sign in sign up
<<
Home , Biblia Hebraica Quinta, Commentary (philology), Damascus Pentateuch, Historical criticism

Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe

Edited by Konrad Schmid (Zürich) · Mark S. Smith (Princeton) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen) · Andrew Teeter (Harvard) 118

Philology and

Proceedings of the Second International Colloquium of the Dominique Barthélemy Institute held at Fribourg on 10–11 October, 2013

Edited by Innocent Himbaza and Jan Joosten

Mohr Siebeck Innocent Himbaza is Titular Professor of Hebrew / and Hebrew, Univer- sity of Fribourg, . orcid.org/0000-0003-1284-1571 Jan Joosten is Regius Professor of Hebrew, University of Oxford; Student of Christ Church. orcid.org/0000-0002-8553-3994

ISBN 978-3-16-159323-9 / eISBN 978-3-16-159592-9 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-159592-9 ISSN 1611-4914 / eISSN 2568-8367 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2020 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, . www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright ) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproduc- tions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was typeset by Martin Fischer in Tübingen using Minion typeface, printed on non- aging paper by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen, and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany. Table of Contents

Abbreviations ...... VII

Introduction ...... 1

Richard D. Weis The Intersection of and Textual Criticism in Quinta. Background, Theory, and Practice ...... 5

Abraham Tal Some Reflections on the Textual Traditions of the . . . 19

Jan Joosten Post- as a Controlling Factor in the Arbitration between Variant Readings ...... 31

Viktor Golinets Considerations on Questions Philology Cannot Solve While Reconstructing the Text of the ...... 45

Andrés Piquer Otero Between the Archaic and the Literary. The ‘Narrative’ Infinitive Clause in the Text(s) of the Bible ...... 71

Adrian Schenker L’incidence de la critique textuelle sur le lexique hébreu biblique. 83 R 20,42 ...... 1 , חֶ רְ מִ י ;Is 11,15 , ְ ו הֶ חֱ רִ י ם ;Gn 33,18 , שָׁ לֵ ם Les cas de

Noam Mizrahi Text, Language, and Legal Interpretation. The Case of Exod 12:9 ...... 93

Innocent Himbaza Textual Readings and Challenge of Biblical Philology. Some Cases in Isaiah and Leviticus ...... 117

List of Contributors ...... 141 VI Table of Contents

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

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

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

The Hebrew Bible is written in an ancient language that is otherwise almost completely unattested, and it has come down to us through a very long and com- plicated of textual transmission. As a result, many words and phrases are obscure: the meaning of rare words or expressions may have been forgotten early on, and many passages would appear to have suffered textual corruption (as is indeed confirmed when we compare the received Hebrew text to other ancient witnesses). It is not always easy to say which of the two factors – the obsoleteness of the language or the deterioration of the text – cause the obscurity. More often than not, both may come into play. Textual transmission is a hermeneutical process. To scribes, the text they were copying was not a mere sequence of graphemes to imitate as well as they could, but a meaningful whole handed down by tradition. While reproducing the text in a new manuscript, they would at the same time be aware they were transmitting the word of God, revealed to their ancestors long ago, to their contemporaries. This attitude created a strong tendency among scribes to alter the text in places where its meaning was not clear to them. Hebrew philology and textual criticism should always be practiced in combination, completing one another and chal- lenging one another. In his book, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (1968), James Barr underscored the interconnectedness of Semitic philology and textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. His work was at once a warning against certain abuses and a road map for best practice in the two fields. Since the days of Barr, textual criticism has made great strides, notably thanks to the publication and exploitation of the Qumran Biblical texts. Hebrew Philology too has continued to develop, and its fruits have been collected in a series of new dictionaries (particularly the Sheffield Hebrew Dictionary and the eighteenth edition of Ge- senius’s Handwörterbuch). At the same time, the connection between these two fields of research has become less and less self-evident. In the orbit of , they are practiced by different guilds of scholars. Because they tend to focus upon the same items in the biblical text, philology and textual criticism are at times perceived as competing approaches. An exegetical problem is solved either by finding a different meaning for the attested Hebrew, or by adopting a variant reading. Philologists tut-tut textual critics for venturing to emend a received Hebrew text they manifestly have not fully understood, while textual critics wonder at philologists’ desperate eagerness to make sense of passages that are obviously corrupt. 2 Introduction

An international meeting held in Fribourg, Switzerland, on 10 and 11 October 2013 sought at once to document the progress in the two fields and to bring some of their foremost practitioners into dialogue with one another. The colloquium on Philology and Textual Criticism had the objective to put the connection be- tween the two approaches on the agenda one again. Various questions were dis- cussed. How can philological study guide the textual critic? And how does textual criticism come to the aid of the philologist? Are philology and textual criticism necessarily linked, or are the connections between them merely accidental? Can philology justify conjectural emendations, and if so, on what conditions? Do philological hypotheses have a place in a text-critical apparatus or commentary? The contributors discussed theoretical questions and analysed case studies il- lustrating the principles at issue. In “The Intersection of Philology and Textual Criticism in Biblia Hebraica Quinta: Background, Theory, and Practice,” Richard Weis explores the relation between philology and textual criticism in the principles and practice of the Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ). Discussing a number of issues broached by Barr, he eventually homes in on the question of conjectural emendations. While these were once regarded as a legitimate component of textual criticism – and are still so regarded by some – BHQ tends to exclude them as belonging not to textual criticism but to other branches of historical criticism. Nevertheless, they may be included in the textual commentary, and in a few cases where there is circum- stantial evidence they find their way into the apparatus as well. The discussion is illustrated with well-chosen examples from various books, and gives real insight into the practice of BHQ editors. Abraham Tal demonstrates his extensive expertise in the Samaritan Penta- teuch in “Some Reflections on the Textual Traditions of the Samaritan Penta- teuch.” After some reflections on textual “tradition” or masorah/masoret, he shows by the help of examples that the Samaritan Pentateuch is not as unified as is often thought. The older state of the text, which is often independently reflected in the MT, was known to the Samaritans, but proved problematic for various reasons. Variant readings, often incorporating a degree of interpretation, were generated and disseminated. The resulting textual variety can sometimes be retrieved by comparing manuscripts of the Samaritan Pentateuch. In other instances, the Samaritan , ancient opinions of Samaritan sages or quo- tations in Samaritan writings need to be exploited to see how the text evolved within the Samaritan tradition. Philological treatments of biblical Hebrew are often based on distant mem- bers of the Semitic family such as Akkadian and Arabic, both of them languages with an abundant attestation. But Hebrew itself, although attested less richly, has some resources that need to be exploited. Notably the book of Ben Sira, the “non-biblical” , and the Mishna and early Midrashim contain many genuine Hebrew expressions that do not depend on the biblical text. In Introduction 3

