sign in sign up
<<
Home , Aleppo Codex, Ketef Hinnom, Leningrad Codex, Masoretic text

THE TEXT OF THE

John D. Meade Phoenix Seminary WHAT ARE SOME SCHOLARS SAYING? • To be candid: before the , there was no Bible. Before the beginning of the second century CE, there were Jewish Scriptures whose forms were still in flux and many scriptures were excluded in the finalization of the . Prior to the second century there was no way of knowing which scriptural books would be included within the collection and which would be left out; nor was there any way of knowing how the final version of the individual books would appear.” — Timothy Michael Law, When God Spoke Greek, p. 19 LAW CONTINUED

“We have seen repeatedly that the and especially the offer proof that the Hebrew Bible was not fixed before the second century CE and, perhaps more surprisingly, that many readers and users of scriptural texts before then were not bothered about it.” – Michael Law, When God Spoke Greek, p. 78 CLASSIFICATION OF DSS AT (TOV 2012)

Proto-MT Pre- Close to Non- Samaritan LXX aligned MSS 48% 11% 2% 39% Rest of MSS 44% 7% 49%

Tov categorizes 57 texts from Qumran (38.77 percent of the biblical-DSS) as non-aligned (Scribal Practices, 332–35).

A non-aligned text is defined by Tov as a text that is inconsistent in its agreement with the MT, LXX, and SP while preserving unique readings; thus the OT text is fluid. HOW WELL PRESERVED IS THE HEBREW OLD TESTAMENT?

• Tov’s analysis of the so-called “non-aligned texts” leads many to believe that the Old Testament Text was fluid before it was finally standardized in the early second century AD. • But is this picture accurate? WHAT IS OUR EVIDENCE? • (MT; 9th–11th) – The late Hebrew Medieval Manuscripts from Galilee (Tiberius). • Jewish Greek Revisers (, Aquila, Symmachus; 40AD–150AD) • Syriac (150–200 AD) • Latin (around 400 AD) • These Versions translated the proto-Masoretic Text; that is, the Hebrew consonantal text without vowels. • The Greek Septuagint (LXX) – The Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament between 280 BC to the 1st BC. • The (2nd-1st BC) – the Samaritan version/revision of the Pentateuch. • The Dead Sea Scrolls (250 BC-130 AD) – Hebrew MSS found in and around the Dead Sea in 1947. KETEF HINNOM (NUM 6:24-26; SILVER AMULET; 6TH-5TH BC)

“May h[e]/sh[e] be blessed by , the warrior [or “helper”] and the rebuker of [E]vil: May Yahweh bless you, keep you. May Yahweh make His face shine upon you and grant you p[ea]ce.” HEBREW MANUSCRIPTS FROM III - VII CENTURIES AD

Exodus Oxford Bodleian Lib. Ms. Heb. D.89 Ashkar-Gilson Hebrew Manuscript #2, David M. Exodus Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Duke University Numbers Berlin, Staatliche Museum, P 10598 Genesis Cambridge T-S NS 3.21 and 4.3 Kings Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, Pap. 47-48 Job Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, Ant. Pap. 49-50 MOST IMPORTANT MSS BEFORE 1100 Manuscript Initial Date (AD) Includes

Aleppo Codex A 925 all of OT Leningrad B19A L 1008 all of OT BM Or. 4445 B 925 most of Torah Cairo Codex C 896 Prophets New York MS N 9th century Latter Prophets Sassoon 507 S 10th century most of Torah Sassoon 1053 S1 10th century most of OT Petersburg Codex P 916 Latter Prophets Vatican ebr. 448 V 1000? Torah Berlin Or. qu. 680 Ba 11th century Writings (1008 AD) (Psalm 81-84) Codex (925 AD) (Psalm 81-84) II. EARLIEST EVIDENCE OF MASORETIC TEXT

