Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible: Collected Studies 9781575066233

Citation preview

Talmon-FM Page i Wednesday, April 28, 2010 1:52 PM

Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible

Talmon-FM Page ii Wednesday, April 28, 2010 1:52 PM

Talmon-FM Page iii Wednesday, April 28, 2010 1:52 PM

Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible Collected Studies

Shemaryahu Talmon

Published in cooperation with The Mandel Institute of Jewish Studies The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

by Eisenbrauns Winona Lake, Indiana 2010

Talmon-FM Page iv Wednesday, April 28, 2010 1:52 PM

iv

Author

ç 2010 by Eisenbrauns Winona Lake, Indiana All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Published in Cooperation with The Mandel Institute of Jewish Studies The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Talmon, Shemaryahu, 1920– Text and canon of the Hebrew Bible : collected studies / Shemaryahu Talmon. p. cm. “Published in cooperation with the Mandel Institute of Jewish Studies, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.” Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 978-1-57506-192-4 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Bible. O.T.—Criticism, Textual. 2. Dead Sea scrolls. I. Mandel Institute of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem) II. Title. BS1136.T325 2010 221.6u6—dc22 2010015311

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.†‰

CONTENTS Preface Sigla Introduction

vii xi 1

The Textual Study of the Bible: A New Outlook

19

Oral Tradition and Written Transmission, or the “Heard” and the “Seen” Word in Judaism of the Second Temple Period

85

The Paleo-Hebrew Alphabet and Biblical Text Criticism

125

Synonymous Readings in the Masoretic Text

171

Double Readings in the Masoretic Text

217

1 Sam 15:32b: A Case of Conflate Readings?

267

A Case of Abbreviation Resulting in Double Readings

269

Emendation of Biblical Texts on the Basis of Ugaritic Parallels

273

A Case of Faulty Harmonization

295

The Town Lists of the Tribe of Simeon

299

):=''=/%/-'!-'1'9!!/! (1 Chr 2:55)

307

Amen as an Introductory Oath Formula

315

An Apparently Redundant Reading in the Masoretic Text (Jer 1:18)

323

The Three Scrolls of the Law Found in the Temple Court

329

Prolegomenon to The Ten Nequdoth of the Torah

347

Pisqah Be em‫܈‬a! Pasuq and the Psalms Scroll from Qumran Cave 11 (11QPsª)

369

Textual Criticism: The Ancient Versions

383

The Crystallization of the “Canon of Hebrew Scriptures” in the Light of Biblical Scrolls from Qumran

419

Bibliography

443

Abbreviations

499

Index of Sources

503

Index of Authors

538

PREFACE The articles reprinted in this volume severally relate to a variety of phenomena which affected the biblical literature in the stages of transition from oral tradition to written transmission, initially in Paleo-Hebrew, then in the square alphabet, and ultimately in the promulgation of the Masoretic Text in print. In several studies, the widespread occurrence of a textual phenomenon which is at the root of variae lectionis, is put in full light by the recording of a significant number of occurrences, e.g. “Synonymous Readings” and “Doublets”, albeit without aiming at completeness. Other types of textual variation are illustrated by only a few instances: “Abbreviations,” “Harmonization,” and differences between a particularized enumeration in the main part of a schedule and the final summary, as in “The Town Lists of the Tribe of Simeon.” Factors pertaining to later stages in the transmission of the Hebrew text, viz., in the Second and post-Second Temple period, are brought under scrutiny in three studies: “The Three Scrolls of the Law Found in the Temple Court,” the “Prolegomenon” to R. Butin’s The Ten Nequdoth of the Torah, and “Pisqah Beem‫܈‬a! Pasuq and the Psalms Scroll from Qumran Cave 11 (11QPsª).” Lastly, in two articles, “Textual Criticism: The Ancient Versions” and “The Textual Study of the Bible: A New Outlook,” I concisely survey developments in the contemporary investigation of the transmission history of the biblical text, leading up to a brief discussion of the solidifying process which climaxed in the “Crystallization of the ‘Canon of Hebrew Scriptures’.” The studies initially appeared over a period of about fifty years, thus giving expression to my developing thoughts on the transmission history of the biblical text up to the present time. All the papers have undergone revision in the process of preparing the present volume. Nevertheless, in such a collection of essays, duplication of proof texts adduced in support of arguments in respect to differing contexts could not altogether be avoided, although we did our best to keep them to a minimum. Equally, no effort was spared to emend errors and typographical mistakes.