“Post-biblical Hebrew as a controlling factor in the arbitration between variant readings,” Jan Joosten explores some methodological considerations and illus- trates with a few case studies the various types of help post-biblical Hebrew can bring. In some instances, textual criticism and Hebrew philology seem to point in opposite directions, and a choice must be made. In other cases, however, the two methods reinforce one another, with the former indicating the correct reading and the latter helping to give it a meaning that fits the context. Viktor Golinets draws attention to several sets of variant forms for which it is hard to determine textual priority. In his contribution “Some Considerations on Questions Philology Cannot Solve While Reconstructing the Text of the Hebrew Bible,” he identifies the problem and provides a wealth of material to establish the phenomenon beyond doubt. Normative grammar as taught in the Handbooks may seem to indicate which forms are genuine and which ones are mistakes. But if the same variation recurs again and again, one starts asking whether perhaps the grammar books are too schematic. The variation itself is genuine, while the rejection of either form would be erroneous. In “Between the Archaic and the Literary. The ‘Narrative’ Infinitive Clause in the Text(s) of the Bible,” Andrés Piquer Otero evaluates a number of usages involving the “infinitive absolute” in the -Kings. He sagaciously brings in the concept of language evolution. The Hebrew written by the biblical authors represents a chronolect different from the Hebrew of the copyists who penned the earliest manuscripts to which we have access, and from the Hebrew known by the translators of the ancient versions. It is not always possible to deter- mine the earliest available text, nor to interpret the variants, but at least on some points the history of the language can be approximately retraced. Adrian Schenker, in “L’incidence de la critique textuelle sur le lexique hébreu R 20,42”, evaluates 1 , חֶ רְ מִ י ;Is 11,15 , ְ ו הֶ חֱ רִ י ם ,Gn 33,18 , שָׁ לֵ ם biblique. Les cas de three passages that have posed problems to exegetes and shows the necessity שָׁ לֵ ם ,for both philological information and text-critical acumen. In Gen 33:18 ְ ו הֶ חֱ רִ י ם ,is probably a toponym, but it does not designate Jerusalem. In Isa 11:15 with the versions against all Hebrew ְ ו הֶ חֱ רִ י ב should probably be corrected to -may be an adjective, as the Greek evidence in חֶ רְ מִ י ,manuscripts. In 1 Kgs 20:42 dicates, and not a substantive followed by a suffix as most exegetes have thought. Noam Mizrahi focuses on a single minute variation in the Hebrew text of Exod 12:9, where 4Q11, also known as 4QpaleoGen-Exodl, has a conjunctive waw that is absent in the MT. In “Text, Language, and Legal Interpretation: The Case of Exod 12:9,” he combines a diachronic approach of the with a diachronic approach of the halakhic interpretation of the verse in question. He shows how detailed knowledge of the later rabbinic of the verse illuminates the problems the additional waw may have been intended to solve. The Qumran scribe meant to transmit the biblical text as accurately as possible, 4 Introduction yet he was also struggling to make sense of the text in its biblical context and in regard to its impact on Jewish worship. In “Textual readings and challenge of biblical philology. Some cases in Isaiah and Leviticus,” Innocent Himbaza shows how textual criticism and Hebrew phi- lology clash and interact in different ways. Two verses in Isaiah, Isa 14:4 (notably and 59:19c, and two verses in Leviticus, Lev 25:31 and (מדהבה the difficult word 6:20, are analysed at length to illustrate the problem. We thank the participants in the colloquium for their contributions. We also thank our home institutions, the Dominique Barthélemy Institute of the Univer- sity of Fribourg and the Équipe d’Accueil 4378 Théologie Protestante of the Uni- versity of Strasbourg, as well as the Institut Universitaire de for financial and logistic support. The publication has suffered some delay, but we believe it was worth the wait.

Innocent Himbaza Jan Joosten The Intersection of Philology and Textual Criticism in Biblia Hebraica Quinta

Background, Theory, and Practice

Richard D. Weis

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

1 Consideration of the relations between the two disciplines and the development of con- crete results from their interaction has been enjoying a renaissance of late. See, for example, the essays by Joosten, Schorch, Talshir and Talshir, and Yuditsky in the volume by J. Joosten and J.-S. Rey, Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period (STDJ, 73; Leiden: Brill, 2008). An even more recent example is the study by R. D. Holmstedt, “The Nexus between Textual Criticism and : A Case Study from Leviticus,” JBL 132 (2013): 473–494. 2 J. Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Winona Lake, IN: Eisen- brauns, 1987; orig. pub.: Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968). 6 Richard D. Weis

1. Barr and BHQ – Points of contact

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

3 The prospectus for the colloquium. 4 R. D. Weis, “‘Lower Criticism’: Studies in the Masoretic Text and the Ancient Versions of the Old Testament as a Means of Textual Criticism,” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. III/1 (edited by M. Sæbø; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 363–367; M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, “The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: Rise, Decline, Rebirth,” JBL 102 (1983): 373, 378. 5 Barr, Comparative Philology, 3, 301–304. The Intersection of Philology and Textual Criticism in Biblia Hebraica Quinta 7

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

6 Barr, Comparative Philology, 188–222, at 219–222. 7 See R. D. Weis, Gerard J. Norton, and Adrian Schenker, eds., Guidelines for Contributors (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003), 20, BHQ guideline III.1.2 “Criterion for Inclusion in Apparatus: Text-Critical Significance: In order for a case to be included in the apparatus, one or more of its variants must be text-critically significant, that is, the variant arguably, but not necessarily (nor even in the editor’s final judgment), witnesses a Hebrew text that differs from the lemma. This embraces variations in vocalization and syntax as well as in consonants. When a variant in the reading of a version is deemed to have a variant Hebrew text behind it, then that variant to the versional reading will be reported in addition to the version’s main reading.” 8 D. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, vol. 1 (OBO, 50/1; Fribourg: Édi- tions universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), xiii–xv [= D. Barthélemy, Studies in the Text of the Old Testament (TCT, 3; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 591–594]. 9 Barr, Comparative Philology, 223–228, 237. 10 A. Tal, Genesis (Biblia Hebraica Quinta, vol. 1; ed. A. Schenker, et al.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2015). 11 J. Joosten, “L’excédent massorétique du livre de Jérémie et l’hébreu post-classique,” in Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period (STDJ, 73; ed. J. Joosten and J.-S. Rey; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 93–108. 8 Richard D. Weis point.12 Barr acknowledges that this is the ordinary definition of a text critical case, but argues that when the text is uniform, one must generate text critical cases in another way, namely, by identifying a perceived “difficulty” with the text.13 In this difference, we see how Barr is still using the definition of a text critical case that characterized the nineteenth and twentieth century schools that made so much use of the patterns of conjecture that he has criticized. For a work published in 1969, this is not surprising; this definition was still operant in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, which was being edited in the same era. It is only with the work of the Hebrew University Bible Project, the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, and others – whose publications mostly came after Barr’s book – that we see the conceptual shift in the field of textual criticism that is reflected in the principles of BHQ. This shift came about in part because the diversity of the text visible in the Dead Sea Scrolls undermined the assumption about the uniformity of the text that made the older approach seem necessary.

