The Dismembered Bible: Cutting and Pasting Scripture in Antiquity 3161598601, 9783161598609, 9783161598616

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament Herausgegeben von Konrad Schmid (Zürich) · Mark S. Smith (Princeton) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen) · Andrew Teeter (Harvard)

143

Idan Dershowitz

The Dismembered Bible Cutting and Pasting Scripture in Antiquity

Mohr Siebeck

Idan Dershowitz: born 1982; undergraduate and graduate training at the Hebrew University, following several years of yeshiva study; 2017 elected to the Harvard Society of Fellows; currently Chair of Hebrew Bible and Its Exegesis at the University of Potsdam.

ISBN 978 3-16-159860-9 / eISBN 978-3-16-159861-6 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-159861-6 ISSN 0940-4155 / eISSN 2568-8359 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2021  by 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, printed by Gulde Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Acknowledgements I am grateful for the opportunity to acknowledge a few of the many people who have contributed to this work. Yair Zakovitch, my MA advisor, was supportive and instrumental in the early stages of my research into this subject, and he had many keen suggestions on how to broaden and develop my research into this work. Alexander Rofé helped me to better structure my arguments, and he had several insightful suggestions regarding the nitty-gritty as well. His unique approach and pioneering ideas regarding the materiality of redaction have influenced me greatly. I first met Leeor Gottlieb when I started my undergraduate studies at Hebrew University. He taught me then how to utilize Accordance’s most obscure functions, which I have been using ever since. His important work on an underappreciated category of parablepsis has been most helpful in my own research. Orly Goldwasser has been a mentor and role model. Her work on Egyptian classifiers has shed light on a side of ancient Egyptian culture that seemed beyond reach. She achieved this not by discovering a new text or artifact, but by examining old data in a profoundly novel way. ‫הלוואי על כולנו‬. Konrad Schmid and David Carr read versions of this work and offered helpful comments. I am deeply thankful for the patience and wise guidance of my doctoral supervisor, Shimon Gesundheit. Shimon was unfailingly supportive and forever generous with his time, and I feel incredibly fortunate to have had him as my Doktorvater. I hope some of Shimon’s thoughtfulness, caution, and open-mind­ edness have rubbed off on me. Savta and Saba, Chana and Uri Levy, gave me my first Tanach – a beautiful Breuer edition – which I loved and jealously guarded for many years. As the most openhearted and least cynical person I know, Savta is a constant inspiration. Saba ‫ ז״ל‬was the first to introduce me to statistics, which has impacted my research – method and results alike. He was also a crypto–text critic. My grandmother, Netta Kohn Dor-Shav, has always encouraged me to think independently, even (or, perhaps, especially) in the face of authority. She herself embodies this ethos, and I am thankful to have inherited it; it underpins everything I do. Our many years as neighbors in Jerusalem have made the ocean between us seem that much vaster.

VI

Acknowledgements

My grandfather, Zecharia Dor-Shav, and I have been arguing about the pshat of the parasha ever since I learned how to read. I still remember one of our first disagreements, regarding the identity of ‫התנינם הגדולים‬. (Dinosaurs, of course!) Our discussions are always enriching, and I still love trading the insights of his rebbe for those of modern Bible scholars. Toward the end of my dissertation writing, as I faced obstacles of my own making, he shared with me his similar experiences from half a century ago. These conversations were as effective as they were affecting. I am indebted to my parents for their tireless support and enthusiastic encouragement. My mother, Schulamith Chava Halevy, is a poet and scholar. Her sensitivity to nuance is incomparable, and her perspective is invariably unique and thought provoking. My father, Nachum Dershowitz, instilled in me as a child so many of the skills and interests that now inform my work: a love of puzzles, the habit of reading like an editor, and a recognition of the vitality of methodological rigor. He has also been an invaluable sounding board as I’ve thought through many of the ideas here, and he is my best critic. My sister, Erga, is an uncommonly insightful reader. Her penchant for succinctness and clarity has made this a more polished and better-argued piece of writing. In my first conversation with my then-future father-in-law, Steven Prawer, I shared with him my intention to study quantum physics at university. He was duly impressed. Mercifully, he has since forgiven my bait-and-switch maneuver. Steven’s trenchant questions often catch me off guard, and they always lead me to think more deeply – and more clearly – about my ideas. Michelle Prawer’s endless energy and unbreakable discipline are astounding and inspiring in equal measure. My regular meetings with my friend, Maria Metzler, were immensely productive, and they helped me maintain a semblance of consistency throughout much of my dissertation writing. Maria also masterfully edited the book version of this work. I cannot express how lucky and grateful I feel to have Ronit Prawer as my partner in life. She supported my reckless decision to major in Hebrew Bible all those years ago, and without her by my side, I could not possibly have made it to this point. We have been together for practically our entire adult lives – ‫ויהיו‬ ‫בעיני כימים אחדים‬. I dedicate this work to Ronit with all my love. Cambridge, MA, 2019

Idan Dershowitz

Table of Contents Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. The Jumbled Bible: Established Causes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.1. Misplaced Interlinear and Marginal Supplements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.2. Dislocated Sheets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.3. Deliberate Textual Arrangement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.3.1. Genesis 35:22b–29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.3.2. Joshua 8:30–35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.3.3. Ezekiel 37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.3.4. Transferral of Colophons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3. The Jumbled Bible: A New Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.1. Cut-and-Paste Errors: Textual Migrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.1.1. Genesis 7:7–16, Noah Enters the Ark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.1.2. Genesis 8:10–14, Noah Exits the Ark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 3.1.3. Genesis 30:25–28, Jacob Asks Laban for Leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 3.2. Cut-and-Paste Errors: Textual Transpositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 3.2.1. Genesis 48, The Blessings of Joseph and Sons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 3.2.2. Exodus 16, Manna and Quail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 3.2.3. Exodus 33–34, Moses and YHWH Go in Circles . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 3.2.4. 1 Samuel 28:3–30:31, The “Witch” of Endor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 3.3. Cut-and-Paste Errors: Other Jumbling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 4. Methodological Ramifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 4.1. A New Category of Parablepsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 4.2. Diagnosing Jumbling Causes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 4.3. Conventional vs. Cut-and-Paste Redaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

VIII

Table of Contents

5. Ancient Analogues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 5.1. “All Souls Deuteronomy” (4Q41) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 5.2. 4QJubileesa (4Q216) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 5.3. Tomoi Synkollēsimoi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 5.4. Papyrus of Ani . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 5.5. Patched Scrolls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 5.5.1. 4QpaleoExodusᵐ (4Q22) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 5.5.2. Rhind Mathematical Papyrus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 5.5.3. “Kahun” Gynaecological Papyrus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 5.5.4. Sefer Abisha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 5.6. Julius Africanus’s Kestoi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 5.7. Marcus Tullius Cicero’s On Glory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 6. Modern Analogues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 6.1. The Little Gidding Concordances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 6.2. The Jefferson Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 6.3. Commonplace Books and Cut-Ups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 7. Summary and Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 7.1. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 7.2. Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 7.2.1. Scribal Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 7.2.2. Conservative Redaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 7.2.3. Oral vs. Written Redaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 7.2.4. Material Redaction and the Historical-Critical Method . . . . . . . 149 7.3. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Index of Primary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Index of Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 General Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

1. Introduction “His errors … are the portals of discovery.” – James Joyce, Ulysses

In contemplating the composition history of the Pentateuch and Former Prophets, scholars have focused a great deal of attention on theological and political motives for textual collation and intervention.1 In particular, much has been written about the purpose and historical background of the Pentateuch’s redaction.2 Since the late twentieth century, there has been increasing interest in establishing the nature and scope of biblical editing on the basis of “empirical” bib1 Theorization on the topic is nearly as old as the discipline of biblical studies itself. See, e. g., Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, trans. J. S. Black and A. Menzies (Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black, 1885), 495–97, et passim; Abraham Kuenen, The Five Books of Moses, trans. John Muir (London: Williams & Norgate, 1877), 27–33. More recently, Peter Frei and Erhard Blum have revived and augmented an influential theory according to which the Pentateuch received “imperial authorization” from the Achaemenid administration. For a critical review of this subject, see Konrad Schmid, “The Persian Imperial Authorization as a Historical Problem and as a Biblical Construct: A Plea for Distinctions in the Current Debate,” in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance, ed. Bernard M. Levinson and Gary N. Knoppers (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 23– 38. Cf. Jean-Louis Ska, “‘Persian Imperial Authorization’: Some Question Marks,” in Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch, ed. James W. Watts (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2001), 161–82; Christophe Laurent Nihan, “The Emergence of the Pentateuch as ‘Torah’,” Religion Compass 4, no. 6 (2010): 353–64. 2 For a recent discussion of the concept of biblical redaction, see John Van Seters, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), especially chs. 6–7. Van Seters considers the terms “redactor” and “editor” to be anachronistic and inapt in biblical contexts, preferring “author” or “historian,” for instance. This is not the place to address all of Van Seters’s arguments; I will say only that although the modern editing profession has little in common with ancient activities that scholars often refer to as editing or redaction, the same is true of Van Seters’s preferred terms. Furthermore, leaving aside overarching questions regarding the composition histories of the Pentateuch and other biblical works, as long as there exist some passages that conflate multiple sources that were once separate – and even if those sources are not parts of cohesive documents – then there must be cases of biblical composition that differ greatly from traditional authorship. While I readily admit that the terms are imperfect, I use “redaction” and “editing” to refer to the conflation, supplementation, and reworking of existing texts – all well-established phenomena – reserving “authorship” for the initial production of a freestanding text. See Bernard M. Levinson, “The Right Chorale”: Studies in Biblical Law and Interpretation (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 200.

2

1. Introduction

lical and non-biblical data and their interpretation.3 These studies tend to focus on variance in content – whether on a textual or literary level – in manuscripts of ancient texts. In addition, a paradigm commonly labeled “New Philology” has crystallized in the past several decades, aiming to bring the manuscripts themselves, and the scribes who produced them, into higher relief.4 Bernard Cerquiglini, a French linguist and scholar of medieval literature, is usually portrayed as the progenitor of this approach.5 Rejecting Lachmannian stemmatology, which is interested in manuscripts principally as tools for Urtext recovery,6 New Philologists embrace codicological tools and insights, highlighting the variants’ intrinsic values.7 Most importantly, according to this approach, a text’s meaning is inextricable from its material manifestations and those objects’ methods of production. 3 See

Jeffrey H. Tigay, ed., Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985); Hans Jürgen Tertel, Text and Transmission: An Empirical Model for the Literary Development of Old Testament Narratives (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994); Reinhard Müller, Juha Pakkala, and Bas ter Haar Romeny, Evidence of Editing: Growth and Change of Texts in the Hebrew Bible (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014); Reinhard Müller and Juha Pakkala, eds., Insights into Editing in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East: What Does Documented Evidence Tell Us about the Transmission of Authoritative Texts? (Leuven: Peeters, 2017). For alternative perspectives, see, e. g., Raymond F. Person, Jr. and Robert Rezetko, eds., Empirical Models Challenging Biblical Criticism (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016); Seth Sanders, “What if There Aren’t Any Empirical Models for Pentateuchal Criticism?” in Contextualizing Israel’s Sacred Writings: Ancient Literacy, Orality, and Literary Production, ed. Brian B. Schmidt (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015), 281–304. 4  “Material Philology” is some scholars’ preferred designation, following Stephen G. Nichols, “Why Material Philology? Some Thoughts,” Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 116, Supplement (1997): 10–30. 5 Bernard Cerquiglini, Éloge de la variante: Histoire critique de la philologie (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1989); English edition: Bernard Cerquiglini, In Praise of the Variant: A Critical History of Philology, trans. Betsy Wing (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999). 6  In the field of Hebrew Bible, this approach is often associated with Paul de Lagarde. See especially Paul A. de Lagarde, Anmerkungen zur griechischen Übersetzung der Proverbien (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1863), 1–4. 7 Indeed, this often goes hand in hand with a rejection of the notion that all textual witnesses of a work derive from a single progenitor. Paul Zumthor developed similar ideas some two decades before Cerquiglini, although his focus was on variance due to oral performance and transmission, which he termed mouvance (Paul Zumthor, Essai de poétique médiévale [Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1972]; I thank Jacqueline Vayntrub for this reference). Several decades earlier still, Paul Kahle proposed a similar thesis, according to which a literary work might previously have had disparate textual instantiations, which he termed Vulgärtexte, that were later consolidated into synthetic versions, or in some cases suppressed. Kahle saw this as a pervasive and ongoing phenomenon, suggesting that extant manuscripts do not always have a single common ancestor. See Paul Kahle, “Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Pentateuchtextes,” Theologische Studien und Kritiken 88 (1915): 436–37, et passim. The roots of this approach were already present in Kahle’s doctoral dissertation: Paul Kahle, “Textkritische und lexikalische Bemerkungen zum samaritanischen Pentateuchtargum” (PhD diss., University of Halle, 1898). Cf. Soferim 6:4 on the purported textual consolidation of three Pentateuch scrolls in the Second Temple period.

1. Introduction

3

In the introduction to her edited volume of essays on New Philology in a biblical context, Liv Ingeborg Lied writes: [W]hen studying a text, it is important to also study the manuscript, the relationship between the text and for instance the form and layout of the manuscript, as well as other features of the material text carrier: other texts collected in the same manuscript, frontmatter, colophons and marginal notes, bindings, and cartonnage, etc. Material artifacts come into being at particular times, in particular places, for particular purposes. […] The emphasis is placed firmly on extant texts as they are found in actual manuscripts, with no intention of using them to reconstruct a hypothetical prior text, or to make them serve as stand-ins for such a text. Texts as they appear in manuscripts are not seen as mere stepping-stones, or obstacles to be overcome, on the way to the ideal text, but are instead the primary focus. By this shift in focus, texts can be studied in the context of the manuscripts containing them, taking seriously the various media cultures that shaped the way readers engaged with texts in their material context, and emphasizing the interpretation of texts in the context of their use.8

This newfound focus on the material aspect of ancient texts is a substantial development, and its currency within biblical studies is growing.9 It has opened the door to in-depth analyses of textual artifacts – manuscripts – that had previously been studied chiefly for their stemmatological value. For instance, recent studies of Papyrus 967 and 4QJoshuaa (discussed in § 2.3.2– 2.3.3, below) are interested in those manuscripts as examples of scribal creativity in specific times and places in history, and not just for the odd “original” variant they might contain. And the secondary additions to 4Q448 (see § 2.3.4, below) tell us something about the people and processes behind this textual artifact, much of which would be masked in any descended manuscript. Notwithstanding these developments in biblical studies and beyond, the materiality of biblical redaction – that is, how the texts of the Bible were physically edited and compiled – seems as out of reach as ever. Despite the increased interest in materiality associated with the advent of New Philology, this paradigm – like its antecedents – is not well suited for assessing the material methods of biblical redaction, due to the meager material evidence from the pre-Hellenistic biblical era.10 Relevant archaeological artifacts, epigraphic material, and contemporary accounts relating to editorial activity are simply too scant.  8 Liv Ingeborg Lied, ed., Snapshots of Evolving Traditions: Jewish and Christian Manuscript Culture, Textual Fluidity, and New Philology, TU 175 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2017), 11–16.  9 Similar trends can be observed in kindred disciplines. A recent Assyriological article depicts a generational shift: “Understanding cuneiform tablets as archaeological objects is a practice that had few exponents for much of the twentieth century, when Assyriologists too often gave all their attention to the inscribed text as a self-contained intellectual resource disembodied from the medium on which it was written” (Farouk N. H. Al-Rawi and Andrew R. George, “Back to the Cedar Forest: The Beginning and End of Tablet V of the Standard Babylonian Epic of Gilgameš,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 66 [2014]: 71). 10 Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), 75–108, et passim.

4

1. Introduction

The methods of biblical redaction have thus rarely been considered from a material perspective, much less so in any systematic manner. In the apparent absence of hard data, most scholars simply take for granted that redaction was a scribal endeavor. In an oft-cited passage, Susan Niditch depicts a common imagining of documentary redaction: The work of combining sources takes place in some library work room or scriptorium where the sources can be laid out partially or fully side by side on tables or benches or on the floor; a third or fourth roll is also laid out for preparation of the new, revised edition. [The redactor has] his various written sources laid out before him as he chooses this verse or that, includes this tale not that, edits, elaborates, all in a library setting.11

Niditch herself finds the scene to be utterly far-fetched, leading her to reject the idea that documentary redaction took place at all: Did the redactor need three colleagues to hold J, E, and P for him? Did each read the text out loud, and did he ask them to pause until he jotted down his selections, working like a secretary with three tapes dictated by the boss?12

It is important to note that this elaborate depiction – and its rejection – are not accompanied by internal biblical evidence, comparative data from the ancient Near East, or inferences from excavated artifacts. The only redactional technique that Niditch entertains is a scribal one, and she deems it an anachronistic projection of biblical scholars: “I suggest that the above imagining comes from our world and not from that of ancient Israel.”13 Some scholars have imagined a less scribal mode of redaction – specifically one involving razor and paste, rather than reed and papyrus or parchment. Here too, however, data and analysis are thin, and the elaborate depictions tend to be polemical. Just as Niditch dismisses scribal redaction, Albin Lesky argues that a cut-and-paste technique is surely an anachronism dreamed up by philologists: Es ist ganz unvermeidlich, sich alle diese Redaktoren mit geschriebenen Texten in der Hand vorzustellen, da streichend, dort einsetzend und verschiedene Schnittstellen aneinanderpassend. Von Schreibtisch, Schere und Kleister zu sprechen, ist natürlich ein boshafter Anachronismus, aber die Richtung, in der alle Annahmen dieser Art liegen, scheint er mir treffend zu bezeichnen. Buchphilologen haben diese Theorien erdacht und Arbeit an Büchern und mit Büchern ist für sie die Voraussetzung geblieben. It is quite irresistible to imagine all these redactors with written texts in their hands, deleting here, inserting there, and fitting together various passages they have snipped out. To speak of writing desk, scissors, and paste is, naturally, a blatant anachronism – but appropriate, it seems to me, to indicate the direction in which all suppositions of this kind

11 Susan Niditch, Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature, Library of Ancient Israel (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 112–13. 12 Ibid., 113. 13 Ibid., 112.

1. Introduction

5

tend. Philology authors have thought up these theories, and for them work on books and with books has remained the basic assumption.14

But if texts were ever conflated or otherwise reworked in ancient times, this had to have been done somehow. Few scholars today  – including those who have long abandoned the Documentary Hypothesis – would deny that some biblical passages contain multiple literary strands, and that these strands are not invariably interdependent.15 Likewise, there is wide consensus that many texts in the Hebrew Bible are the product of supplementation. I believe that the techniques of these ancient redactors have not been sufficiently explored, and that the existing philological tools used to analyze these techniques are inadequate. In this work, I endeavor to reconstruct material editorial processes, relying in part on an analysis of redactional error – a phenomenon whose forensic utility, as it were, has not been thoroughly appreciated. This book focuses on disordered texts in the Hebrew Bible. In some cases, biblical authors chose to construct narratives that do not progress in chronological order, leading to intentional disorder. Other times, editors decided to reorganize texts for various reasons. Both of these phenomena will be addressed, but the focus will be on a third phenomenon: biblical passages that are jumbled due to error. In many of these cases, scholars agree on the error, as well as the assumed original order. What they typically neglect to consider is the practical matter of how the error occurred. When scholars do reflect on the real-world aspects of such errors, it can lead to an impasse. On the one hand, the existence of disordered texts is hard to deny. On the other hand, plausible mechanisms for accidental jumbling have not been forthcoming. Henry Smith’s comments on a potential case of jumbling in 1 Samuel 24 are illustrative: “This is obviously an unnatural order […] But it is difficult to see how the dislocation took place. It

14 Albin Lesky, “Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Homerischen Epos,” in Festschrift für Dietrich Kralik, dargebracht von Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern, ed. Albin Lesky, Walter Steinhauser, et al. (Horn, South Austria: Verlag Ferdinand Berger, 1954), 2. Translation by John Van Seters, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 175. Lesky is referring here to the Homeric corpus. 15  For overviews of current approaches to Pentateuch criticism, see Konrad Schmid, “Has European Scholarship Abandoned the Documentary Hypothesis? Some Reminders on Its History and Remarks on Its Current Status,” in The Pentateuch: International  Perspectives on Current Research, ed. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz, FAT 78 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 17–30; David M. Carr, “Changes in Pentateuchal Criticism,” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, ed. Magne Sæbø, vol. 3/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 433–66; Adele Reinhartz et al., “The JBL Forum,” Journal of Biblical Literature 133, no. 3 (2014): 647–81. See also Jakob Wöhrle, “There’s No Master Key! The Literary Character of the Priestly Stratum and the Formation of the Pentateuch,” in The Formation of the Pentateuch; Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America, ed. Jan C. Gertz et al., FAT 111 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 391–403.

6

1. Introduction

cannot be intentional, for there is no motive for it; the accidents of transmission do not generally work in this way.”16 I will argue that such accidents often do work this way, and the key to understanding their genesis lies in reimagining the material methods of redaction. Namely, editors sometimes worked by assembling inscribed snippets of text, rather than writing a fresh version on a blank scroll. Several scholars have discussed ancient scribal technology, if not in connection with editorial activity per se.17 In particular, Emanuel Tov has written a number of articles on Judean scribal realia in which he considers the relevance of material constraints – the dimensions of margins, for instance – for biblical criticism.18 However, Tov’s studies pertain to a later era than the period in question, and his investigations are largely limited to leather scrolls, which make up the vast majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Given that the first redacted editions of the biblical works in question are more likely to have been written on papyrus, as discussed below,19 different considerations and constraints would have been at play. One must therefore turn to ancient Egypt and the Classical world for more pertinent data regarding the compilation of papyrus scrolls.20 Vis-à-vis the impact of material factors on textual order, Haim Gevaryahu has argued that in antiquity colophons were frequently transferred from the ends of units to their beginnings.21 According to Gevaryahu, this phenomenon may have been born of material constraints. Appending material to the edges of scrolls, whether in the available space or by attaching additional sheets, would have been simpler than interpolating material in the heart of the unit. This observation is not limited to colophons and must be considered whenever the cause of a textual transposition is contemplated. To name one example, some have proposed on the basis of literary and epigraphic evidence that a sheet with new material was tacked onto the beginning of a pre-“canonical” incarnation of 16 Henry Preserved Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Samuel, ICC 8 (New York: Scribner, 1904), 217. 17  An important collection of studies on the topic in an Egyptian context is Paul T. Ni­chol­ son and Ian Shaw, eds., Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). 18 E. g., Emanuel Tov, “Copying of a Biblical Scroll,” Journal of Religious History 26, no. 2 (2002): 189–209; Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah (Leiden: Brill, 2004); and especially Emanuel Tov, “The Writing of Early Scrolls: Implications for the Literary Analysis of Hebrew Scripture,” in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible and Qumran: Collected Essays, Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 121 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 206–20. 19 See § 7.2.1, below. 20 See § 5.3–5.5, below. 21 See, e. g., Haim Moshe Itzhak Gevaryahu, “‫לחקר התופעה של העברת חומר קולופוני מסיומי‬ ‫הטקסטים לפתיחתם‬,” Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies 2 (1977): 37–48; Haim Moshe Itzhak Gevaryahu, “Biblical Colophons,” in Congress Volume: Edinburgh, 1974, VTSup 28 (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 42–59. See discussion below.

1. Introduction

7

Jubilees, thus creating the present introductory chapter.22 Also pertinent to this study is Alexander Rofé’s suggestion that the sheets of ancient scrolls sometimes came loose and were then accidentally transposed, leading to jumbled texts.23 Given the multiplicity of factors that could lead to textual jumbling, an important element of my research will be the development of a systematized methodology to distinguish between various potential causes.24 In chapter 2, I discuss known causes for textual jumbling in the Hebrew Bible. Chapter 3 contains a philological analysis of several passages that appear to exhibit unexplained jumbling errors. These mistakes, I argue, betray the modus operandi of the editors who formed them, revealing parts of the Pentateuch and Former Prophets to be literal cut-and-paste jobs  – not the work of redactorscribes. Chapter 4 covers the methodological ramifications of this conclusion. In chapter 5, I review several examples of patched scrolls in the ancient world and investigate instances of material – that is, non-scribal – redaction. Chapter 6 examines modern works produced by means of cut-and-paste compilation. These artifacts prove to be surprisingly useful comparanda, allowing us to observe the process “in action,” complete with concomitant errors. Insights relating to cognitive studies are also discussed here. Chapter 7 addresses several consequences of these findings for biblical research.

22 Charlotte Hempel, “The Place of the Book of Jubilees at Qumran and Beyond,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context, ed. Timothy H. Lim (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 179–96. See below. 23 See, for instance, Alexander Rofé, “‫שאלת חיבורה של פרשת ‘וילך’ (דברים לא) לאור השערה בדבר‬ ‫חילופי עמודות בנוסח המקרא‬,” Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 3 (1978): 59–76. 24 See § 4.2, below.

2. The Jumbled Bible: Established Causes “We call it cutting. It isn’t exactly that. Cutting implies severing something. It really should be called assembly. Mosaic is assembling something to create a whole.” – Alfred Hitchcock

Numerous instances of apparent jumbling in the Hebrew Bible have been observed over the centuries, and various explanations have been proposed to explain them. One such category is the class of “dismembered scripture” (‫)מקרא מסורס‬.1 Talmudic and medieval scholars would occasionally “dismember” (‫מסרס‬/‫)מסריס‬ biblical texts in various ways – typically through textual rearrangement – as an exegetical tool. Pesiqta de Rab Kahana 10:2: ‫בטח בי״י ועשה טוב שכן ארץ ורעה אמונה ר׳ חגי בשם ר׳ יצחק מסריס הדין קרייא עשה טוב ובטח בי״י‬ ‫להגרונימוס שיצא לשער את המידות וראה אותו אחד והתחיל מיטמן מלפניו אמ׳ לו מה לך מיטמן מלפני‬ .‫שער מדותיך ואל תתירא הד״ה דכת׳ עשה טוב ובטח בי״י‬ “Trust in the LORD, and do good; so you will live in the land, and enjoy security” (Ps 37:3). Rabbi Haggai, citing Rabbi Isaac, dismembers it, reading: “Do good, and trust in the LORD.” There was once a marketplace commissioner who set out to evaluate measures. He was spotted by someone who tried to hide from him. [The commissioner] said to

1 The root ‫ סרס‬is multivalent and its history is convoluted. In this context, I prefer the translation “dismembered,” rather than “transposed,” “reversed,” etc. (For the more common rendition, see, e. g., Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, vol. 2 [New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1903], 1029; William G. [Gershon Zev] Braude and Israel J. Kapstein, eds., Pĕsiḳta dĕ-Raḇ Kahana: R. Kahana’s Compilation of Discourses for Sabbaths and Festal Days, 2nd ed. [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society Press, 2002], 251.) What began as the phrase ša rēši (“the one who is the head”) in Akkadian became a common noun meaning “chief,” which was then sometimes used in the specialized sense of “chief of harem,” leading to the sense of “eunuch” (see HALOT 2:769–70; BDB 710). Once this definition developed, it was only natural for there to be a corresponding verb meaning “to make a eunuch” or “castrate.” That verb apparently evolved into the more abstract “mangle” or “dismember,” which could then be applied metaphorically, as in the cases discussed here.

2. The Jumbled Bible: Established Causes

9

him, “Why are you hiding from me? Evaluate your measures and fear not. This is what is written: ‘Do good, and trust in the LORD.’”2

This idea of scriptural dismemberment was not always applied to scholarly exegesis, as in the example above, but could even describe the state of the biblical passage prior to the scholar’s rearrangement. According to this view, some biblical texts are jumbled in the extant manuscripts and must be read out of sequence for their original meaning to become clear. B. Sotah 38a: ‫רבי יאשיה אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר בכל המקום אשר אזכיר את שמי אבוא אליך בכל מקום סלקא‬ ‫דעתך אלא מקרא זה מסורס הוא בכל מקום אשר אבוא אליך וברכתיך שם אזכיר את שמי והיכן אבוא אליך‬ .‫וברכתיך בבית הבחירה שם אזכיר את שמי בבית הבחירה‬ Rabbi Josiah says: “This is not necessary. For it says, ‘in every place where I cause my name to be mentioned I will come to you [and bless you]’ (Exod 20:24). Would you truly entertain the idea that [God causes his name to be mentioned] ‘in every place?’ Rather, this is a [case of ] dismembered scripture: ‘in every place where I come to you and bless you, there I will cause my name to be mentioned.’ And where will I come to you and bless you? In the chosen temple. There, in the chosen temple, I will cause my name to be mentioned.”3

In this example, Rabbi Josiah argues that the text of Exod 20:24, in its familiar form, resulted from a transposition and is therefore in need of repair. Whether or not these talmudic examples attest to genuine lost variants, they – and the many other examples of dismembered scripture4 – clearly reflect an acceptance of the idea that the text of the Hebrew Bible is sometimes jumbled.5 More speculatively, it is conceivable that the rabbis were familiar with redactional techniques that made texts more susceptible to dismemberment.6

2 My translation. Braude glosses over the fact that the market commissioner’s “dismembered” version is cited as scripture, substituting “this is what is written” with “hence” (Braude, Pĕsiḳta dĕ-Raḇ Kahana, 251). 3 My translation. Cf. Sifre 39:1 on Num 6:23; Numbers Rabbah 11:4; Yalqut Shimoni (Penta­ teuch) 305:2, 710:5. 4 See, e. g., Genesis Rabbah 58; Leviticus Rabbah 22; y. Berakhot 9:5, 68a; y. Rosh Hashanah 2:8, 14a; y. Ta’anit 4:1, 18a; y. Nazir 7:2, 35b; Sifra Shemini Mekilta de-Milu’im 2:29 on Lev 9:22 and 2:41 on Lev 10:6; Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishma’el Vayyissa’ 4; Yalqut Shimoni (Pentateuch) 260:6, 524:2, 526:3. 5 That “there is no early or late in the Torah” (‫ )אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה‬is a related, if wholly exegetical, rabbinic notion. See, e. g., b. Pesahim 6b; b. Sanhedrin 49b; Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishma’el Shira 7; Sifre 64:1 on Num 9:1. 6 See discussion of Africanus’s Kestoi in § 5.6, below.

QIsaa here]

etails here]

Words of es here]

10

2. The Jumbled Bible: Established Causes

2.1. Misplaced Interlinear and Marginal Supplements The phenomena of marginal and interlinear insertions are very well attested and are indeed present in a substantial portion of manuscripts, biblical and otherwise. Insertions are sometimes self-corrections: an accidentally omitted word might be inserted between the lines of a manuscript, for instance. More often, though, they represent an addition by a later scribe. Some secondary insertions are explanatory glosses, some are corrections based on other manuscripts or on memories of divergent versions, and some are creative additions. What all these examples of insertions have in common is that they generate fertile ground for future error. A word or phrase written between lines in one manuscript might be incorporated by a later scribe in any number of different positions in the new copy, and the same is true of marginal insertions. The following images of 1QIsaiaha (the Great Isaiah Scroll from Qumran) and 4QDibHama (Words of the Luminaries) illustrate the problem.

Fig. 1. Section from 1QIsaiaha (columns XXXI–XXXIII) displaying interlinear, marginal, and hybrid insertions. (Photo: Courtesy of the Israel Museum, Jerusalem)

2.1. Misplaced Interlinear and Marginal Supplements

11

Fig. 2. Details from 1QIsaiaha (columns XXVIII–XXIX and XXXI) displaying confusing interlinear and marginal insertions. (Photo: Courtesy of the Israel Museum, Jerusalem)

Fig. 3. Detail of 4QDibHama fragment (4Q504; Words of the Luminaries) displaying a confusing interlinear insertion near the center. Courtesy of the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. (Photo: Shai Halevi)

12

2. The Jumbled Bible: Established Causes

In light of the above, any encounter with jumbled texts must take into consideration the possibility of misplaced marginal and interlinear insertions.7 Even in the absence of divergent manuscripts and after multiple generations of transcription – that is, long after the insertion has been incorporated into the running text – the addition can often be inferred from internal literary evidence. A good example is Genesis 10, which includes two widely accepted examples of migrating insertions. Genesis 10:12 reads: “Resen between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city” (‫וּבין כָּ לַ ח ִהוא ָה ִעיר ַהגְּ דֹלָ ה‬ ֵ ‫)וְ ֶאת ֶר ֶסן ֵבּין נִ ינְ וֵ ה‬. Verse 14 reads: “Path­rusim, Casluhim, from which the Philistines come, and Caphtorim” (‫וְ ֶאת‬ ‫)פּ ְת ֻר ִסים וְ ֶאת כַּ ְסלֻ ִחים ֲא ֶשׁר יָ ְצאוּ ִמ ָשּׁם ְפּלִ ְשׁ ִתּים וְ ֶאת כַּ ְפתּ ִֹרים‬. ַ Each of these verses contains a gloss that is quite clearly misplaced. First, Nineveh is referred to elsewhere in the Bible as “the great city” (Jonah 1:2, 3:2, 4:11; Jdt 1:1), and it was indeed a great city in the ancient world. As for the Philistines, they are elsewhere associated with Caphtor(im), not Casluhim (Jer 47:4; Amos 9:7). It appears that both of these problematic phrases had once been added in the margin or between the lines as elaborations, and a later scribe subsequently inserted them into the running text in the wrong position.8 Another example of an insertion that shifted position in a later text is found in Numbers 10. Verses 35–36, which comprise the Song of the Ark, are located in slightly different places in MT and LXX. In the latter, they appear before, not after, verse 34. Furthermore, they are marked with inverted nunim, or antisigmas (ἀντίσιγμα), in most Masoretic manuscripts, highlighting their problematic sta­ tus. Midrash Proverbs on 26:24 records the following: “‘Whenever the ark set out [etc.]’ (Num 10:35) is dotted both above and below. Rabbi [Judah the Prince] said: It had been its own scroll but was suppressed” (‫ויהי בנסוע הארון בין למעלה‬ ‫)בין למטה נקוד רבי אמר ספר היה בפני עצמו ונגנז‬.9 The Sifre’s version differs slightly: “‘Whenever the ark set out [etc.]’ (Num 10:35) has dots above and below, because this was not its place. Rabbi [Judah the Prince] said: Because it is its own scroll” (‫ויהי בנסוע הארון נקוד עליו מלמעלה ומלמטה מפני שלא היה זה ממקומו רבי אומר‬ ‫)מפני שהוא ספר בעצמו‬.10 According to these traditions, the Song of the Ark was marked off with dots rather than inverted nunim, but the point remains the same: something is awry. Rabbi Judah the Prince in Midrash Proverbs (and also arguably in Sifre) and the anonymous scholar in Sifre agree that these two verses did not originally appear in their current position, whether because they had been inserted from another  7 For

more on these phenomena, see Tov, Textual Criticism, 275–85. e. g., John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, ICC 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1910), 212–13.  9 Salomon Buber, ed., Midrash Mishlei (Vilnius: Romm, 1893), 100. See Sid Z. Leiman, “The Inverted Nuns at Numbers 10:35–36 and the Book of Eldad and Medad,” Journal of Biblical Literature 93, no. 3 (1974): 348–55. 10 Sifre 84:1 on Num 10:35. Cf. b. Shabbat 115b–116a.  8 See,

2.2. Dislocated Sheets

13

scroll or because of jumbling. (It is impossible to say which order the rabbis were commenting on, that of the extant MT manuscripts or that of the LXX. The list of non-Masoretic midrashim is long.11) Despite the traditional location of the inverted nunim and dots, it is not entirely self-evident which section would be the later appendage. It is important to note that the sequence ACBD (33-Song-34–37 in LXX vs. 33–34-Song-37 in MT) can indicate a secondary B (v. 34) just as well as it can a secondary C (Song). Whatever the case may be, it appears that this section underwent supplementation in antiquity, likely by means of a marginal insertion. Two different scribes then copied the text, each choosing a different spot in the narrative to incorporate the supplement, which brought about at least one case of jumbling.12

2.2. Dislocated Sheets Alexander Rofé has suggested that “dislocation of columns in scrolls … seems to have occurred several times in Biblical books.” Specifically, he argues: “Dt. 16:22–17:7 stood originally between 13:1 and 13:2. Zach. 4:6aβ–10a breaks the account of the vision of 4:1–6aα–10b–14. Zach. 13:7 directly follows on 11:17.”13 He proposes that one such mishap occurred in Deuteronomy 31, as outlined below.14 According to Rofé, Deuteronomy 31, which describes Moses’s final preparations before his death, is a pastiche of multiple sources, as evidenced by the presence of two doublets: There are two separate appointments of Joshua (Deut 31:7–8 || 31:14–15, 23), and there are two distinct transferrals of the Law (Deut 31:9–13 || 24–27).

11  For a comparatively early list of non-Masoretic citations, see Akiva Eger, Gilyon HaShas on b. Shabbat 55b, elaborating on Tosafot, ad loc., s. v. ‫מעבירם כתיב‬. I am grateful to Shaye Cohen for these references. For more comprehensive treatments, see Viktor Aptowitzer, Das Schriftwort in der rabbinischen Literatur, 4 parts (Vienna: Alfred Hölder, 1906–15); Samuel Rosenfeld, ‫ספר‬ ‫( משפחת סופרים‬Vilnius: Romm, 1883). See also David Rosenthal, “‫על דרך טיפולם של חז״ל בחילופי‬ ‫נוסח במקר‬,” in Yair Zakovitch and Alexander Rofé, eds., Isaac Leo Seeligmann Volume: Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Rubinstein, 1983), 395–417. 12 1 Sam 24 may contain a similar example. Vss. 5b–6 there appear to belong after 8a, as noted by several scholars. (See P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., I Samuel, AB 8 [New York: Doubleday, 1980], 383–84, who observes that “it is difficult […] to explain how such a displacement could have come into the text.”) Vss. 5b–6 may be a marginal gloss added to provide a real-time account of David cutting off the corner of Saul’s robe, which was likely originally reported only retroactively in v. 12. Notably, David’s reported “stricken heart” in v. 6 stands in tension with the narrative’s continuation. 13 Alexander Rofé, “‫שאלת חיבורה של פרשת ‘וילך’ (דברים לא) לאור השערה בדבר חילופי עמודות בנוסח‬ ‫המקרא‬,” Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 3 (1978): x. (Excerpted from English abstract.) 14 Ibid., 59–76.

14

2. The Jumbled Bible: Established Causes

Joshua’s Appointment I (Deut 31:7–8)

Joshua’s Appointment II (Deut 31:14–15, 23)

Then Moses summoned Joshua and said to him in the sight of all Israel: “Be strong and bold, for you are the one who will go with this people into the land that the LORD has sworn to their ancestors to give them; and you will put them in possession of it. It is the LORD who goes before you. He will be with you; he will not fail you or forsake you. Do not fear or be dismayed.”

The LORD said to Moses, “Your time to die is near; call Joshua and present yourselves in the tent of meeting, so that I may commission him.” So Moses and Joshua went and presented themselves in the tent of meeting, and the LORD appeared at the tent in a pillar of cloud; the pillar of cloud stood at the entrance to the tent.

Transferral of the Law I (Deut 31:9–13)

Transferral of the Law II (Deut 31:24–27)

Then Moses wrote down this law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel. Moses commanded them: “Every seventh year, in the scheduled year of remission, during the festival of booths, when all Israel comes to appear before the LORD your God at the place that he will choose, you shall read this law before all Israel in their hearing. Assemble the people – men, women, and children, as well as the aliens residing in your towns – so that they may hear and learn to fear the LORD your God and to observe diligently all the words of this law, and so that their children, who have not known it, may hear and learn to fear the LORD your God, as long as you live in the land that you are crossing over the Jordan to possess.”

When Moses had finished writing down in a book the words of this law to the very end, Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying, “Take this book of the law and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God; let it remain there as a witness against you. For I know well how rebellious and stubborn you are. If you already have been so rebellious toward the LORD while I am still alive among you, how much more after my death!”

Then the LORD commissioned Joshua son of Nun and said, “Be strong and bold, for you shall bring the Israelites into the land that I promised them; I will be with you.”

Rofé argues that conflation and supplementation are not sufficient to explain the recurring disruptions to the narrative flow. Joshua’s appointment is interrupted when Moses abruptly commands the Levites to place the book of the law in the ark of the covenant, after which the appointment resumes without warning. Likewise, the teaching of Moses’s song to Israel begins in 31:22, is interrupted by Joshua’s appointment and the transferral of the law in verses 23–27, and resumes in verse 28, which, in turn, cuts off the transferral of law. Rofé notes that the distance between the first and second interruption is double that of the one between the second and the third (~720 vs. ~350 characters in MT) and proposes that the apparent jumbling was caused by a confusion of the order of the scroll’s­

2.2. Dislocated Sheets

15

Fig. 4. Rofé’s proposal.

columns, or sheets. The misplacement of a single column/sheet15 led the intended sequence – which we can call A-B-C-D-E – to become A-D-B-C-E.16 Rofé’s proposed original order is thus: 1–15 → 23–27 → 16–22 → 28–30.17 (See fig. 4.) 15 Columns are not synonymous with sheets, of course, and a portion of a sheet is less likely to wander than a whole one. 16 Due to an editing error, Rofé’s article refers to an A-C-D-B-E (‫ )אגדבה‬sequence (p. 63); the discussion and diagrams suggest the order indicated above. 17 Rofé suggests that the shortness of his reconstructed columns implies that the error took place at a very early stage (ibid., 65–66).

rder, here]

16

2. The Jumbled Bible: Established Causes

Rofé’s theory is innovative and novel. If he is correct in his proposal for Deuteronomy 31, we have here a case of a biblical scroll becoming accidentally jumbled due to material factors.18 In any event, on a notional level, this is somewhat analogous to the cut-and-paste errors I discuss below.

2.3. Deliberate Textual Arrangement “A blank should be left opposite, giving ample room for additions. Sometimes lack of space leads to reluctance to make corrections or, at best, confuses the original draft when new insertions are made.” – Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria 10.3.32 (trans. Donald Russell)

Although editorial mishaps sometimes marred the intended progression of texts, many reorderings were intentional. Scholarly interest in biblical redaction as a craft has grown substantially in the past decade, with a recent article specifically tackling textual rearrangement as an editorial approach.19 The editors of the Hebrew Bible sometimes had cause to reorder texts, whether in the process of supplementation or when conflating documents. If a certain source’s structure  – which was typically dictated by chronology  – differed in details from that of another source or from a supplementer’s own scheme, that contradiction could only be resolved by sacrificing one sequence in favor of another. Editors may have had any of a number of other reasons – aesthetic, theological, or otherwise – to rearrange material. To illustrate this, a brief survey of several relevant texts follows.

2.3.1. Genesis 35:22b–29 Genesis 35 offers a good example of intentional textual displacement. Since P located Benjamin’s birth in Paddan-Aram (Gen 35:26b), while a non-Priestly 18 Beginning with his own doctoral dissertation, Rofé has grappled with the phenomenon of disordered biblical texts on several occasions over the decades. See, e. g., Alexander Rofé, “‫( ”האמונה במלאכים בישראל בתקופת בית ראשון לאור מסורות מקראיות‬PhD diss., Hebrew University, 1969), 297–305, et passim; ‫ חלק ראשון ופרקי המשך‬:‫( מבוא לספר דברים‬Jerusalem: Academon, 1988), 19–26; ‫ האמונה במלאכים בישראל לאור מסורות מקראיות‬:‫( מלאכים במקרא‬Jerusalem: Carmel, 2013), 235–40. 19 Ville Mäkipelto, Timo Tekoniemi, and Miika Tucker, “Large-Scale Transposition as an Editorial Technique in the Textual History of the Hebrew Bible,” TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism (2017): 1–16; Müller et al., Evidence of Editing; Reinhard Müller and Juha Pakkala, eds., Insights into Editing in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East: What Does Documented Evidence Tell Us about the Transmission of Authoritative Texts? (Leuven: Peeters, 2017).

2.3. Deliberate Textual Arrangement

17

author placed it on the road to Ephrath (Gen 35:16–18), the redactor of these traditions deferred the Priestly list of Jacob’s children  – which included Benjamin  – until after the alternate account of his birth, and therefore after the departure from Mesopotamia.20 Though a minor infelicity remained in the text – the association of Benjamin with Paddan-Aram – the restructuring of the source documents yielded an acceptable narrative progression. Had the Priestly genealogy been kept in order and incorporated into the narrative of Genesis 30 or 31, Benjamin would have been mentioned in passing before the (non-Priestly) account of his birth and his mother’s death, creating a glaring inconsistency.

2.3.2. Joshua 8:30–35 In some cases, the reordering of a text is evident from the manuscript record. For instance, the episode in which Joshua constructs an altar, which is recounted in MT in Josh 8:30–35, appears in most LXX manuscripts between Josh 9:2 and 9:3. The fragmentary 4QJosha has it in a third, altogether different, position: between chapters 4 and 5.21 Specifically, in 4QJosha the pericope is followed by an otherwise unattested verse and then Josh 5:2. This places the episode just after the crossing of the Jordan River and in that vicinity, not in the environs of Shechem, as in MT and LXX. Whichever text position is original, there is little doubt that the transposition of the passage between the Jordan Valley and Mount Ebal was a deliberate editorial decision.22 See fig. 5.

2.3.3. Ezekiel 37 Another relevant example of textual movement is Ezekiel 37 (MT), which contains the vision of the Valley of Dry Bones. The LXX manuscript known as Papyrus 967 contains Old Greek versions of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Esther, written by at least two scribes.23 The consensus dating of the Ezekiel section is late second to early third century ce, making it pre-hexaplaric and the earliest known LXX 20 See, e. g., Edgar Innes Fripp, The Composition of the Book of Genesis (London: David Nutt, 1892), 170–71; Claus Westermann, Genesis 12–36: A Continental Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1985), 556; pace Driver, Genesis, 312. 21 Mäkipelto et al., “Large-Scale Transposition,” 3–5; Kristin De Troyer, “Building the Altar and Reading the Law: The Journeys of Joshua 8:30–35,” in Reading the Present in the Qumran Library, ed. Kristin De Troyer and Armin Lange (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2005), 141–62; Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible, VTSup 169 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 50–51. 22 For more on sequence variation, see Emanuel Tov, “Some Sequence Differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint and Their Ramifications for Literary Criticism,” in Emanuel Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 411–18. 23 See Ashley S. Crane, Israel’s Restoration: A Textual-Comparative Exploration of Ezekiel 36–39 (Leiden: Brill, 2008).

[Fig. 5, Fra

18

2. The Jumbled Bible: Established Causes

Fig. 5. Fragment of 4QJoshuaa (4Q47). Joshua 8:35 is followed by Joshua 5. Courtesy of the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. (Photo: Shai Halevi)

Ezekiel manuscript.24 John Flanagan has written that “the most important textual problem in the book of Ezekiel pertains to Papyrus 967 and its significance for establishing the original text of Ezekiel.”25 Be that as it may, one of the greatest divergences between this manuscript and the other extant versions is one of sequence: Ezekiel 37 is not found in its usual position in Papyrus 967, appearing instead after chapter 39. In addition, the last fifteen verses of chapter 36 are absent in this papyrus.26 In her book on the topic, Ingrid Lilly writes: “MT and p967’s Hebrew Vorlage represent different attempts by scribes to affix ch. 37, chs. 38–39, and chs. 40–48 to the previous 36 chapters of the book.”27 If this is correct, we have here a case of at least two biblical redactors compiling various sources that would eventually comprise the book of Ezekiel. Whether these redactors op-

24 Ingrid Esther Lilly, Two Books of Ezekiel: Papyrus 967 and the Masoretic Text as Variant Literary Editions, VTSup 150 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 227–28. See also Siegfried Kreuzer, “Papyrus 967,” in Die Septuaginta – Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten: Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20.–23. Juli 2006, ed. Martin Karrer, Wolfgang Kraus, and Martin Meiser (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 73–75. 25 John Flanagan, “Papyrus 967 and the Text of Ezekiel: Parablepsis or an Original Text?” in Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon, ed. Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 105. 26 Codex Wirceburgensis (W) of the Vetus Latina, dated approximately to the sixth century, accords with p967 on both counts, though it is not a direct descendent of p967. See Johan Lust, “Ezekiel 36–40 in the Oldest Greek Manuscript,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981): 518. 27 Lilly, Two Books, 303.

2.3. Deliberate Textual Arrangement

19

erated independently of one another or in succession, their work involved editorial decisions regarding order, with both editions surviving in parallel.28

2.3.4. Transferral of Colophons As previously noted, Haim Gevaryahu argued in a series of publications that colophons often migrated from the ends of literary works to their beginnings.29 His central thesis is as follows:30 A large portion of colophons in the Bible and ancient Jewish literature, which were initially written at the ends of texts, was transferred gradually over the years to the beginning of the text. This is especially true of colophons that convey biographical and historical information, musical and liturgical colophons […] and to a lesser extent, those that communicate the content of the text or note its qualities. ‫ הועבר‬,‫ אשר נכתבו תחילה בסיומי הטקסטים‬,‫חלק ניכר של הקולופונים שבמקרא ובספרות היהודית העתיקה‬ ‫ כלל זה חל במיוחד על הקולופונים המוסרים אינפורמציה‬.‫במרוצת הזמן תוך תהליך ממושך לפתיחת הטקסט‬ ‫ על הקולופונים המוסיקאלים והליטורגיים […] ובאופן חלקי על הסוגים המוסרים את‬,‫ביוגרפית והיסטורית‬ .‫ או המציינים את מעלותיו‬,‫התוכן של הטקסט‬

In some cases, Gevaryahu argues, this process engendered unintended literary deficiencies.31 The addition of text in either position could have been aided by material factors, since there is often blank space at the beginning and end of a scroll.32 If Gevaryahu is correct, then these many examples reflect a scribal practice of transposition due to evolving aesthetic trends in the biblical period. See figs. 6 and 7.33

28 Redactional displacement due to literary concerns is rather common in the Hebrew Bible. The differences in order between the MT and LXX editions of Jeremiah are notable in this context. The Ark Narratives in 1 Samuel 4–6 and 2 Samuel 6, which many scholars believe were once united, would be another example of substantial redactional restructuring. See Antony F. Campbell, “Yahweh and the Ark: A Case Study in Narrative,” Journal of Biblical Literature 98, no. 1 (1979): 31–43, and bibliography there. 29 See, e. g., Haim Moshe Itzhak Gevaryahu, “‫לחקר התופעה של העברת חומר קולופוני מסיומי‬ ‫הטקסטים לפתיחתם‬,” Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies, II (1977): 37–48; Haim Moshe Itzhak Gevaryahu, “Biblical Colophons,” in Congress Volume: Edinburgh, 1974, VTSup 28 (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 42–59. I thank Ronnie Goldstein for directing me to these studies. 30 Gevaryahu, “‫לחקר‬,” 40. My translation. 31 Ibid., 44–46. 32 For more on this, see Tov, “Copying,” 205. 33 On the supplements on the first sheet of 4Q448 (fig. 7), see Hanan Eshel and Esther Eshel, “4Q448, Psalm 154 (Syriac), Sirach 48:20, and 4QpIsaa,” Journal of Biblical Literature 119, no. 4 (2000): 645–59.

20

2. The Jumbled Bible: Established Causes

Fig. 6. First sheet of 4QApocr. Psalm and Prayer (4Q448), with supplements visible. Courtesy of the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. (Photo: Shai Halevi)

Fig. 7. Last sheet of 11QPsalmsa (11Q5), with room for a substantial supplement at the end. Courtesy of the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. (Photo: Najib Anton Albina)

3. The Jumbled Bible: A New Hypothesis ?‫ כיון דאידבק אידבק‬,‫ כותבין? או דילמא‬,‫כיון דמגילה מגילה ניתנה‬ “Since [the Torah] was given scroll by scroll, is it permissible to write it (in separate scrolls today)? Or, should we say, once it was pasted, it was pasted?” – B. Gittin 60a

We have seen various causes for the jumbling texts in the Bible. In this chapter, I argue that some biblical jumbling errors arose from a subset of material (rather than conventional scribal) editing: cut-and-paste redaction. There are two primary categories of jumbling in the Bible that, depending on circumstance, can potentially indicate cut-and-paste redaction. One is textual transposition; the other is textual migration. Textual transposition refers to two or more segments of text becoming interchanged, often due to those segments’ mutual similarity. For instance, we might find the sequence A-B-C'-C-D, when it is A-B-C-C'-D that is called for. (The prime ['] symbol indicates that unit’s confusability with its counterpart.) In this example, C and C' are transposed. (See fig. 8.)

Fig. 8. Textual transposition of C and C'.

n

22

3. The Jumbled Bible: A New Hypothesis

Fig. 9. Textual migration of B from pre-C to pre-C'.

Textual migration, on the other hand, refers to the movement of a single unit from one place in the text to another. The diagram below illustrates this scenario, where B has traveled from its intended placement before C to its mistaken placement before C', due to the similarity between C and C'. This type of mix-up leaves us with A-C-D-B-C', where A-B-C-D-C' is intended. (See fig. 9.) When contemplating a case of textual jumbling, it is not always immediately evident which, if either, of these phenomena is at play, even if the intended order seems clear. In the case of a sequence that might be characterized as A-B-D-C-E, one must first contemplate the possibility that D is a marginal or interlinear insertion whose author intended that subsequent scribes would place it between C and E. Due to constraints of the media and the absence of standardized scribal notations like the later asterisk, such interpolations were often misplaced, as we have seen. Even with misplaced interpolation ruled out, two distinct cut-and-paste errors remain possible. The first is the transposition of C and D; the second is the migration of C from its intended position after B (or before D) to its final position after D (or before E). In order to determine the cause for a misplacement of this sort, we must analyze the surrounding passages and answer the following questions: (1) Do C and D lend themselves to confusion? If so, perhaps it is a case of transposition between those two units. (2) Do B and D conclude similarly? If so, it may be an instance of migration due to homoeoteleuton from the end of B to the end of D. (3) Do D and E begin similarly? In that case, we must consider the possibility of homoeoarcton from the beginning of D to the beginning of E. Figure 10 illustrates jumbling with two possible causes.

3. The Jumbled Bible: A New Hypothesis

23

Fig. 10. Alternative scenarios: migration vs. transposition.

Careful analysis is therefore necessary in order to diagnose the cause of disarray in each particular case. Before proceeding to biblical examples, I will share a modern one to illustrate the phenomenon. My wife, Ronit, once worked for the British Council in Tel Aviv, where she received the following list of vacation days.

Fig. 11. Tel Aviv British Council holidays.

