of the wall is certainly a late addition to the memoir, it would have had to be omitted in First Esdras with the memoir. Nehemiah 10 describes the signing of the covenant, followed by a list of additional regulations in matters that were presented as supplements to the Torah. The whole section is begun in Neh 9 by the community’s confession of sins where Israel’s salvation history is reviewed. Because of the evident thematic discrepancies, Neh 9 – 13 does not form any consistent story, and there have also not been any serious attempts to integrate this section with the narratives in the rest of the composition of Ezra-Nehemiah. In effect, Neh 9 – 13 is a conglomeration of isolated passages barely held together by any theme or narrative framework.30 Since First Esdras is a unified story 28 See Jacob L. Wright, “Remember Nehemiah: 1 Esdras and the Damnatio Memoriae Nehemiae,” in Was 1 Esdras First? (ed. L. Fried; SBLAIL 7; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 145 – 163, here especially pp. 158 – 163, where he lists ten reasons that would have made it problematic to include the memoir in First Esdras. 29 The reason for the limited role of the priests in the Nehemiah memoir is its different redaction history, which precludes the idea that the memoir had been transmitted with the rest of Ezra-Nehemiah for much of its early transmission history. The book of Ezra contains repeated later additions where the role of the priests and Levites is emphasized. 30 The reason why these chapters contain various types of apparently unrelated themes is probably that much of this section was added by successive editors who found it unproblematic to add a section to the end of the book as an appendix. This may not have been

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

304

First Esdras

much more than Ezra-Nehemiah, Neh 9 – 13 would have had to be thoroughly rewritten to be included in the same literary work. Moreover, most of this material would not have been relevant for the new composition of First Esdras, which has the specific aim of showing how the temple, society and the law were restored by Jeshua, Zerubbabel, and Ezra. Lists of priestly families or additional regulations of tithes, for example, would have only distracted from these goals. Inauguration of Nehemiah’s wall would have directly undermined Zerubbabel’s role. Consequently, the intentional omission of Neh 8:13 – 13:31 is much more probable than any other explanation.31 It also shows some of the reasons why entire passages could have been omitted in the transmission of Hebrew scriptures. On the sentence level, there are not many ideological omissions of more than one or two words. They are all dwarfed by the non-ideological omissions caused by stylistic or other considerations.32 Although small omissions are not abundant, their existence shows that the rule of preservation was not strictly kept in this textual tradition. Similar ideological omissions may be missing in EzraNehemiah during the period when the two textual traditions developed independently. At least they appear to be significantly less common and ambiguous. On the other hand, the number of small ideological omissions in First Esdras is too small to conclude that there would be an essential difference between the two traditions. Many of the small ideological omissions in First Esdras are connected to the large additions and omissions discussed above. References to locations, especially related to Jerusalem and its gates, differ repeatedly in the two versions. There are clear differences as to when Jerusalem was populated, but references to the gates differ more systematically. As noted by Dieter Böhler, there is a “conceptual difference” between First Esdras and EzraNehemiah in relating to the gates of Jerusalem. First Esdras refers to the gates since the activity of Zerubbabel, while in Ezra-Nehemiah the gates are mentioned only after they had been rebuilt by Nehemiah.33 It is probable that locaintended as part of the composition by the editor, but was later assumed to be part of it by the later transmitters of the tradition. When an editor wanted to add a passage that he believed was important, it was possible at the end of the manuscript without reproducing or making an entirely new copy of the literary work. The same phenomenon can be observed at the end of many other books: for example, Esther in Esth 9 – 10, the addition of the last two chapters of 4 Ezra (as 6 Ezra), Bel and the Dragon in the book of Daniel. 31 This does not preclude the possibility of an accidental omission of Neh 8:13 – 18, but this is open to debate. In any case, it is evident that 1 Esd 9:55 (… ja· 1pisum¶whgsam) is an uneasy conclusion to a literary work. 32 See the discussion in Talshir, 1 Esdras: From Origin to Translation, pp. 175 – 179. 33 Böhler, Die Heilige Stadt, 103, has, in part, constructed his case in favor of the priority of First Esdras on the position of Jerusalem (see esp. pp. 78 – 137, 144 – 179). According to him, the locations were altered in the MT in order to make space for the Nehemiah memoir. Although I have to disagree with his view on the priority of First Esdras, he has nevertheless drawn

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Ideological Omissions in First Esdras

305

tions had been altered in First Esdras so that in this version Jerusalem is assumed to be already rebuilt by Zerubbabel, which undermines Nehemiah’s role as the builder of the city. These changes are thus connected to the addition of the Story of the Youth and the omission of the Nehemiah memoir. Only a few examples will suffice to demonstrate the case. According to Ezra 3:1, the people gathered to Jerusalem after they had been settled in their cities, but the parallel verse in 1 Esd 5:46 is more specific and instead of Jerusalem refers to the square before the first gate toward the east (eQr t¹ eqq}wyqom toO pq~tou puk_mor toO pq¹r t0 !matok0). Although 1 Esd 5:46 implies that the new location is in Jerusalem, the change necessitated the omission of the word for Jerusalem. This change may be an attempt to undermine the Nehemiah memoir, according to which the gates were constructed by Nehemiah (cf. Neh 3). The implicit message in First Esdras seems to be that the gates and the adjoining walls were already intact and thus not repaired by Nehemiah. This reading would emphasize Zerubbabel’s role as the builder of Jerusalem.34 Another reason behind the change may be that the author of First Esdras wanted to link the beginning of the building of the temple with the beginning of the reading of the law. As pointed out by Böhler, both events (cf. 1 Esd 5:46; 9:38, 41) seem to take place in the same location.35 This may be an attempt in First Esdras to emphasize the connection between the temple and the law. The same goal may also be behind the difference between 1 Esd 9:38 and Neh 8:1.36 In Neh 8:1 the people gathered to the square before the Water Gate (A=B8.LFM =DH@ LM4 59;L8.@4), whereas in 1 Esd 9:38 the square is said to be before the gateway east of the temple (1p· t¹ eqq}wyqom toO pq¹r !matok±r toO ReqoO puk_mor). First Esdras presents the reading of the law taking place close to the attention to the several cases where the locations are differently rendered in the two versions. Regardless of how one sees the priority of the two versions, one would have to assume that parts of the older text were omitted and rewritten. 34 If one were to assume that Ezra-Nehemiah is secondary and that this version tried to avoid the idea that Jerusalem was populated before Nehemiah, one would have to explain why Ezra 2:70 was left unaltered. This verse refers to people settling in Jerusalem much before Nehemiah restored it thus undermining the memoir. This demonstrates that Ezra-Nehemiah is not a consistent story, but a conglomeration of several originally independent stories that contain many contradictions and tensions. Böhler’s theory implies that Ezra-Nehemiah had been systematically revised and harmonized, but this is hardly the case and the harmonization has been relatively limited. This underscores the primacy of Ezra-Nehemiah in compositional issues. In comparison, First Esdras forms a much more consistent story, which implies that in the broader issues it is secondary in relation to Ezra-Nehemiah. 35 Böhler, Die Heilige Stadt, 94 – 95, 151 – 154. Although his eventual interpretation of the difference may be incorrect, the observation is important. 36 For a different interpretation of the relationship between these verses, see Böhler, Die Heilige Stadt, 151 – 154.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

306

First Esdras

temple, while in Neh 8:1 there is no such link.37 Since the opposite direction of textual development—the omission of a reference to the temple—would be more difficult to explain, it is probable that First Esdras is secondary here. It is commonly acknowledged that First Esdras has a more temple-centered and priestly perspective than Ezra-Nehemiah,38 which would provide a motive for showing that Ezra’s activity as a teacher of the law was subordinate to the temple. That Ezra was also made a high priest (cf. above) would seem to corroborate the assumption we are dealing with a secondary tendency in First Esdras. Ezra 10:1 describes how the people of Israel gathered to Ezra after he had arrived in Jerusalem: @8K @4LM=B 9=@4 9J5KD. According to the parallel verse in 1 Esd 8:88, however, the people gathered to him from Jerusalem: 1pisum¶whgsam pq¹r aqt¹m !p¹ Ieqousakgl ewkor. First Esdras is probably secondary here because it tries to give the impression that the city had already been repopulated and built by Zerubbabel (cf. 1 Esd 4:53, 63). A reference to Israel is more neutral in this respect as it is not contingent on the population of Jerusalem. Note that Ezra 10:7 implies the settlement of Jerusalem, which undermines Böhler’s assumption that Ezra-Nehemiah was systematically altered in this respect.39 Although it is more probable that First Esdras is secondary here, in either case the original location would have been omitted and replaced by another one. Several further cases of changed locations could be taken up here, but they would not change the picture. Regardless of which version one regards as original, one has to assume that in one of the versions locations were more or less systematically changed. For example, if one regards First Esdras as the more original version, one has to assume that all references to the gates of Jerusalem were omitted in Ezra-Nehemiah before Nehemiah has constructed them in Neh 3. If one favors the priority of Ezra-Nehemiah, one has to assume that an editor systematically changed locations in First Esdras to show that Zerubbabel had already built Jerusalem. Assuming that the latter is more probable, in some cases the change necessitated omissions of the older location and the addition of a new

37 Cf. Talshir, I Esdras: AText Critical Commentary, 485, who notes that a reference to the temple may have been “more appropriate to the occasion.” 38 See, for example, Wright, “Remember Nehemiah,” 145 – 163. 39 Böhler, Die Heilige Stadt, 92 – 93, 164 – 168, assumes that this is an intentional correction in Ezra 10:1 so that the text would not conflict with the idea of the Nehemiah memoir that Jerusalem was not repopulated before his activity. It should further be noted that Ezra 10 was rendered inconsistent by an early addition of v. 6 – 9, which emphasized the role of the golah (over against the people who live in the land). According to this addition, the people gathered in these verses to Ezra from all over Israel but also from Jerusalem, which undermines the idea of v. 1 that they had already gathered to him. See the discussion in Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 96 – 98. First Esdras may also be an attempt to harmonize the text in this respect.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Ideological Omissions in First Esdras

307

location (1 Esd 5:46; 9:1, 37, 41), while in other cases locations only were added without anything being omitted (e. g., 1 Esd 2:17; 5:45; 6:8; 7:9).40 Perhaps the clearest theological omission is found in the references to Yhwh as God of heaven (A=BM8 =8@4/ 4=BM 8@4), which is met in Ezra 1:2; 5:11, 12; 6:9, 10; 7:12, 21, 23. Although the solutions vary from passage to passage, First Esdras apparently contains various attempts to avoid the designation of Yhwh as the God of heaven. Because the renderings in First Esdras differ, Ezra-Nehemiah providing a consistent term, it is very likely that First Esdras is secondary in all of the cases. The emergence of 4=BM 8@4 in Ezra-Nehemiah on the basis of the various readings in First Esdras would be very difficult to explain. It is probable that the reason for the changes is that God of heaven had polytheistic undertones in the context of an editor in the textual transmission of First Esdras. The differences are illustrated in this table: Ezra 1:2 5:11 5:12 6:9 6:10 7:12 7:21 7:23 7:23

A=BM8 =8@4 4=BM 8@4 4=BM 8@4 4=BM 8@4 4=BM 8@4 4=BM 8@4 4=BM 8@4 4=BM 8@4 4=BM 8@4

j¼qior b vxistor toO juq¸ou toO jt¸samtor t¹m oqqam¹m t¹m j¼qiom toO Isqagk t¹m oqq²miom juqior t` he` t` rx¸st\ wa¸qeim toO heoO toO rx¸stou toO heoO t` he` t` rx¸st\

1 Esd 2:2 6:12 6:14 6:28 6:30 8:9 8:19 8:21 8:21

In some cases the problem was avoided by an addition (1 Esd 6:12, 14), while in the other cases the embarrassment was avoided by an omission. In 1 Esd 6:28 and 8:21 the word 4=BM was dropped out without a parallel, whereas in other cases the word was replaced by another word. First Esdras 2:2; 6:30 and 8:19 seem be the most faithful renderings, because the word 4=BM is translated with a related word vxistor (> the most high God … C9=@F), but they are nonetheless theological corrections. That these are not literal translations but attempts to avoid the theological embarrassment is underscored by Esdras b, where the parallel verses have a translation b he¹r toO oqqamou. The most peculiar solution to the problem is found in 1 Esd 8:9, where the word 4=BM is translated as wa¸qeim. Apparently semantically unrelated, this word probably goes back to an Aramaic Vorlage

40 In fact, if one regards First Esdras as the more original version, one would have to assume quite many omissions in Ezra-Nehemiah without any replacement (parallels to 1 Esd 2:17; 5:45; 6:8; 7:9 in Ezra 4:12; 2:70; 5:8; 6:18). This would run counter to the observation that it is otherwise very difficult to find any ideological omissions in Ezra-Nehemiah in relation to First Esdras. This would seem to undermine the assumption that First Esdras is the more original version.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

308 4B@M,

First Esdras 41

which is similar to 4=BM. This may indicate that this correction, and thereby probably all the other theological corrections of 4=BM 8@4, was already made before the translation and that a scribe had attempted to make a small consonantal change to avoid the problem. The change in 1 Esd 8:9 also meant that the word received an entirely new function in the sentence, now referring to the greetings sent by Artaxerxes. It should further be noted that 1 Esd 6:12 and 6:14 are attempts to solve theological problems similar to what we have seen in the Samaritan Pentateuch. Instead of omitting words, an addition was made to break the linguistic structure between the heaven and God. The word for heaven thus received another function in the sentence. Another theological embarrassment that was omitted can be found in 1 Esd 8:23. Whereas the Aramaic text in Ezra 7:25 refers to the wisdom of God that is in your (Ezra’s) hand (ý7=5.=7 ý8@4 NB?;? 4L:F), the parallel in First Esdras has dropped out the reference to the hands and refers to the wisdom of God only : jat± tµm sov¸am toO heoO. The most plausible reason for this omission would seem to be the possibility of reading the relative phrase as referring to the God that is in Ezra’s hand. This would have been a blasphemous conception, especially since in the ancient Near East idols of gods could have been, in principle at least, carried along and be held in the hand. That we are not dealing with an accidental omission (caused by homoioteleuton, for example) is suggested by a correction to a similar effect in 1 Esd 8:12. According to Ezra 7:14, Ezra should make inquiries according to the law of God that is in his hand (ý7=5 =7 ý8@4 N75 …). Here the Greek differs in other details as well, but our interest lies in the avoidance of the possibility of reading the sentence as referring to God that is in his hands: !joko¼hyr è 5wei 1m t` mºl\ toO juq¸ou (“according to what is in the law of the Lord”).42 A small omission and replacement is found in 1 Esd 9:49. In Neh 8:9 Ezra is called the priest scribe (LHE8 C8?8), but the parallel in 1 Esd 9:49 calls him the high priest (b !qwieqe»r). The same tendency to make him the high priest is also met in two other verses, although technically speaking these verses contain only additions. Whereas Neh 8:1 refers to Ezra as the scribe (LHE8), the parallel verse in 1 Esd 9:39 refers to him as the high priest (b !qwieqe»r) and reader (!macm¾stgr). A similar change to render priest as high priest is met in 1 Esd 9:40 in contrast with Neh 8:2, which refers to Ezra as C8?8. The reason for the changes in First Esdras is related to its generally more priestly orientation. There is already a clear development inside the Ezra story so that with the later additions Ezra becomes more priestly in character. This development took a further step in 41 Cf. 1 Esd 6:7 where the word wa¸qeim is paralleled by 4B@M in Ezra 5:7. 42 It should further be added that the word 7= is rendered variably in First Esdras. See the discussion and passages mentioned in Talshir, I Esdras: A Text Critical Commentary, 16.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

309

Ideological Omissions in First Esdras

First Esdras so that he became the high priest. A further reason for the development is probably the addition of Ezra’s genealogy in Ezra 7:1b–5, according to which he was of the high priestly lineage, descendant of Aaron and Hilkiah.43 First Esdras has undergone some editorial changes relating to the relative position of the priests and Levites. According to Ezra 6:18, the priests were set according to their divisions and the Levites were set according to their classes for the service of God at Jerusalem (48@4 N7=5F.@F C98NK@;B5 4=9@9 C98N6@H5 4=D8? 9B=K89). This verse implies that the priests and Levites were clearly two separate groups, which were further divided into sub-classes. According to the parallel text in 1 Esd 7:9 the priests and Levites were standing in their vestments according to their tribes for the services of God at Jerusalem (ja· 5stgsam oR Reqe?r ja· oR Keu?tai 1stokisl´moi jat± vuk±r 1p· t_m 5qcym toO juq¸ou). This sentence appears to contain several changes. The verb A=K8 may have been misunderstood or misread (hipf. for qal), but the other changes are probably intentional. The most consequential change is the rendering of C98NK@;B5 … C98N6@H5 with jat± vuk±r so that both priests and Levites become part of the same category. There may also be some updating concerning the subdivisions, because the specific subcategories of Ezra 6:18 are replaced with a word that seems to be less specific. It is very likely that First Esdras is secondary here because the same tendency to remove the distinction is found in other passages as well. First Esdras 8:41 – 42 contains a more subtle but similarly consequential omission to the same effect. According to Ezra 8:15, Ezra reviewed the people and the priests, and found no descendants of Levi among them. The parallel in 1 Esd 8:41 – 42 renders the sentence slightly differently. According to this version, when Ezra inspected them, he found no descendants of the priests or of the Levites: ja· jat´lahom aqto¼r ja· 1j t_m uR_m t_m Req´ym ja· 1j t_m Keuit_m oqw erq½m 1je?. A comparison of a conjectural retroversion of this sentence44 with the parallel in Ezra 8:15 reveals how it was changed: Ezra 8:15 1 Esd 8:41 – 42 (retroversion of the Vorlage)

AM =N4JB.4@ =9@ =D5B9 A=D8?59 AF5 8D=549 AM =N4JB.4@ A=9@8 8 =D5B9 A=D8?8 8 =D5B9 A8 85 8D=549

Technically the changes include the omission of three letters as well as the addition of one word and some additional letters. Although small in the number of letters, with these changes the position of the Levites is lifted to the same level as the priests.

43 After Ezra 7:1b–5 had been added, it was increasingly more probable that Ezra was seen as the high priest. 44 Thus rendered by Talshir, I Esdras: A Text Critical Commentary, 417.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

310

First Esdras

Omission of Repetitions and Tensions Not unlike in the LXX of Esther, First Esdras has removed some of the repetitions, contradictions, and inconsistencies caused by earlier editing. This necessitated the omission of some parts of the older text, although in most such cases no significant information was omitted. An illustrative example is 1 Esd 8:6 in comparison with its parallel in Ezra 7:8. Ezra 7 is a very heavily edited chapter, and because of several later expansions, the chapter refers to the arrival of Ezra in Jerusalem twice. His third arrival is mentioned in Ezra 8:32.45 One of the many expansions in Ezra 7 was the addition of v. 9, the purpose of which was to specify the date when Ezra had departed and arrived. After this verse had been added, the text became repetitive, and therefore an editor in the transmission of First Esdras omitted the first (and probably original) reference to Ezra’s arrival.46 Ezra 7:6 – 9

7

@4LM=.=D5B 9@F=9 A=LLMB89 A=9@89 A=D8?8.CB9 A=D=ND89 A=LFM89 A@M9L=.@4 ý@B8 4NEM;NL4@ F5M.NDM5 8 A@M9L= 45=9 =M=B;8 M7;5 ý@B@ N=F=5M8 NDM 4=8 9 C9M4L8 M7;@ 7;45 =? @55B 8@FB8 7E= 498 =M=B;8 M7;@ 7;459 A@M9L=.@4 45 9=@F 859ü8 [email protected]=?

Some of the people of Israel and some of the priests, Levites, singers gatekeepers, and

1 Esd 8:5 – 6 ja· sumam´bgsam 1j t_m uR_m Isqagk ja· t_m Req´ym ja· Keuit_m ja· Reqoxakt_m ja· huqyq_m ja· Reqodo¼kym eQr Ieqosºkula 5tour 2bdºlou basike¼omtor )qtan´qnou 5

1m t` p´lpt\ lgm¸ oxtor 1miaut¹r 6bdolor t` basike? 6 1nekhºmter c±q 1j Babuk_mor t0 moulgm¸ô toO pq¾tou lgm¹r 1m t0 moulgm¸ô toO p´lptou lgm¹r paqec´mommto eQr Ieqosºkula jat± tµm dohe?sam aqto?r eqod¸am paq± toO juq¸ou 1pû aqt`. 5

Some of the people of Israel and some of the priests, Levites, singers,

45 For a more detailed discussion about the literary history and the problems of Ezra 7, see Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 56 – 63. In the oldest text Ezra arrived alone (note the singular verb in contrast with the subjects mentioned) and his arrival was already told in Ezra 7:7. Later editors added new information about his journey and arrival times, which caused his arrival to be reported three times and which also caused a contradiction between the singular verb and the arrival of a group of exiles with Ezra. 46 According to Talshir, I Esdras: A Text Critical Commentary, 390 – 391, First Esdras is more focused on the returnees than Ezra and this would have been the reason for the omission. Although this is a possible reason, the repetition caused by earlier editing is also behind the change. It should further be noted that the second arrival in Jerusalem is expressed with a verb in the singular in the MT while First Esdras renders it in the plural, thus in reference to the whole group. This is a logical change, originally caused by the addition of other people accompanying Ezra on the journey. It is probable that the original text only referred to Ezra arriving in Jerusalem alone.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

311

Omission of Repetitions and Tensions

Continued Ezra 7:6 – 9 the temple servants went up to Jerusalem in the seventh year of King Artaxerxes. 8 And he came to Jerusalem in the fifth month, this was the king’s seventh year, 9 for on the first day of the first month the journey from Babylonia was begun, and on the first day of the fifth month he arrived in Jerusalem, for the good hand of his God was upon him.

1 Esd 8:5 – 6 gatekeepers, and temple servants came up (together) to Jerusalem in the seventh year of the reign of Artaxerxes, in the fifth month this was the king’s seventh year, 6 for they left Babylon on the new moon of the first month and on the new moon of the fifth month they arrived in Jerusalem by the prosperous journey that the Lord gave them.

A similar omission is found in 1 Esd 8:49 in comparison with Ezra 8:21, with the exception that one of the omitted words was replaced by an entirely new word: A9J AM 4LK49 4984 L8D8.@F N9DFN8@ 9D=8@4 =DH@

And I proclaimed there a fast, at the river Ahava, to humble (ourselves) before our God

ja· eqn²lgm 1je? mgste¸am to?r meam¸sjoir 5mamti toO juq¸ou Bl_m There I proclaimed a fast for the young men before our Lord

It is evident that Ezra 8:21 is disturbing, because it refers to ‘there’ and to ‘the river Ahava.’ It is unlikely that both references to the same place could have been written by the same hand. The reason for the conflicting references is the later addition of verses 15b–20.47 The three days originally referred to the length of the fast proclaimed in v. 21, for it is difficult to see any other reason for staying at the river Ahava for an exact period of three days.48 Verses 15b–20 broke this con47 In v. 15a Ezra gathers the people to the river Ahava for the returning exiles to camp there for three days. This verse does not say why they stayed there for exactly three days, but the events described in v. 15b–20 would take more than that time. In these verses Ezra notices that there are no Levites in the group and he therefore sends people to another town to ask for them to be sent and that they eventually come with temple servants. For further discussion and argumentation, see Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 59 – 61. 48 Note that Ezra noticed the lack of the Levites only after he has decided to camp there for three days. After the addition of v. 15b–20 their departure is contingent on the arrival of the Levites and not the predetermined three days. In other words, the proclaimed staying at the river for three days is better suited with the idea that it referred to the fast decided by Ezra than by the coming of the Levites.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

312

First Esdras

nection and made the reference to the three days irrelevant. The disturbing repetition of the location in v. 21 corroborates the suspicion. The original text referred to ‘there’ because the immediately preceding verse 15b mentioned Ahava and it would have been redundant to repeat the name. After the long expansion in v. 15b–20 it became unclear where the ‘there’ referred to, and it was therefore necessary to add the actual location (4984 L8D8.@F). Because the resulting text was found repetitive, an attempt was made to correct it in First Esdras. The whole reference to the Ahava was omitted and an attempt was made to replace the word river with a word that would look similar in Hebrew (L8D8 cf. LFD cf. meam¸sjor).49 The editor may have assumed that the text must be corrupted and he therefore tried to think of better alternatives that have similar letters. That the replacement is similar in Hebrew may indicate that the change was already made in the Hebrew Vorlage and not in the translation. In this process the editor also had to drop the location altogether and further omit the reference to Israel humbling itself. This is an example of a case where First Esdras resorts to omissions and replacements if the older text was disturbing or confusing. A more consequential omission is that of two references to the golah. EzraNehemiah contains many passages that emphasize the community of the golah to the extent that it is even equated with Israel. Because the references to the golah were probably added later,50 the importance of the golah runs counter to the original aims of the story creating confusion and contradictions.51 Some of the contradictions have been removed in First Esdras (1 Esd 8:69 and 9:2), but not all, as this chart illustrates:52 Ezra 8:35 9:4 10:6

=5M8B A=458 8@968.=D5 8@968 @FB @F 8@968 @FB.@F

oR d³ paqacemºlemoi 1j t/r aQwlakys¸ar

1 Esd 8:63

1p· t0 !mol¸ô rp³q t_m !moli_m t_m lec²kym toO pk¶hour

8:69 9:2

49 Cf. Talshir, I Esdras: A Text Critical Commentary, 424, who notes that the reference “the ‘young men’ is totally inadequate in this context” and that “it is illogical to declare a fast only for them.” Nevertheless, she leaves out the question of why the river was omitted in the first place. 50 For further discussion about the golah additions, see Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 263 – 265. 51 The main idea of the original story in Ezra 7 – 10 and Neh 8 is that Ezra came to Jerusalem to teach the Torah to the people who had remained in the land and had been living without the law. That the community of the returnees is emphasized is difficult to accommodate with this general plot of the story. 52 Because some of these additions were left in the story, it is improbable that First Esdras represents an earlier literary stage than the MT. Moreover, the golah additions were not restricted to the addition of merely the word golah, but included entire verses (for example, Ezra 9:4). Since First Esdras merely removes the word golah but not the whole verse Ezra 9:4, it is probable that that the reading in First Esdras is a later development and a correction of an inconsistency caused by an earlier expansion.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Omission of Repetitions and Tensions

313

Continued Ezra 10:7 10:8 10:16

8@968 =D5 @?@ 8@968 @8KB @75= 8@968 =D5 C?.9bF=9

p÷si to?r 1j t/r aQwlakys¸ar !kkotqiyh¶setai !p¹ toO pk¶hour t/r aQwlakys¸ar ja· 1po¸gsam jat± p²mta taOta oR 1j t/r aQwlakys¸ar

1 Esd 9:3 9:4 9:15

The most evident contradictions are found in Ezra 9:4 and 10:6, which were also corrected in First Esdras. When Ezra had arrived from Babylon, he was told that the people had taken foreign wives, which is then the main subject of Ezra 9 – 10. The idea is that the people who had remained in the land were unaware of the law and therefore had broken it. This results in the annulment of the marriages (Ezra 10) and the teaching of the law by Ezra (Neh 8). The Ezra story is about the reintroduction of the Torah to the people in Judah, who had been living without it. Because of different conceptions about the importance and position of the golah community, later editors added in Ezra 9:4 and 10:6 that it was the golah community that had taken foreign wives and not the people who had remained. The sin is said to be that of the golah (8@968 @FB), evidently because for the editor the golah equaled Israel.53 First Esdras has attempted to correct the most evident contradictions, which would appear to undermine the whole plot of the Ezra story. First Esdras 8:69, the parallel to Ezra 9:4, omits the reference to the golah so that there is only a general reference to sin, which better accords with the wider plot.54 A similar change was made in 1 Esd 9:2 (vs. Ezra 10:6), although here the sin of the golah was replaced with a reference to the sin of the multitude (t_m lec²kym toO pk¶hour).55 The sons of the golah of Ezra 8:35 also lacks a parallel in First Esdras, but in this case the reference to the golah is more logical and the omission may be a stylistic correction to omit a redundancy. These examples should suffice to demonstrate repetitions and tensions were omitted in First Esdras. Similar cases can be found, for example, in the following passages: Ezra 4:6 – 11 and 1 Esd 2:15 (three letters made into one in First Esdras), Ezra 3:9 and 1 Esd 5:56 (a later addition at the end of the verse integrated better into the text), Ezra 4:21 and 1 Esd 2:24 (a loose end or reference to instructions omitted), as well as Ezra 9:4 and 1 Esd 8:68 – 70 (repetition of 53 The author implies that no Jews had remained in the land. This is most clearly seen in Ezra 6:19 – 22, although this passage has also been heavily edited so that it also contains internal tensions in this respect. 54 Similarly Talshir, I Esdras: A Text Critical Commentary, 443 – 444. 55 Cf. Talshir, I Esdras: A Text Critical Commentary, 460 – 461. If First Esdras were older here, it would be necessary to assume that some references to the golah were added before First Esdras diverged from the same textual tradition and others were added later only to the MT. This is a much more improbable line of development than to assume that First Esdras tried to correct some of the contradictions and tensions caused by the additions, especially since this tendency is met in other parts of First Esdras as well.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

314

First Esdras

5LF8 N;DB removed).

56

The tendency to remove problems caused by earlier editing is rather frequently met in First Esdras. It is probable that at least some of the changes that do not alter the content but polish the style and remove repetitions were made in the translation process because it is there that one is forced to restructure entire sentences and contemplate the meaning of the text. As noted by Talshir, the translator had the “tendency to devise his equivalents on the basis of logical units rather than the individual elements.”57 If the older text were inconsistent and repetitive, the translator would easily be tempted to remove a repetition (for example in Ezra 9:4; cf. 1 Esd 8:70) rather than reproduce it in Greek. On the other hand, the probability of more strongly ideological changes is probably higher in the pretranslation transmission of the text.