2. Defining cases and making conjectures in BHQ

This difference in the definition of what constitutes a textual case, taken together with the edition’s goal of establishing “the earliest attainable text” rather than a putative original, is the root of the specific stance toward conjectural emendation seen in BHQ. More explicit attention to the guiding principles of the edition, and some examples of their implementation, will allow us to approach answers to the more specific questions about the relation of philology and textual criticism. An obvious consequence of BHQ’s definition of a textual case is this guideline for the edition: III.4.4 Decisions Limited to the Textual Forms Attested by the Extant Witnesses PRINCIPLE: In general, decisions concerning textual cases should confine themselves to working with the textual forms attested by the existing witnesses. Since the apparatus is concerned with the presentation and evaluation of the available evidence of the text’s transmission, indirectly attested forms and hypothetical forms have a place in the appara- tus only as they are needed to explain the surviving evidence.14 As a result of this definition of a text critical case, many cases that in previous editions were included in the apparatus as text critical either do not appear at all in the apparatus of BHQ, or appear only as a lemma followed by a reference to the commentary. In the commentary, the remarks on such cases follow a com- mon pattern. After recounting substantial prior discussion of the case as in some

12 A. Schenker, et al., “General Introduction,” in Biblia Hebraica Quinta, vol. 18, General Introduction and Megilloth (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004), xii–xiii. 13 Barr, Comparative Philology, 3. 14 Weis, Norton, and Schenker, Guidelines, 32. The Intersection of Philology and Textual Criticism in Biblia Hebraica Quinta 9 way “difficult” and reporting conjectural emendations proposed to resolve the “difficulty,” the editor observes that all of the extant witnesses agree on the same reading so that there is no text critical case. Thus philological proposals in the form of conjectural emendations without external textual evidence are excluded from the textual apparatus at the same time that their role in previous discussion is acknowledged. Examples of such treatment may be found in every one of the published fas- in Judg 1:5 may serve as an illustration of אֲ דֹנִי בֶ זֶק cicles of BHQ, but the case of ,contains only the lemma אֲ דֹנִי בֶ זֶק the class. In BHQ the apparatus for Judg 1:5 and reference to the commentary where this text is found: Many scholars hold that Adoni-bezek is a corruption of Adoni-zedek (cf. BHK), the name of the king of Jerusalem in Josh 10:1, but the connection with Adoni-zedek is probably too speculative and irrelevant (cf. Lindars, Judges 1–5, 15–16 and 18, and Soggin, Juges, 25). All the extant witnesses support M.15 Jer 39:4. Here there רָ אָ ם My own work in Jeremiah provides another example in is no disagreement among the extant witnesses. The apparatus of the BHQ edi- tion will contain only the lemma and a reference to the commentary, where this comment will be found: A number of commentators, translations and editions (BH3; BHS; JB; Carroll, Jeremiah, 691; Bright, Jeremiah, 242; Volz, Text des Jeremia, 272; Rudolph, Jeremia, 245) propose As McKane (Jeremiah, 978) points out, this is without . רָ אָ ם instead of M’s רָ אָ ּה to read support among the extant witnesses. Indeed, all those collated for this edition support the reading of M. McKane is correct in pointing out that this is not a text critical case, but a question of scholars’ assumptions about how the story should unfold. The same formal treatment – an apparatus entry consisting only of the lemma and a reference to the commentary for discussion – is accorded another class of cases which in substance are the opposite of the examples just considered. These are cases where readings of the extant witnesses diverge, but analysis shows that the divergence is only apparent, being due purely to linguistic fac- tors, not actual textual divergence. In other words, the best explanation of the evidence of the textual witnesses is philological rather than textual. By contrast then with conjectural emendations, where philological proposals are excluded in the circumstance of agreement among the witnesses, BHQ actually includes philological proposals in the edition to exclude another class of false textual cases characterized by apparent disagreement among the witnesses.16

15 N. Fernández Marcos, Judges (Biblia Hebraica Quinta, vol. 7; ed. A. Schenker, et al.; Stutt- gart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011), 3, 41*. 16 See Weis, Norton and Schenker, Guidelines, 24, BHQ guideline III.2.1 “Purely Linguistic Cases That Have Received Attention as Text Critical: PRINCIPLE: According to guidelines III.1.2 and III.1.4 above, purely linguistic problems would not be taken up as cases in the appa- ratus unless they have been treated extensively as a text critical problem in editions, translations and commentaries. In the event that an editor concludes that such a case should be taken up, 10 Richard D. Weis