A. Overview of Dead Sea Scroll Evidence 1. Inner Circle Texts (texts copied from Temple Exemplars) 2. Second Circle Texts from Qumran (texts copied from similar but not exact exemplar). 3. Kaige Tradition (Greek Translations and Revisions of LXX) B. Summary: Inner circle + Second circle + Kaige Greek Tradition EARLIEST EVIDENCE OF MT

• 1. Biblical Scrolls from Other sites: around 43 (= proto-MT). • 2. Biblical Scrolls from Qumran: around 225 (= Mixed). 50 BC-30 AD Nahal Hever 20 BC-115 AD Nahal Se’elim “ “ “ Wadi Murabba‘at “ “ “

TEXTS OUTSIDE OF QUMRAN OVERVIEW OF DEAD SEA Genesis Isaiah SCROLL Exodus Jeremiah EVIDENCE: Leviticus Ezekiel Numbers 12 Prophets 1. INNER Deuteronomy CIRCLE TEXTS FROM Joshua Daniel OTHER SITES Judges - Masada MasPs-a (Psalms 81-85; ca. 25 BC)

Leon Levy Library: http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/ QUMRAN

http://galleryhip.co m/qumran-caves- map.html Overview of Genesis 12 Prophets Dead Sea Exodus Psalms Scroll Leviticus *Job Evidence: Deuteronomy *Proverbs Joshua *. Second *Samuel Daniel *Kings Ezra- Circle Isaiah Nehemiah Texts from Jeremiah * = not in first list Qumran Ezekiel A. Overview of Dead Sea 12 Minor Prophets Scroll (25 BC) Scroll *LXX-Lamentations Evidence: *LXX- 3. Kaige LXX-2 Samuel 11:1 - 1 Kings Tradition 2:11 *LXX- LXX-Ruth Theodotion (25 BC-25 AD) * = not in previous lists Aquila (flourished 130 AD) Evidence From the Kaige Tradition

8HevXIIgr (Micah; ca. 25 BC)

8HevXIIgr (Micah; Leon Levy Library: http://www.deadseascrolls.o ca. 25 BC) rg.il/ B. Summary Genesis Ezekiel Conclusions: Exodus 12 Prophets Inner circle + Leviticus Job Numbers Psalms Second circle Deuteronomy Proverbs + Kaige Joshua Ecclesiastes Judges-Ruth Song of Songs Greek Samuel Daniel Tradition Kings Chronicles Isaiah Ezra-Nehemiah Jeremiah- Esther Lamentations III. EVALUATING THE MASORETIC TEXT VIS-À-VIS THE EVIDENCE

• A. Conservative Copying (Repetition) • B. Free Copying (Resignification) • C. What about the Non-Aligned Texts? A. CONSERVATIVE COPYING: EXODUS 15

• A. Exodus 15: Ashkar-Gilson (7th AD) and Leningrad Codex (1008 AD). 1. Description of the Ashkar-Gilson. 2. Layout of the Song of the Sea in the two texts. 3. The Five Special Lines above the Song. 4. Open and Closed Sections. 5. Spelling Tradition. 6. Summary Conclusions. Ashkar- Gilson (7th- 8th AD; Exodus 14- 15)

Paul Sanders: http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles /article_201.pdf Leningrad Codex (1008 AD; Exodus 14) Leningrad Codex (1008 AD; Exodus 15) Ashkar-Gilson (7th-8th AD; focus)

Leningrad (1008 AD; focus) SUMMARY • The amount of correspondence between AS and LC is remarkable. If the MSS are separated by 400 years that’s about the time gap between the Pilgrims and us. If it is more like 300 years that’s still about the time gap between the French and Indian War and us. The point is that to have only a handful of spelling differences between texts over this great span of time without the help of the printing press is truly remarkable. A. CONSERVATIVE COPYING: PSALM 82

• B. Psalm 82: Masada Psalms Scroll (ca. 25 BC) and Aleppo (ca. 925 AD) 1. Textual Information: hardly any spelling or other copyist mistakes. 2. Layout and Poetic Line Divisions. 3. Summary Conclusions MASPSA (PSALMS 81-85; CA. 25 BC)

