Category Archives: Series

King David: Fact or Fiction?

Posted on by

I saw this a couple days ago, but didn’t have time to post: Richard Ostiling of the Associated Press (via PE.com) has a brief report on Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman’s (somewhat) new book, David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition (Free Press, 2006; Buy from Amazon.ca | Buy from Amazon.com). The news article, “Was King David legend or fiction?” raises a number of questions surrounding Finkelstein and Silberman’s views.

Here are some excerpts:

Some scholars are busily debunking the Bible’s account of the great King David, asking: Was he really all that great? Was he largely legendary, Judaism’s version of Britain’s legendary King Arthur, or totally fictional?

These matters are crucial not only for Jews but for Christians, since Jesus’ biblical identity as the messiah stems from David’s family line.

…

Though some scholars claimed David never existed, in 1993 archaeologists discovered a stone inscription from 835 B.C. that mentions “the house of David.” The authors say that established the existence of a dynastic founder named David and that shortly after his 10th-century era a line of kings “traced their legitimacy back to David.”

However, Finkelstein considers the Bible seriously distorted propaganda. He treats David as a minor bandit chieftain and Jerusalem as a hamlet, not an imperial capital. Supposedly, biblical authors concocted the grander David centuries afterward.

…

Finkelstein notes that archaeologists haven’t found monumental buildings from David’s era in Jerusalem. He dismisses links of David and Solomon with buildings unearthed at biblical Megiddo and Hazor. Ordinary readers might not grasp that this depends upon a disputed “low chronology” which would shift dates a century, just after these kings.

In the July-August issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Michael Coogan of Stonehill College, editor of The New Oxford Annotated Bible, contends that Finkelstein and Silberman “move from the hypothetical to the improbable to the absurd.”

Finkelstein’s revised chronology is “not accepted by the majority of archaeologists and biblical scholars,” Coogan asserts, citing four scholarly anthologies from the past three years.

Coogan also thinks “David and Solomon” downplays the significance of the Amarna tablets, which include correspondence to Egypt’s pharaoh from a 14th-century Jerusalem king. Even if archaeological remains at Jerusalem are lacking, he writes, the tablets indicate that long before David, Jerusalem was the region’s chief city-state, with a court and sophisticated scribes.

Discovery of ancient remains in Jerusalem is problematic, due to the repeated reconstruction throughout the centuries and the modern inaccessibility of many sites.

Nonetheless, perhaps David’s palace has been found. So claims Israeli archaeologist Eilat Mazar. Finkelstein denies this, claiming Mazar inaccurately dated pottery from the site.

“Here, for the time being, matters rest,” summarizes Hillel Halkin in the July-August Commentary magazine.

I tend to agree more with Coogan than with Finkelstein and Silberman, though I wouldn’t go as far to say the biblical account has no embellishments since I also think that all historiography has fictive elements. One of the more significant points the article raises, IMHO, is the fact that archaeological excavation of Jerusalem is problematic for so many reasons. That is why digs such as Mazar‘s are so important.


Going Potty in Ancient Gath?! (GPAT 3.3)

Posted on by

The season at Tell es-Safi (ancient Gath) has almost come to a close. We have been able to follow the progress of the dig through their excellent blog here. On their July 31st update, they had an interesting discussion of Area F. What caught my eye was the object which they identified as a stone weight — I prefer to see it as an ancient potty!

This is the fourth in a series of semi-serious posts on “Going Potty in the Ancient World.� My other posts include:

All posts in this series may be viewed here.

While the identification of the object as a stone weight is possible, I’m not sure how they missed the clear indications that this object is indeed a toilet. The toilet paper and the fallen sign are clear giveaways to this amateur archaeologist!

Gath_Toilet.jpg

This is exciting news… perhaps this is even the toilet that Goliath used before being killed by David! We have already found Goliath’s cereal bowl, and now this! All I can say is “Wow!” 🙂

(I sure hope Prof. Aren M. Maeir has a sense of humour!)