,at Hos 11:8 offers an example of this treatment. Once again ח נִ ּו מָ י The case of only the lemma and a reference to the commentary are found in the apparatus. In the commentary, the editor, Anthony Gelston, in response to a scholarly tradition of positing a variant Hebrew Vorlage for some of the versions, has this to say: All the vrss. render M in the sense of either “compassion” or “change of mind,” and there ,to account for the former sense, for which רחמי is no need to postulate a different Vorlage compare Isa 57:18; Zech 1:13.17 Although from these examples one might expect otherwise, this definition of a text critical case, as implemented in BHQ, actually allows some room for the inclusion of conjectures in the edition’s apparatus. The concluding sentence of the guideline quoted previously is, “Since the apparatus is concerned with the presentation and evaluation of the available evidence of the text’s transmission, indirectly attested forms and hypothetical forms have a place in the apparatus only as they are needed to explain the surviving evidence.” This allows for two types of extrapolated readings, one described as indirectly attested, and the other as conjectures. I argue that in principle both types are conjectures, in the sense that the proposed reading is extrapolated from the available evidence, rather than being one of the options already available within that evidence. Although the type referred to as an “indirectly attested” reading should be regarded as a conjecture because it extrapolates beyond the extant textual data, it is a very conservative type of conjecture in that it can clearly be inferred from the existing readings.18 In BHQ’s apparatus such a proposed reading can be offered as a “preferred” reading in a case, i. e., it is put on a similar footing to a directly attested reading. This is because it is based on textual evidence, i. e., external evidence for how the particular text reads, rather than internal evidence only or external evidence from outside the text whose relevance to the text is therefore less clear. However, such an indirectly attested reading must be labeled “origin,” as representing the origin of the existing readings, alerting the reader to its con- in Hab 3:4 is a simple and straightforward מִ ּיָדֹו לֹו jectural character. The case of example of this type of modest textual conjecture in BHQ. -in Hab 3:4 the apparatus of BHQ reports that Jerome and the Bar מִ ּיָדֹו לֹו For V and S .מִ ּיָדֹו לֹו berini text support the reading of M encountered in the lemma support G’s reading of ἐν χερσὶν αὐτοῦ. The reading of the Targum cannot be assigned and that of the Murabba’at Minor Prophets is too damaged to be useful. s/he should handle it in one of five ways.” The guideline then goes on to lay out the five options an editor has for representing such cases, one of which takes the form seen in the example given. 17 A. Gelston, The (Biblia Hebraica Quinta, vol. 13; ed. A. Schenker, et al.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010), 22, 69*. 18 See Weis, Norton and Schenker, Guidelines, 32, guideline III.4.5 “Proposal of Forms At- tested Only Indirectly by the Extant Witnesses: PRINCIPLE: Proposing a form that is only indirectly attested in textual terms (that is, a form that best explains the attested forms) as a correction to the base text is acceptable, providing there is weighty justification.” Index of Sources

Genesis 29:9 50 1:3 19 29:29 50 1:9 64 29: 33 50 3:7 61, 63 29: 35 50 10:4 21 32:19 11, 50 13:7 54 32:29 50 13:8 54 15:16 26 Leviticus 17:13 26 6:18 132, 135 17:23 26 6:19–20 135 18:16 26 6:20 4, 132–136, 137 21:20 54 6:21 136 23:8 26 8:33 50 26:20 54 9:22 50 29:26 41 11: 28 26 30:30 41 13:58 133 32:11 51 15:17 134 33:18 3 16:21 50 35:19 26 16:32 50 36:35 61 21:10 50 44:5 100 25:23–28 132 44:15 100 25:28 131 46:32 57 25:29–30 132 46:34 54, 57 25:30 131 47:3 63 25:31 4, 128–132, 137 47:21 28 25:33 131 47:23–25 28 25:54 131 50:24 100 26:36 54 50:25 100 27:21 131

Exodus Numbers 2:19 103, 104 3:3 50 3:16 104 5:26 26 10:23 47 6:19 104, 109 12:1–11 95, 96, 97 11:28 51 12:9 3, 93–98, 104, 105, 21:20 61 107–112, 115 24:3–4 22 18:18 104 21:19 103 Deuteronomy 27:11 49 1:13 110 28:41 50 2:33 52, 53 144 Index of Sources

3: 24 51 2:23–24 65 4:28 55 2:29 40–42 4:32 61 6:12 77 5:10 54 8:3 49 7:9 47, 49 9:13 41 7:10 48 17:4 34 7:15 55 17:6 33 8:2 47 17:8 40 11:7 59 17:23 34 11:24 12 17:45 33 14:7 62 18:7 49, 50 16:7 98 18:14 47, 49 16:15 55 18:22 48, 49 24:19 55 21:12 50 27:15 55 29:5 49, 50 28:60 63 31:29 55 2 Samuel 33:2 25 1:11 49 33:9 52, 53 2:23 47 27:10 47 2:23–24 65 27:19 55 3:12 47 28:60 55 7:16 39 13:21 36, 37 Joshua 13:39 123 8:18 33 15:1 37 8:26 33 15:30 77–78 9:4 110 16:8 47 10:1 9 16:10 54 18:14 54 19:3 37 18:24 54 21:21 54 23:18 54 Judges 1:5 9 1 Kings 1:31 14 1:6 35–38 2:7 59 1:36 38 3:23 12 3:16 36 8:11 12 8:26 39 17:5 50 9:20 110–112 17:12 50 13:33 50 20:13 12 16:7 55 20:38 12 20:42 3 20:39 100 2 Kings 1 Samuel 4:34 80 1:28–29 41 9:15 27 2:12–17 40 9:24 50 2:13 99 12:12 58 2:15 104 13:16 52, 53 Index of Sources 145

19:18 55 46:12 47 19:29 80 46:21 47 22:5 58 48:7 47 22:17 55, 59 49:3 47 23:21 98 50:42 33 23:21–24 98 Ezekiel Isaiah 20:37 19 2:8 55 27:15 21 3:5 120, 121 38:12 58 5:12 55 42:14 135 6:20 4 43:11 49 11:15 3 43:26 50 14:4 4, 117–124, 136 47:11 49 17:8 55 19:25 55 Hosea 21:13 21 11:8 10 24:2 93 12:1 39 24:7 93 14:4 55 24:15 93 29:23 55 Amos 37:11 87, 91 1:6 84 37:19 55, 60 1:9 84 37:20 87, 91 38:12 63 Obadiah 53.4 110 19–20 94, 115 57:18 10 59:19 4, 124–127, 136 Micha 60:21 55, 60 3:11 57 63:7 51, 52 3:12 57 63:15 51 5:12 55, 60, 63 64:4 58 6:16 56, 63 65:22 55 Habakkuk Jeremiah 3:4 10 1:16 56, 60 6:23 33 Haggai 10:3 55 2:14 55 15:11 39 2:17 55 17:10 49 22:4 48, 49 Zechariah 23:17 100 1:13 10 25:6–7 55 6:12 47 25:14 55 11:5 64 32:30 55 37:19 11, 54 Malachi 39:4 9 3:5 54, 55 44:8 56, 60 3:19 58, 63 146 Index of Sources