Summary Both Ezra-Nehemiah and First Esdras were transmitted relatively faithfully during the period that they developed as independent textual traditions. This is suggested by the closeness of the parallel texts in many passages. Neither one of the texts should be characterized as a rewritten text of the other. Were it not for the major additions and omissions, First Esdras and Ezra-Nehemiah would represent two relatively close strands of one textual tradition. The closeness of the traditions is partly explained by the relatively short period during which the texts developed independently. The evidence mainly pertains to the textual transmission after First Esdras diverged from the MT of Ezra-Nehemiah and before it was translated. It is unlikely that the period in question could be much longer than a century, but it could well be much less.58 56 See further discussion of these passages in Pakkala, “Why First Esdras,” 93 – 107. 57 Talshir, I Esdras: From Origin to Translation, 233. 58 Ezra-Nehemiah has been revised and edited by successive hands, as assumed by several scholars investigating these books. See, for example, Sigmund Mowinckel, Studien zu dem Buche Ezra-Nehemia I: Die nachchronistische Redaktion des Buches, Die Listen (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1964); Antonius H.J. Gunneweg, Esra (KAT; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1985); Jacob L. Wright, Rebuilding Identity : The Nehemiah-Memoir and its Earliest Readers (BZAW 348; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2004); Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe. Regardless of how one solves the redaction development of the text, it is necessary to assume the existence of several redactional layers in the text, the development of which must have taken far more than a century, probably even two centuries. Since the text describes events in the late decades of the 5th century bce, the development of the text would take place after that. Assuming that the development begun immediately after the events took place (which is a very optimistic assumption), the text would have developed in the 4th and 3rd centuries bce. On the other hand, it would be difficult to assume that the translation was made much later than the 2nd century or early 1st century bce. Cf. Talshir, I Esdras: From

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

315

Summary

Despite the brevity of the period in question, both textual traditions were intentionally changed by editors. Apart from the stylistic and other minor changes, the MT contains some ideological additions, but they appear not to have had significant impact on the text. They are mainly additions of one or two words that emphasized an issue, such as the Torah, but the textual development was much more limited than that of First Esdras. First Esdras bears witness to some of the same editorial processes as the MT, but it additionally contains examples of more radical processes. Similar small additions found in the MT were also made in First Esdras, and it appears that they are mainly spontaneous additions made by various editors, redactors, and copyists who did not plan a comprehensive redaction but who could still make a particular theological or ideological change. Apart from other changes that are directly connected to the major additions and omissions, First Esdras also contains several omissions that can be characterized as theological or ideological in nature. They are mostly small omissions, but they have had significant impact on the meaning of the text. Some of them may have been spontaneous theological omissions, whereas the omission of all references to the God of heaven seems to have been more systematic in nature. At any rate, the small omissions, systematic or spontaneous, show that the rule of preservation of the older text was broken in this textual tradition. At the same, it is difficult to find clear cases of similar intentional content-changing omissions in the MT.59 The most important differences between First Esdras and Ezra-Nehemiah are interconnected and appear to have been made by the same hand. This included the relocation of parts of the text, the addition of 1 Esd 1 and the Story of the Youth as well as the omission of the Nehemiah memoir and all of Neh 8:13*–13:31. Many of the other content-changing omissions are directly related to this major revision. This is particularly evident in those changes that try to portray Zerubbabel as the builder of Jerusalem, which also seems to be a major Origin to Translation, 260 – 261, who suggests that the translation could even be from the 3rd century bce, but in view of the earlier literary development of Ezra-Nehemiah, this would be difficult. 59 Talshir, I Esdras: From Origin to Translation, 175, has noted that “[i]n the majority of categories, there is no clear tendency of one text towards a certain type of addition or omission. Only rarely is there an unbalanced development in the texts.” This may pertain to the textual material in general when texts of those sections are compared where a parallel passage is preserved (thus excluding the major additions and omission in First Esdras). In her review of the material, she does not distinguish the ideological changes as a separate category, and instead she divides the differences into linguistic and technical categories. According to Talshir (pp. 141 – 142), the division of the material into categories on the basis of reasons that the changes were made would be “necessarily subjective.” Clearly the differences should be looked at carefully, but in many cases a reason for the change can be established. By exclusively looking at the ideological changes, significant additional information can be extracted, in comparison with looking at all the changes and dividing them on technical, stylistic, and linguistic grounds.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

316

First Esdras

motive behind the whole revision. The editor made repeated changes that would preclude the impression that the city was still in ruins after Zerubbabel, which would thus undermine the main idea of the Nehemiah memoir. This process necessitated several small additions, replacements, and omissions. The major restructuring of the Ezra-Nehemiah material in First Esdras has some of the hallmarks of a redaction, similar to ones that are commonly assumed in literary and redaction criticism. It was done with specific ideological goals in mind, which were also consistently imprinted in the whole new composition. Editorial changes that are linked to these goals are found throughout the text. Some of the changes are substantial additions of entire passages, while others are smaller, which accords with the common assumption in literary and redaction criticism. The main difference here is that First Esdras provides evidence of more radical processes than what the conventional literary-critical methodology assumes. The omission or rewriting of words and short sentences as well as the omission of entire sections of the older composition is generally rejected in these methodologies, as we have seen in the introduction to this book. On the other hand, these methodologies are largely conjectural, especially concerning the axiomatic rejection of omissions, whereas in First Esdras we have documented evidence of how a text was revised. It would seem that the key question here should be why the major revision in First Esdras is not to be seen as a redaction, such as the ones that have been reconstructed in literary and redaction criticism. If it is not a redaction, what is it then? In view of the fact that First Esdras is among the best documented and clearest cases of how texts of Hebrew scriptures developed, it would be precarious to reject the evidence it provides or to categorize it as something that would not be relevant for understanding how the texts of the Hebrew scriptures developed. A documented case of editorial changes is certainly better than a conjectured one. Since literary criticism to all intents and purposes still lacks clear documented evidence of redactions, it should be very interested in what it should look like. Clearly, First Esdras is merely one line of textual development and cannot be taken as a model for all redactions. We do not know if similar redactions took place in the case of texts where we do not have documented evidence, but this is very possible. First Esdras should be included as one possible type of redaction in investigating the prehistory of texts where documented evidence is missing. It would mean that we have to consider the possibility that large blocks of material or entire sections of the older text could be omitted by redactors. We would also have to assume the omission and rewriting of smaller blocks of material, such as separate words and short sentences. First Esdras also suggests that in some cases inconsistencies caused by earlier editing may have been polished. For literary criticism it is, of course, problematic that some of the repetitions and incon-

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

317

Summary

sistencies have been removed because they are often used as the main indications for assuming that something had been changed by a later editor. First Esdras also shows that texts could have been reorganized so that some sections of the texts were relocated. Although this would clearly complicate the methodology, it is difficult to see how one could neglect documented evidence where we can see such processes taking place. If we were to look only at the development of First Esdras without having access to Ezra-Nehemiah, the full reconstruction of the earlier text would be impossible. An analyst would have no way of knowing that in addition to the material in First Esdras there had earlier been a composition that included the Nehemiah memoir and a conglomeration of successive additions accumulated in Neh 9 – 13. Indeed, the analyst would have no way of knowing that there was such a thing as the Nehemiah memoir or that the composition had been successively edited by redactors who omitted about half of the whole composition and added entirely new passages. By additional small additions and omissions throughout the text, the new passages were integrated into the old composition, which was thus also made a much more unified story than what it had been. It was then subsequently transmitted so that minor additions and theological omissions were made. Some of these additions, and harmonizations caused tensions which could be detected by literary critics. Nonetheless, without Ezra-Nehemiah, the commonly applied methods that only assume additions would have considerable problems in fully understanding the most important late redaction of First Esdras and would lead to erroneous reconstructions of the redaction history in many passages.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Radical Editorial Processes in the Book of Esther

Introduction The book of Esther is a fruitful object for investigating the editorial processes of the Hebrew Bible because three noticeably different versions of the book have been preserved. In addition to the Masoretic text, the Book of Esther is witnessed by two Greek versions that differ substantially from the MT but also from each other.1 The earlier translation, the so-called B-text, is included in most Septuagint manuscripts and is usually dated to the second century bce,2 while the later translation, the so-called A-text, derives from the first century bce or the first century ce.3 The B-text or the LXX of Esther is generally assumed to represent a later development dependent on the Masoretic text,4 while the relationship of the A-text to the LXX and the MT is more controversial.5 The differences between the three versions are met throughout the text, and some of 1 Further differences are met in the different manuscripts as well as in the Old Latin of Esther, which may represent a yet another Greek translation of the book. See Julio Trebolle Barrera, Jewish Bible and Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 352. In many parts of the book the Old Latin represents a much shorter text than the MT. In part, it is even shorter than the already shorter Greek versions. For example, in Esth 9, the Old Latin seems to lack a parallel to more than half of the verses. 2 According to Kristin De Troyer, The End of the Alpha Text: Translation and Narrative Technique in MT 8:1 – 17, LXX 8:11 – 17, and AT 7:7 – 41 (Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 398, the LXX translation should be dated to the time between 164 and 78 bce. According to Trebolle Barrera, Jewish Bible and Christian Bible, 399, “the translation was made around 114 bce.” 3 For discussion on the dating, see David A. deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Contexts and Significance (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2002), 114–115. According to Kristin De Troyer, Rewriting the Sacred Text (Text-Critical Studies 4; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 88–89, the A-text, which she calls the Agrippa text, was written around 40–41 ce in Rome. 4 Thus most scholars, for example, David Clines, The Esther Scroll: The Story of the Story (JSOTSup 30; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 69 – 70, and Kristin De Troyer, End of the Alpha Text, 396. 5 For discussion, see Michael V. Fox, The Redaction of the Books of Esther : On Reading Composite Texts (SBL Monograph 40; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1991), 14 – 17.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

320

Radical Editorial Processes in the Book of Esther

them are substantial and consist of entire passages. For example, both Greek versions include six large sections that are missing in the Masoretic text.6 Smaller differences can be found in almost every verse of the book. Because of these differences, it is evident and generally accepted that the text was substantially edited and revised by several editors. Determining the exact relationship between the different witnesses involves several complications.7 This is particularly true for the relationship between the A-text and the MT,8 and in some passages these texts differ so extensively that any reconstruction of the textual development remains merely a conjecture. The ambiguity of the parallels in many passages leaves little space for secure argumentation. The relationship between the LXX and MT is less controversial as most scholars have come to the conclusion that the LXX was translated on the basis of a Vorlage close to the MT.9 Although many of the changes were probably made in the translation process, already the Hebrew Vorlagen of both translations differed from the MT.10 One should not exclude the possibility that the MT was edited after the LXX was translated on the basis of a Vorlage that was relatively close to the MT text. This is suggested by some of the example texts discussed in this chapter.11 The LXX version is often characterized as a rather free rendering of its Hebrew Vorlage, which complicates the comparison between the witnesses.12 It is difficult to gain a view of the Vorlage with great accuracy, and it is unclear which 6 There is a general consensus that they are later expansions in the Greek versions. Thus most scholars, see deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha, 110–118. However, Charles C. Torrey, “The Older Book of Esther,” HTR 37/1 (1944): 1–40, suggested that some of the additions were included in the original Book of Esther, but this view has not been followed by many. 7 For further discussion, see the contributions in The Book of Esther in Modern Research (ed. Leonard Greenspoon and Sidnie White Crawford; London: Continuum, 2009), Fox, Redaction, and De Troyer, The End of the Alpha Text, 15 – 71. 8 Thus most scholars, for example, Fox, Redaction, 10. 9 For example, De Troyer, End of the Alpha Text, 396, on Esth 8:1 – 17, but she also considers the possibility that addition E, for example, may not have been the creation of the translator. 10 This is suggested by the large additions, many of which were probably written in Hebrew. It is probable that additions B and E were originally written in Greek, while the other additions more probably have their origin in Hebrew. See, for example, deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha, 116. 11 Here one has to disagree with the rather unconditional conclusion of De Troyer, End of the Alpha Text, 396, who writes: “The Vorlage of the LXX is without a doubt the MT.” Similarly, but perhaps not as unconditionally, also Clines, Esther Scroll, 69. Although the LXX may have been translated on the basis of a Vorlage close to the textual tradition of the MT, the assumption that the MTwas altered after the translation offers a more probable explanation for some of the differences between the two versions. It would also be peculiar that the MT of Esther had been completely frozen for editorial changes after the translation of the LXX. This would run counter to observations in other books of the Hebrew Bible. In other words, the assumption that the LXX of Esther is always secondary in relation to the MT seems unlikely. 12 Thus many, for example, Clines, Esther Scroll, 69 – 70; Fox, Redaction, 57.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

321

Introduction

changes were created in the translation process and which reflect older variation between the witnesses. Another complicating factor is the possibility of later harmonizations between the versions.13 Because of these complications, it is possible to discuss here only less controversial cases and in more general terms. On the other hand, our interest is limited in scope and lies mainly in the possible omissions that a comparison of the versions would reveal. It is not my intention to solve the entire textual history of the passages in question, but to discuss it only as far as it is necessary for demonstrating and understanding the nature of the editorial changes that took place in this text.14 I will discuss examples from different parts of the book that may show that an omission took place, but passages where the relationship and direction of influence is highly conjectural will be avoided. The argumentation here is based only on the MT and the LXX, although in some cases the A-text provides additional evidence. A comparison of the A-text with either one of the other versions would make it unequivocally clear that the text of most passages has been radically revised. Omissions and comprehensive rewriting has to be assumed in many parts of the book.15 Michael V. Fox has discussed the relationship between the A-text and the MT from the perspective of literary and redaction criticism.16 Because of the partly radical processes of redaction, he has concluded that there are some cases where these methodologies would not be able to reconstruct the prehistory of the A-text. On the other hand, he has also noted that these methodologies would be able to “identify most of the redactional blocks of the AT.”17 Although less controversial than in the case of the A-text, the LXX of Esther also contains several examples where parts of the older text may have been omitted or rewritten in comparison with the older text of the MT. In some cases the omission is the result of the translation process, but there are also many intentional ideological or related omissions where substantial information of the older text was left out. Some of these changes may have been produced during the translation process, but may still not be the result of the translation process. As noted above, some of the omissions could also be older. Only in some cases is 13 De Troyer, End of the Alpha Text, 3 – 7. 14 For the literary-critical solutions of the passages in question, see, for example, Lewis Bayles Paton, The Book of Esther (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1908), Clines, Esther Scroll, Fox, Redaction. 15 See Fox, Redaction, 62 – 65, who notes that “[o]missions range from scattered single words … to the major blocks excised in the AT-end.” Some of the omissions are inconsequential or related to removing repetitions, but there are also content-related intentional omissions. 16 See Michael V. Fox, “Redaction of the Greek Alpha-Text of Esther,” in Sha’arei Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran and the Ancient Near East (ed. M. Fishbane and E. Tov ; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 207 – 220. 17 See Fox, Redaction, 134 – 141.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

322

Radical Editorial Processes in the Book of Esther

it possible to be certain at which stage the change took place. Because of these complications, particular attention should be given to the differences so that a clear reason for each proposed intentional omission is established. Various kinds of omissions will be discussed in order to gain a fuller picture of what kind of omissions took place.

Substantial Editorial Changes in the Story in Esth 2:17 – 23 The Masoretic text and the Septuagint of Esth 2:17–20 differ in many details.18 There are several additions in either one of the versions, but the picture one receives differs from the text-critical evidence in Jeremiah and the Samaritan Pentateuch. The changes seem to be more extensive and it would not do justice to this evidence to characterize the relationship of the versions as merely that of expansions. Although it is unlikely that the LXX would reflect a generally earlier stage of redaction,19 the passage shows some cases where the MT was probably edited further after the translation of the LXX and where the LXX preserves the more original text. In order to gain a picture of what is taking place, it is necessary to discuss the main differences.20 Esth 2:17–23 MT

Esth 2:17–23 LXX .@?B LNE4.N4 ý@B8 584=9

17

.@?B 9=DH@ 7E;9 C;.4MN9 A=MD8

8M4L5 [email protected]? AM=9 N@9N58 =NM9 N;N 8?=@B=9 @976 8NMB ý@B8 MF=9

18

9=75F9 9=LM.@?@ LNE4 8NMB N4 8MF N9D=7B@ 8;D89 ý@B8 7=? N4MB CN=9 N=DM N9@9N5 I5K859

19

ý@B8.LFM5 5M*= =?7LB9 8N7@9B N76B LNE4 C=4

20

17

ja· Aq²shg b basike»r Eshgq, ja· exqem w²qim paq± p²sar t±r paqh´mour, ja· 1p´hgjem aqt0 t¹ di²dgla t¹ cumaije?om. 18

ja· 1po¸gsem b basike»r pºtom p÷si to?r v¸koir aqtoO ja· ta?r dum²lesim 1p· Bl´qar 2pt± ja· vxysem to»r c²lour Eshgq ja· %vesim 1po¸gsem to?r rp¹ tµm basike¸am aqtoO. 19 20

b d³ Laqdowa?or 1heq²peuem 1m t0 aqk0. B d³ Eshgq oqw rp´deinem tµm patq¸da aqt/r·

8BF.N49 =?7LB 8=@F 89J LM4?

ovtyr c±q 1mete¸kato aqt0 Laqdowa?or

18 The A-text contains a parallel to vv. 17 – 18 only, and these also differ considerably from the LXX and MT. Only in some cases does the A-text provide help for understanding the relationship between the LXX and the MT. 19 For solutions on the earlier redaction of the passage, see Henri Cazelles, “Note sur la composition du rouleau d’Esther,” Studies in the Book of Esther (ed. C. Moore; New York: KTAV Publishing, 1982), 17 – 29, and Clines, Esther Scroll, 118 – 130. 20 The LXX and MTcontain many minor or controversial differences that will not be discussed here, but they are nonetheless marked in the synoptic columns.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Substantial Editorial Changes in the Story in Esth 2:17 – 23

323

Continued Esth 2:17–23 MT 8MF LNE4 =?7LB LB4B.N49 9N4 8DB45 8N=8 LM4? .LFM5 5M= =?7LB9 A88 A=B=5

21

MLN9 CN65 GJK ý@B8 ý@B8 =E=LE.=DM GE8 =LBMB ML9M;4 ý@B5 7= ;@M@ 9MK5=9 =?7LB@ L578 F79=9

22

8?@B8 LNE4@ 76=9 =?7LB AM5 ý@B@ LNE4 LB4N9

4JB=9 L578 MK5=9

23

IF.@F A8=DM 9@N=9

A=B=8 =L57 LHE5 5N?=9 ý@B8 =DH@

17 the king loved Esther more than all the other women; of all the virgins she won his favor and devotion, so that he set the royal crown on her head and made her queen instead of Vashti. 18 Then the king gave a great banquet to all his officials and his ministers:

‘Esther’s banquet’ He granted a holiday to the provinces, and gave gifts with royal liberality. 19 When the virgins were being gathered, Mordechai was sitting at the king’s gate. 20 Now Esther had not revealed her kindred or her people, as Mordechai had charged her ; And Esther obeyed Mordechai’s instruction just as when she was with him. 21 In those days, while Mordechai was sitting at the king’s gate, Bigthan and Teresh, two of the king’s eunuchs, who guarded the threshold, became angry

Esth 2:17–23 LXX vobe?shai t¹m he¹m ja· poie?m t± pqost²clata aqtoO, jah½r Gm letû aqtoO, ja· Eshgq oq let¶kkanem tµm !cycµm aqt/r. 21 Ja· 1kup¶hgsam oR d¼o eqmoOwoi toO basik´yr oR !qwisylatov¼kajer fti pqo¶whg Laqdowa?or, ja· 1f¶toum !pojte?mai )qtan´qngm t¹m basik´a. 22 ja· 1dgk¾hg Laqdowa¸\ b kºcor, ja· 1s¶lamem Eshgq, ja· aqtµ 1mev²misem t` basike? t± t/r 1pibouk/r. 23 b d³ basike»r Etasem to»r d¼o eqmo¼wour ja· 1jq´lasem aqto¼r· ja· pqos´tanem b basike»r jatawyq¸sai eQr lmglºsumom 1m t0 basikij0 bibkioh¶j, rp³q t/r eqmo¸ar Laqdowa¸ou 1m 1cjyl¸\. 17

the king loved Esther

of all the virgins she won (his) favor so that he set the royal crown on her 18 Then the king gave a banquet to all his friends and forces for seven days. And he celebrated Esther’s wedding He gave a rest to those under his rule.

19

But Mordechai was serving in the courtyard. 20 Now Esther had not revealed her kindred, as Mordechai had charged her to fear God and obey his commandments just as when she was with him. And Esther did not change her way of life. 21 Two of the king’s eunuchs, who guarded the threshold, became angry

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

324

Radical Editorial Processes in the Book of Esther

Continued Esth 2:17–23 MT and sought to kill King Ahasuerus. 22 But Mordechai found out about it, and he told it to Queen Esther, and Esther told the king in the name of Mordechai. 23 When the affair was investigated and found to be so, both two were hanged on the gallows. It was recorded in the book of the annals in the presence of the king.

Esth 2:17–23 LXX because Mordechai was promoted and sought to kill King Ahasuerus. 22 But Mordechai found out about it, and he told it to Esther, and she told the king. 23

So the king interrogated the eunuchs

and hanged them. Then the king ordered to make an entry as a memorial in the royal archive in commendation of Mordechai’s loyalty

There are several stylistic corrections in the LXX, many of which may be related to the translation process. For example, a parallel to 9=DH@ 7E;9 in v. 17 is missing in the LXX, which may have been omitted as unnecessary in Greek. In this context, the word 7E; is almost synonymous with C;, and translating both may have been unnecessary.21 The rendering of 8M4L5 with aqt0 may also be a stylistic change. Similar stylistic changes that entailed minor omissions are met throughout the text. The Masoretic text of v. 17 contains two plusses, both of which are more probably expansions in the MT than omissions in the LXX: A=MD8.@?B and =NM9 N;N 8?=@B=9. Although in the case of A=MD8.@?B the possibility of a stylistic omission in the LXX cannot be completely excluded, the plus elevates Esther above all other women, which would be a rather typical addition. It would be more difficult to explain the omission of such a reference. =NM9 N;N 8?=@B=9 is a typical expansion that builds on what is already said in the older text. Although the placing of the royal crown on Esther’s head effectively means that she became the queen, the expansion makes this explicit. Implicit information of the older was supplemented by an explicit reference, which is a rather typical addition in the Hebrew Bible. Here again it would be more difficult to explain its omission in the LXX than its addition in the MT. If the LXX were shortening here, one would expect it to have left a reference to Esther becoming queen rather than a reference to the placement of the crown on her head, which is more abstract. Although the LXX and MTshare the general idea that Esther’s coronation was celebrated, many details differ in v. 18. The Masoretic text refers to a great feast (@976 8NMB), while the LXX text only calls it a feast (pºtor). Because later texts often increased the greatness, glory, and size of events and deeds, the LXX may in this 21 The A-text preserves a parallel to 7E; (… 5keom), which corroborates the assumption that the LXX is a later development.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Substantial Editorial Changes in the Story in Esth 2:17 – 23

325

case be more original than the MT. Whereas the Hebrew text refers to a feast (8NMB), both Greek versions call the event a wedding celebration (c²lor). The idea of a wedding is implicitly present already in the Hebrew text, but the Greek renderings go a step further and explicitly refer to a wedding.22 A parallel to v. 18bb of the MT (ý@B8 7=? N4bB CN=9) is missing in the LXX, and is it probably a later addition in the MT because it increases the importance of the feast and would accord with the tendency in the MT to call it a great feast. One could make a case for a stylistic omission because the sentence does not add significant information, so a decision here must remain uncertain. In the LXX the feast is said to have lasted for seven days, while the MTmakes no reference to the duration. This is a rather typical addition that specifies the duration of events. A tendency of later editors to be more specific on dates, chronologies, and times is common throughout the Hebrew Bible.23 On the other hand, it also increases the importance of the feast, which means that we can see the same tendencies in the later transmission of both the LXX and the MT. According to the MTof v. 19, Mordechai was sitting at the king’s gate when the virgins were being gathered for the second time. The gathering of the virgins (N=DM N9@9N5 I5K859) finds no parallel in the Greek version, but the rest of the verse also differs: In the LXX Mordechai was serving in the courtyard. It is difficult to see why the virgins were gathered together again after the queen had already been selected.24 The virgins play no role in the ensuing text, which may imply that the text is corrupted or some part of the original text is missing. That the LXX lacks the reference may be due to an intentional omission, for otherwise one would have to assume that it is a separate addition in the Hebrew text, but this would make little sense. It would be difficult to see the purpose and rationale of an addition that has no apparent function in the text. An accidental duplication of the gathering is also unlikely because the text specifically refers to the second gathering. It is more probable that the text was corrupted or edited at an early stage so that something was left out. Intentional earlier editing is suggested by the fact that the reference to Mordechai sitting by the gate of v. 19b is also met in v. 21a. After the function for the second gathering of the virgins was omitted, the reference to the event also became irrelevant. Although a definite conclusion is not visible at the moment, the LXX version of v. 19 is more probably than not the 22 The A-text also renders 8NMB as a c²lor, but perhaps independently because the translations differ considerably : LXX: ja· vxysem to»r c²lour Eshgq; A-text: ja· Ecacem b basike»r t¹m c²lom t/r Eshgq. 23 Ezra-Nehemiah is a good example of how dates and chronologies were added later. See the discussion in Juha Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe: The Development of Ezra 7 – 10 and Nehemiah 8 (BZAW 347; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2004), 170 – 174. 24 Early research was already puzzled by v. 19a. See Paton, Esther, 186 – 188, for a discussion about different solutions.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

326

Radical Editorial Processes in the Book of Esther

result of a stylistic omission. In the background is an earlier textual corruption or intentional omission of the second gathering. The MTwould be more original than the LXX but hardly the original. The difference between the MTand LXX in v. 19b—the location of Mordechai—may also be connected to the problem in v. 19a, but in both cases it remains unclear as to why Mordechai is mentioned here in the first place. The reference to him is logical only in v. 21, where he is again said to be sitting at the gate. Verse 20 contains two plusses in the LXX, both of which are typical expansions. The addition of a reference to Esther fearing God is part of the general tendency of both Greek versions to increase the role of God. The same editor also subverted the reference to “Mordechai’s instruction” and replaced it with “his commandments,” which, after the addition of the fear of God, referred to God’s commandments. That the Hebrew word LB(4#B( (sg.) was rendered in the LXX with the word t± pqost²clata (pl.) highlights the change from Mordechai’s instruction to God’s commandments.25 In effect then, the older text was replaced here. Although the change was made rather subtly and meant only the omission of Mordechai’s name and a predisposed translation of LB4B, the change in meaning was significant. At the end of the verse the LXX also added that Esther did not change her way of life. This idea is an extension of what is already said in the previous sentences: She had followed God’s commandments and remained as she had been with him. From this it would be possible to deduce that she had not abandoned her way of life even when she became the queen. Here we can again see the explication of information that was implicitly present in the older text (cf. Esther becoming queen in Esth 2:17 MT, discussed above). Verses 21 – 23 describe a plot against the king, which was revealed by Mordechai. These verses are a special case because they are also used in addition A of the Septuagint in verses 12 – 14. Although there are some differences between A 12–14 and Esth 2:21–23, it lies beyond question that the passages are directly dependent. Both passages preserve the idea that Mordechai discovered a plot by two eunuchs to murder the king. After Mordechai found out about the conspiracy, he reported it to the king. Whereas in Esth 2:21–23 the reporting takes place through Esther, in A 12 – 14 Mordechai tells the king directly. After examining the case, the king had the eunuchs executed. A memorandum of the event was then written in the royal annals. The story has been effectively duplicated in the LXX, whereas the A-text omits Esth 2:19–2326 altogether so that in this version the whole episode is, in an altered 25 The Greek word pqost²cla often refers to Yahweh’s commandments and is a rendering of the Hebrew words 89JB, K9;, or üHMB : e. g., Exod 20:6; Lev 20:8, 22; Deut 12:1; 15:2; 19:4. 26 Note that if v. 21 – 23 were omitted in this passage, much of vv. 19 – 20 would also become unnecessary, and therefore, it is probable that the omission of vv. 21 – 23 also caused vv. 19 – 20 to be omitted.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Substantial Editorial Changes in the Story in Esth 2:17 – 23

327

form, used only in addition A. It is evident that the omission of the doublet in the A-text was intentional and a secondary development because the original location of the plot must have been in Esth 2. This is because addition A, generally assumed to be secondary, is completely missing in the MT. What is happening then is that the plot was originally described in Esth 2:21 – 23. It was later duplicated by an editor so that the plot was described in A 12 – 14 and Esth 2:21 – 23. This stage of development is reflected in the LXX. An editor in the textual tradition of the A-text later omitted the original passage and retained only the secondary duplication. The complicated transmission history of these verses illustrates and highlights the complexities of the textual transmission in Esther. For our purposes, the development as reflected in the A-text shows a case where a later scribe omitted a duplication that many readers would have found disturbing.27 It also demonstrates one possible line of development showing how a text could be relocated during its transmission history. Because the LXX retained both of the plots against the king, it was necessary to make other changes to the text in order to avoid the repetition being disturbing. Verse 21a (ý@B8.LFM5 5M= =?7LB9 A88 A=B=5) was omitted in the Septuagint. The reason for the omission of this sentence may be twofold. As an almost identical sentence is already found in v. 19, its omission would have avoided the repetition in its immediate context. On the other hand, it is probably an attempt to conceal that the story is identical with the one in A 12–14. Note that verse A 12 preserves an altered parallel to Esth 2:21a: ja· Bs¼wasem Laqdowa?or 1m t0 aqk0.28 Since v. 21a did not provide any essential information to the story, it is understandable that it would have been a potential section to be changed or omitted if one needed to conceal a shared origin of A 12 – 14 and Esth 2:21 – 23. The names of the eunuchs have been omitted in the LXX of Esth 2:21, but their altered form was preserved in addition A v. 12: MLN9 CN65 vs. Cabaha ja· Haqqa. The omission of the names in Esth 2:21 was necessary, because having had the same eunuchs in the second plot against the king would have undermined the credibility of the whole narrative. The eunuchs with those names had already been killed in v. 14 of addition A. In accordance with their omission in Esth 2:21 –

27 Similarly, for example, Emanuel Tov, “Apocryphal Sections of Esther : A Rewritten Biblical Book,” Textus 10 (1982): 1 – 25, here p. 12, and most convincingly De Troyer, Rewriting the Sacred Text, 38–49. Another solution is offered by Clines, Esther Scroll, 105, 110–111, who has suggested that vv. 19–23 are a later addition to the MT and the LXX, and that the A-text preserves the original reading. The A-text would have adopted the episode only after it had been duplicated in addition A, but not in the location it was originally placed. Its verse 6:2 would then refer to addition A. 28 That this sentence is found in addition A as well shows that we are not dealing with a separate addition in the MT; cf. above.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

328

Radical Editorial Processes in the Book of Esther

23, the names were also omitted in the LXX of Esth 6:2, which refers to the same plot: Esther 6:2 MT =?7LB 7=68 LM4 59N? 4JB=9 MLN9 4DN65.@F ý@B8 =E=LE =DM GE8 =LBMB 7= ;@M@ 9MK5 LM4 M9L9M;4 ý@B5

Esther 6:2 LXX exqem d³ t± cq²llata t± cqav´mta peq· Laqdowa¸ou, ¢r !p¶cceikem t` basike? peq· t_m d¼o eqmo¼wym toO basik´yr 1m t` vuk²sseim aqto»r ja· fgt/sai 1pibake?m t±r we?qar )qtan´qn,.

It was found written how Mordecai had told concerning Bigthana and Teresh, the two eunuchs of the king, who guarded the threshold, and who had sought to lay hand(s) on King Ahasuerus.

And he found the records written concerning Mardochaeus, how he had told the king concerning the two eunuchs of the king, when they were keeping guard, and sought to lay hands on Artaxerxes.

The LXX contains a plus in Esth 2:21, according to which Mordechai was promoted (fti pqo¶whg Laqdowa?or). This is probably a late addition that seeks to present Esth 2:21–23 as an entirely different event from that of A 12–14. Neither addition A nor the MT of Esth 2:21–23 provides any reason why the eunuchs wanted to kill the king, and it is understandable that later editors would have attempted to come up with a reason. Esther 2:22–23 contains repeated differences between the MT and the LXX so that the text was effectively rewritten. The main idea remains largely the same, and here the differences may have been primarily caused by the free translation process. However, a clear addition is found at the end of v. 23 in the LXX. It was emphasized that Mordechai’s loyalty was recorded in the annals, which is part of the general tendency, variably met in all three versions, to increase his importance and role throughout the narrative.

Omissions and Rewritings in Esther 7:1 – 5 Esther 7:1 – 5 relates the story about the second day of the banquet organized by Esther in honor of the king and Haman. The MT and LXX versions contain several differences in this passage:

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

329

Omissions and Rewritings in Esther 7:1 – 5

Esther 7:1 – 5 MT

Esther 7:1 – 5 LXX CB89 ý@B8 45=9

1

8?@B8 LNE4.AF N9NM@ LNE4@ ý@B8 LB4=9

2

C==8 8NMB5 =DM8 A9=5 A6 ý@ CNDN9 8?@B8 LNE4 ý[email protected] ýNMK5.8B9 MFN9 N9?@B8 =J;.7F LB4N9 8?@B8 LNE4 CFN9

3

ý@B8 ý=D=F5 C; =N4JB.A4

1

EQs/khem d³ b basike»r ja· Alam sulpie?m t0 basik¸ss,. 2 eWpem d³ b basike»r Eshgq t0 deut´qô Bl´qô 1m t` pºt\ T¸ 1stim, Eshgq bas¸kissa, ja· t¸ t¹ aUtgl² sou ja· t¸ t¹ !n¸yl² sou. ja· 5sty soi 6yr toO Bl¸sour t/r basike¸ar lou. 3 ja· !pojqihe?sa eWpem EQ exqom w²qim 1m¾piom toO basik´yr,

59ü ý@[email protected] =N@4M5 =MHD [email protected] =NMK55 =BF9 =D4 9DL?BD =?

4

7=BM8@ =BF9 754@9 69L8@ 9DL?BD N9;HM@9 A=75F@ 9@49

89M LJ8 C=4 =? =NML;8 ý@B8 K:D5 M9L9M;4 ý@B8 LB4=9

5

doh¶ty B xuw¶ lou t` aQt¶lat¸ lou ja· b kaºr lou t` !ni¾lat¸ lou· 4 1pq²hglem c±q 1c¾ te ja· b kaºr lou eQr !p¾keiam ja· diaqpacµm ja· douke¸am, Ble?r ja· t± t´jma Bl_m eQr pa?dar ja· paid¸sjar, ja· paq¶jousa· oq c±q %nior b di²bokor t/r aqk/r toO basik´yr. 5 eWpem d³ b basike¼r

8?@B8 LNE4@ LB4=9 498 8:.=49 8: 498 =B

C? N9MF@ 95@ [email protected] 1

So the king and Haman went in to feast with Queen Esther. 2 On the second day, as they were drinking wine, the king again said to Esther, “What is your petition, Queen Esther, and it will be granted you. And what is your request? Even to the half of my kingdom, and it will be fulfilled.” 3 Then Queen Esther answered, “If I have found your favor, O king, and if it pleases the king, let my life be given me at my petition and my people at my request. 4 For we have been sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be killed, and to be annihilated. If we had been sold merely as male and female slaves

T¸r oxtor, fstir 1tºklgsem poi/sai t¹ pq÷cla toOto 1

So the king and Haman went in to feast with the Queen. 2 On the second day, as they were drinking, the king said to Esther, “What is it, Queen Esther, and what is your petition, and what is your request? Even to the half of my kingdom it shall be yours.” 3 Then she answered, “If I have found favor with the king, let my life be given me at my petition and my people at my request. 4 For we have been sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be booty, and to be enslaved, we and our children as male and female slaves.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

330

Radical Editorial Processes in the Book of Esther

Continued Esther 7:1 – 5 MT I would have kept silent, but no enemy can compensate for this damage to the king.” 5 Then King Ahasuerus said to Queen Esther, “Who is he, and where is he, who is planning to do this?”

Esther 7:1 – 5 LXX But I did not take heed,29 for the slanderer is not worthy of the court of the king.” 5 Then the king said, “Who is he, who is planning to do this deed?”

Most of the differences in v. 1–3 are stylistic changes in the LXX and have only limited impact on the story itself. For example 59ü ý@[email protected] finds no parallel in the LXX, but since this effectively conveys the same idea as the preceding sentence, it may have been dropped in the translation.30 Some of the differences may also be minor additions in the MT, such as the additional reference to Esther in v. 1. The omission of several words in the LXX version of v. 5 did not impact the message and meaning of the story. The name of the king, an explicit reference to Esther as the addressee, an unnecessary repetition of the word LB4=9 and part of the king’s question (498 8:.=49) are missing in the Septuagint. Some of these differences could also have be the result of an addition in the MT. The most notable differences are found in v. 4b, which has been largely rewritten in the LXX version. Many of the words of the older text, here represented by the Masoretic text, were used in the LXX, but the meaning of Esther’s speech was changed to some extent. In the MT Esther tells the king that if (9@4) the Jews were only to have been sold into slavery, she would have kept silence because it would not have been an issue worth bothering the king with.31 In the LXX, however, the threat of the Jews being sold into slavery is presented as one of the reasons why she reports Haman’s plan to the king, and thereby the conditionality related to slavery is missing. That the LXX is secondary in verse 4 is

29 According to Henry Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek English Lexicon (9th ed.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), 1314, the verb paqajo}y denotes hearing beside, hearing accidentally, overhearing, misunderstanding, hearing carelessly, taking no heed. Only the last would seem to be comprehensible in this context. 30 Clearly, one cannot completely exclude the possibility of an addition in the MT. 31 The exact meaning of ý@B8 K:D5 89M LJ8 C=4 is debated, but the context implies that it provides the reason why Esther would have kept silence if the Jews had only to be sold into slavery. A possible translation would be ‘the stress (the issue would cause to the Jews) was not worth the burden of the king (i. e., the burden that it would cause to the king). Nevertheless, its meaning does not change the fact that the LXX provides a different reading concerning how Esther related to the slavery of the Jews. It is possible that the word LJ was misunderstood. As the word K:D is a hapax legomenon in the Hebrew Bible, its meaning (‘burden’, ‘damage’, see Koehler-Baumgartner, K:D) may also have been lost in the Greek text, which renders it as aqk^.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

The Omission of Mordechai in Esther 8:7–11

331

probable because a development in the other direction would be more difficult to explain. It is comprehensible that the enslavement of Jews would later be considered as such a serious offence against the Jews that a scribe would have wanted to place it parallel to the threat of death and destruction. A development in the other direction would mean that a scribe later intentionally decreased the significance of slavery and took it out of the list of horrors. Verse 4b is a good example of the liberties a later scribe (or translator) could have taken to rewrite parts of the older text. Although many of the words of the older text were used in the LXX, the meaning was so substantially changed that the effect is similar to a comprehensive rewriting. The meaning of the older text was effectively left out.32 Verse 5 contains minor stylistic differences. The additional references to Ahasuerus and Queen Esther in the MT may be later expansions, although the possibility of an omission in the LXX due to a shortening should not be excluded. The king’s question of the offender’s location is unnecessary and was probably therefore omitted in the LXX.