[Fig. 11, Br

24

3. The Jumbled Bible: A New Hypothesis

The dates were all in sequence, as one might expect, with one exception. Three holidays in April were listed in the following order: April 3, April 7, April 6. The root of the error can be fairly easily reconstructed. April 7 (Passover, in lieu of Saturday) is a later addition. Initially, the plan had been to offer no special vacation day for the first day of Passover, given that it fell on the weekend.1 Later, the decision was made to add a vacation day in its stead. When inserting the line reflecting the additional day, the document’s editor placed the supplement in what appeared to be the logical spot. Surely the first day of Passover immediately follows “Eve of Passover.” As it happened, however, Easter Monday that year preceded the first scheduled workday after Passover Eve, leading to the jumble in this text. This is a case of imperfect figurative cut-and-paste (supplementary) redaction. The literal cut-and-paste technique lends itself even more readily to errors of this sort.

3.1. Cut-and-Paste Errors: Textual Migrations I begin the biblical discussion with several texts that I argue resulted from migration due to parablepsis, whether homoeoarcton or homoeoteleuton.

3.1.1. Genesis 7:6–16, Noah Enters the Ark Text A (P): Flood Flood Text B (J): Redactional material: Flood2 6Noah

was six hundred years old when the flood waters came on the earth. And Noah with his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives went into the ark 7 to escape the waters of the flood. 8Of clean animals, and of animals that are not clean, and of birds, and everything that crawls on the ground, 9two and two, male and female, went into the ark with Noah, as God had commanded Noah. 10And after seven days the waters of the flood came on the earth. 11In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. 12And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights. 13On the very same day Noah and his sons, Shem and 1 This

has been verified. discussing each passage, I provide the text, visually differentiating between authorial hands. This is meant to serve as a convenient guide for the reader and does not necessarily reflect any particular analysis, except where noted. I address the particulars of attribution when relevant to my argument. 2 Before

3.1. Cut-and-Paste Errors

25

Ham and Japheth, and Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons with them entered the ark, 14they and every wild animal of every kind, and all domestic animals of every kind, and every crawling thing that crawls on the earth, and every bird of every kind – every bird, every winged creature. 15They went into the ark with Noah, two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life. 16And they that entered, male and female of all flesh, went in as God had commanded him; and the LORD shut him in.3 ‫ ַמבּוּל‬:)‫טקסט א (ס״כ‬ ‫ ַמבּוּל‬: )‫טקסט ב (ס״י‬ ‫ ַמבּוּל‬:‫חומר עריכתי‬ ֶ ‫וְ נ ַֹח ֶבּן ֵשׁשׁ ֵמאוֹ ת ָשׁנָ ה וְ ַה ַמּבּוּל ָהיָ ה ַמיִ ם ַעל ָה‬6 ‫וּבנָ יו וְ ִא ְשׁתּוֹ וּנְ ֵשׁי ָבנָ יו ִאתּוֹ ֶאל‬ ָ ‫וַ יָּ בֹא נ ַֹח‬7 ‫אָרץ׃‬ ‫וּמן ָהעוֹ ף וְ כֹל‬ ִ ‫וּמן ַה ְּב ֵה ָמה ֲא ֶׁשר ֵאינֶ נָּ ה ְטה ָֹרה‬ ִ ‫הֹורה‬ ָ ‫ ִמן ַה ְּב ֵה ָמה ַה ְּט‬8 ‫ַה ֵתּ ָבה ִמ ְפּנֵ י ֵמי ַה ַמּבּוּל׃‬ ‫ ְשׁנַ יִ ם ְשׁנַ יִ ם ָבּאוּ ֶאל נ ַֹח ֶאל ַה ֵתּ ָבה זָ כָ ר וּנְ ֵק ָבה כַּ ֲא ֶשׁר ִצוָּ ה ֱאל ִהים ֶאת נ ַֹח׃‬9 ‫ֲא ֶשׁר ר ֵֹמשׂ ַעל ָה ֲא ָד ָמה׃‬ ֶ ‫וּמי ַה ַּמבּוּל ָהיוּ ַעל ָה‬ ֵ ‫וַ יְ ִהי לְ ִׁש ְבעַ ת ַהיָּ ִמים‬10 ‫ ִבּ ְשׁנַ ת ֵשׁשׁ ֵמאוֹ ת ָשׁנָ ה לְ ַחיֵּ י נ ַֹח ַבּח ֶֹדשׁ ַה ֵשּׁנִ י‬11 :‫אָרץ‬ ‫וַ יְ ִהי‬12 ‫ְבּ ִשׁ ְב ָעה ָע ָשׂר יוֹ ם לַ ח ֶֹדשׁ ַבּיּוֹ ם ַהזֶּ ה נִ ְב ְקעוּ כָּ ל ַמ ְעיְ נֹת ְתּהוֹ ם ַר ָבּה וַ ֲא ֻרבֹּת ַה ָשּׁ ַמיִ ם נִ ְפ ָתּחוּ׃‬ ְ ‫אַר ָּבעִ ים יֹום‬ ְ ‫אָרץ‬ ֶ ‫ַהּגֶ ֶׁשם עַ ל ָה‬ ‫ ְבּ ֶע ֶצם ַהיּוֹ ם ַהזֶּ ה ָבּא נ ַֹח וְ ֵשׁם וְ ָחם וָ יֶ ֶפת ְבּנֵ י נ ַֹח‬13 :‫אַר ָּב ִעים לָ יְ לָ ה‬ ‫ ֵה ָמּה וְ כָ ל ַה ַחיָּ ה לְ ִמינָ הּ וְ כָ ל ַה ְבּ ֵה ָמה לְ ִמינָ הּ וְ כָ ל‬14 ‫וּשׁל ֶשׁת נְ ֵשׁי ָבנָ יו ִא ָתּם ֶאל ַה ֵתּ ָבה׃‬ ְ ‫וְ ֵא ֶשׁת נ ַֹח‬ ֶ ‫ָה ֶר ֶמשׂ ָהר ֵֹמשׂ ַעל ָה‬ ‫וַ יָּ בֹאוּ ֶאל נ ַֹח ֶאל ַה ֵתּ ָבה‬15 ‫אָרץ לְ ִמינֵ הוּ וְ כָ ל ָהעוֹ ף לְ ִמינֵ הוּ כֹּל ִצפּוֹ ר כָּ ל כָּ נָ ף׃‬ ַ ֹ‫ְשׁנַ יִ ם ְשׁנַ יִ ם ִמכָּ ל ַה ָבּ ָשׂר ֲא ֶשׁר בּו‬ ֹ‫וְ ַה ָבּ ִאים זָ כָ ר וּנְ ֵק ָבה ִמכָּ ל ָבּ ָשׂר ָבּאוּ כַּ ֲא ֶשׁר ִצוָּ ה אֹתו‬16 ‫רוּח ַחיִּ ים׃‬ :‫ֱאל ִהים וַ יִּ ְסגֹּר יְ הוָ ה ַבּעֲ דֹו‬ In the above composite Flood Narrative,4 it is the state of Text B  – the nonPriestly tradition, commonly attributed to J – that is of primary interest.5 In it, following YHWH’s command (Gen 7:1–5), Noah enters the ark with his family and representatives of the species, embarks, and the deluge ensues. But the progression of this narrative is not entirely logical: the account of YHWH sealing Noah’s vessel (v. 16b) comes after the forty days and nights of rain (v. 12).  All translations based on NRSV, with occasional modifications. e. g., Benjamin Wisner Bacon, The Genesis of Genesis (Hartford, CT: The Student Publishing Company, 1892), 110–11; Charles James Ball, The Book of Genesis in Hebrew, Sacred Books of the Old Testament, Polychrome Bible, Hebrew Edition (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1896), 6; Samuel Rolles Driver, The Book of Genesis, 10th ed. (London: Methuen, 1916), 90–91; Fripp, Composition of Genesis, 36, 157–58; Skinner, Genesis, 153, 163; Ephraim Avigdor Speiser, Genesis, AB 1 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964), 48–49; Richard Elliott Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View into the Five Books of Moses (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003), 43–44; Claus Westermann, Genesis 1–11: A Continental Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1984), 395–98; Baruch J. Schwartz, “‫סיפורי המבול שבתורה‬ ‫ושאלת נקודת המוצא של ההיסטוריה‬,” in Shai le-Sara Japhet: Studies in the Bible, Its Exegesis and Its Language, ed. Moshe Bar-Asher et al. (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2007): 139–54. Curiously, Friedman attributes the entire passage, excepting 7 and 16b, to P. 5 For the prehistory of the J Flood Narrative, see Idan Dershowitz, “Man of the Land: Unearth­ing the Original Noah.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 128, no. 3 (2016): 357–73. 3

4 See,

26

3. The Jumbled Bible: A New Hypothesis

Before entering into the details of this scribal mishap, verses 7–9 must be addressed. Verse 7 has been assigned variously to J, P, a supplement thereof, or a redactor. Various factors favor a Priestly origin. Content-wise, it follows the plot development in verse 6 (P), namely the (sudden) onset of the flood. According to verse 7, Noah entered the ark “due to the waters of the flood” (‫;)מ ְפּנֵ י ֵמי ַה ַמּבּוּל‬ ִ in the J narrative, however, Noah knew which day to expect the rain to begin (v. 4), and indeed Noah appears to have entered the vessel (vss. 7–9) by the time the flood began (v. 10) in that source. Furthermore, the construction verb → noun → ve → noun modifier → et → suffix, as in ֹ‫וּבנָ יו וְ ִא ְשׁתּוֹ וּנְ ֵשׁי ָבנָ יו ִאתּו‬ ָ ‫וַ יָּ בֹא נ ַֹח‬, is peculiar to P throughout the Pentateuch.6 Moving to verses 8–9, some have suggested that these verses are redactional, largely due their (anticipatory) repetition of details present in verses 13–16a. However, 13–16a is presented as an extemporaneous summary, and such recapitulations are in fact typical of P’s narrative style. Similar examples can be found in Gen 17:26–27 and Exod 12:51. (All three examples begin with ‫[וַ יְ ִהי] ְּב ֶע ֶצם‬ ‫ה ּיוֹ ם ַה ֶ ּזה‬.) ַ 7 In addition, verses 8–9 are the antithesis of an editorial harmony of P and J. According to these verses, only two of each clean species entered the ark, contradicting J and impeding a reading of P’s two-by-two account as generic and imprecise, referring implicitly to unclean animals alone. Furthermore, one would expect both J and P to have accounts of Noah’s entrance into the ark with his family and the animals. It appears, therefore, that these verses are an amalgamation of J and P material, with some superfluous J material removed, since it occurs elsewhere in the Flood Narrative.8 Let us now return to the primary difficulty in this section: the jumbling of the non-Priestly material. Following both sources’ reports of Noah’s entrance into the ark with his family and representatives of every species, we are told that the flood began (vss. 10–11) and that the earth was then inundated with forty 6 Gen 6:18, 19; 7:13; 8:16, 18; 9:8; 28:4; 46:6, 7; Exod 28:1, 41; 29:21; Lev 8:2, 30; 10:9, 14, 15; Num 16:10; 18:1, 2, 7, 11, 19; 27:21. Dillmann assigns v. 7 to his C source (=J), except for the phrase in question, which he believes was “copied” from the other version, for unclear reasons (Dillmann, Genesis, 1:276–77). Be that as it may, Dillmann appears to have sensed that the phrase would be incongruous in the context of the non-P Flood Narrative. See also Karl Ferdinand Reinhardt Budde, Die Biblische Urgeschichte (Genesis 1–12,5) (Giessen: J. J. Ricker, 1883), 258. Others attribute the phrase to an editor: see, e. g., Hermann Gunkel, Genesis, übersetzt und erklärt (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901), 131; Fripp, Composition of Genesis, 35; Skinner, Genesis, 153–54. 7 See also Jean-Louis Ska, The Exegesis of the Pentateuch: Exegetical Studies and Basic Questions (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 5. 8 For instance, the construction of the ark in J, which is absent in the redacted version. See Baruch J. Schwartz, “‫סיפורי המבול שבתורה ושאלת נקודת המוצא של ההיסטוריה‬,” in Shai le-Sara Japhet: Studies in the Bible, Its Exegesis and Its Language, ed. Moshe Bar-Asher et al. (Jerusalem: Bialik, 2007), 147n15. Westermann (Genesis 1–11, 431) struggles with the problem of attributing vss. 8–9 to an editor but nevertheless maintains that they are redactional. The term ‫וְ כֹל ֲא ֶשׁר ר ֵֹמשׂ ַעל ָה ֲא ָד ָמה‬ refers to all creatures that “crawl” upon the earth and is not equivalent to ‫ כָּ ל ֶר ֶמשׂ ָה ֲא ָד ָמה‬and its variants (Gen 6:20, et passim). Cf. the passage’s counterpart in Gen 8:18–19.

3.1. Cut-and-Paste Errors

27

consecutive days and nights of rain (v. 12). It is only after all this, as well as the Priestly recapitulation of 13–16a, that the reader is informed that “the LORD shut him in.” Needless to say, YHWH must have closed the ark9 before the onset of the deluge, not forty days hence. This problematic narrative progression has led most scholars since Karl Budde in 1883 to conclude that the non-P narrative is out of sequence, the phrase in question having originally appeared prior to the forty days of rain.10 As Driver put it: “The words [‘the LORD shut him in’] must have stood originally between v. 9 and vv. 10, 12; for they evidently form the close of J’s account of the entry into the ark.”11 Despite broad agreement that a scribal mishap is at play here, scholars have not explained how or why these words found their new, unbecoming home. It is easy to understand how a phrase might be omitted or duplicated in error, for instance, but a copyist is not likely to accidentally cause three words to migrate from one place in the narrative to another.12 If not scribal error, might the passage have been reordered deliberately? A priori, such a change could have been made at any point in the history of the text  – before, during, or following the fusion of its Priestly and non-Priestly constituents. Such reorganization can serve aesthetic literary objectives – foreshadowing, suspense-building, etc. – as discussed in § 2.3, above. Here, however, the present order of Genesis 7 is plainly inferior to the alternative. Why insert the phrase “and the LORD shut him in” forty days into the flood, rather than at its onset? One might have expected the text to read as follows:13  9 Whereas P’s ark has an entrance on the side (6:16), J’s has a lid: “Noah removed the covering of the ark” (8:13). This is why YHWH himself closes the ark in J. Indeed, in this version, the ark seems to have been conceived as a gargantuan basket (cf. the only non-Noahide ‫ תבה‬in the Bible: Moses’s covered and pitched reed basket [Exod 2:3–6]). It has been suggested – compellingly, to my mind – that 6:14aβ preserves a fragment of J’s divine commandment to construct a vessel out of reeds (‫(קנִ ים‬, ָ as in some versions of the Mesopotamian Flood Narrative (Wilfred George Lambert, “New Light on the Babylonian Flood,” Journal of Semitic Studies 5, no. 2 [1960]: 119: “In the Old Babylonian Atra-ḫasis and Gilgameš xi Atra-ḫasis is instructed to pull down his house and build a boat. This is only meaningful if the house was a reed structure.” Pace Speiser [Genesis, 52] and Westermann [Genesis 1–11, 420], who maintain that the Babylonian vessel was not constructed out of reeds.) In The Ark Before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2014), Irving Finkel published an Akkadian tablet that includes details absent in other versions: “Wall, wall! Reed wall, reed wall! / Atra-hasīs, pay heed to my advice, / That you may live for ever! / Destroy your house, build a boat; / Spurn property and save life! / Draw out the boat that you will make / On a circular plan” (p. 107). It appears that J’s ark was rather similar to the vessel in Finkel’s tablet. 10 Budde, Urgeschichte, 261. See also, inter alia, Skinner, Genesis, 154; Fripp, Composition of Genesis, 36; Bacon, Genesis of Genesis, 111; Ball, Genesis, 6; Speiser, Genesis, 53; Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 437. 11 Driver, Genesis, 91. 12 Various causes for textual migration and transposition, and ways to distinguish between them, will be discussed in § 4, below. 13 See, e. g., Bacon, Genesis of Genesis, 111.

28

3. The Jumbled Bible: A New Hypothesis

8band of everything that crawls on the ground, 9two and two, male and female, went into the ark with Noah, as God had commanded Noah, 16band the LORD shut him in. 10And after seven days the waters of the flood came upon the earth. 11In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. 12And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights …

In this alternative redaction, the sealing of the ark is reported in its logical place – as most scholars suggest it was meant to be – and the passage is without notable difficulty. A comparison between the widely acknowledged “correct” sequence and the difficult canonical one highlights an unexpected coincidence. The biblical text reads: 16And they that entered, male and female of all flesh, went in as God had commanded him;

and the LORD shut him in.

The hypothetical version reads: 9… two and two, male and female, went into the ark with Noah, as God had commanded Noah, 16band the LORD shut him in.

It is immediately apparent that these two passages are nearly identical. Both Priestly sections conclude with the phrase “as God had commanded him/Noah,” and furthermore, the preceding verses in each section detail the entrance of Noah, his family, and all animals, including birds, etc., into the ark – again using similar language. It would be easy for any reader to read either passage out of context and mistake it for its counterpart. Surely, if a manuscript were found that lacked the entire section between the two similar conclusions, text-critics would give the matter no thought – it would be a textbook example of scribal parablepsis. The apparent relocation of the non-Priestly phrase “and the LORD shut him in” from one Priestly setting to another could be the result of a similar error on the redactor’s part. But under what circumstances might such a mistake eventuate? If the editor of this section copied the words of Versions A and B onto a new scroll, as is often thought, it is not clear how he might have read the J passage “And the LORD shut him in. And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights.” and accidentally produced “And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights. [… P material …] And the LORD shut him in.” Let us imagine a different scenario. Rather than copy every word from the documents, a redactor physically excised patches from the documents he was combining and pasted them onto a new scroll.14 Upon encountering what he deemed to be parallel versions of a single story, he cut the respective passages into manageable units, which he then proceeded to assemble into a coherent composite. 14 The

technical aspects of cutting and pasting will be discussed at greater length below.

3.1. Cut-and-Paste Errors

29

Fig. 12. Migration due to parablepsis in Genesis 7.

Such a process has several advantages over the scribal alternative. The task of intricately splicing and reorganizing multiple narratives would have been greatly facilitated by their reduction into small patches of text – literary building blocks – which could then have been assembled into a coherent composite.15 Furthermore, though there are numerous meticulously interwoven episodes in the Pentateuch, the vast majority of the book is made up of extended stretches of single-source text; duplicating these long passages by writing them out word by word would have greatly prolonged any redactional undertaking. But the redactional method of cutting and pasting proposed here would have had one undesired side effect: Any confusion of similar words or phrases by the redactor could now result in a severely jumbled text. If this is an accurate portrayal of the redactor’s method in this section, it would have been a natural error for him to place the piece of manuscript containing the phrase “and the LORD shut him in” after one instance of “as God had commanded” rather than the other. The same cannot be said for a redactor working with reed and ink, as we have seen. The resemblance in content and form between the two Priestly passages would have been reinforced by their similarity in handwriting, scroll characteristics, 15 As discussed in greater detail in § 6, cut-and-paste compilation has often been used as an effective method to cope with “information overload.”

30

3. The Jumbled Bible: A New Hypothesis

and so on. That is to say, if we imagine the material reality underlying such a redactional method, the fact that both passages came from the same Priestly source would made them that much more confusable. (See fig. 12.) It should further be noted that the redactor of the Flood Narratives would have necessarily severed the phrase “and the LORD shut him in” from the foregoing non-Priestly sequence, so that it could appear in a logical position in the composite narrative, viz., after the conclusion of the combined account of embarkment. And since there would likely have been a line break at some point in the following sentence (“and after seven days the waters of the flood came upon the earth”), it is probable that the wayward phrase would have stood as an independent patch before the process of assembly had begun. (This is illustrated in fig. 12 in the break between the words ‫ ַה ּ ַמ ּבוּ ל‬and ּ‫היו‬.) ָ To sum up, it has long been known that the phrase in question appears in a problematically anachronic position in the received text, and scholars have also had a good idea where in the composite text it belongs. The fundamental unknowns were how and why it found itself in the wrong place in the text, which we now have an explanation for. Based on the internal evidence, we have found a patchwork Pentateuch to better account for the state of Gen 7:11–16 than would a scribe’s handwritten Torah.

3.1.2. Genesis 8:10–14, Noah Exits the Ark Text A (P): Flood Text B (J): Flood 10He

waited another seven days, and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark; and the dove came back to him in the evening, and lo, in her mouth a freshly 11 plucked olive leaf; so Noah knew that the waters had subsided from the earth. 12Then he waited another seven days, and sent forth the dove; and she did not return to him any more. 13In the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried from off the earth; and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and behold, the face of the ground was dry. 14In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry. ‫ ַמבּוּל‬:)‫טקסט א (ס״כ‬ ‫ ַמבּוּל‬:)‫טקסט ב (ס״י‬

‫וַ ָתּבֹא ֵאלָ יו ַהיֹּונָ ה לְ עֵ ת ֶע ֶרב‬11 :‫וַ יָּ ֶחל עֹוד ִשׁ ְב ַעת יָ ִמים ֲא ֵח ִרים וַ יּ ֶֹסף ַשׁלַּ ח ֶאת ַהיֹּונָ ה ִמן ַה ֵתּ ָבה‬10 ‫וַ יִּ יָּ ֶחל עֹוד ִשׁ ְב ַעת יָ ִמים ֲא ֵח ִרים‬12 :‫אָרץ‬ ֶ ‫וְ ִהנֵּ ה עֲ לֵ ה זַ יִ ת ָט ָרף ְבּ ִפ ָיה וַ יֵּ ַדע נ ַֹח כִּ י ַקלּוּ ַה ַמּיִ ם ֵמ ַעל ָה‬ ‫אַחת וְ ֵשׁשׁ ֵמאוֹ ת ָשׁנָ ה ָבּ ִראשׁוֹ ן ְבּ ֶא ָחד לַ ח ֶֹדשׁ‬ ַ ‫וַ יְ ִהי ְבּ‬13 :‫וַ יְ ַשׁלַּ ח ֶאת ַהיֹּונָ ה וְ ל ֹא יָ ְס ָפה שׁוּב ֵאלָ יו עֹוד‬

3.1. Cut-and-Paste Errors

31

‫וּבח ֶֹדשׁ ַה ֵשּׁנִ י‬ ַ 14 :‫אָרץ וַ יָּ ַסר נ ַֹח ֶאת ִמכְ ֵסה ַה ֵתּ ָבה וַ יַּ ְרא וְ ִהנֵּ ה ָח ְרבוּ ְפּנֵ י ָה ֲא ָד ָמה‬ ֶ ‫ָח ְרבוּ ַה ַמּיִ ם ֵמ ַעל ָה‬ ‫אָרץ׃‬ ֶ ‫ְבּ ִשׁ ְב ָעה וְ ֶע ְשׂ ִרים יוֹ ם לַ ח ֶֹדשׁ יָ ְב ָשׁה ָה‬ This passage follows shortly after the previous section discussed, and it too is a composite of Priestly and non-Priestly material.16 In this section, both sources depict the final two stages in the recession of the diluvial waters. According to the Priestly writer, the stage when the waters begin to dry from the earth and the stage when the boggy earth dries to the point that it is traversable are separated by nearly two months. Taken on its own, Text A here reads: In the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried from off the earth [stage 1A]; in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry [stage 2A].

According to the non-Priestly version, the two stages are separated by only seven days. Text B reads: He waited another seven days, and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark; and the dove came back to him in the evening, and lo, in her mouth a freshly plucked olive leaf; so Noah knew that the waters had subsided from the earth [stage 1B]. Then he waited another seven days, and sent forth the dove; and she did not return to him any more. And Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and behold, the face of the ground was dry [stage 2B].

Although neither of the original documents is unclear in isolation, the combined, received text is puzzling: If Noah had already seen on the first day of the first month that the ground was dry, why then does the text go on to say that the land only became dry on the twenty-seventh of the second month? Rather than interlacing the first and second stages recounted in Text A with Text B’s parallel stages, it appears that the redactor combined A’s first stage with B’s second: 13In the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters

were dried from off the earth [stage 1A]; and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and behold, the face of the ground was dry [stage 2B].

In its redacted form, verse 13 has Noah remove the covering of the ark and observe that the earth is dry nearly two months before the land had actually dried according to the very next verse: 14In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry [stage 2A].

16 See Bacon, Genesis of Genesis, 112–13; Ball, Genesis, 6; Driver, Genesis, 94; Fripp, Composition of Genesis, 37, 158–59; Skinner, Genesis, 155, 165; Speiser, Genesis, 50; Friedman, Bible, 45; Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 396. Immediately preceding this section, Noah sends off a raven (v. 7), followed by the first of the dove’s three missions (vss. 8–9). The redaction of the raven and dove episodes will be discussed separately.

32

3. The Jumbled Bible: A New Hypothesis

There have been numerous attempts throughout history to harmonize this passage. Genesis Rabbah and several others suggest that the land was in fact dry on the first day of the first month, as Noah observed, but there was only a thin layer of dry soil at the time, and it would have collapsed under the weight of the ark’s inhabitants.17 LXX, for its part, resolves the problem by removing the report that Noah saw dry soil, and replacing it with a verbatim repetition of the previous statement that the waters had diminished from the earth (ἐξέλειπεν τὸ ὕδωρ ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς). More recent attempts at reconciliation may be found in modern English translations such as NJPS and NRSV, which render the Hebrew phrase ‫חרבו פני האדמה‬ as “the surface of the ground was drying” while translating ‫ יבשה הארץ‬as “the earth was dry,” even though both verbs are in the qatal form. Speiser accepts the standard source division of this section, but he nevertheless maintains that “the Heb. stem for ‘to be dry’ (ḥrb) denotes ‘to be or to become free of moisture’; complete dryness is signified by ybš (14).”18 This is untenable; the subject of ḥrb in verse 13 is the water itself – not the land – and water cannot “become free of moisture from the earth.”19 The simple translation “dried up” is far better here; and indeed, throughout the Bible, ḥrb and ybš are used interchangeably.20 Westermann argues that the drying of the water and drying of the earth reflect two different recensions of the same event, despite the fact that they are presented in the received text as sequential stages with distinct dates assigned to each. In his view, the two-stage drying in the final Priestly version contrasts with a single stage in J: But the statement in v. 14* really requires that v. 13a* be interpreted in the sense that the waters had run off, but that the earth was not yet completely dry. If v. 14* did not follow v. 13a*, then one would not think of understanding v. 13* in this way; one would understand it analogously to v. 13b* (J). This demonstrates that the dates in vv. 13a* and 14* did not arise at the same time, but that they represent two stages of the dating of the flood in P.21

There is some circular logic at play here, as the question of how verse 13a might have been understood in verse 14’s absence is moot unless verse 14 was indeed once absent, and Westermann offers no independent argument to support such a contention. Furthermore, the verb connoting drying is applied to the water in the first instance and to the earth in second. The difference between water be17 See

Genesis Rabbah 33:7, Rashi, David Kimchi, Obadja Sforno, inter alia. Genesis, 50. 19 HALOT 1:349 cites the two instances of the word in Gen 8:13 to support the definitions “dry up: water” and “dry up: earth.” 20 E. g., Isa 19:5; 42:15; 44:27; Jer 51:36; Nah 1:4; Job 14:11. See also the sea-miracle references in Ps 106:9 and Josh 2:10, inter alia. 21 Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 450. 18 Speiser,

3.1. Cut-and-Paste Errors

33

coming dry, or evaporating (‫אָרץ‬ ֶ ‫)ח ְרבוּ ַה ַמּיִ ם ֵמ ַעל ָה‬, ָ and the land itself becoming dry (‫אָרץ‬ ֶ ‫ )יָ ְב ָשׁה ָה‬is straightforward. The Priestly progression is clear and logical, and there is no reason to presume multiple strata. The P narrative unfolds as follows: 1. At the end of one hundred fifty days the waters had abated. In the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (8:3b–4). 2. The waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains appeared. [Noah] then sent out the raven; and it went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth (8:5, 7). 3. In the six hundred first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from the earth (8:13a). 4. In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry. Then God said to Noah, “Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you” (8:14f ). The non-Priestly version, too, includes multiple stages of drying. In this version, the dove brings back an olive branch, indicating that the water has receded or evaporated from the earth (8:11). Noah waits an additional seven days before sending off the dove again. The dove’s failure to return this time suggests that the land itself has finally dried, which Noah confirms visually after removing the ark’s cover (12, 13b). Each of the original sources is coherent and programmatic; it is only in redaction that the logical progression was disturbed. Had the redactor of this section placed the second stage of drying in B at the end of the passage rather than in its present location, a superior text would have resulted: 13In

the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried from off the earth [stage 1A]. 14In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry [stage 2A]; 13band Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and behold, the face of the ground was dry [stage 2B].

Despite the redacted text’s muddled chronology, scholars have not sought to explain what motivation or error might have led the redactor of the Flood Narratives to compile the documents in such a manner. Considering that each independent version offered a straightforward and explicit timeline, it is unlikely that the redactor arranged the texts as he did due to misunderstanding. Rather, a redactional error similar to the one previously discussed seems most plausible. The phrases “the waters were dried from off the earth” (‫אָרץ‬ ֶ ‫)ח ְרבוּ ַה ַמּיִ ם ֵמ ַעל ָה‬ ָ and “the earth was dry” (‫אָרץ‬ ֶ ‫ )יָ ְב ָשׁה ָה‬both conclude with the Hebrew word ‫אָרץ‬ ֶ ‫ה‬,ָ and each includes a verb meaning “dried.” In addition, the misplaced non-P fragment and the P snippet to which it was attached both include the verb ‫ח ְרבוּ‬,ָ even though they reference two different

34

3. The Jumbled Bible: A New Hypothesis

Fig. 13. Migration due to parablepsis in Genesis 8.

stages. Once the documents were cut into patches and the redactor turned to arranging and pasting them, he could well have confused the two similar Priestly phrases and placed his patch of non-Priestly text following the incorrect instance, just as scribes often confuse two similar sequences with similar endings (homoeoteleuton).22 As we found to be the case in the previous example, here too a redactor working with physical patches best accounts for the problems in the biblical text; it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which a scribal redactor might accidentally jumble a text in such a way. This cut-and-paste editor sliced up two parallel accounts of the gradual drying of diluvial waters into small pieces and then assembled them into a composite text. Once the various stages were separated from one another and removed from their original contexts, however, the door to parableptic jumbling was opened. This error is our good fortune; a perfectly spliced text would have left no clues as to its underlying redactional technique. See fig. 13.

22 This scribal error typically leads to accidental omission of the text between the two analogous sequences. For more on homoeoteleuton, and parablepsis more generally, see Methodological Ramifications (§ 4), below.

3.1. Cut-and-Paste Errors

35

3.1.3. Genesis 30:25–28, Jacob Asks Laban for Leave Text A: Jacob Text B: Jacob 25After Rachel had borne Joseph, Jacob said to Laban, “Send me off, that I may go to my home and my country.” 26“Give me my wives and my children, for whom I have served you, and I shall go; for you know the nature of my service.” 27And Laban said to him, “If I have found favor in your sight, I have learned by divination that the LORD has blessed me on your account.” 28And he said, “Name the wages due from me, and I will pay you.”23

‫ יַ ֲעקֹב‬:‫טקסט א‬ ‫ יַ עֲ קֹב‬:‫טקסט ב‬ ‫ ְתּנָ ה‬26 :‫אַרצִ י‬ ְ ְ‫קֹומי וּל‬ ִ ‫ֹאמר יַ ֲעקֹב ֶאל לָ ָבן ַשׁלְּ ֵחנִ י וְ ֵאלְ כָ ה ֶאל ְמ‬ ֶ ‫יֹוסף וַ יּ‬ ֵ ‫וַ יְ ִהי כַּ ֲא ֶשׁר יָ לְ ָדה ָר ֵחל ֶאת‬25 ָ ‫אַתּה יָ ַד ְע ָתּ ֶאת ֲעב ָֹד ִתי ֲא ֶשׁר ֲע ַב ְד ִתּ‬ ‫ֹאמר‬ ֶ ‫וַ יּ‬27 ‫יך׃‬ ָ ‫ֶאת נָ ַשׁי וְ ֶאת יְ לָ ַדי ֲא ֶשׁר ָע ַב ְד ִתּי א ְֹת ָך ָבּ ֵהן וְ ֵאלֵ כָ ה כִּ י‬ ‫ֹאמר נָ ְק ָבה ְשׂכָ ְר ָך ָעלַ י וְ ֶא ֵתּנָ ה׃‬ ַ ‫וַ יּ‬28 :‫אתי ֵחן ְּבעֵ ינֶ יָך נִ ַח ְשׁ ִתּי וַ ָיְב ֲרכֵ נִ י יְ הוָ ה ִבּגְ לָ לֶ ָך‬ ִ ָ‫ֵאלָ יו לָ ָבן ִאם נָ א ָמצ‬ This passage, which signals the conclusion of Jacob’s sojourn in Mesopotamia, is considered by several scholars to be a pastiche of two similar dialogues, as illustrated above.24 Here, it is the phrase “if I have found favor in your sight” that is of primary interest. In the fifteen times the idiom appears in the Bible, it invariably introduces the request of a courtesy – except here.25 In the present passage, not only is the phrase followed by the incongruous statement “I have learned by divination,” etc.,26 but there is no request in sight.  My translation.   E. g., Bacon, Genesis of Genesis, 166; Ball, Genesis, 25; Cornill, Einleitung, 28–29; Dillmann, Genesis, 2:245–46; Fripp, Composition of Genesis, 92; Skinner, Genesis, 390; Wellhausen (as reported by Holzinger, Einleitung, p. 3 of the fold-out appendix; cf. Wellhausen, Composition, 40). Others assign the entire passage to J, some with expansions: e. g., Driver, Genesis, 277. Especially since the publication of Martin Noth’s book, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1948), several scholars have argued that despite the presence of repetitions and contradictions, it is impossible to tease coherent strands out of the passage, and therefore, as Westermann put it, “it is better to settle for a series of additions without any further precision” (Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 480). See Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, trans. Bernhard W. Anderson (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972), 29n94. (For the German original, see Martin Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch [Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1948], 30–31n94.) 25 Gen 18:3; 30:27; 33:10; 47:29; 50:4; Exod 33:13; 34:9; Num 11:15; 32:5; Judg 6:17; 1 Sam 20:29; 27:5; Esth 5:8; 7:3; 8:5. 26 For an alternative reading – “I have become wealthy” – see Jakob Sperber, “Zu Gen. 30, 27 b,” Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 16, no. 9 (1913): 389–90; and Nahum M. Waldman, “A Note on Genesis 30:27b,” JQR 55, no. 2 (1964): 164–65. For more on this Semitic stem, see 23 24

36

3. The Jumbled Bible: A New Hypothesis

Several scholars and translators have therefore been compelled to supply Laban with the necessary request. In his commentary on Genesis, Charles Ball reasons as follows: ‫ ;אם נא מצאתי חן בעיניך‬but it would be hard to parallel the supposed aposiopesis in these narratives. Something has fallen out; ‫ שבה עמדי כי‬stay with me, for I have taken the omens &c. (29,19); cf. A who supplies ‫ اقم‬stay! or ‫ אל תלך כי‬do not go, for &c. (v. 26).27

Ultimately, however, those who put a request in Laban’s mouth only shift the difficulty from one point in the passage to another. Their proposed original text would have been something like the following: 27And Laban said to him, “If I have found favor in your sight, stay with me, for I have learned by divination that the LORD has blessed me on your account.” 28And he said, “Name the wages due from me, and I will pay you.”

The progression from Laban’s reconstructed request in verse 27 and his words in verse 28 is difficult to follow. Did Laban decide to abruptly withdraw his request that Jacob stay, replacing it with the offer to pay him his dues immediately?28 Or, alternatively, are we to conclude that Laban was offering to pay for a duration of future labor? Even if we were to accept one of these two interpretations, Laban’s choice of words remains difficult to account for. Jacob’s petitioning of Laban for leave and his request that Laban “give” him his wife and children is suggestive of a servant seeking manumission. As Jon D. Levenson puts it: “The underlying assumption seems to be that Jacob had accepted the status of an indentured servant. Thus, he could not leave without his master’s permission, and his wives and children would belong to the master.”29 Given such a dynamic, the difficulty with Laban saying “if I have found favor in your sight” is twofold. Not only is the necessary request absent, as discussed above, but the deferential prefatory phrase is inherently problematic. It would be more natural for the obsequious idiom to originate from a servant seeking manumission, rather than from a master eager for additional labor. Indeed, in every other appearance of the idiom in the Bible,30 including the variants ‫( ִאם ֶא ְמ ָצא ֵחן‬Exod 33:13aβ, 2 Sam 15:25) and ‫ִאם‬ Moshe Greenberg, “NḤŠTK (Ezek. 16:36): Another Hebrew Cognate of Akkadian naḫāšu,” in Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of J. J. Finkelstein, ed. Maria de Jong Ellis (Hamden, CT: Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1977), 85–86. The matter of this word’s meaning in context, though interesting, does not bear on our discussion here. 27 Ball, Genesis, 85. Cf. Obadja Sforno: “If I have found favor in your sight … it would be improper for you to leave me. And this is since I have learned by divination …” (my translation), and KJV: “And Laban said unto him, I pray thee, if I have found favour in thine eyes, tarry: for I have learned by experience that the LORD hath blessed me for thy sake.” 28 Cf. Deut 15:12–14. 29 Jon D. Levenson, Genesis, in The Jewish Study Bible, ed. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 62. 30 See note 25.

3.1. Cut-and-Paste Errors

37

‫( לא ִת ְמ ָצא ֵחן‬Deut 24:1), the party that might find favor in the other’s eyes is the subservient one.31 Let us then entertain the possibility that the phrase was uttered by Jacob, not Laban. If we transfer the words to the indentured servant, the resulting text reads as follows: 25After Rachel had borne Joseph, Jacob said to Laban, 27aβ“If I have found favor in your sight, send me off, that I may go to my home and my country.” 26“Give me my wives and my children, for whom I have served you, and I shall go; for you know the nature of my service.” 27And Laban said to him, 27b“I have learned by divination that the LORD has blessed me on your account.” 28And he said, “Name the wages due from me, and I will pay you.”

The above text progresses logically, with Jacob requesting leave and Laban assenting and offering to compensate him for his service. Of course, it would be reckless to rearrange a text merely because an alternative order seems preferable. But more is afoot here. We have already observed, and there is widespread agreement, that the present text is corrupt – the only question being in what way. We have also noted that the phrase “if I have found favor in your sight” is problematic when said by Laban to Jacob, whereas it would be fitting if uttered by Jacob. Furthermore, the cause of the textual blunder, as well as the modus operandi, may be discernible here. As in the previous examples, the words immediately preceding the phrase in its canonical location resemble those that would have stood before it had it been situated in its more natural position. In the Hebrew, the phrases “And Laban said to him” and “Jacob said to Laban” are “‫ ”ויאמר אליו לבן‬and “‫ויאמר יעקב אל לבן‬,” respectively. Though antithetical in meaning, the two Hebrew phrases readily lend themselves to confusion. Both begin and end with precisely the same words, and only a few characters – of which two are identical – stand between them. The Hebrew phrases beginning with ‫ ויאמר‬and ending with ‫ לבן‬are sufficient cause for confusion, but the circumstances in this particular instance are especially amenable to error. Recent cognitive studies have found that readers regularly skip over short or common words without fully processing them, while the brain attempts to fill in the gaps.32 The medial words ‫ אל‬and ‫אליו‬, as well as the name of the cycle’s protagonist, ‫יעקב‬, all neatly fall into these categories. Consequently, in the process of pasting the text of his Vorlagen onto a new scroll, the redactor of this passage could easily have confused the two phrases, 31 Jacob/Israel’s use of the phrase in conversation with his son Joseph in Gen 47:29 might appear to be an exception to this rule. However, in context, Jacob is in fact the subservient party, and that passage concludes (v. 31): “Then Israel bowed himself on the head of his bed.” 32 See Marc Brysbaert, Denis Drieghe, and Françoise Vitu, “Word Skipping: Implications for Theories of Eye Movement: Control in Reading,” in Cognitive Processes in Eye Guidance, ed. Geoffrey D. M. Underwood (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 125–47; Denis Drieghe, Keith Rayner, and Alexander Pollatsek, “Eye Movements and Word Skipping during Reading Revisited,” Journal of Experimental Psychology 31, no. 5 (2005): 954–69.

38

3. The Jumbled Bible: A New Hypothesis

Fig. 14. Migration due to parablepsis in Genesis 30.

mistakenly placing the patch reading “if I have found favor in your sight” after the wrong one. On the other hand, a scribe copying from two scrolls, working in the linear fashion that characterizes that method, would be unlikely to accidentally create the disorder we see here. Once again, the state of the biblical text is best explained as the result of redactional parablepsis coupled with a cut-and-paste methodology. We have now seen three redacted texts bearing the fingerprints of patchwork redaction, suggesting that Pentateuchal redactors responsible for the combination of the original sources sometimes assembled their works with knife and paste, rather than ink on papyrus or leather. (See fig. 14.)

3.2. Cut-and-Paste Errors: Textual Transpositions We have now seen several cases of textual migration due to parablepsis between two similar target locations. Textual transposition, on the other hand, occurs when the confusion of two (or possibly more) similar segments leads those units to be interchanged with one another. Examples of this phenomenon follow.

3.2. Cut-and-Paste Errors

39

3.2.1. Genesis 48: The Blessings of Joseph and Sons Text A: Joseph Text B: Joseph Text C: Joseph Secondary Material: Joseph and Joseph 1After

this Joseph was told, “Your father is ill.” So he took with him his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim. 2And Jacob was told, “Your son Joseph has come to you,” and Israel summoned his strength and sat up in bed. 3And Jacob said to Joseph, “God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and he blessed me, 4and said to me, ‘I am going to make you fruitful and increase your numbers; I will make of you a company of peoples, and will give this land to your offspring after you for a perpetual holding.’ 5Therefore your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, are now mine; Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine, just as Reuben and Simeon are. 6As for the offspring born to you after them, they shall be yours. They shall be recorded under the names of their brothers with regard to their inheritance. 7For when I came from Paddan, Rachel, alas, died in the land of Canaan on the way, while there was still some distance to go to Ephrath; and I buried her there on the way to Ephrath” (that is, Bethlehem). 8When Israel saw Joseph’s sons, he said, “Who are these?” 9Joseph said to his father, “They are my sons, whom God has given me here.” And he said, “Bring them to me, please, that I may bless them.” 10Now the eyes of Israel were dim with age, and he could not see well. And Joseph brought them near him; and he kissed them and embraced them. 11Israel said to Joseph, “I did not expect to see your face; and here God has let me see your children also.” 12Then Joseph removed them from his father’s knees, and he bowed himself with his face to the earth. 13Joseph took them both, Ephraim in his right hand toward Israel’s left, and Manasseh in his left hand toward Israel’s right, and brought them near him. 14But Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on the head of Ephraim, who was the younger, and his left hand on the head of Manasseh, crossing his hands, for Manasseh was the firstborn. 15And he blessed Joseph, and said, “The God before whom my ancestors Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day, 16the angel who has redeemed me from all harm, bless the boys; and in them let my name be perpetuated, and the name of my ancestors Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude on the earth.” 17And Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand on the head of Ephraim, and it displeased him; so he took his father’s hand, to remove it from Ephraim’s head to Manasseh’s head. 18Joseph said to his father, “Not so, my father! Since this one is the firstborn, put your right hand on his head.” 19But his father refused, and said, “I know, my son, I know; he also shall become a people, and he also shall be

‫‪3. The Jumbled Bible: A New Hypothesis‬‬

‫‪40‬‬

‫‪great. Nevertheless his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his offspring‬‬ ‫‪shall become a multitude of nations.” 20And he blessed them that day, saying,‬‬ ‫‪“By you [sing.] Israel will invoke blessings, saying, ‘God make you [sing.] like‬‬ ‫‪Ephraim and like Manasseh,’” and he put Ephraim ahead of Manasseh. 21Then‬‬ ‫‪Israel said to Joseph, “I am about to die, but God will be with you and will bring‬‬ ‫‪you again to the land of your ancestors. 22I now give to you one portion more‬‬ ‫‪than to your brothers, the portion that I took from the hand of the Amorites with‬‬ ‫”‪my sword and with my bow.‬‬ ‫טקסט א‪ :‬יוֹ ֵסף‬ ‫יֹוסף‬ ‫טקסט ב‪ֵ :‬‬ ‫יֹוסף‬ ‫טקסט ג ‪ֵ :‬‬ ‫יֹוסף‬ ‫חומר עריכתי‪ :‬יוֹ ֵסף וְ ֵ‬

‫אָביָך חֹלֶ ה וַ יִּ ַקּח ֶאת ְשׁנֵ י ָבנָ יו ִעמֹּו ֶאת ְמנַ ֶשּׁה וְ ֶאת‬ ‫יֹוסף ִהנֵּ ה ִ‬ ‫ֹאמר לְ ֵ‬ ‫אַח ֵרי ַה ְדּ ָב ִרים ָה ֵאלֶּ ה וַ יּ ֶ‬ ‫‪1‬וַ יְ ִהי ֲ‬

‫ֹאמר‬ ‫יֹוסף ָבּא ֵאלֶ יָך וַ יִּ ְת ַחזֵּ ק יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל וַ יֵּ ֶשׁב ַעל ַה ִמּ ָטּה׃ ‪3‬וַ יּ ֶ‬ ‫ֹאמר ִהנֵּ ה ִבּנְ ָך ֵ‬ ‫ֶא ְפ ָריִ ם‪2 :‬וַ יַּ גֵּ ד לְ יַ עֲ קֹב וַ יּ ֶ‬ ‫ית ָך‬ ‫ֹאמר ֵאלַ י ִהנְ נִ י ַמ ְפ ְר ָך וְ ִה ְר ִבּ ִ‬ ‫יַ ֲעקֹב ֶאל יוֹ ֵסף ֵאל ַשׁ ַדּי נִ ְראָה ֵאלַ י ְבּלוּז ְבּ ֶא ֶרץ כְּ נָ ַען וַ יְ ָב ֶר ְך א ִֹתי׃ ‪4‬וַ יּ ֶ‬ ‫אַח ֶר ָ‬ ‫וּנְ ַת ִתּ ָ‬ ‫יך ֲא ֻחזַּ ת עוֹ לָ ם׃ ‪5‬וְ ַע ָתּה ְשׁנֵ י ָבנֶ ָ‬ ‫אָרץ ַהזֹּאת לְ זַ ְר ֲע ָך ֲ‬ ‫יך לִ ְק ַהל ַע ִמּים וְ נָ ַת ִתּי ֶאת ָה ֶ‬ ‫יך‬ ‫ַהנּוֹ לָ ִדים לְ ָך ְבּ ֶא ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם ַעד בּ ִֹאי ֵאלֶ ָ‬ ‫אוּבן וְ ִשׁ ְמעוֹ ן יִ ְהיוּ‬ ‫וּמנַ ֶשּׁה כִּ ְר ֵ‬ ‫יך ִמ ְצ ַריְ ָמה לִ י ֵהם ֶא ְפ ַריִ ם ְ‬ ‫יהם לְ ָך יִ ְהיוּ ַעל ֵשׁם ֲא ֵח ֶ‬ ‫אַח ֵר ֶ‬ ‫לִ י׃ ‪6‬וּמוֹ לַ ְד ְתּ ָך ֲא ֶשׁר הוֹ לַ ְד ָתּ ֲ‬ ‫יהם יִ ָקּ ְראוּ ְבּנַ ֲחלָ ָתם׃ ‪7‬וַ ֲאנִ י ְבּב ִֹאי ִמ ַפּ ָדּן‬ ‫ֵמ ָתה ָעלַ י ָר ֵחל ְבּ ֶא ֶרץ כְּ נַ ַען ַבּ ֶדּ ֶר ְך ְבּעוֹ ד כִּ ְב ַרת ֶא ֶרץ לָ בֹא ֶא ְפ ָר ָתה וָ ֶא ְק ְבּ ֶר ָה ָשּׁם ְבּ ֶד ֶר ְך ֶא ְפ ָרת ִהוא‬ ‫אָביו ָבּנַ י ֵהם ֲא ֶשׁר נָ ַתן לִ י‬ ‫יֹוסף ֶאל ִ‬ ‫ֹאמר ֵ‬ ‫ֹאמר ִמי ֵאלֶּ ה‪9 :‬וַ יּ ֶ‬ ‫יֹוסף וַ יּ ֶ‬ ‫ֵבּית לָ ֶחם׃ ‪8‬וַ יַּ ְרא יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ֶאת ְבּנֵ י ֵ‬ ‫ֹלהים ָבּזֶ ה וַ יּ ַ‬ ‫ֱא ִ‬ ‫ֹאמר ָק ֶחם נָ א ֵאלַ י וַ ֲא ָב ֲרכֵ ם‪10 :‬וְ ֵעינֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל כָּ ְבדוּ ִמזּ ֶֹקן ל ֹא יוּכַ ל לִ ְראֹות וַ יַּ גֵּ שׁ א ָֹתם‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫יֹוסף ְראֹה פָ נֶ יך לֹא פִ לָּ לְ ִתּי וְ ִהנֵּ ה ֶה ְראָה א ִֹתי‬ ‫ֹאמר יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ֶאל ֵ‬ ‫ֵאלָ יו וַ יִּ ַשּׁק לָ ֶהם וַ יְ ַח ֵבּק לָ ֶהם‪11 :‬וַ יּ ֶ‬ ‫יֹוסף ֶאת‬ ‫אָר ָצה‪13 :‬וַ יִּ ַקּח ֵ‬ ‫יֹוסף א ָֹתם ֵמעִ ם ִבּ ְרכָּ יו וַ יִּ ְשׁ ַתּחוּ לְ אַפָּ יו ְ‬ ‫יֹּוצא ֵ‬ ‫ֱאל ִֹהים גַּ ם ֶאת זַ ְרעֶ ָך‪12 :‬וַ ֵ‬

‫ְשׁנֵ ֶיהם ֶאת ֶא ְפ ַריִ ם ִבּ ִימינֹו ִמ ְשּׂמֹאל יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל וְ ֶאת ְמנַ ֶשּׁה ִב ְשׂמֹאלֹו ִמ ִימין יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל וַ יַּ גֵּ שׁ ֵאלָ יו‪14 :‬וַ יִּ ְשׁלַ ח‬ ‫יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ֶאת יְ ִמינֹו וַ יָּ ֶשׁת עַ ל רֹאשׁ ֶא ְפ ַריִ ם וְ הוּא ַהצָּ ִעיר וְ ֶאת ְשׂמֹאלֹו ַעל רֹאשׁ ְמנַ ֶשּׁה ִשׂכֵּ ל ֶאת יָ ָדיו‬ ‫אַב ָר ָהם וְ יִ ְצ ָחק‬ ‫ֹאמר ָה ֱאל ִֹהים ֲא ֶשׁר ִה ְת ַהלְּ כוּ ֲאב ַֹתי לְ פָ נָ יו ְ‬ ‫כִּ י ְמנַ ֶשּׁה ַה ְבּכֹור‪15 :‬וַ יְ ָב ֶר ְך ֶאת יוֹ ֵסף וַ יּ ַ‬

‫עֹודי עַ ד ַהיֹּום ַהזֶּ ה‪ַ 16 :‬ה ַמּלְ ְ‬ ‫אָך ַהגּ ֵֹאל א ִֹתי ִמכָּ ל ָרע יְ ָב ֵר ְך ֶאת ַהנְּ עָ ִרים‬ ‫ָה ֱאל ִֹהים ָהרֹעֶ ה א ִֹתי ֵמ ִ‬ ‫אָביו יַ ד‬ ‫יֹוסף כִּ י יָ ִשׁית ִ‬ ‫אָרץ‪17 :‬וַ יַּ ְרא ֵ‬ ‫אַב ָר ָהם וְ יִ ְצ ָחק וְ יִ ְדגּוּ לָ רֹב ְבּ ֶק ֶרב ָה ֶ‬ ‫וְ יִ ָקּ ֵרא ָב ֶהם ְשׁ ִמי וְ ֵשׁם ֲאב ַֹתי ְ‬

‫אָביו לְ ָה ִסיר א ָֹתהּ ֵמ ַעל רֹאשׁ ֶא ְפ ַריִ ם ַעל רֹאשׁ ְמנַ ֶשּׁה‪:‬‬ ‫יְ ִמינֹו ַעל רֹאשׁ ֶא ְפ ַריִ ם וַ יֵּ ַרע ְבּ ֵעינָ יו וַ יִּ ְתמְֹך יַ ד ִ‬ ‫ֹאמר יָ ַד ְע ִתּי‬ ‫אָביו וַ יּ ֶ‬ ‫אָבי כִּ י זֶ ה ַה ְבּכֹר ִשׂים יְ ִמינְ ָך ַעל רֹאשֹׁו‪19 :‬וַ יְ ָמ ֵאן ִ‬ ‫אָביו ל ֹא כֵ ן ִ‬ ‫יֹוסף ֶאל ִ‬ ‫ֹאמר ֵ‬ ‫‪18‬וַ יּ ֶ‬ ‫אָחיו ַה ָקּטֹן יִ גְ ַדּל ִמ ֶמּנּוּ וְ זַ ְרעֹו יִ ְהיֶ ה ְמל ֹא ַהגֹּויִ ם‪:‬‬ ‫ְבנִ י יָ ַדעְ ִתּי גַּ ם הוּא יִ ְהיֶ ה לְּ עָ ם וְ גַ ם הוּא יִ גְ ָדּל וְ אוּלָ ם ִ‬ ‫‪20‬וַ יְ ָב ֲרכֵ ם ַבּיֹּום ַההוּא לֵ אמוֹ ר ְבּ ָך יְ ָב ֵר ְך יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל לֵ אמֹר יְ ִשׂ ְמ ָך ֱאל ִהים כְּ ֶא ְפ ַריִ ם וְ כִ ְמנַ ֶשּׁה וַ יָּ ֶשׂם ֶאת‬ ‫ֹלהים עִ ָמּכֶ ם וְ ֵה ִשׁיב ֶא ְתכֶ ם‬ ‫יֹוסף ִהנֵּ ה אָנֹכִ י ֵמת וְ ָהיָ ה ֱא ִ‬ ‫ֹאמר יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ֶאל ֵ‬ ‫ֶא ְפ ַריִ ם לִ ְפנֵ י ְמנַ ֶשּׁה‪21 :‬וַ יּ ֶ‬ ‫אַחיָך ֲא ֶשׁר לָ ַק ְח ִתּי ִמיַּ ד ָה ֱאמ ִֹרי ְבּ ַח ְר ִבּי ְוּב ַק ְשׁ ִתּי‪:‬‬ ‫אַחד ַעל ֶ‬ ‫ֶאל ֶא ֶרץ ֲאב ֵֹתיכֶ ם‪22 :‬וַ ֲאנִ י נָ ַת ִתּי לְ ָך ְשׁכֶ ם ַ‬

‫‪Genesis 48 contains Jacob’s blessings of Joseph and his sons, Manasseh and‬‬ ‫‪Ephraim. Like the texts discussed above, it is a composite, and it too appears to‬‬ ‫‪be jumbled: Joseph’s blessing and that of his sons are swapped. Here, however,‬‬ ‫‪we do not have a case of textual migration, but the transposition of two passages,‬‬ ‫‪as we shall see.‬‬

3.2. Cut-and-Paste Errors

41

Before investigating the jumbling and its cause, let us briefly review the scholarship on the chapter’s composition. Genesis 48 includes Jacob’s blessing of Joseph, as well as his blessing of Joseph’s sons, Ephraim and Manasseh (which will be discussed presently). There is a consensus among scholars that verses 3–7 are of Priestly origin. They recall previous P events, interrupt the surrounding (non-P) narrative, and contain numerous terms strongly associated with the Priestly literary tradition, including ‫אל שדי‬, ‫פדן‬, ‫אחזת עולם‬, and ‫פרה ורבה‬.33 The remainder of P’s account of Jacob’s final testament and his blessings of his sons appears in Gen 49:1a+28bβ–33. Most scholars consider the non-P component of the chapter to be itself a composite of two threads, whether independent34 or otherwise.35 Some evidence to that effect: 1. Verses 10b–12 and 13–14 cover the same ground, while differing in details. In both, Joseph presents his sons to Jacob, but in only the second of these sections is one of the sons given primacy.36 That Joseph “removed them from his father’s knees” in verse 12 only to bring them to his father in the next verse suggests that these are parallel traditions, not a kernel and supplement. 2. Verse 10a, the statement that Jacob was hard of sight, does not connect with 10b–12, but rather explains Jacob’s surprising question in verse 8, “Who are these?”37 and also sets the stage for verses 13–14, where Joseph guides Jacob’s hands (and Jacob resists).38 3. The section that is introduced in MT as Joseph’s benediction (“He blessed Joseph, and said” [15a]) ends up, rather, being a blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh (“… the angel who has redeemed me from all harm, bless the boys; and in them let my name be perpetuated … and let them grow into a multitude on the earth” [15b–16]).39 4. Conversely, after being told that we are going to hear Jacob’s blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh (“So he blessed them that day, saying” [20aα]), the 33 The consensus surrounding v. 7 is somewhat weaker, with some taking the verse to be a later addition, perhaps by a Priestly Fortschreiber. See Karl Ferdinand Reinhardt Budde, “Genesis 48, 7 und die benachbarten Abschnitte,” ZAW 3 (1883): 56–86; Wellhausen, Composition, 52. More recently, see Westermann, Genesis 37–50, 184, 186. For the other view, see, e. g., Speiser, Genesis, 359. 34 E. g., August Dillmann, Genesis: Critically and Exegetically Expounded, vol. 2, trans. William B. Stevenson (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1897), 433–44; Bacon, Genesis of Genesis, 214– 17; Ball, Genesis, 42–43; Carl Heinrich Cornill, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, GTW 2/1 (Freiburg: Mohr, 1891), 28–29; Fripp, Composition of Genesis, 141–42; Carpenter and HarfordBattersby, The Hexateuch, 2:74–76. 35 E. g., Noth, Pentateuchal Traditions, 36n136; Westermann, Genesis 37–50, 184–94. 36 Westermann, Genesis 37–50, 188. 37 See, e. g., Fripp, Composition, 141. 38 Westermann, Genesis, 187. 39 Pace Gunkel (Genesis, 448–49), who argues that the juxtaposition of “he blessed Joseph” and a blessing of the boys is not problematic. LXX replaces the problematic reference to Joseph here with a plural pronoun denoting his sons. See next note.