viii

Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible

I am very grateful to several people who were involved in the production of the present collection, and whose efforts facilitated the successful completion of this project: Dr. Jonathan Ben-Dov and Dr. Noam Mizrahi suggested the idea of collecting these studies. Both read various versions of the papers, and helped in solving various technical difficulties throughout the preparation of this collection. Dr. Mizrahi also coordinated the work of all involved in the preparation of the volume for publication. Mrs. Na!ama Baumgarten-Sharon retyped the papers, checked references, and brought the papers into uniformity in terms of style with care and diligence. Ms. Shira J. Golani helped greatly in all matters related to the preparation of the book for publication. The final product owes much to their devotion to the project throughout years of painstaking work. My colleague, Professor David Weissert, kindly checked the Greek quotations. Mr. Nadav Sharon proofread the book. Mr. Ariel Kopilovitz prepared the indices with expertise. Thanks go to Mr. James Eisenbraun, Director of Eisenbrauns Publishing House, and his staff, who spared no effort for producing this volume with utmost care. My thanks are due to Professor Aharon Maman, Director of the Mandel Institute of Jewish Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, for support and assistance in the publication of the volume. *** I wish to thank the original publishers and editors of these studies for their kind permission to reprint them in this volume: “The Textual Study of the Bible: A New Outlook,” in F.M. Cross, Jr. and S. Talmon (eds.), Qumran and the History of the Bible Text (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975), 321–400. “Oral Tradition and Written Transmission, or the ‘Heard’ and the ‘Seen’ Word in Judaism of the Second Temple Period,” in H. Wansbrough (ed.), Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (JSNT Supp 64; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 121–158.

Preface

ix

“The Ancient Hebrew Alphabet and Biblical Text Criticism,” in P. Casetti, O. Keel and A. Schenker (eds.), Mélanges Dominique Barthélemy (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 497–530; combined with “The Ancient Hebrew Alphabet and Biblical Text Criticism,” in A. Caquot, S. Légasse and M. Tardieu (eds.), Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985), 387–402. “Synonymous Readings in the Textual Traditions of the Old Testament,” in C. Rabin (ed.), Studies in the Bible (ScrHier 8; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961), 335–383. “Double Readings in the Massoretic Text,” Textus 1 (1960), 144–184. “1 Sam. xv 32b—A Case of Conflate Readings?” VT 11 (1961), 456–457. “A Case of Abbreviation Resulting in Double Readings,” VT 4 (1954), 206–208. “Emendation of Biblical Texts on the Basis of Ugaritic Parallels,” in S. Japhet (ed.), Studies in Bible (ScrHier 31; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986), 279–300. “A Case of Faulty Harmonization,” VT 5 (1955), 206–208. “The Town Lists of Simeon,” IEJ 15 (1965), 235–241. “):=''=/%/-'!-'1'9!!/!: 1 Chr 2:55,” IEJ 10 (1960), 174–180. “Amen as an Introductory Oath Formula,” Textus 7 (1969), 124–129. “An Apparently Redundant MT Reading—Jeremiah 1:18,” Textus 8 (1973), 160–163. “The Three Scrolls of the Law that Were Found in the Temple Court,” Textus 2 (1962), 14–27. “Prolegomenon” to R. Butin, The Ten Nequdoth of the Torah (Ktav: New York, 1969), i–xxvii. “Pisqah Beemৢa! Pasuq and 11QPsª,” Textus 5 (1966), 11–21. “Textual Criticism: The Ancient Versions,” in A.D.H. Mayes (ed.), Text in Context: Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 141–170; supplemented with

x

Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible

material from “The Old Testament Text,” in P.R. Ackroyd and C.F. Evans (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Bible, I: From the Beginnings to Jerome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 159–199; “The Transmission History of the Text of the Hebrew Bible in the Light of Biblical Manuscripts from Qumran and Other Sites in the Judean Desert,” in L.H. Schiffman, E. Tov and J.C. VanderKam (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 40–50. “The Crystallization of the ‘Canon of Hebrew Scriptures’ in the Light of Biblical Scrolls from Qumran,” in E.D. Herbert and E. Tov (eds.), The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (London: The British Library & Oak Knoll Press, 2002), 5–20.

