The Qumran Text and the Samaritan Text Will Have Diverged at a Later Date
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
REVIEWS BCE; the Qumran text and the Samaritan text will have diverged at a later date. Though neither of these texts can be shown to be dependent on the other, they share a similar expansionist tendency, in particular by the introduction of material from Deuteronomy into the text of Exodus. The last chapter then considers what can be known of editorial and scribal processes in the second temple period in the light of this study. Careful distinctions are drawn between the earlier stages of textual development, when some scribes at least felt that they had the freedom to effect a structural change in their text by the introduction of material from elsewhere Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/XXXIII/1/133/1637578 by guest on 30 September 2021 in the Torah, and the later stages when that freedom was limited, first to the correction of obvious errors, then to a point where even mistakes could not be put right. There are some instructive comments also on ancient proof- reading habits. These varied conclusions are then usefully drawn together in a short final chapter, and there follow four apprendices. One sets out in detail the extent of the fragments on the scroll which are available for comparison (and Dr Sanderson scrupulously avoids any guesswork based on the length of gaps in the scroll); the next provides a complete list of variants; and the last two offer notes in tabular form on the textual affiliations displayed and the characteristic features of each text. The whole is rounded off by a biblio- graphy; there are no indexes, but the contents are so clearly organized that they are probably unnecessary. The whole enterprise is a model of its kind. There is some repetition, but this seems largely to be the result of Dr Sanderson's care in ensuring that she does not go beyond the evidence, and that each step in her carefully worked out presentation is justified. Enough has perhaps been said to give some indication of the value of the textual analysis; equally interesting, though less extensive, is the contribution to our knowledge of the varied patterns of Judaism at the turn of the eras. In particular Dr Sanderson is able to provide further support for the view that the history of the Samaritans at that period must be placed within the larger context of Judaism. The expansions characteristic of the Samaritan Pentateuch are essentially very similar to those found in the Qumran text., All in all this is a first class piece of work deserving the careful attention of all who are working in any of the areas which it discusses. KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON RICHARD COGGINS WERNER STROTHMANN, unter Mitarbeit von KURT JOHANNES und MANFRED ZUMPE, Konkordan\ \ur syriscben Bibel. Der Pentateuch, 4 vols (Gottinger Orientforschungen, I. Reihe: Syriaca, Band 26), Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 1986, Pp. xxxiv+2556 (continuously paginated). Price: DM 340. Anyone who has worked on the Syriac Bible will be all too aware of the lack of a concordance to the Peshitta. For the New Testament there is now the promise of a concordance, prepared by The Way International who have already produced a word list (under the misleading title of The Concordance to the Pesbitta Version of the Aramaic New Testament, 1985). For the Peshitta Old Testament, besides the volumes reviewed here, there is now a series of concordances for individual books or groups of books: Qohelet (W. REVIEWS Strothmann, 1973), Psalms (N. Sprenger, 1976), Ben Sira (M. M. Winter, 1976), and the Prophetical Books (W. Strothmann, K. Johannes, and M. Zumpe, 1984). The present volumes follow the principles and format adopted in the concordance to the Prophets; in particular the same choice of a double basic text has been adopted, namely the Urmia edition (1852) and B. Walton's London Polyglot (165 3-7). As is well known, neither of these two editions is at all satisfactory from the point of view of critical scholarship, for both are based on late manuscripts. Recent studies, by M. Koster and others, have Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/XXXIII/1/133/1637578 by guest on 30 September 2021 shown clearly that at least three different stages in the development of the Peshitta text of the OT can be discerned: (1) that of the manuscripts of the sixth to eighth centuries, including Codex Ambrosianus (7a), the basis for the Peshitta Institute's edition, (the Basic Textus Receptus, or BTR, in Koster's terminology); (2) the early medieval Textus