42

3. The Jumbled Bible: A New Hypothesis

Masoretic version instead continues with an apparent blessing of Joseph (“By you [sing.] Israel will invoke blessings, saying, ‘God make you like Ephraim and like Manasseh’” [20aβ]).40 5. Separate from the issue of Joseph’s blessing seeming to be a blessing of Joseph’s sons and vice versa, verses 21–22 arguably reflect a separate tradition regarding Jacob’s blessing of Joseph. 6. The narrative flow of the chapter is difficult to accept: Jacob crosses his arms in verse 14, in preparation for his blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh, but then proceeds to (ostensibly) bless Joseph in verses 15–17. Only in verse 17 does Joseph notice that his father’s arms are crossed and then issue his protest: “And Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand on the head of Ephraim, and it displeased him,” etc.41 But Joseph was present all along; why did he not respond earlier? A scene in which Jacob blesses Joseph (with content befitting his sons) with arms crossed and placed on the heads of Joseph’s sons – in anticipation of a separate blessing – seems highly unlikely, to say the least. In view of the above, it appears that the chapter is not only a pastiche of multiple literary traditions – a Priestly thread and two non-Priestly elements – but indeed a jumbled patchwork. The following would have been a coherent arrangement of the source material: 1After this Joseph was told, “Your father is ill.” So he took with him his two sons, Manasseh and

Ephraim. 2And Jacob was told, “Your son Joseph has come to you,” and Israel summoned his strength and sat up in bed. 3And Jacob said to Joseph, “God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and he blessed me, 4and said to me, ‘I am going to make you fruitful and increase your numbers; I will make of you a company of peoples, and will give this land to your offspring after you for a perpetual holding.’ 5Therefore your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, are now mine; Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine, just as Reuben and Simeon are. 6As for the offspring born to you after them, they shall be yours. They shall be recorded under the names of their brothers with regard to their inheritance. 7For when I came from Paddan, Rachel, alas, died in the land of Canaan on the way, while there was still some distance to

40 These two difficulties seem to have troubled various ancient copyists and translators, who glossed over them both. The name “Joseph” in v. 15a is replaced with a plural pronoun in LXX, and the singular “you” in verse 20a becomes a plural in both LXX and Ms D of the Targum fragments. Since scribal error is unlikely to have been at play in either of these cases – the changes seem purposeful – MT’s lectio difficilior is preferable (pace Budde). Arguments for a “distributive” sense of ‫ ְבּ ָך‬in verse 20a (e. g., Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis, The JPS Torah Commentary [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989], 329) are unconvincing, especially in light of the fact that the mirror-image of this problem appears in vss. 15–16, where the blessing of a single individual, Joseph, ends up being in the plural and referencing the wrong subjects. Uncommon grammatical phenomena are of no help there. Dillmann (Genesis, 442) notes that the blessing in v. 20 belongs together with v. 15’s “and he blessed Joseph,” attributing the rearrangement to editorial privilege. 41 Westermann, Genesis 37–50, 190.

3.2. Cut-and-Paste Errors

43

go to Ephrath; and I buried her there on the way to Ephrath” (that is, Bethlehem). 10aNow the eyes of Israel were dim with age, and he could not see well. 8When Israel saw Joseph’s sons, he said, “Who are these?” 9Joseph said to his father, “They are my sons, whom God has given me here.” And he said, “Bring them to me, please, that I may bless them.” 10bAnd Joseph brought them near him; and he kissed them and embraced them. 11Israel said to Joseph, “I did not expect to see your face; and here God has let me see your children also.” 12Then Joseph removed them from his father’s knees, and he bowed himself with his face to the earth. 13Joseph took them both, Ephraim in his right hand toward Israel’s left, and Manasseh in his left hand toward Israel’s right, and brought them near him. 14But Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on the head of Ephraim, who was the younger, and his left hand on the head of Manasseh, crossing his hands, for Manasseh was the firstborn. 17And Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand on the head of Ephraim, and it displeased him; so he took his father’s hand, to remove it from Ephraim’s head to Manasseh’s head. 18Joseph said to his father, “Not so, my father! Since this one is the firstborn, put your right hand on his head.” 19But his father refused, and said, “I know, my son, I know; he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great. Nevertheless his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his offspring shall become a multitude of nations.” 20aαAnd he blessed them that day, 15aβand said, “The God before whom my ancestors Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day, 16the angel who has redeemed me from all harm, bless the boys; and in them let my name be perpetuated, and the name of my ancestors Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude on the earth.” 15aαAnd he blessed Joseph, 20aβsaying, “By you [sing.] Israel will invoke blessings, saying, ‘God make you [sing.] like Ephraim and like Manasseh,’” 20band he put Ephraim ahead of Manasseh. 21Then Israel said to Joseph, “I am about to die, but God will be with you and will bring you again to the land of your ancestors. 22I now give to you one portion more than to your brothers, the portion that I took from the hand of the Amorites with my sword and with my bow.”

This proposed rearrangement involves two changes from the received text. First, 10a moves before verse 8, and second, two sequences  – 15aα and 17–20aα  – are transposed. With these minor maneuvers, all the aforementioned problems are resolved. The narrative progresses logically: Joseph receives an appropriate blessing, Ephraim and Manasseh likewise, and there is no interruption of the crossed-arms sequence. Although some would attach 10a, the comment that Jacob’s vision was poor, to verses 13–14,42 it seems much more closely affiliated with verse 8, where Jacob asks Joseph who the children he brought with him are.43 The infelicitous placement of 10a can be easily explained if it is viewed as a marginal or interlinear gloss. As a parenthetical note that explains a plot detail – appearing in the wrong place, to boot – it has every sign of being one.44 The transposition in this chapter is of greater interest. The swap of 15aα for 17–20aα would have been minor from a material standpoint but is major in terms of impact on the finished product. The former reads “and he blessed 42 Westermann,

Genesis 37–50, 187. Fripp, Composition, 141. 44 See discussion of migrating glosses above. 43 With

44

3. The Jumbled Bible: A New Hypothesis

Joseph,” while the latter – a longer sequence – concludes with “and he blessed them that day.” I propose that the redactor of this section made a simple mistake when he decided to affix the blessing of Manasseh and Ephraim from C (15aβ– 16) to B’s “and he blessed them that day” (B only had the statements that Jacob blessed them and gave Ephraim priority). Seeing the words “God make you like Ephraim and like Manasseh,” he thought he had identified his snippet, not realizing that it was Joseph’s blessing that, confusingly, mentioned the two boys by name. Making matters worse, the sons’ blessing lacked any mention of their names. With Joseph’s benediction and the introduction to the boys’ blessing now spoken for, their own blessing and the introduction to their father’s blessing became conjoined. Scholars are in agreement that this chapter contains material from a variety of sources, and there is also wide consensus that it is not coherent in its present state. However, documentary scholars have not been able to adequately explain the chapter’s problematic progression or the blessing mismatches. Those who have proposed a series of Fortschreibungen in the non-Priestly version, rather than two narrative threads, have had difficulty explaining the purpose of the various additions. What would compel a scribe to insert either 10b–12 or 15aβ– 16 into the text?45 Neither changes the text’s thrust in any appreciable way. The incompatible blessings also remain an issue. For instance, Westermann  – the foremost proponent of this approach – is forced to speculate regarding lost and reworked blessings, and again, the motive for modification is not entirely clear.46 It seems that this chapter is in fact the product of both documentary redaction and, to a considerably lesser extent, supplementation. None of the three hands that can be discerned in the chapter appears to be a Fortschreibung of another. As noted above, the pro-Ephraim and equal-opportunity non-P threads are too repetitive for supplementation to be likely. The missing key to interpreting this chapter is the possibility of transposition due to a redactional confusion of similar text snippets. A redactor cut up three scrolls with the aim of reassembling the patches into a composite story of Jacob’s final blessings.47 The reassembly did not go well, however. The confusing fact that Ephraim and Manasseh were mentioned by name in Joseph’s blessing and not in their own one gave rise to a redactional error, which in turn led to the chapter’s confounding jumbled state. The transposition of two segments of texts – as opposed to the migration of a section from one place to another  – is ipso facto suggestive of a patchwork method of editing, as it requires a confusion between two freestanding segments 45 Westermann,

Genesis 37–50, 188–90. 189. 47 As discussed above, the redactor would likely have cut up his source texts before he had a final plan regarding the snippets’ new arrangement. Evidence for a similar mode of operation in other historical contexts is discussed in “Modern Analogues” (§ 6), below. 46 Ibid.,

3.2. Cut-and-Paste Errors

45

Fig. 15. Transposition in Genesis 48.

of text. As discussed above, a scribal method of redaction is likely to lead to accidentally lost sequences of text, but it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which it leads to jumbling of the nature we have observed here. Entries into the margin or between the lines would also not explain the current state of the text. The reason for this is twofold. First, we have here a transposition of two sequences. Second, marginal insertions are typically secondary additions, whereas the removal of either misplaced segment here would result in an incomplete narrative. Tangentially, it should be noted that if this analysis is correct, verses 15aα+20aβ would seem to be a natural conclusion to the Priestly passage in verses 3–6(, 7). The reconstructed sequence begins with the blessing Jacob received, continues with the elevation of Ephraim and Manasseh, and concludes with Jacob’s blessing of Joseph stating that the names of Ephraim and Manasseh would be invoked in the benedictions of Israelites for generations to come: 2And Jacob was told, “Your son Joseph has come to you.” 3And Jacob said to Joseph, “God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and he blessed me, 4and said to me, ‘I am going to make you fruitful and increase your numbers; I will make of you a

46

3. The Jumbled Bible: A New Hypothesis

company of peoples, and will give this land to your offspring after you for a perpetual holding.’ 5Therefore your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, are now mine; Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine, just as Reuben and Simeon are. 6As for the offspring born to you after them, they shall be yours. They shall be recorded under the names of their brothers with regard to their inheritance. 15And he blessed Joseph, 20aβsaying, “By you Israel will invoke blessings, saying, ‘God make you like Ephraim and like Manasseh.’”

(See fig. 15.)

3.2.2. Exodus 16: Manna and Quail Text A (P): Moses Text B (Non-P): Moses 1The

whole congregation of the Israelites set out from Elim; and Israel came to the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after they had departed from the land of Egypt. 2The whole congregation of the Israelites complained against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness. 3The Israelites said to them, “If only we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the fleshpots and ate our fill of bread; for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger.” 4Then the LORD said to Moses, “I am going to rain bread from heaven for you, and each day the people shall go out and gather enough for that day. In that way I will test them, whether they will follow my instruction or not. 5On the sixth day, when they prepare what they bring in, it will be twice as much as they gather on other days.” 6And Moses and Aaron said to all the Israelites, “In the evening you shall know that it was the LORD who brought you out of the land of Egypt, 7and in the morning you shall see the glory of the LORD, because he has heard your complaining against the LORD. For what are we, that you complain against us?” 8And Moses said, “When the LORD gives you meat to eat in the evening and your fill of bread in the morning, because the LORD has heard the complaining that you utter against him – what are we? Your complaining is not against us but against the LORD.” 9And Moses said to Aaron, “Say to the whole congregation of the Israelites, ‘Draw near to the LORD, for he has heard your complaining.’” 10And as Aaron spoke to the whole congregation of the Israelites, they looked toward the wilderness, and the glory of the LORD appeared in the cloud. 11The LORD spoke to Moses and said, 12“I have heard the complaining of the Israelites; say to them, ‘At twilight you shall eat meat, and in the morning you shall have your fill of bread; then you shall know that I am the LORD your God.’” 13In the evening quails came up and covered the camp; and in the morning there was a layer of dew around the camp. 14When the layer of dew lifted, there on the surface of the wilder-

3.2. Cut-and-Paste Errors

47

ness was a fine flaky substance, as fine as frost on the ground. 15aWhen the Israelites saw it, they said to one another, “What is it?” For they did not know what it was. 15bMoses said to them, “It is the bread that the LORD has given you to eat. 16This is what the LORD has commanded: ‘Gather as much of it as each of you needs, an omer to a person according to the number of persons, all providing for those in their own tents.’” 17The Israelites did so, some gathering more, some less. 18But when they measured it with an omer, those who gathered much had nothing over, and those who gathered little had no shortage; they gathered as much as each of them needed. 19And Moses said to them, “Let no one leave any of it over until morning.” 20But they did not listen to Moses; some left part of it until morning, and it bred worms and became foul. And Moses was angry with them. 21Morning by morning they gathered it, as much as each needed; but when the sun grew hot, it melted. 22On the sixth day they gathered twice as much food, two omers apiece. When all the leaders of the congregation came and told Moses, 23he said to them, “This is what the LORD has commanded: ‘Tomorrow is a day of solemn rest, a holy sabbath to the LORD; bake what you want to bake and boil what you want to boil, and all that is left over put aside to be kept until morning.’” 24So they put it aside until morning, as Moses commanded them; and it did not become foul, and there were no worms in it. 25Moses said, “Eat it today, for today is a sabbath to the LORD; today you will not find it in the field. 26Six days you shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is a sabbath, there will be none.” 27On the seventh day some of the people went out to gather, and they found none. 28The LORD said to Moses, “How long will you refuse to keep my commandments and instructions? 29See! The LORD has given you the sabbath, therefore on the sixth day he gives you food for two days; each of you stay where you are; do not leave your place on the seventh day.” 30So the people rested on the seventh day. 31The house of Israel called it manna; it was like coriander seed, white, and the taste of it was like wafers made with honey. 32Moses said, “This is what the LORD has commanded: ‘Let an omer of it be kept throughout your generations, in order that they may see the food with which I fed you in the wilderness, when I brought you out of the land of Egypt.’” 33And Moses said to Aaron, “Take a jar, and put an omer of manna in it, and place it before the LORD, to be kept throughout your generations.” 34As the LORD commanded Moses, so Aaron placed it before the covenant, for safekeeping. 35The Israelites ate manna forty years, until they came to a habitable land; they ate manna, until they came to the border of the land of Canaan. 36An omer is a tenth of an ephah.

‫‪3. The Jumbled Bible: A New Hypothesis‬‬

‫טקסט א (כהני)‪ :‬‬

‫‪48‬‬

‫מ ֶֹשׁה‬

‫טקסט ב (לא‪-‬כהני)‪ :‬מ ֶֹשׁה‬ ‫וּבין ִסינָ י ַבּ ֲח ִמ ָשּׁה ָע ָשׂר‬ ‫‪1‬וַ יִּ ְסעוּ ֵמ ֵאילִ ם וַ יָּ בֹאוּ כָּ ל ֲע ַדת ְבּנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ֶאל ִמ ְד ַבּר ִסין ֲא ֶשׁר ֵבּין ֵאילִ ם ֵ‬ ‫אַהרֹן ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר׃‬ ‫אתם ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם׃ ‪2‬וַ ִ ּילֹּינוּ כָּ ל ֲע ַדת ְבּנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ַעל מ ֶֹשׁה וְ ַעל ֲ‬ ‫יוֹ ם לַ ח ֶֹדשׁ ַה ֵשּׁנִ י לְ ֵצ ָ‬ ‫מוּתנוּ ְביַ ד יְ הוָ ה ְבּ ֶא ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם ְבּ ִשׁ ְב ֵתּנוּ ַעל ִסיר ַה ָבּ ָשׂר ְבּאָכְ לֵ נוּ‬ ‫ֹאמרוּ ֲאלֵ ֶהם ְבּנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ִמי יִ ֵתּן ֵ‬ ‫‪3‬וַ יּ ְ‬ ‫ֹאמר יְ הוָ ה‬ ‫אתם א ָֹתנוּ ֶאל ַה ִמּ ְד ָבּר ַהזֶּ ה לְ ָה ִמית ֶאת כָּ ל ַה ָקּ ָהל ַהזֶּ ה ָבּ ָר ָעב׃ ‪4‬וַ יּ ֶ‬ ‫לֶ ֶחם לָ שׂ ַֹבע כִּ י הוֹ ֵצ ֶ‬

‫ֶאל מ ֶֹשׁה ִהנְ נִ י ַמ ְמ ִטיר לָ כֶ ם לֶ ֶחם ִמן ַה ָשּׁ ָמיִ ם וְ יָ צָ א ָה ָעם וְ לָ ְקטוּ ְדּ ַבר יֹום ְבּיֹומֹו לְ ַמ ַען ֲאנַ ֶסּנּוּ ֲהיֵ לֵ ְך‬ ‫תֹור ִתי ִאם לׂא׃ ‪5‬וְ ָהיָ ה ַבּיֹּום ַה ִשּׁ ִשּׁי וְ ֵהכִ ינוּ ֵאת ֲא ֶשׁר ִיָביאוּ וְ ָהיָ ה ִמ ְשׁנֶ ה ַעל ֲא ֶשׁר יִ לְ ְקטוּ יֹום יֹום׃‬ ‫ְבּ ָ‬

‫אַהרֹן ֶאל כָּ ל ְבּנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ֶע ֶרב וִ ַיד ְע ֶתּם כִּ י יְ הוָ ה הוֹ ִציא ֶא ְתכֶ ם ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם׃ ‪7‬וּב ֶֹקר‬ ‫ֹאמר מ ֶֹשׁה וְ ֲ‬ ‫‪6‬וַ יּ ֶ‬ ‫ֹאמר מ ֶֹשׁה‬ ‫יתם ֶאת כְּ בוֹ ד יְ הוָ ה ְבּ ָשׁ ְמעוֹ ֶאת ְתּלֻ נּ ֵֹתיכֶ ם ַעל יְ הוָ ה וְ נַ ְחנוּ ָמה כִּ י ַת ּ ִלונוּ ָעלֵ ינוּ׃ ‪8‬וַ יּ ֶ‬ ‫ְוּר ִא ֶ‬ ‫אַתּם ַמלִּ ינִ ם‬ ‫ְבּ ֵתת יְ הוָ ה לָ כֶ ם ָבּ ֶע ֶרב ָבּ ָשׂר לֶ ֱאכֹל וְ לֶ ֶחם ַבּבּ ֶֹקר לִ ְשׂבּ ַֹע ִבּ ְשׁמ ַֹע יְ הוָ ה ֶאת ְתּלֻ נּ ֵֹתיכֶ ם ֲא ֶשׁר ֶ‬ ‫אַהרֹן ֱאמֹר ֶאל כָּ ל ֲע ַדת ְבּנֵ י‬ ‫ֹאמר מ ֶֹשׁה ֶאל ֲ‬ ‫ָעלָ יו וְ נַ ְחנוּ ָמה לא ָעלֵ ינוּ ְתלֻ נּ ֵֹתיכֶ ם כִּ י ַעל יְ הוָ ה׃ ‪9‬וַ יּ ֶ‬ ‫אַהרֹן ֶאל כָּ ל ֲע ַדת ְבּנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל וַ יִּ ְפנוּ‬ ‫יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ִק ְרבוּ לִ ְפנֵ י יְ הוָ ה כִּ י ָשׁ ַמע ֵאת ְתּלֻ נּ ֵֹתיכֶ ם׃ ‪10‬וַ יְ ִהי כְּ ַד ֵבּר ֲ‬ ‫ֶאל ַה ִמּ ְד ָבּר וְ ִהנֵּ ה כְּ בוֹ ד יְ הוָ ה נִ ְראָה ֶבּ ָענָ ן׃ ‪11‬וַ יְ ַד ֵבּר יְ הוָ ה ֶאל מ ֶֹשׁה לֵּ אמֹר׃ ‪ָ 12‬שׁ ַמ ְע ִתּי ֶאת ְתּלוּנֹּת ְבּנֵ י‬ ‫וּבבּ ֶֹקר ִתּ ְשׂ ְבּעוּ לָ ֶחם וִ ַיד ְע ֶתּם כִּ י ֲאנִ י יְ הוָ ה‬ ‫יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ַדּ ֵבּר ֲאלֵ ֶהם לֵ אמֹר ֵבּין ָה ַע ְר ַבּיִ ם תֹּאכְ לוּ ָב ָשׂר ַ‬ ‫ֱאל ֵהיכֶ ם׃ ‪13‬וַ יְ ִהי ָב ֶע ֶרב וַ ַתּ ַעל ַה ְשּׂלָ ו וַ ְתּכַ ס ֶאת ַה ַמּ ֲחנֶ ה ַ‬ ‫וּבבּ ֶֹקר ָהיְ ָתה ִשׁכְ ַבת ַה ַטּל ָס ִביב לַ ַמּ ֲחנֶ ה׃‬ ‫אָרץ׃ ‪15a‬וַ יִּ ְראוּ ְבנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ‫‪14‬וַ ַתּ ַעל ִשׁכְ ַבת ַה ָטּל וְ ִהנֵּ ה ַעל ְפּנֵ י ַה ִמּ ְד ָבּר ַדּק ְמ ֻח ְס ָפּס ַדּק כַּ כְּ פֹר ַעל ָה ֶ‬ ‫ֹאמר מ ֶֹשׁה ֲאלֵ ֶהם הוּא ַהלֶּ ֶחם ֲא ֶשׁר נָ ַתן‬ ‫אָחיו ָמן הוּא כִּ י לׂא יָ ְדעוּ ַמה הוּא ‪15b‬וַ יּ ֶ‬ ‫ֹאמרוּ ִאישׁ ֶאל ִ‬ ‫וַ יּ ְ‬ ‫יְ הוָ ה לָ כֶ ם לְ אָכְ לָ ה׃‬ ‫‪16‬זֶ ה ַה ָדּ ָבר ֲא ֶשׁר ִצוָּ ה יְ הוָ ה לִ ְקטוּ ִמ ֶמּנּוּ ִאישׁ לְ ִפי אָכְ לוֹ ע ֶֹמר לַ גֻּ לְ גֹּלֶ ת ִמ ְס ַפּר נַ ְפשׁ ֵֹתיכֶ ם ִאישׁ לַ ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ‫אָהלוֹ ִתּ ָקּחוּ׃ ‪17‬יַּ ֲעשׂוּ כֵ ן ְבּנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל וַ יִּ לְ ְקטוּ ַה ַמּ ְר ֶבּה וְ ַה ַמּ ְמ ִעיט׃ ‪18‬וַ יָּ מֹדּוּ ָבע ֶֹמר וְ לא ֶה ְע ִדּיף ַה ַמּ ְר ֶבּה‬ ‫ְבּ ֳ‬ ‫ֹאמר מ ֶֹשׁה ֲאלֵ ֶהם ִאישׁ אַל יוֹ ֵתר ִמ ֶמּנּוּ ַעד בּ ֶֹקר׃‬ ‫וְ ַה ַמּ ְמ ִעיט לא ֶה ְח ִסיר ִאישׁ לְ ִפי אָכְ לוֹ לָ ָקטוּ׃ ‪19‬וַ יּ ֶ‬ ‫‪20‬וְ לא ָשׁ ְמעוּ ֶאל מ ֶֹשׁה וַ יּוֹ ִתרוּ ֲאנָ ִשׁים ִמ ֶמּנּוּ ַעד בּ ֶֹקר וַ יָּ ֻרם תּוֹ לָ ִעים וַ יִּ ְבאַשׁ וַ יִּ ְקצֹף ֲעלֵ ֶהם מ ֶֹשׁה׃‬ ‫‪21‬וַ יִּ לְ ְקטוּ אֹתוֹ ַבּבּ ֶֹקר ַבּבּ ֶֹקר ִאישׁ כְּ ִפי אָכְ לוֹ וְ ַחם ַה ֶשּׁ ֶמשׁ וְ נָ ָמס׃ ‪22‬וַ יְ ִהי ַבּיּוֹ ם ַה ִשּׁ ִשּׁי לָ ְקטוּ לֶ ֶחם‬ ‫ֹאמר ֲאלֵ ֶהם הוּא ֲא ֶשׁר ִדּ ֶבּר‬ ‫יאי ָה ֵע ָדה וַ יַּ גִּ ידוּ לְ מ ֶֹשׁה׃ ‪23‬וַ יּ ֶ‬ ‫ִמ ְשׁנֶ ה ְשׁנֵ י ָהע ֶֹמר לָ ֶא ָחד וַ יָּ בֹאוּ כָּ ל נְ ִשׂ ֵ‬ ‫יְ הוָ ה ַשׁ ָבּתוֹ ן ַשׁ ַבּת ק ֶֹדשׁ לַ יהוָ ה ָמ ָחר ֵאת ֲא ֶשׁר תֹּאפוּ ֵאפוּ וְ ֵאת ֲא ֶשׁר ְתּ ַב ְשּׁלוּ ַבּ ֵשּׁלוּ וְ ֵאת כָּ ל ָהע ֵֹדף‬ ‫ַהנִּ יחוּ לָ כֶ ם לְ ִמ ְשׁ ֶמ ֶרת ַעד ַהבּ ֶֹקר׃ ‪24‬וַ יַּ נִּ יחוּ אֹתוֹ ַעד ַהבּ ֶֹקר כַּ ֲא ֶשׁר ִצוָּ ה מ ֶֹשׁה וְ לא ִה ְב ִאישׁ וְ ִר ָמּה לא‬ ‫ֹאמר מ ֶֹשׁה ִאכְ לֻ הוּ ַהיֹּום כִּ י ַשׁ ָבּת ַהיֹּום לַ יהוָ ה ַהיֹּום לׂא ִת ְמצָ ֻאהוּ ַבּ ָשּׂ ֶדה׃ ‪ֵ 26‬שׁ ֶשׁת‬ ‫ָהיְ ָתה בּוֹ ׃ ‪25‬וַ יּ ֶ‬

‫יָ ִמים ִתּלְ ְק ֻטהוּ ַוּביֹּום ַה ְשּׁ ִביעִ י ַשׁ ָבּת לׂא יִ ְהיֶ ה בֹּו׃ ‪27‬וַ יְ ִהי ַבּיֹּום ַה ְשּׁ ִביעִ י יָ צְ אוּ ִמן ָה ָעם לִ לְ קֹט וְ לׂא‬ ‫ֹאמר יְ הוָ ה ֶאל מ ֶֹשׁה עַ ד אָנָ ה ֵמאַנְ ֶתּם לִ ְשׁמֹר ִמצְ ַֹותי וְ תֹור ָֹתי׃ ‪ְ 29‬ראוּ כִּ י יְ הוָ ה נָ ַתן לָ כֶ ם‬ ‫ָמצָ אוּ׃ ‪28‬וַ יּ ֶ‬ ‫יֹומיִ ם ְשׁבוּ ִאישׁ ַתּ ְח ָתּיו אַל יֵ צֵ א ִאישׁ ִמ ְמּקֹמֹו ַבּיֹּום‬ ‫ַה ַשּׁ ָבּת עַ ל כֵּ ן הוּא נ ֵֹתן לָ כֶ ם ַבּיֹּום ַה ִשּׁ ִשּׁי לֶ ֶחם ָ‬ ‫ַה ְשּׁ ִביעִ י׃ ‪30‬וַ יִּ ְשׁ ְבּתוּ ָהעָ ם ַבּיֹּום ַה ְשּׁ ִבעִ י׃ ‪31‬וַ יִּ ְק ְראוּ ֵבית יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ֶאת ְשׁמוֹ ָמן וְ הוּא כְּ זֶ ַרע גַּ ד לָ ָבן וְ ַט ְעמוֹ‬

‫ֹאמר מ ֶֹשׁה זֶ ה ַה ָדּ ָבר ֲא ֶשׁר ִצוָּ ה יְ הוָ ה ְמלא ָהע ֶֹמר ִמ ֶמּנּוּ לְ ִמ ְשׁ ֶמ ֶרת לְ ֹדר ֵֹתיכֶ ם‬ ‫יחת ִבּ ְד ָבשׁ׃ ‪32‬וַ יּ ֶ‬ ‫כְּ ַצ ִפּ ִ‬ ‫לְ ַמ ַען יִ ְראוּ ֶאת ַהלֶּ ֶחם ֲא ֶשׁר ֶה ֱאכַ לְ ִתּי ֶא ְתכֶ ם ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר ְבּהוֹ ִצ ִ‬ ‫ֹאמר מ ֶֹשׁה‬ ‫יאי ֶא ְתכֶ ם ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם׃ ‪33‬וַ יּ ֶ‬ ‫אַחת וְ ֶתן ָשׁ ָמּה ְמלא ָהע ֶֹמר ָמן וְ ַהנַּ ח אֹתוֹ לִ ְפנֵ י יְ הוָ ה לְ ִמ ְשׁ ֶמ ֶרת לְ ֹדר ֵֹתיכֶ ם׃‬ ‫אַהרֹן ַקח ִצנְ ֶצנֶ ת ַ‬ ‫ֶאל ֲ‬ ‫יחהוּ ֲ‬ ‫‪34‬כַּ ֲא ֶשׁר ִצוָּ ה יְ הוָ ה ֶאל מ ֶֹשׁה וַ יַּ נִּ ֵ‬ ‫וּבנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל אָכְ לוּ ֶאת ַה ָמּן‬ ‫אַהרֹן לִ ְפנֵ י ָה ֵע ֻדת לְ ִמ ְשׁ ָמ ֶרת׃ ‪ְ 35‬‬ ‫אַר ָבּ ִעים ָשׁנָ ה ַעד בֹּאָם ֶאל ֶא ֶרץ נוֹ ָשׁ ֶבת ֶאת ַה ָמּן אָכְ לוּ ַעד בֹּאָם ֶאל ְק ֵצה ֶא ֶרץ כְּ נָ ַען׃ ‪36‬וְ ָהע ֶֹמר‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫יפה הוּא׃‬ ‫ֲע ִשׂ ִרית ָה ֵא ָ‬

3.2. Cut-and-Paste Errors

49

As with the texts discussed above, nearly all scholars agree that this passage is a literary fusion of textual traditions.48 The majority of the chapter is commonly attributed to P and describes a case of Israelite murmuring in the desert due to an absence of food, and the provision of manna and quail to sate the people’s hunger. The non-Priestly elements have manna in common with the P narrative, but here its provision instead serves to test the people’s faithfulness, as reflected in their ability to abstain from collecting manna on the Sabbath.49 It bears noting that the entire Priestly component of the passage appears to be out of place within the context of its own narrative framework, having been situated there deliberately by a redactor who opted for the non-Priestly timeline when conflating the two manna traditions. Among other issues, commandments relating to Sabbath observance are taken for granted in the Priestly strand, despite being given only later in P, and the existence of the Tabernacle likewise appears to be presupposed.50 The dominant view is that the P and non-P sections of this unit are independent of one another, minor glosses notwithstanding. Some scholars have argued that the non-P component in this chapter is in fact post-Priestly Fortschreibung,51 and this view was adopted and further developed by Rainer Albertz. If, however, the chapter is not an interweaving of P and non-P threads, it is difficult to account for the Priestly element being far out of place within P’s timeline, as noted above. It is precisely the decision to conflate two narratives regarding manna that appears to have led the chapter’s redactor to remove the Priestly account from its original context.52 In addition to the typical artifacts of amalgamation, the passage appears to suffer from a case of jumbling that impairs its readability. The narrative in its present form progresses as follows: 1. (P) After arriving in the wilderness of Sin, the congregation of Israel complains to Moses and Aaron about a lack of food – specifically, meat and bread.  For the minority view, see below. Dillmann, Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus, KHAT 12, 2nd ed. (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1880), 164–77; Samuel Rolles Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, 9th ed. (New York: Scribner, 1913), 30–31; Friedman, Bible, 147; Martin Noth, Exodus: A Commentary, trans. J. S. Bowden (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1962), 129–37; William H. C.  Propp, Exodus 1–18, AB 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 591–92; Wellhausen, Composition, 327–29. 50 For a recent defense of this position, see Joel Baden, “The Original Place of the Priestly Manna Story in Exodus 16,” ZAW 122 (2010): 491–504. Pace Ludwig Schmidt, “Die Priesterschrift in Exodus 16,” ZAW 119 (2007): 483–98. 51 See, e. g., Eberhard Ruprecht, “Stellung und Bedeutung der Erzählung vom Mannawunder (Ex 16) im Aufbau der Priesterschrift,” ZAW 86, no. 3 (1974): 269–307; Rainer Albertz, Exodus 1–18 (Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2012), 262–64. I thank Konrad Schmid for the first reference. 52 See Baden, “Original Place.” Baden himself – without explicitly rejecting arguments for disjunction  – defends the Priestly narrative’s coherence and continuity (494–95, et passim). See above, however. 48

49 August

50

3. The Jumbled Bible: A New Hypothesis

2. (Non-P) YHWH informs Moses that he will test the nation’s obedience by showering bread from the heavens, of which two portions should be collected on the sixth day. 3. (P) Moses and Aaron tell the congregation of Israel that YHWH has heard their complaints and will provide them with meat in the evening and bread in the morning. 4. (P) After receiving instruction from Moses, Aaron gathers the congregation, at which point YHWH’s glory appears in a cloud. 5. (P) YHWH tells Moses that he has heard the people’s complaints and instructs Moses to inform the nation that YHWH will provide them with meat in the evening and bread in the morning. If we leave aside (2), which derives from a non-P hand, we find an unexceptional Priestly tale of Israelite kvetching in the desert, save for one glaring issue: the sequence of events.53 Specifically, Moses and Aaron’s proclamation to the people in (3) would surely sit more naturally following (5). It is problematic, to say the least, that Moses promises the people meat in the evening and bread in the morning in verses 6–8, only for him to be given that information and instructed to transmit it to the Israelites in verses 11–12 (which he does not “again” do). Since Kuenen, writing in the late nineteenth century, a large number of scholars have pointed out that verses 6–8 follow logically upon verse 12 and are therefore out of place in their current position.54 As Driver put it: In the text of P a transposition appears to have taken place; for v. 11–12 the command to speak to the people follows the account v. 6–8 of the actual delivery to them of the message; probably the original order was v. 1–3. 9–12. 6–8. 13. &c.55

Ibn Ezra and Bekor Shor already noted the passage’s problematic structure in the twelfth century, anticipating Kuenen’s observation by some eight hundred years. Ibn Ezra wrote:  Cf. Priestly elements of Numbers 14 and 20. Kuenen, “Beiträge zur Hexateuchkritik. VII. Manna und Wachteln (Ex. 16),” in Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur biblischen Wissenschaft (Freiburg im Breisgau: J. C. B. Mohr, 1894), 276–94; Benjamin Wisner Bacon, The Triple Tradition of the Exodus (Hartford, CT: The Student Publishing Company, 1894), 89; Bruno Baentsch, Exodus – Leviticus – Numeri (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1903), 144–51; J. Philip Hyatt, Commentary on Exodus, NCB (London: Oliphants, 1971), 174–75; Alan Hugh McNeile, The Book of Exodus (London: Methuen & Company, 1908), xxi–xxii; Driver, Introduction, 31. Some attribute v. 8 to a redactor, others to the original P source. The minority position that P is structurally coherent is dis­cussed below. 55 Driver, Introduction, 31. (Emphasis in the original. Incidentally, it appears that “v. 11–12” and “v. 6–8” are secondary glosses not unlike those discussed in § 2.1.) Most scholars follow Bacon and Baentsch (as well as Bekor Shor; see below) in keeping the internal order of vss. 9–12 as in the received text; Kuenen transposes vss. 9–10 and 11–12, so as not to have Moses say that YHWH has heard the people’s complaints before YHWH says so explicitly himself. See also Brevard S. Childs, Exodus: A Commentary, Old Testament Library (London: S.C.M. Press, 1974), 278. 53

54 Abraham

3.2. Cut-and-Paste Errors

51

[“Say to them, ‘At twilight you shall eat meat, and in the morning you shall have your fill of bread.’”] – This is a repetition of the prophecy, as Moses had already mentioned it beforehand: “When the LORD gives you meat to eat in the evening and your fill of bread in the morning.” It is repeated for Israel, that they may witness the glory.56

Bekor Shor appears to have gone even further, suggesting that verses 11–12 refer to events that took place before verses 6–8: “And the Lord spoke to Moses [and said, ‘I have heard the complaining of the Israelites … say to them, “At twilight you shall eat meat,”’ etc.]” – The Lord had already told Moses to say [lit. do] so to them.57

As in the cases discussed above, the scholars who advocate for an interchange of two sections make compelling arguments for the phenomenon itself but stop short of explaining its cause. Childs makes this point persuasively: How then is one to explain the disruption, if it is such, which brought about the disturbance in the logical order? One obvious explanation would be the combination of sources. As is generally recognized, vv. 4–5 appear to be from an older source and stand isolated in their present position. The theme of bread from heaven does not link up with the cry of the people for bread and meat, nor is the subject matter of these verses picked up in what follows (vv. 6–12). Nevertheless, these verses do introduce the theme of the sabbath and are, therefore, essential for a major element of the manna story. There is even an explicit reference to the promise in v. 23. If the P writer wished to retain these verses, there is no better place in which they could be introduced than early in the narrative, even though the bread of 4 f. does not match the meat-bread motif of vv. 1–3, 6 ff. One could then suppose that vv. 9–12 were shifted from an original position following the murmuring to make room for vv. 4–5. But right at this point, the theory of literary dislocation breaks down. There is no reason why the introduction of vv. 4–5 should have affected the order of P. Logically vv. 9–12 follow 4–5 better than 6–8. In sum, the problem of sequence lies within the P source and cannot be adequately explained by a multiple source theory.58

Childs is undoubtedly correct. There is no plausible explanation for the redactor of the Priestly and non-Priestly sources choosing to place verses 9–12 after, rather than before, verses 6–8. There is also no likely scenario in which a scribe should accidentally reverse the order of two adjacent sequences in the course of copying. Childs writes that two possibilities have been entertained by scholars: To summarize the dilemma up to this point: the first approach has tried to find in the present order an intentional purpose of an author, but has not been able to mount a 56 Ibn Ezra, “long” commentary on Exod 16:12. My translation. In his “short” commentary, Ibn Ezra writes that it is Moses, not YHWH, who speaks in v. 12. The Israelites believed the second of Moses’s promises of meat and bread, since they had now witnessed YHWH’s glory (v. 10). Cf. Nachmanides, ad loc. (Menachem Cohen, ed., ‫ מהדורת יסוד‬:‫מקראות גדולות ״הכתר״‬ ‫ נוסח המסורה המדויק של המקרא עם מסורה גדולה ומסורה קטנה‬,‫פי כתבי יד עתיקים‬-‫ ההדרה מדעית על‬,‫חדשה‬ ‫ חלק א׳‬,‫ ספר שמות‬,‫פי ״כתר ארם צובה״‬-‫[ על‬Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2012], ad loc.) 57 Yehoshafat Nevo, ‫( פירושי רבי יוסף בכור שור על התורה‬Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1994), 125. My translation. 58 Childs, Exodus, 278. My emphasis.

52

3. The Jumbled Bible: A New Hypothesis

convincing case. The second approach has suggested that the present order is confused and arose from accidental damage to the text. Although this second proposal cannot be rejected out of hand, it is hardly satisfactory in that it cuts the ‘Gordian knot’, and does not succeed in untying it.59

Childs goes on to propose a third option, which has been rather influential for subsequent studies of the chapter: the unit’s “lack of logical sequence” is due to neither scribal error nor redactional privilege, but to a Priestly pattern. He argues that a “form-critical” analysis of Numbers 14 and 16 – which make up parts of the spies and Korah pericopes, respectively – brings to light a literary structure that P is partial to: (1) grumbling, (2) human response or disputation (not necessarily by Moses or Aaron), (3) theophany/appearance of kabod, (4) Moses, or Moses and Aaron, receive a divine “oracle.” While the similarities between these Priestly stories are noteworthy, Childs’s proposal is problematic. First, the items that are considered part of the narrative pattern are somewhat arbitrary. What about the report of the triggering hardship – lack of food, etc.? It seems odd to exclude it from a description of Exodus 16, but its inclusion would highlight a structural difference between the passages. Second, the set of comparanda is similarly non-obvious. Why is Numbers 20 excluded? It too contains a Priestly grumbling episode, and it is a far more obvious candidate for comparison than either Numbers 14 or Numbers 16.60 Like Exodus 16, but unlike the far more intricate stories in Numbers 14 and 16, Numbers 20 begins with a description of the trigger that led to the people grumbling: here a lack of water, rather than a lack of food. Notably, Numbers 20 has a logical and coherent timeline, and the human response takes place (and appears in the text) after the theophany. In addition, the category that I paraphrase as “human response or disputation (not necessarily by Moses or Aaron)” encompasses two rather different plot elements that have been shoehorned into a single item. Why are Moses and Aaron defined as a necessary part of (4), but not (2), which Joshua and Caleb perform in Numbers 14? Third, there appears to be some conflation between narrative sequence, or plot development, on the one hand, and chronological sequence, on the other. Exodus 16 could have been told in the pattern of Numbers 14 and 16, without any reader finding the chapter’s structure at all troubling. It is not the order of events – human response before theophany – that has caused so much ink to be spilled on this chapter. It is rather the disconnect between the timeline 59 Ibid.,

279. makes a similar argument regarding Numbers 11, although it is not typically ascribed to P: “A more convincing place for such a pattern to have occurred, surely, would have been Num 11, the chapter most closely parallel to this one, but one in which Childs does not find his ‘traditional sequence’” (John I. Durham, Exodus, WBC 3 [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992], 217). 60 Durham

3.2. Cut-and-Paste Errors

53

and textual sequence that is at issue. For these reasons, Childs’s proposal that a Priestly pattern explains the problems in Exodus 16 is unsatisfactory. A few others have rejected claims of disjunction in Exodus 16. Two of the most recent proponents of this approach are Propp and Durham in their commentaries on Exodus. Propp accepts Childs’s criticisms of the consensus view and concludes that the Priestly material is in the proper order. He goes on to offer several explanations for the chapter’s unusual sequence: 1. I do not think, however, that P has been rearranged. Moses’ self-abnegation “What are we?” (vv 7–8) should precede, not follow, God’s appearance. […] More likely, we have in vv 6–9 a case of prescience or of faith vindicated.61 2. The best approach may be to imagine that […] the speech is simply reported out of sequence, as if to say, “Now, Yahweh had said” (v 11).62 3. Instead of forcing events into logical order, I would conclude that the Priestly Writer was simply confused.63

These three proposals are rather different from one another, even mutually exclusive. Perhaps the author was confused (3), but if so, why? What sort of confusion leads one to write a story in which several sentences are out of order? And perhaps we are meant to read those verses as though they appeared earlier in the story, or as though they were written in the past perfect (2), but if so, why? According to this explanation, which is surely distinct from the aforementioned one, the text admirably reflects the author’s intent. However, the verses in question lack the ve-X qatal construction that typically indicates a break in narrative progression. Even if it were present, what narrative function would the nonchronological sequence serve? Finally, perhaps we are meant to be impressed with Moses’s and Aaron’s prescience (1), but why then is that not mentioned in the text? Surely the author would have wished to highlight the divine premonition possessed by Aaron and Moses. Furthermore, why is there no  subsequent report of Moses and Aaron fulfilling YHWH’s instructions in verses 9–12? The consummation of a commandment before it has been given is neither prescient nor faithful; it is simply illogical. Durham cites Encrico Galbiati, Joseph Coppens, and Bruce Malina ap­prov­ ingly as scholars who “have attempted to set aside source-analysis as an inadequate means of resolving the difficulty, and to provide instead a kind of structural analysis.”64 Durham concludes that in the Hebrew Bible, it is often the case that “purpose takes precedence over logic.”65 His own suggestion, namely that we should not expect the authors of the Hebrew Bible to be coherent, seems to function here as a sort of trump card. No adequate explanation for the chapter’s 61 Propp, 62 Ibid., 63 Ibid.

64 John

65 Ibid.,

Exodus 1–18, 592. 594.

I. Durham, Exodus, WBC 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 216–17. 218.

54

3. The Jumbled Bible: A New Hypothesis

problems presents itself, so we must say the text was composed by an author who did not share the ostensibly Western notions of logic and cogency.66 As for Coppens and Malina, they do not, in fact, reject source analysis. Indeed, they too identify multiple intertwined narratives. Malina writes: Yet upon surveying the many and all too varied opinions of the critics, it seems that the surest course to take is that of Coppens, who would renounce the task of assigning the various verses of Ex 16 to appropriate layers of the classic documentary or tradition hypothesis until completing a critical study of all the narrative sections of the second book of the Pentateuch. On the other hand to renounce labelling passages as belonging to given sources does not mean to renounce the critical study of the matter at hand with a view to determin[e] the various literary entities that make it up. As Coppens shows, Ex 16 offers ample opportunity for such critical study.67

Malina identifies four narratives within the chapter (as well as several glosses and additions), three of which he attributes to Priestly writers. By splitting P into three parts, he is able to eliminate any jumbling within a single thread. All this comes at the expense of intelligibility; none of the four narratives is independently comprehensible. For instance, what most scholars see as the performance of God’s directives before they have even been given is interpreted by Malina as a spontaneous pronouncement by Moses and Aaron, which was neither preceded, nor followed, by a divine command. This thread reads as follows: 2Then the whole congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron in the desert. 3bFor you have brought us out to this desert to kill this whole assembly with hunger.68 6So Moses and Aaron said to all (the congregation of ) the children of Israel: At evening you shall know that YHWH brought you out from the land of Egypt, 7and in the morning you shall see the glory of YHWH, since he hears your murmurings against YHWH; and what are we that you murmur against us? [8Then Moses said: Since YHWH will give you meat to eat in the evening and bread to the full in the morning since YHWH hears your murmurings which you murmur against him; and what are we? Your murmurings are not against us but against YHWH.]69 9Then Moses said to Aaron: Say to the whole congregation of Israel: Draw near before YHWH, for he has heard your murmurings. 10And while Aaron spoke to the whole congregation of the children of Israel, they turned facing the desert, and behold the glory of YHWH appeared in the cloud.

The story ends here, with no fulfillment of their promise that YHWH would provide bread and meat. The other three narratives are similarly threadbare. 66 For an analogous approach to Durham’s, see Joshua Berman, Inconsistency in the Torah: Ancient Literary Convention and the Limits of Source Criticism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017). 67 Bruce J. Malina, The Palestinian Manna Tradition: The Manna Tradition in the Palestinian Targums and Its Relationship to the New Testament Writings (Leiden: Brill, 1968), 1–2. 68 Malina, following Coppens, refers to the post atnaḥ component of v. 3 as 3c. 69 Malina considers v. 8 to be an addition to this version.

3.2. Cut-and-Paste Errors

55

Coppens’s earlier analysis of the chapter is very similar to that of Malina, with the above thread corresponding to Coppens’s “Moses and Aaron story.”70 Coppens also proposes a “Moses story” made up of some of the material typically attributed to P. It reads: 3aThe

Israelites said to them, “If only we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the fleshpots and ate our fill of bread.71 11The LORD spoke to Moses and said, 12“I have heard the complaining of the Israelites; say to them, ‘At twilight you shall eat meat, and in the morning you shall have your fill of bread; then you shall know that I am the LORD your God.’” 13In the evening quails came up and covered the camp; and in the morning there was a layer of dew around the camp. 14When the layer of dew lifted, there on the surface of the wilderness was a fine flaky substance, as fine as frost on the ground. 15When the Israelites saw it, they said to one another, “What is it?” For they did not know what it was. Moses said to them, “It is the bread that the LORD has given you to eat. (16bβThis is what the LORD has commanded: ‘Gather as much of it as each of you needs, an omer to a person according to the number of persons, all providing for those in their own tents.’)”72 21Morning by morning they gathered it, as much as each needed; but when the sun grew hot, it melted. 31The house of Israel called it manna; it was like coriander seed, white, and the taste of it was like wafers made with honey. (35bThey ate manna until they came to the border of the land of Canaan.)73

A primary motivation for Coppens’s rejection of a P provenance for the above verses and indeed the separation of P into multiple strands is not a problem in the text, but rather his presupposition that P would not have Moses appear in a scene sans Aaron. There is no justification for this, Moses regularly being the sole recipient of divine revelation throughout the Priestly source.74 Furthermore, this thread begins with “the Israelites said to them,” which Coppens and Malina have no choice but to emend ad hoc, either by deletion (Coppens) or by replacement (Malina). Galbiati does indeed propose a unified reading of the passage, which he argues has an overarching chiastic structure.75 Galbiati breaks down Moses’s promise of bread and meat into two parts: a “veiled” one (vss. 6–7) and a “precise” one (v. 8),76 which correspond to the miracle’s fulfillment (vss. 13–15a) and YHWH’s “precise” pronouncement (vss. 11–12), respectively. As Childs shows, Galbiati’s scheme is altogether extrinsic to the text, ignoring major features of the narrative, 70 Joseph Coppens, “Les traditions relatives à la manne dans Exode xvi,” Estudios Eclesiásticos 34 (1960): 473–89. 71 3a corresponds to what Coppens calls 3ab. 72 Coppens expresses uncertainty regarding the attribution of this verse fragment, which he refers to as 16b. 73 Coppens is uncertain if 35b belongs with this thread. 74 A similar impulse drove many scholars to mistakenly attribute the patently Priestly “plagues” in which Moses (rather than Aaron) performs the miracle to E. See Noth, Exodus, 70, 83, et passim. 75 Encrico Galbiati, La struttura letteraria dell’Esodo (Milan: Edizioni Paoline, 1956), 164–75. 76 Ibid., 167, et passim. The Italian terms are “velate” and “precise.”