SIGLA Vrs MT SP LXX LXXA, B… Vulg Pesh Targ TargO TargN TargPs-J TargF TargJ TargK Aq Sym Thd

The Versions (in general) Masoretic Text Samaritan Pentateuch Greek Septuagint MSS A, B etc. of the Septuagint Latin Vulgate Syriac Peshitta Aramaic Targums Targum Onqelos to the Pentateuch Targum Neophyti to the Pentateuch Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to the Pentateuch Fragmentary Targum to the Pentateuch Targum Jonathan to the Prophets Targum Ketubim to the Writings Aquila Symmachus Theodotion

MS(S)

manuscript(s) prima manus (reading of a manuscript prior to correction) secunda manus (reading of a manuscript after correction)

p.m. s.m.

INTRODUCTION I The essays collected here were written against the background of the momentous manuscript finds at various sites in the Judean Desert, with the remains of some 900 scrolls and scroll fragments from the Qumran Caves taking place of pride, among them approximately 200 biblical or Bible-related manuscripts from the crucial period of the turn of the era. I fully concur with the universally appreciated signal importance of the manuscripts discovered in the caves, which afford the student of the Bible unprecedented information of the early transmission history of the biblical text. However, I question the prevailing tendency in Qumran research to ascribe to the new sources a ‘revolutionary’ impact on the study of the original Hebrew text and the ancient translations, foremost the Septuagint. Rather, as I have argued from early on, when all is said and done, the singular importance of this hoard of scrolls and fragments from the late Second Temple period lies in the fact that in toto the assemblage provides the student a compact replica of the features, data and problems, which can be discerned in the incomparably larger and more diversified corpus of sources that are brought under scrutiny in modern research of the history of the biblical text and the formation of the Bible Canon. These aspects of the issue now can be submitted to an analysis in witnesses from the turn of the era, the earliest attainable stage of transmission.1 I venture to say that the indeed ‘revolutionary’ aspect of the discovery becomes manifest in a fact which at first blush appears to be of a ’merely’ technical nature, namely the extensive employment as writing material of parchment sheets, which presumably at least in part were produced at Qumran, so to say ‘in house’. The use of readily available tanned animal skins facilitated the large scale production of copies of literary works, which Jewish savants and scribes never

1

See “New Outlook” (below, 19–84), and “Textual Criticism” (below, 383–418).

2

Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible

before had experienced.2 In the First Temple period, and to some degree also in early Second Temple times, potsherds, bullae, stone plates and other suitable surfaces served for conveying in writing brief messages or a few lines of text. But these materials could not be used for committing extensive texts to writing.3 Prior to the discovery of parchment manuscripts at Qumran and some other sites in the Judean Desert no remains of literary creations from the First and early Second Temple period were preserved. The situation which obtained at the time is put in full light by the recent discovery of an unmatched large limestone plate (96ऴ37 cm.), inscribed in ink on one side with partly broken 44 lines, and on the other with 43. The scholars who published the fragmentary text entitled it “The Vision of Gabriel”, and on the strength of various criteria dated it to the last century BCE.4 It was suggested that this unique item could be likened to a parchment scroll in stone, and that in one way or another it may be related to the Qumran finds.5 The use of parchment as writing material, which certainly was shared by all Israelite ‘men of the pen’, was an innovation sine qua the promulgation of one exclusively recognized version of ‘Holy Scriptures’, in the Land of Israel and the Diaspora, could not have been achieved. Through transmitting only selected wordings of the biblical texts, other versions were let to fall into oblivion by discontinuing their transmission. This process could have been set in motion after the Maccabees’ recapture of Jerusalem. The author of 1 Maccabees reports 2

3

4 5

It will suffice to mention that e.g. fragments of 36 scrolls of the book of Psalms were identified in the Qumran hoard, 30 of Deuteronomy, 5 copies of the book of Jubilees, etc. Scholarly opinions are divided on whether or not in the First Temple period papyrus sheets were widely available in Palestine as writing material. I have summarized my negative answer to this question in an “Excursus on the Use of Parchment and Papyrus” in Talmon, Masada, 26–29. See Yardeni and Elizur, “Prophetic Text.” The comparison hardly stands up to scrutiny. No parchment item inscribed obverse and reverse is extant among the Qumran discoveries. However, a small papyrus fragment from Masada is indeed inscribed with a few Paleo-Hebrew letters on both sides. See Talmon, Masada, 138–147.