Psalms 27:15 49 1:5 64 34:19 55 8:4 56 38:41 49 8:7 56 39:23 33 10:5 48 40:17 50 19:2 55, 56 41:20 33 19:7 61 41:21 33 20:7 51 22:17 65 Proverbs 25:6 51 6:3 48 28:4–5 55 6:13 53 43:19 86 6:27 135 51:3 51 7:18 51 62:4 19 10:18 62, 63 69:17 51 12:22 62 71:6 51 23:6 61 76:3 84 30:24 102 78:8 39 89:2 51 Ruth 90:17 55 1:1 61 92:5 56 1:2 61 102:26 55 1:6 61, 63 106:2 51 1:22 61 106:3 58 2:6 61 106:45 51, 52 4:3 61 107:23 58 107:24 56 Canticles/ 111:2 56 2:14 12 111:7 56 7:12 55 115:4 55 118:17 56 Qohelet/ 119:98 46 5:5 55 132:6 61 10:15 12 135:15 55 11:9 54 138:8 56, 60 138:18 86 Lamentations 143:5 55 3:32 51, 52 145:4 51 3:64 55, 59, 60, 63 145:12 51 4:2 55, 59, 60, 63 150:2 51 Daniel Job 2:38 121 1:10 55 11:20 51 5:18 50 9:13 47 Ezra 14:15 55 3:9 58, 63 15:34 65 26:14 50, 51 Index of Sources 147

Nehemiah 4QDeutj 59 2:16 58, 63 4QDeutkl 59 11:12 58 4QGenhl 64 13:22 51 4QHodayota 118 4QInstruction 118, 119, 120 1 Chronicles 4QIsac 93 1:7 21 4QpaleoGen-Exodl/4Q11 1:46 61 3, 95, 96, 97, 108–113 5:18 58 4QPhilj 54 8:8 61 4QSama/4Q51 37, 40, 41, 77–79, 123 12:34 58 4QSamb /4Q52 75 12:37 58 8QMez 59 23:24 58 11QLevb 128, 131 29:5 50 11Qpaleo-Leva 131, 132, 137 Damascus Document/CD-A 2 Chronicles 119–121 1:9 39 War Scroll 33, 34 8:7 110 13:9 50 Flavius Josephus 24:12 58 Antiq 7:346 35–36 26:11 58 26:13 58 Mishna 29:31 50 Kelim XI 8 33 32:19 55 Sheqalim VI 1 20 34:10 58 34:25 56, 59 Tosephta 35:1–19 98 Sanhedrin 13:5 21 35:4 98 Pesahim 4:7 107 35:12 98 Maccot 4: 1 107 35:13 98, 99 Terumot 1:4 38

Ben Sira Babylonian Talmud 14:1 37, 38 Sanhedrin 98a 126 14:2 38 Sotah 42b 34 30:21 37 30:23 37 37:2 37 Bereshit (Genesis) 38:18 37 Rabba 79,1–5 86 46:2 33 Rabba 37 21 Sifra Ṣow 6:5 135 Dead Sea Scrolls 1QIsaa 21, 54, 58, 110, 111, Manuscripts 117–126, 136 Ben Sira ms 1QHodayota/1QHa Sira: Ms A 36 118 1QM 33, 34, 54 Greek mss 1QS 41 Lucianic/L 35, 39, 76, 77, 79, 80 4QBarkc 39 Ms A 80 148 Index of Sources

Ms B 75, 77, 79, 80 Targumic Literature Ms N 80 Onkelos/Onqelos 22, 25, 60, 61, 83, 100–103, 107, 118, Hebrew mss 120, 125, 128–131, Add 1573 48 133, 134 Aleppo/A 20, 47, 48–51, 54–56, Neofiti/Neophyti 58, 60, 61, 83, 104, 60, 61 105, 108, 129–131, Babylonian Codex of Petrograd (BCP) 133, 134 50, 55, 60 Pseudo-Jonathan 83, 106, 107, 129–131, Berlin Ms 61 133, 134 Cairo/C 47, 48, 49, 50, 54, 55, Fragment(ary) Targum 60 60, 61, 105 Cod. Berlin Or. Qu. 680/CB Jonathan 34, 100 49 Palestinian Targum(s) Damascus Pentateuch/DP 96, 104, 105–107, 47, 48, 49, 50 111 Leningrad B19/L 20, 47, 48, 49, 50, 54–56, 59, 60 Biblical Translations Munich Cod Hebr 2 ASV 120 61 Bible de Genève 126 Or 2463 86 BJ 120, 126, 129, 134 Or 2464 86 Bible Liturgique 129 Or 4445 (B) 48, 50 Chouraqui 126, 129 Reuchlinianus (R) 50, 54, 55 Douai 120 Samaritan mss Einheitsübersetzung Ms 6 of Shechem 24–27 120 Ms A 28 ERV 120 Ms B 28 ESV 120 Ms C 28 Geneva Bible 120, 121, 126, 134 Ms E 28 JB 9 Ms J 28 JPS 120, 126 Ms K 29 KJV 27, 35, 100, 102, 110, Ms M 28 117, 120, 121, 126, Ms S 29 134 Ms V 28 Luther 120, 121, 126, 129, Vat Cod Barberini 134 24 Matthew’s Bible 126, 134 NAB 120, 126, 134 Samaritan Targum ms NBS 126, 134 Ms J 106 NRSV 96, 102, 110, 111, 117, Syro-Hexaplaric ms 120, 126 Midyat ms 86 Olivétan 120, 126, 134 Rabbinat 126 Targumic mss Robert Estienne 120 Ms AA 105 Segond 120, 126, 129, 134 Ms V 105 TOB 120, 126, 129, 134 Webster’s Bible 120 Züricher Bibel 120, 134 Index of Names