The Omission of Mordechai in Esther 8:7–11 Esther 8:7–11 describes the commissioning of the king’s new order to the provinces, which would allow the Jews to defend themselves and kill their enemies. In the background is Haman’s previous order to destroy the Jews (Esth 3:12–13), which was effectively reversed by the new order after Haman had fallen out of the king’s favor. Whereas the Masoretic text only refers to the new order by the king, the LXX and the A-text include the entire text of the order (as addition E). Similar additions have been suspected in the book of Ezra for many of its documents (letters and edicts), but in Esther this is substantiated by textual evidence. A reference to a document would have been later expanded to include the whole document. There are several other differences between the LXX and MT as well. Apart from minor and stylistic omissions,33 the passage may bear witness to intentional content-related omissions. The most apparent such omission is that of 32 The A-text is probably secondary in v. 4b because it only refers to a slavery that has already occurred: 1pq²hglem c±q 1c¾ ja· b kaºr lou eQr do¼kysim. The threat of destruction is omitted altogether in this text. This fits poorly even with other parts of the A-text itself because the threat of the upcoming destruction of the Jews is one of the leading plots of the entire narrative. 33 For example, Esther’s royal title and the king’s name were omitted in v. 9. The king’s name is also omitted in v. 10. The LXX has made several stylistic abridgements. For example, in v. 10, the Hebrew A=?BL8 =D5 A=DLNM;48 M?L8 =5?L A=E9E5 A=JL8 7=5 is rendered with di± bibkiavºqym, which basically conveys the same idea but omits the details. See De Troyer, End of the Alpha Text, 234 – 235.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

332

Radical Editorial Processes in the Book of Esther

Mordechai. All references to him are missing from the LXX version of these verses. It is probable that they are omissions in the LXX rather than additions in the MT, although in its entirety the development may be even more complicated. Esther 8:7–11 MT 8?@B8 LNE4@ ML9M;4 ý@B8 LB4=9

7

=NND CB8.N=5 8D8 =798=8 =?7LB@9 LNE4@ @F IF8.@F 9@N 9N49 A==798=5 97= ;@M.LM4 A?=D=F5 59ü? A=798=8.@F 95N? AN49

8

ý@B8 NF5ü5 9BN;9 ý@B8 AM5 ý@B8.AM5 5N?D.LM4 5N?.=? ý@B8 NF5ü5 A9N;D9 5=M8@ C=4 4=88.NF5 ý@B8.=LHE 94LK=9

9

C9=E M7;.498 =M=@M8 M7;5 95 A=LMF9 8M9@M5 =?7LB 89J.LM4.@?? 5N?=9

N9;H89 A=DHL7M;48 @49 A=798=8.@4 M9?.7F9 978B LM4 N9D=7B8 =LM9 8D=7B 84B9 A=LMF9 F5M 9DM@? AF9 AF9 85N?? 8D=7B9 8D=7B AD9M@?9 A5N ?? A=798=8.@49 ML9M;4 ý@B8 AM5 5N?=9

10

ý@B8 NF5ü5 AN;=9 A=JL8 7=5 A=LHE ;@M=9 A=?BL8 =D5 A=DLNM;48 M?L8 =5?L A=E9E5 LM4 A=798=@ ý@B8 CND LM4

11

AMHD.@F 7BF@9 @8K8@ L=F9.L=F.@?5 AF @=;.@?.N4 754@9 6L8@9 7=BM8@ A@@M9 A=MD9 Gü AN4 A=LJ,8 8D=7B9

Esther 8:7–11 LXX ja· eWpem b basike»r pq¹r Eshgq EQ p²mta t± rp²qwomta Alam 5dyja ja· 1waqis²lgm soi ja· aqt¹m 1jq´lasa 1p· n¼kou, fti t±r we?qar 1p¶mecje to?r Iouda¸oir, t¸ 5ti 1pifgte?r. 8 cq²xate ja· rle?r 1j toO amºlatºr lou ¢r doje? rl?m ja· svqac¸sate t` dajtuk¸\ lou. fsa c±q cq²vetai toO basik´yr 1pit²namtor ja· svqacish0 t` dajtuk¸\ lou, oqj 5stim aqto?r !mteipe?m. 9 1jk¶hgsam d³ oR cqallate?r 1m t` pq¾t\ lgm¸, fr 1sti Misa, tq¸t, ja· eQj²di toO aqtoO 5tour, ja· 1cq²vg to?r Iouda¸oir fsa 1mete¸kato to?r oQjomºloir ja· to?r %qwousim t_m satqap_m !p¹ t/r Ymdij/r 6yr t/r AQhiop¸ar, 2jat¹m eUjosi 2pt± satqape¸air jat± w¾qam ja· w¾qam, jat± tµm 2aut_m k´nim. 10 1cq²vg d³ di± toO basik´yr ja· 1svqac¸shg t` dajtuk¸\ aqtoO, ja· 1nap´steikam t± cq²llata di± bibkiavºqym, 11 ¢r 1p´tanem aqto?r wq/shai to?r mºloir aqt_m 1m p²s, pºkei bogh/sa¸ te arto?r ja· wq/shai to?r !mtid¸joir aqt_m ja· to?r !mtijeil´moir aqt_m ¢r bo¼komtai, 7

:95@ 7

Then King Ahasuerus said to Queen Esther and to the Jew Mordechai, “See, I have given Esther the house of Haman, and they have hanged him on the gallows, because he laid hands on the Jews. 8 You may write as you please with regard to the Jews, in the name of the king, and seal it with the king’s ring; for an order written in the king’s name and sealed with the king’s ring cannot be revoked.” 9 The king’s scribes were sum-

7

And the king said to Esther, “If I have given and granted to you all the property of Haman, and I hanged him on the gallows, because he laid his hands on the Jews, what more do you seek? 8 You may write (pl) in my name, as it seems good to you (pl), and seal it with my ring: for what is written as the king commands, and sealed with my ring, may not be opposed by them. 9 The scribes were summoned

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

333

The Omission of Mordechai in Esther 8:7–11

Continued Esther 8:7–11 MT moned at that time, in the third month, which is the month of Sivan, on its twenty-third day ; and all that Mordechai ordered was written to the Jews and to the satraps and the governors, and the officials of the provinces from India to Ethiopia, one hundred twenty-seven provinces, to every province in its own script and to every people in its own language, and to the Jews in their script and their language. 10 He wrote in the name of King Ahasuerus, sealed them with the king’s ring, and sent the letters by mounted couriers riding on fast steeds bred from the royal herd. 11 (By these letters) the king gave the Jews who were in every city to assemble and defend their lives, to destroy, to kill, and to annihilate any armed force of any people or province that might attack them, with their children and women, and to plunder their goods.

Esther 8:7–11 LXX in the first month, which is Nisan, on the twenty-third day of the same year; and it was written to the Jews as he ordered to the local governors and princes of the satraps, from India even to Ethiopia, one hundred and twenty-seven satraps, to every province, according to their languages. 10

And it was written (as ordered) by the king,

and sealed with his ring, and they sent the letters by letter carriers. 11

(by which) he ordered them to use their own laws in every city to help themselves, and to treat their adversaries, and those who attacked them, as they pleased.

In the MTof v. 7 the king speaks to both Esther and Mordechai, while in the LXX the king’s speech is addressed to Esther only (ja· eWpem b basike»r pq¹r Eshgq). In v. 9 of the MT the scribes write (pass. 5Nú ?,)=,%9( ) what Mordechai orders them to write (A=798=8.@4 =?7LB 89J.LM4.@?? 5N?=9), whereas the LXX of this verse does not specify who gave the order to write, but since the last subject mentioned in v. 8 is the king, he would appear to be the evident subject of the verb 1mete¸kato.34 Verse 10 further highlights the difference between the versions. In the MTof v. 10 the subject is not repeated, but is evidently the same as in v. 9, that is, Mordechai. In the MT of v. 10 Mordechai writes (5N?=9) the order in the king’s name, but here the LXX presents a passive form (1cq²vg) instead.35 As a result, in 34 Verse 8 also refers to the order of the king (toO basik´yr 1pit²namtor) so that without the change of subject, such as in the MT, the reader is bound to understand the king as the subject of 1mete¸kato in v. 9. 35 Note that verses 9–10 are partly repetitive in both versions, which may be the result of earlier editing. The A-text omits both verses and therefore offers no help on this question.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

334

Radical Editorial Processes in the Book of Esther

the LXX the scribes, who were summoned in v. 9, write in the king’s name, without there being any middleman between them, while in the MT Mordechai is responsible for the actual order. One possibility would be to argue that the MT is secondary in these cases so that a later editor gave Mordechai a more active role. It would also be logical that later editors had increased Mordechai’s importance and role in the events, a tendency that is apparent in some parts of the book and we have also seen examples of such changes (Esth 9:4 and 10:2, see below).36 This tendency is variably found in all three of the versions. It is also a very typical development in the Hebrew Bible that Jewish heroes are gradually elevated by the later editors. In the current passage, the A-text takes this tendency further, for there it is Mordechai who receives Haman’s possessions and not Esther. He is also the one who is asked by the king what he wants so that Mordechai effectively replaces Esther here.37 Although the possibility that the MT is secondary here cannot be completely dismissed, the issue may be more complicated. A technical detail in the LXX suggests that it is secondary in relation to the MT as far as the references to Mordechai in this passage are concerned. Although all references to Mordechai are missing in the LXX version of these verses, it preserves the plural form of address when the king speaks in v. 8 (cq²xate ja· rle?r; cf. MT: 95N? AN49 and ¢r doje? rl?m ja· svqac¸sate; cf. 9BN;9 … A?=D=F5 59ü? ). The plural is illogical if Esther was the only person the king spoke to. Note that the scribes are not summoned until v. 9, and only the king, Esther, and Mordechai (in the MT) are present before that. Since the second person plural occurs four times in v. 8 (cq²xa ate ja· rle?r 1j toO amºlatºr lou ¢r doje? rl?m ja· svqac¸sa ate), it cannot be an accidental mistake. It would also be difficult to argue for a later harmonization, because the texts differ considerably in these verses and it would be difficult to accept that only the singulars had later been changed into plurals on the basis of the MT. It should further be noted that the later addition in the LXX of v. 7 uses the singular address in t¸ 5ti 1pifgte?r, which shows that the singular address would have been the normal address here if only Esther had been addressed in v. 8. Furthermore, the whole function of v. 8 in the LXX remains unclear. The king ordered them to write in his name and seal the writing with his ring, but the following text in the LXX merely refers to an order being written and sealed (passive) as the king ordered. In contrast, in the MT the permission given to write as they please in v. 8 corresponds well with what 36 Such a development takes place, for example, in Ezra-Nehemiah, where many later editors gradually increased Ezra’s importance and standing. On the other hand, some of the very latest editors also tried to diminish Ezra’s importance. In other words, the textual development in this respect may have run in two opposite directions within the same composition. 37 The parallel in the A-text is found in Esth 8:16.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

The Omission of Mordechai in Esther 8:7–11

335

Mordechai orders in v. 9, but this is missing in the LXX since it only refers to the king’s order in v. 9. In other words, if the LXX were original, v. 8 would refer to an unnecessary permission to write whatever they please. The LXX contains only the permission from the king, but not its application. A further consideration that suggests Mordechai was original in Esth 8:7 – 9 is the fact that in the A-text it is Mordechai who asks the king to revoke Haman’s order to destroy the Jews. The king addresses only Mordechai and asks him what he wants. As a consequence, the king entrusts the kingdom to Mordechai. The A-text thus seems to be familiar with the idea that Mordechai was also addressed in this passage, and it has dropped out Esther.38 Consequently, the cumulative effect of all these considerations suggests that Mordechai was omitted in the LXX of Esth 8:7 – 11 and that the MT is original in this respect. The main reason for the omission of Mordechai and the other changes that the omission necessitated may have been the contradiction that verses 7–11 pose with its context. The setting in both versions begins in v. 3 with only Esther turning to the king to ask for the reversal of Haman’s order. Verse 4 even implies that the discussion takes place in the inner court of the palace where one may enter only by invitation by the king stretching out the golden scepter (see Esth 4:11 and 5:1–2). Otherwise one would face the death penalty. Esther 8:4–6 implies that only Esther was now present before the king (note that Mordechai had also been present in v. 1 – 2), because the king stretched out the scepter only to Esther. Without any introduction, however, Mordechai is unexpectedly present in the discussion of the MT of v. 7–11. A scribe in the tradition of the LXX probably noticed this inconsistency and attempted to correct it.39 The original reason for the confusion may have been the earlier addition of all of verses 7–9 and perhaps also v. 10a. That v. 7 begins a later addition is suggested by the unnecessary reintroduction of the king’s name, Esther’s title, and the reference to Mordechai the Jehudite/Jew. If these verses had originally been written by the same author who wrote the preceding text, it would be illogical to 38 However, because the relationship of the A-text to the other witnesses is controversial, one has to be careful with putting too much weight on the A-text here. Most scholars assume that the A-text was familiar with the LXX, is a revision of the LXX or was later harmonized with the LXX. For different models, see De Troyer, End of the Alpha Text, 15 – 71, especially the illustrative chart on p. 39. According to De Troyer, the A-text was unequivocally dependent on the LXX. In the current passage it would confirm the originality of the MT, because the Atext refers only to Mordechai and the LXX never refers to Mordechai in the verses in question. The A-text must then have adopted the idea that Mordechai was present in the scene from a text form closer to the MT than the LXX, which would make it difficult to assume that Mordechai was only secondarily added to these verses in the MT. 39 Similarly also De Troyer, End of the Alpha Text, 208, who notes that “from the perspective of narrative technique, the omission of Mordechai seems to be logical: Esther alone made the request and she alone receives the king’s response.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

336

Radical Editorial Processes in the Book of Esther

introduce these people in such terms since the preceding text repeatedly refers to them. Moreover, v. 7 repeats many of the ideas and phrases of the previous text, which is typical of later editors who tried to tie their addition to the older text by repeating some of its elements. In v. 5 Esther has already told the king what she wants, so the whole episode in v. 7–9, 10b is unnecessary. In the LXX, the king even specifically asks what she wants, which is peculiar after v. 5.40 Only the fulfillment of the original request of v. 5 is necessary. It should further be noted that verses 9 and 13 are repetitive. Although v. 9 is more detailed, both verses convey the idea that the new order is to be made known in all provinces. After v. 9, verse 13 is partly rendered redundant. It is certainly no accident that all verses where Mordechai is mentioned are unnecessary for the story (vv. 1b–2, 7–10a, and 15). The story would be perfectly understandable and more fluent without these verses. Consequently, it is probable that Mordechai was not mentioned in the original text, but was later added in the form of larger expansions in vv. 1b–2, 7–9, and 15. This created tensions and inconsistencies with the older text. The LXX partly tried to remove the problems by omitting Mordechai, but this is a secondary change and it is probable that the LXX does not preserve an older stage of the text in Esth 8:7 – 9.41 The texts differ considerably in v. 11. The main idea that the Jews may retaliate against their opponents is expressed in both versions, but the LXX gives the impression that the Jews were somewhat softer towards their opponents than what the MT suggests. According to the Masoretic text, the king gave the Jews permission to defend themselves by destroying and killing their adversaries. They were also permitted to take the belongings of their enemies as spoil. In the LXX the reader is spared the harsh details, and it is merely stated that the Jews are allowed to help each other and treat their enemies as they see appropriate (wq/shai … ¢r bo¼komtai). Whereas the MT refers to the killing of even women and children (A=MD9 Gü) of the opponents, the LXX only generally refers to the opponents. The idea that the possessions of the adversaries could be taken as spoil is omitted in the LXX as well. The MT gives the impression that much more than self-defense of the Jews is taking place here. It could easily be read to give

40 This reference may be original in the verse because it is also met in the A-text, which otherwise here is more influenced by a text close to the MT. Its omission in the MTcould be a later and separate attempt to remove the contradiction between vv. 3 – 6 and vv. 7 – 10b. 41 Minor adjustments in the LXX are connected with the omission of Mordechai. For example, when the king discusses the property of Haman that was given to Esther in v. 7, the MT mentions Esther’s name because both Esther and Mordechai were addressed. After the omission of Mordechai, it would have been illogical to refer to Esther because she was the only person that the king spoke to. Accordingly, the reference to Esther in the third person had to be changed in the LXX to a personal pronoun in the second person singular (LNE4@ =NND > 1waqis²lgm soi).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Comprehensive Rewriting in Esther 9:1–6

337

permission for the genocide of entire peoples who are seen as opponents. In contrast, the LXX gives permission for the Jews mainly to act in self-defense, and there is no explicit permission to kill. The addition of a reference to the law in the LXX (wq/shai to?r mºloir aqt_m) may be an attempt to divert the verse in a less hostile direction as well.42 If one were to assume that the MT is secondary, one would have to assume that the general reference to the permission to do as the Jews pleased was omitted and replaced by an explicit list of measures to kill, annihilate, and plunder their opponents.43 Although it is more probable that the LXX is secondary here,44 in either case the description of the measures against the opponents of the Jews has been comprehensively rewritten and one would have to assume that words were omitted. The preserved versions contain hardly any parallel words in this part of the verse. The existence of yet another very different version of the passage in the A-text highlights the complications of the development, but it also shows how radical the editorial processes have been. As already noted, in the parallel to Esth 8:7 Ester seems to have been omitted and it is Mordechai who receives Haman’s belongings and who is asked what he wants (cf. Esth 8:15 – 17 of the A-text).45 Even a cursory look at the parallel in the A-text suggests massive editing. In these verses it is mostly difficult to find which verses of the A-text should be regarded as parallels with the MTand LXX. In any way one tries to resolve the relationship between Esth 8:7 – 11 and its vague parallel in the A-text, one has to assume the omission of much of the older text.

Comprehensive Rewriting in Esther 9:1–6 In the concluding chapters of the book, the MTand the LXX clearly contain more differences than in the other parts of the book. Many parts or even entire verses 42 The MT contains two further larger plusses in relation to the LXX: AD9M@?9 A5N?? A=798=8.@49 (v. 9) and A=?BL8 =D5 A=DLNM;48 M?L8 =5?L A=E9E5 (v. 10). The former may be a later addition in the MT—the Jews are specified—or a later shortening in the LXX. The latter is probably a shortening in the LXX because similar details are often omitted in the LXX. Neither of the differences have much impact on the content and message of the story. 43 If the text developed in this direction, one would expect that the older general reference to defending oneself is retained and that the specific instructions to kill are subordinated to it. Since the MT does not contain a parallel to the general reference to defending oneself, it is probable that the direction of development is the opposite. 44 Thus also De Troyer, End of the Alpha Text, 235 – 239. She assumes that the Greek text here may “lean towards the texts (or at least the content thereof) of the edicts of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and Antiochus V Eupator, quoted in 2 Macc 11 …” 45 The parallel to Esth 8:7 is found in A-text Esth 8:15 – 16: 15 ja· 1j\kesem b basike»r t¹m Laqdowa?om ja· 1waq_sato aqt` p\mta t± toO Alam. 16 ja· eWpem aqt` T_ h]keir; ja· poi^sy soi. ja· eWpe Laqdowa?or “Opyr !m]k,r tµm 1pistokµm toO Alam.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

338

Radical Editorial Processes in the Book of Esther

of the MT have no parallel in the LXX or the corresponding text is substantially different. This poses considerable challenges for understanding the development of the text, but it also provides many cases where it is unequivocally clear that the text has been comprehensively revised. Even if one is not able to determine the direction of the development, the differences often imply radical revision in one of the versions. Although typically one would assume that the shorter text is more original, this is unlikely to be the case in Esth 9 or in the book of Esther in general. Each case has to be discussed separately. An illustrative example of a substantially shorter text in the LXX can be found in Esth 9:1 – 6, which describes how the Jews destroyed their enemies. Esther 9:1–6 MT

Esther 9:1–6 LXX L74 M7;.498 M7; LMF A=DM59

1

95 A9= LMF 8M9@M5 9N79 ý@B8.L57 F=68 LM4 9L5M LM4 A9=5 N9MF8@ A85 ü9@M@ A=798=8 =5=4 9ü@M= LM4 498 ý9H8D9

1

9m c±q t` dydej²t\ lgm· tqisjaidej²t, toO lgmºr, fr 1stim Adaq, paq/m t± cq²llata t± cqav´mta rp¹ toO basik´yr. 2 1m aqt0 t0 Bl´qô !p¾komto oR !mtije¸lemoi to?r Iouda¸oir.

A8=4DM5 8B8 A=798=8 A8=LF5 A=798=8 9@8KD

2

M9L9M;4 ý@B8 N9D=7B.@?5 ANFL =MK5B5 7= ;@M@ A=BF8.@?.@F A7;H @HD.=? A8=DH@ 7BF.4@ M=49

A=DHL7M;489 N9D=7B8 =LM.@ @?9

3

ý@B@ LM4 8?4@B8 =MF9 N9;H89 A=798=8.N4 A=4MDB A8=@F =?7LB.7;H @HD.=? 9FBM9 ý@B8 N=55 =?7LB @976.=?

4

=?7LB M=48.=? N9D=7B8.@?5 ý@98

oqde·r c±q !mt´stg vobo¼lemor aqto¼r. oR c±q %qwomter t_m satqap_m ja· oR t¼qammoi ja· oR basikijo· cqallate?r 1t¸lym to»r Iouda¸our· b c±q vºbor Laqdowa¸ou 1m´jeito aqto?r. 4 pqos´pesem c±q t¹ pqºstacla toO basik´yr amolash/mai 1m p²s, t0 basike¸ô.

3

@9769 ý@98 5L;.N?B A8=5=4.@?5 A=798=8 9?=9

5

AD9JL? A8=4DM5 9MF=9 C7549 6L89 96L8 8L=58 CM9M59

6

M=4 N94B MB; 7549 A=798=8 1 In the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar, on its thirteenth day, when the king’s command and edict were about to be executed, on the day when the enemies of the Jews hoped to gain power over them, but which had been changed to a day when the Jews would gain power over their foes, 2 the Jews gathered in their cities throughout all the provinces of King Ahasuerus to lay hands on those who had sought their ruin; and no one resisted them,

6

ja· 1m So¼soir t0 pºkei !p´jteimam oR Iouda?oi %mdqar pemtajos¸our 1

In the twelfth month, on the thirteenth day of the month, which is Adar, the letter(s) written by the king arrived. 2

On that day the enemies of the Jews perished,

for no one resisted,

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

339

Comprehensive Rewriting in Esther 9:1–6

Continued Esther 9:1–6 MT because the fear of them had fallen upon all peoples. 3 And all the princes of the provinces, the satraps, and the governors, and the royal officials were supporting the Jews, because the fear of Mordechai had fallen upon them. 4 For Mordechai was powerful in the king’s house, and his fame spread throughout all the provinces as the man Mordechai grew more and more powerful. 5 So the Jews struck down all their enemies with the sword, slaughtering, and destroying them, and did as they pleased to those who hated them. 6 In the citadel of Susa the Jews killed and destroyed five hundred men (people).

Esther 9:1–6 LXX because they feared them. 3

But the rulers of the satraps and the tyrants and the royal secretaries esteemed the Jews, because the fear of Mordechai was upon them, 4 for the king’s ordinance was enforced throughout the kingdom.

6

And in the city of Susa the Judeans killed five hundred men.

Verses 1b–2 are considerably shorter in the LXX than in the MT. The idea that the Jews obtained the upper hand to kill their enemies is expressed in a compressed way in the Greek version. The additional emphasis of the MT is that the fates of the Jews and their enemies were reversed. According to the MT, the enemies had expected to decide the fate of the Jews, but the reverse occurred. We may be dealing with a stylistic abridgement of an unnecessary repetition in the LXX because the same idea had been brought up already in the preceding text in very many ways (explicitly so in Esth 8:11). Its repetition in Esth 9:1 – 2 would be redundant, for the MT would not contain any additional information that the text does not already say. The tendency of the LXX to shorten the text by removing unnecessary repetitions is found in other parts of the book as well. The concluding sentence of v. 2 illustrates this tendency. The LXX oqde·r c±q !mt´stg vobo¼lemor aqto¼r represents a compressed form of A=BF8.@?.@F A7;H @HD.=? A8=DH@ 7BF.4@ M=49. Verse 5 of the MT is absent from the LXX. It is probable that it was intentionally left out because v. 2 of the MTalready refers to the killing of the enemies (7= ;@M@).46 There may also be a tendency to leave out the details because v. 5 may easily give the impression that the Jews were brutally slaughtering their enemies as soon as they received the permission to defend themselves. That we can see the same tendency in Esth 8:11, which corroborates the idea that the Greek translation does not omit just for stylistic reasons but also because the translator may 46 The use of the expression 7= ;@M@ in Esther 2:21; 3:6 and 6:2 shows that the author(s) of the Book of Esther understood this phrase to refer to killing.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

340

Radical Editorial Processes in the Book of Esther

have been offended by the brutality that the Hebrew Vorlage implies. Consequently, v. 2 of the LXX is probably a rendering of v. 1b–2 and 5 of the Hebrew in a concise and censored form that would be more acceptable to the Greek speaking Jewish audience. The opposite direction of development would be more difficult to explain, especially from the technical point of view. It would mean that a single word, a Hebrew parallel to !p¾komto, caused the creation of most of the additional material in v. 1b–2 and 5, but this seems unlikely. It should also be noted that the MT does not contain a parallel to the word. If the MT were to be assumed secondary, it is probable that the expansion would have been built around this word. Of course one cannot exclude the possibility that the repetition was originally caused by later editing—this may even be probable—but it is difficult to see how the current text of the LXX in these verses would represent an earlier stage of redaction. It is more probable that the LXX is secondary, especially since the same tendency to remove repetitions is met in many parts of the LXX version of Esther. Verse 4 is puzzling and it not immediately clear what is taking place between the LXX and the MT, which have little in common as far as the vocabulary is concerned. Both verses seem loosely to provide a reason why the governors and satraps feared Mordechai. In the MT the reason for the fear is that Mordechai had become a powerful man, whereas in the LXX the reason for the fear is the order of the king that the Jews may start killing their enemies (Esth 8:10 – 13). The A-text does not provide any evident solution because it contains yet another text, probably, at least in part, dependent on the LXX.47 The existence of three very different versions of the verse may indicate that the text was corrupted and that it was later interpreted in different ways. One could argue that the preceding narrative has already conveyed several times that Mordechai had become an important person (in Esth 8:2, 15) so that its repetition here would have been unnecessary. The LXX could then be seen as the omission of a repetition and the addition of the idea that the reason for the fear of Mordechai was the order of the king. On the other hand, the MT could also be secondary. The omission of the reference to the order of the king would then be explained by the typical tendency in the development of the Hebrew Bible to increase the glory and greatness

47 The A-text reads: ja· pqos´pesem 1m So¼soir amolash/mai Alam ja· to»r !mtije¸lemour 1m p²s, t0 basike¸ô (“And in Susa it turned out that Haman was referred to by name and so were the opponents throughout the whole kingdom”). While entirely changing the meaning of the verse, it repeats some of the words of the LXX in their exact form: pqos´pesem, amolash/mai and 1m p²s, t0 basike¸ô. The verse could be the result of the recension of the Atext towards the LXX. For the recension of the A-text towards the LXX, see Fox, Redaction, 10–95, and especially pp. 92–95.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

341

Comprehensive Rewriting in Esther 9:1–6

of Jewish heroes by later editors.48 Avery similar difference between the LXX and the MT can be found in 10:2: MT 9NL9569 9HKN 8MFB.@?9 N@76 NMLH9 ý@B8 9@76 LM4 =?7LB A=B=8 =L57 LHE.@F A=59N? A8.49@8 ELH9 =7B =?@B@

All the acts of his power and might, and the full account of the high glory of Mordechai, to which the king advanced him, are they not written in the annals of the kings of Media and Persia?

LXX ja· tµm Qsw»m aqtoO ja· !mdqacah¸am pkoOtºm te ja· dºnam t/r basike¸ar aqtoO, Qdo» c´cqaptai 1m bibk¸\ basik´ym Peqs_m ja· L¶dym eQr lmglºsumom. All the acts of his power and bravery, wealth and glory of his kingdom, note that they are written in the annals of the kings of Media and Persia as a memorial.

In the LXX the power and greatness of the kingdom are said to have been recorded in the royal chronicles, whereas in the MT it is the greatness of Mordechai that was recorded. It would be much more logical that the greatness of the king was later changed into the greatness of Mordechai, whereas the opposite direction of development would run counter to the typical tendency in the Hebrew Bible to increase the role of Jewish heroes.49 It would be difficult to find a reason for the reduction of Mordechai’s role in the LXX. Consequently, it seems more probable that the Masoretic text contains a secondary reading in Esth 9:4, which was reached by omitting a reference to an order by the king. A similar omission is found in Esth 10:2, where the glory of his kingdom is replaced by Mordechai’s glory.50 This would have been done after the translation of the LXX from a text close to the MT. This passage would thus be an example of radical editorial techniques where parts of the older text were rewritten and omitted in both the MT and the LXX.

48 A similar development takes place in Ezra 7:6, where Ezra is still clearly subordinate to the Persian king. First Esdras, however, has added the idea that king honored Ezra: ja· 5dyjem aqt` b basike»r dºnam (8:4). The position of Ezra in relation to the Persian king is elevated in the younger tradition. A similar development may have taken place in Esth 7:4. 49 This tendency is particularly evident in the addition of Mordechai’s dream (addition A) and prayer (addition C1) as well as in the addition that explains Mordechai’s prayer (addition F). 50 Another alternative would be to assume that v. 4 is a later addition in both the MT and the LXX, but since there is a probable connection between the verses (cf. N9D=7B8.@?5 and 1m p²s, t0 basike¸ô or 9FBM9 and amolash/mai), one would still have to assume that one version is dependent on the other. This means that one of the versions was rewritten, which also included the omission of most of the more original text.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

342

Radical Editorial Processes in the Book of Esther

The Feast of Purim Established—Esther 9:29–32 Esther 9 deals with the background and establishment of the feast of Purim. The final verses of Esth 9 contain significant differences between the MT and LXX, comparable to those that we have seen in Esth 9:1–6:51 Esther 9:29–32 MT

Esther 9:29–31 LXX 8?@B8 LNE4 5N?N9

29

=798=8 =?7LB9 @=;=54.N5 A=K@ GKN.@?.N4 A=L9H8 NL64 N4 .@?.@4 A=LHE ;@M=9

30

29

ja· 5cqaxem Eshgq B bas¸kissa huc²tgq Alimadab ja· Laqdowa?or b Iouda?or fsa 1po¸gsam tº te steq´yla t/r 1pistok/r t_m Vqouqai.

N=DM8 N4:8

8D=7B 84B9 A=LMF9 F5M.@4 A=798=8 NB49 A9@M =L57 M9L9M;4 N9?@B A8=DB:5 8@48 A=LH8 =B=.N4 A=K@

31

LNE49 =798=8 =?7LB A8=@F A=K LM4? AMHD.@F 9B=K LM4?9 8?@B8 ANKF:9 N9BJ,8 =L57 AFL:.@F9 A=LH8 =L57 A=K LNE4 LB4B9

32

LHE5 5N?D9 8@48 29

Queen Esther, daughter of Abihail, along with Mordechai the Jew, wrote with authority, confirming the second letter about Purim. 30 Letters were sent wishing peace and security to all the Jews, to the one hundred twenty-seven provinces of the kingdom of Ahasuerus, 31 and giving orders that these days of Purim should be observed at their appointed seasons, as Mordechai the Jew and Esther the Queen, established for them and as they established for themselves and for their descendants regulations for the fasts and their lamentations (for the feast). 32 The Esther’s instruction fixed these practices of Purim, and it was written into the book.

30

ja· Laqdowa?or ja· Eshgq B bas¸kissa 5stgsam 2auto?r jahû 2aut_m ja· tºte st¶samter jat± t/r rcie¸ar aqt_m ja· tµm boukµm aqt_m. 31 ja· Eshgq kºc\ 5stgsem eQr t¹m aQ_ma, ja· 1cq²vg eQr lmglºsumom. 29 Queen Esther, daughter of Aminadab, and Mordechai the Jew, wrote what they had done, to confirm the letter of Purim.

30

And Mordechai and Esther the Queen

established (these things) for themselves on their own initiative and with sound mind and their own counsel 31 And Esther’s instruction was established for ever, and it was written for a memorial.