56

3. The Jumbled Bible: A New Hypothesis

while elevating the tendentious abstraction of precise vs. veiled speech.77 More importantly for our purposes, none of this rectifies the primary difficulty of the chapter – the reversal of YHWH’s commandment and its fulfillment. Even if Childs’s own proposal is not persuasive, for the reasons cited above, his critiques of the many prior analyses of Exodus 16 are sound and convincing. It thus appears as though we are at an impasse. As compelling as the theory that verses 6–8 and 9–12 are transposed may be, it fails the plausibility test: How could this have transpired? Deliberate redaction is highly unlikely, since the outcome is a wholly inferior text. Scribal error is a similarly poor candidate for the reversal of two sections; as discussed above, the process of copying a text does not lend itself to the transposition of passages. As Frankel writes: Do the rearrangements offer us a satisfactory solution? Here too the answer is negative. Childs has correctly emphasized that no convincing explanation has been given for the supposed disruption of the original order. It is generally assumed that the disruption was caused by the introduction of the non-priestly material in verses 4–5. Yet this in no way helps us understand why verses 6–7 were “shifted” to their present position.78

Childs’s and Frankel’s rejection of the transposition theory is due to what seems like real-world implausibility. The difficulty is straightforward, but since no one has suggested how the reversal of two sections came to be, the rearrangement proposal is untenable. Childs and Frankel are right to reject redactional intent and scribal error, but they neglect to account for the prospect of redactional error. Indeed, by all appearances, this unit has suffered from a case of editorial parablepsis. I propose that in cutting the Priestly and non-Priestly passages into logical units, the redactor of this section confused two of the resulting snippets. The two transposed sections begin almost identically: ‫אַהרֹן‬ ֲ ְ‫ֹאמר מ ֶֹשׁה ו‬ ֶ ‫ וַ יּ‬in verse 6 and ‫אַהרֹן‬ ֲ ‫ֹאמר מ ֶֹשׁה ֶאל‬ ֶ ‫ וַ יּ‬in verse 9. Though these two phrases are quite distinct in meaning – Aaron is a subject in the former phrase and an object in the latter – their graphical similarity is undeniable.79 In addition, the two sections both derive from the Priestly tradition – increasing the odds that the hypothetical snippets would have been superficially similar – and they are very much alike in form and content. For example, in verses 6–8, Moses says (twice) that YHWH has heard the people’s complaints; in verses 9–12, both Moses (once) and YHWH (once) make the selfsame statement. In addition, both sections include mentions of YHWH’s glory and each contains the highly distinctive meat-in-the-eveningand-bread-in-the-morning sequence. Together, these factors appear to have conspired to make these two snippets of text prime candidates for confusion. 77 Childs,

Exodus, 277–78. Frankel, The Murmuring Stories of the Priestly School: A Retrieval of Ancient Sacerdotal Lore, VTSup 89 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 67. 79 For more on factors that typically lead to word skipping, see chapter 3, note 32. 78 David

3.2. Cut-and-Paste Errors

57

This leaves one more issue to explain: YHWH’s kavod, or glory. In verse 7, Moses promises the people, “in the morning you shall see the glory of the LORD.” But this is not what happens in the canonical version of the story. As Propp writes: Here is a chronological difficulty. v 7 is fulfilled in v 10, when Israel sees Yahweh’s Glory in the cloud. It follows that v 10 is set in the morning. Then Yahweh proposes to begin to help Israel the following evening and morning (v 12). In other words, the relief Moses promises in the evening (vv 6, 8) actually arrives, not within the day, but after a day and a half – hardly the impression we get from his words. There is no evading the problem. The suggestion of many since Rashi, that kābôd means different things in vv 7 and 10, is inherently implausible and does not solve the difficulty: v 12 indicates that God has not yet sent quails or Manna. And ibn Ezra’s attempt to detach bōqer ‘morning’ from the rest of v 7 is even less convincing. The textual rearrangement suggested under Redaction Analysis does not remove the contradiction, either.80

Indeed, all proposed rearrangements of the text leave Moses’s declaration to the people that they will witness the divine glory (v. 7) after the glory’s revelation in what is now verse 10. However, verses 6–7 appear to have undergone minor editorial modification. They presently read: “In the evening you shall know that it was the LORD who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and in the morning you shall see the glory of the LORD.” Given the parallelism, it appears the point of this statement is to underscore the magnificence of the miracles that would take place the following evening and morning. From the context, it would seem that Rashi and his followers were indeed correct that verse 7 did not refer to the glory that appeared in verse 10. Rather, it may be that following the rearrangement of this chapter, a scribe emended ‫ישועת‬, or a similar word, to ‫כבוד‬, so that Moses now predicted not only the quail and manna, but the glory as well.81 Thus, the original here would have read: “In the evening you shall know that it was the LORD who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and in the morning you shall see the LORD’s deliverance.”82 Thus, we see that Exodus 16 contains a discontinuity that has troubled readers since at least the Middle Ages, and there has been general agreement regarding its “correct” order for the past century. What has been missing is an explanation of how two passages were interchanged.83 This has led a number of scholars to 80 Propp,

Exodus, 594. Exod 14:13; Isa 52:10; Ps 91:16; 98:3; 2 Chr 20:17. In a forthcoming article I provide evidence for another Pentateuchal case of a scribe substituting an existing word with ‫כבוד‬: Num 14:22, where it replaces ‫מופת‬. In future publications I intend to make the case that ‫ כבוד‬is indeed frequently redactional. 82 I am very grateful to Nachum Dershowitz for his helpful comments on this issue. 83 The only attempt to address the mechanics of the error of which I am aware is that of Wellhausen (Composition, 325). He, like several other scholars, was of the opinion that v. 8 is a gloss, and he suggested it was first introduced as a marginal insertion, which perhaps caused vss. 6–7 to be misplaced, together with the addition. This is an important proposal, if only because it addresses the real-world element of the jumbling error. Nevertheless, Wellhausen’s suggestion 81 Cf.

58

3. The Jumbled Bible: A New Hypothesis

Fig. 16. Transposition in Exodus 16.

break up the Priestly narrative into smaller units, thus eliminating the discontinuity. This comes at the expense of coherence, however, as we have seen. Once the prospect of cut-and-paste redaction (and its undesired side effects) is brought into the equation, the solution to this chapter’s problems presents itself readily. (See fig. 16.)

seems implausible. If vss. 6–7 were original to P, as Wellhausen himself believed, they would have been written as an integral part of the running text. The proposed later insertion of v. 8 would not have created ambiguity regarding the proper position of the previous verses.

3.2. Cut-and-Paste Errors

59

3.2.3. Exodus 33–34: Moses and YHWH Go in Circles Main text: Moses Misplaced text: Moses 33:12Moses said to the LORD, “See, you have said to me, ‘Bring up this people’; but you have not let me know whom you will send with me. Yet you have said, ‘I know you by name, and you have also found favor in my sight.’ 13Now if I have found favor in your sight, show me your ways, so that I may know you and find favor in your sight. Consider too that this nation is your people.” 14He said, “My presence will go with you, and I will give you rest.” 15And he said to him, “If your presence will not go, do not carry us up from here. 16For how shall it be known that I have found favor in your sight, I and your people, unless you go with us? In this way, we shall be distinct, I and your people, from every people on the face of the earth.” 17The LORD said to Moses, “I will do the very thing that you have asked; for you have found favor in my sight, and I know you by name.”

…

34:4So Moses cut two tablets of stone like the former ones; and he rose early in the morning and went up on Mount Sinai, as the LORD had commanded him, and took in his hand the two tablets of stone. 5The LORD descended in the cloud and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name, “The LORD.” 6The LORD passed before him, and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, 7keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, yet by no means clearing the guilty, but visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.” 8And Moses quickly bowed his head toward the earth, and worshiped. 9He said, “If I have found favor in your sight, O Lord, I pray, let the Lord go with us. Although this is a stiff-necked people, pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for your inheritance.” 10He said: “I hereby make a covenant. Before all your people I will perform marvels, such as have not been performed in all the earth or in any nation; and all the people among whom you live shall see the work of the LORD; for it is an awesome thing that I will do with you. 11Observe what I command you today. See, I will drive out before you the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.”

‫ מ ֶֹשׁה‬:‫טקסט עיקרי‬ ‫ מ ֶֹשׁה‬:‫טקסט תועה‬

‫הֹוד ְע ַתּנִ י ֵאת ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ַ ‫אַתּה ל ֹא‬ ָ ְ‫אַתּה א ֵֹמר ֵאלַ י ַה ַעל ֶאת ָה ָעם ַהזֶּ ה ו‬ ָ ‫ֹאמר מ ֶֹשׁה ֶאל יְ הוָ ה ְר ֵאה‬ ֶ ‫וַ יּ‬12

ָ ֶ‫אתי ֵחן ְבּ ֵעינ‬ ‫יך‬ ִ ‫וְ ַע ָתּה ִאם נָ א ָמ ָצ‬13 ‫את ֵחן ְבּעֵ ינָ י׃‬ ָ ָ‫אָמ ְר ָתּ יְ ַדעְ ִתּיָך ְב ֵשׁם וְ גַ ם ָמצ‬ ַ ‫אַתּה‬ ָ ְ‫ִתּ ְשׁלַ ח עִ ִמּי ו‬

60

3. The Jumbled Bible: A New Hypothesis

ָ ֶ‫הוֹ ִד ֵענִ י נָ א ֶאת ְדּ ָרכֶ ָך וְ ֵא ָד ֲע ָך לְ ַמ ַען ֶא ְמ ָצא ֵחן ְבּ ֵעינ‬ ‫ֹאמר ָפּנַ י יֵ לֵ כוּ‬ ַ ‫וַ יּ‬14 ‫יך ְוּר ֵאה כִּ י ַע ְמּ ָך ַהגּוֹ י ַהזֶּ ה׃‬ ‫אתי ֵחן‬ ִ ָ‫ ַוּב ֶמּה יִ וָּ ַדע ֵאפֹוא כִּ י ָמצ‬16 ‫ֹאמר ֵאלָ יו ִאם ֵאין ָפּנֶ יָך הֹלְ כִ ים אַל ַתּ ֲעלֵ נוּ ִמזֶּ ה׃‬ ֶ ‫וַ יּ‬15 ‫וַ ֲהנִ ח ִֹתי לָ ְך׃‬ ‫ֹאמר‬ ֶ ‫וַ יּ‬17 ‫ְבּעֵ ינֶ יָך ֲאנִ י וְ עַ ֶמָּך ֲהלֹוא ְבּלֶ כְ ְתָּך עִ ָמּנוּ וְ נִ ְפלֵ ינוּ ֲאנִ י וְ ַע ְמָּך ִמכָּ ל ָה ָעם ֲא ֶשׁר ַעל ְפּנֵ י ָה ֲא ָד ָמה׃‬ ‫את ֵחן ְבּ ֵעינַ י וָ ֵא ָד ֲעָך ְבּ ֵשׁם׃‬ ָ ָ‫יְ הוָ ה ֶאל מ ֶֹשׁה גַּ ם ֶאת ַה ָדּ ָבר ַהזֶּ ה ֲא ֶשׁר ִדּ ַבּ ְר ָתּ ֶא ֱע ֶשׂה כִּ י ָמצ‬ …

‫וַ יִּ ְפסֹל ְשׁנֵ י לֻ חֹת ֲא ָבנִ ים כָּ ִראשֹׁנִ ים וַ יַּ ְשׁכֵּ ם מ ֶֹשׁה ַבבּ ֶֹקר וַ יַּ ַעל ֶאל ַהר ִסינַ י כַּ ֲא ֶשׁר צִ וָּ ה יְ הוָ ה אֹתֹו‬4 ‫וַ יַּ עֲ בֹר יְ הוָ ה‬6 ‫וַ יֵּ ֶרד יְ הוָ ה ֶבּ ָענָ ן וַ יִּ ְתיַ צֵּ ב ִעמֹּו ָשׁם וַ יִּ ְק ָרא ְב ֵשׁם יְ הוָ ה׃‬5 ‫וַ יִּ ַקּח ְבּיָ דֹו ְשׁנֵ י לֻ חֹת ֲא ָבנִ ים׃‬ ‫נֹצֵ ר ֶח ֶסד לָ ֲאלָ ִפים נ ֵֹשׂא‬7 ‫אַפּיִ ם וְ ַרב ֶח ֶסד וֶ ֱא ֶמת‬ ַ ‫עַ ל ָפּנָ יו וַ יִּ ְק ָרא יְ הוָ ה יְ הוָ ה ֵאל ַרחוּם וְ ַחנּוּן ֶא ֶרְך‬ ‫עָ ֹון וָ ֶפ ַשׁע וְ ַח ָטּאָה וְ נַ ֵקּה ל ֹא יְ ֶנַקּה פּ ֵֹקד ֲעֹון אָבֹות ַעל ָבּנִ ים וְ ַעל ְבּנֵ י ָבנִ ים ַעל ִשׁלֵּ ִשׁים וְ ַעל ִר ֵבּ ִעים׃‬ ָ ֶ‫אתי ֵחן ְבּ ֵעינ‬ ‫יך ֲאדֹנָ י יֵ לֶ ְך נָ א ֲאדֹנָ י ְבּ ִק ְר ֵבּנוּ‬ ִ ‫ֹאמר ִאם נָ א ָמ ָצ‬ ֶ ‫וַ יּ‬9 ‫אַרצָ ה וַ יִּ ְשׁ ָתּחוּ׃‬ ְ ‫וַ יְ ַמ ֵהר מ ֶֹשׁה וַ יִּ קֹּד‬8 ‫ֹאמר ִהנֵּ ה אָנֹכִ י כּ ֵֹרת ְבּ ִרית נֶ גֶ ד כָּ ל‬ ֶ ‫וַ יּ‬10 ‫אתנוּ וּנְ ַחלְ ָתּנוּ׃‬ ֵ ‫כִּ י ַעם ְק ֵשׁה ע ֶֹרף הוּא וְ ָסלַ ְח ָתּ לַ ֲעוֹ נֵ נוּ וּלְ ַח ָטּ‬ ‫אַתּה ְב ִק ְרבֹּו ֶאת‬ ָ ‫אָרץ ְוּבכָ ל ַהגֹּויִ ם וְ ָראָה כָ ל ָה ָעם ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ֶ ‫ַע ְמָּך ֶא ֱע ֶשׂה נִ ְפלָ אֹת ֲא ֶשׁר ל ֹא נִ ְב ְראוּ ְבכָ ל ָה‬ ‫ ְשׁ ָמר לְ ָך ֵאת ֲא ֶשׁר אָנֹכִ י ְמצַ וְּ ָך ַהיֹּום ִהנְ נִ י ג ֵֹרשׁ‬11 ‫נֹורא הוּא ֲא ֶשׁר ֲאנִ י ע ֶֹשׂה ִע ָמְּך׃‬ ָ ‫ַמעֲ ֵשׂה יְ הוָ ה כִּ י‬ ‫יְבוּסי׃‬ ִ ‫ִמ ָפּנֶ יָך ֶאת ָה ֱאמ ִֹרי וְ ַהכְּ נַ עֲ נִ י וְ ַה ִח ִתּי וְ ַה ְפּ ִרזִּ י וְ ַה ִחוִּ י וְ ַה‬ Chapters 33 and 34 of Exodus are famously convoluted and show many signs of compilation.84 I will not endeavor to review, much less resolve, the entire complex matter of this section’s composition and evolution. Rather, I will focus on the one feature in the passage that is of interest for our purposes, standing out as a clear editorial error, rather than deliberate redactional activity. To wit, the redacted product’s jumbled narrative progression. That there are sequence issues in this section has been recognized for centuries. For instance, Maimonides wrote in his Guide for the Perplexed: Know that the master of those who know, Moses our Master, peace be on him, made two requests, and received an answer to both of them […] When [Moses] asked for knowledge of the attributes and asked for forgiveness for the nation (Ex 33:13), he was given a [favorable] answer with regard to their being forgiven (Ex 33:17). Then he asked for the apprehension of His essence, may He be exalted. This is what he means when he says, Show me, I pray Thee, Thy glory (Ex 33:18); whereupon he received a [favorable] answer with regard to what he had asked for at first – namely, Show me Thy ways (Ex 33:13). For he was told: I will make all My goodness pass before thee (33:19). In answer to his second demand, he was told: Thou canst not see my face, and so on (33:20).85 84 See, e. g., William H. C. Propp, Exodus 19–40, AB 2A (New York: Doubleday, 2006), 583– 623; Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 274–86; Dillmann, Exodus und Leviticus, 343–54; Noth, Exodus, 252–67; McNeile, Exodus, 211–23; Hyatt, Exodus, 312–28; Alexander Rofé, “Israelite Belief in Angels in the Pre-Exilic Period as Evidenced by Biblical Traditions” (PhD diss., Hebrew University, 1969), 297–305. For more on Rofé’s treatment of this passage, see below. 85 Moses Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, vol. 1, trans. Shlomo Pines (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1963), 123–24. I added several parenthetical biblical references. See also Aaron ben Elijah, the Latter, of Nicomedia, ʿEtz Ḥayyim, Ahron ben Elias aus Nikomedien des Karäer’s System der Religionsphilosophie, trans. and ed. Franz Delitzsch and Moritz Steinschneider (Leipzig: Johann A. Barth, 1841), 62–63. (Steinschneider’s co-editor status was not properly acknowledged at time of publication, due to anti-Semitic Austrian regulations. See Paul B. Fenton, “Moritz Steinschneider’s Contribution to Judaeo-Arabic Studies,” in Studies on

3.2. Cut-and-Paste Errors

61

Dillmann went a step further, suggesting that 33:14–17 is out of place and belongs after 34:9. These verses, which deal with the question of who will lead the Israelites through the desert with Moses, seem unrelated to 33:13, in which Moses asks to know YHWH’s ways. However, as Dillmann has observed, they would read smoothly following 34:9, in which Moses begs: “O Lord, I pray, let the Lord go with us.”86 The original sequence, per Dillmann, would have been: 33:12Moses said to the LORD, “See, you have said to me, ‘Bring up this people’; but you have not let me know whom you will send with me. Yet you have said, ‘I know you by name, and you have also found favor in my sight.’ 13Now if I have found favor in your sight, show me your ways, so that I may know you and find favor in your sight. Consider too that this nation is your people.” 18Moses said, “Show me your glory, I pray.” […] 34:8And Moses quickly bowed his head toward the earth, and worshiped. 9He said, “If I have found favor in your sight, O Lord, I pray, let the Lord go with us. Although this is a stiffnecked people, pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for your inheritance.” 33:14He said, “My presence will go with you, and I will give you rest.” 15And he said to him, “If your presence will not go, do not carry us up from here. 16For how shall it be known that I have found favor in your sight, I and your people, unless you go with us? In this way, we shall be distinct, I and your people, from every people on the face of the earth.” 17The LORD said to Moses, “I will do the very thing that you have asked; for you have found favor in my sight, and I know you by name.” 34:10He said: I hereby make a covenant. Before all your people I will perform marvels, such as have not been performed in all the earth or in any nation; and all the people among whom you live shall see the work of the LORD; for it is an awesome thing that I will do with you.

While clearly an improvement upon the received text, Dillmann’s rearrangement leaves something to be desired. It reunites 33:14–17 with 34:9 while concurrently divorcing it from 33:12, which is plainly part of the same episode, namely, determining who will lead the Israelites in the desert alongside Moses. Dillmann’s observation that 33:14–17 should follow 34:9 is an important one, but he does not account for an alternative way of achieving this sequence. Alexander Rofé, in his doctoral dissertation, does just that.87 As noted above, the dialogue in 33:12–16 revolves around the question of who will join Moses in leading the Israelites in the desert. Moses says in verse 12: “See, you have said to me, ‘Bring up this people’; but you have not let me know whom you will send with me.” In verse 14, YHWH responds: “My presence will go with you, and I will give you rest.” In verses 15–16, Moses says: “If your presence will not go, do not carry us up from here. For how shall it be known that I have found favor in your sight, I and your people, unless you go with us? In this way, we shall be distinct, I and your people, from every people on the face of the earth.” Steinschneider: Moritz Steinschneider and the Emergence of the Science of Judaism in NineteenthCentury Germany, ed. Reimund Leicht and Gad Freudenthal [Leiden: Brill, 2011], 364n6.) 86 Dillmann, Exodus und Leviticus, 347. See also Driver, Introduction, 38–39. 87 Rofé, “Angels in the Pre-Exilic Period,” 297–305.

62

3. The Jumbled Bible: A New Hypothesis

Verse 13, however, contains a non sequitur, which Dillmann does not appear to fully appreciate. Moses says: “Now if I have found favor in your sight, show me your ways, so that I may know you and find favor in your sight. Consider too that this nation is your people.” This has little to do with wilderness leadership. Meanwhile, verse 9 of the following chapter includes a non sequitur as well, with Moses reintroducing the issue of who will lead the people through the desert: “If I have found favor in your sight, O Lord, I pray, let the Lord go with us.” Rather than place 33:14–17 after 34:9, as Dillmann suggests, Rofé argues that 34:9 belongs where 33:13 now stands. Replacing 33:13 with 34:9 is clearly an improvement on Dillmann’s proposal, since it reunites all the material that deals with the issue of leadership in the wilderness; 33:12 is no longer orphaned, as it is in Dillmann’s reconstruction. Rofé goes on to suggest that a form of homoeoarcton is behind the jumbling: both 33:13 and 34:9 begin by Moses saying “if I have found favor in your sight.” This, Rofé argues, led a redactor to mistakenly insert 33:13 in its present position, when the content of 34:9 is what was called for. Rofé’s suggestion is altogether compelling. However, his adherence to a scribal model of redaction necessitates an unlikely series of mishaps to explain how 34:9 remains extant: First, an editor copied the wrong verse (33:13) from one of his source documents due to parablepsis. This editor-scribe also omitted the correct verse (34:9) altogether. A second scribe later reintroduced the omitted verse (perhaps following a comparison of divergent manuscripts; Rofé does not say), adding it in the margin. A third scribe did not know what to do with this marginal verse and inserted it into the running text at 34:9. It appears to me that a cut-and-paste editing method better accounts for the received text. A single editor simply confused two similar snippets and transposed them. Rofé attributes the fragment’s placement in 34:9 to scribal doubt; it is, in his view, a default position at the end of a section. Although Rofé does not indicate where he believes 33:13 belongs, 34:9 – the position of its counterpart – indeed seems apt: 34:8And Moses quickly bowed his head toward the earth, and worshiped. 9He said, “If I have found favor in your sight, O Lord, I pray, let the Lord go with us. Although this is a stiff-necked people, pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for your inheritance.” 33:13if I have found favor in your sight, show me your ways, so that I may know you and find favor in your sight. Consider too that this nation is your people.” 10He said: I hereby make a covenant. Before all your people I will perform marvels, such as have not been performed in all the earth or in any nation; and all the people among whom you live shall see the work of the LORD; for it is an awesome thing that I will do with you. 11Observe what I command you today. See, I will drive out before you the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.

3.2. Cut-and-Paste Errors

63

Fig. 17. Transposition in Exodus 33–34.

According to this reconstruction, Moses’s request to know YHWH’s ways is followed by YHWH disclosing his plans to Moses – a perfectly logical progression. To sum up, Rofé’s suggestion that 34:9 belongs where 33:13 now stands is compelling, and it helps to resolve the disorder in the chapter. While he does not say where he thinks 33:13 belongs, it appears that 34:9 is the most appropriate place, which suggests that this is a case of transposition. Rofé’s observation that the two verses begin with Moses saying “if I have found favor in your eyes” indeed opens the door to redactional error, as he says. But jumbling of this sort is not typically associated with scribal redaction. This is why Propp, for instance, rejects a rearrangement of the text: “This is indeed the conversation’s logical substructure (cf. ibn Ezra). But it is hard to see how the text could have become so disarranged, unless it were always so.”88 Once a cut-and-paste editorial technique enters the realm of consideration, it is no longer difficult to imagine how such a jumbling mishap may have occurred. (See fig. 17.) 88

Propp, Exodus 19–40, 605.

64

3. The Jumbled Bible: A New Hypothesis

3.2.4. 1 Samuel 28:3–30:31, The “Witch” of Endor Text A: Samuel Text B: Samuel Redactional Material: Samuel 28:3Now Samuel had died, and all Israel had mourned for him and buried him in Ramah, his own city. Saul had expelled the mediums and the wizards from the land. 4The Philistines assembled, and came and encamped at Shunem. Saul gathered all Israel, and they encamped at Gilboa. 5When Saul saw the army of the Philistines, he was afraid, and his heart trembled greatly. 6When Saul inquired of the LORD, the LORD did not answer him, not by dreams, or by Urim, or by prophets. 7Then Saul said to his servants, “Seek out for me a woman who is a medium, so that I may go to her and inquire of her.” His servants said to him, “There is a medium at Endor.” 8So Saul disguised himself and put on other clothes and went there, he and two men with him. They came to the woman by night. And he said, “Consult a spirit for me, and bring up for me the one whom I name to you.” 9The woman said to him, “Surely you know what Saul has done, how he has cut off the mediums and the wizards from the land. Why then are you laying a snare for my life to bring about my death?” 10But Saul swore to her by the LORD, “As the LORD lives, no punishment shall come upon you for this thing.” 11Then the woman said, “Whom shall I bring up for you?” He answered, “Bring up Samuel for me.” 12When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice; and the woman said to Saul, “Why have you deceived me? You are Saul!” […] 24Now the woman had a fatted calf in the house. She quickly slaughtered it, and she took flour, kneaded it, and baked unleavened cakes. 25She put them before Saul and his servants, and they ate. Then they rose and went away that night. 29:1The

Philistines assembled all their forces at Aphek, while the Israelites were encamped by the fountain that is in Jezreel. 2As the lords of the Philistines were passing on by hundreds and by thousands, and David and his men were passing on in the rear with Achish, 3the commanders of the Philistines said, “What are these Hebrews doing here?” Achish said to the commanders of the Philistines, “Is this not David, the servant of King Saul of Israel, who has been with me now for days and years? Since he deserted to me I have found no fault in him to this day.” 4But the commanders of the Philistines were angry with him; and the commanders of the Philistines said to him, “Send the man back, so that he may return to the place that you have assigned to him; he shall not go down with us to battle, or else he may become an adversary to us in the battle. For how could this fellow reconcile himself to his lord? Would it not be with the heads of the men here? 5Is this not David, of whom they sing

‫‪65‬‬

‫‪3.2. Cut-and-Paste Errors‬‬

‫‪to one another in dances, ‘Saul has killed his thousands, and David his ten‬‬ ‫‪thousands’?” […] 30:26When David came to Ziklag, he sent part of the spoil to‬‬ ‫‪his friends, the elders of Judah, saying, “Here is a present for you from the spoil‬‬ ‫‪of the enemies of the LORD”; 27it was for those in Bethel, in Ramoth of the‬‬ ‫‪Negeb, in Jattir, 28in Aroer, in Siphmoth, in Eshtemoa, 29in Racal, in the towns‬‬ ‫‪of the Jerahmeelites, in the towns of the Kenites, 30in Hormah, in Bor-ashan,‬‬ ‫‪in Athach, 31in Hebron, all the places where David and his men had roamed.‬‬ ‫מוּאל‬ ‫טקסט א‪ְ :‬שׁ ֵ‬ ‫מוּאל‬ ‫טקסט ב‪ְ :‬שׁ ֵ‬ ‫מוּאל‬ ‫חומר עריכתי‪ְ :‬שׁ ֵ‬ ‫וּב ִעירוֹ וְ ָשׁאוּל ֵה ִסיר ָהאֹבוֹ ת וְ ֶאת ַהיִּ ְדּעֹנִ ים‬ ‫מוּאל ֵמת וַ יִּ ְס ְפּדוּ לוֹ כָּ ל יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל וַ יִּ ְק ְבּ ֻרהוּ ָב ָר ָמה ְ‬ ‫וּשׁ ֵ‬ ‫‪ְ 28:3‬‬ ‫אָרץ׃ ‪4‬וַ יִּ ָקּ ְבצוּ ְפלִ ְשׁ ִתּים וַ יָּ בֹאוּ וַ יַּ ֲחנוּ ְבשׁוּנֵ ם וַ יִּ ְקבֹּץ ָשׁאוּל ֶאת כָּ ל יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל וַ יַּ ֲחנוּ ַבּגִּ לְ בּ ַֹע׃‬ ‫ֵמ ָה ֶ‬ ‫‪5‬וַ יַּ ְרא ָשׁאוּל ֶאת ַמ ֲחנֵ ה ְפלִ ְשׁ ִתּים וַ יִּ ָרא וַ יֶּ ֱח ַרד לִ בּוֹ ְמאֹד׃ ‪6‬וַ יִּ ְשׁאַל ָשׁאוּל ַבּיהוָ ה וְ לא ָענָ הוּ יְ הוָ ה גַּ ם‬ ‫יה‬ ‫ֹאמר ָשׁאוּל לַ ֲע ָב ָדיו ַבּ ְקּשׁוּ לִ י ֵא ֶשׁת ַבּ ֲעלַ ת אוֹ ב וְ ֵאלְ כָ ה ֵאלֶ ָ‬ ‫יאם׃ ‪7‬וַ יּ ֶ‬ ‫אוּרים גַּ ם ַבּנְּ ִב ִ‬ ‫ַבּ ֲחלמוֹ ת גַּ ם ָבּ ִ‬ ‫וְ ֶא ְד ְר ָשׁה ָבּהּ וַ יּ ְ‬ ‫ֹאמרוּ ֲע ָב ָדיו ֵאלָ יו ִהנֵּ ה ֵא ֶשׁת ַבּ ֲעלַ ת אוֹ ב ְבּ ֵעין דּוֹ ר׃ ‪8‬וַ יִּ ְת ַח ֵפּשׂ ָשׁאוּל וַ יִּ לְ ַבּשׁ ְבּגָ ִדים‬ ‫ֹאמר קסומי ָ[ק ֳס ִמי] נָ א לִ י ָבּאוֹ ב וְ ַה ֲעלִ י‬ ‫וּשׁנֵ י ֲאנָ ִשׁים ִעמּוֹ וַ יָּ בֹאוּ ֶאל ָה ִא ָשּׁה לָ יְ לָ ה וַ יּ ֶ‬ ‫ֲא ֵח ִרים וַ יֵּ לֶ ְך הוּא ְ‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫אַתּה יָ ַד ְע ָתּ ֵאת ֲא ֶשׁר ָע ָשׂה ָשׁאוּל ֲא ֶשׁר ִהכְ ִרית‬ ‫ֹאמר ָה ִא ָשּׁה ֵאלָ יו ִהנֵּ ה ָ‬ ‫לִ י ֵאת ֲא ֶשׁר א ַֹמר ֵאלָ יִ ך׃ ‪9‬וַ תּ ֶ‬ ‫אַתּה ִמ ְתנַ ֵקּשׁ ְבּנַ ְפ ִשׁי לַ ֲה ִמ ֵ‬ ‫אָרץ וְ לָ ָמה ָ‬ ‫ֶאת ָהאֹבוֹ ת וְ ֶאת ַהיִּ ְדּעֹנִ י ִמן ָה ֶ‬ ‫יתנִ י׃ ‪10‬וַ יִּ ָשּׁ ַבע לָ הּ ָשׁאוּל ַבּיהוָ ה‬ ‫מוּאל‬ ‫ֹאמר ֶאת ְשׁ ֵ‬ ‫אַעלֶ ה לָּ ְך וַ יּ ֶ‬ ‫ֹאמר ָה ִא ָשּׁה ֶאת ִמי ֲ‬ ‫לֵ אמֹר ַחי יְ הוָ ה ִאם יִ ְקּ ֵר ְך ָעוֹ ן ַבּ ָדּ ָבר ַהזֶּ ה׃ ‪11‬וַ תּ ֶ‬ ‫ֹאמר ָה ִא ָשּׁה ֶאל ָשׁאוּל לֵ אמֹר לָ ָמּה‬ ‫מוּאל וַ ִתּזְ ַעק ְבּקוֹ ל גָּ דוֹ ל וַ תּ ֶ‬ ‫ַה ֲעלִ י לִ י׃ ‪12‬וַ ֵתּ ֶרא ָה ִא ָשּׁה ֶאת ְשׁ ֵ‬ ‫יתנִ י וְ ָ‬ ‫ִר ִמּ ָ‬ ‫ֹאמר לא אֹכַ ל וַ יִּ ְפ ְרצוּ בוֹ ֲע ָב ָדיו וְ גַ ם ָה ִא ָשּׁה וַ יִּ ְשׁ ַמע לְ קֹלָ ם וַ יָּ ָקם‬ ‫אַתּה ָשׁאוּל׃ […]‪23‬וַ יְ ָמ ֵאן וַ יּ ֶ‬ ‫ֵמ ָה ֶ‬ ‫אָרץ וַ יֵּ ֶשׁב ֶאל ַה ִמּ ָטּה׃ ‪24‬וְ לָ ִא ָשּׁה ֵעגֶ ל ַמ ְר ֵבּק ַבּ ַבּיִ ת וַ ְתּ ַמ ֵהר וַ ִתּזְ ָבּ ֵחהוּ וַ ִתּ ַקּח ֶק ַמח וַ ָתּלָ שׁ וַ תּ ֵֹפהוּ‬ ‫ַמצּוֹ ת׃ ‪25‬וַ ַתּגֵּ שׁ לִ ְפנֵ י ָשׁאוּל וְ לִ ְפנֵ י ֲע ָב ָדיו וַ יֹּאכֵ לוּ וַ יָּ ֻקמוּ וַ יֵּ לְ כוּ ַבּלַּ יְ לָ ה ַההוּא׃‬

‫‪29:1‬וַ יִּ ְק ְבּצוּ ְפלִ ְשׁ ִתּים ֶאת כָּ ל ַמ ֲחנֵ ֶיהם ֲא ֵפ ָקה וְ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל חֹנִ ים ַבּעַ יִ ן ֲא ֶשׁר ְבּיִ זְ ְר ֶעאל׃ ‪2‬וְ ַס ְרנֵ י ְפלִ ְשׁ ִתּים‬ ‫ֹאמרוּ ָשׂ ֵרי ְפלִ ְשׁ ִתּים ָמה‬ ‫אַחרֹנָ ה עִ ם אָכִ ישׁ׃ ‪3‬וַ יּ ְ‬ ‫ע ְֹב ִרים לְ ֵמאֹות וְ לַ ֲאלָ ִפים וְ ָדוִ ד וַ ֲאנָ ָשׁיו ע ְֹב ִרים ָבּ ֲ‬ ‫ֹאמר אָכִ ישׁ ֶאל ָשׂ ֵרי ְפלִ ְשׁ ִתּים ֲהלֹוא זֶ ה ָדוִ ד ֶע ֶבד ָשׁאוּל ֶמלֶ ְך יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ֲא ֶשׁר ָהיָ ה‬ ‫ָה ִע ְב ִרים ָה ֵאלֶּ ה וַ יּ ֶ‬ ‫אוּמה ִמיֹּום נָ ְפלֹו עַ ד ַהיֹּום ַהזֶּ ה׃ ‪4‬וַ יִּ ְקצְ פוּ ָעלָ יו ָשׂ ֵרי‬ ‫אתי בֹו ְמ ָ‬ ‫ִא ִתּי זֶ ה יָ ִמים אֹו זֶ ה ָשׁנִ ים וְ ל ֹא ָמצָ ִ‬ ‫ֹאמרוּ לֹו ָשׂ ֵרי ְפלִ ְשׁ ִתּים ָה ֵשׁב ֶאת ָה ִאישׁ וְ יָ שֹׁב ֶאל ְמקֹומֹו ֲא ֶשׁר ִה ְפ ַק ְדתֹּו ָשׁם וְ ל ֹא יֵ ֵרד‬ ‫ְפלִ ְשׁ ִתּים וַ יּ ְ‬ ‫אשׁי ָה ֲאנָ ִשׁים‬ ‫עִ ָמּנוּ ַבּ ִמּלְ ָח ָמה וְ ל ֹא יִ ְהיֶ ה לָּ נוּ לְ ָשׂ ָטן ַבּ ִמּלְ ָח ָמה ַוּב ֶמּה יִ ְת ַרצֶּ ה זֶ ה ֶאל ֲאדֹנָ יו ֲהלֹוא ְבּ ָר ֵ‬ ‫הוּדה לְ ֵר ֵעהוּ לֵ אמֹר ִהנֵּ ה לָ כֶ ם ְבּ ָרכָ ה‬ ‫ָה ֵהם׃ […] ‪30:26‬וַ יָּ בֹא ָדוִ ד ֶאל צִ ְקלַ ג וַ יְ ַשׁלַּ ח ֵמ ַה ָשּׁלָ ל לְ זִ ְקנֵ י יְ ָ‬ ‫ִמ ְשּׁלַ ל א ֵֹיְבי יְ הוָ ה׃ ‪27‬לַ ֲא ֶשׁר ְבּ ֵבית ֵאל וְ לַ ֲא ֶשׁר ְבּ ָרמֹות נֶ גֶ ב וְ לַ ֲא ֶשׁר ְבּיַ ִתּר׃ ‪28‬וְ לַ ֲא ֶשׁר ַבּ ֲער ֵֹער וְ לַ ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ‫ְבּ ִשׂ ְפמֹות וְ לַ ֲא ֶשׁר ְבּ ֶא ְשׁ ְתּמ ַֹע׃ ‪29‬וְ לַ ֲא ֶשׁר ְבּ ָרכָ ל וְ לַ ֲא ֶשׁר ְבּ ָע ֵרי ַהיְּ ַר ְח ְמ ֵאלִ י וְ לַ ֲא ֶשׁר ְבּ ָע ֵרי ַה ֵקּינִ י׃‬ ‫‪30‬וְ לַ ֲא ֶשׁר ְבּ ָח ְר ָמה וְ לַ ֲא ֶשׁר ְבּבֹור עָ ָשׁן וְ לַ ֲא ֶשׁר ַבּעֲ ָתְך׃ ‪31‬וְ לַ ֲא ֶשׁר ְבּ ֶח ְברֹון וּלְ כָ ל ַה ְמּקֹמֹות ֲא ֶשׁר ִה ְת ַהלֶּ ְך‬ ‫ָשׁם ָדּוִ ד הוּא וַ ֲאנָ ָשׁיו׃‬ ‫‪There is wide consensus that 1 Sam 28:3–25 is out of place and belongs after‬‬ ‫‪30:31.89 P. Kyle McCarter writes:‬‬ ‫‪89 I am indebted to Ya’akov Dolgopolsky-Geva for bringing this transposition to my attention.‬‬

66

3. The Jumbled Bible: A New Hypothesis

The battle report appears in 31:1–13, and in the received text of the Bible it is separated from the present passage by the account of David’s dismissal from the Philistine army and his punishment of the Amalekite plunderers of Ziklag (29:1–30:31). We have already noted that the latter material goes with the description of David’s entry into the service of Achish in 27:1–28:2 to make up a single narrative subunit. So in light of all this the present passage, separated from its natural sequel and disruptive in its present location, looks out of place. Geographical considerations reinforce this impression.90

Driver writes: In 28:4 the Philistines are at Shunem (in the plain of Jezreel); in 29:1 they are still at Apheq (in the Sharon, Jos. 12:18), and only reach Jezreel in 29:11. The narrative will be in its right order, if the section be read after ch. 29–30. V. 3 is evidently introductory.91

What Driver does not endeavor to address, however, is how this jumbling occurred. Some scholars have proposed tentative explanations for the transposition. Budde says outright that he does not have a satisfying answer (“Den Grund des Stellentausches von 28, 4 ff. weiß ich nicht anzugeben”), but in the absence of a compelling solution, he suggests that perhaps a redactor rearranged the text with the aim of having the last episode in the Saul cycle begin with a scene in which Saul plays a central part, rather than David, as would have been the case had he left the text intact. In addition, this rearrangement brought 1 Samuel 30, which describes the conquest of Ziklag, slightly closer to the report of Saul’s death to David in the same location (2 Sam 1:1). Budde indicates that this may have been a motivating factor.92 Similarly, McCarter writes: It might, however, be fruitful to ask whether someone wanted Samuel’s speech with its reminder of the failure of Saul’s Amalekite campaign (v 18) to stand as a kind of praepara-

 P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., I Samuel, AB 8 (New York: Doubleday, 1980), 422.

90

91 Samuel Rolles Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel (Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1890), 165. In addition, Saul’s failure to obtain a divine message (“When Saul inquired of the LORD, the LORD did not answer him, not by dreams, or by Urim, or by prophets” [28:6]) plays somewhat better after David’s effortless success at the same (“David inquired of the LORD, ‘Shall I pursue this band? Shall I overtake them?’ He answered him, ‘Pursue; for you shall surely overtake and shall surely rescue’” [30:8]). 92  Karl Ferdinand Reinhardt Budde, Die Bücher Richter und Samuel (Giessen: J. J. Ricker, 1890), 236. McCarter states: “Budde and others have supposed that the passage was once removed entirely from its original position before c 31 by a Deuteronomically oriented editor who was offended by its content (cf. Deut 18:10–12) and restored subsequently by another hand but at the wrong point in the story” (McCarter, I Samuel, 422). I have not found this suggestion in Budde’s writings. In any event, this proposal – whosever it may be – is rather doubtful. The plausible scenario for a late editor finding a redacted snippet involves access to an uncensored manuscript. However, if that had been the case, the redactor would have had no reason to get the pericope’s location wrong. Notably, this unit is far too long to have been added in a scroll’s margin, so it would not have migrated to its present location due to any such activity, either.

3.2. Cut-and-Paste Errors

67

tio before the account of David’s punishment of the Amalekites in cc 29–30. Accordingly, the relocation of the passage might be considered a part of its prophetic revision.93

While it is impossible to rule out deliberate redaction here, the considerations for so doing that Budde and McCarter put forth seem rather inconsequential and insufficient reason to spoil the chronology and coherence of the text. This passage’s jumbling may instead have resulted from parablepsis in a cutand-paste context. If the proper position of the Witch of Endor pericope is indeed after 30:31, this means that the units 28:3–25 and 29:1–30:31 are transposed.94 As Driver and others have convincingly argued,95 28:3 appears to be redactional, meaning that the unit proper begins with verse 4. Accounting for the secondary nature of 28:3, we have two transposed units: 28:4–25 and 29:1–30:31. The first two words of each unit are identical – ‫ויקבצו פלשתים‬ – making homoeoarcton a natural error. The two phrases have somewhat different meanings – the first includes an intransitive niphal verb, whereas the second has a transitive qal – but the unpointed words are homographic. A redactor working with physical snippets of text could have confused these two units, especially given their equivalent openings, and therefore transposed them. Several scholars have argued that these two units derive from different sources,96 but even if they are incorrect, the presence of other compilation nearby (for instance, the interpolation of David’s dirge in 2 Samuel 1) might have led a redactor to cut this section into snippets, opening the door to the confusion of two passages from the same original source. Neither scribal compilation nor scribal copying could easily have engendered such a rearrangement of the text, and deliberate redaction is unlikely, given the inferior character of the final product. Cut-and-paste redaction, coupled here with a notable parablepsis-facilitating factor, would have opened the door to accidental jumbling. (See fig. 18.)

93 McCarter,

I Samuel, 422–23. Ferdinand Reinhardt Budde, The Books of Samuel in Hebrew, Sacred Books of the Old Testament (Polychrome Bible, Hebrew Edition) 8 (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1894), 26–27. Regarding 28:3, see below. 95  E. g., Driver, Samuel, 165; Budde, Richter und Samuel, 235; Polychrome Samuel, 73. The first part of v. 3 repeats the report that Samuel had died; its second part (“Saul had expelled the mediums and the wizards from the land”) provides gratuitous background for the medium’s remark: “Surely you know what Saul has done, how he has cut off the mediums and the wizards from the land” (v. 9). 96 Driver, for instance, writes that it “forms an independent narrative” (Driver, Samuel, 165). See also Henry Preserved Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Samuel, ICC 8 (New York: Scribner, 1904), 238. 94 Karl

68

3. The Jumbled Bible: A New Hypothesis

Fig. 18. Transposition due to parablepsis in 1 Samuel 28–30.

3.3. Cut-and-Paste Errors: Other Jumbling The following jumbled passage is neither an instance of textual transposition, nor is it a case of textual migration. Nevertheless, it appears to have resulted from cutand-paste redaction, as we shall see.

Judges 17:1–4, Micah’s Idol Text A: Micah Text B: Micah Redactional Material: Micah 1There was a man in the hill country of Ephraim whose name was Micah. 2He said to his mother, “The eleven hundred pieces of silver that were taken from you, about which you uttered a curse, and you also told me – that silver is in

3.3. Cut-and-Paste Errors

69

my possession; I took it.” His mother said, “May my son be blessed by the LORD!” 3Then he returned the eleven hundred pieces of silver to his mother. His mother said, “I 97 consecrate the silver to the LORD from my hand [for my son], to make an idol of cast metal; now I will return it to you.” 4Then he returned the silver to his mother. His mother took two hundred pieces of silver, and gave it to the silversmith, who made it into an idol of cast metal; and it was in the house of Micah. ‫ ִמיכָ יְ הוּ‬:‫טקסט א‬ ‫ ִמיכָ יְ הוּ‬:‫טקסט ב‬ ‫ ִמיכָ יְ הוּ‬:‫חומר עריכתי‬

ְ ‫וַ יְ ִהי ִאישׁ ֵמ ַהר ֶא ְפ ָריִ ם‬1 ‫אַתּי אָלִ ית‬ ְ ְ‫וּמאָה ַהכֶּ ֶסף ֲא ֶשׁר לֻ ַקּח לָ ְך ו‬ ֵ ‫ֹאמר לְ ִאמּוֹ ֶאלֶ ף‬ ֶ ‫וַ יּ‬2 ‫וּשׁמֹו ִמיכָ יְ הוּ׃‬ ְ ‫ֹאמר ִאמּוֹ ָבּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ֶשׁב ֶאת ֶאלֶ ף‬3 ‫רוּך ְבּנִ י לַ יהוָ ה׃‬ ֶ ‫אָמ ְר ְתּ ְבּאָזְ נַ י ִהנֵּ ה ַהכֶּ ֶסף ִא ִתּי ֲאנִ י לְ ַק ְח ִתּיו וַ תּ‬ ַ ‫וְ גַ ם‬ ‫ֹאמר ִאמּוֹ ַה ְק ֵדּשׁ ִה ְק ַדּ ְשׁ ִתּי ֶאת ַהכֶּ ֶסף לַ יהוָ ה ִמיָּ ִדי [לִ ְבנִ י] לַ ֲעשׂוֹ ת‬ ֶ ‫וּמאָה ַהכֶּ ֶסף לְ ִאמּוֹ וַ תּ‬ ֵ ַ ‫ֶפּ ֶסל‬ ‫אתיִ ם כֶּ ֶסף וַ ִתּ ְתּנֵ הוּ לַ צּוֹ ֵרף‬ ַ ‫וַ יָּ ֶשׁב ֶאת ַהכֶּ ֶסף לְ ִאמּוֹ וַ ִתּ ַקּח ִאמּוֹ ָמ‬4 ‫וּמ ֵסּכָ ה וְ ַע ָתּה ֲא ִשׁ ֶיבנּוּ לָ ְך׃‬ ‫וּמ ֵסּכָ ה וַ יְ ִהי ְבּ ֵבית ִמיכָ יְ הוּ׃‬ ַ ‫וַ יַּ ֲע ֵשׂהוּ ֶפּ ֶסל‬ It is well established that Judges 17 is a composite text, and that the first several verses are jumbled. As is often the case, Karl Budde was the first modern scholar to note the disorder,98 and nearly all later analyses follow in his wake.99 Burney offers a comprehensive survey of the issues present in this section: The text of these verses in H is clearly disarranged; the disarrangement being as old as the Versions. In v.2a the words spoken by the mother have fallen out (‫ וגם אמרת באזני‬can only mean ‘and didst also say in mine ears,’ ‫ אמר‬being regularly followed by the words spoken. R. V. ‘and didst also speak it in mine ears’ is an illegitimate rendering: had this sense been intended, we should have expected ‫ ִ ּד ַּב ְר ּ ְת‬for ‫)א ַמ ְר ּ ְת‬. ָ In v.3a Micayehu returns the money to 3bβ his mother; in v. she declares her intention of returning it to him; and in v.4a he returns it to her once more in order that she may hand it over to the silversmith. [Budde] was the first to observe that the words of v.3bβ ‘and now I restore it to thee’ must be part of Micah’s speech in v.2a. He places v.3bβ.4a after v.2a and excises v.3a as a repetition of v.4a (in Comm. excising also the two words ‫ ותאמר אמו‬in v.[3]b).100  97 With  98 Karl

LXX κατὰ μόνας, which suggests a Hebrew Vorlage of ‫לְ ָב ִדי‬, rather than MT’s ‫לִ ְבנִ י‬. Ferdinand Reinhardt Budde, Das Buch der Richter, KHC 7 (Freiburg: Mohr, 1897),

113–14.  99 Emil Kautzsch, ed., Textbibel des Alten und Neuen Testaments in Verbindung mit zahlreichen Fachgelehrten (Freiburg: Mohr, 1899), 308; George Foot Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges, ICC 7 (New York: Scribner, 1901), 365–78; Charles Fox Burney, The Book of Judges (London: Rivingtons, 1918), 417–18; Cuthbert Aikman Simpson, Composition of the Book of Judges (Oxford: Blackwell, 1957), 63–68; Robert G. Boling, Judges, AB 6 (New York: Doubleday, 1975), 255–56; Robert Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges (New York: Seabury Press, 1980), 195. Though these scholars vary in the particulars of their analyses, they all agree that jumbling has occurred. 100 Burney, Judges, 417. As noted above, these observations have been met with substantial consensus. E. Aydeet Mueller (The Micah Story: A Morality Tale in the Book of Judges [New York:

70

3. The Jumbled Bible: A New Hypothesis

Budde’s proposed original text is thus: 2aHe said to his mother, “The eleven hundred pieces of silver that were taken from you, about which you uttered a curse, and you also told me – that silver is in my possession; I took it; 3bγnow I will return it to you.” 4aThen he returned the silver to his mother. 2bHis mother said, “May my son be blessed by the LORD! 3bβI consecrate the silver to the LORD from my hand for my son, to make an idol of cast metal.” 4bHis mother took two hundred pieces of silver, and gave it to the silversmith, who made it into an idol of cast metal; and it was in the house of Micah.

The medieval scholar Tanḥum ben Joseph ha-Yerushalmi anticipated Budde’s analysis, and Budde’s proposal is possibly dependent thereof. (Tanḥum’s commentary on Judges 13–21 was first published in 1843 in Halle; the first twelve chapters were printed in Tübingen in 1791.) Writing in the thirteenth century, Tanḥum suggested a rearrangement of the text nearly identical to Budde’s, the sole difference being the position of 4a: 2aHe said to his mother, “The eleven hundred pieces of silver that were taken from you, about which you uttered a curse, and you also told me – that silver is in my possession; I took it; 3bγnow I will return it to you.” 2bHis mother said, “May my son be blessed by the LORD!” 3bβ“I consecrate the silver to the LORD from my hand for my son, to make an idol of cast metal; 4Then he returned the silver to his mother. His mother took two hundred pieces of silver, and gave it to the silversmith, who made it into an idol of cast metal; and it was in the house of Micah.101

Peter Lang, 2001], 55) argues for an interesting medial position. She accepts Budde’s suggestion that the phrase was uttered by the son, but argues that it is nevertheless in its proper place. Her reasoning is puzzling. Although she determines that the expression must have been said to the mother – which is surely correct – she reaches that conclusion because the final word in the sentence, ‫לָ ְך‬, is “a feminine personal pronoun.” This seems to be a confusion of modern-day Hebrew and (Masoretic) classical Hebrew; the word is in a pausal state, not to mention that the Masoretic pointing is itself post-biblical and interpretive. Mueller goes on to deduce that the phrase is in the correct position, since the text’s incomprehensibility highlights the characters’ “inner confusion.” Accordingly, the silver is passed back and forth no fewer than four times: “they are too frightened to hold it in their hands for more than one moment at a time.” 101 See fig. 20. Published in R. Tanchumi Hierosolymitani, Commentarii in Prophetas Arabici Specimen, ed. Theodor Haarbrücker (Halle: Gebaueriis, 1842), 12. Tanḥum writes: “It is not fitting for the phrase ‘I now return it’ to be the mother’s statement. Rather, it is the conclusion of the son’s statement. However, the speech is out of its proper order [lit. “the speech contains taqdīm wa-taʾkhīr”]. Its reconstruction [taqdīr] is” [as given above]. (Translation by Raphael Dascalu.) Moore (Judges, 373, note) writes that Tanḥum takes the unusual order to be due to literary considerations (hysteron proteron). Although taqdīm wa‑taʾkhīr can refer to deliberately outof-sequence composition, this does not seem to be the case here. Tanḥum offers no rhetorical rationale, saying only that the text is out of order. Notably, Tanḥum elsewhere ascribes the contradiction between 2 Sam 24:13 and 1 Chr 21:12 to editors or copyists (mudawwinīn), rather than disagreement between the original texts. (Michael Wechsler, Strangers in the Land: The Judaeo-Arabic Exegesis of Tanḥum ha-Yerushalmi on the Books of Ruth and Esther [Jerusalem: Magnes, 2010], 53. For more on the term mudawwin, see ibid., 40–41, et passim.) Like Budde – and indeed Moore himself (see below) – Tanḥum appears to believe that Judg 17:1–4 became jumbled due to an error of some kind. (I am indebted to Raphael Dascalu for his learned and insightful comments on Tanḥum ha-Yerushalmi.)

3.3. Cut-and-Paste Errors

71

Though it resolves most of the problems in the passage, Budde’s reconstruction is incomplete. He identifies the migration of the last words in verse 3 (‫וְ ַע ָתּה ֲא ִשׁ ֶיבנּוּ‬ ‫)לָ ְך‬, the absent quotation of the mother in verse 2, and the redactional character of verse 3a–3bα ( ֹ‫ֹאמר ִאמּו‬ ֶ ‫וּמאָה ַהכֶּ ֶסף לְ ִאמּוֹ וַ תּ‬ ֵ ‫)וַ יָּ ֶשׁב ֶאת ֶאלֶ ף‬. He does not, however, draw the natural conclusion: that the missing statement of the mother to the son in verse 2 is one and the same as the strangely located statement by the mother to the son in verse 3. Moore picks up where Budde left off: In view of the derangement which unquestionably exists in these verses, the conjecture may be hazarded, that the words which are missing here have been preserved in v.4b, and that we should reconstruct: And thou cursedst, and also saidst to me, ‘I sacredly consecrate the silver to Yahweh … to make an idol,’  – the silver is in my possession, I took it; and now I will return it to thee. And his mother said, Blessed is my son of Yahweh. So he returned the silver to his mother, and she took two hundred shekels, &c. (v. 4).102

It should be noted that Moore’s placement of 4a agrees with Tanḥum, and it too is an improvement on Budde’s proposal. Burney prefers Moore’s reconstruction, with good reason: The reconstruction proposed by [Moore] seems to be superior to [Budde’s], and has been adopted above. Mo. holds that the missing words of the mother’s adjuration in v.2a – which Bu. supposes to have been suppressed owing to the terrible character of the curse […] – are the words of v.3bα [I alone consecrate the silver to the LORD from my hand, to make an idol of cast metal], which have been misplaced in the general dislocation of the text, and are there introduced by the gloss ‫ותאמר אמו‬.103

Moore’s proposal is indeed compelling. The only potential refinement that comes to mind would be reversing the attribution of original and secondary visà-vis the reports that the son returned the silver to his mother (vss. 3a and 4a). While Moore’s proposed original reads smoothly and cogently, it is difficult to see why a redactor working after the jumbling occurred would have felt a need to insert an additional account of the son returning the silver between the mother’s two statements in verses 2 and 3. If, however, it is 4a that is secondary, a scribe might have read the words “now I will return it to you” as a statement by a son – as indeed it was intended – but since the son had already returned the silver in 3a, there was a need to have him re-return it here. If indeed both the mother’s adjuration and the phrase “now I will return it to you” are out of place, as Moore and Burney argue, it seems we have here a more severe case of jumbling than we have previously encountered. Unlike the aforementioned examples, Judg 17:1–4 includes two misplaced snippets, rather than a single textual migration or transposition. It is hard to say what precisely 102 Moore, Judges, 373. See also George Foot Moore, The Book of Judges in Hebrew, Sacred Books of the Old Testament (Polychrome Bible, Hebrew Edition) 7 (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1900), 60. 103 Burney, Judges, 417.

72

3. The Jumbled Bible: A New Hypothesis

Fig. 19. One possible cause of the jumbling in Judges 17:1–4.

brought about the redactional mishap, but whatever the case may be, physical patches would have lent themselves to such an error far more readily than complete scrolls. Perhaps an accident occurred after the initial rearrangement but before the patchwork edition had been copied into a new scroll, and two dislodged snippets were misplaced by a later scribe. Alternatively, it could be that some of the snippets were placed vertically in the margins to make optimal use of space, leading to confusion regarding their correct placement. As noted above, it was not uncommon for scribes to add text in the margins or between lines in an ambiguous fashion, mistakenly believing that future scribes would know where it belonged. (See figs. 19–20; for confusing interlinear and marginal text, see fig. 2 above.) To sum up, Judg 17:1–4 is “manifestly in disorder,” to use Moore’s term, and its problematic sequence has been acknowledged for centuries. Conventional scribal techniques cannot explain the textual calamities we have observed. Cutand-paste redaction, on the other hand, could well have led to the jumbling present in the text.

3.3. Cut-and-Paste Errors

Fig. 20. Jumbling in Judges 17:1–4, as well as glosses necessitated by the accident.

73

4. Methodological Ramifications “Your tools work together. Change one and the results change.” – Jocelyn Penny Small

We have seen that jumbling is sometimes indicative of cut-and-paste redactional activity. Out of the eight passages that appear to exhibit cut-and-paste-related jumbling, seven seem to have resulted from a previously unknown type of parablepsis, coupled with a redactional technique whose currency has been under-appreciated.

4.1. A New Category of Parablepsis Parablepsis – the confusion of two loci in a text – is one of the most pervasive errors in manuscript transmission.1 Its most common manifestation is parablepsis due to the similarity of two textual sequences. This category is often further divided into the sub-categories homoeoarcton and homoeoteleuton – for the confusion of similar beginnings and ends of units, respectively2 – although the distinction is not always discernible, nor is it necessarily meaningful.3 1  See, e. g., David N. Freedman and David Miano, “Is the Shorter Reading Better? Haplography in the First Book of Chronicles,” in Emanuel: Studies in the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, and the Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, ed. Shalom M. Paul et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 685. 2 Homoeomeson – the confusion of similar “centers” – is occasionally cited in the literature as well. Some scholars use the terms “parablepsis” or “parablepsy” to refer to any case of confusion between loci in a text, including cases that involve no visual similarity (e. g., Robert E. Stewart, ed., The Reliability of the New Testament: Bart D. Ehrman and Daniel B. Wallace in Dialogue [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011], 22), while others limit it to horizontal confusion (e. g., Glen G. Scorgie, Mark L. Strauss, and Steven M. Voth, eds., The Challenge of Bible Translation: Communicating God’s Word to the World [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009], 274). Others still use the term as the “English” equivalent of ‫טעות הדומות‬ – to wit, homoeoarcton and homoeoteleuton (and sometimes homoeomeson) collectively (e. g., Tov, Textual Criticism, 238, et passim). 3 For instance, many manuscripts omit two verses following Josh 21:35: “Out of the tribe of Reuben: Bezer with its pasture lands, Jahzah with its pasture lands, Kedemoth with its pasture lands, and Mephaath with its pasture lands – four towns.” This is clearly due to parablepsis. But of which sort? Like the conclusion of the two verses in question, v. 34 ends with “with its pasture

4.1. A New Category of Parablepsis

75

The confusion of similar sequences troubled scholars even in ancient times, as illustrated by the following talmudic passage, which deals with a mnemonic manifestation of the phenomenon. B. Berakhot 16a: [We learned in our mishna:] One who recited [Shema] out of order did not fulfill [his obligation. One who recited and erred, should return to the place in Shema that he erred. With regard to an error in the recitation of Shema, the Gemara recounts:] Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi were once tying a wedding canopy [in preparation] for [the wedding of ] Rabbi Elazar. He said to them: In the meantime, [until you finish,] I will go and hear something in the study hall, and I will come and say it to you. He went and found the tanna [who recited mishnayot in the study hall,] who was reciting [this Tosefta] before Rabbi Yoḥanan: One who recited [Shema] and erred, and does not know where [exactly] he erred; [if he was] in the middle of a paragraph [when he realized his error], he must return to the beginning [of the paragraph;] if [he was] between one paragraph and another [when he realized his error but does not remember between which paragraphs,] he must return to the first [break between] paragraphs. [Similarly,] if one erred between writing and writing, [i. e., between the verse: “And you shall write them on the door posts of your house and on your gates” (Deuteronomy 6:9) in the first paragraph and the identical verse (Deuteronomy 11:20) in the second paragraph,] he must return to the first writing. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: They only taught [this halakha in a case] where one did not [yet] begin: “In order to lengthen your days” [(Deuteronomy 11:21) which follows that verse at the end of the second paragraph]. However, if he [already] began [to recite:] “In order to lengthen your days,” [he can assume that] he assumed his routine and continued [and completed the second paragraph. Rabbi Elazar] came and told [Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi what he heard]. They said to him: Had we come only to hear this, it would have been sufficient.4

Scribal parablepsis almost always leads to the loss of the material between the two similar sequences. There are innumerable such examples in biblical manuscripts, at all stages of transmission.5

lands – four towns.” This is suggestive of homoeoteleuton. On the other hand, like the sometimes-absent section’s beginning, the subsequent verse starts with “out of the tribe,” opening the door to homoeoarcton. Furthermore, it is possible to confuse the beginning of one unit with the middle or end of another. Indeed, this is the case in Isa 17:12–13, where the similarity between the first and last words of a phrase led to a repetition: ‫וּשׁאוֹ ן לְ ֻא ִמּים כִּ ְשׁאוֹ ן ַמיִ ם כַּ ִבּ ִירים יִ ָשּׁאוּן לְ ֻא ִמּים‬ ְ ‫כִּ ְשׁאֹון ַמיִ ם ַר ִבּים יִ ָשּׁאוּן‬. Ultimately, these errors are all simply cases of the eye jumping from place to place due to some similarity; the confused sequences’ positions within any given units – to the extent that these units are evident a priori and not ad hoc creations of later scholars – are often immaterial. 4 Translation from Adin (Even-Israel) Steinsaltz, ed., Koren Talmud Bavli, Vol. 1: Tractate Berakhot (Jerusalem: Koren, 2012), 106–7. 5 Haplography, too, is a sub-category of parablepsis, in this case omission resulting from the confusion of two adjacent sequences: XX → X, rather than XYX → X. By a similar token, dittography is a repetition caused by reading the same sequence twice. These two readings are typically back-to-back: X → XX. In the case of vertical dittography, a sequence is read once in its correct position and again when copying an adjacent line: XY/Z → XY/ZY. (Slash indicates a line break.)

76

4. Methodological Ramifications

An example of parableptic omission (1 Kgs 8:16 [MT]; full version preserved in 2 Chr 6:5–6): Since the day that I brought my people Israel out of Egypt, I have not chosen a city from any of the tribes of Israel in which to build a house, that my name might be there [*and I chose no one as ruler over my people Israel; but I have chosen Jerusalem, that my name may be there]; but I chose David to be over my people Israel. ‫אתי ֶאת ַע ִמּי ֶאת יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ִמ ִמּ ְצ ַריִ ם לא ָב ַח ְר ִתּי ְב ִעיר ִמכֹּל ִשׁ ְב ֵטי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל לִ ְבנוֹ ת ַבּיִ ת לִ ְהיוֹ ת‬ ִ ‫ִמן ַהיּוֹ ם ֲא ֶשׁר הוֹ ֵצ‬ ָ ‫ְשׁ ִמי ָשׁם [*וְ לא ָב ַח ְר ִתּי ְב ִאישׁ לִ ְהיוֹ ת נָ גִ יד ַעל ַע ִמּי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל וָ ֶא ְב ַחר ִבּ‬ ‫ירוּשׁ ִַלם לִ ְהיוֹ ת ְשׁ ִמי ָשׁם] וָ ֶא ְב ַחר ְבּ ָדוִ ד‬ ‫לִ ְהיוֹ ת ַעל ַע ִמּי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל׃‬

See fig. 21 for an example of parableptic omission and marginal reinsertion from the Cairo Genizah. Repetition due to parablepsis is also attested in the Hebrew Bible, although it is much rarer than omission, and it has not historically received much attention.6 Raphael Weiss identified the phenomenon in a short article published posthumously in 1976.7 An example of parableptic repetition occurs in 2 Kgs 7:13: One of his servants said, “Let some men take five of the remaining horses, since those that are left here will suffer the fate of the whole multitude of Israel that are left here will suffer the fate of the whole multitude of Israel that have perished already; let us send and find out.” ‫ההמֹון יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ֲ ‫אָרים ֲא ֶשׁר נִ ְשׁ ֲארוּ ָבהּ ִהנָּ ם כְּ כָ ל‬ ִ ‫סּוּסים ַהנִּ ְשׁ‬ ִ ‫ֹאמר וְ יִ ְקחוּ נָ א ֲח ִמ ָשּׁה ִמן ַה‬ ֶ ‫וַ יַּ ַען ֶא ָחד ֵמ ֲע ָב ָדיו וַ יּ‬ ‫נִ ְשׁ ֲארוּ ָבהּ ִהנָּ ם כְּ כָ ל ֲהמוֹ ן יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ֲא ֶשׁר ָתּמּוּ וְ נִ ְשׁלְ ָחה וְ נִ ְר ֶאה׃‬

To the established categories of parableptic repetition and parableptic omission, we must now add a third one: parableptic jumbling. We have seen what appear to be seven examples of this phenomenon, and it is likely that this list is not exhaustive. Redactional errors are inextricably linked to editorial methods and media. If a redactor works exclusively as a scribe, that is, as a writer, then parablepsis is unlikely to lead to jumbling, as we have seen. However, considering that cut-andpaste redaction appears to have been practiced by some editors, parablepsis must now be kept in mind when considering the causes of other instances of jumbling. This brings us to our next methodological concern: determining how a text has become jumbled.

6 The most comprehensive analysis of repetitional parablepsis was undertaken by Leeor Gottlieb, which he published in a graduate thesis and an associated article: Leeor Gottlieb, “Repetition Due to Homoeoteleuton,” Textus 21 (2002): 21–43; Leeor Gottlieb, “‫שני סוגים של חזרה‬ ‫( ”שגויה בעדי נוסח המקרא‬master’s thesis, Hebrew University, 2003). 7 Raphael Weiss, “‫שלוש הערות לנוסח המקרא‬,” in ‫ אסופת מחקרים במקרא לזכר ד״ר‬:‫הצבי ישראל‬ ‫ישראל ברוידא ובנו צבי ברוידא‬, ed. Jacob Licht and Gershon Brin (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1976), 93–96; Raphael Weiss, “A Peculiar Textual Phenomenon,” Textus 18 (1995): 27–32 (English translation of the previous).

4.1. A New Category of Parablepsis

77

Fig. 21. Folio of Deuteronomy manuscript from the Cairo Genizah (Taylor-Schechter A29.112). Five words from Deut 2:31 were omitted due to parablepsis (from ‫ ואת ארצו‬to ‫את‬ ‫ )ארצו‬and were subsequently inserted in the center margin. Reproduced by kind permission of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library.

78

4. Methodological Ramifications

4.2. Diagnosing Jumbling Causes In my discussion of the cases of jumbling, various factors were weighed and considered in order to determine each example’s cause. A summary of the resulting methodological principles follows. Before one may confidently conclude that a cut-and-paste error has taken place, several criteria need to be met: 1. It must be established that the text in question is in a problematic order. 2. The passage or its immediate environs must be independently deemed com­ posite. 3. It must be clear that the problematic order did not result from an intentional editorial decision.8 4. The out-of-sequence section must be an essential element in the passage and not fit the profile of a marginal or interlinear addition.9 5. There must be no evidence of an alternative scribal mishap, such as a detached sheet being affixed incorrectly.10 When all five of these criteria are established, cut-and-paste-related jumbling becomes the front runner among possible redactional etiologies. At this point, it is necessary to consider what might have led an editor working with textual snippets to err in the first place. In the case of a textual migration, if the natural position of the itinerant passage is visually similar to its place in the received text, then parableptic jumbling is a satisfying explanation. In the case of a textual transposition, the same is true if the interchanged units appear to be confusable due to content, style, or homologous beginnings/endings. The identification of a jumbling error does not always go hand-in-hand with the discovery of the precise circumstances that engendered the error. After all, various unknowable features may be factors, including the misidentified passage’s location on the line, the points at which each column began and ended, and so on. When the etiology is not entirely forthcoming, alternative explanations must be weighed against one another. The aforementioned example of Judg 17:1–4 (Micah’s Idol) is a passage in which jumbling is evident, but evidence of parablepsis is lacking. Nevertheless, it is difficult to conceive of a scribal scenario that might have led to such disordering. In the absence of a plausible alternative, cut-and-paste-related redaction remains a viable explanation.  8 The Priestly list of Jacob’s children in Gen 35:22b–26, discussed above, is an example of a deliberate reconciliatory rearrangement of a text. Another category of conscious restructuring is the colophon, as noted above.  9 Tov, Textual Criticism, 278. 10 See especially Alexander Rofé, “‫שאלת חיבורה של פרשת ‘וילך’ (דברים לא) לאור השערה בדבר‬ ‫חילופי עמודות בנוסח המקרא‬,” Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 3 (1978): 59–76, discussed above.

4.3. Conventional vs. Cut-and-Paste Redaction

79

Resemblance between potentially confused sections would not have been limited to the classic cases of homoeoteleuton, homoeomeson, and homoeoarcton. Handwriting, ink type, papyrus features, snippet dimensions, and many other factors would have contributed, and these must be taken into account to the extent possible. It is therefore more plausible to propose a mix-up between X and Xʹ when both are from the same putative source, as the segments of text would doubtless have shared a number of physical attributes. In addition, a concentration of apparent cut-and-paste mistakes naturally increases the odds that a passage under consideration has suffered a similar fate. In summary, when assigning a cause for a textual transposition or migration, it is best to assume a polythetic approach,11 tallying up the evidence for each potential explanation. No single criterion can be decisive; when the markers of a particular scenario reach a critical mass, the passage can then be classified in the corresponding category.

4.3. Conventional vs. Cut-and-Paste Redaction The realization that biblical editors sometimes worked by means of cut and paste has some further methodological ramifications. When analyzing a text that shows signs of redaction, we must now be sure to consider the possibility that its features resulted, at least in part, from the redactor’s method. A conventional scribal editor who has made a change to a text – the addition of a character, for instance – is likely to rework the concomitant text as well, so that the final work is as smooth and consistent as possible. Since this editor is already writing out a full copy of the text, changing all the associated singular pronouns to plural ones would take little effort. A cut-and-paste redactor, on the other hand, is likely to focus on rearrangement and supplementation, leaving existing text intact wherever possible, since each modification requires the fresh writing of a section that could otherwise have been pasted as is.12 In this regard, cut-andpaste redaction has more in common with marginal and interlinear insertions than it does with supplementary rewriting – the words of the base text are hardly altered. The story of Sodom’s annihilation and Lot’s escape (with or without family members) in Genesis 19 illustrates the methodological impact the consideration 11 For more on this concept, as well as its relation to Wittgenstein’s notion of family resemblance, see Rodney Needham, “Polythetic Classification: Convergence and Consequences,” Man 10, no. 3 (1975): 349–69; Kate Distin, Cultural Evolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 197–99. 12 For a recent proposal regarding the relationship between redaction and the act of cutting, see Mark Leuchter, “Jehoiakim and the Scribes: A Note on Jer 36,23,” ZAW 127, no. 2 (2015): 320–25.

80

4. Methodological Ramifications

of cut-and-paste redaction can have on any text’s analysis, even a text that presents no jumbling errors whatsoever.

Genesis 19:14–30, Lot’s Escape from Sodom Non-P (composite): Lot Lot P: Redactional Material: Lot 14So Lot went out and said to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters,

“Up, get out of this place; for the LORD is about to destroy the city.” But he seemed to his sons-in-law to be jesting. 15When morning dawned, the messengers urged Lot, saying, “Get up, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or else you will be consumed in the punishment of the city.” 16But he lingered; so the men seized his hand and his wife’s hand and his two daughters’ hand, the LORD being merciful to him, and they brought him out and left him outside the city. 17When they had brought them outside, he13 said, “Flee for your life; do not look back or stop anywhere in the Plain; flee to the hills, or else you will be consumed.” 18And Lot said to them, “Oh, no, my lord(s);14 19your [sing.] servant has found favor with you [sing.], and your [sing.] kindness, which you [sing.] have done for me in saving my life, is great; but I cannot flee to the hills, for fear the disaster will overtake me and I die. 20Look, that city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one. Let me escape there – is it not a little one? – and my life will be saved!” 21He said to him, “Very well, I grant you this favor too, and will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken. 22Hurry, escape there, for I can do nothing until you arrive there.” Therefore the city was called Zoar. 23The sun had risen on the earth when Lot came to Zoar. 24Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven; 25and he overthrew those cities, and all the Plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. 26But Lot’s wife, behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt. 27Abraham went early in the morning to the place where he had stood before the LORD; 28and he looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah and toward all the land of the Plain and saw the smoke of the land going up like the smoke of a furnace. 29So it was that, when God destroyed the cities of the Plain, God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in which Lot had settled. 30Now Lot went

13 I

have diverged here from NRSV, which glosses “they said” for the singular Hebrew ‫ֹאמר‬ ֶ ‫וַ יּ‬. (my lord) vs. plural (my lords) vs. divine appellation (LORD) depends on vocalization. MT reads ‫אדֹנָ י‬: ֲ LORD. LXX reads (singular) κύριε. 14 Singular

4.3. Conventional vs. Cut-and-Paste Redaction

81

up out of Zoar and settled in the hills with his two daughters, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar; so he lived in a cave with his two daughters.

‫לֹוט‬ : ‫כהני‬-‫לא‬ : ‫כהני‬ ‫לוֹ ט‬ ‫ לֹוט‬: ‫חומר עריכתי‬ ‫ֹאמר קוּמוּ צְּ אוּ ִמן ַה ָמּקֹום ַהזֶּ ה כִּ י ַמ ְשׁ ִחית יְ הוָ ה ֶאת‬ ֶ ‫וַ יֵּ צֵ א לֹוט וַ יְ ַד ֵבּר ֶאל ֲח ָתנָ יו ל ְׂק ֵחי ְבנ ָֹתיו וַ יּ‬14 ‫וּכְ מֹו ַה ַשּׁ ַחר ָעלָ ה וַ יָּ ִאיצוּ ַה ַמּלְ אָכִ ים ְבּלֹוט לֵ אמֹר קוּם ַקח ֶאת‬15 ‫ָהעִ יר וַ יְ ִהי כִ ְמצַ ֵחק ְבּעֵ ינֵ י ֲח ָתנָ יו׃‬ ‫וּביַ ד‬ ְ ‫וַ יִּ ְת ַמ ְה ָמהּ וַ יַּ ֲחזִ קוּ ָה ֲאנָ ִשׁים ְבּיָ דֹו‬16 ‫ִא ְשׁ ְתָּך וְ ֶאת ְשׁ ֵתּי ְבנ ֶֹתיָך ַהנִּ ְמצָ אֹת ֶפּן ִתּ ָסּ ֶפה ַבּעֲ ֹון ָה ִעיר׃‬ ‫וַ יְ ִהי כְ הֹוצִ יאָם א ָֹתם‬17 ‫וּביַ ד ְשׁ ֵתּי ְבנ ָֹתיו ְבּ ֶח ְמלַ ת יְ הוָ ה עָ לָ יו וַ יֹּצִ ֻאהוּ וַ יַּ נִּ ֻחהוּ ִמחוּץ לָ ִעיר׃‬ ְ ‫ִא ְשׁתֹּו‬ ‫אַח ֶריָך וְ אַל ַתּ ֲעמֹד ְבּכָ ל ַהכִּ כָּ ר ָה ָה ָרה ִה ָמּלֵ ט ֶפּן ִתּ ָסּ ֶפה׃‬ ֲ ‫ֹאמר ִה ָמּלֵ ט עַ ל נַ ְפ ֶשָׁך אַל ַתּ ִבּיט‬ ֶ ‫ַהחוּצָ ה וַ יּ‬ ‫ ִהנֵּ ה נָ א ָמצָ א עַ ְב ְדָּך ֵחן ְבּעֵ ינֶ יָך וַ ַתּגְ ֵדּל ַח ְס ְדָּך ֲא ֶשׁר ָע ִשׂ ָית ִע ָמּ ִדי‬19 ‫ֹאמר לֹוט ֲאלֵ ֶהם אַל נָ א ֲאדֹנָ י׃‬ ֶ ‫וַ יּ‬18 ‫ ִהנֵּ ה נָ א ָה ִעיר ַהזֹּאת‬20 ‫לְ ַה ֲחיֹות ֶאת נַ ְפ ִשׁי וְ אָנֹכִ י לׂא אוּכַ ל לְ ִה ָמּלֵ ט ָה ָה ָרה ֶפּן ִתּ ְד ָבּ ַקנִ י ָה ָרעָ ה וָ ַמ ִתּי׃‬ ‫ֹאמר ֵאלָ יו ִהנֵּ ה‬ ֶ ‫וַ יּ‬21 ‫ְקר ָֹבה לָ נוּס ָשׁ ָמּה וְ ִהיא ִמצְ ָער ִא ָמּלְ ָטה נָּ א ָשׁ ָמּה ֲהלׂא ִמצְ עָ ר ִהוא ְוּת ִחי נַ ְפ ִשׁי׃‬ ‫ ַמ ֵהר ִה ָמּלֵ ט ָשׁ ָמּה כִּ י לׂא אוּכַ ל‬22 ‫אתי ָפנֶ יָך גַּ ם לַ ָדּ ָבר ַהזֶּ ה לְ ִבלְ ִתּי ָה ְפכִּ י ֶאת ָהעִ יר ֲא ֶשׁר ִדּ ַבּ ְר ָתּ׃‬ ִ ‫נָ ָשׂ‬ ‫אָרץ וְ לֹוט ָבּא צ ֲֹע ָרה׃‬ ֶ ‫ ַה ֶשּׁ ֶמשׁ יָ צָ א עַ ל ָה‬23 ‫לַ עֲ שֹׂות ָדּ ָבר עַ ד בּ ֲֹאָך ָשׁ ָמּה עַ ל כֵּ ן ָק ָרא ֵשׁם ָה ִעיר צֹועַ ר׃‬ ‫וַ יַּ ֲהפְֹך ֶאת ֶה ָע ִרים ָה ֵאל‬25 ‫וַ יהוָ ה ִה ְמ ִטיר עַ ל ְסדֹם וְ עַ ל עֲ מ ָֹרה גָּ ְפ ִרית וָ ֵאשׁ ֵמ ֵאת יְ הוָ ה ִמן ַה ָשּׁ ָמיִ ם׃‬24 ‫אַח ָריו וַ ְתּ ִהי נְ צִ יב ֶמלַ ח׃‬ ֲ ‫וַ ַתּ ֵבּט ִא ְשׁתֹּו ֵמ‬26 ‫וְ ֵאת כָּ ל ַהכִּ כָּ ר וְ ֵאת כָּ ל י ְֹשׁ ֵבי ֶהעָ ִרים וְ צֶ ַמח ָה ֲא ָד ָמה׃‬ ‫וַ יַּ ְשׁ ֵקף ַעל ְפּנֵ י ְסדֹם וַ ֲעמ ָֹרה‬28 ‫אַב ָר ָהם ַבּבּ ֶֹקר ֶאל ַה ָמּקֹום ֲא ֶשׁר ָע ַמד ָשׁם ֶאת ְפּנֵ י יְ הוָ ה׃‬ ְ ‫וַ יַּ ְשׁכֵּ ם‬27 ‫וַ יְ ִהי ְבּ ַשׁ ֵחת ֱאל ִהים ֶאת‬29 ‫אָרץ כְּ ִקיטֹר ַהכִּ ְב ָשׁן׃‬ ֶ ‫וְ ַעל כָּ ל ְפּנֵ י ֶא ֶרץ ַהכִּ כָּ ר וַ יַּ ְרא וְ ִהנֵּ ה עָ לָ ה ִקיטֹר ָה‬ ‫אַב ָר ָהם וַ יְ ַשׁלַּ ח ֶאת לוֹ ט ִמתּוֹ ְך ַה ֲה ֵפכָ ה ַבּ ֲהפ ְֹך ֶאת ֶה ָע ִרים ֲא ֶשׁר יָ ַשׁב‬ ְ ‫ָע ֵרי ַהכִּ כָּ ר וַ יִּ זְ כֹּר ֱאל ִהים ֶאת‬ ‫צֹוער וַ יֵּ ֶשׁב ַבּ ְמּ ָע ָרה‬ ַ ‫וּשׁ ֵתּי ְבנ ָֹתיו ִעמֹּו כִּ י יָ ֵרא לָ ֶשׁ ֶבת ְבּ‬ ְ ‫צֹּוער וַ יֵּ ֶשׁב ָבּ ָהר‬ ַ ‫וַ יַּ ַעל לֹוט ִמ‬30 ‫ָבּ ֵהן לוֹ ט׃‬

‫וּשׁ ֵתּי ְבנ ָֹתיו׃‬ ְ ‫הוּא‬

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 is generally believed to be a largely uniform non-Priestly narrative, with the notable exception of 19:29, which is attributed to P. That said, several scholars have suggested that the non-P text is itself composite, with verses 12–17 deriving from a different source than verses 24–28.15 In particular, Rudolf Kilian has argued for a “Plural-Version” of the destruction narrative, distinct from J’s “Singular-Schicht.” In the plural version, it is the messengers who do the destroying (19:13), for instance, rather than YHWH (19:24).16 For our purposes, there is no need to enter into a detailed source analysis of the narrative;17 I will focus specifically on an associated but 15 See

Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 296–99.

16 Rudolf Kilian, Die vorpriesterlichen Abrahamsüberlieferungen literarkritisch und traditions-

geschichtlich untersucht (Bonn: Peter Hanstein Verlag, 1966), 112–47. Rashi on 19:16, following Genesis Rabbah, writes that one of the two messengers was tasked with saving Lot and the other with destroying Sodom. 17 I will only briefly note additional inconsistencies within the non-P version. In 19:17 and 19:19–22, Lot has a single interlocutor, when we would expect Lot to address, and be addressed by, the two men. When, in v. 17, “he” (third person masculine singular) tells Lot to run for his life (‫ֹאמר ִה ָמּלֵ ט ַעל נַ ְפ ֶשׁ ָך‬ ֶ ‫חוּצה וַ יּ‬ ָ ‫)וַ יְ ִהי כְ הוֹ ִציאָם א ָֹתם ַה‬, the reader has no way of knowing which of the

82

4. Methodological Ramifications

under-appreciated incongruity in the chapter: Who was spared – Lot and family, or Lot alone? In verse 26, Lot’s wife looks back and becomes a pillar of salt, and in verses 30–38, Lot is raped by his daughters. Clearly, according to the author(s) of these sections, Lot escaped together with members of his family. At the same time, verse 16 appears to preserve a tradition that only Lot was saved, albeit with one discordant element: “But he lingered; so the men seized his hand and his wife’s hand and his two daughters’ hand, the LORD being merciful to him, and they brought him out and left him outside the city” ( ֹ‫וַ יִּ ְת ַמ ְה ָמהּ וַ יַּ ֲחזִ קוּ ָה ֲאנָ ִשׁים ְבּיָ דו‬ ‫וּביַ ד ְשׁ ֵתּי ְבנ ָֹתיו ְבּ ֶח ְמלַ ת יְ הוָ ה ָעלָ יו וַ יּ ִֹצ ֻאהוּ וַ יַּ נִּ ֻחהוּ ִמחוּץ לָ ִעיר‬ ְ ֹ‫)וּביַ ד ִא ְשׁתּו‬. ְ On the one hand, the messengers are said to have brought “him,” rather than “them” out of the city. This comports with Lot’s statement in verse 18: “you have shown me great kindness in saving my life,” etc. (‫ וגו׳‬,‫ית ִע ָמּ ִדי לְ ַה ֲחיוֹ ת ֶאת נַ ְפ ִשׁי‬ ָ ‫)וַ ַתּגְ ֵדּל ַח ְס ְדּ ָך ֲא ֶשׁר ָע ִשׂ‬. On the other hand, the phrase that precedes the singular masculine pronouns in verse 16 specifically mentions three women: “and his wife and his two daughters” (16aβ; cf. 15bα).18 These few words appear to be a harmonistic addition, transforming Lot’s solitary salvation into a familial one, as was indeed necessary if the subsequent episodes involving those very three women were to be included in the composite edition. What the supplement gained in literary intelligibility, however, it lost in grammatical coherence, betraying its secondary origin. Why did the editor not simply emend the pronouns? Why not write: “But he lingered; so the men seized his hand and his wife’s hand and his two daughters’ hand, the LORD being merciful to him, and they brought them out and left them outside the city” (‫וּביַ ד ְשׁ ֵתּי ְבנ ָֹתיו ְבּ ֶח ְמלַ ת יְ הוָ ה ָעלָ יו וַ יּ ִֹצאוּם וַ יַּ נִּ חוּם‬ ְ ֹ‫וּביַ ד ִא ְשׁתּו‬ ְ ֹ‫וַ יִּ ְת ַמ ְה ָמהּ וַ יַּ ֲחזִ קוּ ָה ֲאנָ ִשׁים ְבּיָ דו‬ ‫?)מחוּץ לָ ִעיר‬ ִ A scholar for whom cut-and-paste redaction is not in the picture would be inclined to conclude that the phrase was introduced by a later harmonist. A scribe making corrections and adding clarifying glosses could have inserted the phrase men is speaking, nor is it clear why just one of them would be singled out, since neither has been named. (Cf. the number-switching phenomenon in the beginning of the previous chapter. See Kilian, Die vorpriesterlichen Abrahamsüberlieferungen, 148–89.) According to v. 18, Lot replies to a plural “them” (‫)אלֵ ֶהם‬, ֲ and not to the anonymous individual who had addressed him. But then in the content of his response that follows, Lot refers to a single addressee: “And Lot said to them, ‘Oh, no, my lord(s); your [sing.] servant has found favor with you [sing.], and your [sing.] kindness, which you [sing.] have done for me in saving my life, is great” (‫ֹאמר לוֹ ט ֲאלֵ ֶהם אַל נָ א‬ ֶ ‫וַ יּ‬ ָ ֶ‫)אדֹנָ י׃ ִהנֵּ ה נָ א ָמ ָצא ַע ְב ְדּ ָך ֵחן ְבּ ֵעינ‬. ‫ית ִע ָמּ ִדי לְ ַה ֲחיוֹ ת ֶאת נַ ְפ ִשׁי‬ ָ ‫יך וַ ַתּגְ ֵדּל ַח ְס ְדּ ָך ֲא ֶשׁר ָע ִשׂ‬ ֲ Again, in v. 21, a single ָ ֶ‫אתי פָ נ‬ unidentified individual speaks to Lot: “He said to him, ‘Very well,’” etc. (,‫יך‬ ִ ‫ֹאמר ֵאלָ יו ִהנֵּ ה נָ ָשׂ‬ ֶ ‫וַ יּ‬ ‫)וגו׳‬. Vss. 30–38 appear to indicate that Lot had only two daughters: “his two daughters” (‫ְשׁ ֵתּי‬ ‫)בנ ָֹתיו‬, ְ rather than, e. g., “his two surviving daughters” (‫)שׁ ֵתּי ְבּנ ָֹתיו ַהנּוֹ ָתרֹת‬. ְ Lot had had at least four daughters in the previous non-P narrative: two married (hence his conversation with his sons-in-law) and two unmarried (whom he had solicited to the residents of Sodom). 18 The words “the LORD being merciful to him” may well be part of the same supplement, serving to justify the salvation of Lot’s (potentially sinful) relatives.

4.3. Conventional vs. Cut-and-Paste Redaction

83

in the margins or between the lines. Since no rewriting would have been involved, the singular pronouns would have been left untouched.19 However, if cut and paste is considered, then the likelihood that this phrase is the work of (one of ) the section’s redactor(s) increases manyfold. Like glossators, redactors of this type were limited in their ability to rewrite texts. Rearrangement was far easier for cut-and-paste redactors than for redactor-scribes, but the opposite was true when it came to running textual emendation.

Fig. 22. Supplementing the Lot narrative.

While it is not certain whether a glossator or redactor is responsible for the addition in this particular instance, the possibility that it is the latter becomes considerably more plausible once the non-scribal editing technique is considered. In short, thinking seriously about the material aspect of redaction impacts the way in which scholars approach the very task of source analysis.

19

The plural pronoun in v. 18 would presumably be a later emendation.

5. Ancient Analogues We have now seen several passages from the Hebrew Bible in which there appears to be evidence of material  – as opposed to conventional scribal  – redaction. These examples all involve the meticulous splicing of minute snippets. But if some redactors chose to compile material from two or more substantial sources into composite scrolls, those original editions would likely have been made up predominantly of extensive stretches of text from each respective source. In that case, multiple unadulterated sheets from one source would have been attached to sheets from another provenance.1 After all, splicing is only relevant when multiple narratives are understood to refer to a single event, and then only when the omission of alternative versions is not the preferred solution. However, since the appendage of sheets is a much simpler activity than splicing is, there is less opportunity for error and, consequently, detection. Therefore, even if composite scrolls were made up mostly of whole sheets, we should expect the passages that show signs of material redaction to be biased towards spliced narratives. Given the relative lateness of all biblical epigraphic material, direct evidence of the redactional interventions discussed above is not available. However, an assortment of leather and papyrus scrolls from Judea and elsewhere in the ancient Near East sheds light on the methods of redaction that ancient editors employed. The typical scroll was prepared by a scribe – or, occasionally, multiples scribes working in concert – writing text on a blank writing medium. For leather scrolls, the necessary number of sheets was sometimes ordered from the workshop, after which they were inscribed and sewn together; other times, sheets were sewn together while still blank.2 For papyrus, the sheets were typically pasted together into a roll prior to inscription.3 Contrary to these norms, there are examples of discrete inscribed sheets of diverse provenance being secondarily united to create a composite scroll, as we will now see. 1 In some cases, scrolls might have been arranged in a particular order (perhaps marked with serial numbers), as opposed to pasted. For a discussion of the subject, see Nathan Mastnjak, “Jeremiah as Collection: Scrolls, Sheets, and the Problem of Textual Arrangement,” Catholic Bible Quarterly 80 (2018): 37, et passim. However, very long papyrus scrolls are attested in antiquity, especially composites. See discussion of tomoi synkollēsimoi in § 5.3, below. 2 Tov, “Copying,” 190, 205–6. 3 Bridget Leach and John Tait, “Papyrus,” in Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, ed. Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 236.

5.1. “All Souls Deuteronomy” (4Q41)

85

5.1. “All Souls Deuteronomy” (4Q41) The “All Souls Deuteronomy” scroll,4 also known as 4QDeutn and 4Q41, is a short manuscript from Qumran, purchased in 1957 and first published (in part) in 1965 by Frank Moore Cross, Jr.5 It was recovered in remarkably good condition, with four fully intact columns, one nearly complete column, and a sixth very fragmentary column. While the extant material all derives from Deuteronomy,6 its arrangement is unlike any known version of the book: Deut 8:5–10 appears on the first sheet, followed immediately by Deut 5:1–6:1 on the second sheet. The two sheets were discovered attached, although the thread that connected them has since disintegrated. It appears this manuscript belongs to the category of “excerpted texts,” of which there are numerous Qumranic examples.7 Indeed, several scrolls found in the same cave contain excerpts of Deuteronomy (4QDeutj, 4QDeutkl, and 4QDeutq).8 What makes this scroll significant for our investigation is that the two out-ofsequence passages were written on two separate sheets and were only secondarily combined. This is evident for a number of reasons: the columns on the two sheets are of vastly different widths, the handwriting is distinct, and there are several blank lines following Deut 8:5–10 on the first sheet. (See fig. 23.)

4 So called because its purchase was bankrolled by an anonymous member of the Unitarian Church of All Souls in New York on behalf of the congregation. Frank Moore Cross, Jr., had lectured at the church and mentioned that some Dead Sea Scrolls were available for purchase (“Priceless Dead Sea Decalogue Given to Unitarians by Member Is Earliest Copy,” The Canadian Jewish Review [October 10, 1958]: 1). 5 Frank Moore Cross, Jr., Scrolls from the Wilderness of the Dead Sea: A Catalogue of the Exhibition, The Dead Sea Scrolls of Jordan, Arranged by the Smithsonian Institution in Cooperation with the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Palestine Archaeological Museum (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1965), 20, 31. See also Eugene Ulrich, Frank Moore Cross, Jr., and Sidnie White Crawford, eds., Qumran Cave 4, IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, DJD 14 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 117–28. 6 That being said, the Sabbath commandment in the Decalogue incorporates elements of the rationale found in the Exodus version of the law. This is not surprising: the Nash Papyrus, for instance, includes language corresponding to both Masoretic versions of the Decalogue. 7 On the phenomenon, see Emanuel Tov, “Excerpted and Abbreviated Biblical Texts from Qumran,” Revue De Qumrân 16, no. 4 (1995): 581–600. 8 Sidnie Ann White, “4QDtn: Biblical Manuscript or Excerpted Text?” in Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins, Presented to John Strugnell on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Harold W. Attridge, John J. Collins, and Thomas H. Tobin (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990), 13–20. See next note for additional literature. It has been suggested that this particular excerpted text was made for liturgical use: Moshe Weinfeld, “‫ברכת המזון בקומראן‬,” Tarbiẕ 61, no. 1 (1991): 15–16.

Fig. 23. 4Q41/4QDeutn, All Souls Deuteronomy. Courtesy of the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. (Photo: Shai Halevi)

86 5. Ancient Analogues

5.2. 4QJubileesa (4Q216)

87

As Tov writes: The first sheet of 4QDeutn, representing a single column (col. I), contains a block of eight horizontal ruled and inscribed lines (line 5 in the middle of the text is empty), and in addition one ruled line above and six below the text, totaling fifteen ruled lines. This sheet was prepared originally for a larger scroll, and was subsequently adapted to the needs of 4QDeutn.9

We have here then a case of material, as opposed to conventional scribal, composition. More specifically, it is an instance of material compilation.10 The creator of this excerpted text collated existing passages, making a new work out of old material. This is not unusual. What is remarkable is that this compiler did not achieve his goal by preparing a scroll of his own, as one would have perhaps expected, but instead chose to sew together pre-inscribed sheets of parchment. This calls to mind the material technique I suggest was used by certain biblical redactors. This is especially true for the form material redaction would have taken when juxtaposing sizable units of text  – the two creation narratives in Genesis, for instance – when intricate splicing would not have been called for. Two millennia after the creation of the All Souls Deuteronomy scroll, its compiler’s original handiwork  – the first, and perhaps only, edition of this composite work – was recovered intact. We are unlikely to experience similarly good fortune for canonical works; the original composite edition of the Flood Narrative is surely lost to history. Nevertheless, this object, which reflects a case of material compilation in ancient Judea, adds a tangible dimension to the hypothesis that certain biblical redactors produced composite texts in a nonscribal fashion, opting instead to amalgamate existing written matter.

5.2. 4QJubileesa (4Q216) The manuscript of 4QJubileesa (4Q216), which was first published by James VanderKam and Józef Milik, contains material from *Jubilees 1–2, preserved in fifteen fragments deriving from two leather sheets.11 Fragment 12 includes the  9 Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 60. My emphasis. See also Stephen Reed, “Physical Features of Excerpted Torah Texts,” in Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon, ed. Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 100: “Column I appears to be a kind of patch which was added secondarily.” Strugnell suggested that the sheets were combined in error in ancient times, although his position was rejected by later scholars. (See White, “4QDtn,” 13–20; Reed, “Physical Features,” 100–101.) There is no evidence of error and, as noted above, similar works are well attested, with three additional excerpted versions of Deuteronomy found in the very same cave. The only reason to suggest error here is a presupposition that redaction need be scribal. 10 Both Deut 8:5–10 and Deut 5:1–6:1 existed well before 4QDeutn was produced, so this is not a case of supplementation. 11 James C. VanderKam and Józef T. Milik, “The First Jubilees Manuscript from Qumran

88

5. Ancient Analogues

stitched nexus of the two sheets, confirming that they were part of the same scroll at some point in antiquity. (See fig. 24.) Despite the sheets being found stitched together, the handwriting on each is distinct, and the column widths differ; they were written by different scribes. Furthermore, they were evidently written in different periods, with the first sheet exhibiting considerably younger script than the second.12 VanderKam and Milik took for granted that the first sheet replaced a worn copy of the same material: “Apparently the outer sheet of the scroll became too worn or damaged and had to be replaced. A scribe then recopied the text on it in a later style, and the new first sheet was sewn to the older scroll.”13 Charlotte Hempel, however, has made a strong case that this manuscript may be a snapshot of literary growth in action.14 First, VanderKam and Milik already noted in their preliminary publication that the second sheet is the oldest known copy of Jubilees and “dates from no later than 100 bce and perhaps even toward the middle of the second century bce, that is, quite close to the time when the book was written.”15 Whereas VanderKam and Milik proposed that this explains why scribes chose to repair (rather than replace) the scroll, Hempel raises the possibility that the first chapter may simply have not yet existed when the second sheet was written. In support of the theory that the first sheet was a secondary addition to Jubilees, she writes: The beginning of chapter 2 in some ways constitutes a new beginning. After various preliminaries that set the scene for the Book contained in the Prologue and chapter 1, chapter 2 begins with a command by the angel of the presence to Moses to write down the divine revelation beginning with creation. In terms of content this chapter begins the rewritten story proper from creation to Sinai that makes up the bulk of the Book of Jubilees. The beginning of chapter 2 is also a stylistic turning point since the narrative now begins to be told in the first person address by the angel of the presence to Moses. The Prologue and chapter 1, by contrast, are formulated as an introductory narrative interrupted by a dialogue between God and Moses.16

Hempel’s proposal dovetails neatly with Kister’s earlier suggestion that Jubilees 1 (among other sections) is indeed a secondary addition to the text.17 Segal conCave 4: A Preliminary Publication,” Journal of Biblical Literature 110, no. 2 (1991): 243–70; James C. VanderKam and Józef T. Milik, “Jubilees,” in Qumran Cave 4.V III, Parabiblical Texts, Part 1, ed. Harold Attridge et al., DJD 13 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 1–22, and plates I–II. 12 DJD 13, 1; VanderKam and Milik, “First Jubilees,” 246. 13 DJD 13, 1. 14 Charlotte Hempel, “The Place of the Book of Jubilees at Qumran and Beyond,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context, ed. Timothy H. Lim (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 179–96. See also Matthew Phillip Monger, “4Q216 and the State of ‘Jubilees’ at Qumran,” Revue de Qumrân 26, no. 4 (2014), 595–612. 15 VanderKam and Milik, “First Jubilees,” 246. 16 Hempel, “Place of the Book of Jubilees,” 190. 17 Menahem Kister, “‫ ספר היובלים וברית דמשק‬,‫ עיונים בחזון החיות‬:‫לתולדות כת האיסיים‬,” Tarbiẕ 56, no. 1 (1986–87): 1–18.

5.2. 4QJubileesa (4Q216)

89

Fig. 24. Stitched sheets in fragment 12 of 4QJubileesa (4Q216), each of which dates to a different period. Courtesy of the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. (Photo: Shai Halevi)

90

5. Ancient Analogues

curs, arguing that the addition must be part of a supplementary stratum, rather than an originally freestanding document: One can demonstrate that Jub. 1 belongs to the redactional layer based upon two arguments: (1) one cannot separate the narrative from the rest of the book, because it introduces the angel of the presence, and explains his role as the narrator throughout the book. (2) The expression “Torah and teʿudah” appears repeatedly throughout the chapter (Prologue; vv. 4, 26, 29; possibly also v. 8 [according to the reconstruction suggested by Werman (1999) 2002: 95; 2001a: 242–243, accepted by Kister 2001: 297–298, n. 50]). This expression belongs to the vocabulary of the legal passages appended to the rewritten narratives (cf. 2:24, 33; 3:14).18

Stopping just short of committing to a Qumranic provenance for the supplementary layer, Segal concludes: However, as more similarities between Jubilees and this literature are identified, the probability grows accordingly that Jubilees was redacted within the same stream of Judaism within which one can locate the Qumran sect, and in a similar ideological climate. Based upon these considerations, Jub. 23:9–32 and the other passages that belong to the redactional layer should be interpreted against the background of inner-Jewish halakhic polemics. Jubilees was therefore redacted following the formation of the Essene sect or stream, and it reflects the beginnings of the internal rift in the nation, which reached its full expression in the sectarian literature preserved at Qumran.19

In light of the above, it appears plausible that, like 4QDeuteronomyn, 4QJubileesa reflects material, and not solely scribal, redaction. However, while the quasiDeuteronomic manuscript discussed above likely came to be when a redactor combined two pre-existing sheets from disparate sources, the first Jubilees sheet seems rather to have been added in an act of Fortschreibung. As opposed to non-scribal compilation, this is therefore a case of semi-scribal supplementation. The new material was prepared using traditional scribal methods, but it was appended to the earlier text by means of needle and thread, not in the act of scribal reproduction. These two Qumran manuscripts indicate that some redactors working in the late Second Temple period created new versions of texts by binding inscribed sheets to one another, rather than writing out their new editions upon fresh scrolls. Taken together, they begin to paint a picture of a Judean editorial culture not fully subsumed in scribal culture, as that term is conventionally understood.

18 Michael Segal, The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology, JSJSup 117 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 247n1. Pace Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, “The Qumran Jubilees Manuscripts as Evidence for the Literary Growth of the Book,” Revue de Qumrân 26, no. 4 (2014): 579–94. 19 Segal, Jubilees, 322.

5.3. Tomoi Synkollēsimoi

91

5.3. Tomoi Synkollēsimoi In addition to the aforementioned examples of materially redacted scripture in Judea, there are numerous examples from the ancient world of scrolls being created out of pre-written material, rather than being copied and integrated by a scribe. One such phenomenon, from the Greco-Roman realm, is that of tomoi synkollēsimoi (τóμοι συγκολλήσιμοι; lit: “pieces pasted together”).20 These papyrus scrolls were made by attaching several originally discrete sheets of diverse provenance and differing dimensions. This method of combining papyri into composite rolls for archival or other pragmatic purposes dates as far back as Old Kingdom Egypt.21 The length of a tomos synkollēsimos was variable. Though a standard papyrus scroll was twenty sheets long,22 numerous tomoi synkollēsimoi were more than five times that length, with one specimen totaling 433 sheets.23 In order to attach one sheet to another, the worker would apply some starch paste between the joins and press them together, thereby creating a new scroll.24 Notably, tomoi synkollēsimoi are described in the Talmud. B. Bava Metzi’a 20b: ‫ת״ר כמה הוא תכריך של שטרות שלשה כרוכין זה בזה וכמה היא אגודה של שטרות שלשה קשורין זה בזה‬ .‫[…] אי הכי היינו תכריך תכריך כל חד וחד בראשה דחבריה אגודה דרמו אהדדי וכרוכות‬ The rabbis taught: How many make up a “roll”? Three documents rolled together. And how many make up a “bundle”? Three documents tied together. […] But if so, that is the

20 See Willy Clarysse, “Tomoi Synkollēsimoi,” in Ancient Archives and Archival Traditions: Concepts of Record-keeping in the Ancient World, ed. Maria Brosius (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 344–59. 21 Composite papyri were discovered in the unfinished pyramid (and makeshift mastaba) of the Fifth Dynasty king, Neferefre/Raneferef. The papyri themselves date to roughly 2400 bce, during the reign of Djedkare Isesi, who ruled several decades after Neferefre. See Paule PosenerKriéger, “Décrets envoyés au temple funéraire de Rêneferef,” in Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar, vol. 2, Bibliothèque d’étude 97 (Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1985), 195–210 and accompanying plates. See also Christopher Eyre, The Use of Documents in Pharaonic Egypt (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 322. (Eyre’s attribution of these papyri to the Sixth Dynasty is apparently inaccurate.) 22 Jaroslav Černý, Paper and Books in Ancient Egypt (London: University College, 1952), 9. 23 Clarysse, “Tomoi Synkollēsimoi,” 349–50. 24 For detailed directions, see Pliny, Natural History, 13.82: “Common paste made from the finest flour is mixed in hot water with a sprinkle of vinegar, for carpenter’s glue and gums are brittle. A more careful process percolates hot water through the crumbs of leavened bread; by this method (such) a small amount (of paste) is placed (between the overlap) that even the softness of linen is surpassed. But all the paste used ought to be exactly one day old, not more nor less. Afterwards (the overlap) is flattened with a mallet and run over with paste, and then again has the creases removed and is smoothed out with a mallet.” Translation from Peter E. Scora and Rainer W. Scora, “Some Observations on the Nature of Papyrus Bonding,” Journal of ­Ethnobiology 11 (1991): 201.

Fig. 25. Discrete papyrus sheets pasted together to form a composite scroll (tomos synkollēsimos). Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, P 11652 Plate D, Recto. Provenience: Fayum, Egypt. Courtesy of Art Resource, NY.

92 5. Ancient Analogues

5.3. Tomoi Synkollēsimoi

93

Fig. 26. Composite scroll (tomos synkollēsimos) of census declarations for the eighth year of the rule of Commodus, 188–89 CE. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, P 1329, Recto. Provenience: Fayum, Egypt. Courtesy of Art Resource, NY. same as a “roll.” [No, in] a “roll,” each [document] is [attached] to the beginning of the next; [in] a “bundle,” [the documents] are piled on top of one another and [then] rolled.25

Indeed, even the Greek term for this type of scroll – abbreviated to tomos (‫ – )טומוס‬is attested in the Talmud, as first noted by Saul Lieberman.26 Such composite rolls naturally lent themselves to further modification. An early second-century bce edict to Alexandrian officials therefore dictated that emendations to the tomoi synkollēsimoi be noted in the margins when discovered, and that (non-composite) copies be prepared: The so-called accounting scribes up to now active in the Catalogue should according to the old usage keep track of the agreements, including the names of the nomographoi and My translation. Saul Lieberman, ‫ישראל בתקופת המשנה‬-‫חיים בארץ‬-‫ מחקרים באורחות‬: ‫ישראל‬-‫יוונית ויוונות בארץ‬ ‫( והתלמוד‬Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1962), 303n30; Saul Lieberman, ‫ באור ארוך‬:‫תוספתא כפשוטה‬ ‫ סדר מועד‬:‫ חלק ג׳‬,‫( לתוספתא‬New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1962), 206. See also the appendix (‫[ בספרות התלמוד‬τόμος] ‫ )טומוס‬to Shlomo Naeh, “‫ הערות‬:‫קריינא דאיגרתא‬ ‫לדיפלומטיקה התלמודית‬,” in ‫ מוגשים למשה‬,‫ בארמית ובלשונות היהודים‬,‫ מחקרים בלשון העברית‬:‫שערי לשון‬ ‫אשר‬-‫בר‬, vol. 2, ed. Aaron Maman, Steven E. Fassberg, and Yochanan Breuer (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2008), 228–55. 25 26

94

5. Ancient Analogues

the contracting parties and the values of the transactions and the types of contracts and they should deposit them in both libraries. The so-called eikonistai shall, when they check the so-called composite roll for deposition, add a marginal note when something has been expunged or anything else added. And after a copy has been made on a single papyrus roll they will deposit it in both libraries.27

See figs. 25–26.

5.4. Papyrus of Ani Composite scrolls in the ancient world were not solely the domain of administrative functionaries. In some cases, such composites were of a decidedly literary character. The Book of the Dead is a modern name for an ancient Egyptian collection of funerary texts, typically written on papyrus scrolls and deposited in the tombs of the deceased. The Egyptian title was rw nw prt m hrw, meaning something like “Utterances for Emergence into the Day.” Initially reserved solely for royals, the Book of the Dead eventually became popular more broadly, and various Egyptian elites sought to be buried with them. In these less noble contexts, the scrolls were sometimes made to order by pasting together chapters and filling in the deceased’s name in blank spaces that had been left for that purpose. The Papyrus of Ani, currently in the British Museum, is an exceptional exemplar of the genre and has been described as “the most beautifully illuminated surviving ancient papyrus.”28 This Nineteenth Dynasty (thirteenth century bce) papyrus was discovered in the late nineteenth century ce near Luxor, whence the British Egyptologist, Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, stole it, before slicing it into dozens of pieces. His remarkable first-person account follows: Soon after my return to Luxor I set out with some natives one evening for the place on the western bank where the “finds” of papyri had been made. Here I found a rich store of fine and rare objects, and among them the largest roll of papyrus I had ever seen. The roll was tied round with a thick band of papyrus cord, and was in a perfect state of preservation, and the clay seal which kept together the ends of the cord was unbroken. […] It seemed like sacrilege to break the seal and untie the cord, but when I had copied the name on the seal, I did so, for otherwise it would have been impossible to find out the contents of the papyrus. […] In other places we found other papyri, among them the Papyrus of the priestess Ȧnhai, in its original painted wooden case, which was in the form of the triune god of the resurrection, Ptaḥ-Seker-Ȧsȧr, and a leather roll containing Chapters of the Book of the Dead, with beautifully painted vignettes, and various other objects of the 27 P. Oxy. 1 34 V. Translation from Mark Depauw, “Physical Descriptions, Registration and εἰκονίζειν with New Interpretations for P. Par. 65 and P. Oxy. I 34,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 176 (2011): 197. 28 Ogden Goelet, The Egyptian Book of the Dead: The Book of Going Forth by Day: Being the Papyrus of Ani (Royal Scribe of the Divine Offerings) (San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1994), 9.