The Practice of Textual Criticism (TCHB 8)

Posted on by

With some of the theory surrounding textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible behind us, with this post I am going to discuss how to actually go about text criticism.

This is the eighth post in a series on the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. Other posts include:

All posts in this series may be viewed here.

More specifically, in this post I will discuss how to identify and evaluate variants for the reconstruction of this Ur-edition. In the practice of textual criticism, critics traditionally distinguish between external criticism (i.e., the evaluation of the textual witnesses), and internal criticism (i.e., the transcriptional and intrinsic probability of the readings). For the former, critics need to know the textual witnesses and their history; for the latter, they need to be aware of the kinds of errors scribes made and have sensitivity to the context and inner clarity of the text itself.

The Preliminary Task: Collect the Variants

Before the variants can be evaluated, they need to be collected. They should be first collected from the textual witnesses and then compared with the MT, more specifically with the Leningrad Codex (L) as found in BHS. Even if you do not know Hebrew, you can identify the most significant variants in the text notes to most modern English translations (e.g., NIV, NRSV) and may even be able to detect others in differences between the English versions. For instance, Psalm 19:4 [19:5 in BHS] in the NIV reads “Their voiceb goes out into all the earth.” The superscript “b” leads the reader to the footnote, which reads: “b4” Septuagint, Jerome and Syriac; Hebrew line.” By this note the translators are informing the reader that the variant reading of the text, “voice,” (which they used in the translation) is found in the Septuagint, Jerome’s Juxta Hebraica, and the Syriac Peshitta; while the MT variant is “line.”

As far as what English translations to use, the best translations, from the standpoint of OT textual criticism are: NRSV, NIV, TEV, NASB, NEB, and NJB. All of these translations carefully considered the available evidence when making their textual decisions (in addition, the NJPS will provide a good translation of the MT). Exegetes should avoid using paraphrases like the Living Bible, as it is primarily based on other English translations, as well as old translations such as the KJV, which is about four centuries out of date when it comes to text critical matters.

Exegetes using BHS (or BHQ) will find significant variants in its apparatus. Unfortunately, the apparatus is not the easiest to decipher. In this regard you may want to get yourself a copy of one of these two guides to BHS:

  • William R. Scott, A Simplified Guide to BHS: Critical Apparatus, Masora, Accents, Unusual Letters & Other Markings (3rd ed.; Bibal Press, 1995). Buy from Amazon.ca | Buy from Amazon.com
  • Reinhard Wonneberger, Understanding BHS: A Manual for the Users of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (2nd. revised ed.; trans. D. R. Daniels; Pontifical Institute, 1990). Buy from Amazon.ca | Buy from Amazon.com

Since the apparatus of BHS, however, contains errors of commissions and omissions with respect to the Versions and the DSS, the advanced exegete will appeal to the critical editions of the ancient Versions and to the DSS themselves (see my posts on the Versions and DSS for more information on critical editions).

Another great resource that I will be posting on in the near future is the massive multi-volume Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament edited by Dominique Barthélemy. This is a truly massive undertaking that collates, discusses, and evaluates all of the variants in the Hebrew Bible.

External Criticism: The Evaluation of Textual Witnesses

As noted above, external criticism involves an examination of the textual witness themselves. This primarily entails evaluating the variant in relation to the “original edition” of the MT.

1. Evaluate Relationship to “Original Edition”
“True” variants are restricted to those that arose in the transmission of the “original edition” behind the MT. Before selecting any variant for further evaluation, the critic needs first to determine whether or not it is the product of a tendency within one of the primary text types (e.g., MT, LXX, SP, and unaligned). For example, on the one hand, the shorter variants of Jeremiah should be passed over if they belong to the text’s earlier literary development. On the other hand, the longer variants in the Torah of the pre-Samaritan text, such as an interpolation of Deuteronomy into Exodus, should also be passed-by because they represent a later stage of the text than the “original edition.” When the critic has excluded variants that stand apart from that Ur-edition, he or she will then proceed to evaluate the variant by internal criticism. But before turning to internal criticism, we need to rule out the traditional approach to external criticism.

2. Reject Traditional External Criticism
Sometimes text critics evaluate variants on the basis of the textual witness in which it is found. Some critics prefer a variant in the MT over the SP, or a variant in the LXX over the Tgs., because normally the MT and the LXX are superior to the other two. For example, E. Würthwein notes: “The various witnesses to the text should be examined, beginning with MT, and continuing with the rest in roughly the order of their significance for textual criticism, e.g., SP, LXX, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, Syriac Peshitta, Aramaic Targums, ….” (The Text of the Old Testament, 112). Then too, some think that a variant in an early text has a prior claim over a variant in a later one, or that a variant in the majority of texts should be preferred.

Such external criteria should be ruled out, however, for four reasons. First, the fact that early corruptions obviously affected all our witnesses, requiring conjectural emendations, shows that one bad “gene” early on could have corrupted numbers of MSS. Second, the Qumran scrolls show an intricate web of relationships, so that one cannot predict a corruption in any given MS. Third, scribes tend to commit the same sort of errors, and therefore the same error could have arisen independently in several sources. Finally, the simple fact is that the Qumran scrolls, though a millennium earlier, do not normally contain better variants than the MT because the scribes in the later tradition tried harder to preserve the original than those at Qumran.

In sum, because we do not know the genetic relationship of any MS to the original edition, in principle a variant in the MT and/or in many witnesses has no prior claim as the better variant; and a variant in an otherwise poor witness, or in only a few, cannot be ruled out.

Internal Criticism: Transcriptional and Intrinsic Probability

Having decided that a variant may stem from the original text, the critic should not evaluate it further on the basis of the textual witness but on its own merits. There are two facets to internal criticism: transcription probability and intrinsic probability.

The task of evaluating a reading on its intrinsic and transcriptional probabilities is both an objective science and a subjective art. The basic rule of thumb is: “that reading is preferable which would have been more likely to give rise to the other”; or, turning that around, “the variant that cannot be explained away is more probably the original.” To explain away a variant, however, demands a firm grasp on the manuscripts, scribal practices, and a lot of exegetical knowledge and of common sense (this is why I believe while many aspire to be textual critics, few can gain enough mastery to actually do it well). Unfortunately, there are no simple rules. Some have likened textual criticism to a dog catching flees. As a dog catches flees not by following rules but by treating each flee individually, so also the text critic must address each variant individually, deftly, and reasonably.

1. Intrinsic Probability
Evaluating a textual variant according to its intrinsic probability involves taking the author’s style and the immediate context into consideration. Inasmuch as the inner clarity of the passage itself is the standard for evaluation, this is a subjective enterprise. It is sometimes difficult to determine what the author’s style or particular vocabulary is, as well as what fits the immediate context best. Nevertheless, while difficult, this is one of the major procedures of OT textual criticism.

2. Transcriptional Probability
Here the text critic needs to keep in mind the kinds of errors scribes committed either unintentionally or intentionally during the transmission of the text.

Unintentional Errors. Within the restraints of this post, I am only able to mention the most common types of unintentional scribal errors.

a. Confusion of similar consonants. Sometimes scribes confuse consonants that are similarly formed, depending on the script, or similarly sounded, such as the gutturals. For example, ד (d) and ר (r) are readily confused both in the Hebrew angular and square script. This is apparently what happened with the name of one of Javan’s sons. Sometimes he is called דדני×? (ddnym), “Dodanim” (Gen 10:4, MT), and other times רדני×? (rdnym), “Rodanim” (1 Chr 1:7, MT; Gen 10:4, SP, LXX). Other consonants that often are confused in the square script are: ב / ×›, ב/ מ, ב / × , ×’ / ו, ×’ / ×™, ×” / ×—, ו / ×–, ו / ר, ×› / × , מ / ס, and ×¢ / צ.

b. Haplography (“writing once”). Due to homoioteleuton, words with similar endings, or, homoiarcton, words with similar beginnings, sometimes a letter or group of letters accidentally drops out of the text. Compare the following readings of Gen 47:16:

  • MT: ו×?תנה לכ×? במקניכ×?
    I will give you for your cattle (cf. KJV)
  • SP, LXX: ו×?תנה לכ×? לח×? במקניכ×?
    I will sell you food… for your livestock (cf. NIV, NRSV)

“Food,” לח×? (lhm), comes after the similarly sounding and appearing “you,” לכ×? (lkm). The scribe likely skipped over “food” when copying the text. Another example comes from Judges 20:13 where the MT refers to the tribe of Benjamin as only בנימן  “Benjamin” instead of the expected בני בנימן  “sons of Benjamin.” The LXX reads “sons of Benjamin” and the Masoretes evidently thought that a scribe must have skipped over בני “sons of”, since they included the vowel pointing for בני even though the consonants are lacking.

c. Dittography (“writing twice”). Sometimes scribes accidentally repeated letters, a word or a phrase. For example, Isa 30:30 in the MT, LXX, Tgs., Syr., and Vulg. all read: הש×?מיע יהוה  “The Lord shall make heard,” while 1QIsa reads: הש×?מיע הש×?מיע יהוה  “The Lord shall make heard, shall make heard.” Apparently the scribe inadvertently repeated הש×?מיע “make heard.”

d. Doublets. This is the conflation of two or more readings, either consciously or unconsciously. For example, the LXX and 1QIsaa of Isa 37:9 conflate the accounts of Hezekiah’s consultation of Isaiah in the MT of Isa 37:9 and 2 Kgs 19:9. Compare the following:

  • MT : ויש×?ב ויש×?לח מל×?×›×™×?
    he again sent messengers (2 Kgs 19:9)
  • MT : ויש×?מע ויש×?לח מל×?×›×™×?
    and when he heard it, he sent messengers (Isa 37:9)
  • LXX, 1QIsa: ויש×?מע ויש×?ב ויש×?לח מל×?×›×™×?
    and when he heard it, he again sent messengers (Isa 37:9)

e. Metathesis. This is the accidental exchange or transposition of two adjacent letters within a word. For instance, Deut 31:1 reads:

  • MT : וילך מש×?×” וידבר ×?ת־הדברי×? ×”×?לה
    And Moses went [vylk] and spoke these words (cf. NIV)
  • 4QDeut, LXX : ויכל מש×?×” וידבר ×?ת־הדברי×? ×”×?לה
    And Moses finished [vykl] speaking these words (cf. NRSV).

The scribe evidently miscopied and reversed the order of ל (l) and כ (k) . The NRSV follows the reading in 4QDeut and the LXX, while the NIV opted for the MT.

f. Different concepts of word and verse divisions. Sometimes scribes, for unknown reasons, divided words and verses differently. For example, a scribe evidently divided the words in Hos 6:5 incorrectly:

  • MT : ומש×?פטיך ×?ור יצ×?
    And your judgments, light goes forth (cf. NASB, KJV).
  • LXX : καὶ τὸ κÏ?ίμα μου ὡς φῶς á¼?ξελεÏ?σεται
    = ומש×?פטי ×›×?ור יצ×?
    And my judgment goes forth as light (cf. NIV, NRSV).

The copyist of the MT evidently attached the ×› (k), of ×›×?ור (k’vr), “as light,” to the preceding word. Compare the following variants in Ps 102:[101 LXX]:24-25a involving different vocalization and misdivision of the verses:

  • MT : עִנָּה בדבך כחו קצר ימי ×?מר ×?לי (The Qere reads ×›×—×™ “my strength”)
    He broke my strength on the way, he cut short my days. 25 I said, “My God….”
  • LXX : ἀπεκÏ?ίθη αá½?Ï„á¿· á¼?ν á½?δῷ ἰσχÏ?ος αá½?τοῦ Τὴν ὀλιγότητα τῶν ἡμεÏ?ῶν μου ἀνάγγειλόν μοι
    = עָנָהוּ בדרך כחו ימי ×?מר ×?לי
    He answered him in the way of his strength: The fewness of my days report to me.

The LXX is different from the MT in reading ×¢× ×” (‘nh), as (Qal) “to answer,” rather than (Piel) “to humble”; taking בדרך כחו (bdrk khv), as a construct; and besides other vocalization changes, it also does not divide the verse in the same place.

Intentional Errors. Sometimes the scribes took liberty to change the text deliberately. Four different types of intentional changes can be noted.

a. Linguistic changes. Scribes often modernized archaic features of a verse, primarily in relation to spelling and grammar. For example, the SP replaces the old infinitive absolute construction of the MT with an imperative or finite verb form. In Num 15:35, the MT reads רָגוֹ×? (ragom), but the SP reads רִגמוּ (rigmu).

b. Contextual changes. Sometimes scribes change the text in order to harmonize certain passages. For instance, in Genesis 2:2, according to the MT, the Tgs., and the Vg, God completed his work on the seventh day, but according to the SP, LXX, and Syr (perhaps independently of each other), he completed it on the sixth day. The scribe(s) evidently changed the text to avoid the possible inference that God worked on the Sabbath.

c. Euphemistic changes. Sometimes scribes changed the text for euphemistic reasons. In Gen 50:23 the SP changes the phrase על־ברכי יוסף (‘l-brky yvsp), “upon the knees of Joseph” into על־נימי יוסף (‘l-bymy yvsp), “in the days of Joseph” because it seemed improper that Joseph’s grandchildren should be born upon his knees. In Deut 25:11 בִּמְבֻש×?ָֽיו (bmbshyv), “his private parts” is changed to בִּבְשָׂרוֹ (bbsrv), “his flesh,” because it seemed too obscene to mention that in a fight a woman would grab a man’s genitals. Similarly, in Deut 28:30 ש×?גל (shgl), “rape, have sex (?)” was deemed way too obscene for public use and so it was changed to ש×?כב (shkb), “sleep,” in both the SP and the MT-Qere. (Perhaps the equivalent of the ancient Hebrew f-word!).

d. Theological changes. We noted above how the Samaritans altered the pre-Samaritan text to defend Mount Gerizim as God’s place of worship. Theological changes also occur in the MT. Compare the following renditions of Prov 14:32:

  • MT: וחסד במותו צדיק
    But a righteous man in his death finds a refuge (cf. NIV).
  • LXX: á½? δὲ πεποιθὼς τῇ ἑαυτοῦ á½?σιότητι δίκαιος
    = וחסד בתומו צידק
    But the righteous man in his integrity finds a refuge (cf. NRSV).

The change from בתומו (btvmv), “integrity” in the LXX to במותו (bmvtv), “death” in the MT could be a case of simple transposition of מ (b) and ת (t). But some scholars think the change in the MT was intentional and reflects an anti-Sadducean point of view. Better known are the changes of early names with the theophoric element בעל (b’l), “Baal,” by the derogatory element בש×?ת (bsht), “shame.” For example, Esh-Baal (“man of Baal”), the name of Saul’s fourth son, in 1 Chr 8:33 is changed to Ish-Bosheth (“man of shame”) in 2 Sam 2:8.

On the whole, however, theological changes are rare in the MT. G. R. Driver notes: “Theological glosses [in our terminology, interpolations] are surprisingly few, and most are enshrined in the tiqqune sopherim [scribal changes], which are corrections of the text aimed chiefly at softening anthropomorphisms and eliminating the attribution of any sort of impropriety to God.”

Emendations

Sometimes none of the transmitted variants satisfy exegetical expectations. In cases where all witnesses seem “hopelessly corrupt” the text critic may find emendation (a conjectured variant based on the known variants) necessary. Qumran scrolls have now validated this procedure in some cases. F. M. Cross comments: “No headier feeling can be experienced by a humanistic scholar, perhaps, than that which comes when an original reading, won by his brilliant emendation, is subsequently confirmed in a newly-found MS.”

Emendations must satisfy the same criteria by which known variants are evaluated. That is, they must be plausible. There are many emendations proposed where it is very difficult to see how the purported error took place. That being said, there are a number of places where emendation appears to be the best alternative. For example, there seems to have been a confusion of consonants in the angular script in Ezek 3:12.

  • All texts; ברוך כבוד־יהוה ממקומו
    May the glory of YHWH be praised in his dwelling place (cf. NIV).
  • Emendation: ברו×? כבוד־יהוה ממקומו
    As the glory of YHWH arose from its place (cf. NRSV).

The NIV’s “be praised” is based on ברוך (brvk), “be praised,” which is attested in all textual witnesses. The clause, however, is unique, awkward and contextless. Scholars salvage the line by emending ברוך (brvk) to ברו×? (brvm), “when [it] arose.” In the angular script ך (k) and ×? (m) are easily confounded. This emendation nicely satisfies exegetical expectations, Hebrew syntax, and the context of the verse (cf. Ezek 10:4, 15-18).

In sum, McCarter wisely counsels that a text critic should keep the image of a scribe clearly in mind, look first for conscious errors, know the personalities of your witnesses, treat each case as if it were unique, and beware of prejudices


The Goal(s) of Textual Criticism (TCHB 7)

Posted on by

In recent years there has been significant debate surrounding the ultimate goal of textual criticism. Traditionally the goal was simply to reconstruct the original text of the Old Testament. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it has become apparent that this goal is not as simple as it used to be. This post will explore the goal — or perhaps the goals — of textual criticism.

This is the seventh post in a series on the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. Other posts include:

All posts in this series may be viewed here.

The concept of an Urtext, the putative original text, depends partially on how we understand the origins of the five text types found at Qumran and their relationships to it (see my previous post on the Hebrew Witnesses here). There have been three primary models proposed to answer these questions. In spite of the importance attached to this issue, no conclusive answer is possible because of a lack of solid evidence from the time of their origins.

Lagarde’s Model: An Archetypical Urtext

Paul de Lagarde‘s model, historically embraced by the majority of text critics, presupposes one original text of a biblical book and that all textual witnesses derived from it. In practice, the majority of critics first collect the texts into text types, the MT, the LXX, and the SP, and from them reconstruct the eclectic Urtext.

F. M. Cross refined this process by his widely influential theory of “local texts.” In his view the texts developed in geographical isolation: Babylon for the proto-MT of the Torah, Egypt for the Septuagintal texts, and Palestine for the pre-Samaritan Torah and for the proto-MT in the Prophets and Hagiographa (see Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon, eds., Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text [Harvard University Press, 1975] 37; Buy from Amazon.ca | Buy from Amazon.com). Furthermore, in his view, while the proto-MT preserved the Torah in a superb, pristine state, elsewhere it conserved the expansionistic Palestinian text type (Ibid, 307-308).

Cross_model.jpg

Cross’s local text theory, however, does not adequately account for the network of agreements and disagreements among the texts and for the “non-aligned texts,” and no compelling evidence exists for the proposed provinces of the developing text types. For example, the paleo-Hebrew script, which Cross thought secured the pre-Samaritan text in Palestine, was later found in other text types. For example, 11QpaleoLev is written in paleo-Hebrew and sometimes aligns itself with all three text types and other times stands apart (see K. Mathews, “The Leviticus Scrolls (11QpaleoLev) and the Text of the Hebrew Bible,” CBQ 48 [1986] 171-207). Talmon modified Cross’s local text theory by pointing to three socio-political groups: Judaism and the proto-MT, the Samaritans and the SP, and the Christians and the LXX (Shemaryahu Talmon, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission of the Bible in Light of Qumran Manuscripts,” in The World of the Qumran from Within [Magnes, 1989] 71-116; Buy from Amazon.ca | Buy from Amazon.com).

Kahle’s Model: From Plurality into Unity

In contrast to Lagarde’s Urtext theory, Paul Kahle argued for a multiplicity of texts from which a standard text emerged (See his Cairo Geniza [Clarendon, 1951]). Basing himself on an analogy with the Aramaic Targums, he presupposed the same development from independent, vulgar texts to the final forms of the MT, the LXX of Ezekiel, the SP, and to certain extent of the biblical text as a whole.

Kahle2_model.jpg

Other scholars also hold to a number of pristine originals for certain biblical books. For instance, S. Talmon, makes his case for multiple “original” texts on the basis of synonymous pairs of parallel readings (“The OT Text,” The Cambridge History of the Bible I [ed. R. P. Ackroyd & C. F. Evans; Cambridge University Press, 1970] 1-41; Buy from Amazon.ca | Buy from Amazon.com). Similarly, M. Greenberg, makes his arguments for equally valid MT and LXX from an exegetical viewpoint (“The Use of Ancient Versions for Interpreting the Hebrew Text,” Congress Volume: Göttingen 1977 [VTSup 29; Brill, 1978] 131-148); while Peter Walters bases his arguments on parallel stories in 1 Samuel (The Text of the Septuagint: Its Corruptions and their Emendation (Cambridge University Press, 1973; Buy from Amazon.ca | Buy from Amazon.com). Eugene Ulrich, in a number of publications, has perhaps been the most recent scholar to champion this perspective.

According to this view, the varying text types of certain books, such as Samuel, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Esther, call into question the notion of an original text and suggests instead a multiplicity of original, pristine texts. Text critics, so the argument runs, should aim to recreate these original texts, not one eclectic, archetypical text that may have never existed. This view may find support in the parallel synoptic texts in the Bible itself.

Tov, however, criticises this theory since it is so vague about the origin and relationship of these independent texts (Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 184-185; Buy from Amazon.ca | Buy from Amazon.com). It also underestimates the capability of detecting secondary readings within the textual witnesses. Moreover, because the text critic cannot decide the priority of one reading over another, it does not necessarily follow that both are original; one may still be secondary. In addition, Waltke has noted that when the theory of independent texts of equal textual status is extended to the view that they also enjoy equal canonical status, it is not satisfying from both a historian’s and theologian’s point of view. Most theologians will want to know whether the tenth commandment prescribes worship on Mount Gerizim and most historians would want to know whether the biblical historian recorded in Exod 12:40 that Israel spent 430 years before the exodus in just Egypt (MT) or in Egypt and Canaan (LXX, SP). Finally, the evidence of synoptic texts does not prove the existence of parallel texts. The differences between these texts may be due to a linear development within the texts where they are now embedded.