Abravanel 121 Clines, D. J. A. 87, 88, 90, 125, 137 Albright, W. F. 64, 66 Cohen, C. 99, 114 Andersen, F. I. 46, 67 Cohen, M. 102, 114 Aquila 56, 119, 122 Cohen, O. 100, 102, 114 Cross, F. M. 46, 67 Baker, D. W. 109–113 Barkay, G. 46, 66 Dalman, G. 100, 114 Barr, J. 1, 2, 5–8, 12, 17, 32, 43, 94, 113, Davies, G. I. 12, 17 121, 137 de Lagarde, P. 63, 67 Barthélemy, D. 4,7, 17, 35, 43, 88–90, 118, de Rossi, G. B. 56, 61 131, 135, 137, 138 De Troyer, K. 130, 131, 137 Bauer, H. 46, 66 de Waard, J. 48, 67 Baumgarten, J. 118, 137 Delitzsch, F. 87, 90, 121, 122, 126, 138 Baumgartner, W. 87, 135 Díez Macho, A. 104, 114 Beit-Arié, M. 47, 66 Dillmann, A. 121, 127, 138 ben Abraham David 86, 90 Donzé-Michau, M.-C. 23, 30 Ben Asher 19, 20, 30 Dotan, A. 20, 30 Ben Iehuda Hierosolimitano, E. 20, 30 Douglas Olson, S. 104, 114 Ben-Ḥayyim, Y (J). 20, 57, 59, 68 Drazin, I. 101, 114 Ben-Ḥayyim, Z. 23, 25, 26, 29, 30, 57, Drechsler, M. 121, 138 60, 100, 101, 106, 113, 114, 133, 134, Driver, G. R. 35, 36, 43 146 Driver, S. R. 37, 43 Ben-Zvi, E. 99, 114 Duhm, B. 121, 127, 138 Bergsträsser, G. 46, 66 Berlejung, A. 46, 66 Ehrlich, A. B. 85, 90, 102, 114 Berthelot, K. 97, 114 Elliger, K. 48, 67 Betser, Z. 19, 30 Elwolde, J. F. 33, 43, 74, 82 Blenkisopp, J. 123, 137 Epstein, J. N. 108, 114 Blum, E. 98, 116 Eskhult, M. 74, 75, 82 Bokser, B. M. 98, 114 Bredenkamp, C. J. 126, 137 Feldmann, F. 121, 127, 148 Brenner-Idan, A. 95, 116 Fernández Marcos, N. 9, 12–14, 17 Buhl, F. 61, 67 Field, F. 104, 114 Burney, C. F. 12, 13, 39, 43 Fischer, J. 127, 138 Fishbane, M. A. 99, 114 Caquot, A. 86, 90 Flint, P. W. 119, 140 Carasik, M. 136, 137 Florentin, M 133, 134, 140 Carmignac, J. 33, 34, 43 Forbes, A. D. 46, 67 Caspi Yosef 121, 126 Fox, M. 25, 30 Chazon, E. 119, 137 Freedman, D. N. 46, 47, 64, 67 Clarke, E. G. 106, 114 150 Index of Names

García Martínez, F. 118, 138 Kabiersch, J. 124, 139 Gehman, H. S. 35, 37, 39, 43 Kalimi, I. 99, 114 Geiger, A. 83, 91, 111, 114 Karrer, M. 125, 139 Geiger, G. 54, 67, 100 Kennicott, B. 56, 60, 61, 68 Geller, M. J. 102, 117 Khan, G. 109, 113 Gelston, A. 10, 11, 17, 48, 67 Kimḥi David/Radaq/Radak 19, 86, 121, Gemeinhardt, P. 93, 115 126 Gerstenberger, E. S. 128, 138 Kissane, E. J. 121, 139 Gesenius, W. 19, 20, 61 Kister, M. 33, 34, 40, 41, 43 Gesundheit, S. 96, 114 Klein, M. L. 105, 115 Ginsburg, C. D. 19, 30, 54, 56, 60, 61, 67 Kloppenborg, J. S. 130, 137 Giron Blanc, L.-F. 54, 67 Knauf, E. A. 46, 68 Gispen, W. H. 130, 135, 138 Koenen, K. 124, 139 Gogel, S. L. 73, 82 Kohler, L. 87, 135 Goldman, Y. A. P. 48, 67, 134, 138 Koster, M. D. 101, 115 Golinets, V. 3, 45, 53, 67 Krahmalkov, C. R. 74, 80, 82 Goshen-Gottstein, M. 6, 17, 47, 57, 59, Kraus, M. A. 107, 115 68 Kraus, W. 125, 139 Gottstein, M. H. 53, 63, 68 Krauss, S. 64, 68 Greenfield, J. C. 102, 116 Kropat, A. 110, 116 Grossfeld, B. 101, 114 Kruger, H. A. J. 124, 127 Gulick, C. B. 104, 114 Kugler, R. A. 123, 139 Kutscher, E. Y. 110, 115 Haas, P. J. 99, 114 Kyle McCarter, P. 34, 43 Harrington, D. J. 119, 140 Hartley, J. E. 130, 136, 138 Lange, A. 95, 115 Hayward, R. 105, 115 Le Boulluec, A. 104, 115, 118, 124, Heintz, J.-G. 125, 126, 138 139 Heller, C. 101, 115 Le Moigne, P. 118, 124, 139 Heller, R. L. 78, 82 Leander, P. 46, 66 Hendel, R. S. 98, 115 Lefebvre, J.-F. 130, 139 Hieke, T. 132, 138 Legrand, Th. 97, 114 Himbaza, I 4, 117, 134, 135, 138 Lestienne, M. 40, 43 Hirsch, J. 122, 126, 138 Levine, B. A. 128, 139 Hitzig, F. 121, 138 Levine, É. 60, 68 Holladay, W. L. 15, 17 Levinson, B. M. 99, 115 Holmstedt, R. D. 5, 17, 72, 82 Levita, E. 19, 30 Houtman, C. 98, 115 Lewis, T. 20, 21, 30 Lieberman, S. 107, 115 Ibn Ezra 86, 102, 121, 126, 134 Lipiński, E. 72, 73, 82 Loewinger, D.S 47, 68 Jacob, B. 85, 90, 91, 102, 115 Longacre, R. 78, 82 Jastrow, M. 39, 43 Lundberg, M. J. 46, 66 Jerome 10, 21–23, 25, 27, 76, 103, 122, Luzzatto, S. D. 122, 139 138 Joosten, J. 3, 5, 7, 17, 31, 33, 39, 43, 100, Maher, M. 104, 106, 114 115, 130, 135, 138, 139 Maimonides 18 Joüon, P. 71, 82 Marcus, D. 48, 67 Index of Names 151