Receptus (TR) which emerged in the eighth/ninth century; and (3) the later medieval Textus Receptus, which underlies the various printed editions, including Walton's Polyglot and the Urmia edition. Thus the Gottingen concordances are based on a manifestly late text from, and so, if one is interested, for example, in discovering Peshitta usage vis avis the Hebrew original, they cannot safely be used without checking all the time with the BTR. Some might consider that it would have been preferable to have waited for the appropriate volumes of the Peshitta Institute's edition to appear (Genesis-Exodus were published in 1977; Psalms and XII Prophets in 1980; Ezekiel in 1985, and Isaiah in 1987), for this edition would have provided a much more satisfactory textual basis for a concordance. Nevertheless, although this might be a counsel of perfection, scholars will undoubtedly be extremely grateful to Professor Strothmann and his associates for their painstaking work, for these concor- dances will certainly prove to be tools of immense practical benefit for anyone working in the field of Syriac studies, despite the unsatisfactory textual basis. What difference would it have made had the earlier text form, represented by the BTR manuscripts, been employed as the basis rather than the London Polyglot and the Urmia edition? With the help of the Peshitta Institute's edition of Genesis and Exodus we can readily discover some areas where users of the present corcordance need to be wary. On the positive side it can be noted that the use of the London Polyglot, based on West Syrian manuscripts, and of the Urmia edition, based on East Syrian ones, means that where the Textus Receptus is divided along these lines, both readings are incorporated into the concordance; thus, for example, the variations of 1 zalfaar, noted in the Peshitta Institute's edition at Gen. 2:20, 15:24, 20:8, 23:13 and Exod. 39:21 are all recorded in the concordance since they are also found in the Polyglot text. When, however, there is variation between the BTR and the TR, the concordance records only the text of TR and the reader is left unaware that the earlier (and usually original) Peshitta text is different. A case of this sort can be found, for example, at Gen. 7:3, where according to the BTR Noah is told to take specimens of 'the birds of heaven' (= MT), whereas in the TR they are limited to the 'clean birds'; the concordance has a reference to Gen. 7:3 only under dky', and not under imj'. Similar instances can be found notably at Gen. 14:10 (BTR mry'; TR 'lb\ 50:16 (BTR vpqdrv; TR wqrbw), and Exod. REVIEWS 35:27 (BTR wlbwsy'; TR tvlprys"). Likewise in the case of additions found only in TR (e.g. Gen. 7:20, 8:7, Exod. 28:5, 20, etc.) there is no indication of the shorter reading of the BTR. Conversely, no entry will be found for words occuring in the BTR but dropped in the later TR (e.g. Gen. 50:18 »• The inclusio. n of namosaja (an adjectival form not found in Syriac until about the fifth century), listed under Exod. 30:10, is based on a manifest corruption of dbwsy' in Walton's text. This makes one wonder whether S. Lee's edition (1823, reprinted by the United Bible Societies in 1979) might Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/XXXIII/1/133/1637578 by guest on 30 September 2021 not have been a better edition than Walton's to choose. Although the BTR (itself not entirely uniform) is manifestly superior to the medieval TR, even it does not always preserve the original Peshitta reading, for this must sometimes be sought in very early manuscripts such as 5 bl which exhibits a rather large number of lexical variants (though by no means all of equal value). Since these variants of 5 bl are of particular interest in Genesis and Exodus it may be of use to offer an alphabetical list of them. The list is strictly limited to lexical variants (thus it excludes variants between active/passive etc.); the lemma represents 5bl and the reading of other manuscripts is given in brackets. Proper names (absent from the Gottingen concordance) are included. Ex. 2:18 (—); 40:15 {'abba). Gen. 18:31 (-). Gen. 15:4 (-). Ex. 34:26 {'ar'a). Gen. 24:42 (—); Ex. 15:22 {'eta). Gen. 42:18 (-); 45:24 {'ennori). Ex. 39:12 {tlitaya). Gen. 6:22, Ex. 39:32 {kult); Gen. 18:25 (~~); Gen. 24:51, 26:29, 27:14, 34:12, Ex. 34:4 {'aykanna); Gen. 44:1 {kma). Gen. 44:18 {'at/). Ex. 5:11 {'aymekka). Gen. 41:13, Ex. 3:5, 13:11, 16:24, 17:10 {'ak). Gen. 36:4 {Ya'lan). Gen. 15:7, 20:4, 24:12, 28:20, Ex. 31:13 (-); Gen. 18:22, 35:1, Ex. 6:2 {mdrya); Gen. 28:3 {'elladdaj). Gen. 24:28 {'abba). Gen. 24:2, Ex. 19:7 {qra); Gen. 38:25, 44:2 (-); Gen. 45:27 {bawwi); Ex.