Some of the changes in the LXX are apparent attempts to remove repetitions and confusion that was at least partly caused by earlier editing (this is obvious

51 Most verses of the chapter do not contain a parallel text in the A-text.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

The Feast of Purim Established—Esther 9:29–32

343

especially in Esth 9:16–32; cf. Esth 8:7–11 above).52 The Hebrew in these verses also seems to be ambiguous which may have contributed to the revision in the LXX,53 although the Greek is also, in part, confusing.54 Some scholars have assumed that the LXX is paraphrasing in this section.55 Heavy editing of the chapter may have been caused by the addition of new conclusions by several successive editors.56 Another factor that may have contributed to the confusion is the possible existence of different traditions concerning the nature and dates of Purim. The prescriptions of the feast and their origin were changed and updated by several editors according to their own context and theological conceptions.57 The repetitions and editing is highlighted by the number of references to the establishment of the prescriptions of the feast. They are said to have been established in vv. 20–21 by Mordechai, in vv. 26–27 by the Jewish community, in v. 31 again by Mordechai and later in the verse by Mordechai and Esther and finally in v. 32 by Esther alone. The same verb (pi. A9K) is used in each case (A=K@ in v. 21; 9B=K in v. 27; A=K@ and 9B=K in v. 31; A=K in v. 32). The chapter, and especially its Masoretic version, contains many further repetitions and contradictions.58 The LXX is less repetitive, but since it is evidently dependent on at least most of the additions that have caused the repetitions and contradictions, it is probable that it does not preserve a generally earlier stage of the text than the MT.59 We have seen the tendency of the LXX to remove repetitions and contradictions in other passages as well. 52 Several scholars, such as Paton, Esther, 57 – 60, 292, and Carl Steuernagel, Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament: mit einem Anhang über die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1912), 439; Arndt Meinhold, Das Buch Esther (ZBKAT 16.1; Theologischer Verlag Zürich: Zürich,1983), 93, Clines, Esther Scroll, 55 – 57, have assumed that Esth 9:29 – 32 is a later addition or is part of a later addition. 53 The considerable problems of Esth 9 are commonly acknowledged; see the discussion in Clines, Esther Scroll, 39 – 63. 54 According to Clines, Esther Scroll, 56, the Greek here “presents some completely unintelligible sentences.” 55 Fox, Redaction, 107. 56 It is typical in the Hebrew Bible that the endings of books have been repeatedly expanded. The reason for this is the additional space that is often left at the end of the manuscript, which then gives later editors the physical possibility to add new sections of text even when the whole manuscript is not copied. 57 This is reflected in the repeatedly revised and new versions of the festival laws. For discussion on the development of the Passover festival, for example, see chapter IV. 58 For example, according to vv. 17 and 22, Purim was a joyful festival with eating and drinking (8;BM9 8NMB A9=), whereas v. 31 refers to fasting and mourning during the celebration (ANKF:9 N9BJ8 =L57 AFL:.@F9). Verses 17–19 refer to two different traditions on when the feast was celebrated, but v. 21 accepts only one tradition (14–15th of Adar). Verses 27–28 further emphasize the importance of keeping the right days of the feast. It is apparent that some of the later editors wanted to reject the 13th and 14th of Adar as legitimate days. There also seems to be some confusion as to who is acting. The roles of Mordechai and Esther partly overlap. 59 This applies to the general and major differences between the MT and the LXX. Here one

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

344

Radical Editorial Processes in the Book of Esther

The tendency to remove repetitions is illustrated by a small omission in Esth 9:29. Whereas the MTrefers to a second letter regulating the feast (N=DM8 N4:8), the LXX omits the reference probably because it would highlight the fact that the prescriptions were established several times.60 The LXX tries to give the impression that there was no repetition. That GKN.@?.N4 was replaced with fsa 1po¸gsam has a similar effect. Whereas the MT presents the writing of the prescriptions as a new event that was executed with all authority or power, the Greek version gives the impression that they are now writing down what they had already done (fsa 1po¸gsam) to confirm the letter concerning Purim.61 The omission of v. 3062 of the MT in the LXX corroborates the assumption that the Greek version attempts to harmonize the text. Mordechai has already sent the letter to all Jews in the kingdom in v. 20, but according to v. (29–)30 of the MT, he sent another one. These verses are partly identical, which underscores the repetitive nature of vv. 29–30: Esther 9:20 8@48 A=L578.N4 =?7LB 5N?=9 A=798=8.@?.@4 A=LHE ;@M=9 M9L9M;4 ý@B8 N9D=7B.@?5 LM4

Esther 9:29–30 … =?7LB9 … 8?@B8 LNE4 5N?N9 29 30

A=798=8.@?.@4 A=LHE ;@M=9 84B9 A=LMF9 F5M.@4 M9L9M;4 N9?@B 8D=7B

The repetition was probably caused by earlier editing. In an earlier textual phase, Esther was the only subject of v. 29, because the verb is a feminine singular (5N?N9).63 Since both Mordechai and Esther are given as subjects, one would expect the plural and certainly not the feminine form if Mordechai is included as a subject. The sudden change to masculine singular in v. 30 further indicates editing here. The first suspicion would be that the reference to Mordechai in verse 29 and the whole of verse 30 were added later.64 Verse 32 seems to corroborate this suspicion because it implies that Esther was the only author of the

60 61 62 63 64

again needs to emphasize that the LXX may preserve a more original reading in some details. Each case should be investigated separately. According to Clines, Esther Scroll, 56, N=DM8 N4:8 is a gloss or a later corruption, but it is hard to see any reason for the separate addition of these words. A corruption would also need an explanation as to how it came about. Although the exact intention of tº te steq´yla t/r 1pistok/r t_m Vqouqai is not entirely clear, it is evident that the LXX tries to avoid the repetition. Note that the verse numbers differ in these verses. Verses 31–32 of the MT correspond to v. 30–31 of the LXX, while the MT v. 30 is missing in the LXX. Thus also Paton, Esther, 302, and Clines, Esther Scroll, 56. Since v. 29 originally gave the impression that Esther regulated the prescriptions of Purim, the editor who added v. 30 probably wanted to stress that Mordechai was also involved in establishing the prescriptions or was their original author. The competition between Mordechai and Esther is evident in many other parts of the composition (for example, Esth 8:7–11, as we have seen) and probably reflects differing conceptions about their roles.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

The Feast of Purim Established—Esther 9:29–32

345

commandment established in the preceding text (LNE4 LB4B9). Like v. 30, verse 31 may be a later addition that disturbs the connection between v. 29 and 32.65 It draws on much of the earlier text and repeats many of its elements, but it also conflicts with some parts of the preceding text (see below). Since the LXX also refers to Mordechai in v. 29 and is familiar with v. 31 (LXX v. 30), it is probable that the LXX does not represent the older text but is also dependent on the addition of Mordechai. The changes in v. 31 (LXX v. 30) further illustrate the tendency of the LXX. Whereas the MT is highly repetitive and provides no additional information in v. 31, the LXX has avoided the repetition and added a new aspect. Instead of again referring to the establishment of the prescriptions, the emphasis is on the idea that Esther and Mordechai made the decisions by themselves without anyone having influenced them. References to the descendants (AFL:.@F9), fasting, and mourning (ANKF:9 N9BJ8 =L57) were omitted in this process, probably because they contradicted the idea that Purim was a festival of joy and eating (compare vv. 17, 19 and 22 with v. 31).66 The descendants had to be omitted because they would have implied that this verse deals with the establishment of the prescriptions. After the LXX had removed the idea of establishing the prescriptions and introduced the idea that the decisions were made without external influence, the reference to the descendants lost its function. Verse 32 also contains an omission and an addition in the LXX. In the MT the verse competes with vv. 20–21, 26–27, and 31 because it suggests that Esther established the regulations on Purim. The LXX has tried to divert attention from the establishment of the regulations to their perpetuity. It wants to give the impression that by the order of Esther, the regulations were only made eternal (eQr t¹m aQ_ma) and not that they were reestablished by Esther, which would compete with the preceding establishments. The implication of v. 32 in the LXX is that the regulations were established earlier, but now Esther orders that they be eternal. Whereas the MT gives the impression that the regulations were established several times by different people, the LXX has attempted to make at least some continuity and harmony in the story. In other words, the LXX is not as repetitive and contradictory as the MTand it has in effect created a new function 65

clearly belongs to the same idea as v. 30, but the rest of the verse may be a later addition because it tries to reconcile Mordechai and Esther. 66 According to Fox, Redaction, 107, the LXX may not have had a parallel to the Hebrew in its Vorlage. In view of the uncertainties with the text in these verses one cannot exclude this possibility, but in view of the other changes that the LXX made in these verses, it may be more probable that the LXX is trying to harmonize and correct some of the perceived errors and tensions of the older text. As noted by Fox himself, the Hebrew text contains problems and contradictions that “have given rise to several emendations.” The changes in the LXX may also be seen in this light. A8=DB:5 8@48 A=LH8 =B=.N4 A=K@

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

346

Radical Editorial Processes in the Book of Esther

for why Esther is said to have established the regulations that had been established so many times already. The comparison of the MT and the LXX shows that the latter was very probably familiar with a repetitive and partly contradictory earlier text close to the MT. The LXX is innovative in its attempts to improve and harmonize the text, but in this process several omissions and rewritings of the older text had to be made.

Summary The changes in the LXX in relation to the MT of Esther are much more extensive than what can be found in the text-critical evidence of Jeremiah or in the Samaritan Pentateuch. Although the LXX of Esther also bears witness to additions, its omissions may be as common as additions. As most of these changes were probably made by the translator, it is evident that his attitude towards the preservation of the text that was found in the Hebrew Vorlage was not very rigorous. Nevertheless, many of the changes are not language related, but in many cases the content and meaning were changed. Substantial information was left out in the translation. There are several examples of content changing or ideological omissions in the LXX. Here one should particularly mention the omission of those sections of the MT that give the impression that the Jews brutally slaughtered their opponents, including their women and children. Esther 8:11 gives permission for the slaughter and Esth 9:5 describes its execution. While the MT could be read to sanction genocide against the opponents, the LXX has made changes to the effect that the resulting text gives the impression that the Jews were mainly defending themselves. Clear theological omissions appear not to have been very common in this material. The main reason for this may be the fact that the MT is hardly theological at all. It reads like a non-religious story of national heroes, which does not touch upon theological issues. One of the main tendencies of the LXX in relation to the MT is to make the text more theological in nature. Whereas the MT never refers to God, the LXX has made several changes to include the involvement of God in the events.67 Esther 2:20 may be one of the clearest examples of an omission that is related to this motive. In this verse the change from Mordechai’s instruction to God’s commandments necessitated an omission motivated by theological considerations. 67 This is particularly evident in the large additions of both Greek versions, but small additions to the same effect are found throughout the text.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

347

Summary

A substantial number of the omissions are stylistic changes that attempted to remove repetitions and contradictions of the older text,68 but in some cases significant information was also left out in the process. The repetitions and tensions of the MT were originally caused by editing in the earlier transmission of the text. Heavy editing is particularly evident in Esth 9 of the MT, which appears to contain several endings to the book, added in successive stages by different redactors. It is in this chapter that the tendency of the LXX to abridge repetitions and remove tensions becomes most evident. In some cases the content-related omissions are intertwined with the omission of repetitions (for example Esth 9:1b–2, 5 MT > Esth 9:2 LXX). We have also seen some omissions that are connected to broader compositional changes. In particular, the duplication of the plot against the king in addition A (vv. 12 – 14) of the LXX meant that the original plot in Esth 2:21 – 23 had to be altered in the LXX version. This was done in order to conceal the fact that the same event was behind both passages. This process necessitated small omissions, such as the omission of the names of the conspirators. Here the development took a further step in the A-text, for it removes the original passage altogether and retains only the duplicated text in addition A 12 – 14. This is a noteworthy case of how the relocation of a passage could have evolved, but it also demonstrates how in this textual tradition the passage was completely omitted in its original location. The fact that the discussed evidence comes from a translation, and even from a rather free translation, means that it cannot directly be applied to the transmission of the Hebrew text. Because the Hebrew text was assumed to be still available after the translation was made, the translation could be understood as an aid and supplement to the Hebrew original. This could then be seen as a justification for the radical changes and omissions, for the translation was probably not trying to replace the original text. On the other hand, the nature of the intentional content-related changes is such that the translator evidently wanted to suppress some of the original conceptions, themes, and passages from the Greek-speaking readers. Here one should in particular mention the omission of references to the slaughter of all the enemies of the Jews. Moreover, regardless of the original intentions of the translator, the LXX translation did gain considerable authority, was highly regarded in the Jewish community and was even adopted as part of the Septuagint that was seen as a/the holy text by early Christian communities. As the Letter of Aristeas implies, the 68 The tendency to rearrange and ‘straighten’ the roughness of the Hebrew text is observable in some other LXX translations as well. A good example is found in 1 Kgs 12 – 14. See, Percy S.F. van Keulen, Two Versions of the Solomon Narrative: An Inquiry into the Relationship between MT 1 Kgs. 2 – 11 and LXX 3 Reg. 2 – 11 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005), 300. The same tendency is found in the A-text of Esther as well, see Fox, “Redaction,” 212 – 213.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

348

Radical Editorial Processes in the Book of Esther

LXX was regarded as a highly authoritative version in the late 2nd-century Jewish communities as well. In other words, being one of the authoritative branches in the history of the text, it should not be ignored as a marginal witness, because it shows the complications and the variety of changes that can take place in the transmission of a text that was later regarded as highly authoritative and holy. The text could develop in many different ways and the intentions of an editor, redactor, or translator in the transmission of a text cannot determine how the text is perceived by later generations and what they did with it. The comparison between the MT and LXX of Esther also suggests that the textual development of the MT did not stop after it had been translated into Greek. There have been some explicatory expansions, additions of names, and glosses (see especially Esth 2:17 – 23), which are very similar to ones that can be found throughout the Hebrew Bible. Nevertheless, the editorial changes in the MT do not seem to have been very radical, at least after the translation of the LXX in the 2nd century bce. That only two possible content-related intentional omissions could be observed (Esth 9:4 and 10:2) underscores this conclusion. In Esth 9:4 and 10:2 the omissions were made in order to augment Mordechai’s role in the narrative. References to the king’s ordinance and the glory of his kingdom were omitted in this process. That omissions were not very frequent in the textual transmission of the MT is also suggested by the fact that the MT is, in part, repetitive and contains several internal tensions (evident, for example, in Esth 8:7 – 13 and 9:1 – 32 passim). Radical revision of the older text usually removes signs of earlier editing, whereas a text that was mainly or only expanded is more likely to leave repetitions and inconsistencies. The older text was preserved even if it contained ideas that had become outdated or were regarded as incorrect. The LXX of Esther is an example of a position where many of the signs of earlier editing were removed, while several passages in the MT imply the opposite. For example, in Esth 9 several successive editors added their new endings to the book, but in the MT they were not polished in order to create a more consistent and readable result. Several endings are preserved so that the resulting text is, in part, ambiguous and confusing. In comparison, the LXX version of Esth 9 is much more fluent and consistent, which in this case is the result of radical interventions in the older text. In other words, the more repetitive and inconsistent a text is, the more likely it is that parts of the older text were preserved in its transmission. Nonetheless, the two omissions in the MT break the rule of full preservation of the older text. They go beyond what could be found the Samaritan Pentateuch or Jeremiah, for example.69 Although the omissions in the LXX are overwhelmingly 69 Here one should additionally note that the material analyzed in the Samaritan Pentateuch was more extensive than in Esther.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

349

Summary

more frequent and substantial, it seems that some late editors of the MT did not shun content-related or ideological intentional omissions, and this conflicts with the assumption that the older text was always preserved. Here one should again note that the book of Esther is not very theological in nature. It is especially in the theological issues that we have seen most of the content related omissions. The omissions of the MT in Esth 9:4 and 10:2 could be characterized as nationalistic and thus ideological in nature. The reconstruction of the older stage of the text as reflected in the MT on the basis of the LXX would be very difficult or nearly impossible in those parts of the text where the older text has been extensively revised. The situation is comparable to what Michael Fox has concluded on the basis of the A-text of Esther,70 although in many passages the A-text may differ even more from the MT than the LXX. Even if we were not dealing with a free translation, the content-related omissions and rewritings are such that one would be out of tools to distinguish the earlier stages of the text from the later additions. This also pertains to the MT, but only to a limited extent. The resulting text in Esth 9:4 and 10:2 would provide few clues as to what had been omitted. On the basis of the MTalone, it would only remain a wild conjecture to assume that the older text referred to the king’s ordinance and the glory of his kingdom, did we not possess the LXX as well. On the other hand, there are many additions, both in the MT and the LXX, that one would potentially be able to identify. They are similar to additions that are often assumed in literary criticism and can also be observed in other books of the Hebrew scriptures. Here one should mention, for example, clarifying comments, titles, names, dates and the repeated augmentation of the glory of Jewish heroes.

70 See Fox, Redaction, 134 – 141, and “Redaction,” 218 – 220.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Conclusions

Documented Evidence Points in Different Directions The analyses have provided evidence for a variety of editorial processes, which suggests that the transmission of the Hebrew scriptures cannot be reduced to one type only.1 Some of the analyzed texts correspond to the conventional assumption that the texts were entirely or almost entirely expanded during their transmission, while others bear witness to processes that are much more radical than what is commonly assumed in literary criticism. It has also become apparent that there have been different kinds of radical editorial processes; the authors and editors related in a variety of ways to the older text that functioned as the source or donor for the new literary work or edition. The different documented types of processes for the prehistory of the texts should be considered when we construct a general model for the transmission of the Hebrew scriptures. The comparison between the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Masoretic text as well as the comparison between the Hebrew and Greek texts of Jeremiah suggest that expansions were the main editorial technique after these textual traditions diverged and developed independently. In these texts the small and rare omissions were a marginal phenomenon in comparison with the frequency and sheer size of the expansions. Omissions were restricted to single cases, whereas expansions can be found throughout the text. Although an omission would have been technically easier and less laborious than an expansion, the correction was still mostly carried out by an expansion. The editors of these texts were prone to make additions if the correction could thus be achieved, while omissions and rewritings were clearly avoided; they were only the last resort. In some cases, an 1 See also the discussion by Eugene Ulrich, “The Evolutionary Production and Transmission of the Scriptural Books,” in Changes in Scripture (ed. H. von Weissenberg et alii; BZAW 419; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2011), 47 – 64. He has argued that there is an overlap between composition, redaction, textual transmission and reception. This effectively undermines the conventional approach that there is merely one model of changing the texts.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

352

Conclusions

embarrassing idea, conception or issue could effectively be omitted by an expansion even if no part of the older text was left out (e. g., Num 22:20). This underlines the tendency to preserve the older text in full in the textual tradition of the SP or Jeremiah during the period for which there is documented evidence. The SP and Jeremiah are particularly fruitful cases because the textual variants often differ considerably and in many passages, which gives much room for analyzing whether we are dealing with expansions or omissions and for understanding the reasons for the changes. The evidence also covers a considerable period of textual transmission, which shows that the principle of preservation was kept by several generations of scribes, i. e., from the divergence of the traditions to the time when all changes became unacceptable.2 Text-critical evidence from many books of the Hebrew scriptures would eventually produce a similar picture and suggest that expansions were the primary way of altering the older text, while omissions are rare. Some of the other analyses in this book point in the same direction,3 which would seem to further corroborate the conventional assumption in literary criticism that nothing or almost nothing was omitted by later editors. From this perspective, the general conception that older texts were not easily challenged in the ancient Near East is not without basis.4 However, this evidence is only part of the picture. The later books of the Hebrew scriptures in particular are preserved in variant editions that differ much more from each other than the different versions and translations of most of the older books. This becomes evident when we compare, for example, later books such as Esther, First Esdras, Ben Sirah, Tobit and Daniel with older ones such as Genesis, Deuteronomy and Jeremiah. Whereas the textcritical evidence of the older books would seem to imply rather conservative editorial processes so that the older text was mostly preserved, the later books suggest that more radical processes have been at work at least in some of the variant editions. The books of Esther and Ezra-Nehemiah/First Esdras were investigated for this volume, and both imply more variation and more radical techniques of editorial change than the text-critical evidence of the older books. The picture would essentially be similar in other late books that are preserved in more than one version, for example Daniel, Ben Sirah or Tobit. 2 In the case of Jeremiah, for example, the period of transmission would be from the time of translation (and perhaps even earlier if we make the reasonable assumption that the Vorlage of the translator was not identical with the MT) to the almost complete freezing of the text. 3 A rather conservative development is implied, for example, by the MT of Ezra-Nehemiah in comparison with First Esdras, the MT of Esther in comparison with LXX, and the MT of the Pentateuch in comparison with the SP. 4 Cf. Jean-Louis Ska, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 169 – 170, 182 – 183. See the discussion in the introduction of the present book in chapter I. This conception should, however, be supplemented with the occasional paradigm shifts; see below.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Documented Evidence Points in Different Directions

353

The LXX of the book of Esther shows repeated abridgements in comparison with the MT, some of which are ideological in nature. The omissions in the LXX version are nearly as common as the expansions, a fact that contrasts with the text-critical evidence from Jeremiah. On the other hand, the development of the MT of Esther has been much more restricted than that of the LXX: There are additions in the MT that are very representative of the conventionally assumed Fortschreibung of the Hebrew scriptures (see especially Esth 2:17 – 23), whereas omissions are rare. Nevertheless, two clear ideological omissions could be identified in the MT (in Esth 9:4 and 10:2). Although the principle of preservation of the older text was thus broken in both textual traditions of Esther during the time that the texts developed independently, in general the development of the MT was not very much unlike that of the MTof Jeremiah or the SP in comparison with the MT of the Pentateuch. The principle of preservation was occasionally broken in Jeremiah as well (in Jer 32:5 [LXX 39:5]), but in both Jeremiah and the MT of Esther these cases are marginal in comparison with the number and size of the additions. The more radical changes made to the LXX version of Esther may, in part, be explained by the fact that it is a translation, for most of the changes seem to have been made in the translation process. On the other hand, the translation also contains several ideological omissions, which implies that the LXX is not just a translation. The translator took the liberty of omitting significant information from the older text. It should also be pointed out that the LXX of Esther was regarded as an authoritative version by later Jewish and Christian communities, which shows that an elastic attitude towards the source text in an earlier stage does not mean that it could not have been regarded as a significant textual tradition by later communities. The attitudes towards a text in its prehistory do not determine the attitudes towards the text by future communities, and this applies to the Hebrew transmission as well as the translations. The comparison between First Esdras and the MTof Ezra-Nehemiah similarly shows more textual variation than most of the older books. Radical editorial changes including omissions were made in the textual tradition of First Esdras. Some of the omissions are ideologically motivated and very substantial, consisting of entire chapters. The intentional suppression of Nehemiah and his replacement by Zerubbabel is a prevalent motif that occasioned many omissions and other changes in First Esdras. The evidence from this book is particularly important because it is probable that most of the major changes were already present in the Hebrew Vorlage of the translator. First Esdras thus shows how one textual tradition of Ezra-Nehemiah underwent radical editorial revisions that are not commonly assumed in literary criticism and other fields of biblical studies. At the same time, however, the development of the MTversion was rather conservative. After the divergence of the textual traditions, there were some

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

354

Conclusions

expansions in the MT, whereas clear ideological omissions cannot be identified. The comparison between First Esdras and the MTof Ezra-Nehemiah thus implies that a textual tradition may be conservatively transmitted, but it may be punctuated by a radical revision in one of its strands. The reason why the later books of the Hebrew scriptures show more variation and more variant editions than the older books may be that the textual witnesses of the later books preserve an earlier stage of textual development of the books in question. The later books had been translated into Greek early in their development, while the translation of the older books may preserve a more advanced stage of their transmission. The difference is, at least in part, the result of historical circumstances. The need for Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures grew considerably in the 3rd and 2nd centuries bce, because an increasingly larger community of Jews were Greek speakers and had difficulties with Hebrew. Translations were needed for the most authoritative books but for the more recent creations such as nationalistic novels as well. By these centuries, the older literary works like the Pentateuch had already gained a certain standard form so that radical editorial changes and divergent editions had become more difficult to make, whereas Esther, Daniel or Ben Sirah, for example, were relatively new creations that had not yet gained a similarly high authority to inhibit changes, and variant editions were tolerated. Whereas Deuteronomy, for example, had been developing for centuries before it was translated, Esther, Ben Sirah and Daniel may have been translated in the same or the following century as the Hebrew was originally written. Deuteronomy had already gained considerable authority and was regarded as a divine revelation when it was translated so that variant editions were no longer tolerated or they were harmonized with the version that had come to be regarded as the most authoritative one. It is fair to assume that there had been many variant editions of Deuteronomy, for example, in the first centuries of its development, but this evidence is not preserved in the translations because the book was translated much later. In contrast, the authority of the book of Ezra-Nehemiah was less established during the time of its translation so that variant editions were still circulating (such as the Vorlage of First Esdras). It is also probable that a translator of a highly authoritative text or a divine revelation such as Deuteronomy would pay more attention to convey the exact message of the Hebrew than the translator of a nationalistic novel such as Esther that was not yet regarded as having a divine origin. Esther continued to develop after the divergence of its LXX and MT forms, as its three different versions imply, while the development of Deuteronomy was much more restricted after the divergence of its MT and the LXX forms. Consequently, it is probable that there is some gradual and chronological development in regard to how much the older texts may be changed. Recent creations could be changed more readily than established ancient works that already enjoyed a very high

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Documented Evidence Points in Different Directions

355

status. Nevertheless, this is not the core of the issue, for there are many examples where the gradually proceeding reluctance to make changes was later interrupted by a more radical revision. For example, First Esdras interrupts the apparently linear development. The development of the MT after its divergence from the tradition of First Esdras implies that its development was rather conservative.5 First Esdras is arguably later than the MT,6 yet it introduces many of those radical processes that one could assume to have taken place only in the very earliest stages of the textual development if one were to assume that the development towards unchangeability has been linear. Although many earlier editors, for example those active in Neh 9 and 10, were hesitant to change the older text and make only expansions as an appendix to the end of the book, the editors behind First Esdras apparently had no problems with omitting an entire section of the older composition (the Nehemiah memoir in Neh 1:1 – 7:4) as well as with rearranging, relocating and rewriting passages. After these radical changes, the editorial processes started all over again in First Esdras, with accumulating small expansions. Consequently, linearly increasing unchangeability cannot explain all of the documented evidence.7 Examples of radical revision in the history of the texts are not restricted to variant editions of the same literary work that is reflected in the text-critical evidence. The quest for understanding the transmission of the texts also needs to look for the prehistory of the texts in other literary compositions. This investigation has shown several examples where documented evidence for the literary 5 Clearly, the conservative development of the MTof Ezra-Nehemiah after the divergence of the tradition does prove that its development before the divergence was similar. However, on the basis of its later and documented development it is fair to assume that its process in general was rather conservative. This is also seen in the way many of the later additions to EzraNehemiah were made as separate appendices to Neh 9 – 13. This shows that it had already reached such an advanced stage of development that editors were prone to make the additions to the end of the document without changing the older text itself. For discussion about Neh 9 – 13, see Juha Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe. The Development of Ezra 7 – 10 and Neh 8 (BZAW 347; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2004), 181 – 225. The lateness of Neh 9 – 13 is seen, for example, in its strongly priestly content that distinguishes itself from the rest of Ezra-Nehemiah and in the nature of the passages therein that are rather isolated scenes not closely tied with the narrative(s) in the rest of the composition. 6 See the discussion and contributions in Was 1 Esdras First? (ed. L. Fried; SBLAIL 7; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011). 7 The Temple Scroll and Chronicles would be comparable examples. The author of the Temple Scroll took considerable liberties in changing the source text although it postdates much of the earlier development of the Pentateuch, which very probably had been more conservative at least by the time that the author of the Temple Scroll used the Pentateuch. Similarly, Chronicles is a radical revision of earlier literary works such as 1 – 2 Kings, which presumably had largely (but not necessarily always) developed more conservatively than what we can see taking place in Chronicles in relation to 1 – 2 Kings.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

356

Conclusions

history of a text can be found in other books or parts of the Hebrew scriptures and not in variant editions of the same composition. A similar prehistory is possible for texts the prehistory of which is not documented. Chronicles in relation to its source in 1 – 2 Kings is a significant witness to the literary development of the Hebrew scriptures. The prehistory of parts of Chronicles, especially of 2 Chronicles, can be found in 1 – 2 Kings. The comparison of several passages where Chronicles has used 1 – 2 Kings shows that the donor text could be radically revised if it contained something that conflicted with the Chronicler’s theological conceptions. Omissions were common and are met throughout the text. Although the Chronicler clearly had a very high regard for 1 – 2 Kings, as implied by his faithfulness with the source in many passages, the radical changes in other passages show that his theological conceptions took precedence if the source conflicted with them. Many scholars have regarded Chronicles and related literature as a different genre that would not be relevant in the discussion about the editorial processes of the Hebrew scriptures, but this is a problematic path. Because we do not know the prehistory of most texts that are investigated, all documented evidence about the different types of textual relationships that can reveal the prehistory of the texts has to be considered when building a model for understanding the editorial processes. Without the main sources of Chronicles, critical scholarship would have to determine its prehistory by other means, especially by using literary criticism. With the conventional axioms, one could not come to the conclusion that its earlier development included a radical revision of an earlier composition such as 1 – 2 Kings, as such a possibility is excluded. We do not know which other texts of the Hebrew scriptures have a prehistory similar to Chronicles, but it would be hazardous to assume that Chronicles is merely an extraordinary and irrelevant case that was primarily meant as an interpretation of other literary works. Clearly, Chronicles cannot be taken as the only possible type for transmission, but it certainly is a significant witness that has to be included in the model. The Pentateuch corroborates that Chronicles is more than a marginal witness for the editorial processes. The Pentateuch has preserved vestiges from different stages in the development of several laws, and they often have been preserved in literary units that were not originally meant to be included in the same composition. It is only because of later history that the Covenant Code, the Holiness Code and Deuteronomy are all part of the same composition, the Pentateuch. The comparison of the laws of Deuteronomy with its predecessor and source, the Covenant Code, suggests that their relationship is in many ways analogous to that between Chronicles and its source 1 – 2 Kings. Both new versions intended to update and replace the older one. In both cases, another literary work was the main source and the prehistory of both texts has to be understood on this basis. The main technical exception is that Deuteronomy differs from its source more

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Documented Evidence Points in Different Directions

357

than Chronicles from its source. A similar example would be the relationship between the Temple Scroll and the Pentateuch. The textual prehistory of the Temple Scroll is documented in different parts of the Pentateuch, and it is clear that its editorial processes were radical when a donor text in the Pentateuch was used for a passage in the Temple Scroll. The profusion of radical editorial processes becomes evident when we look at the long-term transmission of individual texts in the Pentateuch. The development of the Passover law is illustrative, for six different versions of the law have been preserved for comparison. They represent different editorial stages in the development of the law. If we look at the prehistory of the law from the perspective of its latest versions, Num 28:16 – 25 in the Hebrew Bible or T 17:6 – 16 outside it, it is unequivocally clear that radical revisions were common in its development and were not restricted to one editorial stage only. Omission and rewriting were part of the toolbox of several successive editors in the development of this law. It is only by later historical circumstances that so many of the different stages of this law have been preserved, but one has to take into account the possibility of a similar prehistory for texts the prehistory of which is not similarly preserved. The history of the Passover law thus confirms that what is taking place in Chronicles in relation to its source is not an exception or a separate genre, but a very possible editorial stage when we look at the long-term prehistory of texts. Editorial processes similar to those of Chronicles were apparently used in several editorial stages, which implies that radical editorial processes were not uncommon in the transmission of the Hebrew scriptures. Some of the text-critical evidence implies censoring by later editors. Theologically offensive conceptions have been censored by means of omissions at least in Deuteronomy, 1 – 2 Samuel, and 1 – 2 Kings. Although documented evidence for censoring was analyzed only in these three books, it is very likely that similar editorial techniques can be found to have taken place in other books of the Hebrew scriptures as well. This censoring was part of the process of making the texts more in harmony with the theological conceptions that became prevalent during the Second Temple period.8 The omitted sections are mainly 8 Some scholars have suggested that the older texts were intentionally purged of offensive conceptions in the last two centuries bce and even later ; Thus, for example, Anneli Aejmelaeus, “David’s Three Choices: Textual and Literary Development in 2 Samuel 24,” in Changes in Scripture (ed. H. von Weissenberg et alii; BZAW 419; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2011), 137 – 151, here pp. 149 – 150; A. Schenker, Septante et texte massor¦tique dans l’histoire la plus ancienne du texte de 1Rois 2 – 14 (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 48; Paris: J. Cabalda et Cie Êditeurs, 2000); A. Schenker, “The Septuagint in the Text History of 1 – 2 Kings,” in The Book of Kings. Sources, Composition Historiography and Reception (ed. A. Lemaire and B. Halpern; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010), 3 – 17, here esp. p. 13; and Philippe Hugo, “L’arch¦ologie textuelle du Temple de J¦rusalem. Êtude textuelle et litt¦raire du motif th¦ologique du Temple en 2 Samuel,” in Archaeology of the Books of Samuel. The Entangling of the Textual

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

358

Conclusions

vestiges of theological conceptions that had been common during the monarchic period, and it is fair to assume that these vestiges are only the tip of the iceberg. The process of censoring continued for centuries and we probably only see the latest attempts to remove the remaining traces of conceptions of the ancient Israelite religion that had become illegitimate in emerging Judaism. Some of the omissions give reason to assume that some editors may have censored some books more or less systematically. For example, conceptions that would imply the presence of (the representation of) Yhwh in the temple of Shiloh and the possibility of women entering the temple have been taken out in the MT of Samuel. One can detect a tendency in this respect, and omissions to similar effect can be detected in other books as well. For the purposes of this volume it is important that censoring by omission is regarded as a possibility in the transmission of the Hebrew scriptures. Since the censoring often affected theological conceptions that had become outdated or illegitimate, one should pay particular attention to the possibility that texts the prehistory of which is not documented may also have been similarly censored. This would also have repercussion on how we view the history of ancient Israelite religion and the continuity of religious conceptions.9 The recensions provide a further dimension to the issue of omissions in the transmission of the Hebrew scriptures. Here recension refers to a technique where a text that was regarded as representing the more authoritative textual tradition was used to correct another text that was regarded as inferior or less authoritative. Many of the analyzed passages, especially in 1 – 2 Samuel and 1 – 2 Kings, have shown cases where the MT has influenced the main Greek witnesses so that their older readings have been omitted. In some cases the original reading is preserved only in some textual traditions, such as the Lucianic text or the Old Latin. In effect this process sometimes meant that older and more original readings were replaced by inferior ones in most of the main witnesses. Recensions are commonly discussed in connection with the translations, but there is no reason to assume that a similar process and editorial technique would not have been in use in the exclusively Hebrew transmission. One could well think of a situation where a more authoritative Hebrew text, for example, one nurtured and Literary History (ed. P. Hugo and A. Schenker ; VTSup 132; Brill, 2010), 161 – 212. It is certainly not a coincidence that these are scholars with a focus on textual criticism. Similar processes have been detected in the New Testament; see, for example, John William Burgon, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (London: George Bell and Sons, 1896), 128 – 156, 164 – 165, 211 – 231. In the New Testament, conceptions that were regarded as heretical were intentionally removed. Many of the theologically significant omissions are related to Christological disagreements; see the discussion in Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of The New Testament (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993). 9 See below.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Documented Evidence Points in Different Directions

359

by the temple priests, influenced other Hebrew texts. Because the recensions were not motivated by the critical evaluation of the evidence but by the conviction that a particular text was more authoritative than others, it is evident that omissions could have been made when the more original text was corrected towards the inferior but more authoritative one. Consequently, the evidence analyzed in this volume points in different directions as far as the methods of transmission are concerned. There are many texts where the transmission was rather conservative, but there are also texts where the editorial techniques were much more radical and where omissions and rewritings are commonly met. Some of the documented evidence implies that the radical techniques may have been employed after a more conservative transmission. We additionally have evidence to assume that the older texts may have been specifically censored of theologically offensive conceptions. A further piece in the puzzle is the influence of textual traditions that were regarded as more authoritative than others and that could occasion omissions of original readings. Although all the portrayed possibilities would seem to leave a confusing and perhaps even a hopeless picture of the transmission of the Hebrew scriptures, it is hardly possible to ignore any part of this documented evidence. The puzzle has to be built by taking into consideration all the various types of transmission and editorial techniques witnessed by the documented evidence, for otherwise we would effectively be building our understanding on a shaky foundation. This may, in part, be the case with conventional literary criticism, for its methodological model only corresponds to the conservative transmission that we find in Jeremiah or the Samaritan Pentateuch. We do not know the prehistory of most texts, but to limit the prehistory of any text to only one possible model would risk erroneous and misleading literary-critical reconstructions. It is fair to assume that the same variety of editorial techniques that we find in the documented evidence was in use in the texts where documented evidence is missing. The conventional and conservative model would probably be correct for some texts during some periods of their transmission, but since we do not know in advance which texts these are, all possibilities have to be considered when investigating those texts where the documented evidence is lacking. The six versions of the Passover law illustrate the importance of this point. Of the different versions of the law, Exod 34:18, 25 and Num 28:16 – 25 fully or almost fully preserve the older text that had been the author’s immediate source (Exod 23:15, 18 and Lev 23:5 – 8, respectively), while the other versions, Deut 16:1 – 8, Lev 23:5 – 8, and T 17:6 – 16, imply much more radical changes in relation to their sources. If we were investigating the prehistory of any of these laws without access to the other versions, it would be crucial to take into consideration the possibility that the law had been more radically edited than by mere

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

360

Conclusions

expansions. By assuming that only expansions were made, a literary-critical approach would take an incorrect course in the case of Deut 16:1 – 8, Lev 23:5 – 8, and T 17:6 – 16. In the case of Num 28:16 – 25 the assumption that only expansions were made would be correct as far as its immediate transmission from Lev 23:5 – 8 to Num 28:16 – 25 is concerned, but its prehistory before Lev 23:5 – 8 would also be incorrect.

Dichotomy of Evidence There exists a certain dichotomy in the documented evidence. We have seen ample evidence for conservative transmission by expansion only, but there is much evidence for radical revisions as well. Nevertheless, regarding the longterm transmission the latter may not have been as common as the conservative transmission.10 The division of the textual transmission into two fundamentally different types of editorial stages provides a more comprehensive explanation for the dichotomy than a linear development from freedom to constrained development. The conservative transmission that only used expansions seems to have been common in the transmission of the Hebrew scriptures and perhaps in other texts of the ancient Near East as well.11 In view of the text-critical evidence it is probable that in the majority of transmission the editorial changes were expansions, while omissions were avoided, and this would apply to most texts since their original creation. The more radical phase of transmission, however, punctuated the standard transmission from time to time. The documented evidence shows that in the long-term development of any text, the probability is high that the conservative transmission was interrupted at some point by more radical processes. Looking from the perspective of its youngest versions, the development of the Passover law is an informative example of the long-term transmission where conservative and radical processes alternate. Here one needs to note that the evidence for the Passover law mainly preserves the radical revisions, while most of the conservative revisions are not documented. For 10 Here one needs to note that the conservative transmission of Jeremiah, for example, provides evidence for perhaps centuries of transmission by successive editors without any radical revisions. One radical revision may have been occasioned by one scribe only. In this sense, the evidence for conservative transmission was probably much more common than the radical revisions, for which there is ample evidence. In other words, the evidence for radical editions may be overrepresented unless one recognizes the long period of transmission that the documented conservative processes bear witness to. 11 The development of the Gilgamesh Epic, for example, shows that conservative transmission was much more common than radical editorial processes.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

361

Dichotomy of Evidence

example, Deut 16:1 – 8 certainly continued to be edited after its early version had been created on the basis of Exod 23:15, 18, as assumed by most scholars of Deuteronomy,12 but only a late version in the development of Deut 16:1 – 8 is preserved in the text-critical or other evidence.13 When the changes were made within the limits of the text’s conventional and conservative development, the new text did not branch off from the older one. The changes were integrated with the preserved edition. Exod 23:15, 18 radical revision Deut 16:1– 8*/early conserva.ve edi.ng? radical revision

Deut 16:1–8late text radical revision

Lev 23:5–8 conserva.ve edi.ng Num 28:16–25 radical revision T 17:6–16

12 Deut 16:1 – 8 was certainly edited in many stages, as assumed by most scholars; see, for example, Timo Veijola, Das 5. Buch Mose: Deuteronomium. Kapitel 1,1 – 16,17 (ATD 8,1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 327 – 342. It is possible that many of these changes were rather conservative, but perhaps not all. Following the conventional axioms, Veijola and others assume that all of this development was conservative and that no omissions were made, but this may not be correct. 13 In other words, although the preserved versions of the Passover law might suggest that radical processes are even more common than conservative ones, the conservative processes are probably still more common because they are largely lost from the documented evidence.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

362

Conclusions

Textual Development within Paradigms and Paradigm Shifts The dichotomy of evidence and alternation between the conservative transmission and the more radical phases of transmission should be perceived from the perspective of paradigms and paradigm shifts. The conservative transmission by expansions mainly took place within the same ideological paradigm, while radical revisions are probable in paradigm shifts. What follows is an outline that seeks to understand and explain the dichotomy that we can see in the documented evidence. Being aware that categories may be a very modern way of approaching the ancient reality, they nonetheless help us understand the developments that have taken place. The conservative transmission by expansions probably took place within a similar conceptual order or theological system that can also be called an ideological paradigm. Within an ideological paradigm the perceived reality would have been interpreted through certain shared conceptions and convictions.14 Any social group has a set of such beliefs that form its ideological paradigm, and a text-transmitting community would be no exception. Here one could refer to a scribal school, movement or any theological/ideological group that was behind the transmission of any particular text.15 A paradigm implies a certain continuity and enough stability of environment so that the ideological continuity was preserved. If, however, the continuity was broken, the paradigm would come to an end or there would be a paradigm shift. The radical revisions of texts took place in such paradigm shifts. Texts within an ideological paradigm were bound to be rather conservatively edited. The ideological continuity of the transmitting community was preserved as long as its conceptions developed only gradually, and any changes would essentially have been based on the older conceptions. The inherited older conceptions and beliefs shaped the way the changed reality and changes in society were interpreted. The continuity and inherent conservatism of paradigms was reflected in the texts. In the transmission of the Hebrew scriptures, especially after the destruction of 586 bce, texts were key in preserving the older conceptions and beliefs.16 This is particularly the case with texts that were regarded as having considerable authority, for they were or eventually became an integral part of the paradigm.17 Parts of the Pentateuch that self-proclaimed to be revelatory were particularly prone to take their position at the center of the ideological paradigm, but other texts could also become central as the variety of texts in the Hebrew Bible shows. Part of the paradigm, the conceptions of the texts came to influence the future development of the paradigm. As long as there was continuity within the paradigm, there would have been considerable resistance to challenge its authoritative texts,18 for this would have meant a challenge to the paradigm itself.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Textual Development within Paradigms and Paradigm Shifts

363

Therefore, within a paradigm there was inertia against making radical changes to texts that were regarded as authoritative for the paradigm. The texts also supported, justified and legitimized the existing social order, its institutions as well as its power hierarchies. Therefore, those in power had a particular interest in preserving the paradigm and thereby its texts, for any significant changes would have been precarious for their position. Rocking the boat would have endangered their status. It would have been in their interest to promote and preserve the texts that were the basis of their own power and position. Within ideological paradigms, which after the destruction of 586 bce increasingly rested on texts, there existed a close reciprocal relationship between the transmitting community and its authoritative texts. Both preserved the continuity of the other and were also influenced by the other. The texts were edited on the basis of the conceptions of the group, but at the same time the group drew its ideology, to a considerable extent, from its authoritative texts, for they formed the interpretative horizon of the paradigm. As history progressed and the environment changed, the transmitting group and the texts developed in a reciprocal relationship, both influencing and gradually changing each other. A circle of interpretation emerged; the texts and the rest of the paradigm supported each other. Concretely speaking, Deuteronomy was transmitted within a certain social group, which could, for example, be called the Deuteronomistic movement. The conceptions of Deuteronomy reflect the conceptions of the transmitting com14 To some extent one could also refer to a worldview, but in a much more limited sense. In the transmission of the Hebrew Bible, the paradigms are closely connected to the authoritative texts that form the basis of the paradigm. Paradigm and paradigm shift has been used in reference to the set of basic assumptions in natural sciences. See, for example, Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 19963). The concept was later applied to social sciences and has been used in various meanings and contexts. For paradigms and paradigm shifts in evolutionary biology, see discussion below. 15 For example, the Deuteronomistic school, the priestly circles, the temple priests, the Qumran movement would be potential social groups behind the transmission of texts. There are many different possibilities and one should not be very categorical or limiting in this respect. The existence of ideological paradigms is an abstraction that primarily seeks to make the ancient reality more understandable to us but it may not correspond exactly with any particular setting or context. It is also clear that there have been paradigms of different order. One could refer to the general paradigm of ancient Judaism after 586 bce, for all the groups shared at least some conceptions. One could also look at a very local level and refer to their perhaps very specific conceptions. Accepting that it is an abstraction, for the purposes of this investigation it is relevant to place the focus on the ideological paradigm of a transmitting community. 16 Prior to the destruction of the temple and monarchy, these institutions were cornerstones in the preservation of the older conceptions and their continuity. There were certainly texts as well, although now mostly lost, but their position was less elevated than after 586 bce when the main institutions of monarchic times had been destroyed.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

364

Conclusions

munity ; otherwise Deuteronomy would not have become their authoritative text in the first place. This does not mean, however, that the conceptions were necessarily identical. Nevertheless, because of its self-proclaimed form as a divine revelation, Deuteronomy was prone to become a centrally authoritative text of the group so that its conceptions were used to interpret the changing reality. It became a cornerstone of the paradigm. The changing reality, however, meant that the text had to be updated occasionally. The conceptions of the community were imprinted into Deuteronomy by expansions, but the interpretative horizon of the community was strongly influenced by the older text of Deuteronomy. The community and the text developed together and it was a circle of reciprocated influence. Thereby many of the later changes made by the community or the Deuteronomistic movement were strongly influenced by Deuteronomy.19 Because its legitimacy and ideology were partly based on Deuteronomy, it was also in the interest of the movement to preserve the older text of this book, and certainly not challenge it. Deuteronomy legitimized and justified their ideological paradigm and the social order of the movement. Any challenges to Deuteronomy would have meant a challenge to this social order, and therefore the movement had an interest in preserving and elevating it as well as in showing that its conceptions are ancient, authentic and of divine origin. The conservative transmission of Deuteronomy continued when there was considerable continuity and the circumstances or context of transmission were not fundamentally altered. The increasingly priestly interest in the latest transmission of Deuteronomy do indicate some change of paradigm that would have had the potential to challenge the older text, but this editing may not have been very extensive. Nevertheless, there is documented evidence that at least one textual tradition that derived from Deuteronomy did not continue the same closed ideological paradigm. The Temple Scroll is extensively indebted to Deuteronomy and by adopting many of its parts the Temple Scroll continues the literary transmission of Deuteronomy. At the same time, however, the author of the Temple Scroll was evidently not fully content with Deuteronomy, for he created an entirely new literary work that claimed to have even higher authority than Deuteronomy, as we have seen. The Temple Scroll contains many additional 17 It is probable that all transmitted texts had considerable authority for the transmitting community. Or to put it differently, texts that are transmitted within a certain group necessarily have considerable importance and authority for the group; otherwise they would not be transmitted by the group in the first place. 18 Here one again needs to stress that authoritativeness of texts is not an either/or question. Texts that are transmitted within a certain context or paradigm probably enjoy some authority in that context. It is fair to assume that, in the transmission of the Hebrew scriptures, mainly those texts that enjoyed some authority continued to be transmitted. For a discussion about the complexities of authoritativeness, see chapter I.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Textual Development within Paradigms and Paradigm Shifts

365

themes and special nuances that go beyond Deuteronomy. It appears that there were enough ideological differences so that the creation of an entirely new composition was required and the older text, even Deuteronomy, had to be challenged. Paradigms did not last forever. They were occasionally broken by fundamental changes in the society or circumstances that posed a serious challenge to the existing ideological paradigms. Catastrophic events in particular unsettled the social order and its main institutions, but less drastic changes could also have destabilized and challenged a paradigm. Because of the considerable incentive to preserve an existing paradigm, the environment and circumstances have to be changed substantially before the tide would turn against a paradigm. There would have been much resistance against change. When, however, the environment did change substantially, the explanations and interpretations of the older paradigm became increasingly more artificial and there was less correlation between the experienced reality and the conceptions of the paradigm. Eventually this would lead to the end of the paradigm and/or to a paradigm shift. This is reflected in the texts in that they will be revised accordingly to correspond to the new circumstances and to the emerging new paradigm. The change would probably take place very swiftly because there was considerable interest in establishing a new equilibrium and an ideological paradigm that is adapted to the new circumstances. This would be reflected in the texts so the paradigm shift would also necessitate a rapid change in the texts. After a new equilibrium was reached, the texts would again continue their more conservative development within the new paradigm. For example, the ideological paradigm of the monarchic era was dependent on the temple in Jerusalem and the monarchy. The cult and religion practiced during the monarchy, at least on the state level, were essentially based on these institutions. The same applies to the mythical and other religious texts that there must have been, but which are now mostly lost. When both institutions were destroyed, the existing ideological paradigm(s) had to collapse or be radically transformed.20 Many of the old texts did not provide any meaningful explanation to the new situation where Yhwh’s abode and the monarch whom Yhwh had instituted no longer existed. Most of the older texts were too closely tied to the monarchic paradigm(s) to provide explanations in the new situation. Eventually a new situation would emerge and equilibrium would be established. This also meant the creation of new texts that were based on the new axioms and beliefs and that were not dependent on the temple or the monarchy. Some texts of the older monarchic paradigm(s) could be used in the creation of the new literary works, but they would have to be comprehensively revised. For example, some 19 Clearly, there were other influences as well.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

366

Conclusions

parts of the monarchic legal texts eventually became part of the emerging Pentateuch, but they were revised and their original context is now lost. There are also some vestiges of the mythical texts, especially in the psalms, but they now mainly serve the purposes of a later paradigm that is already distinct from the monarchic one. Many of the new literary works were centered on the law, which was more independent of location and of the monarchic institution. In the new texts the temple and the monarch were pushed to the side. The law became the center of the new paradigms—groups, movements and other transmitting communities—that emerged after 586 bce. This is particularly evident with Deuteronomy and 1 – 2 Kings.21 Both are essentially creations of a situation after 586 bce as they are no longer dependent on the main institutions of monarchic times, the temple and the monarchy. In a greatly adapted form, parts of the old laws and the royal annals were used as far as they served the purposes of the new context, but most of the monarchic ideology and especially its ideologically loaded texts were rejected and therefore left out of these literary works. Not all paradigm shifts have been equally dramatic. The rebuilding of the temple would have created a new situation where the temple should again be taken into consideration as a central institution. One can see a flood of more priestly- and temple-oriented additions, revisions, and new literary creations in the wake of the rebuilding of the temple. They can be seen both as a result and part of a new paradigm that emerged. For example, Chronicles is better adapted to the new situation with the temple than 1 – 2 Kings, which, as a product of the templeless time, rarely discusses or refers to the cult of the temple or its paraphernalia. The priestly sections of the Pentateuch such as the Holiness Code are products of a time when there was a temple, while Deuteronomy and the Covenant Code are ill suited to a situation where the temple cult is at the center of the religion. A different paradigm may adopt a text that had received a significant status and was regarded as having considerable authority. Because of the different conceptions, the older text would have to be radically revised in order to be better suited to its new context of transmission. Here one could again mention Chronicles as an example. The Book of Kings had been transmitted in an ideological paradigm with more Deuteronomistic ideals. Because this composition was regarded as an important and authoritative text that described the history of the monarchic period, it would have been difficult for anyone with an interest in Israel’s past to neglect it. At the same time, its conceptions conflicted with the Chronicler’s own conceptions on many issues, especially concerning the temple and the position of the priests in the society. The ideological para20 It is probable that there were various ideological paradigms during the monarchic times.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Textual Development within Paradigms and Paradigm Shifts

367

digm of the Chronicler was too different from that of 1 – 2 Kings to be adapted by making expansions only, and therefore a more fundamental revision of the text was necessary. Ultimately, a new composition had to be created. This example also shows that the donor text as well as the new creation could continue their transmissions in separate contexts or paradigms so that both were eventually preserved. In the case of the royal annals this did not happen. They were transmitted within the royal court probably till the end of the monarchy within a monarchic paradigm and were perhaps even preserved by the royal scribes for some time after the collapse, but eventually there was no transmitting community where they would have been relevant as such. In a fundamentally revised form their transmission continued as 1 – 2 Kings within in the more theologically oriented paradigm of the Deuteronomists. The adaptation process to the new paradigm was not necessarily immediate and rapid. In some cases the process may have continued for a long period by means of gradual revisions and recensions. Several successive editors may have corrected the perceived erroneous conceptions of the older text so that it would correspond to the new ideological paradigm. The religious censoring, witnessed in many parts of the Hebrew scriptures, is an example of such a process. The religious conceptions of the monarchic period differed fundamentally from those of the emerging Judaism, and we are dealing with two essentially separate ideological paradigms. Nevertheless, older conceptions are still preserved in some texts of the Hebrew scriptures, for example, in 1 – 2 Samuel and 1 – 2 Kings, as we have seen. Since they can be found especially in some Greek and Latin textual witnesses, for example, in the Lucianic text and Old Latin witnesses, the corrections in the MT were probably made after the translation into Greek was made. In other words, some conceptions essentially based on the monarchic religion are still being purged in the last centuries bce or even beyond, centuries after the ideological paradigm of the monarchic era had collapsed. It is fair to assume that these are only the last vestiges, but since they were preserved in such a late period of transmission, it is probable that the purging of the texts had continued for centuries. What we can thus see taking place is the continuous and partly slow adaptation of some older texts to the new paradigm of emerging Judaism and its conceptions. Nonetheless, because we are dealing with adap21 The later additions to Deuteronomy and 1 – 2 Kings in particular emphasize the law and neglect the temple. The original authors are still, in part, dependent on the old paradigm, because there is considerable interest in the temple. On the other hand, the history writer of 1 – 2 Kings already largely regards the temple as a place of frequent sin. The author of Deuteronomy does not mention the temple, which would be incomprehensible had the book been written during the time of the temple when it would have been inconceivable that the temple, the abode of Yhwh, could ever be destroyed. For discussion, see Juha Pakkala, “The Date of the Earliest Edition of Deuteronomy,” ZAW 121/3 (2009): 388 – 401.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

368

Conclusions

tation to a very different paradigm, radical revisions, such as omissions, took place in this process as well. There are certainly many possible ways in which the older texts were adapted to the changed paradigms. In some and perhaps most cases, the older text was radically revised on one occasion. Chronicles in relation to 1 – 2 Kings, 1 – 2 Kings in relation to the royal annals, Deuteronomy in relation to the Covenant Code and the Temple Scroll in relation to the Pentateuch would be examples of a sudden shift. However, if the revision was protracted, it would potentially continue until the text was fully accommodated to the new paradigm. Adaptation to the new paradigm would be like gravitation so that the texts would eventually establish equilibrium with the paradigm.22 Contradictory elements were disturbing factors that would constantly be a potential target of correction by later editors. In most cases, a new equilibrium would eventually emerge so that a text or a set of texts in a certain form23 became an integral part of the paradigm of the new transmitting community. As the examples here also show, there have been various kinds of paradigm shifts, and they may be of different magnitude. Some of the shifts may be connected to fundamental turning points in Israel’s history, such as the destructions of 586 bce and 70 ce, while others were less dramatic, such as the reestablishment of the temple, the collapse of empires or the establishment of the Hasmonean dynasty. Clearly, the magnitude of the paradigm shift is also reflected in the changes that are made to the texts. A fundamental turning point in history that shakes the fundaments of the entire society, such as 586 bce, would denote fundamental changes in the texts. A less dramatic but still significant change, such as the rebuilding of the temple, would mean significant changes in the texts, but not necessarily the complete rejection of the older texts. Chronicles in relation to 1 – 2 Kings is a prime example. Even less dramatic but still significant would be the transmission of the Ezra-Nehemiah tradition in First Esdras. The older idea that Nehemiah, a non-Davidic person, would rebuild Jerusalem had to be rejected or corrected—he was replaced by the Davidic Zerubbabel in this role—but otherwise the tradition of Ezra-Nehemiah was largely adopted so that most of the other changes in First Esdras were additions. We have also seen that many editors were prone to replace the omitted text with a new one that still followed the source text on some level. Omissions without any replacement may be part of a more fundamental challenge of the older text, while rewriting could be seen as a compromise method. A replacement can more easily be regarded as an alternative explanation to the older account, while a sheer omission is a blatant challenge to the older text. For example, the Chronicler frequently sought to provide an alternative explanation that was partly dependent on the source text in 1 – 2 Kings. In many cases he was

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Gradual or Punctual Evolution?

369

hesitant to omit the source completely and instead created his version of the same event or scene. The result was an amalgamation of the source text with his own ideals, which implies that the Chronicler was convinced that 1 – 2 Kings contained much authoritative information. On the other hand, there are many examples where the source text was more openly and frequently challenged. Here one should mention Deuteronomy in relation to the Covenant Code. Only in some cases is the source text preserved.24

Gradual or Punctual Evolution? In search of a more general model where we could put the paradigms and paradigm shifts under the same umbrella, the theories of natural evolution provide some fruitful ideas and perhaps even parallels. Phyletic gradualism25 is the traditional theory of evolution, according to which the evolution of species is gradual; new species are created by continuous and constant changes.26 The theory thus assumes that adaptations to changed circumstances take place all the time, although this process may be very slow. The main problem with this theory has been the lack of proof for the gradual and small changes in the fossil record. Nonetheless, the representatives of the theory assume that the known fossil record preserves only a tiny fragment of the actual evolutionary process, and therefore it is difficult to observe that the development has been constant and gradual.27 The theory of phyletic gradualism was later challenged by the theory of punctuated equilibrium.28 The latter pointed out that the infrequent changes documented in the fossil record reflect the fact that changes are rare. According to this theory, very little evolutionary change takes place most of the time and the regular state of species is stasis within an environmental equilibrium. This corresponds better with the lack of evidence for gradual changes in the fossil record. Some small evolutionary changes may take place during the periods of stasis but this usually does not lead to speciation, the creation of new species, for there is little incentive for change in equilibrium. Instead, the main evolutionary development would take place during infrequent and exceptional circumstances when the development would be very rapid. Catastrophic geological events and other substantial changes in environment compelled the species to adapt to the changed circumstances. Because there was considerable incentive to adapt to the 22 Clearly, the conceptions of the old paradigm would also exert some influence on the new paradigm so that the direction of influence is not entirely one-sided. 23 Some texts may have had to be shaped considerably before they could have been accepted as part of the paradigm’s authoritative texts. The emergence of equilibrium is part of the process of paradigm shifts (see below).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

370

Conclusions

new environment and reach equilibrium, the development is very rapid when such changes take place. The speed of the change as well as its limited locality explains why it is so rarely documented. Of the long-term development only a fraction would be periods of substantial change. According to this theory, the long-term evolution of species can be divided into two clearly distinct periods, the long periods of equilibrium and the short periods of rapid change that punctuate the equilibria. Punctuated gradualism reflects both phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. As in the theory of punctuated equilibrium, punctuated gradualism assumes that evolution occurs during short periods of more rapid change that punctuate periods of no or very little evolution. However, according to this theory the periods of rapid change may not be as rapid as assumed in punctuated equilibrium and it is also debated how the creation of new species takes place. Some have observed that the periods of rapid change may “not lead to lineage branching,” as assumed by the theory of punctuated equilibrium.29 Other scholars have proposed the so called threshold model for punctuated gradualism, where “rapid crossing of the threshold by large numbers of individuals … will result in the sudden achievement of a critical descendant population mass.”30 This would then lead to speciation. Both punctuated gradualism and punctuated equilibrium reject gradualism where the development is assumed to be “slow, steady, gradual, and continuous.”31 The evolutionary theories deal with entirely different material than ancient texts and therefore cannot provide an equivalent model for the evolution or development of the Hebrew scriptures. Nevertheless, there are some analogies, as the evolutionary theories and their differences show some of the same 24 Here one should add that the exact relationship between the Covenant Code and Deuteronomy may be more complicated than what is often assumed. One cannot exclude the possibility that the parallels, which are not exceedingly clear, were not caused by a direct dependence of Deuteronomy on the Covenant Code but by the existence of other law codes or considerably different versions of the two known documents. 25 Note that the term gradualism in reference to the conventional theory of evolution derives from its critics, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, “Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism” in Models in Paleobiology (ed. by T. Schopf; San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper & Co, 1972), 82 – 115. 26 Thus already Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (London: John Murray, 1859), passim. 27 Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (London: John Murray, 1859), 280, was puzzled by the lack of intermediate links between the different species. However, he explained (on p. 342) this by assuming that “the geological record is extremely imperfect.” 28 Eldredge and Gould, “Punctuated Equilibria, 82 – 115. This theory was later propagated and developed especially by Stephen Jay Gould; see his major works, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2002) and Punctuated Equilibrium (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Gradual or Punctual Evolution?

371

problems we are facing when trying to understand the development of the Hebrew scriptures. The theories seek to provide the most accurate model that would explain the data and correspond to the changes that can be observed in the material under investigation. In comparison with the evolutionary theories, however, there has been very little methodological discussion about the different possible models as to how the texts of the Hebrew scriptures actually developed. As we have seen in the introduction in chapter 1, the methodological basis of literary criticism is rarely discussed in relation to the documented evidence, and alternative models of editing are difficult to find in the books of methodology. Literary criticism could be likened to the theory of phyletic gradualism, which assumes that the processes have always been the same and that the development is gradual. In the case of the Hebrew scriptures the gradual development would only have been interrupted by the freezing of the texts as part of the Jewish and Christian canons, while before that changes other than expansions would not have taken place. As phyletic gradualism has been shown to conflict with the fossil record, literary criticism conflicts with part of the documented evidence, as we have seen in the course of this investigation. Gradual evolution of the Hebrew scriptures always under the same constant processes now seems unlikely. Nevertheless, the idea of gradual evolution of the texts should not be completely abandoned. It even seems probable that the texts of the Hebrew scriptures usually developed gradually by means of expansions only. This may be likened to the stasis of punctuated equilibrium with the difference that the texts were constantly changed by expansions. This would be their natural state, or stasis, because the texts were constantly in interaction with the circumstances and context of transmission. Like the periods of stasis of natural evolution, the periods of expansion form the main bulk of the long-term transmission of the Hebrew scriptures. In some cases there may even have been substantial additions, but this development took place within the same paradigm that may be 29 Björn A. Malmgren, William A. Berggren and G.P. Lohmann, “Evidence for Punctuated Gradualism in the Late Neogene Globorotalia Tumida Lineage of Planktonic Foraminifera,” Geo Science World 9/3 (1983): 377 – 389, quotation from p. 377; Richard A Fortey, “Gradualism and Punctuated Equilibria as Competing and Complementary Theories,” Special Papers in Palaeontology 33 (1985): 17 – 28. See also the articles in Lambert M. Surhone et alii (ed.), Punctuated Gradualism: Microevolution, Allele Frequency, Species, Hypothesis, Phyletic Gradualism, Speciation, Uniformitarianism, Evolution (sine loco: Betascript Publishing, 2010). 30 J.A. Kieser and H.T. Groeneveld, “Threshold Model for Punctuated Gradualism,” Medical Hypotheses 17 (1985): 219 – 225, quotation from p. 219. 31 Quotation from Stephen Jay Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” Natural History 86 (1977): 22 – 30 (also in www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_hopeful-monsters.html). He is specifically referring to Charles Darwin’s theory.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

372

Conclusions

likened to the equilibrium where the circumstances or the environment remained relatively constant. As in the theory of punctuated equilibrium, the gradual development of the Hebrew scriptures was punctuated by periods of an entirely different process. This was necessary at some stages where the environment changed more radically than in stable conditions. Accordingly, rapid changes were necessary to adapt to the rapidly changed circumstances. Without rapid changes, the texts would not have kept up with the changes in the environment and would thus have become outdated.32 As in the evolution of species, some texts were not or could not be changed as radically as the environment changed. Such strands of development would eventually have become unviable and irrelevant, and were therefore forgotten. Those texts that are preserved have been successful in adapting to the changed environments. Because there have been many radical changes in the environment, it is very likely that most of the texts of the Hebrew scriptures have been radically edited at some stage in the course of their literary history. There is a certain natural inclination and drive of all developments to retain equilibrium with the environment, but at the same time there is an inherent inclination to preserve the existing order. These two partly contradictory inclinations logically lead any development to proceed by way of alternating processes, a conservative one that preserves the existing order and a more radical one that is intermittently necessary when the environment has changed beyond the capabilities of the conservative development to keep up. The partial contradiction of the inclinations also explains why the radical processes often take place in a burst of rapid development. This development could also be likened to the eruption of a volcano. There is a constant increase of pressure, which is partially released by the vent, but at some point the pressure becomes too great for the vent to handle, and the accumulated pressure is released in an explosion that creates a new equilibrium.

Literary Criticism The repercussions of the observations made in this investigation as well as the consequences of the model of transmission presented above are considerable for literary criticism of the Hebrew scriptures. The existence of radical editorial processes in some periods of the transmission of the texts directly challenges the axiom that the text was always preserved and that nothing was omitted. Because this axiom is crucial for the methodology, the conventional implementation of

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

373

Literary Criticism

literary criticism is severely undermined. The results of literary critical reconstructions, especially with several successive layers, become very uncertain. The uncertainties increase in complex reconstructions because the existence of more radical editing in one stratum would eventually shake the entire reconstruction of the earlier strata. The failure to accept omissions may, in the worst case, result in a failure to recognize the most significant editorial changes and thereby the reconstruction is led in an erroneous direction. Since this was partly discussed in the introduction, only one illuminating example will be given here. The book of Kings is a fruitful area of investigation in this respect because it has been extensively investigated since early research, and there are many literary- and redactioncritical studies of this literary work. However, the literary-critical reconstructions have rarely appreciated the importance of the Antiochene/Lucianic text and the Old Latin witnesses. The Masoretic text has been commonly taken as the starting point, and many scholars are reluctant to abandon its readings. Such approaches now seem very problematic as the Lucianic text and the Old Latin have become increasingly important in determining the oldest preserved text. In some cases the neglect of the text-critical data gives us the possibility to compare the results of literary- and redaction-critical analyses with an older editorial stage of the text that the neglected Greek and Latin witnesses imply. We have seen in chapter 7 that an Old Latin witness and some Greek manuscripts probably preserve the oldest reading of 2 Kgs 10:23 while the Masoretic text and the main Greek witnesses lack a large section of the original text. It is probable that the plus is the result of an omission in the MT and the main Greek manuscripts.33 Since most literary critics have not taken into account the Old Latin reading and the Greek manuscripts hijnuvxz34 when reconstructing the literary history of the passage, the verse provides an excellent example of how literary criticism results in erroneous conclusions when it fails to recognize the possibility of omissions. Although some scholars have noted that a number of Greek manuscripts contain a very different reading from the MT in 2 Kgs 10:23,35 it has been commonly rejected as a secondary development that need not be considered.36 Indeed, most commentaries and other studies make no reference to the textual variants,37 which in this verse is a fatal mistake. With a literary- and redaction-critical approach, Yoshikazu Minokami has investigated Jehu’s revolution described in 2 Kgs 9 – 10. Neglecting the Old Latin 32 See also the discussion about the texts being updated to remain relevant for transmission: Hans Debel, “Rewritten Bible, Variant Literary Editions and Original Text(s),” in Changes in Scripture (ed. H. von Weissenberg et alii; BZAW 419; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2011), 65 – 91, here p. 83. See also Ulrich, “Evolutionary Production and Transmission,” 47 – 64, who characterizes the development of the Hebrew scriptures as evolution.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

374

Conclusions

and the Greek manuscripts hijnuvxz, his analysis of v. 23 assumed that the reference to Jehonadab son of Rechab and the word 8H are later additions, while the rest is original.38 He has failed to take note of the disturbing A4 =?, which would have given an indication that a more extensive revision of the verse had taken place. The Masoretic text provides no clues as to what A4 =? could refer to and it remains a grammatical peculiarity. Moreover, Minokami’s analysis provides no explanation for the problem that the whole coming of Jehu to Baal’s temple is redundant if no worshippers of Yhwh were inside the temple anyway. He is therefore led astray when determining the subjects of the verb in v. 24.39 These failures to observe the evident problems of the text are the consequence of the unwavering assumption that the text could only be expanded. He has attempted to solve the puzzle by assuming that all pieces must be present. In this case, these axioms have resulted in a failure to recognize the most important editorial change of the verse, and from the point of view of the history of ancient Israelite religion, perhaps the most important change in the entire passage. Before the omission was made, the text suggested that the worshippers of Baal and Yhwh were involved in the same syncretistic cult conducted in Baal’s temple, whereas the theologically motivated omission dilutes this idea. This casts a shadow over the results of Minokami’s entire investigation of 2 Kgs 9 – 10. Minokami is not alone. Quite the contrary, his analysis is representative of the most critical approach, because he has carefully evaluated the diachronic development of the text. Minokami has meticulously analyzed the chapter and sought to identify even the smallest additions. He has also considered part of the text-critical evidence and compared the Hebrew with the main Greek witnesses. Other literary-critical approaches have not been more successful than Minokami. In his commentary on 1 – 2 Kings, which has a specifically literary- and redaction-critical approach, Ernst Würthwein has divided 2 Kgs 10 into the original “recension” and the later additions. According to him, v. 23a is part of 33 As we have seen in chapter 7, the omitted section is preserved in the Greek manuscripts hijnuvxz: a· enaposte¸kate t²mtar toOr do¼kour juq¸ou toOr erqisjol´mour 1je? ja? 1c´meto jah( ¢r 1k²kgsem (IoO fti oqj wm 1jei t_m do¼kym juq¸ou, and in an Old Latin witness (Codex Vindobona): et eicite omnes seruos domini qui inuenti fuerint in templum bahal. Et factum est sicut locutus est ieu rex et cum nemo fuisset ibi de seruis domini. 34 The sigla of the manuscripts are from Alan E. Brooke, Norman McLean and Henry St John Thackeray, 1 – 2 Kings. The Old Testament in Greek according to the Text of Codex Vaticanus (2,2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1930). 35 The Old Latin witnesses have rarely been discussed outside text-critical analyses. 36 Thus, for example Benziger, Könige, 154 and James Alan Montgomery, The Book of Kings (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951), 415. For example, T.R. Hobbs, 2 Kings (Word Biblical Commentary ; Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1985), 123, writes only briefly : “Some minor G[reek] MSS report the exclusion of the worshippers of Yhwh.” There is no further discussion about their importance.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

