Philology and Textual Criticism: Proceedings of the Second International Colloquium of the Dominique Barthelemy Institute Held at Fribourg on 10-11 ... (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.reihe) 9783161593239, 9783161595929, 3161593235

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe Edited by

Konrad Schmid (Zürich) · Mark S. Smith (Princeton) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen) · Andrew Teeter (Harvard)

118

Philology and Textual Criticism Proceedings of the Second International Colloquium of the Dominique Barthélemy Institute held at Fribourg on 10–11 October, 2013 Edited by

Innocent Himbaza and Jan Joosten

Mohr Siebeck

Innocent Himbaza is Titular Professor of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and Hebrew, University of Fribourg, Switzerland. orcid.org/0000-0003-1284-1571

Jan Joosten is Regius Professor of Hebrew, University of Oxford; Student of Christ Church. orcid.org/0000-0002-8553-3994

ISBN 978-3-16-159323-9 / eISBN 978-3-16-159592-9 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-159592-9 ISSN 1611-4914 / eISSN 2568-8367 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2020 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was typeset by Martin Fischer in Tübingen using Minion typeface, printed on nonaging paper by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen, and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

Table of Contents Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Richard D. Weis The Intersection of Philology and Textual Criticism in Biblia Hebraica Quinta. Background, Theory, and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Abraham Tal Some Reflections on the Textual Traditions of the Samaritan Pentateuch . . . 19 Jan Joosten Post-Biblical Hebrew as a Controlling Factorin the Arbitration between Variant Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Viktor Golinets Considerations on Questions Philology Cannot Solve While Reconstructing the Text of the Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Andrés Piquer Otero Between the Archaic and the Literary. The ‘Narrative’ Infinitive Clause in the Text(s) of the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Adrian Schenker L’incidence de la critique textuelle sur le lexique hébreu biblique. Les cas de ‫שׁ ֵלם‬, ָ Gn 33,18; ‫וְ ֶה ֱח ִרים‬, Is 11,15; ‫ח ְר ִמי‬,ֶ 1 R 20,42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Noam Mizrahi Text, Language, and Legal Interpretation. The Case of Exod 12:9 . . . . . . . . . 93 Innocent Himbaza Textual Readings and Challenge of Biblical Philology. Some Cases in Isaiah and Leviticus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

VI

Table of Contents

Index of Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Index of Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Index of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

Abbreviations ATD Barb BCE BDB

Altes Testament Deutsch Barberini text of Habakkuk 3 (the BHQ siglum) Before the Common Era F. Brown, S. R. Driver, Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament BETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium BHK R. Kittel, Biblia Hebraica BHK3 R. Kittel and P. Kahle, Biblia Hebraica, 3rd edition (1937) BHQ Biblia Hebraica Quinta BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia BJ Bible de Jérusalem BWANT Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft CAT Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament CSCO Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium CTAT Dominique Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament DJD Discoveries in the Judean Desert DSD Dead Sea Discoveries ELO Elementa Linguarum Orientis FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament G Old Greek / Septuagint (the BHQ siglum) GB Septuagint Codex Vaticanus and typologically related manuscripts GL Lucianic manuscripts of the Septuagint HALANT Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, 3rd edition HCOT Historical Commentary on the Old Testament Hiehebr A Hebrew text reported in Jerome (the BHQ siglum) HOTTP Hebrew Old Testament Text Project HSS Harvard Semitic Studies HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual ICC International Critical Commentary indet Indeterminate (i. e., the testimony of the witness cannot be assigned) InfAbs Infinitive Absolute JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JB Jerusalem Bible JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JJS Journal of Jewish Studies JPS Jewish Publication Society JSOT.Supp Journal of the Studies of the Old Testament. Supplements JSS.Supp Journal of Semitic Studies. Supplements KBL Ludwig Köhler and Walter Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros

VIII

Abbreviations

KJV King James Version LD Lectio Divina LHB/OT Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament LXX Septuagint m Masculine M Masoretic Text (the BHQ siglum) Mket kətîb (the BHQ siglum) Mm Masora magna Mqere qərêᵓ (the BHQ siglum) ms Manuscript mss Manuscripts MT Masoretic Text NAB New American Bible NBS Nouvelle Bible Segond NETS New English Translation of the Septuagint NRSV New Revised Standard Version O Hexaplaric Text-type of the Septuagint OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis OLA Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta OTE Old Testament Essays Part Participle pass Passive PL Patrologia Latina pl Plural prep Preposition ptc Participle RevQ Revue de Qumran S Syriac (i. e., the Peshitta; the BHQ siglum) SCSS Septuagint and Cognate Studies sfx Suffix sg Singular Smr Samaritan Pentateuch (the BHQ siglum) SP Samaritan Pentateuch ST Samaritan Targum STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah subj Subject T Targum (the BHQ siglum) T-N Targum Neofiti T-O Targum Onqelos T-PsJ Targum Pseudo-Jonathan TB Babylonian Talmud TCT Text Criticism and the Translator TOB Traduction Œcuménique de la Bible V Vulgate (the BHQ siglum) vrss versions VT Vetus Testamentum VT.Supp Vetus Testamentum. Supplements ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Introduction The Hebrew Bible is written in an ancient language that is otherwise almost completely unattested, and it has come down to us through a very long and complicated history of textual transmission. As a result, many words and phrases are obscure: the meaning of rare words or expressions may have been forgotten early on, and many passages would appear to have suffered textual corruption (as is indeed confirmed when we compare the received Hebrew text to other ancient witnesses). It is not always easy to say which of the two factors – the obsoleteness of the language or the deterioration of the text – cause the obscurity. More often than not, both may come into play. Textual transmission is a hermeneutical process. To scribes, the text they were copying was not a mere sequence of graphemes to imitate as well as they could, but a meaningful whole handed down by tradition. While reproducing the text in a new manuscript, they would at the same time be aware they were transmitting the word of God, revealed to their ancestors long ago, to their contemporaries. This attitude created a strong tendency among scribes to alter the text in places where its meaning was not clear to them. Hebrew philology and textual criticism should always be practiced in combination, completing one another and challenging one another. In his book, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (1968), James Barr underscored the interconnectedness of Semitic philology and textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. His work was at once a warning against certain abuses and a road map for best practice in the two fields. Since the days of Barr, textual criticism has made great strides, notably thanks to the publication and exploitation of the Qumran Biblical texts. Hebrew Philology too has continued to develop, and its fruits have been collected in a series of new dictionaries (particularly the Sheffield Hebrew Dictionary and the eighteenth edition of Gesenius’s Handwörterbuch). At the same time, the connection between these two fields of research has become less and less self-evident. In the orbit of biblical studies, they are practiced by different guilds of scholars. Because they tend to focus upon the same items in the biblical text, philology and textual criticism are at times perceived as competing approaches. An exegetical problem is solved either by finding a different meaning for the attested Hebrew, or by adopting a variant reading. Philologists tut-tut textual critics for venturing to emend a received Hebrew text they manifestly have not fully understood, while textual critics wonder at philologists’ desperate eagerness to make sense of passages that are obviously corrupt.

2

Introduction

An international meeting held in Fribourg, Switzerland, on 10 and 11 October 2013 sought at once to document the progress in the two fields and to bring some of their foremost practitioners into dialogue with one another. The colloquium on Philology and Textual Criticism had the objective to put the connection between the two approaches on the agenda one again. Various questions were discussed. How can philological study guide the textual critic? And how does textual criticism come to the aid of the philologist? Are philology and textual criticism necessarily linked, or are the connections between them merely accidental? Can philology justify conjectural emendations, and if so, on what conditions? Do philological hypotheses have a place in a text-critical apparatus or commentary? The contributors discussed theoretical questions and analysed case studies illustrating the principles at issue. In “The Intersection of Philology and Textual Criticism in Biblia Hebraica Quinta: Background, Theory, and Practice,” Richard Weis explores the relation between philology and textual criticism in the principles and practice of the Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ). Discussing a number of issues broached by Barr, he eventually homes in on the question of conjectural emendations. While these were once regarded as a legitimate component of textual criticism – and are still so regarded by some – BHQ tends to exclude them as belonging not to textual criticism but to other branches of historical criticism. Nevertheless, they may be included in the textual commentary, and in a few cases where there is circumstantial evidence they find their way into the apparatus as well. The discussion is illustrated with well-chosen examples from various books, and gives real insight into the practice of BHQ editors. Abraham Tal demonstrates his extensive expertise in the Samaritan Pentateuch in “Some Reflections on the Textual Traditions of the Samaritan Pentateuch.” After some reflections on textual “tradition” or masorah/masoret, he shows by the help of examples that the Samaritan Pentateuch is not as unified as is often thought. The older state of the text, which is often independently reflected in the MT, was known to the Samaritans, but proved problematic for various reasons. Variant readings, often incorporating a degree of interpretation, were generated and disseminated. The resulting textual variety can sometimes be retrieved by comparing manuscripts of the Samaritan Pentateuch. In other instances, the Samaritan Targums, ancient opinions of Samaritan sages or quotations in Samaritan writings need to be exploited to see how the text evolved within the Samaritan tradition. Philological treatments of biblical Hebrew are often based on distant members of the Semitic family such as Akkadian and Arabic, both of them languages with an abundant attestation. But Hebrew itself, although attested less richly, has some resources that need to be exploited. Notably the book of Ben Sira, the “non-biblical” Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Mishna and early Midrashim contain many genuine Hebrew expressions that do not depend on the biblical text. In

Introduction

3

“Post-biblical Hebrew as a controlling factor in the arbitration between variant readings,” Jan Joosten explores some methodological considerations and illustrates with a few case studies the various types of help post-biblical Hebrew can bring. In some instances, textual criticism and Hebrew philology seem to point in opposite directions, and a choice must be made. In other cases, however, the two methods reinforce one another, with the former indicating the correct reading and the latter helping to give it a meaning that fits the context. Viktor Golinets draws attention to several sets of variant forms for which it is hard to determine textual priority. In his contribution “Some Considerations on Questions Philology Cannot Solve While Reconstructing the Text of the Hebrew Bible,” he identifies the problem and provides a wealth of material to establish the phenomenon beyond doubt. Normative grammar as taught in the Handbooks may seem to indicate which forms are genuine and which ones are mistakes. But if the same variation recurs again and again, one starts asking whether perhaps the grammar books are too schematic. The variation itself is genuine, while the rejection of either form would be erroneous. In “Between the Archaic and the Literary. The ‘Narrative’ Infinitive Clause in the Text(s) of the Bible,” Andrés Piquer Otero evaluates a number of usages involving the “infinitive absolute” in the books of Samuel-Kings. He sagaciously brings in the concept of language evolution. The Hebrew written by the biblical authors represents a chronolect different from the Hebrew of the copyists who penned the earliest manuscripts to which we have access, and from the Hebrew known by the translators of the ancient versions. It is not always possible to determine the earliest available text, nor to interpret the variants, but at least on some points the history of the language can be approximately retraced. Adrian Schenker, in “L’incidence de la critique textuelle sur le lexique hébreu biblique. Les cas de ‫שׁ ֵלם‬, ָ Gn 33,18, ‫וְ ֶה ֱח ִרים‬, Is 11,15; ‫ח ְר ִמי‬,ֶ 1 R 20,42”, evaluates three passages that have posed problems to exegetes and shows the necessity for both philological information and text-critical acumen. In Gen 33:18, ‫ָשׁ ֵלם‬ is probably a toponym, but it does not designate Jerusalem. In Isa 11:15, ‫וְ ֶה ֱח ִרים‬ should probably be corrected to ‫ וְ ֶה ֱח ִריב‬with the versions against all Hebrew manuscripts. In 1 Kgs 20:42, ‫ ֶח ְר ִמי‬may be an adjective, as the Greek evidence indicates, and not a substantive followed by a suffix as most exegetes have thought. Noam Mizrahi focuses on a single minute variation in the Hebrew text of Exod 12:9, where 4Q11, also known as 4QpaleoGen-Exodl, has a conjunctive waw that is absent in the MT. In “Text, Language, and Legal Interpretation: The Case of Exod 12:9,” he combines a diachronic approach of the Hebrew language with a diachronic approach of the halakhic interpretation of the verse in question. He shows how detailed knowledge of the later rabbinic exegesis of the verse illuminates the problems the additional waw may have been intended to solve. The Qumran scribe meant to transmit the biblical text as accurately as possible,

4

Introduction

yet he was also struggling to make sense of the text in its biblical context and in regard to its impact on Jewish worship. In “Textual readings and challenge of biblical philology. Some cases in Isaiah and Leviticus,” Innocent Himbaza shows how textual criticism and Hebrew philology clash and interact in different ways. Two verses in Isaiah, Isa 14:4 (notably the difficult word ‫ )מדהבה‬and 59:19c, and two verses in Leviticus, Lev 25:31 and 6:20, are analysed at length to illustrate the problem. We thank the participants in the colloquium for their contributions. We also thank our home institutions, the Dominique Barthélemy Institute of the University of Fribourg and the Équipe d’Accueil 4378 Théologie Protestante of the University of Strasbourg, as well as the Institut Universitaire de France for financial and logistic support. The publication has suffered some delay, but we believe it was worth the wait. Innocent Himbaza Jan Joosten

The Intersection of Philology and Textual Criticism in Biblia Hebraica Quinta Background, Theory, and Practice Richard D. Weis

The colloquium in which this paper originated sought to put the question of the connection between philology and textual criticism in the study of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament on the agenda of scholarship once again.1 The organizers of the colloquium put a series of questions for discussion: How can philological study guide the textual critic? How does textual criticism come to the aid of the philologist? Are philology and textual criticism necessarily linked, or are connections between them merely accidental? Can philology justify conjectural emendations, and if so, on what conditions? Do philological hypotheses have a place in a text-critical apparatus or commentary? This essay addresses these questions by examining the editorial principles and practice of the Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ). I contend that BHQ offers significant scope both in principle and in practice for the productive interaction of the fields of textual criticism and philology. Thus, it offers a useful vantage point from which to address the overall theme and the specific questions posed. I will begin by noting some significant points of contact between BHQ and the position of James Barr in his work Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament.2 This will lead to a fuller consideration of certain principles and practices in the published volumes of BHQ, focused in particular on those relating to conjectures. A concluding summary will address the specific questions of the colloquium.

1 Consideration of the relations between the two disciplines and the development of concrete results from their interaction has been enjoying a renaissance of late. See, for example, the essays by Joosten, Schorch, Talshir and Talshir, and Yuditsky in the volume by J. Joosten and J.-S. Rey, Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period (STDJ, 73; Leiden: Brill, 2008). An even more recent example is the study by R. D. Holmstedt, “The Nexus between Textual Criticism and Linguistics: A Case Study from Leviticus,” JBL 132 (2013): 473–494. 2 J. Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987; orig. pub.: Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968).

6

Richard D. Weis

1. Barr and BHQ – Points of contact It has been observed that “James Barr showed the interconnectedness of Semitic philology and textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. His work is at once a warning against certain abuses and a road map for best practice in the two fields.”3 Thus it seems appropriate to orient ourselves by observing some points of contact between the positions of BHQ and of Barr on the subject of the interconnectedness of philology and textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. There are five to which I call attention: the need for significant restraint in the use of conjectural emendations or their philological equivalents, the undoubted capacity of philology to explain difficult forms in the extant witnesses, the importance of historical philology alongside comparative philology, the value of the vowels and accents in the Masoretic Text, and the definition of a text critical case. On the first four of these, BHQ and Barr may be said to agree. On the last, the definition of a text critical case, they disagree. Conjecture, the extrapolation from existing evidence, whether textual or philological, back to a form for which there is not otherwise external evidence in the Hebrew text of a particular passage, has been a significant practice in so-called “lower criticism” from the nineteenth century well into the twentieth. Indeed, some would even say that it is a necessary practice because in both textual criticism and philology we are working with incomplete data, in the one case for the reading of the Biblical text, in the other for the Hebrew language in the Biblical era. Although Barr and BHQ differ in the degree of caution they would impose and in the reasons for that caution, both are suspicious of past practices of conjectural emendation of the text. The scholarly tradition that finds its roots particularly in the work of Wellhausen and Cornill started from the reality that the extant witnesses to the text did not reach back to its presumed original. That goal could only be reached by conjectural extrapolation back beyond the external evidence for the text. That extrapolation might be disciplined and grounded by multiple sets of criteria, some exegetical and stylistic, some based on knowledge of the processes and vicissitudes of copying texts, and some based on philological insight, especially from comparative Semitic philology.4 Barr does not rule out conjecture in principle, but would be far more cautious in its practice.5 BHQ, on the other hand, rules out conjecture in principle, but then in practice makes allowance for its use in very restricted ways in its apparatus. 3 The

prospectus for the colloquium.

4 R. D. Weis, “‘Lower Criticism’: Studies in the Masoretic Text and the Ancient Versions of the

Old Testament as a Means of Textual Criticism,” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. III/1 (edited by M. Sæbø; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 363–367; M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, “The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: Rise, Decline, Rebirth,” JBL 102 (1983): 373, 378. 5 Barr, Comparative Philology, 3, 301–304.

The Intersection of Philology and Textual Criticism in Biblia Hebraica Quinta

7

The eighth chapter of Barr’s work criticizes the previous practice, often invoked in conjecture, of regarding only the consonantal text of the MT as ancient, and disregarding the vowels and accents encoded in the Masoretic points as a late medieval phenomenon.6 BHQ specifically regards the vowels and accents as reflective of ancient reading traditions that, even though only encoded in written form much later, are demonstrably as old as the consonantal text found in our earliest surviving Hebrew manuscripts.7 Barr and BHQ share a confidence in the capacity of philology to explain satisfactorily difficult readings in the Hebrew Bible, readings that previously might have been assumed to represent a corrupted text, and thus to be in need of emendation. In the case of BHQ, this is very much a part of its inheritance from the earlier Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, and especially the work of Dominique Barthélemy.8 For explaining extant readings seen as “difficult,” Barr calls attention not only to the possibilities offered by comparison with cognate Semitic languages, but also and especially by comparison with forms from later periods of Hebrew.9 If anything, this latter emphasis on historical comparison is more characteristic of BHQ and its predecessor project (HOTTP) than comparison with Semitic cognates. The BHQ volume on Genesis offers numerous examples of this particular form of interaction of textual criticism and philology.10 Outside of the scope of the BHQ project, the recent study by Jan Joosten on Jeremiah 39 offers another excellent example of the interaction of textual criticism and historical philology.11 On one major point BHQ and Barr disagree, namely, on what constitutes a text critical case. For Biblia Hebraica Quinta, a text critical case is constituted only by a divergence among the extant witnesses for how a text reads at a particular

 6 Barr,

Comparative Philology, 188–222, at 219–222. R. D. Weis, Gerard J. Norton, and Adrian Schenker, eds., Guidelines for Contributors (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003), 20, BHQ guideline III.1.2 “Criterion for Inclusion in Apparatus: Text-Critical Significance: In order for a case to be included in the apparatus, one or more of its variants must be text-critically significant, that is, the variant arguably, but not necessarily (nor even in the editor’s final judgment), witnesses a Hebrew text that differs from the lemma. This embraces variations in vocalization and syntax as well as in consonants. When a variant in the reading of a version is deemed to have a variant Hebrew text behind it, then that variant to the versional reading will be reported in addition to the version’s main reading.”  8 D. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, vol. 1 (OBO, 50/1; Fribourg: Éditions universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), xiii–xv [= D. Barthélemy, Studies in the Text of the Old Testament (TCT, 3; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 591–594].  9 Barr, Comparative Philology, 223–228, 237. 10 A. Tal, Genesis (Biblia Hebraica Quinta, vol. 1; ed. A. Schenker, et al.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2015). 11 J. Joosten, “L’excédent massorétique du livre de Jérémie et l’hébreu post-classique,” in Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period (STDJ, 73; ed. J. Joosten and J.-S. Rey; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 93–108.  7 See

8

Richard D. Weis

point.12 Barr acknowledges that this is the ordinary definition of a text critical case, but argues that when the text is uniform, one must generate text critical cases in another way, namely, by identifying a perceived “difficulty” with the text.13 In this difference, we see how Barr is still using the definition of a text critical case that characterized the nineteenth and twentieth century schools that made so much use of the patterns of conjecture that he has criticized. For a work published in 1969, this is not surprising; this definition was still operant in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, which was being edited in the same era. It is only with the work of the Hebrew University Bible Project, the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, and others – whose publications mostly came after Barr’s book – that we see the conceptual shift in the field of textual criticism that is reflected in the principles of BHQ. This shift came about in part because the diversity of the text visible in the Dead Sea Scrolls undermined the assumption about the uniformity of the text that made the older approach seem necessary.

2. Defining cases and making conjectures in BHQ This difference in the definition of what constitutes a textual case, taken together with the edition’s goal of establishing “the earliest attainable text” rather than a putative original, is the root of the specific stance toward conjectural emendation seen in BHQ. More explicit attention to the guiding principles of the edition, and some examples of their implementation, will allow us to approach answers to the more specific questions about the relation of philology and textual criticism. An obvious consequence of BHQ’s definition of a textual case is this guideline for the edition: III.4.4 Decisions Limited to the Textual Forms Attested by the Extant Witnesses PRINCIPLE: In general, decisions concerning textual cases should confine themselves to working with the textual forms attested by the existing witnesses. Since the apparatus is concerned with the presentation and evaluation of the available evidence of the text’s transmission, indirectly attested forms and hypothetical forms have a place in the apparatus only as they are needed to explain the surviving evidence.14

As a result of this definition of a text critical case, many cases that in previous editions were included in the apparatus as text critical either do not appear at all in the apparatus of BHQ, or appear only as a lemma followed by a reference to the commentary. In the commentary, the remarks on such cases follow a common pattern. After recounting substantial prior discussion of the case as in some 12 A. Schenker, et al., “General Introduction,” in Biblia Hebraica Quinta, vol. 18, General Introduction and Megilloth (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004), xii–xiii. 13 Barr, Comparative Philology, 3. 14 Weis, Norton, and Schenker, Guidelines, 32.

The Intersection of Philology and Textual Criticism in Biblia Hebraica Quinta

9

way “difficult” and reporting conjectural emendations proposed to resolve the “difficulty,” the editor observes that all of the extant witnesses agree on the same reading so that there is no text critical case. Thus philological proposals in the form of conjectural emendations without external textual evidence are excluded from the textual apparatus at the same time that their role in previous discussion is acknowledged. Examples of such treatment may be found in every one of the published fascicles of BHQ, but the case of ‫ ֲאד ֹנִ י ֶבזֶ ק‬in Judg 1:5 may serve as an illustration of the class. In BHQ the apparatus for Judg 1:5 ‫ ֲאד ֹנִ י ֶבזֶ ק‬contains only the lemma, and reference to the commentary where this text is found: Many scholars hold that Adoni-bezek is a corruption of Adoni-zedek (cf. BHK), the name of the king of Jerusalem in Josh 10:1, but the connection with Adoni-zedek is probably too speculative and irrelevant (cf. Lindars, Judges 1–5, 15–16 and 18, and Soggin, Juges, 25). All the extant witnesses support M.15

My own work in Jeremiah provides another example in ‫ ָר ָאם‬Jer 39:4. Here there is no disagreement among the extant witnesses. The apparatus of the BHQ edition will contain only the lemma and a reference to the commentary, where this comment will be found: A number of commentators, translations and editions (BH3; BHS; JB; Carroll, Jeremiah, 691; Bright, Jeremiah, 242; Volz, Text des Jeremia, 272; Rudolph, Jeremia, 245) propose to read ‫ ָר ָאּה‬instead of M’s ‫ר ָאם‬.ָ As McKane (Jeremiah, 978) points out, this is without support among the extant witnesses. Indeed, all those collated for this edition support the reading of M. McKane is correct in pointing out that this is not a text critical case, but a question of scholars’ assumptions about how the story should unfold.

The same formal treatment – an apparatus entry consisting only of the lemma and a reference to the commentary for discussion – is accorded another class of cases which in substance are the opposite of the examples just considered. These are cases where readings of the extant witnesses diverge, but analysis shows that the divergence is only apparent, being due purely to linguistic factors, not actual textual divergence. In other words, the best explanation of the evidence of the textual witnesses is philological rather than textual. By contrast then with conjectural emendations, where philological proposals are excluded in the circumstance of agreement among the witnesses, BHQ actually includes philological proposals in the edition to exclude another class of false textual cases characterized by apparent disagreement among the witnesses.16 15 N. Fernández Marcos, Judges (Biblia Hebraica Quinta, vol. 7; ed. A. Schenker, et al.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011), 3, 41*. 16 See Weis, Norton and Schenker, Guidelines, 24, BHQ guideline III.2.1 “Purely Linguistic Cases That Have Received Attention as Text Critical: PRINCIPLE: According to guidelines III.1.2 and III.1.4 above, purely linguistic problems would not be taken up as cases in the apparatus unless they have been treated extensively as a text critical problem in editions, translations and commentaries. In the event that an editor concludes that such a case should be taken up,

10

Richard D. Weis

The case of ‫חּומי‬ ָ ִ‫ נ‬at Hos 11:8 offers an example of this treatment. Once again, only the lemma and a reference to the commentary are found in the apparatus. In the commentary, the editor, Anthony Gelston, in response to a scholarly tradition of positing a variant Hebrew Vorlage for some of the versions, has this to say: All the vrss. render M in the sense of either “compassion” or “change of mind,” and there is no need to postulate a different Vorlage ‫ רחמי‬to account for the former sense, for which, compare Isa 57:18; Zech 1:13.17

Although from these examples one might expect otherwise, this definition of a text critical case, as implemented in BHQ, actually allows some room for the inclusion of conjectures in the edition’s apparatus. The concluding sentence of the guideline quoted previously is, “Since the apparatus is concerned with the presentation and evaluation of the available evidence of the text’s transmission, indirectly attested forms and hypothetical forms have a place in the apparatus only as they are needed to explain the surviving evidence.” This allows for two types of extrapolated readings, one described as indirectly attested, and the other as conjectures. I argue that in principle both types are conjectures, in the sense that the proposed reading is extrapolated from the available evidence, rather than being one of the options already available within that evidence. Although the type referred to as an “indirectly attested” reading should be regarded as a conjecture because it extrapolates beyond the extant textual data, it is a very conservative type of conjecture in that it can clearly be inferred from the existing readings.18 In BHQ’s apparatus such a proposed reading can be offered as a “preferred” reading in a case, i. e., it is put on a similar footing to a directly attested reading. This is because it is based on textual evidence, i. e., external evidence for how the particular text reads, rather than internal evidence only or external evidence from outside the text whose relevance to the text is therefore less clear. However, such an indirectly attested reading must be labeled “origin,” as representing the origin of the existing readings, alerting the reader to its conjectural character. The case of ‫ ִמּיָ דֹו לֹו‬in Hab 3:4 is a simple and straightforward example of this type of modest textual conjecture in BHQ. For ‫ ִמּיָ דֹו לֹו‬in Hab 3:4 the apparatus of BHQ reports that Jerome and the Barberini text support the reading of M encountered in the lemma ‫מּיָ דֹו לֹו‬. ִ V and S support G’s reading of ἐν χερσὶν αὐτοῦ. The reading of the Targum cannot be assigned and that of the Murabba’at Minor Prophets is too damaged to be useful. s/he should handle it in one of five ways.” The guideline then goes on to lay out the five options an editor has for representing such cases, one of which takes the form seen in the example given. 17 A. Gelston, The Twelve Minor Prophets (Biblia Hebraica Quinta, vol. 13; ed. A. Schenker, et al.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010), 22, 69*. 18 See Weis, Norton and Schenker, Guidelines, 32, guideline III.4.5 “Proposal of Forms Attested Only Indirectly by the Extant Witnesses: PRINCIPLE: Proposing a form that is only indirectly attested in textual terms (that is, a form that best explains the attested forms) as a correction to the base text is acceptable, providing there is weighty justification.”

The Intersection of Philology and Textual Criticism in Biblia Hebraica Quinta

11

In the apparatus the editor, Anthony Gelston, characterizes the reading of M, Hiehebr, and Barb as the result of assimilation to the usual expression in Scripture, and the reading of G, V, and S as the result of scribal abbreviation. He proposes that the text to be preferred here is a reading that survives in no witness: ‫מּיָ ָדיו לֹו‬, ִ and explains his choice in the following comment: M Hiehebr and Barb assimilate to the usual form of this phrase with the noun in the sg. G V S omit any rendering of ‫לֹו‬, perhaps considering it redundant after the 3 m. sg. sfx. They render the noun in the pl., which occurs with a 3 m. sg. sfx. and after this prep. elsewhere only at Exod 32:19 (qərê). S also varies the prep. The form that explains the extant text forms is that which combines the pl. noun of G V S with the retention of ‫ לֹו‬as in M and Barb.19

My own work in Jeremiah offers another example, ‫ וְ ַאּיֵ ו‬at Jer 37:19. Here the Kethib of M reads ‫ ואיו‬and the Qere reads ‫וְ ַאּיֵ ה‬. All the other witnesses, G, V, S and T, follow the Qere reading. The apparatus will propose neither reading as preferable, but will prefer the reading ‫וְ ֵאי‬, which is indirectly attested by the two extant readings (“origin”). This is the commentary explaining the case: The reading of Mket is certainly lectio difficilior, but it makes no sense in the context so it seems unlikely to be the earliest reading. At the same time it could arise from the reading of Mqere only with great difficulty. The reading of Mket could easily arise as a dittography from an earlier reading ‫וְ ֵאי‬, which it thus implies. The form ‫ ֵאי‬occurs thirty-one times in the Bible, and the form ‫ ַאּיֵ ה‬occurs forty-five times. While it is possible that the Mqere reading could represent an assimilation to the more common form, the difference between the two forms in frequency of occurrence is not so substantial as to make that highly probable. However, the reading ‫ וְ ֵאי‬is preferable to the reading of Mqere because it explains the reading of Mket, as well as the Mqere reading.

Given the edition’s basic concept of what constitutes a text critical case, one might expect that the scope for text critical conjecture in BHQ would stop at this point. Interestingly, it does not! Indeed, the edition makes explicit allowance for text critical conjectures, providing they are labeled as such, rather than as preferred or indirectly attested readings. Here is the guideline articulating this policy: III.4.7 Text Critical Conjectures PRINCIPLE: A form, that otherwise occurs in Hebrew (or Aramaic for portions of Ezra and Daniel) of the Biblical period, and that the editor has good grounds to believe was the basis for the readings extant in the witnesses, but which is attested neither directly or indirectly by those readings, may be proposed as a change in the base text, providing there is weighty justification. Such a proposed change in the base text must be labeled a conjecture.20

These conjectures are not bound to be grounded in textual evidence, only to have weighty justification. Thus such conjectures, in principle, could be proposed 19 Gelston, 20 Weis,

Minor Prophets, 99, 122*–123*. Norton and Schenker, Guidelines, 32.

12

Richard D. Weis

on comparative philological grounds or, for that matter, any of the traditional grounds for proposing conjectural emendations. This possibility was built into the edition only after much debate since it hardly comported with the edition’s underlying conceptual framework. What makes it possible is the implementation of a principle not otherwise expressed in BHQ’s editorial guidelines but operative at a number of points, namely, items of different character or weight in the apparatus must be marked for the reader in a transparent fashion. Thus text critical conjectures are allowable providing they are labeled as such, and not as preferred readings or indirectly attested readings, which would imply a foundation in text critical evidence that they do not have. The label “conjec” signals for the reader that the proposal encountered in the text critical apparatus is not actually being made on text critical grounds. Counting Ezra-Nehemiah as a single book, and the Twelve as a single book, eleven books of the Bible have appeared in Biblia Hebraica Quinta. They comprise 6,513 verses. Among all the cases in the apparatus entered for these verses, 330 non-Masoretic readings are offered as preferable to the reading of the Masoretic Text. Of these, twenty are classified as indirectly attested (“origin”). Alongside these 330 preferred readings are offered seven pure conjectures, one in Canticles, one in Qohelet, one in Deuteronomy, and four in Judges.21 Of these seven, five are proposed primarily on philological grounds,22 one on a mixture of philological and stylistic grounds,23 and one on stylistic and exegetical grounds.24 All arise from what Barr would call a “difficulty” with the Masoretic Text.25 Typically, the grounds for the conjecture correspond to the type of difficulty perceived in the MT. None of the five conjectures proposed on philological grounds invokes comparative Semitic philology. However, that is simply due to the nature of the previous discussion from which the options for conjecture were drawn, rather than to any principle that would exclude such an argument. The case of ‫ ַה ְּׁשכּונֵ י‬at Judg 8:11 is typical. In the apparatus, the editor for Judges, Natalio Fernández Marcos, reports G, V and S supporting the reading of M encountered in the lemma (‫)ה ְּׁשכּונֵ י‬, ַ and reports the reading of the Targum as “indet,” i. e., unable to be assigned with any certainty. The apparatus then proposes the conjecture ‫ׁשֹוכנֵ י‬. ְ 26 In the accompanying commentary, Fernández Marcos offers the following discussion of the case: The conjecture ‫ׁשֹוכנֵ י‬, ְ advanced by Budde, has been followed by many scholars (Moore, Burney, BHK, and BHS). M offers the grammatical solecisms of the article with the con21 At Cant 2:14 ‫;ּומ ְר ֵאיְך‬ ַ Qoh 10:15 ‫;ע ַמל ַה ְּכ ִס ִילים ְּתיַ ּגְ ֶעּנּו‬ ֲ Deut 11:24 ‫ן־ה ִּמ ְד ָּ֙בר‬ ַ ‫ ;יִ ְה ֶי֑ה ִמ‬Judg 3:23 ‫ ;וְ נָ ָעל׃‬Judg 8:11 ‫;ה ְּׁשכּונֵ י‬ ַ Judg 20:13 ‫ ָ;ר ָעה‬Judg 20:38 ‫ה ֶרב‬.ֶ 22 Qoh 10:15; Judg 3:23, 8:11, 20:13, 20:38. 23 Cant 2:14. 24 Deut 11:24. 25 Barr, Comparative Philology, 3. 26 Fernández Marcos, Judges, 26.

The Intersection of Philology and Textual Criticism in Biblia Hebraica Quinta

13

struct state and the pass. ptc. of the stative verb, which is elsewhere unknown. The versions support M, because with or without the article the meaning remains the same (cf. Moore, Judges, 223; Burney, Judges, 231).27

This is a fascinating case for a couple of reasons. First, the editor could as easily have treated this case under the rule that says it is a false textual case, and should not be represented in the apparatus because the extant witnesses all agree on the reading. Nevertheless, this case is completely in line with the guideline about text critical conjectures, which allow one if the editor judges it to have weighty justification. Second, that weighty justification in this instance turns out to be the avoidance, from the editor’s point of view, of affirming a textual reading that could amount to a philological conjecture, i. e., a mistaken form that he regards as unattested apart from this single occurrence in the MT. The editor’s argument about whether this is unattested or a mistake, and thus something akin to a conjecture, can be disputed, of course. That the argument was made, however, points to the other category of conjecture of which BHQ is conscious and for which it makes allowance. In addition to making allowance for text critical conjectures, BHQ recognizes the possibility of philological conjectures. This possibility arises from the fact that an extant reading that is to be preferred on text critical grounds, which would not represent a text critical conjecture in the least, might be attested only through versional evidence whose retroversion would lead to a Hebrew form that is not otherwise attested in Hebrew of the Biblical period.28 In the instance just discussed from Judges, this principle has been extended to a case where the reading is attested in Hebrew as well as the versions. In essence, the editor had the option either to see the case as not textual at all since the witnesses all agree and thus to accept something he regarded as approaching a conjecture about the ancient Hebrew language, or to engage in a text critical conjecture to present a 27 Fernández

Marcos, Judges, 72*. Weis, Norton and Schenker, Guidelines, 32, BHQ guideline III.4.6 “Philological Conjectures: PRINCIPLE: A form that is not directly attested in Hebrew (or Aramaic for portions of Ezra and Daniel) by the extant readings (either because it is indirectly attested in textual terms by the extant readings or because it is directly attested only by versional evidence), and that is not otherwise found to occur as a form in Hebrew (or Aramaic as appropriate) of the Biblical period may be proposed as a change in the base text, but must be labeled as a philological conjecture. In proposing such conjectures, the editor should be careful to avoid anachronism. Hebrew for the Biblical period is defined as that repertoire of forms attested in the Hebrew Bible, contemporary epigraphic evidence as documented in G. I. Davies, Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1991), and the appropriate material in the microfiche concordance of post-biblical Hebrew published by the Academy of the Hebrew Language (The Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Language, Materials for the Dictionary, Series 1 (200 BCE – 300 CE) [Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1988]). Aramaic for the Biblical period is defined as that repertoire of forms found in the corpus comprised of the Aramaic portions of the Bible, plus extant documents of Imperial Aramaic and Middle Aramaic.” 28 See

14

Richard D. Weis

well attested Hebrew form. That BHQ allows this option signals its recognition of the interplay of philology and textual criticism. BHQ recognizes that philological extrapolations need to be treated with as much care as text critical extrapolations. This care takes the form of marking them unambiguously for the reader. As with text critical extrapolations, BHQ offers two categories. Philological conjectures that are a short extrapolation away from the extant linguistic evidence (e. g., an unattested form in a verbal binyan that is otherwise attested) are labeled simply as unattested. Those involving a greater degree of extrapolation must be labeled as philological conjectures. Because that greater philological extrapolation introduces a greater degree of uncertainty into the text critical result, they also may not be labeled as preferred readings even if directly attested textually among versional witnesses. In the eleven Biblical books published so far, these options for philological extrapolations have been invoked in only one instance. At Judg 1:31 ‫ת־א ְח ָלב‬ ַ ‫וְ ֶא‬, Fernández Marcos proposes that instead of reading with the MT, we should read ‫ת־מ ַח ֵּלב‬ ְ ‫וְ ֶא‬. The MT is supported in whole or in part by the versions, but Fernández Marcos argues that it arises from his proposed reading by a graphic error. However, since the exact reading is neither found in the textual witnesses for the case, or in the extant Hebrew literature of the period, he qualifies the reading as both “origin,” indirectly attested in text critical terms, and “unattest,” unattested philologically. So it represents a modest extrapolation both text critically and philologically.29 In review, we find in the principles and practice of Biblia Hebraica Quinta a typology of nomenclature for text critical and philological conjectures that can be charted as follows: Textual Proposal

Philological Proposal

Evidence available

pref(erred reading)

pref(erred reading)

Short extrapolation – evidence still clearly in view

origin

unattest(ed)

Full extrapolation

conjec(ture)

conjec(ture)-phil(ology)

The use of this nomenclature allows the inclusion of both text critical and philological conjectures in a text critical apparatus while two boundaries are made transparent for the reader. One is the boundary between external evidence and extrapolation from that evidence. Maintaining this boundary clarifies the degree of confidence a reader can place in the proposal. The other boundary is that between evidence for what text should be read at a particular point (text criticism) and evidence for how the Hebrew language represented meaning (philology). From a text critical point of view, keeping this boundary clear is 29 Fernández

Marcos, Judges, 6, 45*.

The Intersection of Philology and Textual Criticism in Biblia Hebraica Quinta

15

important because the two types of evidence have different values in text critical investigation. The extant readings and other evidence for what the text read are clearly relevant to text critical questions even if the construal of its meaning is unclear. On the other hand, evidence for how the language constructs meaning may provide a clear construal in a textual case, but its relevance to that specific textual case is less clear since it comes from outside the case. Reflecting on the published volumes of BHQ in the light of the specific questions considered in the Fribourg colloquium, it seems to me that one aspect of these extrapolations might be marked more clearly. In BHQ there is no nomenclature for signaling in the apparatus the nature of the grounds on which a conjecture is based (i. e., textual or philological) even though, as we have seen, evidence from one discipline may be the basis for proposing an extrapolation in the other. This is always made clear in the accompanying commentary, but some nomenclature to signal this in the apparatus might be the last thing needed to be able to welcome various forms of conjecture into a textual apparatus with full confidence that a reader will not mistake extrapolation for evidence, or one kind of proposal and argument for another. On the other hand, it may be that the BHQ practice requiring that conjectures of any stripe always receive discussion in a commentary points to the proper place for these proposals.30

3. Conclusions By way of a concluding summary, I now turn to the questions posed for the colloquium, and reprised in the introduction to this essay. How can philological study guide the textual critic? Philology aids the text critic to separate true cases of textual divergence from apparent cases. It helps interpret the evidence of the witnesses correctly, by aiding the understanding of apparently difficult Hebrew forms and by aiding a correct understanding of the witness of each version. From time to time, it may also be of assistance in extrapolating from the surviving textual data to a proposed reading for the text. How does textual criticism come to the aid of the philologist? As we have seen in BHQ’s provisions for unattested forms and philological conjectures, there are occasions when, through a preferred reading available only through the versions or indirectly attested, textual criticism may add to the body of forms and constructions posited as present in Hebrew of the Biblical period. Are philology and textual criticism necessarily linked, or are the connections between them merely accidental? As I have suggested at a couple of points, from the perspective of BHQ the linkage is a necessary one. I think this follows from 30 This is the view of W. L. Holladay, “Text Criticism and Beyond: The Case of Jeremiah,” Textus 23 (2007): 173–210, at 182.

16

Richard D. Weis

a key principle of BHQ that I have not yet mentioned. This is the idea that the process of the transmission of the text “was also, whether implicitly or explicitly, a process of hermeneutical appropriation. In other words, the text to some degree was transmitted in terms of its meaning for the copyists’ and translators’ communities.”31 If the text was transmitted not only mechanically, but also in terms of its meaning, then the work of textual criticism and the work of philology are necessarily linked. Can philology justify conjectural emendations, and if so, on what conditions? If by “conjectural emendations” we mean conjectures that would appear in a textual apparatus rather than an exegetical commentary, then from the point of view of BHQ the answer to the first half of this question appears to be “rarely.” Given their great infrequency in the edition so far, it would seem that the conditions that justify their inclusion must be extremely “weighty,” to use the word from the BHQ guideline. Beyond the need for weighty justification, and beyond stipulating that in some sense the extrapolation embodied in the conjecture needs to be connected to and explain, however distantly, the surviving evidence for what the text read, BHQ does not set further conditions, leaving these open to the judgment of individual book editors and to learning from concrete experience. It seems reasonable to assert that conjectures have full place in commentaries as a philological, rather than text critical, practice. Do philological hypotheses have a place in a text-critical apparatus or commentary? Here too, if we are referring to conjectural emendations, the answer from the perspective of BHQ is “rarely,” whereas other kinds of philological hypotheses may have much to say about how we understand the textual data that have survived to us. However, BHQ shifts the focus somewhat. If it is agreed that – to whatever extent – philological hypotheses have a presence in a text-critical apparatus that is consistent with the purpose of the apparatus, then the issue becomes how these are marked so that the reader may easily recognize what is a text critical hypothesis and what is a philological hypothesis. A major problem with the apparatuses of BHQ’s predecessor editions is that they did not distinguish clearly between proposed corrections that were grounded in the extant textual data, and those that were philological hypotheses, with the result that the latter were seen by readers to have the same status as the former. Textual criticism and philology are alike in that both disciplines attempt to reconstruct from incomplete data a total picture – in one case of the history of transmission of a particular text, in the other the history of a language. Both disciplines are thus constantly engaged in the explanation or interpretation of 31 Weis, Norton and Schenker, Guidelines, 31: guideline III.4.2 “Transmission of the Text in Terms of Its Meaning: PRINCIPLE: Decisions on textual cases should proceed from an awareness that the process of the text’s transmission was also, whether implicitly or explicitly, a process of hermeneutical appropriation. In other words, the text to some degree was transmitted in terms of its meaning for the copyists’ and translators’ communities”.

The Intersection of Philology and Textual Criticism in Biblia Hebraica Quinta

17

patterns among those data, and from time to time in extrapolation from those data in an attempt to fill what appear to be gaps among them. These two disciplines do not operate merely in parallel, but necessarily interact since texts are always read for their meaning so that the questions of what is to be read and how its meaning is construed go hand in hand. This inquiry has shown how this interaction is structured, regulated and marked in Biblia Hebraica Quinta so that the reader can see clearly what judgments are being made, and thus determine what weight each decision should be given. As such, the edition provides an helpful case study of the potential for constructive collaboration between the fields of textual criticism and philology, and an example of its implementation in a text edition.

References Academy of the Hebrew Language, The Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Language, Materials for the Dictionary, Series 1 (200 BCE – 300 CE), (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1988). Barr, J., Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987; orig. pub.: Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968). Barthélemy, D., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, vol. 1 (OBO, 50/1; Fribourg: Éditions universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982). Barthelémy, D., Studies in the Text of the Old Testament (TCT, 3; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012). Davies, G. I., Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1991). Fernández Marcos, N., Judges (Biblia Hebraica Quinta, vol. 7; edited by A. Schenker, et al.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011). Gelston, A., The Twelve Minor Prophets (Biblia Hebraica Quinta, vol. 13; edited by A. Schenker, et al.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010). Goshen-Gottstein, M. H., “The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: Rise, Decline, Rebirth,” JBL 102 (1983): 365–399. Holladay, W. L., “Text Criticism and Beyond: The Case of Jeremiah,” Textus 23 (2007): 173–210. Holmstedt, R. D., “The Nexus between Textual Criticism and Linguistics: A Case Study from Leviticus,” JBL 132 (2013): 473–494. Joosten, J. and J.-S. Rey, Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period (STDJ, 73; Leiden: Brill, 2008). Joosten, J., “L’excédent massorétique du livre de Jérémie et l’hébreu post-classique”, in Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period (STDJ, 73; edited by J. Joosten and J.-S. Rey; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 93–108. Schenker, A., et al., “General Introduction,” in Biblia Hebraica Quinta, vol. 18, General Introduction and Megilloth (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004), xii–xiii. Tal, A., Genesis (Biblia Hebraica Quinta, vol. 1; edited by A. Schenker, et al.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2015).

18

Richard D. Weis

Weis, R. D., “‘Lower Criticism’: Studies in the Masoretic Text and the Ancient Versions of the Old Testament as a Means of Textual Criticism,” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. III/1 (ed. M. Sæbø; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 346–392. Weis, R. D., G. J. Norton, and A. Schenker, eds., Guidelines for Contributors (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003).

Some Reflections on the Textual Traditions of the Samaritan Pentateuch Abraham Tal

Very often we speak about the Hebrew Bible, as transmitted within Judaism, using the term “Masoretic text,” which is commonly attributed to the Hebrew word ‫סֹורה‬ ָ ‫מ‬. ָ By this we refer to the root ‫מסר‬, which is understood as “handing down.” Emil Kautzsch in his 28th edition of Gesenius’ Hebräische Grammatik (1909) says (in Arthur Cowley’s translation) § 3b: To the interval between the completion of the Talmud (6th century AD) and the earliest grammatical writers (10th century AD) belong mainly the vocalization and accentuation of the hitherto unpointed text of the OT, according to the pronunciation traditional in the Synagogues and schools as well as the critical notes which bears the name Masora (‫סֹורה‬ ָ ‫ָמ‬ traditio?). From this the text which has been transmitted with rigid uniformity by the MSS, and is still the received text of the OT, has obtained the name of Masoretic Text.1

It is remarkable that Kautzsch put the Hebrew word ‫סֹורה‬ ָ ‫ ָמ‬in parenthesis, followed by the Latin translation traditio, this again followed by an interrogation mark. Obviously, he wasn’t entirely certain about the compatibility of these two terms. Indeed, dominant figures in Judaism, such as Maimonides, proclaimed the supremacy of one of the masoretic schools, namely the school of Ben-Asher of Tiberias.2 He was followed by authorities, such as his contemporary David Kimhi,3 and the later Eliyah Levita,4 Jedidia of Norzi,5 and many others. It was 1 A lot of explanations, past and present, try to establish or deny an etymological connection with Ezek 20:37 ‫מסורת הברית‬ – this is not our concern at this point. 2 The renowned family of masoretes, active for five or six generations during the eighth to the tenth centuries. The last masorete of this family and the most celebrated is Aharon b. Moshe b. Asher. In Maimonide’s words: “The book on which I relied on in these matters is the renowned book in Egypt, which includes the twenty-four books; it was in Jerusalem for many years (used) for checking books from it. Everyone relies upon it because it was checked by ben Asher, who during many years scrutinized it, and checked it many times while copying it. On it I relied when I wrote a Tora according to the law.” (Maimonides, Mishne Torah, Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Tefilin, Mezuzot and Sefer Torah, Chapter VIII, § 4). 3 In his commentary to Psalm 62:4: ‫ואנו סומכים על קריאת בן אשר‬, “we rely on the reading of Ben Asher” (s. v. ‫)ּת ָר ְּצחּו‬. ְ 4 Author of Massoret Hammassoret, edited by Ch.D. Ginsburg, The Masoreth Ha-Masoreth (London: Longmans, 1867), 261. 5 In his critical notes on Gen 1:3: Z. Betser (ed.), Minhat Shay on the Torah, Critical Edition (Jerusalem: The World Union of Jewish Studies, 2005).

20

Abraham Tal

this school that produced codices6 whose copies, in the end, acquired the status of textus receptus of the Hebrew Bible and were propagated in Judaism after being printed in Venice (second edition, 1525–1525) by Ya‘akov Ben-Ḥayyim, and reprinted time and again to this very day. Whether this text is in fact the representative of the Hebrew Bible or not,7 bears little on our subject. What concerns us is the very existence of a textus receptus within Judaism, which we call Masoretic Text. Without entering the tangled problem of the etymology of the hapaxlegomenon ‫ מסרת‬mentioned above, which probably has nothing to do with our common use, we may find enough justification for the use of ‫סֹורה‬ ָ ‫ָמ‬ in this context. When we consider the Scripture, as it appears before our eyes in its variety of manuscripts, we may conclude that, indeed, it has been handed down from generation to generation with care and even with a quite remarkable accuracy. Of course, when concluding this, we overlook the numerous variants, minor or major, that divide the manuscripts produced within the same school, variants that in many cases may cast some light upon the term ‫סֹורה‬ ָ ‫מ‬, ָ in the sense of traditio as Gesenius-Kautzsch so cautiously translated. However, we learn about the meaning of its morphological competitor ‫ָמס ֶֹרת‬ from the Mishna, tract. Sheqalim chap. 6, § 1: ‫ שלבית רבן גמליאל ושל בית ר‘ חנניה סגן הכוהנים היו‬.‫שלש עשרה השתחויות היו בבית המקדש‬ ‫ שכן מסורת בידם מאבותיהם ששם‬,‫ ואיכן היתה היתירה? כנגד ֵדיר העצים‬.‫משתחוים בארבע עשרה‬ .‫הארון גנוז‬ Thirteen places for prostration were in the Temple. The members of the household of Rabban Gamaliel and the members of the household of R. Hananiah, Prefect of the Priests, would do fourteen prostrations. And where was the additional one? Toward the woodshed, for so did they have a tradition from their forebears that there the ark was stored away.

In order to clarify the laconic Mishna, I must add that the ‫ ֵדיר העצים‬is the place where the pieces of wood used for burn-offerings were deposited, and that those pious people knew “by tradition” that it was there, where the Ark was placed in the first Temple, no longer in existence, after its destruction by Nabucodonosor’s soldiers. Obviously, in this context, the word ‫ מסורת‬means “tradition,” in the sense E. Ben-Yehuda defined: “what is handed down by the ancient sages concerning halacha and customs, etc.”8 The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word “tradition” as “the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation.” As usual for this great dictionary, OED also provides the reader with etymological information, saying: “from Latin traditio, from tradere, ‘deliver’, ‘betray’. According to Lewis and 6 Two renowned codices, for example, Cod. Aleppo and Petropolitanus B19 are pointed according to the model set by Aharon b. Moshe b. Asher. 7 See the survey of A. Dotan (ed), ‫ תורה נביאים וכתובים‬Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001). 8 E. Ben Iehuda Hierosolimitano, Thesaurus Totius Hebraitatis et Veteris et Recentioris, vol. VI (Jerusalem: Hoza’a Le’Or, 1943), 3140.

Some Reflections on the Textual Traditions of the Samaritan Pentateuch

21

Short Latin dictionary,9 traditio is a derivative of trado, a compound of trans and dare, i. e., to hand over. The same Latin dictionary defines the other derivative traditor as ‘teacher’ as well as ‘traitor’. The former teaches, i. e., hands over his knowledge to his fellow in order to enlighten him, the later betrays, i. e., he hands over his fellow or what he knows about him in order to harm him. This semantic ramification reminds the Hebrew ‫( מסורות‬plural of the masculine ‫)מסור‬, ‘denouncers’, ‘delators’. Tosephta, tract. Sanhedrin 13:5 gives a long list of unbelievers and other wicked persons, who have no redemption from Gehenna: ‫המינין והמשומדין והמסורות והאפיקורוסין והכופרין בתורה… ושאין מודין בתחיית המתים… גהינָ ם‬ .‫ננעלת בפניהם ונידונין בה לדורי דורות‬ The heretics, the converted, the delators, the Epicurians, the deniers of the Tora, those who deny resurrection …, hell is locked before them; they are condemned to it for generations.10

Indeed, handing down a text, either orally or scripturally, is often a kind of betrayal. The transmitter sees or hears one thing and releases another. Sometimes it is just a mistake. The original has a daleth but he sees a resh, and vice-versa. Not a great difference. It happened with the proper name ‫ ד ָֹדנִ ים‬in Gen 10:4, adopted by Jerome Dodanim, but rejected by the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) for Rodanim, which corresponds to the Masoretic Text (MT) in 1 Chr 1:7 ‫רֹודנִ ים‬ ָ ְ‫ו‬, where the Vulgate has Dodanim too! With the SP reading the Septuagint partly agrees: Ῥόδιοι, while Peshitta went astray: Doranim (identification with the inhabitants of Dura?). Any of these transmitters may be suspected of a slight myopia, however, the partnership of SP with the Septuagint and MT in Chronicles, all of them presupposing ‫רודנים‬, demands consideration. Who seems to be the real traitor? Is MT ‫ ד ָֹדנִ ים‬in Genesis a lapsus calami, in which case one should reject its relation to Isa 21:13, ‫ד ָדנִ ים‬,ְ apparently related to ‫ ְּד ָדן‬in Ezek 27:15. These are rendered as Dodanim too by Jerome, which corresponds to the reading of the Isaiah scroll from Qumran: ‫דודנים‬. Or, perhaps, ‫ ד ָֹדנִ ים‬is the original reading, modified to ‫ רודנים‬in a later period, when contact with the Hellenistic world determined people to attribute the word to the inhabitants of Rhodes. If this is the case, we are faced with a learned act of treason. The different readings of Genesis vs. Chronicles are echoed in a homily of Genesis Rabba, ch. 37, which identifies the two names: ‫ דודנים מפני שהם בני דודיהם של‬:‫ ר‘ סימון אומר‬.‫כתוב אחד אומר דודנים וכתוב אחר אומר ורודנים‬ .‫ רודנים שבאין ורודין אותם‬,‫ישראל‬

 9 Ch.T. Lewis, A Latin Dictionary founded on Andrews’ Edition of Freund’s Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1879). 10 I am not certain whether the Hebrew is a calque on the Latin expression, but I find the question worthy of further inquiry.

22

Abraham Tal

One passage says ‫ דודנים‬and another passage says ‫ורודנים‬. R. Simon says: (they are called) ‫דודנים‬, because they are cousins of Israel [‫בני דוד‬, sons of the uncle]; ‫רודנים‬, because they come and rule over them [‫ רדה‬means ‘to dominate’].

I am not equipped enough, to make decisions regarding the Urtext. All I am trying to show is the diversity of transmission of the Torah, which is particularly expressive when the SP is considered. For, in fact, any attempt to elaborate a critical edition of any ancient text is faced with a plethora of variations, the SP included. The apparatus criticus of von-Gall’s edition is a good testimony for this reality.11 In some cases families of copyists were involved and they produced Torah manuscripts for synagogal or private purposes, as their colophon attest. But none of them gained more prestige than the others on various motifs, and no learned member of the community expressed his preference for any of the scribes, to the point that a certain manuscript would be considered authoritative enough to be imitated. As a result, even a rigid and hermetic tradition as the Samaritan is, out of faithfulness to the divine word, followed a certain process of metamorphosis, either in writing or in oral recitation. It is displayed in several ways, as exemplified below.

1. Testimonies of variants The beginning of the speech of Balaq in Num 24:3–4 is a good example of inner textual variation. MT says: ‫נאם בלעם בנו בעור ונאם הגבר שתם העין; נאם שמע אמרי אל אשר מחזה ַׁש ַּדי יחזה נפל וגלוי עינים‬ Literally: “The word of Balaam son of Beor, the word of the man whose eye is sealed, the word of him who hears God’s speech, Who beholds the vision of the Almighty, Prostrate, but with eyes unveiled.”

The ancient translators had great trouble with the hapaxlegomenon ‫ְׁש ֻתם העין‬ and translated it in different ways, most of which were just attempts to find an equivalent that may apply to the context of prophecy and clairvoyance. Thus, Onqelos says ‫גוברא דשפיר חזי‬, “the man who sees well.” This is not much different from the Septuagint, which dissolves the metaphor: ὁ ἀληθινῶς ὁρῶν “who truly sees.” Peshitta adopts a similar rendering: ‫ “ דגליא עינה‬whose eye is uncovered.” However, the most adequate is Jerome’s Vulgate: “obturatus est oculus.” This means that he has equalized ‫ ְׁש ֻתם‬with ‫סתום‬, “blocked.” Apparently, he followed a tradition shared by the Samaritan Targum (ST): ‫אזדים‬, a variant form 11 A. F. von Gall, Der hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner (Gießen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1918). I do not refer to scriptio plena vs. defectiva, or to marginal differences such as the use or non-use of waw copulativum.

Some Reflections on the Textual Traditions of the Samaritan Pentateuch

23

of the more frequent ‫סתים‬. The passive participle of Qal. This is amazing, as SP reads, as expected, šā˚tām, with the regular ‫ ׁש‬for the semitic ś, but the targumic interpretation is ‫ס‬, i. e., *sā˚tām.12 At any rate, this matter is not the most difficult in this passage. The real trouble is Balaam’s self presentation: “him who hears God’s speech, who beholds the vision of the Almighty.” This is too much for a Samaritan ear, since only Moses was entitled to such a prerogative, as stated by God himself in chapter 12:8: ‫פה‬ ‫אל פה אדבר בו ומראות ולא בחידות ותמונת יהוה יביט‬, “With him I speak mouth to mouth, plainly and not in riddles, and he beholds the likeness of the Lord.” It is unthinkable that a sorcerer would equal Moses in his relationship with God. Accordingly, SP does not have the sequence “him who hears God’s speech.” This does not make matters much better, as the expression “who beholds the vision of the Almighty” is even less acceptable, contradicting Moses’ privilege formulated in chapter 12, mentioned above. Nevertheless, the Samaritan reads šiddi, in keeping with most of the ancient versions: omnipotens, as Jerome puts it. This is how the Samaritan read everywhere the word, which in MT is vocalized ‫ׁש ַּדי‬, ַ referring to God. In all appearances, this should create a problem for the Samaritan theology. Indeed, the medieval (13th century) learned Ghazal ad-Duweik, in his short monograph on Balaam named “Maqalat Balam”13 sought to appease the theological demands saying about the passage in question: “By this he refers to prophecy, since the exhortation came to him whether being awake or asleep.” Nevertheless, one can discern a different approach displayed in ST at this point. All its manuscripts, the old and the young, in unanimity, render the word ‫ שדי‬as ‫ברה‬, “field,” attesting at the reading šā˚di, which is how the word ‫ׂש ֶדה‬, ָ “field,” is pronounced everywhere. This reading avoids the contradiction with chapter 11 saying “the one who beholds the vision in/of the field.” Obviously, we are faced with a testimony of a parallel tradition, no longer in existence. The much younger Arabic versions, however, do not adopt this view. The oldest one, attributed to Ab Isda, which seems to belong to the eleventh or twelfth century, says: ‫“ אלדי נֻ ֻּבּוַ את אלכאפי ינבי‬who prophesies the prophecy of the Almighty.” The 13th century translation of Abu Sa‘id has a similar reading ‫( الذي بنب ّوة الكافي تن ّبى‬for the following ‫ נפל‬both Arabic versions say: “[while] sleeping,” which probably fed the comment of Ghazal).14 In any case, the translators ַ read šiddi and rendered it as ‫الكافي‬, which parallels the masoretic ‫ׁש ַּדי‬. 12 See Z. Ben-Ḥayyim, A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew (Jerusalem-Winona Lake, IN: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2000) (henceforth GSH), 35–37. 13 Unpublished doctoral dissertation: M.-C. Donzé-Michau, L’Image de Balaam. Visions juives et chrétiennes d’un personage contesté (Strasbourg, 2008). 14 H. Shehadeh, The Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch, vol. I–II (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1989–2002). The extant manuscripts display Ab Isda’s translation in Samaritan script, while for Abu Sa‘id’s one Arabic characters are used. For unknown reasons the editor preferred to present both sources in Arabic characters.

24

Abraham Tal

Consequently, we have two traditions for the homograph. The old one, represented by the Aramaic Targum “field,” and the young one represented by the Arabic translation “Almighty,” which refers directly to the present reading šiddi15. Judging by the evidence supplied by the above sources, the first option seems closer to the truth. What is even more intriguing is the verse 16. Here MT sounds: ‫נְ ֻ֗אם ׁש ֵֹ֙מ ַ ֙ע ִא ְמ ֵרי־‬ ‫אל וְ י ֵ ֹ֖ד ַע ַ ּ֣ד ַעת ֶע ְלי֑ ֹון ַמ ֲח ֵז֤ה ַׁש ַּד֙י ֶי ֱֽח ֶ֔זה נ ֵ ֹ֖פל ּוגְ ֥לּוי ֵע ָינ�ֽיִ ם׃‬.ֵ֔ Almost identical with verse 4: “the word of him who hears God’s speech and knows the knowledge of the most High, Who sees the vision of the Almighty, Prostrate, but with eyes unveiled.” Surprisingly, SP has the same wording, although the theological considerations discussed above apply here too: ‫נאם שמע אמרי אל וידע דעת עליון מחזה שדי‬ ‫יחזה נפל וגלוי עינים‬. Here ‫ נאם שמע אמרי אל‬is present, which raises the question which text is edited. And again, ‫ ַׁש ַּדי‬is differently rendered by the translations. The old manuscripts of ST have ‫ברה‬, “field,” except the 12th century manuscript C, which exhibits ‫ספקה‬, in line with the young copies. These reflect the Arabic version ‫“ אלכאפי‬the provider.”16 An even more eloquent example of the dynamics of traditions may be found in chapter 23:10, where the enthusiastic Balaam says according to MT: ‫ִ ֤מי ָמנָ ֙ה‬ ‫ּומ ְס ָ ּ֖פר ֶאת־ ֣ר ֹ ַבע יִ ְׂש ָר ֵ ֑אל‬ ִ ‫ע ַ ֣פר יַ ֲע ֔קֹב‬,ֲ “Who can count the dust of Jacob, or number the fourth part of Israel.” According to von-Gall’s edition, the Samaritan Pentateuch is far from unequivocal. Only one manuscript displays the sequence ‫מי מנה עפר‬, “who can count the dust” in its entirety. In six manuscripts puncta occultantes over the letters of ‫ מנה‬delete the word and leave the sequence: ‫מי עפר‬. One manuscript has just the sequence ‫מי עפר‬, in line with the present pronunciation mī ʿā˚får. In one manuscript someone put a punctum occultans over the ‫ יו”ד‬of the preceding ‫ מי‬to achieve ‫מ•עפר‬, associating the reading to two manuscripts that read ‫ מ•עפר‬d’a capo. Finally, not less than 16 manuscripts read ‫מעפר‬. To sum up: out of 27 manuscripts of von-Gall’s edition only one ms. represents the present pronunciation mī ʿā˚får without posterior scribal intervention: the famous Vat Cod Barberini 1, copied in Damascus in the year 1226. Six mss achieved the same reading only after a secunda manu deleted the word ‫מנה‬. The rest differ considerably. The ms 6 of the Shechem synagogue is particularly expressive in this respect. The scribe displayed his hesitations. He wrote the initial ‫מ‬, then another letter, which he erased thoroughly and wrote ‫ ע‬over it and finished with ‫פר‬. Unsatisfied with the result, having in mind the writing ‫ מ•עפר‬he put a dot … in the wrong place: ‫מע•פר‬. Notably, Maqalat Balam quotes the passage as ‫מעפר‬. 15 Present reading, indeed? In this, there is some hesitation. Not long ago I asked a learned member of the community to recite the entire passage, and he read candidly: šā˚di, “field. After a short while he corrected himself: šiddi, “Almighty.” I don’t know whether this reflects a clash between two reading traditions, or a simple slip of tongue. 16 For the interpretation of ‫ׁש ַּדי‬ ַ as provider, see A. Tal, A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 606.

Some Reflections on the Textual Traditions of the Samaritan Pentateuch

25

It should be noted that the reading mī ʿā˚får excludes the spelling ‫מעפר‬, for the existence of the Ayin at the beginning of the word ʿā˚får can only occur when in initial position.17 In fact the form ‫ מעפר‬exhibited by the majority of manuscripts would have been pronounced *miyyā˚får, according to the grammatical rules of Samaritan Hebrew.18 The manuscripts of ST are divided in their translation. Two of them, ms 6 included, have ‫מן מני עפר‬, (var. ‫)יספר‬, which represents the reading of the minority, but is in line with the Arabic version ‫מאן יעד סלאלת יעקוב‬, “who can count the seed of Jacob”,19 just as MT. Four mss skip ‫מני‬. No targum renders the reading of the majority: ‫מעפר‬. Interestingly enough is the oral testimony provided by the late Samaritan sage Israel Sedaqa: “Nowadays the members of the community read mī mā˚ni ʿā˚får, because they found it written in ancient books. Some decades ago the accepted reading was mī ʿā˚får, to which some people still stick.” This is why mā˚ni is absent from Ben-Ḥayyim’s transcription. A very eloquent example is the famous ‫ אשדת‬in the confusing Deut 33:2: ‫יהוה מסיני בא וזרח משעיר למו הופיע מהר פארן ואתא מרבבת קדש מימינו אשדת למו‬. Already the Masorah demanded the word’s partition into ‫ אש דת‬in an effort to draw some proper meaning from such a cryptic lexeme: “fire of law” (obviously ignoring the fact that ‫ דת‬is a persian loan-word, characteristic to late books of the OT),20 following the Targumic rendering, e. g., ‫כתב ימיניה מגו אישתא אורייתא‬, “His right hand wrote the Torah from the fire” (Onqelos). In any case, MT displays two contradictory traditions. The same is true with regard to SP. According to von-Gall’s edition, 9 manuscripts have one word: ‫אשדת‬, as against 3 which have divided it into ‫ אש דת‬by a dot that serves as a word divider. 4 manuscripts display the variant ‫אשדות‬, divided in one manuscript into ‫אש דות‬, again, by the word divider. The real trouble with the medieval manuscripts of SP is their being deficient. Very few are complete. Their great majority lack the beginning and the end, and were restored by modern scribes, who in the best case reflect the contemporary reading of the Torah. This is why only 17 manuscripts present reliable testimonies. As far as ST is concerned, unfortunately, only one fragment exists, its rendering being: ‫נור אורה‬, “fire of law,” in two words. Whether ‫ אש דת‬represents just an exegetic attempt to understand ‫ אשדת‬or not, the important fact is its very existence and, may I say, its old age: It was already known to Jerome: ignea lex.21 To be sure, the present Samaritan pronunciation is unequivocally aš dat. 17 GSH,

38–41. 39. 19 In Abu Sa‘id’s rendering: ‫من يعد ساللة يعقوب‬. ّ 20 Recently Richard C. Steiner offered an interesting explanation to ‫ אשדת‬as a contraction of ‫אש דאת‬, “flying fire”: JBL 115 (1996): 693–698; M. Fox et al. (ed.), Mishneh Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 157–166. 21 The Septuagint followed a different tradition (of exegesis?): ἄγγελοι, while Peshitta 18 GSH,

26

Abraham Tal

2. Testimonies of learned Samaritans The Samaritans were aware of this state of affairs. A medieval short treatise of an anonymous author is of particular interest. It presents variants of the Pentateuch in Arabic characters, a custom adopted in the 11th century and abandoned towards the 14th century, when various authors returned to quote the Pentateuch in Samaritan characters. The treatise, or, to be exact, its remains, approximately two thirds of the original, compares a “very old manuscript” with the exemplar the anonymous author had at hand (of which we have no knowledge) and elaborates a list of variants. Ben-Ḥayyim published the small treatise many years ago.22 He compared its items with the variants given in von-Gall’s apparatus and elaborated a list of 150 variants unmentioned by von-Gall. Some of them equal MT in contradiction with the text of SP. Such is the plural ‫ ישובו‬in ‫( ודור רביעי ישובו הנה‬Gen 15:16) as against the SP whose singular ‫ ישוב‬is in perfect agreement with the subject ‫דור‬. Such is also ‫והנשא את נבלתם‬, “and he who carries their carcasses” (Lev 11:28), having ‫ נבלתם‬in the accusative, like MT, as against the partitive of SP: ‫והנשא‬ ‫מנבלתם‬, “and he who carries of their carcasses.” Most impressive is ‫וקמץ הכהן‬ ‫מן המנחה‬, “the priest shall scoop out of the meal offering” (Num 5:26), which is also the MT reading, diverging from SP: ‫והרים הכהן מן המנחה‬, “the priest shall lift up of the meal offering.” Interesting enough, this reading corresponds to the rendering attested in no less than 3 manuscripts of SP as ‫ויקמץ‬. The remaining five have the regular ‫וירם‬. It is not entirely surprising that the ms 6 of the Shechem synagogue, dated 1204, has a multitude of readings that agree with MT against SP, very much resembling in character to those picked up from the above-mentioned treatise. Several items of the list reveal divergent vocalizations. I shall mention only two examples that bear on the very grammatical structure of the Samaritan Hebrew. As a rule, in the category of “hollow” verbs (media waw and media yod), Samaritan Hebrew differentiates between the simple imperfect Qal yā˚qom (pl. yā˚qūmu) and the “inverted” imperfect, which denotes the past tense wyā˚qåm.23 This is a regular differentiation, which probably imitates the vowel of the past tense qåm. In spite of this rule, the reading variant mentioned by the list for Gen 18:16 is ‫ויקומו‬, in exact agreement with the MT vocalization ‫וַ ּיָ ֻקמּו‬, with “inverted” imperfect. A similar case is Gen 35:19 where the “inverted” imperfect ‫וַ ָּת ָמת רחל‬, avoided the trap altogether: ‫מריא מן סיני אתא ודנח לן מן סעיר ואתגלי מן טורא דפרן ועמה מן רבותא‬ ‫דקדישא מן ימינה‬. ֵ 22 Z. Ben-Ḥayyim, The Literary and Oral Traditions of Hebrew and Aramaic amongst the Samaritans (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1957), vol. I, ‫סד‬-‫ ;נז‬vol. II, 405–433 (text). 23 GSH, 152.

Some Reflections on the Textual Traditions of the Samaritan Pentateuch

27

“and Rachel died” is pronounced in the oral transmission of SP as wtā˚måt rāʾǝl, while the list quotes ‫ ותמות‬in resemblance with MT. To be sure, these are but rare readings that agree with MT; the greater part has nothing in common with MT, representing minor variants from SP concerning mainly orthography, presence or absence of waw copulativum, etc. Some of the list’s readings have their own form. To give one example, I mention in Gen 17:13, 23 the plural construct ‫ומקנות כספך‬, where the majority of manuscripts have the singular ‫ומקנת‬, presently pronounced maqnåt. Here again, the treatise corresponds to the reading of ms 6 of Shechem, both being opposed to MT.

3. Testimonies of the Aramaic Targum The treatise is not the only witness of a developing Samaritan Text. There are also indirect testimonies, many of which are embedded into the Aramaic of ST. In an article published some years ago I endeavored to show that divergent traditions of SP underlie many readings of the Aramaic Targum, i. e., that various Vorlagen, now extinct, fueled their translations.24 Some of them are in visible conflict with the Samaritan text as it lies before our eyes. For example, the unique formula with which Abraham entreats the people of Hebron to sell him a burial grotto for Sarah sounds in MT ‫אם יש את נפשכם‬ ‫( לקבר את מתי‬Gen 23:8). The locution ‫ אם יש את נפשכם‬is properly translated by KJV as “If it be your mind that.”25 I admit that there is limited syntactical logic in the conditional sentence with ‫נפשכם‬, “your soul” as subject, preceded by the nota accusativi ‫את‬, and just the particle ‫ יש‬as its predicate (2 Kgs 9:15 has the same expression, minus the nota accusativi ‫)את‬. The SP has a verb in the feminine instead, ‫ ישת‬yā˚šåt,26 Thus, the conditional sentence is verbal, having a normal predicate: ‫ישת נפשכם‬. One must admit that SP is far better in syntax, albeit it contains an unknown verb. ST offers its explanation: ‫אתרעית‬, which is the passive/reflexive of ‫רעי‬, “to desire,” recte, “if your mind (soul) desires.” This follows the understanding which guided Jerome in his translation: “si placet animae vestrae.” I would not rule out a common source of inspiration in spite of Jerome’s predilection for MT. It is amazing that although according to von-Gall’s apparatus ‫ ישת‬is the only one Samaritan reading, he chooses the masoretic ‫אם‬ ‫ יש את‬for his main text. The Aramaic column of ms 6 says ‫אם אית ית‬, which is an exact rendering of the masoretic ‫אם יש את‬. We have to consider the possibility that this was its Vorlage. In fact, in a number of fine manuscripts the scribe put a 24 Journal

for the Aramaic Bible 1 (1999): 294–314. echoes the Septuagint Εἰ ἔχετε τῇ ψυχῇ ὑμῶν “if you have your soul.” 26 Apparently, a compound of the two particles ‫ יש‬and ‫את‬. 25 Which

28

Abraham Tal

dot over ‫ישת‬, between the ‫ ש‬and the following ‫ת‬, which hints at some particularity no longer in existence. Such are Cambridge Add. 714, Chester Beaty 751 and John Rylands 6. The Arabic Version also has something to say at this spot. Most translators render the word in question as ‫ان هويت نفوسكم‬, “if your souls like,”27 very much like ‫ אם אתרעית נפשכון‬mentioned above. However, one manuscript has the masoretic-like ‫אן כאן פי נפוסכם‬, “if there is in your souls.” This is the very Cambridge Add. No. 714, considered an excellent 13th century product (1219) by one of the best Samaritan scribes: Abu ‘lBarakâta. Another eloquent example is Gen 47. The ferocious famine in Egypt compelled the Egyptians to trade their fields for food, and in the end themselves as slaves to Joseph on Pharaoh’s behalf. MT relates all this in a rather inconsistent way. V. 21 says: ‫ואת העם העביר אֹתֹו לערים מקצה גבול מצרים ועד קצהו‬, “and as for the people, he transferred them to the cities from one end of Egypt to the other.” This contradicts the following passages, where Joseph gives them seeds to sow (vv. 23–25), while they were transferred to the towns?! This would be logically impossible. Indeed, SP is much more consistent: ‫ואת העם העביד אתו לעבדים‬, “and as for the people, he enslaved as slaves with him.” This really makes sense: the Egyptians were not removed from their villages; they became Pharaoh’s slaves. The only inconvenience seems to be ‫אתו‬, which in MT is the nota accusativi, apparently unnecessarily repeated, after the initial ‫ואת‬. Any linguist can – with a small effort – explain this duplicity as a case of casus pendens: ‫ואת‬ ‫העם‬, “and as for the people,” followed by an anaphoric pronoun: ‫העביר אותו‬, “he transferred them.” However, SP distinguishes sharply between the two, reading ‫ אתו‬as ittu, which is the preposition “with him.” In other words, under Joseph’s control. Thus, the story is smooth and tidy. However, the manuscripts of ST are in disagreement with regard to this particle. Some of them follow the Samaritan reading (mss C, E, J and V ): ‫עמה‬, while others render it as ‫יתה‬, in line with the masoretic nota accusativi (A, B and M). The same accusative is expressed in the Arabic translations by the 3rd personal pronoun suffixed to the verb: ‫ואלקום‬ ّ ‫( والقوم استعبدهم‬Abu Sa‘id). ‫( אסתעבדהם עבידא‬Ab Isda), ‫فلحين‬

4. Testimonies of quotations Another source of evidence is quotations of the Samaritan Pentateuch in external sources. They occasionally testify about the dynamics of the Samaritan text too. For example, in the famous “Song of the Sea” (Exodus 15) MT reads verse 8 as follows: ‫ קפאו תהֹמֹת בלב ים‬,‫ נצבו כמו נד נֹזְ ִלים‬,‫וברוח אפיך נערמו מים‬, “At the blast of thy anger the waters piled up, the floods stood up in a heap, the deeps congealed in the heart of the sea.” According to the masoretic punctuation, the 27 Ab

Isda: ‫אן הוית נפוסכן‬.

Some Reflections on the Textual Traditions of the Samaritan Pentateuch

29

verse is divided into three divisions, the second of which, ‫נצבו כמו נד נֹזְ ִלים‬, has ‫נוזלים‬, “waters” as subject, with the rest of the phrase as predicate: ‫נצבו כמו נד‬. The Samaritan verse is quite different: ‫וברוח אפך נערמו מים נצבו כמו נד נאזלים‬ ‫קפאו תהומת בלב ים‬. The segment ‫ נצבו כמו נד נאזלים‬is pronounced: nā˚ṣā˚bu kā˚mu nad nā˚:zēlǝm. The last word a participle Nif ‘al of the root ‫אזל‬, “to go.” Obviously, in contradistinction from the masoretic participle Qal ‫ נֹזְ ִלים‬of the root ‫נזל‬, “to flow.” As such, it exhibits a different syntactic structure, namely, ‫ נאזלים‬nā˚:zēlǝm is the adjective defining the noun ‫ נד‬nad, while the subject is situated in the previous division: ‫מים‬. The passage is therefore to be translated, according to the pronunciation: “At the blast of thy anger the waters piled up, they stood up like a moving heap, the deeps congealed in the heart of the sea.” The pronunciation nā˚:zēlǝm is well represented by the aleph, exhibited by the majority of manuscripts of SP known to me. This is faithfully reproduced in vonGall’s edition apparatus. There is, however, a remarkable number of manuscripts whose orthography omits the aleph, displaying a ‫נזלים‬, resemblant to MT, albeit it cannot testify about a variant until further inquiry. Indeed, the Samaritan Midrash known as Tibåt Mårqe, (or Memar Marqe) quotes the Pentateuch in extenso. There are two versions: a manuscript dated to the 14th century, known as ms K, and a younger one dated to the 16th century, named ms S. Offering its homilies, ms K quotes SP within the context of the “Song of the Sea” using the verb ‫נזל‬, in line with the masoretic vocalization, albeit written plene waw: ‫( אתקוממו כות טמי נוזלים‬Book II, § 78; note the mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic in the Midrash). Book V, § 6, where Joshua is described weeping because of Moses’ imminent death, uses the Pentateuchal locution: ‫ודמעיו כנד‬ ‫נוזלים‬, “his tears were like a pillar of liquid” – plene waw again. But in Book III, § 38 ms K reads ‫נצבו נד נאזלים‬, like the reading of SP. The ms S displays the same variation. In one case, when describing the sea it uses ‫ נזל‬just like MT: ‫( נצבות מיה כטמי נוזלים‬in Book II, § 31 alone). In four other places the verb ‫ אזל‬occurs, whatever the context: ‫( כמו נד נאזלים‬I, § 78; (II, § 38); ‫( ודמעיו כמטר נאזלים‬V, § 5, 6). This is not surprising, since the six books of this midrashic collection are the product of various authors acting at various times.28 This suggests that the spelling ‫נזלים‬, existent in many manuscripts, may represent a reading lexically equal to the reading of MT, as the quotations of Tibat Marqe suggest. ST does not solve the problem, most of its manuscripts having ‫נחותיה‬ “descending,” which may attest at both readings.29 The 14th century Samaritan glossary named Hammeliṣ,30 offers some valuable evidence. This glossary was conceived as a collection of Targumic renderings 28 Demonstrated in the introduction of Z. Ben-Ḥayyim’s edition: ‫ תיבת מרקה‬a Collection of Samaritan Midrashim (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1988), 23–27. 29 For the proximity of ‫ אזל‬and ‫ נזל‬see Z. Ben-Ḥayyim, Leshonenu 15 (1946): 78. 30 Ben-Ḥayyim, The Literary and Oral Traditions, vol. II, 531.

30

Abraham Tal

juxtaposed with an alphabetical list of the words of SP. Obviously, the compiler had access to manuscripts no longer in existence. When it comes to ‫( נאזלים‬this is its spelling), he puts two Aramaic equivalents against it. One is ‫אזלי‬, attesting to the Vorlage known to us from the pronunciation. The other is ‫מדיביה‬, “flowing,” participle Af ‘el of ‫דוב‬, that parallels the Hebrew ‫זוב‬, “flow,” which supposes a Vorlage ‫נוזלים‬. * In this article I tried to demonstrate that for a long period of time, the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch was in a state of fluidity, sometimes conserving variations from a previous stage of development that did not exclude one another, to the extent that no textus receptus exists within Samaritanism. In other words, no scribal habits were established as obligatory excluding other scribal habits, and no scribe attained a status similar to the Masoretic school of Ben-Asher.

References Ben Iehuda Hierosolimitano, E., Thesaurus Totius Hebraitatis et Veteris et Recentioris, vol. VI (Jerusalem: Hoza’a Le’Or, 1943). Ben-Ḥayyim, Z., A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew (Jerusalem – Winona Lake, IN: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2000). Ben-Ḥayyim, Z., The Literary and Oral Traditions of Hebrew and Aramaic amongst the Samaritans, vol. IV: The Words of the Pentateuch (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1957). Ben-Ḥayyim, Z. ‫ תיבת מרקה‬A Collection of Samaritan Midrashim (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1988). Betser, Z. (ed.), Minhat Shay on the Torah, Critical Edition (Jerusalem: The World Union of Jewish Studies, 2005). Donzé-Michau, M.-C., L’Image de Balaam. Visions juives et chrétiennes d’un personnage contesté (PhD diss., Strasbourg, 2008). Dotan, A. (ed.), ‫ תורה נביאים וכתובים‬Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001). Fox, M. et al. (ed.), Mishneh Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 157–166. Levita, E., Massoret Hammassoret, ed. Ch.D. Ginsburg, The Masoreth Ha-Masoreth (London: Longmans, 1867). Lewis, T., A Latin Dictionary founded on Andrews’ Edition of Freund’s Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1879). Shehadeh, H., The Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch, vol. I–II (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1989–2002). Tal, A., A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic (Leiden: Brill, 2000). von Gall, A. F., Der hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner (Gießen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1918).

Post-Biblical Hebrew as a Controlling Factor in the Arbitration between Variant Readings Jan Joosten

Both Philology and Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible struggle with problematic evidence. Although both fields have an enormous amount of data at their disposal, almost all of it is indirect and can only be used after much weighing. A fundamental problem in much text-critical work on the Hebrew Bible is that some of the most important textual witnesses are translations. In many biblical books, only the Septuagint gives access to a textual strand different from that represented by the received Masoretic text. Using the Septuagint for text-critical purposes usually requires retroverting the Greek text into Hebrew, a process fraught with difficulties and whose results are hardly ever without doubt. The biblical manuscripts discovered in Qumran have shown that many Septuagint readings do go back to Hebrew variants. Nevertheless, when a variant is not attested in Hebrew, reconstructing it on the basis of a Greek text will always remain somewhat uncertain. Hebrew philology is problematic for different reasons. Biblical Hebrew is a dead language, attested in a relatively small corpus. The books of the Bible came into being over a period that may have lasted hundreds of years, and in a geographical area that could easily accommodate various local dialects. A great number of Hebrew words are attested just once in the biblical corpus. Philologists have therefore turned to cognate languages to recover the meaning of Hebrew words and roots. But this quest has proved hazardous: even where a Hebrew word is etymologically related to a word in another Semitic language, nothing guarantees that their semantics are the same. Both these problems can profit from the study of post-biblical Hebrew, a resource unfortunately somewhat underused in biblical philology. Study of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea scrolls, Ben Sira and the Rabbinic literature can be of help in evaluating versional evidence, particularly evidence from the Septuagint. The Greek translators often do not analyse the biblical text according to what is written in our dictionaries of Biblical Hebrew, but according to the Hebrew of their time. Moreover, where they translate on the basis of later Hebrew, their renderings are not always obviously wrong. Study of post-biblical Hebrew is of help in understanding the translational process, and in evaluating the meaning of the putative Vorlage of the Septuagint. Study of post-biblical Hebrew can also provide firmness in philological treatments. Such treatments are usually based

32

Jan Joosten

on cognate languages, and only rarely on later phases of Hebrew.1 In regard to the quantity of Semitic texts, this is understandable, since literature in early postbiblical Hebrew is less abundant than literature in some other Semitic languages.2 In regard to quality, however, the neglect of post-biblical Hebrew is problematic. Linguistically, post-biblical and biblical Hebrew are much more closely allied than Ugaritic, Akkadian or Arabic are to Hebrew. In cultural perspective, too, the continuity among phases of ancient Hebrew literature is stronger than that between the Hebrew Bible and literatures of the Ancient Near East. In the present paper, the potential usefulness of post-biblical Hebrew will be illustrated with some instances that are of interest philologically and text-critically. Post-biblical Hebrew may in some instances help to show that the received Hebrew text of the Bible is sound and does not need to be emended. In other instances, post-biblical Hebrew can contribute to a more realistic reconstruction of variant readings on the basis of the versions.

1. Preliminary considerations: The philological value of post-biblical Hebrew Before getting to the heart of the matter, however, a few preliminary remarks are necessary. Post-biblical Hebrew evidence comes with its own problems. Whenever a “biblical” form occurs in a later text, the question arises whether the later use independently draws on the author’s knowledge of Hebrew – in which case it can legitimately illuminate the earlier instance – or whether it reflects reuse of the biblical form. The authors of later Hebrew writings generally speaking knew the biblical texts well. They often aspired to write in a “biblical” style. At times they adopt biblical words they know from studying earlier texts, not from the living Hebrew of their time. Distinguishing natural use of the language from different kinds of classicizing is difficult. The problem may quickly be illustrated by two well-known examples. 1. 1. Authentic Hebrew usage: Ben Sira, the Qumran Scrolls and Tannaitic writings contain many expressions testifying to authentic knowledge of a living language. The living language in question is not classical Hebrew, of course, but a later dialect. Languages evolve very slowly, however, and it is certainly possible that words and expressions 1 A first impression as to the relative unimportance of post-biblical Hebrew in philological treatments of the biblical texts can be gained from the “Index of examples” in J. Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament. With Additions and Corrections (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987), 320–337. For a few recent contributions that do exploit the new postbiblical material in this perspective, see below in note 3. 2 It is, however, much more abundant today than 60 years ago.

Post-Biblical Hebrew as a Controlling Factor

33

occurring only once or twice in the biblical writings were still in living use in the second and first centuries BCE. Where later writers tap into this reservoir of linguistic knowledge, they may give real illumination of rare expressions in the biblical writings. Several authorities have signalled cases illustrating this possibility.3 An excellent example is the meaning of the word ‫ּכידֹון‬,ִ attested 9 times in the Bible.4 From the biblical attestations it is easy to see that ‫ ִּכידֹון‬is a weapon. The ancient versions interpret the word as “spear, javelin,” “shield,” “dagger” or “cuirass.”5 Until recently, lexicographers and exegetes showed much uncertainty on the meaning of the word, although generally they preferred the meaning “spear, javelin.”6 The situation changed, however, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In the War Scroll, a weapon called ‫ כידן‬is mentioned five times (1QM V 7, 11, 12, 14; VI 5).7 More to the point, it is described in some detail as consisting of a blade one cubit and a half long and four fingers wide and a handle made of horn, and worn in a scabbard. Clearly, the ‫ כידן‬here designates a type of sword. This meaning fits the biblical attestations as well.8 Consequently, most recent dictionaries of Biblical Hebrew have adopted it.9 1. 2. “Pseudo-classicisms” In other passages, however, the use later texts make of rare words in the biblical books cannot be a guide toward their authentic meaning. Both Ben Sira and the Qumran authors tend to “classicize,” using words and expressions in ways that do not reflect the natural Hebrew of their time but close study of old texts.10  3 See e. g. E. Qimron, “The Biblical Lexicon in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” DSD 2 (1995): 295–329; M. Kister, “Some observations on vocabulary and style in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Diggers at the Well. Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls & Ben Sira (ed. T. Muraoka, J. F. Elwolde; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 115–130.  4 Josh 8:18, 26; 1 Sam 17:6, 45; Jer 6:23; 50:42; Job 39:23; 41:21. See also Sir 46:2, and Mishnah Kelim XI 8.  5 “Spear”: γαῖσος, Josh 8:18 LXX (and so also the Peshitta and Targum Jonathan), but in Sir 46:2, where this passage is referred to, the Greek translation is ῥομφαία, “sword”; “shield”: ἀσπίς, 1 Sam 17:6 LXX, and the Vulgate everywhere except in Job 41:20 (where it has hasta, “lance”); “dagger”: ἐγχειρίδιον, Jer 50:42 LXX; “cuirass”: asnprf, 1 Sam 17:45 Peshitta.  6  Thus BDB.  7 The word is systematically written defectively in the War Scroll, indicating that the vowel in the second syllable was [a], not [o]. The difference is probably dialectal in nature, as are many other divergences of vocalization between Qumran Hebrew and Tiberian Hebrew.  8 See J. Carmignac, “Précisions apportées au vocabulaire de l’Hébreu biblique par la guerre des fils de lumière contre les fils de ténèbres”, VT 5 (1955): 357–359. To be precise, the word as used in the War Scroll may refer to a specific type of weapon used in the Roman period, while the same word in Biblical Hebrew may refer to a short sword more generally. While the lexical meaning remained, the specific reference varied in function of technology and military fashion.  9 See e. g. KBL. 10 J. Joosten, “Pseudo-classicisms in Late Biblical Hebrew, in Ben Sira, and in Qumran Hebrew,” in Sirach, Scrolls and Sages. Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, held at Leiden University, 15–17 December 1997 (ed. T. Muraoka, J. F. Elwolde; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 146–159; M. Kister, “Some

34

Jan Joosten

An interesting illustration is afforded by the expression ‫יׁש־ה ֵּבנַ יִ ם‬ ַ ‫א‬.ִ The phrase is found in 1 Sam 17:4, 23 and is sufficiently well understood: Goliath is the Philistine champion and as such the “go-between,” the man who steps out into the interval between the two camps to meet his counterpart from the Israelite side and decide the battle between them. Yet the expression is used only here in the Hebrew Bible. The ancient versions give various interpretations that do not agree with our modern interpretations (see below). So the question arises: does ‫ִאיׁש־‬ ‫ ַה ֵּבנַ יִ ם‬really mean “go-between”? Post-biblical Hebrew provides some relevant material. In the War Scroll and related manuscripts from Cave 4, the plural ‫אנשי‬ ‫( הבנים‬also written plene ‫ )אנשי הבינים‬is used several times in military contexts. These “men of the interval” go out (‫ )יצא‬into battle, as does Goliath according to 1 Sam 17:4. They are not champions preparing for single combat, however, but regular soldiers marching in formations of 1000 men. Alongside the “men of the interval,” “banners of the interval” ‫ דגלי בינים‬are mentioned several times. These troops are expressly distinguished from the cavalry, notably in 1QM VI 8–13. In light of these facts, the Hebrew expression has been taken to mean “foot-soldiers.”11 There is almost certainly a connection between the expression ‫יׁש־ה ֵּבנַ יִ ם‬ ַ ‫ ִא‬in 1 Sam 17 and the plural ‫ אנשי הבנים‬in 1QM. But the data can be interpreted in two very different ways. The occurrences in Qumran Hebrew might be viewed as attesting the authentic meaning of the expression: the “man of the intervals” would be an idiom designating a foot-soldier, such as Goliath indeed was. The modern interpretation, “champion,” based on etymology and on the specific context of 1 Sam 17, would not reflect the meaning of the expression taken by itself. This approach is taken, for instance, by Kyle McCarter in his Anchor Bible commentary on Samuel.12 The other possibility, far more likely in my view, is that the occurrences in 1QM reflect reuse of an archaic expression. The Qumran writers knew the phrase from the old story on David and Goliath, but didn’t have an exact understanding of it. In this, they were not alone: the Septuagint translators interpreted the expression as ἀνὴρ δυνατός “mighty man” (the Peshitta similarly: gabra ga[n]bara), Targum Jonathan as ‫“ גברא מביניהון‬a man from among them,” the Vulgate as vir spurius “a bastard,” and ancient midrashim add several other hypotheses.13 The meaning “foot-soldier” obtaining in 1QM appears to reflect contextual exegesis of the story in 1 Sam 17: since Goliath went about on foot, the obscure term ‫ הבנים‬was interpreted to have this meaning. Applying a procedure Lexical Features of the Writings from Qumran” in The Qumran Scrolls and their World, vol. 2 (ed. M. Kister; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2009), 561–569 [Hebrew]. 11 See the detailed discussion in Carmignac, “Précisions”, 355–357. 12 P. Kyle McCarter, 1 Samuel (Anchor Bible 8; Doubleday, 1995). 13 See TB Sotah 42b: “What means ‘benayim’? – Rab said: That he was built up [mebunneh] without any blemish. Samuel said: He was the middle one [benoni] of his brothers. In the School of R. Shila they explained: He was made like a building [binyan]. R. Johanan said: He was the son of a hundred fathers and one mother.”

Post-Biblical Hebrew as a Controlling Factor

35

that is very frequent in the Scrolls, the Qumran writers then took the biblical word with the meaning they had given it in the course of their exegesis and used it in their own creative writing. If this is indeed what happened, the Qumran usage can contribute nothing to the interpretation of the biblical expression.

2. Philology and textual criticism leading to alternative solutions In some problematic passages in the Bible, Philology and textual criticism point in different directions, leaving modern-day biblical scholars perplex. Emendation and reinterpretation look equally feasible, but they cannot both be right. In this case, only careful weighing of the possibilities can lead to a decision. Post-biblical Hebrew may strengthen the case of the philological approach. An interesting illustration of this conflict of methods is found in 1 Kgs 1:6. When David is grown old, his eldest remaining son, Amnon, prepares to take the throne. David remains mute: 1 Kgs 1:6

‫ית‬ ָ ‫דּוּע ָכּ ָכה ָע ִשׂ‬ ַ ‫אָביו ִמיָּ ָמיו ֵלאמֹר ַמ‬ ִ ‫א־ע ָצבֹו‬ ֲ ֹ ‫וְ ל‬

And his father had not displeased him at any time in saying, Why hast thou done so? (KJV )

The normal meaning of ‫ עצב‬II is “to pain, to grieve” and the KJV renders it accordingly in this passage.14 However, many exegetes have felt that this meaning is not exactly what is required in the context. Adonijah usurps power, but David never “grieves” him – the statements seem to be poorly matched. 2.1. Textual criticism In light of the unease, some exegetes have proposed to read, instead of ‫עצבו‬, ‫“ עצרו‬restrained him” on the basis of the Septuagint according to the B text: ἀπεκώλυσεν αὐτόν “hindered him.”15 Despite the verse being located in a kaige section, the B reading may well represent the Old Greek.16 Indeed, it may be attested in Flavius Josephus. Josephus, in his retelling of the story in Antiq. 7:346, 14 See G. R. Driver, “Supposed Arabisms in the Old Testament,” JBL 55 (1936): 101–120, at 115–116. 15 See J. A. Montgomery, H. S. Gehman, The Book of Kings, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951), 83, for a list of exegetes who adopted the emendation. 16 As Barthélemy underscored in his original demonstration of the relative value of the “B” text and the “Lucianic” text in the βγ section of Kingdoms (2 Kgds 11 – 3 Kgds 2:11), the two texttypes, kaige and Old Greek, should not entirely be identified with the two sets of witnesses. At times the kaige recension penetrated into Lucianic witnesses, and at times B preserved the Old Greek. See D. Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila : première publication intégrale du texte des fragments du dodécaprophéton trouvés dans le désert de Juda, précédée d’une étude sur les traductions et recensions grecques de la Bible réalisées au premiére siècle de notre ère sous l’influence du rabbinat palestinien (VT.Supp, 10; Leiden: Brill, 1963), 113–126.

36

Jan Joosten

uses two verbs: οὐκ ἐπέπληττεν οὐδ᾿ ἐπεῖχεν αὐτὸν, “he did not reprove him, nor restrain him,” where the second verb corresponds to B’s reading semantically. The doublet may indicate that Josephus tried to mediate between two textual forms known to him, a Hebrew one similar to the MT and a Greek one similar to the reading of the B text of the Septuagint. The reconstructed reading would fit the context: “His father had never restrained him saying, Why have you done this?” It is also feasible in light of transcriptional probabilities. Changes between beth and resh underlie other variants in the Septuagint of Kings. Note the following: 1 Kgs 3:16

‫ל־ה ֶמּ ֶלְך‬ ַ ‫אָז ָתּבֹאנָ ה ְשׁ ַתּיִם נָ ִשׁים זֹנֹות ֶא‬

Τότε ὤφθησαν δύο γυναῖκες πόρναι τῷ βασιλεῖ Then two prostitutes came (MT) / appeared (LXX) to the king.

Greek ὤφθησαν probably reflects a variant reading ‫ תראינה( תראנה‬in the plene writing characteristic of the MT): third person feminine plural of the Niphal of ‫“ ראה‬to see.” Such changes may go back to a time when the book of Kings was written in Palaeo-Hebrew script, where beth and resh are easily confused. 2. 2. Hebrew philology In spite of the plausibility of the text-critical solution, however, most exegetes have preferred to keep the MT of 1 Kgs 1:6. While other biblical occurrences of the root ‫ עצב‬II mean indeed “to hurt” or “to grieve, to sadden,” Semitic cognates indicate that the meaning “to be angry with” may have been part of the semantic range of the root.17 Many ancient versions reflect a similar nuance, rendering the Hebrew with verbs meaning “to reprimand, to rebuke.”18 This interpretation too fits the context well. An additional argument, indirect but nevertheless persuasive, can be found in the text of 2 Sam 13:21. The Hebrew text there has nothing analogous to our verse: 2 Sam 13:21

‫ל־ה ְדּ ָב ִרים ָה ֵא ֶלּה וַ יִּ ַחר לֹו ְמאֹד‬ ַ ‫וְ ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך ָדּוִ ד ָשׁ ַמע ֵאת ָכּ‬

And King David heard all these words and was very angry.

But the Septuagint has an important plus: 2 Kgds 13:21 καὶ ἤκουσεν ὁ βασιλεὺς Δαυιδ πάντας τοὺς λόγους τούτους καὶ ἐθυμώθη σφόδρα· καὶ οὐκ ἐλύπησεν τὸ πνεῦμα Αμνων τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἠγάπα αὐτόν, ὅτι πρωτότοκος αὐτοῦ ἦν 17 See

Driver, “Supposed Arabisms.” Antiochene text of the Septuagint has ἐπετίμησεν “rebuked”; the Peshitta and the Targum also use verbs meaning “to scold, to rebuke.” 18 The

Post-Biblical Hebrew as a Controlling Factor

37

And King David heard all these words and was very angry, but he did not grieve the spirit of Amnon his son, for he kept loving him, for he was his firstborn (NETS).

The Septuagint plus goes back to a Hebrew source text as is proven by evidence from Qumran: 4QSama f102–109

]‫את [כול‬ ֗ ‫[ והמלך דויד] שמע‬ s]‫[הדברים האלה ויחר לו מאד ולוא עצב את רוח אמנון בנו כי אה]בו כי בכור[ו‬ [ ‫]הוא‬

[And King David] heard [all these words and was very angry, but he did not grieve the spirit of Amnon his son, for he lov]ed him, for [he was his] firstborn.

Although the critical part is missing from 4QSama, the verb ‫ עצב‬can reliably be restored on the basis of the Septuagint. The equivalence between ‫ עצב‬and λυπέω is attested in 2 Sam 19:3, located in the same translation unit as 2 Sam 13:21. The plus attested in the Septuagint and 4QSama almost certainly reflects the older text, amputated by homoiarcton in the MT.19 The reconstructed attestation of ‫ עצב‬in 2 Sam 13:21 confirms the MT of 1 Kgs 1:6. Not only is the context similar, with a son misbehaving and a father not doing anything about it, but the passage comes from the same literary work as 1 Kgs 1:6. In recounting Adonijah’s bid for the throne, the author of the Succession History presents the prince in the image of other ambitious sons of David who similarly failed to achieve their purpose. According to the preceding verse, 1 Kgs 1:5, Adonijah has a “chariot and horses, and fifty men to run before him” – just like Absalom (2 Sam 15:1).20 The use of the rare verb in 1:6 functioned as an allusion to the earlier misdemeanours of Amnon in the original Hebrew text of the Succession History (containing the plus in 2 Sam 13:21). Further in support of the MT reading in 1 Kgs 1:6, it is interesting to note a post-biblical Hebrew attestation of the verb ‫ עצב‬expressing a similar meaning: Sir 14:1 (ms A)

‫אשרי אנוש לא עצבו פיהו ולא אבה עליו דין לבו‬

Happy is the man whose mouth does not reproach him, and whose heart does not desire to bring him pain.

Unfortunately, the verse is difficult. The word ‫ דין‬in the second stich probably derives from the root ‫ דוה‬and means something like “pain, grief.”21 But the 19 See S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel (Oxford: OUP, 21912), 301; CTAT I, 265. 20 Other examples of this literary technique are enumerated in Montgomery and Gehman, Kings, 72. 21 The same word is attested in Sir 30:21, 23; 37:2; 38:18 (in various Geniza manuscripts). Whether it is to be emended to ‫ דון‬or reflects a special vocalization (dayon?) is hard to say on the basis of the available evidence.

38

Jan Joosten

meaning of ‫ אבה‬is uncertain and the text may not be in order.22 The versions diverge hugely. Nevertheless, the context, also taking in the next verse,23 suggests that the question at issue is that of one’s conscience accusing one of crimes. If this interpretation of the Hebrew text of Sir 14:1 is on the right track, the passage independently attests the meaning “to reproach, to rebuke” for the verb ‫עצב‬. The verb ‫ עצב‬in Sir 14:1 most likely attests authentic Hebrew usage. There is no reason to think Ben Sira borrowed the verb ‫“ עצב‬to rebuke” from 1 Kgs 1:6, where the context and subject matter are different. This is rather an instance of a late writer’s independently preserving a rare usage of a Hebrew word. Consequently, the post-biblical attestation sheds light on the biblical verb in more or less the same way as do Semitic cognates. However, while Arabic can only suggest that ‫ עצב‬could have the meaning “to rebuke” in Hebrew, the post-biblical attestations shows that, at least at some period, it did have this meaning. In conclusion, the biblical material probably suffices to make the choice between the philological and text-critical alternatives. Although one should admit the validity of the retroversion ‫“ עצרו‬he restrained him,” the virtues of the reading ‫“ עצבו‬he rebuked him” make it the better reading. Even so, the value of the post-biblical material is important in methodological perspective.

3. Philology and textual criticism as complementary approaches Philology and textual criticism may point in different directions, as in 1 Kgs 1:6. When they do, the most plausible solution has to be selected by careful reasoning. In the example discussed above, philology ends up prevailing. In other cases, the analysis will show that the text-critical solution is preferable. However, philology and textual criticism may also go hand in hand. In this case, too, the study of post-biblical Hebrew can be of help. A striking constellation occurs when textual criticism points to an emendation, for which a parallel can be found in post-biblical literature. On an earlier occasion, I pointed to an example of this in 1 Kgs 1:36. After David has ordered Solomon to be declared his successor, Benaiah, commander of the mercenary force, says: 1 Kgs 1:36

‫אמר יְ הוָ ה‬ ַ ֹ ‫אָמן ֵכּן י‬ ֵ

Amen: thus may YHWH say. 22 Lévi brilliantly proposed to read ‫ אנה‬Piel “(whose heart) made to befall,” see I. Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique ou la sagesse de Jésus, fils de Sira (2 vols.; Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1898–1901), 99. Smend, Segal and others correct to ‫(“ הביא‬whose heart) brought,” which gives a satisfactory sense but would hardly have corrupted to what is read in the manucript. 23 Sir 14:2a “Happy is the man whose soul does not condemn him.”

Post-Biblical Hebrew as a Controlling Factor

39

MT’s “Thus may YHWH say” is weak both stylistically and substantially. One expects an assertion that God will bless the initiative, be pleased by it, or bring it about. A number of divergent readings are attested in the versions.24 The most interesting of these is found in the Septuagint:25 Γένοιτο· οὕτως πιστώσαι κύριος Let it be. Thus may the Lord confirm.

The Greek verb probably reflects a form of the root ‫“ אמן‬to be firm.” The equivalence between ‫ אמן‬and πιστόω is well attested in the Septuagint.26 And the roots ‫ אמר‬and ‫ אמן‬are confused in other biblical passages.27 The Vorlage of the Old Greek may be reconstructed as follows: ‫אמן כן יאמן יהוה‬ Amen, thus may YHWH confirm.

28

This reading better fits the context. Some textual critics have adopted it.29 Yet the reconstructed reading also creates a problem: there are no attestations in the biblical corpus of the verb ‫ אמן‬meaning “to confirm.” Post-biblical Hebrew shows that this usage (with ‫ אמן‬in the piel) did indeed exist in the living language: 4QBarkc (4Q436) 1:4

‫ובריתך אמנת לי‬

And your covenant you have confirmed unto me. Tos. Ter. I 4 His father who confirmed (his utterance) after him (the

‫אביו שאמן אחריו‬ minor).30

Thus, textual data and philological analysis converge to show that the reading ‫ יאמן‬was not merely imagined by the Greek translator, but really figured in the Vorlage.31 Whether the reading is more original than the received Hebrew text is 24 See BHS and C. F. Burney, Notes on the Hebrew text of the books of Kings (Clarendon; Oxford, 1903), 9. A full discussion of the readings and the way they relate to one another will be contained in the 1 Kings volume of the Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition, which Jan Joosten, Jean Koulagna and Matthieu Richelle are preparing in collaboration with Bonifatia Gesche. 25 The Septuagint evidence is itself complicated because the Lucianic text has a doublet which also diverges from the MT, see Montgomery and Gehman, Kings, 85. 26 See, e. g., 2 Sam 7:16; 1 Kgs 8:26; 2 Chr 1:9; Ps 78(77):8. 27 See e. g. Jer 15:11, MT versus the Septuagint; Hos 12:1 MT versus Septuagint and Targum. 28 It is impossible to know the stem form of the verb ‫ אמן‬intended in this clause. Most likely it was – in our terms – either a Piel or a Hiphil. 29 See Burney (above note 24). 30 For other attestations, see M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (1903; reprinted New York: Pardes, 1950). 31 The verb ‫“ אמן‬to confirm” is not an Aramaism. One could perhaps explain it as a late

40

Jan Joosten

of course another matter. In preparing the HBCE of 1 Kings we have not so far adopted it in the critical text. Another example – at once more interesting and more problematic – illustrating the same principles is found, again, in the book of Samuel: 1 Sam 2:29b

‫ל־מנְ ַחת יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ְל ַע ִמּי‬ ִ ‫אשׁית ָכּ‬ ִ ‫יא ֶכם ֵמ ֵר‬ ֲ ‫ת־בּנֶ יָך ִמ ֶמּנִּ י ְל ַה ְב ִר‬ ָ ‫וַ ְתּ ַכ ֵבּד ֶא‬

You have honoured your sons more than me by making yourselves fat from the best parts of all the offerings of my people Israel καὶ ἐδόξασας τοὺς υἱούς σου ὑπὲρ ἐμὲ ἐνευλογεῖσθαι ἀπαρχῆς πάσης θυσίας Ισραηλ ἔμπροσθέν μου You have honoured your sons above me, to bless themselves with the first fruit32 of every offering of Israel before me. (cf 4QSama ‫מראש כול מנחות‬ ̇ ‫הב ̇ריך‬ ̇ ‫)ל‬ ֯

All of verse 29 is difficult and many emendations have been proposed on the basis of the Greek, some of which are confirmed by 4QSama.33 In spite of the textual problems, the general sense of the second half of the verse is clear. God reproaches Eli for allowing his sons to benefit unduly from the sacrifices of the Israelites. This accords well with what is told earlier in the story (see 1 Sam 2:12–17). There is an important variant, however, in regard to the precise misdeed of the priestly family. The form in the MT has generally been analysed as a Hiphil infinitive of the root ‫“ ברא‬to be fat” with a second person plural suffix: “so as to fatten yourselves.”34 Since priests legitimately eat part of the sacrifices, this understanding of the accusation is not satisfactory.35 Moreover, the use of the second person suffix is surprising because it includes Eli among those who do the crime, while the rest of the verse reproaches him only for condoning it.36

Hebrew innovation. However, the textual data suggest that we should rather view it as the continuation of a rare early usage. 32 The suggestion to re-divide the Greek text and read: ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς πάσης θυσίας “from the best part of every sacrifice” is attractive, see M. Lestienne, Premier Livre des Règnes (La Bible d’Alexandrie IX 1; Paris: Cerf, 1997). 33 See CTAT I, 147–149. 34 The Targum derives it from ‫“ ברה‬to eat” (‫“ לאוכלותהון‬to feed them”), leading to a similar interpretation. 35 The Peshitta derives the verb from ‫“ ברה‬to choose” (cf. 1 Sam 17:8): Nwbgtd. 36 Menahem Kister has recently proposed a very different reading of the evidence. He relocates v. 29bβ before v. 29, which has the effect of turning the words: “so that you might eat from the first fruits of every offering of Israel to my people/before me” into a corollary of the election of Eli’s house to the priesthood. This solves the problems of the second person suffix and the meaning of the verb. See M. Kister, “‫לשוניות על משמעויות טקסטואליות ולקסיקליות של תופעות‬,” Leshonenu 78 (2016): 7–20, at 17–20. The solution is not supported by any textual evidence, however. Moreover, it leaves only a brief and unspecific accusation: “Why are you scorning my sacrifice and my offering that I commanded for my dwelling place? You have honored your sons more than me.”

Post-Biblical Hebrew as a Controlling Factor

41

The Septuagint reflects instead of ‫ להבריאכם‬a form of the verb ‫ברך‬, probably the niphal infinitive with a third plural suffix: ‫להברכם‬.37 The variant does away with the problem of the second person suffix. Nevertheless, few scholars have supposed that it reflects the better reading. The notion of blessing seems to be out of place in a prophetic accusation. Also, the meaning of the expression: “to bless oneself with the first part of every offering” is unclear. Unless I err, no one has pointed out that the Septuagint text of 1 Sam 2:29 finds a parallel in the Qumran texts:38 1QS 6:4–6

‫והיה כיא יערוכו השולחן לאכול או התירוש לשתות הכוהן ישלח ידו‬ ‫לרשונה להברך בראשית הלחם או התירוש לשתות הכוהן ישלח ידו לרשונה‬ ‫להברך בראשית הלחם והתירוש‬

And when they set the table to eat or the wine to drink, the priest will stretch out his hand as the first to bless himself (?) with the first part of the bread or the wine.

The practical implications of this regulation are probably close to what is stipulated in 1QSa II 17–20: the priest first blesses the meal and then starts eating before the other companions at the table. But the wording is curious. The form ‫להברך‬ has been interpreted as a Hiphil, which is perhaps possible, but the orthography indicates rather that the Niphal is intended. The meaning is usually taken to be “to bless,” but this does not agree with the immediate context: one stretches out one’s hand to partake of food, but not to bless. It may be suggested, then, that this passage points to a Hebrew locution designating what a priest does at the beginning of a communal meal: he blesses the food by pronouncing a ritual formula,39 and partakes of its first part; taken together, this is called ‫ ב( להברך‬or ‫“ )מן‬to bless oneself (with or from).” The same interpretation would apply to the Hebrew text underlying the Septuagint version of 1 Sam 2:29. One might object that this meaning still doesn’t fit the Samuel passage. If “to be blessed” is what a priest does at the beginning of a meal, then in what way could the words be taken as an accusation, as is required in the context. The sting of the accusation is to be found at the end of the sentence. Instead of the odd ‫לעמי‬ “for my people” of the MT, the Greek reads ἔμπροσθέν μου “before me.” This can be retroverted as ‫לפני‬, and should probably be given a temporal meaning:40 “You have honoured your sons more than me, so as to allow them to bless themselves 37 This is partly confirmed by the fragmentary text of 4QSama which has the Hiphil infinitive without suffix. Note also that the Targum confirms the 3 m. pl. suffix, against the MT. 38 I wrote this before the publication of Kister’s article mentioned above in note 36. Kister argues that the passage in 1QS reflects the original order of clauses in 1 Sam 1:28–29 (see above in n. 36), although with the faulty interpretation of the verb as deriving from ‫“ ברך‬to bless” instead of ‫ברא‬/‫“ ברי‬to eat.” 39 Cf. 1 Sam 9:13. 40 Gen 29:26; 30:30 (see BDB 817b).

42

Jan Joosten

with the first part of every offering of Israel before (blessing) me.”41 The sons of Eli hadn’t presided over mere communal meals, but over sacrifices, whose first part should be consecrated to God. Part of this argumentation is speculative, perhaps excessively so. As before, the scantiness of the post-biblical material makes it difficult to attain certainty. The least that can be said, however, is that the possible parallel in the Rule Scroll invites a reconsideration of the value of the Greek text of 1 Sam 2:29. Thus, the example illustrates the relevance of post-biblical Hebrew for textual criticism, which was the point at issue here. To solve the textual problems of 1 Sam 2:29 a fuller investigation is called for than can be given in the present paper.

4. Conclusions Both philology and textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible have been thoroughly rejuvenated in recent times. The main reason for this is the discovery of the new texts in the Dead Sea area. The Hebrew texts from Qumran offer a lot of new material throwing a new light on the language of the Bible. As to textual criticism, the Qumran Scrolls have shown with all necessary clarity that the MT was only one of several Hebrew text-forms circulating in antiquity, and not necessarily, at least not in every biblical book, the oldest one. Although there is still a lot of “MT-centeredness” it tends to be justified in practical terms (or sometimes in religious ones), and not in terms of historical priority. At the same time, many textual critics are more open to the suggestion that non-MT traditions may in certain cases transmit the older text. One of the risks of this exciting state of affairs is that of over-specialization. Hebrew studies are in a flux and it is hard to be on top of all that is happening. Textual criticism has grown into a full-fledged discipline that demands a scholar’s entire commitment. Specialization is a precondition for professionalism. But there is a danger in it too, as the present paper has tried to illustrate. The Hebrew Bible is at once a piece of literature written in an ancient language that is only partly understood, and a text that has gone through many hands before its attestation in manuscripts extant today. One cannot select one method and hope all will go well. A holistic approach is called for, taking in all aspects of the biblical text. Different fields of study need to be integrated with one another: research on post-biblical Hebrew with research on biblical Hebrew, and Hebrew studies with textual criticism. If we cannot be Hebrew philologists and textual critics all at once, we will have to develop collaborative strategies involving specialists of both approaches. 41 “Before me” chimes with the notion expressed earlier in the clause, that the priests bless themselves with the “first part” of Israel’s offerings.

Post-Biblical Hebrew as a Controlling Factor

43

References Barr, J., Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament. With Additions and Corrections (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987). Barthélemy, D., Les devanciers d’Aquila : première publication intégrale du texte des fragments du dodécaprophéton trouvés dans le désert de Juda, précédée d’une étude sur les traductions et recensions grecques de la Bible réalisées au premiére siècle de notre ère sous l’influence du rabbinat palestinien (VT.Supp, 10; Leiden: Brill, 1963). Burney, C. F., Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings (Clarendon; Oxford, 1903). Carmignac, J., “Précisions apportées au Vocabulaire de l’Hébreu biblique par la guerre des fils de lumière contre les fils de ténèbres”, VT 5 (1955): 357–359. Driver, G. R., “Supposed Arabisms in the Old Testament,” JBL 55 (1936): 101–120. Driver, S. R., Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel (Oxford: OUP, 21912). Jastrow, M., A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (1903; reprinted New York: Pardes, 1950). Joosten, J., “Pseudo-classicisms in Late Biblical Hebrew, in Ben Sira, and in Qumran Hebrew,” in Sirach, Scrolls and Sages. Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, Held at Leiden University, 15–17 December 1997 (edited by T. Muraoka, J. F. Elwolde; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 146–159. Kister, M., “Some Lexical Features of the Writings from Qumran” in The Qumran Scrolls and their World, vol. 2 (edited by M. Kister; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2009), 561–569 (in Hebrew). Kister, M., “Some Observations on Vocabulary and Style in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Diggers at the Well. Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls & Ben Sira (edited by T. Muraoka, J. F. Elwolde; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 115–130. Kister, M., “‫על משמעויות טאסטוקליות ולקסיקאליות של תופעות לשוניות‬,” Leshonenu 78 (2016): 7–20. Kyle McCarter, P., 1 Samuel (Anchor Bible 8; Doubleday, 1995). Lestienne, M., Le premier Livre des Règnes (La Bible d’Alexandrie IX 1; Paris: Cerf, 1997). Lévi, I., L’Ecclésiastique ou la sagesse de Jésus, fils de Sira (2 vols.; Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1898–1901). Montgomery, J. A., H. S.  Gehman, The Book of Kings, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951). Qimron, E., “The Biblical Lexicon in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” DSD 2 (1995): 295–329.

Considerations on Questions Philology Cannot Solve While Reconstructing the Text of the Hebrew Bible Viktor Golinets*

Reconstruction of the text and textual history of a literary work is a task of and a challenge for philologists. In the case of the Hebrew Bible that has been transmitted over a long period and that is attested in various textual witnesses, philologists receive great support from other humanities like theology and history. However, the main text-critical work, such as collecting, analysing, and explaining textual variants, including reconstructing the oldest accessible text, belongs to the domain of philology. While philology can (often) explain changes that occurred during the process of textual transmission and development of textual variants, it cannot always identify the original textual form or the author’s intention in terms of grammar and vocabulary.1 Many of such cases involve questions of Hebrew orthography and morphology, and the reasons for the variance in, and the ambivalence of, decisions made by textual scholars lie in the nature of Hebrew orthography and morphology. The present study deals with cases where no philological arguments can be brought for the establishing of the oldest inferable reading.

1. Orthography of plural nouns before suffixed pronouns In the orthography of plural nouns before a suffixed pronoun 3d person m. sg. in the Masoretic manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible, two forms are attested: the defective form ‫ ‑ו‬and the plene form ‫יו‬-. The morphophonological development of the plene form has been explained in different ways. According to some scholars, the letter Yod of the plene form originates in the morphophonology of the

* I am grateful to Ross Teasler for proofreading the text. 1 For the present study, it is irrelevant whether we understand an author of a biblical book as a person or as a collective of authors or as a collective of tradents. In any case, the question arises, which specific form was intended in a specific time and place, and how it was understood in a later time and in another place.

46

Viktor Golinets

plural nouns with suffixed pronouns.2 According to another view,3 the letter Yod is merely a graphic marker of the plural form of the noun. It originates in the use of Yod in other plural forms but has no phonological or phonetic value in connection with the digraph ‫יו‬-. Whatever the morphophonological development of the plene form,4 it is clear that the orthographically defective form is the older one, as it is featured in ancient Hebrew inscriptions,5 while the plene form is only marginally attested in this corpus.6 The alternation between ‫ ‑ו‬and ‫ ‑יו‬has been a problem for ancient and modern students and editors of the Bible text. As far as the work of the ancients is concerned, different ways of dealing with this issue are attested in the Masoretic Bible manuscripts. The following six types of form attestation can be discerned. 2  H. Bauer and P. Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testaments (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1918–1922; reprinted Hildesheim: Olms, 1962), § 25l; G. Bergsträsser, Hebräische Grammatik. I. Teil: Einleitung, Schrift und Lautlehre (Leipzig: F. C. W. Vogel, 1918; reprinted Hildesheim: Olms, 1962), § 16e; F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman Early Hebrew Orthography. A Study of the Epigraphic Evidence (American Oriental Series 36. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1952), 47. 3 H. M. Orlinsky, “The Biblical Prepositions táḥaṯ, bēn, bá‫׳‬aḏ, and Pronouns ’anū́ (or ’anū), zō‫׳‬ṯā́h.” HUCA 17 (1942–1943): 267–292, at 288–289; E. A. Knauf, „War „Biblisch-Hebräisch“ eine Sprache? – Empirische Gesichtspunkte zur linguistischen Annäherung an die Sprache der althebräischen Literatur.“ Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 3 (1990): 11–23, at 20, and D. N. Freedman, “The Evolution of Hebrew Orthography,” Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Orthography, ed. D. N. Freedman, A. D. Forbes and F. I. Andersen (Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 3–15, at 9, nr. 6. In this position it is comparable with its employment after feminine plural markers before suffixed pronouns like in ‫ֹותיָך‬ ֶ ‫( ִמ ְצ‬passim) vs. ‫ֹותָך‬ ֶ ‫( ִמ ְצ‬Ps 119:98). 4 Cf. F. M. Cross, “Some Problems in Old Hebrew Orthography with Special Attention to the Third Person Masculine Singular Suffix on Plural Nouns [‑âw].” Eretz Israel 27 (2003): 18*–24* [reprinted in F. M. Cross, Leaves from an Epigrapher’s Notebook. Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy (Harvard Semitic Studies 51. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 351–356]. 5 Cf. G. B. Sarfatti, “Hebrew Inscriptions of the First Temple Period – a Survey and Some Linquistic Comments.” Maarav 3/1 (1982): 55–83, at 65; J. Renz, Materialen zur althebräischen Morphologie (Handbuch der Althebräischen Epigraphik II/2. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2003), 8. 6  Cf. the forms ṣryh “his enemies” in an inscription from Ḫirbet el-Kōm [J. Renz, Die althebräischen Inschriften. Teil 1. Text und Kommentar (Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik, vol. I. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995), 209, Kom(8):3,3], and pnyw “his face” in Ketef Hinnom (455, Jer(x):35,9). Because of the plene orthography of the latter form, the date of second inscription from Ketef Hinnom has been assigned to the post exilic times (448), and not to the second part of the seventh century BCE as originally proposed by G. Barkay, “.‫ ”ברכת הכוהנים על לוחיות כסף מכתב הינום שבירושלים‬Cathedra 52 (1989): 37–76, at 64 (in Hebrew; translated as “The Priestly Benediction on Silver Plaques from Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem.” Tel-Aviv 19 (1992): 139–192, at 174). See the discussion about the attestation of the plene form pnyw in connection with dating the inscription in G. Barkay, M. J. Lundberg, A. G. Vaughn and B. Zuckerman, “The Amulets from Ketef Hinnom: A New Edition and Evaluation.” The BASOR 334 (2004): 41–71, at 52–55, 67, and in A. Berlejung, „Ein Programm fürs Leben. Theologisches Wort und anthropologischer Ort der Silberamulette von Ketef Hinnom.“ ZAW 120 (2008): 204–230, at 208–212.

Considerations on Questions Philology Cannot Solv

47

1.1. Both defective and plene forms are attested in the consonantal text Some words are attested both in defective and plene forms in the Ketiv of the consonantal text. Two subcategories can be discerned in this item. a. The defective form is the common, while the plene form is marginally attested: In the Leningrad Codex the form ‫ יַ ְח ָּדו‬is attested 92 times,7 while ‫ יַ ְח ָּדיו‬appears only in Jer 46:12, 21; 49:3.8 b. The plene form is the common, while the defective form is marginally attested: ‫ ַּת ְח ָּתיו‬x 99;9 ‫ ַּת ְח ָּתו‬appears only in 2 Sam 2:23, 3:12; 16:8; Job 9:13 in each case with a Qere note. 1.2. Plural forms written defective In some instances, the orthography is defective, while the context demands a plural form. Deut 27:10

‫ת־ח ָ ּ֔קיו ֲא ֶ ׁ֛שר ָאנ ִ ֹ֥כי ְמ ַצּוְ ָך֖ ַהּיֽ ֹום׃‬ ֻ ‫ֹות֙ו וְ ֶא‬ ָ ‫ת־מ ְצ‬ ִ ‫ית ֶא‬ ָ ‫ֹלהיָך וְ ָע ִ ׂ֤ש‬ ֑ ֶ ‫הו֣ה ֱא‬ ָ ְ‫וְ ָ ׁ֣ש ַמ ְע ָּ֔ת ְּב ֖קֹול י‬

In Deut 7:9 and 8:2 the form ‫ מצותו‬is furnished with the Qere ‫ֹותיו‬ ָ ‫מ ְצ‬. ִ DP10 features Qere notes in all three places. 1 Sam 18:14

‫יהו֖ה ִע ּֽמֹו׃‬ ָ ‫ל־ּד ְר ָ ֖כו ַמ ְׂש ִ ּ֑כיל ַ ֽו‬ ָ ‫וַ יְ ִ ֥הי ָדִו֛ד ְל ָכ‬

Codices11

The Aleppo and the Cairo feature here the Qere ‫ּד ְר ָכיו‬.ָ L features the Masora parva note ‫“ ד חסר‬four times defective,” while the Masora magna to  7 In

the following all Hebrew examples are cited according to the Leningrad Codex: D. N.  Freedman (ed.), The Leningrad Codex. A Facsimile Edition (Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans / Leiden/New York/Köln: Brill, 1998), if not otherwise noted. In the following it is abbreviated as “L.”  8 In Jer 48:7 it appears as Qere for ‫( יַ ַחד‬this way also in the Aleppo and Cairo codices and in BCP).  9 One instance is ‫ ִמ ַּת ְח ָּתיו‬Exod 10:23 and the other is ‫ּומ ַּת ְח ָּתיו‬ ִ Zech 6:12. 10 “DP” – “Damascus Pentateuch”: D. S. Loewinger (ed.), The Damascus Pentateuch. Manuscript from about the year 1000 containing almost the whole Pentateuch. Jewish National and Univ. Library, Jerusalem, Hebr. Quart. 5702. Part I (Early Hebrew Manuscripts in Facsimile 1; Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger, 1978); M. Beit-Arié (ed.), The Damascus Pentateuch. Manuscript from About the Year 1000 Containing Almost the Whole Pentateuch. Jewish National and Univ. Library, Jerusalem, Hebr. Quart. 5702. Part II (Early Hebrew Manuscripts in Facsimile 1; Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger, 1982). 11 In the following abbreviated as “A” and “C.” Cf. M. H. Goshen-Gottstein (ed.), The Aleppo Codex. Provided with Massoretic Notes and Pointed by Aron Ben Asher. The Text Considered Authoritative by Maimonides. Part One. Plates (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1976); http://www.aleppocodex.org/aleppocodex.html; all internet pages retrieved on February 6th, 2018). D. S. Loewinger (ed.), Codex Cairo of the Bible. From the Karaite Synagoge at Abbasiya. The Earliest Extant Hebrew Manuscript Written in 895 by Moshe ben Asher. A Limited Facsimile Edition of 160 Copies (Jerusalem: Makor, 1971).

48

Viktor Golinets

Ps 10:5 in L correctly lists five occurrences of the plural ‫“ דרכו‬his ways” (cf. Mm 3210).12 1 Sam 18:22 ‫ל־ע ָב ָ ֖דיו ֲא ֵה ֑בּוָך וְ ַע ָ ּ֖תה ִה ְת ַח ֵ ּ֥תן‬ ֲ ‫מר ִהּנֵ֙ ה ָח ֵפ֤ץ ְּב ָ֙ך ַה ֶּ֔מ ֶלְך וְ ָכ‬ ֹ ֔ ‫ל־ּדִו֤ד ַּב ָּל ֙ט ֵלא‬ ָ ‫ת־ע ָב ָ ֗דו ַּד ְּב ֙רּו ֶא‬ ֲ ‫וַ יְ ֙ ַצו ָׁש ֜אּול ֶא‬ ‫ַּב ֶ ּֽמ ֶלְך׃‬

While A and L have no Qere for ‫ע ָב ָדו‬,ֲ C features the Qere note ‫דיו‬. The Masora parva on ‫ ֲע ָב ָדו‬in A and L reads ‫“ ב חסר‬two times defective,” the second instance being Jer 22:4 (cf. Mm 2571). 1.3. Defective and plene forms are attested in the same verse Sometimes defective and plene forms are attested in the same verse on nouns that correspond with each other within the verse on the semantic level. Due to the semantics of the context (enumeration of items, parallelism), either singular or plural is expected in both occurrences. Deut 7:10

‫ם־לֹו׃‬ ֽ ‫ל־ּפ ָנ֖יו יְ ַׁש ֶּל‬ ָ ‫ל־ּפ ָנ֖יו ְל ַה ֲא ִב ֑ידֹו ֤ל ֹא יְ ַא ֵח ֙ר ְל ׂ֣ש ֹנְ ֔אֹו ֶא‬ ָ ‫ּומ ַׁש ֵּל֧ם ְלׂש ֹנְ ָ ֛איו ֶא‬ ְ

The form ‫ׂש ֹנְ ָאיו‬ – which is also the reading of DP and B13 – should be singular here, because it corresponds to the second attestation of this word and is referred to in the forms ‫ ְל ַה ֲא ִבידֹו‬and ‫ לֹו‬by the singular pronoun. BHQ 5:25 suggests to read the singular form.14 Some textual witnesses, however, took another path of interpretation and understood the form ‫ ׂש ֹנְ אֹו‬in the second part of the verse as plural (cf. BHS and BHQ).15 Prov 6:13

‫מ ֶ ֗רה ְּב ֶא ְצ ְּבע ָ ֹֽתיו׃‬ ֹ ֜ ‫ק ֵ ֹ֣רץ ְ ּ֭ב ֵעינָ ו מ ֵֹל֣ל ְּב ַרגְ ָל֑ו‬

The context of the verse demands to understand the three prepositional objects as plural. The Masoretic vocalization regards the first two indirect objects ‫ְּב ֵעינָ ו‬ and ‫ ְּב ַרגְ ָלו‬as plural notwithstanding their defective orthography. While A and the manuscript “Cambridge University Library Add. 1573” feature Qere for both 12 “Mm” – Masora magna, G. E.  Weil, Massorah Gedolah iuxta Codicem Leningradensem B 19 a. (Rom: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1971). 13  “B”  – British Library Or. 4445 (http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay. a​s​p​x​?​r​e​f​=​O​r​_​ 4​4​4​5​). In this chapter, however, in the second, Yemenite hand of 1540 CE. 14 “BHQ” – Biblia Hebraica, quinta editione cum apparatu critico novis curis elaborato (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft): 1. Genesis (prepared by A. Tal. 2015). 5. Deuteronomy (prepared by Carmel McCarthy. 2007). 13. The Twelve Minor Prophets (prepared by A. Gelston. 2010). 18. General Introduction and Megillot, ed. A. Schenker, Y. A. P. Goldman, A. van der Kooij (G. J. Norton, S. Pisano, J. de Waard, R. D. Weis. 2004). 20. Ezra and Nehemiah (prepared by D. Marcus. 2006). 15 “BHS” – K. Elliger and W. Rudolph (eds.), Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Editio funditus renovata (Editio quinta emendata opera A. Schenker. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997).

Considerations on Questions Philology Cannot Solv

49

nouns (cf. BHQ 17:35*–36*), L has Qere only for the first one and notes that this defective form appears eight times (Mm 1543; BHQ 17:24*). CB16 has the same orthography as L, and because of the torn margins of the folio it is unclear if there has been a Masora parva note. In some other similar instances, plural is suggested by Qere, eg. 1 Sam 18:7; 1 Sam 29:5; Ezek 47:11 (s. the examples in the following rubric). For 1 Sam 18:22, s. section 1.2. 1.4. Orthography is defective, while the context demands plural forms, and the latter are suggested by the Qere The examples of this type are ubiquitous17 and their amount varies from manuscript to manuscript. I cite only a few of these examples. The forms in round brackets are Ketiv, while forms in square brackets are Qere. Exod 27:11 ‫יהם ֶע ְׂש ִר ֙ים נְ ֔חֹ ֶׁשת וָ ֵו֧י ָ ֽה ַע ֻּמ ִ ֛דים‬ ֤ ֶ ֵ‫ּמּודיו] ֶע ְׂש ִ ֗רים וְ ַא ְדנ‬ ֣ ָ ‫א ֶרְך (וְ ַע ְמּדּו) [וְ ַע‬ ֹ ֑ ‫א ֶרְך ְק ָל ִ ֖עים ֵ ֣מ ָאה‬ ֹ ֔ ‫פֹון ָּב‬ ֙ ‫וְ ֙ ֵכן ִל ְפ ַ ֤את ָצ‬ ‫יהם ָ ּֽכ ֶסף׃‬ ֖ ֶ ‫וַ ֲח ֻׁש ֵק‬

DP also has a Qere note here. B features the form ‫ּמּודיו‬ ָ ‫ ַע‬where the letter Yod has been inserted after the form was originally written without this letter. 1 Sam 8:3

‫[ּב ְד ָר ָ֔כיו] וַ ּיִ ּ֖טּו ַא ֲח ֵ ֣רי ַה ָ ּ֑ב ַצע וַ ּיִ֙ ְקחּו־ ׁ֔ש ֹ ַחד וַ ּיַ ּ֖טּו ִמ ְׁש ָ ּֽפט׃‬ ִ )‫(ּב ְד ָר ָכו‬ ִ ‫א־ה ְל ֤כּו ָבנָ ֙יו‬ ָ ֹ ‫וְ ֽל‬

A has no Qere, but it features a frequency note in which the figure has been partly erased. The letter traces allow reconstructing the letter Heh so that the note could have been “five times defective.” C features Qere and notes that this defective form appears 5 times (cf. Mm 3210 and 1 Sam 18:14 in section 1.2). Jer 17:10

‫[ּכ ְד ָר ָ֔כיו] ִּכ ְפ ִ ֖רי ַמ ֲע ָל ָ ֽליו׃‬ ִ )‫(ּכ ְד ָר ָכו‬ ִ ‫יׁש‬ ֙ ‫הו֛ה ח ֵ ֹ֥קר ֵל֖ב ּב ֵ ֹ֣חן ְּכ ָלי֑ ֹות וְ ָל ֵ ֤תת ְל ִא‬ ָ ְ‫ֲא ִנ֧י י‬

A has here only the note ‫“ ה חס‬five times defective,” while C features a Qere note. Singular ‫ ְּד ָר ָכו‬also yields sense in this context, but the plural has a morphological counterpart in the parallelistic apposition ‫מ ֲע ָל ָליו‬. ַ 2 Sam 1:11

‫ל־ה ֲאנָ ִ ׁ֖שים ֲא ֶ ׁ֥שר ִא ּֽתֹו׃‬ ָ ‫[ּב ְבגָ ָ ֖דיו] וַ ּיִ ְק ָר ֵע֑ם וְ ַג֥ם ָּכ‬ ִ )‫(ּב ְבגָ ָדו‬ ִ ‫וַ ּיַ ֲח ֵז֥ק ָּדִו֛ד‬

C also features Qere here, while A has only the note ‫“ ל חס‬defective only once.” Ezek 47:11

‫אתיו] ּוגְ ָב ָ ֛איו וְ ֥ל ֹא יֵ ָר ְפ ֖אּו ְל ֶ ֥מ ַלח נִ ָ ּֽתנּו׃‬ ֧ ָ ֹ ‫[ּבּצ‬ ִ )‫(ּבּצֹאתֹו‬ ִ

16 “CB” – Codex Berlin Or. Qu. 680 (I. Yeivin, Bible Hagiographia. Codex Berlin Or. Qu. 680 – Codex New York, JTS 510. (Jerusalem: Makor, 1972); http://digital.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/ wer​k​a​n​s​i​c​h​t​?PPN=PPN737242485&PHYSID=PHYS_0005). 17 Cf. also Deut 7:9; Jer 22:4; Ezek 43:11; Job 27:15; 38:41.

50

Viktor Golinets

A, BCP, C and R also feature Qere here.18 Job 40:17

‫[פ ֲח ָ ֣דיו] יְ ׂש ָ ֹֽרגּו׃‬ ַ )‫(פ ֲח ָדו‬ ַ ‫ידי‬ ֖ ֵ ִ‫מֹו־א ֶרז ּג‬ ֑ ָ ‫יַ ְח ֣ ֹּפץ זְ נָ ֣בֹו ְכ‬

‫“ ַּפ ֲח ָדו‬his thighs” designates a paired body part and the form has here to be considered as dual. The Aleppo Codex also features Qere here. In ‫]ׁש ֵ ּ֣תי (יָ ָדו) [יָ ָ ֗דיו‬ ְ Lev 16:21,19 the plural of the noun is being demanded by the cardinal number that specifies the noun. Similarly, the readings K‫ יָ ָדו‬and Q‫יָ ָדיו‬ are attested in contexts that describe actions carried out by two hands, like Exod 32:19; Lev 9:22; Job 5:18.20 In the following synonymous examples, the distribution of Ketiv and Qere in A, C and L is fluctuating: 1 Sam 18:7 1 Sam 21:12 1 Sam 29:5

‫ ְּב ִר ְבב ָ ֹֽתיו‬ ‫ [ּב ֲא ָל ֔ ָפיו] וְ ָדִ ֖וד‬ ַ )‫ (ּב ֲא ָל ָפו‬ ְ ֙‫ִה ָ ּ֤כה ָׁשאּול‬ ]‫ו) [ּב ִר ְבב ָ ֹֽתיו‬ ְ ‫ (ּב ִר ְבב ָֹת‬ ְ ‫ [ּב ֲא ָל ֔ ָפיו] וְ ָדִ ֖וד‬ ַ )‫ (ּב ֲא ָל ָפו‬ ְ ֙‫ִה ָ ּ֤כה ָׁשאּול‬ ]‫ו) [ּב ִר ְבב ָ ֹֽתיו‬ ְ ‫ (ּב ִר ְבב ָֹת‬ ְ ‫ַ ּֽב ֲא ָל ֔ ָפיו וְ ָדִ ֖וד‬ ֙‫ִה ָ ּ֤כה ָׁשאּול‬

The same distribution of forms in these three verses in the three manuscripts displays certain stability of the notes in these verses within the Masoretic text tradition. 1.5. Plural forms contradict context or the word usage Sometimes the reading of the plural in the Masoretic text contradicts the context or the word usage attested elsewhere: Job 26:14 ‫ּבֹונ�ֽן׃‬ ָ ‫יִת‬ ְ ‫בּורֹותיו] ִ ֣מי‬ ָ֗ ‫[ּג‬ ְ ֜ )‫בּורתֹו‬ ָ ְ‫ע־ּבֹו וְ ַ ֥ר ַעם (ּג‬ ֑ ‫ה־ּׁש ֶמץ ָ ּ֭ד ָבר נִ ְׁש ַמ‬ ֣ ֵ ‫ּומ‬ ַ ]‫(ּד ָר ָכו) ְ[ּד ָר ָ֗כיו‬ ְ ‫ן־א ֶלּה ׀ ְק ֬צֹות‬ ֤ ֵ ‫ֶה‬

Instead of the plural Qere ‫בּורֹותיו‬ ָ ְ‫“ ּג‬his mighty deeds” the singular Ketiv form ‫בּורתֹו‬ ָ ְ‫“ ּג‬his might/power” of the consonantal text should be preferred. The reason for this reading is that the uncountable abstract noun ‫בּורה‬ ָ ְ‫ ּג‬suits the context better than the countable noun ‫“ ּגְ בּורֹות‬mighty deeds.” “His mighty 18 “BCP” – the “Babylonian Codex of Petrograd” (St. Petersburg, National Library of Russia, shelf-mark Евр. I B 3. Cf. H. L. Strack, Prophetarum posteriorum Codex Babylonicus Petropolitanus (St. Petersburg: C. Ricker / Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs 1876) [reprinted as The Hebrew Bible – Latter Prophets. The Babylonian Codex of Petrograd. Prolegomenon by P. WernbergMøller (New York: Ktav, 1971)]. “R” – “Codex Reuchlinianus” (A. Sperber (ed.), Codex Reuchlinianus. No. 3 of the Badische Landesbibliothek in Karlsruhe (Formerly Durlach No. 55). With a General Introduction: Masoretic Hebrew. (Corpus codicum hebraicorum medii aevi. Pars II. The Pre-Masoretic Bible Discovered in Four Manuscripts, Representing a Unique Tradition. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1956); http://digital.blb-karlsruhe.de/blbhs/Handschriften/ content/titleinfo/3395233). 19 Also in B and DP. 20 In Ezek 43:26, however, singular should be read because the idiomatic expression ‫מלא יד‬ “to consecrate somebody” is construed with singular “hand” (cf. Exod 28:41; 29:9, 29, 33, 35; 32:29; Lev 8:33; 16:32; 21:10; Num 3:3; Judg 17:5, 12; 1 Kgs 13:33; 2 Kgs 9:24; 1 Chr 29:5; 2 Chr 13:9; 29:31).

Considerations on Questions Philology Cannot Solv

51

roaring/thundering” is more appropriate here than “the roaring/thundering of his mighty deeds.” To put it in morphosyntactical terms: ‫ ּגְ בּורֹות‬appears in the Hebrew Bible as nomen regens (Deut 3:24; Isa 63:15; Ps 20:7; 71:6; 106:2; 145:4, 12), but it never appears as nomen rectum.21 1.6. The Masoretic text features Qere, yet both readings suit the context Sometimes the reading of the singular in the consonantal text is furnished with the Qere of the plural form, but the meaning of the context allows for both readings. This seems to be the most interesting category in the context of the present study, since the unambiguous reading cannot be established. This category comprises examples of an ambivalent form, which is being explained by the Masoretic notes in one way, while the other way of interpretation is ruled out. Ps 106:45 ‫[ח ָס ָ ֽדיו]׃‬ ֲ )‫(ח ְסּדֹו‬ ַ ‫יתֹו ַ ֜וּיִ ּנָ ֵ֗חם ְּכ ֣ר ֹב‬ ֑ ‫וַ ּיִ זְ ּ֣כֹר ָל ֶ ֣הם ְּב ִר‬ Lam 3:32 ‫[ח ָס ָ ֽדיו]׃‬ ֲ )‫(ח ְסּדֹו‬ ַ ‫ם־הֹוגה וְ ִר ַ ֖חם ְּכ ֥ר ֹב‬ ָ֔ ‫ִ ּ֣כי ִא‬

In Ps 106:45, A also features a Qere note. Which form did the author(s) or editor(s) of Ps 106:45 and Lam 3:32 intend? Which was the earliest inferable form? The singular form ‫“ ְּכר ֹב ַח ְס ֶּדָך‬according to the abundance of thy mercy” is attested in Neh 13:22. Although the plural ‫“ ְּכר ֹב ֲח ָס ָדיו‬according to the abundance of his mercy deeds” is attested in Isa 63:7, with the following arguments, the case can be made for the secondary nature of this expression with plural. a. The defective orthography in Ps 106:45 and Lam 3:32 is a strong argument for the primacy of the singular form. b. When the comparative phrase ‫ ְּכר ֹב‬is construed with abstract nouns, the noun is in singular, because abstract conventionally are not used in plural; cf. ‫“ ְּכר ֹב ּגֻ ְדלֹו‬according to the abundance of his greatness” (Ps 150:2). c. The use of the form ‫ ֲח ָס ָדיו‬in Isa 63:7 and hence the plural of Qere in Ps 106:45 and Lam 3:32 may have been triggered by the synonymic expression ‫“ ְּכר ֹב ַר ֲח ֶמיָך‬according to the abundance of thy compassion” (Ps 51:3; 69:17). While ‫“ ַר ֲח ִמים‬compassion,” being an abstract noun with the derivation morphem ‑īm,22 is not comparable to the plural ‫ח ָס ָדיו‬,ֲ the use of the plural ‫ ַר ֲח ִמים‬may have influenced the numerus and orthography of ‫ח ָס ָדיו‬.ֲ In Isa 63:7, similarly as in Ps 25:6, ‫ ֲח ָס ִדים‬is a synonymic expression to ‫ר ֲח ִמים‬.ַ The plural of ‫ח ֶסד‬,ֶ “Gnadenerweise,” is attested in the Bible, albeit not in connection with the noun ‫“ ר ֹב‬abundance.”23 21 According to S. M. Paul, ‫ פרקים מ–סו עם מבוא ופרירוש‬.‫( ישעיה‬Tel Aviv: Am Oved / Jerusalem: Magnes, 2008), 33 [in Hebrew; translated as Isaiah 60–66. Translation and Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans 2012), 44], the use of abstract substantives with masculine or feminine plural ending is indicative of Late Biblical Hebrew, although it is not confined to this period. In case of Job 26:14, the later form ‫בּורֹותיו‬ ָ ְ‫ ּג‬appears as qere. 22  Cf. e. g. ‫ ֲא ָה ִבים‬and ‫( ד ִֹדים‬Prov 7:18) “love”; ‫“ ֱא ֻמנִ ים‬reliability”; ‫“ ַא ַּפיִ ם‬wrath” Dan 11:20; ‫חּורים‬ ִ ‫“ ְּב‬youth” Num 11:28; ‫תּולים‬ ִ ‫“ ְּב‬virginity”; etc. 23 E. g. Gen 32:11; Ps 25:6; 89:2, cf. J. J. Stamm (ed.), Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament (Unveränderter Nachdruck der dritten Auflage [1967–1995]; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004), 323.

52

Viktor Golinets

While these arguments clearly speak for the secondary nature of the plural ‫ֲח ָס ָדיו‬ in Ps 106:45, Lam 3:32 and Isa 63:7, this form fits the context in the three occurrences just as well as the singular ‫ח ְסּדֹו‬.ַ On account of this, Ps 106:45 and Lam 3:32 are listed here and not under item 5, although they can reasonably be placed there. 1.7. Interim conclusion All the forms discussed in section 1 are attested in only a few manuscript representatives of the Tiberian Masoretic text. These examples demonstrate that their orthography and hence their meaning can vary, and that the Masoretic text handles these forms in different ways. If a few textual witnesses already demonstrate different treatments of orthographically ambivalent defective plural forms with suffixed pronouns – as far as morphology and meaning are concerned –, then other textual witnesses would multiply cases of morphological and semantic ambiguity. The Hebrew variants from Qumran and from other mediaeval manuscripts, as well as renderings of the versions demonstrate the perception of relevant forms in these textual witnesses. This means that the textual variants concerning singular and plural forms of nouns with suffixed pronoun of the 3rd person singular are sometimes of no help in establishing the earliest inferable reading. The textual witnesses in their entirety – without any preference for any textual tradition – only demonstrate ancient exegetes’ efforts to understand relevant contexts. It turns out that modern readers are mere guildsmen of ancient interpreters, and neither of them has any other guide in establishing the original or the earliest inferable form and meaning of a given text than by means of considering context and word usage. Philological and exegetical reasoning will help in many cases to establish the form required by the context, but in many places both singular and plural forms will semantically suit the textual environment. The modern grammarian’s classification of Biblical Hebrew orthographic forms as the singular for ‫ ‑ו‬and plural for ‫ ‑יו‬should be abandoned as unanchored in the texts: Although there are observable tendencies of writing ‫ ‑ו‬for singular and ‫ ‑יו‬for plural, which result in accepting this as a “rule” in Hebrew grammatical works, the textual reality demonstrates that the form ‫ ‑יו‬designates the plural, while the form ‫ ‑ו‬designates both singular and plural. The Masoretic treatment of the pertinent form has eliminated the morphological ambiguity, but it has also eliminated polysemy of expressions (cf. Deut 2:33; 33:9; 2 Kgs 13:16). In ancient Hebrew, there was no semantic ambiguity between the forms of the suffixed pronoun on singular and plural nouns because the pronoun on the singular noun was written ‫( ‑ה‬cf. Renz 2003:7). If readings with singular and plural variations are included in modern textual editions, the reason for this entry could only be to demonstrate exegetical possibilities and paths wandered by the exponents of particular traditions.24 The 24 There

are, however, interesting cases of exact correspondence of grammatical number

Considerations on Questions Philology Cannot Solv

53

graphic form ‫ ‑ו‬for the plural is sometimes characterised in the BHQ as a graphical error, but this assessment is misleading.25 If a modern editor wants to reconstruct a form in the text, it is advisable to reconstruct a defective form according to the principle in dubio pro defectivo (cf. Golinets 2010:458). The defective form is historically the older one and it allows two interpretations.

2. Orthography of forms of tertiae vocalis roots In this section, the status constructus forms of masculine nouns and participles of the roots tertiae vocalis will be dealt with. 2.1. Challenging the common view Masculine nouns and participles of tertiae vocalis roots exhibit two status constructus forms in biblical Hebrew, the one ending in ‫ ‑ה‬and the other ending in ‫י‬-. The former form is commonly considered in modern grammars to be singular, while the latter is analysed as plural. However, while many form attestations support this rule, there are many examples which militate against it. Some examples for the interchange between final ‫ ה‬and ‫ י‬have already been mentioned elsewhere.26 Sperber compared Ketiv/Qere forms as well as Masoretic text forms with those of the Samaritan Pentateuch. There is a tendency in the Samaritan Pentateuch to write the final Yod in the singular of nouns and participles where the Masoretic text has Heh. This tendency is also discernable in the nominal and verbal forms from the Qumran scrolls collected by Gottstein. In Masoretic manuscripts, another tendency is attested: there are more examples between the Hebrew and the Septuagint forms in the cases, where one might expect another reading than that of the Masoretic text. In 2 Kgs 13:16, ‫ל־ה ֶ ּ֔ק ֶׁשת‬ ַ ‫אמר׀ ְל ֶ ֣מ ֶלְך יִ ְׂש ָר ֵ֗אל ַה ְר ֵּכ֤ב ָי ְ�ֽד ָ֙ך ַע‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּ֣י‬ ‫יׁשע יָ ָ ֖דיו ַעל־יְ ֵ ֥די ַה ֶ ּֽמ ֶלְך׃‬ ֛ ָ ‫וַ ּיַ ְר ֵּכ֖ב יָ ֑דֹו וַ ָּי ֶׂ֧שם ֱא ִל‬, the Septuagint translates the same number of “hands” as the Hebrew text, being sg., sg., pl., pl. In the first two instances plural is conceivable because a person has to use both hands in order to shoot. “Bow” in this context can mean both the bow and metonymically the bowstring. 25 Cf. V. Golinets, review of BHQ 18, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 102 (2007): 492–501, at 499, and review of BHQ 5, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 105 (2010): 453–462, at 458. Fortunately, in other places in the BHQ there is no judgment made concerning defective forms (cf. Prov 6:13). In Deut 2:33 and 33:9, the editor prefers the plene forms, but she gives no characterisation of defective forms. 26 A. Sperber, “Hebrew Based Upon Biblical Passages in Parallel Transmission.” HUCA 14 (1939): 153–249, at 205, § 68 (reprinted in Sperber, A Historical Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. A Presentation of Problems with Suggestions to Their Solution (Leiden: Brill, 1966), 234, 476–490, 562–566, 235–297; at 256, § 25); M. H. Gottstein, “Studies in the Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 1. The Interchange of Final Yod and He.” JJS 4 (1953): 104–105; V. Golinets, review of BHQ 20, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 103 (2008): 60–68, at 65–66.

54

Viktor Golinets

of plural forms ending in ‫ ‑ה‬than of singular forms ending in ‫י‬-. The following chart illustrates the distribution of forms: constructus sg.

constructus pl.

Qumran

‫ה‬-, 27‫י‬-

‫י‬-

Samaritan Pentateuch

‫ה‬-, 28‫י‬-

29

Masoretic manuscripts

‫ה‬-, ‫י‬-

‫ה‬-, ‫י‬-

‫ה‬-, 30‫י‬-

2.1.1. Forms ending in ‫ ‑י‬as singular I could find in the Masoretic text only one example of a form which ends in ‫ ‑י‬and which is singular according to the context. Eccl 11:9 ‫ל־א ֶּלה‬ ֛ ֵ ‫ל־ּכ‬ ָ ‫ּוב ַמ ְר ֵ ֖אי ֵע ֶינ֑יָך וְ ָ ֕דע ִ ּ֧כי ַע‬ ְ ‫חּורֹותָך וְ ַה ֵּל ְ֙ך ְּב ַד ְר ֵכ֣י ִל ְּב ָ֔ך‬ ֶ֔ ‫ימי ְב‬ ֣ ֵ ‫יט ְיבָך֤ ִל ְּב ָ֙ך ִּב‬ ֽ ִ ‫דּותיָך ִ ֽו‬ ֶ֗ ‫ְׂש ַ ֧מח ָּב ֣חּור ְּביַ ְל‬ ‫ֹלהים ַּב ִּמ ְׁש ָ ּֽפט׃‬ ֖ ִ ‫יאָך֥ ָה ֱא‬ ֲ ‫יְב‬ ִֽ

Some Hebrew manuscripts feature ‫ ַמ ְר ֵאה‬instead of ‫מ ְר ֵאי‬, ַ and versions translate with singular. Masora parva in L comments on this word ‫“ ל וכת‬only once and in this orthography.” According to the Masoretic notes collated by Ginsburg ‫ַמ ְר ֵאי‬ of Eccl 11:9 is treated in some manuscript(s) as a case of Ketiv.31 According to a Masora magna note placed in L at Josh 18:24, the form ‫ ַמ ְר ֵאי‬belongs to six words that are written with Yod at the end but should be read with Heh (cf. Mm 1344).32 This note is absent in A but is featured in C and R at Josh 18:14. In the latter two, the note lists seven occurrences of such words, and Ginsburg cites a comparable note which also lists seven forms.33 27 1QIsaa 36:2 ‫ שדי‬versus ‫ׂש ֵדה‬ ְ of the Masoretic text; 65:10 ‫ נוי צואן‬versus ‫ ;נְ וֵ ה־צֹאן‬66:2 ‫נכי רוח‬ versus ‫ה־רּוח‬ ַ ‫נְ ֵכ‬. Cf. statistics brought by E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Harvard Semitic Studies 29. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1986), § 100.34, and cf. also ‫ עושי‬in 4QPhylj for ‫ ע ֶֹׂשה‬Deut 5:10 (s. BHQ), as well as examples cited by G. Geiger, Das hebräische Partizip in den Texten aus der judäischen Wüste (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 101; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 83 (singular ‫ עושי‬from 1QM XII:11; XIX:3) and 86, § 72. 28  E. g. Gen 21:20 ‫ רבי‬vs. ‫ ר ֶֹבה‬of the Masoretic text; 47:4 ‫ מרעי‬vs. ‫( ִמ ְר ֶעה‬some Samaritan manuscripts read ‫( מרעה‬cf. L.-F. Giron Blanc, Pentateuco hebreo-samaritano. Génesis. Edición crítica soble la base de manuscritos inéditos (Textos y Estudios „Cardenal Cisneros“ de la Biblia Políglota Matritense 15. Madrid: Instituto de filologiá del SCIC, 1976), 371); Lev 26:36 ‫ עלה‬vs. ‫ע ֶלה‬.ָ 29 E. g. Gen 13:7 (x2) ‫ רעה‬vs. ‫ ר ֵֹעי‬of the Masoretic text; Deut 18:1 ‫ אשה‬vs. ‫ּׁשי‬ ֵ ‫א‬.ִ 30  E. g. ‫ רעי‬in Gen 13:8; 26:20 (x2); 46:34. 31 C. D. Ginsburg, The Massorah Compiled from Manuscripts Alphabetically and Lexically Arranged. Vol. I. Aleph-Yod (London: Georges Brög, 1880; reprinted Jerusalem: Makor, 1971; New York: Ktav, 1975), 345. 32 The letter at the beginning of the note is ‫ ז‬but the note features only six instances. 33 The Massorah, 681, nr. 29: Josh 18:24; 2 Sam 16:10; 21:21; 23:18; Mal 3:5; Eccl 11:9 + Jer 37:19. The last case is featured in R and in a note cited by Ginsburg, The Massorah Compiled, as the one of difference in opinion (‫ )פליג‬concerning the correct reading.

Considerations on Questions Philology Cannot Solv

55

‫“ ַמ ֵּטי־גֵ ר‬who turn aside the alien” (Mal 3:5) is another instance of a form of tertiae vocalis verbs recorded is this Masora magna note. However, the reason for the inclusion of ‫ ַמ ֵּטי‬in this list is not clear. The form is paralleled by the participle ‫ע ְֹׁש ֵקי‬,34 and both should be regarded as plural because they are paralleled by three plural nouns mentioned in the first half of the verse. Each of these five nominal forms refers to a group of persons and not to a single person. The Masora parva note on ‫ ַמ ֵּטי‬in A reads ‫“ ל‬only once,” while the note in C and L read ‫ל כת י‬, and the note in BCP reads ‫ל ביוד‬, “only once and written with Yod.” The Masora parva note in R has ‫“ ל כת בי וכל קריא בה‬only once written with Yod; in the whole Scripture written with Heh.” It is not clear why the Masorah suggests to read ‫ ַמ ֵּטי‬as ‫מ ֵּטה‬. ַ Another instance where the participle of the verb ‫ נטה‬is written with Heh is Deut 27:19. The syntax of the verse demands to understand this form as singular. The text of Mal 3:5 is an allusion to Deut 27:19, and the construct form ‫ ַמ ֵּטי‬in the former has the same lexical meaning as the absolute form ‫ ַמ ֶּטה‬in the latter. Presumably, the Masora magna note demands to read ‫ ַמ ֵּטי‬as ‫ ַמ ֵּטה‬for bringing the former in orthographic equality with ‫ ַמ ֵּטה‬of Deut 27:19. 2.1.2. Forms ending in ‫ ‑ה‬as plural In many instances in the Masoretic text, the forms ending in ‫ ‑ה‬are plural according to the context. 2.1.2.1. Nouns 2.1.2.1.1. ‫מ ְדוֵ ה‬/‫י‬ ַ Deut 28:60 ‫יהם וְ ָד ְב ֖קּו ָ ּֽבְך׃‬ ֑ ֶ ֵ‫ל־מ ְדֵו֣ה ִמ ְצ ַ ֔ריִם ֲא ֶ ׁ֥שר יָ ֹ֖ג ְר ָּת ִמ ְּפנ‬ ַ ‫וְ ֵה ִ ׁ֣שיב ְּב ָ֗ך ֵ ֚את ָּכ‬

The plural pronoun of the anaphoric prepositional object ‫יהם‬ ֶ ֵ‫ ִמ ְּפנ‬and the plural of the predicate ‫ ָד ְבקּו‬imply that ‫ ַמ ְדוֵ ה‬is plural. Vulgate, Targum and Peshiṭta translate here with plural, and many medieval Hebrew manuscripts read ‫מ ְדוֵ י‬. ַ The syntagm ‫ל־מ ְדוֵ י ִמ ְצ ַריִם‬ ַ ‫ ָכ‬is attested in Deut 7:15 (cf. BHQ). Samaritan Pentateuch reads ‫ מדוי‬in both instances. 2.1.2.1.2. ‫ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה‬ The expression ‑‫“ יד(י) ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה‬the work of the hand(s) of ” with its forty-one attestation35 is more frequent in L than ‑‫“ יד(י) ַמ ֲע ֵׂשי‬the works of the hand(s) of,” 34 ‫ר־ׂש ִכיר‬ ָ֠ ‫ְׂש ַכ‬

‫ּובעֹׁש� ֵ ְ֣קי‬ ְ ‫ּובּנִ ְׁש ָּב ִ ֖עים ַל ָ ּׁ֑ש ֶקר‬ ַ ‫ּוב ְמ ָנ ֲ֣א ֔ ִפים‬ ַ ‫֣יתי׀ ֵע֣ד ְמ ַמ ֵ֗הר ַ ּֽב ְמ ַכ ְּׁש ִפ ֙ים‬ ִ ִ‫ט וְ ָהי‬ ֒ ‫יכ ֮ם ַל ִּמ ְׁש ָּפ‬ ֶ ‫וְ ָק ַר ְב ִ ּ֣תי ֲא ֵל‬ ‫הו֥ה ְצ ָב ֽאֹות׃‬ ָ ְ‫ּומ ֵּטי־גֵ ֙ר וְ ֣ל ֹא יְ ֵר ֔אּונִ י ָא ַ ֖מר י‬ ַ ‫ַא ְל ָמנָ֙ ה וְ יָ ֤תֹום‬ 35 Deut 4:28; 16:15; 24:19; 27:15; 31:29; 1 Kgs 16:7; 2 Kgs 19:18; 22:17; 2 Chr 32:19; Job 1:10; 14:15; 34:19; Ps 19:2; 28:4–5; 90:17; 102:26; 115:4; 135:15; 143:5; Eccl 5:5; Cant 7:2; Isa 2:8; 5:12; 17:8; 19:25; 29:23; 37:19; 60:21; 65:22; Jer 10:3; 25:6–7, 14; 32:30; Lam 3:64; 4:2; Hos 14:4; Mic 5:12; Hag 2:14, 17.

56

Viktor Golinets

which is attested seven times.36 Hebrew manuscripts and ancient version deal differently with these expressions. The form ‫ ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה‬is found in medieval biblical manuscripts in places where L features ‫ ַמ ֲע ֵׂשי‬and where the context demands plural forms: Ps 8:7; 107:24; 111:2, 7; 118:17.37 In Ps 19:2, the form ‫ ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה‬should be considered as plural because of the anticongruence of the grammatical number within this parallel and chiasticallystructured verse.38 A1 ‫ ה ָּׁש ַ֗מיִ ם‬pl. ַ B1  ‫ מ ַס ְּפ ִ ֥רים‬pl. ְֽ C1   ‫ ּכ ֽבֹוד־‬sg. ְ D1       ‫ אל‬sg. ֵ֑ C2   ‫ ּוֽ ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂ֥שה‬pl. D2     ‫ י ָ ֗דיו‬pl. ָ֜ B2  ‫ מ ִּג֥יד‬sg. ַ A2 ‫�ָק ַיע׃‬ ֽ ִ ‫ הר‬sg. ָ

Symmachus Targum and Vulgate translate here in the plural. BHS cites a Hebrew manuscript from Genizah that reads here ‫מעשי‬, but I was unable to locate this manuscript. Mic 6:16 ‫יה ִל ְׁש ֵר ָ ֔קה‬ ָ֙ ‫צֹותם ְל ַמ ַען֩ ִּת ִּ֙תי א ְֹת ָ֜ך ְל ַׁש ָּ֗מה וְ י ְֹׁש ֶ֙ב‬ ֑ ָ ‫מ ֲע‬ ֹ ֽ ‫ית־א ְח ָ֔אב וַ ֵּת ְל ֖כּו ְּב‬ ַ ‫ׂשה ֵב‬ ֣ ֵ ‫וְ יִ ְשׁ ַתּ ֵ֞מּר ֻח ּ֣קֹות ָע ְמ ִ ֗רי וְ כֹל֙ ַמ ֲע‬ ‫וְ ֶח ְר ַ ּ֥פת ַע ִ ּ֖מי ִּת ָ ּֽׂשאּו׃‬

Septuagint, Aquila, Peshiṭta and Targum translate with plural what the Masoretic text features as ‫מ ֲע ֵׂשה‬. ַ The plural form fits the context better than the singular, since the preceding and the following noun of the three direct objects are in plural. Ps 8:4

‫ּכֹונֽנְ ָּתה׃‬ ָ ‫ׁשר‬ ֣ ֶ ‫כֹוכ ִ֗בים ֲא‬ ָ ‫ׂשי ֶא ְצ ְּבע ֶ ֹ֑תיָך יָ ֵ ֥ר ַח ְ ֜ו‬ ֣ ֵ ‫י־א ְר ֶ ֣אה ָ ׁ֭ש ֶמיָך ַמ ֲע‬ ֶ ‫ִ ּֽכ‬

The Masora magna note on ‫ ַמ ֲע ֵׂשי‬in L reads: ‫למדנח מעשי אצבעתיך כת יו למער כת‬ ‫ה‬, “according to the Orientals is written ‫ מעשי‬with Yod and according the Occidentals is written with Heh.”39 Interestingly, the reading of L is the eastern one, although L originates in the West, in Egypt. The original reading of the Aleppo Codex was ‫מ ֲע ֵׂשי‬, ַ but the last letter has been changed into ‫ה‬. The form ‫ ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה‬is 36 Jer

1:16; 44:8; 2 Chr 34:25; Ps 8:7; 92:5; 111:7; 138:8. Kennicott, Vetus Testamentum; G. B. de Rossi, Variae lectiones veteris testamenti librorum (Parma: Bodoni, 1798; reprinted Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1969/1970); C. D. Ginsburg The Writings. Diligently Revised according to the Massorah and the Early Editions with the Various Readings from MSS. and the Ancient Versions (London: British and Foreign Bible Society, 1926). 38  Cf. W. G. E.  Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry. A Guide to Its Techniques (JSOT.Supp, 26. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 118 f., for examples of anti-congruence in ancient Hebrew poetry. 39 Cf. Mm 3206. 37 Cf.

Considerations on Questions Philology Cannot Solv

57

also featured in the edition of Jakob Ben-Ḥayyim40 and in some medieval manuscripts. Septuagint, Vulgate, Targum, and Peshiṭta read or translate the plural. In verse 7, in contrast, A and L as well as the edition of Bomberg feature (‫יָ ֶדיָך) ַמ ֲע ֵׂשי‬, but some medieval manuscripts exhibit the form ‫מ ֲע ֵׂשה‬. ַ Both the singular and the plural forms are contextually acceptable in verse 4. The singular “the work of your fingers” is the semantic apposition to ‫ׁש ֶמיָך‬, ָ while the plural “the works of your fingers” is the morphological apposition to the plural of ‫ׁש ֶמיָך‬. ָ The parallelism between verse 4 and 7 suggests that the forms should be regarded as plural in both verses. 2.1.2.2. Participles 2.1.2.2.1. The verb ‫בנה‬ Mic 3:10

‫ירּוׁש ַל֖םִ ְּב ַעוְ ָ ֽלה׃‬ ָ ִ‫ּב ֶֹנ֥ה ִצּי֖ ֹון ְּב ָד ִ ֑מים ו‬

Versions translate here with the plural the form that they saw in place of ‫ ּבֹנֶ ה‬of the Masoretic text. The BHQ explains this translation as “harmonisation with the context,” arguing in the commentary on the critical apparatus that “it is difficult to see why an original pl. might have been changed to a sg.” (BHQ 13:101*). BHQ also surmises that “reference may be to the king, as one category of leader alongside the groups listed in v. 11.” Admittedly, the reference in the context is made not to a single person but to groups of persons designated as the “heads of the house Jakob and chiefs of the house Israel” (verse 9) as well as “heads” and “priests” of Jerusalem (verse 11). The versions have perfectly understood the issue and they either have had ‫ בני‬in their Vorlagen or they have not adhered to a modern orthographical rule that the editor of BHQ Dodekapropheton follows, and which determines his understanding of the Masoretic text. 2.1.2.2.2. The verb ‫רעה‬ In Gen 46:34 and 47:3, the Masoretic text features ‫ר ֵֹעה צֹאן‬, while in Gen 46:32 the reference to the same group of people reads ‫ר ֵֹעי צֹאן‬. Semantically, the formulation ‫תֹוע ַבת ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם ָּכל־ר ֵֹעה צֹאן‬ ֲ in 46:34 is a collective expression saying “all shepherds is an abomination unto the Egyptians,” and not “every single shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians,” which is a distributive expression. While in 46:34 the Septuagint translates distributive πᾶς ποιμὴν προβάτων “every shepherd,” Targum, Peshiṭta and Vulgata understand this expression as a collective one and translate it here and in 47:3 in the plural. In the latter instance, also Septuagint translates with plural. The Samaritan Pentateuch features in all three instances ‫רעי‬, a form that is morphologically ambivalent. 40 M. H. Goshen-Gottstein (ed.), Biblia rabbinica. A Reprint of the 1525 Venice Edition. Edited by Jacob Ben Hayim ibn Adoniya (Jerusalem: Makor, 1972).

58

Viktor Golinets

2.1.2.2.3. The verb ‫עשה‬ 2 Chr 26:11

‫יֹוצ ֵ ֧אי ָצ ָ ֣בא ִלגְ ֗דּוד ְּב ִמ ְס ַּפ ֙ר ְּפ ֻק ָּד ָ֔תם‬ ְ ‫וַ יְ ִ ֣הי ְל ֻעּזִ ָּ֡יהּו ַחיִ ֩ל ע ֵ ֹׂ֙שה ִמ ְל ָח ָ֜מה‬

The participle ‫ ע ֵֹׂשה‬seems to be plural because the expression ‫ ע ֵֹׂשה ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬is paralleled by ‫יֹוצ ֵאי ָצ ָבא‬ ְ with nomen regens in the plural. Although the singular ‫ ע ֵֹׂשה ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬could be understood as an apposition to ‫חיִ ל‬,ַ the context suggests that the hendiadys ‫יֹוצ ֵאי ָצ ָבא‬ ְ ‫ ע ֵֹׂשה ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬as a whole is the apposition to ‫חיִ ל‬.ַ In the biblical vocabulary of warfare, designations for warriors construed with the nouns ‫ ָצ ָבא‬and ‫ ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬usually feature the participle in the plural, cf. ‫יֹוצ ֵאי ָצ ָבא‬ ְ ‫ ע ְֹר ֵכי ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬1 Chr 12:34; ‫יֹוצ ֵאי ָצ ָבא ַל ֲער ְֹך ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬ ְ 1 Chr 12:37; ‫ י ְֹצ ֵאי ָצ ָבא‬1 Chr 5:18; ‫עֹוׂשי ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬ ֵ 2 Chr 26:13. 2 Chr 34:10 ‫הוה‬ ֔ ָ ְ‫אכה ֲא ֶ ׁ֤שר ע ִֹׂש ֙ים ְּב ֵב֣ית י‬ ָ֗ ‫עֹוׂשי ַה ְּמ ָל‬ ֣ ֵ ‫הו֑ה וַ ּיִ ְּת ֙נּו א ֹ֜תֹו‬ ָ ְ‫אכה ַה ֻּמ ְפ ָק ִ ֖דים ְּב ֵב֣ית י‬ ָ֔ ‫וַ ּיִ ְּתנ֗ ּו ַעל־יַ ֙ד ע ֵ ֹׂ֣שה ַה ְּמ ָל‬ ‫ּול ַח ֵּז֖ק ַה ָ ּֽביִת׃‬ ְ ‫ִל ְב ּ֥דֹוק‬

Here both (‫אכה) ע ֵֹׂשה‬ ָ ‫ ַה ְּמ ָל‬and (‫עֹוׂשי‬ ֵ )‫אכה‬ ָ ‫ ַה ְּמ ָל‬are attested, while the reference is made to the same group, “the workmen.” The parallel text 2 Kgs 22:5 reads twice ‫ע ֵֹׂשי‬. This group of persons is also referred to in 2 Chr 34:10 as ‫ע ֵֹׂשה‬. Some of the manuscripts read ‫ ע ֵֹׂשי‬instead of ‫ ע ֵֹׂשה‬in both verses. Similarly, 2 Kgs 12:12 features the form ‫אכה‬ ָ ‫ ע ֵֹׂשי ַה ְּמ ָל‬while the parallel text 2 Chr 24:12 has ‫אכת‬ ֶ ‫עֹוׂשה ְמ ֶל‬. ֵ Some manuscripts read ‫ע(ֹו)ׂשה‬ ֵ in 2 Kgs 12:12, while in 2 Chr 24:12 the form ‫ ע ֵֹׂשי‬is attested in the manuscripts. ‫אכה‬ ָ ‫ ע ֵֹׂשה ַה ְּמ ָל‬are also mentioned in 1 Chr 23:24, Ezra 3:9 and Neh 2:16, and some Hebrew manuscripts read there ‫אכה‬ ָ ‫ע ֵֹׂשי ַה ְּמ ָל‬, and versions translate with the plural. BHQ explains the rendering of Ezra 3:9 as “harmonisation with the context.”41 If we recognise the form ‫ ע ֵֹׂשה‬as plural, the translation of the versions would not need a comment. In Ps 107:23 and Neh 11:12, some manuscripts read ‫ע ֵֹׂשה‬, where the Masoretic text features ‫ע ֵֹׂשי‬. The plural in Ps 107:23 is supported by the parallelism within the verse. In the following instances the analysis of ‫ ע ֵֹׂשה‬as plural is also supported by parallelism: Ezek 38:12; Mal 3:19; Ps 106:3. In addition, the versions translate here in the plural and some Hebrew manuscripts feature ‫ע ֵֹׂשי‬.42 2.2. Ambivalent forms As in section 1.6, the most interesting examples for the present study are contextually ambivalent forms of nouns and participles which allow interpretation both as singular and plural.

41 This

explanation is also given in the BHQ at Mal. 3:19. Neh 2:16 is not commented upon.

42 Septuagint, Targum and Peshiṭta translate in Isa 64:4 also with plural what they saw where

of the Masoretic text has ‫ ע ֵֹׂשה‬and 1QIsaa has ‫עושי‬.

Considerations on Questions Philology Cannot Solv

59

2.2.1. Nouns 2.2.1.1. ‫י‬/‫ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה‬ The form ambivalence of singular and plural nouns of tertiae vocalis roots in the construct state has brought about the following interesting case of divergent readings. Deut 11:7

‫הו֖ה ַהּגָ ֑ד ֹל ֲא ֶ ׁ֖שר ָע ָ ֽׂשה׃‬ ָ ְ‫ל־מ ֲע ֵ ׂ֥שה י‬ ַ ‫ת־ּכ‬ ָ ‫את ֶא‬ ֹ ֔ ֹ ‫יכ ֙ם ָ ֽהר‬ ֶ ֵ‫ִ ּ֤כי ֵ ֽעינ‬

8QMez, the Septuagint, Vulgate, Peshiṭta and Tagrum Neofiti read plural for ‫מ ֲע ֵׂשה יְ הוָ ה ַהּגָ ד ֹל‬. ַ Similarly, the Qumran fragment 4QDeutk1 reads ‫מעשה יהוה‬ ‫הגדלים‬, while in 4QDeutj only ‫ י]הוה הגדלים‬is preserved. On the one hand, it can be argued, that the context requires a plural form, because, in this pericope, some wonders are listed that had occurred during Israel’s wilderness journey. On the other hand, it can be argued, that the plural adjective ‫ הגדלים‬in Qumran texts and probably in the versions or their Vorlagen has emerged because the “originally” singular form ‫ מעשה‬had been understood as plural. The syntagm ‫ל־מ ֲע ֵׂשה‬ ַ ‫ֵאת ָּכ‬ ‫ יְ הוָ ה ַהּגָ דֹול‬is also attested in Judg 2:7. Both singular and plural construct of ‫מעשה‬ are contextually acceptable in these two instances. 2.2.1.2. ‑‫י יְ ֵדי‬/‫ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה‬ As mentioned in section 2.1.2.1.2, there is a variation in different textual witnesses in treatment of the expressions and ‑‫ יְ ֵדי ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה‬and ‑‫יְ ֵדי ַמ ֲע ֵׂשי‬. In some places, both readings are possible, while the textual attestation fluctuates. For instance, 2 Kgs 22:17 features ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫מ ֲע ֵׂשה יְ ֵד‬, ַ while the parallel text 2 Chr. 34:25 has ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫מ ֲע ֵׂשי יְ ֵד‬. ַ Lam 3:64 Lam 4:2

‫יהם׃‬ ֽ ֶ ‫הו֖ה ְּכ ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂ֥שה יְ ֵד‬ ָ ְ‫ָּת ִׁ֙שיב ָל ֶ ֥הם ּגְ ֛מּול י‬ ‫יֹוצר׃‬ ֽ ֵ ‫י־ח ֶרׂש ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂ֖שה יְ ֵ ֥די‬ ֶ֔ ‫בּו ְלנִ ְב ֵל‬ ֙ ‫יכה נֶ ְח ְׁש‬ ֤ ָ ‫ְּב ֵנ֤י ִצ ּ֙יֹון ַהיְ ָק ִ ֔רים ַה ְמ ֻס ָּל ִ ֖אים ַּב ָ ּ֑פז ֵא‬

Septuagint, Vulgate and Targum translate in Lam 3:64 ‫ ְּכ ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה‬as plural. Both singular and plural forms are acceptable in the context. In Lam 4:2, ‫יֹוצר‬ ֵ ‫ ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה יְ ֵדי‬stays in apposition to ‫ ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה‬.‫י־ח ֶרׂש‬ ֶ ‫ נִ ְב ֵל‬may refer to ‫י־ח ֶרׂש‬ ֶ ‫ נִ ְב ֵל‬ad sensum as singular, but the apposition may also have the same morphological structure as the construction it refers to. Two Hebrew manuscripts read ‫מ ֲע ֵׂשי‬, ַ 43 and Septuagint and Targum translate with plural, while one 43 G. B. Rossi, Scholia critica in V. T. libros seu supplementa ad varias sacri textus lectiones (Parma: ex Regio Typographeo, 1798; reprinted Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1970), 130. According to the list of differences between Oriental and Occidental Masoretes, ‫ ַמ ֲע ֵׂשי‬is also a Ketiv reading of Oriental Masoretes (Leningrad codex, fol. 468v). This instance is not featured in the corresponding list in Jacob Ben-Ḥayyim’s ‘Second Rabbinic Bible’ edition (cf. M. H.  Goshen-Gottstein (ed.), Biblia rabbinica, vol. 4, second part, 246).

60

Viktor Golinets

Targum manuscript translates with singular.44 BHQ 18 explains in both verses the translations of the versions as a phonological error. This explanation is not correct. Ps 138:8

‫ל־ּת ֶרף׃‬ ֽ ֶ ‫עֹול֑ם ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂ֖שי יָ ֶ ֣דיָך ַא‬ ָ ‫מר ַּ֫ב ֲע ִ ֥די ְי֭הוָ ה ַח ְס ְּדָך֣ ְל‬ ֹ ֪ ְ‫יְ הוָ ֘ה יִ ג‬

This case is similar to Lam 4:2. The form ‫ ַמ ֲע ֵׂשי‬may refer to the psalmist morphosyntactically “correctly” as singular (manuscripts and versions read ‫)מ ֲע ֵׂשה‬, ַ or ad sensum as plural. ֶ֔ ‫ׂשי יְ ֵד‬ ֣ ֵ ‫ ְל ַה ְכ ִע ֵ֙סנִ ֙י ְּב ַמ ֲע‬in Jer 44:8 is similar to Lam 3:64. The referThe case of ‫יכם‬ ence is made to the deeds of people in both constructions, and both singular and plural suit the context. Many manuscripts read in Jer 44:8 ‫ ְּב ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה‬instead of ‫ ְּב ַמ ֲע ֵׂשי‬of A, C and L. The word has been written as ‫ במעשה‬in BCP and then corrected to ‫במעשי‬, because the Masora parva note in BCP writes ‫יא דכת ביוד‬ 11“ times written with Yod.” A and L feature a similar note, ‫( יא כת יוד‬Mm 2706),45 while the note in C says ‫“ ב כת י בס‬two times written with Yod in the book.”46 Isa 37:19 Isa 60:21

‫י־א ָ ֛דם ֵ ֥עץ וָ ֶ ֖א ֶבן ַ �וֽיְ ַא ְּב ֽדּום׃‬ ָ ‫ם־מ ֲע ֵ ׂ֧שה יְ ֵ ֽד‬ ַ ‫ֹלהים ֵ֗ה ָּמה ִ ּ֣כי ִא‬ ִ֜ ‫יהם ָּב ֵ ֑אׁש ִּכי֩ ֙ל ֹא ֱא‬ ֖ ֶ ‫ֹלה‬ ֵ ‫ת־א‬ ֱ ‫תן ֶא‬ ֹ ֥ ָ‫וְ נ‬ ‫[מ ָּט ַ ֛עי] ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂ֥שה יָ ַ ֖די ְל ִה ְת ָּפ ֵ ֽאר׃‬ ַ )‫(מ ָּטעֹו‬ ַ ‫עֹול֖ם יִ ְ֣ירׁשּו ָ ֑א ֶרץ ֵנ ֶ֧צר‬ ָ ‫יקים ְל‬ ִ֔ ‫וְ ַע ֵּמ ְ֙ך ֻּכ ָּל֣ם ַצ ִּד‬

In Isa 37:19, Septuagint and Vulgate translate the counterpart of Masoretic ‫ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה‬ with plural, but Targum and Peshiṭta translate with singular. In Isa 60:21 Septuagint translates it with plural, and one Hebrew manuscript reads ‫מ ֲע ֵׂשי‬, ַ 47 while Targum, Peshiṭta and Vulgate translate with singular. Mic 5:12

‫א־ת ְׁש ַּת ֲחֶו֥ה ֖עֹוד ְל ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂ֥שה יָ ֶ ֽדיָך׃‬ ִ ֹ ‫בֹותיָך ִמ ִּק ְר ֶּבָ֑ך וְ ֽל‬ ֖ ֶ ‫ּומ ֵּצ‬ ַ ‫וְ ִה ְכ ַר ִ ּ֧תי ְפ ִס ֶיל֛יָך‬

BCP and some medieval Bible manuscripts collected by Kennicott and Ginsburg read here ‫ל ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה‬,ְ 48 and versions translate it with plural. BHQ characterises the reason for this translation as exegetical, but it can also be orthographic or due to ancient scribes’ and translators’ understanding of word usage.

44 É. Levine, The Aramaic Version of Lamentations (New York: Sepher-Hermon Press, 1966; 2nd printing 1981), 51. This could be an inner-Targumic variance. 45 A has ‫יא כתב יוד‬. 46 The second instance is Jer 1:16‫ׂשי‬ ֵ ‫( ְל ַמ ֲע‬cf. Mm 2706), where the note is ‫“ יא כת י‬eleven times with Yod.” 47 B. Kennicott, Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum cum variis lectionibus (Oxford: Clarendon, 1776, 1780; reprinted Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann, 2003). 48 Kennicott, Vetus Testamentum; C. D.  Ginsburg, The Later Prophets. Diligently Revised according to the Massorah and the Early Editions with the Various Readings from MSS. and the Ancient Versions (London: British and Foreign Bible Society, 1926).

Considerations on Questions Philology Cannot Solv

61

2.2.1.3. ‫י‬/‫ֲע ֵלה‬ Gen 3:7

‫רּו ֲע ֵל֣ה ְת ֵא ָ֔נה וַ ּיַ ֲע ׂ֥שּו ָל ֶ ֖הם ֲח ֹג ֽר ֹת׃‬ ֙ ‫יהם וַ ֵּי ְ�֣ד ֔עּו ִ ּ֥כי ֵ ֽע ֻיר ִ ּ֖מם ֵ ֑הם ַ �וּֽיִ ְת ְּפ‬ ֶ֔ ֵ‫וַ ִּת ָּפ ַ ֙ק ְחנָ ֙ה ֵע ֵינ֣י ְׁשנ‬

‫ ֲע ֵלה‬is rendered in some medieval Bible manuscripts and in the Samaritan Pentateuch as ‫ע ֵלי‬,ֲ and Septuagint, Vulgate as well as Targum Onkelos and Targum Jerushalmi translate the noun as the plural “leaves.” The form ‫ ֲע ֵלה‬can be plural, but it can also be understood as collective noun “foliage.” As it seems, it is impossible to decide which form was originally intended. Probably, a systematic study of the use of Hebrew generic terms could bring arguments for a contextually assured explanation of such forms. 2.2.1.4. ‫ְק ֵצה‬ Ps 19:7

‫צֹותם וְ ֵ ֥אין ִ֜נ ְס ָּ֗תר ֵ ֽמ ַח ָּמתֹו׃‬ ֑ ָ ‫ל־ק‬ ְ ‫קּופ ֥תֹו ַע‬ ָ ‫ּות‬ ְ ‫ֹוצ ֗אֹו‬ ָ ‫מק ֵצ֤ה ַה ָּׁש ַ֙מיִם׀ ֽמ‬ ְ

The form ‫ קצה‬can be considered as plural in parallelism to the plural ‫צֹותם‬ ָ ‫ק‬: ְ “from the ends of heaven … to their edges.” Targum and Peshiṭta translate with plural, while the Septuagint and Vulgate render with singular. These four versions similarly translate two occurrences of ‫ קצה‬in Deut 4:32. Besides Targum Onkelos, Targum Neofiti and Fragmentary Targum also translate in the latter case with plural. 2.2.1.5. ‫י‬/‫ְׂש ֵדה‬ For ‫ ְׂש ֵדי‬in Ps 132:6 and Prov 23:10, Hebrew manuscripts and versions read ‫שדה‬. Both forms yields sense in these contexts, and it is impossible to say whether singular or plural is intended, as already noted by Buhl.49 According to Buhl, both ‫ ְׂש ֵדה‬and ‫ ְׂש ֵדי‬are singular constructus forms. ָ ‫ ְׂש ֵדה‬is used, while 1:1, 2, 6 and 22 speak In Ruth 1:6; 2:6;50 4:3, the form ‫מֹואב‬ about ‫מֹואב‬ ָ ‫ׂש ֵדי‬. ְ Both singular and plural can be used in this context. As singular “field” is used as synonym for “land” – it does not mean a particular Moabitic field. In plural it can mean the realm of Moab as the entirety of its fields (cf. German Gefilde). All versions translate in all places in the book of Ruth as singular. This land designation also appears in Gen 36:35 = 1 Chr 1:46; Num 21:20; 1 Chr 8:8, where Kennicott, de Rossi and Ginsburg register no various readings.51 49 F. Buhl (ed.), Wilhelm Gesenius’ hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das alte Testament (zwölfte völlig umgearbeitete Auflage; Leipzig F. C. W. Vogel, 1895), 750. 50 In 2:6, L reads ‫ּׂש ֵדה‬ ְ ‫מ‬, ִ while the Aleppo Codex, Munich Cod.hebr. 2 and Berlin Ms. or. fol. 1211 feature ‫מ ְּׂש ֵדי‬. ִ 51 Kennicott, Vetus Testamentum; de Rossi, Variae lectiones; C. D.  Ginsburg, The Pentateuch. The Writings. Diligently Revised according to the Massorah and the Early Editions with the Various Readings from MSS. and the Ancient Versions (London: British and Foreign Bible Society, 1926).

62

Viktor Golinets

Similarly, in ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ ְׂש ֵדי ִמגְ ַרׁש ָע ֵר‬2 Chr. 31:19 “the field(s) of the grassland of their cities,” the form ‫ ְׂש ֵדי‬describes the land or the fields around cities. Some of the medieval Bible manuscripts read here ‫ׂש ֵדה‬. ְ 2.2.2. Participles 2.2.2.1. The verb ‫כסה‬ Prov 10:18

‫ּומֹוצא ִ ֜ד ָּ֗בה ֣הּוא ְכ ִ ֽסיל׃‬ ִ֥ ‫י־ׁש ֶקר‬ ֑ ָ ‫ְמ ַכ ֶ ּ֣סה ִ ׂ֭שנְ ָאה ִׂש ְפ ֵת‬

The form ‫ ְמ ַכ ֶּסה‬can be regarded as singular because the predicate of the parallel half verse – ‫מֹוצא‬ – ִ is definitely singular. However, the question arises whether the thought of the first half verse is continued in the second one or the second one introduces a new thought. If we understand the two halves of the verse as unrelated to each other with regard to content, then we can regard ‫ ְמ ַכ ֶּסה‬as plural. While ‫י־ׁש ֶקר‬ ָ ‫ ִׂש ְפ ֵת‬is the predicate construction to ‫ ְמ ַכ ֶּסה ִׂשנְ ָאה‬with the semantic nuance of identification,52 the plural of the feminine predicate “deceitful lips” does not agree with the masculine (singular) ‫ ְמ ַכ ֶּסה‬of the Masoretic text. This construction presupposes that the agent of the “deceitful lips” is being referred to ad sensum as the one who “conceals hatred.” The incongruence in number can be obviated if the form ‫ ְמ ַכ ֶּסה‬is recognized as plural. Septuagint, Peshiṭta and Vulgate have chosen this way of interpretation. They disregard the gender incongruence and understand ‫ ְמ ַכ ֶּסה ִׂשנְ ָאה‬as a verb with the direct object: “they cover enmity.” BHQ 17 explains the rendering of ‫ ְמ ַכ ֶּסה‬with plural in the versions as syntactic error. Before we accept this judgment, it should be studied, how ancient translations deal with similar cases of syntactic incongruence in gender and number. At any rate, the syntax of the Hebrew has posed a problem for translators, and either the version had ‫ מכסי‬in their Vorlagen or they interpreted ‫ מכסה‬as plural. 2.2.2.2. The verb ‫עלה‬ Deut 14:7 ‫ת־ה ָּׁש ֜ ָפן‬ ַ ‫ת־ה ַא ְרנֶ֙ ֶבת וְ ֶא‬ ָ ‫ת־הּגָ ָמל וְ ֶא‬ ַ ֠ ‫סּועה ֶ ֽא‬ ֑ ָ ‫יסי ַה ַּפ ְר ָ ֖סה ַה ְּׁש‬ ֥ ֵ ‫ּומ ַּמ ְפ ִר‬ ִ ‫אכ ֙לּו ִמ ַ ּֽמ ֲע ֵל֣י ַהּגֵ ָ ֔רה‬ ְ ֹ ‫ת־זה ֤ל ֹא ֽת‬ ֶ֞ ‫ַ ֣אְך ֶא‬ ‫ּופ ְר ָס ֙ה ֣ל ֹא ִה ְפ ִ ֔ריסּו ְט ֵמ ִ ֥אים ֵ ֖הם ָל ֶ ֽכם׃‬ ַ ‫י־מ ֲע ֵל֧ה גֵ ָ ֣רה ֵ֗ה ָּמה‬ ַ ‫ִ ּֽכ‬

‫ ַמ ֲע ֵלה גֵ ָרה‬can be plural, parallel to ‫ ַמ ֲע ֵלי ַהּגֵ ָרה‬of the first half verse and referring to the three animals listed immediately before, or it can be singular, meaning a generic term “ruminant.” 2.2.2.3. The verb ‫עשה‬ Prov 12:22

52 “What

‫מּונ֣ה ְרצֹונֽ ֹו׃‬ ָ ‫י־ׁש ֶקר וְ ע ֵ ֹׂ֖שי ֱא‬ ֑ ָ ‫ּתֹוע ַ ֣בת ְי֭הוָ ה ִׂש ְפ ֵת‬ ֲ conceals hatred are deceitful lips” or “who conceals hatred has lying lips.”

63

Considerations on Questions Philology Cannot Solv

The grammatical number of the participle ‫ ע ֵֹׂשי‬is ambivalent here. ‫ ע ֵֹׂשי‬can be plural, paralleling the plural ‫ ִׂש ְפ ֵתי‬in the construct state, or it can be singular, referring to a single person, the owner of the “deceitful lips.” The Septuagint reads ὁ δὲ ποιῶν, corresponding to the singular, as already noted by de Lagarde.53 2.3. Interim conclusion In all cases discussed in section 2, the nouns and participles from tertiae vocalis roots show two orthographic forms of the construct state in plural, namely with Heh and with Yod at the end. Both letters are used as a graphical expression of the vowel /ē/. This orthography has parallels in the Qumran and Samaritan Hebrew, it fluctuates in medieval biblical manuscripts, and forms with Heh have been recognised as plural by ancient Bible translators. Modern Hebrew grammarians and text editors should also acknowledge this orthographic variation. The readings attest the ancient exegetes’ understanding of the relevant phrases, but no Hebrew orthographic rules can be deduced from the latter. The orthography with Yod at the end of forms of tertiae vocalis verbs is also attested in the Masoretic text on nouns in the absolute state (e. g. Isa 38:12 ‫ ר ִֹעי‬for ‫ )ר ֶֹעה‬and on finite verbal forms (cf. Gottstein 1953:105). The BHQ’s treatment of orthographical and grammatical variations in the forms of nouns and participles of tertiae vocalis roots can be recapitulated in the following chart: Reference

Form

Form in mss and versions

Judgment of BHQ

Gen 3:7

‫ֲע ֵלה‬

plural

facil[itation]

Gen 47:3

‫ר ֵֹעה‬

plural

–

Deut 28:60

‫ַמ ְדוֵ ה‬

plural

–

Mic 5:12

‫ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה‬

plural

exeg[esis]

Lam 3:64

‫ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה‬

plural

err-phonol[ogy]

Lam 4:2

‫ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה‬

plural

err-phonol[ogy]

Ruth 1:6

‫ְׂש ֵדי‬

singular

Prov 10:18

‫ְמ ַכ ֶּסה‬

plural

err-synt[ax]

Mic 6:16

‫ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה‬

plural

assim-ctext

Mal 3:19

‫ע ֶֹׂשה‬

plural

assim-ctext

Ezra 3:9

‫ע ֶֹׂשה‬

plural

harm-ctext

Neh 2:16

‫ע ֶֹׂשה‬

plural

–

–

53 P. de Lagarde, Anmerkungen zur griechischen Übersetzung der Proverbien (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1863), 42.

64

Viktor Golinets

The treatment of these forms in the BHQ is inconsequent on a variety of grounds. Firstly, not every variant reading is being commented upon. Secondly, different reasons are considered as explanation for the same phenomenon. Thirdly, the orthographical and grammatical variation in forms of tertiae vocalis roots is no error at all. The modern grammarian’s and editor’s classification of the orthography of forms as always singular for ‫ ‑ה‬and plural for ‫ ‑י‬should be given up as unanchored in the texts. The distribution of forms allows only formulating a tentative rule that in medieval manuscripts in many cases the forms of nouns and participles of the roots mediae vocalis appear in the construct state with ‫ ‑ה‬for singular and ‫ ‑י‬for plural. This graphic differentiation of forms is an orthographic device developed out of the notion that the letter Yod often appears in plural morphemes. This device is convenient but not always applied in the text. This distinction of forms depending on their orthography is applicable to construct state without pronoun only, since forms with suffixed pronouns are written with Yod both in singular and plural, cf. ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫“ ר ֵֹע‬their shepherd” and ‫יהן‬ ֶ ֵ‫“ קֹנ‬their buyers” in Zech 11:5.

3. Synonymous readings Synonymous readings pose a problem for textual reconstruction, if there are no convincing arguments to make a choice between variants. In Gen 1:9, for ‫ָמקֹום‬ of the Hebrew text, the Septuagint translates συναγωγὴν, which presupposes the noun ‫ מקוה‬in the Vorlage. The reading ‫ מקוה‬is also attested in the Qumran fragment 4QGenh1 – if this tiny fragment represents the Bible text indeed. Because of the Septuagint’s rendering, the form ‫ מקום‬of the Masoretic text was explained as ‫ ִמ ְקוֶ ה‬with the suffixed pronoun 3rd person m. pl. with a syncope of intervocalic h,54 or as ‫ ִמ ְקוֶ ה‬with the enclitic particle ‑m.55 Both explanations are astute, but the word ‫ ָמקֹום‬fits the context equally good as the reading of the Septuagint Vorlage. The reading of the Septuagint may be an assimilation on ‫ ִמ ְקוֶ ה‬in verse 10, but it may also be original, while the reading of the Masoretic text could have arisen as a result of letter confusion between ‫ ה‬and ‫ם‬.56 Another case of synonymous readings I would like to mention, is the Septuagint variant ἐν βουλῇ “in the council” for ‫“ ַּב ֲע ַדת‬in the assembly” in Ps 1:5. The reading of the Septuagint corresponds to Hebrew ‫ּב ֲע ַצת‬.ַ The translation of the 54 D. N. Freedman,

“Notes on Genesis.” ZAW 64 (1952): 190–194, at 190–191. “The Refrain ‘And God Saw Ki Tob’ in Genesis.” Mélanges bibliques rédigés en l’honneur de André Robert (Travaux de l’Institut Catholique de Paris 4. Paris: Bloud & Gay [1956]): 21–26, at 24, note 1. In this case additional questions arise. Did the Septuagint translators recognize the meaning of the particle? How did they treat other cases where modern philological treatment recognizes this particle? 56 Cf. S. Krauss, “Textkritik auf Grund des Wechsels von ‫ ה‬und ‫ם‬.” Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 48 (1930): 321–325, about the confusion of these letters. 55 W. F. Albright,

Considerations on Questions Philology Cannot Solv

65

Septuagint may be assimilation on ‫ ַּב ֲע ַצת‬in verse 1. However, in verse 5 both Hebrew nouns suit the context. Since the noun ‫ ֵע ָדה‬is also used in pejorative sense,57 no argument connected with the use of the noun can be put forth. In both aforementioned instances, a tendency of assimilation in the Septuagint can be seen, and there are indeed many cases of such assimilations in the Septuagint. However, the tendency of lexical dissimilation and use of synonyms in the Hebrew text is conceivable too. This point needs further investigation. I do not see compelling internal or external arguments to opt for one of the readings, if one not merely accepts the overall priority of one of the textual traditions. Both instances belong to an array of cases, in which each of the synonymous readings can be explained grammatically and contextually, but the textual critic, trying to reconstruct the earliest inferable textual state, has no arguments to make a choice between two readings. Similarly, there is a difficulty in reconstructing a Hebrew Vorlage of a version, if Hebrew has synonyms for a term. Cf. also E. Tov, who discusses this problem in connection with reconstructing ‫ אני‬vs. ‫ אנכי‬in the Vorlage of the Septuagint in 1 Sam 2:23–24.58

4. Conclusions There are different types of textual variations in the text of the Hebrew Bible and in its versions, in which either of two readings – both within morphological forms or synonyms – make perfect sense in contexts under consideration. None of the variants could claim priority over another, and neither internal nor external textual evidence permits the textual scholar to make a well-grounded decision. Even if not every case of synonymous readings brought in section 3 appears evident, the main line of the argumentation is clear, and other similar types of textual variations could be adduced.59 The recognition of such cases should not bring about text critical resignation in view of textual aporiae, but it should establish a somewhat new perspective of the Hebrew Bible text. In the case of the defective form of the suffixed pronoun 3rd ms. sg. and in the case of nouns and participles of the tertiae vocalis roots, 57 Cf. ‫“ ֲע ַדת ְמ ֵר ִעים‬the assembly of evildoers” Ps 22:17; ‫“ ֲע ַדת ָחנֵ ף‬the assembly of godless(ness)” Job 15:34. 58 E. Tov, “The Textual Affiliations of 4QSama,” JSOT 4/14 (1979): 37–53, at 39 (review of E. Ch. Ulrich, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus. Harvard Semitic Monograph 19. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978). He writes “2 Sam 2:23–24.” This error has not been corrected in the reprints of this review in E. Tov (ed.), The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Samuel (Proceedings IOSCS – Vienna. Jerusalem: Academon, 1980), 189–216; in revised form and with new pagination in E. Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible. Collected Essays on the Septuagint (VT.Supp, 72; Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 1999), 273–283. 59 For synonymous readings, cf. the classical paper of S. Talmon, “Synonymous Readings in the Textual Tradition of the Old Testament.” Studies in the Bible, ed. Chaim Rabin (Scripta Hierosolymitana 8. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961), 335–383.

66

Viktor Golinets

an orthographic form allows two morphological interpretations. The reader becomes the interpreter of the text because it is up to him or her how to understand the forms in question. It is possible that behind readings that have emerged out of a whim or lapse of a scribe, the interpreter will discover a textual meaning that has not been seen before. In the case of the synonymous readings, their use is not derogation but an enrichment of textual meanings. The reader discovers an array of textual meanings presented and preserved by ancient exegetes. In the examples considered in this study, philology can explain the morphology and the meaning of the forms as well as their genesis and development, but it is impossible to elucidate whether the author/editor of the text has intended a plural or a singular form, and which of the two synonymous words he has used.60 Textual editions and commentaries should direct reader’s attention to the cases of polysemy and should not follow a textual tradition that tries to eliminate the ambiguity. In conclusion, it should be mentioned that even the identification of what philology cannot solve or achieve in the study of the Hebrew Bible text is also an achievement of philology.

References Albright, W. F., “The Refrain ‘And God Saw Ki Tob’ in Genesis.” Mélanges bibliques rédigés en l’honneur de André Robert (Travaux de l’Institut Catholique de Paris 4. Paris: Bloud & Gay [1956]): 21–26. Barkay, G., M. J. Lundberg, A. G. Vaughn and B. Zuckerman, “The Amulets from Ketef Hinnom: A New Edition and Evaluation.” The BASOR 334 (2004): 41–71. Barkay, G., “.‫ ”ברכת הכוהנים על לוחיות כסף מכתב הינום שבירושלים‬Cathedra 52 (1989): 37–76, at 64 (in Hebrew; translated as “The Priestly Benediction on Silver Plaques from Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem.” Tel-Aviv 19 (1992): 139–192. Bauer, H. and P. Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testaments (Halle: Max Niemeyer 1918–1922; reprinted Hildesheim: Olms, 1962). Beit-Arié, M. (ed.), The Damascus Pentateuch. Manuscript from about the year 1000 containing almost the whole Pentateuch. Jewish National and Univ. Library, Jerusalem, Hebr. Quart. 5702. Part II (Early Hebrew Manuscripts in Facsimile 1; Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger, 1982). Bergsträsser, G., Hebräische Grammatik. I. Teil: Einleitung, Schrift und Lautlehre (Leipzig: F. C. W. Vogel 1918; reprinted Hildesheim: Olms, 1962). Berlejung, A., “Ein Programm fürs Leben. Theologisches Wort und anthropologischer Ort der Silberamulette von Ketef Hinnom.” ZAW 120 (2008): 204–230. Biblia Hebraica, quinta editione cum apparatu critico novis curis elaborato. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft): 1. Genesis (prepared by A. Tal. 2015). 5. Deuteronomy (prepared by Carmel McCarthy. 2007). 13. The Twelve Minor Prophets (prepared 60 Similarly, it is not always possible to reconstruct the original text in the cases where small lexical items are affected, e. g. interchange of prepositions, presence or absence of the conjunction ‫ו‬, or of the object particle ‫את‬.ֵ

Considerations on Questions Philology Cannot Solv

67

by A. Gelston. 2010). 18. General Introduction and Megillot, edited by A. Schenker, Y. A. P. Goldman, A. van der Kooij (G. J. Norton, S. Pisano, J. de Waard, R. D. Weis. 2004). 20. Ezra and Nehemiah (prepared by D. Marcus. 2006). Buhl, F. (ed.), Wilhelm Gesenius’ hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das alte Testament (zwölfte völlig umgearbeitete Auflage; Leipzig: F. C. W. Vogel, 1895). Codex Berlin Or. Qu. 680 (I. Yeivin, Bible Hagiographia. Codex Berlin Or. Qu. 680 – Codex New York, JTS 510. (Jerusalem: Makor, 1972). Cross, F. M. and D. N. Freedman Early Hebrew Orthography. A Study of the Epigraphic Evidence (American Oriental Series, 36. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1952). Cross, F. M., “Some Problems in Old Hebrew Orthography with Special Attention to the Third Person Masculine Singular Suffix on Plural Nouns [‑âw].” Eretz Israel 27 (2003): 18*–24* [reprinted in Cross, F. M., Leaves from an Epigrapher’s Notebook. Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy (Harvard Semitic Studies, 51. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 351–356]. de Lagarde, P., Anmerkungen zur griechischen Übersetzung der Proverbien (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1863). de Rossi, G. B., Variae lectiones veteris testamenti librorum (Parma: Bodoni, 1798; reprinted Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1969/1970). Elliger, K. and W. Rudolph (eds.), Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Editio funditus renovata. (Editio quinta emendata opera A. Schenker. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997). Freedman, D. N. (ed.), The Leningrad Codex. A Facsimile Edition. Grand Rapids, MI/ Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans / Leiden/New York/Köln: Brill, 1998. Freedman, D. N., “Notes on Genesis.” ZAW 64 (1952): 190–194. Freedman, D. N., “The Evolution of Hebrew Orthography.” Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Orthography, edited by D. N. Freedman, A. D. Forbes and F. I. Andersen (Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 3–15. Geiger, G., Das hebräische Partizip in den Texten aus der judäischen Wüste (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 101; Leiden: Brill, 2012). Ginsburg, C. D., The Later Prophets. Diligently Revised according to the Massorah and the Early Editions with the Various Readings from MSS. and the Ancient Versions (London: British and Foreign Bible Society, 1926). Ginsburg, C. D., The Massorah Compiled from Manuscripts Alphabetically and Lexically Arranged, vol. I: Aleph-Yod (London: Georges Brög, 1880; reprinted Jerusalem: Makor, 1971; New York: Ktav, 1975). Ginsburg, C. D., The Pentateuch. The Writings. Diligently Revised according to the Massorah and the Early Editions with the Various Readings from MSS. and the Ancient Versions (London: British and Foreign Bible Society, 1926). Ginsburg, C. D., The Writings. Diligently Revised according to the Massorah and the Early Editions with the Various Readings from MSS. and the Ancient Versions (London: British and Foreign Bible Society, 1926). Giron Blanc, L.-F., Pentateuco hebreo-samaritano. Génesis. Edición crítica soble la base de manuscritos inéditos (Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” de la Biblia Políglota Matritense 15. Madrid: Instituto de filologiá del SCIC, 1976). Golinets, V., review of BHQ 18, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 102 (2007): 492–501. Golinets, V., review of BHQ 20, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 103 (2008): 60–66. Golinezs, V., review of BHQ 5, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 105 (2010): 453–462.

68

Viktor Golinets

Goshen-Gottstein, M. H. (ed.), Biblia rabbinica. A Reprint of the 1525 Venice Edition. Edited by Jacob Ben Hayim ibn Adoniya (Jerusalem: Makor, 1972). Goshen-Gottstein, M. H. (ed.), The Aleppo Codex. Provided with Massoretic Notes and Pointed by Aron Ben Asher. The Text Considered Authoritative by Maimonides. Part One. Plates (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1976); http://www.aleppocodex.org/aleppocodex.html; all internet pages retrieved on February 6th, 2018). Gottstein, M. H., “Studies in the Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 1. The Interchange of Final Yod and He.” JJS 4 (1953): 104–105. Kennicott, B., Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum cum variis lectionibus (Oxford: Clarendon, 1776, 1780; reprinted Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann, 2003). Knauf, E. A., “War ‘Biblisch-Hebräisch’ eine Sprache? – Empirische Gesichtspunkte zur linguistischen Annäherung an die Sprache der althebräischen Literatur.” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 3 (1990): 11–23. Krauss, S., “Textkritik auf Grund des Wechsels von ‫ ה‬und ‫ם‬.” ZAW 48 (1930): 321–325. Levine, É., The Aramaic Version of Lamentations (New York: Sepher-Hermon Press, 1966; 2nd printing 1981). Loewinger, D. S. (ed.), The Damascus Pentateuch. Manuscript from about the year 1000 containing almost the whole Pentateuch. Jewish National and Univ. Library, Jerusalem, Hebr. Quart. 5702. Part I (Early Hebrew Manuscripts in Facsimile 1; Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger, 1978). Loewinger, D. S. (ed.), Codex Cairo of the Bible. From the Karaite Synagoge at Abbasiya. The Earliest Extant Hebrew Manuscript Written in 895 by Moshe ben Asher. A Limited Facsimile Edition of 160 Copies (Jerusalem: Makor, 1971). Orlinsky, H. M., “The Biblical Prepositions táḥaṯ, bēn, bá‫׳‬aḏ, and Pronouns ’anū́ (or ’anū), zō‫׳‬ṯā́h.” HUCA 17 (1942–1943): 267–292. Paul, S. M., ‫ פרקים מ–סו עם מבוא ופרירוש‬.‫( ישעיה‬Tel Aviv: Am Oved / Jerusalem: Magnes, 2008) [in Hebrew; translated as Isaiah 60–66. Translation and Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans, 2012)]. Qimron, E., The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS, 29. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1986). Renz, J., Die althebräischen Inschriften. Teil 1. Text und Kommentar (Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik I. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995). Renz, J., Materialen zur althebräischen Morphologie (Handbuch der Althebräischen Epigraphik II/2. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2003). Rossi, G. B., Scholia critica in V. T. libros seu supplementa ad varias sacri textus lectiones (Parma: ex Regio Typographeo, 1798; reprinted Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1970). Sarfatti, G. B., “Hebrew Inscriptions of the First Temple Period – a Survey and Some Linquistic Comments.” Maarav 3/1 (1982): 55–83. Sperber, A. (ed.), Codex Reuchlinianus. No. 3 of the Badische Landesbibliothek in Karlsruhe (Formerly Durlach No. 55). With a General Introduction: Masoretic Hebrew. (Corpus codicum hebraicorum medii aevi. Pars II. The Pre-Masoretic Bible Discovered in Four Manuscripts, Representing a Unique Tradition. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1956). Sperber, A., “Hebrew Based Upon Biblical Passages in Parallel Transmission.” HUCA 14 (1939): 153–249; reprinted in Sperber, A Historical Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. A Presentation of Problems with Suggestions to Their Solution (Leiden: Brill, 1966), 234, 476–490, 562–566, 235–297.

Considerations on Questions Philology Cannot Solv

69

Stamm, J. J. (ed.), Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament (Unveränderter Nachdruck der dritten Auflage [1967–1995]; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004). Strack, H. L., Prophetarum posteriorum Codex Babylonicus Petropolitanus. (St. Petersburg: C. Ricker / Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1876) [reprinted as The Hebrew Bible – Latter Prophets. The Babylonian Codex of Petrograd. Prolegomenon by P. Wernberg-Møller (New York: Ktav, 1971)]. Talmon, S., “Synonymous Readings in the Textual Tradition of the Old Testament.” Studies in the Bible (edited by Chaim Rabin; Scripta Hierosolymitana 8; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961), 335–383. Tov, E., “The Textual Affiliations of 4QSama”, JSOT 4/14 (1979): 37–53 (review of E. Ch. Ulrich, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus. Harvard Semitic Monograph 19. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978). Tov, E. (ed.), The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Samuel (Proceedings IOSCS – Vienna. Jerusalem: Academon, 1980). Tov, E., The Greek and Hebrew Bible. Collected Essays on the Septuagint (VT.Supp, 72; Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 1999). Watson, W. G. E., Classical Hebrew Poetry. A Guide to Its Techniques (JSOT.Supp, 26. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984). Weil, G. E., Massorah Gedolah iuxta Codicem Leningradensem B 19 a. (Rom: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1971.

Between the Archaic and the Literary The ‘Narrative’ Infinitive Clause in the Text(s) of the Bible Andrés Piquer Otero

1. Introduction Grammars of Biblical Hebrew often include in their presentations of the verbal system the usage of the infinitive absolute in a verbal, as opposed to nominal, function.1 This phenomenon is also attested in other Semitic languages, saliently in Northwest Semitic ones, such as Phoenician, Ugaritic, and the Canaanite Akkadian dialect of the Amarna Letters. A thorough and revealing syntactic survey is hindered in most of the evidence by the absence of vocalization in the respective writings systems outside Akkadian; in Biblical Hebrew, scholars have to rely on the Masoretic vocalization, which involves a late systematization when the grammatical form in question had become obsolete in post-biblical phases of the language, saliently in Rabbinic Hebrew.2 Despite the evidence in this and other phenomena of the Masoretes’ capacity to reflect reading traditions which preserved ancient, 1st Millennium BCE. grammatical features with a reflection in vocalization, the approach has to be critical and take into consideration the possibility of some cases of infinitive absolute clauses being the result of the transmission process of the biblical text or of a later grammatical reinterpretation which introduces this feature on the grounds of factors such as hypercorrection or mistaken archaism which do not attest the language at the time of the composition of the texts but the perception of “classical Hebrew” in a later period. In this sense, we have access to more data for assessing the usage of the infinitive absolute in Biblical Hebrew than in Phoenician or Ugaritic, but, nevertheless, these data have to be subject to critical analysis in order to produce, as much as our evidence allows, a clear diachronic picture. 1 See, e. g. R. Meyer, Hebräische Grammatik (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 31992), 405–457; P. Joüon, and T. Muraoka, Gramática del hebreo bíblico (ed. prepared by Miguel Pérez Fernández; Estella: Verbo Divino, 2007), § 123. 2 Its frequency seems to decrease markedly in Late Biblical Hebrew and in evidence from Qumran, as it will be discussed below. See R. Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew: Towards a Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose (Missoula, MN: Scholars, 1976), 43–44.

72

Andrés Piquer Otero

In this sense, the study of the usage of the infinitive absolute in place of a finite verb and related constructions can benefit from a joint approach which involves both a linguistic survey and textual criticism of the passages in question in order to frame instances of the construction both in the history of transmission of the Hebrew text (including the understanding of the Hebrew language) and in the overall syntactical context of function and structure within the Hebrew Bible and similar or dissimilar textual types in languages where the construction is attested. This paper attempts to be a survey of part of the biblical evidence on the usage of the infinitive absolute in the books of Samuel and Kings. Cases where the verb form is used as a finite verb or modal expression will be treated in more detail and two complementary angles of approach will be applied: textual criticism of passages where the Masoretic Text could be considered problematic or where the versions may offer important information on the reception of the infinitive absolute constructions in later phases of the transmission of the text; and a comparative and linguistic approach from the point of view of discourse analysis, which will try to determine patterns of usage within given textual functions and types of discursive units; these patterns will in turn be related to evidence of similar constructions from other Semitic languages of the 2nd and 1st Millennia BCE.3

2. Infinitive absolute in Hebrew grammar In spite of the tendency to the contrary in several established grammars of the Hebrew language,4 I will therefore stick to a conception of the absolute vs. construct categories of the infinitive which is purely functional and lacks an etymological difference.5 Therefore, the vocalization with qames vs. the forms with schewa would be prosodic and contextual (not necessarily just the equivalent of a nomen regens in the construct state, but also after a particle.6) Nevertheless, vocalization patterns do define a syntactic structure which should be the starting point in research on the usage and presence of this nominal form of the Hebrew verb. In other words, the pattern adopted in the Masoretic text is indicative of one 3 I have followed a similar approach in the analysis of non-paronomastic infinitive absolute constructions in Phoenician narrative texts in A. Piquer Otero, “The ‘Narrative Infinitive’ in Phoenician and Its Background: A Discourse Analysis Approach,” in Linguistic Studies in Phoenician Grammar (ed. R. Holmstedt, and A. Schade, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 142–173. 4 See e. g. Meyer, Hebräische Grammatik, 226–227. 5 In this I follow the position summarized in E. Lipiński, Semitic Languages. Outline of a Comparative Grammar (2nd ed.; OLA, 8; Leuven: Peeters, 2001), 424–427. The presence of patterns with ‑o‑ in the absolute infinitive on the basic pattern of derived stems in Biblical Hebrew might be rare and related to analogy with the basic (qal) stem. 6 For a possible analogous vocalic reduction in the infinitive followed by a complement in other Palaeo-Syrian dialects, see Lipiński, Semitic Languages, 160.

Between the Archaic and the Literary

73

reading tradition and perception of the form in different contexts, but, ultimately, the grounds for ratifying its presence and function should be syntactical, as it is the case in the few clear instances of the form in epigraphic Hebrew7 and in Ugaritic and Phoenician. Functionally, most grammars agree in the definition of categories of use of the absolute infinitive in the Hebrew Bible: (1) strict usage as a verbal noun, sharing the possible functions of the substantive; (2) internal object with transitive or intransitive verbs, saliently in the paronomastic usage of the infinitive accompanying a finite form of the same root, for “emphasis” with a series of semantic nuances connected to the position before or after the finite verb; (3) adverbial/ modal usage marking circumstances or consequences of an action expressed by a finite verb; this leads to phrases which are usually rendered as gerund8 clauses or, with some set roots, to “frozen” modal adverbs; (4) as an imperative in clauseinitial positions; and (5) as a finite verb with different values of time or mood (past, future, indicative, hortative) in different positions of the paragraph.9 This brief sketch is open to two basic linguistic considerations. First, most of these functions are widely attested in other Semitic languages, saliently in the 2nd and 1st Millennium BCE Northwest Semitic dialects mentioned above, and, remarkably, the internal object function probably hearkens back to Afro-Asiatic given its presence in Lybico-Berber and Egyptian.10 This would indicate, in abstract, that these syntactic usages of the infinitive are old and point towards early phases of the language, reflecting a shared feature of, at least, Northwest Semitic. Second, a quick glance at the list also indicates that many of these functions overlap and stand in competition with other verbal forms, not only in the cases of imperative or finite verb values, but also in the adverbial-modal and consecutive expressions, roles which are also assumed by the participle or the construct infinitive with particles and the weqatal form, respectively. Nominal use is also in competition with the construct infinitive inasmuch as complements can be attached to construct infinitives in a regency chain. This would leave the paronomastic construction as the only one which is exclusive to the absolute infinitive form. Again in a hypothetic presentation, weighing these two premises together, it seems quite clear that constructions with the absolute infinitive are prone to become linguistically redundant and this would lead to a decline and eventual disappearance of the form, including the paronomastic usage. This fact has been  7 See S. L. Gogel, A Grammar of Epigraphic Hebrew (SBL Resources for Biblical Study 23; Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1998), 78.  8 Actually ‘pseudo-gerund’ or ‘gerundive’ is the name given in the Ethiopian dialects to a form derived from the infinitive which is used preceding a finite verb with a gerund circumstantial value. See Lipiński, Semitic Languages, 560; J. Tropper, Altäthiopisch. Grammatik des Ge‘ez mit Übungstexten und Glossar (ELO 2, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002), 95–96.  9 Cf., among others, Meyer, Hebräische Grammatik, 403–407; B. Waltke, and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 580–597. 10 See Lipiński, Semitic Languages, 520–522.

74

Andrés Piquer Otero

pointed out in diachronic approaches to Biblical Hebrew,11 as in Robert Polzin’s analysis of Late Biblical Hebrew, at least regarding paronomastic infinitives,12 but also questioned by some scholars who have observed that, in some cases, the quantitative presence of some constructions, such as w-Absolute Infinitive as the continuation of a finite verb, seems to increase in clearly later books, such as Jeremiah, Zechariah, Esther, and Nehemiah,13 and give a completely different scenario in the case of constructions equivalent to a finite form.14 Obviously, an answer to this issue and a solution to the disagreement in the dating of the infinitive absolute requires analysis and assessment of structures using the form in the totality of the Hebrew Bible, together with a full-fledged comparison both with instances found in epigraphic Hebrew and in the Dead Sea Scrolls, a labor beyond the scope of this paper.

3. Analysis of absolute infinitive clauses in Samuel-Kings Nevertheless, my opinion is that the present discussion may be assisted by two complementary approaches which, so far, have not played a central role in it: first, a systematic usage of the versions, especially the Greek, in order to both determine the textual soundness (and possible plurality) of the Hebrew reading involving the construction and get a more precise grasp of the degree of understanding of possible absolute infinitive clauses when the text of the Bible was read at the time of the Septuagint translation; second, an assessment of the discourse function of the structures (not only of the form-function valence of the individual clause) within the larger textual unit which allows a comparison with earlier uses of the construction in other Northwest Semitic languages, trying to envisage if the usage in possibly later texts shares these discourse syntax features with earlier instances or has been used in a different way, which could 11 See the summary and bibliography of the general opinion in this direction in academia in I. Young and R. Rezetko, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts, vol. 2 (London: Equinox, 2008), 128. 12 Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew, 43–44. Uncertainty on the diachronic analysis of this feature may be found in Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, vol. 2, 132–141. 13 Walkte and O’Connor, Introduction, 594–597, propose that this w-Absolute Infinitive construction would constitute a later development of the language. See also A. Rubinstein, “A Finite Verb Continued by an Infinitive Absolute in Hebrew”; VT 2 (1952): 362–367. Nevertheless, this diachrony of the structure does not take into account that a “consecutive” or “continuing” form of the absolute infinitive is quite well-attested in narrative Phoenician inscriptions, as I will expand upon below. See C. R. Krahmalkov, A Phoenician-Punic Grammar (Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section One: The Near And Middle East 54; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 210. 14 See M. Eskhult, “Verbal Syntax in Late Biblical Hebrew,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings on the Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (ed. T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde; STDJ, 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000): 80–93; See also the statistical assessment on the absolute infinitive with imperative functions in Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, vol. 2, 128–132.

Between the Archaic and the Literary

75

point towards a sort of stylistic archaising usage as opposed to a continuation of an early or classical feature. Due to time and space constraints, I will select a representative number of cases from the Deuteronomistic History, namely the books of Samuel and Kings, which are of special interest for the discussion at hand because of two factors: 1) the presence of parallels with the Chronicler’s work, a road of analysis undertaken and criticized in the concrete case of the use of absolute infinitives;15 2) the textual plurality of these books, as attested both by the text of the Septuagint and its Vorlage and by surviving materials from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which point in the direction of recensional activity at a later date, potentially a witness to change of perception and frequency in the usage of absolute infinitive clauses. 3.1. Paronomastic construction In the books of Samuel and Kings, not surprisingly, the large majority of constructions with absolute infinitive involve the paronomastic pattern. This amounts to 34 cases in 1 Samuel, 35 in 2 Samuel, 15 in 1 Kings, and 10 in 2 Kings and is, generally speaking, stable in the Septuagint, with a translation through a participle of the same root than the finite verb in agreement with the subject. At times, nevertheless, some textual problems arise: 1 Samuel 23:22 MT GB οὗ εἴπατε μήποτε πανουργεύσηται 4Q52

‫ִּכי ָא ַמר ֵא ַלי ָערֹום יַ ְע ִרם הּוא‬ ]‫א]מר אלי י֯ [ערם‬ ֯ ‫[כי‬

MT reads ‫‏ערֹום יַ ְע ִרם‬ ָ , whereas the B text of the Septuagint in agreement with the Ethiopian (Old Greek in section α) has πανουργεύσηται, that is, ‫יַ ְע ִרם‬. Here the Septuagint agrees with 4Q52, where there seems to be no infinitive between the particle ‫ אלי‬and the traces of a yiqtol form. The majority readings of the Septuagint seem to have included the infinitive expressed by the participle πανουργευσάμενος. Although this, of courses, does not change the statistics meaningfully, it indicates that, in some cases where textual evidence is rich, absolute infinitives could be present or not according to text-type (proto-MT vs. OG + 4Q52.) 2 Kings 3:23 MT ‫ת־ר ֵעהּו‬ ֵ ‫ָ‏ּדם זֶ ה ָה ֳח ֵרב נֶ ֶח ְרבּו ַה ְּמ ָל ִכים וַ ּיַ ּכּו ִאיׁש ֶא‬ GB αἷμα τοῦτο τῆς ῥομφαίας ἐμαχέσαντο οἱ βασιλεῖς καὶ ἐπάταξεν ἀνὴρ τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ

15 Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew, 43–44; Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, vol. 2, 128–141; M. Eskhult, “Verbal Syntax in Late Biblical Hebrew.”

76

Andrés Piquer Otero

2 Kings 3:23 GL  αἷμα τοῦτο ῥομφαίας ἐρίσαντες γὰρ ἤρισαν οἱ τρεῖς βασιλεῖς καὶ ἐμαχέσαντο καὶ ἐπάταξαν ἕκαστος τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ V sanguis est gladii pugnaverunt reges contra se et caesi sunt mutuo

At first sight, one might assume that the phrase ‫‏ נֶ ֶח ְרבּו ָה ֳח ֵרב‬constitutes the original reading and that the Septuagint has mistakenly interpreted the consonants of the absolute infinitive form ‫ החרב‬as ‫ה ֶח ֶרב‬,ָ and henceforth re-adapting the syntax and changing the prosody of the verse: ‫ נחרבו מלכים‬/ ‫דם זה החרב‬. Nevertheless, this Septuagint reading, αἷμα τοῦτο τῆς ῥομφαίας ἐμαχέσαντο οἱ βασιλεῖς, despite being somehow forced in matters of “classical” determination and regency, is attested by the Greek kai ge text, that is, in the moment of a revision according to proto-M. This would be of no consequence as both translator and editor could have made the same grammatical mistake, but things get more complicated when a reading in agreement with the Septuagint is found as the main text of the Vulgate: sanguis est gladii, pugnaverunt reges contra se. Jerome’s choice of reading tradition would indicate that the confusion between the two forms goes beyond the mere mistake of a Greek translator and attests a reading where a complicated absolute infinitive (either from a different stem than the finite form or a Niph‘al hiqqātol form) was lost in at least part of the Hebrew tradition, including the proto-Masoretic text.16 3.2. Modal uses In Samuel-Kings, the absolute infinitive with an adverbial-modal value appears after the finite verb. It may appear by itself or as part of a peculiar periphrastic construction with a finite verb (normally a verb of movement) and two absolute infinitives, one of them paronomastic, from the same root of the finite verb, the other not. The meaning of the second verb in infinitive expresses a modal action concomitant to the rest of the narrative sequence, and is usually translated as a continuous action-state. The reflection of this construction in a version such as the Septuagint is not easy to assess for possible Vorlage changes, as the procedure is far from mechanical and the options include both a literal, almost servile usage of the participle vs. a better grasp of the continuous concomitant action sense rendered through a Greek imperfect. Nevertheless, some textual issues are quite revealing for the problems involved.

16 The reading exclusive to the Lucianic manuscripts ἐρίσαντες γὰρ ἤρισαν οἱ τρεῖς βασιλεῖς καὶ ἐµαχέσαντο does reflect the presence of a reading tradition in antiquity which included the absolute infinitive in the first part of the typical Lucianic doublet. That it was majoritary or not is a different matter altogether.

Between the Archaic and the Literary

77

2 Sam 15:30 MT

‫ר־אּתֹו ָחפּו‬ ִ ‫ל־ה ָעם ֲא ֶׁש‬ ָ ‫ּובֹוכה וְ רֹאׁש לֹו ָחפּוי וְ הּוא ה ֵֹלְך יָ ֵחף וְ ָכ‬ ֶ ‫יתים ע ֶֹלה‬ ִ ֵ‫‏וְ ָדוִ ד ע ֶֹלה ְב ַמ ֲע ֵלה ַהּז‬ ‫ּובכֹה‬ ָ ‫ִאיׁש רֹאׁשֹו וְ ָעלּו ָעֹלה‬ GL καὶ Δαυιδ ἀνέβαινεν ἐπὶ τὴν ἀνάβασιν τῶν ἐλαιῶν καὶ ἔκλαιεν (O ἀναβαίνων καὶ κλαίων) καὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν ἐπικεκαλυμμένος καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπορεύετο ἀνυπόδετος καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ὁ μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐπεκάλυψεν ἕκαστος τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀνέβαινον ἀναβαίνοντες καὶ κλαίοντες GB 120 καὶ Δαυιδ ἀνέβαινεν ἐν τῇ ἀναβάσει τῶν ἐλαιῶν καὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν ἐπικεκαλυμμένος καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπορεύετο ἀνυπόδετος καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ὁ μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐπεκάλυψεν ἀνὴρ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀνέβαινον ἀναβαίνοντες καὶ κλαίοντες 4Q51 ‫והוא]הולך[ יחף וכול העם אשר אתו חפו איש‬ ֯ ‫[ודויד עולה במעלה הזיתים וראש לו ‏חפוי‬ ]‫ראשו ועלו עלוה ובכוה‬

In 2 Sam 15:30, the text presents the same sequence of actions twice, first as carried out by David, then by the rest of the people. In David’s sequence, the concomitant action/mode, is rendered by participles, ‫עֹלה ּובֹוֶ כה‬,ֶ whereas when the people’s actions are presented, the construction uses absolute infinitives, ‫ּובכֹה ָעֹלה‬, ָ two absolute infinitives. Dissimilarity of grammatical forms for the expression of fully parallel actions in the same verse should be striking in and by itself. This would be just underscored by the fact that in Codex Vaticanus of the Septuagint, together with manuscript 120, the whole sequence is omitted. In other witnesses to the Septuagint, the Lucianic text presents two imperfects, just ἀνέβαινεν … καὶ ἔκλαιεν, whereas the majority reading (including salient Hexaplaric sources) reads a very literal rendering of the Hebrew, ἀνέβαινεν … ἀναβαίνων καὶ κλαίων. The Lucianic reading shows a choice for rendering of the periphrasis also taken in the majority text in Old Greek sections of the book, such as 1 Sam 6:12, which would indicate that it is not a Lucianic Greek stylistic feature. On the other hand, the literal translation shared by the majority of codices and Hexaplaric sources does indicate that, at some time of the transmissionrecension of the Greek translation according to proto-MT texts, the structure was perceived as identical to the second instance, at the end of the same verse. Evidence of the Septuagint becomes even more revelant when the reconstruction of the passage from the Samuel text of 4Q51 exhibits, propter spatium, the same omission of the participle construction attested in codex B of the Septuagint. All in all, this adds up to several pieces of evidence which are not easy to fit together: a) The reading tradition known to the Masoretes understood both parallel constructions as grammatically different; b) The reading traditions known to the Septuagint (both in the prospective Old Greek and in the texts used in kai ge or similar recensional activity) show that either the participial phrase was not present (and inserted in a later phase) or, if present, perceived as identical to the parallel phrase at the end of the verse; c) Qumran evidence in agreement with part of the Septuagint indicates that the phrase was not present in part of the Hebrew tradition at the turn of the era.

78

Andrés Piquer Otero

Here, the textual critic should feel his heart divided as in this case the verse is open ground for reflection on discursive-syntactic considerations: instances where David and the people take actions are slightly different: just in David’s instance there is a reference to going barefoot, absent in the presentation of the people’s actions; then, with this difference of contents, order is strictly chiastic: David ascends crying, with his head covered and barefoot, whereas the people are with him with their heads covered and they ascend crying. This results in two distinct discourse patterns combined in a single verse: first, a sequence of participial clauses, subj-Part + Part + Part + subj-Part + subj-Part; then a narrative series with an initial subj-qatal + w-qatal + InfAbs w-Inf Abs. Whereas the first block constitutes a form of expositive discourse17 rendered by a series of nominal clauses, the second one presents actions as a narrative and closes with the modal comment using the absolute infinitive construction. From a discourse analysis point of view, the structure of the first block would be coherent, as much as the insertion of a modal comment using absolute infinitives. A proper approach would require an overarching assessment of whether absolute infinitive modal comments can take place within an expositive unit composed of nominal clauses. In any case, consideration of evidence of this passage for a diachronic discussion is complicated, as: 1) part of the textual tradition seems to indicate that the addition of the ‫ּובֹוכה ‏ע ֶֹלה‬ ֶ elements could be secondary, perhaps in order to produce a higher level of parallelism between the two halves of the verse; 2) the history of the Septuagint text seems to indicate that the phrase in question (with participles in MT) was probably read as an infinitive construction; 3) as mentioned above, participle and absolute infinitive were competing verbal forms for the expression of “gerund” modal comments. 2 Samuel 16:13 MT G

‫וְ ִׁש ְמ ִעי ה ֵֹלְך ְּב ֵצ ַלע ָה ָהר ְל ֻע ָּמתֹו ָהלֹוְך וַ יְ ַק ֵּלל וַ יְ ַס ֵּקל ָּב ֲא ָבנִ ים ְל ֻע ָּמתֹו וְ ִע ַּפר ֶּב ָע ָפר‬ καὶ Σεμεϊ ἐπορεύετο ἐκ πλευρᾶς τοῦ ὄρους ἐχόμενα αὐτοῦ πορευόμενος καὶ καταρώμενος καὶ λιθάζων ἐν λίθοις ἐκ πλαγίων αὐτοῦ καὶ τῷ χοϊ πάσσων ]‫וק]לל [וסקל באבנים עליו ועפר בעפר‬ ֯ ‫[ושמעי הולך בצלע ההר לעמתו ה]ל[וך‬ 4Q51

A similar case may be found in 2 Samuel 16:13. Here, MT reads ‫וְ ִשׁ ְמ ֡ ִעי ה ֵֹלְך֩ ְבּ ֵ֨צ ַלע‬ ‫לֹוְך וַ יְ ַק ֔ ֵלּל וַ יְ ַס ֵ ֤קּל ָ ֽבּ ֲא ָבנִ ֙ים ְל ֻע ָמּ ֔תֹו וְ ִע ַ ֖פּר ֶבּ ָע ָ ֽפר‬ ֙ ‫ה ָ֜הר ְל ֻע ָמּ ֗תֹו ָה‬,ָ that is, a nominal clause continued by a paronomastic absolute infinitive then followed by a series of wayyiqtol clauses, and concluded with a w-qatal clause. In the Septuagint text, nevertheless, the whole sequence beginning with the paronomastic infinitive is rendered as a series of participles, something usual in the literal expression of 17 For discourse typology in the Hebrew Bible, see R. Longacre, Joseph. A Story of Divine Providence. A Text Theoretical and Textlinguistic Analysis of Genesis 37 and 39–48 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989), 80–136; also the revisited approach in R. L. Heller, Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations: An Analysis of Clause Function in Biblical Hebrew Prose (HSS 55; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004).

Between the Archaic and the Literary

79

the absolute infinitive modal idiom: καὶ Σεμεϊ ἐπορεύετο ἐκ πλευρᾶς τοῦ ὄρους ἐχόμενα αὐτοῦ πορευόμενος καὶ καταρώμενος καὶ λιθάζων ἐν λίθοις ἐκ πλαγίων αὐτοῦ καὶ τῷ χοϊ πάσσων. Although evidence is based on reconstruction of gaps, the edition of 4Q51 also proposes ‫ וסקל וקלל‬propter spatium. Therefore, this case should at least arise the suspicion that, in its present state, MT may have lost a good number of absolute infinitive clauses along the way which were known to the Septuagint translators and to the activities attested in the Qumran library. Statistical observations should therefore be nuanced by this very possible fact which only at times may have left textual traces, as probably the competence of the structure with other, more common, patterns would be progressive. Here, MT attests how a long series of modal comments, a structure to be the basis of the best part of all preserved Phoenician usages of the absolute infinitive clause,18 is replaced by a simple wayyiqtol narrative chain with a closing weqatal clause. Beyond the quantitative, a qualitative analysis of textual and syntactic evidence indicates that a movement away from the absolute infinitive as time went by within the textual tradition of the Bible is quite likely. 3.3. Narrative-predictive usages Finally, I will approach cases in Samuel-Kings which seem to belong to the use of absolute infinitive clauses as a finite verb without any modal or conclusive “comment” values. In the studied corpus, these cases are circumscribed to direct speech and comprise both cases with an imperative function and others where the concept of intention or purpose is still present, even though instead of Hortative Discourse they could fall in the realm of a sequence of future events in the mouth of the speaker. 1 Kings 22:30 MT GBL V

‫הֹוׁש ָפט ִה ְת ַח ֵּפׂש וָ בֹא ַב ִּמ ְל ָח ָמה וְ ַא ָּתה ְל ַבׁש ְּבגָ ֶדיָך‬ ָ ְ‫אמר ֶמ ֶלְך יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ֶאל־י‬ ֶ ֹ ‫‏ וַ ּי‬ καὶ εἶπεν βασιλεὺς Ισραηλ πρὸς Ιωσαφατ βασιλέα Ιουδα συγκαλύψομαι καὶ εἰσελεύσομαι εἰς τὸν πόλεμον καὶ σὺ ἔνδυσαι τὸν ἱματισμόν μου dixitque rex Israhel ad Iosaphat sume arma et ingredere proelium et induere vestibus tuis

In 1 Kings 22:30 a direct speech unit is initiated by two forms which are traditionally interpreted as absolute infinitives: ‫ ִ‏ה ְת ַח ֵּפׂש וָ בֹא‬. Even though there is no explicit subject, reading traditions seem to indicate that the two forms were understood as 1st person sg, with a future/volitive value; so the Septuagint B and Lucianic reading συγκαλύψομαι καὶ εἰσελεύσομαι. Nevertheless, textual reception of the verbs is far from problematic: the Greek majority reading is

18 See

Piquer Otero, “Narrative Infinitive,” 138–169.

80

Andrés Piquer Otero

συγκάλυψόν με,19 which reflects a command in imperative. The same interpretation is attested by the Vulgate, with the translation sume arma et ingredere, independent from the Sepguagint as, in all likelihood, it has read ‫ ִה ְת ַח ֵּמשׁ‬instead of ‫ה ְת ַח ֵּפׂש‬,ִ an easily explainable mistake due to the convergence of paleographic and aural factor (a confusion in labials well-attested from the 1st Millennium BCE onwards). Formally, imperatives and absolute infinitives would be identical in this case. Also, aurally as opposed to orthographically, the sequence ‫וָ בֹא‬ ‫ ִ‏ה ְת ַח ֵּפׂש‬would sound almost identical to ‫א ְת ַח ֵּפשׁ וְ ָאבֹא‬, ִ two 1st person sg. yiqtol forms. Again, a text syntactical assessment could offer a more sound vision of the construction. The imperative function (as seen in the Vulgate) would be ill served by the presence of a 2nd person sg. m. pronoun after the two imperatives (unless one accepts that at a time the Hebrew text included a 1st person pronoun in the object, “don my clothes,” in line with the Septuagint reading, where you would have a value of emphasis-contrast) as topicalization of the pronoun with the imperative is unlikely when it is part of a previous series; one would rather expect a change of subject. In this case, the infinitive clauses could act as a previous protasis to the command which the King of Israel gives to Jehoshaphat: “As I get disguised and go to war, you keep your clothes.” Such reading would be congruent with a value of the absolute infinitive clause which is circumscribed to protasis-like comments or parenthetic statements or expansion developments of a main line of discourse. Such constructions can be traced from Ugaritic literature through Phoenician inscriptions down to a remarkable case in the Punic sections preserved in Plautus’ Poenulus l. 942, iulec anec cona,20 although, comparatively, Phoenician agrees with Biblical Hebrew in trying to present absolute infinitive clauses after the main verb, whereas Ugaritic exhibits a good number of cases where a modal protasis with absolute infinitive + subject precedes the beginning of a main line of discourse.21 In this sense, the present case is complicated, a fact that is reflected in its variegated reception and in the incertitude thereof. Saliently, it seems to be the only case of Samuel-Kings which would fit into a predictive future usage, as other cases which seem to have been so perceived, such as 2 Kgs 4:34 and 2 Kgs 19:29, are syntactically quite different, as they do not generate a discourse line proper, but just denominate by themselves a short direct speech utterance; the usage as complement of a previous verb of perception, knowledge or speech is clearly visible in 2 Kgs 19:29: ‫אָכֹול‬ ֤ ‫ה־לָּך֣ ָה ֔אֹות‬ ְ ֶ‫וְ ז‬ ‫“ ַה ָשּׁנָ ֙ה ָס ֔ ִפ ַיח‬This is the sign for you: to eat this years what grows by itself …” This expansion of the nominal clause (which implies a perception activity) is then followed by an expansion consisting of a sequence of imperative clauses, though the 19 Attested by codices A and N along with the rest of manuscripts with the exception of B and L and the Ethiopic, Sahidic and the Syro-Hexapla. 20 See Krahmalkov, Phoenician-Punic Grammar, 213. 21 See Piquer, “Narrative Infinitive,” 161–163.

Between the Archaic and the Literary

81

first one does not express a direct command. This value is quite well represented in the Amarna corpus22 and, once more, seems to indicate that suspected usage of the absolute infinitive as a finite verb in a main line of discourse (as opposed to a supplement-expansion-parenthetic presentation such as the modal value) is quite scarce, save for the initial command function. The rarity of the form would have probably lead to the misinterpretation in 22:30 commented above. 4. Conclusions This paper, as expected, ended up with more questions than answers in the issue at hand. I have chosen a few representative readings from Samuel-Kings in order to illustrate how the study of the absolute infinitive as a category for diachronic analysis of biblical texts is ridden with problems and that a quantitative analysis is problematic, either when applied to support the more traditional view of absolute infinitive as a Classical-Early Hebrew feature which diminished in Late Biblical Hebrew or the opposite, visible in books whose analysis goes beyond the scope of this paper. Either way, studies which just take into account the Masoretic tradition or that assess readings in a purely quantitative way, without taking into account the history of their interpretation and possible loss or change at the turn of the era, run the risk of producing a slanted and inaccurate vision, as MT in its present state does not necessarily reflect the amount of cases which could have gotten lost along the way or, on the other hand, introduced later as a sort of hypercorrection or stylistic improvement. There seem to have been usages which got modernized but left traces in the versions or the scant Qumran evidence and, also, absolute infinitives which do not fit into the discursive structure of a section. This sample joint analysis is obviously not a solution to a deep problem, but at least a reminder of the limits of information at our avail.

22 See

Piquer, “Narrative Infinitive,” 163–165.

82

Andrés Piquer Otero

References Eskhult, M., “Verbal Syntax in Late Biblical Hebrew,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings on the Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (edited by T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde; STDJ, 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 80–93. Gogel, S. L., A Grammar of Epigraphic Hebrew (SBL Resources for Biblical Study 23; Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1998). Heller, R. L., Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations: An Analysis of Clause Function in Biblical Hebrew Prose (HSS 55; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004). Krahmalkov, C. R., A Phoenician‑ Punic Grammar (Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section One: The Near And Middle East 54; Leiden: Brill, 2001). Lipiński, E., Semitic Languages. Outline of a Comparative Grammar (2nd ed.; OLA 8; Leuven: Peeters, 2001). Longacre, R., Joseph. A Story of Divine Providence. A Text Theoretical and Textlinguistic Analysis of Genesis 37 and 39–48 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989). Meyer, R., Hebräische Grammatik (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 31992), 405–457; P. Joüon, and T. Muraoka, Gramática del hebreo bíblico (edition prepared by Miguel Pérez Fernández; Estella: Verbo Divino, 2007). Piquer Otero, A., “The ‘Narrative Infinitive’ in Phoenician and Its Background: A Discourse Analysis Approach,” in Linguistic Studies in Phoenician Grammar (edited by R. Holmstedt, and A. Schade, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 142–173. Polzin, R., Late Biblical Hebrew. Towards a Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose (Missoula, MN: Scholars, 1976). Rubinstein, A., “A Finite Verb Continued by an Infinitive Absolute in Hebrew”; VT 2 (1952), 362–367. Tropper, J., Altäthiopisch. Grammatik des Ge‘ez mit Übungstexten und Glossar (ELO 2, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002). Waltke, B., and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990). Young, I. and R. Rezetko, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts, vol. 2 (London: Equinox, 2008).

L’incidence de la critique textuelle sur le lexique hébreu biblique Les cas de ‫שׁ ֵלם‬, ָ Gn 33,18; ‫וְ ֶה ֱח ִרים‬, Is 11,15; ‫ח ְר ִמי‬,ֶ 1 R 20,42 Adrian Schenker

1. Introduction : la signification de certains mots du lexique biblique dépend de la critique textuelle biblique Il y a des mots du lexique biblique qui font partie d’une leçon qui se trouve en face d’autres leçons ou variantes. Lorsqu’un lexicographe veut déterminer la signification d’un mot dans une de ces variantes il devra d’abord s’assurer que ce mot correspond bien à la leçon originale avant de l’inscrire dans le lexique biblique. Si le mot appartient à un témoin textuel offrant une leçon secondaire ce mot n’appartiendra pas au vocabulaire de la Bible mais à celui de ce témoin. Ainsi la critique textuelle doit-elle précéder le travail du lexicographe. En revanche afin de déterminer les leçons originales souvent la philologie fournit la seule clé pour y parvenir. Trois passages vont illustrer cette situation où philologie et critique textuelle sont imbriquées l’une dans l’autre.

2. ‫ שלם‬Gn 33,181 Tous les témoins textuels lisent le mot ‫שלם‬, excepté le Samaritain qui lit ‫ שלום‬: en effet, la LXX offre Σαλημ, la Vulgate (V ) salem, les Targoums Onkelos, Ps-­ Jonathan, Néophyti ‫ שלם‬ou ‫שלים‬, la Peshitta (P) ‫ܠܫܠܝܡ‬. Mais ils se séparent dans l’interprétation. Toute l’interprétation rabbinique, suivie par l’exégèse médiévale, comprend le mot comme adjectif. Symmaque, selon la Syrohexaplaire 1 Ce problème textuel et exégétique fut soulevé par A. Geiger, Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwicklung des Judentums, 2. Aufl. (Frankfurt a. M., Madda Verl., 1928; 1e éd. Breslau: J. Hainauer, 1857) 74–77. Sur Abraham Geiger cf. R. Weis, “‘Lower Criticism’, Studies in the Masoretic Text and the Ancient Versions of the Old Testament as a Means of Textual Criticism,” Hebrew Bible / Old Testament. The History of Its Interpretation, III From Modernism to Post-Modernism (The Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries), Part I The Nineteenth Century – a Century of Modernism and Historicism (ed. M. Saebø; Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 346–392, ici 351–358.

84

Adrian Schenker

s’accorde avec cette interprétation. De même les Targoums. En revanche LXX, V, P comprennent le mot comme toponyme. A la lumière de cette division de l’interprétation en deux branches, le lexicographe doit conclure à deux termes homonymes : ‫ שלם‬lieu-dit, et ‫ שלם‬épithète. Du coup, un intéressant problème de critique textuelle se pose. Il n’y a ni différence consonantique ni vocalique. Pourtant il y a deux leçons distinctes. Ainsi faudra-t-il déterminer la leçon première, voulue par le narrateur premier, et la leçon secondaire qui doit remplacer la première aux yeux des interprètes postérieurs. C’est l’exemple d’un texte transmis avec une tradition d’interprétation qui semble normative. Mais est-ce un problème de critique textuelle ou d’exégèse ? Il faut répondre à cette question par le premier terme de l’alternative : oui, c’est une question de critique textuelle parce qu’on est en présence de deux leçons distinctes, bien que homonymes, à la fois homophones et homographes. En quelque sorte, c’est un problème textuel caché. Afin de le résoudre il est nécessaire d’examiner les deux significations, celle du toponyme et celle de l’épithète. Le toponyme Salem apparaît dans le Pentateuque dans un seul autre passage, Gn 14,18. En dehors du Pentateuque on le trouve en Ps 76,3. En Gn 14,18 (et en Ps 76,3) le lieu-dit ‫ שלם‬semble se référer à Jérusalem. Quant à l’adjectif il est fréquemment employé. Il signifie « entier » quand il se réfère à une unité, p.ex. ‫ שלמה אבן‬en 1 R 6,7 signifie un bloc entier monolithe, par opposition à des blocs fragmentés en plusieurs moellons. Il signifie « complet » quand il se réfère à un composé, fait de plusieurs composantes, p.ex. Am 1,6 ; 1,9 ‫שלמה גלות‬, où il signifie une déportation complète, qui ne laisse personne derrière elle dans le pays. En 2 Ch 8,16 la maison de Yhwh est terminée et, à ce titre, complète, pourvue de tous ses éléments. Mais le mot s’emploie non seulement pour des réalités matérielles, mais aussi au sens moral, p.ex. ‫שלם לב‬, un cœur entier, c’est-à-dire intègre, loyal, 1 R 8,61 ; 11,4, etc. Dans le Pentateuque en particulier, le mot apparaît au sens matériel pour des poids complets et des mesures complètes, i. e. non diminués, Dt 25,15 (deux fois), et pour les pierres d’autel qui ne doivent pas être travaillées par le ciseau, c’est-à-dire fragmentées ou réduites en pierres plus petites, Dt 27,6. En un passage proche de Gn 33,18, le terme est employé au sens moral. Il signifie en Gn 34,21 « intègre, loyal » et se réfère aux habitants de Sichem. Reportons à présent ces deux termes homonymes au contexte de Gn 33,18. Estce que les deux conviennent-ils à ce contexte ? Quant au toponyme, la réponse est à la fois oui et non. Oui, car dans la syntaxe, un lieu-dit convient parfaitement au verbe ‫בוא‬, venir : Jacob vint à Salem. Le mot convient encore à la perfection aux deux mots qui suivent : « ville de Sichem ». C’est une apposition : « Shalem, ville de Sichem ». Non, car Salem de Gn 14,18 (et de Ps 76,3) ne peut pas vraiment convenir à l’apposition « ville de Sichem ». Il faudrait donc supposer un autre Salem que celui de Gn 14. Mais il serait attesté ici seulement.

L’incidence de la critique textuelle sur le lexique hébreu biblique

85

Quant à l’adjectif, il convient moins bien à cause de sa signification. En effet, ici l’épithète ne peut avoir le sens moral qu’il a en Gn 34,21 « intègre, loyal ». Dans le sens concret et matériel « entier, complet » ce mot n’est jamais employé dans la Bible avec la référence à une personne. Il se réfère exclusivement à des choses. On pourrait dire, à la rigueur, avec l’interprétation rabbinique, que Jacob vint « complet », c’est-à-dire indemne, à Salem, sans avoir souffert aucune perte ni matérielle ni corporelle. Mais le lexicographe se sent gêné vis-à-vis de cette signification puisqu’elle n’est jamais attestée ailleurs. En effet, en Gn 34,21 le terme signifie « intègre, loyal », et non pas « indemne ». Si en revanche on veut lui donner là, sans l’appui d’un autre emploi biblique, le sens de « paisible »,2 il faut répéter que le sens de « indemne » en Gn 33,18 est autre chose que le sens « paisible », et que ce sens n’est pas démontré pour 34,21, car là, le sens bien attesté de « intègre, loyal » convient parfaitement. On aurait deux significations uniques, en 33,18 et 34,21, qui se distinguent l’une de l’autre et ne se retrouvent jamais ailleurs. En conclusion, le toponyme convient bien mieux que l’adjectif homonyme. Cependant, il faut encore comprendre pourquoi l’interprétation rabbinique du texte massorétique et le Samaritain l’ont voulu éviter en favorisant l’adjectif ou en interprétant le mot au sens de ‫שלום‬, ce qui convient moins bien au contexte. L’explication la plus simple semble être celle-ci : les lecteurs anciens, tant du côté de Jérusalem que du côté de Sichem, ont identifié le toponyme de ‫ שלם‬en Gn 33,18 avec celui de Gn 14,18. A Jérusalem on ne pouvait se résigner à voir à Salem-Jérusalem une ville de Sichem. A Samarie on ne pouvait pas davantage admettre que le premier autel de Jacob dans la terre promise, consacrée à El, Dieu d’Israël, fût situé à Jérusalem. Afin d’éviter ces scandales symétriques les deux communautés juives ont procédé parallèlement à une « correction », différemment cependant. A Jérusalem on a eu recours à l’interprétation, en choisissant l’épithète homonyme à la place du toponyme tandis qu’à Samarie on a choisi la correction du terme ‫ שלם‬en ‫שלום‬. Après tout, ce n’était que l’histoire d’une seule lettre, d’un waw de plus. En conclusion, après le discernement du critique textuel, le lexicographe sera à même de déterminer le sens de ‫ שלם‬en Gn 33,18. Voici en complément quelques corollaires : Premièrement, la leçon du Samaritain peut se comprendre de deux manières : ‫ שלום‬est ou bien à l’état absolu ou à l’état construit. Dans le premier cas il a une signification adverbiale, au sens du hal arabe : en paix, exactement comme ‫ בטח‬en Gn 34,25, en confiance, en

2 Ainsi p.ex. B. Jacob, Das erste Buch der Tora Genesis (Berlin: Schocken, Verl., 1934 = reprint New York: Ktav, sans date), 648 (en ajoutant « redlich » Jacob a dû sentir lui-même que « freundschaftlich » n’était pas vraiment le sens du terme). Jacob dépend peut-être de A. B.  Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel, Bd. 1 (Leipzig : J. C. Hinrichs, 1908 = reprint Hildesheim: Olms, 1968), 172, qui avait proposé ce sens.

86

Adrian Schenker

sécurité.3 Dans le deuxième cas il faudrait comprendre : « vint dans la paix de la ville de Sichem » à laquelle Jacob était arrivé. Deuxièmement, la leçon de Symmaque, conservée en syriaque, dans la Syrohexaplaire, selon l’édition de Wevers, Genesis graece : ‫שלמא‬, provient d’un manuscrit inédit de Tur ‛Abdin.4 Elle se lit selon Wevers ‫שלמא‬, mais selon le Pentateuque publié en photo par Vööbus, ‫לשלמא‬. Puisque la leçon de la LXX syro-hexaplaire, dont la leçon de Symmaque se distingue précisément, est ‫לשלים‬, εἰς Σαλημ, la signification de la leçon de Symmaque est : « pour la paix, l’intégrité », en grec εἰς εἰρήνην. Car Symmaque traduit parfois une tournure à valeur adverbiale par εἰς avec substantif, là où le modèle hébreu n’a pas de préposition, ainsi p.ex. Ps 138 (139),18 εἲναι εἰς ἀεί pour ‫עוד‬, Ps 43 (44),19 εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω pour ‫אחור‬. Il est ainsi vraisemblable que Symmaque a interprété ici le terme ‫ שלם‬dans le sens adverbial de l’état de Jacob dans lequel il est venu à la ville de Sichem, i. e. indemne, intègre, en paix. L’expression « venir ou aller εἰς εἰρήνην (en paix) » est d’ailleurs une tournure attestée dans la Bible grecque, 2 R 5,19 ; 10,13 etc. Troisièmement, toute l’interprétation juive depuis le Targoum a compris ‫שלם‬ en Gn 33,18 dans le sens d’indemne, de complet, en sécurité : bTalmud, Shabbat, 33b ; Bereshit Rabba, 79,1–5; Saadya Gaôn, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Shmuël b. Meir, Ramban, Radaq, de même le Karaïte David ben Abraham al-Fasi, lexicographe karaïte contemporain de Yafet ben Eli (1e moitié du 10e s.) dans son dictionnaire.5 Mais le Karaïte Yafet ben Eli interprète ici dans le sens d’un toponyme dont il dit : « Shalem est situé aux confins de Nablous » (ms British Museum or. 2463 et or. 2464). Le livre des Jubilés, 30,1, offre simultanément les deux sens : « en paix à Salem ».6 L’histoire de l’interprétation juive permet de cerner le moment quand l’interprétation au sens d’épithète « en paix » à l’exclusion du toponyme s’est imposée. Ce fut après les 3e et 2e s., après la Septante et les Jubilés (2e s.) et avant les Targoums du Pentateuque. 3 C’est ainsi qu’a traduit Hasseeb Shehadeh dans sa traduction arabe. Voir Haseeb Shehadeh, The Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1989), 161. 4 J. W. Wevers, Septuaginta, V. T. Graecum, I, Genesis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), 51–52 (Gn 33,18 n’est pas conservé dans les manuscrits syro-hexaplaires édités). Il s’agit du ms de Midyat, une localité du Tûr Abdîn, écrit en Serto, publié en fac-similé par A. Vööbus, The Pentateuch in the Version of the Syro-Hexapla. A fac-simile Edition of a Midyat ms. Discovered 1964 (CSCO, 369; Subsidia, 45; Louvain: Secrétariat du Corpus SCO, 1975). En effet, fol 2a contient la leçon de Symmaque indiquée ci-dessus. Le manuscrit peut être daté du 15e s., selon l’opinion de W. Baars comuniquée à J. W. Wevers, mais selon Vööbus, The Pentateuch, 32–34, le 12e s. pourrait être vraisemblable. 5 David ben Abraham, Kitab Jami‛ al-alfaz, vol. II, ed. S. L. Skoss (Yale Oriental Series, Researches, 21; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1945), 675, ll. 96–97 : il mentionne l’interprétation en toponyme, mais ne la retient pas. Pour Gn 14,18 il opte évidemment pour le toponyme Jérusalem, 656, l. 56. 6 A. Caquot, Jubilés, in La Bible. Ecrits intertestamentaires (La Pléiade; Paris: Gallimard, 1987), 634–810, ici 750.

L’incidence de la critique textuelle sur le lexique hébreu biblique

87

3. ‫ חרם‬Isaïe 11,15 Cette étude peut être plus brève parce que je l’ai déjà développée ailleurs dans un article qui a paru.7 En Is 11,15, le verbe ‫חרם‬, employé uniquement au hifil et au hofal, et qui signifie « vouer à l’anathème », a le complément d’objet « la langue de la mer d’Égypte ». Or, ‫חרם‬, la notion de la remise d’une réalité à la divinité implique que la réalité ainsi donnée ou vouée soit un bien appartenant à celui qui le voue. Une réalité de la nature, étant une réalité créée que les hommes rencontrent comme un donné qui les précède et qui par conséquent ne leur appartient pas, ne peut pas faire l’objet d’un don par anathème. Les réalités cosmiques appartiennent déjà aux dieux. Ils n’appartiennent pas aux hommes. C’est pourquoi on voit que les objets du hérèm sont exclusivement des possessions des hommes, que ce soit des personnes, des animaux domestiques, des objets, ou encore des villes qui sont des possessions collectives de toute une population.8 C’est pourquoi le verbe ‫ חרם‬hifil au sens de vouer en Is 11,15 a toujours fait difficulté à la lexicographie hébraïque. La Bible grecque traduit le verbe en Is 11,15 par καὶ ἐρημώσει qui correspond, dans la grande majorité des cas, à la racine ‫ חרב‬dans ses différentes réalisations. On peut supposer que le traducteur grec ait lu le verbe ‫ חרב‬qui fut corrompu ensuite dans le TM en ‫חרם‬. Mem et beth se confondent assez facilement.9 Mais cela n’est pas sûr parce qu’on pourrait plaider pour un ‫ חרם‬hifil dans la Vorlage hébraïque de LXX qu’un scribe aurait transformé de propos délibéré en ‫ חרב‬hifil afin de mieux adapter une leçon difficile au contexte qui semble évoquer en effet l’assèchement d’une lagune ou de la mer. Il faut noter que les traducteurs hexaplaires ont lu ‫ חרם‬hifil au 1er et au 2e s. après J.-Chr. C’est pourquoi la lexicographie hébraïque médiévale qui ne connaissait pas la Bible grecque ancienne, et qui constata que le Targoum Jonatan rendait ici en Is 11,15 le mot du TM par « assécher », attribua le sens de « diviser, partager » au verbe ‫ חרם‬hifil en ce contexte, en observant qu’une racine arabe semble appuyer ce sens. A l’époque moderne, cette même dérivation arabe apparaît dans les dictionnaires de Köhler-Baumgartner (KBL) et Hebräisches und aramäisches

7 A. Schenker, “Beginnings of the Text History of the Book of Kings in the 4th Century. The Importance of the Parallel Passages 2 Kings 19:11,19 = Isa 37:11,20 for the Earliest History of the Bible Text,” Anfänge der Textgeschichte des Alten Testaments. Studien zu Entstehung und Verhältnis der frühesten Textformen (ed. A. Schenker; BWANT, 194; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2011), 21–32, ici 23–26. 8 Une exception, à part Is 11,15, semble se rencontrer en Jr 50,26 « terre, pays », D. A. J. Clines, The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, vol. 3 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 318. Cependant la construction de ce passage semble devoir se comprendre d’une manière différente de celle que Clines propose. Le passage est discuté en Schenker, “Beginnings”, 23, note 6. 9 F. Delitzsch, Die Lese‑ und Schreibefehler im Alten Testament (Berlin u. Leipzig: Vereinigung wissenschaftlicher Verleger, 1920), 113–114, § 114 (Is 11,15 cité comme exemple en § 114a ; selon Delitzsch, il faut lire ‫)חרב‬.

88

Adrian Schenker

Lexikon zum Alten Testament, 3e édition (HALAT), Clines, Classical Hebrew.10 En conclusion, le lexicographe se voit placé devant le choix entre l’hypothèse de la corruption textuelle du verbe ‫ חרב‬correct en celui de ‫ חרם‬corrompu, et l’hypothèse d’un verbe ‫ חרם‬II signifiant « diviser », non attesté ailleurs dans la Bible hébraïque mais dont la racine pourrait être à la base du hapax legomenon ‫ ָח ֻרם‬en Lv 21,18. Ce qui fait pencher la balance vers la corruption du côté du TM c’est que cette solution est plus économique puisqu’elle n’entraîne pas le postulat d’un verbe homonyme ‫ חרם‬II dont on doit justifier le sens par l’arabe. C’est donc un exemple où l’existence d’un verbe ‫ חרם‬II dépend du jugement de critique textuelle que l’on porte sur Is 11,15.

4. ‫ חרמי‬1 R 20,4211 L’expression ‫חרמי‬, figurant en 1 R 20,42 est généralement interprétée dans le sens de « mon anathème ». Elle apparaît encore en Is 34,5, où elle est interprétée de la même manière, c’est-à-dire comme un nom (substantif ) avec le suffixe de la 1e personne du singulier. La Bible grecque la comprend comme adjectif, en 1 Rois ὀλέθριον, en Isaïe comme τῆς ἀπωλείας, sans suffixe possessif. Il est évident que les deux traducteurs grecs de la fin du 3e s. ou au 2e s. ont compris ‫ חרמי‬selon l’analogie de ‫רגלי‬, dérivé de ‫רגל‬, « pied », au sens de « piéton, fantassin ». Selon eux le mot signifie : destiné à l’anathème ou à la destruction. Est-ce que le TM a raison dans son interprétation, ou est-ce la Bible grecque ? Si c’était cette dernière, il faudrait augmenter le vocabulaire hébreu biblique de l’épithète ‫חרמי‬, « voué à l’anathème, attirant l’anathème, ‘anathématique’ ». Il est significatif que la question n’ait pas été posée, à ma connaissance, parce qu’on ne s’est guère intéressé aux différences textuelles et sémantiques qui surgissent à partir de la Bible grecque là où le TM ne présente pas de difficulté particulière. Le pronom suffixe du TM convient bien au contexte qui est une parole à la première personne du singulier en Rois et en Isaïe. C’est le Seigneur qui parle. En Isaïe, l’expression parallèle ‫חרבי‬, « mon glaive » dans le premier stique, renforce l’interprétation « mon anathème » dans le deuxième. Cette correspondance 10  D. A. J.  Clines, The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, vol. 3. D. Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2. Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamentations (OBO 50/2; Fribourg: Editions universitaires – Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 85–86, écrit l’histoire de la lexicographie juive ancienne, et celle des hébraïsants de l’époque moderne depuis le 16e s., concernant le sens de ‫ חרם‬hifil en Is 11,15. 11 J’ai touché en passant à la question sémantique du terme ‫ חרמי‬dans l’étude A. Schenker, « Un jugement prophétique contre le roi d’Israël. En même temps une comparaison entre TM et LXX en 1 R 20,38–43 et 3 Règnes 21,39–43 », Le jugement dans l’un et l’autre Testament I Mélanges offerts à Raymond Kuntzmann (éd. E. Bons; LD, 197; Paris: Cerf, 2004), 133–148, ici 140–141.

L’incidence de la critique textuelle sur le lexique hébreu biblique

89

entre contexte et pronom suffixe de la première personne peut cependant s’invoquer dans un sens opposé : le contexte a suggéré l’interprétation pronominale d’une épithète à désinence ‑î. Il faut noter que ‫ חרם‬n’est jamais employé à l’état construit (on compte 27 emplois du terme). Il n’a donc jamais de complément du génitif. En dehors des deux passages en 1 Rois et Isaïe il ne se rencontre jamais non plus avec un pronom suffixe. L’anathème n’est donc jamais appelé ailleurs anathème de Yhwh (ou anathème de quelqu’un d’autre).12 Soulignons d’abord que ὀλέθριον peut parfaitement rendre ‫חרמי‬, car ἐξολεθρεύειν est une traduction bien attestée du verbe ‫חרם‬. Trois arguments favorisent l’interprétation des deux traducteurs grecs du mot ‫חרמי‬. Premièrement, le pronom suffixe agrandit la faute du roi Ahab en 1 Rois et d’Edôm en Isaïe. En effet, ce pronom signifie explicitement le tort infligé à Yhwh alors que le qualificatif de ‫חרמי‬, « soumis à l’anathème », ne dit cela qu’implicitement. Il semble plus probable que l’on aille dans le sens d’une augmentation, ou du moins de l’explicitation d’une faute quand il s’agit du roi Ahab et d’Edôm que dans le sens d’une atténuation de celle-ci par une expression moins directe. Deuxièmement, le passage de 1 Rois 20,38–43 (= 3 Règnes 21,38–43) dans son ensemble est plus original dans la Vorlage hébraïque de LXX et davantage retouché secondairement dans le TM. C’est ce qu’il m’a semblé constater dans mon étude sur cette péricope.13 Troisièmement, le parallélisme entre le stique 1 en Isaïe avec ‫חרבי‬, substantif avec pronom suffixe, et ‫חרמי‬, épithète en ‑î, exerce une pression quasi irrésistible sur l’interprétation analogue des deux termes puisqu’elles sont identiques dans leur forme. En conclusion, il semble bien que la critique textuelle de 1 R 20,42 et Is 34,5 révèle l’existence de l’adjectif ‫חרמי‬, connu au 3e s. mais disparu ensuite de la langue, à cause de son emploi rare et de la mauvaise interprétation dans les deux passages bibliques.

5. Conclusion d’ensemble Si on accepte les résultats de la critique textuelle proposés ici les lexicographes de l’hébreu biblique pourront déterminer la signification des trois mots employés dans la Bible : ‫שלם‬, ‫ חרם‬hifil, ‫ חרמי‬ainsi : ‫ שלם‬signifie « entier, complet » au sens concret pour des choses et « intègre, loyal » au sens moral pour des personnes. Une signification « en paix, en sécurité, indemne », ou encore « en paix, 12 D. Barthélemy, CTAT 2, 238–239, traite du suffixe de la première pers. sg. simultanément dans les deux stiques de Is 34,5 en disant que tous les témoins textuels attestent ce suffixe pour ‫( חרב‬stique a) et pour ‫( חרם‬stique b). Cela est vrai pour stique a. En stique b, LXX ne l’a point. 13 Voir A. Schenker, « Un jugement prophétique contre le roi d’Israël ».

90

Adrian Schenker

paisible »14 n’est pas attestée. De plus, le terme est un toponyme pour Jérusalem et pour une autre ville aux environs de Sichem. Gn 33,18 emploie le toponyme, mais celui-ci sera remplacé par l’adjectif dans l’interprétation juive rabbinique et dans le Samaritain pour des raisons différentes. Quant à ‫ חרם‬hifil en Is 11,15, il est plus probable qu’un seul verbe ‫ חרם‬existe signifiant « vouer à l’anathème ». Un verbe homonyme ‫ חרם‬II employé au hifil signifiant « fendre, diviser » n’est pas directement attesté ailleurs dans la Bible. En Is 11,15 le verbe ‫« חרב‬ assécher » semble avoir été le verbe original avant d’être corrompu en ‫חרם‬. Il se rencontre en deux endroits de la Bible l’épithète ‫חרמי‬, « voué, réservé pour l’anathème », méconnue dans la lexicographie hébraïque à cause d’une erreur textuelle probable d’interprétation en 1 R 20,42 et Is 34,5. Dans Gn 33,18 et en Is 34,5, 1 R 20,42 il s’agit d’homonymes entre lesquels le scribe ne doit pas choisir. Mais l’interprète doit le faire. La question se pose alors : est-ce que l’interprétation fait partie de la critique textuelle en ces cas ? La réponse donnée ici est oui. Car l’auteur a prononcé et écrit ici le terme homonyme (homophone et homographe) en lui attribuant une signification unique. Celle-ci fait donc partie du texte à transmettre. Elle tombe ainsi dans le domaine de la critique textuelle qui doit choisir la leçon avec sa signification. (Le cas serait différent s’il avait délibérément voulu l’indétermination entre les deux significations si bien que les deux seraient possibles, selon le vœu même de l’auteur.) Mais afin de déterminer la signification d’un terme souvent le moyen est l’analyse philologique. C’est le cas aussi dans les trois exemples choisis. La lexicographie dépend ici du jugement de la critique textuelle qui elle-même doit s’appuyer sur l’analyse philologique pour arriver à sa conclusion.

References Barthélemy, D., Crititque Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2. Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamentations (OBO, 50/2; Fribourg: Editions universitaires – Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986). Caquot, A., Jubilés, in La Bible. Ecrits intertestamentaires (La Pléiade; Paris: Gallimard, 1987): 634–810. Clines, D. A. J., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, vol. 3 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996). David ben Abraham, Kitab Jami‛ al-alfaz, vol. II (edited by S. L. Skoss; Yale Oriental Series, Researches, 21; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1945). Delitzsch, F., Die Lese‑ und Schreibefehler im Alten Testament (Berlin u. Leipzig: Vereinigung wissenschaftlicher Verleger, 1920). Ehrlich, A. B., Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel, Bd. 1 (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1908 = reprint Hildesheim: Olms, 1968). 14 B. Jacob,

Genesis.

L’incidence de la critique textuelle sur le lexique hébreu biblique

91

Geiger, A., Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwicklung des Judentums, 2. Aufl. (Frankfurt a. M.: Madda Verl., 1928; 1e éd. Breslau: J. Hainauer, 1857). Jacob, B., Das erste Buch der Tora Genesis (Berlin: Schocken, Verl., 1934 = reprint New York: Ktav, sans date). Schenker, A., “Beginnings of the Text History of the Book of Kings in the 4th Century. The Importance of the Parallel Passages 2 Kings 19:11,19 = Isa 37:11,20 for the Earliest History of the Bible Text,” Anfänge der Textgeschichte des Alten Testaments. Studien zu Entstehung und Verhältnis der frühesten Textformen (edited by A. Schenker; BWANT, 194; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2011), 21–32. Schenker, A., « Un jugement prophétique contre le roi d’Israël. En même temps une comparaison entre TM et LXX en 1 R 20,38–43 et 3 Règnes 21,39–43 », Le jugement dans l’un et l’autre Testament I Mélanges offerts à Raymond Kuntzmann (edited by E. Bons; LD, 197; Paris: Cerf, 2004), 133–148. Shehadeh, H., The Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1989). Vööbus, A., The Pentateuch in the Version of the Syro-Hexapla. A fac-simile Edition of a Midyat ms. Discovered 1964 (CSCO, 369; Subsidia, 45; Louvain: Secrétariat du Corpus SCO, 1975). Weis, R., “‘Lower Criticism’, Studies in the Masoretic Text and the Ancient Versions of the Old Testament as a Means of Textual Criticism,” Hebrew Bible / Old Testament. The History of Its Interpretation, III From Modernism to Post-Modernism (The Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries), Part I The Nineteenth Century – a Century of Modernism and Historicism (edited by M. Saebø; Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 346–392. Wevers, J. W., Septuaginta, V. T. Graecum, I, Genesis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974).

Text, Language, and Legal Interpretation The Case of Exod 12:9* Noam Mizrahi

1. Introduction 1.1. Philology, linguistics, and textual criticism are sometimes considered to be separate endeavors. However, no text-critical data can be productively analyzed without utilizing philological and linguistic tools. They do not simply add additional dimensions to our understanding of textual transmission; rather, their careful application reveals essential aspects of this process, requiring us to reconsider customary distinctions between orthographic, linguistic, and content variants. For the sake of methodological clarity, I wish to clarify at the outset my own approach to the notion of text, which I take to refer to written records of linguistic utterances. Ancient scribes were not robots, and even if they attempted to be as exact as possible, copying a text was not limited to a mechanical procedure of transferring mere sequences of graphic signs from one physical manuscript to the other. Their work rather entailed the delivery of the full linguistic utterance and its recreation on a new exemplar. Such a process required the scribes to decode the text that they were reading in the source-copy and reproduce it, while encoding it anew, into the target-copy. The act of writing is thus intertwined with the act of reading, and both are directed towards the interpretive processing of linguistic information.1

* This paper develops observations that have their roots in a section of my Hebrew paper, “The Transmission of the Text and Language of the Hebrew Bible in the Second Temple Period,” forthcoming in Studies in Language. A version of that study was presented in the departmental seminar of the Department of Hebrew Language, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (November 2014), and I am thankful to the participants for their helpful comments. Thanks are also due to D. Andrew Teeter of Harvard University for an insightful dialogue we had on this issue. 1 For a fuller discussion, cf. N. Mizrahi, “Writing as Reading: Aspects of the Interpretive Transmission of Isaiah in Qumran – 4QIsac (4Q57) for Isa 24,2.7.15 as a Case Study,” in Transmission and Interpretation of the Book of Isaiah in the Context of Intra‑ and Interreligious Debates (ed. P. Gemeinhardt and F. Wilk; BETL 280; Leuven: Peeters, 2016), 29–59.

94

Noam Mizrahi

1.2. From this point of view, then, textual criticism indeed cannot but go hand in hand with philology and linguistics. One must combine the use of analytical tools developed by these disciplines, if we wish to understand the nature of the general process of textual transmission, as well as its more specific products, including the variant readings they contain. Scholars naturally resort to employing such philological tools when encountering, in the various textual witnesses, rare linguistic elements such as unique lexemes, unfamiliar grammatical forms, or bewildering syntactic constructions.2 Other cases, however, go ‘below the radar’ of text-critics; even if the witnesses differ from one another, some such differences do not necessarily exhibit conspicuous features but may in fact consist of the most mundane linguistic elements. A prime example for an understudied yet very common difference between the various textual witnesses is the addition and/or omission of conjunctive particles, particularly the conjunctive waw. The number of occurrences of this type of variant may rise to dozens and even hundreds in each ancient witness of any given book, yet they are often considered to be of slight (if any) weight. Consequently, they are seldom discussed in critical commentaries, and even technical, text-critical treatments do little more than mere quantification and statistics that mainly aim at discerning patterns of agreements or disagreements between the various witnesses concerning such variants. Nonetheless, even a conjunctive waw might theoretically have far-reaching repercussions for the interpretation of given texts. As function-words, conjunction are not so much carriers of independent semantic content; they rather mark the syntactic relations that govern the various constituents of the linguistic and discursive utterance.3 Being the surface expression of underlying structure, the addition or omission of a conjunctive particle might therefore encode a substantial variation in the underlying structure of the passage, thus signaling major differences in content as well.4 To be sure, an approach that underrates the potential significance of differences pertaining to conjunctive waw is understandable in studies that cope with the classification and assessment of large amounts of text-critical data, for 2 These are precisely the types of elements that have enticed philologists to exercise creativity and even ingenuity in attempting to explain them, often with the help of comparative evidence culled from cognate languages. The methodological faults of many such attempts were critically analyzed by J. Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968; 2nd ed.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987). 3 R. C. Steiner, “Does the Biblical Hebrew Conjunction ‫ ו־‬Have Many Meanings, One Meaning, or No Meaning at All?,” JBL 119.2 (2000): 249–267. 4 An instructive case is furnished by LXX-Obad 19, in which a secondarily added conjunction (apparently already in the Hebrew Vorlage) resulted in a complete restructuring of the syntax of the passage; see N. Mizrahi, “Linguistic Analysis and Textual Criticism: The Syntax of Obadiah 19–20 in the Masoretic Text and the Ancient Versions,” Shnaton 19 (2009), 31–55, at 39–43 (in Hebrew).

Text, Language, and Legal Interpretation

95

instance, when characterizing a given textual witness on the basis of full scrutiny of the entire range of variants attested therein. Furthermore, if the textual witness is an indirect one, namely, an ancient translation, it is difficult to know for certain whether such differences indeed reflect a diverging Vorlage or are due to the translator’s work.5 However, it is difficult to justify a sweeping neglect of such a standard feature of the textual evidence when it comes to text-critical evaluation and exegetical exploration of individual readings, recorded in direct witnesses of the Hebrew Bible. When studying specific contexts and their respective variants, the presence or absence of a conjunction deserves to be investigated in its own terms, and due attention should to be given to its implications on the form and content of the passage in which it is embedded. The following discussion aims to illustrate the benefits of such an approach with the help of a particular, yet instructive example, which was virtually ignored thus far.

2. Case study: Exod 12:9 Among the dozen or so scriptural scrolls from Qumran that are written in the Palaeo-Hebrew script, there is a copy of Exodus marked as 4QpaleoGen-Exodl or 4Q11 and dated on paleographic grounds to the first century BCE.6 All surviving fragments come from the book of Exodus, but frg. 1 apparently contains the end of the book of Genesis, indicating that the scroll originally encompassed at least these two Pentateuchal books. Textually, 4Q11 does not exhibit the typological features of the pre-Samaritan text-type; it is closer to the proto-Masoretic group, but it is not identical to the MT.7 The story of the plagues in Egypt contains, among other things, a detailed prescription how to commemorate the Passover and the festival of unleavened bread (Exod 12). The Passover law of Exod 12:1–11 survives, albeit fragmentarily,

5 E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Reseaech2 (JBS 8; Jerusalem: Simor, 1997), 154–162, at 157–158, thus adduces examples of connective waw/καί as the first type of “variants/non-variants.” 6 The text was edited by P. W. Skehan, E. Ulrich and J. E. Sanderson, Qumran Cave 4 IV: Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts (DJD 9; Oxford: Clarendon, 1992), 17–50, pls. i–vi. A concise summary of the data is presented in A. Lange, Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer, vol. I: Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), at 51–52. 7 For the typology of the textual witnesses, and their grouping into text-types or textual branches, see E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 32010), 24–92. Note also his recent attempt to analyze the relationship between the textual witnesses of the Pentateuch in stemmatic terms: E. Tov, “Textual Development in the Torah,” in Discourse, Dialogue and Debate in the Bible: Essays in Honour of Frank H. Polak (ed. A. Brenner-Idan; Sheffield: Phoenix, 2014), 236–246.

96

Noam Mizrahi

in 4Q11 frg. 7ii.8 Concerning the Passover sacrifice, the legal instruction of v. 9 runs as follows (the text of 4Q11 is transliterated into the Square script):9 4Q11 v. 9a

. ‫ נו‬. ‫ ממנו‬. ‫ת]א ֗כ ֯לו‬ ֯ .

MT ‫[אל‬24

. ‫ ֗ב ֯מ[ים‬. ‫ומ ֗ב ֗של‬ ֗ . ‫ובשל‬ v. 9b

. ‫ אש‬. ‫ צלי‬. ‫כי ] [אם‬ 25

‫רבו‬ ֗ ‫ ֯ק‬. ‫ ו֗ על‬.‫ כרע]י֗ ו‬. ‫ על‬. ‫ראשו‬

NRSV

‫אכ ֤לּו ִמ ֶּ֨מ ּ֙נּו ָ֔נא‬ ְ ֹ ‫ל־ּת‬ ֽ ‫ ַא‬Do not eat any of it raw ‫וּב ֵ ֥שׁל ְמ ֻב ָ ֖שּׁל ַבּ ָ ֑מּיִם‬ ָ or boiled in water, ‫י־אׁש‬ ֵ֔ ‫ם־צ ִל‬ ְ ‫ ִ ּ֣כי ִא‬but roasted over the fire, :‫ל־ק ְר ּֽבֹו‬ ִ ‫ל־ּכ ָר ָ ֖עיו וְ ַע‬ ְ ‫אׁשֹו ַע‬ ֥ ֹ ‫ ר‬with its head, legs, and inner organs.

The text of 4Q11 thus differs from the MT in two details: (a) while the MT reads ‫נָ א‬, 4Q11 employs the bizarre form ‫( ;נו‬b) while the MT reads the phrase ‫ּוב ֵׁשל‬ ָ ‫מ ֻב ָּׁשל‬, ְ 4Q11 has an additional conjunction between the two words: ‫ובשל ומבשל‬. The first, somewhat mysterious variant is extensively dealt with elsewhere.10 It is complemented by the present discussion, which explores the second variant, namely, the difference pertaining to the conjunctive waw. Text-critical treatment of the scriptural scrolls in the DJD editions usually takes the form of a critical apparatus, which compares the variants readings to data collated from the other textual witnesses. The DJD editors of 4Q11 were satisfied with this procedure with respect to the conjunctive waw in v. 9a.11 Other than that, I am unaware of any commentator or critical scholar who addressed  8 Pentateuchal criticism has demonstrated that the story of the plagues is a composite narrative, consisting of both priestly (P) and non-priestly strands (the classical, source-critical approach of the Documentary Hypothesis identified the latter components as the J source). Scholars debate on the precise identification of the various components and the specific ways by which they were integrated with one another, but there is a general consensus that Exod 12:1–11 stem from P. Some critics have further suggested that this section can be further subdivided into different substrata; see, e. g., S. Gesundheit, Three Times a Year: Studies on Festival Legislation in the Pentateuch (FAT 82; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 44–95, at 46–58. He considers v. 9 to belong to a secondary stratum, which expands and interprets v. 8 of the primary stratum. The unpacking of the literary composition of Exod 12 is a complicated issue, but it does not directly affect our present concern. The following discussion focuses on v. 9 in itself, regardless of its original literary relation to its surroundings in the canonical text. 9 Skehan, Ulrich and Sanderson, DJD 9:31–33. The best among the old photographs of the fragment is PAM 42.802 (from September 1958), available at the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, of the Israel Antiquities Authority: http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explorethe-archive/image/B-284767 10 N. Mizrahi, “Linguistic Change through the Prism of Textual Transmission: The Case of Exod 12:9,” in Advances in Biblical Hebrew Linguistics: Data, Methods, and Analyses (ed. A. Moshavi and T. Notarius; LSAWS 12; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2017), 27–52. 11 But note that the presentation of the textual data in the DJD edition, as far as our case is concerned, is not comprehensive, as it omits the evidence of the Palestinian Targums. This was an unfortunate decision, because these versions actually hold a crucial key for the understanding of the variants of 4Q11 (below, § 3.2.3).

Text, Language, and Legal Interpretation

97

the variant under scrutiny.12 Apparently, the presence or absence of the conjunction was judged to be insignificant, as far as the content of the passage is concerned. To the aforementioned methodological principle, concerning the need to interpret such a variant in its own right within its given context (above, § 1.2), one should add an additional consideration, emanating from the textual character of the specific witness in which this particular case is recorded. Even a seemingly minor difference such as this one is somewhat surprising when one takes into account that 4Q11 is an elegantly inscribed and carefully prepared scroll, whose surviving fragments contain virtually no scribal mistakes.13 Obviously, every manuscript might contain occasional slips of the pen, but in scrolls penned by expert scribes, such faults are the exception rather than the rule. More often, slight textual differences can be shown to reflect specific interpretations of the transmitted text, which were necessarily conveyed by utilizing linguistic means available to the scribes at the time of writing. Such variants cannot be properly appreciated by artificially isolating one aspect at the expense of others. Rather, it is necessary to carefully untie a conglomerate of linguistic, text-critical and interpretive threads. Arguably, the present case calls for such an integrative approach, which ought to begin with an outline of the literary and discursive character of the passage in which it is embedded. The discussion will then move to explore the exegetical relation between the various textual witnesses other than 4Q11. Only then would it be possible to properly appreciate the reading of 4Q11, which appears to neatly integrate into a broad picture of textual variation that encodes exegetical polemics, motivated by hermeneutical development.

3. Analysis Exod 12:1–11 is a text of prescriptive nature, as it contains a law concerning the procedures to be followed when dealing with the Passover sacrifice. The legal subject matter of Exod 12:9 is a precise definition of the practices to be employed for preparing the meat of this sacrifice. Its definition consists of both negative and positive parts: it first rejects some cooking practices (v. 9a: “Do not eat any 12 This neglect is evident even in specialized treatments that one would have expect to address – or at least present – our case. For instance, 4Q11 was almost completely ignored in the new series that offers a French translation of the Dead Sea scrolls, presenting them as being all related to biblical books. The second volume consists of scrolls associated with Exodus, and it mentions 4Q11 in the opening table: K. Berthelot and Th. Legrand, La Bibliothèque de Qumrân, 2: Torah: Exode – Lévitique – Nombres (Paris: Cerf, 2010), 1. Yet unlike other copies of Exodus from Qumran, 4Q11 is neither translated nor even mentioned anywhere else in this or other published volumes of the series. 13 Skehan, Ulrich and Sanderson, DJD 9:25.

98

Noam Mizrahi

of it raw or boiled in water”) and then enforces another (v. 9b: “but roasted over the fire” etc.). The explicit effort to define as precisely as possible the practical ways by which the Passover meat should – or should not – be prepared is not only a goal in itself. Rather, it is also an outcome of a ritual framework, which charges various techniques of food preparation with fundamental cultural values.14 The social message embedded in the detailed prescription of Exod 12:9 was identified in various ways along the history of biblical interpretations, but its very existence is generally acknowledged.15 Moreover, during the Second Temple period, our passage was considered not only part of a story on the distant past, but also as a source for learning how to perform the Passover sacrifice in the present and in all generations to come.16 Its detailed specification of both prohibited and approved cooking practices was therefore submitted to a most meticulous scrutiny, motivated by the search for even greater precision in interpreting the scriptural prescriptions. 3.1. Semantic ambiguity of ‫בשל‬ That such an exegetical activity was well under way already during the early Second Temple Period is famously demonstrated by the book of Chronicles. When describing the grand Passover that Josiah ordered to conduct as a national festival (2 Chr 35:1–19, reworking and expanding 2 Kgs 23:21–24), the Chronicler emphasizes time and again that the festival was conducted according to written prescriptions (2 Chr 35:4b, 12b, 13a; cf. 2 Kgs 23:21b). However, when it comes to actual specifics of the cultic act, he tackled a problem. The Chronicler, who already knew the parallel festival laws of Exodus and Deuteronomy, was perplexed by the apparent contradiction between these two Pentateuchal instructions: Exod 12:9 prohibits the action of boiling (‫ )בשל‬and approves only roasting by fire (‫)צ ִלי ֵאׁש‬, ְ whereas Deut 16:7 explicitly requires ‫ּוב ַּׁש ְל ָּת וְ ָא ַכ ְל ָּת‬. ִ He therefore employs a harmonistic formulation that combines elements from both laws:

14 R. S. Hendel, “Sacrifice as a Cultural System: The Ritual Symbolism of Exodus 24,3–8,” ZAW 101 (1989): 366–390, at 381–389, following the anthropological insights of Claude LéviStrauss. 15 See, e. g., the survey of C. Houtman, Exodus 2: Chapters 7:14–19:25 (HCOT; Kampen: Kok, 1996), 180–181. 16 The development of the Passover festival has been much discussed in scholarly literature. For instance, for the period antedating 70 CE, consult J. B. Segal, The Hebrew Passover from the Earliest Times to AD 70 (London: Oxford University Press 1963), but note that his treatment of the biblical sources is problematic in many respects. For the late Second Temple period, see C. Werman and A. Shemesh, Revealing the Hidden: Exegesis and Halakha in the Qumran Scrolls (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2011), 296–310 (in Hebrew). For the early rabbinic period, see B. M.  Bokser, The Origins of the Seder: The Passover Rite and Early Rabbinic Judaism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984).

Text, Language, and Legal Interpretation

99

‫וַ ַיְב ְּׁשלּו ַה ֶּפ ַסח ָּב ֵאׁש ַּכ ִּמ ְׁש ָּפט‬, lit. “They boiled the Passover (meat) by fire, according to the ordinance” (2 Chr 35:13).17 The exegetical difficulty evidently rests upon the ambiguity of the verb ‫בשל‬ in terms of its semantic scope: Should its sense be taken as general or specific? Does it refer to any form of “cooking,” or does it denote only the special technique of “boiling”?18 Irrespective of how one views the Chonicler’s solution for this problem, this case demonstrates that already by the early Second Temple period, readers sought for exegetical solutions that extract legal (or halakhic) information from the relevant Pentateuchal passages, which are clearly perceived as highly authoritative.19 3.2. Syntactic ambiguity of ‫בשל‬ Another exegetical difficulty with which ancient readers, including scribes and translators, had to wrestle is interpreting the syntactic function of the word ‫בשל‬, particularly with respect to the following ‫מבשל‬. 3.2.1. (1a) Anyone considering the so-called consonantal text of the MT, ‫אל תאכלו‬ ‫ממנו נא ובשל מבשל במים‬, would hardly produce the surprising vocalization ‫ּוב ֵׁשל‬. ָ The expected form is rather an absolute infinitive, which would have joined the following participle in order to underscore the verbal lexeme, i. e., ‫*ּוב ֵּׁשל ְמ ֻב ָּׁשל‬ ַ (cf. the infinitive construct ‫ ַּב ֵּׁשל‬in 1 Sam 2:13).20 The resulting clause might be 17  See, e. g., I. L. Seeligmann, “The Beginnings of Midrash in the Book of Chronicles,” Tarbiz 49.1–2 (1980): 14–32, at 31–32 (in Hebrew) [= I. L. Seeligmann, “Anfänge der Midraschexegese in der Chronik,” in Gesammelte Studien zur Hebräischen Bibel, ed. E. Blum (FAT 41; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 31–54, at 53–54]; M. A. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 134–138. Cf. C. Cohen, “Elements of Peshat in Traditional Jewish Exegesis,” Immanuel 21 (1987), 30–42, at 31–32; D. A. Teeter, Scribal Laws: Exegetical Variation in the Textual Transmission of Biblical Law in the Late Second Temple Period (FAT 92; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 195–196. Seeligmann highlights the fact that a similar harmonistic tendency is to be found in the Septuagint version of the relevant passages. 18 E. Ben-Zvi, “Revisiting ‘Boiling in Fire’ in 2 Chronicles 35:13 and Related Passover Questions: Text, Exegetical Needs and Concerns, and General Implications,” in Biblical Interpretation in Judaism and Christianity (ed. I. Kalimi and P. J. Haas; LHB/OT 439; London: T&T Clark, 2006), 238–250 (with references to previous literature). One may doubt, however, BenZvi’s assertion that it was the Chronicler himself who expanded the semantic scope of the verb ‫בשל‬. It is at least as possible – if not more likely – that the Chronicler was simply utilizing the word in an extended sense that was already well-rooted in the language of his time. Compare the semantics of the cognate verb in Akkadian, bašālu, which may denote not only “to boil in a liquid” but also “to roast, burn to ashes, bake” etc. (CAD, B, 135–137); von Soden thus rightly renders all these nuances under the general sense of “kochen,” i. e., “to cook” (AHw 1:111). 19 B. M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 155. 20 Arguably, the relation between the consonantal text and the vocalization is not necessarily contradictory, since it is possible to explain the form bāšel (witnessed by the received vocalization) as either phonological or morphological alternant of the expected infinitive baššel. A phonological hypothesis may be offered by assuming quantitative metathesis, which could

100

Noam Mizrahi

rendered as employing an emphatic construction: “Do not eat any of it raw, nor even boiled in water” or the like.21 Admittedly, while the construction of “infinitive absolute + conjugated verb” is very common in BH, the syntagm of “infinitive absolute + participle” is far rarer, but it is documented nevertheless.22 Moreover, this syntagm would not have been alien to Second Temple scribes; after all, the construction of “infinitive absolute + participle” is common in Onkelos and Jonathan, where it often renders the alternative construction of “infinitive absolute + conjugated verb” of the original Hebrew (e. g., Onkelos for Gen 44:5, 15; 50:24, 25, et al.). This observation does not intend to suggest that the syntagm of “infinitive absolute + participle” was necessarily borrowed from Aramaic. On the contrary, the very use of the infinitive absolute is customarily taken as a Hebraism within Targumic Aramaic.23 The point is rather that Targumic Aramaic independently testifies to a syntactic option available to authors of Greco-Roman Palestine. Even if this syntagm is rooted in an older variety of Hebrew, its growing popularity in the early Targums (Onkelos and Jonathan) is likely to be explained against the linguistic background of a late period, characterized by both multilingualism (Hebrew-Aramaic-Greek) and diglossia (between different varieties of spoken and literary Hebrew). Hebrew speakers and authors of the Greco-Roman period, who were constantly under the pressure to simultaneously employ several verbal systems that are only partly compatible, were thus prone to produce fusions such as the one under discussion, taking the infinitive from the inherited tradition of BH, and replacing the archaic, aspect-oriented conjugated form with a participle, especially for expressing the nuance of habitual actions (as common in the vernaculars of the time).24 explain why the expected consonantal gemination of baššel was replaced by vocalic lengthening in bāšel. An alternative, morphological explanation is to hypothesize that the geminated D stem was replaced by its non-geminated counterpart; for this verbal stem in BH, see S. Morag, “On the Historical Validity of the Vocalization of the Hebrew Bible,” JAOS 94.3 (1974): 307–315, at 310–312, building on the earlier observations of Z. Ben-Ḥayyim, “Traditions in the Hebrew Language, with Special Reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. C. Rabin and Y. Yadin; ScrHier 4; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1958), 200–214, at 209–210. But even if one prefers either of these options, it remains unclear why the expected form baššel would at all be replaced by a rare alternant, particularly in this context. 21 For the emphatic nuance of such infinitival constructions, see T. Muraoka, Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985), 83–92. 22 See Judg 20:39, ‫הּוא ְל ָפ ֔ ֵנינּו‬ ֙ ‫ּכי ָ ֽא ְמ ֔רּו ַאְך֩ נִ ּ֨גֹוף נִ ָּג�֥ף‬, ֣ ִ “for they said, ‘Surely they are smitten down before us’” (KJV ). And, in a reversed order of the constituents, also Jer 23:17, ‫מֹור ִ ֽל ְמנַ ֲא ַ֔צי‬ ֙ ‫א ְמ ִ ֤רים ָא‬ ֹֽ, “They say still unto them that despise me” (KJV ). 23 G. Dalman, Grammatik des Jüdisch-Palästinischen Aramäisch (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 21905), 280. 24 For changes in the verbal syntax of participles in Second Temple Hebrew, cf., e. g., J. Joosten, The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew: A New Synthesis Elaborated on the Basis of Classical Prose (JBS 10; Jerusalem: Simor, 2012), 377–410; O. Cohen, The Verbal Tense System in Late Biblical Hebrew Prose (HSS 63; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 125–149. Cf. G. Geiger, Das

Text, Language, and Legal Interpretation

101

(2–3) Be that as it may, and regardless of how one explains the origins of the syntagm “infinitive absolute + participle,” it is beyond dispute that the reading of ‫ ובשל‬as an infinitive absolute is indeed reflected in the oldest Aramaic versions: Onkelos:25

‫יכלוּן ִמנֵ יה ַכד ַחי וְ אַף ָלא ַכד ַב ָשׁ ָלא ְמ ֻב ַשׁל ְב ַמיָ א‬ ְ ‫ָלא ֵת‬

You shall not eat of it when it is raw, even not if thoroughly boiled in water. Peshitta:26

ܿ ‫ܐܠ ܬܐܟܠܘܢ ܡܢܗ ܟܕ ܚܝ܂ (ܘ)ܐܦ ܐܠ ܟܕ‬ ̈ ‫ܡܒܫܠ‬ ‫ܒܡܝܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܡܒܫܠܘ‬

You shall not eat of it when it is raw, nor when it is fully boiled in water.

The infinitival forms baššālā and mḇaššālū indicate that the translators considered the Hebrew Vorlage ‫ ובשל‬to be an infinitive as well. These versions also highlight, from yet another direction, the strong syntactic bond between ‫ ובשל‬and the following ‫מבשל‬. They employ a bipartite construction, which indicates that the phrase ‫ ובשל מבשל במים‬is taken by the translators to be a single, continuous expression (on a par with the preceding ‫)נא‬. Their division of v. 9a between ‫ נא‬and ‫ ובשל מבשל במים‬is doubly marked: first by the repetitive use of the negative particle (…‫)לא… ואף לא‬,27and secondly by marking the two adnominal phrases with the same subordinator (…‫)כד… כד‬. (4) An additional parallel for this construal is to be found in the Samaritan oral tradition: wbiššol ambaššål.28 To be sure, from a purely morphological point of view, the form ‫ בשול‬biššol does not correspond to the D infinitival pattern qattel (or the alternative qattol), but rather to the D verbal noun, qittul. Functionally, however, the Samaritan reflex of the latter form very often takes the place of original infinitives of the geminated, D stem.29 hebräische Partizip in den Texten aus der judäischen Wüste (STDJ 101; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 202–370, who offers a full, synchronic description of all syntagms in Qumran Hebrew that contain a participle. 25 The text is quoted from A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, vol. I: The Pentateuch according to Targum Onkelos (Leiden: Brill, 1959), 107. The English translation is from B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Exodus: Translated, with Apparatus and Notes (The Aramaic Bible 7; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988), 30–31; cf. I. Drazin, Targum Onkelos to Exodus: An English Translation of the Text with Analysis and Commentary (New York: Ktav, 1990), 120–122. 26 The text is quoted from M. D. Koster, “Exodus,” in The Old Testament in Syriac, according to the Peshitta Version, I.1: Genesis – Exodus (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 117–219, at 142. 27 Cf. C. Heller, Peshitta in Hebrew Characters with Elucidatory Notes, vol. II: Exodus (Berlin, 1929), 83, n. 13 (in Hebrew). 28 Manuscripts of the SP read ‫( בשול‬vs. ‫בשל‬, which is a reading similar to the consonantal text of the MT) in accordance with the oral tradition biššol; see A. F. von Gall, Der hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner (Gießen: Töpelmann, 1918), 137. This is also the form employed in the Samaritan Targum; see A. Tal, The Samaritan Targum for the Pentateuch: A Critical Edition (3 vols.; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, Chaim Rosenberg School for Jewish Studies, 1980–1983), 1:266–267. 29 Z. Ben-Ḥayyim, A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew (Jerusalem: Magnes and Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 212, § 2.14.12, no. 4; cf. A. Tal, “Some Observations on Word Formation in Samaritan Aramaic: The qittul Pattern,” in Studia Aramaica: New Sources and New

102

Noam Mizrahi

3.2.2. (1b) In light of the above discussion, it now appears that quite a different interpretation is expressed by the Tiberian vocalization of ‫ּוב ֵׁשל‬. ָ The abstention from identifying here an infinitival form is again explainable against the linguistic background of the Second Temple period, when the use of non-predicative infinitive absolute was in sharp decline, on its way to complete disappearance in MH.30 All the more so in the syntagm “infinitive absolute + participle,” which was rare already in BH. Since the consonantal text ‫ ובשל‬contains no matres lectionis that would compel the reader to read it only as an infinitive, it was theoretically open to alternative readings. The vocalization tradition thus takes the word to be not an infinitive but rather a participle of the G stem in the qātel pattern, which encodes the stative. It obviously refers to the meat mentioned earlier (v. 8), and therefore fulfils a syntactic function identical to that of the other participial forms of v. 9a, ‫ נָ א‬and ‫מ ֻב ָּׁשל‬. ְ If so, the reader is left to wonder how does this form interact with the following ‫מ ֻב ָּׁשל‬, ְ another participle of that very verb (albeit in the passive D, rather than the G stem), which appears to convey the same sense of “boiled.” A possible interpretation of the vocalization tradition focuses on the attributive function of the participial forms, comparing it to Prov 30:24, ‫ח ָכ ִמים ְמ ֻח ָּכ ִמים‬,ֲ “exceedingly wise” (so KJV and NRSV ).31 The construction ‫ ָּב ֵׁשל ְמ ֻב ָּׁשל‬may thus be rendered as “fully boiled,” or the like. It should be reiterated, however, that while this may well be the sense of the expression as intended by the vocalization tradition, it is hardly the original construal of the passage. After all, the precise formulation of a legal prescription is not easily compared to the ornate, poetic language of Proverbs. It is simpler to hypothesize that the passage originally employed an infinitival construction, and its consonantal text was secondarily reanalyzed as a participial one. (1c) The sense of the vocalization tradition is made even more explicit by the cantillation and its implied punctuation of the verse: ‫ּוב ֵ ׁ֥של‬ ָ ‫אכ ֤לּו ִמ ֶּ֨מ ּ֙נּו ָ֔נא‬ ְ ֹ ‫ל־ּת‬ ֽ ‫ַא‬ Approaches (ed. M. J. Geller, J. C. Greenfield and M. P. Weitzman; JSS Supp. 4; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 209–216, at 212–214. 30 E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29; Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1986), 47, § 310.14, with nn. 12–15. For a nuanced analysis of the distributive and functional changes in the infinitive absolute as employed in Second Temple Hebrew, see Cohen, Verbal Tense System (above, n. 24), 253–272. 31 This comparison was already suggested in an (anonymous) addition to Ibn Exra’s Long Commentary; see M. Cohen (ed.), Miqra’ot Gedolot ‘HaKeter’: Exodus (2 vols.; Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2007–2012), 1:84 (in Hebrew). Cf. A. B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel, Bd. I: Genesis und Exodus (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1908), 305. Another comparison suggested in the comment ascribed to Ibn Ezra is to the construction ‫ ברוך ומבורך‬that is common in MH (cf. ‫ בטל ומבוטל‬et sim.). But it was rightly rejected by B. Jacob, Das Buch Exodus (ed. S. Mayer, J. Hahn and A. Jürgensen ; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1997; preliminary published in 1945), 314 [= B. Jacob, The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus (trans. W. Jacob and Y. Elman; Hoboken: Ktav, 1992), 306]. Jacob correctly notes that the latter construction makes obligatory use of the conjunctive waw between its two components, which is not the case here, at least not according to the MT.

Text, Language, and Legal Interpretation

103

‫מ ֻב ָ ּׁ֖של ַּב ָ ּ֑מיִ ם‬. ְ The word ‫ ָ֔נא‬is separated from the following phrase by a strong disjunctive accent. This division is basically the same as that marked by syntactic means in Onkelos (above, § 3.2.1), which similarly differentiates between ‫ נא‬and ‫ובשל מבשל במים‬. It is also in accordance with the implied division of the consonantal text of the MT, similarly marked by syntactic means, i. e., the conjunctive waw preceding ‫בשל‬. But the cantillation tradition is more precise concerning the internal syntactic structure of the phrase ‫ובשל מבשל במים‬. The word ‫ּוב ֵ ׁ֥של‬ ָ in connected to ‫ ְמ ֻב ָ ּׁ֖של‬by a conjunctive accent, while the latter word is separated, by a disjunctive accent, from ‫ּב ָ ּ֑מיִ ם‬.ַ The accents thus unite the two participles into a single phrase ‫ּוב ֵ ׁ֥של‬ ָ ‫מ ֻב ָ ּׁ֖של‬, ְ and the precise cooking technique is explicated by the adverbial, prepositional phrase: ‫“ ַּב ָ ּ֑מיִם‬in water.” According to this division of the verse, then, v. 9a forbids two ways to prepare the Passover meat: (1) ‫נא‬, “raw,” (2) ‫ובשל מבשל‬ ‫במים‬, “fully boiled in water.” Why would the passage express the notion of “boiling” (or “cooking”) in two grammatical forms that are so close (both being participles) yet slightly different (in their verbal stem)? Despite the answer supplied by the MT, this question persistently troubled the ancient translators, as demonstrated by the variety of their answers as embedded in the versions. (5a) One possible strategy is to deny to problem in the first place. Thus the Old Greek version of Exodus does not represent two participles, but rather employs a single term, ἡψημένον, a perfect medial participle derived from the verb ἕψω, “to boil, seethe.” This is uncommon for LXX-Exodus, which usually supplies full renditions for Hebrew infinitival constructions (i. e., infinitive absolute plus either perfect or imperfect). Nevertheless, this tendency is not without exceptions, that is, cases in which an infinitive in the MT finds no equivalent in the Greek text (e. g., Exod 2:19; 21:19).32 The assumption that the LXX witnesses to a Vorlage that differs from the MT by being shorter (i. e., ‫ בשל במים‬or ‫)מבשל במים‬ is therefore unfounded. (6) Jerome similarly employs only a single term in his rendering of the Hebrew text in the Vulgate: “Non comedetis ex eo crudum quid nec coctum aqua.”33 But for Jerome, this is in good keeping with his usual translation technique, since he only occasionally attempts to represent the infinitival component of such Hebrew constructions.34 The Vulgate’s shorter text is thus easily attributable to 32 For a detailed analysis, see R. Sollamo, “The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute Used with a Paronymous Finite Verb in the Pentateuch,” in Septuaginta en la investigación contemporánea: V Congreso de la IOSCS (Madrid: Instituto Arias Montano CSIC, 1985), 101–113, at 108–109. According to her data (see the table presented in: Septuaginta en la investigación contemporánea, 111), there are 26 instances in the Pentateuch, where the LXX has no rendering for an infinitive absolute in the corresponding MT, of which 9 instances are in Exodus. 33 Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem, vol. II : Libros Exodi et Levitici (Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1929), 135. 34 The exceptions often have particular, exegetical motivations. See M. A. Kraus, “Jerome’s

104

Noam Mizrahi

the translator, and it cannot be taken as testifying to a Vorlage that differs in any way from the MT. (5b) Only in later revisions of the Septuagint, witnessed by the Hexapla, was the Greek text brought into agreement with the proto-Masoretic text by inserting another term beforehand, namely, the deverbal adjective ἑφθός, “boiled” (similarly derived from ἕψω), used especially – albeit not exclusively – with respect to meat or fish.35 The Hexaplaric text approximates the MT by having two words that mean “boiled,” paralleling the use of both ‫ בשל‬and ‫מבשל‬. The synonymy of the two Greek terms may be demonstrated by a passage from the 3rd century CE work of Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae, I.31d:36 καὶ τὸν ἐκ Καρύστου, ὅς ἐστι πλησίον Ἀρκαδίας. ἄπυρον δὲ εἶπε τὸν οὐχ ἡψημένον· ἐχρῶντο γὰρ ἑφθοῖς οἴνοις. The Carystian wine is that which comes from Carystus in Laconia, on the borders of Arcadia. And he calls it “free from fire” as not having been boiled; for they often used boiled wines.

Against this background, one may better appreciate the dual confusion regarding the use of both words in rendering the Hebrew text of Exod 12:9. First, it remains somewhat uncertain whether ἑφθός is to be regarded as a faithful translation of ‫ בשל‬or rather a double rendition of ‫מבשל‬, since in its two other occurrences in the LXX, ἑφθός might represent either (Num 6:19 and 1 Sam 2:15, respectively). Second, there are Hexaplaric manuscripts that reverse the order of the Greek terms, apparently because they appeared to the scribe to be synonymous.37 (7) The two participial forms of the Hebrew Vorlage are similarly reflected in Targum Neophyti, which belongs to the groups of Palestinian Targums. But its translation technique differs from that of the Hexaplaric version in employing two different lexemes:38 Translation of the Book of Exodus iuxta hebraeos in Relation to Classical, Christian, and Jewish Traditions of Interpretation” (PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, 1996), 27–28, 206 (concerning Exod 18:18); 54, 137 (Exod 3:16); 76–77 (Exod 2:19). 35 For the textual evidence, see J. W. Wevers and U. Quast, Exodus (Göttingen Septuaginta II,1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 161. The internal development of the LXX tradition is discussed by J. W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (SCSS 30. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1990), 172. Surprisingly, no comment on this point is made by A. le Boulluec and P. Sandevoir, L’Exode (La Bible d’Alexandrie II; Paris: Cerf, 1989), 146. 36 Following the old yet faithful translation of C. D. Young, Athenaeus, The Deipnosophists, or Banquet of the Learned of Athenaeus (3 vols.; London: Bohn, 1854), 1:51 (according to his numeration, the passage is I.57). More recent editions translate freely or less literally: C. B. Gulick, Athenaeus, The Deipnosophists (7 vols.; LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927–1937), 1:139; S. Douglas Olson, Athenaeus, The Learned Banqueters (8 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006–2012), 1:181. 37 F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1867–1875), 1:100. 38 For the text, see A. Diez Macho, Neophyti 1:‎Targum Palestinense ms. de la Biblioteca Vaticana, vol. II: Éxodo (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1970), 69. The English translation of M. Maher (appended to Diez Macho, Neophyti 1, vol. II: Éxodo, 437),

Text, Language, and Legal Interpretation

105

‫ לא תיכלון מיניה מהבהב‬Do not eat any of it charred, ‫ ואף לא שליק מבשל במיא‬or even parboiled, cooked in water.

Note further that according to both versions, the translators considered ‫ בשל‬to be a participle, as indicated by the vocalization and cantillation of the MT (i. e., the oral tradition appended to the consonantal text). 3.2.3. Even though Targum Neophyti syntactically matches the other witnesses surveyed thus far, the very use of two distinct lexemes (for rendering ‫ בשל‬on the one hand and ‫ מבשל‬on the other) stands out, as it paves the way for interpreting Exod 12:9a as forbidding not two but rather three ways of preparing the Passover meat. (8) Such a division is not a matter of pure conjecture; it is clearly discernible in another Palestinian Targum from the Genizah, witnessed by ms AA:39 ‫ לא תאכלון מנה מהבהב‬Do not eat any of it charred ‫ לא שליק‬nor parboiled ‫ ולא מבשל במיה‬nor boiled in water

The threefold repetition of the negator ‫ לא‬clarifies that, according to this version, the passage indeed deals with three rather than two ways of preparing the meat: (1) ‫נא‬, (2) ‫בשל‬, (3) ‫מבשל במים‬. At the same time, the Palestinian Targums also present a novel interpretation of the content of the scriptural instruction. Notably, it does not mention at all the possibility of serving raw meat, but rather details a different set of cooking techniques: (1) ‫מהבהב‬, charred or lightly roasted meat; (2) ‫שליק‬, parboiled; (3) ‫מבשל במיה‬, fully boiled in water. The first item is particularly surprising, as it substitutes the original prohibition to consume the Passover sacrifice as raw meat with an alternative prescription that forbids that eating of charred meat. The same rendition is also reflected in a third witness to the tradition of Palestinian Targums, namely, the so-called Fragment Targum (according to ms V ), which has at this point only the lexical equation:40 ‫ מהבהב‬:‫“ אל תאכלו נא‬Do not eat [it] raw”: Charred.

This substitution can be explained in a number of ways. For instance, it might result from linguistic change, namely, a semantic shift in the sense of the term “Do not eat any of it lightly roasted, or even over-​cooked, cooked in water,” is inaccurate in its rendition of ‫( שליק‬cf. below). The same translation is found in M. McNamara and R. Hayward, Targum Neofiti 1: Exodus (The Aramaic Bible 2; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 47. 39 The text is from M. L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (2 vols.; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1986), 1:210–211; 2:142. He prefers translating “Do not eat any of it rare, nor seethed or boiled in water.” 40 M. L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch: According to their Extant Sources (2 vols.; Analecta Biblica 76; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1980), 1:166 (text), 2:125 (translation). He translates ‫ מהבהב‬as “rare.”

106

Noam Mizrahi

‫נא‬, from “raw” to “rare (meat),” as the latter sense represents an intermediate category between “completely uncooked” and “partially cooked.” Alternatively, one might turn to the realm of culinary practices. Perhaps, by the time that these Palestinian Targums took shape, the consumption of raw meat was no longer thought of as a relevant custom that justifies an explicit prohibition. Or there might have been another reason for the omission of “raw” from the list of forbidden ways for preparing the meat. Be that as it may, since this tradition operates with the exegetical matrix of identifying three such ways, omitting the first option of having raw meat had created a vacant place; it was then filled in with a secondary distinction between two ways of partial cooking, namely, light boiling (‫ )שלק‬and light roasting (‫)הבהב‬.41 (9) A threefold division of v. 9a also underlies the expanded version of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, albeit with a somewhat different culinary specification:42 ‫ לא תיכלון מיניה כד חי‬Do not eat any of it while it is raw ‫ ולא כד בשלא בחמרא ומישחא ושקייני‬or when it is boiled in wine or oil or (other) liquids, ‫ ולא מבשל במיא‬or boiled in water

Here too one discerns a thrice told negator (…‫)לא… ולא… ולא‬, which explicates the legal construal of the passage. But this version elaborates the description of the second way for preparing the meat (“boiling it in wine or oil or liquids”), in order to distinguish it from the third (“boiled in water”). In assessing the reading of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, due consideration should be given to the fact that it presents a composite picture. Structurally, it evidently reflects a Palestinian heritage in distinguishing between three ways for preparing the meat. But as far as content is concerned, its detailed account 41 A similar line of interpretation may be reflected in one of the versions of the Samaritan Targum. The Mā˚ləṣ, a trilingual glossary that lists the words of the SP with their Aramaic and Arabic equivalents, has for ‫ נא‬a series of possible renditions, including the Aramaic ‫ שליק‬and its Arabic parallel ‫ ;סליק‬see Z. Ben-Ḥayyim, The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic amongst the Samaritans, Vol. I–II: The Grammatical, Masoretical, and Lexicographical Writings of the Samaritans (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and Academy of Hebrew Language, 1957), 2:521, lines 93–94. But according to the oldest witness of the Samaritan Targum, ms J, the text actually reads ‫אל תיכלון מנה חי ובשול מבשל במים‬. Yet the evaluation of the reading ‫ חי‬at this point is compounded by two factors: (a) The crucial word in ms J is actually the result of correction, and it is no longer possible to decipher the original reading underlying it; see Tal, Samaritan Targum (above, n. 28), 1:266–267. (b) When commenting on the Mā˚ləṣ, Ben-Ḥayyim expressed the suspicion that the reading ‫ חי‬is not to be interpreted as in the Jewish Targums but rather as an orthographic variant of the interjection ‫אי‬. He further observed that the Arabic equivalent at this point, which is similarly ‫חי‬, is also an exclamatory expression. If so, and contrary to the first impression, the reading ‫ חי‬might in fact stem from interpreting Hebrew ‫ נא‬as a function-word, namely, the common adverbial particle nā. 42 The text is quoted from E. G. Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1984), 78; the translation is from M. Maher, Targum PseudoJonathan: Exodus (The Aramaic Bible 2; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 19.

Text, Language, and Legal Interpretation

107

of these practices differs from that of the other Palestinian Targums. The latter replaces Hebrew ‫“ נא‬raw” by ‫“ מהבהב‬charred,” thus making no mention at all of uncooked meat. Pseudo-Jonathan, by contrary, retains “raw” when following Onkelos in rendering ‫ נא‬by ‫כד חי‬. Finally, a position utterly unique to PseudoJonathan is manifested in its extended detailing of the second method for preparing the meat (“boiling it in wine or oil or liquids”). This formulation is so divergent compared to all other Palestinian sources, that one cannot but suspect that it derives from a different source altogether. This suspicion is corroborated by a linguistic indication, for the form ‫“ שקייני‬liquids” is typical of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic.43 Pseudo-Jonathan’s exceptional account is probably influenced by the Babylonian tradition at this point.44 3.2.4. To summarize the evidence, although the sources differ from one another content-wise, i. e., in their precise identifications of the various cooking practices that were forbidden by Exod 12:9a, the Palestinian Targums understand the passage as listing three such methods. This interpretation depends on reading the word ‫ בשל‬as an independent element, disconnected from the following ‫מבשל‬. From a chronological point of view, the threefold interpretation surfaces most clearly in the Palestinian Targums, which are products of the Byzantine period. The older Aramaic versions of the Roman period, Targum Onkelos and the Peshitta, do not evince any hint of it, but rather reflect a twofold division, similar to the one found in the other witnesses (MT, SP, LXX). (10) Nevertheless, in this particular case, there is an additional piece of evidence that indicates that the exegetical tradition identifying three prohibitions in Exod 12:9a is already attested in legal sources that antedate the 2nd century CE. The evidence comes from a rabbinic prescription, which is recorded in the Tannaitic work of the Tosephta. Interestingly enough, the ruling (halakhah) is formulated in a way that is reminiscent of – if not actually paraphrasing – the scriptural wording of Exod 12:9a (t. Pes. 4:7; cf. t. Mak. 4:1):45 43 M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), 1174, s. v. 2‫“ שקיא‬liquid, potion.” The morphologically corresponding form ‫( שיקייה‬pl. ‫ )שקיין‬in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic does not mean “liquid” but rather “watering trough, pool,” whereas the sense of “drink” is expressed, in that dialect, by the forms ‫ משקי‬or ‫ ;משקוי‬see s. v. in M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic2 (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), 335, 564. 44 The eclectic nature of Pseudo-Jonathan has been noted in scholarship time and again. For its mixed language, which indicates its literary complexity, see the rich literature referred to by A. Shinan, The Embroidered Targum: The Aggadah in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1993), 44, n. 156 (in Hebrew). 45 The text is quoted from S. Lieberman, The Tosefta, 2: The Order of Mo‘ed (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1962), 162. The English translation is from J. Neusner, The Tosefta: Translated from the Hebrew, 2: Second Division: Moed – The Order of Appointed Times (New York: Ktav, 1981), 134.

108

Noam Mizrahi

.‫– כשר‬ ‫ השוחט את הפסח לאוכלו בארבעה עשר‬He who slaughters the Passover-sacrifice in order to eat it on the fourteenth of Nisan – it is valid. .‫– כשר‬ >‫( לאוכלו נא שלוק ומבוש…< וית די ידי עלוי תחוור באת׳ קדישׁ׃‬

Whatever touches its flesh shall be holy , you shall wash that on which it is spattered in a holy place. T-PsJ

‫כל דימקרב בבשׂרה יתקדשׁ ודיידי מן אדמה על לבושׁא דיידי עלה תתחוור באתר קדישׁ‬

Whatever touches its flesh shall become holy, and if any of its blood is spattered on the garment, you shall wash (yourself ?) that on which it is spattered in a holy place. S ‫ ܢܬܚܠܠ ܒܐܬܪܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ‬.‫ ܡܐܢܐ ܕܡܬܪܣܣ ܥܠܘܗܝ‬.‫ ܘܕܢܪܘܣ ܡܢ ܕܡܗ ܥܠ ܡܐܢܐ‬.‫ܟܠ ܕܢܩܪܘܒ ܠܒܣܪܗ ܢܬܩܕܫ‬. Whatever touches its flesh shall become holy, and if any of its blood is spattered on the garment (vessel), the garment on which it is spattered shall be washed in a holy place. V quicquid tetigerit carnes eius sanctificabitur si de sanguine illius vestis fuerit aspersa lavabitur in loco sancto Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof, shall be sanctified. If a garment be sprinkled with the blood thereof, it shall be washed in a holy place.

First of all, one observes that except in the case of the verb ‫תכבס‬ / ‫ יכבס‬and the preceding suffix ‫עליה‬ / ‫עליו‬, all the witnesses attest the same text. The minus of T-N is due to homoioteleuton. Other minor differences such as in V are translational. Concerning the verb, M reads ‫ ְּת ַכ ֵּבס‬which is a piel of ‫כבס‬: you will wash. T-O and T-N agree with M. The lemma was not preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The alternative reading of Smr, ‫יכבס‬, is probably a niphal/hitpael: it will be washed. According to Ben-Ḥayyim, the prononciation is yikkåbbås.50 Tal and Florentin interpret this reading as ‫יִת ַּכ ֵּבס‬, ְ while Shorch reads it as ‫יִ ָּכ ֵּבס‬.51 The versions attest a complex variety of readings. Indeed G: πλυθήσεται, T-PsJ : ‫תתחוור‬, V : lavabitur and S : ‫ܢܬܚܠܠ‬, read a passive form, seemingly in agreement with Smr. However, in the more proximate passage of Lev 13:58 where M reads both the piel ‫ ְּת ַכ ֵּבס‬and the pual ‫יְ ֻכ ַבס‬, Smr reads the same consonantal texts respectively 50 Z. Ben-Ḥayyim, The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic amongst the Samaritans, Vol. IV, The Words of the Pentateuch (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1977), 451. 51 A. Tal, M. Florentin (ed.), The Pentateuch – The Samaritan version and the Masoretic version (Tel Aviv: The Haim Rubin Tel Aviv University Press, 2010), 693; S. Schorch (ed.), Leviticus (The Samaritan Pentateuch. A Critical Editio Maior, vol. 3; Berlin, Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2018), 38.

134

Innocent Himbaza

as a niphal/hitpael tikkåbbås and a piel wkabbəs.52 Readings of G and S are in the passive, and V seems to summarize the verse instead of translating it. Only targums agree with M. Thus, the versions should be read with caution53. Concerning the preceding suffix, M reads a feminine form while Smr reads a masculine one. The versions are classed in four categories: 1. V does not contain this suffix. 2. G uses a neutral pronoun referring to the neutral ἱμάτιον (garment). 3. T-O, T-PsJ, use a feminine suffix in agreement with M. However, since the Aramaic ‫( לבושׁ‬garment) is actually masculine, these targumic witnesses are as ambiguous as M in their use of a feminine suffix. 4. S and T-N use a masculine suffix in agreement with Smr. S refers to the ‫( ܡܐܢܐ‬the garment/vessel) which is masculine, while the word referred to in T-N is lacking. It should be recalled that in Syriac, ‫( ܚܛܗܐ‬sin offering or purification offering) is also masculine. Thus, one should not jump to hasty conclusions that S agrees with Smr. 4.2. Translations It is not surprinsing that the ancient and contemporary translations agree with the one or the other textual option: you (priest) will wash, or it (the garment) shall be washed. You will wash: Geneva Bible, KJV, TOB, NBS, Zürcher Bibel. Within the same option, Luther uses the third person: der sol das besprengte stück wasschen an heiliger stet. It will be washed: Olivétan, Matthew’s Bible (1537), Einheitsübersetzung, NAB, BJ, Segond. 4.3. Discussion with medieval and contemporary commentators Rashi and Ibn Ezra understood ‫ אשר יזה עליה‬as “that upon which it is spattered.” This is also the general understanding among scholars. Only the verb ‫ תכבס‬explained by Ibn Ezra as “you (priest) shall wash,” is discussed. Different readings of M and Smr are probably explained by a correction by Smr of a strange reading of the feminine suffixe ‫עליה‬. The scribe of Smr, or its 52  Ben-​Ḥayyim, Literary and Oral Tradition, 459; Tal, Florentin (ed.), The Pentateuch, 696; Schorch (ed.), Leviticus, 108. A parallel case occurs in Lev 15:17, where M reads a pual form ‫וְ ֻכ ַבס‬, while, according to Ben-​Ḥayyim, Literary and Oral Tradition, 462, Smr reads the same consonantal text as a piel (wkabbəs). 53 For an overview of Lev 1–7 see I. Himbaza, “Textual Witnesses and Sacrificial Terminology in Leviticus 1–7,” in Sôfer Mahîr. Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker Offered by the Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta (ed. Y. A. P. Goldman, A. van der Kooij, R. D. Weis; VT.Supp, 110; Leiden/Boston : Brill, 2006), 95–111.

Textual Readings and Challenge of Biblical Philology

135

Vorlage, may have harmonized the reading ‫ עליו‬with the preceding “masculine” word ‫בגד‬. The reading ‫ יכבס‬of Smr also probably resulted from the harmonization of the syntax of the verse. Thus, even Smr is philologically well harmonized, one should conclude that it does not reflect the earliest reading. In that case, the solution may be found in the inner tradition of M. Philological considerations play an important role at this level. On the one hand, the strange ‫ עליה‬of M in Lv 6:20 may not refer to the ‫חטאת‬ of v. 18, as is the case for all other suffixes of Lev 6:19–20. In that case, it would be the same ‫ חטאת‬which should be washed in a holy place! Yet, there remains a possibility that the feminine suffix was erroneously harmonized with other feminine suffixes of v. 19–20. On the other hand, if ‫ עליה‬refers to ‫בגד‬, this word should be understood as a feminine noun. Some dictionaries (Kohler-Baumgartner, Brown-Driver-Briggs) and commentators (Gispen, Milgrom) suggest this solution.54 The feminine ‫בגד‬ is reflected elsewhere, such as Ezek 42:14 and Prov 6:27. Thus one of the keys to understanding Lev 6:20 is whether ‫ בגד‬is considered as a masculine or a feminine noun. M may reflect the second opinion while Smr may reflect the first one. The second question concerns the consonantal text ‫תכבס‬. Does its subject exclusively refer to the priest (you will wash)? In other words, should one restrict himself to the vocalization of the masoretic tradition? If the same consonantal text is differently vocalized “‫”ּת ֻכ ַּבס‬ ֽ (pu‘al, 3rd person fem), then, it refers to the same feminine word ‫​בגד‬55. The garment shall be washed. The comittee of the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project (HOTTP) favored this reading even it is not attested in textual witnesses. The comittee was only guided by philological considerations here. According to the HOTTP however, the feminine form refers not to the garment itself, but to the blood-spot on it : “it (i. e. the blood-spot on the garment) shall be washed.”56 Yet, it is still not textually clear why and how the verb refers to a subject in feminine form. Milgrom who also favors this option [“the blood spots alone need to be washed out, not the entire garment (Sifra, Ṣaw 6:5)”], concludes that the consonantal text ‫ תכבס‬should not be emended.57

54 Gispen, Leviticus, 116; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible 3, New York/London/Toronto/Sydney/ Auckland: Doubleday, 1991), 404. 55 For the discussion on the vocalization of the Hebrew Text, see, J. Joosten, “The Tiberian Vocalization and the Edition of the Hebrew Bible Text,” in Making the Biblical Text. Textual Studies in the Hebrew and the Greek Bible (ed. I. Himbaza; Publications of the Institut Dominique Barthélemy 1; OBO 275; Fribourg: Academic Press / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 19–32. 56 Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, Compte rendu préliminaire et provisoire sur le travail d’analyse textuelle de l’Ancien Testament hébreu (London: United Bible Societies, Alliance Biblique Universelle, 1973), 169. 57 J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 403–404.

136

Innocent Himbaza

Thus, there are in all three readings which are still favored among contemporary sholars.58 Two of them are attested in textual witnesses and the third was proposed only on philological grounds. The problematic reading of M may have led to the syntactical correction in Smr. It is then interesting to observe that a growing number of scholars favor a different correction of M. They consider that the passive form is intended in the context of this verse. The passive reading (pual) would be paralleled to the verbs used in the next verse (v. 21). Thus, Leviticus 6:20 is another case in which philological considerations constitute the only basis on which to correct an existing reading of M (concerning the vocalization) and to reject an alternative reading (consonantal) of Smr and the versions. However, the solution of reading a pu’al 3rd person fem. ‫( ּֽת ֻכ ַּבס‬it shall be washed) is not satsfactory, unless we read not the blood spot, which is not mentioned in the text, but the garment (‫ )בגד‬as a feminine word. Thus in my opinion, one should choose between the actual reading of M, which is the earliest, but probably erroneous, and that of Smr which is harmonious but surely a later correction.

5. Conclusion Cases studied in this article showed that philological considerations were used to solve textual difficulties. Philology was used in order to support both M against the versions, and vice versa. In some cases, philological considerations were used to choose a reading which was not attested by any textual witness. For the case of Isa 14:4, it is fortunate that the conjectural reading ‫ מרהבה‬is now attested by the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QIsaa), while philological grounds were used to support both ‫ מדהבה‬and ‫מרהבה‬. This case shows the limits of philology when it provides arguments for and against a given reading. The case of Isa 59:19 which is dealing with different accents and vocalizations of the same consonantal text, shows that the current majority of scholars adopted an alternative vocalization solely on philological grounds. It was even observed that despite the reading of G, which is in agreement with the alternative vocalization, many scholars don’t take its reading into account.

58 Rendtorff favors the consonantal text of Smr with the vocalization ‫יֽ ֻכ ַּבס‬. See R. Rendtorff, Leviticus, 1. Teilband, Leviticus 1,1–10,20 (BKAT, III/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn : Neukirchner Verlag, 2004), 229. James Watts thinks Smr reflects the same reading. J. W. Watts, Leviticus 1–10 (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament; Leuven/Paris/ Walpole, MA: Peeters, 2013), 407. For those who continue to favor M, see J. E. Hartley, Leviticus, 90; M. Carasik, ‫מקראות גדלות‬ The Commentators’ Bible, The JPS Miqra’ot Gedolot, Leviticus ‫( ויקרא‬Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2009), 211.

Textual Readings and Challenge of Biblical Philology

137

The case of Lev 25:31 shows that the readings ‫ יחשב‬in the singular and ‫יחשבו‬ in the plural are both attested by textual witnesses. Philological considerations lead me to favor the plural form reading attested by Smr and 11Qpaleo-Leva as the earliest reading, while the current reading of M resulted from an erroneous syntactical correction. Lev 6:20 showed that no attested textual reading is satisfying. This verse reflects different philological ways of understanding its words: feminine or masculine on the one hand and the form of its verb on the other hand. I observed that a growing number of scholars favor the reading ‫( ּֽת ֻכ ַּבס‬it shall be washed) with the same consonantal text as M but with a different vocalization. This reading is favored on philological grounds. Textual witnesses remain the major reference in order to adopt alternative readings to M. On the one hand philological emendations should also be taken into account to solve some textual cases. On the other hand, one should keep in mind the conjectural aspect of philological arguments since they are often used to support different readings.

References Barr, J., Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968). Barthélemy, D., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2. Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamentations (OBO, 50/2; Fribourg, CH: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986). Barthélemy, D., Découvrir l’Ecriture (Lectio Divina Hors Série; Paris: Cerf, 2000), 161–183. Baumgarten, J., Qumran Cave 4 XIII, The Damascus Document (4Q266–273) (DJD 18; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996). Ben-Ḥayyim, Z., The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic amongst the Samaritans, vol. IV: The Words of the Pentateuch (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1977). Blenkisopp, J., Isaiah 1–39. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible, 19; New York/London/Toronto/ Sydney/Auckland: Doubleday, 2000). Bredenkamp, C. J., Der Prophet Jesaia erläutert (Elangen: Verlag von Andreas Deichert, 1887). Carasik, M., ‫ מקראות גדלות‬The Commentators’ Bible, The JPS Miqra’ot Gedolot, Leviticus ‫( ויקרא‬Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2009). Chazon, E., et. al. Qumran Cave 4 XX, Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (DJD, 29; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999). Clines, D. J. A. (ed.), The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, Volume 7 ‫( ר–צ‬Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2010). De Troyer, K., “Greek Papyri and the Texts of the Hebrew Bible,” in Editing the Bible. Assessing the Task Past and Present, Society of Biblical Literature (edited by John S. Kloppenborg, Judith H. Newman, Resources of Biblical Study 69; Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012) 81–90.

138

Innocent Himbaza

Delitzsch, F., Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah, Vol 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1884). Delitzsch, F., Commentar über das Buch Jesaia (Leipzig: Dörffling & Franke, 1889) [= Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah, vol. II (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1867)]. Delitzsch, F., Den Prophet Jesaia (Biblischer Commentar über das Alte Testament, Zweite überarbeitete Ausgabe; Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1869). Dillmann, A., Der Prophet Jesaja erklärt (Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 5; Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1898). Drechsler, M., Der Prophet Jesaja übersetzt und erklärt, Zweiter Theil, Erste Hälfte (Stuttgart: Verlag von Samuel Gottl. Liesching, 1845). Duhm, B., Das Buch Jesaia (Handkommentar zum Alten Testament; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902; 5. Auflage, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968). Eusebii Hieronymi, S., Commentariorum in Isaiam Prophetam, PL 24, col. 218. Feldmann, F., Das Buch Isaiahs übersetzt und erklärt (Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 14; Münster: Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1925). Feldmann, F., Das Buch Isaias übersetzt und erklärt, Zweite Halbband, Zweiter Teil (Kap. 40–66) (Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 14; München: Verlag der Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1926). Fischer, J., Das Buch Isaias (Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1939). García Martínez, F., E. J. C. Tigchelaar (ed), The Dead Sea Scrolls, Study Edition, Volume 1 (1Q1–4Q273) (Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill / Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans, 1997). Gerstenberger, E. S., Das 3. Buch Mose Leviticus (ATD, 6; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993). Gesenius, W., Commentar über den Jesaja (Leipzig: Friedr. Christ. Wilh. Vogel, 1821). Gesenius, W., Der Prophet Jesaia Neu übersetzt, Zweite verbesserte Auflage (Leipzig: Friedr. Christ. Wilh. Vogel, 1829). Gispen, W. H., Het Boek Leviticus (Commentar op het Oude Testament; Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1950). Hartley, J. E., Leviticus (WBC, 4; Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1992). Heintz, J.-G., “Des textes sémitiques anciens à la Bible hébraïque : un comparatisme légitime?,” in Prophétisme et Alliance. Des archives royales de Mari à la Bible hébraïque (edited by J.-G. Heintz; OBO, 271; Fribourg: Academic Press / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 93–121. Hieke, T., Leviticus, Zweiter Teilband: 16–27 Übersetzt und ausgelegt (Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament 4b; Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder, 2014). Himbaza, I., “Textual Witnesses and Sacrificial Terminology in Leviticus 1–7,” in Sôfer Mahîr. Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker Offered by the Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta (edited by Y. A. P. Goldman, A. van der Kooij, R. D. Weis; VT.Supp, 110; Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 2006), 95–111. Hirsch, J., ‫ ספר ישעיה‬Das Buch Jesaia nach dem Forschungssytem Rabbiner Samson Raphael Hirschs übersetzt und erläutert (Frankfurt: Verlag von J. Kauffmann, 1911). Hitzig, F., Der Prophet Jesaja übersetzt und ausgelegt (Heidelberg: C. F. Winter, Universitätsbuchhandler, 1833). Joosten, J., “The Tiberian Vocalization and the Edition of the Hebrew Bible Text,” in Making the Biblical Text. Textual Studies in the Hebrew and the Greek Bible (edited by I. Himbaza; Publications of the Institut Dominique Barthélemy 1; OBO, 275; Fribourg: Academic Press / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 19–32.

Textual Readings and Challenge of Biblical Philology

139

Joosten, J., People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17–25 (VT.Supp, 67; Leiden: Brill, 1996). Kissane, E. J., The Book of Isaiah Translated from a Critically Revised Hebrew Text with Commentary, Vol I (I–XXXIX) (Dublin: The Rechview Press, 1941). Koenen, K., J. Kabiersch, “Esaias Isaias / Das Buch Jesaja” in Septuaginta Deutsch. Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament, Band II Psalmen bis Daniel (edited by M. Karrer, W. Kraus, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011). Kruger, H. A. J., “Who Comes: Yahweh or Nahar? A Few Remarks on the Translation of Isaiah 59:19c–d and the Theological Meaning of the Passage (Part I),” OTE 10 (1997): 84–91; Part II, 268–278. Kruger, H. A. J., “Who comes: Yahweh or Nahar? A few remarks on the translation of Isaiah 59:19cd and the thelological meaning of the passage (Part II),” OTE 10 (1997): 268–278. Le Boulluec, A., P. Le Moigne, Vision que vit Isaïe (La Bible d’Alexandrie; Paris: Edition du Cerf, 2014). Lefebvre, J.-F., Le jubile biblique. Lv 25 – exégèse et théologie (OBO, 194; Fribourg, CH: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003). Levine, B. A., Leviticus (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia/New York/Jerusalem: The Jewish Publication Society, 5749/1989). Luzzatto, S. D., ‫ ספר ישעיה מתורגם איטלקית ומפורש עברית מלאכת שד״ל‬Il Profeta Isaia volgarizzato e commentato ad uso degl’Israeliti (Padova: Coi Tipi di Antonio Bianchi, 1855). Marx, A., Lévitique 17–27 (CAT, IIIb; Genève: Labor et Fides, 2011). Metso, S., E. Ulrich, “The Old Greek Translation of Leviticus,” in, The Book of Leviticus. Composition & Reception (edited by R. Rendtorff, R. A. Kugler, VT.Supp, 93; Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 2003), 247–268. Michaelis, J. D., Orientalische und exegetische Bibliothek (Frankfurt am Mayn: Johann Gottlieb Garbe, vol. 11: 1776), (vol. 14: 1779). Milgrom, J., Leviticus 1–16, A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible, 3; New York/London/Toronto/ Sydney/Auckland: Doubleday, 1991). Milgrom, J., Leviticus 23–27. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible, 3B; New York/London/Toronto/ Sydney/Auckland: Doubleday, 2001). Mizrahi, N., “The Linguistic History of ‫מדהבה‬: from Textual Corruption to Lexical Innovation,” RevQ 101 (2013): 91–114. Mizrahi, N., “The Textual History and Literary Background of Isa 14:4,” ZAW 125 (2013): 433–447. Orlinsky, H. M., “Madhebah in Isaiah XIV 4,” VT 7 (1957): 202–203. Ottley, R. R., The Book of Isaiah according to the Septuagint (codex Alexandrinus), II Text and Notes (Cambridge: At the University Press, 1906). Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, Compte rendu préliminaire et provisoire sur le travail d’analyse textuelle de l’Ancien Testament hébreu (London: United Bible Societies, Alliance Biblique Universelle, 1973). Procksch, O., Jesaia I übersetzt und erklärt (KAT, IX; Leipzig: A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung D. Werner Scholl, 1930). Rendtorff, R., Leviticus, 1. Teilband, Leviticus 1,1–10,20 (BKAT, III/1, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag, 2004). Rofé, A., “Isaiah 59:59 and Trito-Isaiah’s Vision of Redemption,” in The Book of Isaiah Le livre d’Isaïe. Les Oracles et leurs relectures, Unité et complexité de l’ouvrage (edited by J. Vermeylen, BETL, 81; Leuven: University Press, 1989), 407–410.

140

Innocent Himbaza

Schorch, S. (ed.), Leviticus (The Samaritan Pentateuch. A Critical Editio Maior, vol. 3; Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2018). Slotki, I. W., Isaiah. Hebrew Text & English Translation with an Introduction and commentary (London-Bournemouth: The Soncino Press, 1949). Stegemann, H., E. Schüller, C. Newsom, 1QHodayota (DJD, 40; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2009). Strugnell, J., D. J. Harrington, Qumran Cave 4 XXIV Sapiential Texts, Part 2, 4QInstruction (Mûsār leMēvîn) (DJD, 34; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999). Tal, A., M. Florentin (ed.), The Pentateuch – The Samaritan version and the Masoretic version (Tel Aviv: The Haim Rubin Tel Aviv University Press, 2010). Troxel, R. L., LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation. The Strategies of the Translator of the Septuagint of Isaiah (JSJS 124; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008). Ulrich, E., P. W. Flint, Qumran Cave 1 II: The Isaiah Scrolls, Part 2: Introduction, Commentary, and Textual Variants (DJD, 32; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2010). Vitringa, C., Auslegung der Weissagung Jesaia, Erster Theil (Halle: Verlag Johann Gottlob Bierwirth, 1749). Wacholder, B. Z., The New Damascus Document. The Midrash on the Eschatological Torah of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Reconstruction, Translation and Commentary (STDJ, 56; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2007). Watts, J. W., Leviticus 1–10 (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament; Leuven/Paris/ Walpole, MA: Peeters, 2013). Watts, J. D. W., Isaiah 34–66 (WBC, 25; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987). Wellhausen, J., Der Text der Bücher Samuelis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1871). Wernberg-Moller, P., “The Contribution of the Hodayot to Biblical Textual Criticism,” Textus 4 (1964): 133–175. Westermann, C., Das Buch Jesaia, Kapitel 40–66 (ATD, 19; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966). Wevers, J. W., Notes on the Greek Text of Leviticus (Septuagint and Cognate Studies 44; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997). Ziegler, J., “Die Vorlage der Isaias-LXX und die erste Isaias-Rolle von Qumran (1QIsaa)”, JBL 78 (1959): 34–59 [= J. Ziegler, Sylloge. Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Septuaginta (Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 484–509]. Ziegler, J., Untersuchungen zur Septuaginta des Buches Isaias (Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen 12; Münster: Verlag der Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1934).

List of Contributors Viktor Golinets Professor for Hebrew Language, Hochschule für Jüdische Studien Heidelberg, Germany. Innocent Himbaza Titular Professor, Department of Biblical Studies, Institut Dominique Barthélemy, University of Fribourg, Switzerland. Jan Joosten Regius Professor of Hebrew, University of Oxford, United Kingdom. Noam Mizrahi Associate Professor, Department of Biblical Studies, Tel Aviv University, Israel. Andrés Piquer Otero Professor of Biblical Hebrew and Ancient Near East, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain. Adrian Schenker Professor em., University of Fribourg, Switzerland. Abraham Tal Professor em., Tel Aviv University, Israel. Richard D. Weis Dean and Professor em. of Hebrew Bible, Lexington Theological Seminary, USA.

Index of Sources Genesis 1:3 19 1:9 64 3:7 61, 63 10:4 21 13:7 54 13:8 54 15:16 26 17:13 26 17:23 26 18:16 26 21:20 54 23:8 26 26:20 54 29:26 41 30:30 41 32:11 51 33:18 3 35:19 26 36:35 61 44:5 100 44:15 100 46:32 57 46:34 54, 57 47:3 63 47:21 28 47:23–25 28 50:24 100 50:25 100

29:9 50 29:29 50 29: 33 50 29: 35 50 32:19 11, 50 32:29 50

Exodus 2:19 103, 104 3:16 104 10:23 47 12:1–11 95, 96, 97 12:9 3, 93–98, 104, 105, 107–112, 115 18:18 104 21:19 103 27:11 49 28:41 50

Numbers 3:3 50 5:26 26 6:19 104, 109 11:28 51 21:20 61 24:3–4 22

Leviticus 6:18 132, 135 6:19–20 135 6:20 4, 132–136, 137 6:21 136 8:33 50 9:22 50 11: 28 26 13:58 133 15:17 134 16:21 50 16:32 50 21:10 50 25:23–28 132 25:28 131 25:29–30 132 25:30 131 25:31 4, 128–132, 137 25:33 131 25:54 131 26:36 54 27:21 131

Deuteronomy 1:13 110 2:33 52, 53

144 3: 24 51 4:28 55 4:32 61 5:10 54 7:9 47, 49 7:10 48 7:15 55 8:2 47 11:7 59 11:24 12 14:7 62 16:7 98 16:15 55 24:19 55 27:15 55 28:60 63 31:29 55 33:2 25 33:9 52, 53 27:10 47 27:19 55 28:60 55 Joshua 8:18 33 8:26 33 9:4 110 10:1 9 18:14 54 18:24 54 Judges 1:5 9 1:31 14 2:7 59 3:23 12 8:11 12 17:5 50 17:12 50 20:13 12 20:38 12 20:39 100 1 Samuel 1:28–29 41 2:12–17 40 2:13 99 2:15 104

Index of Sources

2:23–24 65 2:29 40–42 6:12 77 8:3 49 9:13 41 17:4 34 17:6 33 17:8 40 17:23 34 17:45 33 18:7 49, 50 18:14 47, 49 18:22 48, 49 21:12 50 29:5 49, 50 2 Samuel 1:11 49 2:23 47 2:23–24 65 3:12 47 7:16 39 13:21 36, 37 13:39 123 15:1 37 15:30 77–78 16:8 47 16:10 54 19:3 37 21:21 54 23:18 54 1 Kings 1:6 35–38 1:36 38 3:16 36 8:26 39 9:20 110–112 13:33 50 16:7 55 20:42 3 2 Kings 4:34 80 9:15 27 9:24 50 12:12 58 13:16 52, 53

145

Index of Sources

19:18 55 19:29 80 22:5 58 22:17 55, 59 23:21 98 23:21–24 98 Isaiah 2:8 55 3:5 120, 121 5:12 55 6:20 4 11:15 3 14:4 4, 117–124, 136 17:8 55 19:25 55 21:13 21 24:2 93 24:7 93 24:15 93 29:23 55 37:11 87, 91 37:19 55, 60 37:20 87, 91 38:12 63 53.4 110 57:18 10 59:19 4, 124–127, 136 60:21 55, 60 63:7 51, 52 63:15 51 64:4 58 65:22 55 Jeremiah 1:16 56, 60 6:23 33 10:3 55 15:11 39 17:10 49 22:4 48, 49 23:17 100 25:6–7 55 25:14 55 32:30 55 37:19 11, 54 39:4 9 44:8 56, 60

46:12 47 46:21 47 48:7 47 49:3 47 50:42 33 Ezekiel 20:37 19 27:15 21 38:12 58 42:14 135 43:11 49 43:26 50 47:11 49 Hosea 11:8 10 12:1 39 14:4 55 Amos 1:6 84 1:9 84 Obadiah 19–20

94, 115

Micha 3:11 57 3:12 57 5:12 55, 60, 63 6:16 56, 63 Habakkuk 3:4 10 Haggai 2:14 55 2:17 55 Zechariah 1:13 10 6:12 47 11:5 64 Malachi 3:5 3:19

54, 55 58, 63

146 Psalms 1:5 64 8:4 56 8:7 56 10:5 48 19:2 55, 56 19:7 61 20:7 51 22:17 65 25:6 51 28:4–5 55 43:19 86 51:3 51 62:4 19 69:17 51 71:6 51 76:3 84 78:8 39 89:2 51 90:17 55 92:5 56 102:26 55 106:2 51 106:3 58 106:45 51, 52 107:23 58 107:24 56 111:2 56 111:7 56 115:4 55 118:17 56 119:98 46 132:6 61 135:15 55 138:8 56, 60 138:18 86 143:5 55 145:4 51 145:12 51 150:2 51 Job 1:10 55 5:18 50 9:13 47 14:15 55 15:34 65 26:14 50, 51

Index of Sources

27:15 49 34:19 55 38:41 49 39:23 33 40:17 50 41:20 33 41:21 33 Proverbs 6:3 48 6:13 53 6:27 135 7:18 51 10:18 62, 63 12:22 62 23:6 61 30:24 102 Ruth 1:1 61 1:2 61 1:6 61, 63 1:22 61 2:6 61 4:3 61 Canticles/Song of Songs 2:14 12 7:12 55 Qohelet/Ecclesiastes 5:5 55 10:15 12 11:9 54 Lamentations 3:32 3:64 4:2

51, 52 55, 59, 60, 63 55, 59, 60, 63

Daniel 2:38 121 11:20 51 Ezra 3:9

58, 63

147

Index of Sources

Nehemiah 2:16 58, 63 11:12 58 13:22 51 1 Chronicles 1:7 21 1:46 61 5:18 58 8:8 61 12:34 58 12:37 58 23:24 58 29:5 50 2 Chronicles 1:9 39 8:7 110 13:9 50 24:12 58 26:11 58 26:13 58 29:31 50 32:19 55 34:10 58 34:25 56, 59 35:1–19 98 35:4 98 35:12 98 35:13 98, 99 Ben Sira 14:1 37, 38 14:2 38 30:21 37 30:23 37 37:2 37 38:18 37 46:2 33 Dead Sea Scrolls 1QIsaa

21, 54, 58, 110, 111, 117–126, 136

1QHodayota/1QHa 118 1QM 33, 34, 54 1QS 41 4QBarkc 39

4QDeutj 59 4QDeutkl 59 4QGenhl 64 4QHodayota 118 4QInstruction 118, 119, 120 4QIsac 93 4QpaleoGen-Exodl/4Q11 3, 95, 96, 97, 108–113 4QPhilj 54 4QSama/4Q51 37, 40, 41, 77–79, 123 4QSamb /4Q52 75 8QMez 59 11QLevb 128, 131 11Qpaleo-Leva 131, 132, 137 Damascus Document/CD-A 119–121 War Scroll 33, 34 Flavius Josephus Antiq 7:346

35–36

Mishna Kelim XI 8 Sheqalim VI 1

33 20

Tosephta Sanhedrin 13:5 Pesahim 4:7 Maccot 4: 1 Terumot 1:4

21 107 107 38

Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 98a 126 Sotah 42b 34 Midrash Bereshit (Genesis)   Rabba 79,1–5 86   Rabba 37 21 Sifra Ṣow 6:5 135 Manuscripts Ben Sira ms Sira: Ms A

36

Greek mss Lucianic/L Ms A

35, 39, 76, 77, 79, 80 80

148 Ms B Ms N

Index of Sources

75, 77, 79, 80 80

Hebrew mss Add 1573 Aleppo/A

48 20, 47, 48–51, 54–56, 60, 61 Babylonian Codex of Petrograd (BCP) 50, 55, 60 Berlin Ms 61 Cairo/C 47, 48, 49, 50, 54, 55, 60 Cod. Berlin Or. Qu. 680/CB 49 Damascus Pentateuch/DP 47, 48, 49, 50 Leningrad B19/L 20, 47, 48, 49, 50, 54–56, 59, 60 Munich Cod Hebr 2 61 Or 2463 86 Or 2464 86 Or 4445 (B) 48, 50 Reuchlinianus (R) 50, 54, 55 Samaritan mss Ms 6 of Shechem 24–27 Ms A 28 Ms B 28 Ms C 28 Ms E 28 Ms J 28 Ms K 29 Ms M 28 Ms S 29 Ms V 28 Vat Cod Barberini 24 Samaritan Targum ms Ms J 106 Syro-Hexaplaric ms Midyat ms 86 Targumic mss Ms AA Ms V

105 105

Targumic Literature Onkelos/Onqelos 22, 25, 60, 61, 83, 100–103, 107, 118, 120, 125, 128–131, 133, 134 Neofiti/Neophyti 58, 60, 61, 83, 104, 105, 108, 129–131, 133, 134 Pseudo-Jonathan 83, 106, 107, 129–131, 133, 134 Fragment(ary) Targum 60, 61, 105 Jonathan 34, 100 Palestinian Targum(s) 96, 104, 105–107, 111 Biblical Translations ASV 120 Bible de Genève 126 BJ 120, 126, 129, 134 Bible Liturgique 129 Chouraqui 126, 129 Douai 120 Einheitsübersetzung 120 ERV 120 ESV 120 Geneva Bible 120, 121, 126, 134 JB 9 JPS 120, 126 KJV 27, 35, 100, 102, 110, 117, 120, 121, 126, 134 Luther 120, 121, 126, 129, 134 Matthew’s Bible 126, 134 NAB 120, 126, 134 NBS 126, 134 NRSV 96, 102, 110, 111, 117, 120, 126 Olivétan 120, 126, 134 Rabbinat 126 Robert Estienne 120 Segond 120, 126, 129, 134 TOB 120, 126, 129, 134 Webster’s Bible 120 Züricher Bibel 120, 134

Index of Names Abravanel ​121 Albright, W. F. ​64, 66 Andersen, F. I. ​46, 67 Aquila ​56, 119, 122 Baker, D.  W. ​109–113 Barkay, G. ​46, 66 Barr, J. ​1, 2, 5–8, 12, 17, 32, 43, 94, 113, 121, 137 Barthélemy, D. ​4,7, 17, 35, 43, 88–90, 118, 131, 135, 137, 138 Bauer, H. ​46, 66 Baumgarten, J. ​118, 137 Baumgartner, W. ​87, 135 Beit-Arié, M. ​47, 66 ben Abraham David ​86, 90 Ben Asher ​19, 20, 30 Ben Iehuda Hierosolimitano, E. ​20, 30 Ben-Ḥayyim, Y (J). ​20, 57, 59, 68 Ben-Ḥayyim, Z. ​23, 25, 26, 29, 30, 57, 60, 100, 101, 106, 113, 114, 133, 134, 146 Ben-Zvi, E. ​99, 114 Bergsträsser, G. ​46, 66 Berlejung, A. ​46, 66 Berthelot, K. ​97, 114 Betser, Z. 19, 30 Blenkisopp, J. ​123, 137 Blum, E. ​98, 116 Bokser, B. M. ​98, 114 Bredenkamp, C. J. ​126, 137 Brenner-Idan, A. ​95, 116 Buhl, F. ​61, 67 Burney, C. F. ​12, 13, 39, 43 Caquot, A. ​86, 90 Carasik, M. ​136, 137 Carmignac, J. ​33, 34, 43 Caspi Yosef ​121, 126 Chazon, E. ​119, 137 Clarke, E. G. ​106, 114

Clines, D. J. A. ​87, 88, 90, 125, 137 Cohen, C. ​99, 114 Cohen, M. ​102, 114 Cohen, O. ​100, 102, 114 Cross, F. M. ​46, 67 Dalman, G. ​100, 114 Davies, G. I. ​12, 17 de Lagarde, P. ​63, 67 de Rossi, G. B. ​56, 61 De Troyer, K. ​130, 131, 137 de Waard, J. ​48, 67 Delitzsch, F. ​87, 90, 121, 122, 126, 138 Díez Macho, A. ​104, 114 Dillmann, A. ​121, 127, 138 Donzé-Michau, M.-C. ​23, 30 Dotan, A. ​20, 30 Douglas Olson, S. ​104, 114 Drazin, I. ​101, 114 Drechsler, M. ​121, 138 Driver, G. R. ​35, 36, 43 Driver, S. R. ​37, 43 Duhm, B. ​121, 127, 138 Ehrlich, A. B. ​85, 90, 102, 114 Elliger, K. ​48, 67 Elwolde, J. F. ​33, 43, 74, 82 Epstein, J. N. ​108, 114 Eskhult, M. ​74, 75, 82 Feldmann, F. ​121, 127, 148 Fernández Marcos, N. ​9, 12–14, 17 Field, F. ​104, 114 Fischer, J. ​127, 138 Fishbane, M. A. ​99, 114 Flint, P. W. ​119, 140 Florentin, M ​133, 134, 140 Forbes, A. D. ​46, 67 Fox, M. ​25, 30 Freedman, D. N. ​46, 47, 64, 67

150

Index of Names

García Martínez, F. ​118, 138 Gehman, H. S. ​35, 37, 39, 43 Geiger, A. ​83, 91, 111, 114 Geiger, G. ​54, 67, 100 Geller, M. J. ​102, 117 Gelston, A. ​10, 11, 17, 48, 67 Gemeinhardt, P. ​93, 115 Gerstenberger, E. S. ​128, 138 Gesenius, W. ​19, 20, 61 Gesundheit, S. ​96, 114 Ginsburg, C. D. ​19, 30, 54, 56, 60, 61, 67 Giron Blanc, L.-F. ​54, 67 Gispen, W. H. ​130, 135, 138 Gogel, S. L. ​73, 82 Goldman, Y. A. P. ​48, 67, 134, 138 Golinets, V. ​3, 45, 53, 67 Goshen-Gottstein, M. ​6, 17, 47, 57, 59, 68 Gottstein, M. H. ​53, 63, 68 Greenfield, J. C. ​102, 116 Grossfeld, B. ​101, 114 Gulick, C. B. ​104, 114 Haas, P. J. ​99, 114 Harrington, D. J. ​119, 140 Hartley, J. E. ​130, 136, 138 Hayward, R. ​105, 115 Heintz, J.-G. ​125, 126, 138 Heller, C. ​101, 115 Heller, R. L. ​78, 82 Hendel, R. S. ​98, 115 Hieke, T. ​132, 138 Himbaza, I ​4, 117, 134, 135, 138 Hirsch, J. ​122, 126, 138 Hitzig, F. ​121, 138 Holladay, W. L. ​15, 17 Holmstedt, R. D. ​5, 17, 72, 82 Houtman, C. ​98, 115 Ibn Ezra ​86, 102, 121, 126, 134 Jacob, B. ​85, 90, 91, 102, 115 Jastrow, M. ​39, 43 Jerome ​10, 21–23, 25, 27, 76, 103, 122, 138 Joosten, J. ​3, 5, 7, 17, 31, 33, 39, 43, 100, 115, 130, 135, 138, 139 Joüon, P. ​71, 82

Kabiersch, J. ​124, 139 Kalimi, I. ​99, 114 Karrer, M. ​125, 139 Kennicott, B. ​56, 60, 61, 68 Khan, G. ​109, 113 Kimḥi David/Radaq/Radak ​19, 86, 121, 126 Kissane, E. J. ​121, 139 Kister, M. ​33, 34, 40, 41, 43 Klein, M. L. ​105, 115 Kloppenborg, J. S. ​130, 137 Knauf, E. A. ​46, 68 Koenen, K. ​124, 139 Kohler, L. ​87, 135 Koster, M. D. ​101, 115 Krahmalkov, C. R. ​74, 80, 82 Kraus, M. A. ​107, 115 Kraus, W. ​125, 139 Krauss, S. ​64, 68 Kropat, A. ​110, 116 Kruger, H. A. J. ​124, 127 Kugler, R. A. ​123, 139 Kutscher, E. Y. ​110, 115 Kyle McCarter, P. ​34, 43 Lange, A. ​95, 115 Le Boulluec, A. ​104, 115, 118, 124, 139 Le Moigne, P. ​118, 124, 139 Leander, P. ​46, 66 Lefebvre, J.-F. ​130, 139 Legrand, Th. ​97, 114 Lestienne, M. ​40, 43 Levine, B. A. ​128, 139 Levine, É. ​60, 68 Levinson, B. M. ​99, 115 Levita, E. ​19, 30 Lewis, T. ​20, 21, 30 Lieberman, S. ​107, 115 Lipiński, E. ​72, 73, 82 Loewinger, D.S ​47, 68 Longacre, R. ​78, 82 Lundberg, M. J. ​46, 66 Luzzatto, S. D. ​122, 139 Maher, M. ​104, 106, 114 Maimonides ​18 Marcus, D. ​48, 67

Index of Names

Marx, A. ​128, 130, 139 McCarthy, C. ​48, 66 McNamara, M. ​105, 115 Metso, S. ​123, 124, 139 Meyer, R. ​71, 72, 73, 82 Michaelis, J. D. ​119, 121, 122, 139 Milgrom, J. ​130, 135, 139 Mizrahi, N. ​3, 93, 94, 96, 115, 118, 120, 122, 139 Montgomery, J. A. ​35, 39, 43 Morag, S. ​100, 115 Moreshet, M. ​108, 115 Moshavi, A. ​96, 115 Muraoka, T. ​33, 43, 71, 74, 82, 100, 115 Neusner, J. ​107, 116 Newman, J. H. ​130, 137 Newsom, C. ​119, 140 Norton, G. J. ​7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, 48, 67 Notarius, T. ​96, 115 O’Connor, M. ​73, 74, 82 Origen ​119 Orlinsky, H. M. ​46, 68, 122, 139 Ottley, R. R. ​126, 139 Paul, S. M. ​51, 68 Piquer Otero, A. ​3, 71, 72, 79, 82 Pisano, S. ​48, 67 Polzin, R ​71, 74, 75, 82 Procksch, O. ​121, 139 Qaro Yosef ​121 Qimron, E. ​32, 43, 54, 68, 102, 116 Quast, U. ​104, 116 Ramban ​86 Rashi ​86, 120, 121, 126, 134 Rendtorff, R. ​123, 136, 139 Renz, J. ​46, 52 Rey, J.-S. ​5, 7, 17 Rezetko, R. ​74, 75, 82 Rofé, A. ​125, 140 Rubinstein, A. ​74, 82 Rudolph, W. ​48, 67

151

Saadia Gaon ​86 Sæbø, M. ​6, 18, 83, 91 Sanderson, J. E. ​95, 96, 97, 116 Sandevoir, P. ​104, 115 Sarfatti, G. B. ​46, 68 Schade, A. ​72, 82 Schenker, A. ​3, 7, 8–11, 13, 16–18, 48, 67, 83, 87, 88, 91, 134, 138 Schorch, S. ​133, 134, 140 Schüller, E. ​118, 140 Seeligmann, I. L. ​99, 116 Segal, J. B. ​99, 116 Shehadeh, H. ​23, 30, 86, 91 Shemesh, A. ​98, 116 Shinan, A. ​107, 116 Shmuel ben Meir ​86 Skehan, P. W. ​95, 96, 97, 116 Skoss, S. L. ​86, 90 Slotki, I. W. ​120, 121, 140 Sokoloff, M. ​107, 116 Sollamo, R. ​103, 116 Sperber, A. ​50, 53, 68, 101, 116 Stamm, J. J. ​51, 69 Stegemann, H. ​119, 140 Steiner, R. C. ​25, 94, 109, 116 Strack, H. L. ​50, 69 Strugnell, J. ​119, 140 Symmachus ​56, 83, 86, 119 Tal, A. ​2, 7, 17, 19, 24, 30, 48, 66, 101, 106, 116, 133, 134, 140 Talmon, S. ​65, 69 Teeter, D. A. ​93, 100, 113, 116 Theodotion ​119 Tigchelaar, E. J. C. ​119, 138 Tov, E. ​65, 69, 95, 116 Tropper, J. ​73, 82 Troxel, R. L. ​119, 140 Ulrich, E. ​64, 69,95, 96, 97, 116, 119, 123, 139, 140 van der Kooij, A. ​48, 67, 134, 138 Vaughn, A. G. ​46, 66 Vermeylen, J. ​125, 140 Vitringa, C. ​120, 140 von Gall, A. F. ​22, 26, 30, 101, 116 Vööbus, A. ​86, 91

152

Index of Names

Wacholder, B. Z. ​119, 140 Waltke, B. ​73, 82 Watson, W. G. E. ​56, 69 Watts, J. D. W. ​127, 140 Watts, J. W. ​136, 140 Weil, G. E. ​48, 69 Weis, R. ​2, 5, 6–11, 13, 16, 18, 83, 91, 134, 138 Weitzman, M. P. ​102, 116 Wellhausen, J. ​123, 140 Werman, C. ​98, 116 Wernberg-Moller, P. ​50, 69, 118, 140

Westermann, C. ​127, 140 Wevers, J. W. ​86, 91, 104, 116, 130, 140 Wilk, F. ​93, 115 Yedidia of Norzi ​19 Yefet ben Eli ​86 Yeivin, I. ​49, 67 Young, C. D. ​104, 116 Young, I. ​74, 75, 82 Ziegler, J. ​119, 121, 140 Zuckerman, B. ​46, 66

Index of Subjects Accents ​6, 7, 19, 103, 124, 127, 136 Akkadian ​2, 32, 71, 99 Amarna letters/corpus ​71, 81 Apparatus ​2, 5–16, 22, 26, 27, 29, 57, 96, Arabic ​2, 23–26, 28, 32, 38, 85–87, 106 Aramaic ​11, 13, 24, 27, 29, 30, 100, 101, 106–108, 121, 123, 125, 134 Aramaism ​39, 121 Biblia Hebraica Kittel ​9, 12 Biblia Hebraica Quinta ​2, 5–17, 48, 49, 53–55, 57, 58, 60, 62–64 Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia ​8, 9, 12, 39, 48, 56

Emendation(s) ​2, 5–9, 12, 16, 35, 39, 40, 117, 137 Equivalence/Equivalent ​6, 22, 30, 36, 38, 72, 74, 103, 106, 108, 122 Error/erroneous ​3, 14, 52, 60, 62, 64, 65, 117, 123, 135–137 Ethiopic/Ethiopian ​73, 75, 80 Evidence ​2, 3, 6, 8–16, 24, 28, 29, 31, 32, 37, 39, 40, 46, 65, 71, 72, 75, 77, 78, 79, 81, 94–96, 104, 107 Exegesis/exegetical ​1, 3, 6, 12, 16, 25, 34, 35, 52, 60, 95, 97–99, 103, 106–109, 111, 112, 120 Extrapolation ​6, 14, 15, 16, 17

Classical-Biblical Hebrew ​32, 71, 81, 110, 111 Codex/Codices ​20, 46, 47, 56, 59, 61, 77, 80 Commentary ​2, 5, 8–12, 15, 16, 19, 57, 66, 94, 119, 121, 122, 126–128 Conjecture ​5–16, 105, 109, 119, 121, 122, 124 Consonantal text ​7, 47, 50, 51, 99, 100, 102, 103, 105, 108, 124, 126, 133, 134–137 Consonants ​7, 76 Context ​3, 4, 11, 20, 22, 28, 34–39, 41, 47–61, 64, 65, 72, 84, 85, 87–89, 93, 97, 100, 108, 109, 112, 113, 119–121, 127, 136 Correction(s) ​10, 16, 85, 106, 132, 134, 136, 137 Corruption/corrupted ​1, 7, 9, 38, 87, 88, 90

Fragment(s)/ary ​25, 41, 59, 69, 95–97, 131

Dead Sea Scrolls ​2, 8, 31, 33, 74, 75, 97, 100, 117–119, 122, 123, 133, 136 Defective ​22, 45–49, 51–53, 65

Infinitive absolute ​3, 71–81, 99–103 Inscriptions ​46, 74, 80 Interpretation(s) ​2, 3, 16, 23, 24, 34–36, 38, 40, 41, 48, 51, 58, 62, 80, 81, 84, 88, 89, 93, 94, 102, 105–107, 109, 110–112, 118–120, 122, 123, 126

Edition(s) ​1, 8–12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 29, 52, 57, 66, 79, 96, 104

Grammar ​3, 45, 72 Grammarians ​63, 121, 123 Greek ​3, 31, 33, 34, 36, 39–42, 74–77, 79, 100, 103, 104, 119, 122, 123 Hebraism ​100 Hebrew (language) ​1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13–15, 19, 21, 26, 29, 30–34, 36–38, 41, 42, 45, 47, 52, 53, 61, 63–65, 71, 72, 74, 76, 77, 81, 93, 94, 100–104,106, 107, 110, 118, 119, 123, 127, 130 Hebrew Bible ​1, 3, 5, 6, 13, 19, 20, 31, 32, 34, 42, 45, 50, 51, 64, 66, 72–74, 78, 95 Hexapla, Hexaplaric ​77, 86, 87, 104 Hiphil ​39, 40, 41, 87–90, 122 Hitpael ​133, 134 Hophal ​87

154

Index of Subjects

Judgment ​7, 16, 52, 62, 63 Ketiv/Kethib ​11, 47, 49, 50, 53, 54, 59 Language(s) ​1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 13–16, 31, 32, 39, 42, 71–74, 93, 98, 100, 102, 107, 113, 118, 123 Lemma ​7, 8–10, 12, 119–123, 132, 133 Lexical ​32, 55, 65, 66, 105, 108, 112 Manuscript(s) ​1, 3, 7, 20, 22, 24–30, 34, 37,42, 45, 46, 48–50, 52–64, 76, 78, 80, 93, 97, 100, 104, 123 Masora(h) ​2, 19, 25, 55 Masora magna ​47, 48, 54–56 Masora parva ​47, 48, 49, 54, 55, 60 Masoretic Text/MT/TM/M ​2, 3, 6, 7, 12–14, 19, 20, 21–29, 31, 36, 37, 39–42, 50–56, 58, 62–65, 72, 75–79, 81, 87–89, 95, 96, 99, 101–105, 108–111, 117–125, 128, 130–137 Mater lectionis ​102 Morphology ​45, 52, 66 Morphological ​20, 49, 52, 57, 59, 65, 66, 99–101, 128 Niphal ​29, 36, 41, 76, 133, 134 Orthography ​27, 29, 40, 45–49, 51–54, 63, 64 Palaeo-Hebrew ​36, 95 Paronomastic ​72–76, 78 Peshitta/P/Syriac/S ​21, 22, 25, 34, 36 40, 55–58, 60–62, 83, 101, 107, 118–121, 124–127, 129–131, 133, 134 Philology ​1–8, 12, 14–17, 31, 35, 36, 38, 42, 45, 66, 93, 94, 112, 117, 122–124, 136 Phoenician ​71–74, 79, 80 Piel ​38, 39, 132, 134 Plene ​29, 34, 36, 45–48, 53 Post-biblical Hebrew ​3, 13, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37–39, 42 Pre-Samaritan text ​95 Proto-massorétic text ​75–77, 95, 104, 109 Pseudo-classicism ​33 Pual ​133, 134, 136

Qal ​23, 26, 29, 72 Qere ​11, 47–51, 53 Qumran ​1, 3, 21, 31–35, 37, 41, 42, 52–54, 59, 63–65, 71, 77, 79, 81, 93, 95, 97, 101, 118, 123 Qumran Scrolls ​32, 42, 53, 95 Rabbinic ​3, 31, 71, 98, 107, 108, 111, 112 Rule Scroll ​42 Sahidic ​80 Samaritan Pentateuch/SP/Smr ​2, 19, 21–30, 53–55, 57, 61, 83, 85, 90, 101, 106, 107, 111, 128, 131–137 Samaritan Midrash ​29 Samaritan Targum ​2, 22, 106 Samaritan Text ​27, 28 Samaritans ​2, 26 Scribe(s) ​1, 3, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 60, 66, 87, 90, 93, 97, 99, 100, 104, 109, 110, 112, 113, 119, 130, 132, 134 Scroll(s) ​95–97, 110 Semantic ​21, 31, 36, 48, 52, 57, 62, 73, 94, 98, 99, 105, 109 Semitic ​1, 2, 6, 7, 12, 23, 31, 32, 36, 38, 71–74 Septuagint (LXX, G) ​21, 22, 31, 33–37, 39, 41, 53, 56–65, 74–80, 83, 84, 86–89, 95, 98, 103, 104, 107, 110, 118–121, 124–134, 136 Source(s) ​23, 24, 27, 28, 37, 77, 93, 96, 98, 101, 107, 109, 110–112, 118, 123 Synonym(us) ​50, 61, 64–66, 104 Syntagm ​55, 59, 100–102 Syntax ​7, 27, 55, 62, 74, 76, 94, 100, 109, 124, 130, 132, 135 Syriac, cf. Peshitta Syro-Hexapla ​80, 83, 86 Targum(s) ​10, 12, 24, 25, 27, 33, 36, 39–41, 55–61, 96, 100, 104–107, 111, 120, 126, 127, 134 Text critical ​2, 3, 5–16, 31, 36, 38, 45, 65, 93–97 Textual Criticism ​1–8, 14–17, 31, 35, 38, 42, 72, 83, 84, 88–90, 93, 94, 112, 117, 123, 131, 132

Index of Subjects

Tradition ​1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 19, 20, 22–25, 27, 42, 50, 52, 65, 66, 71, 73, 76–79, 81, 84, 100–108, 111, 112, 119, 124–127, 132, 135 Translation(s) ​9, 19, 23–25, 27, 28, 31, 37, 57, 58, 60, 62, 64, 74, 75, 77, 80, 86, 89, 95, 97, 101, 103–107, 118, 120–122, 124–127, 129, 134 Transmission ​1, 8, 10, 16, 20, 22, 27, 45, 71, 72, 93, 94, 96, 113 Ugaritik ​32, 71, 73, 80 Variant(s) ​1–3, 7, 10, 20, 22, 25–27, 29–32, 36, 40, 45, 52, 64, 65, 83, 93–97, 106, 108, 111, 112, 126 Version(s) ​3, 6, 7, 14, 15, 23–25, 28, 29, 32–34, 36, 38, 39, 41, 52, 54, 56–63,

155

65, 72, 74, 76, 81, 86, 93, 96, 99, 101, 103–107, 112, 113, 118–121, 129, 133, 134, 136 Vocabulary ​45, 58, 83, 88 Vocalization(s) ​7, 19, 26, 29, 33, 37, 71, 72, 99, 100, 102, 105, 108, 127, 132, 135–137 Vorlage(n) ​10, 26, 27, 30, 31, 39, 57, 59, 62, 64, 65, 75, 76, 87, 89, 94, 95, 101, 103, 104, 118, 125, 130, 135 Vowels ​6, 7, 26, 33, 63 Vulgate (V ) ​21–33, 34, 55, 56, 57, 59–62, 76, 80, 83, 103, 118, 120, 125–127, 129, 130, 133, 134 Witness(es) ​1, 6–11, 13–15, 31, 35, 45, 48, 52, 59, 77, 94–97, 103, 105, 107, 109–111, 117, 119, 123–126, 128–137