Marx, A. 128, 130, 139 Saadia Gaon 86 McCarthy, C. 48, 66 Sæbø, M. 6, 18, 83, 91 McNamara, M. 105, 115 Sanderson, J. E. 95, 96, 97, 116 Metso, S. 123, 124, 139 Sandevoir, P. 104, 115 Meyer, R. 71, 72, 73, 82 Sarfatti, G. B. 46, 68 Michaelis, J. D. 119, 121, 122, 139 Schade, A. 72, 82 Milgrom, J. 130, 135, 139 Schenker, A. 3, 7, 8–11, 13, 16–18, 48, 67, Mizrahi, N. 3, 93, 94, 96, 115, 118, 120, 83, 87, 88, 91, 134, 138 122, 139 Schorch, S. 133, 134, 140 Montgomery, J. A. 35, 39, 43 Schüller, E. 118, 140 Morag, S. 100, 115 Seeligmann, I. L. 99, 116 Moreshet, M. 108, 115 Segal, J. B. 99, 116 Moshavi, A. 96, 115 Shehadeh, H. 23, 30, 86, 91 Muraoka, T. 33, 43, 71, 74, 82, 100, Shemesh, A. 98, 116 115 Shinan, A. 107, 116 Shmuel ben Meir 86 Neusner, J. 107, 116 Skehan, P. W. 95, 96, 97, 116 Newman, J. H. 130, 137 Skoss, S. L. 86, 90 Newsom, C. 119, 140 Slotki, I. W. 120, 121, 140 Norton, G. J. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, Sokoloff, M. 107, 116 48, 67 Sollamo, R. 103, 116 Notarius, T. 96, 115 Sperber, A. 50, 53, 68, 101, 116 Stamm, J. J. 51, 69 O’Connor, M. 73, 74, 82 Stegemann, H. 119, 140 Origen 119 Steiner, R. C. 25, 94, 109, 116 Orlinsky, H. M. 46, 68, 122, 139 Strack, H. L. 50, 69 Ottley, R. R. 126, 139 Strugnell, J. 119, 140 Symmachus 56, 83, 86, 119 Paul, S. M. 51, 68 Piquer Otero, A. 3, 71, 72, 79, 82 Tal, A. 2, 7, 17, 19, 24, 30, 48, 66, 101, 106, Pisano, S. 48, 67 116, 133, 134, 140 Polzin, R 71, 74, 75, 82 Talmon, S. 65, 69 Procksch, O. 121, 139 Teeter, D. A. 93, 100, 113, 116 Theodotion 119 Qaro Yosef 121 Tigchelaar, E. J. C. 119, 138 Qimron, E. 32, 43, 54, 68, 102, 116 Tov, E. 65, 69, 95, 116 Quast, U. 104, 116 Tropper, J. 73, 82 Troxel, R. L. 119, 140 Ramban 86 Rashi 86, 120, 121, 126, 134 Ulrich, E. 64, 69,95, 96, 97, 116, 119, 123, Rendtorff, R. 123, 136, 139 139, 140 Renz, J. 46, 52 Rey, J.-S. 5, 7, 17 van der Kooij, A. 48, 67, 134, 138 Rezetko, R. 74, 75, 82 Vaughn, A. G. 46, 66 Rofé, A. 125, 140 Vermeylen, J. 125, 140 Rubinstein, A. 74, 82 Vitringa, C. 120, 140 Rudolph, W. 48, 67 von Gall, A. F. 22, 26, 30, 101, 116 Vööbus, A. 86, 91 152 Index of Names

Wacholder, B. Z. 119, 140 Westermann, C. 127, 140 Waltke, B. 73, 82 Wevers, J. W. 86, 91, 104, 116, 130, 140 Watson, W. G. E. 56, 69 Wilk, F. 93, 115 Watts, J. D. W. 127, 140 Watts, J. W. 136, 140 Yedidia of Norzi 19 Weil, G. E. 48, 69 Yefet ben Eli 86 Weis, R. 2, 5, 6–11, 13, 16, 18, 83, 91, 134, Yeivin, I. 49, 67 138 Young, C. D. 104, 116 Weitzman, M. P. 102, 116 Young, I. 74, 75, 82 Wellhausen, J. 123, 140 Werman, C. 98, 116 Ziegler, J. 119, 121, 140 Wernberg-Moller, P. 50, 69, 118, 140 Zuckerman, B. 46, 66 Index of Subjects

Accents 6, 7, 19, 103, 124, 127, 136 Emendation(s) 2, 5–9, 12, 16, 35, 39, 40, Akkadian 2, 32, 71, 99 117, 137 Amarna letters/corpus 71, 81 Equivalence/Equivalent 6, 22, 30, 36, 38, Apparatus 2, 5–16, 22, 26, 27, 29, 57, 96, 72, 74, 103, 106, 108, 122 Arabic 2, 23–26, 28, 32, 38, 85–87, 106 Error/erroneous 3, 14, 52, 60, 62, 64, 65, Aramaic 11, 13, 24, 27, 29, 30, 100, 101, 117, 123, 135–137 106–108, 121, 123, 125, 134 Ethiopic/Ethiopian 73, 75, 80 Aramaism 39, 121 Evidence 2, 3, 6, 8–16, 24, 28, 29, 31, 32, 37, 39, 40, 46, 65, 71, 72, 75, 77, 78, 79, Biblia Hebraica Kittel 9, 12 81, 94–96, 104, 107 Biblia Hebraica Quinta 2, 5–17, 48, 49, Exegesis/exegetical 1, 3, 6, 12, 16, 25, 34, 53–55, 57, 58, 60, 62–64 35, 52, 60, 95, 97–99, 103, 106–109, 111, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia 8, 9, 12, 39, 112, 120 48, 56 Extrapolation 6, 14, 15, 16, 17

Classical-Biblical Hebrew 32, 71, 81, 110, Fragment(s)/ary 25, 41, 59, 69, 95–97, 131 111 Codex/Codices 20, 46, 47, 56, 59, 61, 77, Grammar 3, 45, 72 80 Grammarians 63, 121, 123 Commentary 2, 5, 8–12, 15, 16, 19, 57, 66, Greek 3, 31, 33, 34, 36, 39–42, 74–77, 79, 94, 119, 121, 122, 126–128 100, 103, 104, 119, 122, 123 Conjecture 5–16, 105, 109, 119, 121, 122, 124 Hebraism 100 Consonantal text 7, 47, 50, 51, 99, 100, 102, Hebrew (language) 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 103, 105, 108, 124, 126, 133, 134–137 13–15, 19, 21, 26, 29, 30–34, 36–38, 41, Consonants 7, 76 42, 45, 47, 52, 53, 61, 63–65, 71, 72, 74, Context 3, 4, 11, 20, 22, 28, 34–39, 41, 76, 77, 81, 93, 94, 100–104,106, 107, 47–61, 64, 65, 72, 84, 85, 87–89, 93, 97, 110, 118, 119, 123, 127, 130 100, 108, 109, 112, 113, 119–121, 127, Hebrew Bible 1, 3, 5, 6, 13, 19, 20, 31, 32, 136 34, 42, 45, 50, 51, 64, 66, 72–74, 78, 95 Correction(s) 10, 16, 85, 106, 132, 134, Hexapla, Hexaplaric 77, 86, 87, 104 136, 137 Hiphil 39, 40, 41, 87–90, 122 Corruption/corrupted 1, 7, 9, 38, 87, 88, Hitpael 133, 134 90 Hophal 87

Dead Sea Scrolls 2, 8, 31, 33, 74, 75, 97, Infinitive absolute 3, 71–81, 99–103 100, 117–119, 122, 123, 133, 136 Inscriptions 46, 74, 80 Defective 22, 45–49, 51–53, 65 Interpretation(s) 2, 3, 16, 23, 24, 34–36, 38, 40, 41, 48, 51, 58, 62, 80, 81, 84, 88, Edition(s) 1, 8–12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 89, 93, 94, 102, 105–107, 109, 110–112, 25, 29, 52, 57, 66, 79, 96, 104 118–120, 122, 123, 126 154 Index of Subjects

Judgment 7, 16, 52, 62, 63 Qal 23, 26, 29, 72 Qere 11, 47–51, 53 Ketiv/Kethib 11, 47, 49, 50, 53, 54, 59 Qumran 1, 3, 21, 31–35, 37, 41, 42, 52–54, 59, 63–65, 71, 77, 79, 81, 93, 95, Language(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 13–16, 31, 32, 97, 101, 118, 123 39, 42, 71–74, 93, 98, 100, 102, 107, 113, Qumran Scrolls 32, 42, 53, 95 118, 123 Lemma 7, 8–10, 12, 119–123, 132, 133 Rabbinic 3, 31, 71, 98, 107, 108, 111, 112 Lexical 32, 55, 65, 66, 105, 108, 112 Rule Scroll 42

Manuscript(s) 1, 3, 7, 20, 22, 24–30, 34, Sahidic 80 37,42, 45, 46, 48–50, 52–64, 76, 78, 80, Samaritan Pentateuch/SP/Smr 2, 19, 93, 97, 100, 104, 123 21–30, 53–55, 57, 61, 83, 85, 90, 101, Masora(h) 2, 19, 25, 55 106, 107, 111, 128, 131–137 Masora magna 47, 48, 54–56 Samaritan Midrash 29 Masora parva 47, 48, 49, 54, 55, 60 Samaritan Targum 2, 22, 106 Masoretic Text/MT/TM/M 2, 3, 6, 7, Samaritan Text 27, 28 12–14, 19, 20, 21–29, 31, 36, 37, 39–42, Samaritans 2, 26 50–56, 58, 62–65, 72, 75–79, 81, 87–89, Scribe(s) 1, 3, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 60, 95, 96, 99, 101–105, 108–111, 117–125, 66, 87, 90, 93, 97, 99, 100, 104, 109, 110, 128, 130–137 112, 113, 119, 130, 132, 134 Mater lectionis 102 Scroll(s) 95–97, 110 Morphology 45, 52, 66 Semantic 21, 31, 36, 48, 52, 57, 62, 73, 94, Morphological 20, 49, 52, 57, 59, 65, 66, 98, 99, 105, 109 99–101, 128 Semitic 1, 2, 6, 7, 12, 23, 31, 32, 36, 38, 71–74 Niphal 29, 36, 41, 76, 133, 134 Septuagint (LXX, G) 21, 22, 31, 33–37, 39, 41, 53, 56–65, 74–80, 83, 84, 86–89, Orthography 27, 29, 40, 45–49, 51–54, 95, 98, 103, 104, 107, 110, 118–121, 63, 64 124–134, 136 Source(s) 23, 24, 27, 28, 37, 77, 93, Palaeo-Hebrew 36, 95 96, 98, 101, 107, 109, 110–112, 118, Paronomastic 72–76, 78 123 Peshitta/P/Syriac/S 21, 22, 25, 34, 36 40, Synonym(us) 50, 61, 64–66, 104 55–58, 60–62, 83, 101, 107, 118–121, Syntagm 55, 59, 100–102 124–127, 129–131, 133, 134 Syntax 7, 27, 55, 62, 74, 76, 94, 100, 109, Philology 1–8, 12, 14–17, 31, 35, 36, 38, 124, 130, 132, 135 42, 45, 66, 93, 94, 112, 117, 122–124, Syriac, cf. Peshitta 136 Syro-Hexapla 80, 83, 86 Phoenician 71–74, 79, 80 Piel 38, 39, 132, 134 Targum(s) 10, 12, 24, 25, 27, 33, 36, Plene 29, 34, 36, 45–48, 53 39–41, 55–61, 96, 100, 104–107, 111, Post-biblical Hebrew 3, 13, 31, 32, 34, 35, 120, 126, 127, 134 37–39, 42 Text critical 2, 3, 5–16, 31, 36, 38, 45, 65, Pre-Samaritan text 95 93–97 Proto-massorétic text 75–77, 95, 104, 109 Textual Criticism 1–8, 14–17, 31, 35, 38, Pseudo-classicism 33 42, 72, 83, 84, 88–90, 93, 94, 112, 117, Pual 133, 134, 136 123, 131, 132 Index of Subjects 155

Tradition 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 19, 20, 22–25, 27, 65, 72, 74, 76, 81, 86, 93, 96, 99, 101, 42, 50, 52, 65, 66, 71, 73, 76–79, 81, 84, 103–107, 112, 113, 118–121, 129, 133, 100–108, 111, 112, 119, 124–127, 132, 134, 136 135 Vocabulary 45, 58, 83, 88 Translation(s) 9, 19, 23–25, 27, 28, 31, Vocalization(s) 7, 19, 26, 29, 33, 37, 71, 37, 57, 58, 60, 62, 64, 74, 75, 77, 80, 86, 72, 99, 100, 102, 105, 108, 127, 132, 89, 95, 97, 101, 103–107, 118, 120–122, 135–137 124–127, 129, 134 Vorlage(n) 10, 26, 27, 30, 31, 39, 57, 59, Transmission 1, 8, 10, 16, 20, 22, 27, 45, 62, 64, 65, 75, 76, 87, 89, 94, 95, 101, 71, 72, 93, 94, 96, 113 103, 104, 118, 125, 130, 135 Vowels 6, 7, 26, 33, 63 Ugaritik 32, 71, 73, 80 Vulgate (V) 21–33, 34, 55, 56, 57, 59–62, 76, 80, 83, 103, 118, 120, 125–127, 129, Variant(s) 1–3, 7, 10, 20, 22, 25–27, 130, 133, 134 29–32, 36, 40, 45, 52, 64, 65, 83, 93–97, 106, 108, 111, 112, 126 Witness(es) 1, 6–11, 13–15, 31, 35, 45, Version(s) 3, 6, 7, 14, 15, 23–25, 28, 29, 48, 52, 59, 77, 94–97, 103, 105, 107, 32–34, 36, 38, 39, 41, 52, 54, 56–63, 109–111, 117, 119, 123–126, 128–137