375

Literary Criticism

the chapter’s oldest redactional stratum, while v. 23b (of the MT) would be a later addition. Although even the main Greek witnesses contain several variants in the chapter, they do not receive due attention in this connection or in his commentaries on 1 – 2 Kings in general. Würthwein often implies that the MT represents the oldest preserved text. In v. 23 his neglect of the textual witnesses is fatal, because the Old Latin and the Greek manuscripts hijnuvxz would have shown that the MT leads the analysis in the wrong direction. In view of the plus in the Old Latin and the Greek manuscripts, it is very unlikely that v. 23b is a later addition. In view of v. 23 alone, it seems probable that Würthwein has failed to comprehend the literary development of the chapter.40 The identification of the omission of the plus would have been imperative, because it was one of the latest editorial changes in the chapter. In effect, his whole literary-critical reconstruction of the chapter is severely undermined if this plus is recognized as more original than the MT reading. In her literary-critical investigation of the chapter, Susanne Otto has divided the passage into several different layers (the original text, pre-Deuteronomistic redaction, Deuteronomistic redaction, late Deuteronomistic redaction and the latest redactions).41 Considering the Masoretic text as the main source, she rejects the possibility that v. 23 (or all of v. 22 – 25a) contains additions and concludes that the verse is part of the original source. She also assumes that the plural of v. 24a (N9bF@ 945=9) clearly refers to Jehu and Jehonadab,42 but this makes little sense because it would then mean that they made sacrifices in Baal’s temple (even to Baal?), which they were about to destroy as idolatrous. Failing to assume the possibility of omissions, Otto’s reconstruction of the chapter’s lit37 See, for example, Rudolf Kittel, Die Bücher der Könige (HAT; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900), 240 – 241; John Gray, I & II Kings (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963), 503; Jürgen Werlitz, Die Bücher der Könige (NSK/AT 8; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002), 246 – 247; Gwilym H. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings (NCB; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1984), 470; Ian Provan, 1 and 2 Kings (Peabody : Hendrickson Publishers, 1995), 214 – 215; Mordechai Cogan and Hayin Tadmor, II Kings (Anchor Bible 11; sine loco: Doubleday & Company, 1988), 115; Joseph Robinson, The Second Book of Kings (Cambridge et alii: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 100; Georg Hentschel, 2 Könige (Neue Echter Bibel; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1985), 49; Bernhard Stade, “Miscellen. 10. Anmerkungen zu 2 Kö. 10 – 14,” ZAW 5 (1885): 275 – 297, here pp. 277 – 278. 38 Yoshikazu Minokami, Die Revolution des Jehu (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 98. Similarly already Bernhard Stade and Friedrich Schwally, The Book of Kings. Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text (SBOT 9; London, 1904), 232. Here it needs to be added, however, that Minokami usually does take the LXX reading into consideration. However, since he has only considered the main Greek witnesses, which were here probably harmonized after the Masoretic text, the significant plus in v. 23 remains unnoticed. Many scholars have rightly assumed that Jehonadab is secondary. For example, Stade, “Anmerkungen zu 2 Kö. 10 – 14,” 277 – 278; Christoph Levin, Verheissung des neuen Bundes (FRLANT 137; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985), 240. 39 Minokami, Revolution des Jehu, 96 – 110.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

376

Conclusions

erary history has failed to recognize one of the latest editorial changes made to the text. The mistake has considerable consequences because Otto has argued that the Masoretic version of v. 23 is part of the original text of the chapter, which she then uses to discuss the original historical and theological context of the story.43 However, this loses its basis when the plus in the Greek manuscripts and Old Latin is also taken into account, for the plus contains crucial information about the relationship between Yhwh and Baal. The oldest preserved text contained the idea that Baal and Yhwh were worshipped in a syncretistic cult, which would have been an essential piece of information for her enterprise. Many other investigations dealing with 2 Kgs 10:23 could be brought up here, but they would not change the picture. Moreover, this has been merely one example from 2 Kgs 10:18 – 28. The comparison between the MTon the one hand and some Greek manuscripts and the Old Latin on the other suggests that there are many secondary readings in the MT that conflict with the literary and redaction critical reconstructions.44 This passage would provide further illustrative examples where the failure to acknowledge the possibility of radical editing has resulted in severely erroneous reconstructions. Unlike in many other cases where documented evidence is missing, here they are revealed because important text-critical evidence has been neglected. These partly very critical comments and observations do not mean, however, that literary criticism as a methodology should now be abandoned.45 It has much to commend it. In fact, it may still be the only possible method to penetrate the oldest preserved text to the earlier redactional strata that are not documented. These texts and their earlier literary strata are crucial for understanding the history, religion, conceptions and culture of ancient Israel and early Judaism because they preserve significant information that we may never have access to by using other sources, barring the unlikely discovery of a major ancient archive from Jerusalem or Samaria. For biblical scholars it is certainly very unfortunate that nearly all textual sources have been edited by countless editors over centuries, for it makes the sources very difficult to use, but we hardly have any alternative for attempting to reconstruct their development. Without a diachronic approach of the texts, we do not have a historical source in the Hebrew Bible. It is not a solution to ignore the complex history of the texts and continue investigating the preserved “final” text of the MT (or any other final text that is preserved in the Hebrew scriptures). This is scientifically untenable, as vestiges from entirely different periods are intermingled in them. Without distinguishing 40 41 42 43

See Würthwein, 1Kön. 17 – 2.Kön. 25, 340 – 342. Susanne Otto, Jehu, Elia und Elisa (BWANT 152; Stuttgart et al.: Kohlhammer, 2001), 41 – 74. Otto, Jehu, 73. See, Otto, Jehu, 97 – 113.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

377

Literary Criticism

between the redactional layers, we cannot know which text bears witness to which period and how they relate to each other. In effect, we would be simultaneously looking at texts from diverse contexts and different centuries. Using the final texts as they were transmitted would result in distorted views of any period that one seeks to investigate.46 In other words, there is no alternative to the painstaking analysis of literary and redaction criticism. Our understanding of the texts remains very limited if we cannot recognize the original historical context of the different textual strata. For example, there is no lack of investigations and commentaries dealing with 2 Kgs 10 that assume that the text was not much edited or that the changes are only inconsequential. In such cases the neglect of the textual witnesses is even more severe than in the literary-critical approaches because they often fail to recognize how extensively the later editors have changed the text. The resulting picture of Israel’s history and religion is conservative and distorted. It emphasizes continuity and disregards changes and development. Here one could mention, for example, the commentaries by John Gray and Marvin A. Sweeney, who mention no textual variants in 2 Kgs 10:23 and generally take the Masoretic text in its preserved form as the starting point for reconstructing Israel’s history and religion.47 Instead of abandoning literary criticism, we need a modification and improvement of the method. The approach that the older text has to be reconstructed by identifying the later additions should be retained if we are to use the texts for any scientific and historical purposes. This means that the core approach of literary criticism to discern between literary strata is in principle justified and necessary. At the same time, however, the idea that the older text was merely expanded has to be abandoned. The possibility of omissions of the older text needs to be taken into account in the implementation of the methodology. This also includes the possibility that parts of the older text may have been rewritten or replaced with an entirely new text. Although not extensively discussed in this investigation, the possibility of relocation of parts of the older text should also be accepted as a potential technique of the editors. There is much documented evidence that relocations were not uncommon. This becomes apparent when we compare the Hebrew and Greek texts of Jeremiah or of 1 Kgs 44 See the other examples shown by Julio Trebolle Barrera, Jehffl y Jo‚s. Texto y composiciûn literaria de 2 Reyes 9 – 11 (Instituciûn San Jerûnimo 17; Valencia: 1984), 147 – 157, 222 – 223, and Adrian Schenker, Älteste Textgeschichte der Königsbücher : Die hebräische Vorlage der ursprünglichen Septuaginta als älteste Textform der Königsbücher (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 149 – 167. 45 Cf. the skepticism concerning the capabilities of the method expressed by David M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2011). For further discussion, see chapter I of the present volume.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

378

Conclusions

8 – 14, for example. In other words, radical changes have to be part of the variety of possibilities that the editors may have used when we try to understand how the text developed. It has become evident that radical changes where the older text was challenged or omitted did not take place all the time. They are restricted to periods of paradigm shift. There is much documented evidence for transmission where the older text was fully preserved. The changes that we can see in the MTof Jeremiah in relation to the LXX version, for example, reflect the most common type of textual evolution that took place. As far as the reconstruction of such changes is concerned, literary criticism has all the potential to reach the earlier literary strata because the older text should still be present in the preserved witnesses.48 The methodology has to place more attention on identifying the ideological paradigm shifts and thus the stages of more radical changes. In practice, this would mean that when a literary-critical analysis encounters a redactional layer that clearly shifts the focus and represents a different ideological or theological paradigm than what can be detected in the older literary strata, there is potential that the older text was challenged. In such cases, the literary critic should expect that omissions and rewritings took place. This also means that the ideological contrast or tension between the new literary layer and the older text has to be carefully discussed. Needless to say, this is not an unproblematic enterprise because the most blatant contradictions have probably been omitted. This is what takes place in Chronicles in relation to 1 – 2 Kings, for example. The more fundamental the ideological difference between the layers is, the more probable it becomes that parts of the older layer have been removed and/or replaced with ideologically more acceptable texts. This underlines the importance of discussing very carefully the historical and ideological context of the different redactional strata. Many literary-critical reconstructions have identified ideological differences between the redactional layers but the older text is still assumed to be fully preserved.49 This is an area that should be reconsidered in implementing the methodology of literary criticism. The identification of radical editing is not solely dependent on identifying 46 Analyses that mainly investigate the “final” book have been common in the last three decades. See, for example, Ehud Ben Zvi, A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Zephania (BZAW 198; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1991); A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Obadiah (BZAW 242; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1996); Tamara Cohn Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose. A Literary Approach to Ezra-Nehemiah (SBLMS 36; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988). A slightly different but no less problematic approach is represented by Thomas Thomson and Niels Peter Lemche, who abandon the older stages of the literary development as irrecoverable and assume that the text mainly bears witness to the time of the oldest manuscripts; see the discussion in chapter I. 47 See, Gray, I & II Kings, 502 – 508, and Marvin Sweeney, I & II Kings (OTL; Louisville, Ky. and London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007), 327 – 328, 336 – 337.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

379

Literary Criticism

paradigm shifts. Observations made in the texts may also help this enterprise. In the case of each redactor his technique and editorial toolbox should be determined. If one can identify an ideological paradigm shift, one should pay particular attention to the technical details in the text to determine whether the editor’s toolbox included more radical methods than merely expansions. We have seen that there are editors whose toolbox only contained expansions, while other editors’ repertoires also included omissions, rewritings and relocations. For the implementation of the literary-critical method, it is crucial to determine which type is at work in each redactional layer. Some different types of editors can be identified, although the categories should only be seen as abstractions When we investigate the prehistory of texts that are not documented, the chain of editors may consist of any of the following: 1) Author editor, who collected the composition rather freely (sources of the Pentateuch, for example the Yahwist). 2) Copyist editor, who mainly made small changes perhaps interpretative expansions, clarifications and glosses, for his main task was to copy the text. 3) A conservative editor who updated the text to correspond to the changed environment and circumstances. Working within an ideological paradigm, he made only expansions (e. g., the SP in relation to the MT or the MT of Jeremiah in relation to the LXX version). 4) A radical editor who was working during a paradigm shift or was otherwise part of such a shift. He could have made comprehensive changes to the texts such as omitting and rewriting parts of the older text (e. g., First Esdras and Chronicles). 5) A rewriter-editor who mainly created a new composition but who followed the source to a great extent (e. g., Chronicles in relation to 1 – 2 Kings, the Temple Scroll in relation to the Pentateuch or Jubilees in relation to Genesis-Exodus). 6) A censor editor who mainly purged the older text of conceptions that had become offensive and unacceptable (evidence for such activity can be found especially in 1 Samuel and 1 – 2 Kings). 7) An editor who used a section of another literary work for part of his own text. This could have been a quotation or allusion, for example.50 These should not be seen as strict categories so that each editor would defi48 It is a different question as to how reliable the reconstructions are in these cases, but this goes beyond the scope of this investigation. This question would certainly warrant a separate investigation. 49 Here one could mention parts of Deuteronomy that were later revised by editors with a more priestly approach. Although this editing seems to have been rather limited, it is still a potential area where omitting some of the contradictory sections could have taken place. However, in other sections of the Pentateuch the contrast between the priestly editors and the earlier text may be more prominent. The same applies to other books of the Hebrew scriptures as well. For example, in the book of Ezra, the priestly and Levitical editors introduced entirely new themes that, in part, conflicted with the older text. This would certainly be an area that would require more investigation. For the priestly and Levitical editors as well as other redactional layers of Ezra-Nehemiah, see Juha Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe: The

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

380

Conclusions

nitely be of one type only. For example, the Chronicler would partly accord with categories 1, 4 and 5. Rather than strictly following the categories, the main goal is to understand each editor and his techniques so that we are in a better position to determine what our possibilities are to penetrate his text to reach the earlier layers. Literary criticism is not the goal in itself, but it is the means to understand the development of ancient Israelite conceptions, religion, and history. It is in this area that the effect of the methodological modification and improvement proposed here would be seen most concretely. A problem with the conventional methodology is that it tends to favor conservative reconstructions that emphasize continuity in Israel’s religion and history. This is a direct result of the methodological axiom that the older text was never challenged. If the later editors always respected the older text, it would be natural to assume that their own conceptions are heavily indebted to the older conceptions. If challenge of the older is axiomatically excluded, it is not surprising that the results are shaped accordingly. However, one is arguing in circles if one excludes certain conclusions from the outset. Concretely, many biblical scholars assume that the core conceptions of the emerging Judaism were already present in monarchic times. There would be considerable continuity between the premonarchic religion of ancient Israel and emerging Judaism. This is seen, for example, in the assumption that the Josianic reform is a historical event, although its ideals became central to the religion Development of Ezra 7 – 10 and Neh 8 (BZAW 347; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2004), 226 – 279. Another issue that concerns Deuteronomy and 1 – 2 Kings is the clear distinction between the nomistic editors who emphasized the law as the main way to approach Yhwh in contrast with the earlier texts where the law did not have such a prominent role or perhaps had no religious role at all. For example, in 1 – 2 Kings, one can see a clear theological shift taking place between the history writer and the nomistic editors, which is a potential area of more radical revision. The nomistic authors were also particularly concerned about the worship of other gods, while this does not seem to have been a major issue for the earlier authors and editors. See Juha Pakkala, Intolerant Monolatry in the Deuteronomistic History (PFES 76; Helsinki and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), for discussion and argumentation. It is therefore very possible that the nomistic editors omitted parts of the older text that contained positive references to illegitimate religious practices such as the Massebot, Asherah and the worship of other gods. We can see this tendency in the later periods as well. As we have seen in chapter 7, the older conceptions that were deemed illegitimate continued to be removed in the last centuries bce and perhaps beyond because some vestiges have been preserved in the text-critical data of Deuteronomy, 1 – 2 Samuel, and 1 – 2 Kings. Further on, because of the collapse of the monarchic institutions and the temple in 586 bce, one should be very cautious with any reconstruction that asserts the finding of monarchic literary strata. The paradigmatic change is so fundamental that the likelihood of radical transformation of any text is very high. Needless to say, countless literary-critical analyses have reconstructed monarchic literary strata of monarchic times with the assumption that nothing was omitted by the later editors after the initial creation of the literary work.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

381

Literary Criticism

only in the post-monarchic period.51 The problem with this picture is that the ideological paradigm of monarchic times was fundamentally different from that of the ensuing period when there was neither temple nor king. The axiom that the older text was always preserved indirectly leads to distorted and erroneous views about the development of Israel’s history. If the conclusions drawn in the present investigation are correct, most of the texts that contradicted the later conceptions would have been removed. The conventional literary criticism not only underestimates the ideological shifts but it also comes to conclusions that emphasize the continuity of Israel’s religion or, in the worst cases, even provide ostensible evidence that there is continuity. The consequences for understanding Israel’s religion as well as its history are therefore extensive. However, if the preserved texts emphasize continuity more than what the actual development was, the evidence that is available should be considered accordingly. Continuity should not be taken as the starting point even if the Hebrew scriptures would seem to suggest that. This is especially the case with theological conceptions, because it was in the interest of the later authors to emphasize continuity with the past even when continuity did not exist. The picture of Josiah’s reform that 1 – 2 Kings provides is a case in point, but the same applies to the whole history of the ancient Israelite religion. The later authors sought to show that some kings of Judah already adhered to the principles and conceptions that were prevalent in later Judaism, but one should be cautions in following the picture the later editors and authors want to give. The same is true with Chronicles. The Chronicler wants to draw a picture of monarchic history where the priests and Levites play a fundamental role. This would accord with the conceptions prevalent in the temple circles during the Second Temple period, but one should reject the Chronicler’s view of the past, at least as far as a critical and scientific reconstruction of Israel’s history is concerned. If Chronicles were the main source for monarchic Israel and one used its late conceptions without recognizing how radically the older sources have been edited, one would inevitably come to the conclusion that the priests were the main force in monarchic Israel. The book of Kings provides a very different picture. 50 The question of whether the author of a text thought that the new text was to be read with another text is not so crucial here. The later readers could have adopted the text on its own without the parallel text (for example Jer 39:1 – 6) so that the new text started to have a life of its own independent of the source text and the intentions of its authors and editors. Such cases should also be identified. 51 See the discussion and literature in Juha Pakkala, “Why the Cult Reforms in Judah Probably Did not Happen,” in One God—One Cult—One Nation. Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives (ed. R. Kratz and H. Spieckermann; BZAW 405; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2010), 201 – 235.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

382

Conclusions

As the example with Josiah’s reform shows, the turning points in history are a significant area where radical revision of the older text can potentially take place. They are often connected to ideological shifts as the ideological continuity is challenged by large changes in its environment. If the environment changed fundamentally, the ideology was forced to adapt to the new circumstances. In addition to the destruction of the temple and monarchy in 586 bce, one should also mention, for example, the rebuilding of Jerusalem, the return of exiles to Judah, the reestablishment of the temple, the collapse of major powers (such as the Persian Empire and the empire of Alexander the Great), the establishment of the Hasmonean dynasty and the conquest of Palestine by Rome. The changes in environment that they brought about would potentially occasion broader changes in ideologies. The assumption that omissions are possible does not mean that one could now reconstruct the redactional strata of the Hebrew scriptures more easily. In fact, the opposite may be the case, for the additional procedures create additional uncertainties for the reconstructions, especially when one sees ideological shifts taking place between redactions. If omissions and rewritings took place in a stratum, uncertainties about the earlier strata grow significantly. One has to be very cautious in reconstructing the older text if omissions are suspected in a literary stratum. An analysis where each word of the older text is ascribed to a certain literary stratum becomes a very risky, if not impossible, undertaking. At most, one could talk about broader developments and general theological tendencies of the older text. Nevertheless, the modification should also bring the reconstructions closer to the actual development of the text. Using the conventional methodology without assuming any omissions, one will certainly create a more precise reconstruction and will be able to say to which stratum each word belongs, but their reliability is less certain than that of those reconstructions that take omissions and rewritings into consideration. Nevertheless, it needs to be stressed that any reconstruction of the texts remains an abstraction that should be used cautiously. We have also seen that some offensive conceptions have been censored by redactors. In many cases, the MT was originally censored, but because it was regarded as more authoritative, its secondary readings later influenced other witnesses through recensions. This creates additional complications for the reconstruction of the development of the Hebrew scriptures, but in view of ample documented evidence it is difficult to see how one could get around this. It further undermines reconstructions of Israel’s history that emphasize continuity. If we can find some evidence of censoring in the text-critical data, which mostly bears witness to changes at a relatively late stage in the development of the texts, there is reason to suspect that censoring was even more common in the earlier transmission. There is ample evidence from different parts of the Hebrew

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

383

Literary Criticism

scriptures that religious conceptions of monarchic times have been gradually erased from the texts. The texts were corrected to be more in line with the conceptions of emerging Judaism. This certainly warrants a systematic investigation to see if the vestiges provide a broader picture about the religion of ancient Israel. Since the sources are otherwise limited, the additional information that these vestiges could provide is certainly a very welcome addition. Their importance for understanding some religious phenomena can be crucial. In the course of this investigation, which has an entirely different focus, we have encountered many vestiges of ancient conceptions. As examples, one should mention the identification of Yhwh with the Sun-god, a syncretistic cult where Yhwh was worshipped alongside Baal, the worship of Yhwh’s image in Shiloh and the centrality of Yhwh’s face in the cult of this divinity. There is certainly much more significant information that awaits discovery. When the axiom that all was preserved is abandoned, the full significance of this evidence may finally come to the fore. Clearly, literary criticism as a method is largely toothless to reconstruct the text of the omissions by censoring if they are not documented by text-critical evidence. This is especially the case if the omissions are isolated and not part of a redaction that also made expansions. We may detect some inconsistencies after an omission, such as those left by the omission in 2 Kgs 10:23 discussed above. Similarly, the omissions in 1 Sam 1 – 2 often left inconsistencies in the edited text. In undocumented cases, the inconsistencies may be used to conjecture what was left out, but this remains a tentative undertaking. For example, if only the MTof 1 Sam 1:24 – 25 had been preserved, one would still certainly suspect that the text has been edited. The MT leaves the plural of v. 25 unexplained and the expression LFD LFD8 could hardly be seen as original: 24

9N@B6 LM4? 8BF 98@FN9 8M@M A=LH5 C== @5D9 ;BK N;4 8H=49 9@M 898=.N=5 9845N9 LFD LFD89 25 LH8.N4 9ü;M=9 =@F.@4 LFD8.N4 94=5=9

24

When she had weaned him, she took him up with her, with a three-year-old bull, an ephah of flour and a jar of wine. And she brought him to the temple of Yhwh at Shiloh; and the child was young. 25 Then they slaughtered the bull, and they brought the child to Eli.

If the preconceptions of the later texts are left aside, one could also suspect that since Hanna brings the bull to the temple, she would probably be the one who slaughters the bull. This suspicion would be strengthened by the unexpected plural verb ü;M=9 in v. 25. One would certainly not be able to reconstruct the older text, but the text would still provide clues that something may be missing and also provide enough evidence to suggest what could have been changed. Although one walks on thin ice by trying to penetrate texts where something is

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

384

Conclusions

missing, it is also evident that the preserved revised texts do not provide a correct picture of the events but favor later conceptions. In the case of 1 Sam 1:24 – 25 the older idea that women could also enter the temple and sacrifice there has been diluted in the MT. The toolbox of the editor behind the change included omissions, which then should have repercussions on the further analysis of the text if we can connect this editor with a broader redactional layer of the book.

Summary This investigation has sought to examine the basis of the methodological axiom in literary criticism that nothing was omitted in the transmission of the Hebrew scriptures. Documented evidence from parts of these texts was analyzed for this purpose. It has become evident that the axiom is not only poorly anchored in documented evidence, but it clearly contradicts changes that can be observed in many texts. The later editors not only expanded the older texts but also made more radical changes to them. The latter poses a serious challenge to conventional literary criticism. The evidence has also shown that radical changes were not made all the time. Much of the transmission of the Hebrew scriptures accords with the conventional assumption that the editors only made expansions and preserved the older text. This is seen in some of the documented evidence where nearly all the changes are expansions, other changes being small in number and significance. The Masoretic text of Jeremiah in comparison with the older LXX version is a representative example of the typical development in the Hebrew scriptures. It is fair to assume that this type of conservative transmission forms the main bulk of the overall development of most texts of the Hebrew scriptures. The older text was challenged and omitted only at some stages in the textual development. These stages may not have been common, but with the transmission of texts through centuries, their probability is high. Potentially, all texts of the Hebrew scriptures have undergone radical revisions at some stage in their history. Such radical revisions took place when the environment of transmission was changed sufficiently to occasion an ideological paradigm shift. Accordingly, most of the radical revisions affected theological and ideological conceptions of the older text, whereas much of the more neutral older text could be left untouched. Turning points in history as well as other fundamental changes in the environment of transmission would have been very likely potential stages for ideological paradigm shifts. The evolution of the texts should be divided into two clearly distinguishable and alternating stages where different processes were at work. The more con-

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

385

Summary

servative and gradual development through expansions took place most of the time before the texts were frozen to all change in the first centuries of the Common Era. The conservative development was punctuated by periods of more radical changes that included omissions and rewritings. The development by alternation of different process has similarities with punctuated equilibrium and punctuated gradualism, theories of natural evolution that assume that the most radical and significant developments in evolution take place in short and limited periods. The radical changes of texts have to be taken into account when reconstructing the literary development of the Hebrew scriptures. This means that conventional literary criticism needs to identify ideological paradigm shifts taking place between redactional layers, and this is connected to an analysis of the redactor’s method of editing. One needs to determine whether the toolbox of the editor included merely expansions or were omissions and rewritings also in the range of his possibilities. If it becomes probable that omissions and rewritings took place, the older layers should be reconstructed accordingly and with great caution. These additional considerations mean that the reconstruction of the older text becomes more tentative and hypothetical than when only expansions are suspected. When countless redactional layers are reconstructed, the reconstruction should, at most, be seen as an abstraction of the text’s development. The uncertainties of the reconstructions should be acknowledged much more than has been done thus far in the methodology. Despite these further complications for an already complicated methodology, literary criticism should not be abandoned, because there are no alternatives if the Hebrew scriptures are to be used as sources for any scientific purpose. The observations made in this investigation also question the high level of continuity that can be observed in reconstructions of the history and religion of ancient Israel as well as of Judaism. This is not to say that there would not be continuity, but it has to be acknowledged that conventional approaches tend to favor theories that emphasize continuity. This is, in part, contingent on the axiom that the society was so conservative that everything ancient was respected and preserved. We have seen this assumption at the core of the literary critical methodology. Documented evidence suggests that the continuity of tradition was challenged in times of significant change, although later editors made several attempts to suggest otherwise. It was in their interest to emphasize continuity with the past and thus older conceptions were taken out of the texts if they conflicted with conceptions that had later become orthodox. Despite the warning of Deuteronomy 13:1 not to omit anything, ideological concerns often took precedence and God’s word was nevertheless omitted.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Bibliography

Achenbach, Reinhard, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot: Literarkritische Untersuchungen zu Deuteronomium 5 – 11 (EHS.T 422; Franfurt am Main et al.: P. Lang, 1991). —, Vollendung der Tora: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Numeribuch im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 2003). Ackroyd, Peter R., I & II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah (Torah Bible Paperbacks; London: SCM Press, 1973). Adam, Gottfried, Kaiser, Otto and Kümmel, Werner Georg, Einführung in die exegetischen Methoden (München: Kaiser Verlag, 1975). Aejmelaeus, Anneli, “‘Nebuchadnezzar, My Servant’ Redaction History and Textual Development in Jer 27,” in Interpreting Translation. Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust (ed. G. Martinez and M. Vervenne; BETL 192; Leuven, 2005), 1 – 18. —, “David’s Three Choices: Textual and Literary Development in 2 Samuel 24,” in Changes in Scripture (ed. H. von Weissenberg et alii; BZAW 419; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2011), 137 – 151. —, “Hannah’s Psalm: Text, Composition, and Redaction,” in Houses Full of All Good Things: Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola (ed. J. Pakkala and M. Nissinen; PFES 95; Helsinki and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 354 – 376. —, “License to Kill? Deut 13:10 and the Prerequisites of Textual Criticism,” in Verbum et Calamus: Semitic and Related Studies in Honour of the Sixtieth Birthday of Professor Tapani Harviainen (ed. H. Juusola, J. Laulainen and H. Palva; Studia Orientalia 99; Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society, 2004), 1 – 22. —, “What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint,” in On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays (CBET 50; Leuven et al.: Peeters, 2007), 71 – 106. Albright, William F., From Stone Age to Christianity (Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1946). Alexander, Philip S., “The Redaction History of Serech ha-Yahad: A Proposal,” RevQ 17 (1996): 437 – 457. Anderson, Robert T., “Samaritans,” in ABD 5: 940 – 947. Arneth¸, Martin, “Literarkritik der Bibel,” Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart 5 (2001): 389 – 390.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

388

Bibliography

—, “Sonne der Gerechtigkeit” Studien zur Solarisierung der Jahwe-Religion im Lichte von Ps 72 (BZAR 1; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000). Baden, Joel, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch (FAT 68; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). Baentsch, Bruno, Das Heiligkeits-Gesetz Lev XVII – XXVI: (Erfurt: Hugo Günther, 1893). —, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri (HKAT 1.2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903). Barth, Hermann and Steck, Odil Hannes, Exegese des Alten Testaments: Leifaden der Methodik (8th ed.; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978). Barth¦lemy, Dominique, Critique textuelle de l’Ancient Testament (OBO 50/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982). Barton, John, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study (2nd ed.; London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1996). Becker, Uwe, Exegese des Alten Testaments (UTB 2664; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). Beentjes, Pancratius C., Tradition and Transformation in the Book of Chronicles (SSN 52; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008). Beer, Georg and Galling, Kurt, Exodus (HAT I/3 Tübingen: Mohr & Siebeck 1939). Ben Zvi, Ehud, “Shifting the Gaze: Historiographic Constraints in Chronicles and Their Implications,” The Land that I Will Show You: Essays on the History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honor of J. Maxwell Miller (ed. P. Graham and A. Dearman; JSOTSup 343: Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 38 – 60. —, A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Obadiah (BZAW 242; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1996). —, A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Zephania (BZAW 198; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1991). —, History, Literature and Theology in the Book of Chronicles (London and Oakville: Equinox, 2006). Benzinger, Immanuel, Bücher der Chronik, X – XV (KHAT 20; Tübingen: Mohr, 1901). —, Bücher der Könige (KHC IX; Freiburg i.B.: J.C.B. Mohr, 1899), 59; John Gray, I & II Kings (OTL; London: SCM Press, 1964). Berry, George Ricker, “The Code Found in the Temple,” JBL 39 (1920): 44 – 51. —, “The Date of Deuteronomy,” JBL 59 (1940): 133 – 139. Bertholet, Alfred, Deuteronomium (KHAT V; Freiburg/Leipzig/Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1899). Bickerman, Elias J., “Notes on the Greek Book of Esther,” AAJR 20 (1951): 101 – 133. Bogaert, Pierre Maurice, “Les trios r¦dactions conserv¦s et la forme originale de l’envoi du Cantique du Mose (Dt 32,43),” in Das Deuteronomium (ed. N. Lohfink; BETL; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1985), 329 – 340. Böhler, Dieter, Die Heilige Stadt in Esdras a und Esra-Nehemia: Zwei Konzeptionen zur Wiederherstellung Israels (OBO 158; Freiburg and Göttingen: Universitätsverlag and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997). Braulik, Georg, “Weitere Beobachtungen zur Beziehung zwischen dem Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronominium 19 – 25,” in Das Deuteronomium und seine Querbeziehungen (ed. Timo Veijola; PFES 62; Helsinki and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprech, 1996), 23 – 55. Brooke, Alan E. and McLean, Norman, and Thackeray, Henry St John, 1 – 2 Kings: The Old

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

389

Bibliography

Testament in Greek according to the Text of Codex Vaticanus (2/2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1930). Brooke, George J., “Between Authority and Canon: The Significance of Reworking the Bible for Understanding the Canonical Process,” in Reworking the Bible: Apocrypha and Related texts at Qumran (ed. E. Chazon; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005), 85 – 104. —, “Exegetical Strategies in Jubilees 1 – 2,” in Studies in the Book of Jubilees (ed. M. Albani et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 39 – 57. —, “The Books of Chronicles and the Scrolls from Qumran,” in Reflection and Refraction (ed. R. Rezetko et al., VTS 113; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 35 – 48. —, “The Rewritten Law, Prophets and Psalms: Issues for Understanding the Text of the Bible,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judean Desert Discoveries (ed. E. Herbert and E. Tov ; London: British Library, 2002), 31 – 40. —, “The Temple Scroll: A Law Unto Itself ?,” in Law and Religion: Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity (ed. B. Lindars, Cambridge: James Clarke, 1988), 36 – 40. Budde, Karl, “Dtn 13 10, und was daran hängt,” ZAW 36 (1916): 187 – 197. —, Die Biblische Urgeschichte (Giessen: J. Ricker’sche Buchhandlung, 1883). —, Die Bücher Samuel (KHKAT 8; Tübingen and Leipzig: J.C.B. Mohr, 1902). —, Geschichte Der Althebräischen Litteratur (Leipzig: Amelangs Verlag, 1909). Burgon, John William, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (London: George Bell and Sons, 1896). Burney, Charles F., Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903). Carpenter, Joseph Estlin and Harford-Battersby, Georg, The Hexateuch according to the Revised Version (London: Longmans, 1900). Carr, David M., “Torah on the Heart: Literary Jewish Textuality Within Its Ancient Near Eastern Context,” Oral Tradition 25/1 (2010): 17 – 40. —, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2011). —, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). Carroll, Robert P., Jeremiah. A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986). Cazelles, Henri, “Note sur la composition du rouleau d’Esther,” Studies in the Book of Esther (ed. C. Moore; New York: KTAV Publishing, 1982). Charles, Robert H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913). Cholewinski, Alfred, Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium: Eine verleichende Studie (AnBib 66; Pontificio Istituto Biblico: Rome, 1976). Clines, David, The Esther Scroll: The Story of the Story (JSOTSup 30; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984). Cogan, Mordechai and Tadmor, Hayim, II Kings (Anchor Bible 11; sine loco: Doubleday & Company, 1988). Cogan, Mordechai, “The Chronicler’s Use of Chronology as Illuminated by Neo-Assyrian Royal Inscriptions,” in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (ed. J. Tigay ; Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