Tov’s Model: Original Editions

Tov more plausibly supposes that certain biblical books such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel experienced more than one stage in their literary development, at least one early short edition and a later expanded final edition. Before the later, final form was produced, the earlier forms were considered the original and copied. According to this argument some of the Qumran scrolls and the versions preserve these earlier literary stages as well as the final edition behind the proto-MT. Other biblical material, such as the different edition of the LXX versus the MT, the Targums, the Syriac Peshitta, the Vulgate of Proverbs and of Exodus 35-40 reflect different parallel editions. The date of the final stages differs from book to book and remains undetermined because it antedates the DSS. Tov explains his view: “Large-scale differences between the textual witnesses show that a few books and parts of books were once circulated in different formulations representing different literary stages, as a rule one after the other, but possibly also parallel to each other” (Textual Criticism). While Tov basically agrees with de Lagarde’s thesis that all texts ultimately go back to an original text, he nevertheless believes that it is “almost impossible to reconstruct the original form.”In Tov’s view the text critic ought not necessarily to reconstruct the earlier stages, such as the shorter Septuagintal text in the Prophets — that is the task of literary criticism — but the final edition, such as the fully developed proto-MT in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Tov further explains: “This formulation thus gives a certain twist to the assumption of one original text as described in the scholarly literature. We do not refer to the original text in the usual sense of the word, since the copy with which our definition is concerned was actually preceded by written stages. Reconstructing elements of this copy (or tradition) is one of the aims of textual scholars, and usually they do not attempt to go beyond this stage” (Textual Criticism, 171).

All in all, Tov’s theory best fits the data. The final edited text is the end of the literary process and, at the same time, the starting point of the transmission of the text. Tov has put a new twist on the meaning of the “original” text. It now means “original edition,” a view that mediates between Lagarde and Kahle. This fits with evidence from the ancient Near East where texts developed by supplementing earlier sources with later material (see J. H. Tigay, ed., Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism [Fortress, 1985]). Scribes in the pre-Samaritan tradition added material from Deuteronomy into Exodus. While this is a much larger topic than I can cover here, it seems most plausible to me that the Pentateuch developed in a supplemental fashion, with earlier sources being expanded and edited over time. Likewise, in the exile the so-called Deuteronomist re-worked earlier books of the Former Prophets by supplementing them with a distinctive theology. This process of literary development can still be observed in the Qumran scrolls and in the ancient versions of certain biblical texts.

Tov wisely stops the process with the proto-MT for socio-religious and historical reasons. That text, he argues, became the authoritative text within Judaism. For that reason, he excludes the later midrashic literary compilations such as the Hebrew behind several sections in the LXX, namely, sections in 1-2 Kings, Esther and Daniel. In short, text critics should aim to recover the original edition behind the MT.

The church as well as the synagogue both accepted the edition behind the MT as authoritative. Both Origen and Jerome conformed the Septuagint and the Vulgate (respectively) to the proto-MT, so that the MT essentially became the standard text of the OT within the Church. Our modern English versions are based on the MT. That history should not be underestimated in deciding the question of “what is the original text?” The MT inherently commended itself to both the Synagogue and the Church as “the best text.” As the canon of the OT emerged in the historical process, so also the MT surfaced as “the best text” of that canon.

Conclusions

It should be noted however that when the canon was discussed, there were not discussions of which version of a biblical book should be considered canonical. This realization leads to one caveat. While I agree that from my community of faith (Protestant evangelical Christianity) the goal of textual criticism is best conceived of as recovering the original edition behind the MT, I still see immense value in exploring the different texts and versions of the Old Testament. This is especially the case for the Septuagint considering the historical and theological significance it has had for the Christian church. Thus, while I agree with Tov in regards to the goal of textual criticism, I think it is also valuable to balance his views with those of Eugene Ulrich who argues for multiple texts as the goal. He argues, “the goal of ‘textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible’ is not a single text. The purpose of function of textual criticism is to reconstruct the history of the texts that eventually become the biblical collection in both its literary growth and its scribal transmission; it is not just to judge individual variants in order to determine which were ‘superior’ or ‘original'”(“Multiple Literary Editions: Reflections Towards a Theory of the History of the Biblical Text,” in Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conference on the Texts from the Judean Desert, Jerusalem, 30 April 1995 [Donald W. Parry and Stephen D. Ricks, eds.; Brill, 1996] 98-99; Buy from Amazon.ca | Buy from Amazon.com). While Ulrich clearly takes his observations too far, he does remind us of the richness in the textual witnesses to the text of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament.