The Text of The Old Testament - Ernst Würthwein
The Text of The Old Testament - Ernst Würthwein
The Text of The Old Testament - Ernst Würthwein
WRTHWEIN
The Text of
THE OLD
TESTAMENT
TRANSLATED BY
ERROLL F. RHODES
THE TEXT
of the
OLD TESTAMENT
THE TEXT
of the
OLD TESTAMENT
An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica
SECOND EDITION
Ernst Wrthwein
Translated by
Erroll F. Rhodes
0099 765432
List of Plates ix
Preface to the Fifth German Edition xi
Translator's Note xii
Introduction xiii
V
vi THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
V. The Septuagint ( ) 50
1. Introduction 50
2. The Letter of Aristeas 51
3. The Origin and History of the Septuagint
to the Second Century A.D. 52
4. Revisions and Later Greek Versions 54
5. Origen's Hexapla 57
6. Other Recensions of the Septuagint 60
7. Lagarde's Program 61
8. Kahle's Thesis 63
9. The Septuagint and the Hebrew Text 66
10. Manuscripts 71
11. Editions 75
12. The Samariticon 78
6. Inscriptions 130
7. Special Literature 130
8. International Organizations 131
Plates 133
ix
X THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
This fifth edition, like earlier editions, has been thoroughly revised in the
light of new critical editions of texts, as well as recent contributions and
findings in the various areas of the history of the text (especially of the
Masoretic text, the Septuagint, and the Peshitta) and of textual criticism.
The "List of Sigla," which shows in parallel columns the sigla used
in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, edited in 1967-1977 by K. Elliger and
W. Rudolph (BHS), and also those used in its predecessor Biblia Hebraica,
edited by R. Kittel-P. Kahle in 1929-1937 (BHK), assures the usefulness
of this book as an introduction to both editions.
Gratitude is due Erroll F. Rhodes, the translator of the American
edition (Grand Rapids, 1979,21985), for contributing many bibliographical
references; to Mr. M. Hoffner, Th.M., for valuable clerical assistance, espe-
cially in preparing the bibliography; to the Rev. R. Bickert for his gracious
help and for reviewing corrections; to the staff of the German Bible Society,
and to Dr. J. Lange in particular, for careful editorial assistance.
My wife was a constant source of encouragement and inspiration to
me in the preparation of the present revision. It is a matter of deep sorrow
that she did not live to see its publication. It is dedicated to her in continuing
gratitude.
xi
Translator's Note
xii
Introduction
When we read a modern book, printed from a manuscript which has been
prepared by the author himself and produced under his own supervision,
we can study it with confidence that its text represents the author's intention
in its wording and even in the details of its punctuation. We can be sure
of the text we read. With works produced hundreds or even thousands of
years before the invention of printing the situation is quite different. Almost
without exception the original documents have been lost. The texts are
available only in copies separated from their autographs by several centu-
ries and an unknown number of intermediary copies. We know how easily
errors can occur in copying a text. By accident a word may be missed or
repeated, groups of words may be inadvertently transposed or replaced by
similar or synonymous words, and if the handwriting is difficult to read,
an element of guesswork may enter.
Many errors may be due to carelessness, especially if the copyist is
a professional scribe who works rapidly and becomes casual, and who
further may not be familiar with the subject of the text being copied. But
even the scribe who approaches a text with interest and devotion may
introduce corruptions. There may be an expression in the exemplar which
is felt to reflect an earlier scribe's misunderstanding of the author, and with
a concern for the meaning of the text the scribe naturally corrects it, just
as we would correct a typographical error in a printed book. But the scribe's
correction itself could very well reflect a misunderstanding! It is not only
the casual or absentminded scribe who introduces errors, but the conscien-
tious scribe as well. The next stage in the process is obvious. A scribe
copying a faulty manuscript and no manuscript is without errors will
deal with a predecessor's errors either by guesswork or with ingenuity,
resulting in a series of intended improvements leading away from the
original text.
xiii
xiv THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
1. It is true, as we shall see, that efforts to protect the Hebrew text of the Old
Testament from accidental and intentional changes were successful. But this was only
after a certain date, and in the preceding centuries it was subject to the common
vicissitudes of all ancient texts.
I. Script and Writing Materials
1. Script1
1. J. Naveh 1987.
I
2 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
tion in East Jordan from the fourth or early third century B.C.2 and the
earliest Qumran fragments from about 200 B.C. (4QSamb and 4QJera).3 The
Jews were aware, however, that this script was not their earliest. One Jewish
tradition attributes its introduction to Ezra, about 430 B.C. The later rabbis
were embarrassed by the implication that it was a postexilic innovation.
Accordingly they told how the Torah was first given in the square script,
but because of Israel's sin the script had been changed, and then in Ezra's
time the original form was restored. Although this was obviously special
pleading and without any historical value, it clearly reflects the awareness
of a change of script in the postexilic period. Most probably the Jews'
gradual adoption of the Aramaic language, the lingua franca of the ancient
Near East, was followed by their adoption of the Aramaic script, so that
by inference it was in this script that the sacred writings were first written,
and only eventually in the square script which developed from it.4
When the earlier parts of the Old Testament were first written down
in the preexilic period, another script was in use in Palestine and Syria.
This was the Phoenician-Old Hebrew script, the ancestor of all the alpha-
bets of past and present. It is known to us in a later, more developed form
in a series of texts, the earliest dating from the eleventh or tenth century.
The best-known examples are:5 the abecedary ostracon from Izbet Sartah
(eleventh century B.C.; pl. 49), the Ahiram sarcophagus from Byblos (ca.
1000 B.C.), the farmer's calendar from Gezer (ca. 950), the Moabite stone
(ca. 840; pl. 2), ostraca from Samaria (ink on clay, eighth century), a
palimpsest papyrus from Murabba'at (eighth or seventh century), the
Siloam inscription (ca. 700; pl. 3), and ostraca from Lachish (ca. 588; pl.
4) and Arad (sixth century).6
Its origins must lie far earlier than any of the examples yet discovered.
Early examples of alphabetical inscriptions include the Sinai script found
in a group of inscriptions in the mines of Serabit el-Hadem on the Sinai
peninsula and dated by William F. Albright ca. 1500,7 the (related?) proto-
Palestinian script found on artifacts from middle and southern Palestine
of the period from 1700 to 1200 B.C. (Gezer, Lachish, Shechem, etc.; pl.
1),8 and the cuneiform alphabet of Ugarit in north Syria, ca. 1400 B.C.
There is no need to discuss here the relationship of these scripts to the
Phoenician-Old Hebrew script and the later square script, because it is still
largely a prehistory, obscure in its details. Deciphering the scripts, except
for Ugaritic, is still at the beginning stages. Only the Phoenician-Old
Hebrew script and the later square script are directly related to the earliest
written forms of the Old Testament texts and to their preservation as written
documents. We need only observe here that when the Israelites settled in
Palestine they found in the Phoenician alphabet (although without vowels)
a script which was easy to learn and required hardly any improvement;
more than four hundred references in the Old Testament attest that the art
of writing was widely practiced in Israel.9
The transition from the Old Hebrew script to the square script oc-
curred between the fourth and second centuries B.C. it is impossible to
be more precise. For a long while the Old Hebrew script remained in use
beside the square script. The coins of the period of Bar Kochba's revolt
(A.D. 132-135) bear Old Hebrew letters. Among the texts found in the Dead
Sea caves are some written in the Old Hebrew script.10 "This script . . .
derives from the old pre-exilic Hebrew script. Apparently it survived as a
book hand and enjoyed a renascence in the period of Maccabean nation-
7. W. F. Albright 1948.
8. The so-called Sinai Inscriptions have been collected and studied by W. F.
Albright 1966; on the proto-Palestinian inscriptions cf. also F. M. Cross 1954.
9. Cf. D. Diringer 1970: 13; A. Lemaire 1981; B. Sass 1991. S. Warner 1980,
suggests the possibility that social barriers militated against its widespread use.
10. According to present reports there are five Pentateuch manuscripts and some
fragments of Job (Cross 1961: 43). Cf. pl. 14, pp. 160f. Of special interest is an Exodus
scroll with fragments of Exod. 6:25-37:15 which preserves the Samaritan text type
almost throughout although it is not of Samaritan origin (it lacks the characteristic
addition after 20:17). Cf. P. Skehan 1955: 182-87; and 1959: 22f.; R. S. Hanson 1964;
also the major study of J. Sanderson 1986. A badly damaged scroll of Leviticus written
in the Old Hebrew script from about 100 B.C. was found by Bedouin in Cave 11 and
published by D. N. Freedman and K. A. Mathews (with contributions by R. S. Hanson)
1985. It belongs to the proto-rabbinic textual tradition, later to become the rabbinic
standard.
4 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
2. Writing Materials
Many different kinds of material were used for writing in biblical times.
Job wished his words were chiseled in stone (Job 19:24); and the successful
1 1 . F . M . Cross 1961:34.
12. Cf. J. Maier 1982: 95; cf. especially p. 16 for the "defilement of hands" by
scrolls.
13. Edition: D. Barthelemy 1963; cf. pl. 30.
14. According to F. M. Cross, 1961: 34, the Samaritan script was derived from
the (archaizing) Old Hebrew script of the Hasmonean period. The history of Hebrew
scripts from the beginning to modern times is illustrated with about four hundred
examples by S. A. Birnbaum 1954-57, 1971.
SCRIPT AND WRITING MATERIALS 5
achievement of the tunnel of Siloam (pl. 3) in the late eighth century B.C.
was recorded on the smooth surface of a rock in an inscription discovered
in 1880. We read in Exod 34:1 of stone tablets with the commandments
of God written on them, and in Deut. 27:2f. stones were covered with a
plaster on which letters were presumably painted. Wooden tablets15 for
brief notes may be intended when the prophets Isaiah and Habakkuk were
instructed to record their oracles on tablets (Isa. 30:8; Hab. 2:2; perhaps
also Isa. 8:1). The clay tablets so popular in the rest of the ancient Near
East were ideal for the straight lines of cuneiform script, but hardly adapted
to the curved lines of the Hebrew script. But the excavations in Palestine
demonstrate that potsherds or ostraca (pl. 4) inscribed with ink were as
popular there as elsewhere for routine daily matters. While excavating Tell
ed-Duweir (ancient Lachish) in 1935, archaeologists found some ostraca
in a room by the city gate which proved to be military dispatches from the
last years of Judah, ca. 588 B.C. It has already been suggested that individual
prophetic statements, proverbs, and the like may have been written on such
potsherds before they were collected into books. While this could well
account for the lack of continuity found in the order of some biblical books,
it remains only a theoretical possibility.
An example of writing material unparalleled elsewhere is the copper
scroll found in Qumran Cave I; it does not contain a biblical text.
The materials mentioned above were appropriate only for texts of
very limited length, and would be relevant only to the earlier stages of the
formation of our biblical books. Papyrus and leather were more suitable
materials for extensive books; these must be intended where the Old Testa-
ment refers to a scroll, whether or simply (Jer. 36:2ff.;
Ezek. 2:9; 3:1-3; Zech. 5:If.; Ps. 40:8), because only these are adapted to
the scroll format.
Papyrus16 was already being used in Egypt in the third millennium
B.C. We know from the famous travel narrative of the Egyptian Wen Amon
(ca. 1090 B.C.) that this convenient material was exported from Egypt to
Phoenicia in exchange for wood. We may infer from the fact that Wen
Amon took with him five hundred scrolls of fine grade papyrus (several
qualities were distinguished) that the commodity was being manufactured
commercially. Egypt was later to be the source of supply for the whole
Mediterranean world. Papyrus was made from the stem of the papyrus
15. Excavations in Egypt and Mesopotamia show that tablets of two or more
panels (diptychs, triptychs) could be prepared for writing with a coat of plaster or wax.
16. Cf. also D. J. Wiseman 1970: 30-32; T. C. Skeat 1969: 54-61.
6 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
reed. It was cut into thin strips. A vertical layer was placed upon a horizontal
layer; the two were pressed together (the natural gum provided adequate
bonding), dried, and rubbed smooth. The sheet was then ready for use. A
number of sheets could be glued together to form a scroll of a desired
length. The Israelites wrote on such scrolls in columns, from right to left.
Usually the inner side of the scroll (recto) with its horizontal grain was
used for texts, but some scrolls were inscribed on both sides (cf. Ezek.
2:10). It was probably a papyrus scroll which Baruch wrote on at Jeremiah's
dictation, and which King Jehoiakim burned in the open brazier sheet by
sheet (Jer. 36). On the whole, the use of papyrus must have been quite
common in Palestine. It was cheap and more durable than has generally
been recognized, "at least as durable as the best hand-made paper, if not
more so." 1 7 But of course favorable climate and soil, as in the desert sands
of Egypt, were required for it to survive through the centuries. This is why
very few papyrus fragments have been discovered thus far in Palestine,
such as those found in the caves of Qumran and Murabba'at (cf. pp. 31,
146), where the conditions were suitable for their preservation. Among
these were found only a few with biblical texts (e.g., Kings and Daniel,
and pap4Q IsaP, pap6Q Ps, pap7Q GrGen).
The palimpsest of Murabba'at deserves mention as the earliest
known Hebrew papyrus, ascribed to the eighth (Milik) or seventh
(Frank M. Cross, John C. L. Gibson, and others) century B.C. The almost
illegible underwriting seems to be a letter, while the overwriting seems
to be a list of persons.18
As a writing material, it was not until later that leather19 came to
play as important a role in Palestine as it did elsewhere in the Near East.
Its durability gave it an advantage over papyrus that made it an ideal
material for writings which were intended for long or constant use. Jewish
regulations still require that a copy of the Torah intended for liturgical use
be written on leather made from a clean animal, and this surely represents
20
an ancient usage. The Letter of Aristeas, at the end of the second century
The common book format of antiquity was the papyrus or leather scroll
a rather inconvenient form. It takes both hands to use it: one to hold the
scroll (the left hand for Hebrew scrolls, because of the right-to-left script),
while the other hand draws the sheets out slowly, column by column, and
21. The longest of the Qumran scrolls yet discovered is the "Temple Scroll"
which was acquired by Israel in 1967 (after the Six Day War): nineteen sheets, 8.6 m.
in length. Published: Y. Yadin 1983. Translations: J. Maier 1978 (German); 1985 (En-
glish). The original length of the Greek scroll of the Minor Prophets has been estimated
at 10 m. (cf. Tov et al. 1990).
8 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
rolls them up again as they are read (cf. Latin volvere "to turn," whence
volumen "volume" to designate a scroll). After a scroll has been read, it
must be wound back on the original roller to prepare for its next use, with
the first sheet on the outside again. We noted that the sixty-six chapters of
Isaiah required a scroll about 7.5 m. long. For practical reasons a scroll
could not be made much longer.22 Only in exceptional instances of very
large scrolls with very small script could the entire Old Testament, or even
several of its longer books, be included in a single scroll. Most of the
biblical books circulated in separate scrolls, and in some instances, as in
the Pentateuch, the division into books seems to have been made with the
normal capacity of a scroll in view.
It was the invention of the codex in the first century A.D., and espe-
cially the parchment codex, that made it possible to produce many or all
of the books of the Bible in a single volume. Remains of papyrus codices
(pl. 31, 32) containing Greek texts of the Old and New Testament books
have survived from the second and third centuries A.D.23 In the fourth
century the codex came into common use. The scroll did not disappear
completely, but its importance diminished. The role of the Christian church
in this development is of interest. It was the victory of the church which
led to the dominance of the codex, which had been used by Christians from
the beginning, over the scroll format. Scrolls came to be used only for
official records and contracts, while the codex became the normal form for
books.24 Its advantages over the scroll format are obvious: an increased
ease of browsing and rapid reference, as well as the use of both sides of
the sheet for texts. Even the Jews finally adopted the codex about A.D. 700
for reference works, retaining the use of leather and parchment scrolls for
(unpointed!) copies of the Torah and of Esther designated for liturgical use.
The majority of the fragments from the Cairo Geniza represent codices (cf.
pp. 7, 11, 34); only a few are from scrolls.
22. The longest surviving scroll is the 40 m.-long Harris Papyrus in the British
Library, which was never intended for practical use. This is far greater than the average,
which was between 6 m. and 10 m. for Greek papyrus scrolls. In the Qumran caves there
were also found scrolls "of very small format with a tiny script" (Bardtke 1961: 83).
23. C. H. Roberts has shown how completely the codex form came to dominate
Christian biblical manuscripts (in complete contrast to pagan and Jewish literature) in
the second and third centuries: cf. 1954: 169-204; 1970: 48-66; T. C. Skeat 1969: 65-74;
C. H. Roberts and T. C. Skeat 1987.
24. Cf. W. Schubart 1918: 56; and 1921: 122f.
SCRIPT AND WRITING MATERIALS 9
1. General Considerations
The Hebrew text of the Old Testament is called Masoretic because in its
present form it is based on the Masora (Hebrew ),2 the textual
tradition of the Jewish scholars known as the Masoretes. It is designated
by the symbol in both the Biblia Hebraica edited by Rudolf Kittel (BHK)
and the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS).
(a) In BHK since the third edition, has represented the text of Ms.
B 19A of the Saltykov-Shchedrin State Public Library of St. Petersburg,
written in A.D. 1008 (L, Leningradensis; pl. 24). The fourth edition of Biblia
Hebraica, the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), edited by Karl Elliger
and Wilhelm Rudolph, is also based on the same manuscript.3 The first
two editions, like most other editions (e.g., Christian D. Ginsburg, 1908ff.),
followed the edition of Jacob ben Chayyim ( ) printed by Daniel Bomberg
in Venice, 1524-25, which was based on late medieval manuscripts. In
BHK and BHS, then, we have a text that is centuries older than that of any
previously printed edition. But even this manuscript which underlies BHK
and BHS is remarkably recent when we consider the age of the Old
Testament and compare it with the important fourth- and fifth-century
10
THE MASORETIC TEXT 11
manuscripts of the Greek Old and New Testaments. In fact, we do not have
any Hebrew manuscript of the entire Old Testament written earlier than
the tenth century. The oldest dated codex (pl. 20) contains only the Prophets
and dates from A.D. 895 (Codex Cairensis, cf. p. 35).
In the latter half of the nineteenth century many fragments from the
sixth to the eighth century were found in an Old Cairo synagogue which
until A.D. 882 had been St. Michael's Church. They were discovered there
in the Geniza, a kind of storage room where worn or faulty manuscripts
were kept hidden until they could be disposed of formally (Aramaic
"to hide") to avoid misusing or profaning a manuscript containing the holy
name of God. Periodically the contents of a Geniza would be buried in the
ground with due ceremony. It was only by accident that the Cairo manu-
scripts escaped this fate: at some time the Geniza was walled over and its
existence forgotten.
It is even more coincidental that a number of substantially earlier
Hebrew manuscripts, some dating from the pre-Christian era, were hidden
during the first and second centuries A.D. in various caves in the Judean
desert, especially in the vicinity of the Essene settlement of Khirbet Qumran
(pl. 7-15b) near the Dead Sea, and remained there for nearly two millennia
to be found in a succession of discoveries since 1947. Among them are
found the biblical book of Isaiah in its entirety, the first two chapters of
Habakkuk, and fragments of all the other Old Testament books except
Esther (cf. pp. 31f.). But despite the importance of these discoveries for
scholarly research, the fact remains that for the entire Old Testament we
are dependent on manuscripts of the tenth century A.D. and later. This is
to be expected because Jewish regulations required the destruction of worn
and defective manuscripts. And when scholars had finally established the
text in the tenth century, all older manuscripts which represented earlier
stages of its development were naturally considered defective, and in the
course of time they disappeared. It is also true that manuscripts were often
destroyed during the medieval persecutions of the Jews, sometimes by their
adversaries, but sometimes also by the Jews themselves to prevent their
sacred books from falling into the hands of infidels.
In evaluating the significance of surviving manuscripts for textual
studies we should remember that although most of them are relatively late,
their age is neither the sole nor primary criterion of their worth. When
papyrus fragments of the Greek classical authors were discovered which
were centuries older than the medieval manuscripts previously known, they
aroused high expectations, especially in lay circles; but on examination
their texts proved to be inferior. This was because the medieval manuscripts
12 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
the consonantal text proper, the Nakdanim (from "to point") added
vowel points and accents to the manuscript, and the Masoretes added the
marginal and final Masoretic notes (cf. pp. 28f.).8 The same person could
serve more than one function: for obvious reasons the vowel points and
the Masoretic notes were frequently added by the same scholar. For ex-
ample, Shelomo ben Buya'a wrote the Aleppo Codex, and Aaron ben Asher
was responsible for its pointing and Masoretic notes (cf. p. 174); the same
Shelomo ben Buya'a wrote a Torah manuscript in A.D. 930 (cf. p. 178), to
which Ephraim, the son of Rabbi Buya'a, added the points and Masora.
According to its colophon, the Leningrad Codex was the work of one man:
Samuel ben Jacob not only wrote it, but pointed it and added the Masora
as well.
8. R. Edelmann 1968.
9. P. Kahle 1951: 28f.
10. Cf. B. Albrektson 1978. Albrektson does not distinguish clearly enough, in
my opinion, between the treatment of the Torah and the other books.
14 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
central to the life and thought of the Rabbis, while the other books were
of relatively lesser interest for them. Bertil Albrektson would have to agree
that these other books stand in contrast to the Torah by their numerous
flaws which bebe any careful revision, such as orthographical incon-
sistency, and the frequency of transposed letters, haplography and dittog-
raphy, errors of word division and word combination, and the like. Evi-
dently for these books the text which was preserved in the period after
A.D.70 was simply that of the dominant group the Pharisees, while the
textual forms favored by other groups of lesser or waning importance
disappeared. Thus the standard text of about A.D. 100 should be considered
the result of historical developments following the fall of Jerusalem. Since
the Torah was always the central concern of the Pharisees, they must have
had the best manuscripts available.
Naturally we may assume that this standard text was not completely
a new creation: the Rabbis obviously relied on earlier traditions. This fact
is demonstrated in an interesting way by the manuscripts from Qumran
because there are some among them which are quite close to the Masoretic
text. The second Isaiah scroll from Qumran Cave 1 (lQIsb), for example,
does not differ essentially from the Masoretic text as it is found in the late
medieval tradition. This would seem to justify Bleddyn J. Roberts' refer-
ence to the "likely existence of a pre-Massoretic 'Massoretic' text."11 But
despite all the superficial similarities there is one decisive difference: the
Qumran text of the Masoretic type was only one of several different types
in common use (see below), and there is no indication that it was regarded
as more authoritative than the others. We may infer that for Qumran, and
evidently for the rest of Judaism as well, there was not yet a single author-
itative text. It was not until the Jewish revival that one of the existing texts,
or a recension of one of these texts, gained a position of authority, even-
tually displacing almost completely the other forms of the text which were
in use among the Jews before A.D. 70. The texts from Murabba'at show
that by A.D. 132/135 this text had prevailed (cf. p. 164). We would know
nothing about the varieties of text which circulated in the previous centuries
if it were not for the Samaritan Pentateuch (cf. p. 45), the Nash Papyrus
(cf. p. 34), the Septuagint (cf. pp. 50ff.), and above all the biblical texts
from Qumran. At Qumran three groups of text may be distinguished, related
to the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint, and the Masoretic text respec-
tively.
How this plurality of text types is related to the history of the text
has not yet been fully explained. Following William F. Albright, Frank M.
Cross would interpret them as local Palestinian, Egyptian, and Babylonian
(?) textual forms. Shemaryahu Talmon has responded with the objection
that the theory of three local texts can hardly explain satisfactorily the
plurality of text types at the end of the pre-Christian era.12 He regards these
as texts which circulated in various social and religious groups, and which
were characterized by differences because "the ancient authors, compilers,
tradents and scribes enjoyed what may be termed a controlled freedom of
textual variation"13 in the period before the text was standardized. Talmon
also assumes that there were yet other forms of the text which have dis-
appeared along with the groups they served. According to Emanuel Tov14
the problem is not one of text types, but of "independent texts" which
were mutually related in a complex web of agreements, differences, and
peculiar readings. Cross apparently assumes a Hebrew archetype of the
sixth/fifth century B.C. which developed local textual families through the
natural processes of scribal transmission (not of intentional recensions),15
while for Talmon the surviving material leads to the conclusion that "from
the very first stage of its manuscript transmission, the Old Testament text
was known in a variety of traditions which differed from each other to a
greater or less degree."16 More clarification is needed, some of which may
come from the yet unpublished texts from Qumran Cave 4, before reliable
conclusions may be drawn about the plurality of texts.17
The surviving non-Masoretic texts are more or less distinguished by
characteristics that somewhat parallel the relationship of the Chronicler to
the books of Samuel and Kings, e.g., they tend to use matres lectionis more
frequently than does , they assimilate words to contemporary spoken
forms, e.g., they Aramaize (sometimes using for ), they prefer hiphil
forms, they replace the imperative use of the infinitive absolute with the
simple imperative form, and so on. They also frequently supplement the
text with material from parallel passages.
In contrast to these texts the Masoretic text gives the impression of
greater age and reliability. Its relation to the original form of the text,
12. Talmon 1970: 198 (= QHBT, 40); cf. also E. Tov 1982: 11-28; F. M. Cross
1975.
13. Talmon 1975: 326.
14. E. Tov 1981: 274.
15. F. M. Cross 1966: 85.
16. Talmon 1970: 198.
17. F. M. Cross 1961: 188. For further discussion cf. C. Rabin 1955; S. Talmon
1964; F. M. Cross 1964, 1966; P. W. Skehan 1965; H. P. Scanlin 1993: 27-38.
l6 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
21. G. Gerleman 1948 has concluded that some of the Qeres represent popular
variants, based on his observation that many of the Qeres in Samuel and Kings are
found in the text of Chronicles, which preserves a more popular type of text. On the
Variant Theory cf. further R. Gordis 1937; A. Rubinstein 1959; H. M. Orlinsky 1960.
Orlinsky suggests that the Jewish scholars of about A.D. 600 who attempted to establish
a firm text for vocalization worked with three manuscripts. When these differed, the
reading of the majority was automatically accepted for vocalization (Qere), and that of
the minority was left unvocalized (Kethib). Yet there are many questions that remain
even in Orlinsky's proposal, although there is much in favor of the Variant Theory. An
interesting explanation has been proposed by J. Barr 1981. He distinguishes a writing
tradition (Kethib) and a reading tradition (Qere): the scribe knew by heart how the text
should be read, but the written text could not be altered. The purpose of the procedure
was to protect the correct form of the text, i.e., the Kethib. Cf. also D. Kellermann
1980.
22. Cf. 1 Chr. 14:7 2 Sam. 5:16 ; 1 Chr. 8:33; 9:39
2 Sam. 2:8ff. ; 1 Sam. 8:34; 9:40 2 Sam. 4:4, etc.
Cf. Gerleman 1948: 23.
18 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
their accuracy. One Talmudic passage even derives the name "scribe" from
this very practice, suggesting that the ancients were called Sopherim be-
cause they counted ( ) all the letters of the Torah. They found, for
example, that the letter of in Lev. 11:42 was the middle letter of the
Torah, that the word of Lev. 10:16 was its middle word, etc. It is due
to these scribes and their successors that many letters are written in some
peculiar way, such as the raised letters of Judg. 18:30 (to be read
; cf. the apparatus in loco), Ps. 80:14 (the middle letter of the
Psalter), etc. In fact, it is to them that we may trace the beginnings of those
textual studies that later found their formulation in the Masora.
Their greatest importance for the history of the text, however, was
their contribution to the universal acceptance of an authoritative, estab-
lished text which must have appeared to many at the time to be an innova-
tion despite its continuity with an earlier form of the text. The Hebrew
manuscripts of the medieval period show a remarkably consistent form of
the text, even in the forms of certain peculiarly written letters, and other
minor details.
The most plausible explanation of this was long considered to be Paul
de Lagarde's theory, first published in 1863, that the Hebrew manuscripts
of the medieval period all derived from a single exemplar, an archetype
made in the second century A.D. In 1797 E. F. C. Rosenmller was more
accurate when he traced the surviving manuscripts of the Hebrew text to
a recension, but his insight remained ignored even though he repeated it
in 1834 in the introduction to the Tauchnitz edition of the Hebrew Old
Testament.25 Yet we have learned today, especially from the material found
in the Cairo Geniza, that for centuries there existed texts with variant
readings (granting the variants were few); the same inference may be
gathered from the biblical quotations (which differ from the text of ) in
the writings of Jewish scholars as late as the eighth century and beyond.26
Similarly, the fact that a group of medieval Masoretic manuscripts agrees
with the Samaritan text in many details, as Johannes Hempel has demon-
strated for Deuteronomy,27 can be explained, in my opinion, by the long-
continuing influence of non-Masoretic traditions in the transmission of the
25. The theories of Rosenmller and Lagarde were long confused with each
other; for clarification cf. M. H. Goshen-Gottstein 1967: 254-273, on the forerunners
of Lagarde, 1967: 261f. (= QHBT, 1975, 53-72 and 60f. respectively). Goshen-Gottstein
is right to indicate that in Rosenmuller's time the term "recension" did not yet connote
an "almost complete 'official' regulation."
26. Cf. Aptowitzer 1906-15.
27. J. Hempel 1934: 254-274; 1959.
20 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
text. We should therefore assume that when the consonantal text was
established ca. A.D. 100, it did not result in the immediate suppression of
all other forms of the text, but that manuscripts with variant texts continued
to circulate for a long time, especially in private hands. The impressive
unity of tenth-century and later manuscripts is due, as Kahle in particular
has shown, to the work of the earlier and later Masoretes who championed
the established text and assisted it to victory over all the variant forms of
the text.
Divisions. BH indicates various divisions of the Old Testament books
which were customary among Jews to a certain extent even at an early
date,28 long before the text was divided into chapters. We should note first
the division of the entire Old Testament (except the Psalter)29 into open
and closed paragraphs (Parashah, plural Parashoth). An open paragraph
( ) is one that starts a new line after an empty or incomplete line; a
closed paragraph ( ) is separated from its preceding paragraph by a
short space within the line. Eventually this distinction was ignored in the
actual written format, but a prefixed or continued to
indicate the distinction. BH observes this usage.30
A second division of the text into somewhat larger sections of some
452 Sedarim ( "order, sequence"). This was of Palestinian origin: it
provided a sufficient number of Sedarim (weekly lessons) for the three-year
lectionary cycle which was the original Palestinian usage. In Babylonia,
where the Torah was read through each year, the division was made into
fifty-four (or fifty-three) Parashoth (weekly lessons). BH indicates the
beginning of a Seder by 0, and the beginning of a Parashah by in the
margin (BHS: the inner margin).
28. Even in the manuscripts at Qumran a division into Parashoth may already
be observed, although it agrees only partly with the Masoretic divisions and occurs
with differences in the individual manuscripts (e.g., 1QIsa and 1QIsb); cf. H. Bardtke
1953a: 33-75; 1961: 91ff. Maimonides (1135-1204) still complained that manuscripts
were inconsistent in observing the open and closed Parashoth. In order to remedy the
situation he prepared a kind of model Torah scroll, basing it on the authority of the
well-known Cairo Codex, which is probably to be identified with the Aleppo Codex
(cf. p. 36). Cf. I. Ben-Zvi 1960: 7; M. H. Goshen-Gottstein 1966: 55f.
29.1. Yeivin 1969 reports on a list of open and closed paragraphs in the Psalter
which he found in the Geniza fragments at the Bodleian Library, Oxford.
30. J. M. Oesch 1979, after surveying a wide range of materials, including Jewish
tradition, medieval biblical manuscripts, texts from the Dead Sea and the Judean desert,
and nonbiblical documents from the Near East, concluded that most probably the final
redactor of the Torah and the Prophets followed a common custom of antiquity by the
use of spacing to distinguish major units and subdivisions of the text Of course, the
assumption of a "final redactor" is open to question.
THE MASORETIC TEXT 21
Verse divisions were also already known in the Talmudic period, with
differing Babylonian and Palestinian traditions, but they were not given
numbers as subdivisions of chapters until the sixteenth century. The divi-
sion into chapters, a system derived from Stephen Langton (1150-1228),
was adopted in Hebrew manuscripts from the Latin Vulgate in the four-
teenth century.
3. Pointing
In the matter of vocalization the situation was quite different because there was
no written tradition of symbols for indicating the pronunciation or intonation
of a text It is not known when pointing originated. The earlier assignment of
its beginnings to the fifth century has come under serious criticism. Bruno
Chiesa's study of indirect sources suggests a time between A.D. 650 and 750
as more probable, because the Babylonian Talmud which was completed about
A.D. 600 makes no reference to pointing.31 Moshe Goshen-Gottstein also
assumes a time around A.D. 700 as probable. He believes the invention of
vowel signs and accents was induced by the Islamic conquests which threat-
ened to extinguish the tradition of precise liturgical recitation.32 Yet there must
have been many factors which necessitated the development of a written
system for indicating pronunciation and intonation.33 Even with the support of
a strong oral tradition it was inadequate to have simply a fixed consonantal
text together with an occasional use of vowel letters (matres lectionis) to
indicate pronunciation, as in the proto-Masoretic text. It still left too many
words ambiguous in pronunciation and meaning. Further, there was no
guidance for intonation, which was essential for liturgical usage.
There was evidently a need felt at an early stage for aids to reading
the sacred text. Before the consonantal text was authoritatively established,
while it was still possible to treat it with freedom, the proper reading could
be indicated by a frequent use of vowel letters.34 A valuable witness for
this stage is provided not only by the Samaritan text, but also by the Isaiah
a a
scroll (1QIs = ; cf. p. 33), with its abundance of scriptio plena forms.
The authoritative consonantal text of the second century followed the earlier
usage in reducing significantly the use of the scriptio plena, and ended the
practice of inserting vowel letters at will. It seems that another solution
was then found. Transliterations were prepared for those Jewish believers
who needed them, giving the proper pronunciation of the Hebrew text in
the Greek alphabet. Christians also made use of this practice: an example
is found in the second column of Origen's Hexapla, but Jewish sources
also seem to refer to the practice.35 Eventually from the seventh century
A.D. a system of vowel signs written above and below the consonants was
adopted, patterned perhaps after Syriac usage. This system was called
pointing, from the Jewish technical term (Hebrew ). At the first stage
vowel signs were inserted occasionally in the biblical text to indicate the
proper pronunciation required by the liturgical usage of the time (Kahle).
This situation is reflected in many of the Geniza fragments, and the Sa-
maritans never advanced beyond it. The next stage was to point the entire
text fully. Different systems of pointing eventually developed in the East
and the West: the Babylonian, the Palestinian, and finally the Tiberian. The
following signs were used.36
Babylonian a e i o u
e
Palestinian a i o u
e
Tiberian a e i o u
35. P. Kahle 1959: 158ff. J. A. Emerton 1970 considers the sayings adduced as
evidence for the use of such transliterations as unconvincing. But was this a totally new
venture on Origen's part? It is improbable.