390

Bibliography

Crawford, Sidnie W., Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008). —, The Temple Scroll and Related Texts (Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000). Curtis, Edward L., Books of Chronicles (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910). Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species (London: John Murray, 1859). de Moor, Johannes Cornelis, An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit (Nisaba 16; Leiden: Brill Archive, 1987). De Troyer, Kristin, Rewriting the Sacred Text (Text-Critical Studies 4; Leiden: Brill, 2004). —, The End of the Alpha Text: Translation and Narrative Technique in MT 8:1 – 17, LXX 8:11 – 17, and AT 7:7 – 41 (Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000). De Vries, Simon, 1 and 2 Chronicles (FOTL XI; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans,1989). de Wette, Wilhelm Martin Leberecht, Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Vol. I; Halle 1806). —, Lehrbuch der historisch krisitschen Einleitung in die Bibel Alten und Neuen Testaments (7th ed. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1852). —, A Critical and Historical Introduction to the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament (Vol 1; Translated and enlarged Theodore Parker ; 2nd ed.; Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1850). —, Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Schimmelpfennig: Halle, 1806). Debel, Hans, “Rewritten Bible, Variant Literary Editions and Original Text(s),” in Changes in Scripture (ed. H. von Weissenberg et alii; BZAW 419; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2011), 65 – 91. deSilva, David A., Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Contexts and Significance (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2002). Dion, Paul, “Deuteronomy 13: The Suppression of Alien Religious Propaganda in Israel during the Late Monarchical Era,” in Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel (ed. B. Halpern and D.W. Hobson; JSOTS 124; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 147 – 206. Driver, Samuel R., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (3rded. ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973). —, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1895). —, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (9th ed. 1913, Edinburgh: T & T Clark). —, Notes of the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913). Duhm, Bernhard, Das Buch Jeremia (KHCAT; Tübingen and Leipzig: J.C.B. Mohr, 1901). Duncan, Julie Ann, “4QDeutj (Pl. XX – XXII),” in Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (ed. Ulrich et al. DJD 14; Leiden & Boston: Brill, 1995), 75 – 92. Ehrlich, Arnold B., Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel. Textkritisches, Sprachliches und Sachliches, IV Jesaja, Jeremia (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1912). Ehrlich, Carl S., “Carites,” ABD I: 872. Ehrman, Bart D., The Orthodox Corruption Of Scripture: The Effect Of Early Christological Controversies On The Text Of The New Testament (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

391

Bibliography

—, Whose Word Is It? The Story Behind Who Changed the New Testament and Why (London and New York: Continuum, 2006). Eichhorn, Johann Gottfried, Introduction to the Study of the Old Testament (A Fragment Translated by G. Gollop, sine loco, 1888; original 1823). Eissfeldt, Otto, “Der Text von I Sam 3, 21 im Lichte der literarischen Analyse von c. 1 – 7,” AfO VI (1930): 17 – 19. Eldredge, Niles and Gould, Stephen Jay, “Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism” in Models in Paleobiology (ed. by T. Schopf; San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper & Co, 1972), 82 – 115. Elmslie, W.A.L., “The First and Second Books of Chronicles” The Interpreter’s Bible vol III (New York and Nashville: Abington Press, 1954). Engnell, Ivan, “Methodological Aspects of Old Testament Study,” Congress Volume: Oxford 1959 (VTS; Leiden: Brill, 1960), 13 – 30. Eskenazi, Tamara Cohn, In an Age of Prose. A Literary Approach to Ezra-Nehemiah (SBLMS 36; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988). Falk, Daniel K., The Parabiblical Texts: Strategies for Extending the Scriptures among the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York, N.J.: T& T Clark, 2007). Fern‚ndez Marcos, Natalio, Scribes & Translators: Septuagint & Old Latin in the Books of Kings (VTSup 54; Leiden et al.: Brill, 1994). Fishbane, Michael, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985). Fohrer, Georg et al., Exegese des Alten Testaments: Einführung in die Methodik (5th ed.; UTB 267; Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1989). —, Geschichte Israels (UTB 708; Heidelberg: Quelle & Myers, 1977). Fortey, Richard A., “Gradualism and Punctuated Equilibria as Competing and Complementary Theories,” Special Papers in Palaeontology 33 (1985): 17 – 28. Fox, Michael V., “Redaction of the Greek Alpha-Text of Esther,” in Sha’arei Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran and the Ancient Near East (ed. M. Fishbane and E. Tov ; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992). —, The Redaction of the Books of Esther : On Reading Composite Texts (SBL Monograph 40; Atlanta, G.: Scholars Press, 1991). Fried, Lisbeth S., ed., Was 1 Esdras First? (SBLAIL 7; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011). Galling, Kurt, Die Bücher der Chronik (ATD 12; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954). Garc†a Mart†nez, Florentino, “Rethinking the Bible: Sixty Tears of Dead Sea Scrolls Research and Beyond,” in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (ed. Mladen Popovic´ ; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010), 19 – 36. —, “Beyond the Sectarian Divide: The Voice of the ‘Teacher’ as an Authority-Conferring Strategy in Some Qumran Texts,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts (ed. Sarianna Metso et al.: Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010). —, “Temple Scroll,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000): 927 – 933. George, Andrew R., The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

392

Bibliography

Gerstenberger, Erhard S., Leviticus: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville and London: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996). Gertz, Jan Christian, “Die Passa-Massot-Ordnung,” in Das Deuteronomium und seine Querbeziehungen (PFES 62; ed. T. Veijola; Helsinki and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 73 – 80. —, Die Gerichtsorganization Israels im deuteronomischen Gesetz (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994). —, Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung: Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch (Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000). Gibson, John, “The Mythological Texts,” in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (ed. N. Wyatt; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 1999), 195 – 202. GonÅalves, Francolino J., L’expÀdition de Sennach¦rib en Palestine dans la litt¦rature h¦braque ancienne (Êb 7; Paris: Gabalda, 1986). Görg, Manfred, Richter (Neue Echter-Bibel AT 3; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1993). Gould, Stephen Jay, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” Natural History 86 (1977): 22 – 30. —, Punctuated Equilibrium (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007). —, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2002). Graf, Karl Heinrich, “Die sogenannte Grundschrift des Pentateuch,” Archiv für wissenschaftliche Erforschung des Alten Testaments 1 (1869): 466 – 77. Gray, John, I & II Kings (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963). Greenspoon, Leonard and Crawford, Sidnie White (ed.) The Book of Esther in Modern Research (London: Continuum, 2009). Gressmann, Hugo, “Die Aufgaben der alttestamentlichen Forschung,” ZAW 42 (1924): 1 – 33. Grünwaldt, Klaus, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17 – 26: Ursprüngliche Gestalt, Tradition und Theologie (BZAW 271; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1999). Gunneweg, Antonius H.J., Esra (KAT; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1985). Halbe, Jörn, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes: Ex 34, 10 – 26: Gestalt und Wesen, Herkunft und Wirken in vordeuteronomischer Zeit (FRLANT 114; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975). Hartenstein, Friedhelm, “Sonnengott und Wettergott,” in “Mein Haus wird ein Bethaus für alle Völker genannt werden” (Jes 56,7) (ed. J. Männchen and T. Reiprich; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2007). Hayes, John H. and Holladay, Carl R., Biblical Exegesis: A Beginner’s Handbook (London: SCM Press, 1983). Heinisch, Paul, Das Buch Exodus (Die heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments I/2, Hanstein, 1934). Hentschel, Georg, 2 Könige (Neue Echter Bibel; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1985). Hobbs, T.R., 2 Kings (Word Biblical Commentary ; Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1985). Holladay, William L., Jeremiah 2. A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 26–52 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989). Hölscher, Gustav, “Komposition und Ursprung des Deuteronomiums,” ZAW 40 (1922): 161 – 255.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

393

Bibliography

Holzinger, Heinrich, Exodus (KHAT 2 Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Siebeck], 1900). —, Numeri (KHAT 4; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck] 1903). Houtman, Cornelis, Exodus (HCOT; Leuven: Peeters,1996). Hugo, Philippe, “L’arch¦ologie textuelle du Temple de J¦rusalem. Êtude textuelle et litt¦raire du motif th¦ologique du Temple en 2 Samuel,” in Archaeology of the Books of Samuel. The Entangling of the Textual and Literary History (ed. P. Hugo and A. Schenker ; VTSup 132; Brill, 2010), 161 – 212. —, “Text and Literary History : The Case of 1 Kgs 19 (MTand LXX),” in Soundings in Kings. Perspective and Methods in Contemporary Scholarship (ed. K.-P. Adam and M. Leuchter ; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 2010), 15 – 34, 156 – 165. —, “The Jerusalem Temple seen in Second Samuel according to the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint,” XIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Ljubljana, 2007. —, “L’arch¦ologie textuelle du Temple de J¦rusalem: Êtude textuelle et litt¦raire du motif th¦ologique du Temple en 2 Samuel,” in Archaeology of the Books of Samuel: The Entangling of the Textual and Literary History, 161 – 212. —, Les deux visages d’Êlie: Texte massor¦tique et Septante dans l’histoire la plus ancienne de 1 Rois 17 – 18 (OBO 217; Fribourg and Göttingen: Academic Press and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006). Hutzli, Jürg, “Mögliche Retuschen am Davidbild in der masoretischen Fassung der Samuelbücher,” in David und Saul im Widerstreit —, Diachrone und Synchrone im Wettstreit: Beiträge zur Auslegung des ersten Samuelbuches (ed. W. Dietrich, OBO 206; Fribourg and Göttingen: Fribourg University Press and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 102 – 115. —, “Theologische Textänderungen im masoretischen Text und in der Septuaginta von 1 – 2 Sam,” in Archaeology of the Books of Samuel, 223 – 224. —, Die Erzählung von Hanna und Samuel (ATHANT 89; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2007). Janowski, Berndt, “JHWH und der Sonnengott: Aspekte der Solarisierung JHWHs in vorexilischer Zeit,” in Die rettende Gerechtigkeit (BTAT 2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999). Janzen, J. Gerald, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah (HSM 6; Cambridge, Mass: 1973). Japhet, Sara, I & II Chronicles (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993). —, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Though (revised edition; BEATAJ 9; P. Lang: Frankfurt am Main et alii, 1997). Johnstone, Williams, “Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy in Pentateuchal Studies, with Special Reference to the Sinai Pericope in Exodus,” ZAW 99/1(1987): 16 – 37. Jones, Douglas R., Jeremiah (The New Century Bible Commentary ; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992). Jones, Gwilym H., Chronicles (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993). —, 1 and 2 Kings (NCBC; vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984). Joosten, Jan, “A Note on the Text of Deuteronomy xxxii 8*,” VT 57 (2007): 548 – 555. Kaiser, Otto, Grundriss der Einleitung: in die kanonischen und deuterokanonischen Schriften des Alten Testament: Band I: Die erzählenden Werke (München: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1992).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

394

Bibliography

Kalimi, Isaac, An Ancient Israelite Historian: Studies in the Chronicler, His Time, Place and Writing (SSN 46; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005). —, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles (Winona Lakes, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005). —, Zur Geschichtsschreibung des Chronisten (BZAW 226; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995). Kasari, Petri, Nathan’s Promise in 2 Samuel and Related Texts (PFES 97; Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 2009). Kaufman, Stephen A., “The Temple Scroll and Higher Criticism,” HUCA 53 (1982): 29 – 43. Kaufmann, Yehezkel, The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960). Kauhanen, Tuukka, The Proto-Lucianic Problem in 1 Samuel (PhD Dissertation at the University of Helsinki; Helsinki, 2011). Keel, Othmar and Uehlinger, Christoph, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998). Keel, Othmar, “Der Salomonische Tempelweihspruch: Beobachtungen zum religionsgeschichtlichen Kontext des Ersten Jerusalemer Tempels,” in Gottesstadt und Gottesgarten (QD 191; ed. O. Keel and E. Zenger ; Freiburg i. Br., 2002), 269 – 306. —, “Sturmgott—Sonnengott—Einziger : Ein neuer Versuch, die Entstehung des judäischen Monotheismus historisch zu verstehen,” in Bibel und Kirche 49/1 (1994): 82 – 92. —, Die Geschichte Jerusalems (Orte und Landschaften der Bibel; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007). Keil, Carl Friedrich, Chronik, Esra, Nehemia, Esther (BK, Leipzig: Dörffling u. Franke, 1870). Kennett, Robert Hatch, “The Date of Deuteronomy,” JTS 7 (1906): 481 – 500. Kieser, J.A. and Groeneveld, H.T., “Threshold Model for Punctuated Gradualism,” Medical Hypotheses 17 (1985): 219 – 225. Kim, Jong-Hoon, Die hebräischen und griechischen Textformed der Samuel- und Königbücher. Studien zu Textgeschichte ausgehend von 2Sam 15,1 – 19,9 (BZAW 394; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2009). Kittel, Rudolf, Die Bücher der Könige (HAT; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900). Klein, Anja, Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ez 34 – 39 (BZAW, 391; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2008). Klein, Ralph W., 1 Chronicles (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2006). —, Studies in the Greek Texts of the Chronicler (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966). —, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: From the Septuagint to Qumran (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1974). Klement, Herbert H., “Text-Recycling assyrisch und biblisch: Zur fälligen Kritik der Literarkritik,” Jahrbuch für Evangelikale Theologie 9 (1995): 7 – 20. Klostermann, August, Die Bücher Samuelis und der Könige (Nördlingen: C.H. Beck‘sche Buchhandlung, 1887). Knauf, Ernst Axel, Josua (ZBKAT 6; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2008). Knobel, August, Die Genesis (KHAT; Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1860). Koch, Christoph, Vertrag, Treueid und Bund: Studien zur Rezeption des altorientolischen Vertrgsrechts im Deuteronomium und zur Ausbildung der Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (BZAW 383; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2008).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

395

Bibliography

Köckert, Matthias, “Von einem zum einzigen Gott,” BTZ 15/2 (1998): 167 – 168. Koehler, Ludwig & Baumgartner, Walter, Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament (New York and Köln: Brill, 1967/1974/1983/1996). Kratz, Reinhard Gregor, Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments: Grundwissen der Bibelkritik (UTB 2157; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000). —, “Redaktionsgeschichte/Redaktionskritik I Altes Testament,” in TRE 28: 367 – 378. —, “The Growth of the Old Testament,” in The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies (ed. J. Rogerson and J. Lieu; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 459 – 488. Kraus, Hans-Joachim, Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments (3rd ed.; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982). Kreutzer, Siegfried, “Towards the Old Greek: New Criteria for the Analysis of the Recensions of the Septuagint (Especially the Antiochene/Lucianic Text and Kaige Recension),” in XIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Ljubljana, 2007 (ed. Melvin K.H. Peters; SBLSCS 55; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008), 243 – 257. —, “8. Redaktionskritik,” in Proseminar I Altes Testament: Ein Arbeitsbuch (ed. S. Kreuzer et al.; Stuttgart et al.; Kohlhammer, 1999), 95 – 102. Kreuzer, Siegfried et al., ed., Proseminar I Altes Testament: Ein Arbeitsbuch (Stuttgart et al.: Kohlhammer, 1999). Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 19963). Kutter, Juliane, nu¯r ilı¯. Die Sonnengottheiten in den nordwestsemitischen Religionen von der Spätbronzezeit bis zur vorrömischen Zeit (AOAT 346; Münster : Ugarit Verlag, 2008). Lange, Armin, “The Status of Biblical Texts in the Qumran Corpus and the Canonical Process,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judean Desert Discoveries (ed. E. Herbert and E. Tov ; London: British Library and Oak Knoll Press, 2002), 21 – 30. Lemche, Niels Peter, The Old Testament between Theology and History (Louisville, Ky. and London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008). Levin, Christoph, “Das Deuteronomium und der Jahwist,” in Fortschreibungen. Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (BZAW 316; Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2003). —, “Das synchronistische Exzerpt aus den Annalen der Könige von Israel und Juda,” VT 61 (2011): 616 – 628. —, “Die Frömmigkeit der Könige von Israel und Juda,” in Houses Full of All Good Things (ed. J. Pakkala and M. Nissinen; Helsinki and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 129 – 168. —, “Die Redaktion RJP in der Urgeschichte,” in Auf dem Weg zur Endgestalt von Genesis bis II Regum (BZAW 370; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2006), 15 – 34. —, Der Jahvist (FRLANT 157; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993). —, Der Sturz der Konigin Atalja (SBS 105; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk,1982). —, Fortschreibungen: Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (BZAW 316; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003). —, The Old Testament: A Brief Introduction (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2005). —, Verheißung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt (FRLANT 137; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

396

Bibliography

Levinson, Bernard M., “‘But You Shall Surely Kill Him!’ The Text-Critical and Neo-Assyrian Evidence for MT Deuteronomy 13:10,” in Bundesdokument und Gesetz, (ed. G. Braulik; HBS 4 Freiburg, 1995), 37 – 63. —, “The human voice in divine revelation: The problem of authority in Biblical law,” in Innovation in Religious Traditions (ed. M. Williams et al.; Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1992), 35 – 71. —, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1997). Liddell, Henry and Scott, Robert, A Greek English Lexicon (9th ed.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968). Loretz, Oswald and Kottsieper, Ingo, Colometry in Ugaritic and Biblical Poetry : Introduction, Illustrations and Topical Bibliography (UBL 5; Altenberge: CIS-Verlag, 1987). Loretz, Oswald, Die Psalmen II. Beitrag der Ugarit-Texte zum Verständnis von Kolometrie und Textologie der Psalmen: Psalem 90 – 150 (AOAT 207/2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979). MacDonald, Nathan, “Issues in the Dating of Deuteronomy : A Response to Juha Pakkala,” in ZAW 122/3 (2010): 431 – 435. Magen, Itzhaq, “Mount Gerizim,” NEAEHL 3:484 – 492. Maier, Johann, The Temple Scroll (JSOTS 34; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985). Malmgren, Björn A., Berggren, William A. and Lohmann, G.P., “Evidence for Punctuated Gradualism in the Late Neogene Globorotalia Tumida Lineage of Planktonic Foraminifera,” Geo Science World 9/3 (1983): 377 – 389. Mayer, Günter, “Midrasch/Midraschim,” TRE XXII: 734 – 744; Gary Porton, “Midrash,” ABD IV: 818 – 822. Mayes, Andrew D.H., Deuteronomy (NCBC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1981). McCarter, Kyle P., II Samuel (AB 9; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1984). —, Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press), 57 – 61. McConville, Gordon, “Faces of Exile in Old Testament Historiography,” in Israel’s Past in Present Research: Essays on Ancient Israelite Historiography (ed. V.P. Long; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 519 – 34. McKane, William, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah: Commentary on Jeremiah 1 – 25 (ICC; T & T Clark: Edinburgh, 1986). —, Jeremiah (ICC; Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1996), l–liii. McKenzie, Steven L., “Chronicler as Redactor,” The Chronicler as Author (ed. Matt Patrick Graham & Steven L. McKenzie; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999). —, 1 – 2 Chronicles (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 2004). —, The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History (HSM 33; Scholars Press: Atlanta, Ga., 1984). Meinhold, Arndt, Das Buch Esther (ZBKAT 16.1; Theologischer Verlag Zürich: Zürich,1983). Metso, Sarianna, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule (STDJ XXI; Leiden: Brill, 1997). Meurer, Thomas, Einführung in die Methoden alttestamentlicher Exegese (Theologische Arbeitsbücher ; Münster : Lit Verlag, 1999).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

397

Bibliography

Migne, Jacques Paul, Patrologiae Latine Cursus Completus 50 (Patrologiae Latinae Tomus L; Paris, 1865). Milstein, Sara J., “Reworking Ancient Texts: Revision through Introduction in Biblical and Mesopotamian Literature” (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 2010). Minokami, Yoshikazu, Die Revolution des Jehu (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989). —, Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010). Mommer, Peter, Samuel: Geschichte und Überlieferung (WMANT 65; Neukirchen: Neukirchner Verlag, 1991). Montgomery, James Alan, The Book of Kings (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951). Moore, George F., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1901). Mosis, Rudolph, Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes (FTS 92; Freiburg: Herder, 1973). Moulton, Warren Joseph, “Über die Überlieferung und den Textkritischen Werth des dritten Esrabuchs,” ZAW 19 (1899): 209 – 258. Mowinckel, Sigmund, Studien zu dem Buche Ezra-Nehemia I: Die nachchronistische Redaktion des Buches, Die Listen (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1964). Müller, Reinhard, Königtum und Gottesherrschaft: Untersuchungen zur alttestamentlichen Monarchiekritik (FAT II 3; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004). Myers, Jacob M., II Chronicles (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965). —, The Book of Judges (Interpreter’s Bible vol. II; New York and Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1953). Najman, Hindy, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism (JSJS 77; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003). Nelson, Richard D., Deuteronomy : A Commentary (OTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002). Niehr, Herbert, “In Search of YHWH’s Cult Image in the First Temple,” in The Image and the Book: Iconic cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East (ed. K. van der Toorn; CEBT; Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 73 – 95. Nihan, Christophe, “The Holiness Code between D and P: Some Comments on the Function and Significance of Leviticus 17 – 26 in the Composition of the Pentateuch,” in Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (ed. E. Otto and R. Achenbach; FRLANT 206; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 81 – 122. Nöldeke, Theodore, Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alten Testaments (Kiel: Schwers’sche Buchhandlung, 1869). Noth, Martin, The Chronicler’s History (JSOTS 50; Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield, 1987). —, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (Halle: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1943). —, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien I (Tübingen: Niemayer, 1957). Nötscher, Friedrich, „Das Angesicht Gottes Schauen“ nach biblischer und babylonischer Auffassung (2nd edition; Darmstadt: WBG, 1969).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

398

Bibliography

Nowack, Wilhelm, Richter, Ruth und Bücher Samuelis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902). —, Esra und Nehemia (HAT 20; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1949). —, Jeremia (HAT 12; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1968). —, Chronikbücher (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1955). Otto, Susanne, Jehu, Elia und Elisa (BWANT 152; Stuttgart et al.: Kohlhammer, 2001). Paganini, Simone, “Nich darfst du zu diesen Wörtern etwas hinzufügen” Die Rezeption des Deuteronomiums in der Tempelrolle: Sprache, Autoren, Hermeneutik (BZAR 11; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009). —, “Nichts darfst Du zu diesen Wörtern etwas hinzufügen”: Die Rezeption des Deuteronomiums in der Tempelrolle: Sprache, Autoren, Hermeneutik (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009). Pakkala, Juha, “The Date of the Earliest Edition of Deuteronomy,” ZAW 121/3 (2009): 388 – 401. —, “The Dating of Deuteronomy : A Response to Nathan MacDonald,” in ZAW 123/3 (2011): 431 – 436. —, “Why First Esdras is Probably not an Early Version of the Ezra-Nehemiah Tradition,” in Was 1 Esdras First? (ed. L. Fried; SBLAIL 7; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 93 – 107. —, “Why the Cult Reforms in Judah Probably Did not Happen,” in One God—One Cult— One Nation. Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives (ed. R. Kratz and H. Spieckermann; BZAW 405; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2010), 201 – 235. —, “Yhwh, the Sun-god, Wants a New Temple: Theological Corrections in 1 Kgs 8:12 – 13/ 3Reg 8:53a,” in FS Anneli Aejmelaeus (ed. M. Law and M. Liljeström and K. De Troyer; Leuven: Peeters; forthcoming in 2013). —, “Zedekiah’s Fate and the Dynastic Succession,” JBL 125 (2006): 443–452. —, Ezra the Scribe: the Development of Ezra 7 – 10 and Nehemiah 8 (BZAW 347; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004). —, Intolerant Monolatry in the Deuteronomistic History (PFES 76; Helsinki and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999). — ¸ “Jeroboam without Bulls,” ZAW 120 (2008): 501 – 525. Parpola, Simo and Watanabe, Kazuko (ed.), Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths (SAA 2; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press). Paton, Lewis Bayles, The Book of Esther (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1908). Peltonen, Kai, “Function, Explanation and Literary Phenomena: Aspects of Source Criticism as Theory and Method in the History of Chronicles Research,” The Chronicler as Author : Studies in Text and Texture (ed. M. Graham & S. McKenzie; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 18 – 69. Perlitt, Lothar, Die Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (WMANT 36; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969). Peters, Norbert, Beiträge zur Text- und Literarkritik sowie zur Erklärung der Bücher Samuel (Freiburg i.B., 1899). Pisano, Stephen, Additions or Omissions in the Books of Samuel: the Significant Pluses and Minuses in the Massoretic, LXX and Qumran Texts (OBO 57; Freiburg and Göttingen: : Universitätsverlag and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984). Popovic´, Mladen, “Introducing Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism,” in Author-

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

399

Bibliography

itative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (ed. Mladen Popovic´ ; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010) 1 – 17. Provan, Ian, 1 and 2 Kings (Peabody : Hendrickson Publishers, 1995). Puukko, Antti F., Das Deuteronomium: eine literarkritische Untersuchung (BWAT 5; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1910). Reventlow, Henning, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz formgeschichtlich untersucht (WMANT 6; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961). Rezetko, Robert, Source and Revision in the Narratives of David’s Transfer of the Ark: Text, Language, and Story in 2 Samuel 6 and 1 Chronicles 13, 15 – 16 (Library of Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament Studies 470; New York and London: T & T Clark, 2007). Robert, Ulysses, Heptateuchi partis posterioris versio latina antiquissima e codice Lugdunensi (Lyon: A. Rey et cie, 1900). Robinson, Joseph, The Second Book of Kings (Cambridge et alii: Cambridge University Press, 1976). Rogerson, John, Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century: England and Germany (London and Sheffield: SPCK and Continuum, 1984). Rösel, Martin, “Salomo und die Sonne: Zur Rekonstruktion des Tempelweihspruchs 1 Reg 8, 12 f.,” ZAW 121/3 (2009): 402 – 417. Roth, Martha T., Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (2nd ed. SBL Writings from the Ancient World 6; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1997). Rudnig, Thilo Alexander, Heilig und Profan: Redaktionskritische Studien zu Ez. 40 – 48 (BZAW 287; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2000). Schenker, Adrian, “Altar oder Altarmodell? Textgeschichte von Jos 22,9 – 34,” in Florilegium Lovaniense (ed. H. Ausloos et al., BETL 224; Leuven, 2008), 417 – 425. —, “Textverderbnis und literarische Umgestaltung,” in in Archaeology of the Books of Samuel: The Entangling of the Textual and Literary History (ed. P. Hugo and A. Schenker ; VTsup 132; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010), 237 – 26. —, “The Ark as Sign of God’s Absent Presence in Solomon’s Temple: 1 Kings 8:6 – 8 in the Hebrew and Greek Bibles,” in What Is It That Scripture Says? (ed. P. McCosker ; Library of N.T. Studies 316; London, 2006), 1 – 9. —, “The Relationship between Ezra-Nehemiah and 1 Esdras,” in Was 1 Esdras First? (ed. L. Fried; SBLAIL 7; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011). —, “The Septuagint in the Text History of 1 – 2 Kings,” in The Book of Kings: Sources, Composition Historiography and Reception (ed. A. Lemaire and B. Halpern; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010), 3 – 17. —, Älteste Textgeschichte der Königsbücher : Die hebräische Vorlage der ursprünglichen Septuaginta als älteste Textform der Königsbücher (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004). —, Anfänge der Textgeschichte des Alten Testaments: Studien zu Entstehung und Verhältnis der frühesten Textformen (BWANT 10/14; Kohlhammer, 2011). —, Septante et texte massor¦tique dans l’histoire la plus ancienne du texte de 1Rois 2 – 14 (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 48; Paris: J. Cabalda et Cie Êditeurs, 2000). —, The Septuagint in the Text History of 1 – 2 Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography and Reception (VTSup 129; Leiden: Brill, 2010). Schiffman, Lawrence H., “The Deuteronomic Paraphrase of the Temple Scroll,” RevQ 15 (1992): 543 – 568.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

400

Bibliography

Schmid, Konrad, “Das Deuteronomium innerhalb der „deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke“ in Gen–2 Kön,” in Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (ed. E. Otto and R. Achenbach, Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 193 – 211. Schmidt, Ludwig, “Literarkritik I Altes Testament,” TRE 21: 211 – 222. Schniedewind, William M., “Notes and Observations Textual Criticism and Theological Interpretation: The Pro-Temple Tendenz in the Greek Text of Samuel-Kings,” HTR 87 (1994): 107 – 116. Schultz, Alfons, Die Bücher Samuel übersetz und erklärt (EHAT 8; Münster : Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1919). Schwartz, Baruch, “What Really Happened at Mount Sinai? Four Biblical Answers to One Question,” BR 13/5 (1997): 20 – 30, 46, Schwarz, Eberhard, Identität durch Abgrenzung: Abgrenzungsprozesse in Israel im 2. vorchristlichen Jahrhundert und ihre traditionsgeschichtlichen Voraussetzungen – Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Erforschung des Jubiläenbuches (Europäische Hochschulschriften 23, vol. 162; Frankfurt and Bern: Peter Lang, 1982). Schwiderski, Dirk, Handbuch des nordwestsemitischen Briefformulars: Ein Beitrag zur Echtheitsfrage der aramäischen Briefe des Esrabuches (BZAW 295; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2000). Schwienhorst-Schönberger, Ludger, Das Bundesbuch: Ex 20, 22 – 23, 33 (BZAW 188; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990). Segal, Michael, The Book of Jubilees Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology (JSJS 117; Leiden: Brill, 2007). Seitz, Gottfried, Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Deuteronomium (BWANT 93; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1971). Shaver, Judson R., Torah and the Chronicler’s history work: an inquiry into the Chronicler’s references to laws, festivals, and cultic institutions in relationship to Pentateuchal legislation (BJS 196; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1989). Shoulson, Mark E., The Torah: Jewish and Samaritan versions compared (Cathair na Mart/ Westport: Evertype, 2008). Ska, Jean-Louis, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006). —, The Exegesis of the Pentateuch (FAT 66; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). Skehan, Patrick W. and Ulrich, Eugene, “4QDeutq,” in Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (ed. Ulrich et al. DJD 14; Leiden & Boston: Brill, 1995), 137 – 142. Skehan, Patrick W., “A Fragment of the ‘Song of Moses’ (Deut 32) From Qumran,” in BASOR 136 (1954): 12 – 15. Smith, Henry P., Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Books of Samuel (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1902). Smith, Morton, Palestinian Parties and Politics That Shaped the Old Testament (New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1971). Smith, William Robertson, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church: A Course of Lectures on Biblical Criticism (2nd ed.; London: Adam and Charles Black, 1908). Soggin, Alberto, Judges (OTL; Westminster John Knox Press: Louisville, Ky., 1981). Sollamo, Raija, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint (AASF Diss. Hum. Lit 19; Helsinki, 1979).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

401

Bibliography

Stackert, Jeffrey, Rewriting the Torah: literary revision in Deuteronomy and the holiness legislation (FAT 52; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007). Stade, Bernhard and Schwally, Friedrich, The Book of Kings. Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text (SBOT 9; London, 1904). Stade, Bernhard, “Miscellen. 10. Anmerkungen zu 2 Kö. 10 – 14,” ZAW 5 (1885): 275 – 297. Staerk, Willy, “Zur alttestamentlichen Literarkritik. Grundsätzliches und Methodisches,” ZAW 42 (1924): 34 – 74. Steck, Odil Hannes, “Bewahrheitungen des Prophetenworts. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Skizze zu 1.Könige 22,1 – 38,” in “Wenn nicht jetzt, wann dann?”: Aufsätze für HansJoachim Kraus (ed. H.-G. Geyer; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983), 87 – 96. —, Exegese des Alten Testaments:Leifaden der Methodik (12th ed.; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989). Stegemann, Hartmut, “The Literary Composition of the Temple Scroll,” in Temple Scroll Studies (ed. G. Brooke; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 123 – 148. Steins, Georg, “Die Bücher der Chronik,” in Einleitung in das Alte Testament (ed. Erich Zenger et alii, 5th ed.; Kohlhammer : Stuttgart, 2004), 313 – 331. —, Die Chronik als kanonisches Abschlussphänomen: Studien zur Entstehung and Theologie von 1 / 2 Chronik (Bonner biblische Beiträge 93, Beltz: Athenäum Verlag, 1995). Steuernagel, Carl, Das Deuteronomium (Göttinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923). —, Deuteronomium und Josua: und allgemeine Einleitung in den Hexateuch (GHAT 1/3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900). —, Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament: mit einem Anhang über die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr Siebeck, 1912). Steymans, Hans Ulrich, Deuteronomium 28 und die AdÞ zur Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons: Segen und Fluch im Alten Orient und Israel (OBO 145; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996). Stipp, Hermann-Josef, “Zedekiah in the Book of Jeremiah: On the Formation of a Biblical Character,” CBQ 58 (1996): 632 – 638. Surhone, Lambert M. et alii (ed.), Punctuated Gradualism: Microevolution, Allele Frequency, Species, Hypothesis, Phyletic Gradualism, Speciation, Uniformitarianism, Evolution (sine loco: Betascript Publishing, 2010). Swanson, Dwight D., The Temple Scroll and the Bible (STDJ 14; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 1994). Sweeney Marvin, I & II Kings (OTL; Louisville, Ky. and London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007). Talshir, Zipora, “Ancient Composition Patterns Mirrored in 1 Esdras and the Priority of the Canonical Composition Type,” in Was 1 Esdras First? (ed. L. Fried; SBLAIL 7; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 109 – 143. —, “Ezra-Nehemiah and First Esdras: Diagnosis of a Relationship between Two Recensions,” Biblica 81 (2000): 565 – 573. —, I Esdras: A Text Critical Commentary (SBLSCS 50; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001). —, I Esdras: From Origin to Translation (SBLSCS 47; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1999). —, The Alternative Story : 3 Kingdoms 12:24 A–Z (Jerusalem Biblical Studies; Jerusalem: Simor Ltd., 1993).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

402

Bibliography

Tertel, Hans Jürgen, Text and Transmission: An Empirical Model for the Literary Development of Old Testament Narratives (BZAW 221; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1994). Thiel, Winfried, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1 – 25 (WMANT 41; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973). —, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26 – 45 (WMANT 52; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981). Tigay, Jeffrey H., “An Empirical Basis for the Documentary Hypothesis,” JBL 94 (1975): 329 – 342. —, Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985). —, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982). Tigchelaar, Eibert, “Aramaic Texts from Qumran and the Authoritativeness of Hebrew Scriptures: Preliminary Observations,” Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (ed. Mladen Popovic´ ; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010), 155 – 171. Torrey, Charles Cutler, “The Chronicler as Editor and as Independent Narrator,” AJSL 25/3 (1909): 188 – 217. —, “The Older Book of Esther,” HTR 37/1 (1944): 1 – 40. —, Ezra Studies (KTAV Publishing House: New York, 1970). Tov, Emanuel, “Apocryphal Sections of Esther : A Rewritten Biblical Book,” Textus 10 (1982): 1 – 25. —, “Some Aspects of the Textual and Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah,” in Le Livre de J¦r¦mie (ed. P.-M. Bogaert; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997), 145 – 167. —, “The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of Its Textual History,” in Empirical Models (ed. J. Tigay ; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 213 – 237. —, Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1992). Trebolle Barrera, Julio, “Light from 4QJudga and 4QKgs on the Text of Judges and Kings,” in Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (ed. D. Dimant and U. Rappaport; STDJ 10; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 315 – 324. —, “The Text Critical Value of the Old Latin and Antiochean Greek Texts in the Books of Judges and Joshua,” in Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in honour of Johan Lust (ed. F. Garc†a Mart†nez and M. Vervenne; BETL 192; Leuven, 2005), 401 – 413. —, Centena in Libros Samuelis et Regum: Variantes textuales y composiciûn literaria en los libros de Samuel y Reyes (Madrid: Consejo superior de investigaciones cient†ficas instituto de fililog†a, 1989). —, Jehffl y Jo‚s : texto y composiciûn literaria de 2 Reyes 9 – 11 (Valencia: Instituciûn San Jerûnimo, 1984). —, Salomûn y Jeroboan: Historia de la recensiûn y redaccciûn de 1 Reyes, 2 – 12, 14 (Bibl. Salamanticensis, Dissertationes no. 3; Salamanca: Universidad Pontificia, 1980). —, The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History of the Bible (trans. Wilfred G. Watson; Leiden: Brill, 1998). —, “Authoritative Scripture as Reflected in the Textual Transmission of the Biblical Books:

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

403

Bibliography

The Case of 1 Kings 3 – 10,” in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (ed. Mladen Popovic´ ; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010), 93 – 116. —, “Textual Criticism and the Composition History of Samuel: Connections between Pericopes in 1 Samuel 1 – 4,” in Archaeology of the Books of Samuel: The Entangling of the Textual and Literary History (ed. P. Hugo and A. Schenker ; VTsup 132; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010), 261 – 285. Tsumura, David Toshio, The First Book of Samuel (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007). Ulrich, Eugene, “The Evolutionary Production and Transmission of the Scriptural Books,” in Changes in Scripture (ed. H. von Weissenberg et alii; BZAW 419; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2011), 47 – 64. —, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (HSM 19; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1978). Utzschneider, Helmut and Nitsche, Stefan Ark, Arbeitsbuch literaturwissenschaftliche Bibelauslegung: Eine Methodenlehre zur Exegese des Alten Testaments (Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser/Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001). van der Kooij, Arie, “Authoritative Scriptures and Scribal Culture,” in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (ed. Mladen Popovic´ ; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010), 55 – 71. —, “The Ending of the Song of Moses: On the Pre-Masoretic Version of Deut. 32:43,” in Studies in Deuteronomy (ed. Garc†a Mart†nez et al.; VTSupp 53; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 93 – 100, and Nelson, Deuteronomy, 379 – 380. van der Toorn, Karel, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press, 2007). van Keulen, Percy S.F., Two Versions of the Solomon Narrative: An Inquiry into the Relationship between MT 1 Kgs. 2 – 11 and LXX 3 Reg. 2 – 11 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005). Van Ruiten, Jacques, Primaeval History Interpreted: The Rewriting of Genesis 1 – 11 in the Book of Jubilees (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2000). Van Seters, John, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006). VanderKam, James C. and Milik, Jûzef T., “Jubilees,” in Qumran Cave 4:VIII Parabiblical Texts, Part I (DJD 13; Oxford, 1994), 1 – 185. VanderKam, James C., “Book of Jubilees,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000): 434 – 438. —, “Moses Trumping Moses: Making the Book of Jubilees,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts (STDJ 92; ed. S. Metso et alii; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010), 27 – 44. —, “Literary Questions between Ezra, Nehemiah, and 1 Esdras,” in Was 1 Esdras First? (ed. L. Fried; SBLAIL 7; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 131 – 143. —, “The Origins and Purposes of the Book of Jubilees,” in Studies in the Book of Jubilees (ed. M. Albani et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 3 – 24. —, The Book of Jubilees (CSCO 511, Scriptores Aethiopici 88; Leuven: Peeters, 1989). —, The Book of Jubilees (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001). Veijola, Timo, “Die Propheten und das Alter des Sabbathgebots,” in Moses Erben: Studien zum Dekalog, zum Deuteronismus und zum Schriftgelehrtentum (BWANT 149; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000), 61 – 75.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

404

Bibliography

—, Das 5. Buch Mose: Deuteronomium. Kapitel 1,1 – 16,17 (ATD 8,1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004). Vercellone, Carolus, Variae Lectiones Vulgatae Latinae Bibliorum Editionis, vol. II (Rome, 1864). Vieweger, Dieter, “4. Literarkritik,” Proseminar I Altes Testament: Ein Arbeitsbuch (ed. S. Kreuzer et al. Stuttgart et al. Kohlhammer, 1999), 55 – 65. von Rad, Gerhard, Deuteronomy : A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press, 1966). Braulik, Georg, Deuteronomium: Kap.1 – 16, 17 (Die Neue Echter Bibel; Würzburg, Echter Verlag, 1986). Wacholder, Ben Zion, The Dawn of Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and the Teacher of Righteousness (Cincinnati, Ohio: Hebrew Union College Press, 1983). Waltke, Bruce K., “Samaritan Pentateuch,” ABD 5 (1992): 932 – 940. Weissenberg, Hanne von et al. (ed.), Changes in Scripture (ed. H. von Weissenberg et al., BZAW 419; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2011). Wellhausen, Julius, Der Text der Bücher Samuelis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1871). —, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der Historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (Berlin: Reimer, 1899). —, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1885). —, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (3d ed.; Berlin: Georg Reimer, 18953). Werlitz, Jürgen, Die Bücher der Könige (NSK AT; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002). Wilcke, Hans-Alwin, Das Arbeiten mit alttestamentlichen Texten: Eine Einführung in die exegetischen Methoden (Essen: Die Blaue Eule, 1985). Willi, Thomas, Die Chronik als Auslegung: Untersuchung zur literarischen Gestaltung der historischen Überlieferung Israels (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972). Williamson, Hugh G.M., 1 and 2 Chronicles (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982). Wilson, Andrew M. and Wills, Lawrence, “Literary Sources of the Temple Scroll,” HTR 75 (1982): 275 – 88. Wise, Michael, A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11 (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 49 (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1990). Wonneberger, Reinhard, Redaktion: Studien zur Textfortschreibung im Alten Testament, entwickelt am Beispiel der Samuel-Überlieferung (FRLANT 156; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991). Wright, David P., Inventing God’s Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). Wright, Jacob L., “Remember Nehemiah: 1 Esdras and the Damnatio Memoriae Nehemiae,” in Was 1 Esdras First? (ed. L. Fried; SBLAIL 7; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 145 – 163. —, Rebuilding Identity : The Nehemiah Memoir and its Earliest Readers (BZAW 348; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2004). Würthwein, Ernst, Die Bücher der Könige 1 Kön. 1 – 16 (ATD 11,1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985). —, Die Bücher der Könige 1. Kön. 17 – 2. Kön. 25 (ATD 11,2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen,1984).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

405

Bibliography

—, Der Text des Alten Testaments: Eine Einfürung in die Biblia Hebraica (5th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsch Bibelgesellschaft, 1988). Yadin, Yigael, The Temple Scroll (3 vols; Jerusalem: Israel Exporation Society, 1983). Zahn, Molly M., “New Voices, Ancient Words: The Temple Scroll’s Reuse of the Bible,” in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel (ed. J. Day ; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2005), 436 – 458. —, “Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology,” in Changes in Scripture (ed. H. von Weissenberg et al., BZAW 419; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2011), 93 – 119. —, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts (STDJ 95; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2011), 198 – 204. Zertal, Adam, “Mount Ebal,” NEAEHL 2:375 – 377.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Index of Authors

Achenbach, Reinhard 17, 135, 146 Ackroyd, Peter R. 255, 269 Aejmelaeus, Anneli 14, 41, 42, 86, 103, 108, 109, 184, 201, 206, 224, 233, 245, 246, 250, 357 Albright, William F. 25 Alexander, Philip S. 49 Anderson, Robert T. 99 Arneth¸ Martin 24, 226 Baden, Joel 69, 70, Baentsch, Bruno 134, 150 Barth, Hermann 21 Barth¦lemy, Dominique 202, 202, 218, 222 Barton, John 25 Baumgartner, Walter 114, 130, 330 Becker, Uwe 20, 22, 47, 70, 73, 89, 179 Beentjes, Pancratius C. 83, 153, 256, 258, Beer, Georg 146 Ben Zvi, Ehud 66, 254, 258, 285, 292, 378 Benzinger, Immanuel 184, 224, 225, 239, 244, 253 Berggren, William A. 371 Berry, George Ricker 125 Bertholet, Alfred 99, 129, 186, 190, 192, 194 Bickerman, Elias J. 30 Bogaert, Pierre Maurice 37, 187, 189 Böhler, Dieter 295, 299, 304, 305, 306 Braulik, Georg 118, 135, 245 Brooke, Alan E. 235, 243, 374 Brooke, George J. 13, 53, 72, 82, 160, 167, 179

Budde, Karl 32, 184, 201, 202, 204 – 207, 209, 210, 211, 216, 218, 220, 222, 233, 246, 248, 253 Burgon, John William 44, 45, 46, 251, 358 Burney, Charles F. 242, Carr, David M. 68 – 72, 152, 377 Carroll, Robert P. 104, 109 – 110, 115 Cazelles, Henri 322 Charles, Robert H. 158 Cholewinski, Alfred 134 Clines, David 319 – 322, 327, 343, 344 Cogan, Mordechai 29, 375 Crawford, Sidnie W. 49, 53, 157, 159, 167, 170, 174, 179, 320 Curtis, Edward L. 257, 270, 282, 286 – 287 Darwin, Charles 33, 270 de Moor, Johannes Cornelis 210 De Troyer, Kristin 41, 224, 319 – 321, 327, 331, 335, 337 De Vries, Simon 256 de Wette, Wilhelm Martin Leberecht 26 – 28, 31, 261 deSilva, David A. 319 – 320 Dion, Paul 233, 246 Driver, Samuel R. 29, 99, 118, 119, 186, 190, 192, 194, 202, 207, 210, 211, 294 Duhm, Bernhard 104, 109 Duncan, Julie Ann 186 – 187 Ehrlich, Arnold B. 114 Ehrlich, Carl S. 273

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

408

Index of Authors

Ehrman, Bart D. 45, 251, 358 Eichhorn, Johann Gottfried 25 – 26 Eissfeldt, Otto 24 Eldredge, Niles 370 Elmslie, W.A.L. 294 Engnell, Ivan 66 Eskenazi, Tamara Cohn 378 Estlin, Joseph 29 Falk, Daniel K. 49 Fern‚ndez Marcos, Natalio 228 – 229 Fishbane, Michael 33, 35, 321 Fohrer, Georg 23, 70 Fortey, Richard A. 371 Fox, Michael V. 30, 41, 44, 320 – 321, 340, 343, 345, 347, 349 Fried, Lisbeth S. 295, 302, 303, 355, Galling, Kurt 146, 261 Garc†a Mart†nez, Florentino 42, 78, 85, 168, 187 George, Andrew R. 54, 56 Gerstenberger, Erhard S. 141 Gertz, Jan Christian 17, 131 – 132, 136 Gibson, John 210 GonÅalves, Francolino J. 242 Görg, Manfred 200 Gould, Stephen Jay 370 – 371 Graf, Karl Heinrich 32 Gray, John 224, 226, 235, 244, 375, 377, 378 Greenspoon, Leonard 320 Gressmann, Hugo 34 Groeneveld, H.T. 371 Grünwaldt, Klaus 135, 139, 141, 142, 147 Gunneweg, Antonius H.J. 314 Halbe, Jörn 145 Hartenstein, Friedhelm 226 Hayes, John H. 25 Heinisch, Paul 145 Hentschel, Georg 375 Hobbs, T.R. 374 Holladay, Carl R. 25 Holladay, William L. 114 Hölscher, Gustav 125 Holzinger, Heinrich 147, 150, 194

Houtman, Cornelis 145 Hugo, Philippe 41, 44, 184, 207, 214, 218, 220, 222, 248, 249, 252, 357 – 358 Hutzli, Jürg 40 – 41, 184, 201 – 204, 206, 208 – 209, 211 – 213, 248 Janowski, Berndt 226 Janzen, J. Gerald 104 Japhet, Sara 265 – 267, 270 – 271, 275 – 276, 278 Johnstone, Williams 29 Jones, Douglas R. 115 Jones, Gwilym H. 19, 224, 235, 289, 290, 375 Joosten, Jan 186 Kaiser, Otto 24, 125, Kalimi, Isaac 256, 257, 259 – 260, 289 Kasari, Petri 39, 224 Kaufman, Stephen A. 25, 52, 167 Kaufmann, Yehezkel 118 Kauhanen, Tuukka 200 Keel, Othmar 226 – 228, 230 Keil, Carl Friedrich 256, 259, 268 – 269 Kennett, Robert Hatch 125 Kieser, J.A. 317 Kim, Jong-Hoon 91 Kittel, Rudolf 375 Klein, Anja 36, 293, 296 Klein, Ralph W. 39 Klement, Herbert H. 59, 61 Klostermann, August 184, 201 – 202, 220, 248 Knauf, Ernst Axel 99, 197 Knobel, August 31 Koch, Christoph 123 Köckert, Matthias 146 Koehler, Ludwig 114, 130, 330 Kottsieper, Ingo 227, 230 Kratz, Reinhard Gregor 21, 22, 125 Kraus, Hans-Joachim 31, 32, 38 Kreutzer, Siegfried 184 Kuhn, Thomas S. 363 Kutter, Juliane 226, 230 Lange, Armin 82

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

409

Index of Authors

Lemche, Niels Peter 66 – 67, 378 Levin, Christoph 18 – 22, 27, 32, 62, 68, 73, 89, 98, 119, 135, 269, 375 Levinson, Bernard M. 12, 84, 89, 118 – 119, 121, 123, 133, 146, 149, 245 – 248 Lohmann, G.P. 371 Loretz, Oswald 227, 230 MacDonald, Nathan 125 Magen, Itzhaq 100 Maier, Johann 175 – 176 Malmgren, Björn A. 371 Mayer, Günter 256 Mayes, Andrew D.H. 126, 129, 132, 186, 189 McCarter, Kyle P. 36, 212 McConville, Gordon 59 McKane, William 12, 103 – 104, 109 – 110 McKenzie, Steven L. 255 – 256, 260, 273, 282, 284, 289, McLean, Norman 235, 243, 374 Metso, Sarianna 48 – 49, 157 Meurer, Thomas 24, 39 Migne, Jacques Paul 232 Milik, Jûzef T. 160 Milstein, Sara J. 58, 60 Minokami, Yoshikazu 373 – 375 Mommer, Peter 201 Montgomery, James Alan 235, 239, 240, 244, 374 Moore, George F. 199, 200, 322 Mosis, Rudolph 31, 293 Moulton, Warren Joseph 296 Mowinckel, Sigmund 314 Müller, Reinhard 39 Myers, Jacob M. 199, 265, 269, 282 Najman, Hindy 49, 121 – 123, 135 Nelson, Richard D. 99, 122, 146, 186, 187 Niehr, Herbert 195 Nihan, Christophe 135, 137 Nitsche, Stefan Ark 22, 70 Nöldeke, Theodore 69 Noth, Martin 88, 89, 221, 257, 259 Nötscher, Friedrich 194 Nowack, Wilhelm 220

Otto, Susanne 375 – 376 Paganini, Simone 51, 167 – 168 Pakkala, Juha 11, 39, 76, 83, 114, 121, 125, 151, 224, 233, 243, 296, 302, 306, 310 – 314, 325, 355, 367, 379 – 381 Parpola, Simo 246 Paton, Lewis Bayles 321, 325, 343, 344 Peltonen, Kai 255 Perlitt, Lothar 146 Peters, Norbert 41 Pisano, Stephen 41, 202 – 203, 207 – 208 Popovic´, Mladen 74, 85 Provan, Ian 235, 375 Puukko, Antti F. 118, 126, 129, 136 Reventlow, Henning 135 Rezetko, Robert 223 – 224 Robert, Ulysses 100 Robinson, Joseph 375 Rogerson, John 28, 31, 33 Rösel, Martin 224 Roth, Martha T. 76, 120 Rudnig, Thilo Alexander 39 Schenker, Adrian 41 – 44, 87, 184, 190, 207, 226, 229, 235, 248, 250, 252, 295, 357, 358, 377 Schiffman, Lawrence H. 176 Schmid, Konrad 17 Schmidt, Ludwig 21, 22, 38 Schniedewind, William M. 219 Schultz, Alfons 203, 207 – 208 Schwally, Friedrich 375 Schwartz, Baruch 69 Schwarz, Eberhard 166 Schwiderski, Dirk 76 Schwienhorst-Schönberger, Ludger 120 – 121 Segal, Michael 49, 156 – 157 Seitz, Gottfried 246 Shaver, Judson R. 83 Shoulson, Mark E. 93 Ska, Jean-Louis 15 – 19, 21 – 22, 25, 57, 77 – 78, 121, 126, 139, 352 Skehan, Patrick W. 187, 189 – 190

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

410

Index of Authors

Smith, Henry P. 184, 203 – 204, 208, 211, 216, 218, 220, 222 Smith, Morton 30 Smith, William Robertson 29 Soggin, Alberto 199 Sollamo, Raija 198 Stackert, Jeffrey 121 – 122, 133, 135 – 136 Stade, Bernhard 375 Staerk, Willy 34 Steck, Odil Hannes 21, 38, 70 Stegemann, Hartmut 167 – 168 Steins, Georg 257, 261, 290, 293 Steuernagel, Carl 16, 23, 99, 104, 119, 122, 150, 190, 225, 257, 259 – 261, 266, 270, 282, 343 Steymans, Hans Ulrich 123 Stipp, Hermann-Josef 115, 163 Surhone, Lambert M. 371 Swanson, Dwight D. 171, 175 Sweeney, Marvin 226, 377 – 378 Tadmor, Hayim 375 Talshir, Zipora 296 – 300, 302, 304, 306, 308 – 310, 312 – 315 Tertel, Hans Jürgen 59 – 62 Thackeray, Henry St John 235, 243, 374 Thiel, Winfried 110, 115 Tigay, Jeffrey H. 24, 29, 54 – 58, 93, 103 Tigchelaar, Eibert 84 Torrey, Charles Cutler 51 – 52, 259, 274, 282 – 283, 320 Tov, Emanuel 36 – 37, 53, 82, 103, 179, 321, 327 Trebolle Barrera, Julio 40 – 42, 97, 184, 190, 207, 223 – 224, 228, 232, 235, 237, 242 – 243, 248, 251, 319, 377 Tsumura, David Toshio 202 Uehlinger, Christoph 230

Ulrich, Eugene 47 – 48, 73 – 74, 90, 187, 189 – 190, 223, 351, 373 Utzschneider, Helmut 22, 70 van der Kooij, Arie 77, 187 van der Toorn, Karel 35 – 36, 195 van Keulen, Percy S.F. 347 Van Ruiten, Jacques 160 – 161, 163, 166 Van Seters, John 63 – 66 VanderKam, James C. 155, 157, 159 – 161, 164, 166, 301 – 302 Veijola, Timo 11, 37 – 39, 70, 135 – 136, 138, 147, 149, 206, 290, 361 Vercellone, Carolus 229 Vieweger, Dieter 22 von Rad, Gerhard 118, 122, 129, 132 Wacholder, Ben Zion 168 Waltke, Bruce K. 94, 97, 101 Watanabe, Kazuko 246 Wellhausen, Julius 27 – 29, 32, 51, 64, 118, 121, 200, 203, 211, 228 – 229, 253, 257 Werlitz, Jürgen 226, 235, 375 Wilcke, Hans-Alwin 24, 39 Willi, Thomas 255, 257 – 259, 269, 273, 288 Williamson, Hugh G.M. 269, 276 – 277, 293 Wills, Lawrence 168, 170 Wilson, Andrew M. 168, 170 Wise, Michael 170 Wright, David P. 122 Wright, Jacob L. 39, 303, 306, 314 Würthwein, Ernst 37 – 38, 224, 226, 290, 374 – 376 Yadin, Yigael 167, 171, 175, 179 Zahn, Molly M. 13, 167 – 168, 172 – 174 Zertal, Adam 100

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

Index of Ancient Sources Hebrew Bible

Genesis 1 – 2 159 – 161, 168 1:26 – 27 160 – 161 2:2 161, 165 2:2 – 3 157 4 162 – 163 4:17 162 – 163 4:25 162 4:18 – 24 163 18 101 18:1 – 2 101 18:13 101 18:17 101 18:20 101 18:22 36, 101 24:1 – 9 164 26:34 164 28:1 164 28:10 – 22 78 28:13 101 30:36 93 31:11 – 13 93 31:53 101 32:23 – 33 78, 79 32:31 191, 194, 217 32:30 209 50:23 96 Exodus 12:8 173 15:17 230 20:4 198 20:6 326

20:17 93, 99, 100 20:22 – 23:33 119 – 121 20:22 – 26 120 20:24 97 – 98 21 – 23 118 21:1 120 21:2 – 7 126, 133 21:8 – 11 125 21:12 – 17 126, 133 21:18 – 22 124 – 125, 132 21:23 – 24 128 21:25 128 21:25 – 36 125, 132 22:15 129 – 130 22:15 – 16 129 – 130 22:20 – 23 126 – 127 22:20 – 26 126, 133 22:24 126, 128 22:28 – 29 126, 133 22:30 126, 133 23 119 – 120, 145 23:1 – 6 126, 133 23:1 – 8 132 23:6 – 8 131 – 132 23:8 132 23:9 133 23:14 – 18 145 23:14 – 19 71 23:15 145 – 151, 153, 193, 359, 361 23:15 – 18 145 – 151 23:17 191 – 195, 217 23:18 145 – 151, 153, 359, 361 23:19 122

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

412

Index of Ancient Sources

24:9 – 11 191, 195 – 196, 250 30:11 – 16 286 30:14 174 33:20 – 23 191, 194 34:11 – 26 145 34:18 145, 146, 151, 153, 359 34:21 – 24 191 34:23 192 34:25 145, 146, 151, 153 38:25 286 38:26 174 Leviticus 16 206 17 – 26 77, 134 – 145 17:1 – 4 95 – 97 18 – 19 144 19:9 139 19:19 137 19:20 – 22 137 19:28 175 20:8 326 20:22 326 21 144 21:5 175 21:6 175 21:8 175 21:17 175 21:22 175 22 144 22:25 175 23 135 – 136, 141, 170 23:5 – 8 145 – 153, 172, 174, 359 – 361 23:6 151 23:9 – 14 140 23:15 – 21 139 – 141 23:16 – 20 141 23:17 – 18 141 23:21 141, 143 23:34 – 36 141 – 143, 149 23:35 – 36 143 23:36 143 24:20 128 26:31 98

Numbers 12:7 – 8 191 12:15 93 14 – 15 171 14:10 171 14:19 174 14:40 – 45 94 – 95 15:4 – 7 171 22:20 101, 352 23:5 101 23:16 101 26:2 174 26:4 174 28 151 – 154 28 – 29 170 – 171 28:9 – 13 171, 173 28:14 171 28:16 – 25 151 – 154, 172 – 174, 357, 359 – 361 28:19 – 24 172 28:20 – 21 173 28:20 – 23 173 28:23 – 24 173 28:24 173 29:1 – 6 171 32:11 174 Deuteronomy 1:19 – 46 69, 70 1:20 – 23 93 1:42 – 45 94 4:2 11, 61, 144 4:15 – 16 191, 194 5:1 – 4 38 5:8 198, 208 5:18 93, 99 – 100 5:23 – 27 191 7:3 164 7:5 197 7:26 231 9 70 9 – 10 39, 154 10:18 127 11:29 – 30 99 12 119, 133 12:1 326

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

413

Index of Ancient Sources

12:2 – 7 197 12:3 211 13 123 13:1 11 – 13, 61, 69, 144, 169 – 170 13:2 – 6 177 – 178 13:3 178 13:5 178 13:7 – 12 245 13:10 233, 245 – 248, 251 13:10 – 11 245 – 248 14:1 175 14:1 – 2 175 14:3 – 21 138 14:21 122, 129 14:29 127 15:2 326 16 149, 173 – 174 16:1 – 7 129 16:1 – 8 145 – 149, 153, 174, 359 – 361 16:7 173 – 174 16:8 136, 149 16:9 – 12 139 – 141 16:11 127 16:13 – 16 142 – 143 16:14 127 16:16 149, 174, 191 – 195, 209, 217 16:18 – 19 129, 131 – 132 16:21 197 17:2 – 5 156, 176, 177 17:3 155 17:5 176 17:6 248 18:16 191 19:4 326 19:21 128 22:1 – 4 129 22:9 – 11 137 22:9 – 29 137 22:23 – 27 130 22:25 – 27 130 22:28 – 29 129 – 130 23:1 215 23:20 – 21 126, 128 24:17 – 22 126 24:19 – 21 139 25:11 96

26:1 – 2 129 26:1 – 11 141 26:12 – 13 127 27:2 – 7 93 27:4 26, 99 – 100, 197 27:12 – 13 99 28 123 31:11 191 32:8 – 9 96, 185 – 187, 189, 190 32:43 187 – 191 Joshua 1:5 36 1:11 36 2:5 36 2:9 36 8:30 – 35 99 10:13 225 24:1 197, 198 24:25 197 24:26 98, 197 – 199 24:32 197 Judges 6:24 98 9:6 217 21:1 – 4 98 First Samuel 1:3 98 1 – 2 200 – 210, 251, 383 1:9 201 – 204 1:14 201 – 204 1:24 – 25 204 – 207, 383 1:25 250 1:28 207 2:11 207 – 210 2:18 209 2:31 24 2:36 209 3:1 208 3:11 24 3:21 24 4 – 5 211 4 – 6 194 4:7 194

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

414

Index of Ancient Sources

7:6 210 – 211 7:17 98 8 217 10:5 98 16:1 – 13 98 20:6 98 21:1 – 10 98 Second Samuel 1:18 225 2 – 4 36 2:31 251 3:8 251 3:13 194 5:8 214 – 215, 220 5:8 – 9 220 5:9 215 5:21 211 – 212 5:24 212 – 213 6:3 – 4 224 6:4 251 6:6 – 7 222 – 224 7 219, 229, 276 7:5 – 16 215 7:11 215 – 217 7:14 217 7:15 216 – 217, 219 7:16 217 – 219 11:22 41 12:20 213, 229 14:28 194 14:32 194 14:33 41 15:8 221 – 222 15:13 – 31 219 15:25 219 – 221 18:20 251 19:43 41 21:6 – 9 98 22:7 229 24:25 220 First Kings 3:4 98 5 – 8 213 – 214, 216, 218, 220 5:3 213, 222

8:6 220 8:12 – 13 224 – 231, 233 8:39 230 8:43 230 8:49 230 9:25 194 11 – 12 87 12 – 14 347 14 87 14:1 – 18 41 16:28 262 16:32 231 – 234, 243 18:30 – 35 248 18:36 101 18:38 – 39 248 22:40 – 51 262 22:51 262 – 265 Second Kings 8 39, 266 – 268 8 – 12 260 8:10 267 8:16 – 24 262 – 269 8:17 – 22 79 8:18 39, 266 8:20 262 8:21 262 8:23 – 24 267 – 268 8:24 39 – 40, 268 9 – 10 373 – 377 10:18 – 28 376 10:23 234 – 235, 237, 250, 373, 376 – 377, 383 10:24 – 25 237 11 238, 269 – 270, 288 11:2 270 – 271 11:3 272 11:4 238, 258, 272 – 276, 279 11:5 – 8 277 – 278 11:6 – 8 238 11:9 279 11:12 238 11:12 – 13 237 – 239 11:17 275 11:18 279 – 280 12 80, 280 – 288, 293

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

415

Index of Ancient Sources

12:2 284 12:3 284 12:5 – 6 286 12:10 239 – 241 12:18 – 19 286 12:19 285 12:20 286 14:11 – 14 79 16:15 173 16:19 77 17:24 243 17:30 – 32 243 18:34 241 – 243 20:20 17 21:25 77 23:4 234 23:11 243 23:13 231 23:24 231 23:28 19, 77 24:12 – 17 114 24:18 – 25:7 113 – 114 25 108, 115 25:7 113, 115 25:19 194 25:27 – 30 114 Isaiah 1:24 193 3:1 193 4:5 230 10:16 193 10:33 193 18:4 230 19:4 193 40 – 55 109 51:22 193 Jeremiah 15:15 115 17:1 – 4 104 24 – 26 104 25:1 – 14 103 – 112 26:2 69 27:6 108 – 109 27:22 115

29:10 115 32:3 – 5 112 – 116 32:4 114 32:13 112 – 116 34:5 115 38:17 – 18 115 39:1 – 6 381 43:10 108 Haggai 1:1 302 1:12 302 1:14 302 2:2 302 2:23 302 Psalms 33:14 230 51 – 65 76 89:15 230 97:2 230 104:5 230 141:2 173 Proverbs 1:1 76 30:6 69 Esther A 12 – 14 1:14 194 2:17 – 23 300, 322 – 328, 347, 348, 353 2:21 327 2:21 – 23 326 – 328 3:12 – 13 331 4:11 335 5:1 – 2 335 6:2 328 7:1 – 5 328 – 331 7:4 341 8:1 – 17 320 8:2 340 8:7 337 8:7 – 9 335 – 336 8:7 – 11 331 – 337, 343 – 344 8:7 – 13 348

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

416

Index of Ancient Sources

8:10 – 13 340 8:11 339 8:15 340 8:15 – 16 337 8:15 – 17 337 8:16 334 9:1 – 2 339, 347 9:1 – 6 337 – 341 9:1 – 32 348 9:4 334, 341, 348, 349, 353 9:5 346 – 347 9:16 – 32 343 9:29 – 32 342 – 346 10:2 334, 341, 348, 349, 353 Ezra 1:2 307 1:2 – 4 76 2:68 230 2:70 305, 307 3:1 305 3:2 159 3:3 230 3:4 298 3:5 300, 302 3:8 302 3:9 296, 313 4:1 – 24 301 4:6 – 8 296 4:6 – 11 313 4:12 307 4:17 – 22 76 4:21 313 5:2 302 5:7 308 5:8 299, 307 5:11 307 5:12 307 6:3 – 5 76 6:6 – 12 76 6:9 307 6:10 307 6:18 307, 309 6:19 – 22 313 7 – 10 80, 83, 312 7:1 – 5 309

7:6 341 7:6 – 9 310 – 312 7:7 310 7:8 310 7:12 307 7:12 – 26 76 7:14 308 7:17 297 7:21 307 7:23 307 7:25 308 7:27 298 8:15 309 8:19 298 8:21 311 8:22 299 8:32 310 8:35 312, 313 9 – 10 164, 313 9:4 312, 313, 314 9:4 – 5 173 9:11 299 10:1 306 10:3 159, 299 10:6 312, 313 10:7 306, 312 10:8 312 10:10 110, 298 10:16 297, 312 Neh 1:1 – 7:4 355 3 305 – 306 7:72 302 8 80, 83, 312 – 313 8:1 305 – 306, 308 8:2 308 8:6 300 8:7 300 8:8 297 8:9 308 8:13 159 8:13 – 18 8:13 – 13:31 302 – 304, 315 9 355 9 – 13 303 – 304, 317, 355

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

417

Index of Ancient Sources

10 355 10:1 303 11 – 12 303 12:1 302 12:26 303 12:47 303 13 164, 303

21 – 25 261 21:1 – 20 262 – 269 21:5 – 10 254 21:8 262 21:9 262 21:20 39 – 40, 287 22:10 – 23:21 269 – 280, 287 – 288 22:11 272 23 238 23:1 – 2 238, 258, 274 23:3 270, 275 – 276 23:4 – 7 277 – 278 23:6 – 7 238, 274 23:7 – 18 254 23:8 279 23:10 261 23:18 270, 279 – 280 24 80, 280 – 287 24:8 239 32:32 260 35:1 – 36:21 301

First Chronicles 3:17 115 13:9 – 10 223 – 224 13:10 223 – 224 14:12 211 – 212 17:4 213 17:10 215 17:13 217 – 218 17:14 218 – 219 28:3 213, 222 Second Chronicles 6:1 – 2 225, 230 6:30 230 6:33 230 6:39 230 8:13 194 17:13 217 21 39, 262 – 269 21 – 24 258

Dan 4:34 4:37 8:11 9:21

109 109 230 173

Other Ancient Literature First Esdras 1:1 – 55 301 2:2 307 2:15 296, 313 2:16 – 30 301 2:17 307 2:24 313 3:1 – 4:63 295, 297, 300 3:1 – 5:6 302 4:53 302, 306 4:63 302, 306 5:1 – 6 301 5:8 299

5:34 300 5:38 300 5:45 307 5:46 305, 307 5:50 298, 299 5:51 300 5:56 296, 313 5:57 300 5:66 – 73 301 6:1 300 6:7 308 6:8 307 6:12 307 – 308

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118

418 6:14 307 – 308 6:28 307 6:30 307 7:9 307, 309 8:4 109 8:5 – 6 310 – 311 8:6 310 8:9 307 – 308 8:12 308 8:21 307 8:23 308 8:41 – 42 309 8:49 311 8:52 299 8:63 312 8:68 – 70 313 8:69 312 8:70 314 8:80 299 8:88 306 8:90 299 9:1 307 9:2 312 9:3 313 9:4 313 9:15 297, 313 9:37 302, 307 9:38 305 9:39 110, 308 9:40 110 9:41 305, 307 9:42 299 9:45 299 9:46 299, 300 9:48 300 9:49 110, 308 9:55 304 Jubilees 1:1 – 4 159 1:27 159 2:1 159 2:13 – 24 159 – 161 2:16 161, 165

Index of Ancient Sources

2:17 – 32 157, 161 2:24 156 4:7 – 10 162 – 164 4:9 162 4:12 162 4:31 163 6:8 161 6:22 156 7:2 – 5 171 25:1 – 10 164 – 165 25:11 – 22 165 50:6 156 Temple Scroll 13:8 – 30:2 170 14:9 – 15:2 170 – 171 17 145, 153 17:6 – 16 145, 152 – 153, 172 – 174, 357, 359 – 361 17:14 173 48:7 – 11 175 51:11 – 66 168 54:5 – 7 169 54:8 – 18 177 – 178 54:10 178 55:15 – 21 156, 176 – 177, 180 1QS IX, 26b–XI, 22 49 2Q216 VII, 1 – 17 159 – 160 4Q222 1 – 7 164 – 165 11Q12 3 – 10 162 – 164 First Maccabees 1:11 166 Second Maccabees 11 337

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536117 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536118