Introduction

3

that like Nehemiah in the days of the Return from the Babylonian exile,6 “Judah the Maccabee collected all (writings) which were scattered because of the war we had and now they are with us. Therefore, whenever you need them send men to bring them to you”.7 With all due appreciation of the differences involved, the factors which then could have facilitated the publication of the biblical books in numerous copies,8 favorable historical circumstances,9 and the opportune use of tanned animal hides as writing material, may be likened to the impact which the invention of the printing press had on the promulgation of the masoretic textus receptus in the Middle Ages, on the threshold of modernity.10 II It should be stated from the outset that in the time-span under consideration, the last centuries BCE and the first century CE, the application of the terms ’Bible’ and ‘biblical’ to the scrolls and scroll fragments discovered in the Qumran Caves and at other sites in the Judean Desert, which pertain to the issue under review, are anachronisms. This fact was rightly stressed by Arnim Lange,11 and Sidney White Crawford: “Thus, the term ‘Bible’ in the category ‘Rewritten Bible’ is anachronistic when applied to the Qumran collection”.12 The noun Bible and the adjective biblical have a precisely defined socioreligious signification. Strictly speaking, under these terms can only 6 7

8

9 10

11 12

No other source credits Nehemiah with such an undertaking. The author of 1 Maccabees complains that the Romans “rent in pieces the books of the law which they found, and set them on fire” (1:56). Segal, “Promulgation”, in fact presumed that in those very days an “official body of scribes engaged in the task of supplying new copies of the scriptures for the use of Temple and synagogues and schools” (ibid., 290–291). This factor was correctly highlighted by Greenberg, “Stabilization”. Considerations of the impact of historical and societal factors which affected the transmission of the biblical texts are not sufficiently appreciated in the relevant scholarly literature. For a criticism of this neglect in a different context, see Perdue’s discussion of Wisdom Literature in Sword and Stylus. Lange, “Status”. White Crawford, “Rewritten Bible”.

4

Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible

be subsumed writings which were ultimately included in their transmitted Hebrew wording in the corpus of “twenty-four (books)” that constitutes the Bible of Judaism, variously termed :9/, !:#=, -':62Ñ) et sim.13 This compendium became the basis and the pillar of Israel’s communal history, culture and cult life.14 In the words of P.G. Borbone, cited in translation by B. Chiesa: “Manuscripts are not entities by themselves: they are the product of a given age and of a given culture and, in the case of sacred texts, also of the religious creed of the community that accepted them as their own rule”.15 Therefore, in the discussion of the transmission history of ‘precanonical’ biblical writings, like those discovered in the Judean Desert, foremost at Qumran, the terms ‘Bible’ and ‘biblical’ should be replaced by other appropriate designations.16 It must, however, be admitted that this is more easily said than done. Terms like ’Rabbinic Bible’, suggested by F.M. Cross17 and other scholars, already serve as designations of compilations or editions of the Jewish Bible, which comprises the fully vocalized consonantal Hebrew text, provided with punctuation, cantillation symbols, and masoretic notations, often in combination with selected traditional medieval commentaries. The quest for the original wording of the biblical text became more complicated when the corpus of the sanctified scriptures turned inaccessible to Jews and non-Jews who were not sufficiently familiar with Hebrew. Then and there, the original version was rendered into other Semitic languages, Aramaic and Syriac, and also non-Semitic languages, most importantly Greek and Latin. The text of these

13

14 15 16

17

Thompson, “4QTestimonia”, correctly remarks that “the Dead Sea texts … drafts and versions present us with sources of what, at a much later date, came to be recognized as biblical tradition. In themselves, however … they are not biblical” (ibid., 262). See the criticism of Thompson’s statement by Talshir, “Biblical Texts”. See my discussion of the matter in “Heiliges Schrifttum”. Chiesa, “Textual History”. For the late Second Temple period, G. Brooke tends “to side with those, who would rather speak of authoritative scriptures than books of the Bible.” See Brooke, “Authority and Canon,” and cf. esp. Ulrich, Origins. Cross, “Biblical Text”.

Introduction

5

translations often differs from the Jewish Hebrew version, as a result of scribal mistakes, misunderstood Hebrew phraseology, and more importantly because of original variant readings in the translators’ Vorlagen. The Greek and Latin renditions of the Hebrew compendium became the Old or First Testament of the more comprehensive Bible Canon of Christendom. However, there is no evidence to show that the Jewish (Ñ1=—an acronym of -'#=) -''1 !:#=—or the more comprehensive Bible Canon of Christianity, which also includes several Apocrypha and the New Testament writings, were constituted before the end of the first or in the second century CE.18 Mutatis mutandis this observation also applies to the Samaritan Canon of Scriptures, which is comprised of only the Five Books of the Pentateuch. In the traditions of the three trans-generational communities—Judaism, Christianity and Samaritanism—the concept of a “Canon of Scripture” is intimately connected with their corporate history and the emergence of political,19 and idiosyncratic socio-religious institutions—Synagogue, Church, and (Samaritan) kinšâ—in which the recitation of biblical texts became a mainstay of the devotional service. This development did not affect the community of the Renewed Covenant.20 Theirs was a ‘prayer service’ exclusively, as far as can be ascertained from texts preserved in the Qumran assemblage of documents which are pertinent to the issue.21 As said, the signal value of the mostly fragmentary copies of books found in the Judean Desert, books which ultimately were included in the Bible of mainstream Judaism, lies in their supplying the investigator with source materials for tracing back for over one millennium textual phenomena that persist in the canonical Scriptures, and in the past could only be identified and appraised on evidence elicited from late medieval copies of MT and earlier manuscripts of the ancient Vrs. The reliability of theories regarding features which evidently 18 19

20 21

See my discussion in “Canon” (below, 419–442). Brooke, “Authority and Canon”, 87–91, correctly stresses this aspect: “All declarations of authority concerning texts have a political dimension” (ibid., 87). For this designation of the Ya‫ۊ‬ad see my study “Renewed Covenant”. See my essays “Canon” (below, 419–442) and “Institutional Prayer”.

6

Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible

affected the original Hebrew consonantal text, as well as the text of the ancient translations, in the long process of transmission from the stage of handwritten manuscripts to the stage of promulgation in print, can now be tested by their application to the pluriform texts preserved in parchment scrolls and fragments of scrolls from the Desert of Judah, foremost from Qumran, which were current in Jewish Palestine at the turn of the era. It is especially important to assess on the basis of insights gained from the new sources the relative merit of two diametrically opposed theories offered in the past toward the explanation of the numerous variae lectionis: ‘externally’ between the original Hebrew text and the several translational versions, and ‘internally’ between disagreeing manuscripts or manuscript families of one specific version, especially MT and LXX. On the one hand, there is de Lagarde’s hypothesis which affirms that all extant copies of the Greek translation(s) stem from a single Urtext, and that the Hebrew Scriptures equally derive from a fixed and stable primary archetype,22 to which Jewish authorities had accorded official sanction in the 2nd century CE: Es ergiebt sich also, dass unsere hebräischen handschriften des alten testaments auf ein einziges exemplar zurückgehen, dem sogar die korrektur seiner schreibfehler als korrektur treu nachgeahmt und dessen zufällige unvollkommenheiten sie herübergenommen haben.23 Therefore, it was reasoned that the discrepancies between manuscripts of the transmitted Greek translations, foremost the Septuagint, can be traced to one archetype, or in E.F.K. Rosenmüller’s less stringent formulation, one Urrezension,24 which in many features differed from the Hebrew version current at the time. As a result of various scribal, linguistic, and literary factors (lapsus calami), haplography and dittography, interchange of graphically similar letters and similarly sounding consonants, as well as premeditated linguistic and conceptual 22

23 24

Spinoza, Tractatus, chapter 10, maintained that the extant codices of MT are faithful copies of possibly not more than two or three exemplars. Sic! See de Lagarde (Anmerkungen), apud Aptowitzer, Schriftwort, 4. Rosenmüller, Handbuch.

Introduction

7

changes, in the course of time the primary uniformity of the original Hebrew version, like that of the ancient translations, dissolved into a pluriformity or multiformity25 of the transmitted text. This pluriformity, it is said, subsequently was hammered into a secondary uniformity of each of the three major witnesses to the biblical text: the masoretic version (MT), the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), and the Septuagint (LXX). At the time, the assertion that all extant manuscripts of the Bible ultimately derive from a single manuscript was decidedly considered correct.26 However, within a century after the initial promulgation of the Urtext proposition, scholars voiced reservations, which culminated in Paul Kahle’s propagation of his “textus receptus and vulgar texts” thesis. In this designation, the term vulgar defines popular or vernacular wordings, somewhat like Lieberman’s vulgata or ÁÇÀÅŢ, viz., “the common texts of the Bible (which) were not simply erroneous texts. They represented a variant text”, which perhaps was not adjusted to an officially approved version.27 In contrast, according to Lieberman, MT ab initio was based on óÁÉÀ¹ÑĚŸ, the most reliable manuscripts available at the time.28 This biased judgment is disproved by the fact that MT is shot through with evident scribal mistakes, like e.g. in Jer 41:9. Here, the correct reading #!#!+#:#, “this is a big cistern”, is reflected in LXX (48:9): ÎÉñ¸É Äñº¸ ÌÇıÌĠ ëÊÌÀÅ.29 In contrast, the MT reading ' !)!: