WHAT REMAINS OF THE HEBREW ? THE ACCURACY OF THE TEXT OF THE IN THE LIGHT OF THE QUMRAN SAMUEL (4QSAMA)

David J.A. Clines

The question that begins the title of this paper is one familiar to the recipient of this volume, for he has endured several oral disquisitions upon its theme over lunches he has very kindly entertained me to in his college. If nothing else, this paper adds to the documentary evi- dence he will need if he is to refute the ideas. When I gave the Mowinckel lecture in Oslo in 2001, under the title ‘What Remains of the ? Its Text and Language in a Postmodern Age’ (Clines 2002), I undertook, among other things, to examine the accuracy of the text of the Hebrew Bible that we now have in the form of the Masoretic text. I was not interested in establishing the superiority of certain textual readings over against other readings, as text critics have been wont to do, or in explaining how such and such readings may have come into existence. I set myself the more limited task of attempting to quantify the number of places in the text of the Hebrew Bible where variant readings exist and therefore have to be evaluated. I should say that this task was not in the interests of pure research, but had a rather pressing practical implication. For I was writing my commentary on the Book of Job and every day was faced with ques- tions of proposed emendations to the Masoretic text. I realized that if I did not accept (or propose) any emendations to the text, I was silently propounding the view that the Book of Job has been handed down across the centuries in an immaculate form, exactly as its origi- nal author had intended it—as well as tying myself in knots trying to create some sort of sense out of apparently meaningless sentences. On the other hand, if I accepted any emendations, where would I stop? There were thousands of proposals. Was there any way of knowing roughly how many places in the Book of Job are likely to have been corrupted, and thus what would be a reasonable quantity of emenda- tions to accept into my commentary? Would 6 be too few, or 200 too many? 212 j.a. clines

I thought of a rather simple exercise I could do, one, moreover, that no one had ever done before, as far as I knew. I could compare passages that occurred twice in the text of the Hebrew Bible (that is, texts in double transmission) and count how many variants the Masoretic text displayed. My showcase example was the rather lengthy psalm found in both 2 Samuel 22 and Psalm 18. If I knew how many variants there existed in one text compared with the other, I could get a sense of whether I was being absurdly conservative or else laughingly liberal in my text-critical decisions for the Book of Job.

2 Samuel 22 Compared with Psalm 18 in the Masoretic Text

There follows a sample of the evidence I was able to present. In the trans- lations, I have shown the differences between the texts with these marks: Single underline = a plus/minus (words in one text and not in the other) Double underline = a variant (difference in wording) Bold underline = difference in word order (1) Some examples of significant pluses and minuses:

2 Sam. And he said, Yhwh is my rock and my fortress . . . ַויּ ֹ ַ ֑אמר ְי ָ ֛הוה ַ ֽס ְל ִ֥ﬠי ְוּמ ֻצ ָד ִ ֖תי 22.2 Ps. 18.2–3 And he said, I love you, O Yhwh, my strength. Yhwh is my rock and my fortress . . . ַויּ ֹ ַ֡אמר ֶאְר ָח ְמ ָ֖ך ְי ָ ֣הוה ִח ְזִֽ קי׃ ְי ָ ֤הוה ׀ ַ ֽס ְל ִ֥ﬠי ְוּמ ָצוּד ִ֗תי

2 Sam. I take refuge in him, my shield and the horn of my salvation, my 22.3 height, and my refuge, my saviour; you save me from violence. ֶא ֱח ֶס ֑ה־בּוֹ ָמ ִג ִ֞נּי ְוֶ ֣ קֶרן ִי ְשׁ ִ֗ﬠי ִמ ְשׂ ַגּ ִ ֙בּי ְוּמ ִ֔נוּסי ֹמ ִשׁ ִ֕ﬠי ֵמ ָח ָ ֖מס ֹתּ ִשׁ ֵ ֽﬠ ִני Ps. 18.3 I take refuge in him, my shield and the horn of my salvation, my height. ֶ ֽא ֱח ֶס ֑ה־בּוֹ ָ ֽמ ִגִ֥נּי ְוֶ ֽ קֶר ִ֝ן־י ְשׁ ִ֗ﬠי ִמ ְשׂ ַגּ ִֽבּי

(2) An example of word order variant:

2 Sam. Foreigners came cringing to me; as soon as they heard, they obeyed 22.45 me. ְבֵּ ֥ני ֵנ ָ ֖כר ִי ְת ַ ֽכּ ֲח ִ ֑שׁוּ־לי ִל ְשׁ ֥מ ַוֹע ֖ ֹאֶזן ִי ָ ֥שּׁ ְמעוּ ִֽלי