5.4. Papyrus of Ani

95

highest interest and importance. I took possession of all these papyri, etc., and we returned to Luxor at daybreak. […] We went downstairs, and the officer in charge of the police told us that the Chief of the Police of Luxor had received orders during the night from M. Grébaut, the Director of the Service of Antiquities, to take possession of every house containing antiquities in Luxor, and to arrest their owners and myself, if found holding communication with them. […] He then told Muḥammad and myself that we were arrested. At this moment the runner who had been sent by Grébaut joined our assembly in the casual way that Orientals have, and asked for bakhshîsh [a bribe], thinking that he had done a meritorious thing in coming to Luxor so quickly. We gave him good bakhshîsh, and then began to question him. We learned that M. Grébaut had failed to reach Luxor the day before because the ra’îs, or captain of his steamer, had managed to run the steamer on to a sand bank a little to the north of Naḳâdah, where it remained for two days.29

The Papyrus of Ani is as unusual as it is beautiful. Not only were its constituent sheets inscribed by multiple scribes, but they were clearly not made with the intent that they appear in a single scroll.30 Goelet writes: A close comparison of the hieroglyphic texts and the accompanying vignettes reveals that the papyrus consists of the work of no fewer than three scribe/artists; at least two different artists painted the vignettes. Moving from sheet to sheet, we can see dramatic shifts in the overall color of the papyrus itself, confirming that Ani’s [Book of the Dead] was a pastiche in the literal sense of the term.31

The sheets that make up the Papyrus of Ani were initially prepared with blank spaces to be filled in with the name of the deceased. At some point, these sheets were made into a chaotic bricolage. After their redaction, the composite scroll was personalized for Ani.32 That these sheets were never meant to be combined is apparent for three reasons: First, columns and decorative margins varied in height, requiring a great deal of makeshift modification  – erasure and redrawing  – when they were pasted together. Given the impressive quality of the individual sheets, these crude alterations and the abrupt changes in page height and embellishment style are conspicuous. (See figs. 27–34.) 29 E. A. Wallis Budge, By Nile and Tigris: A Narrative of Journeys in Egypt and Mesopotamia on Behalf of the British Museum between the Years 1886 and 1913 (London: John Murray, 1920), 136–39. 30 For a more detailed discussion, see Bridget Leach and Richard B. Parkinson, “Creating Borders: New Insights into Making the Papyrus of Ani,” British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 15 (2010): 35–62; Goelet, Book of the Dead. 31 Goelet, Book of the Dead, 142. 32 On the order of operation, see Leach and Parkinson, “Creating Borders,” 45: “The borders were then re-drawn and re-painted. This was done after the text had been copied, but before Ani’s name was added in: The re-painted border covers part of the n of mnmnt in l. 25 and the r of rḫ in l. 26, but not the titles and name of Ani in l. 27–28.1.” Pace Ogden Goelet, “Observations on Copying and the Hieroglyphic Tradition in the Production of the Book of the Dead,” in Offerings to the Discerning Eye: An Egyptological Medley in Honor of Jack A. Josephson, ed. Sue H. D’Auria (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 130.

96

5. Ancient Analogues

Fig. 27. Plate 12 of Papyrus of Ani. British Museum, EA10470. (© Trustees of the British Museum)

Fig. 28. Detail of above. Note the redrawn and recolored margins.

5.4. Papyrus of Ani

97

Fig. 29. Plates 14–15 of Papyrus of Ani (digitally recombined and cropped). British Museum, EA10470. (© Trustees of the British Museum)

Fig. 30. Detail of above. Note the redrawn and recolored margins.

98

5. Ancient Analogues

Fig. 31. Plate 19 of Papyrus of Ani. British Museum, EA10470. (© Trustees of the British Museum)

Fig. 32. Detail of above. Note redrawn and recolored margins, modified illustrations to account for secondary combination; figures’ relative heights remain anomalous.

5.4. Papyrus of Ani

99

Fig. 33. Plate 29 of Papyrus of Ani. British Museum, EA10470. (© Trustees of the British Museum)

Fig. 34. Details of above. Note irregular gap to right of text at bottom of join, as well as redrawn and recolored margins of varying widths; some hieroglyphs damaged in the process.

100

5. Ancient Analogues

Second, although all the hieroglyphs on the scroll face the same direction, some are retrograde – inverted vis-à-vis the usual glyph stance relative to the reading direction, but common among Books of the Dead – and others are not: The text of [Chapter 125] runs in the canonical right-to-left direction. On a closer examination of the papyrus, we can see that the reason for this peculiar switch in direction between the two chapters is very simple – the material on this plate is actually from two different papyrus sheets which have been pasted together almost seamlessly.33

It is impossible to read this higgledy-piggledy composite scroll from beginning to end. Rather, one must jump around from section to section, switching haphazardly between left-to-right and right-to-left reading. Needless to say, this is highly unusual. Third, the combination of these ill-fitting sheets led to various errors of omission and duplication. For instance, chapter 18 appears twice, once with and once without its introduction (plates 14 and 23–24): The existence of a duplicate copy of BD 18 is presumably an unintentional result of the assembly of the roll. The text of the spell is very close in both copies and contains a shared error, suggesting that they were copied from a single original.34

One section in which chapter 18 appears (plates 23–24) also includes chapter 124, while the other section (plates 11–12) includes chapters 146 and 147. The desire to include these other chapters apparently led to the duplication of chapter 18. Similarly, the hymn to the sun god (chapter 15) and its associated vignette appear twice in the Papyrus of Ani – once on plate 19 and once on plate 21 – each the work of a different scribe and artist. As noted by Leach and Parkinson, this too may be due to the joining of sheets containing multiple chapters.35 In addition to the absent introduction of chapter 18 mentioned above, part of chapter 17 is also missing, likely due to material factors: Perhaps when the two pre-fabricated sections were joined, and it was realised that the heights did not match, the workshop decided to manufacture only a new short patch to smooth the transition. It seems likely that a considerable area was removed from the second of the pre-fabricated sections before the patch was added; the cut was made at a point that corresponded to the right edge of the final vignette of BD 17. The abbreviated text is certainly a result of the practical considerations of joining two already written but incompatible sections of the papyrus, but exactly why so much of the full spell was removed remains uncertain.36

To conclude, the Papyrus of Ani is a composite text made up of numerous pre-written and pre-illustrated segments of papyrus that had been prepared by multiple artisans. Although these segments were created with the intent that 33 Goelet,

Book of the Dead, 167. and Parkinson, “Creating Borders,” 44. 35 Ibid., 41–42. 36 Ibid. 34 Leach

5.5. Patched Scrolls

101

they be combined into longer scrolls and then inscribed with the name of the deceased, these specific sections were not all designed to go together, as we have seen. We have, therefore, an ancient example of an editor of a religious-literary composition combining preexisting inscribed material – material that was not created with that particular outcome in mind. This modus operandi has several practical advantages, although it is fraught with danger, as we have seen, and precipitated several errors. Luckily, this exceptional artifact was discovered in phenomenal condition, allowing us to observe the editor’s handiwork directly. Even if the original had not been available, however, the distinctive mistakes in the text may have been sufficient for scholars to infer the mode of redaction. The distance between the Papyrus of Ani’s compositional method and the proposed biblical redactional technique is not great.37

5.5. Patched Scrolls We have seen numerous examples of composite scrolls made up of sheets of diverse provenance. Although this was likely more common than splice-work in the Hebrew Bible, it would have left behind fewer clues, as noted above. Intricate splicing is a highly complex process involving numerous minute snippets – some redundant, others contradictory – and many opportunities for error. Attaching series of sheets to one another, on the other hand, is a comparatively straightforward and less cognitively taxing process. Nevertheless, the suggestion that ancient redactors sometimes worked by pasting small patches of inscribed material onto their scrolls would benefit from grounding in material comparanda. Indeed, relevant comparanda are forthcoming; it appears that technology would not have been an obstacle for potential material redactors. Both papyrus and leather scrolls were often repaired in antiquity by means of patching. This practice is discussed in Sefer Torah 2:12: One may not affix with paste, nor may one write on patches, nor may one sew where there is writing. Rabbi Simeon son of Eleazar said in the name of Rabbi Meir: “One may affix with paste, and it is permitted to write upon patches, but one may not sew where there is writing. If a scroll should tear, a patch must be attached on the back.”38 37 It has been suggested that the erroneous order of the kings Wegaf and Sobkhotep I (and perhaps Pepi I and Merenre) in the Turin King List may be due to confusion based on the interchanged kings’ similar prenomina, making it a case of jumbling due to homoeoarcton. See Kim Ryholt, The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, c. 1800–1550 B. C. (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 1997), 14, 315–20; Kim Ryholt, “The Turin King-List,” Ägypten und Levante 14 (2004): 150. If this is correct, it may suggest that the king list, or a progenitor thereof, was originally composed with the aid of freestanding documents, each beginning with the titles of a single monarch, some of which were transposed on account of parablepsis. This matter requires further investigation. I thank Orly Goldwasser for bringing this comparandum to my attention. 38 My translation. ‫ אמר רבי שמעון‬.‫אין דובקין בדבק ולא כותבין על גבי מטלית ולא תופרין במקום הכתב‬

here]

102

5. Ancient Analogues

Fig. 35. Verso of a Polish Torah scroll with numerous glued patches. (Image courtesy of scrolls4all.org)

Two technologies are mentioned in this text: pasting and sewing. The first is relevant primarily for papyrus scrolls and the second for leather ones.39 Both are well attested in antiquity.40

5.5.1. 4QpaleoExodusᵐ (4Q22) The Qumran manuscript 4QpaleoExodusm (also known as 4Q22, 4QExodusα, or – inaccurately – 4QExodusa) is a large leather scroll written in Paleo-Hebrew script and dated to the first century bce.41 In one place, an inscribed patch was sewn to the back of the manuscript, evidently to repair damage.42 See fig. 36. ,‫ וספר שנקרע‬.‫ אבל אין תופרין במקום הכתב‬,‫מטלית‬ ‫ דובקין בדבק וכותבין על גבי‬:‫בן אלעזר משום רבי מאיר‬ ‫טולה עליו מטלית מבחוץ‬. Cf. Soferim 2:17 and y. Megillah 1, 71d. 39 Glue was occasionally used on leather, however, as in the join between columns 17 and 18 of 8ḤevXIIgr (8Ḥev1). See Emanuel Tov, Robert A. Kraft, and Peter J. Parsons, eds., The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXIIgr) (The Seiyâl Collection I), DJD 8 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 15, and plate XVIII. 40 See Tov, “Copying,” 205–6; Tov, Scribal Practices, 124–25. Several examples are discussed throughout this chapter (§ 5). 41 Patrick W. Skehan, Eugene C. Ulrich, and Judith E. Sanderson, eds., Qumran Cave 4, IV: Paleo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts, DJD 9 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), 53–130. 42 For more on this topic, see Tov, Scribal Practices, 122–25.

5.5. Patched Scrolls

103

Fig. 36. Inscribed patch applied secondarily to column VIII of 4QpaleoExodusm (4Q22). Courtesy of the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. (Photo: Shai Halevi)

This patch was not written by the same scribe who wrote the original manuscript, but its position in the repaired scroll can be confidently ascertained on the basis of layout and content, among other features.43 Needle perforations forming a nearly perfect circle are visible, and it seems that the damaged section of the scroll was neatly cut away in the process of repair, leaving a clean circle to be patched from beneath. Although this patch was attached and inscribed (not necessarily in that order) with repair in mind, the same technology would have been available to anyone seeking to combine patches for editorial purposes.44 DJD 9, 84–85. Some fragments of 4QpaleoDeuteronomyr (4Q45) show evidence of patching. See DJD 9, 131, and plates XXXIV–XXXVI. Peter Flint has suggested that perforations and discoloration 43 44

104

5. Ancient Analogues

Fig. 37. Knives and other objects from the family tomb of the scribe Neferkhawet, ca. 1504– 1447 bce. (Photo: The Metropolitan Museum of Art)

Papyrus scrolls were even more easily – and routinely – patched up. Scribes working with this medium had all the necessary implements to both cut up and paste patches of papyrus. See fig. 37 for examples of scribal knives (and other objects). Jaroslav Černý described some of the media and methods of the Egyptian scribe: To create a larger writing surface than that provided by a single sheet, a number of sheets were pasted together and in this way the only form of book known in ancient Egypt came about, namely the papyrus roll. This pasting together was done in the factory, but sometimes a scribe wanting still more space than his roll provided, lengthened it by adding new sheets; sometimes also he made a roll out of various odd bits of paper and unused parts of other rolls.45 visible on fragment 9 of 5/6ḤevPs may be evidence that a patch had been sewn onto the manuscript in antiquity (James Charlesworth et al., eds., Miscellaneous Texts from the Judaean Desert, DJD 38 [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000], 142). Upon review of new high-resolution images, however, the holes appear to be inconsistent with stitching, the dark patterns do not align with the contours of any plausible patch, and there is nothing to suggest a cause for repairing that section of the manuscript. 45 Jaroslav Černý, Paper and Books in Ancient Egypt (London: University College, 1952), 9. My emphasis.

5.5. Patched Scrolls

105

5.5.2. Rhind Mathematical Papyrus The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus is a hieratic manuscript dating to the midsecond millennium bce: the Second Intermediate, or Hyksos, period.46 The papyrus is said to have been discovered in Thebes, near the Ramesseum, and it was sold in 1858 in two pieces to the eponymous Alexander Henry Rhind. Each piece constitutes a substantial stretch of papyrus in excellent condition  – one more than five sheets long and the other more than eight – with text on (parts of ) both recto and verso. The two sections (BM 10057 and BM 10058) do not quite fit together, which led to disputes as to whether they were ever united.47 This conundrum was resolved in 1922, when fragments of the missing link were found in the collection of the New York Historical Society. It is now clear that the two series of sheets, as well as the many small fragments, all derive from what were once fourteen conjoined sheets of papyrus.48 Apparently, the scroll was torn in two before its sale, perhaps on the theory that its parts would fetch a better price than the whole. The Rhind Papyrus has many interesting features. It is known primarily for its eighty-odd mathematical problems, but it also contains three texts that were inserted secondarily, which are known as numbers 85–87.49 In addition, the scroll was patched up extensively in antiquity, and several of these patches have writing on them. One of the three later additions (no. 86) is itself a pre-inscribed patch, although it was originally affixed as multiple out-of-order strips of alternating orientation. This is not visible in any photographs of the papyrus, since they were 46 The primary editions of the manuscript are: August Eisenlohr, Ein mathematisches Handbuch der alten Aegypter (Papyrus Rhind des British Museum), 2 vols. (Leipzig: J. C.  Hinrichs, 1877); Thomas Eric Peet, The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus: British Museum 10057 and 10058 (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1923); Arnold Buffum Chace, Ludlow Bull, and Henry Parker Manning, The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus, 2 vols. (Oberlin, OH: Mathematical Association of America, 1927/1929); Gay Robins and Charles Shute, The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus: An Ancient Egyptian Text (London: British Museum Press, 1987). For discussions of the material document, see Francis Llewellyn Griffith, “The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus,” Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 13 (1891): 328–32; Anthony Spalinger, “The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus as a Historical Document,” Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 17 (1990): 295– 337. 47 Griffith, “Rhind” (1891), 329, 331–32. 48 Spalinger cites the correct figure (“Rhind Mathematical Papyrus,” 298) but then erroneously counts sixteen sheets two pages later. (There are, in fact, no joins on plates XVII or XX of ChaceBull-Manning.) The typical roll had twenty sheets (Černý, Paper and Books). This may be due to the scroll being a composite of diverse sheets. See below. 49 None of these texts is a mathematical problem. Problem 79 may also be secondary. See Francis Llewellyn Griffith, “The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus,” Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 16 (1894): 241–43; Spalinger, “Rhind Mathematical Papyrus,” 331. To me, the handwriting in this problem looks different from that of the main text. Given that it alone appears at the beginning of the sheet, with no overlap, it is worth entertaining the possibility that a pre-inscribed sheet was used here.

106

5. Ancient Analogues

Fig. 38. Composite image of Rhind Mathematical Papyrus (BM 10057, recto). Text begins at the start of a new sheet; previous sheet (right) is blank on the recto.

removed and reapplied in sequence by conservators some time after the British Museum acquired the manuscript in 1864.50 Given the state of the original patch, it seems that number 86 was not added for its content. More likely, it served as reinforcement. The Rhind Papyrus appears to be a composite scroll, made up of multiple prewritten series of sheets. This was noted by Griffith: 5th leaf. One half of this without writing […] The blank is continued throughout the obverse of the 6th leaf, the text beginning again abruptly on the 7th leaf (Eisenlohr, Pl. XV ). 7–9, containing the geometrical portion of the work, must therefore have been written separately and afterwards glued on; indeed, there is every appearance of this having been done.51

The composite nature of the scroll may also explain why it contains fourteen sheets, and not the standard twenty.52 See figs. 38–41. 50 The original arrangement is, to my knowledge, only visible in the British Museum’s lithographic facsimile, published (after a prolonged delay) in 1898  – well after Eisenlohr’s 1877 bootleg edition, which already shows the emended arrangement. See Ernest Alfred Wallace Budge, ed., Facsimile of the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus in the British Museum (London: British Museum Press, 1898), plate 21. 51 Griffith, “Rhind” (1891), 331. 52 Černý, Paper and Books, 9.

5.5. Patched Scrolls

107

Fig. 39. Rhind Mathematical Papyrus (BM 10058, verso), patched in antiquity.

Fig. 40. Rhind Mathematical Papyrus (BM 10058, verso), with minute inscribed patches visible.

108

5. Ancient Analogues

Fig. 41. Pre-inscribed patch on Rhind Mathematical Papyrus (BM 10057, verso, no. 86) following rearrangement by conservators.

5.5. Patched Scrolls

109

5.5.3. “Kahun” Gynaecological Papyrus Another example of an ancient patched papyrus scroll is the “Kahun” Gynaecological Papyrus, also known as the “Kahun” Medical Papyrus.53 The scroll dates to the nineteenth century bce and is one of the oldest known medical texts.54 In one place, a patch containing administrative text was used on the verso.

5.5.4. Sefer Abisha Sefer Abisha, or the Abisha Scroll, is a medieval Samaritan Pentateuch manuscript ascribed in a colophonic cryptogram (tasqil) to one of Aaron’s greatgrandsons.55 Due to its antiquity and revered status, it is kept by the Samaritan community in a locked safe in Nablus, and access to academic scholars has been very limited.56 Although it is no longer used for regular public reading, it is taken out during the Day of Atonement service and on other occasions.57 53 I use quotation marks, since there is, in fact, no place in Egypt called Kahun. The archaeologist Flinders Petrie apparently misheard or misremembered the toponym Lahun (a site near Faiyum), and the name has stuck in academic circles. 54 The papyrus was published in Francis Llewellyn Griffith, The Petrie Papyri; Hieratic Papyri from Kahun and Gurob (Principally of the Middle Kingdom) (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1898). For more on patched Egyptian papyri, see Leach and Tait, “Papyrus,” 232; Kim Ryholt, The Story of Petese, Son of Petetum and Seventy Other Good and Bad Stories (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 1999); Wolfgang Helck, “Anmerkungen zum Turiner Königspapyrus,” Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 19 (1992): 151–216. I thank Joachim Quack and Bridget Leach for their helpful comments on this matter. 55 The cryptogram reads: “I am Abisha, son of Phinehas, son of Elea[zar, son of Aaron], may the favor of the Lord and his glory [be upon him]. I wrote this holy scroll at the entrance to the Tabernacle on Mount [Geri]zim, in the thirteenth year of Israelite dominion in the land of Canaan, through its entire extent. I thank the Lord, amen.” (My translation of the Hebrew reconstruction in Itzhak Ben-Zvi, “‫ספר אבישע‬,” Eretz-Israel 5 [1958]: 240–52, with minor modifications based on comments in Alan David Crown, “The Abisha Scroll of the Samaritans,” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library 58 [1975]: 36–65.) Some have suggested that this may be a medieval scribe by the name of Abisha, son of Phinehas – not biblical Abishua of Ezra 7:5 and 1 Chr 6:4–5, 50 – but this is unlikely, especially in light of the tasqil’s latter part, which mentions Israelite dominion (‫)ממלכת בני ישראל‬ – or settlement (‫)מושב בני ישראל‬, in some Samaritan citations – in Canaan. See F. Pérez Castro, Séfer Abisaʿ: Edición del fragmento antiguo del rollo sagrado del Pentateuco hebreo samaritano de Nablus, estudio, transcripción, aparato crítico y facsímiles (Madrid: Seminario Filológico Cardenal Cisneros, 1959), xlvi. 56 The primary publication is Castro, Séfer Abisaʿ. For an early discussion of the manuscript, see Paul Kahle, “Aus der Geschichte der ältesten hebräischen Bibelhandschrift,” in Abhandlungen zur semitischen Religionskunde und Sprachwissenschaft. Wolf Wilhelm Grafen von Baudissin zum 26. September 1917 (Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1918), 247–60. See also Paul Kahle, “The Abisha Scroll of the Samaritans,” in Studia orientalia Ioanni Pedersen septuagenario A. D. VII id. Nov. Anno MCMLIII a collegis, discipulis, amicis dicata, ed. Flemming Friis Hvidberg (Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard, 1953), 188–92; Ben-Zvi, “‫ ;”ספר אבישע‬Edward Robertson, review of Séfer Abišaʿ, by F. Pérez Castro, Vetus Testamentum 12, no. 2 (1962): 228–35; Crown, “Abisha Scroll.” 57 Reinhard Pummer, “Samaritan Rituals and Customs,” in The Samaritans, ed. Alan David Crown (Tübingen: Mohr, 1989), 687; Crown, “Abisha Scroll,” 61.

110

5. Ancient Analogues

Despite the manuscript’s attribution to a single scribe, Abisha, the most cursory inspection of this remarkable leather scroll reveals it to be a pastiche. As first noted by Edward Robertson, the extensive patching is not primarily due to a process of gradual repair, as had previously been thought. Rather, the scroll is a product of material compilation: The Abisha Scroll on examination turns out to be not a unit but a composite of a number of elements. These consist of portions of scrolls of different ages held together by a backing and built up to form a complete Torah.58

In some cases, whole sheets were combined; in others, pre-written patches of various sizes were affixed to the backing. In so doing, the compiler (or compilers) created a new composite Torah scroll from the fragments of old manuscripts. Most scholars date the compilation of the scroll to the fourteenth century ce59; it is mentioned in a gloss written in the margin of a Samaritan manuscript composed in 1346 ce, as well as in later manuscripts of a text whose composition is dated to 1355 ce.60 The source patches and sheets are older, naturally, with some apparently antedating the scroll’s compilation by two centuries.61 See fig. 42.

5.6. Julius Africanus’s Kestoi Julius Africanus was a writer and historian living in the second and third centuries ce. A native of Jerusalem (Aelia Capitolina), his travels took him as far and wide as Egypt, Rome, Edessa, and the Dead Sea. After converting from a polytheistic faith to Christianity, he rose to great prominence in the Christian world, maintaining relationships with Baradaisan and Origen of Alexandria, even designing a library for the Pantheon in Rome at the request of Emperor Severus Alexander. Africanus’s writings include the Chronographiae,62 a history of the world from creation to his present day (circa 221 ce), with years since Adam given for each event. This early work influenced Eusebius of Caesarea, among numerous others,

58 Robertson,

review of Séfer Abišaʿ, 232. See also Crown, “Abisha Scroll,” 37. T. Anderson and Terry Giles, The Samaritan Pentateuch: An Introduction to Its Origin, History, and Significance for Biblical Studies (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2012), 144. 60 See Crown, “Abisha Scroll,” 38–39. 61 Kahle, “Abisha Scroll,” 191–92; Anderson and Giles, Samaritan Pentateuch; Crown, “Abisha Scroll,” passim. 62 Martin Wallraff, Umberto Roberto, and Karl Pinggéra, eds., Iulius Africanus, Chronographiae: The Extant Fragments, trans. William Adler (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007). 59 Robert

5.6. Julius Africanus’s Kestoi

111

Fig. 42. Column 110 of Sefer Abisha (109 in Castro’s numbering scheme). This column is a patchwork of two pieces of distinct origin, differing in script size, paleography, line width, and scribal conventions. Upper patch has offset initial letter; bottom patch does not.

112

5. Ancient Analogues

and Africanus has therefore been called “der Vater der christlichen Chronographie.”63 It is Africanus’s second great work – the Kestoi, or Cesti64 – that is of primary interest for this investigation. Written around 228–31 ce,65 this monumental encyclopedia probably comprised twenty-four volumes.66 The title is itself tantalizing. The word κεστοί – a nominalization of the adjective for “stitched” or “embroidered” – would have meant something like “embroideries.”67 Why this name was chosen is a matter of dispute,68 but it is not impossible that it is related to Africanus’s favored redactional method, as we shall presently see. The Kestoi is known mostly from citations in Byzantine works. Only one fragment of the original is extant, namely, Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 412, which is now housed in the British Library. Francesca Middleton discusses an under-analyzed part of this fragment in a recent article: In the second column of P. Oxy 412, Africanus’s subject matter shifts from a retelling of Odyssey 11.34–51 to something of an editorial commentary on that same passage. Although this part of the papyrus generally receives little discussion, it in fact provides a crucial framework for the text as a whole, guiding a reader’s interpretation of the preceding verse passage. For now that he has reproduced a version that diverges greatly from the standard post-Hellenistic text of the Odyssey, Africanus uses this passage to establish his own authority as an editor and critic, undermining the work of his Hellenistic predecessors. […] Africanus […] concludes his eighteenth κεστός: et cetera. so, with this how it is, either the poet himself kept back the extra part of the invocation from the rest for the integrity of his composition, or else the Peisistratids, in the process of stitching the rest together, decided these verses were out of sequence with the poem and cut them out. I recognize […] in that I have gone further to bring together the full, swollen creation here. You will find the complete text I propose in the ancient archives of my ancient home colony, Aelia Capitolina in Palestine, as well as those of Nysa in Caria, and you will find up to Book 13 in Rome, near the Alexandrian baths in the Pantheon’s beautiful library, which I have personally established for the Emperor.69

63 Heinrich Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus und die byzantinische Chronographie, vol. 1 (Leipzig: Benedictus Gotthelf Teubner Verlag, 1880), 1. 64 I thank Moshe Blidstein for referring me to this text. For an edition of the Kestoi, see Martin Wallraff et al., eds., Iulius Africanus, Cesti: The Extant Fragments, trans. William Adler (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012). See also Martin Wallraff and Laura Mecella, eds., Die Kestoi des Julius Africanus und ihre Überlieferung (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009). 65 Wallraff et al., Cesti, xix. 66 Ibid., xix–xx. 67 Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, eds., A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940), 944. 68 Wallraff et al., Cesti, xvii. 69 Francesca Middleton, “Illusions and Vanishing Acts: Homeric Recension, Athetesis, and Magic in P. Oxy 412 (PGM XXIII),” Helios 41, no. 2 (2014): 140–41. Cf. Wallraff et al., Cesti, 30– 31. My emphasis.

5.7. Marcus Tullius Cicero’s On Glory

113

Africanus’s focus here is not the technicalities of editorial praxis; his aim was merely to justify his version of the text. Africanus spoke en passant70 when describing the Odyssey’s redaction, as he imagined it would have occurred. The technique this Jerusalemite scribe seems to have taken for granted, remarkably, is one of cutting and stitching.71

5.7. Marcus Tullius Cicero’s On Glory In the year 44 bce, the famous Roman orator, Marcus Tullius Cicero, wrote the following in a letter to Titus Pomponius Atticus:72 Now I have to own up to a piece of carelessness. I sent the book “On Glory” to you and in it a preface which is in Book III of the “Academics.” This happened because I have a volume of prefaces from which I am in the habit of selecting when I have put a work in hand. And so back at Tusculum I pushed this preface into the book which I have sent you, forgetting that I had used it up already. But in reading the “Academics” on shipboard I noticed my mistake. So I scribbled out a new preface straight away, and send it herewith. Please cut the other off and glue this one on. Nunc neglegentiam meam cognosce. de gloria librum ad te misi, et in eo prohoemium id quod est in Academico tertio. id evenit ob eam rem quod habeo volumen prohoemiorum. ex eo eligere soleo cum aliquod σύγγραμμα institui. itaque iam in Tusculano, qui non meminissem me abusum isto prohoemio, conieci id in eum librum quem tibi misi. cum autem in navi legerem Academicos, agnovi erratum meum. itaque statim novum prohoemium exaravi et tibi misi. tu illud desecabis, hoc adglutinabis.

The book to which Cicero refers here, On Glory, is no longer extant. However, had the copy he sent to Atticus survived, it appears it would have contained a new introduction – possibly on different stock than that of the original – pasted secondarily onto the earlier manuscript. This letter is unambiguous testimony to an editing technique that was available, and likely familiar, to both Atticus and Cicero. This technique was material redaction.

70 The

equivalent talmudic term is ‫הסיח לפי תומו‬. See, e. g., b. Yevamot 121b. Africanus was also the author of a composite harmony of Jesus’s divergent genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. 72 Marcus Tullius Cicero, Epistulae ad Atticum 414.4 (XVI.6.4). Translation from David Roy Shackleton Bailey, Letters to Atticus, vol. IV, Loeb Classical Library 491 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), 331–33. I am grateful to Oren Ableman for pointing me to this passage. 71 Fittingly,

6. Modern Analogues “I sliced through a pile of newspapers with my Stanley blade … I picked up the raw words and began to piece together texts …” – Brion Gysin

In addition to the ancient parallels discussed above, the likelihood that the proposed cut-and-paste method would have been selected by certain redactors in antiquity may be supported by some more recent editorial enterprises. Indeed, there are several documented examples of large-scale patchwork compilation. Needless to say, before the advent of modern computer-based word processors, manuscripts were routinely edited by means of scissors and paste. This method persists, to a degree, in the present day. A contemporary editor’s guide describes a cut-and-paste redaction technique: As you are working, you will delete passages and possibly whole sections. If you are using actual scissors and paste, keep all the important material on your desk and drop everything else on the floor – you know that everything that’s on your desk has to be fitted in somewhere.1

The method depicted in this guide accords quite well with our proposed mode of biblical redaction, and the passage reads almost like a recipe for the errors we have identified. Cut-and-paste composition is not the sole domain of redactors. Several authors have chosen to assemble their own original works in such a manner. A biographer describes the novelist William Faulkner’s typical writing method: There is something ritualistic in the way he would often sculpt one page of manuscript by scissoring a passage from a previous page and pasting it to the current one; numerous manuscript pages contain more than one such paste-on. Frequently these passages are only a few lines long, so that it would have been easier, even more efficient, to have re-written the passage onto the new page. The scissors and paste, then, seem to have allowed him a hands-on, a tactile engagement with his imaginative life through an almost finicking preciosity.2 1 Janet Mackenzie, The Editor’s Companion, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 176. 2 Noel Polk, Children of the Dark House: Text and Context in Faulkner (Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi, 1998), xi.

6. Modern Analogues

115

Fig. 43. Conrad Gesner, Thesaurus practicae medicinae. Compiled in 1596 by Caspar Wolf from Gesner’s slips and using Gesner’s cut-and-paste method. (Photo: Zentralbibliothek Zürich, MS 204a, f. 47r)

116

6. Modern Analogues

There are many examples, going back half a millennium, of multiple documents being cut up into snippets and then reassembled. As Ann Blair has written, Conrad Gesner, working in the sixteenth century, appears to be “the first major user of the cut-and-paste method … He describes cutting up the letters he received in order to distribute them among his papers according to their subject; as a result, he explained to a correspondent, he could not return to a letter to respond to it a second time.”3 (See fig. 43.) It has been suggested that a similar method was employed several centuries earlier in China in the compilation of leishu compendia, which are reference works listing quotations from multiple sources under topical categories. Ji Yun (紀昀) cites the Tanyuan (談苑) by Yang Yi (楊億, 974–1020 ce) regarding the composition of a leishu. (The Tanyuan itself is no longer extant.) According to this tradition, when Bai Juyi (白居易, 772–846 ce) compiled his Bai shi liu tie (白氏六帖, Six books of Bai), he marked scores of jars with subject labels and asked his students to pore through books, excerpt relevant parts, and file them in the respective jars.4

6.1. The Little Gidding Concordances Every phrase and every sentence is an end and a beginning, Every poem an epitaph. And any action Is a step to the block, to the fire, down the sea’s throat Or to an illegible stone: and that is where we start. – T. S.  Eliot, Little Gidding

Within a century of Gesner, we find the first material evidence of a biblical harmony being composed using a similar cut-and-paste technique. In the first half of the seventeenth century, the small, consanguineous Anglican community of Little Gidding in Huntingdonshire, England, immortalized in T. S. Eliot’s poem, produced a number of biblical harmonies – or “concordances,” as they

3 Ann Blair, “Reading Strategies for Coping with Information Overload ca. 1550–1700,” Journal of the History of Ideas 64, no. 1 (2003): 25. 4 Ji Yun 紀昀 et al., eds., Siku Quanshu Zongmu Tiyao 四庫全書總目提要 (Reviews of the Books Included in the Catalogue of the Complete Library of the Four Branches of Literature) (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1981; first published 1789). I am grateful to Jieh Hsiang of National Taiwan University for these references. For more on the leishu, see Benjamin Elman, “Collecting and Classifying: Ming Dynasty Compendia and Encyclopedias (Leishu),” in Qu’était-ce qu’écrire une encyclopédie en Chine? ed. Florence Bretelle-Establet and Karine Chemla (Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes, 2007), 131–57.

6.1. The Little Gidding Concordances

117

called them.5 At first, Nicholas Ferrar – the community’s prime mover – oversaw their fabrication, but the work continued after his death as well.6 Fifteen such books are known, most of which are composites of the four Evangelists,7 continuing the long tradition of Gospel harmonies that goes back (at least) to Tatian’s Diatessaron in the second century ce.8 Indeed, an earlier harmony, Henry Garthwait’s Monotessaron, appears to have influenced the concordances’ creators.9 One of Little Gidding’s Gospel harmonies caught the eye of King Charles I, who, after first borrowing a copy, commissioned one of his own, titled: The Actions & Doctrine & other Passages touching our Lord & Sauior Iesus Christ, as they are related by the foure Euangelists, reduced into one complete body of historie.10 An account of the king’s visit to Little Gidding was recorded by Thomas Hearne, a contemporary antiquarian: One of the noblemen asked if it were printed in the House, and where their presses were, at which the King smiled. And one told him, that knew the art, that the work was indeed in Print, as he saw, but yet not printed in the House; but all was pasted on so neatly and ruled with red ink, as could hardly at first sight be discerned; yet it was at first all cut out with scissors and knives in small pieces, and much of it in lines, nay some in words, and thus again brought into form, and conjoined together into a Body.11

Several copies of Little Gidding concordances, including the royal edition and the copy Charles I had previously borrowed (and marked up) are extant, and they all match the description above.12 These harmonies were prepared by cutting patches of text out of printed Bibles and pasting them onto blank folios. By  5 See

C. Leslie Craig, “The Earliest Little Gidding Concordance,” Harvard Library Bulletin 1, no. 3 (1947): 311–31; Joyce Ransome, “Monotessaron: The Harmonies of Little Gidding,” The Seventeenth Century 20, no. 1 (2005): 22–52; Paul Dyck, “‘A New Kind of Printing’: Cutting and Pasting a Book for a King at Little Gidding,” The Library, 7th series 9, no. 3 (2008): 306–33; Adam Smyth, “‘Shreds of Holinesse’: George Herbert, Little Gidding, and Cutting Up Texts in Early Modern England,” English Literary Renaissance 42, no. 3 (2012): 452–81.  6 Ransome, “Monotessaron,” 35.  7  Ibid., 22.  8 On the Diatessaron, see William Lawrence Petersen, Tatian’s Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance, and History in Scholarship (Leiden: Brill, 1994); George Foot Moore, “Tatian’s Diatessaron and the Analysis of the Pentateuch,” Journal of Biblical Literature 9, no. 2 (1890): 201–15.  9 Michael Cop, “Compositions for a King: Little Gidding’s Use of Henry Garthwait’s Monotessaron,” Script and Print 40, no. 1 (2016): 42–43. John Calvin’s Gospel harmony, whose English translation was published in 1584, may have served as inspiration as well (John Calvin, A Harmonie upon the Three Evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke, trans. Eusebius Pagit [London: Impensis Geor. Bishop, 1584]). 10 The volume is located in the British Library, General Reference Collection, C.23.e.4. 11 Herbert Edward Salter, ed., Remarks and Collections of Thomas Hearne, vol. 11 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1921), 3. 12 Ransome, “Monotessaron,” 32–36.

118

6. Modern Analogues

beginning with the creation of building blocks – snippets of text in varying sizes and in no particular order – the redactors of Little Gidding were able to compile a new Bible out of old scripture, with only the rare additional pen-stroke. Hearne’s comment that before the text was arranged, “it was at first all cut out with scissors and knives in small pieces,” matches the procedure conjectured above for biblical cut-and-paste redaction. Rather than cut one piece, put it in place, and then cut the next segment, texts are first sliced up into small snippets and only arranged afterwards. This makes the splicing process more cognitively manageable, since different arrangements can be experimented with ad hoc. Needless to say, seventeenth-century English works can hardly function as precedent for first millennium bce redactional practices. Nevertheless, it is illustrative that when presented with a task of literary compilation not unlike those faced by biblical redactors, Ferrar and his collaborators chose to use a cutand-paste technique. More than two millennia after the completion of the Hebrew Bible, biblical harmonies were manufactured in Huntingdonshire using practically the same method as the one that appears to underlie the redaction of several biblical passages. See figs. 44–45.

6.2. The Jefferson Bible “I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.” – Thomas Jefferson

While serving as the third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson compiled a curious little book  – a 46-page octavo  – which he titled, The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth extracted from the account of his life and doctrines as given by Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John, being an abridgement of the New Testament for the use of the Indians unembarrassed with matters of fact or faith beyond the level of their comprehensions. Despite the book’s subtitle, Jefferson’s private letters indicate that he made it for his own personal use. The pejorative reference to Indians appears to be a joke at the expense of his political rivals – the Federalists and their allies – whom he believed to be theologically challenged.13 In a letter to John Adams, Jefferson wrote: We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own 13 See Dickinson W. Adams, ed., Jefferson’s Extracts from the Gospels: “The Philosophy of Jesus” and “The Life and Morals of Jesus” (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983), 28.

6.2. The Jefferson Bible

119

Fig. 44. Folio from the Little Gidding Concordance (Little Gidding, 1630), A 1275.5. Houghton Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

120

6. Modern Analogues

Fig. 45. Detail from the Little Gidding Concordance (Little Gidding, 1630), A 1275.5. Houghton Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging, the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill.14

This book was essentially a collection of Jesus’s sayings, gleaned from the Gospels and arranged according to theme. References to supernatural occurrences, as well as anything else Jefferson deemed historically unreliable, were left on the cutting-room floor. In 1819, Jefferson began preparing a new edition, which he called The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth: Extracted Textually from the Gospels in Greek, Latin, 14 Letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, October 13, 1813. Thomas Jefferson Randolph, ed., Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies: From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 4, 2nd ed. (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), 223.

6.2. The Jefferson Bible

121

French & English.15 This work is better known today as the Jefferson Bible. Unlike Jefferson’s previous harmony, this one was a polyglot edition, with Latin, Greek, French, and English columns. It was not limited to Jesus’s sayings and included many biographical episodes organized chronologically. Jefferson’s composite Bible was intended to be a sort of eclectic edition of the Gospels with only material he considered to be original included and with all duplications and contradictions resolved. To make this book, Jefferson cut snippets from print editions of the four Gospels and pasted them onto blank sheets. Two of each source were necessary, since text was printed on both sides of the page, whereas Jefferson’s technique required the sacrifice of one side for pasting purposes. In 1904, some 9,000 facsimile editions of this idiosyncratic heresy were printed by the Government Printing Office, to be distributed to all new members of Congress.16 The practice persisted for half a century, when the stock was depleted. See figs. 46–47. As is readily apparent, Jefferson constructed his book by excising sections of text from the four Gospels and rearranging the snippets on blank folios, like pieces of a puzzle. In both of the examples above, Jefferson ran out of space in the English column – which tended to be the most crowded one – so he placed patches in the margin, perpendicular to the main text.17 Space concerns were not the only cause for marginal patching. In preparing folio 40, Jefferson excised a short section from Luke 14:4 (“And he took him, and healed him, and let him go”), due to its supernatural shamanistic character. This deletion made the beginning of the following verse grammatically problematic, given that the sentence’s subject was now absent: “And answered them, saying,” (5a) would not read well after “And they held their peace” (4a). Jefferson therefore removed these words, too, with the obvious intent of pasting a grammatically apt substitute for the phrase. In a minor slip, Jefferson went on to juxtapose the second part of verse 5 to the first part of verse 4, thus creating an even more difficult composite than the retention of 5a would have engendered:

15 See the letter from Thomas Jefferson to William Short, October 31, 1819. Henry A. Washington, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 7 (Washington, DC: Taylor & Maury, 1854), 140. 16 Thomas Jefferson, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth: Extracted Textually from the Gospels in Greek, Latin, French, and English (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1904). 17 In one instance, perhaps again due to insufficient space in the English column, Jefferson opted to remove one more verse than originally planned (Luke 5:39, folio 27). Jefferson amended his outline to reflect the omission, writing an 8 over the 9 of 5:36–39. See fig. 63. (Jefferson wrote the outline before assembling the patchwork text. See Adams, Jefferson’s Extracts, 47–48, 309, et passim.)

122

6. Modern Analogues

Fig. 46. Folio 56b of the Jefferson Bible with marginal patches. (Photo: Division of Political and Military History, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution)

6.2. The Jefferson Bible

123

Fig. 47. Folio 76b from the Jefferson Bible with marginal patch and handwriting. (Photo: Division of Political and Military History, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution)

124

6. Modern Analogues

And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? And they held their peace. ✂ Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?

After realizing his mistake, Jefferson inserted an alternative phrase from Matt 4:19 (“And he saith unto them”) in the margin. See fig. 48. Folios 73–75 contain what Jefferson summarized as “Judas conducts the officers to Jesus; he is arrested & carried before Caiaphas the high priest & is condemned.” To create his harmony of this section, Jefferson meticulously spliced the accounts in Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, and John 18. The vast majority of the material removed by Jefferson was due to literary, rather than theological, considerations. He retained the distinct content of each Gospel, eliminated the redundancies, and amalgamated the remainder – patch by patch – into a single narrative. See fig. 49. The similarities between Jefferson’s Bible and the original one do not end with their respective redactional methods – the errors match, too. In figure 49, a comparison of the English and French columns shows that the English has one extra verse – Mark 14:53. That verse is absent in the Greek and Latin columns as well, and it is not included in Jefferson’s “Table of Texts,” which he prepared in advance of patching the book, as noted above.18 Furthermore, even though it is not immediately apparent in figure 49, the English in fact has a diagonal cross-through running straight through it. The common facsimile edition, above, was “touched up” to remove Jefferson’s deletion mark. (The editors of the facsimile may have felt that drawing a line through a biblical verse was worse than leaving the bulk of the Gospels on the cutting room floor.) The mark is plainly visible in the Smithsonian Insititute’s new photographs, and a careful examination of the earlier facsimile shows traces of the line. See fig. 50. The verse interrupts the flow of the narrative, and clearly does not belong where it was initially placed. This is why Jefferson drew a line through the patch when he noticed his mistake. But what led Jefferson to erroneously affix Mark 14:53 after John 18:23, when his plan – as is evident in the “Table of Texts” and supported by the non-English columns and crossed-out English patch – was to add Mark 14:55? A comparison of verses 53 and 55 in Mark 14 (the intended verse and the erroneous one) brings the answer to light: verse 55 begins with “And the,” whereas the first words of 14:53 are “And they.” Like in 1 Samuel 28–30, discussed above, we have here a case of homoeoarcton leading to the misplacement of a patch of text.19 18 See

previous footnote and detail of “Table of Texts” below.

19 Adams discusses this error (Jefferson’s Extracts, 312) and writes that Jefferson “undoubtedly

lined [Mark 14:53] out after realizing that it contained another description of the same incident in [Matt] 26:57, which he had already entered [on folio] 74.” This does not explain what possessed Jefferson to insert the Mark 14:53 in an inapt position (not to mention redundantly), especially given that it was not in the outline he had prepared in advance.

6.2. The Jefferson Bible

125

Fig. 48. Folio 40b from the Jefferson Bible with marginal patch. (Photo: Division of Political and Military History, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution)

126

6. Modern Analogues

Fig. 49. Folio 75b from the Jefferson Bible exhibiting misplaced patch due to parablepsis. Cross-through has been excised; cf. next image. (Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1904)

6.2. The Jefferson Bible

127

Fig. 50. Folio 75b from the Jefferson Bible exhibiting misplaced patch due to parablepsis. Cross-through in the original; cf. previous image. (Photo: Division of Political and Military History, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution)

128

6. Modern Analogues

Fig. 51. Detail of “Table of Texts,” showing emendation of Luke 5:39 to 38. (Photo: Division of Political and Military History, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution)

Fig. 52. Detail of “Table of Texts,” showing original plan for folio 75 (Judas’s betrayal). The first verse from Mark 14 is 55, not 53. (Photo: Division of Political and Military History, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution)

The Little Gidding and Jefferson Bibles are hardly the first Gospel harmonies, and they are far removed from the time of the Hebrew Bible’s compilation. Even so, they are both germane to this investigation, given that the original patchwork manuscripts remain in existence today, allowing us to observe firsthand the properties and idiosyncrasies of cut-and-paste redaction. We do not know much about the redactional methods behind most Gospel harmonies. It is therefore noteworthy that those of Thomas Jefferson and the Little Gidding community –

6.2. The Jefferson Bible

129

Fig. 53. Folio 5b. Jefferson changed the word “out” in Luke 6:12 to “up.” (Photo: Division of Political and Military History, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution)

130

6. Modern Analogues

Fig. 54. Folio 64b. Jefferson excised the word “as” from Matthew 24:38. (Photo: Division of Political and Military History, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution)

Fig. 55. One of Jefferson’s source Bibles, with some unused snippets visible. (Photo: Division of Political and Military History, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution)

6.3. Commonplace Books and Cut-Ups

131

the originals of which we do have – were created by means of the same editorial technique proposed above for various biblical passages. Furthermore, the hypothesized cut-and-paste errors of the Hebrew Bible are a matter of material fact in the Jefferson Bible. Jefferson not only compiled parallel religious texts into a single work, and not only did he use a cut-and-paste technique, but he even made the same sort of parableptic mistake that appears to be behind so many jumbled passages in the Bible, the cornerstone of this disquisition. See figs. 51–55.

6.3. Commonplace Books and Cut-Ups “Take a newspaper. Take some scissors. Choose from this paper an article of the length you want to make your poem. Cut out the article. Next carefully cut out each of the words that makes up this article and put them all in a bag. Shake gently. Next take out each cutting one after the other. Copy conscientiously in the order in which they left the bag. The poem will resemble you. And there you are – an infinitely original author of charming sensibility, even though unappreciated by the vulgar herd.” – Tristan Tzara

As noted above, a great number of texts of all sorts have been created by means of literal cut and paste. Jefferson himself produced several other works in this way before turning to the Gospels. Indeed, he wrote his so-called “Literary Commonplace Book” as a young man, roughly half a century before compiling the Jefferson Bible.20 See fig. 56. Commonplace books – collections of extracts that were often compiled using inscribed slips of text  – had been gaining popularity for some time beforehand.21 Indeed, by the turn of the eighteenth century, instruction manuals for the technique were available, including an influential one written by John Locke.22 Around that time, Robert Hooke described the process as follows: Now these Histories being writ in brief, in a small piece of very fine Paper, ’twill be very convenient to have a large Book bound after the manner of those that are very usual for keeping Prints, Pictures, Drawings, &c. in, to preserve them smooth and in order: On the sides of which, in the same manner as those Pictures are kept, it would be convenient 20 Douglas L. Wilson, ed., Jefferson’s Literary Commonplace Book (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989), 4–5. 21 See Ann M. Blair, Too Much to Know: Managing Scholarly Information before the Modern Age (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010), 96–99; Victoria E. Burke, “Recent Studies in Commonplace Books,” English Literary Renaissance 43, no. 1 (2013): 153–77. 22 John Lock (Locke), A New Method of Making Common-Place-Books (London: J. Greenwood, 1706). The French edition was published twenty years earlier.

[Fig. 56, “ place Book

132

6. Modern Analogues

Fig. 56. Thomas Jefferson, “Literary Commonplace Book.” pp. 118–99 (1758). (Photo: Library of Congress, Manuscript Division)

to stick on with Mouth Glew, or some such Substance … But they may at any time, upon occasion, be presently remov’d or alter’d in their Position or Order, that which was plac’d first may be plac’d middle most, or last, or transpos’d to another Head, or a little removed to suffer another to be interpos’d …23

See fig. 57. The practice of patchwork commonplacing, which the Little Gidding concordances and the Jefferson Bible are offshoots of, is but one of several manifestations of cut-and-paste compilation throughout history, as we have seen. Africanus’s tradition regarding the redaction of the Odyssey24 and that of Ji Yun

23 Robert Hooke, The Posthumous Works of Robert Hooke (London: Samuel Smith and Benjamin Walford, 1705), 63. I am most grateful to Ray Schrire for sharing with me this and several other references in this section. 24 See § 5.6, above.

6.3. Commonplace Books and Cut-Ups

133

Fig. 57. Folger ms. STC 17934 copy 2, patchwork. Thomas Milles, The misterie of iniquitie: plainely layd open by a lay-Christian, ca. 1610–11. Courtesy of the Folger Shakespeare Library. License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/.

134

6. Modern Analogues

regarding the compilation of leishu25 are both far removed from early modern European commonplace books, yet they describe markedly similar techniques. The postmodern phenomenon of cut-ups, attributed to Brion Gysin and William S. Burroughs, is also germane.26 In a recent article on the topic, Rona Cran writes: The aim of the cut-ups, according to Burroughs, was “to form new combinations of word and image,” and to avail to writers a version of “the collage used in painting for fifty years.” He developed the technique (first used in Paris in 1959) chiefly in the company of Brion Gysin, an artist whom André Breton had personally ejected from the Surrealist movement in 1935, and to whom Burroughs would later refer as his “first Master.” Together they cut up existing texts, ranging from their own writing to that of Shakespeare and Rimbaud to newspapers and magazines, and rearranged them using a combination of chance and the imposition of rough, quasi-mathematical grids. The technique gave Burroughs what the discovery of collage had given the Cubists, Dadaists, Surrealists, and Futurists – namely, a license to experiment with taking the world apart and reconstructing it in new ways.27

Practitioners of the cut-up technique compile their works solely out of existing material, fashioning myriad snippets of text into new literary compositions. For a recent cut-up in progress, see fig. 58. Considering that cut-and-paste compilation has arisen in multiple times and places throughout history, it is worth contemplating why this is so. While Gysin and Burroughs, with their Dadaist influences, surely had different concerns and constraints from any biblical redactor, there may be a common cognitive denominator. In her groundbreaking book, Too Much to Know, Ann Blair writes that “information typically takes the form of discrete and small-sized items that have been removed from their original contexts and made available as ‘morsels’ ready to be rearticulated.”28 By cutting up written texts, cut-and-paste-style authors and compilers reify those units of information, facilitating their assembly into synthetic compositions. Of early modern reference books, Blair writes that she has “uncovered some unusual methods devised by compilers to lessen their arduous task, including the manipulation of notes on slips of paper and the cutting and pasting from manuscripts and printed works to save the labor of copying.”29 The advantages Blair speaks of apply equally to the ancient world. The benefits of the patchwork method were sometimes noted by the compilers themselves. The editor of an eighteenth-century concordance of the Septuagint, 25 See

§ 6, above. a recent book-length treatment of the topic, see Edward S. Robinson, Shift Linguals: Cut-Up Narratives from William S. Burroughs to the Present (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2011). 27 Rona Cran, “‘Everything Is Permitted’: William Burroughs’ Cut-Up Novels and European Art,” Comparative American Studies 11, no. 3 (2013): 302. 28 Blair, Too Much, 2. 29 Ibid, 7. 26 For

6.3. Commonplace Books and Cut-Ups

135

Fig. 58. Cliff Burns, cut-up outline for G-Man (2010). (Photo courtesy of Cliff Burns)

which he had based on an edition that was organized differently, wrote of his endeavor: “it could not have put on this form, unless it had been cut apart page by page into the smallest possible parts, with amazing ingenuity and patience, and then put back together, page by page, piece by piece.”30 Contemporary users of word processors often take for granted the ability to rearrange sections of text at will by means of digital cut and paste. Managing all the moving parts in any compilation project is extremely taxing and arduous, and in the absence of modern technology, there is simply no substitute for literal cut and paste. See figs. 59–61 for additional examples of patchwork composition and redaction.

30 Abraham Trommius, Concordantiae graecae versionis vulgo dictae LXX interpretum (Amsterdam: Sumptibus Societatis, 1718), second page of Operis Approbatio. This edition was based on Conrad Kircher, Concordantiæ Veteris Testamenti græcæ ebraeis vocibus respondentes (Frankfurt am Main: Claudium Marnium & Ioannem Aubrium, 1607). Translation from John Considine, “Cutting and Pasting Slips: Early Modern Compilation and Information Management,” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 45, no. 3 (2015): 495.

136

6. Modern Analogues

Fig. 59. Autograph manuscript page from Marcel Proust’s “Sodome et Gomorrhe” (1915–16). NAF 16712, folio 78. Courtesy of Bibliotheque Nationale de France and Art Resource, NY.

6.3. Commonplace Books and Cut-Ups

137

Fig. 60. Folger ms. W.b.469, supplementation by patching. Redaction of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, ca. 1763. Courtesy of the  Folger Shakespeare Library. License: https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/.

138

6. Modern Analogues

Fig. 61. Scraps left over from S. Y. Agnon’s patchwork editing of Shira. (Photo: AP Photo/ Sebastian Scheiner)

7. Summary and Consequences “It’s much easier to find something once you know what you’re looking for.” – Dallas Mildenhall

The question of how biblical redactors physically compiled their composite texts has never been dealt with systematically. A priori, conflation and supplementation in the Hebrew Bible could have been effected by means of scribal, oral, or material redactional techniques. We have now seen evidence that a number of passages were created by means of a material – that is, cut-and-paste – method. Much of this evidence is internal, such as jumbling errors indicative of freestanding snippets at the time of redaction. In addition, we have seen that various redactors, ancient and modern, faced with tasks similar to those of the biblical editors have opted for a material method, rather than a scribal or oral one. This does not preclude other methods, of course, but it does seem to suggest that cut-and-paste redaction is not an isolated phenomenon. In a recent book, David Stern surveys the material history of the Hebrew Bible, with chapter titles such as “The Hebrew Bible in the Age of the Manuscript,” “The Jewish Bible in the Early Age of Print,” and “The Future of the Jewish Bible.”1 The present book, I hope, sheds new light on the material prehistory of the Hebrew Bible. Even in the absence of artifacts from the workshops of the canonical Bible’s editors – with the possible exception of 4QJubileesa, which may be just that2 – the techniques of several biblical editors may now be reconstructed with some confidence. The conclusion that cut-and-paste redaction played a part in the composition of the Hebrew Bible has some broader ramifications. Various theories regarding the composition of the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets have been proposed over the years: oral versus scribal, supplementary versus fragmentary versus documentary, as well as variations and combinations thereof.3 These hypotheses are not all mutually exclusive; it is possible that different redactors did different things and even that single individuals synthesized multiple redactional 1 David Stern, The Jewish Bible: A Material History (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2017). 2 See § 5.2, above. 3 On all these hypotheses, see below.

140

7. Summary and Consequences

approaches. Nevertheless, our conclusions bear on these questions. There is also the matter of media. Were these biblical works first written on papyrus, or were they inscribed on leather scrolls? In this final section, I summarize my central thesis, discuss its impact on existing hypotheses, and consider its practical consequences for future study of the Hebrew Bible.

7.1. Summary In this book, I have argued that several biblical texts were redacted by material, rather than solely scribal, means. When revising and developing older texts, some of the Hebrew Bible’s editors pasted together existing sheets  – in some cases even cutting passages into small pieces and then pasting the snippets onto new sheets. We have seen that a number of more recent authors and editors used similar techniques to compose, compile, and supplement their texts. The cognitive benefits of these approaches are substantial,4 and they are no less applicable to Achaemenid Judea than they are to early America or Caroline-era Britain. The case for material biblical redaction is supported by various ancient scrolls and fragments from Judea and elsewhere in the Near East.5 These encompass composite scrolls of all sorts, including administrative and literary works. Some of these scrolls reflect documentary compilation; others are the product of literary supplementation. Joining pre-written sheets, rather than copying their contents, would have saved redactors significant time and effort, and the associated economic advantages would have been considerable, given the precious nature of writing media.6 The option of pasting together small inscribed fragments was available and feasible, as evidenced by the widespread practice of patching up scrolls due to wear and tear.7 This was especially practical for papyrus scrolls, although leather too would have been viable, as we have seen.8 The nearly two-millennium-old proposal of Julius Africanus of Jerusalem that the Peisistratids stitched together (συνράπτοντες) segments of text in the process of editing the Odyssey indicates that such redactional methods may have been in use in his milieu.9 4 See

§ 6.3. § 5.1–5.4. 6 This is evident from the ubiquity of palimpsests, which is becoming increasingly apparent with the advent of multispectral imaging techniques. See, e. g., Roger L. Easton et al., “Stan­ dardized System for Multispectral Imaging of Palimpsests,” Proceedings of SPIE 7531, Computer Vision and Image Analysis of Art, 75310D (2010): 1–11. 7 See § 5.5. 8 See also discussion in § 7.2.1, below. 9 See § 5.6. 5 See

7.2. Consequences

141

But perhaps most significant of all are the numerous errors that resulted from cut-and-paste redaction in the Hebrew Bible.10 Thomas Jefferson accidentally inserted one snippet in his Bible, when he had another in mind, on account of their graphical similarity.11 In much the same way, we have seen that biblical redactors also occasionally misplaced snippets, and these errors are what allow us to peer into their cutting rooms, as it were. Typists, scribes, and transcribers all make mistakes associated with their particular crafts. By identifying cases of parableptic jumbling, we can infer that the editors who produced them were practitioners of the cut-and-paste method.12

7.2. Consequences It stands to reason that errors due to parablepsis were a relatively rare occurrence. Furthermore, errors that did slip through may have sometimes inspired later emendation, thereby hindering their discovery. Even errors that have remained more-or-less intact through the millennia can be difficult to detect, and I am certain that there are many more examples to be discovered than those detailed in these pages. All of this suggests that the cut-and-paste technique – and material redaction more broadly – is likely to have been used by biblical editors to produce more than just the texts and artifacts discussed above. However prevalent material redaction in ancient Judea may have been, it seems the common subsumption of “redactor” into the class of “scribe” must be reconsidered.13 James Watts, for instance, has written that “in point of fact … redactors are necessarily also scribes if they are working on written texts.”14 We have now seen that this is inaccurate.15  See § 3. § 6.2. 12  On methodology, specifically how to differentiate parableptic jumbling from symptomatically similar cases, see § 4.2. 13 This categorical assimilation is widespread but not universal. See, e. g., Emanuel Τοv, “Some Aspects of the Textual and Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah,” in Le Livre de Jérémie: Le prophète et son milieu, les oracles et leur transmission, ed. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert (Leuven: Peeters and University Press, 1981), 151. It is in the context of rejecting Tov’s distinction between scribe and editor that Watts makes his comment below. 14 James W. Watts, “Text and Redaction in Jeremiah’s Oracles Against the Nations,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 54 (1992): 437. 15 Indeed, “scribe” has become something of a catch-all term for many scholars of the Hebrew Bible and adjacent fields. Scholars often envision scribes not only as editors, but also as legislators, poets, and authors. See, e. g., Delbert R. Hillers, Treaty-curses and the Old Testament Prophets (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964), 40, et passim; A. Leo Oppenheim, “The Position of the Intellectual in Mesopotamian Society,” Daedalus 104, no. 2 (1975): 40, et passim; Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), 189, et passim; Watts, “Text and Redaction”; Pamela Barmash, Homicide in the Biblical World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 146, et passim; Karel van der 10

11 See

142

7. Summary and Consequences

I will now address the impact of the evidence gathered here for various theories regarding scribal realia and biblical redaction.

7.2.1. Scribal Media The question of the physical medium upon which the various biblical works were written – leather or papyrus – is rather contentious, and it correlates with the fiercely debated question of those works’ dates of composition.16 In some cases, the same data has been marshaled by supporters of both positions. For instance, many have cited the scribe’s knife, mentioned in Jeremiah 36:23, as evidence of leather’s prevalence among ancient Judean scribes. Frederic Kenyon argued that: The statement in Jer. xxxvi. 23 that Jehoiakim used the scribe’s scraping-knife (τῷ ξυρῷ τοῦ γραμματέως) to destroy the roll of Jeremiah’s prophecies implies that they were written on a material stronger than papyrus. A knife was (as in the Middle Ages) part of a scribe’s equipment for making corrections on leather or vellum, just as a sponge was for the writer on papyrus.17

More recently, in a series of influential articles in Hebrew and English, Menahem Haran explored the subject of writing media in the biblical era in substantial depth.18 Haran cited the exact same verse from Jeremiah as evidence for the use of papyrus: The knife was part of the ordinary equipment of the Egyptian scribe, who made frequent use of it … That Baruch ben Neriah’s scroll was cut up with “the scribe’s knife” substantiates the parallel to the Egyptian scribal practice and therefore strengthens the assumption that the scroll in question was made of papyrus.19 Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), 57, 109, et passim. It may well be that many scribes were educated in skills beyond mere copying, as some of these scholars show, but this does not make redaction a subset of the scribal arts. 16 For comprehensive discussions of the subject, see Jessica N. Whisenant, “Writing, Literacy, and Textual Transmission: The Production of Literary Documents in Iron Age Judah and the Composition of the Hebrew Bible” (PhD diss., University of Michigan, 2008); Philip Zhakevich, “The Tools of an Israelite Scribe: A Semantic Study of the Terms Signifying the Tools and Materials of Writing in Biblical Hebrew” (PhD diss., University of Texas at Austin, 2015). 17 Frederic G. Kenyon, Books and Readers in Ancient Greece and Rome (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932), 43. 18 Menahem Haran, “‫מלאכת הסופר בתקופת המקרא‬,” Tarbiẕ 50, no. 1 (1980–81): 65–87; Menahem Haran, “Book-Scrolls in Israel in Pre-Exilic Times,” Journal of Jewish Studies 33, no. 1–2 (1982): 161–73; Menahem Haran, “‫ הראיה החמישית‬:‫עוד על מגילות הספרים בתקופת המקרא‬,” Tarbiẕ 52, no. 4 (1983): 643–44; Menahem Haran, “Book-Scrolls at the Beginning of the Second Temple Period: The Transition From Papyrus to Skins,” Hebrew Union College Annual 54 (1983): 111–22; Menahem Haran, “Bible Scrolls in Eastern and Western Jewish Communities from Qumran to the High Middle Ages,” Hebrew Union College Annual 56 (1985): 21–62. 19 Haran, “Book-Scrolls in Israel in Pre-Exilic Times,” 163.

7.2. Consequences

143

One of Haran’s main conclusions is that the prevalent writing material in the region during the First Temple period was papyrus, and only in the Second Temple period did the Aramean practice of using skins begin to supersede the Egyptian method. Haran argues that the use of the verb ‫ מחה‬in contexts of erasure – as opposed to ‫גרד‬, for instance – is strong evidence for the use of papyrus, given that the term carries aqueous connotations,20 and ink could be removed from leather only by scraping, in his view.21 It should be noted, however, that the writing medium is not the sole factor in determining erasability. The carbon-based inks that were prevalent throughout the entire biblical period22 would have been removable with water (or another liquid), even from leather.23 Metallic inks, on the other hand, often had to be removed by scraping.24 Also, as Robert Duke wrote in his critique of Haran, it can be problematic to infer semantics from etymology.25 Fittingly, the English word “erase” derives from the Latin eradere, meaning “scrape off ” – a long obsolete method. It is therefore possible that the term ‫ מחה‬was used even after writing technology had changed. Indeed, Duke cites several Iron Age inscriptions written in Hebrew and Phoenician in which the term ‫ מחה‬appears in contexts where the erasure could not have been with water. For example, an ivory object was engraved with the imprecation: “[May God curse any] of my successors, from great king [to private citizen who may come] and erase (‫ )ומחו‬th[is inscription].”26 Nevertheless, Haran’s conclusion that papyrus was common in the First Temple period, before gradually being supplanted by leather, is surely correct, even if leather too may have been used by some pre-Exilic scribes. Canaan was occupied by Egypt from the fifteenth to twelfth centuries bce,27 by which time 20 See,

e. g., Gen 6:7; 7:4, 23; Isa 44:22. “Book-Scrolls in Israel in Pre-Exilic Times,” 170. 22 See Yoram Nir-El and Magen Broshi, “The Black Ink of the Qumran Scrolls,” Dead Sea Discoveries 3, no. 2 (1996): 157–67; Solomon H. Steckoll, “Investigations of the Inks Used in Writing the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Nature 220 (1968): 91–92; Ira Rabin et al., “On the Origin of the Ink of the Thanksgiving Scroll (1QHodayot),” Dead Sea Discoveries 16, no. 1 (2009): 97–106; Kaare Lund Rasmussen et al., “The Constituents of the Ink from a Qumran Inkwell: New Prospects for Provenancing the Ink on the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Journal of Archaeological Science 39, no. 9 (2012): 2956–68. The earliest use of metallic ink in the region that I am aware of is an Egyptian papyrus scroll from 252 bce. See Leach and Tait, “Papyrus,” 238. 23 Ewa Bulska and Barbara Wagner, “A Study of Ancient Manuscripts Exposed to IronGall Ink Corrosion,” Comprehensive Analytical Chemistry 42 (2004): 756–57. See also Richard Parkinson and Stephen Quirke, Papyrus (London: British Museum Press, 1995), 47, et passim, and m. Sotah 2:4. 24 Bulska and Wagner, “Study of Ancient Manuscripts.” 25 Robert Duke, “Parchment or Papyrus: Wiping Out False Evidence,” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 21, no. 1 (2007): 144–53. 26 Duke, “Parchment or Papyrus,” 148. For more on this inscription, see Alan R. Millard, “Alphabetic Inscriptions on Ivories from Nimrud,” Iraq 24 (1962): 41–51. 27 See, e. g., Nadav Naʾaman, “The Exodus Story: Between Historical Memory and His21 Haran,

144

7. Summary and Consequences

papyrus is likely to have been available in the region. Although it is often assumed that papyrus would have to have been imported from Egypt,28 that was not the only option. Papyrus, in fact, grew in Canaan at the time (and still does, to a limited extent), possibly due to Egyptian transplantation efforts.29 Furthermore, as Haran himself notes, substantial corroborating archaeological data is available.30 There is direct evidence of papyrus use in Judea dating at least as far as the seventh century bce.31 That it remained in use well into the Persian period and beyond is clear from several documents from Ketef Yeriḥo,32 some sixty Qumran scrolls, the Nash Papyrus, and more.33 In addition, papyrus fibers have been found on the backsides of several bullae that were used to seal documents.34 In contrast, no Judean or Israelite leather documents deriving from the preExilic period are extant, even though it appears to be the more robust of the materials.35 While use of leather writing media increased beginning with the rise of the Achaemenid empire, it never fully displaced papyrus as a writing medium.36 toriographical Composition,” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 11 (2011): 39–69. Haran (“Book-Scrolls in Israel in Pre-Exilic Times,” 164) gives somewhat imprecise dates for this. 28  Haran, “Book-Scrolls in Israel in Pre-Exilic Times,” 164; Aharon Demsky, “Writing,” in Encyclopedia Judaica, ed. Fred Skolnik, 2nd ed., vol. 21 (Jerusalem: Keter, 2007), 238. 29  Amos Bein and Aharon Horowitz, “Papyrus – A Historic Newcomer to the Hula Valley, Israel?” Review of Paleobotany and Palynology 47 (1986): 89–95. 30 Haran, “Book-Scrolls in Israel in Pre-Exilic Times,” 164–65. 31 Frank Moore Cross, Jr., “Epigraphical Notes on Hebrew Documents of the Eighth-Sixth Centuries B. C.: II. The Murabbaʿât Papyrus and the Letter Found Near Yabneh-Yam,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 165 (1962): 34–46. 32 See, e.g., Hanan Eshel and Hagai Misgav, “A Fourth Century B. C. E. Document from Ketef Yeriḥo,” Israel Exploration Journal 38, no. 3 (1988): 158–76. 33 Frank Moore Cross, Jr. “The Oldest Manuscripts From Qumran,” Journal of Biblical Literature 74, no. 3 (1955): 147–72; William Foxwell Albright, “A Biblical Fragment from the Maccabaean Age: The Nash Papyrus,” Journal of Biblical Literature 56, no. 3 (1937): 145–76. 34  Michael Heltzer, “Some Questions Concerning the Economic Policy of Josiah, King of Judah,” Israel Exploration Journal 50, no. 1–2 (2000): 108; Philip J. King and Lawrence E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 307. For an image of one such bulla, see Yigal Shiloh and David Tarler, “Bullae from the City of David: A Hoard of Seal Impressions from the Israelite Period,” Biblical Archaeologist 49 (1986): 202. 35 Ernst Würthwein and Alexander Achilles Fischer, The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica, trans. Errol F. Rhodes, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014), 8–9. There are, however, scattered examples of Egyptian leather scrolls dating as early as the Bronze Age, such as Berlin Papyrus 3029 (12th Dynasty) and BM 10250 (17th–18th Dynasty). See Ludwig Stern, “Urkunde über den Bau des Sonnentempels zu On,” Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 12 (1874): 85–96, and plates I–II; Stephen Ranulph Kingdon Glanville, “The Mathematical Leather Roll in the British Museum,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 13, no. 3 (1927): 232–39. Though very rare, linen too is attested, e. g., Princeton Pharaonic Roll 7 (unpublished). In a forthcoming publication, I discuss overlooked Israelite leather manuscripts that appear to date to the First Temple period. 36 Citing Ctesias, Diodorus of Sicily (§ 2.32.4) reported that the Persians wrote upon leather (διφθέρα). See Charles Henry Oldfather, Diodorus of Sicily, vol. 1, Loeb Classical Library 279 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1933), 458–59. Numerous leather documents from

7.2. Consequences

145

Given that leather and papyrus were both available in the Persian period, it is not possible to determine with confidence which medium the biblical redactors’ conjectured composite scrolls would have been made of. The technological case is similarly inconclusive. Papyrus lends itself naturally to patchwork redaction, as indicated by the prevalence of composite papyrus scrolls37 and the ease with which papyrus patches can be affixed.38 Although animal hides may not be ideal for such a project, they too are practicable. As discussed above, leather scrolls were often patched in antiquity,39 and disparate sheets were sometimes sewn together to create composites.40 Despite being the product of a later period, Sefer Abisha suggests that substantial composite leather scrolls made of sheets and patches from different scrolls would likely have been within the realm of possibility for the Bible’s editors.41 In light of the above findings, we see that the redactors of the Hebrew Bible had the technological means, as well as the technological precedent, to create their literary tapestries out of either leather or papyrus. While the evidence is ultimately inconclusive, the findings of this study may move the needle slightly toward the theory that the source texts of these biblical works were written on papyrus scrolls.

7.2.2. Conservative Redaction The identification of a cut-and-paste compositional method may have some further ramifications. Many have wondered why the redactors of the Pentateuch (or Hexateuch) edited their sources in what often appears to be an unusually the region have indeed been discovered, e. g., the Aramaic Arsames letters (discovered in Egypt but written in Susa and/or Babylon) and Berlin Papyrus 13443, a leather palimpsest from Elephantine. See Godfrey Rolles Driver, Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century B. C. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954); Eduard Sachau, Aramäische Papyrus und Ostraka aus einer jüdischen Militär-Kolonie zu Elephantine (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1911), xxviii; Bezalel Porten and Ada Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, vol. 4 (Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem – Department of the History of the Jewish People, 1999), 136– 37. For more on leather production in the region, see Wilhelm Eilers, Iranische Beamtennamen in der keilschriftlichen Überlieferung, vol. 1 (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1940), 49. Moving to the Hellenistic period, the vast majority of surviving Dead Sea Scrolls are made of leather (Tov, Scribal Practices, 31–36; André Lemaire, “Writing and Writing Materials,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman, vol. 6 [New York: Doubleday, 1992]: 1003–4), and according to the Letter of Aristeas (§ 3, 176–77), the Hebrew Torah scrolls translated by the seventy-two scholars were made of leather sheets that were perhaps glued, rather than stitched, together. (See Benjamin G. Wright, III, The Letter of Aristeas: ‘Aristeas to Philocrates’ or ‘On the Translation of the Law of the Jews’ [Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015], 323. Cf. 8ḤevXIIgr [8Ḥev1], columns 17–18, which appear to be joined with glue. See Tov et al., DJD 8, 15, and plate XVIII.) 37 See § 5.3–5.4, above. 38 See § 5.5.2–5.5.3, above. 39 See § 5.5.1, above. 40 See § 5.1–5.2, above. 41 See § 5.5.4, above.

146

7. Summary and Consequences

conservative manner, when they could simply have smoothed out the inconsistencies.42 Robert Alter, for example, asks: “Why should the author of Genesis have felt obliged to use both these accounts, and why did he not at least modify his sources enough to harmonize the contradictions?”43 A common response is that these editors strove to appease readers familiar with the various respective constituent sources.44 David Carr, for example, writes: [T]he move toward Persian authorization may have influenced the shaping of the tradition itself … [D]espite often substantial differences in Torah traditions, postexilic Judean elites – both priestly and lay – had to meld diverse pentateuchal materials into a single whole that could then gain the status of the one “law” uniting the peoples of the area. This impetus, again oriented toward outside recognition, can explain the remarkable combination of highly divergent P and non-P traditions in the Torah, indeed a combination unprecedented in a text of legal character and gaining legal status.45

Karel van der Toorn posits: The scribes who edited … the Pentateuch as a whole aimed to produce a document that would have the support of different textual communities. By writing a work that integrated documents with different ideas and perspectives, the scribes were creating a national written heritage that transcended earlier divisions.46

Richard Elliott Friedman makes a similar case: Why did he do it? Why commit this extraordinary irony, combining texts that were diametrically opposed to each other? … [T]here were groups who supported these various texts. The Shiloh Levite priests who had produced E and D may not have been in priestly power in the second Temple days, but that did not mean that they did not exist. They could still raise their voices and protest the authenticity of a Torah that did not include their texts. Indeed, the combination of all the sources in this period may have been precisely as a compromise among various factions of Israelite-Judean society.47

Writing a century ago, Gunkel imagined the same conciliatory motivation: 42 This difficulty has indeed been brought by some in support of an outright refutation of the documentary model. See, e. g., Samuel Shaviv, “The Polytheistic Origins of the Biblical Flood Narrative,” VT 55 (2004): 527–48. 43 Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 141. 44 According to several scholars, this was in the context of Persian imperial authorization. See note 1 in Introduction, above. For opposing views, see, e. g., Jean-Louis Ska, “From History Writing to Library Building: The End of History and the Birth of the Book,” in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance, ed. Bernard M. Levinson and Gary N. Knoppers (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 145, and note 1, there. The audience is typically taken to be the factions in Achaemenid Yehud, although cf. Christophe Laurent Nihan, “The Torah between Samaria and Judah: Shechem and Gerizim in Deuteronomy and Joshua,” in Levinson and Knoppers, Pentateuch as Torah, 187–223. 45 David M. Carr, “The Rise of Torah,” in Levinson and Knoppers, Pentateuch as Torah, 55–56. 46 Van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 141. 47 Richard Elliott Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? (New York: HarperCollins, 1989), 225–26.

7.2. Consequences

147

The necessity for such a combination of the old and the young collections shows us that the old legends had worked their way too deeply into the heart to be rooted out by the new spirit.48

The conciliation theory, in its varying permutations, is as unsatisfying as it is ubiquitous. The sources in the Pentateuch/Hexateuch differ fundamentally on everything from narrative to law to elementary theology. It is hard to imagine a student of the Priestly source being anything but appalled to read that Joshua – whether Kenizite (Num 32:12) or Ephraimite (Num 13:8)  – served in the Tabernacle (Exod 33:11), despite not belonging to the authorized priestly line. It seems similarly improbable that an Aaronic priest would have accepted the notion that Aaron, of all people, was responsible for the Golden Calf debacle (Exod 32). Indeed, these readers’ familiarity with one version of the story would likely have only underscored the incongruousness of the interrupting, contradictory material. Furthermore, if the redaction of diverse literary traditions was performed by one or more reconciling scribes, it is hard to understand why even trivial changes to the text were often not made. For example, any editor would seemingly have done better to employ an alternative to the tetragrammaton throughout Genesis, in accordance with Exod 6:2–3 (P), which explicitly states that the name YHWH was previously unrevealed.49 The conclusions of the present study may open the door to an alternative explanation. Oral redaction (discussed below) is strongly associated with comprehensive revision, as is – to a lesser degree – scribal redaction. However, wherever a scholar finds evidence of patchwork editing, she perhaps need not seek philosophical, political, or theological explanations for redactional conservatism. It was not necessarily an attempt to appease the factions of post-exilic Judea that led to the original texts being altered so little, but instead mundane practical constraints. The same inconsistencies that any scribe would have effortlessly eliminated would have required considerable effort on the part of cut-and-paste redactors. Just as Jefferson’s adherence to the precise words of the Gospels, even at the expense of clarity and cohesion, should not be attributed to an attempt at appeasing partisans of Matthew and Luke, it is unnecessary to presume a similar motivation for the Hebrew Bible’s redactors. In some cases, it appears that biblical editors did not write smooth, clean texts for the simple reason that these redactors hardly wrote at all.

48 Gunkel, 49 For

Genesis, lxxxv. another example, see discussion of Gen 19:16 in § 4.3.1, above.

148

7. Summary and Consequences

7.2.3. Oral vs. Written Redaction For more than a century, there has been widespread agreement among scholars that biblical traditions often began their lives in oral form.50 There has been less of a consensus, however, regarding when these oral traditions were compiled and committed to writing, and by whom. For Gunkel, the authors of the Pentateuchal documents  – especially J and E, as he saw it  – combined and rearranged the various oral accounts. Gunkel maintained that the documents were highly composite, reflecting a redaction of oral sources: “The collection of legends had already begun during oral transmission.”51 Elaborating on this point, he wrote that the compilers of the oral traditions are now able to combine several legends into a whole. Here, then … a complicated action is created consisting of several strands … Similarly, legends as varied as the one concerning Abraham in Hebron (Gen 18) and the one concerning Lot in Sodom (Gen 19) were joined to the end of these collections. Thus in ‘J’ a Creation account and the Paradise narrative were fused (Gen 2, 3).52

More recently, Odil Hannes Steck has written: Finally, in addition to cases in which the redaction historical process not only continues the existing writing by restructuring and by specific formulations, one must also account for those cases which connect pre-existing transmitted material from elsewhere with the given writing to produce a new entity. This pre-existing material may be of a type which is oral or written.53

Others have suggested that even the compilation of “documents” may have occurred by means of transcribing and combining memorized oral material. In his influential book, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart, David Carr writes: Israelite specialists appear to have added to, recombined, and otherwise revised elements of the Israelite textual-educational tradition. The literature bears clear marks of this process, and these marks have provided the basis for theories such as the documentary hypothesis for the creation of the Pentateuch or the multiple authorship of books like Isai50 For

a recent example, see van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 217–18, et passim. Gunkel, Genesis, trans. Mark E. Biddle (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997), lxix. For Gunkel and many scholars since, the first phase of written biblical literature would have begun with the transcription of memorized oral poetry. See Hermann Gunkel, The Legends of Genesis, trans. William H. Carruth (Chicago: Open Court Publishing, 1901), 37–42, et passim. Many believe that poetic strata underlie certain prose texts. See, e. g., John R. Kselman, “The Recovery of Poetic Fragments from the Pentateuchal Priestly Source,” Journal of Biblical Literature 97, no. 2 (1978): 161–73; Jason M. H. Gaines, The Poetic Priestly Source (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015); Johannes C. de Moor, “Poetic Fragments in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History,” in Studies in Deuteronomy in Honour of C. J. Labuschagne on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. Florentino García Martínez, Anthony Hilhorst, et al. (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 183–96. 52 Hermann Gunkel, Genesis, xliv–xlv. 53 Odil Hannes Steck, Old Testament Exegesis: A Guide to the Methodology, trans. James D. Nogalski, 2nd ed. (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 78. Italics in the original. 51 Hermann

7.2. Consequences

149

ah. Yet such “sources” generally were not incorporated in written form, nor did editors juggle multiple copies of manuscripts in the process of producing their conflated text.54

The evidence collected in this book, however, suggests that many sources were incorporated in written form and that biblical editors were indeed liable to “juggle multiple copies of manuscripts” when preparing their composite texts. Carr continues: It is possible that a scribe may have worked with a given manuscript on occasion. Certainly colophons in other cultures show visual consultation of copies. Nevertheless, well-educated scribes often could write out a verbatim, memorized form of an older authoritative text, so faithfully reproducing it that its borders and clashes with other material would still be visible in the final product.55

In all probability, the multitude of redactors whose handiwork contributed to the formation of the Hebrew Bible employed a diverse range of approaches, including mnemonic and oral ones. By no means does the existence of one editorial technique imply the absence of another. But it now seems clear that material redaction represents one of those methods – possibly even a well-established one. Scholars should therefore take care not to default to mnemonic or other models before carefully considering this alternative, particularly in cases where literary “recombination” appears to be present.

7.2.4. Material Redaction and the Historical-Critical Method A longstanding dispute among biblical scholars centers on the primary method of Pentateuchal redaction: supplementary versus conflationary. At the two ends of the spectrum today are the Fortschreibung and Neo-Documentarian approaches. According to the former model, the Pentateuch – and likewise most of the Hebrew Bible – is chiefly the product of gradual supplementation, with successive redactors explicating, expanding, and adapting the texts before them.56 Accord54 David M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 159. My emphasis. I am grateful to Jakob Wöhrle for his helpful comments on this topic. 55 Ibid., 159–60. 56 See, e. g., Rolf Rendtorff, “Traditio-Historical Method and the Documentary Hypothesis,” Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies, I (1969), 5–11; Reinhard Gregor Kratz, “Die Redaktion der Prophetenbücher,” in Rezeption und Auslegung im Altem Testament und in seinem Umfeld: Ein Symposion aus Anlass des 60. Geburtstags von Odil Hannes Steck, ed. Reinhard Gregor Kratz and Thomas Krüger (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1997), 9–27; Burkard M. Zapff, Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Michabuch im Kontext des Dodekapropheton (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997). Some do not place Fortschreibung under the rubric of redaction, on the grounds that it does not involve the rewriting of an entire text. (E. g., Nathan MacDonald, Priestly Rule: Polemic and Biblical Interpretation in Ezekiel 44 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015], 15.) I see no reason to limit the concept of redaction in such a manner, especially given that the notion of a “text” is a moving target and altogether amorphous.

150

7. Summary and Consequences

ing to the Neo-Documentarians, on the other hand, the salient phenomenon in the Pentateuch (though not necessarily elsewhere in the Bible) is one of conflation, with a single redactor taking four free-standing sources and compiling them into a composite text.57 Many occupy the span between these two extremes, and variations abound.58 For instance, several scholars now believe that the authors of the Holiness Code also edited the Pentateuch as a whole.59 A number of (non-Neo‑)Documentarians envision a series of redactors, rather than a single one. A semi-Documentarian approach, which is sometimes called the Complementary Hypothesis, posits that a single document served as the base text, with one or more redactors inserting material here and there from other sources.60 Others subscribe to a Fragmentary Hypothesis,61 although this too represents a type of conflation, differing from documentary models primarily in terms of the postulated scope of the sources, not the essential nature of redaction. Ultimately, the vast majority 57 See, e. g., Menahem Haran, ‫ תהליכי הגיבוש עד סוף ימי בית שני ושינויי הצורה עד‬:‫האסופה המקראית‬ ‫מוצאי ימי הביניים‬, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2003); Baruch J. Schwartz, “The Priestly Account of the Theophany and Lawgiving at Sinai,” in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, ed. Michael V. Fox et al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 103–34; Joel Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012); Jeffrey Stackert, A Prophet Like Moses: Prophecy, Law, and Israelite Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). 58 See, e. g., Shimon Gesundheit, Three Times a Year, FAT 82 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 228–34, et passim; Jakob Wöhrle, “There’s No Master Key! The Literary Character of the Priestly Stratum and the Formation of the Pentateuch,” in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America, ed. Jan C. Gertz et al., FAT 111 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 391–403. See also literature in note 15 of Introduction, above. 59 See Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 101–3, et passim; Israel Knohl, “‫צימודי קדושות והרחבת תחומי‬ ‫הקודש ברובד העריכה של התורה‬,” Tarbiẕ 78, no. 4 (2009): 435; Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, AB 3A (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 1439–43, et passim; Christophe Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch, FAT II/25 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 617, et passim. 60 See, e. g., Rolf Rendtorff, The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch, trans. John J. Scullion (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 106–7. 61 See Johann Severin Vater, Commentar über den Pentateuch, mit Einleitungen zu den einzelnen Abschnitten, der eingeschalteten Übersetzung von Dr. Alexander Geddes’s merkwürdigeren critischen und exegetischen Anmerkungen, und einer Abhandlung über Moses und die Verfasser des Pentateuchs, 3 vols. (Halle: Waisenhaus, 1802–5). For a recent semi-fragmentary approach, see Eckart Otto, “Scribal Scholarship in the Formation of Torah and Prophets: A Postexilic Scribal Debate between Priestly Scholarship and Literary Prophecy  – The Example of the Book of Jeremiah and Its Relation to the Pentateuch,” in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance, ed. Bernard M. Levinson and Gary N. Knoppers (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 173. Some earlier scholarship calling into question the cohesive “documentary” nature of (some or all of ) the Pentateuchal sources includes Rainer Kessler, Die Querverweise im Pentateuch: Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der expliziten Querverbindungen innerhalb des vorpriesterlichen Pentateuchs (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2015 [book version of a long-unpublished 1972 dissertation]); Erhard Blum, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1984). I thank David Carr for his helpful comments on this topic.

7.2. Consequences

151

of redactional models can be grouped into two supersets – supplementary and conflationary (and combinations thereof ) – both of which have been sharply critiqued on logistical grounds. In this regard, it is worth revisiting Niditch’s criticisms: If the texts are leather, they may be heavy and need to be unrolled. Finding the proper passage in each scroll is a bit of a chore. If texts are papyrus, they are read held in the arm, one hand clasping or “supporting” the “bulk” of the scroll, while the other unrolls. Did the redactor need three colleagues to hold J, E, and P for him? Did each read the text out loud, and did he ask them to pause until he jotted down his selections, working like a secretary with three tapes dictated by the boss?62

Indeed, the very idea that a biblical work might have been systematically constructed as a patchwork of older documents (whether metaphorical or literal) has often been attributed to scholars’ overactive imaginations. Already in 1933, Volz wrote: Der Gedanke, dass ein redigierender Schriftsteller aus zwei vorhandenen Erzählungswerken ein einziges zusammengeschrieben hätte, daß er aus zwei ähnlich lautenden oder fast gleich lautenden Erzählungen bald daher bald dorther ein Wort, einen Halbsatz, einen Satz, mehrere Verse entnommen und zusammengefügt hätte, ist ein Fund der Gelehrsamkeit, nicht ein Vorgang des Lebens. The notion that a redacting author would have composed one narrative work out of two existing ones – that he would have picked, here or there, from two similar or nearly identical narratives a word, a clause, a sentence, several verses, and combined them all – is an ivory tower construction, not a real-life scenario.63

Friedman argues that Niditch’s error is in her assumption that the sources of the Pentateuch were edited by a single redactor: Precisely what makes the hypothesis seem outlandish is what Niditch has gotten wrong. There is no juggling of multiple large, heavy scrolls. There is no one redactor who works with J, E, and P at the same time. Only two large texts are combined at each stage of the editing.64

Whether Friedman is correct or not about the number of sources conflated simultaneously, his argument – like that of the scholars cited above – is premised on the idea that redaction is a purely scribal affair. A cut-and-paste technique is not considered. A material redactor would, in fact, have been capable of cutting up multiple scrolls, not just two, and assembling them as he saw fit. The practical feasibility of supplementation has similarly been called into question. Emanuel Tov has written of “the possible relevance to literary criticism 62 Niditch,

Oral World, 113. Volz and Wilhelm Rudolph, Der Elohist als Erzähler ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik? (Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1933), 14. My translation. 64 Richard Elliot Friedman, foreword to Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, ed. Jeffrey H. Tigay, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005), ii. My emphasis. 63 Paul

152

7. Summary and Consequences

of correcting procedures used in the Qumran scrolls.”65 Tov criticizes the entire notion of redactional supplementation on the grounds that there would not have been sufficient blank space in the scrolls for anything but the most minimal additions: One of the issues at stake is whether, from a technical point of view, scribes could insert significant changes in a scroll after the completion of the writing. We suggest that, as a rule, this was impossible. The first issue to which our attention is directed is that of the writing on leather and papyrus in columns and the difficulties encountered if a scribe wanted to insert corrections in more or less fixed writing blocks surrounded by relatively small margins. Because of these inflexible parameters, and also because of the limited possibilities inherent in the writing material, substantial correction of finished columns was technically almost impossible. Thus, after the completion of the writing, there simply was no space in the columns, margins, or anywhere else for any addition longer than one or two lines. […] In sum, after the text was inscribed, it was almost impossible to add anything substantial to the written text, in the column itself, in one of the margins, or on a blank sheet at the beginning, end, or middle of the scroll.66

There is no denying the significance of Tov’s encyclopedic analysis of the scribal practices reflected in the Qumran corpus. However, in light of this study’s conclusions, it appears that the applicability of Tov’s findings to questions of supplementation and other redactional methods is limited. As Tov argues, scribes seeking to modify texts without rewriting them from scratch would indeed have been held back by the material constraints of their inscribed media.67 Once the prospect of material redaction enters the picture, however, the options of the Bible’s editors no longer seem very restricted at all.

7.3. Conclusion .‫לא עליך מלאכה לגמור ולא אתה בן חורין ליבטל‬ “It is not for you to complete the work, but neither are you free to desist.” – Mishnah Avot 2:16 (ms. Kaufmann)

To the extent that new light has been shed on the craft of biblical redaction, we are now better equipped to appreciate these editors’ exceptional literary outputs. 65 Emanuel Tov, “The Writing of Early Scrolls: Implications for the Literary Analysis of Hebrew Scripture,” in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible and Qumran: Collected Essays (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 208. 66 Ibid., 208–9. 67 As noted in § 1, however, Tov’s work focuses on extant manuscripts, the lion’s share of which are of leather, not papyrus. Papyrus typically lends itself more easily than leather to erasure and rewriting, which has bearing on Tov’s conclusion that “substantial correction of finished columns was technically almost impossible” (ibid.).

7.3. Conclusion

153

As we have seen, a range of peculiar biblical phenomena may now be understood as the natural outcome of material redaction – a possibility that has never been systematically explored previously. This study has only scratched the surface of material redaction in the Bible. It is my hope that future scholars will find the methods detailed in this work useful for their own research into texts not covered here, whether in the Hebrew Bible or, perhaps, beyond. I end with Adam Smyth’s eloquent reflections: Cutting and pasting is not only about compilation, about the excising and collecting of pieces; it is also a mode that suggests that these pieces have past and future lives. The paradox is that what might be seen as bookish imperfection – the harmony’s parts do not cohere fully into the whole – lends these texts that quality which is often regarded as the mark of good writing: vigour, animation, life.68

68 Adam Smyth, “Little Clippings: Cutting and Pasting Bibles in the 1630s,” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 45, no. 3 (2015): 598. The original context is the seventeenth-century composite codices of the Little Gidding community. See discussion in § 6.1, above.

Bibliography Ackroyd, Peter Runham et al., eds. The Cambridge History of the Bible: Volume 1, From the Beginnings to Jerome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963. Adams, Dickinson W., ed. Jefferson’s Extracts from the Gospels: “The Philosophy of Jesus” and “The Life and Morals of Jesus.” Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983. Albright, William Foxwell. “A Biblical Fragment from the Maccabaean Age: The Nash Papyrus.” Journal of Biblical Literature 56, no. 3 (1937): 145–76. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981. Anderson, Robert T., and Terry Giles. The Samaritan Pentateuch: An Introduction to Its Origin, History, and Significance for Biblical Studies. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Press, 2012. Aptowitzer, Viktor. Das Schriftwort in der rabbinischen Literatur. 4 parts. Vienna: Alfred Hölder, 1906–15. Bacon, Benjamin Wisner. The Genesis of Genesis. Hartford, CT: The Student Publishing Company, 1892. –. The Triple Tradition of The Exodus. Hartford, CT: The Student Publishing Company, 1894. Baden, Joel. The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012. Baentsch, Bruno. Exodus – Leviticus – Numeri. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1903. Bailey, David Roy Shackleton. Letters to Atticus. Vol. IV. Loeb Classical Library 491. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999. Ball, Charles James. The Book of Genesis in Hebrew. Sacred Books of the Old Testament (Polychrome Bible, Hebrew Edition). Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1896. Barmash, Pamela. Homicide in the Biblical World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Bein, Amos, and Aharon Horowitz. “Papyrus – A Historic Newcomer to the Hula Valley, Israel?” Review of Paleobotany and Palynology 47 (1986): 89–95. Ben Elijah, Aaron, the Latter, of Nicomedia. ʿEtz Ḥayyim, Ahron ben Elias aus Nikomedien des Karäer’s System der Religionsphilosophie. Translated and edited by Franz Delitzsch and Moritz Steinschneider. Leipzig: Johann A. Barth, 1841. Ben Maimon, Moses. The Guide of the Perplexed. Vol. 1. Translated by Shlomo Pines. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1963. Ben-Zvi, Itzhak. “‫ספר אבישע‬.” Eretz-Israel 5 (1958): 240–52. Berman, Joshua. Inconsistency in the Torah: Ancient Literary Convention and the Limits of Source Criticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. Blair, Ann. “Reading Strategies for Coping with Information Overload Ca. 1550–1700.” Journal of the History of Ideas 64, no. 1 (2003): 11–28.

156

Bibliography

–. Too Much to Know: Managing Scholarly Information Before the Modern Age. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010. Blum, Erhard. Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1984. Boling, Robert G. Judges. AB 6. New York: Doubleday, 1975. Braude, William G. (Gershon Zev), and Israel J. Kapstein, eds. Pĕsiḳta dĕ-Raḇ Kahana: R. Kahana’s Compilation of Discourses for Sabbaths and Festal Days. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society Press, 2002. Brysbaert, Marc, Denis Drieghe, and Françoise Vitu. “Word Skipping: Implications for Theories of Eye Movement: Control in Reading.” In Cognitive Processes in Eye Guidance, edited by Geoffrey D. M. Underwood, 125–47. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Budde, Karl Ferdinand Reinhardt. The Books of Samuel in Hebrew. Sacred Books of the Old Testament (Polychrome Bible, Hebrew Edition) 8. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1894. –. Das Buch der Richter. KHC 7. Freiburg: Mohr, 1897. –. Die Biblische Urgeschichte (Genesis 1–12,5). Giessen: J. J. Ricker, 1883. –. “Genesis 48, 7 und die benachbarten Abschnitte.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 3 (1883): 56–86. Budge, Ernest Alfred Wallace. By Nile and Tigris: A Narrative of Journeys in Egypt and Mesopotamia on Behalf of the British Museum Between the Years 1886 and 1913. London: John Murray, 1920. –, ed. Facsimile of the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus in the British Museum. London: British Museum Press, 1898. Bulska, Ewa, and Barbara Wagner. “A Study of Ancient Manuscripts Exposed to Iron Gall Ink Corrosion.” Comprehensive Analytical Chemistry 42 (2004): 755–88. Burke, Victoria E. “Recent Studies in Commonplace Books.” English Literary Renaissance 43, no. 1 (2013): 153–77. Burney, Charles Fox. The Book of Judges. London: Rivingtons, 1918. Calvin, John. A Harmonie upon the Three Evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke. Translated by Eusebius Pagit. London: Impensis Geor. Bishop, 1584. Campbell, Antony F. “Yahweh and the Ark: A Case Study in Narrative.” Journal of Biblical Literature 98, no. 1 (1979): 31–43. Carr, David M. “Changes in Pentateuchal Criticism.” In Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, edited by Magne Sæbø, vol. 3/2, 433–66. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. –. “The Rise of Torah.” In The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance, edited by Bernard M. Levinson and Gary N. Knoppers, 39–56. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. –. Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Černý, Jaroslav. Paper and Books in Ancient Egypt. London: University College, 1952. Cerquiglini, Bernard. Éloge de la variante: Histoire critique de la philologie. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1989. –. In Praise of the Variant: A Critical History of Philology. Translated by Betsy Wing. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999. Chace, Arnold Buffum, Ludlow Bull, and Henry Parker Manning. The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus. 2 Vols. Oberlin, OH: Mathematical Association of America, 1927/1929.

Bibliography

157

Charlesworth, James, et al., eds. Miscellaneous Texts from the Judaean Desert. DJD 38. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000. Childs, Brevard S. Exodus: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. London: S.C.M. Press, 1974. Clarysse, Willy. “Tomoi Synkollēsimoi.” In Ancient Archives and Archival Traditions: Concepts of Record-Keeping in the Ancient World, edited by Maria Brosius, 344–59. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Cohen, Menachem, ed. ‫פי כתבי יד‬-‫ ההדרה מדעית על‬,‫ מהדורת יסוד חדשה‬:‫מקראות גדולות ״הכתר״‬ ‫ ספר‬,‫פי ״כתר ארם צובה״‬-‫ נוסח המסורה המדויק של המקרא עם מסורה גדולה ומסורה קטנה על‬,‫עתיקים‬ ‫ חלק א׳‬,‫שמות‬. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2012. Considine, John. “Cutting and Pasting Slips: Early Modern Compilation and Information Management.” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 45, no. 3 (2015): 487–504. Cop, Michael. “Compositions for a King: Little Gidding’s Use of Henry Garthwait’s Monotessaron.” Script & Print 40, no. 1 (2016): 29–44. Coppens, Joseph. “Les traditions relatives à la manne dans Exode xvi.” Estudios Eclesiásticos 34 (1960): 473–89. Cornill, Carl Heinrich. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. GTW 2/1. Freiburg: Mohr, 1891. Craig, C. Leslie. “The Earliest Little Gidding Concordance.” Harvard Library Bulletin 1, no. 3 (1947): 311–31. Cran, Rona. “‘Everything Is Permitted’: William Burroughs’ Cut-Up Novels and European Art.” Comparative American Studies 11, no. 3 (2013): 300–313. Crane, Ashley S. Israel’s Restoration: A Textual-Comparative Exploration of Ezekiel 36–39. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Cross, Frank Moore, Jr. “Epigraphical Notes on Hebrew Documents of the Eighth–Sixth Centuries B. C.: II. The Murabbaʿât Papyrus and the Letter Found Near Yabneh-Yam.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 165 (1962): 34–46. –. From Epic to Canon. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000. –. “The Oldest Manuscripts from Qumran.” Journal of Biblical Literature 74, no. 3 (1955): 147–72. –. Scrolls from the Wilderness of the Dead Sea: A Catalogue of the Exhibition, The Dead Sea Scrolls of Jordan, Arranged by the Smithsonian Institution in Cooperation with the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Palestine Archaeological Museum. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1965. Crown, Alan David. “The Abisha Scroll of the Samaritans.” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library 58 (1975): 36–65. Demsky, Aharon. “Writing.” In Encyclopedia Judaica, 2nd ed., edited by Fred Skolnik, vol. 21, 235–41. Jerusalem: Keter, 2007. Depauw, Mark. “Physical Descriptions, Registration and εἰκονίζειν with New Interpretations for P. Par. 65 and P. Oxy. I 34.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 176 (2011): 189–99. Dershowitz, Idan. “Man of the Land: Unearthing the Original Noah.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 128, no. 3 (2016): 357–73. Dillmann, August. Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus. KHAT 12. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1880. –. Genesis: Critically and Exegetically Expounded. 2 vols. Translated by William B. Steven­ son. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1897. Distin, Kate. Cultural Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

158

Bibliography

Drieghe, Denis, Keith Rayner, and Alexander Pollatsek. “Eye Movements and Word Skipping during Reading Revisited.” Journal of Experimental Psychology 31, no. 5 (2005): 954–69. Driver, Godfrey Rolles. Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century B. C. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954. Driver, Samuel Rolles. The Book of Genesis. 10th ed. London: Methuen, 1916. –. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. 9th ed. New York: Scribner, 1913. –. Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1890. Duke, Robert. “Parchment or Papyrus: Wiping Out False Evidence.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 21, no. 1 (2007): 144–53. Durham, John I. Exodus. WBC 3. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992. Dyck, Paul. “‘A New Kind of Printing’: Cutting and Pasting a Book for a King at Little Gidding.” The Library. 7th series 9:3 (2008): 306–33. Eilers, Wilhelm. Iranische Beamtennamen in der keilschriftlichen Überlieferung. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1940. Eisenlohr, August. Ein mathematisches Handbuch der alten Aegypter (Papyrus Rhind des British Museum). 2 vols. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1877. Elman, Benjamin. “Collecting and Classifying: Ming Dynasty Compendia and Encyclo­ pedias (Leishu).” In Qu’était-ce qu’écrire une encyclopédie en Chine? edited by Florence Bretelle-Establet and Karine Chemla, 131–57. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes, 2007. Eshel, Hanan, and Esther Eshel. “4Q448, Psalm 154 (Syriac), Sirach 48:20, and 4QpIsaa.” Journal of Biblical Literature 119, no. 4 (2000): 645–59. Eshel, Hanan, and Hagai Misgav. “A Fourth Century B. C. E. Document from Ketef Yeriḥo.” Israel Exploration Journal 38, no. 3 (1988): 158–76. Eyre, Christopher. The Use of Documents in Pharaonic Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Fenton, Paul B. “Moritz Steinschneider’s Contribution to Judaeo-Arabic Studies.” In Studies on Steinschneider: Moritz Steinschneider and the Emergence of the Science of Judaism in Nineteenth-Century Germany, edited by Reimund Leicht and Gad Freudenthal, 363–82. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Finkel, Irving. The Ark before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2014. Flanagan, John. “Papyrus 967 and the Text of Ezekiel: Parablepsis or an Original Text?” In Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon, edited by Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias, 105–16. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Frankel, David. The Murmuring Stories of the Priestly School: A Retrieval of Ancient Sacerdotal Lore. VTSup 89. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Freedman, David Noel, and David Miano. “Is the Shorter Reading Better? Haplography in the First Book of Chronicles.” In Emanuel: Studies in the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, and the Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, edited by Shalom M. Paul et al., 685–98. VTSup 94. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Friedman, Richard Elliott. The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View into the Five Books of Moses. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003. –. Who Wrote the Bible? New York: HarperCollins, 1989. Fripp, Edgar Innes. The Composition of the Book of Genesis. London: David Nutt, 1892. Gaines, Jason M. H. The Poetic Priestly Source. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. Galbiati, Encrico. La struttura letteraria dell’Esodo. Milan: Edizioni Paoline, 1956.

Bibliography

159

Gardiner, Alan Henderson, ed. Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum, Third Series, Chester Beatty Gift. Vol. 1. London: British Museum Press, 1935. Gelzer, Heinrich. Sextus Julius Africanus und die byzantinische Chronographie. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Benedictus Gotthelf Teubner Verlag, 1880. Gevaryahu, Haim Moshe Itzhak. “Biblical Colophons.” In Congress Volume: Edinburgh, 1974, 42–59. VTSup 28. Leiden: Brill, 1975. –. “‫לחקר התופעה של העברת חומר קולופוני מסיומי הטקסטים לפתיחתם‬.” Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies, II (1977): 37–48. Gesundheit, Shimon. Three Times a Year. FAT 82. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Glanville, Stephen Ranulph Kingdon. “The Mathematical Leather Roll in the British Museum.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 13, no. 3 (1927): 232–39. Goelet, Ogden. The Egyptian Book of the Dead: The Book of Going Forth by Day: Being the Papyrus of Ani (Royal Scribe of the Divine Offerings). San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1994. –. “Observations on Copying and the Hieroglyphic Tradition in the Production of the Book of the Dead.” In Offerings to the Discerning Eye: An Egyptological Medley in Honor of Jack A. Josephson, edited by Sue H. D’Auria, 121–32. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Gottlieb, Leeor. “Repetition Due to Homoeoteleuton.” Textus 21 (2002): 21–43. –. “‫שני סוגים של חזרה שגויה בעדי נוסח המקרא‬.” Master’s thesis, Hebrew University, 2003. Greenberg, Moshe. “NḤŠTK (Ezek. 16:36): Another Hebrew Cognate of Akkadian naḫāšu.” In Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of J. J. Finkelstein, edited by Maria de Jong Ellis, 85–86. Hamden, CT: Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1977. Griffith, Francis Llewellyn. The Petrie Papyri; Hieratic Papyri from Kahun and Gurob (Principally of the Middle Kingdom). London: Bernard Quaritch, 1898. –. “The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus.” Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 13 (1891): 328–32. –. “The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus.” Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 16 (1894): 230–48. Gunkel, Hermann. Genesis. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997. –. Genesis, übersetzt und erklärt. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901. –. The Legends of Genesis. Translated by William H. Carruth. Chicago: Open Court Publishing, 1901. Halpern, Baruch. “Levitic Participation in the Reform Cult of Jeroboam I.” Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (1976): 31–42. Haran, Menahem. “Bible Scrolls in Eastern and Western Jewish Communities from Qumran to the High Middle Ages.” Hebrew Union College Annual 56 (1985): 21–62. –. “Book-Scrolls at the Beginning of the Second Temple Period: The Transition from Papyrus to Skins.” Hebrew Union College Annual 54 (1983): 111–22. –. “Book-Scrolls in Israel in Pre-Exilic Times.” Journal of Jewish Studies 33, no. 1–2 (1982): 161–73. –. ‫ תהליכי הגיבוש עד סוף ימי בית שני ושינויי הצורה עד מוצאי ימי הביניים‬:‫האסופה המקראית‬. Vol. 2. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2003. –. “‫מלאכת הסופר בתקופת המקרא‬.” Tarbiẕ 50, no. 1 (1980–1981): 65–87. –. “‫ הראיה החמישית‬:‫עוד על מגילות הספרים בתקופת המקרא‬.” Tarbiẕ 52, no. 4 (1983): 643–44. Helck, Wolfgang. “Anmerkungen zum Turiner Königspapyrus.” Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 19 (1992): 151–216.

160

Bibliography

Heltzer, Michael. “Some Questions Concerning the Economic Policy of Josiah, King of Judah.” Israel Exploration Journal 50, no. 1–2 (2000): 105–8. Hempel, Charlotte. “The Place of the Book of Jubilees at Qumran and Beyond.” In The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context, edited by Timothy H. Lim, 179–96. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000. Hillers, Delbert R. Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964. Holzinger, Heinrich. Einleitung in den Hexateuch. Freiburg: Mohr Siebeck, 1893. Hooke, Robert. The Posthumous Works of Robert Hooke. London: Samuel Smith and Benjamin Walford, 1705. Hyatt, J. Philip. Commentary on Exodus. NCB. London: Oliphants, 1971. Jastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. Vol. 2. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1903. Jefferson, Thomas. The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth: Extracted Textually from the Gospels in Greek, Latin, French, and English. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1904. Ji Yun 紀昀 et al., eds. Siku Quanshu Zongmu Tiyao 四庫全書總目提要 (Reviews of the Books Included in the Catalogue of the Complete Library of the Four Branches of Literature). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1981; first published 1789. Kahle, Paul. “The Abisha Scroll of the Samaritans.” In Studia orientalia Ioanni Pedersen septuagenario A. D. VII id. Nov. Anno MCMLIII a collegis, discipulis, amicis dicata, edited by Flemming Friis Hvidberg, 188–92. Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard, 1953. –. “Aus der Geschichte der ältesten hebräischen Bibelhandschrift.” In Abhandlungen zur semitischen Religionskunde und Sprachwissenschaft. Wolf Wilhelm Grafen von Baudissin zum 26. September 1917, 247–60. Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1918. –. “Textkritische und lexikalische Bemerkungen zum samaritanischen Pentateuchtargum.” PhD diss., University of Halle, 1898. –. “Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Pentateuchtextes.” Theologische Studien und Kritiken 88 (1915): 399–439. Kautzsch, Emil, ed. Textbibel des Alten und Neuen Testaments in Verbindung mit zahlreichen Fachgelehrten. Freiburg: Mohr, 1899. Kenyon, Frederic G. Books and Readers in Ancient Greece and Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932. Kessler, Rainer. Die Querverweise im Pentateuch: Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der expliziten Querverbindungen innerhalb des vorpriesterlichen Pentateuchs. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2015. Kilian, Rudolf. Die vorpriesterlichen Abrahamsüberlieferungen literarkritisch und tra­di­ tions­geschichtlich untersucht. Bonn: Peter Hanstein Verlag, 1966. King, Philip J., and Lawrence E. Stager. Life in Biblical Israel. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Kircher, Conrad. Concordantiæ Veteris Testamenti græcæ ebraeis vocibus respondentes. Frankfurt am Main: Claudium Marnium & Ioannem Aubrium, 1607. Kister, Menahem. “‫ ספר היובלים וברית דמשק‬,‫ עיונים בחזון החיות‬:‫לתולדות כת האיסיים‬.” Tarbiẕ 56, no. 1 (1986–87): 1–18. Knohl, Israel. The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. –. “‫צימודי קדושות והרחבת תחומי הקודש ברובד העריכה של התורה‬.” Tarbiẕ 78, no. 4 (2009): 427– 35.