36. Adapted from P. Kahle in H. Bauer and P. Leander 1922: 102.
THE MASORETIC TEXT 23
seventh century (BHK: Ea, Eb, Ec),37 and a later, more complex stage
appearing in fragments from the eighth and ninth centuries (BHK: Ka, Kb,
Kc). The development of the complex system may have been related to
the appearance of the Karaites, the sect founded about A.D. 760 by 'Anan
ben David. They rejected the Talmud for a more literal interpretation of
the text, giving rise to a new interest in the text of the Bible and the necessity
for determining its pronunciation as closely as possible. In BHK, pp.
xliv-xlvii, Kahle has compiled a list of the Babylonian fragments known
to him, derived from more than 120 manuscripts.38 Variants from the
manuscripts which Kahle collected and in part published in Masoreten des
Ostens (1913) are cited in BHK as V(ar)Ka. The quantity of known material
containing biblical texts with Babylonian pointing (but lacking in any
uniformity) has since been significantly increased.39
The Babylonian tradition was preserved in Yemen into the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries. Under the influence of Tiberian pointing a charac-
teristic Yemenite tradition was later developed reflecting a simplified Ti-
berian system with supralinear signs.
The Palestinian system, also supralinear, was less adequate. A system
found in some Samaritan manuscripts from the twelfth to the fourteenth
century was clearly derived from it. Kahle published the relatively few and
textually varying biblical fragments (seventh to ninth century) in Masoreten
der Westens, 2 (1930); they are cited in BHK as V(ar)pal.40 Their signifi-
37. Manuscripts with this pointing were presumably still available to the editors
of the Complutensian Polyglot (1514-1517); cf. pl. 47 and comments.
38. Cf. also the list in ZAW 46 (1928) with seventy magnificent facsimiles. Kahle
concludes from the fragments Eb 4 and Eb 8 (from a single manuscript) that an older
system using only dots and related to the system of the Eastern Syrians antedated the
Babylonian system discussed here (P. Kahle 1959: 65f.).
39. Dez Merino 1975 has published a catalogue of all known (Hebrew and
Aramaic) biblical fragments. Editions of surviving Babylonian texts in Textos y Estudios
"Cardinal Cisneros " edited under the supervision of F. Perez Castro: Biblia Babilnica.
Edicion critica segun manuscritos babilonica: Proverbios (1976) and Profetas menores
(1977) edited by A. Navarro Peiro, Ezequiel (1980) and Isaias (1980) by A. Alba
Cecilia, and Fragmentes de Salmos, Job y Proverbios (1987; Jewish Theological
Seminary, New York, Ms. 508) by A. Dez Macho and A. Navarro Peiro.
40. Dez Macho 1954: 247-265 has published some further fragments from the
Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. Besides the biblical texts there
are fragments of Targums, Mishnah, Midrash, Masora, and liturgical texts, thus sug-
gesting that this pointing was widely known in Palestine. For further material and a
sketch of Hebrew grammar in the Palestinian tradition we are indebted to A. Murtonen
1958-62. Further: M. Dietrich 1968; I. Yeivin 4963; E. J. Revell 1969. Cf. also P. Kahle
1961: 24-31. A list of biblical manuscripts with Palestinian or related pointing is given
in E. J. Revell 1977: 7-34. B. Chiesa 1978 has produced a comprehensive study,
24 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
cance lies in showing how the vocalized Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible
first appeared when the Masoretes of Tiberias began their work. Basically
they lack the strict consistency of the Tiberian Masoretes in indicating
pronunciation.
Masoretic activity flourished again in the West in the period A.D.
780-930, evidently stimulated by Karaite influence.41 Tiberias was the
center of these studies. The imperfect Palestinian system was inadequate
to the demands of this period, and it was found less adaptable than the
Babylonian system. So a new Tiberian system was created, based on the
experience of the Palestinian system, which combined the accent system
with a means of indicating finer nuances, and could represent the pronun-
ciation and intonation of the biblical text in its minutest details. This
Tiberian system supplanted its two predecessors so thoroughly that their
very existence was forgotten for centuries and rediscovered only in the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Within the Masoretic center of Tiberias there were several different
parties or schools. The Ben Asher family was outstanding among them: its
last two members are known today for the model manuscripts Codex
Cairensis and the Aleppo Codex (cf. p. 36). But we know that there were
Naft other Tiberian Masoretes besides the Ben Ashers; Ben Naphtali is the best
known among them. The Jewish scholar Mishael ben 'Uzziel in his famous
tractate Kitab al-Khilaf (eleventh to twelfth century) discusses Aaron ben
Moses ben Asher.42 It was once thought that these two schools were
diametrically opposed, because Ben Naphtali's text was identified with
manuscripts that have nothing to do with him (see below). But if we read
carefully the statement by Mishael, which is our only reliable source for
is based upon different principles, and that its linguistic approach is quite
different from Ben Asher."49
The fact that such a text was not only widely used in the tenth
century50 but still enjoyed circulation at the beginning of the twelfth century
shows that the text of Aaron ben Asher, the last member of his family,
achieved the status of an authoritative text, supplanting all rival forms of
the text, only through the course of several centuries. The esteem in which
the great Jewish philosopher Maimonides (1135-1204) held it may have
contributed to its acceptance as authoritative. This text, influenced by Ben
Naphtali only in such matters as the insertion of the metheg which Aaron
ben Asher had used sparingly, and other minor details of pointing and
accent, became accepted by the fourteenth century as a kind of textus
receptus and was used, for example, by Jacob ben Chayyim for his edition
(cf. p. 39).
From this historical survey it appears that we may assume a fairly
constant consonantal text even from the beginning of the second century
A.D., but that the pointing and accents of the present text were first formu-
lated in the course of the ninth and tenth centuries as the culmination of
centuries of study, research, and experimentation.
There remains finally a question of the relationship between the
Masoretic and the older Hebrew pronunciation. A number of observa-
tions have been made questioning the authenticity of the Masoretic pro-
nunciation. More than a millennium separates the Masoretes of Tiberias
from the days when Hebrew was a living national language, and it is
altogether probable that the pronunciation of Hebrew had undergone some
change in this interval, especially considering that it was written without
vowels. In fact, Greek and Latin transliterations of the early Hebrew texts
do reflect some differences from the pronunciation of the Tiberian Ma-
soretes, as does also the Samaritan tradition. Within the tradition itself
there were variations of pronunciation evidenced by differences among
49. R. Meyer 1963: 60. For further characteristics of this group of manuscripts,
see below, p. 182. M. H. Goshen-Gottstein 1963: 112ff., calls this text the "Tiberian
non-receptus" in contrast to the Ben Asher (and Ben Naphtali) text which he calls the
"Tiberian proto-receptus" in order to express the view that this tradition was in its own
way just as Masoretic as "our" Tiberian text. I believe that this describes the facts more
accurately than any such terms as "pre-Masoretic" (Sperber), "post-Masoretic"
(Morag), or "non-Masoretic" (Yeivin). A. Dez Macho 1963 prefers to regard these as
"proto-Tiberian" manuscripts deriving from the Palestinian tradition (p. 16). For further
examples of these manuscripts wrongly attributed to Ben Naphtali, see J. Prijs 1957.
50. R. Meyer 1966: 35, where he calls this school "Pseudo-Ben Naftali."
THE MASORETIC TEXT 27
the Masoretes, as in the few texts with Palestinian pointing which do not
always agree with HI, and also the differences between Ben Asher and
Ben Naphtali noted above. It would seem necessary, then, to expect a fair
number of artificial forms in the Tiberian system, related to the Masoretes'
desire to produce a correct pronunciation which made them susceptible
to such outside influences as Syriac and Islamic philology. For example,
the almost consistent stress on the ultima derives from the Tiberian
Masoretes, as does also the double pronunciation of the letters
(a Syriac influence). But again, the Tiberian pronunciation agrees with
certain forms which were regarded as very late until their antiquity was
unexpectedly attested by the free use of vowel letters in the Qumran
manuscripts, especially in the first discovered Isaiah scroll (1QIsa = a ).
For example, the Masoretic pronunciation of the second person singular
masculine suffix as -eka is found in the Isaiah scroll, whereas the other
pre-Masoretic texts have the pronunciation -k. In other instances the
Isaiah scroll's pronunciation is found among the Samaritans where the
Masoretes clearly use later forms, e.g., the second and third person plural
masculine pronouns and suffixes are pronounced attimma, lakimma,
bahimma, alehimma, etc., in the Isaiah scroll and the Samaritan, where
the Masoretes have attem, lakem, bahem, alehem, etc. The Tiberian
pronunciation therefore must not be regarded as absolutely authoritative.
Much may be said rather for the thesis that "the Tiberian system is related
historically to the early medieval period, and should never be adduced as
direct evidence for Canaanite-Hebrew usage without careful examination.
For between them lies that great complex, of such tremendous importance
for the history of the language, which is commonly called pre-
Masoretic."51 There is no question that the Masoretes believed themselves
to be preserving the early pronunciation.
Further, the introduction of pointing met with scattered opposition.
In the ninth century it was still rejected by the head of a Babylonian school,
Gaon Natronai II, on the ground that it did not derive from Sinai. Later its
51. R. Meyer 1950: 726. On the whole problem, cf. especially P. Kahle 1959:
141-188; Z. Ben-Hayyim 1958: 200-214; K. Beyer 1969: 33, characterizes the Tiberian
system in the following way: "Reflections of Old Hebrew, all the stages of Aramaic,
and false reconstructions as well are found here mingled together inseparably. And yet
the Masoretic material continues to be indispensable, because on the strictest examina-
tion it still surpasses all else in its wealth of information." But cf. M. H. Goshen-Gott-
stein 1963: 94: "In my opinion, the work of the Masoretes . . . is to be understood as
the invention and perfection of an ever more refined graphic notation for an age-old
tradition."
28 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
recent origin was disputed. About A.D. 1100 the Karaite Hadassi stated that
God did not create the Torah unpointed, a position revived in an adapted
form by Johann Buxtorf the Elder (1564-1629). Following the above dis-
cussion no further evidence is necessary to show that the pointing does not
possess the same authority as the consonantal text. While this is significant
for textual criticism, it should also be remembered that when the Masoretes
pointed the text they were not attempting to be original, but rather to
preserve with accuracy the tradition they had received.
4. The Masora52
The Masoretic notes which are usually referred to as the Masora in the
narrow sense are printed beside the text in BH. Among the Western Ma-
soretes a distinction is drawn between the marginal Masora (Masora
marginalis) written in the four margins, and the final Masora (Masora
finalis), an alphabetical arrangement at the end of the Bible. The marginal
Mp Masora is divided into the Masora parva (Mp) in the side margins and the
Mm Masora magna (Mm) in the upper and lower margins. BHK includes only
the Mp reproduced from manuscript L, its textual base. The first volume
of Mm, issued as a supplement to BHS, appeared in 1971.53
The Masora parva offers observations on the literal form of the
text designed to assist in preserving the form unaltered. Wherever the
text is readily open to transcriptional error there is a note, e.g., when a
word could easily be written plene but is written defective, and vice
versa; or when the multiple occurrence of a word like in a single
verse might give rise to an omission by oversight. Singular expressions
are not simply recorded as such: it is also noted if a similar form or a
parallel construction is to be found elsewhere. Thus enumerations are
frequent, giving the number of times a particular form occurs, or iden-
tifying hapax legomena. Thus, for example, it is noted at Gen. 1:1 that
occurs five times, of which three are at the beginning of a verse,
occurs three times, and the collocation is found
here alone; at Gen. 1:11 is found six times in the same pericope;
at Gen. 1:12 that occurs three times, twice plene and once defec-
tive. Occasionally certain incidental peculiarities are noted, as at Deut.
31:3, that this and two other verses begin and end with the divine name
. Also noted in the Mp are the Sebirim, Qeres, etc. Frequently the
Masoretic notes may seem strange, trivial, and of no practical value. But
we must realize that these are the result of a passionate desire to protect
the text, guarding it from willful or careless scribal errors, even in such
matters as the use of the vowel letters and , where the writing of a
form plene or defective is completely fortuitous, involving neither con-
sistency of usage nor significance for the meaning of the text. The Masora
witnesses to an extremely exact revision of the text which demands our
respect even though it risks the danger of losing the spirit of the text
while concentrating on the letter.
With regard to the Masora in BHS, these facts should be noted:
although the text of BHS reproduces manuscript L with the greatest fidelity,
the editor of the Masora, Gerard E. Weil, is much freer with it. The notes
of the Mp in the margin of BHS are still based on the Mp of L, but its
terminology and abbreviations are made consistent in a standardized form,
and its references are filled out where the manuscript itself is incomplete.
In other words, when the Mp of L indicates multiple occurrences of a word
or expression in the text, and a corresponding note is lacking at the parallel
passages in L, the editor has supplied corresponding notes at the parallel
passages in BHS. The expansion of the Mp in BHS to three times as many
entries as in BHK, which reproduces only the references found in L,
suggests how frequently such supplements were necessary. The larger part
of the Mp in BHS, then, was supplied by the editor who completed the
pattern of L where it was defective.
Where the Mp gives statistics on the frequency of a word or an
expression's occurrence, the Masora magna provides specific lists of these
instances; in the early manuscripts these lists are in the upper and lower
margins, but in BHS they are given in a supplementary volume. Thus at
Gen. 1:1 the Mp reads " five times: three times at the beginning
and twice in the middle of a verse." The notes in BHS refer to tables 1
and 2 in Weil's edition of the Mm, where the specific instances are spelled
out as in a concordance: Gen. 1:1; Jer. 26:1; 27:1; and Jer. 28:1; 48:34.
Massorah Gedolah 1 contains a total of 4,282 such lists (including the 11
lists added while the volume was at press). For further information cf. BHS,
Foreword II, pp. xiii-xviii.
In the Masora finalis the Masoretic material is arranged alphabeti-
cally. As the base for the final Masora in his famous Rabbinic Bible, Rabbi
Jacob ben Chayyim used a medieval collection entitled Okhla weOkhla Okhl
(Okhl [Ochla]). This begins with an alphabetical list of words which occur
only twice in the Holy Scriptures, once without and once with at the
30 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
beginning. The collection derives its name from its first entry, which is
(1 Sam. 1:9) (Gen. 27:19). It was edited by S. Frensdorff from
a Paris manuscript in 1864 (reprint: New York, 1972), and by Fernando
Diaz Esteban from a manuscript at Halle in 1975.
The Masoretic material was transmitted orally at first, but as it
continued to grow it was progressively entered in manuscripts them-
selves.
The language of the Masora is primarily Aramaic, but with some
Hebrew as well. Obviously the Masora must be adapted to the particular
form of the text for which it is intended. There was accordingly an inde-
pendent Babylonian Masora54 which differed from the Palestinian in ter-
minology and to some extent in order. The Masora is concise in style and
replete with abbreviations, requiring a considerable amount of knowledge
for their full understanding. It was quite natural that a later generation of
scribes would no longer understand the notes of the Masoretes and would
consider them unimportant; by the late medieval period they were reduced
to mere ornamentation of the manuscripts. It was Jacob ben Chayyim who
restored clarity and order to them (cf. p. 39).
G Christian D. Ginsburg made a survey of the manuscript materials
known in his day in an unfinished work of four volumes entitled The
Massorah compiled from manuscripts alphabetically and lexically ar-
ranged (1: 1880; 2: 1883; 3: Appendices, 1885; 4/1: Supplement, 1905;
repr. New York, 1968, with a prolegomenon by A. Dotan).
5. Manuscripts
bling them, mainly from Karaite synagogues of the East.55 Firkowitsch was
also a notorious forger, frequently adding new colophons or altering the
dates in early manuscripts in order to prove the antiquity of Karaite
Judaism, which was for him the only true Judaism. Yet the manuscripts
which he assembled are of very great importance. The biblical part alone
of the second Firkowitsch collection comprises 1,582 items on parchment
and 725 on paper. Another collection in the same library includes about
1,200 fragments, probably derived from the Cairo Geniza, which were
assembled by Antonin, a Russian archimandrite in Jerusalem.
The most important event in the recent history of the Old Testament
text is the successive discoveries of manuscripts at Qumran ( ) by the
Dead Sea since 1947. These discoveries have put us in possession of
manuscript materials several centuries older than any we had known before,
and coming from a time and a group for which there was no single form
of the text which was regarded and transmitted as exclusively authoritative.
These texts presented us for the first time with a large number of variants.
After the chance discovery of the first cave in 1947, search parties of
archaeologists and Bedouin between 1952 and 1956 led to the discovery
of texts in ten more caves. Especially productive were Cave 4 with frag-
ments of more than 380 manuscripts (about 120 of which have biblical
texts), and Cave 11 which contained (like Cave 1) relatively undamaged
texts. It is to be regretted that for nearly forty years the majority of these
remained unpublished. Along with the Qumran texts which may be dated
by archaeological evidence before A.D. 70,56 the discoveries at Murabba'at
(Mur) including biblical texts from the second century A.D. deserve special Mur
55. The first collection was described by A. Harkavy and H. L. Strack 1875; in
this some variants of the individual manuscripts are noted (cited in BHK as V F ). On
the criticisms of Firkowitsch mentioned next, cf. now S. Szyszman 1959, where the
charges of forgery are challenged; on the significant collections of Hebrew manuscripts
in the USSR, cf. A. I. Katsh 1959.
56. The dating of the texts has now been confirmed, primarily by archaeological
evidence. The jars found in the caves are from the Roman period (cf. p. 148). A piece
of linen found in Cave 1 has been dated by its radioactive carbon-14 content between
167 B.C. and A.D.. 233. The results of the excavation of Khirbet Qumran since 1952
under the direction of G. L. Harding and R. de Vaux make it most probable that the
manuscripts were hidden during the first Jewish war (A.D. 66-70; cf. now R. de Vaux
1973). They must all, therefore, have been written before then. This dating is supported
by the texts from Wadi Murabba'at, which may be dated with certainty at the time of
the revolt of Bar Kochba (A.D. 132-135): "The script is more developed, the biblical
text is definitely that of the Masora, and it must be concluded from this that the
documents from Qumran are older, earlier than the second century" (de Vaux 1953:
267).
32 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
attention (cf. below note 60 for the edition). Also important are the remains
of fourteen scrolls with biblical texts from the period before A.D. 733,
discovered in 1963-1965 while excavating the rock fortress of Masada in
the Judean desert. These agree extensively with the traditional biblical texts
only in the text of Ezekiel are there a few insignificant variants.57
The scrolls found in Cave 1 in 1947 were acquired at the time partly
by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and partly by the Syrian Monas-
tery of St. Mark in Jerusalem. During the Israeli-Arab war the scrolls
belonging to St. Mark's Monastery were taken to the United States, where
58
1QGenAp they were published with the exception of the Genesis Apocryphon.
These scrolls were acquired for the Hebrew University for $300,000 in
1954, bringing the texts from Cave 1 together again in a single collec-
tion.59 All the other texts were the property of the State of Jordan,
preserved in the Palestine Archaeological Museum in Jerusalem. As the
result of political events in 1967 they are now in Israeli possession in the
renamed Rockefeller Museum.60 The published manuscripts from Caves
2-11 have yielded fresh evidence of the great value of the Qumran texts.61
They exhibit a total of 175 biblical manuscripts, including 70(!) with texts
from the Pentateuch.
As a result of the discoveries made in 1947, the first place among all
Old Testament manuscripts must be given to:
(a) The Isaiah manuscript from Cave 1 (1QIsa = a; pl. 10, 11). For
the physical characteristics of the scroll, see p. 7. It is remarkable that two
different text types are represented in the scroll, dividing the book into
precisely two halves (ch. 1-33, 34-66). In the second half the plene forms
are found far more frequently than in the first half. Either a single scribe
was copying from two different exemplars, or there were two scribes with
different characteristics working at the same time, as also happened with
papyrus scrolls in Egypt. The scroll essentially supports , but also offers
a great number of variants. In a number of instances these coincide with
variants found in the early versions or with emendations proposed by
modern scholars. Some of the variants may be attributed to an interest in
a particular interpretation of the text. Shemaryahu Talmon62 regards 1QIsa
as a witness to Jewish exegesis, and its scribe as an exegete of considerable
skill. Arie van der Kooij63 has made a thorough study of the scroll's
"interpretive variants" among other things. From his observation that the
scroll's writer "related the prophecies of the Book of Isaiah to his own
times," he concludes that "he was not merely a copyist, but rather a learned
scholar" (p. 95), "comparable to the (first) Teacher of Righteousness"
(p. 96). The third apparatus of BHK exhibited about 1,375 readings which
remain after setting aside approximately 4,500 orthographic variants. A
second Isaiah manuscript (1QIsb = b; pl. 12)64 is fragmentary, but stands
much closer to the Masoretic text (cf. pp. 14, 156).
(b) The Habakkuk Commentary from Cave 1 (1QpHab; pl. 13). This
scroll comprises two sheets of leather sewn together, and only the upper
(larger) part has been preserved. Sentences of varying length from the first
two chapters of Habakkuk are cited and followed by the formula "this
means . . ." to introduce an interpretation adapted to the period of the
commentary, showing how the present national and religious scene had
been foretold by the prophet Habakkuk. A group of variants in Hab. 1-2
E. Sellin-G. Fohrer 1968: 494-497 (1968a; 587f.); J. A. Sanders 1975: 401-413, lists
of published texts; J. A. Fitzmyer 1990; H. P. Scanlin 1993, annotated list of biblical
texts.
62. S. Talmon 1962.
63. A. van der Kooij 1981.
64. Edition: Sukenik 1954 (Hebrew), 1955 (English).
34 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
is worth serious consideration (cf. the third apparatus of BHK and the
apparatus of BHS). The sacred name Yahweh is written in the Old Hebrew
script (cf. p. 4).65
(c) The Psalm Scroll from Cave 11 (11QPsa) contains forty-one
canonical psalms from the last third of the Psalter and seven apocryphal
psalms including one known from the LXX translation (Ps. 151), two from
Syriac translations, and one from Sir. 51:13-30. The order of the Psalms
differs largely from the Masoretic text, with the apocryphal psalms placed
among the canonical psalms; in Ps. 145 each verse is followed by the
refrain: "Praise be to Yahweh! May his name be praised always and for
ever!" The evidence would indicate that this is not a proper Psalter, but a
collection with a liturgical purpose.66 Also in this scroll the name Yahweh
is written in Old Hebrew script.67
(d) The Nash Papyrus (Pap. Nash; pl. 6).68 Until 1947 the oldest
known witness to the Hebrew Old Testament text was the papyrus sheet
acquired in 1902 by W. L. Nash in Egypt and donated to the Cambridge
University Library. The Nash Papyrus, as it is called, contains a somewhat
damaged copy of the Decalogue, following mostly the text of Exod. 20:2-
17, partly Deut. 5:6-21, with the Shema from Deut. 6:4f. appended. The
sequence of the text shows that it is not derived from a biblical scroll, but
from a liturgical, devotional, or instructional document. The papyrus was
dated in the second or first century A.D. by its first editors. On the grounds
of its paleographical traits (which were not disputed at the time, and have
since been confirmed by the Qumran texts), Albright assigned it to the
Maccabean period,69 while Kahle assigned it on internal grounds to the
period before the destruction of the Temple.70 The sixth and seventh com-
mandments appear in reverse order, and the Shema begins with a phrase
found in but not in .
(e) The Geniza Fragments ( ). The origin of these has been discussed
above (p. 11). The range of the treasures recovered from the Geniza is
amazing. The number of fragments has been estimated at 200,000. Besides
biblical texts in Hebrew and in Aramaic and Arabic translations, there are
also Midrash, Mishna, Talmud, liturgical texts, lists, letters, and much else.
Of particular importance was the discovery of a nearly complete copy of
the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach in Hebrew, previously known only in
Greek; also a previously unknown writing in Hebrew was found, dating
probably from the second or first century B.C., which was called the
Zadokite Document, and has enjoyed a revival of interest in recent years
because of its relation to the Manual of Discipline71 discovered in 1947.
The biblical fragments alone from the Geniza, the earliest of which may
date from the fifth century A.D., shed new light on the development of
Masoretic activity prior to the great Masoretes of Tiberias, enabling us to
recognize the growth of the pointing system as we have described it above.
Geniza fragments are now found in many libraries, most of them being in
the Cambridge University Library and in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.72
(f) Ben Asher Manuscripts. For five or six generations, from the
second half of the eighth century to the mid-tenth century, the Ben Asher
family played a leading part in the Masoretic work at Tiberias. In the two
surviving manuscripts that go back to the last two members of the family
we find a faithful record of their scholarly achievements.
Codex Cairensis (C; pl. 20).73 This manuscript, containing the c
Former and Latter Prophets, was written and pointed by Moses ben Asher
in A.D. 895. In one colophon (a note at the end of medieval manuscripts
giving information about the scribe and other matters) he mentions the
patron who commissioned the manuscript, and in a second colophon he
names himself as the scribe. Further colophons record the fortunes of the
manuscript. It was presented to the Karaite community in Jerusalem where
it was seized as loot by the Crusaders in 1099. Later it was restored, coming
into the possession of the Karaite community in Cairo, where it may still
be today.74 L. Lipschtz and others have demonstrated in an ingenious way
that the codex is closer to the Ben Naphtali tradition than it is to the Ben
Asher tradition.75 This has led many to question its authenticity, e.g.,
H. Yalon, J. L. Teicher, D. S. Loewinger, Lipschtz; but contra cf. M. H.
Goshen-Gottstein,76 who insists that Ben Naphtali preserved the system of
Moses ben Asher more faithfully than did his son Aaron (cf. p. 25 above).
The Aleppo Codex (pl. 21).77 This manuscript contains the complete
Old Testament and dates from the first half of the tenth century. According
to a colophon, Aaron ben Moses ben Asher did not himself write the
manuscript; he was responsible only for the pointing and the Masora. The
pointing was done with special care, and it was regarded as a model codex:
it was to be used liturgically only on the Feasts of Passover, Weeks, and
Tabernacles, and otherwise used only for consultation by scholars to settle
matters of doubt, and not for study. It was originally in Jerusalem, but came
later to Cairo and finally to Aleppo. It was not available for use in BHK,
as the editors explain on p. xxix. There was a report of its destruction
during the anti-Jewish riots of 1947, but fortunately this proved false. It
was saved, although with the loss of a quarter of its folios (i.e., Gen.
l:l-Deut. 28:26 at the beginning and from Song 3:12 to the end, including
Ecclesiastes, Lamentation, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah)78 and is
now in Jerusalem. As the facsimile edition was not published until 1976
(cf. n. 76), the codex was not available to the editors of BHS. Now that it
has been made available for scholarly examination it will be used as the
base for a critical edition of the Bible to be published by the Hebrew
University, Jerusalem.79
Codex Leningradensis (L; pl. 24).80 In view of the unavailability of
the oldest surviving manuscript of the complete Bible deriving from the
last member of the Ben Asher family, the Codex Leningradensis, repro-
duced in BH, is of special importance as a witness to the Ben Asher text.
According to its colophon it was copied in A.D. 1008 from exemplars
written by Aaron ben Moses ben Asher. For a refutation of the earlier doubts
of this colophon's authenticity, cf. BHK, p. xxix.81
p
(g) The Petersburg Codex of the Prophets (Vp).82 This manuscript V
contains Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Minor Prophets, with both the
small and the large Masora. The codex was discovered by Firkowitsch in
1839, as he claims, in the synagogue of Chufutkaleh in the Crimea. Its
significance derives not only from its age (dated A.D. 916), but also from
the fact that its discovery finally made it possible to appreciate the nature
of the Babylonian pointing system, the knowledge of which had been lost
for centuries. Close examination and comparison with manuscripts dis-
covered at the same time or later has shown, however, that while using the
Eastern signs the codex actually follows the Western tradition in its con-
sonantal text and its pointing. Thus it stands as an impressive symbol of
the victory of the Western tradition over the Eastern (cf. pp. 12, 22f.). On
several pages (212a, 221a) the Babylonian signs have been replaced by the
Tiberian signs, and on folio 1b both systems stand side by side.
(h) The Erfurt Codices. Three more codices are used in BHK, known
from their earlier location as Erfurtensis 1, 2, and 3. They belong to the
former Prussian State Library in Berlin (Ms. Orient. 1210/11, 1212, 1213),
now the National Library of Prussian Cultural Properties. They were used
among others by Joh. Heinrich Michaelis for his edition in 1720 (cf. p. 40).
They are noteworthy in that they (especially E3) are more or less related
to the type of text earlier mistaken as the Ben Naphtali text (cf. p. 24),
though they mark a stage of transition to the later textus receptus.
E1, fourteenth century, contains the Hebrew Old Testament, Targums,
and the large and small Masora.
81. P. Kahle 1961: 77 mentions that L shows many corrections, and he conjec-
tures that these "represent the results of its collation with other Ben Asher codices." It
is the judgment of M. H. Goshen-Gottstein "that the Leningrad Codex was basically
not a Ben Asher codex. It was secondarily brought into harmony with a Ben Asher
Vorlage by endless erasures and changes" (Goshen-Gottstein 1963:101f.); but I. Yeivin
1980: 18 disagrees, asserting that "This is the MS showing the closest tradition to A."
For Goshen-Gottstein the only actually known representative of the (Aaron) Ben Asher
text is the Aleppo Codex. If he is correct in this very one-sided theory, it would then
necessarily follow, for example, that after the loss of nearly a quarter of the Aleppo
Codex we now in fact possess no Ben Asher text for nearly the whole of the Pentateuch.
Will Goshen-Gottstein go this far? On his far-reaching hypotheses, cf. B. J. Roberts
1964.
82. Published in a facsimile edition by H. L. Strack 1876; also recently under the title
The Hebrew Bible Latter Prophets: The Babylonian Codex of Petrograd. Edited with
Preface and Critical Annotations. Prolegomenon by P. Wernberg-Mller (1971).
38 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
6. Printed Editions
We can describe here only the most important of a large number of editions
which have been printed. For a variety of reasons the most important among
the earliest printed editions are the following:
(a) The Second Rabbinic Bible of Jacob ben Chayyim85 was pub-
lished by Daniel Bomberg in Venice, 1524/25, and is known as Bom-
bergiana ( ). It was not the earliest,86 yet it was the most important of
its period, and it remained the standard printed text of the Hebrew Old
Testament until the twentieth century. It is a Rabbinic Bible, which means
that together with the Hebrew text is printed an Aramaic version (Targum)
and comments by outstanding rabbis (Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Kimchi, etc.)
an extensive work of 925 leaves in four folio volumes. The special feature
of the Bombergiana is that it also includes the large, the small, and the
final Masora, which the editor had painstakingly assembled with tre-
mendous labor from a number of manuscripts which were largely defec-
tive and copied without any understanding of the Masoretic material (cf.
p. 30), and that on the basis of this research his text was established. Also
the variant readings of manuscripts which Jacob ben Chayyim collated
are recorded. This text enjoyed an almost canonical authority up to our
own time. Even in 1897 Ginsburg wrote that it represented the only
Masoretic recension, and that any modern editor of the Hebrew text must
show conclusive evidence for introducing any deviation from it. Kittel
also reprinted it in the first two editions of his Biblia Hebraica. But by
basing his work on late medieval manuscripts or on printed editions which
reproduced them, Jacob ben Chayyim himself offers only the late medi-
eval textus receptus. Nor should we expect the methodological standards
of a sixteenth-century scholar's edition to meet the requirements we would
demand of a modern critical edition today, after several centuries of further
scientific development. It is with full justification that from its third
edition BH has replaced this text with an older one.
of the material, which was gathered almost haphazardly, and the absence
of any attempt to weigh or to group it. By far the majority of the variants
are trivial, and do not affect the sense or interpretation of the text. Variants
in the early versions are very rarely noticed. The accuracy of the collations
has also received occasional criticism, but this is due to the enormous size
of the task Ginsburg undertook, which necessitated reliance on a great
number of assistants.95
(g) The British and Foreign Bible Society published a new edition in
1958, prepared by Norman H. Snaith ( ). It is based
primarily on British Library Ms. Or. 2626-2628, which was written in
Lisbon in 1482.96 Other manuscripts used include British Library Ms. Or.
2375 (a Yemenite manuscript written in 1468-1480) and the Shem Tob
Bible (a Spanish manuscript dated 1312) which was earlier in the library
of David Sassoon. These manuscripts represent the Ben Asher tradition,
making the text closely related to the third edition of BHK.97 Following
the practice of the Bible Society, the edition is without introduction and
apparatus, although a list of the Haphtaroth (cf. p. 166 below) for the
liturgical year is appended in some printings.
(h) The Biblia Hebraica of the German Bible Society, Stuttgart (the
Wrttemberg Bible Society until 1975, and from 1976-1980 the German
Bible Foundation) has a special position among printed editions because
it represents a new direction undertaken by Rudolf Kittel. In his pro-
grammatic essay "On the Necessity and Possibility of a New Edition of
the Hebrew Bible: Studies and Reflections" (1902)98 Kittel proposed that
"for use in private study as well as in schools and universities there is an
urgent need for a critically established edition of the Hebrew text" free of
all obvious errors, scribal flaws and blemishes (pp. 2f.). He suggested two
ways this could be accomplished: by printing the Masoretic textus receptus
as the text and registering the necessary changes in the margin (footnotes),
or by printing a "new" critically edited text with all the errors corrected
and reporting the Masoretic tradition in footnotes. Kittel regarded the latter
course as the "only proper" procedure, though admitting it would be far
more difficult to achieve than the "basically inferior" first alternative (pp.
77f.).
With the collaboration of eight other Old Testament scholars Kittel
95. M. D. Cassuto 1953; cf. the critical review by P. Kahle 1954c: 109f.
96. Facsimile edition: G. Sed-Rajna 1988.
97. Cf. N. H. Snaith 1957; 1962.
98. Kittel 1902.
THE MASORETIC TEXT 43
was able to publish in 1906 (19092) a text prepared on the basis of the first
procedure.99 The text was that of Jakob ben Chayyim's 1524/25 edition.100
The apparatus was the first to provide an edition with a copious linguistic
commentary, exhibiting the most important variant readings in selected
passages, together with conjectural emendations by modern textual
scholars.
This Biblia Hebraica became the most significant tool of the century
for the study of Hebrew Bible. It achieved international recognition. No
scholarly work on the Old Testament, whether for research, seminars, or
private study, could afford to ignore Kittel's Biblia Hebraica (BHK). But BHK
it should also be remembered that it was essentially a school text, and not
too much could be demanded of it. R. Kittel always insisted that it give
due recognition to advances in scholarly research ("dies diem docet").
His work was thoroughly revised and significantly improved in a
third edition (1929-1937) by Albrecht Alt and Otto Eissfeldt. With the
collaboration of P. Kahle it became possible to use the text of Ben Asher
in the Leningrad manuscript B 19A (dated 1008; L, cf. pp. 36, 180) as a
base. The apparatus was expanded substantially (in two parts: the upper
with minor variants and comments; the lower with more significant variants
and comments), and in 1951 the variants of the Isaiah manuscript 1QIsa
(cf. p. 33) were added to make them conveniently available.
In the 1967-1977 revision (cf. p. 10) under the distinctive title Biblia
Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) the text was reviewed once more to reflect BHS
more precisely the last hand of Manuscript L. This is important because
this manuscript is the oldest (after the Aleppo Codex) and most complete
manuscript available, and a diplomatic edition of it was a desideratum. The
apparatus was also completely revised, taking into full consideration the
criticisms of BHK for its frequent citation of conjectures. The individual
books vary considerably in their scope and quality, so that in many books
the use of BHK may be recommended; it is retained in the Hebrew-German
edition of 1974.
(i) The Hebrew University in Jerusalem has undertaken an edition
of the Old Testament (The Hebrew University Bible Project). Publications
to date include: a Sample Edition published in 1965 containing Isa. 2, 5,
99. Although Kittel regarded the second procedure as the only appropriate one,
he did not adopt it partly because many corrupt passages could be restored only by
conjecture and subjective standards. Once these "corrections" appeared in the text they
could easily give the impression of a certainty they could not rightly claim. Cf. the
chapters on textual criticism below, pp. 105ff.
100. Cf. p. 39.
44 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
11, and 51, and an extensive introduction, followed by two volumes of the
book of Isaiah.101 The text is an exact reproduction of the Aleppo Codex
(cf. p. 36), including its large and small Masora. The special importance
of this edition for scholarship lies not only in its making the text of this
codex available for the first time, but also in the comprehensiveness of its
critical apparatus which reflects the history of the Old Testament text: the
first gives the variants of the early versions (especially ); the second gives
those of the scrolls of the Judean desert and the rabbinic literature; the
third, the medieval manuscripts; and the fourth apparatus records peculi-
arities of script, pointing, and accents (of the St. Petersburg, Cairo, and
other manuscripts); in the fifth and sixth apparatuses are found critical
comments, particularly on the first apparatus (in Hebrew and English). This
edition is planned to provide a more comprehensive basis for the study of
the Old Testament and its history than has ever before been available; its
first two apparatuses in particular promise a wealth of information, espe-
cially for rabbinic literature, which has always been very difficult of access.
The achievement of this undertaking will not be accomplished soon.102
The separation of the Samaritans from the Jews was an important event in
the history of postexilic Judaism. We do not know precisely when it was
that the Samaritan community made the final break from Jerusalem. Ac-
cording to an earlier view it occurred in the course of the fourth century
B.C. as the culmination of a long process. But more recent research based
on recent archaeological studies and the Qumran texts makes it probable
that the separation did not occur until the Hasmonean period, when She-
chem was destroyed and the sanctuary on Mount Gerizim was ravaged by
John Hyrcanus.1 The Samaritans took the Pentateuch with them when they
went into schism: thus we have the Pentateuch in a second Hebrew recen-
sion, the Samaritan. As we remarked above (p. 4), the Samaritan Pentateuch
was written in a special script derived from an archaizing form of the Old
Hebrew script of the Hasmonean period (pl. 27).
When the Samaritan Pentateuch (cited as in BH) first became
known to the West through the discovery of a manuscript in Damascus in
1616, it aroused the most sanguine expectations. Some believed that it
brought them substantially closer to the original text of the Pentateuch.
Later its prestige waned, and as a result of Wilhelm Gesenius' verdict in
1815 it was long regarded by many as practically worthless for the purposes
of textual criticism. Gesenius did not judge to be an independent witness
to the text, but rather a revision of , adapted in both its language and
matter to the views of the Samaritans. This inadequate appreciation was
challenged in the nineteenth century by Abraham Geiger, and in the twen-
tieth by Paul Kahle.2
45
46 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
The Hebrew text which we have today has been altered from its original
form by many circumstances and undoubtedly contains many corruptions.
Consequently the versions which enable us to reconstruct an older Old
Testament text and to correct errors are very important. But we should also
recognize that each of the versions comes with its own peculiar range of
problems. For a long period the versions were approached rather naively
and used directly for textual criticism on the uncritical assumption that the
base from which they were translated could be readily determined. But the
matter is not that simple. Anyone who translates also interprets: the trans-
lation is not simply a rendering of the underlying text but also an expression
of the translator's understanding of it. And every translator is a child of a
particular time and of a particular culture. Consequently every translation,
and especially a translation of the Bible produced to meet the practical
needs of a community, must be understood and appreciated independently
in its own right.
Translations reflect the intellectual assumptions of their translators
of their age and their culture, their religious and other views which they
are loyal to or respect, the concerns and prejudices which they adopt
consciously or unconsciously, their education, their ability to express them-
selves, the conceptual range of the language they are translating into, and
many other factors and most translations of the Bible are the work of a
number of anonymous translators. Therefore we must distinguish between
what is derived from the original text and what is contributed by the
translator. This is a formidable task to be accomplished before we can
proceed to use the versions for purposes of textual criticism.
The history of most of the versions is beset by many problems which
1. For the individual versions, cf. S. P. Brock 1980 (with extensive bibliographies).
48
PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 49
are yet unsolved and are perhaps insoluble, especially for the early period.
In his discussion of the Syriac Peshitta, Franz Rosenthal has wisely ob-
served that, of all the problems of literary criticism, that of the biblical
versions is encumbered with such a variety of diverse factors that any hope
for a scientifically conclusive solution is very slight. In almost every
instance we find ourselves dealing basically not only with an unknown
series of intermediate stages in the evolution of a translation, which stages
have been lost to us and which we can never hope to trace with more than
a bare degree of probability, but also with a wealth of oral tradition which
could very well have developed for similar reasons along similar lines.2
The problems we have indicated make for the fascination of versional
studies and provide the incentive for further research, but they also show
how far we are from any final solutions.
We will consider first the primary versions, which have a prior claim
in textual criticism because they are based directly on the original language,
and then the remaining versions, most of which are based on the Septuagint.
Jerome's version, the Latin Vulgate, claims to have been translated from
the Hebrew text, but as it is strongly influenced by the Greek versions and
by the Old Latin versions which preceded it, we will consider it in the third
section.
1. Introduction
50
THE SEPTUAGINT 51
century even claims to have seen the remains of the cells where the trans-
lators did their work in strict isolation. This is obviously a pious legend
witnessing to the high esteem enjoyed by in the Christian church.
But even what the Letter of Aristeas itself relates is incredible in
many respects. It was not written by a heathen courtier as it professes, but
by a Jew who praises the wisdom and the Law of his people through the
lips of a heathen king. The writer did not live in the days of Ptolemy
Philadelphus, but more than a century later. Further, the Jewish Law was
not translated to satisfy the curiosity of a royal patron of the arts, but
because the Egyptian Jews no longer understood Hebrew and were in need
of just such a translation. And finally, the translators were not Palestinian
Jews, but members of the Alexandrian diaspora for whom Greek was the
language of everyday life.
The legendary character of the Letter of Aristeas has long been
recognized.4 And yet until quite recently it has influenced our approach to
the study of . One view holds that the letter intended to defend an early
version of the Torah (the Old or Ur-Septuagint) against attacks and revision
attempts, while another would understand it as an apology for a new revised
version proposed as a standard text to replace earlier translations (Targums).
We will discuss in more detail on p. 63 both these views and their impli-
cations for Septuagint studies.
We noticed that the Letter of Aristeas places the origin of the Pentateuch
version in the first half of the third century B.C. In this it may very well be
correct. It is also reliable in associating the version with the Jewish com-
munity in Alexandria, which was the most important in the Jewish diaspora.
A Greek translation was needed there much as an Aramaic translation was
needed in Palestine, and perhaps as with the Targums its beginnings may
have been in the oral translations made for worship services. It is natural
that the first part to be translated would be the most important part of the
Old Testament for Jews, the Torah, and that the other books would follow
in due course. The prologue to the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach (Ecclesi-
asticus, ca. 116 B.C.) refers to a Greek version of the Law and also of "the
Prophets and the other books." A long period must be allowed for the
translation of the entire Old Testament. This precludes the possibility that
was the work of a single translator or group of translators. A close
examination of the version's character yields the same conclusion. The
translations of the individual books are not at all uniform, and the differ-
ences which occur even within single books have led Henry St. John
Thackeray, as well as Johannes Herrmann and Friedrich Baumgrtel, to
suspect that Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Minor Prophets were divided between
two translators, while Ezekiel was the work of three.5 It is probable that
in the Pentateuch each book was the work of a single translator (or group
of translators), but no two books were by the same translator.6 Many books
are almost literal translations, while others such as Job and Daniel are quite
free. And yet, when the Greek Jeremiah lacks some 2,700 words that are
found in the Hebrew,7 and the order of the text differs somewhat as well,
it is evident that the difference is due not simply to the translator, but to
his Hebrew exemplar, which must have differed from the Masoretic text
we have today. In the texts from Qumran we find not only the longer text
represented, but in a fragmentary Hebrew manuscript (4QJerb) we have
the shorter text found hitherto only in Greek.8
We may say in summary that what we find in is not a single version
but a collection of versions made by various writers who differed greatly
in their translation methods, their knowledge of Hebrew, their styles, and
The earliest translations of the Scriptures in written form (the Old Septu-
agint) were pioneer undertakings accomplished without adequate tools
(lexicons, etc.). Even before the Christian era, perhaps from the very first,
comparing these translations with the Hebrew text revealed them to be
inadequate and inspired efforts to bring the Greek text more into conformity
with the Hebrew original. One such attempt to edit the text on the basis of
specific principles is attested by a fragmentary Greek scroll of the Twelve
Prophets discovered at Nahal Hever in 1952 and published by Dominique
Barthelemy in 1963 (cf. p. 192).11 As one of its characteristics is the
rendering of or by (instead of simply ), it is known as
the kaige (or Palestinian) recension.12 The fragment may be dated about
A.D. 50 (or fifty years earlier), and like the Papyrus Fouad 266 of a century
earlier,13 it demonstrates that even prior to Jewish-Christian discussions
there had been a trend toward conforming the Greek to the Hebrew text.14
These discussions and the definition of a standard Hebrew text only served
to give it further impetus. Thus originated the translations of Aquila, of
Symmachus for the Ebionite Jewish Christian community, and the revision
of Theodotion. It is likely that these drew upon the earlier Palestinian
recension, because they share many readings with it (Barthelemy: "surre-
censeurs").
(a) Aquila () of Sinope in Pontus was a proselyte and a disciple of
Rabbi Akiba,15 according to Jewish tradition, in whose spirit he produced
his slavishly literal translation. Although his vocabulary shows that he had
a good knowledge of Greek, he was so absurdly devoted to the principle
of literalism that the meaning of the text often suffered and his version
sounded distinctly un-Greek. But it was exactly this bold literalism com-
bined with an almost precious precision, especially in using words of
similar sounds, that recommended Aquila's work to his Jewish contem-
poraries of about A.D. 130 and gave it considerable authority among them.16
As late as A.D. 533 we find that in Emperor Justinian's conciliatory Codicil
No. 146 this version is cited along with the inspired Septuagint as sanc-
tioned for use in synagogues. Our knowledge of Aquila's version is based
not only on quotations and Hexaplaric fragments (cf. pp. 57ff.), but also
on the sixth-century palimpsests from the Cairo Geniza.17
(b) Symmachus () produced another new version ca. A.D. 170
12. This recension may also be identified in the text of 2 Samuel 11:21-1 Kings
2:11 and 1 Kings 22-2 Kings 25. Other characteristics are listed by K. G. O'Connell
1976: 378.
13. Cf. p. 190, and R. Hanhart 1978.
14. Revised forms of the Septuagint text may be found in quotations in the New
Testament; cf. R. Hanhart 1981.
15. On Akiba's hermeneutics and his influence on Aquila, cf. D. Barthelemy
1963: 1-30.
16. For examples of Aquila's translation, cf. A. Rahlfs 1935: l:xxiv-xxvi (editio
minor, lvii-lxi); J. Reider and N. Turner 1966; K. Hyvrinen 1977 (but note the critical
review by S. P. Brock 1978).
17. Cf. F. C. Burkitt 1897; C. F. Taylor 1900. P. Katz 1950 traces the biblical
citations in Philo's writings which depart from the Septuagint to a late recension of the
Septuagint influenced by Aquila which replaced the original Septuagint text in some
Philonic manuscripts. Cf. G. D. Kilpatrick 1951: 89. P. E. Kahle identifies these cita-
tions as fragments of an early Jewish translation.
56 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
designed not only for literal accuracy but also for good Greek idiom.18
According to Eusebius and Jerome, Symmachus was an Ebionite; according
to Epiphanius he was a Samaritan converted to Judaism.19 His version is
found in only a few Hexapla fragments.
(c) Theodotion () was a proselyte at the end of the second century
according to early church tradition.20 He did not produce a new version,
but revised an existing Greek version following the Hebrew text. Whether
the version he used was the Septuagint (as Alfred Rahlfs affirms) is dis-
puted. The problem is posed by "Theodotionic" readings occurring in texts
which are earlier than Theodotion (e.g., the New Testament, Barnabas,
Clement, Hennas). Frederic G. Kenyon and Paul E. Kahle assume that
Theodotion revised an earlier text which is to be distinguished from the
Septuagint, and which has survived in only a few early Christian quotations
although it was once widely used. It has been commonly accepted that
Theodotion's version of the book of Daniel supplanted that of the Septu-
agint in almost all manuscripts. This assumption should now be qualified,
according to Armin Schmitt's research,21 by the recognition that the ""
text in Daniel apparently cannot be ascribed to Theodotion.
In early manuscripts these three later versions are sometimes cited
, as () = () or as () = ().22
These sigla are also used in BHS.
In Origen's scholarly magnum opus (which we will discuss next) he
made use not only of these three versions, each of which has exercised a
considerable influence on the transmission of the Septuagint, but also of
yet other versions which are otherwise virtually unknown to us and which
he called Quinta (), 23 Sexta, and Septima. "The availability of so many
different Greek versions of the Bible among the Jews of that time is
incontrovertible proof of their great need for contemporary Greek transla-
tions, and of the inadequacy of the older versions made centuries earlier
for the demands of the time." 2 4
Prophets. Actually he can adduce some striking examples of agreement between the
Greek Minor Prophets and the readings of Quinta cited by Jerome. H. J. Venetz 1974
is in agreement and extends the characteristics of the Kaige recension. For a critical
review of "pan kaige-ism" cf. A. Pietersma 1985.
24. P. E. Kahle 1954: 90.
25. On the problem of the transliterated text, which was not Origen's own creation
but derived from elsewhere, cf. P. E. Kahle 1960: 113-17; S. Jellicoe 1968: 106ff. But
to the contrary see J. A. Emerton 1956, 1970, 1971: the second column was designed
to aid the reader in vocalizing the first column.
26. The tendency for such assimilations may be observed even much earlier; cf.
above pp. 54f. Also: H. A. Sanders and C. Schmidt 1927: 25-29, 265; J. Ziegler 1943:
33f.; 1945/48 (see below, p. 194); P. Katz 1957. P. E. Kahle 1954: 88 has stressed
particularly that this tendency was already present in pre-Christian times, and that
Origen "continued the work of the Jews of previous centuries, applying it to the Bible
58 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
sigla designed by the great textual critic Aristarchus (217-145 B.C.) which
were in use in Alexandrian philological studies: the obelos (-, , ), the
metobelos (/., , ), and the asterisk ( ). These were used as follows:
c ob (a) Words in which are lacking in the original text and which strictly
should be deleted are placed between an obelos and a metobelos, e.g.,
Gen. 1:14.
c ast (b) Words in the original text which are lacking in were borrowed
from another version and inserted in the column placed between an
asterisk and a metobelos, e.g., Gen. 1:7.27 On occa-
sion Origen seems also to have used asterisks to indicate the correction of
a faulty text.28
But Origen also interfered with the text of without indicating it,
so that the form of he gave in the fifth column is called the Hexaplaric
recension ( ). This soon began to have a profound effect on manuscripts.
Jerome writes, "There is hardly a single book to be found that does not
have these (Hexaplaric additions)."29
The Milan Fragments (Codex rescriptus Bybliothecae Ambrosianae
39 sup.) discovered by Giovanni Mercati in 1895 show a clear example of
the format of the Hexapla (pl. 34). It is a palimpsest: the lower text is an
exegetical compilation (minuscule, ninth to eleventh century). First there is
the text of a Psalm in the columnar order of the Hexapla. This is followed by
the Septuagint text of the same Psalm and the catena written in continuous
lines (cf. p. 62). Some 150 verses of the Hexapla Psalter are preserved in this
way. The first column with the text in Hebrew is lacking, and the sixth column
does not give the text of Theodotion as we might expect, but that of Quinta.
The Septuagint column does not have the Aristarchan sigla (cf. n. 21). The
unique material in this palimpsest is of great value not only for the study of
the Greek versions, but also for the history of the Hebrew language, because
the transliteration of the Hebrew text in the second column (the first column
text of the Christians." D. Barthelemy 1963: ix speaks of "a definite program for the
translation and revision of the Greek Bible" which developed in Palestine under the
influence of the Rabbinate in the first century A.D.
27. P. E. Kahle 1960: 115f. has deduced from the lack of Aristarchan signs in
the Milan Hexapla fragments (see below) that the Septuagint column did not contain
diacritical signs in either the Hexapla or the Tetrapla; instead, the Hexapla with its
collection of significant Jewish biblical texts simply provided the basis for Origen's
work in textual criticism.
28. J. W. Wevers 1952: 189.
29. "Vix enim unus aut alter invenietur liber, qui ista (i.e., additamenta hex-
aplaria) non habeat."
THE SEPTUAGINT 59
Origen was not the only one to revise the Septuagint. Jerome mentions
three recensions in his preface to Chronicles written about A.D. 400: "Alex-
andria and Egypt honor Hesychius as editor of the Septuagint; in Constan-
tinople and as far as Antioch copies by the martyr Lucian are commended.
The provinces between these two read the Palestinian codices prepared by
Origen and promoted by Eusebius and Pamphilus. Thus the whole world
is divided in competition by this threefold variety."34 According to this
statement the different provinces of the early church each had its own
biblical text. But we should not infer from Jerome's statement that these
three were the only recensions, or that Hesychius and Lucian were regarded
anywhere as absolutely authoritative.35
Lucian, a presbyter from Antioch, died a martyr in A.D. 312. Hesy-
chius is perhaps to be identified with the bishop who was killed in the
persecutions of Diocletian. While the Lucianic recension ) is mentioned
elsewhere, that of Hesychius is not. Our information about it is too vague
to permit either description or dating.36 There is no single principle which
characterized the Lucianic recension. Joseph Ziegler describes it for Isaiah
and the Minor Prophets in this way: "Lucian produced it from the Hexa-
plaric recension, but with no attempt to parallel the text of with any
precision. The corrections based on (through the Hexaplaric recension,
especially the later versions) are few in number and of little significance.
More important for Lucian are the laws of Greek grammar and style, and
it is in this area that most of his improvements are found."37 Lucian's text
is witnessed in the biblical quotations of Chrysostom and Theodoret of
Cyrrhus, as well as in numerous minuscules.38 Beside the main body of
7. Lagarde's Program
From what we have said it is evident that the history of the transmission
of the Septuagint is quite complex. None of the various surviving forms
of the text has preserved the original form of the version. Is it possible to
reach beyond the variety of the textual forms which exist today and find
a hypothetical unity underlying them the original Septuagint? Paul de
Lagarde (1827-1891), who did so much for Septuagint research during the
last century, operated with a clearly defined program: "It has been my
intention through the years to reconstruct the three original recensions of
the Septuagint attested by Jerome, to have them printed in parallel columns,
found in 1952 containing the Greek text of the Minor Prophets "prove with certainty
the existence of textual forms akin to Lucian . . . in the pre-Christian era" (col. 86).
On the history of the Lucianic text which seems "to become ever more complex," cf.
also J. W. Wevers 1954: 98-100. D. Barthelemy 1963: 127 is critical of the existence
of a "Lucianic recension": it is rather the "Antiochene text," or essentially "the old
Septuagint, more or less corrupted."
39. Cf. J. Ziegler 1939: 74ff.; 1943: 74ff.; 1952: 45f.
40. P. A. de Lagarde 1883.
41. A. Rahlfs 1928: 77.
62 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
8. Kahle's Thesis
But does the view of the origin and development of the Septuagint held
by Lagarde and his followers actually correspond to the facts? Do they not
attempt to treat a translation, where different principles apply, on the
analogy of an original text? This question has been posed repeatedly,
especially by P. Kahle in the Sehweich Lectures for 1941, where he chal-
lenged Lagarde's thesis vigorously, with great thoroughness, marshalling
a wealth of evidence.49 His statements there should be reviewed with
careful attention, for they touch on a central problem of Septuagintal
research.
Kahle begins with a fresh interpretation of the Letter of Aristeas. He
regards it, of course, as legendary, but the question remains as to why it
was written. It is concerned with a translation of the Torah which was
regarded as authoritative by the Jewish community in Alexandria. There
cannot be any doubt that the letter was written as propaganda for this
standard translation.50 The letter itself recognizes that this was not the first
translation, for it mentions earlier unreliable ones (par. 314-16). Greek
translations were as necessary for Jews living in the Greek-speaking dias-
pora as the Aramaic Targums were for their fellow Jews in Palestine (cf.
pp. 79ff.). The first attempts may have been made as early as 300 B.C., and
as they could hardly have been very satisfactory they were constantly
subject to revision. This led to the desire and the need for a reliable standard
Greek text, and one was produced by a commission on behalf of the Jewish
51. It seems probable that this commission met on the island of Pharos. Philo
tells us (de Vita Mosis 2.5-7) that an annual festival was held there to commemorate
the completion of the Septuagint.
52. P. E. Kahle 1959: 214.
53. Particularly at variance with the text of is the quotation of Isa. 42:1-4 in
Matt. 12:20.
54. P. E. Kahle 1947: 177.
THE SEPTUAGINT 65
Lagarde and his followers: "The task set for scholarship here is not to
reconstruct or even attempt a hypothetical reconstruction of the original
text of the version, but to assemble and examine with the greatest care all
the fragments and traces of the earliest forms of the Greek Bible we can
discover. Only in this way will we be in a position to gain a realistic view
of the Greek version of the Old Testament."55
The view of the development of the Septuagint sketched by Kahle
has not been supported by new discoveries which have given us our first
glimpse of the Greek text in the pre-Christian period. While Kahle ap-
pealed to the text of the Greek Minor Prophets scroll of the mid-first
century A.D. for his thesis,56 the majority of scholars who have examined
it have not been convinced. Thus John W. Wevers has demonstrated for
the text of Hab. 2:6, which has survived almost complete: "It is clear that
the text represents a revision based upon the Hebrew text, because the
changes tend toward a more literal translation . . . but it is equally clear
that the reviser began from a Septuagint base."57 His conclusion is that:
"Our text should bury Kahle's theory of 'multiple versions' once for all.
This is an obviously Jewish text which is equally obviously a revision of
the reputedly 'Christian' Septuagint text."58 In theory there is much to
be said for Kahle's admonition: "The editor of a Platonic Dialogue must
attempt to produce the original text of Plato's autograph as nearly as
possible. Can we speak, though, of such an original text for a version of
the Bible?"59 Yet his thesis has not been substantiated by the early texts
that have thus far been found.
The Targum hypothesis, however, is certainly valid for certain aspects
of the early and later history of the Septuagint:
(a) It should not be supposed that the "original Septuagint" represents
the first translation made of the Hebrew text, particularly of the Pentateuch.
The need for a text that would be understood by Greek-speaking Jews, for
use in public worship, study, education, and private devotion, gave occasion
from early times for ad hoc translations. Even the Letter of Aristeas ac-
knowledges this in referring to "earlier inadequate versions of the Law."60
61. Thus J. Ziegler 1934a: 42 believes that Greek texts of the passages of Isaiah
read liturgically in the synagogue were available to the translator.
62. R. Hanhart 1984b: 6.
THE SEPTUAGINT 67
people who wrote the Hebrew Old Testament were not restricted to matters
of their language alone. They lived in a world of different social conditions,
with different ways of thinking, and not least with differences of belief.
Their environment affected them, "hellenized" them. They spoke more
abstractly and philosophically about God than the "Hebrews," and they
avoided the anthropomorphic and anthropopathic expressions which are so
characteristic of the Hebrew Old Testament: Exod. 19:3, Moses does not
ascend to God, but to the mountain of God; Exod. 24:10, the elders do not
see God, but the place where God stands; Josh. 4:24, is translated
. The statement that "God repented" is avoided by
circumlocution.71
Of particular significance is the expansion of the concept of God
implied by the consistent translation of the divine name by :
"The Bible whose God is Yahweh is a national Bible; the Bible whose
God is is a universal Bible." 72
In other instances the translators eliminated possible theological mis-
understandings by avoiding literal translations. For example, they did not
adopt the common Old Testament image of God as "the Rock" ( ), but
substituted other expressions. Hellenistic religions saw in rocks and stones
the symbols, abodes, and representations of divinity, so that "the use of
this image in the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint, which in contrast
to the Hebrew text was always directed toward missionary, propaganda
and apologetic purposes, could have led to serious misunderstandings, as
though a rock were worshipped as the God of the Old Testament. So the
image is sacrificed to the meaning. The Septuagint gives a new form to
the text of the Old Testament, and in so doing preserves the spirit of the
Old Testament revelation of God." 7 3
(iii) The efforts of the translators to make the Old Testament intel-
ligible to their compatriots in Egypt led them to use terms native to their
Egyptian and Alexandrian environment which were not the exact equiv-
alents of Hebrew expressions. Thus the ("slave drivers") of Exod.
71. E. Stauffer 1965: 109, where further examples may be found. Cf. especially
C. T. Fritsch 1943, and the review by T. W. Manson 1945: 78f.; for a discussion of the
problem, cf. J. W. Wevers 1954: 174-76. B. M. Zlotowitz 1981 disputes with . .
Orlinsky (Introduction) that the translator avoided anthropomorphisms.
72. A. Deissmann 1903: 174. More recently it has been disputed whether the
early translators transcribed Yahweh with or the tetragrammaton (cf. p. 190 on
Pap. Fouad 266); cf. also A. Pietersma 1984. On its significance for religious history
cf. R. Hanhart 1967: 57ff.
73. G. Bertram 1939: 101.
70 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
Testament text. It can be used as a textual witness only after its own
understanding of the Old Testament text has been made clear."78
10. Manuscripts
to these there are indirect witnesses, which include patristic quotations and
versions in other languages which are based on . Recent decades have
also brought a valuable enrichment of evidence in the discovery of papyri
which are earlier than any materials hitherto available.
(a) Papyri
(i) Papyrus Greek 458 of the John Rylands Library in Manchester
dates from the middle of the second century B.C. and offers the earliest
surviving text of the Greek Bible (pl. 28).80 These six fragments retrieved
from the wrapping of a mummy, together with Papyrus Fouad 266 (pl. 29)
and a leather scroll with the Greek text of the Minor Prophets (pl. 30),
constitute the few surviving fragments of the Greek Bible from the pre-
Christian period whose Jewish origins are probable or certain.81 They contain
parts of Deut. 23:24-24:3; 25:1-3; 26:12, 17-19; 28:31-33, comprising a total
of some fifteen verses and including a number of readings which are either
peculiar to these fragments or find support in a very few other witnesses.82
(ii) The Chester Beatty Papyri (BHK: Beatty; pl. 31) are the most
important of the papyri because of their extent and age. When they were
78. G. Bertram 1936: 109; cf. also 1957. Pertinent to the whole problem is the
thorough work by . v 1981.
79. A. Rahlfs 1914. Today ca. 2050 manuscripts are known, apart from lection-
aries.
80. C. H. Roberts 1936.
81. Several fragments of the Greek Bible were also found at Qumran in Cave 4
(cf. P. W. Skehan 1957: 155-58, and also P. E. Kahle 1959: 223-26) and in Cave 7 (cf.
p. 32).
82. Cf. the thorough study by J. Hempel 1937: 115-127.
72 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
discovered they were described as the most important event for textual
criticism since the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus. They comprise the remains
of eleven codices, containing parts of nine Old Testament and fifteen New
Testament books, the book of Enoch, and a homily by the Church Father
Melito of Sardis. They date from the second to the fourth century A.D., and
are probably the remains of a Christian library in the Fayyum. The greater
part of these manuscripts was acquired by the Englishman Chester Beatty in
1929 from the local people who had found them; other parts came into the
possession of the University of Michigan and the American John H. Scheide;
smaller fragments are in Vienna, in Italy, and in private collections,83 and
further extensive fragments of manuscript 967 are in papyrus collections of
Cologne (Ezekiel, Daniel, Esther) and Madrid (Ezekiel).84 The Old Testa-
ment is represented in the Beatty papyri by considerable portions of Genesis,
Numbers, Deuteronomy, and fragments of Isaiah and Jeremiah, parts of
Ezekiel, Daniel, and Esther, and fragments of Sirach. The text of Daniel is
especially noteworthy, because in Daniel another version had replaced that
of in the manuscript tradition (cf. p. 56), so that until now the text of was
known from only one eleventh-century manuscript
(iii) The. Berlin fragments of a Genesis manuscript (late third century,
containing Gen. 1:16-35:8; pl. 32) should also be mentioned. These were
published together with a late third-century codex of the Minor Prophets
in 1927,85 and the Papyrus Bodmer XXIV, containing Ps. 17-118 and also
from the third century A.D. 8 6 From the fourth century there is the Anti-
noopolis papyrus, edited by C. H. Roberts in 1950, containing fragments
of Proverbs. The papyrus book of the British Library ( ) is relatively late,
from the seventh century; it was the first biblical papyrus to be discovered
and has been in the British Library since 1836 (Papyrus 37). It comprises
thirty-two folios of a Psalm codex containing the text of Ps. 10:2-18:6;
20:1434:6, and represents the so-called Upper Egyptian text.
(b) Manuscripts. Among Greek manuscripts a distinction is observed
between uncials or majuscules (in capital letters) and minuscules (in small
letters). In antiquity for literature only the capital letters were used, written
in sequence but separately and without ligatures, although for common use
(as in private correspondence) the letters were joined together in a cursive
hand. From this cursive form the minuscule hand of the medieval period
developed. Until the eighth century there were only uncials, in the ninth
and tenth centuries uncials and minuscules were used side by side, and
from the eleventh century only minuscules. Even though the minuscule
manuscripts are later, they may be valuable as textual witnesses if they
were copied from lost uncials containing a good text. For textual criticism
it is important to recognize that until the eighth century texts were written
with their letters in continuous sequence, without word division, accents,
breathings, or punctuation.
As sigla to distinguish individual manuscripts Holmes and Parsons
used roman numerals for the uncials (e.g., XI) and arabic numerals for
the minuscules (e.g., 6 2 1 4 7 ). Later Lagarde introduced capital Latin letters Ms(s)
for the uncials, many of which have been widely adopted and are used also
in BH (cf. also p. 71). The following list of manuscripts cited in BH is in
chronological order.87
) Codex Vaticanus (B). Fourth century. Vatican Library. Old Testa-
ment complete, but Gen. 1-46:28; Ps. 105:27-137:6 added in the fifteenth
century. This manuscript enjoys very great authority. Rahlfs ascribed it to
Lower Egypt on the basis of its content and text.
) Codex Sinaiticus (S; BHK: ; pl. 33). Fourth century. Discovered
by Constantin von Tischendorf at St. Catherine's Monastery, ML Sinai, in
1844 and 1859. The main body of the manuscript is in the British Library,
London (since 1933, previously in St. Petersburg), but a small part is in
Leipzig (Codex Frederico-Augustanus); place of origin possibly Palestine.
Recent research attributes the manuscript to three scribes, two of whom were
also correctors. Later correctors have also been identified and designated in
S1.2.3
BHS as S 1 . 2 . 3 , and in BHK as c.a,c.b,c.c
. The Old Testament text survives ,
for Gen. 23:19-24:46; Num. 5:26-7:20 (both with lacunae); 1 Chr. 9:27-
19:17; Ezra-Nehemiah (from Ezra 9:9), Esther, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 4 Mac-
cabees, Isaiah, Jeremiah (to Lam. 2:20), Joel-Malachi (Greek order), Psalms,
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Wisdom, Sirach, and Job.
) Codex Alexandrinus (A). Fifth century. British Library, London.
Gift to King Charles I of England in 1627, previously in the Patriarchal
Library at Alexandria (hence its name). Old Testament lacks 1 Sam. 12:17
14:9; Ps. 49:20-79:11.
) Codex Colberto-Sarraviunus (G; BHK: G; pl. 35). Fourth/fifth
87. It is not possible here to go into questions of the textual characteristics and
importance of the surviving papyri and manuscripts. For this see the introductions to
the volumes of the Gttingen Septuagint.
74 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
11. Editions
94. From Exodus onward the text of the corrector of (instead of the first hand)
is adopted where it agrees with the main line of tradition.
95. For its history and method, cf. R. Hanhart and J. W. Wevers 1977.
78 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
Buches Judith (1979), Text und Textgeschichte des Buches Tobit (1984);
by Wevers: Text History of the Greek Genesis (1974), Text History of the
Greek Deuteronomy (1978), Text History of the Greek Numbers (1982),
Text History of the Greek Leviticus (1986); by Ziegler: Beitrge zum
griechischen Iob (1985).
In a smaller format Rahlfs also published the book of Ruth in 1922
and Genesis in 1926.
Max L. Margolis, The Book of Joshua in Greek (1931-1938), is
modeled on the same principles as the Gttingen Septuagint. The last
fascicle (part 5) was never published and was thought to be lost. However,
it was recently discovered and published with a preface by Emanuel v,
(1992).
(h) A critical manual edition of the entire Septuagint, designed for
the use of students and ministers and at a modest price, was produced by
Rahlfs in 1935 at the Wrttemberg Bible Society (now the German Bible
Society). It is based mainly on the three major manuscripts B, S [ ], and
A, and provides "the basis for all subsequent major editions of the text
because of its critical textual value and because of its extensive use of all
the revisional elements of the Christian revisions recognized at the time."96
As an indispensable tool for research on we should mention Hatch
and Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint, 2 vols. (1897), Supplement
(1906); reprinted Graz (1954), Oxford (1975), and Grand Rapids (1983).
The Samaritan Pentateuch was also translated into Greek. Origen often
cites this translation as the Samariticon. Fragments have been identified
in a manuscript from the fourth century A.D.;97 but this probably represents
a Samaritan revision of the text.98 An inscription with the Greek text of
the Blessing of Aaron (Num. 6:22-27), found in a Samaritan synagogue
built in Thessalonica in the fourth century A.D., has been published by
B. Lifshitz and J. Schiby.99
1. On the problem of the Targums, cf. R. le Daut 1966, with full bibliographies;
also J. Bowker 1969; M. McNamara 1966; E. Levine 1982a and comprehensively
1988; P. Schfer 1980. Bibliography: B. Grossfeld 1972-78.
2. Thus a Targum of the book of Job was found at Qumran in Cave 11; editions:
J. P. M. van der Ploeg and A. S. van der Woude 1971; M. Sokoloff 1974; J. Gray 1974.
Otherwise to date only the remains of a literal Aramaic version of Leviticus and another
fragment of a Targum to Job in Cave 4 have been found. The so-called Genesis
Apocryphon is an early midrash. Cf. G. Vermes 1973: 96ff.
79
80 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
spumed it and had it buried in a wall. Targums were in use even at Qumran.2
But with their development from oral translations it is only natural that the
precise wording of the Targums should differ from place to place. While
the Hebrew text and its normally accepted interpretation in Judaism re-
mained authoritative, there remained the possibility of individual charac-
teristics appearing in the form of words, extent of paraphrase, interpretation,
representation, etc. Thus there was not at first a single original standard
and authoritative Targum text, but rather a whole series of different Aramaic
versions.
These different versions share in varying degrees certain characteris-
tics which reflect their common practical purpose. The community was to
be taught and edified; it was necessary to spell out clearly for them the
message of the text. Consequently in no other versions of the Bible is the
interpretive element as pronounced as in the Targums. They paraphrase,
they add explanatory phrases, they reinterpret the text (sometimes quite
boldly) according to the theological temper of their time, they relate the
text to contemporary life and political circumstances, and so on. In partic-
ular they attempt to avoid anthropomorphic and anthropopathic statements
about God. This approach to the text of the Targums, which occasionally
almost ignores the meaning of the Hebrew text, reduces their value as
textual witnesses, but makes them important documents for the history of
Old Testament exegesis.3
Of the varied profusion of the Aramaic versions that once existed only a
small fraction has survived. Two basically different forms should be dis-
tinguished: those texts which represent the early Palestinian Targum, and
those which were revised in Babylon Onkelos for the Pentateuch and
Jonathan for the Prophets. Most of the surviving Targums contain material
from very different periods. Determining and dating the various strata is
possible only with careful investigation a process which is in many
respects now only in its beginning stages.4
(a) The Palestinian Targum was never edited officially, and con-
sequently it has never had a single authoritative form of text. All the
manuscripts differ from each other to a greater or lesser extent. The charac-
teristic traits of the older Targums just mentioned are especially pronounced
in them.
Thanks to several fortunate discoveries in recent decades which have
also advanced our knowledge of long-familiar texts, we are now able to
see the Palestinian Targum in a clearer perspective. To begin with, Paul
Kahle recognized and edited the remains of an old Palestinian Pentateuch
Targum which had survived in fragments of seven manuscripts from the
Cairo Geniza, dating from the seventh to the ninth century (cited in BH as
P
= Targum Palestinense).5 These texts are not simple and literal transla-
tions of the Hebrew. Instead they have extensive explanatory insertions of
a midrashic and homiletical nature. When the same passage has survived
in several fragments, the differences between them are so great that there
can be no question of a standard text. Further fragments have since been
discovered, but most significant has been the discovery by Alejandro Dez
Macho in 1957 of a complete manuscript of the Palestinian Targum in Ms.
Neofiti I of the Vatican Library comprising 450 parchment folios.6 This
manuscript was apparently written in Italy in the early sixteenth century,7
although its contents are obviously much earlier. It is of the greatest im-
portance for our knowledge of the Palestinian Targum and its related
problems, especially in view of the fragmentary nature of the materials
hitherto available. It has been published by Dez Macho (1968-1979) in
six volumes, containing an introduction and the Aramaic text together with
a critical apparatus and translations in Spanish, French (by Roger J. le
Daut), and English (by Martin McNamara and Michael Maher).
These discoveries have made it possible to achieve a fresh historical
understanding of long known and published Targums, and to prove their
relationship to the Palestinian Targum. This is true of the so-called Frag-
ment Targum and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. The Fragment Targum, also
known as Targum Jerusalem II and cited in BH as J II, is called a "frag-
ment" because it contains only the midrashic comments on individual
verses, omitting the continuous translation of the text itself. Kahle regards
5. P. Kahle 1927-30: n.
6. A. Dez Macho 1960 discusses some of the major problems of the Palestinian
Targum, and includes a survey of the texts presently known (pp. 236f.). On Codex
Neofiti I, cf. A. Dez Macho 1956: 446f.; 1962: 19-25; and M. Black 1957: 662-64.
On the complex character of Neofiti I, now cf. S. Lund and J. Foster 1977.
7. M. F. Martin 1963.
82 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
15. The Masora was edited by A. Berliner 1877, and by S. Landauer 1896. For
a description of Targum Onkelos, cf. M. Aberbach and B. Grossfeld 1982; I. Drazin
1982.
16. L. Smolar, M. Aberbach, P. Churgin 1983.
17. F. Praetorius 1899; 1900.
84 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
(c) Besides the editions already mentioned, BH also refers to: the
Targum to the Writings edited by Lagarde in 1873 (Hagiographa Chal-
daice, cited in BHK as L ); a selection of Targum texts edited in 1888 by
Adalbert Merx with notes and a glossary, based on old manuscripts and
printed editions (Chrestomathia Targumica, cited in BHK as M ); the
Targums of Jacob ben Chayyim's Rabbinic Bible of 1524/25 (cited in BHK
as B ); the Targums of Johannes the Elder Buxtorf's edition of Basel,
Buxt 1618-1619 ( B u x t ); and a wealth of material in Brian Walton's London
Polyglot of 1654-57 (cited in BHK as W).
T T
3. The Samaritan Targum (cited in BH as )
Among the Samaritans also the sacred text, the Pentateuch, was translated
into Aramaic, but there was never an official recension of it. Consequently
almost every surviving manuscript has its own text. "We have here an
excellent example of a Targum in an earlier phase through which transla-
tions of the Bible usually pass before they reach their final text."18
Editions: The Paris (1645) and London Polyglots (1657); Julius Hein-
rich Petermann and Carl Vollers, Pentateuchus Samaritanus (1872-1891;
uncritical methodology). Kahle has edited fragments with comments in
Zeitschrift fir Assyriologie 16 (1901) and 17 (1902). A new edition of the
Samaritan Targum has been published by Abraham Tal (Rosenthal) of Tel
Aviv University.19
At a rather late date the Syriac church designated the version of the Old
Testament in common use as the Peshitta (Jacobite pronunciation: Peshitto),
i.e., "the simple or plain (version)." It is not certain in what sense this was
intended, whether to indicate it as the common (vulgaris) version, or one
lacking in paraphrase, or perhaps to distinguish it as "simple" in contrast
to the annotated Syro-Hexaplar text derived from the Hexapla (cf. p. 59).
The literary problem of the Peshitta is rather complex2 and suffers
from the lack of a critical edition describing the manuscript tradition. Syriac
information on the origin of the Peshitta is largely of a legendary nature
and of little value, e.g., one tradition dates the version in the reign of King
Solomon, while another ascribes it to Christian sources.
The Peshitta has had a most varied history as revealed in its manuscript
tradition and the differences from the standard text to be found in patristic
quotations from the Bible. These relationships have been studied most
thoroughly in the Pentateuch, but even here there is no consensus on the most
important problem: the origin of the version. While Leo Haefeli regarded
these books as a rather faithful translation of the Hebrew text, others support
the thesis that in the Pentateuch the Peshitta was derived from an eastern
Aramaic (Syriac) recasting of a western Aramaic Targum. Such is the view
1. Cf. P. A. H. de Boer 1981 for a good historical survey of research and editing.
Cf. also C. van der Puyvelde I960, and P. B. Dirksen 1989.
2. Cf. the opinion of P. B. Dirksen, a member of the Peshitta Institute in Leiden
(1985: 468): "There is . . . no certain answer to the question where and when this
translation came into being, whether originally it was a Jewish or a Christian translation,
what the relation is between the text of the Peshitta and the Targumic tradition, and
even what was the exact meaning of the name."
85
86 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
of Anton Baumstark, Paul E. Kahle, and Curt Peters among others, and
especially of Arthur Vbus. The latter demonstrated by a thorough exami-
nation of both the manuscript tradition and the patristic literature that in the
Pentateuch there was an early stage so closely related to the Targums that the
inference of direct dependence on an early Palestinian Targum is ines-
capable.3 On the basis of his examination of the text of Exodus in a large
number of manuscripts from the fifth to the nineteenth century, M. D. Koster
has come to the conclusion that the present text of the Peshitta has developed
through three stages, the oldest of which is witnessed by British Museum Ms.
Add. 14,425 (cf. pl. 39), and reveals a close connection with the Hebrew text.4
"This makes it plausible for the Pentateuch at least that [the Peshitta], as we
know and use it, emerged from a faithful translation of the Hebrew original"
(p. 197). Yeshayahu Maori5 acknowledges the influence of Jewish exegesis
as a characteristic of the Peshitta in the Pentateuch, but he also denies any
direct dependence on an existing Targum. Thus it now appears probable that
the Peshitta is of Jewish origin and was translated from the Hebrew text.
Jewish origins are historically easy to imagine. During the first century the
ruling house and leading circles of Adiabene (east of the Tigris) were won
over to the Jewish faith for several decades (ca. A.D. 40-70). They needed a
version of the Old Testament, especially of the Pentateuch, in their own
language Syriac. This places the beginnings of the Syriac version of the
Old Testament in the middle of the first century A.D.6
The arguments made earner for Christian or Jewish Christian origins
of the Pentateuch based on a certain laxness in the rendering of the Levitical
Law have been refuted by J. A. Emerton.7
The Peshitta text for Isaiah, which Lienhard Delekat ascribed to
Targumic origins,8 has now been shown by Arie van der Kooij9 to be a
translation of a proto-Masoretic text made by a Jewish Christian who was
"very familiar" with the text of (p. 287), and "somewhat less familiar"
with Targums to Isaiah and the Prophets (p. 290). Date: no earlier than A.D.
second century (p. 292).
The later history of the text is as complicated as its origins clari-
fication awaits the appearance of the forthcoming critical edition (cf. p. 89).
3. A. Vbus 1958; cf. however the critical review by J. Ziegler 1962b: 304ff.
4. M. D. Koster 1977.
5. Y. Maori 1975.
6. Cf. P. Kahle 1959: 270-73, which still supports Targumic origins.
7. J. A. Emerton 1962.
8. L. Delekat 1957: 21-54; 1957a: 185-199, 321-335.
9. A. van der Kooij 1981.
THE SYRIAC VERSION 87
Koster's observations have led him to the conclusion that in the Pentateuch
the version has gradually moved farther away from the Hebrew text by
internal development, by adding explanatory or harmonizing words and
phrases.10 But van der Kooij has not found this true for Isaiah.11
Scribes were generally not meticulous copyists, but enjoyed consid-
erable freedom in their choice of words and grammatical details.12 Further,
the fact that scribal centers were widely scattered tended to promote the
development of local traditions. No attempt seems to have been made to
revise or standardize the text. But in the ninth/tenth century there was a
turning point, for manuscripts of the fifth to the ninth century show a certain
degree of variation in their textual consistency, and manuscripts after the
ninth/tenth century seem to derive from a single exemplar, an archetype.
This striking turn in the textual tradition is explained by P. B. Dirksen by
the fact that about this time a great number of manuscripts were taken to
the monastery of Der es-Suryan in Egypt, where the Abbot Moses of Nisibis
recorded the accession of 250 copies in the year 932 alone. The vacuum
this created in Syria was filled by copies made from a ninth century
manuscript which chanced to remain in Syria. "And so, on the basis of
this MS, a new text tradition came up which gradually branched out in
various geographical and textual directions."13 These events explain why
nearly all the earlier manuscripts in London and Rome came from Egypt,
and why the later manuscripts have little significance for research in the
history of the Peshitta text.
Further research on the Peshitta is necessary to establish its history
and textual importance for all the books of the Old Testament. But already
it may be affirmed that as a version in a language closely related to Hebrew
the Peshitta is important among the early witnesses to the Old Testament
text, and must certainly be taken into account by the textual critic.
10. M. D. Koster 1977: 528f. Koster has presented an exhaustive study of the
Peshitta text in the book of Exodus and concludes that there was a single translation
of the basic Hebrew text which then developed independently: "This development is
characterized by a gradual extension of the text through the addition of complementary
words and even a few explanatory sentences, which clearly mark the transition between
the different stages. In as far as one can speak of a 'Targumisches Profil' in P, this is
therefore to be found not at the beginning but at the end of the development of its text"
(p. 212). Koster's important conclusions argue against the Targum and recension hy-
pothesis: the extent of their relevance for the whole of the Old Testament remains to
be demonstrated by further research.
11. A. van der Kooij 1981: 297.
12. P. B. Dirksen 1985: 476f.
13. Ibid, 484.
88 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
In the fifth century the Syriac church became divided into Nestorians and
Jacobites, and accordingly the Nestorian (East Syriac) and Jacobite (West
Syriac) traditions are to be distinguished.14 There is a group of early
Mss Peshitta manuscripts15 beginning in the fifth century A.D., such as the
British Museum Ms. Add. 14,425 from the year 464 containing Genesis,
Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The most important of these is the
West Syriac Codex Ambrosianus in Milan, from the sixth or seventh
century, containing the entire Old Testament; a photolithographic edition
was published by Antonius Maria Ceriani, Translatio Pescitto Veteris
Testamenti, 1876 ( A ). The new edition of the Peshitta (cf. p. 89) is based
on this manuscript.
Also of importance are the biblical quotations of the Syriac Church
Fathers, such as Ephraem Syrus (d. 373) and Aphraates, who lived in the
period before the division of the church. In BHK the readings of Aphraates,
whose twenty-three treatises from the years 337-345 are the earliest sur-
viving writings in the Syriac language, are cited as Aphr 16
There has been to date no edition of the Peshitta that is completely
satisfactory for critical purposes. The Paris Polyglot of 1645 became the
standard text on which later editions were based, but it was itself dependent
on a poor manuscript from the seventeenth century as its principal source.
Although the deficiencies of this edition were recognized, it was reprinted
in an even worse form by Brian Walton in the London Polyglot of 1657
( W), with the readings of a few Syriac manuscripts appended in the sixth
volume. All later editions were prepared for practical (missionary) pur-
14. According to Dirksen 1985 this division had no significance for the history
of the Peshitta text.
15. Cf. List of Old Testament Peshitta Manuscripts, edited by the Peshitta
Institute, University of Leiden (1961); and supplements, "Peshitta Institute Com-
munications," VT 12 (1962): 127f.,237f.,351; 18(1968): 128-143; 27 (1977): 508-511;
31 (1981): 358; 35 (1985): 466f.
16. In 1-2 Sam. BHS also cites the following manuscripts: codex British
Library Add. 14,431 ( B ), 6th century (with lacunae); codex Leningrad Public
Library No. 2 ( C), 5th century (with lacunae); codex British Library Add. 14,442,
and codex Wadi Natrun ( D ) , 6th/7th century (both fragmentary). Patristic quota-
tions: the readings of Bishop Jacob of Edessa (633-708), who revised the Peshitta
Jac edess from the Syro-Hexaplar, following M. H. Goshen-Gottstein 1956, J a c edess ; the
readings of Bishop Bar Hebraeus (1225-1308) following M. Sprengung and W. C.
Bar Hebt Graham 1931, B a r H e b r
THE SYRIAC VERSION 89
poses, for the use of the surviving Syriac communities in the mountains
of Kurdistan, around Lake Urmia, and in northern Iran. Their textual value
is slight. The edition of Samuel Lee (1823, reprinted 1979; cited in BH as
L
) is based mainly on the London Polyglot together with a few other
manuscripts. The edition of Urmia (1852, reprinted 1854; cited as U) by
J. Perkins for the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions,
and that of the Dominicans of Mosul in 1887-91 (edited by C. Joseph David
and G. Ebed-Jesus Khayyath; reprinted 1951; cited in BHS as M) differ
from the editions mentioned above by representing the East Syriac tradition.
Editions of individual books were prepared by William Emery Barnes
and others. In 1904 there appeared The Peshitta Psalter according to the
West Syrian Text edited with an Apparatus Criticus, and in 1914 the Pen-
tateuchus Syriace post Samuelum Lee, revised by G. E. Barnes with C. W.
Mitchell and I. Pinkerton, intended for practical use but drawing also upon
manuscript studies.
A new edition of the Peshitta is in preparation under the direction of
P. A. H. de Boer and his successor Martin Jan Mulder at the Peshitta
Institute of the University of Leiden, sponsored by the International Or-
ganization for the Study of the Old Testament. It is based on Codex
Ambrosianus following the facsimile edition of Ceriani (cf. p. 88). Obvious
errors in Ambrosianus and readings which lack the support of at least two
manuscripts earlier than the eleventh century are corrected, and listed in
the first apparatus. A second apparatus records variant readings from the
period before the eleventh century.
A preliminary volume, The Old Testament in Syriac according to the
Peshitta Version, Sample Edition: Song of Songs, Tobit, 4 Ezra (edited by
J. A. Emerton, J. C. H. Lebram, and R. J. Bidawid), appeared in 1966,
followed by a "General Preface to the Complete Work" by P. A. H. de
Boer and W. Baars in 1972. Since then the following volumes have been
published: 1/1: Preface (de Boer), Genesis (T. Jansma/Peshitta Institute),
Exodus (Koster), 1977; 1/2: Leviticus (D. J. Lane), Numbers (A. P. Hay-
man), Deuteronomy (W. M. van Vliet), 1991; 2/1 a: Job (Lars G. Rignell),
1982; 2/lb: Joshua (Lane, et al.), 1990; 2/2: Judges (Dirksen), Samuel (de
Boer), 1978; 2/3: Psalms (D. M. Walter), 1980; 2/4: Kings (Hans Gottlieb
in collaboration with Erling Hammershaimb), 1976; 2/5: Proverbs (Alex-
ander A. di Leila), Wisdom of Solomon (Emerton and Lane), Qoheleth
(Lane), Song of Songs (Emerton and Lane), 1979; 3/1: Isaiah (Sebastian P.
Brock), 1986; 3/3: Ezekiel (Martin Jan Mulder), 1985; 3/4: Dodekaprophe-
ton (A. Gelston), Daniel-Bel-Draco (based on T. Sprey), 1980; 4/3: Apoc-
90 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
1. J. Ziegler 1960: 5.
91
92 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
Latin versions. The problem is only made more difficult by the fact that if
there was an original version it was regarded as neither official nor invio-
late: independent alterations to improve its popular Latin idiom and bring
it closer to its Greek base could well have produced such different forms
of the text that their common origin would hardly be suspected. At all
events an African text can now be distinguished from a European text
which itself comprises several different subtypes. Thus Old Latin must be
taken as a collective term rather than as designating a particular text.
Considering the variety of the tradition which attests to continuous work
on the texts, we cannot expect more than a fraction of the surviving
manuscripts to have escaped the influence of the Septuagint recensions.
As the Old Latin was superseded by the Vulgate in the early medieval
period, interest in its manuscript tradition waned. Thus it has not survived
in complete manuscripts in the way has. Instead, it has to be assembled
from fragmentary manuscripts, liturgical books, and patristic quotations in
commentaries, sermons, letters, etc. The Benedictine Pierre Sabotier
(1682-1742) edited a collection of the material then known in Bibliorum
sacrorum latinae versiones antiquae (1739-1749; cited as ). Sabatier
prints in one column the fullest continuous text he could find for a passage,
and beside it the Vulgate, together with variants from other Old Latin
sources in an apparatus. There are naturally many lacunae in the text.
Samuel Berger2 has brought together a series of unpublished Old
Latin texts of the Old Testament [BHK: (Berger)].
A new edition following modern scholarly methods and including
evidence discovered since Sabatier was undertaken in 1949: Vetus Latina:
Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel nach Petrus Sabatier neu gesammelt
und herausgegeben von der Erzabtei Beuron (edited by Bonifatius Fischer).
This large edition will include (1) all manuscripts and fragments of the Old
Latin Bible, (2) all quotations in the writings of the Church Fathers to the
period of Isidore of Seville (ca. 560-636), and of the more important later
writers to the Carolingian period. Already published: 1. Sigla (1949); 2.
Genesis (1951-1954); cited in BHS as .
Besides the collections of Sabatier and Berger, BHK also refers to
the following manuscripts.
Amos, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah; cf. (a) above for the publication of other
fragments from the same source.
(i) Escorial, Biblioteca de S. Lorenzo 54 ( 94 ). Glosses from a lost
tenth(?)-century manuscript inscribed in 1577 by a Dominican in the margin
of the Vulgate editio princeps Escorial, Biblioteca de S. Lorenzo, Incuna-
bulum 54 (Venice, 1478).
(k) Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale, Latin 1 ( 115; earlier Vindob. 17).
Fragments of 1 Samuel-2 Kings from a fifth-century manuscript.
(l) Fragmente Quedlinburgensia et Magdeburgensia ( 116 ). Frag-
ments of a fifth-century manuscript in the Preussische Staatsbibliothek,
Berlin, and the Archiv St. Servatii, Quedlinberg, containing 1 Samuel-
2 Kings.
(m) Fragmenta Vindobonensia ( 117 ). Endsheets from a
seventh/eighth century manuscript in the binding of a codex, containing
fragments of 2 Samuel.
Ambr Often Old Latin biblical quotations are preserved in the writings of
CY
, Tert, Church Fathers, e.g., Ambrose, bishop of Milan (d. 397), who is cited in
Eus BHS as Ambr, Cyprian as CY , Tertullian as Tert,4 Eusebius as Eus, and
Tyc the North African reformed Donatist Tyconius (d. ca. 400) as Tyc.
TE
4. But also Tertullian's Adversus Marcionem (E. Kroymann, ed., 1906) as .
IX. The Vulgate ( )
1. Jerome's Version
We have seen that the text of the Bible circulated in a wide variety of forms
in the Latin-speaking church. A uniform and reliable text was badly needed
for theological discussion and liturgical use. Pope Damasus I (366-384)
was accordingly moved to commission Jerome, a scholar eminently qual- Hier
ified by his knowledge of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, to produce such a
text. Jerome was born between 340 and 350 in Dalmatia, studied grammar
and logic in Rome, and then dedicated himself to an ascetic life and
theological studies, living at various places in the western and eastern parts
of the empire. As a hermit in the desert of Chalcis he had learned Hebrew
from a Jewish Christian, and later as a priest he had studied under Apolli-
narius of Laodicea and Gregory of Nazianzus. He was recalled to Rome
in 382 and commissioned to work on the Latin Bible, which he began in
Rome and continued as head of a monastery near Bethlehem from the
autumn of 386. His work there went far beyond the original plans. We can
discuss only his work on the Old Testament here.
Various stages are to be distinguished:
(a) At first Jerome made a rapid (cursim) and partial revision of the
Psalter according to the Septuagint, which enjoyed canonical authority at
the time. This revision was introduced into the liturgy of the city of Rome,
whence it received the name Psalterium Romanum. It is still in use today
in the Office at St. Peter's and in the Psalm texts of the Old Roman Mass.1
(b) Jerome undertook a second revision of the Psalter in Palestine,
95
96 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
were no dictionaries or grammars in his day, his most important aids were
the Greek versions of the Septuagint, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion,
and any information he could obtain from Jewish sources. As a result
Jerome kept very much along traditional lines, and the influences of the
resources mentioned above are clearly observable in his work.5 The distrust
of his work shown by the majority of the theologians, as well as his own
churchmanship, urged him to consider carefully the current Latin text.6
Jerome reinterpreted some passages in a quite Christian sense. On the other
hand, the version does not hide the Greco-Roman education of its author,
even if many particular traits may be attributed to later revisers. Thus the
Rome edition of the Vulgate now in preparation (cf. p. 99) states that "the
'Ciceronisms' of the Vulgate are largely from Alcuin. It is true that in many
passages Jerome approaches classical Latin usage, yet he also retained more
(real or supposed) 'vulgarisms' than the traditionally accepted text sug-
gested."7
The work of Jerome thus presents a very complex image from the
very beginning, and its later developments, which we can sketch only
briefly in the next section, further increased this complexity. This seriously
affects its value for textual criticism, for it is difficult to determine from
the version without careful research precisely what Hebrew text Jerome
had before him. In Friedrich Stummer's words, "When Jerome agrees with
the Septuagint or with the later translations against our present Masoretic
text, I believe he should usually be disregarded. For at most it proves that
in his day or at some later time this was the reading of the Septuagint; it
cannot prove without further evidence that Jerome's Hebrew text differed
from our own."8
It was only over a period of centuries that Jerome's version attained the
general recognition that has been associated with the name "Vulgate"
5. The extent of Jerome's debt to the later Greek translators, especially Aquila
and Symmachus, is shown by a wealth of evidence in the study by J. Ziegler 1943/1944.
6. G. Q. A. Meershoek 1966: 244, speaks of a "fidelite la consuetudo." Meers-
hoek suggests that as in the Gospels, so also in many books of the Old Testament
Jerome's version deserves to be called a revision rather than a translation.
7. F. Stummer 1940/41: 258.
8. F. Stummer 1928: 123.
9. Cf. R. Loewe 1969.
98 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
10. On the history of the name "Vulgate," cf. E. F. Sutcliffe 1948; A. Allgeier
1948.
11. B. Fischer 1957: 19.
12. The text which achieved wide distribution through the first Gutenberg Bible
of 1452/55 and its successors in the fifteenth century was a very slightly revised form
of this Paris Bible; cf. H. Schneider 1954.
13. F. Stummer 1928: 172.
THE VULGATE 99
Nova Vulgata in 1979.14 Worthy of note among the many modern editions
of the Clementine text is the 1959 edition by the Benedictine Monastery
of St. Jerome, Rome. The apparatus compares the critical editions thus far
published of Rome (Old Testament, see below) and Oxford (New Testa-
ment). The Psalms are printed in parallel columns representing the Psal-
terium Gallicum, the Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos (following the critical
edition by Dom H. de Sainte Marie, see below), and the nova versio
prepared by the Pontifical Biblical Institute in 1945.
The Benedictine Order has been commissioned since 1907 with the
preparation of a comprehensive edition, taking full account of the wealth
of manuscript evidence (about eight thousand manuscripts), and designed
to give a complete picture of the textual tradition. After exhaustive pre-
liminary studies it began to appear in 1926. The Old Testament was
completed in 1986.15
A manual edition of the Vulgate has been published by the German
Bible Society, edited by Robert Weber with the assistance of Bonifatius
Fischer OSB, Johannes Gribomont OSB, H. F. D. Sparks, and Walter
Thiele (1969,3 1983). "Our text is a new text, established from the evidence
of the manuscripts with the help of the two big modern editions" (p. xxii),
i.e., for the Old Testament, the Benedictine edition mentioned above. Its
text has been accepted in this manual edition subject to careful verification
and correction where necessary. For the Minor Prophets, which were not
available in the Benedictine edition in 1983, a provisional text was printed
(see the Foreword of the edition for a statement of its editorial principles).
In the Psalter the Psalmi inxta Septuaginta emendati (the Gallican Psalter)
and the Psalmi iuxta Hebraicum translati are printed on facing pages.
Concordance: B. Fischer 1977.
A critical edition of Jerome's version of the Psalter from the Hebrew,
which was not included in the Vulgate, has been produced by Henri de
Sainte Marie (1954).
14. Nova Vulgata Bibliorum Sacrorum editio, sacros. oecum. concilii Vaticani II
ratione habita iussu Pauli PP. VI recognita auctoritate Ioannis Pauli PP. II promulgata.
The Nova Vulgata of 1979 does not represent a reconstruction of Jerome's historical
text, but rather a revision of it based on the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic,
and Greek. It should not be confused with the critical edition being produced by the
Benedictine Order.
15. It must be added that several books contained in the Vulgate were not revised
by Jerome because he did not regard them as canonical: Baruch (with the Letter of
Jeremiah), Wisdom, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees. These books appear, therefore, in the
Old Latin version.
X. The Coptic Versions ( )
1. According to P. E. Kahle, Jr., 1954 Sahidic was the official dialect of the native
population of Egypt and the official language of Alexandria long before the spread of
Christianity.
2. On the history of the Coptic dialects and the Coptic versions of the Bible, cf.
R. Kasser 1965.
3. W. Grossouw 1938; J. Ziegler 1944a.
100
THE COPTIC VERSIONS 101
was translated either within Origen's lifetime or at any rate very soon after
his death, and which as early as the fourth century is supported by MS
evidence (Jonah in Budge 1912), evidence almost 400 years older than the
Syro-Hexaplaric version translated by Paul of Telia in the years 616 to 617,
which up to now has been accepted as the main source for the Septuagint
of Origen."4 Ziegler himself is more cautious. He sees indications in this
and related evidence "that even before Origen various passages had been
corrected from the Hebrew text: we must beware of attributing agreements
with too readily to Hexaplaric influence."5
Recent editions: W. Kosack 1973 (Proverbs); M. K. H. Peters 1983
(Deuteronomy), 1985 (Genesis), 1986 (Exodus).6
About the middle of the fourth century the king of Aksum in Ethiopia and
his people were won over to Christianity. A translation of the Bible from
the Greek1 was probably begun shortly afterward, but the completion of
the version took a long while, possibly several centuries. Consequently the
quality of the individual books varies. The Old Ethiopian version is repre-
sented in only some of the surviving manuscripts, the earnest of which is
from the thirteenth century (pl. 45). It may be inferred from the various
manuscripts that it was revised from an Arabic Bible (a "popular" recen-
sion), from Greek manuscripts, and corrected from the Hebrew (an "aca-
demic" recension).2 Only the Old Ethiopic is of significance as a witness
to the Septuagint text. Joseph Ziegler has found that the Ethiopic version
in the Minor Prophets is often associated with the Alexandrian group of
Septuagint witnesses. "The Ethiopic frequently has a very free rendering.
This is at times because the translator was not familiar with the Greek
vocabulary, but at times due to his efforts to achieve a fluency of style and
to render the difficult Greek original more readably."3 (Cf. also p. 222.)
102
XII. The Armenian Version (Arm) Arm
At the beginning of the fifth century, after a period in which the national
Armenian church used Greek and Syriac for both literature and liturgy, the
Armenian priest Mesrob (ca. 361-439) invented the Armenian alphabet and
laid the basis for a national Armenian literature. At this time the Bible was
translated. According to Armenian tradition this first version of the Bible
(ca. A.D. 414) was based on the Syriac Peshitta, but nothing further is
known about it.1 The final official version which has come down to us was
based on the Septuagint, with perhaps some influence from the Peshitta. It
has been suspected that this official version was actually a revision of the
first version which was made, at least in some books, with the aid of the
Septuagint. In his thorough research of Deuteronomy Claude E. Cox con-
cluded that influence from the Peshitta or an earlier Armenian version
cannot be proved.2 Since the Armenian follows the Hexaplaric recension
extensively and Hexaplaric signs are frequently found in the manuscripts
(cf. p. 58), this version is an important witness for the fifth column of
Origen's Hexapla.3
1. L. Leloir 1960.
2. C. E. Cox 1981: 326f.: "That there has been no influence from P upon Arm
is impossible to prove. That the translator of Arm may have known P is quite possible.
However, the small number of minor agreements with P do not prove that there is any
sort of textual relationship. If there existed, before the translation from Greek, an
Armenian translation of Deuteronomy based on the Peshitta, its existence cannot be
proven by examining the Armenian text now extant. The Armenian as we know it, if
actually a revised Armenian translation, was so thoroughly done as to constitute a
translation in its own right with little or no remains of what hypothetically was an
earlier translation."
3. C. E. Cox 1986. The influence of Hexaplaric manuscripts in the Armenian
version was also noted by B. Johnson 1968.
103
XIII. The Arabic Versions ( )
With the victory of Islam the use of Arabic spread widely, and for Jews
and Christians in the conquered lands it became the language of daily life.
This gave rise to the need for Arabic versions of the Bible, which need
was met by a number of versions, mainly independent and concerned
primarily for interpretation (pl. 46). The version by Saadia Gaon1 (of Egypt,
and from 928 the head of the Jewish academy at Sura in Babylonia), of
which only a part has survived, was based on the Hebrew text. It was also
accepted by the Samaritans at first, but later subjected continually to al-
terations, as is evident from the manuscripts. The textus receptus of the
Arabic version used today among the Samaritans is attributed to Abu Sa'id,
who lived in the mid-thirteenth century.2
The value of the Arabic versions for textual criticism is slight. But
they make a contribution to the history of interpretation, and by shedding
light on the development of earlier versions they offer suggestions toward
the solution of their problems.3
Translations into Arabic were also made from the Septuagint, from
the Peshitta, and from other versions. The manuscripts and editions (espe-
cially the polyglots) contain for the most part translations of very diverse
origins. Thus it is in no sense a unified Arabic version that is represented
in BH by the sign .
1. R. Ecker 1962.
2. P. Kahle 1959: 53f.; H. Shehadeh 1978.
3. Cf. R. Edelmann 1953: 75.
104
XIV. The Aims of Textual Criticism1
The history of the text shows clearly that all our witnesses as they stand
are far removed from the original text both by time and by the processes
of transmission. Many generations of scribes and translators have played
a role in transmitting the text of the Old Testament. They contain, therefore,
a great variety of scribal errors, such as occur inevitably in any form of
manuscript transmission, caused by errors of reading, errors of hearing,
orthographical slips, and defective exemplars. It should also be recognized
that they contain textual changes due to other causes as well, some
deliberate and some accidental (e.g., translations reflecting inadequate com-
prehension). Textual criticism is the skill by which Old Testament scholar-
ship deals with such problems. It attempts to ferret out all the errors and
alterations (variants) that have occurred, and to achieve on the basis of
scholarly principles a Hebrew text providing a solid foundation on which
higher criticism, exegesis, etc., can build. The task of textual criticism was
long defined as estabbshing the textual form of the Old Testament books
when they attained their present shape and content and gained canonical
status, i.e., in the fourth century B.C. or later, depending on the book. There
are two basic considerations that should be mentioned with regard to this
definition. First, the canonization of the Old Testament books did not
involve or imply a standardized form of their text in our sense of the term.
Prior to canonization, which may be dated about A.D. 100, their text was
still fluid. This was because the scribes, who were theologically educated
and interested, would often write the texts from memory (a practice that
was later forbidden) and did not regard their work as restricted to mechani-
cal transcription. They were permitted to make certain changes in the
1. Among the works on textual criticism the following deserve special attention:
J. Barr 1968; S. Talmon 1975; M. Greenberg 1977; E. Tov 1981, 1982a, 1992.
105
106 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
wording if they did not distort the sense of the text as they understood
it. Thus a fixed and unalterable text is conceivable only after the second
century A.D. Second, the Masoretic text as it now exists exhibits corruptions
that must have occurred very early, i.e., in the period before canonization;
their correction, sometimes possible only by conjecture, is the task of
textual criticism.
For these reasons the goal of textual criticism is not to establish the
text of a particular time in history. It should be seen rather as editing a text
which has the greatest degree of probable authenticity or originality based
on the review of the textual witnesses and the scholarly principles of textual
criticism (cf. pp. 107ff.). Such a text would explain most plausibly the
emergence of variant and corrupt readings and conform best to its context
in both the strict and broader senses.
The apparatus of Biblia Hebraica, while its scope may vary in in-
dividual books, is a useful tool for critical research. It records significant
variants, calling attention to problem passages, citing conjectural emenda-
tions suggested in the past as well as new hints2 for the restoration of the
text.
The prehistory of our present Old Testament books lies beyond the
province of textual criticism. Reconstructing the ipsissima verba of the
prophets in their presumably original form, separating the various strands
of the Pentateuch, investigating questions of literary integrity, and the like,
are among the tasks properly entrusted to higher criticism, literary criticism,
and exegesis. Although textual criticism, literary criticism, and exegesis
frequently come into close contact and occasionally overlap in their prac-
tical application, yet in the interest of methodological clarity it is necessary
to preserve in principle the distinction between these areas of research.
1. General Remarks
107
IO8 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
These include all textual errors which arise from scribal misreading and
miswriting (or even mishearing if transcribing from dictation). In order to
prove that these errors are not the invention of modern textual critics but
have actually occurred in manuscripts and can be expected in any manu-
script, the following examples are taken primarily from a comparison of
with the Isaiah scroll from Qumran (1QIsa). Because we are concerned
here only with indicating a possible range of errors, the variants are simply
listed without discussion.2
(a) Confusion of similar letters is the most frequent cause of errors
in reading and writing. In the Hebrew square script the following are the
most frequent confusions:
For a large part of the Old Testament we must also consider the
possibility of confusion occurring in the Old Hebrew script. Thus in Ps. 19:5
may be derived from through a confusion of with , which was
quite similar in form. As the Lachish ostraca indicate, the letters and ,3
and , and and were quite similar in the Old Hebrew script, as were also
and and , and and (cf. pl. 48).
For assessing the readings of it is often important to remember the
possible confusions of Greek uncial letters such as occur in the textual
transmission of the New Testament.
(b) Transposition of letters can occur most easily in an unpointed
text, and it does occur frequently; Isa. 9:18 1QIsa ; Isa. 32:19
a a
, 1QIs ; Isa. 28:1, 4 , 1QIs (as also proposed by
L. Rost 1935).
(c) Haplography (hpgr; "single writing") occurs when two identical hpgr
or similar letters, groups of letters, or words are found together in an
immediate sequence, and one of them is omitted by error.
(i) Omission of a single letter: Isa. 5:8 , 1QIsa ;
Isa. 8:11 , 1QIsa ; Isa. 8:19 , 1QIsa
. In the Lachish ostraca (3.9) the form (= ) is found;
this suggests that two identical letters occurring together could sometimes
be written once, even though they belonged to different words. The reader
had no difficulty in reading it correctly. It is tempting to view the many
haplographies in the Old Testament in this light.4
(ii) Omission of one in a pair of identical or similar words: Isa.
26:3f. , 1QIsa ; Isa. 38:11 , 1QIsa .
(d) Dittography (dttg) is the accidental repetition of a letter, a group dttg
of letters, a word, or a group of words: Isa. 30:30 , 1QIsa
a
i; in Isa. 38:20 1QIs repeats the whole of the preceding verse almost
verbatim.
(e) Omission by homoioteleuton (homtel; "similar ending") occurs homtel
when two words which are identical, are similar in form, or have identical
endings are found close to each other, and the eye of the copyist moves
from the first to the second, omitting the words that lie between them, e.g.,
Isa. 4:5f.:
. The words in brackets are
lacking in 1QIsa; the scribe's eye passed from in v. 5 to in
a
v. 6. For further examples in 1QIs see Isa. 16:8f.; 23:15; 37:29; and
perhaps also 40:7f. where the omitted words have been inserted. Omissions
due to similarities in the beginnings of words are rarer (homoioarcton,
homark). homark
4. On the principle of the double value of letters (whether single letters or groups
of letters) which may be observed from the sixth century B.C. to the first century A.D.,
cf. now I. O. Lehman 1967.
110 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
3. Deliberate Alterations
Before the text of the Old Testament was officially established it was not
regarded as unalterable. Accordingly we should expect to find that those
who were concerned with the transmission of the text would occasionally
make deliberate, fully intentional alterations in the text. In evaluating these
alterations we must avoid thinking of them as "corruptions." They were
made in good faith, with no intention of introducing a foreign element into
the text, but rather with the aim of restoring the true text and (from the
copyist's view) preventing misunderstandings. They must have originated
in a period when the letter of the text could still be changed in order to
express its message more effectively for its readership and audience.
Many of these alterations can be recognized only with great difficulty
if at all because the manuscripts tradition of has preserved only a very
few variant readings. Others are properly the province of higher criticism,
whose borders are rather fluid at this point. Some examples should be given
here.
There are certain small, common words which were easily inserted
in the text, such as . We have mentioned
these in discussing the characteristics of the non-Masoretic texts, but this
tendency is also represented in the manuscript tradition of . "These words
are almost always inserted to support an interpretation which is in itself
quite possible. But it becomes significantly dangerous when they render
obligatory an interpretation which would otherwise be no more than one
possibility among others, especially when they have a bearing on the
construction of whole sentences, determining their broader relationships."7
It is quite natural that a text which was not simply the object of
scholarly study but intended to be read constantly by the whole of the
Jewish community would be adapted to the linguistic needs of the com-
munity. Thus a rare word, or one used in an unusual sense, would give
place to a more common word; e.g., in Isa. 39:1 reads in the sense
of "get well, recuperate." The usual word for this is , and 1QIsa actually
replaces with in this passage. Other examples of adaptation to
colloquial usage have been mentioned above (see p. 15). The lack of early
material for comparison makes it impossible to demonstrate these altera-
tions in on a larger scale. But the parallel texts show that even was
not immune to them. As a general rule, when the tradition offers variant
readings with the alternatives lying between rare and common words, or
7. J. Wellhausen 1871:26.
112 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
8. Cf. A. Geiger 1857: 267ff., which contains a great deal of material relevant
to this subject.
9. For textual criticism "glosses" are "extraneous intrusions" in the text
(H. Gunkel 1928: 1230); cf. G. Fohrer 1951, an instructive essay on glosses in Ezekiel.
10. P. Volz 1936: 103f.
XVI. The Methods
of Textual Criticism1
1. General Remarks
Textual criticism, like any other science, cannot achieve convincing results
without a methodology which is appropriate to its subject matter and
defined by it. An arbitrary procedure which hastily and unnecessarily
dismisses the traditional text to rely on private conjecture can lead only to
a subjective form of the text which is uncertain historically and without
any claim to theological relevance. It is also likely to arouse a basic distrust
of textual criticism itself, even where it is justifiable and necessary.
There is no precisely defined method for Old Testament textual criti-
cism. Further, it is questionable whether one is possible, because the tradi-
tion is so varied that an effective procedure for one problem would not be
appropriate for another. But there are certain fundamental principles which
are widely recognized, at least in theory if not in practice, and which are
designed to keep textual criticism on a sound basis, avoiding the excesses
of arbitrariness and subjectivity. These principles are not specifically theo-
logical, but have developed from the application of the standard procedures
of the science of textual criticism to the specific conditions of the Old
Testament. Even beginners should be familiar with them because they will
not only provide some criteria for assessing the results of the critical work
of others that they will constantly encounter in their exegetical work, but
also provide guidance for their own further thought and practical applica-
tions. We will therefore outline them briefly here.
113
114 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
The starting point for any textual study must be the textual tradition itself.
Therefore it must first be decided which text is to be regarded as the
traditional text. The various witnesses to the text should be examined,
beginning with , and continuing with the rest in roughly the order of their
significance for textual criticism, e.g., Sa,
, and Arm (for the justification of this order, see the discussion of
the textual history of each of these witnesses). In this way the whole of
the available manuscript evidence should be reviewed.2 Thus becomes
the starting point: any differences are designated as variants but without
implying any evaluation.
A relatively simple picture can be given on the whole for HI, whose
manuscript variants are found in Kennicott, de Rossi, and Ginsburg, because
real variants are rare. Historically from the beginning of the second century
A.D. the text transmitted was exclusively of a single type; consequently the
information to be gleaned for textual criticism from medieval Hebrew man-
uscripts is quite sparse, and in no way comparable to the variety found among
the Greek manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments. Moshe Goshen-
Gottstein has been led to a very negative conclusion by the researches of
Johannes Hempel,3 Hartmut Gese,4 and himself: "Among all the MSS and
fragments known so far there is not even one the deviations of which can be
significantly connected with any non-Massoretic tradition. We possess no
medieval manuscript which, on the strength of its readings, may be termed
'valuable' or be worthy of our attention more than any other."5
The relationships among the manuscripts from Qumran present a
radical contrast. The examples cited from 1QIsa (pp. 108ff. above) give a hint
of the variety to be found there. There are some agreements with readings
found in . Some fragments have the shorter text of Jeremiah, and others the
longer text of Samuel. The readings attested at Qumran suggest that extensive
freedom was observed in transcribing manuscripts. Thus each variant must
also be tested for possible traces of intentional change.6
2. This means, of course, that for work in textual criticism the apparatus of BH
is not adequate by itself. A manual edition designed for students cannot possibly
represent the full range of variants; it must be supplemented by the use of critical
editions.
3. J. Hempel 1930; 1934.
4. H. Gese 1957.
5. M. H. Goshen-Gottstein 1967: 277.
6. Cf. B. A. van der Kooij 1981: 85f. on Isa. 8:11; 28:10.
THE METHODS OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM 115
For the versions, especially for , the manuscript tradition is much more
complex. This must first be clarified before inferences may be drawn about
the Hebrew text underlying it. For , the editions of the Gttingen Septuagint
provide a valuable guide through the mass of variants when used with
discretion. Here also a preliminary sifting of the evidence should be made as
it is collected. Variants within the tradition may be recognized and set aside
immediately, e.g., corruptions of the Greek text (confusions of letters, etc.), or
deliberate alterations (for a more idiomatic Greek usage). When assessing the
variants in the manuscript tradition of any particular version, it should also be
remembered that in many versions the text has been assimilated to ; thus if
one reading agrees with while another reading differs, the former may be
suspected of being a late assimilation to . Since the versions, and in particular
, are characterized in contrast with by differences in the manuscript
traditions, it is important when evaluating them to consider the provenance and
general character of the individual manuscripts: "manuscripta ponderantur,
non numerantur" ("manuscripts should be weighed, not simply counted").
No less a scholar than Paul A. de Lagarde has observed that "no manuscript
of the Septuagint is so good that it does not have a share of poor readings, or
so poor that it does not have its good readings." 7
Obviously versions which are based upon or influenced by a particular
version (usually ) may be accounted independent witnesses to the text only
under certain conditions, such as when they appear likely or certain to have
preserved an original reading of the version which has since been altered,
perhaps by assimilation to . Thus a reading which is attested by and is
really attested only once, because is a daughter version of .
new light on words whose meaning in the Old Testament is still obscure.
In addition to Arabic, which has long been in use, we are now indebted
also to Akkadian, Old South Arabic, and Ugaritic among others, as well
as to Egyptian, a mixed Semitic-Hamitic language which is important for
loanwords in the Old Testament. This is a rapidly developing field, with
excavations constantly increasing our resources (cf. recently the texts from
Ugarit and Mari). Many useful results may be expected.9 As an example
may be cited Hab. 3:6b-7a, where the unintelligible phrase is
the Ugaritic word "destruction" with the preposition .10
Finally in this connection it should be noticed whether or not a text
appears genuine on the basis of stylistic, material, form critical, or other
grounds. Irregularities detected in this way often lead to the recognition of
insertions, glosses, displacements, and other disturbances in the original
text. As our knowledge in many of these fields (e.g., meter) is still quite
limited and open to discussion, and subjective judgments are particularly
easy to make, a greater degree of critical reserve than is commonly observed
is in order.
In examining the subject matter we are concerned with determining
whether or not a topic, an idea, or an expression is an original part of the
text in the light of what is known from other parts of the Old Testament
world. This approach leads to the recognition of later alterations and the
elimination of later insertions. Textual criticism comes into close contact
at this point with literary criticism and exegesis. Therefore for methodolog-
ical integrity it is very important to be quite clear whether a text is contested
on the grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism, or exegesis. The limits
of textual criticism as defined above (p. 106) should be recalled explicitly
in this context. Finally, in examining the subject matter we should remem-
ber how fragmentary our knowledge of the Old Testament world remains.
We should recognize the possibility that we may not understand a particular
text because our knowledge is limited. As it grows and it does grow
with every excavation we have greater grounds for confidence that we
may yet learn the meaning of passages that are still obscure. It is essential
for the Old Testament scholar to follow closely every new discovery in the
world of the Old Testament, and be prepared to reconsider earlier solutions
in the light of new knowledge.
9. Cf. G. R. Driver 1950. J. Barr 1968: 320-337 discusses in detail the problems
of linguistic comparisons, with 344 examples of textual emendations proposed by
various Old Testament scholars.
10. Cf. K. Elliger, Das Buch der zwlf kleinen Propheten II. Das Alte Testament
Deutsch 25, ad loc; the suggestion goes back to W. F. Albright.
118 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
4. The Decision
After the evidence of the tradition has been collected and examined, the
decision must be made as to which text is to be regarded as the original
or the nearest approximation to it. When the various textual witnesses are
reviewed the following patterns are generally found.
(a) and all other witnesses offer a text which is unobjectionable,
which makes sense, and has been preserved without a variant. Here we
may naturally assume that the original text has been preserved by the
tradition, and that it should be accepted implicitly. It may seem strange
that this point requires statement here, because it seems so obvious. But
anyone acquainted with the history of Old Testament scholarship will not
consider it unnecessary.
(b) When and all or some of the other witnesses are found on
careful examination to differ from each other so that there are real variants,
the following possibilities may occur.
(i) preserves a reading which is either probably or certainly orig-
inal, while the variants supported by the other witnesses are secondary
(misreadings, misunderstandings, intentional or unconscious corrections);
here is to be followed.
11. The problems and practice of back-translating from are discussed in detail
by E. Tov 1981. Back-translating can be exceedingly difficult, and most often there
remains an element of doubt. "What seems self-evident to one scholar may look like
a house of cards to his fellow" (M. H. Goshen-Gottstein 1963a: 132). It is all the more
welcome, therefore, that when BHS cites a Hebrew back-translation from a version it
frequently also provides a control by showing the text of the version itself.
THE METHODS OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM 119
(ii) and the other witnesses support different but apparently equally
possible or plausible readings, none of which is clearly or even probably
secondary. Generally would be given preference here as a matter of basic
principle, but other factors must also be considered. The rule may apply
of preferring the reading which is more difficult from the viewpoint of
language and subject matter (lectio difficilior) or the alternate rule that
of two readings the one which best explains the development of the other
is to be preferred. Often in such instances the verdict non liquet ("un-
solved") must be given, and both readings must be recognized.
(iii) The text of is doubtful or impossible on linguistic or contextual
grounds, while other witnesses offer a satisfactory reading. If evidence for the
originality of the latter is available, and especially if the reading of is
demonstrably a corruption of it, then the text of should certainly be corrected
by it. The objection that offers the lectio difficilior in this instance is not
valid because the contrast is not between an easier and a harder reading but
between a satisfactory reading and one that is meaningless or corrupt, and the
rule of lectio difficilior should not be used to "justify even the crassest of
scribal errors."12 But again, if the satisfactory reading in a version seems to be
a translator's attempt to cope with a Hebrew text which was already corrupt,
then the version offers nothing more than a very early conjecture, and the
verdict must be that the original text of the tradition has not been preserved.
(c) In such an instance, and similarly when and the other witnesses
fail to provide a reading that is linguistically or contextually probable or
even possible, an emendation may be attempted by conjecture or the prob-
lem may be regarded as beyond solution (crux interpretum). A conjecture
may be justified if textual corruption has entered the tradition so early that
it antedates the earliest versions. But if a text is to be emended by conjec-
ture, this should be done with as close a dependence as possible on the
existing textual tradition, and with due regard for the causes of textual
corruption sketched above in chapter XV (cf., for example, the conjecture
at Jer. 2:21, p. 110). And further, the tentativeness of any text established
in this way should also be acknowledged.
5. Psychological Considerations
13. A committee of six Old Testament scholars under the direction of D. Bar-
thlemy and sponsored by the United Bible Societies has undertaken a comprehensive
text-critical study; two (of five) volumes have been published: Barthlemy 1982; 1986.
This expands the 5-volume Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testa-
ment Text Project (Barthlemy 1976-1980). The discussion of about five thousand
problem passages is oriented to the need of translators into modern languages. While
useful for details of early (including medieval Jewish) and modern interpretations of
the text, it is of limited value for textual criticism because of its partiality to as the
canonical and sacred text, its rejection of conjectures almost on principle, and its
extreme expansion of the rule lectio difficilior probabilior. Cf. among others B. Al-
brektson 1981; J. Barr 1986.
XVII. The Theological Significance
of Textual Criticism and
the History of the Text
No book in the literature of the world has been so often copied, printed,
translated, read, and studied as the Bible. It stands uniquely as the object
of so much effort devoted to preserving it faithfully, to understanding it,
and to making it understandable to others. We may remember the scribes
and Masoretes with their strict regulations and subtle studies, the transla-
tors, the medieval monks tracing the text out letter by letter in their quiet
cells, the exegetes, and especially Martin Luther, who devoted the greater
part of his exegetical work to the Old Testament.
What was the real motive for all this concern about the Bible? Certainly
not merely an interest in a venerable relic which deserved preservation
because of its antiquity. Literatures as old or older than the Old and New
Testaments have disappeared, leaving only some scant allusions and an
occasional fortunate discovery of fragmentary remains to remind us that they
once existed. It is something else that has made people devote themselves to
the Bible and ensure its preservation for their own and later generations: the
recognition of its meaning for all generations, the knowledge that here flows
the fountain of life, because God himself speaks in it.
It is this same motivation which inspires our work on the Bible today.
It would be wrong to regard the present account of the vicissitudes of the
Old Testament text in its transmission as though it were written solely as
a matter of academic interest in things past, or even as an attempt to expose
the imperfections of the text incurred in its transmission by human beings.
Even this has its serious theological significance if we think of the servant
form of the Word of God as finding expression also in the transmission of
the text. Yet we are not so much concerned with discovering imperfections
and errors as with overcoming them. We are concerned primarily with the
original form of the Old Testament record, as we are concerned with the
message of the Bible as a whole, because we want to be confronted with
121
122 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
this original Word itself, and not with an interpretation made of it by fallible
scribes in the course of its transmission. The history of the text, as well as
the textual criticism which is based on it, is inseparably a part of any Old
Testament scholarship that is consciously theological. "Without textual
criticism there can be no real understanding of Old Testament religion, no
real Old Testament theology. Anyone who penetrates more deeply into
textual criticism knows that theology and textual criticism are not two
separate fields, but that at this deepest level they are interdependent."1
But does concentration on the letter of the text, many people tend to
ask, actually lead to confrontation with the message of the Bible? Is this
not precisely the wrong approach? This attitude probably appeals to such
statements of Luther as: "No one can understand even one iota of the
Scriptures unless he has the Spirit of God."2 But this reveals a misunder-
standing, for we must remember that it was the same Luther who insisted
so strongly on the "Word" in opposition to the "Spirit" of the religious
enthusiasts, and who repeatedly pointed out that God "never gives anyone
the Spirit or faith without the outward sign or word in which he has
enshrined it."3 What Luther means by these apparently contradictory state-
ments is that "God has linked his Spirit to the written and spoken word;
but he controls the working of his Spirit in the Word by his own unlimited
sovereign will."4 "Literal understanding and spiritual understanding are
therefore not to be separated. We cannot acquire the one without also having
the other."5 Because this is so, the concern for the letter of the text which
this book seeks to promote has genuine theological significance.
Research on the text of the Old Testament depends, in part, on the use of
the best tools. This brief survey offers guidance in several major categories.
Traditional printed resources are now supplemented with texts in electronic
form and a variety of computer programs. These electronic tools are be-
coming increasingly important since most researchers now have ready
access to computers with enough power and storage capacity to facilitate
electronic-based research. This is a rapidly developing field, so any list of
resources will soon be outdated. Computer programs described here were
considered to be among the most useful at the time of this writing, but one
should also check for the newest versions of existing programs and newer
programs as well. A number of academic journals in the field of biblical
studies now review computer software.
1. Text
123
124 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
2. Concordances
The first of the concordances of the Hebrew Bible in the modern era was
compiled by Solomon Mandelkern and first published in 1896. It has been
reprinted many times. The entries are arranged by Hebrew roots, with every
related form arranged in sub-entries. Forms with or without the waw prefix
are even listed separately. Because of this arrangement Mandelkern's con-
cordance is quite helpful for grammatical analysis. Each lemma is fully
vocalized. For further information on Mandelkern and the history of He-
brew Bible concordances the reader may consult Hans H. Wellisch 1985-
1986.
Gerhard Lisowsky published a concordance of the Hebrew Bible,
based on BHK3 (1958). The arrangement of the Lisowsky concordance
simply by words, without distinguishing inflectional subgroupings, makes
it handier to use, especially for quick reference. A special feature of Li-
sowsky's concordance is semantic information through the use of super-
script letters. The book was reproduced from Lisowsky's handwritten man-
uscript, which is quite legible. A third edition, with an appendix of nearly
three hundred corrections, appeared in 1990, and in reduced format in 1993.
The most recent concordance of the Hebrew Bible was compiled by
Abraham Even-Shoshan and first published in 1977-1980. It was based on
the Hebrew text as found in the Koren (Jerusalem) edition. The use of the
earlier editions was somewhat difficult for students unfamiliar with Hebrew
names of the biblical books as well as the use of Hebrew letters for
numerals. The second edition, A New Concordance of the Old Testament:
Using the Hebrew and Aramaic Text (1989), provides English book names
and arabic numerals, as well as an English introduction and guide for use,
prepared by John H. Sailhamer. The arrangement of entries allows the same
kind of analysis provided by Mandelkern, with each root entry being
subdivided according to extant forms found in the Hebrew Bible. At the
head of each entry some semantic analysis is also provided.
A Topical Concordance of the Old Testament: Using the Hebrew
and Aramaic Text, compiled by Eliezer Katz (1992), like the Even-
Shoshan concordance, was originally published with Hebrew book names
and Hebrew chapter and verse numbers, but now gives references in
RESOURCES FOR TEXTUAL RESEARCH 125
originally based on the first edition of BHS, but has been upgraded to
represent the latest edition of BHS. The work of revision has been carried
out by Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, under the direction
of J. Alan Groves, and Hebrew University, Jerusalem, under the direction
of Emanuel Tov. In the course of their work they checked the Michigan-
Claremont against other electronic texts such as that prepared by the Centre
'Informatique et Bible' in Maredsous, Belgium. The electronic texts were
also compared with available photographs of B 19A and the edition of B
19A published by Aron Dotan. Differences found were carefully recorded
and resulted in improvements introduced into the fourth edition of BHS.
Due to the poor quality of the photographs of B 19A available at the time,
a number of uncertainties still remain. Now that the manuscript has been
skillfully rephotographed in color by the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Cen-
ter in Claremont, CA, numerous readings can be determined with a much
higher degree of certainty and will eventually be incorporated into subse-
quent printings of BHS. Groves 1989 gives a full description of then-
checking process. Additional information on this and other data bases can
be found in Eep Talstra 1989.
The electronic text of the Hebrew Bible tagged with grammatical
information and combined with a search program called QUEST was pro-
duced as a joint effort by the Dutch Bible Society, the Vrije University
(Amsterdam), Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia), Kirch-
liche Hochschule Bethel (Bielefeld, Germany), and AND Software, Inc.
(Rotterdam). The morphological encoding encompasses the entire Hebrew
Bible, and several selected books also have phrase and clause markers to
enable higher levels of grammatical searching. The morphologically tagged
database can also be used with Lbase, by Silver Mountain Software, Dallas,
and with AnyText, a Macintosh program from Linguists Software, Inc.,
Edmonds, WA.
The Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint Studies (CATSS), Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania, has produced a computerized database for Septuagint
studies. The database includes morphological tagging for the entire Septu-
agint and a parallel alignment of the Hebrew and Greek texts of some books,
arranged in such a way as to facilitate comparison of textual base and
translation technique. For these books the textual variants recorded in the
Gtringen Septuagint or the Cambridge Septuagint are also included in the
database. Emanuel Tov 1986 provides a general introduction to the features
of the parallel alignment and guides the researcher in its proper use.
The text of the Latin Vulgate, Weber edition, is also available in
electronic form, including textual variants recorded in that edition.
RESOURCES FOR TEXTUAL RESEARCH 127
3. Dictionaries
aleph, appeared in 1993. DCH, like the other contemporary projects, in-
cludes the entire vocabulary of the Hebrew Bible as well as other texts and
inscriptions in Classical Hebrew. DCB, correctly in my opinion, includes
the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. These texts show a
greater affinity to late Biblical Hebrew than the Hebrew of the Mishnah,
which is excluded in DCH. This is not to say that Mishnaic Hebrew (MH)
is without value in the study of Classical Hebrew lexicography, but the
entire corpus need not be included in such a lexicon.
According to Clines, lexical analysis is both syntagmatic and para-
digmatic. While earlier lexicons certainly cited contexts, especially when
dealing with fixed phrases, DCH has made a special effort to deal with
syntagmatic relations in a systematic way. DCH is certainly an improve-
ment over earlier lexicons, but the entries are still organized in such way
as to find a common etymological thread wherever possible. The entries
are enhanced by using English glosses for all cited occurrences of a word,
including collocations and syntagmatic relations. For those who are familiar
with the use of the terms "meaning" and "gloss" in the Johannes P.
Louw-Eugene A. Nida Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament,
"gloss" is used in a different sense in DCH, where glosses refer to head
entries. DCH has made a serious effort to deal with paradigmatic relation-
ships, but feels that a full analysis awaits a "complete description of the
semantic fields in Hebrew." Clines reminds us that the Classical Hebrew
corpus presents a special challenge because the vast majority of evidence
comes from only one source, the Hebrew Bible. The new DCH, with its
limited application of modern linguistic theory, is a promising replacement
for BDB. One editorial judgment which is linguistically logical but will be
disappointing to the Old Testament student is the decision not to include
Biblical Aramaic.
Philippe Reymond 1989 provides a much briefer description of the
work being done in preparation of Le Dictionnaire d'Hebreu et d'Arameen
bibliques (DHAB) (1992-). This project appears to be more modest in
scope, but will provide French readers with a very useful lexicon that has
benefitted from recent lexicographic studies. Several sample entries are
given in Reymond's article.
J. J. M. Roberts 1989 reports on the progress of the Princeton Clas-
sical Hebrew Dictionary Project sponsored by the Society of Biblical Lit-
erature. Choon-Leong Seow and Richard E. Whitaker join Roberts as as-
sociate editors. Although not described in this report, the Princeton Project
represents the confluence of several different efforts to develop a new
Hebrew lexicon. For example, this project will benefit from a great deal
RESOURCES FOR TEXTUAL RESEARCH 129
4. Grammars
5. Synopses
6. Inscriptions
7. Special Literature
Bleddyn J. Roberts, The Old Testament Text and Versions (1951), provides
a detailed discussion of matters treated only briefly in this volume. Natu-
rally, Roberts was only able to incorporate evidence from the earliest
Qumran finds. He uses the name first given to these scrolls, "The Jerusalem
Scrolls." Over forty years later, the impact of the Qumran evidence is still
being debated. But it is fair to say that the history of the Old Testament
RESOURCES FOR TEXTUAL RESEARCH 131
text is being completely rewritten in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Emanuel
v, now the editor-in-chief of the official Dead Sea Scroll Manuscript
Project, published in 1989 The Textual Criticism of the Bible: An Introduc-
tion in Hebrew (English edition 1992). Ferdinand E. Deist, Witnesses to
the Old Testament: Introducing Old Testament Textual Criticism (1988),
also offers a useful introduction and emphasizes the relationship of textual
transmission and text forms to canonical studies. The volume Mikra, edited
by Martin Jan Mulder (1988), contains a number of valuable essays on the
text of the Old Testament, including Mulder on the transmission of the
biblical text, v on the Septuagint, Abraham Tal on the Samaritan Targum
of the Pentateuch, Philip S. Alexander on Aramaic translations, Peter B.
Dirksen on the Peshitta, and Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein on the Latin trans-
lations.
Two collections of reprinted essays deserve mention: The Canon and
Masorah of the Hebrew Bible: An Introductory Reader, compiled by Sid Z.
Leiman (1974), and Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and
Interpretations, edited by Sidney Jellicoe (1974). Each volume includes an
introductory essay by the editor to bring the discussion up to date.
8. International Organizations
1980 The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Samuel: 1980 Proceedings IOSCS
Vienna. (Jerusalem: Academon, 1980).
The bowl found in 1935 is now ascribed by David Diringer (1962: 240)
to the thirteenth century B.C.; earlier (1958a: 129) Diringer proposed the
second quarter of the fourteenth century. The inscription is an example of
proto-Canaanite writing, written with a brush dipped in white chalk. Seven
of the eleven signs are well preserved. The inscription should be read from
right to left.
Most scholars identify the first five signs with the letters b l t,
i.e., a form of the number "three" with the prepositional prefix b. Other
readings have been proposed for the first letter; the inscription has also
been considered to read from left to right (cf. Diringer's review of various
suggestions, 1958a: 129).
The sixth sign is probably a division mark, and the seventh the
beginning of another word now illegible.
134
2. THE STELE OF MESHA, KING OF MOAB (ca. 840 B.C.)
Cf. p. 2. Illustration from F. G. Kenyon 1949.
Text with translation and commentary: H. Donner and W. Rllig 1971-76 no.
181; J. C. L. Gibson 1971: 71-84.
Translation: H. Gressmann 1926-27: 440-42; W. F. Albright 1969: 320f.; E. Ul-
lendorf 1961: 195-99; K. Galling 1968: 51-53.
136
3. THE SILOAM INSCRIPTION FROM JERUSALEM
(ca. 700 B.C.)
Cf. p. 2. Illustration from David Diringer 1968.
In 1880 an inscription in Old Hebrew letters was found on the rock facing
at the opening of a rock tunnel leading from the Gihon spring (now Mary's
Well) to the Pool of Siloam (cf. p. 2). It records the successful completion
of the tunnel. The original was later removed and is now at the Museum
of the Ancient Orient in Istanbul.
Although the account gives neither names nor date, it most probably
refers to the cutting of a tunnel by Hezekiah (725-697 B.C.; cf. 2 Kgs. 20:20;
2 Chr. 32:30), which suggests a date around 700 B.C. This is confirmed by
palaeographical evidence. "The writing may fairly be assigned to the same
general stage of development as that represented by the Moabite Stone but
is lighter and more flowing, while some of the letters have considerably
altered their shape" (G. R. Driver 1954: 119).
The text of six lines is 38 cm. high and 72 cm. wide. An area of about
70 cm. square was prepared and the inscription occupies the lower half.
Was the upper half intended for a pictorial representation (Hugo
Gressmann), or has the first half of the inscription been lost (William F.
Albright)?
Text with translation and commentary: H. Donner and W. Rllig 1971-76 no.
189; J. C. L. Gibson 1971: 71-84.
Translations: H. Gressmann 1926-27: 445; W. F. Albright 1969: 321 (with bib-
liography); N. H. Snaith 1961: 209-211; K. Galling 1968: 59.
138
4. LACHISH LETTER NO. 4
Cf. p. 2. Illustration from H. Torczyner, et al. 1938.
During the excavation of a room under the city gate-tower of Tell ed-
Duweir, the site of the biblical Lachish, eighteen ostraca inscribed in the
Old Hebrew script were found in 1935, and another three in 1938 (cf. p. 5).
They were found in a burned stratum, apparently from the destruction of
the city by the Babylonians when the kingdom of Judah was defeated in
588-587 B.C.; thus they represent the last days of the southern kingdom.
Their contents comprise mostly a military correspondence revealing the
distressed state of Judah during the Babylonian invasion.
"As in other countries where potsherds were used for messages, the
writer begins his letter on the outside of the sherd and continues only when
necessary on the less smooth inner surface. The scribes of the Lachish
Letters used a reed pen, and wrote in an iron-carbide ink, as the chemical
analysis has shown" (Torczyner, et al. 1938: 204).
The hand is a beautiful cursive, the product of a literary tradition
centuries old. The use of word dividers is irregular: for the writing of
in 3.9, cf. p. 109. The language is Biblical Hebrew, especially reminiscent
of Jeremiah and Deuteronomy. It confirms the fact that the language of the
biblical books preserved in is predominantly that of preexilic Judah. The
ostraca are of great philological, palaeographical, and historical value as
the only known group of documents in classical Hebrew. They are now in
Jerusalem and London.
140
5, THE ELEPHANTINE PAPYRUS
Cf. p. 1. Illustration from E. Sachau 1911, pl. 1. Contents: Letter to Bagoas,
lines 1-17.
Numerous papyri in the Aramaic language and script were among the
documents discovered by the Berlin Papyrus Commission during excava-
tions undertaken in 1907 and 1908 on the island of Elephantine in the Nile
opposite Aswan. These papyri date from the fifth century B.C. and include
letters, legal documents, parts of the Story of Ahikar, fragments of the
Darius inscription of Behistun in an Aramaic translation, and other items.
From these we have learned about the existence of a "Jewish military
colony" in Elephantine1 with a temple in which Yahu (Yahweh) was wor-
shipped together with a goddess Anathbethel and another god
pronunciation unknown; cf. M. Noth 1963: 266f.).
These papyri attest how widely the Aramaic language and script were
used in the Persian Empire (cf. p. 2). After the Phoenician-Old Hebrew
script, the Aramaic script represents a second branch of the North Semitic
alphabet from which developed not only the square script, but the Nabatean,
Palmyrene, and Syrian (Estrangela) scripts as well. Its earliest examples
are ninth-century B.C. inscriptions from the area of Aleppo. "The Aramaic
script gradually assumed a distinctive character which is marked by the
following main tendencies: (1) The opening of the tops and sides of a few
letters (the beth, the daleth and resh, and ayiri) is a prominent feature.
(2) The endeavour to reduce the number of separate strokes, in the kheth
and teth, for instance, is also noticeable. (3) Angles become rounded and
ligatures develop. These tendencies were completed during the Persian
period. By the fifth century B.C. the transformation is complete, as we can
gather . .. especially from the cursive Aramaic writing on papyrus used in
Egypt between 500 and 200 B.C." (D. Diringer 1968: 1:200).
142
6. THE NASH PAPYRUS
Cf. p. 34. Illustration enlarged from the infrared photograph in W. F. Albright
1949a. The words in parentheses are supplemented from Exod. 20 and Deut.
5.
10
15
20
144
7. THE ENTRANCE TO QUMRAN CAVE 1
Cf. p. 11. Illustration from E. L. Sukenik 1954.
146
8. TWO JARS FROM CAVE 1
Cf. p. 7. Illustration from E. L. Sukenik 1950.
The undamaged jars illustrated here were taken by the Bedouin when they
first discovered the cave, and later bought by Professor Eleazar L. Sukenik
of Jerusalem. Their height (without lids) is 65.7 cm. and 47.5 cm., and
their width is 25 cm. and 26.5 cm., respectively. They were designed to
protect the scrolls from damage.
Fragments of about fifty more jars of the same or similar pattern were
found in an archaeological examination of the cave. If each contained three
or more scrolls, Cave 1 could once have accommodated a library of 150
to 200 scrolls. But "the only solid evidence for the possible quantity is the
number of different books which can be identified, and these amount to
about seventy-five. How or when so many of these documents were re-
moved or damaged is a question which is at present unanswerable."1 As
for the possible removal of manuscripts centuries ago, we may remember
a letter from the Nestorian Patriarch Timothy I of Seleucia (727-823),
which tells of an Arab hunter who was led by his dog to a cave where he
found a large number of books. "The hunter went to Jerusalem and reported
it to the Jews. They came in crowds and found the books of the Old
(Testament) and others in Hebrew script."2 But nothing definite can be
asserted about this.
Jars of the same or similar patterns have also been found in nearby
caves and in Khirbet Qumran itself. These are very important for estab-
lishing dates. "All this pottery belongs to the Hellenistic and Roman period,
and there is nothing from later periods. When we reflect that the manu-
scripts are numerous and the pottery plentiful, that the manuscripts consti-
tute a homogeneous group, and that the pottery belongs to a single period,
it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the manuscripts were deposited
or abandoned in the caves at the same time as the pottery."3
148
9a. A SAMUEL FRAGMENT FROM CAVE 4 (4QSam b )
Illustrations 9a and 9b from J. T. Milik 1959. Text: 1 Sam. 23:9-13.
The fragments of 4QSam b are among the oldest biblical texts from Qumran,
and are ascribed by Frank M. Cross (1955: 147-172) to the period about
200 B.C. or somewhat earlier.
150
10. THE FIRST ISAIAH SCROLL (1QIsa = a)
Cf. pp. 7, 33. Illustration from E. L. Sukenik 1950.
The first Isaiah scroll is shown opened to col. 32 and 33 (Isa. 38:8-410:28).
It can clearly be seen that the scroll is composed of separate sheets of
leather. Its use is also clear: the beginning of the scroll is to the right, and
the end is to the left. For convenience in using and preserving Torah scrolls
a rod (roller) was attached at each end to roll it on; for other books a rod
at the beginning was adequate. At the end one sheet was usually left blank
to serve as a protective covering for the scroll.
Now that the place where the scrolls were discovered has been iden-
tified and investigated (cf. pp. 146, 148), it may be accepted as certain that
they are ancient and genuine. Doubts about their age and authenticity such
as Solomon Zeitlin raised repeatedly in the Jewish Quarterly Review (1949-
50) can be regarded as settled on the basis of evidence. Even in the matter
of dating there has been definite progress. The destruction of Khirbet
Qumran, which occurred in A.D. 68 (cf. p. 146), provides a terminus ante
quem for the writing of the scrolls, for the places they were found are very
closely associated with that settlement. But when the scrolls were deposited
in the cave they could already have been considerably aged; in fact they
show unmistakable signs of long and heavy use (cf. the back of the scroll
in the illustration). Now it is significant that the wealth of documents from
the caves in the Judean desert has given a fresh impetus to the study of
Hebrew palaeography. The researches of William F. Albright, Eleazar L.
Sukenik, John C. Trever, Solomon A. Birnbaum, Frank M. Cross, and
others have made it possible to trace the development of the script from
the third century B.C. to the second century A.D.,1 and to determine the
place of individual documents in this sequence. This does not mean, of
course, that a specific year can be assigned to each document. The first
Isaiah scroll is in the script of the earliest scrolls from Cave 1, and can be
dated in the second century B.C.; it lacks final forms for kaph, pe, and tsade.
1. Cf. the progress report on the research by N. Avigad 1958: 56ff., and especially
F. M. Cross 1961a.
152
11. THE FIRST ISAIAH SCROLL (1QIs a = a
)
Cf. p. 33. Illustration (Isa. 40:6-20; slightly enlarged) from the edition by
M. Burrows 1950, cf. p. 32.
The illustration shows that the original text of the Isaiah scroll in vv. 7f.
lacked the words
which are present in HI. A later hand has added them in an awkward script
between the lines and down the left margin. It is obvious that the omission
could have been caused by homoioteleuton. The scribe's eye skipped from
in v. 7 to the identical words in v. 8. But it is striking that the
same omission is found in , and that the words are marked with an asterisk
by Origen (cf. p. 58). It is conceivable that the agreement between the
original text of the Isaiah scroll and is sheer coincidence: the omission
in both instances could have been due to homoioteleuton. But it is also
possible that the text of is the result of a later expansion which was
lacking in the exemplar of and the Isaiah scroll. The phrase
154
12. THE SECOND ISAIAH SCROLL (1QIsb = b
)
Cf. p. 33. Illustration from E. L. Sukenik 1950.
The second Isaiah scroll, as the illustration shows (col. 1, Isa. 48:17-49:7;
col. 2, Isa. 50:7-51:8), is in poor condition. The leather has disintegrated
in part, with lacunae in each column. Opening the scroll was particularly
difficult because in many places the leather had become glued together.
The surviving portions are from 2 Isaiah, with only fragments remaining
from 1 Isaiah.
The script is relatively small, but it is neat and clear. In comparison
with the first Isaiah scroll the agreement of the second Isaiah scroll with
is striking. To an extent the vowel letters are used even more sparingly
than in 48:18; 48:21; 49:4.
But it also uses vowel letters where they are lacking in
49:5; and 49:7.
Variants from : 48:17 ; 49:4 ; 49:6
and ; 49:7 with the first Isaiah scroll ;
; 50:11 . The second Isaiah scroll exhibits
significantly fewer variants from than the first, and these do not go
beyond the range of variants observed in medieval manuscripts. This fact
led Paul E. Kahle to infer that 1QIsb had been assimilated to the standard
consonantal text, and therefore could not have been written before this
standard text was available.1 But since the scroll cannot be dated later than
the 60s of the first century A.D. on archaeological grounds, and on the basis
of palaeographical evidence it should apparently be assigned several de-
cades earlier and could itself very well transmit the text of an even earlier
exemplar, it has been taken by some as evidence for the existence of the
type of text we identify as Masoretic long before the Masoretic period.2
Although the text of this scroll presents very few problems in itself, it poses
for us the basic and still unsolved problem of the age of the Masoretic text.
156
13. THE HABAKKUK COMMENTARY
Cf. p. 33. Illustration (col. 9 and 10, Hab. 2:7-14) from M. Burrows, 1950,
pl. lix.
158
14. FRAGMENTS OF LEVITICUS IN OLD HEBREW SCRIPT
Cf. p. 3. Illustration with transcription from E. L. Sukenik 1950.
160
15a. A FRAGMENT WITH PARTS OF DEUT. 29:14-18
AND 30:20-31:5
Illustration from G. L. Harding 1949, pl. 20.
The fragment was acquired from "outside sources" (Harding 1949), and
has been published as fragment 13 of 1QDeutb (= 1Q5). Its text of Deut.
31:1 is sensational! The verse reads:
Fragment
.
and the fragment are in agreement against . "Thus for the first
time in the history of the Bible we are confronted with a Hebrew scroll of
Deuteronomy which actually supports the Septuagint text of an entire
verse."2 This confirms the conjecture that in this passage is based on a
Hebrew exemplar that differed from . Alfred Bertholet, Karl Marti, and
Carl Steuernagel had already emended on the basis of , while Eduard
Knig defended the originality of (cf. the commentaries). The variants
arose because of a transposition of the letters in the first word. The defense
of the reading in rests on its being the lectio difficilior, but against it is
the fact that its idiom is strained. The latter argument weighs so heavily
that in my opinion the reading of must be rejected.
162
16. THE MINOR PROPHETS SCROLL (Murabba'at 88)
Illustration (Amos 8:11-9:15) from P. Benoit, J. T. Milik, R. de Vaux 1961.
In the fall of 1951 four caves were discovered by Bedouin in the deep
recesses of Wadi Murabba'at in the Judean desert, 17 km. to the south of
Qumran and quite unrelated to it. In the spring of 1952 they were investi-
gated carefully by G. Lankester Harding and Roland de Vaux. It was
evident from the objects discovered that the caves had been inhabited
repeatedly from 4000 B.C. to the Arabian period. A papyrus palimpsest in
the Old Hebrew script, the oldest manuscript from Palestine, is from the
eighth-century B.C. settlement (cf. p. 6). A great number of documents
including two letters from Simon ben Kosiba (Bar Kochba) attest that these
caves served during the Second Jewish revolt (A.D. 132-135) as a refuge
for a group of Jewish insurgents.
The Minor Prophets scroll (col. 8 is shown here) was found by
Bedouin in 1955 in a fifth cave which was used as a grave. It dates from
the second century A.D. The scribal hand is more developed and exhibits
a greater consistency in the Murabba'at texts than in the Qumran texts.
There are even striking similarities to the script of medieval manuscripts
(J. T. Milik 1959: 71).
The text is in almost complete agreement with , suggesting that an
authoritative standard text already existed in the first half of the second
century A.D. (cf. pp. 13f.).
Note in the illustration: Amos 8:11 (line 1) the three words
have been added above the line; 9:5 has instead
of the plural in ; 9:8 (line 22) a has been added to
To mark the end of the book of Amos a space of three lines at the
end of the column and of two lines at the beginning of the next column
has been left blank. Single blank lines indicate the end of a paragraph (lines
6, 18, 22); cf. the use of after 8:14 and after 9:12 in BH. The beginning
of a new paragraph after 9:6 is not observed in
164
17. A PAGE WITH BABYLONIAN POINTING
Cf. p. 22. Illustration (Job 37:17-38:15; Berlin Ms. or. qu. 680 = Ec 1) from
P. E. Kahle 1913.
The ninety-four parchment folios now in Berlin are the remains of a once
complete manuscript of the Writings; seven more folios are in the Glaser
collection in New York. Originally the pointing was purely Babylonian.
This was later revised by a Yemenite hand. "In the reproduction the original
pointing is often very difficult to read, while the revised pointing stands
out clearly" (Kahle). The Masora parva has been written for the most part
in the text and over the word it refers to. The Masora magna is in the lower
margin; it cannot be seen in the illustration because it has been destroyed
by mildew. For a detailed discussion see P. E. Kahle 1902, and also 1913:
140.
Selections from the Prophets were read in the Jewish worship service
immediately after the Law. Such a selection was called a Haphtarah (plural
Haphtaroth). The name (from Hebrew "to conclude") is evidently
to be explained from the fact that the reading from the Prophets concluded
the reading of the Scriptures (Ismar Elbogen 1962: 174-184). From an early
time the Haphtaroth were collected in special scrolls or books.
The page illustrated contains verses from the Haphtarah for the Sab-
bath before the New Year celebration and from the Haphtarah for the
Sabbath after the New Year. According to Kahle it derives from a sumptu-
ous manuscript like the Petersburg Codex of the Prophets, and is an example
of the most developed form of the eastern system of pointing.
As was customary, each Hebrew verse is followed by its Targum. In
the margin Isa. 63:7-16 has been written by a later hand, also with each
verse followed by its Targum.
166
19. A FRAGMENT WITH PALESTINIAN POINTING
Cf. p. 23. Illustration (Isa. 7:11-9:8) from P. Kahle 1927-30, .
The rediscovery of the Palestinian system of pointing at the end of the last
century was due to this fragment (Oxford Ms. Heb e 30, fol. 48b) and a
few other folios which together comprise the remains of a manuscript of
the Prophets (cf. P. E. Kahle 1901).
This manuscript is also remarkable for presenting the Hebrew text in
an abbreviated form. Only the first word of each verse is written in full,
and each of the following words is represented by a single (not always the
first) letter together with vowel point and accent. These abbreviated forms
are already referred to in the Talmud by the term . They were
probably designed as memory aids for synagogue lectors and school stu-
dents.
Whereas words are abbreviated consistently in this text, biblical man-
uscripts had long made occasional use of abbreviations for certain words
that occur frequently. When these abbreviations were not recognized in
copying, they would naturally lead to textual corruption. Felix Perles in
particular has sought to prove that abbreviations were the cause of corrup-
tion in numerous passages in the pre-Masoretic text of the Bible.1
170
20. CODEX CAIRENSIS
Cf. p. 35. Illustration (Jer. 2:16-33) from a photograph kindly provided by
P. E. Kahle.
I, Moshe ben Asher have written this Codex (mahzor) of the Scripture
according to my judgment 'as the good hand of my God was upon me'
(Neh. ii,8), 'very clearly' (Deut. xxvii,8), in the city of Ma'azya-Tabanya,
'the renowned city' (Ezek. xxvi,17). . .
It was written in the year 827 after the destruction of the Second
Temple [= A.D. 895] . . .
[by another hand] Whoever alters a word of this Mahzor or this
writing or erases one letter or tears off one leaf unless he understands
and knows that there is a word in it in which we have erred in the writing
or in the punctuation or in the Masora, or in defective or in plene
may he have neither pardon nor forgiveness, neither 'let him behold the
beauty of the Lord' (Ps xxvii,4) nor let him see the good that is reserved
for those who fear Him (Jer. xxix,32). He shall be like a woman in
impurity and like a leprous man who has to be locked up so that his
limbs may be crushed, the pride of his power be broken, his flesh be
consumed away that it cannot be seen and his bones that were covered
made bare (Job xxxiii,21). Amen!
Whoever reads shall hear; whoever hears shall understand; whoever
sees shall perceive. Peace! (P. E. Kahle 1959: 96).
For the complete text of the colophons with English translation see Kahle 1959:
92-97; German translation in Kahle 1927-30: I, 15f.
172
21. THE ALEPPO CODEX
Cf. p. 36. Illustration (Deut. 31:28-32:14) with the kind permission of the
Hebrew University Bible Project.
The Aleppo Codex (A), which has probably been in Aleppo since the end
of the fourteenth century and has been kept in Israel for the past several
years, is described in a dedication inscription as written by Shelomo ben
Buya'a, the scribe of the manuscript dated A.D. 930 and shown in pl. 23.
and provided with pointing and Masora by Aaron ben Asher. Recent re-
search has proved the Aleppo Codex to be a particularly valuable witness
to the Ben Asher tradition. A report (apparently accurate) that can be traced
back to the fifteenth century identifies it with the "model codex" of Mai-
monides, who wrote: ". . . and the book we rely on in these matters (scil,
the correct transcription of the open and closed parashoth of the Torah, and
the format of the Psalms) is the book recognized in Old Cairo ( )
which contains all twenty-four books and was earlier in Jerusalem where
it was employed for the correction of other books. Everyone has relied
upon this book because Ben Asher corrected it ( ) and estab-
lished the details of its text ( ) over a period of many years,
correcting it many times as it has been transmitted; I have relied upon it
in the Torah book which I have transcribed in accordance with his pre-
scriptions" (translation in P. E. Kahle 1927-30: I, 11f.; on its identification
cf. now the exhaustive study by . . Goshen-Gottstein 1960: 17-58, and
1963/64: 149-156).1
The page illustrated departs from the usual format of the codex (of
three columns a page) in accordance with the Masoretic rules for the Song
of Moses which are mentioned by Maimonides. The six lines before the
Song are to begin with particular words; signs resembling letters are used
to fill out the lines as necessary. According to Maimonides the Song itself
should be written in sixty-seven lines, the precise number in A (others
stipulate seventy lines). There were also rules for the five lines following
the Song.
174
22. BRITISH LIBRARY CODEX OR. 4445
Cf. p. 41. Illustration in reduced size (Num. 26:12-27) with the kind per-
mission of the British Library.
176
23. A TORAH MANUSCRIPT FROM THE YEAR A.D. 930
Codex 17 of the second Firkowitz collection (cf. p. 30). Illustration (Deut.
9:15-23) from P. E. Kahle 1927-30: I.
At the end of the codex, which comprises 241 folios with three columns
of text per page, the scribe and the Masorete of the codex, two brothers,
give separate accounts of their activities.
The scribal colophon:
1. Shelomo ben Buya'a also wrote the Ben Asher codex in Aleppo (cf. p. 174)
2. Text from P. E. Kahle 1927-30: I, 58f. The Hebrew text (in S. Baer and H. L.
Strack 1879) was not available to me.
178
24. CODEX LENINGRADENSIS
Cf. p. 36. Illustration (Gen. 28:18-29:22) from a photograph kindly provided
by P. E. Kahle.
This codex, the whole of the Holy Scriptures, was written and
completed with pointing and Masora and carefully corrected in the
Metropolis of Egypt [Cairo]. It was completed (a) in the month of Siwan
of the year 4770 of the Creation of the world, (b) This is the year 1444
of the Exile of King Jehoiakin. (c) This is the year (1)319 of the Greek
Reign, according to the reckoning of the Seleucid era and the Cessation
of Prophecy, (d) This is the year 940 after the destruction of the Second
Temple, (e) This is the year 399 of the Reign of the Small Horn [cf. Dan.
8:9; Islam is intended]. It was acquired by Meborach ben Nathaniel,
known as Ben Osdad, priest. . . .
The dating indicates the following years: (a) A.D. 1010, (c) 1008,
(d) 1009, (e) 1008. The date (b) falls wide of this period and probably
derives from erroneous assumptions. The date (e) A.D. 1008 is probably
the most trustworthy because the writer lived in an Islamic country.
The following colophon refers to Ben Asher:
Samuel ben Jacob wrote and pointed and provided with Masora this
codex of the Holy Scriptures from the corrected and annotated books
prepared by Aaron ben Moses ben Asher the teacher, may he rest in the
Garden of Eden! It has been corrected and properly annotated.
Its dependence on the Ben Asher tradition, which has been questioned on
occasion, has been confirmed by recent research (cf. BHK, xxix-xxxiii).
1. The text of the colophon is printed and translated in part by A. Harkavy and
H. L. Strack 1875: 265ff.
180
25. A MANUSCRIPT WITH DISTINCTIVE POINTING
(Oxford, Bodleian Library) Cf. p. 25. Illustration (Ps. 112:2-114:3) from
P. E. Kahle 1927-30: .
The folio illustrated, one of the six surviving folios of a Psalter manuscript,
exhibits certain peculiarities that are characteristic of a particular group of
manuscripts. This group of manuscripts differs clearly from the Ben Asher
manuscripts, and was earlier associated by Paul E. Kahle (1927-30: II.
57*f.) with Ben Naphtali. Recent research has shown, however, that it is
not related to Ben Naphtali, but represents a separate group with a distinc-
tive pointing (cf. p. 25 above).
In the text illustrated the following peculiarities may be observed in
contrast with the Ben Asher text:
182
26. THE SECOND RABBINIC BIBLE OF JACOB BEN CHAYYIM
Cf. p. 39. Illustration (Gen. 21:33b-22:4a) from a copy at the Bodleian
Library, Oxford, by the kind permission of the Bodleian Library.
184
27. THE SAMARITAN TRIGLOT
Cf. pp. 45f. Illustration (Deut. 31:15-19) from P. E. Kahle 1951.
186
28. THE RYLANDS GREEK PAPYRUS 458
Cf. p. 71. Illustration from a photograph kindly provided by the John Rylands
Library, Manchester.
Contents: (a) Deut. 23:24(26)-24:3. (b) Deut. 25:1-3. (c) Deut. 26:12.
(d) Deut. 26:17-19. (e) Deut. 28:31-33. (f) Deut. 27:15(?). (g) Deut.
28:2(?). (h). ?
These fragments were found in the wrappings of a mummy acquired
by J. Rendel Harris for the John Rylands Library in 1917. They presumably
came from the Fayyum where we know there were two Jewish synagogues.
Date: mid-second century B.C. The reverse of the Deuteronomy scroll from
which the fragments are derived was later used for accounts or notes.
Of special interest is the system of spacing which is quite rare: "As
can be seen from the photograph of fragment (b) the writer regularly leaves
a space not only at the end of a verse or sentence, but at the end of a
or group of words. At the end of a verse (cf. frag, (a), line 14, after
in the illustration) a wider space is left and a high point added; otherwise
the writer's principle seems to be to leave a fairly large space at the end
of a sentence or clause (cf. frag, (b)), and a smaller one at the end of a
group of words" (C. H. Roberts 1936: 25). Is this division of the text related
to its use in public reading, or does it reflect Aramaic influence? Otherwise
the papyrus is like all other Greek manuscripts in ignoring word division.
In some readings of the papyrus Alberto Vaccari found agreements
with later Lucianic manuscripts.1 Yet it belongs among the early Septuagint
witnesses.2
188
29. PAPYRUS FOUAD 266
Cf. p. 71. Socit Royale de Papyrologie, Cairo; first published by W. G.
Waddell 1944: 158-161. Republished with additional fragments and plates
by Z. Aly and L. Koenen 1980. Illustration (Deut. 31:28-32:6) from P. E.
Kahle 1951.
This papyrus is probably from the first or even the second century B.C., and
is therefore the second oldest witness to the Greek text of the Old Testament
after the Rylands Greek Papyrus 458. 1 It was obviously written by a Jew. The
treatment of the divine name Yahweh is of particular interest. Jerome reports
in the Prologus Galeatus on the writing of this name in Greek manuscripts:
"Even today we find the tetragrammaton name of God written in archaic
letters in some Greek manuscripts." 2 And in Epistula 25 ad Marcellam:
"(The name of God is) a tetragram which they considered anekphnton (i.e.,
unpronounceable) and wrote the letters yodh, he, waw, he. Those who did not
understand this would pronounce them PIPI when they read them in Greek
books, because of their similarity to the Greek letters." 3
Thus Jerome was aware of the custom of writing Yahweh in Hebrew
letters in Greek manuscripts. The papyrus shown here is evidence for this
in pre-Christian times: in col. 2, lines 7 and 15, Yahweh is written in the
Hebrew square script in the middle of the Greek text. In fact, the scribe of
the Greek text left a space, and the Hebrew letters added by the second
scribe are so small that they do not fill the allotted space.
From the use of the tetragrammaton in this and in other early Greek
manuscripts some have concluded that originally the Greek translation did
not render the divine name YHWH with , but used the tetragram-
maton instead. Yet others regard the tetragrammaton in this manuscript as
evidence "that this manuscript represents a secondary stage in reaction to
the earliest textual tradition of the Septuagint which it presupposes." 4 Thus
the tetragrammaton appears to have been an archaizing and hebraizing
revision of the earlier translation .
Cf. also the form of the divine name in the Habakkuk Commentary
(pl. 13) and the related discussion on p. 158.
190
30. A GREEK SCROLL OF THE MINOR PROPHETS
Cf. pp. 54, 71. Illustration (Hab. 1:14-2:5 and 2:13-15) from D. Barthlemy
1953.
This scroll, which we have referred to often, was found by the Taamire
Bedouin in August 1952 in the Judean desert in a cave that was not at first
identified; in 1952 and 1953 it was acquired by the Palestinian Archaeo-
logical Museum in Jerusalem. Israeli excavators were later successful in
identifying the cave in Nahal Hever, and in finding nine more small frag-
ments.1 The surviving parts of the scroll, which were published by Dom-
inique Barthlemy 1963, are from the books of Jonah, Micah, Nahum,
Habakkuk, Zephaniah, and Zechariah. In his first report Barthlemy 1953
dated the scroll toward the end of the first century A.D., while Colin H.
Roberts assigned it to the century between 50 B.C. and A.D. 50 a position
essentially supported by Wilhelm Schubart (cf. P. E. Kahle 1959: 226). In
his edition of the text Barthlemy now indicates the mid-first century A.D.
as most probable. The scroll therefore represents a Greek biblical text
written by Jews and for Jews. From the plentiful archaeological evidence
(including coins) found together with the fragments by the Bedouin and
Israeli excavators in Nahal Hever, it is clear that the scroll was placed in
the cave during the Bar Kochba rebellion (A.D. 132-135), and at that time
it was already well worn.
The discussion, which has continued unabated since this amazing
discovery, is evidence of the great significance of this scroll (cf. p. 65).
192
31. CHESTER BEATTY PAPYRUS 967
Cf. p. 71. Illustration (Ezek. 16:57-17:1) from the edition by F. G. Kenyon
1933-37, 1958 (cf. p. 72).
1. Cf. p. 57, n. 26. P. E. Kahle, who traces the process of assimilation back to
the pre-Christian era, considers it certain "that a text of Ezekiel which had been revised
by Jews must have been the basis for the emendations in this valuable papyrus of
Ezekiel to the extent that they represent assimilation to the Hebrew original and to the
Jewish parallel versions which Ziegler has noted" (Kahle 1954: 89).
2. J. Ziegler 1945/48: 93f.
194
32. THE BERLIN GENESIS
Cf. p. 72. Illustration (Gen. 34:11-25) from H. A. Sanders and C. Schmidt
1927.
196
33. CODEX SINAITICUS
Cf. p. 73. Illustration (1 Mace. 9:12f.; 9:20-22; Jer. 9:2f.; 9:9f.; Tob. 6:5-7;
6:llf.) from H. J. M. Milne and T. C. Skeat 1938.
The illustration shows samples of the writing of three scribes who wrote
this codex, according to the study mentioned above. As we noted on p. 73,
many correctors worked on this manuscript. In this connection a sixth- or
seventh-century note at the end of Ezra and of Esther is particularly inter-
esting. It states that the codex had been collated with a very old manuscript
which had itself been corrected by the martyr Pamphilus from a manuscript
of the Hexapla which Origen himself had corrected.
The discovery of this important manuscript, the last of the great Greek
codices to be found, may be described briefly. In 1844, on the first of his
research journeys to libraries in the east, Constantin von Tischendorf visited
the monastery of St. Catherine on Sinai. When he was in the library there
he saw 129 leaves of an ancient manuscript in a waste basket, put there by
the ignorant monks to be burned. He was given 43 of the leaves (later
known as Codex Frederico-Augustanus) before the monks realized their
value and refused to part with more. In 1853 Tischendorf visited the
monastery again, hoping to obtain or make copies of the remaining leaves,
but he was unsuccessful. The monks themselves had forgotten about them
and could not find them. In 1859 Tischendorf went once more in quest of
them, this time as an envoy of the Russian Tsar, the protector of Orthodox
Christendom. Again all Tischendorf 's efforts seemed in vain until the eve
of his departure, when the steward of the monastery, whom he had told
about his search, showed him a codex in his cell. It contained not only the
86 leaves he had seen in 1844, but 112 further leaves of the Old Testament.
It also contained the complete New Testament and two early Christian
writings which had been lost for centuries: the Letter of Barnabas and the
Shepherd of Hennas. After lengthy negotiations the codex was placed in
the Imperial Library at Petersburg, and in 1933 it was acquired by the
British Museum from the Russian government for the amount of 100,000.
198
34. THE HEXAPLA FRAGMENTS OF MILAN
Illustration and transcription (Ps. 28(27):6f.) from G. Mercati 1958, with the
Hebrew column added from .
200
35. CODEX COLBERTO-SARRAVIANUS
Cf. p. 73. Illustration (Josh. 10:12-19) from G. . Perrella 1949.
The illustration shows the beauty of the manuscript, which has two columns
to each page. It probably dates from the fifth century A.D., although some
scholars assign it to the fourth century. It is distinctive among the uncials
for preserving the Hexaplaric text with many of the Hexaplaric signs. On
the page shown an obelos marks the words (left column, lines 1-5):
(). This indicates that Origen found these words in , but that they
are not in the Hebrew text.
Several passages in the illustration are marked with an asterisk: this
indicates that Origen did not find them in and supplied them from other
Greek versions. When such a passage extends over several lines the Aristar-
chan sign is repeated before each line: cf. for example v. 15, which is
lacking in and is given here with an asterisk (lower left to upper right
column): ()
.
The codex contains the Octateuch and comprises 153 folios (130 in
the University of Leiden, 22 in the Paris Bibliotheque Nationale, and 1 in
the Leningrad Public Library). Earlier owners mentioned in the manuscript
are Jean Baptiste Colbert, minister of finance for Louis XIV, and Claude
Sarrave, who donated the first part to the University of Leiden.
202
36. CODEX MARCHALIANUS (Vat. Gr. 2125)
Cf. p. 74. Illustration (Jer. 24:11-19 [ 35:11-19]) from P. Franchi de'
Cavalieri and H. Lietzmann 1929.
204
37. A SYRO-HEXAPLAR MANUSCRIPT OF A.D. 697
Cf. p. 57. Illustration (Exod. 27:10-15) from E. Tisserant 1914.
This manuscript (British Museum Ms. Add. 12134), like the one shown in
pl. 39, is one of the hundreds of manuscripts brought to the British Museum
in the years following 1839 from the monastery of St. Maria Deipara in
the Nitrian desert of Lower Egypt. From the beginnings of Christian monas-
ticism there has been a colony of monks in the Nitrian desert; toward the
end of the fourth century they numbered into the thousands, and at times
they exhibited a very lively intellectual life. The Syrian monastery of St.
Maria Deipara in particular had a fine library which was considerably
increased in the tenth century through the efforts of Abbot Moses of Nisibis.
Later the monastery declined, and the books lay unused and largely ne-
glected although they were zealously guarded by the few remaining un-
educated monks until 1839, when an Englishman named Henry Tattam,
and later others, acquired hundreds of manuscripts to take to England. An
immediate result was a significant increase in Syriac studies.
The manuscript contains the book of Exodus, and according to its
colophon it was written by a scribe named Lazarus in the year 1008 of the
Seleucid era (i.e., A.D. 697); this is fairly close in time to the translation
by Bishop Paul of Telia (616/617). As the illustration shows, the Hexaplaric
signs are preserved in the text (obelos in lines 7, 13, 14f., 20; asterisk in
line 12). The versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion are noted
in the margin. The long marginal note following line 2 gives an explanation
of (Syriac: psalidis); is written in the upper margin
in red ink.
206
38. A CATENA MANUSCRIPT (Ninth Century A.D.)
Cf. p. 62. Illustration (Job 6:5) from P. Franchi de' Cavalieri and H. Lietz-
mann 1929.
"In contrast to the more general term florilegium, catena refers to a com-
pilation where exegetical excerpts from various authors are placed in a
connected sequence like links in a chain to provide a commentary on a
biblical book. This format enables the reader to formulate his own thoughts
after a rapid survey of the views of the most important exegetes of the
Church." 1 The Catenae are important for patristic as well as for textual
studies: they preserve for the patristic scholar fragments of patristic writings
that would otherwise be completely lost, and for the textual scholar they
provide material relevant to the history of the text. Alfred Rahlfs has
demonstrated that there was a special Catena recension of the Septuagint
(cf. p. 62).
Marginal catenae and text catenae are distinguished by their formats.
"The most elegant and perhaps the oldest form of the catena commentary
is that of the marginal catena: the scribe wrote the sacred text in a closely
confined space in the center of the page, leaving margins far wider than
the space devoted to the text, in which the commentary was added in closely
written lines" 2 (cf. illustration). "In the second principal form of catena
commentary the Scripture verses were followed by their corresponding
commentary so that while text and commentary alternated in sequence,
they were written in the same area of the page." 3
In the page illustrated the headings (lemmata) of the individual ex-
cerpts stand out because they are written in red ink (e.g., line 30 ;
4
line 33 ' ).
1. . Lietzmann 1897: 1.
2. Ibid., 9.
3. Ibid., 11.
4. G. Karo and H. Lietzmann 1902: 322.
208
39. A PESHITTA MANUSCRIPT OF THE YEAR A.D. 464
Cf. p. 85. Illustration (Exod. 13:8-17) from W. Wright 1875-1883.
210
40. THE CONSTANCE FRAGMENTS
OF THE OLD LATIN PROPHETS
Cf. p. 93. Illustration (Ezek. 20:43-47 D) with the kind permission of Alban
Dold.
212
41. CODEX LUGDUNENSIS
Cf. p. 93. Illustration (Gen. 27:46-28:11) from a photograph kindly provided
by A. Dold.
Codex Lugdunensis contains an Old Latin text, and is among the Old Latin
evidence which has been discovered since Pierre Sabatier. It has had a
checkered history. Originally in the Chapter Library of the Canon Counts
of Lyons, it was later in the Municipal Library of Lyons. At some time it
was divided into two parts, and the second part (now Ms. 1964) was
removed from Lyons but recovered in 1895 and returned to Lyons. From
the first part (now Ms. 403) seventy-nine leaves were stolen in 1847 by
Count Libri1 and sold to Lord Ashburnham, whose son learned of these
circumstances in 1880 and generously returned them to the Library.
According to Ulysse Robert 1881 the manuscript was written by three
different scribes. It "was used for liturgical reading, hence the variety of
marginal notes in various hands from various periods, yet all probably
native to Lyons. Two whole readings have been inserted: 1 Kgs. 21 for the
Traditio Symboli, and 1 Pet. 2 for the Cathedra Petri; these follow the
Vulgate text. Similarly the numerous corrections in the individual sections
made by later hands (partly in Tironian notes, a form of Latin shorthand)
are largely assimilations to the Vulgate" (B. Fischer 1951: 6). These as-
similations are significant for the history of the Old Latin, which was
eventually supplanted by the Vulgate.
1. The notorious Count Guglielmo Libri Carrucci della Sommaia (b. Florence,
1803, d. Fiesole, 1869, a naturalized Frenchman) amassed a considerable personal
collection while commissioned to make an inventory of manuscripts in the public
libraries of France. Cf. M. B. Stern and L. Rostenberg 1982.
214
42. A VULGATE PALIMPSEST
FROM THE FIFTH CENTURY A.D.
Cf. pp. 95ff. Illustration (Judg. 5:15-18) from a photograph kindly provided
by Alban Dold, with the permission of the Herzog August Library, Wol-
fenbttel.
1. A. Dold 1931.
2. Ibid., IL.
3. Ibid., LVII.
216
43. CODEX AMIATINUS
Illustration (Ps. 22[D 21]:25-25[24]:5) from a photograph kindly provided
by the Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana.
This well-known and highly valued codex of the Vulgate, which is named
after the Abbey of Monte Amiata where it once belonged, is of English
origin. It was commissioned by Ceolfrid, abbot of the monasteries of Jarrow
and Wearmouth in Northumberland, which were under the direct control
of the Holy See. Ceolfrid intended to take it on his last journey to Rome
as a gift to the Pope. The abbot died on his journey at Langres (A.D. 716),
but some of his companions delivered the codex to Rome. It is the only
codex to survive of the three which Ceolfrid commissioned to be written
in his monasteries between 690 and 716: all three were in "the new
translation," i.e., the translation by Jerome.1
In its outer form and in its artistic decoration Codex Amiatinus follows
the example of the great codex of Cassiodorus, an illuminated manuscript with
illustrations and tables which contained Jerome's revision of the Hexaplar text
in the Old Testament. It was bought by Benedict Biscop and Ceolfrid while in
Rome in 678, and brought to Jarrow. Contrary to earlier belief, neither the text
nor the auxiliary material in Amiatinus is related to Cassiodorus.2
Bonifatius Fischer says of the text of Amiatinus:
1. Single leaves of one of these two lost codices have been found since 1909
(some had been used as "wrappers for estate papers") and are now in the British Library.
2. Cf. also B. Fischer 1962: 57-79.
3. Ibid., 78f.
218
44. A COPTIC PAPYRUS CODEX
Cf. pp. 100f. Illustration (Deut. 34:11f.; Jonah 1:1-4) from E. A. Wallis
Budge 1912.
In 1911 the British Museum acquired this papyrus codex found in Upper
Egypt; it contains extensive parts of Deuteronomy, the whole book of
Jonah, and the larger part of the Acts of the Apostles. It is to be dated in
the fourth century A.D., and is thus of very great age.
The illustration shows the conclusion of the book of Deuteronomy:
the title is written in large letters at the end of the book. Following it is a
blessing in Greek on scribe and reader, and then the beginning of the book
of Jonah.
220
45. AN ETHIOPIC MANUSCRIPT
(Paris, Bibliothque Nationale, Eth. 11, fol. 70a)
Cf. p. 102. Illustration (Sus. 1-5) from O. Lfgren 1927.
The manuscript from which this illustration is taken contains the books of
Job and Daniel. Lfgren describes it in this way: "Palaeographically this
manuscript is of great interest. Its general appearance and many details
bespeak its antiquity. The large (about 6 mm. high) angular script which
differs little from the lapidary style of the inscriptions; the simple decora-
tion, limited to rows of dots, St. Anthony's cross, and similar designs in
the margin; the two-column page format these all place S (i.e., this
manuscript) in the relatively small group of ancient Ethiopic manuscripts
which was succeeded about the middle of the fifteenth century by a new
type with a more beautiful style of writing and a richer ornamentation"
(O. Lfgren 1927: xxii). It was probably written between 1300 and 1400.
"The care with which this manuscript was written, and its freedom from
any substantial correction or revision suggests that we have in it a valuable
witness to the text as it circulated about 1300, probably not yet revised"
(Lfgren 1927: xxv).
While this manuscript preserves the original Ethiopic version, in later
manuscripts the traces of various processes of revision may be observed:
some indicate revision from Syro-Arabic sources, beginning in the four-
teenth century (a popular recension); some point to a Hebrew base for
revision in the fifteenth or sixteenth century (an academic recension).
Naturally for the textual criticism of the Septuagint only those manuscripts
are significant which preserve the original, Old Ethiopic form of this
daughter text of the Septuagint.
222
46. AN ARABIC MANUSCRIPT
(British Museum arab. 1475 [Add. 26116])
Cf. p. 104. Illustration (Job 22:12-23:2) from W. Wright 1875-1883.
There are at least four different versions of Job, one of which is among
the earliest documents of Christian Arabic literature. The manuscript
Brit. Mus. arab. 1475, which contains extensive portions of it, was
written in the first half of the ninth century, probably at the monastery
of St. Sabas. The version itself is from a Syro-Hexaplar base.
The author of another version of Job is known: Pethion (Fatyun ibn
Aiyub), who was active as a translator in Baghdad probably about the
middle of the ninth century; he is also credited with translations of Sirach
and the Prophets. Pethion's text of Job is divided into fifteen chapters
and (according to the London manuscript) claims to be translated from
the Hebrew; actually the translator worked from a Syriac exemplar. Other
versions of Job go back to the Peshitta and to the Coptic (G. Graf 1944:
126).
224
47. THE COMPLUTENSIAN POLYGLOT
Illustration (Gen. 21:28-22:3) from the Bodleian copy, with the kind per-
mission of the Bodleian Library, Oxford.
The polyglots formed a useful tool for textual criticism by printing the
original text with translations of the Bible in parallel columns to facilitate
their comparison. The earliest polyglot, named the Complutensian after
Complutum (Alcala de Henares), its place of publication, was edited in
1514-17 by Francisco Ximenez, archbishop of Toledo and founder of the
University of Alcala; it was not published until 1522 due to a delay of
papal authorization. Jewish converts were engaged to work on the Old
Testament because at that time they alone had the training necessary for
the work: among them was the renowned Alfonso de Zamora, professor
of Oriental languages at Alcala from 1512.
The Hebrew text of the Complutensian Polyglot reveals some inter-
esting deviations from normal usage. The Tiberian accent system is repre-
sented only by the athnach, yet here it is not used for the principal caesura
alone, so that it may occur more than once in any verse (e.g., Gen. 22:3
[cf. illustration, lines 24-26]); nor is it written with the accented syllable,
but after the word. The maqqeph is completely lacking. Hatephs appear
only rarely: usually the vowel is written without the shewa; cf. in the
illustration [line 27], [line 26], etc. These peculiarities
do not reflect any editorial caprice, as might be suspected. Rather it is the
usage of ancient manuscripts that the editors appeal to as their precedent.
Since the peculiarities mentioned are characteristic of the simple Baby-
lonian pointing system (cf. p. 22), we may infer that the editors of the
polyglot made use of Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible with Babylonian
pointing along with manuscripts of the Ben Asher tradition. These may
have been intended by the "vetustissima exemplaria (very ancient copies)"
used by the editors, which have influenced the form of the Hebrew text
printed in the polyglot.1 These manuscripts are now lost: they were probably
destroyed in ignorance of their value. For the Greek text of the Compluten-
sian polyglot, cf. p. 75.
Of the later polyglots, the most comprehensive is the London Poly-
glot, edited by Brian Walton in 1654-57.
226
48. A CHART OF THE OLD HEBREW ALPHABET
Illustration adapted from D. Diringer 1958 and 1962, with the kind permis-
sion of the author. Cf. p. 2.
228
49. THE IZBET SARTAH ABECEDARY 1
Cf. p. 2. Photo by Moshe Weinberg in A. Demsky and M. Kochavi 1978:
22, with the kind permission of Biblical Archaeology Review.
For discussion, see M. Kochavi 1977; A. Demsky 1977; also A. Demsky and
M. Kochavi 1978.
230
List of Sigla
BHS differs from BHK by not always citing manuscripts individually, but
rather indicating them by the group sigla which include the individual
witnesses. These group sigla are shown parenthetically for the individual
witnesses in the following list.
BHS
The Samaritan Pentateuch according to
A. von Gall
Ms(s) Samaritan Pentateuch manuscripts) ac-
cording to the critical apparatus of A. von
Gall
Samaritan Targum
W Samaritan Pentateuch according to B. Wal-
ton's London Polyglot
Aquila
Origen's Quinta
Theodotion
Origen's Hebrew text
the three later Greek versions
Symmachus
Arabic version
Ethiopic version
Ambr Ambrose
Arm Arm Armenian version
Second Rabbinic Bible by Jacob ben Chay-
yim
Bo Bohairic version
232
LIST OF SIGLA 233
1QIsb
1QGen Ap Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran Cave 1
1QM Milhamah (War Scroll) from Qumran Cave
1
4QPsb Fragmentary Psalm scroll (Ps. 91:5-118:26)
published by P. W. Skehan 1964
Syriac Peshitta: agreement of and ; in
ABCD Jac edess Bar Hebr
1/2 Sm agreement of S
Syriac Peshitta in ; but Pentateuch in
Barnes 1914
Syriac Peshitta Codex Ambrosianus
Syriac biblical quotations by Aphraates
Codex British Library Add. 14,431
Codex Leningradensis Public Library No. 2
Codex British Library Add. 14,442
Syriac Peshitta edited by S. Lee
Syriac Peshitta, Mosul edition
Syriac Peshitta manuscripts
Syriac Peshitta, Urmia edition
Syriac Peshitta in B. Walton's London Poly-
glot
Syriac version of Jacob of Edessa
Readings in the scholia of Bar Hebraeus
Sa Sah Sahidic version
Samar Samaritan pronunciation according to P. E.
Kahle 1959: 318-335
Seb Seb Sebir
Sev Codex Severi
Sor Sor Soraei (Masoretes of Sura)
Syh Syrohexaplar
Targum according to A. Sperber 1-3, 1959-
62, and P. A. de Lagarde 1873
Targum in the Second Rabbinic Bible
Targum, J. Buxtorf edition
Targum, editio princeps, Leiria 1494
Targum, Codex Reuchlinianus according to
the apparatus of A. Sperber's edition
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
Targum Jerualmi
Targum, P. A. de Lagarde edition, for the
Kethubim
LIST OF SIGLA 237
238
ABBREVIATIONS 239
242
BIBLIOGRAPHY 243
Allgeier, Arthur
1948 "Haec vetus et vulgata editio: Neue wort- und begriffsgeschichtliche
Beitrge zur Bibel auf dem Tridentinum," Bib 29:353-390.
Alonso-Schkel, Luis
1990 Diccionario Biblico Hebreo-Espaol: . Valencia: Institution
San Jernimo.
1991 "The Diccionario bblico hebreo-espaol," ZAH All : 76-84.
Aly, Zaki, and Ludwig Koenen
1980 Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint: Genesis and Deuteronomy, PTA27.
Bonn: Habelt.
Aptowitzer, Victor
1906-15 Das Schriftwort in der rabbinischen Literatur. SAWW, Phil.-hist. Kl.
153/6 (1906); 160/7 (1908); JITL 18 (1911): 1-173; 22 (1915): 1-82.
Prolegomenon, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, Joshua, Judges. Repr. New York:
KTAV, 1970.
Avigad, Nahman
1958 "The Palaeography of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Documents,"
ScrHier 4:56-87. Repr. 1965.
, and Yigael Yadin
1956 A Genesis Apocryphon. Jerusalem: Magnes and Hekhal ha-Sefer.
Baars, Willem
1968 New Syro-Hexaplaric Texts, edited, commented upon and compared with
the Septuagint. Leiden: Brill.
Bacher, Wilhelm
1899 Die exegetische Terminologie der jdischen Traditionsliteratur 1. Leip-
zig: Hinrichs. Repr. Hildesheim: 01ms, 1965.
Baer, Seligmann, and Franz Delitzsch
1869-1895 Textum Masoreticum accuratissime expressif e fontibus Masorae codi-
cumque varie illustravit. Leipzig: Tauchnitz.
Baer, Seligmann, and Hermann L. Strack
1879 Die Dikduke ha-Te'amim des Ahron ben Moscheh ben Ascher. Leipzig:
Fernau. Repr. with a new preface by David S. Loewinger, Jerusalem:
Makor, 1970.
Baillet, Maurice
1982 Qumran Grotte 4. III (4Q482-4QS20). DJD 7. Oxford: Clarendon.
1982a "Corrections l'dition de von Gall du Pentateuque Samaritain," Fest-
schrift J. P. M. van der Ploeg. AOAT 211:23-35.
, Jzef T. Milik, Roland de Vaux, and H. Wright Baker
1962 Les 'Petites Grottes' de Qumrn: exploration de la falaise, les grottes
2Q, 3Q, 5Q, 6Q, 7Q, 10Q: Le Rouleau de cuivre. DJD 3. Oxford:
Clarendon.
Bardtke, Hans
1953-61 Die Handschriftenfunde am Toten Meer. Berlin: Evangelische Haupt-
Bibelgesellschaft. 1: 21953; 2: 2 1961.
1953a "Die Parascheneinteilung der Jesajarolle I von Qumran," Festschrift Franz
Dornseiff, ed. Horst Kusch. Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut, 33-75.
244 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
Ben-David, Abba
1972 Parallels in the Bible. Jerusalem: Carta.
Benedictine Monastery of St. Jerome, Rome
1926-86 Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem iussu
Pii PP. XI cura et studio Monachorum Abbatiae Pontificiae S. Hieronymi
in urbe ordinis S. Benedicti edita. Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis.
1959 Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis: Editio emendatissima apparatu critico
instructa cura et studio Abbatiae Pontificiae S. Hieronymi in Urbe Or-
dinis S. Benedicti. Turin: Marietti.
Ben-Hayyim, Zeev
1958 "Traditions in the Hebrew Language, with Special Reference to the Dead
Sea Scrolls," ScrHier 4 (19652): 200-214.
1977 The Words of the Pentateuch. The Literary and Oral Traditions of He-
brew and Aramaic amongst the Samaritans 4. Jerusalem: Academy of
the Hebrew Language.
Benoit, Pierre, Jzef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux
1961 Les Grottes de Murabb'at. DJD 2. Oxford: Clarendon.
Ben-Zvi, Izhak
1960 "The Codex of Ben Asher," Textus 1:1-16. Repr. Leiman 1974: 757-772.
Berger, Samuel
1893 Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits de la Bibliothque Nationale et autres
Bibliothques 34/2:119-152.
Berliner, Abraham
1877 Die Masorah zum Targum Onkelos. Leipzig: Hinrichs.
1884-86 Targum Onkelos, 2 vols. Berlin: Gorzelanczyk.
Bertram, Georg
1936 "Das Problem der Umschrift und die religionsgeschichtliche Bedeutung
der Septuaginta," BZAW 66:97-109.
1938 "Zur Septuagintaforschung," TRu N.S. 10:69-80, 133-167.
1939 "Der Sprachschatz der Septuaginta und der des hebrischen Alten Testa-
ments," ZAW N.S. 16:85-101.
1957 "Praeparatio evangelica in der Septuaginta," VT 7:225-249.
1969-71 "Das Problem der griechischen Umschrift des hebrischen Alten Testa-
ments: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Septuaginta-Forschung," WO
5-6:237-264.
Beyer, Klaus
1969 Althebrische Grammatik: Laut- und Formenlehre. Gttingen: Vanden-
hoeck und Ruprecht.
Birnbaum, Solomon A.
1954-57 The Hebrew Scripts, 2: The Plates. London: Palaeographia.
1971 The Hebrew Scripts, 1: The Texts. Leiden: Brill.
Black, Matthew
1957 "Die Erforschung der Muttersprache Jesu," TLZ 82:653-668.
, and William A. Smalley, eds.
1974 On Language, Culture, and Religion: In Honor of Eugene A. Nida. The
Hague: Mouton.
246 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
Blau, Ludwig
1902 Studien zum althebrischen Buchwesen und zur biblischen litera-
turgeschichte. Budapest: Landes Rabbinerschule and Strasbourg:
Trbner.
Boer, P. A. H. de
1981 "Towards an Edition of the Syriac Version of the Old Testament," VT
31:346-357.
Borger, Rykle
1987 "NA 26 und die neutestamentliche Textkritik," TRu 52:1-58.
Bornkamm, Heinrich
1933 Das Wort Gottes bei Luther. Munich: Kaiser.
Botte, Bernard
1949 "Itala," DBSup 4:777-782.
1957 "Latines (Versions) Anterieures S. Jrme," DBSup 5:334-39.
1960 "Versions Coptes," DBSup 6:818-825.
Bowker, John
1969 The Targums and Rabbinic Literature: An Introduction to Jewish Inter-
pretations of Scripture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brock, Sebastian P.
1978 Review of K. Hyvrinen 1977, Society for Old Testament Study Booklist.
Sheffield.
1980 "Bibelbersetzungen," TRE 6:160ff.
, Charles T. Fritsch, and Sidney Jellicoe
1973 A Classified Bibliography of the Septuagint. ALGHJ 6.
Brooke, Alan E., Norman McLean, and Henry St. John Thackeray
1906-1940 The Old Testament in Greek according to the Text of Codex Vaticanus.
3 vols, in 9. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, Francis, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, eds.
1907 Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. Corrected ed. 1952.
Bruyne, Donatien de
1930 "Le problme du psautier romain," RBn 42:101-126.
Budge, Ernest Alfred Wallis
1912 Coptic Biblical Texts in the Dialect of Upper Egypt. London: British
Museum.
Burkitt, Francis Crawford
1897 Fragments of the Books of Kings according to the Translation of Aquila.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burrows, Millar
1949 "Variant Readings in the Isaiah Manuscript," BASOR 113:24-32.
1950 The Isaiah Manuscript and the Habakkuk Commentary. The Dead Sea
Scrolls of St. Mark's Monastery 1. New Haven: American Schools of
Oriental Research.
1951 Plates and Transcription of the Manual of Discipline. The Dead Sea
Scrolls of St. Mark's Monastery 2. New Haven: American Schools of
Oriental Research.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 247
Fischer, Bonifatius
1949 Vetus Latina, 1: Sigla. Freiburg: Herder.
1951-54 Vetus Latina, 2: Genesis. Freiburg: Herder.
1957 Die Alkuin-Bibel. Aus der Geschichte der lateinischen Bibel 1. Freiburg:
Herder.
1962 "Codex Amiatinus und Cassiodor," BZ N.S. 6:57-79.
1977 Novae Concordantiae Bibliorum Sacrorum iuxta Vulgatam Versionem
Critice Editant, quas digessit Bonifatius Fischer OSB. 5 vols. Stuttgart:
Fromann-Holzboog.
Fischer, Johann
1930 In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor? BZAW 56.
1934 "Die hebrischen Bibelzitate des Scholastikers Odo," Bib 15:50-93.
1936 "Einige Proben aus den hebrischen Bibelzitaten des Scholastikers
Odo," Werden und Wesen des Alten Testaments. Festschrift Claus Wes-
termann. BZAW 66:198-206.
Fishbane, Michael
1976 "Abbreviations, Hebrew Texts," IDBSup 3f.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A.
1990 The Dead Sea Scrolls: Major Publications and Tools for Study. Revised
ed. SBLRBS 20. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Fohrer, Georg
1951 "Die Glossen im Buche Ezechiel," ZAW 63:33-53.
Franchi de' Cavalieri, Pio Pietro, and Hans Lietzmann
1929 Specimina Codicum Graecorum Vaticanorum. 2nd ed. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Freedman, David Noel, and Kenneth A. Mathews (with contributions by
Richard S. Hanson)
1985 The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (11Q paleo Lev). Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns.
Frensdorff, Salomon
1864 Das Buch Ochlah W'ochlah. Hannover: Hahn. Repr. Tel Aviv: Zion,
1969; New York: KTAV, 1972.
Fritsch, Charles Theodore
1943 The Anti-Anthropomorphisms of the Greek Pentateuch. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
von Gall, August Freiherr
1914-18 Der hebrische Pentateuch der Samaritaner. Giessen: Tpelmann. Repr.
1966.
Galling, Kurt, ed.
1950 Textbuch zur Geschichte Israels. Tbingen: Mohr. 2nd ed. 1968; 3rd ed.
1979.
Geiger, Abraham
1857 Urschrift und bersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhngigkeit von der
inneren Entwicklung des Judenthums. Breslau: Hainauer. Repr. Frank-
furt: Madda, 1928.
Geissen, Angelo, ed.
1968 Der Septuaginta-Text des Buches Daniel: Kap. 5-12 sowie Esther 1
2,15. Papyrologische Texte und Arbeiten 5. Bonn: Habelt.
252 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
Gerleman, Gillis
1948 Synoptic Studies in the Old Testament. Lund: Gleerup.
Gertner, M.
1960 "The Masorah and the Levites," VT 10:241-284.
Gese, Hartmut
1957 "Die hebrischen Bibelhandschriften zum Dodekapropheton nach der
Variantensammlung des Kennicott," ZAW 69:55-69.
Gesenius, Wilhelm
1815 De Pentateuchi Samaritani origine, indole et auctoritate commentatio
philologica-critica. Halle: Libraria Rengerianae.
1829-58 Thesaurus philologicus criticus linguae Hebraeae et Chaldaeae Veteris
Testamenti. Leipzig: Vogel. 17th ed., revised by Frants Buhl, 1921.
, Emil Kautzsch, and Arthur Ernest Cowley
1910 Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar as edited and enlarged by the late
E. Kautzsch, Second English edition revised by A. E. Cowley. Oxford:
Clarendon. Revised and enlarged 1980.
Gibson, John C. L.
1971-82 Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, 1: Hebrew and Moabite Inscrip-
tions (1971); 2: Aramaic Inscriptions including Inscriptions in the Dia-
lect of Zenjirli (1975); 3: Phoenician Inscriptions including Inscriptions
in the Mixed Dialect of Arslan Tash (1982). Oxford: Clarendon.
Ginsburg, Christian David
18 80-1905 The Massorah Compiled from Manuscripts Alphabetically and Lexically
Arranged. Vols. 1-4,1. London: Brg. Repr. New York: KTAV, 1968,
with prolegomenon by A. Dotan.
1897 Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible.
London: Trinitarian Bible Society. New edition with prolegomenon by
Harry M. Orlinsky. New York: KTAV, 1966.
1908-26 Textum Masoreticum accuratissime expressif e fontibus Masorae codi-
cumque varie illustravit. London: British and Foreign Bible Society.
Ginsburger, Moses
1899 Das Fragmenten-Targum (Targum Jeruschalmi zum Pentateuch). Berlin:
Kohlhammer.
1903 Targum Pseudo-Jonathae (Thargum Jonathan ben Usiel zum Penta-
teuch): Nach der Londoner Hs. B. Mus. add. 27031. Berlin: Kohl-
hammer.
Giron Blanc, Luis-F.
1976 Pentateuco Hebreo-Samaritano: Genesis. Biblia Poliglota Matritense,
ed. Federico Prez Castro. Madrid: Fundacin Universitaria Espaola.
Glaue, Paul, and Alfred Rahlfs
1911 Fragmente einer griechischen bersetzung des samaritanischen Penta-
teuchs. MSU 2. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
Gordis, Robert
1937 The Biblical Text in the Making: A Study of the Kethib-Qere. New York.
Repr. with new introduction, New York: KTAV, 1981.
Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H.
1956 "Neue Syrohexaplafragmente," Bib 37:175-183.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 253
1960 "The Authenticity of the Aleppo Codex," Textus 1:17-58. Repr. Leiman
1974: 773-814 (= Goshen-Gottstein 1960a: 1-42).
1960a Text and Language in Bible and Qumran. Jerusalem/Tel Aviv: Orient.
1962 "Biblical Manuscripts in the United States," Textus 2:28-59.
1963 "The Rise of the Tiberian Bible Text," in Biblical and Other Studies,
ed. Alexander Altmann. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
79-122. Repr. Leiman 1974: 666-709.
1963a "Theory and Practice of Textual Criticism. The Text-critical Use of the
Septuagint," Textus 3:130-158.
1963/64 "The Aleppo Codex and Ben Buya'a the Scribe," Tarbiz 33:149-156.
1965-81 The Book of Isaiah. The Hebrew University Bible Project. Jerusalem:
Magnes. Sample Edition with Introduction (1965); 1: Is 1:1-22:10
(1975); 2: Is 22:11-44:28 (1981).
1966 "The Psalms Scroll (11QPsa): A Problem of Canon and Text," Textus
5:22-33.
1966a "A Recovered Part of the Aleppo Codex," Textus 5:53-59.
1967 "Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts: Their History and their Place in the
HUBP Edition," Bib 48:243-290. Repr. QHBT, 42-89.
1972 (ed.) Biblia Rabbinica: A Reprint of the 1525 Venice Edition. Jerusalem:
Makor.
1976 (ed.) The Aleppo Codex, Provided with Massoretic Notes and Pointed
by Aaron ben Asher, the Text Considered Authoritative by Maimonides.
Jerusalem: Magnes.
1979 "The Aleppo-Codex and the Rise of the Massoretic Bible Text," BA
42:145-163.
1991 "Exercises in Targum and Peshitta I," Textus 16: 117ff.
Graf, Georg
1944 Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur, 1: Die bersetzungen.
Studie Testi 118.
Gray, John
1974 "The Masoretic Text of Job, the Targum and the Septuagint Version in
the Light of the Qumran Targum (11QtargJob)," ZAW 86:331-350.
Greenberg, Moshe
1977 "The Use of the Ancient Versions for Interpreting the Hebrew Text,"
VTS 29:131-148.
Gressmann, Hugo
1926-27 Altorientalische Texte zum Alten Testament. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Grossfeld, Bernard
1972-78 A Bibliography of Targum Literature. 2 vols. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union
College and New York: KTAV.
Grossouw, Wilhelm Karel Maria
1938 The Coptic Versions of the Minor Prophets: A Contribution to the Study
of the Septuagint. MBE 3. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
Groves, J. Alan
1989 "Correction of Machine-Readable Texts by Means of Automatic Compari-
son: Help with Method." Bible and Computer: Methods, Tools, Results.
Jerusalem, 9-13, 1988. Paris: Champion and Geneva: Slatkine, 271-295.
254 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
Gunkel, Hermann
1928 "Glosse," RGG2, 2:1230.
Hadas, Moses
1951 Aristeas to Philocrates. New York: Harper.
Haefeli, Leo
1927 Die Peshitta des AT mit Rcksicht auf ihre textkritische Bearbeitung und
Herausgabe. ATAbh 11/1. Mnster: Aschendorff.
Halperin, David J.
1982 "Merkabah Midrash in the Septuagint," JBL 101:351-363.
Hamm, Winfried
1969 "Der Septuaginta-Text des Buches Daniel Kap. 1-2," PTA 10. Bonn:
Habelt.
Hanhart, Robert
1959 Maccabaeorum liber II. SVTG 9/2. Revised ed. 1976.
1960 Maccabaeorum liber III. SVTG 9/3. Revised ed. 1980.
1962 "Fragen um die Entstehung der Septuaginta," VT 12:139-163.
1966 Esther. SVTG 8/3. Revised ed. 1983.
1967 "Die Bedeutung der Septuaginta-Forschung fr die Theologie," Drei
Studien zum Judentum. Theologische Existenz heute 38-64. Repr. Jel-
licoe 1974: 583-609.
1974 I Esdras. SVTG 8/1.
1974a Text und Textgeschichte des 1. Esrabuches. MSU 12. Gttingen: Van-
denhoeck und Ruprecht.
1978 Review of Dunand 1966, OLZ 73:40-45.
1979 Judith. SVTG 8/4.
1979a Text und Textgeschichte des Buches Judith, MSU 14. Gttingen: Van-
denhoeck und Ruprecht.
1979b "Jdische Tradition und christliche Interpretation: Zur Geschichte der
Septuagintaforschung in Gttingen," Kerygma und Logos. Festschrift
Carl Andresen, 280-297.
1981 "Das Neue Testament und die griechische berlieferung des Judentums:
berlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen," TU 125:293-303.
1983 Tobit. SVTG 8/5.
1984 Text und Textgeschichte des Buches Tobit, MSU 17. Gttingen: Vanden-
hoeck und Ruprecht.
1984b "Zum gegenwrtigen Stand der Septuagintaforschung," in Pietersma
and Cox 1984, 3-18.
, and John W. Wevers
1977 Das Gttinger Septuaginta-Unternehmen, Festschrift Joseph Ziegler.
Gttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
Hanson, Richard Simon
1964 "Palaeo-Hebrew Script in the Hasmonean Age," BASOR 175: 26-42.
Haran, Menahem
1982 "Book-Scrolls in Israel in Pre-Exilic Times," JJS 33: 161-173.
1983 "Book-Scrolls at the Beginning of the Second Temple Period: The
Transition from Papyrus to Skins," HUCA 54:111-122.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 255
Harding, G. Lankester
1949 "The Dead Sea Scrolls," PEQ:112-16 (illustrated).
Harkavy, Albert, and Hermann Leberecht Strack
1875 Catalog der hebrischen Bibelhandschriften der kaiserlichen ffentli-
chen Bibliothek in St. Petersburg. Leipzig: Hinrichs.
Harnack, Adolf von
1902 "Der Brief des Ptolemus an die Flora," SPAW, 507-545.
Hatch, Edwin, and Henry Redpath
1897 A Concordance to the Septuagint. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon. Supple-
ment, 1906. Repr. Graz: Akademische Verlag, 1954; Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1983.
Hempel, Johannes
1930 "Chronik (Bericht ber die textkritische Forschung und ihre Problem-
atik)," ZAW 48:187-202.
1934 "Innermasoretische Besttigungen des Samaritanus," ZAW 52:254-
274.
1937 "Zum griechischen Deuteronomiumtext des II. Jahrhunderts a. C , " ZAW
55:115-127.
1938 "Die Ostraka von Lakis," ZAW 56:126-139.
1959 "Der textkritische Wert des Konsonantentextes von Kairener Geniza-
fragmenten in Cambridge und Oxford zum Deuteronomium," NAWG 1:
207-236.
1965 "Die Texte von Qumran in der heutigen Forschung," 290-95. Offprint
from NAWG 1/10, 1961.
Herrmann, Johannes, and Friedrich Baumgrtel
1923 "Beitrge zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Septuaginta," BWAT N.S. 5.
Holl, Karl
1948 "Luthers Bedeutung fr den Fortschritt der Auslegungskunst," Gesam-
melte Aufstze zur Kirchengeschichte, 1:544-582. Darmstadt: Wissen-
schaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Holmes, Robert, and James Parsons
1798-1827 Vetus Testamentum Graecum cum variis lectionibus. Oxford: Clarendon.
Hyvrinen, Kyosti
1977 Die bersetzung von Aquila. ConBOT 10. Lund: Gleerup.
Jaros, Karl
1982 Hundert Inschriften aus Kanaan und Israel Fribourg: KBW.
Jellicoe, Sidney
1968 The Septuagint and Modern Study. Oxford: Clarendon. Repr. Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1989.
1974 (ed.) Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations.
New York: KTAV.
Jepsen, Alfred
1963 "Von den Aufgaben der alttestamentlichen Textkritik," VT 9: 332-341.
Jeremias, Joachim
1964 "," TDNT 1:740-42 (= 1933 TWNT 1:740-42).
1967 " ," TDNT 5:677-717 (= 1951 TWNT 5:653-713).
256 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
Johnson, Allan Chester, Henry Snyder Gehman, and Edmund Harris Kase, Jr.
1938 The John H. Scheide Biblical Papyri: Ezekiel. Princeton University
Studies in Papyrology 3. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Johnson, Bo
1968 Die armenische Bibelbersetzung als hexaplarischer Zeuge im 1.
Samuelbuch. ConBOT 2. Lund: Gleerup.
Joon, Paul
1923 Grammaire de l'Hebreu biblique. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico.
Repr. 1987.
Kahle, Paul E.
1901 "Zur Geschichte der hebrischen Punktation," ZAW 21:273-317.
1902 Der masoretische Text des Alten Testaments nach der berlieferung der
Babylonischen Juden. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1966.
1913 Masoreten des Ostens: Die ltesten punktierten Handschriften des Alten
Testaments und der Targume. BWAT 15. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Repr. Olms,
1984.
1915 "Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Pentateuchtextes," TSK 88: 399-
439. Repr. Kahle 1956: 3-37.
1922 H. Bauer and P. Leander 1922, 6-9.
1925 "Die Punktation der Masoreten," BZAW 41:167-172. Repr. Kahle 1956:
48-53.
1928 "Die hebrischen Bibelhandschriften aus Babylonien," ZAW 46:113-
137, with an appendix of 70 facsimiles.
1927-30 Masoreten des Westens, 2 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Repr. in 1 vol.,
Hildesheim: Olms, 1984.
1947 "Die Septuaginta: Prinzipielle Erwgungen," Festschrift Otto Eissfeldt,
ed. Johann Fck. Halle: Niemeyer, 161-180. Repr. 1961.
1947a "Felix Pratensis Prato, Felix: Der Herausgeber der ersten Rabbin-
erbibel, Venedig 1516-17," WO 1:32-36.
1950 "Zur Aussprache des Hebrischen bei den Samaritanern," Festschrift
Alfred Bertholet. Tbingen: Mohr, 281-86. Repr. Kahle 1956: 180-85.
1951 Die hebrischen Handschriften aus der Hhle. Franz Delitzsch-
Vorlesungen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
1951a "The Hebrew Ben Asher Bible Manuscripts," VT 1:161-67.
1953 "The Abisha' Scroll of the Samaritans," Studia Orientalia J. Pedersen
dicata. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 188-192.
1953a Review of ''The New Hebrew Bible, Jerusalem 1953," VT 3:416-420.
1954 "Die im August 1952 entdeckte Lederrolle mit dem griechischen Text
der Kleinen Propheten und das Problem der Septuaginta," TLZ 79:81-94.
Repr. Kahle 1956: 113-127, in English.
1954a "Zwei durch Humanisten besorgte, dem Papst gewidmete Ausgaben der
hebrischen Bibel," Festschrift Leo Baeck. London: East and West Li-
brary, 50-74. Repr. Kahle 1956: 128-150.
1954b "The Hebrew Text of the Complutensian Polyglot," Homenaje a Mil-
ls-Vallicrosa. Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cienti-
ficas, 1:741-751.
1954c Review of Cassuto 1953, VT 4:109f.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 257
1956 Opera Minor: Festgabe zum 21. Januar 1956. Leiden: Brill.
1958 "Das palstinische Pentateuchtargum und das zur Zeit Jesu gesprochene
Aramisch, " ZNW 49:100-115.
1959 The Cairo Geniza. Rev. ed. London: Blackwell.
1960 "The Greek Bible Manuscripts used by Origen," JBL 79: 111-18.
1961 Der hebrische Bibeltext seit Franz Delitzsch. Franz Delitzsch-
Vorlesung 1958. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Kahle, P. E., Jr., ed.
1954 Bala'iza: Coptic Texts from Deir el-Bala'izah in Upper Egypt. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Kappler, Werner
1936 Maccabaeorum Liber I. SVTG 9/1. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ru-
precht. Rev. ed. 1968.
Karo, Georg Heinrich, and Hans Lietzmann
1902 Catenarum Graecarum Catalogus. NGWG, Phil.-hist. Kl.
Kasser, Rodolphe
1965 "Les dialectes coptes et les versions coptes bibliques," Bib 46:287-310.
, and Michel Testuz
1967 Papyrus Bodmer XXIV. Cologny-Geneva: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana.
Katsh, Abraham I.
1959 "Hebraica Collections in the U.S.S.R.," Akten des XXIV. Internationalen
Orientalistenkongresses Mnchen 1957 24:202-5.
Katz, Eliezer
1992 A Topical Concordance of the Old Testament: Using the Hebrew and
Aramaic Text. Grand Rapids: Baker.
Katz, Peter (W. P. M. Walters)
1949 "Das Problem des Urtextes der Septuaginta," TZ 5/1:1-24.
1950 Philo's Bible: The Aberrant Text of Bible Quotations in Some Philonic
Writings and Its Place in the Textual History of the Greek Bible. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
1956 "Septuagintal Studies in the Mid-century: Their Links with the Past and
Their Present Tendencies," The Background of the New Testament and
Its Eschatology. Festschrift C. H. Dodd. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 176-208.
1957 "Frhe hebraisierende Rezensionen der Septuaginta und die Hexapla,"
ZAW 69:77-84.
Kautzsch, Emil Friedrich
1900 Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments. Tbingen:
Mohr. Repr. Hildesheim: 01ms, 1962.
Kedar-Kopfstein, Benjamin
1968 The Vulgate as a Translation. Diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
1988 "The Latin Translations," in Mulder 1988: 299-338.
Kellermann, Diether
1977 "Bemerkungen zur Neuausgabe der Biblia Hebraica," ZDMGSup 3/1:
128-138.
1980 "Korrektur, Variante, Wahllesart? Ein Beitrag zu dem Verstndnis der
K 17Q lw," BZ 24:55-75.
258 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
Kennedy, James
1928 An Aid to the Textual Amendment of the Old Testament, ed. Nahum
Levison. Edinburgh: Clark.
Kennicott, Benjamin
1776-80 Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum cum variis lectonibus. 2 vols. Oxford:
Clarendon.
Kenyon, Frederic George
1933-37, The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri. 7 vols. London: Walker.
1958
1949 Bible and Archaeology. 2nd ed. New York: Harper.
1975 The Text of the Greek Bible. 3rd ed., revised by Arthur W. Adams.
London: Duckworth.
Kilpatrick, George Dunbar
1951 Review of P. Katz 1950, JTS N.S. 2: 89f.
Kippenberg, Hans G.
1971 Garizim und Synagoge. Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorar-
beiten 30. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Kittel, Rudolf
1902 ber die Notwendigkeit und Mglichkeit einer neuen Ausgabe der he-
brischen Bibel: Studien und Erwgungen. Leipzig: Edelmann, 1901.
Einladung zur Feier des Reformationsfestes und des bergangs des
Rektorats der Universitt Leipzig . . . durch den designierten Dekan der
theol. Fakultt. Leipzig: Deichert.
Klein, Michael L.
1980 The Fragment Targums of the Pentateuch According to Their Extant
Sources. AnBib 76.
1986 Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch. 2 vols.
Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press.
Kochavi, Moshe
1977 "An Ostracon of the Period of the Judges from Izbet Sartah," Tel Aviv
4:1-13.
Khler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner
1958 Lexikon in Veteris Testamenti Libros. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill. Repr. Leiden:
Brill and Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985.
1990 Hebrisches und aramisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. 3rd ed.
Leiden: Brill.
Kohlenberger, John R.
1987 The NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan.
van der Kooij, Arie
1981 Die alten Textzeugendes Jesajabuches. OBO 35. Fribourg: Universitets-
verlag and Gttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
1988 "Symmachus, de vertaler der Joden," NedTTs 42:1-20.
Kosack, W.
1973 Proverbia Salomonis, Achmimisch, sahidisch, bohairisch und arabisch.
Vetus Testamentum Coptice 1. Bonn: Habelt.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 259
Koster, M. D.
1977 The Peshitta of Exodus: The Development of its Text in the Course of
Fifteen Centuries. SSN 19. Assen: van Gorcum.
Kraeling, Emil G.
1953 The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri. Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum
and New Haven: Yale University Press. Repr. New York: Arno, 1969.
1958 "Elephantine," RGG3, 2:415-18.
Kuhn, Karl Georg
1958 Rucklufiges Hebrisches Wrterbuch. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck und
Ruprecht.
Lagarde, Paul A. de
1863 Anmerkungen zur griechischen bersetzung der Proverbien. Leipzig:
Brockhaus.
1872 Prophetae Chaldaice: Paulus de Lagarde e fide codicis reuchliniani
edidit. Leipzig: Teubner.
1873 (ed.) Hagiographa Chaldaice. Leipzig: Teubner.
1883 Librorum Veteris Testamenti canonicorum pars prior graece. Gttingen:
Hoyer.
1891 Septuagintastudien. AAWG 37.
1892 Bibliothecae Syriacae. Gttingen: Horstmann.
Landauer, Samuel
1896 Die Massorah zum Onkelos nach neuen Quellen. Amsterdam: Van Ess
en Joachimathal.
Le Daut, Roger J.
1966 Introduction la Littrature Targumique. Rome: Pontifical Biblical In-
stitute.
1978-82 Targum du Pentateuque: Traduction des deux recensions palestiniennes
compltes avec introduction, parallles, notes et index. 5 vols. Paris:
ditions du Cerf.
Lee, Samuel
1823 The Syriac Old and New Testament. London: British and Foreign Bible
Society. Repr. 1979.
Lehman, I. O.
1967 "A Forgotten Principle of Biblical Textual Tradition Rediscovered,"
JNES 26:93-101.
Leiman, Sid Z., comp.
1974 The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible: An Introductory Reader.
New York: KTAV.
Leloir, Louis
1960 "Versions Armniennes," DBSup 6:810-18.
Lemaire, Andr
1981 Les coles et la formation de la bible dans l'Ancien Israel. OBO 39.
Fribourg: Universitetsverlag and Gttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
Leveen, Jacob
1949 "Newly Found Hebrew Scrolls from Palestine," The Listener. London,
August 25, 323.
260 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
Levine, Etan
1982 "The Transcription of the Torah Scroll," ZAW 94:99-105.
1982a "The Biography of the Aramaic Bible," ZAW 94:353-379.
1988 The Aramaic Versions of the Bible: Contents and Context. BZAW
174.
Levy, Kurt
1936 Zur masoretischen Grammatik: Texte und Untersuchungen. BOS 15.
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Lietzmann, Hans
1897 Catenen: Mitteilungen ber ihre Geschichte und handschriftliche ber-
lieferung. Tbingen: Mohr.
Lifshitz, B.
1962 "Greek Documents from the Cave of Horror," IEJ 12:201-7.
, and J. Schiby
1968 "Une synagogue samaritaine Thessalonique," RB 75:368-378.
Lipschiitz, Lazar
1962 "Mishael ben Uzziel's Treatise on the Differences between Ben Asher
and Ben Naftali," Textus 2:3-58 [Hebrew, English summary]. See
1965.
1964 "Kitb al-Khilaf: The Book of the Hillufim," Textus 4:1-29. See 1965.
1965 Kitb al-Khilaf. Jerusalem: Magnes. Repr. of 1962 and 1964.
Lisowsky, Gerhard
1958 Konkordanz zum hebrischen Alten Testament. Stuttgart: German Bible
Society. 2nd ed. 1966; 3rd ed. 1990, reduced format 1993.
Lfgren, Oscar
1927 Die thiopische bersetzung des Propheten Daniels. Paris: Geuthner.
Loewe, Raphael J.
1969 "The Medieval History of the Latin Vulgate," CHB 2:102-154.
Loewinger, David Samuel
1960 "The Aleppo Codex and the Ben Asher Tradition," Textus 1:59-111.
1970 Pentateuch, Prophets and Hagiographa: Codex Leningrad B19A: The
Earliest Complete Bible Manuscript. Jerusalem: Makor.
1971 Codex Cairensis of the Bible from the Karaite Synagogue at Abbasiya.
Jerusalem: Makor.
Lund, Shirley, and Julia A. Foster
1977 Variant Versions of Targumic Traditions within Codex Neofiti I. Aramaic
Studies 2. Missoula: Scholars Press.
Maas, Paul
1958 Textual Criticism. Oxford: Clarendon.
McCarthy, Carmel
1981 The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the Ma-
soretic Text of the Old Testament. OBO 36. Fribourg: Universitetsverlag
and Gttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
McNamara, Martin
1966 The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch.
AnBib 27. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 261
Macuch, Rudolf
1969 Grammatik des samaritanischen Hebrisch. Studia Samaritana 1. Ber-
lin: de Gruyter. Repr. 1982.
Maher, Michael
1990 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis. Collegeville: Liturgical.
, et al
1987 The Aramaic Bible: The Targum. Wilmington: Glazier.
Maier, Johann
1978 Die Tempelrolle vom Toten Meer. Uni-Taschenbcher 829. Munich:
Reinhardt.
1982 Jdische Auseinandersetzung mit dem Christentum in der Antike.
Ertrag der Forschung 177. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesell-
schaft.
1985 The Temple Scroll: An Introduction, Translation and Commentary.
JSOTSS 34.
Mandelkern, Solomon
1896 Veteris Testamenti Concordantiae Hebraicae atque Chaldaicae. Leipzig:
Veit. 2nd ed., corrected by F. Margolin. Berlin, 1925. Repr. Graz: Aka-
demische Druk und Verlagsanstalt, 1955. 6th ed., corrected by Moshe
Goshen-Gottstein. Tel Aviv: Schocken, 1964.
Manson, Thomas Walter
1945 Review of Fritsch 1943, JTS 46:78f.
Maori, Yeshayahu
1975 The Peshitta Version of the Pentateuch in its Relation to the Sources of
Jewish Exegesis. Diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem. [Hebrew]
Margolis, Max Leopold
1931-38 The Book of Joshua in Greek. 4 vols. Paris: Geuthner. 5: Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 1992.
Martin, M. Fitzmaurice
1963 "The Palaeographical Character of Codex Neofiti I," Textus 3:1-35.
Meershoek, G. Q. A.
1966 Le Latin Biblique d'aprs Saint Jrme. LCP 20. Nijmegen: Dekker en
Van de Vegt.
Mercati, Giovanni
1947 "Il problema delle colonna II dell'Esaplo," Bib 28:1-30, 173-215.
1958 Psalterii Hexapli reliquiae. Codices ex ecclesiasticis Italiae bybliothecis
delecti phototypice expressi 8. Rome: Bibliotheca Vaticana.
1965 Osservazioni, Commenta critico al Tes to dei Frammenti Esaplari.
Rome: Bibliotheca Vatican.
Merx, Adalbert
1888 Chrestomathia Targumica. Berlin: Reuther and New York: Westermann.
Meyer, Rudolf
1950 "Zur Sprache von 'Ain Feschcha," TLZ 75:721-26.
1961 "Die Bedeutung von Deuteronomium 32,8f.43 (4Q) fr die Auslegung
des Mosesliedes," Verbannung und Heimkehr. Festschrift Wilhelm
Rudolph, ed. Arnulf Kuschke. Tbingen: Mohr, 197-209.
262 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
1922 Analekten zur Textkritik des Alten Testaments Neue Folge Leipzig
Engel
Perrella, Gaetano Maria
1949 Introduzione Generale alla Sacra Biblia Turin Manetti 2nd ed 1952
Petermann, Julius Heinrich, and Carl Vollers
1872 91 Pentateuchus Samantanus ad fidem librorum manuscriptorum apud
Nablusianos repertum Berlin Moeser
Peters, Curt
1935 "Peschitta und Targumim des Pentateuchs," Muson 48 1 54
1939 "Peschitta Psalter und Psalmentargum," Museon 52 275ff
Peters, Melvin K. H.
1979 An Analysis of the Textual Character of the Bohainc of Deuteronomy
SBLSCS 9 Missoula Scholars Press
1983- A Critical Edition of the Coptic (Bohairic) Pentateuch 1 Genesis (1985),
2 Exodus (1986), 5 Deuteronomy (1983) Atlanta Scholars Press
Pietersma, Albert
1984 "Kyrios or Tetragram A Renewed Quest for the Original Septuagint,"
in Pietersma and Cox 1984 85 101
1985 "Septuagint Research A Plea for a Return to Basic Issues," VT 35 296-
311
, and Claude Cox, eds.
1984 De Septuaginta Festschrift John Williams Wevers Mississauga, Ont
Benben
Ploeg, J. P. M. van der, and Adam Simon van der Woude
1971 Le Targum de Job de la Grotte XI de Qumran Leiden Brill
Porten, Bezalel
1968 Archives from Elephantine The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military
Colony Berkeley University of California Press
Praetorius, Franz
1899 Das Targum zu Jesaja in jemenischer berlieferung Berlin Reuther
und Reichard and London Williams and Norgate
1900 Targum zum Buch der Richter in jemenischer berlieferung Berlin
Reuther und Reichard
Preuschen, Erwin
1889 ZAW 9 303
Prijs, Josef
1957 "ber Ben Naftali-Bibelhandschnften und ihre palaographischen Be-
sonderheiten," ZA W 69 171-184
Prijs, Leo
1948 Judische Tradition in der Septuaginta Leiden Bnll Repr Hildesheim
Olms, 1987 (with Die grammatikalische Terminologie des Abraham Ibn
Ezra)
Pritchard, James B., ed.
1969 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament 3rd ed
Princeton Princeton University Press
Procksch, Otto
1935 "Tetraplansche Studien," ZAWN S 12 240-269
BIBLIOGRAPHY 265
Pummer, Reinhard
1976-77 "The Present State of Samaritan Studies," JSS 21:39-61; 22:24-47.
Purvis, James D.
1968 The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect. HSM 2.
van Puyvelde, C.
1960 "Versions Syriaques," DBSup 6:834-884.
Rabin, Chaim
1955 "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of the Old Testament Text," JTS
N.S. 6:174-182.
1968 "The Translation Process and the Character of the Septuagint," Textus
6:1-26.
Rahlfs, Alfred
1914 Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments.
NGWGPH Beiheft. Berlin: Weidmann. Continued by Gttingen: Septu-
aginta-Unternehmen.
1922 Das Buch Ruth griechisch, als Probe einer kritischen Handausgabe der
Septuaginta. Stuttgart: Wrttembergische Bibelanstalt.
1926 Genesis. Stuttgart: Wrttembergische Bibelanstalt.
1928 Paul de hagardes wissenschaftliches Lebenswerk im Rahmen einer
Geschichte seines Lebens dargestelle. MSU 4/1. Berlin: Weidmann.
1931 Psalmi cum Odis, SVTG 10. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
3rd ed. 1979.
1935 (ed.) Septuaginta, Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX inter-
pretes. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Wrttembergische Bibelanstalt. Editio minor in
1 vol. 1984.
Ranke, Ernst
1871 Par Palimpsestorum Wirceburgensium Antiquissimae Veteris Testamenti
Versionis Latinae Fragmenta. Vienna: Braumller.
Reider (Rieder), David, ed.
1974 Pseudo-Jonathan: Targum Jonathan ben Uziel on the Pentateuch, based
on London, British Library Add. 27031. Jerusalem: Rieder.
Reider (Rieder), Joseph, and Trner, Nigel
1966 An Index to Aquila. VTS 12.
Rendsburg, Gary, et al, eds.
1980 The Bible World. Festschrift Cyrus H. Gordon. New York: KTAV.
Rengstorf, Karl Heinrich
1960 Hirbet Qumran und die Bibliothek vom Toten Meer. Studia Delitzschiana
5. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. English tr. Hirbet Qumran and the Problem
of the Library of the Dead Sea Caves. Leiden: Brill, 1963 (without
endnotes and indexes). Leiden: Brill.
Revell, Ernest John
1969 "A New Biblical Fragment with Palestinian Vocalization," Textus 7:59-
75.
1977 Biblical Texts with Palestinian Pointing and Their Accents. SBLMasS
4. Missoula: Scholars Press.
1990 (ed.) VIII International Congress of the International Organization for
Masoretic Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
266 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
Reymond, Philippe
1989 "Vers la publication d'un Dictionnaire Hbreu-Franais," ZAH 3/1:81-
83.
Robert, Ulysse
1881 Pentateuchi versio latina antiquissima e codice Lugdunensi. Paris:
Librairie de Firmin-Didot.
1900 Heptateuchi partis posterions versio latina antiquissima e codice Lug-
dunensi. Lyon: Rey.
Roberts, Bleddyn Jones
1951 The Old Testament Text and Versions: The Hebrew Text in Transmission
and the History of the Ancient Versions. Cardiff: University of Wales
Press.
1959/60 "The Second Isaiah Scroll from Qumran (IQIsb)," BJRL 42/1: 132-144.
1964 "The Hebrew Bible Since 1937," JTS N.S. 15: 253-264. Repr. Leiman
1974: 821-832.
Roberts, Colin Henderson
1936 Two Biblical Papyri in the John Rylands Library, Manchester.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
1954 "The Codex," PBA 40:169-204.
1970 "Books in the Graeco-Roman World and in the New Testament," CHB
1:48-66.
, and Theodor Cressy Skeat
1987 The Birth of the Codex. London: British Academy.
Roberts, J. J. M.
1989 "The Princeton Classical Hebrew Dictionary Project," ZAH 3/1:84-89.
Robertson, Edward
1962 Review of Perez Castro 1959, VT 12:228-235.
Rosenmller, Ernst Friedrich Karl
1797 Handbuch fr die Literatur der biblischen Kritik und Exegese 1. Gttin-
gen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
Rosenthal, Franz
1939 Die aramaistische Forschung seit Th. Nldekes Verffentlichungen.
Leiden: Brill. Repr. 1974.
de Rossi, Giovanni Bernardo
1784-88 Variae Lectiones Veteris Testamenti, ex immensa MMS. Editorumq.
Codicum Congerie haustae et ad Samar. Textum, ad vetustiss. versiones,
ad accuratiores sacrae criticae fontes ac leges examinatae opera ac
studio Johannis Bern, de Rossi. 4 vols. Parma: Regius. Repr. with 1798
Supplement, 5 vols, in 2. Amsterdam: Philo, 1969-70.
1798 Scholia critica in V. T. libros seu supplementa ad varias sacri textus
lectiones. Parma: Regius. Repr. Amsterdam: Philo, 1969-70.
Rost, Leonhard
1970 "Vermutungen ber den Anlass zur griechischen bersetzung der Tora,"
in Wort Gebot Glaube. Festschrift Walther Eichrodt, ed. Hans
Joachim Stoebe. ATANT 59: 39-44.
Rowley, Harold Henry
1961 "Papyri from Elephantine," in Thomas 1961: 256-269.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 267
Rubinstein, Arie
1959 "A Kethib-Qere Problem in the Light of the Isaiah-Scroll," JSS 4:127-133.
Rger, Hans Peter
1983 An English Key to the Latin Words and Abbreviations and the Symbols
of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: German Bible Society.
Sabatier, Pierre
1739-49 Bibliorum Sacrorum latinae versiones antiquae, seu vetus italica, et
caetera quaecunque in codicibus mss. et antiquorum libris reperiri
potuerunt quae cum Vulgata latina et cum textu graeco comparantur.
Rheims: Florentein. Repr. Turnhout: Herder, 1976.
Sachau, Eduard
1911 Aramische Papyrus und Ostraca aus einer jdischen Militrkolonie zu
Elephantine. Leipzig: Hinrichs.
Sadaka, Abraham
1959 Samaritan Version of the Pentateuch, Copied by Hand. Tel Aviv: TaSH-
YaT.
, and Ratson Sadaka
1961-65 Jewish Version, Samaritan Version of the Pentateuch, with Particular
Stress on the Differences Between Both Texts. Tel Aviv: Mass.
de Sainte Marie, Henri
1954 Sancti Hieronymi Psalterium iuxta Hebraios. CBL 11. Rome.
Sanders, Henry Arthur, and Carl Schmidt
1927 The Minor Prophets in the Freer Collection and the Berlin Fragment of
Genesis. University of Michigan Studies, Humanistic Series 21. New
York: Macmillan.
Sanders, James A.
1965 The Psalms Scroll of Qumrn Cave 11 (11QPsa). DJD 4, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
1967 The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
1975 "Palestinian Manuscripts (1947-1972)," QHBT, 401-413.
Sanderson, Judith E.
1986 An Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExodm and the Samaritan
Tradition. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
dos Santos, Elmar Camilo
1973 An Expanded Hebrew Index for the Hatch-Redpath Concordance to the
Septuagint. Jerusalem: Dugith.
Sass, Benjamin
1991 Studia Alphabetica. OBO 102. Fribourg: Universitetsverlag and Gttin-
gen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
Scanlin, Harold P.
1993 The Dead Sea Scrolls and Modern Translations of the Old Testament.
Wheaton: Tyndale.
Schfer, Peter
1980 "Bibelbersetzungen II. Targumim," TRE 6:216-228.
Schenker, A.
1975 Hexaplarische Psalmenbruchstcke: Die hexaplarischen Psalmenfrag-
mente der Handschriften Vaticanus Graecus 752 und Canonicus Grae-
268 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
Venetz, H. J.
1974 Die Quinta des Psalteriums: Ein Beitrag zur Septuaginta- und Hexa-
plaforschung. PIRHT, Sect. Biblique et Masortique 1/2. Hildesheim:
Gerstenberg.
Verms, Gza
1973 Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies. 2nd ed. Leiden:
Brill.
1982 The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Vbus, Arthur
1958 Peschitta und Targumim des Pentateuchs. Stockholm: Etse.
1975 The Pentateuch in the Version of the Syro-Hexapla: A Facsimile Edition
of a Midyat Ms. Discovered in 1964. CSCO 45. Rome.
Volz, Paul
1936 "Ein Arbeitsplan fr die Textkritik des Alten Testaments," ZAW N.S.
13:100-113.
Waddell, W. G.
1944 "The Tetragrammaton in the LXX: With a Plate," JTS 45:158-161.
Waldman, Nahum M.
1989 The Recent Study of Hebrew: A Survey of the Literature with a Selected
Bibliography. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press and Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Waltke, Bruce K., and Michael P. O'Connor
1990 An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Warner, Sean
1980 "The Alphabet: An Innovation and Its Diffusion," VT 30:81-90.
Weber, Robert, ed.
1953 Le Psautier Romain et les autres anciens Psautiers Latins. CBL 10.
Rome: Abbey St. Jerome.
1969 Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem: Adiuvantibus Bonifatio Fischer
OSB, Johanne Gribomont OSB, Hadley Frederich Davis Sparks, Walter
Thiele, Recensuit et brevi apparatu instruxit R. Weber OSB. 2 vols. Stutt-
gart: German Bible Society. 3rd ed. 1975; Editio minor in 1 vol. 1983.
Weil, Grard E.
1962 "Propositions pour une tude de la tradition massortique baby-
lonienne," Textus 2:103-119.
1963 "La nouvelle dition de la Massorah (BHK IV) et l'histoire de la Mas-
sorah," VTS 9:266-284.
1963a "Quatre fragments de la Massorah Magna," Textus 3:74-120.
1963b "La Massorah Magna Babylonienne des Prophetes," Textus 3:163-170.
1968 "Nouveaux fragments indits de la Massorah Magna babylonienne,"
Textus 6:75-105.
1971 Massorah Gedolah iuxta Codicem Leningradensem B 19a, elaboravit
ediditque Grard E. Weil. 1 : Catalogi. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
Weitzmann, Kurt, and Herbert L. Kessler
1986 The Cotton Genesis. The Illustrations in the Manuscripts of the Septu-
agint. 1: Genesis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
274 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
Wellhausen, Julius
1871 Der Text der Bcher Samuelis. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
Wellisch, Hans H.
1985-86 "Hebrew Bible Concordances, with a Biographical Study of Solomon
Mandelkern," Jewish Book Annual 43:56-91.
Wendland, Paul, ed.
1900 Aristeae ad Philocratm epistula. Leipzig: Teubner.
Wernberg-M0ller, Preben
1962 "An Inquiry into the Validity of the Text-critical Argument for an Early
Dating of the Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum," VT 12:313-330.
Wevers, John Williams
1952 "A Study in the Textual History of Codex Vaticanus in the Books of
Kings," ZAW 64:178-189.
1954 "Septuaginta-Forschungen," TRu N.S. 22:85-138, 171-190.
1968 "Septuaginta-Forschungen seit 1954," TRu N.S. 33:18-76.
1974 Genesis. SVTG 1. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
1974a Text History of the Greek Genesis. MSU 11. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck
und Ruprecht. Also AAWG, Gttingen.
1977 Deuteronomy. SVTG 3/2. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
1978 Text of the Greek Deuteronomy. MSU 13. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck und
Ruprecht.
1982 Text History of the Greek Numbers, MSU 16. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck
und Ruprecht.
1986 Leviticus. SVTG 2/2. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
1986a Text History of the Greek Leviticus. MSU 19. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck
und Ruprecht.
, and Udo Quast
1977 Numbers. SVTG 3/1. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
Wickes, William
1881-87 A Treatise on the Accentuation of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Oxford:
Clarendon. Repr. with Prolegomenon by Aron Dotan. New York: KTAV,
1970.
Wieder, N.
1956/57 "The Qumran Sectaries and the Caraites," JQR 47:97-113, 269-292.
Wiseman, Donald John
1970 "Books in the Ancient Near East and in the Old Testament," CHB
1:30-48.
Wonneberger, Reinhard
1990 Understanding BHS: A Manual for Users of Biblia Hebraica Stutt-
gartensia. 2nd ed. Subsidia Biblica 8. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
Wright, George Ernest, ed.
1961 The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William
Foxwell Albright. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Repr. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 1979.
Wright, William, ed.
1875-83 Facsimiles of Manuscripts and Inscriptions. Oriental Series. London:
Palaeographical Society.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 275
Wutz, Franz Xavier
1923 "Die ursprngliche Septuaginta," TBl 2:111-16.
1937 Systematische Wege von der Septuaginta zum hebrischen Urtext. Stutt-
gart: Kohlhammer.
Yadin, Yigael
1966 "Another Fragment (E) of the Psalms Scroll from Qumran Cave 11
(11QPsa),"Textus 5:1-11.
1976 Masada. 2nd ed. New York: Random House.
1983 Megillat ha-Miqdash. 3 vols. Plates, transcription. Jerusalem: Israel Ex-
ploration Society. English trans. The Temple Scroll, 1984.
Yeivin, Israel
1962 "The Vocalization of Qere-Kethiv in A," Textus 2:146-49.
1963 "A Palestinian Fragment of Haftaroth and Other Mss with Mixed Point-
ing," Textus 3:121-27.
1969 "The Division into Sections in the Psalms," Textus 7:76-102.
1980 Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah. Trans, and ed. Ernest John Revell.
SBLMasS 5. Missoula: Scholars Press.
Ziegler, Joseph
1934 Die Einheit der Septuaginta zum Zwlfprophetenbuch. Vorlesungsver-
zeichnis der Staats Akademie zu Braunsberg/Ostpr., 1-16. Repr. Ziegler
1971: 29-42.
1934a Untersuchungen zur Septuaginta des Buches Isaias. ATAbh 12/3.
1939 Isaias. SVTG 14. 3rd ed., 1982.
1943 Duodecim Prophetae. SVTG 13. Rev. ed. 1967.
1943/44 Die jngeren griechischen bersetzungen als Vorlagen der Vulgata in
den prophetischen Schriften. Vorlesungsverzeichnis der Staats Akademie
zu Braunsberg/Ostpr., 1-92. Repr. Ziegler 1971: 139-228.
1944 "Studien zur Verwertung der Septuaginta im Zwlfprophetenbuch,"
ZAW 60:107-131.
1944a "Beitrge zur koptischen Dodekapropheton-bersetzung," Bib 25:105-
142.
1944b "Der griechische Dodekapropheton-Text der Complutenser Polyglotte, "
Bib 25:297-310. Repr. Ziegler 1971: 229-242.
1945 "Der Text der Aldina im Dodekapropheton," Bib 26:37-51. Repr. Ziegler
1971: 306-320.
1945/48 "Die Bedeutung des Chester Beatty-Scheide Papyrus 967 fr die Text-
berlieferung der Ezechiel-Septuaginta," ZAW 61:76-94. Repr. Ziegler
1971: 321-339.
1952 Ezechiel. SVTG 16/1. Rev. ed. 1978.
1954 Susanna, Daniel, Bei et Draco. SVTG 16/2.
1957 Jeremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Jeremiae. SVTG 15. Rev. ed. 1976.
1960 Antike und moderne lateinische Psalmenbersetzungen. SBAW.
1962 Sapientia Salomonis. SVTG 12/1. Rev. ed. 1980.
1962a "Die Septuaginta: Erbe und Auftrag," Wrzburger Universittsreden 33,
5-29. Repr. Ziegler 1971: 590-614.
1962b Review of Vbus 1958, TRev 58: 304-7.
1965 Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. SVTG 12/2. Rev. ed. 1980.
276 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
277
278 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
Cox, Claude E., 103 Foster, Julia A., 81
Cross, Frank Moore, 2-4, 6, 15, 21, 53, Franchi, de' Cavalieri, Pio Petro, 204,
150, 152, 160, 240 208
Freedman, David Noel, 3, 21
David, C. Joseph, 89 Frensdorff, Salomon, 30
Davies, Graham I., 130 Fritsch, Charles Theodore, 50, 69
Dedering, S., 90
Deissmann, Adolf, 69 Gall, August Freiherr von, 47
Deist, Ferdinand E., 131 Galling, Kurt, 136, 138, 140
Delekat, Lienhard, 86 Gehman, Henry Snyder, 72
Delitzsch, Franz, 41 Geiger, Abraham, 45, 112
Delitzsch, Friedrich, 108 Geissen, Angelo, 72
Demsky, Aaron, 230 Gelston, A., 89
Dexinger, Ferdinand, 45 Gerleman, Gillis, 17
Diaz Esteban, Fernando, 30 Gertner, M., 10
Dietrich, Manfried, 23 Gese, Hartmut, 114
Dez Macho, Alejandro, 23, 26, 81, 82 Gesenius, Wilhelm, 45, 116, 127, 129
Dez Merino, Luis, 23 Gibson, John C. L., 2, 6, 130, 136, 138
Diringer, David, 3, 134, 138, 142, 228 Ginsburg, Christian David, 10, 16, 30,
Dirksen, Peter B., 85, 87-89, 131 38,39,41,42, 114, 176
Dold, Alban, 93, 212, 214, 216, 235 Ginsburger, Moses, 82
Donner, Herbert, 2, 127, 130, 136, 138 Giron Blanc, Luis-F, 47
Dome, Heinrich, 60, 63 Glaue, Paul, 78
Dotan, Aron, 24, 30, 36, 126, 174 Gordis, Robert, 17
Drazin, Israel, 83 Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H., 19-21,
Driver, Godfrey Rolles, 2, 9, 110, 117, 24, 25, 27, 34-37, 39, 41, 44, 114,
136, 138, 170 118, 174
Driver, Samuel Rolles, 116, 127 Gottlieb, Hans, 89
Dunand, Franoise, 190 Graf, Georg, 224
Graham, William Creighton, 88
Ecker, Roman, 104 Gray, John, 80
Edelmann, Rafael, 10, 13, 104 Greenberg, Moshe, 105
Eissfeldt, Otto, 43, 148, 158 Gressmann, Hugo, 136, 138
Elbogen, Ismar, 166 Grossfeld, Bernard, 79, 83
Elliger, Karl, ix, 10, 34, 117 Grossouw, Wilhelm Karel Maria, 100
Emerton, J. A., 22, 57, 86, 89 Groves, J. Alan, 126
Even-Shoshan, Abraham, 124 Gunkel, Hermann, 112
Abbreviations, 29, 30, 106, 110, 123, Old South Arabic, 117
170 Arad, 2
Masora, 29, 30, 123 Aramaic. See Targums
Masoretic text, 110, 170 'Araq el-Emir. See Inscriptions
Abisha scroll. See Samaritans Aristarchan sigla, 58, 59, 74, 202
Abu al-Barakat scroll. See Samaritans Aristarchus, 58
Abu Sa id, 104 Aristeas, 6, 51, 52, 63-65
Adiabene, 86 Armenian, 103
Ahikar, 142 Asterisk, 58, 154, 202, 204, 206
Ahiram, 2 Augustine, 50, 91, 96
Akhmimic, 100
Akiba, Rabbi, 13, 18, 55 Babylon, Babylonians, 2, 12, 140
Akkadian, 117 Babylonian:
Aksum, 102 Masora, 30
Alcuin, 97, 98 Pointing, 22-24, 37, 166, 226
Alexander Jannaeus, 146 Schools, 12, 20, 27
Alexandrian philologists, 12 Talmud, 4, 18, 21
Alphabet, 1-2 Targum. See Targums
Armenian, 103 Text type, 15
Coptic, 100 Bar Kochba, 31, 164, 192
Greek, 22 Barnabas, 56, 198
Phoenician, 3 Baruch, 6
Semitic, 1-3, 142, 228 Basil the Great, 62
Ambrose, 94 Bede, Venerable, 218
'Anan ben David, 23 Ben Asher, 24-27, 30, 35-36, 41-43,
Ancient Biblical Manuscripts Center, 182, 226
126 Aaron ben Asher, 13, 25, 26, 36, 37,
Anthropomorphism, 69, 80 174, 176, 178, 180
Antinoopolis. See Papyrus Moses ben Asher, 25, 26, 35, 36, 172
Aphraates, 88 Ben Buya'a, Shelomo, 13, 174, 178
Apollinarius of Laodicea, 95 Ben Chayyim. See Hebrew editions
Aquila, 55. See Greek versions Ben Naphtali 24-27, 35, 37, 41, 43,
Arabic, 34, 74, 102, 104, 186, 222, 224 182
283
284 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
Ben 'Uzziel, Mishael, 24, 176 Coptic, 75, 100, 194, 220, 224
Jonathan, 56 Crusaders, 35
Berlin Genesis. See Papyrus Cyprian, 91, 94
Biblia Hebraica, 42, 43, 106 Cyril of Alexandria, 62
BHK, ix, 10, 39, 42, 43
BHS, ix, 10, 43, 123 Damascus Document. See Zadokite
Biscop, Benedict, 218 Document
Bodleian Library, Oxford, 20, 35, 182, Damasus I, Pope, 95
184, 226 Dead Sea, 11, 31, 146
Bohairic, 100 Dead Sea Scrolls, 3, 20, 128, 131
Bomberg, Daniel, 10, 39, 184 Dead Sea Scrolls Manuscript Project,
Bornstein, Aryeh, 230 131
Buxtorf, Johan, 28, 84, 184 Demetrius of Phaleron, 51
Byblos, 2 Diocletian, 60
Dittography, 14, 40, 109
Caesarea, 59, 62, 96 Division, 41
Cairo, 35, 36, 174, 180 Book, 8
Cairo Codex, 20, 44 Chapter, 21, 98
Cairo Geniza, 7, 8, 11, 19, 22, 31, Parashah (Parashoth), 20, 36
34, 55, 81, 158 Seder (Sedarim), 20
Cambridge University Library, 34, 35, Verse, 21
47, 75, 166 Word, 14,73, 110, 134, 188
Carbon-14, 31 Double readings, 110
Cassiodorus, 218
Catena, 58, 62, 208 Ebionite, 55, 56
Catena text, 62, 76, 194 Egypt, 5-7, 9, 12, 33, 34, 60, 69, 70,
Center for the Computer Analysis of 87, 100, 104, 142, 180
Texts (CCAT), 125 Lower Egypt, 73, 100, 200
Centre 'Informatique et Bible', 126 Upper Egypt, 72, 100, 196, 220
Ceolfrid, Abbot, 218 Eleazar, High Priest, 51
Chapters, 20, 21, 98 Elephantine, 142
Charlemagne, 98 Emendation, 18, 33, 43, 70, 106, 116,
Chester Beatty. See papyrus 119, 120, 154, 194
China, 7 Ephraem Syrus, 74, 88
Chrysostom, 60, 62 Epiphanius, 56
Chufutkaleh, 37 Erfurt, 37, 40
Church Fathers, 51, 62, 72, 88, 91, 92, Essenes, 146
94 Ethiopic, 102, 222
Clement VIII, Pope, 98 Eusebius of Caesarea, 56, 57, 59, 60,
Codex, 7-8, 11 62,94
Colbert, Jean Baptiste, 202 Ezra, 2, 79
Complutensian, 23, 75, 184, 226
Computer Assisted Tools for Septu- Fatyun ibn Aiyub. See Pethion
agint Studies, 126 Fay yum, 72, 188
Conjecture, 43, 68, 106, 113, 116, 119, Finchasiye. See Polyglot
120, 154, 160, 162 Firkowitsch, Abraham, 30, 31, 37
Copper scroll, 5 Fouad. See Papyrus
INDEX OF SUBJECTS 285
Free scribal usage, 15, 18, 21, 27, 87, Erfurt, 37, 40
110, 114 Leningradensis, 10, 13, 36, 37, 43,
Free translation, 53, 68, 102 180
St. Petersburg Prophets, 37, 38, 166
Gamaliel, 79 Hebrew editions
Genesis apocryphon, 32, 80 Baer, 41
Geniza. See Cairo Geniza Ben Chayyim, 10, 26, 29, 30, 39, 41,
Gerizim, 45, 46 43, 84, 184
Gezer, 2, 3, 230 Biblia Hebraica. See Biblia Hebraica
Glosses, 93, 94, 112, 117, 128, 212 Ginsburg, 10,41, 114
Greek codices Hebrew University, 43, 44
Coislinianus, 59, 74 Hooght, van der, 40
Colberto-Sarravianus, 59, 73, 202 Jablonski, 40
Marchalianus, 59, 62, 74, 204 Michaelis, 37, 40
Sinaiticus, 72, 73, 198 Snaith, 42
Vaticanus, 62, 64, 73, 74, 76 Hebrew University, 32, 36, 126
Venetus, 62, 74 Hebrew University Bible Project, 36,
Greek editions, 75-78 43, 174
Aldine, 76 Hennas, Shepherd of, 56, 198
Cambridge Septuagint, 76, 77, 126 Hesychius. See Greek versions
Complutensian, 75, 226 Hexapla, 22, 55-60, 62, 74, 76, 85, 96,
Gttingen Septuagint, 66, 71, 73, 75, 100, 101, 103, 194, 198, 200, 202,
77,78, 115, 126 204, 206
Holmes-Parsons, 71, 73, 76 Hodayot, 4
Rahlfs, 62, 77, 78 Homoioarcton, 110
Sixtine, 76, 98 Homoioteleuton, 109, 154, 204
Swete, 76
Greek versions Ibn Ezra, 39, 184
Aquila, 4, 55, 57, 83, 97, 158, 194, Ink, 2, 5-7, 9, 130, 140, 206, 208
204, 206 Inscriptions, 3, 125, 128, 130, 142
Hesychius, 60, 62 'Araq el-Emir, 1
Lucian, 60, 62 Mesha stele, 136
Septuagint, 50-78, passim Moabite stone, 2, 138
Symmachus 55-57, 97, 194, 206 Serabit el-Hadem, 3
Gregory of Nazianzus, 95 Siloam, 2, 5, 21, 110, 138
International Organization for Ma-
Hadassi, 28 soretic Studies, 131
Hapax legomena, 28 International Organization for Septu-
Haphtarah, 166 agint and Cognate Studies, 131, 132
Haplography, 14, 40, 109 'Ir-hammelach, 146
Harding, Stephen, 98 Isidore of Seville, 92, 216
Harris Papyrus. See Papyrus Itala, 91
Hebrew codices, 34-38 Itture sopherim, 17, 18
Aleppo, 13, 20, 24, 30, 36, 37, 43, Izbet Sarta. See Ostraca
44, 142, 174, 178
Bodleian Genesis, 75 Jacobite, 85, 88
Cairensis, 11, 24, 35, 172 Jamnia, 13
286 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
Jehoiakim, 6 Mesha. See Inscriptions
Jerome, 50, 56, 58, 60-62, 91, 95-99, Mesrob, 103
190, 212, 216, 218 Metobelos, 58
Jewish Theological Seminary, 23 Midrash, 23, 35, 70, 80, 83
John Hyrcanus, 45, 146 Milan, 58, 59, 74, 88, 94, 200
John Rylands. See Papyrus Mishna, 4, 23, 35, 128
Josephus, 12, 51, 60, 64, 77, 130 Moabite stone. See Inscriptions
Justin Martyr, 51, 60 Moses of Nisibis, 87, 206
Justinian, Emperor, 55 Murabba'at, 2, 6, 31, 164
290
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE REFERENCES 291
"Truly a classic in its field. By far the best and most up-to-date
summary available today."
Southwestern Journal of Theology
ISBN 0-8028-0788-7
WM. B. EERDMANS
PUBLISHING C O .
Grand Rapids, Michigan 9 780802 8078