Psalm 82

Leon Levy Library: http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/ (PSALMS 82-83; 925 AD)

Psalm 82 Aleppo Psalm 82

MASPSA PSALM 82 Codex Sinaiticus (4th AD) (Psalm 81-84) B. FREE COPYING: HOW TALL IS GOLIATH? (1 SAM 17:4)

VS. TEXTUAL CHOICE: 6 OR 4 CUBITS?

and a span (ארבע) and a span • 4 Cubits (ׁשׁש) Cubits 6 • = 9’9” = 6’9” • MT • 4Q51 (4QSama) • σ' καὶ οἱ λοιποί • LXXBL (Rahlfs) • Jonathan • , Antiq. 6.171 • Peshitta • Vulgate DIFFERENT EXPLANATIONS

• Unintentional scribal error: • Intentional scribal exegesis: • Perhaps the scribe copying vs. 4 • Moving from 4 to 6 cubits would six make David’s victory more“ שש אמות wrote (ארבע אמות) .impressive שש מאות cubits” anticipating the “600” shekels of iron of Goliath’s • Moving from 6 to 4 would also make spear in vs. 7. good sense since perhaps it’s a more • But scribe’s eye may not have realistic height and it would provide skipped that far down the page… a critique of Saul, who was head and shoulders taller than his people (9:2). B. FREE COPYING: DAVID & GOLIATH (1 SAM. 17:1–18:6) HEBREW VERSION (MT) GREEK SEPTUAGINT VERSION 11: When Saul and all heard these words... And Saul and all Israel heard these words... 12–31: Now David was the son of an Ephrathite of […] Bethlehem in Judah, named Jesse, who had eight sons…. When the words that David spoke were heard… 32–40: And David said to Saul…. His sling was in his And David said to Saul…. His sling was in hand, and he approached the Philistine. his hand, and he advanced against the man, the Philistine. 41: And the Philistine moved forward and came near […] to David, with his shield-bearer in front of him. 42–49: And when the Philistine looked and saw And Goliath saw David … The stone David…. The stone sank into his forehead… penetrated through the helmet into his forehead… 50: So David prevailed over the Philistine… […] ALMOST CERTAINLY TWO VARIANT LITERARY EDITIONS OF THIS STORY

• Did the text grow (= LXX oldest) or shrink (= MT oldest)? • Were both editions copied side by side, the shorter as a popular version of the longer? • Most would say the version in our is the product of the text growing over time. • But the evidence for the longer version goes back to 4QSam-a, which is dated to the 1st BC. • It seems plausible to me that both the conservative and the free versions were copied side by side and known from late, second-temple times. • A decision on the more original text here is difficult. C. WHAT ABOUT NON-ALIGNED TEXTS?

• Good research is being done to show that these texts are not as unaligned as Tov presumed. • Anthony Ferguson has just completed a doctoral dissertation analyzing all of Tov’s evidence. He argued, “Contrary to ’s analysis that fifty-five texts from Qumran are exclusively identified as textually non-aligned, a more cautious analysis of each text demonstrates that once the few ambiguous texts are excluded from the category, the remaining texts can reasonably be explained as belonging to the Masoretic tradition.” • That is, these texts are not so different from MT or at least Septuagint. They belong to the same tradition that produced MT, even if they contain unique readings and only sporadic agreements with known texts. • In other words, as analysis on this major problem continues, we may find, as some suspect, that Tov’s categorization was too strict and really these texts are examples of freer copying of the proto-MT after all. CONCLUSIONS

• Our English Old Testament is based mainly on MT, and this text tradition is a rugged and ancient one. As with all texts, it contains errors, which our other textual witnesses help to correct. • The so-called “Unaligned Texts” are being examined with more scrutiny today. The foundation is too uncertain to argue for “textual fluidity.” After all, most of our texts agree, and it is in the nature of to focus on the relative few differences. • I would conclude that although there are major variants that continually require analysis and may continue to change the base text of translation, the evidence shows we can trust our Bibles