Bibliography

161

Knox, Keith T., Roger L. Easton, Jr., and William Christens-Barry. “Image Restoration of Damaged or Erased Manuscripts.” Paper presented at the 16th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO), Lausanne, 2008. Kratz, Reinhard Gregor. “Die Redaktion der Prophetenbücher.” In Rezeption und Auslegung im Altem Testament und in seinem Umfeld: Ein Symposion aus Anlass des 60. Geburtstags von Odil Hannes Steck, edited by Reinhard Gregor Kratz and Thomas Krüger, 9–27. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1997. Kreuzer, Siegfried. “Papyrus 967.” In Die Septuaginta  – Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten: Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20. – 23. Juli 2006, edited by Martin Karrer, Wolfgang Kraus, and Martin Meiser, 64–82. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Kselman, John R. “The Recovery of Poetic Fragments from the Pentateuchal Priestly Source.” Journal of Biblical Literature 97, no. 2 (1978): 161–73. Kuenen, Abraham. “Beiträge zur Hexateuchkritik. VII. Manna und Wachteln (Ex. 16).” In Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur biblischen Wissenschaft, 276–94. Freiburg: Mohr, 1894. –. The Five Books of Moses. Translated by John Muir. London: Williams & Norgate, 1877. de Lagarde, Paul A. Anmerkungen zur griechischen Übersetzung der Proverbien. Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1863. Lambert, Wilfred George. “New Light on the Babylonian Flood.” Journal of Semitic Studies 5, no. 2 (1960): 113–23. Leach, Bridget, and Richard B. Parkinson. “Creating Borders: New Insights into Making the Papyrus of Ani.” British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 15 (2010): 35–62. Leach, Bridget, and John Tait. “Papyrus.” In Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, edited by Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw, 227–53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Leiman, Sid Z. “The Inverted Nuns at Numbers 10:35–36 and the Book of Eldad and Medad.” Journal of Biblical Literature 93, no. 3 (1974): 348–55. Lemaire, André. “Writing and Writing Materials.” In Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman, 6:1003–4. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Lesky, Albin. “Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Homerischen Epos.” In Festschrift für Dietrich Kralik, dargebracht von Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern, edited by Albin Lesky, Walter Steinhauser, et al., 1–9. Horn, South Austria: Verlag Ferdinand Berger, 1954. Leuchter, Mark. “The Aramaic Transition and the Redaction of the Pentateuch.” Journal of Biblical Literature 136, no. 2 (2017): 249–68. –. “Jehoiakim and the Scribes: A Note on Jer 36,23.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 127, no. 2 (2015): 320–25. Levenson, Jon D. “Genesis.” In The Jewish Study Bible, edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Levinson, Bernard M. “The Right Chorale”: Studies in Biblical Law and Interpretation. ­Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns 2011. Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott, eds. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940. Lieberman, Saul. ‫ישראל בתקופת המשנה‬-‫חיים בארץ‬-‫ מחקרים באורחות‬:‫ישראל‬-‫יוונית ויוונות בארץ‬ ‫והתלמוד‬. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1962. –. ‫ סדר מועד‬:‫ חלק ג׳‬,‫ באור ארוך לתוספתא‬:‫תוספתא כפשוטה‬. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1962.

162

Bibliography

Lied, Liv Ingeborg, ed. Snapshots of Evolving Traditions: Jewish and Christian Manuscript Culture, Textual Fluidity, and New Philology. TU 175. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2017. Lilly, Ingrid Esther. Two Books of Ezekiel: Papyrus 967 and the Masoretic Text as Variant Literary Editions. VTSup 150. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Lock (Locke), John. A New Method of Making Common-Place-Books. London: J. Greenwood, 1706. Lust, Johan. “Ezekiel 36–40 in the Oldest Greek Manuscript.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981): 517–33. MacDonald, Nathan. Priestly Rule: Polemic and Biblical Interpretation in Ezekiel 44. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015. Mackenzie, Janet. The Editor’s Companion. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Mäkipelto, Ville, Timo Tekoniemi, and Miika Tucker. “Large-Scale Transposition as an Editorial Technique in the Textual History of the Hebrew Bible.” TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism (2017): 1–16. Malina, Bruce J. The Palestinian Manna Tradition: The Manna Tradition in the Palestinian Targums and Its Relationship to the New Testament Writings. Leiden: Brill, 1968. Mastnjak, Nathan. “Jeremiah as Collection: Scrolls, Sheets, and the Problem of Textual Arrangement.” Catholic Bible Quarterly 80 (2018): 25–44. McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. I Samuel. AB 8. New York: Doubleday, 1980. McNeile, Alan Hugh. The Book of Exodus. London: Methuen & Company, 1908. Metzger, Bruce M. The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission and Limitations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977. Middleton, Francesca. “Illusions and Vanishing Acts: Homeric Recension, Athetesis, and Magic in P. Oxy 412 (PGM XXIII).” Helios 41, no. 2 (2014): 139–62. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 17–22. Anchor Bible 3A. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Millard, Alan R. “Alphabetic Inscriptions on Ivories from Nimrud.” Iraq 24 (1962): 41–51. Monger, Matthew Phillip. “4Q216 and the State of ‘Jubilees’ at Qumran.” Revue de Qumrân 26, no. 4 (2014), 595–612. de Moor, Johannes C. “Poetic Fragments in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History.” In Studies in Deuteronomy in Honour of C. J. Labuschagne on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, edited by Florentino García Martínez, Anthony Hilhorst, et al., 183–96. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Moore, George Foot. The Book of Judges in Hebrew. Sacred Books of the Old Testament (Polychrome Bible, Hebrew Edition) 7. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1900. –. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges. ICC 7. New York: Scribner, 1901. –. “Tatian’s Diatessaron and the Analysis of the Pentateuch.” Journal of Biblical Literature 9, no. 2 (1890): 201–15. Müller, Reinhard, and Juha Pakkala, eds. Insights into Editing in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East: What Does Documented Evidence Tell Us about the Transmission of Authoritative Texts? Leuven: Peeters, 2017. Müller, Reinhard, Juha Pakkala, and Bas ter Haar Romeny. Evidence of Editing: Growth and Change of Texts in the Hebrew Bible. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014. Naʾaman, Nadav. “The Exodus Story: Between Historical Memory and Historiographical Composition.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 11 (2011): 39–69. Naeh, Shlomo. “‫ הערות לדיפלומטיקה התלמודי‬:‫קריינא דאיגרתא‬.” In ‫ מחקרים בלשון‬:‫שערי לשון‬ ‫אשר‬-‫ מוגשים למשה בר‬,‫ בארמית ובלשונות היהודים‬,‫העברית‬, edited by Aaron Maman, Steven E. Fassberg, and Yochanan Breuer, 2:228–55. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2008.

Bibliography

163

Needham, Rodney. “Polythetic Classification: Convergence and Consequences.” Man 10, no. 3 (1975): 349–69. Nevo, Yehoshafat. ‫פירושי רבי יוסף בכור שור על התורה‬. Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1994. Nichols, Stephen G. “Why Material Philology? Some Thoughts.” Supplement, Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 116 (1997): 10–30. Nicholson, Paul T., and Ian Shaw, eds. Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Niditch, Susan. Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996. Nihan, Christophe. “The Emergence of the Pentateuch as ‘Torah.’” Religion Compass 4, no. 6 (2010): 353–64. –. From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch. FAT II/25. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Nir-El, Yoram, and Magen Broshi. “The Black Ink of the Qumran Scrolls.” Dead Sea Discoveries 3, no. 2 (1996): 157–67. Noth, Martin. Exodus: A Commentary. Translated by J. S. Bowden. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962. –. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Translated by Bernhard W. Anderson. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972. –. Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1948. Oldfather, Charles Henry. Diodorus of Sicily. Vol. 1. Loeb Classical Library 279. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1933. Oppenheim, A. Leo. “The Position of the Intellectual in Mesopotamian Society.” Daedalus 104, no. 2 (1975): 37–46. Otto, Eckart. “Scribal Scholarship in the Formation of Torah and Prophets: A Postexilic Scribal Debate between Priestly Scholarship and Literary Prophecy – The Example of the Book of Jeremiah and Its Relation to the Pentateuch.” In The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance, edited by Bernard M. Levinson and Gary N. Knoppers, 171–84. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Parish, John C. “Palimpsests.” The Palimpsest 1, no. 1 (1920): 2–8. Parkinson, Richard, and Stephen Quirke. Papyrus. London: British Museum Press, 1995. Peet, Thomas Eric. The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus: British Museum 10057 and 10058. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1923. Person, Raymond F., Jr., and Robert Rezetko, eds. Empirical Models Challenging Biblical Criticism. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016. Petersen, William Lawrence. Tatian’s Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Signifi­ cance, and History in Scholarship. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Polk, Noel. Children of the Dark House: Text and Context in Faulkner. Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi, 1998. Polzin, Robert. Moses and the Deuteronomist: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges. New York: Seabury Press, 1980. Porten, Bezalel, and Ada Yardeni. Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. Vol. 4. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem – Department of the History of the Jewish People, 1999. Posener-Kriéger, Paule. “Décrets envoyés au temple funéraire de Rêneferef.” In Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar, vol. 2, 195–210. Bibliothèque d’étude 97. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1985. Propp, William H. C. Exodus 1–18. Anchor Bible 2. New York: Doubleday, 1999. –. Exodus 19–40. Anchor Bible 2A. New York: Doubleday, 2006.

164

Bibliography

Pummer, Reinhard. “Samaritan Rituals and Customs.” In The Samaritans, edited by Alan David Crown, 650–90. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989. Rabin, Ira, Oliver Hahn, Timo Wolff, Admir Masic, and Gisela Weinberg. “On the Origin of the Ink of the Thanksgiving Scroll (1QHodayot).” Dead Sea Discoveries 16, no. 1 (2009): 97–106. Randolph, Thomas Jefferson, ed. Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies: From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson. Vol. 4. 2nd ed. Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830. Ransome, Joyce. “Monotessaron: The Harmonies of Little Gidding.” Seventeenth Century 20 (2005): 22–52. Rasmussen, Kaare Lund, Anna Lluveras Tenorio, Ilaria Bonaduce, Maria Perla Colombini, Leila Birolo, Eugenio Galano, Angela Amoresano, Greg Doudna, Andrew D. Bond, Vincenzo Palleschi, Giulia Lorenzetti, Stefano Legnaioli, Johannes van der Plicht, and Jan Gunneweg. “The Constituents of the Ink from a Qumran Inkwell: New Prospects for Provenancing the Ink on the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Journal of Archaeological Science 39, no. 9 (2012): 2956–68. Rawi, Farouk N.H. al-, and Andrew George. “Back to the Cedar Forest: The Beginning and End of Tablet V of the Standard Babylonian Epic of Gilgameš.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 66 (2014): 69–90. Reed, Stephen. “Physical Features of Excerpted Torah Texts.” In Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon, edited by Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias, 82–104. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Reinhartz, Adele, et al. “The JBL Forum.” Journal of Biblical Literature 133, no. 3 (2014): 647–81. Rendtorff, Rolf. The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch. Translated by John J. Scullion. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. –. “Traditio-Historical Method and the Documentary Hypothesis.” Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies, I (1969), 5–11. Robertson, Edward. Review of Séfer Abišaʿ, by F. Pérez Castro. Vetus Testamentum 12, no. 2 (1962): 228–35. Robins, Gay, and Charles Shute. The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus: An Ancient Egyptian Text. London: British Museum Press, 1987. Robinson, Edward S. Shift Linguals: Cut-Up Narratives from William S. Burroughs to the Present. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2011. Rofé, Alexander. Introduction to the Literature of the Hebrew Bible. Jerusalem Bible Studies 9. Jerusalem: Simor, 2009. –. “‫האמונה במלאכים בישראל בתקופת בית ראשון לאור מסורות מקראיות‬.” PhD diss., Hebrew University, 1969. –. ‫ חלק ראשון ופרקי המשך‬:‫מבוא לספר דברים‬. Jerusalem: Academon, 1988. –. “‫שאלת חיבורה של פרשת ‘וילך’ (דברים לא) לאור השערה בדבר חילופי עמודות בנוסח המקרא‬.” Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 3 (1978): 59–76. Rosenfeld, Samuel. ‫ספר משפחת סופרים‬. Vilnius: Romm, 1883. Rosenthal, David. “‫על דרך טיפולם של חז״ל בחילופי נוסח במקרא‬.” In Isaac Leo Seeligmann Volume: Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World, vol. 2, edited by Yair Zakovitch and Alexander Rofé, 395–417. Jerusalem: Rubinstein, 1983. Ruprecht, Eberhard. “Stellung und Bedeutung der Erzählung vom Mannawunder (Ex 16) im Aufbau der Priesterschrift.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 86, no. 3 (1974): 269–307.

Bibliography

165

Ryholt, Kim. The Political Situation in Egypt During the Second Intermediate Period, c. 1800–1550 B. C.  Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 1997. –. The Story of Petese, Son of Petetum and Seventy Other Good and Bad Stories. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 1999. –. “The Turin King-List.” Ägypten und Levante 14 (2004): 135–55. Sachau, Eduard. Aramäische Papyrus und Ostraka aus einer jüdischen Militär-Kolonie zu Elephantine. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1911. Salter, Herbert Edward, ed. Remarks and Collections of Thomas Hearne. Vol. 11. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1921. Sanders, Seth. “What if There Aren’t Any Empirical Models for Pentateuchal Criticism?” In Contextualizing Israel’s Sacred Writings: Ancient Literacy, Orality, and Literary Production, edited by Brian B. Schmidt, 281–304. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015. Sarna, Nahum M. Genesis. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989. Schmid, Konrad. “Has European Scholarship Abandoned the Documentary Hypothesis? Some Reminders on Its History and Remarks on Its Current Status.” In The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz, FAT 78, 17–30. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. –. “The Persian Imperial Authorization as a Historical Problem and as a Biblical Construct: A Plea for Distinctions in the Current Debate.” In The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance, edited by Bernard M. Levinson and Gary N. Knoppers, 23–38. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Schwartz, Baruch J. “The Priestly Account of the Theophany and Lawgiving at Sinai.” In Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, edited by Michael V. Fox, Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, Avi Hurvitz, Michael L. Klein, Baruch J. Schwartz, and Nili Shupak, 103–34. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996. –. “‫סיפורי המבול שבתורה ושאלת נקודת המוצא של ההיסטוריה‬.” In ‫ מחקרים במקרא‬:‫ש״י לשרה יפת‬ ‫בפרשנותו ובלשונו‬, edited by Moshe Bar-Asher et al., 139–54. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2007. Scora, Peter E., and Rainer W. Scora. “Some Observations on the Nature of Papyrus Bonding.” Journal of Ethnobiology 11, no. 2 (1991): 193–202. Scorgie, Glen G., Mark L. Strauss, and Steven M. Voth, eds. The Challenge of Bible Translation: Communicating God’s Word to the World. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009. Segal, Michael. The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology. JSJSup 117. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Shaviv, Samuel. “The Polytheistic Origins of the Biblical Flood Narrative.” Vetus Testamentum 55 (2004): 527–48. Shiloh, Yigal, and David Tarler. “Bullae from the City of David: A Hoard of Seal Impressions from the Israelite Period.” Biblical Archaeologist 49 (1986): 196–209. Simpson, Cuthbert Aikman. Composition of the Book of Judges. Oxford: Blackwell, 1957. Ska, Jean-Louis. The Exegesis of the Pentateuch: Exegetical Studies and Basic Questions. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. –. “From History Writing to Library Building: The End of History and the Birth of the Book.” In The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance, edited by Bernard M. Levinson and Gary N. Knoppers, 145–69. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007.

166

Bibliography

–. “‘Persian Imperial Authorization’: Some Question Marks.” In Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch, edited by James W. Watts, 161–82. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Press, 2001. Skehan, Patrick W., Eugene C. Ulrich, and Judith E. Sanderson, eds. Qumran Cave 4, IV: Paleo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts. DJD 9. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. Skinner, John. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. ICC 1. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1910. Smith, Henry Preserved. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Samuel. ICC 8. New York: Scribner, 1904. Smyth, Adam. “Little Clippings: Cutting and Pasting Bibles in the 1630s.” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 45, no. 3 (2015): 595–613. –. “‘Shreds of Holinesse’: George Herbert, Little Gidding, and Cutting Up Texts in Early Modern England.” English Literary Renaissance 42, no. 3 (2012): 452–81. Spalinger, Anthony. “The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus as a Historical Document.” Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 17 (1990): 295–337. Speiser, Ephraim Avigdor. Genesis. Anchor Bible 1. New York: Doubleday, 1964. Sperber, Jakob. “Zu Gen. 30, 27 b.” Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 16, no. 9 (1913): 389–90. Stackert, Jeffrey. A Prophet Like Moses: Prophecy, Law, and Israelite Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Steck, Odil Hannes. Old Testament Exegesis: A Guide to the Methodology. Translated by James D. Nogalski. 2nd ed. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Steckoll, Solomon H. “Investigations of the Inks Used in Writing the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Nature 220 (1968): 91–92. Steinsaltz, Adin (Even-Israel), ed. Koren Talmud Bavli, Vol. 1: Tractate Berakhot. Jerusalem: Koren, 2012. Stern, David. The Jewish Bible: A Material History. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2017. Stern, Ludwig. “Urkunde über den Bau des Sonnentempels zu On.” Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 12 (1874): 85–96, and plates I–II. Stewart, Robert E., ed. The Reliability of the New Testament: Bart D. Ehrman and Daniel B. Wallace in Dialogue. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011. R. Tanchumi Hierosolymitani (Tanḥum ben Joseph Yerushalmi). Commentarii in Prophetas Arabici Specimen. Edited by Theodor Haarbrücker. Halle: Gebaueriis, 1842. Tertel, Hans Jürgen. Text and Transmission: An Empirical Model for the Literary Development of Old Testament Narratives. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994. Tigay, Jeffrey H., ed. Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985. –, ed. Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. 2nd ed. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005. Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. “The Qumran Jubilees Manuscripts as Evidence for the Literary Growth of the Book.” Revue de Qumrân 26, no. 4 (2014): 579–94. Toorn, Karel van der. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007. Τοv, Emanuel. “Copying of a Biblical Scroll.” Journal of Religious History 26, no. 2 (2002): 189–209. –. “Excerpted and Abbreviated Biblical Texts from Qumran.” Revue de Qumrân 16, no. 4 (1995): 581–600. –. Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

Bibliography

167

–. “Some Aspects of the Textual and Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah.” In Le livre de Jérémie: Le prophète et son milieu, les oracles et leur transmission, edited by PierreMaurice Bogaert, 145–67, 430. Leuven: Peeters and University Press, 1981. –. “Some Sequence Differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint and Their Ramifications for Literary Criticism.” In Emanuel Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible, 411–18. Leiden: Brill, 1999. –. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 2001. –. “The Writing of Early Scrolls: Implications for the Literary Analysis of Hebrew Scripture.” In Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible and Qumran: Collected Essays, 206–20. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Tov, Emanuel, Robert A. Kraft, and Peter J. Parsons, eds. The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXIIgr) (The Seiyâl Collection I). DJD 8. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. Trommius, Abraham. Concordantiae graecae versionis vulgo dictae LXX interpretum. Amsterdam: Sumptibus Societatis, 1718. De Troyer, Kristin. “Building the Altar and Reading the Law: The Journeys of Joshua 8:30–35.” In Reading the Present in the Qumran Library, edited by Kristin De Troyer and Armin Lange, 141–62. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2005. Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible. VTSup 169. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Ulrich, Eugene, Frank Moore Cross, Jr., and Sidnie White Crawford, eds. Qumran Cave 4, IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings. DJD 14. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. Van Seters, John. The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. VanderKam, James C., and Józef T. Milik. “The First Jubilees Manuscript from Qumran Cave 4: A Preliminary Publication.” Journal of Biblical Literature 110, no. 2 (1991): 243–70. –. “Jubilees.” In Qumran Cave 4.V III, Parabiblical Texts, Part 1, edited by Harold Attridge et al., 1–22, and plates I–II. DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Vater, Johann Severin. Commentar über den Pentateuch, mit Einleitungen zu den einzelnen Abschnitten, der eingeschalteten Übersetzung von Dr. Alexander Geddes’s merkwürdigeren critischen und exegetischen Anmerkungen, und einer Abhandlung über Moses und die Verfasser des Pentateuchs. 3 vols. Halle: Waisenhaus, 1802–5. Volz, Paul, and Wilhelm Rudolph. Der Elohist als Erzähler ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik? Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1933. Waldman, Nahum M. “A Note on Genesis 30:27b.” Jewish Quarterly Review 55, no. 2 (1964): 164–65. Wallraff, Martin, and Laura Mecella, eds. Die Kestoi des Julius Africanus und ihre Überlieferung. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. Wallraff, Martin, Umberto Roberto, and Karl Pinggéra, eds. Iulius Africanus, Chronographiae: The Extant Fragments. Translated by William Adler. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Wallraff, Martin, Carlo Scardino, Laura Mecella, and Christophe Guignard, eds. Iulius Africanus, Cesti: The Extant Fragments. Translated by William Adler. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. Washington, Henry A., ed. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Vol. 7. Washington, DC: Taylor & Maury, 1854.

168

Bibliography

Watts, James W. “Text and Redaction in Jeremiah’s Oracles against the Nations.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 54 (1992): 432–47. Wechsler, Michael. Strangers in the Land: The Judaeo-Arabic Exegesis of Tanḥum ha-Yerushalmi on the Books of Ruth and Esther. Jerusalem: Magnes, 2010. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972. –. “‫ברכת המזון בקומראן‬.” Tarbiẕ 61, no. 1 (1991): 15–24. Weiss, Raphael. “A Peculiar Textual Phenomenon.” Textus 18 (1995): 27–32. –. “‫שלוש הערות לנוסח המקרא‬.” In ‫ אסופת מחקרים במקרא לזכר ד״ר ישראל ברוידא ובנו‬:‫הצבי ישראל‬ ‫צבי ברוידא‬, edited by Jacob Licht and Gershon Brin, 93–96. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1976. Wellhausen, Julius. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments. 3rd ed. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1899. –. Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel. Translated by J. S. Black and A. Menzies. Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black, 1885. Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1–11: A Continental Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1984. –. Genesis 12–36: A Continental Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1985. Whisenant, Jessica N. “Writing, Literacy, and Textual Transmission: The Production of Literary Documents in Iron Age Judah and the Composition of the Hebrew Bible.” PhD diss., University of Michigan, 2008. White, Sidnie Ann. “4QDtn: Biblical Manuscript or Excerpted Text?” In Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins, Presented to John Strugnell on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, edited by Harold W. Attridge, John J. Collins, and Thomas H. Tobin, 13–20. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990. Whybray, Roger Norman. The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987. Wilson, Douglas L., ed. Jefferson’s Literary Commonplace Book. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989. Wöhrle, Jakob. “There’s No Master Key! The Literary Character of the Priestly Stratum and the Formation of the Pentateuch.” In The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America, edited by Jan C. Gertz, Bernard M. Levinson, Dalit Rom-Shiloni, and Konrad Schmid, FAT 111, 391–403. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Wright, Benjamin G., III. The Letter of Aristeas: ‘Aristeas to Philocrates’ or ‘On the Translation of the Law of the Jews’. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015. Würthwein, Ernst, and Alexander Achilles Fischer. The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica. Translated by Errol F. Rhodes. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014. Zapff, Burkard M. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Michabuch im Kontext des Dodekapropheton. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. Zhakevich, Philip. “The Tools of an Israelite Scribe: A Semantic Study of the Terms Signifying the Tools and Materials of Writing in Biblical Hebrew.” PhD diss., University of Texas at Austin, 2015. Zumthor, Paul. Essai de poétique médiévale. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1972.

Index of Primary Sources Hebrew Bible Genesis 2 148 3 148 6:7 143n20 6:14 27n9 6:16 27n9 6:18 26n6 6:19 26n6 6:20 26n8 7 29fig. 7:1–5 25 7:4 143n20 7:6–16 24–28 7:7–9 26 7:11–16 30 25, 27 7:12 7:13 26n6 7:13–16 26–27 7:16 25 7:23 143n20 30–34, 34fig. 8 8:3–4 33 8:5 33 31n16, 33 8:7 8:8–9 31n16 8:10–14 30–34 8:11 33 8:12 33 27n9, 31–32, 32n19, 33 8:13 8:14 31–33 8:16 26n6 8:18 26n6 8:18–19 26n8 9:8 26n6 10:12 12 10:14 12 17:26–27 26

18 148 18:3 35n25 79, 81, 148 19 19:12–17 81 19:13 81 19:14–30 79–83 19:15 82 81n16, 82, 147n49 19:16 19:17 81n17 82, 82n17, 83n19 19:18 19:19–22 81n17 19:21 82n17 19:24 81 19:24–28 81 19:26 82 19:29 81 82, 82n17 19:30–38 28:4 26n6 29:19 36 17, 35–38, 38fig. 30 35–38, 38fig. 30:25–28 30:26 36 30:27 35nn25–26 31 17 33:10 35n25 35:16–18 17 35:22–26 78n8 35:22–29 16–17 35:26 16 46:6 26n6 46:7 26n6 35n25, 37n31 47:29 47:31 37n31 39–46, 45fig. 48 48:1 41 48:2 45 41, 45–46 48:3–7

170

Index of Primary Sources

48:7 41n33 41, 43 48:8 48:10 43 41, 44 48:10–12 48:13–14 41–43 41, 42n40, 43–46 48:15 48:15–17 42 41, 42n40, 44 48:16 48:17–20 43–44 41–42, 42n40, 45–46 48:20 48:21–22 42 48:23–33 41 50:4 35n25 Exodus 2:3–6 27n9 6:2–3 147 12:51 26 14:13 57n81 46–58, 58fig. 16 16:1–3 50–51 51, 56 16:4–5 16:6 56–57 55–57, 57–58n83 16:6–7 50, 50n55, 51, 56 16:6–8 16:6–9 53 16:6–12 51 16:7 57 16:7–8 53 50n54, 54n69, 55, 57, 16:8 57–58n83 16:9 56 16:9–10 50n55 50, 50n55, 51, 53, 56 16:9–12 16:10 57 16:11 53 50, 50n55, 51, 55 16:11–12 51n56, 57 16:12 16:13 50 16:13–15 55 16:23 51 20:24 9 28:1 26n6 28:41 26n6 29:21 26n6 32 147 59–63, 63fig. 33 33:11 147

33:12 61–62 33:12–16 61 35n25, 36, 60, 62 33:13 33:14–17 61–62 33:17 60 33:18 60 33:19 60 33:20 60 59–63, 63fig. 34 35n25, 61–62 34:9 Leviticus 8:2 26n6 8:30 26n6 9:22 9n4 10:6 9n4 10:9 26n6 10:14 26n6 10:15 26n6 Numbers 6:23 9n3 9:1 9n5 10:33–37 13 10:34–36 12–13 10:35 12 11 52n60 11:15 35n25 13:8 147 50n53, 52 14 14:22 57n81 16 52 16:10 26n6 18:1 26n6 18:2 26n6 18:7 26n6 18:11 26n6 18:19 26n6 50n53, 52 20 27:21 26n6 32:5 35n25 32:12 147 Deuteronomy 2:31 77fig. 85, 87n10 5:1–6:1 6:9 75 85, 87n10 8:5–10

Index of Primary Sources

11:20 75 11:21 75 13:1–2 13 15:12–14 36n28 16:22–17:7 13 18:10–12 66n92 24:1 37 31 13–16 31:7–8 13–14 31:9–13 13–14 31:14–15 13–14 31:23 13–14 31:24–27 13–14 Joshua 2:10 32n20 5 18fig. 5:2 17 8:30–35 17 8:35 18fig. 9:2 17 9:3 17 21:34 74n3 21:35 74n3 Judges 6:17 35n25 13–21 70 68–73, 72fig., 17:1–4 73fig., 78 1 Samuel 4–6 19n28 20:29 35n25 5–6, 13n12 24 24:5–6 13n12 24:8 13n12 24:12 13n12 27:1–28:2 66 27:5 35n25 28–30 124 66–67, 67n95 28:3 28:3–25 64–68, 68fig. 28:4 66–67 28:6 66n91 28:9 67n95 28:18 66–67 29:1 66

64–68, 68fig. 29:1–5 29:11 66 30 66 30:8 66n91 64–68, 68fig. 30:26–31 65, 67 30:31 31 66n92 31:1–13 66 2 Samuel 1:1 66 6 19n28 15:25 36 24:13 70n101 1 Kings 8:16 76 2 Kings 7:13 76 Isaiah 17:12–13 75n3 19:5 32n20 42:15 32n20 44:22 143n20 44:27 32n20 52:10 57n81 Jeremiah 36:23 142 47:4 12 51:36 32n20 Ezekiel 36 18 37 17–18 39 18 40–48 18 Amos 9:7 12 Jonah 1:2 12 3:2 12 4:11 12

171

172

Index of Primary Sources

Esther 5:8 35n25 7:3 35n25 8:5 35n25

Nahum 1:4 32n20 Zechariah 4:6–10 13 11:17 13 13:7 13

Ezra 7:5 109n55 1 Chronicles 6:4–5 109n55 6:50 109n55 21:12 70n101

Psalms 37:3 8 91:16 57n81 98:3 57n81 106:9 32n20

2 Chronicles 6:5–6 76 20:17 57n81

Job 14:11 32n20

Jewish Apocrypha 2:33 90 3:14 90 23:9–32 90

Jubilees 87–88, 89fig., 90 1–2 1:4 90 1:8 90 1:26 90 1:29 90 2:24 90

Judith 1:1 12

New Testament Matthew 1 113n71 124, 125fig. 4:19 24:38 130fig. 124, 126fig., 127fig. 26 26:57 124n19 Mark 14 14:53 14:55

124, 126fig., 127fig., 128fig. 124, 124n19, 128fig. 124, 128fig.

Luke 3 113n71 5:36–39 121n17 5:38 128fig. 5:39 128fig. 6:12 129fig. 121, 124, 125fig. 14:4 121, 124, 125fig. 14:5 124, 126fig., 127fig. 22 John 124, 126fig., 127fig. 18 18:23 124

173

Index of Primary Sources

Rabbinic Literature Mishnah

Minor Tractates

Avot 2:16 153

Sefer Torah 2:12

Jerusalem Talmud (= y.)

Soferim 6:4 2n7

Berakhot 9:5 9n4 68a 9n4 Nazir 7:2 9n4 35b 9n4 Rosh Hashanah 2:8 9n4 14a 9n4 Ta’anit 4:1 9n4 18a 9n4 Babylonian Talmud (= b.) Bava Metzi’a 20b

91, 93

Berakhot 16a 75

101–2, 101–2n38

Midrash Collections Genesis Rabbah 11:4 9n4 32, 32n17 33:7 Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishma’el 9n5 Shira 7 9n4 Vayyisa’ 4 Leviticus Rabbah 22 9n4 Sifra Shemini Mekilta de-Milu’im 2:29 9n4 2:41 9n4 Numbers Rabbah 11:4 9n3

Gittin 60a 21

Sifre Numbers 39:1 9n3 64:1 9n5 84:1 12

Pesahim 6b 9n5

Midrash Proverbs 26:24 12

Sanhedrin 49b 9n5

Pesiqta de Rab Kahana 10:2 8–9

Shabbat 55b 13n11 115b–116a 12n10

Yalqut Shimoni 260:6 9n4 305:2 9n3 524:2 9n4 526:3 9n4 710:5 9n3

Sotah 38a 9

Index of Manuscripts Berlin

Princeton

Staatliche Museen zu Berlin 93fig. P 1329 P 3029 144n35 145n36 P 13443

Princeton University Library Princeton Pharaonic Roll 7 ​144n35

Cambridge Cambridge University Library MS Or. 233 (Nash Papyrus) ​85n6, 144 Taylor-Schechter (T-S) A29.112 ​77fig. London British Library Oxyrhynchus Papyrus (P. Oxy.) III 412 (PGM XXIII) ​112 British Museum BM 10057 (Rhind Mathematical Papyrus) ​ 105, 105nn46–49, 106fig., 106, 108fig. BM 10058 (Rhind Mathematical Papyrus) ​ 105, 105nn46–49, 106, 107figs. BM 10250 ​144n35 BM EA10470 (Papyrus of Ani) ​94–95, 96figs., 97figs., 98figs., 99figs., 100–101 Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology (University College London) UC32057 (“Kahun” Gynaecological Papyrus) ​109, 109nn53–54 Nablus Abisha Scroll (Sefer Abisha) ​109, 109nn55–56, 110, 111fig., 145 Oxford Bodleian Library Arsames letters (Arshama letters) 145n36 Oxyrhynchus Papyrus (P. Oxy.) I 34 ​93–94

Princeton, Dublin, Cologne, and Madrid Princeton University Library, Chester Beatty Library, Cologne University Library, and Fundación Pastor de Estudios Clàsicos Papyrus 967 ​3, 17, 17n26, 18–19 Würzburg Universitätsbibliothek Würzburg Mp.th.fol.64a (Codex Wirceburgensis; W; LaW; VL 177) ​18n26 Dead Sea Scrolls 1QIsaiaha (Great Isaiah Scroll) ​10, 10fig., 11fig. 4QApocr. Psalm and Prayer (4Q448) ​3, 19n28, 20fig. 4QDeutj (4Q37) ​85 4QDeutkl (4Q38–39) ​85 4QDeutn (4Q41; All Souls Deuteronomy scroll) ​85, 85n4, 86fig., 87, 87n10, 90 4QDeutq (4Q44) ​85 4QDibHama (4Q504; Words of the Luminaries) ​10, 11fig. 4QJoshuaa (4Q47) ​3, 17, 18fig. 4QJubileesa (4Q216) ​87–88, 89fig., 90, 139 4QpaleoDeuteronomyr (4Q45) ​103n44 4QpaleoExodusm (4Q22; 4QExodusα) ​ 102–3, 103fig. 5/6ḤevPs (5/6Ḥev 1b 888) ​104n44 8ḤevXXIIgr (8Ḥev1) ​145n36 11QPsalmsa (11Q5) ​20fig. Jer 1 (Jericho papList of Loans ar; Mus. Inv. K10215; IAA 700184–5) ​144

General Index Aaron ​46–55, 55n74, 56–58, 109, 109n55, 147 Achaemenid empire ​1n1, 140, 144. See also Persian period Adams, Dickinson W. ​124n19 Africanus, Julius ​110, 113n71, 132, 140 – Kestoi ​9n6, 110, 112–13 Agnon, S. Y.: Shira ​138fig. Akkadian ​8n1, 27n9, 36n26 Albertz, Rainer ​49 Alter, Robert ​146 anachronisms ​1n2, 4–5, 17, 30, 147 antisigmas. See inverted nunim archaeological evidence ​3, 3n9, 4, 109n53, 144 Assyriology ​3n9, 27n9, 145n36 authorship ​1n2, 51–54, 134, 141n15, 146, 148–51 Ball, Charles ​36 Bekor Shor ​50, 50n55, 51 biblical harmonies ​116–18, 119fig., 120fig., 121, 124, 128, 132 bindings ​3, 90 Blair, Ann ​116, 134 Book of the Dead ​94–101 borders of manuscripts ​95n32, 149. See also margins British Museum ​94, 96figs., 97figs., 98figs., 99figs., 105–6, 106n50, 144n35 Bronze Age ​144n35 Budde, Karl ​27, 66, 66n92, 67, 69, 70, 70nn100–101, 71 Budge, Sir E. A. Wallis ​95–95 bullae ​144, 144n34 Burney, Charles Fox ​69, 71 Burns, Cliff: G-Man ​135fig. Burroughs, William S. ​134

Cairo Genizah ​76, 77fig. Carr, David ​146, 148–49 Černý, Jaroslav ​104 Cerquiglini, Bernard ​2, 2n7 Charles I ​117 Childs, Brevard S. ​51–52, 52n60, 53, 55–56 chronological sequence ​5, 16, 33, 50–53, 57, 60, 66–67, 70n101, 72, 78, 121. See also narrative progression Cicero, Marcus Tullius: On Glory ​113 colophons ​3, 6, 19, 78n8, 109, 149 columns of text ​10fig., 11fig., 78, 87, 102n39, 103fig., 111fig., 112, 145n36 – additions to ​152, 152n67 – dislocated ​13, 15, 15nn15,17 – height of ​15n17, 95 – as patches ​87n9 – polyglot ​121, 121n17, 124 – width of ​85, 88 commonplace books ​131–32, 132fig., 133fig., 134 Complementary Hypothesis ​150 conciliation theory of Pentateuchal redaction ​145–46, 146n44, 147 conflation ​1n2, 5, 14, 16, 26, 49, 52, 87, 139, 149–51 confusion: authorial ​53 – of characters ​70n100 – of similar words ​29, 34, 37 – of units ​14, 21–22, 30, 33, 44–45, 52, 56, 62, 67, 72, 78. See also parablepsis conservative redaction ​145–47 contradictions ​16, 26, 35n24, 57, 70n101, 82, 101, 121, 146–47 Coppens, Joseph ​53–55, 55nn70–73 copying, scribal ​13, 26n6, 27–29, 38, 42n40, 51, 56, 62, 67, 70n101, 72, 75n5, 79, 88, 91, 95n32, 100, 134, 140, 142n15

176

General Index

corrections ​10, 16, 55, 57, 82–83, 83n19, 93, 106n50, 121n17, 128fig., 141–42, 152, 152n67 Cran, Rona ​134 creation narratives ​87–88, 110, 148 criteria for cut-and-paste error ​78–79 Cross, Frank Moore, Jr. ​85, 85n4 cryptogram, colophonic (tasqil), 109, 109n55 cuneiform tablets ​3n9 cutting of source texts ​8, 28–29, 34, 44, 44n47, 56, 67, 79n12, 100, 103–4, 112– 13, 116–18, 120–21, 130figs., 131, 134– 35, 140, 142, 151, 153. See also splicing cut-ups ​114, 131, 134, 135fig. Dead Sea Scrolls ​3, 6, 20fig., 85, 85n4, 86fig., 87, 87n9, 88, 89fig., 90, 102– 3, 103fig., 103n44, 144, 145n36, 152. See also under Index of Manuscripts Decalogue ​85n6 deletion ​4, 55, 114, 124, 124n19, 126fig., 127fig. See also erasure of text Deuteronomistic source ​146 Dillmann, August ​42n40, 61–62 Diodorus of Sicily ​144n36 dismembered scripture (‫ )מקרא מסורס‬8, 8n1, 9 dittography ​27, 75n5, 76, 76n6 divination ​35–36, 36n27, 37, 64–65, 66n91, 67n95 Documentary Hypothesis ​4–5, 44, 51, 53–54, 139, 148–50, 150n61, 151–52 documentary redaction ​4, 44, 139–40, 146n42, 148–52 doublets ​13–16 Driver, Samuel R. ​27, 50, 66–67, 67n96 Duke, Robert ​143 Durham, John I. ​52n60, 53–54 eclectic editions ​121 Egypt ​110, 144n35 – scribal practice in ​6, 91, 91n21, 92fig., 93fig., 94–95, 96–99figs., 100– 101, 101n37, 104fig., 104–6, 106fig., 107–8figs., 109, 109nn53–54, 142–43, 143n22, 144, 145n36 Eliot, T.  S. ​116

Elohist source ​55n74, 146, 148, 151 “empirical” models for biblical interpretation ​1–2, 2n3 epigraphic material ​3, 6, 84, 143 erasure of text ​95, 143, 152n67. See also deletion excerpted texts ​85, 85n8, 87, 87n9 Faulkner, William ​114 Ferrar, Nicholas ​117–18 Finkel, Irving ​27n9 First Temple period ​143–44, 144n35. See also pre-Exilic period Flanagan, John ​18 Flood Narrative (biblical) ​24–34, 87 Flood Narrative (Mesopotamian), 27n9 folios, blank ​84, 106fig., 106, 117, 121, 152 form-critical analysis ​52 Former Prophets: composition history of ​ 1, 7, 139 Fortschreibung ​44, 49, 90, 149, 149n56 Fragmentary Hypothesis ​139, 150 Frankel, David ​56 Friedman, Richard Elliott ​146, 151 Galbiati, Encrico ​53, 55–56 Garthwait, Henry: Monotessaron ​117 Gemara ​75 Genizah (Cairo) ​76, 77fig. Gesner, Conrad ​115fig., 116 Gevaryahu, Haim ​6, 19 glosses ​10, 13n12, 43, 49, 50n55, 54, 57n83, 71, 73fig., 80n13, 82–83, 110 – migrating ​12, 43n44 glue ​91n24, 102fig., 102n39, 106, 113, 132, 145n36. See also paste Goelet, Ogden ​95 Gospels ​117–18, 119fig., 120fig., 120– 21, 122fig., 123fig., 124, 125fig., 126fig., 127fig., 128, 129fig., 130figs., 131, 147 graphical similarity ​56, 67, 78, 141 Greek language ​12, 17, 32, 69n97, 91, 93, 112, 120–21, 124, 140, 142, 144n36. See also Septuagint Griffith, Francis Llewellyn ​106 Gunkel, Hermann ​41n39, 146–48, 148n51 Gysin, Brion ​114, 134

General Index

halakha ​75, 90 handwriting ​29–30, 79, 85, 88, 105n49, 111fig., 123fig. haplography ​27, 75n5, 76, 77fig. See also parablepsis Haran, Menahem ​142–44 harmonization ​26, 32, 82, 113n71, 146, 153. See also biblical harmonies Hearne, Thomas ​117–18 Hellenistic period ​112, 145n36 Hempel, Charlotte ​88 hieratic script ​105 hieroglyphs ​95, 96figs., 97figs., 98figs., 99figs., 100–101 historical-critical method ​149–52 Hitchcock, Alfred ​8 Holiness Code ​150 homoeoarcton ​22, 24, 62, 67, 74, 74n2, 75n3, 79, 101n37, 124. See also parablepsis homoeomeson ​74n2, 79. See also parablepsis homoeoteleuton ​22, 24, 34, 34n22, 74, 74n2, 75n3, 76n6, 79. See also parablepsis Hooke, Robert ​131–32 Hyksos (Second Intermediate) period ​ 105 hysteron proteron ​70n101. See also chronological sequence Ibn Ezra ​50–51, 51n56, 57, 63 illustrated manuscripts ​94–101 initial letter ​111fig. ink ​29, 38, 79, 117, 143, 143n22 insertions ​4, 16, 24, 150, 152 – marginal and interlinear ​10, 10fig., 11figs., 12–13, 22, 43, 45, 57n83, 66n92, 72, 77fig., 78–79, 82–83, 121, 122fig., 123fig., 124, 125fig. intentional redaction ​5–6, 16–20, 27, 49, 51–52, 56, 60, 67, 70n101, 78, 78n8 interpolation ​6, 22, 67 inverted nunim ​12–13 Iron Age ​143

177

J. See Yahwist source Jefferson, Thomas: Jefferson Bible ​118, 120–21, 122fig., 123fig., 124, 125fig., 126fig., 127fig., 128, 129fig., 130figs., 131–32, 141, 147 – “Literary Commonplace Book,” 131, 132fig. – “Table of Texts,” 124, 124n18, 128figs. Jesus ​113n71, 117–18, 120–21, 124 joins ​91, 99fig., 105n48 Joshua ​17, 52, 147 – appointment of ​13–14 Joyce, James ​1 Jubilees ​6–7, 87–90 Juyi, Bai: Bai shi liu tie ​116 Kahle, Paul ​2n7 kavod (glory) of YHWH ​46, 48, 50–51, 51n56, 54, 56–57, 57n81, 60–61, 109n55 Kenyon, Frederic ​142 Kestoi ​9n6, 110, 112–13 Kilian, Rudolf ​81 Kimchi, David ​32n17 Kister, Menahem ​88, 90 knives: of scribes ​38, 104fig., 104, 114, 117–18, 142 Kuenen, Abraham ​50 Latin language ​18n26, 113, 115fig., 120–21, 124, 143 Law, transferral of ​13–14, 59–63 leather ​6, 38, 84, 94, 101–3, 110, 140, 142–44, 144nn35–36, 145, 145n36, 151–52, 152n67. See also parchment lectio difficilior ​42n40 leishu compendia ​116, 134 Lesky, Albin ​4–5 Letter of Aristeas ​145n36 Levenson, Jon D. ​36 Lieberman, Saul ​93 Lied, Liv Ingeborg ​3 Lilly, Ingrid ​18 linen ​144n35 lines, blank ​85 Little Gidding concordances ​116–18, 119fig., 120fig., 128, 131–32, 153n68 Locke, John ​131

178

General Index

lost texts ​9, 44–45, 87. See also haplography LXX. See Septuagint Maimonides: Guide for the Perplexed ​60 Malina, Bruce ​53–55, 54nn67–69 margins: dimensions of ​6, 95, 152 – insertions in ​10, 10fig., 11fig., 12–13, 22, 45, 57n83, 62, 66n92, 72, 76, 77fig., 78–79, 83, 121, 122fig., 123fig., 124, 125fig. – notes in ​3, 10, 12, 13n12, 43, 93–94, 110 – redrawn ​95, 96–99figs. See also under insertions Masoretic Text (MT) ​12–14, 17–18, 19n28, 41–42, 42n40, 69n97, 70n100, 76, 80n14, 85n6 material constraints ​6, 22, 83, 134, 147, 152 Material Philology ​2, 2n4, 3. See also physical attributes of manuscripts material vs. conventional scribal redaction ​ 4–7, 21, 34, 38, 44–45, 56, 62–63, 72, 78–84, 87, 87n9, 90, 113, 139–41, 141– 42n15, 147, 149, 151–53 McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. ​13n12, 65–67, 66n92 Mesopotamia ​17, 27n9, 35 Middleton, Francesca ​112 migration: of colophons ​19, 20fig. – of glosses ​12, 43n44 – of texts ​21–22, 22fig., 23fig., 24–27, 27n12, 28–29, 29fig., 30–34, 34fig., 35– 38, 38fig., 40, 44, 66n92, 68, 71, 78–79 Mildenhall, Dallas ​139 Milik, Józef ​87–88 mnemonic models ​75, 148, 148n51, 149 Moore, George Foot ​70n101, 71–72 Moses ​13–14, 27n9, 46–58, 50n55, 51n56, 55n74, 59–63 motives for redaction ​5–6, 44, 51, 70n101 – aesthetic ​16, 19, 27 – literary ​19, 19n28, 27, 52, 66– 67, 70n101, 82, 124, 147 – political ​1, 147 – theological ​1, 16, 66n92, 124, 147 Mueller, E. Aydeet ​69–70n100

Nachmanides ​51n56 narrative progression ​5, 16–17, 25, 27–30, 33, 36–37, 42–44, 49–50, 53, 60, 63 needles ​90, 103 Neo-Documentarians ​149–50 New Philology ​2–3. See also physical attributes of manuscripts New Testament ​113n71. See also Gospels Niditch, Susan ​4–5, 151 non-Masoretic midrashim ​13 non-Priestly source ​16–17, 24–34, 42, 44, 49–50, 80–83, 81–82n17, 146 non sequiturs ​35, 62 number switching. See pronouns Odyssey (Homeric) ​5n14, 112–13, 132, 140 Old Greek versions ​17 On Glory ​113 oral redaction ​2n7, 139, 147–49 out-of-sequence passages ​9, 18, 27, 50–53, 70n101, 78, 85, 112 Paleo-Hebrew script ​102, 103fig., 103 palimpsests ​140n6, 145n36 papyrus ​4, 6, 18, 38, 79, 84, 84n1, 91, 91nn21,24, 92fig., 93fig., 94–95, 96– 99figs., 100–102, 104–6, 106fig., 107– 8figs., 109, 109n54, 112, 140, 142–43, 143n22, 144–45, 151–52, 152n67 parablepsis ​22, 24, 28–29, 29fig., 30, 33– 34, 34fig., 34n22, 37–38, 38fig., 56, 62, 67, 68fig., 74, 74nn2–3, 75, 75nn3,5, 76, 77fig., 78–79, 101n37, 124, 126fig., 127fig., 131, 141, 141n12 parallelism ​57 parallel traditions ​19, 28, 31, 34, 41, 84, 87, 131 parchment ​4, 87. See also leather parenthetical notes ​43 paste ​4, 38, 91, 91n24, 114, 132. See also glue pasting segments of text ​21, 28, 79, 84, 84n1, 91, 92fig., 94–95, 100–101, 102fig., 102, 104, 106, 113, 117, 121, 140 patched scrolls ​7, 101–2, 102fig., 103fig., 103, 103–4n44, 104–6, 106fig., 107– 8figs., 109–10, 140, 145

General Index

patches of text ​28–30, 34, 38, 44, 56, 72, 87n9, 100–101, 111fig., 117–18, 121, 122fig., 123fig., 125fig., 137fig., 138fig., 145 – misplaced ​124, 126fig., 127fig. – for repairs (see patched scrolls). See also snippets of text patchwork composition ​121, 131–36, 136fig. Pentateuch ​57n81, 109 – composition history of ​1, 1nn1–2, 5, 5n15, 7, 26, 29–30, 38, 54, 139, 145–50, 150n61, 151 – scrolls ​2n7 Persia ​144n36 Persian period ​140, 144–46 – imperial authorization in ​1n1, 146n44 Petrie, Flinders ​109n53 physical attributes of manuscripts ​2–3, 6, 29–30, 79, 142 Pliny: Natural History ​91n24 polyglot Bible ​118, 120–21, 122fig., 123fig., 124, 125fig., 126fig., 127fig., 128, 129fig., 130figs., 131 post-Exilic period ​146–47. See also Second Temple period pre-Exilic period ​143–44. See also First Temple period Priestly source (P) ​4, 5n15, 16–17, 24–34, 39–46, 49, 49n52, 50, 50nn53–54, 51– 52, 52n60, 53– 55, 55n74, 56–58, 78n8, 80–83, 146–47, 151 – narrative pattern in ​52–53 – preference for Moses in ​55 printed Bibles ​117, 120–21, 130fig. privilege, editorial ​42n40, 52 pronouns: singular vs. plural in biblical text ​41, 41n39, 42, 42n40, 55, 79, 80, 80nn13–14, 81, 81nn16–17, 82, 82n17, 83, 83n19 proposed reconstructions of jumbled texts: by Dershowitz ​28, 29fig., 33, 34fig., 37, 38fig., 42– 43, 45fig., 45–46, 58fig., 62, 63fig., 68fig., 72fig., 73fig. – by other scholars ​15fig., 36, 54, 55, 61, 70–71 Propp, William H. C. ​53, 57

179

Proust, Marcel: “Sodom et Gomorrhe” 136fig. Quintilian ​16 Qumran. See Dead Sea Scrolls Rashi ​32n17, 57, 81n16 Reed, Stephen ​87n9 repaired scrolls. See patched scrolls repetition ​26, 32, 44, 51, 56, 67n95, 69, 75nn3,5, 76, 90, 100–101, 121, 124, 124n19 Robertson, Edward ​110 Rofé, Alexander ​7, 13–15, 15fig., 16, 61– 63 ruled lines ​87, 117 Sabbath ​47–49, 51, 85n6, 124 Samaritan Pentateuch ​109, 109n55, 110 scissors ​114, 117–18, 131 scribal error ​21, 27–28, 34, 34n22, 38, 42n40, 45, 52, 56, 58n83, 63, 67, 72, 74– 76, 78, 87n9. See also parablepsis seals ​94, 144 secondary additions ​3, 10, 13, 39, 45, 50n55, 67, 71, 82, 87n9, 88, 90, 98fig., 105n49, 113. See also insertions Second Temple period ​2n7, 90, 143, 146. See also post-Exilic period Segal, Michael ​88, 90 Septuagint (LXX) ​12–13, 17–18, 19n28, 32, 41n39, 42n40, 69n97, 80n14, 134– 35, 145n36 sewing ​84, 87–88, 101–3, 104n44, 112– 13, 145. See also stitching Sforno, Obadja ​32n17, 36n27 Shakespeare, William ​134 – A Midsummer Night’s Dream ​137fig. sheets ​6, 84–85, 87, 87n9, 88, 90–91, 100– 101, 104, 110, 140, 145n36 – blank ​106fig., 106, 117, 121, 152 – damaged ​88 – loose ​7, 13–15, 15n15, 78, 84 – papyrus ​84, 92fig., 95, 105, 105nn48–49 – stitched ​89fig., 145 – with supplements ​19n33, 20figs. Small, Jocelyn Penny ​74 Smith, Henry ​5–6

180

General Index

Smyth, Adam ​153 snippets of text ​6, 33, 44, 44n47, 56, 62, 66n92, 67, 71–72, 78, 84, 101, 116–18, 121, 134, 139– 41 – dimensions of ​79 – unused ​130fig. See also patches of text Song of the Ark ​12–13 source analysis ​4, 53–54, 67, 79, 81, 83–84, 150–51. See also Documentary Hypothesis spaces, blank ​16, 19, 20fig., 94–95, 152 Speiser, Ephraim Avigdor ​32 splicing ​29, 34, 84, 87, 101, 118, 124. See also cutting of source texts Steck, Odil Hannes ​148 Steinschneider, Moritz ​60–61n85 Stern, David ​139 stitching ​88, 89fig., 104n44, 112–13, 140, 145n36. See also sewing structural analysis ​16, 50, 50n54, 52–53, 55 Strugnell, John ​87n9 style ​26, 78, 88, 95 supplementation ​1n2, 5, 10, 13–14, 16, 19n33, 20figs., 24, 26, 41, 44, 79, 82, 82n18, 83fig., 87n10, 90, 137fig., 139–40, 149–52. See also insertions Tabernacle ​49, 109n55, 147 Talmud ​8–9, 75, 91, 93, 113n70. See also under Index of Primary Sources Tanḥum ben Joseph ha-Yerushalmi ​70, 70n101, 71 Targum ​42n40 Tatian: Diatessaron ​117 thread ​85, 90 tomoi synkollēsimoi (composite scrolls) ​ 84n1, 91, 92fig., 93fig., 93–94 tools for editing ​4, 74. See also specific tools Tov, Emanuel ​6, 87, 141n13, 151–52, 152n67

translations, English biblical: King James Version (KJV ) ​36n27 – New Jewish Publication Society (NJPS) ​ 32 – New Revised Standard Version (NRSV ) ​ 25n3, 32, 80n13 transposition of texts ​6–7, 8n1, 9, 17, 19, 21, 21fig., 22, 23fig., 27n12, 38–45, 45fig., 46–58, 58fig., 59–67, 68fig., 71, 78–79, 101n37, 132 Tzara, Tristan ​131 Urtext recovery ​2, 2n7, 3, 18 VanderKam, James ​87–88 Van der Toorn, Karel ​146 Van Seters, John ​1n2 Vetus Latina ​18n26 vocalization of Hebrew (pointing) ​67, 70n100, 80n14 Volz, Paul ​151 Vorlage ​18, 37, 69n97 Watts, James ​141 Weiss, Raphael ​76 Wellhausen, Julius ​57–58n83 Westermann, Claus ​32, 35n24, 44 Wittgenstein, Ludwig ​79n11 word-skipping ​37, 37n32, 56n79, 75n3. See also parablepsis workshops, scribal ​4, 84, 100, 104, 139 writing media ​3, 3n9, 22, 29, 76, 84, 104, 140, 142–44, 144n35, 144–45n36, 145, 152. See also leather; papyrus Yahwist source (J) ​4, 24–25, 25n5, 26, 26nn6,8, 27n9, 27–34, 35n24, 148, 151 Yi, Yang: Tanyuan ​116 Yun, Ji ​116, 132, 134 Zumthor, Paul ​2n7